# Amnesty for banned posters



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Yes or no? Should a one time Amnesty program be tested out? No stipulations, no requirements for apologies. Just plain old Amnesty International RTF style.


----------



## Trifecta (May 17, 2013)

So. being very new to the forum, how often do people get banned? And, on what grounds?


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

Trifecta said:


> So. being very new to the forum, how often do people get banned? And, on what grounds?


Im sure the grounds might vary depending on who you talk to. Regardless I think it's a great idea.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Double edged sword, but yeah.


----------



## M&K's Retrievers (May 31, 2009)

Sure. Good poll.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Double edged sword, but yeah.


Snick??

Fred??

Packy??


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Why? This is a very hard place to get banned from. Why would we want to bring back the truly mean and stupid?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

2tall said:


> Why? This is a very hard place to get banned from. Why would we want to bring back the truly mean and stupid?


Calling people stupid? Really?


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

Trifecta said:


> So. being very new to the forum, how often do people get banned? And, on what grounds?


In the past just once! sorry I just couldn't resist but I hope not for trying to be facetious?


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

2tall said:


> Why? This is a very hard place to get banned from. Why would we want to bring back the truly mean and stupid?


This may be the best thing you've ever posted on here.


----------



## Don Lietzau (Jan 8, 2011)

Agree with 2Tall "Why? This is a very hard place to get banned from. " Don


----------



## Matt Weberpal (Oct 9, 2009)

No. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Wow not very many peanuts here. 

/Paul


----------



## golfandhunter (Oct 5, 2009)

No No No Absolutely Not


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

*NO *Leave it to the admins to decide! Better still why don't all of us just show respect for each others comments and agree to disagree. It is not life or death if the person is not on the same page as you about your training. And there are several ways to train a dog. JMO


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Giving a general amnesty to those that disrespected the forum, members of the forum and ultimately Chris A. by their on line behavior, is not something one can readily excuse,..of those that have been banned , How many really wish to return ? and will things be any different the second time around ? on line personnas are like an alter ego for some, and most don't change

Its not up to any of us if they deserve or warrant a return, especially one without apologies to Chris A.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

> Its not up to any of us.


This part of what he said. I did not play the poll. HPW


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I have known Chris a loooong time......

If he made the decision to ban someone, rest assured that person was given MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES to change their on line behavior and refused to do so. Anything he has done here over the years has been done to enhance our little community.

To grant amnesty to those banned would be similar to going to the refrigerator for some milk and discovering it was sour, putting it back in the refrigerator with the belief that the next time you checked it, it wouldn't be sour anymore.-Paul


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

paul young said:


> I have known Chris a loooong time......
> 
> If he made the decision to ban someone, rest assured that person was given MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES to change their on line behavior and refused to do so. Anything he has done here over the years has been done to enhance our little community.
> 
> To grant amnesty to those banned would be similar to going to the refrigerator for some milk and discovering it was sour, putting it back in the refrigerator with the belief that the next time you checked it, it wouldn't be sour anymore.-Paul


Bingo. .


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Charles C. said:


> This may be the best thing you've ever posted on here.


Considering the threshold you compare to, you could probably be correct .


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

I did not vote. There are a couple of posters who I believe are banned that I thought added something to the forum although one of them would go from being insightful and helpful to just mean and ugly for seemingly no reason. There are some others that I believe are banned that I am very happy NOT to see here. Bottom line, I trust Chris A.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Considering the threshold you compare to, you could probably be correct .


Classic example. Why are some banned and others not when the behavior is the same?

/Paul


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

In our small world, it is looking more and more like a NO GO!


----------



## JJaxon (Nov 1, 2009)

I am in the minority on this one. We all need forgiveness.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

JJaxon said:


> I am in the minority on this one. We all need forgiveness.


I agree we all need forgiveness ....BUT...If you do the crime you still have to do the time....There is a difference between forgiveness and grace...Steve S


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

steve schreiner said:


> I agree we all need forgiveness ....BUT...If you do the crime you still have to do the time....There is a difference between forgiveness and grace...Steve S


I agree the recidivism rate is very high for those paroled.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Free Angie Becker......


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Criquetpas said:


> I agree the recidivism rate is very high for those paroled.


Classic from a Classic...


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Criquetpas said:


> I agree the recidivism rate is very high for those paroled.


I've been banned once & on the edge about 3 or 4 other times. I know it is hard to express our true thoughts on a forum such as this without on occasion hurting the feelings of the more sensitive . & it does depend on one's position in the RTF pecking order . 


But I admire the patience of the somewhat more talented trainers (yourself included) & dispensers of sound advice that deal with the sophomoric attitudes sometimes displayed. I think Dr Ed deserves a medal for his willingness to share professional advice & his breadth of experience to the not so learned. There is only one person presently banned that I truly miss. Knowing that person personally, I still am wondering what happened.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

BlaineT said:


> Free Angie Becker......





HuntinDawg said:


> ... although one of them would go from being insightful and helpful to just mean and ugly for seemingly no reason....





Criquetpas said:


> I agree the recidivism rate is very high for those paroled.


I voted yes. Then I read the thread and changed my mind.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Maybe some could be allowed back with a curfew. Sometimes it seems like the most venomous posts occur after cocktail hour. .;

JS


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

JS said:


> Maybe some could be allowed back with a curfew. Sometimes it seems like the most venomous posts occur after cocktail hour. .;
> 
> JS


True dat.


.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Wow so many here are pro death penalty. Where were you for the presidential election past two terms?

/Paul


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Wow so many here are pro death penalty. Where were you for the presidential election past two terms?
> 
> /Paul


Ask the NSA and the IRS...


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

So for all saying no, why are you so apposed to giving someone a second chance? Yeah there are some a holes out there, but there are also some that in my opinion offered excellent opinions. I would bet the ones that are really bad apples probably would not come bad anyway and even if they is they would be gone again at the first offense . 
Whats the worst that could happen?


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

what is recidivism?

i voted no even though i think "mean people" usually provide very funny reading.

maybe bill and road kill can put a "rtf banned training day reunion" together. everyone could train, sit around and tailgate and chris could evaluate the likelyhood of reform or recidivism based on the days events? if they all spend a day together and nobody gets an ass whoopin'......they all get back in!


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

I don't think that anyone should be banned for an opinion, even if voiced strongly, but if someone has threatened anyone else, I think they should be gone forever. I can do without the ad hominem attacks and name calling, but then again, I have always been pretty sure that I am winning when people start calling me names. First one to call "stupidhead" (or whatever) loses. 

POTUS is pretty wild west and seems like it is pretty hard to get banned (I think mostly because Chris doesn't visit very often as he REALLY doesn't like the kind of rough and tumble nature of the spirited discussions seen there). I would think that amnesty would have to be on some kind of case by case basis. Have wondered what happened to Murral (I'm not a girl) Stark (on POTUS) for instance. Don't know if we just drove him off or if he got banned. If we drove him off, I feel a bit bad for any part I might have had there.


Oh, who's Angie Becker?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I miss WRL's avatar. I think he/she should be brought back based on that alone.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

> Why would we want to bring back the truly mean and stupid?


some of them never left


----------



## GBUSMCR (Oct 5, 2004)

I voted no simply because I figure the decision should be up to Chris. I am sure he is trying to balance all sides. I miss some band folks too.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> So for all saying no, why are you so apposed to giving someone a second chance? Yeah there are some a holes out there, but there are also some that in my opinion offered excellent opinions. I would bet the ones that are really bad apples probably would not come bad anyway and even if they is they would be gone again at the first offense .
> Whats the worst that could happen?


Thing is it's not up to US to forget or not forget. 

It's been said that RTF is like a bunch of folks standing around the tailgate BS'n after the trial. Well, this is Chris's truck and when he decides he doesn't want so-n-so hangin' 'round his tailgate any more, well that's his call. And from what I've observed, Chris has offered many, many, many second chances before he pulls the plug on someone.

So when that someone insists he ain't gonna take guidance from the janitor, well he's either incorrigible or he's not too swift. Everyone gets a little testy now and then but it's not too hard too stay under the radar if you really want to.

Take a lesson from Pals. That throwdown on Fallon ... ("hopin' he falls face first into a pile of dog crap" is the main part I remember) ... PRICELESS! But she's cool enough to know when to dial it back and is still here to brag about her little ankle biters.

It's like arguing with the judges. 

JMO.

JS


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

> I miss some band folks too


.

yeah the allman bro's.... KC and the sunshine..Bruce and the E street


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I've been pissed at off friends many times like anyone else has been. Don't talk to them for a while. Spend a day together training or hunting again and know there is no need to bring up old crap, rehash old arguments so, we act like adults, get over it and move on. Attitude of folks here at times blows me away. 
Some of this seems do elementary to just let old dogs lie and move on. Some folks just can't do it over minuscule little issues. 

Melanies been a royal biz atch to me in the past. Does it mean I hold it against her forever? No. Not in the slightest. Move on get over it and often you find folks have more to offer than you think if once and a while you don't take stuff (and yourself) so seriously on a flippin website.


----------



## sick lids (Sep 25, 2012)

Lol this is funny because I am sure there are a few ways to get around the blocks if they truly wanted or need to. If you came to my house and pizzed in my drawers I might be able to forgive you but you would never be invited back in.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I'm pretty sure that there are multiple active members that have been banned at least once.

Chris does let certain by-gones be by-gone.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

At a certain point, no matter how talented and accomplished a dog is, it's too damn mean to keep in your kennel.


----------



## RetrieverNut (Jan 8, 2004)

roseberry said:


> bbg,
> 
> i even called to ask about the purchase of a firemark puppy the other day. i was told that i sucked as a trainer. i was told i didn't have the credibility let alone enough money to be considered for a puppy. then i learned that with my reputation no decent pro would even help a loser like me!
> 
> felt like old times!!!!!;-)



Wow, that doesn't sound like the Firemark breeder of puppies i've seen in for training. I've never heard of a client who called Firemark for a puppy to be treated this way, I hope you are kidding...?


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

badbullgator said:


> I miss WRL's avatar. I think he/she should be brought back based on that alone.


Oh. I didn't realize Lee was banned...Melanie too for that matter. 

Maybe we need a list of those banned before we vote on whether or not they should be let back.

Not that it really matters. It's the Janitors house and he can clean it any way he wishes.


----------



## Henlee (Feb 10, 2013)

I have enough toxic people in my life. 

If someone wanted to come back and be a better citizen on the forum I would be all for it, but otherwise I think they are banned for a reason and ought to stay that way. 

I voted no.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

RetrieverNut said:


> Wow, that doesn't sound like the Firemark breeder of puppies i've seen in for training. I've never heard of a client who called Firemark for a puppy to be treated this way, I hope you are kidding...?


Ding! ........


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

John, I realize you're joking, but that's not remotely funny, even in jest. 

That's not the way Firemark conducts business. :-x


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

Anyone who is banned knows exactly why they were banned.
Anyone who wants that changed knows exactly how to change it.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I'm pretty sure that there are multiple active members that have been banned at least once.
> 
> Chris does let certain by-gones be by-gone.


not really. You know what they say about Assumptions...


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

I hate tater tots...


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> So for all saying no, why are you so apposed to giving someone a second chance? Yeah there are some a holes out there, but there are also some that in my opinion offered excellent opinions. I would bet the ones that are really bad apples probably would not come bad anyway and even if they is they would be gone again at the first offense .
> Whats the worst that could happen?


I am not opposed to giving someone a second chance. However, in all of these situations I do not know the back story as to why they were banned. I am sure there is more to it than what we read here. Maybe if we knew the whole story we would agree they should be banned and stay banned. I personally do not want to know. Chris is a fair guy and I am sure he did what he did for good reason. I think once you push someone to that point there's no going back.....or coming back. It's his site and he can run it however he wants.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

listen folks i would like to say firemark retrievers obviously produces wonderful dogs. i have never been treated in any way but *positively* by firemark retrievers.

i was kidding, i made the story up to be humerous. i would never wish anyone an improper impression of this operation or its owner!

i must say i am sorry to firemark(melanie) and this forum's members if anything i said was percieved as "serious". *please forgive me!*


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Was Melanie and/or Lee kicked out?

JS


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

roseberry said:


> listen folks i would like to say firemark retrievers obviously produces wonderful dogs. i have never been treated in any way but *positively* by firemark retrievers.
> 
> i was kidding, i made the story up to be humerous. i would never wish anyone an improper impression of this operation or its owner!
> 
> i must say i am sorry to firemark(melanie) and this forum's members if anything i said was percieved as "serious". *please forgive me!*


When I read you first post, I was thinking how wonderful it was to have breeders that took the time to do background checks on perspective puppy buyers. The breeder must really care where his pups go to investigate financial reports, character and qualifications of potential owners. (Good morning Roseberry we knew you were being facetious)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> I am not opposed to giving someone a second chance. However, in all of these situations I do not know the back story as to why they were banned. I am sure there is more to it than what we read here. Maybe if we knew the whole story we would agree they should be banned and stay banned. I personally do not want to know. Chris is a fair guy and I am sure he did what he did for good reason. I think once you push someone to that point there's no going back.....or coming back. It's his site and he can run it however he wants.


 once you take sponsors, the freedom to call it your site changes. Now you have to consider their wishes as well. That turns into a freedom of speech issue frankly and brings in the politics already so prevelant in the sport

/Paul


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> once you take sponsors, the freedom to call it your site changes. Now you have to consider their wishes as well. That turns into a freedom of speech issue frankly and brings in the politics already so prevelant in the sport
> 
> /Paul


RTF isn't covered by the Constitution. 

Chris is the one with the freedom to ban, restrict, impinge, and stifle for any reason good, bad, or indifferent. 

He is free to smother the fire, fan the flames, or let it smolder and die.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

I'm lucky enough to consider Chris a friend and I don't think I know anyone more kind, gracious and considerate. This is his site and I enjoy coming here. If he bans someone, they deserved it and it's his business, not mine. If he decides to let them back in, that's his decision, as well. The fact of the matter is that (like all of you) I'm a user of this resource that he provides. I don't get to dictate how he operates it. My job is simply to appreciate it. One man's opinion.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> once you take sponsors, the freedom to call it your site changes. Now you have to consider their wishes as well. That turns into a freedom of speech issue frankly and brings in the politics already so prevelant in the sport
> 
> /Paul


I think once you take sponsors you have even a bigger responsibility to more closely moderate the forum. Chris runs the site, period. If sponsors don't like the way he runs it, they are free to leave too.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> I think once you take sponsors you have even a bigger responsibility to moderate the forum. After all, sponsors don't run the site, Chris does. If sponsors don't like the way he runs it, they are free to leave too.


Somebody should tell tri tronics that

/Paul


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Somebody should tell tri tronics that
> 
> /Paul


Why? That makes no sense.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Why? That makes no sense.


You apparently missed the drama last week.

congrats on the new hat bora

/Paul


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Matt McKenzie said:


> I'm lucky enough to consider Chris a friend and I don't think I know anyone more kind, gracious and considerate. This is his site and I enjoy coming here. If he bans someone, they deserved it and it's his business, not mine. If he decides to let them back in, that's his decision, as well. The fact of the matter is that (like all of you) I'm a user of this resource that he provides. I don't get to dictate how he operates it. My job is simply to appreciate it. One man's opinion.


^^^^This


----------



## Brian Skibicki (Feb 23, 2008)

Matt McKenzie said:


> I'm lucky enough to consider Chris a friend and I don't think I know anyone more kind, gracious and considerate. This is his site and I enjoy coming here. If he bans someone, they deserved it and it's his business, not mine. If he decides to let them back in, that's his decision, as well. The fact of the matter is that (like all of you) I'm a user of this resource that he provides. I don't get to dictate how he operates it. My job is simply to appreciate it. One man's opinion.


Well said, Matt. I have sought and Chris has provided me with a great deal of help in my role as moderator of another message board. It is a thankless job, and no matter what you do a portion of the people who participate will not like what you do, but you try and do your best for hopefully all of the right reasons. If you end up being banned from here or any message board you had plenty of warning, and if it was a permanent ban then you do not deserve to come back. A permanent ban is always the result of numerous attempts to get someone to comply with the rules of the forum that you are participating on, meaning they have been given numerous opportunity to act decent and treat people with respect. Forgiveness is granted several times along the way towards a permanent ban. So when it gets to that point gone is gone.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You apparently missed the drama last week.
> 
> congrats on the new hat bora
> 
> /Paul


Didn't find any drama? All I saw was guy A having a problem, not happy with the answer, Guy B gives him better info, and all is well. Hardly sounds like anyone saddled up the Drama Llama and whipped it into a lather.  If I missed something else, I'll be glad to go look if you direct me.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Didn't find any drama? All I saw was guy A having a problem, not happy with the answer, Guy B gives him better info, and all is well. Hardly sounds like anyone saddled up the Drama Llama and whipped it into a lather.  If I missed something else, I'll be glad to go look if you direct me.


 yep you missed it. By request of management I'm not allowed to discuss

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It would seem that the participants of RTF back the head janitor by a margin of over two to one.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> It would seem that the participants of RTF back the head janitor by a margin of over two to one.


 The same group that gives training advice...

/Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> It would seem that the participants of RTF back the head janitor by a margin of over two to one.


Thanks. I have never been good at gosintas and ciphering.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

153 people on the forum right now and 141 votes. Interesting


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

As someone who moderates another forum (for barrel racers) I fully back any moderator on any forum I log into!!!!

If they were banned , it was with reason.


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

How about we give the Peanut gallery say 3 life lines a year. And, you only get to be saved once.

Don


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

roseberry said:


> *what is recidivism?*
> 
> i voted no even though i think "mean people" usually provide very funny reading.
> 
> maybe bill and road kill can put a "rtf banned training day reunion" together. everyone could train, sit around and tailgate and chris could evaluate the likelyhood of reform or recidivism based on the days events? *if they all spend a day together and nobody gets an ass whoopin'......they all get back in!*


Sometimes true genius isn't recognized when its right in front of you! ;-)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Moose Mtn said:


> As someone who moderates another forum (for barrel racers) I fully back any moderator on any forum I log into!!!!
> 
> If they were banned , it was with reason.


 Ifish bans people that contradict the mods on which lure worked best last weekend. 

/Paul


----------



## DSO (Dec 27, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Wow so many here are pro death penalty. Where were you for the presidential election past two terms?
> 
> /Paul





huntinman said:


> Ask the NSA and the IRS...


That's funny


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The same group that gives training advice...
> 
> /Paul


Bam! That just happened


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> *NO *Leave it to the admins to decide! Better still why don't all of us just show respect for each others comments and agree to disagree. It is not life or death if the person is not on the same page as you about your training. And there are several ways to train a dog. JMO



Says you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Devlin (Jan 19, 2006)

Seems like it's most all been said already, so just my vote: NO.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

After reading most of the posts on the thread I vote "C" - none of the above. Chris' site. Chris' call.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

I voted no,but if those on the Island of Dr. Moreau, wanted to buy their way back ontio the mainland with a donation to a worthwhile cause, I might support it.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Chris is hosting , IMO , an Open House .Kinda like the tailgate scenario . Its his house , play by his rules . I have been shut down here ONCE , for language , and was welcomed back .I was kinda new to RTF , but should have known better. Shame on me . Those folks that are banned spoken of in this thread are my FB friends , who I would not have if not for RTF . But I digress. Chris shows more leniency and patience than I would.You come to my house , and are asked to leave , you are not asked back.But you are told that when you are leaving regards.............


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

And here i thought I was banned.......................


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

paul young said:


> I have known Chris a loooong time......
> 
> If he made the decision to ban someone, rest assured that person was given MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES to change their on line behavior and refused to do so. Anything he has done here over the years has been done to enhance our little community.
> 
> To grant amnesty to those banned would be similar to going to the refrigerator for some milk and discovering it was sour, putting it back in the refrigerator with the belief that the next time you checked it, it wouldn't be sour anymore.-Paul


I think this says it best. I too have know Chris for a long time. I would NEVER put up with the crap that he does on a daily basis. That is why I do not host a message board. Too much keyboard bravado for me. My personal message board time on most boards has really decreased, not enough time, many discussions are re-hashes of previous posts, and the keyboard bravado gets really old. I pity those who have to make themselves feel more important by putting others down. Life is too short, and time is too precious to waste it listening to those types.
Nate


----------

