Um, if any THR mods read this, could you tell me why I was banned?

[wooderson]

Since the last election their has been a dramatic increase in "progressive" newbies.

Truly, political topics are markedly easier to 'moderate' when everyone agrees and there are no differences in opinion. Of course, one might question why you even need political discussion in that case - but it is easier.

I would also add that the good thing about THR was that we pariahs of the gun community were able to express a viewpoint just as easily as the people ranting about Mexicans-under-the-bed and Leninists-under-the-coffee-table.

[longeyes]

The atmosphere at THR has gotten strange.  My ban came as a shock because, frankly, I had avoided L&P and anything controversial for months.  I realized it had become pointless, especially in the area of certain touchy topics.  A THR comrade tells me that all of my posts--that's close to 7200 at last count--have been expunged.  Rewriting history, are we?  One day you're a good Soviet citizen and the next you, well, never existed.  If the analogy stings some, too bad, that's how it feels to me right about now.  I'm sorry but I don't think the answer to "unruly" posters is a wholesale purge of anyone with strong opinions.  We can, however, draw some lessons from this in terms of the limits of any "institution" as it becomes larger and more hierarchical in nature.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

There's a reason I only use THR for firearms research these days.

[nico]

I haven't been banned yet, but then again, neither have I posted there in a while.

All the good topics seem to be here as of late, THR seems to be so ban happy lately it's stifling discussion.

I agree.  THR just hasn't been very interesting lately, and the trolls and overzealous moderating are opposite extremes that seem to contribute to the decline. 

I understand that it's Oleg's site to do with as he pleases, but if groups of people are being banned without any explanation for things they may have said a long time ago, that's absurd.

[K Frame]

"A THR comrade tells me that all of my posts--that's close to 7200 at last count--have been expunged."

Tell your comrade that he needs to learn how to use the search function.

[Sindawe]

A THR comrade tells me that all of my posts--that's close to 7200 at last count--have been expunged.  Rewriting history, are we?  One day you're a good Soviet citizen and the next you, well, never existed.

Either your friend is feeding you a line of dren, or is incapable of using the search function.  I found your posts with little issue.

Opps, Mike beat me too it. 

[Perd Hapley]

Since the last election their has been a dramatic increase in "progressive" newbies.

Truly, political topics are markedly easier to 'moderate' when everyone agrees and there are no differences in opinion. Of course, one might question why you even need political discussion in that case - but it is easier.

Yes.  But the point is that your standard bunch of conservative, Republican gun guys will find quite a bit to disagree on, anyway, especially with the standard compliment of Libertarians.  Still, a lot of comments will get thrown out that everyone agrees with, on global warming, socialized medicine, etc.  Add a bunch of "progressives," and suddenly every such comment becomes a center of controversy.  All of which takes the forum far away from gun-related issues, and makes things very heated. 

Does that mean lefties need not apply, or should not be allowed to comment on other political matters?  I don't think so.  It does mean that everyone needs to learn not to start a full-on debate on Intelligent Design or the Valerie Plame case, in a thread about gun laws in Denver.  It probably means that such topics should not even be brought up.  I'm still working on that concept, personally.   

[Tallpine]

It does mean that everyone needs to learn not to start a full-on debate on Intelligent Design or the Valerie Plame case, in a thread about gun laws in Denver.

The gun laws in Denver are definitely an argument against Intelligent Design 


(gosh, I hope humor doesn't get banned on APS too ...  )

[ilbob]

Maybe the answer is to just ban certain topics/posts.

1. Posts that portray LE in a negative way. Or for that matter in a positive way. Copness has nothing whatsoever to do with the RKBA, so just ban cop discussions entirely.

I know it is not quite this simple, but the cop haters think every cop is evil, and the apologists think they can do no wrong. There does not seem to be much of a middle ground, which is sort of surprising to me since cops are after all, just average human beings and one would think that no one would expect them to be anything but that. But there is some deep mythology in the American mind set that idealizes cops, way beyond what is realistic. Some just do not want to see that myth destroyed, others are so shocked that the myth turned out to be false that they go the other direction.

IMO, the real problem with police misconduct is the lack of any independent means by which such conduct can be investigated, and prosecuted if warranted. As long as police agencies are in charge of investigating themselves, there will be the feeling there can be no justice, and that feeling is at least partially on target.

2. Posts about political candidates.

The presidential candidate threads seem to be more about ideological purity than anything else. Some posters just cannot accept the idea that political candidates have warts, just like all of us do. As voters, we have to pick the candidates with the fewest warts. Some posters just do not understand that.

One would think that no one who believes in the RKBA would ever vote for any Democratic party candidate likely to win the nomination. But, that wart is overshadowed in their mind by some wart the Republican candidates might have.

3. Posts about the war in Iraq, and the WOT in general.

There is a group of people who just do not accept the idea that there are organized groups of thugs trying to harm America and Americans. You can't get past that mindset. Even after 9/11, they would rather believe that George Bush did it than that some Islamic extremists were responsible.

[Len Budney]

3. Posts about the war in Iraq, and the WOT in general.

There is a group of people who just do not accept the idea that there are organized groups of thugs trying to harm America and Americans. You can't get past that mindset...

Perhaps, but as any of us libertarian types can tell you, the fact that the Mafia is in Chicago doesn't justify bombing innocent Chicagoans back to the stone age. Bombing Chicago, not because of what the Mafia has done, but because of what you think it might do, is even worse. And finally, when the "cure" involves the elimination of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention and torture of American citizens, the cure is much worse than the disease. That a risk exists is reason to arm oneself... to be vigilant... to do all sorts of things--but it's NOT a justification for giving up our civil rights.

Which is not to mention the fact that our favorite terrorists, for example in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, basically get a free pass from us. We're not fighting terrorism; we're only fighting a handpicked few terrorists.

So it just might be an over-simplification, or dare I say, a straw man, to suggest that everyone who disagrees with Bush's "War on (Some) Terrorists" does so because he believes that the terrorists are just misunderstood fuzzy puppies.

--Len.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Len Budney said it just right.

[Oleg Volk]

I got emailed inquiries, will review each case and email you the reasons behind each ban. That takes time, so please bear with me.

[Firethorn]

I can't access anything on THR any more and my ban is, I'm told, permanent.

Try deleting cookies.  That way, you should be able to read the forums, though you still can't post.  If you use Internet Explorer, go to the Tools menu, and select Internet Options. 

That's one thing I hate about cookies.  I'd like to be able to kill them individually easier than finding them under the hidden cookie folder.  I happen to like having my preferences remembered for a dozen other sites.

[longeyes]

"A THR comrade tells me that all of my posts--that's close to 7200 at last count--have been expunged."

Tell your comrade that he needs to learn how to use the search function.

The posts aren't the issue; the BAN is the issue. 

[Firethorn]

I got emailed inquiries, will review each case and email you the reasons behind each ban. That takes time, so please bear with me.

Oleg, I know that it's your forum, but I honestly think that we're seeing the death of the site as a useful place for a discussion.

[ilbob]

Oleg, I know that it's your forum, but I honestly think that we're seeing the death of the site as a useful place for a discussion.

Perhaps he does not want it to be a "useful place" as you would define it. Maybe he wants it to be "useful" as he defines it.

It is after all his property.

If you don't like it, start your own. Call it www.bannedfromthehighroadandproudofit.com.

[Len Budney]

Oleg, I know that it's your forum, but I honestly think that we're seeing the death of the site as a useful place for a discussion.

Perhaps he does not want it to be a "useful place" as you would define it. Maybe he wants it to be "useful" as he defines it.

It is after all his property.

If you don't like it, start your own. Call it www.bannedfromthehighroadandproudofit.com.

All you say is true, and of course anyone can start a new forum these days. The sad thing is that the pro-RKBA community is being further splintered every time that happens. On THR people bemoan the way in which hunters are pitted against folks who prefer battle rifles, and vice versa--a sure way for all gun owners to be divided and conquered.

Fractionating the pro-RKBA community by preferred type of firearm, by position on the WoT, etc., only serves to make the problem worse.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate issue that THR is attempting to address: they want a division between responsible and irresponsible advocates of the 2A. The subset who advocate criminal acts, or demonstrate blood-lust, or show the kind of irresponsibility that that produces casualties, are purposely excluded from THR. That's its actual mission. And it's a mission I can certainly get behind! There are dangerous bubbas in the world, and I'd like to see them mend their ways--but at the very least, I'd like to make sure they aren't held up as representative of myself and my position.

But, respectfully, I submit that I and others in the mass ban are not of that sort. My best guess as to why I was banned is that I recently suggested, less than half tongue-in-cheek, that "sensible gun control" is a good idea if it keeps guns out of the hand of government agents. That could be construed as anti-LEO, but in fact is a straight-up Jeffersonian view: the 2A was created specifically to ensure that civilians out-gun the government. But neither that, nor anything else I can recall posting, represents personal attacks, or advocating criminal or dangerous acts. It puts me in disagreement with the militarist crowd, but along lines where I thought there was room for respectful disagreement.

In short, the bummer of it is that folks who should be allies are instead divided, and we are all weakened as a result.

--Len.
 

[wooderson]

That's one thing I hate about cookies.  I'd like to be able to kill them individually easier than finding them under the hidden cookie folder.  I happen to like having my preferences remembered for a dozen other sites.

In Safari 3 (maybe earlier versions), I can search for cookies for identifying information - URL, type, etc. - and delete them. Hope it's a feature Firefox (and five years down the road, IE) incorporate soon, if they already don't.

[Perd Hapley]

"A THR comrade tells me that all of my posts--that's close to 7200 at last count--have been expunged."

Tell your comrade that he needs to learn how to use the search function.

The posts aren't the issue; the BAN is the issue. 

Then why bring up the posts at all?   

[longeyes]

I brought up the psts because it seemed to me, if true, it was symbolic: Expunge all trace of the perpetrator.  When you are banned out of the blue and not given a reason, you begin to wonder.  I really have no idea why I was banned.  Uncivil behavior?  Mis-using the site?  Sorry, that's really a wild stretch.  But I don't intend to come before "the court" and make my case; I know what I do and what I think.  Anyway, if THR is going to be ruled by Morality Police and turned into a PC hen house, then I'm better off elsewhere.  That doesn't mean I don't feel angry, sad, and, yeah, insulted.  I would not have spent seven years involved with THR and posted over 7,000 times if I didn't find the site worthwhile, so it's painful to find out that "family" isn't.

[ilbob]

I brought up the psts because it seemed to me, if true, it was symbolic: Expunge all trace of the perpetrator.  When you are banned out of the blue and not given a reason, you begin to wonder.  I really have no idea why I was banned.  Uncivil behavior?  Mis-using the site?  Sorry, that's really a wild stretch.  But I don't intend to come before "the court" and make my case; I know what I do and what I think.  Anyway, if THR is going to be ruled by Morality Police and turned into a PC hen house, then I'm better off elsewhere.  That doesn't mean I don't feel angry, sad, and, yeah, insulted.  I would not have spent seven years involved with THR and posted over 7,000 times if I didn't find the site worthwhile, so it's painful to find out that "family" isn't.

If you think THR is family, you should think again. No group of mostly anonymous internet posters is family.

The owner will no doubt email you with the reason you were banned, as he has promised. My guess is his reasoning will not make you feel any better about it.

Many posters expect to be able to say pretty much anything they want on an Internet forum and seem shocked to find out that many forums do not allow certain topics or views to be posted.

[Brad Johnson]

longeyes,

I hopped on THR and did a quick User search on your name.  All your posts are still there.

Agreed that THR is getting a little off it's original self.  I just had a debate with a couple of folks on a subject that, only a short time ago, wouldn't have been an issue at all.  In the end the thread was locked because it was going nowhere, but it still goes to the swing in posters' attitudes.

Seems that, as THR has grown, we are seeing large groups forming up in three main camps - potential options / net-gain, Libertarians / strict constitutionalist, and foaming-at-the-mouth "gotta have it all now or die trying".  Makes things iteresting, but I can only imagine what a headache it must be for the mods and Oleg.  I sure wouldn't want the job though there seem to be some folks over there who relish the power of the Lock/Banish button.

I see it as being a victim of its own success.  As the forum grew in popularity it naturally attracted more and more participants.  The more folks there, the more diverse the opinions and positions became.  Unfortunately, that has also resulted in things going from a harmonious, well-tuned chorus to a cacaphony of incoherent shouts.  What to do about it?  Don't know, and I certainly don't envy Oleg's position at the moment.  Anything he does, even the most well-thought-out and net-positive step, is going to take a group of forum members and tick them off royally.  I hate to see it happen, but I think it's inevitable.

Brad

[longeyes]

By "family" I meant a community of like minds, of potentially kindred spirits--at least in certain areas.  Don't worry, I'm not sentimentalizing what THR is, or was.

If you think I am waiting breathlessly for an explanation of my "crime" and my sentence, you are dead wrong, friend.

Alll I will say is this: Anyone who asserts that my presence on THR has been disruptive or counter-productive isn't worth my time. 

PS My screenname has been deleted from the THR membership list.  That doesn't bode well for my posts.  But, hey, no matter.

[Ron]

Sorry you got banned longeyes, major bummer.

We signed up at THR on the same day, hard to believe it was that long ago. (GoRon)

I do find it to be classless to ban one of the earliest members of the site without an explanation.

Sorry to be so blunt about it.

Maybe there was a long history of warnings or the like I'm not aware of, it just doesn't seem high road to lock em out when they weren't looking.

[longeyes]

Thanks, Ron. 

There were no warnings, no explanations, just this marvelously Kafkaesque message greeting me:

"You have been banned for the following reason:
Staff Decision

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

Now that's a classic example of termination.  /insert smiley face/

We live in crazy times.  Enjoy.