Faces may well have changed, but the legacy of that continues. In the end nothing has changed, the leadership (as well as the membership) still thinks it okay to campaigning in a negative manner instead of selling a good product on it's merits. Even today I was edited by the mods for calling someone out on the lies they spewed. Don't remember seeing the actual lies moderated.
Just want to put out there that I was the one who moderated the post; even though I understand ghostrider mentioning it and believe he means me no malice in doing so. However, I do think I need to explain why I did so as it does give a understanding of the problems happening here.
When I accepted the position of moderator along with a few others here, I accepted that in that role I needed to put my personal opinion aside. To that end, I have very rarely moderated anyone's post. My belief is that a person can express their point; who am I to try to control the conversation?
Today I was faced with moderating a post from someone for whom I have nothing but respect. I also believe he does not take the moderation personally and understands why I did so. But others may not. In a nutshell: heretofore agreed-upon rules were violated. I also thought that moderation could be done and still maintain the "meat" of the post. I did so with the desire that what was being stated remain as much as possible. Furthermore, I realized that there was the distinct possibility that the whole post could be eliminated by someone else along the line. I do not apologize for moderating the post, only that I was the one that did so. Hopefully all here understand that I do so knowing that some may see my actions as trying to stifle someone's opinion.
In regards to the conversations here on OCDO, I guess what bothers me most is the way things have transpired. There has always been a difference of opinions regarding a multitude of things said or done but, in the end we generally remained civil all the while knowing that we were all a part of something bigger. We were, for the most part, a group that despite what was discussed,we were steadfast in supporting Open Carry. That steadfastness has been, in my humble opinion, something that can no longer be assumed.
What I have seen is a group of people that, instead of arguing their case upon the merits of their arguments, attacking individuals for merely disagreeing .. or even for asking for an answer to some particular question. Like my moderation of the statement made by ghostrider, sometimes people who have been placed in either official or unofficial leadership positions can effect the stifling of dissent by placing personal gain above the task that they have willingly and voluntarily accepted: act in a manner representative of something much larger than themselves.
I believe that some have not realized that when speaking as a representative of a group (which we all here are to some degree) putting aside personal gain needs to remain foremost in their actions. Furthermore, even when putting out an opinion is done as an individual, personal attacks need to be avoided. Instead of attacking the person, attack the idea because to me, avoiding the actual question and instead, spending vast amounts of energy disparaging others only indicates that the person who does so realizes that they really have no argument.
Believe what you want but I harbor no ill-will against anyone here, despite what anyone may want so hard to believe. Just hoping that we once again can return to a time where disagreement was respected and we all remained true to Open Carry... irrespective of someone's personal issue with someone else.
Long live Open Carry!
