• SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    That isn’t the question. The question is “why can’t the original posters resubmit through the proper channels”? Because it was banned.

      • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        No. Remember? They tried that:

        After deleting the original statement, we promptly asked about submitting the post for approval through the proper channels so that it could be reposted. At this point, ODP staff informed us that a meeting with Acton was on the table. After thorough discussion, caucus leadership determined this offer aligned with our goal to bring our message directly to her.

        They got tricked into attending a meeting without Acton. And some of them weren’t allowed into the meeting.

        • null@piefed.nullspace.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          You keep using this quote – have you actually read it?

          They asked about submitting the post for approval and they were offered a meeting with Acton.

          That’s what it says.

          You’re making the positive claim that they were told they cannot resubmit the post for approval. That quote does not demonstrate that to be the case.

          Do you understand that yet? Or do we have to loop around again?

          • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            They asked about submitting the post for approval

            …which was ignored. Instead:

            they were offered a meeting with Acton.

            …which turned out to be a lie.

            Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

            the Ohio Democratic Party had demanded the criticism be removed. The caucus protested, appealed, but then relented. The criticism never went back up.

            It was banned.

            • null@piefed.nullspace.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              which was ignored

              Does not appear in the quote. If you have another source for that claim, it’s weird that you haven’t shared it by now.

              Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

              Fair, I’ll rephrase: you cannot demonstrate that they were not allowed to resubmit the post.

              • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                I do not have a facebook account to see the group page for myself. According to the article, the criticism was not reposted. It was banned there, as reflected by the headline.

                  • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    I know what the article and the headline say. Your initial criticism is still invalid.

                    Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?