Ok, DU3 guideline commentary

[Lithos]

Work has kept me busy - sleep is for the weak, etc.

This is a work in progress.

I posted the old DU2 guidelines up just to keep some of the expectations top of mind even if the system does not exactly follow that any more. Yes, they do need to be updated. However, I have some severe questions about how the new Jury system can handle not only extensions to the TOS, but also subtle issues related to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. There is a recent situation which hosts know about which severely disappointed me.

So before I talk about where I think the guidelines should go, I think reality here in the forum is defined by the following:

1) There is likely not going to be any resolution to the I/P conflict in any foreseeable future.
2) The discussion in this forum is likely to have zero influence on the actual conflict.
3) The real players in the I/P conflict (the people) span the full spectrum of beliefs, orientation (Occidental/Oriental), and ideology.
4) There are a lot of "actors" who have their own biasness concerning I/P and who use I/P to promote their own agendas. Manipulation by these groups is what creates the noise and emotional soup that is I/P.
5) Bigotry exists both inside and outside of I/P. . See point #4. Sometimes this is incidental and sometimes this is overt, regardless it is still bigotry.

To support this, I would like to have the guidelines cover:

1) I would like to keep the general notion the tone should support a respectful and peaceful resolution to the conflict.
2) Respect of people should come first. No stereotypical comments, no bashing.
3) The basis for any thread should be some factual event based on some article which was vetted by some editorial/academic process. I think this has been a major point for keeping things clean. Please note that one difference which seemed to not be recognized by many is that items which were not suitable for starting a thread were often allowed as a reply in the thread.
4) Yes, there will be exceptions, but they really should be vetted first. What is hard to enforce from a moderation standpoint is the "you let them do it, why won't you let me do it?" question. It makes consistency harder and it confuses people.


We can talk about sources later. Obviously I am totally against bringing in material which is insensitive and whose use here on DU promotes a viewpoint which is against the main tenet of this site.

Two notes:

- To those who want EI, given what I know about the players there, I am more inclined to deny Arutz Sheva than I am to support the citation of EI.
- Also, we do live in a YouTube generation. I am thinking we might allow media/books as a point of thread creation. But the consistency point has to be considered.


There are some recurring themes which probably need some groundwork. I know these have gone round and round and could easily spur many threads. The goal is not to try and resolve them necessarily, but to achieve a respectful common ground.


Single State:

I realize the ideas of Single State are out there, but I can not for the life of me see in any mid-view future that would not end, like they say, in tears. Groups which seem to support this either are living in a fantasy, or have an agenda which they are using the idea of single state to mask.


Palestinian Nationalism

This is a reality for today, though one might argue this is splitting into two - one Gaza and one Ramallah. It really is just b.s. to try and argue like a lawyer along the lines of the Mandate, etc. The most common group which does this are those which are trying to promote a Single State.


Zionism

This is an extremely complex notion that is often used as a perjorative.


Nazi references

Come on, let's grow up here. This is often incorrect, often meant as a perjorative and insult, frequently is extremely insensitive, and meant more to stifle and shut down debate.


Holocaust References

References to the Holocaust need to be handled with kid gloves. Use of the language is often an excuse to drive an agenda.

[libodem]

1. Thank you for the imput

I hope I didn't offend anyone with any of my replies. I was brought up by intelligent liberal parents whom instilled an anti-bigotry code in me. But I still have few stereotype about groups, though. I tend to have great reverence and respect for Jewish people. I think they have suffered horribly but remained steadfast in their survival by using intelligence and humor. That being said those poor Palestinians are getting a raw deal.

[oberliner]

2. Some thoughts

It seems to me that the primary problem with what you've outline here is that these rules are unenforceable on DU3 as it is presently constituted.

For instance, the rule:

"The basis for any thread should be some factual event based on some article which was vetted by some editorial/academic process."

This is a rule that you mentioned served the forum quite well in the past. But with the current jury system, there is really no way that it can be enforced is there?

I would also strongly object to the inclusion of YouTube videos and the like as the source of an OP. These are notoriously propaganda-based and it would be really difficult to ask a potential juror to watch an entire YouTube video to determine whether or not it contains anything objectionable.

With respect to sources, I always don't see how policies about Arutz Sheva or Electronic Intifada are enforceable. Maybe I am misunderstanding the way hosting works - but without any alert going directly to you as the host, how would you be able to monitor it?

Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to read my concerns. I hope we can find a way to move forward that is amenable to most interested folks.

[Lithos]

5. Those are great questions

As host, I have the ability to lock a thread, so will do so if it starts off against the forum TOS. I can also ban people from this forum, though truthfully I would only would do so for someone who shows a very persistent pattern for inappropriate behavior. Not sure what I would do yet if someone drops a bomb by using inappropriate material into an otherwise good thread and the jury refuses to do something.

Regarding sources. I understand there are some types of content which can poison discussion. Skinner and EarlG had talked about implementing in code a filter mechanism which would prohibit people bringing in content from some sites. However, such a mechanism is easily bypassed by people doing full copy/paste, URL shorteners, or by syndication (either themselves or using another site) and really requires some manual intervention - again trusting the Jury system.

As for alerts, while I read them and used them as a reference. In the past on DU2, I generally used to read all threads in the I/P and 9/11 forums as, for the most part, alerts were incomplete in coverage. I would plan on doing the same here on DU3. (Side note: Alerts fell into three categories - Real alerts, Retributive alerts, and alerts by people who just wished to complain.)

The idea of YouTube is a mixed one for me as the quality varies in many aspects. Yet it also serves as the hosting company for some smaller, and legitimate media groups. I would think videos from sources we would accept in text would be acceptable.

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. I was on a jury tonight about a thread here

about Danny Ayalon (Who I would bet precious few outside this forum could pick out of a lineup)

Hope its OK to put the results in this thread.

[font color=navy]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The Truth About the Refugees

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Danny Ayalon? Is this in keeping with standards ?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:20 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Thats why its I AND P and not just P. Meaning there are two peoples at play here, each with a stake in the outcome.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm not familiar with this Ayalon fellow, but the post seems to be on-topic for the group.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not every viewpoint with which I disagree is an inappropriate disruption. The post does not meet the threshold of censure.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't actually know who Danny Ayalon is, but the content of the post and the youtube video are not offensive.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Ayalon is an official in the Israeli government. If he's not worth discussing in I/P, who is?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [/font]

Results surprised me. I assumed it would go 5-1 against me (I was Juror #1). Pleasantly surprised to see people not wanting to micro-regulate other people's sandboxes (outside of overall DO standards, of course).

[azurnoir]

7. why would those results "surprise" you?

there was a thread from LBN? yesterday where sweeping antiIsamic statements were allowed to stand were you unaware of that?

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. Never saw it.

No SOP reports either (I am currently a host).

I was surprised at the 6-0.

Maybe its me, but I think most people realize that it isn't all just right/wrong up/down over there and that there is room for polite discussion about it all.

[azurnoir]

9. actually it was GD not LBN which was why the question mark n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Okay, I'm confused. I thought alerts on OPs went to the group hosts, not a jury...

I mean, I think the outcome was the correct one, but shouldn't the alert have gone to the hosts to deal with? And if we were still living in DU2-land, it would have been locked for being a video starting a thread, but right now even though most of us are abiding by the old guidelines, it appears others aren't going to bother....

[oberliner]

16. Alerts don't go to hosts - they go to a randomly selected jury

That's why I don't see how the rules mentioned above can be fairly enforced without a change to that system.

The host though can take action on a thread without being alerted to it, I believe.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. The post that Ruby talks about is an OP, not a post in a thread...

But I just went and checked it out by hitting the alert button on an OP in a forum, and what's happened is the person alerting selected the option that sends it to a jury, not the hosts. I didn't realise you could do that, so there ya go....

[Mosby]

27. maybe we can PM Lithos

To bypass the jury?

[Ruby the Liberal]

29. Hosts can't hide posts though.

Lock/unlock/pin/unpin and block users are all hosts are empowered to do.

I don't think it is ever a bad idea to PM a host so that they are aware of the fact a jury was sat - especially in posts allowed to stand.

Noting that jury decisions are allowed to be posted publically, this would likely be more effective on posts that weren't hidden than those that were.

[Mosby]

31. Locking posts that bypass the IP rules should be sufficient IMO. nt

[oberliner]

32. But are we agreed on what those rules are?

I'm not entirely sure this has been established.

[Mosby]

33. im suggesting a process

Clearly nothing has been agreed to yet, I'm just suggesting that maybe we can enhance the jury system by pming lithos or ugrr with "alerts" about original posts that violate our "special IP" rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. But what would be the point of that as a process?

The hosts can't do anything about posts anyway, and all it would do is fill their inboxes with PMs complaining about things. Other groups have special rules and would face similar issues to this group, so it's not like this group's unique or anything like that. And so far everyone seems to be pretty much self-policing themselves, and I hope it continues that way.

[Mosby]

43. Hosts can lock OPs and other stuff

Someone locked your EI post right?

edit, sorry I was not at all clear I have been referring to Original Posts that violate the IP rules (like sources, titles), not posts in threads. I think the jury system will work ok for in thread posts.

2nd edit. I don't know how this group can deal with a situation where a reply to the OP contains a link to whatreallyhappened for example, a random jury can't be aware of every source.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Yeah, I'm a host so I know how it works...

The hosts here will get an alert when anyone alerts on an OP because when someone sends an alert they'll select the option to send it to them as a SOP violation. So there's no need to follow it up with a PM because they've already got it...

Sources seem to be an issue across DU at the moment. I guess if anyone objects to a source that's posted in a post within a thread and want to alert, they'll take their chances with a jury...

I noticed the EI one I did back when DU3 was in preview (I thought all preview posts were going to be deleted before it went live) had been locked. Not really sure why it was locked and none of the others that were against the guidelines weren't, so I'll put that one down to the hosts testing out the locking function

[Mosby]

48. I didn't know that about OP alerts.

Do the Hosts have a hidden forum where they can go and talk about host stuff?

[Violet_Crumble]

59. You can check it out by hitting the alert button on any OP...

It comes up with a bunch of options for the alert and the first one is the one that goes to hosts. (fyi, you don't have to actually send an alert to check that out, just hit cancel)...

There's a hosts forum, and what I've learnt from it and from reading this group so far is that compared to one or two other forums/groups, we're really boring and don't erupt in spontaneous bouts of drama and mutiny. If we keep it up, I reckon Skinner should create an award called Absence of Bickering - Most Improved Group or Forum, and personally hand out medals to the regulars.

[Ruby the Liberal]

64. I find it stunning, yet awesome.

Yay us!

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. Keep in mind that this is only for the opening post

There is no way of locking a post within the thread or a subthread that deteriorates.

Once a thread goes south (and if a jury doesn't intervene), the only ability a host has is to lock the whole thread. If a jury intervenes and hides a post, the member who posted will get blocked from further participation in the thread, but that doesn't stop a subthread from continuing on a southward path without their input.

It has been fascinating watching how various groups are working within the system. Seems more often than not, if a post is locked in a subthread (whether the locked post was the problem chicken or the problem egg), most of the heated threads I have seen seem to right themselves through the remaining participating members. I would have bet money against that being a norm. Time will tell!

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Thank you - I know this took alot of time, thought and work.

I like the foundation you are laying here.

[bemildred]

4. I share some of Oberliner's concerns.

Not that I am much worried about it.

I don't have an answer to the problem of forbidden sources, there is no substitutre for judgement, and somebody is going to be unhappy no matter what. I consider the compromise that we have been living with about as satisfactory as is likely, quibble though I might, for example I would allow EI, DEBKA, and Ynet as long as the post itself is not babble, or there is some serious issue that it serves to discuss. I have found all of them occasionally useful as news and opinion sources. But better you than me, you won't hear me complaining.

And thank you for sharing your views, a rare feast.

[Scurrilous]

10. I have some comments.

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:32 PM - Edit history (2)

First off, I agree with just about everything you posted.

Rules? Keep the ones from DU2 w/ some minor tweaking. They've served this forum well and are needed.

Sources? Keep the old rules. I've complained myself in the past about some (EI, Mondoweiss), but as you've pointed out before, just because you can't use something in an OP doesn't mean you can't use them as an embellishment or in a reply (I'm referring to blogs etc, not banned sources such as DEBKA).

You Tube? Maybe not as an OP but in replies etc. Embedding youtube videos is a new function I'd like to seen given a try before being put on the rubbish tip.

Jury system? I say give it a chance. Again a new feature that should be tried before being abandoned. Put the rules in the SOP for the forum so juries can see and refer to them when judging alerts. The rules aren't that hard to figure out. If I can, just about anyone can.

I saw someone posting about a jury they sat on. It was on an alert from the Sports Group. They said they actually did research before voting. For Sports!! We sell DUers short when we think they can't handle judging I/P threads.

There will be disappointments and mistakes with the jury system but at least try it.

And oh yeah..nuke Arutz Sheva.

[shira]

47. "Nuke Arutz Sheva". How about nuking PRESS-TV and MAAN too?

They're just as bad the other way.

Where does the line get drawn?

[oberliner]

49. What Palestinian source do you think is OK?

Ma'an seems to be the most reasonable one in English .

Is there a better Palestinian based source in English that you know of?

[shira]

52. None. They're all state controlled either by Hamas or the PA.

That makes them as fanatical and even more rightwing than Arutz Sheva.

I don't see the point of nuking either Maan or Arutz Sheva. Nuke one, nuke them all. Or not...

[Crunchy Frog]

11. Not certain what you mean by your list of "recurring themes".

Particularly this one:

Single State:

I realize the ideas of Single State are out there, but I can not for the life of me see in any mid-view future that would not end, like they say, in tears. Groups which seem to support this either are living in a fantasy, or have an agenda which they are using the idea of single state to mask.

Are you saying that you think discussions about a single state solution are outside of the purview of this group? I don't agree that this idea is as "out there" as some other people do. In fact, alot of pretty mainstream people have come out with statements to the effect that if something can't be done about the settlements, that a single state will be an inevitability. I believe Tzipi Livni and some other top members of Israeli leadership have said as much. Even Peter Beinart, hardly a radical, is beginning to venture into that territory.

&feature=player_embedded

I can't imagine this topic not being considered a legitimate one for discussion, whatever anyone's personal opinion of it might be.


Some of my issues with how the old I/P forum was run: I sometimes felt like there was a double standard in operation. I saw some incredibly bigoted posts about Palestinians and Arabs, and it seemed like they virtually never got deleted, while I feel certain that if such posts had been made with "Jews" substituted for "Arabs", that they would have rightly been deleted as being anti-semitic. I recall a former poster who used to do basically a celebratory post every time there was a story about settlers destroying Palestinian olive trees. I think the I/P forum was probably the only place on DU where one could get away with celebrating the destruction, through hate based vandalism, of the property and livelyhoods of innocent civilians.

Another thing that really bothered me about the old forum was that posts accusing other posters of being anti-semites, usually through very strong insinuation, were allowed to stand. I think that there should be a rule against calling others anti-semitic, either outright or through insinuation. I've certainly seen my share of genuinely anti-semitic posts, and I've generally alerted on them, and they've been deleted. If someone thinks a post or a poster are genuinely anti-semitic, then it should be sufficient to alert.



These are just some of my thoughts. I hope that I haven't said anything out of line. If I have, then let me know, and I will revise or self delete.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Concur that single state solution should be inbounds

Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

[LeftishBrit]

25. I agree

Or to clarify: I definitely don't agree with a single state 'solution'; but I agree that people should be free to discuss the topic.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. I am glad they didn't hard code against sources

as that is a group issue, IMO, not a site-wide one.

Matt Taibbi is brilliant on the financial crisis here in the US, but his employer is Rolling Stone, a music industry magazine. The financial crisis just happened to morph into his regular gig because he was catching shit no one else did (monthly, no less) and started becoming a go-to guy for the national media.

In the same token, if someone goes to post the hot new challa recipe, a new online discount Arabic/Persian language course or a cruise special that travels the Greek Isles, and finds their article blocked because the originating source was on the I/P issues list...

[azurnoir]

13. Thank you for your efforts however I would agree with Bemildred and oberliner n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Oberliner and Scurrilous have pretty much covered it for me...

Though I'm wondering how anything about Zionism could be enforced. If the SOP states that it's a complex notion that's often used as a pejorative, and the next time I talk about the Zionists (which is what I do when I'm referring to the leadership of the Yishuv before Israel became a state) someone alerts on it going 'Look at the SOP! That poster is calling people Zionists!!' the jury will look at it and sees the word Zionist and hide the post thinking that I'm using it as a pejorative. I doubt very much there'd be a whole lot of DUers who'd understand when it's being used in a legitimate way like I use it....

Also, I can well and truly live without EI being allowed as a source to start OPs if Arutz Sheva is done away with. Seriously, at one point back at DU2, the forum looked like a spammers heaven with endless OPs from Arutz Sheva being started in a very short amount of time...

And I've got doubts about how the jury system can work in this group, but having said that, I don't want to go back to the old style moderating of DU2. There's got to be some sort of middle ground that can be come up with...

on edit: I agree with the others about YouTube videos being used to start new threads. I've got no problems with them being used in already existing threads, but having seen some of the 'offerings' (the IslamAgainstTheWorld channel springs to mind) given to us in threads at DU2, I really think they should be kept from being used to start new OPs...

[oberliner]

19. Wanted to add a Thank You

I realize that I responded to your post with concerns and criticism.

I wanted to make sure to also mention that I appreciate all the work that you have put into managing things in this forum and to thinking about the rules moving forward.

[Dick Dastardly]

28. Where do you find the jury rulings? n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. They are sent after the ruling to the jury members,

the person who alerted, and if the post was hidden, to the poster whose post was sent for adjudication.

The system sends them to your PM box.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Don't you rather refute your own point about single-staters?

You say

"I realize the ideas of Single State are out there, but I can not for the life of me see in any mid-view future that would not end, like they say, in tears."

Which I agree with, but you also say

"There is likely not going to be any resolution to the I/P conflict in any foreseeable future. "

Which I also agree with.

Yes, a single-state solution is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, but so is a two-state solution.

[holdencaufield]

22. Respectfully Disagree

I believe that a two-state solution is inevitable. What is delaying a two-state solution is the misguided belief that a one-state solution (i.e. the elimination of Israel as a Jewish State) is achievable.

When both sides agree to the idea that two viable states, at peace with each other, will resolve the dispute, the detail of borders will be resolved.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. I don't see that inevitability.

I don't see any possibility of Israel agreeing to a state whose border is a reasonable approximation of the Green Line, or of the Palestinians agreeing to one whose border isn't.

As to rejection of the two-state solution: the PA accepted it decades ago; the problem is entirely that Israel feels that large chunks of land outside the Green Line should be annexed, and the Palestinians feel they shouldn't. There's one, and only one, unresolvable issue, and that's borders. Enough of the Palestinians are willing to give in on the Right of Return to make that stick, but they won't accept Israel's borders stretching as far as Ariel.

My prediction is that for as long as Israel is able to decide for itself whether or not to maintain the settlements, there will be no peace; the only possibility for an end to the conflict would be if external pressure forced it to withdraw to its own borders. But that probably won't work without American support, and America's friendship with Israel appears invulnerable. BDS is worth a try - it's certainly the only game in town - but I don't see any real hope for it.

[Jefferson23]

21. Regarding DU3. I had hoped this would be an opportunity for the I/P group

to be part of this political forum as are other groups and not considered to require
anything further for moderating purposes.

I reject the notion that any political subject matter requires "kid gloves". Each thread/post
would be subject to the jury system which would be a refreshing change...more individuals would be asked
to participate as a juror and can also decline. This would leave open an opportunity to include more members here to
the I/P conversation...perhaps many more members would become interested to learn further on the subject
as a result.

Re: sources, each can be judged if alerted, if anyone believes the source merits such a response. It is my
understanding the jury needs to specify their concerns..making a case for or against a thread.

anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are real and can be expressed through a mix of mainstream sources on I/P. The closure
of a source from the outset shuts down discussion and presumes to have cleared the field of bias..nothing could be
further from the truth imo. This approach does not even minimize the ongoing debates of accepted sources now...which
is healthy..let those interested join in and make their case..who accepts the ideas put forth is up to the individual. If the
thread/posts passes the jury test, leave it alone.

Honestly, I am disappointed to learn I/P will not participate as other groups do here on DU and with that said,
I will accept the rules as they are decided...I have enjoyed posting here.

Thank you,
J23

[Crunchy Frog]

35. I agree with everything in your post.

My big hope for this group was that it could develop a new dynamic with many more posters getting involved in a discussion that would be much more open and wide ranging. Right now it seems like it's just a handful of posters with hardened positions engaging in the same repetitive back and forth. I was really hoping for more.

[Ruby the Liberal]

36. So make it more.

Thats why I'm here. Endlessly fascinated with the topic, just didn't feel the right vibe on DU2. Seemed so locked away, dungeony-ish.

[Mosby]

24. Putting aside sources for now

Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I think the jury system will work fine for posts containing personal attacks but not so well for other issues.

For starters I alerted on http://www.democraticunderground.com/113466 because the title is a lie made up by a youtube poster. The DU jury decided by a vote of 5-1 to leave it up. As I understand the new rules a host could lock a thread like this, something I would fully support for this group.

Second I don't think people that support the "single state solution" or think that Israel should be dissolved somehow should be posting in this group, period.

Third I think this forum needs to be ONLY about IP. OPs about what some crazy Rabbi or Imam said need to go somewhere else. There are other groups on DU that cover religion.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Firstly huge thanks for this!

Secondly, I tend to think that both EI and Arutz Sheva should be allowed - on the grounds that we can't understand a conflict if key Middle Eastern viewpoints in the discussion are excluded from the table. (For the record, I disagree with most things from both sources!) However, I feel much more hostile to non-Middle-Eastern sources that are right-wing, bigoted or over-the-top. Thus, I would wish to ban writings by such as Melanie Phillips or Dan Pipes; Counterpunch; Antiwar.com; Frontpage; etc., and certainly the likes of Rense or WhatReallyNeverHappened.

Thirdly, I am not very happy about using Youtube sources, especially as OPs; because it's very hard to check on such sources, and often they have very bigoted origins.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. I am glad this is being revised.

One of the first issues is the "name-calling" rules, which should be expanded to those comments about someone's comments/posters being "commanded/talk-sheeted" by Hasbara. Along the same lines, the accusations one has called another poster an anti-Semite, yet this hasn't happened, should be treated as a pesonal attack just like actually calling someone an anti-Semite would be. I would also add those who say "well, I guess this makes me an anti-Semite/Semitic" should also have thier posts treated as "disruptive."

Zionism is quite tricky, however, I feel anyone who posts "Zionists are racists" or some form like that, should have their posts removed as personal attacks. It is well known many of us are Zionists and even if they aren't talking about a particular poster, they really are. Anyone who calls him/herself a Zionists is then, therefore, also a "racist." This is simply a personal attack.

The Holocaust references need to stop. It is a simply clever way to conflate Jews and Israel, and usually NOT in a positive way. There are few occasions where it might be productive, but for the most part, and especially here, it is a backhanded way of calling Jews Nazis, and, IMO, I don't really care if they are only referring to Israeli Jews.

I agree with, I think it was Mosby, the end of all posts about "crazy rabbis/Imans" being shoved in here, as well as , anything that is remotely related to Israel. IMO, it has mainly been "anti-Israel" posts and really, the purpose is to make Israel look as bad as possible. It is bigoted. If the thread is not about the conflict, then this is not the correct forum.

I feel it would be a BAD idea to allow videos to be thread starters. There are too many places, too many hate sites, and, let's face it, many of the "stories" are difficult to pin down and one can't really get more information (about the poster from the video site, the shooter of the video, and sometimes, it can't be substansiated). I am not sure how I feel about them being used as "sources" in actual posts. I guess we could look at trial and see how it goes.

The sources issue is also important. I don't like far-right sources, but, as long as it doesn't contain bigotry, then it might be worth discussing as long as "screeching" about the source isn't the ENTIRE thread. If that continues to be the case, then provide a list of "no-no" sites/authors which can be used here; I am ok with that outcome. Also, NO MORE BLOGS as thread-starters.

Those are my thoughts thus far. I can't wait for the return of spell check!

[bemildred]

42. If I might:

1.) I quite agree with your 1st para, and the following two seem like corrolaries of it: the idea being that all pejorative references, insinuations, adjectives, etc. applied to other posters- present or not - be forbidden. It's really not that hard. The main problem is that people will feel attacked anyway, but there is not much I can see that one can do to prevent that. But at least we can limit the overt personal attacks on and insults to fellow posters.

OTOH, if that were successful, the need for this dungeon might go away, and I am highly skeptical that in practice we can get enough agreement as to what is and is not a personal attack for it to work well. But civil discourse is always worth a try, nothing much to lose. "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite" -- W. Churchill

4.) I agree with para 4 - no crazy people threads - as long as it applies to everybody and all such subject matter. No crazy Jew threads, no crazy Muslim threads, not crazy people threads. Although given the prevalence of crazy politicians or politicians who act crazy, that could prove difficult to carry out well too.

5.) I quite agree about videos.

6.) I quite agree about sources. I think you need to look at content and intentions and how the discussion goes. I do not agree with the notion of forbidden sources, views, subjects, etc. as such, though I understand the attraction of relatively simple rules.

[LeftishBrit]

51. I agree with a lot of this

'One of the first issues is the "name-calling" rules, which should be expanded to those comments about someone's comments/posters being "commanded/talk-sheeted" by Hasbara. Along the same lines, the accusations one has called another poster an anti-Semite, yet this hasn't happened, should be treated as a pesonal attack just like actually calling someone an anti-Semite would be. I would also add those who say "well, I guess this makes me an anti-Semite/Semitic" should also have thier posts treated as "disruptive." '

I agree on this.

'Zionism is quite tricky, however, I feel anyone who posts "Zionists are racists" or some form like that, should have their posts removed as personal attacks. It is well known many of us are Zionists and even if they aren't talking about a particular poster, they really are. Anyone who calls him/herself a Zionists is then, therefore, also a "racist." This is simply a personal attack. '

I am not sure; certainly implying that an individual is racist, or that *all* Zionists are racist, is a personal attack - as is saying that all anti-Zionists are antisemitic. But expressing the opinion that there is racism in Zionist *policies* is another matter - I don't agree with the idea, but I don't think it should be banned.

'The Holocaust references need to stop. It is a simply clever way to conflate Jews and Israel, and usually NOT in a positive way. There are few occasions where it might be productive, but for the most part, and especially here, it is a backhanded way of calling Jews Nazis, and, IMO, I don't really care if they are only referring to Israeli Jews.'

I agree. I would extend this to any use of the word 'genocide' for either side of the I/P conflict, except where an individual has explicitly advocated genocide.

'I agree with, I think it was Mosby, the end of all posts about "crazy rabbis/Imans" being shoved in here, as well as , anything that is remotely related to Israel. IMO, it has mainly been "anti-Israel" posts and really, the purpose is to make Israel look as bad as possible. It is bigoted. If the thread is not about the conflict, then this is not the correct forum.'

I think that posts about 'crazy rabbis/ Imams', or even sane ones, are better suited to the Religion forum. But I think that it ought to be *possible* to post about internal Israeli, or Palestinian, politics on DU. I don't really mind whether it's here or elsewhere; but I don't want a situation to develop where for instance you can't post about demonstrations for social justice in Israel in GD because it's about Israel, and you can't post about them on I/P because it's not related to the conflict.

'I feel it would be a BAD idea to allow videos to be thread starters. There are too many places, too many hate sites, and, let's face it, many of the "stories" are difficult to pin down and one can't really get more information (about the poster from the video site, the shooter of the video, and sometimes, it can't be substansiated). I am not sure how I feel about them being used as "sources" in actual posts. I guess we could look at trial and see how it goes.'


Agreed.

'The sources issue is also important. I don't like far-right sources, but, as long as it doesn't contain bigotry, then it might be worth discussing as long as "screeching" about the source isn't the ENTIRE thread. If that continues to be the case, then provide a list of "no-no" sites/authors which can be used here; I am ok with that outcome. Also, NO MORE BLOGS as thread-starters. '

In general, I have to admit that I'd be one of those 'screeching', because I think that right-wing ideas and viewpoints are intrinsically pure evil (I am at the moment referring to the likes of current American Republicans, or the more extreme British tabloid purveyors of right-wing filth). I think that far-right Middle Eastern sources may be usable at times, simply as examples of views 'on the ground'. However, I am not happy about the use of far-right American or Europaean sources, whether pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I think what bothers me the most is that sometimes people on both sides of the I/P conflict use such sources for I/P issues as the thin end of a wedge for implying that right-wing ideas may *in general* have some validity; that one should not be an 'ideologue' who dismisses the right wing out-of-hand; that left and right may combine on some issues; or that Republican politicians and pundits should not be seen as monsters. There are borderline cases: some right-wing sites can still be sources for reliable *news items*. But I think that at any rate, it should be established that right-wing viewpoints in general are unacceptable on DU. In particular, I would strongly object to any source which (a) endorses the view that 'Zionists' are exercising some sort of sneaky control of Britain, America or any other country than Israel; (b) endorses the 'Eurabia' myth of a similar sort of control of Europe by Muslim immigrants; or (c) is ideologically opposed to social safety nets and/or hates Europe for its welfare states.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. A question about sources...

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Until this new set of guidelines is finalised, what's the go when it comes to Arutz Sheva? Is it still allowed? You said something about what you knew about the players at EI, but what do you know about the players at Arutz Sheva? If you can ban a source (for OPs only) because there's support for a single binational state, how can a source that supports Greater Israel and supports hatred and bigotry against Muslims and Arabs be allowed?

I'm not arguing for EI to be allowed, because I don't use it and it not being allowed doesn't affect how I participate in the forum, but I'm arguing for Arutz Sheva to be banned as an acceptable source. At the very least I think we're owed an explanation as to why Arutz Sheva has been allowed as a source. I might not agree with that explanation, but at least I'll know what the reasoning is...

Oops, forgot to add that now I'm getting used to the new way things happen with the jury system, I'm starting to wonder if this group isn't creating a rod for its own back in creating detailed guidelines. Other groups get away with a basic 'Don't Be A Dick!' style SOP, so why can't we? Just leave it with the stuff the hosts can control, like dodgy sources etc, but drop the rest of it...

[Lithos]

40. I will answer this later tonight

In case you are still up at this time.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Thanks...

fyi, whatever time it was that you posted, it was nearly 2am here and I was in the land of nod. Unlike DU2, I can actually change my settings so I'm getting the right timestamp on posts and can see what time people are posting....

One other thing that I think should be looked at when it comes to what threads are or aren't going to be allowed here. Over the past two days there's been OPs from one person that aren't about the conflict, but about anti-Semitism in other countries, and tips about Jewish holidays. There's other groups and forums that those OPs should be posted in, but the SOP for this one is 'Discuss issues surrounding the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.' and it could get to the point that discussion of the conflict is being buried under all these other threads. If they're allowed, what's to stop other people starting threads with articles about Lowes and All-American Muslim, or digging up articles about upcoming Muslim holidays and helping to bury I/P threads?

[bemildred]

41. FWIW, I am OK with banning Ynet for OPs, it's not like it's all that useful.

And certainly not irreplaceable.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. I'm happy to throw in Zmag just to show how serious I am!

Anything to put a stop to the Arutz Sheva pollution...

[bemildred]

50. LOL.

"I'll give you Arutz Sheva and two right-wing vanity sites for Zmag, Counterpunch, and one unspecified future pick to be negotiated later."

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. !

[Lithos]

54. Sources

Aside: I apologize for the delay, huge rush at work and most of the support and engineering staff in my group are out on vacation or are sick.

To start with the "Don't be a dick"... Unfortunately pulling things from bigoted and extreme sources and interjecting them into topics which are touchy at best, tends to be the actions of a someone who is trying to out do Mr. John Holmes. Almost all of the Guidelines were specific responses to specific abuses, ie people being dicks.

As for Arutz Sheva:

1) It was founded for/by the Religious Zionists in response to a perceived bias of mainstream Israeli News.
2) It posts news and has news which is syndicated (not op-ed, but news)
3) It is not targeted primarily for external use, but rather for Religious Zionists audience inside and outside of Israel. The focus is emphasized by the languages being used.
4) It is a commercial entity and consists of a website, television and radio stations as well as B'sheva which has 130K readers each week. To give some scale, Israel's leading daily - Yedioth Ahronoth has around 500K and the second largest daily, Maariv has around 200K. For the record, JPost and Haaretz are more internet based with a small print readership - about 50-75K readers daily.

I have generally considered it extremely biased and am aware a few of the people associated with it have ties to radical settlers groups which seek a Jewish Samaria & Judea as well as at least one associated with the Temple Mount (the restoration group). However, it is also representative of one of the major players *inside* Israel which is why I have not pulled the trigger on it.
Similar Palestinian entities in this space, of which a few are also similarly biased, would be Wafa, Amwaj, the PBC, ARN, PNN, and even to some degree Qods though the latter has very close of ties to Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah and has posted more than a few anti-Semitic pieces. As much as people complain about Arutz Sheva's language, it is easy to pull material from those other sites which is equal in tone.

One thing which I have always found interesting is when regional sources are cited (sources which are truly based in Israel/Palestine or adjacent areas), most come from Israeli sources. The only occasional exception being Al Ahram and Ma'an.

L-

[Ruby the Liberal]

55. OT - Bonus points for the early 1980s porn reference.

[Behind the Aegis]

58. That was pretty funny.

[Behind the Aegis]

56. I can't speak for the others, but I am non-plussed.

What does that all mean? As long as it is a news article and not an opinion piece? I am OK with that, as well. As long as blogs are out as a "source" for a thread, I am cool.

[Lithos]

61. Short answer

yes,

OP should come from a news article or from an extremely well regarded media outlet, not an opinion or blog. Press releases or action items do not count as news. Also, should come from the direct/original source and not from resyndication. One possible way to determine the status is: Would/could this source be commonly cited in mainstream media?

The only exceptions are those pieces from significant figures in the I/P arena whose comments themselves could be classified as news. Also, sites which are wholly unreliable and conspiratorial, or which purposefully advocate hateful material (Debka and PressTV) are not allowed.

The only piece I'm wondering how to add in would be how to allow things such as Foreign Affairs Magazine in here as it really is not a news outlet.

L-

[bemildred]

62. Yes, I think that "Is it news?" is the right question.

Still requires some judgement, but it is very rare that I am inclined to question your judgement.

One can also go find another, acceptable, source, and if that fails, that is a hint that maybe you should find something else to post.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. That helps. Thanks.

As for FAM, what about not allowing it as a primary source, but allowable as supportive or within threads?

[Violet_Crumble]

66. What about International Crisis Group?

At DU2 I used to start new threads every now and again with some really good reports or articles from them about the conflict.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/

Does this mean we can no longer start new threads with sources like ICG, but Arutz Sheva is just fine to start a new thread?

Also, about EI. The unwritten rule at DU2 was that it couldn't be used to start new threads, but could be used in posts within threads. I'd really be hoping that's still going to be the case with DU3...

[Ruby the Liberal]

57. On topic - Palestinian News Sources

They don't have the infrastructure or cash for a media network to compete with Israel, but there are a host of sources in the region that pick up that slack. Is the challenge that they are not published in English?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Thanks for the explanation...

I really appreciate seeing the reasoning behind the decision to allow AS, even if I don't know if I agree with it. I'd just figured it was coz it was an Israeli news source....

I'm pretty sure if I saw the material yr talking about from the other sources you mentioned, I'd have a problem with the language the same way I do with Arutz Sheva. The thing is that those other sources haven't been posted on a regular basis here the way Arutz Sheva has over the past month or so. And the worst thing about Arutz Sheva is when it's an op-ed, coz they're the worst part of that source when it comes to extreme bigotry...

Hope the busy spell at works settles down. My big tip to avoid the pre-holiday busy period is when returning to work in January, rush straight into the leave register and block out from mid-December onwards. When it gets to the point that critical mass is reached when others start thinking about leave later on, make sure to stress 'I've got stuff planned! Besides, I've had this leave in the register since early January this year!' (Disclaimer: This tactic may not be successful in private sector organisations, but it works like a treat in the public sector)

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Giving this a kick to add something about OPs unrelated to the I/P conflict...

Some in this thread have mentioned it, but would it be possible to include something in the new guidelines about OPs that have nothing to do with the conflict? OPs about Ron Paul's refusal to use a gay bathroom, for example, have nothing to do with the conflict, and I don't understand why that wouldn't be posted in either GD or the LGBT group....

[King_David]

68. Guess you never read the article huh?

It has EVERYTHING to do with Israel...

Just because one doesn't like an article does not mean it does not belong here.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. I read the article and it wasn't about Israel, nor is it about not liking an article...

Here's another example of an OP you posted a few days wasn't about the conflict...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134963

It's not just me who's expressed concern at the group being a catch-all for people who for whatever reasons they have won't venture out of this group to post their OPs in the groups or forums they belong in....

Came back to add something I forgot to initially mention. I'm sure most long-time regulars from the old I/P forum would prefer the hosts to be the ones who decide what is and isn't related to the conflict, not you...

[King_David]

71. Former staffer says Ron Paul is Anti-Israel and uncomfortable around Gays

Former Ron Paul Aide Eric Dondero has written a very in-depth piece on the Texas Congressman on RightWingNews.com. Instead of chopping it up into pieces I have posted it in it’s entirety so nothing is taken out of context.

Dondero was supposedly fired by Paul and this could all be sour grapes. Read below and judge for yourself.

I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers

http://todaysloser.com/?p=1360

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Same Story different headline

''I read the article and it wasn't about Israel, nor is it about not liking an article...''

REALLY ??????


Read it again
ha ha ha

[Violet_Crumble]

72. That's not the OP you posted in this group...

The one you posted had a passing reference to him being anti-Israel, but the article itself was about his attitude towards gays.

If yr opposed to the idea of not being able to post OPs unrelated to the conflict in this group, I'd suggest posting in this thread explaining yr reasoning behind yr opposition. Because it's not up to you to decide what does and doesn't fit into the SOP, it's up to the hosts of this group in the long run, and once any guidelines are finalised, they're the ones who'd make the call...

[King_David]

73. Very thankful that Lithos and UGGR are the hosts of this group. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Good. Then I suggest you allow people to give them suggestions on future guidelines...

And just like anyone else who participates in this group, yr able to give yr input in this thread just like most others have been doing...

[King_David]

69. Ron Paul , is also not an anti-Semite, even though he is “most certainly” not a fan of Israel

Could easily have been the Headline of that article.

But we do not change headlines here in our group.

[LeftishBrit]

75. Problem is, where do we draw the line?

There have also been recent OPs about antisemitism in Britain (I posted one of them), and about Pam Geller's Islamophobia. In this case, Ron Paul's hostility to Israel did factor into the story.

I suppose it's borderline whether any of these threads belong here. My problem once again, is that I don't want a situation where you can't post certain things on GD about antisemitism or Islamophobia or Ron Paul's all-round bigotry because Israel or Palestine gets mentioned, and you can't post them on I/P because they're not mainly about the conflict. So long as it doesn't end up that certain topics can't be posted at all, due to such 'jurisdiction' issues, I'm happy with whatever decision is made.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. I think that'd be something for the hosts to decide....

They're the ones who know from discussions the hosts of the upstairs forums have had what is and isn't allowed upstairs. There's been some discussion in the Hosts forum about it, and BTA and Ruby can correct me if I've read it wrong, but the general consensus seems to be that while OPs about the conflict aren't allowed in any forum other than LBN unless it's big news, OPs about Israel, Palestine, antisemitism and Islamophobia are okay....

[oberliner]

76. Or like the post about Pam Geller?

This is the one I mean:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134107

Does that thread belong here? It doesn't deal with anything Israeli or Palestinian.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. I don't really care about OPs about antisemitism or Islamophobia...

Which is why I didn't bring any of them up as examples. As long as I've been in the I/P forum, those OPs have been allowed. It's the ones like the examples I gave, which have nothing to do with the conflict and where the article's title and content is about something unrelated to the conflict, with only a fleeting reference to Israel or the conflict...

[oberliner]

79. The Ron Paul bathroom post does address his perceived anti-semitism

And his opinions about Israel.

In fact, his Israeli views are explicitly mentioned in the post, whereas nothing Israeli or Palestinian is mentioned in the Pam Geller one.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Israel was a fleeting reference...

Like I said, I've got no problems with OPs about Islamophobia or Antisemitism here. Do you?

[oberliner]

81. OPs should have at least a fleeting reference to something Israeli or Palestinian

An OP about anti-semitism that references Israelis in some way or an OP about Islamophobia that references Palestinians in some way would make more sense than ones that don't.

The rules have never been entirely clear on this point, however, as I know that posts made in the other forums that dealt with either of the above were often moved to I/P for reasons that did not always seem to make sense.

[King_David]

82. There was nothing 'fleeting' about it

and that is why it was posted in IP.

This is one of those times to say 'I was wrong"

[Violet_Crumble]

83. Of course it was fleeting. There were only two passing mentions of Israel in the entire article...

I think yr completely misunderstanding what the purpose of this thread is. It's for participants in the group to discuss the future guidelines, something that everyone but you appears to have done so far. This thread doesn't exist for you to appear and carry on about an OP that's not about the conflict you've posted. What you should be doing is discussing the guidelines and making suggestions for them, which is what was already suggested to you, but you appear to be totally ignoring...

[King_David]

84. You seem to think somehow erroneously that your a host in this group.

Your not.

[oberliner]

85. You are using the wrong "your" here

You should have used "you're" - perhaps you should go with "yr" then you don't have to worry!

[King_David]

86. That is true , thank you nt

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Of course I don't. What a silly thing to say n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

88. Actually, under the DU3 Community Standards concept

this is exactly what should be happening as Skinner wants the members having input on the direction of the board (and by definition, the groups they participate in).