The bullies are out in force

[Pab Sungenis]

Real discussion on the matter of who is to be host of this group is being shut down and blocked by the bullies who are already abusing the new jury system, alerting on posters they don't like and getting juries to ban them from the discussions.

This new system actually gives more power to the homophobes that we were trying to keep out of power.

This system cannot work, and this group is doomed.

[Skinner]

1. DU3 is all about transparency.

Go ahead and post links to these posts of yours that were shut down by the homophobic bullies.

And post the notifications you received explaining why they were removed. I think these discussions are better served if we all know the facts.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. I just posted about this in the meta-help forum.

If groups like this are going to work, juries need to be constituted solely from within the active members of that group, and alerters need to be active members as well.

In this case, a poster alerted on one of my messages in the thread discussing the selection of the new host, locking me out of that discussion. Thus my voice has effectively been shut down in the selection process. I have no proof that it was one of the two people who led the crusade against me in DU2's LGBT group, because even though you say "DU3 is all about transparency" we're still not allowed to know who alerted on our posts.

The perfect example of this was my post last night, linking to a post from the old "Mending Fences" discussion, explaining why I think William is unfit to be host of this group. It was alerted upon and hidden as a personal attack when its entire text (other than the link) was:

Grave dancing in "Mending Fences" just before the switchover and throwing up in Vanje's face about her DU stalker being allowed back into the group.

No personal attack, just pointing out the record. Others are allowed to bring up my record from DU2, but I'm not allowed to bring up theirs?

Skinner, the main problem with the old moderation process, as I kept telling you and you kept ignoring, was not the process itself but the people who were put in charge of it, a fair number of whom were biased and (in this group's case) homophobic. This new system is worse because there is NO real screening of "jury" members; there is nothing keeping a homophobe or a rabid Obama supporter from arbitrarily, and without justification, voting to kill threads or posts they disagree with from this group.

I know that you intended to make things better, but you may have made them worse.

[Lint Head]

9. This new method does open a new door that can be gamed. I'm sure the Admins will look at this just

as they looked at the Soapbox thing though this sounds a little more problematic.

[Pithlet]

3. I was a member of one of the juries on the alerts Pab is talking about

I voted to let the post stay, and thought the same thing at the time. This is ripe for the sort of abuse being discussed. I think Pab Sugenerises point should at least be considered.

[William769]

4. I think your statement is unfair

Please show here where anyone has been bullied.

Te jury system is a random process.

I have not encountered one Homophobic post or person since being on DU3

If you are going to make accusations you need to back them up with facts.

I tried last night to make ammends with you to no avail. I just want this forum to be a happy place to come and discuss topics for all concerned. Going through this forum it is plain for anyone to see that is not what you want.

Also since you seem to have it in for me show anywhere here wher I have attacked you bullied you or made you feel uncomfortable.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Either you or one of your supporters has been alerting my posts left and right.

One jury member spoke up in the Help Desk forum with one example: my post saying "I demand a vote" was alerted with the reason "the person in question has no right to demand anything."

William, you declared yourself host of this group "by consensus" when half of the old participants weren't even allowed into the group. Every post I've made questioning that act has been alerted either by you, Priyanka, or one of your supporters over and over again. Finally they found a friendly jury who locked me out of the thread discussing who should be host.

Prediction: Priyanka and her friends will alert this thread and post over and over until she finds a jury willing to delete it. That is bullying.

Yes, you've tried to make amends with me. I acknowledge that which is why I self-deleted my original response to your hug offering. But there is too much bad blood from the MADem incident for me to ever trust you as a host in this forum, or as a jury member (which is why you're one of the names on my blacklist). I don't bear you personal animosity, but I cannot accept you as host. Likewise, I would not want to serve as host because I don't think your supporters would trust me.

[MNBrewer]

7. I see no accusations of homophobia

what are you talking about?

[William769]

8. It's in the OP.

[Pab Sungenis]

11. I was pointing out that this system

gives more power to homophobes. Not that the people abusing it now are homophobic.

[foreigncorrespondent]

12. Ummm...

It was brought to my attention last night that some people were using a DU facebook group to plan a effort to disrupt this forum. Guess what? it worked. No names need to be mentioned on who did this, it's obvious I know who all was involved but unlike some people here I don't go around dropping names.

I have no idea of the FB group you are talking about, but as far as I am aware, we all use alias names here, and the majority of us would use real names on FB... how can you know exactly who was involved? Unless you know all our real names and so forth.

You have been asking Pab to back everything up, yet you are making a pretty wild claim there and not backing anything up. It goes both ways.

[William769]

13. See post #7 Umm.

So I guess your happy with the OP?

And that everything in it is true?

You don't seem to want to address that. I wonder why?

[foreigncorrespondent]

15. Okay...

...let's discuss this shall we? Yes I agree with Pab on this.

If we are going to have Hosts, then Hosts should be a person who can remain neutral at all times.

As for the rest, I cannot say who has been hounding Pab through the use of the abuse/Jury system can I? But it is obvious that there is a vendetta against Pab since the MADem thing.

And your assuming a lot concerning my beliefs, and that on top of the fact you haven't been able to remain neutral is why you should not be in a position of power here.

I have already dropped a few names in the other thread stating who I believe would make good Hosts, and would get the job done that we need here, in an objective manner.

On edit: I also looked at Post #7 like you suggested, and can see no reason why you wanted me to.

[MNBrewer]

14. One vote of "no confidence" in William769 as head host

[MNBrewer]

16. juried post #10 Q.E.D.