Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An important announcement about the DU rules, and how we enforce them.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:13 PM
Original message
An important announcement about the DU rules, and how we enforce them.
Earlier this year I posted a thread announcing some changes to the DU rules and the way we were enforcing them because, as I wrote at the the time, it was "apparent that having a Democrat in the White House presents new and difficult challenges for the DU community."

Our plan was to use an extremely detailed set of rules that would cover most disruptive situations we could think of, and have the moderators enforce them by sticking closely to the letter of the rules. The idea was to try and get everyone -- members, moderators, and administrators -- on the same page.

But after trying this approach throughout the summer and into the fall, we have come to the conclusion that it has been a failure. The new rules were far too complicated for most people to want to learn or remember, and they had so many loopholes and gray areas that we actually ended up encouraging the most disruptive members of the site. Ironically, these folks seemed to be the only people who really made an effort to understand the new rules -- and then used that understanding to target people they didn't like and try to get them in trouble with the moderators.

In October, we posted the first annual DU Member Survey, and we learned a lot about our members and how you feel about Democratic Underground. Among our findings is that incivility by DU members is a major concern -- in fact, it was by far your biggest concern. Concerns about overly aggressive moderating, while important, were less important than concerns about incivility. Indeed, given the choice between the two, there was a preference for more moderating rather than less.

So, our primary concern this time around is making the rules simpler and shorter, and instructing the moderators to focus on the spirit of the rules just as much as the letter. After all, the message board rules should have one simple, overarching purpose: to facilitate good discussion.

This re-write also represents something of a trade-off: You are going to see more active moderation of civility (personal attacks and deliberate disruption), paired with less active moderation of content (especially posts that criticize or defend Democrats).

We now have a very broad approach to moderating civility which enhances the moderators' ability to deal with problems. Meanwhile our rules regarding criticism of Democrats have become much more specific and are intended to draw clear lines that are easy to follow and enforce.

To learn more about how we enforce the rules, when alerting you can click the small "?" next to each rule violation which will give you a broad explanation of the rule and its intent. DU members are encouraged to be mindful of both both the letter and spirit of the rules when you post on DU, and moderators are encouraged to do so when they enforce these rules.

Now, here are the big changes you need to know about.

Civility

All the posts here that question the motives, character, or good faith of other DUers serve to poison the atmosphere and make respectful discussion impossible. These posts have become such a part of the fabric of DU that many of us do not even realize we are insulting people when we do it. I know that it is going to be difficult to deal with this stuff -- in fact, it might be impossible -- but I believe it is a worthwhile goal that could make all the difference for this community.

Personal attack, insults, or name-calling against any DU member or members.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Great minds discuss ideas... Small minds discuss people." On Democratic Underground we strive to have a robust discussion of ideas but all too often members will derail those discussions by pointing fingers at or making derogatory comments about other DU members. It is the responsibility of every DU member to participate in a manner that promotes a robust and respectful discussion focused on ideas. The moderators are empowered to remove any post that disrupts discussion by insulting, attacking, or casting a fellow DU member (or members) in a negative light, or by diverting attention away from the message and onto the messenger.

As you can see, the definition of a personal attack has been made much more broad than it used to be. Our previous version of our personal attacks rule tried to carve out all sorts of different exceptions for making rude statements about people. This new version of the personal attacks rule gives the moderators the authority to remove any post that tries to discuss people (specifically, DU members) rather than ideas.

Disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion.

It is the responsibility of every DU member to help promote thoughtful discussion by staying on-topic and exercising the appropriate level of self-control. This is especially important when interacting with other DU members who are making a good-faith effort to have a thoughtful and respectful discussion. The moderators are empowered to remove any post that serves to disrupt, derail, or hijack an otherwise thoughtful discussion, if they believe doing so will help keep the thread open and on-topic so other DUers can participate in good faith. Note: The purpose of this rule is to remove the proverbial "turd in the punchbowl" -- but please be aware that the moderators are not required to pick turds out of a punchbowl filled with turds.

I apologize that the explanation for this rule is crude, but we felt this was the best way to explain what we are trying to do. In the past, it has been extremely difficult to try to have a thoughtful discussion on DU -- even if you made a positive effort to be respectful and act in good faith -- because there was always some jerk who would show up and disrupt. The admins have been reluctant to actively enforce a blanket rule against off-topic or disruptive postings, because of the potential for it to be overused by the moderators. But we feel that this formulation is narrow enough that it will only be used in specific cases.

If any member makes a good-faith effort to try to foster a positive and productive discussion, the moderators now have a tool to help you do that. That is why the rule refers to an "otherwise thoughtful discussion." It is context-sensitive, and the moderators are only empowered to use it in cases where the post in question is clearly worse than the standard set by the OP and the rest of the replies in the discussion thread.

Content

On the DU Member Survey, a majority of members said that criticism of President Obama and other elected Democrats does not need to be constructive. However, a majority also said that we need to have some limits on what people say about President Obama and Democrats. With this in mind, we have tried to write a rule that permits robust criticism of Democrats from a liberal perspective, while also making clear what type of attacks are not permitted. Here it is:

Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats.

Democratic Underground welcomes a wide range of people from the left half of the political spectrum, and our members are welcome to post messages either criticizing or defending Democrats. We permit any substantive criticism of President Obama and Democrats -- even harsh criticism that may not seem constructive -- provided it comes from a liberal perspective. However, we do not permit the following: Referring to Democrats using disrespectful nicknames (eg: Calling President Obama "Barry"); Crude insults against Democrats (eg: "Fuck Harry Reid"); Insults, attacks, or baseless partisan smears against Democrats that one is likely to find on right-wing blogs or talk radio (eg: Secret Muslim, no birth certificate, etc).

We believe the way the rule is written now strikes a good balance. At the same time, we are sensitive to the fact that this rule now permits a greater range of criticism than some of our members would like. But we want DU to be open to a robust exchange of ideas -- and we believe that if everyone makes an effort to follow our new civility rules and try to have these discussions in a respectful manner, then strong criticism of Democrats from a liberal perspective should not be a problem here at DU.

Hopefully this provides everyone with a better understanding of what we are trying to do with the DU rules. We will continue to monitor what gets posted here on DU to decide if any additional changes need to be made. The DU Administrators are fully committed to doing whatever we can to make DU a friendlier community, where a broad range of Democratic and progressive opinion are welcome. With this in mind, there are a number of other changes that we are considering. I hope to post about some of those ideas later this week.

Thank you.

David Allen
DU Administrator

By the way: Our fourth quarter fund drive was supposed to begin last night, but we had to postpone it by one day because Elad (one of our administrators) was busy all weekend taking the test for his black belt. The fund drive will begin officially this evening, but if you go ahead and donate now your donation will count toward our total. Just click here to help. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Did Elad pass his test?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. We don't know yet.
We're waiting for his phone call. He's probably still asleep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. If he does pass his test, will he be able to kill a man using only his pinky finger? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I think he knows how to kill a man over the Internet.
So watch out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. I feel I should mention at this juncture that Elad has always been among my favorite admins. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
116. Elad spelled backwards is dalE.
Is this significant?
Or meaningful?
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #116
178. Is Skinner actually...
Renniks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinboy3niner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #178
179. And Earl G ...
...Glrae (glory?). :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kick-ass-bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
126. That is a common generalized misconception.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 07:42 PM by kick-ass-bob
Usually one knows how to kill a man with only his pinky at the brown belt level. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #126
236. agreed...
kill a man with a spork THEN come talk to me :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
135. Keep us updated.
Thanks. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
socialist_n_TN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
206. Well congrats to Elad. Now he can REALLY start
to learn stuff! :) What style of karate?

BTW, I like to civility thing. Even if I disagree (and I DO disagree, vehemently at times with some posters) I will try to be civil in my disagreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #206
237. fuck you...
just kidding :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elad ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
222. Yes I did, thanks for asking...
and I am happily recovering at home. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #222
228. Awesome!
Congrats!! :toast: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. .
O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Do these rules apply to the September 11 forum?
If so, I'm going to be watching that place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The rules apply to the entire site.
If you think a post violates them, you should click alert and let the mods know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Cool, thanks. I'll be watching. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. The sports forum cowers in fear.
:hide:



;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. Shouldn't we have a "Pointless Insults and Abuse Forum?" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KatyaR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #32
115. We could call it the "Monty Python Memorial Forum"
in honor of the Abuse Clinic sketch.

PS--Elad, hoping for the best! Remind me never to walk up behind you in a dark alley....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
154. that's already the bulk of the site (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
181. That's really stupid and...
you're an idiot.

Oh, wait...wrong forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Cool,
Did Elad get his black belt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. omg DU Admins are getting black belts
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. It's just a contingency.



In case the RPG's and flamethrowers don't work.


:rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
38. Nobody bothers me!
Jhoon Rhee Taekwondo Nobody Bother Me Commercial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #38
239. "do you think anybody wants...
a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys? Forget about it." :)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/8721/napoleon-dynamite-rex-kw...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
69. And I was already scared of Elad, too!
LOL

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
75. Just in time for the fundraising drive! Eeek!
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #8
238. wait until the ninjas show up...
"laugha while you can, monkey boy" :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
de novo Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. Awesome, I am a big fan of clarity. And civility!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Altoid_Cyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hopefully this will earn the three of you a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
The world would be a much uglier place without the constant hard work by the DU Admins. in keeping this site going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wholeheartedly agree with all of this. As with all rules, it's the spirit of them that matters.
I agree with giving the mods more leeway and allowing them to make more judgment calls, while still giving them general guidelines to go by.

Like the Constitution, you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dyler Turden Donating Member (328 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. Sounds like a good thing to me. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Does that mean Elad's going to use those karate chops on some of the trolls?
Can't wait to see that. :spank: :nuke: :kick: :fistbump: :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrs_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
15. seems reasonable to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, Skinner. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. Thank goodness. K&R, and thanks! :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. meh n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. I think the personal attack change is a good idea
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 04:49 PM by Renew Deal
I've always supported this on DU.

I'm not sure how much worse the criticism of Obama can get, so I'm not sure if that rule will make much of a difference. It is a symbolic change I suppose.

I don't get to see as much of DU as you do, but your third paragraph seems far more dramatic than my experience here.

Don't forget that 74% of DUers are satisfied with DU and 80% think this place is "mostly fine" or "ain't broke." You have been doing something right. If you compare the satisfaction rate with most other companies, 74% is pretty good. http://tinyurl.com/3aep4lw

I think the change to the alert system are too much. People generally know what's right and wrong here. The additional set of check boxes doesn't matter much unless it really helps the mods.

Unrec is a failure and it needs to be removed. It has been pointed out how it has been manipulated on other sites like Digg. It cannot work on a political site. It has created bad feelings because people are offended (rightly) at some of the posts being unrecced. It won't make a big difference on the greatest page most of the time, but it will end some of the acrimony.

Keep up the hard work!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
21. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
22. I've had a thread locked...
for using the word "cheerleader" in the OP. I was trying to describe the type of poster here who thinks President Obama can do no wrong. I was not trying to demean or denigrate. Just looking for the right descriptive term. I would have gladly edited the post to remove the offending word/context, but was given no warning before it was locked. Wish we could've been able to "pause" the thread so i could have continued the discussion.

Sorry i've gotta ask, but, will there be a list of "banned" words? How can we know what someone is going to deem offensive?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Personal attack, insults, or name-calling against any DU member or members.
Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Great minds discuss ideas... Small minds discuss people." On Democratic Underground we strive to have a robust discussion of ideas but all too often members will derail those discussions by pointing fingers at or making derogatory comments about other DU members. It is the responsibility of every DU member to participate in a manner that promotes a robust and respectful discussion focused on ideas. The moderators are empowered to remove any post that disrupts discussion by insulting, attacking, or casting a fellow DU member (or members) in a negative light, or by diverting attention away from the message and onto the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
104. which is why i ask about a "banned" word list...
I don't think "cheerleader" is necessarily a bad word or description for the type of poster i was referring to. I was not trying to derail a discussion... i was trying to start one! I certainly didn't think anyone would take offense at how the word was used. But after making it to the Greatest page and engaging in some lively discussion, it was shut down. I do wish i had been given an explanation or an opportunity to amend my OP. Honestly, i think i might have pissed someone off just by linking to a Glenn Greenwald post...

:shrug:

There's nothing wrong with cheering for your team by the way...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #104
113. Of course. You were calling people "cheerleaders" as a sign of respect.
It's really not that difficult to be respectful. Just think before you post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #113
138. There are people here at DU who would never
criticize the President. They will, however, take every opportunity to praise him when he has done something that can be construed as Positive. Is there a more apt term for that than "cheerleading"? If so, i'd like to know it. I think that sometimes people are more easily offended by perceived slights than by known ones... kind of like Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns. In the end the thread would've sorted itself out or sank on its own, but that the entire exchange of views between multiple people was shut down abruptly based on one person that took offense saddened me. I rarely post an OP or get many replies...

:(

But i do appreciate the hard work by the Mods and i have a high degree of respect for maintaining civil discourse, so i guess i can understand why my thread was stumped. I've never shied from passionate arguments or strong language... and i have been a proud and loud cheerleader for many of our Democratic leaders, including Obama. But i have been losing my enthusiasm for this Administration and its choices. I think a lot of people have. President Obama warned us we would need to push him and be involved and speak loud when we wanted him to hear...

um, sorry... started rambling there. I'll cut it out now and donate.

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #138
200. Obviously, I can't speak for Skinner. But I'd suggest you try criticizing actions instead of people.
Calling people cheerleaders is an attack. Saying that it's wrong to only accentuate Obama's positive accomplishments without acknowledging negative policies carried out by the administration is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Funny you should ask for a "pause" to edit your post.
We are considering exactly such a system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Now THAT is something that I think most of us can get behind! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
67. Skinner, if you do **nothing** else, do that!
Empower the mods to temporarily lock a thread, contact the OP, and ask the OP to either edit the post to make it compliant or yank the post.

This would be particularly helpful as application of these new rules get sorted out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
79. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YvonneCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
85. Thanks for this, Skinner. OT...
...Has any thought ever been given to the timing of fundraising/donation activities? I can't be the only one who gets paid monthly...and always around the time donation activites are ending... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
103. GREEEAT idea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
105. That would be a great system.
Here's hoping it's implemented. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
109. I'd love to see it happen. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #27
248. That's a really good idea.
Especially combined with a system where posters find out why the post was deleted/locked.

Kind of a DU "naughty corner".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
23. Sounds good.
Where do I sign?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
24. Well done.
One of the reasons this is still one of the best forums on the net is youse guys thoughtful ability to adapt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
25. Old New Rules not so good .... New New Rules much better .... !!! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
28. Question: Can we use crude, left-wing insults but not right-wing ones?
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 04:46 PM by Ian David
Yeah, right-wingers are likely to say "Fuck Harry Reid."

However, I doubt they'd use MY nickname for him, which is "Dickless Harry."

Because right-wingers somehow think that Harry Reid is some sort of far-left bullying bogeyman, while IMHO, he's an ineffectual wishy-washy coward who hides under his desk at the sound of the word "filibuster."

Yes, it's a crude insult-- but it's one that right-wingers would never use for him.

So, can I keep calling him Dickless Harry?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. You tell me.
The rule says you can't use "disrespectful nicknames."

Is "Dickless Harry" a disrespectful nickname?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Well, yes... but it depends on how you interpret the semicolon in that sentence...
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 04:52 PM by Ian David
; Insults, attacks, or baseless partisan smears against Democrats that one is likely to find on right-wing blogs or talk radio (eg: Secret Muslim, no birth certificate, etc).

So, we cannot use crude smears even if they're not right-wing and not baseless?

In that case, remove the semi-colon and make it two sentences.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Actually, that's just the explanation of the rule.
The rule itself disallows this: "Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. How about, Democrats or Bernie Sanders? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. Bernie Sanders is an honorary Democrat for the purposes of the DU rules. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. But not Joe Lieberman?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #66
125. Connecticut for LIEberman Party? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hay rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #66
132. Fuck Joe Lieberman.
Does that answer your question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #66
240. fuck no, not Joe Lieberman...
okay, just saw the evilgrin :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #46
187. Does that mean that "spineless jellocrats" is out, too??
Sometimes the truth can be very ugly, some people just perceive it as disrespect. Sometimes the truth just hurts...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #187
201. Like I said to druidity33, above, try criticizing actions instead of people.
Instead of calling people "spineless jellocrats" (which, by the way, is an awesome phrase that I will be stealing for my own use), try saying that Democrats need to stand up to Republicans and <fill in your modest policy proposal here. e.g. Call the GOP bluff, propose a bill giving tax cuts only to the middle class, and let the GOP vote it down.>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #201
241. so I guess this is out of the question...


Very apropos, though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #187
230. Jellocrats? Jellocracy? Government by delicious gelatin snacks? I'm in! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. I don't think that would be appropriate, Reid probably has a penis.

He may not know how to use it or it might be injured but that's a whole different issue.

Oh .... and Senator Reid in all probability also has a two balls.

Baseball players frequently have four balls on them which means they have to walk to first base.

Now that we have that cleared up we can move on!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #44
242. Confucius says...
"man with 4 balls can't walk".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
86. There are many fine, courageous members of Congress and the Senate who are "dickless"
Please give some thought to that Ian David.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #86
94. Point well-taken. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #94
114. Yes, but your exchange made me smile anyway.
especially the Bernie Sanders / Joe Lieberman comments
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #86
106. Indeed!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
31. Will there be any mechanism by which people can find out more about why posts were removed?
I think these rules you laid out are great. I know these issues have always been difficult to nail down without going overboard.

My question is, is there anything going to be implemented to allow us understanding as to why a message of ours was deleted? At least sometime in the last few months I had a message deleted and I didn't realize it at first, but when I did the only way to find out some kind of clarification was to PM like 30 people (the moderators for that forum) asking them if they knew what the issue was.

I really miss the days of "Check you Inbox, Poll_Blind!" Not only did you get the sinking feeling in your stomach but you usually at least had the impression that whatever PM was sent would at least generally be relevant to your removed post, as opposed to a boiler plate.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. Yes.
We haven't done it yet because we needed to get our rules in order before we did.

We'll be working on something like that fairly soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Much thanks. n/t
PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
80. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
34. You guys work so hard to keep this place intact.
Regardless of election results, news events, or whatever, the people that post here are the smartest and the funniest that I have ever found. Viva DU!


:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
37. Excellent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
41. Beyond Rec and Unrec
DUers are something that must be overcome. What are you doing to overcome them?

:D

In seriousness, is there any way to display the total reccage (possible pun) of a thread? Might it be a useful addition to the forum display along with views? The top tens on the greatest page are superb, but I wonder if some of that could be less hidden away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. I think it is likely that we will completely change the rec/unrec system.
Clearly it causes way too much consternation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. It has its uses, but "0" can mean too many things in my view
It can mean a controversial thread, a thread completely hated by everyone, or a thread no one cares about at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. You're not getting rid of it though, right?
The rec / unRec feature will still be in use?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. At this point I don't know what we're doing with it, exactly.
But I do know it needs to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. IMO, show the rec's and unrec's results separately. The rec's are more important. n/t
The total amount of rec's should be what is used to boost up the thread - they should hold the most water
but the total of unrec's should be seen only on the individual thread page, not on forum thread list page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #63
118. That would give too much power to trolls and special interests
It's far too easy for a small, coordinated group to vote anything they want onto the greatest list -- whether that would be news stories with a bias, concern trollery, or simply items pushing a factional agenda.

Downvotes make it possible for other DU readers to groan "oh, not them again" and smack them with an unrec. Without that, I suspect the Greatest Page would very quickly get spammed to death.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #118
172. And exactly the opposite could be said. It is too easy for a small, coordinated group
...to prohibit anything they want from reaching the Greatest Page.

I suspect the underlying and unspoken purpose of the UnRec feature is to foster a more centrist-appearing, middle-of-the-road discussion board. Unfortunately, too often Rec and UnRec becomes a pissing contest.

I am not ready to completely jettison the UnRec feature, but I do want some modification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #172
197. Perhaps there could be a separate "controversial" page
I've been looking at reddit some lately and I don't quite have the hang of how it works -- but I know they have a number of different pages, including a main page for the top voted stories and a "controversial" page, which I assume is for stories that are getting both a lot of upvotes and a lot of downvotes.

The programming involved may be beyond the capacities of the DU system, but it's one way to solve the problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #197
219. Good idea! You could see the more controversial threads and either avoid them or dive right on in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #56
90. Maybe people wouldn't whine about what they can't see...
I mean, we'd still have the ability to rec or unrec, but the actual numbers wouldn't show up, although the result of lots of recs would still be the same...the threads with lots of recs end up on the "Greatest Page".


My 2 cents...

:+
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Salviati Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #56
136. Maybe hide the net recs number for the first hour or so?
To me, the most irritating thing is to see an interesting thread, which has a decent number of recs, but then have the first several replies be all about the number of recs or unrecs the post has gotten in the first 15 minutes of life. Quality posts seem to have no problem getting recs, or overcoming any sort of initial unrecs, and it seems to me that just hiding the number for the first hour or so may tone down some of the consternation...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #56
229. I'm still a fan of the idea of simply deleting the inevitable "who'd unrec this?!!" posts in threads
Between the fact that they only drag discussion away from whatever a given OP is, and the fact that they're often meant mainly to attack other DUers ("unrec brigade," "the trolls are unreccing again," etc), they probably fall afoul of large chunks of what you're talking about regarding the new iteration of the rules, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #50
111. We're very clearly now seeing bragging about the use of UN's to harm a thread... and still
with no debate accompanying the prominent and well-advertised UN'REC on the thread --

The REC is an effort to try to ensure that other DU'ers get to see a thread that a number

of DU'ers think is important to see.

I trust that positive idea will still be a welcomed one.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #50
147. For what it's worth, I like Rec/Unrec as is. It emphasizes posts that everyone can agree on. nt
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 08:43 PM by BzaDem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #50
243. why appease the whiners? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iterate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #50
250. I would imagine your original intent
was akin to us saying "Here's something cool that I think my fellow DUers would like to see.", but by giving it a number and making it interactive you've inadvertently turned it into a social index. And like any social index or social indicator, it can and will be manipulated for a whole host of reasons, most of which will not reflect the original intent; think of the value of money, that PBS and other online polls, test scores, approval ratings, the unemployment rate, a futures market index, on and on.

For more about this check out Campbell's Law, Goodhart's law, reification, or the Lucas critique.

Essentially, it means your original intent and original measurement will be lost, and the more interactive you make it the worse it will get, as it did when unrec was added. Allow unlimited continuous rec/unrecs, then integrate it with another index, like money for example, and you can imagine what would happen.

So, counter-intuitively, you might consider simply hiding the value, something which would probably not be acceptable (in the name of transparency), or using a hidden and not easily manipulated algorithm. Also, when you make the change, redefining it as "Front Page Views" or something similar would help, as words like "recommend" and "greatest" are most likely to trigger that nearly effortless click for all the many reasons people think something is "great".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #41
59. I'd love to see a breakdown of total reccage per year and lifetime on our profiles.
In other words, I think it would be cool to see how many annual and lifetime recs (and unrecs) each DUer has received (and perhaps given).

Of course, it would probably be best if it was optional to have it displayed in your profile.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #59
189. I'd be curious about that myself
I'm positive I have more recs than unrecs since unrec became available. It's pretty rare for me to unrec a thread, even if I disagree a little bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #41
107. "...reccage..."
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
43. Coffee and donuts for everyone!!!!!
:donut:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
58. I agree 100%. Thanks Skinner! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #58
84. Beers for everyone!!!
:toast: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #84
196. NOW you're talking!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
45. I've had to learn (with mods help) to watch my reactions. I was told to use alert and ignore.
However, I see the same people disrupting threads and my alerts are, apparently, ignored. For example, I feel it is fine to use the un-rec feature. However, if you un-rec and then post that you un-rec'd without explanation, you are just asking for trouble. Just look at the responses.

Also, if some one drops a turd in the punch bowl and then leaves the thread, that is obviously disruptive. Some posters make a habit of this. I have tried hard to behave and alert when this happens but have seen no evidence that it has any effect.

I appreciate the hard work of the mods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. I understand and sympathize. We're trying to change that.
That is one of the main goals of this rule re-write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Thank you for all your hard work. I would be lost w/o DU. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
49. Question on "content" real quick
You mentioned the "Insults, attacks, or baseless partisan smears against Democrats that one is likely to find on right-wing blogs or talk radio (eg: Secret Muslim, no birth certificate, etc)."

We *can* still use them if we're openly mocking those right wing idiots that use them, right? IOW, when we're not suggesting the statement is true, but mocking the very premise that they think it might be. I know we get a lot of humor here in the face of open right stupidity, and I'd hate to see DU lose any of the wittiness we see here everyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Mocking right-wingers is encouraged.
We just don't want people bringing their smears here in order to AGREE WITH THEM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Encouraged, got it.
Just wanted to be double-sure. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
205. Yeah well....
You better hope that I apply Skinner's rules to my FB wall you Thanksgiving loving FReeper! :P
And yes, I do hate Christmas lights..... :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
71. Another quick question on 'content' and 'intent.
I recently posted a 'positive' post in 'good faith' which included a poll regarding 'Obama's LGBT Accomplishments' (which was intended to spread the word of some of the good things President Obama has done and to encourage folks to send him a 'thank you' note - and my motives and character were called out by folks that apparently read more into my post/poll than was there - and the thread was locked (apparently due to a perception of insensitivity by folks I don't even know - which in my opinion was ridiculous since I am a LGBT supporter). I had some DUers thank me for the list and for additional links publicly & privately - but the attackers on the thread won out.

So, after reading the new rules, I am still confused about if 'accomplishments' of Our President is or is not allowed here on DCW, and if the new rules are going to support folks like me that post in good faith and try to promote the 'positive' side to things.

I only bring this up because I am still shocked that a thread regarding Our President's ACCOMPLISHMENTS was locked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dreamnightwind Donating Member (863 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
73. Then why not when Dems act like right-wingers?
I wish we could have full cover for calling out Dems when they act like right-wingers, including POTUS. I think this should include derogatory nicknames that are appropriate to the issue being discussed, and probably mocking too. Putting a D after your name should not give you cover when you implement right-wing policies.

Thanks for your continuing effort to improve the rules in a constantly shifting context. Strange daze we live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
60. will religion/theology forum will be moderated...
like the i/p forum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. We have no plans to do that. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
62. Can people who were banned under the old rules get amnesty?
I'm still missing one of our best essayists who was banned for comparing Obama to Herbert Hoover -- called "not constructive" by the mod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. I have no clue who you are referring to.
But at the moment I am more in the mindset of getting rid of the disruptive people rather than letting them back in.

Maybe if we can successfully improve the tone around here, then we can start thinking about letting people back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #68
173. I don't think DU's atmosphere is unpleasant
If anything lately it's quite lively. And I've been posting regularly for a long while.

Too many rules can inhibit creative and insightful commentary. I'm not claiming I deliver it, but others certainly do.

I've seen many times that heavy handed moderation of issues boards can lead to a stuffy climate. I hope it doesn't turn into a playground overseen by nannies who won't allow members to be creative.

I hope I'm understood, considering I've not been guilty -as far as I know- of 'personal attacks and disruptive behaviour.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
124. Hmmm. That's what an author at Harpers did...
Hardly a "right-wing" publication...

It's constructive to point out when someone's veering off in a demonstrably wrong direction...

That's why we should be notified why a post is being deleted (unless it's bloody obvious) and given a chance to appeal or clarify...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
64. this may splash the punchbowl - but what about the woodchuck icon?
since name-calling other DUers is not allowed, that means I can no longer talk about the "woodchuck coalition", but it seems to me that the woodchuck icon itself is meant to attack other DUers.

Not to talk about people, but isn't it talking about ideas to talk about "groups of people" such as a woodchuck coalition which embraces certain attitudes and ideas, for example

1) they want Democrats, even those from conservative districts, to be unabashedly more liberal
2) they have a hatred of even moderates in their own party
3) they have a marginal attachment to the Democratic Party, being quite ready to abandon it for various third parties or to the option of not voting

another example would be Naderites. Who would be people embracing certain ideals and ideas

1) the two major parties are both corporate controlled
2) the American electoral system should be changed to empower 3rd (and 4th and 5th and 6th) parties, with
a) public financing of elections
b) instant run off voting
c) proportional representation in the House
3) Ralph Nader had nothing to do with Bush becoming President
4) there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties

Neither of those are complete lists, and granted there are likely DUers in both of those groups, but it feels like a major restriction to not be able to discuss groups of people and the ideas they espouse and certainly no more small minded than the almost endless discussions of Jon Stewart that we have been through recently and the multitude of threads about Her Grizzliness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. Some discussion of people is inevitable. And it can be done in a respectful way.
But posts that attribute ugly motives to people or question their character are toxic. I might suggest reviewing your own post here.

As for the woodchuck avatars, I am reluctant to make any blanket statement, because the next thing I know I'll get a hundred alerts demanding that I delete avatars for hundreds of people.

But I will say this: I think a woodchuck avatar would suggest that someone is not really making a good-faith effort to respect other DUers. If they want to be part of the solution, and show their good faith, I think they would do well to voluntarily remove those avatars without my needing to tell them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
65. Can we still call Leiberman a douche? He's really not a Democrat anyway. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #65
99. Er. Um.
Many DUers take issue with the term "douche". Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #99
110. Would "slug slime" be an acceptable alternative? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #110
165. ...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #110
171. Hey! That's my favorite brand of douche! I'm offended!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue neen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
70. Thank you.
Just...thank you.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
74. Thanks Skinner. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
76. ooooooooo, Black belt Elad! Scaaaaaary....
Izze gonna give demonstrations in the Mod Forum?

heheheh...

Congrats, Dude!

And David, this looks like yet another conscientious step in keeping DU a vibrant, interesting, rewarding community for those of us trying to move our communities just a little further towards justice, equity, tolerance, and economic sanity. Hope it works out for us, and for the new mods.

appreciatively,
Bright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
77. OK, may we say
that Harry Reid deserves humping?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlancheSplanchnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #77
176. I don't know about that....
humping is a positive thing!

I deserve some humping, I miss it.....




I suspect that's not exactly the idea you mean regarding Harry Reid.... :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #176
210. Very true....
He's nowhere close to being my favorite Dem in Congress. But he's better than Angle....most anyone is better than Angle.

I had no idea how hated he is in his home state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlancheSplanchnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #210
226. I didn't know that
about his home state.

I can only pay attention to so much; actually, I really need to cut down even more--I spend too much time here!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
78. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paper Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
81. Fantastic! Now I won't have to switch to another thread when
the name calling and in-fighting starts. Hopefully the discourse will be more civil. It is uncomfortable for many of us who want to participate when a discussion turns nasty.
Now, if we could clear up some of the language.....


Thanks to all for your hard work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
82. The first flamewar over the meaning of civility will be a sight to behold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #82
112. Won't it just?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #82
119. I resent that remark...
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
83. I'm far too embarrassed to have a star next to my name showing me as a
donor to a site that is graced with such headlines as:

Progressives Have To Realize Obama Is NOT On Our Side

Gay Rights Activists Accuse Obama Of Silent Homophobia

To Obama: "With all due respect, please take off your pink tutu..."

"We didn't need a Democratic President to go after Social Security. But we sure got one."

President Obama is not prepared to deal with the world as he finds it.

Obama Commission debt plan unites liberals & Tea Party in opposition

Obama says he "neglected" what was important: Not policies, but having a bi-partisan tone.

Obama's self analysis: Delusion or just some shit to say?


I'll just let my star fade in it's time. But if you've played it right, I guess we won't be seeing any "not gonna make our goal" posts this time around. :shrug:





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. I've been thinking the same thing...
I haven't posted in days... I hide more threads than I respond to... I just came out of a lurk mode to say so... going back in my cave now... every time I come back here in the hope of finding my lefty sanctuary of old, I am sorely disappointed.

Back to lurking... sigh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #83
91. Are you embarrassed we've come to such a place where people feel like that...
...or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #83
93. Thank you.
But please, don't forget "man up" and how his election was an "experiment." Because no educated black man who's lived in other countries and has work experience helping the poor could ever get elected President without the permission of the (presumably white) PTB.

And I'm particularly in love with the links to posts so vile and racist it would make David Duke blush, presumably because "we need to know what's out there" because otherwise, everyone here would think that the world was some great racial utopia??

But I have to say that I think my favorite are the complete dismissal and negation of posts from the few black posters who remain on DU who are aghast and bewildered at the abject LOATHING tossed at Obama (and make no mistake -- ONLY at Obama) from self-styled liberals who can't scream hard enough about how they just LOVE them some MLK and worship at the altar of Malcolm so there is no possible way that they could have some racially questionable tendencies. Yep, that's definitely my favorite.

My star would have been long gone if not for the donations of some wonderful people here who took it upon themselves to donate for me. It took them a while to see what I saw a long time ago so I don't think they'll make the same mistake again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #93
100. 'we need to know whats out there'
odd that racist Nazi crap can be posted here to apparently teach us something all us dumbfucks don't know about yet, but linking to certain other democratic/progressive sites (of which there is no list really, you just know it only when it gets deleted).

Strange times. There was a time tho where I was proud to say I read DU. Now, not so much. I would be so embarrassed to send anyone here to read some of the dreck and awful shit slung at Obama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #100
121. I cringe when DU is mentioned on the radio now too...
I used to cheer. I used to be proud. I used to fancy the idea I'd call in some day and start out by saying I was JuniperLea on DU... pft...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #100
123. I know I did the same
Told people about DU all the time. That was a long time ago. The place is much to dark for that now.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #83
156. I agree, the threads you listed are not what I expected on a site...
I thought was primarily for supporting the Democrats whether one was progressive, Liberal or a member of the Democratic Party. It is apparent I was very much mistaken.

It has become increasingly difficult to find threads that reflect anything positive about damn near anything unfortunately and given the new rules relaxing the kind of criticism that is within bounds, I don't foresee any change in that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #83
227. You make an excellent, very reasonable point.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
88. kick... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
89. Hmm, my favorite quote. Likely not Eleanor Roosevelt though.
It has also often been incorrectly attributed to Adm. Hyman Rickover and others. Often paraphrased, its true source remains unidentified.

Still, protecting politicians from being called rude names is simply the converse of "discussing people." It is a concession to the small minded that is still too stifling for me.

----
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #89
101. "The small minded". How nice.
So, does that mean people who call the president names are somehow "large minded"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #101
129. Well, calling people not-nice...
...is not all that nice either. But it was not I who introduced the mind-size quote.

---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #129
153. 
Got me. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
92. Is there any room for w/i these rules for parody, sarcasm or satire?
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 06:44 PM by Dr Fate
I had not seen this new thread when I PMed you today...

Sometimes it is easier to expose bad ideas by saracsticially agreeing with them, and re-stating bad arguments in a less convincing but more straightforward way. Sometimes the best way to expose spin is to repeat the talking point bluntly, minus the spin, showing what a talking point really says or means when you scratch the surface of it.

I like to poke holes in the DLC and the Blue Dog's positions by twisting around their talking points a little.

I could see how this might violate the "Disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion."

I can also see how exposing bad ideas through parody or satire can actually create throughful discussion when people argue against them. Maybe someone never thought a talking point was silly until they saw just how silly it can become when you take it to the next level...

Any wiggle room here?

Thanks...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dreamnightwind Donating Member (863 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. satire needs to be identifiable as such
Stephen Colbert, is that you?

I enjoy your posts. I've noticed, though, that some of your satire is not any more ridiculous than what you are satirizing, making it appear that you are on the other side of things. A fine line no doubt.

Carry on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. I never said anything that active DUers from the center have not.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 07:01 PM by Dr Fate
"some of your satire is not any more ridiculous than what you are satirizing, making it appear that you are on the other side of things. "

I agree. So what?

Some of the DLC's talking points are already parodies without even changing it up too much.

In other words, at points I sounded like a real live, honest to goodness DLCer, as seen on DU over the years?

I fail to see the problem with that, considering that they are still represented here at DU, as they should be. They do exist.

I'm sorry- but did I really need to put a sarcasm thingy next to the phrase "far Center"? I assumed people might have better BS detectors than than this.

I cannot "carry on"- My thread was locked and I'm waiting for clarification from admin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #92
98. Satire? Yes!
Beating a dead horse, again and again, over multiple days? No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. I have done nothing but disagree with the DLC, over multiple days, again & again for years.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 07:11 PM by Dr Fate
It was never an issue (as far as locked threads after only 4 posts) until I brought satire into the mix.

So I can oppose the DLC, but I must limit my attempts to expose them through satire?

To be clear, are you saying that I can never do this again, or can I bring the character back from time to time?

Lay down some clear laws for me here, Old Bossman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tigereye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #102
245. the endless castigation of the DLC got a bit old- they are Democrats after all
hmm, maybe that term "DINO" will go the way of the dino. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tigereye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #102
246. the endless castigation of the DLC got a bit old- they are Democrats after all
hmm, maybe that term "DINO" will go the way of the dino. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dreamnightwind Donating Member (863 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #98
149. So you disagree with his approach...
I have no problem with that. Does that mean it won't be allowed? That seems unreasonable. It's very different to disagree than to censor.

My only concern with his posts is that they might inadvertently advance the causes he is hoping to refute. No biggie, just something I thought he should pay attention to. Most of the time the satire is apparent.

Your dead horse remark puzzles me though.

A lot of us here feel that the Democrat party is being/has been stolen by people pushing right-wing and/or "centrist"/corporate policies. Is that the dead horse? I would think that this site would have an interest in this dynamic, which is one of the more substantive dynamics in politics today.

Maybe it does, I'm actually not sure. The dead horse remark, along with not allowing politicians pushing right-wing policies to be treated as such, leaves me wondering where you stand, not personally, but where you stand as far as what is allowed on this site.

I can't see any reason for the "what is allowed on this site" phrase to even be an issue for anyone interested in bringing progressive (sorry, not sure if this is the best word, please try to understand my intent) change to this nation.

I imagine that I'm an ally of yours, hopefully that is the case. Regardless, I think it should be permissible to attempt to advance progressive causes as we see fit.

Sorry for this, I know you're busy and don't need the hassles, I'm sincerely trying to work through this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #149
209. Of course I will honor the rules & Skinner's advice- but thanks for your post.
I agree with what you are saying.

We beat dead horses here everyday, on both "sides." As in the Liberal side, and yes, the "center" side. I've been beating the same dead horse for literally years on DU and it was never much of a problem until I used this tactic.

It is very effective way to deconstruct their talking points, and I have never recieved so many "Nice Job!" type PMs in the 8 or so years that I have been at DU.

To be fair, my guess is that admin is getting way too many alerts from not just Liberals with poor BS detectors, but from the very centrists that inspired my posts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dreamnightwind Donating Member (863 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #209
233. You're quite welcome
Sorry your thread got locked. Lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #92
177. You got me!
Bad Dr Fate! Bad! :spank:

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
96. Dear Skinner - is nothing allowed on DU any more ???
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 07:20 PM by Tx4obama
I just posted a video from Funny or Die that's also posted on the front page of Huffington Post,
a funny satirical video and it gets locked???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Pretty soon there won't be anything that can posted, and then there'll be no reason to come to DU.

Edited to add: Was the FULL video even watched before it got locked?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #96
117. That was funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
haifa lootin Donating Member (194 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #96
128. I just had a look and didn't see anything wrong with it.
shrug
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #96
130. that was Locked?

3. locking - extremely poor taste and divisive

given current events

--

which current events, the ones here on DU or the ones out there in the real world?
*scratching my head here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #96
167. did not seem worth locking - is there an appeal process to have locks 'unlocked'?

there will always be someone who's mindset will be affected by their personal history, but that video was both harmless, satire and funny.

if this is the new standard of what isn't allowed, may as well pull videos down altogether as nothing discussed on Bill Maher, SNL or Young Turks will be allowed

seriously now --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #96
174. It was middle of the road SNL type satire
I watched the whole video after putting on my 'be hypersensitive filter glasses'.

There isn't anything bad or insulting to Obama about that little video.

Things will get better for Obama's administration in the future, I believe. But nothing we post here on DU is likely to 'hurt the President' or his good faith efforts to do hs job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #174
188. I'd suggest the offense may have been felt by LGBT advocates
who may not appreciate the serious situation about bullying of gay teens being used as the basis for a political skit.

I could be wrong, but I think that's what "poor taste" was about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #188
202. I *am* one of the LGBT 'advocates' on DU
The skit was harmless, even cute. Just because the title was 'It Gets Better' doesn't mean the effort to help gay teens or victims of bullying was being exploited or ridiculed.

I hope efforts to help the DU board become more 'civil' won't result in dumbing down or a culture of hypersensitivity. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tigereye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #202
247. considering The Daily Show showed the same thing, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
108. I just trust you guys by now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
120. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
122. How do you tell someone "you're parroting right-wing talking points"
If you accuse them of doing it deliberately, that's clearly insulting.

But if you say, "You may not realize it, but those are standard right-wing arguments," you come across as condescending, which could also be considered an insult.

Is it acceptable to simply say, "Those are right-wing talking points" and go on to deconstruct them without even directly addressing the person who posted them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. Here...
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 07:42 PM by Ian David





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #122
191. You raise good points; I wonder about "casting a fellow DU member (or members) in a negative light"
I'd say "you may not realize it, but those are standard right-wing arguments" should be acceptable - condescension is a fairly difficult thing to judge over the internet, like sarcasm. Perhaps the mods would need a pattern of replies in a thread, or between the 2 posters, to decide it's really a veiled insult.

I'd agree 'parroting', especially saying it's deliberate, would probably be over the line. But I expect a lot of people (including me? I'm quite likely to accuse someone of 'repeating climate-change denier talking points' at some stage) will be pushing this aspect of the rules to the limit.

I'm sure "those are right-wing talking points" will be allowed under the new rules.

I find the idea of "casting DUers in a negative light" rather subjective. In the Environment/Energy forum, is calling someone a nuclear power advocate casting them in a negative light? Some would feel it is, while others would gladly take the label. If I say someone's suggestion is hopeless, impractical, ill-informed, and silly, am I casting them in a negative light?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElboRuum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
131. I hereby motion that threads chock full of disruptions be heretofore known as...
Turd Punch...

Any seconds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #131
144. LOL - I'll second that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
133. Nicknames?
You've got to be kidding me. There are quite a few "Democrats" (like Lieberman and Bill Nelson) who deserve every disrespectful nickname you can throw at them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
134. Will this stop the inevitable "Who would unrec this thread?!" posts?
Those derailing posts seem to be exactly the kind of post one would remove from the punch bowl under the new approach.

If this means comments about unrec will be culled from threads, that's a great plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. K&R should probably go as well if that's the case...
I think there should be no meta discussions EXCEPT in threads like this.

The pissing and moaning about "who would unrec" is on my last raw nerve. At least a few honest souls are saying they unrec'd, and why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. Leaving a reason, not leaving a reason - neither works on those who oppose unrec.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 08:30 PM by TexasObserver
I've tried it every possible way, and no matter how one uses the function, those who don't like it will litter thread after thread with their "who's unreccing this?" posts, often in the first few minutes of the thread.

If mods are going to simply delete those "who is unreccing this thread" posts as disruptive (along with everything attached to their subthread), that's a big step in the right direction, IMO.

I don't start conversations about unrec; I enter them when they're already going. I'd love to see the topic entirely forbidden and the rule rigidly enforced.

I recommend 10-20 times as many as I unrec, but no one cares about those. No one needs an explanation for those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. I think the whole damn thing needs to go...
Too much like the troll hunting parties on DKos... which is why I don't post there anymore either. Can someone please tell me where the deep end of the pool is? You know, where the adults piss?

I still think it's nicer to see why a person would unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #139
231. "Unrec for whining about unrec" is the only reason I do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-10 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #231
244. Now, you've done it!
After reading your sig, I'll spend the next hour listeing to Depeche Mode.

Intro to "Personal Jesus" coming right up!


Re: Unrec

I'm hopeful the new approach to civility and derailments will make the frequent threadjackings for such discussions a thing of the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
140. Ill do my best to comply. I am not aware that I haven't complied, but if I am ever out of bounds,
please correct me.  

Thanks, earcandle 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WingDinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
141. Can I be the first to say, I Love You Man!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Suji to Seoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
143. I've noticed numerous ad hominem and non-sequitir attacks on things I've posted
as well as other people's OPs.

I hope this will be enforced equally, as I have had posts locked before due to people devolving them into smears, even if they are harsh criticisms.

I hope these new rules are not uses by mods as on simple whim and they target for deletion and locking objectively.

Other than that, thanks for everything, Skinner, EarlG and Elad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulkienitz Donating Member (313 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
145. excellent
"This re-write also represents something of a trade-off: You are going to see more active moderation of civility (personal attacks and deliberate disruption), paired with less active moderation of content (especially posts that criticize or defend Democrats)."

This is exactly the right direction to go, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mimi85 Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #145
225. finally
I've been a member/lurker for quite awhile, but have felt too intimidated to post. Hopefully that will change now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
146. Sounds Good To Me, But... I'd Love To Hear Your Thoughts On The Civility Of The Un-Rec Feature
I believe, that for many, it has morphed from a value judgment about what was worthy to get to the greatest page, to these days, voting against a member one does not like.

Just saying... of all the elements of incivility here, that's a good one.

How about getting rid of the unrec, and at the same time making a threshold of 10 recs to get a post on the GP?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
148. Same old same old
Same old astroturfers and trolls will continue to pollute the forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hay rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
150. Civility is overrated.
The internet is a playground for juveniles- of all ages. The relative anonymity of internet posting seems to bring out uncivil or experimental behavior in people who would presumably be more respectful and conventional in face to face encounters. I'm OK with that. I can cheerfully ignore insults and derogatory remarks. It is a small price to pay for the upside, which is the opportunity to have discussions on subjects of mutual interest with other people, like-minded or not.

I'm of the persuasion that people should be encouraged to develop a thicker skin when participating in discussion forums as opposed to demanding more intrusive moderating...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. Fuck yeah....
...I will now post my rants more often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
151. Thanks for the update Skinner. I will try to hold down the unneeded snark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
155. So, more leeway for haters to hate, and more penalty for those that point out they're hating
Good work, man, you'll have this whole place looking like the I/P forum in no time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blackspade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
157. Good changes.
I agree that they strike a decent balance both in spirit and letter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TalkingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
158. Happier Now. n.t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
159. Thanks for the update, David. How come "Inflammatory/Flame-Bait" isn't a tick box in alerts now?
It was there before but has been removed during the update.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. Because it was way too subjective.
But if you think something is flame bait, you can always select "Other" and make your case to the mods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #161
162. I understand you're trying to make the rules more objective, but isn't this inherently subjective?
"Disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion."

How about adding "or" to it so it could be applied to OPs as well as replies? I'm asking because troll OPs are obvious and there doesn't seem to be an alert for them anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #162
166. Additionally, "Inflammatory or Flame-Bait Discussion Topics" is still in the Discussion Forum rules
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 12:25 AM by Turborama
Inflammatory or Flame-Bait Discussion Topics

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread.


Now this has been taken out of the alerts does it mean it's solely up to mods and admins' own subjectivity of what "flame bait" consists of? Surely having the alert function for it means that an additional consensus from members would help you guys come to that decision?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #162
168. I like that phrase - good suggestion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #168
169. Thanks. I guess what I'm saying is that if we are going to alert on "turds in the punchbowl"...
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 12:46 AM by Turborama
Along with replies within, OPs themselves can sometimes be judged as such. IOW It doesn't matter which "punchbowl" they are dumped into, obvious "turds" are obvious. I guess OPs that fit this description could be described as "floaters". lol

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #161
190. Are the check boxes useful/helpful to the mods?
If not, then I don't think they're necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #190
195. They are somewhat helpful to the mods.
The other purpose of the checkboxes is to educate members about the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #195
212. I know that they were intended to be educational
My feeling is people generally understand what's allowed and what's not. We all make mistakes, but most of the time we get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
160. Excellent Job! You admins rock! I feel like DU is headed back to a good place.
Thanks for the thoughtful use of the survey.
I believe ditching the unrec feature is a great idea. When voting news threads have to work so hard to just get 5 votes, you know the wrong folks are getting veto power.
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
163. It sounds like this will make DU even less Democratic.
In the survey, I responded that I thought we should include those to the left of the Democratic party and that criticism of Obama should be allowed. I also wrote in a comment that people who are obviously here with an agenda to do nothing other than campaign against Obama should be banned. It's those few who create an environment where it's extremely difficult for the rest of us to discuss fair criticisms of Obama. I'm concerned that this change constitutes an open door policy that will make DU overwhelmingly hostile to anyone who's supportive of Obama and the Democratic Party. I hope that doesn't turn out to be the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #163
223. "I also wrote in a comment that people who are obviously here with an agenda to do nothing
other than campaign against Obama should be banned. It's those few who create an environment where it's extremely difficult for the rest of us to discuss fair criticisms of Obama. I'm concerned that this change constitutes an open door policy that will make DU overwhelmingly hostile to anyone who's supportive of Obama and the Democratic Party. I hope that doesn't turn out to be the case."

I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
164. A question for you Skinner.
Is it possible the September 11th forum could have it's name changed to the Conspiracy Theory forum?
If one visits the forum one sees threads on everything from aliens to JFK to The Moon Landing to CIA
psy ops. To equate September 11th with these things already implies it's a conspiracy theory thereby
tainting the debate. It would be nice if all things September 11th had their own forum while the same went
for all things conspiracy theory. The waters in the dungeon are incredibly muddy and I think that is
discouraging to people who want to engage in intelligent debate there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
170. Why not just let Elad deal with the problems?
If anyone gets out of line, he can get their address from the member database, go to their house and kick their ass. I know I'd think twice about breaking the rules!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
175. Kick nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
180. Thank you, socialist Muslim jackasses!
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 02:57 AM by UrbScotty
:evilgrin:

Hey, sometimes you couldn't resist! :D

By the way, as the Fund Drive progresses, and we get closer to our goal, does Boehner get more and more orange? Does he turn red? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zenprole Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
182. Bigger question marks
As with the June 21 rules, this new iteration won't prevent what the DU community dislikes most: pointed criticism of the Democratic Party for cause. This new attempt at rules is another version of trying to define pornography, something tackled by many learned people without luck, when it can be reduced to an animated teen headbanger's quip "I like stuff that's cool. I don't like stuff that sucks."

Maybe DU should stick with the core democratic principle of 'let the views contend.'

The danger, of course, is that this could give rise to demands for change in the Party and policy; curbing this, I believe, is what DU's "new and difficult challenge" is actually about - How does one keep people on board and interested when rational expectation is routinely crushed? How do you re-define well-informed critical thinking as mere trolling? Can we ensure that all expression is civil in a time when brutal Gilded Age inequality is the norm? There are times when incivility isn't sinking to a new low, but rising to the occasion. DU is a small subset of this larger reality.

There are still worthwhile voices on DU and, censorship or not, this is enough to stay tuned for a while. But make no mistake: trying to corral dissent is a futile exercise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
183. Bashing the president was brought to a new height when bush was in office.
Tearing down the office of the presidency became acceptable, as did personal attacks towards anyone (adm. member or not) who gets in the way of the agenda. What we have today is the outcome of those actions. It's now promoted as 'constructive criticism', but there is nothing constructive about destroying the Democratic Party through rumor and innuendo. That is what we see today, pundits outguessing every move, the more negative the better. What have we become?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
184. Rules? If we had evolved from cats instead of social monkeys, THERE WOULD BE NO RULES!
No catperson would acknowledge the authority of any other cat person to make him stop at a red light. Of course, cat people would insist on sports cars so agile and would drive them with such grace that traffic accidents would hardly ever happen. At leat not by accident. Road rage would be epidemic, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #184
234. would the roads really be that crowded, though? Cat people would probably nap 18 hours a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
185. As long as it's enforced consistently the new civility rules are a change for the better...
If it is going to be applied consistently, I'll be glad to see the end of other DUers being told to go post on freeper forums as that's more their style, or comparing them to various American conservatives, or calling them dishonest and obsessed, because there's been far too much of that in the I/P forum for a fair while now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
186. No one will likely read this post considering it is so far down but
I like your new rules. It was as if you were reading my mind.

I like discussion and arguments and I would probably even visit RepubliCON sites but they all are nasty, insulting, rude and tend to gang up on anyone who has a dissenting idea no matter how politely that idea is presented.

I think that is why I tend to like DU. Despite what others may think, DU really does not have as much hate filled insulting as those RepubliCON sites do.

I agree with these new rules and think you have done an outstanding job of articulating rules for the very best discussion environment.

PS, when my spouse is employed once again, I promise I will make a donation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nmvisitor Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #186
194. Just because you are so far down
you think no one will read it? Probably true most of the time, but I start at the bottom on the really long threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
192. Excellent!
So often I've read a post here on DU that is so well written and well thought-out that my jaw has literally dropped. I've never been so affected by contributors on other sites and I've been around since the BBS days. We have some GREAT writers and thinkers on DU and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all strive for that standard? Good goddess the thoughtful, enriching discussions we could have here would be phenomenal. The Admins and I have had our differences over the years and I've voiced those opinions. In that vein I say kudos to the Admins. for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
193. Remember, folks, CHOOSE CIVILITY...


or is it this...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evasporque Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
198. I really like the "attack the messenger" rule....
So much of right wing strategy is to deflect discussion and focus away from the topic and force the debate into a new area...they also echo RW talking points...needlessly.

The Pro-Trolls are not going to like these new rules...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mstinamotorcity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
199. Hey Skinner
I'll play nice if they play nice!!!! And if something is said that I find objectionable you don't have to worry about moderators locking the thread because after some of us get through with them it will be on lock anyway. Sometimes an op and its thread need a lock down,but their are times when it is apparently clear that infiltrators are on board. And sometimes I feel that the discussion should keep going for the progressive truth to come out. And there are some who tried to bring civility to the table but were met with right wing blah blah.Though subtle as they may seem I know they are there. I see good Ops that hit on valid points that need notice and watch how fast they are buried.That is not a Democratic move. Any doubt about the Democratic Agenda,is not of a Democrat. Basically most Dems even though they may disagree on the approach,most want the same things. When I see discourse where there shouldn't be any, I know that is an infiltration technique. And if we are truly the Progressives then we should be looking for different ways to stand out in our difference so that we look and are an alternative choice to what Republicans offer!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
203. So do we know yet? Did Elad pass his test?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
204. Okay... I've Been Reading ALL These Replies & Still Need Some Clarity!
I have made no bones about the fact that I'm a Liberal, and to the left of Obama, but rarely do I ATTACK the ARDENT Obama supporters. I haven't put ONE person on "ignore" I just choose not to get into personal fighting back and forth since I feel I won't be able to change any minds. However I HAVE replied from time to time with disagreement.

My Question Is This... I know that I'm going to be extremely upset if Obama lets the tax cuts for the rich to remain in place for a couple of years because I don't TRUST the fact that it will be revisited. Given that I can not support this action, should it happen, do the NEW RULES ban me from stating how I find this action objectionable and something I, as a Democrat don't agree with?

Also, I'm sure there will be other issues that I won't be supportive of given what I've seen happening these past two years of his Administration and of a Democratic Congress. Will our views be accepted or shall we look to other places to blog that we find will be more to our liking?

It's important to me to know that if I happen to disagree that my disagreement is valid, at least to me, even though it may go against what a Democratic POTUS or Congress allows to happen. I know there are many here who feel as I do, but I'd rather NOT post here if my thoughts aren't going to be accepted. I've been a member here since 2004 and used to post a lot more, but of late not so much because I feel an attack may be coming. It just isn't comfortable and I always wonder if a TS'ing may be imminent. Then, of course I would have no reason to be here.

I haven't made up my mind as to whether to donate again because of what's been happening, but at the same time, there are Forums here that have been helpful to me when I needed advice on issues.

Ran a bit long with this, but this is essential for me to know NOW before I make certain decisions.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #204
208. This really isn't that complicated.
Let's take your example. Say Congress and the President extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. You want to criticize that action. Here is the rule:

Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats.

Democratic Underground welcomes a wide range of people from the left half of the political spectrum, and our members are welcome to post messages either criticizing or defending Democrats. We permit any substantive criticism of President Obama and Democrats -- even harsh criticism that may not seem constructive -- provided it comes from a liberal perspective. However, we do not permit the following: Referring to Democrats using disrespectful nicknames (eg: Calling President Obama "Barry"); Crude insults against Democrats (eg: "Fuck Harry Reid"); Insults, attacks, or baseless partisan smears against Democrats that one is likely to find on right-wing blogs or talk radio (eg: Secret Muslim, No birth certificate).


So, let's do the checklist.

Does your criticism involve calling the President or Democrats disrespectful nicknames?
Does your criticism involve crude insults against the President or Democrats?
Does your criticism involve right-wing smears of the President or Democrats?

If the answer to all of these questions is "no" then your post is permitted.

So, what do you think? Would your criticism be permitted?

(By the way: DON'T DONATE. I am not answering your question for the money.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #208
217. Okay... Thanks For The Clarification. I Understand The Premise Better Now... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
207. "help promote thoughtful discussion by staying on-topic"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If I could get anyone to stay on topic at work that would be greatness...and I'm just talking about conference calls. Good luck with asynchronous communication over the Intertubes :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
211. Good job
Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
213. The third paragraph is a capsule summary of the Republican MO.
Violators should have their avatar temporarily changed to an elephant -- sort of a DUnce cap for all to see. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
214. The biggest problem I see
"It is the responsibility of every DU member to help promote thoughtful discussion by staying on-topic and exercising the appropriate level of self-control. This is especially important when interacting with other DU members who are making a good-faith effort to have a thoughtful and respectful discussion. The moderators are empowered to remove any post that serves to disrupt, derail, or hijack an otherwise thoughtful discussion, if they believe doing so will help keep the thread open and on-topic so other DUers can participate in good faith. Note: The purpose of this rule is to remove the proverbial "turd in the punchbowl" -- but please be aware that the moderators are not required to pick turds out of a punchbowl filled with turds."

"On topic" is going to be the problem. We have alot of "shout out" threads, or "send the love" thread. So someone requesting K&R for Obama's health care bill could receive a bunch of posts from people that aren't all that crazy about HCR. Is that "disruptive"? Because it sure wouldn't be in keeping with the intent of the thread. Someone who wants to talk about "spreading the word on all the good things in the HCR package" might not like it if people choose to mention all the bad things in it. Worse yet is the extensive use of "strawmen" in various posts to make points. Arguing the premise of a post could come across as being disruptive because you aren't arguing their points, but their premise, which many would find very disruptive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
215. excellent!
Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
216. K&R (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
218. K&R Thanks for all that you do. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wash. state Desk Jet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
220. It;s all good Skinner !
Anybody seen the Bot !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
221. Who the hell would unrec this thread?
According to the Top Tens page this thread has gotten 190 recs but the opening post only shows that there are 180. WTF?

j/k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
224. Are members still required to be generally supportive of democrats?
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 02:26 PM by mzmolly
Or, are insults like "Obama is a corporate shill" considered more palatable than referring to the President as "Barry"? It sounds like we just invited people to advocate against Democrats here, using Green Party lingo? I hope

I've misunderstood. It wouldn't be the first time. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
232. Will posting an image in a sly attempt
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 10:13 PM by Norrin Radd
to be indirectly insulting to a fellow DUer be considered incivility? It bugs me that people think doing that is acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
235. Are posts attributing ugly stances to other DUers covered by this?
Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 11:43 PM by Violet_Crumble
There's a constant stream of posts from one DUer who replies to other DUers telling them what their beliefs supposedly are. Those 'beliefs' are usually ugly ones held by extremists and conservatives, and back when it was done to me, explaining what I actually believed was met with a demand to come clean and to be honest about my beliefs. There's no reasoning with someone who's behaving that way, and I would have thought that repeatedly attributing views to other DUers that they don't hold must be seen by the mods as disruptive at some point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
249. Quick question...
under the old set of rules I alerted on a few posts as "over the top" (can't remember the exact phrasing of the checkbox). I thought this was a very useful category for posts that put words in the other person's mouth like "Next you'll be saying..." or "you probably think... too".

If I see a post something like "Guess you're a Palin supporter then" or "Clearly you don't care about the poor" should this be alerted on and if so what category does it come under? Disruptive? Personal attack?
Is attributing motives against the rules? Maybe this could be laid out more explicitly?

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 24th 2017, 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC