LOL. 'Smug' jurors in GD:P unknowingly tell Skinner to "go read the TOS"

[wyldwolf]

I have sent a number of alerts on the third-party advocacy thing, and I have stated in the alert that it is a clear TOS violation, and on more than one occasion smug jurors tell me to "go read the TOS."

I am convinced that almost here nobody knows what the TOS actually says. It's kind of like the Bible -- it says whatever people think it says, and reading it is totally beside the point. That is something we are going to change once the primaries are over. I suspect some people will be shocked to learn what it actually says.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10208

[PowerToThePeople]

1. "once the primaries are over"

We know what the TOS says.

Thanks for the lesson?

[wyldwolf]

5. In other words, he'll explain it to you like you're a two year old when the primaries are over

Otherwise, for him to alert on the posts BEFORE the primaries are over is a little indicative that third party advocacy during the primaries is an issue.

[PowerToThePeople]

10. Personally

I view advocating voting third party, even in primaries, as wrong for this particular board. But I am not all powerful.

[Duckhunter935]

2. so the primaries are over?

why have any more voting then?

[wyldwolf]

6. Reading is fundamental

[Duckhunter935]

11. yes it is

[wyldwolf]

12. Quote:

"Strictly speaking, yes, the TOS states that members are never permitted to advocate third party. "Never" means never and does not have an exception for primary season."

[SwampG8r]

22. What a joke " never means never"

Have charlie crist explain how never is.never to kendrick meek
The 3rd wAyers were allowed to do just that thing we " never " allow
What utter horseshit.

[wyldwolf]

25. I'm only quoting the TOS's author about the TOS.

[Hortensis]

24. Lol re: Skinner's post and this.

Is the block in comprehension that is demonstrated so often due to lack of reading skills or lack of honesty, though? Too many have clearly spent way too long scanning the web not for knowledge or understanding but merely filtering for words and phrases to be turned into arguments, complaints, ammunition.

[wyldwolf]

26. You're right, but I don't think many would understand that.

How people here are arguing with the author of the TOS and owner of the site about what the TOS actually says and means is ludicrous.

[Hortensis]

32. Yup. That's definitely part of it. Scanning for

trigger words instead of meaning. Good grief!

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. We should just rename GD:P to GD:Meta

[CorkySt.Clair]

4. Kind of cool he goes through the alert process

Given that he's basically God as far as DU is concerned, it would be tempting to just ban some of the more disagreeable Sanders devotees here who are obviously anti Dem.

[timmymoff]

8. anti- dem or anti the way things are going with democratic help?

[joshcryer]

7. I think he's right, look at all the GBCW threads we had after NY.

Once Sanders starts stumping for Clinton they'll just take their crap off site because they'll look really stupid bashing Clinton supporters since Sanders himself will be one.

[Trust Buster]

9. Things are out of control. We, Hillary supporters, represent a clear minority on DU.

They know the average jury will be stacked in their favor and they abuse the system IMO. The other day, I had a post hidden for mentioning that a poster announcing his or her departure from DU in an OP only had 164 posts. Then, when a Sanders supporter called out a Hillary supporter for only having 10 posts, I had another post hidden for calling out the hypocrisy. Then a number of other Sanders supporters made comments about post counts. This exemplifies why Sanders lost IMO. His supporters are hypocritical and self righteous phonies IMO. I think Skinner needs to get a handle on this sooner then later. Hillary supporters are sitting ducks here and our only sin is supporting a winning candidate. I WILL NOT relent from calling out this un-democratic behavior.

[lancer78]

18. Sanders lost

because the south voted first and the AA community, being pragmatic, supported HRC. HRC has in fact been losing the pledged delegate race since mid-March.

[Number23]

19. ???????

Is this more of that "Berniemath" where being over 300 delegates ahead is "losing" or is this something else entirely??

[Agschmid]

21. That's not factual...

[brush]

28. Ahhh . . . haven't most of Sanders wins been in mostly white and/or causcus states?

Caucuses, because of their exclusivity, are the most undemocratic way to chose candidates and thus delegates.

And apparently you must have missed the month of April as Clinton just about won the whole month — NY, PA, MD, Del, CONN.

What's up with that? Were you pulling a Rip Van Winkle in April?

[leftofcool]

29. Ohio NY and PA are in the South?

Was there a teutonic plate shit I missed?

[guillaumeb]

27. Alternatively, this shows the weakness with the jury system because

some posts are hidden and other similar posts are not depending on the vagaries of jury selection.

Clearly the TOS shows that advocacy of and voting for third parties is not allowed. That is the creator's right and people wishing to post here should respect that.

[tammywammy]

14. Kick

[wyldwolf]

16. you unlocked the thread? Interesting.

[tammywammy]

17. There was further discussion in the Host Forum.

[etherealtruth]

15. it might be a good time for us all to reread the ToS ....

.... so that we know what it really says

[NurseJackie]

20. So Skinner clicks alert too, eh? Spot-checking! Interesting way to ...

... see what's going on it real time.

[bigtree]

23. lolol!

[leftofcool]

30. Smug jurors be gone soon!

[Kelvin Mace]

31. I actually do read the TOS

and generally review it when I serve on a jury, which is about twice a day of late.