4 L0oniX: "And now I see with eye serene, The very pulse of the machine." Wordsworth.

[jtuck004]

Hope to talk again.

[peacebird]

1. Another voice silenced....? Very sad.

[cstanleytech]

10. Well that kind of stuff can happen when you think that you do not have to obey the DU ToS.

[Scootaloo]

16. Seems awfully selective

We have Clitnon supporters who get to come back after bigoted flameouts, after multiple sock puppet accounts, after stalking and harassing DU'ers, after posting links to hate sites...

[polly7]

17. Yes, all of that.

[cstanleytech]

20. Just because there are some behaving badly though

does not make it ok for someone to break the ToS on the DU themselves.

[Scootaloo]

28. The fact that the admins are giving a pass to clinton supporters for bannable offenses...

means that there really ISN'T a "terms of service" on Du aside from "Support this candidate."

Sanders supporters are subject to the ToS (and then some). Clinton supporters get all the moderation of 4chan.

[cstanleytech]

30. Hey the admins are "not" holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay here.

[ljm2002]

64. Indeed. Love it or leave it, I say...

[passiveporcupine]

65. It is not easy to leave a community

you have invested years and energy and angst and love in.

Running away from a community is not the way to fix it.

Or is that how you solve your problems? You just run away from them?

[artislife]

38. It is good to know we have a hall monitor in the thread..nt

[Depaysement]

69. They are not socialists nt

[sabrina 1]

47. It can, but it doesn't always happen.

[Autumn]

2. Thank you. I hope to talk to them again also. Their presence here is sorely missed.

[Ivan Kaputski]

68. +1

[merrily]

3. Lovely. Thank you so much, jtuck004!

[berni_mccoy]

4. I hope that L0oniX is able to come back...

In solidarity, I've updated my sig.

[Unknown Beatle]

5. LOonix, know that you're missed here on DU.

I don't understand why longtime DU members have to be banned. Can't admin work it out with older members before being banned, by older I mean longtime DU members.

[truedelphi]

26. Over at DailyKos, if the Admin gets upset with you, you are suspended.

I think it is for something like five days. But that seems perhaps a little more humane than outright banning.

(I don't know if after X amount of suspensions if you are then banned or not.)

[Live and Learn]

6. Very fitting. K&R nt

[irisblue]

7. alert results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is rude, OTT, inappropriate, divisive, and disruptive META, glorifying a poster who proudly started a thread saying he wouldn't vote for the Dem nominee and encouraging other DUers to visit a site to sign a petition saying this very thing. Sick of this glorification of trolls and disruptors, it needs to stop. This is Democratic Underground, not "take my ball and go home" Underground.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 7, 2015, 01:50 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break. It's a nice quote from someone who should never have been banned. Give it a rest. If Hillary is such a strong candidate, this should not even be an issue, right?
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You can miss L0oniX without taking swipes at the administrators of the site.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, no one has tied you to a chair , forced your eyelids open and forced you read to read jtucks' post. Ignore or trash thread is available. Whiny complaint. LEAVE
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who alerted this? Seriously, the guy posted a LINK to an article, he didn't write it himself. Jeez people. This is isn't warranted of a hide. It's not like it shows Hillary doing a Nazi salute or some shit.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We don't need no divisiveness, and this forum is not the place for this. If kids want to play, follow the rules.

[erronis]

14. I loved Juror #7's HIDE IT explanation: We don't need no divisiveness...

It's really gotta be hard for some people to wrap their brains around logic.

All of you DUers realize, of course, that the voting and results can be changed by the admins at will. And that the programmers (like me) can inject/infect their own biases.

[artislife]

23. FYI--I voted to leave

On Sat Nov 7, 2015, 04:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I loved Juror #7's HIDE IT explanation: We don't need no divisiveness...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=70893

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a divisive and disruptive accusation "All of you DUers realize, of course, that the voting and results can be changed by the admins at will. And that the programmers (like me) can inject/infect their own biases" - insinuating that the admins are fixing the jury results, and also insinuating that this poster has the ability to "inject/infect" the system as well. Messing with the software is against TOS.


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 7, 2015, 04:31 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is a callout of the admin and total conspiracy BS on top of that. I could let the conspiracy BS part slide, but the admin are also DUers and calling them out is as wrong as calling out any other member here.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Aren't we all adults and can disregard stupid posts, why can't you?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Old Codger]

15. JFC

Getting pretty bad for sure... the alerts are getting beyond the pale, need to call the the WAAAAMBulance....by them some tissues...

[senz]

50. Juror #2 pulls the same bit of relationally aggressive dishonesty

that they pulled on me right after L0oniX was banned and I protested his banning in a comment.

Juror #2 writes

You can miss L0oniX without taking swipes at the administrators of the site.

-- which is, in its clear implication, a bold-faced lie. The OP makes NO mention of the admins.

My comment was critical of the alerters who got him/her banned but certain entities tried to put words in my mouth to make it sound like I was criticizing the admin. After I got a hide (7 hours later) and could no longer post to the thread, they kept doing it, knowing I couldn't defend myself.

Please be aware that certain entities on the Hillary side will try to make it look like Bernie supporters are critical of the administrators. Don't let them get away with it. Call them out every time they try.

[MrMickeysMom]

58. Oh, this happened to me last night...

I called her out, as well. I'll always call them out.

P.S. I still got 2 hidden posts, so, you have that....

[senz]

59. Sorry to hear about that, MrMickeysMom

They target certain people just to shut them up. So we have to learn to post very euphemistically, but if you get a jury of Bernie opponents, it doesn't make any difference.

[MrMickeysMom]

61. It's funny... I get on juries, and if the alert is stupid, I never hide

... anti-Hillbots or not!

Your advice is good, though, so I'll take it.

Thanks...

[OnyxCollie]

8. K&R. nt

[restorefreedom]

9. the alerters are keeping busy

On Sat Nov 7, 2015, 01:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

4 L0oniX: "And now I see with eye serene, The very pulse of the machine." Wordsworth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128070820

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is rude, OTT, inappropriate, divisive, and disruptive META, glorifying a poster who proudly started a thread saying he wouldn't vote for the Dem nominee and encouraging other DUers to visit a site to sign a petition saying this very thing. Sick of this glorification of trolls and disruptors, it needs to stop. This is Democratic Underground, not "take my ball and go home" Underground.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 7, 2015, 01:50 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break. It's a nice quote from someone who should never have been banned. Give it a rest. If Hillary is such a strong candidate, this should not even be an issue, right?
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You can miss L0oniX without taking swipes at the administrators of the site.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, no one has tied you to a chair , forced your eyelids open and forced you read to read jtucks' post. Ignore or trash thread is available. Whiny complaint. LEAVE
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who alerted this? Seriously, the guy posted a LINK to an article, he didn't write it himself. Jeez people. This is isn't warranted of a hide. It's not like it shows Hillary doing a Nazi salute or some shit.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We don't need no divisiveness, and this forum is not the place for this. If kids want to play, follow the rules.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[think]

11. K&R.

[Bernblu]

12. Now they want to ban Wordsworth!

Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech?

[pinebox]

13. Jury results

I was juror #5

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Nov 7, 2015, 01:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

4 L0oniX: "And now I see with eye serene, The very pulse of the machine." Wordsworth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128070820

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is rude, OTT, inappropriate, divisive, and disruptive META, glorifying a poster who proudly started a thread saying he wouldn't vote for the Dem nominee and encouraging other DUers to visit a site to sign a petition saying this very thing. Sick of this glorification of trolls and disruptors, it needs to stop. This is Democratic Underground, not "take my ball and go home" Underground.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 7, 2015, 01:50 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break. It's a nice quote from someone who should never have been banned. Give it a rest. If Hillary is such a strong candidate, this should not even be an issue, right?
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You can miss L0oniX without taking swipes at the administrators of the site.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, no one has tied you to a chair , forced your eyelids open and forced you read to read jtucks' post. Ignore or trash thread is available. Whiny complaint. LEAVE
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who alerted this? Seriously, the guy posted a LINK to an article, he didn't write it himself. Jeez people. This is isn't warranted of a hide. It's not like it shows Hillary doing a Nazi salute or some shit.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We don't need no divisiveness, and this forum is not the place for this. If kids want to play, follow the rules.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[LiberalArkie]

18. Someone is straight from FR grammar class.

"We don't need no divisiveness"

[Art_from_Ark]

56. Either that, or too much Pink Floyd

"We don't need no ejjikashun..."

[Autumn]

19. Thanks for posting the results. An article was cut and pasted from a liberal site

detailing what "supporters" elsewhere were doing in the event a scenario should happen that will never happen. L0oniX posted no encouragement to not vote. L0oniX did not encourage other DUers to visit a site to sign a petition. L0oniX posted an article from a liberal web site written by someone else telling about a stupid petition going around.
Not one word posted in that OP came from L0oniX. Here is the post they were banned for, judge for yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128068973

The alerter is wrong. L0oniX did not proudly start a thread saying he wouldn't vote for the Dem nominee and encouraging other DUers to visit a site to sign a petition saying this very thing. Nowhere in that OP or the thread did L0oniX say those things. Nowhere.

[cstanleytech]

21. The rules for the DU in this area could not be clearer which means if Clinton wins the nomination

we are not supposed to advocate that people vote for someone else the same applies if Bernie wins the nomination and thats why L0oniX was suspended.

[SoapBox]

22. Well...

Unfortunately, I would probably be alerted on, if I used my American Free Speech to tell what I think about all this TOS as of late...I will say, it seems to apply to some BUT obviously not others.

And that is clear as day...and frustrating...and unfortunate for the site.

[cstanleytech]

25. The 1st amendment only applies to the government infringing on your speech, on a private forum

like the DU you have no such right.

[Autumn]

29. L0on did not advocate that people vote for someone else. L0on was banned, not suspended.

[cstanleytech]

31. Might want reread the post and ToS because thats exactly what they were advocating.

"Mission: While we intend to vote for Bernie in the Democratic primaries, we also aim to sign up at least 1,000,000+ American citizens pledged to write-in Senator Bernie Sanders for President in the general election of 2016 before the primaries begin in February"
If Clinton is the nominee the ToS are clear that we are not allowed to advocate to vote for someone else and asking people to write in Bernies name is such a violation.

[Autumn]

33. There was more to the article than that and it was only posted for discussion IMO

L0on did not advocate voting 3rd party. an article about Bernie was posted without comment. It's water under the bridge anyway However this group is for supporters of Bernie Sanders keep that in mind before you post again.

[cstanleytech]

34. Posting is advocating and its just as bad. Would I prefer Bernie or Warren if she was running?

Ya, I would but if Clinton wins the nomination am I willing to risk spoiling an election and writing in a name because the candidate I would have preferred isnt on the ballot? No.

[Autumn]

35. Who I am voting for in the GE is not in my mind. I will caucus for Bernie in the primary.

The nomination has not yet been won so I do not consider Hillary in any way. To me at this time she is irrelevant.

[dreamnightwind]

40. Disagree, posting a link to an article is not advocating

It is presenting the article for discussion.

It is not uncomon to see people post OP's that link to articles they are not advocating, to bring attantion and discussion to its contents. Sometimes the attention is negative, someties positive, usually it results in a mixed discussion, which should be what DU is about.

To know if it is advocay the OP would have to add content indicating such, otherwise it is just put up for discussion without saying if the OP supports it.

If we can't even have open discussions of what is going on out there in left thought, what are we?

[LiberalArkie]

41. So I am to believe that if someone posts an article about a gay kid getting kicked out of his home

that the poster of that article is advocating that people kick a gay child out? I have a hard time with that thought process.

[Autumn]

48. Rather confusing isn't it.

[LiberalArkie]

49. It does seem that way at times. I started putting in some of the clippings that this is not my

opinion. But that won't make a difference. When your number is up, it's up. I think it is the "black man in city" syndrome. Nothing anything you can do about it, if you attract the wrong kind of attention it's over with.

[marym625]

57. Evidently, that's how some minds work around here.

At least when it's convenient for them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Good Lord no, posting is not 'advocating'.

Hell, there's a post up right now about some poor 16 year old who got repeatedly raped. Only an idiot would think the person who posted the story was advocating we go out and repeatedly rape underage women.

Advocating is pretty damn plain, it's when you write things like 'I think we/you should X', so that you're 'advocating' for X.

Claiming that someone is 'advocating' for everything about which they post is absolutely ridiculous.

[passiveporcupine]

66. Loonix did not write the article

[tblue37]

37. Actually, like many DU posters, LoOnix didn't bother to enclose the quoted/pasted material

in an excerpt box

like this

or even blockquote it

like this

or enclose it in quotation marks, "like this."

Nor did he add any commentary of his own separate from the quoted material.

As a result, I didn't even realize until reading about it in *this* thread that the post was not something LoOnix had written himself. Also, since he added no commentary of his own, the implication was that he was advocating that DU members follow the tactic of writing in Bernie's name instead of voting for Hillary.

I am a strong Bernie supporter, but I think it disingenuous to claim that since LoOnix did not write the offending post himself, that means he is innocent of the charge of advocating that course of action.

I do hope the admins will decide to cut both LoOnix and NYC_SKIP a break and let them return to DU. But I also think it would be disastrous to not vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter whether it is Bernie or Hillary. The next president will probably appoint 3 new justices to the Supreme Court. We simply cannot afford another purity debacle like the one that gave us the CheneyBush admistration!

[LiberalArkie]

42. The whole damn post was an article, just like people do every day here.

[tblue37]

43. And every day people respond to such posts as though the OP is the author of the post.

In LoOnix's post the difficulty in sorting things out was perhaps exacerbated by the distracting little symbols running all throigh the post. Now, if I had not been tired and in a hurry at the time, those symbols would have tipped me off that he was copy-pasting the text, since such things often happen when copy-pasting. But sometimes when I compose something in a document and then paste it into a program on some site, I end up with such things--like question marks where I typed quotation marks in my document--so even that is not certain evidence that a text was copied from another author's work on another site.

The fact that he added no comments of his own also hlped confuse the issue, not just because the natural inclination when reading a post, especially when tired and/or rushed, as many of us often are when stealing a few moments to read on DU, is to assume it was written by the OP if there is nothing BUT that text in the post, and nothing to clearly signal tat the OP is not the author of the posted text.

Also, by not including his own comments, LoOnix did leave the impression, even if the reader did realze the post was 100% a copy-paste of another author's work, that Loonix was advocating the action promoted in the article.

I don't know whether LoOnix does advocate not voting for the Dem nominee if it isn't Bernie. If he wasn't, then this was all a terrible misunderstanding and he should tell the admins so and come back to us. If it wasn't a misunderstanding, I hope he will negotiate to return anyway. He is a valued member of the community, and it is a real loss if he doesn't return. I feel the same way about NYC_SKIP. I hate to see excellent longterm DUers tossed overboard without even a warning and a chance to fix things.

[LiberalArkie]

44. He did say that not supporting the Democratic candidate was not something he advocated. But who

cares. The alerters go after anything.

[tblue37]

45. Yes, they do. Since I often serve on juries, I can see that alert stalking really *is* going on.

Most members are not alert stalked, but there are a few who definitely do get stalked. Also, there are a few topics that get alert stalked.

I used to say no to jury service more often than not, because I really am busy, and when I serve I read the whole thread or subthread to see the context of the alerted post, so jury service is time consuming for me. But after seeing posts hidden for no good reason, and after repeatedly serving on juries--sometimes several times within a short span--for innocuous posts by the same person (who was obviously being alert stalked in hopes of getting him/her suspended)--I decided it was my duty to the DU community to serve when asked, in order to do whatever I could to counterbalance such inappropriate attempts to suppress opinions the alerter didn't agree with, blatant attempts to prevent actual discussion of important issues.

[LiberalArkie]

46. I do basically the same. Sometimes the post is so over the top it is easy to hide. But I

out of maybe 50 or so juries, maybe 3 or 4 hides. Lately 0.

[merrily]

54. Wow. What's your point? The pledge L0oniX quoted clearly said it was a primary tactic.

And, even if it weren't, it's not legally binding. People can sign 4000 of them and still vote for the nominee in the general, much as I can, if I choose, promise 4000 of the Joe McCarthy wannabes on this board that I will vote for the nominee and then vote for whomever I damn please on election day.

The rest of your post boils down to he didn't use block quote. It was obvious that it the entire post was a quote. The jury voted to leave, no doubt for that reason.

[Major Hogwash]

60. They will never reinstate NYC_SKP.

He was a former moderator.

[artislife]

24. How many alerts will there be? nt

[Kalidurga]

27. They will just keep trying until they get a friendly jury

[cstanleytech]

32. Thats not possible unless they changed the code because

once a post has been alerted on its supposed to flag it so it cannot be alerted on again so as to prevent jury shopping in that manner.

[Kalidurga]

36. Then it goes to Admin

from what I understand and that process can be brutal.

[merrily]

55. Yes, but a poster can be alerted on again and again and again until something bad happens to him or

her.

For example, I think MannyGoldstein could post nothing for the rest of his days at DU but a smiling smiley face and be alerted on. And sooner or later, some jury would vote to hide.

[JDPriestly]

39. K&R.

[TBF]

52. K&R

Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2015, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

[marym625]

53. K&R

Thank you for the post.

LOoniX, if you are reading this, thank you for everything. We'll win.

[WillyT]

62. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Kalidurga]

63. Since this went up I found Loonix if anyone wants to know his DI name

PM me and I will share. I would rather not share publicly. I won't share indiscriminately either, if I wanted to do that well his name would be right here ---->

[arikara]

70. kick

[Ivan Kaputski]

71. Found him on JPR.

[jtuck004]

72. Thank you. :) n/t