A few words about civility and how we moderate the DU discussion forums.

[Skinner]

Early last month, when we were caught in the heat of the health care debate, and the tone here on DU could have been rightly described as "toxic," the DU Administators wrote a fairly long and thoughtful post about the need for greater civility. And then we decided not to post it.

Overall, it was a pretty good post. We gave it to the DU moderators, and their feedback was mostly positive. But we ultimately decided against posting it because the DU Admins decided that asking all of you to be nice to each other was no longer good enough. Sure, asking people to be nice is a good thing to do, and sometimes it even makes a difference. But before we did, we decided to take a look at the way we moderate the discussions here, to figure out if we could help our moderators do their job more effectively. Our hope was that if our moderators could enforce the rules faster and better, then small problems would be less likely to escalate into big problems.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND

This website was founded on the day that George W. Bush was inaugurated, on January 20, 2001. During the eight years of his presidency, no matter what loud and long disagreements we may have had among ourselves, opposition to the Bush regime was the glue that held us all together. Now that the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and White House, that glue has been stripped away. While the end of the Bush Administration has been good news for this country, it has created some (not entirely unexpected) challenges for Democratic Underground.

The ongoing debate over health care reform has served as a stark example of the new challenges we face. While we all share the goal of reforming our health care system, and most of us probably agree on what we feel is the "ideal" way to change the system, there have been some very clear splits among our members on whether the various reforms under consideration should be enacted into law or allowed to die. The health care debate is just one illustration of the situation here on DU now that the Democrats are in power, but it is not the only one. The pattern is repeated over many different issues, with some DUers expressing support of Democratic policy proposals, while others express their opposition. To be clear, this is completely appropriate for a large and diverse community like our own. But it has obviously caused a fair amount of consternation for some of our members.

SO WHAT CAN WE DO?

I'll say straight away that many of you need to come to grips with the fact that we will be unable to mediate discussions here to your satisfaction. We are well aware that many DU members have long believed that we should exclude viewpoints that differ from their own. But while it may feel good to hold the belief that all of DU's problems will be solved if the Admins just got rid of the "trolls" or the "neo-cons" or the "PUMAS" or the "paid cheerleaders," we have to deal with the reality of running this enormous discussion forum.

For the nine years that DU has been in existence, we have for the most part resisted urges to exclude points of view held by anyone in "our half" of the political spectrum. I feel pretty safe arguing that this policy is a big reason why DU continues to thrive. Therefore, while many of you might wish me to say that as of now only those who adhere to a point of view similar to your own will be welcome on DU, that's not going to happen.

I firmly believe that we need to find a way to keep this community open to a broad range of progressive viewpoints, and after a great deal of thought and discussion, the DU Administrators have come to believe that the best way to achieve this is to focus on combating incivility. We don't believe that it is the fierce arguments over policy and the direction of the country that have been causing our problems -- after all this is a discussion forum -- but more the manner in which these arguments are being conducted.

UPDATING OUR MODERATING SYSTEM FOR THE NEW ERA

Our system of moderating has never been perfect, but it was good enough and it served us pretty well for a long time. However, with the Democrats in charge our disagreements tear at the fabric of this community in a way that they never did (and never could) before.

To be sure, our moderators themselves work extremely hard every day to enforce the rules, and to do so in a manner that is as fair and evenhanded as possible. But they have been saddled with an antiquated moderating system that throws up needless obstacles, ties their hands, and makes it difficult for them to act in a prompt and effective way. By tying their hands, we had created a situation where disruptive posts stayed on the site for too long, breeding more disruptive posts, and sending the message that there are no consequences for incivility. We were caught in a vicious cycle, where a pervasive culture of incivility bred more incivility -- even by people who wanted to be productive members of the community. Many people stopped alerting on rule violations -- either because they thought someone else already did, or because they came to believe it was pointless -- which left even more disruptive posts on the site. Even if everyone did alert on every rule violation, I suspect the moderators would have been too overwhelmed to deal with all of them anyway.

So, we decided to focus on our moderating system, to see if there was anything we could do to help our hard-working moderators be more effective. During the month of January, we identified a number of things we could do to streamline the moderating process, and we have already begun to implement these changes. With a few relatively simple updates, we have been able to signficantly improve the amount of time it takes to respond to member alerts. Where it used to sometimes take hours to have your alerts read and acted upon, it now takes minutes. During the day -- when we have a lot of moderators online -- an obvious rule violation will almost always be removed within 15 minutes of the first alert. (The more borderline stuff will often take longer than that -- but even if they don't come to a resolution, I can almost guarantee that the mods will be busy discussing your alert within minutes.)

We have chosen to focus on improving our response time for alerts because this is where we feel we can make the most difference. If you know your alert will be handled in a timely manner, then you will have an incentive to alert on an uncivil post rather than respond in-kind. Over time, we believe it will become easier for members to participate here in a positive way. If you are not faced with so many uncivil posts, then you all will not feel the need to act in an uncivil manner. We hope to replace a vicious cycle with a virtuous cycle.

WHAT YOU CAN (AND SHOULD) DO

So, now that we are starting to put the necessary infrastructure in place, we need you to start clicking the alert link again. I can't promise that the moderators will always agree with you when you want a post removed. But I can promise that every alert will be considered in a timely manner. And virtually none will fall through the cracks.

Of course, it would be even better if it weren't necessary to alert in the first place. We're coming off of a week where the news was mostly good, and the discussions on DU were mostly positive. The news won't always be good, but we can all do our part to help keep the discussions civil.

Now that they have the means to do so, the moderators are doing their part by tightening civility enforcement a bit. Some behaviors that have been common in the past are now more likely to get your post deleted. One such behavior is the use of unflattering names to refer to groups of DUers. This has had a particularly corrosive effect on discussions of Present Obama's legislative agenda, where it has become common to refer to people as "Obama apologists," "Obama haters," and the like. This type of name-calling is both inflammatory and unnecessary. Instead, use more respectful and specific phrasing like "Obama's critics" or "Obama's defenders" (Or better yet, "critics of President Obama's ___________ proposal" or "supporters of President Obama's ___________ proposal").

Everybody here can help make DU a more welcoming community, where different ideas are exchanged in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Let's all make an effort to participate in a more positive way. I know it's difficult sometimes, but I am confident everyone here is capable of doing it.

[FSogol]

1. K&R. Keep up the good work. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. part of me wants to laugh, and part of me wants to take you seriously.

and applaud you for making an effort and not running for the hills :) and i mean this in all seriousness

i am glad you are updating a system. still i think the faith you place in us, is too high.

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

[flvegan]

4. Alerting.

JUST KIDDING!!!

Looking forward to the improvements/changes.

[Skinner]

12. To be clear, almost all these changes are taking place "under the hood."

You won't see them directly. But hopefully you will see them indirectly, especially when alerted posts are removed in a timely manner.

[flvegan]

24. That's exactly what I took from your OP.

And I do think that it will be very apparent to those of us that spend a good amount of time here reading/discussing. Thanks again!

[Subdivisions]

46. I have already noticed a difference. Your actions have actually

stopped me from posting in response to some comments in that the comments I was posting to were deleted before I could complete my response. I've also noticed others commenting about how fast trolls were being TSed and posts being deleted.

Thanks for all the hard work you and the rest of the admins, as well as the mods, are doing.

[krispos42]

17. Look backwards, too...

...the first upgrade to the Hot Tub (6-cylinder turbocharged engine on the water jets, swim-up bar) was done almost 2 weeks ago. :evilgrin:

[flvegan]

28. Awwww, man!

Now everyone is going to sign up to be a mod. I'll never get in.

*pouts*

[krispos42]

32. Next month we're getting an omlette bar

:P

[flvegan]

40. Doh!

[krispos42]

45. Ah, you're vegan, so it's not like you'd care

The Swedish masseuses, though... man, that was a fun interview process.

[Ignis]

129. An omelette bar w/o a tofu scramble is SO 20th-century!

;)

[TZ]

50. LOL

If you became a moderator, only posts about fast cars, women, and dogs would be allowed...:rofl:
Oh and all the Yankees fans would be TS'd ....

[arcadian]

141. My resolution is to only alert on PETA threads from now on.

For their hilarity

:hide:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Cool. Any rule can work if enforced even-handedly.

The even-handedness needs a little work on some individual cases, but the general goal is good.

I, like most, drive the speed of the other drivers, not the posted limit.

Abating name-calling is good.

[Skinner]

10. You should drive the posted limit.

If you drive the speed of the other drivers, you might get a ticket.

And if it ticks you off that some of the other drivers aren't getting tickets, you need to click the alert link. If you don't, there is a good chance that the cops won't even see them.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Not the point. I am not defending lawlessness.

On a highway one has little choice but to drive in the flow of traffic.

A discussion forum is the same way. If name-calling is the mode of interaction than an effective writer becomes an effective name-caller...

I was not defending lawlessness, but rather applauding your comments on enforcing a standard and noting that, like pretty much everyone else in the world, I operate within a context.

I have had episodes of name-calling and intense nastiness within an existing environment, yet in an environment where name-calling and nastiness are uncommon I don't.

It's people 101. If there is litter on the ground people tend to litter. In a clean environment most people don't litter.

If you enforce a certain tone most people will follow it quite naturally in the same way everyone drives within the flow of traffic.

The average person knows no criminal law yet commits few crimes... they follow the examples around them rather than studying the statutes.

That's all.

[Skinner]

35. Fair enough.

My point is simply this: This is a giant discussion forum. The moderators and I can enforce our rules, and do so evenhandedly. But that will only get us so far.

We get tens of thousands of posts here every day, and we do not pre-screen any of them. There is going to be plenty of crap that gets through. But if the mods do not know about it, it is going to stay on the forum. That is just a fact. We depend on alerts.

[asdjrocky]

20. Hear hear!

It really is hard sometimes not to get a op of mine locked. And yet I see threads that are basicly the same thing running on for days.

I read the rules and I'm still confused.

[truedelphi]

118. Others must feel the way you do.

I look at for instance, pro Kucinich posts from six months ago, and those praising the OP rarely are on here any more.

Why would they come on, if a candidate whose policies were over whelmingly approved of by over 60% of all Americans, in blind polls run during 2008 - if those DU members are slimed for jsut saying something like "Good for you, Dennis."??

[Mithreal]

136. +1

[asdjrocky]

192. I hear you. nt

[phasma ex machina]

319. +2 Too many trolls feed off of DK supporters and proclaim it a big joke after they get busted.

[QC]

324. One could easily get the impression that Kucinich, not a Republican,

is the most hated person on DU.

That needs to stop.

[Skinner]

394. I don't like that any Democrats or DUers get attacked here. But I have a question.

Why should the response to posts about Dennis Kucinich be any different from the response to posts about Barack Obama, or the response to posts about any prominent Democrat?

I honestly don't understand. This is a diverse community. Not everyone is going to have a positive opinion of every prominent Democrat. Obviously, the response to posts about Barack Obama are not uniformly positive. Why should posts about Dennis Kucinich be different?

[QC]

418. I think people are concerned with obvious flame bait, like this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7628565&mesg_id=7628565

[Skinner]

420. Compared to the type of thing that gets routinely posted about President Obama, that seems tame.

In fact, I don't really see anything about that post that is out-of-bounds, except perhaps the fact that it is a short OP.

I think the observation that Dennis Kucinich -- who represents one House district out of 435 and whose presidential campaigns were not constrained by any apparent ambition of actually winning the office -- has not had any reason to engage in the distasteful compromises necessary to be a viable national candidate (or even to win a single Democratic presidential primary in a single state) is self-evident.

[truedelphi]

446. No one I know posts about Obama

To quote "Gawd, I hate that slime ball grandstander."

People might be posting that they hate Obama policies or appointees, but only rarely have I seen an outright "I hate Obama" statement. (Maybe once or twice from an obvious Freeper who was immediately tombstoned.)

But Kucinich has the "H" word used against him.

Mods tolerate that.

Why?

[rudy23]

449. Seriously, it's not even close as far as the vile-ness of the language goes. The DK smearers are

out to throw filth, chase Progressives away from DU, and mostly to derail honest debate on single payer.

They were obviously on a mission. You rarely see that kind of criticism of DK in day to day life, but you'll see lots of Progressive criticism of Obama outside of our corner of the web.

[rudy23]

448. Because the posts violently criticizing Kucinich were obviously done in concert.

Barack Obama is the president. He's in the news every day, and he's going to get criticized, especially by members of his own party when he goes against them.

The attacks on Dennis Kucinich started in July, and there were two or three dozen posters all at the same time, using the same stick-out-on-DU-like-a-sore-thumb arguments, and over-the-top, vile language to criticize him. He's not in a high profile position, and this isn't primary season, so what could've prompted this notably bizarre behavior?

The only thing that happened at the same time that these over the top anti-DK posts started, was that he was pushing for single payer.

I think you would have to willfully ignore all qualitative evidence to discount the strong possibility that there were people on here who attacked Dennis Kucinich as part of an effort to take single payer out of the debate. If opponents of single payer could link HR676 to someone with superficial image problems like Kucinich, they could weaken our adamant stance on single payer (which they did. Like the town hall meetings, they worked).

Here are my posts from July & October when I first start to notice the phenomenon. You can tell by the words the posters use: "grandstanding", "UFO", "Naderite", "pony", "can't pull 3% nationally", etc. This, in combination with a vile tone that's meant to derail and lock pro single payer threads, makes this orchestrated effort very obvious to me, and many other posters who have noticed the same thing.

Here's the qualitative evidence. I think it's pretty damning and I encourage anyone to take an open-minded look at what I've been noting since July. Skinner, I encourage you to please take a quick look at some of these entries if you want to see specifically what we are talking about:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6022082
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6706609&mesg_id=6706670
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7356586&mesg_id=7357006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6971489&mesg_id=6971552
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6971489&
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=40119&mesg_id=40119

[11 Bravo]

6. Thank you, Skinner. It's good to see that the adults are in charge.

Your posts cuts right to the heart of the matter. Do I always agree with the mods decisions? Hell, no! But are they a group of hard-working individuals who are doing the best they can to ride herd on a wildly diverse group of (mostly) Democratic cats? Hell, yes!
Thanks for reminding us that theirs is a difficult, and at times thankless, job.

on edit: Hopefully some folks will come to see that just because their own personal ox has been gored, it does not mean that the gorer is a sub-human who needs to be immediately TSed.

[supernova]

7. Thank you Skinner

You guys have the toughest job on the net, I believe.

KnR

[Ninga]

8. All Skinner is asking is that we behave in a manner that if Congress adopted, would be more

productive.

:patriot:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. I've already noticed this change, and I'm impressed.

I alerted on a post the other day, and it was GONE in 15 minutes. I was astonished, and VERY pleased.

Keep up the great work!

Thanks for the best website on the internet!

K&R

[EFerrari]

34. I have, too.

Thanks so much, Skinner.

[MUAD_DIB]

11. Flagged... But serously, if that will stop, in some way, the endless flame wars

and hissy vanity posts then great.

The majority of the DUers are not the enemy. Trolls, FR lurkers/supporters and the RW crazies are.


Edit/spelling.

[Skinner]

15. We are moderators, not miracle workers.

There will always be a significant undercurrent of less-than-ideal postings. Remember that one person's masterpiece is another's hissy vanity post.

[MUAD_DIB]

68. With all due respect, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I believe that I have seen/read enough fits to realize that some posters create them intentionally so they can have more of a fit and try to show others up.

Understandably, it would be unrealistic to censure all/most of them, but at the same time it would be a welcome relief if said posters were given reason to think before they click 'post message.'

[johnaries]

13. I salute you, Skinner, and all our Admins and Mods.

Despite the seemingly over-whelming job, I've always thought you all did a great job. I am gald you are taking it even a step further.

I'm glad there are a wide range of opinions here, but I have been disappointed that what should be honest debate often degenerates into flame-wars. But, I guess that is to be expected with so many posters. Nevertheless, I still think the Admins and Mods have done a wonderful job walking tht "tightrope" trying to maintain civility while trying to keep discussion open.

Thank you, for all you have done and for all you continue to do.

:patriot:

[snooper2]

14. Free Jinger!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42728656541

[Skinner]

18. I don't get this post.

Is it a test to see if we are now taking a harder line against off-topic replies?

[snooper2]

22. just workin' the cause!

:P

[fl_dem]

16. this is a reasonable request .

and most left leaners like to consider themselves reasonable people. I wouldn't want to do what you all are tasked with and I will do my best not to be alerted on... I didn't like it when my kids tattled on each other, DU moderators experience that 1000 fold. Keep up the good work!

[Maeve]

19. Sounds like you've made some good choices, Boss

As a former mod, I know how frustrating it was to be unable to react unless it was a MAJOR emergency (but saw why that was good, too--moderation in moderating, so to speak). thanks for giving us this space and for keeping it from getting too wild.

[tavalon]

23. Over all, I like what you have to say here

But (yes, I know this horse is glue) is there any chance you can revisit the unrec feature? I know the intent was to make the Greatest Page actually function as it was originally intended, but really it's tiresome to read people complaining about the unrecs the post has gotten and many people see it as a cowardly way to diss one another. You would think it would be no different than our system of reccing a post, but I think it's done its fair share of increasing the incivility here.

[Skinner]

37. I think it's pretty obvious that our problem pre-dates the unrec function.

But I won't rule anything out.

[Renew Deal]

55. Does that include bringing back ATA?

:evilgrin:

[prolesunited]

70. Man, that was always good for a laugh

I think that could be resurrected with prescreened posts -- only those serious or funny enough would make it.

We need more fun around here.

[blondeatlast]

161. Please, oh please, bring back AtA! The best fun a person could have on a Sunday morning

after a saturday night. :rofl:

[rudy23]

71. When posts that tout the most basic tenets of the Democratic platform start out with negative recs

besides being uncivil, it throws the integrity of why posters are at DU into question.

I think the mods have done a great job, and I'm very appreciative of them. I do think there has to be some qualitative way of identifying paid trolls. For example, when 20 different posters use the same vile, over the top terms to assault a critic of Obama like Howard Dean, Feingold, Kucinich, etc., one can gather that it is part of an orchestrated attack, complete with unrecs, vile language, etc. I'm glad the vile tone will be monitored more closely, since the paid attackers seem to rely on that tone to derail debates and drive people away. However, they have no vested interest in preserving the integrity of DU, so they are at an advantage. There does need to be a way to identify people who are ALWAYS attacking Progressivism itself, and doing it in concert with other people.

That would be kind of like if I went on a New Orleans Saints website and 20 different supposed Saints fans were attacking Drew Brees, (eta: all using almost the exact same language). It makes no sense, and it is a sign of collaboration AGAINST Democrats from within the party.

I appreciate that there are genuine differences within the party, but we've all seen how the DLC can often look like more of an infiltration from Republicans, than genuine disagreements within the family.

I've said my piece, but overall, I think the mods do an outstanding job, and I'm very appreciate to have DU and all the great DU posters around to talk to each day, and try to make sense of this crazy world with together.

[Warren Stupidity]

233. Please do a little research - made much easier by the Top Tens

Any post may 'start out with negative recs' because just one unrec at the start can send a post negative, however any post with actual merit will, as the numbers pile up, quickly overwhelm the inappropriate unrecs.

[Dappleganger]

76. Yes, but it definitely added fuel to the fire.

[TrogL]

104. Un-rec'd - does not belong on Greatest Page

I'm kidding!!!!

[CTyankee]

171. I have been a frequent critic of Unrec and when I encourage a discussion

with someone who criticizes my position I ask them to explain THEIR position because I might learn something. I often do. Sometimes I have even changed my mind on a subject when challenged on a post. The more we ENGAGE (not flame at) people who are on the opposite side of an issue, the better, IMO. And the Unrec seems only to encourage "hit and run" Unreccing that cuts off discussion.

I might add that we could self regulate when we are "looking for a fight" angry or really depressed and drinking. I am not talking about venting or even a self admitted rant. But I've seen some posts that make me wonder how the person posting is holding up (some I don't think are doing well at all). They need more than DU at that time or they need to calm down a bit or sober up a bit before posting...but maybe that's just a bridge too far. I dunno.

[mopinko]

419. please don't do it.

i think the unrec is a good things. seems like every thread attracts a few, but if it is worth discussing, they are usually quickly wiped out. i check out a lot of posts that are <0, and they sure are.

and once again you guys have seen the problem and developed a response that is truly democratic in spirit. thanks for everything.
maybe i will do another tour of the tub. i suspect i know what you did, and would not mind doing it again without that onerous "heavy lifting".

[tavalon]

424. I absolutely agree with you

The problem was that people were reccing posts because they agreed with the post or they like the poster instead of only reccing the things that were worthy of being on the Greatest Page. It really worked well in the beginning but yeah, by the time you guys came up with the unrec feature, it was obvious that we as a community had gone off-track. Boy, I really loved the Greatest Page when it first started. I could rely on getting the cream of this huge crop.

Unfortunately, short of a massive Public Service Announcements to help people understand what is Greatest Page material (maybe we could use Grovelbot to deliver the message?), I don't think the Greatest Page can be brought back to its former glory. I still reflexively start there, but often scan and pan it pretty quickly.

[Dappleganger]

75. I agree with this 1000%, the civility of the forum went drastically downhill when unrec

was introduced. It doesn't just lead to animosity, but also a good portion of posts discussing why or who is unrecc'ing is a HUGE waste of bandwidth. I have not seen one positive upside to having this feature continue since it was introduced.

JMHO, and thanks for all you and the moderation team do, Skinner!

[MindPilot]

92. I agree with you!

[jobycom]

95. The Rec function was used that way long before unrec came around.

The front page was littered with garbage like "Rec this is Obama pisses you off!" right below "Rec this if you love Obama!" and it was constant battle between factions trying to flip each other off, with the rec function as the middle finger.

It's gotten no worse with Unrec. In some ways it's much better, since I see fewer of those inane wars on the front page now. Now the ones that make it are usually posts with a consensus either that the post was well done or that the majority actuall agrees with it.

Before, a post that the majority of DU disagreed with passionately could make the front page, and the only way to counter it was by reccing up a counter post.

To me, if you dump unrec, you should dump rec, too. The old system was awful. Really, really, really awful. The new one (according to some) is flawed, but at its worst it is better than the old system.

[Ms. Toad]

261. Well said. n/t

[Go2Peace]

357. I could have sword unrec was around before Obama became President?

Maybe I am not remembering correctly though.

[Truth2Tell]

367. I rec this reply for spectacular use of the word sword. nt

[greenbird]

380. . . .

:rofl:

[caitxrawks]

442. *snort*

I almost aspirated my Frosted Mini Wheats when I read this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

378. It may seem like forever, but it was introduced in July 2009

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6021143&mesg_id=6021143

[Go2Peace]

479. It does seem like forever, and that was my typing which needs great improvement ;)

[Turborama]

282. I like the idea of having thumbs up/down in addition to the rec/unrec feature FWIW

A lot of people unrec because it's the only way of anonymously showing disapproval of the subject in the post but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth reading. I also like the +1 system for replies on Daily Kos. Would adding these features = an extra massive headache for the admins and mods, though?

[Skinner]

390. Question.

What is the difference between Rec/Unrec and a Thumbs-up/Thumbs-down or +1/-1 system?

[Turborama]

467. To clarify

The way I see the Greatest Page is that it's an aggregator of all the OPs from all the main forums in DU that users deem worth reading/watching, which I think is its original intention. It helps an OP reach a wider DU audience so that people who spend the majority of their time in GD (for example) can see other "hot topics" from other forums that they might otherwise miss.

Thumbs up/thumbs down would be for whether people like or dislike the content of the OP but it would have no bearing on whether the OP gets on or is kept off the Greatest Page. As I mentioned in my reply above, the rec/unrec function is the only way people can anonymously show their approval/disapproval of an OP, and this can sometimes be misused. However, even if they dislike/disapprove of what's being written/said in the OP (thumbs down), it still might be something that they consider worth reading/watching (rec). Additionally, they might feel neutral about whether others should read/see it or not and only give a thumbs down to show their dislike/disapproval and forgo the use of the rec/unrec function.

The +1/-1 would be given to individual replies for the OP, as can be seen on Daily Kos diaries. DUers frequently add +1 in agreement to individual replies as a kind of homage. It would be really cool if that could be implemented here so that the +1/-1s were actually tallied up per reply.

So, in conclusion, these additions would be a hybrid of voting features other progressive sites are using but tailored to compliment DU's exisitng rec/unrec feature. They use thumbs up/down on individual replies on http://thinkprogress.org but you have to log in to see and use that function. When I first saw it there a while ago I thought it might be a cool function to go in conjunction with the rec/unrec feature for OPs here, as described above. The +1/-1 function as per Daily Kos would fit in really well with individual replies here, too.

Thanks a lot for asking and a huge thanks for such a great site.

[truedelphi]

447. + 1.

[gkhouston]

25. Many thanks for all the hard work the admins and mods do around here.

Even if your proposed changes don't help as much as you'd like, I appreciate the attempt. The last few weeks have been worse than primary seasons.

[LiberalAndProud]

26. Thanks Skinner, and all our hard working mods.

"I suspect the moderators would have been too overwhelmed to deal with all of them anyway." -- That part is certainly the truth.

Sincerely, thanks!

[Skinner]

38. It *was* true.

But I do not think it is true anymore. During they day, they clear alerts very quickly. Virtually none of them fall through the cracks.

I believe they will be able to keep up if/when people start alerting more often.

[Texasgal]

27. Can we get an auto removal

for posts complaining about the unrec/rec feature? :)

Thanks Skinner, I really do appreciate your hard work!

[rudy23]

30. What about posts complaining about people complaining about unrec?

I think unrec is a very divisive feature, and it's a big part of what's hurting DU, but that's just my opinion.

[TrogL]

138. Can we just plain ban all discussion of the feature?

(Yes, I'm well aware that I'm being recursive)

I just wandered off into other threads and encountered three contentless "recommended" posts. Who really gives a shit. Frankly I'd rather have the admins and mods pick the content of the greatest page.

[TorchTheWitch]

342. I'd definitely support that

The whole rec/unrec feature is not working as intended. Most people either rec or unrec based on whether or not they agree or disagree with the OP or like or not like the poster. All this emotional investment in rec/unrec is so absurd and just goes to show it's nothing more than ego related. I'm sooooo beyond sick of seeing so damn many posts whining about someone unrecing the OP and how horrible it is that someone or several someones did. All the feature does is get the better posts onto the Greatest Page - that's IT.

I've thought for some time that since rec and now rec/unrec aren't being used as intended than we'd all be better off without it and let the mods/admins decide what goes on the Greatest Page or just get rid of the damn Greatest Page alltogether since it's more than apparent that far too many people are far too emotionally attached to it beyond all reason. It's gotten to the point where it seems all people DO here anymore is play with rec/unrec and freak out about it.

[wildflower]

255. I would support this

It does seem to use a lot of bandwidth.

[Terra Alta]

29. K&R, thanks for all the hard work

you and the mods do... I know it can't be easy!

[FrenchieCat]

31. Thank you Skinner.

Hopefully a new tone will bring folks back that originally came here to get away from
the venom of media induced political nonsense.

[laughingliberal]

33. Great news! Thanks!

K & R

[tandot]

36. What happens to the repeat offenders who get posts deleted day after day

because of insults and name-calling?

Are there consequences?

Some seem to be here only to disparage and insult DUers who have opinions that differ from theirs. Even if they get their post deleted, they'll just post another insult in another thread. Do you have any way to keep track of them (e.g., DUer X had 30 posts deleted in January) and are there plans to deal with them if they don't stop the bashing?

[Skinner]

43. Yes, there are consequenses.

We have a record of deleted posts and locked threads for every member of DU. Eventually, long-term problem people get warned and suspended and even banned. We hope to look at this issue at some point to see if anything could be done to improve how these decisions are made. But we have not done so yet.

[TrogL]

105. Oh, crap

[TheIdiot]

368. me, too nt

[Control-Z]

148. Do you also keep

track of the chronic unrec'ers? Especially those who seem to unrec threads right out the gate.

[quiet.american]

39. Fair enough. nt

[mirrera]

41. Is there any viable way to discuss something being removed?

It says in the rules to "contact the Moderator" and also not to call them out because you can "contact" them. I have written over and over again looking for even one official reply. What is the policy?
In the rules it says that if you have been banished and ask to be re-instated and don't get a reply than you can assume the answer is no. What is the policy for asking a question? My in box has messages when a donation is needed or a good cause needs supporting, but has been empty of any replies to my inquiries.

[Skinner]

47. I'll be honest: I get too much email, and I don't respond to all of it.

I wish I could, but I don't.

The secret formula is this:

Send it by email instead of private message.
Be brief and to-the-point.
Be polite.
Be a little bit lucky.

That's the best I can do.

[mirrera]

133. fair enough I will try again.

As long as I know it involves luck I will keep it short and hold my fake rabbit's foot.

[OhioChick]

277. On at least 4-5 occasions (since my near 6 years here)

I was instructed by mods to "write to the admins" and given an email address. On each occasion that this was suggested to me, I did and never got a response.

:shrug:

[mirrera]

281. I have written 3 or four letters as well. They were polite and they were emailed...

They were not brief, so I will try that, and I guess I just did not have any luck.

[shireen]

308. me too. i've wondered if the mail was being redirected to /dev/null . nt

[rucky]

42. The "haters vs cheerleaders" snipes are the root of so many problems here.

I think the new policy will cut a lot of the discourse off at the knees.

:thumbsup:

[gkhouston]

56. I've simply stopped reading posts from the DUers prone to using those terms.

They bored me.

[blondeatlast]

166. Yups. nt

[shireen]

309. +1 nt

[LynneSin]

44. It's not different viewpoints that bother me - it's the active campaigning against democrats

Massachusetts race is a prime example. We had our chance to get a DU-approved candidate on the ticket back when there was a democratic primary a few months back. I have no problem campaigning against democrats in the primary or even campaigning against incumbant democrats during the primaries. That's what primaries are for - a chance for us to find the best candidate in our party to run on the ticket and drum up support for that candidate.

But when the primaries are overwith and the candidate is chosen - that is when it gets very very frustrating on DU. I saw plenty of posters suggesting that people vote against Coakley either by voting 3rd Party/Voting Republican or even worse - NOT VOTING. I can't change the opinions of how an individual wants to vote but I will bitch when someone actively suggests defeating the democrat on the general election ticket (of course there are exceptions like Vermont where Sanders is the accepted candidate by the democratic party even though he is not a democrat). It is especially annoying when those suggestions come from people who don't even live in that state. I mean, I am not the biggest Tom Carper fan (senator here in Delaware and VP in the DLC) and I would entertain supporting a primary opponent. But if Carper wins that primary, you better believe I will be pissed seeing non-Delawareans suggest it's ok to vote in a way that could make me stuck with some fundie nutjob as my senator for 6 years. I may not like Carper, but there are alot of creepy republicans that could end up with that seat and I already had 8 years of Rick Santorum, thank you very much!

I don't care if people agree or disagree with my views on specific issues. I care when people actively campaign against a candidate during the general elections. That's just wrong and I wish DU was more proactive on those anti-Coakley posts.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

49. Alert any advocacy of any Dem losing a general election

[LynneSin]

64. I have - hopingfully the new moderating will work

but sometimes that crap gets on the DU home page - and that's just bull.

[Dappleganger]

78. In agreement.

[Go2Peace]

352. Please do alert, but really, those posts were rare and too often used as an excuse

to put down other opinions and call others names. Now it is clear that users who purpously try and stop discussion will be against TOS and those also will be deleted.

So we can all have a more civil discussion. We are, as the OP pointed out, free to express our opinions even when we are asking for change in the party.

I think this OP made it clear, this is not "Democrats.com", it is perfectly acceptable to discuss democratic and progressive politics in all areas.

[liberal_at_heart]

94. There are many of us who are frustrated with the democratic party

and want to hold them accountable. If we are not allowed to make posts based on holding politicians accountable then I want no part of this board. The tenants of this board are suppose to be for progressive ideals not party loyalty. If this board's purpose is upholding progressive ideals I'm in. If this board's purpse is to advocate party loyalty, I'm out. I'll go find another liberal board to post on.

[DevonRex]

99. You might wish to take another look at that section of the rules. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

103. Why does it say that even people who are not in the democratic party are welcome?

Progressive ideals is suppose to be the idea here. Anyone from any party is suppose to be welcome as long as they hold progressive ideals. But if all the board is for is democratic party loyalists then I will gladly find another board.

[Ignis]

106. DU is indeed NOT for lock-step loyalists only.

Without criticism, we become nothing more than a sounding chamber...and that won't help the country at all.

If you look at the rules, you'll see that progressives of all stripes are quite welcome--provided that you don't actively campaign against Democrats or for 3rd-party candidates.

[liberal_at_heart]

114. So if a conservative democrat beats out a progressive democrat in a primary

does that mean we cannot say that we plan on voting third party? Because I will not vote for a conservative democrat.

[Ignis]

126. Once they're past the primary, they're ours--warts and all.

So in that case, the rules seem pretty clear that your options are to 1) say you'll vote for (D) candidate in the general election--no matter how stinky--or 2) be silent on the matter.

Of course, you can still criticize the actions, words, policies, etc. of that (D) candidate...as long as you do so civilly and without directly insulting those who do support the BlueDog albatross around our collective neck.

[DevonRex]

131. That was a really good explanation. nt

[Ignis]

135. Thanks. It's taken me some time to wrap my head around it.

I don't like having to keep silent when we let sleazeballs like Holy Joe slip through the primary, but them's the rules.

:shrug:

Of course, now that he's an "independent" :eyes: he's fair game at DU. ;)

[DevonRex]

153. I just keep reminding myself that for the folks who have blue dogs

it could be SO much worse. Here in Colorado we get to see just how bad it could be on a daily basis, what with Focus on the Family being here and Tom Tancredo lurking in the wings and wanting to bomb Mecca and all.

Although I don't know how anybody could be worse than Holy Joe is now. How on earth could he have passed himself off as a Democrat all those years? And what made him change if he really had been a Dem? So many questions, none of which will ever be answered satisfactorily. *sigh*

[bkozumplik]

214. I disagree

Having a D by your name doesn't make you a Dem. We should be free to criticize dems AND repubs, whenever we want.
If the rules say differently then the rules should be looked at being changed. Otherwise we will never get better dems-- just more dems.




"Rules which make no sense should not be followed"
--me

[Ignis]

216. Don't disagree with me, I didn't write the rules.

I'll stand by my analysis until/if I'm corrected by a mod/admin.

[bkozumplik]

239. that being said, thanks admins

good work.

[Caliman73]

271. Criticism is one thing.

Name calling and throwing verbal tantrums is an entirely different thing. For example, I can say that I do not agree with many of Blanche Lincoln's policies regarding health care or environmental policy and that I think she is too beholden to the major energy interests in her state and is not protecting her constituency according to Democratic standards. Or I can call her shit eating DLC corporate whore.

One is a point of view that can be discussed and debated, the other is an emotionally charged reaction that prompts a equally impassioned defense by someone who likes Lincoln.

I think Skinner and the mods are trying to ensure that the site is a place where we can discuss the issues without becoming either a robot factory or a chaotic hell hole where abuse is heaped on for the slightest disagreements.

[The Green Manalishi]

279. "Because I will not vote for a conservative democrat."

Learn to hold your nose; voters have been doing it since Athens :-)

Seriously- once they get the nomination STFU or don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Not picking on you but even though I CAME from a third party (even a masochist gets tired of the beatings eventually) anyone suggesting voting third party should be TS'd; 9 grams as the NKVD used to say. Yeah there have been times I've still voted 3rd party- when the vote was inevitable, when the candidate is particularly vile; I've even written myself in- but I'd never post here and suggest anyone do so.

[liberal_at_heart]

306. See this is where our right to vote is so fundamental

We have a right that I personally hold very dear. That is the freedom to vote for who we want without fear of threat or intimidation and I for one will never be intimidated into voting for a candadite I don't believe in. I don't care what anybody thinks of me. I would rather be true to my principles than vote just to vote for someone I don't believe in just to please other people. So, unless a mod kicks me out I will voice my opinion. and even if my voice is silenced on here. Even if I am censored my vote is never cencored. My vote is my vote and no one can take it from me.

[The Green Manalishi]

322. Never said otherwise

And I'll go so far as to say the Democratic party does not automatically own or deserve your vote.

I just mean that *MY* rookie, newbie (although I've lurked for 6 or 7 years) understanding is that this site functions as a redoubt against the onslaught of a corporatist and theocratically orientated military-industrial complex owned and operated conservative putsch that has raped this country and tried to take over the world in the name of God and capitalism for the last two or three decades.

So even if the asshole votes against us 98% of the time it still beats Ghandi with an (R) next to their name, cause s/he's going to vote against us 100% of the time on things that matter.

[Go2Peace]

356. My fight is not with the (R) party. I HATE what they did. But they are only a manifestation

of what has happened.

I get concerned about how everyone is talking like this is just a war against terrorists with a different name. It is not. It is a war of *ideas* and ethics. We could completely obliterate the Republicans and yet it could remain with us anyway if we don't define and follow our principles.

[The Green Manalishi]

359. Completely true.

But once we have a (D) candidate then anything giving 'aid and comfort' to their real or potential opposition outside the party in the general election is walking a thin line at best, backstabbing hypocrisy at worst and opens one up to attack and ridicule; don't like it start your own site. I loathe blue dogs, but even more I like seeing people and mods come down like a ton of bricks on the people who want to see them lose to Republicans.

[Go2Peace]

355. Some folks want this to be "Democrats.com". I think the OP made it clear it is not

I have never said I will not vote for a Democrat. But I also don't think that someone is not a Democrat simply because they don't vote for every Democrat out there. Funny thing, the Democratic party NEVER has been that rigid. The ONLY place I have ever seen someone try and label somebody who took a stand, even within the party, is HERE.

That is a NEW thing in the Democratic party and I think mostly comes from young people who have a very narrow understanding of how our Democracy works.

Having said that, I understand the stakes and the emotions. But this labling of folks as "not Democrats", Trolls, disloyal, or whatever, because they express freedom of choice even within the party has to STOP. It is not "Democrat" or "Democratic"

[DevonRex]

112. Here is the rule:

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

**And in the further explanation of how the rules are enforced: **

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. 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.

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.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

snip

My opinion on this is that if by "holding them accountable" you mean you wish them to be defeated and say that here, then that is against the rules. If by "holding them accountable" you mean that you call, you write LTTE, you email or whatever to voice your opinion when they disappoint you, then that's all well and good. But advocating for a Democrat's defeat is clearly against the rules, as is advocating for a third party.

[Hippo_Tron]

152. I think it depends on what is meant by "advocate"

Posting a thread linking to where you can sign up to volunteer for Ralph Nader's presidential campaign is obviously "advocating" for a third party candidate. Posting a reply with something along the lines of "I'm so frustrated I may stay home or vote third party" isn't necessarily advocating for others to do the same. I think like everything, context is warranted.

[DevonRex]

157. I agree. And to some degree we all vent here and say things that we

don't necessarily mean, too. So, context is important and pure emotional response needs to be taken into account, too. I think the Mods are really good at figuring out when folks are venting and when folks are actually rooting for a 3rd party.

[shireen]

312. perhaps DU should be renamed PU - Progressive Underground ....

some Democratic candidates are Democrats in name only. If one of the blue dogs were running against an independent in the mold of Bernie Sanders, i'm going to be strongly supportive of that independent candidate and want the blue dog to be defeated. Advocating for that Independent, according to DU rules, would result in my post being deleted. Is this correct?

[Jax]

370. So YOU speak for Skinner EarlG Elad

noted.

VERY noted.

[DevonRex]

406. Very strange reply. I posted the rule and how it's enforced, which is

here for everyone to see. And I clearly said what MY OPINION of the meaning of the rule and its enforcement is. I actually used the words MY OPINION.

Never at any time did I say that I speak for Skinner, et al. Never. And might I say that your response to me is noted. VERY noted. Whoever you are. :eyes:

[Ignis]

438. Leaps of logic like this make my head hurt.

:crazy:

[alsame]

48. Thank you. nt

[Renew Deal]

51. Sounds good. Getting rid of Unrec would be another great way to deal with "incivility."

Unrec has been a huge source of trouble on this site. It breeds distrust between members. It gives people the idea that there's "trolls" abusing the system. Then there's the people that just don't get how to use it. They are the ones that unrec because they dislike the person that posted a thread or other pettiness. It's time for unrec to go.

EDIT: One more thing. DU has always been one of the MORE civil forums because of how well the rules are enforced in general. Going after more of the small stuff would be a good thing.

[Mithreal]

52. Strongly agree with the second to last paragraph!

WRT improving DU and LBN, frivolous or duplicate stories are removed promptly, but notice this story about emergency declaration that was removed from LBN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7607080

Please allow for exceptions in the rules. To remove it from LBN seemed kind of heartless of the DU mods or admin. I alerted, asked why, and made a request about this story, but crickets for a response not that I should have expected one.

Among its many other benefits, I use DU as a source of information for activism, please allow for some exceptions in the rules, specifically LBN.

[Snazzy]

329. would be better if there was explanation

when something gets moved from LBN, like as is done when a post is locked. Mod makes a post and says I'm moving and here's why (on the stub that gets left behind at least). It's discouraging when something that is news gets moved, which happens.

Likewise, but tougher, when a quick look suggests it's not by lbn policy (blog post) but is on examination actual news broken by a blog. You can't ask, but in an alert, or you appear to be calling out mods.

I see some of the most prolific DU lbn news hounds get inexplicable moves to GD or more obscure places on some hot button stories. They know the rules, why were they wrong? No one knows. It turns into Kremlinology.

(also unrec on news is still stupid).

There's probably a lot of people out there like me that use LBN as their primary news source (it kicks ass too). No room for hiding controversy if it's what in the actual national news or pertinent and actual news no matter the source.

[reflection]

53. Great news. Hope it works well.

I like the focus on name-calling. It's so unnecessary and can quickly smother a thread to death.

[euphoria12leo]

54. Does that mean less traffic because posters can no longer

attack with a vicious comment? I didn't like moving to BOG to avoid a "f" you. I just don't bother to offer an opinion (at times) when I have a different opinion. I don't like it when posters say are you that stupid? However, I have never clicked the alert button. In the end it's just words from someone I don't even know.

[Skinner]

58. I don't think this will have any effect on traffic.

That's kind of beside the point, anyway.

I would encourage you to click alert if you are attacked.

[prolesunited]

72. I think this will help

The lack of civility here has made my visits much less frequent. People always have disagreed here but it was more than just about name-calling and finger-pointing. People actually used persuasion, facts and links to back up their arguments. I've missed that.

[JohnnyLib2]

57. Thank you.

[Hutzpa]

59. I have another solution

how about we create a forum within a forum, what I meant by this is that you have to either get nominated or accrued points
to enter this forum, and this forum will be presided by strict rules.

Just a thought...:shrug:

This is a very good start, but there are those amongst us who cannot be satisfied no matter what you guys do, just like the
freaking repugnants who were for something until Obama came along.

[gkhouston]

61. We already have one of...

oops. :blush:

[City of Mills]

91. We need a purgatory forum

For those users who can't obey the rules, who have been warned one or more times already, but maybe not serious enough infractions to tombstone...restrict their posting privileges to this one forum only, until they demonstrate an ability to follow the rules and be civil. Probably too much overhead to implement and maintain, but it would be somewhat entertaining...I'm sure for some there would be bragging rights involved :rofl:

[bridgit]

60. We should ignore DUer's in our own home towns & drink boxed wine CostCo...

Everybody knows that is true path to Nirvana

[Swede]

62. Sounds like a reasonable route to take.

I hope it works.

[Turborama]

63. K&R & Thanks Skinner & everyone else who's working "under the hood" for your tireless efforts

I literally just alerted something and the offensive post was deleted immediately.

:fistbump:

[Cha]

65. Thanks for your DU Board, Skinner, Elad, & EarlG..

and for always trying to make it better through some of the worst storms in your board's political history.

The times I get myself into trouble is when R-E-S-P-E-C-T isn't shown our President..so thank you for the BOG because I do appreciate coming here and finding out on a mostly daily basis what this White House is doing and kicking it around with those who want a successful Obama Presidency.

[Brundle_Fly]

66. maybe I'll start posting again.

just maybe.

[SidDithers]

67. Thanks for always thinking about site improvements...

:applause:

Sid

[DollyM]

69. it would be nice if some people didn't immediately start name calling . . .

I posted an opinion on a particular thread and someone called me "freeper trash". I am not sure where they comment came from but I didn't appreciate it. Just because someone else has an opinion that differs from yours doesn't mean they are a freeper.

[Dappleganger]

79. In agreement.

Although there are some freepers who really do come here to disrupt. There's over 40 people in my ignore list from the past two months, which used to just be a tiny handful before that. It was due to name-calling and generally being anti-pres on a continuous basis.

[Ignis]

102. I think that was a misunderstanding, DollyM.

That sub-thread was (rightly) deleted, but I believe the "freeper trash" accusation was made against the new poster (< 10 posts, pizza since delivered) who was shitting all over that thread, the topic, Obama, DUers, Democrats in general, etc.

Given the thread structure used at DU, it can be a confusing at first to determine who's responding to whom. Try using the View All option to see the topic in threaded format.

But I think the short answer to your conundrum can be found in Skinner's OP: Alert, and let the mods sort it out.

:hi:

[thesquanderer]

117. Yes, end the name-calling!

It's hard to post anything at all controversial here without someone calling you a name... freeper, troll, PUMA, and often a bunch of others far less civil, generally having to do with some part of the anatomy or another. Or you get your motives questioned (you're an employee or stockholder in a certain industry, etc.). None of this is EVER constructive.

If you feel a post is misguided in its perspective, take it on on its merits (or lack thereof). Or ignore it. Attacking the messenger will never result in ANYTHING productive, and just contributes to a generally unpleasant atmosphere.

And as long as I'm living in a dream world here, I'd actually be happy if we could even lay back on the name calling on the OTHER side. I'll tell you, I've seen some interesting posts here that I've been tempted to forward to some of my less liberal friends as food for thought... but I don't because I know they will be turned off by seeing references to such things as Rethugs, Repugs, etc. In fact, I'd even feel a little embarrassed sending them to a place where they would see that.

[jotsy]

73. What DU is to a newbie like me, is something akin to a candy store.

There's flavors and types and the folks at the counter encourage adventurous taste buds but warn that not all types of sugar will suit every tooth. Some are tart, others bold, or just not at all what you thought you were biting into.

As for the administrators and moderators who must at times feel more like babysitters, there's an old James Taylor song that fits this analogy pretty well I think, How Sweet it is expresses aptly, my gratitude for the marvelous communication forum that has been established and well tended to since.


I consider DU as my online home, so to speak, but try to understand I live in a house you've provided and thus try to conduct myself like a respectful guest.

I do have something of an odd request, which I make for two reasons. When I find threads where posts have been removed, I feel like I lose a part of the context of the debate. There are also moments I find myself engaged with those making less than friendly comments and while I don't consider myself to be belligerent, I will generally try to stand my ground. If I could see examples of what gets a member 86'd, I'd worry less about wondering if what I said to someone could get me in trouble. Is there a way to follow deleted posts, with the name of the poster removed? I don't want to embarrass or call anybody out, just get a complete picture and a little model of what not to do.

Thanks again j

[madinmaryland]

74. Does this include the Lounge and the Sports Forum, where there are "Cowboy Haters"

and "Cowboy Apologists"??

:D

[TK421]

298. Does-not-compute

:-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Any comments on whether we should alert on insults that don't involve us personally?

I know as an ex-mod that it can be a grey area - if A has insulted B, and B has replied without apparently objecting to the insult, should we bother alerting if we think it's a definite rule break (not just something that some people won't regard as an insult)?

[pecwae]

82. I'm for alerting in those cases.

It's one of those things that lead to the issues just discussed. If no one alerts then the insult/namecalling stays for everyone to see and implies that it's within bounds. 'Course this is JMO as a former Mod myself.:hi:

[yowzayowzayowza]

151. Concur. Tizza slippery slope.

Tho deleting thoughtful discussion over tit4tat or trivial name calling is disappointing.

:hi:

[MineralMan]

122. Personally, I almost never alert on attacks on myself, but often

do when others are attacked personally. That basically takes my own hurt feelings or whatever out of he equation, but helps protect others.

[Ignis]

145. Same here, so I'd like to see more guidance on this subject. (nt)

[DevonRex]

162. Same here. And I know others do the same for me, since attacks

on me have been deleted that I never alerted on. Just shows how many good people there are at DU.

[Danger Mouse]

204. Personally, I alert on rule violations if I see them myself, and I encourage others to do so.

People don't always see the post saying 'fuck you, asshole' and the like.
:shrug:

[DevonRex]

209. Especially if it happens at 2:00 a.m. Gosh, do Mods have to stay up all night

too? The more I learn the more I appreciate how hard the job is. I had no idea until this OP by Skinner that the process had been cumbersome until now.

:hi:

[Danger Mouse]

211. The new system makes moderating late at night SO MUCH EASIER.

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

170. I try to do that, and I always state that it may/may not be a rule break.

Hurl all you want at me, but if you smack Starry Messenger, you will be blondeatlasted... :rofl:

[Hekate]

217. I do, when it crosses a certain threshold. One vile attack can bring down a whole discussion...

... in flames. Very often, though, I will state that I know it is up to the Mods, and I wouldn't want their job. One night it was someone who went from one thread to another crapping on everybody -- I wasn't following them around, but it sure was obvious after awhile so I did do a quick check -- so I alerted on two of the posts with mention of the others, to establish pattern. The Mods responded, I am grateful to say.

Hekate

[Skinner]

223. You should alert in those cases.

If it's a personal attack, it will be removed.

[TrogL]

452. Hell, I alert on myself

...if I think I'm straying into a grey area.

[eppur_se_muova]

80. Forbid little, allow much, enforce standards by consensus ... that is so freakin' ...

DEMOCRATIC! :P

Thanks to Skinner and all the mods for keeping DU so Demorific!

(Although that under-the-hood remark sounds like a subtle endorsement of Ross Perot. Alerting.)

[inna]

150. "Although that under-the-hood remark sounds like a subtle endorsement of Ross Perot. Alerting."

:rofl:

Good one. :D

[MindPilot]

81. Thank you Skinner

Clamping down on the flame bait, personal attacks and broadbrush statements will do a lot to make this a nicer park to hang in. It was in many ways to the point where the only thing to do was walk away or respond in kind; and I'm not real good at walking away.

I agree with the other posters about the unrec feature; it is unnecessarily divisive.

Maybe I can start to trim my ignore list. :evilgrin:

[inthebrain]

83. Just encourage more ratting. That oughtta solve the problem

Why not just ask people to exercise a little grow-the-fuck-upus.

Many of us that have posted here for awhile know that a lot of these attacks are being orchestrated from the Democrat Groups. Personally I have better things to do than to engage in this childishness on message board. That's why I don't spend a lot of time here. In my six years posting here I have never seen the maturity level where it's at now.

Encouraging folks to hit the alert button is just going to continue the childishness. If folks can't make they pointers in dissagreement to idea or topic just encourage them to mve onto something else.

Also, this does not address the common tactic used on this board to shut discussion down; Start a mass flame war on the thread. Folks who honestly want to discuss something often become victims of the flame wars on this board because of that even when they don't engage in the flaming themselves.

The board participation is down because of this.

[LynneSin]

86. God forbid democrats defending themselves on a democratic website

It's always easy to point fingers but remember every finger you point at another person 3 point right back at you.

[Go2Peace]

362. I NEVER have seen the Democrats try to "enforce" group dynamics

the way I have seen it here, mostly in the last year.

Republicans and Democrats are different, not just in policy. Democrats are free thinkers and put principles over conformity. That has always been accepted and even encouraged to a certain extent. This (the attempt to enforce "unity" in thought) is something completely new.

[inna]

158. I agree with you on some points. I think that post deleting only masks the underlying problem

and hides the evidence of abuse. I don't see how encouraging "more ratting" addresses the underlying problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

175. Do you think that the people who are uncivil will just stop when asked?

How much you look at discussions on the internet I'm not sure, but when you do, it's fairly clear that incivility is not just a DU problem, and that purely asking people to be nicer doesn't really work anywhere - certainly when politics is the subject.

[Skinner]

227. What he said.

I don't see how telling people to "exercise a little grow-the-fuck-upus" is going to make this place more civil.

I don't see how we could curb the problem of people "start(ing) a mass flame war on the thread" if we don't have an alert function or moderators deleting posts.

[inthebrain]

242. Therin lies your conundrum

Folks that start that flame war do so to have the thread shut down.

You want more moderation whereas the actual stern use of moderation on this board is the problem. The rules are set up, as is the use of the mods, to benefit those that think of this board as a place to campaign and play keyboard warrior.

No discussion ever takes place here as a result. It's even worse given that everytime one starts a thread, no matter how benign it is, one has to consider that those that don'e like what is being said, as to whether or not they are gonna flame fuck this shit out of it to get it locked.

This kind of moderation IS the problem and the folks who play this game here know to use it to their advantage.

[Skinner]

269. I am aware of this problem.

Our streamlined moderating process will make it more likely that that sort of disruption gets nipped in the bud before it flames out of control. It is much easier for the moderators to delete multiple replies now.

We have some other ideas in the pipeline which would stop this kind of thing in its tracks. But we're not ready to go there yet.

[Caliman73]

275. I don't know what the process is, but I agree.

I remember a thread where things were looking bad and I had posted what I thought were some really salient points. The subthread was deleted along with my posts and I was a bit bummed, but I thought it better to lose some posts than to have the thread degenerate. Targeting those people who intentionally start flaming away is the best method available. You don't have to lock the thread, just kick out the people who are trying to get it locked.

[Go2Peace]

365. Right on!

OK. Sounds like you folks are fully aware of all the "challenges". Thanks for your hard work!

[inna]

320. Again, you made some very good points.

I'm very glad and relieved that Skinner is aware of the problem that you mentioned.

[SteveM]

331. Good point. Some of these flamers want to sabotage threads...

and forums, even admitting to such. An example is the "Bull-in-the-ring" poster, taking on all comers with rhetorical questions, word games and re-run one-liners, filling a thread till their names look like punk stitching on a hem line.

[Go2Peace]

363. "as a place to campaign and play keyboard warrior." +100!

Exactly. From what Skinner has posted I think he knows about this. But I totally agree that is what is escelating the problems.
Progressives don't like authoritarians and trying to keep people from expressing opinions by making them appear "disloyal" is about the most disruptive thing you can do on a board like this.

I know this might sound radical, but I think a limit on OPs per day would go a long way to help and go a long way to make the dialog more productive. It would slow down the "rec wars" aspect as well.

[mzteris]

252. there was an old board

I used to be on before I discovered DU - (not a political board but it got VERY heated on occasion...) anyways - one of things they could do was put people on "private" - the two could argue to their hearts content, but no one else could see the posts. After people realized there was no one to "showboat" for, it stopped pretty quickly.

[annabanana]

330. intriguing!. . . . . n/t

[Soylent Brice]

84. thank you for all your hard work - admin and mods!!

[nolabear]

85. It's hard creating and maintaining a democracy!

But you Admins and Mods have always struck me as having an almost superhuman ability to resist the temptation of having an agenda and taking sides. I'd have bailed a long time ago (and did for a while during the height of the vitriolic divisions) if it hadn't been for the sustained efforts that keep things interesting enough, and yet civil enough, for me to feel that there's something to be gained. Young Nations, like teeneagers everywhere, are wild things, aren't they? Or, should I say, "we"?

[Peacetrain]

87. Boy that would be nice!!... Just to focus on the issue..

[xultar]

88. What about the people who keep bitchin about the unrec feature. PLEASE SPEAK to that.

Seriously.

I've stopped coming here because people just can't understand the feature and they keep bitching about it.

It's killing my soul!!!!

[LynneSin]

93. AMEN!!!

Who fricking cares if your first hit on the REC/UNREC is an unrec. The OP will then complain they got an unrec and then 50 other people will chime in about how some evil group of people have the soul mission of life of unreccing post on DU.

Then an hour later the thread is back in the positive recs anyways.

Seriously - don't we have better issues to get upset over?

[MindPilot]

98. That's the whole point -- we have better issues

I think a lot of people take an unrec personally and it seems kind of meaningless, so I can't think of any good reason to have it.

[LynneSin]

109. I very rarely check Rec Counts when I read a thread

Either it's a topic I want to talk about or I don't.

But when I see people whine about getting an 'UNREC' I'll do the same just to annoy the person even more - regardless if I agree about the topic.

[Stinky The Clown]

250. Why is it always characterized as "whining"?

The feature, to some, is meaningless, to some it is sport, to some it is hurtful.

What you see as "whining" others see as a legit comment. And using the word "whining" can be insulting and a mild form of flame all on its own.

While you (and many others) don't care about recs, some people do.

[LynneSin]

294. Legit complaint? That someone somewhere out there might disagree with you?

:eyes:

whatever!

[Stinky The Clown]

343. What you're dismissing is a difference of opinion. Ironic in a thread about tolerance and civility

Whatever, indeed.

:eyes:

[LynneSin]

387. So someone who disagrees and unrecs should be scorned...

and accused of being a freeper troll or paid corporate troll?

Because that's exactly alot when someone sees they have an unrec against their thread.

[Stinky The Clown]

399. How does that affect *you*?

Unrecs get some people really angry. It is, to some people, the equivalent of finding a "Lynn Sucks" sign taped to their high school hall locker. You're fortunate that you don't see it that way.

Some people like cherry vanilla and some don't. Neither is good nor bad. They just are.

[Texasgal]

314. Because IT IS WHINING

Honestly, the only issue is that you don't make it to the greatest page.

So what? If people respond they do...why should anyone care about the greatest page?

It's ridiculous the amount of whining over re/unrec... JEEZ.

[Stinky The Clown]

345. You seem awfully intolerant of views different from your own.

Dare I say you're ...... whining?

JEEZ.

[Texasgal]

443. I'm not intolerant of other

peoples VIEWS...I am intolerant of big ego's that cry about being unrec'ed.

Put that in your pipe and spoke it!

JEEZ.

[Stinky The Clown]

458. You say you're not intolerant, but you clearly have no tolerance for what you dislike.

A tolerant person would ignore something that doesn't affect them directly. A person talking about unreccing has no relationship to *you* ...... yet you find it intolerable.

Why is that??

[Texasgal]

459. You are impossible.

Forget it. I've said my piece and I am sticking with it.

[Stinky The Clown]

460. Fine. Let it sit. Its funny, though .....

.... as this just underscores my earlier comments.

[Texasgal]

462. It's more like talking in a circle...

But Okay.

I'm gonna let it sit.

Have a nice evening. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

463. Not a circle at all.

It is quite straight a line.

[rudy23]

400. Honestly, the overuse of that term "whining" is what makes me suspect some sort of group interest

in keeping unrec available. Because IMO, unrec favors those who post in concert with other posters, than us lone wolves.

[riverdale]

401. Seeing a thread in negative recommendations makes me want to read it

because I am a fucking rebel ha ha

[pipi_k]

111. The paranoia is astounding

I don't often give out recs, but the few times I have, I've caught myself at the last second almost clicking the unrec by accident because I was paying attention to something else or wasn't wearing my glasses.

I think it would be reasonable to say that perhaps it's happened with many people, and they don't even know it until it's too late.

But what happens?

A whole hoard of people jumping up and down, screeching like chimpanzees over the "unrec squad of trolls and Freepers". Geez...nothing like people assuming something...and even then, like you said, who the hell CARES about recs/unrecs?

All that angst over a thread that will likely be gone to page 15 in a few days anyway.

And the really sad part about it is that people blame the function itself for being the cause of so much animosity. Like self control costs money or something...

[Ignis]

137. Please see Skinner's OP re: civility

Those who dislike the changes to the Rec system don't necessarily suffer from "paranoia," nor are they "screeching like chimpanzees."

Good luck. :hi:

[pipi_k]

247. Well, there's not liking it, and then there's

paranoia about who's doing it, and the motives behind it.

When people are jumping up and down having hissy fits because they think there is an evil plot being hatched by "Freepers and trolls", then that's what it is.

Paranoia.

Sometimes an unrec is just an unrec because someone didn't think the thread was all that great. And sometimes an unrec is a mistake someone made.

Honestly, it gets a little discouraging to see a whole group of people...members of DU...being accused of nasty things, or being nasty people.


As far as the screeching chimpanzees reference goes...that is exactly the mental picture I get when 20 people get so rabidly worked up over something that, in the larger scheme of things, is not even terribly important.

I think in this regard I'm probably doing more injustice to the chimpanzees than to the allegedly "civilized" human beings who are emulating them, and I apologize to all chimpanzees.

[Ignis]

290. How does either of those terms engender civil discourse?

I'd really like to know. :shrug:

[pipi_k]

425. For one thing, they're not something I would introduce into a discussion

on the whole rec/unrec issue.

For example, I would not jump in and call people "paranoid". Often I just read the craziness and go read other stuff without commenting. Even then, there's a big difference, I think, in commenting on the atmosphere of paranoia and outright calling someone paranoid. The latter is something I would not do.

As for my mental image of screeching chimps...well, I can't help it if that's the cartoon that gets played in my head when I see the craziness going on. Again, I would not make the situation worse by actually calling a bunch of people screeching chimps because it would be clear whom I meant to call chimps.

Whereas here, in a general way, I'm commenting on how things appear to me. In other words, if the fur doesn't fit, then don't wear it.


Sometimes "insults" are in the mind of the beholder. I knew one unfortunate person (on a different site) who was so paranoid that if anyone used the phrase "some people", she was POSITIVE they were talking about her. It happened with me a number of times. Many times I was actually referring to people in my real life, but she was convinced it was all about HER.

It got to be really tiresome dealing with her issues.

It's the same here. People rec or unrec according to likes, dislikes, mistakes, being blind without glasses, etc. But people love to conjure up a mysterious band of Freeper Trolls who run around giggling and unreccing from their little Command Centers in their moms' basements.

Paranoid and tiresome.

[Ignis]

440. I don't think you're being quite as subtle as you imagine.

While I appreciate the distinction between "all of those people who do X are Y" and "you specific people are Y," I still think it's rather uncivil to call any group of DUers "screeching chimpanzees" who suffer from "paranoia."

As a general rule, I find that criticisms of a particular behavior or action are far, far less likely to be taken as an insult than sweeping, pejorative descriptions of a group of DUers. There's a world of difference between saying "the belief that the Earth is flat is stupid" and saying "those who believe that the Earth is flat are stupid."

But, YMMV, so follow your bliss. :hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

348. It is stunningly ironic that in a thread about civility, you caterwaul about people .......

.... doing something you *assume* them to be doing.

Some people *do* care. Maybe not you. And that's fine. But why do you find it necessary to berate them because your view is different.

How are you modeling civility in a thread about civility?

[Ignis]

441. Stinky raises a good point.

Too often, we observe a behavior and assume that we know the underlying reasons for why that behavior is practiced.

For example, I disagree strongly with the death penalty, but I don't automatically assume that those who are pro-capital-punishment are evil/stupid/mean/angry/whatever. Because how the fuck would I know what their history, personality, and motivations are?

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

276. I tried to unrec your post but the software won't let me do that

:hippie:

[VaYallaDawg]

89. Thanks to all of you mods. n/t

[DevonRex]

90. I never realized how difficult it was for the Mods to do things before.

Thank you for changing the system so that they can do their jobs more easily. I have noticed a difference already.

[Bobbie Jo]

96. Lovin' me some DU!

Thanks, Skinner! :kick:

[Ignis]

97. DU Mods: Ice-skating uphill...with a smile!

I think this is a great focus. :thumbsup:

I, like many other posters, am guilty of using "tit for tat" as my core game strategy when conversing over anonymous media. But in a loosely moderated environment, that can lead to a downward spiral that redirects the focus from what is being said to how it is being said.

So, I'm happy to take the Civility Challenge ;) ...but I think it would still benefit DU overall to post detailed "how to be nice" instructions with examples. Some people are quick to agree with the rules in general, while misunderstanding the everyday application thereof. Perhaps it's overly pedantic, but I think you simply cannot present too many examples of good and bad approaches to complying with the rules.

[jobycom]

100. There's a much simpler way.

Just ban everyone who disagrees with me. Within a month I'd be bouncing my ball off the wall of an empty cell. :)

Good idea, Skinner. That's better than stifling disagreement or creating more rules of what's not acceptable. Eventually you may have to better define what we all stand for and what's not allowed, as you've had to do a few times over the years, but I'd rather see that redefinition come after things calm down a bit more.

I've been one who lost confidence in alerts and started responding angrily instead. I hang out in the Lounge now because debates have just become personal insult battles--not always, but often enough that it's not worth the risk. Worst to me is when one person makes a statement, and half the responses are "Well, YOU would say that, wouldn't you?" as though every debate centers on the personalities of a few posters rather than on the issues. If I have to memorize another poster's exact ideology to enter a discussion, I'm not interested--I can't even always memorize my own exact ideology.

Anyway, just saying, I like what you're trying, and your choice to do this before trying more limiting responses. More rules don't help when the problem is an inability to enforce the old ones. :thumbsup:

[WheelWalker]

101. I think you've hit on a reasonable approach, by which a respect for diversity is nurtured.

I support the goal, the method and the effort. Blessings on our good work.

[sazemisery]

107. K&R, Great Job, BRAVO

You guys are the greatest!

[Cetacea]

108. K&R !

[saracat]

110. Thanks This almost partners my latest OP on civil discourse!

However, I would hope that those who persist in nastiness would recognize that it exists on BOTH sides of the current divide and look into a mirror, criticism of the Administration or Democrats is not sufficient reason for personal attacks. Nor is merely expressing approval of an Admin action.I would also add that calling out and name calling used to be reason for alerts and thread removal.Is that policy still in existence?

[malaise]

113. Thank you Skinner

Peace on earth
:hi:

[Chipper Chat]

119. DITTO

Oops! That response may get me alerted.
.....rushing to change it:
:) :kick: :bounce: :fistbump: :woohoo:

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. Please reconcile something for me.

For the nine years that DU has been in existence, we have for the most part resisted urges to exclude points of view held by anyone in "our half" of the political spectrum. I feel pretty safe arguing that this policy is a big reason why DU continues to thrive. Therefore, while many of you might wish me to say that as of now only those who adhere to a point of view similar to your own will be welcome on DU, that's not going to happen.

Yet DU administration steadfastly refuses to facilitate discussions of rules-compliant men's issues. In fact, the mods have a standing order to lock any requests of that nature.

I don't want purity either. I simply wish that the site would embody the inclusive principles articulated in this post.

I used to beat myself up thinking that the question was being asked the wrong way and that perhaps we were playing the game of "mother may I" incorrectly. I have since realized that wasn't the problem.

[MineralMan]

125. I'm not really sure your question is relevant to a thread about

changes in moderation practices. I've noticed that lots of people who want new forums or whatever usually have to climb a pretty tall tree to get those accepted. Each new forum brings new challenges.

[lumberjack_jeff]

155. Prior restraint of challenging viewpoints is relevant to the topic of active moderation.

Do you know of examples? I don't know of any other affinity group/subject/area of interest here which has been rejected on any basis other than apathy. E.G. "We're dropping the transgendered paraplegic mennonite motorcyclists board because no one ever posts there."

Either progressive men and their issues are embraced or they are not. If they are not, then it's hard to escape the conclusion that the prevailing DU view is that "progressive man" is an oxymoron. This view calls into the question "the big tent" self-image.

I'm simply trying to reconcile actions and words.

[TexasObserver]

116. Thanks. Glad to see the changes.

[omega minimo]

120. It would really help if some basic concepts of what we have in common as progressives were expressed

It would really help if some basic concepts of what we have in common as progressives were expressed positively, echoing DU Rules. In order to reach your goal "to keep this community open to a broad range of progressive viewpoints" with more civility, what about stating clearly:

A progressive point of view is not consistent with bigotry in any form: sexism, racism, homophobia, attacks on spirituality, alternative health advocates, mentally ill or disabled people, etc. That's the core of the civility you're looking for right there. Make it clear to members and confer with Mods on what is clearly flamebait or bigotry from the get go.

We don't need any more threads where a clearly offensive -- whether ignorant or intentionaly -- OP stays up for an hour, then is locked with a comment that it "became a flamefest." Maybe with your new system, Mods will respond to the OP flameBAIT in the first minutes so it does not become a flamefest.

Some of the ignorant and insenstive comments that have been treated as "maybe it's worth discussing" are shocking to those who are educated/experienced/aware. Ignorant people will learn as much from being corrected and guided to more appropriate progessive language/ideas, than from "discussing" something that clearly is out of place on a progressive board.

That goes for posts, too. If you want to change the tone on DU, make it clear that progressives aren't bigots, that you're seeking civility and civil means showing common courtesy, if not respect (which so many of the serially belligerent insists must be "earned") -- what it doesn't mean is making sexist/racist/homophobic comments or slurs toward any group/topic and sneering at "PC."

[TZ]

124. ever hear of eye of the beholder?

You are notorious for accusing people WITHOUT BASIS of being sexist or having made sexist posts. No progressives aren't bigots but they aren't people who go around looking for bigotry in posts that they disagree with either.

[omega minimo]

134. I finally had to resort to loading up the Ignore list with threadkiillers

If people are belligerent and continue to be, either on a regular basis or in a particular thread, with no attempt at the spirit you are bringing in this thread, then they Disappear.

Because you are right:

"We don't believe that it is the fierce arguments over policy and the direction of the country that have been causing our problems -- after all this is a discussion forum -- but more the manner in which these arguments are being conducted."

Some are here to read and consider that "broad range of progressive viewpoints." Some are here to read and tear down.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. 'flamebait' does not have an easy definition, usually

What some people regard as 'flamebait', others regard as reasonable common sense. And the two sides could probably swap roles with a different OP.

For instance, you list "alternative health advocates" among groups of people that you think suffer from bigotry. Those are people who are taking a particular point of view (as opposed to most of the others you list) that has no correlation with or against 'progressivism', let alone the Democratic party. And so that is a point of view that many progressives think can be forcefully opposed, because they consider modern medicine to be a worthwhile benefit of progressivism.

If mods always locked everything that some DUer alerts on as 'flamebait' as soon 1 alert was received, there would be a severe cut in the number of open threads. You'd be amazed at the range that the membership consider 'flamebait'. An experienced mod can say "this look like flamebait to me", other mods say "let's give it a chance", and it turns out to be a productive thread within the bounds of the DU rules on polite conversation.

[omega minimo]

147. Please don't miss the point.

It would really help if some basic concepts of what we have in common as progressives were expressed positively, echoing DU Rules.

A progressive point of view is not consistent with bigotry in any form: sexism, racism, homophobia, attacks on spirituality, alternative health advocates, mentally ill or disabled people, etc.

That's the core of the civility you're looking for right there. Make it clear to members and confer with Mods on what is clearly flamebait or bigotry from the get go.

Some of the ignorant and insenstive comments that have been treated as "maybe it's worth discussing" are shocking to those who are educated/experienced/aware.

Ignorant people will learn as much from being corrected and guided to more appropriate progessive language/ideas, than from "discussing" something that clearly is out of place on a progressive board.

If you want to change the tone on DU, make it clear that progressives aren't bigots, that you're seeking civility and civil means showing common courtesy, if not respect (which so many of the serially belligerent insists must be "earned") -- what it doesn't mean is making sexist/racist/homophobic comments or slurs toward any group/topic and sneering at "PC."

[muriel_volestrangler]

186. My point is that people's view of what is progressive differs

Alternative medicine is one example; the death penalty is another, gun control, Israel/Palestine policy - the list goes on. The basics are quite limited. It's not possible to give a simple definition of 'flamebait'. You and I disagree on the definition of bigotry too, it seems - I don't think attacking alternative health advocates is bigoted, whereas you do.

[omega minimo]

196. You are missing the point

I don't have time to correct you but will refute your misrepresentations of what I think.

If you cannot read what I have written and pick up on the comments about slurs, attacks, clearly bigoted remarks and understand how they fit into the discussion about civility and the goals Skinner is advocating, that inability on your part would fit into the discussion and education that is needed to determine, as I suggested, what some basic progressive guidelines are.

You seem to be parsing my words to misinterpret intentionally. I included those groups -- any at all -- that are "attacked" "forcefully" with uncivil behavior and language, including slurs. The fact that some here believe they are justified in such behavior flies in the face of Skinner's OP.

Third time to try to get this thru: "Some of the ignorant and insenstive comments that have been treated as "maybe it's worth discussing" are shocking to those who are educated/experienced/aware. Ignorant people will learn as much from being corrected and guided to more appropriate progessive language/ideas, than from "discussing" something that clearly is out of place on a progressive board."

Two recent examples are a racist OP and the use of the word "retard."

I'm sure, if you choose to, you can come to a closer understanding of what I am saying.

[muriel_volestrangler]

212. And racism, and the use of 'retard' are both regularly deleted already

and the mods will sometimes make posts pointing out the use of 'retard' is unacceptable (I believe everyone already understands racism is unacceptable too).

I understand the paragraph you've repeated in this latest post fine, and with your 2 examples, I agree; but in your second post in this sub-thread, you repeated your hope that there are basic progressive guidelines that can be stated, but you again stated some things that other progressives do not agree with. If your point is only that slurs should not be used about DUers (or Democrats), then that's fine. But that wasn't what you were saying when you said that attacks on alternative health advocates were bigoted and unprogressive. If someone wants to attack a homeopathic practitioner, then that fits in fine with being a progressive and a DUer.

So I'm trying to say to you that the common ground of what is progressive isn't as large as you were saying it is.

[mzteris]

229. though sexism

seems to slip through quite often. :(

[bliss_eternal]

302. +10

.

[omega minimo]

481. If it's "regularly deleted" on Tues., why is there an OP "debating" it on Thursday?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7638931&mesg_id=7638931

[muriel_volestrangler]

483. Because people can discuss the use of words here

when it's part of current affairs. I'm sure you know that already.

[omega minimo]

484. You indicated that there already was a DU policy on that word. Or is it arbitrary?

[muriel_volestrangler]

485. See Skinner's reply #397

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7623624&mesg_id=7630414

It's a word (and variations based on it) that mods have regularly deleted, when used by a DUer to describe anything, for at least a couple of years (when I first became a mod), and perhaps a lot longer than that.

[omega minimo]

486. Then today's OP would be the time for Mods to address that and notify DU that the rule exists

Direct that OP to Skinner's reply, after telling him in his thread, which would be closed.

If the policy is in place, the question about "the R word" is moot and the OP is misleading the board regarding that fact.

It "cheapens the quality of discussion for everyone."

[muriel_volestrangler]

487. No, that thread isn't about whether it's OK to use 'retarded' on DU

It's a question about what the thread starter regards as 'political correctness' is a problem or not, not particularly at DU, but in general, with 'retarded' as one of the examples of offensive words. I don't think that OP is making any claim about the word on DU anyway.

Perhaps it would be useful to list it amongst the examples of offensive words in the DU rules. That hasn't stopped some members trying use those that are already listed, however.

[omega minimo]

488. He pretends he has the option to use the word, he'll "try to do better," ignoring the rule on DU

which you indicate exists. His musings over "PC" are disingenuous and out of place on DU, if as you say, the word is not welcome and Mods remove it. Esp. at the same moment that Skinner's OP is up.

The fact that he doesn't acknowledge the policy on DU creates the delusion that it IS an option. He pretends there is a "debate." Where? Somewhere not DU? Go there and debate it.

Civility means starting from that point: creating civility by intentionally not using words known to be offensive or violations of the rules. It's the opposite of the "respect has to be earned" blarney of clods.

Ignorance is thinking that if it doesn't bother you it shouldn't bother anyone else and that - despite rules at the site where you post - your "free speech" is being maligned and is more important than basic respect for others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

489. There's nothing there saying he has used that word on DU

What he does says he has used were sexist terms "that referenced both female chickens and female dogs in a negative connotation", so I'm presuming that's 'chick' and 'bitch' (the latter being a higly contentious word that gets its own debate in the DU rules; the former, while being patronising and dismissive, is not generally held to be a bad insult, and would not get automatic removal on DU when used about a non-DUer, I'd say - context would be needed for a decision). And it seems his wife has persuaded him to change his vocabulary.

The 'debate' is in the wider political community - Palin is trying to take the moral high ground (a new manoevure for her, but which looks pretty unconvincing, given so much of the rest of the right wing), for instance. As such, it seems a reasonable topic for a thread, even if one doesn't agree with the thread starter's definition of, or attitude to, 'PC'.

[omega minimo]

492. or the fact that he pretends not to know that "the R word" is unwelcome on DU

"or instance. As such, it seems a reasonable topic for a thread, even if one doesn't agree with the thread starter's definition of, or attitude to, 'PC'."


Or the fact that by doing so, he disinforms and disserves the DU community, at the very moment that Skinner's OP is up.


If he is misinformed himself and not pretending to be oblivious, it would serve him and the DU community for the Mods to point that out.


To contribute to and create the civil environment that Skinner is proposing.


And I didn't say "he used that word on DU." That's not the point. His cluelessness and its potential contagion, is.

[pinto]

234. I think civility is a two way street. Speaking both as a moderator and a member.

And Skinner's point about using the alert function, instead of responding in kind, is dead on serious.
We all want to keep this a viable, functioning discussion website. And we will.

Members, moderators and administrators alike.

[pipi_k]

249. I've thought that quite a few times myself

when I've opened up topics that seemed to be pretty rational and someone comes along and screeches "FLAMEBAIT!!!" and I'm sitting here going...WTF?

I dunno...maybe I'm just not suspicious enough. :shrug:

It's all in the eye of the beholder, apparently, and I think a lot of problems are caused more by someone's faulty perception of another person's words or motives. Not everything people don't agree with (or like) is "flamebait", as much as they'd like to think it is.

Personally, I think it's often just a way to stifle discussion.

[spoony]

191. Agreed.

You hit on one of my biggest pet peeves--when an OP is clearly in violation of the rules, then when it eventually gets locked the last word is always blaming it on the posters that follow instead of the OP.

[omega minimo]

197. Strange, isn't it?

[joshcryer]

379. My solution: ban everyone who joined after 2003!

Just kidding. I like the approach you're taking. I stay out of the political forums but if the discourse calms I may come back to them. :hi:

[greiner3]

121. Can I plead;

"Mental illness made me do it?"

Sometimes the keys type themselves, and I'm an atheist scientist.

[MineralMan]

127. Nope. It's the little homunculus living just above your pineal

gland. Not everyone has one. Lucky you!

[Dinger]

123. K & R

[mzteris]

128. good idea.

being the recipient of many of those "name-calling" incidents. :eyes:

I have some questions/suggestions(?) -

Is there any way to get some sort of "response" - something as simple as "message received". Could be auto-generated by mod clicking on the alert?

Also, what about people who keep "alerting" on you just because they don't like/agree with your POV? A concerted (orchestrated) effort to continuously "alert" on a poster whose POV isn't popular with that particular group - how will that affect the poster her/himself? Should something be done about the chronic "alert" abusers?

[mzteris]

226. selfdelete - wrong spot n/t

[MineralMan]

130. Thanks for the explanation. Knowledge is good.

[MilesColtrane]

132. Bring on the Steel Hanky of Politeness.

I'm clearing my Ignore list in anticipation.

[Skinner]

232. If I were you I would not clear my ignore list.

If someone's posts weren't worth reading before, they probably won't be worth reading now.

[Uzybone]

139. Thank you, Thank you.

[arcadian]

142. Skinner, a couple of weeks ago I saw this in the board navigation field:

Home » Discuss » General Discussion » Moderators Forum » Drinks Cabinet

No joke. I made a post about but I don't know if anybody saw it. What was that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

144. Heh.

Observe long enough and the world kind of explains itself, doesn't it?

[Skinner]

235. It's a little joke for the moderators.

Please let me know if you still see that anywhere.

[arcadian]

316. I wasn't actually able to get into the drinks cabinet

Got an error message when I clicked on it. You know I wanted to see what was inside. :D

[Ignis]

292. The first rule of the Drinks Cabinet is...

Oh, you know the rest. :D

[HCE SuiGeneris]

143. Thank you, Skinner, Elad, and Earl

Y'all are doing a great job.

[mistertrickster]

146. Remember Marshall McLuhan, folks. "The Medium is the Message." Message boards are

telegraphic speech in which the reader effortlessly and unknowingly projects her-his positions on to the post.

Unsupported assumptions are made, and those assumptions often form the basis for an angry response, even when the post doesn't warrant anything of the kind.

[rug]

149. I guess this avatar is out.

[leftstreet]

154. A daunting task

People are angry. Unemployment and underemployment run high, wages have stagnated for decades, social services are continually slashed to the detriment of the most vulnerable among us. Meeting basic needs becomes a Herculean task in the wild for-profit casino of the American economy.

In the face of this, I've always thought the mods do an excellent job here. But if it would assist them in any way if members could find a polite way of calling an ASSHOLE an ASSHOLE, I'm on board!

:toast:

[SteveM]

336. How 'bout "Brown star?" nt

[aikoaiko]

156. Thank you.

If I may make a few suggestions.

When a post get's deleted the post creator does not specifically get notified that it was, by which mod, and for what reason.

One's post just disappears from one's MY DU list. I've had a few posts deleted and its only by chance that I noticed. In a topic forum its easy enough to contact mod that deleted your post by in other larger forums its difficult to know who to contact.

I think DUers of general good intent would benefit from knowing the who, why and what of their post deletion.

Even if the mod were able to list just the heading of the issue (incivility, campaigning against a Democrat, spam, inflammatory content, etc).

[Skinner]

237. We may do this.

We tried something like this in the past. But it was poorly implemented and just created more headaches for me and the mods, so we scrapped it.

Apparently people don't like to be told when they are acting like jerks. Go figure.

[Renew Deal]

405. There are some other boards that do this.

I personally don't like the idea. It would put too much focus on the mods and what they're doing.

[aikoaiko]

436. But on the other hand, just deleting posts doesn't tell the person what they did wrong

They might not even notice that their posts are being deleted.

For example, there is someone in a topic forum that sees a thread, posts a gender-related slur, and then never comes back to the thread. The mods regularly delete those posts, but that poster may never know that her/his posts were deleted or that DU rules were broken. Some people post so much that they would never notice that their posts got deleted.

I too have seen this done on other boards and it works fine because explaining the deletion corrects the person's behavior.

It is more work for the mods though. And it does mean that people will respond to the mods. But if if works other places, then it would work here too.

[tiptoe]

409. agree n/t

[spanone]

159. k&r

[Lerkfish]

160. sorry for a stupid question but does this mean

you can't use words like left or centrist?
I can see if its looney left or corporatist could be insulting, but left or centrist is more of an identifying label.

[Skinner]

238. I don't see any reason why "left" or "centrist" should be forbidden.

I do think those labels are sometimes used incorrectly here. But that's another issue.

[BrklynLiberal]

163. Thank you for this post, Skinner.

[highplainsdem]

164. Thanks, Skinner! K&R

[intheflow]

165. This sounds GREAT, Skinner!

Makes me think I might actually sign up for another mod term next time you change the guards. :hi:

Thanks for all you, Elad, and earlg do to keep this site cutting edge! And of course, thanks to all the Mods who have to wade through so much bullshit just because some people don't know how to play nice with each other.

You are all superstars!! :headbang:

[Lyric]

167. Could we get some concrete examples of "incivility?"

You said upthread that one person's masterpiece is another person's hissy vanity thread. Well, the same is often true for civility--what one person considers to be deeply offensive is no big deal to someone else, and that is often a source of conflict in and of itself--arguments about who has a "right" to be offended and who's just "overreacting." I too have been guilty of things like harsh sarcasm and the occasional "fuck you" in response to someone else's offensive posts, and I have even gone off on at least one absolutely vicious OP rant against you guys back during the gay community conflict, so I'm not claiming moral superiority here. However, unless you give people a better idea of where the line is drawn, people are going to be confused and potentially upset for a while.

Is obvious passive-aggression considered uncivil? An example would be using sarcasm, snideness, and subtle insinuation to imply something ugly about another poster without actually SAYING it directly. To me it is, but I was wondering about the official policy. All too often the people who post that sort of subtle, passive-aggressive crap are the first ones to deny it when people respond angrily to their obvious insinuation, hiding behind the old "*I* didn't call you a racist/sexist/homophobe/. That was nowhere in my post! But if the shoe fits..." semantics game. I'm so very tired of passive-aggression. All it does is create angry, offended people who are frustrated because the aggressors have made their comments JUST ambiguous enough to avoid being pinned down. It's incredibly frustrating. I swear, I'd rather interact with a forthright Freeper moron than yet another snide, passive-aggressive, OMC-esque Democrat. Ignore helps a lot with that, but not completely.

Also, I really wish we had an Ignore that allowed us to make *our* posts invisible to certain other people, thus guaranteeing zero interaction. Kinda like a forced Mutual Ignore that we can toggle on and off ourselves. There are some people here that I have NO desire to EVER interact with again, and I hate it that they can pop into my threads and make nasty comments and/or falsehoods about me that I can't see (or defend myself against, or even alert on.) That seems like a major weakness of the Ignore system.

[leftstreet]

173. That's the problem with calling for more 'civility'

People just become more passive/aggressive

[Selena Harris]

188. Going from being mismannered to.....

becoming Miss Manners....which could prove troublesome for the guys.

[Hissyspit]

203. ALL my threads are Hissy Vanity Threads. nt

[Danger Mouse]

208. We try to look at potential personal attacks in context.

For instance, a post might seem fairly benign, but once we look at the context, we can read the obvious snark and unkindness that makes it a personal attack, and thus, removed. Also, it helps when you explain why you're alerting. Sometimes people leave the alert blank and the reason for the alert isn't readily apparent. That makes it hard for us to figure out the problem.

[Skinner]

240. I think we would all agree that telling someone "fuck you" would be a violation of our rules...

...in just about any circumstance. The rules make clear that it does not matter if the person deserved it or whatever.

Unfortunately, not all situations are quite so clear-cut. This is why, in practice, when deciding whether to delete posts, we tend to focus on things like personal attacks which is slightly more concrete than "incivility".

Passive-aggressive behavior, while annoying, is not guaranteed to get deleted. We frequently delete things under the extremely vague reason of "inflammatory." Unfortunately, there is no cut-and-dried definition of "inflammatory." For our purposes, the definition is this: If the mods agree that something is inflammatory, then it is inflammatory.

We've considered a "hide me" function. I think it would have some merit, but we have many concerns about it. Personally, I think it could be very effective, but I think the idea of letting someone else decide what anyone can see is not a step we take lightly.

[bananas]

254. I disagree - "fuck you" is entirely appropriate when dealing with assholes.

A lot of us are adults and use adult language appropriately.
You have a gun forum where people advocate using deadly force as an appropriate response to physical hostility, you have a religion forum where atheists make uncivil attacks on religious people, yet you're going to enforce rules against blasphemy and the FCC's seven dirty words? I wonder what George Carlin would say about that, bless his dear departed soul.

[Quantess]

307. "fuck you" is desperately unoriginal.

It's okay for people with no creativity, I suppose.

[SteveM]

341. Yes, I do see a lot of "FU"...

especially those who bring it into the "Gun forum." I see a LOT of grotesque stuff BROUGHT INTO the "gun forum."

Isn't that the aim of some people? To sully it up so it can be locked?

[bananas]

256. What about the word "delusional"?

Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion", and it was ok for atheists to call religious people "delusional" because "delusional" didn't imply they were mentally ill, it simply meant that they had false beliefs. Yet in the EE forum there is someone who frequently makes posts which are simply delusional, things like "there aren't any scientists at UCS" when anyone can look at the UCS website and see that it is run by highly respected scientists, he says things like "there aren't any engineers at McKinsey" when anyone can look at their website and see that it is run by highly respected engineers. Yet some of my posts where I pointed out that these bizarre posts where delusional were deleted. There's a double standard. Either ban all discussion of Dawkins book, or let us correctly and accurately describe someone as "delusional" when anyone can quickly check to see that their statements are in fact delusional.

[Deep13]

386. If you can say there is an invisible being controlling everything...

...then we can say there isn't. And holding a belief in the face of strong evidence is a definition of delusion. I don't think we should interpret any rule in a way that prevents people from finding the truth about anything. And if you claim to know the truth, you ought to be able to back it up with something more than an insistence that your beliefs may never be questioned.

[madinmaryland]

325. It IS a violation of the rules. Saying that to someone means you have LOST the argument and

is only an insult to everyone else.

[inna]

338. all good points.

:thumbsup:

[MissDeeds]

168. Thanks Skinner

I know a lot of us work overtime to make your job difficult. I appreciate that you've given DU as much latitude as you have.

:hi:

K&R

[go west young man]

169. A couple of recommendations.

1)Ban all profanity. It keeps the debate civil and discourages name calling. It heightens the maturity level of the debate and keeps it from devolving into a primitive hate fest.

2)Encourage more linking to validate points. A link speaks louder than an opinion in my mind and shows that the persons view is based upon more than a passionate opinion.

3)Establish a DU progressive forum that strives for a heightened level of debate. Many of the really impressive DU'ers have either left or don't post as often these days as the board has become flooded with more and more people. Many of these people lean more centrist dem than the early DU once was. The board has to change and letting the tide just carry it is not the best way to go in my opinion. The speeding analogy used above sets a bad example in my opinion. Like true progressives DU has to lead.

4)Finally I believe that posts related to what happened at the World Trade Center and Pentagon should not all be tossed into a dungeon which has become overrun with a few obsessed folks who apparently have nothing better to do than to constantly belittle people who believe in conspiracies. It makes DU look bad. The swearing there is atrocious. There should be separate forums for conspiracies and September 11th, 2001. To lump them together implies conspiracy.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

177. Hell, recommendation #1 would fucking suck ass, god damn it. -nt

[totodeinhere]

179. Not funny. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

OK, then. Just for you, here is a post with no profanities whatsoever.

Net nannies, prudes, and "moral guardians" are despicable beings who serve no purpose at all in life except sucking the fun out of everything. The world is a better place now than in the 19th century largely because the power such pustules have on society has been greatly diminished. Their recent comeback attempts are extremely worrisome.

See? No vulgarity.

[totodeinhere]

194. OK. LOL.

[go west young man]

195. Believe me I knew that one was coming when I posted that recommendation.

On one hand it's fun for some on the other hand it devalues what progressive stands for. We have to strive for better.

[totodeinhere]

178. Right

Ban all profanity

I have felt this way for a long time. The future lies with young people, and too often the first thing they see here is a string of profanities. Progressives are better than that. And rather than spout a profanity, why not express your feelings in a more intelligent civil way?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

185. Won't somebody think of the children?????

[Dappleganger]

285. ROFL! nt

[MindPilot]

189. Please don't even think about banning profanity.

This is not a classroom, the workplace or network TV. We are real people having real conversations about real issues. Sometimes we talk like real people. Nor is this a college library; we should not be required to back up every point with cites and research. Sometimes we just have opinions and sometime those opinions are nothing more than opinions. If I want to read research, there's Google; I come here to read what people think and feel.

[totodeinhere]

193. Are you telling me that people can't express themselves without profanity?

That's pathetic. If you have an opinion, express it in an intelligent way or shut up. Profanity is for the small minded.

[Ignis]

218. An aversion to profanity does not = intelligence.

Nor does the use of profanity mean that one is "small minded."

[MilesColtrane]

219. Sometimes the intelligent way is the most direct way.

And, sometimes that way requires profanity.

See: The Rude Pundit

[Ignis]

221. The Rude Pundit is a *superb* example!

:patriot:

[MindPilot]

222. Best example of proving my point for me EVER!

I can talk like a sailor (in no small part because I was one) and be a lot more civil than you were to me in that post.

[Stinky The Clown]

349. Why .... how very tolerant.

I am gobsmacked by the irony throughout this thread, your post being one of them.

[PeaceNikki]

421. That's fucking ridiculous.

It really is.

[Techn0Girl]

274. The real people that I know nd prefer to be around are not profane....

I've been in the Army. I've used profanity on a daily basis there ... when I was in my 20's ... while I was still growing up.

I'm no prude by any means but I believe in civil social conventions and profanity does not fall into the relm of civility. There;s a reason why we don't use it in professional settings ( like at work) , there's a reason why it's frowned upon in public settings (like waiting for the bus or in a supermarket line) and there's a reason why people who use it are considered excessively hostile by almost everyone else.

And for those reasons - we shouldn't accept it here.

[Ignis]

295. Like this guy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7623624#7626699

[blondeatlast]

364. I like to think of DU as a rowdy neighborhood bar inhabited by

smart people with something of a common thread. I avoid profanity, but I shudder at the thought of banning its use here. sometimes, someone else's f-word expresses my own frustration perfectly.

[Skinner]

243. Answers.

1) We tried that. It was a failure. We're adults here, and we can use profanity responsibly.

2) Linking to validate posts is a good thing to do. But I don't think it is something we (as administrators) can or should force people to do.

3) DU is already a progressive forum. I don't think we need a special forum for real progressives of whatever.

4) People are welcome to discuss what happened on 9/11. But if anyone wants to push baseless speculation, they can do it in the dungeon. If someone belittles you, then alert so the moderators can deal with it. But if someone is ridiculing a ridiculous idea, that is within bounds. This is, above all, a forum for the discussion of ideas. And some ideas are ridiculous.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

253. "If someone is ridiculing a ridiculous idea, that is within bounds."

Ahhhh. Music to my ears.

[RoyGBiv]

262. Regarding "linking"

I just want to add to this that when I (and I know others) get involved in a heated discussion requiring evidence of various forms, I very often consult books or articles to which one cannot easily link either because they are behind a "paywall" or some other sort of access restriction or because they have no online equivalent. I do quote those and give a brief citation, but I've often been denounced for not "linking" to a source.

Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it valid. Indeed, much of the linking that occurs throughout the blogosphere is simply to another blog, i.e. one person pontificates while quoting another person pontificating. Assertions are supported with nothing but other assertions.

Having a post riddled with links doesn't ensure a valid post. In fact some of the lengthiest, most fully referenced posts I've seen here had dozens of links that all devolved eventually to the same, single comment that was itself just a rant by some random blogger who had no more expertise on the issue than the person posting.

Of course links are nice if an appropriate reference is available. In addition, I like seeing links in the above example because it does allow an interested person with the patience to discover the original source. But, this kind of rule would be unenforceable and itself a source of extreme antagonism, e.g. whether this or that publication a "valid" source.

[Posteritatis]

371. Heh, the "wall of links and excerpts" post is becoming a staple these days

I find them entertaining at times, especially since they're so often tangential to the subject at hand anyway, and both here and on other forums often posted five or six times in the same thread. They often feel less like an attempt to argue a point and more an attempt to drown someone in the need for point-by-point-by-point responses, like an electronic version of that speedtalk BS you see in high school debates these days.

I also "love" the oft-stated claim that if an argument doesn't have an acceptable URL in the post itself, the argument is objectively incorrect.

[mirrera]

278. One person's ridiculous is another person's well researched belief.

Ridicule is ridicule and it undermines your point of being civil regardless of what the other person says. The whole idea of "dungeons" for thought invites a lack of respect. As soon as you are not allowed to rec. someone's post because of the forum it came from, you invite ridicule. I would think about freeing the thought prisoners. You already have 1) unrec 2) ignore 3)alert. Are we that fragile that we must be guided away from certain subjects? Seriously, the banishing of certain subjects is an embarassment, and not worthy of progressive ideals. Open mindedness is at the top of the list.

[mirrera]

396. Forgot to add the 4th way to avoid needing dungeons...

1) unrec 2) alert 3) ignore 4) do not respond!

I have been here for 4 or 5 years and I have never put someone on ignore and I would NEVER alert on someone. I know that is what you want, but I just am not that easily offended. It must be my Italian jewish upbringing.

[Dappleganger]

284. "We're adults here."

Exactly!

[Forkboy]

470. Clearly Skinner hasn't been reading my posts.

:D

[tomm2thumbs]

395. agree - profanity is sometimes not as bad as really hurtful words that aren't 4-letters

besides, for some of us, reading cuss words in political forums serves a salacious need (hahahahahah) j/k

[blondeatlast]

248. I avoid the use of profanity myself, but those who are so delicate as to take such

offense at it probably shouldn't be posting on a large, lively, political message board. Debate and intellect aren't the only reasons I come here, among its many attributes, DU can be laugh-out-loud funny at times.

And occasionaly, the well-timed f-word (uttered by others) is just what I need to express my own frustration.

[Techn0Girl]

273. I agree tht profanity should be banned

Too many times uncivil individuals use it for shock value or to raise the rec count of a post. There's no need for it - it's distracting and frankly annoying.

I'd be all in favor of a no four letter word rule .

[inna]

354. "Ban all profanity" - Minus Infinity. -1,000,000,000,000,000,000.... you get the point.

:D

[Deep13]

388. "Ban all profanity."

We're not children and should not have the restrictions of children. The fact is that coarse language is often uniquely useful in expressing a point of view, especially if it is an emotional one.

[totodeinhere]

172. Skinner, you rock! n/t

[blondeatlast]

174. Best board on the net gets better. You guys rock. That is all, thanks! nt

[GMA]

176. Thank you for the thoughtful approach.

This comes on the heels of having my own posts, which were very civil, but in stark disagreement with the prevailing winds here, deleted.

[QC]

220. You need to read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

[tbyg52]

454. >>Stark disagreement

Uh, you mean as in opposing civil rights for gay people? Exactly what *other* "stark disagreement" would you like to express?

[PufPuf23]

180. Thank You Skinner and Mods

I know that the uncivil discussions inhibits my own posting volume and makes the DU sometimes an irritant to wade through for substantive posts. The seemingly reflexive ad hominems for some topics and by some posters is tiresome.

DU is my favorite forum on the net and the only one I am willing to dontate $.

[EFerrari]

181. I've been thinking about this for weeks even though managing DU

is 'way above my pay grade and at times, I'm part of the problem, not the solution.

Finding a way to simply follow up on DU's reasonable rules by speeding up the feedback loop seems to me a brilliant solution.

And, fwiw, there's this little known fact about civility. It's really not possible to disrespect the person you're talking to without disrespecting yourself at the same time. It really does go both ways at the same time.

Thanks, guys.

[Fla Dem]

182. Will look forward to the change in tone. That's what drew me here; the civilized

and left of center discussions. I really thought the discourse became ugly during the democratic primary. I was dismayed at the time there was not more of an effort to reign in the ugly speak. I noticed a lot of it was from relatively new members, who were perhaps unfamiliar with the way it had once been here on DU. But that climate of disrespect and ugliness grew unchecked. It spilled over into the everyday dialog and became commonplace. I applaud you Skinner, and the mods for setting this ship back on a even keel. We can have reasonable disagreements without disrespecting each other. This past Friday President Obama certainly showed us the way.
:yourock:

[David Zephyr]

183. Bravo!

Several months back I took it upon myself to take back my own label of "disciples" that I'd given to very small minority here, who seemed, in my opinion, to defend President Obama in every instance, in his every action and in his every word. Although, there does seem to exist a small, and yes, annoying cultish element to the worship of personality, I concluded that it wasn't necessary for me to point this out in threads because the DU community has its own 'distributive logic' and would sort this out in a natural course.

Skinner, I've watched you walk this high wire for nine years now maintaining balance through two wars, four national election cycles, two very contentious presidential primary seasons and through the ups and downs of our collective political hopes and dreams. And through it all, you have kept the forums open and vigorous.

In all these many years now, I have probably used the alert feature less than the ten fingers on my hand, and I believe it was only when name calling had gotten too ugly, or excessively crude language or hurtful language that reflected racist, sexist or homophobic sterotyopes that was intended to inflame, or to point out an obvious Republican poser here among us.

I trust the Mods and the Administrators here so much that I am confident that they can pick up on anyone trying to abuse the Alert feature in hopes of punishing or removing someone they simply disagree with. I know that the Mods are savvy enough to recognize manipulation when they see it.

As to "paid advocates"...well, that's just a reality of the times we live in. We are fools if we don't believe it happens. If the U.S. Congress can be bent by the power of money, so any blog left or right, can be manipulated by contracted keyboard advocates. Again, these individuals, I feel, will only quickly expose themselves as pretty much "one-noters".

In all due respect, I would suggest that the 'unrec' feature feeds into the very sort of bad behavior that is hurtful to good discussion. I would hope that you ponder this a bit, Skinner.

You have a very vibrant and healthy site here. I trust your judgment. But you already know that.

[NYC_SKP]

184. OK Skinner. Seeing as how you've explained this matter so well, I'm going to keep my DU Tattoo, K?

:p



Seriously, thanks for the details.

:patriot:

[On the Road]

187. Thank You, Skinner

The quality of moderation has always been a strength of DU. It works pretty well considering the raw passions generated by a lot of different subjects.

[Political Heretic]

190. Skinner: Substantive criticism of the President permitted and welcome

Nonetheless, if anyone is confused about what is permitted here, I'll spell it out as clearly as I can. It's pretty simple:

* Any and all substantive criticism of Barack Obama and his policies is permitted. And by "any and all substantive criticism" we mean all of it -- no issue is off limits.

* Expressions of dismay, disappointment or disagreement with Barack Obama or his policies are permitted.

* But insults, name-calling, or other expressions of contempt toward Barack Obama or his supporters are not welcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5524913

Just a friendly reminder to people that substantive criticism of the President, the Administration or Congress on either side of the isle is both permitted and welcome on this site, according the the boss.

Insults and name calling toward Obama or supporters (cheer leaders, koolaid drinkers, etc.) are not.

If you catch me doing the latter, either alert my post or even better point it out to me, and I'll apologize - maybe I just got carried away in the heat of a moment. I don't actually want to stoop to name calling or petty attacks, but sometimes emotions run high.

But if you're only beef is that I don't agree with the direction this administration has chosen to go on a variety of issues, and I don't think its in keeping with the "best" of Democratic tradition - then you don't have a case.

[twitomy]

272. Damn! and here I was just getting ready to call the Prez a

"corporatist"! :rofl:

[Political Heretic]

301. I'd suggest that words like "moron," "traitor," or others attacking character are at issue.

If someone believes that Obama is moved primarily by allegiance to corporate interests, thus calling him a "corporatist" - is a statement of political opinion and fair game. It would be less likely to be an issue if someone expanded on that word and described exactly what they meant and why the believed it. But as it is discussing political allegiances and not personal character, I don't see the problem.

(For the record, just saying he's a "corporatist" is not quite how I would put it, personally)

[bananas]

198. I'll believe it when "NName Deleted" gets a sarcophagus..

A tombstone isn't enough, he needs a radiation-proof sarcophagus to contain his toxic postings.

[blondeatlast]

244. Gotta give him credit for consistency in his replies, though. Not too original,

but he sticks to his "Message removed by moderaor" principles with gusto!

[BeHereNow]

199. Kickity-kick-kick~!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :yourock:
BHN

[newtothegame]

200. Skinner, when you say enormous community, how many of us are there?

For example, do you have any way of seeing how many of the 154,259 user registrations (as of 3:55pm CST 2-2-10) have posted in the last month? Or the last year? Or how many have never posted?

I've also wanted this information before for a lengthy academic paper I was writing on our community, but didn't have any idea where to find it.

[Skinner]

265. Send me an email with the info you need.

I'll see what I can find for you.

[FailureToCommunicate]

201. Sounds okay to me. Once we resort to personal attacks with lots of Anglo Saxon and CAPS

then it seems the motivation changes from meaningful argument and information to oneupsmanship of the school yard sort.
Call me old fashioned about this, but I will counter that I've actually met, marched or sung with some folks that act the same 'old fashioned' way in their political discourse: Pete Seeger, Joan Baez,
Cesar Chavez, Daniel and Phil Berrigan, Bucky Fuller, Jean Ritchie...
(And I haven't met "Skinner", but he wrote back to me once upon a time and he seemed like a decent guy too!)

Thanks as always for a terrific website for us all to visit, learn and share!

[AspenRose]

202. Could there be consideration for an increase in the number of posts a newbie can make

before being able to post threads.

It says in the rules that no one knows the actual number, but some of the more accomplished disruptors have figured it out.

Thank you.

[blondeatlast]

241. +Big, strong, unequivocal 1! nt

[Skinner]

266. It's not a really well-kept secret.

The number is 10.

[Quantess]

287. But, newbie threads can be SO entertaining!

;)

[liberal N proud]

205. Great news - I was beginning to wonder what was happening to this site

It hasn't been the DU we all remember from the bu$h years. I hate that we will always refer to them as the bu$h years.

The negativity of late has been unsettling.

Glad to hear the admins are on top of this.


Thanks for all the hard work.

[Hekate]

206. Skinner, you guys are the greatest...

:hug:

Hekate

[hisownpetard]

207. Wonderful. I had already noticed the difference in 'ambiance.' Thank you!

And a heartfelt thank you to the Mods for the difficult
job they do, day in and day out.:toast:

[Danger Mouse]

210. Thanks, Skinner!

:hi:

[Odin2005]

213. Could you guys please crack down better on sexism and bigotry against the mentally ill?

[Berry Cool]

236. Yes, that would be great--also bigotry against people with spiritual/religious beliefs.

And I thank you for what you have tried to do in that department thus far.

It is one thing to claim to be an atheist or an agnostic, or to express disagreement with the practices of a religion or the things people do that they claim to be doing as part of the practice of their religion. It is another to claim that religion is responsible for all the world's evil, and to denigrate believers as stupid, ignorant, or mentally ill. That is exhibiting bigotry and intolerance, and it's not a DU value.

Also, atheists should not be permitted to proselytize here, any more than are Christians or any group of religious believers.

[Divine Discontent]

251. I have alerted to several posts mocking Christians (it's almost exclusively directed towards us)

and many have been removed. I am all for anyone being Agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, Catholic, and atheist. But when they slur with comments like you're crazy for believing in a fairy tale that's made to hold down the masses, and in hostile words belittle your belief as a crutch, I am sickened that they don't realize I don't do the same for their atheist beliefs, which makes them a bigot and judgmental. I believe God will judge each of our souls, not me, so they shouldn't condemn my beliefs because they have a dig against a church they were mistreated by, or the sins of a supposed "Christian" who is warmongering, or has done some other horrible thing and then claims it was God's will. That is not what I am a Christian for. I believe in Christ. There is nothing that should be mocked in anyone's belief on this website. You can say you don't believe it, and why (like that it was taken from other religions or such) and that won't bother me, as it's a discussion forum. But the mocking has to end.

Thanks for your post.

(on edit - Christ was very liberal while on Earth and anti-establishment and loving to the needy and judged, and I am disgusted by the judgment of the church leaders and many in their congregations who attack anyone who doesn't follow their exact beliefs, I left many churches once I realized they were directly negative about GLBT people, for example)

[MindPilot]

258. That one certainly needs to go both ways. n/t

[bananas]

259. I've said a number of times the religion forum should be hidden, like the September 11 forum

or it should be renamed the Sophomoric Philosophy forum.
I've pretty much given up on it.
Religious tolerance is a liberal progressive value, yet the moderators allow the religion forum to be infested with uncivil posts by atheists attacking not just religion but also the concept of religious tolerance.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

465. "it's almost exclusively directed towards us"

*BLAM*

That was the sound of my chutzpameter blowing up.

[Danger Mouse]

257. Click on the alert button. if it's sexist or bigoted against the mentally ill, it'll be deleted.

:hi:

[proud patriot]

215. kick

:patriot:

[The Green Manalishi]

224. Can the same apply in the Gungeon?

I think anyone using the following terms should be alerted on:
Gun Grabber
Gun Nut
Any inference relating to penises or penis substitutes.

[Skinner]

267. I think yes.

Gun Grabber and Gun Nut should not be permitted.

[cutlassmama]

225. K&R. Hope some of posters who left will come back now.

[arthritisR_US]

228. good stuff, me thinks it will all come out in the wash. Thanks for all your efforts :-) n/t

[Tailormyst]

230. This sounds great !

Only good can come out of encouraging more civility among members. Sometimes it's easy to get nasty online. I think one of the best ways to think about it is this: Behave as you would at a Democratic event towards the other people around you. If you begin to see others as real people and fellow Dems instead of a nameless, faceless "enemy" it goes a long way. People can debate and even argue, without becoming cruel or offensive.

[mzteris]

231. is it ok to use derogatory slurs

about Repubicans - EVEN IF the term is extremely offensive to quite a few members of DU?

Asking 'cause I alerted on such a post a few hours ago, and it's still there . . .

[Skinner]

268. We usually permit derogatory slurs about Republicans.

This is Democratic Underground, after all.

[mzteris]

305. but if they're using words that are extremely offensive

to more than a few DU'ers???

typo

[madinmaryland]

326. But not when the Rethuglicans are referred to as

"c"'s. And I am not talking about the Boston Celtics, which is what Bob Cousy referred to them as on the tv.

[Terra Alta]

361. Agreed, but some slurs are offensive

even if referring to Republicans. For instance, I absolutely despise the r-word... it is a derogatory slur against mentally handicapped people and I will alert if I see it being used.

[Skinner]

397. We delete the term "retard" when we are aware of it.

So people need to alert when it happens.

One obvious exception: There was a news story recently in which Rahm Emanuel used the word "retard." This was a legitimate news story, and we did not remove it when it was posted. However if any DUer responded in-kind, we removed it.

[seeinfweggos]

245. unrec'd big FAIL

just kidding.

[asdjrocky]

246. I agree with just about everything here.

This is about courteous but spirited discourse between Duers, right?

Or am I to adopt this as a life code as some seem to think?

[graywarrior]

260. I had the biggest urge to alert this thread

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[shireen]

315. and i'm gonna 'alert' any post that has a duck in duct tape.

FREE THE DUCK!
FREE THE DUCK!

:evilgrin:

[graywarrior]

339. Abuse! Abuse! Skinner!!!!!!!!!

:silly:

[SteveM]

346. Hit the deduct button! nt

[Politicub]

263. Thanks Skinner and mods!

Even though some of the circular arguments on DU drive me nuts at times, I'm here for the long haul.

:yourock: :fistbump:

[npk]

264. Is now a good time to ask for a new Home Theater discussion area

If not it can't wait. Really no rush.

[earcandle]

270. This is better moderated than the Well. They let people rip each other apart over there. Not a

democracy but more like craigslist forums, they suck too.

You guys/gals do a fab job in my opinion.

Thanks for your hard work!

[Ignis]

297. Very true.

And they don't really have an excuse for it at the Well, having been around so long.

[struggle4progress]

280. Thanks. DU sometimes seems like an effort to hold a New England town meeting in Hell's Kitchen

[TygrBright]

360. Thanks for the laugh! Best, most succinct description of DU I've ever seen!

chortlingly,
Bright

[spanone]

283. herding cats

[midnight]

286. k&r.

[varelse]

288. I can't thank you enough

Some behaviors that have been common in the past are now more likely to get your post deleted. One such behavior is the use of unflattering names to refer to groups of DUers. This has had a particularly corrosive effect on discussions of Present Obama's legislative agenda, where it has become common to refer to people as "Obama apologists," "Obama haters," and the like. This type of name-calling is both inflammatory and unnecessary. Instead, use more respectful and specific phrasing like "Obama's critics" or "Obama's defenders" (Or better yet, "critics of President Obama's ___________ proposal" or "supporters of President Obama's ___________ proposal").

:')

[DainBramaged]

289. Too many people are allowed to complain for no apparent reason and get posts deleted

of the people they dislike. Or posts for positions they dislike. Too often the trigger fingers of the Moderators are pulled without any logical observation, simply because 'someone' decided that a particular post broke some arcane rule and they have the opportunity to get their adversary's post deleted.


Maybe the Mods should be PMing the alleged uncivilised brute and inform them they should CHANGE the wording before it is deleted therefore allowing the original work to remain and not giving the snipers the chance to run roughshod over some of us.



TOO MANY PEOPLE here hold grudges. That should be dealt with.


My piece, for what it's worth.......


I'd also like to include one

[Cary]

291. Thanks for the clarification

I appreciate what you're doing and trying to do. You did not ask for my suggestions but I offer it anyway, for what it is worth. My biggest beef with the administration of this place is being censored without adequate explanation.

It is hard to be a good DU citizen without understanding what is expected. I have tried private messages to moderators but these always go unanswered. Some sort of mechanism for specific clarifications would be most helpful. If my posts are being deleted because you have deemed the term "Obama haters" to be an "unflattering name" and if I know that's why my post is being deleted then once I understand that I know not to do it again.

[G_j]

293. civility is a neccesary compontent to productive discussion

and further, hopefully, to accomplish positive changes in the world through the opportunity of interacting with a community.

[onehandle]

296. Did you and EarlG get my request? nt

[Amerigo Vespucci]

299. Here's how it plays out...in most scenarios:

1). DUer "finishes my thought"...no one on DU knows me well enough to finish my thought. I put them on my ignore list, because I know DU frowns on retaliation.

2). DUer says something like "so what you're saying is..." NO, douchebag, that's not what I'm saying, because those aren't the words on the page. That's what I was saying, you sanctimonious little shit. I put them on my ignore list, because I know DU frowns on retaliation.

3). DUer "judges me." Like yesterday, for instance, when someone told me that they enjoyed my thread, other than the "childish" thread title, and that they "unrecommended me" for that. Gotta tell you, David...when DUers TELL me that they UNRECOMMENDED my thread, my life is ruined. I have no choice but to go to the corner, sit in shame, and emerge eight days later a better man.

In reality, I said goodbye, and put them on my ignore list, because I know DU frowns on retaliation. I don't agree with that...I just read and understood the "If you don't like it you can leave" fatwa.

I know you can read, David. I know you know that many here think "unrecommend" is a gift to the lurking freepers. Your Website, your call.

It's your game, your marbles. You can call "game over" on anyone, at any time, for your reasons. We all know that.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

300. Can you please keep this pinned? Thanks for all!

[JustAnotherGen]

303. Excellent

I've moderated at another site for years which can be extremely contentious at times - but civility is always the order of the day. This is nice to read. At the end of the day, even those DU'ers I might disagree with on ONE point or two . . . I still have far far more in common with the DU'er I disagree with on a point or two than I ever will with a Republican, Tea Bagger aka Independent.

Can we still make snotty comments and snide remarks about Republicans. Like for example - can we still say Sarah Palin is a worthless human being? :-) Can we call 'him' Deferment Dick?

[northofdenali]

304. I love our DU community and have since the day I joined.

It's kept me sane for the past 8+ years, knowing that the support of the members, mods & admins is always there. I've probably contributed to my share of the "toxic" debates, and I know I've alerted on many occasions (just last night, for example).

I promise to keep my civility intact and to try and walk away from those otherwise nasty debates.

K&R

[last1standing]

310. The problems go deeper than simple insults. Much deeper.

The insults are bad, definitely. I've been posting on that myself, lately. However, the biggest problem with the insults is the cadre of activist posters who sweep into any thread they dislike littering it with insults and smears until a friendly moderator comes along and locks it. They get the opposing viewpoint crushed so problem solved. Alerts and PMs to the moderators rarely receive an answer any more and reposting just results in a continuation of the same tactics.

It's just a dozen or so posters doing this but they've found it to be very effective. So what do we do about this, Skinner? As I said, rarely does a query elicit a response, from either moderator or admin. Will this be changing any time soon?

[mzteris]

313. +1 n/t

[QC]

318. +2

[Moochy]

328. +2

[asdjrocky]

334. +4

[inna]

335. +1,000!

(ok, i cheated :hide: )

but definitely +1! :D

[havocmom]

337. Bravo! Civility is NOT the root problem. Censorship tacitcs by a small group is

And it is NOT conducive to legitimate and CONSTRUCTIVE discussion on this important DISCUSSION forum.

We do not rise to be the best without sane and legitimate critical thought processes. That requires free exchange of legitimate critical comments. I have seen too much of that silenced by a very noisy, counter-productive cabal around here. It smacks of tyranny of a noisy minority, not unlike tactics we all have bemoaned from the other side of the aisle. It smacks of rovian attempts to intimidate reasoned dissent.

[Go2Peace]

347. "just a dozen or so posters" causing a good part of the havoc... exactly!

We have always had robust debate, but there are a few posters that are on here every day just to argue and vote down anything that does not follow party line. I know that may sound like singling out, but it is clear and really a relatively few. But it sounds like the moderators may start paying attention to that as well. This is the first time I have noticed them CLEARLY express that they expect vigorous debate about policy positions.

[MrMickeysMom]

351. Maybe these folks can be weeded out...

like tumble weeds rolling past a cemetery of tombstones...

[lumberjack_jeff]

414. Did you read the OP?

Another purge? Seriously?

[MrMickeysMom]

476. I did read it...

In fact, I was referring to when people purposely post things that result in locking. I happen to know great examples in only on area here (Sept 11) and rather than never going there anymore (what I've chosen to do), due to these kinds of remarks intended to lock down threads, I'd rather someone watch this for... oh, geez, look at the frequency and figure it out, mods, and then weed the motherfuckers out.

Seriously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

381. Here's how a more efficient system for dealing with insults can help that situation:

One of the mods' jobs is to delete posts that contain personal insults. These often crop up in contentious threads, as people cross the line from strong argument, and from attacking ideas, into attacking the members who make them. The old system (I am a former mod) could be a little unwieldy, and sometimes mods ended up just trying to catch up with a backlog of personal attacks in a few controversial threads. And the longer those attacks stayed up in the thread, the more likely people were to retaliate, either in the thread or starting a new one.

When that happens, the mods can either resort to the 'deleted sub-thread' approach, which is a lot quicker for the mods than deleting several individual replies (and stops people trying to restart an insult match by replying again to an undeleted post in the middle of it), but can be a bit of a blunt instrument, and runs the risk of permanently deleting a reasonable post stuck in the middle of bad ones; or they can lock the thread, which preserves the posts, but stops the discussion - again, some members were probably behaving fine in the thread, and the mods know it would have been nice to keep that part of it going.

Hopefully, a streamlined mod system will enable the personal attacks to be dealt with faster, and mean that threads don't snowball out of control so much. And that may mean that less threads need to be locked as 'a flame war'. The opposing viewpoints will still turn up; but if they step out of line, insult-wise, they will be deleted faster, and as Skinner points out elsewhere, a record of all deleted posts is kept for all members, and mods and admin do use it to consider if further action is needed for a troublemaker.

[lumberjack_jeff]

415. Thanks and a suggestion.

This was an illuminating post.

My suggestion: Since the data is already maintained, place a link on our profile pages (visible to only the user) showing how many times we've had our hand slapped. It might help encourage positive behavior.

[Cary]

382. Very well said.

You've nailed it. The net result is that the moderators effectively censor certain position, so much so that a large number of us are holed up in our own ghetto of a forum simply because we support our president. A lot of us have left DU for good. I certainly considered leaving DU, and would have left but for our forum and the wonderful people posting there.

That ain't right. We should have an equal voice here and we should not made to feel like we're pariahs at DU simply because we support Barack Obama.

[last1standing]

432. The problem isn't about which "side" the moderators are taking.

The problem is that a few people are effectively shutting down any discussion with insults, smears and flame. The fact that you agree with me here, when I'm hardly a happy Obama fan right now, shows that this is a real problem that needs fixing. People like ourselves could very likely discuss our differences and find that we share the same goals but are supporting different strategies. Unfortunately, there are a few here who are working 24/7 to make sure we never find that out.

[Cary]

468. The problem is worse than that.

It's not a recent problem either. Nor is it confined to DU.

[peace frog]

383. [phone]

Exactly.

[Javaman]

393. I share your thoughts...

all posting type sites have their "griefers". People who get off on sandbagging peoples thoughts and opinions.

DU certainly has its share.

I think Skinners improved moderator "tools", perhaps, will solve this via the counting system of alerts and deleted posts.

I hope so.

[Skinner]

402. We gotta start somewhere.

I have no illusions that as-of-today we are done improving the way we run this place. I think improving moderator response time and tightening civility enforcement is a good place to start.

As for the behavior you refer to, I don't think we can say with any certainty that the intent is to get a thread locked. And I also think it is fairly obvious that the number of people who will post flames in a a thread is much greater than a dozen, and includes the full range of viewpoints here. I can say with near certainty that the moderators are not picking-and-choosing which threads to lock based on which points of view they want to promote. But having said that...

If members alert on disruptive posts quickly, and moderators have the means to remove them in a timely fashion, then it is much less likely that a thread will explode into a cesspool of flaming. Under our old moderating system, it was simply impossible for the moderators to act quickly enough to head off that type of thing before it takes off, and it was even harder to remove dozens of posts that violate the rules. They had to rely on shortcuts like deleting sub-threads and locking entire threads. Now, they are much better prepared to deal with stuff before it gets out-of-hand. (Of course, if nobody bothers to alert, then it's not going to get dealt with early.)

So, I think this is a critical first step toward addressing many of the problems we face. But it is not by any means the last step. We have some pretty creative ideas that we would like to implement in the future which would very effectively cut people off whenever they want to stir up trouble, and I would love to implement them if the members of DU would let us do so. But I have a nagging feeling that there is a limit to how effective many DUers want us to be. Sure, we'll gladly accept it when the moderators crack down on people who hold opposing points of view, but when they start cracking down on the people we agree with we always seem to find a reason why it is unfair and unwarranted.

[Renew Deal]

408. I agree that there is a limit to the amount of moderation needed

I don't mind mixing it up. My issue is always the insults. DU is light years better at dealing this than many other forums, but it can actually be better. I remember the 2004 primary. The mods deleted anything that looked like an insult and it worked well. I still think mini-bans were a bit much, but I also understand that you were trying to keep this place under control.

[last1standing]

427. Yes, everthing and everyone has to start somewhere.

And, as I said, this is a good start. I've been amazed at the level of discourse since I came back, and yes, I have gone to it in response to certain posters insults. But Skinner, let's be honest with each other, everyone on this board knows that there are a few (on both "sides" if you like) who consider it their mission to shut down opposing viewpoints. If you really aren't sure take a look at some of the locked threads to see how many break absolutely no rules but are yet locked with messages like "This thread has become a flamefest" or "We're locking because this has gone on long enough". How does locking a thread, instead of stopping the flamers, encourage discussion?

As for your effective measures, the last time DU implemented those, at least nine good GLBT members of this site were banned, making the GLBT forum a wasteland. We've discussed this before, Skinner, I'm all for effective measures but taking out the most vulnerable voices isn't going to appease those intent on shutting down threads; it will only make them more outrageous as we've already seen.

Lastly, this isn't about sides, this is about trying to fulfill the promise of this site as being a discussion board, not an echo chamber. I, and nearly everyone else here, want opposing viewpoints heard. That is what makes DU worth coming to. The dilema is not that of wanting to shut down the debate, it is of wanting to keep it open. I'm sure this new implementation will help but until the root cause is extracted, it will never be resolved. I look forward to your new steps.

[fudge stripe cookays]

433. Kinda late for improving it now.

Most of the regular posters from the beginning of the site, who made the place so interesting and fun to be around have deserted you. I used to post here multiple times a day. Now, I only check in when a Facebook friend points something out for me to see and roll my eyes at.

Pick an issue- gays, trolls, whatever.

Your post is an example of too little, too late. The fact that freaks like Radio Lady or Operation Mindcrime were allowed to stay for an obscene amount of time, say whatever they wanted, then alert on those who dared to argue with them (while the arguers' posts were deleted) screams volumes about this site.

You have become utterly mediocre, which is sad, because this site used to rock.

[Bobbie Jo]

444. Thank you for addressing this directly.

Particularly...

"But I have a nagging feeling that there is a limit to how effective many DUers want us to be. Sure, we'll gladly accept it when the moderators crack down on people who hold opposing points of view, but when they start cracking down on the people we agree with we always seem to find a reason why it is unfair and unwarranted."

A wise woman once told me...Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it.

Maintaining balance under these conditions is a delicate task. Thanks again for taking the time to comment and clarify your thoughts throughout this thread.

Much appreciated.

[omega minimo]

445. "But I have a nagging feeling that there is a limit to how effective many DUers want us to be."

How many people have left DU because of bullies and how many serial bullies remain? How many gravedances on the TS of serial troublemekers that abused at DU for 4 years or more, for no apparent reason? How effective is it to let them remain?

The population and the tone of DU, the culture is created by the long term presence of bullies and troublemakers who feel free to carry on, despite repeated protests and alerts from other DUers.

Which "many DUers" are you referring to? The ones who remain or the ones who have given up?

"Sure, we'll gladly accept it when the moderators crack down on people who hold opposing points of view, but when they start cracking down on the people we agree with we always seem to find a reason why it is unfair and unwarranted."

That may be the case for some who don't understand the concept. What "many DIUers" want is what you have proposed -- that the conflict is not "crack down on people who hold opposing points of view," but to "keep this community open to a broad range of progressive viewpoints" by HOW we address the topic and each other: non-abusively.

[lumberjack_jeff]

413. Saboteurs are not a new thing.

It takes two to tango. In my experience, I find that if I refuse to respond in kind, they fail.

They can think I'm an asshole if they want. They can *say* that I'm an asshole if they want. I can live with that. They only win if they succeed in getting the thread locked.

[last1standing]

429. In nearly every other situation I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple here. What occurs, and I'm sure you've seen it, is about half a dozen or so posters drop into a thread they don't like and start spewing personal insults at the poster. If the poster responds, fantastic for them, but if he doesn't they just start posting to each other the same insults and smears they wanted to throw at the OP. Then 'someone' alerts the thread and a friendly moderator locks it while doing nothing about those who created the flamewar to begin with.

To make it worse, they have groups where they are allowed to rally the troops and discuss ways of shutting down the conversation. I'm hoping that alerting will now help with this but it has not in the past. In fact, some tell me they've been warned for alerting which I find incredible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

434. Oh, I've seen it.

Disruptors with weak arguments here are skilled in "the stage whisper".

"Did you see that big poopyhead upthread? :eyes:"

Bait need not be taken when the hook is so clearly visible.

My area of interest is atypical. If you ridicule, say, the Seattle Mariners, you offend a cadre of supporters, some of whom can't resist taking the bait, so the thread gets locked.

If you ridicule men, you only offend me, and I've learned to not take ad-hominem bait. There is no cadre of supporters with varying levels of discipline. Ironically, the point they're trying to make is that mens views are not disparaged here.

But I digress. I acknowledge that it's difficult to prevent flamewars. Difficult, but not impossible, if you want your viewpoint heard.

[tbyg52]

453. Bingo. nt

[OhioChick]

469. +5 n/t

[lonestarnot]

311. Is the F word now outta here?

:D

[Ardent15]

317. K and R

[snot]

321. Thank you!

[MH1]

323. Thanks! Welcome news. :)

[Iggo]

327. You guyzez response time is quick.

I alerted over a couple of different things in the last week or so...one was spam, one was something else...and you guys were all over it almost immediately...a minute, two minutes tops. I was pleasantly surprised. Glad to see it was a concerted effort on your guyzez part to do just that.

Whatever yer doin, it seems to be workin. Good job.

[reflection]

451. Agreed. I just had an alert processed in under 5 minutes.

That's awesome, mods. Thanks.

[Richd506]

332. K & R!!!!!!!!

Because without moderators, DU would become a political version of 4chan very quickly!

[rpannier]

333. How disappointing

Now if I want to hear primary school and kindergarten rhetoric I'll only be able to turn to my daughters and their friends.

On a serious note: Good move

[Hydra]

340. Too many comments for me to read right now

But I want to say that if this is done correctly, I may be spending a lot more time here. One of the things I hate about DU is how perfectly logical stuff can suddenly become, as you say, "toxic"- and not in a way that helps us sort the issue out, but rather shuts discussion down...which of course is the whole point.

I also like that you're asking people to alert and not respond in kind. It's always tempting, but destroys the value of any further conversation, IMO.

Alert, Ignore, write thoughtful posts yourself. Just because we don't have a common enemy anymore doesn't mean we can't learn here.

[Go2Peace]

344. I am glad you stated that it is OK to express opinions that are not current "party line".

I still think that the biggest source of fighting comes when people start trying to shut down debate by claiming that we have to support all current administration policies.

It is good that you have pointed out, that while this site support Democrats, that it also embraces political discourse amongst Democrats.

I hope you continue to educate members that this site does not have to look like "democrats.com", as a number of very heavy posters here would hope it to be.

[Skinner]

404. I don't think anyone says you "have to support all current administration policies."

I know sometimes people interpret it that way, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that here, or anything like it.

We have plenty of people that express support for the administration's policies, as we should. But that is not the same as telling you that you have to support those policies.

[Bobbie Jo]

350. I must compliment the mods....

From my experience, they've been quite prompt in response to alerts. It probably does help to include context and specifics regarding rule violations. Unfortunately, some posters just don't respond to direct attempts to demonstrate how their "tone" might be construed as rude and condescending when responding to others who may have a different opinion.


Thanks again, mods. :yourock:

[SteveM]

353. Thank you Skinner and the krew of Mods...

Yours is a hard task.

I would like to second the complaint made by some, wherein "disruptors" blow in with insults, word games, snarky crap and such until the thread is locked. Surely, a pattern must be seen when this occurs. I rarely use the unrec/rec feature, but I have noticed where someone will post an OP that immediately followed by a flurry of 'unrec' with no evident posting. This, I can put up with. But the efforts of the "suicide squads" to first poison discourse, then thereby have the thread cut off is more than irksome.

Perhaps such a person could first have his/her offending post deleted in the usual manner, then if further disruption is created, have a "new" marker indicating to all that the poster is not allowed on that particular thread; yet have the thread remain open.

[OneBlueSky]

358. personally, I feel that there is no room for name calling of any kind in civilized discourse . . .

you can disagree with someone without calling that person some vile name or mercilessly ridiculing him/her. . . I for one would not object to seeing all posts that resort to name calling or nasty ridiculing deleted, and for repeat offenders to be given "time outs," a week or a month during which they cannot post anything . . . might help to clean up the language and restore a modicum of civility to the discussions . . . jmho, of course . . .

[go west young man]

369. I'm with you on that one. It feels like 8th grade around here sometimes

with the name calling. And we call ourselves progressive adults? That's the paradox. It's DU yet it's like a school yard much of the time.

[certainot]

366. thanks. how about posting a whistleblower reward for RW think tank trolls?

get together with other blogs to put up a really good reward .

[Lindsey]

376. I feel some hope for DU now. I've felt for a while now the the only

group I could go to was the President Obama forum. I'm glad that you guys have addressed this issue. Thank you.

[valerief]

372. Way cool.

[Blue-Jay]

373. It's sad that you even had to post this.

Here's a novel idea!

If people break the rules, give them a "time out". If they persist, ban them. That's how you do it. No need to apologize or explain.

[Jax]

374. The GLBT purge was and is hideous

will always be.

Alyce
On edit:

khepha said it best on these forums:


"The further the Democratic Party moves to the right it allows an already far right republican party to move even further right without seeming extreme"

You can delete me all you want David Allen but you went to his memorial and his words stand on your forums and he was and is right.

Alyce



good job deleting this liberal progressive tonight, fast, so fast...

khephra NAILED your forums.

Alyce

[Name removed]

435. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tbyg52]

455. Bravo, Jax.

Thank you for this post.

[pengillian101]

375. Bravo!

I noticed the decline when the unrecommended feature was added.

It confused some folks who thought they were voting in a thread popularity contest it seems, lol, instead of voting that it was an article worth reading, whether good or bad, but that it was important to read the article.

It was pretty obvious when you just had the recommend feature. If it didn't get recommended for reading as a good post - well it sunk on the front page and its category. Why not go back to that?

Get rid of the unrecommended feature and many unpleasant postings may go away I think.

[Enthusiast]

377. Ya done good, Skinner.

I confess. I get pretty riled up when I read someone calling Dennis Kucinich names or praising Saint Ronnie or repeating GOP talking points as if they are reasonable positions.

[xiamiam]

384. thanks for the hard work and keeping the site together..but

the unrec feature has got to go..divisive and childish at the same time...i see a post with news reported and it is unrec'd so quickly i know they didnt even have time to read it.. i then become irritated that im even here ...please just try it without the unrec for 4 months..i think it will help...please

[TheCowsCameHome]

385. Thanks for all that you do here, but please get rid of the unrec feature.

[Javaman]

389. Thanks Skinner, it will serve me well to mind my P's and Q's from time to time. :)

Cheers!

[M155Y_A1CH]

391. Thank you Skinner

:bounce: :bounce:
:kick:

[tomm2thumbs]

392. never had a problem with alerts - I liked the suggestions of terms to use for disagreement

as Obama has said, holding his feet to the fire is our job - but holding other members' feet to molten lava is not so effective. Hope 2010 is the best yet for DU - and thanks to all the behind-the-scenes folks helping to make it happen. Here's to the crew.

[TexasObserver]

398. Your comments are important to reset the tenor here.

I have often thought of DU moderation the way I think of basketball game officiating. When you appeal to a ref because the other guy is hooking you, or otherwise fouling you, if the ref doesn't call it, you figure "ok, so we're playing rough today and I'm on my own here." You give you what you get. That leads to an escalation, and later the game gets out of control. Now, a player has to be tossed from the game for reacting so strongly. And that player may have been properly upset about not being protected by proper officiating.

I've seen subthreads spin out of control when Alerts went unheeded for a long time. When a poster does as they've been instructed and Alerts, they expect someone to look it at in a reasonable time. I'm not familiar with how Alerts are seen by moderators, but "you're an ass" and "STFU" don't require any review beyond seeing the subject line.

It's important that players here know when they go to the ref, their complaint will be heard and acted upon. I believe that some of the acrimony we see results from posters feeling they must defend themselves after their pleas for intervention have gone unacted upon, if justified.

This new direction is a good one. I intend to try to keep it more civil, and hope the Alert process deals with excessive behaviors. To me the civility aspect of the rules is the hardest part to officiate. "You're an ass" and "you're talking out your ass" are very similar, and yet we should know the former is against the rules and the latter is not. Still, the "civility" decisions moderatos must make dance constantly about that dividing line, and I do not envy those who must enforce the rule.

[sixstrings75]

403. Sincere question:

Not trying to start anything here. Been a LONG LOYAL reader of this site since 2003-2004. Best site on the internets...


I have to know why it took so long to turf OPERATIONMINDCRIME.

This guy represented the absolute worst of DU, but was allowed to spew his hate and BS for years.

Why?

[Zenlitened]

457. Yeah, that was something to behold, wasn't it?

I think he bought himself a lot of time (and slack) with his tale of alleged bereavement.

But, wow... that guy pushed the envelope to the extreme, huh? :wow:

[tomp]

407. i don't see why i should use "defender" when i mean "apologist".

would i be allowed, for instance, to say, "defenders of obama's treasonous failure to prosecute bush/cheney, inc."? because that's what i actually mean. so how is that really different from "apologist"? if you force me, at pain of tombstoning, to say something i don't mean, or say nothing, you are censoring me. are you really meaning to exclude certain words from use on du?

part of the problem with politics is that so seldom do politicians say what they actually mean. part of the solution is that we do not emulate that tactic here.

i do not consider it disrespectful to tell someone i think they are wrong and why. i do not think it is not "ad hominem" to hold someone accountable for their views. if i think obama is a traitor for not prosecuting bush/cheny, inc., it is perfectly consistent for me to think supporting obama in that position is treasonous. i think i should be allowed to say so. i suspect you disagree.

[Skinner]

410. It is not disrespectful to tell someone you think they are wrong.

In fact, I consider it a sign of respect.

But calling someone an "apologist" or a "hater" or a "cheerleader" is completely unnecessary to any explanation for why someone is wrong. They are insults. They add nothing of substance to your argument.

You seem like a smart person. Are you capable of explaining and defending your point of view without insulting people who hold a different view?

[Zenlitened]

456. I'm surprised that you've accepted this redefinition of the word 'apologist'

Its actual meaning is very descriptive, IMO.

Is the word 100% off-limits now? Or is there a way it might be used in a non-name-calling way?

For example, this would obviously be name-calling: "Yer nuthin but a damn apologist!!!1"

But to state that someone's argument amounts to little more than an apologia... would that be permitted?

[Skinner]

474. We permit people to discuss ideas.

Calling someone's argument an apologia would be in-bounds.

[sui generis]

411. this is my first post since getting tempstoned for incivility last month

My alert count has been close to zero (things that I alert on) for the past year, while my delete count has been spectacular.

Thus, what you said strikes me as true - I'm clearly more likely to respond to provocation than to alert, and to do so with all the malicious glee I take in being mean to idiots. Just the same, thank you for giving a little insight into the mysterious minds of the admins and mods.

Still, probation is a two-way street. I'll take this one day at a time and try to keep what virtue there may be in balance for the slip-ups.

-sui

[Skinner]

416. You're welcome. And thanks.

I'm glad to see you posting again.

[PBS Poll-435]

412. I love this community and most of the people here.

I hate it when a "member" is so obviously trying to divide us or cause friction.

Thanks Skinner.

[peacetalksforall]

417. First of all, thank you. I've been trying to analyze myself lately. I am much

less civil than I was for many, many years. I always thought I would try to practice what I was taught - stick with the facts AND (most especially) write from the 'I' and not the 'you'. Especially, without any facts to accompany the 'you'.

A combination of stating or inferring 'you' plus a cuss word, then running, is obvious and is easy for a moderator.

Writing from the 'I' gets into explaining or substantiating my position and furthers dialogue or clarifies dialogue - which is kinda/more democratic.

Hitting and running.......

I also find that I don't trust myself when it comes to civility and I become really tense when I come to DU and recognize a troll attack, especially when I find the subject revelatory. I may have just started reading a thread and after only about or less than 10 posts I 'KNOW' that the thread got hit with a team of trolls. They are out to kill the thread in order to kill the message or scramble the knowledge that newbies are getting or redirecting those who are not so knowledgeable about the subject. Redirecting their beliefs - with a one liner reason or pushing people by saying there is nothing to see here - the end result is intimidation and putting a stop to exploring the truth.

I have struck out (mostly) by asking for substantiation because for the most part their messages are hollow but delivered with so much emphasis and authority that they push people away which is their goal or get everyone to agree with them. They intimidate the writer and deny the facts with nothing more than a put down or flip reason. I started not letting them get away with it without cussing. Usually, there is no reply. I found out on two occasions that is was wrong because the two explained what they meant.

I bring this up because it is the number two reason for my tenseness and tendency to want to attack. They make a big difference in my patience and self discipline.

I also bring this up because I would like to know if we are going to have a 'talk' about trolls.

My last point of my self-analysis - is that I feel in a panic about the past last year. Sometimes I feel I'm in a time warp. I'm writing something and I notice that I am phrasing it as if Cheney was still President. It is difficult to lay back and pretend that there is a lot of time for things to get explained and changed. The pace of attacks at each other all across the country is accelerating. The U.S. has become a big lie pit.

OK one more ... I hope nothing in this new direction restricts attacking the DLC even if some DU members support the DLC. The DLC is my reason for my time warp problem - my number one reason for the feeling of panic. And for me, the DLC and Blue Dogs are the same package. Progressives shouldn't split away, but this DLC/Blue Dog rule should not get a free ride.

(My feeling of panic is demonstrated in this post. In the past I would simply say 'Thank you, Skinner and staff and mods')

[Renew Deal]

422. DU isn't the only site that has issues with nastiness.

"A New Debate on Blog Comments is Brewing"

Popular gadget site Engadget has recently shut down comments. It’s a temporary measure, it says, but the blog took it because the “tone in comments has really gotten out of hand.”

http://mashable.com/2010/02/03/debate-blog-comments

[pipi_k]

426. Oh, you're not kidding!!!!

I've seen some sites that weren't just nasty...they were outright vulgar.

[Renew Deal]

430. DU has always been moderated pretty well

So it's never been that bad. I agree. Many other sites are much worse.

[ibegurpard]

461. try WoW forums

they make you want to go out and punch random people in the face

[Forkboy]

472. I want to do that anyways.....

:hide:

[Forkboy]

471. I used to moderate a golf forum...that's right, a golf forum...that made DU look tame.

[blondeatlast]

490. And I a diabetes forum--I never want to hear the phrase "Atkins Diet" again as long as I live. nt

[H2O Man]

423. As a sign of good will,

I suggest that you give free DU t-shirts to everyone who "k&r's" my OPs. It would not only improve the feelings of joy here, but would be recognized as a huge step forward towards the ultimate goal of world peace. Please give this serious thought.

[Renew Deal]

431. ATA Lives!

:rofl:

[grantcart]

428. Sorry I missed it originially but always appreciate your wise cousel.

[whatchamacallit]

437. I applaud your efforts to create a reasonable code of conduct for DU, but...

I'm not convinced civility can be engineered. The flexibility of the english language all but guarantees people will find creative ways to express their "feelings". It all comes down to interpretation of the poster's intent; was it a clear attack, hyper-snark, or something else? I don't envy the mods... That said, it seems you are requesting DU members cooperate and participate in a little directed self-policing. Asking us to "appeal to the better angels of our nature" whenever possible. I guess this is the only thing that makes sense for a place that aims to give voice to the thoughts and feelings of tens of thousands of people.

One of the things I really dig about this place is the way you admins really try to approach everything with a truly democratic spirit.

PS I'll do my best, but remember this is coming from someone who might hold the trophy for "most deleted posts without being tombstoned" ;)

[Danger Mouse]

466. You should see the number of deleted posts I have sometime. It's quite a list.

:P

[BlueIris]

439. Good start. But IMO,

in order for this community to be truly progressive, the Admins will have to undertake a massive reformulation of the posting guidelines. Far too much offensive language and non-progressive sentiment is still allowed here for me to consider this a progressive message board.

[quinnox]

450. Great thread, suggestion on unrecommend feature

I'm with the people who said unrecommend isn't good to creating a civil atmosphere here. But if it is going to be kept, why not have people who unrecommend threads have to post why they are unrecommending it? No hiding! Then after giving a reason in public right there in the thread, and it could be a perfectly legitimate one, only then they are allowed to unrecommend the thread.

I think it should be an extra effort to unrecommend a thread, which is a negative action, than a recommend, which is a positive action. Therefore, recommending threads would not require any explanations or posts in the thread.

Otherwise, people unrecommend threads like other Duers have said based on petty stuff like they don't like the Duer, and gangs of people can get together and unrecommend threads that they don't like because it couteracts their political positions or politicians that they admire.

I would even go further and say there would no longer be recommending "pleading", example - people posts a thread saying "Rec this because..." I just wouldn't allow those either. The threads would have to be recommended on their own merit and nothing else.

This way, unrecommending could still be done but it would cut down on the bad and frivolous reasons people unrecommend.
It wouldn't halt it completely but at least the people who unrecommend would have to state why they are doing it, and it might cause them to think twice about it.

Of course this also could lead to a feud between Duers, and retalitatory unrecommends, but its hard to come up with a perfect way to fix this unrecommend feature so thats why I agree with those who say junk it.

[Danger Mouse]

464. The reason I think unrecommend helps civility...

many people will simply unrec a thread they hate, rather than enter the thread and flame. People who unrec then flame would have flamed anyway.
Unrec allows people to say they don't like a thread without resorting to flaming.

[TexasObserver]

475. That's my point of view.

There are many threads which are simply not very good. They're not well composed. They repeat some point made in other threads, except made better in those other threads. They're simply posted because a particular poster has to start their own thread on Haiti, in spite of 30 threads already open on the topic.

The Unrec feature allows one to grade the thread as not Greatest Page worthy and move on. It's a rejection of that thread on that day.

I recommend threads every day for posters who are thoroughly obnoxious, IF they compose a decent OP and the topic is worthy of reading. Every day, I also Unrec threads started by posters I like. If they start a vanity thread, I'm unrecommending it. Do I need to stop each time and say "why can't you post this stuff in the lounge, like you know you're supposed to?" Better to unrec it, alert on it, and leave it to the mods to act upon it or not.

What is gained by having to post "vanity thread" in addition to Unrecommending it?

[Forkboy]

473. "I am confident everyone here is capable of doing it."

You overestimate me. And I'm only partially joking....

[Haole Girl]

477. Just saw this today

:kick:

[rrneck]

478. Thank you. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

480. Will this be applied to the I/P forum?

fwiw, it's good that posts will be deleted in a timely manner, but I've gotten to the point where I see little point in alerting as all that happens even if the poster is a serial offender who has had countless posts deleted is the post gets deleted and the person who's post was deleted just pops up in another thread with the same routine.

[DainBramaged]

482. When everyone is treated equally, that's where civility begins and ends......

[underpants]

491. YOU LIE!

Sorry wrong thread

You guys do a great job. Thanks, again.

[omega minimo]

493. How bizarre that multiple OPs are milking the "retarded" comment while you have this OP up...

people might as well sit around and watch each other pick their noses. If it wasn't "retarded,' it would be "peepee" or "caca" some last vestige of "free speech" that people cling to, defiant just for the sake of it, when it really isn't THAT big a deal to respect others. It just takes some practice.