Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
{ } 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.
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 11:47 AMOriginal 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!
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.
mikelgb (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 12:00 PMResponse to Original message4. "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
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-21-10 12:29 PMResponse to Original message306. 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.
"The nation that couldn’t be conquered by foreign enemies has been conquered by its elected officials" odawg Free Republic in reference to the GOP Elites who are no difference than the Democrats
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 12:12 PMResponse to Reply #410. 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.
Someone at DU pointed something out in this thread:http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8611307This is what the link mike provided takes you too 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.
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.
soon as you find your manhood all else falls into place.
If Ft. Hood was "workplace violence," then the Hindenburg was an air show.
I don't know if sand glows in the dark, but we're gonna find out.
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.
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?????
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.