Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Showing Original Post only (View all)

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:37 AM Nov 2012

### (Closed) Discussion to create a process to un-ban members ### [View all]

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
91 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You mean blocking, not banning. yardwork Nov 2012 #1
Oh I didn't know there was a difference. underthematrix Nov 2012 #3
Huge difference. yardwork Nov 2012 #18
I think this is an excellent idea. I would love for peeps to underthematrix Nov 2012 #2
The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters graham4anything Nov 2012 #4
Trying to hijack the thread again? glacierbay Nov 2012 #6
I am not a group member as I never signed up. So it's not my place to yea or nay graham4anything Nov 2012 #9
You can still say yea or nay w/o being a group member glacierbay Nov 2012 #10
I don't believe in censorship, so that would be a bring the poster back vote graham4anything Nov 2012 #11
And that's your right to argue the message. nt. glacierbay Nov 2012 #12
There is no "group" or any "sign up". PavePusher Nov 2012 #24
You sign up when you post here. nt rrneck Nov 2012 #26
So reply when someone says otherwise 4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #13
You say, "The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters" AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #19
Huh? I am arguing the post not the person. And I would not censor anyone. graham4anything Nov 2012 #20
rDigital is the subject of the OP. Your post #4 is either related or unrelated to rDigital. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #29
"saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters" PavePusher Nov 2012 #23
Is this the thread to discuss rDigital's rehabilitation? JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2012 #5
It's to create the process of reinstatement... krispos42 Nov 2012 #89
My vote and opinion is that there should be no formalized standards, rules, procedures, petronius Nov 2012 #7
so then, are you saying that all previously blocked DUers should be reinstated? Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #43
Yes. I think we all have the tools to personalize our own DU experiences, and if petronius Nov 2012 #48
follow up question, if I may Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #49
No, I think it makes more sense to discuss Group stuff within the particular Group petronius Nov 2012 #50
so, if One is unhappy with what goes on here One should be able to start a thread about it rather Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #51
I think that would be preferable, yes... (nt) petronius Nov 2012 #56
Absolutely tortoise1956 Nov 2012 #84
I think that he did go over the line with his thread glacierbay Nov 2012 #8
If he was wrong then surely open debate is the answer 4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #14
Nope glacierbay Nov 2012 #15
Agreed. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #21
His was just a single offense. Let him back. N/T GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #16
The lead host of a group has considerable if not autocratic power rrneck Nov 2012 #17
Track their behavior in general, in other forums and groups DonP Nov 2012 #22
IIRC, the post in question was this one: PavePusher Nov 2012 #25
Could it be this one? AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #30
Correct.... PavePusher Nov 2012 #33
Thanks for the additional links. n/t AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #39
Hogwash fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #58
That post was clearly satire tularetom Nov 2012 #31
Given the timing and context of another post (identified at #30), I agree. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #32
has rdigital said anything to indicate that he no longer agrees with Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #27
He may still agree with it glacierbay Nov 2012 #28
Respectfully, I don't know exactly what "rightwing nonsense" that WStupidity is referring to so AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #37
I Don't Think Either One Needs to Apologize for How They Feel fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #60
Hoyt has not stopped making unfounded associations/accusations about gun owners... PavePusher Nov 2012 #34
Hoyt is not be recalled for exile. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #80
Hoyt has made it very clear that he's not going to stop his nonsense glacierbay Nov 2012 #82
Hoyt said much worse things gejohnston Nov 2012 #83
In contrast to your claim, rDigital never indicated that he agreed with the rw nonsense. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #35
Even if what you say is true fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #62
Um that is simply untrue. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #74
What you say is not only unresponsive but it is veritably untrue. Those who look can see this. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #75
rDigital made a broad brush attack of virulent anti-semitic racism... Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #36
No he did not. You cannot point to where he "made a broad brush attack of virulent anti-semitic AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #38
If this was the question.. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #44
Your accusation does not follow from the lead sentence in the OP. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #52
At the risk of getting in deep shit, tortoise1956 Nov 2012 #85
Got a link rrneck Nov 2012 #40
According to the OP, this was the questions. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #46
This has been debunked. See #52. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #54
I saw no implication of antisemitism in the OP in question. rrneck Nov 2012 #66
Some fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #70
While the terms rrneck Nov 2012 #71
I Understand That fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #72
And a happy Thanksgiving to you. rrneck Nov 2012 #73
Here's a little help: PavePusher Nov 2012 #41
This was the question. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #47
This has been debunked. See #52. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #53
Bring Him Back fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #42
You said, "I can understand that a reasonable person would conclude the ban was justifiable ..." AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #55
Huh? fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #57
If you don't understand, AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #59
Yes fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #64
Now I understand. You are the one who posted AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #61
No One Is Stopping You From Responding fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #63
vote to reinstate rdigital - Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #45
Why don't we have means to ban for time periods? ileus Nov 2012 #65
We do krispos42 Nov 2012 #90
Just to outline my thinking discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #67
Agree fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #68
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well :) discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #69
The ONLY people I'd vote to block or ban snot Nov 2012 #76
How can you tell? nt rrneck Nov 2012 #77
Obvious - they get PPR'd petronius Nov 2012 #78
I agree; that's the problem. snot Nov 2012 #87
Three strikes rule. Remmah2 Nov 2012 #79
In general, I like the plan, and Digital should be reinstated. Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #81
Either bring him back, I believe that he has honerably served his sentence. oneshooter Nov 2012 #86
so. whats the buzz? tell me whats happening. Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #88
Locking krispos42 Nov 2012 #91
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»### (Closed) Discussion t...»Reply #0