I Asked The Admins why they abandoned this forum since Skinner's last post in the MF thread.

[Sub Atomic]

This was the response from EarlG:


After the Mending Fences thread

Skinner followed up with a couple of other threads. First this one:

In an effort to keep the discussion going. (March 11, 2011)

Then this one:

I think it's time to talk about some ideas... (March 16, 2011)

...which offered a few potential concrete solutions for issues that the GLBT forum had been facing. He concluded that post by saying:

For obvious reasons, I think it would probably be best if I was not the person to decide if a consensus has been reached on any of these questions. So, I'm going to stay out of the discussion, and you can talk amongst yourselves. When you feel a consensus has been reached, just post in the Ask The Administrators forum to let me know what you have decided.

We followed those discussions closely, but for whatever reason we did not receive any further follow-up. Nevertheless, based on the feedback we received in those threads we decided to move forward by ourselves. A number of member suggestions from those threads have been incorporated in different ways into DU3's new moderating system.



So I guess we have to wait and see if the Super Duper Colossal Magical DU3 will do anything. I will try to be hopeful, but I won't be holding my breath.


Mods, if this is somehow against the rules for posting my conversation with EarlG, then please accept my apologies and feel free to lock.

[CreekDog]

1. Well at least Skinner gave you an answer

wait. let me re-read that.

[Sub Atomic]

2. I'm grateful for an answer, regardless of whom it was from.

How I feel about that answer is not to be discussed her, lest I find myself banned again.

:hi:

[Jamastiene]

3. I guess we need to build a framework for posting our consensus in ATA.

Do we all agree that being called "abnormal" is offensive?

Do we all agree that being called a "den of vipers" is offensive?

I agree both of those are offensive. There are tons of other denigrating names I find offensive as well. It's a shame we have to specifically explain each and every one of them, but if we must...let's go for it.

[Sub Atomic]

4. I fully agree.

We've all been wondering What The Fuck?

Now we know where we stand and what we need to do.

Whether or not it's too late to implement our requests into DU3 is anybody's guess though.

[TriMera]

6. For what it's worth, I agree with Jamastiene. n/t

[Sub Atomic]

8. Maybe an agreement that if there are three distinct people alerting on a poster,

the mods should actually take it seriously even if they don't "get" the reasons we're offended.

[Ian David]

5. Maybe we need a Supercommittee. n/t

[The Philosopher]

7. We didn't get a follow up, an answer, or anything.

We got denials, opinions that nothing was wrong, overlooks of the obvious and using rules to get away with it, and dismissive attitudes in the process. A harm was done to this community; the community isn't supposed to apologize for what was done to it. It's an insult to say so.

If it was really important to them, why haven't they vocally checked back? "Hey, we're still waiting on your decisions," takes a few seconds to write.

Perhaps at the next annual check-in we need a symbol to identify how many of us are unhappy at what's going on.

Of course, considering the "consensus" would be about the moderation of the site, anything we said would be shut down. So it's kind of a Catch-22, isn't it? We're supposed to have consensus to do anything, but we can't post anything about the mod system.

[iverglas]

9. I'm going to be quick because I just missed the boat on the other thread

I remarked as how I'd read your post in Ask the Admins and meandered in to see what was going on ...

I'll just copy what I was going to post.



I've posted in this forum maybe twice, hoping to bring a little encouraging news from north of the border. ;)

I was quite surprised to see the goings on you refer to.

Just added a couple of things to the makeup thread, because yes indeed, civil discourse absolutely precludes deceit in discourse, and it makes me see red when I see it. Shall I drop in and bash 'em around the ears from time to time? I'm pretty good at it.

In a decade of visiting this place on and off, well, things surely do seem to have changed. A lot of weight seems to have accumulated in one corner of that big tent of yours. On the politicalcompass axes, it ain't the libertarian left corner.

I'm engaged in a little effort to get a little clarification and clear-out of another forum here before the advent of DU3 myself, so I appreciate your point in this thread.


Here, by way of neighbourly greeting and for your viewing pleasure:


Recently married mounties march in Toronto’s Pride Parade, 2006.

http://cimness.tumblr.com/post/4235454431/just-married-recently-married-mounties-march-in

[yardwork]

10. Only minority groups are asked to "reach consensus" before the majority will stop bashing them.

iirc we were offered the opportunity to select a "junior mod" for the GLBTQ forum that would have advisory privileges. There was disagreement about whether or not this was a good idea (I posted against it). Frustrated by this lack of "consensus," the admins abandoned us savages to our fates.

Jama's point upthread is exactly correct. Probably a majority of GLBTQ people agree that we don't like being called "abnormal." I'm not sure why this needs to be spelled out over and over again, but it certainly has taken days for those posts to be removed.

Over the years, we've had similar difficulties getting across the point that a vast majority of us prefer not to be called a "nest of vipers" and "stone cold racists." Apparently there is some kind of "consensus" we must reach before what seem like fundamental applications of the rules apply to us.

[closeupready]

11. Why bother. We'll just get another song-and-dance, and then business as usual.

William may be the canary here. Who knows. (Maybe I'm just having a bad day.)