dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 06:38 PM
Original message |
Some things I want to get off my chest in regards to the banning of MADem |
|
I have followed, but not really commented much on, the threads about this started by William and then by me. A common theme in both threads seems to be the following. One, that bannings only should be for homophobic posts, and two that MADem was banned for only one personal insult. Both are, in my opinion, not true. On the first subject. If you look at Sub Atomic's posts, a poster who pretty much all of us agreed should be banned, none of his posts were homophobic. They were lots of other things. They were sexist, they were personal insults, they were over the top, they were disruptive, but they weren't homophobic. If idea one really were true then Sub Atomic oughtn't have been banned either. As to idea two, MADem got banned for doing all of the following, Posting a personal insult, getting a PM about said insult and saying that he would continue to post such insults. In short, he was stating that he felt he had a right to post such insults and would continue to do so. That is what MADem got banned for, not for posting a single insulting post. Regardless of your opinion of the banning, and as I said I stand behind it given the info we had at the time (that insulting posts wouldn't be removed despite being alerted), you should at least have all the facts.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 06:41 PM
Response to Original message |
MNBrewer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 06:45 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I agree that it's not just homophobic content that should warrant banning. |
|
I also stand behind the ban having been imposed and am displeased that it was rescinded, but oh well. Maybe now that posts with personal attacks are going to be deleted again, things will go better this time.
|
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 06:48 PM
Response to Original message |
3. here is what i said in one of my posts |
|
"again, i am not arguing that the comment should not be removed, but there is no reason this person cannot participate in other discussions in the glbt forum. what he/she said was not disruptive, not homophobic, not biphobic, not transphobic. those are the only instances that its ok to suspend someone from here."
i do not think posting a single insult is disruptive in the way sub atomic was. i also dont know the exact context under which he said he would continue to post insults. also had he posted 15 insults following that one, i may have been on board with his suspension
years ago a mod warned me that i could not personally attack anyone again without backlash. I said that if people were going to attack me, i would attack back (something to that effect). anyhow, my point is that we say we'll continue to do something depending on the context.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
8. in my opinion this is not about the poster per se. its about procedure |
|
he or she could be a rightwing troll for all it matters.
we are trying out a new process and the process has to be fair and applied evenly.
|
DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
9. And apparently even Skinner has called him/her a troll. |
William769
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:08 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I'm glad you got it off your chest. You should not hold it in. |
|
I do feel any blocking needs to be made public and the reason why.
I still have my reservations about this new system but I am willing to give it a try.
I do appreciate what you have done so far. I guess it's just a wait & see approach now.
|
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. I will post why I ban people |
|
that I promise you. That is the one thing I feel was botched with this mess is the post telling why should have happened immediately.
|
William769
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. I agree and I hope you saw that I acknowledged that about you in the thread I started. |
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
Rowdyboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-06-11 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
13. That one small thing would have made so much difference.... |
|
I know hindsight is a bitch, but you're really trying and its appreciated.
|
William769
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:27 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I just want to add one last thing to all concerned then I'm moving away from this episode. |
|
Please take it in the spirit it is intended. 
|
Maven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 07:52 PM
Response to Original message |
queerart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-06-11 03:19 AM
Response to Original message |
14. I Fully Agree With What You Have Had To Say In Your Post..... |
|
But what I really want to say to you is this.....
That I so much appreciate what you are doing for the GLBTQI community here on DU.....
It's going to be a friendless, thankless, test of your endurance/sanity type of position.....
I send you positive energy, with a few hugs for all grand things.......
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun Sep 28th 2025, 01:27 PM
Response to Original message |