Not for Nothing ... but, Am I the Only One to think that it is a travesty that of ALL the times

[Orrex]

178. Well, here goes. By request:

6/15/2014, verdict 4-3
I think the impression here is that seabeyond was using "pieces of shit" to refer to those DUers who had posted about "stare rape," rather than referring to the purveyors of that bullshit meme. I would have voted to Leave it, and I would have added a comment explaining what I thought was seabeyond's intent. This is the one that Agschmid reposted as a test, when it survived jury review.

5/29/2014, verdict 4-3
A bit of a gray area. I gather that she is referring to "entitled little boys" in an abstract sense, but I can see how others might see it as men-in-general. This hinges on the oft-discussed problem of making statements about "men" rather than clearly indicating "some men."
I would likely have voted to Leave this one, but can understand why 4 voted to Hide it.

5/5/2014, verdict 4-3
Pretty clearly a direct insult and call-out. I would have voted to Hide it.

4/12/2014, verdict 4-3
Backstory. I don't know what's gone on between seabeyond and Neoma, but I would have voted to Leave this one.

3/26/2014, verdict 4-2
I can see how some might consider her language to be over-the-top. Doesn't really cross my threshold, though, so I'd have voted to Leave it.

11/23/2013, verdict 4-2
In the context of the thread, particularly reply #121, this strikes me as a reasonable Hide because it is uncivil at face value and because polly7 had specifically asked seabeyond not to get personal. I recall that this post was defended as not actually saying "fuck you" to polly7, but it seems that several people took it that way. In addition, although people apparently do like to goad seabeyond, she also clearly enjoys goading others as well. As a standalone post I wouldn't have voted to Hide this one. In the context of the thread, I would have.

10/30/2013, verdict 4-2
Again, a bit over the top, and I think that it was the choice of phrasing that doomed her. I would have voted to Hide it.

10/23/2013, verdict 5-1
Entirely justified IMO, and seabeyond even welcomed this particular Hide. I see no reason to dispute it.

4/5/2013, verdict 4-2
I don't know the backstory on this one. If I'd been on the jury, I'd have voted to Leave it.

3/24/2013, verdict 4-2
More backstory, and she was clearly being goaded here. I would have voted to Leave it.

3/12/2013, verdict 5-1
A direct personal insult/attack. I would also have voted to Hide.

3/8/2013, vertict 4-2
Honestly, I would have voted to Leave this one, because seabeyond was clearly using hyperbole to make a point.

2/16/2013, verdict 4-2
More backstory that I don't know about, but if I'd been on the jury, I'd have voted to Leave it.

2/1/2013, verdict 4-2
I think I would have voted to Hide this one. Although seabeyond is again using hyperbole to make a point, I believe that she went a little too far here.

12/27/2013, verdict 4-2
This one's a little trickier. She's specifically targeting three DUers and calling them "beyond stupid, weak and petty," which would likely have been Hide-worthy outright if it had been posted in GD. However, I sense that her choice to post in HoF created the impression that she retreated in order to hurl insults from a safe haven. I admit that I would be interested to know who Alerted on this one, but I would likely have voted to Hide it.

12/27/2013, verdict 4-2
Hard to say. She was goaded, yes, but she's clearly calling pintobean a liar. I would likely have voted to Hide for that reason, and I'd have added a comment to that effect.

11/27/2013, verdict 4-2
Sufficiently over-the-top to justify the Hide IMO.

11/12/12013, verdict 5-1
Although it can be argued that she is using "you" in the general sense here, it seems fairly reasonable to infer that she was calling the poster a "mean, bullying asshole." I wuold have voted to Hide it.

11/6/2013, verdict 4-2
I would absolutely have voted to Leave this one, and I have no idea why this post wasn't Hidden.

11/8/2012, verdict 4-2
I don't understand this one at all. I would have voted to Leave it.

5/4/2012, verdict 5-1
A reasonable verdict IMO. She is again using mocking hyperbole to make a point, but I believe that she went over the top. I would have voted to Hide regardless of the author.
[hr]
[hr]
So there we have it. 11 votes to Hide and 10 to Leave.

I disagreed with a number of verdicts here, but my overall vote:verdict average as a juror has been about 70%, so I'm often in the minority anyway. I don't think that most of the alerts were entirely unwarranted, aside from the one or two that I noted above.

Honestly, this has been more informative that I anticipated. Although I don't see clear evidence of a campaign against her, I do get the sense that people are hiding her posts due to their style at least as often as for their content. People who know her are more likely to understand her writing style, so it may be that posts are hidden because jurors don't "get" her.

This raises a philosophical question: is that the fault of the writer fault or the readers? All else being equal, I'd put it on the writer, since they're in control of what goes on the page. Sometimes the reader may not be willing to dig into the history and subtext, and in a format like DU that's understandable. She's definitely a lightning rod. I wonder how many times juries have voted to Leave her posts.

I've seen people post (politely) to suggest to seabeyond that she take more care in composing her messages, and she seems in most cases to have received these suggestions in their intended spirit. The limitations of the format are famously problematic when it comes to conveying sarcasm. Reviewing the alerted-on posts, this seems be a factor in a number of her Hides.

Let me underscore that these are simply my impressions, which I am offering here specifically because I was asked for them. I'm not presuming to speak for anyone else, nor do I claim any particular authority to issue objective proclamations of fact.

As you can see from the most recent five alerts, she wouldn't currently be on time-out if it were up to me.