If this had been added to one of the other 10 threads on this subject.

The owners have the right to ban anyone. There are rules in the Terms of Service. Everyone should read them.

My two cents.

Just saying.

he was a good poster. :/

Some are a lot newer than this one. Are you also going on those threads and asking them the same question?

Everybody starts their own thread.

Are pretty much the same thing, a lot of complaining because a poster was banned by the owners and his buddies are all pissed off. The terms of service are pretty easy to find, and everyone should read them.

Then see how that shoe fits.

Takes waaaaaaay to long to load.

ATA forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259


And, per Skinner's locked thread at the top of GD...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

About a ban, a jury decision, etc. I am pointing out the rules that can be read in the terms of service. There is a difference there.

You got me.

they don't have a shirt or shoes

This is more like a private club whose rules you are supposed to follow.

I'll start by stating my bias. I am a Hillary supporter, going all the way back to 2007.

I know that NYC Skip wasn't. And that he alluded to a bad word when describing her, or something like that.

Here is my question:

Isn't this something that can be resolved? Can't he appeal the decision? Is he allowed to apologize, serve a suspension and then get reinstated so that he can post here again?

But one group here wants to stir things up, and piss and moan.

I am sure you can figure it out. It's pretty obvious.

I am pretty sure you can find it by reading for yourself. Most people can.

Funny how that works.

But you knew that.

However they keep throwing the bait out to lots of posters trying to get them to take the bait.

This is after all JUST an internet message board.

Edit: Sometimes I think I'm back in junior high here.

Sometimes people are reinstated. But posting thread after thread in GD helps nothing.

Aren't these threads the very definition of meta?

I think it has gotten a bit boring. Maybe that's because I'm not on either side.

You may know all of this, but I am posting it for others also as there is has been a lot of confusion about this.

Each forum and group has a button over the threads "about this forum". That takes you to a page that has the Statement of Purpose for that particular forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

going now DO fit that label of "disruptive meta-discussion." But hey, I'm a newbie, so what do I know lol?

The link is found in the "about this forum" place, here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

There are qualifications though, once you meet them, please volunteer as it is a good thing to do and educational. It is often a thankless job, and all volunteer. Still, they do the best they can to keep this place running within the guidelines.

Q. Who is eligible to serve as a forum Host?

A. You are eligible to serve as a Forum Host if you have a 100% chance of serving on a Jury. This means that you must:

Have posted more than 2,000 times
Have 200 or more days of membership
Have posted more than 20 times in the last 90 days
Have had zero hidden posts in the last 90 days
Be a Star Member

I have a ways to go on a couple of those criteria, but I will keep it in mind.

are knocking the Duggars off the front page.

Something to be said for that!

Really, I haven't seen such a tempest in a teapot since the Lounge wars of yore!

around the adoption of the metric system!

interests....

So confusing. I see poeple arguing that he should be given a second chance, though.

Are saying he should not have been banned. Lots of people are trying to say it was all because he was a Sanders supporter. Others are saying "only" those who support Hillary are safe from being banned. Plus there are a lot of other excused going on for why he shouldn't have been banned.

...is because it was an utterly obvious case of throwing the misogynist term back in the face of the troll who used it first.He was making something of an obtuse joke about it (rather than being really direct and explicit), and the term really shouldn't appear here at all (I can certainly see a hide and even a reaming from the mods), but to ban a long-time member with a record of putting in the effort to host groups, etc. is an insane over-reaction.

That troll's post is gone (auto-removed after the troll's account went bye-bye), but the poster snagglepuss saved the exchange:

Said poster is too big to fail. The rules don't apply to them. Fortunately, the owners of the site don't feel the same when it comes to sexist behavior.

No doubt people love stirring the pot when the chance arises. I think they are better at it, then actual discussion of topics and issues.

The behavior you speak of has made democrats losers way to many times.

Works better that way.