DU Admins know how you're voting in polls

As part of their oversight. :shrug:

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted to learn that members have been banned for simply clicking on a particular choice in a poll thread.

There is something very, very wrong about this. If the invited responses to the poll were ban-worthy, then it seems to me that the poll itself ought to have been turfed, never mind the responses to it.

Something is very wrong with this scenario.

if they read the board they would know I am sure... I'm Edwards

Hell, now I am afraid to write exactly what I think about that.

Those people really were TS'ed.

And the admins do work hard keeping this site up and going for us all.

Our DU administrators are great and I trust them implicitly. Honest, I do. I could hear the whispering from here.

you voted.

I take it the same logic can be applied to anything since your every
communication is monitored by SOMEONE.

Obviously people living in such privacy free circumstances will adopt a
prideful, self-censoring, small-town mentality and make SURE they do not
utter anything they might be ashamed of later.

since you can't vote twice. Why would you think that admins would have system data unavailable to them?

Actually, the system *COULD* have been designed to remember
that you voted but not to remember which choice you made
(just as in real elections with secret ballots).

But it deliberately wasn't designed like that. Remember that.

Tesha

Or who states (in an "anonymous" poll) that they will
never vote for Obama?

Tesha

Even in forums where speech is free within limits, the fairness doctrine applies.

You can't selectively spy on people because you didn't like their answer to a poll question. You can, but you shouldn't.

When I posted a poll on whether poor people should be kicked out of public housing, at least a third of all respondents essentially said yes.

Nobody kicked them off DU for declaring the desperately poor to be
dogshit. Actions hurt greater than words. They were calling the poor dogshit.

Other posters endorsed national ID tracking, another issue that it's
acceptable to support on DU without being banned.

(for some reason. could it be that the site owners don't have a strong
political opposition to electronic tracking?)

and even said folks with out ID shouldn't have the right to vote.

Those posters were calling "those people" (be they old, or religious, or
working class, or Not Like Me) dogshit, in effect. They weren't banned,
nor should they be. The very idea is ridiculous. But NOT for the
reason you think (i.e. that only people who post acceptable discourse
have an expectation of privacy and other retained privileges as forum
users or as active citizens, and trashing poor and religious and other
qualifiers is still acceptable to a large degree.)

Their support for Republican policies was of course shared by recent Dem politicians so made it within the realm of acceptable discourse. The result? They weren't spied upon. But the silencing effect comes into play when someone is LIABLE to be spied upon, not actually IS or SHOULD be reported, for heaven's sake.

Of course the ToS rightly banns racist and discriminatory discourse.

But this gets unevenly applied. Shouldn't the majority of DUers who
post in polls actually trashing christians, or voting that welfare moms
don't deserve housing, get banned? The answer is they shouldn't, even
if their comments warrant a deleted message when posted in the responses
section.

"Well of course your answer will be kept confidential...
but rest assured WE will still know what you said."

Who's fighting to preserve civil liberties here?

Can folks with this sort of policy -- even if the
circumstances warrant it -- take such a dangerous step
and still claim to oppose wiretapping or national ID
tracking cards for voting and transportation, two
other resources that are being privatized?

demographic. DUers want to know who the others are - male or female, age range, occupation, even income range.

But if they know who is voting what then I, for one, will no longer participate in such polls.

And I will be more careful about other polls.

I think that for them to know who, for example, vote for Ron Paul or for Nader, is a violation of privacy (we know that there are many DUers who support these two and even sent them money)

But, hey, that's only me.

Wonder whether I will be banned now.

That is the question you need to ask yourself when endorsing a policy such as this one.

How can you even HAVE a cut off when the point is either or?

Either poll respondents have privacy or they do not.

"We know what you are thinking, so don't vote for offensive poll responses!"

That seems to be the message here.

It isn't like they couldn't plead their case to the Admins if they really gave a shit, (which obviously they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be posting or voting the way they did in the first place)...

Anyway, I agree with the decision.

That's why they're "Admins"/"Mods"

If they didn't it would be really f***ed up...

If the poll is offensive, the burden for it lies solely on the poll's creator, not on someone who happens to see it and clicks on it.

n/t

Why do they need to know who's voting in the polls? Why can't it be changed into a hex code that's unreadable? Why does it even have to register.

I don't know what those 4 are thinking, but we've all voted in these polls with BS responses, especially is the poll is particularly dumb. I don't know if any of the departed were kidding or not, but I think it changes things knowing that the admins know how you vote. Also, do the mods know how you vote?

> Also, do the mods know how you vote?

I don't know -- ask Skinner below. But even if they
don't have direct access, that information could be
conveyed from the admins to the moderators, no? So
one must now *ASSUME* the answer is "yes".

Tesha

So long Charlie...

So "Charlie" would have to make a wrong vote, get the confirmation screen, and then confirm the wrong vote.


Not likely.

, ie click on the most BS answer esp when the polls are irritating.

and not allowing stupidity to prevail.

As someone noted, all those folks who have "nothing to hide" and always click the "correct" poll response (even when a significant portion of posters DO believe i.e. religious people or public housing residents are deserving of scorn and approbation) should not mind if they are, by the same token, called out. Of course, it's against DU rules to call out a fellow poster. This applies to all equally.

... then by all means, let's have more of it.

A bunch of asshats got TS'ed for voting in a Did the Holocaust happen poll.

:wtf:

Because honesty was such a big part of the internet prior to this discovery...?

HONESTLY!!!!

:rofl:

What... :shrug: ... you don't believe me???

It's good that they have positive control over the forum--after all, it belongs to them. We're just guests in their home, trying to keep our muddy boots off the carpet.

Hell, what if a bunch of assholes from That Ugly Place come over here, create a bunch of accounts and sock puppets, and then use that PM feature to fuck with the board in a big way?

The ADMINS need to be able to see that shit and nip it in the bud.

I don't write anything in a PM that I would be ashamed of, not that I write many of them. I am not a big user of the feature. A 'private message'--to my mind--is private between you, the person you send it to, and the owners of this board. This IS their yard, we're just playing on their swingset.

Where the rules for liberal discourse, and not this paranoia driven "it's
private property" still apply?

Starbucks and the mall doesn't count.

Neither does the privatized town square with piped-in muzak
and posted rules of conduct more suited to a moving vehicle.

The library? The university? Even there, this excuse is used by you guys.

So much for liberal discourse in the original meaning of the word liberalism.

Asshats is a word I reserve for people who pretend to be liberal while tolerating illiberal restrictions on the speech and thought of others out of undeserved paranoia (yes, I am so afraid that people from a site you are so scrupulously afraid to name -- there, I did it too, celf-censored -- will somehow abuse each other in private messages, free from the watchful eyes of anone who might alert on them... oh, the horror.)

address, rather than use a PRIVATELY OWNED forum to gossip and foment.

And what is this poorly thought out, whining "You Guys" shit? I got news for you, pal--this forum IS like STARBUCKS. It's owned by people. It isn't "the park" or "the playground." Someone has to spend money to keep this joint running. You PAY to get full features here. You suffer ads if you don't.

So you can take your blatant "asshat" insult and turn it right around on your own ignorant self. You have made substantial errors of fact in your post and you've been personally insulting. You plainly DON'T understand that this forum IS "Starbucks" and it IS "the mall"--what, you think the Magic DU elves made it just for YOU? For free? It's like wild daisies, or something?

Grow up.

:eyes: :rofl:

:wow:

:rofl:

I vote and almost always post an explanation of it in the thread.

yes was a racist fucking asshole, and then he voted yes.

very weird. sometimes i just don't understand people.

on edit: i found it hard to believe that thread and poll were there to begin with. it was horribly offensive.

I'm dead serious.

DU polls don't use single-click voting. You click on the choice, and then you get a screen telling you what you picked, and asking if you want to confirm your choice. Only if you confirm your choice is it submitted to the tally.

Goodness gracious. I have voted in my last poll as of right now. I just thought they were for fun. But if our votes are not private, you can count me out.

I am glad these people got TSed.

"Yes, black Christians are dogshit," you do not belong on DU.

What you say about that specific poll is very true. But, some of them could be subjective. I have seen many of them that were just plain silly. What if you were just goofing around or something? Maybe all polls should contain a disclaimer that your vote can be seen by the mods and you may be subject to being eliminated from DU if you answer a poll that they find distasteful. I think all posters should know that their votes in polls are not private. Now that I know, I will never click on a poll again here at DU. I thought that they were just for fun. But they are not. People should know that in my opinion.

Someone else here at DU likened black evangelical Democratic voters to "dogshit in the clam chowder". And so I asked people whether they agreed with him.


I did that because I was frustrated with the people who were posting this garbage, and I wanted to drag the viciousness out into the open where everyone could see it and reject it.

Apparently DUers only get banned for saying they agree with him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2734227

Note that I heartily disagree and find the "dogshit" statement
disgusting -- but I do not believe anyone should get banned for
posting in response to it. Not if they're agreeing with the OP
who didn't get banned.

I don't even believe the thread should be locked -- unless the person
is overtly racist. That is not how LIBERAL discourse works.

As for why that thread is still open... well, I don't make the decisions.

I don't even believe the thread should be locked -- unless the person
is overtly racist. That is not how LIBERAL discourse works.

Then LIBERAL discourse fails defamed minorities by treating the slanderers the same as their targets. One law for the lion & ox is oppression.


(Blake)

was not banned, indeed their post is still open because (or despite) they
are hiding behind another persecuted minority to level "dogshit" charges.

seems to mee these polls and posts get left open as honeypots to lure the
unwary troll. Hardly an open society we have when paranoid forum posters
cheer on this sort of thing without a second thought as to what it implies.

Anyone looking couldn't tell where the hell I'm at.

This is clearly evidenced by one of the dead posters

Edit to add. That 2 faced poster was Beelzebud

come out. In fact probably more than one with a little different wording.

I know they don't owe it to us, but still.

When most people vote in a poll they tell their choice anyway.

in a long time. I don't even know what to say anymore. I'm tired of hearing... if you support Barack your black, christian, repub who is trying to take over the dem party, anti abortion, anti gay, racist against whites, stupid, too young, like his speeches only etc

Oh if this continues to build then I no longer want to be apart of this party. The Democrats are starting to make me sick!!! I wish to hell all of our candidates bomb. All this fighting is truly nasty and is starting to make me not want to be a democrat.

want to be a part of the party, you either need to grow a thicker skin or start party-hunting.

It's JUST the internet. There are idiots and assholes on the internet, TOO. And you can't tell by someone's membership here if they are ACTUALLY a Democrat, or a rightwinger yanking your chain.

Did I ever tell you I was a fantastically wealthy billionaire with three private islands and two Lear jets? What, you don't believe me???

People CAN lie on the internet all the time, about anything and everything. Take what you read with a massive grain of salt.

If Democrats here, at this site, are truly making you no longer wanting to be part of this party, then suffice to say you were probably never a Democrat to begin with.

although i don't look because for one i don't care and for 2 i've been really lax about the place.

Whatever...the...mods...do...is...always...right. If..I...answer...incorrectly...I...should...be...punished.

We have never made a secret of the fact that we can see how you vote in polls. In fact, I admitted it just a couple days ago, in a thread eerily similar to the "dogshit" thread, albeit not nearly as over-the-top. For the record, the "dogshit" poll is only the second time we have ever banned people for voting a particular way in poll. The first time was a few months back -- I can't remember the exact wording, but the basic idea was that the Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by Jews.

This is really quite simple.

I would prefer not to be the administrator of a website where 40% of poll respondents are perfectly comfortable expressing their agreement -- for whatever reason -- with the idea that "black Christians are dogshit." I would also prefer not to be the administrator of a website where a bunch of people are perfectly comfortable expressing their agreement -- for whatever reason -- with the idea that the Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by Jews.

I also believe that the vast majority of people here would prefer that they not be associated with a website where a significant proportion of our membership expresses agreement with the idea that "black Christians are dogshit" or that the Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by Jews.

Oh, and then there's the fact that we have many fellow DUers -- black Christians and Jews -- who probably don't appreciate knowing that a significant proportion of DU members are willing to vote for the racist or anti-semitic option on polls.

As I said, we would prefer that our site not be known as a place where its okay to say that "black Christians are dogshit" or that the Holocaust is a fraud perpetrated by Jews. If members think it's productive or funny to make it look like we tolerate that kind of thing, then they should be prepared to take the consequences.

This is all probably going to be moot anyway. Because in a few months when we unveil our complete overhaul of the site, how you vote on polls is probably going to be made public so everyone can see it.

future overhauling of our site. Thanks, for the site, Skinner, Elad,& EarlG. And the mods who during this primary season totally have their work cut out for them.

I prefer a Website that doesn't allow racist or anti-semitic posts or polls (or sexist polls/posts)

Like you said, maybe it's moot, but it means the mods have to have much higher integrity than I ever thought.

Although there have been a few very rare occasions when I shared that information with them. Like when a suspected troll votes for the obvious troll option.

For the record, our moderators have tremendous integrity. Few people appreciate how difficult their job is, and they do it extremely well.

But please don't forget that there have been times where people a) Vote for a choice because they think it's a joke b)vote for an ugly choice to protest the poll and marr the results and c) have reading comprehension issues and vote for the wrong damn choice accidentally (not that I have ever done that). :blush:

Since it's only happened twice, it reinforces the fact that the mods are pretty aware of these issues and fair about the whole thing. However,if any of the posters who were banned try to contact you, I hope you deal with them fairly.

I guess some people may need to think of a better way to protest polls they don't like. Something that doesn't involve expressing approval of bigotry toward African-Americans, Jews, or any other groups of people. And doesn't make this website look like Stormfront.

but would you have the same policy if the poll was- "White Christians are dogshit" ?

White Christians don't really have a history of being victims of discrimination or racism in our society.

If people are smart they won't test the boundaries to find out what we would do. Obviously, calling any group of people "dogshit" based solely on their skin color or religion or other irrelevant characteristic is despicable.

Used to love wrestling, WWF or sorry WWE

especially the tag team matches,

they use to make me laugh,

can't remember my favorite now....oh

yes 'bushwackers'


hmmm...hmmm




B-)

As a Christian (no qualifier needed but I'm "lefty") AND as an opponent
of the "dogshit" racism directed against black christians who does not
support unfairness of this sort especially when used to justify a policy
that is not "moot".

As someone who works in urban development issues AND has had to manage
a community forum as a physical space and overcome the bigoted demands
of people on all side of the spectrum to exclude others they deemed
sufficiently insensitive or disruptive, I know it is spreading to every
corner of the formerly public realm in the formerly liberal culture.

Of course, I have no freedom to complain -- in fact, I had several threads
locked for PROTESTING the bashing of Christians on this website. QED.

You tell the man!;-)

I'm sorry, but this really disturbs me. I'm not sure how I feel about DU if this is the way things are handled.

Do I agree with zero tolerance on certain extremists views? Yes I do. Blunt racism and bigotry have no place. Having said that, the idea that you are accurately banning people for clicking a poll option is ridiculous. There are SO many possibilities ASIDE from the person being a racist or a bigot that its not even funny.

I can almost guarantee you that when you've decided in your huff to mass ban people for choosing a poll option we all dislike you've ended up banning way more people who were just fucking around, or angry about the stupidity of the poll and voting to show how stupid it was, who are dumb like me and have clicked the wrong poll option more than once, or just generally didn't give a crap and had no idea that it mattered.

Should they have fund a better way to protest a dumb poll, should they have though about how the appearance mattered, should they have been more careful when clicking, or any of the other things that could have happened? YES. Should any of those things be bannable offense? Holy hell, no.

I bit further down I posted that "this explains a lot" and explained that I have three friends who introduced me to DU and were all posters here long before I even started reading. If you look at that post, you'll see the story of my buddy who got banned.... it sounds like getting caught up in your whole holocaust thing you mentioned.

I'd just like to point out that this guy is one of the most diligent activists in my town. He's the reason why I went back to graduate school and left my career as a project manager in a fortune 100 company. He was a campaign manager in the 2006 election season, former ACLU employee and he's been active in the gay community as an activist in a place where that can get you killed.

That's who you banned.

All because he made a stupid vote in a stupid poll FOR WHATEVER REASON and believed that we need to be careful when we start only tolerating the speech we agree with and calling that free. (Of course I know this site is not the public square, and you're free to place limits on speech as you see fit.)

I'm just asking that you think about that.... and consider that maybe there is a better way to ensure you're not throwing more good people out of DU then you are getting rid of bad people. We need every single soul we can get right now.

Name a public square that exists on the internet or in real life
which obeys the rules set down that we are supposedly fighting for?

There are a collection of private websites and private shopping centers
and the CONSUMER is expected to choose which one he or she feels WELCOME in.

The non-rule-governed spaces are trashed and avoided by the supposedly
upstanding responsible citizenry.

If I chose to share some personal, embarrassing information in a "private message" , well... I just want to know if others are reading it.

...then your private message is private. But if the recipient clicks "Alert" we are emailed the content of the message.

ON EDIT: By "we" I am referring to the three admins. Moderators do not receive alerts from private messages.

...read peoples' messages it would be possible to do so. I'm not saying not to trust DU, I'm saying if you have something to say that requires trust that you should probably not trust the DU messaging system.

they can access everything if they wish. Having been a moderator on another site, yes, I could access the PMs, I just never found a valid reason to do so.
Of course, different BBS programs might differ.

> as I understand it, if anyone has access to the actual physical server
> they can access everything if they wish.

While this is generally true (the server must store those PMs
somewhere), this isn't true of votes in polls.

As I described above, poll voting *COULD* have been designed to
just add your vote to a tally and remember the fact that you
voted at all, but it wasn't. Instead, it was designed to store
the actual vote that you cast.

Tesha

Of Course They Can See/Read it.

Doubtful They Care What You're PM-ing or Have the Resources to Hunt Through Everyone's PM's.

Do You Really Think That Your Gmail is Safe From Google?

Why would someone give up conventional e-mail with expectations
of privacy rooted in the postal service for an ad-based service?
Bad example to be comparing things to.

not just Gmail. This applies to email environments, including MSN/Hotmail, Yahoo!, AT&T, Verizon, etc., and even your email at work. Unless you have your own domain name, and email server in your home, you cannot expect any level of privacy of your email's content (even with this configuration, in/outbound port 25 traffic could easily be archived at the ISP). RFC-821 defines the Internet standard of the SMTP protocol. Transfers are initiated in clear text.

DU is ad-base, as well as donation driven. It is in a hosted environment. Your PMs remain within the server's back-end database. All modern databases have textual content search-ability.

No, it is not a bad comparison. What does any of this have to do with the USPS? I don't understand your argument.

administrators for a lot of thankless work

Just wondering.

...because he did not express agreement with the idea that "black Christians are dogshit."

I'm not going to defend the guy. His poll was crap, no doubt. But posting crap has never been a one-strike-and-you're-out offense on DU. Particularly now during primary season, when half the messages posted here are crap.

Thank you, Skinner. I needed a good laugh tonight.

Pamela, I posted that poll because I got tired of the endless vilification of the Democratic Party's black Christian supporter base. I don't think that they deserve to be demonized or marginalized, and I've routinely objected to this growing hostility against them -- to little avail.

The "dogshit" quote came from one particularly awful post (which I linked to and quoted at length in my poll).

For me, the "dogshit" remark was the last straw. So I made an issue of it in a way that people couldn't ignore. Yes, I knew that it was inflammatory, but I was too angry to care.


Mind you, I didn't expect anyone to actually vote yes. That was an unpleasant result, certainly.

I was born in 1929 in Georgia, and lived there until 1949 and then to North Carolina, I remember the old share croppers out in the fields, some of the women with sparkle gold earrings , singing gospel songs...their religion brought them through a terrible time...Something that will break your heart is to read some of the old will, where a mothers child will be given to one person and maybe another child to another person, I remember one that stated the child be given to the granddaughter when she was 5 and if the granddaughter died, the child would go to another granddaughter, they had to have faith in God and practice religion... By the way at that time white girl didn't wear earrings, with post...but I said to my self if I ever get old enough, I will have me a pair of those shinny earrings.

I just think we need to be mindful of that.

It's stupid and wrong for Dems to seek to marginalize -- let alone vilify -- such an institution on account of its traditional Christian teachings on sexual matters.

Calling Christians "dogshit" is perfectly acceptable as long as you don't
emphasize race (except to say they are "of a certain color" of course.) :-(
At least, that seems to be the case here.

i love it this way--please don't change it too much. it's already purrrrfect! (besides, it might take me too long to learn how to reuse it) :7

du and me:

Or, at the very least, you're opening yourself up to challenges such as: "If you 'would prefer not to be the administrator of a website where XX% of poll respondents believe XYZ, and if you believe that the vast majority of people here would prefer that they not be associated with a website where a significant proportion of our membership believes XYZ, then why have you not banned every DUer who voted ABC, or DEF, or GHI, or..."

Quite honestly, my first reaction to your post was: "Well, then, why haven't you banned every DUer who has expressed an obvious bias toward gay people / marriage equality?" You've made it extremely clear where you, in your official administrator capacity, stand, and what you will and will not tolerate -- and countless DUers have made it extremely clear that they disagree, vehemently, with the official DU stance as set by you, through their poll votes.

Please don't ask me to go dig up a dozen different polls over the past five, six years -- I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about.

No, I am not challenging you to start banning DUers who have expressed their anti-gay sentiment through polls -- however you handle that, or anything else on DU, is of course up to your sole discretion.

I am, however, giving you my honest, initial reaction as I read your post above: "Then why the hell didn't he ever ban the anti-gay poll voters?!"

I sincerely doubt I'm the only person who had such a reaction -- whether gay, or a Nader voter, or a Hillary supporter, or whatever. Bottom line is, if you deem a vote for/against XYZ in a poll grounds for banning, then you have to ban people on the grounds of voting for/against ZYX, ABC, CBA, and EIEIO.

Well, no, you don't have to -- but doing so without leveling the same penalty across the board (literally and figuratively) is inconsistent, and worse -- much worse -- it implies that some forms of prejudice (against black Christians, or against Jews) are worse than other forms of prejudice (against LGBTs). Or, if you like, it suggest that, at DU, homophobia isn't as bad as racism or anti-Semitism.

Or do you really believe that "the vast majority of people here" don't mind being "associated with a website where a significant proportion of our membership expresses" anti-gay bias?

If you're going to penalize the racists and anti-Semites, then why not the homophobes?

Rhetorical questions; I just want you to try to understand that homophobia -- especially the way it is sometimes expressed where homophobes can hide behind polls -- is, to gay people, every bit as shocking, disgusting, and disheartening as the expression of the idea that "black Christians are dogshit," or that "the Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by Jews." You may neither believe nor understand that it is (and I expect I will be flamed by dozens of DUers who will slam me for daring to make the comparison), but trust me, David: It is. Some of it -- yes, through polls -- has over the years made me cry until I wanted to throw up.

I know what it's like to be hated -- and what I haven't learned through real life, DU has finished teaching me.

I agree with you and also feel there is now something of a double standard that has been established. Makes me sad.

I am so glad I am not in charge of DU and I don't have to run it.
Posts like these make me realize that I should donate to Democratic Underground, even $5 or $10. I'm currently depending on the generosity of of others for shelter, and I don't really have a permanent home, at the moment, but I get so much enjoyment from DU, and I am thankful that there are people to keep this big, messy site in line.

I do agree that in recent times, this site has been overcome with plagues of non-liberal gross-ness. But that is not the moderators' faults. To say it's DU's fault is too easy, because Democratic Underground is a large group of people posting, and voting, and lurking.

saved me from typing.

Excellent response.

:thumbsup:

Skinner ADMIN Donating Member Thu Nov-04-04 07:30 PM
Original message
A few words about the discussion of gay rights and related issues.

Edited on Thu Nov-04-04 08:12 PM by Skinner
We find ourselves in a rather unpleasant situation here, because events outside of DU have raised a rather sensitive issue: How does the issue of Gay rights effect the national electoral prospects of the Democratic party?

I will spare you a long discussion about my point of view, and boil my opinion down to one sentence: I believe that some potential Democratic voters are turned off by Gay rights, but on balance I believe that the issue helps us more than it hurts us, and I believe we can win nationally without abandoning our support of equal rights for all. But the purpose of this post is not to tell you my point of view.

The purpose of this post is to remind everyone that Democratic Underground has rules regarding anti-gay bigotry. We expect *all* of our members to support equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

We have very few litmus test issues on DU. We permit members to be pro-life or pro-gun or whatever, provided that they are generally on our side.

But this is a litmus test issue, because we are talking about REAL PEOPLE, our fellow members of this community. I simply will not tolerate the idea of some DU members arguing that other DU members are not deserving of full and equal rights. This is a moral issue. If DU had existed back during the civil rights movement, I hope that we would all agree that this was not the place to discuss whether blacks deserve civil rights.

More at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

*************************************************************************************************

I think the question is about equitable enforcement regarding anti-gay provocation and disruption. We have talented disrupters here at DU -- plenty who masquerade as "clueless" but are in reality "malicious".

There are posts which are every bit as insulting and offensive to gay people when compared to the "dog shit" post that this thread addresses. However, those posts become "Deleted subthreads" while the offending DUer is not tombstoned. This happens repeatedly.

Consequently, when asked to provide links to anti-gay/homophobic posts -- one can't do it. It's as if the problem doesn't exist. So, perhaps a more aggressive enforcement is needed? One which takes "dog shit" posts as seriously as the stuff which disappears in "deleted subthreads".

And, to Skinner's credit he's been on the right side of this issue for years. I just wish I could persuade him to have less tolerance for anti-gay, disruptive behavior here at DU.

There are posts which are every bit as insulting and offensive to gay people when compared to the "dog shit" post that this thread addresses. However, those posts become "Deleted subthreads" while the offending DUer is not tombstoned. This happens repeatedly.

Consequently, when asked to provide links to anti-gay/homophobic posts -- one can't do it. It's as if the problem doesn't exist. So, perhaps a more aggressive enforcement is needed? One which takes "dog shit" posts as seriously as the stuff which disappears in "deleted subthreads".

But that's exactly what happened in the "dogshit" case. My poll concerned an offensive statement made by someone else, which I quoted and linked to.

That statement -- and the subthread that contained it -- got deleted. The person who made that statement didn't get banned, and his thread didn't get locked.


As you can see, the enforcement actions were the same in this case involving race and religion as in the cases involving homophobia that you allude to.


And by the way, I know of a thread in which a poster declared black culture "lousy", and another in which a different poster said that in the near future, science would finally prove blacks mentally inferior. As far as I know, neither poster got banned, and the first post actually stayed up.

Maybe it seems this way to you, but I don't think that anti-black sentiments are treated more seriously than homophobia.

I am not going to defend anyone who posts anti-gay bigotry -- or any bigotry -- here on DU. I am aware that there are plenty of people who have posted homophobic things, and there have been people who voted for the homophobic option on polls. But the important distinction that is missing in your post is the matter of degree. I want to be absolutely clear on this, so nobody gets the idea that anti-gay bigotry is treated any differently than other forms of bigotry:

If someone posted a poll asking if gays and lesbians were dogshit, or used some similar anti-gay hate speech, you can be DAMN SURE that the assholes who voted yes would get tombstoned.

With all bigotry -- racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, you-name-it -- there is is a gradual scale ranging from cluelessness to malice. Those who lean more toward cluelessness are usually given a few chances to learn and change their behavior. But if they do not change their behavior, eventually they do get banned. The closer someone moves toward malice, the fewer chances they get. And outright Stormfront-style hate speech of any kind will almost always result in immediate one-strike-and-you're-out tombstoning.

Pitting acceptable poll responses against unacceptable ones.

It's not just homophobia -- I agree with NorthernSpy that people calling christians "dogshit" whether because of homophobia in the black church or because they're non-christian or whatever -- tends to get a free pass on DU to an uncomfortable degree. I don't know what it's like to be hated but I know what it's like to be grudgingly tolerated -- both as a lefty and as a religious person -- while others get away with flames and disgusting poll questions (I could dig up a few).

Yeah....I'm sure majority of us can live with this comfortablely....

a'mean very comfortably, we have no problem with it,

the ones with problem are the ones to keep a close eye on.

Lately I've seen threads and post that makes me go hmmmm,

but its nice to see (not that I doubt you guys ofcourse)

you guys are keeping tabs.


Hey! Earl G gd job mate!


reminds me of the Kansas City shuffle!



:thumbsup: :patriot:

"The rest of us can live with this comfortablely....

a'mean very comfortably, we have no problem with it"


Perhaps I should not have posted extensively in this thread, then.

I was getting tired of the atmosphere in here anyway.. of late...
the anti-public housing rhetoric.. the original anti-religious
post calling evangelicals "of a certain color" dogshit that is
still up for comment...

you seem to have alot of fire.....here have a pint!


:beer:


drink that and take a chill pill, you've said enough already.

stretch out the time limit to maybe 48 hours. Sometimes I miss threads, I would otherwise like to recommend.

One other point sometimes I recommend a thread because I agree with it and sometimes I recommend a thread even if I don't, but I believe it to be of sufficient import to warrant attention.

I have three real life friends who post at DU. All of them were DU-active long before me, but they talked about it so much that I would come and read the forums sometimes, and generally lurk around.

A while back, one of my friends was all frustrated because he got banned from DU and couldn't figure out what he did. My friends were all talking about it, and they asked him what the last thing he had done on the board was. He said that the admin had just posted this thread of emotionalism threatening people for having the wrong kind of view about the holocaust - he said that he had just been watching Manufacturing Consent at the part where Noam Chomsky argued that someone who held beliefs he vehemently disagreed with still ought to be allowed to exercise his right to speak them, and how much trouble he got into for defending that right.

He said he made the point that "freedom" really doesn't mean much if we only like it when people say what we agree with. And the next thing he knew, he was banned.

Now, I admit I don't know all the details. And I certainly don't know how he voted on the poll or what the poll choices even were. I do however, think its totally stupid to have polls where people assume they mean nothing and are anonymous and then ban people for there answers. I've only been posting for a couple months, and I can think of at least three times where I chose an option because I was completely kidding and thought it didn't mean anything. I would usually then comment on my choice and my lack of seriousness in the thread.

Banning people for choices that may mean nothing to them other than feeling oppositionally defiant some day seems really ridiculous. At the very least, you ought to make a big huge warning before these silly poll telling people that their literal ability to post may depend on how they answer, so don't ever kid around with their choices or be a "rebel" in a poll they think is stupid.

(...) I do however, think its totally stupid to have polls where people assume they mean nothing and are anonymous and then ban people for there answers. I've only been posting for a couple months, and I can think of at least three times where I chose an option because I was completely kidding and thought it didn't mean anything. I would usually then comment on my choice and my lack of seriousness in the thread.

Banning people for choices that may mean nothing to them other than feeling oppositionally defiant some day seems really ridiculous. At the very least, you ought to make a big huge warning before these silly poll telling people that their literal ability to post may depend on how they answer, so don't ever kid around with their choices or be a "rebel" in a poll they think is stupid.

If you think a poll is stupid, then just say so.

It's one thing to kid around on polls that don't really mean anything.

But "did Jews invent the holocaust?" and "are black Christians dogshit?" are not meaningless questions. Agreeing with such statements puts you completely beyond the pale -- at least as far as a progressive community is concerned. If you'd say something like that, then why shouldn't the moderators assume that you mean it -- and act accordingly.

Thing is, I care far more about protecting members of the targeted groups from slander, than I care about protecting the anonymity of their most malicious detractors.

Do you prefer that or is there something you can do about it?

maybe lock the poll when it starts to tip against all accepted liberal discourse,
as DUers under pressure to accept changes in our society are increasingly
willing to redefine what it means to be liberal?

Let's be realistic. Actions of the majority -- here on DU -- speak louder
than yelling "dogshit".

And a ban of anyone who was politically incorrect in their voting on any given poll.

... it's endorsing outright, gutter-level racist bigotry.


Stop minimizing it.

Why the hell are people starting ugly polls like that in the first place?

I am delighted to see that people who think that they can mask themselves in another bit of anonymity by voting as closeted racist/sexist/moles/Republicans can be tracked and -- thankfully -- banned.

vote vote. bring it on.

> hell, i think this would be a different country if
> everyone know the way we vote vote. bring it on.

So you wouldn't mind when the (say) KKK comes to your lawn
to remind you with some genuine flaming why your vote was,
how-shall-we-say-it, "ill advised"?

Or when a husband feels the need to "chastise" his wife
for her vote...

Yeah, that sounds great! :sarcasm:

Tesha

i think the secret ballot was one of the worst ideas this country has ever had. can't see a possible down side to the voluntary disenfranchisement of sheep. :shrug: ymmv

see how that works?

And it's nothing to do with her personally being a coward.

It has to do with the state of the oppressed in this country, and the different forms abuse take. It's very easy to say only a coward would vote to avoid conflict. It's quite another thing if you have a partner who is abusive, and no way to get away from him, and small children you are trying to protect. The only way to give a woman in that situation the FREEDOM to vote her own vote is to let her vote without fear of reprisals.

Same goes for class oppression. If an employee works for a tyrannical boss with sharply different political views, the wrong vote could cost them their job. They shouldn't have to chose between being evicted, or voting their beliefs.

If a vote comes with fear of reprisals, it's not a free vote.

find my peerage, thats what I would do.

Right!

:shrug:

i just don't buy it. sorry. government by victims or government by the brave? that is how i see the choice. considering that this country was founded by people who stood up knowing they might well "hang together", i just can't see the down side. and a vote cast in public is a vote much harder to steal. a vote based on ugliness, pettiness and prejudice is a little harder to do in public, also.
the sheep have taken us down some very bad roads imho.

and trying to make the case that only those with a certain sort of privilege should be granted the additional privilege of voting.

Sorry, but I'd rather stand with the less privileged when it comes to picking our leaders. Most of our history has been the privileged deciding which even more privileged person should govern the rest of us. It's destroying the planet.

Having privilege doesn't necessarily make you "brave". A poor black woman descended from slaves with an abusive spouse and no safety net, I'll wager, has a lot more courage than some rich white guy born into wealth. You can cast around the victim label all you want at the poor black woman, but I know which one I'd rather have pick our government. When Cynthia McKinney was fighting for democracy, the rich white guys were standing around wringing their hands scared to say anything, lest their precious careers were going to be damaged if they said something unpopular.

(The two largest groups who voted against the Iraq War Resolution, incidentally, were also minority groups: The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. I don't think that was a statistical fluke.)

You have a sort of libertarian vision of how life theoretically is which has nothing to do with how life REALLY is. In real life, a public vote doesn't mean a person votes their conscience - and we should have seen that in by now. A public vote means people do what they need to, to protect their asses, and that doesn't matter whether you are an abused woman or some greedy parasite who cares more about getting re-elected than about whether or not we're about to kill another half million children someplace. And in real life, people have no concerns about being ugly, petty, and putting their prejudices on display. We can't even get through a day on DU without seeing that again and again. Try starting a thread about immigrant rights, if you need a reminder.

and many a poor person has shown extraordinary courage in this countries history. you are assuming facts to support your opinion.
i agree that the unreason of the mob is a danger, but i also remind you of the of the many examples of hate that covers itself with a mask- like the klan.
:shrug: i wish we had a nice comparative study to consult. but we don't. in the meantime, we have ohio.

which is that you personally are in a specific position, relative to other people who matter - I am assuming you are not in a relationship right now where you need to be afraid of physical assault because of how you vote.

You could be white, black, latino, male, female, gay, straight, rich or poor, but in this one area, I am guessing you have more privilege than some other people. (After all, all privilege is relative).

It's not your place to decide it's acceptable for someone else to have to suffer violence on account of their vote. That's not YOU having courage, it's you deciding intimidation is an acceptable part of the voting process for OTHER people to have to endure, which is a huge step backwards for civil rights and the democratic process.

Against their real feelings... hmmm... not a bad thing... or is it?

I'm torn on this issue. I think the Admins need a certain amount of access to what people say and "think" here... or do they? Their dime, their choice... I hope this doesn't cause a lot of hard feelings... or do I?

:rofl:

Why the repeated statements that suggest somehow we are being forced to vote in polls at all? Or if we have reason to criticize the basis of a poll, why we can't decline to vote but still comment or - if justified - alert on it?

I personally would prefer the anonymity of my vote, not because I am ashamed or cannot defend my opinions, but because the privacy is analogous to the real ballot box process (or the way it used to be). I'd rather see the poll topics and choices vetted for approval, although the workload of that step probably isn't realistic.

That's why we have laws against that sort of thing.

I think there's something to voting in the open - it would certainly be a lot harder to tamper with votes.

And any group or person who would "remind" or "chastise" that way wouldn't need an election as an excuse...

This is great! I'm eventually going to get called an authoritarian because I agree with the Skinner.
:evilgrin:

Plus, with a billion polls an hour posted here, I'm kind of doubting they are all sitting around poll watching.

I do think your post it's a good headups for those who might not have known though.

I'm not ashamed of what I believe.

peace~

screeching halt.

If you think of mods as traffic lights, you might begin to understand the work that they do. They keep traffic moving as smoothly as possible and do this in such a way that lawsuits against the site are practically non-existant.

It isn't quite the same, but think of Los Angeles at 5pm on any Friday without any traffic lights, painted lines on the road, speed restrictions, and so on. Gridlock and mayhem come to mind. This site has a tremendous amount of traffic--for our enjoyment. But, we can only enjoy it if it moves freely without hitches/glitches and so on.

We, as posters, have one set of rules. Mods have another more complicated set of rules. Doubt this? Volunteer here as a mod when the next selection comes up for review. Make sure you have plenty of time available.

ballots - any ballots - should be secret.

Just after the Patriot Act passed, there were many who said that "they have nothing to hide" and the government can listen to their phone conversations, keep tabs on the books they read in the library, even read their emails.

Would this be your opinion, too?

They also know who recommends threads.

And maybe even Bloomberg. Ok, I wouldn't go THAT far.

That seems a good way to rid this site of undercover rabble rousers.

on DU users according to their poll responses were absolutely right.

We now know those profiles exist (or can be compiled).

Beyond your political leanings, they know what you do for a living, how much money you make, how many children you have, your education level, etc.

And some of you think that's just fine?

Guess what: It's not.

Did you know I'm a fantastically wealthy and swell looking billionaire with three private islands and two Lear jets?

What, you don't believe me either????

It's the internet. Large Grains of Salt for EVERYONE!!

:rofl:

Of course it's their right to monitor who posts what/who votes what, but on polls like that that are so obviously push polls, regardless of how ridiculous the choice is, sometimes i vote just the opposite of what they want just as an antagonizing move. I don't believe most of those people really believe that black christians are dogshit, but they were just being agitators. Of course that kind of stuff can;t be tolerated, but i dunno about a 1 strike and you're out policy...

a ridiculous choice too just cause I'm contrary and think the poll is dumb to begin with. I guess I'll be more careful in future so no one thinks my ridiculous choice is how I really feel.

I did it for the first time the other day, on a real ridiculous answer.

Indeed we all will, won't we? Those of us who are still here, as DU increasingly begins to resemble a mosh pit for party insiders to duke it out in an atmosphere free of meddling independents. Of course, the potential racists are surely the only people who'll get banned under this new restriction for our own safety (tm) for responsing to polls -- or clicking on the wrong button. The rest, well, we'll just keep a record in case anyone is "troll rated" by their aggregate history of responses to poll questions. And anti-other threads will remain open, I guess, because locking thread after thread is a slippery slope (but TS'ing respondents to an unlocked poll is not?) If Hillary or Obama for that matter wins, I'm expecting to see another round of tombstones... if I bother to sneak a peek.

in choosing the lame option. Like a few others here, I will now have to leave my weird sense of humor off the polls.

sometimes people don't get it....here....what the owners are saying is this

1) No bigotry

2) They are not stopping you from expressing your views

3) You where not asked, forced or pressured to
post on this site, you're expressing your right
same way they are monitoring their site, you have
a choice of (a) go somewhere else or (b) live
by their rules.

Frankly....I don't think its that hard.

Don't talk to me like I am. You're telling me you've never deliberately voted something stupid in an obviously push poll? First offense banning for something as stupid as a poll vote seems harsh.

Was any responsibility heaped upon him/her?

Me, I thought that the "dogshit" remark was appalling, and said so. That was obviously the point of my poll.


By the way: the guy who likened our black evangelical Dem voters to 'dogshit in our clam chowder' didn't get banned either. Interesting that people seem to be less offended by what he said, than by my decision to make an issue of it.

Go figure.

Prove to me it isn't.

I thoroughly detest this "new" policy and will probably vote with my feet, purely as a matter of principle, because I KNOW it'll be applied unfairly -- it already has, in this very series of threads. It is a power that should never be given. I don't care WHO "owns" the internet it doesn't give them the "right" to spy on their own user data without a damn good reason such as a direct site violation.

OR we could have a link on every page: "I am a Republican" click and you get banned. It's a clickable option right?

I RUN a public forum, albeit small -- and have participated in
neighborhood BBSes facing these issues time and again, though
they never solved them in this fashion.

Maybe DU should have a Christian haters forum while we're at it,
since people are more likely to get threads locked DEFENDING religion
and religious Democrats.

It's so helpful to have a legalistic approach of "it's a private site not a public forum and you are a guest (so I can shoot you if you don't leave when I ask)" instead of relying on liberal discourse that is the main alternative to that old approach to discourse.

... without having their post deleted?

Unless you can point to other posts that call evangelicals "dogshit" in so many words, then you're just begging the question.

I once voted for "a bag of hammers*". But I was only kidding!!! really!!! :scared:

Seriously though - the public poll option they're looking at for the next build is a great idea. Meanwhile, I'd kind of assumed the admins would know stuff that everyone else doesn't see... and it doesn't bother me. The poll they locked did bother me, and alot. It's good to know the admins are alert, without being too heavy handed :)


*no, really... I voted for "a bag of hammers"... and that silly poll still makes me laugh out loud whenever I remember it - yeah, I'm a dork :blush:

..unless there's a reason to. I'm not bothered by it.

There is no warning or indication that a poll vote might be held against you in any way, or indeed that anyone is monitoring an individual's vote. To track the vote and then use it against a DU member is a little akin to warrantless wire-tapping. You've violated our presumption of privacy, Skinner and it's kind of creepy, to tell you the truth. In a George Bush world are we becoming that which we despise?

Further, to TS someone because of a likely flippant vote in a deliberately provocative poll strikes me as very unfair. Minstrel Boy, for instance, has been posting here for years and from what I know of him I truly doubt that his vote coincided with his actual beliefs. More likely he clicked yes just becuase the poll itself was so outrageous.

The question above about PMs is relevant too. One expects the admins are not reading our PMs. That expectation has just been blown out of the water.

To have simply deleted the offensive poll would have been the correct thing to do instead, since everyone is aware that racist crap is going to get deleted. The admins have got themselves in an ethical pickle here with this decision, IMHO.

go somewhere else, last I remember, they did not invite me to
their party, I gatecrashed it, why should I tell someone how
to run his home after gatecrashing it. tell me! :shrug:

Its like an outsider telling me how to run my home....
man fuck you...thats what I would say....but they are not,
they say follow their rules. Its their party.

And that's the problem. And I'm not a gatecrasher, I'm a donating member. You're language is charming, however.

i'm pretty sure i recall that correctly. i got a feeling that these people already had a few marks on the old permanent record.

... before automatically assuming that this was the wrong decision.

For one thing, the poll was so ludicrous and appalling that it was inevitable that a few people were going to vote yes just to ridicule it. Sure, that's pretty appalling, but if the four were to be banned, their previous posting history should also be taken into account.

Perhaps an explanation as to why they voted that way should also be sought by them.

In addition, doesn't the posting of the four banned usernames violate DU rules about calling attention to why people were banned?

on a poll then how come these four people were banned because they voted the way they did?
And if they were expressing their opinion in an anonymous way, which they were on this poll, then why was it necessary to ban? If they'd said it in a post, yeah sure, ban away. but in a poll?

For one thing, the poll was so ludicrous and appalling that it was inevitable that a few people were going to vote yes just to ridicule it. Sure, that's pretty appalling, but if the four were to be banned, their previous posting history should also be taken into account.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash.

In my poll, I both linked to and quoted the DU post that referred to our seeking support from black evangelicals as 'mixing dogshit with clam chowder'. I pointed to that patently outrageous remark and asked everybody, "do you agree with this?".

If, as you suggest, those four really thought that what I pointed to was "ludicrous and appalling" (and it was!), why didn't they just vote no?

In addition, doesn't the posting of the four banned usernames violate DU rules about calling attention to why people were banned?

Some previous bannings have also come with explanation from the admins, so this is not really unusual. Also, the admins decide what the rules are and how to apply them, so if they choose to explain their actions in a given case, then obviously that's not "against the rules".

...didn't necessarily give much thought to their votes.

Banning them is too severe a punishment.

The four people who voted that way...

...didn't necessarily give much thought to their votes.

Banning them is too severe a punishment.

Yes, only after very deep and careful contemplation does one reach the conclusion that black Christians are not "dogshit".


:eyes:

Sorry, but are we really supposed to read more into a headline like "Are black Christians 'dogsh!t'?"

And do we really have a choice of yes or no?

Regardless of your intentions, your post was flamebait.

This was one of those times.


If, after all this tumult, it's finally a bit harder to get away with slandering our black Christian supporters, then it was worth it.

Sorry, but are we really supposed to read more into a headline like "Are black Christians 'dogsh!t'?"

And do we really have a choice of yes or no?

Yes. Voting no was a good choice. Voting yes was a bad choice. It's that simple.

So your support of setting up cloak and dagger NSA push polls and banning the people "stupid enough to respond" doesn't wash with me, especially when anti-religious poll after poll is posted and not so much as banished to R/T. I am finished with this sort of double standard. I support neither the original anti evangelical post, NOR the push poll, NOR spying on poll respondents, reghardless of who "owns" the site. I have run an activist resource center that is both electronic and physical. I take this sort of thing very seriously because I've had to deal with it before and agonized over the right decision, not issue cheap pronouncements like "well, you failed to show up for your interview, so I didn't bother to ask before passing on your info to another staffer. I own the database, I am one of the people manage the project and you responded to our request, so I have the right."

... I'm not supposed to advocate it in public. You don't think I broke enough rules for one day?

So your support of setting up cloak and dagger NSA push polls and banning the people "stupid enough to respond" doesn't wash with me, especially when anti-religious poll after poll is posted and not so much as banished to R/T. I am finished with this sort of double standard. I support neither the original anti evangelical post, NOR the push poll, NOR spying on poll respondents, reghardless of who "owns" the site.

I assure you that I don't work for the NSA. Think about it: if I had been acting in concert with "somebody" (is that what you're implying?), it stands to reason that the poll would have been left open long enough to catch more than a measly four moles. The fact that it was locked promptly should tell you that there was no "cloak and dagger" stuff going on.


As for the unwary rightwing trolls who got banned for voting, "yes, black Christians are dogshit", I'm not going to cry for them -- nor should you. They brought it on themselves.

Besides, it's just that much less of the invidious, "I'm not a racist, but..." garbage that we'll have to deal with.

I have run an activist resource center that is both electronic and physical. I take this sort of thing very seriously because I've had to deal with it before and agonized over the right decision, not issue cheap pronouncements like "well, you failed to show up for your interview, so I didn't bother to ask before passing on your info to another staffer. I own the database, I am one of the people manage the project and you responded to our request, so I have the right."

Why shouldn't you? Don't you want to get things done?

based on liberal discourse and rules of free speech that do not exist anywhere anymore, because there is no non-privatized common space that is frequented by most of the people on sites like this one, where one is likely to find anybody one can even talk to?

one to choose one of a list of only bad answers.

Or maybe I can march in lockstep and agree with the primary view. Heil Jesus!

I express my opinion and you tell me to grow up? Keep in mind I did not vote that "All Christians" are dogshit. Why? Because they are not and I know plenty of Christians who are good people. I believe that religion itself is dogshit and corrupts people. But I think it is absurd that those people got banned, especially Beelzebub. Beelzebub has over 1000 posts and in the topic said the he believes black Christians are dogshit is a racist term. I believe that Beelzebub must have pressed the wrong button by mistake (you know like obama did 6 times in the senate) and should be given another chance.

and no one has banned me (or threatened to ban me) yet.

I have no problem with them knowing how I vote. Its an online poll for Christssake. Who gives a happy damn.

And it's not "an evil plot" - it's just the same ap that won't let you vote twice in a poll.

never pass up an opportunity!


:eyes:

And keep repeating tired nostrums like "this is how the site has to work, if you don't like it go find a website that isn't privately owned (they all are since Bill Clinton essentially privatized the Internet, so it's not like there's an open forum out there, barring USENet)." etc. etc.

A site does not have to keep track of how a user voted in a poll.
All it has to do is keep cookies.

The truth is the program functions because they want the ability to track
of user data in case they suspect somebody of being a troll. This is not
necessarily the most ethical approach, whether it's their site or
Bob Jones.

And yes, I'm free to consider not posting on DU -- I much
prefer real life to the peculiar combination of incivility and overarching
control mechanisms for separating users of different persuasions that
much of the blogosphere has developed into. Bloggers seem to want to
validate so much of what conservative commentators claim is "wrong"
with the traditional university / town hall mode of "liberal discourse"
which dates only from the 17th century and is quickly being destroyed.

I suppose you could construct any scenario that would break the ethical bank. The Holocaust poll, for example. At what point does an unlocked poll (whose originator's original post was let slide quite merrily) become so horrible that the site admins are forced to weed out whoever voted or posted? It is not a power I would voluntarily accrue, were I running a site like this one... and yes, I am free to "find a site I like" but that's not the point. The point is I believe in right and wrong. Ethics of liberal discourse that we are supposed to be fighting for.

The ethical thing to do would be engineer a piece of software to tag the poll the minute it is alerted. A message would then go up
"This poll has been alerted and may or may not violate our content policy. Respond at your own risk."

Other than that, responses to any anonymous poll, on any site, should be sacrosanct. Expectation of privacy. Social workers and civil libertarians know it well. I thought we were fighting to help them?

You better watch out
You better not cry
Don't vote in that poll
I'm telling you why
DU Mods are coming to town

They're making a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
DU Mods are coming to town

They see you when you're freeping
They know when you are baked
They're named Elad and EarlG
So be good for goodness sake

M'kay?

With asparagus cast and little tantrums
Series!1 Hugh!!1 morans and dummy dum dums
DU Mods are coming to town
DU Mods are coming to town
DU Mods are coming to town

They see all your sock puppets
They know when you're a fake
They know if you're from the site that must not be named
So be good for Matcom's sake
Matcom's sake!

If you wanna PM
Your butt or your thigh
You better not folks
I'm telling you why
DU Mods are coming to town
DU Mods are coming to town
DU Mods are coming to town

(Coming to town)
Skinner's a busy man he has no time to play
He's got brazillions of threads to delete most every day
(DU Mods are coming to town)
(Coming to town)
(DU Mods are coming to town)
(Coming to town)

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:


This is a work of both fiction and affection and bears no resemblance to any living persons or places. I like DU just the way it is or I wouldn't be here.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/lonestar/santaclausiscomintotown.html

BAD fucking call man, what kind of precedent does this send, we don't like your anonymous opinion and you are out of here? What if I voted wrong, as often happens when distracted?

Jesus, who gives a flip, just ban the OP and lock the damn thread, like there isn't enough shit being slung in this forum to keep you busy.

Bah.

Jesus, who gives a flip, just ban the OP and lock the damn thread, like there isn't enough shit being slung in this forum to keep you busy.

Do you mean me? If so, what should I be banned for, exactly?

For bringing someone else's hateful remarks to everyone's attention? For giving people an opportunity to reject those hateful remarks? For "forcing" four people to vote "yes, black Christians are dogshit"?


:eyes:

Ever push the wrong fucking button?

I knew damn well that the admins could troll through our votes if they wanted to, I just never thought they would bother with such a waste of time, let alone start banning people based on their votes.

Neither did anyone voting think: this will be scanned by the admin and I could be banned for voting the wrong way, maybe I better be EXTRA CAREFUL that I don't click the wrong button and find myself tombstoned.

Voting in a poll at DU requires TWO clicks, not one: the first click to choose an option, and later a second click to confirm your choice and submit it into the tally.


So I think we can discount your scenario of people hitting the wrong button by mistake.


Besides, there was no tricky wording in this poll. The options were:


Yes, black Christians are dogshit.

and

No, black Christians are not dogshit.


Given a two-click voting system, it's awfully damn hard to get that question wrong by accident.

Some people might vote the most offensive answer just out of spite for the ridiculous question!

:thumbsdown:

DemEx

I find that shocking.

and is everyone watched this closely or just *certain posters*?

Sounds like a familiar tactic......

So do we ALL have to make sure we vote "correctly" if we wanna stay on DU?

Hmmmmmmm............

And why not?

Banning people for making racist statements is a good thing. It keeps the Stormfronters to a minimum.

...and what criteria do they use?

I'm not convinced that banning people for voting in a really bad poll is quite fair when the original poster- the creator of that shitty poll in the first place goes on their merry way.

I know that one of the banned posters was trying to make a point about the poor taste of this particular poll....and it got him banned after many years of posting many excellent detailed and well researched posts here on DU.

Seems a real shame to me. Also tells me this place is NOTHING like it was when it started 7 years ago.

Just saying there is more to this than meets the eye...that sometimes what appears to be a good thing is something altogether different......maybe not so good.....

...and what criteria do they use?

Reasonable criteria, as far as I can see.

I'm not convinced that banning people for voting in a really bad poll is quite fair when the original poster- the creator of that shitty poll in the first place goes on their merry way.

You don't actually know what the point of the poll was, do you?

I know that one of the banned posters was trying to make a point about the poor taste of this particular poll....and it got him banned after many years of posting many excellent detailed and well researched posts here on DU.

Oh, just making a point about poor taste? What a crock!


Let me clue you in: that was my poll. In it, I quoted and linked to a post written by another DUer. I said I was shocked by what he'd said (the infamous "dogshit in the clam chowder" remark), and I asked people to say whether they agreed with that sentiment or not. The point -- which was abundantly clear -- was to call attention to a growing hostility toward church-going black Democrats on the part of some people here.

Regardless of whatever you may find objectionable about my way of dealing with this, one thing is very clear to me: anyone who chose to respond by voting, "yes, black Christians are dogshit" is no progressive, even if they sometimes play one on the internet.


Yes, my poll was provocative. And some people let their masks slip.

who was wearing a mask and who wasn't?

Some poll if it allowed to you read the reason for all posters choices.

Maybe some were protesting the poll, period.

How could you or anyone know that?

"Provocative"? I wouldn't necessarily have used that word to describe it.

seriously.