HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Krispos, I think we may b...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 06:32 PM

Krispos, I think we may be treading on a fine line. (Group business.)

The banning of rDigital, however justified given content (I disagree with the reason for the ban, but I understand it and would rather avoid the finer points at the moment), sets a dangerous precedent. You banned him for stating that Controllers enabled the Holocaust. I understand that rDigital is currently filing an appeal to you directly, but I trust that you understand the potential can of worms that has been opened with this banning. Where does it stop?

If an RKBAer says "Gun controllers are future facists", should it (by precedent) be banned?

If a Controller says "Gun nuts are hidden criminals", should it (by precedent) be banned?

rDigital's case is a unique one that it is considered more "Severe" in the aspect that he essentially Godwin'ed himself, but Nazi references aside, when is it okay to insult -any- DUer, or even a broad-brush of a swath of DU itself? You'll have posters who will defend weasel-words such as "I only said 'Most', not 'all'" or some other such tripe of course; it is to be expected. At what point is this broad-brush smearing considered intolerable? When RKBAers support satiric criminal murder? When Controllers paint the entire Gungeon as a troll-fest?

I'm all for order, Krispos, but as the recent Meta thread showed, this is getting slightly out of hand. Look at the evidence in that thread; The RKBA forum is suffering from tyranny of the majority, outright persecution by definition, and animosity to outright hostility.

While the denizens here in RKBA may enjoy the group as it stands, it is my belief that something has to, and probably will, break. The current system is -not- working. Spam-alerting from both sides is heavy yet the jury system inherently supports one side of the argument, while the other side claims no recourse. Can you think of -any- potential fixes that may help settle what seems to be a fairly swiftly-growing mess?

(Note; I do understand that you are incredibly busy with the hurricane cleanup and support, and I do not expect much consideration to be taken in regards to my post here, nor even a response. However, I hope you at least read it and perhaps give it some thought. )


Stay safe out there, brother.

178 replies, 15256 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 178 replies Author Time Post
Reply Krispos, I think we may be treading on a fine line. (Group business.) (Original post)
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 OP
glacierbay Nov 2012 #1
safeinOhio Nov 2012 #2
glacierbay Nov 2012 #19
DonP Nov 2012 #3
gejohnston Nov 2012 #5
rl6214 Nov 2012 #115
glacierbay Nov 2012 #21
jbgood1977 Nov 2012 #106
petronius Nov 2012 #4
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #9
petronius Nov 2012 #22
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #31
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #6
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #7
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #10
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #14
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #16
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #18
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #20
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #24
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #27
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #29
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #33
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #34
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #36
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #37
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #39
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #108
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #147
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #51
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #53
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #56
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #79
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #58
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #57
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #61
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #64
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #66
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #50
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #60
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #63
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #69
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #71
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #74
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #75
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #77
Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #98
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #114
Clames Nov 2012 #119
Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #122
rl6214 Nov 2012 #118
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #137
gejohnston Nov 2012 #13
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #15
gejohnston Nov 2012 #45
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #52
gejohnston Nov 2012 #59
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #93
gejohnston Nov 2012 #99
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #103
gejohnston Nov 2012 #107
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #109
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #17
gejohnston Nov 2012 #49
glacierbay Nov 2012 #25
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #26
glacierbay Nov 2012 #68
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #70
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #8
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #11
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #23
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #28
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #32
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #35
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #12
Kaleva Nov 2012 #30
rrneck Nov 2012 #38
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #40
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #41
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #42
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #44
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #46
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #48
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #55
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #62
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #65
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #82
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #133
rrneck Nov 2012 #43
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #47
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #54
rrneck Nov 2012 #73
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #76
Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #101
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #110
Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #121
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #80
rrneck Nov 2012 #111
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #113
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #136
former-republican Nov 2012 #67
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #72
former-republican Nov 2012 #78
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #81
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #140
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #149
beevul Nov 2012 #150
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #151
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #166
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #157
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #167
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #83
former-republican Nov 2012 #95
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #100
jody Nov 2012 #84
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #85
jody Nov 2012 #86
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #87
petronius Nov 2012 #89
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #91
jody Nov 2012 #92
petronius Nov 2012 #97
jody Nov 2012 #105
petronius Nov 2012 #112
jody Nov 2012 #90
spin Nov 2012 #88
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #104
spin Nov 2012 #124
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #116
spin Nov 2012 #123
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #94
former-republican Nov 2012 #96
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #102
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #117
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #125
former-republican Nov 2012 #130
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #132
former-republican Nov 2012 #135
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #146
former-republican Nov 2012 #148
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #154
Clames Nov 2012 #120
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #126
Clames Nov 2012 #129
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #131
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #141
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #142
DanTex Nov 2012 #143
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #144
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #145
Clames Nov 2012 #152
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #153
Clames Nov 2012 #156
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #158
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #164
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #165
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #168
gejohnston Nov 2012 #170
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #172
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #162
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #127
Remmah2 Nov 2012 #128
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #134
Remmah2 Nov 2012 #139
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #155
Remmah2 Nov 2012 #159
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #160
Remmah2 Nov 2012 #161
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #163
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #169
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #171
Remmah2 Nov 2012 #173
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #174
Remmah2 Nov 2012 #175
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #176
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #177
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #138
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #178

Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 06:46 PM

1. I sense that this mess may be coming to a head

 

and it ain't gonna be pretty.
I really think that a code of conduct for both sides of the aisle, strictly enforced, might be in the offing. Short of that, I don't know what else is to be done.
Maybe others have better ideas, although I doubt it, after all, I'm the best there is. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:03 PM

2. I could go for a

code of conduct for both sides of the aisle, strictly enforced. Just make that a strict code of conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:31 PM

19. I agree

 

it would need to be strictly enforced for both sides, we can still debate passionately, but with an absence of inflammatory phrases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:05 PM

3. On DU2 Skinner stepped in with "rules of civility"

He basically said no more personal attacks, anyone referring to a DU member as a gun grabber OR gun nut was gone! In short, treat each other with the common courtesy you'd treat somebody you met on the bus or sitting next to you at a diner.

We lost 1 or 2 pro 2nd amendment types but we lost a whole lot more gun control people who couldn't stop themselves from personal attacks and name calling and rants.

I liked it. The place got a lot easier to talk in and a lot friendlier. The gun control people that survived were a lot smarter and able to make a point without accusing you of being a right wing troll (that was banned too) or a militia crazy.

Maybe we need that installed here again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:09 PM

5. yeah we do

count me in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:23 PM

115. I'm all for it

 

It would make DU suck a whole lot less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:35 PM

21. I could definitely get on board with that.

 

It would make this group much more user friendly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:36 PM

106. That would be good. Frankly, I'm appalled at the lack of civility

 

in this area. It really is outrageous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:08 PM

4. My preference, FWIW, is that we have one (or fewer) hosts, that nobody is ever

blocked, and that the host(s) maintain a light (to the point of imperceptibility) touch on the thread lock button.

We all have access to Ignore (formal and otherwise) and Thread Trash to manage our personal DU experiences, and there's Alert for weighing in on the standards of the community. Other than that, I see no need or value in trying to develop rules, standards, procedures, codes, policies, or anything else - it's just a discussion board, after all, lets just discuss GC/RKBA related stuff...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:12 PM

9. But "Ignore" should not be needed.

Broad-brush attacks should not be tolerated on either side of the aisle, nor should we be forced to neuter topics through ignore or trashing; this, as you said, is a discussion board. The point is to discuss, not "Ignore opposing viewpoints." A subthread filled with holes due to ignores kills exactly the discussion that you seek to propagate. Rules and regulations (Oh, the irony) would allow for a furtherance of that discussion in a civil dialogue as opposed to a direct confrontation through trolling or disrupting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:36 PM

22. How you choose to manage your personal DU experience - with Ignore or without it -

is entirely up to you, as it should be. If you don't want to use the Ignore tool, then do it informally - as in don't respond to posts that aren't productive and interesting in your estimation. And attacks should be dealt with through the Alert system.

Like I said, I see no value in Group rules beyond the framework provided by DU itself - and I'm guessing that an attempt to create such rules will be a tedious and doomed endeavor...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:56 PM

31. zero hosts? interesting concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:10 PM

6. As others have said: Code of Conduct, strictly enforced.

I, personally, would support a strict and efficient Code of Conduct, or Codes of Civility, where you get one shot. One warning. Maybe even one warning every 90 days or something, to allow for slip-ups; it is a controversial topic we discuss, and tempers do flare. I think that this would be a solid starting point, and would be a positive step forward towards evolving the function of this group in a positive direction. (Note; responding to myself only to avoid having to respond twice to other posters individually.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:10 PM

7. Reinstate Him


I oppose EVERYTHING he stands for and think he makes an *ss out of himself for saying such bullsh*t.

The solution to bad speech is more speech.

PS- I look forward to you defending my right to OFFEND you. I'm really curious to know what you think the 'tyranny of the majority' is given my strong support of gun control is a minority opinion on this board and I have yet to hear a single poster defend my right to express my point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:16 PM

10. You are not the minority.

You have all the rest of DU to back you up. RKBA folks do not share that same benefit. You can alert, and DU proper will back you up. RKBA does not have that same interest, and I in fact had an alert go 6-0 to leave it, calling RKBAers "Racists, murderers and criminals." Double standard.

Will I fight for your right to offend? Of course. I don't take offense personally. Hell, I'm a casino dealer. I can't tell you the names I get called each night. Nothing you throw at me could be -any- worse, by any stretch. (Erm... Also, just throwing it out there... I really don't take much stock in insults anyways. They're a sign of a weak argument.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:23 PM

14. Nah

A common tactic in the RKBA forum is to alert anyone who agrees with gun control often for truly weak grounds.

Hoyt and other gun control advocates have been banned and I never once heard you support them.

Your position might have more support if you defended their rights rather than call it a double standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:28 PM

16. Because Hoyt's a serial-disruptor.

When confronted, he changes the subject.
When proven wrong, he ignores you.
When called out, he calls you a murderer.

In NO WAY does this contribute to dialogue. On several occasions, I engaged Hoyt directly and he never once answered questions or engaged in dialogue. Not once in the... nine? Times that I remember.


Hoyt deserves one bit of "Support" from me; He's no idiot. Same with Bongbong. They knew exactly what they were doing, and Codes of Civility would have stopped them in their tracks from post after post of serial disruptions.

Just because you have rights to express an opinion does NOT mean they are tolerated by this website, or any of the subforums, especially when the sole purpose is disruption. When Hoyt actually makes a case for himself, I will fight just as hard to get him back here, providing he doesn't act like a tool. Thus far, I've only seen him do that and that alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:31 PM

18. Got It

Only those who agree with you should have their rights defended.

I've demonstrated that I support defending someone who I disagree with.

You have not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:34 PM

20. You're wrong. Go figure.

I said that Hoyt was a serial disruptor, not that I wanted to suppress his speech. He came here solely to disrupt the group. In case you're new; groups have rules, rules restrict "Free speech" rights based on the rules laid out in the SOP. Likewise, they are constrained by TOS and CS standards, of which Hoyt casually disregarded (Debatably actively disregarded.) His purpose, to my immediate memory, was disruption and focused attempts to derail conversation and discussion on this discussion board.

I could give two whits if he wanted to give free candy to all the children all the time; He's a disruptor. He disrupted poorly. His views are immaterial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:38 PM

24. So What Person Who Supports Gun Control Have You Defended?

Name One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:42 PM

27. Writ below:

SafeinOhio, GreenStormCloud, a few others that I can't remember immediately. Reasonable, responsible restrictions. I'm all for gun regulation and registration within certain reasonable limits. Surprisingly, though you may not think it, I would probably fall into the "control" category more than the "Unrestricted firearms" category. I just happen to disagree with the strict authoritarians more than the gun freaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:52 PM

29. Missing the Point

While I appreciate your willingness to defend those who want 'reasonable, responsible restrictions,' that is not the criteria by which they need defending. And disagreeing 'with the strict authoritarians more than the gun freaks' is also not the point.

Defend someone's right to say something you COMPLETELY disagree with that is COMPLETELY unreasonable and THAT will carry weight with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:57 PM

33. Do I defend the right to offend?

In a heartbeat. Hell, I got hidden a while back for explaining the evolution of the C-word. I may not like your message, but I'll be damned if you can't say it. What I -will- do is point out when you're wrong, explain why you're wrong, tell you how you could be right if you wanted, and explain why you really -should- be right but aren't. You can have every right to be completely and utterly wrong, so long as I have the same right to show off your wrongness to others using fact and logic.

What I will -not- defend is purposeful disruptive and antagonistic tactics on what is -supposed- to be an intellectual discussion board. We specifically have rules that say "Do not disrupt." Your "right" is suspended when you sign up for this site; therefore, your right to be a purposefully and deliberately abrasive fuck ends when you join up. That, I cannot defend, as it goes against the TOS and CS of this site. (Again, see Hoyt and Bongbong. You personally may be abrasive, but at least you make some half-decent arguments from time to time.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:59 PM

34. Well Evidently

...someone else felt the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:00 PM

36. Elaborate?

I'm afraid I genuinely don't follow your thought process there, friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:03 PM

37. Krispo Thinks rDigital Violated TOS

Didn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:06 PM

39. I believe that in the poll question regarding Holocaust Enablers..

By strict intent, yes, he did violate TOS. Do I think he was right? Yes, from a strictly historical perspective. Do I think he should have left the hyperbole at home? Of course. Was he doing it purposefully to disrupt? I'm willing to lean towards Yes. But this post is an attempt to establish clear standards to answer conflicts like this.

(I do not speak for Krispos, nor will I speculate on his opinion. That is not my place.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:40 PM

108. I disagree. It was on the brink(edgy) but, not Over The Top and it generated good discussion --

as a matter of fact they are over in Meta trying to rewrite history. amazing to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 02:44 PM

147. another vote for the Jonah Goldberg school of "liberal=nazi."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:26 PM

51. do you have a link to where Krispos said this? thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:30 PM

53. Correction

S/he violated SOP and got banned by one of the moderators. Correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:33 PM

56. Strictly speaking, no, but Links for the Link God!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:03 PM

79. yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:34 PM

58. I am going to share with you what Krispos told me in a PM and let you draw your own conclusions.

my apologies Krispos but, it is not a personal PM it is inregards to DU business so I don't think I need your aproval beforehand.

I'd rather not have to debate whether somebody needs a banning for a while. I'd really rather not.

-K


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #57)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:39 PM

61. That is a link to DanTex's OP in Meta. I want a link to where Krispos justifies his actions in

banning any member.

I want to know that standards, policies and procedures are followed.

I don't like the arbitrary banning of anyone at the whim of a Host.

A host is not a King and I damn sure ain't a subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:41 PM

64. It's littered through the subthread.

My apologies, I'm awful at formatting. Let's try this again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240161827#post94

In either case, I have to turn in, mate. My apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:44 PM

66. perhaps you meant to link to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240161827#post163

krispos42 (42,981 posts)
163. I don't think of it as a "point" system

like a driver's license.

Rather, a member has plenty of room to operate. But there's a point where you just don't go.

rdigital has appealed his banning, something that nobody else has yet. I suppose I'll have to come up with some sort of process for this, but I'm not doing anything until after the election. Things are still chaotic, it's going to be a mess on DU next week regardless of outcome, and there's a nor'easter bearing down on me. Yay.

Fortunately, we only lost power here at the house for about 5 hours, but there are lots of places around here that are still dark. Some places in New Jersey might not have power for 2 more weeks, and Governor Christie has instituted gasoline rationing.

Lord alone knows what this nor'easter will do to the area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:25 PM

50. who does this - A common tactic in the RKBA forum is to alert anyone who agrees with gun control

often for truly weak grounds.

And how do you know it is being done unless the post is hidden? And since it was hidden how could that be weak grounds?

confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:37 PM

60. Go Back and Uncover The Threads Hidden through Alerts by Someone

You can...you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:40 PM

63. excuse me. I see how you are. Good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:48 PM

69. bye bye

'I see how you are'?

Huh? Do tell what that is? Oh, nevermind, get your rest for another day with the hope of being a more worthy opponent. The field of battle has been cleared by your withdrawal....at least for tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:51 PM

71. I am not your adversary. If you are not capable of linking just say so. It is considered common

courtesy.

I was providing you links but, you refuse to do the same.

Seems as if that makes you the less worthy opponent

but,

whatever.

field of battle --- lovely little term there.

cute. really cute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:53 PM

74. Do Your Own Work

Guess I should not take you at your word.

Nice indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #74)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:56 PM

75. I did my work. It is YOU that refuse to back up your statements with links for proof. and as for the

good night. I was prepared to leave it at that but, since you replied and I am still online it would have been rude of me to not reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:00 PM

77. When you say good night for the third time....do you mean it?

Please be rude and ignore me. You generally do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #77)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:13 PM

98. It really isn't necessary to go out of one's way to be a jerk.

It's more work that way.

I think you will find it much easier to be nice and civil, even with those with whom you strongly disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:02 PM

114. Common Sense Suggests

....when someone says good night...they are not planning to post again ...unless of course they want to go out of their way and be a jerk.

Want to talk about guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #114)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:39 PM

119. Waste of time talking guns with someone like you.

 

You don't have a clue about them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #114)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 12:32 AM

122. I was referring to the tone of that entire subthread.

Sure, I'll gladly converse about guns, though it seems as though this thread doesn't have much to do with guns. It seems to have more to do with the group (and perhaps should be in Meta).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:38 PM

118. Some people really have to work at being a jerk

 

For others, like in this example it just comes naturally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:13 AM

137. Yawn.

'A common tactic'. Whatever. I'm sure nobody clicks alert on anti-gun control posts. Nah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:20 PM

13. everything?

including say, marriage equality?
I would defend your right to express your point of view. Hoyt saying it is OK for cops to machine gun children, not so much. But then, Hoyt does your cause more harm than good, kind of like Ted Nugent does mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:25 PM

15. Got It

I'll defend the rights of those who agree with you to offend me.

You won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:19 PM

45. say what?

I don't know how you got any such thing out of what I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:28 PM

52. Why Would You Bring Up Marriage Equality other than to Show Your Own Bias Against My Views

...or heck....me personally.

When you DEFEND someone being reinstated that you have have basically opposed in virtually every post, then you can tell me how much you support the rights of others.

PS.... The First Amendment comes before the Second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:35 PM

59. I pulled ME out of the air

I agree, but when someone says "everything" I couldn't resist.
I actually miss hoyt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:57 PM

93. are you a glutton for punishment? miss him?

like a toothache I miss him.

Drop in Meta whenever you feel lonely he will be there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #93)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:19 PM

99. He is kind of their Ted Nugent

or maybe their Alex Jones. He was a little good for humor.
Meta isn't really my kind of place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #99)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:24 PM

103. takes all kinds I guess but, his humor felt like a sock to the jaw to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #103)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:36 PM

107. he wasn't trying to be funny, just his absurdity was funny to me

but not in a ha ha kind of way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #107)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:43 PM

109. you got that right. what was funny to you was annoying as heck to me. --

he was giving the South a Bad Name and The South takes it enough in here as it is.

so it was a double whammy for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:28 PM

17. And PS ...what the f$ck does marriage equality have to do with guns

....other than your prejudicial and incorrect assumption that I will not defend the right of homophobic a$$holes to express their views. I will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:25 PM

49. you missed the point

"everything" is all inclusive. That means that since rd supports marriage equality......... now you get it?
I don't remember supporting banning Hoyt, the only thing that offended me was his "ok to machine gun children in the back as long as I don't like the parents" remarks. In fact, I said I wanted him to stay, even if it was for the same reason Sarah Brady likes having Ted Nugent running his mouth.
Other than that, his rants were pointless rants that were copy and paste copies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:41 PM

25. I wholeheartedly support your right to express your views

 

here, I disagree with your views on gun control, but I do support you expressing them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:42 PM

26. Thank you VERY MUCH

....and I you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:46 PM

68. I thank you

 

and on that note, just got a call from my Division Commander, Relief Supervisor called off so I have to go to work tonight, sucks to be a LT. at times, but there it is. Just another fun night with the SLPD.
So you all have a good night and I'll be back tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:49 PM

70. Good Night

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:11 PM

8. I wasn't aware of the banning,

but it raises my opinion of DU considerably.

I've come back here recently, because DU is a fine resource for shooting down right-wing propaganda on facebook and other places. But those vile threads reminded me why I left here in the first place, and why so many others did.

Those threads weren't just Godwins. They blamed the victims, insulted the victims, and exploited the victims all at once. I have never seen even the GlennBeckiest conservative stoop that low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:18 PM

11. Since you're new back; that behavior comes from both sides.

Controllers calling RKBAs murderers, racists, et cetera.

RKBAs like rDigital Godwinning.

If there are to be standards such as that, they should be -enforced-, not brought about through public shaming in Meta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:37 PM

23. So If Your Problem Is Meta

What Does It Have to do with this Board?

Notice how ever sense the first post, you have done NOTHING but object to 'CONTROLLERS'.

Your first post attempted neutrality.

None that have followed do.

I support defending the right of those who support the RKBAs to offend me.

Most do every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:48 PM

28. I use controllers as a base, because this whole situation started with them.

When a jury didn't fall in the way a Controller wanted, he immediately ran to Meta to complain until the poster was shown the RKBA door. Meta is NOT a fallback that boils down to "I didn't get my toy, so I'll be damned if this guy does." Granted, it's meant to address grievances, but that poster never made a singular effort to approach the topic here; He knew he would fail if he kept the discussion in the RKBA forum, so he went elsewhere; where RKBA has a bad rap, and where popular opinion would force a result. That is, for all intents and purposes, the direct effort of authoritarian Controllers to attempt to stifle discussion and debate on a message board. To be blunt; He ran to mommy.

Why do I support the RKBA side of things? I'm biased, of that there is no lie. But do you want to know -why- I am biased? Because I don't believe all guns should be taken out of personal hands (As espoused here, Grahm4-somethingorother.) I don't believe that all (weasel word: Most) gun advocates are pocket criminals. I don't believe that if one owns a gun, you're a murderer waiting to happen.

I support the RKBA side because, for the most part, the Gun Control side is fucking insane in their propositions, and I don't want to get the crazy on me. Does that make me a gun-loony? Not by a long shot. As I said earlier, I do support reasonable and active, proactive and effective gun control legislation. But I'll be damned if I'm associated with someone who says everyone with a gun loves killing children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:56 PM

32. So THIS Thread is Not About Someone Banned For Expressing Their Opinion Which You Agree With BUT

....rather so you can affirm the 'Gun Control side is fucking insane.'

Yawn. What BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:59 PM

35. You pointed this part out:

"Notice how ever sense the first post, you have done NOTHING but object to 'CONTROLLERS'.

Your first post attempted neutrality."

I was explaining why. I was likewise explaining my personal bias and choice in "side" in this debate. I thought the insanity part was pretty solidly known, given the history of other banned posters here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:19 PM

12. I have not alerted on anyone since January when I alerted on a South Bashing post in GD.

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

It was left to stand, of course.

I do not alert and I do not have a Jury Blacklist.

Wanted to get this on record because I think anonymus serial alerting is a large part of our problem.

I think Alerters should be transparent. We have the right to know our accusers. They should be forced to argue their case to our faces.

then again - meh - its just a message board.






I participate for free so whatever paying members decide I will go along with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:55 PM

30. Very few of the juries I serve on are for posts here

3 out of almost 70. Same number as juries I've served on for posts in the Lounge and Politics 2012. Going by my own experience, there is very little so-called spam alerting going on in this group. I do not know about others and where they haved served juries on may be far different then mine.

Here is a link to a post where I list in what forums and groups I've served on juries:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240160872

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:05 PM

38. I wouldnt sweat it.

It would take a room full of lawyers to set up a code of conduct and enforce it. Posters will always find a way to insinuate the worst, offer up inane babble, and generally make fools of themselves. The fact is if you own a gun here and arent afraid to talk about it, you're in a hostile environment.

Social dominators and bullies haunt every group and exploit emotions for their own benefit. It's just human nature.

I've been called a RWT more times than I care to count. I've been called a racist. I've been called an MRA. I know who will do the name calling, and I know why. But I'm not worried about it, because I know I'm right. I've spent most of my life telling people what they don't want to hear, I don't plan to stop now.

Krispos has done a fine job of hosting, as has shadowrider. Of the four members that are blocked, three deserved it for sure. Any fair reading will show the attitude they brought here would have gotten them PPR'd if displayed elsewhere. As for rDigital, drawing any comparison, no matter how oblique, between "antis" and nazis is too much, but his block was much more expedient than the others. But I will defer to the hosts judgment on the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:09 PM

40. Nah. It'd be easy, for both sides:

"Be excellent to one another." Nice and simple.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Shadowrider or Krispos. I personally normally prefer a Hands Off approach, but the situation is becoming untenable, and at least a few people here see something akin. However, aside from making this post, and responding in it, I'm willing to just let what comes come. That's the way of things anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:11 PM

41. Three of The Four

Please do share with us who the four were, what their position on gun control was, and who the one was you do not agree with being banned is and what their general position was on gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:14 PM

42. Fight, be honest, here.

Can you truly and honestly say Hoyt and Bongbong did -anything- but troll this forum? I don't know Bupkis, so I can't judge, and I'm willing to concede on rDigital, but can you honestly say Hoyt and Bong didn't deserve to get banned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:17 PM

44. Didn't See the Post Hoyt was Banned For

Send to me and I'll respond through mail.

Don't know who Bong is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:20 PM

46. Neither was banned for "A post."

Hoyt was banned, again, for serial disruptions; advocating child murder (IIRC), insisting if you had a gun you were a coward, that all gun-carriers were murderers waiting to happen, that if you carried a gun you were basically a racist and committing a hate crime... His history is pretty long. Posted content about once a year, maybe? All the rest was purposeful disruption of conversation.

Bongbong, on the other hand, would routinely pop into a thread, spam the ROFL smiley and basically do the same thing Hoyt did while calling everyone "delicate flowers." Not a once did I observe either Bong nor Hoyt make a coherent argument. To be honest, I struggled to read most of their posts; they were a word salad of smileys and general madness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:23 PM

48. Nah

That's simply not how I understand it works.

Sounds like personal bias rather than a violation of SOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:31 PM

55. It's repeated and continual TOS violations, Fight.

TOS, CS, everything DU stands for. A group banning for the antics they'd routinely pull is getting off with a slap on the wrist in comparison, and to be honest, I think the only reason they avoided such a fate was because they racked up impressive post counts due to the sheer volume of their disruption. We're talking fifteen, twenty, twenty five posts per thread of pure disruption, mate. It's one thing to lose one's cool or to be snarky for a thread or two. It's another entirely to base your DU existence off of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:40 PM

62. Simply Not True

Tell me was it the 24th or 25th post?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #62)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:43 PM

65. Very true. I linked upthread (second link I posted, to Tuesday Afternoon).

Krispos explains.

Hoyt was banned for calling gun-users KKK members numerous times.

Bongbong was banned for apparently a slew of things, the icing on his cake being repetitive patterns of disruption.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240161827#post94

Take a look; it's in that subthread somewhere, but unfortunately, I have work in four hours, gotta pass out. Peace to you till then, mate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #65)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:06 PM

82. links are acting wonky tonight. DU keeps freezing up but Yes post #94 by Krispos and I have

copied and pasted it in this thread. Also his reply to me via PM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:06 AM

133. People like da senator from Bong-Bong had an almost visual disruption...

Which was classic troll stuff. That led me once to making a "test" whereby a made a single one-liner about a banner who made one-liners (in my case, I channeled Spike Jones and his calling of the Kentucky Derby). Alerted and popped for being a troll. They found my popcorn fart amidst bongbong's hurricane of bad vapors.

Jury system is the best thing that happened. For the controllers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:16 PM

43. You can see who is blocked if you click

the "about this thread" link.

Their position on gun control is of no matter. The disruptive attitude they brought to this forum was beyond the pale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:20 PM

47. Hhmmm

Thanks but again I ask

Please do share what their position on gun control was, and who the one was you do not agree with being banned is and what their general position was on gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #47)


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:52 PM

73. Like i said, their position on gun control

is if no relevance.

I questioned the expedience of rDigital's block, not the determination that it was inappropriate.

We don't all define justice along partisan lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:58 PM

76. right

LOL

When you defend the reinstatement of someone you disagree with, then we can talk about 'relevance'.

You write: 'We don't all define justice along partisan lines.'

Tell me....are we not in the same Party?

When you defend the reinstatement of someone you disagree with, then you can talk about justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #76)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:22 PM

101. Show me someone who was banned for their beliefs and not

for being an insufferable jerk,and I'll loudly support their reinstatement.

The people who have been banned were given the boot for their CONDUCT, not or their BELIEFS.

You cannot see that and I'm sure you will never agree to that, but that is incontrovertibly true. Had hoyt and bongbong and iverglas held their beliefs and expressed their firm convictions without resorting to repeated hostile and disruptive tactics, they would still be posting here today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #101)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:46 PM

110. iverglas was never blocked from the group. She was served a Pizza and that solved that issue.

bupkus, Hoyt, bongbong and rdigital are the only members who have ever been blocked from this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #110)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 12:29 AM

121. I stand corrected, but given her vitriol and hostility it was only a matter of time.

I think had she not gotten the pizza, she would have been blocked at some point.

Again, NOT for her strong opposition to guns...she would have been blocked for being a rude and insufferable jerk.

She is the only DUer I ever had to put on Ignore, because the caustic bile was too tiresome to deal with. Life is too short to waste on people who CHOOSE to be jerks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:04 PM

80. you have to do the work for this person and don't expect them to return the favor. That is why

I self deleted below. I had done the work for them only to see that they don't return the favor.

Good Luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #80)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:50 PM

111. He thinks he's Perry Mason. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #111)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:57 PM

113. well, I damn sure ain't his Della.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #113)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:12 AM

136. Best secretary in T.V. History.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:45 PM

67. It's pretty obvious which members likes to troll this group forum.

 

This is my take of this group since my short time of being a DU member.

If I was to go into another group forum , I'll pick anyone at random.

be it the feminism , the race or LBGT , mental health , parenting, peak oil , nuclear free

Mind you these are just random groups I thought of.

If I started posting the kind of attacks and phrases that the gun controllers post in this group I wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Here they get away with it.

Make it a strict policy on being civil and discussing the gun control issue intelligently without name calling.

and I think the ban he got is flat wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:51 PM

72. Right

Because ONLY gun controllers resort to name calling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:01 PM

78. In other groups it would be stopped

 

but here it's allowed .
I looked at the definition of how DU thinks of group forums .
It says it's not like GD it's more of a safe haven for members who like to discuss issues or things they support.

It doesn't seem to work here very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:06 PM

81. SOP

Here it is

Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.


You write '....it's more of a safe haven for members who like to discuss issues or things they support.'

I COMPLETELY SUPPORT GUN CONTROL LAWS.

This board no more belongs to gun enthusiasts than it belongs to gun control advocates.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #81)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:32 AM

140. I think Former has it right. The problem banners have

Is they cannot sustain their arguments, they know this, and systematically attack pro 2A folks not only personally, but to equate them with RW extremists lusting for wild west violence and blood. That narrative is repeated constantly to the point where jurors accept the Big Lie and say the equivalent of "boys will be boys" and let the worst spittle-flying banner stuff by, but alert on the "hidden criminals" and "right-wing trolls" for small potatoes.

Smear and the repitition of smear is all they have, and the jury system encourages this dynamic.

This ain't no FirstAmendment Macho Zone. I go with the old (though flawed) rules of the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #140)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 05:46 PM

149. Alert or Move On

I see the same broad brush personal smear attacks from those who support your position as from my side.

Oh..and this forum is no more the First Amendment 'macho' zone (whatever that is) than it is the Second Amendment Macho Zone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #149)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 07:54 PM

150. Actually, since discussion of amendment 2 hasn't been moved to "civil liberties"...

Actually, since discussion of amendment 2 hasn't been moved to "civil liberties", even though that move has been requested numerous times, this forum IS the second amendment zone.

I'm not really sure where "macho" fits in there however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #150)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 08:06 PM

151. I just love it when folks join in the middle of a thread

I was commenting on the fact that if the original poster (not you) thinks a gun control advocate has violated the SOP or TOS, they should alert the post and move on to a discussion of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #150)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:48 PM

166. Key Word Was 'Macho'

But you twist all you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #149)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 01:32 AM

157. Nope. Staying right here. You can bug out if you like.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #140)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:53 PM

167. Good Example?

Look at your own argument.

Nothing about any gun legislation, policy or position.

Just a rant that gun control advocates equate pro gun folks with RW extremists lusting for wild west violence and blood. No hyperbole there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:08 PM

83. It is not a safe haven unless the group declares it to be so in their statement of purpose.

I think that is how it is set up

Groups:
•Groups can be created by either the DU Administrators, or by regular DU members.
•Groups sometimes serve as safe havens for members who share similar viewpoints or interests.
•Members may subscribe to groups, and have them listed on their "My Subscriptions" page.
•Members may be blocked from a group by its hosts, or by the DU Administrators if no hosts are assigned.
•Blocked members may not post in a group or subscribe to that group -- but they are able to alert abuse in that group. Only members who have posted in a particular group may be blocked from that group.

edited to add HoF's SoP as an example of a Safe Haven:

Statement of Purpose
The History of Feminism group serves as a safe haven to discuss, and learn the history of feminism. Apply the lessons of historical and modern day feminist struggles to current issues and events that impact women. This group will also serve as safe haven for women (and supporters of feminism) to openly and honestly discuss and learn how the patriarchy affects women individually and collectively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #83)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:10 PM

95. I stand corrected then but if I posted in the Peak oil forum that I didn't agree with Peak oil

 

and called someone a peak oil nut would it be allowed?

Or would I be instantly banned from the group?
I don't think that's a safe haven forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #95)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:21 PM

100. you are right - it is not a safe haven --- some data about Peak Oil

Statement of Purpose
Discuss issues related to peak oil, petroleum dependence, and oil depletion.

Hosts
Group Hosts are assigned either by the DU Administrators, or by other Hosts of that group. Group Hosts have the following abilities: 1) They can lock threads which they believe violate the group's stated purpose; 2) they can pin threads to the top of the group; 3) they may completely block out members whom they believe are not adhering to the group's purpose; 4) they may add other members as group Hosts; and 5) they may remove any Host that became a Host after they did (and who is listed below their name on the list below).

The current Hosts of this group are:
hierarchy
Hosts
1Javaman
24dsc

To become a Host of this group, you must be assigned by a current Host.
Host Super Powers
Group Hosts have the following abilities in their assigned groups:
•Lock thread (Reason: Violates this forum's Statement of Purpose)
Locks a thread when the OP is not on-topic for the group. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP explaining why the thread was locked. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

•Lock thread (Reason not specified)
Locks a thread for an unspecified reason. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

•Pin & lock thread
Pins a thread to the top of the group and simultaneously locks it. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can be unpinned by any Host, but can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

•Pin thread
Pins a thread to the top of the group, where it will remain until it is unpinned. The thread can be unpinned by any Host.

•Block a member from the group
Blocks a member from posting in the group. The member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can be unblocked by any Host.

•Make a member a Host of the group
Creates a new group Host. The selected member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can only be removed as a Host by Hosts who are listed above them in the hierarchy.

•Remove a Host of the group
Removes a Host. Hosts can only remove Hosts who are listed below them in the hierarchy

Blocked Members
No members are blocked from this group.


I would think that it would be up to the Hosts as to what they consider to be appropriate. Have you had many hidden posts in that group? Have you had many locked threads? Those would be indicators to me that there was some harrassment taking place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:24 PM

84. I’ve participated on DU’s guns forum longer than most. I’ve seen many anti-RKBA posts much more

 

scurrilous than those discussed in this thread and nearly as many equally scurrilous pro-RKBA posts.

I learned quickly that there would always be some who posted here who were intent on disrupting discussion on one of the most divisive, polarizing political issues in our society.

I discovered the peace that was instantly available with the “Ignore” feature and I often advised new DUers who posted here to use that simple mechanism to avoid being provoked into responding in kind.

DU experimented for a brief time with an expanded “Ignore” feature that not only blocked me from seeing all posts by a person on my “Ignore” list but also prevented them from seeing my posts.

In essence, it would let each person decide for themselves whether to ban another person from further exchange of posts.

Don’t know why DU removed that added feature but in my opinion it should be reconsidered for the Gun Control & RKBA (Group).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #84)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:27 PM

85. are you speaking to Forced Ignores which were put in place by the Admin whereby

neither poster could see the other poster?

That went away with the advent of DU3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #85)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:37 PM

86. Yes but I believe it was stopped in DU2 after a very brief trial. Doesn't matter when but I thought

 

it was very effective.

Of course anyone who's goal was disrupting discussion in a thread rather than conducting some semblance of an intelligent discussion could quickly find themselves without an audience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #86)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:41 PM

87. No, it was in place up to the move to DU3. I know because I had a Forced Ignore.

I often wish people would not reply to some of the threads generated in this group. Just let them sink. It is obivous from the OP that the intent is to disrupt and bait flame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #87)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:47 PM

89. It wasn't forced ignore, it was a mutual ignore: any DUer who placed another on

ignore would simultaneously disappear to that person. So if I chose to ignore you, for example, neither of us would see the other ( ).

It's like the forced ignore but not done by admin, it was entirely at the discretion of one of the two involved DUers. I don't like the idea, myself - I don't think anyone else should have a say in my DUing experience, especially since Ignore now disappears entire subthreads rather than just the post from the ignored user...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:55 PM

91. gotcha. don't like the sound of it either. and Yes, Ignore on here is not good --

I just do it the old fashioned way -- put it on the side of my plate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:56 PM

92. You didn't like the "mutual ignore" but I view that as a ban between two parties versus the group

 

banning one party from participation.

IMO an individuals decision to ban another person is preferable to a single person speaking for the group, deciding to ban another person from participating in the group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #92)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:13 PM

97. I don't think anyone should be blocked, but my objection to mutual ignore goes like this:

If I decide that I never want to see DUer X, I put him on ignore. He disappears entirely, and my DU experience is harmonious. The cost to me is that I lose sight of every reply to DUer X, but that's my choice.

If DUer X decides he hates the sight of me, then he can likewise put me on ignore.

But, if DUer X ignoring me simultaneously disappears him to me, then I also lose sight of every reply made to him. I don't see that as fair or appropriate - DUer X's decision to ignore me shouldn't be allowed to cut me off from some posts by DUers Y, Z, A, B and C. (And beyond that, I don't really see why any poster should be able to choose to be invisible to any other on a public message board - that capability is already built into the option of choosing not to post...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #97)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:30 PM

105. Understand and interesting thing is people have different opinions. Have a great evening. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #105)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:51 PM

112. Truly, other people's opinions are the point and value of a discussion board, and I've

always found yours to be worth the reading...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #87)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:48 PM

90. Doesn't matter when, it's gone and IMO would be one solution to the OP cited problem. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:45 PM

88. Gun control is a subject that often leads to hot debate and sometimes an exchange of insults. ...

I have always tried my best to be polite in this group and base my arguments on facts and not emotion. While I agree with many of the restrictions the federal government and states have placed on firearm ownership I strongly disagree with draconian gun laws often called "reasonable" by those who support stronger gun control.

I live in Florida and feel the firearms laws in my state are reasonable but could be improved slightly. I strongly disagree with many of the firearm laws in states like California and Illinois and cities like Chicago, Washington DC and New York City.

I realize that firearms are very dangerous items and involve great responsibility and not everyone should own one. That's why I support many firearm laws.

Both sides of the gun control debate have excellent points to make. Since I started posting on DU I have had to do lot of research to support my pro-RKBA view. Overtime I have had to adjust my opinion but I still strongly support gun rights.

Sadly in this group what starts out to be an interesting and productive discussion of the issues frequently degenerates into trading insults. Of course, because of my views, I have often been a target of such attacks. I have been called a "redneck", a racist, a gun nut and sometimes worse. The size of certain parts of my anatomy has been questioned and I have been called excessive paranoid and afraid to leave my house without a firearm as I have a concealed weapons permit and carry on a regular basis.

I merely laugh at such tactics as I realize that such insults are often used those when whose opinions I disagree with have not been able to refute my arguments with facts and logic. I merely chose to continue to be polite as I feel this is far more effective than trading insult for insult. When someone insults me in a truly original manner I always compliment them for their creativity.

I personally hate to see anyone banned from this group no matter what side of the issue they support. I feel that in some cases it is necessary but fortunately I don't have to make the call.

I will suggest to Democrats who support gun rights in this group that DU is not a conservative forum. Posting here in favor of gun rights is like when the Pittsburgh Steelers play the Browns in Cleveland. Here you are not playing on your home field for the gun control issue as you would when posting on a pro-gun forum. The "Dawg Pound" which is composed of VERY "liberal" posters will harass you. Once again it is like the Steelers playing a away game. It is amazing just how many "Terrible Towels" are in the stadiums they visit



I would suggest to those who discover the DU gungeon but have mainly supported Republican politicians in the past to avoid being a troll. You might be surprised that many Democrats support your view. Many of us own firearms for hunting, target shooting and even self defense. You might also discover if you journey beyond the gungeon that you agree with many positions that the majority of Democrats support. You may even eventually decide to support those Democrats running for office who strongly support gun rights. In my opinion this would positively contribute to our nation's future.

I have never alerted on a poster and have no plans to ever do so unless there is a very serious reason to do so. I also have never placed another poster on ignore. I post here because DU is entertaining, educational and informative and it allows me to challenge my conceptions and change them if they are faulty. I value and respect all views.

Still, I can see a lot of value in promoting polite discussion here. Thankfully that is not my responsibility and I am happy to leave it to others. I have found DU to be a friendlily and fair place to post.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #88)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:27 PM

104. excellent post except for one thing --

...which is composed of VERY "liberal" posters will harass you.


No DUer deserves to be harassed and I think that is against the ToS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #104)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 01:34 AM

124. That's a good point. ....


Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice


Responsible posters should realize that their comments can effect how others who visit or post on DU view the Democratic Party. If a poster directly insults or harasses another poster it can reflect poorly on how readers view our party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #88)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:29 PM

116. Spin Indeed

You write

Here you are not playing on your home field for the gun control issue as you would when posting on a pro-gun forum


NONSENSE....this forum no more belongs to gun advocates than gun control advocates.

See...that's what gun advocates think....they think THIS is THEIR Forum and NO ONE Else's. Well, let's see.....

Statement of Purpose
Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.


I support gun control and I'm SOOOOO thrilled you 'value and respect all views' all evidence to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #116)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 01:15 AM

123. Visit a conservative pro-gun forum and read or better yet ...

join and post in support of strong gun control. You will find little or no support for any gun control measures and will get flamed unmercifully if you post a view that suggests more gun control.

Before I found DU I did read and post on such forums. I found the experience less than rewarding as my views were not challenged. I also was turned off by how anyone who suggested even mild gun control measures was insulted.

DU is different in that I can hold a pro-gun position and engage in intelligent debate. I have found some of the points made by the gun control side to be reasonable and have adapted my views over the years. Still this very important political topic is largely relegated to a back alley of DU. I have no major problem with this but it does provide evidence that the topic is largely unpopular with many posters on DU and is repulsive to some. Surprisingly when a gun control post does end up in GD many posters who do not visit the gungeon on a regular basis express views that are pro gun rights. The Democratic Party is indeed a BIG tent.

I can value and respect your views even if they differ from mine without agreeing with them. I may point out why I feel those views are foolish or misguided but I hope never to personally insult you or any any poster who disagrees with me. That would merely prove that I lack education and compassion.

You state:


See...that's what gun advocates think....they think THIS is THEIR Forum and NO ONE Else's.


I feel that that statement is a broad generalization and unfairly stereotypes all pro-gun rights posters. Over the years I have seen gun advocates who did hold the view you describe and most are no longer here. Neither side of the issue owns the gungeon and if they did it would be a very boring place.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:04 PM

94. The ban was correct and has returned some balance to this group.

There is a line, and rdigital crossed it. It isn't even ambiguous. His repeated assertions of that offensive stupid rightwing meme are exactly the sort of nonsense that we should have zero tolerance for anywhere on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #94)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:12 PM

96. there's a surprise

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #96)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:23 PM

102. how can anyone even tell the difference at this point? it would be no different than if rdigital

were away for the weekend. This place wouldn't miss a beat and it still hasn't. Only time will show if balance has been restored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #96)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:35 PM

117. Like Your Response?

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 06:56 AM

125. So you agree with rdigital that gun control advocates are holocaust enablers?

A proposition that is quite popular with the extreme right wing and that is part of the Jonah Goldberg style "liberalism is fascism" nuttery?

Or would you agree that DU is no place for people with those views?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #125)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:01 AM

130. My belief is it becomes more difficult for a tyrannical government to rule an armed populace

 

Adj. 1. tyrannical - marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous disregard of human rights"



Do you disagree with this ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #130)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:04 AM

132. do you agree with the statement that

"gun control advocates are holocaust enablers". A very simple question you are refusing to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #132)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:08 AM

135. Can you answer a very simple question I asked you? thank you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #135)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 02:41 PM

146. you first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #146)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 05:20 PM

148. Your refusal to answer a very simple and pointed question asked tells me your answer.

 

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously anyone with reasonable intelligence knows that the answer is an armed populace poses a problem
for a tyrannical government.

Thank you for your cooperation.



just wanted to add

I apologize sir that I omitted I have read many of your posts and you are a man of reasonable intelligence.
So I know you agree with me and my statement.

thank you again





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #148)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:37 PM

154. You don't get to answer my question with a demand that I answer your question.

Sorry, won't play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #94)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:43 PM

120. Like you would know.

 

Returned balance indeed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #120)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 06:59 AM

126. Yeah actually I would know.

Rdigital was repeatedly advocating extreme rightwing positions here and in meta. That he was banned from here is a good step toward making sure that this place is not a safe haven for rightwing trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #126)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 10:21 AM

129. Bullshit.

 

That's all you have on that one. Another wannabe troll hunter that calls anyone who doesn't share his/her views on gun control a RW extremist. This group is not a safe haven for any troll including the usual ones that retreat to Meta to whine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #129)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:03 AM

131. "that's all"? That is more than enough.

so spouting extreme rightwing bullshit here is perfectly acceptable to you?

this is an example of why many of us here think that the gungeon is a hangout for rw trolls. The fact that none of you are even willing to admit that what rdigital was spouting crossed the line reflects very poorly on all of you and confirms our worst suspicions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #131)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:48 AM

141. And there it is: The Big Lie repeated. Over and over.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #141)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 12:27 PM

142. Go visit rdigitals transparency page.

His rw bullshit is all out in the open and so far none of you can even bring yourselves to disavow what he has repeatedly said.

You all are confirming the worst case scenario regarding gungeoneers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #142)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 12:47 PM

143. Take a look at the post that got rDigital banned.

If you look at rDigital's poll thread, you will see that no less that twelve "pro-gun progressives" voted in his poll that "Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers". This is a talking point so idiotic and so offensive that when Joe the Plumber repeated it, people thought it was loony even for him. And yet it seems to enjoy wide support here in the gungeon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156
Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers
12 (50%)
rDigital, holdencaufield, Decoy of Fenris, discntnt_irny_srcsm, slackmaster, Tuesday Afternoon, jbgood1977, DonP, Hangingon, Clames, darkangel218, PavePusher

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #142)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 01:22 PM

144. I am referencing YOUR stuff, bud. And it is a smear.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #144)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 02:40 PM

145. "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers".

How are repeating his words and pointing at his transparency page where his words are documented a smear?

So far, outside of the host of the gungeon who did the right thing, not one of the gungeoneers can write one sentence here criticizing the vile rightwing bullshit spewed by rdigital. Not one of you. And you wonder why the rest of DU thinks this place is a troll haven?

Clean up your act. Police yourselves. At least support your own host when he acts to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #145)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:28 PM

152. We do very well policing ourselves...

 

...same can't be said of you and the rest of the confident of self appointed troll hunters that come in to the group to do little more that disrupt and alert on any post they think they can convince a jury to hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #152)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:36 PM

153. You all have embarrassed yourselves.

And it is not your gungeon. It is the open forum for discussing all sides of the gun control issue. The fact that those of you who only post there think it is yours is a major part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #153)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 10:20 PM

156. Embarrassing are the alerts that get set by habitual trivial alerters....

 

...who you seem to have no problem supporting. Oh, and let's see you cite where I ever made that claim about it being my group. Anyone? Another spurious claim by you. Must be taking notes from Hoyt...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #145)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 01:35 AM

158. Not interested in your holier-than-thou & phony morality.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #158)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 11:45 AM

164. the morality of a progressive liberal Democratic ideology?

Few of you can even bring yourselves to admit that rdigital crossed way over the line into outright rightwing extremism. That is pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #164)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 11:53 AM

165. Gun control is regressive and conservative by nature.

Don't try to hide it otherwise.

Conservative: "It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property."

Liberal: "wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties"


Democratic, maybe. But on this point, the Democratic party is pretty conservative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #165)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:43 PM

168. Here's a FUNNY One

How can you not laugh when you read: ' Gun control is regressive and conservative by nature.'

Is that what you think the Democratic Party is? LOL.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #168)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:52 PM

170. the Dems picked it up as an accident of history

it is inconsistent the definition of liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #168)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:07 PM

172. On this issue, the Democrats are certainly not liberal by any stretch.

And furthermore, it is possible for a party to be Liberal on most other issues, yet Conservative on one or two others. That does not make them against their party; it just means that they are against their core philosophies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #145)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:57 AM

162. I'll call out your predictably vapid line of thought.

rDigital's statement is structurally unsound; the sentiment that "Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers" is factually incorrect, and I cannot ever agree with rDigital on that note. What I -can- do is fix his statement to be correct: Holocaust enablers were Anti-gunners. By loosest and it's most liberal definition, correct, although moral status of that sentiment in history is in flux and indeterminate barring primary sources.

We're trying to police ourselves just fine. You are a perfect example of -why- we're trying to clean up the RKBA.

You have come in here solely to troll and disrupt. You have provided one constructive post out of several dozen that otherwise spout off nonsense, avoid conversation, dodge questions and hurl veiled insults. When confronted, you have run or insulted or cowered silently as default, refusing to provide or accept any view that isn't one of your own. You have insulted the group as a whole, you have torn into individuals and instigated as much conflict as possible. In doing so, you have stifled decent conversation by sidetracking, threadjacking and doing everything you can to otherwise end civil discussions. YOU are the reason DU thinks RKBA is a troll haven.

We're trying to fix that. I'm sure some of us would appreciate it if you helped rather than actively hindered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:13 AM

127. It is simply the way DU3 works.

 

I'm all for order, Krispos, but as the recent Meta thread showed, this is getting slightly out of hand. Look at the evidence in that thread; The RKBA forum is suffering from tyranny of the majority, outright persecution by definition, and animosity to outright hostility.

While the denizens here in RKBA may enjoy the group as it stands, it is my belief that something has to, and probably will, break. The current system is -not- working. Spam-alerting from both sides is heavy yet the jury system inherently supports one side of the argument, while the other side claims no recourse. Can you think of -any- potential fixes that may help settle what seems to be a fairly swiftly-growing mess?


It is obvious to me, having spent a lot of time here both before and after DU3, that the administrators of this board are trying to reduce the overhead involved in keeping it running.

This includes moderators having to baby-sit forums.

To solve the moderator problem, which can suffer from a personal bias problem, it was largely replaced with a much more democratic jury system.

One question I have is this: Are jury pools for RKBA forum posts drawn from all of DU members or just RKBA forum members?

I have served on several juries for posts all over DU. So I assume RKBA forum posts are juried by DU members from all over DU, not just RKBA forum members, but I would like to know this for sure.

Because there are far more pro-RKBA people in the RKBA forum than no. So if juries only come from within RKBA, then there is going to be a big bias.

If the juries come from all over DU, then people losing jury votes in RKBA need to shut up and stop whining in meta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:31 AM

128. Banning vs Suspension

 

Instead of a permanent ban on posting, why not just a good ole fashioned "time out"; say 7 days or 30 days revoked posting then back into the pool?

We're all Du'ers, we have to hang together in spite of ourselves.

General amnsety then reboot the group page?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #128)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:06 AM

134. funny how that wasn't an option for Hoyt.

Now suddenly banning a rightwing troll is too severe to contemplate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #134)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:31 AM

139. It was a proposal for all.

 

Sheesheeeeeee.......................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:39 PM

155. Only after one of yours got put down.

The hypocrisy is obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #155)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:06 AM

159. "one of yours"???

 

Can you explain that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #159)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:48 AM

160. I think it is obvious.

Suggestions for turning bans into timeouts started when rdigital got banished. Until then, all bans were permanent and good, then suddenly bans were bad and needed to be temporary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #160)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:56 AM

161. Such a predictable answer.

 

Solid and without room for change or compromise.

It reaffirms my position on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #161)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:59 AM

163. The term you're looking for is "Bigoted."

A little shorter, and perhaps a bit more true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #161)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:50 PM

169. lacking Credibility

Got It.

You want gun control supporters to compromise when it benefits your team.

And we would do that beause we've seen so much evidence for 'room for change and compromise' from your team?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #169)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:04 PM

171. Contrary, mate; I'm for reasonable gun control.

However, as I'm sure you've seen, the Controllers here in RKBA espouse every element that the Right Wing says about Democrats; "Ban all guns." (Seen it twice today.) Inane arguments are made, nonissues forced, and when confronted with fact, insults are hurled. When I am made aware that my own party seeks to unilaterally ignore the Constitution and the civil liberties it enumerates, in addition to trying to demonize me as a lesser being than them due to my fondness for firearms, I am forced to defend those same civil liberties from the greater threat; in this case, Controllers on the left wing.

"Compromise" is not simply the act of taking the most extreme ends of the spectrum and meeting in the middle; it is an examination of benefits and pitfalls. For instance, were it up to me, I would not ban a single gun. What I -would- do, though, is enact a registration and stamping of all of them, free of charge. While it may not be up to "NRA" standards, it would be a solid start in tracking criminal flow of weaponry.

To be honest, I don't think you can ever solve "gun crime" any more than you can solve "Drug crime". Therefore, advanced prevention instead of blanket bans make more sense to me, and I prefer to avoid any "solution" that ends in a ban of anything.

On edit: My apologies, didn't see you weren't responding to me. However, I'll leave this here anyways as a statement of intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #169)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:26 PM

173. Okay????????????????

 

I offered a suggestion and now I'm getting my head bit off.

I was also speaking for myself, I don't play teams.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #173)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:34 PM

174. Right

So why didn't you make that suggestion earlier when others were banned who think different than you.

As for you head being bit off, you might want to go back and read how you ripped the previous posters head off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #174)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:25 AM

175. You're not here for the debate or discussion are you?

 

Are you a distant relative of mine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #175)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:27 PM

176. Sure

First Question - Debate and Discussion....absolutely.
Second Question- Don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #134)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:09 PM

177. Case in point as to why banning rDigital was a poor decision

 

throwing one of our own to the wolves didn't appease anyone.

So as a sacrifice it was pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:15 AM

138. DU2 civility code of conduct was superior.

Let's just shitbarn the 'gun nuts' and 'gun control nazis' together, in a big heap. Fuck 'em both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:11 PM

178. Agreed

 

rDigital had some good points.

If he said something outside of this group that caused grief for this group he should have been asked to remove it at most. Banning is completely over the top.

And as the responses have shown has done nothing to silence critics of this group.

It's a bad idea to sacrifice longterm members to get the acceptance of non-members and detractors.

It's an even worse idea to sacrifice longterm members to get nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread