Somewhere a bridge has gained its Troll back.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=119344&sub=trans

[treestar]

1. lol

[myrna minx]

2. This has been a LONG time coming.

[Archae]

15. Long time, before the dawn...

[riqster]

50. Is the troll "Still" "Nashing" his teeth?

(Couldn't think of a good Crosby pun, sorry).

[1StrongBlackMan]

184. Nope, they're too ... wait for it ...

Young!

[riqster]

215. I'm feeling a sense of ...Déjà Vu.

[Gormy Cuss]

242. Can I tell it like it is?

Suite: Judy Blue Eyes, you people are silly.

[riqster]

260. Probably keep us both alive.

[A HERETIC I AM]

417. Oh wow! look....

A ruby Throated Sparrow! Cool!




OK, OK.....White Throated. I didn't feel like looking any further than the 4th Google image result.

[1StrongBlackMan]

252. So "Carry On" ...

&feature=kp

[riqster]

262. Through winding paths through tables and glass.

Saw Booker T. and Duck Dunn back them up a while back. Carry On was the first song of the set.

[nomorenomore08]

407. Whoa! Must've been a great show.

[riqster]

495. OMFG, yes.

Stills and Young were dueling on guitars the whole set, Crosby was clean and angry, Nash was cool and precise, and Duck was just smoking his briar and thumping away. Hard to imagine a better experience.

[Jackpine Radical]

294. Then be still, young'un.

[riqster]

392. Aw shucks, don't be cross, be

...letting your freak flag fly instead.

[Babel_17]

270. Ha, at first I thought Jefferson Airplane :)

"In Time"

Long time since I climbed down this mountain before
Things I've seen here make me want to go running home

[hrmjustin]

3. His own fault.

[PeaceNikki]

19. Not according to him. It was everyone else's fault.

[hrmjustin]

20. Well Earlg let him know it was him lol.

[Sheldon Cooper]

4. Justice!

And I must say, I'm liking this EarlG fellow.

[Squinch]

445. Me too!

[sufrommich]

5. One of DU's most sucsessful trolls.

Great news!

[bullwinkle428]

6. Dude was the "Harold Stassen" of DU trolls!

Google that one if you have to, kids!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. I googled it....still don't get the reference.

Is he a former governor of Pennsylvania?

[billh58]

70. Perennial Candidate

Harold Stassen is perhaps the most famous and distinguished perennial presidential candidate in U.S. history, along with Ralph Nader. A one-time Governor of Minnesota and former President of the University of Pennsylvania, he ran for the Republican nomination for President twelve times between 1944 and 2000. While Stassen was considered a serious candidate in 1944, 1948 and 1952, his persistent attempts were increasingly met with derision and then amusement as the decades progressed. He also ran in 10 other races for lower offices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_candidate#United_States

[calimary]

133. The guy who couldn't stop running for President.

I first learned about him from "Mad" Magazine.

There was some cartoon strip I don't remember well, but I DO remember the punchline - something about "Sure, I'll believe that just like I believe Harold Stassen will be President someday."

He elevated "presidential hopeful" to "punchline" status in - oh, I dunno - five, or 37, or 152 unsuccessful presidential campaigns? Something like that.

[Jenoch]

114. Stassen would probably be a Democrat today.

He was the "Boy Governor" of Minnesota. He resign as governor in 1943 and jounied the staff of Admiral Halsey. Here is a bit of trivia. When the Japanese released POWs after their surrender, the first American navy officer Major Greg "Pappy" Boyington saw wading onto the beach in Japan was Stassen.

I used to work on the fifth floor of an office building in downtown Minneapolis. I was looking out my window and saw Harold Stassen walking on the sidewalk across the street coming towards my building. (He was easily recognizable because of the bad, decades old toupé.) I flew down the stairs, walked briskly on the sidewalk around him and opened the door for him at the Minneapolis Club and greeted him as Mr. Governor. I mostly did it just so I could tell this story. (He was also the last man to doe who had signed the charter establisning the United Nations.)

[IdaBriggs]

7. I'm confused - been here since 2002, over 20,000 posts - and

EarlG just "realized" this person is a Troll?

I know there was tension between the poster and members of at least one group, but ... anyone have any non-mean insights?

I hate seeing long time DU'ers banned.



Also, the person in question has been HOSTING General Discussion --

[enlightenment]

12. I'll join you in confusion.

Perhaps this was an appropriate action (I don't know), but the over-simplification of the cause - "troll" - is a troubling and inadequate justification.

[PowerToThePeople]

13. I will join you

1 of the 2 hides this poster had was a 106 post thread where I can see about 20 of the posts. I only have the most rude right wing of the party posters on ignore. Who was trolling who here??

[BainsBane]

18. I think it was locking his own thread against host consensus

that did him in.

[bettyellen]

21. they were constantly "gaming" the system posting insults then editing and self deleting

they had just thrown in an insult to wc green the other day, laughing about their health problems in a post meant to be offensive to feminists. he actually abused his hosting privileges pretty bad, and somehow dragged another host into doing his bidding, all against the rules. he was a bad fucking joke, and it's great that someone in authority finally called him on it.

[IdaBriggs]

43. Someone sent me the threads.

I'm not convinced he was the offending party. I have no idea who WCGreen is, or what health problems this person is going through (good luck to them), and I've been here since 2004, and I saw an apology/understood the reference to "not sure why I did this" from the banned poster.

I'm a feminist. I wasn't offended by his postings, so I think your comments are more opinion than fact.

Was there a reason the "offended feminists" didn't simply put him on Ignore instead of starting multiple threads about their upset?

It seems like Inappropriate Drama, and frankly, it makes DU suck.

[bettyellen]

61. I think Earl G and the majority of feminists here got it right- he was a deliberate shit stirrer who

bended and broke the rules for kicks- to deliberately offend others. You might feel differently if you caught some of the crap he quickly self deleted or edited to escape notice. He was an asshole who enjoyed making DU suck.

[MADem]

185. Bettyellen has it exactly right. He was very clever in putting a toe over the line and then

quickly covering his tracks.

[Strelnikov_]

409. Well said

"deliberate shit stirrer who bended and broke the rules for kicks"

"An asshole who enjoyed making DU suck"

aka Troll

Troll's are not Left or Right, Elven or Dwarf. They're, well, kinda like Trolls.

[BainsBane]

62. How is whether you personally know who WCGreen is relevant?

Does that make the reference less significant? I've seen many of the updates about WCGreen's health here in GD, but even if I hadn't, he's still a member.

[IdaBriggs]

99. The post I was replying to stated he had insulted WCGreen.

I read the edited and non-edited versions, and since he said "I have the WORD (my emphasis) wcgreen and no idea why" I am fairly confident the original person did not remember WCGreen is/was a fellow DU'er. Depending who one has on ignore, things slip by. (And I wish the best to WCGreen and his family; my comment was meant to illustrate that even long time posters aren't always known to each other - and I've been here since 2004.)

Reading insult into an innocuous statement is fairly common on message boards. Starting a flame fest about what should have been a simple "hey, dude, you might not remember, since you put the topic on ignore, but...." would have been (in my opinion) a polite and courteous way of handling things.

Unfortunately, things were not handled this way, and insults/innuendos were flying in a very inappropriate way (in my opinion).

[BainsBane]

107. It appears the administrators disagree with your assessment

and I don't know why he would have edited in "lol" if he had not idea what he was referencing.

[bettyellen]

128. nonsense, many people asked him diplomatically to delete or apologize. you may never have seen it,

but that troll loved antagonizing people of color and feminists here all the time. Always pretended it was an innocent mistake.
It was an obvious pattern of behavior to most everyone here. People do not accidentally insult others as a regular thing, they pretend it's an accident.

[PeaceNikki]

63. this wasn't the fault of "offended feminists". it was his own.

What a shitty shitty implication.

[IdaBriggs]

118. Ah, passive aggressive insults, aimed my way.

"Offended feminists" was a reference to the post I was replying to -- "in a post meant to be offensive to feminists" was what was written, and I *paraphrased* appropriately to show I understood the comment. I am a feminist. I was not offended by the writings in the threads of the banned person, so therefore the innuendo that "all" feminists were offended/supposed to be offended is not a true statement, but an opinion not shared by *this* feminist.

I am extremely upset about the Hobby Lobby decision. I will work to elect Democrats who oppose it, and have already looked for ways to protest at a local level. (Not as easy as it sounds, because fortunately they do not have a lot of market penetration in my area.) I also understand that not everyone is as engaged in the topic as I am; you are aware DU goes through periods where multiple people post variants of threads with the same topic, and currently Hobby Lobby is a hot button topic. (Previous topics have included "woo" (my favorite - lol!), that nut-job out west who did not want to pay his grazing fees, a film maker accused of sexually abusing his step-daughter, and don't even get me started on anything the whack-job Republicans come up with, because I swear sometimes they say stuff just to poke the hornets nest.

My point is I do not think someone posting "hey, if you are sick of this topic or any other, don't forget you can trash key word so DU doesn't suck for you" is a deliberate attempt to insult feminists. And if there was "a history" between the folks involved, the appropriate thing for the adults involved would have been "mutual ignore."

Instead, we got a flame fest. It makes me sad.

My opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

[PeaceNikki]

126. really??

Where the fuck was there an insult?

Whatever. He brought it on himself even if you missed it.

[REP]

406. He also had a long history of disruptive .sig lines that Admin removed

Dig into the Archives of DU2 (ATA) and ATA here and you'll find the trail. This was his new troll.

And I'm still looking for the insult, too. Well, I haven't "cured" cerebral palsy, so maybe I'm just not tuned finely enough.

[BainsBane]

231. Well then he called you and people like you "hysterical"

and obsessed about unimportant things. You want to chalk that up to personalities. It comes down to this: When a person repeatedly takes positions that are openly dismissive to a majority of the population, women and people of color, then one can hardly be surprised when some of that majority take exception. He has had for a long time a reputation in the African American forum. He first came to my attention when he referred to natural black hair as "ugly." He did so on more than one occasion in separate threads, even after being told about the importance of hair to African American women and the racial connotations of the comment. As someone who places human equality and human rights foremost in my own political beliefs, I find racism and misogyny offensive. Many others do as well. I will not have my values attributed to mere conflicts of personality. Bigotry is wrong and has no place among liberals. I will not ignore it because to do so only perpetrates it.

[bettyellen]

241. a conflict of values- not personalities. but progressive values "annoy" quite a few here.

Let's hope they show their asses and flame out too.

[Phentex]

69. Be sure to tell EarlG that...

because you know an admin would really jump to ban someone who was being a very good Du'er, right?

[sufrommich]

74. I have to laugh at peope who actually think any group has the

power to get DUers banned. Anyone who's been banned from Du was banned because the admins have had enough of their shit.

[FSogol]

81. Agreed. That troll made their own bed.

Good riddance.

[IdaBriggs]

127. I believe at some point the admins will ban *anyone* who becomes

more trouble than they are worth.

They are entitled to do so, as this is their site, and the rest of us play here by their rules.

The assumption is that the rules are enforced fairly and equitably. The "jury system" is supposed to help ensure the common decency of community standards.

I also know that meta stood for a heckuva lot longer than I personally wish it would have, and this situation just reeks of it.

I am comforted by the fact that yes, I do trust the admins. I also think they sometimes let things go on longer than they should. (They work for tolerance, I think.)

I do not think the person banned was solely at fault; I saw some of the rude and insulting posts aimed at him, and frankly, I think several people should have been given a twenty-four time-out.

In fact, I think I will head to "Ask the Admins" to suggest it.

[Phentex]

139. I agree. They are very tolerant...

but I do think they look for patterns. For all I know, they look at the number of alerts against a certain poster. I know they want to be more hands off and have a community guided forum, but the forced ignore from days past may have helped in a situation like this. The word "chicken" can be innocent enough unless you are actively involved in the threads. Q knew what he was doing.

[kcr]

338. "In fact, I think I will head to "Ask the Admins" to suggest it"

You do that. I'm sure they'll get right on that for you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

665. this post really did make me chuckle out loud.

thanks for that, kcr.

oh lord.

still chuckling.

.....


and ....


still ....


....


chuckling.

[Gormy Cuss]

80. If you read both the self-deleted Hobby Lobby thread and the self-locked shaving thread

and have concluded that the issue was the "offended feminists" I think you missed a number of salient details.

I don't know if you have access to the hosts forum but the trolling continued there (and I wouldn't normally use that word but he has been officially declared one by management.)

[IdaBriggs]

130. See one of my other replies dealing with my paraphrase of someone else's post.

I do not have access to the Host forum; I appreciate the fact other people volunteer, and so far, I haven't done so.

I started asking "what happened?" I think I know now. And yes, it appears that there was some interpersonal conflict that should have been resolved with mutual ignores that got out of hand.

EarlG has put a very harsh label on someone who has been here since 2002, which means either EarlG was "fooled" for TWELVE YEARS (unlikely), or something else went down (which seems to have been the case). There will be some understandable upset while things calm down.

I am generally inclined to give all parties the benefit of the doubt in most cases. I found many of the posts personally offensive, but most of them were not made by the person who has since been banned. Some of them were eloquent, and some of them were ... NOT.



It is a big message board. We all have opinions. This too shall pass.

[uppityperson]

175. mercury blues wrote it succinctly

"he was abusing a loophole in the alert system and when that didn't work he abused his hosting privileges as a backup get around the alert system".

The "interpersonal conflict" happened after he began abusing the system. EarlG and the other admin are quite patient, not being "fooled" but attempting to be patient. The alert/host system abuse was the last straw.

[JI7]

238. so you think racists should be allowed and it's up to other members to just ignore if they are

offended ?

[bettyellen]

246. sexists also, if I recall correctly.

[IdaBriggs]

264. Oooh! Oooh! I know the answer to this one!!!

The posts I read were instructions to people on how to "trash" threads, with a whole bunch of drama thrown in ("Grab the smelling salts - he hates sick people!" <== hyperbole), then a great big inappropriate pile on with people who should have been on mutual ignore. (I've added one to my list already.) I have not read anything in either of the flame wars implying the long time DU'er was a racist or a misogynist or anything except a liberal. I am sorry the situation turned into a drama fest, and believe that a little bit less drama could have cooled the situation, but it is a message board, and sometimes, these things break out.

This is my opinion, and insulting me isn't going to change it. I can only assume you are bored, but honestly, I am not interested in fighting with you over something I have no control over.

But thank you for attempting to insinuate that I am either a racist or someone who approves of such things; only one other person in my entire life has ever tried to do that, and he was off his medications (literally, not figuratively), so it was pretty funny, and I needed the laugh.

[cyberswede]

272. That OP instructing people how to trash threads was a thinly veiled swipe at the Hobby Lobby ruling

He posted that "helpful" thread as a way to troll the Hobby Lobby decision, and to get a rise out of people. That's what trolls do.

I'm sorry you fell for his "innocent" routine, but it was obvious what he was doing to anyone who was paying attention.

Your opinion just happens to be wrong this time.

[IdaBriggs]

288. It happens sometimes (me being wrong) - lol!

I tend to believe the best of people, and have been guilty of "foot in mouth" disease a time or two. The sad thing is, if the "trolled" folks had just put him on ignore, it wouldn't have worked. And even someone as upset about the Hobby Lobby ruling as myself was kind of getting sick of the numbers of threads about it. Of course, this has happened about every DU tempest - don't even get me started on Trayvon Martin, because I will still growl about that tragedy!

<== NOT about Trayvon, but about Message Board Drama, and Me refusing to take it too seriously.

And back!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

359. 'Trolling' is not always aimed at the people with whom you're directly interacting.

In which case 'ignore' does squat. Trolls not only attack other people directly, they also 'work' the casual reader, 'work the refs', etc. Some try to get others banned, some merely work to make the board sound more like a den of idiots to casual readers who stop in.

Ignore is not an ultimate panacea.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

373. Oh good Gods.

Well, at least he's now 'posting privileges revoked'. Sheesh.

[bettyellen]

383. and a few hosts convinced the lot that there is nothing they can do- every other forum's hosts

would zap it in a minute, but the more libertarian leaning hosts have convinced others their hands are completley tied and only a jury can do something about it. And now it is a widely held belief. It is nuts, and bullshit. That goes completely against all of Skinner's stated intentions.

A while back they pushed for a rule that said one "strong leave" could block ANY lock at all- with no explanation. Of course it backfired, and they abandoned it.

Point being- they hide behind an illusion of powerlessness, and get a lot of new hosts to go along with that crap. They are not powerless- and never were. A few enjoy leaving all the nasty stuff, but the newbies don't know - or feel like they can do- anything about it.

[BainsBane]

454. "libertarian"?

Is that what they are calling it now?

[itsrobert]

498. True

thanks for stating this

[bettyellen]

510. it really took that host's blatant admission of discrimination + the silly "one strong leave" crap

to make it clear that a few hosts are manipulating many others into believing that the hosts' mission was recently narrowed by Skinner. It was all a scam, apparently any degreadation of DU will help rid the USA of NSA spying and corporatism in our govt according to a few hosts. I assure you, this is not true. They are trying to splinter DU deliberately, by blming alerters and not holding trolls responsible. That much is clear now.

[Sissyk]

527. Hi, itsrobert.

What part are you agreeing with, if I may ask?

[Sissyk]

526. Please don't read into things that are not there.

That thread bettyellen keeps pointing out (I've ask her why) clearly shows the thread was hidden by a jury before there was ever any discussion in the host forum.

See Autumn's post below for the entire thread you just judged without knowing what was in it.

Thanks!

[Warren Stupidity]

497. What exactly is your point regarding this op?

You've mentioned this post many times now, and finally provided a link. I went to the hosts forum to understand what host malfunction you were talking about and seriously, I have no clue what your issue with the handling of this post is. A jury hid it. The poster was banned. So what is your point?

[bettyellen]

509. that hosts have become convinced that the SOP means nothing at all by a few hosts that

would prefer we ignore horrible racist and sexist stuff. It's bullshit- they will vote against "disruptive meta" if they do not like it- and so are flexible. But not with horrible posts like that. Nonsense.

Stretching the SOP to include everything as an issue or current event - even disgusting stuff like that is bulshit- same with the "one strong leave" crap- it is nonsense designed to alienate women and POC here by ignoring racist and sexist trolling. It is at the point where hosts defend trolls like Quinnox- pretend there is nothing there- because of these phony rules.

[Sissyk]

514. I'm like Warren (don't pass out Warren).

What does this:

369. Tell it to the hosts, who have been led to believe they should ignore all trollish OPs

including this one:


GD - JURY HIDE - Women are Sluts who Deserve to be Raped

General Discussion Author: Alex P Notkeaton
Women are Sluts who Deserve to be Raped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172715
Alerted by steve2470: hitler should have killed all the kikes ? TROLL 5:04 PM

Have to do with:

that hosts have become convinced that the SOP means nothing at all by a few hosts that

would prefer we ignore horrible racist and sexist stuff. It's bullshit- they will vote against "disruptive meta" if they do not like it- and so are flexible. But not with horrible posts like that. Nonsense.

That post you keep refering to was Hidden by a jury before the host even had anything to say about it. Most of the post following the hide, agreed it was a good jury hide.

Please tell me what you think the host did wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

517. And your proof of this is this post

that was hidden by jury and caused the op to be banned?

[Autumn]

518. Here is the host thread on that.

Agschmid (9,009 posts)

GD - JURY HIDE - Women are Sluts who Deserve to be Raped

General Discussion Author: Alex P Notkeaton
Women are Sluts who Deserve to be Raped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172715
Alerted by steve2470: hitler should have killed all the kikes ? TROLL 5:04 PM
It's the same old scene You've been stuck at the screen for a lifetime You keep your mind sharp and clean With a fix of caffeine for the nighttime You got a page full of friends In a world without end, DIKU? But if push comes to shove You can do without them if they make you.

Star Member Agschmid (9,009 posts)
1. Jury hide.

It's the same old scene You've been stuck at the screen for a lifetime You keep your mind sharp and clean With a fix of caffeine for the nighttime You got a page full of friends In a world without end, DIKU? But if push comes to shove You can do without them if they make you.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to Agschmid (Original post)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:56 PM
Star Member NutmegYankee (6,853 posts)
2. Pizza delivered.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #2)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:18 PM
Star Member Agschmid (9,009 posts)
3. Hot n' Fresh!

It's the same old scene You've been stuck at the screen for a lifetime You keep your mind sharp and clean With a fix of caffeine for the nighttime You got a page full of friends In a world without end, DIKU? But if push comes to shove You can do without them if they make you.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #2)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:32 PM
Star Member steve2470 (21,540 posts)
4. good ! nt

Come visit us in Weather Watchers
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #2)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:33 PM
Star Member uppityperson (85,186 posts)
5. Good, I had wondered about them earlier and that was way pizzariffic

Gay, Straight, Black, White, Marriage is a Civil Right
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to uppityperson (Reply #5)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:53 PM
Star Member NutmegYankee (6,853 posts)
6. It was definitely a supreme with extra cheese...


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to uppityperson (Reply #5)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:07 PM
Star Member William769 (40,134 posts)
7. MIRT could not NUKE because it was not a 7-0 hide.

So I alerted my thread to the Admins & EarlG too care of it.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to William769 (Reply #7)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:30 PM
Star Member steve2470 (21,540 posts)
8. that one was not unanimous ??

Wow...astonishing. I'm sure someone said "free speech no censorship".
Come visit us in Weather Watchers
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to steve2470 (Reply #8)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:36 PM
Star Member William769 (40,134 posts)
9. If they only knew they actually stopped MIRT from banning.

"Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I sm voting to Leave it only because I think this is a job for MIRT. Another poster had it right: This is self-immolation."
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to William769 (Reply #9)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:38 PM
Star Member steve2470 (21,540 posts)
10. well that's better than "free speech!"...just a case of not understanding MIRT, thanks for info nt

Come visit us in Weather Watchers
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to steve2470 (Reply #10)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:39 PM
Star Member William769 (40,134 posts)
11. No problem.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to William769 (Reply #9)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:42 PM
Star Member uppityperson (85,186 posts)
12. ow. I mean, what? Back when meta was going, I posted weekly about that. Leave, leave to

mirt = don't let mirt do its job.
Gay, Straight, Black, White, Marriage is a Civil Right
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to uppityperson (Reply #12)Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:43 PM
Star Member William769 (40,134 posts)
13. We just learn to roll with the punches.

But you are correct.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to William769 (Reply #9)Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:44 AM
Star Member greatauntoftriplets (140,277 posts)
15. I hate when jurors say stuff like that about obvious trolls.

I hope that EarlG delivered that pizza cold! Great nuke.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to greatauntoftriplets (Reply #15)Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:52 AM
Star Member William769 (40,134 posts)
16. And it happens more than people think.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to William769 (Reply #16)Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:58 AM
Star Member greatauntoftriplets (140,277 posts)
17. It certainly does.


Tiocfaidh ár lá
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to William769 (Reply #9)Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:32 AM
Star Member In_The_Wind (56,755 posts)
18. My alert on that thread wasn't the 1st alert. IMO: It should have been 7-0 hide.


Never regret something that once made you smile.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers
Response to Agschmid (Original post)Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:36 AM
Star Member LeftishBrit (32,486 posts)
14. Wow. I wonder who this was in its last incarnation!

'I kept the faith and I kept voting/ Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand' - Billy Bragg
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink Super powers



The host's did NOT leave it, as hosts who know how the MIRT system works, we knew MIRT had it from the moment it was posted.

[maddezmom]

520. Thank for posting

A lot of misinformation going around.

[Autumn]

524. I would rather call them lies and half truths to meet an agenda, the host who posted

saying that the hosts had purposely left it had to have seen the alert on that troll that she is so upset at the hosts about. Funny how she didn't say anything about the alert or MIRT being on it. I guess that just doesn't fit her narrative.

As a host she knew exactly what was going on with that nasty post and poster.

[Sissyk]

521. Thank you, Autumn.

I can't for the life of me figure out how that post shows we are determined to leave sexist and racist garbage.

I'm tired of this being a one way street. I'm tired of holding on to my principles (yeah, hypocrite - me) in order to let only the bad stuff show up in GD from the host forum.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

522. Wait! Do you mean to say host didn't vote to leave that thread and anyone saying they did ...

..... is a bald faced liar?

[Autumn]

534. Looks that way to me. Funny how she ignored that thread.

I guess it just wasn't shit stirring worthy and actually shows the host doing their job by letting MIRT do theirs by taking out the trash.

[BainsBane]

523. There isn't any discussion of locking the thread that I see

Either that's not the entire thread or hosts are having discussions entirely unrelated to hosting. That looks more like a MIRT thread.

[maddezmom]

525. There was no discussion because a jury hid it before anyone could post on it.

[BainsBane]

533. Okay. Understood. Thanks.

[Autumn]

529. That's the entire thread, ask your buddy. She can see it There is no discussion on locking it,

the hosts knew MIRT had it. I would post the MIRT thread but I'm not quite comfortable doing that.

[BainsBane]

532. which buddy is that?

[Autumn]

536. You are so cute when you act all innocent .

[BainsBane]

537. Actually I'm wondering what you are thinking

as though I have only one buddy, or that there is something wrong with having online friends.

[Autumn]

539. I'm thinking you are playing with words. So you go have a nice day.

[BainsBane]

540. I'm thinking I've just witnessed a performance

that shows why administrators are determined to make changes to hosting.

[maddezmom]

543. Probably true, because of the lack of transparency in the host forum people

Can make up shit about other hosts. Good thing Autumn saw the misrepresentation and posted the full thread so those can see how it really went down.

[Autumn]

545. See you get it. Non GD host telling lies and stirring crap.

Good job

Now I'm done with you.

[BainsBane]

550. No, you don't get it

I'm not talking about the host thread you posted but your response to me. Of course, I'm not one of the people who count, so my alert (if I ever thought there was a point to sending one) would have been discounted, just as prohibitions against meta suddenly appeared when a thread was authored by someone hosts decided they didn't like.

The responsibility of being a host means you don't get to be done with people when you are exercising that function.

[Autumn]

555. I'm not hosting right now, I'm not MIRTing right now. I'm just a DUer

correcting lies that someone is posting. Oh and I have asked Skinner several times to make the host forum open to everyone. You could see it too you used to host and MIRT all the time so you know how it works. Don't act like you don't I don't know why you resigned from hosting and MIRTing I was thinking maybe it had to do with you signing up and posting at the conservative cave but no one seemed to know why.

Any way I don't want to participate anymore in this thread. I said my piece and corrected the lie going around and I'm bored with the conversation.

[BainsBane]

611. Your profile clearly says you are hosting

Hosting
World Forum
Campaigns
Video & Multimedia
General Discussion
Good Reads
Elizabeth Warren

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=120626

You were saying? Oh right.

I'm not hosting right now, I'm not MIRTing right now. I'm just a DUer

correcting lies that someone is posting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5221727

I resigned from MIRT over my concerns about the lack of concern for sexism and misogyny. I decided I couldn't contribute anymore to the site at that point, though subsequent actions by administrators have shown me that they do indeed care about those issues.
I never made that public in MIRT because I did not wish to create drama there, but I did disclose it to some who PMed me at the time. Somehow it didn't occur to me that my not wanting to create drama in MIRT would feed the fantasies of my detractors.

I understand you object to my confronting my stalkers. That really is your problem, and frankly what I do off this site is frankly none of your or anyone else's business. I did so when I was no longer on MIRT or a host, so how you think that could have prompted my resigning from MIRT, I can't imagine. Perhaps a non-linear conception of time?

Thanks for correcting "lies." I'm sure you'll be telling everyone the host threads we read elsewhere didn't exist either.

[BainsBane]

618. You are also on MIRT

What is the point of denying it when this information is public? What a bizarre, bizarre thing to do, all why claiming to "correct lies"?

Say hello to our new MIR Team!

Last edited Sat Apr 26, 2014, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

The job of the Malicious Intruder Removal Team is to ban people who join DU with the intent to disrupt. MIR Team members are volunteers, and they serve for a three-month term.

If you are a member of the MIR Team, you should have access to the access-restricted Malicious Intruder Removal Forum. It should appear as a red folder on your Forums & Groups page, and in the left column of any page (if you view DU in "Standard" mode).

Thank you to everyone who volunteered!

The MIR Team, April-July 2014

NEW THIS TERM

Agschmid
arcane1
Autumn
Boom Sound 416
cyberswede
Democracyinkind
discntnt_irny_srcsm
hrmjustin
irisblue
libodem
maddezmom
NRaleighLiberal
octoberlib
Ptah
Rhiannon12866
Terra Alta
UrbScotty
Warren DeMontague

[Autumn]

552. Oh dear

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5218563

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=154111

[Bobbie Jo]

561. Congratulations?

No worries. The fiefdom remains intact, at least for now.

Referring to your above post, seriously, what forums or groups are you NOT hosting?

This permanent host rotation is a huge part of the problem AFAIC.

Changes are MOST CERTAINLY in order.

[Autumn]

626. It wasn't my alert so you will have to find someone else to congratulate.

I was shocked to see she had 5 hides. You host in GD you knew what had happened with that alert. You didn't bother to set the record straight.

[Bobbie Jo]

631. I'm not a GD host.

You're mistaken, I host P-14.

And that's it.

[Autumn]

633. You are a host with access to the host forum and you could have easily known how that alert went.

Look, I'm sorry her post was hidden because I would rather see what she has to say about why she said that the hosts ignored that alert. I would like to hear from her why she felt the need to spread out in DU a lie like that. She knew better.

[Bobbie Jo]

637. I haven't followed this

particular convoluted saga, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.

However, I have followed the complaints about hosts talking trash about alerters, and that shit needs to stop....like yesterday. From what I've seen, we still have hosts patting one other on the back for continuing with this shitty attitude. IMO...it's this behavior that contributes to all the damn drama in the host's forum.

I mean is it that difficult to keep those thoughts to oneself, and just do the job?

[Autumn]

639. it will take a few days for this to all settle down, a lot of angry things were posted

in the host forum and out here. Someone pointed out what was said about that alert and I just came in to clear that with the host who posted it. Hopefully soon the Admins will do the changes and things like this will not happen again. Personally I would like to see SOP alerts go to a jury just like CS alerts do. Do away with hosts completely.

[Spazito]

562. Geez, this post seems very, very petty...

disappointing but not surprising.

[IdaBriggs]

563. As opposed to the Grave Dancing Thread with over 500 posts.

[Spazito]

565. The grave-dancing of a long standing troll is well deserved...

the troll delighted in making DU suck for a very long time. The petty post is, on the other hand, celebrating a time out of a CURRENT member, BIG difference, imo.

It is disappointing, to say the least, to see a host of 6 forums behaving this way.

[PeaceNikki]

567. mmm hmm.

[IdaBriggs]

606. A current member with 5 recent hides whose posting privileges have been revoked.

Not as big of a difference as you might wish.

[Spazito]

608. A time-out is vastly different than the banning of a troll....

the time-out is a type of 'cooling off' action whereas the long time troll was banned by an administrator and was called a troll in the banning.

Two very different actions with very different consequences.

[CreekDog]

641. what she did was not objectionable

it's not like she posted quack medical advice or something like that.

[IdaBriggs]

643. Now that is a topic for another thread.

Got a complaint from a parent recently; chronic failure to thrive child growing out of their clothes and needs new equipment. Life is pretty good over here in woo world.

[rhett o rick]

654. There is no decent rationalization for grave dancing. It's right off the junior high schoolyard. n

[Spazito]

655. I beg to differ, sometimes grave dancing threads are quite rational when...

a long time, racist, sexist troll has finally been turfed. It is a way for DUers to finally express their frustration as well as their support for the administration for taking the action they did, imo.

As to junior high schoolyard behavior, have you taken a long vacation from DU or just not read all too many of the OPs exhibiting exactly the behavior you are attributing to grave dancing threads. I would guess the threads I believe exhibit such behavior would differ from the ones you would list.

[rhett o rick]

656. It's mob behavior and it's beneath liberal Democrats. nm

[Spazito]

657. lol, nice try...

major fail. Your post seems to imply anyone who sees grave dancing threads as appropriate at times as not being 'real' Democrats and, if so, it is a trite and unimaginative way to attempt to negate a different perspective, imo. I read the host forum excerpts, quite eye opening in so many ways.

[Bobbie Jo]

658. No, THIS behavior is beneath

"liberal Democrats," as described here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5217280

[BainsBane]

660. Dealing with SOP alerts based on who one likes or doesn't like is also beneath liberal Democrats

as is excluding the majority of the human race from the body politic, yet for some reasons some decide that is somehow central to "liberalism" that somehow has come to mean the rights of middle- and upper-middle white men to proclaim the concerns of the rest of us insignificant. I was told that anti-racism has become the enemy because some who consider themselves true "liberals" think it's all about the evil Obama, and women's rights are a threat because of their hatred for Hillary Clinton. So the far more important political question of which rich, white individual holds the office of president trumps the human rights of the majority of the population out of some strange idea that there is something "centrist" about concern for anyone but the privileged race and gender. It's the political version of the Great Man view of history. The Great Man or woman in politics is what counts, not equality, social justice, or human rights.

The cult of the individual seems key. The NSA and conflicts between civil liberties and national security are obviously inconsequential compared to battles over boxes in Snowden's garage or whether Glen Greenwald is a demon or a saint. So given the endless fixation on individuals above policy or principle, I guess I shouldn't be surprise that some hosts make decisions based entirely on who they like versus who they don't like. Liberalism after all does privilege the individual above the common good. That was key to Adam Smith's notion of an efficient economy and the liberal state that arose in support of capitalism.

The mob really must be contained in favor of the privileged few who know what is best for the rest of us minions.

[rhett o rick]

663. So your rationalization is that bullying and mob rule is justified if it's for a righteous cause.

Sounds like the Salem witch trials.

"The mob really must be contained in favor of the privileged few who know what is best for the rest of us minions." The mob must be controlled by the "privileged few" (the oligarchs). Mobs are much easier to control than free thinking Democrats. And the oligarchs convince the mob that it's the free thinkers, the liberals that are the danger.

[boston bean]

664. Um, the salem witch trials were just actions?

The problem with the salem witch trials were the witch trials, not those against them.

Twisted analogies and thinking you got going on there.

[rhett o rick]

666. It's you that has it backwards. You are not the victim. You were not harassed by a gang of people,

it's not your "grave" that people are mocking in this thread. I didn't know quinnox and wasn't his friend and never defended his actions. I accept that he deserved to be PPR'd, but the process that lead up to it was ugly and not befitting "politically liberal" posters. But for some, the ends justifies the means.

[boston bean]

667. Who harassed who?

You are saying that the people who broke the rules were the victims and people who pointed that out, and stayed on topic to that particular action, are the gangs of people who harass.

I suggest you re-think and re-read. You have accused me specifically of things I have not done. I attacked NO ONE. I stayed on topic to the issue at hand. And it needed to be discussed. It was persons like yourself flinging allegations of groups of people this and groups of people that, that almost turned the discussion into a meta free for all. I think most people had very cool heads. Those who characterized it as a gang of people ganging on up someone were the issue.

Have a good one.

[rhett o rick]

669. If rules are broken there are procedures that can be followed. It shouldn't be necessary

to do what was done. But apparently your justification is that the end, justified the means.

The process has been called "house-keeping".

[boston bean]

672. Not saying anything in the correct forum, where you know, we discuss this stuff

wouldn't have resolved the blatant gaming of the system.

[BainsBane]

678. You seem to forget we've read the threads from the hosts forum

Your lectures about procedure are far from convincing in light of those threads. If you and your fellow hosts had actually followed accepted procedures, which don't involve deciding to lock based on who you do or don't like and refusing to as much as give a reason for clearly biased decisions, none of this would have transpired. Quinnox would not have felt himself king of DU, would not have asked another host to lock a thread on his behalf, creating an even greater shit show in the hosts group. And he would not have then responded by locking his own thread, only to be egged on in refusing to unock it by his "friends." The grave dancing you sit in judgment of pales in comparison to the running side show that the host group has become and in which you yourself played a part.

The point of my response to you was not to justify grave dancing but to let you know I don't see you as in any position to cast judgment over others. You have your own cross to bear in all of this.

[rhett o rick]

683. And you continue to trash hosts. Seems to me that if you can't convince hosts to do

your bidding, you accuse them of not doing their job.

Witch hunting, ridicule, mockery, character assassination, swarming and grave-dancing are all part of the process that some have tried to justify as "house-cleaning". It seems to be a game for some, but I find it ugly.

[Bobbie Jo]

684. Wow

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so completely oblivious to their own behavior.

I can certainly see why you would want to shut thus thread down.

Just wow....

[BainsBane]

686. What bidding?

When was the last time I even sent an SOP alert? What I expect is that ALL MEMBERS be treated with fairness and hosts follow standard procedures, not play favoritism. That is the most basic criteria for someone in any position of authority. I clearly saw a conversation where you steadfastly refused to give a reason for your vote. I saw a great disparity in standards from one thread to another, for no apparent reason, without even the pretense of even-handedness.

I made no character assassination. I explained what I read, and pointed out that you are in no position to finger wag. You are the one who tried to make yourself out to be superior by passing judgment on people in this thread, yet no one should be able to question your actions because you're a "host." A host isn't a God. It's pretty obvious that the administrators see massive problems with the way hosts have behaved or they wouldn't be changing things. You made a whole string of entirely unfounded accusations about me and have AGAIN engaged in name calling. I have done none of that.

For the record, I did not "grave dance." I have, however, participated in this thread, just as you have. It has not gone unnoticed that several hosts have turned on DU's own whistleblower, bettyellen. Snowden is beatified, while you have a fit that anyone dare criticize a host. Well that shit needs criticizing. It is not running properly, and people have misused their power, which is why the administrators are changing things. Your own little secret government is coming down. Deal with it.

[cyberswede]

668. The "ugliness" quinnox received was entirely of his own making.

He trolled and got caught. The end.

[rhett o rick]

670. There would have been a lot less ugliness if he would have been dealt with appropriately.

But that would have spoiled the fun. Sadly there was collateral damage in the frenzy. But that's of no avail.

[cyberswede]

671. What do you mean "dealt with appropriately?"

That's a sincere question, not snark.

What should hosts have done to address his inappropriate request to have another host lock his thread (instead of self-deleting, as he should have)?

What should hosts have done to address his locking his own post, which was not only in poor form, but another host had discussed how it was frowned upon by Admins when he had tried it as a test early in DU3?

What should DUers have done to address his blatant trolling of the Hobby Lobby decision? (In more than one thread, I might add)?

And he was - finally - dealt with appropriately by EarlG.

[rhett o rick]

679. I will take you at your word that you want to discuss this sincerely.

When he did inappropriate actions as a host, the Admins should have been notified at once. The Admins would take appropriate actions or choose to do nothing. But hosts were continually harassed to take action. Hosts are very limited in what they can do. But that didn't matter in the frenzy. Those that tried to work within the system were lied about and vilified. There are posts in this thread that claim that the hosts conspired to ignore certain alerters and alerts. These are lies aimed at continuing the frenzy. I have seen decent posters leave DU because of this treatment. When the Admins are notified of the behavior of the host and we get their decision, it should be accepted and we all move on. But for days there were dozens and dozens of inflammatory posts in thread after thread, all of course justified because the eventual PPR was the goal. And the ends justify the means, and collateral damage is apparently just too bad.

Whether or not the PPR'd poster deserved the grave-dancing or not, it's an ugly process that I wish would be discouraged here.

[cyberswede]

680. Thanks...

I appreciate your response.

The admins were notified about quinnox's inappropriate action - by several hosts, as far as I can tell. However, since there was no expectation that the admins were available, I think hosts then used the F&G group to urge those who had acted inappropriately to undo what had been done (since the locking host was no longer online, that turned out to be futile).

I don't recall seeing hosts being harassed to take action (except for the locking host, who was the only one who COULD take action). And the posts wherein people argue that some hosts ignore certain alerts/alerters is tangential to this particular event - though I think it was triggered, in part, by the frustration caused by quinnox's abuse of the system.

Clearly, there are problems with the current hosting process, which were brought to the fore because of the actions of a troll (who had disrupted in the F&G group before, remember). Again, any fallout quinnox got, he earned.

As for the gravedancing thread, until there is a clear prohibition against them, I think they will continue to pop up - and people do seem to "enjoy" them, for whatever reason - just look at the number of replies.

The bottom line is: quinnox was trolling with those posts, and any negative treatment he received in those threads was wholly deserved. This isn't just "the ends justifying the means" - this is the "means being appropriate" at the time - he was called on his trolling, and he doubled down, so he was called on it repeatedly. He was NOT a victim.

[rhett o rick]

681. Thanks for the decent discussion.

[BainsBane]

676. Indeed. But then we have no control over what goes on in the hosts forum

That in on you and your fellow hosts. Pointing fingers at us for that is entirely illogical. His lot was cast in the host group and aided and abetted by those who backed up his efforts to use it for his own purposes.

Now, if you are angry that those he targeted with his sexism and racism spoke out, I disagree that they (we) have no right to address such injustice when we see it. The problem with repeatedly adopting positions that show contempt for the majority of Americans is some of that majority gets pissed off. We don't like being told we are worth less, that our views are unimportant because we don't have the right chromosomes or too much melanin in our skin.

[BainsBane]

675. Where did I say that?

What I said is making hosting decisions based on personalities is not democratic, and determining that the majority of the population is outside the body politic and unworthy of participation or consideration in debate is as reactionary as it gets. Clear enough for you?

[BainsBane]

677. Again, your analogy

is provincial. You can't conceive of a politics not bound by the narrow political spectrum that characterizes the US in this time and place. You don't understand the origins of liberalism and it's fundamental relationship to capitalism. You apparently think yourself superior to the mob--which in my post I used to refer to women, the poor, and people of color--yet don't demonstrate an understanding of politics or history to justify that assessment. Your odd use of the Salem Witch trials, which has been interpreted by historians as 1) discomfort over an emerging capitalist ethos, and 2) targeting women for defying conventional gender roles, only confirms that sense of superiority is misplaced.

[Autumn]

568. This is what's petty Spazito, a host saying things about hosts that are not true.

That really bothers me, it should bother any DUer.

[Spazito]

570. So, let me see if I have this correct....

A host posting a very petty post about the time out of another host is justified, correct? One would think a host taking exception to misleading information would correct it and move on instead of posting a petty celebratory post about a time-out of the host whose perspective was in question, imo.

[opiate69]

576. "a host whose perception was in question"

My, but that is a rather charitable way to put it.

[Spazito]

581. Unlike the post I found petty, I didn't feel the need to pile on...

while making my point the perspective was in question.

[Autumn]

589. Right now I'm not hosting, I'm just a DUer.

an Oh dear is hardly celebrating.

[Spazito]

604. Actually, yes, it was celebrating....

given the previous posts between you and the other host it was glaringly obvious and to pretend otherwise seems very disingenuous, imo.

Having hosted myself, once one has volunteered to host one is expected to check in to see if there are alerts needing discussion, etc, so, in essence, until one is no longer a host in the forum they are always a host if they have signed in to DU, imo. How is one "not hosting" if they are a host in the forum and have logged on?

[Autumn]

634. Actually, I wanted her to explain why she posted something about hosts

that wasn't true. Hosts are DUers also. She was a host, should a host post something untrue in GD about an alert in the host forum? Funny how that doesn't bother you.

I only came into this thread to get an answer from her about why she posted that smear against hosts. She can't answer and I have no interest in talking to anyone else, because obviously you can't tell me why she did it. You have a nice evening.

[Spazito]

640. Had that been your intent, one would have thought you would have posted that instead of...

"Oh dear" followed only but posting the links to both the hidden post and the transparency page. I find this post to be equally as disingenuous as your previous one.

You have a nice evening as well.

[BainsBane]

649. Why do you continue to falsely claim you are not a host

and pretend a non-host has access to the host forum and can post conversations here in GD?

[winter is coming]

635. WTF? You're listed as a host of GD and have been for two months. How are you "not hosting"? n/t

[Autumn]

638. I'm participating in a thread, hosts can do that.

I'm not out here to decide if something should be locked or left. I host in the host forum, out here I'm a DUer just like anyone else in this thread.

You and I are not discussing an alert, I'm not hosting.

[BainsBane]

650. Not just everyone posts threads about the host forum

Not just anyone even knows what goes on in there. The adminis cracked down on Host drama and said to lay off, but that means nothing to you. You come here and BS every one of us as though you think we are too dim to see what you are doing. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE is that stupid.

[BainsBane]

648. You are hosting six groups and you are on MIRT

and you are posting information from the host forum. What's with the games autumn? You think people are too stupid to look at your profile or the list of MIRT members? You slammed her for talking about hosts in GD, but here you are doing in under the pretense of not being a host. Unreal.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

616. That shit has been going on for several days now.

It wasn't a matter of correcting one utterance.

How would you like it if you were accused of protecting someone who thinks all women are sluts and need to be raped?

Her biggest mistake is she posted the link.

She would have been better off keeping her false charges vague - she got a lot of mileage out of that before she slipped up. What's that saying about a lie making it around the world before the truth gets its pants on?


Now she gets called out for what she is and WE are the bad guys? Fucking ridiculous.

Sorry for enjoying a little Schadenfreude that her 5th hide was a proven false slander against me and the other hosts. So sue me.

[Spazito]

619. Enjoy your "Schadenfreude", I hope it serves you well n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

620. Not going to answer the question about how you would feel if someone...

... was running around DU accusing you of protecting the 'all women are sluts and need to be raped' guy?

I figured as much.

You enjoy your finger waging.

[Spazito]

621. I didn't answer your red herring 'question' because it didn't relate to the post to which you...

responded. I did read your posts from the host forum, however, about alerters, the ones that have since been posted in GD, and that told me all I needed to know as to your intent to have a substantive discussion, there is none.

Again, enjoy your Schadenfreude, it seems to mean a lot to you.

[BainsBane]

651. We all saw the extensive threads she posted

If everything Bettyellen had posted was a lie, Quinnox would still be here and there wouldn't be changes coming to the host forum. It was pretty obvious there was rampant abuse of power in there and had turned into a place where many acted based on who they liked rather than SOP. You found one thing that isn't as she described it, but the fact that the admins had to clamp down on you also proves she is right in the main. The fact that you continue to inflame the situation even after being told to knock if off, while pretending you aren't a host, shows that you really ought to think more carefully before accusing others of telling lies. Your actions in this thread confirm just about everything that has been said about the dysfunction in the host forum. You think you are refuting bettyellen's assertions, but you are instead proving most of them right. Thank goodness for jury blacklists.

[BainsBane]

609. Oh I see

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your knowledge of my DU social circle is not as complete as you suggest. I do indeed have friends in the host group, but she is not one who comes to mind when you mention buddies. Unless of course you define buddy as shared commitment to human equality and an aversion to bigotry, and in that sense she and I are fully aligned.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

530. Because thread was hidden in 18 minutes and before anyone commented.

The only comments were in reference to a jury hide.

Bottom line, anyone saying hosts decided to leave that is a liar.

[Sissyk]

531. That is the entire whole thread.

Which takes me back to the fact that some here are believing what they want to believe. Not the truth.

I don't know if bettyellen had an agenda, and if so what it was, but she is really helping us host now show where a lot of the contention in hosting is. It's not GD Host for the most part.

[DURHAM D]

572. I am just curious.

Given that you are currently a GD Host I have a question -

If a jury had not decided to Hide the "Women are sluts" OP mentioned above and the Hosts were thus compelled to consider it using the current accepted standards what argument can be made to lock that OP?

[Sissyk]

574. I can not answer this of course for anyone but me,

and I will in more detail when I go back and check the hidden thread. I only looked at the host discussion of the thread.

But, off the top of my head, it would depend on if it was an SOP issue (which host act on) or if it was a jury issue.

I'm not saying this is the case in this one, but sometimes we will get alerts because a post was juried (rightfully so) and failed getting a hide. Someone would then send us that alert hoping we would over-ride the jury. That's not always the case but I'd say from my experience it is a majority.

Now, I will go look at that thread and tell you what I would have done if I had been a host at that time. Remember, host rotate in and out of GD almost weekly.

[Warren Stupidity]

579. How about: it's off topic for gd?

It is just an expression of unadulterated hate. How is that post on topic for any forum on this board? Which forum is the "we love to hates on women" forum? And no, really, it isn't the men's forum.

I really doubt that there would have been a lack of consensus. But really, that is beside the point. The point is that bettyellen used this nonsense in her tirades against the gd hosts as an example of how depraved we are. I have no idea why she did that. Had she not provided a link she might have continued with her successful crusade to convince people we are a bunch of misogynist rand paul loving hate list checking agenda pushing idiots. We aren't. We are a random collection of hapless volunteers doing a fucking thankless job that is never done right no matter what we do.

[DURHAM D]

582. Do you think

that "off topic" would have been a compelling argument for finding consensus for locking that thread?

[Warren Stupidity]

583. I said clearly that I think the post would have been locked.

But we will never know. Perhaps when bettyellen returns from her unexpected vacation she can provide a better example of what a bunch of depraved agenda pushing list making assholes the gd hosts are, one that isn't you know, total bullshit.

[DURHAM D]

587. Could you please provide links

to any GD OPs that have recently been locked because the Hosts decided they were off topic. I scrolled through a few pages and could not find any.

Thanks in advance.

[Warren Stupidity]

596. At your service. Here's a few.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025219687
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025206332
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025200309
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025200730
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189063

Everything we lock is locked for being "off topic' that is what hosts do. That is all they do. Well, that and bicker about what that means.

Anything else I can do for you?

[DURHAM D]

602. I realize the locking message says off-topic but

that is just a generic locking statement. Those threads were locked because they are about Religion and Guns, items specifically listed as forbidden in the SOP, and Meta. Some Meta is locked, some is not.

Also, OPs that use to go to the Lounge are now left up in GD.

I do not believe the Hosts would have locked the "Women are Sluts" OP because "off-topic" is not an allowed reason to Lock. It has to be a listed reason (sexist comments is not one of them) and you would not reach consensus; whatever that is today.

For the most part the problem the GD Hosts are having is about the process and the tools, actually the lack thereof, provided to you because the whole idea is to just let it be a free-for-all and women and minorities are the losers, as well as the Hosts who care about DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

603. believe whatever you want, you clearly have your mind made up.

[DURHAM D]

605. My mind made up about what? nt

[Sissyk]

622. Well, I went back and looked.

All I can tell you is that I would have voted to lock that vile piece of shit post if it didn't get the jury hide if I'd of been a current GD host at that time.

[kcr]

584. If one host cheering on another's timeout doesn't show what a mess it is

I don't know what could. The truth is obvious, even if some think this supposed aha, gotcha moment is proof otherwise. It's nice that VC is getting the benefit of the doubt while Bettyellen is getting smeared while she can't even defend or explain herself.

[Sissyk]

588. I have not smeared bettyellen.

I've ask her questions or which I haven't yet received answers. Can you point out to me where I have? I've never noticed bettyellen shy away from questions ask of her so I'm waiting on answers to see what her point is. Maybe you meant to point that out to another host?

Key words: "one host" cheering "another's timeout". One host did that? I'm sorry that happened but I'm not responsible. Neither are the rest of the host.

[kcr]

590. Can you point out where I accused you specifically?

Or where I'm holding you responsible? I'm sorry if my not agreeing with you makes you feel like you're attacked. I stand by everything I said.

[Sissyk]

623. No, you didn't accuse me specifically.

I answered the way I did because I can't answer for another host. Why they do what they do is up to them. Again, it's one host.

I don't feel attacked at all and I'm sorry if I came off that way. You and I have had a pretty good conversation today.

[kcr]

624. I thought so, too.

If I gave the impression I was smearing all the hosts over the acts of a few, I didn't mean to.

[Warren Stupidity]

592. I am not cheering, I want her to explain exactly what she *thought* she meant.

She has apparently lied repeatedly about a specific post in gd and what transpired with respect to that post in the hosts forum. I would really like to hear her explanation for why she wasn't completely misrepresenting what happened. I think it is *unfortunate* she got the ban hammer. In fact, I don't think the post that got her banished was hide worthy *at all*.

She has been vociferously attacking me and several other posts, claiming all sorts of stuff, and I'd like a damn explanation for at least this part of her list of grievances.

[kcr]

595. Well kudos to you for not cheering

I don't blame anyone for wanting an explanation. I just think it's funny that, as is typical of most DU kerfuffles, everyone thinks they and their friends innocent in this and any mistakes their friends made are innocent and understandable, but the other side is so mean and nasty and makes DU suck and their mistakes are deliberate lies.

[Warren Stupidity]

597. If I outright lie about something, please let me know. I honestly try not to do that.

[kcr]

598. I think most DUers try not to.

My point is about giving the benefit of the doubt. I can't help but notice that the application of that benefit often depends on which side the poster is on in any given flamewar.

[winter is coming]

636. Correction: her account has been temporarily suspended. n/t

[maddezmom]

538. No host ignored it, it was hidden by a jury before a discussion could even occur

Really not nice to misrepresent what happened. 👎

[BainsBane]

410. I think they use that term as a catch all for

too much drama. I don't know that it necessarily means he was a RW plant or anything like that.

It wouldn't have been the description I would have used, but then it isn't up to me. I feel pretty sure that if he had just deleted his own thread rather than stirring up shit in the hosts group, he'd still be here. They really, really hate that.

[BainsBane]

344. Some of that host discussion was posted in my thread about swarms.

[Sheldon Cooper]

92. LOL

I mean, if you didn't personally see it, it couldn't have possibly happened, right? Sorry us "offended feminists" used our mighty power to get a long-term and much beloved member expelled.

[IdaBriggs]

141. As a "non-offended feminist" (copyright pending - lol) --

I read some of the insults made by the "offended feminists" crowd, and they were hide-worthy rude (and some were hidden).

Some people like to get upset about other people being wrong on the internet. Some like to create drama. My participation in the event started with "what the heck happened" and my curiosity has now been satisfied.

Snide and snarky comments like yours make me smile; they attempt to minimize my opinion and invalidate my interpretation by attempting to mock and ridicule me and my views. It implies a lack of respect, and shows that being a woman doesn't protect one from those who embrace their inner "mean girl". I actually appreciate it, in a way. We need all kinds of people on the planet, and today I am blessed not to be playing your role.

[PeaceNikki]

142. You said, " I'm not convinced he was the offending party."

He was.

He got himself banned.

[bettyellen]

146. I love that she defend's Q's right to offend and snark to the end, but yours, not so much. LOL.

[IdaBriggs]

147. We have different opinions.

So?

[PeaceNikki]

149. So you *will* catch shit, and rightfully so, for blaming his actions on others. Deal with it.

[IdaBriggs]

163. Ah, someone who thinks they have a right to THROW SHIT because someone else

disagrees with them.



As one of the stalkers (I saw those posts), I can understand why you would want to deflect attention from your own responsibility for Not Making DU Suck.

It doesn't make you a truth teller. It makes you partially responsible for the whole mess. You could have used the ignore button. You chose to play with Shit instead.

I'm not the one smelling.

Deal with it, indeed.

[BainsBane]

455. You just called her a stalker

who has responsibility for making DU suck because she didn't like posts dozens of people have judged misogynistic and racist by someone who was deemed a troll by administrators. I gave you examples of that racism above, and you ignored it. Not only that, you repeatedly take offense at the mildest statements, while insisting others have no right to object to posts they see as bigoted because you aren't bothered by them. What else could possibly matter but your view of who is and isn't acceptable? Not the administrators of the site, not dozens and dozens of members. All this in defense of a troll. It doesn't look to me like you are in any position to cast stones at others. I happen to find what you take offense at incredibly petty compared to what bettyellen and peacenikki do. They care about actual issues, issues you say you care about but somehow have no problem with a banned member who called people like you and the rest of us hysterical for caring about something as petty as a Supreme Court decision. I fail to see the logic in your reasoning. It appears to me that you are the one fixated on personality over substance, and for some reason you liked that particular banned member, while seemingly disliking two women who care a great deal about reproductive rights.

Additionally, you ignore the most salient issue which was his misuse of his powers as a host.

[HangOnKids]

564. I beg to differ

Your "I'm not the one smelling" comment, is your opinion. Not fact. Deal with that Ida.

[mercuryblues]

219. thing is

he was using a loophole in the alert system. He would self delete or edit his most egregious stuff, so it would appear that the alerts were frivolous. If that didn't work he used his host position to get around it. He had a host lock one of his threads, apparently just long enough to edit out his LOL about a sick duer (seeing as you claim you didn't see it) and then re-locked it.

The laughing at a sick DU'er and suggesting that trash words were great to avoid those threads, along with the word woo, hobbylobby etc.

[IdaBriggs]

268. I saw where he said the "word" wcgreen (who I know nothing about).

My interpretation was he had put the topic on his list, and forgotten it was a person, and that the lol was over "where did I come up with wcgreen?"

The host stuff just sounds like things got a little crazy, and it turned into unnecessary drama. (I'm sticking to this interpretation as it assumes the admins aren't morons who missed a twelve year troll, but just banned someone who was making too much trouble; your mileage may vary.)

[mercuryblues]

301. so you

believe that someone who went through the trouble of putting a DU'ers name in his trash list, forgot the reason why? Just a short time later?

he LOL'ed at a Duer who is very sick, then started a thread about cutting his lip as soon as he deleted the op where he was getting his ass handed to him. Throughout that thread he was asked to edit it out and told why, he refused and doubled down.

A host of GD writing op's that dismissed the supreme court decision as irrelevant, then starts an op about his poor little cut lip as being important issue to discuss.

Curious as to why it withstood the alert? He edited the op after the alert, so it could not be alerted on again. That is how he got away with abusing the alert system. It caught up to him. He would right something relatively bland, have a buddy alert on it, then edit it to say whatever the fuck he wanted and have it stand. When people got offended and replied in kind, they got the hides. He would also edit his obnoxious posts, that some didn't take to kindly to when the reply was sent to a jury, to make it seem as if he was the one being unduly picked on when jurists would read the thread.

When that failed he used his host position to lock his own thread, after the other hosts said they would not. Hosts do not lock threads as a favor to du'ers. I a duer wants to lock their own thread there is a self-delete for them. Hosts do no do that as favors. Despite the consensus among the hosts to not lock he talked one into locking for him. She was called out on it and unlocked it. But lo and behold he was right there seconds later to lock it himself. -Abuse of the hosting privileges is a DU banning offense.

If you are okay with that more power to you. IMO it degrades the board and its intended purpose while mocking not only the owners of the site, but the people who have real concerns and try to address them in a civil manner.

[BainsBane]

456. Facts seem to be irrelevant here

as evidently are positions on vital progressive issues. I find this all incredibly strange.

[LeftishBrit]

484. The point is that when 'wcgreen' is a topic, it is in relation to his very serious health problems,

and recent lung transplant.

I don't think wcgreen has ever been a topic otherwise. Therefore trashing the word is an indication that the poster found the topic of wcgreen's health boring or not worth reading about. Now he has every right to trash any topic that he wants to - but to go out of his way to tell people about it? Not cool.

If he didn't like wcgreen's posts, he would have put him on ignore, not trashed threads; so this really is an expression of contempt or boredom over wcgreen's health issues.

[Phentex]

491. Exactly! In the past month, there were 3 OPs about WCGreen. 20+ for the word soccer...

He knew exactly what he was doing.

[Sheldon Cooper]

245. Heh.

I'd write up a response, but I see you are getting your ass handed to you by some of the other "offended feminists", so I won't bother. They are much better at responding than this "mean girl" is, anyway. (Nice personal attack - kudos!)

By the way, I too feel "blessed" that you are not me. If I was religious, I would probably thank a deity.

[IdaBriggs]

285. I love the ignore feature - it means I can't see these folks you refer to.

The strident drama lovers looking for things to get offended about, and creating things when they can't find them, are best left to Discussionist. Because seriously, who listens to people like that? (I've also seen results of at least one alert si far, so I know they are irritating others probably more than me!)

And I apologize because I *was* being snarky; I shouldn't have responded in kind. (Yes, even I have my moments. )

Peace be unto you - your wit is clever, and frequently enjoyable. Practice keeping it sharpened elsewhere, please, and I shall do the same. (Mine is less sharp, and more blunt force, so being told I made a "nice personal attack" is both mortifying and surprising! OUCH! Lol!)

[kcr]

342. So, Quinox's banning saddens and confuses you

But the feminists on DU are rude and mean. Uh huh.

[IdaBriggs]

489. I am one of the feminists on DU.

I try not to be rude and mean.

We do have posters who love to create drama and throw things. Sometimes *i* am one of them -see my "homeless vet" post. You can usually identify the "not nice" ones by the fact they make stuff up so they can create flame wars. They frequently have a history of multiple hidden and abusive postings.

They just lost a target. Based on my experience, they will try to find a new one. I think this behavior makes DU Suck.

Blessed be the Admins, they have provided the "Ignore" feature. I am currently using it judiciously, and with minimal effort, my DU experience dramatically improves.

I mourn the loss of a long term DU'er who I don't believe was a Right Wing Troll. I believe the insult taken over the "Hobby Lobby" post was disproportionate, and an innocuous thread about shaving (which was Lounge material) was inappropriately invaded by posters who are now dancing with joy because someone they did not like is gone.

Who was here for twelve years. Who they could have ignored.

I find many of their arguments ludicrous. "He abused the system by editing offensive posts!" Except the Admins said the "edit" should be used to fix things when we had inadvertently offended each other. "He poked at the feminists because Hobby Lobby!" A thread about being sick of the topic looks pretty innocent to me, especially when the "Ignore Asshole" feature is available, which means it might not have been about our little thread chasing narcissists. "He hates a sick DU'er!" Again, interpretation is key, and I did not read the hostility others saw. The "host" issues seem like craziness that got carried away, and a cooling off period might have saved the whole situation from becoming a debacle. (Maybe - we love a good debacle! Lol!)

Words mean something. People who celebrate what happened as some kind of victory strike me as small examples of people who misuse power - in this case, the power to include or exclude people one likes or dislikes based on....drama, instead of the ideas that hold us together, which on this message board are "Good Democrats in political office are good for this country."

But "opinions are like orifices - everybody has one" so I can accept that other people have different opinions, even though I disagree with them. There is really no point in debating this one because the fact is, this incident is over; the flames are simply waiting for the next inevitable war that will start soon....

As I said, I don't think the banned person was a right wing troll. I think the admins decided he was more trouble than he was worth, and that is their call because this is their playground, and we all agreed to play by their rules when we joined.

I found the answer I was looking for when I joined the thread asking "what happened?" I learned some good and not-so-good things about some of my fellow DU'ers, and now, with this last post, I am going to go back to a fun political discussion, inspired by Fox News, about marrying pets. (I am a big supporter of marriage equality, so making fun of stupid analogies is enjoyable, plus squee! Pictures.)

I hope everyone involved has a good day.

[BainsBane]

610. I see why you're a published author

[betsuni]

501. 12 Years Ignored, the movie.

[DURHAM D]

503. LOL

Well done.

[mercuryblues]

578. Wow.

here I thought you were interested in the truth. Up thread I laid out his offenses and how he abused the system, you blatantly IGNORED it and go start another post saying pretty much I HAVE MY HANDS OVER MY EYES I CAN"T SEE IT!!!

Seriously I really thought the truth was what you were after. He abused the system by editing his post after they were alert proof to be even more offensive. I guess you are ok with that. I guess you are okay as long as it is someone who you think was being picked on.

You are right, words do mean something. Qx was a racist, misogynistic troll. He got banned. deal with it.

[kcr]

593. I still don't get it. Are Quinnox's and his supporters' alert buttons broken or something?

If your contention is that those offended by him should have just ignored him, then it doesn't follow that it's everyone else's fault that Quinnox got banned because he was their target. It weakens your argument that admins capriciously banned a longtimer on the whims of a group of posters. If Admin are so heavy handed as you seem to be claiming, ignore is the best bet for everyone.

[mercuryblues]

661. Isn't it

time to start another thread mourning the loss of a Duer who abused the jury system? I mean, I have told you what he did several times now and all you do is ignore that and start another thread about how sad you are he got banned for no reason. What is it like living in a world where facts are ignored in favor of feelings?

But not to worry, I am sure he will be back to abuse some more.

[KittyWampus]

102. I'm a feminist who doesn't get drawn into DU's flamefests or drama. Quinnox was unequivocally

a misogynist. Over the years he threw out offensive crap and got away with it.

Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No, I didn't bookmark his offensive crap.

And it's trolls like Quinnox who make DU suck, not those who stand up to jackasses like him.

As a Host HE KNEW it was up to him to delete his intentionally offensive OP the other day and yet he got another Host to lock it.

If you read the threads, you'd know that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

195. I would add my nagging suspicion ...

that "misogynist", was just one of his "ISTs", but that would be speaking ill of the departed.

[Gormy Cuss]

388. Good hair.

That's all I'll say.

[AngryAmish]

627. What does IST stand for?

Never heard of it before.

[bravenak]

628. The suffix.

Social-ist. I had to look twice too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

629. ...

sexIST ... classIST, and Oh yeah ... racIST

[AngryAmish]

630. thanx

...and with this, I am leaving this thread because I have nothing to contribute and reading this giant thing is wasting my time because I knew/know anything about the people involved.

Anyone want to talk about golf?

[1StrongBlackMan]

632. What's your handicap? eom.

[Number23]

428. "it's trolls like Quinnox who make DU suck, not those who stand up to jackasses like him"

Tell it, Kitty.

[Squinch]

447. I actually DID have him on ignore, and STILL I couldn't escape his trolling, because it always

spilled over to other threads and posts.

He was a racist and a sexist. His banning was WAY overdue.

[MadrasT]

104. Oh please.

If feminists on DU were that powerful, there is a whole 'nother crew we would have driven off by now.

He dug his own grave.

[JI7]

224. it doesn't matter whether you know who someone is, just the fact that he brags and laughs about

trashing a DU member is enough. who the fuck does that ? and in this case it made it especially worse considering the circumstances of the member .

[JI7]

226. he has made a lot of ugly hateful commentss about African americans also, including negative

comments about african american hair .

[JTFrog]

296. Oh for fuck's sake.

He was most definitely the offending party. That's why the troll isn't here anymore. He was a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole who abused his hosting privileges and went off the deep end baring his ass in the process.

Good riddance.

In my opinion, apologists who insist we ignore the trolls instead of letting them have their way, contribute greatly to the suckage. It does nothing more than deflect the responsibility of the troll for his behavior onto those they have offended. FUCK. THAT. NOISE.

[bettyellen]

321. I'm 110% percent with you on that.

[Cha]

429. Really. Unbelievable. Smh. mahalo JT

[Mojorabbit]

331. self deleted because life is too short for message board drama. nt

[BainsBane]

58. Correction: that host put herself in it. She could have said no.

Most would have.

[SidDithers]

108. +1...nt

Sid

[awoke_in_2003]

427. Laughing about WC Green's health problems?

For fuck's sake.

[Nye Bevan]

22. I'm guessing that this was connected somehow to his GD hosting duties.

The hosting of GD has recently been spotty and inconsistent, to say the least. Perhaps personal animosities were spilling into the hosts' forum?

[PeaceNikki]

26. He asked another host to lock his thread via pm.

Because he was too prideful to self delete after it devolved into a flame fest...

The host consensus was to leave. She locked it. Host forum went nuts and they both hid from it all day.

They were discussing via pm and she unlocked it and he locked it.

[Nye Bevan]

35. Interesting..... thanks (nt)

[BainsBane]

51. and after that he locked it himself

and refused to unlock with the other hosts confronted him on it.

[PeaceNikki]

60. then he gracefully quit as GD host so he couldn't

But not before signing on as a help and welcome host so he could troll the host forum.

[BainsBane]

65. OMG

I missed that last part about signing on as host of another forum.

[onehandle]

24. There are gun trolls here and their gun sockpuppets deeply embedded.

Think about the obsession of the gun rights right.

They will work night and day to protect their codpiece fetish.


Other 'trolls' are amateurs.


And the owners only wait until they cross some mythical line.

[billh58]

72. +100

Too true...

[R B Garr]

29. I don't know the whole history, but he first came to my attention when

he started posting Lounge type threads in General Discussion, and he seemed to gloat at getting away with it. That's all I can recall about his posting history, and I noticed it just a few months ago. Maybe that was the beginning of his flameout. He's obviously been here for many years, so I don't know about his posting habits before that.

[bettyellen]

83. Usually his nonsense posts were connected to an earlier offense, a way of rubbing the salt in...

there was very frequent rule breaking, RW crap and insults he would then self delete.

After he made fun of a DUer with grave health issues- saying threads like that messed up GD, he posted about cutting himself shaving. If you hadn't seen the other post, you'd think nothing of it. And he'd claim ignorance and innocence all around. But that was his MO, it was all a game to fuck with DUers.

[greatlaurel]

98. That was when I put him on ignore.

The ugly joke about someone's health condition was shocking. I had hoped he would have been banned for that alone.

This is very good news.

[ohheckyeah]

197. I've been wondering what the purpose

of the "cutting himself shaving" thread was.

[bettyellen]

199. Pretty slick, huh? He put a lot of thought into maximizing offence and minimizing blow back so that

only people who had seen all of it, or were familiar with how very frequent these "innocent mistakes" were, got his intention.
When I started to see some very nasty screen shots of things he deleted, I knew it was no accident. I think he was tring to bait others into being rude and alerting on them. I'd get every single post of mine alerted on in his threads sometimes.

[ohheckyeah]

201. He disgusted me with the

protest Hobby Lobby thread and I just didn't read any more of his crap. I had no idea what the shaving thread was about and didn't see his post making fun of WCGreen.

Thanks for the explanation.

[R B Garr]

382. Okay, thanks for the info. He did seem to have an agenda

and I read your other posts about his subversive tactics and how calculating he was. Very creepy!

[FSogol]

85. His posting habits were just as crappy as far back as you want to go.

Everyone is welcome to search the archives if they want, but the admins did us all a favor, imo.

[R B Garr]

379. I'm sure you're right because he deteriorated from the time I noticed him

until his banning, so I can only imagine those who saw him longer knew what he was up to. It did seem like he had an agenda, definitely.

[Squinch]

448. He always seemed to me to clearly be very politically conservative, too.

[JI7]

481. he was, like that work camps thing

and the constant complaining about political correctness.

yet he had a problem when pro choice and pro gay rights people were critical of the catholic church.

[Squinch]

490. I may be mistaken, but I think I originally

put him on ignore because of teh gunz.

But even with him on ignore, you couldn't get away from his swill. Every time I signed out to see if I could find the origin of a huge dustup that I didn't understand, he was at the bottom of it.

I'm so glad he's gone.

[itsrobert]

499. There seems to be several like him

with the "lounge" type postings in GD. They seem to take pleasure in getting away with it when their thread does not get lock. But when they do get lock, they petition to get it unlock. Many hosts are lenient on lounge type threads on DU.

[hrmjustin]

34. He caused major issues in the host forum yesterday. He locked his own thread without consensus.

He got called out on hi own words in that thread and did not like it,

[Phentex]

39. I don't know for sure but I think the admins look for overall patterns of disruption...

there are some long time posters that for whatever reason decide to start being disruptive. I think quinnox enjoyed the attention he was getting and decided to push his luck. This isn't a simple matter of a few posts or a few whackadoo actions by a host. He clearly liked to bait people. Yes, yes, there's the ignore feature but even the admins know when it becomes more than just attention seeking.

[hfojvt]

42. apparently he needed a new hobby

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172737

In the thread you can see the original post, which was bad enough, but then was later edited to include WCGreen as a key word. (As in "trash thread based on key word&quot

Meant as a joke, perhaps? (hence the LOL) but nobody thought it was funny, or could even think of an alternate universe where it might be funny.

This, after last week, using the word "hysterical" in a thread about Hobby Lobby.

Perhaps a perfectly good word in the English language, but one which also has a history and which a sensitive person would likely know was guaranteed to set some people off. I think people should try to get along with others here rather than try, on purpose, to make others angry.

[CTyankee]

228. I've been watching and reading but not posting too much on this issue but

I sometimes wonder what makes someone go to all this trouble to be obnoxious. I can't even imagine the mental health issues that cause such a thing...

[bettyellen]

259. he held some sway in the Hosts forum, where they ignore sexism and racism these days....

and was definitely alerting on people who talked back to him. Just seeing how much he could fuck up DU. Sad he had so many enablers here.

[Warren Stupidity]

274. you just can't stop yourself.

you know full well that quinnox had zero support in the hosts forum for what he did, zero, none, and that includes the host who was bamboozled into the lock of his stupid ass op.

You also know that sexism and racism are TOS/CS issues, not SOP issues, that hosts are not moderators, that we do not police threads to see how they are going, that all we do is decide if the original post belongs in the forum.

So what on earth is your point in continually bashing the gd hosts for not doing what they aren't supposed to do?

[PeaceNikki]

282. on THAT one topic perhaps. Generally, a few hosts enjoyed beating up on alerters with him.

here's one example that was ultra shitty from last week. there were many.

[Warren Stupidity]

287. So your point is what? That Hassin Bin Sober said something snarky in the hosts forum?

Would you like your posts in the same forum on display for comparison?

Quinnox had zero support for the shit he just pulled. Glad we agree on that.

The endless and deliberate bashing of hosts for not being moderators is silly. If I thought for one minute it was based on some misunderstanding about what hosts are supposed to be doing, I'd just ignore it. But it isn't. It is deliberate and informed.

[PeaceNikki]

293. Go for it. I am game. I am not afraid to post what I put back there in GD.

I tried, repeatedly, to have actual, real discussions with you guys in the forum before I brought any of it to GD. You and quinnonx, Hassan, Violet, and rhett and Autumn literally told me and others to STFU. You called US shit stirrers for trying to bring quinnox to your attention. You put us in a 'group' that was mocked for altering, literally called alerting 'intimidation' and told other hosts to ignore us.

Ignoring us does not shut us up when shit is fucked up, dude. Deal with us and the issues.

Attacking alerters in the hosts forum is a chickenshit move. At least the criticisms of hosts in GD can be sent to a jury (and are, and DO survive).

[bettyellen]

299. This is 100% true, when you spoke up- you were insulted and mocked by hosts.

I didn't see Warren do it, but yeah, that is exactly what frequently goes on in hosting. To the extent that trolls are supported more than regular DUers, and assisted in subverting the process.

[Warren Stupidity]

312. So you also have a list.

And no I am not going to post your slew of host forum snark here. I think it is incredibly rude of you to have done that. You were called a shit stirrer for continually demanding that hosts act as forum moderators, for not even attempting to be civil at all in the forum, for going for personal attacks and ridicule at every opportunity. You and other people use SOP alerts as a fallback when CS alerts fail, and use your host status to cause havoc in the host forum. I suspect that is all going to stop. Good. I don't think you are going to be terribly happy with the way things are going to change, but I could be wrong. As far as I am concerned, hosting can go away entirely and the whole process can be conducted through the jury system. The host forum is just Meta for the privileged.

[PeaceNikki]

313. lol.

You guys are matters of deflection, gossip and lies.

You should go look for any "personal attacks" you think I've posted in hosts forum. I encourage it. Reread them. I'll think you'll see you're being melodramatic/hyperbolic.

[sufrommich]

317. "As far as I am concerned, hosting can go away entirely

and the whole process can be conducted through the jury system. The host forum is just Meta for the privileged. "

Why are you a GD host if that is the way you feel?

[Sheldon Cooper]

324. I asked him that yesterday, and got no substantive response.

[Warren Stupidity]

329. oh bullshit - you just didn't like my responses

[Sheldon Cooper]

333. blah blah blah

[Warren Stupidity]

399. yes exactly, you have nothing to actually say.

[Warren Stupidity]

327. because if gd hosting was left only to those who want to lock up everything gd would suck.

So in my opinion it is a good thing to have hosts for gd who have actually read what the admins have written about how to host and who start from the admonition to "find a reason not to lock" and who act on consensus rather than unilaterally.

[bettyellen]

339. no one could have found a reason to lock "women should be raped" because it's "authoritarian"

and you know- your hands are tied, it;s obviously an "issue" thread. Hands are tied by other hosts who WANT it to be a free for all.
Just like some wanted the words "one strong leave" to always block consensus- how'd THAT work out for the hosts?

[Warren Stupidity]

566. And that is just a lie. That op was hidden by jury before it ever got to the hosts.

Really, your mistake was that you eventually provided a link to the op. Until then, while I was pretty sure the gd hosts had done nothing of the sort, I had no idea what post you were talking about.

The op that was hidden for being a disgusting piece of shit from a MIRT nuked troll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172715

Host discussion started Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:09 PM
First post:
"Jury Hide." also at Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:09 PM

There was nothing for hosts to do. And you knew that. And all across the various threads on the quinnox affair you have been deliberately misrepresenting this.

How about apologizing?

I'll wait until you're back from your "vacation".

[BainsBane]

458. What bothers me from the position of an outside observer

is the absence of consistency. From what I saw in the long hosts threads posted elsewhere, some weren't even attempting to be even handed.

[Warren Stupidity]

492. given the other rule: consensus, consistency is pretty much impossible.

Also note than the set of hosts changes frequently. One group might arrive at a working agreement on, for example, why and when gun related posts are allowed, and a week later that agreement is non-functional because the set of hosts has changed.

In the end, all we are fretting over is "an op in gd".

Everyone has their own self hosting capability via the trash functions.

[Sheldon Cooper]

326. I saw what was posted from the host forum, and it was clear what was happening.

I'm not sure why Warren has his knickers in such a twist about this - the bullshit was posted for all to see. It's irrefutable.

[PeaceNikki]

334. quinnox and a few others did a good job of turning it on its head

They turned every alert into a bash of the alerters. And label every post in disagreement with them as stirring shit.

[bettyellen]

341. He found the weaknesses in the more libertarian hosts' "rules" they were making up, and exploited

them fully. And he is not the only one.

[bettyellen]

295. if only that was the only host beating up on Duers instead of this troll- one blamed everyone but Q

for the last shit storm he created. Hosts lamely looked at the thread an hour into it, and even though it was at the top of GD - decided the "harm had been done" the first two votes. Q had at least one hosts support and assistance with subverting the rules- still does, as far as we know.

Other hosts went against their usual leaves for grave dancing, and were doing a 180 for this thread to lock for meta. I am very familiar with the kind of meta the host do not like- and the lists they make of DUers they do not like.

I bet if you were there when a host suggested an entire diverse group of alerters should be ignored because they are in a "group" you would have said something. But not one single GD host said it was wrong to profile Duers like that Not one. They admittedly judge the alerters instead of the posts all the time. It ain't about you, you are as fair as they come, but others are gaming it bigtime.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

613. Yeah I posted that. And I stand by it.

The same people screaming bloody murder bashing the hosts saying they wanted thread locked were in the same thread saying we were probably going to lock the thread because we were being bashed.



So I abstained. You guys want to have your little Meta pity party circle jerk, far be it from me to get involved. I don't get paid by the vote.

[CTyankee]

345. something wrong there...SMH...

[bettyellen]

347. and the posts between what you responded to and this one are a pretty big clue as to what

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Any star member can host.

This is not the first time a troll has used host status as troll steroids.

[Coolest Ranger]

91. I'm like you

but then again I don't hang around as much. bet you he has an account at the Conservative Cave. That's where most trolls go.

[sheshe2]

171. Hey you!

It was an epic couple of days here. The Hobby Lobby thread was upheld by the jury unfortunately. Then when it could not again be alerted on, he edited it several times and it got nastier than it already was. He gamed the system there and in the hosts forum.

Good to see you CR

[MrScorpio]

93. Same here. I have to admit that I didn't see that one coming

Usually they have that tendency of confronting me, but this one never did.

[bettyellen]

151. Because you never ever post hot headed / alert worthy. He was trolling for reactions to alert on

every thread where I would talk back, I got 3-4 alerts minimum. Most survived, but that was his schtick "I never alert" was just more "playing innocent" bullshit.

[MrScorpio]

156. Ah, oh yeah. Exactly!

I don't incite to anger easily.

Even the fucking nazis on the Discussionist can't get me off of my game.

He was trying to game the jury system?

Damn!

[bettyellen]

160. he didn't want to self delete another entire OP, so he PMd an host (one of those that defend

disruptors, and blame alerters for Q's shit show threads) asking that they lock it- knowing that consensus had already been reached to leave. ANd that host does so, leaves immediately for a whole day, while other hosts are begging for an unlock five minutes after that rouge lock.
The next day, they unlock without telling anyone, to allow Q to lock their own thread. We gather that unlock/ lock was also coordinated by PMing each other, since that host normally lets everyone know in the host lounge what they are doing. They have not explained anything to the other hosts, and appear to be hiding till it blows over.

[MrScorpio]

162. Wow. That was slick

I would have never thought of such a thing… But apparently he was a little too slick for his own good.

[1StrongBlackMan]

204. And now there's a jilted host ...

asking herself, "I never do that ... What was I thinking?" ... As he headed out the door.

[bettyellen]

225. never lock a thread as a favor to a friend, or never secretly unlock one?

Credibility, in the crapper in two moves.

[Squinch]

453. This thing where he edited posts to make them nastier and more disruptive AFTER they had

been alerted on and passed a jury is pretty slick too.

You got to REALLY want to be crappy to think up things like that.

[sheshe2]

190. Let's not forget his self deleted OP...

about how women should protest hobby lobby topless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172737

[bettyellen]

318. yeah- how is that an issue of current event? What a shit hole GD has become! You'd think some

would like to run off all women and POC here.

[sheshe2]

403. That is a distinct possibility, bettyellen. eom

[mtnester]

430. I should be surprised by that sort of thing here..and would have been on DU2.

On DU the Current...not surprised by this anymore at all. Shocked, but not surprised. And that is a shame.

[sheshe2]

433. I am with you on that, mtnester. eom

[Xyzse]

153. Agreed, I am confused as well. I don't know them well enough.

I also don't feel too enthused about glee displayed on banning.

He may have deserved it, but this just feels mean spirited.

I guess I'll check a bit more.

[LadyHawkAZ]

159. I think that poster did a deliberate flameout

Nobody to blame for it but him.

[AverageJoe90]

221. I'm kinda skeptical of the ruling myself, TBH.

With all due respect to EarlG, I never saw anything that was particularly offensive (or at least, intentionally so, anyway) from quinnox.

Although, TBH, I've yet to hear the full story, of what actually happened.

[XemaSab]

227. OF COURSE YOU ARE

AverageJoe90 (8,678 posts)
221. I'm kinda skeptical of the ruling myself, TBH.

With all due respect to EarlG, I never saw anything that was particularly offensive (or at least, intentionally so, anyway) from quinnox.

Although, TBH, I've yet to hear the full story, of what actually happened.

You wouldn't recognize racism or sexism if they assaulted you in broad daylight.

[AverageJoe90]

232. " You wouldn't recognize racism or sexism if they assaulted you in broad daylight."

Au contraire, mon frere.

But in all honestly, if someone would like to show me some links, feel free. Otherwise, I'm withholding further judgement on this issue.

[bravenak]

364. True.nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

229. TBH, I would go even further, TBH,

and say that, TBH, quinnox has not been tombstoned
and has not had his posting privileges revoked. Other
people may have other opinions, TBH, but that is only their
opinions, TBH.

[PeaceNikki]

233. Lol.

[AverageJoe90]

235. I don't see the humor in this. Fail. nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

239. You can say that again,

TBH.

[boston bean]

257. Of course, he doesn't see humor either. Add it to the list! LOL

[XemaSab]

247. TBH

lawl

[Starry Messenger]

256. <3

[redqueen]

269. lol

[Bobbie Jo]

374. ROFL

TBH....

[BainsBane]

460. You're definitely on my list of Duers to meet in real life.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

488. Ha, thanks, Bains.

Ditto, Sister.

[Number23]

467. TBH, the next month won't be the same without old Joe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=272790

[bravenak]

472. I also noticed that, TBH.

IMHO, TBH, i noticed one of his hides referred to me.

[Number23]

473. TBH, he got one of his hides BECAUSE of me

I know that he probably thought he wasn't being particularly offensive and insensitive to the concerns of black people, but TBH I disagreed with him.

[bravenak]

474. TBH, i'm not to sure he believes in us people, IMHO.

Maybe we don't exist. He sure never reads anything we write with any clarity. TBH of course.

[betsuni]

476. With all due respect, he has personally helped you people to learn, in all honesty,

by merely operating from fact-based observations. Can he help it if he seriously doesn't recall anything and missed some points hurled at him for no reason by radfems and Persons With Colors? Frankly, we know who the real victim is, TBH. On a personal level, to be truthful, I say we salute this genuine feminist and brave survivor of racism. Erect a statue with a plague inscribed: Racism, It Happens To White Folks Too, TBH.

[bravenak]

477. AMEN.

TBH, I had forgtten about his 'wisdom for his age'. He has quite patiently tried to get me to 'wake up and smell the coffee', stop my 'discontent idealism', and realize that i'm just a 'social justice liberal'.
IMHO, he tried very hard to 'explain' life to me. I now know that 'not believing in something' means it doesn't exist. TBH, I still don't get it, so i shall patiently await his return.

[betsuni]

478. I forgot about the "wise beyond his years" thing, TBH

Seriously, this TBH business is infecting my real life. This morning I said to the husband, "Sorry, the toast is slightly burned, to be honest." I need a 12-step program.

[bravenak]

479. I've been doing it too.

My husband keep asking if i secretly love THB guy, then laughing at me.

IMHO, that guy is not real. Nobody can be like that for real.

[betsuni]

480. I don't know...

I wonder if it's a "truth is stranger than fiction" situation. I hope it's not real, that wouldn't be good for anybody.

[bravenak]

482. If it's real.......

I feel sad about it. I wonder if he's reading this.

[betsuni]

485. I know, it is sad

But it's like that light bulb joke about how the light bulb has to want to change first, and how you can lead a light bulb to water but you can't make it drink.

[bravenak]

486. LOL!!

Exactly. TBH.

[bluedigger]

591. TBH, or NTBH?

That is the question!

[bravenak]

599. It sure is.

[betsuni]

647. Good one!

[Number23]

625. "Racism, It Happens To White Folks Too, TBH"

Ow, my sides!!

[m-lekktor]

642. LOL

i am embarrassed, i briefly thought your post was serious! i was mortified for a moment. silly me.

[betsuni]

644. I just noticed I spelled "plaque" wrong.

Now I'M embarrassed. But "plague" doesn't seem so far off, TBH, so I'm leaving it.

[m-lekktor]

653. LOL nt

[Rex]

569. You guys are making me laugh out loud at work with the TBH tingy.

I saw the radfem comment (barf)...when I was a young boy, my daddy sat me down and said to watch out for people that start a sentence with TBH or 'Honestly' or 'To Tell You The Truth'...as if I ever asked to be lied to...smart dad.

[XemaSab]

600. I straight told him the other day

"When you say 'TBH,' were you not being honest with everything you said before? 'Cause TBH that's how it comes off."

[bravenak]

601. TBH, your Dad was right.

IMHO, of course. It's like that thing where somebody says "no disrespect", and then disrespect you hard core.

[Squinch]

612. My dad used to say the same thing. He used to say that the minute they say something to the

effect of "TBH" is the minute they started lying to you.

[Rex]

614. Yes and I have found in life that it IS true.

"You want my honest opinion?"

"I dunno...have I ever asked you to lie to me?"

[Squinch]

617. If people were being honest, they would say, "I'm about to start lying to you now."

But it doesn't have the same ring as "TBH."

"IATSLTYN"

...nope. Just doesn't work.

[cyberswede]

250. Of course you didn't.

He trolled hard on the Hobby Lobby decision - in a backhanded way that seemed "innocent" to a lot of people.
- the topless protest thread
- the "trash Hobby Lobby" keyword thread

And the "shaving cut" thread was another trolling OP - trolling hosts by purposefully posting an off-topic thread in GD (though a credible argument could be made that it was a follow-up trolling post of his self-deleted "trash Hobby Lobby" keyword thread). Either way, it was a thinly veiled trolling post.

His schtick was to post offensive stuff, and then act all innocent - like he did it unintentionally - when he was called on it. He did it multiple times (particularly with topics about race and/or gender).

He also abused his host privileges by A) convincing another GD host to lock one of his threads (instead of the easily available self-delete feature), and B) locking it himself after the original host unlocked it.

[AverageJoe90]

258. Well, I can at least how the abuse of hosting privileges would be a problem.

Though I'm not so convinced that the "trash Hobby Lobby in keywords" thread was so problematic. In fact, it really did look innocent. And, btw, I'm fairly good at spotting actual trolling when it does happen; partly because I've been a victim of such a number of times lately. To be fair, I'm not saying that there weren't necessarily prior problems; perhaps there may have been.

But the post itself seemed fine.

His schtick was to post offensive stuff, and then act all innocent - like he did it unintentionally - when he was called on it.

I've been the victim of this, too. But again, I haven't yet seen any conclusive proof that this was a regular thing.

[cyberswede]

267. "But the post itself seemed fine." - that's the POINT

...it seemed fine, but it was anything but "fine."

In that post, he totally dismissed the concerns of half the population as being trivial and worthy of being thrown away.

It's not that he trashed "Hobby Lobby" in his keyword list - anyone can trash anything they want. It's that he posted an OP proclaiming that the issue was unimportant and annoying to him - in a deliberate effort to upset people, which is what trolls do.

Then there's this gem...read the subthread and tell me - with a straight face - that you don't think that's trolling:

Star Member quinnox (20,600 posts)
10. oh, that does not look good, sorry but

I have never thought "afros" look good. On anyone. Why would you want that puffy big-ass hair on your head. I guess if you are desperate for attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3452867

On second thought - don't bother. I can already predict your assessment, TBH.

[AverageJoe90]

271. My response.

I can certainly see how it came across as insensitive, and to be fair, being careless with how you phrase things (as was the case here) can be just as problematic as actual trolling. So I do think he deserved a bit of a call out for that.

(Just off the record, I do think Oprah looks rather cool in that hairdo, wig or not. :hi

[cyberswede]

276. He wasn't careless...he was deliberate.

...except for the inclusion wcgreen's name in his list of trashed keywords. I definitely think including that was careless - it made him look like a heartless ass, and ultimately got even more people upset about his OP than he intended.

However, including "Hobby Lobby" among his trashed terms was most definitely the point of the thread. It was how he could - seemingly innocently - get in a dig at women (and others upset about the court ruling). He did it on purpose, and the drama of the thread was exactly what he wanted(*).

(*it just went too far, due to the wcgreen gaffe, so he self-deleted the post).

[AverageJoe90]

279. I'm afraid you and I are on two different pages here.

However, including "Hobby Lobby" among his trashed terms was most definitely the point of the thread. It was how he could - seemingly innocently - get in a dig at women (and others upset about the court ruling). He did it on purpose, and the drama of the thread was exactly what he wanted(*).

(*it just went too far, due to the wcgreen gaffe, so he self-deleted the post).

Now this, I have a hard time believing; as in, quinnox, happy about the Hobby Lobby ruling, as you seem to claim here? That I seriously doubt.

[cyberswede]

281. What?

I didn't say he was happy about the HL ruling. I said he wanted to troll DUers about the HL ruling.

[boston bean]

304. He doesn't see what you said.

TBCH

[cyberswede]

393. I guess I'll have to wait till August 8th to get an answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=272790&sub=trans

[boston bean]

394. I'll have bells on when he returns. TBH... no really, TBH.

[bettyellen]

305. when someone is "careless" all the fucking time, for years it is not a mistake....

it is who they are, and what they do- trolling.
It's not so hard.

[Cha]

415. Thanks for the rundown, cs.. yeah, he had that "me innocent.. it's everyone's else who's

fixated on little ol me" down to a science.. right up until he self imploded in the ol DU pizza oven.

[Number23]

466. "His schtick was to post offensive stuff, and then act all innocent - like he did it unintentionally

I can think of two others that do this exact same thing REGULARLY. As in, often.

[cyberswede]

504. Me too, TBH

[bettyellen]

261. LOL. Of course you didn't see it- you never see what women or POC do....

You never ever give them the benefit of the doubt when they share their experiences or impressions.
And now you are, TBH, sticking up for the most well know sexist and racist troll on DU. Way to go.

[Rex]

316. All I can say is that admins don't ban longtime posters on a whim.

Especially ones with less than 5 hides. It is my belief that the admins thought he was abusing the system as a host. I could be wrong, but that is the way I see it.

[PeaceNikki]

8. .

[redgreenandblue]

10. Can someone provide some context please?

A few examples of posts?

Thanks.

[rudolph the red]

36. I'm curious too, the latest post that he had hidden

is pretty innocuous.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. Read this thread.

The antics in the past few days were over the top.

[rudolph the red]

53. I should have read further before posting,

I get it now.

[mercuryblues]

49. he was abusing

a loophole in the alert system and when that didn't work he abused his hosting privileges as a backup get around the alert system.

[uppityperson]

132. This is a very succinct accurate assessment of the last straw. Thank you.

[FSogol]

11. One last time: You Better Believe It!

Thank you admins. Long overdue.

[Phentex]

14. He just needs love...

[Starry Messenger]

16. Long overdue.

Guess he's losing his precious "trash by keyword" function now. Sadz.

[easychoice]

17. One more thing: Don't push your luck.

Heh...

[tkmorris]

23. I'd love to know what he was banned for

His transparency page shows two hides, neither of which make any sense to me at all.

[PeaceNikki]

28. see here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025216329#post26

[FiveGoodMen]

30. Yeah, same here.

[BainsBane]

41. I think it had to do with his hosting behavior.

But also the thread about Hobby Lobby and WCGreen. Look at his self deleted OPs and the one he locked about his cut lip.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. I think he jumped the shark when he started his 'cut lip' thread

He'd already caused controversy with his "here's how to hide threads" thread, which was taken as being dismissive of the Hobby Lobby issue. When he knew the OP had survived an alert (so that it couldn't be alerted on again), he added in the examples of his hidden keywords, which included 'wcgreen' which he 'lol'ed at. Many people found that offensive. He could have apologised at that point, but instead he self-deleted that OP, and started the 'cut lip' one, which looked like a deliberate example of "a thread which everyone should hide" (because that's what he said people should do, later in the thread). He was trolling GD, having seen the earlier reactions, and, as a GD host, he really shouldn't have been doing that.

[Marrah_G]

25. I wouldn't call him a troll

I think he had some issues playing well with others and following the rules.

[bettyellen]

32. the "others " maily being feminists and POC, as liked to mock both- so I am thinking

this change will "enhance" my DU experience. I think after mocking wc green, he knew the jig was up and went all in breaking rules in the host forum.

[AuntPatsy]

33. I agree with you...

[PeaceNikki]

37. I would.

[Call Me Wesley]

46. I did.

So did EarlG.

[PeaceNikki]

54. yes you did.:)

[Call Me Wesley]

79. Right back atcha ...

[bettyellen]

45. many people missed disgusting things he posted because he'd "self delete" constantly-

and quickly enough not to be juried. Trust me, he would have been gone years ago if people were quick enough to take screen shots of that crap.

[Marrah_G]

94. I missed alot of that I think- but did see him act like an ass on more then one occasion.

This last time he was acting like a jerk and playing with the rules and wouldn't stop. I think the TS was well earned. I think people mistook my "not a troll" comment as if I was saying he shouldn't have been TS'd. I just think troll has a specific meaning.

[bettyellen]

100. Ahhh, I thought trolling was just posting to antagonize and disrupt others?

I used to think he was just a RW asshole, but after he manipulated the hosts so badly with his games I think his goal was to completely fuck up GD, and disgust anyone with an ounce of compassion. He was calculated enough to post positively in threads the more vocal hosts support, and get them to take his side. I think it was all a game to expose weak spots in the system, including cronyism within the hosts' forum, for laughs. Ultimately I think he hated what DU stood for.

[Heidi]

71. EarlG called him a troll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=119344&sub=trans

I'll go with EarlG's assessment.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

86. I'd have to respectfully disagree. His comments on women and black people usually hovered between

cringe worthy to vomit inducing. His thread about shaving (even if he never meant to mock a gravely ill DUer) was typical trolling. he could have at any moment said "My bad i didn't realize what I wrote was so insulting at the time." ut he double - tripled down.

[Marrah_G]

89. Oh I do think the tombstone was well earned

I just wouldn't use the term troll. To me it has a very specific meaning. I think he was acting like an ass and got punted for it.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

116. OK. In that case I'll say, he occasionally dabbled in trollism. nt

[Marrah_G]

283. LOL!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

284. .

.

[Marrah_G]

286. Thank you for making me giggle Guy :)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

349. I try. I've enjoyed reading your posts over the years BTW. nt

[Marrah_G]

353. Aww thank you :)

[Phentex]

90. I asked when he planned to self delete it and he said

he wouldn't do it. Then, as you said, he had to double down on it instead. Of course, when his playing the victim didn't work out, he got a host to do the dirty work for him. THAT'S how much pride he had. He couldn't bring himself to just self delete like he had so many times before.

[AverageJoe90]

255. That may be true.

But then again, so do some others I can think of.

[MineralMan]

280. That would depend on how you define "troll."

As always. Different people have different definitions. Apparently one of the admins of DU defines it somewhat differently than you do.

[In_The_Wind]

31. It must be getting crowded under there.

[MohRokTah]

77. Are you from Seattle?

Isaw that troll while seeing the sights there.

[In_The_Wind]

179. Nowhere near it.

I'm a bit east in upstate New York.

[newcriminal]

44. This was alerted on, don't have results yet.

[PeaceNikki]

47. good on the hosts for letting it ride.

It's cathartic.

[sufrommich]

52. Grave dancing threads have aways been allowed.nt

[PeaceNikki]

57. I know. but he's their friend, you see.

They often let his shit slide. Which, to be honest, contributed to his demise.

[Phentex]

55. well I'm dancing as fast as I can!

[bettyellen]

66. despite most often leaving these open- he will get special treatment from his host friends. Again..

they will largue to lock, because he would have wanted it that way.
One even did that self delete thing on me, LOL. Nice tribute to a fallen friend.

[PeaceNikki]

68. did you catch what she wrote before deleting? if so, please share

[bettyellen]

73. No I did not. Amazing the hosts are leaning towards one last favor to their friend the troll, by

locking. Especially since they've been leaving these lately.

[theHandpuppet]

106. Hi bettyellen

Please tread lightly when you refer to hosts who preferred to lock because they are friends of the poster who got banned. As a non-GD host I initially would have preferred this thread be locked, not because I'm some pal of the dearly departed but because I'm really uncomfortable with grave dancing, no matter who the person might be or how much they deserved to be tombstoned. After reading the rationale of some other hosts, I reluctantly agreed with others that it should probably be left open lest a lock be misconstrued.

[boston bean]

109. It's not an SOP violation and the jury handles alerts for people who think it's offensive.

That's my take anyhow. It's more a community standards issue versus an SOP issue.

[theHandpuppet]

125. Well, I was not an alerter

Just a participant in the discussion among hosts, not that I'm a GD host anyway. But I'm concerned that the whole discussion will end up being posted to GD and I would prefer my comments about this matter not be mislabeled or misinterpreted, that's all. I just don't care for grave dancing. It makes me cringe. That's just me. Now I'm out because I only dropped in to explain my position on the issue.

[bettyellen]

120. Thanks, I am sorry if it offends and locking this would likely be perceived as another favor

to this former host. Because he asked for- and got- the exact same favor yesterday. And he does still have his supporters in hosting. Some found his trolling of feminist and POC amusing, and made every excuse to keep it in GD.

did you know there are hosts who keep lists of "groups" DUers they dislike and dissuade other hosts to ignore their alerts. Other GD hosts have not spoken up to condemn this, and that is a problem. Meta does not exist for them until it's something they do not want to see out in GD. This has nothing to do with you- but when they usually vote to keep grave dancing and suddenly have a change of heart for an old ally, it will make DUers take notice. The group cannot be consistent, it is understood, but some hosts are very inconsistent, and speak openly of the alerters and OPs instead of the content. That is wrong.

I am sure you had great intentions, and wish you were in GD hosting on the regular.

[theHandpuppet]

129. Thanks for the extra information

I'm quite new to hosting and have never served on a jury so all the machinations of administration are foreign to me, as well as the history of same. I have to be honest and say my foray into the world of "DU Backstage" had me confused as hell! Ha-ha!

I was quite relieved to know that EarlG will be addressing some hosting and SOP issues, which gives me high hopes.

Thanks much for your kind words.

[bettyellen]

144. Yeah, just like Quinnox, if you had no history- you might think it was all an innocent mistake.

But when it goes on for years, and they use every DU tool they can think of to game the system, it really is time to put the blame at the source, and not those calling out the bad behavior. Lately some hosts have been very antagonistic to alerters. I think they should resign if the whole process disgusts them so much.

[theHandpuppet]

161. Like I said, I was totally confused

I hadn't the background on all this so I felt as if everyone else was either speaking a secret language or I was completely out of my element. Let this be a lesson, too, to any new hosts because the experience can be intimidating if you're unaware of the politics. That's something I hope will change.

.

[bettyellen]

173. I saw that immediately. When I hosted a few times, there were always a few who tried to

"define" Skinner's nebulous guidelines, or say this is how "we always" have handled X. Sometimes it is well intentioned guidance to newbies, sometimes they have an agenda. It take a while to figure out which ones are honest and consistent, and which are full of shit, and there to judge people instead of posts.

I can PM you threads where they are openly judging the alerters instead of the OPs, and other GD hosts do not push back. It is an absolute abuse of the system. And most of those who do that, defended this troll to the end. They obviously have no interest in the system working.

[theHandpuppet]

176. The lack of certainty and consistency makes it really hard for anyone new

It took me a while to even decide to post to Forum and Group Hosts because peeking in from the outside, there appeared to already be established "camps" of people who had been hosting for a long time. I didn't feel very welcome, that's for sure. I felt as if I was either being sized up or ignored. Part of that is my fault; I should have spoken up about it but the tension there was palpable.

I've already said too much, I think. Take care, be well!

[bettyellen]

194. Yeah, definitely camps, and some still pro-troll by the looks of it.

Good luck, and thanks for your insights.

[uppityperson]

177. wtf? "did you know there are hosts who keep lists of "groups" DUers they dislike and dissuade..."

did you know there are hosts who keep lists of "groups" DUers they dislike and dissuade other hosts to ignore their alerts.

What are you talking about? I would like to know as I am a host of various groups at various times. pm works if you don't want to post. Thank you.

[bettyellen]

192. Oh yeah- I am in a "group" to be ignored. Not one other GD host defended us alerters who

were pretty much strangers at the time. Luckily, a few of us saw it as we host other groups. I PMed it to you, as the copy and paste is awkward and long.

[uppityperson]

196. Thank you. And now for the suspicious, what was sent I had already seen and noticed, just forgot

about. Just because several DUers protest at bigotry does not mean they are organized to do so. And claiming so rather than addressing the underlying issue, the post they are upset at, does nothing but cause more drama.

[sufrommich]

84. This is why the Forum & Group Hosts forum

should be opened as "read only" for all DUers.

[bettyellen]

87. totally agree. Earl says there will be changes, and hopefully switching out the hosts sooner

and some transparency and clearer guidelines will help. The guidelines are so confusing some hosts try to bully the new ones into accepting their "interpretation" of them- recently that meant one lone DUer could prevent any and all locks just by saying "strong leave" with no explanation. It was ridiculous.

[uppityperson]

178. +++

[JustAnotherGen]

191. From having been admin at my own robust

Web Community - my advice to mods and to admin - never post anything on the back boards that you would not want an every day member to read.

I hope that is included.

I sent a pm to boston bean this morning as I'm a newbie group moderator - and I was kind of shocked at what I was seeing back there.

I would never be a GD Host as a result of that behavior - because now that it is out - I don't want it attached to me.

I really like the idea of a read only forum.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

135. BINGO !!

[SidDithers]

145. +1...

Sunshine, disinfectant, and all that.

Then, DUers, can see what a hot, holy mess Hosting really is.

Sid

[Tuesday Afternoon]

186. hot and UnHoly but, will not quibble.

It is not coincidental that this is a preferred smilie ---->

There are some Real Devils in there.

[steve2470]

152. make it read only and tighten up the rules

In DU2 the "non-serious" threads got sent to the Lounge and I was ok with that. It was just understood GD was only for politics and more serious things. Right now almost anything goes for GD, which accounts for most of the brouhahas in the Host forum.

[theHandpuppet]

165. Can I recommend your post a thousand times?

Consider it done.

[steve2470]

168. thanks ! :) nt

[bettyellen]

166. and the hosts refuse to address openly RW , sexist or racist OPs at all as disruptive....

because it seems many of those obsessed with "third wayers" are hostile to DUers who do NOT post in ES/GG/MG theads.

They are afraid the "social justive warriors "might" vote for Hillary, and are letting sexism and racism slide because they do not like the alerters. That is the reasoning a host gave me for putting me on their "black list" of alerters to be ignored. I did not post anti NSA enough, so my alerts should not count. Not one other GD host had a problem with it either.

[theHandpuppet]

172. See, bettyellen, this is where I get lost

I think some kind of primer for all DUers would be helpful, one which would include a glossary and a key to the acronyms. For instance, what are ES/GG/MG threads? What do you consider "third wayers"? How to explain "meta" to newbies, that sort of thing. Anything to make DU more "user friendly".

[bettyellen]

187. Edward Snowden, Greenwald - and those obsessive about "Third Way" Dems like Bill Clinton

and Obama. Basically their issues are NSA spying and the shitty economic treaties Dems have been involved in since NAFTA.
There is another treaty TPP, in the works, which will probably suck for everyone but corporations. While I do largely agree with them, I have stayed out of those threads because there is a lot of nasty hatred spewed, and a lot of "I will not ever vote for this Dem" and rudenes that smells of trying to divide DU, and the Dem party. Some compare Obama to Republicans.

And apparently the divide has effected moderation here since a host told me I was one of "those people" who never post in those threads. So I read up some more, and it appears there is some belief that people who care about feminism and racism are "being played" by Hillary and Obama and that caring about social justice is something people were tricked into, so they would support more corporate friendly politicians like Obama and Hillary, instead of Elizabeth Warren (who is not running) or Bernie Sanders who are more lefty. So when racist an sexist stuff gets posted, they ignore it- assuming people who care are not with them against NSA spying.

Yep, a few hosts look down on posters who alert on sexism and racism here, discounting the fact that it is because of our personal experiences, and things have immediate concerns about. I believe they wrongly assume that means automatic support for everything Obama and Hillary have done, which is ridiculous. Some make it worse by mocking concerns about feminist and racial issues too, furthering the divide here.

Meta is just complaining about DU, and used to be forbidden in GD. Now anything goes, as long as enough hosts like you they will ignore alerters. They openly admit judging the alerters instead of the content of the OP. Hopefully, the admins can put a stop to that.

Hope this helps- and welcome!

[theHandpuppet]

198. That was such an enlightening post!

It explains so much of the hostility that descended upon any threads and posters who spoke up about the civil rights of women, minorities and LGBTs. I couldn't for the life of me figure out where all that was coming from, especially on a supposedly "progressive forum". It was absolutely maddening! I even wrote a fairly lengthy post about it, defining its form and predictability without even understanding the motivators. Your post has really opened my eyes.

Thanks for the welcome. I do hope to contribute in a constructive way as a host. I can be very hard headed and a hardass about rules but will do my best to be fair, although I don't expect any major drama from my little corner of the DU world (Appalachia group). And lest anyone get any ideas, I have my trusty flyswatter at the ready.

[bettyellen]

202. It took a long time for that host to explain what my "group" was supposed to be!

Because I only knew one of the six- a feminist, and another just vaguely, who had not liked me too much.
So, I kept asking and they admitted it was because I was pro NSA. Since I am not, you'd think I'd get an apology or something- instead I got a "you people".
I believe I was lumped in because I spoke up when someone popular here made fun of POC being bothered by watermelon jokes. If you are not "for" that poster, in every stupid tone deaf moment, apparently you are against them. Who knew?

Good luck and I look forward to hearing more from you!

[JustAnotherGen]

234. Not shocked

And that should be brought to light too bettyellen -if you ever need it - I deliberately responded to those posts and threw them in my journal.

Then again - you know what I think of that individual - though I play nice to his 'face' at DU.

[Starry Messenger]

200. Everyone should read this post.

I saw this happening too, and it's a big reason I didn't sign up for another hitch as GD host for this summer.

I'm as left-wing as it gets, but people who say social justice issues are a dodge to cover support for the NSA go right on my shit list.

Using that ideology to guide what gets taken seriously as an alert makes DU suck.

Kind of ironic coming from a group of people who take back-room secret agreements so seriously.

[bettyellen]

218. Thank you- I was considering posting an OP about it, but am not as good at that as some people

(you!) Plus I think being on the hosts shit list might just be a little bit of a problem. At least for a while longer. It took a lot of questioning for that host to own up as to what their list was all about.

I am starting to think our "group" of six ignored alerters. should do an OP together. Three of them are new friends now!

[SidDithers]

440. Who are the 6, bettyellen?...nt

Sid

[bettyellen]

441. me, zappaman, number 23, peace nikki (the only one I actually knew, LOL) and I think cormy guss?

Maybe zaapman or nikki will remember.

I need to go back and look- I believe the other two are not even aware they were targeted as unworthy by the host.
I'm going to do a search!

[SidDithers]

443. Thanks...

I hope Admins do something about the Hosting situation, especially in GD. Sounds out of control in there.

Sid

[bettyellen]

444. yeah- me and zappa were like- "Nice to meet you!" LOL

now WE are a group. .;-P

[Gormy Cuss]

558. If I'm on somebody's "ignore alerts" list, it's personal.

I may have alerted on five OPs in the past three years.

I don't think it's me, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are some that petty and vindictive.

eta: but I'm proud to be in such good company if I am on that secret list.

[Rex]

575. Hmmm...this might explain that when I did rarely alert on something in GD

that clearly could be taken right off the pages of Free Republic...I got a strange vote with strange replies. Thank you...that answers a lot about GD lately.

[FSogol]

254. +1 n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

362. "Kind of ironic coming from a group of people who take back-room secret agreements so seriously".

[bettyellen]

365. Yep, and you hear them say it's "bad form" to talk about it out in GD....

Last edited Thu Jul 10, 2014, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)

but they can talk smack about us there in almost privacy. Also- bad form to do anything except ignore trolls. Our fault Q's threads were shit shows. LOl, hosts- NO- stop covering for trolls just because they antagonize people you do not like.

[Tarheel_Dem]

368. I know we're celebrating his departure, but I wonder if he went very far?

[BainsBane]

457. I am far less generous toward that attitude

Dismissing the rights and concerns of people of color and women is reactionary. It is way more reactionary than Third Way. There is nothing progressive or liberal about it, and I don't consider people who do so to be leftists. Period.

I also consider a lot of this angst about corporatism to be strange, as though they have no conception of the country they live in. There has never been a President in this country that did not promote economic interests and there never will be as long as we remain a capitalist nation. For one thing our constitution makes property sacrosanct. It is a quintessential capitalist document. I might wish for a different political system, but I know enough history and political theory to understand the role of the capitalist state. When I articulate those ideas, which are clearly Marxist in orientation, I am called a "centrist." It's nuts. What I am is politically pragmatic. I refuse to obsess about individuals, be it Snowden or Obama, and make political decisions based on the available options at the time.

I care about the NSA but I don't give a shit about Glen Greenwald or the boxes in Snowden's garage. None of that has any relevance to the conflict between national security and civil liberties or the actions of the NSA. In fact, it's a way of avoiding substantive discussion on those issues. THAT is why I avoid those threads.

[freshwest]

511. You framed that perfectly, all of it. Journaling this!

Dismissing the rights and concerns of people of color and women is reactionary. It is way more reactionary than Third Way. There is nothing progressive or liberal about it, and I don't consider people who do so to be leftists. Period.

You hit the cusp. We know they don't deal with what effects our lives. The hatred for Democrats is worse than The Daily Paul. And they never rejoice in any victory. The silence is deafening and very telling. Not the actions of allies.

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Also on the mark:

I also consider a lot of this angst about corporatism to be strange, as though they have no conception of the country they live in. There has never been a President in this country that did not promote economic interests and there never will be as long as we remain a capitalist nation. For one thing our constitution makes property sacrosanct. It is a quintessential capitalist document. I might wish for a different political system, but I know enough history and political theory to understand the role of the capitalist state. When I articulate those ideas, which are clearly Marxist in orientation, I am called a "centrist." It's nuts. What I am is politically pragmatic. I refuse to obsess about individuals, be it Snowden or Obama, and make political decisions based on the available options at the time.

I care about the NSA but I don't give a shit about Glen Greenwald or the boxes in Snowden's garage. None of that has any relevance to the conflict between national security and civil liberties or the actions of the NSA. In fact, it's a way of avoiding substantive discussion on those issues. THAT is why I avoid those threads.

Yes, those are 'don't discuss the core issue' discussions. And thanks, that is what so many of us have been trying to say for a long time!

[DURHAM D]

275. Well done.

Everyone needs to read and understand your post.

[bettyellen]

277. Wish I wasn't OP shy - I am sure it would be locked by hosts anyway.

[betsuni]

411. Finally I understand! THANK YOU!

The clears A LOT of things up.

[bettyellen]

413. You are WELCOME! It took a long time to get the truth out about "the group"- but yeah it's

an odd POV to adopt here. I would not have gotten it, if the host themself didn't tell me. I would like to say it;s one host, but not a single other GD host expressed a problem with ignoring this "group" of alerters.

It's Democratic, not Libertarian Undeground for fucks sake. It's not a coincidence some of the pushier hosts pushed hard not to get the group to think they cannot take any action whatsoever against racist or sexist posts(not that SKinner ever said thay, mind you) they have a beef with people who have concerns about those things. They have admitted their bias, and are punishing us.

[Number23]

470. You just won DU. People that believe shit like this not only are NOT "left"

they're not even decent human beings.

it appears there is some belief that people who care about feminism and racism are "being played" by Hillary and Obama and that caring about social justice is something people were tricked into, so they would support more corporate friendly politicians like Obama and Hillary, instead of Elizabeth Warren (who is not running) or Bernie Sanders who are more lefty. So when racist an sexist stuff gets posted, they ignore it- assuming people who care are not with them against NSA spying.

And I have seen all of this as well. And 9 times out of 9 it comes from the "it's not race, it's class" crew who have taken it upon themselves to dictate to all of the rest of us what is and is not important and what we should all care about as if we all come from the same set of experiences. Ignorant pieces of shit. All of them.

[bettyellen]

507. Well when we (+4) were "grouped" by that host I did not understand the connection at all.

I only knew Nikki and you a bit vaguely. Me and Zappaman? Who is that? I needed an answer, and I got it, we do not post in the correct threads explained the host. Th irony of those worried about NSA making lists of DUers here. ( And doing it inaccurately.) The end result is to deliberately discriminate against women and POC here.

I had falsely thought the hosts here arrived at a decision to ignore racism and sexism here because of something SKinner recently said, but this is not true. It was a deliberate effort of a few who have been convincing newer hosts "the rules" prevented them from using the SOP to lock some of the vilest threads we have seen posted here. It has reached the point where hosts side with trolls and denigrate alerters and DUers they do not like on a regular basis. They are wrong- and yes- not trult progressive at all. These rules makers pushed it a bit far with their "one strong leave" rule making consensus to lock anything impossible- that was the tipping point. I realized then the manipulation of hosts was quite intentional, and their aims became clear.

I am glad we were "grouped"now - it opened my eyes to the machinations of these few hosts, and the effect on GD as a whole.
Disturbing stuff.

[Sissyk]

519. What do you mean by this?

I had falsely thought the hosts here arrived at a decision to ignore racism and sexism here because of something SKinner recently said, but this is not true. It was a deliberate effort of a few who have been convincing newer hosts "the rules" prevented them from using the SOP to lock some of the vilest threads we have seen posted here.

What host made a deliberate effort to ignore racism and sexism and prevent other host from locking some of the "vilest threads we have seen posted here"?

I'm sorry you once (or maybe twice) were "grouped" into some kind of club by one GD Host. I can tell it really bothers you, and ruins your DU experience. I've had to let some things go for my betterment. Maybe you should, too?

[PeaceNikki]

535. Hi Sissy

I am personally working on changing MY tone and was caught up in the shitty snarkfest and feelings of dismissal that did and do go on by some hosts. There has been a LOT of shit thrown around that is propagated because some hosts feel their job is to belittle or dismiss the alerters.

Can we just have more hosts like Agschmid & NYC_SKP who try to focus on their jobs and not making things worse??

For reference, please look at this thread in the hosts forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/124394578

GD The bashing of some DUers who have opinions that dont suits mainstream DU global LEAVE

thought must STOP

Author: mylye2222
The bashing of some DUers who have opinions that dont suits mainstream DU global thought must STOP!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025217778
Alerted by SidDithers: Disruptive meta.

I'm a leave on this, I see nothing disruptive here.
We've got to beat it. We don't have any choice here. We truly are—

Star Member NutmegYankee (6,853 posts)
1. GDH -Agree on leave.

I don't see it as disruptive either. In fact, prodding others to be more civil should be ENCOURAGED.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #1)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 05:50 PM
Star Member Autumn (16,691 posts)
2. I see it as a frivolous alert. Civility should always be encouraged.

We've got to beat it. We don't have any choice here. We truly are—we're backed up. We've got nothing behind us. There's no further place to back up." Elizabeth Warren.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Original post)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:00 PM
Star Member Agschmid (9,011 posts)
3. GDH - LEAVE

But I don't agree it's a frivolous alert.
It's the same old scene You've been stuck at the screen for a lifetime You keep your mind sharp and clean With a fix of caffeine for the nighttime You got a page full of friends In a world without end, DIKU? But if push comes to shove You can do without them if they make you.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Agschmid (Reply #3)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:09 PM
Star Member Autumn (16,691 posts)
4. What is disruptive about it?

We've got to beat it. We don't have any choice here. We truly are—we're backed up. We've got nothing behind us. There's no further place to back up." Elizabeth Warren.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #4)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:14 PM
Star Member Agschmid (9,011 posts)
5. My theory is, if someone feels strongly enough to alert...

we then should not call their alerts frivolous.

We likely don't agree here but the good thing is we agreed on the "leave" and that's the important part.
It's the same old scene You've been stuck at the screen for a lifetime You keep your mind sharp and clean With a fix of caffeine for the nighttime You got a page full of friends In a world without end, DIKU? But if push comes to shove You can do without them if they make you.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Agschmid (Reply #5)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:26 PM
Star Member Autumn (16,691 posts)
6. Yes, we agree on the leave part.

We've got to beat it. We don't have any choice here. We truly are—we're backed up. We've got nothing behind us. There's no further place to back up." Elizabeth Warren.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Agschmid (Reply #5)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:35 PM
Star Member NYC_SKP (59,635 posts)
7. I hate it whenever a hosts replies with "frivolous alert". It's not for us to offer that opinion.

Vote Leave, Lock, or WSC with a little backup based on the SOP.

"Frivolous" is a judgement, a put-down, and subjective.

Not good hosting form, IMHO.


Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group>
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:51 PM
Star Member Autumn (16,691 posts)
8. It's not up to us to offer a lot of opinions but alas, we do


We've got to beat it. We don't have any choice here. We truly are—we're backed up. We've got nothing behind us. There's no further place to back up." Elizabeth Warren.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:26 PM
Star Member rhett o rick (37,339 posts)
10. I would agree with that but would like to add that it should also be

inappropriate for anyone to trash hosts. Just sayin.
Don't forget to GOTV Support Progressive Democrats.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #10)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:36 PM
Star Member NYC_SKP (59,635 posts)
12. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's an object lesson, the term (used by more than one host) is representative of a type of comment, usually not seen, that dismisses the alert.

Again, it has the smell of snarky subjectivity, of being judgmental, in a task that doesn't required opinions.

I have been tempted to, and probably have, broken that same rule as a host, but I try to be better about it, professional.

Some alerted posters are, for example, "repeat offenders" or "should know better" or "they are trying to play the system".

This kind of commentary doesn't belong in the host forum, though there are times when it makes sense in MIRT.

That's all I'm saying: we can do better.
Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group>
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:40 PM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,522 posts)
13. Thanks for that. Agschmid as well.

Simple gestures can go a long way towards changing the tone.
"Being gay is natural, hating people for being gay is a 'lifestyle choice'."- John Fugelsang
Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #13)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:42 PM
Star Member William769 (40,134 posts)
14. Agreed.

I realize some people had their feelings hurt with the earlier NUKE but they need to move on.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:47 PM
Star Member Autumn (16,691 posts)
15. My feeling is, when a person skips over other OPs discussing DUers to alert on other OPs

discussing DUers, that's a frivolous alert. We will disagree on that and that's fine.
We've got to beat it. We don't have any choice here. We truly are—we're backed up. We've got nothing behind us. There's no further place to back up." Elizabeth Warren.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:16 AM
Star Member Bobbie Jo (9,699 posts)
19. Agree

It's this kind of gratuitous editorializing that leads to hard feelings and "trashing of hosts" elsewhere.

It just doesn't belong here.

Thanks, SKP.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:01 PM
Star Member Hassin Bin Sober (11,231 posts)
9. Frivolous alert.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #9)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:27 PM
Star Member rhett o rick (37,339 posts)
11. You are ornery, but that's not a bad thing. nm


Don't forget to GOTV Support Progressive Democrats.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:51 PM
Star Member Agschmid (9,011 posts)
17. He is, but even we manage to get along now.

I learned a lot from him last time I participated as a host.
It's the same old scene You've been stuck at the screen for a lifetime You keep your mind sharp and clean With a fix of caffeine for the nighttime You got a page full of friends In a world without end, DIKU? But if push comes to shove You can do without them if they make you.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:37 PM
Star Member Sissyk (4,402 posts)
16. GDH - Leave

It is not disruptive. It should be an OP everyone could get behind.

There is nothing wrong with asking for more civility.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)Wed Jul 9, 2014, 10:13 PM
Star Member itsrobert (10,569 posts)
18. GD Host - Leave

THANKS
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

[Sissyk]

546. I agree with you that there is some

host belittle or dismiss host. But is that the end of the world?

I'm dismissed every damn day in real life because I am a female that has worked her ass off to be in upper management position of an all male dominated industry and make more than quite a few of the men. I sure don't carrry on for days (weeks?) over one or two dismissive statements. I show them that they can't dismiss me. My job is just as important, and a money maker to the owners, as theirs is.

All the threads that were locked by EarlG were because of personal issues carried over from one host thread to another, in my opinion. Go look at the threads he locked that didn't have anything to do with quinnox. Why did he lock them? What was he trying to tell us?

That's why I tried to tell everyone except DU host to STFU and let us do our jobs. It wasn't anything against you, or the other non-GD host. It had to do with the business at hand and I think you and I discussed that and were cool.

Sometimes when people figure out your buttons, they push them. It's life. We have to learn to deal with that, or have a heartattack fighting them.

Plus, there's always the alert button in hosting. Send an alert up and tell Admin. your concerns. Cuss like a sailor, and get out that hurt and rage right there. Then, you can move on. (Of course, not you you. Us you).

[Sissyk]

548. And let me add if I may.

I'm not seeing though what that has to do with the thread bettyellen is talking about? Take a look at it and tell me what host did that is so wrong.

[PeaceNikki]

551. I mentioned it in context of general tone and host accountability in the animosity that continues.

It's not the end of the world. It's not related to Betty's thread.

Some hosts use the host forum to bash people without fear of jury. It's bullshit. And hosts should take cues from earlg and these two for how to help.

Quinnox was a big part of that. Let's all take responsibility for making it better. Even if we don't agree, we should remain civil. Myself included. And hosts should remind other hosts.

[Sissyk]

557. Yes, we should strive to remaind civil.

That's what we all should do.

I guess saying something is a frivolous alert is an itty bitty bashing of someone. I can give it a 2 maybe on a scale of 10. Maybe that's one reason other host didn't jump in. I will try to not speak for them, only me. Again, we are only the words we write on the screen, not what someone tells us we are, or thinks we are.

The host that said their was a grouping of alerts? Again, it was maybe a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 for me; and that's what started this all of this, if we will all be honest. It probably deserved a note of two from the offended party, but not a full escalation that got us to this point. Also, remember that host rotate in and out? Some getting thrown under the bus were not even host at the time.

I guess my point is, to me there are much bigger fish to fry than those minor infractions by host. And, again. Look at the threads that were locked. It wasn't the ones dealing only with hosting business. It was the personal ones, and it wasn't all GD Host making it personal.

I like this statement:

"Let's all take responsibility for making it better. Even if we don't agree, we should remain civil". I'm going to remember that if I want to jump in a thread that I'm not a host of and go off on a host of that group. It takes all of us.

Thanks nikki for the good conversation.

[freshwest]

512. +1,000,000!

[Bobbie Jo]

528. BRAVO!

Excellent post.

Yes, you really should make this an OP.

[winter is coming]

308. A post that's RW, sexist, racist, or otherwise disruptive is a jury matter.

If it's also an SOP violation, then I can see how hosts would lock it for not conforming to the Statement of Purpose, but it sounds like you think hosts should be locking things solely for being disruptive.

[PeaceNikki]

311. exactly. this is what started the whole mess between GD hosts and other hosts

It started with the "Asian privilege" thread and hasn't stopped since.

[bettyellen]

314. The SOP has been stretched to cover everything to the point where "Women should be raped" is

considered an issue or current event. That is bullshit.

Hosts felt like they should not handle it themselves, but we both know they could have and should have locked it.
What the hell are they doing if they can't lock that?

[winter is coming]

320. "Women should be raped" is obvious flamebait, but it's not an SOP violation for GD.

If I were a host, I'd alert on it to a jury. As for what hosts do, if they're not locking shit like that? They're supposed to be handling shit like this:

No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.

[bettyellen]

332. politics issues and current events is STILL in the SOP- just like that idiotic "one strong leave"

rule some hosts convinced the group to go along with for a short while- and have now abandoned- there are NO hard rules at all. This newish completely ignoring the SOP for the forum "thing" is bullshit made up by hosts who actually enjoy it being a free for all, and nothing more.

Skinner said again and again to take the time to think about why the person posted it, think about what makes the forum suck... - that was so you could leave thoughtful posts- and not bullshit trolling- certainly not offensive violent misogyny. Skinner would have supported a lock, but some hosts pretend otherwise.

Sorry- many hosts have been bullied out by the few who want to leave everything for their own shits and giggles- and pretend their hands are tied. The rules are made up- and remade constantly- mostly by the most vocal and libertarian leaning hosts. Happens all the time. Skinner never said to leave common decency or good sense at the door when entering the host lounge. Indeed, he said to use both to discuss the posts in question.

[winter is coming]

367. You're arguing that hosts should function as juries. That makes no sense.

In the real jury system, jurors are randomly drawn from a large pool and jury blacklists are respected. In your de facto jury system, there are no blacklists and the jurors are drawn from a much smaller pool. The potential for abuse is obvious.

I'm not saying offensive OPs shouldn't be locked; I'm just saying it's not something hosts have the power to do.

From the bottom of GD's "about this forum" page:

Forum Hosts have the following abilities in their assigned forums:
Lock thread (Reason: Violates this forum's Statement of Purpose)
Locks a thread when the OP (Original Post -- the first post of a thread) is not on-topic for the forum. 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.

So how did you start with "off-topic" and end up with "disruptive", especially when DU has a clear mechanism for handling disruptive posts?

[PeaceNikki]

372. Or...

This Statement of Purpose provides guidance for what posts are appropriate to be posted in your forum or group. However, you are not a robot who must mindlessly enforce that Statement of Purpose to the letter. Instead, you are empowered to use your own best judgment -- consider the Statement of Purpose, but also consider the feelings of people who are using your forum or group. How do they want to use the group? What can you do to help make the visitors to that group feel welcome and happy? It's okay to permit a little meta-discussion or off-topic stuff in any forum or group -- as long as it is good-natured, non-disruptive, and does not serve to overwhelm the group or distract from its primary purpose.

That's from the pinned thread in the hosts forum.

How is that example making women feel welcome? How is that not distracting from GD's primary purpose?

Like I said elsewhere, when I host... and I was on the very first extended round of hosting on DU3 while we were figuring it all out... THIS was the piece that stuck with me.

To me, that meant leaving posts about losing their pets or jobs. And locking threads that were divisive, flamebait, or using blatant right-wing sources to support a right-wing point of view. They called us "hosts" for a reason. Good hosts make members feel welcome. Not uncomfortable. Or angry. Or clique-y. Good hosts don't antagonize their guests. Or make them feel like they aren't wanted and a bother to them.

That's how I host. That's the DU I'd like back.

[winter is coming]

384. If I go up to the OP and click the "this post is disruptive" button, where will the alert go?

If the hosts are to be the arbiter of every OP in all respects, why does the software send the alert to a jury? Why can't a host, upon noticing a troubling OP, send an alert to a jury?

[PeaceNikki]

385. You do get that a disruptive, off-topic post can, in fact, be both against SOP and CS, right?

They are not mutually exclusive.

[winter is coming]

386. Yes, I get that. I also get that hosts hide SOP violations, not CS violations.

We've got juries to handle the CS violations and I see no reason not to use them. If nothing else, juries are a lot faster than hosts, especially for the real stinker threads.

[PeaceNikki]

389. huh. so that paragraph skinner wrote means nothing? why are we called 'hosts' if we're like robots

who are supposed to just stick to SOP to the letter?

weird. I was on the very first run of hosts here on DU3 in GD and Meta while we were working it all out. Hosts used to care about making visitors feel welcome in the forum in OPs. And sometimes fail. That doesn't mean is has to stay there and turn into a hurtful unproductive total flamefest.

I have no idea when or why that changed so much but I find it ridiculous.

If that's what they wanted, they should have called us "SOP Cops" or some shit.

"hosts"

[winter is coming]

391. I'm not sure what Skinner wrote means what you think it does.

My read of that paragraph is that he intended for hosts to cut some slack on the off-topic stuff if it's not causing drama. But I can think of situations where some ugly shit could be posted and declared "off-topic" not because it's off-topic but because the hosts find it offensive. And maybe even not-so-ugly shit if there are hosts working an agenda.

[bettyellen]

387. most hosts would deny this: "you are empowered to use your own best judgment "

and that is why they let the "Sluts should get raped " thread sit there for an hour. Anyone of them could have locked it immediately and then posted a thread about it- and would have been 100% supported. That is routine in every other forum.

What's special in GD is that we have a handful of very vocal hosts presenting their preferences (Leave everything!!) on other hosts, particularly newer hosts- and this fiction becomes the truth. Hosts do not have their hands tied as they pretend to. Never have.

[bettyellen]

375. Some hosts have convinced others there is no SOP anymore- only because it was stretched for harmless

posts so much for so long. But politics, issues and current events is still there. It CAN be used for threads like the "all sluts should be raped" thread. It is used in every other forum, GD does not have special restrictions. They are illusions created by other hosts.

The problem is, some hosts have convinced others that their hands are tied now. I do not believe it, nor do many other hosts who have left or resigned in disgust. Same with the "one strong leave" rule. A few dedicated hosts convinced a majority it was a rule. Then they abandoned it. It's nonsense, same as not being able to lock horrible sexist stuff if there is no value in it. Hosts are making this shit up as they go along, and changing the rules weekly as it serves them to- instead of following the spirit of what SKinner said.

[bettyellen]

398. I'm arguing they can- and have been encouraged by Skinner to follow the SOP at times when it is

appropriate. A horrible disruptive post like that , which does not conform to the SOP can and should be locked ASAP.
Hosts have been hoodwinked by a few hosts into thinking they are not allowed to ever lock unless it's guns or IP, not true.
Half the SOP is missing there- and Skinner never said that anyone should stop locking horrible disruptive posts that do not conform. Never. He said tread carefully and use your best judgement- not that your hands are tied.

[Bobbie Jo]

412. And them there's the

meta and "disruptive meta."

Now some members can get by with posting meta, while others are tagged with the disruptive variety.

No consistency whatsoever.

[freshwest]

515. The rules are made up- and remade constantly- mostly by the most vocal and libertarian leaning hosts

And it's what they will continue to do for 'their own shits and giggles' that 'makes DU suck.'

It's impossible to 'have fun at DU' when it's being run as a Libertarian cesspool, running off people who want to see progressive liberal policies and politicians elected. And young people who new to these games, but want to change their lives for the better, are not encouraged by this environment.

They want to make the Democratic Party appear toxic, by encouraging trolling, when it is not to most people who know about it. But that's because of they hate Democrats much worse than any GOP or Bagger, as they want those votes for their party.

They only use those words as slogans to rally each other, the process has no real meaning in the way they are applying it. Thanks for your posts on this thread, they are very illuminating and honest.

[Bobbie Jo]

559. Just latching onto your post here

but I have noticed that there are a certain set of DU'ers who seem to be on some kind of permanent host rotation. Seriously.

The hosting changes can't come soon enough for me. This little fiefdom needs to end for the good of this board.

[freshwest]

607. I had no idea this was going on, honestly. It's very disappointing. I pay for a star like others.

But whether one pays by the month to participate fully, or one cannot afford to do that, we should be treated fairly. It's bad enough reading dreckt on threads, but this kind of control is wrong.

It's why I left boards that were taken over by Republicans, Libertarians, Baggers and the like. Their need to control the message wasn't just confined to posting things to shock liberals and they didn't care about the website rules about hatred and bigotry, they only cared about their group.

Their intent was to drive Democrats, women, liberals, gays and minorities out of the discussion. They only wanted to have their views, no matter how hateful or dishonest, to be the only ones that would be echoed there.

That was bad enough, but when I saw 'liberals' letting them get away with it and not wanting to shake the boat, I left them, just as many have done at DU. Some wise voices have been silenced.

Thanks for the comment.

[Warren Stupidity]

560. And as we now know, your claim that the hosts allowed the op "Women should be raped"

to remain open is complete nonsense. Your only point in propagating this lie is to stir shit up, cause trouble, turn us against each other etc. You've done well at that. You must be very proud.

[freshwest]

459. That's scary stuff there. Sad but good to know. It feels that way at times...

[Chan790]

101. FYI

On Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

despite most often leaving these open- he will get special treatment from his host friends. Again..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5216610

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person is taking a happy occasion and turning it in to an attack on fellow hosts who, for the most part, have their hands tied by the admins.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: .
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No sense attacking our VOLUNTEER hosts. There are better ways of expressing one's opinion.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It doesn't rise to the level of personal attack that I would vote to hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, dear alerter. They're calling out the hosts on their past impropriety regarding this poster; a legitimate topic of discussion and outrage.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[bettyellen]

105. Thanks! Every stinking Quinnox thread, I would get 3-4 bad alerts. Dude has minions!

Too bad the juries see through it.

[CreekDog]

206. my latest hide was in his shaving thread

one of the jurors said I was derailing that thread! derailing the shaving thread.

they though it was gonna be awesome but i ruined it? seriously? wtf.

oh well.

anyway, yeah minions or socks.

[BainsBane]

461. Same here

In fact, the alerter justification was look what happened to the rest of the thread. A juror even talked about comments about another poster, like that was my fault?

[BainsBane]

67. I've yet to see a grave dancing thread hidden.

[newcriminal]

75. I voted to leave it, we will see.

[bettyellen]

96. Oh, it's been alerted to the jury, as well as to the hosts now?

The hosts have decided to leave it. Let's hope the jury does too.

[BainsBane]

469. I heard about that

I suppose jurors saw it differently given the person is still a member. Who knows. Or maybe they just had enough of the BS. There was a lot of shit flying this evening. I came home to a ton of PMs about endless craziness.

[Phentex]

493. it highlights the inconsistencies in hosting...

Yes, I know a jury got it. But I wonder why some very similar threads are allowed to stay while others are locked.

[newcriminal]

95. The results are in.

On Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:12 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Somewhere a bridge has gained its Troll back.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025216329

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is rude behavior and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:46 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Standard fare when someone is tombstoned...leave
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: who alerted on this? is quinnox back?
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: person is a troll, so what... no censorship, we are all adults... well most of us are.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

97. The hide without explanation

Don't you love those?

[bettyellen]

103. reminds me of when hosts get angry when you ask why and label it harrassment......

in a forum created so people can DISCUSS their votes.

[FreedRadical]

110. Actually that was the 2nd alert on this OP.

On Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:12 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

There are gun trolls here and their gun sockpuppets deeply embedded.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5216476

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Please! Haven't we had enough of this yet? Gun trolls? "They will work night and day to protect their odpiece fetish". This alone is disruptive, rude insensitive, and OTT. Plus, saying there are gun trolls here and their gun sockpuppets? That is a CS violation also. We can't allow one group to throw stones without allowing all groups to do the same. This really makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:25 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post goes with the thread.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think there is little doubt that DU is being professionally trolled. Poster is stating the obvious.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tarheel_Dem]

113. I love Juror #3!

[aikoaiko]

56. This is what happens when you cut your lip shaving.

[KittyWampus]

117. Thread WIN!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

189. LOL ... EarlG is The Styptic Pencil of Justice

[CreekDog]

203. !

[Lars39]

59. quinnex was a classic troller.

[bluedigger]

76. He will not be missed.

And quickly replaced, if it hasn't happened already. Better late than never.

[shenmue]

78. Huzzah!

[geek tragedy]

82. good riddance. he was obviously a troll, painfully so nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. The DU Gods are sometimes slow, but they usually catch up in the end. You Better Believe It!

[stevenleser]

112. Don't care so much that he locked his own OP. The wcgreen thing was inexcusable.

There is no DUer, not one, who I would not be concerned about after having major surgery. Even the few who I never seem to have positive interactions with. I would be concerned about and wish for a good speedy recovery for them.

[Phentex]

115. it makes no sense at all that he did not know...

of all the choices he could have used: charter schools, Obama, Zimmerman, cats, etc....he chose A NAME of a du'er and claims he did not know what the thread was about. Why would he choose one he knew nothing about? There are plenty of other topics he could have used.

[nomorenomore08]

408. I guess he's just an asshole who likes it when good people suffer...

[TeamPooka]

119. I had him on "ignore" so thanks for letting me know. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

121. Yes!!! Best tombstone since DKF!!!

[JI7]

220. but dkf was a little better at it, this one would post obvious racist, sexist crap

and got away with it.

with dkf if you look at the posts in themselves they don't seem like much. but you notice it when you look at the longer term pattern. dkf seemed to have more of a political , ideological goal in mind by attacking liberalism .


this one was more of an attention whore and much more personally cruel .

[bettyellen]

237. and this is because hosts suddenly took a blind eye toward RW, sexist and racist crap....

refused to even admit that is what DUers were correctly seeing. Earl G would lock up his crap, and GD hosts rarely reflected for a moment on what was wrong with it. Too often they admonished the alerters instead of facing the ugly truth.

[msanthrope]

263. I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that crap going down in the Host Forum. nt

[PeaceNikki]

265. Not by a longshot. But quinnox and others turn ALL attempts to address it into attacks on the

ones trying to bring it to their attention.

[bettyellen]

273. Too many of the hosts have expressed open hostility to alerters. They hate the system, and allowed a

troll to game it- when anyone with eyes could see what Q was up to. Shameful.

[msanthrope]

573. One host did the same thing in MIRT....it really destroyed that term. nt

[bettyellen]

266. I did not understand the connection to those obsessed with Third Wayers until the discriminating

host themselves layed it out for me. I love social justice and NSA spying- according to them. Idiocy- according to me.

I have a feeling many are actually libertarian and pretend their hands are tied, because they really do not give a shit- but others assume you are pro- Hillary f you hate sexism, and pro-Obama if you hate racism- so they allow it to stand.
Any concern about these things gets you tarred as a corporatist by these idiots. I think THEY are the ones getting played by ratfuckers, but what do I know?

[DURHAM D]

278. You nailed it - THEY ARE LIBERTARIANS.

We have several of them here and they have jumped into Hosting forums and groups.

[bettyellen]

289. if your priority is NSA data but not women being jailed and scoped against their wills- you're a

selfish ass and not a progressive. Many of are capable of having both concerns. Some of these people put their own wallets ahead of our lives. It's kind of obvious at this point.

[Bobbie Jo]

414. I have believed this for some time.

Nailed it, indeed.

[freshwest]

542. ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

122. One bothersome thing about this =

Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: No
Eligible to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 60% (explain)
Number of times served on Juries: 238

I think they need to be examined.

[bettyellen]

150. Every fucking time I replied to his posts, I would get alerts. His scam was to inflame people

and he prolly had five or six socks going to help him get on more juries. Expecting him back momentarily, probably in this thread.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

167. wow. that bad, eh? He really flew under my radar until just recently.

I honestly had no idea about all this hosting crap. Of course, I have not been a host in a long time. It was kind of nasty back then but, it seems to have grown to epic proportions now.

I think it needs some tweaking if not done away with completely.

Do you really think quinnox has a drawer full of socks

[bettyellen]

170. I am pretty sure it was a drawer full, by the volume of BS alerts I assume he had a few

friends that would help him hide my more innocuous posts. Worked particularly well late in the evening from what I have seen and heard.
But I got a lot of PMs from people who thought the alerts were ridiculous, and there would still be 1-2 hides with no explanation at all. So, yeah there are people here who will do his bidding including that one host who blamed everyone but Q before going rogue.

[Cha]

436. I had him on ignore for a long time.. something smelled fishy. Look at all I missed until this

final flameout when a friend told me what he was doing on DU.

[Cali_Democrat]

222. I had him on my blacklist

We didn't get along, AT ALL.

[bettyellen]

352. Mine too, I went to add a name to replace- and THREE slots had opened up in the last 10-12 weeks

boy, can I pick em or what? Actually I shld go see who recced that piece of shit thread of his and add them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

366. OOOhhh...."blacklist". I get to drop him, and add another of his ilk. Thanks for the reminder.

[trumad]

123. Sweet

Can't believe it took so long.

[Enrique]

124. i've read through this whole thread

and I'm not seeing what makes quinnox a troll, nor why he was banned. I'm seeing a bunch of people pissed a things he said, but that doesn't make him a troll. I'm seeing EarlG called him a troll, but I'm not seeing why.

[winter is coming]

131. Sounds like he had a habit of crowding his luck and it finally caught up with him.

I wasn't aware of it because I never followed his posts, but he apparently had a habit of posting shitty things and then self-deleting before a jury could hide them. If that happens once in a blue moon, it could be a DUer realizing they've crossed a line. If it happens a lot, that's someone gaming the system.

Given his alleged behavior in the hosts forum (persuading another host to unilaterally lock his thread rather then self-deleting it, then locking the thread himself after it had been unlocked, then resigning as host before he could be compelled to unlock it, but signing up again as a Welcome & Help host so he could continue having access to the hosts forum), it's clear that he was fucking with DU. That doesn't go down with well the admins, and is trollery.

[bettyellen]

134. it's a pattern of antagonistic behavior coupled with openly racist and sexist attitudes that clued

in most of the women and POC here years ago that he was trolling. He was never progressive at all.

It's possible that since you were never targeted or saw the constant disruption in threads you ignored it would fly over your head. Since he often self deleted the worst of it, many did miss it. But many noticed.

[BainsBane]

210. Yep. That was it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

223. There was a great OP/Article posted awhile back ...

that discussed PoC's ability to detect "subtle" racist tendencies, long before they reach a "surface-level", where it can be detected by white folks ... the OP implored white folks to listen to/seriously consider/trust PoC when they speak on what they see.

I suspect women have a similarly well tuned sense on matters of sexism ... and, likewise, the GLBTQ community on matters of homophobia.

This "I missed something ... What happened?" can be a teachable moment.

[uppityperson]

137. this post gives the final reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5216561

[Starry Messenger]

138. He was messing with the Host system and forum.

That's a big no-no here. It got LoZoccolo and Graham4anything booted too.

[Enrique]

155. ok thanks SM and uppityperson

if he was gaming the system it means he wasn't really looking for an honest discussion, which would kind of him a troll.

I remember LoZo and Graham4anything, and I don't remember exactly why they were banned I remember their posts striking me as trollish. quinnox didn't strike me that way.

[Arugula Latte]

148. He was openly antagonistic towards women and women's rights.

Many people here have been banned for being anti-gay, but a lot of the anti-women people have gotten a pass. I'm pleasantly surprised he finally got the axe.

[LeftyMom]

193. He was also a racist and not at all subtle about it.

[BainsBane]

214. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

230. But, because he never dropped the N-bomb ...

he did not have to be subtle ... only that crosses the line.

[LeftyMom]

240. I've been saying for a while that's a huge drawback of juries.

Moderators could look at a pattern of posts, jurors look at a single post, often (based on how fast results come back) without reading the thread. So unless a poster says one horrific and undebatable thing, they're probably in the clear.

[1StrongBlackMan]

249. If the jurors put that much thought into it ...

I suspect that some jurors just look at the name of the offender and vote. How else could a post that blatantly and pointedly mocks Black folks (the Fried Chicken thread) or flat-out calls President Obama a PoS used car salesmen, survive a jury vote?

[MineralMan]

505. There's some truth to that, I think.

I suspect that most jury decisions are just fine, and the jurors try to judge a post on genuine grounds. However, I'm pretty sure there are some who just look at the poster's screen name and vote according to what they think of that particular DUer. In many cases, such votes are made with no comment. In others, though, the comment reveals the personal bias.

Recently, I made one of my rare alerts on a post. The result was 4-3 to leave the post. What post is was is irrelevant, but I only alert on posts that contain a personal attack on someone other than myself. One juror commented, "I see you MineralMan." That juror voted to leave the attack.

Now, my writing style is pretty easy to identify, so I'm not surprised that some people can guess that I'm the alerter by reading the comment I leave. However, that particular post was, indeed, a personal attack on another DUer, so that particular juror could have been the deciding vote. I don't know for sure, of course, and I have no idea who the juror was, nor do I care.

Juries usually rule well, I think. I've been on about 550 juries, so I've seen a lot of jury results emails. In most, I don't see any real biases, whether I agree with the ruling or not. Sometimes, though, I do see real biases, and a single vote can turn the decision in many cases.

[1StrongBlackMan]

513. I agree ...

I just found that another of my posts survived an alert (1-6).

The alerter, clearly, did not read what I wrote and the 1 jurist voting to hide left no reason for their decision ... the 5 of the other jurist corrected the alerter ... and the remaining jurist attacked my grammar before indicating that the post was no hide-worthy.

I don't know a/the solution to the obvious fan-clubs that from time to time infect the jury process; but I guess it's not that much different from the "justice" found in the real life jury system.

[MineralMan]

516. I almost never see alert rulings on my posts.

I know that my posts get alerted on fairly frequently, but so far, none have been locked for a very long time. I do not write things that will lead to a hidden post. I work hard to be civil, even when I disagree strongly with something. I personally consider a hidden post to be a serious matter, and want to avoid having my posts hidden.

My posts hidden by Jury in the last 90 days: 0
Days since last hidden post: 565

When it gets to 1000 days since my last hidden post, I'll think I've been successful.

[1StrongBlackMan]

541. I agree ...

the goal is to write things in a manner that folks will not take offense to the degree as to alert/hide it.

I've noticed that the majority of your posts center on "Get Out The Democratic Vote" ... it seems to be your passion (and thank the Universe for that). However, on a site named DemocraticUnderground, it should be fairly easy to NOT offend folks to the point that they alert/vote to hide. Anecdotally, I have yet to have a post alerted on/Hidden when I have posted in those type of threads

I, on the other hand, post primarily in threads about racism/discrimination, sexism/misogyny ... and, ALL (the vast majority) of posts that I have been alerted on/hidden, are posts where I identify/stand against racism/discrimination, sexism/misogyny and/or express that these issues are far more important, to me, than income inequality or the NSA.

One genre is (or should be) uncontroversial; whereas, the latter DU has big problems with.

[MineralMan]

544. You're right, of course.

And thank you for standing up to bigoted people!

[1StrongBlackMan]

547. I just have to figure out a way ...

to do so in a manner where those pre-disposed to being offended when challenged (e.g., straight, white, liberal, males) won't be offended when their offensiveness is pointed out!

GOTDV-2014

[MineralMan]

549. Not a simple thing.

There's certainly some offensive stuff posted on DU when it comes to a wide range of topics, especially when gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and other issues where bigotry is a problem. I post sometimes in threads like that, too. Other times, I can't post without anger and frustration in such threads. It's a real problem on DU, and it sure shouldn't be on a forum people think is progressive. Sometimes, it seems less than progressive to me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

553. And pointing that out ...

leads to alerts, hidden post, and locks.

[MineralMan]

554. Yes. It can. I'm not sure I know a solution, either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

556. Please start a GOTDV-2014 Thread! eom.

[Gormy Cuss]

397. A troll's intent is to disrupt.

After reading this thread, you don't see how quinnox was a troll?

[Warren Stupidity]

404. he was rightly banned for fucking with the system.

His antics in the host forum were guaranteed to get him tossed.

[Helen Borg]

136. I think I missed the full story!

Sigh.

[Andy823]

140. Well said

Of course there are still a "lot" of bridges that are missing their trolls, and I sure hope they too find their way back home!

[Arugula Latte]

143. Oh Happy Day!

He's no doubt ranting on his Wimmins-hatin' sites.

[Warpy]

154. I've been a little sad about some people who have gotten the boot

But not this time,

[Tarheel_Dem]

157. Anything Democrats were unified about, he always wanted to change the subject. Big clue!

"If you're tired of hearing about.....Trayvon Martin, Chris Christie, Newtown, Women's Issues, etc." Anything he thought was unifying the board, he did his level best to break it up.

WILL! NOT! BE! MISSED!

[CreekDog]

181. And he didn't like black people's hair

thought afros were for attention.

complete disruptor. the most charitable thing i can say about him is that perhaps he didn't believe these things but said them just to disrupt.

which ain't saying much!

[Tarheel_Dem]

188. I knew he had issues, wasn't sure about the source, but the afro thingie speaks volumes.

I know he didn't much like the board discussing the whole Trayvon Martin thing.

[AngryAmish]

205. What?

Afros are for attention? ugh.

[CreekDog]

209. take a look, see if i quoted him accurately:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3452867

[bettyellen]

211. you know, it used to bother me to see the saved links- but after this? No more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

236. What? ...

I must have missed that one.

[CreekDog]

248. what indeed. here, take a look...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3452867

[XemaSab]

251. By that criterion

I was desperate for attention when I got out of bed this morning. #mcfro

"Why would you want that puffy big-ass hair on your head. I guess if you are desperate for attention."

[Arugula Latte]

571. Gawd, what an asshole.

So glad he's gone.

[Cha]

416. He disrupted poorly.. I had him ignore for a long time. I did not want to even

see what bullshit he was going to post next.

[bettyellen]

208. Yeah, if he wasn't a ratfucker I don't know who is. Well, actually I do.....

[1StrongBlackMan]

243. We could probably compare lists ...

I can think of 3 more.

[Tarheel_Dem]

370. Only 3? My entire jury blacklist is questionable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

376. I don't have a jury blacklist, nor do I ...

have anyone on ignore (though I suspect I'm on a bunch of folks' lists for both).

[bettyellen]

396. well, 20% of my jury blacklist has been PPR in the last two months, so I can pick em alright.

Sadly it was easy to think of people to move into the new slots.

[Number23]

471. And I bet I'm thinking of the same three!!

Although with four seconds of thinking that list goes up to 5. With a minute of thinking I can probably easily come up with a cool dozen.

[1StrongBlackMan]

496. I'm being very generous ...

Funny how quiet my list membership has been of late!

[Warren Stupidity]

292. So you have a list?

did you know there are hosts who keep lists of "groups" DUers they dislike and dissuade other hosts to ignore their alerts. Other GD hosts have not spoken up to condemn this, and that is a problem. Meta does not exist for them until it's something they do not want to see out in GD. This has nothing to do with you- but when they usually vote to keep grave dancing and suddenly have a change of heart for an old ally, it will make DUers take notice. The group cannot be consistent, it is understood, but some hosts are very inconsistent, and speak openly of the alerters and OPs instead of the content. That is wrong.

[bettyellen]

297. I am not judging alerts by WHO alerted on WHO, as some hosts admittedly do.

And you're defending it now? Or saying I would be as prejudiced against DUers as some hosts admittedly already ARE?

[Warren Stupidity]

307. I'm saying that you are continually misrepresenting what it is that hosts are supposed to do

and trying to turn that into some alleged war on some faction(s) here. How about just stop doing that? We don't moderate gd. Not our job.

[PeaceNikki]

309. how about you tell the other GD hosts to stop bashing alerters?

That might be a good start.

[bettyellen]

343. Very few hosts correct others when they trash alerters, or people in the flamebait thread...

in fact the current hosts often act like all alerts are bad. Quinnox did, I have seen other hosts push to make the SOP meaningless. I do not believe it is. I also never believed that "one strong lock" bullshit either.

[PeaceNikki]

346. one of the current hosts often calls perfectly reasonable alerts "disruptive"

Wtf?

I was on the first round of hosts on du3 in GD and meta. We never ever ever had this bullshit. And we were trying to figure it all out and still managed.

[bettyellen]

348. disruptive if you are Libertarian or an anarchist- but not if you agreed to the TOS here, FFS.

All these bullshit "rules" are just how the more libertarian leaning DUers WANT to interpret SOME of what Skinner said. And they bully others to accept their rules, or run em off.

None of those rules are set in stone, the SOP did not vanish into thin air one day, and no ones hands were tied into leaving "women should be raped" here.

[PeaceNikki]

351. I took to heart the part where skinner said hosts are too make members feel welcome.

To me that means locking intentionally devisive drama, sexist or racist shit and right wing sources posted as support of... Anything.

These hosts only want to lock (some) gun threads. Maybe.

And sometimes meta they don't like.

Make members feel welcome. Not uncomfortable. Or angry. Or clique-y. The admins can them "hosts" for a reason. Good hosts don't antagonize their guests. Or make them feel like they aren't wanted.

[bettyellen]

354. and to take a look at the effort made and intent of the thread - if they effort and intent are small

and malicious, hosts have the power to do something about it. A handful of hosts have convinced others they cannot "do the right thing". They now mistake discussing the locks - their job- as attacks and stalking. They have completely lost their way.

[PeaceNikki]

357. they picked the word "host" for a reason.

Good hosts make members feel welcome. Not uncomfortable. Or angry. Or clique-y. Good hosts don't antagonize their guests. Or make them feel like they aren't wanted and a bother to them.

[bettyellen]

361. It is impossible to believe that those who want to "leave everything" actually believe that was

Skinner's intended message given the totality of his posts- but a few hosts grabbed onto that- and the one vote block consensus thing like pit pulls.
The same people discarded the idea that they should have actual discussions about the posts. They wanted to rig the system to make it a free for all- then have occasional regrets when DUers they don't like have their own free for all. Sorry- it works both ways now.

[bettyellen]

310. we both know there is no actual agreement on what hosts are *supposed* to do

as far as meta, consensus- and that one "stong leave" bullshit, grave dancing and extreme racism and sexism- you can't pretend there ever was full agreement on any of those things. Never has been. Many host think it is wrong to leave up "All women should be raped" because in doing so you are stretching the SOP to the very limit. It's not an issue or event, but some would have left it- and THAT sucks.

It is unfortunate that such confusion gives cover to those who vote very inconsistently, but it serves to right now. If some hosts didn't openly disparage alerters in the hosts forum- we might not KNOW what they are doing- which is voting to favor people they like, and against people they dislike. It's happened, and it will continue to happen, unless we have greater transparency, and real consequences.

[kcr]

381. There were hosts who wanted to leave "All women should be raped?"

Wow

[bettyellen]

390. well- they have been convinced by some others that no matter how extreme the sexism or racism -

it is only for juries to deal with. They used to hide using the SOP if there was no issue or current event- but somehow they are the only group of hosts to not use the SOP ever. A lot of hosts contested this, but a few libertarian types held strong and refused to lock blatant racism or sexism, and they have "won" for now. The convinced new hosts this was a rule- when they actually twisted Skinner's intent to the max.

A group also pushed a "rule" that consensus meant everyone- one host would say "strong leave" and they could not lock. They have since abandoned that made up rule- because it backfired. But a small group of libertarian types continue to push hosts into thinking they are largely powerless. Very few hosts show up, and many are so confused they just say they will side with others. Others are automatic leaves- they hate all locks. They are there to keep GD a free speech zone no matter how nasty or stupid it gets.

[kcr]

401. Sounds like it's been rendered completely useless

I'm sure that was the intention. I hope admin's fix addresses the problelm. And man, am I glad I decided not to host.

[bettyellen]

402. yeah, pretty intentional. very funny how the "one strong leave" thing was discarded after

a short while, after some claiming it was the law. Some hosts are good at grooming others to follow their lead. It's pretty sad and creepy. Newbies have no idea.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

158. If he was only pretending to be as ignernt as he appeared

I think he should be given a lot of credit for being
so successful at it. He had me fooled into thinking
he was one of the most dubmest human beings to ever
figure out how to turn a computer on. So congratulations,
quinnox!

[Capt. Obvious]

174. I say he plied his craft quite well

[A-Schwarzenegger]

183. Thank you for confirming my suspicions because

I'm not up to snuff on this trolling business so
I'll def take your word on this Capt.

[BainsBane]

207. I don't know that EarlG's referring to him as a troll means it was an act

It could have been entirely genuine. Still, in his thread dissing people who cared about the Hobby Lobby decision, he made a comment that among the issues he cared about was national health care. How then could he not see Hobby Lobby was a problem?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

216. Well, there is no law against simple stupidity

so he is legally protected.

[betsuni]

418. Excuse me, Mr. Schwarzenegger, but are you

the one with the mixed animal?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

421. I certainly am not, Sir or Madame.

I've never heard of any so-called mixed animal.
And even if I was, or had, I'm not legally or morally
responsible for any damage that he might have done
or is yet to do.

[PeaceNikki]

423. .

[betsuni]

426. Oh, Mr. Schwarzenegger!

It is you! I am quite excited. Every time my husband snores I think of somebody shaking a can of plums, although then I always wonder because I don't think I've ever seen a can of plums. I'm sure they exist, anything can be canned, I just haven't seen them for some reason. Will make another story sometime, please?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

432. Does that mean there is no subpeona (sp?) involved?

In that case, yes, I may have heard of him, faintly,
and also smelt him, not so faintly. Meanwhile,
put this in the fridge:

[betsuni]

434. No, I promise, you will not be hearing from my lawyers in the morning.

Thank you for the plums. I will put them in the icebox and save them for breakfast. They will be delicious. So sweet and so cold.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

435. I almost put WCW's poem in there!

[betsuni]

438. Yes, low hanging fruit

I had to pick it.

[NutmegYankee]

371. One logical conclusion to the HL decision is to take companies out of the equation.

Make the government the standard provider of health care. Problem solved.

[BainsBane]

420. Absolutely

all this nonsense just shows why single payer would be far simpler and more efficient.

[nomorenomore08]

419. Very true that "trolling" isn't necessarily intentional. The effect matters more than the motive.

And the contradiction you speak of, I think, is rather easily explained - he only cares about the healthcare issue when it affects him, and since he'll never be pregnant, there you go.

[laundry_queen]

169. Oh, good

a space on my jury blacklist has opened up. Betcha it won't take long to fill it!

[Tarheel_Dem]

380. Great minds and all. I said the exact same thing.

[MADem]

180. Wow, oh wow ... I'm shocked, I tell you....SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That it took so damn long!!!!! That guy bumped the line and delighted in it.

Oh well, some good things are worth waiting for!!!

Thanks to the admins! Great call!!!

[Renew Deal]

182. Since 2002!

I always wondered how he lasted so long.

[intaglio]

212. Video without comment

[JI7]

213. what took to fucking long ? good riddance to the racist, sexist POS

[XemaSab]

217. Well that's one down

[RetroLounge]

244. About f*cking Time

RL

[LittleBlue]

253. Does anyone actually believe he's gone?

10 years, 20k posts. Something tells me he's still with us in ahhhh... spirit.

[Quantess]

290. What a weirdo, and I don't mean that in a good way.

I remember that he was sort of a word-police a few years ago, back when we had Meta Forum. As in, he stubbornly took the side of those who wished to censor "douche" and "bitch".
...If I remember correctly.

He was always so pedantic and preachy about semantics, that I found it annoying. I always thought that guy was a real dork, and a tool, but I was surprised at his increasing meanness.

And just now, he got some pathetic gratification out of antagonizing women over the recent SC ruling, and heartlessly ridiculing a gravely ill DUer for being sick.

Good call, EarlG!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

291. I'm not sure about the first part of your post. he was always complaining about the so called

"PC Police. At leas the last couple of years.

[Quantess]

302. Yes, I know, RECENTLY, that is.

I could be wrong but back when we had Meta, I was one of those who argued for the merits of "douche", "douchebag", "bitch", etc. IIRC, quinnox would chime in, sounding like a stereotype of a prissy librarian offended by slang¤
I thought it was strange to see quinnox, of all people, dropping his pedantic & dorky facade and showing his crass side. Masks get heavy to hold up.

I will need to investigate this, because I could be mistaken.


¤ (Apologies to all the upstanding and intelligent librarians out there)

[redqueen]

303. Slang and gendered slurs are two different things.

Sorry to go all 'pedantic prissy librarian' on you, but slang is one thing, anti-woman slurs are just a weeeee bit different.

FWIW, I don't remember him arguing that the b word shouldn't be used as a pejorative.

[Quantess]

306. Yes, yes... I don't think we need to rehash any of this well-worn Meta topic

that you and I will never completely come to agreement on. I have better things to do, and I am sure you do, too.

Anyway, I could be thinking of someone else. I tried to do a search but it's not getting me anywhere since I lack a star.

[Jamaal510]

298. Quinnox could make some money

selling trolling books to the DailyPaul and other wingnut sites. That guy was here for a long minute without getting caught, wasn't he?

[XemaSab]

300. Too long

n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

395. Yup. He was a great example of a right winger posing as a liberal

One DUer had mentioned this a long time ago and I started to look at his posts closely ever since.

That DUer had him pegged perfectly.

[hrmjustin]

315. I find it interesting there is no cave thread on this yet.

[Rex]

323. Even if he is not a CC troll, abusing hosting privileges like he did

would seem a good enough offense to get a PPR imo.

[hrmjustin]

325. Agreed but my point my mean nothing. it sometimes takes the cave awhile to pick up

on things. But it makes you wonder.

[Rex]

328. Yeah true, I know some DUers are keeping a constant eye on their lair.

If Q was one of them, you know they will eventually have to post about it. I didn't have a problem with said poster, but most of the time when I would read replies or comments they would be self-deleted before I could see the reply. Not against self-deleting, I've done it...but that one seemed to do it almost all the time.

Something fishy about that imo.

[hrmjustin]

330. Many times when I self delete I feel like I have to explain it.

But yes he did that and the host forum was a mess because of him yesterday.

[Rex]

335. Reminds me of the fella that tried to take the host forum hostage a few years ago.

A guaranteed recipe for failure.

[hrmjustin]

336. Graham?

[Rex]

337. Maybe, I don't remember the name. Just that they demanded the admins

do it 'their way' or they would fuck up the host forum...it was a really WTF moment.

[hrmjustin]

340. that doesn't sound like graham.

Might be before my time.

[Ruby the Liberal]

378. LoZoccolo nt

[Rex]

442. Yes thanks, that is the one. nt

[BainsBane]

350. They scarcely miss a PPR notice

They even track the time outs on discussionist.

[bettyellen]

356. if he's a mod there too, who is busy deleting threads on himself?

[hrmjustin]

363. lol.

[Rex]

439. Good point.

nt.

[Rex]

319. He shouldn't have tried to abuse his hosting privileges.

Sounds like he was doing it from the get-go and the admins finally got tired of it. Admins don't just ban longtime posters on a whim.

[Renew Deal]

449. He should have been banned on content alone

I don't know what happened in F&G, but if anyone ever left turds in punchbowls it was this guy.

[BainsBane]

355. This is another case of someone PPR'd who didn't get that many hides

It seems to me that juries think they are protecting their friends by allowing insults go through to people they think less important. However, the problem is it only emboldens bad behavior, and the only alternative left to adminis is to PPR them. Of course the host situation makes Quinnox's situation somewhat different, but another case was RC, who rarely ever had a hide yet crossed the line repeatedly. Perhaps if jurors voted more on content and less on who they like or don't like, you might better serve your friends and the site.

[nomorenomore08]

422. +1

[Spazito]

360. This was long, long overdue, imo...

I have believed he was a disruptive troll for years and he wasn't even subtle about it. He was a disruptive, sexist racist who delighted in making DU suck.

Thanks, EarlG, for a long overdue action.

[CreekDog]

577. community standards don't address passive aggressive concern trolls

the system seems to be set up to let trolls bait everybody as long as they aren't over the top about it.

when they get called out, the person correctly identifying, even mildly, the trolling, is often the one who gets hidden.

it's all screwed up.

DU's Jury system: you're more likely to get hidden for saying something is racist than saying something racist.

even in this instance, the person who caused all this, trolled hosts and DU in general and mightily had NOT ONE POST HIDDEN THROUGHOUT.

the people who called him out, even accurately, were hidden numerous times.

and those who followed the rules in the hosts forum were chided for "drama", when the drama's source was two hosts (one mostly).

but everyone gets blamed for reacting.

[Spazito]

580. Yes, it was VERY frustrating to watch happen over and over again...

with no consequences for the multiple flamebait OPs and posts by the troll over the years. It's actually frustrating it was not his multiple sexist, racist OPs and posts that finally got him turfed, it was his gaming of the hosting system. He gamed ALL of DU for years not just the host forum, imo.

[CreekDog]

586. and while he was ppr'd, i think gd hosts were blamed for what happened

when almost every one of them advocated for a different result.

[Jamastiene]

377. No matter how bad my physical aches and pains are, some days

are worth waking up for. This is one of those days.

[hrmjustin]

400. I see some are not taking it well.

[Phentex]

424. i am surprised at how many are insulting the admins....

They don't ban members on a whim.

[hrmjustin]

425. That and there was an ugly thread calling another member to be banned without naming the poster.

[geek tragedy]

437. Is this all in the hosts forum? nt

[BainsBane]

462. No, it was in GD

and it was about me because apparently Q's banning is all my fault.

[geek tragedy]

463. Take a bow for that one, ma'am.

The right people will applaud, and if a certain crowd disapproves, even better.

[BainsBane]

464. I deserve neither credit nor blame

I was only tangentially involved, late to learn about the WCGreen business, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the hosts forum. None of that matters, however, when someone wants a scapegoat.

[geek tragedy]

465. Earned or not, the scorn of those

of similar mind and character as the departed troll is a badge of honor.

[bravenak]

500. I knew you would be blamed.

It was obvious to me that it was going to happen. If i believed in magic i'd swear i was a psychic.

[BainsBane]

506. Yes, you did

I don't know how you knew it. I couldn't have guessed it since there was no way I was even an important part of any of this.

[JustAnotherGen]

502. So according to these folks

You are the Who Who Did it? I haven't seen that thread - that's a strong indicator that the op is on my very VERY limited ignore list.

[Cha]

431. I haven't read all the thread so I missed that.. but, no they don't PPR on a whim.

The poster has been skating for long time and finally flamed himself out.

[Bobbie Jo]

446. Long overdue...

What a self-absorbed, condescending, jerk.

Good riddance.

Nicely done, EarlG

[stage left]

450. Good!

[ecstatic]

451. I always thought so... Most of the time s/he trolled from the left

but there were times when s/he would slip up and troll from the right (or just share right wing beliefs). There are several others like "it" that hopefully will get the boot soon.

[flamingdem]

659. Couldn't remember whether to troll left or right?

There's a App for that

[jberryhill]

452. you know

I used to post fail graphics on threads that were such obvious baits, I can't believe this wasn't obvious a while ago.

[DonCoquixote]

475. unapolegetic GRAVE DANCE!

Normally I would not be this way, but considering the amount of times people like the mentioned person have tried to kill off seabeyond, I will not offer so much as crocodile tears.

[seaglass]

483. This is who I saw every time he posted...

Not sure why, maybe his obliviousness - which I guess was an act.

Racist, sexist - glad he is finally gone.

[BootinUp]

508. An accomplished troll yes, skirted the system for a long damn time.

Let us give thanks.

[Raffi Ella]

585. What an enlightening thread this has been...

It goes a long way in explaining what happened to GD. Good Riddance to the plague of quinnox and his influence on other DUers, and may the Admins make some serious changes to Hosting Duties.

[thucythucy]

645. Agreed.

This has been most informative. And "plague of quinnox and his influence" is exactly right.

[Raffi Ella]

674. I don't get how Admins let it go on for so long,

the excuse "it's a big tent" doesn't justify 'a quinnox'. They've been in politics long enough to know a troll when they see one. They not only allowed a troll like that they gave him active influence over the largest forum. It makes no sense.

And as for any other Hosts who are involved in making DU a free for all fight club? It takes a hell of a lot of pride to double down after their ring leader was banned as a troll and after what's been revealed about their behind the scenes META club. And you know what they say about pride.

The absence of quinnoxe's destructive influence is a good start, but like I said, I hope Admins make some serious changes to Hosting.

[betsuni]

652. I thought of it as the slime in "Ghostbusters 2" that feeds off negative vibes.

[tabasco]

646. WHAT THE FUCK TOOK SO LONG?

Take out some more fucking trash while you're at it, guys.

[ReverendDeuce]

662. Nothing like a little DU drama!

Such, such drama!

[RainDog]

682. another name I can take off my ignore list n/t

[DonCoquixote]

685. Ok, how long

Until his sock puppet shows up?

[Phentex]

687. probably already here...

It doesn't take long for the background socks to head into the limelight.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

688. But when you're playing with one Lego,

kinda hard to hide your game.