Like I said, douches all around. Everyone gets dirty when mud slinging.
Like I said, douches all around. Everyone gets dirty when mud slinging.
Honestly, yes. I may be misinformed but I think this stuff is public information if someone cares to look it up, so I am not sure I buy the argument that there is an expectation of privacy. He doesn't seem to have called out any individual by name which lends to the argument that the intent of the post is not harassing an individual but pointing out that as a group the board has not demonstrated any understanding of financial management practices or sound judgment in general. If these statements are not true then they would be fairly straightforward to refute.Originally Posted by JCN
Just because it’s public information, it can still be harassment.
Especially with the veiled threat that he could add names any time if he wishes.
It smells like a threat and harassment to me.
It’s a pretty small group so I think it’s pretty inflammatory.
What did the insight guy think was going to happen?
I think you have fair points. There is room for debate about what is appropriate to say about someone even if it is factual, relevant, and publicly available. I am somewhat skeptical of the argument that (debatable) harrassment justifies suspending a member especially when employees of the org and board members also seem to be perfectly willing to harass, namecall, or doxx members. Sort of like how mutual combat disqualifies someone from arguing that they killed someone in self defense. I haven't been following this very closely so I may be wrong, but apparently someone went to the Insights guy's house to confront him?
I think the last item is irrelevant.
Last edited by Eyesquared; 07-29-2022 at 10:31 PM.
It was kind of a rhetorical question because the insight guy obviously didn’t think it through. You’re going to get burnt in a scorched earth strategy of that magnitude.
As an aside, here’s an example.
I politely emailed Sherwyn months ago about the cheaty club and classifiers.
He was very polite and said it was the first time he had heard (he had just been promoted to president). He asked for more evidence so I linked him some of the videos of classifiers obviously not set up to spec and a link to the shooting insights page.
He thanked me and that was that.
I agree and personally am not interested in getting involved in public slap fights with the USPSA board but that has nothing to do with whether or not the board did right. In my mind this is a totally separate issue. I'm glad you had a positive interaction with Sherwyn but in all fairness that exact approach has not always worked historically when it comes to ensuring that competitive equity has been enforced in USPSA.
I don’t find this particularly aggressive?
Seemed like Jake wanted to talk to Derek.
If he wanted to threaten him, he would have just shown up.
It sounded like a very tone deaf attempt at trying to reconcile or reach middle ground.
But the earth was already burning.
Totally agree with you about mutual combat.
I don’t think either side can claim self defense.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CgmBbagu...d=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
If he wanted to talk I think DM via Instagram would have easily sufficed. If someone ignores your DMs trying to hit them up on LinkedIn or on personal social media is probably not going to be taken well. Nor would I be amenable to meeting someone who has found my location somehow, on short notice. It's pretty creepy behavior. Totally possible that Jake Martens meant well but it strikes me as unlikely. Imagine if I argued with someone here and then started texting them that I wanted to meet and was at the coffee shop down the block with no context other than that.I don’t find this particularly aggressive?
Seemed like Jake wanted to talk to Derek.
If he wanted to threaten him, he would have just shown up.
It sounded like a very tone deaf attempt at trying to reconcile or reach middle ground.
But the earth was already burning.
Totally agree with you about mutual combat.
I don’t think either side can claim self defense.
@JCN—I’m responding to multiple posts.
(1) a Board-enforced code of member conduct for speech outside of USPSA venues? No, I don’t think that’s wise. You’ll have a couple six-figure-salary-entrenched-bureaucrats enforcing their own code through a demonstrably empty-headed Board. (To paraphrase the emails, “fire me or shut up” is how the Board takes its orders). Hard pass.
These guys failed repeatedly to read uncomplicated statutes, hooked up buddies with sweetheart deals regardless of the risk borne by members (Cameo), lied and wasted members’ money hunting for a “leaker,” expensed the organization into a deficit… I wouldn’t let them babysit a goldfish overnight. Why would I or anyone else let them vote on what people can say?
(2) Informing members about the public records of non-anonymous, well-compensated employees is due diligence, not harassment. Members should know, because these are elected Board positions with fiduciary duties and the Directors hired by the Board. Maybe a multiple-bankrupt shouldn’t be involved in approving the budgets of a non-profit...
Financial responsibility is not legal advertising. Past results are a generally a guarantee of future performance.
Members have almost always been at an information deficit. Candidate profiles are half-page blurbs in the magazine, touting RO and MD experience and saying the same truisms about sport shooting as everyone else. You might have a couple relevant Facebook posts and a banal interview with Bill Duda that will be seen by 1% of the members. Elections have disgustingly low turnout despite the size of the membership.
The Insights guy was about relevant information and member engagement with that info. It wasn’t trolling. It was consumer advocacy.
Knowing that some dude can’t keep his own house in order might be a better predictor of ability to run a financially healthy non-profit organization than whether a random chucklefart has connections in the gun industry, MD experience, or shoots GM classifiers.
Well, you may be a man. You may be a leprechaun. Only one thing’s for sure… you’re in the wrong basement.
@JRV
I did hear in the interim that the Asian marine had changed his stance to say just during matches and not outside.
So there’s that.
Agree that I would love someone morally and financially sound to run USPSA.
And the USA.
But unfortunately there are a paucity of people like that.
Even more so for a volunteer-ish position.
So we get back to “belling the cat.”
While the insights guy’s motivation and data was very much appreciated by me, he took a decidedly petulant and gleeful vigilante justice meets millennial approach to it, IMO.
Reply With Quote