General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Algernon Moncrieff) on Mon Jun 8, 2015, 02:06 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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Seems like every four years or so, someone thinks they should be clarified.
Couldn't have anything to do with the upcoming general election, I'm sure.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)the posts in every forum.
GD
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002
There is a link in that that leads to Skinner's pinned thread at the top of posts which expands and explains why posts get locked by Hosts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978
Finally, the way to contact Admin is through Ask the Admin forum, or Contact link found at the bottom of every single page in DU.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
Ms. Toad
(38,639 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2015, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Sarah Palin, an artist, a reporter, a dumb criminal, etc.
But the cop did not find contraband. Instead they found a loaded Freedom Arms .22-caliber handgun, which was loaded with three live rounds and one spent shell. “I observed at that time a wooden and metal item sticking out from her vagina area,” reported Officer Kathy Unbewust, who added that she “pulled the item from her vagina, and found it to be a 5 shot revolver with rounds in the chamber
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2483614
Advertisements [?]
Yee Haw! Keith just mentioned that Pork Barrel Palin has accomplished the Nearly Impossible - her favorabilty rating has dropped 10 Points Since SATURDAY!
Let's hope it drops another 10 in only 4 Days!!
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7090146&mesg_id=7090422
But then again I'm given to spoonerisms.
And apologies for plagarism, but I forget the author or the original quote...
I get it. Yeah. Clever, that. Of course, outright calling her a cunt would be impolite, but if you dress it up in tired, cliched wordplay, then it's fresh and funny.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7059909
Twitter user Elle (@ElleRafter) tweeted at @USAirways about a flight delay.
US Airways responded with: “We welcome feedback, Elle. If your travel is complete, you can detail it for review and follow-up.”
That tweet included a picture that showed a model airplane inappropriately positioned between a woman’s legs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024821412
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025138775#post22
I am hearing that there are even some repubicans who are calling it a stunt.
but that's OK, his VP pick was a stunning ..., oh never mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4089277
Cause they are hard to find.....
"cunning stunt" real fast three times. Betcha can't without "messing up".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4038135
You will not find her on any of the Sunday interview shows for the second week in a row. She is not a bulldog she is a CHICKEN.
Are we really not talking about Chicken Cunning Stunt any more?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7060366
a "stunt" is landing on the USS Lincoln, dressed in genital hugging military attire, proclaiming "Mission Accomplished".
a "stunt" is flying to DC under cover of night in order to sign legislation designed aimed exclusively toward a brain damaged blind woman.
a "stunt" is crying that a judge donated money to a candidate of his choice renders him incapable of being fair toward your case.
you catch my drift......
Can't help it. I practiced this a lot when I was a teen-ager.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5292604
h a cheat sheet scrawled on her hand. Even the president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, couldn’t resist getting into the act and treated a White House briefing to a Palin hand gag of his own.
Yet the laughter rang hollow. You had to wonder if Palin, who is nothing if not cunning, had sprung a trap. She knows all too well that the more the so-called elites lampoon her, the more she cements her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x181108#181379
If you ever keep a ball of yarn in your vagina and get an infection....although at that point I would probably see a doctor...or 2.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4197488
is this Mary Carey chick a real republican supporter? or is she just pulling a stunt?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3928483#3931415
(And, if it is an immediately bannable offense, then there is one particular currently active poster - responsible for several of these - who must be sweating bullets.)
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)The jury system doesn't always bring that.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Well done!
TM99
(8,352 posts)with NYC_SKP's ban!
It is very difficult to NOT see it as anything other than a purge of a strong anti-Hillary poster given the total inconsistency around enforcement of said TOS.
Additionally, SKP did not have any hides in the last 90 days so he obviously did not have a 'history' of this type of behavior.
I am not surprised. I am not even saddened by it. Humans do what humans do, and often it is shitty.
Ms. Toad
(38,639 posts)I don't necessarily agree that he didn't have a history of this type of behavior (he participated in at least one of the threads I linked to). But - the admins didn't seem to be concerned about the phrase, whether it was uttered by NYC_SKP - or anyone else - until it was used (by someone other than NYC_SKP) to refer to a clever media device employed by Clinton, then repeated by NYC_SKP.
I'm all in favor of the admins being more involved when it comes to mysogyny. homophobia, and transphobia. There's way too much of it that skates through juries (all along, but more so recently). I'm not in favor of selective involvement to achieve a politically expedient goal, particularly when it is labeled with a ban message that suggests the reason was intolerance for mysogyny on DU.
TM99
(8,352 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and the same for the many, many DU"ers who assume he was canned for just one post.
Ms. Toad
(38,639 posts)The ban message was not selected from a limited list of options. The admins have complete freedom to describe exactly why they canned him. The explanation they chose to give us is that he was canned for calling Clinton the "C" word.
As for what I know about his activities, or whether I know more than the administrators, reading comprehension is your friend. All I said about his activities is that he participated in one of the threads I linked to - and that I did not necessarily agree with the poster that he had no history of this kind of behavior. I said nothing about what the admins know, or whether my knowledge was greater or less than theirs.
unblock
(56,198 posts)we have an entire judicial branch of government set up to evaluate specific cases and determine how to apply the law in each case.
note, for instance, that the opening sentence says *could* result in your posting privileges being revoked.
"terms of services" are created to give service providers the *right* to do things they want to do, without necessarily *requiring* them to do any of it.
few would argue, for instance, that a troll whose first posted is laced with tos violations shouldn't be immediately banned. they reserve the right to ban over a single post primarily and legitimately to deal with single-post trolls.
the question is not whether the rules are clear or not; the question is are there any exceptions, under what circumstances, etc. in short, should du exercise its *rights* under the tos in any particular case.
phil89
(1,043 posts)to defend a misogynist. Great priorities!
unblock
(56,198 posts)just as i have zero interest in being a trial court judge but would love being on the supreme court.
you could accused me of "defending" vastly more odious people if you wanted to apply you "logic".
go find someone with an actual track record of misogyny instead of someone with a strong track record as a strong feminist ally like me. if i had to pick sides between women and someone who posts a misogynistic slur, i'd pick women every time. but i think i've earned the right to make a point that's a bit more nuanced than simply picking loyalty sides.
if you want to talk about banning people, or applying punishment in general, you shouldn't be applying rules like automatons. there's no justice in that and it doesn't make du or the world a better place. this is the kind of thinking that led scalia to insist that innocent people be executed even if later evidence proves their innocence because they are entitled only to "due process" and are not entitled to a correct result.
i'm not defending anyone and i'm not lobbying for anyone's return. i'm just trying to steer the debate to a higher ground.
unsuccessfully, it appears.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I suspect that many DUers have never read it, though. Thanks for posting it. It's easy to abide by the DU TOS.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Either a monarchy or anarchy? We have a unique mix. Call it a democratic monarchy which exists to control the anarchy?
Step out of line the man comes and takes you away?
This place has the shakes. As it should. And there ain't nothing better.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)selective enforcement.
When I read that I was kinda thinking "since when" "Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof,..."
At least in my memory (not that I have kept a collection of links) there has been a fair amount of bigoted hate speech against the Christian religion. That does not even get hidden, much less get the ban hammer.
We all, also, tend to keep a double standard where "IOKIYMF" - It's okay if you are my friend. People make friends here, and you tend to see your friends actions in a different light than you do with either non-friends, or enemies, and people make enemies here too, usually without even trying.
Thus people tend to look for flaws in their enemies and look for excuses for their friends. As the British writer said "Given a choice between betraying my friend and betraying my country, I hope I have the decency to betray my country." Or in the movie "Gotcha" one person says of the FBI "they are on our side, you know" and the guy said "I don't know about our side or their side, all I know is, I have a friend in trouble, and I am on HIS side."
One more quote I like, although I cannot remember it exactly, "If you dislike somebody, the way they hold their fork infuriates you, whereas if you like somebody, they can dump a plate of spaghetti in your lap and you will laugh."
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)It's why there are "safe zones" on the forum for people of various religions and even a more general religious safe zone that excludes atheists, I think. Unlike sexuality, skin color, gender, and other traits religion is not an inherent part of someone that should be free of criticism, I think. But it is something people often hold very close to themselves and make a big part of their identity so I can see how strong criticism and mockery can feel as personal as someone hating traits you were born with.
Ms. Toad
(38,639 posts)( http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598005 (the most similar responses which are too numerous to count))
And the response to "cunning stunt" is even less, until it is directed at the candidate favored by the admins - in which case it is an insta-ban, the question isn't whether it is an assault on freedom - but whether it is being fairly enforced.
Personally, I favor more active involvement - because the anti-LGBT speech around here has taken a significant uptick recently, as have refusals by juries to hide the crap. What I don't want is dramatic selective enforcement, particularly when the enforcers pretty much universally formally take "fix it yourself" position about hate speech directed at LGBT people.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)These people think that addressing their homophobia and transphobia to keep this a safe space for LGBT people is chilling tyranny. On a left-wing website no less.
trueblue2007
(19,251 posts)"No Bigoted Hate Speech" section is an assault on freedom, according to many here. .....they can have at it as much as they want.
Personally, I think too many people get away with hate stuff. but then i am a dorothy who wants this place to be like OZ where everyone loves each other.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Made you look...
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)I can't resist seeing what gets hidden.
Response to Glassunion (Reply #10)
L0oniX Message auto-removed
KMOD
(7,906 posts)don't make it suck.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people
What does admin consider "politically liberal" and a "wing-nut"?
I've been accused of being "fringe" by Hillary supporters due to my support for Bernie.
There is no doubt what any of this was about. The owner went and made a site just for Hillary supporters. If he truly believes in democracy and Democrats he would build sites for every Democratic candidate, or none at all.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you are more politically left than others, own it. No one puts Bernie supporters in the nutcase category. That's for real communists or anarchists.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)And yes, there are a group of hillary supporters who accuse us of being fringe.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)
Just in case
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)I think there was some other nasty adjective in front of that.
But I also wrote a really venomous OP about HRC and admin did not step in at all.
I think my post was in bounds, especially during primary season when we are trying to influence the direction of our Democratic party.
I guess all I'm pointing out is that many members feel like my point of view is fringe and indicates that I don't belong here, but so far, I am free to remain.
Spazito
(55,499 posts)The last sentence is one those who registered and read the TOS should have taken a close look at:
"If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck."
Their playground, their terms of service, terms we all accepted when we registered.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There should be more detail about the consequences of violation.
Under what circumstances, if any, will a PPR be the consequence of a single post (as opposed to a pattern of disruptive or inappropriate behavior)?
Will longtime members be given more consideration in the assessment of penalties than are new and unknown posters?
Other than the hide of a single post, the automatic timeout based on five recent hides, and the PPR, are there any other levels of penalty that the admins can and will impose for violations? (I'm not counting locked thread as a penalty because it doesn't go to the individual.)
I don't think that criteria could be set out so precisely as to enable one to determine the result that would follow from every conceivable fact pattern. I do think, however, that some further specification of these and similar questions would help to counter the impression of selective enforcement.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Be careful. That's the only rule that counts. Behave in a reasonable way and there are no worries.
It's hard to get thrown off DU. You have to work hard at it.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Vagueness means that people have to overcompensate so as not to take their chances. When the practical effect of the rule is "Be careful" (as you correctly point out), that can be more restrictive than an explicitly restrictive rule. In First Amendment law, it's called "chilling effect". Justice Brennan has pointed out that it can result from vagueness. (Please note, I'm not claiming a First Amendment violation on a private site. I'm citing Brennan in support of my view that vagueness of rules can unduly inhibit open discussion.)
As to the latest incident: The official explanation, at least, is most reasonably interpreted as meaning that it's not all that hard to get thrown off. Get a little tipsy, or have a bad day at work, with the result that you spend 30 seconds making one ill-advised post, and, boom, you're perma-banned. Some people have cheered the ban on the basis of other posts but the admins have not endorsed that explanation.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)postings, especially when they're ticked off about something, I don't find that to be "chilling" as much as "cautioning."
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)DU has always had it's favorite posters. And because the Warren/Sanders 'wing' is more represented on DU than other mindsets, it's less likely posts from those groups will be hidden because those groups have a higher chance of serving on juries.
When a Clinton supporter is called a "conservative" or "neocon" or "Republican," those posts will often survive a jury alert even though in the old days posts like that were immediately deleted.
Most of us in the 'minority' realize this.
It creates a chilling affect. It's an unintended consequence of the system but it's very real nonetheless. And I actually think the admins realize this. Take a look at my sig - this was a recent quote.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)It also has its unpopular posters. Both can freely post, as long as they stick to reasonable language and avoid personal attacks on others. The vast majority of posters on DU have zero hides in the past 90 days. Those who have multiple hides are usually working on the very edge of having posts hidden. Friendly juries can sometimes let posts that should be hidden stay visible, but the reverse is true, as well.
Frankly, we only see jury results when they are unusual. Of the many juried posts that are either hidden or left, we don't even know that they were alerted. It seems to me that the jury system works just fine most of the time. It sometimes fails, though. That's the nature of community-moderate sites, though.
When it comes to members being kicked off the forum, that has always seemed to be evenly done, pretty much. Most posters who get tossed are those who play so close to the edge of the cliff that it's only a matter of time. I think the admins are very forgiving about this sort of thing, and on both sides of the popularity spectrum.
Again, it's very easy on DU to avoid hidden posts and getting PPRed. Anyone can do it, just by posting reasonably, whatever their position might be. Any DUer can also play dangerously on DU if they choose. Eventually, though, such risky behavior will lead to time-outs and sometimes a banning. It's up to each individual to decide how they want to participate.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)MineralMan
(151,269 posts)to get kicked off or to have posts hidden. All you have to do is discuss things reasonably and avoid personal attacks. I don't see the problem, frankly.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Let alone banned.
The problem is a huge double standard. With the appearance of partisanship.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Not to pick on any specific poster, but one very frequent/popular anti Hillary poster has spent much of recent memory with 2-3 hides. A frequent/popular poster who is widely perceived as being in the pro-Hillary camp is currently on time-out. NYC-SKP makes a comment that I fully agree was out of line; otherwise has no jury hides; and gets banned. Given that others (see the post above) have made the identical comment and not been banned, it begs the question -- why him, why now?
That's why I made the OP and posed the question. There are rules that could be clearer and more specific, and some rules that I absolutely think need to be rethought.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)DU'ers who think he got canned for one singular post have NO IDEA what the Administrators have seen in his history/behavior.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)..and whether you mean to or not, "DU'ers who think he got canned for one singular post have NO IDEA what the Administrators have seen in his history/behavior" sounds remarkably like things police and government apologists say. You know ...don't question the enhanced surveillance, because you have no idea what the authorities know that we average citizens don't.
What bad history or behavior would/could admins see that average DUers would not in a 3 month period with over 3000 posts?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)To deny that is extremely niave.
And it's absolutely true that popular DU'ers don't get the hides others do.
He was a gun-humping troll who had recently started pushing to the edge with Hillary hate.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)I'd like to associate myself with two posts that capture the essence of what I see as inconsistent administration/unclear rules.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6788609 by Cha
"Another man pissed that a long time DU'er was TOS'ed for using the c word on our Democratic candidate. The backlash is strong toward women on DU because administration called out misogyny. This is the fifth post I have seen tonight with men playing with calling a woman a misogynist slur.."
I won't post the rest of the alert as it reveals a name.
This is not going to end well if it keeps up..
Here's what got SKP banned(if more hadn't been taken into consideration) the troll's post and SKP responding..
"Troll"
Feel the Bern.
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
"Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!Posted it in his journal too..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
As you say.. others have been banned, with good reason I will add, and have returned..
I hope he realizes his mistake.. apologizes.. and maybe he can come back to DU. It's up to him first and foremost.Mahalo, Ida~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026785070#post24 by Ms. Toad
Sarah Palin, an artist, a reporter, a dumb criminal, etc.
At lockup, Harris was asked to change into jail clothing. Before going to the bathroom, an officer asked her to lower her underwear for a contraband check. Harris told the officer that she was on her period and could not comply; she eventually lowered her underwear.
But the cop did not find contraband. Instead they found a loaded Freedom Arms .22-caliber handgun, which was loaded with three live rounds and one spent shell. “I observed at that time a wooden and metal item sticking out from her vagina area,” reported Officer Kathy Unbewust, who added that she “pulled the item from her vagina, and found it to be a 5 shot revolver with rounds in the chamber
.
That was *not* a very cunning stunt. (nt)
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2483614
KO says Palin has done the Nearly Impossible, Favorabilty rating dropped 10 points since Saturday!!
Advertisements
Yee Haw! Keith just mentioned that Pork Barrel Palin has accomplished the Nearly Impossible - her favorabilty rating has dropped 10 Points Since SATURDAY!
Let's hope it drops another 10 in only 4 Days!!
Wow what a cunning stunt...the media is getting it now.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7090146&mesg_id=7090422
Sarah Palin: A Cunning Stunt
But then again I'm given to spoonerisms.
And apologies for plagarism, but I forget the author or the original quote...
Yeah. That's funny, see, 'cause it's like you called her a cunt but then you totally didn't.
I get it. Yeah. Clever, that. Of course, outright calling her a cunt would be impolite, but if you dress it up in tired, cliched wordplay, then it's fresh and funny.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7059909
US Airways posted a message on Twitter that contained a graphic image in response to a passenger Monday afternoon.
Twitter user Elle (@ElleRafter) tweeted at @USAirways about a flight delay.
US Airways responded with: “We welcome feedback, Elle. If your travel is complete, you can detail it for review and follow-up.”
That tweet included a picture that showed a model airplane inappropriately positioned between a woman’s legs.
Definitely not what you would call a cunning stunt (nt)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024821412
On Friday afternoon, a young American in Tübingen had to be rescued by 22 firefighters after getting trapped inside a giant sculpture of a vagina. The Chacán-Pi (Making Love) artwork by the Peruvian artist Fernando de la Jara has been outside Tübingen University's institute for microbiology and virology since 2001 and had previously mainly attracted juvenile sniggers rather than adventurous explorers.
A cunning stunt.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025138775#post22
I've been out of touch today ... how is the McCain stunt playing on Main Street?
I am hearing that there are even some repubicans who are calling it a stunt.
It was a cunning stunt...
but that's OK, his VP pick was a stunning ..., oh never mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4089277
Have you ever met a cunning linguist......
Cause they are hard to find.....
Just try saying
"cunning stunt" real fast three times. Betcha can't without "messing up".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4038135
Where is "Pullet the Chicken" Palin?
You will not find her on any of the Sunday interview shows for the second week in a row. She is not a bulldog she is a CHICKEN.
Ok I thought this was good and it died
Are we really not talking about Chicken Cunning Stunt any more?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7060366
I'm sick and tired of calling Reid's invocation of Rule 21 a "stunt"
a "stunt" is landing on the USS Lincoln, dressed in genital hugging military attire, proclaiming "Mission Accomplished".
a "stunt" is flying to DC under cover of night in order to sign legislation designed aimed exclusively toward a brain damaged blind woman.
a "stunt" is crying that a judge donated money to a candidate of his choice renders him incapable of being fair toward your case.
you catch my drift......
Cunning stunt! Cunning stunt! Cunning stunt!
Can't help it. I practiced this a lot when I was a teen-ager.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5292604
Liberals had a blast mocking Sarah Palin last weekend when she was caught addressing the Tea Party Convention wit
h a cheat sheet scrawled on her hand. Even the president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, couldn’t resist getting into the act and treated a White House briefing to a Palin hand gag of his own.
Yet the laughter rang hollow. You had to wonder if Palin, who is nothing if not cunning, had sprung a trap. She knows all too well that the more the so-called elites lampoon her, the more she cements her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait.
Cunning Stunt!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x181108#181379
She could be a good spokesperson for Monistat.
If you ever keep a ball of yarn in your vagina and get an infection....although at that point I would probably see a doctor...or 2.
Now THAT is what I call a cunning stunt. (nt)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4197488
so i've gotta ask....
is this Mary Carey chick a real republican supporter? or is she just pulling a stunt?
A very cunning stunt. (n/t)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3928483#3931415
(And, if it is an immediately bannable offense, then there is one particular currently active poster - responsible for several of these - who must be sweating bullets.)
You can lecture and condescend to your heart's content about how much the owner's are doing; however, my response is that they are not doing it consistently. I also find it interesting that you slap the "troll" label on a poster who had so few jury hides, given that the rules
put in place by the admins put the juries in charge of determining who is, and who is not a troll.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)that might have figured in. Someone so opposed to our most likely nominee for POTUS was bound to to tombstone in time.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Selective enforcement.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Presidential primaries are always going to be a difficult time because people will choose candidates and there will be negative posts about Democrats. The temptation to let your personal dislike of a candidate overpower your good judgment needs to be reined in.
On the other hand, it is critical that the administrators refrain from taking sides during the primary season and I think there is a definite sense among many here that that is not the case and that a noticeable bias has been evident.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)on the candidates they support? I'm not getting that. From what I've seen, they're very reasonable in their posts, even if they're stating a preference. I'm sure everyone on DU has a preference. The vast majority of DUers seem to have no problem at all stating their preferences without getting their posts locked or getting PPRed.
Any poster who consistently posts in a way that gets threads hidden is a candidate for getting PPRed. Conversely, DUers who don't do that seem to do just fine on DU. We have supporters of every Democratic primary candidate and even of some who aren't planning to run. Avatars for them are available to DUers who want to use them.
There are some limits about how far you can go in stating your dislike of a particular candidate, of course. Going too far with that is likely to have consequences. Avoiding that is easy and simple. Just don't use vile language about candidates and don't insult other DUers about their choices.
Even if you do those things, you probably won't get banned, as is clear to anyone who reads DU a lot. However, if you do, you certainly risk getting tossed without notice. Why take a chance with that. There are plenty of ways to criticize a candidate or DUer without violating any rules.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The rest of us however, are not free to banish anybody we don't like, as are the administrators. And, as you can see from the posts in this very thread, a perception exists that that freedom has been used to get rid of those who are vocal critics of their favored candidates.
I don't know how widespread that perception is. But perception has a way of becoming reality if it is not faced up to and addressed.
Obviously most of us are aware just how far is too far. There are always those who enjoy testing the limits and they need to know the risk they take by doing so. But what this forum or any forum which purports to be small d democratic cannot afford is a substantial subset of its membership thinking that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)They are certainly open to interpretation, and, under the jury system, can be ignored at will to "vote" a personal pov.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Personally, I think they are overly specific in some areas and vague as heck in others.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)rbnyc
(17,045 posts)...if we don't like you, we can get rid of you at any point.
The last two rules are kind of a catch-all that could justify any banning.
And while I am generally opposed to hate speech, I think that sometimes things get swept into that category that don't necessarily belong there.
I have always advocated for people to be able to identify as they see fit, and I believe in using language that is respectful of a person's identity. I think attacks against people for being "too PC" when they point out language that is not identity-respectful are generally ignorant.
But there's also a such thing as context and humor.
I am not confident that these rules have been or will be applied in an even and fair way. But, admin has the right to establish whatever terms of service they please and implement consequences at their discretion. They can ban me because they don't like me if they want to. This post could fall under the category of pushing it. That's their prerogative.
I've been here a very long time. I do know admin has worked very hard to grow this community in a way that protects the primary mission while being as fair and workable as possible.
They are also human and have a very particular point of view.
Sometimes, the application of these terms of service causes us to lose people who made this a better, stronger, more diverse community and that really sucks. I don't really know if revisiting TOS will help. I guess it's just up to each of us to decide whether or not we feel comfortable under these terms, and stay or go.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2015, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)
My humble opinion: the ownership wants to have it both ways. As a result, we now have a site that is neither fish nor good red meat. On one hand, Skinner & Earl (paraphrasing things that Skinner has written) were investing more time than they wanted to invest in managing the site; recruiting and managing mods; and settling the periodic squabbles that break out from time to time. So they brought in the jury system to attempt to make the community self-managing; how well that has worked is a matter of who you ask, but the consensus would probably be "7" on a scale of 1-10. But management has also reserved the right to basically throw people out for whatever reason strikes them. Personally, I don't like it as a mangement style. Either run your site; make your site self-managing; or sell your site if it is too much of a burden. The way they've got it now, it's like a factory owner saying "we're going to let the workers manage day to day production; get rid of the managers; but if any of the workers tick off the CEO, they're out of here." I don't personally think it's the way to run a business.
And I realize I'm free to leave anytime I want. Atr this point, I enjoy certain posters enough to hang around, but I'm also shopping for another site. I'd like to find a site where Democrats treat Republicans as the enemy, not each other.
I've been here since 06 (I had 10K posts under another handle). I agree wholeheartedly that, "...the application of these terms of service causes us to lose people who made this a better, stronger, more diverse community and that really sucks."
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)I hope that gets read.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)1) The primaries are a good thing. The process forces the candidates to sharpen their position points; serves to take the vital signs of the party rank and file; and serves to vet the candidates before the GE.
2) Having made the point in #1 above, the process serves to bring out the worst in DU. I was here in '08. Then and now, it has brought out a level of nastiness that neither attracts me to engage in threads nor makes me want to read the pointsd put up for the otther Dem candidates. Nevertheless, when Obama won the nomination over Hillary in '08, I threw my wholehearted support behind Obama.
3) At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley are not the enemy. Any of the three would be light years better than the most agreeable of the GOP field (Pataki, I guess....)
4) The point in posting this was not to complain so much as to see what can and shold be clarified. My perspective is that the rules have not been applied consistently, and that if a ccertain omment about Hillary is deemed to be hate speech, and that same certain comment is made about Sarah Palin, that comment is also hate speech.
5) In looking at the rules, at one level, I understand that the owners have reserved the right to do what they want. At another level, I've seen posters of both the pro and anti Hillary Clinton persuasion who have had time outs or who are going through life with 2-3 hides who remain among us, and then I see NYC-SKP who had an incredibly clean record, and made a comment that (as has been pointed out elsewhere) has been made before at DU, and was tombstoned. It's like any umpiring or officiating in any sport: the players and the fans want consistency and clarity.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)/donors while keeping people in poverty that make it suck.
What you are asking for is to make it comfortable, mostly for white folks, and mostly for those that are profiting from the current administration, and from racism.
I guess honesty isn't up there either.