Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democratic Underground is changing. It's time to change the way we run it.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:26 PM
Original message
Democratic Underground is changing. It's time to change the way we run it.
As you know, Barack Obama is the first Democratic President since DU was created back in 2001. Nearly a year-and-a-half into his administration, it is apparent that having a Democrat in the White House presents new and difficult challenges for the DU community.

The DU Administrators have long been frustrated with the persistent undercurrent of negativity and conflict here, which has been exacerbated by the lack of a common villain in the form of George W. Bush. But we have been reluctant to make changes to the way we run the site out of fear that we might do more harm than good. The problems we face are extraordinarily complicated, and despite (or perhaps because of) nearly a decade of administering this site we tend to be fairly skeptical of our own ability to effect broad-based changes that will improve DU for the majority of our members.

So we have been banging our heads against the wall for a long time trying to figure out what we can or should do to try to make DU "better." We are committed to maintaining Democratic Underground as a community that welcomes a wide range of Democratic and progressive viewpoints. Now that we have a Democratic President, we will remain open to members who are generally critical of him, members who are generally supportive of him, and the majority of members who do not fall neatly into either camp. We considered many possible approaches -- from adding lots of new rules to getting rid of most of them -- and eventually came to realize that the DU rules we already have are actually pretty good. But we do not all share a consistent view of what they mean or how they should be enforced now that the larger political environment has changed.

So, our goal is to get everyone back on the same page. To be clear, we are not promising that all the discussions here are going to be "nicer," or that you will no longer have to read stuff on DU that you find annoying -- in fact, some of that stuff (depending on your point of view) might get worse rather than better. What we are trying to do is to make it more clear where the limits are. In practice, this means moderating will likely be more aggressive in some areas and less aggressive in others. We have no illusions that this approach will make everyone happy. But we hope by managing expectations and better explaining limits, we'll have a few more satisfied people here than we have now.

So after a great deal of consideration we've come up with a proposal to try and make DU a community again.

To be clear: These changes have not been implemented yet. Hopefully we can phase them in over the next couple weeks.


1. A clear, concise version of the DU rules will be pinned to the top of the two General Discussion forums, and will appear whenever someone clicks "Alert".

We believe that most of the DU rules are just common decency and common sense, and if everyone just tried to participate in the spirit of mutual respect it would not be necessary to post a list of rules. Of course, that is just a dream. Here in the real world it is necessary to have some concrete standards so people understand what is expected of them.

With this in mind, we have "boiled down" the DU rules to remove all the explanatory filler and provide a straightforward list of violations. That list is below. This will hopefully make the rules much clearer for everyone -- members, moderators, and even administrators -- and get everyone on the same page. Unfortunately, there will always be some level of subjectivity when deciding what is within bounds and what is not. But we have made every reasonable effort to be both clear and concise, and remove unnecessary gray areas.

Here is the official "list of violations" from the DU rules:

LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS

{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
        - Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
        - Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "fuck off," or the like.
        - Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
        - Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
        - Calling someone a bigot.
        - Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.
        - Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.

{ } Broad-brush or Extreme Group Attack - When discussing groups of DU members, the following are considered broad-brush group attacks:
        - Broad-brush attack - intended to paint all people belonging to a particular group in a negative light. (The word "all" can be explicitly stated or implied.)
        - Name-calling - Referring to any group of DU members by names intended to paint them in a negative light.
        - Suggesting that any group of DU members are conservatives, disruptors, or similar.
        - Belittling people who are new or have a low post count.
        - Suggesting that any group of DU members are not Democrats, liberals, or progressives.
        - Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive.
        - Note: As a general guideline, if it is possible to identify specific individuals who are being attacked, then it is against the rules. But if the attack is against a vaguely defined group of "some but not all" people, then it might be permitted.

{ } Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
        - Race or ethnicity.
        - Gender (women or men).
        - Sexual Orientation.
        - Religion or lack of religion (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.).
        - Geographic region or place of origin.
        - Disability (mental or physical).
        - Weight or other physical characteristics.
        - Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "cunt," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).

{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
        - Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.
        - Advocating violent overthrow of the government, or harm toward high-ranking officials.
        - Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
        - Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
        - Sexually explicit content.
        - Graphic violence, gore, pain, or human suffering (except with a legitimate political purpose, and with a clear warning in the subject line).
        - Asking for medical advice.
        - "Gravedancing" or "gravemourning" when someone is banned.
        - Signature line/avatar image violates DU rules, is controversial, or is likely to cause discussions to go off-topic.

{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
        - Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
        - Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
        - Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
        - Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
        - Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
        - Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
        - Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.

{ } Harassment or threats
        - Any type of threat against another member of this community, either explicit or implied.
        - Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise.
        - A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person.
        - Digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere.
        - Stalking someone across discussion threads or forums.

{ } Rule enforcement issues
        - Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.
        - Publicly accusing the moderators/administrators of bias.
        - Publicly "calling-out" the moderators/administrators over specific enforcement action.
        - Continuing an argument from a locked thread or from a thread you have been blocked out of.

{ } Spamming
        - Posting the same message repeatedly.
        - Personal fundraising, for-profit advertising, or selling products or services (except in the DU Marketplace forum, or if given explicit permission from the DU administrators).
        - Posting entirely in capital letters.

{ } Off-topic/Wrong forum
        - Any discussion thread or post that is off-topic for the forum or group in which it is posted.
        - Non-news items posted in the Latest Breaking News forum.
        - Highly speculative "conspiracy theory" topics outside the September 11 forum.
        - Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.
        - Discussion of purely religious topics outside the Religion/Theology forum.
        - "Rallying the troops" in a forum or group to disrupt elsewhere on the website.

{ } Inappropriate source
        - Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
        - Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
        - Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.

{ } Copyright violations
        - Excerpt exceeds 4 paragraphs, or does not have a link to the source.

{ } Other (Please explain)


Please note that in this effort, we gave special consideration to what can and cannot be said about prominent Democrats. As you know, the DU rules explicitly state that "Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted." But that comes with a caveat: "When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here." I know many of you believe that any attack against Democrats, no matter how inflammatory or divisive, should be permitted here, but that is not what I believe and it is not what the DU rules say.

Now that we have a Democratic President, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that he be shown more respect here than the illegitimate, incompetent asshole who previously held the office. He should be referred to as "President Obama," "Barack Obama," or simply "Obama." Calling him derogatory names (including "Barry"), attacking him with content-free insults, or parroting partisan attacks from the McCain/Palin campaign, are all disrespectful to this community as a whole. If you think that is unreasonable, then you are going to have difficulty here going forward. But if you are among the vast majority of people who criticize President Obama in a constructive and respectful manner, you have my appreciation. You are a valued member of this community.


2. When a post is deleted, the author of the post will be able to see the text of the deleted post, and the rule it violated.

When a post is deleted, most people will still see the same old "Name removed/Deleted message" placeholder, but the author of the post will be given access to the full text of that post, along with specific rule it violated. We fully expect that this will cause some consternation from members at first. But it is obviously the right thing to do. Most importantly, it will help educate our members about the DU rules and how they are enforced. Over time, we hope this will help those of you who want to be constructive members figure out how to do so. In addition, it will let the author review the post to see the violation -- we know from experience that people will often forget the stray personal attack they added to the end of an otherwise appropriate post. And finally, it gives a powerful incentive for the moderators and administrators to double-check our work and make sure we are justified in removing a post.


3. When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread.

We understand that this idea may upset some people. We understand that nobody wants to be blocked out of a discussion thread because of an honest posting mistake, and we do not want to do that to any of our members. But we believe blocking one person out of a thread is a less draconian solution than locking the entire thread so nobody can participate.

We know many of you are tired of threads getting locked when the original post does not break the rules. We are tired of locking those threads. Members have long complained that under our current approach, a determined person (or group of people) can get a thread locked by repeatedly breaking the rules in the thread so it is almost impossible for the moderators to clean up after them.

If someone is blocked out of a thread after their first deletion, then they have a disincentive to break the rules in the first place. Furthermore, it provides an incentive for other people to alert on rule-breaking posts so the author of those posts can be stopped from causing further damage.

Would this always be fair? Of course not. But our sincere hope is that we could completely stop locking threads when the original post does not break the rules. We also hope that we could completely stop the practice of deleting entire sub-threads -- which often results in "innocent bystanders" having their posts removed unfairly.


4. A uniform approach for dealing with frequent rule-breakers.

Earlier this year we made a number of upgrades to our behind-the-scenes moderating system which allow the moderators to respond much more quickly to alerts. But moderators still do not have a uniform system for dealing with members who repeatedly break the rules. This needs to change.

Going forward, members who break the rules repeatedly will be automatically brought up for regular reviews in the Moderator Forum. When this occurs, the moderators will take a look at the member's recent activity to decide whether it is appropriate to take any additional enforcement action: sending a private message, sending a warning, handing out a suspension, or banning someone outright.

When deciding what action is appropriate, special consideration will be given to determining whether we believe someone is, overall, a constructive and valuable member of our community. Does this person seem to like DU and its members? Does this person act as if they want DU to be a better place? Are this person's deleted posts innocent mistakes rather than malicious and deliberate? Do we think this person makes DU better for the vast majority of our visitors? Does this person have an inclusive attitude toward other members and viewpoints -- freely expressing when they disagree, but doing so with the understanding that their own point of view is not the only one that is valid or welcome here? Do we think this person is likely to improve their behavior?

If the answer to these questions is no, then we are going to ban that person. We aren't going to waste our time with pointless warnings and suspensions to malicious malcontents that will almost certainly be ignored. If, however, we believe that someone is worth trying to "save" we will do what we can to keep them around, including handing out warnings or suspensions in hopes that the person might change their behavior.


We hope that everyone will consider these proposals in the spirit they are offered. We believe this approach will make it easier for everyone who wishes to be a productive member of this community to do so, regardless of ideology. We all know this place is never going to be perfect. But we do have an ideal that everyone should strive for: A Democratic Underground where thoughtful discussion can take place among a broad range of progressive viewpoints, where everyone accepts that disagreements are both necessary and appropriate when they are expressed in good faith, and where problem people are dealt with in a fair and timely fashion. That is the type of community that we wish DU could be. If you agree, we'd love to have you here.


So, what do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
miscsoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think, minimise the rules
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 09:57 AM by miscsoc
Or rephrase them as some broad basic principles.

I'm new but I think there's a risk of becoming too absorbed in a huge list of regulations built up over the years which can only be understood in the context of conflicts in the history of DU which newcomers are ignorant of.

I think it would be better to make clear a certain set of principles based on what you intend to achieve with this site and then allow moderators (who presumably have earned their position) discretion to implement them as they see fit.

e.g. principles regarding party unity, broad aims, and so forth.

in conjunction with the idea that anyone whose post was deleted would be made aware of the rationale behind the deletion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
706. I'm disappointed.
I have enjoyed this site every since I discovered it. I have been a lifelong Democrat and I have really enjoyed the sharing of ideas here. I'm honestly disappointed. I have often called for the formation of a third party that has a platform like the Democrats used to have. Putting the people ahead of corporations.
As a proud member of organized labor (and DU) I have too often seen the effects of corporate money on both parties. As a result, I have called (loudly) for the formation of a party that puts people before profits.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, or get thrown off of DU. I am trying to explain why, a lifelong liberal Democrat, would call for such a thing.
I don't know. Are these new rules a definite?
I just want to do whatever it takes to make America a progressive, user friendly, tolerant nation. One that prizes its poor citizens as well as its elite citizens. It would be great to distribute the wealth in such a way that isn't so polarizing and to take money out of the political equation altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nannah Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #706
1043. that's a concern of mine too, the 3rd party candidate rule
Let's say Dennis Kucinich stepped away from the Dems and spear headed a new party due to his strong progressive values for peace and health care for all and his dissatisfaction with the continuation of war and an inadequate health care system made possible by democrats joining with republicans in crucial votes. Many here at DU are strong Kucinich supporters; would they be prohibited from advocating for him?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #1043
1423. How is that different from Joe Lieberman's independent candidacy?
Joe, in his own way, still sees himself as a progressive.

The end result of a Kucinich vanity candidacy would be to siphon votes away from Barack Obama (or, in 2016, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, or whoever).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sasquuatch55 Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #706
1189. I say PISS OFF!!!!!!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #1189
1241. Missed the point of the OP there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #1189
1422. Wow
If you are representative of the new DU, then this site will not be very intelligently represented. You are a true word-smith and deep thinker... :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #1189
1511. -1. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #706
1374. Guess supporting Bernie Sanders (I) who has always caucused
and supported the Dem platform, is out.

If the rules are the rules, that would be true...slippery slope and all

I stand by my sigline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #1374
1394. interesting point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1374
1493. No, Sanders has been, and will remain (it looks to me) supportable on DU
because he does not run against Democrats. He is not a 'third party' in the elections he runs in. The current rules say:

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate."

and I don't think Skinner is changing that, in the summary he give in the OP. Sanders' positions certainly fit "support, or constructive criticism" of Democratic policies in my view, I'd think for almost all DUers, and I'd dare to say in the DU admins' inidividual views, from what they've posted in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BolivarianHero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #1493
1497. Really now...
I think conservative Democrats should not be protected on this website by even the requirements of basic civility; Blanche Lincoln is one step away from Zellout Miller, and people as worthless as her need to be put in their place...I think people should be allowed to support 3rd party candidates that run against the Democrats from the left, with the exception of the Green Party because they've received GOP money in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #1497
1509. That would depend if you want to keep the idea of a party, or if you just have left wing views
The idea of a political party is that you agree among yourselves the policies and candidates, and then stick together. The 'democratic' in DU explicitly refers to the Democratic Party, not just the adjective for democracy.

Once you start saying "I like the Democratic Party, except for the following, who are worthless", then you're being an individual, not part of the party movement. And you will encourage others to insult your preferred candidates in a similar way, and you will be left with no way to object. DU has always been crystal clear about this. Anyone who has joined the website, and not noticed that is is about the Democratic Party, hasn't been paying attention. If you want all Democrats insulted and held as 'worthless' on DU, then keep advocating your 'right' to insult certain Democrats. It won't work, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #1509
1674. Doesn't some of that depend upon timing and context? For example, If Blanche Lincoln
has just voted against the final version of the health care bill, a poster who supported the bill might post, "She's worthless. She has to go." Ditto, during primary season: "Linoln's worthless. Support Halter."

However, during election season, that same poster either shuts up about her or roots for her, as, at a minimum, preferable to the Republican.

Now, she's re-elected, but casts another vote the poster hates; and the poster posts "We almost got rid if her in the last primary. Let's make sure we succeed next time."

to me, those would all be legitimate Democratic posts, even though many Democrats supported Lincoln in the primary.

Am I mistaken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #1497
1673. Any left leaning third party will take votes from Democrats and therefore will likely get
Edited on Thu Jun-24-10 05:10 AM by No Elephants
donations from Republicans. And third parties are at such a huge disadvantage in every way, including financially, that they are unlikely to refuse money from any source, unless maybe accepting would violate some law that they know of.

So, if you are serious about third parties, you may have to bite some bullets, at least until third parties are viable again in this country. that may include having the third party cost the Democrat in various races a victory, so that the Republican wins (or at least, it will seem that way, if you consider nothing but numbers of votes). that may also include having the third party accepting money from Republicans.

the first possibility is what stops most of us, or at least makes us pause and think hard and long.* the second would not bother me, though, so long as I were confident that the money wasn't causing the third party to shift its ideology. However, money and ideologial shifts seem like companions nowadays, especially in government.

If Republican donors demanded that a leftie tyoe Party lean right, I think the donors woul be shooting themselves in the foot. the whole point of donating to the leftie would be to split the Democratic vote. Anyone who demands that the leftie lean right would defeat that purpose.

*Saw Nader being interviewed in connection with his latest book. When asked about having drawn votes from Gore in Florida in 2000, he replied, "Just think how many votes Gore drew away from me." It was a mildly amusing response--until I thought about 8 years of Dummya, whereupon I got sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #706
1395. also disappointed, but not surprised. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #706
1479. IIt appears the conservatives have won yet another small victory. Chip, chip, chip. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #1479
1618. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libmom74 Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #706
1481. I agree dotymed
I am a new poster but I have lurked for over a year now, I was a huge supporter of President Obama's and worked hard in 2006 and 2008 to elect a Democratic majority but I have been very disappointed to see business as usual when it comes to lobbyists and big money winning out over what is best for the people of this nation and helping to move us forward (loss of the public option, weak financial regulation, progress on DADT and DOMA, the continuation of both wars, voting against the extension of UE benefits and EFCA and on and on). The two party system is broken, and like you I believe one way to invigorate our democratic (small d) system is to vote for more progressives, even if those progressives are third party candidates. I feel that shutting down discussions of third party progressive candidates that represent democratic values, more than some of our current Democratic representatives do is ultimately harmful to democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
summerintx Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #706
1605. I'm cautiously pleased!
Incivility and rudeness are social diseases - and they are catching! We see and hear it modeled on television and radio and that seems to give some people permission to do likewise. The more that occurs the more that becomes the norm. The level of hostility and irrationality we are seeing in our society has already led to violence - and I fear we are going to see more. Abraham Lincoln was our first president assassinated - and I recently learned how the tone of incivility and truly scurrilous attacks in those times set the stage for it. The media of the day were a huge part of the problem, then as now.

At a conference I attended in D.C. yesterday on civility I heard a scary statistic from P.M. Forni, one of the panelists. There are 1.8 MILLION incidents of violence (anywhere from shoving to murder) in the American workplace annually. If you dig into the antecedents, the vast majority start with uncivil or demeaning behavior.

If we allow it to continue without making an effort to turn things around, the downward spiral will continue. It is possible to disagree about issues without being disagreeable, and doing so promotes the common good. Setting community norms that encourages civility here and in our other online communities (and discourages incivility) is something we can do to begin to turn things around.

Besides, there's plenty of research to suggest social intelligence (the ability to get along well with others) is far more important to an individual's success in life than is their intellectual intelligence. These are skills that can be encouraged and learned - and will help us all.

I am pretty sure each of us can continue to share our strong opinions without being censored, if we just put our mind to how we say it. I'll take it as a challenge to figure it out.

Thank you, moderators, for your courage and leadership in coming to this decision!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #706
1679. Maybe third parties should establish their own boards?
The title "Democratic Underground" is self-explanatory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanzaiBonnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
1383. How about "always be as kind as you can"
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 06:05 AM by BanzaiBonnie
I'm a grandmother of 6 now and that seems to work well for me. The kids know the house rule. If I hear a tiff beginning, I ask them "what's the rule at grandma's house" ? They repeat it to me immediately. And if two sibs are arguing or heaven forbid, putting hands on one another in a rough manner, I make them kiss and make up. Ooooo, they hate that. But they almost always start laughing.

And then on the other hand, sometimes it's hard to be kind and you have a bit of an out. Always be as kind as you can (are able).



I also have four daughters. And sometimes they have big girl tiffs, disagreements and it can be pretty severe. And it's then that I wonder, if we are not able to be respectful and civil within one family, how can we expect it out in the world at large?

So we start where we are and do what we can.

See guys, was that so hard?


Skinner and all, it's your house. Actually, the structure is yours, but we all live here together. And if we don't live together, we just may die together.

I kind of like the direction the clarified rules are leaning. Personally I like simpler, but I'm not everyone's grandma and grandmothers hold sway that mere mortals can never reach.

So be it. Go forward and do good work guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. Watch out for the electric shocks too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
536. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. I still think certain topics should not be buried in DU's waste bin far away from view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
62. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
543. + 1000. Sunshine!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
563. Very important.
If something is front-page news around the world, it deserves to be openly discussed on DU, regardless of topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
690. + googleplex

I agree. How about trying these new rules out and see how it plays with not sending some of these current, world shaping events and the discussions about them off to where no one sees them?

This practice really seems counter to the progressive spirit which I thought was one of the goals for DU. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #690
757. I dont get why they don't just apply the rules like with any other threads.
For some reason certain topics get hidden as soon as they come up. The explaination I got for that was that they lead to flame wars. But that makes no sense since all topics posted on a public message board can lead to flame wars. And that's what the rules are for.

I doubt it is their intention to actually hide these topics but in the end that's what happens. And it makes it seem like DU admins have a very strong bias one way and anyone that thinks a different way can't be heard. And what's sad is I can't even say what we are talking about since if I do this post will be deleted and I won't be able to post back in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #757
1050. It really mystifies me.

And I don't have a dog in this fight. Seriously.

Not long ago I started reading a thread having to do with the food convoy. There was a fascinating and important piece of information that I wanted to point out; and I wanted to Rec the thread. Only to find that the thread had been moved to the Dungeon and now couldn't be Rec'd.

Baffling and frustrating, especially since I never even saw the explanation that you received.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #757
1300. and it throws the thread into the lion's den down under, where the same people
hang out, at the ready to pile on.. :(

Especially with the "place that can never be named", no discussion means no understanding, and it's pretty easy to see why there has been a neverending conflict, with no resolution in sight :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #757
1396. what makes you doubt that is their actual intention? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #1396
1429. Well, not being able to get a response is starting to get a bit frustrating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
956. You're importing that emotional language.
You could just as easily see the various "dungeons" as places for divisive topics to be fully and fairly discussed under closer moderator scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #956
1032. I don't see what's emotional about what I said
the fact is there were some major world events that took place recently and any discussion of those events was confined to areas of the board that do not appear on the leatest threads page nor on the greatest page when they get enough recommendations. This is not about discussions of some insane conspiracy theories, it's about discussion of serious world events that actually took place.

Why prevent that type of discussion? And when threads get a high amount of recommendations on that perticular topic why not allow them on the greatest page?

I understand that certain discussions can get heated. But that can be said about any discussion on the internet. That's what rules are for (such as the ones that skinner just spelled out) and if posters or threads are breaking those rules deal with them individually. I see absolutely no reason for what DU is doing aside from hiding perfectly legitimate threads just because they might not be popular with some people.

I know I could raise all these concerns with an administrator by private message but I already tried that, didn't get a response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #1032
1122. Well Said!
All topics should be open and if the rules are so good, they should work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #1032
1299. "buried in DU's wastebasket far from view" - emotional language
There is no prevention of discussion. You are free to discuss those topics in those forums.

The threads are not hidden. There's no password you have to enter to get to those forums. They are even indexed in the Google searches.

But your comments about latest threads or greatest page are about promotion. If it's promotion of your idea that you are actually seeking, then there are other places on the internet to do that. If discussion is truly what you want, that you can get here openly and freely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #1299
1376. It's realistic language...
There isn't open and free discussion of certain topics the way other topics are, and I'm not sure why you'd act as though there's nothing at all wrong with those issues not being allowed to be discussed in the big forums. Also, the stringent rules in one of those dungeons about what can be used to start a thread means that discussion is very much hobbled.

I don't know what you come to DU for, but when I look at the Greatest page, I prefer to see important stuff there and not stuff that is allowed to be openly and freely discussed in GD, like 'My great-aunt's cat had the cutest kittens in the world today!'. I doubt any of this new stuff Skinner spoke about in the OP will improve the situation where some topics are hidden away in smaller forums, but clearly a lot of DUers are frustrated with the rule about I/P discussion not being allowed in the big forums and hopefully Skinner might revisist a decision that was made a long time ago....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #1376
1489. It may reflect how you feel about the issue, but it's still emotional language.
How many "my great-aunt's cat had cute kittens" threads have ever appeared on the Greatest page? I'm going to take the "Zero" bet on that, if you don't mind.

What I come to DU for is discussion and information. I get both easily. I find it open and I find it free. I don't need to promote my ideas. I'm happy to simply discuss them, and when they are on divisive and potentially hateful topics, I don't mind posting in a forum with stricter scrutiny on conversation and sourcing. Anyone frustrated with the rules as they are are free to start their own forum and promote away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1489
1491. Those threads would not appear on the greatest page because nobody would recommend them
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 01:20 PM by no limit
so again, your logic here makes no sense. Now if people like those threads and recommend them as a result why would you be against having those threads show up on the greatest page?

Finally, you are comparing discussing cute kittens on a political message board to discussion of actual political issues. What happened last month was political, and it was important. Yet any discussion of it was banned from the latest page as well as the greatest page. In fact even if I mention it here this post will be deleted and I will be prevented from posting anymore replies here. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #1491
1549. The poster was complaining that those kinds of threads were making it up there
Now you say no one is recommending them. Please talk to the poster about the bad example - it's not my fault.

I didn't say I was against cute kitten threads being on the greatest page.

The discussion last month was in the realm of a hotly divisive topic which is confined to a specific forum with strict rules of discussion. The reasons that topic is confined to that forum are clearly laid out in the board's rules. I don't understand why you ask why. It's all written down there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #1489
1523. It's not emotional language, it's reality...
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 03:51 PM by Violet_Crumble
And there's been quite a few really trivial threads appear on the Greatest page, so you'd lose that bet. Having posted regularly in the I/P forum until recently, I'm very familiar with the restrictions on discussion of that topic, as well as knowing that here at DU the conversation on it isn't allowed to be open and free. An example is that if I wanted to start a thread talking about the different narratives regarding the founding of Israel and how the work of post-Zionist scholars have affected them, I just can't do it as my thread will get locked. New threads are limited to news or ops from mainstream news sources and they have to be very fresh news items. And then there's the quirkiness of some of the rules that are unwritten and only known to people once they break a particular rule, like the one where articles from Electronic Intifada aren;t allowed as a source for new threads due to partisanship and claims it doesn't support peace, yet an extremely RW and very partisan source that supports the settlers and opposes any peace deal or Palestinian state is allowed to be used to start new threads. I still can't figure out the logic of that one, and it's bizarre things like that which are among the things that get people like me deciding not to bother participating there...

I'm not sure what yr looking for when you come to DU, but nearly all topics have the potential to be divisive and hateful, and from what I've seen here at DU, there are some other topics which aren't restricted to 'special' forums that are far more divisive and hateful than the I/P conflict is. btw, the Greatest page isn't about anyone promoting themselves, but it's a tool for people like me who are looking for information.

And why are you telling people who are frustrated to leave DU? Yr not a mod or admin, are you? Skinner started this thread for people to say what they think about his suggestions and many DUers are frustrated with an old rule that meant all threads about a recent event that was all over the world news were moved to a small forum and many locked because they don't meet the strict rules for starting new threads there. With these new rules Skinner's suggesting where someone who has a post deleted can't post in the thread again will mean that threads on teh I/P conflict won't be likely to turn into complete flamefests anymore....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #1523
1551. It is how you feel about the situation. It's emotional language.
That is reality.

"And why are you telling people who are frustrated to leave DU?"

That's not what I said. However, if you want to do something not allowed by DU rules, it would be best to do those things somewhere else. There is nothing in that statement that says, "Leave DU." Go off and do those things DU won't let you do here, and then come back all refreshed and ready for a discussion. That's perfectly within your rights and would also respect DU rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #1551
1610. No, the reality of the situation's just been explained to you. Yr language is merely emotional...
AS well as making false claims that discussion in the I/P forum is open and free, you also very much did tell people to leave DU if they were frustrated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #1610
1653. Still haven't gotten any answers as to why it's set up that way. Very frustrating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #1653
1655. Actually it seems I/P threads are now showing up on latest page.
Is that the case for greatest page too? That would be awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #1299
1428. The argument you are making is about as logical as an argument for free speech zones
Sure you can protest, as long as you are protesting where nobody can see you.

The majority of people that read DU never get past the latest threads and greatest pages. When certain topics are buried where they won't show up on those pages then the majority of the readers will never see them. And many times these are very important topics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #1428
1485. No, because this is the Internet - and you didn't deny you're looking for promotion, not discussion
In fact, you double down on it.

I repeat: if you really want discussion, there the forums are. If you want promotion, you will have to buy an ad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1485
1490. Are protestors that don't want to be confied to speech free zones just looking for promotion?
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 01:14 PM by no limit
What you are saying makes absolutely no logical sense.

It's not about promotion anymore than you wanting promotion when you make a topic. When I take the time to write a thread I would like that to be treated the same as any other dicussion, I don't want it hidden.

You also say that the discussion can be had. But that's not the point,the point is many people will never see that discussion therefore you won't get most of the people that visit this site to participate in it.

I answered your questions, now you answer mine. When a very important story breaks on a perticular topic that has non stop covereage everywhere why would this site treat discussion of that topic different from all other topics? What is the point for doing so? How would you feel if DU decided any threads that didn't support Blanche Lincoln for senate during the primaries would be hidden from the latest page and from the greatest page? Would that be okay with you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #1490
1552. You persist in your silly analogy.
Discussion in the various moderated forums are not hidden. They are indexed in Google. They are free for anyone to participate in. The forums are found right there in the site map. And if people want to have that discussion with you, they will find those forums and they will participate in your thread.

You can find the reasons the topics are treated the way that they are in the topic forums. No, I don't think an exception should be made just because a particular story breaks in national news. It doesn't change the reasons for the topic to have a closely moderated forum.

And if I vehemently disagreed with the way a site was run, I would leave. I have done so in the past. YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #1552
1569. But why keep it off the greatest page and the latest page? You are not addressing this question
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 07:07 PM by no limit
It is ok if they have a special set of rules. That doesn't explain why those threads can't be shown on the latest page and on the greatest page as most other topics can. If people are recommending the thread obviously the content is good. It makes no sense.

DU is deciding that certain topics shouldn't be as visable as other topics. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why. You can keep repeating that it only takes a few clicks to get to those boards, but the fact is 90% of the users never get past the latest/greatest pages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #1552
1611. How about a bit less emotional language and a bit more substance?
You can find the reasons the topics are treated the way that they are in the topic forums.

That's not true at all when it comes to the I/P forum. I don't think you actually have any clue as to why the I/P forum was originally created and the topic banned from LBN and GD. More importantly, given that you've had it explained to you already why the new rule blocking those with deleted posts from threads would remove the heat from I/P threads upstairs, yet still seem to be intent on arguing that the I/P issue should be segregated, I'm a bit at a loss as to why you feel the way you do...

If I vehemently disagree with a rule on a site, I'd rather argue that the rule should be changed. It'd make a very boring site indeed if everyone clung to the status quo and refused to question anything...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #1611
1668. Whatever. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. If applied faithfully, this could work out well.
I am hopeful that this will be the case. Unfortunately, we've been down this road before. In the past, it's been a couple of weeks by the "new" rules, and then a decided shift back to the old way of doing things. Ultimately, it's going to be about whether or not this is adhered to in the long term that decides whether or not this will be effective.

All said and done, I am very glad that you're making this change. We've had too many long-time members driven away from this board because they actually like the current president - something that should absolutely not be the case on a site titled "DemocraticUnderground".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demtenjeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
599. Thank you
I have been here since 2004 and I was considering leaving as the constant disagreement was getting to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
994. I can't blame your friends for leaving...
I too have been totally blown away by some of the comments I have seen leveled against our President...At times it seems like it becomes a contest of who can talk the worst about Obama.

As much as I would like to see a full blown Liberal POTUS in America...That is not going to happen without someone like Obama to begin to shift the country back left SLOWLY in places and faster in others. America has been brainwashed for 30yrs to believe in Conservative Values and Conservative Values has it's own network & army of Talk Radio host many of which are paid 100's of millions of dollars to support corporate America.

So, it is going to take time, lots of time! I think many wanted it to happen in Obama's 1st year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #994
1696. Where I didnt expect miracles I did expect and end to the disastrous policies of Bush.
I understand that some things take time, but we dont have much. Many dont have any. I believe drastic measures are needed. Pres Obama will never convince the Republicans and the Blue Dogs to support the middle class.

An example: Why hasnt Pres Obama dismantled the Bush DOJ? That should be a high priority and should be within his power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmike27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
1565. Just reading the rules gave me eye fatigue
Seriously, why not just let us go at it, and occasionally delete obvious freepers? We're all adults.

An occasional FU, or F them, or you suck just makes it entertaining. I only hope it doesn't get to be one of these ideological support all democrats, never speak ill of the party in any way kind of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
1680. they did not leave because they like the President. they left because
they did not want to have to deal with disagreement.

Btw, liking the President is not the issue, either. I find the President (and his immediate family, apart from his late father) highly likeable, yet have criticized many things Obama or members of his administration have done and said. Framing it is as dislike or hatred seemsa to me to miss the point by a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Sounds good. Thank you. And Thanks to all the Admins and Mods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
1329. Facts are neutral. Truth is a principle we should all strive for. One can both praise and criticize
as needed without feeling they are being negative. Our president needs to be pushed at times and pressured to listen to his supporters and then praised when he does so and acts in accordance to the will of his supporters. No matter what party one may belong to a horse thief is still a horse thief and should be called on it without regard for party. But you know this.

After all, there were no WMD and this was know before invading Iraq. If one covers up these lies then one is guilty of being complacent and corrupt also.

We cannot pretend to overlook corruption no matter where it comes from just because those involved are members of our party. Facts are neutral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. I like the clarification and itemizing of the rules.
Getting locked out of threads after a delete will significantly reduce flame wars, IMO.

I also like that posters will get messages after deletes.

As long as these rules are uniformly enforced, these are good changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
310. Uniformly enforced?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
348. It would be helpful for everyone to know why a thread is deleted or locked out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #348
410. When a reason is even given to a locked piece it is too often bogus
I posted that the mods operate on consensus and it was deleted and I received an "unofficial" warning from NYC_SKP saying that a number of my posts had been deleted and the mods were concerned.

Some of these changes sound positive, but they don't entirely address the reasons there have been so much rebelliousness here lately unless the purpose is message control.

It may get a whole lot more civil around here, I'm sure it will even. But if it doesn't seem to effect you, then that's all good, am I right.

Yeah, it's the admins' board, but I paid a fee, you can call it a donation but this is supposed to be our community as well, not just a message discipline board veiled in a faux Underground billboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
415. I second what tekisui points out.
Getting locked out of threads after a delete solves the problem of having a long list of comments from a poster after the first disruptive comment was deleted.


"posters will get messages after deletes."
THAT is helpful re: the "why is my comment deleted ????".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. Sounds like a good plan. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. I think trying to herd Democratic cats is a thankless job
and, while some of the rules are quite sensible, the ones against kvetching about whole groups will cramp the styles of people who favor either the conservative DLC or the leftist progressive wing of the party.

I won't miss the gravedancing threads, however, even though they occasionally allowed me to clean up my ignore list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
33. Your comment about "kvetching about whole groups" is insightful.
This is a section of the rules that the Admins are deeply ambivalent about, and the moderators have an extremely difficult time enforcing. We have considered getting rid of it many times.

For years attacks against groups of people were permitted here (except bigoted attacks). And it made rule enforcement very easy. The problem was that someone would post something like "(insert group here) can fuck off!" and then someone from that group would respond "fuck you!" This would result in the reply being deleted but the original provocation staying, which seems unfair and nonsensical.

So, we tried to give the moderators the authority to remove the most disruptive attacks against groups of people. Which is useful when the insult is really clear-cut. But it creates countless headaches trying to navigate the massive gray area between what is in-bounds and what is not. Having a blanket policy against all negative comments against all groups of people is simply not feasible in practice. You quickly run into more problems.

So, here we tried to pull out the behaviors that are somewhat clear-cut: Broad brush attacks, namecalling, and the like. To be honest, I'm not sure it will make things any easier for mods or for members. We shall see. I've been thinking about opening up a discussion out on the boards to try to get some sort of consensus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #33
72. Perhaps the line should be drawn between thoughtful criticism
and either dismissal or simple condemnation, whether profane or not. One has thought behind it while the other is a non constructive reaction.

The line can be a little hazy at times and the mods won't please everyone all the time, but that's really where any such line should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #33
137. This is a step in the right direction ...

Point #2 is essential to any moderating process, and it falls under the general heading of moderator feedback. I have in the past simply assumed that you do not do this because of sheer numbers and the burden it would place on moderators. I have then supposed that either your software did not allow an automated process to be developed or, for whatever, reason you simply didn't want to do it. However, communication between the administration and the users of a discussion forum is essential to achieve all the goals you want. Having such communication doesn't insure you will achieve them, but without it, you can be certain you will not. Consider us all a class of kindergrtners. We're simply not going to behave without constant and direct reinforcement from someone in authority. Simply deleting a post that breaks a rule is akin to a finger wag and then being told we're not going to talk to you about what you did wrong because it's a secret. This generally just pisses a person off and makes them more unruly in the future.

I'm dubious about point #3. Most of the time, at least in my observation, by the time the moderators have been informed about a problem in a thread and have gone through whatever hocus pocus they go through to come to a decision about a post or thread, a whole series of posts end up deleted that removes the offenders from the discussion anyway. Sometimes they come back, but most people really into the flame war game will have moved on by then to start their own thread or wandered someplace else to complain. I don't think it's a bad idea. I just don't know what it will actually accomplish. Since you're in a better position to know, I am assuming you've run the numbers on this and see some utility in it.

You already know my thoughts on this and are probably sick of hearing them, so I'm just going to summarize in public by saying that from my perspective, what this place is missing is guidance and feedback from the people who run the place. Your point #2 above addresses this problem to some extent as do occasional threads like this one. Certainly it would be nice if you could post threads occasionally on more positive topics, not necessarily political topics, but something that creates a sense of community in which we can all discuss things and which involves you and/or others in positions of authority. Like it or not, you built the place, and we need your presence. Otherwise, it appears you don't care, which makes us not care.

Finally, I'll just offer a positive, proactive suggestion. Your moderators are by and large cops. Make them something more. Or, create a new type of moderator that works in concert with your "cops," i.e. a group of individuals who begin and lead discussions. Make it an event, a topic of the day or week or whatever. One thing that *has* changed about this place from the proverbial old days is that you had people who wrote for the place and were featured. This created a lot of interest. Consider bringing that back with certain modifications to encourage participation. Hell, it's the reason I wound up here in the first place, having seen a link to it elsewhere. I haven't seen a link *to* DU in ages, not a positive link anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #137
1003. No, they just refused to do it.. Even when explicitly asked for a reason
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 05:42 PM by Grinchie
Of course, does anyone think that the CIA of NSA scrubs any intelligence they gather because it is inflammatory of may hurts someones feelings? Of course they don't, but apparently, the moderators don't think that we are adults and have to scrub the message squeaky clean.

It's like cringing at the bad old Hawk for feeding on a Prairie Dog... How inhuman! (And that's the point... Animals don't have these concepts..)

Never mind the farmer that douses 100,000 acres with Herbicide and kills all the Prairie Dogs along with the Hawks that once fed upon them..



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #33
395. Does this mean I can
no longer say, 'I fucking hate Corporations?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #395
458. Well, they're people too, so yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #458
497. I enjoyed
your Comments Section in your profile.

I still hate fucking corporations!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #497
503. Thank you
I'm surprised I can still say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #503
657. I Gues You're Safe If You Quote Zinn? I Enjoyed Your Profile Too.
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 02:01 PM by theFrankFactor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #503
727. Mithreal, that is exactly what I am worried about.
I usually rail against the corporate controlled politicians. As a result, I often suggest starting a third, non-corporate, party. I guess I will no longer be allowed to do that on this forum...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #727
749. Not only you, but neither would Michael Moore, Wm. Greider, Tom Hayden, Schultz, Olbermann . . .
Grayson, Franken, Kucinich be allowed to post their free thoughts here -- !!

Wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #749
822. Ironic, isn't it. At least until they get back in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #822
1591. True . . .
evidently they're having subversive thoughts!

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #749
1689. grayson or moore has never said Obama is an asshole or he is worse than Bush...
come on. And even if they did, there is a whole lot of thunk behind their words, they don't one line that shit.
reread Skinners post. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
719. Please open up that discussion; I think it would be very helpful for we users as
well as the Admins. I think it would help identify certain patterns of said "kvetching" that go past reasonably acceptable lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #33
1593. Is anything going to be done about the attempts to enforce messaging in Topics?
It will be nice that the labling will be cut down. But do you and the other admins recognize the part attempts to control messaging plays in getting everyone's backs up? I don't see anything that will cut down on attempts to control the debate by people more interested in enforcing messaging than discussing the topic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
73. For me, the rule makes sense.
I know nothing about the DLC, but people from time to time have accused me of being somehow linked to that organization. For them, that's a slur, even though I don't know anything about it or have any connection to it. That's always bothered me, frankly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #73
84. That's covered more by the rule against slurs against other posters
Telling other people how they think is just never a good idea and usually provokes a flame war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #73
272. Agreed, I experience that as a smear, too
Though even so, if there were such posters, they are Democrats and entitled to their opinions, too.

But it's a broad-brush anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #73
279. The whole 'DLC' slur has always been odd to me
Who the fuck associates with a Clinton era organization here on DU? Makes no sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #279
319. i am aware of only 3 people who are actual DLCers here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #319
347.  The DLC are now the New Democrats as well as the Third Way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #347
350. Whatever that means
I HATE classification for the purpose of slurring.

Argue the issues!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #350
436. Actually the DLC, Third Way, is a useful classification
and a whole sale wing of the Democratic (and Republican, though that is somewhat smaller since they've gone KRAZEEE) party at the leadership level. You could even call them by their real name, which they don't like. Third Way is truly called... fascism.

Now there are folks here on the Old DU that ARGUE for policies that are Neo Liberal, many a times not even knowing it. As to the issues, we will keep arguing over it, but the results are clear... DLC is all for cheap labor... and lower taxes and less government services.

But there are folks here that argue for the policies without even knowing what they are arguing for. This is pushed by our right wing media and internalized by most of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #436
449. My point was best made by Skinner below:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #449
465. It's been done, many a times
and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

Hell a member used to post the DLC primer once a month, until he went away, chock full of links to poli sci articles on line.

I guess that was before your time and Skinner doesn't remember.

But it got to the point that it was posted and it sank.

Either that or my memory is faulty or from a parallel DU... way back in the day...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #465
477. I do remember that
An alternate universe a long time ago, I agree with Skinner, the insult and ridicule when attempting to discuss that topic is toxic now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #436
635. It could be useful ...

...if people used it correctly. Unfortunately, people don't, and that's the problem with it.

If you'll recall, for example, you and I were labeled as "DLC" back during the debates taking place at the height of the economic meltdown. This was done as an insult, not as a description of our position. Or, I should say, it was an insult that attempted to describe our position, but it was wrong on every level.

The DLC barely even exists anymore, and when it was at its height, some people this place considers icons were actually members. More times than I can count I've seen people throw out the DLC slap in the *same* post where they invoke the beliefs of someone who was at one time a member of the DLC.

It's similar to how so many people refer to anyone who doesn't appear to agree with their economic philosophy as Friedman followers. There are actually more economic theories than those put forth by Friedman, and not all of them agree with Keynes either. Furthermore, both Friedman and Keynes were wrong in some of their predictive theories, the former more so than the latter by a large measure. This should not prevent us from recognizing where they were correct nor result in those who do so as being labeled wholesale, blind followers of either ideology.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #635
1017. Very true, and I will only disagree
in one thing, the DLC is still quite strong in DC. It is part of the Chicago School, but there we are getting into very technical info that most folks round these parts don't even know. And it is not like the information is not out there, it is... just that at times it is hard to grasp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #350
445. I am not slurring anything! I am stating a fact as to who the DLC are.
They are actually a minority group within the Democratic party that has several subsets and in fact has a lot of influence dictating policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #445
451. Once again, Skinner addressed my concerns below:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #445
972. Food for thought
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #347
441. +1 Damn straight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #73
1516. It's like how RWers throw around "socialism."
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 02:50 PM by Starbucks Anarchist
Just a catch-all for bullshit.

Don't think Kucinich has a chance in hell of becoming President? You're a DLC tool!

Don't think Obama is the second coming of Bush because he's not an ultra-liberal? DLC tool!

See how it works?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
544. I will miss grave-dancing and grave-mourning
I think they both serve two good purposes. They are informative, and they are also a release of emotions for members of the group. Without such a thread, you are otherwise not aware of the demise and might be thinking "what ever happened to Matcom or NewYawker99? I just noticed I haven't seen them in a while." At least part of my purpose here is to "meet" people and make friends from all over the country and world as well as in my own area. Sometimes the affection may be one way. For example, kpete or kentuck who start lots of threads that I read several of them a day. So I sorta feel like I know them whereas they may not even be aware of my existence as post #27 in one of their threads. Anyway I like to keep track of the old-timers (I am not so interested in grave-dancing for some n00b with 117 posts which I have not even read one).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #544
1362. I guess we could grave dance on grave dancing then
that wouldn't be against the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
651. There should be a bright red line around slamming groups of people here
at DU. It just causes ugliness, no matter which group it's directed at. And by now, it's habitual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #651
1041. People of faith are especially slammed around here.
I'm not just talking Christians, though they get the brunt of it. People who profess New Age beliefs are often responded with "woo" comments. It's like we have to circle the wagons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarcoated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1041
1127. Very true.
I see it all the time here . . . it's not right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #1041
1133. And people who aren't Christian
are faced with pro-Christian statements and people who think New Age beliefs are woo are faced with New Age beliefs. Why are the Christians and New Agers somehow given the ability to post what they think in your scenario but the other side isn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarcoated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #1133
1157. I don't have a problem with "non-believers" questioning my reasoning for what I "believe"
as long as they're respectful. If "believers" question yours, or state their beliefs in a respectful way, it's discussion. Aspenrose's post refers to when people get derisive, mock. That's wrong whether it be believers stating their beliefs to you, or non-believers theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #1133
1390. They can post whatever they want, if it's done respectfully
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 06:46 AM by AspenRose
99% of the time it's done with unnecessary hostility and downright bullying. I find it curious that you'd read any advocacy of censorship in what I posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #1390
1408. You might find it curious
but, in my perception, it is usually that people get upset when atheists just actually state their opinion and don't treat religion with kid gloves. People aren't used to that and react to it as if it is bullying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarcoated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #1408
1604. Bluntness is different than
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 11:27 PM by Sugarcoated
what Aspenrose and I are speaking of. Ridicule, intimidation, hostility, name calling, go way beyond not treating "believers" with kid gloves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #1133
1421. Not on DU
This is flat-out not the case.

Compare the number of verbal assaults on atheists with the number against Catholics or evangelicals. Not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #1421
1581. That's an artifact of the shortage of atheist sex scandals. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarcoated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #1421
1603. Well there you go, I've only "believers" attacked, and not only believers in religions
but people who believe there is more after we die, or more to this existence than what we can see or perceive with our five senses, getting attacked. And not just that, many times simply for stating their beliefs, or just bringing up the possibility. But regardless, it's wrong when either side is hostile, mocking, bullying or rude, so I'm happy to see the one strike and you're out rule in a thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #1041
1700. OK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #651
1230. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
993. Hopefully, this will stop the people who love Hugo Chavez from attacking those who don't.
That's one good application of the "don't hate groups who disagree with you" rule.

We're all free to have our own opinion of every politician in the world. We don't have to agree with others here or anywhere. Why anyone expects everyone to agree with them about anything is a mystery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #993
1247. It helps if the people who don't like Chavez would bring some facts.
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 09:32 PM by Forkboy
They rarely do so. Yes, we can have opinions about politicians all over the world, but hopefully people will take the time to make it an informed one, and not a kneejerk one that buys into an anti-left wing push.

I don't expect you to agree. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
1669. On cleaning up your ignore list -
You can do it without gravedancing/mourning threads. Every once in a while, just click through to the person's profile. You can still do that if they are on ignore (unless they've ignored you, and then you get a disabled profile message). When you see a tombstone, that person's not here to plague you anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. You can please all the people some of the time
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 09:50 AM by HereSince1628
and none of the people all the time.

That's life

It's a good thing to point out where in a post a rule is violated. From an educational point of view, I'd prefer that EVERYONE could see that.

All Democrats will NEVER agree, it's a fractious and rowdy coalition that is against rightwing moonbats.

Where left and right separate is no clearer than where the US "West" begins, and the "Midwest" ends,
I hope the moderators continue to enjoy moderating.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLovinLug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
1149. Totally second this suggestion!
Please leave the violating post up for ALL to see, not just the perp.

It will help myself and others to understand just what is a clear violation and what isn't.

Maybe I'm just a curious bugger, but I'd like to see who said it and what it was. Its a good way to recognize the same poster if he/she wades into another thread with the same intent.

I am one who would side on the more relaxed rules. Like HereSince1628 implies, one persons left is another persons center, and on and on, but we all are against "rightwing moonbats".

Thats the great thing about liberals, we truly do have a big tent. I think we just have to grow up and learn how to take criticism and not let it turn so emotional. Easier said than done its true.

And its very important to be critical of a Democratic Presidency. There is a HUGE difference between DU members being critical and Freepers being critical. We are for the most part critical that Obama is NOT being progressive enough. The opposite of freeper sites. If we cannot do that here, then where will it get done???????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. i find #2 intriguing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. Hey dion!!!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. where have YOU been young lady?! i was wondering if you had cruise missled off into
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:00 AM by dionysus
the sunset!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:38 AM
Original message
Oh, I've just been sipping iced lattes on the yacht I bought
with all my DLC money. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
156. hmmmm, lattes.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
53. #3 is amazing
Can you imagine that? No more spamming of threads with repeated attacks.

Well, unless you type really really fast!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
11. "Posting entirely in capital letters."
THANK YOU!!!

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CabalPowered Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
12. #3 is genius
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I think that change will have the greatest impact.
If someone wants to stay relevant to the discussion, they won't have the option of being an occasional ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CabalPowered Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
113. In a perfect world though..
This rule would have a variable threshold. A member who is well behaved should have two or three posts removed before getting banned from the thread. Whereas someone who has a recent history of removed posts would have a threshold of one removed comment.

Perhaps some quotient is needed that calculates the number of removals in a certain period of time and then determines the number of strikes before banning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #113
829. Interesting, but unsurprised by how it would be enforced, implemented
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
450. I agree. Thread flooding is one of the most obnoxious tactics on message boards.
I'm glad that poisoning the well will now automatically prevent people drinking from it. Although it will cause much angst eventually it will cause people to think before posting.

One thing I wish were in: an end to attention-seeking thread titles like "you must see this" or "I have had a realization" (with no hint of what the post is actually about). 90% of the time these threads turn out to be flamebait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #450
1310. or. TURN ON CNN...NOW!!
always reminds me of the clever. "back in 15 ninutes" signs on a business' door.. 15 minutes from when? when I saw the sign? from 2 hours ago & you forgot to remove the sign & you're sitting at your desk wondering where the customers are :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
729. Yes, indeed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
786. Agreed.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maeve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
970. Totally agree! An end to obnoxious thread-killers!
:loveya: Admin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
13. This is the best item you have added---
"2. When a post is deleted, the author of the post will be able to see the text of the deleted post, and the rule it violated.

When a post is deleted, most people will still see the same old "Name removed/Deleted message" placeholder, but the author of the post will be given access to the full text of that post, along with specific rule it violated. We fully expect that this will cause some consternation from members at first. But it is obviously the right thing to do. Most importantly, it will help educate our members about the DU rules and how they are enforced. Over time, we hope this will help those of you who want to be constructive members figure out how to do so. In addition, it will let the author review the post to see the violation -- we know from experience that people will often forget the stray personal attack they added to the end of an otherwise appropriate post. And finally, it gives a powerful incentive for the moderators and administrators to double-check our work and make sure we are justified in removing a post."


Greatness for multiple reasons!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miscsoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. yeah, this is a good idea
these things are a bit opaque at present
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
15. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:54 AM
Original message
thank you for this thoughtful and thorough explanation. DU is, and has been, for ma as so many
others, an oasis of sanity in an otherwise through-the-looking glass world.

we appreciate the DU community, and want to see it continue to remain and grow ever stronger and more viable.

KUDOS to the admin, to the mods, and to all of you who help keep what remains of my sanity.

Mitakuye oyasin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
16. On the subject of gravedancing/grave mourning, it's difficult to stop that urge
when long time, reasonable posters suddenly go poof. I don't know the best way to handle it but there is a natural desire to want to know why the person was banned. Under the current system the tombstone appears in the profile for some period of time but then it disappears, leaving people who missed the initial event to wonder what happened.

I think grave mourning threads suit this purpose perfectly because the thread is searchable.
Just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. I would like to see an explanation with the tombstones.
Just a brief sentence saying what rules were violated, if they received a warning, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
47. There is that sort of explanation with at least some TSs
but it disappears along with the purging of the username.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #26
55. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #26
69. Be careful what you wish for.
We might do this.

We've always been reluctant to do this because we think it's kinda like kicking someone when they're down. Not only are we banning you, but we're going to broadcast to the world precisely what you did and how many chances we gave you to stop acting like a jerk.

Frankly, it's in our interest to just put it out there. It would obviously make it harder for a banned person to claim that they were banned "for speaking the truth" or some other half-baked self-serving garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #69
76. I understand your reluctance.
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:18 AM by tekisui
The 'kicking while down' and all that. But, I also think it would help other to be aware of what will get you banned. It will stand as stronger and clearer warning of what not to do.

ETA: with the cessation of grave-dancing threads, the addition of explanatory bans would go a long way, IMO. The grave-dancing often turns into a flame war over what the poster did to get banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #76
88. Point taken. And we are trying to make "what not to do" clearer for everyone.
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:20 AM by Skinner
But let's be honest here: We're all adults. We are responsible for our own behavior. Anyone who wants to be a productive member of this community could do it RIGHT NOW without my needing to clarify anything. Just use common sense and don't act like a jerk all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #88
103. "don't act like a jerk all the time."
I like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #103
175. Unfortunately, when jerks act like jerks, they rarely KNOW that they are acting like jerks.
That's the definition of a true jerk--one that is so unconcerned of others' feelings that he doesn't even realize how offensive his behavior is.

Perfect example: Newt Gingerich serving divorce papers on his wife when she was lying in a hospital bed getting treated for cancer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #175
457. I always know when I'm acting like a jerk.
It's usually in response to something unbearably stupid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #457
500. Because a lot of people who you claim as political comrades post stupidity?
It's never you. It's always THEM.

Interesting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #500
790. This is close to becoming a thread-jack.
If you'd like to continue this discussion on a new thread or via PM, I'd be OK with that. It would be rude to continue this discussion on this particular thread. This thread is lengthy enough, especially for the DUers who are constrained to dial-up access.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #790
813. No, I believe I've made my point. Don't want to be . . . uh . . . . rude. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #457
975. sigh....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #88
127. With all due respect, some people have been banned recently...
...with no one able to recall them ever acting like a jerk.

That's what spooks people, and rightfully so, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #127
139. +1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #127
141. I respectfully disagree
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:36 AM by HughMoran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #127
209. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #127
286. With all due respect, would your opinion change if the profile of one of these banned people....
...publicly said that they had a long history of personal attacks and received X number of warnings?

It's still my word against your belief that you never saw them acting like a jerk. You would probably not change your opinion just because I offered a public explanation. In fact, you might be filled with righteous indignation because you feel my public explanation is unfair or untrue.

So let's be honest: The public explanation would be for the benefit of the 99% of people who don't already have an opinion. And because I'm the administrator, the public explanation would always be my side of the story, not yours. So, as I said, it's completely in my interest to do this. For those of you who are upset that your friends got banned, there really isn't much upside to a public explanation. I get a one-sided platform to sully the reputation of your banned friend, and you don't get anything.

But if you would like this to happen, I think that's great. We are seriously considering doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #286
305. I'd reallly like to see it happen also. Thank you for considering it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #286
339. Actually, yes. Yes it would.
Contrary to what you seem to believe about me, I am fully capable of being reasonable and impartial. I realize there is much that goes on behind the scenes with PMs and admin/moderator warnings that I do not see.

I would much rather know that someone had been banned for sending hostile PMs to members and ignoring warnings than just their public history of being critical of the administration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #286
414. Where's Will Pitt? There's also nothing "Underground" about this board.
In Response to New Board Rules

In short, this makes for a nice little Democratic Coffee Club and there's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing "Underground" about it. Palatable pap that doesn't step too hard on anyone's tosies is sweet. It's also chilling. A good deal, the bulk in fact, of these rules are merely civil and common sense but there are those important few that are not. Why they are necessary is lost on me. Are we adults? Have we ever faced criticism? Does this really have to be a padded room?

It really turns out that there is much "we" (Democrats) share with our counterparts. The severity of the situation within our Federal government is not one that calls for polite conversation, sorry. Just because a Democrat is President is no reason to protect that President from strong, if even acerbic criticism.

On the whole, this only bolsters my opinion as to the ineffectual attitudes that hold back "Change". I really wish this were a Democratic "Underground" site with this many engaged citizens. It would be the incubator of policy and social progress. As it is, it will maximize comfortable chat among like minds. Again, nothing underground about that.

Oh well, I want to stay, it's just so vitally important to reach and bolster movement and change. It will just have to be palatable to the least effectual and the most disinterested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #414
452. Well said
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #414
516. You don't have to be den of poop-flinging a-holes to be "underground"
When this site started it definitely did represent an underground. As it stands today, we could certainly be one again if we don't pull together, which is the jist of what I get from Mr. Skinner. I don't so much see the title of this forum as simple moniker, but a standing warning.

These changes are overdue, and they will generally help to heal this place and maybe even create some solidarity again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #516
530. Yeah, and that's "exactly" what I'm saying. NOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #516
1154. What does a "healed" DU look like?
I am not particularly interested in a board where we all cheerlead. I want to hear all opinions from this non right-wing biased board. This great community came together because we all knew what we did not want... It does not follow that we will agree on what we DO want. There is a chance to learn from each other. I think a simple set of rules that cover rudeness and language but NOT subject would suit adults.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #516
1567. That it did. People were not allowed to speak out against
the past president, because they were considered unpatriotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #414
890. Will Pitt was banned for sending people death threats.
Which, in my opinion, is a perfect example of the benefits of admins explaining why so-and-so was banned.

Because if Skinner hadn't explained that, some of us might have been upset with the ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #890
976. he threatened to kill someone? really? wow, that's really surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #976
988. Yup. And there was more.
You can find Skinner's explanation if you search for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #988
996. dang, I miss all the good stuff!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #976
1053. Technically, he broke the rules-- but I hope he comes back one day.
Someone was effectively yanking Will's chain and consciously attempting to get under his skin-- it worked and Will reacted in a visceral manner. Say what you want about him, but he was always above board and talked to people the same--regardless of whether on a message board or at the lunch counter.

Technically, he broke the rules-- but I hope he comes back one day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #890
1286. Someone went after his mother
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:23 PM by spoony
Why doesn't anyone ever mention that? It doesn't excuse it but it certainly provides that "context" people are clamoring for. I wasn't a big fan of Will, but telling someone who attacks his mum that he'd be happy to provide free surgical care is probably the least objectionable thing he ever wrote here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #1286
1384. There's a current DUer who regularly wishes death on other DUers...
..and all that happens is their posts get deleted and a few days later they turn up with the same routine again. Only a day or so ago they told another DUer that they hoped he'd drop dead of prostate cancer, and even though there's a clear rule about not advocating harm towards another DUer, telling someone to drop dead of prostate cancer must somehow be more acceptable behaviour than what Will Pitt said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #1286
1472. Because it's completely irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #890
1546. I Had No Idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #414
903. Will Pitt apparently threatened someone with bodily harm...
Rules-wise, that's called shooting yourself in your own foot.

As for "where" he is, just Google. He's still publishing at another site, where he's been all along.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobMackenze Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #414
973. Right, not "Underground".
Its a misnomer. You can't be a subversive anti-establishment "Underground" while performing message control for the powers that be. You can't be "Underground" and be corporatist or K-street enablers or support the party-line for career politicians. This is confusing for new members.

Many long time Democratic Party voters really think the Democrats have collectively "screwed the pooch" in that last year and a half so and thus many on the left feel very betrayed and angry. I don't have trouble "moderating" the hard core right winger disruptors(like the ones that call Obama a Communist, etc.) as these people crazy and arguing with them servers no purpose, but the problem is that this site also aggressively bans the left too.

The problem is that I don't think progressive Democrats can get along with status quo DLC-style Democrats and that is problematic for this site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #414
1138. I had a lot of problems with Will Pitt
well before he issued a death threat to someone on DU. Just goes to show you how diverse the audience is here on DU: one person's hero is another person's insufferable asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #414
1302. Eeerily reminiscent of Ari Fleischer's admonition
"be careful what you say".. :(...but like you, I try to follow the rules, and rarely run afoul of them, but we are all humanb)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #414
1420. +10000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #414
1574. You know, I've not spoken to him, but I bet he understands his banning
He's an adult who can accept when he's made one mistake too many. For the record I miss his postings here, but I respect that he let his emotions get away with him one time too many. Something I've been guilty of myself in the past, so I'm not throwing stones.

Other than that NOTHING has really changed, except locking posters out of threads when they attempt to disrupt the flow of productive conversation. Which means if you didn't like it before, you still won't like it now.

Oh, and get the hell over the whole "Underground" thing already. That was a feeling many of us had during the Bush reign. It was applicable at the time it was coined, and I personally still like it as a reminder of how far we've come. Don't worry, I'm sure if you're patient well be back there again before you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #414
1579. Well said.
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #286
520. Skinner, if the public explanation would be for the benefit of the vast majority of people
why would it be a bad thing? We understand that it's just DU's side of events. That beats having regular, thoughtful posters disappear without notice. Will Pitt's banning is a good example of why a public airing of the reasons make sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #286
531. would your opinion change
would your opinion change if the profile of one of these banned people....

...publicly said that they had a long history of personal attacks and received X number of warnings?

Yes, it would.
Someone who is banned after numerous warnings deserves no sympathy, and since it is likely that their sympathizers are jerks, 'executive action' is pretty much the only thing jerks understand or react to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #286
659. My opinion would. I would like that. Thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #286
794. It's a 360 issue
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 03:55 PM by lumberjack_jeff
It's only "one-sided" if your stated reasons are consistent with the goals of your members.

There are arguments for and against;
for: when members silently disappear, paranoia runs amok
against: if your explanations don't meet with general approval, or worse, validate that paranoia, you risk alienating people. Also, like gravedancing threads, they give the Lord of the Flies an opportunity to rally the troops. "Simon was a DLC'er/apologist/shill/MRA/anti-vaxxer/green/repuke/etc."

It's clear to me that my ideal is not practical; "A large delicately moderated public forum where self-described progressives can share a diverse set of ideas, even challenging ones, within a framework of general personal respect."

My fear is; "A clubhouse for those who meet the current collective ideological test, who may discuss a narrow set of issues within a small, strictly enforced doctrinal paradigm in a framework of general fear and mistrust."

Outing the recently departed? It's your call, but I see big downsides for either approach. My suggestion is to create fewer tombstones, for only the most egregious repeat violators. I can hardly imagine a justification for tombstoning a poster with 10,000 posts that outweighs the generalized environmental problem that it creates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #286
941. I don't think it's necessary to explain every banning.
Some of the very high profile, very behind the scene ones might require it. But in most cases it can be figured out.

Then there's the "gay purge" as some have called it. I'm sure you know why many people were banned at the same time, but it has left a bad feeling with some here. I don't get too close to anyone here, but I was even disappointed to see some of the names. Your reasoning for not explaining this stuff is valid. And that doesn't even get into the privacy issues of making that kind of information public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #286
946. I recall a member in the past that got banned "for absolutely no reason whatsoever"
Then after a long time was allowed back, then got banned again. "For absolutely no reason whatsoever" Again. And people believed that.

I'd love to see that report card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #286
1115. DU already does this with temporary suspensions, no?
?

It might be helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #286
1202. I'd like it done not for profiles, but for individual posts.
Keep it off the thread, but with a link so people can see the what, the who, and the why. Maybe put them behind a captcha or something.

For profiles? I don't really see any value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #286
1209. In a nutshell.
"For those of you who are upset that your friends got banned, there really isn't much upside to a public explanation. I get a one-sided platform to sully the reputation of your banned friend, and you don't get anything."

And everything from the past 2+ years that's turned me completely off this place gets summed up in two sentences, by Skinner himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #1209
1444. Well put. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #286
1369. I don't get the need to see it. Kinda like leaving the executed out on the gallows a few extra days
to intimidate the villagers into paying their taxes (or something like that...saw it in the movies). Seriously, if people need an explanation, to me it seems more out of curiousity similar to what we have at an accident scene. Or are the interested parties really looking to post comments out on the edge, to live dangerously and tempt the mods by trying to get as close to the line as possible without actually crossing it? I mean, either someone can say what they have to say with respect to the persons and the community or not. If one is sincere but gets a post booted, I suppose that's their lesson. And not allowing them to repost in a thread ought to bring the point home. It's a judgment call for the mods anyway. Roll with it and respect the fact that we even have such a venue as this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #286
1380. Mine most definately would...
There's been times long ago when friends of mine were banned and I was told by you guys exactly what they'd done to warrant being banned. While I was upset that my friends were banned, I didn't think the banning was wrong or that they were completely innocent in what they'd done leading up to being banned....

I find it worse when someone's banned, and there's no explanation at all about what happened to cause them to be banned. Recently two posters I really liked were banned and I'm still in the dark as to why and the cone of silence from mods and admin about bannings just doesn't sit well with me....

You'd more than likely get lots of 'but you just banned so and so for doing that but so and so over there has been doing that once a week since 2001 and they're not banned!' complaints, so I could understand if you didn't end up doing public explanations...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SCRUBDASHRUB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #286
1452. Thanks, Skinner. It's your "house," as one of the posters noted, so we need to
be good guests. :)

I appreciate you mentioning the rule about not using insulting words such as "retard" (I take it "fucktard" and the like are to be included in the list). I can't tell you how many times I've been upset by seeing those words (I have a relative who is mentally disabled, and it is very upsetting to see those words used on DU.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #286
1467. I like this idea...
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 11:32 AM by Blue_Roses
:)

In fact, I think you're "too nice" sometimes. I've been here at DU a long, long time and I've never known you to be anything but fair, kind, and considerate. I know you strive to make this site a great place for us to come and escape the republican crap, but sometimes I think you need to pull the bull by the horns. Call the trouble-makers out.

After years of Bush and being constantly beat down with republican rhetoric, the last thing I want to do is come here--a place of solace for me and many others--and hear more divisive crap that we already hear through the "media". It's not hard to spot the troublemakers from those who are genuinely concerned about certain policies. Sometimes it helps to call out those who consistently want to stir the pot.

When I leave DU, I don't want to feel more frustrated and angry than when I came. The dynamics of who's president has changed--that's for sure--but the republican crap machine is still in full force. That's what we should be focused on defeating. To let them have a step edge-wise draws them closer to putting us through the hell we went through with Bush.

I want progress in our country and DU should aim for the same. I think this is a step in the right direction. Thank-you! :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:39 AM
Original message
And I can't recall them not acting like jerks.
I guess it depends on your point of view.

My point of view comes from being a Democrat supportive of this Democratic President and his administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
346. Lol. How do you even know who I'm talking about?
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 11:41 AM by Barack_America
We're not allowed to "name names" and I didn't.

ETA: I think it would be a rule violation to declare people "jerks" because they don't agree with your point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #346
355. Yes, nobody is aware of the 8 or so people banned this week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #355
361. And you are assuming I have an issue with each of them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #355
574. They were . . . ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #574
1132. Yes.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #346
385. And I don't believe it's against the rules to call any anonymous former/banned members jerks.
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 11:55 AM by JTFrog
But you'd have to have your head buried not to notice who's coming and going around here these days and I heartily approve of the pest control measures taken.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
730. ALL of those people NEVER made a SINGLE non-jerky post?
Really? In all the collective years they were here--not a single time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #127
396. This is true. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #127
463. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #127
508. I agree. This is aided by the posts by highly opinionated posters
who state that their own desires are being enforced by such bannings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine1967 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #88
232. I know I am restating this, but I do think it would be beneficial
for people to see a suspension. Then, a Tombstone would not be so shocking.

And -- to add to that, It would be good for only moderators to post in such a forum. It could be something more akin to an announcement forum. It gives the Mods and the Admins a way to say "this is what we have done and this is why"

If there are questions by members, it is more than fair to have them address those questions to the Admins and the moderators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #232
1482. AN ANNOUNCEMENTS FORUM. Great idea!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #69
77. I like it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #69
99. Sounds like what this poster is asking for is transparency
Might serve the interests of everyone in the community if there were more of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #69
157. I think you should put it out there...
It's more valuable to the community that the truth be known, rather than the ego or reputation of a banned poster be protected.

IMO, of course :)

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #157
178. It's been done before
With that Lounge group that got banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine1967 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #69
197. Not necessarily a bad thing.
It shows that the poster was given warning and the 'rules' that were broken. IT also allows for the members of the board to show what is tolerated and what is not.

There is a difference between a suspension and a banning, correct? I would be inclined to have a reason for suspension posted. Then if a person is banned it might not be such a surprise. Makes things more transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #69
329. Since many have offered suggestions
I'll add mine FWIW. I do not think you should give a reason why next to every tombstone. I think the reasons behind why someone is banned is between that person and the moderators/admin.

I don't see any reason why except to benefit nosy members that just have to know what happened to person 'x' or whatever. (This is coming from someone who has asked other DUers in that past why so-and-so was banned)

You have a very large list of rules so it isn't very difficult to figure out what it takes not to get banned. So I don't accept the reason showing why person 'x' was banned will help others know what they can or cannot do to not get banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #69
401. "like kicking someone when they're down"
You mean like an admin posting "boo hoo" on someone's thread after TSing a long time well-respected member?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #401
411. .
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 12:11 PM by Barack_America
Actually, I'm going to edit this.

I do hope that the mods and admins strive to do a better job of upholding the standards of civil discourse they expect of everyone else. This incident is not the first I've seen of a mod or admin being purposefully disrespectful of a member. And it's often done while locking a thread, which of course leaves the member with no way of publicly defending themselves.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #411
1131. mods are only human
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 07:50 PM by branders seine
and if they (or at least certain among them) clearly seem to have a favored side in the current civil war, I'm sure that perception varies with each member.



it is what it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #401
823. I find it extremely difficult to believe one of the admin ever did such a thing
I've never witnessed any of them show such a lack of professionalism, not to mention vocabulary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #823
832. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #832
848. I stand corrected.
I've seen several Kamikazes in my time here on DU. That one, however, was pretty intense.

Thank you for the context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CabalPowered Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #848
907. IMO it was a zombie
of a not-so-nice ex member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #823
837. Poster is citing a specific example. It was a few days ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #837
844.  I saw that. It suprised me.If anything actually can anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #837
1040. i saw it too -- shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #1040
1067. Agreed. Stunningly disrespectful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1067
1146. You mean the OP, right?
This is the admin's board. Not ours. They are cool enough to get input because they know that people want a nice site, but that OP was over the top and disrespectful. Earl was quite restrained. I would have said much worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #401
1086. *raises hand*
Yup, that was not very professional of me.

Although in my defense, this "well respected member" did have his original account banned for disrupting, sneaked back in under a different username, had that account banned for disrupting, was reinstated after emailing us and promising to follow the rules, was rebanned after continuing to disrupt, sneaked back in under a third username, and then finally spammed the board with half a dozen threads calling the admins "cowards" and calling DU a "disgrace" and the "trash of the internet."

So I'm sorry if I don't have Skinner's tact, but to be honest I think "boohoo" was relatively restrained under the circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1094. Actually, Earl, I think you were very restrained.
That post was a nasty piece of work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1123. a little witty sarcasm ....
chuckle... please don't hesitate to use, if and when you ever decide to hand me the granite marker. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #1123
1263. You have an embarrassingly low standard of wittiness.
There are many words to describe admins behaving in that fashion. Unprofessional. Inappropriate. Tactless. Venomous. Witty is not among the applicable adjectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #1263
1272. I applaud you...
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:16 PM by hlthe2b
for apparently never having been driven to total exasperation and uttering a fairly benign, yet sarcastic rejoinder. That is what I see happened here. And if that embarrasses you, so be it, I guess. I don't like it when people are tombstoned when there is no clear reason as to why. I think that is the point. However, I can understand EarlG's little sarcastic rejoinder in the context of what he maintains happened. In the absence of knowing that, I can see why you might see it as all the things you describe it to be.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #1272
1290. Frankly, just because he "said" it doesn't mean I "know" it
EarlG's attitude on a number of occasions leaves me less than content to simply trust his version of events, particularly here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #1290
1387. Wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #1387
1393. My sentiments exactly. (nt)
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 07:17 AM by redqueen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #1387
1407. You're not used to seeing people being honest, I know
but Skinner himself said that if they stated reasons for banning, it would just be their version versus a banned poster's as far as that goes. And, guess what, I'm not obliged to trust that version over numerous posters. And don't sprain anything jamming that alert button, valued member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demtenjeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #1290
1412. Never the less it is his board
not ours so if he wants to be funny sometimes, so be it



This is not the "independent Underground" or the Democratic (ONLY IF YOU ARE HARD LEFT) underground.


That is what I don't get from some of these protests....

Sheesh find a new board if this one isn't want you want any more.


Frankly, I am excited that the new rules are in place!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #1412
1415. Funny coming from someone who has called out mods more than
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 08:41 AM by spoony
any DUer I can name offhand. How many times have you been locked or deleted for demanding action against DU's progressives, now? I've seen a handful, but I bet it's more.

Maybe you should take your own advice? Physician, heal thyself.

Oh, and Earl and they can run DU however they want. Obviously I can't stop them. But if I find it arbitrary or unprofessional and I'm here, I'll say so. Deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #1415
1424. Over a dozen now
nasty personal attacks on DUers and the mods/admins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #1424
1455. Good to see you're updating your files
I'd hate for my entry to be incomplete when you turn it in at the end of the day. If you want an autograph or something you don't have to drop all these hints, just PM me. Or were you talking about the constant attacks on DU members and mods the guy I was replying to has made? Lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #1455
1470. 13
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #1470
1595. Uh, I thought it was "over a dozen" before. Only now is it 13?
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 10:18 PM by spoony
Wouldn't "over a dozen" + 1 = at least 14? It's okay. Cheerleaders generally aren't good at maths. Let me spare you the labour of a response: "29!" Lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1290
1460. The poster in question said he was a troll in his own post
The rules you agreed to when you signed up state that individuals who are banned but come back under a different name will automatically be banned again. That is true whatever your views...see the BOGger who was TSed for the same reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1145. IMHO . Well done
If a poster acts like an asshole, mocking such assholery is an apt reaction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1180. See, that's part of the problems that people are addressing in this thread.
We just don't know this stuff. As long as we are addressing this issue, I respectfully would like to know what happened to debbierlus. One moment she was being featured constantly on the highlighted DU Journals front page and the next she is tombstoned. I searched and searched and could not find anything that remotely looked like a tombstonable offense. It may be none of my business, but frankly I found it somewhat disconcerting. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #1180
1222. You're not alone.
Even if it's as horrible and one-sided as Skinner thinks it might be, a public explanation (or profile note) is better than simply not knowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #1180
1617. Completely agreed, and you're not alone.

Thank you for bringing this up actually. I found that particular incident equally disconcerting, especially since she was being constantly personally attacked but never responded in kind. I was so shocked when she was suddenly TSd that I even emailed the admins to ask what happened but I never heard back. I learned later that she was completely shocked by being suddenly banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1212. Unbelievable.
Yes, under the circumstances, that seems pretty restrained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1240. I thought it was entirely appropriate...
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 09:28 PM by SidDithers
and you've just made another argument for publicizing the history of bannings and suspensions. That apparently "well respected" poster was a multiple life zombie who continually flouted the rules and deserved everything they got.

I'm glad to see them gone.

Edit: I think we need a wall of shame, listing recent tombstones and suspensions, along with the reasons. Let everyone see the "well respected" posters for what they really are.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #1240
1265. Quite right - I can't count the times I've been lectured about some T'Sed "well respected" OP, and
how they were just Saints set upon by "DLC" barbarians, and how the Admins & Mods "caved" to the latter....then I would do a little Googling around, and discover a rather different truth in the plain words of the recently T'Sed themselves on other sites, full of bragging about how long they'd gotten away with doing whatever it was that got them T'Sed in the first place, and trashing everyone here who'd ever disagreed with them or even seemed like they were. Touchy folks.

A reply well said. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1258. "I think "boohoo" was relatively restrained"
Then apparently you shouldn't be in charge of lock messages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #1086
1416. I went back and looked into it after the fact
I missed the kamikaze dive and I had to look to put it all in context. They posted FOUR goodbye cruel DU!!1 posts back to back. One for each major forum. Nice touch that. They were the one into drama and screaming from their soapbox. You just cut them off and didn't feed their ego. It wasn't that you were grave-dancing as it was made to sound.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #1086
1555. So Your Mature Measured Response Looks Very Much Like a Violation of the Rules.
I can see me, saying something like you did but then, I'm not a moderator. Very interesting, this whole party purity thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #401
1221. "a long time well-respected member"? Did you read that "members" (now-locked) thread(s)?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
459. Indeed.
What we get instead, is something like confidence that the admin believes he knows they know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
561. Good idea ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
577. I don't think this is necessary.
There could be privacy issues. If someone is prominent enough (WillPitt), then fine but most cases can be figured out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
281. I totally agree. It is hard to make "community" when so many of your heroes are tombstoned
after years and years of diligent research and contribution. It just doesn't make sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #281
444. Indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
1312. Maybe we need a cemetery forum, where they all end up, along with the post that finally did them in
That would be interesting :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
1364. I know, no gravedancing is going to be hard, but if those are the rules so be it...
It makes me think we will have to go down to the local cemetery to do it so the mods don't find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
17. From a relative newbie, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
18. I like this, it is clear and concise, imo
I appreciate the thought and work that has gone into clarifying the rules.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
19. Certain topics almost guarantee flame wars.
I'd like to see a few of them gone, too.

This is a good start, though, Skinner. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
22. So open discussion of DU's rules and policies is still out?
May I ask why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. maybe because it's Skinner's site and his rules?
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 09:57 AM by dionysus
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
39. Yes, and this policy is currently driving members and donors away.
Skinner asked for suggestions that could help the community, this is my suggestion.

Create a place where people can have their questions about moderating and administrative decisions answered openly.

Not only the poster wonders about why a post was deleted or thread locked. The current system of not being able to discuss such things fosters an environment of suspicion and paranoia, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #39
71. There used to be an ask the mod forum. I think it should return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #71
709. Agreed. Bring back Ask the Admin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #71
825. I'd love to see ATA come back. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #71
840. amen.
Polite questions should be allowed and answered.

How many of us have written, never to see a reply?!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CabalPowered Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #71
931. I'd prefer resurrection of the hate mailbag before ATA
I also prefer comedy over drama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #71
1139. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #39
78. i'm pretty sure you are free to PM the admins or mods with that kind of stuff.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #78
86. They are not obligated to respond, though.
At least if there was a public asking, the board could see how or if the question is answered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:28 AM
Original message
That forum mite work were it members only...
othewise some will air laundry for effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
325. THat would work.
Members only and no rec/unrec. Keep it off the front pages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
605. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #78
87. It's more efficient to have an open discussion.
The admins don't have time to answer 20 PM's about why a certain thread was locked. As I stated in my reply to you, it is not just the specific poster who wonders about such things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:01 PM
Original message
Keeping it and its response hidden is a method to prevent us from 'organizing'.
It is unworthy of this place to shut us out of discussing such things with each other.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #39
206.  If one is predisposed towards suspicion and paranoia
"fosters an environment of suspicion and paranoia..."

If one is predisposed towards suspicion and paranoia, I imagine that may happen on a person-by-person basis...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #206
226. I think if you read through this thread you will find I am not alone.
And that most of the concerned posters are long-standing members.

You may not value their concerns, but I think it would be unfortunate if that were the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #226
838. Again, "if one is predisposed towards paranoia and...."
Again, "if one is predisposed towards paranoia and...."

The popularity of a thing says little for the efficacy or validity of thing. Additionally, I think you confuse observation of a thing with dismissal of a thing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #39
584. Agree . . . and limiting donations ... and doing harm to info here/research . . .
I have two warnings now -- both for the same thing because I didn't understand it

was specifically about one word I used, which the entire world uses in regard to

the issue I was discussing.

Wonder how many others have had that experience?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
1151. Have you messaged a mod and asked them?
Maybe my perception is skewed because I did a mod term, but I answered questions about decisions to the extent that I could to maintain privacy of others. I had several discussions with people about why I locked threads. Just ask for god sake. Why does it need to be out in the open? So you can bitch at the mods in public. It is a thankless (for the most part) job that is very difficult to do. You don't have a lot of time to make decisions. If you ponder something too long as a group people bitch about action not being taken. If you act on something with mod consensus, you are too rash and just deciding on a whim. There are alerts being thrown out all the time and the mods on duty have to deal with them.

Sorry, didn't want to rant that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandyj999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #39
1507. You are right, I am gone. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
447. I'm a "donor" and it's my community too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #447
884. I'm a Safeway customer.
But it's not my community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #884
921. Really? Safeway isn't part of your community?
Are the members and workers not your neighbors, acquaintances and friends?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #921
1051. $16 for a half-case is irrelevant to our community relationship.
My "donation" qualifies me as a customer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #1051
1065. Actually, no.
This place is different. You and I and all the others actually built this place and contribute to it daily as much as the owner of the URL, software and the servers. It's a meeting place and we come to talk about many things including how to make this country and world a better place.

To talk about it as if it were merely a business just cheapens it. Is that what you intend and if so please elaborate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #1065
1077. Not everyone has the same goals.
My motivation is simple: to effect political change.

The owners of Democratic Underground LLC have a more complicated set of motivations, one of which is effecting political change.

I post here at Elad, Earl and Skinner's suffrage. I can't reconcile that with the idea of "community". YMMV.

I didn't build DU any more than I built the local hardware store. I support it, I've made friends there, and the owner and I share some of the same goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #1077
1095. Please elaborate on "to effect political change"
And thank you for discussing this with me while I flesh this vague idea out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #1095
1223. I came here hoping to help make the term "conservative" radioactive. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #1223
1269. Good, me too.
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:01 PM by Mithreal
Edit to add, but that really is not enough when people are constantly trying to redefine the words here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #884
945. You mean just because you buy your beer there, you're not automatically on the Board of Directors?
I'm shocked.

;-)

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #945
1069. That the place means more to me than it means to a certain other faction
within the community is what is shocking.

There can be democracy on DU, but to mock the idea so openly is very telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #1069
1080. I think you meant "can't"
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #1080
1098. Alright, thanks for the smile. But no, I don't mean can't until I hear
from the administrators that any form of democracy on a future DU is out of the question.

Has the topic even been discussed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #1098
1231. Democratic Underground LLC is a democracy of three.
If they want investors, then I suppose that'd be a kind of spread of democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #1231
1266. There are alternatives. Please consider.
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:00 PM by Mithreal
The members are contributors and have a stake. The investment is directly in time and money.

I am not saying everything be open to vote but some things can and maybe even should be.

There's also nothing preventing the owners from allowing membership to elect representatives here and appointing them to some kind of user board.

It would take some pressure off the admins too.

I'm just opening the idea up, not saying how it should look. I get what you are saying, hope you get what I am saying. Neither you nor I are the final word but I'd bet the yours is the safer position to be in.

edit for clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daemonaquila Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #23
1345. And until recently, DC was Bush's personal playground.
That didn't make it problematic for people to give him hell, either. Whether in real life or online, we are members of communities. If the place is of value to us, unless we are terrifically self-absorbed we're going to at least say something about it being trashed. Of course it's his site. But he made it a space for thousands of people, and the citizens of that space have every right and reason to speak out and try to preserve what they value.

Focusing on it being Skinner's site is like buying into the "America: Love it or leave it" line. Sure, you may be lucky enough to be able to leave... once... to Canada. Then Canada turns crappy, and then what? Iceland? Oh no, that's turning unsound - gotta leave again if you can't love it... Eventually, there's nowhere to go because nobody felt it was their business to stand up for the place they lived and it all turned to crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
117. To be clear, broad discussions of DU policies are sometimes permitted.
But discussions about specific enforcement actions are not.

Why? Because we could not possibly enforce the rules if every action were being second-guessed by people who don't actually know the details. 95% of the time when someone posts "All I did was" they don't give a completely accurate accounting of what they actually did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #117
149. Could you elaborate on this point?
It has been my experience that posts critical of DU's policies are immediately deleted, even if they do not pertain to any specific enforcement action.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #117
593. Maybe because the warning isn't specific enough as to what the problem was?
Which is what I felt happened to me -- and caused me to do the same thing again.

Perhaps, others have experienced that same confusion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #117
1153. What does "sometimes" mean here and why did you need to waffle on that statement?
Could I open a thread asking for an accounting of how much you got on the last fund drive and how you spent it?

Could I open a thread discussing your policy of not allowing us to "sometimes" discuss policies openly?

Could I open a thread advocating for the closing of the dungeons?

Or world they be shut down and I be told to send my message privately (and quietly) to the Admins directly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #1153
1445. I'm still waiting for answers as well.
I think we all know the threads you suggested would be (and have been) immediately locked.

I'd love to know exactly what it is we are allowed to ask.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
24. Thank you. I like all of this except banning a person from a thread for one violation.
Couldn't a person be given a second chance within the thread?

I see where you are going with your decision to ban a disruptor early on, and in principle I agree wholeheartedly with your decision. It's just that, as you said, at times we all make a mistake, and then it would be a shame to be completely cut out of the discussion if a person is truly not trying to disrupt but has made an honest mistake.

Otherwise, thank you for all that you guys do. DU is a wonderful place!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:04 AM
Original message
I agree.
I like all the new rules, but I think banning someone entirely from a thread for one violation is a little heavy, but hey, it's not my board...even though I donate to it. ;) LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #24
104. related to this is the likely chance the thread-blocked person will just start another thread
maybe they will calm down and do so within the rules, but I suspect it may be a bit of an issue for a while, anyhow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #104
601. I was thinking the same thing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
608. Good point. Sometimes a comment can be misinterpreted.
Or someone could misspeak, not see how it was offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
1213. Banning in the second offense would be OK. It works with soccer.
And soccer is a liberal thing, as we all know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Happyhippychick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. Thanks for doing all that you are doing. I will do my best to abide by the rules.
I appreciate that this is not an easy job for admins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
27. Love #3. The 'Inappropriate Sources' clairification is good too. Also...
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:06 AM by onehandle
'Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.'

Another good one I would love to see enforced.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
29. I don't see anything here about being denied the opportunity to
post right-wing talking points in order to analyze them and come up with good retorts. So, I guess that's new? We can do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. It was mentioned in the OP:
{ } Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
- Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
- Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. Good. Positive move.
I had a thread that got locked just for posting comments from a dinner conversation. I didn't even link anything.

This is a productive move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
555. I even wish there was a forum, or group, for discussion of the latest right wing memes.
One of the best things about DU is that it is an excellent place to come for information to debunk, or at least contexturalize, right wing memes. It can be VERY useful to see not only what that Nazi Asshole Limbaugh said today, or the latest digital disinformation from FR, and then what the actual facts are, what their spin is or what the real reason for such and such a policy is. Unfortunately, there are some on this board who are so overly defensive and paranoid that even asking for help debunking the latest lie gets them pissed off and one attacked with lines like "Why are you parroting RW lies here on DU".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #555
587. Maybe even Du should provide a news alert that's always on the main page?
Providing the same public service as snopes.com?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #587
621. I like that. Call it 'Latest Lies' forum, or such.
I don't want or need to follow any specific script, but getting the real story to respond in real time to the RW meme of the day would be great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #621
754. "Latent Lies." Superb; I REALLY like this idea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #754
1528. There are 2 that might fit the bill:
'Bush/Conservatives' forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... (yeah, needs renaming, just as the most recent thread says)
'Propaganda Debunking' group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Neither gets much traffic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #555
752. That's an excellent idea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #29
54. Yes, you can do it.
I unlocked your thread. Sorry for the confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #54
93. Wow! Thanks Skinner!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
780. Geez, that's John Stewart's whole show, isn't it?
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
30. I have a question about threads that get bumped into the "State Forums"
I have seen several threads recently that have been bumped into the State Forums, which virtually guarantees the thread's death. These are threads that did have national implications and/or may be of interest to the folks outside of that given state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #30
80. The LBN moderators need to put stuff somewhere.
With stuff that is really local, the state forum might be the best fit.

(FWIW, we need to update the guidelines in the LBN forum, too. The mods have been waiting for some changes for a while now.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #80
130. Yeah. It's kind of a gray area. I was thinking that GD might be an appropriate forum
if the issue is one that has national implications. If it is truly a local issue, then it should be in the state forums.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine1967 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #80
377. When something gets bumped,
Do mods make that clear?

I know they may post a link to the rules, but it might be good to have them post the reason's why right there in the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #80
610. Perhaps there should be a timer for LBN? Before moving.
3 hours? 6?

It's irritating to see important stories whisked away early.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #610
1155. I might be wrong on this
because when I was a mod, LBN confounded me and wasn't my forum so I didn't have to learn all the rules, but I think they are worried about the RSS feed since LBN is probably the most "public" of forums on DU. Again, might be wrong--just my interpretation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #1155
1187. Thanks. Some are taken away pretty durn fast even on slow news days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SecularMotion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
31. I think it will be better to assess members on their history
rather than individual posts. There are many members here who disrupt in subtle ways while staying within the rules.

Looking at a history of posts will show patterns of behavior which should result in well-deserved tombstones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #31
132. And the reverse.
A member can have a long history of friendly, thoughtful posts, then for some reason go ballistic, probably personal problems or someone pushed a hot button. Banning a long term member because s/he lost it one time is a bit much. A chill out warning would seem more appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #132
550. very true!
we all have "hot buttons" and sometimes we say stuff that we shouldn't have. Good point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #550
868. Yeah, if we were perfect, we wouldn't need rules.
If everybody whoever popped off on this site were tombed, it would be an echo chamber. Political forums by their very nature can be -- shall we say -- raucas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #868
1530. Past behaviour is taken extensively into account for warnings, suspensions and bannings
One problem I see with the idea of putting the reasons for tombstoning someone on their profile is that, in the cases where it's of any interest (as opposed to the obvious trolls who get banned within their first day or two for posting "Demokrats ar dum"-type posts), the reason for banning is complicated, and should be read in conjunction with the member's full record of rule breaks. The mods get to see that, and use it in their discussion of what action to take against someone, but it rather defeats the purpose of deleting the rule-breaking posts people make, if we then put up a complete list of them in a public place.

And someone's positive record at DU is also taken into account. Suspensions in particular are only given to someone that the mods know can be a constructive DUer, but has gone off the rails in some way. But the decision whether to warn, ban or neither is also influenced by whether the member has made some posts worth reading and replying to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:43 AM
Original message
Amen! Amen! Amen!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
311. I can think of more than one who regularly oversteps the bounds of respectful discourse
I don't know if they are granted more leeway due to their lengthy memberships, or.. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
1557. "disrupt in subtle ways while staying within the rules. "
Wow, just wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SecularMotion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #1557
1619. Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
32. I think I actually might start visiting DU more often
It had been close to unbearable to come here with all the vicious attacks against Obama. I actually thought I had redirect virus that was sending me to FreeRepublic instead of DU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
34. Fairy ' Nuff
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #34
91. No sexually explicit posts...
I have no idea what a fairy's "nuff" might be, but I'm sure in my heart that it's something nasty...

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #91
266. Punchline of numerous jokes


Fair enough, 'nuff said, whatever. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #266
739. I know. I was making a little joke of my own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
36. Content free posts
I think some good could come from suggesting that content free posts not be used in the larger groups. Roughly speaking what I'm talking about is post with subjects longer than the content. But it might also include the "+1" or "+1000 nt" kind of suggestion. Complaining about unrecs would fall in that as well. It is one thing to mention unrecs as part of a larger post or point, but avoiding it as the total substence of the post is what I am suggesting.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a "+1" title, as long as it is followed by content which advances the topic. I'd put K&R in that category too. You don't have to post to recommend. And Kicking in a discussion forum should be discouraged because it is a discussion forum, not a "read this" forum. LBN might be a different story.

But too often I see fairly good threads that are FILLED with content free posts, and two or three pissing matches going on, and one solid discussion. In a discussion forum, it would seem that that is counter productive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #36
100. I am sympathetic. But I don't think this would go over well.
If the post is not disruptive, I don't think we do ourselves any favors to remove it simply because someone is succinct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #100
135. +1
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #135
148. lol
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:40 AM
Original message
Everyone's a comedian
Yeah, I knew this was a comin'

On the serious side, the "disruption" is that a perfectly good thread become relatively unreadable because it consists of 300 posts of zero content, and 44 dipursed post, often talking past one another.

But yeah, I know, I'm in the minority on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
186. I actually agree with you
I've often poked people who post +1n/t to actually state a position. Mostly it's just something I've learned to live with. Sometimes I even do + 1 brazillion as a joke :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #186
220. Yeah, I've learned as well
It's disruptive in its own way. And to some extent it encourages or inflames the more "flame bait" kind of posts. I'm not a big fan of the "check in" threads, or the "support" threads, like "K&R in support of....." or the "K&R if you think.....".

They are a "callout" of another kind in my mind. If you want that, create a poll. Most of them border on "push polls" to begin with anyway.

But it's Skinner's site so it is what it will be. Just thought this was an opportunity to bring it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #220
244. I've learned to overlook (& sometimes hide) the types of post to which you refer
Some are really annoyed by them for some reason, I simply choose not to participate and can hide them if they seem to be getting in my face too often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #100
578. Thanks for that clarification
LOL I'm pretty much a 'content free' poster. I come here quite often to read news, opinion, policy discussions, etc. and I suspect there's a large group of us here on DU: the K&Rers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #100
596. Isn't there a difference though between a "+1" and an unrec complaint?
A "+1" shows agreement with a particular point, and it's good to know when other people agree. And that point is different in every post. (That said, I do prefer a longer post to a "+1".)

But unrec complaints seem, to me, to be usually the same from thread to thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mudoria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #100
1431. No it wouldn't go over that well
I sometimes use the +1 to show I agree with the poster because his/her post reflects my viewpoint and may be expressed much better than I would have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jp11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
37. It is your ship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
38. I like measure #3
That's going to help a lot.

On a personal note, is my signature in violation of DU rules?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #38
179. I think it probably is a violation. We all do something, and
if we all advertised what we do or sell, I think it would be a negative thing. I just don't know, though, about particular situations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
40. Re: "Copyright Violations" If I remember correctly this applied only
to the "Editorials & Other Articles Forum". Does this now apply to all forums?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #40
49. It's always applied to all forums.
Some people just don't abide by the rule, especially outside LBN and Editorials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #40
114. it always did apply to all forums.
it is federal law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #114
122. Thanks for the clarification.
I guess that I have been violating this one on a regular basis in the lounge and in the Sport Forum.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
41. THANK YOU Skinner!
I like these changes. Nothing drastic and not even really a change to any rules but to their enforcement, something that's been very much needed.

Oh and this - When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread. - :applause: :applause: How many threads have been locked because one or two people are allowed to keep disrupting the thread, even as their posts keep getting deleted, while everyone else is trying to have a relatively reasonable discussion? Many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
43. I love the clarification of the rules
Most of all. There are many things that are not clear cut that I'm not sure is allowed or not allowed and this should help a little bit. There will always be a gray area but this should help.

I do my best around here to make sure that I'm respectful to everyone here and never engage in any personal attacks what so ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
44. A problem that occasionally crops up here is "dogpiling." Three or four posters decide that
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:11 AM by mistertrickster
a post (and hence, poster) is worthy of ridicule and they just take great glee in doing just that.

Any protest is "whining." Any explanations citing the poster's democratic bona fides are just "yeah, that's what they all say."

It's unfair and unjustified. Angry people venting and taking things out on their fellow progressives is not a solution for anything.

*****

On edit--after closer reading, it looks like Rule change 3 will handle this problem quite nicely. Good plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #44
57. Yes, the dogpiling tag teams seem to operate with impunity
which is one reason why I don't post much any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #57
89. It really IS intimidating--and I'm a old-school Alinskite who isn't much afraid of intimidation.
The level of ridicule and abuse can be generated so fast and furiously, one can't possibly defend against it or explain oneself.

It's astonishing and dispiriting to me that people who take the liberal position of "concern for their fellow human" could delight in overt hurtfulness to such an extent.

And, yes, it does give one pause about posting . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #89
1039. it's the nature of bullying (here) that non-authoritarians are going to get the short end
of the stick. doves by nature are more conflict averse, and so when the dogpile happens they react predictably (and in the manner that the bullies intend) by fighting back wildly and being ts'd or leaving.

so, the problem becomes what one of "bullied selection." if bullies are allowed to run the board, only bullies will be left, which doesn't make for a vibrant community...nevermind that community is impossible in an atmosphere of aggression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #1039
1233. +1. This is a good analysis, and the problem is increasing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:30 AM
Original message
Already apparent on this very thread...
Wouldn't have expected it would have gotten like that way back when we had that first DU meetup in Northwest Portland in 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #57
1464. Yes... you are about the sixth long termer I've heard from, that
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 10:57 AM by hlthe2b
like me, feels it has become increasingly unpleasant to post here... After nine years, that seems sad, but when the various factions seem to lie in wait to misconstrue anything one posts into the "opposition" and then all come in together to deride you as a group, that is just not worth it. I've had more than one thread deleted while attempting to defend myself from these tactics, saying only that they were being disingenuous in asserting I said something that I did not. After leaving the thread in disgust, the pack continues with the denigration and their abusive "pile-on" threads remain as a permanent reminder of the ugliness.

Definitely not the climate that drew me to DU, even with the cycles of discontent and disagreement we've experienced over the years. I don't know that these rules will be able to address this bullying problem, because they tend to use tactics that are sufficiently subtle so as to fly just under the radar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #44
1437. Most noteably happening to less than 1000 post posters.
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 09:44 AM by chrisa
Because tthey believe that other posters are less likely to call them out on the dog piling / snideness.


I am of the belief, however, that forum drama is completely useless. Taking anything seriously, including a dog pile, is a waste of time. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
45. It seems reasonable to me.
Cheers to DU! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
46.  Skinner, I support anything that prevents personal attacks and prevents some from being treated
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:25 AM by saracat
as a "protected class" while rules are selectively enforced on others.

I would like a clarification as to the "rule" concerning that a particular POV not be demanded in order for a person to be described as a Democrat. I have a problem with that portion as I do not consider anyone who refuses to support the Democratic Party Platform or its principles a true democrat. If someone does not support those principles, I am at a loss as to why we ought not to be able to mention that on a Democratic Leaning Board.

I also am a bit confused about the status of DU. It seems that you appear to be indicating that we are now officially a "Democratic" Board as opposed to one welcoming diverse views of a liberal spectrum. It also would then folow, the use of the term "underground" is no longer valid as the site would bemore properly identified as part of the establishment Democratic Party.JMHO.

I also note that some of the most flagrent of the rule breakers seem to be rejoicing in some of these changes, apparently feeling they have no reflection on themselves. I hope that is not the case and the rules can be expected to be applied fairly.

I hope some clarification can be given and I would also suggest that the "ask the mods" forum be reactivated in addition to posting the reason for the rule violationa at the time. It is very frustrating to have questions and to have no one answer them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #46
155. Posts that push the idea "You have to do/believe X in order to be a Dem/Lib/Prog" are TOXIC.
And that goes both ways.

Instead of trying to argue that certain people aren't part of the "in-group" because they don't fit some litmus test, you should spend your time arguing the merits of the particular issue/policy/action/whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #155
162. So insisting on support for the Party Platform, such as being pro-choice is TOXIC?
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:53 AM by saracat
And should we be obligated to "persuade" Democrats to accept the virtues of their own platform? I don't feel I should have to debate choice on a board that is aligning with the Democratic Party. Union values should likewise not be subject to question as should Civil Rights for all. If those values can be subject to question, why would anyone consider themselves a Democrat? We surely should stand for something! I feel we should protect our values before we protect politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #162
285. I thought the platform defined what being "Democrat" means.
It sounds like that doesn't really matter, as long as you have a (D) after your name.

That explains a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike from MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #285
656. Sounds like party over principle to me.
It doesn't matter what a person says/believes or how they vote. All that matters is that they have a (D) behind their name and they will have the support of DU.

Instead of a discussion forum, DU will be more like a message-controlled echo chamber.

But like they say, it's Skinner's forum and he can do whatever he likes. Maybe that's what he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #656
923. Just like FR when the chimperor was in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #656
954. Except it says nothing of a sort. It's pretty clear in the reading
of the rules that you can criticize democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #656
1142. Look at recent history.
It's what DU is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:08 PM
Original message
Yeah I always thought that "Dems/Libs/Progs" did share common beliefs
I guess those are unfair "litmus tests" now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #162
438. +1 Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #162
492. I haven't seen many anti-choice posters here, but maybe I'm
not looking in the right place. I think that's an untenable position for any Democrat, so I'd immediately question them about it. I think I wouldn't do it by saying they weren't a Democrat, though. Instead, I'd go after the very idea that a woman should control her own reproductive life and ask for an explanation of how that person came to such a strange conclusion.

Arguing the issue. That seems to always be the best approach, as far as I'm concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #492
580. There have been many anti-choice comments . And we also have anti choice
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 01:16 PM by saracat
pro-life Democratic candidates. I have a problem with them and I do not like the fact that we apparently will no longer be able to question the cedubility of those politicians who do NOT support the platform, or those posters who agree with them. I shouln't have to convince a Democrat or liberal about choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #580
598. OK. I guess I just didn't see any of those posts.
I admit that I don't read the whole site. I'm not questioning your veracity. I have just not seen such posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #598
603. Thats okay.I didn't think you were.I don't see everything either.
My major concern is the promtion of the issues and vlues that are the reason we are Democrats. I guess I now should say, why I am a Democrat since it seems others have different reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommy_Carcetti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #580
1499. Oh darn. A fellow Democrat may disagree with you.
Boo-fucking-who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #492
765. Thankfully, they've been steadily declining over time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #162
570. There are things in the official Democratic Party Platform
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 01:12 PM by The Green Manalishi
that are disagreeable to many people with progressive credentials. Being a progressive, wanting to see liberals and Democrats win is one thing, marching in lockstep to *ANY* pre written manifesto is wrong. The 'platform' is not holy, sacred, and damned if I'm going to treat it as revealed truth, it's a bunch of statements, some good, some stupid. Anyone saying that ALL parts must be adhered to and supported in order for someone to be a Democrat, or post here, should be given a brown shirt and a pair of jack boots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #570
583. Ah - the inevitable Nazi comparison. Nice.
It's all becoming clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #583
616. If the jack boot fits.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #570
625. Then why have a platform? I can't imagine what is in it that would be offensive
to anyone with liberal credentials? Can you give me an example? The only issues some regularly attack are Choice and Human Rights.I believe if you do NOT support those values you aren't a Democrat.But I suppose I will no longer be able to state that. I also think as Democrats we retain the right to not support anyone who doesn't uphold our values. As an example, I would NEVER support a Pro-Life Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #625
781. Respectfully, and at the risk of getting sent off to the Guns forum
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_c...

We will protect Americans Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed " There is no "gun show loophole, the assault weapons ban is asinine bullshit and the restriction of my second amendment rights is right up there with marriage equality or single payer healthcare, those on the wrong side are idiots at best, the enemy at worst.

I object to that, will fight it, will fight in the primaries against anyone who supports it, and will support organizations that oppose it, even though, unfortunately, they often support non Democrats. Yes, it *IS* that important an issue to me. I also support the ACLU, even because free speech ***ALL*** speech is too important to ever allow censorship. Yes, I am an absolutist in regards to both first and second amendments. And the platform link above is highly, highly offensive. FYI, I've been working on progressive causes and for Democrats since the George McGovern campaign of 1972 and bow to no one on progressive bonafides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #162
604. But people who aren't Democrats but on the left are allowed
That's the very nature of the problem; so no one is going to held to the party platform for sure.

And there may be Democrats who aren't pro-choice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #604
637. But I feel I should have the right to express my disdain for those that
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 01:50 PM by saracat
do not adhere to democratic values as stated in our platform. I do not consider anti-choicers or anti -Human rights Democrats Democrats because they do not shate Democrativ values. The platform is what defines a Democrat.If we are to support Democrats, we have to support the platform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #637
721. The idea is not to express disdain for the person, but to express grounds
for disagreement with what they said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #721
736.  The point I am making is that I think we need the freedom to express contempt for those Democratic
politcians who do not support our Democratic values. I do not just disagree with the position.The fact I do is a given but I hold pro-life politions and anti-human rights politcians of whatever party they may be in contempt. I shuold be able to state that contempt.I do NOT respect Heath Schuler or Bob Casey.There seems to be a demand that I not only do so but refrain from exporessing my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #736
1152. "values"? "*our* values"?
there's the rub. one gang of anti-values bullies with a friendly mod, and the "values" crowd ends up banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
D23MIURG23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #162
964. They insist on such support already; with the caveat that not all dissent is equally allowed.
I'm sure you are aware that there are people here who are anti-choice, and there are also people who are against gun control, but not all right leaning expressions are given this degree of leniency. Watch closely the next time you see someone voicing skepticism about climate change, for instance. Those people are gone in a heartbeat.

I don't know precisely what drives that selectivity, but its pretty clear to me that some issues are considered more debatable than others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #162
1140. Platform schmatform.
. . . and that starts with "P" and that stands for principle!

"Trouble, trouble trouble trouble..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #162
1426. Yes, it is
There are a lot of Democrats, more than you realize, who do not meet NARAL's definition of "pro-choice". In addition to people with strong misgivings about abortion in general, there are folks who support parental consent, parental notification, late-term restrictions, and the like. They are solidly progressive on health care, worker safety, education, etc, but since they veer from litmus test orthodoxy on abortion, your approach would mean they should be harangued as unbelievers. That's toxic.

Let me point out another angle. The Democratic Party platform has long supported an expansion of public charter schools. That's a position that a lot of teachers and their allies on DU don't share. Maybe we should clamp down on posts that trash education reform and badmouth Secretary Duncan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #155
189. I couldn't have a more positive reaction to anything you've posted here
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:55 AM by HughMoran
I couldn't possibly agree more with this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:05 AM
Original message
The Party Platform bothers you? Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
231. he didn't say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:07 AM
Original message
What?
are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
262. I gave a specific example of promoting the Party Platform in my OP.
I think we ought to be able to demand that people support basic platform tenants such as choice if they call themselves Democrats. Skinner replied such demands are TOXIC. I do not know any other way to read that. He also said stick to conversations regarding the issues and indicated persuasion would be positive. I do not feel it should be necessary to "persuade" a Democrat to accept their platform. This is very confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #262
304. Please don't insult my intelligence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #304
336.  I wasn't intending to. Please do not put into my posts something that is not there.
I have a valid concern about the definition of the term Democrat. It appears that some feel anyone can believe what ever they want and still be considered good Democrats.I only consider those folks who support the platform good Democrats and I never before thought of that as an opinion, but I guess it now it just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #336
680. Defeating Al Qaeda and Combating Terrorism
 
Defeating Al Qaeda and Combating Terrorism
The central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. We will defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where those who actually attacked us on 9-11 reside and are resurgent.

Win in Afghanistan
Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but as countless military commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledge, we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. We will finally make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be.

We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions–with fewer restrictions–from our NATO allies. We will focus on building up our special forces and intelligence capacity, training, equipping and advising Afghan security forces, building Afghan governmental capacity, and promoting the rule of law. We will bolster our State Department’s Provincial Reconstruction Teams and our other government agencies helping the Afghan people. We will help Afghans educate their children, including their girls, provide basic human services to their population, and grow their economy from the bottom up, with an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year–including investments in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers–just as we crack down on trafficking and corruption. Afghanistan must not be lost to a future of narco-terrorism–or become again a haven for terrorists.

So one must be for expanding the war in Afghanistan in order to be a true Democrat?
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #680
726. Thank you for a very good answer.I would assume that most Democrats
would actually want to defeat the Al Queda and defeat Terrorism. Who wouldn't but they might differ on the HOW. I do not support the expansion of the War. But you make a good point. Personally, I think that contemporary foreign policy issues are a bit different than permanent planks in the Party supporting basic rights of our citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #726
817. Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean when you say "Democratic Party Platform."
 
saracat wrote:
I do not consider anyone who refuses to support the Democratic Party Platform or its principles a true democrat. If someone does not support those principles, I am at a loss as to why we ought not to be able to mention that on a Democratic Leaning Board.

When you say that true Democrats should "support the Democratic Party Platform" even though you obviously don't agree with everything in it, one has to wonder how anyone is supposed to know exactly which portions of the Platform require agreement and which portions one is allowed to disagree with.
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #817
864.  I took the Platform at face value but I must admit I "assumed" that
people were more important than policies and the I "assumed" that most Democrats thought of Human Rights and values as having a higher priority.I thought the idea a equality for all would be the uppermost plank and of priority. Clearly I was mistaken. Some apparently find other aspects of our platform to trump humanity.

But I did in fact and do take the Platform as a whole. I may be less enthusiastic about a few temporary aspects, such as the expansion of the Afghan War. But that is a temporary platform issue. I devoutly hope we will not always be in Afghanistan. OTOH, I KNOW we will always have women and GLBT , and hopefully the environment and Unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xiamiam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #680
1438. I will never put party over principle
Escalation in Afghanistan is a 'fools errand' as a poster said this am..

I can't support someone or a policy just because they have a D behind their name. If we just supported the party platform without trusting our own conscience and understanding first, there would never be progress or change.

I appreciate DU and check the threads everyday..almost. I liked the old DU better and perhaps it was because we were united in our enemy but some of the same policies are now accepted that were scorned before we had our democratic administration.

Like I said, my principles stay intact. I am suspicious of those who follow the party line instead of their own inner resource.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #336
830. I'm confused as to your position. Are you saying if someone thinks that
free universal health care is a right (an opinion that is not part of the Democratic platform) they ought to be censored?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
337. Quite honestly, I've never read a perfect platform
I think just about everyone can agree that people will not be in 100% agreement with the party platform and still be considered speaking "democratically" so to speak. Heck, most parties have candidates on the head of the ticket that fall into that category.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #337
409. So how can I trust I've chosen the right party?
If my leaders can abandon the GLBT plank, and still be supported as a "Democrat", why should I be one? How can I trust them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #409
446. The other 57 planks?
You can't "trust" a party or a candidate. You can push them, pull them, block them, woo them, ignore them, and vote them in and out of office. But you can't trust any of them. And you definitely can't trust a party run by them. Once they abandon you, you don't have to "support" them anymore. But around here, you still have to call them a democrat, even if they are a conservadem, bluedog, DLC, or "rainy day" democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #446
455. Seriously? I'd have to support a supposed Dem who denies rights to me personally?
How does that work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #455
569. You're not reading
"you don't have to "support" them anymore"

A direct quote from the post to which you were responding.

Skinner is just telling you that around here, you have to call them democrats anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #155
326. I assume this also applies to those arguing that someone IS part of the "in" group?
Otherwise, someone could put up a post saying "President Obama is a Progressive" and those disagreeing with the author will have their posts deleted and be banned from the thread.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this mandate would ban the application of any label whatsoever. After all, isn't saying that Obama is "right of center" the equivalent of saying he's not a progressive?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #326
478. I think just saying "Barack Obama is" x is not a problem
it's insisting on it, and not just disagreeing but attacking those who do not agree (from any point of view) that will lead to issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #155
342. So the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-integration, anti-union people can post with impunity as long
as they do it nicely, and argue their case on the merits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #342
440. And have an appropriately Democratic avatar/sig
That's about what it sounds like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #440
591. Like a peace sign?...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #591
652. .
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #591
1409. Probably why I'm still here
Of course, it's odd how people on DU react to the peace sign these days. Don't worry, Sid, you'll have your echo chamber soon enough. You and those fundies aren't so different after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #342
645. strawman
big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #645
836. How so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #836
861. Nobody is suggesting something so ludicrous
That's a strawman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #342
671. As long as they're supporting a Dem, why not?
The platform is optional now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #155
833. So pro-war, pro corporate power, pro-animal abuse, anti-environment, anti-gay
marriage, anti equal rights, anti worker's rights, anti-choice, pro torture, pro warrant-less wiretapping and anti-public education posts and positions are acceptable as long as the poster is civil in discussing the merits of their positions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine1967 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #155
869. That's a basic definition of a strawman argument.
and YES -- It's toxic.

+1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #155
877. I vigorously agree with this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
48. Since President Obama referred to himself as "Barry", I don't understand the obvious
problems with using that name....I don't worship Obama, but I think he was the best choice for the job by far, and that overall he is handling a series of huge tasks well...I don't understand the "Barry" thing...
but it is your show, so...


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #48
56. Obama has long since abandoned the use of Barry.
Its not hard to just type in Barack, and it seems like people who use Barry usually post something demeaning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #56
68. Agreed. I voted for Barack, not Barry. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miscsoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #48
67. That does seem a bit of a strange thing to object to
I'm pro Obama, I think he shares my basic motivating principles. I have called him Barry in the context of deriding him, though. I don't think reverence towards the president should be required, and I don't see the problem with slightly insulting him as long as people acknowledge that for all his faults he is the de facto leader of the party and the American nation and has some legitimate authority. I assume Skinner is basically of the opinion that the Democratic party is the only realistic organ of progressive change and that a degree of internal discipline is necessary if we want to get things done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #67
105. Not reverence. Respect for the office he holds.
He was elected by the people of the USA. That, alone, means that he and his office should be treated with basic respect. If a President (*) is not legally elected, he or she doesn't not deserve that. President Obama does deserve some basic respect. Insulting him show a lack of that, as well as a lack of basic decency, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #105
201. You have got to be kidding me
Bush was legally elected. He held that office legally. Your argument is a poor one. Nobody on this board showed any, ANY, ANY respect for that office while Bush held it.

Any place where you can not openly call the President a name is not Democratic, free or open. This is America for goodness sakes. Calling the President out regardless of part affiliation is a national sport.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #201
506. Many would argue, myself included, that * was not legally
elected, nor did he hold the office legitimately. I've seen people argue that point at length here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #506
611. If you truly felt that way why didn't you do something about it?
Obviously DU felt that the Bush administration was legitimate, there is the clause in the rules stating that "posters should not advocate for the violent overthrow of the US government". That rule was in place during the Bush administration. Are you a Constitutional scholar? Lawyer? And who is this "many"? Sounds like the old "some would say" line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #611
639. I did what I could do about it. I protested it, to no avail.
Since I'm not any sort of lawyer or any more than an individual, there was literally nothing I could do about it, other than to state my displeasure wherever I could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #639
1267. Really? You were here before election day 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #1267
1406. No. It's clear that I was not. There are many avenues for expression,
besides DU. I've been politically active since 1965, long before there was any sort of discussion like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #611
743. The Supreme Court jimmied around the complex legal issues to install
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 02:56 PM by truedelphi
George W the first time. Even though, as the NYT announced on Spet 12th 2001, that Gore really had more votes inside the state of Florida, and thus more electoral votes, etc.

And had Carville not persuaded Kerry that the number of ballots he needed could not possibly be found in Ohio, Kerry might have become President. Carville was basically lying to Kerry, and not only that, everything he said to Kerry seems to have been done in conjunction with what his wife needed to ahve done to get George W the his second term.

And Kerry, like Gore before him, was almost totally disinterested in the process. It was the "indie" candidates like Dave Cobb that saw to it that vote recounts in Ohio occurred.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #611
1268. What did you have in mind?
I started a website to discuss his illegitimacy.

I wrote many articles discussing his illegitimacy.

I'm cited in several other articles as discussing his illegitimacy.

I have letters to the editor in several newspapers discussing his illegitimacy and saying that I will always believe his is an illegitimate President.

What would have made you happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #201
523. For years we ridiculed FR etc for their nonsense claims
that Bush was our prez and we HAD to support him. Not a single genuine member of DU would agree to that as I recall during the Bush reign of terror.

Ironic that now any disagreement with policy of the Obama admin is now met with the same exact style of rampant cheer leading and demands that Obama is our pres and we must support him no matter what. I find it terribly disturbing myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #523
535. no one has ever said that. people just get annoyed coming here and see people yelling how
much he sucks every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #535
565. I have been told EXACTLY that in several posts
That Obama is our pres and I MUST support him no matter what his policy does/says.

No in fairness I may not have been in the best of moods at the time and posting on a policy I feel very strongly about and not expressed myself in a very positive way as well. I can find my faults in the process some of the time as well, I have no delusions of complete innocence, but I have been told that exact FR phase though, just had the names and site swapped to fit our current times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #523
796. +1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #201
551. Bush?
He was legally elected by the Supreme Court, I suppose...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #105
649. Certainly, no one showed respect for Bush/Cheney - and think you're referring to a conspiracy....
which is a taboo subject outside of the 9/11 forum!!

Or, am I misunderstanding?

Can we still even discuss 2000 here and what actually happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #105
916. Situational drivel-Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, and plenty more were lawfully elected
and deserve little if any respect. Ronald Reagan was the devil and the father of the downfall of this nation and will get no respect from me or many others.

What I perceive is a frame of immediate convenience that will inevitably go down the memory hole when a future administration is elected. There is zero question in my mind that if this site existed in say 1972, 1982, or 1991 that no such respect would be codified, called for, or even paid the mildest attention to.

It is plain silly to plant a flag on such a hill, just admit our guys are expected to get a pass and any action or policy that they emulate, continue, or excuse that would draw condemnation if the office holder had a different letter by their name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Hemlock Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #105
1248. I wish I had that picture of President Obama in the Oval Office
with his feet up on the desk, pitching a football in the air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #67
174. "I have called him Barry in the context of deriding him, though."
Isn't that the point? Calling the president "Barry" is rude & derisive, and has no place on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #174
184. i know, talk about missing the point...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miscsoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #174
711. I'm not sure that derision of our leaders is a bad thing
+ I'm not sure if the president himself is wholly comfortable with being treated as someone you can't take the piss out of. "Barry" is certainly a bit rude, and it's the sort of name you would use if you were criticizing him. He's just a man, a citizen-leader, it's entirely legit to scoff at the man now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #48
74. Because it's usually used as an insult by right-wingers
who call him Barry Soetoro. And he's never REALLY used the name much. Not like "Ted"/"Teddy" Kennedy or "Bill" Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #74
94. He was Barry when he was growing up, but decided use Barack when he got older
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #94
102. Yeah I know. I'm just saying that *now* it's usually
not used in a friendly way, but in a dismissive, insulting one. At least by people outside of his personal circle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #102
187. i've never seen barry used here unless it was in a derisive fashion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #187
314. There's at least one user that does
I mean, he's not exactly a cheerleader or anything, but he uses it to create a informal sense in his posts. A sort of "beer summit" tone to his comments and constructive criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #48
158. Because almost every time someone calls him "Barry," it's intended as an insult.
I have yet to see someone call him "Barry" when they are trying to show respect toward the man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #158
345. Right, context is everything.
The rule, like the nickname itself, it pretty arbitrary. Calling the president "Barry" is the political equivalent of the middle finger. It's just a finger, but you can still get in trouble with Grandma for flashing it.

Don't fuck with Grandma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveOurDemocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #158
1109. Does that include X-Presidents? Is 'Bubba' acceptable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #158
1624. The rule strikes me as excessively paranoid.
Barack has recently referred to himself as "Barry".

I like the nickname and think it's endearing.

But, whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #48
159. He referred to himself as "Barry from DC" on a call in TV show recently...
The President is onvoiusly not uncomfortable with it, but again, it is your show...


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #48
359. Because those who call him "Barry" now intend it the same way as those
who refer to him as Barack HUSSEIN Obama. They intend it to suggest that there is something untrustworthy about him. It's also like those who refer to the "Democrat" Party. The word "Democrat" is not in itself nasty, but in that context the intention is to insult. You should not be eager to adopt a right-wing meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
501. Well, I think that if you're a personal friend of Obama's, you could
argue in favor of calling him "Barry" here. I suspect few DUers meet that qualification, though.

For me, the rule I follow, in general, is that I only call President Obama something I'd call him to his face. I don't know the man, so a nickname like "Barry" would be inappropriate. That's just me, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
609. It has become a trait or right wingers to use it
They call him "Barry" contemptuously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #48
1439. Depends if the usage is intended to be disrespectful or not.
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 09:51 AM by chrisa
Many times, it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
50. Please clarify your stance regarding the Democratic Leadership Council and their supporters
"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," Dennis Kucinich
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #50
167. I think it would be a good thing if DUers could have a substantive discussion of the DLC....
...without resorting to name-calling and insults.

But I know it is unrealistic to expect something like that to ever happen here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #167
352. These rule changes
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 11:44 AM by izzybeans
may go a long way toward making that happen. imo.

As a long time critic of the DLC, I've grown weary of being called a DLC'r when someone doesn't like my opinion. :) I'd prefer to debate the substance of policies and campaign tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #167
453. One gets the distinct impression
that you have more disdain than confidence for your site's members. Why bother with any of it? You're basically saying, and it's not the first time, "I know nothing good will come of discussion with this bunch."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #453
495. past is prologue
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #167
1064. weary/frustrated/tired, much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #1064
1273. Why shouldn't he be? What kind of person would be invigorated by DU over the past year
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:03 PM by stevenleser
:rant:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #50
193. Because "and their supporters" has become the lazy posters
way of disagreeing with another poster? Be honest, the DLC is a fricken' Washington think tank that has absolutely nothing to do with DU members. It's the left wing's version of "OMG socialism!!!!!".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #193
195. nicely put!
Edited on Mon Jun-21-10 10:57 AM by dionysus
"ZOMG it's teh DLC!1!1"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #50
613. Kooch could get himself banned from DU if he were on it
I think he is wrong about that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #613
776. Yes, but "Should he be banned?" is the question here.
Disagree with his statement or don't. :shrug: But I think he should have every right to make such statements as part of a discussion on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #776
1068. The rule is saying Democrats are no better than Republicans
is not to be allowed. And it is ridiculous. Just an inane thing to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #1068
1078. He's not saying ALL Democrats though, is he?
That's an important distinction, and something that will definitely affect who gets banned and how, so it seems certainly worth of further discussion.

Again, hate the Kooch* or love him, but if one of our elected (D) officials says something about the DLC, it strikes me as odd that we wouldn't be allowed to discuss it, repeat it, or support it at DU.


* Amusingly, I guess calling DK "the Kooch" would also be ban-worthy now. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #1078
1100. Kooch is affectionate
And I love the guy.

but he's going deluded to do the Dems = repukes thing. That's one thing I'll never agree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #1100
1121. I don't think he's playing at false equivalence; he's pulling a No True Scotsman.
He's saying a subset of Democrats have been co-opted by Republicanism Lite. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
662. Well, Dennis Kucinich obviously wouldn't be able to post here ....???
In my summation on that, I would list all of the liberals/progressives who couldn't

post here because of these rules! Is that truly what's intended?

Could we even have had Helen Thomas' comments on Israel posted AT ALL LAST WEEK HERE...

without having it immediately shuted off to the I/P dungeon?

And, I think it's been a very worthwhile discussion and learning experience for the

entire nation!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #662
853. It certainly seems that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #50
983. 1) context of that statement? 2)he also believes in UFO's, and 3)who the fuck cares what he says??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #983
1042. Think you've just broken a few rules with that post . . .!!
Meanwhile, Reagan saw a UFO -- Carter saw a UFO -- John Lennon saw a UFO --

in fact, in Reagan's case a whole planeload of people and the pilot saw the UFO!

You know how many witnesses in Roswell saw remains of a crashed UFO - like half the town.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #1042
1044. That still leaves #1 and #3
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #1044
1130. Rather . . . that still leaves you in violation of the rules ...