Question

[NJmaverick]

Why was sandnsea banned for referring to this old posting?

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=462853&mesg_id=462876

and this old posting:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3821087&mesg_id=3821183


and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8161621

That doesn't seem fair especially in light of her good record at DU.

[Skinner]

1. Allow me to explain myself.

I am well aware of the manner which "pink tutu" has occasionally been used on DU and elsewhere on the liberal blogosphere. I know that the people who use it probably do not intend for it to be homophobic, and may not even think about how it might be interpreted. I also know that for as long as it has been used, some DUers (including some LGBT DUers) have objected to the phrase, which is understandable.

Let me be clear: Her deleted post was divisive crap. In response to EarlG's polite message, sandnsea managed to 1) post a personal attack, 2) refer to someone else's posts as "garbage," 3) call DU "sickening," 4) call DU a "cesspool," and 5) call people "pink tutu fringe." Then, for good measure, she says "hope you enjoy" DU, which would strongly suggest she might be leaving. It was rightly deleted, and would have been deleted even without the phrase "pink tutu."

And the reality is that this type of divisive, antagonistic posting is very typical for her. Her "good record" is actually not good at all. She has hundreds of deleted posts spanning her entire DU career. She is among the top 10 most ignored people on this website. Even over the recent past she is near the top in terms of total posts deleted and percent of posts deleted.

But I don't believe sandnsea is a homophobe.

So, I was going to do what I typically do in a situation like this: Post a carefully worded exposition on the phrase "pink tutu" and how there is disagreement on whether it is actually homophobic. I would talk about "understanding nuance" and "the benefit of the doubt" and "assuming good faith" and all that good stuff.

I gathered my thoughts and started to write my post defending her. And then I turned to EarlG and complained that, once again, I was stuck in the incredibly frustrating position of sticking my neck out for an antagonistic jerk with a history of divisive posts. It was a no-win. And yet it's the type of thing that I have done over and over again over the last 10 years, because I try very hard to be fair, and I consider it my job to assume good faith and understand nuance and give people the benefit of the doubt.

And then I took another look at sandnsea's post, which clearly was not posted with any good faith whatsoever. And I thought about her history here, and I thought about how frustrating it was to be put in this situation yet again -- defending someone that would continue her antagonistic behavior and would probably not give me any credit at all for defending her. And that's when it hit me.

I don't have to stick my neck out for her. This is exactly the type of person I should be getting rid of, not defending.

So, I think the lesson you should take away from this unfortunate situation is this: I'm done going to the mat for the very, very small minority of people -- on all sides of all issues -- who constantly cause problems here at DU. The same people show up over and over again in the Moderator Forum, always depending on the mods and admins to give them the nuanced understanding and good faith that they refuse to give to others.

[NJmaverick]

2. Skinner I can appreciate the difficult situation you are in

and the frustration you must feel. DU is faced with a major divide and I am sure it's not been easy for a website that has mostly only hosted one side of a political battle. This website and its rules were set up for like minded people to gather and interact rather than be a place where opposing sides face off in debate. No doubt that has made yours, the other admins and the moderator's jobs very difficult.

Still I look at the situation that occurred with Sandnsea. I understand what you are saying, but I think it's important to consider how it looks to the membership at large. What you had is someone demanding you ban a member based on a false premise. You give into the demand, which really doesn't seem live up to your usually high standards of fairness. While Sandsea may have had posts deleted, it's my understanding that she has not been given any warnings or suspensions. You also readily admit that she was a long time member and shouldn't be subject to casual dismissal. Then people compare how you just posted in another ATA thread that you actually wrote the worst offender on DU a private message imploring them to improve their ways. Wouldn't justice dictate that a person who has behaved much better than DU's number one offender be given a warning or suspension rather than being summarily banned for life?

With that in mind, wouldn't it make sense to reconsider the incident and the punishment that was handed out?

[Skinner]

3. I think you may have completely missed the point of my post.

The vast majority of DUers who rarely cause problems and who do participate in good faith can be sure that I will always go to the mat for them.

But I'll repeat what I said above: I'm done going to the mat for the very, very small minority of people -- on all sides of all issues -- who constantly cause problems here at DU. The same people show up over and over again in the Moderator Forum, always depending on the mods and admins to give them the nuanced understanding and good faith that they refuse to give to others.

[NJmaverick]

4. Interesting development

Will references to Michael Moore be banned from DU?

Michael Moore said on Bill Mahr's show last night: "The President needs to take off the pink tutu."


There is an entire thread devoted to that on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9551162



It seems completely unfair to TS Sandnsea because it was demanded by another DUer (who made false and disparaging accusations against Sandnsea) and yet it is tossed about freely in that DU thread and by Michael Moore.

[Skinner]

5. Apparently you still don't get it.

I said I didn't think sandnsea was a homophobe.

I also said I was tired of wasting my time on antagonistic jerks with a history of divisive posts.