First, the submissions to any jury reviewing this post.

This is a PROTECTED GROUP. Members of this group are permitted to discuss their problems at this website, and the people with whom they have problems, in this group, without let or hindrance.

If you read the content of this post, you will understand how this works.

It took me quite some time to understand it -- that I could be called out, insulted and lied about in another group's forum here without penalty -- but that's how it is.

Since that's how it is for the LGBT group, I am expecting, and requiring, that that's how it be for the Feminists group. I will maintain what I consider to be civility as it is understood in the broader world -- I will not lie about other DU members, specifically; but the rules of civility that govern this website do not apply here, unless the members of the group themselves (via their hosts) decide to ban a poster.

Should I post this in Meta-Discussion where it can be replied to by non-group members? Nope. No more than the LGBT group members should do that (see material reproduced below, re the continuing discussion of myself in that forum).

So if we Feminists could just get on with our business, we will be grateful.


This is the message I received regarding the hidden OP "so let's talk cases".

That OP was a continuation of a discussion that had been ongoing throughout the late evening and early morning. I wanted some specific answers to some specific questions, and not necessarily just from the one individual who had been engaged in the dialogue to that point. That individual, La Lioness Priyanka, was actively reading and posting in this forum at the time I posted. The other person I named and quoted, well, you can be sure she is reading here -- but apart from that, I am entitled to say what I want, about whom I want, in this forum, as is any other member of this forum. That is the way it is.



AUTOMATED MESSAGE: One of your posts has been hidden by a DU Jury

At Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:13 AM, an alert was sent on the following post:

so let's talk cases

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Since when have blatant call-outs been allowed?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:35 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: it was an inappropriate call-out of a DU poster
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Multiple call-outs here.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Having read this post, and seeing references to OTHER posts, I also went and read those. I think iverglas is being a bully and breaking not only CS, but also TOS. Is threadstalking against the rules?


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


Well, here are some answers, jurors. And alerter -- whether you were a random busybody or someone acting with full knowledge and malice aforethought.

Just a couple of comments first.
Juror #6, you might want to refrain from passing judgment in situations where you have no knowledge of the facts. Your allegations are outrageous, and can stem only from total ignorance or bias, neither of which is good reason for speaking about another DU member that way. There is no "threadstalking" here, except perhaps against myself.
Jurors #2 and #5, remember: call-outs are permissible.
Gosh, maybe it would be a good idea to make that clear somewhere, so victims of call-outs that are allowed to stand don't then have their posting privileges interfered with when they are accused of impermissible call-outs.


Since when have call-outs been allowed?

Since we arrived in the brave new world of DU3. CALL-OUTS ARE NOT RULE VIOLATIONS.

I have been told this repeatedly.

never again. wont happen.

This is ******* sickening. Flat out.

I wish I could say I was shocked at the double standard.

and then it goes to the jury. If you've seen something elsewhere that stayed up it's because it was not alerted or the jury decided not to hide it.

If you read iverglas's post you know that there is a clear double standard going on with the way juries are enforcing rules in different (allegedly) protected groups.

I don't find it in any way amusing. At all.

as for the double standard, I'd suggest posting in Meta.

I hope this subject gets breached in H&M but I already feel like a 'trouble maker' since I dare to start threads every six months or so about women in GD which get so many people so pissed off.

Goddess knows I don't want to be judged as making DU suck, cause DU is supposed to be fun.

you use to be moderator? if i remember correctly. i dont know your position with du3. so, to be in awareness (which, i always prefer), is this like an official suggestion and we should not talk about female inequality in this forum, but we should take it to meta so as not to get this thread locked?

on edit..... or letting us know the process. that is how i took it until i started thinking, lol

thanks. on all counts.

Health, Cancer Support and Creative Speculation. I'm also on the MIR team but that one along with the forum host is rotating.

It was just a suggestion because it seems that Meta is the place to discuss alerts results and double standards, etc. without being subject to any SOP issue and if you look through the forum lots of similar type posts have been left up there.

is not unknown to me. just dont know if i want to battle it just yet. i think it is very important as we set up this forum, we iron these things out so we better understand what we are up against and why we need to protect ourselves. i dont know if the people that use this forum, will look into meta and our issues.

appreciate it.

Let's go put ourselves up as targets someplace else.

Good plan, I'd say.

since du3, the number of women that have let me know they appreciate people speaking out for women. i was no different on du2, but rarely heard anything. though, it was probably easier because mods protected us to an extent, but since du3, men actually calling all women prositutes (2 just this morning) and it is accept and allowed and dismissed by jury. i have had more women say something. and i really appreciate it because we hear from women that want us to shut up, too. and sometimes i wonder. so to hear that someone does not want to be a part of the mess, and i get that, yet appreciate that others are speaking out, is so important for me.

this is a different animal for all of us to get used to. gd though, has been interesting in its development of this issue. one poster said.... what have i missed with all this on strippers, prostitute. lots, i wanted to say. though, the obvious is redqueens prostitute thread, this is really the hashing out and realizations for even before that. and probably before the pageant issue. clear back and beyond to the sports forum issue.

it is interesting the development. and there is good, along with the not so good.

but ya, to put self on front line again? lol. i have things to do in real life.

son forgot a binder and i have to get it to the school, lol.

What does one do if a call-out of the sort I was subjected to (on which another unknown person had alerted before I saw it, so I could not) is allowed to stand?

Yes, it stayed up because the jury decided not to hide it. Despite the fact that it was a vicious false statement about me, which in itself violates civility, and the fact that by being posted in a group I did not read it was a call-out.

I'm afraid I have to say: so? How does this explanation help me?

I am a target, of at least two well-organized groups at this website; have been for a decade, in the case of one. All they have to do is play the odds -- report enough posts of mine, and at least some juries will play along ... for whatever reason. I've had results in which the reasons were obviously sheer animus. (I was informed a couple of hours ago that someone had recused herself from a jury on a post of mine, without reading it, because of an antigonistic history in another forum; good on her, although I actually think she might have had the smarts to figure out what the nature of my hidden thread in this group was.)

In addition to the poster posses, there are hosts who have their sights trained on me. It seems to me that my days are numbered in this brave new DU. And I'm not sure how this would benefit Democratic Underground. People who hold genuinely progressive views, and write more than posts empty of content beyond a pointless subject line, are in short enough supply around here.

But the subject of this thread was actually the nature of this protected group.

You seem to be saying that this group is subject to the general rules ... but I have been told that the GLBT group is not:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372559#post45

and my interpretation of the rules and what posts can be alerted on. Hosts in main forums can only lock a thread if it is deemed against SOP's. Jury's can hide or not hide posts anywhere if they are alerted on according to CS or a TOS.