Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Question for DUers: Do you hate the NRA so much you'll ally with Michael Bloomberg? [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think the post I'm voting to hide may very well be correct in their assessment of a returning disruptor, but that's not the way to go about handling it. Being correct is not a 100% defense against having a post hidden, sorry. This should go to MIRT or the admins to decide whether to ban 'Loudly' again.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: It is totally out of line, inappropriate and is disruptive.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Could be the alerter is a previously banned member. Could be neither.
Certainly nothing wrong with the post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: While I agree with the alerter that these kind of accusations were not allowed on DU2 (and I don't think should be allowed on DU3), the fact is that SKinner has expressly allowed this to occur/continue. That being the case and absent any directives to the effect that any such suspicions should either be kept to oneself, used only in a TOS alert, or discussed only on Meta-- I don't see that there is a clear violation. I'm sorry to the alerter, but unless Skinner decides to re-engage (and not just to post mocking satire at our concerns/complaints) then that's what we are left with....
Isn't juror 4 a clever clogs then?
Juror 1 and Juror 6 got the idea and Juror 6 did an okay thing -- treated it as a TOS alert, which it was, for the administrators' attention.
So it's a free-for-all, by apparent consensus.
So --- who the hell are you, anyway?
I'm tending to the answer that you're my sock puppet, and I'll have to think about that. I got my cast off a couple of hours ago, and I'm going to be needing my socks back.
edit ... "consenses"?