### (Closed) Discussion to create a process to un-ban members ###

[krispos42]

This discussion thread is pinned and locked. It is closed to new replies.

Last edited Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:09 PM - Edit history (2)

On November 3rd of this year, member "rDigital" was blocked from the Group due to an original post in which s/he posted a poll asking if gun-control advocates were Holocaust enablers.

rDigital immediately petitioned for reinstatement (the first to do so), but I felt that the impending Election Day and the associated confusion, plus the jubilation of Obama's inevitable victory and our schadenfreude of the right-wing meltdown, would not be the best time to work on this.

Plus, I noticed that a time-out period of a couple of weeks gives Group regulars a chance to see how things were without rDigital there, and could decide, among other things, whether the Group is better with or without him/her in there.



Since rDigital is the first member to petition for reinstatement, we're establishing a precedent here that I hope will be followed in the future.

Here is how I would like it to work, and I would like some feedback on this.

The members of the Group will debate the following in a thread:

• Whether the blocking offense was justifiable in the first place (does it need to be reversed because it was unjustified?)
  
• Whether the blocking offense is forgivable

While I would hope that the debate would stay only on those two points above, I am reasonably sure that the following points will be debated as well:

• Whether the member was a productive regular of the Group
  
• Whether the member participated in a positive fashion in the Group
  
• How well-liked the member was among the members and sides in the Group
  
• The general history of the member in the Group

After a set period of discussion (I'm thinking a week) I would lock the thread and open a polling thread for a final vote with a very simple question "Reinstate? Yes/No" and hold this open for a set period (say, a day).

At the end of the polling period, majority rules.



Opinions?

I'll let this float for the holiday weekend, and pin it to the top on Monday.

On edit: changed "banned" to "blocked". -K

[yardwork]

1. You mean blocking, not banning.

Members are banned from DU as whole. Posters are blocked from groups but can still post elsewhere on DU. You're talking about blocking, not banning.

[underthematrix]

3. Oh I didn't know there was a difference.

My post may not be relevant.

[yardwork]

18. Huge difference.

[underthematrix]

2. I think this is an excellent idea. I would love for peeps to

have a pathway for reinstatement into the Group after a violation of group norms, which can be very subjective.

I was banned from Huffington Post after responding to several racist comments about the FLOTUS shortly after the President was elected in November 2008. I would have loved a pathway for reinstatement but they do not have such a policy.

I'm always torn when someone is banned from a group because it means a voice has been silenced forever from a group. Does that seem right? From my perspective every one's point of view contributes to my growth even when I don't agree with the content or like how it was presented. Well that's my two cents for now.

Once again, this is a great idea.

[graham4anything]

4. The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters

As a Jewish person, that is the single most offensive thing I ever heard.

I am not a member of the group, though I have 100% of my posts here posted against guns.

However, I am Jewish.

And equating those like me that are against ALL guns as being a Holocaust enabler is sickening and vile.

Actually, an unmanned drone bunker busting bomb over Adolf Hitler BEFORE he killed 6 million Jewish people and 10s millions more would have been great.

I heard this stupid logic on a different board where I also was 100% anti-gun and dealt with the same time of small mindedness that insinuated all it took was guns.

What stupid, vile logic.

It's a desperate offensive thing to insinuate.

And it promotes anarchy and vigillantism which is NEVER a good thing.

This culture of the gun needs to be eradicated. The wild wild west is dead.

[glacierbay]

6. Trying to hijack the thread again?

This is about re-instating rdigital, not you personal grudge against guns and whatever else.
Try to stay on topic.

[graham4anything]

9. I am not a group member as I never signed up. So it's not my place to yea or nay

[glacierbay]

10. You can still say yea or nay w/o being a group member

w/o hijacking the thread.

[graham4anything]

11. I don't believe in censorship, so that would be a bring the poster back vote

But I do argue the message.

[glacierbay]

12. And that's your right to argue the message. nt.

[PavePusher]

24. There is no "group" or any "sign up".

You are inventing things again. Misdirection noted.

[rrneck]

26. You sign up when you post here. nt

[4th law of robotics]

13. So reply when someone says otherwise

Don't threadjack or attempt to derail the conversation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. You say, "The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters"

Did rDigital say that "the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters"?

Did anyone else on this board say that "the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters"?

Who is this person, if any, who said that?

In my experience, the only person that I know of as having said that is you. And in my experience, you said it as a way of raising a straw-man. It seems that you said it as a way to tar rDigital and implicitly claim that he said something that he did not.

If rDigital said that "the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters," provide the link. Let's see it.

If you are falsely implying that rDigital said that "the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters," then it is an ironic example of what was said earlier: "The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters".

[graham4anything]

20. Huh? I am arguing the post not the person. And I would not censor anyone.

I don't even know the person in the first place.(nor any other history). I was arguing the post
and have no idea what side the person who posts a posted article is on.)

a gun being used by any person to solely offset someone using a gun against them means turning the person into the menacing one

a non-menacing person is not a menacing person and would not logically do that.

However, in the war, it would not be far fetched for a person under the threat of extermination, to agree to do things otherwise not done (i.e. to work side by side in some position ala Schindler's List participants, so that one may stay alive).

(or using their head or other body parts to win favors so as to remain alive.
But there would be no point in using a gun as it would only lead to a different shooter killing them if they got the first one.

Same reasoning in killing someone in the mafia or other gang. You might get one, two, but the entire group will get you quickly after so it's better to find another way out of the situation.

and as I am answering your question, please do not later say I am hijacking thread.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. rDigital is the subject of the OP. Your post #4 is either related or unrelated to rDigital.

Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

You began #4 by saying, "The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters".

If you said that in a manner to imply that rDigital said that "the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters," that implication would appear to a false one. It doesn't appear that he said that.

If you said that in a manner but not to falsly imply that rDigital said that "the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters," then it appears clear that you are engaging in thread-hijacking. Others have recognized that. Why don't you?

[PavePusher]

23. "saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters"

No-one said anything of the sort. You are still inventing strawmen or outright lying, I see.

Not a winning tactic, FYI.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Is this the thread to discuss rDigital's rehabilitation?

Or is this announcing that there will soon be a thread to discuss rDigital's rehabilitation?

Or is this asking if there should be a thread to discuss rDigital's rehabilitation?

My vote is "aye".



edit to add: shouldn't this discussion be in Meta?

[krispos42]

89. It's to create the process of reinstatement...

...the first test case of which will be rDigital's status of being blocked.


And since this internal stuff, it can stay in the Group.

[petronius]

7. My vote and opinion is that there should be no formalized standards, rules, procedures,

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

processes, codes, or anything else beyond the broader ToS and CS of DU, and nobody should be blocked, ever. People who don't wish to see another user can use Ignore, those who don't wish to see a thread can use Trash, and those who perceive something as transgressing DU community standards can Alert. Nothing else is necessary...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. so then, are you saying that all previously blocked DUers should be reinstated?

just clarifying your position, thanks.

[petronius]

48. Yes. I think we all have the tools to personalize our own DU experiences, and if

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

we prefer not to use those tools we can simply not respond to and not read posts from people we find irritating (disruptors can't disrupt if they don't get replies, right?). This is not a safe-haven group, or an identity-based group, or a group comprising a homogeneous set of DUers - it's a topic-group and a contentious one, and I don't think any set of rules, procedures, etc. will ever be an improvement on the formal and informal tools we all already have.

In short, my preferred hosting style for a group like this is never-block/rarely-lock, and nothing on top of that, and rather than talk about the GC/RKBA Group and all its drama and intrigue, I'd prefer we spent our energy talking about the GC/RKBA topic...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. follow up question, if I may

would you prefer it to be hashed out in Meta?

[petronius]

50. No, I think it makes more sense to discuss Group stuff within the particular Group

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:20 PM - Edit history (2)

But if I had it my way there wouldn't really be anything to hash...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. so, if One is unhappy with what goes on here One should be able to start a thread about it rather

thank take it to Meta . . . right?

[petronius]

56. I think that would be preferable, yes... (nt)

[tortoise1956]

84. Absolutely

Personally, I think blocking someone from a group is a bad idea. If they break the rules, then have them banned. If you think they're obnoxious or a troll, then use the Ignore function. Otherwise, it should be open.

[glacierbay]

8. I think that he did go over the line with his thread

but that being said, he does contribute positively and has, I believe, apologized.
I would vote to let him back in.

[4th law of robotics]

14. If he was wrong then surely open debate is the answer

Censorship always smacks of desperation to me.

This of course has an exception: people who only post abuse and never offer any original thoughts should be removed. Like people who can't form a sentence without 'delicate flowers'.

Can anyone really argue that rDigital fits that description?

[glacierbay]

15. Nope

and that's why I would vote for re-instatement.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. Agreed.

There are some who were barred after establishing of long history of posting disruptive comments.

rDigital post, in contrast, was atypical.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. His was just a single offense. Let him back. N/T

[rrneck]

17. The lead host of a group has considerable if not autocratic power

about who stays and who goes. The buck has to stop somewhere. I have been less than comfortable with the permanent blocking of members, but at the same time the effort required to monitor people's activities with "time outs" seemed too much to ask of volunteers.

As usual, Krispos has shown considerable good sense and integrity in the discharge of his duties and the solicitation of member input into the process of blocking and unblocking is further evidence of that. The process he has proposed seems quite fair and transparent. I would suggest that if anyone would like to be unblocked, they should be required to make their request in writing for the examination of all concerned. If you want to post here, make your case. This will give the blocked member an opportunity to explain their motivations and offer some assurance that they will refrain from disrupting discussion and make a constructive contribution to the group.

[DonP]

22. Track their behavior in general, in other forums and groups

If they seem to have "got the message" and are behaving in a more reasonable way, allow them back "on probation" for 60 days or so.

If they go back to their old ways again - permanent ban,

I can think of at least one banned former member that carries on in exactly the same ignorant, rude way in another forum, with no hint of grasping why they were banned.

[PavePusher]

25. IIRC, the post in question was this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

and (again, IIRC) it was in response to a similar post (by an anti and which I now can't find) asking if gun owners were responsible for the actions of criminals.

I read the first post as accusatory/insinuatory, and rDigitals response as satire, but YMMV.

On that basis, I'd vote for re-instatement. While a cooling-off period was probably a good idea, a permenant block is un-neccesary and not warranted. Responding to provocation should require a much higher bar for a block than the original provocation.

I'll admit that I may not be unbiased. I've been known to get titchy when being accused of being a criminal, and an enabler/abetter of criminals.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Could it be this one?

"Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals and that's WHY I Support Gun Control Laws"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284075

In response to that OP and the poster's additional comments at #4 ("Are you THAT afraid of a serious conversation. Why don't you lock this WHOLE Forum.&quot , rDigital posted the following on Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:34 AM:

Clearly you have an issue. Take it to meta. I hope this one is locked too. nt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1172&pid=84088

Then, apparently out of frustration, rDigital posted his objectional post about a half-hour later at Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:18 PM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

IMHO, the post at http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284075 is over the top. rDigitial apparently thought so as well.

[PavePusher]

33. Correct....

and it was also about these OP's as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=83970

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117283946

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. Thanks for the additional links. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. Hogwash

The first link authored by me neither made the claim nor asked the question if 'gun owners were responsible for the actions of criminals' despite the implication by you that it did.

As for rDigital's poll, if that was the thread that got him blocked from this forum, he lost the poll, had a jury hide the post and got blocked for it.

I disapprove all those actions and defend his right to say what he did regardless of how offensive. I think he just sounded silly and desperate. You can disagree. Difference is I'll defend your right to do so.

[tularetom]

31. That post was clearly satire

Admittedly there is a case to be made that the holocaust should be off limits for satire but I would not have voted to ban rDigital's post. I actually love the first amendment as much as the second, and I have a huge tolerance for sarcasm.

And since he has since apparently repented of his 'sins' I would wholly support unblocking him.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. Given the timing and context of another post (identified at #30), I agree.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. has rdigital said anything to indicate that he no longer agrees with

this rightwing nonsense?

Is Hoyt getting unbanned too?

[glacierbay]

28. He may still agree with it

but as long as he doesn't post it, so what? And we don't know what he said in his petition to Krispos42, but I would guess that it included an apology.
As far as Hoyt, have you seen any change in his attitude? And Hoyt made it pretty clear that he isn't going to apologize to get re-instated.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

37. Respectfully, I don't know exactly what "rightwing nonsense" that WStupidity is referring to so

it is difficult to determine what rDigitial is supposed to have agreed with, if he ever did.

The timing of rDigital's post (as indicated above at #30) seems to indicate his frustration with the earlier post

"Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals and that's WHY I Support Gun Control Laws"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284075

rDigital post was written a touch of sarcasm.

How can you agree with WStupdity and speculate that rDigital "may still agree with" the undefined "rightwing nonsense" labeled as such by WStupidity? Before I can ever take the position that someone may still agree with "rightwing nonsense," I want to know specifically what that "rightwing nonsense" is and how it can be attributable to the person being accused and not to the imagination of the accuser. Otherwise, it is like dealing with people who accuse others of being "communist sympathizers" or "fellow travelers."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. I Don't Think Either One Needs to Apologize for How They Feel

I do think each should be given another chance.

[PavePusher]

34. Hoyt has not stopped making unfounded associations/accusations about gun owners...

including DU gun owners, in other Groups and catagories.

So I'd say he wasn't a candidate for re-instatement even if he asks for it.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Hoyt is not be recalled for exile.

[glacierbay]

82. Hoyt has made it very clear that he's not going to stop his nonsense

in regards to this group. All one has to do is look at his posts concerning the guns issue and his constant insults towards gun owner, furthermore, he made it clear to Krispos42 that he had no intention of apologizing for his vile remark and he's not asked to be re-instated.

[gejohnston]

83. Hoyt said much worse things

on a regular basis,
like defending a US Marshall machine gunning a fleeing 14 year old, simply because his last name was Weaver, sins of the fathers etc.
another was accusing someone who shot an attacker at a gas station of being "a white racist" when the article described the attacker attacked one person who was able to get away, then started beating the shit out of the CCW holder. The article clearly said witnesses said the CCW holder tried to retreat before firing. This was the post that made me wonder if Hoyt isn't racist himself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. In contrast to your claim, rDigital never indicated that he agreed with the rw nonsense.

He wrote his over-the-top post with a touch of sarcasm and satire to show his disagreement with an OP that had been filed about a half-hour earlier in which the author claimed:

"Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals and that's WHY I Support Gun Control Laws"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284075

See #30 above.

Some people are willing to falsely attribute statements to others which they never said. Innuendo is a favorite tactic for making false attribution. Innuendo is used to falsely suggest that a person said more than what he did.

What, exactly, are you claiming that rDigital said?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Even if what you say is true

You write 'Some people are willing to falsely attribute statements to others which they never said. Innuendo is a favorite tactic for making false attribution. Innuendo is used to falsely suggest that a person said more than what he did. '

And you are suggesting he made that post because of this?

Gun control advocates seek ways to PREVENT criminals from gaining access to guns. Fact is MANY gun owners illegally own guns. Gun control advocates want laws like more effective waiting periods for background checks, like better reporting procedures and sharing of information between gov't agencies and more.

When you say false accusation and innuendo, who exactly are you accusing this of?
1. Me for saying three sentences none of which you factually dispute?
2. rDigital for putting the holocaust on me?
3. You for implying his post was a reaction to what I said when there is nothing he said to support that.


So who exactly is falsely suggesting someone said more than he really did?

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Um that is simply untrue.

In this thread rdigital repeatedly defends his statement:
Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

Not only that, but this claim has in fact been defended by other gungeoneers. It was only after rdigital was banned that some here started claiming it was not stated seriously, that rdigital did not believe this nonsense etc. and only after the banning that any attempt was made to distance gungeoneers from this rw nonsense.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. What you say is not only unresponsive but it is veritably untrue. Those who look can see this.

1. As pointed out by krispos42 in the OP,

"On November 3rd of this year, member "rDigital" was banned from the Group due to an original post in which s/he posted a poll asking if gun-control advocates were Holocaust enablers."

Now you are pretending to not know the context in which rDigital's post was made. You are doing this by ignoring what is in front of you and the fact that his poll was apparently posted in a satirical way about a half-hour after someone else started a post claiming that ""Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals." See #30 for a fuller explanation.

You say, and you obviously falsely say without qualification, that rDigital said "Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers." Anyone who follows the link that you provided can immediately see that he did not say that. They can see that he posted a two-question poll in which other Duers could agree or disagree. In prompt #2, with which 61% of the responding DUers agree, he wrote

"Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers" (emphasis added)

Didn't he say "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers"? He did as much as your false statement that he said (as only reflected in his prompt #1, "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers".

Why do you need to say, without qualification, that he said that "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers" when that is obviously not true? You can't truthfully say that without your special interpretation because he likewise said, under your logic, that "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers". He didn't even vote in his own poll, and you can't truthfully claim that he voted in his own poll to support your alleged belief that he said, without qualification, that "Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers."

2. What, specifically, is this "rw nonsense" of which you speak?

Is it "rw nonsense" for a DUer to take a poll with alternative choices? Is it "rw nonsense" for a DUer to take a poll with two prompts, one of which is "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers".

Is it not sufficient for you to know that rDigital never took a position on the two prompts and never voted in the poll? Is it not sufficient for you to know that rDigitial gave two choice and most of those who were polled agreed with the statement ("his statement," using your criteria) "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers."?

Why is that? Why is it that you are so quick to defame him by claiming that he somehow believes in "rw nonsense" and that he said, and only said, that "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers".

Your claim about what he said, without noting his second prompt (i.e., "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers.&quot , is intellectually dishonest and factually untrue.

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. rDigital made a broad brush attack of virulent anti-semitic racism...

on anyone who didn't share his opinion. It was the equivalent of asking your neighbor "Are you still screwing your mother?"

Should he be reinstated?

That kind of attack violates the norms of DU, not just Gun Control & RKBA.

So, no, he should not be reinstated.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. No he did not. You cannot point to where he "made a broad brush attack of virulent anti-semitic

anti-semitic racism... on anyone who didn't share his opinion" because he did not.

[Agnosticsherbet]

44. If this was the question..

On November 3rd of this year, member "rDigital" was banned from the Group due to an original post in which s/he posted a poll asking if gun-control advocates were Holocaust enablers.

Than anyone who says yes is accusing gun-control advocates of being racists anti-semite enabling the holocaust. There is no other way to read it.

Banning him from this group was appropriate.

Letting back him either admits that it is OK to make such accusations, or suggests a general feeling that he learned that what he did was wrong.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Your accusation does not follow from the lead sentence in the OP.

You say that "anyone who says yes" to the poll "is accusing gun-control advocates of being racists anti-semite enabling the holocaust. There is no other way to read it."

You can only believe that if you disregard what was actually posted by rDigital (http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156 ) and the events and the context leading to the posting.

The events and the links are identified in #30, above.

The reason why you are paraphrasing what rDigital actually posted is because what he actually posted doesn't fit your accusation.

[tortoise1956]

85. At the risk of getting in deep shit,

I'd like to point out that you didn't have to be anti-Semitic to have been a holocaust enabler:

There were numerous good, decent people who didn't push back against the step-by-step campaign the National Socialist Party waged to gain and hold power. They simply couldn't believe that their fellow Germans were capable of the evil that was being plotted. While they didn't actively participate, their lack of action emboldened (enabled) the Nazis, leading to greater and greater repression and, ultimately, to the murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, disabled persons, and others who were considered "undesirable."

So in that sense, the remark in and of itself, without any supporting evidence, is not anti-Semitic.

[rrneck]

40. Got a link

and an explanation of your interpretation?

[Agnosticsherbet]

46. According to the OP, this was the questions.

On November 3rd of this year, member "rDigital" was banned from the Group due to an original post in which s/he posted a poll asking if gun-control advocates were Holocaust enablers.

You either agree that they are holocaust enablers and all that implies or you don't. Asking a question a a broad brush accusation that all who way yes are asked to agree with.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. This has been debunked. See #52.

[rrneck]

66. I saw no implication of antisemitism in the OP in question.

Nor do I think it was satire. Nor do I agree with the argument presented. The reasoning behind the argument has merit but was incompletely articulated.

Gun owners are routinely accused of mental instability, criminal intent, sociopathy and cowardice on a regular basis using much more direct insinuations. And there are very few negative consequences for those insinuations. Gun owners are the "undesirables" here.

If you don't like what was posted, why don't you prove him wrong? Write an OP and start a discussion instead of fleeing to the safety of your sense of propriety? What do you have to lose?

I would suggest you invite rDigital here to expand on his thesis and see how it holds up. That thesis, as I read it, is primarily concerned with the possibility of an armed populace to resist despotic overthrow. While I don't think personally owned civillian arms would have stopped the Wehrmacht, and the example used was unnecessarily hyperbolic, the subject itself merits discussion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. Some

You said: 'Gun owners are routinely accused of mental instability, criminal intent, sociopathy and cowardice on a regular basis using much more direct insinuations.'

Did you mean to say that SOME gun owners are accused of that by still SOME others?

All, or even most, on a routine and regular basis? I disagree. Hardly. Not even close. IMHO.

You did, however, articulate what he did not in a very thoughtful, respectful way.

[rrneck]

71. While the terms

"many" and "some" are employed as rhetorical cover, the disdain for those who own guns is manifestly clear. DU is a tough room for gun owners because liberal conventional wisdom dictates that guns symbolize all that is bad about conservative ideology. That attitude has some merit. You can't argue that the members of the left stand in opposition to conservative ideology and its attendant totem and deny the disdain shown here for the owners of that totem. But it is unfair to judge others on their associations, especially if those associations are merely inanimate objects. That isn't even quality bigotry.

Thank you. I try to be reasonable and respectful. I don't always manage it. Sometimes I don't even try. I was a Scots-Irish Jack Daniels drinking gun owning farm boy tractor jockey sumbitch long before I got an MFA. And I still am. If I think somebody needs cussing, they'll get cussed. But rational discussion works best.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. I Understand That

I can see how Democratic gun advocates might feel under attack within the party and goodness knows I haven't helped in that regard. In fact, I have probably contributed.

By the same token, I often feel like I am alone in trying to articulate my views in this group (although there are a few others who come and go). It's no less friendly for gun control advocates than opponents and all too often we pack each other into one side or the other. In fact, it's my humble opinion that this group is so far removed from the party that it is me who feels like I'm on Mars. At the same time, I find a growing group of adversaries who try civil discourse and I appreciate that.

I've learned a lot from gun enthusiasts in this group (and don't ask me to repeat that again or specify what I have learned or I'll have to join your Jack Daniels with my Maker's Mark).

I hope some learn from my perspective as a center city man who has been a victim of gun violence. Ironically, I called my rural country gun enthusiast Republican brother and his family to wish them a Happy Thanksgiving and bit my tongue on how much fun they had shooting targets on their 'farm' (house in the country). Two degrees of separation! (I did poke fun at him for not hunting his turkey which came out of the freezer.). Happy Thanksgiving!

[rrneck]

73. And a happy Thanksgiving to you.

[PavePusher]

41. Here's a little help:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satire

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

[Agnosticsherbet]

47. This was the question.

On November 3rd of this year, member "rDigital" was banned from the Group due to an original post in which s/he posted a poll asking if gun-control advocates were Holocaust enablers.

It carries with it an accusation that all gun-control advocates are enable the holocaust, which makes them passive or active racists anti-semites.

Banning him was the right think to do.

Letting him back in should only be done if the group feels he has learned something by banning, or if letting him back him is just saying banning was wrong.

My vote is to let him remain banned.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. This has been debunked. See #52.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Bring Him Back

Thank you Krispos42 for initiating this discussion.

Anyone who knows me knows I strongly object to just about everything rDigital says and stands for. Ironically, he (and quite frankly many in this group) seem to forget that some, if not many of us who actually support gun control, also support the RKBAs. And yet, each side hardens their positions to exclude the possibility that each side may have merit.

As it relates to rDigital, his post was vulgar, repugnant, offensive, vile, hateful, hurtful, arrogant, obnoxious, dishonest, and insensitive.

I can understand that a reasonable person would conclude the ban was justifiable and unforgivable. I think that RDigital did huge harm not only to those who disagree with him on his interpretation of the RKBAs, but to those who agree with his underlying arguments as well. He did not put forth a good or compelling argument and he quite frankly did enormous harm to all, including himself. I believe sometimes our passion can get the better part of our reason and know that few are exempt from that. He cares about this issue, as I am certain, we all are.

I believe how well liked rDigital is is irrelevant to a consideration of whether he should be allowed to return other than to say unpopular posts and individuals should be protected. I am a strong advocate for another Amendment that comes before the Second and I will defend anyone's right to say what I would spend a lifetime opposing. I believe the solution to bad speech is more speech not less. At the same time, I can't help but wonder how many others who disagree with me and my posts in this group would be as forgiving for what they consider to be my transgressions. In fact I suspect there are more than a few who are just waiting for that one bad post that I make that crosses the line. Regardless, that is not the standard by which we should all strive for. I want worthy opponents with deep, rich and compelling arguments who challenge me and my beliefs. All too often we all, including myself, end up making and reading stereotypical one liners. While most do not rise to comparing me to a holocaust enabler, they are not much better.

I vote to allow him to return.

Krispos42, I applaud your attempt at fairness and hope we become better at truly attempting to listen and have empathy for those we disagree with.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. You said, "I can understand that a reasonable person would conclude the ban was justifiable ..."

I can - if the reasonable person did not have more information.

This is particularly true if the reasonable person did not have sufficient information regarding the context to understand that the poll was posted as a satirically way to point out the lack of reasoning skills of the person, and those who agreed with him, who earlier posted that:

"Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals and that's WHY I Support Gun Control Laws"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284075

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. Huh?

First, if you disagree with me, then put up an argument. My post was respectful, a representation of MY beliefs, and encouraged others to share theirs even if they disagreed with me. The post was so innocuous (at least to me), it's hard to believe you honestly don't think that those of us who support gun control do so with the sincere intent of reducing crime. Can we not agree that's a good thing even if we disagree on our approach?

Second, I was neither alerted by my post (that I am aware of) and if it was (and given your tone, it sounds like it was), it was cleared by a jury. As Krispo42 wrote 'Despite the subject line, which obviously is an attempt to attract attention, the OP is about starting a discussion about keeping criminals from getting their hands on guns.' Too bad, you would rather discuss me rather than that thread or this one.

Third, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Forth, I'll defend your right to say what I would spend a lifetime opposing regardless of your willingness to do the same for me....just as I have for rDigital.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. If you don't understand,

First, if and when I disagree with you I'll let you know.

I obviously did not disagree with your statement as reflected in your sentence.

I don't need your permission to agree or disagree with you.

In your post, you also said something that I agree with:

"Krispos42, I applaud your attempt at fairness and hope we become better at truly attempting to listen and have empathy for those we disagree with."

When Krispos42 made his initial decision, he did not have addition information of our additional input and the view from at least some of us that rDigital's post was based on sarcasm or satire in response to an earlier post. What I have said while agreeing with your thoughts is that, in mho, Krispos42 should consider that additional information. If you don't want to do that, fine. That's up to you.

Since I did not say anything in my response to you about my perception of your intent, "sincere" or otherwise, you have no basis to say:

"it's hard to believe you honestly don't think that those of us who support gun control do so with the sincere intent of reducing crime."

Second, the heading for the OP clearly indicates that it is about a "Discussion to create a process to un-ban members." It says so right in the title. Your statement about your belief that your post may have been alerted has nothing to do with me. I did not click on the alert button. If someone did, it may be because you stated in an over-the-top way with respect to rDigital that:

"his post was vulgar, repugnant, offensive, vile, hateful, hurtful, arrogant, obnoxious, dishonest, and insensitive."

Third, once again, heading for the OP clearly indicates that it is about a "Discussion to create a process to un-ban members." My response is exactly on point. I did not make an ad hominem attack, nor did I claim that your post was "vulgar, repugnant, offensive, vile, hateful, hurtful, arrogant, obnoxious, dishonest, and insensitive." I did not alert on your post.

Fourth, you say, "I'll defend your right to say ..." Really?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

64. Yes

Nothing in the first three reference points worth responding to.

Fourth point, the answer is yes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

61. Now I understand. You are the one who posted

"Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals and that's WHY I Support Gun Control Laws"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284075

If someone alerted on that post, you fully deserved it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. No One Is Stopping You From Responding

And to my knowledge, no one has alerted my post. In fact, the host said it should remain.

The post remains.
The thread remains.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that post.

You disagree?
Here are your options:
Alert
Discourse in thread


PS- the topic of this thread is neither that post or that thread. Did I mention I oppose the actions of the jury and an have articulated a reason to reinstate him? Difference between you and me is I'll defend your right to say what I would spend a lifetime opposing.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. vote to reinstate rdigital -

It was unjustified and therefore no need to be forgivable.

The member was a productive regular of the Group.

The member participated in a positive fashion in the Group.

Speaking only for myself, I like rdigital. he is pretty good photographer and I like it when he posts about his baby's mama, too.

Generally speaking, he is a good all round DUer.

[ileus]

65. Why don't we have means to ban for time periods?

3 days

1 week

1 month

permaslapdown

???

[krispos42]

90. We do

But it's not automatic. I would have to manually block and unblock people at the appropriate times.


And this was discussed before, and it was decided that it was not a good idea. Originally it proposed for civility reasons. Use certain kinds of phrases (gun nut, gun grabber) and get a week off. That kind of thing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. Just to outline my thinking

- Whether the banning <blocking> offense was justifiable:
That decision must be reserved to the authority the action is reserved. Since the host is forced by circumstances to make these decisions, we must live with these decisions or change the process. Having said that, I will join the ranks of those who feel that banning, time out, un-banning and monitoring is extra work that isn't needed.

I agree with the following members:
- fightthegoodfightnow - free speech is always better than censorship; if an error is made, take all care to see that the error is to the side of liberty
- graham4anything - I don't believe in censorship; me neither
- petronius - anything else beyond the broader ToS and Cs of DU, and nobody should be blocked, ever; bravo, I agree
- and some others who don't favor the idea of blocking for reasons of one or more offensive posts

If you see fit to change the process such that members won't be blocked for offensive posts then rDigital has nothing to apologize/be forgiven for. I really don't care how offensive someone may get telling me that gun-control enables freedom and anyone who carries either open or concealed is a vigilante wannabe. The juries can vote and I can live with that.

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

- Whether the member was a productive regular of the Group:
Everyone who participates and stays within the SOP is productive.

- Whether the member participated in a positive fashion in the Group:
Everyone who participates and stays within the SOP is participating in a positive fashion.

- How well-liked...
IMHO, being well liked is non sequitur.


Can we maybe first vote on whether we want to see members blocked at all?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. Agree

...even if we disagree on gun control!

Happy Thanksgiving!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well :)

Freedom is freedom; accept no substitutes.

[snot]

76. The ONLY people I'd vote to block or ban

are trolls.

I don't care how outrageous or stupid or whatever a person's posts are, I can put up with those.

What I hate are the posters who aren't saying what they really think, but in sheep's clothing, trying to derail genuine discussion.

[rrneck]

77. How can you tell? nt

[petronius]

78. Obvious - they get PPR'd

After that,they can be blocked...

[snot]

87. I agree; that's the problem.

[Remmah2]

79. Three strikes rule.

The occasional locked post if only minor in quality, then just a locked post, slap on the hand. No suspension.

If you do something really, really, really stupid; first time a 30 day time out. Second offence a 90 day time out. Third time you get your name on the permanent wall of shame. It's got to be seriously bad.

It's just words on this entire forum. Blowing off steam here, I'd like to think we're all in the same boat (DU'ers) even if we differ on some of the issues.

The 2A is all about being able to stand up for the rest of the Bill of Rights. The 2A is the keystone for the whole thing. The Gungeon is probably the most open minded group on the board, keep it that way.


As of right now, amnesty for all.

[Eleanors38]

81. In general, I like the plan, and Digital should be reinstated.

Thanks to the posting history provided, I have confirmed in my mind that the poll/posting was a sarcastic response to the now-ingrained insult of "hidden criminality" of gun-owners. (I tried a double reverse of my own a few weeks back and got popped for it myself, but not banned.)

While I am pretty liberal about letting crap fly in this forum, I do not support the kind of unbridled insults which pass for argument; frankly, I would prefer some return to the "old" DU rules of the road. I don't consider DU a government entity and the Group a body politic where a Constitutional standard of "free speech" must be met. It's still a private party!

I think the procedures suggested by Krispos are a good idea. As always, Krispos, thanks for the excellent work.

[oneshooter]

86. Either bring him back, I believe that he has honerably served his sentence.

Or ban him completely, otherwise this discussion will continue to impair the group.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. so. whats the buzz? tell me whats happening.

why did you unpin this thread?

[krispos42]

91. Locking

Although the discussion in this thread was not primarily about the reinstatement process (as I had hoped it would be), there does seem to be enough consensus that there should be a process.

In pursuit of this goal, I will now start an official discussion thread pertaining to rDigital's reinstatement. I'll let that go for a few days, then we'll have a vote.


Thanks,
Krispos42, Group Host