Blocking posters from this group should not be based solely on what they've posted in this group

[Electric Monk]

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2013, 02:32 AM - Edit history (2)

but on what they've posted elsewhere on DU as well.

If they've previously posted elsewhere (in GD or the RKBA group, for example) something along the lines of "easy access to guns isn't the problem, and in fact more guns in more hands would make everyone safer" or similar nonsense, then that should be plenty reason enough to block them from this group. We don't need them posting stuff like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262314 (satire) while pretending to be serious. (edit: see this thread for some recent examples http://www.democraticunderground.com/126263 ) That's not what this group is for.

Gun Control Reform Activism (Group): About This Group

Statement of Purpose

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

This seems pretty clear to me, even though some of DU's "RKBA enthusiasts" are trying to play dumb about it and find loopholes to post here anyways

[freshwest]

1. Wait a minute. All his posts here have argued with visiting Gungeoneers and a search shows this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022328359

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2499725

Dantex should be welcome here. I hope you are not referring to him.

[BainsBane]

2. I don't think so

I did a search and he doesn't appear to be a gunner.

[freshwest]

5. No, and satire is his tool on other forums. It may not be a hard thread, but he's also argued with

visiting gunners demanding they back up their claims.

We do have a number of them posting, yes. Some threads already have a lot of them here, but I hadn't seen them since they were on Ignore.

We don't have a host yet to block them. I hope Skinner sets up WW tomorrow.
There is nothing wrong with Dantex, it just wasn't a news story or opinion, perhaps he was mocking the gunners. Others have as well, which I have said is not productive and only encourages them to come to argue.

[Electric Monk]

3. I'll make a simple analogy: If some guy kept posting scantily clad bikini pics in the Sports forum

then the History of Feminism Group could (and probably should) block them from posting in the HoF group.


I'm also looking forward to this new group having a proper host soon, and I hope they agree with me

[BainsBane]

8. well . . .

I think the first step would be to simply communicate that's not what we prefer be posted here.

[Electric Monk]

11. That's already in the SOP but that hasn't stopped them from posting here so far, has it.

[Electric Monk]

4. DanTex's post is clearly satire. I think you misread my OP a bit. nt

[freshwest]

6. I edited, but why bring up that post? He's not pretending as OP states. Please cite another post.

We do have some gunners here that he is answering, and he is not a gunner from my advanced search.

[BainsBane]

7. oh that one's easy

I think we all know them. DanTex isn't among them.

[freshwest]

9. Electric Monk's OP should cite what he calls the problem:

We don't need them posting stuff like this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262314 (satire) while pretending to be serious. That's not what this group is for...

Understandable criticism.

This seems pretty clear to me, even though some of DU's "RKBA enthusiasts" are trying to play dumb about it and find loopholes to post here anyways

It's obvious some are coming here to stir up trouble. but the implication. IMHO, is that this OP cites Dantex as one of them. Do you see where one might think that is the purpose?

[Electric Monk]

12. How would you suggest I edit it? I thought I was pretty clear.

[freshwest]

15. Just criticize satire. Don't infer there is any pretending, or that he's playing the group.

I didn't much appreciate the satire as I come here to see activist posts, not criticisms of Gungeoneers. That's not the purpose of the group. Apocalypsenow also made a post about the reaction in the RK & BA which I felt was going to drag them over here for their spats.

And we need a host now to ban those from there who are littering the board who we know Dantex has answered. The premise of the visitors coming here in bad faith and their posting records being reviewed when they do post here to see if they are pretending.

I just saw your example of a gun control advocate's satirical thread as off target. I would have cited posts from those who are known Gungeoneers that membes have batted heads with and don't support gun control according to this haven's SOP.

Do you understand my problem with the wording or the example?

Your suggestion is great, the apparent target not so much. Unless you really think that Dantex is not sincere. His record elsewhere indicates he is.

[Electric Monk]

13. Did you not see that big grey block in between where I quoted the group SOP?

I could understand your confusion if so. What browser are you using?

[BainsBane]

14. okay now I see the confusion

Both FreshWest and I overlooked the part where you said "stuff like this (satire) while pretending to be serious." We thought you were saying DanTex was a troll.
At least I think FreshWest did the same thing as I, based on his/her posts.

[freshwest]

16. I'm using Firefox and saw the SOP. It didn't say no satire. I say his OP was not strictly helpful,

but he is not a troll. It would be useful to tell him of your complaint of style without using the rest of the language. There was no other poster or post in your OP that could have been inferred. So the general take would be that Dantex is a troll, and I don't see how you can't imagine that it says otherwise. I agree with Bain's Bane, this is a waste of time discussing trolls until we have our host in place.

[Electric Monk]

17. Ok, I edited my OP with another link. Does that clear things up for you?

I'm off to bed soon. I'll revisit this tomorrow. Obviously we've had some sort of failure to communicate

[freshwest]

18. I appreciate the edit and wish I could clear my posts that produced confusion. Sorry.

What a lot of time I took here and now that you edited I see what you were saying and I was wrong. I see three posters that should not be here. Shall I just delete, or is that going to make it worse?

[Electric Monk]

19. Your oops is ok. I'd just leave it. I won't hold it against you. It's late. Good night :)

[BainsBane]

10. Until we have a host

I suggest ignoring disrupters and/or alerting on them. We've already given them too much attention.

[ellisonz]

20. +1

[Progressive dog]

21. I don't see a problem with a little gun control humor

It was clear that the post was intended to be humorous. If we're going to require policy discussions as the only acceptable posts, this group won't have a lot of posts.

I do think that DanTex contributes substantially to a supportive environment, which is in the SoP.

[DanTex]

22. I agree.

Yes, my post was satire (obviously), and it's also clear to me that the OP wasn't suggesting that I be blocked, but agreeing with the premise of my satire, which is that longtime gungeoneers are pretending to be gun control advocates in order to post in this group and either disrupt or water down the gun control message in the name of "balance" or "centrism" or "reasonability".

In reading this thread, I see some people think satire might be misplaced in this group. If we decide as a group that satire isn't appropriate here, then of course I'll respect that.

But I like satire, and I think satire is a useful tool (e.g. Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Doonesbury, Tom Tomorrow, etc.). Particularly in the gun debate because there really is a lot to be satirical about. Yes, it's a serious topic, and if you search the history of my gungeon posts, you'll find that I have made my fair share of serious, lengthy posts. But sometimes you need to just sit back and laugh at some of the things people are saying, if only to maintain sanity in the face of all the nonsense coming from the NRA/CPAC/etc.

[Electric Monk]

23. Thank you for understanding. It was obvious to me that your thread wasn't pretending to be serious.

I guess it wasn't so obvious to a few others here, which led to the misunderstanding.

It seems that reading comprehension issues here on DU aren't limited to those folks unable to understand the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."


edited to add: Here's a nice thread in GD, for those who haven't seen it yet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2524696

[BainsBane]

24. Yes, I think we should operate based on someone's prior

stated views on guns. Some are here for cynical reasons and, in my view, should not be allowed to stay.