Skin's gives primitives new island rules

[USA4ME]

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

Earlier this year I posted a thread announcing some changes to the DU rules and the way we were enforcing them because, as I wrote at the the time, it was "apparent that having a Democrat in the White House presents new and difficult challenges for the DU community."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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

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


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

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

Disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion.


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

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

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

Content

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

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


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

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

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

Thank you.

David Allen
DU Administrator

By the way: Our fourth quarter fund drive was supposed to begin last night, but we had to postpone it by one day because Elad (one of our administrators) was busy all weekend taking the test for his black belt. The fund drive will begin officially this evening, but if you go ahead and donate now your donation will count toward our total. Just click here to help. Thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9563958#9563968

Won't matter, the board's full of children.

[cavegal]

That almost makes me want to go over and join!  Unreal, will any of them take the time to read it? It even says the enemy read the rules to use against; the board..

[Wretched Excess]

This will be a bigger failure than the last failure. 

[chitownchica]

Good lord.  He's like a cranky old school marm who should've retired years ago. 

I can't imagine being his kid.

[Carl]

Skins calls them democrats...that is a RW smear.

Ban him.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Won't matter, the board's full of children.

Exactly...it will still be "The rules mean what I say they mean."  Business as usual.

 

[USA4ME]

It is the responsibility of every DU member to help promote thoughtful discussion by ....

Automatically doomed to fail given the primtives are incapable of generating a thought, much less one worthy of discussion.  Giving them a way to do what they aren't capable of doing "by," and then rattling off how he proposes it can be accomplished, is a waste of time.  I give the new rules less than a year.

.

[Wretched Excess]

imagine that.  a liberal that thinks he is smart enough to hatch a "plan" that is so perfect that no one (certainly not the peasants that the plan is intended for) has to think . . . except the elitist shitheads in charge. 

sounds like, well, obamacare, for starters.  but you can add every pet liberal wet dream of the past half century or so. 

and all of then either are, or will be, equally huge failures as ForeSkinner's little "comprehensive human nature reform" plan turned out to be.

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.

[Revolution]

This is just funny is what it is. Not as painstaking to read as that last set. (****!!) Just hilarious. Many ways to get around these, and I can't wait to see heads pop when methods/theories are tested.

[true_blood]

Skinner ADMIN
An important announcement about the DU rules, and how we enforce them.
Earlier this year I posted a thread announcing some changes to the DU rules and the way we were enforcing them because, as I wrote at the the time, it was "apparent that having a Democrat communist in the White House presents new and difficult challenges for the DU community."

FIXED.

[Revolution]

Still puzzled as to why nobody may call him by his actual name on that...um....forum.

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

Skinner ADMIN
 
 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.

[Mr Mannn]

Hmmm. One would think Bobo the hobo would be in trouble with being disruptive.
But we shall see.

[chitownchica]

Hmmm. One would think Bobo the hobo would be in trouble with being disruptive.
But we shall see.

I sure hope not. I'm always entertained by the way she takes her fellow DUmmies to task for being hypocrites.

[miskie]

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.

Typical Democrat response. - "Fix" things by increasing the power of government. Proving that even in a microcosm ssuch as DU, fundamental Democrat policies hold true.

[Ballygrl]

I guess they're not going to cut back on the vulgar language?

[TheSarge]

Hmmm. One would think Bobo the hobo would be in trouble with being disruptive.
But we shall see.

Damn beat me to it.  My first thought upon reading the new "rules" was that Bobo was toast over there.

[Revolution]

Man...a body can hope.

I guess they're not going to cut back on the vulgar language?

**** no! 

[BlueStateSaint]

Quote from: Ballygrl on November 15, 2010, 10:16:04 pm
I guess they're not going to cut back on the vulgar language?

**** no! 

Well played!  H5!

[Splashdown]

DU should make a "fight club" style forum:

1. It would help limit the personal attacks, etc on the main boards.

2. Watching the slapfighting would be an endless source of entertainment for us.

[Wretched Excess]

I guess they're not going to cut back on the vulgar language?

maybe they should try a sign encouraging civility.

 . . . or maybe not.

[thundley4]

DU should make a "fight club" style forum:

1. It would help limit the personal attacks, etc on the main boards.

2. Watching the slapfighting would be an endless source of entertainment for us.

A mole needs to suggest that.

[delilahmused]

Well as long as they continue to facilitate our amusement I don't care what rules they have. I don't know how anyone can have an open, honest discussion when they have to be so politically correct all the time.

Cindie

[true_blood]

DU should make a "fight club" style forum:
1. It would help limit the personal attacks, etc on the main boards. 2. Watching the slapfighting would be an endless source of entertainment for us.

The DUmmie version of "fight Club"; 

[BlueStateSaint]

The DUmmie version of "fight Club"; 

H5 given!