Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:02 AM
Lithos (23,189 posts)
Old I/P guidelines (for reference)
This discussion thread is pinned. Welcome to the Democratic Underground Israeli/Palestinian Affairs discussion forum. As you know, this is where you may discuss issues surrounding the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. These can be very emotional issues for many. In order to facilitate rational discourse, we have found it wise to implement a few guidelines to supplement the general DU rules for discussing I/P issues that one will not find elsewhere on the website. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the following guidelines. Offending threads will be locked or pulled. Offending posts may be deleted. Those who repeatedly violate these guidelines may be banned. If you are in doubt, please Private Message the forum moderators. Who is Welcome In the I/P Forum, who is not:
Concerning the overall nature of the post:
Proper subject matter: New Threads
General
Civility
A note on sources:
Proper use of certain words:
Our goal is to provide a forum where issues concerning Israel and Palestine may be discussed openly but intelligently in an atmosphere of mutual respect for opposing sides. Please help us towards this end. If you have any questions, please contact the board monitors or the site administrators. Thank you
|
23 replies, 4393 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| Lithos | Dec 2011 | OP | |
| Lithos | Dec 2011 | #1 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Dec 2011 | #3 | |
| Lithos | Dec 2011 | #4 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Dec 2011 | #5 | |
| Lithos | Dec 2011 | #6 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Dec 2011 | #11 | |
| oberliner | Dec 2011 | #12 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Dec 2011 | #13 | |
| oberliner | Dec 2011 | #8 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Dec 2011 | #2 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Dec 2011 | #7 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Dec 2011 | #9 | |
| Lithos | Dec 2011 | #10 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Dec 2011 | #14 | |
| Behind the Aegis | Dec 2011 | #15 | |
| Lithos | Dec 2011 | #16 | |
| Behind the Aegis | Dec 2011 | #17 | |
| gaelic | Jan 2012 | #18 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Jun 2012 | #19 | |
| Ruby the Liberal | Jun 2012 | #20 | |
| LeftishBrit | Jul 2012 | #21 | |
| Violet_Crumble | Jul 2012 | #22 | |
| shira | Aug 2012 | #23 |
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:10 AM
Lithos (23,189 posts)
1. At this point...
|
Not sure how anyone on a Jury would be able to enforce the TOS extensions including:
- Apologist accusations - Nazi comparisons - Zionist/Jew; Palestinian/Terrorist conflations - Use of images, etc. - Bigotry bias (which has in the past proven to range for blatantly obvious to subtle.) I have asked Skinner how that would work and how a Jury would know just how this plays out as a general rule in I/P. I've not gotten an answer yet. |
Response to Lithos (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:23 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
3. I might be confused, but don't the admin or that MIR lot deal with TOS violations?
|
A jury just deals with the post itself and decides if it's a violation of the statement of purpose for the group. So if we alert on any posts here, we just point to the old guidelines (or hopefully a revised new flashy edition) and say it's against the statement of purpose?
|
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #3)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:36 AM
Lithos (23,189 posts)
4. A small future fact
|
The admins are trying to work themselves out of a job.
The jury system will not work two different TOS's well, or one which requires deeper subject knowledge. L- |
Response to Lithos (Reply #4)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 02:10 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
5. The same problem would affect quite a few groups I suspect...
|
The first one that sprang to mind for me is what used to be the Gungeon. I don't know the first thing about guns, except that I don't like them, and if I ended up on a jury for an alert from that group, I wouldn't have any deep subject knowledge at all. I'd just have to judge the post based on what the statement of purpose for the group is and hope for the best. When it comes to the do's and dont's of the old forum guidelines, most of them don't need deep subject knowledge. If someone calls another person a name like terrorist apologist or Likudnik, it should be a no-brainer that it's got to be hidden, coz the guidelines don't allow it. And when it comes to bigoted sources, where someone on a jury who hasn't had any exposure to it might get a bit lost, it might help to put a list of bigoted sources in the statement of purpose. Which will end up being a long toilet roll that very few might possibly read, but it's an idea...
Is there any middle ground between using the Jury service system and the old moderating system? I can't think of any, but I wish there was something... |
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #5)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 02:28 AM
Lithos (23,189 posts)
6. When you talk about RKBA
|
You get into a whole convoluted bit. At its best it is a discussion about the 2nd Amendment, but at its worst it is a flagrant excuse for people who are promoting other agendas.
The forums which has the biggest problem are those involving Civil Rights which does include GLBT, RT and I/P to a large extent. In many respects, you have to have paid your dues before certain topics are even potentially explorable what with the weight of history, the code words and loaded language which often are used and abused by those with agendas. |
Response to Lithos (Reply #6)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:00 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
11. I'm not good at acronyms. What's RKBA?
|
When it comes to the jury system, I'm sure it'll work well enough for civility issues and people calling each other morons and fascists, but after what I saw in GD this morning, I don't think it's going to work when it comes to alerts concerning bigotry against minority groups, though it sure worked well enough for NASCAR fans being stereotyped in the same thread, I noticed.
|
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #11)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:47 AM
oberliner (22,339 posts)
12. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
|
US Constitution: 2nd Amendment.
|
Response to oberliner (Reply #12)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:00 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
13. Thanks. The K had me stumped...
|
One of my guesses was 'Right....uh...uh...what starts with K?...Bear....Arms'
|
Response to Lithos (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 08:36 AM
oberliner (22,339 posts)
8. So are we on the honor system here?
|
Should posts that violate these rules be alerted on or what?
|
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:12 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
2. You should pin this thread....
|
I figure right now the only thing that can really be enforced is the stuff about new threads, right?
|
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Violet_Crumble This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:53 PM
Crunchy Frog (16,898 posts)
9. So then is the new I/P group pretty much exactly the same as the old one?
|
That's my impression anyway.
I had been hoping to get a chance to see how it would operate under the new DU system. I was hoping to see a somewhat different dynamic emerge, since I didn't think much of the dynamic on the old board. Oh well, I guess I'll just put everyone back on ignore that I had on the old DU, and mainly lurk. |
Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #9)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 01:32 PM
Lithos (23,189 posts)
10. LOL
|
No, it won't operate the same. I reposted the above as a starting point.
L- |
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:03 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
14. Are we supposed to give some input with a view to revising the old guidelines?
|
Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:04 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Or are you going to go over them yrself? If yr looking for input, here's something from me, as I'm in a strictly meta-mood tonight. I've just picked a few bits and not gone over the entire thing...
Under the General heading, ditch the first and last, not coz they're not good, but because going offtopic and selectively quoting things was an everyday happening in the old forum and I don't see how with this new system they could be enforced anyway. Under Proper use of certain words, I haven't seen anyone call another poster a "Sharonist" since, well, Jabba had his stroke and left the political arena. I guess it could be replaced with "Nuttyist" but that's just coz I like the sound of it and I could even encourage people to use it in order to justify it sitting there in the guidelines! One specifically that I think should be included is something along the lines of "Don't make sweeping negative generalisations about either Israeli or Palestinian society and culture." There's been more than a few posts doing exactly that in the past, and that's not at all conducive to any sort of constructive discussion... I dunno. The guidelines need to be compressed a bit so it's not a toilet-roll of rules, and maybe formatted in a way that people should be able to easily copy'n'paste the bit that the post they've alerted on violates the guidelines. Coz I don't think many people selected for a jury are going to have enough motivation or interest to wade through the guidelines and are probably just itching to get back to whatever they were doing before they got the alert... |
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:47 AM
Behind the Aegis (28,086 posts)
15. Are these rules in effect?
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #15)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:43 AM
Lithos (23,189 posts)
16. the ones concerning content are
|
The TOS ones are only to the extent the Jury system will allow. Truthfully, it is hit or miss to pretty much everyone's chagrin.
L- |
Response to Lithos (Reply #16)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:46 AM
Behind the Aegis (28,086 posts)
17. OK...another quick question.
|
If a thread is a SOP violation, or alerted as such, doesn't it just go to you? Also, does the "alerter" get a decision? I am still trying to figure out the "ins and outs" of the new system. Also, take a look at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12434911 if you have a moment. Thanks.
|
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 01:54 AM
gaelic (8 posts)
18. Thanks for the Info
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:55 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
19. I'm not very impressed with how the group has fared under the new system...
|
Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:03 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) I've seen blatantly bigoted* posts be let stand by juries, and then yesterday seen the mother of all frivolous alerts luck out when it came to a jury who voted to hide a post that was clearly sarcastic and actually was kinda humourous. It just kind of sucks a lot nowadays, and imo the group has taken a nosedive into bland and humourless territory.
* The most recent ones I've seen is one that was very blood-libelly but I got a 3-3 result when I alerted and so it's not hidden. No-one who voted to let it stand made a comment, btw. The other was a post portraying Palestinians in very RW terms as something akin to sucking off the public teat and being welfare frauds etc. That one also had a split result with one juror who voted to let it stand stating their agreement with what was said. |
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #19)
Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:56 PM
Ruby the Liberal (23,520 posts)
20. I can't imagine a jury ever being effective in this group, honestly.
|
Too many emotions on the topic (why it is a group in the first place). If I didn't understand this conflict as well as I do, I would likely decline jury duty on posts in here.
|
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:56 AM
LeftishBrit (29,737 posts)
21. I was wondering yet again if there could be a look at sources
|
Someone linked to uruknet recently. The thread did get locked, but not for about 100 posts. Also, there has been increasing use of right-wing American and British sources. If your source includes either Melanie Phillips OR IfAmericansKnew OR AmericanConservative in its blogroll, the chances are that it's not a very good source!
At one point, I proposed that one should allow right-wing Middle Eastern sources, but not right-wing British or American sources, By now, I'm getting more tempted to propose a ban on the RW Middle Eastern sources too, unless the poster makes clear that they are being used to show one point of view in the ME, not because the poster approves of them. |
Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #21)
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 09:45 AM
Violet_Crumble (29,490 posts)
22. I'm going to second that request...
|
It's kind of timely reading yr post after the source that's been used for an OP posted today in this group. I wish, though I figure it'll never happen, that ALL RW sources be banned from this group, as well as any that peddle bigotry against Jews or Arabs/Muslims. And repeat offenders should be blocked from the group if they continue to post links to those sorts of sites.
I really miss DU2, even with the flaws it had *sigh* |
Response to Lithos (Original post)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 05:03 PM
shira (18,325 posts)
23. Baffling hidden OP....
|
Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4) The sinister alliance of the Islamist-Marxist axis
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-sinister-alliance-of-the-islamist-marxist-axis/ Whoever alerted on this wrote this was something "Free Republic" would run; that it bashed all leftists and Muslims, etc. The author of the article couldn't possibly be more respected (Robert Wistrich who is one of the world's foremost and esteemed authorities on anti-semitism). He's not a right-winger, but like most elected democrats, he's a liberal. A jury voted 5-1 to hide the OP. What gives? =================== ETA: Here's the alert that led to hiding the OP... ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Shira is posting a blog post that one could easily find on Freerepublic; "The left is evil, Islam is evil, people were killed in France because France is liberal," all written by a fellow who was a major adviser for the blatantly islamophobic film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." I get the feeling many here are confused and therefore equate criticism of Leftists with criticism of all liberals (democrats included). Same WRT folks equating criticism of extreme Islamists with criticism of all Muslims in general (liberals included too). |

