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

[Skinner]

As you know, Barack Obama is the first Democratic President since DU was created back in 2001. Nearly a year-and-a-half into his administration, it is apparent that having a Democrat in the White House presents new and difficult challenges for the DU community.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{ } Other (Please explain)

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


So, what do you think?

[miscsoc]

1. I think, minimise the rules

Or rephrase them as some broad basic principles.

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

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

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

in conjunction with the idea that anyone whose post was deleted would be made aware of the rationale behind the deletion

[dotymed]

706. I'm disappointed.

I have enjoyed this site every since I discovered it. I have been a lifelong Democrat and I have really enjoyed the sharing of ideas here. I'm honestly disappointed. I have often called for the formation of a third party that has a platform like the Democrats used to have. Putting the people ahead of corporations.
As a proud member of organized labor (and DU) I have too often seen the effects of corporate money on both parties. As a result, I have called (loudly) for the formation of a party that puts people before profits.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, or get thrown off of DU. I am trying to explain why, a lifelong liberal Democrat, would call for such a thing.
I don't know. Are these new rules a definite?
I just want to do whatever it takes to make America a progressive, user friendly, tolerant nation. One that prizes its poor citizens as well as its elite citizens. It would be great to distribute the wealth in such a way that isn't so polarizing and to take money out of the political equation altogether.

[nannah]

1043. that's a concern of mine too, the 3rd party candidate rule

Let's say Dennis Kucinich stepped away from the Dems and spear headed a new party due to his strong progressive values for peace and health care for all and his dissatisfaction with the continuation of war and an inadequate health care system made possible by democrats joining with republicans in crucial votes. Many here at DU are strong Kucinich supporters; would they be prohibited from advocating for him?

[SoxFan]

1423. How is that different from Joe Lieberman's independent candidacy?

Joe, in his own way, still sees himself as a progressive.

The end result of a Kucinich vanity candidacy would be to siphon votes away from Barack Obama (or, in 2016, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, or whoever).

[sasquuatch55]

1189. I say PISS OFF!!!!!!

nt

[Forkboy]

1241. Missed the point of the OP there.

[dotymed]

1422. Wow

If you are representative of the new DU, then this site will not be very intelligently represented. You are a true word-smith and deep thinker...:sarcasm:

[SammyWinstonJack]

1511. -1. nt

[mtnester]

1374. Guess supporting Bernie Sanders (I) who has always caucused

and supported the Dem platform, is out.

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

I stand by my sigline.

[tomp]

1394. interesting point. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

1493. No, Sanders has been, and will remain (it looks to me) supportable on DU

because he does not run against Democrats. He is not a 'third party' in the elections he runs in. The current rules say:

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

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

and I don't think Skinner is changing that, in the summary he give in the OP. Sanders' positions certainly fit "support, or constructive criticism" of Democratic policies in my view, I'd think for almost all DUers, and I'd dare to say in the DU admins' inidividual views, from what they've posted in the past.

[BolivarianHero]

1497. Really now...

I think conservative Democrats should not be protected on this website by even the requirements of basic civility; Blanche Lincoln is one step away from Zellout Miller, and people as worthless as her need to be put in their place...I think people should be allowed to support 3rd party candidates that run against the Democrats from the left, with the exception of the Green Party because they've received GOP money in the past.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1509. That would depend if you want to keep the idea of a party, or if you just have left wing views

The idea of a political party is that you agree among yourselves the policies and candidates, and then stick together. The 'democratic' in DU explicitly refers to the Democratic Party, not just the adjective for democracy.

Once you start saying "I like the Democratic Party, except for the following, who are worthless", then you're being an individual, not part of the party movement. And you will encourage others to insult your preferred candidates in a similar way, and you will be left with no way to object. DU has always been crystal clear about this. Anyone who has joined the website, and not noticed that is is about the Democratic Party, hasn't been paying attention. If you want all Democrats insulted and held as 'worthless' on DU, then keep advocating your 'right' to insult certain Democrats. It won't work, however.

[No Elephants]

1674. Doesn't some of that depend upon timing and context? For example, If Blanche Lincoln

has just voted against the final version of the health care bill, a poster who supported the bill might post, "She's worthless. She has to go." Ditto, during primary season: "Linoln's worthless. Support Halter."

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

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

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

Am I mistaken?

[No Elephants]

1673. Any left leaning third party will take votes from Democrats and therefore will likely get

donations from Republicans. And third parties are at such a huge disadvantage in every way, including financially, that they are unlikely to refuse money from any source, unless maybe accepting would violate some law that they know of.

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

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

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

*Saw Nader being interviewed in connection with his latest book. When asked about having drawn votes from Gore in Florida in 2000, he replied, "Just think how many votes Gore drew away from me." It was a mildly amusing response--until I thought about 8 years of Dummya, whereupon I got sick.

[tomp]

1395. also disappointed, but not surprised. nt

[NorthCarolina]

1479. IIt appears the conservatives have won yet another small victory. Chip, chip, chip. eom

[1Hippiechick]

1618. +1

[libmom74]

1481. I agree dotymed

I am a new poster but I have lurked for over a year now, I was a huge supporter of President Obama's and worked hard in 2006 and 2008 to elect a Democratic majority but I have been very disappointed to see business as usual when it comes to lobbyists and big money winning out over what is best for the people of this nation and helping to move us forward (loss of the public option, weak financial regulation, progress on DADT and DOMA, the continuation of both wars, voting against the extension of UE benefits and EFCA and on and on). The two party system is broken, and like you I believe one way to invigorate our democratic (small d) system is to vote for more progressives, even if those progressives are third party candidates. I feel that shutting down discussions of third party progressive candidates that represent democratic values, more than some of our current Democratic representatives do is ultimately harmful to democracy.

[summerintx]

1605. I'm cautiously pleased!

Incivility and rudeness are social diseases - and they are catching! We see and hear it modeled on television and radio and that seems to give some people permission to do likewise. The more that occurs the more that becomes the norm. The level of hostility and irrationality we are seeing in our society has already led to violence - and I fear we are going to see more. Abraham Lincoln was our first president assassinated - and I recently learned how the tone of incivility and truly scurrilous attacks in those times set the stage for it. The media of the day were a huge part of the problem, then as now.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, moderators, for your courage and leadership in coming to this decision!

[DailyGrind51]

1679. Maybe third parties should establish their own boards?

The title "Democratic Underground" is self-explanatory.

[BanzaiBonnie]

1383. How about "always be as kind as you can"

I'm a grandmother of 6 now and that seems to work well for me. The kids know the house rule. If I hear a tiff beginning, I ask them "what's the rule at grandma's house" ? They repeat it to me immediately. And if two sibs are arguing or heaven forbid, putting hands on one another in a rough manner, I make them kiss and make up. Ooooo, they hate that. But they almost always start laughing.

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



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

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

See guys, was that so hard?


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

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

So be it. Go forward and do good work guys.

[Botany]

2. Watch out for the electric shocks too

[Mithreal]

536. .

[no limit]

3. I still think certain topics should not be buried in DU's waste bin far away from view.

[Deep13]

62. +1

[chimpymustgo]

543. + 1000. Sunshine!

[Barack_America]

563. Very important.

If something is front-page news around the world, it deserves to be openly discussed on DU, regardless of topic.

[Greyskye]

690. + googleplex

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

This practice really seems counter to the progressive spirit which I thought was one of the goals for DU. :shrug:

[no limit]

757. I dont get why they don't just apply the rules like with any other threads.

For some reason certain topics get hidden as soon as they come up. The explaination I got for that was that they lead to flame wars. But that makes no sense since all topics posted on a public message board can lead to flame wars. And that's what the rules are for.

I doubt it is their intention to actually hide these topics but in the end that's what happens. And it makes it seem like DU admins have a very strong bias one way and anyone that thinks a different way can't be heard. And what's sad is I can't even say what we are talking about since if I do this post will be deleted and I won't be able to post back in this thread.

[Greyskye]

1050. It really mystifies me.

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

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

Baffling and frustrating, especially since I never even saw the explanation that you received.

[SoCalDem]

1300. and it throws the thread into the lion's den down under, where the same people

hang out, at the ready to pile on..:(

Especially with the "place that can never be named", no discussion means no understanding, and it's pretty easy to see why there has been a neverending conflict, with no resolution in sight:(

[tomp]

1396. what makes you doubt that is their actual intention? nt

[no limit]

1429. Well, not being able to get a response is starting to get a bit frustrating

[Bolo Boffin]

956. You're importing that emotional language.

You could just as easily see the various "dungeons" as places for divisive topics to be fully and fairly discussed under closer moderator scrutiny.

[no limit]

1032. I don't see what's emotional about what I said

the fact is there were some major world events that took place recently and any discussion of those events was confined to areas of the board that do not appear on the leatest threads page nor on the greatest page when they get enough recommendations. This is not about discussions of some insane conspiracy theories, it's about discussion of serious world events that actually took place.

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

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

I know I could raise all these concerns with an administrator by private message but I already tried that, didn't get a response.

[mirrera]

1122. Well Said!

All topics should be open and if the rules are so good, they should work.

[Bolo Boffin]

1299. "buried in DU's wastebasket far from view" - emotional language

There is no prevention of discussion. You are free to discuss those topics in those forums.

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

But your comments about latest threads or greatest page are about promotion. If it's promotion of your idea that you are actually seeking, then there are other places on the internet to do that. If discussion is truly what you want, that you can get here openly and freely.

[Violet_Crumble]

1376. It's realistic language...

There isn't open and free discussion of certain topics the way other topics are, and I'm not sure why you'd act as though there's nothing at all wrong with those issues not being allowed to be discussed in the big forums. Also, the stringent rules in one of those dungeons about what can be used to start a thread means that discussion is very much hobbled.

I don't know what you come to DU for, but when I look at the Greatest page, I prefer to see important stuff there and not stuff that is allowed to be openly and freely discussed in GD, like 'My great-aunt's cat had the cutest kittens in the world today!'. I doubt any of this new stuff Skinner spoke about in the OP will improve the situation where some topics are hidden away in smaller forums, but clearly a lot of DUers are frustrated with the rule about I/P discussion not being allowed in the big forums and hopefully Skinner might revisist a decision that was made a long time ago....

[Bolo Boffin]

1489. It may reflect how you feel about the issue, but it's still emotional language.

How many "my great-aunt's cat had cute kittens" threads have ever appeared on the Greatest page? I'm going to take the "Zero" bet on that, if you don't mind.

What I come to DU for is discussion and information. I get both easily. I find it open and I find it free. I don't need to promote my ideas. I'm happy to simply discuss them, and when they are on divisive and potentially hateful topics, I don't mind posting in a forum with stricter scrutiny on conversation and sourcing. Anyone frustrated with the rules as they are are free to start their own forum and promote away.

[no limit]

1491. Those threads would not appear on the greatest page because nobody would recommend them

so again, your logic here makes no sense. Now if people like those threads and recommend them as a result why would you be against having those threads show up on the greatest page?

Finally, you are comparing discussing cute kittens on a political message board to discussion of actual political issues. What happened last month was political, and it was important. Yet any discussion of it was banned from the latest page as well as the greatest page. In fact even if I mention it here this post will be deleted and I will be prevented from posting anymore replies here. Why?

[Bolo Boffin]

1549. The poster was complaining that those kinds of threads were making it up there

Now you say no one is recommending them. Please talk to the poster about the bad example - it's not my fault.

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

The discussion last month was in the realm of a hotly divisive topic which is confined to a specific forum with strict rules of discussion. The reasons that topic is confined to that forum are clearly laid out in the board's rules. I don't understand why you ask why. It's all written down there.

[Violet_Crumble]

1523. It's not emotional language, it's reality...

And there's been quite a few really trivial threads appear on the Greatest page, so you'd lose that bet. Having posted regularly in the I/P forum until recently, I'm very familiar with the restrictions on discussion of that topic, as well as knowing that here at DU the conversation on it isn't allowed to be open and free. An example is that if I wanted to start a thread talking about the different narratives regarding the founding of Israel and how the work of post-Zionist scholars have affected them, I just can't do it as my thread will get locked. New threads are limited to news or ops from mainstream news sources and they have to be very fresh news items. And then there's the quirkiness of some of the rules that are unwritten and only known to people once they break a particular rule, like the one where articles from Electronic Intifada aren;t allowed as a source for new threads due to partisanship and claims it doesn't support peace, yet an extremely RW and very partisan source that supports the settlers and opposes any peace deal or Palestinian state is allowed to be used to start new threads. I still can't figure out the logic of that one, and it's bizarre things like that which are among the things that get people like me deciding not to bother participating there...

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

And why are you telling people who are frustrated to leave DU? Yr not a mod or admin, are you? Skinner started this thread for people to say what they think about his suggestions and many DUers are frustrated with an old rule that meant all threads about a recent event that was all over the world news were moved to a small forum and many locked because they don't meet the strict rules for starting new threads there. With these new rules Skinner's suggesting where someone who has a post deleted can't post in the thread again will mean that threads on teh I/P conflict won't be likely to turn into complete flamefests anymore....

[Bolo Boffin]

1551. It is how you feel about the situation. It's emotional language.

That is reality.

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

That's not what I said. However, if you want to do something not allowed by DU rules, it would be best to do those things somewhere else. There is nothing in that statement that says, "Leave DU." Go off and do those things DU won't let you do here, and then come back all refreshed and ready for a discussion. That's perfectly within your rights and would also respect DU rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

1610. No, the reality of the situation's just been explained to you. Yr language is merely emotional...

AS well as making false claims that discussion in the I/P forum is open and free, you also very much did tell people to leave DU if they were frustrated.

[no limit]

1653. Still haven't gotten any answers as to why it's set up that way. Very frustrating

[no limit]

1655. Actually it seems I/P threads are now showing up on latest page.

Is that the case for greatest page too? That would be awesome.

[no limit]

1428. The argument you are making is about as logical as an argument for free speech zones

Sure you can protest, as long as you are protesting where nobody can see you.

The majority of people that read DU never get past the latest threads and greatest pages. When certain topics are buried where they won't show up on those pages then the majority of the readers will never see them. And many times these are very important topics.

[Bolo Boffin]

1485. No, because this is the Internet - and you didn't deny you're looking for promotion, not discussion

In fact, you double down on it.

I repeat: if you really want discussion, there the forums are. If you want promotion, you will have to buy an ad.

[no limit]

1490. Are protestors that don't want to be confied to speech free zones just looking for promotion?

What you are saying makes absolutely no logical sense.

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

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

I answered your questions, now you answer mine. When a very important story breaks on a perticular topic that has non stop covereage everywhere why would this site treat discussion of that topic different from all other topics? What is the point for doing so? How would you feel if DU decided any threads that didn't support Blanche Lincoln for senate during the primaries would be hidden from the latest page and from the greatest page? Would that be okay with you?

[Bolo Boffin]

1552. You persist in your silly analogy.

Discussion in the various moderated forums are not hidden. They are indexed in Google. They are free for anyone to participate in. The forums are found right there in the site map. And if people want to have that discussion with you, they will find those forums and they will participate in your thread.

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

And if I vehemently disagreed with the way a site was run, I would leave. I have done so in the past. YMMV.

[no limit]

1569. But why keep it off the greatest page and the latest page? You are not addressing this question

It is ok if they have a special set of rules. That doesn't explain why those threads can't be shown on the latest page and on the greatest page as most other topics can. If people are recommending the thread obviously the content is good. It makes no sense.

DU is deciding that certain topics shouldn't be as visable as other topics. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why. You can keep repeating that it only takes a few clicks to get to those boards, but the fact is 90% of the users never get past the latest/greatest pages.

[Violet_Crumble]

1611. How about a bit less emotional language and a bit more substance?

You can find the reasons the topics are treated the way that they are in the topic forums.

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

If I vehemently disagree with a rule on a site, I'd rather argue that the rule should be changed. It'd make a very boring site indeed if everyone clung to the status quo and refused to question anything...

[Bolo Boffin]

1668. Whatever. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. If applied faithfully, this could work out well.

I am hopeful that this will be the case. Unfortunately, we've been down this road before. In the past, it's been a couple of weeks by the "new" rules, and then a decided shift back to the old way of doing things. Ultimately, it's going to be about whether or not this is adhered to in the long term that decides whether or not this will be effective.

All said and done, I am very glad that you're making this change. We've had too many long-time members driven away from this board because they actually like the current president - something that should absolutely not be the case on a site titled "DemocraticUnderground".

[demtenjeep]

599. Thank you

I have been here since 2004 and I was considering leaving as the constant disagreement was getting to me

[SkyDaddy7]

994. I can't blame your friends for leaving...

I too have been totally blown away by some of the comments I have seen leveled against our President...At times it seems like it becomes a contest of who can talk the worst about Obama.

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

So, it is going to take time, lots of time! I think many wanted it to happen in Obama's 1st year.

[rhett o rick]

1696. Where I didnt expect miracles I did expect and end to the disastrous policies of Bush.

I understand that some things take time, but we dont have much. Many dont have any. I believe drastic measures are needed. Pres Obama will never convince the Republicans and the Blue Dogs to support the middle class.

An example: Why hasnt Pres Obama dismantled the Bush DOJ? That should be a high priority and should be within his power.

[liberalmike27]

1565. Just reading the rules gave me eye fatigue

Seriously, why not just let us go at it, and occasionally delete obvious freepers? We're all adults.

An occasional FU, or F them, or you suck just makes it entertaining. I only hope it doesn't get to be one of these ideological support all democrats, never speak ill of the party in any way kind of thing.

[No Elephants]

1680. they did not leave because they like the President. they left because

they did not want to have to deal with disagreement.

Btw, liking the President is not the issue, either. I find the President (and his immediate family, apart from his late father) highly likeable, yet have criticized many things Obama or members of his administration have done and said. Framing it is as dislike or hatred seemsa to me to miss the point by a lot.

[berni_mccoy]

5. Sounds good. Thank you. And Thanks to all the Admins and Mods.

[bjobotts]

1329. Facts are neutral. Truth is a principle we should all strive for. One can both praise and criticize

as needed without feeling they are being negative. Our president needs to be pushed at times and pressured to listen to his supporters and then praised when he does so and acts in accordance to the will of his supporters. No matter what party one may belong to a horse thief is still a horse thief and should be called on it without regard for party. But you know this.

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

We cannot pretend to overlook corruption no matter where it comes from just because those involved are members of our party. Facts are neutral.

[tekisui]

6. I like the clarification and itemizing of the rules.

Getting locked out of threads after a delete will significantly reduce flame wars, IMO.

I also like that posters will get messages after deletes.

As long as these rules are uniformly enforced, these are good changes.

[Mithreal]

310. Uniformly enforced?

[LiberalFighter]

348. It would be helpful for everyone to know why a thread is deleted or locked out.

[Mithreal]

410. When a reason is even given to a locked piece it is too often bogus

I posted that the mods operate on consensus and it was deleted and I received an "unofficial" warning from NYC_SKP saying that a number of my posts had been deleted and the mods were concerned.

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

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

Yeah, it's the admins' board, but I paid a fee, you can call it a donation but this is supposed to be our community as well, not just a message discipline board veiled in a faux Underground billboard.

[dixiegrrrrl]

415. I second what tekisui points out.

Getting locked out of threads after a delete solves the problem of having a long list of comments from a poster after the first disruptive comment was deleted.


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

[sufrommich]

7. Sounds like a good plan. nt

[Warpy]

8. I think trying to herd Democratic cats is a thankless job

and, while some of the rules are quite sensible, the ones against kvetching about whole groups will cramp the styles of people who favor either the conservative DLC or the leftist progressive wing of the party.

I won't miss the gravedancing threads, however, even though they occasionally allowed me to clean up my ignore list.

[Skinner]

33. Your comment about "kvetching about whole groups" is insightful.

This is a section of the rules that the Admins are deeply ambivalent about, and the moderators have an extremely difficult time enforcing. We have considered getting rid of it many times.

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

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

So, here we tried to pull out the behaviors that are somewhat clear-cut: Broad brush attacks, namecalling, and the like. To be honest, I'm not sure it will make things any easier for mods or for members. We shall see. I've been thinking about opening up a discussion out on the boards to try to get some sort of consensus.

[Warpy]

72. Perhaps the line should be drawn between thoughtful criticism

and either dismissal or simple condemnation, whether profane or not. One has thought behind it while the other is a non constructive reaction.

The line can be a little hazy at times and the mods won't please everyone all the time, but that's really where any such line should be.

[RoyGBiv]

137. This is a step in the right direction ...

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

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

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

Finally, I'll just offer a positive, proactive suggestion. Your moderators are by and large cops. Make them something more. Or, create a new type of moderator that works in concert with your "cops," i.e. a group of individuals who begin and lead discussions. Make it an event, a topic of the day or week or whatever. One thing that *has* changed about this place from the proverbial old days is that you had people who wrote for the place and were featured. This created a lot of interest. Consider bringing that back with certain modifications to encourage participation. Hell, it's the reason I wound up here in the first place, having seen a link to it elsewhere. I haven't seen a link *to* DU in ages, not a positive link anyway.

[Grinchie]

1003. No, they just refused to do it.. Even when explicitly asked for a reason

Of course, does anyone think that the CIA of NSA scrubs any intelligence they gather because it is inflammatory of may hurts someones feelings? Of course they don't, but apparently, the moderators don't think that we are adults and have to scrub the message squeaky clean.

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

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

[femrap]

395. Does this mean I can

no longer say, 'I fucking hate Corporations?'

[Mithreal]

458. Well, they're people too, so yes

[femrap]

497. I enjoyed

your Comments Section in your profile.

I still hate fucking corporations!

[Mithreal]

503. Thank you

I'm surprised I can still say it.

[theFrankFactor]

657. I Gues You're Safe If You Quote Zinn? I Enjoyed Your Profile Too.

[dotymed]

727. Mithreal, that is exactly what I am worried about.

I usually rail against the corporate controlled politicians. As a result, I often suggest starting a third, non-corporate, party. I guess I will no longer be allowed to do that on this forum...

[defendandprotect]

749. Not only you, but neither would Michael Moore, Wm. Greider, Tom Hayden, Schultz, Olbermann . . .

Grayson, Franken, Kucinich be allowed to post their free thoughts here -- !!

Wow!

[Mithreal]

822. Ironic, isn't it. At least until they get back in line.

[defendandprotect]

1591. True . . .

evidently they're having subversive thoughts!

:evilgrin:

[Whisp]

1689. grayson or moore has never said Obama is an asshole or he is worse than Bush...

come on. And even if they did, there is a whole lot of thunk behind their words, they don't one line that shit.
reread Skinners post. ;)

[blondeatlast]

719. Please open up that discussion; I think it would be very helpful for we users as

well as the Admins. I think it would help identify certain patterns of said "kvetching" that go past reasonably acceptable lines.

[Go2Peace]

1593. Is anything going to be done about the attempts to enforce messaging in Topics?

It will be nice that the labling will be cut down. But do you and the other admins recognize the part attempts to control messaging plays in getting everyone's backs up? I don't see anything that will cut down on attempts to control the debate by people more interested in enforcing messaging than discussing the topic?

[MineralMan]

73. For me, the rule makes sense.

I know nothing about the DLC, but people from time to time have accused me of being somehow linked to that organization. For them, that's a slur, even though I don't know anything about it or have any connection to it. That's always bothered me, frankly.

[Warpy]

84. That's covered more by the rule against slurs against other posters

Telling other people how they think is just never a good idea and usually provokes a flame war.

[treestar]

272. Agreed, I experience that as a smear, too

Though even so, if there were such posters, they are Democrats and entitled to their opinions, too.

But it's a broad-brush anyway.

[HughMoran]

279. The whole 'DLC' slur has always been odd to me

Who the fuck associates with a Clinton era organization here on DU? Makes no sense to me.

[dionysus]

319. i am aware of only 3 people who are actual DLCers here.

[saracat]

347. The DLC are now the New Democrats as well as the Third Way.

[HughMoran]

350. Whatever that means

I HATE classification for the purpose of slurring.

Argue the issues!

[nadinbrzezinski]

436. Actually the DLC, Third Way, is a useful classification

and a whole sale wing of the Democratic (and Republican, though that is somewhat smaller since they've gone KRAZEEE) party at the leadership level. You could even call them by their real name, which they don't like. Third Way is truly called... fascism.

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

But there are folks here that argue for the policies without even knowing what they are arguing for. This is pushed by our right wing media and internalized by most of the population.

[HughMoran]

449. My point was best made by Skinner below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603623

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603592

[nadinbrzezinski]

465. It's been done, many a times

and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

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

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

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

Either that or my memory is faulty or from a parallel DU... way back in the day...

[HughMoran]

477. I do remember that

An alternate universe a long time ago, I agree with Skinner, the insult and ridicule when attempting to discuss that topic is toxic now.

[RoyGBiv]

635. It could be useful ...

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

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

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

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

1017. Very true, and I will only disagree

in one thing, the DLC is still quite strong in DC. It is part of the Chicago School, but there we are getting into very technical info that most folks round these parts don't even know. And it is not like the information is not out there, it is... just that at times it is hard to grasp.

[saracat]

445. I am not slurring anything! I am stating a fact as to who the DLC are.

They are actually a minority group within the Democratic party that has several subsets and in fact has a lot of influence dictating policy.

[HughMoran]

451. Once again, Skinner addressed my concerns below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603623

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603592

[tbyg52]

972. Food for thought

http://davefromqueens2.blogspot.com/2010/03/democratic-underground-directly-tied-to.html

[Mithreal]

441. +1 Damn straight

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Bloomberg+Sharpton+Gingrich+Address+Media+dpQOAMG2Po7l.jpg

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1516. It's like how RWers throw around "socialism."

Just a catch-all for bullshit.

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

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

See how it works?

[hfojvt]

544. I will miss grave-dancing and grave-mourning

I think they both serve two good purposes. They are informative, and they are also a release of emotions for members of the group. Without such a thread, you are otherwise not aware of the demise and might be thinking "what ever happened to Matcom or NewYawker99? I just noticed I haven't seen them in a while." At least part of my purpose here is to "meet" people and make friends from all over the country and world as well as in my own area. Sometimes the affection may be one way. For example, kpete or kentuck who start lots of threads that I read several of them a day. So I sorta feel like I know them whereas they may not even be aware of my existence as post #27 in one of their threads. Anyway I like to keep track of the old-timers (I am not so interested in grave-dancing for some n00b with 117 posts which I have not even read one).

[davidpdx]

1362. I guess we could grave dance on grave dancing then

that wouldn't be against the rules.

[EFerrari]

651. There should be a bright red line around slamming groups of people here

at DU. It just causes ugliness, no matter which group it's directed at. And by now, it's habitual.

[AspenRose]

1041. People of faith are especially slammed around here.

I'm not just talking Christians, though they get the brunt of it. People who profess New Age beliefs are often responded with "woo" comments. It's like we have to circle the wagons.

[Sugarcoated]

1127. Very true.

I see it all the time here . . . it's not right.

[Goblinmonger]

1133. And people who aren't Christian

are faced with pro-Christian statements and people who think New Age beliefs are woo are faced with New Age beliefs. Why are the Christians and New Agers somehow given the ability to post what they think in your scenario but the other side isn't?

[Sugarcoated]

1157. I don't have a problem with "non-believers" questioning my reasoning for what I "believe"

as long as they're respectful. If "believers" question yours, or state their beliefs in a respectful way, it's discussion. Aspenrose's post refers to when people get derisive, mock. That's wrong whether it be believers stating their beliefs to you, or non-believers theirs.

[AspenRose]

1390. They can post whatever they want, if it's done respectfully

99% of the time it's done with unnecessary hostility and downright bullying. I find it curious that you'd read any advocacy of censorship in what I posted.

[Goblinmonger]

1408. You might find it curious

but, in my perception, it is usually that people get upset when atheists just actually state their opinion and don't treat religion with kid gloves. People aren't used to that and react to it as if it is bullying.

[Sugarcoated]

1604. Bluntness is different than

what Aspenrose and I are speaking of. Ridicule, intimidation, hostility, name calling, go way beyond not treating "believers" with kid gloves.

[SoxFan]

1421. Not on DU

This is flat-out not the case.

Compare the number of verbal assaults on atheists with the number against Catholics or evangelicals. Not even close.

[eppur_se_muova]

1581. That's an artifact of the shortage of atheist sex scandals. nt

[Sugarcoated]

1603. Well there you go, I've only "believers" attacked, and not only believers in religions

but people who believe there is more after we die, or more to this existence than what we can see or perceive with our five senses, getting attacked. And not just that, many times simply for stating their beliefs, or just bringing up the possibility. But regardless, it's wrong when either side is hostile, mocking, bullying or rude, so I'm happy to see the one strike and you're out rule in a thread.

[Bluebear]

1700. OK

[Ignis]

1230. +1

[TexasObserver]

993. Hopefully, this will stop the people who love Hugo Chavez from attacking those who don't.

That's one good application of the "don't hate groups who disagree with you" rule.

We're all free to have our own opinion of every politician in the world. We don't have to agree with others here or anywhere. Why anyone expects everyone to agree with them about anything is a mystery.

[Forkboy]

1247. It helps if the people who don't like Chavez would bring some facts.

They rarely do so. Yes, we can have opinions about politicians all over the world, but hopefully people will take the time to make it an informed one, and not a kneejerk one that buys into an anti-left wing push.

I don't expect you to agree. ;)

[Bolo Boffin]

1669. On cleaning up your ignore list -

You can do it without gravedancing/mourning threads. Every once in a while, just click through to the person's profile. You can still do that if they are on ignore (unless they've ignored you, and then you get a disabled profile message). When you see a tombstone, that person's not here to plague you anymore.

[HereSince1628]

9. You can please all the people some of the time

and none of the people all the time.

That's life

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

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

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

[LiberalLovinLug]

1149. Totally second this suggestion!

Please leave the violating post up for ALL to see, not just the perp.

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

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

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

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

And its very important to be critical of a Democratic Presidency. There is a HUGE difference between DU members being critical and Freepers being critical. We are for the most part critical that Obama is NOT being progressive enough. The opposite of freeper sites. If we cannot do that here, then where will it get done???????

[dionysus]

10. i find #2 intriguing.

[DevonRex]

21. Hey dion!!!

:hi:

[dionysus]

28. where have YOU been young lady?! i was wondering if you had cruise missled off into

the sunset!
:hi:

[DevonRex]

Oh, I've just been sipping iced lattes on the yacht I bought

with all my DLC money. :evilgrin:

[dionysus]

156. hmmmm, lattes.

:evilgrin:

[HughMoran]

53. #3 is amazing

Can you imagine that? No more spamming of threads with repeated attacks.

Well, unless you type really really fast!!

[Vickers]

11. "Posting entirely in capital letters."

THANK YOU!!!

:P

[CabalPowered]

12. #3 is genius

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[tekisui]

14. I think that change will have the greatest impact.

If someone wants to stay relevant to the discussion, they won't have the option of being an occasional ass.

[CabalPowered]

113. In a perfect world though..

This rule would have a variable threshold. A member who is well behaved should have two or three posts removed before getting banned from the thread. Whereas someone who has a recent history of removed posts would have a threshold of one removed comment.

Perhaps some quotient is needed that calculates the number of removals in a certain period of time and then determines the number of strikes before banning.

[Mithreal]

829. Interesting, but unsurprised by how it would be enforced, implemented

[anigbrowl]

450. I agree. Thread flooding is one of the most obnoxious tactics on message boards.

I'm glad that poisoning the well will now automatically prevent people drinking from it. Although it will cause much angst eventually it will cause people to think before posting.

One thing I wish were in: an end to attention-seeking thread titles like "you must see this" or "I have had a realization" (with no hint of what the post is actually about). 90% of the time these threads turn out to be flamebait.

[SoCalDem]

1310. or. TURN ON CNN...NOW!!

always reminds me of the clever. "back in 15 ninutes" signs on a business' door.. 15 minutes from when? when I saw the sign? from 2 hours ago & you forgot to remove the sign & you're sitting at your desk wondering where the customers are:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

729. Yes, indeed. nt

[City Lights]

786. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[Maeve]

970. Totally agree! An end to obnoxious thread-killers!

:loveya: Admin!

[snooper2]

13. This is the best item you have added---

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

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


Greatness for multiple reasons!

[miscsoc]

20. yeah, this is a good idea

these things are a bit opaque at present

[Solly Mack]

15. K&R

[niyad]

thank you for this thoughtful and thorough explanation. DU is, and has been, for ma as so many

others, an oasis of sanity in an otherwise through-the-looking glass world.

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

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

Mitakuye oyasin

[Gormy Cuss]

16. On the subject of gravedancing/grave mourning, it's difficult to stop that urge

when long time, reasonable posters suddenly go poof. I don't know the best way to handle it but there is a natural desire to want to know why the person was banned. Under the current system the tombstone appears in the profile for some period of time but then it disappears, leaving people who missed the initial event to wonder what happened.

I think grave mourning threads suit this purpose perfectly because the thread is searchable.
Just my opinion.

[tekisui]

26. I would like to see an explanation with the tombstones.

Just a brief sentence saying what rules were violated, if they received a warning, etc.

[Gormy Cuss]

47. There is that sort of explanation with at least some TSs

but it disappears along with the purging of the username.

[Barack_America]

55. +1000

[Skinner]

69. Be careful what you wish for.

We might do this.

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

Frankly, it's in our interest to just put it out there. It would obviously make it harder for a banned person to claim that they were banned "for speaking the truth" or some other half-baked self-serving garbage.

[tekisui]

76. I understand your reluctance.

The 'kicking while down' and all that. But, I also think it would help other to be aware of what will get you banned. It will stand as stronger and clearer warning of what not to do.

ETA: with the cessation of grave-dancing threads, the addition of explanatory bans would go a long way, IMO. The grave-dancing often turns into a flame war over what the poster did to get banned.

[Skinner]

88. Point taken. And we are trying to make "what not to do" clearer for everyone.

But let's be honest here: We're all adults. We are responsible for our own behavior. Anyone who wants to be a productive member of this community could do it RIGHT NOW without my needing to clarify anything. Just use common sense and don't act like a jerk all the time.

[Blue-Jay]

103. "don't act like a jerk all the time."

I like that.

[mistertrickster]

175. Unfortunately, when jerks act like jerks, they rarely KNOW that they are acting like jerks.

That's the definition of a true jerk--one that is so unconcerned of others' feelings that he doesn't even realize how offensive his behavior is.

Perfect example: Newt Gingerich serving divorce papers on his wife when she was lying in a hospital bed getting treated for cancer.

[Blue-Jay]

457. I always know when I'm acting like a jerk.

It's usually in response to something unbearably stupid.

[mistertrickster]

500. Because a lot of people who you claim as political comrades post stupidity?

It's never you. It's always THEM.

Interesting.

[Blue-Jay]

790. This is close to becoming a thread-jack.

If you'd like to continue this discussion on a new thread or via PM, I'd be OK with that. It would be rude to continue this discussion on this particular thread. This thread is lengthy enough, especially for the DUers who are constrained to dial-up access.

[mistertrickster]

813. No, I believe I've made my point. Don't want to be . . . uh . . . . rude. nt.

[Divine Discontent]

975. sigh....

[Barack_America]

127. With all due respect, some people have been banned recently...

...with no one able to recall them ever acting like a jerk.

That's what spooks people, and rightfully so, IMO.

[lumberjack_jeff]

139. +1 n/t

[HughMoran]

141. I respectfully disagree

[Individualist]

209. I agree.

[Skinner]

286. With all due respect, would your opinion change if the profile of one of these banned people....

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

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

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

But if you would like this to happen, I think that's great. We are seriously considering doing it.

[Catherina]

305. I'd reallly like to see it happen also. Thank you for considering it. n/t

[Barack_America]

339. Actually, yes. Yes it would.

Contrary to what you seem to believe about me, I am fully capable of being reasonable and impartial. I realize there is much that goes on behind the scenes with PMs and admin/moderator warnings that I do not see.

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

[theFrankFactor]

414. Where's Will Pitt? There's also nothing "Underground" about this board.

In Response to New Board Rules

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

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

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

Oh well, I want to stay, it's just so vitally important to reach and bolster movement and change. It will just have to be palatable to the least effectual and the most disinterested.

[Mithreal]

452. Well said

:applause:

[KonaKane]

516. You don't have to be den of poop-flinging a-holes to be "underground"

When this site started it definitely did represent an underground. As it stands today, we could certainly be one again if we don't pull together, which is the jist of what I get from Mr. Skinner. I don't so much see the title of this forum as simple moniker, but a standing warning.

These changes are overdue, and they will generally help to heal this place and maybe even create some solidarity again.

[theFrankFactor]

530. Yeah, and that's "exactly" what I'm saying. NOT!

[mirrera]

1154. What does a "healed" DU look like?

I am not particularly interested in a board where we all cheerlead. I want to hear all opinions from this non right-wing biased board. This great community came together because we all knew what we did not want... It does not follow that we will agree on what we DO want. There is a chance to learn from each other. I think a simple set of rules that cover rudeness and language but NOT subject would suit adults.

[midnight]

1567. That it did. People were not allowed to speak out against

the past president, because they were considered unpatriotic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

890. Will Pitt was banned for sending people death threats.

Which, in my opinion, is a perfect example of the benefits of admins explaining why so-and-so was banned.

Because if Skinner hadn't explained that, some of us might have been upset with the ban.

[Divine Discontent]

976. he threatened to kill someone? really? wow, that's really surprising.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

988. Yup. And there was more.

You can find Skinner's explanation if you search for it.

[Justitia]

996. dang, I miss all the good stuff!

:evilgrin:

[LanternWaste]

1053. Technically, he broke the rules-- but I hope he comes back one day.

Someone was effectively yanking Will's chain and consciously attempting to get under his skin-- it worked and Will reacted in a visceral manner. Say what you want about him, but he was always above board and talked to people the same--regardless of whether on a message board or at the lunch counter.

Technically, he broke the rules-- but I hope he comes back one day.

[spoony]

1286. Someone went after his mother

Why doesn't anyone ever mention that? It doesn't excuse it but it certainly provides that "context" people are clamoring for. I wasn't a big fan of Will, but telling someone who attacks his mum that he'd be happy to provide free surgical care is probably the least objectionable thing he ever wrote here.

[Violet_Crumble]

1384. There's a current DUer who regularly wishes death on other DUers...

..and all that happens is their posts get deleted and a few days later they turn up with the same routine again. Only a day or so ago they told another DUer that they hoped he'd drop dead of prostate cancer, and even though there's a clear rule about not advocating harm towards another DUer, telling someone to drop dead of prostate cancer must somehow be more acceptable behaviour than what Will Pitt said.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1472. Because it's completely irrelevant.

[theFrankFactor]

1546. I Had No Idea.

[Hekate]

903. Will Pitt apparently threatened someone with bodily harm...

Rules-wise, that's called shooting yourself in your own foot.

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

Hekate

[BobMackenze]

973. Right, not "Underground".

Its a misnomer. You can't be a subversive anti-establishment "Underground" while performing message control for the powers that be. You can't be "Underground" and be corporatist or K-street enablers or support the party-line for career politicians. This is confusing for new members.

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

The problem is that I don't think progressive Democrats can get along with status quo DLC-style Democrats and that is problematic for this site.

[Goblinmonger]

1138. I had a lot of problems with Will Pitt

well before he issued a death threat to someone on DU. Just goes to show you how diverse the audience is here on DU: one person's hero is another person's insufferable asshole.

[SoCalDem]

1302. Eeerily reminiscent of Ari Fleischer's admonition

"be careful what you say"..:(...but like you, I try to follow the rules, and rarely run afoul of them, but we are all humanb)

[Mojorabbit]

1420. +10000 nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

1574. You know, I've not spoken to him, but I bet he understands his banning

He's an adult who can accept when he's made one mistake too many. For the record I miss his postings here, but I respect that he let his emotions get away with him one time too many. Something I've been guilty of myself in the past, so I'm not throwing stones.

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

Oh, and get the hell over the whole "Underground" thing already. That was a feeling many of us had during the Bush reign. It was applicable at the time it was coined, and I personally still like it as a reminder of how far we've come. Don't worry, I'm sure if you're patient well be back there again before you know it.

[pleah]

1579. Well said.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Gormy Cuss]

520. Skinner, if the public explanation would be for the benefit of the vast majority of people

why would it be a bad thing? We understand that it's just DU's side of events. That beats having regular, thoughtful posters disappear without notice. Will Pitt's banning is a good example of why a public airing of the reasons make sense.

[The Green Manalishi]

531. would your opinion change

would your opinion change if the profile of one of these banned people....

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

Yes, it would.
Someone who is banned after numerous warnings deserves no sympathy, and since it is likely that their sympathizers are jerks, 'executive action' is pretty much the only thing jerks understand or react to.

[uppityperson]

659. My opinion would. I would like that. Thank you. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

794. It's a 360° issue

It's only "one-sided" if your stated reasons are consistent with the goals of your members.

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

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

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

Outing the recently departed? It's your call, but I see big downsides for either approach. My suggestion is to create fewer tombstones, for only the most egregious repeat violators. I can hardly imagine a justification for tombstoning a poster with 10,000 posts that outweighs the generalized environmental problem that it creates.

[Renew Deal]

941. I don't think it's necessary to explain every banning.

Some of the very high profile, very behind the scene ones might require it. But in most cases it can be figured out.

Then there's the "gay purge" as some have called it. I'm sure you know why many people were banned at the same time, but it has left a bad feeling with some here. I don't get too close to anyone here, but I was even disappointed to see some of the names. Your reasoning for not explaining this stuff is valid. And that doesn't even get into the privacy issues of making that kind of information public.

[Lil Missy]

946. I recall a member in the past that got banned "for absolutely no reason whatsoever"

Then after a long time was allowed back, then got banned again. "For absolutely no reason whatsoever" Again. And people believed that.

I'd love to see that report card.

[janx]

1115. DU already does this with temporary suspensions, no?

?

It might be helpful.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1202. I'd like it done not for profiles, but for individual posts.

Keep it off the thread, but with a link so people can see the what, the who, and the why. Maybe put them behind a captcha or something.

For profiles? I don't really see any value.

[Shakespeare]

1209. In a nutshell.

"For those of you who are upset that your friends got banned, there really isn't much upside to a public explanation. I get a one-sided platform to sully the reputation of your banned friend, and you don't get anything."

And everything from the past 2+ years that's turned me completely off this place gets summed up in two sentences, by Skinner himself.

[Barack_America]

1444. Well put. nt

[gtar100]

1369. I don't get the need to see it. Kinda like leaving the executed out on the gallows a few extra days

to intimidate the villagers into paying their taxes (or something like that...saw it in the movies). Seriously, if people need an explanation, to me it seems more out of curiousity similar to what we have at an accident scene. Or are the interested parties really looking to post comments out on the edge, to live dangerously and tempt the mods by trying to get as close to the line as possible without actually crossing it? I mean, either someone can say what they have to say with respect to the persons and the community or not. If one is sincere but gets a post booted, I suppose that's their lesson. And not allowing them to repost in a thread ought to bring the point home. It's a judgment call for the mods anyway. Roll with it and respect the fact that we even have such a venue as this.

[Violet_Crumble]

1380. Mine most definately would...

There's been times long ago when friends of mine were banned and I was told by you guys exactly what they'd done to warrant being banned. While I was upset that my friends were banned, I didn't think the banning was wrong or that they were completely innocent in what they'd done leading up to being banned....

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

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

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

1452. Thanks, Skinner. It's your "house," as one of the posters noted, so we need to

be good guests. :)

I appreciate you mentioning the rule about not using insulting words such as "retard" (I take it "fucktard" and the like are to be included in the list). I can't tell you how many times I've been upset by seeing those words (I have a relative who is mentally disabled, and it is very upsetting to see those words used on DU.).

[Blue_Roses]

1467. I like this idea...

:)

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

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

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

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

[JTFrog]

And I can't recall them not acting like jerks.

I guess it depends on your point of view.

My point of view comes from being a Democrat supportive of this Democratic President and his administration.

[Barack_America]

346. Lol. How do you even know who I'm talking about?

We're not allowed to "name names" and I didn't.

ETA: I think it would be a rule violation to declare people "jerks" because they don't agree with your point of view.

[HughMoran]

355. Yes, nobody is aware of the 8 or so people banned this week.

[Barack_America]

361. And you are assuming I have an issue with each of them?

[defendandprotect]

574. They were . . . ???

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

1132. Yes.

:(

[JTFrog]

385. And I don't believe it's against the rules to call any anonymous former/banned members jerks.

But you'd have to have your head buried not to notice who's coming and going around here these days and I heartily approve of the pest control measures taken.

:shrug:

[Ignis]

730. ALL of those people NEVER made a SINGLE non-jerky post?

Really? In all the collective years they were here--not a single time?

[donco6]

396. This is true. n/t

[Mithreal]

463. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

508. I agree. This is aided by the posts by highly opinionated posters

who state that their own desires are being enforced by such bannings.

[Raine1967]

232. I know I am restating this, but I do think it would be beneficial

for people to see a suspension. Then, a Tombstone would not be so shocking.

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

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

[chimpymustgo]

1482. AN ANNOUNCEMENTS FORUM. Great idea!!!

[tammywammy]

77. I like it. n/t

[depakid]

99. Sounds like what this poster is asking for is transparency

Might serve the interests of everyone in the community if there were more of that.

[SidDithers]

157. I think you should put it out there...

It's more valuable to the community that the truth be known, rather than the ego or reputation of a banned poster be protected.

IMO, of course :)

Sid

[arcadian]

178. It's been done before

With that Lounge group that got banned.

[Raine1967]

197. Not necessarily a bad thing.

It shows that the poster was given warning and the 'rules' that were broken. IT also allows for the members of the board to show what is tolerated and what is not.

There is a difference between a suspension and a banning, correct? I would be inclined to have a reason for suspension posted. Then if a person is banned it might not be such a surprise. Makes things more transparent.

[JonLP24]

329. Since many have offered suggestions

I'll add mine FWIW. I do not think you should give a reason why next to every tombstone. I think the reasons behind why someone is banned is between that person and the moderators/admin.

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

You have a very large list of rules so it isn't very difficult to figure out what it takes not to get banned. So I don't accept the reason showing why person 'x' was banned will help others know what they can or cannot do to not get banned.

[spoony]

401. "like kicking someone when they're down"

You mean like an admin posting "boo hoo" on someone's thread after TSing a long time well-respected member?

[Barack_America]

411. .

Actually, I'm going to edit this.

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

[branders seine]

1131. mods are only human

and if they (or at least certain among them) clearly seem to have a favored side in the current civil war, I'm sure that perception varies with each member.



it is what it is

[Lone_Star_Dem]

823. I find it extremely difficult to believe one of the admin ever did such a thing

I've never witnessed any of them show such a lack of professionalism, not to mention vocabulary.

[superduperfarleft]

832. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x348494#348538

[Lone_Star_Dem]

848. I stand corrected.

I've seen several Kamikazes in my time here on DU. That one, however, was pretty intense.

Thank you for the context.

[CabalPowered]

907. IMO it was a zombie

of a not-so-nice ex member.

[Hissyspit]

837. Poster is citing a specific example. It was a few days ago.

[saracat]

844. I saw that. It suprised me.If anything actually can anymore.

[nashville_brook]

1040. i saw it too -- shameful.

[Barack_America]

1067. Agreed. Stunningly disrespectful.

[Goblinmonger]

1146. You mean the OP, right?

This is the admin's board. Not ours. They are cool enough to get input because they know that people want a nice site, but that OP was over the top and disrespectful. Earl was quite restrained. I would have said much worse.

[EarlG]

1086. *raises hand*

Yup, that was not very professional of me.

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

So I'm sorry if I don't have Skinner's tact, but to be honest I think "boohoo" was relatively restrained under the circumstances.

[quiet.american]

1094. Actually, Earl, I think you were very restrained.

That post was a nasty piece of work.

[hlthe2b]

1123. a little witty sarcasm ....

chuckle... please don't hesitate to use, if and when you ever decide to hand me the granite marker. ;)

[spoony]

1263. You have an embarrassingly low standard of wittiness.

There are many words to describe admins behaving in that fashion. Unprofessional. Inappropriate. Tactless. Venomous. Witty is not among the applicable adjectives.

[hlthe2b]

1272. I applaud you...

for apparently never having been driven to total exasperation and uttering a fairly benign, yet sarcastic rejoinder. That is what I see happened here. And if that embarrasses you, so be it, I guess. I don't like it when people are tombstoned when there is no clear reason as to why. I think that is the point. However, I can understand EarlG's little sarcastic rejoinder in the context of what he maintains happened. In the absence of knowing that, I can see why you might see it as all the things you describe it to be.
:shrug:

[spoony]

1290. Frankly, just because he "said" it doesn't mean I "know" it

EarlG's attitude on a number of occasions leaves me less than content to simply trust his version of events, particularly here.

[HughMoran]

1387. Wow

[redqueen]

1393. My sentiments exactly. (nt)

[spoony]

1407. You're not used to seeing people being honest, I know

but Skinner himself said that if they stated reasons for banning, it would just be their version versus a banned poster's as far as that goes. And, guess what, I'm not obliged to trust that version over numerous posters. And don't sprain anything jamming that alert button, valued member.

[demtenjeep]

1412. Never the less it is his board

not ours so if he wants to be funny sometimes, so be it



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


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

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


Frankly, I am excited that the new rules are in place!

[spoony]

1415. Funny coming from someone who has called out mods more than

any DUer I can name offhand. How many times have you been locked or deleted for demanding action against DU's progressives, now? I've seen a handful, but I bet it's more.

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

Oh, and Earl and they can run DU however they want. Obviously I can't stop them. But if I find it arbitrary or unprofessional and I'm here, I'll say so. Deal.

[HughMoran]

1424. Over a dozen now

nasty personal attacks on DUers and the mods/admins.

[spoony]

1455. Good to see you're updating your files

I'd hate for my entry to be incomplete when you turn it in at the end of the day. If you want an autograph or something you don't have to drop all these hints, just PM me. Or were you talking about the constant attacks on DU members and mods the guy I was replying to has made? Lol.

[HughMoran]

1470. 13

[spoony]

1595. Uh, I thought it was "over a dozen" before. Only now is it 13?

Wouldn't "over a dozen" + 1 = at least 14? It's okay. Cheerleaders generally aren't good at maths. Let me spare you the labour of a response: "29!" Lol

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1460. The poster in question said he was a troll in his own post

The rules you agreed to when you signed up state that individuals who are banned but come back under a different name will automatically be banned again. That is true whatever your views...see the BOGger who was TSed for the same reason.

[Uzybone]

1145. IMHO . Well done

If a poster acts like an asshole, mocking such assholery is an apt reaction.

[Hissyspit]

1180. See, that's part of the problems that people are addressing in this thread.

We just don't know this stuff. As long as we are addressing this issue, I respectfully would like to know what happened to debbierlus. One moment she was being featured constantly on the highlighted DU Journals front page and the next she is tombstoned. I searched and searched and could not find anything that remotely looked like a tombstonable offense. It may be none of my business, but frankly I found it somewhat disconcerting. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Ignis]

1222. You're not alone.

Even if it's as horrible and one-sided as Skinner thinks it might be, a public explanation (or profile note) is better than simply not knowing.

[inna]

1617. Completely agreed, and you're not alone.

Thank you for bringing this up actually. I found that particular incident equally disconcerting, especially since she was being constantly personally attacked but never responded in kind. I was so shocked when she was suddenly TSd that I even emailed the admins to ask what happened but I never heard back. I learned later that she was completely shocked by being suddenly banned.

[redqueen]

1212. Unbelievable.

Yes, under the circumstances, that seems pretty restrained.

[SidDithers]

1240. I thought it was entirely appropriate...

and you've just made another argument for publicizing the history of bannings and suspensions. That apparently "well respected" poster was a multiple life zombie who continually flouted the rules and deserved everything they got.

I'm glad to see them gone.

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

Sid

[apocalypsehow]

1265. Quite right - I can't count the times I've been lectured about some T'Sed "well respected" OP, and

how they were just Saints set upon by "DLC" barbarians, and how the Admins & Mods "caved" to the latter....then I would do a little Googling around, and discover a rather different truth in the plain words of the recently T'Sed themselves on other sites, full of bragging about how long they'd gotten away with doing whatever it was that got them T'Sed in the first place, and trashing everyone here who'd ever disagreed with them or even seemed like they were. Touchy folks.

A reply well said. :thumbsup:

[spoony]

1258. "I think "boohoo" was relatively restrained"

Then apparently you shouldn't be in charge of lock messages.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

1416. I went back and looked into it after the fact

I missed the kamikaze dive and I had to look to put it all in context. They posted FOUR goodbye cruel DU!!1 posts back to back. One for each major forum. Nice touch that. They were the one into drama and screaming from their soapbox. You just cut them off and didn't feed their ego. It wasn't that you were grave-dancing as it was made to sound.

[theFrankFactor]

1555. So Your Mature Measured Response Looks Very Much Like a Violation of the Rules.

I can see me, saying something like you did but then, I'm not a moderator. Very interesting, this whole party purity thing.

[apocalypsehow]

1221. "a long time well-respected member"? Did you read that "members" (now-locked) thread(s)?

:shrug:

[Mithreal]

459. Indeed.

What we get instead, is something like confidence that the admin believes he knows they know why.

[defendandprotect]

561. Good idea ...

[Renew Deal]

577. I don't think this is necessary.

There could be privacy issues. If someone is prominent enough (WillPitt), then fine but most cases can be figured out.

[loudsue]

281. I totally agree. It is hard to make "community" when so many of your heroes are tombstoned

after years and years of diligent research and contribution. It just doesn't make sense.

[Mithreal]

444. Indeed

[SoCalDem]

1312. Maybe we need a cemetery forum, where they all end up, along with the post that finally did them in

That would be interesting:)

[davidpdx]

1364. I know, no gravedancing is going to be hard, but if those are the rules so be it...

It makes me think we will have to go down to the local cemetery to do it so the mods don't find out.

[Scuba]

17. From a relative newbie, thanks.

[Spazito]

18. I like this, it is clear and concise, imo

I appreciate the thought and work that has gone into clarifying the rules.

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. Certain topics almost guarantee flame wars.

I'd like to see a few of them gone, too.

This is a good start, though, Skinner. Thanks.

[Barack_America]

22. So open discussion of DU's rules and policies is still out?

May I ask why?

[dionysus]

23. maybe because it's Skinner's site and his rules?

:shrug:

[Barack_America]

39. Yes, and this policy is currently driving members and donors away.

Skinner asked for suggestions that could help the community, this is my suggestion.

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

Not only the poster wonders about why a post was deleted or thread locked. The current system of not being able to discuss such things fosters an environment of suspicion and paranoia, IMO.

[saracat]

71. There used to be an ask the mod forum. I think it should return.

[chimpymustgo]

709. Agreed. Bring back Ask the Admin.

[Jamastiene]

825. I'd love to see ATA come back. n/t

[Duppers]

840. amen.

Polite questions should be allowed and answered.

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

[CabalPowered]

931. I'd prefer resurrection of the hate mailbag before ATA

I also prefer comedy over drama.

[Bonobo]

1139. +1

[dionysus]

78. i'm pretty sure you are free to PM the admins or mods with that kind of stuff.

:shrug:

[tekisui]

86. They are not obligated to respond, though.

At least if there was a public asking, the board could see how or if the question is answered.

[yowzayowzayowza]

That forum mite work were it members only...

othewise some will air laundry for effect.

[tekisui]

325. THat would work.

Members only and no rec/unrec. Keep it off the front pages.

[Mithreal]

605. +1

[Barack_America]

87. It's more efficient to have an open discussion.

The admins don't have time to answer 20 PM's about why a certain thread was locked. As I stated in my reply to you, it is not just the specific poster who wonders about such things.

[Bonobo]

Keeping it and its response hidden is a method to prevent us from 'organizing'.

It is unworthy of this place to shut us out of discussing such things with each other.

[LanternWaste]

206. If one is predisposed towards suspicion and paranoia

"fosters an environment of suspicion and paranoia..."

If one is predisposed towards suspicion and paranoia, I imagine that may happen on a person-by-person basis...

[Barack_America]

226. I think if you read through this thread you will find I am not alone.

And that most of the concerned posters are long-standing members.

You may not value their concerns, but I think it would be unfortunate if that were the case.

[LanternWaste]

838. Again, "if one is predisposed towards paranoia and...."

Again, "if one is predisposed towards paranoia and...."

The popularity of a thing says little for the efficacy or validity of thing. Additionally, I think you confuse observation of a thing with dismissal of a thing...

[defendandprotect]

584. Agree . . . and limiting donations ... and doing harm to info here/research . . .

I have two warnings now -- both for the same thing because I didn't understand it

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

the issue I was discussing.

Wonder how many others have had that experience?

[Goblinmonger]

1151. Have you messaged a mod and asked them?

Maybe my perception is skewed because I did a mod term, but I answered questions about decisions to the extent that I could to maintain privacy of others. I had several discussions with people about why I locked threads. Just ask for god sake. Why does it need to be out in the open? So you can bitch at the mods in public. It is a thankless (for the most part) job that is very difficult to do. You don't have a lot of time to make decisions. If you ponder something too long as a group people bitch about action not being taken. If you act on something with mod consensus, you are too rash and just deciding on a whim. There are alerts being thrown out all the time and the mods on duty have to deal with them.

Sorry, didn't want to rant that much.

[sandyj999]

1507. You are right, I am gone. n/t

[Mithreal]

447. I'm a "donor" and it's my community too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

884. I'm a Safeway customer.

But it's not my community.

[Mithreal]

921. Really? Safeway isn't part of your community?

Are the members and workers not your neighbors, acquaintances and friends?

[lumberjack_jeff]

1051. $16 for a half-case is irrelevant to our community relationship.

My "donation" qualifies me as a customer.

[Mithreal]

1065. Actually, no.

This place is different. You and I and all the others actually built this place and contribute to it daily as much as the owner of the URL, software and the servers. It's a meeting place and we come to talk about many things including how to make this country and world a better place.

To talk about it as if it were merely a business just cheapens it. Is that what you intend and if so please elaborate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1077. Not everyone has the same goals.

My motivation is simple: to effect political change.

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

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

I didn't build DU any more than I built the local hardware store. I support it, I've made friends there, and the owner and I share some of the same goals.

[Mithreal]

1095. Please elaborate on "to effect political change"

And thank you for discussing this with me while I flesh this vague idea out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1223. I came here hoping to help make the term "conservative" radioactive. n/t

[Mithreal]

1269. Good, me too.

Edit to add, but that really is not enough when people are constantly trying to redefine the words here.

[Hekate]

945. You mean just because you buy your beer there, you're not automatically on the Board of Directors?

I'm shocked.

;-)

Hekate

[Mithreal]

1069. That the place means more to me than it means to a certain other faction

within the community is what is shocking.

There can be democracy on DU, but to mock the idea so openly is very telling.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1080. I think you meant "can't"

King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[Mithreal]

1098. Alright, thanks for the smile. But no, I don't mean can't until I hear

from the administrators that any form of democracy on a future DU is out of the question.

Has the topic even been discussed?

[lumberjack_jeff]

1231. Democratic Underground LLC is a democracy of three.

If they want investors, then I suppose that'd be a kind of spread of democracy.

[Mithreal]

1266. There are alternatives. Please consider.

The members are contributors and have a stake. The investment is directly in time and money.

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

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

It would take some pressure off the admins too.

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

edit for clarity

[Daemonaquila]

1345. And until recently, DC was Bush's personal playground.

That didn't make it problematic for people to give him hell, either. Whether in real life or online, we are members of communities. If the place is of value to us, unless we are terrifically self-absorbed we're going to at least say something about it being trashed. Of course it's his site. But he made it a space for thousands of people, and the citizens of that space have every right and reason to speak out and try to preserve what they value.

Focusing on it being Skinner's site is like buying into the "America: Love it or leave it" line. Sure, you may be lucky enough to be able to leave... once... to Canada. Then Canada turns crappy, and then what? Iceland? Oh no, that's turning unsound - gotta leave again if you can't love it... Eventually, there's nowhere to go because nobody felt it was their business to stand up for the place they lived and it all turned to crap.

[Skinner]

117. To be clear, broad discussions of DU policies are sometimes permitted.

But discussions about specific enforcement actions are not.

Why? Because we could not possibly enforce the rules if every action were being second-guessed by people who don't actually know the details. 95% of the time when someone posts "All I did was" they don't give a completely accurate accounting of what they actually did.

[Barack_America]

149. Could you elaborate on this point?

It has been my experience that posts critical of DU's policies are immediately deleted, even if they do not pertain to any specific enforcement action.

[defendandprotect]

593. Maybe because the warning isn't specific enough as to what the problem was?

Which is what I felt happened to me -- and caused me to do the same thing again.

Perhaps, others have experienced that same confusion?

[Bonobo]

1153. What does "sometimes" mean here and why did you need to waffle on that statement?

Could I open a thread asking for an accounting of how much you got on the last fund drive and how you spent it?

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

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

Or world they be shut down and I be told to send my message privately (and quietly) to the Admins directly?

[Barack_America]

1445. I'm still waiting for answers as well.

I think we all know the threads you suggested would be (and have been) immediately locked.

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

:eyes:

[FourScore]

24. Thank you. I like all of this except banning a person from a thread for one violation.

Couldn't a person be given a second chance within the thread?

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

Otherwise, thank you for all that you guys do. DU is a wonderful place!

[Javaman]

I agree.

I like all the new rules, but I think banning someone entirely from a thread for one violation is a little heavy, but hey, it's not my board...even though I donate to it. ;) LOL

[Kali]

104. related to this is the likely chance the thread-blocked person will just start another thread

maybe they will calm down and do so within the rules, but I suspect it may be a bit of an issue for a while, anyhow.

[FourScore]

601. I was thinking the same thing. n/t

[Mithreal]

608. Good point. Sometimes a comment can be misinterpreted.

Or someone could misspeak, not see how it was offensive.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1213. Banning in the second offense would be OK. It works with soccer.

And soccer is a liberal thing, as we all know.

[Happyhippychick]

25. Thanks for doing all that you are doing. I will do my best to abide by the rules.

I appreciate that this is not an easy job for admins.

[onehandle]

27. Love #3. The 'Inappropriate Sources' clairification is good too. Also...

'Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.'

Another good one I would love to see enforced.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. I don't see anything here about being denied the opportunity to

post right-wing talking points in order to analyze them and come up with good retorts. So, I guess that's new? We can do it?

[tekisui]

35. It was mentioned in the OP:

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

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. Good. Positive move.

I had a thread that got locked just for posting comments from a dinner conversation. I didn't even link anything.

This is a productive move.

[The Green Manalishi]

555. I even wish there was a forum, or group, for discussion of the latest right wing memes.

One of the best things about DU is that it is an excellent place to come for information to debunk, or at least contexturalize, right wing memes. It can be VERY useful to see not only what that Nazi Asshole Limbaugh said today, or the latest digital disinformation from FR, and then what the actual facts are, what their spin is or what the real reason for such and such a policy is. Unfortunately, there are some on this board who are so overly defensive and paranoid that even asking for help debunking the latest lie gets them pissed off and one attacked with lines like "Why are you parroting RW lies here on DU".

[The Backlash Cometh]

587. Maybe even Du should provide a news alert that's always on the main page?

Providing the same public service as snopes.com?

[The Green Manalishi]

621. I like that. Call it 'Latest Lies' forum, or such.

I don't want or need to follow any specific script, but getting the real story to respond in real time to the RW meme of the day would be great.

[blondeatlast]

754. "Latent Lies." Superb; I REALLY like this idea. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

1528. There are 2 that might fit the bill:

'Bush/Conservatives' forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=110 (yeah, needs renaming, just as the most recent thread says)
'Propaganda Debunking' group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=284

Neither gets much traffic.

[blondeatlast]

752. That's an excellent idea. nt

[Skinner]

54. Yes, you can do it.

I unlocked your thread. Sorry for the confusion.

[The Backlash Cometh]

93. Wow! Thanks Skinner!

[Deep13]

780. Geez, that's John Stewart's whole show, isn't it?

:D

[madinmaryland]

30. I have a question about threads that get bumped into the "State Forums"

I have seen several threads recently that have been bumped into the State Forums, which virtually guarantees the thread's death. These are threads that did have national implications and/or may be of interest to the folks outside of that given state.

[Skinner]

80. The LBN moderators need to put stuff somewhere.

With stuff that is really local, the state forum might be the best fit.

(FWIW, we need to update the guidelines in the LBN forum, too. The mods have been waiting for some changes for a while now.)

[madinmaryland]

130. Yeah. It's kind of a gray area. I was thinking that GD might be an appropriate forum

if the issue is one that has national implications. If it is truly a local issue, then it should be in the state forums.

Thanks!

[Raine1967]

377. When something gets bumped,

Do mods make that clear?

I know they may post a link to the rules, but it might be good to have them post the reason's why right there in the thread.

[Mithreal]

610. Perhaps there should be a timer for LBN? Before moving.

3 hours? 6?

It's irritating to see important stories whisked away early.

[Goblinmonger]

1155. I might be wrong on this

because when I was a mod, LBN confounded me and wasn't my forum so I didn't have to learn all the rules, but I think they are worried about the RSS feed since LBN is probably the most "public" of forums on DU. Again, might be wrong--just my interpretation.

[Mithreal]

1187. Thanks. Some are taken away pretty durn fast even on slow news days.

[SecularMotion]

31. I think it will be better to assess members on their history

rather than individual posts. There are many members here who disrupt in subtle ways while staying within the rules.

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

[sarge43]

132. And the reverse.

A member can have a long history of friendly, thoughtful posts, then for some reason go ballistic, probably personal problems or someone pushed a hot button. Banning a long term member because s/he lost it one time is a bit much. A chill out warning would seem more appropriate.

[dana_b]

550. very true!

we all have "hot buttons" and sometimes we say stuff that we shouldn't have. Good point!

[sarge43]

868. Yeah, if we were perfect, we wouldn't need rules.

If everybody whoever popped off on this site were tombed, it would be an echo chamber. Political forums by their very nature can be -- shall we say -- raucas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1530. Past behaviour is taken extensively into account for warnings, suspensions and bannings

One problem I see with the idea of putting the reasons for tombstoning someone on their profile is that, in the cases where it's of any interest (as opposed to the obvious trolls who get banned within their first day or two for posting "Demokrats ar dum"-type posts), the reason for banning is complicated, and should be read in conjunction with the member's full record of rule breaks. The mods get to see that, and use it in their discussion of what action to take against someone, but it rather defeats the purpose of deleting the rule-breaking posts people make, if we then put up a complete list of them in a public place.

And someone's positive record at DU is also taken into account. Suspensions in particular are only given to someone that the mods know can be a constructive DUer, but has gone off the rails in some way. But the decision whether to warn, ban or neither is also influenced by whether the member has made some posts worth reading and replying to.

[Stinky The Clown]

Amen! Amen! Amen!

:thumbsup:

[IDemo]

311. I can think of more than one who regularly oversteps the bounds of respectful discourse

I don't know if they are granted more leeway due to their lengthy memberships, or.. :shrug:

[theFrankFactor]

1557. "disrupt in subtle ways while staying within the rules. "

Wow, just wow.

[SecularMotion]

1619. Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=281170&mesg_id=281170

[qanda]

32. I think I actually might start visiting DU more often

It had been close to unbearable to come here with all the vicious attacks against Obama. I actually thought I had redirect virus that was sending me to FreeRepublic instead of DU.

[dipsydoodle]

34. Fairy ' Nuff

.

[MineralMan]

91. No sexually explicit posts...

I have no idea what a fairy's "nuff" might be, but I'm sure in my heart that it's something nasty...

:rofl:

[dipsydoodle]

266. Punchline of numerous jokes

Fair enough, 'nuff said, whatever. :)

[MineralMan]

739. I know. I was making a little joke of my own.

[zipplewrath]

36. Content free posts

I think some good could come from suggesting that content free posts not be used in the larger groups. Roughly speaking what I'm talking about is post with subjects longer than the content. But it might also include the "+1" or "+1000 nt" kind of suggestion. Complaining about unrecs would fall in that as well. It is one thing to mention unrecs as part of a larger post or point, but avoiding it as the total substence of the post is what I am suggesting.

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

But too often I see fairly good threads that are FILLED with content free posts, and two or three pissing matches going on, and one solid discussion. In a discussion forum, it would seem that that is counter productive.

[Skinner]

100. I am sympathetic. But I don't think this would go over well.

If the post is not disruptive, I don't think we do ourselves any favors to remove it simply because someone is succinct.

[dionysus]

135. +1

:hide:

[HughMoran]

148. lol

:hide:

[zipplewrath]

Everyone's a comedian

Yeah, I knew this was a comin'

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

But yeah, I know, I'm in the minority on this one.

[HughMoran]

186. I actually agree with you

I've often poked people who post +1n/t to actually state a position. Mostly it's just something I've learned to live with. Sometimes I even do + 1 brazillion as a joke :shrug:

[zipplewrath]

220. Yeah, I've learned as well

It's disruptive in its own way. And to some extent it encourages or inflames the more "flame bait" kind of posts. I'm not a big fan of the "check in" threads, or the "support" threads, like "K&R in support of....." or the "K&R if you think.....".

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

But it's Skinner's site so it is what it will be. Just thought this was an opportunity to bring it up.

[HughMoran]

244. I've learned to overlook (& sometimes hide) the types of post to which you refer

Some are really annoyed by them for some reason, I simply choose not to participate and can hide them if they seem to be getting in my face too often.

[leftstreet]

578. Thanks for that clarification

LOL I'm pretty much a 'content free' poster. I come here quite often to read news, opinion, policy discussions, etc. and I suspect there's a large group of us here on DU: the K&Rers.

[wildflower]

596. Isn't there a difference though between a "+1" and an unrec complaint?

A "+1" shows agreement with a particular point, and it's good to know when other people agree. And that point is different in every post. (That said, I do prefer a longer post to a "+1".)

But unrec complaints seem, to me, to be usually the same from thread to thread.

[Mudoria]

1431. No it wouldn't go over that well

I sometimes use the +1 to show I agree with the poster because his/her post reflects my viewpoint and may be expressed much better than I would have done.

[jp11]

37. It is your ship.

[blogslut]

38. I like measure #3

That's going to help a lot.

On a personal note, is my signature in violation of DU rules?

[MineralMan]

179. I think it probably is a violation. We all do something, and

if we all advertised what we do or sell, I think it would be a negative thing. I just don't know, though, about particular situations.

[madinmaryland]

40. Re: "Copyright Violations" If I remember correctly this applied only

to the "Editorials & Other Articles Forum". Does this now apply to all forums?

[tammywammy]

49. It's always applied to all forums.

Some people just don't abide by the rule, especially outside LBN and Editorials.

[mopinko]

114. it always did apply to all forums.

it is federal law.

[madinmaryland]

122. Thanks for the clarification.

I guess that I have been violating this one on a regular basis in the lounge and in the Sport Forum.

Thanks.

[NYC Liberal]

41. THANK YOU Skinner!

I like these changes. Nothing drastic and not even really a change to any rules but to their enforcement, something that's been very much needed.

Oh and this - When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread. - :applause: :applause: How many threads have been locked because one or two people are allowed to keep disrupting the thread, even as their posts keep getting deleted, while everyone else is trying to have a relatively reasonable discussion? Many.

[JonLP24]

43. I love the clarification of the rules

Most of all. There are many things that are not clear cut that I'm not sure is allowed or not allowed and this should help a little bit. There will always be a gray area but this should help.

I do my best around here to make sure that I'm respectful to everyone here and never engage in any personal attacks what so ever.

[mistertrickster]

44. A problem that occasionally crops up here is "dogpiling." Three or four posters decide that

a post (and hence, poster) is worthy of ridicule and they just take great glee in doing just that.

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

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

*****

On edit--after closer reading, it looks like Rule change 3 will handle this problem quite nicely. Good plan.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Yes, the dogpiling tag teams seem to operate with impunity

which is one reason why I don't post much any more.

[mistertrickster]

89. It really IS intimidating--and I'm a old-school Alinskite who isn't much afraid of intimidation.

The level of ridicule and abuse can be generated so fast and furiously, one can't possibly defend against it or explain oneself.

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

And, yes, it does give one pause about posting . . .

[nashville_brook]

1039. it's the nature of bullying (here) that non-authoritarians are going to get the short end

of the stick. doves by nature are more conflict averse, and so when the dogpile happens they react predictably (and in the manner that the bullies intend) by fighting back wildly and being ts'd or leaving.

so, the problem becomes what one of "bullied selection." if bullies are allowed to run the board, only bullies will be left, which doesn't make for a vibrant community...nevermind that community is impossible in an atmosphere of aggression.

[Ignis]

1233. +1. This is a good analysis, and the problem is increasing.

[depakid]

Already apparent on this very thread...

Wouldn't have expected it would have gotten like that way back when we had that first DU meetup in Northwest Portland in 2002.

[hlthe2b]

1464. Yes... you are about the sixth long termer I've heard from, that

like me, feels it has become increasingly unpleasant to post here... After nine years, that seems sad, but when the various factions seem to lie in wait to misconstrue anything one posts into the "opposition" and then all come in together to deride you as a group, that is just not worth it. I've had more than one thread deleted while attempting to defend myself from these tactics, saying only that they were being disingenuous in asserting I said something that I did not. After leaving the thread in disgust, the pack continues with the denigration and their abusive "pile-on" threads remain as a permanent reminder of the ugliness.

Definitely not the climate that drew me to DU, even with the cycles of discontent and disagreement we've experienced over the years. I don't know that these rules will be able to address this bullying problem, because they tend to use tactics that are sufficiently subtle so as to fly just under the radar.

[chrisa]

1437. Most noteably happening to less than 1000 post posters.

Because tthey believe that other posters are less likely to call them out on the dog piling / snideness.


I am of the belief, however, that forum drama is completely useless. Taking anything seriously, including a dog pile, is a waste of time. :)

[jaxx]

45. It seems reasonable to me.

Cheers to DU! :toast:

[saracat]

46. Skinner, I support anything that prevents personal attacks and prevents some from being treated

as a "protected class" while rules are selectively enforced on others.

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

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

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

I hope some clarification can be given and I would also suggest that the "ask the mods" forum be reactivated in addition to posting the reason for the rule violationa at the time. It is very frustrating to have questions and to have no one answer them.

[Skinner]

155. Posts that push the idea "You have to do/believe X in order to be a Dem/Lib/Prog" are TOXIC.

And that goes both ways.

Instead of trying to argue that certain people aren't part of the "in-group" because they don't fit some litmus test, you should spend your time arguing the merits of the particular issue/policy/action/whatever.

[saracat]

162. So insisting on support for the Party Platform, such as being pro-choice is TOXIC?

And should we be obligated to "persuade" Democrats to accept the virtues of their own platform? I don't feel I should have to debate choice on a board that is aligning with the Democratic Party. Union values should likewise not be subject to question as should Civil Rights for all. If those values can be subject to question, why would anyone consider themselves a Democrat? We surely should stand for something! I feel we should protect our values before we protect politicians.

[donco6]

285. I thought the platform defined what being "Democrat" means.

It sounds like that doesn't really matter, as long as you have a (D) after your name.

That explains a lot.

[Spike from MN]

656. Sounds like party over principle to me.

It doesn't matter what a person says/believes or how they vote. All that matters is that they have a (D) behind their name and they will have the support of DU.

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

But like they say, it's Skinner's forum and he can do whatever he likes. Maybe that's what he wants.

[Individualist]

923. Just like FR when the chimperor was in the White House.

[sufrommich]

954. Except it says nothing of a sort. It's pretty clear in the reading

of the rules that you can criticize democrats.

[branders seine]

1142. Look at recent history.

It's what DU is now.

[spoony]

Yeah I always thought that "Dems/Libs/Progs" did share common beliefs

I guess those are unfair "litmus tests" now.

[Mithreal]

438. +1 Yes

[MineralMan]

492. I haven't seen many anti-choice posters here, but maybe I'm

not looking in the right place. I think that's an untenable position for any Democrat, so I'd immediately question them about it. I think I wouldn't do it by saying they weren't a Democrat, though. Instead, I'd go after the very idea that a woman should control her own reproductive life and ask for an explanation of how that person came to such a strange conclusion.

Arguing the issue. That seems to always be the best approach, as far as I'm concerned.

[saracat]

580. There have been many anti-choice comments . And we also have anti choice

pro-life Democratic candidates. I have a problem with them and I do not like the fact that we apparently will no longer be able to question the cedubility of those politicians who do NOT support the platform, or those posters who agree with them. I shouln't have to convince a Democrat or liberal about choice.

[MineralMan]

598. OK. I guess I just didn't see any of those posts.

I admit that I don't read the whole site. I'm not questioning your veracity. I have just not seen such posts.

[saracat]

603. Thats okay.I didn't think you were.I don't see everything either.

My major concern is the promtion of the issues and vlues that are the reason we are Democrats. I guess I now should say, why I am a Democrat since it seems others have different reasons.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1499. Oh darn. A fellow Democrat may disagree with you.

Boo-fucking-who.

[Ignis]

765. Thankfully, they've been steadily declining over time.

[The Green Manalishi]

570. There are things in the official Democratic Party Platform

that are disagreeable to many people with progressive credentials. Being a progressive, wanting to see liberals and Democrats win is one thing, marching in lockstep to *ANY* pre written manifesto is wrong. The 'platform' is not holy, sacred, and damned if I'm going to treat it as revealed truth, it's a bunch of statements, some good, some stupid. Anyone saying that ALL parts must be adhered to and supported in order for someone to be a Democrat, or post here, should be given a brown shirt and a pair of jack boots.

[donco6]

583. Ah - the inevitable Nazi comparison. Nice.

It's all becoming clear.

[The Green Manalishi]

616. If the jack boot fits.....

[saracat]

625. Then why have a platform? I can't imagine what is in it that would be offensive

to anyone with liberal credentials? Can you give me an example? The only issues some regularly attack are Choice and Human Rights.I believe if you do NOT support those values you aren't a Democrat.But I suppose I will no longer be able to state that. I also think as Democrats we retain the right to not support anyone who doesn't uphold our values. As an example, I would NEVER support a Pro-Life Democrat.

[The Green Manalishi]

781. Respectfully, and at the risk of getting sent off to the Guns forum

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_control.htm

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

I object to that, will fight it, will fight in the primaries against anyone who supports it, and will support organizations that oppose it, even though, unfortunately, they often support non Democrats. Yes, it *IS* that important an issue to me. I also support the ACLU, even because free speech ***ALL*** speech is too important to ever allow censorship. Yes, I am an absolutist in regards to both first and second amendments. And the platform link above is highly, highly offensive. FYI, I've been working on progressive causes and for Democrats since the George McGovern campaign of 1972 and bow to no one on progressive bonafides.

[treestar]

604. But people who aren't Democrats but on the left are allowed

That's the very nature of the problem; so no one is going to held to the party platform for sure.

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

[saracat]

637. But I feel I should have the right to express my disdain for those that

do not adhere to democratic values as stated in our platform. I do not consider anti-choicers or anti -Human rights Democrats Democrats because they do not shate Democrativ values. The platform is what defines a Democrat.If we are to support Democrats, we have to support the platform.

[treestar]

721. The idea is not to express disdain for the person, but to express grounds

for disagreement with what they said.

[saracat]

736. The point I am making is that I think we need the freedom to express contempt for those Democratic

politcians who do not support our Democratic values. I do not just disagree with the position.The fact I do is a given but I hold pro-life politions and anti-human rights politcians of whatever party they may be in contempt. I shuold be able to state that contempt.I do NOT respect Heath Schuler or Bob Casey.There seems to be a demand that I not only do so but refrain from exporessing my opinion.

[branders seine]

1152. "values"? "*our* values"?

there's the rub. one gang of anti-values bullies with a friendly mod, and the "values" crowd ends up banned.

[D23MIURG23]

964. They insist on such support already; with the caveat that not all dissent is equally allowed.

I'm sure you are aware that there are people here who are anti-choice, and there are also people who are against gun control, but not all right leaning expressions are given this degree of leniency. Watch closely the next time you see someone voicing skepticism about climate change, for instance. Those people are gone in a heartbeat.

I don't know precisely what drives that selectivity, but its pretty clear to me that some issues are considered more debatable than others.

[branders seine]

1140. Platform schmatform.

. . . and that starts with "P" and that stands for principle!

"Trouble, trouble trouble trouble..."

[SoxFan]

1426. Yes, it is

There are a lot of Democrats, more than you realize, who do not meet NARAL's definition of "pro-choice". In addition to people with strong misgivings about abortion in general, there are folks who support parental consent, parental notification, late-term restrictions, and the like. They are solidly progressive on health care, worker safety, education, etc, but since they veer from litmus test orthodoxy on abortion, your approach would mean they should be harangued as unbelievers. That's toxic.

Let me point out another angle. The Democratic Party platform has long supported an expansion of public charter schools. That's a position that a lot of teachers and their allies on DU don't share. Maybe we should clamp down on posts that trash education reform and badmouth Secretary Duncan.

[HughMoran]

189. I couldn't have a more positive reaction to anything you've posted here

I couldn't possibly agree more with this post.

[saracat]

The Party Platform bothers you? Why?

[dionysus]

231. he didn't say that.

[HughMoran]

What?

are you talking about?

[saracat]

262. I gave a specific example of promoting the Party Platform in my OP.

I think we ought to be able to demand that people support basic platform tenants such as choice if they call themselves Democrats. Skinner replied such demands are TOXIC. I do not know any other way to read that. He also said stick to conversations regarding the issues and indicated persuasion would be positive. I do not feel it should be necessary to "persuade" a Democrat to accept their platform. This is very confusing.

[HughMoran]

304. Please don't insult my intelligence

[saracat]

336. I wasn't intending to. Please do not put into my posts something that is not there.

I have a valid concern about the definition of the term Democrat. It appears that some feel anyone can believe what ever they want and still be considered good Democrats.I only consider those folks who support the platform good Democrats and I never before thought of that as an opinion, but I guess it now it just that.

[Make7]

680. Defeating Al Qaeda and Combating Terrorism

 

Defeating Al Qaeda and Combating Terrorism
The central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. We will defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where those who actually attacked us on 9-11 reside and are resurgent.

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

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

So one must be for expanding the war in Afghanistan in order to be a true Democrat?
 

[saracat]

726. Thank you for a very good answer.I would assume that most Democrats

would actually want to defeat the Al Queda and defeat Terrorism. Who wouldn't but they might differ on the HOW. I do not support the expansion of the War. But you make a good point. Personally, I think that contemporary foreign policy issues are a bit different than permanent planks in the Party supporting basic rights of our citizens.

[Make7]

817. Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean when you say "Democratic Party Platform."

 

saracat wrote:

I do not consider anyone who refuses to support the Democratic Party Platform or its principles a true democrat. If someone does not support those principles, I am at a loss as to why we ought not to be able to mention that on a Democratic Leaning Board.

When you say that true Democrats should "support the Democratic Party Platform" even though you obviously don't agree with everything in it, one has to wonder how anyone is supposed to know exactly which portions of the Platform require agreement and which portions one is allowed to disagree with.
 

[saracat]

864. I took the Platform at face value but I must admit I "assumed" that

people were more important than policies and the I "assumed" that most Democrats thought of Human Rights and values as having a higher priority.I thought the idea a equality for all would be the uppermost plank and of priority. Clearly I was mistaken. Some apparently find other aspects of our platform to trump humanity.

But I did in fact and do take the Platform as a whole. I may be less enthusiastic about a few temporary aspects, such as the expansion of the Afghan War. But that is a temporary platform issue. I devoutly hope we will not always be in Afghanistan. OTOH, I KNOW we will always have women and GLBT , and hopefully the environment and Unions.

[xiamiam]

1438. I will never put party over principle

Escalation in Afghanistan is a 'fools errand' as a poster said this am..

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

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

Like I said, my principles stay intact. I am suspicious of those who follow the party line instead of their own inner resource.

[snagglepuss]

830. I'm confused as to your position. Are you saying if someone thinks that

free universal health care is a right (an opinion that is not part of the Democratic platform) they ought to be censored?

[zipplewrath]

337. Quite honestly, I've never read a perfect platform

I think just about everyone can agree that people will not be in 100% agreement with the party platform and still be considered speaking "democratically" so to speak. Heck, most parties have candidates on the head of the ticket that fall into that category.

[donco6]

409. So how can I trust I've chosen the right party?

If my leaders can abandon the GLBT plank, and still be supported as a "Democrat", why should I be one? How can I trust them?

[zipplewrath]

446. The other 57 planks?

You can't "trust" a party or a candidate. You can push them, pull them, block them, woo them, ignore them, and vote them in and out of office. But you can't trust any of them. And you definitely can't trust a party run by them. Once they abandon you, you don't have to "support" them anymore. But around here, you still have to call them a democrat, even if they are a conservadem, bluedog, DLC, or "rainy day" democrat.

[donco6]

455. Seriously? I'd have to support a supposed Dem who denies rights to me personally?

How does that work?

[zipplewrath]

569. You're not reading

"you don't have to "support" them anymore"

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

Skinner is just telling you that around here, you have to call them democrats anyway.

[jgraz]

326. I assume this also applies to those arguing that someone IS part of the "in" group?

Otherwise, someone could put up a post saying "President Obama is a Progressive" and those disagreeing with the author will have their posts deleted and be banned from the thread.

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

[dave29]

478. I think just saying "Barack Obama is" x is not a problem

it's insisting on it, and not just disagreeing but attacking those who do not agree (from any point of view) that will lead to issues.

[loudsue]

342. So the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-integration, anti-union people can post with impunity as long

as they do it nicely, and argue their case on the merits?

[spoony]

440. And have an appropriately Democratic avatar/sig

That's about what it sounds like.

[SidDithers]

591. Like a peace sign?...nt

Sid

[JTFrog]

652. .

:spray:

[spoony]

1409. Probably why I'm still here

Of course, it's odd how people on DU react to the peace sign these days. Don't worry, Sid, you'll have your echo chamber soon enough. You and those fundies aren't so different after all.

[HughMoran]

645. strawman

big time.

[Lorien]

836. How so?

[HughMoran]

861. Nobody is suggesting something so ludicrous

That's a strawman.

[donco6]

671. As long as they're supporting a Dem, why not?

The platform is optional now.

[Lorien]

833. So pro-war, pro corporate power, pro-animal abuse, anti-environment, anti-gay

marriage, anti equal rights, anti worker's rights, anti-choice, pro torture, pro warrant-less wiretapping and anti-public education posts and positions are acceptable as long as the poster is civil in discussing the merits of their positions?

[Raine1967]

869. That's a basic definition of a strawman argument.

and YES -- It's toxic.

+1

[lumberjack_jeff]

877. I vigorously agree with this. n/t

[old mark]

48. Since President Obama referred to himself as "Barry", I don't understand the obvious

problems with using that name....I don't worship Obama, but I think he was the best choice for the job by far, and that overall he is handling a series of huge tasks well...I don't understand the "Barry" thing...
but it is your show, so...


mark

[MadBadger]

56. Obama has long since abandoned the use of Barry.

Its not hard to just type in Barack, and it seems like people who use Barry usually post something demeaning

[mistertrickster]

68. Agreed. I voted for Barack, not Barry. nt.

[miscsoc]

67. That does seem a bit of a strange thing to object to

I'm pro Obama, I think he shares my basic motivating principles. I have called him Barry in the context of deriding him, though. I don't think reverence towards the president should be required, and I don't see the problem with slightly insulting him as long as people acknowledge that for all his faults he is the de facto leader of the party and the American nation and has some legitimate authority. I assume Skinner is basically of the opinion that the Democratic party is the only realistic organ of progressive change and that a degree of internal discipline is necessary if we want to get things done.

[MineralMan]

105. Not reverence. Respect for the office he holds.

He was elected by the people of the USA. That, alone, means that he and his office should be treated with basic respect. If a President (*) is not legally elected, he or she doesn't not deserve that. President Obama does deserve some basic respect. Insulting him show a lack of that, as well as a lack of basic decency, in my opinion.

[arcadian]

201. You have got to be kidding me

Bush was legally elected. He held that office legally. Your argument is a poor one. Nobody on this board showed any, ANY, ANY respect for that office while Bush held it.

Any place where you can not openly call the President a name is not Democratic, free or open. This is America for goodness sakes. Calling the President out regardless of part affiliation is a national sport.

[MineralMan]

506. Many would argue, myself included, that * was not legally

elected, nor did he hold the office legitimately. I've seen people argue that point at length here.

[arcadian]

611. If you truly felt that way why didn't you do something about it?

Obviously DU felt that the Bush administration was legitimate, there is the clause in the rules stating that "posters should not advocate for the violent overthrow of the US government". That rule was in place during the Bush administration. Are you a Constitutional scholar? Lawyer? And who is this "many"? Sounds like the old "some would say" line.

[MineralMan]

639. I did what I could do about it. I protested it, to no avail.

Since I'm not any sort of lawyer or any more than an individual, there was literally nothing I could do about it, other than to state my displeasure wherever I could.

[notadmblnd]

1267. Really? You were here before election day 2008?

[MineralMan]

1406. No. It's clear that I was not. There are many avenues for expression,

besides DU. I've been politically active since 1965, long before there was any sort of discussion like this.

[truedelphi]

743. The Supreme Court jimmied around the complex legal issues to install

George W the first time. Even though, as the NYT announced on Spet 12th 2001, that Gore really had more votes inside the state of Florida, and thus more electoral votes, etc.

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

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

[stevenleser]

1268. What did you have in mind?

I started a website to discuss his illegitimacy.

I wrote many articles discussing his illegitimacy.

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

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

What would have made you happy?

[obxhead]

523. For years we ridiculed FR etc for their nonsense claims

that Bush was our prez and we HAD to support him. Not a single genuine member of DU would agree to that as I recall during the Bush reign of terror.

Ironic that now any disagreement with policy of the Obama admin is now met with the same exact style of rampant cheer leading and demands that Obama is our pres and we must support him no matter what. I find it terribly disturbing myself.

[dionysus]

535. no one has ever said that. people just get annoyed coming here and see people yelling how

much he sucks every day.

[obxhead]

565. I have been told EXACTLY that in several posts

That Obama is our pres and I MUST support him no matter what his policy does/says.

No in fairness I may not have been in the best of moods at the time and posting on a policy I feel very strongly about and not expressed myself in a very positive way as well. I can find my faults in the process some of the time as well, I have no delusions of complete innocence, but I have been told that exact FR phase though, just had the names and site swapped to fit our current times.

[chimpymustgo]

796. +1.

[LeftishBrit]

551. Bush?

He was legally elected by the Supreme Court, I suppose...

[defendandprotect]

649. Certainly, no one showed respect for Bush/Cheney - and think you're referring to a conspiracy....

which is a taboo subject outside of the 9/11 forum!!

Or, am I misunderstanding?

Can we still even discuss 2000 here and what actually happened?

[TheKentuckian]

916. Situational drivel-Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, and plenty more were lawfully elected

and deserve little if any respect. Ronald Reagan was the devil and the father of the downfall of this nation and will get no respect from me or many others.

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

It is plain silly to plant a flag on such a hill, just admit our guys are expected to get a pass and any action or policy that they emulate, continue, or excuse that would draw condemnation if the office holder had a different letter by their name.

[Dr. Hemlock]

1248. I wish I had that picture of President Obama in the Oval Office

with his feet up on the desk, pitching a football in the air.

[Blue-Jay]

174. "I have called him Barry in the context of deriding him, though."

Isn't that the point? Calling the president "Barry" is rude & derisive, and has no place on DU.

[dionysus]

184. i know, talk about missing the point...

[miscsoc]

711. I'm not sure that derision of our leaders is a bad thing

+ I'm not sure if the president himself is wholly comfortable with being treated as someone you can't take the piss out of. "Barry" is certainly a bit rude, and it's the sort of name you would use if you were criticizing him. He's just a man, a citizen-leader, it's entirely legit to scoff at the man now and then.

[NYC Liberal]

74. Because it's usually used as an insult by right-wingers

who call him Barry Soetoro. And he's never REALLY used the name much. Not like "Ted"/"Teddy" Kennedy or "Bill" Clinton

[MadBadger]

94. He was Barry when he was growing up, but decided use Barack when he got older

[NYC Liberal]

102. Yeah I know. I'm just saying that *now* it's usually

not used in a friendly way, but in a dismissive, insulting one. At least by people outside of his personal circle.

[dionysus]

187. i've never seen barry used here unless it was in a derisive fashion

[zipplewrath]

314. There's at least one user that does

I mean, he's not exactly a cheerleader or anything, but he uses it to create a informal sense in his posts. A sort of "beer summit" tone to his comments and constructive criticism.

[Skinner]

158. Because almost every time someone calls him "Barry," it's intended as an insult.

I have yet to see someone call him "Barry" when they are trying to show respect toward the man.

[Bucky]

345. Right, context is everything.

The rule, like the nickname itself, it pretty arbitrary. Calling the president "Barry" is the political equivalent of the middle finger. It's just a finger, but you can still get in trouble with Grandma for flashing it.

Don't fuck with Grandma.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

1109. Does that include X-Presidents? Is 'Bubba' acceptable?

[girl gone mad]

1624. The rule strikes me as excessively paranoid.

Barack has recently referred to himself as "Barry".

I like the nickname and think it's endearing.

But, whatever.

[old mark]

159. He referred to himself as "Barry from DC" on a call in TV show recently...

The President is onvoiusly not uncomfortable with it, but again, it is your show...


mark

[tblue37]

359. Because those who call him "Barry" now intend it the same way as those

who refer to him as Barack HUSSEIN Obama. They intend it to suggest that there is something untrustworthy about him. It's also like those who refer to the "Democrat" Party. The word "Democrat" is not in itself nasty, but in that context the intention is to insult. You should not be eager to adopt a right-wing meme.

[MineralMan]

501. Well, I think that if you're a personal friend of Obama's, you could

argue in favor of calling him "Barry" here. I suspect few DUers meet that qualification, though.

For me, the rule I follow, in general, is that I only call President Obama something I'd call him to his face. I don't know the man, so a nickname like "Barry" would be inappropriate. That's just me, though.

[treestar]

609. It has become a trait or right wingers to use it

They call him "Barry" contemptuously.

[chrisa]

1439. Depends if the usage is intended to be disrespectful or not.

Many times, it is.

[Individualist]

50. Please clarify your stance regarding the Democratic Leadership Council and their supporters

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," Dennis Kucinich

[Skinner]

167. I think it would be a good thing if DUers could have a substantive discussion of the DLC....

...without resorting to name-calling and insults.

But I know it is unrealistic to expect something like that to ever happen here.

[izzybeans]

352. These rule changes

may go a long way toward making that happen. imo.

As a long time critic of the DLC, I've grown weary of being called a DLC'r when someone doesn't like my opinion. :) I'd prefer to debate the substance of policies and campaign tactics.

[spoony]

453. One gets the distinct impression

that you have more disdain than confidence for your site's members. Why bother with any of it? You're basically saying, and it's not the first time, "I know nothing good will come of discussion with this bunch."

[HughMoran]

495. past is prologue

:shrug:

[nashville_brook]

1064. weary/frustrated/tired, much?

[stevenleser]

1273. Why shouldn't he be? What kind of person would be invigorated by DU over the past year

:rant:

[sufrommich]

193. Because "and their supporters" has become the lazy posters

way of disagreeing with another poster? Be honest, the DLC is a fricken' Washington think tank that has absolutely nothing to do with DU members. It's the left wing's version of "OMG socialism!!!!!".

[dionysus]

195. nicely put!

"ZOMG it's teh DLC!1!1"
:rofl:

[treestar]

613. Kooch could get himself banned from DU if he were on it

I think he is wrong about that statement.

[Ignis]

776. Yes, but "Should he be banned?" is the question here.

Disagree with his statement or don't. :shrug: But I think he should have every right to make such statements as part of a discussion on the subject.

[treestar]

1068. The rule is saying Democrats are no better than Republicans

is not to be allowed. And it is ridiculous. Just an inane thing to say.

[Ignis]

1078. He's not saying ALL Democrats though, is he?

That's an important distinction, and something that will definitely affect who gets banned and how, so it seems certainly worth of further discussion.

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


* Amusingly, I guess calling DK "the Kooch" would also be ban-worthy now. :shrug:

[treestar]

1100. Kooch is affectionate

And I love the guy.

but he's going deluded to do the Dems = repukes thing. That's one thing I'll never agree with.

[Ignis]

1121. I don't think he's playing at false equivalence; he's pulling a No True Scotsman.

He's saying a subset of Democrats have been co-opted by Republicanism Lite. :)

[defendandprotect]

662. Well, Dennis Kucinich obviously wouldn't be able to post here ....???

In my summation on that, I would list all of the liberals/progressives who couldn't

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

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

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

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

entire nation!!

[Individualist]

853. It certainly seems that way.

[Lil Missy]

983. 1) context of that statement? 2)he also believes in UFO's, and 3)who the fuck cares what he says??

[defendandprotect]

1042. Think you've just broken a few rules with that post . . .!!

Meanwhile, Reagan saw a UFO -- Carter saw a UFO -- John Lennon saw a UFO --

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

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

[Lil Missy]

1044. That still leaves #1 and #3

:)

[defendandprotect]

1130. Rather . . . that still leaves you in violation of the rules ...

[Lil Missy]

1293. I don't think it does break a rule. Disagreeing with you is not a rule violation.

Nor is being disinclined to worship at the Kucinich alter a violation.

Feel free to alert.

[defendandprotect]

1317. Nah ... I'm a liberal -- "C'est la vie" ... no alert -- enjoy ourself--!!

But this is the comment I was talking about --

3)who the fuck cares what he says??

[muriel_volestrangler]

1532. IMO, having modding a few terms, "who the fuck cares what he says" comes nowhere near any rule break

Swear words are not against the rules, as long as they are not bigoted against a particular group. And apathy or disdain are not against the rules either.

[defendandprotect]

1541. Check the NEW rules - think you're wrong --

if so, turn yourself in --

:evilgrin:

[muriel_volestrangler]

1556. I can't see anything there about swearing

Perhaps you're thinking of "Use of insensitive terminology"; but all the examples are insensitive about groups of people. There's no change in the rules there. Using a 'rude' word about a sexual act isn't insensitive to anyone.

If there is something about swearing in there that I've missed, then please point it out - it would be the biggest change in the DU rules for several years. And one I would sometimes have to tak care of myself.

[defendandprotect]

1586. You're right ... evidently you can say re Obama ..."who the fuck cares what he says?" ...??????

As was said about Kucinich . . .

2)he also believes in UFO's, and 3)who the fuck cares what he says??


But I'd check with the Mods before you do that . . . just in case --

Looks a little like an intended "insult" of a "prominent Democrat" to me . . . ?


There are other possibilities, of course, under the new rules -- somewhat subjective?

Might the comment be seen as: "Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top"
-- "too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory" --- ???

:shrug:


---------------------

LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS

{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
- Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
- Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "fuck off," or the like.


{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
- Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.


{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."

[hippywife]

1205. A whole lot of us care what Kucinich has to say.

He's one of the few that keep some of us IN the party at all.

[Catherina]

1239. A great many more than who care what you have to say

but go ahead. Keep helping the Republicans by driving more people away from the party.

[Lil Missy]

1298. Oh! Because I don't think the word of DK is the final or only word on any topic, I'm helping repukes

:eyes:

Yeah, we need more brilliant thinking like that to grow the party.

[defendandprotect]

1319. MEDICARE FOR ALL would have put Dems in power for next 40 years ....

[Lil Missy]

1322. L00k! A squirrel!!

[defendandprotect]

1323. Is that supposed to mean something -- ?

[Lil Missy]

1339. Yes, it means ..

as much as your previous response that had absolutely nothing to do with anything previously said and was pulled out of thin air. Whoosh!

[defendandprotect]

1498. MEDICARE FOR ALL is an issue directly connected to November . . ..

as many Democrats understand -- and many have made this observation --

i.e., that had Democrats passed MEDICARE FOR ALL they would have no concerns

about being relected.

That's why "public option" was only whispered, and single payer was immediately crushed --

and MEDICARE FOR ALL couldn't even be uttered!!

Good luck with the squirrels!

:eyes:

[spoony]

1411. Wow, you're standing out in a thread full of duh.

Congrats on that achievement.

[Mimosa]

1515. Heck, yes!

But noooooo.....we couldn't have it.

[JonLP24]

1375. He said he seen a UFO

I have seen a UFO myself--meaning unidentified flying object. In fact there's videos of it. The so-called Phoenix lights. I never did find out what they were but the governor at the time was curious as well.

To your final question I do care what he says.

[WeDidIt]

51. BRAVO!

Clear, concise, and easy to follow.

#3 will do more than all the rest, IMO.

[Uben]

52. Well that's just dandy......

...are you telling me that I will now have to go elsewhere to be abused, belittled, slandered and insulted? Just when I was sure this place could provide me with all of the above, you're gettin all nicey-smicey on me?

Trust me bro, I adminned a political forum for a few years, and it amazes me at how well you guys have managed this place over the years, and I have been here for almost all of them. The longevity of DU can be attributed directly to the management prcatices you guys have administered over the years, dealing with the various issues and conflict that get presented. Kudos!

I can only imagine how many times you've thought about rolling up the carpets and moving on. When the site started up in 2001, the computer technology world was morphing so quickly, the challenges must have been mind-boggling. I know I was buying a new puter every couple of years just to keep up myself!


As long as the doors are open here, you'll find me visiting every day, just like I have done for the last nine years. DU is the first thing I see in the morning, and the last thing I see before bed. I can't imagine the world without DU. Thank you for the site and I thank all of the wonderful members who have volunteered as mods. When I hit the lottery, I'll pay for everyone to meet up in Vegas for a DU convention (hopefully on the same week as the Pimp and Ho convention!)

[Skinner]

182. Don't get your hopes up.

I'm sure you will still be able to get your fair share of abuse, belittling, slander, and insult right here on DU.

Other than that, thanks for the kind post.

[HughMoran]

214. I agree

They have been able to just keep up with an ever changing environment on and off DU. Good post.

[BrklynLiberal]

805. I appreciate your putting my feelings into such eloquent words.

[RKP5637]

58. I like it! It's very easy to find obnoxious name calling sites/groups on the

internet. I've been in some of them and it was just free for all attacks just for the sake of attacking someone, an idea, just thoughts... made no difference what was posted. I joined DU because it is monitored and DU is clearly trying to promote civility in an often uncivil world.

Additionally there are some very thoughtful intelligent postings on DU and comments. I welcome the clarity of the rules and application of them. I would not want to see DU dissolve into another hostile group.

IMO a lot of thought has gone into trying to keep DU an excellent source for information and points of views.

Thanks!

[Deep13]

59. When you speak of "Democrats" generally...

...may I assume you mean people generally who consider themselves or are registered as Democrats rather than Democratic office holders? I ask because there are times when posters rightly point out that Congressional Democrats (for example) have acted (or failed to act) in a way that is contrary to the public policy or Democratic principles. For example, calling Senate Democrats spineless for opposing the public option on health insurance reform.

When you speak of purely religious questions, can we draw a distinction between matters of theology and matters of fact asserted by religious doctrine. For example, the origin of life on Earth is a factual question, not a religious one. It is a scientific fact that life evolved over time by means of natural selection. Also, the existence or purported actions of religious figures are fundamentally historical questions and not theological ones. Whether or not Jesus really existed or what he did if he was real are matters of proper historical inquiry. Either Mohammed was illiterate as claimed or he was not. Again, that is a historical matter, not a theological one. Also, does the restriction of religious matters to R/T apply to extinct religions?

I'm glad to see that it is just as bad to broad-brush nonbelievers as it is to do the same for religious people. I hope that only applies to people and not to ideas. For example, the enforced modesty of Abrahamic religion (especially Islam) on women should be an idea that is open to criticism and condemnation, even as we recognize that not all believers adhere to that idea. Likewise, the efforts of the Mormon, Catholic and evangelical churches to persecute homosexuals is to much of a fact to be ignored even if we agree that not all adherants agree with that practice. And at the core of that discussion is whether those groups have any real reason to believe what they do about gays. There are many other examples, of course.

I would caution against an application of the rules that basically reward those who are good at goading or insulting someone in a subtle way until that person responds with a "fuck you" and gets banned from the threat. Those who are skilled at being demeaning should be stuck with the same rules as those of us who are not.

I respectfully disagree with banning someone from a thread because of a mistake or simply having a different reading of the rules than the moderator.

Thanks for the opportunity to be heard.

[Silent3]

779. "I hope that only applies to people and not to ideas." +1

I think it limits the range of discussion far too much when you have to account for thin-skinned individuals who take criticism of their beliefs as criticism of themselves.

[Deep13]

880. I would never ridicule or discriminate against someone...

...for being a Jew, Christian including non-mainstream versions like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto or animistic ancestor-worshiper. Nevertheless, that does not mean I have to agree with their ideas or pretend to agree with them. Nor does it mean that I have to pretend that all ideas that are about gods are of equal value or effect on the world. To insist on non-criticism of religious ideas is to mandate dishonesty.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Skinner.:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

61. I like the section about inappropriate attacks agains Democrats...

and hope the enforcement of that section will go a long way toward lowering the tension level 'round here.

Thanks for this.

Sid

[mistertrickster]

96. SidDithers, If only he could see himself as ithers see 'im. Robert Burns. nt

[SidDithers]

172. Oh, delicious irony...

a personal attack in a thread about the new application of forum rules.

:rofl:

Sid

[HughMoran]

875. There are 10 more where that came from

Why? :shrug:

[Tsiyu]

63. #3 is a keeper, i hope

i get tired of those Swiss Cheese threads where so much has been deleted you can't follow them



Everyone behave now!

(Tsiyu wags finger)


:kick:

[AsahinaKimi]

64. It all sounds good and

Fair to me. Mods, admin, Skinner san, Ganbariyo!! Do your best!

[MineralMan]

65. Clarification is always good, I think. Thanks!

[Aramchek]

the "Inappropriate attacks against Democrats" section is really going to clean house around here.

Love it!

[tekisui]

As will getting locked out of threads.

I can't wait to start using the new features.

[Aramchek]

959. do what thou willt

[havocmom]

66. " - Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members."

Does that include whole departments, such as the DOD? Because most people know there is a rather large difference between military service members and the DOD, its policies, the brass in the five sided building (all often more than a little harmful to military service members) and its service to the MIC which profits by DOD policies which actually cause harm to military service members.

This is something I would really like to know. Do I have to support the troops (I do, most heartily) by bending over for DOD & Military brass that serves MIC instead of the best interests of the troops and the nation? Am probably not the only one here who would like some definition on that point.

[arcadian]

95. What is the deal with the law enforcement approval in that?

Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

[Raineyb]

313. I have to ask the same question. The idea of treating a profession as a protected class

such as an ethnicity is offensive to say the least.

[treestar]

618. Broad brush smears - means what it says

People belong to that profession and post here. No profession is all bad or good.

[stevenleser]

1277. I find it deeply disturbing that anyone here would put up an objection to that rule

There is another word for a broad brush smear, prejudice.

The solution is to be specific and factual.

[woo me with science]

509. This is the problem with micromanaging and excessive rules.

Some people will express controversial but reasonable ideas. Some people will express stupid ideas. You handle that by letting other people RESPOND to those ideas and either provide support for them or point out how stupid they are.

All this policing of EXPRESSION is completely unnecessary and is IMO the biggest problem with DU. Not the posts. The policing.

[defendandprotect]

666. Agree with your initial comments . . .

Hard to say what goes wrong because Skinner isn't really telling us who is complaining --

I've been here a number of years -- I've alerted probably 3-4 times on posts that expressed

VIOLENCE. That's pretty much it. But I do get the idea that many here will regularly alert

simply on political expression they don't like.

[noamnety]

124. Same question here.

I've linked to winter soldier testimony before where they were talking about racism, sexism, or abusive tactics that were widespread within the military. These were seen as a critique of the system, and what it does to people. Not bashing the troops (heck, I've been one of the troops.)

[Skinner]

192. That is intended to refer to the troops.

Not to the higher-ups. But in practice it is not always so clear-cut.

[havocmom]

241. Not often so clear cut

Understatement of the day, evidently

[spoony]

So why was someone TSed for calling the Pentagon

a terrorist cell?

[dionysus]

433. they asked to be TSed because they weren't allowed to call the pentagon a terrorist cell in their

sig line.

[spoony]

461. And why weren't they allowed to do so?

Oh, by the way, are you Skinner? If not you really don't have the answers I'm looking for.

[dionysus]

470. just explaining what happened. if you have a problem with that, i don't care.

:shrug:

[spoony]

480. You didn't explain anything about the policy

because you aren't in the position to explain anything about the policy. So maybe it would be best not to feign at such?

[hippywife]

1228. Maybe it would have been

better to express that you would like to hear the explanation directly from Skinner without being snarky to someone who was trying to answer your question. To me and many others, this impatience with each other for no reason whatsoever is what makes this place hard to deal with at times.

It's not so hard to patiently explain that while you appreciate someone's response, it doesn't explain the why and possibly Skinner could clarify. It's not really necessary to just pop-off with the rude denigration of a fellow DUer.

[stevenleser]

1521. You are right, but the person to whom you are responding will not get it.

They lack the social and interpersonal skills to understand what you are saying.

[No Elephants]

1677. Isn't that simply a commentary on the Pentagon, not on the armed forces per se?

A sig line?

Seems extreme.

IIRC, that poster had two sons in the military.

[defendandprotect]

669. United Nations calls US a "terrorist" nation . . . could we even mention that any more?

Certainly the Pentagon would be part of that?

Some of the rules seem to be calling for posters to have dementia?

[Stinky The Clown]

70. Bring back the "Ask the Admins" or "Ask the Mods" forum.

[Barack_America]

79. That's exactly what I asked for upthread.

This may come out harsher than I intended it, but I strongly feel that posters would behave more as adults if the mods and admins treated us that way.

I'm a bit to old to accept "because I said so" or "them's the rules" as a valid argument. I'm certainly too old to pay for such treatment.

[Stinky The Clown]

147. Exactly. While the new rules seem, on the surface, both fair and reasonable .....

..... when things come up for interpretation it would be *very* helpful to know how rule N is being applied and why.

There will also be the inevitable new circumstance not covered by these rules that needs interpretation.

[Barack_America]

191. Precisely. This is not only a good idea, but essential for this site's viability.

IMO, of course.

[mike_c]

121. +1

[Bucky]

151. Disagree. While that forum was once a noble experiment in transparancy

having a forum dedicated to the admins explaining every little decision they make must have been a huge drain on human resources. The site's so much bigger now. When it gets like that, I think the rules administration needs to have a relatively faceless, automatic-seeming application of the rules just so the people making the place run smoothly don't get bogged down with those who come in wanting to "argue with the ump."

[Barack_America]

164. There is a middle ground.

For example, threads could be started only by admins/mods and address each of the rules and violations thereof.

People who have a question about the interpretation and enforcement of those items could post under the designated thread.

[Stinky The Clown]

204. Accountability and transparency are good things. They're also not free. If you choose not to ......

.... than you have to accept that you open yourself up to criticism.

Maybe one of the mods gets to be the "Mod Press Secretary" ...... whatever.

There was good reason to have the forum way back when and there is good reason to again have it.

Expediency, it seems to me, is not a good reason not to.

[Bucky]

288. Admittedly an imperfect decision selected from among imperfect choices

I just don't think we know the full picture. For instance how much time does it take to keep this site running smoothly--free of technological hiccups, loss of service, protection from the random Freeper DOS attack, tombstoning disruptors, etc. People flock here expecting to have discussions and they get exactly that. It's quick response system with no technology issues blocking the chatter. I'd not want to see any of that sacrificed because someone wants to have a discussion with a moderator over whether they were misunderstood about something they just posted.

I mean, I really liked the "ask the Mods" forum. But that was because it gave me a peek behind the curtain. The problem is that it quickly became a place where, instead of talking about the issues, people spent time talking about talking about the issues. Removing it just seems like a logical, economic choice about where the owners of the business chose to spend the scarcity of their time.

[Stinky The Clown]

302. Just a point of clarification ... the mods are unpaid volunteers who do not touch the .......

.... technology that keeps the site going. They are just like you or me, but with some slight greater access to a few forums and a few controls.

To ask mods to do more is no cost to the site.

The admins are a different group.

[Bucky]

330. Disagree again. Coming from a nonprofit background, I assure you volunteers are valuable resource

Hugely valuable. If you're asking people to give up their time to perform a service to the broader community, then you really have to provide them with a rewarding experience in that community service. Since the site could not really run without them, in fact would quickly degenerate into a mosh pit without them doing their jobs well, I submit that failing to maximize their time and efforts can be a significantly steep "cost to the site."

[Stinky The Clown]

423. This isn't a non-profit.

I get your point, however. I just disagree with it.

[Skinner]

505. I would bring it back if I thought I could stand it.

It was obviously extremely positive for the DU Admins from a PR perspective, and for the members from a transparency perspective.

It helped people understand how the rules were applied.

It made the DU mods and admins publicly accountable.

It made Admins seem sympathetic, by illustrating the complexity of the conflicts we face here on DU, and the wide range of different people we have to satisfy.

It showed the DU admins being reasonable and polite, day-after-day-after-day, and provided a powerful public contrast to the occasional person with a massive chip on their shoulder who would show up and act unreasonable and impolite.

But man, did it ever get tiresome to provide such a high-profile soapbox for malcontents. Even if it gave me the opportunity to give "our side" it just got to be too much.

[Barack_America]

540. Any consideration that members might have legitimate concerns...

...that deserve to be heard and whose resolution would benefit the community?

"But man, did it ever get tiresome to provide such a high-profile soapbox for malcontents."

On edit: It seems to me what we have here is a number of long-time members stating that they now feel undervalued on a board that they have contributed to for years. They are looking for some form of recourse or at least a means by which to air their concerns regarding what this community has become. I hope you didn't mean to dismiss them as potentially being just "malcontents".

[branders seine]

isn't "malcontents" a broad brush attack on a segment of DU?

-gasp!-

[hlthe2b]

571. You could do a once/week forum where you include samples

of submitted concerns with your responses.... Perhaps even once monthly would suffice?

[chimpymustgo]

792. Great idea!!

[Stinky The Clown]

663. Skinner, absent such a forum, members have no place to go to appeal. Or to discuss new circumstances

The rules pretty much guarantee that if I were to post something like "How do we make comments in any of the countless threads about Secretary of Truth J. Cricket without always seeing the threads getting locked?" it would be locked and I would be admonished for "calling out the mods".

I recall once, many years ago, you personally unlocked a thread of mine that was ultimately found to have been wrongly locked. ("Talk Kinky To Me" about Kinky Freeman). The snarky title belied the serious content of the post, which wanted to explore why a political dilettante, singer and ... well ..... clown was appearing to be getting serious traction in Texas. Anyway, without the ability to appeal, that thread would have remained locked for bad reasons. I cite it not because it was such a big deal thread but because it happens. Questioning the rules - and the application of the rules - will always pay dividends.

Having it will also lay to rest the grousing about biased moderating. Which, in the overall sense, may be even more important.

And if there IS biased moderating (there could well be, but I am not making that charge), an open forum to discuss it will make that practice hard to continue.

Have one of the more eloquent and patient mods serve as "Admin Press Secretary" to deal with morons like me. You guys could then weigh in on the more weighty issues.

I really hope you'll bring it back, Skinner.

[WonderGrunion]

892. Instead of a full forum, perhaps a monthly column

Something like the DU Hate Mailbag but less snarky.

[madinmaryland]

942. HEY SKINNER!! How do I reply to a post on DU!! How do I post a picture....

:D

[austin78704]

1203. I understand the tiresome nature of it

But it plays a pretty critical role. In any group you have to have some form of introspection. At the moment, the majority of DU's population (that would be all of us who are not moderators) simply does not have that capacity and has shown the decay that naturally comes from it. Some people habitually push or break the rules for the hell of it as a result of believing the rules are dumb and they have no control over them. No interaction to explain that the rules are not dumb, and no venting to let them feel influential.

I'd like to see the forum return, but with its own set of rules to depress the high volume/low content posters' influence. Perhaps give the moderators an "Ignore" feature for use within the forum.

I've had personal concerns about DU's moderation structure for a long time, but I haven't fired off an Email to you or the others because I wasn't sure if my concerns were representative. What if I'm wrong and give a good sell to a bad idea? An open forum would guard against that.

[JNelson6563]

75. I like it.

I hope less lounge content is posted in the political areas of this political forum.

I commend you guys for always trying to improve things. Many thanks.

Julie

[Subdivisions]

81. What about a situation where warnings are common for a particular forum

but are rare on the rest of the board. In my case, I cannot go into the September 11 dungeon without getting into trouble. But I rarely have any problem at all on the entire rest of the site. Because of that, I no longer participate in that forum. I wonder why it is I can be reasonable everywhere else on the site but most of my comments in any thread in the September 11 forum are deleted.

[Stinky The Clown]

215. The rules in the forums are slightly diffeerent than in the big forums

You can't go into the (for example) "Jimmy Carter Supporters" group and criticize him. You can criticize him to your heart's content in the open forums, but not the groups. The groups are intended to be refuges.

[TZ]

269. Yes.

To some extent in the groups, I would welcome this because deleted messages usually happens when someone is trolling a group they don't belong in. But sometimes in responding to a troll a person can lose their temper and then- ZING they can't post in a thread. That whole rule makes me very very uncomfortable

[Make7]

824. My understanding is that posts are deleted for breaking the rules.

Perhaps you should simply make posts that abide by the rules.
 

[TZ]

82. I have a problem with this.

." When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread."
I've had posts deleted for reasons which weren't clear and seemed unfair. And since its essentially a moderator judgement the potential for abuse is pretty strong if you ask me.

[tekisui]

90. If I read correctly, the new approach will tell you exactly why the post was

deleted.

[TZ]

97. but that doesn't mean posts won't be deleted unfairly

My issue is that the moderation here is not as objective as it can be. So, ONE moderator, if they have an issue with you personally can not only delete a post of yours, but kick you out of a thread. Thats WAAAAAY too much power if you ask me.

[tekisui]

107. Agreed.

[HughMoran]

125. I think that's why the 'reason for delete' has been added

To help remove some of that power by making the mod justify why your post was deleted.

[Barack_America]

199. And if you believe the reason for the delete is being consistently misapplied?

Where can you discuss that?

[HughMoran]

222. At least you'll know what you did to get the post deleted

If everybody was as concerned about getting posts deleted as you are, the forum could not function at all.

[Barack_America]

233. I'm not concerned about getting posts deleted. I am concerned about not being able to speak freely.

[dionysus]

238. i'm pretty sure you can post whatever you want.

[Barack_America]

258. You really think that?

You really think that I could post a thread saying, "I have a question with how Rule 5 is being interpreted and enforced" and not have it locked or disappeared?

[HughMoran]

240. Simply don't attack people and use cogent arguments

It's really not that difficult to understand. Trust me, I've had to learn to tone it down myself.

[TZ]

253. I've had posts deleted

for simply mentioning somebody's name that was TS'd. Kind of hard to feel free to post when stuff like that happens.

[havocmom]

270. and I have seen post deleted for critizing the DOD, not the troops

So, if I dislike a DOD policy and state that in a thread, not only can my post go missing (while I would appreciate an explanation, it doesn't help me defend my post if the admins choose not to respond to any queries I may make) AND the disappeared post can now prevent me from making attempts to restate the case?

Hmmmmm Nixon didn't want to hear/see dissent either.

[Nov5]

1087. I've been actually banned just for questioning the whole healthcare thing

still don't get what the problem was..

[havocmom]

257. and not being able to speak at all in a thread, even if you are within rules w/ other posts there

one mod with an opinion different from you can effectively block you from participating in any particular thread you just might have good information about. Whoa, that is more than just 'skinner's house, skinner's rules' which I used to remind people about. That is a whole different ball game and it destroys any hope of honest discussion.

[dionysus]

265. not true at all, see post #204

[loudsue]

391. That has been my experience.

There have been mods that just don't want to hear what you have to say. They're human, after all, and can be as biased as the next person...as biased as I am, but on the opposite position.

[MilesColtrane]

363. You can discuss it with a Mod by PMing them.

They, after all, are the only ones who can do anything about it.

I believe I'm not alone in that I don't want to read someone defending their virtual reputation, or just how wronged someone was by a Mod.

[Barack_America]

387. So the identity of the mods deleting our posts will be revealed?

That would be helpful.

I have alerted on deleted posts/locked threads before (and not just mine BTW) in order to get an explanation. I've never heard back. However, if it is revealed who made the action, I could actually PM them.

[MilesColtrane]

504. You want to ferret out a particular moderator who you think is treating you unfairly.

Yet, it has been repeatedly stated that posts are only deleted after a consensus of moderators agree with the decision.

Maybe you are only being singled out for breaking a rule or posting flamebait.

[Barack_America]

514. No. I want to know who to PM with my questions.

You suggested I "PM a moderator". Well, wouldn't it make sense to PM the moderators involved in the decision I am questioning?

[MilesColtrane]

Well, you could PM all the moderators for the particular forum.

That way you know that at least your message is getting to the ones involved in the decision in question.

You seem to be asking for moderator identity tags on each and every post deletion, thread move, or member ban.

[Kerrytravelers]

1547. You can PM whomever you'd like. All Mods are privvy to the decision.

Be specific and be polite. That is the best way to get an answer.

[Barack_America]

1645. Thank you. nt

[Catherina]

908. *hide thread* is a beautiful thing. It takes 2 seconds. n/t

[Skinner]

203. That's not correct.

One moderator cannot delete your post.

One moderator can *STOP* your post from getting deleted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. This is reassuring. n/t

[jobycom]

585. Thanks, that's a good clarification. We've all seen posts deleted that seemed innocuous

but broke a rule anyway, and then seen the poster follow it up with an apology and a good continuation of the discussion. It's a shame to see that poster get banned from a thread, but it is reassuring that it takes more than one mod to delete a post.

Quick suggestion, if you're still taking notes. Wouldn't a two or three strikes policy be better? I've seen plenty of posters make useful contributions to a discussion after one deleted post, but rarely after three deleted posts.

Also, while I've got you on the line, following up on point 3, we all know that a poster who gets blocked from one thread for cursing at the OP is going to open a new thread that will be a thinly disguised reply to the old thread. Is that banned entirely, or only if they break an obvious call-out rule? Obviously sometimes the new thread might have merit on its own, and sometimes it will be a "Hey! Old OP! Suck it!" kind of post, but there will be a lot that totter on the line. Is that automatically verbotten? There are a lot of call-out posts here that we all know are call-outs, but that manage to stay just vague enough for the ubiquitous "What did I say?" defense.

Anyway, thanks for all the rules clarifications. I like most of them, and will adjust to the others. :)

[EarlG]

622. Our concern with having a two post limit instead of a one post limit

is that it essentially gives people a "free shot" at breaking the rules.

The fact is, people are supposed to be doing what they can to avoid breaking the rules. If we say "two strikes and you're out" we're sending the message that it's actually okay to break the rules, as long as you don't do it more than once per thread.

To answer your second question, that is covered under the current board rules: "Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread." However, that rule appears to have slipped past us for the new more concise version of the rules, so we'll have to discuss putting it back in.

If the blocked poster starts a new thread which is fine on its own merits and isn't a callout of someone or an attempt to continue a flamewar (or some other rule violation) then it should be allowed to stay.

[jobycom]

795. Not my favorite rule, but it is consistent, and I see your point. nt

[RoyGBiv]

586. Like the Senate?

One person can stop a process even if every single other person thinks that one person is crazy?

This would explain why some things happen the way they do. It might explain, for example, how a long list of replies to a personal attack have ended up deleted with the initial attack remaining until the whole thing flares up again.

Things like this just do not make any sense and confuse even those who generally give you the benefit of the doubt.

OnEdit: That reminds me. As long as everyone else is airing complaints, I'll air one. Why is the moderation process so secretive? We get it in bits and pieces like this, but whenever anyone wants to talk about it, the thread is shut down. You don't personally have time to answer each and every complaint you get, and your moderators either don't or are forbidden from talking about how this works. Why?

[Kerrytravelers]

904. See my Post #720, linked below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8605348

Moderators only work on consensus. When an alert appears in the Mod Forum, the Moderators read it and post their opinion. Once there is enough for consensus, if action is warranted, then someone acts on it. It is never the act of one Mod. In fact, alerts will sometimes sit until enough Mods have weighed in.

If ten Mods feel the post violates the rules, it only takes one Mod to put a stop on action being taken. One can stop the action desired by ten. It never works in the reverse. There is no lone Mod galloping through the forums, taking action as only they see necessary.

There isn't a lot to keep secret. We work only on consensus. Period. And we generally note in our post if we've participated in a thread, if we realize it, which we usually do upon review of the thread. Often times, a Mod will abstain from a discussion if they are heavily involved in a thread. We generally look for diverse opinions, as there is a very diverse group of Mods. No action is ever done by just one Mod.

The only thing we see are alerts. If members don't alert, it can not be guaranteed that we will see the violation. However, when we get alerts, we do review the entire thread, not just to alert, to see context.

We keep specifics generally private for the privacy of our members.


And, just to be clear, I'm not the Moderator Press Secretary. I am posting this not as a representative of the Moderators, but only representing myself.

[RoyGBiv]

987. I see it differently ...

Referring specifically to your "not a lot to keep secret" comment, I see a lot of this process as secretive.

Now please understand before I continue that I do not fit the mold of those who see some vast conspiracy against anyone. I don't think you've got mods running amok trying to enact their anti-whatever agenda, and I assume you take your jobs seriously. Every dealing I have had with a moderator has been positive, which is astonishing considering the wording of some of my alerts, which I give without much self-censoring and generally on the spur of the moment. I've been on the other end of this and accused of all sorts of things because I wouldn't let someone's 50th iteration of their own personal conspiracy rant through the moderation cue. I also know you can't go airing everyone's dirty laundry, else turn this place into a bigger cesspool than it already is sometimes.

IOW, I get it.

But everything you just said up there? Read through some of the complaints about moderation practices and look beyond the specific complaint. You're going to see a lot of them that hover around the idea that they have no idea what's going on. They imagine these vast conspiracies precisely because they have no idea what's going on. They can't "see" it happening, discussion is not allowed anywhere for any reason, communication with the moderators or admins is damn near impossible in part because of the volume you receive, so, naturally, there's a conspiracy in what a great number of people deem secrecy. The explanations we *occasionally* get when threads are locked tells us something, maybe, but generally not anything those following the thread didn't already know. What we *don't* get are commentaries on why that thread got locked while another thread that starts with the very same thing as the locked one last forever while, apparently, someone works on a consensus. We know none of that, none of the mechanics, nor any of the reasoning, and then we go off to our corners to stew about it because no one ever says anything until it's all gone straight to hell and been blown up out of all proportion so that threads like this one become necessary.

All I'm suggesting is a little proactive communication. Individual mods have done this with me. Skinner has spoken with me when he's had time. But, those times are rare, and you can't do it with everyone privately.

[Kerrytravelers]

1023. There really is no "differently" way to see things, in a sense, as there is a simply way we work.

We've always been very open to how the Moderators work. There are many former Moderators who post about the process and give some guidance in various threads.

The rules have always been very clear. The issue comes when members don't alert on rule violations, and are then surprised when that post is allowed to stand. It isn't being unevenly handed, it is simply that we do not always get out on the general boards to see all the threads and posts.

I have read through the various complaints and have replied to many of them.

I would suggest to members that are curious about the process, to either ask us during a slower period or apply to be a Moderator. It really is as clear-cut and straight-forward as we say it is.

In the end, there will always be people who feel we are unfair. We simply can not please everyone all the time. There are rules and this is a moderated board.

And, honestly, and I can only speak for myself, but when I receive PMs that aren't attacking me or another Mod, and I have the time, I like to respond. When I receive PMs that call me names and insult me, then I won't respond. I don't want to expand any further on that so as not to be specific about any particular action, PM or member.

We do like to send PMs as proactive moderation. And that is the intent when a PM is sent. How members take that varies wildly.

I'm not accusing you of conspiracy theories. However, there are some that, no matter what we say, will never believe us. And that is fine. However, for those who aren't sure of the process, this is exactly how we work: as a group, no solo action, and when we do discuss, we always quote the rules in our discussions regarding violations. And, for the privacy of our members, we really can't divulge the "behind the scenes" workings of specific decisions. All Mods sign a confidentiality agreement, which is why we are short with specifics. I would never violate that agreement or the privacy of any of our members (privacy meaning actions taken, such as removing posts and locking threads. We don't have your real names or donating information, etc. Member information is very limited to Moderators).

[RoyGBiv]

1061. Yes, there is a different way ...

There is always a different way of seeing things. Clearly a large number of people see things differently than you do, so I am not sure how you can even claim otherwise. You want this to be a simple, black and white issue, but it isn't. It never has been, and it never will be as long as what is recognized by a large number of members and former members to be a legitimate problem is cast aside as "just the way things work" by those who work the system.

You're saying it yourself. You personally like to do this or that. You -- and you imply others -- do engage in proactive private communication. It's "our" fault if we don't alert, etc. You've gone to great pains to make sure we all understand that you speak only for yourself, not, in any way, anyone else who may act as a moderator. Why can't you speak for them? Why aren't you in the forum right now working on a public message? Why don't you vote and appoint a speaker? Why are single threads not more often designated to allow us to discuss contentious issues with input from administration and moderators speaking *as* moderators?

Why, I am asking, is there not a process for dealing with these contentious situations that doesn't require mass purges and threads like this one? Just look at all the pent up rage in this one thread alone. Are you genuinely telling me there's no different way to look at things and, perhaps, think of a better way?

Let me give you an example of something that could be done.

At some point in the near future, someone in that little sliver of land on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean is going to do something stupid, and someone is going to get killed, and it's going to make national headlines. The moderators or a sub-committee of the moderators or *something* could get together immediately and carve out how this matter will be handled. Will all these threads get moved to the appropriate sub-forum? If not, what forums will threads be allowed and under what circumstances? If they will all be moved, how do you justify it? Then, make a statement, a simple "this is all the moderators/admins talking as one" message explaining how this will be handled and, if the situation warrants, allowing comment in that thread for, say, 24 hours during which it will be monitored by another sub-committee of moderators (or something) and concerns addressed as possible.

And I'm going to end with this, though I would like to say more. I don't want you to feel as though I'm harassing you personally, and I know you, personally, don't have all the answers.

[Kerrytravelers]

1089. I don't feel that you are harassing me personally. I chose to respond.

I think what needs to be remembered here, and by here, I mean, in general, not just you, Roy, who has engaged in a reasonable back-and, is that the Moderators are a team of volunteers. The system is set up to work the best it can with volunteers. We do not all work around the clock. Some days, I give right hours, others two and sometimes none at all. To expect us to sit in a thread/forum and rehash each and every action just isn't reasonable. In fact, it is quite unreasonable. Rarely does someone truly not know why something was removed. And those PMs, which are not attacks, are responded to by the Mods. There is no such thing as a surprise TS, or Warning, for that matter. We certainly do rehash actions with members all the time. We do this privately, not publicly. There are quite a few accusations we see publicly all the time that do not include the back stories. We, however, do not respond publicly, other than to take action against clear rule violations of Mod call-outs. You will never see one of us respond to a member citing private information. That is something we do directly with the member, not on an open forum.

The reason I took such great care to only speak for myself is that there can be the rare occasion when a PM wasn't responded to or a former Mod in the earlier days of DU had different practices. Clearly, all the other Mods have seen my posts in this thread and do not object. I, in spirit, do speak for all of them.

The moderating system has been retooled on occasion and streamlined, and we respond to polite PMs with honest questions. We try to, anyway. I'm sure, over the years, there have been PMs that fall between the cracks. On a busy day, when there are tons of things happening, an influx of trolls, or whatever, things do fall through the cracks. This can happen with PMs, actions on alerts, etc. Never at any time are Mods claiming to be perfect. However, as imperfect as we are, and as imperfect as life is in general, overall, an overwhelming majority of our members are quite happy. We do receive an overwhelming majority of DU members send us very nice, supportive PMs and like the job we do, even when it is one of their posts that get deleted or thread gets locked. We appreciate those, as well as inquiries as to why action was taken, when we're not attacked.

To understand how I can claim any differently, perhaps you should volunteer to Moderate for a term. The Admin speak for themselves and us as a whole. This thread was not a surprise to the Moderators. I think it would be very obvious to you within a day or two of moderating, why the board is run the way it is.

And, I agree. I think it's time to end this subthread. I know you meant well, and I took it in the spirit in which it is written. I promise. :hi:

[bananas]

1463. Skinner, is that true for moved posts? Ther's a recurring problem with posts being improperly moved.

When I PM the moderators I get no response or explanation.
This has happened a number of times.

[Kerrytravelers]

1486. It is true of all actions.

If you have questioned a move and it was deemed fine by admin, then the moved stayed. There is no recurring problem. All moves are within the DU Rules.

[bananas]

1639. There is a recurring problem, and it's more serious than I thought.

I thought these improper moves were the result of one moderator making a wrong decision.
I could understand that.

Here are two articles I posted today which haven't been moved (yet):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x251495
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x251494

Here's a related article I posted a while back which was improperly moved: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x241214
In the moved thread I explained why it shouldn't have been moved.

I reposted that article, including some reasons why it belonged there in the OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x241559
That one wasn't moved.

All four of those threads are about the same subject, and that subject is clearly relevant to the forum I posted them in.
Why was one moved, when the other three weren't?

[Kerrytravelers]

1643. Your example are not reflective of some deep-seeded, serious issue.

I will, however, give you a general opinion based on a cursory glance.


You are asking me why something hasn't been moved? (Yet) Well... has it been alerted on?

The Moderators simply disagree with you on the proper placement. Posting in the thread itself is not going to guarantee the Mods see your position. And, it appears that many other members did comment in your post as to why it was moved. Just because you disagree with the move doesn't make it incorrect. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

And why did the final thread stay? No one alerted. If members don't alert, Mods won't necessarily see a thread that should be moved. Contrary to popular belief, we actually don't follow members around on DU all day. (I know you're not saying that.) We receive alerts and then we have to read long threads to take each alert in context. Our posting time outside of the Mod Forum is pretty limited when you take all the thread reading and Mod discussion into account.

Basically, you didn't like the way one thread went because members told you exactly why the post was moved. And the second thread just like the first had no responses and wasn't alerted on. I feel like I'm picking on you in this paragraph, but you're concerned about some deep rooted problem and really, it's over one thread. I don't know what else to tell you.



At this point, it's becoming like the old Ask the Admins board. I can't go through every move or removed post or thread over the course of DU history. However, I was happy to respond to your short inquiry.

[bananas]

1647. A couple of non-moderators expressed their own poorly-informed opinions

There was never any explanation from a moderator, and I can't go by the opinions of people who are just guessing.
All four posts are on the same subject, and it is a "critical problem" with a particular energy source, as I point out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x251639

That's the conclusion of two Democratic politicians as well as an MIT report who's authors include President Obama's Science Advisor and President Clinton's CIA Director:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_holdren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Deutch

Are they all wrong?

[Kerrytravelers]

1651. This has been asked and answered.

The members in your thread were correct in their responses to you.

President Obama's Science Advisor and President Clinton's CIA Director did not weigh in on moving your thread, which is what your original question was about. Let us have a little perspective here. We're talking about one thread that was moved. Not locked. Not removed. Simply moved.

This is, in just my very own humble opinion, why there is no Ask the Admin forum.

[bananas]

1640. It doesn't just happen to me - here's a thread that was moved three times

when it shouldn't have been moved at all: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7548721&mesg_id=7553282
How does that happen?

[Kerrytravelers]

1641. It is hard to tell since this is one post from six months ago.

Going by just what you say happened:

It was moved from LBN to the UK forum,
then moved from the UK forum to the UK forum,
then moved to GD.

It seems as if it was meant to go from LBN to GD and someone clicked the wrong forum. The error was likely brought to our attention and then corrected.

This is hardly indicative of an overarching problem, but simply an error. If you notice an error, please alert on it. We're not likely to see something that isn't alerted.

[cbayer]

216. This is not the case.

All mod decisions are made by consensus. No single mod can ever delete your post and have your thrown out of a thread.

[Raine1967]

356. It's my understanding that a deleted post

is a joint decision, unless I am confusing it with a locked thread.

that said, I think it is not a good Idea to assume that Mods have personality issues. I am pretty sure that the Admins have a good screening process.

It's not power at all, It's people trying to keep the rules held.

[Kerrytravelers]

905. Everything is a joint decision.

No one Mod does anything solo. It is all done by consensus.

[obxhead]

590. Agreed and add

that it also does not allow you to correct your own stance.

On more than one occasion I have posted something that someone has taken issue with. I have at times even come around to their way of thinking after reflection of my 'mistake' and have enjoyed the ability to go back to that thread, post in a more logical way, and correct some ill will.

It's too much power and I feel it will only create many spam threads with people still trying to get a point across, at times even a changed point of view. It just seems too brutal to me.

[EarlG]

597. Self-delete

Skinner already answered this.

[TygrBright]

878. No, ONE moderator can't.

One of the frequent complaints we get is "not acting fast enough" on what seems to some/many/sometimes even us a "clear violation."

But if it's even marginally less clear than "Bary Obamaramadingdong is a purple Nazi doodyhead and you're one too and all Liberals are stupid poopypants," we act on consensus, which means waiting, in the Mod Forum, until one or two or three or five other mods have weighed in on the alert. And sometimes there aren't many of us around. So a "clear violation" sits in there for a couple of hours or more waiting for at least one or two other mods to chime in "yeah, that's an obvious personal attack" or whatever.

It's far more likely to be the other way around-- ONE moderator can delay or even call a halt to the deleting of a post or the locking of a thread that three or four other mods agree is over the top and should go, definitely, saying "Well, I think the context doesn't make it an attack, I think it's more about the public figure being quoted than about the DUers who support the public figure..." and the mod forum thread about the alert stretches to forty or fifty posts as mods discuss and try to determine the action that should be taken.

Believe me, a rogue mod will NOT last long in the hot tub.

reassuringly,
Bright

[Goblinmonger]

1159. That's really not how it works.

Really. Trust me. Don't be so paranoid.

[spoony]

472. And will it include when your posts are deleted as part of a subthread

I wonder? I've had posts deleted because I've posted in subthreads that were nuked.

[Skinner]

517. No, it won't.

To get blocked out of a thread, you have to have a post deleted for cause. Not as an innocent bystander in a sub-thread.

FWIW, we're hoping that we won't have to delete sub-threads once these changes are in place.

[Prism]

83. I think it ignores the obvious - impartial enforcement of the rules

Until that exists, this is all pleasant window dressing.

Plainly put, the mod house needs to be cleaned out and started over.

People know the mods are not impartial. It is plain as day as one group of the President's supporters post personal attack after personal attack with almost zero consequence.

Address that, the impartial enforcement of civility, and none of the above would even be required. This entire mess is down to horrid moderation - not a Democratic president.

Edit: And you could start restoring civility from the top down by apologizing to the LGBT community for what you did to so many of our posters here.

[dionysus]

92. oh lord.

:popcorn:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

110. Self-Delete.

Yeah, it's a personal attack.

[demmiblue]

118. Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults

[depakid]

129. Precisely what the above poster was referring to

[tekisui]

136. Let's see if the poster gets locked out of this thread.

Clear rule violation.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

235. You're right - I self-deleted.

[paulk]

1404. you are one of the people "Prism" is talking about

[Subdivisions]

98. There are at lease a couple of heavy-handed mods that never go away. n/t

[MineralMan]

123. I think the moderators represent a cross-section of the points

of view here on DU. I agree with some and disagree with others in threads. So far, my disagreements have not resulted in any actions against me. I think you may be overblowing this concern, frankly. As long as disagreements with moderators in threads is done within the rules, I have not seen discriminatory deletions of posts.

[Prism]

200. When nearly a dozen LGBTers are TSed at once, something's wrong

Discriminatory deletion of posts is the least of sins.

Can you explain to me how LGBTers can be purged en masse on a Democratic board and still come to the conclusion that the moderation is just gravy?

[Barack_America]

212. I agree and I hate that I had to run-off to some other board to find out what happened.

That should not be.

[dionysus]

213. they were TSed for blatantly breaking DU rules, not for being gay.

:shrug:

[Prism]

218. No, actually, they weren't.

One poster was TSed on the spot for merely mentioning that 7 LGBTers had been TSed.

He literally posted an OP saying "7". That was the entire OP.

TSed, gone, vanished, done. With more following.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

237. That's calling out the mods - which is a violation. (nt)

[Prism]

245. Mentioning TSed posters isn't a call out.

Nor TS worthy in and of itself. At least, if grave-dancing threads were any indication.

But that you for your enduring concern for the rules.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

259. You forgot "...in my opinion."

Unfortunately, the only opinion that mattered was that of the mod.

[Prism]

263. Thank you for your concern n/t.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

274. Any time, Prism.

Any time at all.

[stevenleser]

1476. Obviously, posting '7' in that context is an objection and call out of the Mods and their actions

But good luck getting that person to acknowledge anything resembling reality.

[HughMoran]

290. uggh

[donco6]

303. No it isn't. n/t

[dionysus]

331. i guess the mods thought it was.

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

344. Thanks for your concern. nt

[donco6]

362. I can see nothing's changed here at all. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

424. I appreciate your concern.

It is duly noted.

[HughMoran]

429. #264

[spoony]

408. Well that's a mighty convenient closed circuit, isn't it? nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

420. They ain't my rules and it's not my "circuit".

[LostinVA]

493. Not true

[dionysus]

507. so what were they banned for then?

[tekisui]

638. Posting the number 7?

[HughMoran]

896. You know that's a falacy, don't you?

Taunting and taunting and taunting UNTIL just "7" was the last straw was NOT funny.

I saw it with my own eyes.

[LostinVA]

977. Well no, you didn't, because the poster didn't do that

And, the rest of the LGBT posters, including myself, didn't "taunting" anyone, it was quite t\he other way around.

[MineralMan]

758. I cannot. I almost never visit the LGBT forum, so I wasn't even aware

when it happened. I absolutely support completely equal treatment of everyone in this country. GLBT issues are just not part of my everyday posting. So, I can't explain anything about anything that happened, because I don't know anything about it.

[HughMoran]

131. uggh

[Lone_Star_Dem]

255. Have you ever volunteered to be a moderator on DU?

I suggest you try it for a term and I assure you your views will change. It takes a consensus to make a decision. The mods are diverse in their opinions and held to the limitations of the rules. However, they are human and mistakes can be made. Which doesn't mean they're biased or lacking in impartiality.

Volunteer for a term. You'll see what I'm talking about.

[Prism]

273. I would never be accepted

Guaranteed. I am openly critical of the way this site is moderated since the purging of LGBT posters. I have very strong opinions about how nearly a dozen LGBT posters could be axed in one weekend, with more to follow.

But I do believe this site needs an LGBT moderator. Or, rather, a different LGBT moderator. One that is sensitive to the community and speaks to our issues. When the mods are posting openly homophobic articles and defending them, there is a deep, serious insensitivity occurring that allows things like the purges to happen.

[nashville_brook]

327. at the very least, mods shouldn't display antipathy for the forums/subjects they're reviewing.

and once that becomes a problem, the mod should be assigned to a different forum.

[Kerrytravelers]

910. Moderators are no longer assigned forums.

And even when we were assigned forums, we still provided consensus for all forums.

Everything is done by consensus. It always has been.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

1578. No more assigned forums? That's brilliant!

I used to hate sitting on my hands when there were things to be dealt with in other forums. I really like that idea. :thumbsup:

[Kerrytravelers]

1592. And no more cut and paste!

That has moved things along quite nicely.

[nashville_brook]

at the very least, mods shouldn't display antipathy for the forums/subjects they're reviewing.

and once that becomes a problem, the mod should be assigned to a different forum.

[dionysus]

338. "When the mods are posting openly homophobic articles and defending them" ok, link please. i have

never seen anything like that on DU, ever.

basically, you're making some very hefty accusations against the mods\admins as a whole.

[HughMoran]

435. very hefty

What's up with that?

[dionysus]

i don't know but it's not cool.

[tbyg52]

1510. There are some things you've never seen (unless you were around at the right/wrong time)

because stuff gets disappeared.
http://tinyurl.com/possibly-of-interest

[Lone_Star_Dem]

371. I'm sorry, I didn't know.

I still think you should apply. You may be surprised as to if you're chosen or not. The admin do want diverse representation, it's vital to the process.

I can't speak as to what took place this weekend. I wasn't here and missed it all. I am sorry we lost DUers. Have you PM'd the admin and discussed the matter? If a mistake was made they're the ones to appeal to to overturn the decision.

[LostinVA]

496. Many, many times

[nashville_brook]

301. mods are always going to represent a cross-section of authoritarian types

policing duty is going to appeal to a certain kind of person and really grate on another kind.

[defendandprotect]

744. True . . . and it's not like DU'ers get to vote for the Mods . . .

they're self-selected --

[nashville_brook]

1046. reminds me of the "safety patrols" in middle school. was a certain kind of kid who went out for that

[defendandprotect]

686. That's now officially a taboo subject --

[tbyg52]

917. >>by apologizing to the LGBT community for what you did

And restore the posters. Oh, and, restore the memory-holed posts from mods and owners that were disappeared in, I'm assuming, extreme embarrassment.

[defendandprotect]

1162. dupe

[branders seine]

1156. wow.

cojones.

[TZ]

85. dupe

[ladywnch]

101. certainly worth trying. it has been getting down right unpleasant around here. n/t

[intheflow]

106. I love #2, not so sure about #3.

I certainly understand the need to block the disruptors who stalk threads in order to get them locked and stifle discussion, but often deleted messages are just a tete-a-tete between that poster and one other poster, whereas elsewhere in the thread they're offering constructive discussion points.

But you know. It's your site. Run how you see best. I don't get that many posts deleted so it's not likely to affect me personally one way or another, and it's certainly not going to drive me away from my beloved DU. :loveya:

[Scurrilous]

108. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. My nickel bet:

75% of posts will be deleted for violating the "too rhetorically hot" rule.

My opinion is that this rule detracts from interesting discussion, and institutionalizes my biggest concern about DU moderation - subjectivity.

Hopefully, this doesn't violate the rules against publicly complaining about rule enforcement.

I don't really disagree with this generally, but the subjectivity given to enforcement can in itself be a problem.

I like paragraphs 1 and 2. I would like paragraph 3 if the list of potential violations wasn't so long or subject to so much subjectivity. (ie. There is a rule against saying that a post is a lie, but not against posting the lie.)

When you created Democratic Underground, you knew by its very nature that it was going to attract people with a predisposition to question authority. I like that kind of person, and to be honest, I don't mind when they poke me in the chest occasionally.

I guess what I'm saying is that expecting everyone to be polite (in the view of every possible bystander) is unrealistic and ultimately counterproductive.

I considered suggesting that the alert button appear to the author of the post directly above in the thread but no one else (the only one who should be offended is the person to whom the reply is directed), but mine is an imperfect solution too.

[mistertrickster]

133. I have to respectfully disagree. It's fine to say "you're not answering my question."

It's not fine to say, "answer the FUCKING question, you FReeper POS."

That's just not helpful, and the only thing it does is give angry, disagreeable people a venue to be angry and disagreeable.

We don't need to enable this.

[mike_c]

145. +1

Agree with your first point totally. It's the least specific, most malleable charge, so its the one most likely to be used frequently. One size fits all, so to speak.

[Skinner]

228. As I said, some subjectivity will remain.

And you are correct, that rule is the most subjective of them all. Unfortunately, I could not figure out a way to make it any less subjective, and I don't think it is feasible to take it out.

We have started writing a list of guidelines to help moderators determine what constitutes flamebait. Hopefully that will help somewhat.

I think these rules leave plenty of room for people to be impolite. Believe me, I ask for people to be civil, but I do not expect it.

[RoyGBiv]

579. A plea ...

Please, please, please do not be taken in by this demand that you spell everything out in such fine detail that things like poor grammar and proper spelling have sub-sections.

One of the problems DU has is the *extremely long list* of rules, thus your need to condense them above, thus the reason there is an abbreviated version of them elsewhere, and thus the reason very, very few people ever bother to read them *until* they get pissed about something and either want to find a rule someone else has broken or find a loophole to argue that they themselves should not have been disciplined. Every single time you have expanded the rules, you have made things worse. We still have arguments about rules you added four years ago, and we still have people who bicker at each other because of a stance one or the other had taken while bitching about those rules.

The more detailed your rules are on anything that is controversial, the more problems you are going to have. The reason, primarily, is that you stifle your moderators. Moderators have to be given discretion to judge situations for what they are, not what some individual who perceives himself as aggrieved wants it to be. Naturally this requires that you have good moderators who use their discretion wisely, but I think, with notable exceptions, that happens here.

If you know anything about the debates over the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, consider those arguments. The so-called Federalists may have been wrong by our accounting of not wanting such a list, but when this became inevitable to gain support, they were right in attempting to keep this list as broad as possible.

And strict constructionists are still wrong, whether they are politicians, judges, or people on message forum.

[sarge43]

111. One thing -- making "conservative" a personal attack.

Yes, DU is a progressive Democratic site; however, conservatism is a legitimate point of view. Calling William Buckley or Barry Goldwater conservative is a personal attack on those men? Now, calling someone a fascist or Nazi, that is extreme and personal.

Let's be careful that we don't become as narrow and intolerant as Free Republic.

[Skinner]

524. You can call conservative public figures (almost) whatever you want to call them.

You can even post gratuitous personal attacks if you want. I called Bush an illegitimate, incompetent asshole in my OP. :)

[sufrommich]

658. I think we should win badges for most inventive attacks. I know

I would try harder.;-)

[blondeatlast]

793. I've tried to start such threads but no one was interested. nt

[malaise]

112. Excellent idea

Rec

[Altoid_Cyclist]

115. I have a sincere question an item on the subject of the "Insensitive" issue.

As we know, Pennsylvania was described by James Carville as "Pittsburgh on the west, Philadelphia on the east, and Alabama in the middle"

It's also been called "Pennsyltucky" for a long time.

When I use either of these terms, I'm poking fun at the area where I live. However, a few people have taken offense since they thought that I was making fun of their states and/or the south in general.

Because of this, I will no longer use these terms to describe central PA. since it has offended a few people in the past.

My question is; would these terms fall into the insensitive area?

As I said, I'm being sincere and would appreciate knowing if the use of these terms would be a violation of the rules.

[pipi_k]

143. Hmmm..that makes me think of something else similar...

I live in Massachusetts.

We sometimes call ourselves "Massholes"

I don't think I've ever seen a Mass resident get offended by that term, but you just never know...

[WinkyDink]

283. An aside: I've lived in PA all my 60 years, and NEVER heard "Pennsyltucky" until I came to DU.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

392. The first time that I heard it was when I moved to Connecticut in the early 80's.

I can't find a reliable source for how it came to be called that and when it first appeared.

I did find this which is sort of funny.


This is the link to Wikipedia but it doesn't have a date either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsyltucky

Excerpt:
Pennsyltucky" is a slang word to refer to the rural part of the state of Pennsylvania outside the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, more specifically applied to the mountainous central region.

Background
At times the term is used to describe all of Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The word is a portmanteau constructed from "Pennsylvania" and "Kentucky", implying a similarity between the rural parts of the two states. It can be used in either a pejorative or an affectionate sense.

[October]

947. Carville said something like...

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh -- with Alabama in between.

(Paraphrasing...)

[Skinner]

545. This is one of those areas that I'm ambivalent about.

If you made a broad-brush comment about Pennsylvanians (the people) or Central Pennsylvanians (the people), I would consider that a violation.

But I don't think we want to completely remove any discussion of regional differences. As a general rule, I think name-checking a state (the geographic area -- especially the government of that state -- I'm thinking of you Arizona) as opposed to making broad-brush statements about people who live there should be generally permitted.

As for "Pennsyltucky" I just don't know. I suspect the mods would remove it.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

562. OK, thanks for the reply. I've tried not to use the terms after people took exception but I still

slip up from time to time. For the most part, I try to use them only when dealing with other "Keystoners".

I was surprised to learn that the term "Pennsyltucky" can be taken as an affectionate term by some around this area.

The new rules are a good idea and hopefully I will remember to adhere to them.

[FreedomRain]

1332. Thanks for that

:D

[Texasgal]

116. Great Skinner!

I agree with almost all of the points except the deletion of participants after a post has been deleted.

I find the current system works best in this case. Some of the best debates happen when people are allowed to post consistently in threads. Removing "rule breaking" posts should always happen, but removing the person from the thread all together just doesn't seem necessary.

Otherwise, GREAT JOB!

[Bucky]

119. I'm glad there's a rule against "Belittling people who are new or have a low post count."

Big Discussion boards care about the small people.

< /Swedish accent >





Seriously, though, these don't seem like sensible system-tweeks rather than serious changes in the rules.

As always, thank you for running a great website.

[mike_c]

120. haven't finished reading yet, but item #2 is EXCELLENT...

...i.e. a chance to see how the mods interpreted the DU rules when deleting posts.

Thank you! That will help a lot!

[pipi_k]

126. Sounds good...I know how hard it is to try and please the largest

number of people while still trying to maintain some sense of order around here.

I especially like #3. So many times I've seen perfectly good threads get locked when there really wasn't anything that horrible going on in them just because of a few disruptive individuals.

This is your "house", and the rules look clear enough, and appear to be applied in a consistent manner, or as consistent as possible without being too rigid.


Anyway, thank you for running this site and putting up with the lot of us for so long.

:)

[Arkansas Granny]

128. Good idea, Skinner. Anything that helps to keep discussions civil should benefit us all.

[pattmarty]

134. Well, looks like the "Democratic" went out of the "Underground"..........

.........While I believe in some of the changes it seems that any future criticizing of a Democratic President or Democratic policies (ie the healthcare reform or SS & Medicare "reforms") will be censored, uh I mean deleted. Also, there seems to be a curious timing thing here with the "changes" coming just before the November disaster, ur I mean elections. Just sayin'.


Marty

[MineralMan]

153. I didn't see anything about criticizing anyone.

Saying that you disagree with a policy or decision, then backing that up with the reasons and, perhaps, suggestions for ways it might be changed is certainly going to be allowed.

Saying something like X is a Y for doing what X did, probably isn't. It's one thing to criticize. It's another to slam. Criticism is useful. Slamming is not. I think that's the difference.

[pipi_k]

I didn't see that at all...

what I saw was that people can always disagree with Obama or Democratic policies, but it needs to be done in a respectful manner.

[readmoreoften]

1522. The reality is, without "broadbrush" criticism of current Democratic policies, there will be no

honest discussion or hope of pushing them to the left. There is a TREND, a PATTERN of conciliatory and defeatist behavior by the Democratic Party that transcends any particular issue. This is the source of concern for many.

And frankly, I don't understand what DLC policy proponents have to discuss anyway. They run the show by triangulating and pushing for strategies of position (which almost always fail) not actually representing a "progressive" or even "democratic" anything.

I think these new rules will do little more than force a chilling effect on criticism of the Party in an election year.

[IDemo]

138. Paragraph 3 - "Insensitivity" will be a challenge for a few

It is quite common to see attacks on states or entire geographic regions. While there may be examples of just why the attack is justifiable in a given case, it can leave the DU'ers who are progressive citizens of those states a bit chilled. I can imagine the same applies for religious attacks and generalizations (Evolution vs Creation? Guilty! :hi:)

Also:
- Is there any chance there will be an editing toolbar incorporated into the site?
- Is there a reason there is a window on editing a post, or that it cannot be extended a bit?
- Is there a chance that a 'block thread by keyword' feature can be added?

Too much for one post, I know.

[tblue37]

292. I have always wondered, too, why there is such a limited window for editing

a post. I have never run into such an editing window on any other site that I frequent.

I am a lousy typist--a hunt and peck sort. Sometimes I will post somehting and then the phone will ring or someone will knock at the door--or I will have to hurry out to an appointment. Then when I come back to the thread, I will find that I have committed some hideous typo, but it is too late for me to correct it. I find that quite embarrassing.

Why can't we edit our posts past that brief window?

[backscatter712]

1120. An editing toolbar would be cool, or a WYSIWYG editor!

It'd probably require a decent amount of programming work, to either implement a WYSIWYG post editor from scratch, or retrofit one from existing forum software.

Another feature I'd like to see is the ability to embed Youtube videos, or videos from other sites, directly into a post, and not just in the Political Videos forum. What I mean is that you should be able to click a button in the post editor, paste in the embedding HTML code from the Youtube page, and get the video to display inline.

[MineralMan]

140. I don't know how others feel, but I've had a few posts deleted,

and I always understood why they were deleted. Either I sloppily, or accidentally, broke one of the rules of the site. Each time it happened, I understood the reason and tried to not make that mistake again. I think the moderation has always been moderate and fair.

[HughMoran]

267. Same here. The only time where I get confused is when a subthread is deleted

Then I'm not sure which post caused the subthread to be deleted & if it counts against me as a 'deleted post'.

Does anybody know the answer to this?

[lazarus]

317. it doesn't count unless the post is deleted before the

subthread is snipped. Just as an FYI, we're going to be doing less snipping of subthreads from now on.

[Jester Messiah]

322. Good to hear it.

I was a participant in a couple of deleted subthreads recently, and while I don't -think- it was my fault they were deleted (but does anyone ever think so?) it would be nice to know for sure.

[HughMoran]

654. Thank you for the clarification!

Much appreciated.

[MineralMan]

1101. That should lessen, from what I'm hearing.

One of the problems is that some subthreads that get deleted seem to be full of nastiness, including multiple posts from the original deleted poster, and rather ugly statements from others. If just the ugly stuff is deleted, the subthread makes no sense in the thread. Often, it seems like it's easier just to remove the entire sub-argument, which is what those subthreads tend to degrade to.

One thing I had notices is that if I quoted something from the deleted post, my thread would be deleted, too, so I just stopped doing that. Sometimes, I edit my post if it is replying to a deleted post, just to eliminate any further commentary in a dead subthread.

Anyhow, it looks like the new policies should cut down on subthread deletions.

[Vinnie From Indy]

142. Can we have a "Rush Limbaugh Exception Rule" to the gravedancing proviso?

Maybe just a thread that offers how much sweeter the air is that day and how the sun shines brighter across America.

[Kahuna]

539. Yeah. Didn't we get an exception when jerry falwell died? There

was a lot of grave-dancing that day! :evilgrin:

[whopis01]

1181. I don't think that Rush Limbaugh gets banned from DU all that often....

the rules don't say you can't gravedance when someone actually dies - just when they are banned from DU.

[H2O Man]

144. Sounds good to me.

I still think people should get free DU t-shirts for recommending my OPs.

Recommended.

[tekisui]

154. I have no use for that many DU shirts.

They would overrun my closet.

You are a damn-near-auto-rec, IMO.

[HughMoran]

835. I demand a full wardrobe

:rofl:

[Swede]

146. I hope this all works out.

I guess we'll find out. :toast:

[naaman fletcher]

150. I hope these rules get applied to the Latin America forum,

where personal attacks are the norm.

[Skinner]

559. The rules apply to all the forums.

But you have to alert on the post, or else the moderators won't know, and won't do anything.

[arcadian]

152. What about prolific posters who use DU to post their editorials?

Some are critical of the administration while others are highly supportive. The critical ones being openly attacked with few of these attacks being deleted and on the other hand the supportive ones having only critical comments deleted. It's looking like DU is a place where you can no longer speak your mind. People are afraid to post here.

[dionysus]

160. "People are afraid to post here." are you really serious? afraid?

[arcadian]

166. If you read this thread

People have expressed the fact that the have been intimidated.

[dionysus]

183. i think it rings hollow because the people who claim victimhood and\or censorship give as good as

they get.

[mistertrickster]

188. And two wrongs make a right? Not where I come from. Some victims of abuse here

really ARE victims, IMHO.

[dionysus]

208. how the hell does one get victimized on an anonymous political message board?

seriously, a lot of people hurl out attacks all day and then play the victim card and act all persecuted when people respond in kind.

[mistertrickster]

227. Then they should be called out for their attacks, not abused in return.

It is indeed an relatively anonymous blog, but that doesn't mean that people can't feel offended and hurt by how they are treated here . . . to the point that they don't ever come back.

[SidDithers]

300. Exactly...

Each and every DU'er has the tools to completely control their DU experience. They can hide offending threads, and alert on or ignore abusive posters.

Playing victim is laughable, when it's entirely up to the poster what they see and read here.


Now, if they're being stalked outside of DU, or contacted IRL, that's a completely different matter.


Sid

[mistertrickster]

321. So, just for the sake of argument, if I call you an ethnic slur, claim you

have perverse sex with animals, and wish your grandparents had been killed at Aucshwitz along with the rest of 'em, and sic all my friends on you to do the same, that would not be "abuse" and you would not be a "victim" because you can put me on "ignore"?

Sorry. It is abuse. It would be making you a victim. And people should not be subjected to that here, here of all places.

[SidDithers]

419. It might be abuse...

but I become a victim only by choice. Why should I care what some anonymous asshole on the internet says about me? If I choose to continue to read replies from that poster, and I'm further offended, is that their fault for posting, or my fault for continuing to read?

If you can't mentally ignore the posters who offend you, then use the tools at your disposal to not see their "abuse" anyomore. If you choose to continue to be "abused", don't cry about being a victim.


And again, I'll state for the record that DU is not real life. Abuse in real life, where there are often no options to escape the abuse or the ignore the abuser, is an tragic situation which has absolutely no similarity to what we choose to read or not read at DU.

Sid

Edit: heheh, I got post 420. Lucky me :smoke:

[mistertrickster]

432. Teenagers have committed SUICIDE because of what anonymous bloggers have written.

DU is part of my "real life."

Claiming that it's not sounds to me like exactly what a blog bully would say to justify getting his jollies by demeaning people.

I hope that doesn't describe you, but you might consider if it does.

[SidDithers]

460. Completely different situations...

where one side is not anonymous. The teenager makes a tragic decision because they feel they can't escape real life abuse, because their real life identity has been attacked.

At DU, with the exception of when a poster chooses to reveal their identity, it's one anonymous poster interacting with another anonymous poster.

Surely even you can see the differences there.

Sid

[dionysus]

475. Sid, just remember, every time you post a smilie at a silly post, you could be driving someone to

suicide.

that's my takeaway from it.

:shrug:

[SidDithers]

522. My God!!!...

I must be more careful with the power of my :rofl:

Sid

[dionysus]

525. don't be so callous man

:D

[mistertrickster]

538. Dog-piling. That's how they do it, folks. Snark feeds on sarcasm, and they're off to the races.

On edit: But I will take Sid's good advice and turn my computer off and walk away.

[girl gone mad]

1626. And here we have..

a perfect example of a DU wrecking crew at work.

Attack, and pile on with snarky little ignorant insults that demean the other poster rather than addressing the subject.

[Ignis]

763. Mmm, civility in action.

:thumbsup:

[mistertrickster]

487. You have your opinion, I have mine. I do have one question for you though:

if DU is "not real life," why do you spend so much time here?

And what does that say about your "real life"?

Every thing I do in my life is my real life. I think I shouldn't say anything to someone on a Blog that I wouldn's say to them in my real life, since this is part of my real life.

As Thoreau writes, "who can kill time without injuring eternity?"

[SidDithers]

557. I'm here to be entertained...

the stuff I read here informs me, enlightens me and entertains me. I come hear to learn, but especially to laugh. Sometimes I laugh at the intentional humour of DU's many wonderful posters. Sometimes it's the unintentional humour of a ridiculous Top Ten list that a butthurt poster doesn't have the courage to let stand. I enjoy being entertained, that's why I'm here "so much". It says nothing about my real life, other than I have time available, and I choose to spend a portion of it here. Some people watch TV, some play video games, some read DU.

If DU is such a big part of your "real life", perhaps it's you who should reevaluate your own posting habits, and how much influence the internet has on your own life.

Sid

[mistertrickster]

764. See that's the difference. I've never been entertained by smug superiority.

And I suspect that what you call "entertaining," a lot of other folks would call blog bullying.

There're real problems out there that call for real solutions while you're here . . . uh . . . entertaining yourself.

[SidDithers]

788. Just don't stop posting...

I'd miss the comedy gold.

Sid

[mistertrickster]

812. I'd say that to some CON that I thought was an asshole. I wouldn't say it to a fellow lib at DU.

But you and I are clearly different.

You seem to have a different definition of "entertainment."

[SidDithers]

843. Here, I fixed your Joni Mitchell for you...

just to show that I'm not all bad.



Now, go be really serious and change the world.

Sid

[mistertrickster]

871. I knew you weren't all that bad. You post on DU!

And thanks for re-formatting Joni. That's cool!

Peace, out.

[dionysus]

872. !

:spray:

[mistertrickster]

879. You either, Dion. You're a fine, sly malcontent just like me.

It steams people off though . . .

You need to find a local blog with some idiot CONs to demean and ridicule. That's what I do.

Then you can come here and kick back with your homies.

[Catherina]

913. -1. Unrec. Prime example of what serious posters are up against n/t

[SidDithers]

1108. Serious posters!!...

:rofl:

Are they the ones with the elevated sense of self importance, or the ones without the sense of humour?

Sid

Edit: at least I'm honest about why I'm here.

[Catherina]

1246. The ones without a sense of humor at childishness in a country

that's on fast track to third world nation status. I noticed how funny you think it is that the Gulf is dying while BP thumbs its nose at us. Epic, tragic fail.

[sabrina 1]

1475. I was just scanning this thread and saw this also.

I agree with you completely. But I would not want them deleted, I and others would not have seen them if they were. However I'm wondering if they do violate the rules?

[Ignis]

1163. Why not try FARK? Most of us are here to effect political change.

[SidDithers]

1244. FARK doesn't have the rigth mix of self important gasbags...

and clever posters only too willing to deflate them.

DU does.

Sid

[Ignis]

1261. Oh, fine: ./

:D

Though I'll admit I'd kill for Slashdot's nested rec system some days on DU!

[lbrtbell]

1179. In all fairness, these teens are usually suicidal already

The hateful stuff posted to social networking sites is usually from real-life cliques and bullies who are making the poor kid miserable.

Parents and teachers protecting a child will help him/her far more than rules on a forum.

Besides, isn't this kind of off-topic? I don't think any kids have killed themselves over anything posted on DU, have they? I hope not, anyway.

[arcadian]

328. Classic

[mistertrickster]

369. Yup, that's what I'm thinking too. Self-justifying bad behavior. "It didn't do any permanent

damage when I hit you with that brick. Don't be such a sissy."

[dionysus]

427. a ROFL smilie is that same as hitting someone with a brick now? who knew?

:eyes:

[mistertrickster]

442. Snark and sarcasm. It's exactly what we're talking about. See post 178. nt

[JonLP24]

296. The way I always have seen it

is that the dishers are the ones that usually deny that there is a civility problem.

[mistertrickster]

375. +100 Ding ding ding ding! WE HAVE A WINNER. Thank you. nt

[HughMoran]

502. You got that right.

[DissedByBush]

1045. There is no such thing as censorship here

This is a private board run by Skinner.

He can tell you to get out of his house if he doesn't like what you say.

You are free to go to another board or start your own.

[mistertrickster]

185. Yes, indeed. And many, many more who are utterly turned off by the snark and hatefulness

of liberals who purport to "care so much about their fellow humans."

If you're not aware of the problem . . . well . . . you just may MAY be part of the problem.

[Forkboy]

161. The other day I watched an antire subthread get deleted....

...even though only one of the people was breaking the rules. At first the one poster's posts were deleted, but then the whole subthread went. According to rule #3 here the poster who did nothing wrong in that subthread would not be able to participate in the thread anymore.

[Barack_America]

169. That's an excellent point. nt

[tekisui]

170. There will be less deleted sub-threads, is the idea.

The original violator will be locked out of the thread, while the other posts will stand.

[OhioChick]

437. Great point. n/t

[Skinner]

568. You would not get blocked out for being an "innocent bystander" in a deleted sub-thread.

You would have to have a post deleted for cause.

Plus, if this works, we hope that we can stop deleting sub-threads.

[Political Tiger]

163. Hallelujah! n/t

[countingbluecars]

165. In regard to #3

If your post is part of a deleted subthread, even if the individual post does not break a rule, you would be blocked from posting again in that thread??

[redqueen]

168. I like it. (nt)

[NightWatcher]

171. Cannot call him "Barry"? is there an approved list of titles for Dear Leader?

We called gwb everything from shrub to chimpy to_______.....

So your defense for being called a Party Apparatchik of the DLC is to make certain "names" verbotten? Sorry for the "dear leader" crack, but it sounds like something straight out of Kim's South Korea.

I was hoping that you would address/change the procedure of sending certain posts to certain dungeons at the first mention of "code words" (9/11, Israel, Palestine........). I wish that more of these posts were allowed to remain in GD.


But Hey, it's your board, you own, you can do whatever you like.

[dionysus]

181. lotta nerve for busting out "Dear Leader" in this thread. DU is like South(sic) Korea as well?

awesome
:rofl:

[mistertrickster]

211. Okay, perfect example. This is ridicule, not refutation.

I didn't agree with his post either, but he doesn't deserve the ROFL etc.

It's an opinion, held by a real person . . . an opinion that is important to him.

I've found that one rarely changes a person's opinion by laughing at them or claiming that they are stupid or attacking their character and motivations.

It's not a liberal thing to do.

[NightWatcher]

217. satire has died. I OBVIOUSLY do not think Obama (or Skinner) is like Kim Jong Il

satire and hyperbole are oft used to make points.

[mistertrickster]

251. Hurtful, ridiculing points. yes . . . nt

[dionysus]

219. if i am "not liberal" because of my use of a ROFL smilie over a silly post...

man some people have a thin skin... he was comparing DU to NORTH KOREA, a murderous dictatorship. get it? :shrug:

[mistertrickster]

246. I wish I could remember the exact quote, something like "we can endure the suffering of OTHERS

with great philosophical stoicism."

I take no delight in making my fellow political comrades look small.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen that same concern among quite a few folks who post here a lot.

[arcadian]

278. A little quip here, a little quip there.

In an attempt to stifle discussion.

[dionysus]

289. i am pretty sure nothing i say is in any way preventing you from voicing your opinion. really.

:shrug:

[arcadian]

294. So you admit to your under the radar attacks?

[dionysus]

298. where are you getting this stuff from? are you trying to stifle my free speech?

[mistertrickster]

384. I suspect that Arcadian has enjoyed some of your "wit" like so many of us have over the years. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

612. Some people have no sense of humor.

Their life must be pretty miserable. :rofl:
Snark and sarcasm are just another coping method, every bit as legitimate as any other method. What one person sees as 'negativity', 'catastrophe' or the 'end of the world as we know it', I see as funny. Life is nasty, brutish and short and most people are stupid most of the time. Existence itself is a bizarre and arbitrary blip in an uncaring universe.

[sabrina 1]

1478. I don't know. Some people have higher standards

regarding humor. Can't say I saw anything above that warranted a :rofl:. It was mostly stolen from the very old internet 'humor' playbook used for a long time, over-used actually to the point of losing any effect at all, by rightwingers and I mean really old and when something gets stale and old, a yawn is more appropriate.

Is it okay btw, to borrow old, stale humor that was invented originally and exclusively to be used against 'liberals' by rightwingers and apply it to DUers we don't agree with? I hope so actually, I'm not a fan of censorship and who knows with enough constructive criticism the would-be comedians might not be so boring and actually learn how to be really funny. Well, that's probably too hopeful ... but stranger things have happened.

[tblue37]

307. I think the poster is not mocking the entire post with the ROFL image----

He is laughing at the fact that the poster references South rather than North Korea, which he actually intended to do.

[mistertrickster]

357. Yes. He made a mistake. I generally don't ROFL over a simple mistake

especially since I can remember making some mistakes in my life.

I would ROLF if I were trying to ridicule the poster for making a mistake.

That's what it would mean to me.

However, I may have made a mistake.

[dionysus]

407. are you for real? making such a big deal out of a ROFL smilie?

[HughMoran]

846. Uggh

[dionysus]

860. why are you visciously attacking me!!1!!?

;)

[HughMoran]

865. I feel like if I even raise an eyebrow more than a millimeter I'm going to be pounced on

What do you mean by that eyebrow!!!!!1

[dionysus]

405. thank you.

[Hannah Bell]

582. +100. contentless ridicule. some are allowed to do it regularly.

[MineralMan]

194. I'm pretty sure that "Dear Leader" isn't on that approved list.

Seriously.

[snagglepuss]

888. So if something innocuous like Dear Leader is banned, will Jon Stewart videos

be banned as well? Or any other comic who doesn't show respect for the Office?

[MineralMan]

1082. It's not my call, is it?

DU is DU. Jon Stewart answers to others, I assume. Humor is different than name-calling, it seems to me, but, again, it's not my call to make.

[sufrommich]

221. Oh, the drama! nt

[jp11]

260. Try Brocktoon.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9yn49_mr-belvedere_shortfilms

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91sbelvedere.phtml


Just kidding.

[backscatter712]

324. "Barry" is a dogwhistle-racist term for Obama.

It's a kid's name - a boy's name, and that's how the teabaggers use that name when referring to Obama, so I consider it equivalent to the old Southern practice of calling every black man "Boy", like "Yer in a heapa trouble, boy!"

If you're not happy with the President, that's your right, but don't call him Barry.

[NightWatcher]

351. so every "kid's name" is racist? or if a teabagger says it, it becomes verbotten?

So if I call my friend (of African American heritage)...

Reginald- Reggie? I'm racist
Thomas- Tommy- or Tom? I'm racist
David- Dave.....
Roberto- Bobby...

So boy's nicknames are racist? Didnt Obama himself go by that name in college.

[backscatter712]

383. It's the way it's used against Obama in particular.

Context is key. And "Barry" has been used in the context of specifically insulting Barack Obama and making a veiled insult against his race.

[CakeGrrl]

486. It's about context.

I've observed the same thing that Skinner mentioned upthread: Pretty much every post that referred to the President as "Barry" was used to denigrate him. It doesn't take much to determine the tone or intent.

[quiet.american]

630. If you're on the interwebs, surely you're aware teabaggers call him "Barry Soetoro" --

-- in a lame attempt to de-legitimize and disrespect Obama's presidency. If you weren't aware, that's simply what this is all about.

[arcadian]

674. I am on the internet and I've never heard that.

So, you realize you are actually perpetuating that meme with your posts.

[quiet.american]

702. I understand the concept of "Don't Think of an Elephant."

But in order for even that concept to be explained, the "elephant" has to be named.

[No Elephants]

1675. "You talkin' ta me?"

j/k.

[Hekate]

1004. Arcadian, just Google "Barry Soetoro." It's all over the place in the Birther universe. nt

[redqueen]

365. Wow. (nt)

[Kahuna]

547. You're equating treatment of Pres. Obama with the treatment of bush????

:popcorn:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1518. Because he doesn't go by "Barry" anymore, genius.

He's been Barack for quite some time.

[leveymg]

173. Hi, Skinner - It would be helpful if we knew what rules are NEW.

Please repost the rules above, and indicate with an asterisk (*) or otherwise highlight rules that are new. That will alter us older users how things might be changing.

Thanks - Mark

[Dappleganger]

323. Great suggestion!

[Skinner]

573. Well, none of them is new, exactly.

It represents a clarifying and tightening of how we enforce the rules we already have.

But I think the parts about Broad-brush and Extreme Group attacks, and about Inappropriate Attacks Against Democrats are the most "new".

[leveymg]

851. Yes, but where there's been a significant new interpretation, perhaps you can

give us a sentence or two on each designated item about how this might have changed the status quo. I know there's already been a lot of effort that's gone into that, but what I'm asking is for a version that highlights the changes, so we can look at what Admin considers to be most significant. That focuses our attention on what you think is important, and perhaps lessens our confusion and misinterpretation a bit.

- Thanks

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1262. Nothing new added? How about electrolytes? People like electrolytes.

:D

[Moochy]

1449. Diffs would be helpful

Seeing the annotated differences in the changes in Facebook's privacy policy was quite instructive to its user base.

[eleny]

176. I agree with reply #1 from miscsoc

I also view rule #3 as ill conceived. Mods are human and they have friends on the board. This rule can't possibly be enforced without a heavy dose of subjectivity. Also, this sounds too much like the child rearing "time out" tool. This is a discussion board primarily visited by adults.

You ought to be able to give adults their room to have their say. We pay to participate. If the advertising paid the entire bill, then I'd say it's your site and your rules. But that isn't entirely the case.

As a 63 year old, I think you've overdone things. As miscsoc advised, set your goals and make them known. Like the saying goes, "Study long, study wrong".

[hlthe2b]

473. Skinner, I find a lot to agree with in eleny's post and JD Priestly's down below...

I'm trying to be open to what the admins and mods are trying to achieve. But, I'm sad reading this long litany of rules that by their very nature are going to be subjective to enforce. It gives the forum such a feel of rigidity, that I fear the entire sense of what made DU what it was is due to be lost. I don't envy Skinner, EarlG, Elad and the mods such a tough job and I do want to be supportive....... but


I'm very concerned about the loss in recent months of so many valuable DUers, though I'd agree that (as far as I know) the majority earned their ban. Nonetheless, there are a handful, who contributed so much over the years (and are very much missed despite their transgressions). I would dearly like to see some path to redemption--even if some have had multiple chances in the past, which I don't doubt to be the case. Maybe I'm just an old softy, but the older I get, the more I realize that personal trauma can wreak havoc on one's normal behavior.... I just hate to see the door be closed for all time.

My thoughts-- probably worth less than my small donations over the years, but still...

[woo me with science]

653. Well said. Agree wholeheartedly. nt

[tallahasseedem]

177. Skinner, these are great...

Thank you.

[Robb]

180. Some nice thinking in there.

...Although I see even more work for the mods. Better fix the broken jets in the hot tub, they're gonna need 'em. :D

[Althaia]

190. as someone who moderated at a gaming forum for nearly 2 years..

..(and before you ask, no thanks, I'm NOT swimming in that much crap ever again :P ) The expanding and clarifying of the rules looks really good. It's been my experience that forum rules need to be really specific and clear.

It's also great that you will let miscreants know which specific rule they have broken.

My suggestion: Since the rules are so long, you might want to have a core idea at the beginning, a TL;DR version of the rules. Something like

"DU members will treat each other with respect at all times. You are encouraged to discuss, criticize, and even strongly oppose ideas posted here, but personal attacks on your fellow Democrats will not be permitted."

I salute the admins and moderators. I know full well what a difficult and thankless job it can be.

Mods, this monument is for you:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/2/24/

[blondeatlast]

816. I moderated a Diabetes forum for about a year--even that got NASTILY

contentious (Atkins diet--don't ask). That's why I don't volunteer here--WOW.

Love the honorarium! Thanks (and welcome)

[uppityperson]

196. thoughts and suggestion "2nd deletion before blocking" rule vs 1 deletion.

#1. Thank you for the clarification.

#2. It will be good to see why posts are deleted as I have had some deleted that I didn't know why and got no reply from the mods.

#3. If someone has an honest mistake, this is overkill. If someone is repetitively posting deletable stuff, this is good. However, I would suggest a "2nd deletion is needed before blocking" rule to get past this. Yes, this means that some may post something nasty on purpose, then be able to post again, but they would be blocked if they continue in the same vein.

It gives rule breakers a disincentive also since they will be blocked if they continue. It also would give those who have made an honest mistake the ability to continue to post.


#4. This is needed. Period. Mods have hard work doing what they do, but this is seriously needed.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

198. I like these changes, my dear Skinner!

Well done.

I especially like knowing just why any post of mine that got deleted will have an explanation as to why. That happened recently and I was completely puzzled. I won't need to bother a moderator any more trying to find out why, either.

This is the best website ever, and I am proud to be a member!

Recommended.

[Balderdash]

202. I wish you luck

I've paid when asked and I could afford it and will do so again
if this board can become a little less Freeperville and a lot more
what I remember about DU. But you guys may have waited to long to
put a leash on the bullying that has been allowed since the Primaries.
I still come around hoping for a good discussion with like minded
people, sometimes I find one.

[CakeGrrl]

205. Sounds good to me. Good luck! n/t

[bigwillq]

207. I have read the rules

Signed,
-bigwillq

[JDPriestly]

210. I have several comments.

1) I feel sorry for the moderators who have to enforce this.

2) DU is going to be a lot less interesting if you enforce all these rules.

3) Why can't individual DUers just ignore people who are overly negative?

4) I have been a Democrat much longer than President Obama. I agree with him on some things but strongly disagree with him on others. Who defines who is a Democrat? Me, who became a Democrat at the age of 9 listening to the Democratic Convention in 1952 and who started registering voters and getting out the vote during the McGovern campaign or President Obama or maybe someone here on DU?
How will you decide which criticisms of the President are acceptable and which are not? Remembering history as I do, I cannot understand how a person can adopt policies that destroy unions, that ignore civil rights and that favor banks over working people. I am a Democrat, not a supporter of a particular politician. So if the DU thought police are going to put the ideology of a particular politician over the traditional principles of the Democratic Party, then I probably won't be here very long. Sorry.

5) I guess we will all just have to wait and see how these rules work out.

[MineralMan]

243. I think it's actually pretty simple. I'll provide a couple of examples,

to illustrate how I understand the rules. I could be wrong, of course, but I think this is how it works:

Good Criticism

I completely disagree with President Obama's position on single payer health care. I think that, with energetic support from Obama, it's possible to get that passed in the Congress. Without that energetic support, it's very unlikely that it will even be considered. I hope that he changes his mind and gets on the single payer bandwagon.

Bad Criticism

Obama's not even a Democrat. His utter failure to support single payer healthcare means that he's just like the fucking Republicans. I'll never vote for him again. I'm going third party.


I think that's pretty much what the rule is talking about.

The first criticism is a constructive criticism. The second is simply bashing. I've seen both approaches posted here.

[JDPriestly]

256. We shall see how it works out.

I repeat. I was a staunch Democrat almost 10 years before President Obama was born. I remember proudly wearing my Adlai Stevenson pin to school. I was born into a family of staunch Roosevelt Democrats. My ancestors were revolutionaries and abolitionists and Populists way back when. I know what being a Democrat means. I know what standing up for what is right and not for personalities is all about.

We shall see how this works out.

[MineralMan]

554. Yes. I wore a Stevenson button to school, too. That was the

first election where I was aware of politics at all. I've been a Democrat ever since, through good times and bad, and will remain one for however much time I have left on this planet.

[treestar]

641. You being older than Obama isn't relevant

to any point; we don't have any reason to agree with you rather than him; if you disagree, you can give the reason, not "because I'm older than Obama and have been a Democrat longer." that makes no sense.

[defendandprotect]

808. May be wrong, but think the reference may be to the original traditions of the

Democratic Party . . . and allegiance to those ideals --

which too often have been moved out of the party and corporate ideals moved in.

[pitohui]

223. you have a problem here called "TLDR"

the list of rules is simply too long and involved to do anything more than make eyes glaze

i don't think making the list of rules more exhaustive does much to address the problem of, say, a person w. a drinking problem who occasionally goes off the rails and eventually gets banned after multiple suspensions and so on...i think at the end of the day, people are here to debate and discuss, and sometimes debate and discussion gets "over the top" esp. if some of the posters are having an adult beverage at the time

i don't think making the list of rules longer or more explicit will change that, you just have to do the best you can and move on

[wisteria]

225. I will wait and see how this works in practice.

IMO, there have been times when people have been banned because two or more "like" individuals alert on this person and the moderator just reacts to their alerts and tombstones an individual.

[Skinner]

588. That is simply not true.

People don't get banned because someone alerted. They get banned because of their own behavior.

Furthermore, people don't get banned from DU because of a single post. (Except in very specific circumstances: Bigots, conservatives.)

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

229. A specific case question....

... I posted this thread last night, in good faith.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8600630

Although it is from a news and commentary site of consummate and impeccable journalistic quality and a site which tends progressive over ninety-five percent of the time, my thread could well be interpreted as being in suspected violation of the following newly proposed standards:

- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.

Conversely, I believed the thread I started:
1. alerted those in the progressive community to an issue of probable public relations sensitivity and vulnerability for this administration;
2. showed that once every ten years or so, Steele can rise to produce a statement that doesn't find himself tripping all over itself with the blatant and grotesque stoooopid;
3. reflected the opinion of the publisher of the site, Jose Marshall, that this has become a "Big Sleaze" from all perspectives - and that Steele's statement was no less so.

I see many problems with the enforcement of the section from which the standards referenced above are defined. This is an administration that many of us supported with our heart and our hope. In addition to other more substantive efforts of time and money, I had two Obama yard signs in the front lawn of my decidedly conservative neighborhood for a full year even before his nomination.

However at this point, I would be hard pressed to say that I am a happy camper specific to a multitude of issues, not the least of which is 1. his national "security" (read: privacy) policies; 2. his utter impotence over DADT, DOMA, and ENDA; 3. his first month of a severely lackluster response to the Gulf tragedy that, as a Florida resident, impacts me directly; 4. his allowing our country to remain in the quagmire of two wars; 5. his support of decidedly non-progressive "Democrats," i.e., Lincoln as but one.

There are many more, but I will stop there since I believe that I have made my point that there is a hell of a lot of discontent within Democratic and progressive communities over this "progressive" President and to stifle that within this community is not only hypocritical to the core values of being progressive, but also of being a democratic (small d intentional) one as well.

[Skinner]

595. That thread is fine, IMO.

And it looks like the mods left it alone.

[tblue37]

230. Since you say that often an otherwise well-meaning poster will

post something inappropriate almost by accident, perhaps you could have a two-strikes rather than a one-strike limit for locking a poster out of a thread.

I think of the saying "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern." Perhaps you could consider the first inappropriate post in a thread to be an "accident" and then lock the person out of a thread if he/she does it again.

I don't really know how these things work, since I make a point of not getting involved in heated online arguments, but maybe you could think about giving a second chance before banning soemone from a given thread.

[yowzayowzayowza]

234. Reactions....

- Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.

'Negatively' - good addition

- Name-calling against prominent Democrats.

Sounds great, but where does 'prominent' begin? Certainly tired of the blanket attacks on Pelosi & Reed.

- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.
- Posting the same message repeatedly.
Excellent!!! :bounce:

Off-topic/Wrong forum

Lounge/Gun Forum moves?

"Rallying the troops" in a forum or group to disrupt elsewhere on the website.

'Nuther good distinction.

The deletion feedback and thread prohibition sound great. Overall looks like a good plan.

:hi:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

236. How about a function to alert on the mods?

The lack of rules has not been the issue, it's been the lack of impartiality on enforcing those rules. Whole threads have been gutted of close to a third of their responses and left standing.

I have personally watched giant threads become Swiss cheese in real time and KNOW that most of the deletes must have fallen under the mysterious "other" category because they had no obvious to an observer rule violations. I would have loved to have been able to alert on whomever was the moderator.

It would also be good to regain a sense of proportion and be able to distinguish between humorous tweak/jab and full out personal assault. Some very humourous ripostes on some threads have been deleted. Humor is often a positive outlet for more negative emotions and DU seems to be losing its jocularity..

[nashville_brook]

287. is there a complete list of current mods anywhere? in addition to the thread-specific list, i mean.

don't really mean this as a question to you, PL -- but more of an expansion on your thought.

[backscatter712]

354. Maybe that's the point of the new functionality. May I make a suggestion, Skinner?

There's a point to the new functionality that shows the author of the deleted post the text, and the stated reason why it was deleted.

To add some transparency to the moderation process.

Maybe some more fine grained control could be useful for the mods, and also to add transparency to moderation.

One option, which obviously should be available for egregious violations, is to continue to delete posts.

But also, the new functionality of locking a member out of a thread, which will be implemented when a post is deleted, could also be used by itself - add a moderator message to a post, without deleting, explaining that this post is a violation of rule X, then locking the poster out of the thread. You could also lock a subthread without locking the entire thread, posting a public reason why the subthread is locked.

It could be useful in some situations.

And it could also improve transparency, which would help address accusations of unfair moderation.

[Blue-Jay]

378. You can do that right now.

Look at a mod's post - You'll see the "alert" icon is there, just the same as everyone else. The alert immediately gets posted to the mod forum where every mod & admin can review it.

As explained above, there must be a consensus among the available moderators before a post can be deleted or a thread locked. It only (usually) takes one mod's dissent against locking or deleting. The moderator that you see has actually done the locking/deleting did not do that on her/his own.

[wildflower]

552. Question about that

Sometimes when I alert I don't include any text, just send a blank alert. Should I always be including a comment? Sometimes I just feel that the problem with the post is obvious and I can't think of anything to say beyond that.

[CabalPowered]

567. Please add a comment

It may seem obvious to you but it's the input from members that starts the mod discussion. Being a mod is tough work, any help we can give them is appreciated.

[Blue-Jay]

1084. You should always include a comment.

If someone has broken a rule, I'm sure that the mods would appreciate your take on which rule has been broken.

[Kerrytravelers]

720. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on this, Blue-Jay.

Moderators only work on consensus. When an alert appears in the Mod Forum, the Moderators read it and post their opinion. Once there is enough for consensus, if action is warranted, then someone acts on it. It is never the act of one Mod. In fact, alerts will sometimes sit until enough Mods have weighed in.

If ten Mods feel the post violates the rules, it only takes one Mod to put a stop on action being taken. One can stop the action desired by ten. It never works in the reverse. There is no lone Mod galloping through the forums, taking action as only they see necessary.



At this point, I am going to end my post. All I can advise is if you find me dishonest or untruthful in how I have depicted the Moderators forum, perhaps you should apply and take a turn as a Moderator. It will change your view of the responsibility and how seriously all of the Moderators take their job.

[Blue-Jay]

1128. It's important that people understand how things work.

Anyone who thinks that one particular moderator has the authority to delete/lock/ban at will doesn't understand the process.

Delete/Lock must have 100% consensus of the available moderators. One 'Nay' vote and the post stays.

Bans are a bit trickier: If a mod sees a newbie register as "DemsSuckBalls", they can invoke the insta-ban. Bans of long-time members require the approval of the Admins.

Any assertions that a moderator has the power/authority to censor anyone without consensus is ridiculous.

[Kerrytravelers]

1164. Blue-Jay, I didn't mean to direct that final paragraph to you. It was a general comment.

(It is too late for me to edit.)

[Individualist]

422. Hear, hear!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

425. Except that mods only remove posts on consensus and no one mod can remove a post

So your problem is not with one mod but all the mods.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1320. Making me feel more, not less, uncomfortable

For the same reasons the Warren Commission preferred the "lone gunman" theory.

I hate to think that the abominable moderation of multiple threads that I witnessed was mod "consensus". But I'm glad I know that now. Ok. Got it.

[Romulox]

239. Posters brazenly breaking the rules in this very thread haven't been deleted or locked out.

It's hard to understand how some posters are allowed to challenge the site owner's authority so openly and shamelessly. :shrug:

[sufrommich]

249. In Jr. High circles it's called "street cred". On the internet it's

called "Internet tough guy syndrome".

[redqueen]

367. Did you alert on them? (nt)

[Romulox]

393. Yes. No action was taken.

Edit: Normally, I'm not a big fan of alerting on anybody, but it seemed that a test case in this very thread was too tempting to pass up. That no action was taken suggests that selective enforcement is still the rule rather than the exception.

[tammywammy]

462. It might be because this is a thread to discuss the new rules

:shrug:

[Individualist]

615. I've alerted too, same result.

I agree with your last statement but would substitute confirms for suggests.

[Individualist]

428. It's quite obvious.

[MineralMan]

558. I think the rules are generally more relaxed on threads like

this one. Or, at least, that's how it has always seemed to me with threads about policy posted by Skinner. Everyone gets to say what they think.

[Skinner]

600. The moderators are instructed to be generally "hands-off" on Admin threads.

They get a big "WARNING" page if they try to delete a post in one of my threads. They can do it, but they are usually reluctant to do so.

Also, we haven't started blocking people out of threads, and will not until the functionality is programmed.

[defendandprotect]

815. Specifically, what is your complaint? Didn't Skinner ask them what they think?

PLUS . . . don't think that new "lock out" from a thread feature is in place yet?

[SidDithers]

1283. From Skinner's OP...

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

Sid

[quiet.american]

242. The clarity of the new rules is excellent. nt

[northoftheborder]

247. Rules

If honest criticism of President Obama or any other Democrat, about an issue, position, or action, even if criticism is made respectfully, is not allowed, then this forum is nothing but an echo chamber of Democrats. It would be worthless in my mind, and I will leave, for good. We'll see.

[CakeGrrl]

589. No one said "honest criticism" is not allowed. But if one's idea

of that is to say "Obama is nothing but a DLC corporatist", it's pretty clear that's not really respectful criticism.

If you heard some the things directed at the President said about YOU instead, would you think it fair or honest or constructive? Maybe that would be another way to gauge what's considered "respectful".

[LooseWilly]

1158. If I'd flipped so egregiously from my campaign positions as Obama has, I'd expect to hear criticisms

... in fact, personally, reading those criticisms would be one of the only ways I could sleep at night.

Don't get me wrong- it's not that I don't think Obama thinks he has reasons for wholesale abandonment of campaign positions (wireless-wiretapping, DADT, DOMA, Guantanamo, Bagram, extraordinary rendition, increased transparency in HCR talks, public option, carbon trading, stopping giveaways to corporations that outsource, etc.)... it's the fact that he has sold them out so consistently.

If I had sold out even just the above list of campaign issues, for the host of obviously "justifiable" reasons that Obama has done so... I would expect to be called far worse than I've ever seen Obama called on this board- and I'd be content to know that I deserved to be called worse still, and I would hug my drinking problem close to my breast as the only means to soothe my soul over not having had the courage to risk political fallout by trying to fight back against the array of political, economic, and downright threatening forces arrayed against the Change talked about in the campaign.

But hey, that's just me. Obviously, people can argue that Obama is some sort of hero-saint for playing it "safe" and not doing anything "too controversial," for fear that the Democrats might lose their majority... and lose the power to... "not do anything too controversial." Hell, there may even be some people that really believe that sort of vague incrementalism is "realistic."

I guess it's a matter of definition of "respectful." If someone I love behaves in a stupefyingly asinine fashion, and I call him/her an asshole- is that as disrespectful as when I say the same of a stranger? (we'll leave the question of accuracy-as-defense-in-case-of-libel aside for the nonce...)

[Jakes Progress]

1328. Suppose the criticism was phrased thusly:

"I think that Obama appears to be a DLC corporatist because this administration has....."

Is it a slur on DU to refer to someone using the term "DLC"?

Just asking?

[Raine1967]

My fave part:

We believe this approach will make it easier for everyone who wishes to be a productive member of this community to do so, regardless of ideology.

[asjr]

248. Hey, works for me. Where else on the internet

can one find as good a blog? DU has been a lifesaver for me!

[howard112211]

250. I'd personally be in favor of a rule banning the advocation of aggressive warfare.

You have rules in there banning advocation of military defeat of the US and overtly "anti-american content". Fair enough. I understand that those are necessary. What about posts cheerleading the war, containing comments like "Death to the Taliban"? If those are allowed, then one may get the impression that the table is rigged in favor of a pro-war point of view.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

320. I've been here nearly 7 years and can't recall a single one of those posts, ever. (nt)

[howard112211]

381. I just did a search for a post that I saw a while back

and can no longer find it. I had alerted that post and saw that it was not deleated after a few days. Perhaps it was deleted at a later point.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

549. Its deletion should be all the answer you need, no? (nt)

[spoony]

490. Not long ago a poster called for the nuking of Afghanistan

Literal nuking. The fact that you don't see something, in seven years or not, means little to the thing's actual existence here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

548. I'm not suggesting it hasn't ever happened.

I am, however, suggesting that A) it isn't prevalent and B) it likely is not tolerated in the first place. But if you want to cite something that hasn't been reversed to contradict my position, feel free to do so.

[WonderGrunion]

924. Not all of Afghanistan, just Kabul

And only immediately after 9/11 when it would have been justifiable to the world stage.

[JTFrog]

364. Link please. n/t

[howard112211]

382. see my post above.

[spoony]

494. How about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7358454

[JTFrog]

513. We're locking this. Inflammatory.

Locked less than an hour after it was posted.

And the other poster can't find the thread he's talking about? :shrug:

Seems to me that shit don't fly here.....

So what was the point again?

[spoony]

533. You, and another poster, acted like such things didn't exist here.

They do. That's the point. I obviously knew it was locked, I linked to it didn't I?

[JTFrog]

594. "If those are allowed, then one may get the impression that the table is rigged in favor...."

More like pointing out that such shit doesn't fly and isn't allowed here, which as you admit, you already knew.

[mzmolly]

252. Excellent!

Very fair and well reasoned out IMO. :hi:

[mimitabby]

254. I like the spirit of your changes

i just hope you (the admins) don't get bogged down in the details!

[woo me with science]

261. Too specific, too many rules, too much nannying.

Seriously, if you are going so far as to say that there will be a RULE against calling the President, "Barry," this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

This is a discussion board for pete's sake. Rule out illegal stuff. Rule out stuff that is explicitly freeperish. Then let adults TALK, for pete's sake.

This just makes me sad.

[lbrtbell]

1185. I wish I could rec your post

You made the point perfectly. We're all adults, and if we can't handle disagreements, even the fierce ones, we have no business being here.

[azmouse]

264. With theses changes, I may be more willing to start threads now

knowing the discussion will be more civil, and things will be less likely to go off on unrelated tangents.

Thank you for clarifying the rules... even tho some are already testing the limits of those rules right here in your OP.

[NNN0LHI]

268. I could save everyone a lot of reading and rule memorizing if they would like?

Just treat everyone like you want to be treated and you will never have any problems.

That does it doesn't it?

Don

[MineralMan]

566. Hey! Don't be going all religious on us and quoting The Golden Rule.

Oh, wait...never mind. That rule seems to be the main one everywhere. My bad.

[mike_c]

271. what about "uncomfortable but not rule breaking topics" re #3?

I'm hoping that the need to provide feedback (#2) goes some way toward solving that issue, but one of the main issues I've had with otherwise generally excellent forum moderating over the years is that a few moderators appear to actively censor posts whose content they find personally objectionable but which does not otherwise violate DU rules as I understand them. When that happens, the poster will be banned from the thread automatically. In that circumstance, the action seems unjust.

From my own experience, whenever posters argue unpopular positions, or make statements that might be true, but are uncomfortable for some, even if done respectfully there is a strong likelihood the response will be deleted. Case in point-- I frequently argue that religious faith is a form of delusion, and therefore a kind of mental illness. Although sometimes we get into heated arguments about it, most of the time I try hard to make my arguments as dispassionately as possible, but the sentiment itself disturbs some moderators, who routinely delete those posts.

On a more political front, some of us argue from time to time that although defending the nation is a laudable thing, the current activities of most U.S. military personal are closer to thugging for imperialism and are therefore not honorable. Such discussions are frequently deleted regardless of tone and despite having logical presentation simply because a moderator doesn't like the underlying concept.

When that happens, it's censorship. I've grown accustomed to it and no longer bat an eye when it happens. It's the internet, after all. But proposal #3 would lead to barring DUers from further contributions in a thread whenever they are unjustly censored. That seems to compound the injustice, IMO.

[WinkyDink]

275. Will the Revised rules bring back Mo the by-now Cat? (Yeah, I miss her!)

Seriously, though (not that I wasn't!)---I like'em!

[treestar]

276. #2 is great - it can "train" people

I only hope it doesn't create too much more work for moderators.

[mstinamotorcity]

277. I am glad you took notice

We as a people sometimes forget how to treat each other with the humanity that shows us to be the unique species of the planet.
We have what it is I think one of the best opportunities of our lives,a President who wants to have an all inclusive America.And we as a people (especially Dems) have a chance to be doers instead of dreamers.I for one welcome the chance to prove that I believe in the human spirit and ready to discuss and weigh the points of view in clarity and help set an agenda that is good for all America.I know that in my heart of hearts their will always be someone who will not see things as I do, but I believe in their right to have their particular view. I do believe that sometimes with discussion you can reach different or better outcomes. I also believe that we need to stick more to fact,not fiction when pointing out certain problems.And I don't give a darn (I used a nice word), if something happens three or four years after our President took office, if its George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ( Dubya and Shooter's) fault, then it should be pointed out.Well any republican or democratic member of Congress who voted against the 98 percent of the country. And instead of arguing with infiltrators, hit them with information and links to disprove their points. This will help newcomers know the reason why we sometimes get worked up with fury and go a little off the ground with some of the things we write in response to ops.
Since you have updated the rules as a member of the du community I will do my best to abide by them.Thank you very much Mstinamotorcity.:hi: :hi: :hi:

[Vinca]

280. I understand completely what you're trying to accomplish, but . . .

I hope the site doesn't go all "goody two shoes." What attracted me to this site 6 years ago was the fact you could express yourself with the well placed "expletive deleted" and no one got terribly bent out of shape over it. I do think, however, it would serve us all well to try harder to understand opposing points of view.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

282. Question.

Let's say have a post deleted because it was a part of a deleted subthread, but not because of any particular rule violation on my part.

Do I still get posting privileges for that thread, or are they revoked?

[dionysus]

293. for you? totally revoked

:evilgrin:

[Robb]

295. I second this.

... :evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

380. Absolutely...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[HughMoran]

308. Yes, I share the same confusion over deleted subthreads

[pinboy3niner]

389. It looks like one intent is to avoid entirely the deleting of whole subthreads

Under Point #3: "We also hope that we could completely stop the practice of deleting entire sub-threads -- which often results in "innocent bystanders" having their posts removed unfairly."

[backscatter712]

876. That is a good question.

What about the non-violating reply to a violating post that results in the entire subthread being deleted.

Please don't tell me that the non-violating posts of that subthread result in their authors being blocked from the thread...

[valerief]

284. Just a question on language. For example,

we can call Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove an idi*t or a m*ron but not a ret*rd. Is that correct?

I'm trying to understand the language limits. Those three words used to mean pretty much the same thing (I know there are IQ measurement differences between idi*t and m*ron) but I'm not sure I understand how they're now different from ret*ard.

I'm old, so I didn't even notice when the word Neg*o became a no-no word either!

Thanks!

[Skinner]

607. That's correct.

We can call Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove an idi*t or a m*ron but not a ret*rd.

[valerief]

889. Okay, thanks. I fail to understand the difference, but thems your rules. Thanks. nt

[backscatter712]

944. My interpretation...

is that "idiot" and "moron", despite being used decades ago to refer to people who today I'd refer to as having intellectual disabilities, is today just used as a generic pejorative against someone behaving stupidly.

"Reta*d" is generally construed to be a pejorative aimed at, or comparing a person to those with intellectual disabilities, which is offensive, and thus banned.

[valerief]

1459. I've always understood idiot and moron to be clinical definitions, as noted below.

I don't know when they became "no longer in use".

id·i·ot

noun
A foolish or stupid person.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

mo·ron

noun
A stupid person; a dolt.
Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

[Kerrytravelers]

1171. A person who is retarded is someone who was born with specific medical concerns.

That is the simplest way I can find to describe it succinctly. Karl Rove is not retarded. He is an evil, nasty person. However to equate a retarded person (for lack of a better word) with Karl Rove is an insult to the retarded person.

It is also very insensitive to parents on DU with children who may have various conditions (apologies if this is an unkind word), such as retardation, Downs, etc.

In my classroom, I never allowed the word retarded to be used negatively, just as I never allowed gay to be used negatively.

Hope that clears it up. :hi:

[lbrtbell]

1195. No, that's called Down's Syndrome

"Retarded" has long since joined the list of other words like moron, cretin, pinhead, idiot, etc., which used to be medical terms for arrested mental development.

It's a shame that it's not more widely known that the term Down's Syndrome has replaced mental retardation.

Also, why is it wrong to use the word "retarded", when it's socially acceptable to insult people by calling them "bipolar", "manic-depressive", or "schizophrenic"? These are currently-used medical terms, and people suffering from these illnesses are among those at highest risk of committing suicide. Either ban all these terms or none of them.

[Kerrytravelers]

1210. Actually, retarded has not joined that list.

As a teacher of Inclusion Classrooms, including children with Down's, I can guarantee you that retarded is not ok to use in place of pinhead, etc. However, I am not a parent. Please feel free to address that question to a parent of a child who is retarded and see their response.

It is also not socially acceptable to call people any of the mental health terms you listed. If you see that, please alert.

We take such name calling quite seriously- if we're alerted on it.

[Soylent Brice]

291. sounds good to me, although

to avoid gravedancing posts the logical thing to do would be to create some method to which we could view recently banned members.

a forum where a message can be posted saying "so and so" was banned, but that no one has the ability to reply to.

:shrug:

otherwise, everything sounds top notch.

[cliffordu]

297. I completely agree with this. Except for the fact that

my swearing won't go over well.

And that's kind of fucked up.

Seriously, though, this is good stuff.

PARTICULARLY about locking dum dums out of threads instead of locking good threads polluted by the nasties.

[corkhead]

299. Solving the problems on DU would go a long way to solving the problems of the Democratic Party

we are a reflection of the bigger Democratic party as a whole. None of us belong to any orgaized party, we're Democrats.

I like these changes. I think they will help make things a little more civil.

[LoZoccolo]

306. I think that the rules are the cancer which is killing DU.

Not that rules are bad, or even that particular rules are bad, but they have become an obsession and have served to turn DU into an intense online game that only seems like an activity which brings about political change.

1. The elaborate attempts to control the content and tone have given rise to the illusion that dominating the expression of opinion here is an activity of utmost importance, as witnessed by the "I can't believe that people on DU believe _____". People probably need to find out the hard way that trying to do something like this is futile because it only pressures people to act like they don't disgree (it doesn't even pressure people to actually agree, just that they don't disagree). It would be interesting to find out how much effort is expended by people in trying to control opinion rather than be persuasive.
2. Alerts and permanent bans serve to inordinately place the locus of disagreement on people, not ideas. How many threads devolve into accusations that someone has some other agenda, or is a troll, rather than the topic at hand? This is because the emphasis on the rules and their enforcement gives everybody the idea that an important function of the site is to judge and punish wrongdoers rather than discuss ideas and help people get things done.
3. People will have more respect for the community, it's tone, the moderators and administrators, and the intent of the rules, when the modicum of accountability that the Ask the Administrators forum provided is restored. Nearly everybody has broken a rule, and had it enforced against them. The tone of this enforcement, this attitude of "that's our decision and we're not discussing it publicly" will in turn give you an opportunity to alienate all of these rule-breakers. Will there be whiners in the Ask the Administrators forum? Yes. Will there be people who endlessly nag? Yes. Will there be people who use it as a weapon against other people? Yes. But with the right skill this task can be handled in a way where the benefits outweigh these meager costs, where people - not just those being talked to, but observers as well - come to understand the principles of community, and the people abusing the system only serve to embarass themselves with their attempts to abuse. An authoritarian model of rule-enforcement is often a mask for a lack of these skills, or an unwillingness to take the responsibility that comes with using them.
4. #3 will also complicate fundraising time as people's social behavior is strongly influenced by principles of reciprocity.
5. You mention that people will be judged by whether or not they seem to like DU and it's members. I would think that an overall criticism of "netroots" culture, which is still developing and can still take a different direction than it is today, is important to it's health. Yes, I think over 50% of it is junk, so? If there are big problems with it that need to be ironed out, I think more there is more political benefit to letting these things be said publicly and have people get their feelings hurt (or act like their feelings are hurt as a way of avoiding the real discussion) than letting the Internet serve as a "liberal pacification device"* and a massive time sink that does more harm than good. Would I be able to submit the list of rules as evidence that the administration does not like this community, as they are a catalogue of things which happen within it which you are not happy about? Or should I see it as something given in a manner such that you hope things improve, or acknowledge that a community needs criticism and maintenance?

I may now be posting something which will get me axed during the first round of reviews, which will be seen as a disrespectful insult rather than a brutally optimistic vote of confidence in your ability to make this place better. I don't even have much tangible advice on where to go save for some very radical ideas about implementing anonymous posting and only temporary bans similar to some Japanese-style message boards. I would not be surprised if 95% of the people here will not miss me should I get that axe. I do not even disown certain definitions of the word "troll" (I am not, however, a Republican or conservative, and feel that people like Socrates and even Barack Obama are skilled trolls). But I have been in a position with each thread that I have locked - and I have probably had more locked threads than any other user - to hear criticism, and it was solicited in this thread.

* This is a phrase that I borrowed from someone on a conservative message board who was offering some backhanded advice regarding real activism vs. Internet activism, mentioning that when "moonbats" in the sixties wanted to get together, they actually had to put effort into getting together to meet and thus had more impetus to actually get things done with this effort they put into congregating. To have this kind of real-life constructive activism happen today would be good, no? But the thread I started on the topic focused nearly entirely on the fact that the idea came from a conservative source rather than whether or not the idea was true or good or anything. This is what happens when a culture gets obsessed with rule enforcement rather than discussion.

[LoZoccolo]

318. P.S. I've been reading your responses to other people in this thread...

...and see that we actually have mostly the same ideas about where things should go. I just happen to think the emphasis on rules and their enforcement, and reinventing ways to make them work, is acting as a detriment.

[spoony]

439. Worthwhile points

"serve to inordinately place the locus of disagreement on people, not ideas"

Especially insightful.

[Skinner]

703. I'm actually pretty ambivalent about having all these rules.

If the members of DU wanted to get rid of all the rules and just institute one rule, along the lines of, "This is a website for Democrats and progressives, and we ban conservative disruptors," I would give it a shot. If people wanted some control over their own experiences, we could re-institute some version of the much-derided "block replies to me" function, or maybe let the OP decide who is permitted to post in their own threads.

We have rules because we want DU to be different from an unmoderated yahoo political forum. But one of the downsides of having rules, from an admin perspective, is that it inserts *ME* into the disagreements of others, and in an community this large and diverse any effort to enforce those rules is by necessity inconsistent and unfair. And once rules have been established, different groups of people naturally want new behaviors placed off limits -- after all, if I can't call him a jerk, he shouldn't be permitted to say {whatever}.

I can actually feel my blood pressure decrease as I sit here and contemplate the idea of administering a DU with no rules. For me, it would be heaven. For all of you, I don't know. I have long wondered if it would actually make people like DU more, since they would no longer need to waste effort trying to follow the rules or to obsess over whether they are being treated fairly.

Anyone else want to try a no-rules DU experiment?

(My kid is awake now. Have to go get him.)

[chimpymustgo]

748. I vote for no rules - just the Golden Rule - and amnesty for banned posters to come back (behaved).

I also like a warning system. First time offender suspended certain amount of time. Second time - longer. Third strike - y'er out.

Thanks for listening, Skinner. Also, what about a "suggestion box"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

782. I've long been an advocate of the no rules idea.

Try it.

[defendandprotect]

827. Skinner - What was "the much-derided "block replies to me" function" .... ????

[Catherina]

845. I vote in favor of that. Rules are manipulated, enforcing them is time-consuming

and enforcers have human biases.

I vote for "This is a website for Democrats and progressives, and we ban conservative disruptors".

The Democratic Party is in trouble right now. Banning unhappy voters is only going to make the situation worse. You say you ban people for breaking the rules but, as busy as you are, can you waste the time to see how they were goaded or followed from thread to thread by many of the people cheering you in this thread?

The President's diehard supporters have a DU group where they can escape all criticism of him and gush to their heart's content. The rest of us mere voters should have a forum where we're not at the mercy of any hypersensitive, uberprotective feelings and can escape effusive adoration.

Those of us who are losing our homes and have lost our jobs are still members of this party and, as such, still have a voice.

We need to be able to express our horror when the House and Senate pass a bill allowing shareholders to limit CEO pay and the White House works against that. We should be able to express our frustration that the White House repeated BP's numbers during the worst environmental problem in US history and decided to trust BP.

I wrote Obama larger checks than I could afford to the point that I maxed contributions and worked hard to get him elected. Because I criticize him now, I get barraged with accusations that I never loved him and hate Democrats. That's not only unfair but taking 2 minutes to look at my journal entries from the Primaries puts that lie to rest. Still it persists and dishonestly so.

Disappointed Democrats need a place to talk to otherwise one day you might turn around when you need us and we'll be gone, for good. The President's Chief of Staff implied we were fucking retards. Would you rejoice when the policies this administration is pursuing seem to support the opinion that we're a useful bunch of retards only good for writing checks and distributing press releases at election time and that the rest of the time we should be shut up?

Please keep considering no rules please, or at least have a subforum forum with no rules, where voters can talk.

[HughMoran]

857. This is a very good post

emphasizing why we desperately need rules here.

[Catherina]

893. I suggest you read it again then and if you don't mind, my post was to Skinner

Your 4 snarky contributions of "uggh" in this thread alone are a prime example of goading posters.

If you don't mind, I am not interested in your replies to my ideas or in a continued example of you hounding people. My post was to Skinner since he ponders people's input with respect and doesn't repeatedly make disrespectful and neanderthal-level posts like "uggh". I ignore you, would you please reciprocate the favor?

[HughMoran]

912. Personally insulting me doesn't make your point

The basis for my (what I thought was self-evident) post was to point out that I thought your one-sided, berating (of Obama supporters & others) & seemingly unyielding view on what we should discuss here is why we need rules enforcement, else we're at each others' throats constantly.

[Catherina]

918. I would like to hear from Skinner. Your input is of no interest n/t

[MineralMan]

1118. If that is true, you can quickly ignore that poster.

It's a simple one-click operation. And yet...

[Ignis]

1252. Where was that poster "personally insulting" you?

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

1288. 6 hours later you come by to defend you bud-day?

FYI - "neanderthal-level posts"

Not that it's any of your business.

[Ignis]

1303. Who shat in your Wheaties, Mr. Moran?

1. I don't know that poster from Adam. She/He/It isn't on my Buddy List.
2. I don't read tangential sub-threads by your schedule. :eyes:
3. Calling your post stupid is not the same as calling you stupid.

I didn't see a personal attack, so I asked. :shrug: Now that you've answered, I think it's safe to say that you were confused about what constitutes the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Here's more info, if you need it:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ad+hominem&l=1

Words mean things. :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

901. First off, I'm sorry that some of my reply was more beligerent than it should have been.

I've also thought of another way of putting this:

Politics is about manipulating people. That sounds crass and cynical, but some people choose to do it through facts, intellectual honesty, seeking common ground, and mutual respect. Still, they are trying to change someone's thoughts and behavior. Conventional message boards offer strategies of manipulating people outside of these ways: the use of identity opens up personal attack and mob action*, and the rules offer censorship and intimidation as strategies. I'm also aware that identity and rules offer accountability, and this accountability keeps people from wasting their time sifting through junk posts here (which I can gather is the central intention of the rules and really the role of DU in the larger Internet, to give us quality time), but it would be interesting to experiment to see which trade-off would offer more benefit.

[Jamastiene]

937. Well, you could add a forum that is essentially unmoderated.

It could be like a fight pit of sorts. People who are having REALLY heated arguments with each other could take it to the fight pit (if they wanted) and break any rule they want in arguing with each other...until their heart's content.

They'll eventually get tired of arguing with each other and/or get it out of their systems. Once, they get it out of their systems, they can come back and go on to some other topic without being upset any more.

I believe that would reduce escalations that lead to tombstones, simply because they weren't through arguing yet. Everyone has an issue that is near and dear to them to the point that they have hot buttons. For some of us, some of these "issues" have a very direct impact on our lives.

I can think of about a dozen great GLBT posters who could have handled particularly nasty arguments much better by "taking it to the fight pit" (if we had one at that time) and probably would not have gotten TS'ed. That situation still saddens me greatly. They were good people who were just angry at the time. Think of how differently that would have turned out had they been allowed to go duke it out in a forum with less or no rules.

[flvegan]

965. Fight Club.

[backscatter712]

1190. That's a possibility!

And if a flame war gets out of control in the other forums, it can be moved to the Fight Club, and people can bash each other there!

[flvegan]

963. It would be like Sparta!

It would be quite the interesting experiment. Might be fun. Might be a disaster.

[whatchamacallit]

1029. It's nice to know you've given this serious consideration

I don't honestly know if it's the answer, but it's a refreshing sign that your impartiality is alive and well.

[Bonobo]

1172. I do. Let me share something with you.

In Japan, kids clean up their own school and classrooms.

They do it every day, wiping the floors, cleaning the windows, etc., etc.

There are no janitors to make fun of, to clean up after us. To deride and abuse.

Japanese kids do not deface their schools because they feel like they own it and are responsible for it.


I believe that the same would hold true here. Allow the members to feel responsible for their own site and they will not deface it.

[flvegan]

1208. I hope Skinner reads your response.

Sincerely, very well said. Especially since so many folks donate to build/take advantage of the site.

[Bonobo]

1229. Thanks, Fivegan.

I really appreciate that.

[saracat]

1184. I think that would be a great experiment. We will never know if it could work until we tried it!

There aren't any "rules" unless they are inherent in RL. That kind of application could work here. What about if everyone just treated people the way they would too their face, as if they were talking to them? I often think the ananyminity of the message board gives bullies the confidence to attack in a way they would never do in RL. That being said, the no rules experiment could be land breaking.It would either be a huge success or really not that much of a change from what is happening now. I think it is worth a shot. At least we could say DU tried it!

[jgraz]

1206. Holy crap, this is the best idea I've heard in a while.

Fewer headaches for you, less frustration for us. After all, we still have our ignore and hide thread lists.

I'd suggest some very minimal rules to cut down on bullying, e.g. no threads along the lines of "Kiss My Ass, <DUer>", etc. But otherwise, I think this would bring back a lot of posters who have left in frustration.

[mirrera]

1271. YES! Yes yes yes... no rules. None

It is totally worth a try. This place is becoming like Kindergarten... tattling and cliques. Liberal people tend to not alert on others and more conservative people do... that can make the enforcement look biased. I have never alerted, or put anyone on ignore because i am not afraid of words on a screen. I just click away if I am bothered or answer if I feel i have something to add. The worst thing about no rules would be spam, but you have such a great site, it would be easier to concentrate on moderating that and not petty disagreements.

It would be worth a try. Maybe a no-rule month, and then see which rules are really needed.

[jgraz]

1276. I think part of the incivility is the webrage of seeing the board rules violated

The same insult without the rules may actually not be as troubling to the recipient.

[SidDithers]

1287. Maybe just for one weekend a month...

kind of a "blow off steam and get it out of your system" weekend.

Might be kinda fun.

Sid

[stranger81]

1318. Another vote in favor of the no-rules approach.

It would facilitate a broader range of opinions being expressed (right side of the aisle excepted, of course).

[davidwparker]

1425. Except for those who come here to be disruptive, these

rules are unnecessary.

What I see is the problem is "some" don't want "others" to criticize "their" point of view or to post anything which is contrary to their point of view. It is largely controlling content on this site. Period.

Your reinstating "block replies to me" and blocking replies to that person's OP have merits. That is, if you decide to block someone from replying to you, that person cannot reply to your OPs either. This would also clean up the 9/11 forum, where some go their just to be disruptive.

Personally, I don't care what someone replies. This is why I've never used any of the blocking features.

[mikelgb]

1450. +1 for no rules/less rules

I'm fine with deleting obviously bigoted, or other bullshit but all this minutiae is tiresome and counter-productive.

[Jester Messiah]

309. Aye, here's a vote in favor. [nt]

[arcadian]

312. What about posts where people use their "DU old-timer" status to try to shut down discussion?

Also posters that point out grammatical errors, spelling errors and typos as a form of attack. Also posters who use one of your unrelated viewpoints as an attack? Should we alert on these posts they are "under the radar" attacks.?

[Stinky The Clown]

372. There are plenty of under the radar attacks and under the radar incitements to anger

Sticks are poked in eyes with posts that are within the rules. It is about the pattern of a particular poster. How is that to be addressed?

How about the mods replying when an alert is sent? An opportunity for the alerter to make their case.

[hlthe2b]

519. This is what concerns me sometimes about those T'stoned

I would venture to guess if all who had followed the entire thread where a transgression occurred were polled, in many instances there might be a consensus as to a precipitating and inciting event. That person inciting often has a pattern of doing so on other threads. Unfortunately, the mods may never see this, but focus on the most egregious of the posts on the thread. I don't know how exactly to work around this, but it adds to the sense of unfairness that some bannings have produced. When there is no opportunity for discussion, it only adds to that feeling. It sort of takes me back to those old school days, where the bullied ended up punished and those bullying go about their merry way. :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

You're absolutely correct.

It is a tactic. Incite, Incite, Incite and then blink rapidly and say "Who? Me?".

You can find the pattern if you watch for it. Such posters also do a lot of sucking up when given the chance.

Eddie Haskell comes to mind.

[Jakes Progress]

1334. Yep. They are all over this thread.

Lots of "You're looking particularly nice this evening, Mrs. Cleaver." You always wonder if the admin falls for it. We all know the teachers and bosses that were susceptible to such blandishments.

Ah, but the Haskells will always be with us. When every soul with deliberate argument and thoughtful concern have been eliminated or left, they will remain.

[treestar]

647. Or making personal claims

"I live in the gulf," etc.

[hlthe2b]

689. Seems like that's often pertinent....

I would want to know if someone actually lived/worked in the Gulf if they were voicing an opinion on the current oil situation.... Perhaps some people use their "relevance" to "bully" their point across? :shrug:

[treestar]

717. There's a raising the bar of not being able to disagree without being

accused of being uncaring. where it is used to try to claim that that makes their opinion unassailable.

[Greyskye]

939. You don't need to put a period and a question mark together. Sheesh.

:evilgrin:








:hide:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

315. For the most part they appear extremely thoughtful

I can see how it will make it somewhat more difficult for someone to attempt to circumvent the rules. Which is good.

I really like the addition of #2. There are some posters that will help with understanding how the rules are applied and others it will cause to feel even more victimized. Such is life. I believe the good will outweigh the bad, though.

I'm beginning to think it may a good idea to show why posters were TSd and why. In an information only type post where public comments are not allowed. I understand the aversion to adding further insult to injury, but it may also keep some of the vitriol directed toward the mods down if posters actually knew the whole truth behind a TS. I just don't know.

[gibby2433]

316. Why am I a bit troubled?

While I am very grateful for a site like Democratic Underground, I'm a bit troubled that this is even an issue.

Is it the point of change and progress to need a "common villian" such as G.W. Bush? I don't think so. I've always embraced the idea that progressive and liberal people were the ones who were able to view the country not as Blue or Red, Democrat or Republican, but as "for and by the people" and not "for and by the power." And if that means criticizing the Democrat in the White House for falling in line with the lobbyists and money, then so be it.

I don't want a kindler, gentler Democratic Underground. I want a place where truth wins over political party, no matter which party is f*cking up.

[nashville_brook]

332. wow -- well said.

[Individualist]

340. "I want a place where truth wins over political party," I wholeheartedly agree.

IMO it's wrong to place party above Democratic principles.

[redqueen]

374. From the OP:

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

[Catherina]

464. +1. I want progress and truth not obeisance to personalities n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

476. There are many liberal sites on the internet but THIS site has always bent towards the big D dem

Criticism of Dems has always been limited to constructive criticism and that hasn't changed. I'm a little puzzled by the Barry stuff...but overall that rule is just being restated

[chimpymustgo]

760. GREAT post. Truth trumps political party IMHO.

[Lorien]

814. Amen. Truth has been losing a lot of ground since 2000

No need to continue the trend. Principle over party power is the only way the non-elite will ever have a prayer of restoring democracy to our corporate owned Nation.

[defendandprotect]

854. Agree . . .

[Duppers]

874. ...

:applause:

[TygrBright]

936. Problem with that is, on a site with 1000 members, you have 1000 "truths"

...which is pretty much what Skinner's trying to address in the OP. By its very nature this site draws people with a WIDE spectrum of beliefs about what is "truth." And what is "right" and "just" and "equitable" and "correct," too. And CERTAINLY about what is "progressive" and "liberal" and "D/democratic."

Political discussion involves very, very few objectively verifiable facts.

You get thousands of people with thousands of ideas about what is "true" together on a website, and without some rules, you soon haven't got a website, you've got a nasty, toxic moshpit.

helpfully,
Bright

[amborin]

1176. +1000

[UndertheOcean]

333. Only one comment:

I would change :

- Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.

to

- Discussion of the Arab/Jewish or Israeli/Palestinian conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.

because :

* Arab/Israeli conflict "might" imply the "Palestinian" is a construct that has no historical validity, and that contention is between the "Arabs" and the Israelis.

[Mithreal]

334. Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, progressi

Teabaggers and conservatives who are careful, still welcome.

Oh wait, I broke another rule unless it isn't in effect yet.

Skinner, some of this is decent but really not the heart of the "recent" problems.

It's clear, DU is now about message discipline.

[HughMoran]

413. uggh

[Mithreal]

416. I know, Hugh, you won't have to wait much longer.

[HughMoran]

418. cut the crap

Really, is this necessary?

[Forkboy]

443. Are your posts in this thread all saying "ugghhh" necessary?

[HughMoran]

456. yes.

[Forkboy]

481. If you truly feel that to be the case you might want to reconsider who the real problem is here.

[tekisui]

532. uggh.

[Individualist]

623. uggh

[Smashcut]

If you're constipated please leave the room.

Your constant grunting has grown tiresome.

[HughMoran]

873. OK

[Amerigo Vespucci]

335. It would be nice to see "common decency, common sense, and mutual respect " again

Sometimes it's blatant disrespect, other times it's a level of rudeness that might be across the boards for that person, but I have never added to my "Ignore" list as aggressively as I have in the last 6 months.

I've even started to put the "Why did you bother to post that" people on ignore. That's their major contribution? To go from thread to thread and demand justification from the posters?

I applaud your decision to address the situation.

:patriot:

[bobburgster]

341. One question....

Off-topic/Wrong forum

Just curious.....should we automatically post any comments in their appropriate forums instead of General Discussion?

- Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.
- Discussion of purely religious topics outside the Religion/Theology forum.


Otherwise, I think it is an improvement. Certainly adds clarification for me.

[JTFrog]

343. K&f'nR!

:applause:
:applause:
:applause:

[Dover]

349. Have you ever explained why the Israel/Palestine issue is insulated from the main discussion areas?

Especially when there is something going on in that region that is front page news? I feel that topic could be kept within bounds by the rules you've posted relative to tolerance and respectful exchange.

For instance, too often it seems that any discussion critical of Israel is interpreted as anti-semitic which shuts down a lot of constructive and interesting discussions about things such as the peace process, foreign policy decisions or other issues that directly involve Israel. There has
seemed to be a double standard. I have seen numerous posts that are directed at other religions and spiritual beliefs, openly denegrated and/or discussed within the context of their political influence such as rightwing Christians and their affect on our system. Why not allow similar discussion of Jewish rightwing policies and their affect on our political/national decisions? I've noticed that these groups are rarely discussed relative to the particulars of their religious beliefs, but rather are viewed through the lens of conservative/fundamentalist values vs. liberal, progressive.

In other words, why not just extend the rules you've already put in place about 'attacks' and treating exchanges respectfully, etc. to those areas as well? This is an area that has always been vague relative to how it's
moderated and rules enforced.

Would you, at the very least, provide some clarity by explaining your
decision to segregate that topic and corner of the world?
Apparently the Jewish religion can't be openly discussed in the Religion Forum either.

And speaking of the Religion forum, I do hope your rules will help
to make that space more hospitable for those of faith where they can feel
free to discuss their faith without attack or always being forced into a defensive position. For many DUers of faith they aren't looking for debate or to evangelize or defend their faith. They just want a place for discussion.
The forum seems to have become an extension of another forum, a 'certain DU group'who often don't seem content without a foil.
More to the point, there is a remarkable amount of disrespect and mean-spiritedness toward fellow DUers and a heavy-handed agenda. Posting in there feels like stepping onto a fire ant mound.

Other than this I feel the rules are clearer and while tightened up a bit they also seem more tolerant ie. willing to communicate with DUers about reasons and provide better warnings to 'educate' members about procedures/rules.

DU is forever a work in progress and a fascinating virtual community which
seems to be in very good hands.

[hlthe2b]

541. Yes.. I find it concerning that issues for which I/P is related,

but not necessarily the focus are automatically removed from the general discussion. It seems whenever there is breaking news that overlaps with I/P we are not able to widely discuss it in the general forums.

[defendandprotect]

894. I agree -- I'd like to see those articles stay in GD for at least 24 hours before

being hauled off to the I/P which isolates the new information --

[chimpymustgo]

777. Excellent post Dover. We should be allowed to discuss Isreal/Palestine in PUBLIC.

[defendandprotect]

902. Right, it's a major issue for the nation --- and rather than facing the

controversy and working our way thru it -- and 'times they are a changin' re Israel' --

evidently the fear of controversy is so great that the subject has been made near taboo here.

You would almost have to think that this isn't a subject the entire world is concerned with --

including the United Nations!

Rather, it should demand MORE debate/discussion --

[Danger Mouse]

1177. Sometimes I feel that, as a mod, I'm too remote from other DUer's.

I don't want to feel that way.

I'd rather be seen as approachable, because I really do want to answer any questions you might have.

I think your post raises good points, and you have a lot of valuable things to say. Thank you.

As for the Israel/Palestine issue, you might want to contact Lithos.

[proud2BlibKansan]

353. Love #3

Excellent decision.

Thank you.

[madrchsod]

358. sounds good to me.....

cleaning up the r/t forum is a good start.

i think i`ve missed maybe a combined 60 days since 2001 and i`ve seen the flow of this site. yup, it was getting a bit out of control.

all in all it`s the best political site on the web.

so to to the guys who run this site and to all the mods that have served..

[SargeUNN]

360. Good news

We need to realize we have a common foe and to choose fighting among ourselves is totally helpful to the real enemy. We are suppose to be open minded and reality based but we get so hooked on how we think things should be we don't seem to understand there are those out there who don't want progressive. Why we think working against each other and understanding we don't all agree 100% doesn't mean we don't all have the same goals in the major things.

[Taverner]

366. Can I attack Likud?

Being I fully support Israel, but hate Likud.

Is this acceptable?

[nashville_brook]

368. a mod recently locked a thread b/c s/he deemed Alternet an "inappropriate source."

so -- Alternet...can we use it or not?

[SidDithers]

397. Was it originally sourced to Alternet...

or did alternet pick it up from somewhere else more controversial. I've generally seen alternet allowed through the years, but mirroring a hot topic from a more verboten site might also get the thread locked down.

Sid

[Posteritatis]

642. That raises the question of how many layers posters should be required to confirm

If I post an article, should I have to know it's source's source's source?

[SidDithers]

1124. Yes, I think you should know the original source of the article...Nt

Sid

[kjackson227]

370. I don't think that calling a "post" a lie should be in violation...

especially if someone can substantiate the truth.

[spoony]

512. Excellent point. nt

[Skinner]

624. Calling a post a lie is accusing the other person of dishonesty.

You are more than welcome to point out when someone has their facts wrong. Or to ask someone to provide some evidence to back up their assertions. In fact, you are encouraged to do so.

[POAS]

784. For example

A Joe Wilson, "You LIE"................post is bad.

An I think you have that wrong here is why....

or an I think your wrong and here is my evidence........ posts are OK>

Do I have that correct?

[Skinner]

803. Exactly. (nt)

[kjackson227]

1414. Got it :)

[laughingliberal]

1577. Is calling a post 'bullshit' without providing any reason the same as calling it a lie?

Alternatively, is saying "you're just spreading bullshit" the same as saying the poster is lying?

[crim son]

373. I think if the rules are enforced, the tone here will change for the better.

I dislike participating in discussion on DU because any comment I make invariably elicits a smear on my intelligence, liberalism or what have you. It doesn't hurt or scare me, but it does bore me to tears and strikes me as nonproductive to the point of being a waste of my time. If we can't all rally around Obama, let us opt to rally around civil, meaningful discourse and we will all benefit.

[rucky]

376. Okay, let's take this never-ending Hugo Chavez thread, for example.

I'm thinking it would be cut from 300+ to about 10 posts under the new rules.

:thumbsup:

[Dappleganger]

The greatest source of my frustration

are posts which are blatantly anti-union and anti-public school which are allowed to remain in a thread and no one is allowed to question it. I have alerted on many of those kinds of posts and most of the time nothing happens. That's pretty much all I have to say.

:shrug:

[Skinner]

631. What do you mean "no one is allowed to question it?"

Just click the "Reply" link and go to town.

[Dappleganger]

804. I ask if someone can truly call themselves a progressive

if they are anti-union or anti-public school, as those ideals or core liberal views. My replies are repeatedly deleted and the other person's anti-liberal propaganda is allowed to remain. There's really not much else I can do since repeated alerts to the mods go unanswered.

[No Elephants]

1682. Maybe clicking on "Reply" should be the exclusive remedy for

all disagreements on political issues? (Advocating to elect someone other than a Democrat is taboo here and I absolutely get that.)

[Bryn]

379. Why be against the Green Party since their platform is very closely related

to Progressive Democratic Platform? No I am not talking about Ralph Nader thing. He was more of egoist and annoying. (running against an excellent Democratic President candidate like Al Gore.) I am not of the Green Party but if there's a corportist democratic person (DINOs who vote against the people's best interests) running and there's a Green with excellent platform running why not go for the green? The Green Party is growing in Europe and other countries so don't be surprise that it will grow here in USA if the Democratic Party doesn't watch it and stay true to the Democratic Party.

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign." - Harry Truman

Polls are showing here in Arkansas a wide gap between Republican John Boozman and Democratic Blanche Lincoln (Boozman is way ahead of her) and I don't want Boozman to win! Many progressive democratic people are abandoning Lincoln to go for the Green here for voting against the public option and working families/unions. That's a fact, difficult to avoid. Bend this rule a little? So we could discuss this here? This is not about going against the Democratic Party itself, but about DINOs, the choice between them and the Green running on the same ballot. OK, if time comes that the Green comes out ahead of Lincoln this November, are we allow to discuss this or be shunned? Just curious.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

390. There are plenty of green party sites to use for that purpose.

It need not be here, on a site for Democrats.

[Bryn]

400. Blanche Lincoln is a democrat

and can be discussed here.

on edit: to clarify: I am a democrat first. Blue first then Green if necessary like I explained to Skinner. That post is for Skinner.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

406. Sure can.

But, as I understand it, not in terms of "Lincoln sucks - I'm voting Green and here's why..."

[Bryn]

421. No, not really the point here

The point here is if/when the Green does come out ahead of Lincoln this November, would we be allowed to discuss this or be shunned?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

434. That's a truly pointless hypothetical

Because it's not going to happen. If it were even remotely possible, Lincoln would've been primaried out in the first place.

[Bryn]

646. My post is directed at Skinner, the Admin.

This thread is getting too long with posters stepping in. You obviously haven't been informed with what's going on here in Arkansas... that 42 polling places were cut down to just 2 in Garland County, 35 minutes drive apart, Garland County is Democratic Bill Halter's stronghold so he lost 16,000+ votes and Lincoln only 2,000+ because of that (compared to primary and the runoff.) Lawsuit against Garland County Voting Commission was filed then dropped recently. By the way, Lincoln barely won ... by 4 points. Bill Clinton came to cause voters in Little Rock who voted for Bill Halter originally to change and vote for Lincoln ... against their best interests! I would have been very happy had Bill Halter won. He may not be very progressive, but is much better than Lincoln. She is known as one of the worst corporatist politicans, taking money from Wal-Mart, Insurance Companies to vote against the public option, Oil companies, Wall Street, voted against Clean Air/energy Act, against union workers/working families.

[Skinner]

626. Because the Green Party...

...and all other liberal third-parties split the liberal vote and help the Republicans.

[Bryn]

692. True that ... except when

example:

here in Arkansas running for US Senate in November 2010

There will be a teabagger named Trevor Drown running along Republican John Boozman (that teabagger will suck votes from Boozman)

and

Democratic Blanche Lincoln (a Dino) running along the Green, John Gray, who is also the Progressive so the progressives are going for him.

so there will be 4 way splits.

If it's just Republican John Boozman running against both Lincoln and Gray, I'd be very worried about Boozman winning the seat. This is the reason progressives in Arkansas aren't very worried due to fact that a teabagger is going to run along republican. Trust me, that teabagger though nutty is popular.

[grantcart]

386. Thanks

[JHB]

388. The checklist for rules violtions is an excellent addition

I think a factor in the "follow new rules, then slip back to old habits" effect was the relative difficulty in citing specific violations: open new window so you stay in the original thread, go to Help, go to rules, find the appropriate rule, cut and paste to alert window, etc. It's just a couple of clicks, but it becomes easy to ignore.

Likewise for the feeback. It hasn't happened to me, but I've seen enough "why was my post deleted" threads. Hopefully it will alleviate that.

I am curious about the point HighFructosePronSyrup brought up: what happens if you're a "bystander" in a deleted subthread? Are you locked out of the main thread too, or not?

[thewiseguy]

394. So what did you change?

I expected major changes. This will not help.

[CAcyclist]

398. Excellent

I have lost interest in this site over the few years mainly due to the over-the-top negativity. I have considered just quitting the site and stopping supporting it even though I think DU deserves a lot for being one of the early sites. I think this overhaul is long overdue.

[FedUpWithIt All]

399. Skinner, is it possible to make a suggestion? Can there be a link when a subject is moved

to a different forum.

I know it links when the subject is moved within a forum but this does not seem to be the case when they are moved to another. It is often very difficult to find a thread if it has been moved and sometimes those of us who have posted to them would like to follow them but can no longer find them.

Otherwise, thanks for the site.

The new rules are very clear. Edited to add that i think that seeing the post AND the reason for removal during deletion is a great idea.

[MarthaM]

471. Along those lines...

I would like to have some idea of what a moved thread was even about in the original post. All that remains is a link to the new thread location. Even just the first couple sentences of the original post under the new link might be enough. Or the name of the forum or place the thread ended up would be helpful.

When I come to DU I start with the LBN forum. If I knew that a thread was in GD or Presidency, I'll see it when I get over there anyway. But if it's been moved to a more specific topic forum, I can't tell that from just the link from the mods.

It's probably just me and doesn't matter to most people.

I do appreciate that there is mention in the rules about not labeling newbies as conservatives or trolls or freepers or worse. That happened to me when I first posted on DU, and I'm sure played a part in why I seldom post even today.

[colsohlibgal]

402. Most Of It I Get But....

Part of it seems to have the intent to limit criticism of democrats, particularly the president, even when many of us think they/he deserve(s) it for many important issues. I would never say there is no difference between the Obama administration and that of the decider but it has to be realized that the bar set by Dubya could not be lower.

In the end some of us don't like the general direction of things since 1980 and the Gipper.

[JTFrog]

634. Read the rules again.

You can post any and all constructive criticism without limitation.

I suggest visiting this thread if the word constructive is what's throwing you off:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6443683">A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.

[emulatorloo]

1403. Post as much criticism as you like. Just leave out the hyperbole, name-calling & conspiracy theory

EOM

[vanbean]

403. I think rule 2 and rule 3 are great.

[Laelth]

404. Have you considered cloning DU? If not, please do.

This site is, for the moment, the premier American liberal internet forum. Nevertheless, it appears that a decision has been made that this forum shall be Democratic Underground with a big D, supporting party first and ideology second, and I respect that. I am sensitive to those who feel that they shouldn't have to put up with attacks on Democrats and on the Democratic Party at a site called Democratic Underground. They especially feel that it's inappropriate to allow attacks on a Democratic President on this site. That makes perfect sense to me.

But for many years, here, attacks on conservative Democrats have been the norm rather than the exception. As I said above, this is the premier American liberal internet forum. That's why Dennis Kucinich wins our straw polls for President. Attacks on conservative Democrats, and I mean vicious, slanderous attacks, have, for years, been tolerated by this board's moderators and administrators. The only regularly-enforced rule was that you couldn't advocate a third party candidate or a Republican candidate for office when a Democrat was running for the same office. That rule, as enforced, seemed to work well. Evidently, regular enforcement of the rules as written has been decreed. For those who value party over ideology, this should work well, and it should provide them with a more comfortable environment.

Most of us here, however, are pretty darn liberal compared to the American public at large (and compared to the Democratic Party at large), and we do not like seeing Democrats pushing for conservative policy or enabling conservative policy. We attack Democrats that do this--we always have, and we always will. Until recently, this behavior was tolerated at DU within some very broad limits.

If attacks on conservative Democrats are going to be limited, however, I would suggest cloning the DU interface and naming the new site "Progressive Underground" or "Liberal Underground," or whatever, so that those of us who value ideology over party have some place to go. The owners of this site own the absolute best forum interface I have ever seen. I really dislike working with other interfaces. Plus, the owners of this site have done a great job administering it. It only makes sense to accommodate both groups. The niche will be filled one way or the other. I am inviting those who own this site to fill that niche. I hope they are so inclined.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Mithreal]

426. Well said

[yowzayowzayowza]

489. Or perhaps a Progressive Forum on DU with relaxed rules? n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

498. So because you dont like the new rules you are asking Skinner et. al to make a new DU for you

Do you honestly think that is a fair request? I agree that there is a niche, but why is it Skinner and Elad's responsibility to fill it?

[Laelth]

529. Why wouldn't they want to?

It's just a suggestion. If they don't want to, they won't.

:dem:

-Laelth

[SemiCharmedQuark]

687. Because it takes a lot of time and effort.

[Laelth]

1291. It might be worth it. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[ItNerd4life]

510. Agreed!

I am fiscally responsible and don't want government doing everything. I am what would have been called a Reagan Democrat, and for that my ideas are shunned instead of debated and discussed.
When I tell people I'm a liberal they look at me funny. Then I have to explain I'm not a liberal whose only solution is a government solution, I'm a liberal in the true definition of the phrase and look
at all options to find the best solution. Liberal means open minded and willing to hear differing opinions. It's a gray area and many people don't like hearing opinions that differ from their mind set.

This is absolutely the best forum interface on the web and it's one of the reasons I enjoy it. The new rules sound like an improvement, but I hope new ideas even if they somewhat agree with conservatives
are not shunned.

[Lorien]

581. +1. I will always put policy and the issues ahead of individual politicians

especially those who wear the badge of one party but vote as if they belonged to the opposition.

[dana_b]

643. great suggestion

I understand if they don't want/can't do that but it would be a great thing for those of us who put principle beore party.

[lordsummerisle]

1015. Just what I was thinking n/t

[lordsummerisle]

1071. There are some days

when I think I'm only here for the interface...

[MineralMan]

1135. These days, it's pretty easy to fire up a discussion forum.

If you want a forum that suits a particular need or desire, you can start one very quickly. That seems to be a pretty common thing to do, actually. I've seen forums started as splinters from many large forums and not just in the political discussion area.

Sometimes, disgruntled members of a large forum set up multiple splinter forums. Few succeed, though, because they never get quite enough people on them to make enough discussion to survive. Some, however, do succeed, and go on to be large forums of their own.

Once they do that, people will split from them and start new splinter forums. I've seen it happen dozens of time in forums where I've been a member.

It's so easy now to create a forum, that the proliferation is pretty broad.

Sort of "every person a new forum." The danger is that people end up talking to themselves.

[mirrera]

1284. It is not the same thing...

We are imagining coming to the same interface... with LBN Greatest threads etc. A clone, but with no limits on the subject. It would be interesting to see if the ideas discussed would still be a threat.

[mirrera]

1282. Great suggestion!!!

I have tried some other sites that are good but I really am used to how DU works and I would love to see the membership remain. A Progressive Underground with no subject constraints would be wonderful. Uh maybe not PU! LU is much better.

[Jakes Progress]

1341. +1000 Wonderful post.

I agree that DU is a joy of a place and a wonderful idea. If it is decided that DU become a support the Democrats forum, that would be okay. I can support me some Democrats.

But a Progressive Underground would also be a joy. You are right that conservative Democrats used to be fair game. I don't think how high the office is should affect that. So I would love to be a member of both fora. I can come here and offer up my praise for the party I have supported for over forty years. I could go to the other and have my say about what that party and its candidates and elected officials should be doing and what they ought not to be doing. I would find it easy to support both fora with what meager funds I have.

You are right about the format. Best on the internet.

[tomm2thumbs]

412. my only comment

Thanks for the post & update info. I think all of this took a lot of thought and review.

Regarding lingo: Some folks like to throw the 'Hussein' around to make a negative slur. If you are planning on removing Barry, I'd suggest Hussein as well - not because it isn't his name or that it isn't legit, but because of how its history of use as an attack has been leveled at President Obama from early on. Seems to me folks are simply going to switch from Barry to adding his middle name to accomplish the same thing.

Great stuff otherwise & thanks for the long post. Glad the rules will pop up when alerting. Superb.

[howard112211]

417. I think these are good ideas.

:thumbsup:

[MrScorpio]

430. So, does this now mean that I have to be nice to trolls?

Oh well.

[mistertrickster]

448. Despite my star, my 1000+ posts, and my sig line, I get called a "troll" on a fairly regular basis.

Or worse . . .

It's vile and uncalled for. Alert it and let the mods decide.

[EFerrari]

431. If this attenuates the daily attacks on liberals, "the left" and progressives

I'll be a happy camper. It's bizarre to come to DU and read that.

Thanks, Skinner.

[scheming daemons]

467. If this attenuates the daily attacks on President Obama and those that support him

I'll be a happy camper. It's bizarre to come to DU and read that.

Thanks, Skinner.

[EFerrari]

483. LOL. TG Skinner has a good sense of humor!

:)

[Mithreal]

482. +1

[Tom Rinaldo]

454. I hope the admins will consider on rare conditions suspending a rule...

It happens very infrequently, but in rare instances circumstances can arise in which normally loyal Democrats could make a strong case for supporting a non Democrat over a specific Democrat. I don't think individual posters should have the personal freedome to assert that claim without a thorough review by DU Admin and moderators of that specific race first. But if a given Democrat running for office can be shown for any of a number of reasons clearly to not be worthy of our community support (proven corruption or whatever), I would hope DU Admin would announce for that individual case only that posters here shall be free to post our conscience regarding that specific race only. Without that stated permission being granted in advance by DU Admin, standard rules would remain in effect.

Aside from that minor point, I think this is an excellent proposal.

[LeftyFingerPop]

466. Skinner, here are my thoughts...

concerning your OP. Suffice to say that I think it makes a lot of sense. In fact, if you wanted to boil down the rules even further, you could probably say something like this:

Treat other members with respect, even if you disagree with them. Argue your position like an adult, with no name calling or personal references. Treat our President with respect by addressing him properly. Address the President's policies, not his perceived personal shortcomings.Do not post bigoted remarks against any groups. Do not stalk members, and do not gang up on members.

That's really all this boils down to.

I personally do not care why someone was tombstoned. I believe it is very difficult to get tombstoned from DU, especially for long time members. I do not have a curiosity as to why they were let go...I trust in the mods and admins decisions. If I were you, I wouldn't spend a whole lot of thought on how to inform people of someone's demise because you may end up in an endless loop of complaints where you would constantly have to defend yourself. I am saying this because you left some leeway in deciding whether someone should be TS'ed or not...is the person an overall valuable member, etc. You may feel that they are not and TS them, but if you then disclose why someone was TS'ed, you are opening yourself up for a lot of slow walking and crying, which you probably do not have the time for.

There are many spirited and passionate people in here, so therefore, you have your hands full in deciding and applying a consistent set of rules. I think that you have done, and will continue to do, a very good job in this regard.

[Kingofalldems]

468. What about de facto attacks on Democrats--

By a certain someone i.e. trumpeting a Democrat who gets in trouble or party embarrassments like the guy in SC? And back at it today with news from Texas.

[Junkdrawer]

469. So...Would claiming that President Obama met with Insurance and/or Pharmacy Industry Reps....

to forge a secret deal be grounds for having one's post locked for "Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith."

[Jennicut]

474. In the entire time I have been here, I have had like 2 or 3 posts deleted. The rules are really easy

to follow but then I am not a rule breaking type.
People forget many times that debating means debating the topic and questioning the reasoning on something, not necessarily the people behind it. It is easy to attack people, far easier to broad brush someone then actually debate and go back and forth on something. I have gotten into very good debates on DU with people I don't agree with precisely because I have chosen not to use the tactic to go after those people in a personal way. It can be done!
Thanks, Skinner.

[Forkboy]

527. Well the problem here is that you're clearly too nice.

:)

[Jennicut]

537. Ha! I have been told I am in my regular day to day life so you may be on to

something there. :)

[Divine Discontent]

1196. BWAHAHAHA! that's a great response, imho. :)

I like both of you, so thanks for the good laugh.

[Jamastiene]

1232. We can fix that, can't we?

:P

:evilgrin:

[Desertrose]

479. I thought this was a board for democrats.....

but apparently it's only for the *right kind of democrats* who share the *right kind of opinions*.

(Take that any way you want.)

:)

[Mithreal]

485. The enforcement sure has seemed a little one sided

[scarletwoman]

1113. I'm wondering if non-partisans will survive here anymore - those who put principle over party.

Used to be, DU was a place where one could take pride in the fact that it was about small "d" advocacy, and NOT an arm of the big "D" party.

I'm not particularly interested in the fortunes of the Party, I'm interested in promoting the empowerment of ordinary people to resist the depradations of the wealthy elite and the government institutions and policies that cater to this elite.

Only a naive fool thinks that serving the interests of the moneyed class is solely the province of just one political party. Is DU going to become a place where such an observation is forbidden because it's not sufficiently "supportive" of the Democratic Party?

If so, I think I will have to sadly bid farewell to this place which has been my online "home" for 9 years.

sw

[era veteran]

484. Looks good

I promise never to call an idiot an idiot again. Sometimes the flamers get my goat.

[radhika]

488. So...there will be ONE PAGE and we all....

have to stay on it? Regardless of the issues or the policies and behavior of elected members of the Democratic Party. Is that really where you want to go?

Minimize the Rules. It's time for a fresh consensus as to the purpose and goal this community. I, for one, opt for small-d democracy, not the DNC kind.

[flvegan]

491. I vote for 10 days of absolute anarchy here before any new rules are put in place.

You know, just let everybody get it all out.

Of course, I kid.

Wait...please tell me we can still be snarky? Without snark I think I lose most of my "constructive and valuable member" points.

Regardless, your site - your rules. I do like the idea about a person who has a post deleted can see why it was deleted. I think that's far better than just *poof* and the poster MAY have no idea why.

[Mithreal]

515. I think that is the purpose of these ops, for us to lay our cards down

But people are still holding back.

I agree with what you say, however, I always thought this was OUR community. All the talk about Skinner's and EarlG's site just makes me wonder what we are building here.

If we must treat it like it is entirely private property and we're just the worker bees, then most of us are customers?

Edit for a word change and spelling

[KonaKane]

499. Excellent, thank you Skinner & DU admins.

I especially liked the revision in putting a stop to smears on people of faith, which was really over the top here.

Thank you for your attention to this awesome Democratic forum. It has far more positives than negatives, in my view.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

511. A OK Skinner

Common sense !

I noticed a opinion of one who thinks a contribution during a fund drive is a pay to use.

When you donate,you contribute to the community.There is something here for everyone and your contribution keeps the site in operation. Cool upgrades are part of it.

And you can have yer say. !





Keep DU Bot roaming free!

[Bunny]

518. I've just read this entire thread, and I have two comments:

1. Can the handful of people who are stepping in and answering questions that are directed to Skinner please stop doing that? You all have no more authority to speak for Skinner than I do, so just stop. Let Skinner answer the questions, or not, as he sees fit. But you're not in charge here, so quit acting like you are.

2. It's obvious to even a casual observer that there is a certain subset of posters who simply cannot refrain from snarkily engaging with a different certain subset of posters, all of which just heightens the recent tensions. But my question is: why can't members of Subset A and Subset B be placed on forced mutual ignore - for their own good and to eliminate a lot of the tedium that the rest of us have to slog through in order to read anything here? It might keep people who are otherwise worthwhile posters from either being banned or leaving on their own, while at the same time allowing the others to see only the good, positive things they come to DU to see.

[johnnie]

542. Ummmm. I can answer those for you

:)

[Bunny]

553. !

:spray: :rofl:

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

648. Is it not about a free exchange of ideas and thoughts for democratic minded?

I read the entire thread too. One comment caught my eye.I thought about that for a moment,I wonder how many more think a donation gives more in say? Isn't it really a free exchange? I know that is why I donate.It's just a simple code of conduct. And simple comments offer a way to simply say hello to admin.

No easy job administrating this site I would imagine.And I would imagine that is why assistance from volunteers is required. so, clearly it is not all about the money is it?

And isn't that common sense ?
Is there really anything wrong with community minded comments?
I don't think so , feel free to correct me if I am wrong. i'm open minded.

[truedelphi]

755. Am I allowed to answer question two?

It does not seem to be addressed to Skinner.

Some people believe in "ignore." Some people don't.

I use it on maybe two of the countless DU'ers I disagree with, and only because I feel those two people are both lame and maddening.

When that reluctance to use the "ignore" feature is someone's approach, it does result in high blood pressure at times. Why deal with the disagreement squad, unless you are a masochist? But on the flip side, every so often, someone convinces me of something I didn't know, and needed to know. If they had been put on my "ignore" list, then I wouldn't know that.

And several people who thought that Obama walked on water are now aware how that is not the case. And that was satisfying also- that people are able to grow and understand things they ignored for months.

[FrenchieCat]

521. Yeah! I just found A Democratic Board!

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


:thumbsup: :bounce:

[arcadian]

602. What was it before?

[FrenchieCat]

685. It was a battleground in where many considered every move made by this President

to have a nefarious intent.....
and where many mistakenly (or idealistically) thought that we had
elected a socialist President, when that is not the case.

An election is coming, and the results will be serious business
in terms of the ramifications if Dems are not successful in
their endeavor.

We need a board that supports Democrats winning as many of the elections
as possible, because without a decent showing at this crucial time in
our history, we will be up shit's creek....and I've already been there,
and don't need a rerun in order to understand that too many suffer,
when Democrats spend more time attacking their own, when there is a perfectly
fit adversarial opposition that needs its ass kicked. That's what I'm in it for;
to kick Republican ass as hard and as frequently as possible so that Democrats
can continue to work towards progress after our set backs for the 8 years
that Bush was in office. period.

[Hissyspit]

887. We need a board that allows criticism of Democrats to make sure

that the best Democrats win as many of the elections as possible, because alienation of the core progressive population of the Democratic party will result in a dismal showing at this crucial time in our history or we will be up shit's creek. I've already been there and we don't need a rerun in order to understand that too many suffer when Democrats spend their time acting no different than Republicans, when Republicans already act like Repbulicans, and demanding blind allegiance and silence. That's what I'm in it for, to push for REAL difference in the Democratic party, supporting ideas that work and moving us back to our true progressive roots, after our setbacks for the 8 years that Bush was in office, and plenty of Democrats enabled him.

[arcadian]

1433. Hate to tell you Frenchie

But per haps it isn't all Obama's policies that have turned many people away from this board. A lot of it has to do with the Obama zealots who attack anything they perceive as anti-Obama.

[Go2Peace]

1602. attempted enforcement of "messaging" is a HUGE cause of incivility here

Many of the things here are good, but I am dissapointed that problem was not recognized as one of the larger contributers to the tension and incivility. When a small but determined number of people attempt to shut down any discussion that does not fit in with a view toward messaging on what is supposed to be a forum for discussion it has a serious effect of dividing and getting people's backs up.

[Kahuna]

526. Excellent!!!!!

:applause: :woohoo: :bounce:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

528. insensitivity? Uh uh. I'm in trouble now.

[Bluerthanblue]

534. sounds very fair and reasonable to me.

thank you!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

546. i want to alert on your post. not sure about the category though,

why is too long not a category?

I like this "3. When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread.". its going to cause you a shitload of complaints but i think it may work

[theFrankFactor]

556. How about an adult section? Or an "Underground" section?

You know with big black and red warnings before you enter explaining the horrible discomfort one might experience by way of the outlawed language and thinking!

WARNING ENTERING THE UNDERGROUND PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND!

Those entering here will experience the pornography of:

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

Beware that you may not be capable of withstanding these kinds of assaults on your fragile constitutions! Enter at your own risk!

No harm, no foul?

I'm sure it would die on the vine anyway, right?

Sense of humor?

[walldude]

560. Cool... whatever... I am what I am

and I don't change for anyone. If this gets me tombstoned so be it. Although I have made it for years here without so much as a warning and I speak my mind, so I'm not too concerned. I don't want to be a member of a place that doesn't want me as a member, so we should be just fine. I'll keep espousing my opinions and try to stay friendly, if I ever get TS'ed then it would be obvious to me that the board and I have parted ideology and I'll be fine with that. Thanks for posting Skinner...

[juajen]

564. These rules are very easy to follow.

In all my years here on DU, I have only had one locked post, and it was certainly deserved, though I didn't understand that what I was doing was wrong.

Things got testy during the primaries, which is normal. The past presidential primary was a very difficult one.

However, these rules should not bother democrats, for they are the very backbone of democracy. Respect for others should be as easy as breathing around here. If we can't depend on this forum to keep everyone in a "democratic" state of mind, why have the forum.

You wonderful administrators do a fantastic job, and I benefit all the time from this. I love this forum and your rules are not heavy handed, but a lesson in manners to all who come here.

[Renew Deal]

572. I think #3 is problematic.

I think it causes more problems than it solves. There will be collatoral damage all over DU because people can't continue discussion in the first thread.

[SteppingRazor]

575. I love rule no. 3 -- banning people frm a thread in which they've had a post deleted -- but ...

I do see a problem here. Will people who are banned from threads still be allowed to alert on posts within that thread?

Otherwise, we could have a scenario in which two people are fighting with each other, one alerts while the other doesn't, and then one person is banned from the thread while the other remains, free to pile on the now-banned DUer. That scenario could, of course, be mitigated if people banned from threads could still alert on posts within that thread.

[EFerrari]

617. The problem I see is that sometimes people start out having a spat

but manage to work through it and come out on the other side in some form of agreement, no matter how slender. If one or both of them are kicked off the thread, that process has no chance of happening.

I know that doesn't happen often but where it does, it's valuable imho.

[Renew Deal]

665. I agree

I don't think that rule is practical or necessary. People make mistakes and they learn. Anything bad enough to "ban" someone from a thread can be handled differently.

[SteppingRazor]

677. That's true, but after an argument has devolved into actionable personal attacks...

the chances that it will turn around and reach some sort of synthesis are pretty slim. I certainly agree with you that there can be resolution in a thread when two people disagree, but such resolution usually occurs before things have gotten all flamey.

[Greyskye]

968. Do mods take the time to read 'alerted' posts in context?

Serious question. I have no clue.

[Hekate]

1055. When you alert, provide the Mod with some context. It's not hard. You've discerned something...

... tell them what it is so they know what they are supposed to be looking for.

Hekate

[Greyskye]

1073. I mean: do the mods simply believe the alerter, or do they read the thread for context?

I've had one post deleted since I've been on DU. I couldn't for the life of me understand why, as the poster I was talking to was way more over the line than I was. Their posts, however, were still in place. I alerted myself on the very post that I had replied to, and it was subsequently deleted.

That single example leads me to question whether the mods actually read the threads for context; or simply read the description from the person who hit 'alert', and the post being alerted on.

That's where my question is coming from, and I'm afraid I still don't know the answer. Thanks for the attempt though, I should have been more clear in my first post. :hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

1188. I don't know the exact situation surrounding the incident in which you described.

However, yes, we do read the entire thread.

Perhaps we had some other alerts that were next on the list of alerts to read before we got to the one you sent. That is the first and most logical explanation that comes to mind.

[Greyskye]

1325. Thanks for the info...

I see I wasn't clear in describing the situation however. The post that I made which was deleted, was a reply to the post that I then alerted on myself. So first my post was deleted. When I saw that, I then alerted on the very post which I had replied to, which was in turn deleted.

It just seems that if the mod had read even just that sub-thread, both of our posts would have been deleted to begin with, at the same time. :shrug:

In any case, I really like the notion that we'll be told why our posts have been vanished. In thinking about the thread I was referring to - if the rules as described up above had been in place, perhaps an actual dialog could have happened instead of the angry ranting and broad brush accusations that occurred instead.

I'm looking forward to see how this works out. It might actually encourage some real debates instead of vitriolic pixel punching.

[Kerrytravelers]

1352. I bet I know what happened.

Now, this is just a logical guess.

We only work on alerts. So, when reading the thread, one of the Mods likely alerted on that post you were responding to. We must have deleted yours first, then, when we got to the one we alerted on, we deleted it, too. The Mod alert probably read something like: This should be RSed for XYZ. The responding post was also deleted. Naturally, the whole thread would be reviewed again for consistency, which may have led to the time delay you felt. Just a guess, but this seems logical.

We tend to take all alerts in order so we don't end up missing one. That is likely what happened.

[Greyskye]

1531. Doesn't really jive with how events unfolded.

But it's a moot point in any case now.

The one thing that does concern me is how the new rules would have affected the conversations taking place in that thread, however.

The deleted posts took place in just one subthread of a massive, days long discussion with many contributors. If I had been blocked from participating any more in that thread, it would have completely shut off the dialog I was having with other people in the thread.

99% of the new rules would have made that thread much more enjoyable and have greatly improved the signal to noise ratio.

The 'block after deletion' rule would have ripped the soul out of the thread. I'm suddenly a little less happy about the rule changes then I was yesterday. Still mostly positive, but there are going to be cases that suck jagged rocks. :(

[Kerrytravelers]

1563. All I can advise is to reread what you post before hitting "post".

If you're not one that gets a lot of posts removed, then I really won't worry too much, as this will likely never effect you. :hi:

[Greyskye]

1568. I'd really appreciate your input on this:

I made a post tangential to our discussion way down towards the current bottom of this thread. I'd appreciate any feedback on both the situation I describe there and the possible solution I suggest. Thanks, I appreciate your involvement in this monster of a discussion!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8614251

Cheers.

[Kerrytravelers]

1571. Ok, I'll reply to the link.

:hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

1183. Absolutely. That is why sometimes it takes so long for action, if necessary.

We read the entire thread. However long it is. One post. Ten posts. One hundred posts. Five hundred posts. We read the entire thing, taking the alerted post in context.

[varelse]

576. I think you're on the right track

not to minimize the excellent work you and the mods are already doing - this forum is already a great resource. Thank you for that.

[demtenjeep]

592. THANK YOU

I THINK THIS IS FAIR AND JUST WHAT WE NEEDED

[johnnie]

606. Will we still be able to run with scissors?

Or at least drink milk from the carton?



I think what you guys have come up with is reasonable.

[NuttyFluffers]

614. I see the rise of Legalism in DU's future...

i suggest you strongly reconsider... the issues are more systemic; you need an open kill-file forum to allow all the venom to air itself out freely at the very least.

[Barack_America]

629. Legalism?

Could you please explain?

[NuttyFluffers]

1637. a Chinese political philosophy leading to the rise of Imperialism...

to much great death, destruction, and silence. it was the basis of giving license to all the excesses that created the Qin dynasty -- which collapses soon after because it is so hated by the populace.

there is quite a bit about this philosophy available in English, and the various Chinese philosophical arguments/commentaries that later deconstruct it, condemn it as the cause of immeasurable suffering, and cast it aside on the heap of bad ideas. and yet during each rise of another bloody imperial age it keeps coming back... funny that.

[branders seine]

619. these are good rules for the most part, but the place where push comes to shove most often

is still problematic I think. It is your site, and you can ban anything you want to ban, but I think you are trying to squelch all criticism from the left of conservative and corporate Democrats. As someone who has had many threads locked, usually despite having broken no rule, I wonder why you do not just overtly ban progressive criticism of the centrists and conservatives instead of trying to build such a Kafka-esque mousetrap? Trying to hold Obama accountable to the barest hint of Democratic principle (never mind his campaign promises) and abide by DU's rules is becoming more and more difficult. Here are some specific comments.

"Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive."
-This is in effect an a priori ban of any discussion of "Democratic principle." This site has been consistently unsupportive of suggestions that principle is more important than political power, so perhaps that is okay with you. It seems counterproductive in the extreme to the party's future success to me.

"Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
-"inappropriate" is, of course, wholly subjective, which has been part of the problem for as long as I have been reading DU.

"Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name."
-Just a nit, but I thought his friends and family call him "Barry." What about "Holy Joe Lieberman" back when he was still nominally a Democrat?

"Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats."
-this would preclude legitimate and constructive criticisms simply on the grounds that some rapublican said something similar. For example, rapublicans criticized the Wall Street bailout; so did progressives.

"Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)"
-the closing caveat has been widely ignored in the past; we shall see.

"Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith."
-so no matter what he does, he is inocculated by DU? This is absurd. He is a politician. He lies, as do all politicians. This rule is an a priori ban on keeping him honest. Silly.

"Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally."
-So when 99% of Democrats vote against the public interest or in favor of war powers or war expansion, we are not allowed to discuss that?


Don't get me wrong. I think you have done some very good things in the rules. Thank you for caring enough to post. Like Donald Fagen, though, I foresee terrible trouble...Given the rightward slant of the administration and its abandonment of progressivism, I think the purge/exodus of progressives at DU is likely to continue in light of these rules.

[branders seine]

1081. what was my problem this morning?

anyone who can't obey these clear, simple rules does not belong here.

[Dover]

620. So is Lieberman off the table? Is he a 'bad' Democrat gone right?

Is he a left Democrat gone wrong? Can he be referred to as LIEberman?
Would he be allowed to post on DU or tombstoned without explanation? Would he be sent to the I/P dungeon if he brought up the subject of Israel even if Joe is Pro? How big IS that Dem umbrella, cause I see a storm coming on and am feeling the wet stuff.

I think the answers to these questions will really help me define some
still murky issues.

[Political Tiger]

627. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He's an Independent.

[Dover]

678. I guess my point was not clear. Before LIEberman left the party DU tore him a new one

and I think even Skinner would agree (in fact I seem to recall a thread where he did). There's was a lot of debate among DUers about how to treat
Lieberman, but the criticism was important to the process and was well founded. I'm not sure under these rules that could happen again.

Secondly, it would be difficult to talk much about Lieberman's views on Israel in our regular discussion here in GD. It would likely be sent to the IP dungeon.

So I am with those that question the loyalty to Dems issue and rules that
insulate Israel from open discussion.

[Individualist]

725. He refers to himself as an independent Democrat.

[Spazito]

676. Isn't Joe an Independent, no longer a member of the Democratic Party?

He left the Democratic Party and started his own; Connecticut for Lieberman, a big tent party of one.

[Dover]

713. See my reply above ^

I'm wondering if under the new DU rules we could have criticized Lieberman, prior to his leaving the party? And could we have discussed
his support for some of Israel's policies in the grownup discussion forums or would we have been sent to the dungeon I/P forum?

[shireen]

628. as i read through it, i was hoping to see

the abolishment of the unrec feature, which buries newly-posted good threads. Many of us only have time to read 'greatest'. I don't know how many times I've read an interesting thread that was recently posted and given a "5", and after reading it, reloaded the page to see it had fallen to a "4" or "3". I can only hope enough people see it to increase the recs and restore it to the greatest page.

Maybe you should also take a close look at chronic unrec'ers and decide how to deal with them.

Edited to add: where are my manners?! Thanks, Skinner & admins & mods. :hi:

[Enrique]

632. are other progressives protected the way Obama is?

for example, suppose Dennis Kucinich writes a strong editorial criticizing Obama's Afghanistan policy. Will abuse be tolerated against Dennis?

[Dover]

644. I like that question!....n/t

[Hekate]

633. Skinner, you're a peach. I don't know where you & the other Admins get your patience, but thank you

Thanks for keeping the forum going and always working to improve it.

Hekate

[madinmaryland]

636. How about re-instituting "Ask the Admins". That was always a fun forum

to visit!!

BTW, what about the "Hate-mail bag"??

[FlaGatorJD]

640. Bravo

Well done! :toast:

I don't agree 100%, but you can't please all the people all the time.

[deadinsider]

650. DU does have an interesting history dynamic

I have been reading threads and discussions on DU for many years; started somewhere around 2005 I think. I visit everyday, and gain more political insight from this site and others (namely Crooks and Liars) than the main-stream-media.

Back when Bush was president there was much more uniformity in opinion. Now, a great deal of diverse opinions populate the site, and I believe this should not be viewed as a bad thing - by anyone. Democracy does not, and can not, exist without diverse view points. Otherwise we need not vote if a universal political theory is the reality; we would just assign people to design and execute the mandates of the agreed upon doctrine. Actually, we wouldn't even need the entire Congress; after 200+ years we would have written every bill and law that could possibly be written sans for new technology.

However, some posters seem to be confusing ad hominem arguments (a righteous form of criticism in my point of view, re: Nietzsche) with vapid insults.

Frankly, I am sever ly disappointed in Obama, but this comes from my perceived disconnect between his campaign rhetoric and his policy making. Some disconnects are actual seem mostly to revolve around the 'War on Terror' (extraordinary rendition, habeas corpus, and Guantanamo Bay), and others only seem (corporatist leanings).

I would hope that everyone can exercise some restraint when they have a strong reaction another posters viewpoint. That would include someone's views on another politics, as well as perceived attacks that are actually not insults, but rather ad hominem that are meant to display prejudices, and not meant to insult.

Thank you for indulging my pontification. And please, keep disagreeing to some extent.

[RedEarth]

655. How about banning members from linking to Fox

I think everyone knows what their agenda is, so why should we give their website any additional traffic for a story some other news service might also be carrying?

[patrice]

660. This looks kind of good. Have you ever considered, in addition to moderation, somekind of mediators

or referees, who make official/rule-based suggestions BEFORE things get out of hand?

I think clarification of the rules PLUS creative and appropriate facilitation will result in more freedom of speech for everyone.

[Kerrytravelers]

1198. I think you make a good suggestion. However, the Mods are all volunteers, so I'm not sure that,

at this time, the suggestion is feasible. It's Admin call, but from a Mod POV, I think that would stretch us pretty thin in the Mod Forum.

:hi:

[patrice]

1278. Yeah, that's what I expected. I'm sure it's hard enough just to get Mods, but

I thought of this other role in my master's project, which was something similar to DU, just in a "if we could have whatever we want" world: floating mediators who rate posts using an established and shared rubric or rubrics, on a simple scale, 1-3 is what I used to use in my classrooms.

It would help those who think they are dis-enfranchised to see, instead, that they are making choices.

Just a fantasy, I know.

:hi: back at you, Kerrytravelers!

[Myrina]

661. Under 'Inflammatory', could we also add:

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass"/"Whiner" etc. for people who have had enough and post one last goodbye & get piled on/ belittled for just wanting to say why they're leaving/adios. For someone who's already frustrated with the site, for whatever reason, it leaves a really negative impression and I think overall, makes DU look really juvenile to 'guest visitors'.

:shrug:

Thanks for your consideration!

[arcadian]

664. I think the Barack Obama Group(BOG) should be disbanded

If all of DU is supposed to be the Barack Obama Group, having a group which is nothing more than a secret clubhouse like the BOG only leads to elitist attitudes and further fractures. Plus even as I type this that group is being used to launch attacks against other posters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x22806

[Catherina]

673. +1 n/t

[sufrommich]

688. Can you point to a specific comment calling for

"launched attacks"? I'm not seeing it.

[tekisui]

716. Just look at any of the many locked threads in the BOG.

[CBR]

705. what attacks? nt

[donco6]

732. Fabulous idea!

It's been made redundant anyway.

[Kahuna]

1419. Not really. I don't belong. I didn't get my invite...

:D. :sarcasm: However, I can understand the need for such a group. A lot of Obama supporters (gasp), have been discouraged by all of the negative language and attacks on our president. We expect that on FR, we did not expect that here. Most days on DU have been no better than the average day at FR. Had I know of such a group, I would have checked it out.

On edit: With the new rules posted by Skinner, perhaps the BOG, forum will become redundant and disbanded. but somehow, I think Obama's dissenters will outfox the new rules and continue to pollute the main forums with their anti-Obama posts. And for the record, I AM NOT saying that any post criticizing Obama is "anti-Obama." Not at all. Some criticisms are valid. But the constant derisions and name-calling is NOT!

[donco6]

1492. The new rules are very clear

There is no backtalking a BOGger.

[Hekate]

735. "Secret clubhouse"? LOL. Just knock on the door any time, but bring a good attitude & fresh cookies

The cookies are important. I like those ones with macadamia nuts in them. I'll put on the coffee.
:donut:

Hekate

[azmouse]

1110. What? We have cookies there?!

Hey, why didn't anyone tell me that? :hi:

mmmmm... cookies! An awesome BOG just got better.

[POAS]

1379. Sigh, I never got any cookies........oh bother........n/t

[spoony]

1281. Or, someone will say, "Why are you posting in our group?"

Want the link?

[babylonsister]

826. I'm sure you'd be welcome there if you could be

civil about what is discussed, but your post proves otherwise. The BOG was/is an escape from all the constant cranks who offer no solutions but only criticism of every last effort this admin makes.

Come on over and give it a try, if you want. I suspect you don't though; seems kvetching about it is more fun.

[arcadian]

1166. Actually I posted this very thing in the BOG

My very first post. I didn't say that the BOG should be disbanded, but I did say that the group was being used to rally the troops, a problem that the moderators have had with the Barack Obama Group for some time now. My post was deleted and I was banned. Funny how nobody from the BOG ever get's TSed. Hey Skinner how about TSing some BOGgers just to show that you are you know, fair? They run all over this website with impunity, attacking posters and then feigning victimhood.

[babylonsister]

1236. How might you know what problems the mods have had there?

Could be your perception, no? And I doubt very much most people go there to 'rally the troops' but to find like-minded people when all hope seems to have been lost in other forums of ever agreeing on anything. That has nothing to do with rallying, despite, again, your perception.

And not everyone in the BOG attacks posters or feigns victimhood. You want to shut something down on DU because people don't agree with you; sounds like behavior most people on DU would get criticized for.

And just maybe you should quit whining about people who have been TS'ed. They apparently repeatedly broke DU rules; if I understand the process correctly, mods/admin have to come to a consensus before taking that action and usually after repeated warnings.

You were banned from the BOG; did you ever consider it might be your lousy attitude that made that happen? Your post is a perfect example.

[arcadian]

1256. Go to the BOG and look at all the locked threads

Those posts are repeatedly locked for the same reasons and the mods state that reason, for using the BOG to criticize other members and groups on DU. Exactly like the post of your's, you know the one that YOU created about this Rules thread of Skinner's in which several members of the BOG, including yourself, call out "certain members" of DU. You know, no other group has the same reputation as the BOG on DU. Do you know what kind of reputation the BOG has on DU? Why do you think that is? Per haps you and your group should take a long hard look in the mirror.

"You want to shut something down on DU because people don't agree with you; sounds like behavior most people on DU would get criticized for."

If DU is all about supporting Barack Obama, then why is the BOg necessary? Can't you make your posts on the larger forums?

[chimpymustgo]

841. +1. Or maybe that should be the only forum where you CAN'T criticize the President.

Otherwise, principles and free speech should reign.

[FrenchieCat]

852. secret clubhouse?

How can it be a secret when you link directly to it? :shrug:

I think it may not be needed as a place to vent frustrations,
as much now that folks who support the Democratic President on Democratic Underground
can no longer be called names and ridiculed!

It means the frustration of feeling like one is on an enemy board will dissipate,
and folks can begin on working against the Republicans in an effort to maintain
majorities in the congress.

[quiet.american]

933. Good Lord. Fellow BOG'ers -- I see we'll have to change our passcodes. nt

[Greyskye]

1009. No way, you've just pointed it out to me!

Looks like a nice place to go once in a while. Thanks, I appreciate the heads-up. :toast:

[MineralMan]

1144. How is it a secret clubhouse? Can you not go there and read the

posts? I dropped in there a couple of times, but it's not my cup of tea. I don't remember that I had to do anything to be able to read posts or even to reply to posts. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what I remember about visiting any of the groups on DU.

[nashville_brook]

1214. the BOG is sadly toxic to the larger DU community -- fomenting all sorts of dysfunctional behavior

[quiet.american]

1446. Wow, I thought we were just a dusty little corner of the DU universe.

I had no idea of our POWER. :)

[POAS]

667. Overall a good set of rules...

Good luck with the cat herding think....:thumbsup:

[Control-Z]

668. Hey Skinner.

I've had a question for quite some time now, and wonder if you might address it?

It is with regard to the unrec feature and a few other notable distractions. The idea of locking disruptors out of threads once they've had a comment deleted would address one of my biggest concerns, because it is usually, I've noticed, the same members who disrupt and take control of certain threads. Of course, it won't always be fair to the innocents who just make mistakes, but it's a start.

I've always thought it would be a matter of simple programming to keep a log of the worst abusers. It happens regularly enough, especially within certain forums/groups and subject matter.

It seems that chronic UNRECers could also be easily tracked and identified through programming. You know, the ones who unrec right out the gate, OPs with subject matter universally backed by most all progressives and democrats.

Can that be done? A programmed list of those who unrec before the rest of the community has had a chance to even read the OP or respond to it? It wouldn't take long to find out who is a chronic unrecer while it might cut way back on the use of the feature if they know they are being tracked.

The unrec feature is fine, imo, if used legitimately. But for those who use it as a cowardly weapon, it makes disrupting too easy.

[sufrommich]

675. "before the rest of the community has had a chance to even read the OP"

How does the unrec feature stop anyone from reading a post?

[Control-Z]

898. Did I say it "stopped"

anyone from reading the post?

What is does is influence the direction the post will take, often an unintended one. After weeding through what can be a rather lengthy unrec discussion, the thread may get back on target. Other times, it never really does. And there are people who unrec for this very purpose.

[cascadiance]

670. Skinner - I think this is a good clarification on a lot of things. A few comments from me.

I think most people here are looking for a decent home where they are free to express themselves, and not use this forum to personally go after others or finding other ways of abusing the forum for other selfish gains. That being said, a few notes on items above:

1) Perhaps some special rules on certain "special" forums might be helpful. One in particular would be the political videos forum. It works in a special way that no other forum does that provides means to post youtube video content. A few things come to mind here:
- there might be some content in these videos that might themselves violate the rules above in terms of what the content says (some extreme speeches by tea partiers, etc.), but the author doesn't have any intention of taking those positions themselves, but just want to have DU members have easy access to them to facilitate discussion on them. What should be the rules of what is "acceptable" content here, and if we should post "warnings" of certain kinds if some of the content might be offensive in some fashion (obviously pornography, and similar content isn't acceptable in any case).
- there have been some threads that have been locked or removed if they deal with topics that are "confined" (like conspiracy topics normally going to 9/11 forum, or Israeli/Palestinian topics that normally would go into the Israeli/Palestinian forum). I think enforcement of this has been inconsistent, and in some ways thankfully so, but perhaps a clear definition of what is accepted here and how one should post video content to those specialized forums. Perhaps at some point have every forum have some "link" at the top of the thread that would allow for video (and perhaps other media content) to be more centralized in topical areas governed by the forum's content. Maybe at some point just have a "video post" be a "type" of post much like a poll is now. But those are technical areas that likely won't be in place if at all for many months even if someone finds that a valuable way to organize things.
- Perhaps have a separate "Political Video" forum that isn't as "safe" that allows for these topics, that those going in to can be made aware ahead of time will have content that they might find controversial that leads that content normally to be confined in other forums.
- To a lesser extent "Latest Breaking news" has a similar issue, though arguably "latest news" can be posted similarly in topic forums like 9/11 and Israel/Palestine with less limits placed on what's available than video links forced into other forums would.

2) On the area of inflammatory messages towards other groups like the DLC, PETA, or whoever. I think that some of this might be subjective based on context, both what's in the thread and what is happening with current events. I think it is a good idea to be explicit with what you feel that justifies your emotions towards a certain group, but at times in a longer thread discussion on such a group it is hard to constantly explain oneself, and more brief emotional responses may occur or be put in support of someone else's stated reasons for their dislike of a certain group. I would like to think that some very heated and perhaps even emotional dialogue can happen, as long as it's not personally directed to tear down another poster. Sometimes the context of what is going on in the world leads to heavy emotions against a certain group (like it now is against BP) for many obvious reasons, and people might state opinions that are pretty brief and not well substantiated against these groups. Perhaps it would help people to prompt them why they feel a certain way if its not obvious to other posters in a thread, but I think we should accept some of this in some cases as natural human emotions and hopefully we don't feel like we have to become detached robots in those cases.

3) I think some times posters might post on a topic that they aren't as aware of what they are posting is hurtful to others, and at times, despite the OP's intent in starting such a discussion that it be looking at different issues or sides of an issue that aren't "targeted" at a group of persons or other posters, that it evolves that way through the discussion. I had a recent thread like that, and when I saw it breaking down in to ways that I thought I was being misinterpreted and others were as well, I requested the thread be locked myself. Perhaps some process for that too that encourages posters to find ways of self-policing themselves if they feel their posts are getting misinterpreted and starting bad discussion threads that no one wants on here.

4) There are some sites that are banned to link to because of a history that has been found where they've posted content that is deemed inappropriate here. Theoretically, with some of what gets posted on Huffington Post, it might fit in to this category at times. I use them as an example because many do link to their articles, and 99% of the time in an appropriate fashion with great content to reference. There have been sites like anti-war.com who perhaps have had inappropriate content that is cited for them not being permitted. I've not seen that content, but I've not browsed their site looking for it either. I do know that there are some very decent articles over there about hard-to-find topics by decent writers such as Chris Deliso, who in effect get censored with this policy. Could we not have some policy perhaps that before one links to a certain site, they post a warning that content from that site has been found to violate content policies in the past. If we knew what sort of violations they were, then we could explicitly identify such in any warning we put up. If someone really feels an article is needed to be linked to on our site, they will go out of their way to abide by such rules to put any warnings there, and if we can warn about specific kinds of content violations, it would serve the reader to feel informed and have healthy skepticism when reading their site. If a poster didn't take the time to put these warnings in front of the link, then I think mods would have every justification in that case to remove such posts/links. DUers deserve not to be "rick rolled" in this fashion. Or also, posting such warnings as a means to post objectionable content links should also not be acceptable, unless a poster has a clear and justifiable purpose for doing so to show an "example" of what right wingers are trying to do to corrupt us (much like a link to a free republic page might be done for). Even warnings when the purpose is to "abuse" is also not acceptable in these cases and such links should be banned as before. At the same time, we don't want to lower the bar where almost any indy web site might be censored from DU for some periodic problems with a content page of theirs.

5) Perhaps move back the forum title of "General Discussion - Presidency" back to (or have an additional forum) be "General Discussion - Campaigns", "General Discussion - Democratic Party" or something more generic might also find ways to discuss politics and not lead people to feel they have to make every thread in it a discussion about the president. Not sure on this one though, as as noted, we are for the first time under Obama, having a Democratic president in the White House. But perhaps having another forum could serve to help us focus topics that had been in this forum before it was named its current name back to topics focusing on what Congress is doing too, especially when they deserve more scrutiny for their actions than the president does.

6) As for violating copyright regulations. 99% of the time this works just fine. There have been times though where one has felt that the source of a news article might be immediately censored for various reasons, but the forum here feels that should be something that forum members have access to. If we stop at the four paragraph rule, it might force us to not have access to such content any more. I think of course its more appropriate if you feel that the original author feels the same way that such content should be freely posted elsewhere, and make it explicit in their original article, but would there be cases like this, perhaps could there be an appeal to the mods to have some way of creating a post with the full content (perhaps a way to keep that "full content" hidden until such time it does become censored, if in fact that does come to pass, and DU administrators feel that in this instance the public's rights to have access this information trumps those that are censoring it. This might be a case where there's never justification, but I've seen such content censored in the past, and having this "backup" procedure might help us all know that there's a mechanism to post full content if it really becomes necessary and justifiable.

7) When it comes to pushing other candidates or entities outside of the Democratic Party. Of course we know that we don't want people coming in from the GOP or other right wing organizations, etc. and trying to evangelize their crap here. That goes without saying that shouldn't be allowed. But if one really feel that there are situations where certain Democratic Party candidates aren't living up to what many would feel are democratic principles in their actions, and there are others, not necessarily within our party, like a Bernie Sanders, or even perhaps at times Ralph Nader, who offer a different point of view from these controversial Dem Party pols that are more in line with what most feel are proposing progressive or what should be and has at times traditionally been Democratic Party values, we should be able to say those views.

I think if we an have a set of rules where this sort of dialogue is permitted, but have stipulations like contextual views on why someone feels a certain way, perhaps by having a convenient/required way to link back to their own profile or another page where they can have position explanations so that they don't have to spell it out for every post they make, but in some way make it so that other posters don't feel that someone is just attacking a Dem without good defensible reasons for doing so.

8) It would also be helpful to know how to respond at times if you feel that posters are on the border of attacking you personally. Perhaps they feel they have justification for doing so, and maybe in your dialogue you try to "come half way", but at times criticize them back some if you feel their words are misplaced and need a firm response. It would be helpful to know when you feel a line is being crossed in how another poster directs a post to you, so that you also don't cross a similar line in escalating such a line to avoid flame wars, and how to warn them and warn mods when you feel such a line is being crossed. Now the last thing I want to do is feel like people are calling "Daddy, so and so is calling me names!" or some similar post/request to the mods, when hopefully in most cases, two posters can work out their differences with more thoughtful dialogue amongst themselves, and we don't have to rely on patriarchal authority to solve our differences, especially on a progressive web site where we should be able to thoughtfully interact with each other without "parental authority" that more on the right wing side seem to need at times. Perhaps in some cases we can have a "flame forum" kind of like usenet used to have decades ago with "alt.flame.*" newsgroups where posters with visible disagreements are told to go to "another room" to sort out their differences, if they feel the need to persist in doing so.

[KoKo]

672. Skinner...it might be time for a name change. The current name implies that

this is a site for those who feel "underground" in the Dem Party. While at the time in 2001 the name was befitting because Bush stole the Presidency so Dems could be viewed as "Underground" who were protesting it.

However, now the name is misleading to many people who have been here who maybe are more critical of the Party and others who might sign up thinking it's a site for subversives in the Dem Party.

Why not change it to "Democratic Forum?" Might lesson the confusion and give folks a heads up of the change in direction and keep some of the Trolls out? :shrug:

[IDemo]

679. Or Democratic Common Ground, maybe n/t

[kenny blankenship]

683. Or Democratic Echo Chamber, perhaps?

Orthodoxy Roundtable is also available, I see from a quick Google search...

[Individualist]

728. +1

DLC echo chamber would also be appropriate.

[MineralMan]

1147. Somehow, that doesn't seem helpful.

[KoKo]

1170. Agree...I did an honest post about Name Change and got snarked....

And, believe me my post was honest...because I'm a Lefty Dem that probably one day will get the Granite Pizza but think that "Democratic Underground" really doesn't fit the site or the intentions of the owners anymore. So, I would be glad to see the name change.

There are more progressive sites out there...but, many of us feel comfortable here until.....WE CROSS THE LINE! So better a name change...than a sad demise for some of us thinking it's still 2001.. at some point where we let lose it on a post in frustration about something someone says and get the Pizza Delivery. Just saying.....

[Moochy]

1447. truth hurts

donut?

[theFrankFactor]

802. +1

[KonaKane]

681. There already are "Democratic Forum" sites, and it could be confusing.

Also, the "Underground" part of the title I have found new meaning in - not so much as a permanent marker but a standing warning that we could be so again if we don't pull together.

[JanetLovesObama]

695. I agree, KoKo

But I will go back to posting here once again. These changes are all for the better. Unless we want S.Palin for President in 2012, we better all stick together -- or it will happen.

:fistbump:

[theFrankFactor]

799. PRECISELY!!!!!!

[Ignis]

682. Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

(with apologies to Sen. Franken :D)

If someone posts something untrue--can we still say that the posting wasn't correct/true/factual, and proceed to refute it?

I'm not asking the mods to be the Arbiters of Truth here, but if (for example) someone posts that the ACLU's "secret agenda" is to outlaw the Christian Bible, yet refuses to provide any proof for this assertion, and continues to make this claim after having been presented with a link to the ACLU's mission statement--it's difficult to dance around the fact that that poster's simply spreading a lie.

[Skinner]

771. Of course!

You are encouraged to correct factual errors.

[Ignis]

811. Excellent.

Thanks for the reply. :hi:

[Smashcut]

684. I find it telling that a particular contingent of DUers is in LOVE with this thread. nt

[FrenchieCat]

694. I like winning elections and kicking Republican ass, and I want this board to be all about that!

You can call it love; I call it my overarching duty.

So those of us who specifically want Democrats to kick ass hard in November
We desperately want a board that specifically tears down and works against Republicans....
as they are our direct opposition (primaries are over for now)
.....not Democrats so much...
because piling on against Democrats will not bring us
any closer to progress, and that is where we should want to go as a Democratic Board.

Bottomline is that we have a real opposition enemy to fight in the upcoming months,
and that enemy's not us.

[EFerrari]

699. You really should bookmark that post for yourself, Frenchie Cat. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

723. I don't know what that means.

But perhaps you should bookmark it, since you are suggesting that this be done.

[EFerrari]

747. Good idea. I will. n/t

[KonaKane]

740. That was an unfair swipe.

I've never seen Frenchie Cat advocate for anything other than what he or she has posted.

Lame.

[EFerrari]

750. And another vote for not tearing down Democrats. Good.

[KonaKane]

700. [phone]

.

[deadinsider]

704. I want DEMS to win but...

I do not support the a politician just because they have a 'D' after their name.

I'm sure you don't exercise blind support either, but I feel we must be careful of watering-down the Democratic brand with lame, tepid, DINOs. Ya know?

[KonaKane]

710. Agree with you, but there is a fine line

Between valid criticism and a feeding frenzy on a Democratic candidate, for the sole reason that the authors now have their egos invested in it. That never serves any good end.

[FrenchieCat]

738. Again....my opposition are Republicans......as this is a two party system for the most part.

and all Democrats based on their particular district will not be the ultimate progressive, this I also know well.

So Iam primarily interested in perserving a Dem majority in the Congress from now till November;
not so much at teaching our own a lesson at a heavy price.
You see, primary season is over for now, and that is why I welcome these reinvigorated DU rules;
because winning on an Internet board for me is not as important as having majorities in
both houses in order to continue marching this country towards progress. That indeed is my
true goal, and hopefully it is shared by those who come here to try and make a difference.
The general election season has started.

[deadinsider]

756. You are a pramatist; and much appreciated

I agree with you. At once we need to consider the practical and the ideal. I just feel that sacrificing too much to the former only retards/rejects the opportunity for the latter.

You see, we need to blend the two; develop a strategy that acknowledges pragmatic politics with the ideals we stand for... a unity I believe we all strive for, but the ability to compormise

The pragmatists are realists; they see things as they are.

The idealist are delusional; they see things as they want them to be.

We need a hybrid of sane and crazy to come up with the country we all love.

[laughingliberal]

1365. “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why...

I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

Robert Francis Kennedy 1925-1968

[defendandprotect]

925. I think you're discussing another now taboo subject . . .!! ??

[saracat]

751. I like supporting Democratic values and principles and ensuring the people NOT the

corporations are represented. It is very important to consider WHO and WHAT is winning. Winning just to WIN accomplishes nothing.
There is an anti choice Democrat running for the legislature in a local district. I will NOT support her. Adding her vote to the other pro lifers doesn't benefit the Democrats or women in any way. She has already voted to expand exclusion to abortion and passed legislation with the GOP. What would be gained by that WIN?

[defendandprotect]

928. +1000% ...

[Bryn]

1612. Same here

I cannot with my conscience support Blanche Lincoln for killing that public option whilst 86% of Arkansans supported it. Also her vote against unions' check card is what got her in trouble. She takes too much money from corporations especially Wal-Mart, insurance companies, oil companies, even wall street. She may be a democrat, but in my eye she isn't one.

There's a coalition of democrats against corporatists, progressives, labor and greens against Blanche right now here in Arkansas. It's happening, people here have decided to come out with courage. It's time!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1534. Here you go --

"I like winning elections and kicking Republican ass, and I want this board to be all about that!"

The perfect place for you. Seriously:

http://my.democrats.org/page/group

I, and I suspect many others, want this board to be about honest political discussion, honorable dissent, Truth telling, and accountability. That is why I joined DU all those years ago, and that is why I haev stayed here.

There are plenty of other Democratic sites for "winning elections".

[Go2Peace]

1606. +1, attempting to enforce messaging is a big component of the fighting here

why is it so hard for people to accept that a discussion forum is foremost about discussion. Anything that tries to shut that discussion down is going to get people fighting.

[KonaKane]

697. I find it equally telling that you did not identify such a contingent

What kind of DU would you like to see? One that educates, enlightens and bolsters Democratic political power, or something else?

[EFerrari]

712. Imo, what we're having is a split on how we do that.

Some people believe it happens by advocating for a particular group of politicians; some people believe it happens by advocating for principles in our platform.

That's what this conflict is about at bottom, imo, after you drill down through all the junk.

[Barack_America]

715. +1

[KonaKane]

733. I think it's a combination of both facets you mentioned.

Advocacy of principles, AND support of the party candidates. I know they can conflict sometimes but that has always been the challenge hasnt it? I dont think separating them and basing forums on each will advance us at all.

[EFerrari]

753. I didn't advocate for such a solution although in practice, it has already happened.

GD is more about principles and GDP is more about individual politicians. There's something to be said for having these forums serve two different purposes whether it was intended or not. People approach problems in different ways.

[Smashcut]

722. I'd like a party that draws power from people and principles, not just politics

and I guess I'd like a supposedly left-leaning messageboard to reflect that.

I guess what I'm saying is, this post by Skinner is (whether intentionally or not) a little one-sided in terms of whom it identifies as the "problem children" and the familiar swarm that is all over this thread is very telling. Hence, I don't think it will do much to address the conflicts that have escalated as of late.

[KonaKane]

1178. I'd like a house on the Riviera, too.

But that's not likely to happen soon. So in the meantime, I do the best with what I have, toward the goal of creating something better. I think that's why almost everyone is here, when you cut away all the dross.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1535. "What kind of DU would you like to see?"

You were on a good roll until this:

"...bolsters Democratic political power..."

I am only interested in bolstering the Power of the People. Oftentimes electing a Democratic politician will be the means to that end, but, sadly, too often lately it is not. If my choice is a GOPer and "Democrat" Ben Nelson, you'd better believe I would be writing the candidate of my choice in.

"Democratic political power" isn't worth squat compared to my soul.

[Individualist]

737. Very telling.

as is the dismay of progressives. The chasm has widened hugely.

[KonaKane]

745. Not this Progressive.

I have a somewhat wider view of what benefits "us", I guess. And self sabotage over microissues is not on the list.

[Smashcut]

979. And what, exactly, do you consider a "microissue?"

A "microissue" to you may be a life-changing issue to someone else. Sometimes, tensions have flared because those in the majority, demographically speaking, have characterized the concerns of minorities as "microissues."

[Individualist]

1137. So that's what ignored is talking about.

[KonaKane]

1175. We all have them. But is it good to base your actions on one?

I dont think so. For instance, my primary issue is putting a stop to military interventionist foreign policy. Now if all I cared about was this, I wouldn't even be a Democrat anymore because we all have to admit that our president did not rise to expectations yet on that note. But since I have a bigger picture in mind, like the success of the Democratic party in our governance, I am not about to sabotage that vision until Obama gets all US troops out of every country they are currently in.

It's about the bigger picture, and seeing something beyond myself. Supposedly those are good liberal/progressive values.

[sabrina 1]

1538. Maybe that's what needs to be clarified. What are 'microissues'

exactly? I've seen that and the term 'pet issues' used when describing the following:

Women's rights

Gay Rights

The Environment (Offshore Drilling although there has been relative silence on that since the tragedy in the Gulf)

Escalation of War

Looking to the future without holding torturers accountable.

And there are other issues tossed into the 'pet issue' trash can frequently now on Democratic boards.

Can you explain what are these 'micro-issues'?

[Bluebear]

870. 'ignored' seems to LUUUURVE it!

;)

[Ignis]

1168. On both computers!

;)

[KonaKane]

1218. Interesting kind of ignore, where you see the responses anyway in other peoples posts.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. By the way, I only have one computer online.

[girl gone mad]

1628. I have the same poster on ignored..

and I can judge her opinion just from the replies.

[CakeGrrl]

1049. You could say the same about those who are most vocal AGAINST the changes.

Personally I don't see what's so threatening about this unless one thinks that saying "Obama is no better than Bush and can go to hell" truly constitutes constructive criticism. That's all that much of this comes down to.

There's a LOT of gray area between really liking a lot of what Obama's done and hoping he's tossed out in 2012. It's not one school of thought or the other, and the opinions within that spectrum can be expressed without leveling insults or touching off flamewars.

[Nikki Stone1]

691. Do these rules apply to all the forums equally?

?

[HughMoran]

1160. Yes

[kiva]

1227. Isn't it nice to get an answer from an administrator...oops, I mean

a mod...oops, I mean someone who THINKS they should be able to speak to the rules.

[Nikki Stone1]

1285. "Ignored" always thinks s/he should be able to speak to the rules

Whoever "Ignored" is here. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

1417. Skinner already answered the question above

should 'ignored' provide a link?

:rofl:

[tammywammy]

1448. Answered up thread, yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151#8604646

[jillan]

693. Can you add not belittling all the people that live in a particular state? ie: Arizona!!

Az is more purple than ever, many of us are involved and working hard to elect Progressives, and to keep the ones we do have in office.
You can be certain that not one Progressive voted for the nutjobs that are running the state now - heck - Jan Brewer was appointed Guv, not elected. Az voted for Janet Napolitano for a second term as Governor.

I am so fed up with comments such as "people in Arizona got what they deserved" "everyone in Arizona is a racist" etc, etc, etc.


I phonebank until my voice is raw to save my beautiful state from the crazies, and I have hope. It's beyond frustrating to come here and see all the negative generalizations about the people of Arizona. I usually respond with a plea to donate to the link in my sig line.

I just had to get that off my chest....

[IDemo]

707. Add: Idaho, Texas, Florida

and 'The South' in general.

[hlthe2b]

708. I empathize... but I'd say our southern colleagues probably

have a longer term axe to grind on that score.... I have seen mods step in on the overt "regional bias," to which I say, kudos

[Lone_Star_Dem]

761. I think that's covered under "Insensitive"

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

More here by Skinner:

This is one of those areas that I'm ambivalent about.

If you made a broad-brush comment about Pennsylvanians (the people) or Central Pennsylvanians (the people), I would consider that a violation.

But I don't think we want to completely remove any discussion of regional differences. As a general rule, I think name-checking a state (the geographic area -- especially the government of that state -- I'm thinking of you Arizona) as opposed to making broad-brush statements about people who live there should be generally permitted.

As for "Pennsyltucky" I just don't know. I suspect the mods would remove it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8604585

From my understanding it was already a violation of the rules to broad brush region bash here on DU. If you feel someone is alert and explain to the mods why you feel that way.

[HuckleB]

696. I see some very positive changes here! Good work!

[deadinsider]

698. What's in a label re: 'D'?

D defines 'our' party, which is one of mostly a 2-party system.

I believe a big problem resides in the the DU mandate that one must support (a rather ambiguous demand) all Democratic politicians.

However, we all understand the varying degrees within the party: 'Progressive', 'Liberal', 'DINO', 'Pragmatist', et al.

This is what produces some confusion of DUs rules. At the fore front (IMO), 'Progressives' run headlong into the 'pragmatists' (methinks Obama is the latter- see his numerous statements regarding the body politic and political will) and here there arises the greatest site rule-breaking conflicts between DU members.

To me it would seem realistic for members to affiliate with a certain sect within the DEM party in their user profile. Then members could choose a whole group to ignore if they wish or to set exceptions therein etc.

Some users are more passive than others, and some are more polemical. But being one or the other should not negate one's viewpoint as long as the message is polite and considerate.

Anywho,

-d

[southernyankeebelle]

701. The only thing I worry about is bad language. I don't think your asking to much from us. I

will try hard to follow the rules.

[whatchamacallit]

714. I love DU. I really do...

You guys have created an oasis in the desert. Kudos! Your rules are wise and fair (at least as they pertain to your POV). That said, I'm not sure how long I'll last <thunderous cheer>, I'm simply not good enough to be one of your ideal citizens. I wanna be, but... I'll try my best to observe all these rules, but I think the writing's on the wall for fools like me. That's probably the idea, huh?

[Hekate]

718. I especially like this part: "the illegitimate, incompetent asshole who previously held the office"

"Now that we have a Democratic President, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that he be shown more respect here than the illegitimate, incompetent asshole who previously held the office."

To paraphrase The Magistrate: Well phrased, Sir!

As for the "Barry" nickname, let me point out that I was accosted in Ireland -- Ireland!! -- a few weeks ago by a young fellow who wanted to know what I thought of "the great hoax now being perpetrated in your country," and when I expressed puzzlement, he said "I mean Barry Soetoro."

For those who profess not to understand why the name "Barry" is going to be banished from this site, just think about that for a moment.

Hekate

[hlthe2b]

746. what did you say?

just curious...

[Hekate]

842. I was so furious I initially walked off, then returned...

An old college friend of mine and I were on tour there with our husbands and about two dozen other Americans who love Irish music. I ended up having to explain to my friend how "Barry Soetoro" is supposedly this Manchurian candidate (or Indonesian or Kenyan) but then...

Here's the part that I hope ended up being surpassingly weird for this yokel: We weren't just some random Midwesterners or Texans or Teabaggers.

As we told him, we both grew up in Hawai'i and our children were born there, meaning they have birth certificates that look just like the President's. The details of the President's life in the Islands are not alien concepts to us, including the notion that a young woman attending UH might meet and fall in love with a foreign student in grad school at the East-West Center. (We didn't mention that my friend did that herself, actually, as it wasn't relevant to the narrative.)

There was a bit more, then we went on our way. I don't know if we actually changed his mind, but I think we might have rattled his brain under that tinfoil hat a little.

Hekate

[hlthe2b]

862. sounds like you were the perfect ones to answer him

[Arkana]

724. So I can't use "bitch" when talking about Sarah Palin anymore?

Damn.

[hlthe2b]

821. Moron always applies....

[Radical Activist]

731. OK

I can see some rules I've violated in the last few weeks. They don't seem unreasonable.

I wish there were some way to allow criticism of Obama but weed out those whose existences on DU revolves around nothing but making both reasonable and unreasonable attacks day in and day out. We can turn to the corporate press for that and it brings the entire site down. But, that's probably too subjective to enforce fairly.

[Liberal_in_LA]

734. 752 replies since this morning? Is that some kinda record?

[hlthe2b]

759. I think it must be indicative of something... what, I'm not sure...

but concern must be among the leading contenders.

[mistertrickster]

772. Proves what I've always said. DUers are most interested in DU itself, for good or for ill. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

741. More rules please! The list wasn't long enough

;-)

[backscatter712]

742. My suggestion: Make more fine-grained moderation controls.

That way, there's a spectrum of responses you can use to deal with the net.assholes.

One thing I've seen on other boards is moderator warnings - for example, on other boards I've frequented, when somebody's violating the rules, the moderator will put an attachment on his post saying

MODERATOR WARNING You are violating rule X. Stop it!

Obviously, such warnings would be reserved to long-standing members who usually don't misbehave, situations where a warning is sufficient deterrent to end the misbehavior, and in threads where the conversation is interesting and there's reason to not interrupt the conversation with a thread-lock or deletion.

I'd also suggest adding the ability to lock subthreads, with or without deleting the subthread, and with or without deleting the violating post.

The idea of blocking violators from posting in the thread is something that can be used with a post deletion, or not - it could be used by itself

The point is that there should be a spectrum of actions that moderators can take, starting with warnings, then locks and deletions, then suspensions and bannings. More tools for the moderators could help.

I do support the idea of allowing the author of a deleted post to see his post with the reason for deletion - it adds something to moderation transparency. Sometimes, leaving a violating post visible to others (optionally deleting the name of the author if there are privacy concerns or humiliation concerns,) but with a warning that the post is a violation, and maybe a block on replying to that post, could also be effective in enforcing decorum.

And the reason I suggest warnings in some cases (obviously, when we're talking about freeper trolls or repeat-offenders, deletions, bannings and suspensions are necessary), is that it adds to moderation transparency. Transparency could help to address complaints when people are complaining about unfair moderation.

Just my random thoughts, Skinner - feel free to use or not use as you wish.

[deadinsider]

769. Good points

I am a novice at database design, and those are some good ideas.

Each warning could generate a record for the user, much as the User Preferences are saved in a table somewhere.

This way, the moderators (via the database with code) could issue citations to certian users that 'cite' certian habitual grievances with the user regardin the site's rules.

Very good points...

[backscatter712]

773. Definitely, use the database.

Keep the record, so a moderator can pull up previous actions & complaints with mouse click.

[Rex]

762. So we can still type "fuck cheney!" because he is a lowlife repuke

but cannot do so toward our own party members...GOOD, I personally get SICK and TIRED of the Dem bashing that goes on 24/7 here by just a few people that can't be satisfied no matter what a Dem does! I'm like so many people you describe - I come here to get away from the M$Ms sick and perverted view of politics.

[deadinsider]

774. HA ; )

Cheny is a POS.

[Rex]

801. Preach it brother!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

766. A few comments.

I read through the thread and saw many of your replies, so hopefully I won't be re-questioning anything you've already answered. I like #2 and it that will be an improvement and will stop, hopefully, the whining about why a post was deleted. However, I also found the deleted message perplexing because one is instructed to review the rules or ask the moderators and without knowing what was said in the post it was hard to know what rule was violated and the mods usually didn't respond to PMs asking for clarification. So, I think #2 will help. Also, I don't think anyone else has the "right" to know why a post was deleted except the person who's post was axed.

I saw your reply about tombstones and I disagree. If someone is removed, let the remaining community know why. It isn't kicking someone when 'they're' down. Was the poster a horrid bigot? Just disruptive? A zombie? A sockpuppet? And, if a sockpuppet is banned, should the "hand" responsible also get the boot or at least a "time-out?" The last question brings me to the "time out" lock. Personally, I think you have those reversed (time out message and tombstone message). Since the person being "timed-out" is still a member of DU, their suspension should be between the mods and that person, not something for all to see, as opposed to the non-member who is tombstoned.

One last point in need of clarification: the rule is established and easy to understand, do not call a member a bigot. OK, I can get that, even if the poster has repeatedly made bigoted remarks, I can understand the burden of proof is on the accuser and can rarely be proved. It is also a "thread stopper" of sorts. However, I feel the same about those who "claim" they are going to be called a bigot or sarcastically jibe how their post must be bigoted, shouldn't those type of posts also be deleted as "call outs" and disruptive to the discussion?

Thanks.

[MissMarple]

791. I like the idea of citing the violated rule, it's like sports referees do.

But then there may be complaints about "miscalled" faults. Such is life, as the baseball world recently experienced.

[Cetacea]

767. K&R

"A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person."

A return to civility would be great.

[NJmaverick]

768. Skinner, as a whole I think this is a positive change

The only thing that wasn't mentioned seems to be the unwritten law/practice that deletion of a post often seems dependent on the number of people alerting on it. I have found this aspect to be most troubling, as it would seem a post either violates or rule or it doesn't (in other words the rules shouldn't be subject to a vote in the form of alert numbers). Beyond that theoretical issue, it also seems to allow organized groups of people (either through PM or outside websites) to bombard a certain post or target certain posters for mass alertings.

[tekisui]

831. What leads you to believe that alert number has anything to do

with deletion?

[Kerrytravelers]

981. The number of alerts has nothing to do with action.

Discussion between the Mods takes place whether there is one alert or multiple alerts.

This is an unfounded concern.

[spoony]

1280. If posts were deleted by popular vote

I would still be under the impression that a NJ Maverick was a minor league baseball team or some such.

[Better Believe It]

770. K & R

[adamuu]

775. I like the new rules, but you need to say a few words about disruptors and infiltrators

Some of the rules apply. I realize there's not much you can do to prevent it, but it needs to be acknowledged as one of the forces driving the problems and the rules.

[backscatter712]

807. Agreed. Disruption falls partially under the category of inflammatory posting...

But perhaps a rule banning posts that are "in the opinion of the moderators, deliberately made to disrupt a civilized discussion, provoke other posters into arguing or flaming, made to derail a thread into a flame war, or made to exacerbate an existing flame war."

[adamuu]

856. Yeah. Good working, there.

The text about "parroting partisan attacks" seems to touch on it

but let's be more explicit here. Do I need to wear a tin foil hat to point out that sometimes I get the sense there are psy-ops conducted here?

[Mojorabbit]

778. This will cramp the Fl Senate race discussion

because unless things change the Dem will not be the best choice to prevent major damage, ie Rubio winning. I am hoping the Dem's numbers improve but it is not looking good.
It will be a huge race watched on the national stage. It is an unusual situation but there it is...

[Dappleganger]

798. I have already given up the hope

of being able to sensibly discuss that issue on this forum in any fashion. Keeping Tea Party members or extreme right-wing candidates out of office doesn't seem to be a big priority even when electing the democratic candidate is not going to work. Honestly, I don't know how else or where else to discuss it so am just resolved to just keep it to myself from this time forward.

[defendandprotect]

948. And that's now a taboo subject . . . right?

You will no longer be able to discuss it here --

In the long run, IMO, Democrats here will have a more peaceful, carefree existence here,

but a less knowledgeable one -- especially about how to preserve democracy -- which should

be the leading issue!!

[deadinsider]

783. Skinner

What about a percentage of warnings vs posts?

Moderators get alerts from users and discern whether it is a violation of a rule.

If necessary, they issue a citation/warning to the user citing the # violation.

If the user exceeds a certain percentage, say 99% or so, then they are either suspended or banned.

Add another table for warnings/citations to your data store. You could also program it to suspend based on number of violations within a time-frame as well as percentage based on # of posts.

Citing the rule number that a user violated would be instructive to the user as well...

Just a thought.

[limit18]

785. I was wondering why

I'm still here...Thanks to Lisinopril,Simvastatin, Amlodipine and the mods?

[DrDan]

787. Have been curious for some time as to why "age" is not included in the list of "iinsensitive"

violations.

There have been some very "insensitive" comments about seniors, retirees etc. Why would these comments be allowed?

[Gormy Cuss]

819. On a similar note, what about the tolerance of broad brush swipes at low income housing inhabitants?

There are a number of DUers who live in trailers. Every time a poster refers to someone as "trailer trash" at least one DUer jumps in and asks for a change of language. It would seem an obvious addition to the insensitive list.

[DrDan]

828. absolutely . . . I occasionally use that phrase only to quickly be correctly by my wife

she reminds me of the past friends we have had that have lived in trailers. The term "trailer trash" is extremely insensitive and should be dealt with.

[Jamastiene]

1357. My aunt just said to me, "Honey, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

What's so funny about that?

We live in a trailer. She lost her home. So, now she stays with me in my trailer.

From the moment I saw this place, I've been calling it a mansion in disguise surrounded by triffids and large Carolina wolf spiders, that I'm still sure I can eventually train. I'm always talking about big plans I have for it, when the opportunity (in this case, "opportunity" means time and money appearing together) comes.

So, that's what she just said to me. I told her, "You'll see. I'm going to be the envy of the neighborhood. I'll be in Better Homes and Gardens one day....one day."

Home is home. I don't care if it's a trailer. I love this place.

[Gormy Cuss]

1466. You don't feel trashy?

j/k. It's such elitist crap to assume that people living in trailers are automatically objects of derision. Trailers are homes to many, many people around the country.

I do believe that you will be in Better Homes and Gardens one day, Jamastiene.

[BrklynLiberal]

789. It would appear that you guys have given this subject a lot of thought and I feelthat you have come

come up with some great ideas.

The gradual implementation is an excellent idea...and posting your intentions is also great incentive for those who would disrupt to be on alert for the consequences.

Thank you for all you do to keep DU a place that I always can count on for up to date information, intelligent opinions and great people with great ideas.

And there are some pretty funny people here too.

Thanks.

[katty]

797. thanks-sounds good

[tandot]

800. Thanks! K & R

[Odin2005]

806. I would suggest modifying rule 3 a bit.

Make it 2 post deletions before the poster is banned from the thread. I would also suggest telling the poster the reason for the deleted post.

[TZ]

820. You realize how many anti-vaxx threads I'll likely get kicked out of?

Because the anti-vaxxers LOVE to alert on my posts? I think number 3 is complete bullshit, honestly.

[Odin2005]

1216. Knowing the behavior of one particular anti-vaxer towards me, I agree with you

Unfortunately we don't own the site. :-(

[Enthusiast]

809. K&R

Damn, Skinner, you sure have a lot of rules! :beer:

[MissMarple]

810. So, play nice,kids, use your big words, be civil, use your manners. Channel your inner grown up.

I like it. And I don't think it will suck out the color and passion we all have at times. And our vocabularies might even improve, not to mention our blood pressures and stress levels. Thinking how to better express a thought can be a good thing for one's perspective and insight.

[babylonsister]

839. "Channel your inner grown up" I love it! nt

[whatchamacallit]

818. Upon rereading

All I see is a daunting filter matrix. Sorry :/

[Mithreal]

834. Was reading something in the BO Group and it seemed a solidly good idea

People can actually have good discussions and find common ground even when it sometimes starts out inflammatory. If they are deleted out, the chance is cut off. I've even come to like a few people I have tangled with a time or two. This goes to whether this is just a message board or community that encourages its members to develop a thick skin.

I'll add that people have always had the ignore function, guess they are too lazy to use it and we have to have these "NEW" rules.

It's the unequal enforcement that is at issue for me.

edit: for clarity

[defendandprotect]

957. Agree . . .

The answer to problems with democracy is more democracy --

and when necessary the "ignore" function --

[Mithreal]

967. Thanks for the support. More openness, more democracy.

[MedfordTim]

847. Sounds like you're more interested in Cheerleading Camp

I write the way I talk - cussing, insensitive remarks, broad statements, insults, and yes...EVEN PUNS!

Your rules boil down to "Be as boring as you can possibly be and try to stay away from controversial matters. We don't want people to think OUTSIDE the box here!"

The best "change" I noticed was the blocking of a single poster to keep threads alive. Bravo, on that one, even though I feel a sense of dread and the possibility of having this one used on my own stuff. Can't say it doesn't make good housekeeping sense, though.

The "content" ideals you present will make this Just Another Echo Chamber. Take away the spirited discussions - and even the over the top arguments - and one might as well read a DU version of Reader's Digest.

[theFrankFactor]

863. + infinity

[Catherina]

900. Dangerous echo chamber as dangerous under Obama as under Bush n/t

[defendandprotect]

960. Indeed . . .

[TexasObserver]

1038. What if they give out a "Spirit Stick" every day?

To the poster with the most sparkle.



Just trying to be helpful and run with your commentary.

[fishwax]

1343. doesn't seem that way to me

I think it's possible to have spirited and productive discussions without hurling insults at fellow democrats, liberals, etc.

[ProudDad]

849. If what you're going for is a mutual admiration society for one side of the Duopoly

These rules will work...

As interpreted above, they appear highly restrictive and sufficiently stifling to be able to relatively mindlessly support that one arm of the Ruling Duopoly and it's "point of view" and certainly easy enough for your average 1st grader to understand and follow...

However, If you wish to allow any input from the left side of the argument, the basic critique that NEVER appears in the MSM (except to be demonized then dismissed as 'Socialism' or 'Communism' or 'Conspiracy Theories'), the point of view and analysis of the "way of the world" and its cause that goes beyond mere party politics, then these rules appear somewhat restrictive.

It all depends on the purpose of the site.

It appears that the purpose has drifted from a place to vent about USAmerican Imperial shenanigans, lament about the loss of Clinton, rage about the permanent wars and beg for "Change" to a rather bland, support group for "any democrat who can get elected."

Oh, well, all life is change. :shrug:

[theFrankFactor]

859. We should be in front of the curve not holding up the ass of it.

We should be in front of the curve not holding up the ass of it.

[Bluebear]

866. Elegant.

[Hissyspit]

906. +1

You said it much better than I could.

[Individualist]

940. Well said!

[Smashcut]

995. ^^^ What he said.

Thank you.

[myrna minx]

1386. Thank you for this thoughtful reply that reflects my thoughts. n/t

[tomp]

1649. that's pretty much how i feel, too. nt

[ProudDad]

850. You know what would be really, really cool?

To have your post deleted from this thread... :rofl:

[cliffordu]

855. my idiotic attempt at humor...self delete.

[Vattel]

858. sounds great

[november3rd]

867. New Rules

Is Bill Maher a member of this forum?

Seriously, these rules seem fair and very flexible. As a frequently dissenting Democrat/Socialist, I rely on the literal meaning of "liberal" to apply to these discussions.

Open discussions can be free from bias and unfair strictures when everybody knows the rules and agrees to follow them.

Even games have rules.

I just hope that in the name of improving the site we don't squeeze out dissent and reasonable criticism.

[annabanana]

881. (so calling Dick Cheney a cocksucker is out, right?). .

And is he still a son of a bitch?

[Skip Intro]

882. Makes sense. I will join the chorus on bringing back the Ask the Admin Forum, though.

Who knows, my request might be the that one more that makes it happen...

:D

[JackRiddler]

883. The William Pitt banning illustrates something disturbing...

I'm not talking about the reasons for the banning, which I don't even know yet, having only just learned of it on this thread.

I'm glad I don't know yet, because the following would be generally true to me no matter what WRP may have done:

I just looked at his profile to confirm, and he is now listed as having "0 posts."

As you know, for years he was arguably the most popular writer at DU. Long essays written just for DU. Thousands of posts.

Surely you want to avoid the appearance (or the substance) of historical denial.

I've been here since 2002 with more than 12,000 posts. If I do something very genuinely bad and get myself banned, is that where all those many hours of work end up? At zero? Knowing this, what's the incentive for others, regardless of their persuasion (and many are allowable here), to do the same?

Let's take an extreme hypothetical. Let's say someone converts to neo-conservative ideology and posts the Republican platform.

Or even more extreme, they turn out to be a paid Republican operative dispatched to subtly sabotage the place for years. Then they are discovered, complete with scans of checks from the RNC, and they are banned.

But they were still here for years. The history books don't blank out Benedict Arnold's name, do they? No "crime" on a message board should ever be a reason to erase history.

There may be a reason to ban long-time members with thousands of posts and hundreds of repeat readers. Posting privileges may be removed, but vanishing a member's Journal (or not having a place on-site where one can view the member's posting history) is a different matter.

Do you really think, no matter what he did, that William Rivers' footprint at DU should now be reduced to the same as that of a random Freeper saboteur who managed six meaningless-insult posts prior to banning?

We the members contribute the content that attracts the members. This place lives from the debates it enables -- yes, by limiting the kind of right-wing attacks that strangles discussions elsewhere, but otherwise by allowing a broad range of "Democratic and progressive" views to compete.

Beyond that, I wish you would consider some kind of social contract that respects a democratic ideal. What would be wrong with member participation on certain questions of moderation -- not on deciding whom to allow or banish, but on such things as how certain topics are handled? (The current example has been alluded to above -- something that is front-page news around the world being a restricted topic here.)

I do applaud efforts to rein in meaningless insults, flooding, stalking and the like. I do acknowledge the difficulties and labors involved in running a place such as this.

[hlthe2b]

895. With respect to all concerned, I am upset by this as well...

(Not the banning that I realize was justified, but the loss of his writings)

I'm sure there is probably some reasoning behind this, but it seems so unnecessarily punitive to "remove all trace" so-to-speak of someone's very long term contributions... :shrug:

[Dr. Hemlock]

1306. I think he said something about Obama's ears.

and didn't put the smiley emoticon afterwards.

[hlthe2b]

1340. So you registered, took the time to go through a thread of >1300

posts--just to say that? Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[lumberjack_jeff]

899. 900 posts and not one "deleted message"

a) I wish every thread was like this.

b) I find it gratifying to know that it's possible to have heartfelt debate on issues important to us within a respect framework.

[Mithreal]

927. +1 Indeed.

[Hissyspit]

909. My understanding is that Will Pitt did something that would get him banned from ANY

website. (I could be wrong.) He just pushed it too far one time too many. But I agree with you for the most part on your point on historical revisionism.

[JackRiddler]

915. By the way, I just researched the matter...

and if the reports are true, it seems like the WRP banning was for entirely justifiable cause, indeed a compelling one. Nevertheless, I would appreciate your response to the gist of my comments. There should not be a "memory hole" created around WRP or any other long-time poster who gets banned, deservedly or not. The history of this place, including the many, many transformations it has gone through, should be treated as a strength, not something to hide.

[Robb]

930. I would only note his older posts are unaffected.

He hasn't been erased from history, his name is still searchable with the donor search feature as well as Google.

[hlthe2b]

934. I believe that his journal is gone...

:shrug:

[Robb]

938. That's just an index, the posts are still there. nt

[JackRiddler]

951. Google is a different matter...

If what you find fromt the outside conflicts radically with what's allowed to be seen here through the profile, I submit it creates an unfortunate dissonance and does not engender trust and commitment to stick around. Especially when so many will remember yesterday.

Journals for one thing should be closed for such an offense, but remain viewable.

[backscatter712]

885. Another suggestion: Progressive discipline.

One of the complaints I see here is about how people get banned "for no reason" or "on the first offense".

The truth is that there were previous offenses, but because there's not much transparency, people see enforcement as being inconsistent.

I'd suggest explicit progressive escalating sanctions for violations, for example for violating the rule against personal attacks, there could be an explicit policy of warning/deleted-post/deleted-thread on the first violation, a temp-ban on the second violation, and a permanent ban on the third violation.

And track all this in the database, make sure the mods can see when people have had previous warnings and temp-bans, and nobody can claim "I wasn't warned!" or "I got banned out of the blue!"

Of course, there are exemptions - really, really egregious violations would be worthy of a ban on the first-offense, and classic trolls fitting the pattern of having no posting history, then immediately posting a right-wing tirade would be worthy of an immediate ban.

[Kerrytravelers]

1237. All actions taken with members is done between the member and Admin/Mods.

I wouldn't like my personal business being public information. Maybe that's just me, but I would hate it. So, it is up to the member how they portray their relationship with Admin and the Moderators to others.

[DFW]

886. Bill Maher might be jealous of so many New Rules, but even so....

I certainly didn't see anything I couldn't live with--indeed, it's stuff I pretty much abide by already.

[lynne]

891. I'd like to see the word RACIST added under "Personal Attacks" -

- it seems that anyone who disagrees or voices a different opinion with regard to anything the president may be doing, any policy, etc. is eventually called a racist. It's done so much that the word has lost all meaning and the term has been turned into nothing more than a debate weapon.

[AspenRose]

1075. As long as there is a distinction between calling a person racist

and pointing out something that could be seen as racist within a teachable framework (like talking about dog whistles, why certain phrases are seen as racist to a group, etc.)

[lynne]

1309. Agreed. That's why it would be listed under "Personal Attacks" -

- as I was referring to those times when one poster labels another poster "racist". It would not prohibit discussion of racism within a teachable framework.

[kirby]

897. Please add whining about the 'unrecommend'

I would like to see the mods remove/warn users who post stuff complaining about their post being unrecommended. That just gets so old.

The proposed rule changing are so subjective that is is really hard for me to comment until after I see how they end up working. I would love for DU to be a place of CIVIL debate and discussion.

[backscatter712]

914. Better yet, clarify when recommends or unrecommends are appropriate.

The rules depend on the forum. For example, Daily Kos punishes members who inappropriately hide-rate legitimate comments, or recommend blatantly offensive comments. OTOH, on Reddit, you can upvote or downvote links there for absolutely any reason at all, including no reason.

The first question I'd like to see Skinner or another mod answer is EXACTLY when do you consider a recommend or unrecommend to be a violation.

Do you get in trouble for recommending a troll post? Or for unreccing a popular, within-the-rules, progressive post? Or can you unrec a post just because you think "I think this sucks" or "This is boring!"

Clarification would be welcome.

[backscatter712]

920. self-delete - I'm moving this to a reply to the OP.

[backscatter712]

929. Oops, my post was intended to be a reply to Skinner's OP.

D'oh!

[Renew Deal]

926. Or we can get rid of unrecommend and solve that problem in one shot.

Unrec is a pointless mess.

[WillyT]

1066. Yeah... That Unrec Feature Sure Keeps Things Civil, LOL !!!

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


Thanks for the laugh!

:hi:

[kirby]

1275. Uhh...

When someone posts something that is off-topic, the tenth duplicate, or so poorly written that it is incomprehensible, the unrec is appropriate. There is obviously a group of people who use the rec/unrec feature as a 'i agree/i disagree' button rather than its intended purpose. However, those people are the minority and after a few minutes their votes are drowned out.

[The Wizard]

911. Could we have a Conservative pinata

or something similar where we pick apart the Conservative pinata of the week? With the top 10 Conservative Idiots on the shelf, a place to vent might prove helpful and amusing.

[Ian David]

919. I would change "Holocaust Skepticism" to "Holocaust Denial / Revisionism."

Calling it Skepticism is a misnomer.

[Justitia]

1024. seconded. -eom

[MrMickeysMom]

922. Number 2... "when a post is deleted"...

Boy, is THAT ever gonna make more work for the enforcer.

Not that I've had many deleted posts (try going over to the 911 thread and see if the usual suspects haven't made me pull my hair out either alerting as to what a few do, or, I will admit, make me spit in the eye of the same few, thus producing the "knee jerk" alert. It's a fine line "what breaks the rule". I wonder... does this cause more of the same knee jerk reaction?

There are not too many circumstances where this exists... and frankly, it might be better in the long run, but it's gonna take more moderation, I'm thinking.

Let's give it a test drive, I say.

[SteveM]

932. Good job with the "new" rules. #3 is sorely-needed.

I am curious as to the "7" GLBT posters who were allegedly TS'd. Perhaps a summation of the kinds of remarks made by the seven -- without attributing the comments to any individuals -- may shed light on what kind of things were going on which led up to this crypt's worth of tombstones.

[inna]

935. It's the lack of transparency that many people find disheartening.

It's very sad to see so many good DUers gone, without any explanation or possibility to discuss what happened. :(

[blueworld]

943. Well, I'm happy w/99% of the new rules & I don't envy you your jobs

However, I believe that, as you've outlined them, there will be a new "kinder, gentler" tone to the debates we all actually valued here in the past. IMHO, the strict separation of subject matter will be a huge help on its own.

I hope that there will (perhaps) be some kind of "warning" or "demerit" for those, like myself, who try hard to debate respectfully & vent appropriately, but may be off beam occasionally. In any case, it's your board & I thank you for the years you've worked at it, & the value you've offered to me & all of us. Best wishes.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

949. Brilliant and long overdue! I have a suggestion...

Suggestion: I see that you and the other moderators have addressed personal attacks on Obama and other Democratic leaders. And I also understand that constructive criticisms vis-a-vis policy issues are permitted.

But can the moderators also consider the same forum policies regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton? There are lingering bruises from the Democratic primaries on this board, and many of us have noticed that those who did not support Hillary Clinton during the primaries and/or Bill Clinton's policies are often lambasted because of that. Those who disagree even on policy points but otherwise respect and/or love the Clintons are accused of hatred just because we may disagree with specific policies of the Clinton presidency. The opposite is also the case. Those who supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries and love the Clintons overall, are often unfairly targeted as anti-Obama.

I think what I'm suggesting is that the Moderators figure out the most appropriate way to deal with wounds inflicted during the primaries that are still healing.

Thanks, and I will do my best to abide by the rules.

LS_71

[Renew Deal]

950. I can't believe the response to this. (1000 posts!)

We've had 1000 of these Skinner led pow wows. I don't get why this one is getting so much attention. Maybe there's more active people here. :shrug:

[Mithreal]

966. A good number of well liked Progressives were recently stoned

Some asked to have accounts closed.

A good number of them were TS'd without warning.

A few were TS'd with warning.

And a few others did the GCW goodbyes.

The folks were among the true underground, dissenters, ones who regularly irritated the in-crowd.

It's just my word versus another's but that is my take.



Might as well make above board what has been going on behind the scenes.

Don't waste a crisis.

[Robb]

991. Oh, horseshit.

Nobody was TSed without warning. Nobody who's been here more than three hours is ever TSed without warning.

Play the victim if you want, on their behalf, but it doesn't hold water.

[saracat]

1001. How very civil. Adds to the debate I am sure.

[Robb]

1011. If the rules of debate included making things up, you'd have a point.

[Mithreal]

1005. Used the search feature for Robb and Horseshit. 5510 hits!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=robb+horseshit&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

[Robb]

1008. Delete

Not worth it, clearly.

[hlthe2b]

1014. Ya gotta admit that was sort of funny, eh Robb?

;) (not taking sides-- we love ya, ya goofball)
But, pretty incredible google results-- and I'll raise you one "horseshit"

[Mithreal]

1021. Thanks

I do what I can ;)

[Robb]

1028. Whatever you do

...don't search "Mithreal" and "bullshit."

[hlthe2b]

1034. he's got ya there, Mithreal... 16,500

I'm guessing search numbers don't really mean much...;)

[Mithreal]

1294. It was amusing though, guess I win :)

[Mithreal]

1035. Clever. Thank you, come again!

[arcadian]

1191. Robb?

How is this post not an attack? :eyes: You should know better.

[Justitia]

1026. ROFL!

[HughMoran]

1060. It's getting out of hand

again :eyes:

[Shell Beau]

1274. Not true. Ask Midlo and KitchenWitch and FinFan.

And this part isn't directed at you Robb. But since I no longer post on this site because of the way it is now, I will say this in this post. More rules. YAY!!! As if enough people weren't breaking the OLD rules. I think the people here deserve to know who was TSd and why. WE are the contributors to this site. We may not "run" the site, but we PAY for this site. And we deserve answers. WE don't deserve to be shut up. What is democratic about that? Gravedancing? All good. Because it reinforces the belief that it was an okay TS. Asking questions about TSd DUers? Not good. Do not question. Do not make it seem as though it may have been a mistake. That is bad.

And how about some term limits on some of the mods? You see many of the same ole same ole mods, and they are human. They have people they don't like here just as everyone else does. I am guessing that no they don't use fair judgment. They use their personal bias. Some of them do anyway. Maybe it has to be a consensus, but I am not sure I even believe that. I remember when Finfan was banned. And if I remember correctly, he was told he could come back because the MODS made a mistake in banning him. I am guessing he isn't the only one.

There was also that time when people's personal PRIVATE messages were posted for everyone to see by an admin. So to say that people's PMs have been kept private in the past is a lie.

Anyway, improving this site is going to take something more that more rules. It is going to take being democratic about things. Letting people speak their minds and letting people get pissed off. Being consistent with ALL posters here. Playing favorites is high school, and that is what this place seems like now to me.


This may sound ugly, and it isn't intended to be. This is me getting it off my chest and telling MY opinion and thoughts since they were asked to be shared by DU posters and contributors.

[LanternWaste]

1111. I imagine that labeling a group of people as the "in-crowd"

I imagine that labeling a group of people as the "in-crowd" makes the self-perceived martyrdom that much more dramatic... it worked in middle school for many people.

[Mithreal]

1116. Oh please. Suggest an alternative that conveys the same information that doesn't tweek

your sensibilities. I'll use it if you offer one better, even go back and edit if there is still time.

[hlthe2b]

952. Perhaps let the "banned" appeal in a year for reinstatement?

I'm an admitted softy, but I just hate the thought of there being no recourse for some that we lose (that does include some long term valued contributors, who nonetheless clearly deserved their granite marker). It seems to me that it is possible they might address whatever demons might have been at play- whether it be alcohol, personal problems, the basic need to "grow up" or to learn to argue more constructively. Perhaps knowing they have a path to reinstatement might encourage them to do so.... :shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

1173. Sometimes banned people do get a second chance.

Ask around, I'm sure you'll find a few.

[hlthe2b]

1182. Yes.. I know... I'm actually referring to a few of the more egregious

offenders (including at least one who has been t'stoned before)....

Thus, the year time out might be a reasonable compromise, given I'm sure that there are some continued hard feelings--perhaps on both sides (and within DU itself).

[Danger Mouse]

953. Seems like we have a healthy discussion of DU and its future going here.

nice. :hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

955. What about liberal/leftist entities other than the US Democratic Party?

"Thank God Pinochet rid Chile of that wanna-be dictator Allende. And now justice prevailed in Honduras too. w00t!"

"Sweden is Hell. You have to have some serious character defects if you want to live in a place when you can't own guns, there's no capital punishment, atheism is rampant, and they take 50% as income tax."

"Unions are the cause of most economic problems. Unless it's employer unions."

"No, wait, that's not correct. There's Big Government too."

"Chavez is in cahoot with the FARC. So's Lula. And Evo. And Correa. And Lugo. And..."

I assume that would fall under "other", depending on overall poster RW-ness concentration?

[Blue-Jay]

1093. Get back to watching soccer, you fuckwit.

:D

[thotzRthingz]

958. even though I've been a monetary contrubutor to DU, I no longer come here very much...

I think the new ADMIN approach will be helpful... but I also think it would be helpful to create another forum, perhaps calling it:

REJECTED
DEEP-SIXED
NOT ALLOWED
(or whatever)

Have "occasional reminders" (from mods/admins) for the "newbies" about its existence... perhaps LINK to said forum from within the TOS as well. Or, does such a location already exist, for the following purpose?

When any post/reply gets AXED (by admins/mods)... immediately MOVE it to said forum. That way (with poster's "name deleted") there would be a record, in one easily found location, of examples as to what is NOT allowed.

Being a "registered Independent" I have felt less than welcome here, even though I have always tried to maintain a civil tone in my posts. And you'll notice that this is my first (and likely last) POST since... well heck, I can't recall the last time I visited here, let alone posted something.

...just my 2cents (have a nice life, ya'll)

[lamp_shade]

961. Thanks for the hard work that went into this. I rate you A-plus for diplomacy.

[Mithreal]

971. Diplomacy always looks better when you're not the one

being smacked upside the head with the heavy stick.

[Bluenorthwest]

962. The posters in your thread are extensions of youself

Many seem to speak for you, with authority, and are not corrected. I am frankly stunned by your association with this stuff, while also purging so many GLBT people at once. Makes one hell of a statement, Skinner, I hope you can see that.

[Mithreal]

969. Making omelets, cracking eggs.

The cat is out.

[LostinVA]

992. Teh Gays deserved it

Or so I was informed upthread. "They taunted anbd taunted and taunted..." the poor people calling them whiners and pouragers and pony wanters, and deserved their TSing.

Lots since then, too, BNW, and allies. I wasn't going to post in this thread, but the revisionist history of the Gay Purge is sickening.

[customerserviceguy]

974. #2 above is a good idea

If you want to make this place better, letting people know where they crossed the line is a good place to start.

[TheManInTheMac]

978. While you're making changes, could you do something about the...

furniture in the Lounge? It's getting a little ratty.

:-)

[hlthe2b]

984. Well, if you could keep the

lounge rats out, maybe so! ;)

[TheManInTheMac]

1114. Hey, I love the occasional lounge rat infestations into GD...

It's what keeps me coming back. ;-)

[hlthe2b]

1150. that's the...

Rat Pack, sweetie... We all love them...;)

[Grinchie]

980. I think that donations have dropped off, and there is a need to placate the DLC donors.

Number two is a good start, but it all boils down to Censorship, plain and simple. Even when data is presented with damning evidence of conspiracy and collusion, you can tombstone it at will for some oddball reason.

As you said, it's all subjective, but if you want a cheerleaders only Forum, then you might as well just rename the site Underground.com
Furthermore, there is definately evidence that certain aliases are nothing more than Propaganda outlets for teams of people. How do you go about analyzing these accounts, or do you even care.. Certainly, if they are big donors, I doubt that you would look very hard, but that is my personal opinion.

The fact of the matter is that many people feel thrown under the bus by this administration, and your shift in policy strangely enough coincides with the realization of this administration that they have alienated the base that got them elected in the first place. This is extensively apparent by the Tsunami of unhappy campers that are growing in number on DU, many of whom were devoted supporters of Hope and Change.

I am skeptical that this change in policy is more altruistic than it is a political move to save the current administration at all costs.

I do think that item 2, explaining the reason for tombstoning a post is a good start, however I see no way of appealing, and the banning of any more posts in the topic is a stone axe approach to put it mildly. It becomes a matter of who cries wolf first..

[Egnever]

997. So your position is

Who cares if the majority of the posters here are driven off by a few naysayers. The board should go down in flames in order to promote the freedom of said naysayers to post every ne3gative bit of tripe they can find.

If in fact what you post is true and donations and support for this boarde is down prompting this action then skinner and co would be fools to not step in and do something about it. Despite any hurt feelings of what by definition would be the minority of the population here.

This board was initially started in a time when supporting democrats was enough to have you called a traitor. Now you want the board to become the place that it was set up to be a refuge from.

Screw the handfull of idiots who can find only negativity in this administration.

[saracat]

1007. If you have even been following this board recently at all .

many more Duers are disappointed than happy. The Happy Duers are the minority AFAIK. The unhappy are not a mere"handful of idiots". People are having a very difficult time dealing with their disappointment. I think that is the real reason for the rule clarifications. If there were"only" a handful' no action would be needed.

[Robb]

1018. OK, a *loud* handful.

Note the rec score on this post. It does not support your claim.

[tekisui]

1019. The response to this thread proves you are right.

The majority are disappointed in direction and rule enforcement.

[Egnever]

1047. thats why its got a positive rec count right?

How are things in upside down land?

[Catherina]

1076. Please understand this

Many of us respect Skinner's hard work too much to unrec his threads so I wager 268 is near the max of total recs/unrecs for this thread.

260 recs isn't a very good ration for a Skinner thread with over 1000 posts and 21000 views.

Posts like 'My name is Eddie Vale of the AFL-CIO & I don't hide behind anonymous quotes' had a much higher rec quotient. That will tell you something if you can quit with the snark long enough to think this through more objectively.

[Egnever]

1167. Right so only if the rec count was negative would it be valid

Got it.

You can try to make excuses all you want but the fact remains the rec count being positive lends more credence to people approving of the new measures than any attempted contortion to explain away why its a positive count.

Twisting reality to fit your preconceived notions is not being objective.

[tekisui]

1279. You disagree with this thread?

The positive rec is because we all want DU to be improved. And the changes show that the admins are aware and agree. We want more civility, I believe that is why is got such a response and recs.

[Egnever]

1326. Not at all

I think the person I responded to originally in this sub thread disagrees with this thread. I think changes are long overdue.

[Grinchie]

1305. So you measure things by Positive Rec Count? That's Hilarious

Jut go along with the crowd seems to be the majority these days, never mind the merit.

The whole rec system is broken and unreliable in my opinon. Secondly, I don't believe in recs.. Why should my recs go into a database to be sold to some donor political organization? I haven't seen it written anywhere that they won't do this for statistical analysis.

If they want me to rec things, they can pay me for my thoughts. I am barely comfortable posting my opinion here, because it is a fact that it is all vacuumed up in the cloud for rainy day processing....

Fearful? No, the passive resistance when it comes to valuable information.

[girl gone mad]

1629. Admin posts always get recced up.

It isn't a vote of confidence, but of deference.

[Whisp]

1693. many more, my hairy arse...

you just yell louder and more often, thats all.

[Grinchie]

1295. I', amazed that you call some idiots who actually believed in the campaign promises....

If that's your position,so be it. The reality is that Idiots don't have good memories, and are easily distracted by the latest Brittany Spears scandal.

I'm looking everyday for positive developments, but Obama deserves to play golf doesn't rate. Neither does beating the war drums against N. Korea or Iran, the Ongoing WARS in Iraq and Afganistant, the new 120 million dollar contract to Blackwater/XE for "Security".. Ad nauseum.

Please fill me in on the positives.. I'm looking but I see little to nothing.

And don't give me trivial inconsequential positives, like Obama plays golf...

You could offer up Rahm Emmanuel being fired, but that's long overdue, and generally too late considering the damage he's caused, if the story is even true...

[sufrommich]

1002. "there is definately evidence that certain aliases are nothing more than Propaganda outlets "

I'd like to see some proof of that evidence. That's a very strong accusation.

[Grinchie]

1296. Sorry, I'd get tombstoned

Nice try though!

[sufrommich]

1377. Right. You've got super secret evidence of a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, sharing it with anyone would lead to your demise. Got it.

[woo me with science]

1392. Do you think the DLC has bought Skinner?

and bought DU?

[iamthebandfanman]

982. until there are neutral mods who dont have an opinion,

itll just stay the same.

sorry.

this right wing response from people when they dont like something they read is getting intolerable.... lol... the intolerance is becoming intolerable... lol...

id have fled already myself if there was a better place to go.

starting to think that should be looked into.


not like websites are hard to register and host these days.

[JTFrog]

1257. Until there are humans that don't have opinions,

I'm afraid you're out of luck.

sorry.

I hope you have better luck with your new site. :shrug:

[backscatter712]

985. What about posts accusing another poster of telling people to STFU.

I've seen this pattern a lot.

"I'm pissed at Obama! He needs to work more on ending DADT!"

"Relax! He's working on it. He just needs to get Congress on board."

"YOU'RE JUST TELLING ME TO STFU!!! FUCK YOU, I WILL NOT STFU!!! YOU MUST BE FROM THE DLC!!!"

"Dude, chill - he was just saying that Obama's working on it."

"RAHM IS THAT YOU?!!! STOP TELLING US TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!"

follow with 300 posts of epic flame-fest

I did notice that telling other posters to STFU is a violation, and obviously should be. But also a concern is posts that accuse a poster of telling them or others to STFU, or accusing a poster of "being a member of the Purity Police."

Something to put in the rules?

[ShamelessHussy]

986. Re: Groups - Can we describe groups as being conservative democrats?

Or would that be against the rules?

[bertman]

989. Wow, I hardly know what to say--for a change. Some rules sound reasonable.

Others sound draconian and anti-democratic. But I guess this is a Democratic, not democratic underground.

Others have commented on their disillusion with the Democratic party after many decades of trying to change it back to a party that puts the interests of the working class ahead of the interests of the moneyed elites, so I'll just say I agree with their posts.

I hope this works out well, but it seems like an ominous exercise in repression of dissenting opinions to me.

[Mithreal]

1006. +1 Well said.

[iamthebandfanman]

1010. what do they care?

they can pretend this is a hassle to them and privledge to us all they want..

but they do infact make money off of this.


they do infact have connections to important people in the party we dont have now because of the success of this website..



just remember that without us, this website and its operators would still be nothing.

[inna]

1020. +1

Well said, and agreed on all counts.

[scubadude]

990. So you are swinging to the right?

I have been a long time DU'er who has supported this board with cash, and will continue to do so if this remains a place where my voice is heard.

I believe that gives me the right to make my political arguments, even if they make people uncomfortable.

What are you steering for? Mediocrity? How many rules have I broken in this post?

Who is to say that one person's viewpoint is more valid than others?

I say leave this place alone. It has run pretty well for a decade.

Scubadude

[Skinner]

You haven't broken any.

:shrug:

[scubadude]

1143. Cool, it just seems there has been a steady erosion rightward.

Maybe I'm wrong, I often am, but hard lefties or old style liberals just don't seem to be getting many breaks lately. Of course I agree in principle that we should support democrats, but when we feel we are being left out in the cold we need a place to voice our opinions.

It seems there is a drive towards less individualism. See, I parsed my words there. I was going to use the term "mass-speak" but I don't know if that would be considered a derogatory term. When you've got to parse your words so carefully it becomes tedious and difficult to communicate effectively.

Major political figures are regulars here. I personally stood face to face and told Al Gore about DU, as probably hundreds of others have.

I believe DU is a great national asset and give you kudos for starting it, but keep the rules light if you ask me. Let me know if and when I step over the line. Don't summarily dismiss folks who think differently. Don't immediately ban ideas to the dungeon. Keep things light. Isn't life crazier than fiction sometimes?

Scuba

[backscatter712]

998. What about mocking and ridiculing obvious trolls?

OK, it's technically against the rules - you're supposed to just hit the Alert button.

But damn, ridiculing a clearly obvious freeper troll is fun! :evilgrin:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1224. Oh YEAH.

:thumbsup:

[mkultra]

999. much love Skinner

I know what you are doing is a balancing act and im more than pleased with the changes. Thanks again for this forum.

[SpankMe]

1000. I'm worried about the "attack against Democrats" rule.

A theme in my postings is how spineless and ineffective Democrats have become. Bush did more for Republicans with a small House majority and a 50-50 Senate than Democrats have been able to pull off with a 60-40 Senate and a clear House majority.

I am concerned that my criticisms which may include words like "spineless" "weak", ineffective and other similar hot button words may be construed as an attack on Democrats. In fact, I agree with the whole Democratic agenda. But, I want to use somewhat flowery speech when getting my point across. Unlike former California governor Gray Davis, I actually have a personality.

I don't wish to be banned or thread-locked for this. A tolerance for some spirited vocabulary should be allowed as long as it that speech isn't all Fox-newsy. Sanitizing speech is what conservatives do. Getting to the point is what we do.

[Bravo Zulu]

1012. It's like herding Cats!

Trying to get DU members to follow the rules!

[kgnu_fan]

1013. my two and half cent...

Hello Skinner and all the hard working mods,

First of all, thank you for working hard, thinking hard, keeping this place clean and clear for all of us. I am grateful to you. I have been thinking about the cause of turmoil here for awhile and your analysis is accurate and your remedies are all reasonable, I think.

May I just share my own perception here.

When DU was born, it was mostly in reaction to War mongering saga started prominently by horrific "selection" of W and the Iraq invasion. Many people who were attracted to this "place" were not especially identified as "Democratic Party" loyalists at that time but we came here to stop the illegal War and illegal elections all over the country. We had Greens, Libertarians and unhappy Republicans all mixed up among us in those days to talk about War. At that time, "democratic party" was one of useful instruments politically available to us to fight the neocon politics. In a way, DU was important at the time to bring diverse forces into focus and to pressure "Democratic Party" to execute people's wishes and political will.

Currently, with Democratic Party in power and it is still continuing the War W started, and doing something worse in the area of civil liberty, those original dynamism is not working and Anti-War sentiment is not as prominent. Instead, Left(progressives, labor union people, environmentalists, socialists etc) and Party Royalists seem to clash more often than not. Sacrificed in such struggle are open spirit of imagination and exploration for progressive agenda and party reformist initiatives. They get lost in minute policy disagreements, "locked" discussions, sometime provocateurs-like hooks and punches,lack of courtesy and bad feelings.

So I hope we get to keep our eyes wide open to the issues of American War machine, and we pay careful attention to keep our discussion on how to eradicate the machine itself, because it is destroying all and everything "progressive" and "democratic" about the United States of America.

Again, thank you for reading and I look forward to the next phase of this wonderful gathering place.

Ho.

[YOY]

1016. Skinner...no offense but some cat upstream who is "so concerned" gives many of us "concern"

Has repeatedly insinuated that I am some kind of extremist, some kind of communist, and some kind of pacifist to the point of not being willing able to defend myself.

Ironically, it's not even worth defending myself against his crap because for all that he will never, never, never, never, never be permanently banned nor can his warped view of the world ever fall into simple political science 101 outside of science fiction ala 1984.

I'm the kind of guy things can be discussed with...as long as the person I am discussing things with isn't on some sort of witch hunt.

You want to bring civility back...well...you banned one groups "feistier" (and some were feisty with damn good reason and have been with us for a long time) members...and it's only encouraged the other groups members.

You know I've been here a while as have many others. You know I am a loyal Democrat, but will not let my standards be played off as "extreme."

Meh...what does it matter...George Carlin was right...the FReepers have to be jerking with joy right about now at this whole mess...

[Ignis]

1200. I think more transparency in moderation would help this.

Perhaps some of the Usual Snarkspects are being reprimanded, warned, temporarily suspended, etc., but we're just not seeing it?

Under the current system, this can lead to the perception that some posters are simply "bulletproof," and will never be banned/suspended, no matter how often they Disrupt.

If that's not the reality of the situation, then transparency can only help improve the perception.

[Kerrytravelers]

1496. It's not "perhaps." It's happening. However, we work in private with members.

How they choose to represent their relationship with the Admin and Mods is entirely up to them. They can keep it quiet. They can be truthful, tell half-truths or simply "invent" their history with the Admin and the Mods. We generally do not say anything publicly, and when something is said, it is done, usually, by Admin only.

Basically, we're not airing anyone's dirty laundry, but the idea that someone didn't know they would be Warned, Suspended or TSed is always intriguing. ;-)

[Ignis]

1500. Thanks for the reply, KT. I'll try to clarify what I muddled above:

I take it on faith that posters who have the perception of being regular disruptors to DU discussions are being disciplined to various degrees. But the external perception--that is, what those of us who aren't mods/admins see--is rather binary: Either the user is alive and well and posting away, or they're pushing up daisies in Pizza land.

Because we can't see the full spectrum of administrative discipline in action, it can lead to the perception that users who frequently troll otherwise-calm discussions are not being disciplined.

But then, most of my ~25 years of participating in / moderating / running message boards have been in the technical community, where a user's "karma" is often much more public, and the mechanisms by which that score is generated are much more transparent. So YMMV. :D

[Kerrytravelers]

1506. I can understand what you're saying.

And when members are under the impression that the newly TSed member has just suddenly disappeared, it can be a bit disconcerting. Basically, the rule of thumb has always been to work with people until they no longer want to work with you. In a nutshell, regardless of what someone may say here or anywhere else, no one is ever banned without knowing it is coming.

We just don't air the dirty laundry in public. :hi:

[TexasObserver]

1022. Will obnoxious thread starters then be barred from their own thread?

If the rule is going to bar a poster from posting in the thread after the first deletion, it would seem the duty should be highest on the person who starts the thread. There are some thread starters who simply look for agreement, and get huffy with anyone who doesn't buy whatever they're selling.

If a thread starter has a post deleted for cause, will they be barred from reentering their thread?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the "barred from the thread" rule for a single post deleted for cause:

I think this provision is troublesome, simply because it potentially allows as few as two moderators to censor drastically any thread they wish. It has the potential for great abuse, with a somewhat limited benefit. Three strikes in a thread seems more reasonable.

A good addition to the rule might be that no mod who has posted on the thread would be allowed to vote to delete a post. Recusal of mods active in the thread is imperative to a sense of fair play.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the new practice of giving posters notice of their deleted posts and why:

I applaud the admins' effort to expand the process to explain to the poster which post has been removed and why. In my view, that's the most important action you've taken. I favor information flow, so that each poster can see what they're saying that is considered objectionable.

Great decision.

[Dr Morbius]

1025. I have a concern or two about rule three.

For the first, I'll offer a hypothetical: poster X starts a thread in GD about Mr Obama's cabinet. This being a more appropriate thread for GD-P, it gets moved. Is poster X now a violator of the rules? I can appreciate that some posters deliberately start threads in more heavily populated forums, against the stated intentions of the moderators. However, people newer to the message board will likely make mistakes. I would therefore suggest your rules concerning "Off Topic/Wrong Forum" will either need to be enforced in a lax manner or else indicate that punishment (if any) would be applied to those who do it deliberately, as opposed to accidentally. Pretty easy for a neophyte to get the wrong board.

For the second concern, I have had a couple posts deleted; one for a comment about Ann Coulter that I should have guessed was against the rules, and another for... well, let's just say I can see why it was overboard. I can comply with the rules, I think. I won't be one of your problems. But I will makes mistakes; based on the last 48 years, I'd say it's inevitable. And to automatically be banned from a thread if I make a mistake sounds a bit harsh. It's almost akin to being banned from driving on a certain street if one has a violation on that street. Sometimes it's a very important topic, at least emotionally important (and let's be honest with ourselves, politics is extremely emotional), and a moderator will be in a position where one side of a valid, legitimate argument makes a mistake, and goes a bit too far, and now that moderator is banning this person from the thread; banning this person from the argument. Well now, that pretty much means the other person in the discussion "wins", doesn't it? Won't this rule actually incentivize evil-minded posters to lure other posters into rules violations so the latter will get booted from a thread?

I get why you want rule three. I do, really. But I would suggest, in the strongest terms, that instead of making it automatic that the author of a deleted comment is banned from the thread, that you declare the author of a deleted comment is subject to being banned from the thread! Otherwise, you create the same problem we as a nation have with minimum sentencing: first, the rule itself may apply unjust punishment, and second, there will be a whole class of people who have an interest in seeing that automatic punishment applied. I don't believe in minimum sentencing, and I don't believe in automatic punishment. Minimum sentencing came about because politicians didn't trust the judges; since the moderators are judge, jury and executioner, that doesn't apply here. You know you can trust the judges to be fair; that's why you made them moderators (in theory!). So trust them to properly apply the banning-from-threads rule and don't make it automatic.

Overall, I like the rules. I believe in rules, as I believe in law, and for the same reason. I can and will largely comply with the rules and if I stray from them it will be owing to human error. I appreciate the difficulty of moderating such a busy set of boards, and kudos for the mature, rational approach to the problem.

[ProudDad]

1480. That was one of the most disturbing "rules"

I agree.

There's already WAY too much "one strike and you're out" here in the USAmerican Empire without bringing it here...

[USArmyParatrooper]

1027. Bravo! + Infinity! A+ Outfreaking Standing

I think I interpret all of this to mean you want DU to be a mainstream Democratic blog.

I especially appreciate this:

Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.

Thank you! This is exactly why I left Dailykos after being a longtime member and even a "trusted user." For the record I have the highest respect for Markos Moulitsas (who himself is a proud veteran) and for most members of Dailykos. But the site's administrators failed to curb a noisy minority who constantly post disrespectful comments about service members and military service.

I know many people will be pissed. But you know what? There are Democratic and Liberal blogs out there of all flavors. I prefer one that most represents mainstream Democrats, and doesn't allow every negative stereotype about the left to prevail.

[USArmyParatrooper]

1030. I just donated based on this

Thanks again, admin crew.

[Omaha Steve]

1031. I'm all for making the DU the best we as a community can be

K&R.

No complaint from me. Treat others as you would treat yourself seems to fit for most of this.

Let's face it. We have many people read us that never post here (like Rush). I want to keep our ideology in a positive light. I'll will try to comply.

OS

[WillyT]

1033. Thank You For The Clarification Skinner

It IS appreciated.

[AspenRose]

1036. Number three makes me nervous.

I distinctly remember posting something ages ago where I was quoting something Sam Seder said on his show (in reference to Lieberman), and someone took offense and alerted on me, and my post was deleted. I had no idea at the time what it was I had said that was so offensive, especially since I was quoting another progressive (and presumably neither the offended party nor the mod was familiar with the tone or topics of Sam's show).

Using today's proposed rules, that would have been enough to lock me out of the thread.

[vaberella]

1056. Ditto. n/t

[HughMoran]

1037. I think this is an excellent proposal

I look forward to it's implementation - I feel this will improve the level of discourse here over time and improve DU's reputation in the process.

[LanternWaste]

1048. All in all, I think it;s a good idea and workable...

All in all, I think it's a good idea and generally workable. I imagine there will be some fine tuning that will happen over the course of a few months, but all in all, I wholeheartedly agree with the new format.

Of course, there will be rules-lawyers playing fast and loose in a less than clever manner, but there's no real way around that, and the alert button is available. Add to that the crowd of the Perpetually Paranoid (but sporting some seriously fashionable tin-foil hats) who will indignantly proclaim "I'm being censored!" at every opportunity, and I imagine there will be some ugly growing pains.

But being both a proud Democrat and a proud progressive who values civility as much as honesty, I am compelled to agree with your proposals. And thinking about, I guess I should actually begin using the Alert Button myself-- I don't know if I admit this sheepishly or proudly, but I've never used that function before.

You guys do a great job... you really do. I hope every now and then you give each other a pat on the back.

[DFLforever]

1052. Thanks, Skinner.

Clarification of rules plus a few new reforms should help.

[vaberella]

1054. Yeah, like the rules but Measure # 3 does bug me. A lot.

Sometimes I've had my posts deleted and I don't know why---until I fall back on the thread. Secondly, what about being called an "obamabot" where does that fall in? individual attack or broad brush.

Lastly, I'm glad I won't have to deal with any more Obama is Bush III posts.

[dkofos]

1057. blah,blah, more rules, blah,blah

[MadHound]

1058. This is all fine sounding in principle,

However I'm seriously wondering, and concerned, about how it will work out in day to day discussions. I see some good ideas here, I also see some weasel wording that can be used as a cudgel against certain people or groups.

I will reserve judgment until I see this in action.

[aikoaiko]

1059. K & R

I think the these are not so much new rules as clarifications and improvements on existing rules. Well done.

[maryf]

1062. Can "other" read as poverty?

I notice nothing about sensitivity to people's economic status...also, this really reads as creating a group of completely like minded people, little can be learned from that. A great deal can be learned from discourse about differences...oh well...

[laughingliberal]

1367. I had the same question. nt

[dotymed]

1432. I agree

especially as financial times get worse and worse for most Americans. The economically disadvantaged should have the same protections as any other "group" of people on DU. I often see disparaging remarks from jerks who want to blame individuals for their financial circumstance. I worked hard most of my life, eventually, heart failure found me and Social Security disability ignored me. I hope that the homeless and underfunded are given the same protections as all other "recognized" groups. Actually, donating in order to post here, is a real sacrifice for them. Fortunately, a fellow DU'er donated in my name, to get me started. Thanks again, anonymous angel.

[KatyaR]

1063. You guys do a great job, and we appreciate your asking for suggestions

regarding changes like this. I think that that consideration and concern for our opinions is a big part of what makes DU great.

I think these are reasonable changes that will help all of us, and so I say go for it. I have been here for (what seems to be) forever, and you guys will always rock in my book.

Thanks to all of you for doing such a great job of minding the crazy house.... :crazy:

[Mathilda]

1070. If you follow my advice you will never be banned

Agree with everything Obama does, at all times.

[Blue-Jay]

1097. You seem to know a lot about DU.

What was your previous user-name?

[undeterred]

1072. Sounds good to me.

:hi:

[savalez]

1074. I like this rule a lot: "Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count."

Sure, a higher post count could indicate that someone has been here a long time (which is cool) but I'm not sure it means much more than that. Perhaps you could eliminate the post count tally altogether? That would certainly help to curtail that offense. I'm sure folks who don't hold their post count as some sort of badge of honor or superiority towards others wouldn't mind. Anyway, I like the new rules, I like what you're doing and I like DU. Thanks.

[AngryOldDem]

1083. That is a very good point.

There are some who have been members for years but have low post counts. Almost invariably when they do decide to post, they get the "noob" or "freeper" BS thrown at them.

Name recognition alone often counts as substantive thought around here, unfortunately.

[deaniac21]

1079. Sounds like some folks have too much time on their hands.

[Bonobo]

1085. Holy crap, I think you need to let go, not grab harder.

I do not see this going well.

People are largely here to vent and speak freely.

This oppressive moderating will only make what you are reaching for slip through your hands.

I think you need to backtrack. A mistake was made when you took the "General" out of "General Discussion" and started to make your own decision about what topics to de-facto de-emphasize the importance of.

Throwing topics into their own respective dungeons is not a good way to model "Democratic behavior" and it is not a good way to allow people to vent, discuss or romp in your playground.

Furthermore, your static moderator message when locking that says "If you have any questions about DU policies, please contact the moderators or administrators directly" bothers me a lot. It bothers me that you do not allow people to openly discuss DU ON DU. After all, everywhere else on the internet, we could discuss it, but not here. That is an odd thing. And repressive.

Also, I would like more openness about what you do with the money from our fund drives.

You used to do open accounting. Why not now? What changed? Were you wrong then or wrong now?

[uppityperson]

1099. Thank you my favorite ape on DU. I agree with you about this also.

I have tried contacting admin/mods directly about things but do not get replies, figure they are busy moderating and not taking time to answer one poster's question about why they did something.

[Bonobo]

1117. And, since that communication to the Admins is hidden...

No one has any idea that you are trying to get that message out, not that you have not yet received a response.

For all we know, 1,000 such correspondences may have occurred.

I do not like the way the DU admin keeps us in the dark and divides us from communicating with each other.

This is our site, we define it. If we are treated as children, we will act thus.

It reminds me of union-busting workplaces that do not allow workers to meet with each other to discuss things.

[Danger Mouse]

1165. I can't speak for other mods, but...

sometimes I get pm's when I am away from my computer, and end up not being able to respond for several hours. I have had people get angry at me for this, but I'm AFK a lot, so I don't always reply right away. I can't help that.

[Kerrytravelers]

1359. I think you can safely speak for all of us.

Sometimes I travel for work and I do not Moderate on my Blackberry. And I don't check my PMs. Sorry. The paid job comes first sometimes. (I know, how selfish. :P )

And when I get a really nasty PM, I tend not to respond. I think I can speak for all of us on this. Polite PMs go a long ways. ;-)

[Mithreal]

1103. +1 Well said.

[Ignis]

1259. +1 for a return to open accounting.

It's just a good practice.

[defendandprotect]

1307. Agree . . . I think this will have a chilling effect --

certainly it limits rather than expands freedom of speech here --

Re General -- I've sometimes wondered if we could just simply have like

3 or 4 General Discussion threads -- General, More General, Most General, Extreme General?

Once abortion was a taboo subject in society -- no one benefited from that except

extremists. Even now, still you can barely get politicians to discuss legalizing Marijuana.

Who does that help?

And IMO it's the same situation with Israeli threads -- eventually everyone has to come to

the table and discuss things -- keeping stuff "off the table" -- Who does that help?


Also re money . . .

For me, I immediately saw that I wasn't going to empower a website to hand accumulated

members' money over to the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Whatever monies I pass

on to a Democratic candidate will only ever come directly from me.

[woo me with science]

1388. [phone]

Beautifully stated.

[Politicub]

1088. Good stuff

And sounds fair.

Personally, I'm glad that the anti-bigotry rules will be enforced.

[Crunchy Frog]

1090. I like #2. I think #3 might be a bit too draconian.

I think it might work better if it kicked in after two deleted posts.

I'm sure that this post will get lost in the general pile, but thanks for trying to improve the site.

[DutchLiberal]

1091. I have to leave, then, since several of these rules forbid me to state the truth:

- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

This is actually true. There are simply two parties to give the people the illusion of choice, when there is no choice. Bill Maher actually did a great bit about this, but I guess under the new rules, videos of him will also be forbidden:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3kXpfEFjqQ

- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.

Didn't Obama call himself 'Barry' in college? I fail to see how this is name-calling. It's not like I'm calling him "Hussein", like they do in Freeper-land.

- Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.

Oops! I better go now. Farewell!

[Lucian]

1211. I agree with your first part...

but not about the others.

Edit to add: awesome Bill Maher clip.

[Powdered Toast Man]

1092. I think you are spot on.

I am not going to pretend to be an angel. I've been banned before. You were nice enough to let me back in. That said, I've been around for quite a while... much longer than my profile.

I had to get a new profile, and randomly change the password to my other one so I wouldn't use it again because some people were saying and spreading some very rude and untrue things about me.

I didn't want to leave DU, but I knew I wasn't going to ever get a fair shake because of some confrontations and the groups it involved.

Even after I got a new profile I have been very hesitant to post anything simply because I got sick of getting flamed for a typo, or for not agreeing with everyone 100% of the time. You know what I mean... The 100% or 100% out thing; no middle ground.

It's funny that you just put this up, cuz I was just thinking about this the other day. How DU was a lot more fun when republicans were in charge; because we had a common enemy.

It really seems like DU never got out of the primary mentality, and I welcome the changes. Thank you Skinner!

[deacon]

1096. I'm all for it. n/t

[reasonable1]

1102. Attacks on D but not R ?

I understand about not attacking Democrats inappropriately, but this should stand for Republicans, too. If I/we have a disagreement with a Republican/conservative idea, I think that attacking the idea is unhelpful. Disagreeing with it and offering an alternative is the way to go. I may get a little heat for this, but by making attacks with name calling makes one little better than Savage and Limbaugh.

[Kitsune]

1104. I think deleting posts is, in most cases, an immensely bad idea.

I've had posts deleted almost at random. Usually this is on posts critical of Obama, and it really bothers me that moderators feel that posts like that are fair game (or that other DUers feel comfortable alerting on a post expressing dissatisfaction with a Democratic administration). While having a reason attached to a deleted post is nice and all, I really do not like the chilling effect deleting a post has and will continue to have on discourse. Unless someone is posting really offensive imagery or porn or something, things that aren't even related to the topic or forum in question, the post really should remain.

If that's not good enough, then hide it and include an option to unhide such posts inside a thread, because frankly? I WANT to read those posts. It really bothers me that certain arguments are deemed improper and removed wholesale. I understand that this is a privately operated community and the admins can make whatever rules they want, but I think the decision to start deleting posts or even entire threads was a poor one.

[Danger Mouse]

1161. The idea is to keep things running smoothly.

I think if we didn't delete certain posts we'd have a lot more flamewars. However, you make valid points as well. In a perfect world, where everybody played nice, there wouldn't be a need for us at all.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Before I became a mod, let's just say I was a bit hotheaded. :P I had a looooot of posts deleted, and for good reason, since my way of arguing with people was to ask them why they had to be such an asshole.

As for posts critical of President Obama, we don't want people to feel like they can't be critical. That's not the case. Hopefully Skinner's OP makes clear what our guidelines for 'constructive criticism' are.

[quakerboy]

1105. So where does that leave Lieberman?

Can I advocate voting against him?

I will be interested to see how the new reg's and enforcement play out. I can see it going well or poorly. I hope that it will increase real discussion, but I can see the possibility that it will stifle what little debate gets through the yelling as is. Here's to hopeing.

[madinmaryland]

1112. LIEbermann is NOT a Democrat. He is an Independent Douche.

Ruh-roh! I used Douche in a Skinner thread.

:hide:

[quakerboy]

1141. He caucases with the democrats.

He is called regularly called or inferred to be a democrat in major media. I would like to know where the line is on this. Am I allowed to say "fuck Lieberman", since he is not technically a dem? If so would that also mean that I can also say "fuck Sanders"? How about Specter?

This world holds a whole lotta gray, ya know?

[madinmaryland]

1192. Who did Sanders support for President in 2008??

Doesn't look real gray to me.

[quakerboy]

1313. Who did Lieberman support in 2004?

And who did you vote for in 04?

I'm sure if you asked senator Lincoln, she would say Mr Lieberman is an excelent Senate Democrat. Senator Reed might just agree.

It dosn't look gray to me. But then none of the people mentioned in this post look like democrats to me. They look like moderate Republicans. So where is the line calibrated for DU?


As a side note... In "my DU" I only show having posted the prior message once, with only one response. But in the thread it shows twice. With different responses to each. Interesting glitch.

[quakerboy]

1148. He caucases with the democrats.

He is called regularly called or inferred to be a democrat in major media. I would like to know where the line is on this. Am I allowed to say "fuck Lieberman", since he is not technically a dem? If so would that also mean that I can also say "fuck Sanders"? How about Specter?

This world holds a whole lotta gray, ya know?

[madinmaryland]

1193. Who did Joe LIEberman support in the 2008 Presidential Election. nt

[nankerphelge]

1106. Perfect!

I look forward to them being implemented.

[ismnotwasm]

1107. Sounds good to me

I've seen awesome, informative and civil debates between opposing (progressive/liberal/democratic)viewpoints here. It simply doesn't happen often enough to become a 'norm'

[defendandprotect]

1119. Hi Skinner . . . Thanks for asking "So, what do you think?" ---

While I do have every intention of abiding by the rules of DU . . .


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

You didn't really tell us how "DU has been changing," but I think most of us know how.
Anyone looking at the website can see that there has been a liberal/progressive uprising
which is challenging the Democratic Party and the president. And certainly it isn't only
posters here --

It's also Schultz and Olberman, Jon Stewart and liberals/progressives, in general.
It's Michael Moore challenging Obama not only on health care and war, but on capitalism itself.

And Helen Thomas also hit the headlines twice in ten days with her question challenging
the President on the "war" and asking for "no Bushisms in response, please."

Later Helen Thomas' comments acknowledged for us all that the "times they are a changin'"
re Israel and its conduct and US financial and weapons backing for Israel.

Needless to say, having a Democrat in the White House should have created "Happy Days"
here at DU. But over and again, majority of posters here are saying something has gone very wrong.
You mention "the lack of a common villan in the form of George W. Bush" but rather the
villan is the same as it has always been: corporatism/fascism.


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

Good -- very much needed!


I do have a couple of suggestions --

When moving a thread to another location, please try to immediately give the new link --
the message that a thread is "locked" or "missing" is very confusing and that causes posters
who are interested to drop off and not follow the thread.


Also, Israel is a high topic of interest around the world and certainly at DU and perhaps
in recognition of that threads on Israel could be left in "General Discussion" for at
least 24 hours before moving them?


And . . .
Personally, from what I've seen here DU'ers have been celebrating comments by Grayson, Franken,
Helen Thomas, Kucinich, Jon Stewart, Schultz, Olbermann, Rachel Maddow -- which very often are
strongly critical of Democrats and the Democratic Party.
Are such comments by them now to be banned?

How about Michael Moore and Wm. Greider, Tom Hayden and many other Democrats who have been
recommending the targeting of Democrats who have been preventing legislation from passing?


Would quotes by them now -- or video -- or articles which feature their comments now be deemed
"controversial and Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top" - ?

Will moderators consider these prominent Democrat's comments "too rhetorically hot, too divisive,
too extreme, or too inflammatory" -- ?


Meanwhile, Skinner, you left out one of my favorites -- SMILIES --
They've often brought me to tears!
The idea that another poster can use them to show disrespect for me and ridicule me
with these ittle devils you supply just breaks my heart!!


Let's go "no rules" --

And, of course ...
No one is looking for or expecting "perfect" from this website nor from Obama nor Democrats.


You asked what we think -- hope you really wanted to know!

Thank you ---

[Mithreal]

1136. +1 Well done

:applause:

[nashville_brook]

1207. nicely said. the "common villain" theme is very interesting...

it's too bad villain-status can only be attributed to people, b/c identity politics occludes the true nature of the 21st Century forces that are stacked against us: poverty, inequality, racism, homophobia, military conflict, corporate power and our powerlessness of We The People to fight these threats, are far mightier targets of our collective project, than the shadows of politicians dancing in the cave.

[Catherina]

1217. Excellent post n/t

[spoony]

1270. Very fine post. nt

[Oilwellian]

1308. Thank you

You ask some very compelling questions. I hope you get a response insofar as what we can post on DU now. The changes rule out what most of the other progressive blogs are discussing. I think I'll be removing the DU sticker I've had on my car for nearly 10 years. I find this to be a sad thread indeed.

[theFrankFactor]

1465. Truly,how do you sharpen the Democratic party knife? With butter?

You are not alone, in fact I think we are part of a growing constituency. That people could want to suppress or dilute self criticism or party critique is wholly antithetical to Progressive and Liberal values. Repeatedly, defenses for the status quo are weak if anything at all. In truth they have descended into crying foul and calling mommy to come clean up the mess.

I would never call for censoring weak, fawning, uneducated, boot licking posts! Let them stand on their own and the same for critical posts. Truly,how do you sharpen the Democratic party knife? With butter?

[sabrina 1]

1685. Very well said ~

It is disturbing how many great Democrats are being denigrated for speaking the truth now. However, the more that are added to the list, the more obvious it becomes that maybe they are not the problem. And if we want to fix things in this party, rather than keep adding more to the list, maybe the best idea would be to start asking why so many supporters of the Democratic Party appear to be so disillusioned and what to do about it. To continue to remain in a state of denial definitely will not solve anything.

[mirrera]

1125. DU has become part of the party...

This really isn't the same place. Or it is and I didn't notice because of our common enemy, Bush. Now that our team is in and seems to be benching 1/2 of its team we have nowhere to really talk about it openly. I actually had a dream that I was begging Dean to run as an independant... if that really was going to be the start of a great populist and peaceful USA wouldn't it be sad that DU would not be where it was celebrated. Even if all our heros signed on... if they left off the D from their party, we could not root for them here, our one smart non right wing family.

[G_j]

1260. that's pretty much my sentiment

you make a compelling point, in that, if there was a political paradigm shift away from the two-party lock, would DU be part of the shift, or in opposition? I also agree that the people considered solidly left have found themselves in a sort of nether zone, which could very well lead to a shift. My preference has always been for opening up DU to all of the progressive left, including Greens etc. When you have well recognized thinkers, writers, activists on the left who recognize and address the undemocratic monopoly of the two party system, you risk your ability to be a true home for progressives if you aren't willing to expand beyond
that monopoly to attempt to find, or create a better way.

I'll add that unless real campaign finance reform takes place, the two party system will remain an obstacle to real progress. Clean elections would change the face of everything!

[UpInArms]

1126. having joined DU in early 2001 - I have seen a lot of changes and

I have seen a lot of people come and go - new and old - and sometimes, I wonder - will I be banned next?

Rules are good - rulers are bad - or so say the anarchists.

We, each of us, must be self-governing. This is a forum, not a cat litter box.

Bring your ideas, your thoughts and if you can, be prepared to defend your thinking and your ideas - all without being offensive.

My grandmother taught me (she died at 90 in 1984) that you don't have to be disagreeable to disagree.

Kudos to Skinner, Elad, EarlG!

You brought us all together - it is up to us to stay that way.

[BumRushDaShow]

1129. K&R

To hopefully bring some civility back!

:kick:

[saltpoint]

1134. Thumbs up to that, admins. Also I am extremely comfortable with

the assessment of George W. Bush as an "illegitimate, incompetent asshole." As compact as it is accurate. Bravo.

I do get the impression that the people who post on this site are very good people. Certainly they seem to be as far as I'm concerned. They also seem to be extraordinarily bright, and knowledgeable, and funny. It says quite a damn bit about your site that it attracts people with those attributes and who want to be a part of a great site and the community it draws.

You're the best forum venue out there, period. I'll continue to contribute to the fund drives. You continue to kick ass.

[blue neen]

1169. I do agree, and I'm damn glad to be here!

:thumbsup:

[lbrtbell]

1174. I think these new rules are very stifling

You have to be afraid to disagree with anyone as it is, because said person usually has a handful of friends who will report your post. People who have differing viewpoints are in great danger of being reported/banned for this reason. I don't post very much as it is, because I'm afraid of getting into trouble. And I don't even get involved with any of the flaming that goes on.

What's really unnerving is the possibility of the mods being able to determine what is hateful speech and what isn't. For instance, I loathe George W. Bush as much as anybody, but Skinner just now referred to him as an "asshole". That's a violation of the personal attack rule, which shows me there's a double-standard starting already. I'm not saying Skinner doesn't have the right to set rules--of COURSE he does!--I'm just saying that if the admin/mods don't obey their own rules, it's unfair to the rest of us. :(

I think the "Barry" rule is going too far, especially when Barack Obama used that name, himself, in the past. That's not an offensive name, and a lot of people named Barry would be offended if they were informed that their name was offensive. :)

There's also a great danger that these rules make it open season for people with minority opinions. For instance, people on DU who don't feel that open borders are the solution are already flame-broiled by people accusing them of racism. So does that automatically make your post racist hate speech, just because there are those who falsely accuse you of being racist? It's one thing if someone uses a racist word, advocates violence, or something of that nature.

For instance, just last night, I found a post about Fremont, Nebraska, claiming that the people there were racist because of an illegal immigrant measure on the ballot. I politely pointed out how Nebraskans have always been welcoming (see: Lexington, NE as just one example). Just because people are concerned about their jobs doesn't mean they're racist. It just means they have a different opinion on the impact of illegal immigrants on the local economy. But there's this knee-jerk cry of RACIST! every single time, and if that's the mentality of any moderator, this is just one example of how these new rules could very well be abused, and stifle free discussion.

Finally, it seems to me that if somebody can't handle being told, "Screw you" or "Go away," it's time for them to put on their big-girl panties and deal with it. Those words aren't going to physically stop you from expressing your opinion. Excessive moderation, on the other hand, will....

[bluestateguy]

1186. I would like to see Rasmussen polls banned on DU

I think many people here realize that they are garbage, but I'd like for us at DU to not even give them the legitimacy of acknowledging their existence.

[Danger Mouse]

1197. If you think somebody is posting it to be inflammatory, by all means alert...

but I don't think we consider posting them to be a rule violation. If you dislike somebody posting it, just hide the thread. :hi:

[rug]

1194. Good grief. 1200 posts on how to post. I'm going to go read a book.

[Danger Mouse]

1201. I could give you pointers on your posting style.

You game?

[rug]

1204. Like?

[EFerrari]

1220. Too late.

[madinmaryland]

1199. Skinner. Can you FREE THE DUCK!!

:hi:

[taterguy]

1391. I got your free duck right here pal

[hedgehog]

1215. Short version : don't post anything that you wouldn't say in real life to

a relative stranger. Works for me.

About Grave dancing: It's a guilty pleasure for me to read some of the threads, but it can go bad very quickly. I think we had a sequence in the Lounge in which Group A got banned, Group B rejoiced, Group B got into a fight with supporters of Group A so more people got banned, then people fought about those people getting banned, so they got banned etc, etc. It seemed to go on and on forever. A lot of us weren't sure what the hell was going on and were afraid to post lest we trigger another massacre.
All in all, I'd have to say any grave dancing should be confined to personal messages.





Unless of course Skinner wants to grave dance!

[Jamastiene]

1219. There is a smartass in every crowd. You had to know that.

Did you, per chance, need this keyboard to make the new list of rules?



:P

:hide:

[Captain Boomerang]

1225. Over 1000 posts...

Methinks that bad posts should not be deleted.

They should be disemvoweled. (Posts edited by a moderator removing all of the vowels out of the text to make light of a heavy situation.)

[TheKentuckian]

1226. I think the expressed desire to welcome various viewpoints and attempting to dictate

the field of ideas and words to express them are in deep and irretrievably at odds.

I think knowing this tact can be overcome the backup plan is to push such frowned upon ideas into hidden places or into long tiresome diatribes that will most often be passed over, leaving the content out of the broader conversation.

Of course if the filters should somehow fail and the taboo concepts find their way into discourse then the "rule evader" can still just be deleted as a disruptor acting beyond the scope of "the law".

Looks like one of the better debate filter techniques imaginable, falling short of actual thought control.

These kind of techniques should be familiar to most and cannot be reasonable conflated with rules of order or etiquette.

[lonestarnot]

1234. Right when cursing was determined by study to help me live longer.

Shat. I hate a buncha rules.

[Robb]

1235. It was all worth it to me

...just because I know Skinner had to type 'em all in there. :D

[Danger Mouse]

1238. If cursing were a removable offense...

Half of my posts in the mod forum would say 'Deleted Message.'

:P

Cursing is generally okay. Like, for instance, saying, George W. Bush is a fucking asshole wouldn't get you in trouble.

However, saying to Danger Mouse 'Fuck you, asshole!' Would get your post deleted.

[lonestarnot]

1245. So I can't say to Danger Mouse "fuck you asshole?"

:P

[Danger Mouse]

1250. As tempting as it may be, no.

And believe me, I am an asshole. ;)

[lonestarnot]

1254. But Danger Mouse would never be able to know what I'm actually "saying." Are we going to be banned

for inference also?

[BanTheGOP]

1242. Rules are still on the benign side for me..

...and it does get rid of a lot of candy-ass fake progressives. We have no room for moderates who are, in actuality, republican thugs in disguise.

Unfortunately, we DO need to start getting serious about the opposition. When will we be discussing how to rid us of the menace known as the republican party in the first place? Frankly, that should be Rule #1 in my book.

[Dr. Hemlock]

1243. Not to be picky, but isn't Obama the first Democrat President in a long time

(as opposed to Democratic)?

[Jamastiene]

1351. No, actually, it is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

Just like Bush was a Republican president, not a Republic president.

Obama is a Democratic president, not a Democrat president.

[and-justice-for-all]

1249. Play nice or get out....?

[spoony]

1264. No, "play my song or get out." nt

[kestrel91316]

1251. [phone]

[Bobbie Jo]

1253. Thank you for providing an outlet for this long-overdue discussion.

Still reading....

Looks like I'm late to the party, so I hope this thread remains active a little while longer.

I am a firm believer in ground rules. Its been my experience that if you provide a set of clear-cut expectations, people tend to make an effort to work within them.

Thank you for this.

[hulka38]

1255. What penalty is there for a person who

has a history of mischaracterizing the central point of OPED pieces that he or she has linked to in her thread's OP? Truth and honesty should trump pleasantry in a discussion board where busy people come for information and can often only read another member's summary of a piece.

[opihimoimoi]

1289. its COOL w me...mahalo

[SoCalDem]

1292. Kudos on #3

:)

[pinboy3niner]

1297. IBTL. Thankyou, Skinner. Thanks, mods. nt

[BlueDemKev]

1301. Agreed

As Democrats, it is only natural that we are going to disagree on some things. However, instead of "arguing" the issues and what we should try to accomplish, we should "discuss" them.

Our congressional majorities are in serious jeopardy, as the opposition is extremely motivated this year. If you feel there is no difference between the two parties just think back to when Dick Gephardt handed the Speaker's gavel over to Newt Gingrich in 1995....and multiply that by 10.

The Democratic Party, despite all of its shortcomings, are the best party to govern our country.

[earcandle]

1304. thanks! I think the rules make sense and will do my best to honor them.

[rury]

1311. Very reasonable rules

I look forward to their enforcement!

[realisticphish]

1314. I think some people have never been on other forums

Skinner has, IMHO, done a fine job of maintaining a relatively civil website that is relatively free from trolls. I've posted on sites like yahoo boards, which are utter shit to read, and boards like Something Awful, where mods are basically avenging gods of old (the BanHammer, honeypot threads that say "post in this thread and I will ban you immediately", "Shark Week," where everything that would normally get a post deleted gets you banned, or even permabanned).

This site straddles the line fairly well. I only have one concern. I don't like the idea of following the Democrat party line. Now, back in the day, that was hugely important. We were united against a common threat. But now, with Dems in power, its more important then ever to seriously debate the core of our party values. While I concede that it shouldn't be open season, I think we should be sure to include progressives in general as part of the site, not limiting to the Dems in particular. Just my two cents.

I also sympathize with the length of the rules. You put too little info in them, and people accuse mods of bending rules to include them. Too much, and people shriek "TLDR"

[realisticphish]

1315. doublepost nt

[placton]

1316. Is it ok to say, under the rules that

this group should now be named DLC Underground?

[Spike from MN]

1683. You could be on to something there.

http://davefromqueens2.blogspot.com/2010/03/democratic-underground-directly-tied-to.html

[grahamhgreen]

1321. I think the country is headlong into fascism. Without a paradigm shift in the party,

And the mindset of the leadership back to the days of FDR and democratic socialism, we are screwed.

I hope we can still express these viewpoints.

[Dinger]

1324. I Don't Like Our Current Education Policy

Arne Duncan just doesn't cut it in my opinion. I think Obama can do better, no, I KNOW he can. Did I just break a rule?

[Nikki Stone1]

1327. Don't think so, but it's hard to tell.

Now, if you had said Arne Duncan is Bill Gates' bitch, THEN you would have been breaking a rule. (Good thing nobody said that, eh?)

[Dinger]

1330. LOL, That Made Me Laugh,

and trust me, I needed that.:)

[Stephanie]

1331. You need to re-examine your system of volunteer moderators

Yes they are great and we all love them and they are doing a great job. But occasionally there is a rogue moderator, believe it or not, and there is no way to appeal their rulings. You have lost many core DU members over the last few years over this, and most are not coming back. I hope you will consider changes to your system of moderation, not just the rules the moderators enforce.

[realisticphish]

1335. but

as has been stated above, mods don't operate alone. No one mod can delete anything; there has to be a consensus. So a rogue mod would have little if any power

[Stephanie]

1336. In theory

But in fact, they are stealthy

[Subdivisions]

1338. That is just bullshit. There are mods that are allowed to do whatever they want. And,

they never seem to go away while other mods come and go.

[Kerrytravelers]

1363. There can not be a "rogue mod" since all actions require concensus.

One Mod can put a stay on an action which ten agree. It can not be the reverse. All must agree before an action is taken. It really is as simple as it sounds. I guess we can keep saying it and saying it and saying it, and former Mods can do the same, but regardless, unless one has signed up for combat duty, they really don't know how it works. And, as we maintain the privacy of members, we are not free to divulge their private correspondences with the Moderators, however, they are free to say whatever they would like about us.

And we are, indeed, all volunteer. The idea that I am receive a kickback is intriguing... but I've yet to see my bank account increase due to my DU activity.

At some point, we just have to :hi: to everyone and let them feel as they must.

[pinboy3niner]

1371. Hell, from what I've seen, mods DESERVE kickbacks!

It may not be an entirely thankless job (though there may be questionable motives behind some of the suck-up-to-the-mods threads), but it's a necessary and valuable one. From what I've seen, mods have made good calls that have only served to improve the site.

But then, I've never had a post deleted--except as an innocent subthread bystander--so I reserve the right to curse the mods when MY ox is gored. :)

[Subdivisions]

1337. September 11 forum comes to mind for some reason. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

1350. Oh no! A rogue!

Fuck that rogue! Running around and ruining the entire internet. She stalks me! (or maybe 'he', I dunno.)

Clue: Mods are not allowed to make decisions without consulting all other mods who are available.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

1333. I'd like a forum for locked threads.

I don't like to have to look all around for them. Thanks.

[Daemonaquila]

1342. You just made a joke of DU.

Dear gods - will DU become a "safe space" for the party line? No matter how offensive it is to what the party is supposed to stand for? Respect for prominent Democrats no matter how poor their performance or how corrupt they prove themselves? Under the new rules, how long would it have taken before we could've called Blagojevich "Blago?" Until the moderators felt like calling him that themselves?

So now to break a rule -
There are some rules Dubya would've loved: essentially redefining dissent as treason (or, in this case, a bannable offense). Members are told they may not make an "inflammatory or divisive" attack" - the definition of which is not and can not be given, but (as Justice Potter Steward would say) they "know it when they see it."

Nor is "constructive criticism" warranted in all cases. Since it is now an offense to suggest that "a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive," apparently the Democratic Party Platform itself can no longer be held up as a measure. For instance, DINOs (oh, excuse me, "conservative democrats".. crap, can't use the "conservative" pejorative either under the new rules...) who stand against the platform nearly across the board (anti-choice, anti-equal rights for homosexuals, pro-war, anti-constitutional rights, pro-industry at all costs, etc.) are not temporarily "straying" or about to suddenly develop Democratic values with a little correction. They publicly take stances fundamentally at odds with the enunciated principles of the party and thus fall outside the party's own definition of what it means to be a Democrat.

The party's health, growth, maintenance in power, and future relevance is intricately bound up in challenging the party and party members to stand up for what Democrats, through years of process and debate, have decided being a Democrat means.

So what's it going to be? Is DU supposed to be a kind and fluffy place where Dems can escape from the stresses of the M$M? Or is it going to remain a place where people can fight for the life and future of the party and the nation? The latter discussion will be messy and passionate - successful movements and revolutions are not born in quiet tearoom chats with pinkies raised.

And now, a final broken rule: commenting about perceived bias in the (moderator's) post. "We are committed to maintaining Democratic Underground as a community that welcomes a wide range of Democratic and progressive viewpoints." Really? Democratic AND progressive? So a progressive is something other than a Democrat? It goes right back to what the left side of DU has been saying for some time about bias, that progressives are taken for granted by the Democratic party when it's time to vote, but the rest of the time are just the easily dismissed "kooky fringe" and "not really Democrats." As stated, it seems like we have a broken rule here - "Suggesting that any group of DU members are not Democrats, liberals, or progressives." Wow, who'd have thought that a rule would be that easy to break, even for the person who wrote the rule?

Hey, DU is your sandbox. Want to wreck it? Nobody can stop you. Some kids will still want to play in the busted old sandbox for the sake of a comfortable place to sit around sipping their kool-aid.

[Blue-Jay]

1348. I could while away the hours

Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain

Dear gods - will DU become a "safe space" for the party line?

And my head, I'd be scratchin'
As my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain.

-----

I'd unravel ev'ry riddle
For every individ'le
In trouble or in pain

There are some rules Dubya would've loved: essentially redefining dissent as treason

In my head I'd be thinkin'
I could be another Lincoln
If I only had a brain

-----

Oh, I could tell you why
The ocean's near the shore
I could think of things I'd never thunk before
Then I'd sit, and think some more

DINOs (oh, excuse me, "conservative democrats".. crap, can't use the "conservative" pejorative either under the new rules...)

Oh I could tell you why
The ocean's near the shore
I could think of things I'd never thunk before
Then I'd sit, and think some more

-----

I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain

So a progressive is something other than a Democrat?

And perhaps I'd deserve you
And be even worthy of you
If I only had a brain

[Catherina]

1537. I fully support your quest . Good luck n/t

[theFrankFactor]

1474. +1

[zenprole]

1344. The Fine Print

What was the problem with the previous posting rules? This new scheme is very much in line with the new administration's behavior: don't check the details too closely, keep the "negative" comments to a minimum, and cheer for the home team, no matter inept and far behind they are.

Rather than try to mash the comments to fit the desired mold (see also China, North Korea, any US corporation's employees), why not ignore the obvious cranks and tackle the substance of the other criticisms?

To wit, what if DU had existed from 1985-1993 and 18 months into Clinton's first term you found 'too much negativity' from people very clear on that president's greasy betrayal of his constituencies?

We're living through a much harsher Clinton redux which, unless stopped in its tracks, will destroy the few bits of democracy and quality of life that remain. Keep DU's forums wide open and it's posters breathing fire - the FCC will sequester the internet soon enough and these new rules will be redundant.

[Haole Girl]

1346. We will have to see if the "Insensitive , Geographic region or place of origin"

will apply to Texas and the South.

[NYC_SKP]

1355. We've been consistently removing these, and even countries of origin.

We don't catch them all, of course.

It helps when people alert on them as violations.

The alert function is vital in our catching as many rule violations as possible.

:P

[scentopine]

1347. We have only two political parties in this country

and few would argue with the fact that the democratic party is moving to the right (and republicans are moving even more to the right). There is plenty of legitimate arguments about how fast and how far and whether it is good or bad. But we are moving to the right. It didn't start with Obama so he's not to blame for starting the trend.

For example - the health care bill has a safety net of government subsidies for unemployed but doesn't aggressively attack the spiraling costs of living causing unemployment with, say, the same resolve that we show escalating the war in Afghanistan. Without stopping wall street from outsourcing, without the end to government subsidies for bankers, insurance CEOs, et al, the source of the problem remains untouched. And Geithner and his posse are fighting hard against real reform on wall street. This makes many democrats very angry. These are life and death issues - people have no jobs, no health care, bad housing, etc. For me the health reform means I can never leave corporate hell because of a family medical issue - I spent most of my life gaining the skills and rep to start my own business, but can't afford the treatment. Even with reform (which does nothing for me except my premiums are going up again)!

There is a growing number of us who had hoped for representation in the latest government. It didn't happen for us. It didn't happen on so many critical issues - off-shore drilling, war, rendition, corporate influence over public policy, on and on. This is causing anger. With only two parties (far more democrats vote for republican laws than republicans vote for democratic laws), there is no good vs. evil. Instead, there is a growing number of people angry that the oft quoted "balance" or polarity presumed by our two party system just isn't working. The principals of "left and right" are more co-mingled than ever. Too many democrats and republicans are working together on critical legislation that is hurting us (unless you are in upper 5% wealth bracket).

As long as democratic leadership and republicans converge to an idea of a common "center", anger will result. I can remember a party precinct meeting where the leader wasn't comfortable forwarding a motion to open investigations into bush and Cheney conduct around Iraq war to state convention platform, nor comfortable with impeachment procedures (yes, a platform is symbolic and functionally useless, but still...). And so it went in the shit can. I suppose I knew right then that the democratic party has definitely changed.

This sort of thing leaves many democrats are unrepresented. So we are angry. We complain. Others will simply stop voting (is not voting really "better" for democrats than voting for third party?). They have checked-out. It's difficult for me to see this as a victory in the war to control the democratic message.

Walls can be built, people can be deported. You can ask for my democrat papers. This might make some people feel good, but until the root cause of anger and dissent find a priority in the democratic party, any technical controls are temporary at best and cruel at worst. Some people are only now coming to grips with their disappointment and frustration over the state of democratic party. Many will express this "inappropriately". Positive thinking alone, however, won't bring needed change.

Now, do most people here really care whether there is something legitimate at the root of the growing discontentment? No. I don't think so. Some do, most couldn't give a damn. So, I'm concerned that all the fuss about needing more moderators with unrec feature and rules and regulations is more about punishment and less about protecting the fragile sensibilities of a gentle grande dame. I am arguing that many of the people alerting aren't the least bit phased by any presumed transgression. They use the rules as a valuable technical accessory to control dissent.

The forum is good - simple, like craigslist. That makes it easy to use. So it draws people in. I think if someone started a forum called "the angry democrat" maybe the people who are unhappy with the state of the democratic party would leave here and DU would be left to the purists. And it would become completely irrelevant.

We have democrat and republican. For many, this means you are either for us or against us. If only things were really that simple.

[Jakes Progress]

1349. Congrats - Sounds Good - We'll See

First. Congratulations on what must be the most responded to post ever. Those with dial-up must have stopped trying long ago.

Second: All the new rules sound logical. I could pick on a few terms, but it will all come to how the admin interprets. The examples help, but don't begin to approach the complexity or confusion. One man's polite disagreement is another man's (or woman's) personal attack. But I can appreciate the effort and see the good intentions.

Third: We'll see. It will all come down to the way the enforcers enforce, the way the interpreters interpret. LIke a nice political speech, all the promises and goals sound good. Now we'll see how it really plays. As I said, I can see the good intentions, but this really is going to determine whether DU continues as a forum or as a one-note sounding board.

I'm betting on (or at least hoping for) the forum.

[jennied]

1353. "or having a low post count."

I like this one. I am a huge lurker and I've been here for a few years. I read a lot of threads, but I rarely reply. I don't think anyone's opinion should hold value because of their post count.

[BlueMTexpat]

1354. I didn't read through all the comments, so if this is duplicated somewhere,

I apologize. But I totally agree with this comment. "I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that he be shown more respect here than the illegitimate, incompetent asshole who previously held the office."

Like many here, I am disappointed/do not fully agree with many of the decisions/actions the Prez has or has not taken. But there is not a day that goes by that I do not thank All the Powers That Be that Barack Obama holds that office rather than any Republican. He is a good and decent man who sincerely wants to do the best he can for our country, ALL of us and our place in the world. I fully believe these things, although I will continue to nudge him in every way I can to be more progressive.

[xocet]

1356. Generally, Kudos....

DU is a great forum.

Keep up the good work.

Good on Skinner and on those who moderate the threads.

[WileEcoyote]

1358. D/U is choking under it's censorship rules

No freedom of speech here that doesn't follow the standard approved party rules. Good thread locked or sent to less viewed forums to die a quick burial.

It sucks. The moderators have turned this joint into a P/C prison.

I come here only for the Rachel Maddow, TYT and Mike Papantonio videos.

[Blue-Jay]

1361. You realize that Maddow, Cenk (sink), and Papantonio have their own websites, right?

If you hate DU so much, you can get your video-fix anywhere.

[WileEcoyote]

1456. I suppose they do

I do however like to get a cluster of reviews here for convenience.

Maybe you're right: Dump D/U as it's a fairly worthless place to post. With ten thousand "Me Too" posts (all following approved D/U guidelines) it's pretty hard to make any noticeable contribution here.

Even if the moderating Gestapo wasn't such a bunch of petty minded, overly P/C geeks. Quote me on that.

[Wednesdays]

1360. These new rules sound pretty good to me.

I'm sure I've violated some of them in the past--to one extent or another--and from now on will work hard to keep within their limits.

[earth mom]

1366. So the orders are march in lockstep or else. Ain't that so Skinner?

Ah, just what the BOG wanted all along.

p.s. UNREC.

[Shanti Mama]

1368. The only more thankless job than running DU is being President

Thanks to you and all other behind scene actors for the hard work. While none of us will ever agree with all your decisions, I think all of us owe you, et al, gratitude for providing a forum, flaws and all. I'm impressed by the passion that goes into this discussion, for example, and our ability to have it. Bravo!

[lovemydog]

1370. I think it's great.

I love it here. This place has really opened my eyes and heart to a lot of great things. Thanks for the site.

[Robert DAH Bruce]

1372. I'm new here

Can I survive? Ricky said this was a tough website! :scared:

[Paper Roses]

1373. Great proposal. Now perhaps we can post without fear.

I have hesitated to express my 2 cents worth in many threads because of the tone of that thread. I knew I would be jumped upon because I do not agree. I am not thin skinned but I do not like to be torn apart because I do not happen to believe in a certain comment. I believe the proposed changes will make DU a better, more friendly unit.

The personal attacks bothered me to no end. I hope to see them gone. The quality of the post is what matters. Taking off on someone who's native language may not be English is mean. Belittling someone for a low post count is ignorant.

The language will hopefully improve. I have hesitated to show friends certain threads here on DU because every other word(or just plain too many) was a vulgar swear. There are those of us who find that the extraneous use of the F bomb and other lovely cuss words add nothing. They just add sensationalism to the post. A better approach would be a good, well thought out, non-namecalling
post.

I hope this old lady didn't upset you by mentioning the language but it has digressed into a few steps before the gutter.

Thanks to the Admins for all this hard work. I think this proposal will be a good thing.

[POAS]

1382. From your lips to SKINNERS ears.

[freedom fighter jh]

1378. Why does conspiracy theory go to the 9/11 forum?

Not everything to do with 9/11 is off-the-wall conspiracy. For example, there has been much discussion of physical evidence showing that the official 9/11 story is implausible. All sorts of aliens-from-outer-space-are-controlling-the-human-race stuff gets shunted to the 9/11 forum and the place starts to feel like a "dungeon," as it is called, and no one wants to go there -- so 9/11 discussion in a place where anyone will see it is effectively banned.

The result is that this important topic cannot be part of the real conversation at DU. Not democratic.

[Raoul]

1381. Censorship is NEVER good..

That's what I think and I DO believe it's becoming clearer each day that there is NO difference between the 2 parties. If you wanna be a shill for the dems, that's YOUR problem not mine!

[Violet_Crumble]

1385. self-deleted. I just found where my question's been answered...

[kuroman992]

1389. Goodbye DU

I certainly learned alot from many of you and appreciate many of you guys honesty.
But I simply cannot abide by a rule that states I cannot call out our president if he does things against the working class and sides with corporations. Thats not why i voted for him.
Thats not how democracy works and I can't cheer when progressive ideas are being constantly ignored and conservative ideas are constantly implemented.

I enjoy the young turks, I hope the Admin doesnt banish their videos for saying the same thing they might bann a DU member for.

I will continue the fight and hope the admin changes thier mind on having a more open forum.

[madinmaryland]

1399. Welcome to DU! and goodbye.

:hi:

[HughMoran]

1418. If you can't provide constructive criticism without a nasty 'call out'

then you indeed are part of the problem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1397. Do the rules against attacks on groups include attacks on "all people who believe X"? N.T?

[AngryAmish]

1398. This is a very long thread. I wonder if I am going to kill it here.

[madinmaryland]

1401. IBTL??

[flamin lib]

1400. It all sounds good, reasonable and enforceable. None of this is

is new, it's only a clarification of enforcement.

An oft repeated lament in this thread is "third party" promotion. Okay, so start a discussion board for a third party formation. This board is called Democratic Underground for a reason. Oh, and if you think DU is like herding cats just think what forming a third party would be like!

Another repeated theme is that no criticism of Democrats or Obama will be tolerated. Not true if you understand the letter and intent of the OP and the admins. Criticize policy, point out flaws in the administration and call for a redress of decisions wrongly made but don't take any one item and condemn the whole.

There are dungeons here and for good reason. The DU community simply doesn't care about some issues that more closely resemble one of the world's great religions than an actual item for discussion. Just be nice and thank the admins for reserving a place to proselytize.

Finally, there is nothing here to prevent anyone speaking the "truth". If the "truth" is that the Obama administration continues rendition, say so and condemn it but don't expect anyone to accept 'Obama is no better than Bush' as "truth" just because you think so based on any one item.

Oh, and I have been guilty of violating the "rally the troops" rule. After being saddled with Bush as Governor and then President for eight years, contributing Rove to the world of politics and being blessed with Rick Perry and the State Board of Education we Texans have developed a rash that is easily irritated by Texas Bashing posts. As a result I have "rallied the troops" on occasion. I won't do that anymore, I promise. I won't have to because the mods have consistently locked such threads as "broad brush" region bashing.

Thanks to Skinner and the whole bunch of admins and mods for providing a healthy atmosphere for intelligent and thought provoking discussion.

And telling our friends about cute kittens . . .

[mfcorey1]

1402. ITA!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lucian]

1405. I don't like that if you get a post deleted, you're blocked from posting in the thread.

I'd say block the person from posting in that thread if they get two or more posts deleted.

[Greyskye]

1536. Get deleted from one minor subthread, you are then blocked from actual dialogs elsewhere in thread..

The one and only time I've had a post deleted was in just this situation. I would have been unable to continue the dialog I was having with more civil posters everywhere else in the thread. And as it was on a topic that is near and dear to my heart, I would have been really upset. Not in the sense that I would be out to get anyone, but in the sense that I had a lot emotionally invested in the discussion that was taking place, and it would have really sucked to have been unable to put forth my point of view any longer.

Blocking on simply one deletion is too much, in my opinion.

Other than simply raising the deletions required to block a person from a thread, are there any other possibilities? How about an automated escalation procedure? How's this for a first pass of such a system:

1st post deleted: author of deleted post can no longer reply to the person that the now deleted post was replying to. This could or could not be the OP.

2nd post deleted: same as above, and also cannot post a reply to the OP.

3rd post deleted: banned from posting in thread.

[Again_ and_again]

1554. Blocking?

Try banning.

I've posted no more than 20 messages on seven different accounts over a period of four years and had everyone of those accounts banned.

This one will be next. I give it an hour to live.

This forum is the most poorly moderated discussion I've ever wanted to be part of.

You'd think that this might happen if we lived under martial law and the hall monitors ran the whole show. No, this is the land of the free, which apparently means freedom to quash any voice that bothers you if you're given the authority.

[Greyskye]

1562. Um, hi?

Welcome to DU, again?

So long?

Don't know quite what to say to a diatribe like that, except enjoy your stay. You seem to think it will be short. :shrug:

[Kerrytravelers]

1572. I understand that you feel like it would really suck.

I get that. I really do. And I think that you've taken a very reasoned approach.

I think we are going for simplicity. There has been an incredible amount of reprogramming at DU lately. The Moderator forum has been revolutionized in the very recent past, making Moderating even more efficient.

With these updated guidelines, there is even more reformatting taking place, including updates to the Mod Forum. The added duty of regularly reviewing members takes time to create. And for the Mods to get into the habit of doing.

Either Elad or EarlG, I can't recall which, stated earlier in this thread that allowing more than one is basically saying, "Go ahead, get in that one shot." We're working very hard to discourage the personal and group attacks. Under your scenario, members can still get jabs in, just not to the person directly. This will only making Moderating more difficult.

Again, for the overwhelming vast majority of members, this will not present a problem.

[uppityperson]

1614. I see it more as "we understand people can make a mistake"

Under the "2 strikes and you're out" rule, members can get 1 jab in, but the overall # will be limited (to 1/poster) and those who may make a mistake will not get unduly penalized.

I would like
1st post deleted: author of deleted post can no longer reply to the person that the now deleted post was replying to. This could or could not be the OP.

2nd post deleted: banned from posting in thread.

Thank you for reading this.

[Kerrytravelers]

1632. It is understood that people can make a mistake. That's not in question at all.

And most people don't get posts removed all the time, so, most likely, this will rarely affect you and many others. If there is someone who is making you crazy, put them on ignore if you just can't stop yourself from adding that final personal attack (which, by the way, will sometimes ruin an otherwise great post) before clicking "post message". And if your post goes in a deleted subthread, but your post wasn't directly deleted, then you are not blocked. So... in a subthread, if someone else is getting hot under the collar and insulting, but you are maintaining the rules while posting, they will be removed, you won't, and if the subthread ends up deleted, then you won't be banned from the thread.

I really think, once things are up and running, that after the initial "wow, I'm blocked out" folks will step back and reread a post before posting in anger. Much of the correspondence with Mods from members is usually a "sorry, guys" when someone has had a post removed.

[uppityperson]

1656. I understand that, also that while I've had a few removed over the yrs, some have been in total conf

confusion as to why since they weren't a personal attack beyond :eyes: or not even that. I may be uppity but I do not tell people F*you or call them names.

I will be glad to have a note saying why something's deleted, hoping it will be more than "deleted by mod consensus for breaking a rule".

[Greyskye]

1644. Those are good points.

As you say, I don't think that I personally will have an issue with this. One deleted post in 9 years is pretty decent, if a tad boring. And overall, I think that more civilized dialog, even if it is civilized dialog under the threat of a gun will be a huge improvement.

Politeness is the grease in the gears of civilization. Lose the lubrication, and eventually everything grinds to a halt.

I'm looking forward to a DU where discussion, dialog, and heated debate are the norm; and insults and attacks are not.

:toast:

[westerebus]

1410. Dissent.

What makes DU such a great place? Dissent, loud and unfettered. At times uncivil tis true.

The passion people bring to DU is what makes the arguments. Some thought full, others not more than troll bait. And passion leads to flame wars at times. Why would you expect less from committed people?

Is it possible to reform the rules within the Forums? A PG version with Mod oversight and an an R rated version for people like me? The demented, insensitive, ham handed, you can kiss my Irish ass, and yes I know what spell check is, but where's the logic check thingy?

PG can be warm and safe with a lot of Mod rule checking in place. R can be the Wild Wild West. In R you alert on trolls and take your lumps just like every body else. In R the rules are simple. Rule one is: trolls are dead meat. Rule two: Don't be jerk to the extent your mother would slap you silly if she heard that come out of your mouth. Rule three: There is no litmus test for democrats other than what you post.

Good luck with the cat herding.

[I_cry_bullshit]

1443. I agree

Dissent is necessary.

As someone who has been banned four times without recourse for presenting a cogent but unpopular argument to a bunch of fervent believers, I fully believe that dissent is a viable and useful tool that furthers, rather than hinders, open communication. Without dissent it becomes a backslapping club with a gang mentality: protect what's ours at all costs (kinda like what the right wing does to most discussions and even elections).

A two tiered forum let's the backslappers congregate where they feel comfortable and allows the rest of us a chance to speak.

I also notice that the whole new rules system proposal is quite similar to the Bush executive branch power grab. It's a desperate attempt to continue micromanaging something that has grown too large for a central authority to regulate, but rather than letting go, management prefers to clamp down. Kinda like a border fence to keep the illegals out...

[The_Insanity]

1477. Again

Banned again.

Yes. Somehow the above post got me banned once again. That's five times now with no word as to why. Even the "new, improved rules" don't work when management chooses to simply ignore them.

One post and out. WTF is this place? Who do you have to blow to be a member?

BTW, I have FrankFactor as a friend on MySpace if that is an indication of who they are banning.

[Again_ and_again]

1550. Banned yet again.

I managed to get two posts in this time, one deleted.

So far I have not broken any rules but have managed to get banned six times.

If anyone knows who needs the blowjob send 'em to this thread 'cause this is beyond ridiculous

[Greyskye]

1564. I sense a self-fulfilling prophesy in the making.

[fishwax]

1576. lol -- yes, sockpuppets usually get banned

The above post probably got you banned because you admitted that your presence here was a violation of the rules.

[lets do this all day]

1583. Catch-22

I think that one would call it a Catch-22.

If one gets banned for no reason and comes back to discuss or protest the banning after repeated emails go unanswered, the return to the forum gives the mods a reason to ban and they never have to deal with the protest. A nice game of Follow the Lemming.

Typical cop/banker mentality: never admit you're wrong.

Perhaps there should be a 12 step program for forum addicts.

[fishwax]

1590. that aside, and whatever the story of your initial banning, my point was in reference to

the apparent confusion about why your recent incarnations had been banned, despite the flagrant rule breaking.

[Maeve]

1634. You don't get banned "for no reason" AND there is a way to get back in

You E-MAIL Admin and deal with it in PRIVATE--otherwise, yeah, they will ban you as soon as they see you. That has been the policy since the beginning.

Oh, yeah...and Admin has admitted mistakes many times, even with banned people. The tombstoned, on the other hand, virtually always claim to be innocent of any bad intentions...:eyes:

[janx]

1686. It is hilarious reading this in hindsight!

:rofl:

[theFrankFactor]

1471. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

1616. Your 'R' rules are very, very subjective

1) "trolls are dead meat". What is the definition of a troll? Some DUers often accuse other long-standing DUers of being a troll, of being someone who should be banned from DU etc. To some people, a troll is "someone posting something I don't wish to see here".

2) "Don't be jerk to the extent your mother would slap you silly if she heard that come out of your mouth". Strange you think this rule, which is tougher than anything that has appeared in DU rules so far, belongs in the 'R' version. Many people have mothers who would never be comfortable with the language regularly used on DU without a thought. Even if you know what your mother would and wouldn't be comfortable with, none of the rest of us do.

3) "There is no litmus test for democrats other than what you post." I'm not sure exactly what you mean here - is it "whatever anyone posts here counts as 'democratic', since it's on a democratic forum"? That's one one of doing things, but then we're relying solely on the definition of 'troll' to stop right wing views here. If, on the other hand, you mean something like "posters will be judged on whta they post", then surely that's what we do now? We don't know anything about posters apart fomr what they post.

[westerebus]

1636. R rated.

I'll start with rule 2. Common sense and common courtesy should go hand in hand. This rule is broad based and not specific to my mother. Folks who went to the R version of a forum are not expected to behave like children. Though, some adults need to remind themselves the world is not only about their version of how things ought to be.

If people disagree with you, and they are arguing a position contrary to your's, defending your position by name calling is a personal attack. Like wise calling some one a pejorative name because you don't have an argument to counter their position, is also a personal attack.

In other words being a jerk, attacking some one personally is not what the R version is about. That said, calling a politician a lying corporate whore based on the actions of that politician is fair game.

This rule can be shortened to: try not to be a jerk. For some that would be enough, others would not even recognize their actions in that reference.

One and Two. They are related like brother and sister. We may be from the same family but you would never know it. Again not my family specifically. Democrats in general. Far left, left, center, and leaning.

Yes, your are judged by what you post. If what is posted is anti democratic, anti labor, anti human rights, right wing talking points as a point of reference, that doesn't of itself make someone a troll. Defending and taking that as a political position indicates that person might be a troll.

Gun rights is a hot topic for a lot of people. Abortion rights also. Gay marriage is another. Expressing one's personal view doesn't make a person a troll. Folks disagree for a lot of reasons.
It can and does illustrate differences of opinion. It is the arguments used to support or defend a position that demonstrates behavior.

That is what I thought the alert key was for. May be I'm wrong. The duck rule would apply. If it quacks like, swims like, flys like, it might just might be...

I'm not getting rid of the Mods in the R version. I'd like to give them some room here. Like a ride at the amusement park or service at a bar. The warnings are posted at the entrance. Act accordingly. Expect you will be exposed to adult situations.

Their job is difficult enough. Imposing layer upon layer of rules to accommodate all possibilities never works. Give the Mods the tools they need on a broad base. Tighten them for the PG version of forums and keep them broad based for the R version.

Does this make any sense?

[harmonicon]

1413. I'm worried about the word "conservative" becoming a pejorative.

It seems that if we treat it that way, it's really no better than the success Republicans had with making "liberal" a bad thing to be, to the point where no one could self-identify as one; the word itself became poison, stripped of meaning.

Now especially, there ARE a lot of conservatives in the Democratic party, and I think it's fine; I think people ought to elect who they want to elect. I happily voted for Obama, but I did think at the time - and still do - that he's quite a conservative guy. I don't think I'm insulting him when I say that; I certainly am not intending to. It's simply my observation. Howard Dean, who I also like very much, was quite appealing to a lot of voters for the fact that in some instances he was conservative and not liberal in his policy.

How are we supposed to discuss some things if simple descriptive words can't be used in the discussion?

[BootinUp]

1427. good ideas there.

Allowing the deleted post to be reviewed against the specific rule, preventing more posts from same person in the same thread, are both very good ideas in my humble opinion.

[SoxFan]

1430. WHY DOES SKINNER HATE AMERICA?

Seriously, though, my ownly real concern is with #3. I understand the need for a "cooling off" period, but let's remember the nature of some DU threads. Look at this one; it's enormous. Barring someone from reposting might inadvertently barr a DUer from a discussion that lasts several days and meanders over an array of topics. For the most part, the posts that lead to deletion are very often part of sidebar subthreads that have veered away from the original point.

My only other concern is that you guys make sure the mods act with some degree of consistency. I;ve seen (and been involved in) threads where the mod on duty is clearly letting his or her own biases get in the way of fair enforcement.

[NC_Nurse]

1434. I think it's your forum and you should do what you think is best. As for this set

of rules, I have no problem with it. Of course, I am hardly one of the more outspoken people on this board so what do I know?

I'm still here after six years. That says something. ;-)

Thanks for all you do!

[LWolf]

1435. Will those changes include, now or ever, an acknowledgment of

the conflicting message given to members about DU?

I refer to the rules, which clearly point out the partisan nature of the site, and the "About DU" page, which self-identifies the site as a "left-wing" discussion board.

The Democratic Party is not "left-wing." These two identities, as partisan Democratic Party supporters, AND as "left-wing," result in conflict.

It leads to some of the "why are you on DU" posts that suggest a DUer is "in the wrong place" and ought to "leave." Those posts are usually allowed to stand, which increases the confusion.

A partisan will make that post to a "left-wing" DUer if that DUer doesn't seem to toe the party line. A "left-wing" DUer will do the same when a partisan espouses policies that are clearly right-of-center. You don't want those on the left pointing out that a Democratic politician, or a partisan DUer, isn't really supporting the Party platform when they support opposing policy. But it's okay for a partisan to promote policy that is distinctly not "left-wing," OR in line with the party platform.

What is DU? Is it left-wing, or is it partisan? Or, if both, do site owners support both of those equally, or favor one side over another?

[A Physicist]

1436. Malware or False Positive

Any bit-heads out there that can tell me if this message is a false positive; it pops up when I click on this post.


"Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware

Successfully blocked access to a potentially malicious website: 66.45.255.98"

Thanks

[thotzRthingz]

1453. That IP address (66.45.255.98) resolves to the following domain names:

worldcantwait.net
worldcantwait.org

Here are the assessments according to the online McAfee Site Advisor ( http://www.siteadvisor.com )...

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/worldcantwait.net
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/worldcantwait.org

You could use the FIREFOX BROWSER ( http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/firefox.html ), along with the NOSCRIPT ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722 ) addon, and that would prohibit any "scripting" (malicious or benign) when you visit ANY and ALL websites.

Of course; you can have NOSCRIPT to completely ALLOW "scripting" for those sites which you implicitly TRUST (i.e., your online banking resource for example).

IMO: any website has the potential to be UNSAFE (hackers abound, and many are targeting domains hosted on U.S. servers). Using any MS-Windows based BROWSER, disabling "scripting" is prudent (allowing it to be enabled only on those websites which you implicity TRUST).

hth

[A Physicist]

1468. Thank You

These two links you provided:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/worldcantwait.net
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/worldcantwait.org

Indicate no problem with these sites; therefore, I conclude my Malwarebytes (MWB) is reading false positive.

I fixed it by adding the address to MWB's ignore list.

Again, Thanks

[Yuugal]

1440. "If you agree, we'd love to have you here." - New motto for DU?

If you really wanted this site to be more peaceful you would let us pick 10 people each who could not respond to our threads or posts EVER. I'm betting most of us would pick the same 10 people from the BOG.

[Catherina]

1473. I wholeheartedly would support that. +1

It's not dissenting opinions that annoy me but the same 10 people disrupting threads with childish accusations and ill will.

[tranche]

1441. The simple answer: ban Disruptors and Trolls

There's going to be a ton of posts the next few days about this site restricting their "freedoms" and being afraid to speak their minds. The killing fields of the left even.

At the end of the day all these rules (so many that they'll be nitpicked to death) boil down to 1 thing. If you are acting a troll and disruptor, and a posting pattern bears this out, then hello tombstone.

[jotsy]

1442. I think as founder of this site Mr Allen, that such things are your calls to make.

I've been a member just over a year and often struggle with whether or not my presence here is appropriate. I am not a democrat, but rather a proponent of democratic principle. As my dictionary's definitions all speak to being supportive of democracy, characterized as "political or social equality," it's been terminology that I find helps ease my concern. I know the folks can trust me, but try to understand the factors in play that cause them not to.

As I see the challenges of this site, they are rooted in a lack of trust combined with a competitive crowd fraught with alliances and even cliques. Not much room for a nutty nomad like me to make a case for genuine independence.

At the conclusion of all I can consider with regard to your marvelously diverse venue, I'd rather have it with its perils and pitfalls than not at all.

[eflatminor_99]

1451. Sounds like this will become a "no dissent allowed" site

Lefties whining to Lefties. That ought to be fun.

[pecwae]

1454. There seems to be

quite a bit of subjectivity in determining a PA vs. an attack on a post.

Also, Mods are posting in forums more than I've ever seen prior. That's fine, they're members as well. The problem lies with Mods posting strong personal opinions and in highly specific groups or forums. This can give members the impression that those Mods cannot possible be impartial judges and can stifle discussion.

[Kerrytravelers]

1501. Mods work by concensus only. One Mod never makes a decision to lock or delete.

Naturally, all of us have opinions, and differing opinions, at that. Therefore, if a group of Moderators, who all carry their own diverse opinions, can agree on an action, only then is that action taken.

The Moderators run the spectrum of political ideology. None of us agree with each other all the time. There are stark differences in our political views and we represent the vast DU as a whole.

Therefore, the only thing we use in determining action are the DU Rules, as provided to us by the Admin. We cite rules when giving our personal vote on an action. Saying, "Well, I disagree with that member's opinion" is not an option. If you can't cite the rule it's breaking, then it isn't a rule breaker in the Mod Forum.

Anyway, all this has been said before, all over this thread.

[pecwae]

1525. Thank you, yes, I do know that.

I Modded for 11 months. I suppose Admin guidance has changed since '08 in reference to forum/group posting.

[Kerrytravelers]

1542. Nothing has changed. The guidelines are the same and the Moderating practices are the same.

And rules regarding Moderator participation has not changed.

[Again_ and_again]

1560. What a crock

I've never broken a rule, but I've been banned six times over four years on only 20 or so posts.

I'll give this account another half hour to live.

Your moderation is nothing more than a popularity contest led by a few tyrants and a bunch of followers.

[Kerrytravelers]

1561. Uh-huh. Never broken a rule?

Under 20 posts? You must be a zombie.

Here is the rule you have broken:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior.

[mntleo2]

1457. All good points and ...

...First of all, I want you to know the following question comes out of a huge respect for your ownership of this site. When you and the moderators meet to discuss a certain poster, will that poster know they are up for consideration for being banned? Or is there going to be a certain number of times a person's postings are deleted that all members will know before they become part of a discussion? This might help if everyone knows that say, when a poster's postings have been deleted 5 times then they automatically know they will be up for discussion.

Hope you understand what I mean and that this helps

Cat in Seattle

[Kerrytravelers]

1504. No one is ever banned by surprise.

There are no surprise Warnings, Suspensions or TSings. Member may say this is the case, however, they are free to say what they will. Admin and Mods never divulge the privacy of the Admin/Moderator relationship with members. They, however, are free to characterize their interactions with Admin and Mods however they choose. But to think someone clicks into DU and is shocked to see they have been given the granite is always intriguing. ;-)

[not really here]

1526. This is simply not true

I know because it happened to me, after five years and more than 10,000 posts without a single warning. Why? I cast a piss-take vote in an inflammatory poll. Next morning, I discovered I'd been banned for it. Appealed, but the decision was final. Because, well, that wasn't the real reason; it was the pretext, and I hadn't given the mods a good reason.

I registered now simply to register this. You can delete this post and ban me again as you wish.

[Kerrytravelers]

1540. I have no idea who you are, but I can state, without exception, that you were not surprised.

[not really here]

1545. I don't know how you could say that, since I know I was

But that's alright. Many things being said here recently are every bit as unimaginable.

[Kerrytravelers]

1548. I can easily say that because no one is ever banned without prior contact. Period.

But, because the Admin and Moderators maintain member's privacy, we do not post all the communication we hold privately. You, however, are not held by constraints to represent your communications with Admin and Moderators in any particular light, truthful or not.

[not really here]

1553. It wasn't my experience

But the lack of transparency here means a win for your insinuation.

[Kerrytravelers]

1558. Ok. Whatever you say. This meme is just going to continue, I can tell.

Funny, though, that the overwhelming majority of members, and I do mean the overwhelming majority, have an entire experience here with very little to no corrective action.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1585. He is speaking the truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2741812#2742350

[Kerrytravelers]

1588. From what you can tell.

You can only see the post, not anything else that went on at the time that would be private information, which is not divulged.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1599. I'm not sure how much more clear cut it could be.

Earl said he banned him and three others for representing the four incorrect votes on a ludicrous push poll.

[Kerrytravelers]

1601. Depending upon the member, the situation, etc. dirty laundry is never aired publicly.

Therefore, any correspondence that may have taken place or any particular corrective actions that may have taken place are not privy to the general membership to preserve members' privacy. What I know or do not know I can't say because that would be divulging privacy.

If you're interested in all that goes into Moderating, you may want to consider volunteering. :hi:

[LostinVA]

1627. You know this isn't true, you know things were posted PUBLICLY

And not just that one time, either, and by the Admins.

[Kerrytravelers]

1630. Ok, whatever you need to say. I'm not going to continue helping you push that meme.

The overwhelming majority of members get on just fine here, but in the end, one is free to represent one's relationship with Admin however they choose, and in whatever light they so wish. :hi:

[TZ]

1633. "Dirty Laundry is never aired in public"

Does that include the VERY PUBLIC announcement of MY and about 20 other people's suspension last year? It was very kind of DU to do that to me for my 40th birthday. Made it oh so special! :sarcasm:

[Kerrytravelers]

1638. Someone's status is not dirty laundry. And the reason for said status is not always dirty laundry.

[mtnester]

1695. You probably need this right about now

[muriel_volestrangler]

1559. One thing I can say for sure; the mods did not ban you

because mods do not have access to the results of polls. Only the administrators, who, of course, have access to the entire database that forms the pages that are DU, can have banned you for a vote in a poll. Whoever you are, you seem to think this was a 'pretext' anyway, though it's hard to believe anyone, mod or admin, was waiting for a 'pretext' to ban you if you had never been warned. Probably you think you were far more on the minds of the mods and admins than you really were, and you weren't as prominent on DU as you'd like to think. Not knowing the natureof hte poll question and your answer, it's difficult to address your complaint.

[not really here]

1566. I was Minstrel Boy

And you're right, it was EarlG, for my sarcastic yes to a disruptor's poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2741812#2742350

That the vote was a pretext was made plain in an email.

But like I've said, that's alright. I just have an aversion to whitewashing revision.

And that's all from me.

[Kerrytravelers]

1587. Yes, this exactly.

There are some behaviors that are so egregious that Admin steps in immediately. And, of course, when a zombie appears, which is against the DU Rules, as outright stated.

[Usrename]

1701. There is only one question remaining here.So will you admit your mistake or will you lie?

So will you admit your mistake or will you lie?

This reminds me of a line from the movie http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/r/rob-roy-script-transcript-neeson.html">Rob Roy: "To these men, the truth is but a lie undiscovered."


I distinctly remember the circumstances surrounding that Holocaust poll.

[Orsino]

1458. DemocraticOverlords.com

These rules are necessary for promotion of the entrenched majority, and were probably inevitable.

I'm not sure how well I'll actually fit in, but I'll try to comply.

[Bragi]

1461. Yesterday's SC ruling may make DU illegal anyway

Much of what used to be thought of as normal political dissent has now, as of yesterday, been criminalized by the US Supreme Court.

This being so, I'm not sure if a political board such as DU can exist now without law enforcement eventually declaring it to be illegal.

See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-anti-terror-law-upheld/article1612539/

[Blue_Roses]

1462. awesome!

I think this is great and thank-you! :bounce:

[orbitalman]

1469. Don't trample the 1st Amendment, it's not just for journnalists...

you know. Toward the beinning, you use "someone" (eg Calling someone a liar.) By that, do you mean a poster???? I could call George Bush & Dick Cheney LIARS ALL DAY & not expect to be called on it. Yourword useage needs to be improved.

[Shine]

1483. Too many rules make people not wanna play anymore.

I found myself glazing over at all the detail, sorry, but true.

I "get" your intention, but I'm concerned by the detailed box of rules you're trying to fit everyone inside of.

It seems counter-intuitive to the essential nature of what DU is supposed to be about: freedom of speech.

It's gonna turn people off and sadly, this could be the death knell for DU. :(

[scentopine]

1584. It's called management by exclusion... place restrictions and barriers

to keep foreground sentiments lined up with the mainstream. Also known as a cattle chute.

In this case, the obvious desired outcome is to have posts lined up in neat order saying nice things about the president and bad things about republicans.

Its a technical solution to a social problem and these are thought to be easier than addressing root cause (growing discontent with war, wall street, corporate influence, big oil, etc). Firewalls designed to contain human expression never succeed. Buying bigger guns, building higher walls, only makes things worse.

I used to hate the censorship at huffpost and stopped visiting regularly years ago, but I have to say they have loosened up and I find myself visiting more often now. They are not pulling as many punches. Now if they could get rid of the non-stop tit stories...

Maybe DU is trying to mainstream? Crooks and liars did something similar but it really took the fight out of them, I haven't visited there in over a year, used to check in every day. There's plenty of places to go for mainstream/centrist views and comments. Everyone seems to be fighting for the same non-angry happy, centered customers. Hard to be happy with our two angry brutal wars killing with abandon and costing trillions.

Ack - I did it again. Negative thinking. Blood and bombs, dead men women and children, corpses stacked up like cord wood. Kids with limbs blown off, dying from infections.

Not even the most cheerful and smug centrist defense of these wars can stop me from thinking negatively about the centrists who cheer them on. I guess that makes me one of the unwelcome "at risk" participants here; one of "those on the left".

[cal04]

1484. Question

When a blog posts at the bottom Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified. Does the 4 paragraphs, Copyright violations still apply?

thanks

[mopinko]

1598. no

but please note that in the post.

[cal04]

1621. thank you mopinko

:hi:

[RiverStone]

1487. That we do not march in "lock step" makes us different from the righties

While I fully agree that comments of an inflammatory and wholly unconstructive nature should be deleted, I do believe that one can promote progressive causes which may not entirely be supported by mainstream Dems.

I have faith that on balance, the new rules will still allow differences (which is part of being a Dem), as long as the compass points toward an enlightened view.

[TBF]

1495. How does an "enlightened view" jive with censorship?

too funny.

[ProudDad]

1488. These "examples" of over the top are disturbing...

Most of us here live in the belly of the beast.

We live within the stolen borders of the ruling heart of the USAmerican Empire.

We live within a herd of provincial know-nothings who think they're the masters of the universe.

We live in the middle of a violent socioeconomic "system" built to sustain war and predation.

We live in the belly of the beast that's destroying the Earth as a habitable planet for large air-breathing mammals and fish.

We live where glorification of militarism (and the military) contributes to the perverse Permanent War Economy, propping up the last gasp of capitalism by pumping up the GDP. The purpose of the military is to blow shit up and kill people for the Empire. One shouldn't contribute to such an insane enterprise.

We live where the machinery of "justice" (cops and courts and judges and lawyers and jails and prisons) has the primary purpose of protecting the lucky beneficiaries of the status quo from the rest of us (and pumping up the GDP). They live in an "us and them" universe (the "good guys" and the "bad guys") that is also rather deluded and dangerous and corrosive of community.


Some of us are the canaries in the coal mine. We've connected the dots and realize that we are in a dire situation that moving a few deck chairs around on the fantail of the good ship Duopoly ain't gonna do anything to change our trajectory.

The best thing that could happen for the Earth and her Creatures would be for the USAmerican Empire and all others like it to fail and fail quickly and be replaced by sustainable sanity. (if it's even possible for humans to be sane and sustainable any more).

---------------------------

So I just broke these "rules"?

- Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
- Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.

Since the militaristic police state is a MAJOR symptom of the disease that is the dominator hierarchy and its handmaiden capitalism, in a militaristic police state anyone who's aware of what's going on and why who speaks up is going to break these "guidelines" ....

-----------------------------------------------

[whatchamacallit]

1513. A for effort

Unfortunately, it's mostly about the deck chairs here

[ProudDad]

1517. Case in Point...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4437087#4437670

[mmonk]

1494. I like number 2 though I don't usually get deleted..

Seems constructive.

[sandyj999]

1502. I have been here for a long time but with all the rules I just won't be here anymore.

Too many violations and infractions to remember. And I will add that if has become this bad that all these rules are needed, then I don't want to be here. I don't post often anyway so I won't be missed. And at 74 I just don't like feeling so restricted. Good luck to all.

[Cary]

1503. Why not have a free for all subforum?

If people want to vent then they should be free to do it without polluting the rest of the forum.

[cascadiance]

1505. That's what I suggested further up. Perhaps "alt.flame" much like how usenet did this years ago!

And kick the "violators" over there so that they can argue to their hearts content. I'm thinking that it might be less work for mods too to handle things this way too.

[Plucketeer]

1508. Whatever

Maybe the likes of I should be going. I don't happen to have a pair of Rose-colored glasses to use for Obama.

[KonaKane]

1512. You don't need glasses. Maybe just a little perspective.

He hasn't delivered on some of my pet issues yet either....but he's still the Democratic president after a long reign of horror from the other party. I don't want to see them back, do you?

[Plucketeer]

1533. No, I don't want anotherGOP Prez in the oval office

But I did expect one that would think in the people's best interests - or at least pretend he was. What we got for "health care reform" showed how far the roots of corporatism infiltrate. I hate to say it, but there's evil and lesser as the two main parties. If I'm gonna be squashed from calling th ings as I see them, this forum could really "serve" either party.

Grayson for President!

[KonaKane]

1543. Good luck with Grayson.

He stands a snowball's chance in the nether regions as far as that office goes, but hey we can all dream. I guess I prefer an approach that will keep power in Democratic hands while we work on the party and push it Left.

[sandyj999]

1527. My rose colored glasses are broken. And I still have freedom of thought, just not here .

[judesedit]

1514. You can't call someone a "conservative"??? That is way extreme. It's no different than calling...

someone liberal. And Barry is President Obama's first name. It's not being used like Fairy Barry, or Barbi or some ridiculous little handle. Does that mean we can't say Bushy boy? I know it's not much that I give monthly but it's actually more than I really have right now and the thing I like about your site is that it doesn't squelch our speach as much as some other sites. With all of the "conservative" advertisements, articles, etc, I am seeing lately, I'm wondering if you haven't sold to Murdoch or some other right wing propaganda machine. And are weaning us slowly. Please convince me you have not. I do NOT want to support the right wingers. They have too much money as it is and have been able to BUY this government for far too long. The truth needs to be told and now is the time to make sure it's told. Thanks for taking my opinion.

[Liblu]

1519. Since you asked what I think, here are my thoughts

This thread was stumbled to me, so here is my reply:

DU and the mods on DU are full of shit. There are too many rules and most are irrational and restricts freedom of speech.

I was a member for 5 years, I had thousands of posts and I donated to DU; until about a months ago when I posted something the mods did not agree with and I got banned on the spot. I wrote to ask why, and I wrote to apologize although I really did not even know why the ban was slapped on me I mean, after THOUSANDS of posts, I was treated like shit. I never got a reply.

Not a warning, not a second chance, just banned. I own my own forum and draconian rules like rules on DU are just insane.

You can ban me again. I would rather have red hot splinters shoved under my nails before I contribute again. I never read here any more, Huffington Post is my forum of choice now. They don't have archaic rules like DU have, they are more up to date and more democratic by far.

I am going to shower now. being here made me feel FILTHY.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1520. *Ahem*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8613234

[musicblind]

1524. Some of these rules feel a little stiff. However, I am still happy for them.

They are well thought out and I believe DU is better off WITH them than WITHOUT them. :)

[Fading Captain]

1529. I think you're telling DU'ers to fall in line behind a party and president

That has turned its back on a liberal agenda

[KonaKane]

1544. I think this is still Democratic Underground.

Where the goal was to see as many Democrats in power as possible, so that we can hold their feet to the fire and see that the Democrats stay as true to liberal/Progressive/Left principles as we can make them.

When you don't have power, you sure can't do much about much.

[Fading Captain]

1570. And we do have power. But refuse to use it.

What does that tell you?

[KonaKane]

1665. It tells me we are suffering from increasing myopia.

Focusing on our egos and single issues instead of the big picture. One day we will recognize what sort of influence we wield collectively, but that day isnt here yet.

[Forrest Greene]

1539. Exercising / Exorcising Language

There is a short scene in the film Inherit The Wind, the fictionalized version of the 1920s Scopes "Monkey Trial."

Spencer Tracy, playing Henry Drummond—the film's stand-in for Clarence Darrow—wanders over to the side of the courtroom during a break in the proceedings. He sees a radio microphone set up there, broadcasting the controversial trial. He asks the announcer about it.

Drummond (impressed): Radio! God, this is going to break down a lot of walls.
Announcer (alarmed, covering the microphone): You're not supposed to say "God" on the radio!
Drummond (surprised): Why the hell not?
Announcer (smug): You're not supposed to say "Hell", either.
Drummond (unimpressed): Well, this is going to be a barren source of amusement...

~~~~~

[ProudDad]

1607. Hear, Hear!!

:rofl:

such a great movie...

[seeboyfour]

1573. Okay let's be honest everyone...

This is no change!

You know, I think it's quite telling that the happiest people in this thread are the biggest instigators and troublemakers, and of course, I'm speaking of the angry, passive aggressive people from the BOG.

First of all, this is absolutely no change. It's kicking the can down the road. Change would begin by explaining why so many loyal gay Duers, including myself, were purged, and how the whole thing was covered up in a style that would make the KGB proud. Just shameful. No explanation. Just poof. You're gay, or you're a gay supporter, so you're gone.

Second of all, when will the moderators stop posting to contact the administrators about problems when the administrators refuse to respond to anything? I've never, ever heard anyone tell me that skinner or Mr. Boo Boo has responded back to an email inquiring a simple explanation. How hard is that? Maybe they're busy trying to come up with the next fundraiser prizes to desperately keep people at DU.

The bottom line is skinner's tearful OP is not change. It's more rules and regulations from the warden. DU used to be such a nice place when all points of view could be heard back in the early to mid 2010's. Now it's nothing less than a crybaby board for the usual suspects.

Whenever I check in here, it's the same people. The same people who are stirring up shit against progressives, just because they can't stand one iota of criticism against Obama.

Finally, why are the moderators the same people? I've never seen a group of regulars who are so intimidated by skinner. They must seriously believe this is a career for them, and if they don't get rehired as a mod, it'll look bad on their career resume.

Too much. I couldn't pass up this opportunity to weigh in and say DU is just a mess. The level of complaining is unprecedented. And that's because skinner runs the place like Kim Jong-il.

Sad. But you all have fun being miserable.

[stevenleser]

1580. Talk about projecting...

First of all, DU was never about "all points of view." nor should it ever be that. Republicans and their views are not welcome. Many Libertarian views are not welcome. That is just for starters.

People like you have attempted to hijack and turn DU into an Anti-Obama website. And yes, those of us from BOG want to support our President who is from our party and with whose views we mostly (vastly) agree.

You are the usurper here. Not us from BOG

[Divine Discontent]

1600. there are a couple dozen people who firmly disagree with the majority who are at times upset by

policy choices and actions of the WH (on a grand scheme), that appear to appease the GOP and the M.I.C. far too frequently, but despite the insinuation towards us being part of the problem, and not the solution, most of the regulars who post every day or two (or many times a day) are still here questioning the failures of policy and the WH failures of trying to work with the GOP who wants to destroy the Democrats and do nothing to help this country. There are some policies that I think the WH is doing well on.

But, just because some of them appear to support every action, they don't silence our disputing of the facts if we're following guidelines.

I am not miserable, and say a lot of what's on my mind. I just try to say things I would say in person.

If Skinner was Kim Jong-il, I would be tombstoned for saying I think Barack Obama has been an extreme letdown on many issues that have already been discussed on this site by many, and when some ask, "what has he failed on?", I feel like saying, 'hasn't the questionable moves of the past 18 months been discussed ad nauseum!" So, I don't think he's a dictator, I would say more like a very tidy housekeeper.

[NanceGreggs]

1615. This is no change?

You're right, it isn't. It is a reiteration/clarification of the site rules - the same ones you, myself, and everyone else here agreed to abide by when we registered.

The contradictions consistently posted by some here about the BOG are actually quite amusing. "The BOG is a 'secret clubhouse'" - so secret that anyone on this board can read the posts there whenever they wish and/or join in the discussion.

I am particularly amused by the meme that the BOG members are running the place. If they were, why would they resort to posting in a separate forum, instead of feeling free to post their opinions in GD and GDP without fear of being ridiculed?

"You're gay, or you're a gay supporter, so you're gone." Amazingly enough, there are many gays and gay-supporters who post here quite prolifically - and have done so for years - without interference.

"DU used to be such a nice place ... now it's nothing less than a crybaby board for the usual suspects." I won't disagree with you there - except that we probably disagree as to who the crybabies are.

Stirring shit up against "progressives" - that's a sticky one. Do you mean those who define themselves as progressives - or those who others have defined as such, their judgment of such matters having to be deferred to in all matters?

Why are the moderators the "same people"? In some instances, yes, they are. Maybe that's because it's a thankless task that not everyone is willing to devote their time and effort to for no compensation - unless you count the headaches, which come free with the job.

Intimidated by Skinner? Who wouldn't be? I understand he's a murderous thug, who once tombstoned a DUer in Reno, just to watch him virtually die.

I think we all realize why you just couldn't pass up the opportunity to say that DU "is just a mess". And yes, no doubt about it - we're all just miserable here. But we will try to muddle through ...

[Renew Deal]

1663. Hey CBoy if that's you

:hi:

I don't agree with everything you said (Kim Jong Il), but it's nice to see you.

[Lasher]

1575. Well since you asked,

I think this is your house and I appreciate being invited as a guest. I will abide by your rules or I will make myself scarce. Having read your OP I am not sure if I need to modify my behavior. And so I will trudge on, looking for enlightenment should I transgress.

DU is nothing without rules. I come here for a harbor in a storm of hate and ignorance. Fie on those who recklessly accuse you and yours of censorship.

I will say this in closing: Don't make this the Obama, et. al, Underground. My Democratic Party is about ideals and above loyalty to any individual. It is healthy to engage in Fair Debate regarding our president's policies.

[theonewho]

1582. good news

I should say first of all, thank you for allowing me back in to DU, I have been banned two times for stating my opinion because of my thinking the Administration has banned me . Which I found to be very closed minded. I am pleased to see that DU has realized that this page is for solutions not a bitching page, which the elders seem to do most of the time only because they post 1000 pages plus. Now excuse me not all elders, Nancy Gregg I love you, Medfloridian you as well, skinner,davidswanson, all you peeps I have deep respect for. So I would again say thank you for allowing me to share in DU, I will share my thoughts,because I think they are important and helpful, otherwise I will read daily as I have for my last 2 years of being restricted from DU... We live in a real world, all thoughts are useful if they lead to a common goal. Peace

[Ohio Joe]

1589. Well... ok, you have my permission

:P

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

1594. So, what do I think?

I think the real change needed here at DU does not appear to be forthcoming.

I think the panicked if not comical mishandling of this recent thread by DUer Phil Rockstroh:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x543509

is very illustrative of a longstanding and, in my opinion, by far the most serious problem at DU -- unwarranted censorship.

DUer Violet Crumble asked in the final post of Mr. Rockstroh's thread (post #56):

"Hey, mods. What's with the ping-pong game going on with this thread?
It started in Editorials, got hidden down here by those mods, then quite rightly got moved back to Editorials, then in the past few minutes some upstairs mod has duckshoved it back down here again. It gets quite hard to follow where it's supposed to be..."

Skinner, can you please answer Ms. Crumble's question, as Lithos apparently couldn't find time to address it before locking?

[DCBob]

1596. I guess +323 is your answer Skinner..

Good job.

[dyingnumbers]

1597. LOL

{} Personal Attack
       - Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.

Fuck off. ;)

[Safetykitten]

1608. Just a couple of items.

In disagreeing with President Obama on issues ranging from the war, to say how the economy is being handled, is it not a disagreement of ideas? What is the ruling on a disagreement not of ideas or policies, but wanting something that possibly he may not believe in at all? Gay rights is handled as a policy and election electionability item, but what about gay rights as just that; Gay eqaul rights? If he does not believe in all or just portions of complete equal rights for gays, is that a situation that would make disagreement almost a certainty? And in the disagreement, how far is permissable? Whithout name calling or other attacks, just stating the case for complete gay rights would be a bannable offense, would it not?

I would think that equal rights for everyone and the discussion of it, even on a baseline of the President not wanting some, all or portions possibly, is not a item that can be parsed into camps that use it as volleyball. Either you want it or you do not.

From a centrist ruled position, in a place with new rules that reflect it, hoe would this be handled?

[marybourg]

1609. To the #3 "Insensitivity based on. . ." list, I would add "age". There's

a certain amount of confounding "right-wing" with "old" going on here. To someone whose elders, when growing up, were the very liberal generation of the 1920's to 40's, and who now is fairly liberal herself as an oldster, such stereotyping is inappropriate, inaccurate, offensive and lazy.

[LittleBlue]

1613. LOOOOL how amazing it is to see this mirror image of Freakrepublic

This reminds me precisely of the paranoia on the right that accompanied Bush's fall in approval ratings post 2004. It was so fucking amusing to watch these antics on the right, so satisfying to watch their meltdown.

And it's equally sad to see it from progressives. Why in heaven's name would DU adopt Freaker tactics? How wretched. I doubt this situation is even salvageable anymore. By all means, hasten it.

[CTPatriot]

1620. As an Outsider

Having only so much time in a day, DU is not a frequent stop for me. I tend to spend most of my time at DKos, FDL, and Greenwald's blog, -- a pretty decent variety of commentary to go along with the many articles sent to me by friends, one of which is a regular reader here.

So these new rules don't really impact me at all. But there are things in the rules that make me sad. My impression of DU was that it was a home more for progressive rebels than it was for the Democratic party line. And I also thought it was a place for open and honest discussion.

If you can no longer call someone a liar when they are clearly lying, and you cannot state your opinion that Obama's administration is not very different than Bush's, or that Democratic policies and actions are hardly distinguishable from those of Republicans, even when you can back those opinions up with facts, then you are, as I see it, turning DU into nothing more than another cheer leading squad for the Democratic party. Sure some criticism will be allowed, but don't dare go too far or you will be silenced. Because we're no longer allowed to do anything that might make the Democratic party look bad.

I guess if the mission of DU is, like DKos, to elect Democrats and support the Democratic party more than it is to support progressivism and the party platform, then these rules make sense. Like I said, I'm an outsider and it makes no difference to me. Your rules changes won't make any difference as to whether I spend more time here or not, though I will certainly form a vastly different impression of DU if these rules stand as is.

Just FYI, I would define myself as a disaffected Democrat. I place my liberal values above my loyalty to any party. And right now, I feel that there is no party at all which stands for my values. The Democratic party talks a good game, but when it comes to actions and policies, they've strayed so far from where I believe the party should be, and once was, that I cannot identify with it and have no desire to hang out on websites where I cannot voice my anger at the party (thankfully I can still do that on DKos).

I can tell you that you're very close to losing me as a Democrat and as a part of the political process, and a lot of the reason for that is the behavior of those who think that the liberal base of the party should shutup, or tone it down, for fear that it will cost Democrats seats in congress when the truth is that the party and its loyalists have essentially spent the last 1.5 years giving their liberal base the finger and you can't expect to win seats when some of your most enthusiastic supporters give up and choose to stay home.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I probably won't be back to read any responses. But hopefully I've added something worthwhile to the discussion. Good luck with it!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1642. Thank you! One of the best responses in this whole gargantuan thread.

You certainly speak for me and I thank you.

[jgraz]

1646. Couldn't agree more

:thumbsup:

[tomp]

1650. pretty much sums it up. nt

[jonnyblitz]

1652. DU is a place for party/Obama loyalists to get together and

provide spin in order to defend/support everything coming from Obama/Democrats. Honest/critical thinkers will find DU to be a very frustrating place to participate.

Party loyalty comes before the greater good here and if that is the purpose, that is fine. It's a private site and nobody is forced to participate.

[AngryOldDem]

1664. You speak for a lot of people.

Ultimately we are doing the party no favors by stifling criticism and filtering all comment through an "acceptability" sieve. To surrender that little bit of free speech and thought -- which is what many people here fear, even on a board that is privately owned and run -- means we are beginning to abandon the idea of **any** accountability on the part of our leaders, which in this day and age is downright dangerous, no matter who is in the White House.

We can disagree with -- but still support -- those who are in power. I think forcing complete allegiance, no matter our misgivings or criticisms, blatantly flies in the face of ALL democratic principles. And those principles, at the end of the day, trump ANY Democratic ones.

Just my two cents.

[1Hippiechick]

1666. Well said. I would ask that the mods define "venting" and "criticizing"

As far as I'm concerned it's ok to VENT among friends about the lousy job the president/administration is doing and I, like many others on here most likely, was very active in his grassroots campaign.

[RoccoR5955]

1622. In order to be consistant...

You should also control the ads that appear before one logs in. Often times, I have seen ads that violate these new rules. This would just be for consistency.

[LatteLibertine]

1623. Something to remember

Are there Democrats who are truly disappointed in the direction the Obama administration has taken on some issues? I am sure there are. I'm also fairly sure it's true Republicans register on forums like these to fashion posts to lower our morale. Why? Low morale will likely = lower voter turn out for our party.

Is it always easy to tell one from the other? No, and in the case of a clever poster you may not ever really know.

Are there going to be Democrats you dislike and vehemently disagree with? Certainly, and they aren't going to be committed to the demise of the party. You can always attempt to influence a fellow Democrat. Now a Republican? Possible and likely no. They are committed to the demise or at least the diminishing of our party so they may hold or return to power. They are going to align with other Republicans the overwhelming majority of the time. So even someone you perceive as the worst type of Democrat will be better than a Republican.

So I'm definitely for getting Democrats in office. Yes, I prefer Liberals or Progressives and will take a Democrat I don't agree with over a Republican any day of the week. At least with the former crowd I have a chance of impacting or influencing their view point. Reforming Democratic rule is possible for me and reforming Republican rule is not. I know exactly what I will get if and when they return to power.

[Orrex]

1625. As long as DU continues its daily posting of Page 3 Girls, I'm sure things will work out just fine.

:eyes:

[Dr. Strange]

1661. Page 3 whatnow?

Do you ever do anything besides attempt to make witty sarcastic replies on DU?

[nightrain]

1631. many very fine posters have left already. I rarely post on DU anymore

because of draconian implementation of moving one of my posts to "Siberia" rather than leave it on Editorials, and for locking threads when they are too controversial (i.e. constructively critical of this Administration).

Skinner, reading the new rules I see fear on the part of DU still. Specifically, fears about criticizing Democrats. Good grief, just because someone calls themself a "Democrat" doesn't mean they have any special privilege, and isn't worthy of constructive criticism!

Still way too many rules, but glad you folks are aware that DU has problems in implementation.

[joshcryer]

1635. Does this mean GD/GD:P may be readable again?

Amazing!

[Radical Activist]

1648. I notice a larger number of posters discussing a wider variety of topics than usual today.

I see names I haven't noticed commenting in a while and discussion on diverse topics other than whether Obama sucks. It makes me think you've had a great message board just waiting for a little room to flourish.

[kirby]

1654. Need another rule about spoilers...

People who post the scores of sporting events or spoilers to TV show in the title of their messages should be
immediately banned for life.

[CreekDog]

1657. There should be something in your enforcement/rules regarding diversity (including opinion) at DU

Specifically so that when an issue comes up for Obama and/or the Democratic Party, that we don't lose a bunch of our members who care about that issue and are unhappy it was not handled in either 1) a progressive way or 2) a way that liberals would want it to be handled.

Obviously people who end up leaving or getting TS'd because essentially, they lost it over how Obama handled or didn't handle their issue, or perhaps got into scrums with certain Obama supporters who will attack you even when you are opposing an Obama position that is heavily triangulated (or arguably Republican).

Losing it is a problem but when the pattern is such that you are losing big chunks of diversity of people and/or opinion due to this dynamic --DU is lesser for it.

And as I watch each and every issue come up for Obama and be dealt with or not dealt with, the same thing is happening. Oil drilling, GLBT rights, war policies, CIA/Privacy policies, etc., as each comes up, people get angry (often for pushing the liberal side), they get attacked, they react, they overreact (sometimes) and ultimately, one way or another, they leave.

Okay, not every solution will deal with this 100%, but the pattern is something to pay attention to.

And then gravedancing...okay, it's in the new rules...but up til now, anyone who gets tombstoned or asks their account to be locked...once folks on DU found out about it, the expectation is that you will be just lambasted, possibly slandered and those posts will stand for hours or more without the ability to do anything about them. It was what some would think of as a tacit threat to not leave or get TS'd because "you will pay". I think it's almost unforgivable how out of hand this stuff got recently.

[Hutzpa]

1658. I just had to say this about this thread

it reminds me of how DU used to be back in the day with one thread having more than 100+ replies.

nuff said.

PAst over due in my eyez.


K&R

:kick:

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

1659. Grow up and act like adults

Maybe one rule here should be you have to be mature.

I have not responded to this post for many days cuz, really low posters do get diminished.
Many welcome us and some do even sponsor others. Thank you.

This thread, for the most part sounds like a high school class that just got detention.

What the heck is wrong with being civil?

I followed this site for a very long time before signing up.

The Bush years were hard on all of us here, this was a great place to vent and then learn.
Now with one of our own in the White House we need to support him.

Do I agree with all Obama does or says, cripes I hope not.
But do I want another Republican in the WH? Heck no!
This is what we got, let's learn to work within the system to change things.
We need serious discussions on the issues, not snarking and belittling.
Teach, explain, discuss, learn.

It's our best shot.

Even a dog will not void where it lies, lets hope and pray that we can show the same respect to our "yard".

[puebloknot]

1660. " Religion or lack of religion": Does this preclude discussions of "The Family" ...

... and the effect of right-wing "Christian" incursion into every area of our political structure, including attempts to proselytize "for Christ" in the Air Force establishment in Colorado Springs, for example?

[KonaKane]

1662. Sure, if you can manage to focus on people and their actions instead of

demeaning all people of faith with comments about "their big imaginary friend in the sky" and crap like that. I believe that's what the new rules sought to address and its a welcome thing.

[puebloknot]

1667. Have you considered that the claim that religion and progressivism don't mix ...

... might be offensive to various progressive religious groups? Whether you or I think their views are "progressive," some of them think they are.

The question was whether the new rules *preclude* discussions of The Family, etc. I can manage my thoughts and my posts very well. Can you?

[spoony]

1676. I think

that graphic is meant to argue against the quote about them not mixing. I had the same initial reaction you did, but if you look at the people, they seem to be arguments against the idea.

[puebloknot]

1684. Perhaps so. My concern in this thread is that we don't find any discussion ...

... that addresses the influence of religion in our politics consigned to the dungeon because someone assumes that discussing those facts is a shot across their particular religious bow.

A neutral position, where anyone can practice their own religion *in privacy* is what we need, in order to maintain separation of church and state. Anyone who insists on "witnessing" or proselytizing in public, on this board, or in any public space, should be prepared to consider the rights of others to boundaries that protect them from "in your face" assault on the part of overly zealous religious types of any stripe.

[KonaKane]

1692. But you have it backwards, at least in regards to DU.

If you do any amount of thread researching, you will find that the ones attacking people of faith (mocking their beliefs or tossing out insults about "imaginary friends in the sky" etc) outnumbner the opposites by more than ten to one. What the new rules seek to redress, to my approval, is the last great bigotry allowed here on DU - the one against people of faith.

It's a move in the right direction.

[KonaKane]

1691. Exactly.

[KonaKane]

1690. I think you totally misunderstand my sig graphic

And you wouldnt be the first. I am a religious person, a religious progressives as a matter of fact, and I was mocking that claim by posting some pictures of famous people of faith who have very much aided progressive movements.

[Born_A_Truman]

1670. Kick!

[Kerrytravelers]

1671. Yes. Because what this thread needs to more attention and responses. It has been really ignored.

:rofl:


(Shame on me. I just couldn't help myself. :spank:)

[Major Hogwash]

1681. This thread is like the oil leak, no one knows how to stop it.

I like the ideas that have been put forth, but speaking as an experienced forum board poster, the azzholes that will never even attempt to get along at this forum will break the rulez, no matter how well or detailed the rulez are written or how they are enforced.

We can talk about the rulez of the forum for another week, we will never get everyone to agree with them. It has been said of Democrats that if 22 Democrats show up to discuss an issue, there will be 24 opinions come from that meeting.

The real problem hasn't been getting rid of the freepers, because they are obvious trouble makers.
From what I have seen here over the last 7 years is that the disruptors that post here are tolerated for far too long before they are justifiably banned.
I've seen some disruptors here, whether they really were Democrats or not, get several good DU members in trouble, and even get some of them banned several times at this forum.

So, it isn't that I don't mind following the rulez, or discussing the rulez, or helping to write longass posts giving out detailed ideas for rulez.
But, the bottom line is, either those posters are here to participate like real human beings, or they aren't.

Some people should be given a time out for a week before they are banned.
A 2nd offense could result in a 2 week time out.
I think that being suspended like that should get their attention.
Yet, you would be surprised how being suspended from participating in discussions that you are really interested in will bring you around to being more cordial or civil to others on the net.

I'm not talking about censorship, of course.
The kind that comes from someone getting too "ban happy" with the report button.
So, the mods need to relax some, and let some discussions get a little hot before they intervene.
Try and talk them down a little before getting out the ban stick.
And I suppose I am like a 1000 other DU members, I am sick of the childish vendettas some people have engaged in at this forum.
The discussions were supposed to be about the issues, not about the person themself.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the topic.
I like the admins, Skinner, Earl, and the other guy and what they started here has evolved and changed over the years and that was to be expected.

[BeHereNow]

1672. You ARE LOVED.

THANK YOU!
BHN

[DailyGrind51]

1678. Dissent and civil debate are healthy, personal attacks are not.

[Spike from MN]

1687. What about calling people "haters?"

I see a lot of people getting called that anytime they dare to criticize Obama's policies. Seems to me that would be a violation of the the new rules against using broad-brush attacks as outlined in your post:

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

[NYC_SKP]

1688. kick (nt)

[mayya]

1694. how a Democratic Socialist becomes a Totalitarian Leftist...

... it is advocacy of these "utopian" rules that always turns Democratic Socialist societies into Totalitarian Leftist Dictatorships.

[rhett o rick]

1697. Maybe I missed them, but I dont see anything about thread hijacking or hit and run posts. nm

[Renew Deal]

1698. Is this the new thread that will never die?

:hide:

[madinmaryland]

1699. Thanks for kicking this!!

D'oh!!

:mad:

[lovuian]

1702. Thanks Skinner for all the great work your doing

Hypothetical question here

I guess the question for me is
can we disagree with Obama and his policies
or is that not being a Good Democrat

or is it best to just be silent
must we always cheer for him
Is that a Good Democrat poster



can I get an answer on the rules here
just curious

In other words can Obama's performance be critiqued