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

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.

:shrug:

We're waiting for his phone call. He's probably still asleep.

So watch out!

Is this significant?
Or meaningful?
;-)

Renniks?

...Glrae (glory?). :)

Usually one knows how to kill a man with only his pinky at the brown belt level. :evilgrin:

kill a man with a spork THEN come talk to me :)

Thanks. :)

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.

just kidding :hi:

and I am happily recovering at home. :)

Congrats!! :toast: :bounce:

O8)

If so, I'm going to be watching that place.

If you think a post violates them, you should click alert and let the mods know.

:hide:



;)

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....

you're an idiot.

Oh, wait...wrong forum.

Did Elad get his black belt?

K&R

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


:rofl:

Jhoon Rhee Taekwondo Nobody Bother Me Commercial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9551287

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-kwon-do-volunteer

LOL

:wow:

"laugha while you can, monkey boy" :)

The world would be a much uglier place without the constant hard work by the DU Admins. in keeping this site going.

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?

Can't wait to see that. :spank: :nuke: :kick: :fistbump: :popcorn:

Thanks for the thread, Skinner.:thumbsup:

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!!!

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:

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.

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...

It's really not that difficult to be respectful. Just think before you post.

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.

;)

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.

We are considering exactly such a system.

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.

...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... :)

Here's hoping it's implemented. :thumbsup:

Especially combined with a system where posters find out why the post was deleted/locked.

Kind of a DU "naughty corner".

Where do I sign?

One of the reasons this is still one of the best forums on the net is youse guys thoughtful ability to adapt.

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?

The rule says you can't use "disrespectful nicknames."

Is "Dickless Harry" a disrespectful nickname?

; 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.

The rule itself disallows this: "Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats."

:evilgrin:

Does that answer your question?

okay, just saw the evilgrin :)

Sometimes the truth can be very ugly, some people just perceive it as disrespect. Sometimes the truth just hurts...

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.>

Very apropos, though

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!

"man with 4 balls can't walk".

Please give some thought to that Ian David.

especially the Bernie Sanders / Joe Lieberman comments

;)

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

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.

PB

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:

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.

Clearly it causes way too much consternation.

It can mean a controversial thread, a thread completely hated by everyone, or a thread no one cares about at all.

The rec / unRec feature will still be in use?

But I do know it needs to change.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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...

:+

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...

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

:rofl:

:donut:

:toast: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

:toast:

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.

That is one of the main goals of this rule re-write.

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.

We just don't want people bringing their smears here in order to AGREE WITH THEM.

Just wanted to be double-sure. Thanks.

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:

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.

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.

like the i/p forum?

I'm still missing one of our best essayists who was banned for comparing Obama to Herbert Hoover -- called "not constructive" by the mod.

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.

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.'

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...

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.

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.

Many DUers take issue with the term "douche". Sorry.

:rofl:

Just...thank you.

:thumbsup:

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

that Harry Reid deserves humping?

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:

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.

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!!

:kick:

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.

:rofl:

:)

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:

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...

...or what?

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.

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.

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...

Told people about DU all the time. That was a long time ago. The place is much to dark for that now.

Julie

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.

:thumbsup:

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.

----

So, does that mean people who call the president names are somehow "large minded"?

...is not all that nice either. But it was not I who introduced the mind-size quote.

---

Got me. ;)

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...

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...

"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.

Beating a dead horse, again and again, over multiple days? No.

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.

hmm, maybe that term "DINO" will go the way of the dino. :think:

hmm, maybe that term "DINO" will go the way of the dino. :think:

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.

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...

Sorry your thread got locked. Lame.

Bad Dr Fate! Bad!:spank:

:toast:

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.php?az=view_all&address=385x525604

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?

shrug

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.

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 --

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.

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.

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. ;)

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?

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?

Turd Punch...

Any seconds?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

I've been a member/lurker for quite awhile, but have felt too intimidated to post. Hopefully that will change now.

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:

Same old astroturfers and trolls will continue to pollute the forum.

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...

...I will now post my rants more often.

Good work, man, you'll have this whole place looking like the I/P forum in no time.

I agree that they strike a decent balance both in spirit and letter.

It was there before but has been removed during the update.

But if you think something is flame bait, you can always select "Other" and make your case to the mods.

"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.

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?

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:

If not, then I don't think they're necessary.

The other purpose of the checkboxes is to educate members about the rules.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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!