Group Business ~ Re: Blocking

[boston bean]

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 06:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Snooper2 was blocked for using a gender based insult:

Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #55)
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:53 PM
snooper2 (13,218 posts)
70. That is either satire or the writer is just a judgemental prick, is there a name of the author?

Who is this person?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=6630

And then Snooper2 went out into Meta to regale in his blocking of this group, calling it a "merit badge". Yeah right, this poster was here acting in good faith?!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=118522



Opiate69 was blocked for accusing members here of being right wingers.

Too many posts to count, see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=6398



Creekdog was blocked for trying to stir up trouble in Meta surrounding our Member SOP and Group SOP:

Creekdog posted inquiries about our SOP in History of Feminism on May 3rd and was not blocked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=1816

Then went on to Meta to discuss further in an effort to cause trouble for our safe haven group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124089677#post19

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=96633

And then again today, trying to cause more issues for our group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240118703

Obviously all blockings took place in an effort to keep this group a safe haven. If a poster wants to be well received here in our group, it would help an awful lot if they weren't out in META, disrepecting the groups purpose, pushing for the disbandment of our group and banning of members, like another blocked member did, see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=5798

[hlthe2b]

1. I think it important to note those blocked who continually post meta threads attacking HOF

are almost universally NOT recently blocked, but nearly all from months ago. This very much underscores that their intent was not to appeal their being banned from the group, but to continue vendettas against the group and its participants. Further to that point, not one has appealed to hosts for reinstatement after block, but instead preferred to launch on a meta tirade, attacking the group and its members. One would assume if the incident was based on a misunderstanding and there was a sincere desire to participate in a constructive manner, that that would be a natural step to take by those now complaining in meta. But, it has not.

Despite this continued and unceasing attack on the group, we recommit our efforts to maintain a safe haven for those who wish to discuss the issues in good faith, civilly and respectfully with others in the group. Further, given the expressed intent by at least one previously blocked member to have the group disbanded, its members/participants PPR'd, we encourage restraint in (and perhaps to avoid) engaging with those whose intent is to cause harm.

[Texasgal]

2. What's interesting to me is

that all of these people banned don't seem to honestly want to be in our group. None of them had any intentions of coming here and discussing issues respectfully.

I'd like to know what the hell these posters really want? If it's more drama they got that already by baiting HOF in Meta every couple of weeks.

If you are honest about your intentions in HOF, then you are welcome. If not... Goodbye. I don't see the issue with that. Doesn't every other safe haven group do the same thing?

[Little Star]

3. Thank you for linking to the reasons for blocking those who came into our safe haven to disrupt...

They are now out (and have been, over and over again in META) acting like they are victims of some sort. When in actuality, they are the ones who have come into a safe haven to disrupt.

The members of this group have similar views about feminism, which is what a group is for, according to Skinner:

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.

I think that those who do all this bemoaning about our group and our members and our SOP in META, need to understand the purpose for safe have groups, and how they work.

Your links to their disruption is not talking about them, it is giving the transparency to the actual reason for their blocks, that they are always out in META bemoaning.

Thank you again, and I hope Skinner reads this and looks at those links. LS

[MadrasT]

4. Transparency is good. Thank you.

Gosh, it is a shame there aren't other feminist groups where these folks could go talk about their ideas about feminism.

Oh wait... there are.

[seabeyond]

8. lol. you made me laugh. the intent would actually have to be an interest in feminism, i guess. nt

[Hatchling]

5. I have no problem with the blocks.

In essence the stalkers have been served with a restraining order.

[Broderick]

6. Protected groups appear to have the right

to block whomever they want. I don't think they are required to offer explanation, but I believe transparency is good nonetheless.

[seabeyond]

7. there are people on the block list that got pissed and intent was to disrupt. i would like to hear

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

from them on topics they may not get pissed about and disrupt in the future. and maybe in time they will petition to unblock and we can put away the hostility. and when coming into this forum to talk in a thread, actually do it respectfully. it is not hard when i go into another group to do just that. and it is not hard for most. the posters blocked know what they did, and it is no surprise to them.

i watch the hypocrisy of us being called out in meta repeatedly as bullies. when the utter nastiness the same posters use about us is repeated over and over. we are a small group of women. a much larger group of people are continually disrupting, calling out and making personal attacks.

and we are the bully?

it seems to be an accepted way of the new du3.

you know, us women can be proud of our ability to continue on and create a forum that fits our needs, among the hostility, and continue to be successful. good for us.

[PassingFair]

13. Telling us what we are/are not allowed to discuss within our group.

Last edited Wed Jul 4, 2012, 04:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Dragging us into meta to be stoned for parsing articles and essays by controversial authors.



People whose favorite forum is "Meta"
and whose favorite group is "Men's Room"
coming in here with any intention but to
cause trouble?

[MadrasT]

14. They are hapless unsuspecting victims!!!

They were all "entrapped".



It has become a regular comedy show in Meta.

[redqueen]

15. Oh gawd yes, the entrapment crap...

GOLD!

[seabeyond]

17. as they read the thread in meta, run over here and disrupt

run back and say, see see, they got me too.

geeuz fuckin donkey.

[seabeyond]

18. probably rises to the order of abusiveness or entrapment.

really. really.

entrapment.



for real.

[PassingFair]

19. Pipe down! Another victim is due at any moment!

[seabeyond]

20. then they should SLOW DOWN and put on the damn seat belt.

[MadrasT]

22. Oh shit, is it that time again already?

Who is on duty tonight to lure them in?

[Hatchling]

24. Oh, I'll do it.

My profile is still pretty low so it must be my turn.

How about:

If the MRA didn't have Dworkin to bash us with they would have to invent someone like her?

Is that a sticky enough thread title?

[PassingFair]

25. Ok, now let's ALL 6 of us rec it to the GREATEST PAGE and set the SNARE!

They'll come in here with their innocent posts and BAM!

[redqueen]

30. DUZY!

[seabeyond]

32. really

lmfao here





lets

[MadrasT]

26. Anything with "Dworkin" in it should do the trick.

I can't wait.

(Hey bean and hl, get that ban-hammer ready, m-kay?)

[redqueen]

27. Y'all are killing me!

[boston bean]

28. Everyone's cracking me up too!

the ban-hammer! BBtheBH LOL

[Hatchling]

29. Just so you know

When one of us replies to a disruptor's post with B3H, it means we are calling for Boston Bean's Ban Hammer.

Every one got it now? Repeat after me: B3H!

[boston bean]

31. LOL!

[seabeyond]

34. oh, that is a hoot

[seabeyond]

33. no, no, we need to dig a pit and put bushes over it.... or a lasso

hide it under leaves

[MadrasT]

35. Oh

I've been trapping critters for years.

I'm on it...

sets the hav-a-hart trap with tasty bacon with a side of porn fritters





OK now everybody so they don't suspect anything...

Shhhh...

[seabeyond]

36. i am telling ya

porn fritters and bacon

gonna catch us a wabbit

[Hatchling]

37. Hold me back!

Bacon! Yum yum yum!

Can't we just use the porn fritters?

Gotta go make me a BLT right now.

[seabeyond]

38. oh.... blt sounds good. WAIT. focus woman

we are entrappin' here.

[Hatchling]

39. But I AM focused!

Oh, you mean on the entrapment thingy.

Just as soon as I finish my sandwich. Mmmmm.

[seabeyond]

41. before i even clicked to enter the post, i knew you were munching on your sandwich

you know what they say about taking your eye off the ball...

[MadrasT]

40. Help yourself to the bacon

I made extra.

passes the dish

(Besides, we have been having pretty good luck with the porn fritters.)

[Hatchling]

42. No, thank you.

I'm full.

I actually had bacon in the fridge I was planning on finishing up tonight because I have to start a heart healthy regime and wasn't going to throw it out. I've been thinking about it all day long and then you just HAD to bait the trap with bacon!



Edited because of an "i" problem, damn seabeyond anyway!

[seabeyond]

43. hey, in my house that would be called shifting the blame

We generally call the perpertrator a repug. You know, can't own it. My i's are just fine, thank you.

[redqueen]

23. !

[seabeyond]

16. it is once again a wonderful example laying out exactly what us women have been saying repeatedly

in this forum. that the men laugh at, ridicule, and go on and on and on about how ridiculous it is, they are feminist after all. doing exactly what we say men do.

a wonderful example.

thank you for once again, bringing it to our attention.

little ladies you do not know what to think or feel, us MEN will tell you girls what you need to say, post and think.

[redqueen]

9. Just for the record, it's quite obvious that snooper isn't 'porn obsessed' ...

and that's not namecalling, that's an observation based on how some people simply cannot stand for anyone to disagree with them, and hence resort to mockery, derision, dishonest characterizations of arguments, etc.

I don't see how anyone could possibly mistake my descriptor for those who do engage in that behavior with an 'insult' aimed at snooper, when he obviously wasn't doing anything like that.

[MadrasT]

10. It isn't a "mistake".

It's another smear tactic.

And if people are so proud of their love of porn, why would they object to being labelled "porn obsessed"?

If there is nothing wrong with porn, who cares?

Isn't "porn obsessed" only a horrible insult if you actually believe there is something wrong with porn?

These people puzzle me.

(For the record, I did not read your comment to snooper2 as saying he personally is "porn obsessed". It seemed like a side conversation to me.)

[redqueen]

11. Thanks. I sure didn't think anyone would think I was talking about snooper.

I mean, his only post was about that blogger, so.... yeah, it is kinda hard to think the 'insult / namecalling' thing could be an honest mistake.

[boston bean]

12. Neither did I.

As I stated, he used a gender based insult. That is why he was blocked.

If he was really upset about it and wanted to stay on in HOF, he should have pm'd me.

But nope, he went right to meta and claimed his "merit badge" for getting blocked. Tells me everything I need to know.

Would someone who truly wants to interact in this group do that?

[boston bean]

21. Grown out of it.

i thought that was strange and insulting to those he was "defending".

[ooo]

44. Oh gee, I wonder who else used the gender based insult "prick"?

Why, that would be YOU and Seabeyond!

boston bean (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-27-06 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. good one too...... I see nothing wrong with holding the prick accountable
he broke the law, got a break and then disrespected it in less than a few months.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1521133

boston bean (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-20-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. He's a prick all the way around, no matter how you look at it! nt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5648782&mesg_id=5649022

seabeyond (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-30-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #208
209. the INTENT is to degrade and demean coulter in the most vulger way per gender

Edited on Fri Jul-30-10 12:20 PM by seabeyond
and that is what ALL of us women get. that is why we are pissed.

we have all had cunt used on us. a man doesnt get it from us and we are a cunt. we have heard it in our life. we know what it is meant to do to us. adn says everything about the prick and his little penis that does not do. it is meant to humiliate. to disgrace. to offend

we get it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8839670

Above quote-mining courtesy of this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240119444

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

Here's what I now in the interest of fairness and equally applied rules expect you to do:

1. Block Seabeyond from this group.

2. Resign as host and let the other host block YOU.

Because surely you're not a flaming hypocrite who selectively applies rules based on wheter you like certain opinions or not? Certainly some sexism isn't "more equal" than other sexism? Personally I think banning someone for using the word "prick" (and without so much as a warning) is mind-numbingly stupid, but since you have decided to go down that route you either have to walk it to its conclusion or reverse your decision.

Of course, we all know that the only thing that will happen is that you will instead block ME for daring to point out your hypocrisy. I expect no less.

[hlthe2b]

46. Your quotes pre-date HOF--as early as 2005 & never appeared here.. nice try

I'm not sure which of the group's detractors has created this little sock puppet with the intent to disrupt, but here's the thing. HOF was created in March, 2012. Had your original identity (not the sock) posted a civil comment here and someone in the group brought to my attention a very offensive post of YOUR OWN from DU2, I would not block you.

However, I WILL block you for coming here with no other intention than to disrupt.

Happy? Now go start your meta thread.

[boston bean]

48. LOL

It really wasn't until recently that I felt there could be some merit to the argument about male based insults.

The members of the Mens Group on DU don't like the use of "pr*ck".

I still do see a difference between those words and female base insults, on one level. However, if the men on DU don't like those words to be used to describe other men, it's not for me to decide what should or shouldn't make them uncomfortable. I try to be sensitive to all.

If I had left it standing, I'm sure there would have been numerous complaints about allowing a male based insult left with no repercussions in our group.

I guess you can't win for trying.

[seabeyond]

51. there was a thread a year or so ago, more. with palin and others using balls. SOME men were bothered

Last edited Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:19 AM - Edit history (2)

they were tired of it and offended that women were all the time calling men out about their balls. i listened to the men. thought about what they were saying. and posted, k. gotcha. you are right.

and i have never used balls again.

pretty damn easy. about thinking, considering, listening and growing as a person. being nice. not a tough one.

[seabeyond]

50. arent you clever. here i thought it incredibly stupid in meta, you bring here. hmmm, i am arguing

the use of the c word people are validating using the n word and the f word and i am arguing that that would be racist and homophobic to use those words. along with sexist to use the c word.

and this is what you bring, to shame me. really? i thought it particular stupid the people jumping on this and holding it up like a trophy for a win. yet here it is.

[redqueen]

53. Too lazy to even do your own research... whose sock are you?

Pathetic effort, on both your parts. Yours for laziness and sock puppetiness, and his for just overall dumbassity.

Digging up seven-year-old posts... how fucking stupid can you get?

People change. I would have called you all kinds of nasty anti-woman names before a few years ago, when I started realizing that there's no good reason for treating misogynist slurs as if they're any more acceptable than using racist ones.

[hlthe2b]

54. ooo has now been PPR'd so I will now unblock---lest any one be confused as to why. n/t

[seabeyond]

55. thanks. a pretty obvious one. or ooone. lol. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

45. Creekdog has been a long time serial disruptor of feminists groups

Personally, I would have blocked him as soon as he joined. It's amazing to me that obvious disruptor problem children don't see how obvious they are, and that as soon as they raise their head above sea level everyone already knows what they're up to.

I appreciate the explanations for each, but I personally don't feel it's necessary. I don't think a trusted host needs to explain anything when they block someone... we are all free to see the reason for ourselves. It's nice that you did so, and so thoroughly, but for me, I know I can trust your judgment and don't need the explanations.

[boston bean]

49. Thank you for the kind words TTW.

means a lot, really.

[seabeyond]

52. he was and continued to be a main protagonist. also, i apprecaite his input when actually discussing

issues. i thought he put it aside when we first opened. i was happy for it.

but, it did not last long. i would hope that creek will be able to let it go, and in time feel comfortable being a contributor.

it is up to him.

[sufrommich]

56. No explanation needed, our hosts do a

wonderful job as far as I'm concerned.

[Scout]

57. agree 100%

our hosts are doing a fine job.

i trust them, and i appreciate their explanations even though i don't feel they are required.

[Tumbulu]

58. Agree 100 percent

You are doing a wonderful job!!!!!

Many Thanks!!!!!