ATTN: New GD Guidelines for Threads Relating to the Middle East Situation

[EarlG]

A few weeks ago the Admins held a vote on whether or not discussion of the current Middle East situation involving Israel and Lebanon should be moved to the Israel/Palestine forum, which has special rules to govern the discussion of this very difficult issue. At the time, DU members voted 65%-33% to continue discussion in the General Discussion forum and we abided by that decision.

Now that a few weeks have passed, the Admins have decided to re-evaluate our position. Here are the current problems we see with continuing to allow relatively unfettered discussion of the Middle East situation in the General Discussion forum.

• Much of the discussion has now devolved to the point where members are simply rehashing the same tired old arguments over and over again.


• Many of the posts which start threads about the current crisis are highly inflammatory and are intended entirely to arouse the ire of partisans on both sides of the issue rather than foster actual thoughtful discussion.


• With the GD forum providing less strict moderation of discussions involving Lebanon, Israel, and the surrounding countries, some members who have been posting for years on DU without many problems have, sadly, been inspired to post some frankly ugly stuff.


• The moderators are drowning in a sea of alerts.

This is an unacceptable situation, but we do not wish to entirely block discussion of these issues from General Discussion at this time. Therefore we are going to institute some special temporary guidelines in the General Discussion forum while the current situation in Israel and Lebanon is ongoing. We will review these guidelines at a later date. Please read them carefully. They are simple and should not be hard to follow.

1. ORIGINAL POSTS MUST BE ABOUT A CURRENT EVENT, AND CONTAIN NON-INFLAMMATORY, SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT
If you wish to start a thread in the General Discussion forum about the Middle East situation involving Lebanon, Israel, and the surrounding countries, it must be based on a current news story. The moderators may lock threads which are started with substance-free posts (for example, nothing but a link), or threads started with posts which contain inflammatory rhetoric.

2. DEBATE THREADS WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON A CURRENT NEWS STORY WILL BE MOVED
If you start a thread in General Discussion which is not based on a current event or news story, it will be moved to the Israel/Palestine forum where the thread will be subject to the special rules of that forum. (Yes, we know the name of the forum isn't entirely appropriate, but that's the least of our concerns at the moment.)

3. KEEP IT CIVIL
If you decide to persist in calling people who are attempting to have a reasonable discussion about these issues anything along the lines of terrorists, Jew-haters, Jew-lovers, neo-cons, Nazis, or any other red-hot rhetoric, then you may face further disciplinary action. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can have discussions like that. But not here.

We are giving the Moderators wide latitude to enforce these guidelines in the interests of keeping the peace. If you don't want your thread to get moved or locked, we suggest that you think carefully about it before you post, rather than complaining to the Admins afterwards.

As always we appreciate your understanding and patience during this difficult time.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Groovy.

EarlG for President!

[WilliamPitt]

2. .

Thanks, guys.

[dogday]

5. Let me just add

[H2O Man]

3. A question:

Recently James Bamford had an article in Rolling Stone about the neoconservative agenda as it relates to US policy towards Iran. That agenda includes the nation of Israel. It also includes the AIPAC spy scandal. Many rational people believe that the current events in relate to this agenda to expand the war in the Middle East, though clearly the current events are not exclusively related to this.

Are threads on this topic going to be allowed on GD? Or will they be directed to I/P?

[EarlG]

13. That sounds okay to me

If the discussion is based on a current news story and it can be debated in a civil manner then I don't forsee a problem.

[H2O Man]

50. Thank you.

I have been planning to post something soon.

[applegrove]

4. Good Job Admin!!

[Renew Deal]

6. Good job as always.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Yea!!!

:applaud:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

8. Well Done!

[NoSheep]

9. Great ideas. Thank you.

[HamdenRice]

10. Thanks! Because Lebanon is not Palestine ...

and the ramifications of the current situation go far beyond the I/P situation, especially if this becomes a broader war involving Syria and Iran.

But this important issue should not be drowned out by the same old I/P debate.

[warrens]

11. Thank you

I have a position, but I have gotten sick and tired of flame bait from both sides. And it's become WAY too personal. Same with the Castro situation; there were posts on there that went WAY over the line, basically threatening violence.

[UrbScotty]

12. To the mods and admin for their hard work

[meganmonkey]

14. Questions

Are you saying that all threads not including a current news story will be moved into I/P and then LOCKED per the special rules of that forum (which require posts to include an article)?

If so, then what is the point of moving them? Why not just lock them where they are? Rules 1 and 2 seem to overlap and contradict a little, maybe I am just misreading them...

Next, 'civility' is subjective and some moderators are biased (and they moderate according to their biases). Will we actually get a response from admin when we question the mods' decisions or will our questions be ignored?

I am posting these questions publicly in hopes of some answers, since this is an admin thread. I never seem to get any response when I do so privately.

[EarlG]

27. Answers

1. I didn't want to say that threads will simply be locked where they are because the moderators of the I/P forum may wish to manage the threads differently in there. They may indeed lock almost everything that gets moved in there but I wanted to leave the option open for them to deal with them as they see fit.

2. If you get a thread locked it was not done by one "biased" moderator, it was done after discussion among a group of moderators. If you write to us about a moderator action, we will take a look at it but in most cases we agree with the moderator consensus because they have deliberated and made a decision. If you write to us to tell us about how a biased moderator locked your thread, we will most likely ignore it.

[sweetheart]

30. Questions

1. Why are we not able to hold the bush administration accountable?

2. Why is the army in a land war in asia?

3. Will a collective awakening happen?

4. Thanks for what you do?

[EarlG]

36. Answers

1. Because Karl Rove sold his soul to Satan.

2. Because some people never learn.

3. I guess we'll find out in November.

4. That's not a question but you're welcome anyway

[meganmonkey]

41. Thank you for the reply

For the record, it isn't my threads that I have asked about. I have seldom started threads here in the last few months, let alone had them locked. I have just seen some curious things lately and have wondered about them. We are always encouraged to ask the admin/mods about DU policy privately (since we can't generally do so on the board), yet when I do I never get a reply. At least not in the last year or so. So that's where I was coming from.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.

[DistressedAmerican]

60. Come on now. I've written the mods with lots and lots of questions.

Tons since I come here long ago. You know how many of those messages ever got a written response? One. That's right one.

I have a hard time buying the "we'll ignore you if..." logic here.

Ignoring those messages is the standaard procedure despite the fact that we are constantly told that we should "ask the mods". It is not a response to being called biased.

We do ask the mods and we get nothing at all in reply.

[rosesaylavee]

70. How sweetly do you ask?

[kentuck]

15. Good luck!

And does that mean all the Mel Gibson threads should be locked??

[cali]

16. Thank you

for the new guidelines, and all the hard work. It's much appreciated.

[Zodiak]

17. Seems fair to me.

It will save me a lot of agonizing on whether or not to Ignore someone. I really hate doing that (I feel like I am taking their right to free speech away even though the ignore only affects me).

I do not have time to read smaller forums, so this is a good way to ensure substantive discussion of an important issue available to "rabble" like myself.

[mogster]

18. Awright

I can understand why. Good move! I have appreciated the free debate on the Israeli/Lebanese situation, so thanks for that. There are also other topics worthy of attention, and they've kind of slid into the background.

[Misskittycat]

19. Thanks very much, but

I still have some concern about the idea of limiting the threads only to a current news story. At first blush, that makes a lot of sense, but only reacting to the most current news stories limits the scope of background or history allowed to be discussed. (If the I/P forum is similarly limited, then how do we challenge the gross distortion of the historicalr record that has been spewed in the past few weeks? Perhaps a separate forum for people wanting more factual, truly historical perspective?

Notwithstanding this one reservation, I'm very glad you're going this, because I just can't stand any more of this hatefest.

[karlrschneider]

20. Thank you kind sirs!

[Taxloss]

21. Sounds fair.

Thanks.

[QuestionAll...]

22. I have a question...what time frame is a 'current' news story?

would this follow the same rules as in LBN, which I believe must be within the last 24 hours?

[EarlG]

31. Good question

We haven't defined "current" for the moderators, but we won't be enforcing a strict 24-hour limit like LBN. If you want a vague definition, I'd say "a day or two." If this becomes a problem then we'll institute a strict limit.

[QuestionAll...]

40. Thanks, another one. I'm such a pest!

If only current headlines are allowed to open a new thread - will there be any special rules about straying off topic to the headline?

How is this handled in I/P?

[EarlG]

43. If a thread starts going wildly off topic

Then the mods will step in to deal with it. But we've asked them to try to avoid locking threads which were obviously started with good intentions (ie. that follow the guidelines) and instead try to deal with the off-topic posts within the thread. Mind you, if there are more off-topic posts than posts discussing the original message then the thread wil probably end up locked. There's no real science to this, but they'll do the best they can.

[PATRICK]

23. DUers are well advised to visit

that forum before getting into any discussion involving Israel. It will come up again, obviously. Moderators could help educate puzzled and offended posters by showing them the flaming history of our own Internet ME "situation". Something like talking about Everquest without ever going there. Then we would not understand some of the far out ideas and passions and sides either. Casting out the whole forum membership would only mask parts of the real world opposing views that compose the ME problem long before others became interested and puzzled by current events. If the ideas seem shocking and even vile that is unfortunately representative, usually more mild, of factions in the ME.

It is one big reason why the world needs to be engaged and cannot be above or apart from the situation. It is inescapable and jolting and more than a symbol of the real state of the world's problems.

[patdem]

24. Will this be retroactive..in that some posts are still here that would

fit the lock/transfer now but were posted before these rules were set?

PS...I am SO glad..the rhetoric on both sides has become unbearable..but it is like looking at an accident and I go an look!

[EarlG]

33. We haven't told the mods to lock threads

which were posted before the guidelines were put in place, but if those become (or remain) a problem, then they may choose to lock them.

[OKNancy]

25. Kick

[Bunny]

26. Thank you very much.

[DeepModem Mom]

28. Thank you!

[never cry wolf]

29. Can I still post my sioux hating threads?

Just kidding, of course.... The longer I am at DU the more I am impressed by wisdom and maturity of the admin... great solution!

[truebrit71]

32. Fair enough, but what about Mel Gibson posts? Can we have a few more..

...of these irrelevant posts...or maybe he should get his own forum?



Seriously though, good move, these threads were becoming a little monotonous and not a little antagonistic...

[EarlG]

34. GD:Gibson?

An intriguing idea.

[truebrit71]

37. LOL!!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. When are you guys going to implement my idea of splitting the loung?

Seriously. We need:

DU Lounge: Pictures of Cats.
DU Lounge: Everything Else.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. HAHA

As someone who doesn't even visit the lounge that often, I can see how that might be a good idea.

[unblock]

57. can we "recommend" an individual reply?

[Maat]

78. O.K. I won't send you a picture of ..

my really cute kitty (newest member of the household). HeeHee.

[rug]

35. Yeah, but who's side are you on?

[MissB]

38. You rock.

All of you.

[kentuck]

39. If I have two threads: I Love Israel and I Hate Israel?

Which is likely to get locked first?

[me b zola]

42. Thank you, thank you, thank you

[Rex]

44. Awesome!

Thanks EarlG! If I get a new work contract next Monday, you get a donation!!!

KEEP IT CIVIL. Please people, let us try and do number 3!!! Civility could be the only thing we have left one day.

[unblock]

45. do the rules apply to ALL gd threads?

even the ones that have nothing to do with the mideast?



in any event, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for taking steps to restore du civility.
i still think that gd:lebanon and gd:everything else is the easier solution, but i accept this as a much needed compromise.

[EarlG]

59. Just threads about the Middle East (nt)

[AngryAmish]

46. Will this work?

"Was the criminal founding of Israel in 1948 a good idea, you jerks?"

[Rex]

47. LOL!

X the jerks part, no need for name calling!

[malaise]

49. Thanks Mods n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Think about whether your thread adds to rational discussion...

Before you decide to post it. This is just my suggestion. I realize that this is a very emotional topic for many here, but unfortunately posting on just emotions leads often to flame wars. Most of the threads that I've locked on this topic were because someone had posted something just to express their anger at the other side. While the poster may have had absolutely no intention of starting a flame war and were just trying to vent a little bit, I had to lock the thread as flamebait.

[kentuck]

54. Good advice Hippo_Tron...

We could go to a five-sentence minimum on this topic or other inflammatory subjects. That would give people more time to think.

[greguganus]

53. Shouldn't you make this a sticky thread...

...so it doesn't get lost in all the Israel bashing ones?

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. Thank you!

[Meshuga]

56. Excellent!

I'm all for that! Thank you!

[Boomer]

58. Kick

[LostinVA]

61. Thank the gods!!!

[kentuck]

62. It's difficult to know what is permissible and what is not...

I notice today that there is a reverse majority that agree with you - from the poll taken the other day. God is such an overwhelming responsibility. I shall watch from a distance and see what is permitted and what is not? My lips are sealed.

[greguganus]

63. Locking

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. I Could Only Imagine What The Admins And Mods Have Had To Go Through

during this.

I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense and it is most definitely the time to implement such a policy. Thanks for your efforts and wisdom, and a HUGE thanks to the mods for keepin up the best they can with the mountain of alerts they've probably received.

[Bretttido]

65. Good to hear, keep up the good work!

[megatherium]

66. Thank you very much!! nt

[chimpymustgo]

67. Will real-time discussions of tv debates and coverage be allowed?

A C-SPAN WJ guest discussion...KO...Larry King...Wolfie? One of the ongoing debates has been about the actual news coverage of Israel/Hezbollah/Lebanon. Can we continue that?

[SeattleGirl]

68. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Appreciate what you guys are doing to try and keep things from really going to hell in a handbasket, and allowing the conversation about this issue to continue in the best way possible.

[ismnotwasm]

69. Very good

It allows the topic to be discussed, and will hopefully filter most of the bitterness from any side of the topic.

[garthranzz]

71. Thank You - you've restored my faith in DU

Since Nov 04 I have visited DU at least once a day, recmmending it and appreciating the conversation and information. The Israel bashing and hating was getting to me and I was thinking of leaving. I am willing to engage in rational debate, etc.

EarlG, you and Skinner deserve all the accolades you receive - more. You've reminded us, I hope, of why we're here - and not someplace else.

Let's keep focused on the goal: returning this country to the principles of the Declaration, restoring the Constitution, and honoring the Founders and the great leaders that followed.

Thank you again.

[rosesaylavee]

72. I appreciate the moderators work here

esp as it is all volunteer!

The mideast conflict(s) are very important and we all should keep informed as to what is happening...

However the stupidity will worsen if we don't get a handle on the fall election and the voting machines. Hopefully there will be more and more threads concerning what we can do in the immediate present to change the leadership that feeds the conflicts overseas.

[JudyM]

73. Thanks for the injection of sanity (or at least flame-retardant). nt

[patricia92243]

74. Thank goodness for our Admins and Mods. You guys are what keeps DU being t

the special place that it is.

[Mr_Spock]

75. Good idea

I noticed a lack of inflammatory content in more recent O/P's.

[Kurovski]

76. Kick.

[Zhade]

77. So who decides what's inflammatory?

Seriously. If I point out the fact that the Israeli military has targeted civilian before (see HRW, the UN, the Red Cross, et al), and that pattern is repeating in Lebanon, is that "uncivil" or inflammatory?

It would be to some here, yet it remains a fact (that some don't want to face). So where is the line drawn? Can we still point out such facts by doing it in a calm, reasonable manner?

[Maat]

79. Good point, Zhade. (n/t)

[question everything]

80. Inflammatory threads such as:

how many babies does Israel need to kill before you stop supporting it?

or

how long has Israel been the puppet of the Bush administration?

or

shall Olmert be dragged to the Hague to stand trial for genocide?

and so on


I have changed the wordings but the intent was there. There were thread with inflaming subjects before one even started reading the content, if any was and yesterday in particular was bad as the threads appeared to get uglier and inflammatory by the minute.

[Zhade]

88. "shall Olmert be dragged to the Hague to stand trial for genocide?"

See? That's not inflammatory in my view. The Israeli government is committing war crimes (YES, as are Hezbollah, as if a reasonable person even has to say that), and Olmert and crew are ultimately responsible, the way the b*s* administration is responsible for the war crimes the U.S. military has committed. Those responsible for war crimes belong in the Hague.

There could be a reasonable debate on the use of the word genocide - so far I think it's only war crimes like the targeting of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure, use if white phosphorous, and forced displacement of a million Lebanese, which might not fit the definition of genocide.

[question everything]

91. Here is another example for you, this one real

"Does Israel get a pass because of the mid 20th century holocaust?"

While the topics may have merit, the presentation is inflammatory.

[Zhade]

92. That one's over the line, somewhat.

But there is a legitimate question in that horrendously-phrased topic.

[Kailassa]

96. Yes, the same thing has been asked of *

without anyone objecting.

I've never once been accused of anti-americanism for questioning America's policies.

[question everything]

81. Thank you, Earl

Just when I decided to take time off from DU, wondering why the administrators were tolerating the hijacking of this forum by inflammatory threads about Israel that were getting uglier by the minute yesterday, while burying threads about other topics.

[Hekate]

82. A toast to civility!

Thank you.

Hekate

[Solly Mack]

83. Thank you

[mtnester]

84. Thank you. n/t

[LuckyLib]

85. DU Admins = patient, thoughtful, focused. You realize, of course,

that you've spoiled us for other sites. I look around and can't stand their layout, logic, or chaos. DU rocks!

[bloom]

86. RE: "The moderators are drowning in a sea of alerts."

I was watching the Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14055.h...

And it mentioned:

"Activists on pro-Israeli right harass news outlets" (and DU?).


Of course we know that the Freepers do that to the news outlets and anyone they can.

When it comes to world events - I think that the alerts by the people who support the BushCo agenda - should be more scrutinized than those who do not. IOW - the Bush supporters should NOT be controlling the debate.

Of course - as it happens - BushCo supports the Israeli bombing campaign - seems to support the idea of a larger war. While a lot of Democrats are going along with it - again - the progressives in Congress are at the very least calling for a cease fire.

[saigon68]

98. Certain Elements here want to see all Islamics and Arabs destroyed

[i miss america]

87. Thank you for taking the high road on this

and helping to curb so many of the intentionally hurtful and thoughtless posts of late.

[Crabby Appleton]

89. Thank you very much

[Betsy Ross]

90. Another thank you.

If these rules are followed, many of us who are deeply troubled by the current situation in Lebanon will feel comfortable continuing their participation and support of DU. One needn't be the object of hate messages to be negatively impacted by them. After all, is respect for others a "liberal value."

[readmoreoften]

93. Rock on mods! /nt

[lonestarnot]

94. That'll work.

[Skittles]

95. thank you so much Earl

I just told myself the other day, the admins will do something soon about this soon - I've been reading some pretty ugly stuff and imploring some DUers not to leave because of it

[The Stranger]

97. Some problems with this.

The first of the new criteria is incredibly nebulous and subject to abuse. What one person may consider "inflammatory" another poster may consider anodyne. Further, it is subject to abuse in that those who do not want a topic discussed may silence it by becoming "inflammed" or issuing inflammatory posts to get the post locked. A better approach is to recognize that, generally, offense comes easy to the self-righteous, and any poster has the option to use the ignore function or avoid topics with which they disagree or find disagreeable.

The second of the new criteria turns the General Discussion Board into the Latest Breaking News Board, which defeats the purpose for having a general discussion board entirely. News groups are available elsewhere, even on this site, so turning general discussion into a news board takes away substantially from the value of the site.

The third of the new criteria is redundant of the DU Rules established and already in place. Having re-stated criteria may give a moderator the sense that they should operate as censors, robbing the site and the posters of free speech, free conscience and free debate, something which no moderator is empowered to be or do.

[alvarezadams]

99. Right on

And as is central in any "censorship" debate, DU has given us the wonderful tools of being able to read and post on other threads or even ignore anyone who strays from the OP.

I've just used these tools. Enough with the PC, eh?

[newspeak]

100. One of my threads was deleted

I have never called a DUer a name, but I must have said something that wasn't quite kosher--the rules are appropriate as certain subjects, especially, the middle east is very delicate right now. Thanks for the heads up!!!!

[MichiganVote]

101. This looks good. Be sure to use it when the immigration fights begin

again. Frankly, those threads were just as bitter and the name calling was out of control. Suggest you use these or similar guidelines for those discussion threads too.

[Dorian Gray]

102. Perfect guidelines...

It was getting tiresome to see the same rehashing over I/P. Topical and current is good. Repetitive and argumentative... not so good!

[norml]

103. The rules are ambiguous and arbitrary and mainly used by one side...

...to get the other side's topics and posts removed.