I just had a post locked on GD about "By whom do you feel more betrayed?"...

[MiddleFingerMom]

.
.
.
...ostensibly because it was a dupe of an already-posted thread.
.
I misread the rules and understand now that a dupe will be locked.
.
BUT... both the time-stamp AND the fact that the first line of
The Lounge posting of the same topic saying "(already posted on GD)"
made it ABUNDANTLY clear that the GD post was the original, casting
some doubt, in MY mind at least...on the actual reason it was locked.
.
The Lounge post had 3 replies or so.
.
The GD post had almost 100 and was on the Greatest Threads list
because of its recs (i.e. a great deal of participation in the topic).
.
IF the reason given was the actual reason for the lock, the mods
were obviously mistaken -- and that IS the reason they chose to
explain the locking. I hope you can see how this might give the
impression that the "ability" to express dissatisfaction with
President Obama (which was a minor implication -- the major one
being about the persecution of WickiLeak's founder) might not be
as freely granted as was hoped.
.
I would like to know why that GD thread will not (or can not) be
UNlocked, please -- and totally understand if The Lounge post is
locked as a dupe (which, again... it obviously and ACTUALLY was).
.
Thank you.
.
.
.
BTW, if there ARE other concerns about some of the posts on that
thread -- can't they be individually deleted instead of the entire
thread locked?
.
.
.

[Skinner]

1. Please provide links so I know what threads you are talking about. (nt)

[MiddleFingerMom]

2. There were THREE related posts locked:

.
.
Actual dupe:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9570155
.
This was the second posting of the picture and question -- in The Lounge AFTER it had
been posted in GD.
.
IMPORTANT: Notice the very first line of the in the "Message" section: (already posted
in GD).
.
THIS post was locked as "flamebait" rather than a "dupe". There was absolutely no
controversy occurring within this thread -- the locked postswere complaining about
the locking of the GD post (and had been deleted long beforethis post was actually
locked). See my final post asking people NOT to comment onthe locking -- that I was
working within and trusted the system set up by DU.
.
I hope that trust was not misplaced. I hope that I will not owe those people an apology.
.
.
.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9570177
.
This post was started in The Lounge AFTER the other two, but prior to them getting locked.
I usually stay WAY away from GD because of all the ugliness I see there. I occasionally
dip in with a simple statement or, more often... a strong image. An overwhelming amount
of the responses have been positive. This is the first time anything I've said was pounced
upon like this post was -- and this statement is an expression of my surprise that this had
done so (and expression of delight that I had, not posted flamebait, but had created a buzz --
some of the participants of which were annoying "last-worders", but was mostly interesting).
.
.
.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9698310&mesg_id=9698310
.
This is the one that started it all. After I complained about the locking of this originally as
a "DUPE post", the mods came back and changed the lock reason to "FLAMEBAIT".
.
I feel if they had really thought that they had a strong case of this being "flamebait", they
would used that initially -- and not chosen what certainly appears to have been an attempt
at avoiding that (the OTHER thread was actually LABELED as a "DUPE" in its very first line --
how could a "consensus" of mods have ALL missed that?) And if they were responding to alerts --
it is HIGHLY doubtful that any of those alerts were for "DUPE" reasons.
.
There seemed to be just one MAIN dissenter -- and one man responding as he did does not make
a topic flamebait, I wouldn't think (otherwise, you've given a powerful tool to those who WOULD
shut down particular expressions). Especially not a man coming from the perspective he displayed --
he referred to Assange as "new jesus" which is what I think is an allusion to the RW calling Obama
"the LW New Messiah" -- which sounded like the scare/fear speech I've heard from RW pundits.
There IS legitimate andsignificant disagreement about this topic, but that's what these discussions
are all about, no?
.
.
.
I think the mods, for whatever reason, rushed to judgment on this (ESPECIALLY since
they chose "DUPE" as the original reason). It is not flamebait, though it is admittedly
a highly controversial subject for some on this site. I hope that a few are not allowed
to shut down a thread via alerts simply because THEY disagree with it.
.
.
.
Thanks for your consideration, Skinner. I, and most DU'ers, I would think, take this
very seriously.
.
.
.

[Skinner]

3. OK, I looked at this.

And I don't think the order they were locked or the locking message is really the most important issue.

What's apparent -- because you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9570177">admitted it -- is that your thread in GD was intended to create a shitstorm, and that's what you got.

I'm gonna defer to the mods on this.

[MiddleFingerMom]

4. I did NOT intend to create a shitstorm -- I have NEVER intended to create a shitstorm with what I do

.
I ADMITTED IT?!?!?!?
.
.
Above in my listing of the links, I explained that I had NOT intended to create
a shitstorm.
.
This post was started in The Lounge AFTER the other two, but prior to them getting locked.
I usually stay WAY away from GD because of all the ugliness I see there. I occasionally
dip in with a simple statement or, more often... a strong image. An overwhelming amount
of the responses have been positive. This is the first time anything I've said was pounced
upon like this post was -- and this statement is an expression of my surprise that this had
done so (and expression of delight that I had, not posted flamebait, but had created a buzz --
some of the participants of which were annoying "last-worders", but was mostly interesting).
.
.
Do you think I was LYING? Are you calling me a liar? Where is this "admission"?
.
.
.
.
.
The "shitstorm" post was in The Lounge -- and I did not INTEND to create one
like I said.
.
The evil grin smiley was a facetious laugh-producer -- as we often do in there.
.
Ask someone to show you where I have EVER INTENDED to create a shitstorm.
.
You'll get the opposite answer.
.
Compared to other threads on the topic -- that is one of the LEAST "shitstorm-inducing" posts
on GD about the subject.
.
I think first the mods with their "dupe" reason for the lock -- and then you with that "facetious shitstorm" justification -- took an easy escape hatch out of this.
.
The mods reacted too harshly and too quickly -- there were threads they could have deleted
if there was a problem with that post.
.
I think you know this but are loathe to contradict them.
.
IF that IS the case, shame on you.
.
As much as I had trusted in you and the system before, I am now deeply disappointed in you and
that system and this site right now -- I had BELIEVED (as is STRONGLY evidenced in one of my
NON-facetious posts) in this site and this administration and its due process and its principles.
.
That faith in those principles and this administration has been lost with this action AND
followup. Your response causes me to deeply apologize to those I asked to modify their behavior because of that misplaced trust of mine.
.
My statement to them:
.
BTW, thanks for your concerns...
...as I also am confused and unhappy.
I've been in touch with one of the mods (who was VERY nice) and I've posted
a question to ATA.
I think that's the way to go on this and any discussion HERE (about a SPECIFIC
lock) would probably do more harm than good.
We'll see.
.
.
.
Sound like someone who "intended to create a shitstorm"???????
.
.
.
HELL NO, it doesn't.
.
.
.
To those of you whom I directed that statement -- I am sorry for having done so.
.
.
.
.
.
I am even more sorry for having believed in it myself.
.
.
.

[Skinner]

5. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. (nt)