The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on June 21, 2010, 10:27:35 AM
-
Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 10:40 AM
Original message
Democratic Underground is changing. It's time to change the way we run it.
As you know, Barack Obama is the first Democratic President since DU was created back in 2001. Nearly a year-and-a-half into his administration, it is apparent that having a Democrat in the White House presents new and difficult challenges for the DU community.
The DU Administrators have long been frustrated with the persistent undercurrent of negativity and conflict here, which has been exacerbated by the lack of a common villain in the form of George W. Bush. But we have been reluctant to make changes to the way we run the site out of fear that we might do more harm than good. The problems we face are extraordinarily complicated, and despite (or perhaps because of) nearly a decade of administering this site we tend to be fairly skeptical of our own ability to effect broad-based changes that will improve DU for the majority of our members.
So we have been banging our heads against the wall for a long time trying to figure out what we can or should do to try to make DU "better." We are committed to maintaining Democratic Underground as a community that welcomes a wide range of Democratic and progressive viewpoints. Now that we have a Democratic President, we will remain open to members who are generally critical of him, members who are generally supportive of him, and the majority of members who do not fall neatly into either camp. We considered many possible approaches -- from adding lots of new rules to getting rid of most of them -- and eventually came to realize that the DU rules we already have are actually pretty good. But we do not all share a consistent view of what they mean or how they should be enforced now that the larger political environment has changed.
So, our goal is to get everyone back on the same page. To be clear, we are not promising that all the discussions here are going to be "nicer," or that you will no longer have to read stuff on DU that you find annoying -- in fact, some of that stuff (depending on your point of view) might get worse rather than better. What we are trying to do is to make it more clear where the limits are. In practice, this means moderating will likely be more aggressive in some areas and less aggressive in others. We have no illusions that this approach will make everyone happy. But we hope by managing expectations and better explaining limits, we'll have a few more satisfied people here than we have now.
So after a great deal of consideration we've come up with a proposal to try and make DU a community again.
To be clear: These changes have not been implemented yet. Hopefully we can phase them in over the next couple weeks.
1. A clear, concise version of the DU rules will be pinned to the top of the two General Discussion forums, and will appear whenever someone clicks "Alert".
We believe that most of the DU rules are just common decency and common sense, and if everyone just tried to participate in the spirit of mutual respect it would not be necessary to post a list of rules. Of course, that is just a dream. Here in the real world it is necessary to have some concrete standards so people understand what is expected of them.
With this in mind, we have "boiled down" the DU rules to remove all the explanatory filler and provide a straightforward list of violations. That list is below. This will hopefully make the rules much clearer for everyone -- members, moderators, and even administrators -- and get everyone on the same page. Unfortunately, there will always be some level of subjectivity when deciding what is within bounds and what is not. But we have made every reasonable effort to be both clear and concise, and remove unnecessary gray areas.
Here is the official "list of violations" from the DU rules:
LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS
{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
- Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
- Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "**** off," or the like.
- Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
- Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
- Calling someone a bigot.
- Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.
- Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.
{ } Broad-brush or Extreme Group Attack - When discussing groups of DU members, the following are considered broad-brush group attacks:
- Broad-brush attack - intended to paint all people belonging to a particular group in a negative light. (The word "all" can be explicitly stated or implied.)
- Name-calling - Referring to any group of DU members by names intended to paint them in a negative light.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are conservatives, disruptors, or similar.
- Belittling people who are new or have a low post count.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are not Democrats, liberals, or progressives.
- Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive.
- Note: As a general guideline, if it is possible to identify specific individuals who are being attacked, then it is against the rules. But if the attack is against a vaguely defined group of "some but not all" people, then it might be permitted.
{ } Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
- Race or ethnicity.
- Gender (women or men).
- Sexual Orientation.
- Religion or lack of religion (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.).
- Geographic region or place of origin.
- Disability (mental or physical).
- Weight or other physical characteristics.
- Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "****," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).
{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
- Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.
- Advocating violent overthrow of the government, or harm toward high-ranking officials.
- Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
- Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
- Sexually explicit content.
- Graphic violence, gore, pain, or human suffering (except with a legitimate political purpose, and with a clear warning in the subject line).
- Asking for medical advice.
- "Gravedancing" or "gravemourning" when someone is banned.
- Signature line/avatar image violates DU rules, is controversial, or is likely to cause discussions to go off-topic.
{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "**** Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.
{ } Harassment or threats
- Any type of threat against another member of this community, either explicit or implied.
- Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise.
- A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person.
- Digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere.
- Stalking someone across discussion threads or forums.
{ } Rule enforcement issues
- Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.
- Publicly accusing the moderators/administrators of bias.
- Publicly "calling-out" the moderators/administrators over specific enforcement action.
- Continuing an argument from a locked thread or from a thread you have been blocked out of.
{ } Spamming
- Posting the same message repeatedly.
- Personal fundraising, for-profit advertising, or selling products or services (except in the DU Marketplace forum, or if given explicit permission from the DU administrators).
- Posting entirely in capital letters.
{ } Off-topic/Wrong forum
- Any discussion thread or post that is off-topic for the forum or group in which it is posted.
- Non-news items posted in the Latest Breaking News forum.
- Highly speculative "conspiracy theory" topics outside the September 11 forum.
- Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.
- Discussion of purely religious topics outside the Religion/Theology forum.
- "Rallying the troops" in a forum or group to disrupt elsewhere on the website.
{ } Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
- Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
- Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.
{ } Copyright violations
- Excerpt exceeds 4 paragraphs, or does not have a link to the source.
{ } Other (Please explain)
Please note that in this effort, we gave special consideration to what can and cannot be said about prominent Democrats. As you know, the DU rules explicitly state that "Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted." But that comes with a caveat: "When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here." I know many of you believe that any attack against Democrats, no matter how inflammatory or divisive, should be permitted here, but that is not what I believe and it is not what the DU rules say.
Now that we have a Democratic President, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that he be shown more respect here than the illegitimate, incompetent asshole who previously held the office. He should be referred to as "President Obama," "Barack Obama," or simply "Obama." Calling him derogatory names (including "Barry"), attacking him with content-free insults, or parroting partisan attacks from the McCain/Palin campaign, are all disrespectful to this community as a whole. If you think that is unreasonable, then you are going to have difficulty here going forward. But if you are among the vast majority of people who criticize President Obama in a constructive and respectful manner, you have my appreciation. You are a valued member of this community.
2. When a post is deleted, the author of the post will be able to see the text of the deleted post, and the rule it violated.
When a post is deleted, most people will still see the same old "Name removed/Deleted message" placeholder, but the author of the post will be given access to the full text of that post, along with specific rule it violated. We fully expect that this will cause some consternation from members at first. But it is obviously the right thing to do. Most importantly, it will help educate our members about the DU rules and how they are enforced. Over time, we hope this will help those of you who want to be constructive members figure out how to do so. In addition, it will let the author review the post to see the violation -- we know from experience that people will often forget the stray personal attack they added to the end of an otherwise appropriate post. And finally, it gives a powerful incentive for the moderators and administrators to double-check our work and make sure we are justified in removing a post.
3. When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread.
We understand that this idea may upset some people. We understand that nobody wants to be blocked out of a discussion thread because of an honest posting mistake, and we do not want to do that to any of our members. But we believe blocking one person out of a thread is a less draconian solution than locking the entire thread so nobody can participate.
We know many of you are tired of threads getting locked when the original post does not break the rules. We are tired of locking those threads. Members have long complained that under our current approach, a determined person (or group of people) can get a thread locked by repeatedly breaking the rules in the thread so it is almost impossible for the moderators to clean up after them.
If someone is blocked out of a thread after their first deletion, then they have a disincentive to break the rules in the first place. Furthermore, it provides an incentive for other people to alert on rule-breaking posts so the author of those posts can be stopped from causing further damage.
Would this always be fair? Of course not. But our sincere hope is that we could completely stop locking threads when the original post does not break the rules. We also hope that we could completely stop the practice of deleting entire sub-threads -- which often results in "innocent bystanders" having their posts removed unfairly.
4. A uniform approach for dealing with frequent rule-breakers.
Earlier this year we made a number of upgrades to our behind-the-scenes moderating system which allow the moderators to respond much more quickly to alerts. But moderators still do not have a uniform system for dealing with members who repeatedly break the rules. This needs to change.
Going forward, members who break the rules repeatedly will be automatically brought up for regular reviews in the Moderator Forum. When this occurs, the moderators will take a look at the member's recent activity to decide whether it is appropriate to take any additional enforcement action: sending a private message, sending a warning, handing out a suspension, or banning someone outright.
When deciding what action is appropriate, special consideration will be given to determining whether we believe someone is, overall, a constructive and valuable member of our community. Does this person seem to like DU and its members? Does this person act as if they want DU to be a better place? Are this person's deleted posts innocent mistakes rather than malicious and deliberate? Do we think this person makes DU better for the vast majority of our visitors? Does this person have an inclusive attitude toward other members and viewpoints -- freely expressing when they disagree, but doing so with the understanding that their own point of view is not the only one that is valid or welcome here? Do we think this person is likely to improve their behavior?
If the answer to these questions is no, then we are going to ban that person. We aren't going to waste our time with pointless warnings and suspensions to malicious malcontents that will almost certainly be ignored. If, however, we believe that someone is worth trying to "save" we will do what we can to keep them around, including handing out warnings or suspensions in hopes that the person might change their behavior.
We hope that everyone will consider these proposals in the spirit they are offered. We believe this approach will make it easier for everyone who wishes to be a productive member of this community to do so, regardless of ideology. We all know this place is never going to be perfect. But we do have an ideal that everyone should strive for: A Democratic Underground where thoughtful discussion can take place among a broad range of progressive viewpoints, where everyone accepts that disagreements are both necessary and appropriate when they are expressed in good faith, and where problem people are dealt with in a fair and timely fashion. That is the type of community that we wish DU could be. If you agree, we'd love to have you here.
So, what do you think?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151
Yeah, I didn't read the whole thing either.
-
What a bunch of gobbledy-gook. :whatever:
{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "**** Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
Yet insults against any Republican or non-prominent Democrats are still strongly encouraged.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151
Yeah, I didn't read the whole thing either.
That is an awful lot of rules.....
-
Lots of "free speach" going on there. Suck it DUmmies.
-
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #68
106. Not reverence. Respect for the office he holds.
He was elected by the people of the USA. That, alone, means that he and his office should be treated with basic respect. If a President (*) is not legally elected, he or she doesn't not deserve that. President Obama does deserve some basic respect. Insulting him show a lack of that, as well as a lack of basic decency, in my opinion.
Uh.....Say wha???
-
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-21-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #106
202. You have got to be kidding me
Bush was legally elected. He held that office legally. Your argument is a poor one. Nobody on this board showed any, ANY, ANY respect for that office while Bush held it.
Any place where you can not openly call the President a name is not Democratic, free or open. This is America for goodness sakes. Calling the President out regardless of part affiliation is a national sport.
Say bye-bye to arcadian. The pizza oven is being warmed as I type.
-
Wow it looks like $kimmer contracted out the rules writing to Wee Willy Pitt doesn't it? I got through his first part fine but those rules made me nod off so much I had to quit attempting to read them. After scrolling down for another 50,000 words, I decided I had anything better to do.
-
Wow it looks like $kimmer contracted out the rules writing to Wee Willy Pitt doesn't it? I got through his first part fine but those rules made me nod off so much I had to quit attempting to read them. After scrolling down for another 50,000 words, I decided I had anything better to do.
I tried to post the thread at CU, and it was WAY over the allowed character limit.
-
Stinky The Clown (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
71. Bring back the "Ask the Admins" or "Ask the Mods" forum.
Oh yes, please do that. :-)
-
- Personal fundraising,
Somebody inform TheStraightStory, who begged for gas money, and skydiving money.
That was long, wasn't it? The entire opening paragraphs were :yack: and so much vague blah blah blah.
Anyway, the good news is that, with a simple copy paste job, we can break all those rules right and left! HAHA!
-
Oh yes, please do that. :-)
I miss that forum so much!
-
WOW! the commie posters are going to be upset that they can't advocate the overthrow of the Government, oh and vulgar words won't be permitted anymore? a lot of people won't be happy about that. That's a lot of rule changes also LOL.
-
I wonder if they can still make fun of Wee Willie Pitt for the "24 business hours" thing? :lmao:
-
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
So I guess the environmentalists won't be able to post anymore.
- Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
Oh my, hardly anyone will be posting there if the anti-semites can't post.
-
theFrankFactor (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #287
415. Where's Will Pitt? There's also nothing "Underground" about this board.
In Response to New Board Rules
In short, this makes for a nice little Democratic Coffee Club and there's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing "Underground" about it. Palatable pap that doesn't step too hard on anyone's tosies is sweet. It's also chilling. A good deal, the bulk in fact, of these rules are merely civil and common sense but there are those important few that are not. Why they are necessary is lost on me. Are we adults? Have we ever faced criticism? Does this really have to be a padded room?
It really turns out that there is much "we" (Democrats) share with our counterparts. The severity of the situation within our Federal government is not one that calls for polite conversation, sorry. Just because a Democrat is President is no reason to protect that President from strong, if even acerbic criticism.
On the whole, this only bolsters my opinion as to the ineffectual attitudes that hold back "Change". I really wish this were a Democratic "Underground" site with this many engaged citizens. It would be the incubator of policy and social progress. As it is, it will maximize comfortable chat among like minds. Again, nothing underground about that.
Oh well, I want to stay, it's just so vitally important to reach and bolster movement and change. It will just have to be palatable to the least effectual and the most disinterested.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151
Yeah, I didn't read the whole thing either.
You could almost hear the limp-wristed hand wringing; how to enforce the hive mentality and not take too big a hit to the bank account.
-
A new Manifesto. Will Der Skimmer have red bound copies for donations to the vacation fund?
-
That is an awful lot of rules.....
Not for liberals. They like rules. LOTS of rules. Especially those rules they get to make up and follow if they want to.
KC
-
Now that we have a Democratic President, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that he be shown more respect here than the illegitimate, incompetent asshole who previously held the office. He should be referred to as "President Obama," "Barack Obama," or simply "Obama." Calling him derogatory names (including "Barry"), attacking him with content-free insults, or parroting partisan attacks from the McCain/Palin campaign, are all disrespectful to this community as a whole. If you think that is unreasonable, then you are going to have difficulty here going forward. But if you are among the vast majority of people who criticize President Obama in a constructive and respectful manner, you have my appreciation. You are a valued member of this community.
So the office of President should only be respected when a Democrat is in office? oh and nice dig Skinner who gave money to Republican candidates in the past.
-
mistertrickster (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #104
176. Unfortunately, when jerks act like jerks, they rarely KNOW that they are acting like jerks.
That's the definition of a true jerk--one that is so unconcerned of others' feelings that he doesn't even realize how offensive his behavior is.
Perfect example: Newt Gingerich serving divorce papers on his wife when she was lying in a hospital bed getting treated for cancer.
Can we stop with this lie now, I'm no fan of Gingrich BUT his Daughter came out and said that story isn't true at all, so please add posting lies to this new set of rules.
-
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #68
106. Not reverence. Respect for the office he holds.
He was elected by the people of the USA. That, alone, means that he and his office should be treated with basic respect. If a President (*) is not legally elected, he or she doesn't not deserve that. President Obama does deserve some basic respect. Insulting him show a lack of that, as well as a lack of basic decency, in my opinion.
arcadian (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #106
202. You have got to be kidding me
Bush was legally elected. He held that office legally. Your argument is a poor one. Nobody on this board showed any, ANY, ANY respect for that office while Bush held it.
Any place where you can not openly call the President a name is not Democratic, free or open. This is America for goodness sakes. Calling the President out regardless of part affiliation is a national sport.
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #202
507. Many would argue, myself included, that * was not legally
elected, nor did he hold the office legitimately. I've seen people argue that point at length here.
Bush was elected twice you idiot.
-
Well, color me shocked !! (NOT!!!) It seems that the DU is more and more leaning towards their own version of internet censorship!! Perhaps that's one of the reasons we're seeing the liberals migrate over here, albeit slowly. I would HOPE that we don't have to EVER go that far at CC. What amazes me is how the DU wants to stifle criticism of their "Dear Leader". It seems they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Hypocrisy at it's finest!!
-
Good Lord, they're just as long-winded as $kinner! It's an enormous boring thread, with everybody smooching ass.
-
I can't call him Barry. Fair enough--can I use his middle name, then?
-
Uh.....Say wha???
Yeah, I saw that too. Plus, once again, DUmmies don't realize that it's not the PEOPLE who elect the President, it's the STATES, via the Electoral College.
Then again, why should they bother UNDERSTANDING what they likely have never read?
-
Not for liberals. They like rules. LOTS of rules. Especially those rules they get to make up and follow if they want to. OR BREAK WHEN THEY DON'T, WITHOUT ANY SORT OF CONSEQUENCES.
KC
FIFY.
-
I read most of that........what a chore......what a bore......but it did remind me of one thing. When we do we make our "NOT MY PRESIDENT" and "WE'RE SORRY WORLD" signs and post them on the internet?
-
What a bunch of children at DU. The rules list is longer than the health care bill.
Compare that to the rules here and places like TOS.
Then again they are libs and libs love rules.
-
You know, that's one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think that there should be law telling you what you can do whereas conservative believe that laws spell out what is illegal. If it's not against the law, it's OK to do.
-
Holy crap. I've managed to run two versions a board for over two years with only 7 short rules.
Of course, the only people to run afoul of those rules were either Obots or Jew haters. Go figure. :whatever:
-
Skinner's Daycare. That is what he should change the name of that site to. How ridiculous.
-
I see $kimmer is as immature as he's ever been. I feel sorry for his kid; the little one deserved a man, not the idiot he got for a Dad.
.
-
Wow. If enforced, that's going to do away with 90% of what passes for "discussion" in their General Discussion forum.
:rotf:
-
Skinner's Daycare. That is what he should change the name of that site to. How ridiculous.
Skinner, do you think they'll drop the bomb?
Skinner, do you think they'll like this song?
Skinner, do you think they'll try to break my balls?
Skinner, should I build the wall?
Skinner, should I run for President?
Skinner, should I trust the government?
Skinner, will they put me in the firing line?
Is it just a waste of time?
Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry
Skinner's gonna make all of your nightmares come true
Skinner's gonna put all of his fears into you
Skinner's gonna keep you right here under his wing
He won't let you fly, but he might let you sing
Skinner will keep Baby cozy and warm
Oooo Babe
Oooo Babe
Ooo Babe, of course Skinner's gonna help build the wall
That about sums it up.
-
Democratic Underground Administrator Posts Absurdly Detailed Rules to Micromanage Dissent (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/06/21/democratic-underground-administrator-posts-absurdly-detailed-rules-mic)
The leftwing blogosphere has a big problem: dissent. Last week we saw Keith Olbermann leaving the Daily Kos because he was attacked there for mildly criticizing Barack Obama. And this week, the administrator of the Democratic Underground, David Allen aka Skinner, was forced to deal with a recent wave of purges (tombstoning). One reason was due to simple liberal crackup temper tantrums among the DUers as happened when their most prominent member, William Rivers Pitt of Karl Rove indictment hoax fame, was tombstoned last month for threatening physical violence upon a fellow DUer who turned out to be a homeless woman. More serious is the current wave of dissent from DUers who are expressing dissatification with Obama's poor performance as president.
In order to stifle more dissent, Allen has set forth an absurdly detailed and lengthy set of rules for posting at the Democratic Underground. The result is pure comedy gold. So enjoy this small sampling from the buffet table of Allen's obsessive micromanagement down to the smallest laughable detail:
NewsBusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/06/21/democratic-underground-administrator-posts-absurdly-detailed-rules-mic#ixzz0rXpBawVz)
:rotf:
-
Too lengthy to read all of that blah blah blah bullshit.
My favorite rule? Not calling someone a conservative. lol
-
Oh boy... PJ Comix (http://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/2010/06/skinner-writes-hilariously-detailed.html) read the whole thing. Someone buy that man a beer... he'll need it.
Hmmm... The Free Republic had TONS of dissent over Bush's support for shamnesty and attempting to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court yet NOT ONE new rule was developed on how to deal with that situation. OTOH, Skinner will soon post, in excruciating but hilarious detail a multitude of redundant rules on how to write about The One.
Ouch.
-
- Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
- Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
I predict Hannahbell has a shelf life of 3.7 seconds under these new rules.
"Bullshit." :-)
-
Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
- Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
- Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.
:-) We're famous.
-
Please note that in this effort, we gave special consideration to what can and cannot be said about prominent Democrats.
Oh my.
-
Websites with bigoted content (Jewish conspiracies).
Damn. It's not a good DUmp Middle East thread without a Jewish conspiracy.
-
There goes the Israel/Palestine forum.
-
When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
I'll give Skinner credit, he does really believe that. Wonder what color the sky is where he lives.
-
Democratic Underground Administrator Posts Absurdly Detailed Rules to Micromanage Dissent (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/06/21/democratic-underground-administrator-posts-absurdly-detailed-rules-mic)NewsBusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/06/21/democratic-underground-administrator-posts-absurdly-detailed-rules-mic#ixzz0rXpBawVz)
:rotf:
OMG Newsbusters covered it? :lmao:
-
PJ Gladnick (DUmmie FUnnies) occasionally writes for NB.
-
PJ Gladnick (DUmmie FUnnies) occasionally writes for NB.
I didn't know he wrote for them, just saw his name on the article, very cool!
-
OMG Newsbusters covered it? :lmao:
I LOVE IT!
Thanks for sharing. lol
-
Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
- Geographic region or place of origin.
- Disability (mental or physical).
- Weight or other physical characteristics.
- Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "c*nt," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).
:rofl: oh, this is too much.
-
Blah...Blah...Blah...Blah...Blah...Blah...
Holy DUmanure, come the heck up for air Skinner you moron.
For the rest of us, please allow me to translate:
"We have found that more of you welfare parasite, life-term disability recipient, career unemployed weed smoking stoners, and general brainwashed useful idiot criminal record malcontents we ban, the lesser our trips to Cancun will be funded by you buying cutesy red hearts on Valentines day."
Dem DUmmys are not called DUmmys for nothing!
-
- Geographic region or place of origin.
What. No more bashing racist rednecks? The elitist limo liberal NE sector will be pizzed.
-
Somebody named HoosierEM gave us a plug in the comments section at Newsbusters. This also made it to Moonbattery (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/06/mbft-3-the-dumb.html#comments)
Incidentally, I found CC through a Newsbusters comment.
Also someone named Shawn228 gave us a shoutout, with this CC Link (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=5624.0)
-
That's Traveshamockery (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?action=profile;u=362). She's kinda busy and hasn't checked in here as often as she used to. Not sure about that Shawn person, though.
-
{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
- Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.
- Advocating violent overthrow of the government, or harm toward high-ranking officials.
- Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
- Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
Say what????????????
Might as well just shut the place down Skimmer! Your disciples will never be able to stick with that one!
-
I give CC a plug whenever the democratic underground is mentioned on Newsbusters with a link to The Dumpster. I've done it several times actually.
As of today, I'm done being busy Chris. My business has officially closed down (thanks ObamaCare!!!) so I plan on spending my free time doing some long overdue housecleaning but spending the rest of the time helping wherever I can to expose the Marxists running this country and send them on their way.
-
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 11:47 AM
Original message
We love the new rules, now let's show it with a contribution to DU!
It's become apparent that the new rules will give people incentive to maintain civility at DU and thus be a benefit to our community. Now that the community will be increasing in value, let's appreciate that value in kind with a financial contribution to DU today. K&R if you contribute to this informal "new rules" fundraiser!
:lmao: :loser: :mental:
After 15 replies, it fell off to page 2.
Traveshamockery, maybe it was your plug that brought me here. If so, thanks! I'm so sorry about your business.
-
I give CC a plug whenever the democratic underground is mentioned on Newsbusters with a link to The Dumpster. I've done it several times actually.
As of today, I'm done being busy Chris. My business has officially closed down (thanks ObamaCare!!!) so I plan on spending my free time doing some long overdue housecleaning but spending the rest of the time helping wherever I can to expose the Marxists running this country and send them on their way.
Yeah, I plug it every time I go to FR, which lately ain't that often. This place is my home now.
-
Skimmer needs to get over himself. :loser:
-
Someone at DU pointed something out in this thread:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8611307
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 11:47 AM
Original message
We love the new rules, now let's show it with a contribution to DU!
It's become apparent that the new rules will give people incentive to maintain civility at DU and thus be a benefit to our community. Now that the community will be increasing in value, let's appreciate that value in kind with a financial contribution to DU today. K&R if you contribute to this informal "new rules" fundraiser!
mikelgb (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. "I think that the rules are the cancer which is killing DU."
A change of heart?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603981
This is what the link mike provided takes you too :lmao:
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
306. I think that the rules are the cancer which is killing DU.
Not that rules are bad, or even that particular rules are bad, but they have become an obsession and have served to turn DU into an intense online game that only seems like an activity which brings about political change.
1. The elaborate attempts to control the content and tone have given rise to the illusion that dominating the expression of opinion here is an activity of utmost importance, as witnessed by the "I can't believe that people on DU believe _____". People probably need to find out the hard way that trying to do something like this is futile because it only pressures people to act like they don't disgree (it doesn't even pressure people to actually agree, just that they don't disagree). It would be interesting to find out how much effort is expended by people in trying to control opinion rather than be persuasive.
2. Alerts and permanent bans serve to inordinately place the locus of disagreement on people, not ideas. How many threads devolve into accusations that someone has some other agenda, or is a troll, rather than the topic at hand? This is because the emphasis on the rules and their enforcement gives everybody the idea that an important function of the site is to judge and punish wrongdoers rather than discuss ideas and help people get things done.
3. People will have more respect for the community, it's tone, the moderators and administrators, and the intent of the rules, when the modicum of accountability that the Ask the Administrators forum provided is restored. Nearly everybody has broken a rule, and had it enforced against them. The tone of this enforcement, this attitude of "that's our decision and we're not discussing it publicly" will in turn give you an opportunity to alienate all of these rule-breakers. Will there be whiners in the Ask the Administrators forum? Yes. Will there be people who endlessly nag? Yes. Will there be people who use it as a weapon against other people? Yes. But with the right skill this task can be handled in a way where the benefits outweigh these meager costs, where people - not just those being talked to, but observers as well - come to understand the principles of community, and the people abusing the system only serve to embarass themselves with their attempts to abuse. An authoritarian model of rule-enforcement is often a mask for a lack of these skills, or an unwillingness to take the responsibility that comes with using them.
4. #3 will also complicate fundraising time as people's social behavior is strongly influenced by principles of reciprocity.
5. You mention that people will be judged by whether or not they seem to like DU and it's members. I would think that an overall criticism of "netroots" culture, which is still developing and can still take a different direction than it is today, is important to it's health. Yes, I think over 50% of it is junk, so? If there are big problems with it that need to be ironed out, I think more there is more political benefit to letting these things be said publicly and have people get their feelings hurt (or act like their feelings are hurt as a way of avoiding the real discussion) than letting the Internet serve as a "liberal pacification device"* and a massive time sink that does more harm than good. Would I be able to submit the list of rules as evidence that the administration does not like this community, as they are a catalogue of things which happen within it which you are not happy about? Or should I see it as something given in a manner such that you hope things improve, or acknowledge that a community needs criticism and maintenance?
I may now be posting something which will get me axed during the first round of reviews, which will be seen as a disrespectful insult rather than a brutally optimistic vote of confidence in your ability to make this place better. I don't even have much tangible advice on where to go save for some very radical ideas about implementing anonymous posting and only temporary bans similar to some Japanese-style message boards. I would not be surprised if 95% of the people here will not miss me should I get that axe. I do not even disown certain definitions of the word "troll" (I am not, however, a Republican or conservative, and feel that people like Socrates and even Barack Obama are skilled trolls). But I have been in a position with each thread that I have locked - and I have probably had more locked threads than any other user - to hear criticism, and it was solicited in this thread.
*This is a phrase that I borrowed from someone on a conservative message board who was offering some backhanded advice regarding real activism vs. Internet activism, mentioning that when "moonbats" in the sixties wanted to get together, they actually had to put effort into getting together to meet and thus had more impetus to actually get things done with this effort they put into congregating. To have this kind of real-life constructive activism happen today would be good, no? But the thread I started on the topic focused nearly entirely on the fact that the idea came from a conservative source rather than whether or not the idea was true or good or anything. This is what happens when a culture gets obsessed with rule enforcement rather than discussion.
So he was against the rules before he was for them LOL.
-
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I think the new rules are better than the old rules.
And yes, I'll admit that I'm not as down on the rules in general as I was yesterday when I posted that, now that I've had time to think about it. Because there's punishment beyond just getting the thread locked, people will follow them more and then the question about whether or not someone should be tombstoned or whether or not they habitually break the rules or whatever might become less of a topic on DU. People will have their own reasons to follow the rules aside from peer pressure and mob action.
-
"{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "**** Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name."
Admit it $kinner, DU is nothing but a shrine to Obama. Don't kid yaself in thinking your DUmp is anything close to being a political "discussion" forum.
-
First the DUmmies gave us the bouncy scale. Then they gave us the DUmmy of the Year award. Now they've given us "Name that Infraction."
Thank you DUmmies for hours of entertainment.
-
Someone at DU pointed something out in this thread:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8611307
This is what the link mike provided takes you too :lmao:
So he was against the rules before he was for them LOL.
The truth is more like, He was against the rules before the PM telling him to STFU and toe the line made him for the rules.
-
The truth is more like, He was against the rules before the PM telling him to STFU and toe the line made him for the rules.
:lmao:
-
I actually read through all the rules ::) I don't think I had that many rules to follow when I was in school. It is obvious how uncomfortable they are with any sort of challenge to the hive.
I love how they could call President Bush every name under the sun, but simply using Obama's actual nickname (Barry) is now an infraction.
-
I actually read through all the rules ::) I don't think I had that many rules to follow when I was in school. It is obvious how uncomfortable they are with any sort of challenge to the hive.
I love how they could call President Bush every name under the sun, but simply using Obama's actual nickname (Barry) is now an infraction.
Well, he is their messiah, ya know! I don't think Jesus had a nickname. Just sayin.....
-
I read the whole thing. THE WHOLE THING! Plus the 5 pages of thread. I laughed several times, and tanked my lucky stars I am not a member there, and have a sensible mind. However, I may never be whole again.
-
I read the whole thing. THE WHOLE THING! Plus the 5 pages of thread. I laughed several times, and tanked my lucky stars I am not a member there, and have a sensible mind. However, I may never be whole again.
I think they have vitamins that can restore about half of the brain cells you lost.
-
I read the whole thing. THE WHOLE THING! Plus the 5 pages of thread. I laughed several times, and tanked my lucky stars I am not a member there, and have a sensible mind. However, I may never be whole again.
We'll put you in for the Order Of Teh Rove with VRWC HQ. :tongue:
-
Please explain. Sorry, I just never heard that one before, and don't know a lot of the inside stuff (whether they be jokes, quips, etc) at the Cave yet. :-)
-
Please explain. Sorry, I just never heard that one before, and don't know a lot of the inside stuff (whether they be jokes, quips, etc) at the Cave yet. :-)
You've never heard of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?????
Teh Rove is the CEO! Just ask Hitlery and Bill "the BJ" Clintoon!
-
You've never heard of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?????
Alright, I've got you now. I don't remember ever hearing it called the "VRWC" before though. Haven't heard it put "Teh Rove" before either. Thanks for the info.
-
I actually read through all the rules ::) I don't think I had that many rules to follow when I was in school. It is obvious how uncomfortable they are with any sort of challenge to the hive.
I love how they could call President Bush every name under the sun, but simply using Obama's actual nickname (Barry) is now an infraction.
Democrats love government rule. The more laws to make everyone 'equal' the better. In this case the forced equality is the love and admiration of one Barack Hussein Obama.
-
Alright, I've got you now. I don't remember ever hearing it called the "VRWC" before though. Haven't heard it put "Teh Rove" before either. Thanks for the info.
You've sure missed a helluva lot of comedy relief!
-
Alright, I've got you now. I don't remember ever hearing it called the "VRWC" before though. Haven't heard it put "Teh Rove" before either. Thanks for the info.
Its obvious that you have yet to receive your official right wing programming. Teh R0v3 will be meeting with you soon with his library of Rush Limbaugh subliminal tapes, a garden hose, some duct tape and a towel..
Its not as bad as it seems - there will be cake, and your face will be the cleanest its ever been. :-)
-
Then I better hide. I've been in the dark so long. Thank you for helping me realize that it is after me.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6auDCAGJgE[/youtube]
Rovinator?
:lmao:
-
You've sure missed a helluva lot of comedy relief!
You'll see a lot of it here, but you've got to look for it. :fuelfire: :tongue:
-
You'll see a lot of it here, but you've got to look for it. :fuelfire: :tongue:
I'm still a young (but proud) Cave dweller. Like a new born kitten, my eyes will open wider with time.
-
I actually read through all the rules ::) I don't think I had that many rules to follow when I was in school. It is obvious how uncomfortable they are with any sort of challenge to the hive.
I love how they could call President Bush every name under the sun, but simply using Obama's actual nickname (Barry) is now an infraction.
No kidding! Some of them hate Obama's deeds, since in office. They are being run out of town!
-
Well, I hadn't been aware of these rules at the DU and they're nicely Stalinist, or maybe it would be better to say Maoist.
There is one, though, that I've seen in other places, even ones of opposite political/ideological leaning (ie, like us but not us). This business about not being able to post that someone is lying. This is pure absurdity. If you know someone is lying, then you post it, just as you'd say it. And just like in real life, you'd sound like a whiny kid if you couldn't back it up, and people would ignore you.
But simply outright banning naming someone a liar is crazy. Sometimes people are lying and need to be identified as liars. Sometimes they're lying about 99.8% of the time, like the 981 members of the DU.
The word and the label are hard, and you should be wise enough not to use hard words without provenance, but sometimes the truth is hard. It's good enough for the law, isn't it? The truth is an absolute defense against a defamation suit. That is, it's not defamatory to say someone is a liar when they are a liar.
It's not like naming someone a liar is some unprovable and highly uncivil vulgarity. It can't, for example, be established if someone's a censoredmothercensored, that will always be a matter of opinion and private posting boards can set their own rules about subjective opinions in vulgar format. It can be established if someone is lying or not, and if someone is lying, he is a liar.
-
This business about not being able to post that someone is lying. This is pure absurdity. If you know someone is lying, then you post it, just as you'd say it.
I wish more people had the courage to do as Joe Wilson did. It may have been a bit frowned upon, but nobody likes it when a lie is called out. Especially if you they believe it. It's crystal clear that there is no place for dissent at the DUmmy lounge. It's just sad it's run that way.
-
In the days following Joe Wilson's "you lie!" episode, he raised more than $2 million buckaroos. I was one of the ones who tossed a few bucks his way.
I agree with you guys. Why not be able to say to a fellow forumer, "You're lying and I can prove it. Read this link." Seems to me that would make for some lively and interesting reading, and therefore become a popular site.
-
One wonders what my fellow alum Skins means by this:
Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
Anybody have any idea?
-
One wonders what my fellow alum Skins means by this:
Anybody have any idea?
Any site that tells the truth?
-
If the DUmmies are vampires, we are their silver and garlic.
Ah...sweet silver and garlic...
-
One wonders what my fellow alum Skins means by this:
Anybody have any idea?
Uh........us?
-
Uh........us?
Could be. And it could be OET too. They are doing a good bit of DU slamming these days as well..
-
Could be. And it could be OET too. They are doing a good bit of DU slamming these days as well..
Does anybody know if my good friend and pal AllentownJake got thrown off Skins's island?
-
Does anybody know if my good friend and pal AllentownJake got thrown off Skins's island?
There's been so many since Skimmer put out the new rules, I don't think we've kept up. Me thinks he was one of the first though.
Many of them even started free speech arguments and still got a tombstone! But then, we knew they would!
-
There's been so many since Skimmer put out the new rules, I don't think we've kept up. Me thinks he was one of the first though.
Many of them even started free speech arguments and still got a tombstone! But then, we knew they would!
Well, if my fellow alum Skins tossed AllentownJake off the island, that's the fourth-stupidest thing Skins ever did.
-
One wonders what my fellow alum Skins means by this:
Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
Anybody have any idea?
It's just another way of saying don't reference sites like CC, CU or anywhere else where they make fun of us.
-
Anybody have any idea?
It's just another way of saying don't reference sites like CC, CU or anywhere else where they make fun of us.
When I saw that, to be bluntly honest, I took offense at it.
An offended franksolich is not a nice franksolich.
-
Well, if my fellow alum Skins tossed AllentownJake off the island, that's the fourth-stupidest thing Skins ever did.
Well, I just confirmed it, Coach! He's over on OldElmTree now. That's where they all went to bitch about the new rules.
-
Well, I just confirmed it, Coach! He's over on OldElmTree now. That's where they all went to bitch about the new rules.
But even if AllentownJake's over there, that doesn't necessarily mean my fellow alum tossed him off the island.
-
Well, if my fellow alum Skins tossed AllentownJake off the island, that's the fourth-stupidest thing Skins ever did.
Fourth-stupidest? Do I want to be reminded of the other three?
-
But even if AllentownJake's over there, that doesn't necessarily mean my fellow alum tossed him off the island.
Well I "Googled" him and that's the only place I can find recent posts. If memory serves me, I think he was one of the first to complain they could no longer find fault with the "Big O". After they locked the first thread, he put up another and got the pizza!
-
Fourth-stupidest? Do I want to be reminded of the other three?
In no particular order--just chronological:
(a) my fellow alum Skins choosing to associate with Lord Marblehead, "EarlG."
(b) my fellow alum not banning Doug's stupid ex-wife during her Scamdal fiasco.
(c) Skins not banning the Bostonian Drunkard during the Fitzmas fiasco.
And if my good friend and associate AllentownJake was in fact thrown off Skin's island, that would most certainly rate among Skins's top four mistakes, one of his biggest blunders. One of the most stupid things my fellow alum could do. Being that stupid takes some brains.
-
In no particular order--just chronological:
(a) my fellow alum Skins choosing to associate with Lord Marblehead, "EarlG."
(b) my fellow alum not banning Doug's stupid ex-wife during her Scamdal fiasco.
(c) Skins not banning the Bostonian Drunkard during the Fitzmas fiasco.
And if my good friend and associate AllentownJake was in fact thrown off Skin's island, that would most certainly rate among Skins's top four mistakes, one of his biggest blunders. One of the most stupid things my fellow alum could do. Being that stupid takes some brains.
I found this BonFire over at the island, Coach. Looks like it was voluntary and he left in protest to the new marxist state.
Here's the link! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8584989)
Looks like I shoulda woulda coulda searched here first!
Another Quitter....AlentownJake (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45222.0.html)
-
I found this BonFire over at the island, Coach. Looks like it was voluntary and he left in protest to the new marxist state.
Here's the link! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8584989)
Looks like I shoulda woulda coulda searched here first!
Another Quitter....AlentownJake (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45222.0.html)
Thank you, sir.
A man of principle, my good friend and colleague AllentownJake.
One is known by the company one keeps.
-
Thank you, sir.
A man of principle, my good friend and colleague AllentownJake.
One is known by the company one keeps.
C'mon, Coach, he's still a DUmpster DIver! Although not as moonbatty as most, he still was layin' in the pit with the rest of 'em.