Bravenak quotes Skinner

[dutch508]

Star Member bravenak (17,238 posts)

A Quick Reminder for This Primary Season


I saw a post that I find very important to the discourse on our lovely site. In an attempt to clarify the rules, this was posted to give us more info on the TOS. In order to keep us all here together and fighting for the Democratic party, I am reposting this for all and sundry. Very sensible post.

Star Member Skinner (60,834 posts)
1. You are correct.

Based on the Terms of Service, we have grounds to ban anyone who states that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic nominee in any general election. There is a popular misconception that the "Vote for Democrats" rule only applies after a nominee has been chosen, but that is not correct. The use of the term "never" is intentional in the section you quoted above.

So the next question, of course, is why so many people have been permitted to claim here on DU that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, and have not been banned for saying so. The reason is because the admins believe that most people who say this in the context of a contested presidential primary don't actually mean it. Some of them say it because they think threatening to withhold one's vote might be a persuasive argument in favor of their preferred primary candidate. (It isn't.) And in other cases they say it because they really believe it at that moment when they are caught up in the heat of the primary campaign, but once the primary is over they suck it up and do the right thing. We have seen this over and over again on DU after previous contested primary campaigns when the vast, vast majority of people went on to support the nominee.

The DU Terms of Service actually gives a nod to this and contains a clause that a certain amount of ambivalence toward Democrats is understandable:

During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

I want to be clear that that the Terms of Service remain unchanged, and members are still permitted to express their ambivalence about voting for the eventual nominee. The DU administrators have been allowing members a significant amount of leeway in our interpretation of that clause, but is a limit to how far we are willing to go.

Unfortunately, there are some people here who who say they won't support the nominee and actually won't. As we explained above, our feeling is that we want to give people the benefit of the doubt. But if you convince us that you actually mean it and you really aren't going to support the nominee, then we're going to treat you like you actually mean it. That person who started the OP telling people to sign the pledge that they won't support the Democratic nominee was very convincing, and is no longer a member of DU.

From the Terms of Service:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

That's the bottom line.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598967

 

Star Member bravenak (17,238 posts)
3. It should be a given that we vote for the nominee.

If not then people will ask. No need to answer. I did not want to accidentally post in the Bernie forum so I trashed it in August. Trash those threads that make you feel annoyed. It makes sense.

passiveporcupine (3,267 posts)
84. I'm sorry but This is not liberal or progressive underground (as much as I might like it to be). It is Democratic Underground.

there have to be other sites out there for people who don't care a whit about who wins but only support a candidate who fits their agenda.

Well then, I don 't want to hear any more bitching about DWS. She is the head of the DNC and you will respect her!

bravenak (17,238 posts)
11. I agree. I also say put the 'loyalty threads' in the garbage. Do not pay attention to them or me if I do so. Ignore. I ignore a great many threads that I think are designed to suck one in and get them in a twist.

Sure you do. There doesn't need to be any loyalty threads because the entire site is a loyalty enforced zone.


^ Skinner looks out over the ranks of DU.

Cha (166,884 posts)
25. Great, brave! A Very Current Reminder that the Rules that have always been in place for the

General Election Remain Unchanged.

I did not think it would. Why would Skinner and the Admins have members on here helping the republicons during a critically important election for our Country and Planet?!

Thank you, Skinner!

Mahalo brave

Warren DeMontague (64,425 posts)
43. Oh, i think a lot of people should take note.

But the folks who somehow have it in their heads that hillary being nominated will be their long-awaited vindication for ******* being banned over her transphobic comments in the meta forum circa 2011, I suspect are setting themselves up for a wee spot o'disappointment. 


Now, i hate to see people disappointed, dont you?

 

Warren DeMontague (64,425 posts)
95. I'm not talking about 'the purge', either.

I'm talking about folks who have spent the past 10 years expressing their profound discontent with this site, and yet are still here.

I'm not that interesting, either- and like I said, been there, done that, got the t shirt, find the whole thing rather trite. But that doesn't mean my ears don't burn when people call me out on the intertubes.

seaglass (6,402 posts)
118. He's talking about the History of Feminism members and I believe iverglas being banned in 2011 and this has something to do with Hillary in 2008 or some such shit.

 

merrily (29,979 posts)
88. L0onix said nothing. The entire post was copied and pasted from another website, with a link.

L0onix got banned for copying and pasting.

L0onix urged no one to sign the pledge, urged no one to keep it. It's not legally binding anyway.

The other post of L0onix that got hidden was also a copy and paste of a post and comments.

Check the transparency page. Both posts are there.

Kentonio (99 posts)
112. So just to clarify Bravenak..

When you repeatedly claim that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and that you'll never vote for a non-Democrat for election, if he wins the nomination will you vote for him despite your claims?

 

[miskie]

Hey Dummies --

Have you noticed the The Cave has no such party loyalty requirement, yet somehow we are the "jack booted Nazi Thugs" ?

Probably not.

[Duke Nukum]

Okay, now I believe that Bravenak is Skinner's sock. Given his access to Clinton money there is little doubt he could hire an actress to play Bravenak and even create fake Bernie-bot actors to send crank letters to this actress.

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to Hillary fields
Nothing is real and nothing to get Skinned about
Hillary fields forever.

Except those fields will be Hillary Death Camps for Adults!!!

[zeitgeist]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598967

 

Well then, I don 't want to hear any more bitching about DWS. She is the head of the DNC and you will respect her!

Sure you do. There doesn't need to be any loyalty threads because the entire site is a loyalty enforced zone.


^ Skinner looks out over the ranks of DU.

 

 

 

Yup that would be their heritage 'fer sur. 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BbWFeihHhE[/youtube]

Of course there is not a lot of youth left on their bench anymore.

[I_B_Perky]

Hey Dummies --

Have you noticed the The Cave has no such party loyalty requirement, yet somehow we are the "jack booted Nazi Thugs" ?

Probably not.

Not only that Miskie, they say that we get our marching orders from Limbaugh, et alia. This is proof positive that the dummies are in fact what they accuse others of being.... lemmings.

[98ZJUSMC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UClto5gKYg&
Ein (D)Ummy, Ein Candidate, Ein Party!

[98ZJUSMC]

Not only that Miskie, they say that we get our marching orders from Limbaugh, et alia. This is proof positive that the dummies are in fact what they accuse others of being.... lemmings.

Of course.  Second to lying, yet part and parcel of the same abhorrent behavior; the (D)Ummies favorite practiced trait?

Projection!!

Accuse others, of what you do.  - Marx

[USA4ME]

The bern-outs are just not very bright.

Listen up, primitives:

If you're a bern-out, you're either a vertebrate or an invertebrate. The vertebrates will only vote for the Dem nominee if it's Bernie. The invertebrates will toss their principles out the window and vote for Billary.

If you're a vertebrate bern-out, and you want to stay on Skin's island after Billary gets the nomination, your choices are easy. You either lie and say you're voting for her when you're not, or you just don't say anything about who you're voting for. If someone asks you who you're voting for and you don't want to lie (other than not wanting to get the boot from the island I'm not sure why you're choosing now not to lie, but whatever), just say you're voting for the democrat. If they ask who that would be, just ask them back who's the democrat that's running. But, I strongly suggest that you just not answer the question.

.

[DUmpsterDiver]

One man's mole is another man's gerbil, just looking for a good time.  Forty dollar bill don't matter no more.

[Ptarmigan]

Star Member bravenak (17,238 posts)

A Quick Reminder for This Primary Season


I saw a post that I find very important to the discourse on our lovely site. In an attempt to clarify the rules, this was posted to give us more info on the TOS. In order to keep us all here together and fighting for the Democratic party, I am reposting this for all and sundry. Very sensible post.

Star Member Skinner (60,834 posts)
1. You are correct.

Based on the Terms of Service, we have grounds to ban anyone who states that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic nominee in any general election. There is a popular misconception that the "Vote for Democrats" rule only applies after a nominee has been chosen, but that is not correct. The use of the term "never" is intentional in the section you quoted above.

So the next question, of course, is why so many people have been permitted to claim here on DU that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, and have not been banned for saying so. The reason is because the admins believe that most people who say this in the context of a contested presidential primary don't actually mean it. Some of them say it because they think threatening to withhold one's vote might be a persuasive argument in favor of their preferred primary candidate. (It isn't.) And in other cases they say it because they really believe it at that moment when they are caught up in the heat of the primary campaign, but once the primary is over they suck it up and do the right thing. We have seen this over and over again on DU after previous contested primary campaigns when the vast, vast majority of people went on to support the nominee.

The DU Terms of Service actually gives a nod to this and contains a clause that a certain amount of ambivalence toward Democrats is understandable:

During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

I want to be clear that that the Terms of Service remain unchanged, and members are still permitted to express their ambivalence about voting for the eventual nominee. The DU administrators have been allowing members a significant amount of leeway in our interpretation of that clause, but is a limit to how far we are willing to go.

Unfortunately, there are some people here who who say they won't support the nominee and actually won't. As we explained above, our feeling is that we want to give people the benefit of the doubt. But if you convince us that you actually mean it and you really aren't going to support the nominee, then we're going to treat you like you actually mean it. That person who started the OP telling people to sign the pledge that they won't support the Democratic nominee was very convincing, and is no longer a member of DU.

From the Terms of Service:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

That's the bottom line.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598967

Than why are you not purging Bernie Bots. 

[miskie]

Than why are you not purging Bernie Bots. 

That'll begin about a nanosecond after Hillary is the official nominee.

[Mr Mannn]

Yet another shining example of how liberals just aren't into that whole freedom thing.

[txradioguy]

Hey Dummies --

Have you noticed the The Cave has no such party loyalty requirement, yet somehow we are the "jack booted Nazi Thugs" ?

Probably not.

The only time that is even an issue here is when the Paulbots show up and start making claims about being the "real COnservatives"...or you get the odd 100%'er who claims that unless Candidate X does everything he or she demands they aren't voing.

But by and large you're correct...there is none of that at places like The Cave or over at CU.

[landofconfusion80]

The only time that is even an issue here is when the Paulbots show up and start making claims about being the "real COnservatives"...or you get the odd 100%'er who claims that unless Candidate X does everything he or she demands they aren't voing.

But by and large you're correct...there is none of that at places like The Cave or over at CU.

well it's true...but you guys are just so darn likable I don't make a big stink about it.

[SVPete]

Wow! Democrat Uber Alles!

[SVPete]

The only time that is even an issue here is when the Paulbots show up and start making claims about being the "real COnservatives"...or you get the odd 100%'er who claims that unless Candidate X does everything he or she demands they aren't voing.

But by and large you're correct...there is none of that at places like The Cave or over at CU.

The only time that is even an issue here is when the Paulbots show up and start making claims about being the "real COnservatives"...or you get the odd 100%'er who claims that unless Candidate X does everything he or she demands they aren't voing.

But by and large you're correct...there is none of that at places like The Cave or over at CU.

There's a "conservative" like that over on the site where I'm a Mod. He's constantly demanding party unity, voting for the Golden R regardless of their stances. The dude calls himself a "Moderate" ... displays his party unity by continually crapping on those he terms "Socons" ... he's posted that he will NOT vote for Trump if he gets the R nomination.

[txradioguy]

There's a "conservative" like that over on the site where I'm a Mod. He's constantly demanding party unity, voting for the Golden R regardless of their stances. The dude calls himself a "Moderate" ... displays his party unity by continually crapping on those he terms "Socons" ... he's posted that he will NOT vote for Trump if he gets the R nomination.

His screen name isn't The Stranger is it?

[SVPete]

His screen name isn't The Stranger is it?

Nope.

I don't post the name of that site here or on CU to avoid even the appearance of spam-promoting it. This has been by my choice, not something CC's or CU's Admin/Mod staff have asked of me.

I think there are at least 3 members of that site who occasionally post here who would recognize to whom I referred from my post above. Personally, I've been cyber-acquainted with the guy since 2005, at least, and possibly back to 2001. We, ummmmm, don't agree on much beyond some similar musical likings.

My point, beyond a , was that DU-style party-unity goose-step-demands are almost foreign to mainstream conservative discussion sites, except from "Moderates" who won't give what they demand of conservatives.

[txradioguy]

Nope.

I don't post the name of that site here or on CU to avoid even the appearance of spam-promoting it. This has been by my choice, not something CC's or CU's Admin/Mod staff have asked of me.

I can respect that.  I was being a smart ass and aat the same time taking a dig at The Stranger since he's made similar proclamations about Trump.

There's so many people that have been or are members at both CU and CC that mentioning one at the other place doesn't phase people...hell some of us..like me...have been Mods at both places.

It's all good.

My point, beyond a , was that DU-style party-unity goose-step-demands are almost foreign to mainstream conservative discussion sites, except from "Moderates" who won't give what they demand of conservatives.

Yeah places like this tend to reject a kiss the ring mentality.