Stoeger suspended from USPSA

[Clusterfrack]

I guess it depends on what your definition of “wrong” is.

His criticisms are valid, but the manner in which they are / were voiced weren’t constructive and were seemingly designed to inflict the maximum amount of discord and malcontent.

So while the criticism is valid, the behavior can still be wrong for what he was trying to accomplish.

In listening to “Red Circle” towards the end when they had an incompetent CO (forgive me if my terms aren’t correct) and he asked one of the higher ups to complain up the chain… that guy got demoted and reassigned.

Because it’s career suicide in the military (per him) to do that.

You can feel justified in criticism of incompetence.

But having a mission of discrediting and embarrassing the leadership?

How can that not end badly for Ben?

So again, it’s okay to be critical. But wrong to purposely try and destabilize an organization without trying to be part of the solution. IMO.

I've observed Ben trying to be part of the solution. It was Foley who escalated it first. I think we've reached the point where fairly extreme measures are justified to mobilize the membership to vote these guys off the BoD. Only time will tell if the tactics were sound.

[Eyesquared]

@45dotACP

I don’t know the other BOD guys, but our AD is not a chest thumper and does care about other people’s feelings.

He also doesn’t appreciate loudmouths.

If you apply “sportsmanship” standards to behavior, the personal insults that Stoeger has lobbed about would get him suspended in a lot of other organizations.

@Clusterfrack can you imagine if a PGA Tour Pro repeatedly called the staff fucking idiots at press conferences and social media? I can’t imagine they wouldn’t face sanctions. Same thing with WTA.

Many “national sports” require a certain standard of decorum from their athletes. It’s not the criticism that’s the issue, it’s the lack of tact that is a suspension magnet.

The "my AD is good" argument doesn't necessarily mean the whole board is good nor does it even mean that 1 AD can stop the tide when the rest of the board wishes to do something dumb. Not sure who exactly you are referring to but I liked that Chad Stanton, my AD, voted in dissent against certain rule changes that didn't make sense to me. With that being said, as I understand it the suspension decisions happened in executive council and the whole board chose to vote unanimously so this is not one of those cases.

The argument about decorum would hold more water if the behavior of board members and employees had actually met a standard of decorum/professionalism in terms of personal behavior or in the way they ran the org. I realize there is a lot of middle ground between the current state of USPSA and golf where you get fined for spitting on the grass, here but it's disingenuous to act like Stoeger and Insights are the only guys acting unprofessional when the board was also extremely reluctant to take any action re: Mike Foley in the past. The pattern I am seeing is that if you're in the in-group you clearly get away with a lot more than if you aren't. It is what it is but I don't think it's a good thing.

As to Stoeger pleading his case I doubt it would go anywhere. From the start it's obvious that having some kind of hearing on the suspension is just rubberstamping it because all the information you get to prepare is that you've done some "Activity bringing discredit to the organization". How are you going to make an actual argument besides begging if you aren't told specifically what you've done?

[JCN]

The argument about decorum would hold more water if the behavior of board members and employees had actually met a standard of decorum/professionalism in terms of personal behavior or in the way they ran the org. I realize there is a lot of middle ground between the current state of USPSA and golf where you get fined for spitting on the grass, here but it's disingenuous to act like Stoeger and Insights are the only guys acting unprofessional when the board was also extremely reluctant to take any action re: Mike Foley in the past. The pattern I am seeing is that if you're in the in-group you clearly get away with a lot more than if you aren't. It is what it is but I don't think it's a good thing.

Oh I agree that there’s a double standard.

I don’t know any group or organization that doesn’t allow “in-group” more leeway.

If you’re liked, you get away with more.

If you’re unliked, you get shit rolling downhill.

I don’t think that part of human nature is going to be changed with a vote.

[Zincwarrior]

I just tried. Interesting outcome. Didn't have a problem first time around when I voted for Lin. Random error or something else?

It appears there is a problem with your eligibility.

.
.
If you need technical assistance with the voting process, please contact
Help@election-america.com or call (866) 384-9978.

Strange, I received the same thing.

[rob_s]

perhaps I'm mis-remembering, but didn't Ben help get Foley elected to begin with? I seem to recall Foley being the candidate of choice on Ben's podcast, and Foley coming on and participating in the show?

I admit to not following the drama day-to-day, but I guess that all went to shit at some point?

[Eyesquared]

Oh I agree that there’s a double standard.

I don’t know any group or organization that doesn’t allow “in-group” more leeway.

If you’re liked, you get away with more.

If you’re unliked, you get shit rolling downhill.

I don’t think that part of human nature is going to be changed with a vote.

I agree but there's a question of degree. In extreme cases it's ugly to everyone. In mild cases nobody cares. Hard to argue from first principles exactly where the line is so the only way forward is voting and seeing how the #s turn out.

[Eyesquared]

perhaps I'm mis-remembering, but didn't Ben help get Foley elected to begin with? I seem to recall Foley being the candidate of choice on Ben's podcast, and Foley coming on and participating in the show?

I admit to not following the drama day-to-day, but I guess that all went to shit at some point?

Yes, that's correct.

[nwhpfan]

Again, valid and good points. Ben did make himself vulnerable by behaving in a less-than-mature manner. No argument there. That doesn't make him wrong.

+1

I don't think it brings discredit by pointing out the discredit.

I also think Ben, as smart as he is, should have learned by now how to call someone an asshole and idiot without actually using those words.

And finally, on a personal note, I will renew my USPSA membership when @Clusterfrack runs for USPSA Office. There are few people as qualified a he.

[JCN]

And finally, on a personal note, I will renew my USPSA membership when @Clusterfrack runs for USPSA Office. There are few people as qualified a he.

I think he’s way too smart to put himself in that shit show role. Haha.

I would totally vote for him as Prez.

Of USPSA or of the USA… I seriously doubt he would want either position.

[Clusterfrack]

+1

I don't think it brings discredit by pointing out the discredit.

I also think Ben, as smart as he is, should have learned by now how to call someone an asshole and idiot without actually using those words.

And finally, on a personal note, I will renew my USPSA membership when @Clusterfrack runs for USPSA Office. There are few people as qualified a he.

LOL! Thanks that means a lot. But back at you dude... Who could be more qualified than you? Both of us are too smart to take that crap on.