i made a post about the pageant before reading iverglas thread. i addressed what she stated.

[seabeyond]

she was, of course, much more articulate than i. her thread was locked. this is my concern. drama, trauma and battle should not be a part of our mix. we can not get a post that a man says.... all women are prostitutes, hidden (some feel the other word too harsh. i dont. we can use it until we cant when making a statement). but in our "safe, protected" environment, our posts discussing the imbalance on du will be locked.

one of the things i was impressed with fearless (host in lbgt) about, was his/her right to protect themselves in their group, their environment. womens forum should be expected to be allowed the same. i see no reason for the drama and battle of another forum to effect our forum.

iverglas lock shows us once again, women being thrown to the side of the road.

this locked thread concerns me. it tells me we may have an issue. and it is wrong.

[iverglas]

1. neat, eh?

First, the submissions to any jury reviewing this post.

This is a PROTECTED GROUP. Members of this group are permitted to discuss their problems at this website, and the people with whom they have problems, in this group, without let or hindrance.

If you read the content of this post, you will understand how this works.

It took me quite some time to understand it -- that I could be called out, insulted and lied about in another group's forum here without penalty -- but that's how it is.

Since that's how it is for the LGBT group, I am expecting, and requiring, that that's how it be for the Feminists group. I will maintain what I consider to be civility as it is understood in the broader world -- I will not lie about other DU members, specifically; but the rules of civility that govern this website do not apply here, unless the members of the group themselves (via their hosts) decide to ban a poster.

Should I post this in Meta-Discussion where it can be replied to by non-group members? Nope. No more than the LGBT group members should do that (see material reproduced below, re the continuing discussion of myself in that forum).

So if we Feminists could just get on with our business, we will be grateful.


This is the message I received regarding the hidden OP "so let's talk cases".

That OP was a continuation of a discussion that had been ongoing throughout the late evening and early morning. I wanted some specific answers to some specific questions, and not necessarily just from the one individual who had been engaged in the dialogue to that point. That individual, La Lioness Priyanka, was actively reading and posting in this forum at the time I posted. The other person I named and quoted, well, you can be sure she is reading here -- but apart from that, I am entitled to say what I want, about whom I want, in this forum, as is any other member of this forum. That is the way it is.



AUTOMATED MESSAGE: One of your posts has been hidden by a DU Jury

At Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:13 AM, an alert was sent on the following post:

so let's talk cases

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Since when have blatant call-outs been allowed?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:35 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: it was an inappropriate call-out of a DU poster
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Multiple call-outs here.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Having read this post, and seeing references to OTHER posts, I also went and read those. I think iverglas is being a bully and breaking not only CS, but also TOS. Is threadstalking against the rules?


--------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, here are some answers, jurors. And alerter -- whether you were a random busybody or someone acting with full knowledge and malice aforethought.

Just a couple of comments first.
Juror #6, you might want to refrain from passing judgment in situations where you have no knowledge of the facts. Your allegations are outrageous, and can stem only from total ignorance or bias, neither of which is good reason for speaking about another DU member that way. There is no "threadstalking" here, except perhaps against myself.
Jurors #2 and #5, remember: call-outs are permissible.
Gosh, maybe it would be a good idea to make that clear somewhere, so victims of call-outs that are allowed to stand don't then have their posting privileges interfered with when they are accused of impermissible call-outs.


Since when have call-outs been allowed?

Since we arrived in the brave new world of DU3. CALL-OUTS ARE NOT RULE VIOLATIONS.

I have been told this repeatedly.

At Tue Dec 13, 2011, 07:22 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=375
You are aware..
(the post replied to a proposal that I be a host of the Guns forum by making unpleasant comments about me)

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

This post is comment about myself, when I had not posted here or in the previous Guns Forum for several weeks. I dropped in today to check out DU3 and I find this. I trust that the rule against "call outs" and such is still in effect -- and maybe even that the kinds of personal attacks that littered the previous Guns Forum will be dealt with more seriously this time around. ...

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Dec 13, 2011, 07:43 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The information is a relevant concern in choosing a group host. It is also in keeping with the transparency evident in the new DU
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No poster was called out explicitly. Without this alert and explanation, I would have had no idea who the poster was talking about.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Had this post named the DUer in question, it would have been deleted on the grounds of it being a "call out." But this shows that you don't have to single someone out to call them out. Regardless of whether or not the "charges" in the post are true, I feel that it's detrimental to the spirit of DU: not only does the anonymity of the post render it inherently useless, it unfairly smears EVERYONE on the nominee list.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

(Does it matter at all that Juror#3 didn't know who the poster was talking about? Cripes.)


I don't have the jury results for the alert on this post because I was not the alerter; when I attempted an alert myself in order to make a TOS report, I got only the response that it had been allowed to stand 3-3. I was only aware of the post because a third party directed my attention to it -- somebody may have been "threadstalking" but it was NOT ME. I just don't pay enough attention to be that organized, I'm afraid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=2562

Response to William769 (Original post)
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 09:36 PM
Star Member Vanje
2. Iverglass eventually denigrates this beautiful young woman's appearance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#post180
In the old days, that was called, "shallow".

In the old days, that was called a "call-out". The claim made in the subject line is still called a "lie".


Next up, from that same forum:

At Mon Jan 9, 2012, 06:29 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372627#post7
My apologies to dsc... (in the thread reporting I had been banned from the group)
"Also, a very good call on a blocking... she's acted completely unacceptable, especially in PM."
-- written by a host to another host

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

This is a call-out and an insult - to which I am unable to respond.

I had PMed the poster because, in the other thread in this forum, in which I had replied to a direct and dishonest call-out of me by name by another poster, he addressed me, and spoke about me ... inaccurately ... when he knew I was unable to reply. My PM asked politely and simply that he delete his comments (as dsc *did* do in that thread when I asked him the same thing, he not having realized I could not reply at the time he posted).

I then expressed my view to this poter, by PM, that his replies to my PM could be interpreted as "goading". This post suggests that my suspicion was not far off.

It's one thing for a "protected group" to be protected from perceived slights in their group, even if the perception is not based in reality.

It is another thing for the group members to be permitted to continue insulting and attacking, and making false statements about, another DU member who cannot reply and who has made the reasonable request that they not be discussed in public.

>>> Admin attention is urgently needed to the notion this group seems to have, as expressed to me by PM by this host, that it is exempt from the usual rules of civility at this site.

This post was obviously written solely to continue the negative commentary about me, when the poster was fully aware of my request that it end - of course this person could have posted his "apology" for starting a thread in the host forum *in that forum*, or by PM.

I would add that my track record at this site, and credentials in real life, when it comes to active support for equal rights in all regards for members of the GLBT community cannot be questioned, lest anyone think that any of the allegations that have been made have any basis in truth. Anyone who doubts this can google, e.g., *iverglas same-sex marriage*.

Thanks for taking two minutes to read these comments.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jan 9, 2012, 06:43 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm respecting the alerter's feelings by voting to hide, particularly because the alerter had requested in another forum that this poster delete his comments and because the alerter is unable to respond to his high-five post about alerter's ban from the group.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Callouts are not against the rules. When you post in groups you have to take their SOP and safe haven status seriously. Furthermore, open discussion is a good thing regarding blocking.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

There you have it.
Callouts are not against the rules.
WHEN YOU POST IN GROUPS YOU HAVE TO TAKE THEIR SoP AND SAFE HAVEN STATUS SERIOUSLY (but they don't have to show any respect for any other poster, or the truth).


This was the alert on the thread itself:

At Mon Jan 9, 2012, 11:11 AM you sent an alert on the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372627
Iverglas has been banned from this group
(the thread then consists of intentionally insulting and untruthful discussion of me)

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

I fail to see how this, too, is not an impermissible call-out. Allegations about myself are made, both in the OP and in replies, that are false and that I am unable to reply to. It seems quite straightforward. Thanks.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jan 9, 2012, 11:19 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'll defer to dsc on this one. Leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The group host is communicating with the members of the group. This is in the DU3 spirit of transparency, and I think it should stay.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with Iverglas. Any discussion of this should take place in Meta-discussion where all parties are able to reply. - (signed)
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The Host in a group has a right to ban a poster if they have been disruptive and can give an explanation as to the banning. This post does not meet the criteria for hiding the post.

Thank you, Juror #4. May you live long and serve on many juries.


So here we have it.

Women who are among the many feminists at this website who are vilified, attacked, insulted, lied about and mocked repeatedly every single time they express their concerns in threads have nowhere we can go to talk to one another about those problems.

If we identify the problems, then that is a "call-out" ... and even though we can be called out with impunity, in addition to being vilified, attacked, insulted, lied about and mocked, we may not identify the people doing that to us, in our own "safe haven" group.

Huh, eh?

Now, if the alerter on this thread happens to be one of the people who think the rest of us here should see the error of our ways and accept their tutelage, and not just a random busybody ... well, maybe said alerter will see this and identify themself, so as not to cast suspicion on innocent parties.

It would certainly poison the discourse here if the alerter actually was a party to this conflict.

[seabeyond]

2. thank you. hmmm, is right. nt

[seabeyond]

3. and i will say, it feels to me like another instance of STFU wemmen. i use to. stfu

never again. wont happen.

[redqueen]

6. In the spirit of transparency I hope they'll come out and admit it.

This is ******* sickening. Flat out.

[redqueen]

4. So call outs are ok elsewhere, but not for feminists?

I wish I could say I was shocked at the double standard.

[maddezmom]

5. every post including in groups is subject to TOS and CS alerts

and then it goes to the jury. If you've seen something elsewhere that stayed up it's because it was not alerted or the jury decided not to hide it.

[redqueen]

7. What's with the smile?

If you read iverglas's post you know that there is a clear double standard going on with the way juries are enforcing rules in different (allegedly) protected groups.

I don't find it in any way amusing. At all.

[maddezmom]

8. sorry, I wasn't trying to convey amusement. I'll delete it.

as for the double standard, I'd suggest posting in Meta.

[redqueen]

9. It's ok, I just got the wrong impression that's all.

I hope this subject gets breached in H&M but I already feel like a 'trouble maker' since I dare to start threads every six months or so about women in GD which get so many people so pissed off.

Goddess knows I don't want to be judged as making DU suck, cause DU is supposed to be fun.

[seabeyond]

11. lol lol. so true so true. nt

[seabeyond]

10. thanks mad for your effort in helping us understand. let me ask you

you use to be moderator? if i remember correctly. i dont know your position with du3. so, to be in awareness (which, i always prefer), is this like an official suggestion and we should not talk about female inequality in this forum, but we should take it to meta so as not to get this thread locked?

on edit..... or letting us know the process. that is how i took it until i started thinking, lol

thanks. on all counts.

[maddezmom]

12. I've have no official position on DU3 besides my hosting duties in the Politics 2012 forum

Health, Cancer Support and Creative Speculation. I'm also on the MIR team but that one along with the forum host is rotating.

It was just a suggestion because it seems that Meta is the place to discuss alerts results and double standards, etc. without being subject to any SOP issue and if you look through the forum lots of similar type posts have been left up there.

[seabeyond]

13. thanks madd. i hear you. it may be a place i go... again, lol. that forum

is not unknown to me. just dont know if i want to battle it just yet. i think it is very important as we set up this forum, we iron these things out so we better understand what we are up against and why we need to protect ourselves. i dont know if the people that use this forum, will look into meta and our issues.

appreciate it.

[iverglas]

15. yeah, eh?

Let's go put ourselves up as targets someplace else.

Good plan, I'd say.

[seabeyond]

16. lol. there is that. you would be amazed

since du3, the number of women that have let me know they appreciate people speaking out for women. i was no different on du2, but rarely heard anything. though, it was probably easier because mods protected us to an extent, but since du3, men actually calling all women prositutes (2 just this morning) and it is accept and allowed and dismissed by jury. i have had more women say something. and i really appreciate it because we hear from women that want us to shut up, too. and sometimes i wonder. so to hear that someone does not want to be a part of the mess, and i get that, yet appreciate that others are speaking out, is so important for me.

this is a different animal for all of us to get used to. gd though, has been interesting in its development of this issue. one poster said.... what have i missed with all this on strippers, prostitute. lots, i wanted to say. though, the obvious is redqueens prostitute thread, this is really the hashing out and realizations for even before that. and probably before the pageant issue. clear back and beyond to the sports forum issue.

it is interesting the development. and there is good, along with the not so good.

but ya, to put self on front line again? lol. i have things to do in real life.

son forgot a binder and i have to get it to the school, lol.

[iverglas]

14. are you speaking from some authority, maddezmom?

What does one do if a call-out of the sort I was subjected to (on which another unknown person had alerted before I saw it, so I could not) is allowed to stand?

Yes, it stayed up because the jury decided not to hide it. Despite the fact that it was a vicious false statement about me, which in itself violates civility, and the fact that by being posted in a group I did not read it was a call-out.

I'm afraid I have to say: so? How does this explanation help me?

I am a target, of at least two well-organized groups at this website; have been for a decade, in the case of one. All they have to do is play the odds -- report enough posts of mine, and at least some juries will play along ... for whatever reason. I've had results in which the reasons were obviously sheer animus. (I was informed a couple of hours ago that someone had recused herself from a jury on a post of mine, without reading it, because of an antigonistic history in another forum; good on her, although I actually think she might have had the smarts to figure out what the nature of my hidden thread in this group was.)

In addition to the poster posses, there are hosts who have their sights trained on me. It seems to me that my days are numbered in this brave new DU. And I'm not sure how this would benefit Democratic Underground. People who hold genuinely progressive views, and write more than posts empty of content beyond a pointless subject line, are in short enough supply around here.

But the subject of this thread was actually the nature of this protected group.

You seem to be saying that this group is subject to the general rules ... but I have been told that the GLBT group is not:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372559#post45

Fearless
Response to iverglas (Reply #21)
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 01:37 PM

45. Ok we need to back way up here...

That's everyone involved needs a big old time out.

There are two points I would like to make now as a host of both the General Discussion forum where the thread originated and of the LGBT group where it is now.

1. LGBT's group protected status. This group maintains rules that are far stricter than the GD or any of the other forums. We have the right to control membership and bottleneck discussion. These are tools used to make sure that this group and it's community members feel safe here discussing issues of an LGBT nature. In this case, I can assure you that it was meant far FAR less personally attacking than you have taken it. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why you have taken it this way. But that doesn't change the point that in this forum, discussion about members will sometimes occur in terms of a broader discussion of LGBT rights. I believe the reason you were singled out in this instance was because you are seen as taking a negative view on this woman in the beauty contest. It isn't a personal attack. It's a method for us to discuss the LGBT condition in America. I hope that you can see the fine line between malicious and meaningful dialog in this way. If you have trouble with this, I could try to explain further and would willingly do so in an effort to iron out this conflict.

2. Personal Attacks. I have stated above that mentioning your presence in the other thread, explicitly or implicitly, does not necessarily constitute a "call out" as the group's purpose (in part) is to discuss perceived attacks against LGBT figures. Let me stress perceived, as I do not think it was your intention to attack the woman in question. That said, I need to ask of you one thing. When coming into the LGBT forum, it is decidedly unacceptable explicitly call out our members (some of whom are our hosts) with google searched talking points. The reason that this is unacceptable is because it constitutes a personal attack on a protected group of people in a protected group. Would this behavior be allowed in GD? As of late, depending on the jury. But, it is certainly unacceptable in the LGBT group.

My request is that everyone. And I mean EVERYONE, put the claws away. In the LGBT group we discuss matters based on merit to the LGBT cause and not out of hurt feelings or personal pride. This issue has become personal and should it continue, undoubtedly the hosts of this forum, myself included, will take action to rectify any and all disruption to the group's purpose.

This was posted at a time when the poster, a host, knew full well that I could not reply.

It contains multiple false statements.

That the post in question

Vanje
2. Iverglass eventually denigrates this beautiful young woman's appearance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#post180

In the old days, that was called, "shallow".

could have been interpreted as anything but a call-out is ludicrous -- the fact that the allegation is FALSE makes it unmistakable that this post was made out of malice.

That someone could actually call that post "a method for us to discuss the LGBT condition in America" is beyond belief, unless one assumes that the poster was not intending to speak accurately.

The "google searched results" I had posted in reply were actually something I had completely forgotten about and run across in a search for my own posts about same-sex marriage. In that 2009 thread in the Feminists group, Vanje had made false statements about and malicious comments to me, repeatedly. There is not the slightest doubt that this was a call-out, by a person with an axe to grind, and one of the people who has poisoned the GLBT group here against me for no legitimate reason. No one has supported GLBT rights more strongly (if intermittently) here at DU, including defending the Falwell grave-dancers ffs, than I have. The malice arises out of the so-called sex-positive feminists' long-standing campaign here against women who disapprove of purchasing sex services being legal and of the widespread presence of pornography that objectifies women in our societies. That group have been the thread-stalkers and harassers. (I actually happened on the beauty pageant thread only because I was seated on the jury to adjudicate the alert on the first post rating the women's appearance.) It wouldn't matter if we were all elected to Congress and immediately passed a constitutional amendment banning bans on same-sex marriage and did anything else the group wanted, it wouldn't matter if we challenged every homophobic statement made at this website -- they hate us. Pure and simple.

It is a personal attack for me to respond to a false allegation made against me behind my back, in public?? What bizarre calculus is this?

But it is impermissible for ME to post in the Feminists forum about the personal attacks on myself and other women at this site. Again: did I miss something in my undergrad logic courses?

The hosts of that forum have engaged in further behind-the-scenes vilification of myself. I was quite aware that the PMs I was receiving from Fearless were being framed in such a way as to avoid any appearance of anything but the most mild-mannered impartiality -- all the while he trivialized the concerns I was expressing about rule violations in the LGBT forum by saying I was "aggravated" and referring to my "perception" of the post in question. How is this proper behaviour by a group host -- to intentionally set out to set up another member, and then wave the "evidence" around in public, by characterizing it in the LGBT forum as he did?

What remedy do I, or anyone else victimized in this way, have?

None, so far as I can tell.

But as I said in my hidden OP -- I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with being spoken to and treated in this group as the individuals in question do outside it.

[maddezmom]

17. I'm not speaking in a position of authority. I offered a suggestion to post in Meta

and my interpretation of the rules and what posts can be alerted on. Hosts in main forums can only lock a thread if it is deemed against SOP's. Jury's can hide or not hide posts anywhere if they are alerted on according to CS or a TOS.