HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Announcements (Group) » DU General Election Seaso...

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:17 PM

DU General Election Season Begins Soon: What You Need To Know

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the Announcements group).

UPDATE: General Election Season Begins June 20. More info here.

Last week I wrote an announcement providing some broad information about General Election season here on Democratic Underground. Now that the primary voting is almost done and it has become clear that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, we are sticking with our plan to transition to General Election season on Thursday, June 16.

This formal transition to General Election season is not a new thing for our website. For every presidential election since this website was founded in 2001, we have expected our members to support the Democratic nominee. It has been written into our Terms of Service for nearly as long as the site has existed, and all of you agreed to it.

But this year's transition is a little different because during the switch-over we will also be instituting some big changes to the way we run the site -- including software changes. We have two main goals with these changes:

1) Making this website a more civil and welcoming place for everyone.

2) Making clear that this website actually has a partisan purpose, especially during election season.

Here's what's going to happen:


DU will have rules again

For the past six months we have been planning and developing a hybrid system which takes the parts of the Jury System that work well, throws out the stuff that doesn't work, and incorporates a number of ideas from the "old" DU. In a post about the primaries back in March, we noted that the new system would focus on "reducing drama, providing better guidance for jurors, and setting clearer standards that better lay out our expectations for what Democratic Underground should be." We want this community to be a friendlier place for everyone, and we believe the only way we can do that is to insist on some standards of conduct.

The first step is to bring back rules -- a set of standards that members are expected to follow when posting, and that members are expected to enforce if asked to serve on a Jury. These rules were created by looking at where we are now as a community, but also by reviewing our old rules from DU2. In fact, if you joined DU any time between 2002 and 2011, much of this will look very familiar to you.

The rules are separated into four sections. Here they are:

Forum Rules (Draft)


CIVILITY

No personal attacks or flaming
Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.

Why we have this rule: Civility begets quality discussions. Democratic Underground members are highly passionate about politics which means discussions can get heated -- but they don't need to get nasty. There's no reason why a community of intelligent adults who agree on a majority of political issues can't have a conversation without insulting each other or resorting to other anti-social behaviors.

No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

Why we have this rule: Substantive disagreement on important issues is always welcome on this website, but our members should not be made to feel unwelcome simply because they hold a different point of view. Democratic Underground welcomes all people who are members of the Democratic coalition, including the full range of center-to-left viewpoints and supporters of all Democratic public figures.

No bigotry/insensitivity
Members are expected to respect diversity and demonstrate an appropriate level of sensitivity when discussing related topics. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of bigoted intolerance are not permitted.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes people of every race, sex, religious belief (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, gender identity, body type, disability, age, etc. We want to promote a welcoming atmosphere for all of our members, and do not want to provide a platform for bigotry.


POLITICAL

Support Democrats
Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.

Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.

Why we have this rule: Most of our members want this to be forward-looking, friendly community that is focused on creating a better future for our country. Continuing to rehash old fights that have already been resolved is divisive and counter-productive.


CONTENT

Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).

Why we have this rule: The purpose of Democratic Underground is to discuss politics, issues, and current events. Open discussion of how the website is run tends to distract from our core purpose.

No graphic content
Do not post content that is Not Safe For Work (NSFW), which includes sexually explicit material, graphic depictions of bodily functions, or images of extreme violence, gore, pain, or human suffering. Exceptions are permitted when an image adds important context to a legitimate news story, but the post must include a "graphic content warning" in the subject line.

Why we have this rule: Most people do not enjoy stumbling across extremely graphic content while browsing the web.

No kooky, extremist, or hate content
Do not promote ridiculous, bigoted, or extreme-fringe conspiracy theories. Do not promote extreme fringe views. Do not reference hate sites or other extremist/fringe sources.

Why we have this rule: Democrats are supposed to be part of the "reality-based community." Some amount of skepticism toward powerful institutions is healthy and appropriate, but that doesn't mean every paranoid fantasy is true. Posts about mass shootings being "false flag" operations, 9/11 being a controlled demolition, no airplane at the Pentagon, chemtrails, black helicopters, the Illuminati, or other nonsense make us all look like fools. This website may have the word "underground" in our name, but we are not extreme fringe.

No commercial spam
Do not post commercial spam or hawk commercial products or services.

Why we have this rule: It's fine for established members to plug or post links to their own products, services, or publications every now and again, but we do not wish to provide free advertising space for spammers.

Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group
Don't start new threads that conflict with a forum or group's Statement of Purpose. The Statement of Purpose can be found by visiting the main page of any forum or group and clicking the "About this forum" (or "About this group") button.

Why we have this rule: All forums and groups on Democratic Underground have a specific purpose, and we want to ensure that new discussion threads are on-topic for the forum or group that they are posted in.


LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE

Respect copyrights
Excerpts from copyrighted sources must be no more than four paragraphs and include a link to the source. See our DMCA Copyright Policy for more information.

Don't post anyone's private or personal information
Don't post private or personal information about any person (including public figures) even if that information is available elsewhere on the Internet.

No malware, phishing, cracking, or other malicious code
Don't post or link to malicious code, or attempt to interfere with this website's software or administration in any way.

Don't post anything that violates U.S. law
Don't post anything that violates U.S. law -- including but not limited to: linking to illegally-shared files, attempting to organize hacking or DOS attacks, sales of weapons, alcohol, illegal drugs, or other illegal products, etc.

Don't use an avatar or signature line that violates any of the other rules
Members may opt to make use of an avatar or signature line that is appended to all their posts. Avatars and signature lines must not violate any of the other forum rules.

We will expect all DU members to follow these rules when posting, and enforce them when serving on a Jury (Note: All alerts sent on rules in the "Legal/Administrative" section will be handled directly by Admin. Alerts sent on the rule "Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group" will be sent to Hosts).


The Jury System: What's staying the same and what's changing

Next, we have made technical changes to the Jury process, implementing various improvements that people have requested over the past five years, and adding a few of our own. We also ditched a number of things that we felt were not working. With all of these changes our focus was on looking for ways to increase civility, set clear expectations, and reduce forum drama and meta-discussion.

Serving on Juries should be as straightforward as it was before -- in fact, we've streamlined the process to make it even simpler. You do not need to know all of the technical details below in order to serve on Juries -- they are provided merely for people who are interested in exactly what changes are taking place. Please note that we're tried to make the list below as comprehensive as possible, but it's possible that there may be further changes or additions as we go forward.

What's staying the same
  • The software will seat a Jury by calling seven randomly-selected eligible members.

  • Jury service is optional; members have five minutes to decide if they want to serve as a Juror.

  • Jurors will be given a maximum of 30 minutes to evaluate whether a post is acceptable or not.

  • Jury results will be decided by majority rule.

  • Posts deemed acceptable by Juries will be left alone; posts deemed unacceptable will be hidden.

  • Jurors won't be asked to serve again for at least 18 hours (unless the site is really busy).

  • If a Jury votes unanimously that a post is acceptable, the alerter will not be able to alert again for 24 hours.

  • If your post is removed, you will be notified.

  • There are still certain triggers that will flag your account for review, and we are adding some new ones to put the brakes on people who repeatedly break our rules. When flagged for review you will not be able to post or use other site functions. (This is a stop-gap measure: We have a number of changes planned in this area that we aren't ready to implement yet; we'll have more to say about this at a later date.)
What's changing
  • The privilege to serve on a Jury is now only offered to members who have been registered for at least one year, have more than 1,000 posts, and have an active Star membership.

  • Alerters will no longer be asked to provide an explanation for their alert. Instead they will be presented with a short list of rules written by the Administrators and asked to select which rule they believe the post breaks.

  • Jurors will no longer be asked to evaluate the post based on the alerter's comments and their own gut feeling. Instead they will be asked whether they believe the post breaks the specific rule selected by the alerter.

  • Jurors will no longer evaluate posts in-thread. Instead they'll be taken to a separate page. On this page only the portion of the thread relevant to the alerted post will be displayed (or just the OP if the OP was the alerted post), and usernames and other identifying information will be removed.

  • The Jury system still forbids "double jeopardy," but posts which were alerted for a particular rule and survived a Jury can now be re-alerted for a different rule.

  • Previously Jurors had two options: "Hide it" or "Leave it alone." Now Jurors have four options: "It clearly breaks the rule"; "Close call, but it breaks the rule"; "It doesn't quite break the rule"; and "It clearly doesn't break the rule."

  • Jurors will no longer be able to provide comments.

  • Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after Jury service is complete.

  • You will not be able to peek at other members' hidden posts. Only the author of the post can check the text of a removed post.

  • You will be able to officially appeal if a Jury removes your post. We have built in an appeals system that allows members to send an appeal directly to Admin. Admin will review the post and provide a final ruling. If your appeal is convincing, the post will be reinstated.

  • The Admins may also step in from time to time and remove a post if we think a Jury blew it and allowed a rule violation to stand.

  • If you can't bring yourself to enforce a particular rule when serving on a Jury, you can object to that rule and you'll never be asked to serve on a Jury for that rule again. The Admins will keep a tally of objections which will give us useful feedback about the rules.

  • Transparency pages are going away, since they only seemed to serve to create forum drama. (They may be replaced with something else at a later date.)


Software Testing

These are big changes, and they require some pretty big changes to the software we use to moderate the site. Elad has spent countless hours this year programming all this stuff, and it's almost ready to go. But before we go live next week, we need to test it to make sure it works. That means we will need some DU members to serve as testers for the new software. We'll have more information on software testing coming soon.

525 replies, 46358 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 525 replies Author Time Post
Reply DU General Election Season Begins Soon: What You Need To Know (Original post)
Skinner Jun 2016 OP
William769 Jun 2016 #1
Orrex Jun 2016 #2
trumad Jun 2016 #3
DCBob Jun 2016 #4
Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #5
Lucinda Jun 2016 #6
11 Bravo Jun 2016 #7
Hissyspit Jun 2016 #471
boston bean Jun 2016 #8
msanthrope Jun 2016 #17
gollygee Jun 2016 #33
NYC Liberal Jun 2016 #46
Phentex Jun 2016 #74
AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #211
Phentex Jun 2016 #216
kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #276
BainsBane Jun 2016 #294
AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #352
auntAgonist Jun 2016 #521
BooScout Jun 2016 #194
hlthe2b Jun 2016 #202
bettyellen Jun 2016 #252
Maru Kitteh Jun 2016 #306
ucrdem Jun 2016 #9
PJMcK Jun 2016 #10
Native Jun 2016 #11
Loki Jun 2016 #12
UrbScotty Jun 2016 #13
EileenFB Jun 2016 #14
mountain grammy Jun 2016 #36
panader0 Jun 2016 #77
MH1 Jun 2016 #213
PJMcK Jun 2016 #236
EileenFB Jun 2016 #293
Lisa0825 Jun 2016 #166
kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #278
msanthrope Jun 2016 #15
NYC Liberal Jun 2016 #16
Skinner Jun 2016 #61
NYC Liberal Jun 2016 #70
-none Jun 2016 #303
sulphurdunn Jun 2016 #354
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #377
squirecam Jun 2016 #380
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #384
redstateblues Jun 2016 #427
Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #476
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #478
Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #489
Nitram Jun 2016 #88
BootinUp Jun 2016 #18
PatSeg Jun 2016 #19
ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #267
OriginalGeek Jun 2016 #347
auntpurl Jun 2016 #20
spooky3 Jun 2016 #47
Skinner Jun 2016 #69
auntpurl Jun 2016 #75
tblue37 Jun 2016 #114
tblue37 Jun 2016 #109
Skinner Jun 2016 #118
vkkv Jun 2016 #165
auntpurl Jun 2016 #263
phylny Jun 2016 #376
JudyM Jun 2016 #357
snot Jun 2016 #447
ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #272
mentalsolstice Jun 2016 #173
trueblue2007 Jun 2016 #519
mentalsolstice Jun 2016 #520
dixiegrrrrl Jun 2016 #177
Agschmid Jun 2016 #305
tblue37 Jun 2016 #102
stevenleser Jun 2016 #197
tblue37 Jun 2016 #203
auntpurl Jun 2016 #260
Chemisse Jun 2016 #394
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #21
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #67
Skinner Jun 2016 #72
squirecam Jun 2016 #383
baldguy Jun 2016 #444
applegrove Jun 2016 #22
MADem Jun 2016 #23
Godhumor Jun 2016 #24
onehandle Jun 2016 #25
ahimsa Jun 2016 #174
Peachhead22 Jun 2016 #412
lupinella Jun 2016 #484
DVRacer Jun 2016 #429
stevenleser Jun 2016 #26
irisblue Jun 2016 #375
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #27
sharp_stick Jun 2016 #28
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #29
Tobin S. Jun 2016 #30
spooky3 Jun 2016 #40
In_The_Wind Jun 2016 #31
PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #32
brer cat Jun 2016 #273
jtuck004 Jun 2016 #34
JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #355
NightWatcher Jun 2016 #35
LonePirate Jun 2016 #120
Gormy Cuss Jun 2016 #37
Skinner Jun 2016 #78
dixiegrrrrl Jun 2016 #84
ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #279
dixiegrrrrl Jun 2016 #364
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #500
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #38
spooky3 Jun 2016 #39
auntpurl Jun 2016 #44
spooky3 Jun 2016 #45
Nitram Jun 2016 #94
montana_hazeleyes Jun 2016 #195
femmocrat Jun 2016 #148
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #285
spooky3 Jun 2016 #392
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #408
spooky3 Jun 2016 #414
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #415
mentalsolstice Jun 2016 #393
Chemisse Jun 2016 #397
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #406
arikara Jun 2016 #100
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #106
Ilsa Jun 2016 #168
totodeinhere Jun 2016 #231
Reter Jun 2016 #442
athena Jun 2016 #455
BlueCaliDem Jun 2016 #41
liberal N proud Jun 2016 #42
etherealtruth Jun 2016 #43
Bobbie Jo Jun 2016 #59
Skinner Jun 2016 #80
greatauntoftriplets Jun 2016 #48
Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #49
Marrah_G Jun 2016 #50
progressoid Jun 2016 #51
Auggie Jun 2016 #52
Skinner Jun 2016 #81
Exilednight Jun 2016 #53
auntpurl Jun 2016 #56
Exilednight Jun 2016 #64
dixiegrrrrl Jun 2016 #223
dixiegrrrrl Jun 2016 #188
auntpurl Jun 2016 #192
stevenleser Jun 2016 #200
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #517
Skinner Jun 2016 #92
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #175
The Green Manalishi Jun 2016 #229
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #243
The Green Manalishi Jun 2016 #249
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #259
truebrit71 Jun 2016 #265
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #277
truebrit71 Jun 2016 #280
Renew Deal Jun 2016 #297
truebrit71 Jun 2016 #316
Renew Deal Jun 2016 #325
SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #321
MADem Jun 2016 #504
Curmudgeoness Jun 2016 #438
kjones Jun 2016 #98
vkkv Jun 2016 #186
Renew Deal Jun 2016 #295
Bobbie Jo Jun 2016 #54
fleabiscuit Jun 2016 #55
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #57
herding cats Jun 2016 #58
Skinner Jun 2016 #93
herding cats Jun 2016 #172
dixiegrrrrl Jun 2016 #204
Skinner Jun 2016 #217
Maeve Jun 2016 #60
auntpurl Jun 2016 #62
notemason Jun 2016 #63
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #154
notemason Jun 2016 #178
AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #65
Firebrand Gary Jun 2016 #66
calimary Jun 2016 #513
modestybl Jun 2016 #68
stevenleser Jun 2016 #115
modestybl Jun 2016 #130
stevenleser Jun 2016 #176
uppityperson Jun 2016 #282
SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #334
stevenleser Jun 2016 #348
Renew Deal Jun 2016 #300
Hissyspit Jun 2016 #472
Lil Missy Jun 2016 #512
vkkv Jun 2016 #71
99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #179
Jon Ace Jun 2016 #399
marle35 Jun 2016 #480
passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #73
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #99
tblue37 Jun 2016 #144
femmocrat Jun 2016 #167
Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2016 #183
passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #222
Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2016 #245
passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #269
-none Jun 2016 #323
passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #349
Peachhead22 Jun 2016 #419
charlyvi Jun 2016 #210
ecstatic Jun 2016 #266
musicblind Jun 2016 #497
mcar Jun 2016 #76
lpbk2713 Jun 2016 #79
senz Jun 2016 #82
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #242
hertopos Jun 2016 #413
senz Jun 2016 #423
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #435
Kentonio Jun 2016 #83
vkkv Jun 2016 #97
truebrit71 Jun 2016 #286
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #85
stevenleser Jun 2016 #122
hueymahl Jun 2016 #149
aquamarina Jun 2016 #238
workinclasszero Jun 2016 #190
leveymg Jun 2016 #209
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #261
leveymg Jun 2016 #319
Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #287
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #298
Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #304
Post removed Jun 2016 #335
leveymg Jun 2016 #327
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #371
X_Digger Jun 2016 #458
brer cat Jun 2016 #281
ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #296
Reter Jun 2016 #443
Spazito Jun 2016 #86
tblue37 Jun 2016 #87
muriel_volestrangler Jun 2016 #89
Skinner Jun 2016 #103
glowing Jun 2016 #90
hueymahl Jun 2016 #163
stevenleser Jun 2016 #180
SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #308
FailureToCommunicate Jun 2016 #411
valerief Jun 2016 #431
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #439
glowing Jun 2016 #453
DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #91
L. Coyote Jun 2016 #95
morningfog Jun 2016 #96
Skinner Jun 2016 #113
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #199
MineralMan Jun 2016 #101
oasis Jun 2016 #104
George II Jun 2016 #105
Skinner Jun 2016 #136
pengu Jun 2016 #107
stevenleser Jun 2016 #129
pengu Jun 2016 #132
stevenleser Jun 2016 #134
pengu Jun 2016 #143
charlyvi Jun 2016 #381
DVRacer Jun 2016 #452
upaloopa Jun 2016 #151
SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #331
OKNancy Jun 2016 #108
Lyric Jun 2016 #110
Politicub Jun 2016 #111
ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #112
Wibly Jun 2016 #116
upaloopa Jun 2016 #138
SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #374
panader0 Jun 2016 #117
upaloopa Jun 2016 #121
panader0 Jun 2016 #126
upaloopa Jun 2016 #133
panader0 Jun 2016 #159
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #437
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #150
panader0 Jun 2016 #171
LanternWaste Jun 2016 #208
All in it together Jun 2016 #314
AntiBank Jun 2016 #292
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #366
Rob H. Jun 2016 #402
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #405
Curmudgeoness Jun 2016 #440
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #445
stevenleser Jun 2016 #157
AlbertCat Jun 2016 #215
stevenleser Jun 2016 #225
AntiBank Jun 2016 #302
stevenleser Jun 2016 #307
AntiBank Jun 2016 #320
stevenleser Jun 2016 #329
AntiBank Jun 2016 #333
truebrit71 Jun 2016 #361
stevenleser Jun 2016 #367
truebrit71 Jun 2016 #372
The Green Manalishi Jun 2016 #248
melman Jun 2016 #426
mackdaddy Jun 2016 #119
unblock Jun 2016 #123
Skinner Jun 2016 #131
unblock Jun 2016 #142
unc70 Jun 2016 #389
femmocrat Jun 2016 #124
CBGLuthier Jun 2016 #125
upaloopa Jun 2016 #128
LonePirate Jun 2016 #127
-none Jun 2016 #340
stevil Jun 2016 #135
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2016 #137
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #139
Skinner Jun 2016 #146
bettyellen Jun 2016 #256
-none Jun 2016 #341
stevenleser Jun 2016 #360
BooScout Jun 2016 #140
Journeyman Jun 2016 #141
Skinner Jun 2016 #153
john978 Jun 2016 #145
Skinner Jun 2016 #152
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #185
Skinner Jun 2016 #187
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #207
stevenleser Jun 2016 #246
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #258
john978 Jun 2016 #301
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #432
Purveyor Jun 2016 #436
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #147
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #191
still_one Jun 2016 #353
Delver Rootnose Jun 2016 #400
workinclasszero Jun 2016 #155
Logical Jun 2016 #156
Skinner Jun 2016 #161
Logical Jun 2016 #201
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #158
Skinner Jun 2016 #164
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #170
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #160
auntpurl Jun 2016 #214
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #218
ProudProgressiveNow Jun 2016 #162
awoke_in_2003 Jun 2016 #169
unc70 Jun 2016 #396
Omaha Steve Jun 2016 #181
hibbing Jun 2016 #182
lunamagica Jun 2016 #184
Blue Idaho Jun 2016 #284
Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2016 #189
Ilsa Jun 2016 #193
yardwork Jun 2016 #196
wildeyed Jun 2016 #198
AngryAmish Jun 2016 #205
Phentex Jun 2016 #227
InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2016 #206
treestar Jun 2016 #212
redstatebluegirl Jun 2016 #219
katsy Jun 2016 #220
Skinner Jun 2016 #228
katsy Jun 2016 #264
ancianita Jun 2016 #221
SCantiGOP Jun 2016 #224
TygrBright Jun 2016 #226
Skinner Jun 2016 #232
TygrBright Jun 2016 #239
demosincebirth Jun 2016 #230
stevenleser Jun 2016 #233
demosincebirth Jun 2016 #244
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #382
demosincebirth Jun 2016 #430
desmiller Jun 2016 #234
left-of-center2012 Jun 2016 #235
Skinner Jun 2016 #237
nolabels Jun 2016 #240
steve2470 Jun 2016 #241
NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #247
Skinner Jun 2016 #250
NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #251
TygrBright Jun 2016 #253
The Straight Story Jun 2016 #254
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #255
squirecam Jun 2016 #387
Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #407
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #492
eppur_se_muova Jun 2016 #257
annabanana Jun 2016 #262
IrishEyes Jun 2016 #268
Skinner Jun 2016 #271
ymetca Jun 2016 #270
tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #274
ProfessorGAC Jun 2016 #275
brer cat Jun 2016 #283
adigal Jun 2016 #288
c-ville rook Jun 2016 #289
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #290
seaglass Jun 2016 #344
Ms. Toad Jun 2016 #404
stevenleser Jun 2016 #416
Renew Deal Jun 2016 #291
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #390
xocet Jun 2016 #299
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #309
warrprayer Jun 2016 #310
gademocrat7 Jun 2016 #311
Post removed Jun 2016 #312
RockaFowler Jun 2016 #313
lovemydog Jun 2016 #315
Geronimoe Jun 2016 #317
leftofcool Jun 2016 #330
Geronimoe Jun 2016 #449
Blue Idaho Jun 2016 #318
pamela Jun 2016 #322
Renew Deal Jun 2016 #326
FSogol Jun 2016 #362
MFM008 Jun 2016 #324
one_voice Jun 2016 #328
tavernier Jun 2016 #332
RKP5637 Jun 2016 #336
Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #337
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #369
Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #451
cui bono Jun 2016 #338
stevenleser Jun 2016 #343
cui bono Jun 2016 #420
stevenleser Jun 2016 #421
cui bono Jun 2016 #424
stevenleser Jun 2016 #425
cui bono Jun 2016 #465
stevenleser Jun 2016 #482
cui bono Jun 2016 #494
stevenleser Jun 2016 #499
cui bono Jun 2016 #505
stevenleser Jun 2016 #514
msanthrope Jun 2016 #515
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #483
cui bono Jun 2016 #507
JTFrog Jun 2016 #481
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #518
Capt. Obvious Jun 2016 #474
Stinky The Clown Jun 2016 #339
backscatter712 Jun 2016 #342
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #345
angrychair Jun 2016 #346
wysi Jun 2016 #350
nolabear Jun 2016 #351
H2O Man Jun 2016 #356
Hissyspit Jun 2016 #470
littlemissmartypants Jun 2016 #358
floriduck Jun 2016 #359
Skinner Jun 2016 #368
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #403
BumRushDaShow Jun 2016 #363
horseshoecrab Jun 2016 #365
ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #370
truebrit71 Jun 2016 #373
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #441
Post removed Jun 2016 #460
Skittles Jun 2016 #378
VOX Jun 2016 #379
Greywing Jun 2016 #386
Number23 Jun 2016 #385
SaschaHM Jun 2016 #388
tarheelsunc Jun 2016 #391
FarPoint Jun 2016 #395
JesterCS Jun 2016 #398
Peachhead22 Jun 2016 #401
stupidicus Jun 2016 #409
Hissyspit Jun 2016 #473
stupidicus Jun 2016 #488
DesertRat Jun 2016 #410
PatrynXX Jun 2016 #417
countryjake Jun 2016 #418
Historic NY Jun 2016 #422
SusanCalvin Jun 2016 #428
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #433
Socal31 Jun 2016 #434
billhicks76 Jun 2016 #446
snot Jun 2016 #448
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #450
hopemountain Jun 2016 #454
captainarizona Jun 2016 #456
liberaltrucker Jun 2016 #457
pangaia Jun 2016 #459
seabeyond Jun 2016 #461
Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #462
flying-skeleton Jun 2016 #463
Lunabell Jun 2016 #464
Renew Deal Jun 2016 #477
cui bono Jun 2016 #466
cui bono Jun 2016 #467
bobGandolf Jun 2016 #468
Hekate Jun 2016 #469
DonCoquixote Jun 2016 #475
athena Jun 2016 #479
Dark n Stormy Knight Jun 2016 #496
zipplewrath Jun 2016 #485
zipplewrath Jun 2016 #486
Puglover Jun 2016 #487
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #490
stevenleser Jun 2016 #491
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #493
cui bono Jun 2016 #495
Puglover Jun 2016 #498
deaniac21 Jun 2016 #501
MADem Jun 2016 #503
cui bono Jun 2016 #506
deaniac21 Jun 2016 #516
saidsimplesimon Jun 2016 #502
One Black Sheep Jun 2016 #508
AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #509
muriel_volestrangler Jun 2016 #510
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #511
randr Jun 2016 #522
DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #523
LeftInTX Sep 2016 #524
Name removed Jan 19 #525

Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:19 PM

1. kick & recommended.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:19 PM

2. Nothing will make me forgive Dr. Strange. Nothing.

But I'm hopeful that DU will reunite toward our shared cause!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:20 PM

3. A big K&R---Time to kick in some more money to DU.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:21 PM

4. This sounds good.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:22 PM

5. Enormous K & R.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:23 PM

6. KNR

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:23 PM

7. Halle-fucking-lujah! DU will once again be the ...

DEMOCRATIC Underground!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:40 AM

471. At the expense of the UNDERGROUND.

This place didn't become the success it became because it was an oblivious echo-chamber.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:24 PM

8. Sounds good. I hope it works well! mean it.

Also, want to thank you for adding in sexism. means a lot to me and I am sure many women here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:27 PM

17. Yes. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:35 PM

33. +1000

Good to see that explicitly stated.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:40 PM

46. It's always baffled me that it was never there.

It's about time for sure.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:55 PM

74. Yes it does...

It's 2016 after all. Long overdue.

And I am happy that trolls will now need to pay if they want certain site privileges.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phentex (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:51 PM

211. That's a very uncharitable suggestion of all the people who choose not to or cannot pay.

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it sounds.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #211)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:54 PM

216. Just trolls...

I am not assuming anyone who can't pay is a troll. I am also not assuming that all newbies are trolls.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #211)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:42 PM

276. People used to buy others a star in the past. Usually if the person was a valued member who

posted some good/clever things and was enjoyable to have around.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #211)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:00 PM

294. Any donation buys you a star

There isn't a set cost. What it requires is you link your account to some method of payment and hence one's real identity.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #294)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:28 PM

352. It doesn't even do that.

I could get a 5$ throwaway visa card from any local store.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phentex (Reply #74)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 07:36 AM

521. I don't have extra $$ to donate to DU like I used to. I don't appreciate the assumption

made that people without a 'star' are trolls.

I have served on countless juries and actually enjoyed serving on them.

I moderate 2 groups here on DU. I hardly think I'm a troll or even show troll tendencies.

With this new rule we lose a lot of good, well reasoned and fair potential jurors.

aA

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:41 PM

194. Totally agree

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:45 PM

202. YUP.... +++++

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:14 PM

252. Plus a billion on the sexism, it's about time.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #252)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:17 PM

306. Yes, + another billion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:25 PM

9. Ready!



Thanks! Looks great!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:25 PM

10. K&R for great plans

Thanks to Skinner, EarlG, Elad and all the other administrators for constantly making this one of the best political websites.

Count me in if you need testers for the new software.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:26 PM

11. Thank you. And I hope there will be a big ass link to the rules page at the start of each forum!

K&R

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:26 PM

12. I'm in!

Thanks Skinner.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:26 PM

13. Thanks, benevolent overlord!

I can help with the testing, seeing as how I'm testy myself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:26 PM

14. Major K&R

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EileenFB (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:36 PM

36. How about reading the rules

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.

and this:

Don't use an avatar or signature line that violates any of the other rules
Members may opt to make use of an avatar or signature line that is appended to all their posts. Avatars and signature lines must not violate any of the other forum rules.

Guess old habits die hard.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EileenFB (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:56 PM

77. Your winner/whiner thing will have to go.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #77)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:54 PM

213. I think they have til June 16th.

I'm not a fan of it either, but then I had sig lines turned off until curiosity about this one made me turn it back on. (Temporarily. Clearly it needs to be turned off again. Hopefully the flies/ants are at least gone by now.)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #213)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:03 PM

236. I hate those bugs (n/t)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #77)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:00 PM

293. Taken care of

and thanks for the reminder to replace it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EileenFB (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:29 PM

166. I'm a Hillary supporter and I don't like that sig pic either.

Sure, I would have chuckled at it if I saw it privately, but it's just divisive, and that is not what we need.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lisa0825 (Reply #166)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:46 PM

278. I have to agree. It only serves to drive the people we need away from our party and candidate.

Not that I haven't thought worse about some candidates and posters here. If I posted everything I thought, I'd be permanently banned from here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:26 PM

15. Excellent. A lot of effort and thought went into this. Thank you. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:26 PM

16. Thank you Skinner. Some much-needed rule changes here.

I do have a question about this:
The Jury system still forbids "double jeopardy," but posts which were alerted for a particular rule and survived a Jury can now be re-alerted for a different rule.

Will there be monitoring for abuse of this? For example, if someone alerts on a post for a rule and gets shot down, then goes through every other rule trying to get a hide. If there is nothing built in to the system, may I suggest that if someone alerts on a post for a specific rule violation and the jury rejects the alert, that particular user should not be allowed to alert on that post again; another user would have to alert.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:49 PM

61. That's the plan.

If a person sends an alert on a particular post, they cannot send another alert on the same post.

But a different person can send a different alert.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #61)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:53 PM

70. Thanks.

I think if you're a Democrat and genuinely support the causes of the Democratic Party, it seems like you should have no problems under these new/revised rules.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #61)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:08 PM

303. The flaw is that some people here are 'organized' and they will keep alerting on a post

in turn, trying for hides against whoever they don't like.
I'm also seeing your new rules as being stacked against a certain segment of 'dissenters' that don't properly fall in the Establishment lines, thereby driving even more good, long time, thoughtful DU'ers away. Making this place more echo chambery as a result.
But it is your site and if that is what you want... But thinking like that is why other political sites are popping up, drawing people away from this site.
Making this place more civil is good, about time. Driving away those that are civil, but don't endorse the proper ideology, even though they are good long time Democrats, is counter productive.
The name Democratic Underground sounds like a Liberal Democratic web site. That is why many of us are here in the first place. What happened?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #303)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:33 PM

354. The reactionaries won.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #303)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:28 PM

377. a conservative female won the primary

 

so liberal ideas are by definition critical of the nominee. and any criticism of the nominee can be thought of as sexist. the regressive wing of du has us boxed out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #377)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:36 PM

380. Shes liberal

A progressive liberal female won. She may not be as left as you wanted. Does not mean she is not liberal.

Glad to see the rules implemented. I can finally come back here without viewing all the carp of the past 6 months.

Hillary is the nominee. Time for the GE.

Lets get her elected.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to squirecam (Reply #380)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:43 PM

384. .

 

libya, syria, honduras, dadt, doma, for profit prison, for profit healthcare, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, welfare reform, Aipac, ndaa, iwr. don't bullshit me please.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #384)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 08:57 PM

427. By your standards Bernie would be a conservative as well. Lumping Hillary in

With Cruz et al is ridiculous

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #427)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:09 AM

476. Will you support Clinton when she agitates for war with Iran?

Because it is what her backers want.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #476)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:23 AM

478. Maybe some of them do.

I think the rest just turn a blind eye to it and other questionable behavior. I will respect the rules here as laid out by skinner, it's his site. I'll just choose to bite my tongue. Time to go into stasis for the next four to eight years here at DU.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #478)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:44 PM

489. New Democrats love foreign wars and intervention in conflicts having nothing to do with us.

Our children spill their blood overseas to ensure corporate profits, who then use that blood money to purchase more New Democrats.

Bribe me and I'll ensure you get the arms you need in order to kill those seeking social and economic justice in your country.

Sickening.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:05 PM

88. If they are shot down unanimously, as one would expect to be the case if it is totally frivolous,

the alerter can't alert again for 24 hours.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:27 PM

18. I think it sounds pretty good. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:28 PM

19. Thank goodness!

This primary season has been a nightmare. I've seen it come between some very old and dear friends. Glad to see it end!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:36 PM

267. Yes, some true colors were surely shown and will not be forgotten. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #267)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:20 PM

347. I'd like to think I'll remember

those that demeaned me and implied I'm a privileged racist for supporting Bernie but I doubt I will.

Not me specifically, as I really only made a very few posts in support of Bernie and those were largely ignored. But I noticed a lot of people calling people like me things I didn't believe were fair.

And then complaining about the reciprocal.

Oh well, it won't matter as I'm not a star member so I won't get a vote and I'll be at the mercy of thems what is. As long as I press onward the way I've done in the past I should be well within the rules at all times and I just don't get to jury.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:28 PM

20. Wow, this all looks pretty great.

I'll need to re-up my star membership, because I like serving on juries.

May I ask, why will we not receive a notification after jury service is complete? I like to know how it went. Obviously, it's not that important, but I genuinely do like to know how others voted and whether my views are out of step with the majority.

You've obviously put a ton of work into this, and I thank you for providing such a great place for us all to gather.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:40 PM

47. Agreed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:53 PM

69. Because we have come to view it as a catalyst for forum drama.

Someone serves on a jury. Makes their choice. Finishes the process. Forgets about it.

Fifteen minutes later they get a notification about the jury decision. Then they immediately post it in the thread, and the thread goes off the rails.

What the notifications do is interrupt somebody who has already forgotten about jury service, and then hands them a nugget of info that they can post in order to disrupt the site. The admins believe this place needs less forum drama. A lot less.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:55 PM

75. Fair enough.

Although, couldn't you make it a rule not to post jury results on the thread? I've done it, for transparency, but if it's less than ideal, I can easily stop.

I'm not going to argue the point into the ground - it will dilute my larger point that I think the new rules are in the main absolutely fantastic! But there does seem to be some support for this idea downthread too.

Got my star! Seamless jury service without interruptions come the 16th.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #75)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:14 PM

114. There is such a rule--included in the "Content" section above:

Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum) <emphasis added>.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:11 PM

109. But you have included a rule forbidding jurors to post those results, so

wouldn't that solve the drama problem?

Or are you worried that some people will simply ignore the rule and end up getting hides themselves for posting results or complaining about them even without posting them?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #109)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:16 PM

118. We learned from the years when we had rules...

...that the existence of rules did not stop everyone from engaging in certain behaviors. We feel it will help if we remove the temptation to engage in a particular behavior.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #118)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:29 PM

165. Skinner, if the posting of Jury Results was alert-able violation - we'd quickly learn not to do it.


Seeing the results of our Jury Results strengthens the community.

I think that removing the privilege will lessen involvement.

Thanks

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #165)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:26 PM

263. I have to agree.

It will not be as satisfying or feel as "complete" a process if we can't see the results of our and others' judgment. I don't forget about jury service when I've finished with it. I continue with perusing DU, but it's in the back of my mind that I'll have results coming through, and I always check my DU mail right when it comes in.

Plus the points made above (below?) about being able to compare one's own opinions with others in the community to prevent unintentional bias or "drift" from the norm.

I don't know, it's not a dealbreaker, but it makes it less of a good experience serving, in my opinion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #263)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:28 PM

376. i agree with you all.

Being able to see the results of the jury I was on helps *me* by letting me know, "You're on the right track" or "You really flubbed this one." When I'm on a jury and vote "Hide it" and 7 of 7 or 6 of 7 agree, it helps me to know I'm judging fairly. If, on the other hand, I was the only dissenter (which honestly hasn't happened much), I'd be able to go back and reevaluate why I made the decision and learn from it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #165)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:36 PM

357. I agree.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #165)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:39 PM

447. Agreed.

Prohibit the thing that causes the problem, rather than eliminating helpful transparency.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #118)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:40 PM

272. I would be less inclined to pay for a star in order to serve on juries if...

 

...I couldn't see the jury results. Just saying.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:34 PM

173. I understand your point about not publishing the results

However, getting a message about the results is kind of like reward for having served. And I wouldn't like having to go searching around the site to see if the post was hidden or not. Nine times out of ten I vote with the majority, which confirms that I'm on the right site to get my political fix. I love serving on juries, I rarely turn down the opportunity. Even real life juries are allowed to discuss, and hear the results of their deliberations. However, with no confirmation of the results, I'll probably check that I'm unwilling to serve, and go so far as giving up my star membership....eh, why bother?

Thanks for hearing my concerns.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mentalsolstice (Reply #173)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:47 PM

519. I just took myself off the willing to serve. If I can't find out what happened....

I don't want to be involved. I served on the juries here willingly for years. No more. i think i should be able to find out how it all turned out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #519)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:34 PM

520. I just served on a jury for the 1st time under new rules, totally unsatisfying!

I always saw jury service as an opportunity to teach and learn. However, not so much under the new system! There is absolutely no feedback whatsoever. Hell, you can't even go back and visit the thread. Under the old system, every now and then jury service would make me aware of an interesting discussion that I otherwise would have been unaware of. But with no links in the new summons and no results with a link, jurors are pretty much precluded from going back and reading or participating in a thread.

Boring! And yawn inducing! I'll give it a couple more tries.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:35 PM

177. Your new approach to jury duty will make me willing to serve again.

I have not been available for jury duty since the primary season got so nasty here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:11 PM

305. Guilty...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:09 PM

102. I also like to know whether I am an outlier or not.

In my department we have "grade norming" sessions in which we all grade a set of sample essays and then discuss why we gave a given grade and why our grades differ, if in fact they do. It helps prevent us from drifting away from common standards.

I think seeing how a jury vote has gone really does help prevent me from such drift, which can be gradual and subtle if one does not continually monitor oneself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #102)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:44 PM

197. My first reaction was not to like this too but I think in the new incarnation of the jury system it

makes sense.

If all you are adjudicating is a single rule violation where the rule is explicitly laid out and you are answering yes or no to that specific rule being violated, I dont think there is much room there to make a mistake if you are being impartial.

I could be wrong and in practice it could be an issue but I think even beyond the quashing of drama this makes sense.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #197)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:46 PM

203. Well, we will see how it works. I have never liked not knowing the outcome of

my actions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #102)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:22 PM

260. Yes, in psychology we call it "observer drift" or "observer bias"

where, if not reflected upon and compared against others, a researcher's personal assumptions, beliefs, and biases can affect their ability to be objective and produce reliable results.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:48 PM

394. That caught my eye as well.

I look forward to getting the pm to see how it went - I guess to see if my opinion prevailed.

It seems like a little thing, but it could make a difference in whether people want to serve on juries. It's like reading most of a book, then losing it before finishing the last chapter.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:28 PM

21. So "BernieBros" and "BoB" meets a welcome demise on the 16th. Thank you.

All in all, I think people are making an effort. I'm trying. It's not easy. But thank you for the changes. It's clear that a lot of effort went into them and they are much appreciated.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miles Archer (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:52 PM

67. Just to clarify, I mean the nicknames, not the supporters.

As a Sanders supporter I am not welcoming my own demise. Thank you and carry on.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miles Archer (Reply #67)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:53 PM

72. Yes, disrespectful nicknames are not permitted. (nt)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #72)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:40 PM

383. thanks

I'm glad to see that oligarch and implying or saying Hillary and her supporters are not real democrats or voting for a lesser of 2 evils will also not be allowed.

Time for the GE.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #72)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:18 PM

444. Who decides what's disrespectful?

 

Remember, "Bernie or Bust" and "BoB" were self-selected, not inflicted upon them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:28 PM

22. Sounds like a plan skinner. Good job.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:28 PM

23. That must have been a great deal of work for Elad! Good luck with this, I really hope it works

and makes this place more fun/welcoming.

I would be glad to volunteer as a tester. I really have high hopes for this new system.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:29 PM

24. God dammit, I guess I finally have to get a star...

But these changes look good!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:29 PM

25. The winning change...

The privilege to serve on a Jury is now only offered to members who have been registered for at least one year, have more than 1,000 posts, and have an active Star membership.

Thanks for listening.






Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:34 PM

174. I can live with this

I've been a star member since 2003 and have quite a few less than 1000 posts, so will likely never be on a jury again. I'm more than happy to have everyone else do the housecleaning for me Looking forward to the changes!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ahimsa (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:33 PM

412. High five

from another person who's been registered here for ages, but still has a really low post count.

I don't really know how that happened. IRL I'm pretty talkative.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peachhead22 (Reply #412)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:18 AM

484. Verbatim

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ahimsa (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:06 PM

429. Been here over a year

I try to only comment we I have something useful to contribute. It would blow me away to see folks here for 90 days and over a 1000 posts. I do like to read here a lot so I decided it was only fair to kick in a few dollars. I guess in 9 more years I will serve on a jury again. Maybe sooner since I have been ready to get thru the primary season for awhile. I supported Bernie , I was all in until after NY that was when I felt it was over. With a low count I was worried somewhat about being viewed as a troll and was less forthcoming in posts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:29 PM

26. This excellent news calls for some dancing...

Great job Skinner/EarlG/Elad!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:23 PM

375. says something about me that my first thot

was 'I remember some of those followed by they have so much energy...'

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:31 PM

27. Sounds good, a lot of us can do better individually, and we can all do better collectively nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:31 PM

28. That's a lot of work that went into this

It sounds like a good starting point. Thanks for all the effort you all put into it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:32 PM

29. K&R!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:34 PM

30. It looks like you are taking all the fun out of serving on a jury.



Seriously, I think most of those changes will make DU a friendlier place. The main objection I have is that I'd still like to be notified with the results of the jury.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tobin S. (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:38 PM

40. Agreed--to the serious part!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:34 PM

31. ~ Kicked & Recommended ~

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:34 PM

32. I do a lot of SQA IRL if you need help. AND I get the cast off my hand today so I can be effective!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:40 PM

273. I'll bet you are looking forward to that!!

I had a cast on my hand for 6 weeks this winter, and it was such a relief to get it gone. Hope you are back up to speed quickly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:35 PM

34. "The privilege to serve on a Jury ...active Star membership." That's beautiful, man. n/t

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:33 PM

355. How many of us go "star-less", waiting to purchase hearts?

What percentage of memberships expire just before valentine's day?

There may be a short annual period when the jury pool is smaller.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:35 PM

35. "No kooky...content"? That's my go to. Oh well, ok.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:16 PM

120. I think the Lounge may still accept non-political kooky content. Don't lose hope!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:36 PM

37. On personal attacks...

I've served on at least two juries in the past week where the alerter should have simply refuted an assertion rather than trying to make a jury shut it down. That's not civility, that's weaselly and one of the juries sided with the alerter.

I'm glad to see that admin will on occasion overrule juries. That's long overdue.

Just curious: what percent of active posters will meet the new qualifications?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:56 PM

78. Don't know.

As long as we have enough people to cover the alerts, then we'll be okay.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:01 PM

84. That percent of active posters may change after the 16th, Gormy.

I know for a fact that I am not the only one who has severely reduced my active posting during this primary season, for all the reasons that the new rules are addressing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #84)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:46 PM

279. A lot are leaving and going to be leaving too after the treatment they've gotten here by...

 

...supposedly fellow Democrats.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #279)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:53 PM

364. Long time ago I learned I did not have to bite every fishhook around.

I don't forsee a need to empty out my ignore list till after the election.

The ignore/trash feature is a mightly help and might even be underutilized by some.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #84)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:04 PM

500. A-yup.

 

For my part, I'll be absenting myself until after the GE (and possibly permanently). I think most of these new rules are going to prove to be bad ideas. Reducing transparency seldom turns out well, and quite a few of the new rules rather obviously invite abuse.

It's all very "Democratic Party, circa 2016," though...it really is.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:36 PM

38. Overall I say the changes should be good. I'm looking forward to your tweaks too.

How about a definition or clarification of Democratic public figures? Does past elected Democratic person qualify? I have a past member of Congress from my state that I totally despised just as many of my fellow past co-workers did. I want to make sure he does not receive consideration for VP or any other top level position such as Secretary of Labor. He is part of the No Labels group.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:37 PM

39. Great, but I have one suggestion:

Re: jurors and alerters will not get to see results

As a frequent juror and an occasional alerter, I found it very helpful to see if my judgments were consistent with those of other jurors.

I hope you will consider keeping this element of the present system.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:39 PM

44. Agree; I posted this above.

If you strive to be a fair juror (I do) then it's really helpful for me to see when I've been way off base.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:40 PM

45. Yes--it appears several of us agree.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:07 PM

94. Me three

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:42 PM

195. I also agree.

And I never posted results to a forum. In my opinion doing that is wrong.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:24 PM

148. I also agree.

I would not post jury results, but always appreciate reading them for more information.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:52 PM

285. Don't you think one would be able to determine if they were off base or not

by seeing the post left or hidden?

For example if a post was hidden, and you voted to leave it, then you were off base. Or- if a post remains and you voted to hide, then again you would know you were off base.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #285)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:35 PM

392. I like knowing the explanations, and whether it was 6-1 vs 4-3 for example.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #392)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:25 PM

408. From what I read there'll no longer be an opportunity for comments when adjudicating offensive posts

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #408)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:38 PM

414. If you'll check my earlier posts, I (and others) suggested that

The admins reconsider this. In my post to which you're replying, I responded to a question about what info I could get from the full results that I couldn't get simply by knowing whether a post was hidden.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #414)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:41 PM

415. well I feel there will be no benefit from letting people post their judgemental remarks

Unless of course one's agenda is to create more drama and divisiveness

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #285)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:45 PM

393. The notification gives you a link back to what was judicated

Sometimes I've been asked to sit on a jury in a forum or group that I don't frequent. Other times while trying to make my decision I'll become interested in the thread as a whole and would like to easily go back. Having a link back makes it easier. As I said in a previous post, taking away the ability to see the results and see other jurors comments takes all the satisfaction out of serving....and also takes away a lot of the motivation to buy a star membership.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #285)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:56 PM

397. That would require that you go search for that thread and that post.

Not worth the effort. Also you wouldn't get the vote count.

Getting the results is like a little 'thank-you' for stopping what you are doing and serving on a jury.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #397)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:23 PM

406. You are provided a link to the post when you are asked to perform jury service

I mean one does have to read the offending post in order to decide how to vote. I find it hard to believe that getting back to the post one just judged could be that difficult.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #39)


Response to spooky3 (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:10 PM

106. I agree with that too

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:30 PM

168. I learn from reading others' opinions as well. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #39)


Response to spooky3 (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:12 PM

442. Not only do I agree, but even if it was left alone, the poster needs to know

 

Like "Your post was alerted on, but you won. It was left alone. Here are the results:"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #442)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:31 PM

455. Skinner has previously stated that this would freak out the poster.

I agree with him. It would only create an atmosphere in which people felt watched, stalked, or bullied for expressing their opinion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:38 PM

41. Thank you, Admins! The new DU rules look very promising!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:38 PM

42. Sounds like the DU I remember - the one I became addicted to

DU will have rules again!!!!!

Yea!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:39 PM

43. "Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group"

Two questions about this:

Will posts in the wrong forum/group now be hidden by juries (it appears that way)? Many posts are accidently posted in the wrong forum (GD vs GDP was a prime example, but GD vs LBN could be an ongoing example of people truly getting confused about where to post).

Since the sole role of hosts is to determine whether an OP violates the SoP .... the jury "rules" seem to incorporate both SoP and ToS violation .... is there any reason to continue with forum hosts?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:48 PM

59. ^^Good question^^^

Posting here to see the answer.

Now he did mention "hosts" in the explanation above, so I would assume that the basic set up would essentialy remain the same.

Glad you asked...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:58 PM

80. We will still have hosts.

And they will still have the job of enforcing the statements of purpose for their forums and groups.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:41 PM

48. Thanks, Skinner!

K&R.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:41 PM

49. It looks good. Thanks for the hard work to make this place better.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:41 PM

50. Thank you for letting us know where we stand

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:41 PM

51. TL:DR

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:42 PM

52. I found it sometimes helpful to evaulate posts in-thread ...

but I can undertsand the reason behind the change.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auggie (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:59 PM

81. Jurors will still get the necessary context.

But there will be a lot less noise.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:42 PM

53. I like all the changes except one. the one about the star requirement.

I now have to donate to get a star and sit on a jury? That seems a bit harsh. I can understand star members getting a 10 point bump for serving, but cutting out long time members I personally view as a step too far.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:45 PM

56. I think it's to show commitment to the website.

And I obviously don't know this at all, but I wonder if you could plead economic hardship if things were really, really difficult for you financially. And I also bet that if you posted somewhere that you were really hard up but want to be able to serve on juries, someone would buy you a star membership. DUers are often very generous.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #56)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:51 PM

64. I agree.

I don't doubt any of what you said, but that just seems a bit draconian to me. It also seems a bit unseemly. It's like "pay me money and I'll give you a bad let you be sheriff".

There are other measures to take, such as putting a longer wait time to unstated members after joining the community.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:57 PM

223. Good news is that now you can get a star for a dollar.

Used to be a certain amount, but they changed it to ANY amount.

see this page:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=star

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #56)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:39 PM

188. We cannot buy stars for someone else anymore.

Used to be we could, but not now.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #188)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:40 PM

192. Oh, I didn't know that.

I'm remembering from back in the day, lol. Thanks for the info!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #188)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:45 PM

200. Not directly, but you could paypal them some $ for the purpose.

I may do that for one or two folks.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 19, 2016, 02:25 PM

517. Prior to the required "subscription" model, DUers dis buy stars for other people.

And yes, they were consistently generous. My guess is that if the one-time "pay what you can" model is back, it doesn't really matter who makes the payment.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:06 PM

92. Serving on juries is a privilege.

They enforce our rules and they have the power to remove posts. We are entrusting them with an important duty, and we do not think it is inappropriate to restrict that duty to people who have demonstrated their commitment to the community.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #92)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:34 PM

175. So providing content ...

..and years of comments and page views that generate ad revenue is not commitment to you. So basically you equate community with paid subscribers. So some troll off the street who plops down a $20 gets more site cred than a long time member. Very illustrative of your priorities.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #175)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:59 PM

229. Also the 1000+ post requirement,though

I've enjoyed serving on juries. Had a start once (before the layoff)...

So we'll both be off the list, albeit for different reasons...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #229)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:06 PM

243. Well I'd be off...

For both even though I've been an almost daily reader since I started in 2009

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #243)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:13 PM

249. The world will continue to turn without me.

I view jury duty (both here and IRL) as a PRIVELEGE not a right or an onerous duty. YMMV

Regards

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #249)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:22 PM

259. Won't matter much to me....

As I expect I'll be participating less anyway but the problem is limiting the jury pool. I mean in real life homogenous jury pools are a problem. It will become so here as well.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #175)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:32 PM

265. Got to make up for the loss of all the "Berniebros" revenue somehow right?

 



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #265)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:43 PM

277. You do realize....

..that under the new rules this comment would be disallowed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #277)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:47 PM

280. You do realize

 

...that the new rules aren't in effect yet?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #175)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:02 PM

297. Trolls aren't dropping $20 to become members

In fact, most trolls won't pay anything. I'm not saying that those that don't pay are trolls. I'm just saying that trolls likely aren't paying.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #297)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:31 PM

316. You can get a star for $1.

 

n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #316)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:45 PM

325. And give up your real name, real email address, etc.

Unless you're real crafty.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #175)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:39 PM

321. Sold out!

 

When they don't get enough money or interest web sites will go, because trolls get in there (by any means necessary) and they take over, and know how to dominate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #175)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:11 PM

504. "Providing content?" That seems like a high handed way of saying

"Tossed my lousy opinion into the fray." Of course, that's only because the term "content provider" has come to mean anyone who rips off journalists by paraphrasing their junk and intermingling it with a strong dose of personal opinion and sometimes invective.

Come off it--this is a DISCUSSION board. The admins provide us the platform upon which we are allowed to have our little discussions.

If you think your "content" is so valuable, take it somewhere and SELL it. Far be it from any one of us to prevent you from getting full value for your opinings!

You've been here for seven years, and you've only "provided content" a couple of hundred times in all that time. I don't think the site will be in make or break territory if you choose to read and be silent.

It costs money to run a site. I'm grateful the admins are doing this work. I think they are worthy of their hire, they deserve to be able to make a living. and I don't begrudge them. I have seen DU go through many iterations since I found this place right after Gore wuz robbed, and I've stuck with it down the years because it's a good place to have a nice conversation. I'm not going to get off my ass and create a site for that purpose, so I'm glad someone else did. This place, too, is well laid out, easy to read, and easy to input. It's idiot proof, and that's all right with me, too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #92)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:55 PM

438. Seems to me

that the people who put poll taxes in place had that same argument. There are many loyal people here who just cannot afford it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:08 PM

98. Yeah, I mean, I'm not a star member, but I'm also not that concerned about serving on juries...

I don't even remember ever having a hide, so, my only interaction with them is serving on them.

I think it would be nice to allow those non-star members with a high number of posts (bump it up
to 2,500 or whatever for non-stars...something) to serve on juries. Otherwise, it's kind of like
paid moderator status, isn't really a jury of peers either (not that it is said or supposed to be).

I guess the only thing about it that does rub across the grain is that it kind of ignores that, without
the bulk of active non-star members, there wouldn't be nearly as much content or activity around
here. So, it'd be nice to give those non-paying, but very active members, a little bit of responsibility.
I don't consider myself an active member.

Oh, and I guess it could prove unhealthy to have jury powers in an even smaller number of hands.
We saw what happened during this (and other) primary season when jury powers got concentrated
into fewer hands.

I don't know, just my thoughts...but again, I've never actually been affected by the jury system
anyway, so...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kjones (Reply #98)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:38 PM

186. Good idea - those non-star members who have to face the advertising on this site are still playing

an important part of the existence of DU -and DU's revenue I suppose.

Man, when I log out, the advertising that then appears almost looks as busy as any other commercial site.

It's worth a few bucks to see that go away!



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:01 PM

295. Is there any minimum price to get a star?

I think it only costs as little as a dollar.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:44 PM

54. Outstanding!

Nicely done!

I look forward to these changes and getting back to the DU I once knew and loved.

Thanks, Skinner.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:45 PM

55. I might need a 'sarcasm shield' of some kind for my posts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:46 PM

57. Well i hope the new rules help and i promise to try to do better.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:47 PM

58. I have one quick question.

I'm pretty sure I understand your intention, but I want to be sure.

This part:

Jurors will no longer be asked to evaluate the post based on the alerter's comments and their own gut feeling. Instead they will be asked whether they believe the post breaks the specific rule selected by the alerter.


Means that we only judge the post on that one specific rule violation being alerted on. My question is, if we don't see that rule being broken, but do see another offense (e.g. the alert was for a personal attack, but the juror sees bigotry/sexism/racism, etc) in the post, is there a way for us to then alert for that offense?

Overall, it looks good! It's obvious you've put in a lot of effort in the changes, and I'm hopeful they'll resolve the issues here. Sometimes people just do better with a clear set of rules to refer to.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:07 PM

93. If you find the post after you are finished with jury service...

...you can send an alert on a different rule.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #93)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:33 PM

172. It's not a big deal anyway

I've only ever ran into such a couple of times, and I imagine they'll be a lot less of it now with the new set of rules.

Thanks for all the hard work on this, it's appreciated.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #93)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:47 PM

204. what you just said seems contrary to what you said upthread:

If a person sends an alert on a particular post, they cannot send another alert on the same post.

But a different person can send a different alert.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #204)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:55 PM

217. To clarify

If you are the person who sent the original alert, you cannot send a subsequent alert on the same post.

But if you are anyone else (including a juror on a post) you can send a subsequent alert.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:48 PM

60. I take it that ends grave-dancing and terms like DINO

Would that also end "thanks for sending the troll back to his bridge" threads?

Anything that gets us back to civil is welcome!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:51 PM

62. Hey hey, look at my shiny new star!

*polishes it*

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:51 PM

63. I find the 1000 post rule

a bit of an insult. I've taken the time to serve on many juries. Have been wondering why none as of late but I guess now I know.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notemason (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:26 PM

154. Agreed. "Star members who have been members for a year and have at least 100 posts"

would be fine IMO. Some of the most thoughtful members post the least often. And it is unlikely that a troll would pay real money to get a star just to do nefarious things on jury duty.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #154)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:35 PM

178. Thank you.

Once watched a member run up his post count by replying with a "." to many discussions. Where's the value in that?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:51 PM

65. Yaaaay! FINALLY!!!!! This is long overdue. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:51 PM

66. Kicked and recommended! Thank you Skinner and admin team...

Somewhere in this primary season I walked away from DU, it became entirely too toxic for me. As someone who tries to lead a healthy and constructive life, content it important to me. No matter what the platform is, be it television, film, internet, etc; I don't do negativity.

Thank you for this, I'm eager to regularly participate in discussions beginning on June 16.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #66)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:02 PM

513. I know how you feel, Gary.

I had to walk away, too. I'm glad to see there'll be some corrections imposed.

Thank you, Skinner!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:53 PM

68. So... we're to shut up and bow our heads..

 

... and not call out bad policies, losing strategies, corruption and outright lying?

You are asking us to be the Dem version of "Free Republic"?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modestybl (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:14 PM

115. You managed to get pretty much the opposite of what Skinner was saying. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modestybl (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:19 PM

130. I understand we are not to criticize Dem candidates from here on out...

 

... which is not what DU should be about. I've never posted from RW or propaganda sites (tho the HRC supporters have done that routinely against Sanders), and always on the basis of policy, not personality.

But, like the OIG report made clear, HRC blantantly lied and that can't be ignore - and I won't ignore this and anything else. If Sanders had done something this egregious, I would be the first to call him out on it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modestybl (Reply #130)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:35 PM

176. Here's a good example. "I don't agree with Bernie's characterization of his history of support or

lack thereof for gun legislation. For instance, see link1 and link2."

There, I didnt call him a liar even though its pretty much implied.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #176)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:50 PM

282. Thank you. This is a very good example of criticism vs bashing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modestybl (Reply #130)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:00 PM

334. Another example please?

 

Now show us one using Hillary's e-mail investigation!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SouthernDemLinda (Reply #334)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:20 PM

348. Sure, I dont agree with Bernie supporters characterization of the email investigation.

Here is why, see link1, link2 etc.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modestybl (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:04 PM

300. Calling out bad policies, losing strategies, corruption and outright lying has always been permitted

And still is. But you can't make baseless claims to attack Democrats.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #300)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:43 AM

472. Nope, this is different:

Support Democrats
Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).


I predict a mess.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modestybl (Reply #68)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:44 PM

512. No, he's asking you/us to STOP being the Dem version of Free Republic. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:53 PM

71. This change: Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after Jury service is complete


I'm very sure that this change will lessen involvement by DU members.

Seeing the results of a Jury regarding an Alert acts as a viewable guage as to the temperment of D.U. and how our own interpretations of the rules compares to other Jurers.

This is the only change that I disagree with.

Thanks for your efforts!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #71)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:35 PM

179. I agree. It's useful & informative to see the results. n/t

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #71)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:03 PM

399. Thirded (n/t)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #71)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:38 AM

480. That combined with the 1,000 post rule

I wonder if this site will have enough members willing to serve on juries? I personally don't mind not serving, but I'm curious about that. I bet there are many long-time members here with under 1,000 posts.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:54 PM

73. Thank you Skinner, it looks good

I do have a request though. Not to be included in the rules, but to make one rule easier.

Is it possible to have a stickied/or ? checklist somewhere that lists known right wing sites that people should not source information or articles or blogs/vlogs from? It can take a lot of time to research a unknown source, and sometimes I can't even be sure it is considered right wing enough that it shouldn't be linked here. The Hill is an example of this. I know it's a conservative site, but doesn't have the extreme coverage that places like Breitbart does. A list of absolute no no's would be great.

I think it would really be helpful for newbies, and also for the rest of us who try to stick to the rules. It should be a living list that that be modified as necessary, maybe by mods or something?

Just a thought.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:09 PM

99. That's an excellent idea.

seconded.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

144. +1. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:29 PM

167. I agree.

This would be very helpful.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:37 PM

183. Posts should be able to reference RW pages when demolishing them or posting excerpts as examples.

RW sites should not be allowed as information sources or LBN sources.

On the other hand, it is important to know how the other side thinks. I sometimes skim RW sites so that I know

1) What is making them antsy at a given time.
2) How different segments of the right approach topics differently.
3) What arguments / talking points they use. I don't have a TV.

Referencing talking points and their stock arguments is useful when showing great ways of debunking and refuting them.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #183)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:57 PM

222. That does not change my request

Skinner has already adressed that in the rules...if you link to something that is considered right wing, it should not be done if you are trying to use it as a legitimate source of your point. Unless, of course, your thread/post is about making fun of or otherwise disabusing that source.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #222)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:07 PM

245. A list might be good. & Skinner posted the rule which shows that RW links OK in the way I suggest.

Skinner wrote:

The rule says

"Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website."

Thankfully that is consistent with my suggestion.


A list might help decide on some borderline sites, like one poster who worried about sourcing "The Hill".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #245)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:37 PM

269. After I posted, Skinner replied to someone else that there won't be a list

So everyone has to do their own research. I used The Hill as an example of being a conservative source, but not a super nasty one. Still, I question stories they post that cannot be found on mainstream news sources. I saw both sides using this source lately, a lot, and while I don't alert, I asked people not to use it...but I guess from now on I'll just keep my nose to myself and let people do what they want.

Most right wing stuff is pretty obvious, but things I am not sure on, I try to find out from wiki, or even just googling to ask if it's liberal or conservative. Sometimes the only way to find out is to start googling all the founders and editors and so on, and it can become exhausting, and often I'm still left unsure.

I will shut up now.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #269)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:42 PM

323. What is Right wing or not, seems to depend on who posted the link and

whether the article or what ever is favorable to a certain group around here or not.
Seeing how our news media, over all, are owned and run by Republicans or Right wing groups, this could get kinda sticky.
In fact that is the very problem right now.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #323)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:24 PM

349. We've had a rash of articles posted from THE HILL

And after researching it, because to me the posted articles were all kinda sketchy or conspiracy stuff, it is a conservative site, but looking at the site without researching it, it is not that obvious. Most of the stuff looks legit...just every now and then a sketchy story comes up.

Both sides here have posted from that rag. Bernie people posted stuff about Hillary, and Hillary people posted stuff about Bernie.

I'm still wanting to know if that particular sight is taboo. I suspect it is, but apparently a lot of people here don't think it is.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #183)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 08:16 PM

419. Totally agreed

Shoot the message if necessary. Not the messenger. Additionally, I've seen the definition of "RW" pages expand from "constant obvious total bullshit pages made from someone's basement" to "legitimate news pages that don't constantly post things I love".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:50 PM

210. Thirded.

That's my biggest gripe about this primary season.....WAY too many right wing sources used.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:33 PM

266. No. That makes it too easy to troll

The only time someone finds themselves in that kind of situation is when they're desperately looking for negative information to bash someone with (usually a democrat like Hillary Clinton). No credible news sources are available so they link from fringe sites. It takes 2 seconds to check out the other content on the site and know that it's probably a RW rag. If someone doesn't have time to do that, then they probably shouldn't post the message.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #73)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:16 AM

497. I like this suggestion.

A list would be helpful. I'm familiar with some right wing sites, but certainly not all of them!

A list like this would help me, not just in what I should or shouldn't post in DU, but also on what articles I should and shouldn't read in general.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:56 PM

76. Thank you!

It's obvious you, EarlG and Elad have put much time and thought into this. I hope it works as you expect.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:57 PM

79. Understood.




Let's move forward from here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:01 PM

82. Does "No divisive group attacks" mean no discussion of Third Way vs. traditional Democrats?

 

Some DUers see a sharp distinction between the two.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #82)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:06 PM

242. It serves the Third Way to deny the existence of any distinction.

These rules do not surprise me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #82)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:37 PM

413. You will stop using this photo after 16th

It is very hurtful and disrespectful.

Hertopos

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hertopos (Reply #413)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 08:33 PM

423. To whom?

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #82)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:42 PM

435. Calling anyone you disagree with third way is an insult .

And really means you are not a 'real' Democrat...which was on the list.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:01 PM

83. You have to pay to be on a jury?

Was this a Hillary campaign idea? #InBefore16

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #83)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:08 PM

97. Generally, don't you find that free things and opportunities are less appreciated? Plus,


whatever works to keep the trolls out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #83)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:52 PM

286. Yes. Just like the nominee. Pay to play.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:01 PM

85. I like "Don't bash Democratic public figures".

Folks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Terry McCauliffe and Rahm Emanuel may not be loved by some DUers but they are still Democratic public figures and it is tiresome to see some of the attacks on them in a Democratic forum.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:16 PM

122. +10^10^100

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:24 PM

149. "May not be loved"

is a bit of an understatement. But I think you can still talk about their policies and why they are wrong without bashing them.

This is a rule change that I have concern about. It is important that we be allowed to vigorously debate whether our elected officials are carrying out democratic ideals as well as what those democratic ideals should be.

I guess we will see how it plays out if there are any negative effects to the new rule.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hueymahl (Reply #149)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:04 PM

238. I agree with hueymahl and this concerns me too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:40 PM

190. Agree 100%

I'm so tired of seeing attacks against other democratic figures on this site.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:49 PM

209. So, what's legitimate criticism versus "bashing" Democratic public figures? All those names deserve

to be criticized for how they have done their jobs as Democrats. This site is Democratic Underground, not Democratic Booster Club, and will not be turned into the cheap seats in the cheering section, either during elections or between them. Factual criticism of the leadership, even the Nominee, is always part of being a good Democrat. A healthy skepticism of those in power, and criticism of abuses of power by public figures -- whether Democrats or Republicans -- is simply part of being a good citizen. Do you disagree?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #209)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:23 PM

261. Take Rahm Emanuel as an example. I would vote to hide this post on the grounds of "bashing":

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #261)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:35 PM

319. Reasonable.

But, I would hope that something doesn't have to have been published in the WaPo to qualify as not "bashing."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #209)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:53 PM

287. That's easy.

Legit criticism: "DWS's position on pay day lenders is not in line with Democratic ideals"
Bashing: "DWS is a DINO and a horrible human being!"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #287)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:03 PM

298. +1. "Hillary should not have voted for the IWR"

versus "Killary the warmonger".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #298)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:09 PM

304. Exactly. Nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #298)


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #287)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:47 PM

327. Agree, those are easy cases. But, it's the hard cases that are the problem, and

that's why there's a presumption of First Amendment protection, something that some on this board have expressly asserted doesn't extend to DU. I don't think we should be making up community standards on a case-by-case basis, and need some sort of guiding principle.

For my own .02 worth, I sorta subscribe to the old standard applied to pornography cases - if it has "redeeming social value," even if raunchy and offensive to some sensibilities, it's protected speech. Then, there's Justice Stewart's more sensual pornography definition, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #327)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:04 PM

371. "Hard cases" will probably end up with 4-3 jury decisions, one way or the other.

If you call Hillary a "Third-Way Corporatist" you take your chances with a jury.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #327)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:00 AM

458. The 'first amendment' is only a protection from the government. (As are all the BoR rights.)

It's "Congress shall make no law..", not "Anybody, anywhere shall make no rule..."

We are on virtual private property here, not even in the public commons. As such, any rule (serious, silly, or anything in between) is perfectly legal.

There is no 'protected speech' on a private, non-government website.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:48 PM

281. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:02 PM

296. Yea, no more holding our own's feet to the fire or calling out authoritarian and right-wing...

 

...tendencies and behavior by "Democrats".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:17 PM

443. There have to be some exceptions

 

Like in 2009, could we have bashed Rod Blagojevich? Can we bash someone under FBI watch?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:02 PM

86. These changes look good, thanks Skinner, EarlG and Elad...

for working to bring DU back to being a civil, informative site again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:03 PM

87. The civility and political rules are clear and forceful as phrased.

I don't think there can be any confusion about what they do and don't permit. I serve on a lot of juries, and sometimes I have struggled with unpleasant posts that seem borderline rather than a clear ToS violation. These guidelines will make jury service much easier.

A LOT of posts that have been allowed to stand over the past few months would have been hidden according to these rules, and using using DU would have been a lot more pleasant for everyone. I look forward to June 16.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:05 PM

89. Does "the portion of the thread relevant to the alerted post" mean all posts in the 'ancestral line'

of replies back to, and including, the OP? Or is it, say, limited to just the post it replies to, or somewhere in between?

(I'm guessing it doesn't include any replies - could that cause problems if an alerter interprets something as a personal insult, when the person its 'aimed' at in fact doesn't see it as insulting at all, and actually says so?)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #89)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:09 PM

103. The entire "ancestral line."

But not the "next of kin".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:05 PM

90. Yikes, you probably won't have too many posting on here from June until Nov.

 

Stories and news will come out against Dems. Many Dems do incredibly stupid, dangerous, or unlawful things, but "support them"... Were we supposed to say nice things about Zell Miller or Lieberman when they went to the RNC conventions? They were "Dems". Should we call out a Dem for pushing pay day loans. Debbie pulled her support after receiving massive attention to the issue from progressives, Warren, and her opponent.

BTW, FL primary for the state level is actually August. I can't say who I like more? Can't debate issues? I know you are trying to protect the most vitriolic posts about Clinton. We know where and who this site has supported since she announced. So, I understand, your site, don't bitch about the "presidential nominee". But not to discuss any Dems doing stupid fucking shit or the WRONG shit!!! Is just absolutely NOT the way you promote progressive agenda. And if you don't push Clinton and hold her feet to the fire in regards to progressive agendas, guess what, you won't get them.

And I guess since I was born the year Reagan was elected, raised in VT, literally watched my chance at an environmental science career wash up with funding being withheld from the Gore election and Bush literally taking away funding the very year I graduated, yeah, I've seen the worst that this country has had to offer for politicians.

I did go and see her speak one time. It was when she and many other women were campaigning for Obama. She sounded better "unscripted" and with Obama's message. She was a lot smaller than I had imagined. And sounded better live than on TV. But the other speakers were amazingly better. She was hustled in late, hustled back out quickly. And it was a wall block. She has. I access to the American people that would question what her goals are? What is her "big dream"? We are stuck in obstruction of Obama years. He's been barely steering the ship off the rocky shoals for 8yrs. America does better with goals, lofty, soaring, and inclusive. The woman thing means nothing to me; ive got the body parts too, and believe me ain't nothing more special about her lady bits than mine. I want ideas! I want a nation that isn't holding people back. I don't want to think, shit, I should move to Europe or even Canada to give my kid a better life. Ours is full of debt and excludes so many. We are dead last in so many measure is quality life in regards to the rest of the industrial world, that it hurts to be "American" and not be in that upper 10%. And I really don't think she knows how people feel or she does and she doesn't care (which is worse). I assume she's been in the bubble too long and been managed too many times, that she doesn't have a real clue. Look at the media bubble in DC and NY, clueless for the major part because they are in their bubble as well. (They seemed shocked that Clinton lied to them about the e-mail situation).

Anyway, I've never thought too much about complaining about Dems being idiots, dissapoimtments, or bought out lock stock and barrel... Supporting politicians isn't how progress is often fought for. So, I can shut up about her, but I think Debbie should lose her primary. Oh, btw, Debbie wouldn't survive ToS, she has many times supported republicans over Dems in FL... So, what's up with that? I like the crazy Grayson for Senate over the "establishment" pick. I hope he can win both the primary and the general. Harry Reid has no business telling us who to pick or try to slight the hand of this state. He's leaving anyway. He would have lost his own state if he hadn't had a crazy tea party candidate to run against. Fl is hard enough to overcome the voting suppression and Republicans controlling the machines... (Yeah funny, go from one of the more progressive states to FL to live - most regressive).

I guess, for many of us, the primary season isn't even "started". It is a bit, but the ads won't even start until July. And it's based on a numbers game because barely anyone votes in those. Hoping people that Bernie brought along will pay attention. That they will go and vote or the lower races. That's how we get our eventual elites. We need the good ones at the ground level to make their way up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:28 PM

163. I'm concerned about this also

There is a very real risk that all the debate will be sucked out of the forum by alerts from true believers who find a D in front of someone's name is more important than that candidate supporting democratic ideals.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hueymahl (Reply #163)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:36 PM

180. See my #176 above. Skinner please feel free to correct me if I am off. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:21 PM

308. "write in"

 

Oh thank gawd, she didn't say "write in" that and a little dough will get you a gold star.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:31 PM

411. +1 !

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:19 PM

431. Tiny Dreams vs. Tiny Hands

That'll be the GE tag.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:01 PM

439. l look at it differently

What is the point of criticising your party during an election year? Do we want to help elect Republicans?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #439)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:14 PM

453. I live in FL and we still have primaries in August for state and local races.

 

Or do we no longer do primaries?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:05 PM

91. K&R!

Looking forward to all the changes!

Thank you for all the hard work to make it so!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:07 PM

95. Thanks. Can't wait. K&R

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:07 PM

96. Not sure I understand the point of the "gradation" of jury choices.

 

If a majority choose either of the first two, its hidden? Is there an effect of 4-3 with 4 being "close but breaks the rule" that is different from 4-3 with 4 "clearly breaking the rule."

Also, if a post survives one rule, and one goes to alert on it, will the options of rule breaking be limned to those rules for which it has not yet been challenged?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #96)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:14 PM

113. The purpose of the gradation of jury choices...

...is to provide the administrators with some insight into the jury members' thinking if we need to review a decision. Without jury comments, we have no way of knowing how strongly jurors felt.

Also, it can help us find the violations that are clear-cut, and see who is really going over the line.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #113)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:45 PM

199. You could always retain the comments as....

...you are not showing them to anyone anyway.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:09 PM

101. Looks good. I'm sure there will be refinements, too,

as there is experience with the new system.

Thanks for doing this. If it creates better discussions, as I think it will, it will be a great boon!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:10 PM

104. Sounds like a successful plan. Thanks for your efforts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:10 PM

105. A couple of questions regarding hidden posts:

1. Will the 5-hide suspension go back into effect next week?

2. There are a number of people with six, seven, all the way up to sixteen hides right now. What will the ramifications of that be?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #105)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:21 PM

136. Answers.

1) We have a stopgap that will flag people who get five hides or more.

2) They won't last long, I think.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:10 PM

107. See ya after the 16th

I cannot abide by these rules. They actively support the dilution of what it means to be a progressive. This is just sad.

"Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like. "


These words have no meaning here anymore. Considering you've had countless obvious paid plants from Brock here, it is a rule that cements this site as just propaganda.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pengu (Reply #107)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:19 PM

129. Not having folks like you claim everyone they disagree with is a paid Brock shill is worth doubling

what I am contributing to the site.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #129)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:20 PM

132. Ok?

Who cares?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pengu (Reply #132)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:20 PM

134. You, apparently. You cared enough to respond. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #134)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

143. smh

Ya'll petty.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pengu (Reply #143)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:36 PM

381. How can we miss you

if you won't go?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to charlyvi (Reply #381)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:07 PM

452. Unfair I was taking a drink when I scrolled down lol

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pengu (Reply #107)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:25 PM

151. See ya,

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pengu (Reply #107)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:53 PM

331. The thought police...

 

will give you a gold star or kick you ass out?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:11 PM

108. This is great news. I came to DU in 2001 to support Democrats.

Lots of good new changes. I would like to suggest that in addition to rejecting known right-wing sites, that we also reject known kooky-conspiracy sites. ... Well check that... I guess that is in the current TOS here:

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

Please keep the above paragraph in the TOS.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:12 PM

110. Yes!!! Man, it will feel so good for DU to be DU again.

Thank you guys so much!!! I don't have much, but I just sent an extra small donation. Sorry it can't be more, but if DU becomes a sane, welcoming place for Democrats again, I swear will find SOME way to donate more. You guys work so hard...thank you again.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:14 PM

111. Very cool. Liking the sound of the new jury system.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:14 PM

112. Bravo!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:14 PM

116. Caution

The great mass of Americans are not bound by allegiance to one party of the other. What matters to most folks is not the parties or the personalities that lead them. What matters to most Americans is the issues that affect them every day.
If the Democratic Party, and its surrogates, start shutting people down because they perceive them to not fall in line with party policy, they will find themselves isolated and in risk of losing the upcoming election. To win, the Dems are going to have to demonstrate an inclusiveness and a willingness to listen.
I hope DU will openly acknowledge that, and act on it, instead of going into a protective shell, which I believe will ultimately lead to the Party's defeat in November.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wibly (Reply #116)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:22 PM

138. This is not the Democratic party this is an owner operated web site. Don't bash Democrats here

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wibly (Reply #116)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:22 PM

374. It's going to be just like the talk!

 

Frankly my dear I think they have shot themselves in the foot.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:15 PM

117. I notice that about 98% of the recs to this announcement are members of the HRC group.

I'll have to wait and see how this goes. I think criticism of our candidates is democratic.
It needn't be nasty, but without it, this site will be the echo chamber many of us have been
dreading.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #117)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:16 PM

121. Don't you have your jack shit or something other web site to keep bashing Hillary? Go there

We don't want any Hillary bashing here. She is the party nominee.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #121)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:18 PM

126. I don't think insulting posts like yours will be allowed under the new rules.

You have just illustrated the "echo chamber" of HRC worship I spoke of.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #126)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:20 PM

133. What's insulting. You have your Hillary bashing web site call Jack something

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #133)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:27 PM

159. "jack shit" is insulting.

Senator Sanders is a highly respected member of Congress and has garnered about two fifths
of the primary vote. Millions and millions of people. I doubt if he will be the nominee, but when dissent is quashed,
well, we've seen throughout history what comes of that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #159)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:51 PM

437. I don't quite understand how the jack website survives now

The primary is over. And they can't be considered progressive if they bash the Democratic nominee, and they slander DU quite a bit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #126)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:24 PM

150. Your use of the phrase "HRC worship" is noteworthy too.

Just sayin'.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #150)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:30 PM

171. When no critcism is allowed--what do you call it?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #171)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:49 PM

208. a lot of people will have to learn the relevant differences between criticism and name-calling

I suppose a lot of people will have to learn the relevant differences between criticism (e.g., "X policy is bad due to...") and name-calling ("HRC worship").

That those relevant difference are both obvious and simplistic, we may presume the only one's unable to distinguish these differences are those who simply refuse to learn the differences.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #208)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:27 PM

314. I believe the names like "HRC worship" came about

After repeated attempts to discuss policy were refuted by "Bernie isn't a Democrat" and worse.
We Bernie supporters have wanted to have civil discussions for many months and others who post here have been unwilling to discuss issues. Let's talk about issues if we want the label Democratic Anything.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #121)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:00 PM

292. "jack shit" website is a snotty cheap shot sgainst progressive Dems

 

You seem to love division, yet whinge on about "unity" being demanded. Good luck with that one mate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #292)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:54 PM

366. As near as I can tell, it's a website that exists for the sole purpose of taking pot-shots ...

... at this web site and the members of this web site. It comes across as being "anti-DU" rather than pro- anything else. In my opinion, it's the final stop for the malcontents who were banned from here, or who "self-deport" because they don't like the rules. Or, besides "gossiping" about DU members, it also seems to be a clubhouse for plotting and targeting.

I suppose if that sort of thing is important to someone, then they've certainly found a place where they can feel fulfilled and realize their purpose in life.

Aside from that, I see it as a place that's worthy of our contempt and ridicule.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #366)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:16 PM

402. Whether you realize it, you've just described the troll-haven

That is Hillary Clinton Supporters dot com, as well.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rob H. (Reply #402)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:21 PM

405. That's not a site that I visit. If you see someone touting it or encouraging defection ...

... then I'd encourage you to post your opinions of it. Beyond that, I have no opinion of that site one way or another.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #366)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:05 PM

440. As near as I can tell,

you don't know what you are talking about. It is apparent that you have visited JPR. There is no tolerance for pot-shots or discussions about DU or any of the members on DU.

Your view of JPR is as informed as my view of the secret Hillary clubhouse somewhere on the intertubes. I hear that it is where Hillary supporters plot attacks on Bernie supporters here on DU. I have never been there, and all I know if what I have heard from malcontents who just want to stir shit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #440)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:29 PM

445. Sure.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #117)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:27 PM

157. Probably because we have been the targets of most of the nastiness here.

I'm looking forward to the end of that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #157)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:54 PM

215. the targets of most of the nastiness here.

 

Perhaps (I doubt it)

How about targets a smug, nose in the air dismissal? Do they not get a say?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #215)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:58 PM

225. The objections to the civility rules from one corner is evidence enough. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #157)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:07 PM

302. ridiculous narcissism

 

Majority of Sanders people were all about the issues. Clinton side usually trafficked in schoolmarm snide replies , appeals to authority and the math defence.

In no way were the Clinton people on the board on the short end of the nasty stick. I think they conflate Hillary and the establishment (who have flaws on some issues) for themselves.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #302)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:18 PM

307. The objections to the new civility rules from one corner is evidence enough. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #307)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:38 PM

320. I am not objecting in the slightest, simply saying it's a 2 way street

 

Clinton people on here (some) seem to think it is their birthright to treat Sanders people like they are Republicans. This group usually is unswervingly to the right of the progressive Sanders Democrats
on many issues (if not in voiced support thereof, then in refusing to posit a defence of the Clinton positions on them). Instead these soft right, plazzy centrists actually have the inherent cognitive dissonace to accuse us liberal leftists as being proxy agents for the right wing. Alice through the looking glass indeed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #320)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:52 PM

329. You are not the only Bernie supporter here. You mentioned narcissism? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #329)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:56 PM

333. I never claimed I was, nor that I spoke for them.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #157)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:50 PM

361. Bear in mind Newsmax, where you appear isn't going to be on the approved sources last...

 

And cry me a river on the "we" bullshit Steve Lessor v.2
You gave as good as you got.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #361)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:54 PM

367. Sure it will as it will when I appear on Fox. You are twisting Skinners rules

"Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website. "

I look forward to you trying to be civil. Good luck.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #367)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:11 PM

372. You first...

 



There's a first time for everything I guess...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #117)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:12 PM

248. Well, I voted for Bernie yesterday

But I like the changes.
Only have 900 or so posts so I'm off the juries but yeah, REGARDLESS of what I have said about Secretary Clinton, or what she has said, etc.. SHE IS (PRESUMPTIVLY) THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. It's find if someone doesn't support her, but they are going to get rightfully called on it if they claim to be a Democrat and don't support her.

I like Bernie's policies better. He has lost for all intents and purposes. Now the thing is to stop Trump. Period. Whatever it takes, whosoever gets told to STFU or tossed off of here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #117)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 08:54 PM

426. Of course

Those are the people it's designed to please.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:16 PM

119. Good to see. How about not letting people use Polls to create an "enemies list".

I have been reluctant to vote in polls since I saw the data of the list of people who voted a certain way in one poll cut and pasted into a post of how many "bad" people supported an issue.

Not so happy with the polls that basically ask "do you still beat you wife, Yes or No" either.

Maybe having the rules come up when creating a poll would be a good idea.

I think that the polls are a good way of evaluating what people think on an issue, but I have not seen a very good poll question is some time.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:17 PM

123. long overdue. the rules system worked very well, the jury system has proven quite flawed

albeit with certain advantages, so the hybrid idea is a great one.

one question -- jurors will be taken to a separate screen to evaluate the alerted post -- does this mean a juror can't see context?

how would one determine civility? there are things a post could say that would be welcome when referring to trump, but verboten when referring to a fellow du'er. seeing the alerted post alone might not be enough context.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #123)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:19 PM

131. Jurors will be able to see the context.

They will see the full line of posts leading to the post they are judging.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #131)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

142. ah, brilliant.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #131)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:23 PM

389. A quibble about context for alerted post

As I understand, the only context on an alert will be just the direct ancestors back to the OP. The way things have been on many alerts to date, one really needs at least the context of older siblings. In many threads, sibling posts are the main back and forth of the discussion, especially where they are nominally responses to the OP but really responses to older siblings.

For example, in a thread with 100 posts, an alert on the last post, a "reply" to the OP with 20 older siblings, would present to a jury with only the OP as a context.

Maybe things will be so different under the new system it won't matter, but under the current system I have needed that additional context over a third of the time.

Obviously I do not know whereof I speak.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:18 PM

124. K & R and thank you for your hard work! nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:18 PM

125. So paying members will sit in judgement of us all. No thanks and buh bye.

I do hope the fifty diehards who stay have a good time telling each other how wonderful they all are.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #125)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:19 PM

128. Bye and remember the thing about the door on the way out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:19 PM

127. These changes seem like a move in the right direction. Thanks!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #127)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:10 PM

340. You don't know how correct you actually are.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:21 PM

135. Thank you - good job

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:22 PM

137. Lots of positive changes here.

Looks like a good way to reduce overall forum drama. While I may not personally like a few of the changes (Jury duty for paying members only, for instance; paywalls suck), they do make sense in the grand scheme of things.

Much needed changes. Here's to DU's future improvement.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:22 PM

139. QUESTION: Will "Jury Blacklists" be eliminated too? (nt)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #139)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

146. Not sure.

We don't think they are nearly as important under the new system, because identities will be harder to figure out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #146)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:18 PM

256. I think the blacklists prevent a lot of stalking...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #256)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:12 PM

341. ^^^This^^^

I'm sure it has.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #256)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:43 PM

360. With the new rules, let them, they will lose their juror privileges. I may empty my blacklist

Assuming I understand this correctly it will be crystal clear to Skinner and EarlG if folks are not adjudicating issues fairly and they will take action.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:22 PM

140. Now this sounds like a plan!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

141. With the move to GE standing, will Admin permit User Name changes now or after November? . . .

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #141)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:25 PM

153. We do not have plans to do so at this time. (nt)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:23 PM

145. Q: where is the list of prohibited right-wing publications, authors, or pundits?

From the Political rules -- "Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits."

Seems like this would be impossible to create or maintain.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john978 (Reply #145)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:25 PM

152. There is no list.

Members are responsible for the content they bring here. If you don't know whether a source is right-wing, then you probably shouldn't post it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #152)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:38 PM

185. But what if it is accurate....

Even the national enquirer was correct about John Edwards

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #185)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:39 PM

187. The rule says

"Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #187)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:49 PM

207. And you risk being alerted...

...to oblivion by the believers in that candidate who don't care if it us true. Take the Edwards situation for example. People didn't claim it was untrue only that it was from the enquirer. And I fully expect any source not sufficiently in love with Hillary to be declared a right wing news source. And thus you limit debate by limiting the sources allowed in debate. Strange way to have open discourse.

I think what you really want is a high fidelity echo chamber without distractions like "information"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #207)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:09 PM

246. And the new jury rules say the admins can overrule a jury's decision.

Again, the key is, "Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #246)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:20 PM

258. And I'm betting it won't....

...work out like you think it will. I can easily see someone legitimatly criticizing a democrat in a conservative district being squelched because 'you know he is the best we can get' in that district.

All I see these rule doing is rendering discussion to the usual pap of 'oooo look how evil the republican are' with little to no criticism of the flaws in the Democratic Party. You cannot argue for the need for systematic change without some claiming you are harming the party in the process. Hell the you have to support dems rule alone guts any negotiating power a person has. If a politician know you can't or won't withhold you support they don't have to listen to you. Unless you have lots of money to spread around.

And I certainly can see pushes for primary opponents being squelched as damaging to party.

All DU will end up being is a clap clap club and atm for politicians.
It certainly won't live up to the 'underground' part of its name.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #258)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:06 PM

301. I agree with your analysis - seems DU wants to be the definition of establishment. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john978 (Reply #145)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:33 PM

432. I wonder if Fox news employees are allowed to post here

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #432)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:44 PM

436. {{{snort}}} Oh no you didn't!!! eom

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:24 PM

147. Oh good now Joe Lieberman.....

...and Dan lapinski supporters can get the respect they deserve here. /sarcasm

Oh