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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

With this in mind, we have "boiled down" the 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:



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?

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

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.

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?

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).

nt

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

The title "Democratic Underground" is self-explanatory.

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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:(

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

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ????".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

no longer say, 'I fucking hate Corporations?'

your Comments Section in your profile.

I still hate fucking corporations!

I'm surprised I can still say it.

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...

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

Wow!

evidently they're having subversive thoughts!

:evilgrin:

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. ;)

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

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?

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.

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

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

But it's a broad-brush anyway.

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

I HATE classification for the purpose of slurring.

Argue the issues!

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.

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...

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

...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.

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.

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

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?

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).

that wouldn't be against the rules.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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???????

:hi:

the sunset!
:hi:

with all my DLC money. :evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

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

Well, unless you type really really fast!!

THANK YOU!!!

:P

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

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

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.

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.

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:

:thumbsup:

:loveya: Admin!

"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!

these things are a bit opaque at present

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

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.

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

but it disappears along with the purging of the username.

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.

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.

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.

I like that.

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.

It's usually in response to something unbearably stupid.

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

Interesting.

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.

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

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

...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.

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.

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.

:applause:

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.

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.

the past president, because they were considered unpatriotic.

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.

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

:evilgrin:

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.

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.

..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.

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

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.

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.

"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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

?

It might be helpful.

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.

"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.

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.

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...

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.).

:)

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!:)

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.

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.

:(

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:

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

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

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.

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

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

With that Lounge group that got banned.

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.

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.