A Quick Reminder for This Primary Season

[bravenak]

I saw a post that I find very important to the discourse on our lovely site. In an attempt to clarify the rules, this was posted to give us more info on the TOS. In order to keep us all here together and fighting for the Democratic party, I am reposting this for all and sundry. Very sensible post.

Star Member Skinner (60,834 posts)
1. You are correct.

Based on the Terms of Service, we have grounds to ban anyone who states that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic nominee in any general election. There is a popular misconception that the "Vote for Democrats" rule only applies after a nominee has been chosen, but that is not correct. The use of the term "never" is intentional in the section you quoted above.

So the next question, of course, is why so many people have been permitted to claim here on DU that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, and have not been banned for saying so. The reason is because the admins believe that most people who say this in the context of a contested presidential primary don't actually mean it. Some of them say it because they think threatening to withhold one's vote might be a persuasive argument in favor of their preferred primary candidate. (It isn't.) And in other cases they say it because they really believe it at that moment when they are caught up in the heat of the primary campaign, but once the primary is over they suck it up and do the right thing. We have seen this over and over again on DU after previous contested primary campaigns when the vast, vast majority of people went on to support the nominee.

The DU Terms of Service actually gives a nod to this and contains a clause that a certain amount of ambivalence toward Democrats is understandable:

During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

I want to be clear that that the Terms of Service remain unchanged, and members are still permitted to express their ambivalence about voting for the eventual nominee. The DU administrators have been allowing members a significant amount of leeway in our interpretation of that clause, but is a limit to how far we are willing to go.

Unfortunately, there are some people here who who say they won't support the nominee and actually won't. As we explained above, our feeling is that we want to give people the benefit of the doubt. But if you convince us that you actually mean it and you really aren't going to support the nominee, then we're going to treat you like you actually mean it. That person who started the OP telling people to sign the pledge that they won't support the Democratic nominee was very convincing, and is no longer a member of DU.

From the Terms of Service:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

That's the bottom line.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598967

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Now if we can stop seeing posts that ask if members will vote for the Nominee

In the General.

Asking another member to commit a Tos violation is a shitty thing to do.

[bravenak]

3. It should be a given that we vote for the nominee.

If not then people will ask. No need to answer. I did not want to accidentally post in the Bernie forum so I trashed it in August. Trash those threads that make you feel annoyed. It makes sense.

[NurseJackie]

17. I also had trashed that forum,

... and mistakenly believed that it would hide all of the posts in that forum, and prevent me from accidentally responding to one of them.

Unfortunately, I did not realize that the posts from trashed forum would continue to appear on the homepage. Oops, I posted a reply and got myself banned from the Bernie group.

I hope that doesn't count as a demerit or anything, but overall I think it's for the best.

[bravenak]

20. Same here. I forgot that they still show up.

Oops! Not like I was gonna post there on purpose anyway!

[valerief]

57. That's how I got banned from the Hillary group. I was responding to a post

from Latest Threads without looking at the group. I would never have posted my comment about centrist-right underground to the pouty "I'm leaving!" poster, if I noticed it was the Hillary group. So now I'm banned. No great loss for me, as I'm sure it's no great loss for you being banned from the Bernie group.

[NurseJackie]

73. I feel better now. Thanks. :-)

[bravenak]

86. No demerits.

It helps to be banned, just in case you accidentally try t reply to an op in there. It won't let you which I am grateful for. I got myself banned the same way. I think it's how many get banned. The AA group gives a warning before banning, but each group does it different.

[NurseJackie]

113. Thanks. :-) nt

[merrily]

81. No one should ask, period.

OP's ask, polls ask, every time someone criticized Hillary, they got asked. It's McCarthy-like bullshit and it went on way too long and too often. I'd bet the only reason L0onix posted that pledge from another website was the thousands of times we got hectored here over the past year plus.

[Sheepshank]

19. Plenty of Bernie supporters make these statements unsolicited, no one is goading anyone

look at all of the responses to the banned op.

As for asking persons to make statements against the TOS...no one is twisting anyone's arm to respond. I have Bernie people asking me all the time to name names and call out a DU'er. Guess what..............I don't.

Some personal responsibility here, is pretty key.

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. An undolicited statement is the fault of whoever made it.

[merrily]

80. Yes, thank you. However, people are also perfectly capable of not replying--even though I was

raised to "speak when you're spoken to"--oro of telling the inquisitor that every person's vote is between him or her and ballot box.

I can heartily endorse your post, though.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. An important repost, thanks.

I think it's particularly important because I don't think that's how many people were interpreting the ToS. I think people felt that as long as it wasn't time for the general 'both nominees chosen', they were safe in stating how they intended to vote, and that they simply had to then shut up 'once each nominee was clear' if their intended voting choice would run afoul of the ToS. By that answer, however, suddenly now your 'safety' (non-banishment) hinges upon not being 'convincing' about a voting choice that doesn't align well with the ToS. In other words, if admins think you're full of hot air, you get to stay, but if they actually think you're a person of your word, poof, you're gone.

[bravenak]

5. I see it the same.

I think people thoughg that it only applied after a nominee was chosen. I thought the same thing so this was helpful to me personally. People will get upset and say things they don't mean so I understand the leeway. Advocating seriously is the real problem, imo.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Well, I've never advocated.

But apparently in my personal statements I haven't been very convincing, which is apparently good for my ability to hang around

I still feel it's a hypothetical, though. Until we HAVE a nominee, no one can truly proclaim that they aren't voting for the nominee.

[bravenak]

8. It is a grey area.

I think most of us can manage to keep our cool.

[merrily]

78. It's not too hypothetical for a ban, so....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

114. Yeah.

So I guess from here on out, I ignore any 'timing' clauses when it comes to such statements and take them as applying year round.

[whatchamacallit]

15. I had it wrong

It's a well thought out and written clarification. Good to know.

[passiveporcupine]

84. I'm sorry but

This is not liberal or progressive underground (as much as I might like it to be). It is Democratic Underground.

there have to be other sites out there for people who don't care a whit about who wins but only support a candidate who fits their agenda.

[Art_from_Ark]

110. It started out as a liberal/progressive underground

And at one time the site billed itself as "the web's best liberal discussion forum".

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

115. 'I'm sorry but'

I most certainly DO care a whole lot more about who wins that a whit, and I want it to be someone I feels actually embodies and lives up to the Democratic Party's proclaimed agenda. Not someone who subverts the party to pass the least stupid parts of the Republican agenda.

[passiveporcupine]

122. I'm not saying you shouldn't be fighting for a progressive candidate

But once the primaries are over, if you don't vote Democratic, then you aren't helping to keep the country on the side of progress...even if it is a slower version of progress than what you hoped for.

Now in some states, your vote won't matter, and not voting Dem won't affect anything...but in some states it will. In those states it is critical that we vote to keep dems in office and reclaim positions that republicans now hold.

[Agschmid]

4. Kick.

[uppityperson]

7. Thanks, would you please add the link too?

[bravenak]

9. Yes.

[restorefreedom]

10. from my read of it

it seems ok at least during primary season to discuss how one intends to vote but should not be advocating that others follow suit if that involves not voting dem. I think it also is important to remember that Bernie is not running as a third-party candidate he is running as a Democrat. but i agree that daily loyalty pledge threads and baiting people to declare their disdain for a particular candidate should be considered by the admins when making those decisions about posting privileges.

also, alert stalking against anyone who disagrees with a particular candidate or pov is also pretty shitty and should be monitored by admins.

[bravenak]

11. I agree.

I also say put the 'loyalty threads' in the garbage. Do not pay attention to them or me if I do so. Ignore. I ignore a great many threads that I think are designed to suck one in and get them in a twist.

[restorefreedom]

16. i have to say i have never used ignore or trash

amazing hey? i guess i hate to think of missing conversations by using a broad brush. but i may use your idea re: loyalty threads. no matter who is the nom, trying to force/intimidate people into voting for a certain person sounds like a good way to get the opposite of the desired result.

plus all the kvetching is taking away discussion of the issues imo

[bravenak]

50. I have only started using ignore this week. Best thing ever. Seriously.

[restorefreedom]

53. wow...i hear that a lot..hmmmm might have to experiment. nt

[bravenak]

54. Ignore the worst from both sides? You do not see the drama. Nice.

[restorefreedom]

55. it could help my blood pressure too :) nt

[BlueCaliDem]

96. I've had "the pizza'd one" on Ignore for nearly a year. I couldn't stand

reading his anti-Obama posts and attacks on Obama supporters. So I put him on Ignore. BEST DECISION EVAH. Lots of peace of mind, I tell ya. Now that he's gone, I've removed him from the list to make room for others, but it appears since Skinner's post, the nastier posts have dialed down quite a bit.

[font color="red" size="14" face="face"][center]Thank you, Skinner![/center][/font]

[bravenak]

100. I see it has calmed down a bit.

I am GRATEFUL to Skinner today!!!!

[BlueCaliDem]

106. Considerably...although there are still a few pushing the limits as we speak.

I'm GRATEFUL to Skinner today, too!

[JaneyVee]

12. This post should be pinned.

[bravenak]

13. It very much should. I did not realize the extent of how the TOS is used myself.

I would have thought that op was within TOS without this clarification.

[JaneyVee]

14. Yeah, this is a good timely clarification.

Thanks for posting.

[William769]

18. Kick & recommended.

[ismnotwasm]

21. K&R

[passiveporcupine]

22. Since I cannot respond to this in the ask the admin thread

I would just like to say "Thank you Skinner".

I am pretty alarmed at how many people do this, and what I most worry about, is as the heat rises, more people might be attracted to this do-or-die idealogical purism, and they really don't understand the importance of participating in voting, especially in voting for a dem, to win the race, even if it's not their personal favorite candidate.

I hope not too many people get bounced for this, but I hope it makes them think twice before exhibiting their "bragging rights".

We need to win the 2016 election. Seriously!

So again, thank you for speaking up on this Skinner!

And thank you Bravenak for bringing this to everyone's attention.

[bravenak]

45. Yes. After the loss last night I think we need to keep our cool and work to win.

[Skittles]

24. Skinner the Wise One

I do believe he is correct

still, it is very disconcerting seeing people act like children holding their breath

[one_voice]

64. +1

[Cha]

25. Great, brave! A Very Current Reminder that the Rules that have always been in place for the

General Election Remain Unchanged.

I did not think it would. Why would Skinner and the Admins have members on here helping the republicons during a critically important election for our Country and Planet?!

Thank you, Skinner!

Mahalo brave

[bravenak]

47. I am feeling a bit relieved to have this clarified.

I did not know that that op was anywhere near banable until I saw that op. I will make sure to take note!

[Cha]

94. Yes! And what a Glaring way to make it known there will be Zero tolerance for

advocating not voting for the Democratic Nominee! It's a bust!

[bravenak]

104. Nice play on words!

[Cha]

105. Grazie!

[onehandle]

26. Fantastic post! Thanks for linking to that.

Clearly, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[bravenak]

49. Awseome! Glad we all know the rules now!

[luvspeas]

27. Yeah, but do they actually mean it?

Hey! My crystal ball is still at the cleaners. I simply don't have the incredible level of psychic intuition of our beloved admins.

The reason is because the admins believe that most people who say this in the context of a contested presidential primary don't actually mean it.

To me it sounds like an excuse to avoid taking any responsibility. The sound of sucking around here is making my ears pop.

Hey! just my opinion. Not putting anybody down.

[Godhumor]

30. Yeah they mean it.

There was a pretty noticeable purge in the 2008 campaign after the nomination was decided.

[passiveporcupine]

34. WRONG

Do you have any idea what it is like to be an admin on a forum as big as this...or for that matter, any forum, where you want to treat people with respect?

To me it sounds like an excuse to avoid taking any responsibility.

That was really a pretty shitty thing to say.

[passiveporcupine]

82. Sounds like you are not very happy here

Why are you doing this to yourself? Do you like being tortured?

[JimDandy]

107. WOW!!! You may want to delete this really awful attack on the admins. n/t

[bravenak]

42. I think they mean it.

[Lil Missy]

108. The only people who need to take responsibility are

those who get a warning, or get banned for TOS violations, who then piss and moan and whine about getting picked on or singled out unfairly. That's bullshit. Own up to it, take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming someone else.

[Bleacher Creature]

28. A freakin' men

Thank you.

[mcar]

29. Good clarification

Thanks Skinner and bravenak.

[MohRokTah]

31. I'll be supporting the nominee...

and she'll be an incredible president!

[bravenak]

61. Yep!

[Gothmog]

99. I will be supporting the party's nominee no matter who it is

[workinclasszero]

116. Yes!

[sheshe2]

32. Excellent reminder, Bravenak.

Thank you

[bravenak]

41. You are welcome. I hope we all can be reasonable now.

[Iggo]

33. ...so everybody unclench.

[progree]

35. I think the admins mean it. Remember L0oniX?

L0oniX got PPR'd today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=186380&sub=trans

"Posted a thread urging DU members to sign a pledge stating that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee for president if the nominee is someone other than their chosen primary candidate."

[Warren DeMontague]

36. He also said "not every member of your coalition will be your ideological soulmate"

Important to people who actually want to win elections versus Republicans.

Maybe not so much, for those who are obsessively focused on internet message board drama and ancient score-settlin'

[bravenak]

38. Then perhaps those that feel that things will be in shambles if their candidate does not win the

primary should take note

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Oh, i think a lot of people should take note.

But the folks who somehow have it in their heads that hillary being nominated will be their long-awaited vindication for ******* being banned over her transphobic comments in the meta forum circa 2011, I suspect are setting themselves up for a wee spot o'disappointment.


Now, i hate to see people disappointed, dont you?

[bravenak]

46. I was not here in 2011. I do not know what you mean by this.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I didn't mean you.

But.... on the off chance you find yourself hanging with people who, you notice, spend an inordinate amount of time fixated and obsessing around drama pertaining to this website, maybe ask yourself "what the fuck does this actually have to do with politics?"

[bravenak]

68. Ahhh!

References to the purge are always confusing. But yes, I think that when people focus too much on me. I am not THAT interesting. Jeeze!

[Warren DeMontague]

95. I'm not talking about 'the purge', either.

I'm talking about folks who have spent the past 10 years expressing their profound discontent with this site, and yet are still here.

I'm not that interesting, either- and like I said, been there, done that, got the t shirt, find the whole thing rather trite. But that doesn't mean my ears don't burn when people call me out on the intertubes.

[seaglass]

118. He's talking about the History of Feminism members and I believe iverglas being banned in 2011

and this has something to do with Hillary in 2008 or some such shit.

[bravenak]

119. Good God.

[BainsBane]

125. My, that is convoluted

I can't follow any logic to that. I guess antediluvian grudges don't require logic.

[merrily]

87. Perhaps everyone should take note.

[merrily]

85. +1

[aikoaiko]

37. I think the Loonix ban was a bad one because the OP specifically said the pledge was ...

...a primary tactic for securing the nomination.

But then Skinner and EarlG can ban whomever they want for whatever reason.

[bravenak]

39. Perhaps there will be an amnesty period after the primary.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Im gonna misss that little bug he had crawling on his posts.

Man, did that fuck with my head the first few times.

[polly7]

48. I swatted my screen for half a thread before I caught on.

I'll miss L0onix.

[aikoaiko]

52. Dibs on the bug gif.

[IMG][/IMG]

[merrily]

88. L0onix said nothing. The entire post was copied and pasted from another website, with a link.

L0onix got banned for copying and pasting.

L0onix urged no one to sign the pledge, urged no one to keep it. It's not legally binding anyway.

The other post of L0onix that got hidden was also a copy and paste of a post and comments.

Check the transparency page. Both posts are there.

[aikoaiko]

90. Yep. It was a bad ban.

[merrily]

91. On the plus side, LOonix still has a 60% chance of serving on a jury. Star member 9 years,

banned for a copy and paste with a link. Two posts in a row hidden for copy and paste.

[Chitown Kev]

44. I have a question...

What if you state that you choose to write in a candidate (or anyone else, for that matter) who is a known Democrat, whether it be Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, or Barbra Streisand?

Not saying that I will do that (I'm voting for the nominee) but if it is about electing Democrats, then...

[bravenak]

51. I think that is an offense that may be given a bit of leeway, especially if made in frustration.

Now if it were an op trying to get others to follow, that would be banable. But I think it depends on the post.

[blackspade]

56. I have no issues with Skinner's post.

We should all rally to the nominee no matter how we feel about them.
The alternative is some nightmarish asshole who wants to fuck the working people of this country for an extra buck.

Last night's election here in KY underscored that point.

[bravenak]

58. Yes. We need those seats more than we need to please ourselves.

The alternative? More Scalias.

[blackspade]

59. Blech.

I will take a DLC corporate Democrat over another Constitution killing GOP asshole any day.
I won't be happy, but at least women won't die from lack of medical care, Black people might stop getting mowed down by cops, and LBGT folks will stop being discriminated against.

[bravenak]

60. Scalia makes me sick too!!!

Him and Lord Clarence Thomas. They act like slimy aristocrats.

[George II]

62. The way I read the TOS going back to the spring, it's okay to talk about who or how....

...one is voting for IN THE PRIMARY, but not how one would vote in the General Election. That has only two options - for the nominee or not at all.

[bravenak]

63. I think the advocation for a third party run is the issue we had today.

Although, I am not sure it was meant to advocate, maybe to inform, but we live under their rules. I think all need to be careful of advocating against democrats.

[George II]

65. Yes, that's what the issue was today. Voting "third party" would happen after the primaries....

....which is after the point that we should all rally around the nominee.

Personally, I wish we would all just advocate for our respective candidates and leave the snarky comments or dirt from years gone by about our candidate's opponents out of the discussion altogether.

If one has to drag down another candidate to boost our own, we might as well become Rovian republicans.

[bravenak]

72. Maybe this will help the atmosphere?

Anything is possible.

[one_voice]

66. All I will say is I hope that...

shit head Joe Manchin is NEVER our nominee. I would have to leave DU. For reals.

[bravenak]

69. Me too. Or Jim Webb. Don't want him.

[TSIAS]

70. Some people here are in the wrong business

Seems like a lot of HRC supporters would be better off serving as hall monitors or one of those civilian volunteer cops. I've been on this site for a decade and have never known so many rules inside and out.

[bravenak]

71. This was from Skinner, today.

[davidpdx]

111. You said it much better than I could

I was going to start calling them the snitch patrol. A bunch of them have an ax to grind over their impromptu vacations.

[valerief]

74. I tried to warn this person yesterday, but now whoever it was is tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7313365

[bravenak]

75. You did what you could. Some will just not listen to reason.

[F4lconF16]

77. Thanks for that clear information.

I kinda figured I wouldn't be posting much after the primary.

Looks like I won't be posting much at all anymore.

It's been fun.

[bravenak]

79. I think it is okay to post.

Just not to advocate AGAINST democrats. You should post. There are many topics that can be discussed without even talking about the election.

[F4lconF16]

89. I only advocate against certain Democrats.

Is that okay? I somehow doubt it is.

There are other topics, but being limited to non-political discusion defeats the point of my being here.

[bravenak]

93. It should be during primary season.

Advocate for one against the other. Or even an independent if there is no Dem or the party supports say a socialist because they can win where we cannot.

[Todays_Illusion]

83. I am happy to see that, since the reason I don't visit here often is there is not much support for

current very fine President and there is a lot of anti-Democratic party noise. That anti-Democratic noise seems to be driven by the third way, left libertarian, progressives, centrists, moderates or whatever name they hide behind. There seems to be a very strong contingent here expressing that view and promoting the ideas that are often opposite what we expect of a Democratic candidate Democratic voter, I often feel like I am on a conservative dominated site.

I am almost afraid to type this I was booted a couple months ago with no explanation, all restored now of course complete with the denial it happened including removal of the notice in my messages.

I would certainly like to see more talk about how to increase Democratic voters in red states or have Democratic surrendered?

The conservatives are working very hard in California to regain their position, I say that having recently moved from a liberal California district to a very conservative California district.

[bravenak]

92. Things have been like this for awhile.

I Used to get so mad at the way people spoke about Obama. I get the same impressions as you around here, except for the booted thing. That is so strange. I think when we sign up there is a part of the notice that tells us that admins may access our account if needed. Maybe try to look at it to see if it clarifies anything about that notice removal. I have seen accounts restored before, so it could have been an error or a mistake.
Democrats have not given up. We just need to work harder and run better campaigns.

[betsuni]

97. K&R!

[Gothmog]

98. Thanks for posting

[bravenak]

101. No prob.

[Jamaal510]

102. I saw the thread in question,

and while it's good that its OP got banned for disobeying the TOS, I think the dozen and a half people who recced it should also at least be looked at. By reccing it, they were agreeing with the idea that posters should pretty much take their football and go home if HC is the nominee instead of voting against the Republican (which is supposedly a no-no according to the TOS). I think the admins were being nice and let them off a bit easy, but it's also another reminder that not every poster here is a Democrat or has the interest of the party in mind.

[bravenak]

103. The admins are feeling kind today for sure.

I was rude today and they were still reasonable with me regardless. Perhaps they will feel like doing amnestly later. Who knows!

[ffr]

109. The ToS page is hilarious if you look at how different it reads from other forum's ToS

Seriously well done, but with a sense of humor towards the obvious.

Hope this doesn't offend anyone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Kentonio]

112. So just to clarify Bravenak..

When you repeatedly claim that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and that you'll never vote for a non-Democrat for election, if he wins the nomination will you vote for him despite your claims?

[Iggo]

117. How dare you!!!!

[bravenak]

120. Read my sigline.

[Kentonio]

121. So you'll happily vote for him if he's the nominee?

[Hekate]

124. Wow, is that avatar ever a blast from the past for someone here less than a month. What a find! nt

[Hekate]

123. KnR bravenak

[SidDithers]

126. Good reminder...nt

Sid