HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Blast from the past: DU's...

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:30 PM

Blast from the past: DU's old rules!

https://web.archive.org/web/20110721225652/http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

For Civility (talking about and to members of Democratic Underground)


The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.


I can see why Skinner thought we should grow up some and not have to live by a ton of "thou shalt not"s.

Too bad we haven't....

30 replies, 2196 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Blast from the past: DU's old rules! (Original post)
moriah May 2016 OP
onehandle May 2016 #1
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #3
onehandle May 2016 #5
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #6
moriah May 2016 #15
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #17
moriah May 2016 #19
moriah May 2016 #8
wildeyed May 2016 #28
NanceGreggs May 2016 #9
nolawarlock May 2016 #2
stone space May 2016 #4
carolinayellowdog May 2016 #7
moriah May 2016 #10
NanceGreggs May 2016 #11
moriah May 2016 #12
NanceGreggs May 2016 #20
moriah May 2016 #22
NanceGreggs May 2016 #23
moriah May 2016 #26
NanceGreggs May 2016 #27
wildeyed May 2016 #29
NuclearDem May 2016 #13
moriah May 2016 #14
LoverOfLiberty May 2016 #16
moriah May 2016 #21
Bluenorthwest May 2016 #18
demmiblue May 2016 #24
moriah May 2016 #25
Warren DeMontague May 2016 #30

Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:33 PM

1. Wow. Almost none of those rules are followed now.

No wonder this place is such a ghost of its old self.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:39 PM

3. Are there more or less people participating now than in 2008?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #3)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:40 PM

5. Feels like far less, but there has been a bump for the last two months.

Now that we have a nominee, I expect traffic will shrink back down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #5)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:42 PM

6. If I owned this place there is NO way I would cut out all the people who might

not follow the TOS, I would figure out a way for them to stay for several reasons, including profit.

But I would make it impossible for someone who is not a Democratic party supporter to be able to silence someone who is.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #6)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:08 PM

15. That's why Skinner created Discussionist.

The idea, I presume, was to get ad revenue from the trolls, and give them a place they might actually engage Democrats if that's really what their intentions were by trolling.

Leaving DU to us, Democrats, less disrupted, working together for liberty and justice for all by getting Democrats elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #15)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:13 PM

17. Ahh yes, that place. GOP has invested in a several hundred million dollar propaganda campaign

over the past 25 years to destroy the Clinton family.

On this site alone we see the fruits of this in 2 ways

1. actual GOP operatives frantically posting non stop Clinton attack threads

2. well meaning quasi liberals who buy into the lies and bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #17)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:37 PM

19. It's hard to remember it's bullshit....

... when the memes have gotten so imprinted, over more than two decades.

Hillary may be many things. She may be right of Bernie, she may overly identify with the movement that was called "Progressivism" in its time when both parties were very different than they are now (her hesitation on cannabis reminds me of Prohibitionist views, when temperance was considered to be a movement for the safety of women and children, for example).

But the belief she's a cold hearted snake with a desire for a coronation... that came from the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #5)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:48 PM

8. We don't have a nominee until concession..

... even if Bernie's Sunday speech regarding superdelegates had the tone of Hillary's letter to the DNC delegates right before the last primaries -- essentially concession if the pledged delegates are larger after the primaries are complete and even under his idea of splitting Supers by the percentage of the win in each state he still can't get the nomination, but not conceding yet because there are people who still have to vote.

Even Obama only called himself the "presumptive Nominee" until Hillary officially conceded.

I, as a Hillary supporter, cannot criticize Sanders for the same strategies Hillary used in 08. And I have good reason to believe, particularly when he said that he would work to do whatever it took to not get a GOPer or Trump elected, that he will be graceful after the process is fully concluded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #5)

Mon May 2, 2016, 07:32 PM

28. Feels like less to me

because I have a hefty number on ignore now. Never had more than a few before, but there were rules back then....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #3)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:48 PM

9. Far less now than in 2008.

Traffic has steadily declined since then. It tends to pick up during an election cycle, but has never come close to being what it was pre-2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:37 PM

2. Yeah, those rules are definitely old.

It seems like we've adopted the rules of the Thunderdome these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:39 PM

4. Wow! (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)


Response to carolinayellowdog (Reply #7)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:49 PM

10. Kinda freaky. +1 for Jung.... I heart Jung. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:52 PM

11. And DU grew and thrived ...

... when those rules were enforced.

I'll never understand why the highly-successful model was tossed out the window, to be replaced with what DU is now - which has resulted in a loss of traffic and members as a result thereof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #11)

Mon May 2, 2016, 04:59 PM

12. There was concern about transparency, biased mods, etc, from what I recall.

I hope that Skinner's plan to improve the Jury System includes at least a partial return to those guidelines --aka, give jurors more guidance, as he said, as to what was and wasn't acceptable on DU.

Truthfully, all of the above IS covered under the broad umbrella of "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate"....

But it's such a broad umbrella, that many haven't felt like something was "rude enough" or "insensitive enough" to hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #12)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:38 PM

20. Skinner also stated ...

... in an ATA response that "jurors are not expected to enforce the TOS". In other words, jurors are free to "judge" a post on whatever criteria they choose - and we've all seen how well that works.

If there was concern with any individual Mod, they could easily be replaced. What we have with juries is hundreds of random "Mods" who are not expected to follow any guidelines whatsoever.

We've all seen jury decisions. They often don't even state any reason for a vote to "hide" or "leave". In other instances, the reasons stated include specific references to who the alterted poster supports in this primary, and/or references to whether the juror "likes", "hates", or "agrees with" the poster in question.

When someone tells another DUer "I wouldn't fuck you with someone else's dog's cock" (and that was one of the milder personal insults included in that particular and lengthy post) and it's voted as a "leave", it seems blatantly obvious that the jury system is a big, fat FAIL. How could anyone not think something like that is "not rude enough" or "not insensitive enough" to warrant a hide?

Someone got a hide today for calling Bernie a "snake-oil salesman", while OPs about HRC laundering money, engaging in criminal activities, or OPs about Bill being a pedophile are left alone.

I know you want to defend Skinner here - and that's fine. But he is still responsible for allowing all of this to happen. He's had more than ample time to realize where the flaws in the jury system are, and the vile things that are allowed to be posted here as a result. He's also had plenty of time to set rules as to how jurors are meant to adjudicate alerts - and he has done nothing about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #20)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:54 PM

22. This one against me didn't get a hide.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1806926

I kinda went off a bit there in response to that accusation. The first line I didn't mind at all. The second.... ooooh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #22)

Mon May 2, 2016, 06:09 PM

23. One of my first hides here ...

... started with Juror #1 stating: "I've always hated NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide without bothering to even read the post."

I've also seen decisions where jurors have said, "I love ______, and I will NEVER vote to hide anything they say, no matter what it is."

As I said, decisions have been rife with references to personal likes/dislikes, as well as references to who the altered-on poster is supporting in the primary.

The minute Skinner acknowledged that 85% of the posters here are BS supporters, he HAD TO KNOW that juries were not going to be "fair and balanced".

And his response was

DU once had a sterling reputation as a well-moderated site where civility prevailed. It is now the go-to site for saying the most vile, disgusting things imaginable without interference - as long as you're part of the majority, or pose as someone who is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #23)

Mon May 2, 2016, 06:49 PM

26. I hope you did alert on that alert.

I also hope that Skinner really has, since March like he announced, starting stripping jurors of that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #26)

Mon May 2, 2016, 07:24 PM

27. No, I didn't alert.

I've seen waaaay too many "decisions" like that, and they are invariably left to stand. So why bother?

That "wouldn't fuck you with a dog's cock" post I mentioned earlier was alerted on multiple times, and I know of at least a dozen DUers who sent emails to Skinner about it. He left it alone. If he's not going to step-in when something that egregious is posted, he's obviously not interested in what gets posted here.

The thing is that if Skinner hadn't given "that right" to jurors in the first instance, he wouldn't have to strip them of that right now. Had he set out guidelines for jurors at the outset, and heeded alerts on outrageous posts left to stand, he wouldn't be in the fix he's in today.

He let this happen - and there's no excuse for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #12)

Mon May 2, 2016, 07:46 PM

29. Early on in the jury system,

there was an effort to adhere. But there was nothing posted about the guidelines, and I think there was some serious drift. I would get called to a jury and try to remember what the old rules were, because they were good and effective, but without any place to look them up, I could never remember, so I would just go with my gut.

Now I think about community standards. They are very low. Skinner goes on about how we should uphold standards and vote to hide uncivil posts, regardless of circumstance. But then poster A can tell poster B to fuck off, but if poster B says fuck off back, we are supposed to hide B, even if the first post DIDN'T get a hide. My inclination is just to let it stand because A was asking for it I am looking for some CONSISTENCY. It seems dramatically unfair to punish one, but not the other. Especially if the other started it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:03 PM

13. Alerting.

 

I also have an inkling suspicion that the Cooking and Baking group might be infested with Freeper trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #13)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:04 PM

14. They will bake us honeybuns with the brainwashing juice in it?

Uh-oh, better go start the witch hunt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:11 PM

16. This place is gross

Seriously, I used to come here to get pumped up. Now its just a trash talking, mud slinging hatefest directed at our own party.

But you, OP, have been one of the lone voices in a while that remains calm, conciliatory and rational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoverOfLiberty (Reply #16)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:39 PM

21. *blush*

I try.

I really do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 05:25 PM

18. That was when DU was a unique place, now it's just like the other places, full of bullies of

 

malicious intention. Yahoo comments with donkey logos. It's been a slow fall, but a total one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Mon May 2, 2016, 06:16 PM

24. They also started a site full of Freepers and Cavers.

Times change, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #24)

Mon May 2, 2016, 06:22 PM

25. I always thought DI was an attempt to both get ad revenue....

..... from dedicated trolls/disruptors, and take some pressure off of DU. If the truly persistent ones are helping boost the DU site (even just $10 on DU can make ads disappear for a year, FYI, which can't happen on DI to my knowledge) revenue and pay for a place for us, I'm not exactly upset.

I haven't served on MIRT since the creation of DI, so I don't know if it helped any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 11:26 PM

30. Early this primary season a community college "blogger" who could barely string a sentence together

signed up and -in her first 30 or so posts- proceeded to call me everything from a Troll to a Rand Paul groupie, and fancied herself some brilliant strategist who was able to "out" me as a stealth Republican , after my- what- over a decade here.

Pretty fucking clear violation of the rules, aside from being logically incoherent- and eventually MIRT did what it was supposed to and banned her.

But the worst part was the long-time DU members who were so enamored with the stupid fucking "team C versus team B" dynamic, that they blew off what we all should agree was out of bounds DU behavior.

That was disappointing, and it won't be forgotten by yours truly any time soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread