Hoyt banned from the gungeon. So much for the impartiality of the group host.

[DanTex]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by krispos42 (a host of the Gun Control & RKBA group).

Oh, I'm sure there's some excuse, like he was being "disruptive". But there's a jury system for that, and Hoyt had very few if any posts hidden by jury. If this was really about being disruptive, then krispos might have banned some of our right-wing trolls, before they got so far out of hand that the admins had to step in and kick them off of DU. For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=280313
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=286446

But, alas, the illusion that a pro-gun host will hold pro-gun and pro-control posters to the same standard was just that. Hoyt is a long-time gungeon poster and a star member of DU. I'm sure he made some objectionable posts, but he's hardly the only one to do so. A lot of DUers are frustrated by the jury system, but that doesn't justify unilaterally deciding to ban people like Hoyt while ignoring equally objectionable behavior by posters whose political views coincide with those of the group host.

[Reasonable_Argument]

1. People who disagree with you aren't trolls

This is not just an "anti-gun" group. People who intentionally disrupt a conversation and don't contribute anything are trolls. Most of those seem to fall into the "anti-gun" category here it seems.

[DanTex]

3. You mean, say, people who post links to Glenn Beck's website on a Democratic forum?

We have a jury system in place. We can argue all day about who is a troll and who isn't. I have my opinions, you have yours. There needs to be an impartial process, and by banning a pro-control poster and letting all the right-wing trolls remain, krispos has proven that he cannot be impartial.

[Reasonable_Argument]

6. An impartial jury

On a site that is heavily against the 2nd amendment. Right..... Personally, I'm glad krispos stepped in. In fact there's one or two more people who do everything they can to troll this group that I'd like to see go.

[DanTex]

9. Wait, I thought you guys always claimed that most DUers supported the 2nd amendment.

Which one is it? Is the second amendment a mainstream DU position, or are you guys so persecuted that you need krispos to unilaterally step in and override the jury system to protect the gungeon.

Of course you're glad krispos stepped in. I'm sure you're also glad he lets you get away with linking to Glenn Beck. That's my point exactly.

[Reasonable_Argument]

10. You can review my posts

I've never said that. I have said that many Democrats support the 2nd amendment. This site isn't representative of all democrats. As for linking to sites, I've never linked to a Glenn Beck site. There's been quite a few videos that I've wanted to share here about gun rights that I've refrained from posting because they included right wing politics that wouldn't be appropriate here. So please take your straw man elsewhere.

[DanTex]

15. theblaze.com is Glenn Beck's site

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117267602

[Reasonable_Argument]

18. Well I'll plead ignorance to that then. Unless it's labeled I just assume they're news sites nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

188. "On a site that is heavily against the 2nd amendment."

I'm not against it.

I just don't believe the founders envisioned a chunk of citizens arming themselves out of fear of their fellow citizens.

Nor could they envision a standing army that takes up half of the budget to support an entire industry that makes weapons.

[gejohnston]

7. although I disagree with banning Hoyt

He, bongbong, msongs, and a couple of others meet the dictionary definition of internet troll. Where were you when secularmotion linked to the right wing paper Daily Mail?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. Agreed that he was a troll. Did you know that he is a Canadian who said that he is a former robber?

See #68.

More likely than not, he'll be back. But if he is ineligible to be a member of the Democratic Party and vote in American elections, why should he not be banned?

[gejohnston]

88. I read the former robber one

when he made it, but he made it sound like he was in some right wing shit hole in Georgia.

[leveymg]

2. This belongs in Meta.

Please self-delete and take it up with TPTB there.

Thank you.

[DanTex]

8. krispos can lock it if he wants.

There have been other OPs about gungeon policy in here, including several by krispos. There's an OP right now about how we need an exclusively pro-RKBA forum, which has been allowed to stay.

[rDigital]

66. This is a good home for this discussion. Meta is too noisy.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. I think it belongs here. It is group business and precedent for such posts have been set in

other groups/forums - The Lounge, for one. I can go find the thread, if you insist . . .

[gejohnston]

4. I'm sure he made some objectionable posts?

Falsely accusing people of racism or vigilantism because they defended themselves is objectionable, but excusing cops who machine gun 14 year olds in the back is beyond objectionable.

[DanTex]

5. You've accused fellow DUers of bigotry plenty of times, but I don't see you being banned.

I'm just asking for some kind of impartial standards. Like the jury system, for example.

[gejohnston]

11. when they make bigoted remarks and show their bigotry, yeah.

but I never have said "he shot him because he was a different race" about someone who was getting getting the shit beat out of them in a gas station parking lot when there was no evidence of race being an issue either way. I'm guessing krispos knows what a false equivalency is better than you.

[DanTex]

55. In your opinion they are bigoted.

And in Hoyt's opinion the person he was talking about was racist.

[gejohnston]

83. he was the 14 year old son of a racist

but that does not justify being shot in the back with a sub-machine gun. Don't you find it hypocritical, at best, you call someone defending themselves from a violent assault "a gun nut vigilante" while condoning shooting someone in the back because neither one of us like his dad's ideology? That is faux liberalsim at its worst, certainly not ACLU material.

Let me put this simply, there is no moral difference me shooting someone making off with my TV in the back and what the US Marshall did.

[rrneck]

14. Juries are not impartial here.

This is an ideologically driven board that intentionally skews its membership. There's nothing impartial about it.

[DanTex]

19. Umm... I thought you guys always argued that most DUers supported gun rights.

Where's that argument now?

This is a Democratic board, with a Democratic membership. If you make a post about Obama death panels, you can expect it to get hidden.

Everyone has issues with the jury system. It doesn't justify unilateral bannings by krispos.

[Reasonable_Argument]

22. If it's blatant trolling it does

Regardless of which side it comes from. You just have a blind spot because of your bias on the issue. If a pro 2A poster here just started trolling the board, note that trolling isn't disagreeing with your POV it's being disruptive and adding nothing to the conversation repeatedly, I'd support the same treatment.

[DanTex]

24. Depends what you mean by "blatant trolling"

You have a blind spot also because of your bias on the issue. Get it?

Pro-gun posters have been trolling this board for years. The two I linked to in the OP are the tip of the iceberg.

[rrneck]

30. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Point out some "right wing trolls" thar are active here. And prove it. With links. That is if you can type with those pom poms on your hands.

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. I asked him the same question a week ago, and got no response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117265257#post85

Apparently, "disgrees with me" = "right wing troll/NRA plant"...

[rrneck]

124. He prefers vague insinuations

and sly insults. Much like his hero.

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. There's another example of the same anti-gun McCarthyism downthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117267634#post114

[rrneck]

25. You haven't started thinking yet.

But you're emoting well. Shake those partisan pom poms! Rah rah rah! Tell people what they want to hear and they'll cheer you every time! Sis boom bah!

Another load of chickenshit snark from you.

[DanTex]

27. Careful, the group host might ban you for that content-free personal attack!

Oh, wait, you're a pro-gunner. Never mind, you're safe. Insult away...

[rrneck]

43. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Produce something beyond emotional bait and you won't have that problem.

[DanTex]

48. More insults! Earth to krispos!

[rrneck]

58. Poor baby.

Have you got enough material to trot to Meta yet? How's this flamebait OP working out For you?

[Callisto32]

82. Thought experiment with me...

What if it was a TRUE post about Obama death panels?

[Trunk Monkey]

207. Can you point to a single post by Hoyt that used reasoned debate

or actually added to the discussion as opposed to simply being a disruptive post?

[darkangel218]

45. Yah no kidding!

I had a dozen memebers ganging up on me yesterday and calling me all sorts of names, only because I voiced my opinion regarding a news article. Well, none of their posts got hidden, but mine did. Now I see this is a common occurence on here, and its sad that we can't be civilized with each other and respect each other opinions.
I told a good friend what hqppend yesterday, she thinks I'm nuts for staying on here, but I like DU overall and not worth letting a few asshats ruin it.

[rDigital]

64. The problem with DU's version of democracy is that the majority CAN ALWAYS

take away the voice of the minority. Even a 40% minority, Like Pro-2A Democrats are, has no fair shake with the jury system. 4-2 and you're silenced.

Bullshit. That's not a Democratic Republic way of doing things. That's mob rule.

[darkangel218]

73. I agree.

Which is sad, because in every other aspect this forum is pretty neat.
Oh well, we'll just have to walk on egg shells when posting I guess lol

[rrneck]

76. Welcome to partisanland.

People are only human. There will always be some who wear ideology like social plumage. And they're usually quite popular. Telling people what they want to hear pays.

Myself, I was never one of the cool kids.

[darkangel218]

86. yah, me niether

I have a tendency to speak my mind on issues, and that pisses people off. Couple that with my weird way of expressing myself at times ( since I grew up overseas ) you can imagine the reactions I get.

That being said, its still better to be yourself than just go along with whatever the majority says.

I need a beer now lol!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

137. Hoyt has served on 22 juries. He is still eligible to be on more, although he is banned from this

group and although he has said that is is a Canadian who is a former robber.

[rrneck]

141. I'm not concerned about the whole

Canadian/robber thing. A lot of forigen nationals and Expats post here, and the robber admission was probable just hoyt getting his snark tangled.

I've been on 178 juries so far.

[rrneck]

12. While a certain amount

of emotional involvement and bias are to be expected, (otherwise there wouldn't be anything to talk about), Hoyt used every post as a slanderous insinuation or thinly veiled insult. His only purpose in posting in this group was to settle some unnamed score against anyone who owns a gun. He contributed nothing to the discussion beyond his personal vitriol.

His insults had become so predictable and banal that he probably got booted for excessive boilerplate rather than disruption.

It's surprisingly easy to be a troll on a board where most people agree with you. It's also chickenshit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. Not just a troll. But a Canadian troll. See #68.

[Warren Stupidity]

149. Well that settles it. Canadian. Why wasn't that mentioned earlier?

[ZombieHorde]

13. Perhaps this forum would benefit from having three hosts.

One pro-gun, one anti-gun, and one more neutral gun for tie breakers.

[ellisonz]

16. +1

[DanTex]

17. That, or krispos could go back to being the impartial host that he used to be...

...up until he decided to take up judicial activism.

[PavePusher]

61. Tossing trolls is now "judicial activism"?

How very... Orwellian... of you. Minitrue needs you in the Newspeak Bureau.

I hate that phrase "judicial activism". Everyone throws it around as an epithet, when in reality it is the very purpose of existance of the courts: to take action when no other party has been able to arive at a fair, justifiable and equitable solution to a problem.

[rDigital]

69. Checks and Balances, so to speak. nt

[rrneck]

20. There would be a pretty narrow field of candidates.

I don't recall many any anti gunners who post here regularly that would discharge their host duties responsibly.

And there even fewer fence sitters.

[ZombieHorde]

49. I don't post here enough to know who those candidates would be,

but if you know of a few posters that would fit the roles, then perhaps they should be nominated for those positions.

[rrneck]

63. For my part

I think krispost is doing a fine job. The gungeon attracts a lot of people who, sooner or later, will violate the TOS. It's the nature of the beast. The truth is anyone that disrupts here enough to warrant getting blocked by a host will likely be an obnoxious lefty that will likely never run afoul of the powers that be.

[ZombieHorde]

79. OK. I am not here enough to really know what is going on. nt

[rrneck]

84. Actually

I'm not sure anybody else does either. Yours may one of the few sane voices heard in these parts.

[ZombieHorde]

145. "Yours may one of the few sane voices heard in these parts."

That is sad. All I do is try to avoid personal attacking other posters, avoid misrepresenting their posts, and try to be open to new information.

[petronius]

112. +1. Although I think Hoyt should be unblocked, Krispos has done an otherwise fine and

light-handed job. I don't think we need new/more hosts, new rules, procedures, or anything else...

[rrneck]

119. I'm on the fence about blocking Hoyt.

I actually had him on ignore for a while. But he makes the antis look bad and the funnies look good.

I guess I wouldn't mind seeing him come back after he sits in the corner a while.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

143. curious ... why do you think he should be Unblocked and What was the straw that broke the

proverbial camel's back anyway?

[petronius]

153. I have no idea if there was a specific event that triggered the block - I don't recall

anything unusual from Hoyt in the last few weeks. As far as I can tell, he was his typical one-note, flamebaiting, deliberately insulting self all along. So I'm in the dark on that.

But as for the block, even though there are posters that contribute relatively little beyond noise and snark, I think a group focused on a divisive topic works best if it's allowed to flow freely. Attempts to shape and control the space through blocks, rules, standards, procedures are I think destined to be more harmful than helpful, in that they'll create discord, mistrust, and disruption. Other groups have tried more formal systems in the brief history of DU, and it has always looked pretty unpleasant to me. There is a DU-wide ToS, and a flexible DU-wide set of community standards (albeit enforce by juries that tend to bias a bit against RKBAers), and I think that's enough - we can all live in that framework, and abuse, ignore, or respect each other as we choose.

So as I've posted elsewhere, my vote will always be for minimal hosting: few if any blocks, no rules, no lists of forbidden words, no in-group procedures, a broad SoP interpretation, etc. We can all just talk to people who have shown themselves to be worth talking to, and ignore the rest...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

155. while I agree with you in theory, I do think that, for the most part, Krispos

applies a very light touch in this group and I don't think it will hurt Hoyt to be banned. He can always be reinstated. Let the rest of DU have a dose of Hoyt and let us see if his behavior changes. He needs to remember that no matter the differences we are all DUers and as such should be treated with a modicum of decency and respect. That he disagrees with the view does not mean that he gets to attack the DUer. I guess it depends on how one defines "talk"

I am still puzzled as to what brought this on. I feel sure that krispos had good reason although it would be nice to hear from him about the exact whys and wherefores that brought him to this action.

[petronius]

159. For all we know, maybe Hoyt asked to be blocked - perhaps he wants to

devote his attention to the rest of DU for a while, and the gungeon was too big of a lure...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

162. you could be right. I know there was a time when I considered that very thing --

eight hidden posts in 15 minutes tends to do that, you see

[petronius]

184. Well, I suppose you could try - but we wouldn't let you get away so easily...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

190. ah..

thanks, friend

[Tuesday Afternoon]

96. I am not sure how that works. Nominations were held and krispos was selected. Now that he is the

lead host wouldn't he have to open the floor for nominations?

[ZombieHorde]

99. I think he would have to approve new hosts.

I believe the lead host has almost full control of the group.

I have no opinion on Krispos, I was just making a blind suggestion. Having hosts that are both pro and anti may make some feel more comfortable.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

105. indeed, we started out with that in mind - but, in the end, krispos was the only one selected

who would want it any way?

[ZombieHorde]

107. Well, there's that. If no one else wants the job, then just having one host

is the most practical solution, in my opinion.

[apocalypsehow]

108. I agree with one change: One pro-NRA, one pro-sensible gun control, and one Admin.

That way the "tie-breaker" would be a definitive and final deciding vote when the pro-NRA/GOP agenda host and the progressive host disagreed.

[ZombieHorde]

123. I don't think your labels are fair.

I believe a person can be both pro-RKBA and very progressive. For example, Gov. Brian Schweitzer is very much pro-RKBA and very progressive.

[apocalypsehow]

187. And I think they are very fair, all things considered. Therein lies the rub.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. The larger issue still remains: I think an Admin as a tiebreaker would be the way to go.

[ZombieHorde]

208. Do you personally find label-based arguments to be very convincing?

Labeling a position one way or another doesn't address the content of the position. The label circumvents critical thinking.

I think an Admin as a tiebreaker would be the way to go.

That probably would be good, though I suspect they would not want to be in that role.

[apocalypsehow]

213. I find them to be clarifying, and helpful for context of just what exactly it is we are talking

about on any given issue. For instance, I refuse to call anti-choicer's "pro-life": they are not "pro-life"; they are anti-reproductive choice.

The convincing part simply has to take care of itself: either a poster is persuaded by what I write, or they are not.

I think you're right about them not wanting to be in that role, particularly after some of the stuff they were accused of doing - unfairly, IMO - over on DU when it came to general moderation. But it would be nice if we could persuade them, were this group to open up to three Hosts. I like your idea in any event, Admin or no.

[DWC]

211. Here in lies the insidious rub

You define the pro-2A host as the "pro-NRA/GOP agenda host"

You define the anti-2A host as the "progressive host"

That form of elitist, far, Far, FAR, FAR left nonsense will never find it's way into viable political consideration or debate.

Semper Fi,

[apocalypsehow]

214. You are welcome to place me on ignore, if you think my factual labels of what we are talking about

are "insidious." But they are factual, nonetheless.

"Semper Fi,"

Uh-huh. Riiiiigggghhhhttt.....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

215. Factual labels?

You seem to be impervious to outside inputs which clearly show pro gun progressives are a reality.

[apocalypsehow]

227. Uh-huh. Talk to the Sig line. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

229. Solipsism is such a strong argument...

And it appears to be the best you can do

[apocalypsehow]

231. You might wanna look up what "solipsism" actually means, "professor":

it don't track with what you think it does.

[ellisonz]

21. If I hadn't deleted my inbox entirely several months ago...

...I would post a PM from December when krispos42 stated in regards to my complaints about right-wing trolling that he did not see his role as requiring him to remove anyone from the group. Presuming there is not some horrible act committed by Hoyt and that such an action has been directed toward him because of his usual postings, this appears to be a hypocritical act and an attempt to once again further force the gun cult away from the mainstream of the Democratic Party. It's really starting to look like we're just going to need two gun policy discussion groups, one for the right-wingers, and one for regular Democrats since such discussion is not permitted in the main forums except when we seem to have our monthly outrage from the sad results of our failed gun control policies.

[rrneck]

26. Good to see you down here playa.

Back to work on the organizational structure of another group eh? Gonna make your mark?

[DanTex]

28. Another personal insult by rrneck. krispos, are you paying attention?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. Sorry, that is no insult. It is the truth and ellisonz is Proud of it.

[DanTex]

35. Calling someone a "playa" is an insult.

[rrneck]

38. Bullshit

http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?term=playa

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. oh please. alert on it, then.

[DanTex]

42. Actually, I was hoping krispos would just step in with a ban like with Hoyt.

Juries didn't hide many of Hoyt's posts either. That's my point.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. Juries are a fickle bunch, on that we both agree.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

139. Hoyt has served on 22 juries and remains eligible to serve on more.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

140. meh, I am OK with that. Let Hoyt now go forth and prove himself to be a good DUer and participate

in other groups. Let us see if his posting style changes. He has not been PPR'd. He has only been banned from this group.

Big whoop in the scheme of things, I say.

[gejohnston]

50. how many have been alerted on?

half the time I wondered if he was really a pro gunner parodying antis.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

54. me too. he was just too --- too ---

Over The Top. It was to the point of satire at times.

[rrneck]

34. Im sure he is.

Since almost every post you write had an insult I guess we'll both get blocked.

[rrneck]

36. Amd by the way

when I decide to actually insult you, you'll know it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. don't get me started cos you all know what I capable of.

[rrneck]

46. The fucking ground shakes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. !

after all I am a Leo - hear me roar

[PavePusher]

65. More Orwellianism?

"Presuming there is not some horrible act committed by Hoyt and that such an action has been directed toward him because of his usual postings..."

Your memory hole is putting in overtime, I see. Who else constantly dropped accusations of murderous intent, racism, etc. at such a high rate around here?

[ellisonz]

102. lol

"Who else constantly dropped accusations of murderous intent, racism, etc. at such a high rate around here?"

I guess you guys couldn't defend yourselves in a legitimate debate and had to "disappear" your opponent. Orwellianism? I hope you choke on it.

[Union Scribe]

106. There is no legitimate debate with someone

who repeats the same vile insults over and over. Without him, and if bongbong joined him, this place would be far less vitriolic.

[ellisonz]

117. Then use the ignore function.

But this action just makes clear that this group is perfectly prepared to tolerate rude and disruptive members of the gun clan, but if you're on the liberal side of the issue you could be removed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

148. since you are suggesting the Ignore Function may I ask if you use it?

[Union Scribe]

210. Bull. It's pretty easy to not get banned.

Discuss issues instead of making disgusting broadbrush smears against other posters. The only two people here banned were here to disrupt and insult. It has absolutely nothing to do with (what you think is) the "liberal side of the issue".

[ellisonz]

233. The reality is that krispos42 has changed positions on this topic.

BTW - funny how so many gun controls are banned by Admin but none have been banned by krispos42. What gives.

[gejohnston]

234. because admin thought they were "zombies"

Hoyt and bupkus are trolls.

[Clames]

225. Take your own advice.

Make things more pleasant for everyone if you did.

[ellisonz]

232. Bite me. n/t

[slackmaster]

23. I am confident that the decision was based solely on Hoyt's consistently bad behavior

Not on his views.

[darkangel218]

31. I have come to realize the DU " jury " is hardly impartial

I'm not sure who does the banning, I guess the group administrator, but I really do hope they reconsider. I don't know Hoyt, but if he got banned only because he has a different opinion, than that's fuct up.

[rrneck]

32. He's not banned from the site.

He's just blocked from this group by the host.

[Decoy of Fenris]

37. In regards to Hoyt's banning:

I don't often post here, but I do lurk fairly often. With that said, I'd like to take a moment to examine the downfall of Hoyt from the eyes of a watcher, rather than someone emotionally invested in the conflicts within the group as a whole.

Since I started observing here in the RKBA, there were several figures who stood out to me as characters so outrageously ludicrous that they could only be considered caricatures of actual left-wingers. Hoyt was one of these. His behavior was offensive, his character was deliberately abraisive, and his views were that of a lunatic-fringe element of left-wing ideology. This continued, from my observations, until he was banned from this group.

Hoyt disregarded civility, instead opting for direct and brutal attacks on a person's character based solely on whether or not they owned a gun and, failing that, would insult a DUer above and beyond tolerable limits. It didn't matter if the DUer was a longtimer, a newcomer, hell, the person didn't even have to own a gun. All it took for Hoyt to attack someone was anything less than a "Ban all guns all the time" mentality. Such attacks were common, egregious, and predictable. If Hoyt was proven wrong, you knew, for a fact, that his next post would be an insult, or something akin to "You hate life! You love the culture of death!"

It's a fact of the matter that although Hoyt was banned, the "anti" community hasn't lost anything. In fact, I would daresay that with Hoyt gone, the gun-control advocates within this group have gained a certain measure of credibility back, whereas with Hoyt onboard, they were largely seen as reactionary knee-jerk ban-happy fruitcakes.


I applaud the work of the host in taking one of the most necessary of steps: Removal of a disruptive element whose sole purpose, it seemed, was antagonizing the members of this group and causing both dissention and aggravation among it's populace. It's never easy to take steps that may be considered biased by one side or the other without being accused of favoritism, but Hoyt's uncompromising and infamous rants were contributing nothing but animosity.


TL;DR version:

Nothing of value was lost.

[DanTex]

41. Let me guess. You're a pro-gunner.

[Decoy of Fenris]

53. After a manner, yes.

Do I believe in the right to purchase arms for both hunting and personal defense? Yes.

Do I believe it is necessary to have an M60 loaded up and ready to go? Not by a long shot.


I favor strict regulations on magazine capacity, I would prefer regulations on firing speed, and advocate regulation of military-issue weaponry in a registry in addition to background checks and preferably a psychological evaluation on someone attempting to purchase them.

I collect military-grade historical weapons, such as the bolt-action Mosin Nagant, the Walther-line, and most pre-industrial firearms. I, personally, do not feel the need to aquire a semi-automatic assault rifle, but different strokes for different folks, and all that. I may not see the need to own such a weapon, but I will not force my views on any other person.

So you tell me. Am I a "Pro-gunner"?

[DanTex]

57. Sounds like it.

Particularly if you think Hoyt was out of line but all the right-wing stuff posted here doesn't bother you.

[MercutioATC]

67. You do realize that being in support of gun rights is not "right wing", correct?

[Decoy of Fenris]

71. See, there is where you and I differ.

Support of the second amendment does not equate to right-wing talking points. Likewise, if someone does something wrong, I do not ignore another fault by a seperate poster. I see them on their own merits. Do I acknowledge that there are potential trolls driven solely to antagonize those who wish to regulate certain aspects of gun ownership? Of course. But this is an internet message board, and that is to be expected.

Hoyt, though, routinely accused people, other DUers no less, of supporting murder, racism, and in some cases directly accosted DUers with the insinuation that they, themselves, were murderers waiting to happen. Did Hoyt actively contribute to the gun-control debate? Possibly, but his positive contributions were FAR outstripped by his solely negatively-derived statements and accusations.

I'm not saying that gun supporters are faultless. Far from it, but who is? Hoyt's contributions to this site, to my knowledge (as I didn't obviously see everything he wrote), were negligible at best and offensive at worst. Had Hoyt attempted such behavior in almost any other group, he would have been banned within a month.

The simple fact that our host here gave Hoyt such appreciable time within his stay here is a marked display of an attempt at civility and discourse, one which ultimately backfired and was required, by all rules of discussion, debate, and civil conversation, to be aborted.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

111. truly, you are being judicious in your commentary. If, in fact, Hoyt is NOT a troll

then WHY is it that the ONLY place I ever saw him on DU was in threads about Guns? that is the argument the antis use about pros isn't it.

[Decoy of Fenris]

142. I can't answer that, friend.

I won't say that Hoyt is or isn't a troll. What I will say, and with no small degree of certainty, is that he displays and in most ways exemplifies most common definitions of "Troll". Perhaps his predominant political pursuance, however, is gun control and gun violence. There is always the chance, however negligible, that he is not a troll.

Like all things, there are fanatics and fundamentalists. There are those who believe in "All guns should be legal", and there are those who believe that "All guns should be banned." Hoyt happened to fall into the later category. That, inherrently, doesn't mark him as a troll in my book. What does, however, is his inability (in my mind alone, I confess) to continue a dialogue that didn't result in some form of insult or another.

In regards to your sentiment about "Argument the antis use", with respect, I would like to withhold comment, preferably with your understanding. I prefer to avoid potentially combative language, as being a low-count poster, especially in this volatile atmosphere, can bring about one's PPRing fairly quickly on that point alone.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

144. good enough. understand completely your hesitancy in further commenting.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

160. I for one have mixed feelings.

The only element of substance I can recall from his input is that whether or not you own a gun is fine but leave it at home. I and others asked countless times from some idea of what laws ought to be passed with no memorable answers. On several occasions I remember insults fitting the description of those recounted in this thread. His comments were frequently unacceptable.

Having said that I don't know if I would have banned him had it been my decision. In one post he left a copy of the Stevens dissent from the Heller case, which maybe because of the topic or something Hoyt said or some peripheral issue, I happened to read with a bit more enlightenment than I had before. I thanked him for his comment.

For the most part I think of both those here on both sides of the discussion as necessary and useful.

I'm grateful we have a host to make these decisions. I'm not partial to the MD arguments.

If his time here is to have meaning, I suggest that anyone who cares to should evaluate what's happened, so they can apply what there is to be learned. I learn here all the time, from those on both sides.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. must say, both versions are apt descriptions of what has occurred.

[PavePusher]

70. As evidenced by the first response to your utterly reasonable post (and thank for that)...

...Hoyt has a number of diciples.

Time will tell.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. He may have owned a gun at one time. He was a Canadian who said he was a former robber. See #68.

As a Canadian (and possibly a convicted felon), he was ineligible to vote in American elections. As a Canadian, he was not even eligible to be a member of the Democratic Party.

His purpose was to troll and drop insults.

[Trunk Monkey]

212. I thought Hoyt was actualy Hoyt Hilsman a contributer on HuffPo

And if that's true he can't be Canadian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyt_Hilsman

Hoyt R. Hilsman is an award-winning screenwriter, playwright and critic, and was recently a candidate for Congress in California. He is a director at the Hope Street Group, a bipartisan think tank whose members are committed to the equality of opportunity and economic growth.[1][citation needed]

Hoyt Hilsman was raised in Washington, D.C., where his father served as Assistant Secretary of State in the administration of President Kennedy. Hilsman attended Columbia University and then went on to Columbia Law School.

If he is the same guy the screen writer part would explain the "character" he was playing here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

216. I believed that as well

which is why I used Pasadena in my responses to him when I could

[AnotherMcIntosh]

219. Interesting.

[2pooped2pop]

51. I have served on the jury 11 times

most of them I would have to say have been posts that were not sufficient to Alert on.

A couple where it was not a matter of the post being bad but a troll present. I can only vote to hide a post or not. Trolling has to be dealt with by others.

Be sure which post you alert on. WHile I go and read the whole thread, it's not required and if you alert on minor bullshit, don't expect me to hide it, even if I am on your side of the argument.

As for your buddy getting banned, my point is people whine too much and alert on crap that need not be alerted on.

[aikoaiko]

56. I can see you're deeply offended "you delicate flower, you" as you anti-gunnies say.

Hoyt went the way of bupkus and deservedly so.

The different between Hoyt and someone like you is that Hoyt never contributed anything worthwhile in between mean spirited sniping.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

92. There may be another difference as well. Hoyt is a Canadian who posted that he is a former robber.

See #68.

[SecularMotion]

59. I object to Hoyt being banned from the group

This isn't a safe haven and shouldn't be run as one. The pro-gun opinion is unpopular on DU, either live with that or leave.

[MercutioATC]

62. Actually, the "pro-gun" opinion is not all that unpopular on DU.

Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2012, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Even being the bastion of liberalism that it is, DU has steadily followed the Democratic party's trend away from expanded gun control.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

75. however polls in GD have overwhelmingly supported 2A. This was in DU2.

[MercutioATC]

126. I bothced the subject line. Was meant to say "unpopular"

As such, we're in agreement.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

132. a-ha! understood. I think most DUers just can not be bothered with it and

consider it to be settled law. Everyone, however, has their "favorite" subject and will thus be drawn to that group. DU3 was designed with that intent. As such, I am always amazed when antis automatically assume that a low count poster is a troll just because they start posting in a group in which they are interested.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. Did you know that he is a Canadian who posted that he is a former robber? See #68.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

77. Canadian? I thought he was in Georgia? How did I get that idea?

[PavePusher]

94. Ooops, you beat me too it.

IIRC, he made numerous claims of origin/residence, all with the common theme of "being surrounded by racist asshole redneck inbred homeschooled facists hatin' and totin' and shooting and being rural and backwards and stuff"... or something to that general effect....

[gejohnston]

100. New Brunswick perhaps?

he doesn't sound cowboy enough to be from Alberta.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. but, did he ever say Georgia as a point in fact in open forum?

[PavePusher]

116. I think I remember "Georgia" or "Atlanta"....

but I'm not going to go looking for it. Not really impotant enough to me...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

125. understood - totally

[AnotherMcIntosh]

109. His profile (before it was changed) indicated that he was a Canadian, and he admitted in an exchange

with me that he was a Canadian, but he posted at least once (contrary to his profile) that he was in Georgia.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

115. interesting, thanks

[Clames]

150. Wrong.

Top of the page. Read it, understand it.

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.

[Callisto32]

60. Well, Hoyt is the ONLY DU member I have ever felt the need to put on my ignore list.

Interestingly, the post where he equated gun-owners with the KKK or Neo-Nazis or whatever stood the jury test. Mine asking him who the hell he thought he was was hidden. Granted, I guess I did say "fuck you."

[PavePusher]

87. "Fuck You" was an entirely appropriate response to much of Hoyt's vile drivel.

It should be a much more enthusiastically accepted response here.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. It should be known that Hoyt is a Canadian who, among other things, posted that he

was a former robber.

For some reason he, as a Canadian who is ineligible to vote in American elections or even be a member of the Democratic Party, seemed to be obsessed with disrupting the strings posted in the gungeon group.

Prior to being banned, he posted (without qualification):

"As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

He was not known for being shy or refraining from answering posts. However, when I asked him:

"You're a former robber? That's information worth knowing. What type of people did you rob? Were you ever involved in home invasions?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1172&pid=65095

he did not deny his statement of being a former robber.

He did not claim that his post was not intended as an admission but one in which he was being sarcastic, nor did he provide any other kind of qualifying response. He otherwise responded elsewhere, but not to me, that his statement was taken out of context. He didn't say that he was being sarcastic, but said that his words were taken out of context.

Even without him stating that he was a "former robber," the fact that he was ineligible to be a member of the Democratic Party and vote in American elections is sufficient for me to conclude that his endless insults of gun-owning DUers and disruptive posts fully justified his being banned from the gungeon.

Why should any non-American be disrupting DU posts?

Is he going to be gone forever? With his obsession, I wouldn't be surprised if he logs on again under another name and resumes his activity.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. He has not been PPR'd - only banned from this group however he may

create a sock so that he can return to disrupt the group.

[Common Sense Party]

81. Do you have a link to the Canadian confession? And the non-citien admission?

And if that's actually true...what's the deal with Canadians bashing our Bill of Rights?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

98. Good questions. But Hoyt is not the only non-American bashing our Bill of Rights.

Earlier, Hoyt made the admission regarding being a Canadian and not being an American. But I no longer have the links.

After the discussions that he and I had, or that he and others had, he changed his profit to remove the disclosure that he was a Canadian.

At least once or more, he said that he was in Georgia and referred to Americans in Georgia as "asshole racists". But, as pointed out by another poster, below, Hoyt did not answer any fact-related questions for being in Georgia. His profile previously indicated that he was Canadian, but his profile (as far as I know) never indicated that he was in Georgia.

With respect to other non-Americans bashing our Bill of Rights, at least one is from Australian who I discovered because of his use of Australian English instead of American English.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=63707

There is also a poster from England who also expresses his anti-Second Amendment views without making it known that he is British instead of an American. If I find a link showing this, I'll post it.

[PavePusher]

91. Canadian? I thought he said several times that he was from Georgia?

Or was that "living in Georgia"? He was always claiming to be surrounded by "asshole racists" in his community, but always seemed to become fact-free when questioned....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. At some point, he changed his profile to remove the information that he was a Canadian.

Nonetheless, even after he said that he was in Georgia with "asshole racists," he admitted that he was a Canadian. His profile identified the provence in Canada where he was located, but I forget where that was.

[Common Sense Party]

78. Awww..there goes 50% of the entertainment value of this group.

Hoyt never changed any minds, that's for sure--unless he inadvertently caused someone to be MORE tolerant of 2nd Amendment rights.

Maybe jpak needs o step it up and fill in the void?

[petronius]

89. I think you are mixing up the role of MIRT/Admin and the role of a Host

RW trolls, infiltrators who don't belong on DU at all, are dealt with by MIRT, and it's really not the job of the Host to block them from groups. People who disrupt a group more often than not are legitimate DUers who for one reason or another choose to act like trolls in a particular segment of the site. (I'm sure that if you set aside the pro/anti perspectives and simply look at behavior, you'll find the obvious examples.) It's this latter group of trolls (a somewhat different application of the term) that hosts are entitled to deal with.

That said, I agree that Hoyt shouldn't have been blocked. He may be a one-note and willfully offensive poster here, but I think the gungeon is healthiest with a very light hosting touch: no group-specific rules or procedures, no blocks, and a broad interpretation of the SoP...

[PavePusher]

93. Looks like this is going to be almost as popular as the "The Witch is Dead" celebration.

I predict the ringing of joyous bells and resounding celebration.

[Union Scribe]

95. Hoyt consistently insinuated that posters here

want to/dream of/train to murder unarmed adolescents.

If you don't want to be excluded from this group, stay away from scurrilous rhetoric like that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

129. one would think that easy enough.

[Bjorn Against]

97. The admins need to step in and address this

I know Hoyt did resort to personal attacks quite often, but many of the pro-gun people are as bad or worse. If there were a fair system in place and a jury made up of people from both sides were to agree he should be banned from the group I could live with that, but to leave the decision to a single person who clearly favors one side of this debate over the other is wrong. The admins need to come up with a better system so that no one single member of the forum has too much power to decide who stays and who goes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. This is not the only group that has only One Host.

[Bjorn Against]

110. I know and that is a big problem

I can see how the cooking and baking group might be able to get by with one host but any forum on a divisive topic should have several hosts that represent a wide range of people. Having a single host in a forum that takes on a controversial topic is a really bad idea especially when that host has clearly taken a side in the debate.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

113. I don't think anybody else was really interested in taking it on. Seems like we tried

to get a Pro and Anti Host. I forget exactly How it ended up with only krispos but, it was agreed by both sides as I recall.

[Bjorn Against]

118. Maybe it is time to change the system

Maybe rather than having forum hosts we should have the MIRT team deal with it, give them the power to only ban from specific forums. What has been decided in the past is clearly not working and people have good reason to feel the host is biased against their position. I have nothing against krispos, he is a long time DUer and I respect him even though I have disagreed with him many times. I simply don't think he is capable of looking at this from an unbiased perspective, I don't think any of us are capable of being unbiased so no one person should have the power to decide who stays and who goes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

127. sounds like something that needs to be taken up with the Admin. No One here has the

authority to do as you suggest . . .

[Bjorn Against]

133. Which is why I said in my original post that the admins need to address this

[Tuesday Afternoon]

134. and what I am trying to say is that You need to contact the Admin since you feel this way

Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2012, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

My apologies, that I was not clear.

[apocalypsehow]

114. I actually think it makes a certain amount of sense in a pro-NRA/GOP agenda forum, which this

forum is, to have a host that supports that agenda. What I don't think is okay is to have that pro-NRA/GOP agenda host discard impartiality and start favoring the pro-NRA/GOP agenda posters - which is all our "pro gun progressives" are, at the end of the day: pro-NRA/GOP agenda.

There must be something we don't know behind the scenes, is all I can figure. I'm sure Admins have been made aware of this banning from this sub-forum, and presumably approve it. But I just don't know.

[PavePusher]

121. Another Hoyt diciple: accuse and insinuate. Sigh. n/t

[aikoaiko]

122. Its really very simply, whether you are for or against RKBA, just don't be an asswipe.

While anyone can have a bad day or thread, those who have been banned from this forum were dedicated poo flingers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. An important step towards not being an asswipe- Don't act like *this* guy:

A couple of posters haven't quite gotten the message yet...

[apocalypsehow]

151. So, because genuine progressives don't want NRA/GOP talking points spewed on our discussion

boards, we're suddenly like Joe McCarthy? That is absurdity taken to the limit. Waiting for your OP, BTW.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

163. "genuine" progressives ???? sorry but, when you phrase it that way

you can see where dishing it out deserves a little taking it too. you understand how that phrase is slightly offensive. your litmus test is a Major Fail to those of us who are Truly Progessive.

you see what I did there, right?

[apocalypsehow]

165. Yada, yada, yada - more meaningless noise. There is nothing "progressive" about the NRA/GOP

agenda, period.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

169. I fucking despise and hate ALL LOBBYISTS and that includes the NRA.

fuck Wayne LaPierre. Fuck the very concept of lobbying.

[apocalypsehow]

175. Okay. n/t.

[holdencaufield]

217. Eddie Munster?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

128. you approved of Hoyt's posting style? only if you want to employ those same tactics.

be honest with yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. I'll ask you the same question asked of DanTex: Point out the "pro-NRA/GOP agenda posters".

And show your work (Protip: shouting and handwaving doesn't count).

I'll wager a $50 donation to the Brady Campaign that the results will be the same- "disagrees with me" = "NRA/GOP plant".

[apocalypsehow]

146. Let's double-down, so to speak. Not interested in any "wager," but I'll tell you what:

post an OP here in the Gungeon stating that you intend to vote for President Obama's re-election even if doing so leads to the appointment of new Supreme Court justices who will likely overturn the core holding in Heller and the Chicago case. State your reasoning, which, if you do intend to vote for our President's re-election, I presume would be along the lines of "broad progressive policies for this country in general are more important than my one-issue concerns when it comes to guns, RKBA, etc."

I mean, that is right, isn't it? That even if President Obama appointed justices who eventually overturned the core holding in those right-wing majority cases, it would still be worth it to have him re-elected for all the other good progressive policies his administration would bring to the table, right? Right?

So, you do that, friendly_iconoclast, and I vow that I will, in turn, post an OP stating that I have finally met and acknowledge an actual "pro gun progressive," and I will further concede that I was wrong in my assessment that no such thing exists.

How's that for a wager? Let's do this thing: I expect to see your OP shortly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

158. I don't think Obama will appoint that type of justice.

[apocalypsehow]

164. He already has, twice, but regardless: are you voting for President Obama or not?

Yes or no, please.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

166. good lord. I fucking despise Rmoney and Lyin Ryan. there is NO way in HEll I would NOT

vote Obama. That he would appoint one the third time will NOT happen. I bet you that.

[apocalypsehow]

168. So, you are voting to re-elect President Obama - great! Glad to hear it.

You'll also be glad to know he's likely to get to appoint at least two new Supreme Court justices - and I guarantee you both will be in the Ruth Bader Ginsburg mold. Which is a good thing -right?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

171. I highly doubt it. time will tell and we shall see.

that you do not know my politics is very telling ON YOU. not me.

[apocalypsehow]

173. I highly don't doubt it. But you're right: we will see. And I'm pretty sure I "know"

your politics, alrighty. It ain't rocket-science, this wading through endless NRA/GOP talking points and figuring out what's what, and who is who.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

177. you know Jack Schitt.

[apocalypsehow]

180. Ooooohhh...ain't that just the cleverest thing you've ever seen?

When did you learn that one? I ran across it in the sixth grade, and was duly impressed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

185. do you see your little ole brain when you roll your eyes to back of your head like that?

are you just checking to make sure it is still there?

[apocalypsehow]

191. More playground taunts: funny stuff. n/t.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

193. playground faces deserve playground taunts. you dish it out; you better be ready to take it.

[apocalypsehow]

195. Except, I'm not complaining about it: I'm laughing at you, not with you. When you employ playground

taunts, 99.9999% of posters here simply dismiss anything you have to say, and with good cause. Like I said, funny stuff.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

198. haha. we all know where you pulled that data from. funny stuff, indeed.

[apocalypsehow]

200. It is, indeed, a laughable tour-de-force you're putting on here. By all means, continue. n/t.

[holdencaufield]

226. Channelling Hoyt?

[aikoaiko]

222. Are you supporting your President even though he has abandoned federal gun legislation?

I wonder....

[gejohnston]

131. If it were, for example,

Starboard Tack, Hockeymom, safeinohio, just off the top of my head, who are generally civil and actually says something, you would have a valid point and I would agree with you.

But we are not. I doubt any outside observer, agnostic or just intellectually honest partisan, would seriously equate Hoyt and a few others with the above.

[tularetom]

136. I disagreed with almost everything Hoyt posted

and his posts had become repetitive, predictable and pretty much content free.

I also think Krispos does a good job as host of this group. I don't post in it much because my interests run more to the actual use and care of firearms rather than the legality of them and also because of all the name calling and ad hominem attacks, many of which were instigated by Hoyt and a few others.

Having said all that I wouldn't have banned him. He just posted that shit because he knew there were so many people that would take the bait and respond. And it happened every time. If he would have been ignored he would have given up and gone elsewhere to poke people.

It's just the internet guys, it ain't real life.

[Clames]

147. Good. The host made the proper decision regarding Hoyt.

Should serve as an example to a few others that blatant disregard for the group's SOP and being disruptive in general won't be well tolerated. Certain he won't be the last.

[apocalypsehow]

152. You don't have the slightest clue whether the decision was "proper" or not: none of us do,

as the Host has been silent on the issue up to this point.

As for "disruptive in general," I can think of very little that is more "disruptive" than having an enclave on a progressive, Democratic discussion board that is full of posters posting pro-NRA talking points about guns and "RKBA," and implicitly supporting the Republican line on same.

[Kolesar]

154. Their anti-Democratic mayor posts are flame bait

Many of the starter posts are flame bait. We used to have a creep like that in the Energy and Environment forum. He had a pretty quick half-life after Fukushima.

[apocalypsehow]

156. Yep - I have seen some of those when I used to hang out in the Gungeon more often.

It is absolutely ridiculous that on a progressive, Democratic discussion board the vast majority of us continue to have to be subjected to attacks on Democratic politicians in our major cities and Blue states, and, further, that we should have to endure the ceaseless barrage of NRA/GOP talking points about guns.

I don't think that's gonna change, and I think (though I don't know), that TPTB have their reasons for keeping the Gungeon going (my theory is that they figure it keeps the right-wing noise localized, in one spot), so I'm not saying that the ridiculousness resides anywhere but where it belongs: on those who knowingly register on a progressive, Democratic discussion board, knowing full well they do not share that board's vision, views, or even meet it's TOS. And why? Because they cannot stand the fact that the NRA/GOP agenda about guns is not shared with a community - the DU community - that really doesn't want it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

157. I think the Admin have studied the Constitution and recognize that this is a rural vs.

Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

urban topic and they would like to see more Dems elected in rural areas. Therefore they realize the need for discussion on how to go about achieving it. I could be wrong.

[apocalypsehow]

167. Except, my theory actually makes sense: this is not a "rural vs. metropolitan topic," it is

a Progressive/liberal vs. NRA/GOP agenda topic. Theories have to be grounded in some degree of fact, you see. Regroup time!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

176. retreat and flank, dude. Facts are with me. AND until the ADMIN see fit to comment

we are both just pissing in the wind about what they think. Personally I think, they are at least savvy enough business wise to keep their thoughts to theirselves as I know this group brings a lot of traffic to this site. You may say it attracts the wrong element but, that would just be your opinion and the very fact that they allow it would seem to say otherwise.

Actions (or the lack thereof depending on your viewpoint) speak louder than words.

[apocalypsehow]

182. Actually, the facts are not with you, as has been shown.

But I do agree with you that we don't know what they think, and are just speculating. My theory actually makes more sense, though.

[Clames]

202. Your theory gets trashed every time a poll is posted in this group.

Your theory has no basis in fact in other words.

[apocalypsehow]

205. Yeah, 'cuz a poll in the Gungeon with about a couple dozen participants is just SO definitive,

don't yah know? Why, it's almost up there with Gallup!

More funny stuff.

[Clames]

223. More substantial than anything you have.

Facts are facts.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

161. Here's the results of a poll showing that DUers agree that RKBA is a progressive value.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=65257

The Father of Classical Liberalism, John Locke ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke ) would probably agree that, independent of the Second Amendment, the right to self-defense is a natural right.

Is it more progressive or liberal to want to revive the 1993 anti-gun issue that was a factor (according to Bill Clinton) in causing a loss of the Democratically controlled House of Representatives after 40 years of such control in 1994?

I could be mistaken, but I believe that the more progressive and more liberal value would be to respect the views of gun-owning DUers and other gun-owning voters in order to maximize the election of more Democrats. I believe that the more progressive and more liberal value would be to refrain from calling DU posters who favor self-defense and the lawful ownership of firearms as "posters posting pro-NRA talking points."

[apocalypsehow]

170. Wow...an internet poll, posted in the Gungeon, in which a grand total of 86 people participated!

Count me as duly impressed! Actually, no.....

"I could be mistaken"

Yes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

172. gun polls are no longer allowed in GD on DU3. However on DU2 where they were allowed

it was overwhelmingly in support of 2A. Must I do the search for you?

[apocalypsehow]

174. Changing the subject, per usual. This was about the poll posted, not some phantom on "DU2".

I'm not interested in "searching" for anything of the sort, but post that link here to THAT poll, and then we'll talk about THAT poll. See how this discussion board thing works? Hope you're taking notes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

178. take your condescension and Have a Nice Day. Peace Out.

[apocalypsehow]

181. Translation: "this being on the losing side of an argument really bites." Gotcha. n/t.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

186. your translator is in obvious need of repair. Malfunction Junction.

[apocalypsehow]

189. Nope, it's spot on. What's not working is your working understanding of what it means

to wish someone a good day, as in Have a Nice Day. PEACE OUT." I run into that a lot down here.



Edit: inserted precise quote.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

192. Nice day. Dude. I said Nice Day. like I said. work on your translator. It is irony impaired.

[apocalypsehow]

194. Same thing, though I updated the precise quote. Now you're just playing semantics games.

You need to work on a couple of somethings, alrighty. Your debate skills, for one...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

196. no. Have a Nice Day has a very precise meaning. You need to try and keep up.

[apocalypsehow]

197. Yes: it is one of many forms in the English language of saying "goodbye." But we can go on talking

about it as long as you wish - more fun & games.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

201. please, dude, your ignorance about DU is showing. you have no clue as to what I am on about. but,

really I grow bored with your childish taunts *yawn*

I truly do wish you to Have a Nice Day.

and with that One I am Peace outta here.

DUeces.

[apocalypsehow]

204. Translation: "this being on the losing side of an argument and being reduced to making a fool

of myself really bites, so I'm outta here." Gotcha!

But it seems we've been here before...

"take your condescension and Have a Nice Day. Peace Out."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67951

[Tuesday Afternoon]

220. One Last Time, I answered your questions respectfully and in a timely fashion. You chose to come

come back with snark and condescension. Asserting that your opinions were fact with no quotes or links to back up your statements.

You started all this and I gave back as good as I got.

It is here for all to see. Check the timestamps.

The only Loser in all this is the discussion and I played my part in letting it descend into this.

That you think you can translate this, my trying to back out of this with a modicum of decency for both our sakes, into calling me a Loser just further proves the case being made in the OP.

There are reasons that Anti's are being banned from this group and it has nothing whatsoever to do with 2A and everything to do with how DUers treat each other.

that you laugh at Peace makes me wonder what are your intentions in this group.

[apocalypsehow]

224. "One Last Time" - Really? Pinky-promise, even?

Funny stuff.

[apocalypsehow]

228. Now that I've got time to deal with this in detail, we'll take a closer look at your "last" post:

You did not answer any question I had asked, and you were not respectful. Stating " Must I do the search for you?" when I was not even addressing you is not "respectful," and your input was not asked for in any event.

All you have done in this sub-thread and the two others you got going with me (most would consider that right up to the line on stalking; and those most would be right) is be disrespectful, name-call, spew childish taunts, etc., etc. Even you fess up to that. So, you're proven wrong on Point 1.

"You started all this and I gave back as good as I got"

False, twice over. First, I didn't address you, you addressed me. I don't reply to your posts or OP's because I frankly don't consider any you post really worthy of review, unless you address me first. Second, descending to name-calling and childish taunts because you're being beaten on the facts is not "giving as good as I got": it's acting immature because you can't win a debate on the internet.

By your own admission, you are responsible for these three train wrecks you got going on here:

"The only Loser in all this is the discussion and I played my part in letting it descend into this"

It's actually all on you, since you addressed me, not I you.

"That you think you can translate this, my trying to back out of this with a modicum of decency for both our sakes, into calling me a Loser just further proves the case being made in the OP.

There are reasons that Anti's are being banned from this group and it has nothing whatsoever to do with 2A and everything to do with how DUers treat each other.

that you laugh at Peace makes me wonder what are your intentions in this group."

What little sense I can make of that gibberish is false: I didn't call you a "Loser" (Sic), and the OP's "case" has nothing to do with this sub-thread; let's compare a list of banned "pro gun progressives" with a similar list of banned progressives who simply got a little too heated supporting sensible gun control - any time you wish, we'll do it; I am laughing at the juvenile taunts you descended to, by your own admission, when you couldn't prevail on the facts.

So, this thorough debunking has been accomplished easily, and we now await your final-final-final "Last Word"....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

179. So the results of a democratic vote is wrong? What about Bill Clinton's analysis

in his recently-released book "My Life" in which he analyzed the loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)
http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html

So why, exactly, are you crusading for a revival of the 1993 issue?

[Clames]

199. Guess you and Hoyt share that much.

Given your posts here you are certainly not one to judge Hoyt's merits. The host exercised plenty of restraint but Hoyt, just like Iverglas, proved that only so much can be done and there is just one thing that can be done with such individuals. Don't like this group, don't post. Such an easy solution.

[ileus]

183. Where's my can o beans....

Hoyt was okay for the most part, sure he liked calling everyone who carries a racist RW'er but most people know he's just a harmless troll.

I believe the real problem was with the fact that he'd try and blame everyone that was pro 2A on this thread or that thread and his continued thinly veiled insinuation that everyone who carried was a racist tebaggin' republican.

He was basically a funny version of that Canadian girl that was shitcanned a while back.

[xchrom]

203. it figures. this is NRA central.

and the NRA neither progressive nor democratic party friendly.

[apocalypsehow]

206. Spot-on post, and exactly right. n/t.

[rrneck]

209. Sure is...

thanks to posts like this.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

221. have you ever read an entire thread in this group?

[aikoaiko]

230. Actually, the Democratic party moved away from anti-RKBA stances.

The Democratic party finally wised up that being anti-RKBA is ideologically unsound and not practical in terms of winning elections.

Fear mongering about evil guns just doesn't work anymore.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

218. All these crocodile tears for Hoyt, but what of poor Bubkus?

Who is also banned? Where is the anguish over him?

[krispos42]

235. Locking with the following statement:

For transparency, this is the entire exchange via DU mail between myself and DanTex. Most recent correspondence is at the top.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]Hi DanTex,

1) The practice of posting from RW sources is not a problem assuming the posted topic is relevant to the issue of RKBA. After all, the left-wing sources are riddled with factual errors and are routinely pointed out. You may not like the opinions of the RW sources, but you have to acknowledge that the facts of the left-wing sources leave something to be desired.

2) If Hoyt had limited himself to hurling insults, he'd still be here. There are others on the pro-gun-control side that do that, and they're still here. Part of my job is to deal with patterns that a jury cannot. As a moderator, this was something that the mods could do because they had access to records and histories that others did not. With the demise of the moderation system, this leaves something to be desired.

3) The pro-gun trolls, as you call them, are often nuked by MIRT. I've nuked more than one as a moderator, myself. The anti-gun trolls... not so much.

4) If you find a pro-gunner calling the Gungeon a festering pit of gun-controlling black panthers or something, let me know so I can ban them.

5) The sum total of banned people is 2. The sum total of trolled nuked by MIRT is something higher than 2.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host

> The problem with this is that it is completely one-sided. There are plenty of pro-gunners who do little but hurl insults, or engage in other objectionable practices like posting OPs from right-wing sources. If comparing the gungeon to a Klan meeting is a bannable offense, then surely calling fellow DUers "bigoted", which occurs all the time, should be as well.
>
> It's not like you are the only person on DU who is frustrated with the jury system. But it is the process that we have in place, and at least it's the same for everyone, as opposed to having you unilaterally decide who stays and who goes.
>
> Do you think anyone who doesn't share your pro-gun views thinks that it is fair that Hoyt got banned but none of the pro-gun trolls have? And I'll remind you that a great many pro-gun posters eventually get banned from DU by admins, so let's not pretend there aren't pro-gun trolls here. A few recent examples are permatex and Johnny Rico, but there are a lot of others. If you were really looking to clean up the gungeon, you'd think that you would have caught at least one of those pro-gun trolls before the admins did. The fact that your only victims are people who disagree with you politically doesn't inspire much confidence in your even-handedness.
>
> Which is too bad. For a long time you managed to host the gungeon fairly, and put your own politics aside, but now it appears you have crossed over.
>
> > Hi DanTex,
> >
> > Hoyt got banned after comparing the Gungeon to a Klan meeting, and after a jury was dumb enough... again... to let such obvious insults stand "because it's the Gungeon".
> >
> > Such talk does not enable discussion, which is the purpose of DU in general.
> >
> > Please note that you're the first person to notice and ask. Even Hoyt hasn't said a word about it, neither in Meta or to me via PM. He seems quite comfortable with his banning, which frankly indicates to me this activities were intended to disrupt rather than discuss.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Krispos42, Group Host
> >
> > > I was going to make a protest OP, because I can hardly imagine that there's a legitimate reason, but I figure I'd ask just in case.

I think I've explained my position abundantly. I would note that the total number of people on the ban list is 2. After 9 months. And both of them are still members of DU; they simply aren't allowed in the Group anymore.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host

Also, this sort of discussion belongs in Meta.