Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

I don't necessarily feel they are, so this is a good example of an assumption being projected onto me.

The examples I listed above suffice.

I don't really have an issue with full-fledged political dialogues myself, so I'm definitely not asking for you to shut anyone else down. I just don't appreciate getting messages (and this hasn't been the first time, and there are several other posters who have also told me how they've had to walk on eggshells over getting messages for broaching on potentially political topics) for mentioning the unnecessary insertion of a personal political position into a thread such as this one. You can't have it both ways.

As I said, this wasn't an isolated incident, and also I can't reply to a post comment, so that's irritatingly passive-aggressive of you.

Good question. Who else?

It's interesting what you think is the problem. The problem I'm having is that I keep being asked to repeat myself. Then being told that I'm not responding, I can only assume some folks aren't bothering to read my posts. Either that or are deliberately mischaracterizing them.

Are you ****ing me? I replied fully the very last time you asked me this in the thread:

For some reason though, I keep being asked to elaborate. I'm not going to continue repeating myself every other page. It's exhausting, and it's insulting that you can't bother to read these posts, and the many others like it. Sorry. I've already taken the opportunity to dispute the premise. So either you aren't reading, or you're deliberately ignoring so you can continue to claim that I haven't responded.

I've already said, multiple times, why and to what degree I believe Baldwin is liable, and I have explained in what way I don't find him liable. I'm not going to repeat myself at this point.

And I'm not going to engage this issue with you any further.

Or maybe Corax's is exclusively about spreading his alt-right jam over your forum under the guise of "relevant" discussion (while either passing entirely under your radar or your selective interest). For instance by framing a movie set accident through the tired NRA talking points ("guns would be safer with more gun fanatics rather than less"), instead of treating it as one would any accident with any dangerous device managed by the on-set dangerous device specialists.

Essentially what we've got is twenty pages of "guns are not toys we are the ones realizing guns are not toys so let us toy with guns, accidents only occur because people who don't toy with guns don't know how to deal with guns that we may have toyed with", along with the usual peppering of "minorities are the racist ones" and "I'm not political you're political". The standard maga playbook. Indeed, the two ways to react are either to engage and respond (but "oh noes my subtle implicits are escalating into explicits") or send it all to hell (because been there done that on too many places). I do the latter. It's pointless. And it's your forum, you select the decorum. If we don't like it, well, frankly...

__________________
Get working on your custom lists, people !

The suggestion that the least expert person should be the last check is an odd one for me. There is a big difference between a check that just requires looking--for example, suppose that the difference between a fake (ie not-functional) gun and a real gun was a big stamp on the butt of a gun. Then, yes, I think it's really reasonable that the actor (again, the least "expert" in the chain) take a peek and make sure they see the stamp.

But when a check involves opening the gun, something that has the potential for internal elements to be shifted or whatever, or possibly even removing rounds to inspect them, then it actually seems like an actively bad idea for the least expert person the be the last one in the chain to do a check. (Again: I am interested in confirmation of the assertion from someone online that if an actor opens a gun it must then be rechecked by the armorer or the AD.)

In other words (and yes I'm just making up aspects of how this would really work), suppose that an aspect of safety being in a harness was that a certain rope passed through a certain metal loop. But in order to see if the rope is through the loop, it would actually require untying and then retying a knot. After an expert has secured the harness, would you really want an actor to untie and retie that knot? If there were two people whose job it was to assure the actor that the rope was correctly threaded through the loop, shouldn't the actor be able to trust that the harness is secured?

When I take my students up a fire tower, it is very important that the anti-bird system be turned off because otherwise students could receive a nasty shock when they get to the top of the tower (which is "open air"). Before going up the tower, the person at the wilderness school checks the anti-bird system. Then I check the anti-bird system. This requires opening a control panel and making sure a lever is pushed all the way to one side. You know who doesn't open the control panel? The kids. And while I actually think that most of my students would be more than capable of doing that safety check, darned if the last person in that safety chain is going to be the person who knows the least about it. More people fiddling with equipment =/= a safer outcome. (And as a further example of this, a student once "helped" me in a drill by checking our door, and inadvertently unlocked our classroom in an active shooter scenario).

the same thing said a 100 times over!

(not you, I just agree with you that way too many of these post are repetitive)

My guess is not everyone sees his argument as clear cut and dry as you, and probably shouldn’t imply “selective interest” here.
His argument about Baldwin seems possibly politically motivated, but he isn’t discussing politics itself, and there’s a nuance here that I imagine Yoda wants to avoid going over the top when it comes to moderation.

Regarding what Takoma is saying, has anyone did research to find out what the standard procedure (if any) for actors handling firearms on a set is? (not what it should be, but what it has been).

I seen a western last night from 1959 and in it Jayne Mansfield is teaching Kenneth Moore to shoot, she fires the gun and then hands it over to him butt first, with the barrel pointing at herself.


Then another scene a baby is handed a gun and points in at himself, I don't know if that was a real gun or not, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Attachments

 

Sure you can! It’s called a PM! Just because you can’t reply directly to a post comment, doesn’t mean you can’t reply, as a reply takes different forms.

So much of this "debate" really hinges on this. There's a big difference between there being a rule that actors should check their own firearms and there being a rule that says they shouldn't. (I've yet to see---not saying it doesn't exist!!--anyone who is actually someone who works on film sets say that actors are supposed to do a check. Obviously several people from movie sets have said that the armorer and AD are supposed to confirm the gun's hot/cold status).

I mean there must be literal safety policies, right? And adjacent to those policies there must be "the way it's usually done." (Ie a rule might say that the armorer checks the weapon but the typical procedure is for the AD to then do a second check, and so on).

I don't have much interest in this thread, and I don't plan on staying in it very long, but my take on the matter is Corax is definitely using this situation to Trojan Horse side points he wants to bring into the discussion. Do I think Corax is being a troll? Not entirely. He's just doing what he does. He wants to legitimately debate these points and he's finding a way to slide them into the conversation. Send out those smoke signals. Now do I personally have any personal issue with him wanting to debate these issues? Not really. Except for the fact that it feels if someone engages him on this, they may be consdiered the one escalating things because, on the surface, he's acting 'entirely reasonable'. But the fact the he is deliberately doing this can be a little frustrating to those who know him. I understand why Jinnistan wants to call him on it, and why he is frustrated he feels he's being singled out as the instigator here.


Now maybe he isn't the only one being called out. There is always the possibility there is side discussions going on in private discussions with Corax. But on the surface of what can be seen, it does look like Jinnistan is being treated as the sole unreasonable one. Which is probably one of the reasons J has become so pointedly on the offence. Personally, I don't think it's worth it.



As a side note I also always try and keep in mind that this site can be run in whatever way one chooses. It has been a bit of a stark change from how unmoderated some of us were for so long at our other sites, and there has been a learning curve even for me in becoming a little less extreme in my behaviour. But I also am more than willing to welcome the change, and step away from so much of the political talk that ended up polluting previous forums. And I think for those engaging in the fighting, all would probably be better off not worrying about this pointless, cyclical nattering that has been going on here. It's obviously pointless. And I'm pretty sure it's just repetition by now. Let's just move on and focus on the movie talk. Or anything else.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I do want to comment on this one paragraph here.
This simply isn’t true. In fact, I have already mentioned this, as you have already guessed, but I had previously reported Corax for his comments towards Flicker to Yoda, so it was being dealt with.
The issue with Jinn wasmore then a bit unreasonable in many of his replies, specifically towards Yoda.
The issue isn’t Jinn being treated as the sole person responsible, but rather a misunderstanding between him and Yoda over their previous posts, and an escalation of his behavior.

No, it isn't. You suggested forum policy was not being applied properly, and I listed three examples of possible distinctions I might make (not you) that would square that circle. How you managed to contort that into an assumption about you is beyond me.

Right, and I passively-aggressively included a "PM" button right next to it to facilitate a reply, and I passively-aggressively didn't criticize or reprimand you at all in it (despite your heavy implication otherwise, which I'd still like an explanation for), and I passively-aggressively made the whole comment a question about whether it would be okay for me to reply at all.

In other words, "passive-aggressive" is dead on as long as you stop at the hyphen.

Here's another good question: why did you assume you were the only one despite zero evidence?

Anyway, I try to do these things privately when possible. There's enough ego in this stuff without calling people out in public.

You literally just said you did not respond to/entertain my posts because they didn't address what you wanted to address, and you've immediately moved on to anger at the suggestion that you don't respond to things. Forget me reading your posts, let's start with you reading them.

Yes, the last time. This is the whole point. Obviously you have disputed the premise since. You know I know that, because I said "I believe you" about that exact thing in the previous post. But that has nothing to do with calling what I said "bullsh*t" and just generally being reflexively offended initially. Please do not make me draw a Primer style timeline flowchart for something this simple.

That's a particularly galling thing to hear after so many blatant misrepresentations, but it's up to you. You have the option of continuing publicly or privately whenever you like, and if you do, you have my word I won't be any more hostile towards you than you are to me. Which I think has been true throughout this exchange.

I'll extend that offer to everyone: if anyone wants to discussion moderation policy constructively, you can PM me, or start a thread in the Site Stuff forum if you feel it's important that it be public.

Maybe! But I don't know them, so I'd encourage anyone who has a history with Corax to at least attempt to parse the degree to which that informs how obvious they find these things: to consider whether those things are something you could say with confidence from this thread alone (particularly from the point at which I replied, which is the pertinent question if you're implying some failure on my part).

That's part of the problem, yeah: I think some people don't see any value in asking people to keep this stuff slightly under the surface. They want to call it out, root it out, whatever. I kind of get that, but I think they overestimate the value of doing that (what's it usually lead to?), and underestimate the value of having everyone pull the occasional punch so we can all talk about other stuff more.

Obviously I'd rather people, if not agree, at least get to the point where they understand the decisions. Though I guess at this point I'd settle for just not being immediately and repeatedly accused of favoritism.

Yeah, I can’t see how safe gun handling could ever really become “political”.

It’s kinda like how you put your pants on in the morning. The safe way: one leg at a time. The dangerous way: both legs at once.

Eventually, that two legs at once dude is gonna be face flat on the floor wondering what went wrong.

I think this is right, yes. This is a genuine problem! Things can be phrased in a way that make it hard not to escalate when responded to, and it's easy to imply something odious (especially if you've got years of forum history in the background) without saying it. But still a line must be drawn. And I'd hope any thoughtful adult would be able to appreciate the distinction between technically allowing people to say things, and endorsing those things.

To my mind, there's a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, and there's a difference between making poor arguments and making uncharitable assumptions. But as a mod I just have it baked in that there will be disagreements. I see the enmity and disagreement as inevitable, and a thing to be managed rather than eradicated or "called out."

There's also a self-fulfilling nature to some of this stuff. It's kind of like what we just talked about, where a response obligates you to respond a certain way. If someone is constantly auditing why I made a moderation decision it forces me to explain, in detail, what I think they're doing wrong, which in turn makes them feel persecuted, which makes them...et cetera.

I definitely appreciate this, and as some longtime members can attest to, occasionally a new person more or less gets a total pass on something because, as I often put it to them, "I realize that kind of thing is find on most of the Internet." Most of them get a mulligan for just sort of assuming little to no moderation. Whether they go "ah my bad" or just keep doing it usually determines if they stick around and get some use out of the place.

Really, though, the only point of no return is when someone thinks I'm arguing in bad faith. I bend over backwards to try to prove otherwise (usually by absorbing a lot of abuse and biting my tongue often), because that's where a peaceful impasse becomes impossible.

I've probably missed segments of this thread, some of which may be important to my total understanding, but I did see you mention you calling out Corax, Which is why I mentioned there is probably more going on under the surface that can't be seen by those just skimming the thread. And I also get that J is making his frustrations pretty clearly known and this is only bound to bring even more attention towards him and away from any other of the offending parties. A number of us, including myself, have cultivated fairly combative personas from years of no-moderation. I can understand that it doesn't always go over all that swimmingly, even if the intent is good.



But, in regards to Corax, and those who know him, it's been clear from early on what he's up to here. As stated, I don't think he's being a troll, and honestly think he can bring up fair points from time to time, but he lives for trying to get people to engage in his long form debates about the most mundane of semantic details. And it is exhausting as well as transparent. So I understand why Jinnistan is trying to call him out, and why he might think Corax is getting a bit of a pass to talk about his politics freely, where he might feel his are getting put on ice. Even if, behind the scenes, this might not be exactly the case.

Yeah, and I can appreciate that.
I think a lot of it is many of us are unfamiliar with Corax, where you guys have apparently dealt with him for far longer and may have a better understanding of him then we do. *
However, Yoda can’t operate under any assumption or innuendo of a members past from other sites, without having witnessed it himself. Each new member is pretty much given a tabula rasa here. Yoda alluded to this earlier.

I would guess that familiarity on your side, and the unfamiliarity on Yoda’s would change ones view of his posts, but again it isn’t always that cut and dry.

While his posts are, to me, politically motivated, it isn’t the same thing as discussing politics itself, and as such, was skirting a thin line here. One that makes it hard for anyone to decide if he indeed cross that line or not to be sure.

It’s a shame it’s become such a mess here, because Jinn is one of the more reasonable posters here, and one I enjoy chatting with or even just reading his posts.

I've been reading all the posts in this thread (and basically all at the site) in as close to real time as I can manage. I've come to my own conclusions (or maybe interpretations is a better word) but after years of telling people what they should do and often being called out for doing it, I've pretty much stopped doing that anymore. However, I've seen this happen so many times here. People will decide this is a safe place, and those who don't or get their feelings hurt, won't. I don't want anybody to leave but at some point, the community expresses its feelings about most everything here or just ignores it because it's not worth their time. I think everybody here is worth my time and I hope this proves correct. Shut up, Mark.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Alec Baldwin handed prop gun on 'Rust' set by crew member who was previously fired after 2019 mishap

again, it proves my view.
i am the only one not wrong at all here!!!!

We should note one marked distinction here. I have not personally and repeatedly attacked Yoda in this thread. Jinnistan has gone on tilt and attacked the ref. I have accepted my flags, because he's the ref.

Yes, I have been modded by Yoda in this thread (I had a post removed that made a joke at Jinnistan's expense). Yoda did not mention to you that he modded me, because he is not playing to the crowd here -- but trying to keep the forum on an even keel. You can speculate about my secret aims or Trojan Horses or my magical ability to "act reasonable" while other people are driven to madness by my words (all of this sounds like an excuse for personal intemperance - "He made me do it!", whatever), but you don't attack the ref. And when I did not serve as an object for his rage, other people did. You're learning about more than just me.

My hat is off to you, you're a pro. Hint...Yoda is a big boy and can make up his own mind.