and it ain't gonna be pretty.
I really think that a code of conduct for both sides of the aisle, strictly enforced, might be in the offing. Short of that, I don't know what else is to be done.
Maybe others have better ideas, although I doubt it, after all, I'm the best there is. LOL.

code of conduct for both sides of the aisle, strictly enforced. Just make that a strict code of conduct.

it would need to be strictly enforced for both sides, we can still debate passionately, but with an absence of inflammatory phrases.

He basically said no more personal attacks, anyone referring to a DU member as a gun grabber OR gun nut was gone! In short, treat each other with the common courtesy you'd treat somebody you met on the bus or sitting next to you at a diner.

We lost 1 or 2 pro 2nd amendment types but we lost a whole lot more gun control people who couldn't stop themselves from personal attacks and name calling and rants.

I liked it. The place got a lot easier to talk in and a lot friendlier. The gun control people that survived were a lot smarter and able to make a point without accusing you of being a right wing troll (that was banned too) or a militia crazy.

Maybe we need that installed here again?

count me in.

It would make DU suck a whole lot less.

It would make this group much more user friendly.

in this area. It really is outrageous.

blocked, and that the host(s) maintain a light (to the point of imperceptibility) touch on the thread lock button.

We all have access to Ignore (formal and otherwise) and Thread Trash to manage our personal DU experiences, and there's Alert for weighing in on the standards of the community. Other than that, I see no need or value in trying to develop rules, standards, procedures, codes, policies, or anything else - it's just a discussion board, after all, lets just discuss GC/RKBA related stuff...

Broad-brush attacks should not be tolerated on either side of the aisle, nor should we be forced to neuter topics through ignore or trashing; this, as you said, is a discussion board. The point is to discuss, not "Ignore opposing viewpoints." A subthread filled with holes due to ignores kills exactly the discussion that you seek to propagate. Rules and regulations (Oh, the irony) would allow for a furtherance of that discussion in a civil dialogue as opposed to a direct confrontation through trolling or disrupting.

is entirely up to you, as it should be. If you don't want to use the Ignore tool, then do it informally - as in don't respond to posts that aren't productive and interesting in your estimation. And attacks should be dealt with through the Alert system.

Like I said, I see no value in Group rules beyond the framework provided by DU itself - and I'm guessing that an attempt to create such rules will be a tedious and doomed endeavor...

I, personally, would support a strict and efficient Code of Conduct, or Codes of Civility, where you get one shot. One warning. Maybe even one warning every 90 days or something, to allow for slip-ups; it is a controversial topic we discuss, and tempers do flare. I think that this would be a solid starting point, and would be a positive step forward towards evolving the function of this group in a positive direction. (Note; responding to myself only to avoid having to respond twice to other posters individually.)

You have all the rest of DU to back you up. RKBA folks do not share that same benefit. You can alert, and DU proper will back you up. RKBA does not have that same interest, and I in fact had an alert go 6-0 to leave it, calling RKBAers "Racists, murderers and criminals." Double standard.

Will I fight for your right to offend? Of course. I don't take offense personally. Hell, I'm a casino dealer. I can't tell you the names I get called each night. Nothing you throw at me could be -any- worse, by any stretch. (Erm... Also, just throwing it out there... I really don't take much stock in insults anyways. They're a sign of a weak argument.)

A common tactic in the RKBA forum is to alert anyone who agrees with gun control often for truly weak grounds.

Hoyt and other gun control advocates have been banned and I never once heard you support them.

Your position might have more support if you defended their rights rather than call it a double standard.

When confronted, he changes the subject.
When proven wrong, he ignores you.
When called out, he calls you a murderer.

In NO WAY does this contribute to dialogue. On several occasions, I engaged Hoyt directly and he never once answered questions or engaged in dialogue. Not once in the... nine? Times that I remember.


Hoyt deserves one bit of "Support" from me; He's no idiot. Same with Bongbong. They knew exactly what they were doing, and Codes of Civility would have stopped them in their tracks from post after post of serial disruptions.

Just because you have rights to express an opinion does NOT mean they are tolerated by this website, or any of the subforums, especially when the sole purpose is disruption. When Hoyt actually makes a case for himself, I will fight just as hard to get him back here, providing he doesn't act like a tool. Thus far, I've only seen him do that and that alone.

Only those who agree with you should have their rights defended.

I've demonstrated that I support defending someone who I disagree with.

You have not.

I said that Hoyt was a serial disruptor, not that I wanted to suppress his speech. He came here solely to disrupt the group. In case you're new; groups have rules, rules restrict "Free speech" rights based on the rules laid out in the SOP. Likewise, they are constrained by TOS and CS standards, of which Hoyt casually disregarded (Debatably actively disregarded.) His purpose, to my immediate memory, was disruption and focused attempts to derail conversation and discussion on this discussion board.

I could give two whits if he wanted to give free candy to all the children all the time; He's a disruptor. He disrupted poorly. His views are immaterial.

Name One.

SafeinOhio, GreenStormCloud, a few others that I can't remember immediately. Reasonable, responsible restrictions. I'm all for gun regulation and registration within certain reasonable limits. Surprisingly, though you may not think it, I would probably fall into the "control" category more than the "Unrestricted firearms" category. I just happen to disagree with the strict authoritarians more than the gun freaks.

While I appreciate your willingness to defend those who want 'reasonable, responsible restrictions,' that is not the criteria by which they need defending. And disagreeing 'with the strict authoritarians more than the gun freaks' is also not the point.

Defend someone's right to say something you COMPLETELY disagree with that is COMPLETELY unreasonable and THAT will carry weight with me.

In a heartbeat. Hell, I got hidden a while back for explaining the evolution of the C-word. I may not like your message, but I'll be damned if you can't say it. What I -will- do is point out when you're wrong, explain why you're wrong, tell you how you could be right if you wanted, and explain why you really -should- be right but aren't. You can have every right to be completely and utterly wrong, so long as I have the same right to show off your wrongness to others using fact and logic.

What I will -not- defend is purposeful disruptive and antagonistic tactics on what is -supposed- to be an intellectual discussion board. We specifically have rules that say "Do not disrupt." Your "right" is suspended when you sign up for this site; therefore, your right to be a purposefully and deliberately abrasive fuck ends when you join up. That, I cannot defend, as it goes against the TOS and CS of this site. (Again, see Hoyt and Bongbong. You personally may be abrasive, but at least you make some half-decent arguments from time to time.)

...someone else felt the same way.

I'm afraid I genuinely don't follow your thought process there, friend.

Didn't he?

By strict intent, yes, he did violate TOS. Do I think he was right? Yes, from a strictly historical perspective. Do I think he should have left the hyperbole at home? Of course. Was he doing it purposefully to disrupt? I'm willing to lean towards Yes. But this post is an attempt to establish clear standards to answer conflicts like this.

(I do not speak for Krispos, nor will I speculate on his opinion. That is not my place.)

as a matter of fact they are over in Meta trying to rewrite history. amazing to watch.

S/he violated SOP and got banned by one of the moderators. Correct?

my apologies Krispos but, it is not a personal PM it is inregards to DU business so I don't think I need your aproval beforehand.

banning any member.

I want to know that standards, policies and procedures are followed.

I don't like the arbitrary banning of anyone at the whim of a Host.

A host is not a King and I damn sure ain't a subject.

My apologies, I'm awful at formatting. Let's try this again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240161827#post94

In either case, I have to turn in, mate. My apologies.

often for truly weak grounds.

And how do you know it is being done unless the post is hidden? And since it was hidden how could that be weak grounds?

confused.

You can...you know.

'I see how you are'?

Huh? Do tell what that is? Oh, nevermind, get your rest for another day with the hope of being a more worthy opponent. The field of battle has been cleared by your withdrawal....at least for tonight.

courtesy.

I was providing you links but, you refuse to do the same.

Seems as if that makes you the less worthy opponent

but,

whatever.

field of battle --- lovely little term there.

cute. really cute.

Guess I should not take you at your word.

Nice indeed.

good night. I was prepared to leave it at that but, since you replied and I am still online it would have been rude of me to not reply.

Please be rude and ignore me. You generally do.

It's more work that way.

I think you will find it much easier to be nice and civil, even with those with whom you strongly disagree.

....when someone says good night...they are not planning to post again ...unless of course they want to go out of their way and be a jerk.

Want to talk about guns?

You don't have a clue about them...

Sure, I'll gladly converse about guns, though it seems as though this thread doesn't have much to do with guns. It seems to have more to do with the group (and perhaps should be in Meta).

For others, like in this example it just comes naturally.

'A common tactic'. Whatever. I'm sure nobody clicks alert on anti-gun control posts. Nah.

including say, marriage equality?
I would defend your right to express your point of view. Hoyt saying it is OK for cops to machine gun children, not so much. But then, Hoyt does your cause more harm than good, kind of like Ted Nugent does mine.

I'll defend the rights of those who agree with you to offend me.

You won't.

I don't know how you got any such thing out of what I said.

...or heck....me personally.

When you DEFEND someone being reinstated that you have have basically opposed in virtually every post, then you can tell me how much you support the rights of others.

PS.... The First Amendment comes before the Second.

I agree, but when someone says "everything" I couldn't resist.
I actually miss hoyt.

like a toothache I miss him.

Drop in Meta whenever you feel lonely he will be there.

or maybe their Alex Jones. He was a little good for humor.
Meta isn't really my kind of place.

but not in a ha ha kind of way.

he was giving the South a Bad Name and The South takes it enough in here as it is.

so it was a double whammy for me.

....other than your prejudicial and incorrect assumption that I will not defend the right of homophobic a$$holes to express their views. I will.

"everything" is all inclusive. That means that since rd supports marriage equality......... now you get it?
I don't remember supporting banning Hoyt, the only thing that offended me was his "ok to machine gun children in the back as long as I don't like the parents" remarks. In fact, I said I wanted him to stay, even if it was for the same reason Sarah Brady likes having Ted Nugent running his mouth.
Other than that, his rants were pointless rants that were copy and paste copies.

here, I disagree with your views on gun control, but I do support you expressing them.

....and I you.

and on that note, just got a call from my Division Commander, Relief Supervisor called off so I have to go to work tonight, sucks to be a LT. at times, but there it is. Just another fun night with the SLPD.
So you all have a good night and I'll be back tomorrow.

.

but it raises my opinion of DU considerably.

I've come back here recently, because DU is a fine resource for shooting down right-wing propaganda on facebook and other places. But those vile threads reminded me why I left here in the first place, and why so many others did.

Those threads weren't just Godwins. They blamed the victims, insulted the victims, and exploited the victims all at once. I have never seen even the GlennBeckiest conservative stoop that low.

Controllers calling RKBAs murderers, racists, et cetera.

RKBAs like rDigital Godwinning.

If there are to be standards such as that, they should be -enforced-, not brought about through public shaming in Meta.

What Does It Have to do with this Board?

Notice how ever sense the first post, you have done NOTHING but object to 'CONTROLLERS'.

Your first post attempted neutrality.

None that have followed do.

I support defending the right of those who support the RKBAs to offend me.

Most do every day.

When a jury didn't fall in the way a Controller wanted, he immediately ran to Meta to complain until the poster was shown the RKBA door. Meta is NOT a fallback that boils down to "I didn't get my toy, so I'll be damned if this guy does." Granted, it's meant to address grievances, but that poster never made a singular effort to approach the topic here; He knew he would fail if he kept the discussion in the RKBA forum, so he went elsewhere; where RKBA has a bad rap, and where popular opinion would force a result. That is, for all intents and purposes, the direct effort of authoritarian Controllers to attempt to stifle discussion and debate on a message board. To be blunt; He ran to mommy.

Why do I support the RKBA side of things? I'm biased, of that there is no lie. But do you want to know -why- I am biased? Because I don't believe all guns should be taken out of personal hands (As espoused here, Grahm4-somethingorother.) I don't believe that all (weasel word: Most) gun advocates are pocket criminals. I don't believe that if one owns a gun, you're a murderer waiting to happen.

I support the RKBA side because, for the most part, the Gun Control side is fucking insane in their propositions, and I don't want to get the crazy on me. Does that make me a gun-loony? Not by a long shot. As I said earlier, I do support reasonable and active, proactive and effective gun control legislation. But I'll be damned if I'm associated with someone who says everyone with a gun loves killing children.

....rather so you can affirm the 'Gun Control side is fucking insane.'

Yawn. What BS.

"Notice how ever sense the first post, you have done NOTHING but object to 'CONTROLLERS'.

Your first post attempted neutrality."

I was explaining why. I was likewise explaining my personal bias and choice in "side" in this debate. I thought the insanity part was pretty solidly known, given the history of other banned posters here.

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

It was left to stand, of course.

I do not alert and I do not have a Jury Blacklist.

Wanted to get this on record because I think anonymus serial alerting is a large part of our problem.

I think Alerters should be transparent. We have the right to know our accusers. They should be forced to argue their case to our faces.

then again - meh - its just a message board.






I participate for free so whatever paying members decide I will go along with it.

3 out of almost 70. Same number as juries I've served on for posts in the Lounge and Politics 2012. Going by my own experience, there is very little so-called spam alerting going on in this group. I do not know about others and where they haved served juries on may be far different then mine.

Here is a link to a post where I list in what forums and groups I've served on juries:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240160872

It would take a room full of lawyers to set up a code of conduct and enforce it. Posters will always find a way to insinuate the worst, offer up inane babble, and generally make fools of themselves. The fact is if you own a gun here and arent afraid to talk about it, you're in a hostile environment.

Social dominators and bullies haunt every group and exploit emotions for their own benefit. It's just human nature.

I've been called a RWT more times than I care to count. I've been called a racist. I've been called an MRA. I know who will do the name calling, and I know why. But I'm not worried about it, because I know I'm right. I've spent most of my life telling people what they don't want to hear, I don't plan to stop now.

Krispos has done a fine job of hosting, as has shadowrider. Of the four members that are blocked, three deserved it for sure. Any fair reading will show the attitude they brought here would have gotten them PPR'd if displayed elsewhere. As for rDigital, drawing any comparison, no matter how oblique, between "antis" and nazis is too much, but his block was much more expedient than the others. But I will defer to the hosts judgment on the matter.

"Be excellent to one another." Nice and simple.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Shadowrider or Krispos. I personally normally prefer a Hands Off approach, but the situation is becoming untenable, and at least a few people here see something akin. However, aside from making this post, and responding in it, I'm willing to just let what comes come. That's the way of things anyways.

Please do share with us who the four were, what their position on gun control was, and who the one was you do not agree with being banned is and what their general position was on gun control.

Can you truly and honestly say Hoyt and Bongbong did -anything- but troll this forum? I don't know Bupkis, so I can't judge, and I'm willing to concede on rDigital, but can you honestly say Hoyt and Bong didn't deserve to get banned?

Send to me and I'll respond through mail.

Don't know who Bong is.

Hoyt was banned, again, for serial disruptions; advocating child murder (IIRC), insisting if you had a gun you were a coward, that all gun-carriers were murderers waiting to happen, that if you carried a gun you were basically a racist and committing a hate crime... His history is pretty long. Posted content about once a year, maybe? All the rest was purposeful disruption of conversation.

Bongbong, on the other hand, would routinely pop into a thread, spam the ROFL smiley and basically do the same thing Hoyt did while calling everyone "delicate flowers." Not a once did I observe either Bong nor Hoyt make a coherent argument. To be honest, I struggled to read most of their posts; they were a word salad of smileys and general madness.

That's simply not how I understand it works.

Sounds like personal bias rather than a violation of SOP.

TOS, CS, everything DU stands for. A group banning for the antics they'd routinely pull is getting off with a slap on the wrist in comparison, and to be honest, I think the only reason they avoided such a fate was because they racked up impressive post counts due to the sheer volume of their disruption. We're talking fifteen, twenty, twenty five posts per thread of pure disruption, mate. It's one thing to lose one's cool or to be snarky for a thread or two. It's another entirely to base your DU existence off of it.

Tell me was it the 24th or 25th post?

Krispos explains.

Hoyt was banned for calling gun-users KKK members numerous times.

Bongbong was banned for apparently a slew of things, the icing on his cake being repetitive patterns of disruption.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240161827#post94

Take a look; it's in that subthread somewhere, but unfortunately, I have work in four hours, gotta pass out. Peace to you till then, mate.

copied and pasted it in this thread. Also his reply to me via PM.

Which was classic troll stuff. That led me once to making a "test" whereby a made a single one-liner about a banner who made one-liners (in my case, I channeled Spike Jones and his calling of the Kentucky Derby). Alerted and popped for being a troll. They found my popcorn fart amidst bongbong's hurricane of bad vapors.

Jury system is the best thing that happened. For the controllers.

the "about this thread" link.

Their position on gun control is of no matter. The disruptive attitude they brought to this forum was beyond the pale.

Thanks but again I ask

Please do share what their position on gun control was, and who the one was you do not agree with being banned is and what their general position was on gun control.

is if no relevance.

I questioned the expedience of rDigital's block, not the determination that it was inappropriate.

We don't all define justice along partisan lines.

LOL

When you defend the reinstatement of someone you disagree with, then we can talk about 'relevance'.

You write: 'We don't all define justice along partisan lines.'

Tell me....are we not in the same Party?

When you defend the reinstatement of someone you disagree with, then you can talk about justice.

for being an insufferable jerk,and I'll loudly support their reinstatement.

The people who have been banned were given the boot for their CONDUCT, not or their BELIEFS.

You cannot see that and I'm sure you will never agree to that, but that is incontrovertibly true. Had hoyt and bongbong and iverglas held their beliefs and expressed their firm convictions without resorting to repeated hostile and disruptive tactics, they would still be posting here today.

bupkus, Hoyt, bongbong and rdigital are the only members who have ever been blocked from this group.

I think had she not gotten the pizza, she would have been blocked at some point.

Again, NOT for her strong opposition to guns...she would have been blocked for being a rude and insufferable jerk.

She is the only DUer I ever had to put on Ignore, because the caustic bile was too tiresome to deal with. Life is too short to waste on people who CHOOSE to be jerks.

I self deleted below. I had done the work for them only to see that they don't return the favor.

Good Luck.

This is my take of this group since my short time of being a DU member.

If I was to go into another group forum , I'll pick anyone at random.

be it the feminism , the race or LBGT , mental health , parenting, peak oil , nuclear free

Mind you these are just random groups I thought of.

If I started posting the kind of attacks and phrases that the gun controllers post in this group I wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Here they get away with it.

Make it a strict policy on being civil and discussing the gun control issue intelligently without name calling.

and I think the ban he got is flat wrong.

Because ONLY gun controllers resort to name calling.

but here it's allowed .
I looked at the definition of how DU thinks of group forums .
It says it's not like GD it's more of a safe haven for members who like to discuss issues or things they support.

It doesn't seem to work here very well.

Here it is

Is they cannot sustain their arguments, they know this, and systematically attack pro 2A folks not only personally, but to equate them with RW extremists lusting for wild west violence and blood. That narrative is repeated constantly to the point where jurors accept the Big Lie and say the equivalent of "boys will be boys" and let the worst spittle-flying banner stuff by, but alert on the "hidden criminals" and "right-wing trolls" for small potatoes.

Smear and the repitition of smear is all they have, and the jury system encourages this dynamic.

This ain't no FirstAmendment Macho Zone. I go with the old (though flawed) rules of the road.

I see the same broad brush personal smear attacks from those who support your position as from my side.

Oh..and this forum is no more the First Amendment 'macho' zone (whatever that is) than it is the Second Amendment Macho Zone.

Actually, since discussion of amendment 2 hasn't been moved to "civil liberties", even though that move has been requested numerous times, this forum IS the second amendment zone.

I'm not really sure where "macho" fits in there however.

I was commenting on the fact that if the original poster (not you) thinks a gun control advocate has violated the SOP or TOS, they should alert the post and move on to a discussion of guns.