46. Piling on after somebody is targeted for serial bullying and gloating...
Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:17 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
is that what your rofl smilie is all about?
Btw. I was juror # 1 on for that post.
At Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
One would hope that a trained historian, self proclaimed reporter, writer, gamer, editor,
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
This is an outright attack. Although the OP and the thread involve matter that is "relevant" to the alerted post, I don't think you can have a much clearer "personal attack" than what we have here. The whole post is wrong, but if you have any doubts, the use of "imagined," should settle the issue.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:53 PM, and the Jury voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Borderline case. But it does imply that Nadin is lying or delusional, so I voted to hide these slurs.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Piling on isn't necessary the OP is already admitting a fault in the story.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: It is an over-the-top comment. The intent was to mock and humiliate.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Although the button I pushed is "post is okay," the post is not okay. But it's really not in my purview to enforce manners on someone. An apology has been proffered with appropriate humility, and some folks simply can't accept "you were right" for an answer. This post reflects far more poorly on the poster than on the person who started the thread, and savvy DUers can discern the difference.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'd actually recommend you hide the entire thread (I read all of it for context). Its clearly a call-back OP related to a prior thread which must have became a mess. Here, the OP could have just simply said ... "my mistake" ... but the OP also seems to be making some excuses, and diverting some, and even seems to leave the door open that there might be something more nefarious going on. And that, I think that invites some who felt misled in the prior thread to feel the need to come back and respond with an "I told you so" style. This particular post was a little over the top, although I think that was its point ... if one is "over the top" in their initial position, only to be wrong, they have farther to fall. Still, the entire thread serves no constructive purpose whatsoever.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation necessary, just read the post.