Show Posts
1
Off Topic Discussion / The Other Site, It's Owner, and His 'Guerrilla Marketing'
« on: December 05, 2024, 03:39:36 AM »
I can't reach .net. I did yesterday, twice; but, very briefly. I think I got one post in, but it was a maximum of 3 to 4 clicks and... vapor lock. Now, I can't reach the site again.
That's the long way of saying I'm posting this here, for now. However, I might move it over to .net if it becomes appropriate.
The other site isn't an evil, twisted 'enemy.' It's not an entirely 'bad' thing. But, it is decidedly different than what we've become accustomed to. Why?
The target audience/membership is different. Originally, it was about a platform for conducting trades, sales, and purchases. It grew into something unexpectedly larger than anticipated and someone tried to take advantage of that. The reason? We all know why it grew and the reasons behind it. The real questions are, how and why is it different?
The "how" is pretty clear at this point. It's a more restrictive and less 'open' venue. To be fair, so was .net early on. The key is in 'the History' of .net. Everyone forgets that while my membership on .net only goes back to 2018, I lurked for several years before that and I don't go back even close to the beginning. However, there are reasons I could pull up old threads and have a familiarity with the site's history which my membership date doesn't square with. We'll get back to that in a minute.
The "why" is a bit more nebulous. Sure. There's the obvious. The membership is different. The owner is notably less 'enlightened' and permissive. It's a more 'correct' decorum and that 'correctness' is being 'enforced' by both the membership and the TPTB. We've done the same on .net, don't kid yourselves. There's also a considerably more 'blindered' vision of the 2nd Amendment. I use the term 'blindered' rather than myopic in that the latter is naturally degenerative and the former is 'artificial' and deliberate.
What many are attempting on the other site is the construction of one more to their tastes than what .net has 'evolved' into. As an example, I don't think .net originally had an OT. As the membership grew and the discussions took on certain 'tones,' the sense I have is that a decision was made to create a non-publicly accessible sub-forum, with minimal moderation, to try and limit the politically unacceptable rhetoric on most of the site. It then became incumbent upon the individual members to make choices as to what they would personally tolerate in that sub-forum. The fact that it became a main driver of the site says more about the membership than the site itself.
I have my suspicions regarding what the current owner's true, driving ambitions are. Since they're suspicions, even though derived from his posts, I won't get into them. Suffice to say what I've already said; i.e., that I don't believe they are realistic or truly compatible with good and proper 2nd Amendment discourse. I do believe they are wholly consistent with a different agenda and its been alluded to, several times, in the owner's posts. There are those on the other site who myopically focus on OT and the owner encourages that...
While, on its face, such sounds fine, it ignores the fundamental reality that Constitutional rights aren't about being 'politically correct.' They are about exactly the type of tension he publicly discourages, yet personally practices. They're about tolerance and the ability to fight intolerance; something he can 'moderate' on a personal website, but not on others. Instead, he's been using .net as both a marketing opportunity and a place to enhance his learning in terms of website administration.
Every so often? More like everyday since he opened his website. Keeping track of metrics was just one thing he did. He also self-proclaimed that he was engaged in a "guerilla marketing" campaign. Such a strategy involves word-of-mouth, but it's a 'directed' and 'pimped' word-of-mouth. The metrics were something to compare to, utilize in his campaign, and assess strengths and weaknesses vis a vis the target audience and help with his direction/pimping. It's why he wanted a look under the hood. It's why he wanted some influence/control; whether he could outright purchase .net, become a 'partner,' or simply get a peek as a potential buyer.
It's just like my pointing out that "they" haven't been saying "No answer is an answer." I've been the one saying it, repeatedly. Similarly, "they've won" is his way of acknowledging what I recently posted about his campaign having reached a saturation point and that the real pushback had begun. Cynical? Yes. Part of business and marketing? Yes. Acceptable? It depends on who you ask, who is targeted, and who accepts it.
I don't fit what he needs and neither do many of us who remain steadfastly loyal, regardless of what ultimately happens. As I've said, I get the excitement. Many see it as an opportunity to build something 'better' than what they perceive .net to be. How they're doing it is... 'unacceptable'... to me, in many ways. But, it is an 'acceptable' way to many. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, they don't see their real problem. It's not about 'reinventing the wheel.' It's about 'taming the shrew' in terms of how it's being done.
While new software/technology is being used, the formatting is remarkably similar and many of the reasons for it should be obvious. What isn't as obvious is that the intention isn't to 'build something new,' but to diverge, 'culturally,' from what .net has become. Part of that goes back to the target audience and the owner's deference to Reddit culture in how the site is being administered. Part of that is 'attacking' what 'they' consider the 'inappropriate' aspects of the culture on .net. The problem?
To my eye, it's the History. Far too many are dismissive of it. Just dump/lose the old threads and start with the new is the recurrent 'advice.' Their trouble is the History involves more than just tech specs about guns. It's about the Legislative angles which have occurred. It's about the site's evolution and the reasons for it. It's about how the site's culture developed and why. It's about... a lot of things many pay scant, if any, attention to. In a nutshell, it's about 'experience' on many levels.
That 'experience' and how dismissive of it is at the core of what irritates us, frustrates a number of members (many of them .net members) on the new site, and will, I believe, ultimately foil any attempts to build a true "2nd Amendment" community. They'll be able to talk about 'guns,' but not fully, reasonably, rationally, or necessarily about the 2nd Amendment. As such, in many respects, its a 'constructive' exercise which can be learned from and what many think they're learning isn't necessarily what they need to be learning.
While this appears to be my usual, protracted, 'half-page minimum,' I hope it helps to get people to thinking about what's actually going on. The name-calling has a certain place, I suppose. But, it largely misses the point and the target. Likewise, it's not about a more 'correct' or 'politically acceptable' discourse. It's about properly focusing on what has been and is being done.
Ultimately, it's up to Kestryll and those assisting to get .net back up and running correctly or, at least, functionally. Otherwise, I'm not sure many of us are going to like the new 'gun culture' which comes about. Bear in mind, in one of the threads I happened on yesterday at the other site, they're talking about getting CRPA funding/endorsement and sponsoring top shooters with 'supporter' and, it is hoped, next year, with 'matching' funds from site sponsors. It's about aggressive marketing and .net could easily lose its place as the 'Home' for many in California; be it 'resistance' or otherwise. In that sense, it's about business. Let's TCB and try to stay focused on that.
That's the long way of saying I'm posting this here, for now. However, I might move it over to .net if it becomes appropriate.
The other site isn't an evil, twisted 'enemy.' It's not an entirely 'bad' thing. But, it is decidedly different than what we've become accustomed to. Why?
The target audience/membership is different. Originally, it was about a platform for conducting trades, sales, and purchases. It grew into something unexpectedly larger than anticipated and someone tried to take advantage of that. The reason? We all know why it grew and the reasons behind it. The real questions are, how and why is it different?
The "how" is pretty clear at this point. It's a more restrictive and less 'open' venue. To be fair, so was .net early on. The key is in 'the History' of .net. Everyone forgets that while my membership on .net only goes back to 2018, I lurked for several years before that and I don't go back even close to the beginning. However, there are reasons I could pull up old threads and have a familiarity with the site's history which my membership date doesn't square with. We'll get back to that in a minute.
The "why" is a bit more nebulous. Sure. There's the obvious. The membership is different. The owner is notably less 'enlightened' and permissive. It's a more 'correct' decorum and that 'correctness' is being 'enforced' by both the membership and the TPTB. We've done the same on .net, don't kid yourselves. There's also a considerably more 'blindered' vision of the 2nd Amendment. I use the term 'blindered' rather than myopic in that the latter is naturally degenerative and the former is 'artificial' and deliberate.
What many are attempting on the other site is the construction of one more to their tastes than what .net has 'evolved' into. As an example, I don't think .net originally had an OT. As the membership grew and the discussions took on certain 'tones,' the sense I have is that a decision was made to create a non-publicly accessible sub-forum, with minimal moderation, to try and limit the politically unacceptable rhetoric on most of the site. It then became incumbent upon the individual members to make choices as to what they would personally tolerate in that sub-forum. The fact that it became a main driver of the site says more about the membership than the site itself.
I have my suspicions regarding what the current owner's true, driving ambitions are. Since they're suspicions, even though derived from his posts, I won't get into them. Suffice to say what I've already said; i.e., that I don't believe they are realistic or truly compatible with good and proper 2nd Amendment discourse. I do believe they are wholly consistent with a different agenda and its been alluded to, several times, in the owner's posts. There are those on the other site who myopically focus on OT and the owner encourages that...
Quote from: ikeo1
Quotetedster said:
I just happen to be able to login at CGN. Took a quick look into the socalled OT sub.
It's awful what is being posted over there. It's their OT, but the same characters also have access to every other part of CGN.
I'm a 'Nay' when it comes to OT sub forums harboring crowds like these.
Yeah, I agree. It's ok. I'm glad they are not here with that type of attitude. It's not helpful for growth and very detrimental to it. It makes me more clear that if people come here with that type of attitude, it will not be tolerated here.
I've had around 60 posts in OT and after seeing the personalities there. It's obvious why CGN has gone the direction it has and not grown and imploded. You have non-contributors attacking people for anything they disagree with politically who don't shoot firearms. They're on a 2A site that tolerates them and managed to take over the culture of Calguns. It seems like their strategy is to drive people out who actually want to discuss ideas.
To be clear, I'm not against political discussion. I enjoy a good challenge and enjoy reading good discourse. The Biden Pardon turned out better than I hoped. To me the goal shouldn't be about winning, its more about listening to people you can respect and learn from. People that challenge your own ideas that can make you a better thinker. People that will acknowledge your points instead of ignore them and address them are super valuable IMO.
While, on its face, such sounds fine, it ignores the fundamental reality that Constitutional rights aren't about being 'politically correct.' They are about exactly the type of tension he publicly discourages, yet personally practices. They're about tolerance and the ability to fight intolerance; something he can 'moderate' on a personal website, but not on others. Instead, he's been using .net as both a marketing opportunity and a place to enhance his learning in terms of website administration.
Quote from: ikeo1
I used to check there every so often to see the activity but now I think they've won. I don't see a reason for me to visit the site any longer. I used to keep tabs on a number of metrics. They still have some good movement in the marketplace but its nothing really new. Mostly bumps and with buyers moving over here, it's time to close that chapter.
Every so often? More like everyday since he opened his website. Keeping track of metrics was just one thing he did. He also self-proclaimed that he was engaged in a "guerilla marketing" campaign. Such a strategy involves word-of-mouth, but it's a 'directed' and 'pimped' word-of-mouth. The metrics were something to compare to, utilize in his campaign, and assess strengths and weaknesses vis a vis the target audience and help with his direction/pimping. It's why he wanted a look under the hood. It's why he wanted some influence/control; whether he could outright purchase .net, become a 'partner,' or simply get a peek as a potential buyer.
It's just like my pointing out that "they" haven't been saying "No answer is an answer." I've been the one saying it, repeatedly. Similarly, "they've won" is his way of acknowledging what I recently posted about his campaign having reached a saturation point and that the real pushback had begun. Cynical? Yes. Part of business and marketing? Yes. Acceptable? It depends on who you ask, who is targeted, and who accepts it.
I don't fit what he needs and neither do many of us who remain steadfastly loyal, regardless of what ultimately happens. As I've said, I get the excitement. Many see it as an opportunity to build something 'better' than what they perceive .net to be. How they're doing it is... 'unacceptable'... to me, in many ways. But, it is an 'acceptable' way to many. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, they don't see their real problem. It's not about 'reinventing the wheel.' It's about 'taming the shrew' in terms of how it's being done.
While new software/technology is being used, the formatting is remarkably similar and many of the reasons for it should be obvious. What isn't as obvious is that the intention isn't to 'build something new,' but to diverge, 'culturally,' from what .net has become. Part of that goes back to the target audience and the owner's deference to Reddit culture in how the site is being administered. Part of that is 'attacking' what 'they' consider the 'inappropriate' aspects of the culture on .net. The problem?
To my eye, it's the History. Far too many are dismissive of it. Just dump/lose the old threads and start with the new is the recurrent 'advice.' Their trouble is the History involves more than just tech specs about guns. It's about the Legislative angles which have occurred. It's about the site's evolution and the reasons for it. It's about how the site's culture developed and why. It's about... a lot of things many pay scant, if any, attention to. In a nutshell, it's about 'experience' on many levels.
That 'experience' and how dismissive of it is at the core of what irritates us, frustrates a number of members (many of them .net members) on the new site, and will, I believe, ultimately foil any attempts to build a true "2nd Amendment" community. They'll be able to talk about 'guns,' but not fully, reasonably, rationally, or necessarily about the 2nd Amendment. As such, in many respects, its a 'constructive' exercise which can be learned from and what many think they're learning isn't necessarily what they need to be learning.
While this appears to be my usual, protracted, 'half-page minimum,' I hope it helps to get people to thinking about what's actually going on. The name-calling has a certain place, I suppose. But, it largely misses the point and the target. Likewise, it's not about a more 'correct' or 'politically acceptable' discourse. It's about properly focusing on what has been and is being done.
Ultimately, it's up to Kestryll and those assisting to get .net back up and running correctly or, at least, functionally. Otherwise, I'm not sure many of us are going to like the new 'gun culture' which comes about. Bear in mind, in one of the threads I happened on yesterday at the other site, they're talking about getting CRPA funding/endorsement and sponsoring top shooters with 'supporter' and, it is hoped, next year, with 'matching' funds from site sponsors. It's about aggressive marketing and .net could easily lose its place as the 'Home' for many in California; be it 'resistance' or otherwise. In that sense, it's about business. Let's TCB and try to stay focused on that.
