Ok so when are we going to have the gay talk that Prism asked for

[dsc]

It has been a rather long time since he posted his thread and no talk and it hasn't gotten better for gay DUers. Here is the link of what I am referring to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x579

This was posted in early Nov. It is now late January so almost three months has passed.

[Skinner]

1. I know this hasn't happened, and I'm sorry about that.

We have been extremely busy over the last few months trying to whip this website into shape. We have been paying special attention to improving civility and getting rid of toxic personalities, which I believe should have the effect of making everyone -- including LGBT DUers -- feel more welcome here. While DU is certainly not perfect, my impression is that the tone here has actually improved quite a bit.

Our hope has been that that if we aggressively continue to focus our efforts on encouraging civility, then by doing so we will also address some of the concerns of LGBT DUers. I am confident that we can -- and are -- making progress. But I'm also somewhat doubtful that we are going to find a completely satisfactory solution here. As long as we have differences of opinion about whether a Democratic president is doing everything he can on the issue of gay rights, then some amount of conflict is going to be inevitable here.

I want to do what I can to help everyone feel welcome here, and I want to have this discussion. Would it maybe make sense for us to approach this as an ongoing dialogue rather than a single talk?

[dsc]

2. I think having it be an open dialogue would be helpful

but one big thing needs to be addressed which may be a one off. The big gay purge needs addressed. I realize you don't think of it as a purge but you also haven't, to my knowledge offered any explanation. We deserve an answer. I also think the moderation of GDP needs discussed.

[Skinner]

3. About the "gay purge"

Here's a copy of the "form letter" I sent to people who contacted me at the time asking for an explanation. I think this is about as good an explanation as I have so I'm just going to post it here. It does mention banned people by their usernames, which I typically don't like to do, but in the interests of full disclosure I'll just post the whole thing. Keep in mind that it was written at the time...

== BEGIN ==

A moderator posted a completely harmless thread, and a small number of people acted like complete jerks and tried to bait him and twist his words in the most absurd possible way in order to give the false impression that he was abusing his position. This is exactly the type of thing these people have done countless times before, to countless other DUers. I have basically looked the other way for months, and let them get away with it. But this time I decided it was time to send a message. So I deleted the offending sub-threads, banned one person (yardwork), and posted a pretty clear message that enough is enough. You can read it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8387513&mesg_id=8388892

It should be noted that the thread had nothing to do with GLBT issues, the argument in the thread had nothing to do with GLBT issues, and my message in the thread had nothing to do with GLBT issues. The only connection to GLBT issues is that yardwork, who was banned, happens to be gay.

Later that evening, Runcible Spoon, Solon, and Vanje each stopped into that thread in order to call me out, and call me a bigot for good measure. I thought my post in the thread made pretty clear that my patience for this type of thing had run out, so I banned each of them. Harsh? Maybe. But all of them had long histories of anti-social behavior. Runcible Spoon had taken to posting how she was making it her mission to make sure nobody ever donates to DU again. Solon has had a warning and a seven day suspension. And Vanje had just been warned a couple weeks earlier. Each of them had made clear over time that they did not like or value this community. As I said in my post, "If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves." The fact that all three happened to be gay was not a factor in our decision to ban them. Had they been straight, they would have been banned, too.

Of course, when everyone woke up on the next morning (Monday), it was not hard for them to paint this as a GLBT issue -- after all, I banned four GLBT DUers in one night. When people started calling us out, we had to decide whether we were going to permit it or not. And, to be honest, it really wasn't a very hard decision. We saw where it was going, we saw the history of behavior by the people involved, and we were done letting people use DU to trash DU. But, unlike the previous night, on Monday we did not ban anyone for a single post. If they wanted to call us out, we would simply delete their post, but we would not ban them. It was only after repeated attempts to post, that people got banned. Every person we banned that day (except one) had a long history of disruptive and anti-social behavior. Some had warnings, one had been recently suspended, and at least three had been previously banned under different usernames. The one exception was TechBear_Seattle, who had a clean record, and whom I felt bad giving the boot. He sent me an email entitled "Fuck you, assholes" and demanded that we tombstone him. We'd probably let him back if he wanted to come back.

So here we are. We've been wondering if there is any way to offer some sort of olive branch, but we suspect it might cause more harm than good because emotions are pretty raw, and are likely to remain so for a long time. I don't know. Over the years I've become pretty pessimistic about any efforts at peacemaking. Whenever we've made the effort, it seems to help for a bit, but after a week or so things are back to the way they were. If anyone is interested in having a good-faith discussion, I'd do it. But I don't really have much interest in talking with people who just want a platform to twist my words or paint me as the enemy or whatever. I believe that most people want to do what is right for this community and its members. I'll talk to anyone who believes the same about me.

== END ==

If I were to re-write this now, I would probably soften some of the language a little bit. But the facts of the matter remain the same. Some parts of it seem a little harsh as I read them now, but they certainly represent how I felt at the time.

[dsc]

4. I think your explanation is a tad bit self serving

A moderator posted a completely harmless thread, and a small number of people acted like complete jerks and tried to bait him and twist his words in the most absurd possible way in order to give the false impression that he was abusing his position. This is exactly the type of thing these people have done countless times before, to countless other DUers. I have basically looked the other way for months, and let them get away with it. But this time I decided it was time to send a message. So I deleted the offending sub-threads, banned one person (yardwork), and posted a pretty clear message that enough is enough. You can read it here:

This is just plain bordering on delusional. You know damn well what gay people believed about, and still do believe about, that poster. That poster had a history of using his/her position as a mod to both target pro gay posts and post anti gay ones. Why we were upset about that particular thread was his/her treatment of a substantially similar thread posted by a gay poster. Frankly that poster had no business being a mod given his/her utter inability to fairly moderate posts about Obama or gay issues.

Later that evening, Runcible Spoon, Solon, and Vanje each stopped into that thread in order to call me out, and call me a bigot for good measure. I thought my post in the thread made pretty clear that my patience for this type of thing had run out, so I banned each of them. Harsh? Maybe. But all of them had long histories of anti-social behavior. Runcible Spoon had taken to posting how she was making it her mission to make sure nobody ever donates to DU again. Solon has had a warning and a seven day suspension. And Vanje had just been warned a couple weeks earlier. Each of them had made clear over time that they did not like or value this community. As I said in my post, "If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves." The fact that all three happened to be gay was not a factor in our decision to ban them. Had they been straight, they would have been banned, too.

I have two responses to this. One is Hamden Rice who took forever in a day to ban even after he directly broke a rule imposed by you to stay out of the LGBT forum. Two is seven posted by Sundog. He literally got banned for posting seven. It is hard not to see a very egregious double standard in play. If you are unwilling to admit, that at best, gay posters faced one standard and everybody else faced a different one, in regards to that short period, I can't see any forward motion on this issue. It would be one thing, if you said, we made a mistake and won't do it again. Here you are saying it is all in our heads. I don't think it is. I think the facts bear me out.

The fact is that gay people, especially those who supported Hillary or at least didn't support Obama in the primaries, are de facto personas non gratas in one forum of this website. The mod you mentioned is a big reason why that happened. Go ahead, take the last months posts in GDP and count how many are from gay posters who didn't support Obama in the primaries. I doubt you will need three digits. If I made you only count people and not posts I doubt you would need more than your fingers. That mod is a big part of why.

I posted a thread about gay suicide, know what happened with no mod reaction at all, it became a lets bash Hillary fest. Wanna bet that if a thread became a lets bash Obama fest it would have attracted some mod attention. Mods like the innocent one you extoll in your response set the tone that let that happen. If you don't think that should be going on, then we need to talk and you need to do something about it. The first step is admitting there is a problem.

[Skinner]

6. What you are saying is that HamdenRice and Sundog were treated differently...

...because one is straight and the other is gay. Which is completely wrong. In fact, I find it deeply offensive and unfair.

I have no love for either HamdenRice or Sundog, so I'm not particularly interested in defending either of them. But the fact is that their situations were completely different. HamdenRice was one of those people who was provocative while very carefully staying within the rules. His story is not that different from dozens of other DU members who have done the exact same thing, and were able to get away with it for a very long time. Like many of them, he was eventually banned when he went too far.

Sundog on the other hand, decided to thumb his nose at the administrators, shortly after the administrators posted a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8387513&mesg_id=8388892">very clear message telling people to knock it off. No doubt, he felt he was justified in doing so. No doubt, he also knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He posted a thread to call out the administrators. It was deleted. He started another thread to call out the administrators. It was deleted. He started a third thread to call out the administrators -- the number 7, along with a picture of the poster for the movie "7", the implication being that the administrators were serial killers ritually slaughtering people. It was deleted, and he was banned. Sundog made a conscious decision to keep going, knowing the consequences. Again, His story is not that different to dozens of other DU members who have done the exact same thing.

If there was a double standard, it was this: People who would act like jerks but were able to tread carefully around the rules were able to get away with it for a long time, whereas people who would deliberately poke their fingers right in the Admins' eye when the Admins laid down the law tended to get banned. At least, that's how it used to work here. But things have changed quite a bit since then. These days, we are much less tolerant of the former behavior and are quicker to ban people who act like jerks -- no more warnings and suspensions -- and personally I think DU has become a better place because of it.

Now, please take a moment to re-read http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=579&mesg_id=631">what I said to Prism last year:

I understand that many of our LGBT members do not feel welcome or respected, and that bothers me very much. I understand that too often DU can be a hostile and unfriendly place and I am committed to doing whatever I can to change that, but I do not believe that Democratic Underground tolerates bigotry or bigots. I am hopeful that a good-faith discussion can help me understand why some people think Democratic Underground tolerates bigotry, while helping DU members better understand how the site is moderated and administered.

If you or anyone else is interested in having a good-faith discussion with me -- with the goal of better understanding each other and working together to make Democratic Underground a more welcoming place, where we begin with the basic assumption that everyone involved is acting in good faith and wants DU to be both free of bigotry AND open to the full range of progressive opinion, and where we are all willing to question our own basic attitudes and assumptions -- then I would be very enthusiastic about having that discussion.

But I am not interested in having a discussion if the goal is to prove that the administrators or moderators of Democratic Underground are anti-gay bigots, clueless, or worse. I think such a discussion would do a disservice to everyone involved, and would not get us any closer to understanding each other or finding some sort of resolution.

I've seen the things written about me on my own website, accusing me of not only tolerating but encouraging anti-gay bigotry. And here you are accusing me of treating gays and straights differently. In fact, you are insisting that I agree with your characterization as a prerequisite for this discussion.

I do not claim to be perfect, and I know I have made my share of mistakes. But I am going to be clear about one thing, and I'm going to put it in bold so you can't miss it: I am done trying to convince people of my good faith. If anyone wants to know where I stand, they only have to take a look at Democratic Underground. I have a decade-long record, I am proud of it, and I stand by it. My record -- taken as a whole -- speaks much more strongly for me than anything I can say here. And I believe that any fair-minded evaluation of Democratic Underground -- which takes into account both the good and the bad that I have brought to this job and this community -- will necessarily conclude that I am not the delusional bigot that you make me out to be. And I think deep down that you know it too -- which might explain why you have spent ten years of your life here, and continue to do so, despite the one-sided and unfair picture you have painted here.

And I would shame myself if I did not say this: The things you said about rasputin1952 are outrageous and wrong. He is a good and decent man with a good heart, and he is a hard-working and fair moderator. Like all of us, I'm sure he has made some mistakes trying to moderate this place. But his alleged mistakes -- both real or imagined -- pale in comparison to the good he brings to DU. There are very few people who have given as much to this community as he has.

[dsc]

7. I am going to limit this to one or two items

1) Do you think I am wrong about my description of GDP as being a place where gays, particularly ones who supported Clinton in the primaries, are unwelcome or are you ok with that forum being that unwelcoming? You didn't address that at all in your response.

The second thing I want to address is why I stay and what I think of you vs DU. I stay here in large part due to the great people who post here such as MuseRider, Bluebear, and several others too countless to name. I also stay because I do think you want to do better but you do have to admit when the moderation has fallen off the tracks. On some occasions it has. I don't think you are personally to blame each and every time it does, but it has. I do think some improvement has happened. But more needs to be done.

The fact is gay people have been runoff this site at an alarming rate. The last person who tried to get a dialogue going has all but stopped posting here that should speak volumes as to the fact there is a problem. You aren't responsible for every single thing posted here anymore than I am responsible for every thing ever done in my classroom. But you do have to look at the totality of what went on and decide if it does or doesn't need to change.

I end, where I began, Do you think I am wrong about my description of GDP as being a place where gays, particularly ones who supported Clinton in the primaries, are unwelcome or are you ok with that forum being that unwelcoming? You didn't address that at all in your response.

[Skinner]

8. We have not had different moderators assigned to different forums for over a year now.

(Except for the Israel/Palestine forum and the September 11 forum.)

All the moderators receive alerts from all the forums. All the moderators respond to alerts from all the forums, and do so by consensus of all the available moderators. Very little -- if any -- attention is paid to which forum alerts come from. So, I can say with confidence that there is no difference in the way we moderate any of our forums, compared to any of our other forums (except for the two exceptions I listed above, which are outside the scope of your complaint).

Having said that, I think it may be the case that visitors to GDP (in general) may be more supportive of President Obama than visitors to GD (in general). For that reason, the GDP forum might not feel quite as welcoming as GD for DU members who tend to be more critical of President Obama. Just as GD might not feel so welcoming for DU members who tend to be more supportive of President Obama. To be clear, there are supporters and critics of the president in all of our forums. But everyone -- regardless of their opinion of the president -- is welcome to post in any of our forums.

[dsc]

9. Not to put too fine a point on it

but today provided a perfect example of the dynamic of which I speak.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x618816

Here is a perfectly decent thread about the new White House Social Secretary. In the midst of this thread, up came a post by one of the most obnoxious anti gay posters on this board denegrating every gay poster on this board. I answered him, admittedly with a personal attack. His post, still there, mine gone. I posted again, this time no personal attack but yet again post removed. If you wonder why gays feel unwelcome in that forum, that is textbook example number one million. Letting that poster run amok is a chief reason why that forum is as welcome as a barren wasteland for gay posters.

[Skinner]

10. Okay, I checked those posts.

The ClarkUSA post, which was not deleted -- and which, I might add, contains numerous expressions of support for gay rights -- states the opinion that it is "patently ridiculous" for anyone to continue to call President Obama a homophobe in light of recent developments. That is not a rule violation. ClarkUSA also asked "Why do some people continue to insist President Obama is homophobic?" I think this is borderline, at worst. Maybe it could have been removed as discussing people rather than issues. But this is obviously not a clear-cut rule violation.

Your post was a clear-cut personal attack specifically directed at ClarkUSA: "Your continual rubbing of noses in shit makes me associate Obama with the puke that rises in my throat when I see your name." Your subsequent post, accusing the moderators of bias, was also a clear-cut rule violation.

So, on the one had we have a post that is, at worst, borderline. And on the other hand we have two posts that are clear-cut rule violations. This doesn't seem like a very good example of either anti-gay bigotry or a moderating double-standard.

[dsc]

5. two minor corrections of my response

it wasn't me who posted the thread about gay suicide which got Hillary bashed, it was bluebear. Two, there was mod action, it was to lock my thread complaining about it. None in the thread itself.

and here is the thread I was thinking of in my original response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9248009