An important announcement about the DU rules, and how we enforce them. [View All]

Earlier this year I posted a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151">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 http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/2010results.html">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.


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.


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.


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 http://www.democraticunderground.com/donate.html">click here to help. Thanks.