Doug Huffman Has Been Banned

[Mugenlude]

This thread only takes up your time if you follow it. It has caused new members to come forward and join in the discussion on both sides and that is a good thing. Encourage free discourse, don't prohibit it, Mugenlude.

Yeah, I guess I can agree with that. The "lock this thread" comment probably wasn't needed, but the "beating the dead horse" image was, as that basically summed up how I feel about this, what is it now, 8 page thread. It's over, life goes on...

Personally, I think they could have just banned him and not posted about it, it's their forum to do what they want with it, we're all just visiting. Moderators have a tough time, no doubt....

 

[McX]

i would have suggested a 30 day suspension. we all know doug, and we all know how he is, we have to learn to accept each other as we are, not as we wish they would be. isn't that what we ask of the public? accept us as we are?

 

[wrightme]

i would have suggested a 30 day suspension. we all know doug, and we all know how he is, we have to learn to accept each other as we are, not as we wish they would be. isn't that what we ask of the public? accept us as we are?

Sure. Once we are at that point. Do you really think we are?

 

[McX]

Sure. Once we are at that point. Do you really think we are?

i dont know wright, but i can see the hatred spreading, and sides being formed.

 

[wrightme]

i dont know wright, but i can see the hatred spreading, and sides being formed.

Yes, I have seen that. So why are you choosing sides? Isn't that part of spreading hatred?

I AM a webmaster of a forum that is VERY similar in ideals to this one, and we do NOT tolerate anything even remotely similar to that crap that goes on in here. Someone like doug or spart wouldn't last a DAY posting in the forum I manage. The faces that get shown here are the faces that the Internet-browsing public does see, and they WILL judge all firearms owners based upon that face. Present the best face to get the best result. Present less than that, you get much less.

I have three suggestions for you and everyone else.

1) Enjoy the freedom.

2) Don't abuse it.

3) Move on.

 

[Flintlock]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the Administrator does not have the authority to moderate this forum, however they so choose. However, I would like to offer the following comments to add to this discussion about Doug as a poster... I have been personally reading posts from Doug for many years, stemming all the way back to the days of Packing.org - well before this forum came into existence. Doug never shyed away from letting his personal feelings on certain topics be well-known and we all came to understand that over a long period of time and over a period of literally thousands of posts.

I am sure he is in frequent violation of the forum rules, particularly if there were nasty PM's that we are not able to review. But to be perfectly honest, there are hundreds that post here that are violators on a regular basis. I have only called for one poster ever to be banned and it took over a year for that to finally happen and it ended up not having anything to do with me or anyone else that was complaining at the time that I was. For there to only be 5 people in thousands that post here to ever be banned suggests to me that there is a glaring consistency with regards to the allowing of heated opinions and posts that consist of language and content that does not fit into the listed rules of this forum. It goes in spurts and there are times when it can be seen everyday.

He received a lot of flack, but lets just be honest.. Is Doug absolutely incorrect in his reasoning for his disdain for the NRA? I think if we all look at the facts over the period of about 75 years, we will see that he is correct. Does it violate forum rules to post about his disdain? Yes. But that doesn't mean he was wrong in his reasoning, it just means that the administrator doesn't want it talked about on his forum.

I think that posters would have less of a problem with this if the rules were absolutely enforced for everyone. There seems to always be a couple of posters that leave little pee drops on virtually all discussion topics which is one of the main reasons that I don't post here that much anymore. If it requires input from the masses for the moderators to notice or to do something about a violation then that tells me a couple of things. One, this forum is too big to actually moderate or there are not enough moderators. Two, before the transition to this forum format, when PM's were sent about certain posters, it appeared to me that nothing was done about the concerns despite overwhelming evidence to support the request. Either way, the enforcement has been consistently inconsistent.

Doug is not a troll and has offered a treasure trove of information and logical and philosophical discussion over the many years. I think this is indeed a sad day for this forum.

 

[wrightme]

Doug is not a troll and has offered a treasure trove of information and logical and philosophical discussion over the many years. I think this is indeed a sad day for this forum.

Doug offered good information.
AND, Doug was a troll. Had he simply been the first Doug I listed, he would still be in here posting today. He made that choice. The site owner made one too.

As for the NRA, when any org does something, it is likely to get discussed. There IS a definite difference between discussion of events, and bashing. He couldn't keep to discussion, and instead kept to bashing. Once again, he made a choice, as did the site owner.

 

[SprayAndPray]

I have to admit I am stupefied. Not so much as to Dougs abrupt dismissal but... there does seem to be an inequity here...

I am not quiting or leaving etc. but I am still baffled as to why Doug in the first place and the apparent coddling of an offender so brash and utterly disruptive, gets a slap on the wrist...

A mystery to be sure. Watching for now...

My GUESS is it started as a time out and doug threw a temper tantrum and made threats to the website resulting in a perma-ban

 

[Teej]

Doug had his finer moments, but plenty of times what he digs up or interprets is just plain wrong.

The most recent thing I can think of (because I pretty much stopped paying attention to anything he wrote afterwards) was on the whole Jesus G. case. Doug was saying it was fortunate for JG that he was "only" charged with 'homicide' and not 'murder'. That's ridiculous, and not in a trivial nit-picking way.

 

[Flintlock]

Doug offered good information.
AND, Doug was a troll. Had he simply been the first Doug I listed, he would still be in here posting today. He made that choice. The site owner made one too.

As for the NRA, when any org does something, it is likely to get discussed. There IS a definite difference between discussion of events, and bashing. He couldn't keep to discussion, and instead kept to bashing. Once again, he made a choice, as did the site owner.

I see what you are trying to say but I would like for someone to clarify the definitions of bashing and disusssion.. What does "bashing" even mean?? I read a lot here that is termed "bashing" that appears to me to be mere disagreement of a polarizing topic. What you call bashing, thousands of others may not. Some of the rules are loosely defined and it is a judgement call for a banishment based on the Administrators personal view of "bashing or personal attack." Again, nobody ever said that the Administrator does not have this authority or that it wasn't even justified, all I am suggesting is if we are going to have rules, then they should apply to everyone equally and that it be consistent.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I see what you are trying to say but I would like for someone to clarify the definitions of bashing and disusssion.. What does "bashing" even mean?? I read a lot here that is termed "bashing" that appears to me to be mere disagreement of a polarizing topic. What you call bashing, thousands of others may not. Some of the rules are loosely defined and it is a judgement call for a banishment based on the Administrators personal view of "bashing or personal attack." Again, nobody ever said that the Administrator does not have this authority or that it wasn't even justified, all I am suggesting is if we are going to have rules, then they should apply to everyone equally and that it be consistent.

I would agree. Sometimes some organizations do things I do not agree with. Is it bashing if I say that the NRA messed up because they didn't endorse Angle? I would like a ruling on this please.

I understand saying things that make generalities about an organization could be considered bashing, such as 'WAVE sucks!', I just want to know where the line is.

 

[wrightme]

I see what you are trying to say but I would like for someone to clarify the definitions of bashing and disusssion.. What does "bashing" even mean?? I read a lot here that is termed "bashing" that appears to me to be mere disagreement of a polarizing topic. What you call bashing, thousands of others may not. Some of the rules are loosely defined and it is a judgement call for a banishment based on the Administrators personal view of "bashing or personal attack." Again, nobody ever said that the Administrator does not have this authority or that it wasn't even justified, all I am suggesting is if we are going to have rules, then they should apply to everyone equally and that it be consistent.

To the best of my knowledge, no one here has been banned for "bashing." (well, unless you count the smoking357 and nolacop stuff)
But, it is very easy to see where someone is discussing a topic, as opposed to bashing a group.
As example:
"The Brady Bunch is saying that gun owners are all crazy people. This is patently false, and they have no data to support their claim."
or
"The Brady Bunch is a bunch of a$$hats because they think all gun owners are crazy people."

See the difference? It is very possible to disagree with someone, and discuss that disagreement without bashing or being rude. Doug couldn't accept that difference.

 

[wrightme]

I would agree. Sometimes some organizations do things I do not agree with. Is it bashing if I say that the NRA messed up because they didn't endorse Angle? I would like a ruling on this please.

IMHO, no, I would not believe that is bashing. You presented your opinion in an amenable way.

I understand saying things that make generalities about an organization could be considered bashing, such as 'WAVE sucks!', I just want to know where the line is.

Then you should understand the line that Doug frequently crossed, because it appears you have a clear understanding of "bashing" and "discussing opinions."

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Then you should understand the line that Doug frequently crossed, because it appears you have a clear understanding of "bashing" and "discussing opinions."

I understand but our other 'friend' continuously crosses the line by attacking individuals. I just would like some consistency.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I try to attack the idea I think is wrong, not the person.

So.... If someone says they support permitting, I need to refute the argument not call the person a moron for thinking that.

 

[Grapeshot]

How it works on one of my forums.

PaFOA uses a similar method of moderating. Seems very labor intensive to me though.

 

[wrightme]

I understand but our other 'friend' continuously crosses the line by attacking individuals. I just would like some consistency.

Many of those posts where he was attacking other individuals were edited by the moderators. AND those attacks were the reason for his recent vacation.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I try to attack the idea I think is wrong, not the person.

That is the method I always attempt to use myself.

So.... If someone says they support permitting, I need to refute the argument not call the person a moron for thinking that.

That sure is more effective than ad hominem argument.

 

[wrightme]

PaFOA uses a similar method of moderating. Seems very labor intensive to me though.

Another forum I frequent uses a similar method, and it seems no more time-consuming than what is done here. Users report possible infractions. Moderators check only reported posts, and either warn then (which assigns points) or not. When points reach a certain level, posting privileges are halted for that user automatically for set time limits. Works well, and the only ones who complain about the system are those who cannot seem to stay within the very clear ruleset.

For a board with 100,000s of members, they only use 6 or so moderators, and it hums along smoothly. This board is a baby compared to that one. two mods should be easily sufficient....if the majority of posters adhere to the clear ruleset.

 

[McX]

Yes, I have seen that. So why are you choosing sides? Isn't that part of spreading hatred?

I AM a webmaster of a forum that is VERY similar in ideals to this one, and we do NOT tolerate anything even remotely similar to that crap that goes on in here. Someone like doug or spart wouldn't last a DAY posting in the forum I manage. The faces that get shown here are the faces that the Internet-browsing public does see, and they WILL judge all firearms owners based upon that face. Present the best face to get the best result. Present less than that, you get much less.

I have three suggestions for you and everyone else.

1) Enjoy the freedom.

2) Don't abuse it.

3) Move on.

Doug is my friend, and i would stand for him as i would stand for you. i have no right to debate nor question his motives, or actions. i can only be his friend. if that is choosing sides, then i am guilty, and i should truly bow out of any further discussions here.

 

[Grapeshot]

Internal disagreement is the bane of such forums - I am reminded of the old Pogo quote, "We have met the enemy and they are us."

It should never be hard for reasonable people to discuss the facts of any given situation w/o interjecting personality into it. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

I respect John and his decision. IMHO - all has been said that needs to be said.

 

[wrightme]

Doug is my friend, and i would stand for him as i would stand for you. i have no right to debate nor question his motives, or actions. i can only be his friend. if that is choosing sides, then i am guilty, and i should truly bow out of any further discussions here.

The difficulty is in support of person as opposed to support of actions. Be his friend and assist him in discovering more effective methods of communication in an Internet forum environment.