I may be confused about the new rules come Thursday.

[Avalux]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

Is it true, that ANY and ALL posts regarding Hillary's email issues, even facts from reputable sources, will be banned?

Just want to make sure I'm clear on this. Thanks.

[CorkySt.Clair]

1. In that case

The slurs will need to be posted under the guise of "concern".

[Hortensis]

23. I'd follow the idea behind the real estate disclosure guideline:

"If you don't want to disclose it, you probably need to."

In this case, it'd be, "If you suspect a post might be construed as hostile, you probably shouldn't post it."

Obviously, significant events related to the investigation should be discussable, but the intent behind a post is likely to be very important. It's hard to conceal malice, even by someone with no reputation.

[chillfactor]

2. My understanding is....

those kind of posts will be banned..this is DU...we support Hillary...not tear her down.

[Avalux]

3. Even facts?

I guess they can be ignored, and often, usually are.

[chillfactor]

8. repeat..

ths is DU..we SUPPORT our candidate here...

[Avalux]

9. You haven't answered my question, but thanks for trying. n/t

[Ned_Devine]

11. Pretty amazing, huh?

Something about succumbing to authority and being authoritative seems very attractive to these people.

[Avalux]

13. Yeah, I'm not wired that way.

I find it fascinating.

[sufrommich]

20. Or you failed to read the TOS when you signed up.nt

[Armstead]

27. The TOS did not say "No discussion of Hillary's emails allowed." So it's a valid question.

[SFnomad]

47. Since you can't seem to read the TOS for yourself and figure it out ....

From the TOS:

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
...
Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service.

I would suspect concern trolling will easily fall under the "not ok" list.

[Armstead]

52. I read the terms of service in 2001, and have lived with them ever since

I can do without your condescending explanation thank you.

[SFnomad]

54. IOW, you're going to ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist ... got it n/t

[kadaholo]

57. Ouch!

[Ned_Devine]

41. ...

[kadaholo]

56. :)

[lancer78]

18. As long as the criticism is

constructive, it is allowed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. what are we going to do when we no longer have rumour and innuendo left to depend on?

[Skink]

5. The first thing to happen will be the removal of the beer smile

Absolutely no drinking of alcohol while posting.

[Turin_C3PO]

6. Admin said

that any criticism of Clinton must be coming from a point that's clearly trying to help her campaign win the election, not hurt it her, or use right wing sources and smears to tear her down.

[Avalux]

7. Criticism and factual news stories are two vastly different things.

That's why I've asked the question - what about the facts?

[Turin_C3PO]

10. Don't take my word for it

but I would guess that, unless an indictment actually is recommended, then posters won't be permitted to post about it. BUT I could be wrong, maybe clarify in the Ask the Administrator forum?

[Avalux]

28. Correct about mentioning an indictment, since it's just rumor or wishful thinking.

But factual information regarding the FBI's actions and decisions should be ok I would think.

[obamanut2012]

29. any criticism of Clinton must be coming from a point that's clearly trying to help her campaign win

[corkhead]

60. I think the owners want you to post those types of factual news stories on Discussionist instead.

[democrattotheend]

14. I think, under that, if it becomes a big scandal we can talk about it

If it's from the perspective of how/whether she can get past it. But I would say if it's not getting a lot of attention in the media and not dragging down her campaign there is no reason to dredge stuff up. Plus, those of you who have not been banned from it can still talk about it in the Bernie group, I think. Or am I wrong about that?

[Turin_C3PO]

15. I'm not sure how the groups will be handled.

I tend to think from June 16 to Nov. that they probably will be under the same guidelines as the rest of the website. But I'm not sure!

[obamanut2012]

32. It's the entire website

[Turin_C3PO]

36. That's for the best, I believe.

We don't need any divisiveness against the Orange Yam Menace!

[Miles Archer]

42. Yep.

The groups are not going to be a "safe haven" to continue bashing. That includes bashing of Clinton or Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Well.

There are many sites where one can trash Hillary with impunity. Actually, there are many sites where one is encouraged to do so. The proprietors of this site , in their infinite wisdom, have decided to use this site to promote Democratic candidates for all offices. That obviously includes the highest office in the land. Allowing posters to trash Hillary Clinton here is inimical to their mission.



Now that I have set a predicate.

If somebody comes here to trash Hillary Clinton he or she is looking for a fight. That person should be treated no differently as if he or she punched somebody in the face.

[Turin_C3PO]

16. Yes.

In my opinion, most (not all) people who want to continue posting Hillary email news, even if they don't comment, are subtly trying to tear her down. I doubt Skinner would see that as "criticism that comes from a place of trying to help the nominee rather than tear her down".

[Matt_in_STL]

17. I have been told that even any polls showing Hillary behind Trump will be hidden

Regardless of the source.

[sufrommich]

19. Who told you that?

I don't remember polls ever being hidden during the GE.

[TwilightZone]

21. If you're been told that, you should probably consider the veracity of the source.

Polls from reputable sources have never been hidden here. Using them as the basis for an anti-Hillary rant, however, will likely get the posts hidden once the rules change. This should come as no surprise.

[Matt_in_STL]

24. I have seen one hidden already which had been posted without comment.

On the others, we had the usual, "I'm so cool I can count to June 16th" Hill supporters insisting this would be the case. I am prepared to see the new alert system flooded with issues on anything that is less than fawning over Hillary.

[obamanut2012]

34. lolz

[Matt_in_STL]

38. Because you think it will happen or because you don't think it has been said?

[Lil Missy]

22. The tendency here is to avoid "even facts from reputable sources" because they assure no crime has

been committed, and there will be no indictment. The tendency is more toward digging for anything and everything that might cast the slightest inkling that she is guilty of intentional serious crimes.

The Indictment Fairy isn't going to arrive.

[Avalux]

25. I didn't ask about the tendency here.

It's difficult to decipher your post, but I think you're saying facts are allowed.

[obamanut2012]

35. any criticism of Clinton must be coming from a point that's clearly trying to help her campaign win

[Avalux]

40. Again, I didn't ask about criticism, that's understood. n/t

[pnwmom]

26. No more posting of "news" about Rethug sources (anonymous or by name)

making claims based on no public evidence..

Or of opinions by analysts that expect she must be guilty of something.

That will eliminate 99% of the email related OP's here.

[yeoman6987]

30. No. The way I understand it is any negative OPs or articles negative to Hillary are banned.

Polling and any perceived support for trump are banned understandably. Positive support articles for Hillary are allowed.

[Avalux]

37. Ok so nothing negative, no matter what. Got it. n/t

[yeoman6987]

39. Honestly it the safest way to survive until November.

[emulatorloo]

48. No, my interp is facts ok, but people can't post right-wing sources/op-Eds anymore

Skinner would no doubt be happy to clear this up in Ask The Administrators section

[itsrobert]

31. My understanding is if Bernie has a Democrat challenger for Senate, you won't be able to

campaign for Bernie for Senate on DU if he remains an independent.

[Avalux]

33. I know you're trying to be funny....or something.

Not really sure why you'd say that though.

[Miles Archer]

45. You'll also have to say goodbye to this on the 16th:

Read Skinner's posts. You have three days left to enjoy your witty sig line pic.

[itsrobert]

51. thanks, I will remove it.

nice warning.

[panader0]

58. I'm not sure what the HRC supporters will talk about when they can't bash Bernie anymore.

I really haven't seen much discussion of policy.

[rusty fender]

43. Jeebus!

If you are so intent on bashing HRC, you can do it on other venues, just not this one, but you know that; you're just getting your jabs in before the deadline.

[Avalux]

44. I asked a question, my post was not bashing Hillary.

Your response is interesting.

[rusty fender]

50. LOLOLOL!

And you are transparent!

[pinebox]

59. She's asking a legit question that many are wondering about

It has nothing to do with anything else.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. From June 16th on.....

From June 16th on, I vow, pledge, swear, and affirm that I will not say that Hillary Clinton is:

An opportunist
Incompetent
Like Richard Nixon
A Neoliberal
Vindictive
Dishonest
A War criminal
Without conscious
An egomaniac
Ruthless
Unfit
A money-grubber
For sale
A conservative
Ungracious


And, in the same spirit.....

From June 16th on, I vow, pledge, swear, and affirm that I will not say that Hillary Clinton isn't:


An opportunist
Incompetent
Like Richard Nixon
A Neoliberal
Vindictive
Dishonest
A War criminal
Without conscious
An egomaniac
Ruthless
Unfit
A money-grubber
For sale
A conservative
Ungracious

[panader0]

49. Censorship is never pretty.

I suppose we will have to wait and see how much factual reporting will be allowed.

[Arazi]

53. Skinners very vague. We've always discussed Democratic scandals and investigations before

Even when Democrats have been running for office (Anthony Weiner comes to mind most recently.)

The Fast and Furious shit storm played out here for weeks as another example

I get the feeling admins will let the stupid jury system decide which is shitty imo. This is an FBI investigation, not some RW witch hunt. Ignorance is not bliss in this case

[kadaholo]

55. +1

[onehandle]

61. A popular tactic of disruptors is to disrupt via 'facts via reputable sources.'

Gun nuts trolls and looneytarians especially love this tactic.

This tactic will be obvious come the 16th.

[one_voice]

62. Locking...

this is better suited for Ask the Administrators. Please post your question there. Thank you.