This is the TOS for DemocraticUnderground

[Autumn]

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

We agreed to this when we signed up. It's important that we all keep the republicans from winning in 2016. Please keep that in mind and lets work on getting Bernie Sanders elected.



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

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. 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. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[LiberalArkie]

1. Interesting

EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative

[retrowire]

2. +1

It's a grey area that got L0onix permabanned. I say we bring him back.

[Autumn]

4. The admins make the decisions on banning long term posters, that's not up to us n/t

[retrowire]

7. :( n/t

[JonLeibowitz]

17. most likely to defeat the conservative alternative

The only poll that matters is the exit poll. Who decides most likely? If everyone did the right thing...

[djean111]

3. Here is why the supporters of another candidate are chomping at the bit to "purify" DU -

For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear.

I honestly believe that they believe their nominee is already the clear winner of the primaries. Before a single vote is cast. They seem to believe we have already entered that phase of the primaries.

[LiberalArkie]

5. We know the decisions have already been made. As a far left person (Hence my name)

I belive he is the home to bring change. Others do not want change. I was mocked here when I first came online because of the liberal in my login. I really have my doubts that HRC can pull off the General, but that is not in our hands. If she doesn't the HRC supporters will blame all of us "Because we did not support her". We know that is how it will be.

[TBF]

6. Maybe they know something we don't. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. That's actually a very interesting line.

For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear.

Even if they think it is 'clear' that HRC will win the Dem nod, who the hell might they think it is 'clear' will win the Republican nod?

[artislife]

24. Watch it...they don't like it when we uncover facts and details...nt

[Ed Suspicious]

9. Here's the shit sandwich we made you. Now eat it.

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

[merrily]

12. Take it easy, my friend.

[Kalidurga]

10. I think it was the part where Loonix had a pledge form

where if Hillary is nominated that people pledge to write in Bernie's name. But, I don't think the purpose of the form is really about if Hillary gets the popular vote for delegates. I think it's in the case that the super-delegates override the will of the ordinary voters in the primary and caucus. It is a tool to keep the super-delegates aware that they do have an obligation to at least listen to the will of the regular voters. Of course it could be an effort to over ride the will of the majority of voters if indeed Hillary gets the nomination. In that case I would not pledge to write in Bernie's name in the GE.

[merrily]

13. Form, shmorm. It was a copy and paste from another website. L0onix made no comment about it.

I have had 100% chance of serving on juries for a long time (in DU years). I have never hidden a post that consists of nothing but a copy and paste plus a link. It would have had to have come from stormfront or rush limbaugh dot com before I would have hidden, not something on liberal site, ffs.

[Kalidurga]

20. I certainly don't think it was fair

but, there are at least two Hillary supporters on MIRT which is going to be problematic if people insist on alerting things like this.

[merrily]

21. 3 candidates have a significant # of supporters here, so there are going to have be

supporters of all three on the board, or at least supporters of Hillary and Bernie. But, for a long time DUer like L0onix, an administrator has to be involved. Supposedly, it was someone who claims to be a supporter of Sanders who asked for action, after a jury refused to hide. I would sure love to know who it was, I would.

[Kalidurga]

22. I have my suspicions, but I wouldn't ever go public with just a hunch or share it.

Because hunches just aren't facts no matter how much experience informs them.

[merrily]

23. That's why the Deity made DU mail.

[Demeter]

11. You know, I brushed the dust of Junior High off 44 years ago

and I dislike the thought of looking back on those infantile days in any way for any reason. I especially don't like bullies, and have no tolerance for their power-mad ways.

[merrily]

14. In junior high, something IRL was actually at stake. flesh and blood friends, the boy (or girl) on

whom you had the biggest, most desperate crush you'd probably ever have in your entire life, grades, an invite to the prom, something real.

What the hell is at stake with all this crap? Approval or disapproval from from your fellow screen names? Christ Almighty!

[artislife]

25. It is very strange

I had an email months ago from another poster warning me that some posters were not my friends. That poster didn't mean in the sense that they wanted me hid, but in the sense of friendship.


I found that odd.

But there are a lot of people who think this board is life and death...I kind of think of it as a mix, some cool people, some great information and then a Mexican Novella with bad guys and worse women! Lots of over acting and behavior that is most unbecoming.


lolz

[merrily]

27. Do you mean telenovella? Either way, I love the metaphor.

I want to be one of the "worse women!"

That email does seem weird. I'm sorry I sent it. I had had too much to drink.

[artislife]

28. I did mean tellnovella

And your email had me rolling!

[merrily]

29. Always leave 'em laughing.

[merrily]

15. Today's clarification and amplification from Skinner:

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

[Demeter]

18. That is, of course, a selectively-enforced policy

and commonly used for bullying, or purity tests, or whatever. Conformity under the Big Tent.

It's no way to run a forum, public or private.

It does not further discussion, elucidate, or inform. And ultimately, it's childish.

So we have the Topic That Must Not Be Raised. And the existential fear that one will be marked with the DU equivalent of a yellow star or a pink triangle, and sent off to an Opinion Wilderness, if some Anonymous Other takes offense and manages to twist one's words into a death sentence.

The Boycott is a classic, tried and tested protest tactic that does change minds and policy. One that we are forbidden to publicly espouse by this TOS. How Democratic of DU! No wonder it's underground.

[TheFarS1de]

19. They keep this type of selective outrage ...

It will become just another echo chamber , but in all honesty from what I have seen here over the last few months is it's one rule for one group and another set for the rest . Democratic underground is just another mouthpiece for a machine that only wants your vote . Not your opinion or disapproval , just blind obedience .

One person get's a ban for linking something the admins disapprove of yet they must approve of the Hillary group forming their own website to target posters here . Democratic my ass .

[artislife]

26. Very well written. nt