This message was self-deleted by its author

[Algernon Moncrieff]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Algernon Moncrieff) on Tue Sep 2, 2014, 10:22 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Cleita]

1. Yep, but this way a subversive operation can take down

two websites with one assault on both.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

2. Ah, I hadn't factored in subversion

...when you put it THAT way..

[Marr]

3. I don't think it's subversion at all. It's ego. /nt

[Cleita]

4. This website has been very important in previous elections.

With two important ones coming up, it seems now that two websites that might be keeping the electorate informed, could be very inconvenient. It used to be there were two big issue weapons to shut down discussion and that was abortion and pulling the plug on already dead people. Since that doesn't work anymore, new distractions have been invented IMHO. Of course this is what I think and I'm not alone in this, but it will take those with better information to determine what is actually going on.

[LittleBlue]

6. +1 million

Astute observation

[FSogol]

8. Don't worry, the admins have way too much tin foil wrapped around the servers for that to happen.

[morningfog]

53. There's only one "website."

[City Lights]

5. Discussionists are always discussing DU.

I am one who wishes they'd both stop focusing on each other.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

7. No -- you are not the only one

I'm really sorry that they have some unhappy shoppers, but they should go complain at the right store.

[TalkingDog]

9. Logged in just to K&R. And also a nod to the recognition of sock puppets using wedge issues

in order to disrupt.

[msongs]

10. cut and paste astroturfers should be encouraged to move to that new location :-) nt

[Algernon Moncrieff]

16. Subtitles, please

Sorry. I'm somewhat dense

[Callmecrazy]

36. Take out your own trash... nt

[TBF]

11. That's the thing - we don't know if they are separate.

I am waiting for admin to address that question. I do not want my donations supporting that site.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

17. I posed the question to Skinner in ATA

My impression is that they are separate entities, but it's a fair question, IMO.

[TBF]

24. I asked as well -

that would be enough for me. If they run them separately and each have their own distinct budget etc without co-mingled funds then I'm good. I just don't want to use it, be associated with it, or fund it. I think it's a fair position.

[jeff47]

12. Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=myaccount&sub=trash

Add "Discussionist" to Auto-trash by Keyword.

Problem solved.

[TalkingDog]

13. Hold on there.....

"threads which contain that keyword in their titles"

There was a thread yesterday that made it into the top 3 recommended on the Greatest Page. The word "Discussionist" was not in the thread title.

[Heidi]

14. The owners were the first to discuss Discussionist here,

so you'll just have to get over us following their lead instead of yours, I suppose.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

15. The owners cross marketed a new site

That does not mean discussion of that site is desirable here. Meta discussion of DU is frowned upon in GD; we are not allowed to discuss C*********** C***; why should Discussionist be different? If you or anyone else has a suggestion for improving Discussionist, then e-mail Mr. Allen.

[boston bean]

21. The owners of discussionist have NO PROBLEM

with that site being used to Discuss, Target, Plot disruption of DU, and stalk members here.

So, again, why should there be no discussion of that type of behavior here?

Hell, this site was built off of making fun of freepers and teabaggers. Why should it be censored here?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

23. For the same reason we don't discuss C*********** C*** here

It's ostensibly a site to promote a positive atmosphere that encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Discussing the crap spewed about DUers on other websites doesn't meet those criterion.

I'll rephrase what I said above: this is like going to Wal Mart to complain about the crappy service you got at Sam's Club. Same owners -- different shops. If you have a complaint about Sam's Club -- go complain there. Alternatively, go to ATA and talk to the bossman. He can help you, which is more than anyone in GD can do.

[boston bean]

25. there is NO rule forbidding discussing CC or any other freeper nutville website.

So...... what else?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

38. As far as I know, there is a prohibition on discussing CC

Skinner doesn't want to drive traffic to their section that does nothing but discuss DU. That was the last I'd heard.

I don't need another reason. Those complaining about Discussionist here are simply doing so in the wrong place. It's like complaining about On The Border at Chili's or complaining about K-Mart at Sears or complaining about Shaw Flooring at the Benjamin Moore store. It's wasted effort expended in the wrong place.

I don't want you to take this to mean I don't respect you as a poster, or that I don't think the comments made to BainesBaine weren't awful. I just don't see GD in DU to be the place to vent your issues with Discussionist.

[boston bean]

41. Wrong, there is no prohibition on discussing CC here.

I don't want you to take this to mean that I don't respect you as a poster, but I don't really care whether or where you think my discussion are appropriate.

For real. give it a rest.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

51. Peace be with you

[boston bean]

64. and also with you. nt

[fishwax]

69. that prohibition was way back on DU2 -- it's not prohibited anymore

though juries, of course, may choose to hide it.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

73. Fair enough

I thought the prohibition was still in place.

[Kali]

82. I don't know that I would say they have no problem.

I think they have shown a little bit of tone-deafness in the replies to some about the incidence with a certain troll who exaggerates his academic accomplishments, as those posts were totally reprehensible. However I understand the admins perspective that the community over there, as full of wing nuts and assholes as it is, DID handle the situation. This is how social guidance works, and it seemed to have accomplished the over-all tasks any of us would have wanted by shutting that asshole down and cutting off his access to the public "soap-box" - at least as well as any technology could at this point.

I DO agree that it would be so much more affirming if the ToS and jury guidelines included a specification that sexist comments and misogyny in general were considered a violation of DU's community standards.

I also agree that the banning messages of trolls like that asshole on DI should reflect the ACTUAL offense(s) - indeed the things the community/juries found violated community standards - would send a much more clear message to everybody concerned.

[Scootaloo]

37. I think when people there give rape threats to people here, it bears mention

trash the threads, if it steams your noodles so much to see them.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

48. Generally, we don't allow gun discussion in GD

We have a place for that. Ditto Showbiz, I/P, & Sports. There's a place to discuss things that were said on Discussionist -- it's called Discussionist. Or, if you are unhappy with management's role in all of this, voice your complaints in ATA.

[Scootaloo]

58. sadly the universe does not revolve around your whim and desire

Like i said, if you dislike seeing the threads, trash them. Boom, your problem is solved.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

63. Hey, it doesn't revolve around yours, either

If I want to discuss why I think it's idiotic to write about Discussionist on DU, I'm free to do so. It works both ways.

Peace be with you, Scootaloo.

[boston bean]

65. all the while discussing discussionist on du

Something you don't want happening.

lol

[Algernon Moncrieff]

74. True that

True that, indeed

[justiceischeap]

19. Did you really have to go there?

I mean really? It's shit like this that starts firestorms in threads that aren't meant to be firestorms at all. It's very attention-seeking behavior to throw out flame bait like that (and you KNOW it's flame bait).

[TransitJohn]

20. It's not flame bait, it's my opinion of this site, and a certain clique's behavior here.

Am I not allowed to have my opinion?

[justiceischeap]

22. Yes, you're entitled to your opinion but take some time and complain

tactfully. And it is flame bait because we all know that it pisses off some of the women on DU when you refer to pearl clutching, hence, making it flame bait. You certainly don't mean anything nice by that statement.

[bettyellen]

61. you aren't bothered by Duer's being taunted with threats of rape, so you mock them?

Calling them pearl clutchers? Wow.

[Starry Messenger]

68. Bigotry isn't an opinion.

[AverageJoe90]

75. Pardon me, but what, exactly, is bigoted about "Pearl-Clutching" Underground?

Is there some sort of history I should be aware of? Honest question.....mainly because false and/or unsubstantiated accusations can be a serious problem. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. Discussionist is, from some accounts, the place to discuss DU, I thought?

[Starry Messenger]

27. Why not?

Are we not allowed to discuss different Darden restaurants because two might have different names?

[boston bean]

32. Right now, the number one key trending tag in culture is

rape.....

Another key trending is HOF, and the rape threat guy is back posting to his little hearts content. With one hidden similar post from prior, but still going strong!

I don't dare link to it. It might be the end of me here if I did.

They just booted him..... not sure what the reason is because they banned me and accused me of having a sock I NEVER had.

[Starry Messenger]

45. The owners created a franchise for this crap.

Now instead of one bucket of crap, they have two.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

57. So when I click on clulture, rape does not even show up.

why are your results so different then mine ?
I do not have auto trash setup over there

[boston bean]

59. it is number one in trending key tags under the culture forum

And hof is second.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

39. Do you go complain about Maggiano's at Chili's?

(Brinkman, not Darden -- but you get the idea)

[Starry Messenger]

44. I complain about the owners treating their customers/workers like shit if they own both chains.

They aren't separate businesses if they have the same owners and they people at one place are attacking the people at another place. And if Maggiano's has a big sign on its roof advertising for Chili's, then....?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

46. I'd go complain at the corporate office

Complaining about Maggiano's at Chili's just wastes everyone's time.

[Starry Messenger]

47. Not if rape threats are being supported in both places.

I don't consider that a waste of my time at all, at all. People have a right to know what kind of shit the owners are perpetuating by a lack of action *in both places*.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

49. I have no problem with people at DU discussing questionable posts on DU

...within the context of the rules set forth in the various forums.

[Starry Messenger]

50. Well, that's great news.

Since there's no rule against discussing Discussionist on DU, or vice versa, we have no problem here. Concerns taken care of.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

54. I don't recall writing that it was against the rules

Being honest - I wish that it were. I have zero interest in what goes on at Discussionist, and I think if we can't have gun, I/P, sports, showbiz, or Meta (sort of) discussions in GD, it makes no sense to have Discussionist threads. Perhaps a Discussionist discussion group should be formed.

All political blogging is, to greater or lesser degrees, a waste of time that could be spent doing something more productive -- like phone banking for Al Franken, or jogging, or carpet cleaning. But none of us here have chosen to do those things. My assertion is that complaining about Discussionist in GD is a greater than usual monumental waste of time. Seriously -- if you're hacked off about the way management is handling their business, go here:

The DU Administrators

David Allen
Forum username: Skinner
Co-founder, Forum Administrator
[e-mail]

Dave Allsopp
Forum username: EarlG
Co-founder, Forum Administrator
[e-mail]

Brian Leitner
Forum username: Elad
Lead Programmer, Forum Administrator
[e-mail]

[Starry Messenger]

60. Thanks, but since I know the owners' track record on dealing with private complaints

I'll just go on suffering through life without doing what you might like. I guess your ensuing years here will be sad and empty. Fortunately, there is another website.

If people who post here are being targeted by rape threats on another website owned by this same website's owners, that's everyone's business. Most people who do organizing are aware of that basic premise, but I guess if this is just a hobby for you, you might not be aware of that.

[notadmblnd]

28. I would think so.

[Kalidurga]

29. The two sites serve completely different purposes though sometimes it's hard to tell

This place is for talking to intelligent people who understand the issues. Discussionist is to talk to people who have a different view point and try to at least get them to understand some issues. It's not really working out like that of course at least not for me. When I try to discuss an issue I get one reply in answer to a question then I ask another and get nuthin. Like the guy who says we can't agree on what racism is so we can't talk about it. I asked if he didn't have anyone in his life that he loves. Got crickets.

[Callmecrazy]

42. The same post could be written at Discussionist...

about DU and it would be equally true.
Some days the place is great and some days there is too much emotion to have any meaningful or civil conversations on either site.

[Kalidurga]

55. Yes of course

My IL at Discussionist is far longer than my IL here. So, I don't see a lot of crappy posts by conservatives. I see a lot of meh posts by conservatives. The conservatives that haven't made it to my IL are ones who know how to be civil and can somewhat carry on a conversation. There aren't a lot of them.

[Louisiana1976]

30. I don't mind discussing Discussionist here--after all, they discuss DU on Discussionist.

[Trajan]

31. Yes ... never talk about any other website

While in DU ...

It is such a blessing to have the hallway monitors here to limit our discussions to the bare minimums ...

[treestar]

33. Well if you go to Discussionist

You find a lot of discussion about DU. That's the place to discuss DU. So it follows that the place to discuss Discussionist is DU.

[LeftyMom]

34. DUers were threatened with rape because of their posts on DU. Yes, we can talk about that on DU.

And yes, everybody's noticed that the people complaining about that DU is the wrong venue to discuss threats to DUers are the same people who always want feminists to shut up. It's an odd coincidence, I'm sure.

[boston bean]

35. And they are the one always calling everyone else an authoritarian

and censoring free speech.

Curious and curiouser.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

43. Total coincidence. Yep. Just a quirky little alignment of the planets there.

Do I really need to add this: ?

[SidDithers]

40. Yes...nt

Sid

[tkmorris]

52. It ain't up to you

People here are gonna discuss whatever they want to discuss, including Discussionist, unless and until the site admins say they can't. For the LIFE of me I can't understand what motivates you to try to convince people they shouldn't.

Actually I take that back. I CAN think of a few theories.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

56. Do tell about your theories

..and if you have complaints about Discussionist, doesn't it make more sense to tell these guys:

The DU Administrators

David Allen
Forum username: Skinner
Co-founder, Forum Administrator
[e-mail]

Dave Allsopp
Forum username: EarlG
Co-founder, Forum Administrator
[e-mail]

Brian Leitner
Forum username: Elad
Lead Programmer, Forum Administrator
[e-mail]

[Logical]

62. LOL, really? We discuss EVERYTHING here. Freeperville, Hufffington post, get it now? nt

[Algernon Moncrieff]

71. I get discussing HuffPo, Kos, NYT, Democracy Now, WaPo

They feature widely distributed news and op-ed pieces written in the first person on topics of political interest.

Discussing FR is generally good for laughs but not much else, and you can't express a contrary view there without getting zotted or whatever the Hell they call it.

Discussing Discussionist here makes little sense when one can just as easily discuss it over at Discussionist.

[Logical]

80. But we can discuss it here without needing to join there! nt

[kcr]

66. No n/t

[cwydro]

67. Yes. nt

[fishwax]

70. well, it's one place to discuss discussionist. GD is another place to discuss discussionist.

Especially if (and this is the argument that people talking about discussionist are making) the people/culture over there are having a negative effect on the culture here.

[AverageJoe90]

72. I might agree with you normally, but I'll have to take an exception here.....no offense.

There has indeed been a problem with fome Discussionist's more.....unscrupulous members causing trouble here as well. So, in this case, it might not be such a bad idea to talk about this here, since we are being affected.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

76. I disagree, but you at least express the argument reasonably

[XemaSab]

79. Who EXACTLY do you think is being unscrupulous?

Feminists, perhaps?

[DrewFlorida]

77. Everything you need to know about Disscussionist!

[MannyGoldstein]

78. So you're saying "it's just business".

That would be consistent with the Hillarian ornamentation in your post.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

81. What I wrote is what I wrote

I'd note that some of my most vocal opponents in this thread also sport Hillary ornamentation.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

83. I'm going to end this now.

Here's what I wrote in the OP

Isn't the place to discuss Discussionist over at Discussionist?

Why are we discussing it here? It's kind of like going over to the Orlando Magic's office to complain about Amway. Yes, they share common ownership, but they are entirely separate businesses.

My opinion is out there. Other opinions are out there. We're not changing each other's minds.

The only thing I'll add is that no matter how I or any of the posters feel about whether Discussionist should be a topic here, we all agree that the rape threat was vile and completely unacceptable.