# To all



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

M.Magis said:


> Yep, and add on top of that that nearly every thread that hints of being pro gun gets zapped, but every anti thread gets to go on, and on, and on. He's a troll that has gotten a free pass because his agenda apparently follows that of the administrators.


Mike, that is a long way from the truth and reality. You really think that I am anti gun?

Here is the problem we are faced with. OGF has always had a zero tolerance for political posts. However we have also always tried to allow discussions tied to gun related issues and legislation as it would relate to sportsman.

The problem now is trying to allow as much discussion as possible on this very important 2nd amendment issue without letting some use the discussion as a platform to interject blatantly obvious political attacks warranted or not, on one person or party.

Everyone knows where this challenge to our constitutional rights is coming from, we don't need to remind everybody daily by naming names, who could possibly not know at this point.

Is it not enough to be able to discuss legislation and it's merits without attaching it to a individual or party? I know who wants to reduce my rights and I'm very sure you do to.

If pro gun threads have been deleted it is not because they were pro gun, rather how that pro gun opinion was expressed in written form.

This is a subject that is political by it's very nature. We are trying very hard to permit as much discussion as possible without letting it turn into a political free for all. How long this discussion continues on OGF is really up to the membership and how well they can control themselves in an obviously emotionally charged debate.

We have been giving more leeway on borderline content in the gun forum, because of the importance of this issue, than ever before in the history of OGF. We need the memberships help in trying to keep discussions on topic. We will quickly delete any content that strays. This is the only model that allows for the continuation of discussion on this topic. The only other options is to prohibit discussion completely and no one wants to do that. We need your help to make sure we are not forced to that position.

How this moves forward is up to the membership. We will continue to quickly edit and or delete any content that does not stay on topic. Any member that refuses to abide by these rules with continued numerous violations will be addressed per the rules.

Administrators anti-gun? I can tell you for sure that is not even close to a factual statement. We are however all very much pro OGF and committed to adhering to the rules.


Thanks for everyone's understanding and cooperation in advance,

Kim


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers (Nov 15, 2007)

+1 Well said Lundy.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

Lundy said:


> Mike, that is a long way from the truth and reality. You really think that I am anti gun?
> 
> Kim, I can tell from your responses to many threads that you are no doubt pro gun. I can not say that for some of the other mods. Some of the actions of a few lend me to think that a few are anti gun. I understand the balancing act that is being done with this subject. I am sure it is very hard to moderate it. It almost seems like it is a power thing with a few. This is where the perception is coming from for many on this site that I talk to.
> Bob


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bob,

It all comes down to perception. How does one person interpret a post or statement versus another.

All I can tell you is that there is no personal bias influencing the action or lack of action taken on a post or statement. Many times if something is borderline it is discussed in group prior to any action being taken. 

All of that being said there are not hard and fast rules written that a mod can look at to make a determination as to the suitability of a post. We have established guidelines and make every attempt to make fair assessments and take appropriate action. There can be no doubt however that there will always be some areas of disagreement. A post that I might believe to be unsuitable you and others may not agree, that is just a reality. Another reality is that we may make some decisions that are wrong from time to time, but it is not from trying to exercise and interject our personal views through the power of moderation. It comes from trying to perform the duty of maintaining order in a chaotic, emotionally charged, topic of discussion.

What some of you may view as a mod taking action that may lead you to think you know their personal position on that subject I know is just a mod doing his assigned duties. I could not even begin to count the number of times since the beginning of OGF that I have had to delete a comment even though I personally agreed with it.

We have a very emotional subject being discussed right now. You guys need to give a little more leeway to the mods doing their jobs before assigning some level of blame to them for their actions. 

Again, where this goes is up to the membership. I can assure you the mods don't enjoy the extra work required to keep this disscussion going.

Thanks


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Lundy, no I certainly don&#8217;t think that, and I probably shouldn&#8217;t have painted everyone with such a broad brush. But it was very hard to ignore certain types of posts, by certain members, were allowed to continue while others were shut down immediately. Heck, I&#8217;m all for shutting them all down just to get rid of the drama. I do know many of the staff are gun owners, but then I see things like &#8220;No assault weapon sales&#8221; in the Marketplace. The name &#8220;assault weapon&#8221; is straight out of the anti handbook. Sometimes it&#8217;s hard to know what to think.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Very well stated Lundy.

I live on 12 acres in the middle of nowhere. Do I really need to post an inventory of my gun cabinet? 

Thank you all for your patience and understanding while we work through this important and sensitive issue.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

M.Magis said:


> Lundy, no I certainly don&#8217;t think that, and I probably shouldn&#8217;t have painted everyone with such a broad brush. But it was very hard to ignore certain types of posts, by certain members, were allowed to continue while others were shut down immediately. Heck, I&#8217;m all for shutting them all down just to get rid of the drama. I do know many of the staff are gun owners, but then I see things like &#8220;No assault weapon sales&#8221; in the Marketplace. The name &#8220;assault weapon&#8221; is straight out of the anti handbook. Sometimes it&#8217;s hard to know what to think.


I understand, even you can go to the emotional side of all of this at times

You have been around long enough to remember, but I'm sure there are many members that don't know the history.

Back on the old site GFO there were zero gun sales of any kind permitted. When OGF was born and I became involved it started with a zero gun sales policy also. After 6-12 months of operation we discussed this topic within the ownership group and decided to permit the sale of guns that were more normally associated with hunting as a service to the membership. As a LLC we just didn't have the cash nor the desire to open ourselves up to liabilities for sales of certain weapons. It had nothing to do with our personal feelings about these weapons and everything to do with no way to defend ourselves if ever challenged through a lawsuit. OGF was more important to us than wanting to permit the sale of every kind of gun.

SOOOOOOOOOOO, you could look at the glass as half empty and say they don't permit handgun sales or "assault rifle" sales or you could look at it as half full and say they took a risk to permit "hunting" gun sales as a service to the members.

NONE of our sister sites permit ANY gun sales, but you already know that.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> +1 Well said Lundy.


+2.....The Mods are doing a great job of keeping this under control.


----------



## supercanoe (Jun 12, 2006)

I too find the term "assault weapon" offensive. It is a word used for furthering certain agendas. Hundreds of thousands of semiauto firearms exist in this country, and 99.99% of them have never been used in an assault or offensive manner.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Lundy said:


> If pro gun threads have been deleted it is not because they were pro gun, rather how that pro gun opinion was expressed in written form.


Lundy,

The only thing I really disagree with here is that posts / topics come up missing with little to no explanation at all. Could it be possible, that there is some dialog between those who have posted material that goes beyond what OGF allows and those who remove such material?

Just for example, a member posted a partial word for word a quote from a representative with out a source in a thread. A couple members posted they agreed with the statement so I posted the full context and sourced it properly. I somehow got infracted and incurred 1 point (whatever that means) and the plagiarism still stands. I just don't understand what all happened here and my asking for explanation to the mod who did the infraction fell on deaf ears apparently as I have not heard back.



Lundy said:


> Back on the old site GFO there were zero gun sales of any kind permitted. When OGF was born and I became involved it started with a zero gun sales policy also. After 6-12 months of operation we discussed this topic within the ownership group and decided to permit the sale of guns that were more normally associated with hunting as a service to the membership. As a LLC we just didn't have the cash nor the desire to open ourselves up to liabilities for sales of certain weapons. It had nothing to do with our personal feelings about these weapons and everything to do with no way to defend ourselves if ever challenged through a lawsuit. OGF was more important to us than wanting to permit the sale of every kind of gun.


This isn't entirely correct, at least in the way I remember it. I do not think the posts exist any longer, but in 2008 I did post a WTB AR thread in the for sale section. After bumping it a couple times over the course of a week (maybe two) I was able to make a deal on this site with a member (I think he is still a member). The PM's I have in my mailbox are from March 2008.

I am pretty sure that in the early years you are right, there was no firearm sales at all. Then when firearm sales were allowed, there was nothing that expressibly mentioned "assault weapons" until much later. The way I remember it, no "assault weapons" was just made a rule one day.

Anyways, I do appreciate the moderation efforts that do go on here. I recently had a conversation with Shakedown about allowing politics and his arguement was that sites who do allow it loose members. It is hard to argue that he hasn't found the formula for success.

I appreciate all that you mods do, I know it is hard to moderate a site this size.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

Snakecharmer said:


> +2.....The Mods are doing a great job of keeping this under control.


+3 ....
and if I have gotten out of line at anytime with past post....forgive me....it is a fine line to tight rope  over very passionate idea's on both sides


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

MLAROSA,

You remember wrong concerning about when and what firearms were permitted for sale. I was actively involved in that aspect of this site from day one. 

If you were able to work your deal though OGF on that weapon it was only because that was missed by us not because there was intent to permit the transaction.

As far as the rest of your question concerning communication between mods and those posting information prior to action being taken, that will not happen in many instances. There just is not enough time to communicate in every instance. A decision will be made and what is deemed to be appropriate action taken.

I think anyone would recognize that if you include specific names or parties to assign responsibility to for any action that is the level we wish to avoid as that has been against the rules from day one. After just completing this most recent election cycle I don't think there is any confusion or grey area as to what is permitted. Certainly you have been around long enough to recognize what should and should not be acceptable.

These restrictions have nothing to do with party affiliation or support or lack of support for anyone. It is adhering to the rules of the site, the same rules that have been in place since day one.

We all know there are plenty of places on line for anyone to participate at any level of political discourse that you choose. OGF just is not one of those locations.


----------

