i made a post about the pageant before reading iverglas thread. i addressed what she stated.

[iverglas]

1. neat, eh?

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.

At Tue Dec 13, 2011, 07:22 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=375
You are aware..
(the post replied to a proposal that I be a host of the Guns forum by making unpleasant comments about me)

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

YOUR COMMENTS:

This post is comment about myself, when I had not posted here or in the previous Guns Forum for several weeks. I dropped in today to check out DU3 and I find this. I trust that the rule against "call outs" and such is still in effect -- and maybe even that the kinds of personal attacks that littered the previous Guns Forum will be dealt with more seriously this time around. ...

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Dec 13, 2011, 07:43 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The information is a relevant concern in choosing a group host. It is also in keeping with the transparency evident in the new DU
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No poster was called out explicitly. Without this alert and explanation, I would have had no idea who the poster was talking about.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Had this post named the DUer in question, it would have been deleted on the grounds of it being a "call out." But this shows that you don't have to single someone out to call them out. Regardless of whether or not the "charges" in the post are true, I feel that it's detrimental to the spirit of DU: not only does the anonymity of the post render it inherently useless, it unfairly smears EVERYONE on the nominee list.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

(Does it matter at all that Juror#3 didn't know who the poster was talking about? Cripes.)


I don't have the jury results for the alert on this post because I was not the alerter; when I attempted an alert myself in order to make a TOS report, I got only the response that it had been allowed to stand 3-3. I was only aware of the post because a third party directed my attention to it -- somebody may have been "threadstalking" but it was NOT ME. I just don't pay enough attention to be that organized, I'm afraid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=2562

Response to William769 (Original post)
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 09:36 PM
Star Member Vanje
2. Iverglass eventually denigrates this beautiful young woman's appearance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#post180
In the old days, that was called, "shallow".

In the old days, that was called a "call-out". The claim made in the subject line is still called a "lie".


Next up, from that same forum:

At Mon Jan 9, 2012, 06:29 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372627#post7
My apologies to dsc... (in the thread reporting I had been banned from the group)
"Also, a very good call on a blocking... she's acted completely unacceptable, especially in PM."
-- written by a host to another host

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

YOUR COMMENTS:

This is a call-out and an insult - to which I am unable to respond.

I had PMed the poster because, in the other thread in this forum, in which I had replied to a direct and dishonest call-out of me by name by another poster, he addressed me, and spoke about me ... inaccurately ... when he knew I was unable to reply. My PM asked politely and simply that he delete his comments (as dsc *did* do in that thread when I asked him the same thing, he not having realized I could not reply at the time he posted).

I then expressed my view to this poter, by PM, that his replies to my PM could be interpreted as "goading". This post suggests that my suspicion was not far off.

It's one thing for a "protected group" to be protected from perceived slights in their group, even if the perception is not based in reality.

It is another thing for the group members to be permitted to continue insulting and attacking, and making false statements about, another DU member who cannot reply and who has made the reasonable request that they not be discussed in public.

>>> Admin attention is urgently needed to the notion this group seems to have, as expressed to me by PM by this host, that it is exempt from the usual rules of civility at this site.

This post was obviously written solely to continue the negative commentary about me, when the poster was fully aware of my request that it end - of course this person could have posted his "apology" for starting a thread in the host forum *in that forum*, or by PM.

I would add that my track record at this site, and credentials in real life, when it comes to active support for equal rights in all regards for members of the GLBT community cannot be questioned, lest anyone think that any of the allegations that have been made have any basis in truth. Anyone who doubts this can google, e.g., *iverglas same-sex marriage*.

Thanks for taking two minutes to read these comments.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jan 9, 2012, 06:43 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm respecting the alerter's feelings by voting to hide, particularly because the alerter had requested in another forum that this poster delete his comments and because the alerter is unable to respond to his high-five post about alerter's ban from the group.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Callouts are not against the rules. When you post in groups you have to take their SOP and safe haven status seriously. Furthermore, open discussion is a good thing regarding blocking.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE 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: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

There you have it.
Callouts are not against the rules.
WHEN YOU POST IN GROUPS YOU HAVE TO TAKE THEIR SoP AND SAFE HAVEN STATUS SERIOUSLY (but they don't have to show any respect for any other poster, or the truth).


This was the alert on the thread itself:

At Mon Jan 9, 2012, 11:11 AM you sent an alert on the following post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372627
Iverglas has been banned from this group
(the thread then consists of intentionally insulting and untruthful discussion of me)

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

YOUR COMMENTS:

I fail to see how this, too, is not an impermissible call-out. Allegations about myself are made, both in the OP and in replies, that are false and that I am unable to reply to. It seems quite straightforward. Thanks.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jan 9, 2012, 11:19 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'll defer to dsc on this one. Leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The group host is communicating with the members of the group. This is in the DU3 spirit of transparency, and I think it should stay.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with Iverglas. Any discussion of this should take place in Meta-discussion where all parties are able to reply. - (signed)
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The Host in a group has a right to ban a poster if they have been disruptive and can give an explanation as to the banning. This post does not meet the criteria for hiding the post.

Thank you, Juror #4. May you live long and serve on many juries.


So here we have it.

Women who are among the many feminists at this website who are vilified, attacked, insulted, lied about and mocked repeatedly every single time they express their concerns in threads have nowhere we can go to talk to one another about those problems.

If we identify the problems, then that is a "call-out" ... and even though we can be called out with impunity, in addition to being vilified, attacked, insulted, lied about and mocked, we may not identify the people doing that to us, in our own "safe haven" group.

Huh, eh?

Now, if the alerter on this thread happens to be one of the people who think the rest of us here should see the error of our ways and accept their tutelage, and not just a random busybody ... well, maybe said alerter will see this and identify themself, so as not to cast suspicion on innocent parties.

It would certainly poison the discourse here if the alerter actually was a party to this conflict.