DU General Election Season Begins Soon: What You Need To Know

[Skinner]

This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the Announcements group).

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

UPDATE: General Election Season Begins June 20. More info here.

Last week I wrote an announcement providing some broad information about General Election season here on Democratic Underground. Now that the primary voting is almost done and it has become clear that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, we are sticking with our plan to transition to General Election season on Thursday, June 16.

This formal transition to General Election season is not a new thing for our website. For every presidential election since this website was founded in 2001, we have expected our members to support the Democratic nominee. It has been written into our Terms of Service for nearly as long as the site has existed, and all of you agreed to it.

But this year's transition is a little different because during the switch-over we will also be instituting some big changes to the way we run the site -- including software changes. We have two main goals with these changes:

1) Making this website a more civil and welcoming place for everyone.

2) Making clear that this website actually has a partisan purpose, especially during election season.

Here's what's going to happen:


[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]DU will have rules again
For the past six months we have been planning and developing a hybrid system which takes the parts of the Jury System that work well, throws out the stuff that doesn't work, and incorporates a number of ideas from the "old" DU. In a post about the primaries back in March, we noted that the new system would focus on "reducing drama, providing better guidance for jurors, and setting clearer standards that better lay out our expectations for what Democratic Underground should be." We want this community to be a friendlier place for everyone, and we believe the only way we can do that is to insist on some standards of conduct.

The first step is to bring back rules -- a set of standards that members are expected to follow when posting, and that members are expected to enforce if asked to serve on a Jury. These rules were created by looking at where we are now as a community, but also by reviewing our old rules from DU2. In fact, if you joined DU any time between 2002 and 2011, much of this will look very familiar to you.

The rules are separated into four sections. Here they are:

[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]Forum Rules (Draft)

CIVILITY

No personal attacks or flaming
Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.

Why we have this rule: Civility begets quality discussions. Democratic Underground members are highly passionate about politics which means discussions can get heated -- but they don't need to get nasty. There's no reason why a community of intelligent adults who agree on a majority of political issues can't have a conversation without insulting each other or resorting to other anti-social behaviors.

No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

Why we have this rule: Substantive disagreement on important issues is always welcome on this website, but our members should not be made to feel unwelcome simply because they hold a different point of view. Democratic Underground welcomes all people who are members of the Democratic coalition, including the full range of center-to-left viewpoints and supporters of all Democratic public figures.

No bigotry/insensitivity
Members are expected to respect diversity and demonstrate an appropriate level of sensitivity when discussing related topics. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of bigoted intolerance are not permitted.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes people of every race, sex, religious belief (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, gender identity, body type, disability, age, etc. We want to promote a welcoming atmosphere for all of our members, and do not want to provide a platform for bigotry.


POLITICAL

Support Democrats
Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.

Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.

Why we have this rule: Most of our members want this to be forward-looking, friendly community that is focused on creating a better future for our country. Continuing to rehash old fights that have already been resolved is divisive and counter-productive.


CONTENT

Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).

Why we have this rule: The purpose of Democratic Underground is to discuss politics, issues, and current events. Open discussion of how the website is run tends to distract from our core purpose.

No graphic content
Do not post content that is Not Safe For Work (NSFW), which includes sexually explicit material, graphic depictions of bodily functions, or images of extreme violence, gore, pain, or human suffering. Exceptions are permitted when an image adds important context to a legitimate news story, but the post must include a "graphic content warning" in the subject line.

Why we have this rule: Most people do not enjoy stumbling across extremely graphic content while browsing the web.

No kooky, extremist, or hate content
Do not promote ridiculous, bigoted, or extreme-fringe conspiracy theories. Do not promote extreme fringe views. Do not reference hate sites or other extremist/fringe sources.

Why we have this rule: Democrats are supposed to be part of the "reality-based community." Some amount of skepticism toward powerful institutions is healthy and appropriate, but that doesn't mean every paranoid fantasy is true. Posts about mass shootings being "false flag" operations, 9/11 being a controlled demolition, no airplane at the Pentagon, chemtrails, black helicopters, the Illuminati, or other nonsense make us all look like fools. This website may have the word "underground" in our name, but we are not extreme fringe.

No commercial spam
Do not post commercial spam or hawk commercial products or services.

Why we have this rule: It's fine for established members to plug or post links to their own products, services, or publications every now and again, but we do not wish to provide free advertising space for spammers.

Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group
Don't start new threads that conflict with a forum or group's Statement of Purpose. The Statement of Purpose can be found by visiting the main page of any forum or group and clicking the "About this forum" (or "About this group&quot button.

Why we have this rule: All forums and groups on Democratic Underground have a specific purpose, and we want to ensure that new discussion threads are on-topic for the forum or group that they are posted in.


LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE

Respect copyrights
Excerpts from copyrighted sources must be no more than four paragraphs and include a link to the source. See our DMCA Copyright Policy for more information.

Don't post anyone's private or personal information
Don't post private or personal information about any person (including public figures) even if that information is available elsewhere on the Internet.

No malware, phishing, cracking, or other malicious code
Don't post or link to malicious code, or attempt to interfere with this website's software or administration in any way.

Don't post anything that violates U.S. law
Don't post anything that violates U.S. law -- including but not limited to: linking to illegally-shared files, attempting to organize hacking or DOS attacks, sales of weapons, alcohol, illegal drugs, or other illegal products, etc.

Don't use an avatar or signature line that violates any of the other rules
Members may opt to make use of an avatar or signature line that is appended to all their posts. Avatars and signature lines must not violate any of the other forum rules.
We will expect all DU members to follow these rules when posting, and enforce them when serving on a Jury (Note: All alerts sent on rules in the "Legal/Administrative" section will be handled directly by Admin. Alerts sent on the rule "Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group" will be sent to Hosts).


[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]The Jury System: What's staying the same and what's changing
Next, we have made technical changes to the Jury process, implementing various improvements that people have requested over the past five years, and adding a few of our own. We also ditched a number of things that we felt were not working. With all of these changes our focus was on looking for ways to increase civility, set clear expectations, and reduce forum drama and meta-discussion.

Serving on Juries should be as straightforward as it was before -- in fact, we've streamlined the process to make it even simpler. You do not need to know all of the technical details below in order to serve on Juries -- they are provided merely for people who are interested in exactly what changes are taking place. Please note that we're tried to make the list below as comprehensive as possible, but it's possible that there may be further changes or additions as we go forward.

What's staying the same

• The software will seat a Jury by calling seven randomly-selected eligible members.


• Jury service is optional; members have five minutes to decide if they want to serve as a Juror.


• Jurors will be given a maximum of 30 minutes to evaluate whether a post is acceptable or not.


• Jury results will be decided by majority rule.


• Posts deemed acceptable by Juries will be left alone; posts deemed unacceptable will be hidden.


• Jurors won't be asked to serve again for at least 18 hours (unless the site is really busy).


• If a Jury votes unanimously that a post is acceptable, the alerter will not be able to alert again for 24 hours.


• If your post is removed, you will be notified.


• There are still certain triggers that will flag your account for review, and we are adding some new ones to put the brakes on people who repeatedly break our rules. When flagged for review you will not be able to post or use other site functions. (This is a stop-gap measure: We have a number of changes planned in this area that we aren't ready to implement yet; we'll have more to say about this at a later date.)

What's changing

• The privilege to serve on a Jury is now only offered to members who have been registered for at least one year, have more than 1,000 posts, and have an active Star membership.


• Alerters will no longer be asked to provide an explanation for their alert. Instead they will be presented with a short list of rules written by the Administrators and asked to select which rule they believe the post breaks.


• Jurors will no longer be asked to evaluate the post based on the alerter's comments and their own gut feeling. Instead they will be asked whether they believe the post breaks the specific rule selected by the alerter.


• Jurors will no longer evaluate posts in-thread. Instead they'll be taken to a separate page. On this page only the portion of the thread relevant to the alerted post will be displayed (or just the OP if the OP was the alerted post), and usernames and other identifying information will be removed.


• The Jury system still forbids "double jeopardy," but posts which were alerted for a particular rule and survived a Jury can now be re-alerted for a different rule.


• Previously Jurors had two options: "Hide it" or "Leave it alone." Now Jurors have four options: "It clearly breaks the rule"; "Close call, but it breaks the rule"; "It doesn't quite break the rule"; and "It clearly doesn't break the rule."


• Jurors will no longer be able to provide comments.


• Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after Jury service is complete.


• You will not be able to peek at other members' hidden posts. Only the author of the post can check the text of a removed post.


• You will be able to officially appeal if a Jury removes your post. We have built in an appeals system that allows members to send an appeal directly to Admin. Admin will review the post and provide a final ruling. If your appeal is convincing, the post will be reinstated.


• The Admins may also step in from time to time and remove a post if we think a Jury blew it and allowed a rule violation to stand.


• If you can't bring yourself to enforce a particular rule when serving on a Jury, you can object to that rule and you'll never be asked to serve on a Jury for that rule again. The Admins will keep a tally of objections which will give us useful feedback about the rules.


• Transparency pages are going away, since they only seemed to serve to create forum drama. (They may be replaced with something else at a later date.)

[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]Software Testing
These are big changes, and they require some pretty big changes to the software we use to moderate the site. Elad has spent countless hours this year programming all this stuff, and it's almost ready to go. But before we go live next week, we need to test it to make sure it works. That means we will need some DU members to serve as testers for the new software. We'll have more information on software testing coming soon.

[William769]

1. kick & recommended.

[Orrex]

2. Nothing will make me forgive Dr. Strange. Nothing.

But I'm hopeful that DU will reunite toward our shared cause!

[trumad]

3. A big K&R---Time to kick in some more money to DU.

[DCBob]

4. This sounds good.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. Enormous K & R.

[Lucinda]

6. KNR

[11 Bravo]

7. Halle-fucking-lujah! DU will once again be the ...

DEMOCRATIC Underground!

[Hissyspit]

471. At the expense of the UNDERGROUND.

This place didn't become the success it became because it was an oblivious echo-chamber.

[boston bean]

8. Sounds good. I hope it works well! mean it.

Also, want to thank you for adding in sexism. means a lot to me and I am sure many women here.

[msanthrope]

17. Yes. nt

[gollygee]

33. +1000

Good to see that explicitly stated.

[NYC Liberal]

46. It's always baffled me that it was never there.

It's about time for sure.

[Phentex]

74. Yes it does...

It's 2016 after all. Long overdue.

And I am happy that trolls will now need to pay if they want certain site privileges.

[AtheistCrusader]

211. That's a very uncharitable suggestion of all the people who choose not to or cannot pay.

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it sounds.

[Phentex]

216. Just trolls...

I am not assuming anyone who can't pay is a troll. I am also not assuming that all newbies are trolls.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

276. People used to buy others a star in the past. Usually if the person was a valued member who

posted some good/clever things and was enjoyable to have around.

[BainsBane]

294. Any donation buys you a star

There isn't a set cost. What it requires is you link your account to some method of payment and hence one's real identity.

[AtheistCrusader]

352. It doesn't even do that.

I could get a 5$ throwaway visa card from any local store.

[auntAgonist]

521. I don't have extra $$ to donate to DU like I used to. I don't appreciate the assumption

made that people without a 'star' are trolls.

I have served on countless juries and actually enjoyed serving on them.

I moderate 2 groups here on DU. I hardly think I'm a troll or even show troll tendencies.

With this new rule we lose a lot of good, well reasoned and fair potential jurors.

aA

[BooScout]

194. Totally agree

[hlthe2b]

202. YUP.... +++++

[bettyellen]

252. Plus a billion on the sexism, it's about time.

[Maru Kitteh]

306. Yes, + another billion.

[ucrdem]

9. Ready!

Thanks! Looks great!

[PJMcK]

10. K&R for great plans

Thanks to Skinner, EarlG, Elad and all the other administrators for constantly making this one of the best political websites.

Count me in if you need testers for the new software.

[Native]

11. Thank you. And I hope there will be a big ass link to the rules page at the start of each forum!

K&R

[Loki]

12. I'm in!

Thanks Skinner.

[UrbScotty]

13. Thanks, benevolent overlord!

I can help with the testing, seeing as how I'm testy myself.

[EileenFB]

14. Major K&R

[mountain grammy]

36. How about reading the rules

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.

and this:

Don't use an avatar or signature line that violates any of the other rules
Members may opt to make use of an avatar or signature line that is appended to all their posts. Avatars and signature lines must not violate any of the other forum rules.

Guess old habits die hard.

[panader0]

77. Your winner/whiner thing will have to go.

[MH1]

213. I think they have til June 16th.

I'm not a fan of it either, but then I had sig lines turned off until curiosity about this one made me turn it back on. (Temporarily. Clearly it needs to be turned off again. Hopefully the flies/ants are at least gone by now.)

[PJMcK]

236. I hate those bugs (n/t)

[EileenFB]

293. Taken care of

and thanks for the reminder to replace it.

[Lisa0825]

166. I'm a Hillary supporter and I don't like that sig pic either.

Sure, I would have chuckled at it if I saw it privately, but it's just divisive, and that is not what we need.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

278. I have to agree. It only serves to drive the people we need away from our party and candidate.

Not that I haven't thought worse about some candidates and posters here. If I posted everything I thought, I'd be permanently banned from here.

[msanthrope]

15. Excellent. A lot of effort and thought went into this. Thank you. nt

[NYC Liberal]

16. Thank you Skinner. Some much-needed rule changes here.

I do have a question about this:

The Jury system still forbids "double jeopardy," but posts which were alerted for a particular rule and survived a Jury can now be re-alerted for a different rule.

Will there be monitoring for abuse of this? For example, if someone alerts on a post for a rule and gets shot down, then goes through every other rule trying to get a hide. If there is nothing built in to the system, may I suggest that if someone alerts on a post for a specific rule violation and the jury rejects the alert, that particular user should not be allowed to alert on that post again; another user would have to alert.

[Skinner]

61. That's the plan.

If a person sends an alert on a particular post, they cannot send another alert on the same post.

But a different person can send a different alert.

[NYC Liberal]

70. Thanks.

I think if you're a Democrat and genuinely support the causes of the Democratic Party, it seems like you should have no problems under these new/revised rules.

[-none]

303. The flaw is that some people here are 'organized' and they will keep alerting on a post

in turn, trying for hides against whoever they don't like.
I'm also seeing your new rules as being stacked against a certain segment of 'dissenters' that don't properly fall in the Establishment lines, thereby driving even more good, long time, thoughtful DU'ers away. Making this place more echo chambery as a result.
But it is your site and if that is what you want... But thinking like that is why other political sites are popping up, drawing people away from this site.
Making this place more civil is good, about time. Driving away those that are civil, but don't endorse the proper ideology, even though they are good long time Democrats, is counter productive.
The name Democratic Underground sounds like a Liberal Democratic web site. That is why many of us are here in the first place. What happened?

[sulphurdunn]

354. The reactionaries won.

[Doctor_J]

377. a conservative female won the primary

so liberal ideas are by definition critical of the nominee. and any criticism of the nominee can be thought of as sexist. the regressive wing of du has us boxed out.

[squirecam]

380. Shes liberal

A progressive liberal female won. She may not be as left as you wanted. Does not mean she is not liberal.

Glad to see the rules implemented. I can finally come back here without viewing all the carp of the past 6 months.

Hillary is the nominee. Time for the GE.

Lets get her elected.

[Doctor_J]

384. .

libya, syria, honduras, dadt, doma, for profit prison, for profit healthcare, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, welfare reform, Aipac, ndaa, iwr. don't bullshit me please.

[redstateblues]

427. By your standards Bernie would be a conservative as well. Lumping Hillary in

With Cruz et al is ridiculous

[Ikonoklast]

476. Will you support Clinton when she agitates for war with Iran?

Because it is what her backers want.

[chwaliszewski]

478. Maybe some of them do.

I think the rest just turn a blind eye to it and other questionable behavior. I will respect the rules here as laid out by skinner, it's his site. I'll just choose to bite my tongue. Time to go into stasis for the next four to eight years here at DU.

[Ikonoklast]

489. New Democrats love foreign wars and intervention in conflicts having nothing to do with us.

Our children spill their blood overseas to ensure corporate profits, who then use that blood money to purchase more New Democrats.

Bribe me and I'll ensure you get the arms you need in order to kill those seeking social and economic justice in your country.

Sickening.

[Nitram]

88. If they are shot down unanimously, as one would expect to be the case if it is totally frivolous,

the alerter can't alert again for 24 hours.

[BootinUp]

18. I think it sounds pretty good. nt

[PatSeg]

19. Thank goodness!

This primary season has been a nightmare. I've seen it come between some very old and dear friends. Glad to see it end!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

267. Yes, some true colors were surely shown and will not be forgotten. nt

[OriginalGeek]

347. I'd like to think I'll remember

those that demeaned me and implied I'm a privileged racist for supporting Bernie but I doubt I will.

Not me specifically, as I really only made a very few posts in support of Bernie and those were largely ignored. But I noticed a lot of people calling people like me things I didn't believe were fair.

And then complaining about the reciprocal.

Oh well, it won't matter as I'm not a star member so I won't get a vote and I'll be at the mercy of thems what is. As long as I press onward the way I've done in the past I should be well within the rules at all times and I just don't get to jury.

[auntpurl]

20. Wow, this all looks pretty great.

I'll need to re-up my star membership, because I like serving on juries.

May I ask, why will we not receive a notification after jury service is complete? I like to know how it went. Obviously, it's not that important, but I genuinely do like to know how others voted and whether my views are out of step with the majority.

You've obviously put a ton of work into this, and I thank you for providing such a great place for us all to gather.

[spooky3]

47. Agreed.

[Skinner]

69. Because we have come to view it as a catalyst for forum drama.

Someone serves on a jury. Makes their choice. Finishes the process. Forgets about it.

Fifteen minutes later they get a notification about the jury decision. Then they immediately post it in the thread, and the thread goes off the rails.

What the notifications do is interrupt somebody who has already forgotten about jury service, and then hands them a nugget of info that they can post in order to disrupt the site. The admins believe this place needs less forum drama. A lot less.

[auntpurl]

75. Fair enough.

Although, couldn't you make it a rule not to post jury results on the thread? I've done it, for transparency, but if it's less than ideal, I can easily stop.

I'm not going to argue the point into the ground - it will dilute my larger point that I think the new rules are in the main absolutely fantastic! But there does seem to be some support for this idea downthread too.

Got my star! Seamless jury service without interruptions come the 16th.

[tblue37]

114. There is such a rule--included in the "Content" section above:

Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum) <emphasis added>.

[tblue37]

109. But you have included a rule forbidding jurors to post those results, so

wouldn't that solve the drama problem?

Or are you worried that some people will simply ignore the rule and end up getting hides themselves for posting results or complaining about them even without posting them?

[Skinner]

118. We learned from the years when we had rules...

...that the existence of rules did not stop everyone from engaging in certain behaviors. We feel it will help if we remove the temptation to engage in a particular behavior.

[vkkv]

165. Skinner, if the posting of Jury Results was alert-able violation - we'd quickly learn not to do it.

Seeing the results of our Jury Results strengthens the community.

I think that removing the privilege will lessen involvement.

Thanks

[auntpurl]

263. I have to agree.

It will not be as satisfying or feel as "complete" a process if we can't see the results of our and others' judgment. I don't forget about jury service when I've finished with it. I continue with perusing DU, but it's in the back of my mind that I'll have results coming through, and I always check my DU mail right when it comes in.

Plus the points made above (below?) about being able to compare one's own opinions with others in the community to prevent unintentional bias or "drift" from the norm.

I don't know, it's not a dealbreaker, but it makes it less of a good experience serving, in my opinion.

[phylny]

376. i agree with you all.

Being able to see the results of the jury I was on helps *me* by letting me know, "You're on the right track" or "You really flubbed this one." When I'm on a jury and vote "Hide it" and 7 of 7 or 6 of 7 agree, it helps me to know I'm judging fairly. If, on the other hand, I was the only dissenter (which honestly hasn't happened much), I'd be able to go back and reevaluate why I made the decision and learn from it.

[JudyM]

357. I agree.

[snot]

447. Agreed.

Prohibit the thing that causes the problem, rather than eliminating helpful transparency.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

272. I would be less inclined to pay for a star in order to serve on juries if...

...I couldn't see the jury results. Just saying.

[mentalsolstice]

173. I understand your point about not publishing the results

However, getting a message about the results is kind of like reward for having served. And I wouldn't like having to go searching around the site to see if the post was hidden or not. Nine times out of ten I vote with the majority, which confirms that I'm on the right site to get my political fix. I love serving on juries, I rarely turn down the opportunity. Even real life juries are allowed to discuss, and hear the results of their deliberations. However, with no confirmation of the results, I'll probably check that I'm unwilling to serve, and go so far as giving up my star membership....eh, why bother?

Thanks for hearing my concerns.

[trueblue2007]

519. I just took myself off the willing to serve. If I can't find out what happened....

I don't want to be involved. I served on the juries here willingly for years. No more. i think i should be able to find out how it all turned out.

[mentalsolstice]

520. I just served on a jury for the 1st time under new rules, totally unsatisfying!

I always saw jury service as an opportunity to teach and learn. However, not so much under the new system! There is absolutely no feedback whatsoever. Hell, you can't even go back and visit the thread. Under the old system, every now and then jury service would make me aware of an interesting discussion that I otherwise would have been unaware of. But with no links in the new summons and no results with a link, jurors are pretty much precluded from going back and reading or participating in a thread.

Boring! And yawn inducing! I'll give it a couple more tries.

[dixiegrrrrl]

177. Your new approach to jury duty will make me willing to serve again.

I have not been available for jury duty since the primary season got so nasty here.

[Agschmid]

305. Guilty...

[tblue37]

102. I also like to know whether I am an outlier or not.

In my department we have "grade norming" sessions in which we all grade a set of sample essays and then discuss why we gave a given grade and why our grades differ, if in fact they do. It helps prevent us from drifting away from common standards.

I think seeing how a jury vote has gone really does help prevent me from such drift, which can be gradual and subtle if one does not continually monitor oneself.

[stevenleser]

197. My first reaction was not to like this too but I think in the new incarnation of the jury system it

makes sense.

If all you are adjudicating is a single rule violation where the rule is explicitly laid out and you are answering yes or no to that specific rule being violated, I dont think there is much room there to make a mistake if you are being impartial.

I could be wrong and in practice it could be an issue but I think even beyond the quashing of drama this makes sense.

[tblue37]

203. Well, we will see how it works. I have never liked not knowing the outcome of

my actions.

[auntpurl]

260. Yes, in psychology we call it "observer drift" or "observer bias"

where, if not reflected upon and compared against others, a researcher's personal assumptions, beliefs, and biases can affect their ability to be objective and produce reliable results.

[Chemisse]

394. That caught my eye as well.

I look forward to getting the pm to see how it went - I guess to see if my opinion prevailed.

It seems like a little thing, but it could make a difference in whether people want to serve on juries. It's like reading most of a book, then losing it before finishing the last chapter.

[Miles Archer]

21. So "BernieBros" and "BoB" meets a welcome demise on the 16th. Thank you.

All in all, I think people are making an effort. I'm trying. It's not easy. But thank you for the changes. It's clear that a lot of effort went into them and they are much appreciated.

[Miles Archer]

67. Just to clarify, I mean the nicknames, not the supporters.

As a Sanders supporter I am not welcoming my own demise. Thank you and carry on.

[Skinner]

72. Yes, disrespectful nicknames are not permitted. (nt)

[squirecam]

383. thanks

I'm glad to see that oligarch and implying or saying Hillary and her supporters are not real democrats or voting for a lesser of 2 evils will also not be allowed.

Time for the GE.

[baldguy]

444. Who decides what's disrespectful?

Remember, "Bernie or Bust" and "BoB" were self-selected, not inflicted upon them.

[applegrove]

22. Sounds like a plan skinner. Good job.

[MADem]

23. That must have been a great deal of work for Elad! Good luck with this, I really hope it works

and makes this place more fun/welcoming.

I would be glad to volunteer as a tester. I really have high hopes for this new system.

[Godhumor]

24. God dammit, I guess I finally have to get a star...

But these changes look good!

[onehandle]

25. The winning change...

The privilege to serve on a Jury is now only offered to members who have been registered for at least one year, have more than 1,000 posts, and have an active Star membership.

Thanks for listening.

[ahimsa]

174. I can live with this

I've been a star member since 2003 and have quite a few less than 1000 posts, so will likely never be on a jury again. I'm more than happy to have everyone else do the housecleaning for me Looking forward to the changes!

[Peachhead22]

412. High five

from another person who's been registered here for ages, but still has a really low post count.

I don't really know how that happened. IRL I'm pretty talkative.

[lupinella]

484. Verbatim

[DVRacer]

429. Been here over a year

I try to only comment we I have something useful to contribute. It would blow me away to see folks here for 90 days and over a 1000 posts. I do like to read here a lot so I decided it was only fair to kick in a few dollars. I guess in 9 more years I will serve on a jury again. Maybe sooner since I have been ready to get thru the primary season for awhile. I supported Bernie , I was all in until after NY that was when I felt it was over. With a low count I was worried somewhat about being viewed as a troll and was less forthcoming in posts.

[stevenleser]

26. This excellent news calls for some dancing...

Great job Skinner/EarlG/Elad!

[irisblue]

375. says something about me that my first thot

was 'I remember some of those followed by they have so much energy...'

[geek tragedy]

27. Sounds good, a lot of us can do better individually, and we can all do better collectively nt

[sharp_stick]

28. That's a lot of work that went into this

It sounds like a good starting point. Thanks for all the effort you all put into it.

[stonecutter357]

29. K&R!

[Tobin S.]

30. It looks like you are taking all the fun out of serving on a jury.

Seriously, I think most of those changes will make DU a friendlier place. The main objection I have is that I'd still like to be notified with the results of the jury.

[spooky3]

40. Agreed--to the serious part!

[In_The_Wind]

31. ~ Kicked & Recommended ~

[PeaceNikki]

32. I do a lot of SQA IRL if you need help. AND I get the cast off my hand today so I can be effective!!

[brer cat]

273. I'll bet you are looking forward to that!!

I had a cast on my hand for 6 weeks this winter, and it was such a relief to get it gone. Hope you are back up to speed quickly.

[jtuck004]

34. "The privilege to serve on a Jury ...active Star membership." That's beautiful, man. n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

355. How many of us go "star-less", waiting to purchase hearts?

What percentage of memberships expire just before valentine's day?

There may be a short annual period when the jury pool is smaller.

[NightWatcher]

35. "No kooky...content"? That's my go to. Oh well, ok.

[LonePirate]

120. I think the Lounge may still accept non-political kooky content. Don't lose hope!

[Gormy Cuss]

37. On personal attacks...

I've served on at least two juries in the past week where the alerter should have simply refuted an assertion rather than trying to make a jury shut it down. That's not civility, that's weaselly and one of the juries sided with the alerter.

I'm glad to see that admin will on occasion overrule juries. That's long overdue.

Just curious: what percent of active posters will meet the new qualifications?

[Skinner]

78. Don't know.

As long as we have enough people to cover the alerts, then we'll be okay.

[dixiegrrrrl]

84. That percent of active posters may change after the 16th, Gormy.

I know for a fact that I am not the only one who has severely reduced my active posting during this primary season, for all the reasons that the new rules are addressing.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

279. A lot are leaving and going to be leaving too after the treatment they've gotten here by...

...supposedly fellow Democrats.

[dixiegrrrrl]

364. Long time ago I learned I did not have to bite every fishhook around.

I don't forsee a need to empty out my ignore list till after the election.

The ignore/trash feature is a mightly help and might even be underutilized by some.

[Lizzie Poppet]

500. A-yup.

For my part, I'll be absenting myself until after the GE (and possibly permanently). I think most of these new rules are going to prove to be bad ideas. Reducing transparency seldom turns out well, and quite a few of the new rules rather obviously invite abuse.

It's all very "Democratic Party, circa 2016," though...it really is.

[LiberalFighter]

38. Overall I say the changes should be good. I'm looking forward to your tweaks too.

How about a definition or clarification of Democratic public figures? Does past elected Democratic person qualify? I have a past member of Congress from my state that I totally despised just as many of my fellow past co-workers did. I want to make sure he does not receive consideration for VP or any other top level position such as Secretary of Labor. He is part of the No Labels group.

[spooky3]

39. Great, but I have one suggestion:

Re: jurors and alerters will not get to see results

As a frequent juror and an occasional alerter, I found it very helpful to see if my judgments were consistent with those of other jurors.

I hope you will consider keeping this element of the present system.

[auntpurl]

44. Agree; I posted this above.

If you strive to be a fair juror (I do) then it's really helpful for me to see when I've been way off base.

[spooky3]

45. Yes--it appears several of us agree.

[Nitram]

94. Me three

[montana_hazeleyes]

195. I also agree.

And I never posted results to a forum. In my opinion doing that is wrong.

[femmocrat]

148. I also agree.

I would not post jury results, but always appreciate reading them for more information.

[notadmblnd]

285. Don't you think one would be able to determine if they were off base or not

by seeing the post left or hidden?

For example if a post was hidden, and you voted to leave it, then you were off base. Or- if a post remains and you voted to hide, then again you would know you were off base.

[spooky3]

392. I like knowing the explanations, and whether it was 6-1 vs 4-3 for example.

[notadmblnd]

408. From what I read there'll no longer be an opportunity for comments when adjudicating offensive posts

[spooky3]

414. If you'll check my earlier posts, I (and others) suggested that

The admins reconsider this. In my post to which you're replying, I responded to a question about what info I could get from the full results that I couldn't get simply by knowing whether a post was hidden.

[notadmblnd]

415. well I feel there will be no benefit from letting people post their judgemental remarks

Unless of course one's agenda is to create more drama and divisiveness

[mentalsolstice]

393. The notification gives you a link back to what was judicated

Sometimes I've been asked to sit on a jury in a forum or group that I don't frequent. Other times while trying to make my decision I'll become interested in the thread as a whole and would like to easily go back. Having a link back makes it easier. As I said in a previous post, taking away the ability to see the results and see other jurors comments takes all the satisfaction out of serving....and also takes away a lot of the motivation to buy a star membership.

[Chemisse]

397. That would require that you go search for that thread and that post.

Not worth the effort. Also you wouldn't get the vote count.

Getting the results is like a little 'thank-you' for stopping what you are doing and serving on a jury.

[notadmblnd]

406. You are provided a link to the post when you are asked to perform jury service

I mean one does have to read the offending post in order to decide how to vote. I find it hard to believe that getting back to the post one just judged could be that difficult.

[Duckhunter935]

106. I agree with that too

[Ilsa]

168. I learn from reading others' opinions as well. nt

[Reter]

442. Not only do I agree, but even if it was left alone, the poster needs to know

Like "Your post was alerted on, but you won. It was left alone. Here are the results:"

[athena]

455. Skinner has previously stated that this would freak out the poster.

I agree with him. It would only create an atmosphere in which people felt watched, stalked, or bullied for expressing their opinion.

[BlueCaliDem]

41. Thank you, Admins! The new DU rules look very promising!

[liberal N proud]

42. Sounds like the DU I remember - the one I became addicted to

DU will have rules again!!!!!

Yea!

[etherealtruth]

43. "Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group"

Two questions about this:

Will posts in the wrong forum/group now be hidden by juries (it appears that way)? Many posts are accidently posted in the wrong forum (GD vs GDP was a prime example, but GD vs LBN could be an ongoing example of people truly getting confused about where to post).

Since the sole role of hosts is to determine whether an OP violates the SoP .... the jury "rules" seem to incorporate both SoP and ToS violation .... is there any reason to continue with forum hosts?

[Bobbie Jo]

59. ^^Good question^^^

Posting here to see the answer.

Now he did mention "hosts" in the explanation above, so I would assume that the basic set up would essentialy remain the same.

Glad you asked...

[Skinner]

80. We will still have hosts.

And they will still have the job of enforcing the statements of purpose for their forums and groups.

[greatauntoftriplets]

48. Thanks, Skinner!

K&R.

[Agnosticsherbet]

49. It looks good. Thanks for the hard work to make this place better.

[Marrah_G]

50. Thank you for letting us know where we stand

[progressoid]

51. TL:DR

[Auggie]

52. I found it sometimes helpful to evaulate posts in-thread ...

but I can undertsand the reason behind the change.

[Skinner]

81. Jurors will still get the necessary context.

But there will be a lot less noise.

[Exilednight]

53. I like all the changes except one. the one about the star requirement.

I now have to donate to get a star and sit on a jury? That seems a bit harsh. I can understand star members getting a 10 point bump for serving, but cutting out long time members I personally view as a step too far.

[auntpurl]

56. I think it's to show commitment to the website.

And I obviously don't know this at all, but I wonder if you could plead economic hardship if things were really, really difficult for you financially. And I also bet that if you posted somewhere that you were really hard up but want to be able to serve on juries, someone would buy you a star membership. DUers are often very generous.

[Exilednight]

64. I agree.

I don't doubt any of what you said, but that just seems a bit draconian to me. It also seems a bit unseemly. It's like "pay me money and I'll give you a bad let you be sheriff".

There are other measures to take, such as putting a longer wait time to unstated members after joining the community.

[dixiegrrrrl]

223. Good news is that now you can get a star for a dollar.

Used to be a certain amount, but they changed it to ANY amount.

see this page:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=star

[dixiegrrrrl]

188. We cannot buy stars for someone else anymore.

Used to be we could, but not now.

[auntpurl]

192. Oh, I didn't know that.

I'm remembering from back in the day, lol. Thanks for the info!

[stevenleser]

200. Not directly, but you could paypal them some $ for the purpose.

I may do that for one or two folks.

[Miles Archer]

517. Prior to the required "subscription" model, DUers dis buy stars for other people.

And yes, they were consistently generous. My guess is that if the one-time "pay what you can" model is back, it doesn't really matter who makes the payment.

[Skinner]

92. Serving on juries is a privilege.

They enforce our rules and they have the power to remove posts. We are entrusting them with an important duty, and we do not think it is inappropriate to restrict that duty to people who have demonstrated their commitment to the community.

[Delver Rootnose]

175. So providing content ...

..and years of comments and page views that generate ad revenue is not commitment to you. So basically you equate community with paid subscribers. So some troll off the street who plops down a $20 gets more site cred than a long time member. Very illustrative of your priorities.

[The Green Manalishi]

229. Also the 1000+ post requirement,though

I've enjoyed serving on juries. Had a start once (before the layoff)...

So we'll both be off the list, albeit for different reasons...

[Delver Rootnose]

243. Well I'd be off...

For both even though I've been an almost daily reader since I started in 2009

[The Green Manalishi]

249. The world will continue to turn without me.

I view jury duty (both here and IRL) as a PRIVELEGE not a right or an onerous duty. YMMV

Regards

[Delver Rootnose]

259. Won't matter much to me....

As I expect I'll be participating less anyway but the problem is limiting the jury pool. I mean in real life homogenous jury pools are a problem. It will become so here as well.

[truebrit71]

265. Got to make up for the loss of all the "Berniebros" revenue somehow right?

[Delver Rootnose]

277. You do realize....

..that under the new rules this comment would be disallowed.

[truebrit71]

280. You do realize

...that the new rules aren't in effect yet?

[Renew Deal]

297. Trolls aren't dropping $20 to become members

In fact, most trolls won't pay anything. I'm not saying that those that don't pay are trolls. I'm just saying that trolls likely aren't paying.

[truebrit71]

316. You can get a star for $1.

n/t

[Renew Deal]

325. And give up your real name, real email address, etc.

Unless you're real crafty.

[SouthernDemLinda]

321. Sold out!

When they don't get enough money or interest web sites will go, because trolls get in there (by any means necessary) and they take over, and know how to dominate.

[MADem]

504. "Providing content?" That seems like a high handed way of saying

"Tossed my lousy opinion into the fray." Of course, that's only because the term "content provider" has come to mean anyone who rips off journalists by paraphrasing their junk and intermingling it with a strong dose of personal opinion and sometimes invective.

Come off it--this is a DISCUSSION board. The admins provide us the platform upon which we are allowed to have our little discussions.

If you think your "content" is so valuable, take it somewhere and SELL it. Far be it from any one of us to prevent you from getting full value for your opinings!

You've been here for seven years, and you've only "provided content" a couple of hundred times in all that time. I don't think the site will be in make or break territory if you choose to read and be silent.

It costs money to run a site. I'm grateful the admins are doing this work. I think they are worthy of their hire, they deserve to be able to make a living. and I don't begrudge them. I have seen DU go through many iterations since I found this place right after Gore wuz robbed, and I've stuck with it down the years because it's a good place to have a nice conversation. I'm not going to get off my ass and create a site for that purpose, so I'm glad someone else did. This place, too, is well laid out, easy to read, and easy to input. It's idiot proof, and that's all right with me, too.

[Curmudgeoness]

438. Seems to me

that the people who put poll taxes in place had that same argument. There are many loyal people here who just cannot afford it.

[kjones]

98. Yeah, I mean, I'm not a star member, but I'm also not that concerned about serving on juries...

I don't even remember ever having a hide, so, my only interaction with them is serving on them.

I think it would be nice to allow those non-star members with a high number of posts (bump it up
to 2,500 or whatever for non-stars...something) to serve on juries. Otherwise, it's kind of like
paid moderator status, isn't really a jury of peers either (not that it is said or supposed to be).

I guess the only thing about it that does rub across the grain is that it kind of ignores that, without
the bulk of active non-star members, there wouldn't be nearly as much content or activity around
here. So, it'd be nice to give those non-paying, but very active members, a little bit of responsibility.
I don't consider myself an active member.

Oh, and I guess it could prove unhealthy to have jury powers in an even smaller number of hands.
We saw what happened during this (and other) primary season when jury powers got concentrated
into fewer hands.

I don't know, just my thoughts...but again, I've never actually been affected by the jury system
anyway, so...

[vkkv]

186. Good idea - those non-star members who have to face the advertising on this site are still playing

an important part of the existence of DU -and DU's revenue I suppose.

Man, when I log out, the advertising that then appears almost looks as busy as any other commercial site.

It's worth a few bucks to see that go away!

[Renew Deal]

295. Is there any minimum price to get a star?

I think it only costs as little as a dollar.

[Bobbie Jo]

54. Outstanding!

Nicely done!

I look forward to these changes and getting back to the DU I once knew and loved.

Thanks, Skinner.

[fleabiscuit]

55. I might need a 'sarcasm shield' of some kind for my posts.

[hrmjustin]

57. Well i hope the new rules help and i promise to try to do better.

[herding cats]

58. I have one quick question.

I'm pretty sure I understand your intention, but I want to be sure.

This part:

Jurors will no longer be asked to evaluate the post based on the alerter's comments and their own gut feeling. Instead they will be asked whether they believe the post breaks the specific rule selected by the alerter.

Means that we only judge the post on that one specific rule violation being alerted on. My question is, if we don't see that rule being broken, but do see another offense (e.g. the alert was for a personal attack, but the juror sees bigotry/sexism/racism, etc) in the post, is there a way for us to then alert for that offense?

Overall, it looks good! It's obvious you've put in a lot of effort in the changes, and I'm hopeful they'll resolve the issues here. Sometimes people just do better with a clear set of rules to refer to.

[Skinner]

93. If you find the post after you are finished with jury service...

...you can send an alert on a different rule.

[herding cats]

172. It's not a big deal anyway

I've only ever ran into such a couple of times, and I imagine they'll be a lot less of it now with the new set of rules.

Thanks for all the hard work on this, it's appreciated.

[dixiegrrrrl]

204. what you just said seems contrary to what you said upthread:

If a person sends an alert on a particular post, they cannot send another alert on the same post.

But a different person can send a different alert.

[Skinner]

217. To clarify

If you are the person who sent the original alert, you cannot send a subsequent alert on the same post.

But if you are anyone else (including a juror on a post) you can send a subsequent alert.

[Maeve]

60. I take it that ends grave-dancing and terms like DINO

Would that also end "thanks for sending the troll back to his bridge" threads?

Anything that gets us back to civil is welcome!

[auntpurl]

62. Hey hey, look at my shiny new star!

*polishes it*

[notemason]

63. I find the 1000 post rule

a bit of an insult. I've taken the time to serve on many juries. Have been wondering why none as of late but I guess now I know.

[Nye Bevan]

154. Agreed. "Star members who have been members for a year and have at least 100 posts"

would be fine IMO. Some of the most thoughtful members post the least often. And it is unlikely that a troll would pay real money to get a star just to do nefarious things on jury duty.

[notemason]

178. Thank you.

Once watched a member run up his post count by replying with a "." to many discussions. Where's the value in that?

[AgadorSparticus]

65. Yaaaay! FINALLY!!!!! This is long overdue. nt

[Firebrand Gary]

66. Kicked and recommended! Thank you Skinner and admin team...

Somewhere in this primary season I walked away from DU, it became entirely too toxic for me. As someone who tries to lead a healthy and constructive life, content it important to me. No matter what the platform is, be it television, film, internet, etc; I don't do negativity.

Thank you for this, I'm eager to regularly participate in discussions beginning on June 16.

[calimary]

513. I know how you feel, Gary.

I had to walk away, too. I'm glad to see there'll be some corrections imposed.

Thank you, Skinner!

[modestybl]

68. So... we're to shut up and bow our heads..

... and not call out bad policies, losing strategies, corruption and outright lying?

You are asking us to be the Dem version of "Free Republic"?

[stevenleser]

115. You managed to get pretty much the opposite of what Skinner was saying. nt

[modestybl]

130. I understand we are not to criticize Dem candidates from here on out...

... which is not what DU should be about. I've never posted from RW or propaganda sites (tho the HRC supporters have done that routinely against Sanders), and always on the basis of policy, not personality.

But, like the OIG report made clear, HRC blantantly lied and that can't be ignore - and I won't ignore this and anything else. If Sanders had done something this egregious, I would be the first to call him out on it.

[stevenleser]

176. Here's a good example. "I don't agree with Bernie's characterization of his history of support or

lack thereof for gun legislation. For instance, see link1 and link2."

There, I didnt call him a liar even though its pretty much implied.

[uppityperson]

282. Thank you. This is a very good example of criticism vs bashing.

[SouthernDemLinda]

334. Another example please?

Now show us one using Hillary's e-mail investigation!

[stevenleser]

348. Sure, I dont agree with Bernie supporters characterization of the email investigation.

Here is why, see link1, link2 etc.

[Renew Deal]

300. Calling out bad policies, losing strategies, corruption and outright lying has always been permitted

And still is. But you can't make baseless claims to attack Democrats.

[Hissyspit]

472. Nope, this is different:

Support Democrats
Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

I predict a mess.

[Lil Missy]

512. No, he's asking you/us to STOP being the Dem version of Free Republic. n/t

[vkkv]

71. This change: Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after Jury service is complete

I'm very sure that this change will lessen involvement by DU members.

Seeing the results of a Jury regarding an Alert acts as a viewable guage as to the temperment of D.U. and how our own interpretations of the rules compares to other Jurers.

This is the only change that I disagree with.

Thanks for your efforts!

[99th_Monkey]

179. I agree. It's useful & informative to see the results. n/t

[Jon Ace]

399. Thirded (n/t)

[marle35]

480. That combined with the 1,000 post rule

I wonder if this site will have enough members willing to serve on juries? I personally don't mind not serving, but I'm curious about that. I bet there are many long-time members here with under 1,000 posts.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/

[passiveporcupine]

73. Thank you Skinner, it looks good

I do have a request though. Not to be included in the rules, but to make one rule easier.

Is it possible to have a stickied/or ? checklist somewhere that lists known right wing sites that people should not source information or articles or blogs/vlogs from? It can take a lot of time to research a unknown source, and sometimes I can't even be sure it is considered right wing enough that it shouldn't be linked here. The Hill is an example of this. I know it's a conservative site, but doesn't have the extreme coverage that places like Breitbart does. A list of absolute no no's would be great.

I think it would really be helpful for newbies, and also for the rest of us who try to stick to the rules. It should be a living list that that be modified as necessary, maybe by mods or something?

Just a thought.

[Amimnoch]

99. That's an excellent idea.

seconded.

[tblue37]

144. +1. nt

[femmocrat]

167. I agree.

This would be very helpful.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

183. Posts should be able to reference RW pages when demolishing them or posting excerpts as examples.

RW sites should not be allowed as information sources or LBN sources.

On the other hand, it is important to know how the other side thinks. I sometimes skim RW sites so that I know

1) What is making them antsy at a given time.
2) How different segments of the right approach topics differently.
3) What arguments / talking points they use. I don't have a TV.

Referencing talking points and their stock arguments is useful when showing great ways of debunking and refuting them.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

[passiveporcupine]

222. That does not change my request

Skinner has already adressed that in the rules...if you link to something that is considered right wing, it should not be done if you are trying to use it as a legitimate source of your point. Unless, of course, your thread/post is about making fun of or otherwise disabusing that source.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

245. A list might be good. & Skinner posted the rule which shows that RW links OK in the way I suggest.

Skinner wrote:

The rule says

"Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website."

Thankfully that is consistent with my suggestion.


A list might help decide on some borderline sites, like one poster who worried about sourcing "The Hill".

[passiveporcupine]

269. After I posted, Skinner replied to someone else that there won't be a list

So everyone has to do their own research. I used The Hill as an example of being a conservative source, but not a super nasty one. Still, I question stories they post that cannot be found on mainstream news sources. I saw both sides using this source lately, a lot, and while I don't alert, I asked people not to use it...but I guess from now on I'll just keep my nose to myself and let people do what they want.

Most right wing stuff is pretty obvious, but things I am not sure on, I try to find out from wiki, or even just googling to ask if it's liberal or conservative. Sometimes the only way to find out is to start googling all the founders and editors and so on, and it can become exhausting, and often I'm still left unsure.

I will shut up now.

[-none]

323. What is Right wing or not, seems to depend on who posted the link and

whether the article or what ever is favorable to a certain group around here or not.
Seeing how our news media, over all, are owned and run by Republicans or Right wing groups, this could get kinda sticky.
In fact that is the very problem right now.

[passiveporcupine]

349. We've had a rash of articles posted from THE HILL

And after researching it, because to me the posted articles were all kinda sketchy or conspiracy stuff, it is a conservative site, but looking at the site without researching it, it is not that obvious. Most of the stuff looks legit...just every now and then a sketchy story comes up.

Both sides here have posted from that rag. Bernie people posted stuff about Hillary, and Hillary people posted stuff about Bernie.

I'm still wanting to know if that particular sight is taboo. I suspect it is, but apparently a lot of people here don't think it is.

[Peachhead22]

419. Totally agreed

Shoot the message if necessary. Not the messenger. Additionally, I've seen the definition of "RW" pages expand from "constant obvious total bullshit pages made from someone's basement" to "legitimate news pages that don't constantly post things I love".

[charlyvi]

210. Thirded.

That's my biggest gripe about this primary season.....WAY too many right wing sources used.

[ecstatic]

266. No. That makes it too easy to troll

The only time someone finds themselves in that kind of situation is when they're desperately looking for negative information to bash someone with (usually a democrat like Hillary Clinton). No credible news sources are available so they link from fringe sites. It takes 2 seconds to check out the other content on the site and know that it's probably a RW rag. If someone doesn't have time to do that, then they probably shouldn't post the message.

[musicblind]

497. I like this suggestion.

A list would be helpful. I'm familiar with some right wing sites, but certainly not all of them!

A list like this would help me, not just in what I should or shouldn't post in DU, but also on what articles I should and shouldn't read in general.

[mcar]

76. Thank you!

It's obvious you, EarlG and Elad have put much time and thought into this. I hope it works as you expect.

[lpbk2713]

79. Understood.

Let's move forward from here.

[senz]

82. Does "No divisive group attacks" mean no discussion of Third Way vs. traditional Democrats?

Some DUers see a sharp distinction between the two.

[JonLeibowitz]

242. It serves the Third Way to deny the existence of any distinction.

These rules do not surprise me.

[hertopos]

413. You will stop using this photo after 16th

It is very hurtful and disrespectful.

Hertopos

[senz]

423. To whom?

Hurtful to whom? Could this explain it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=366513

[Demsrule86]

435. Calling anyone you disagree with third way is an insult .

And really means you are not a 'real' Democrat...which was on the list.

[Kentonio]

83. You have to pay to be on a jury?

Was this a Hillary campaign idea? #InBefore16

[vkkv]

97. Generally, don't you find that free things and opportunities are less appreciated? Plus,

whatever works to keep the trolls out.

[truebrit71]

286. Yes. Just like the nominee. Pay to play.

[Nye Bevan]

85. I like "Don't bash Democratic public figures".

Folks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Terry McCauliffe and Rahm Emanuel may not be loved by some DUers but they are still Democratic public figures and it is tiresome to see some of the attacks on them in a Democratic forum.

[stevenleser]

122. +10^10^100

[hueymahl]

149. "May not be loved"

is a bit of an understatement. But I think you can still talk about their policies and why they are wrong without bashing them.

This is a rule change that I have concern about. It is important that we be allowed to vigorously debate whether our elected officials are carrying out democratic ideals as well as what those democratic ideals should be.

I guess we will see how it plays out if there are any negative effects to the new rule.

[aquamarina]

238. I agree with hueymahl and this concerns me too.

[workinclasszero]

190. Agree 100%

I'm so tired of seeing attacks against other democratic figures on this site.

[leveymg]

209. So, what's legitimate criticism versus "bashing" Democratic public figures? All those names deserve

to be criticized for how they have done their jobs as Democrats. This site is Democratic Underground, not Democratic Booster Club, and will not be turned into the cheap seats in the cheering section, either during elections or between them. Factual criticism of the leadership, even the Nominee, is always part of being a good Democrat. A healthy skepticism of those in power, and criticism of abuses of power by public figures -- whether Democrats or Republicans -- is simply part of being a good citizen. Do you disagree?

[Nye Bevan]

261. Take Rahm Emanuel as an example. I would vote to hide this post on the grounds of "bashing":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1456480

I would also hide this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1456505

This one, however, though highly critical of him, I would vote to leave:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027438995

Reasonable?

[leveymg]

319. Reasonable.

But, I would hope that something doesn't have to have been published in the WaPo to qualify as not "bashing."

[Dr Hobbitstein]

287. That's easy.

Legit criticism: "DWS's position on pay day lenders is not in line with Democratic ideals"
Bashing: "DWS is a DINO and a horrible human being!"

[Nye Bevan]

298. +1. "Hillary should not have voted for the IWR"

versus "Killary the warmonger".

[Dr Hobbitstein]

304. Exactly. Nt

[leveymg]

327. Agree, those are easy cases. But, it's the hard cases that are the problem, and

that's why there's a presumption of First Amendment protection, something that some on this board have expressly asserted doesn't extend to DU. I don't think we should be making up community standards on a case-by-case basis, and need some sort of guiding principle.

For my own .02 worth, I sorta subscribe to the old standard applied to pornography cases - if it has "redeeming social value," even if raunchy and offensive to some sensibilities, it's protected speech. Then, there's Justice Stewart's more sensual pornography definition, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

[Nye Bevan]

371. "Hard cases" will probably end up with 4-3 jury decisions, one way or the other.

If you call Hillary a "Third-Way Corporatist" you take your chances with a jury.

[X_Digger]

458. The 'first amendment' is only a protection from the government. (As are all the BoR rights.)

It's "Congress shall make no law..", not "Anybody, anywhere shall make no rule..."

We are on virtual private property here, not even in the public commons. As such, any rule (serious, silly, or anything in between) is perfectly legal.

There is no 'protected speech' on a private, non-government website.

[brer cat]

281. +1

[ChisolmTrailDem]

296. Yea, no more holding our own's feet to the fire or calling out authoritarian and right-wing...

...tendencies and behavior by "Democrats".

[Reter]

443. There have to be some exceptions

Like in 2009, could we have bashed Rod Blagojevich? Can we bash someone under FBI watch?

[Spazito]

86. These changes look good, thanks Skinner, EarlG and Elad...

for working to bring DU back to being a civil, informative site again.

[tblue37]

87. The civility and political rules are clear and forceful as phrased.

I don't think there can be any confusion about what they do and don't permit. I serve on a lot of juries, and sometimes I have struggled with unpleasant posts that seem borderline rather than a clear ToS violation. These guidelines will make jury service much easier.

A LOT of posts that have been allowed to stand over the past few months would have been hidden according to these rules, and using using DU would have been a lot more pleasant for everyone. I look forward to June 16.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. Does "the portion of the thread relevant to the alerted post" mean all posts in the 'ancestral line'

of replies back to, and including, the OP? Or is it, say, limited to just the post it replies to, or somewhere in between?

(I'm guessing it doesn't include any replies - could that cause problems if an alerter interprets something as a personal insult, when the person its 'aimed' at in fact doesn't see it as insulting at all, and actually says so?)

[Skinner]

103. The entire "ancestral line."

But not the "next of kin".

[glowing]

90. Yikes, you probably won't have too many posting on here from June until Nov.

Stories and news will come out against Dems. Many Dems do incredibly stupid, dangerous, or unlawful things, but "support them"... Were we supposed to say nice things about Zell Miller or Lieberman when they went to the RNC conventions? They were "Dems". Should we call out a Dem for pushing pay day loans. Debbie pulled her support after receiving massive attention to the issue from progressives, Warren, and her opponent.

BTW, FL primary for the state level is actually August. I can't say who I like more? Can't debate issues? I know you are trying to protect the most vitriolic posts about Clinton. We know where and who this site has supported since she announced. So, I understand, your site, don't bitch about the "presidential nominee". But not to discuss any Dems doing stupid fucking shit or the WRONG shit!!! Is just absolutely NOT the way you promote progressive agenda. And if you don't push Clinton and hold her feet to the fire in regards to progressive agendas, guess what, you won't get them.

And I guess since I was born the year Reagan was elected, raised in VT, literally watched my chance at an environmental science career wash up with funding being withheld from the Gore election and Bush literally taking away funding the very year I graduated, yeah, I've seen the worst that this country has had to offer for politicians.

I did go and see her speak one time. It was when she and many other women were campaigning for Obama. She sounded better "unscripted" and with Obama's message. She was a lot smaller than I had imagined. And sounded better live than on TV. But the other speakers were amazingly better. She was hustled in late, hustled back out quickly. And it was a wall block. She has. I access to the American people that would question what her goals are? What is her "big dream"? We are stuck in obstruction of Obama years. He's been barely steering the ship off the rocky shoals for 8yrs. America does better with goals, lofty, soaring, and inclusive. The woman thing means nothing to me; ive got the body parts too, and believe me ain't nothing more special about her lady bits than mine. I want ideas! I want a nation that isn't holding people back. I don't want to think, shit, I should move to Europe or even Canada to give my kid a better life. Ours is full of debt and excludes so many. We are dead last in so many measure is quality life in regards to the rest of the industrial world, that it hurts to be "American" and not be in that upper 10%. And I really don't think she knows how people feel or she does and she doesn't care (which is worse). I assume she's been in the bubble too long and been managed too many times, that she doesn't have a real clue. Look at the media bubble in DC and NY, clueless for the major part because they are in their bubble as well. (They seemed shocked that Clinton lied to them about the e-mail situation).

Anyway, I've never thought too much about complaining about Dems being idiots, dissapoimtments, or bought out lock stock and barrel... Supporting politicians isn't how progress is often fought for. So, I can shut up about her, but I think Debbie should lose her primary. Oh, btw, Debbie wouldn't survive ToS, she has many times supported republicans over Dems in FL... So, what's up with that? I like the crazy Grayson for Senate over the "establishment" pick. I hope he can win both the primary and the general. Harry Reid has no business telling us who to pick or try to slight the hand of this state. He's leaving anyway. He would have lost his own state if he hadn't had a crazy tea party candidate to run against. Fl is hard enough to overcome the voting suppression and Republicans controlling the machines... (Yeah funny, go from one of the more progressive states to FL to live - most regressive).

I guess, for many of us, the primary season isn't even "started". It is a bit, but the ads won't even start until July. And it's based on a numbers game because barely anyone votes in those. Hoping people that Bernie brought along will pay attention. That they will go and vote or the lower races. That's how we get our eventual elites. We need the good ones at the ground level to make their way up.

[hueymahl]

163. I'm concerned about this also

There is a very real risk that all the debate will be sucked out of the forum by alerts from true believers who find a D in front of someone's name is more important than that candidate supporting democratic ideals.

[stevenleser]

180. See my #176 above. Skinner please feel free to correct me if I am off. nt

[SouthernDemLinda]

308. "write in"

Oh thank gawd, she didn't say "write in" that and a little dough will get you a gold star.

[FailureToCommunicate]

411. +1 !

[valerief]

431. Tiny Dreams vs. Tiny Hands

That'll be the GE tag.

[Demsrule86]

439. l look at it differently

What is the point of criticising your party during an election year? Do we want to help elect Republicans?

[glowing]

453. I live in FL and we still have primaries in August for state and local races.

Or do we no longer do primaries?

[DemonGoddess]

91. K&R!

Looking forward to all the changes!

Thank you for all the hard work to make it so!

[L. Coyote]

95. Thanks. Can't wait. K&R

[morningfog]

96. Not sure I understand the point of the "gradation" of jury choices.

If a majority choose either of the first two, its hidden? Is there an effect of 4-3 with 4 being "close but breaks the rule" that is different from 4-3 with 4 "clearly breaking the rule."

Also, if a post survives one rule, and one goes to alert on it, will the options of rule breaking be limned to those rules for which it has not yet been challenged?

[Skinner]

113. The purpose of the gradation of jury choices...

...is to provide the administrators with some insight into the jury members' thinking if we need to review a decision. Without jury comments, we have no way of knowing how strongly jurors felt.

Also, it can help us find the violations that are clear-cut, and see who is really going over the line.

[Delver Rootnose]

199. You could always retain the comments as....

...you are not showing them to anyone anyway.

[MineralMan]

101. Looks good. I'm sure there will be refinements, too,

as there is experience with the new system.

Thanks for doing this. If it creates better discussions, as I think it will, it will be a great boon!

[oasis]

104. Sounds like a successful plan. Thanks for your efforts.

[George II]

105. A couple of questions regarding hidden posts:

1. Will the 5-hide suspension go back into effect next week?

2. There are a number of people with six, seven, all the way up to sixteen hides right now. What will the ramifications of that be?

[Skinner]

136. Answers.

1) We have a stopgap that will flag people who get five hides or more.

2) They won't last long, I think.

[pengu]

107. See ya after the 16th

I cannot abide by these rules. They actively support the dilution of what it means to be a progressive. This is just sad.

"Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like. "

These words have no meaning here anymore. Considering you've had countless obvious paid plants from Brock here, it is a rule that cements this site as just propaganda.

[stevenleser]

129. Not having folks like you claim everyone they disagree with is a paid Brock shill is worth doubling

what I am contributing to the site.

[pengu]

132. Ok?

Who cares?

[stevenleser]

134. You, apparently. You cared enough to respond. nt

[pengu]

143. smh

Ya'll petty.

[charlyvi]

381. How can we miss you

if you won't go?

[DVRacer]

452. Unfair I was taking a drink when I scrolled down lol

[upaloopa]

151. See ya,

[SouthernDemLinda]

331. The thought police...

will give you a gold star or kick you ass out?

[OKNancy]

108. This is great news. I came to DU in 2001 to support Democrats.

Lots of good new changes. I would like to suggest that in addition to rejecting known right-wing sites, that we also reject known kooky-conspiracy sites. ... Well check that... I guess that is in the current TOS here:

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

Please keep the above paragraph in the TOS.

[Lyric]

110. Yes!!! Man, it will feel so good for DU to be DU again.

Thank you guys so much!!! I don't have much, but I just sent an extra small donation. Sorry it can't be more, but if DU becomes a sane, welcoming place for Democrats again, I swear will find SOME way to donate more. You guys work so hard...thank you again.

[Politicub]

111. Very cool. Liking the sound of the new jury system.

[ismnotwasm]

112. Bravo!

[Wibly]

116. Caution

The great mass of Americans are not bound by allegiance to one party of the other. What matters to most folks is not the parties or the personalities that lead them. What matters to most Americans is the issues that affect them every day.
If the Democratic Party, and its surrogates, start shutting people down because they perceive them to not fall in line with party policy, they will find themselves isolated and in risk of losing the upcoming election. To win, the Dems are going to have to demonstrate an inclusiveness and a willingness to listen.
I hope DU will openly acknowledge that, and act on it, instead of going into a protective shell, which I believe will ultimately lead to the Party's defeat in November.

[upaloopa]

138. This is not the Democratic party this is an owner operated web site. Don't bash Democrats here

[SouthernDemLinda]

374. It's going to be just like the talk!

Frankly my dear I think they have shot themselves in the foot.

[panader0]

117. I notice that about 98% of the recs to this announcement are members of the HRC group.

I'll have to wait and see how this goes. I think criticism of our candidates is democratic.
It needn't be nasty, but without it, this site will be the echo chamber many of us have been
dreading.

[upaloopa]

121. Don't you have your jack shit or something other web site to keep bashing Hillary? Go there

We don't want any Hillary bashing here. She is the party nominee.

[panader0]

126. I don't think insulting posts like yours will be allowed under the new rules.

You have just illustrated the "echo chamber" of HRC worship I spoke of.

[upaloopa]

133. What's insulting. You have your Hillary bashing web site call Jack something

[panader0]

159. "jack shit" is insulting.

Senator Sanders is a highly respected member of Congress and has garnered about two fifths
of the primary vote. Millions and millions of people. I doubt if he will be the nominee, but when dissent is quashed,
well, we've seen throughout history what comes of that.

[Demsrule86]

437. I don't quite understand how the jack website survives now

The primary is over. And they can't be considered progressive if they bash the Democratic nominee, and they slander DU quite a bit.

[NurseJackie]

150. Your use of the phrase "HRC worship" is noteworthy too.

Just sayin'.

[panader0]

171. When no critcism is allowed--what do you call it?

[LanternWaste]

208. a lot of people will have to learn the relevant differences between criticism and name-calling

I suppose a lot of people will have to learn the relevant differences between criticism (e.g., "X policy is bad due to...&quot and name-calling ("HRC worship&quot .

That those relevant difference are both obvious and simplistic, we may presume the only one's unable to distinguish these differences are those who simply refuse to learn the differences.

[All in it together]

314. I believe the names like "HRC worship" came about

After repeated attempts to discuss policy were refuted by "Bernie isn't a Democrat" and worse.
We Bernie supporters have wanted to have civil discussions for many months and others who post here have been unwilling to discuss issues. Let's talk about issues if we want the label Democratic Anything.

[AntiBank]

292. "jack shit" website is a snotty cheap shot sgainst progressive Dems

You seem to love division, yet whinge on about "unity" being demanded. Good luck with that one mate.

[NurseJackie]

366. As near as I can tell, it's a website that exists for the sole purpose of taking pot-shots ...

... at this web site and the members of this web site. It comes across as being "anti-DU" rather than pro- anything else. In my opinion, it's the final stop for the malcontents who were banned from here, or who "self-deport" because they don't like the rules. Or, besides "gossiping" about DU members, it also seems to be a clubhouse for plotting and targeting.

I suppose if that sort of thing is important to someone, then they've certainly found a place where they can feel fulfilled and realize their purpose in life.

Aside from that, I see it as a place that's worthy of our contempt and ridicule.

[Rob H.]

402. Whether you realize it, you've just described the troll-haven

That is Hillary Clinton Supporters dot com, as well.

[NurseJackie]

405. That's not a site that I visit. If you see someone touting it or encouraging defection ...

... then I'd encourage you to post your opinions of it. Beyond that, I have no opinion of that site one way or another.

[Curmudgeoness]

440. As near as I can tell,

you don't know what you are talking about. It is apparent that you have visited JPR. There is no tolerance for pot-shots or discussions about DU or any of the members on DU.

Your view of JPR is as informed as my view of the secret Hillary clubhouse somewhere on the intertubes. I hear that it is where Hillary supporters plot attacks on Bernie supporters here on DU. I have never been there, and all I know if what I have heard from malcontents who just want to stir shit.

[NurseJackie]

445. Sure.

[stevenleser]

157. Probably because we have been the targets of most of the nastiness here.

I'm looking forward to the end of that.

[AlbertCat]

215. the targets of most of the nastiness here.

Perhaps (I doubt it)

How about targets a smug, nose in the air dismissal? Do they not get a say?

[stevenleser]

225. The objections to the civility rules from one corner is evidence enough. nt

[AntiBank]

302. ridiculous narcissism

Majority of Sanders people were all about the issues. Clinton side usually trafficked in schoolmarm snide replies , appeals to authority and the math defence.

In no way were the Clinton people on the board on the short end of the nasty stick. I think they conflate Hillary and the establishment (who have flaws on some issues) for themselves.

[stevenleser]

307. The objections to the new civility rules from one corner is evidence enough. nt

[AntiBank]

320. I am not objecting in the slightest, simply saying it's a 2 way street

Clinton people on here (some) seem to think it is their birthright to treat Sanders people like they are Republicans. This group usually is unswervingly to the right of the progressive Sanders Democrats
on many issues (if not in voiced support thereof, then in refusing to posit a defence of the Clinton positions on them). Instead these soft right, plazzy centrists actually have the inherent cognitive dissonace to accuse us liberal leftists as being proxy agents for the right wing. Alice through the looking glass indeed.

[stevenleser]

329. You are not the only Bernie supporter here. You mentioned narcissism? nt

[AntiBank]

333. I never claimed I was, nor that I spoke for them.

[truebrit71]

361. Bear in mind Newsmax, where you appear isn't going to be on the approved sources last...

And cry me a river on the "we" bullshit Steve Lessor v.2
You gave as good as you got.

[stevenleser]

367. Sure it will as it will when I appear on Fox. You are twisting Skinners rules

"Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website. "

I look forward to you trying to be civil. Good luck.

[truebrit71]

372. You first...

There's a first time for everything I guess...

[The Green Manalishi]

248. Well, I voted for Bernie yesterday

But I like the changes.
Only have 900 or so posts so I'm off the juries but yeah, REGARDLESS of what I have said about Secretary Clinton, or what she has said, etc.. SHE IS (PRESUMPTIVLY) THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. It's find if someone doesn't support her, but they are going to get rightfully called on it if they claim to be a Democrat and don't support her.

I like Bernie's policies better. He has lost for all intents and purposes. Now the thing is to stop Trump. Period. Whatever it takes, whosoever gets told to STFU or tossed off of here.

[melman]

426. Of course

Those are the people it's designed to please.

[mackdaddy]

119. Good to see. How about not letting people use Polls to create an "enemies list".

I have been reluctant to vote in polls since I saw the data of the list of people who voted a certain way in one poll cut and pasted into a post of how many "bad" people supported an issue.

Not so happy with the polls that basically ask "do you still beat you wife, Yes or No" either.

Maybe having the rules come up when creating a poll would be a good idea.

I think that the polls are a good way of evaluating what people think on an issue, but I have not seen a very good poll question is some time.

[unblock]

123. long overdue. the rules system worked very well, the jury system has proven quite flawed

albeit with certain advantages, so the hybrid idea is a great one.

one question -- jurors will be taken to a separate screen to evaluate the alerted post -- does this mean a juror can't see context?

how would one determine civility? there are things a post could say that would be welcome when referring to trump, but verboten when referring to a fellow du'er. seeing the alerted post alone might not be enough context.

[Skinner]

131. Jurors will be able to see the context.

They will see the full line of posts leading to the post they are judging.

[unblock]

142. ah, brilliant.

[unc70]

389. A quibble about context for alerted post

As I understand, the only context on an alert will be just the direct ancestors back to the OP. The way things have been on many alerts to date, one really needs at least the context of older siblings. In many threads, sibling posts are the main back and forth of the discussion, especially where they are nominally responses to the OP but really responses to older siblings.

For example, in a thread with 100 posts, an alert on the last post, a "reply" to the OP with 20 older siblings, would present to a jury with only the OP as a context.

Maybe things will be so different under the new system it won't matter, but under the current system I have needed that additional context over a third of the time.

Obviously I do not know whereof I speak.

[femmocrat]

124. K & R and thank you for your hard work! nt

[CBGLuthier]

125. So paying members will sit in judgement of us all. No thanks and buh bye.

I do hope the fifty diehards who stay have a good time telling each other how wonderful they all are.

[upaloopa]

128. Bye and remember the thing about the door on the way out.

[LonePirate]

127. These changes seem like a move in the right direction. Thanks!

[-none]

340. You don't know how correct you actually are.

[stevil]

135. Thank you - good job

[Decoy of Fenris]

137. Lots of positive changes here.

Looks like a good way to reduce overall forum drama. While I may not personally like a few of the changes (Jury duty for paying members only, for instance; paywalls suck), they do make sense in the grand scheme of things.

Much needed changes. Here's to DU's future improvement.

[NurseJackie]

139. QUESTION: Will "Jury Blacklists" be eliminated too? (nt)

[Skinner]

146. Not sure.

We don't think they are nearly as important under the new system, because identities will be harder to figure out.

[bettyellen]

256. I think the blacklists prevent a lot of stalking...

[-none]

341. ^^^This^^^

I'm sure it has.

[stevenleser]

360. With the new rules, let them, they will lose their juror privileges. I may empty my blacklist

Assuming I understand this correctly it will be crystal clear to Skinner and EarlG if folks are not adjudicating issues fairly and they will take action.

[BooScout]

140. Now this sounds like a plan!

[Journeyman]

141. With the move to GE standing, will Admin permit User Name changes now or after November? . . .

[Skinner]

153. We do not have plans to do so at this time. (nt)

[john978]

145. Q: where is the list of prohibited right-wing publications, authors, or pundits?

From the Political rules -- "Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits."

Seems like this would be impossible to create or maintain.

[Skinner]

152. There is no list.

Members are responsible for the content they bring here. If you don't know whether a source is right-wing, then you probably shouldn't post it.

[Delver Rootnose]

185. But what if it is accurate....

Even the national enquirer was correct about John Edwards

[Skinner]

187. The rule says

"Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website."

[Delver Rootnose]

207. And you risk being alerted...

...to oblivion by the believers in that candidate who don't care if it us true. Take the Edwards situation for example. People didn't claim it was untrue only that it was from the enquirer. And I fully expect any source not sufficiently in love with Hillary to be declared a right wing news source. And thus you limit debate by limiting the sources allowed in debate. Strange way to have open discourse.

I think what you really want is a high fidelity echo chamber without distractions like "information"

[stevenleser]

246. And the new jury rules say the admins can overrule a jury's decision.

Again, the key is, "Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website."

[Delver Rootnose]

258. And I'm betting it won't....

...work out like you think it will. I can easily see someone legitimatly criticizing a democrat in a conservative district being squelched because 'you know he is the best we can get' in that district.

All I see these rule doing is rendering discussion to the usual pap of 'oooo look how evil the republican are' with little to no criticism of the flaws in the Democratic Party. You cannot argue for the need for systematic change without some claiming you are harming the party in the process. Hell the you have to support dems rule alone guts any negotiating power a person has. If a politician know you can't or won't withhold you support they don't have to listen to you. Unless you have lots of money to spread around.

And I certainly can see pushes for primary opponents being squelched as damaging to party.

All DU will end up being is a clap clap club and atm for politicians.
It certainly won't live up to the 'underground' part of its name.

[john978]

301. I agree with your analysis - seems DU wants to be the definition of establishment. nt

[Doctor_J]

432. I wonder if Fox news employees are allowed to post here

[Purveyor]

436. {{{snort}}} Oh no you didn't!!! eom

[Delver Rootnose]

147. Oh good now Joe Lieberman.....

...and Dan lapinski supporters can get the respect they deserve here. /sarcasm

Oh by the way rename your site. You are no longer 'underground' I suggest 'establishment' be a proper replacement.

[PoliticAverse]

191. Joe Lieberman did become an "Independent" and was elected Senator running against a Democrat. n/t

[still_one]

353. It seems from your posts in this thread that you have issues with the new rules, and that is fine,

but why would someone want to be part of a forum if they don't care for the sites TOS?

[Delver Rootnose]

400. The operative ......

...word there is "new". And not all the rules. Just the you must support all democrats rules. There are issues bigger than just party affiliation and there are problems within the party that will not be solved by supporting all democrats, or even being respectful of all democrats. These new rules will stifle dissent, you know the 'underground' part of the name and reinforce orthodoxy. All it will take is one or two party supporting conservative hacks on this site spouting the new rules to shut down all discussion that does not conform to the status quo. One Joe Lieberman supporter and no Ned Lamont, one Debbie washerman Schultz supporter and no Tim canova. No criticism of rham emanual or Dan lapinski or Tammy duckworth or Cheri bustos And esp not the flaws and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton. Down the memory hole with them because winning isn't just part of the process it is the only part that matter am I right.

But you are correct I come to this site for interesting stories and information. But as it becomes just another establishment mouthpiece I will find it less intresting. Enjoy the self reinforcing echoes. I might drop by once in a while to tell you I told you so.

I find it odd that so many supposed liberal websites feel it necessary to impose these conformity edicts. It doesn't radiate confidence in your party or candidate. People would be flocking to a part that means something and a candidate that inspires. A lot did in regards to sanders, even with his flaws. You should take that as a warning.

[workinclasszero]

155. A democratic party supporting DU once more!

Can't wait for June 16 to get here!

[Logical]

156. Skinner, what about locks aquired during the primary process, will they reset back to 0?

[Skinner]

161. Probably.

Not sure though.

[Logical]

201. I hope that is it, the trouble makers will get 5 soon enough. Thanks for all you do! Nt

[hrmjustin]

158. I am sorry if someone asked and I missed it but are you implimenting the 5 hide rule like

you had earlier this year?

[Skinner]

164. We will have a stopgap that will flag people who get five hides or more. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

170. Thanks.

[Amimnoch]

160. So, when do we get the GD-General election forum opened??? I'm ready to bash some trump!

Let's roast that big ole chicken!

[auntpurl]

214. Oh my god that is so disturbing.

GRAPHIC IMAGE ALERT!

[Amimnoch]

218. It is extremely disturbing isn't it...

The chicken attached to that head is somewhat disturbing too.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

162. K&R nt

[awoke_in_2003]

169. I am glad to see

that a graphic content warning in the title is now a rule. Sometimes a warning is necessary

[unc70]

396. Problem with graphic content and context rule

Notice this thread now has "graphic content" and no warning. Graphic content isn't limited to the OP. And an alert on this post would not have the context of Trump image just above.

[Omaha Steve]

181. There should be a new LBN rule

Why post "this isn't LBN"? IF you want to make that judgement sign up be a host. OR just alert to the hosts to avoid hard feelings.

[hibbing]

182. No kooky, how about wacky? j/k n/t

[lunamagica]

184. I agree with everything, except for "Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after

Jury service is complete."

I think if you are asked to serve, you shoulf be told the results of your service.

[Blue Idaho]

284. I agree

I'm not sure why notification is being removed but I think it's common decency to let those involved know the result of their service. I suspect the admins have good reasons - I just like to know how a story ends...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

189. I'll miss serving on juries, but the changes look good -- I have no beef with them. Thanks! . . nt

[Ilsa]

193. I don't understand the rationale for the 4 options (jury) and how

that computes for a majority opinion by 7 jurors. Seems like there is a possiblity for a lot of two-way ties. If I have to split too many hairs, I don't know that I'd do a good job.

I like the rules. Civility begets quality discussions. I was just saying something like this to a friend recently. People are far too impatient to have good debates and discussions, so they fly off the handle and start insulting, which shuts down communication.

[yardwork]

196. Sounds good!

I am relieved to hear that bashing Democrats will no longer be allowed. The single most disheartening aspect of "recent-DU" was seeing ugly caricatures of Democratic candidates and reading hateful attacks on them that sounded just like FreeRepublic.

There's a big difference between constructive criticism and what we've seen here lately.

Thank you!

[wildeyed]

198. "Civility begets quality discussions"

Yes! So many discussions are derailed by this now. Really looking forward to the changes!

[AngryAmish]

205. Will we still be able to call AngryAmish an asshole?

He is a total asshole.

[Phentex]

227. Post Olympic spoilers and see what happens...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

206. I like the proposed changes... nice job!

[treestar]

212. Kick

[redstatebluegirl]

219. So nobody can call me a Republican Troll or an uneducated voter again :-)

I can go with that . I have fallen into the abyss lately and am trying to crawl out. I have been on some juries that made me very sad about DU. Hopefully these new/old rules will help. I still love this place, it has just been harder lately.

I would not want your job Skinner. This is clearly herding cats.

[katsy]

220. Skinner: honest question

We see how trump is damaging the gop. A good thing for us.

What if we have representatives that, while impossible to be as vile as trump, really really does our party a disservice?

As I understand the rules we can discuss the issues we take exception to but not chuck poo at our reps, correct?

I'm specifically thinking of dws and her payday loan support and her support of gop candidates. I guess my question is can we hold out reps feet to the fire in a very honest straightforward way?

[Skinner]

228. We believe that these rules do not disallow any good-faith discussion of issues.

From the post above: "Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website."

[katsy]

264. That's where my confusion lay.

I think "constructive" criticism would be hobbling our ability for a frank discussion of issues held by certain democrats. "Constructive" implies maybe something more positive (sugar coating) than what facts on the ground would call for.

Look at how the majority of the gop leadership tiptoes around their nominee. I think that will hurt them deeply in the GE.

At what point are we allowed to hold our reps feet to the fire? Just as an example, if jim webb criticizes our nominee, at what point do we hold back our opinion? And I already addressed dws' support of the payday loan industry. Not her leadership of the dnc... because for that we can turn off the $ spigot til she's gone. But she has advanced policies that are counter to the Democratic Party platform as I see it.

I think we, as democrats, tend to hold our reps to a higher, tougher standard that the gop bots. So we tend to be hyper critical. Does constructive criticism allow for such frank discussions? The gop has no ability or desire to improve or stand for much. I don't want to see the discussions on DU become so hyper polite that we no longer stand for anything.

[ancianita]

221. Thank you, Elad and all other admins for your thoughtful work.

Looking forward to more in-depth threads.

[SCantiGOP]

224. Agree, agree. A breath of fresh air

Things have gotten kind of crappy in here lately, and that is for both camps. It will be great to have a Democratic site working for all of our candidates again.

[TygrBright]

226. Thank you, Skinner.

Particularly fond of the "Off the hook for 18 hours unless the site is REALLY busy" change. I've tried to be accommodating the past few months but dayum! My heart sinks when it's the third time today I click-navigate and the little blue banner pops up.

I almost never comment anyway, so I won't miss that.

I admit I like to sneak peeks at hidden posts and shudder, shrug, or wonder WTF? but I don't think I'll really miss that, either, and I totally understand why you're doing it. Good. Smart.

I'm kinda curious about the algorithm of seven jurors/four options and how that will break out a final hide/stay decision, but I don't really feel a burning need for a complete explanation. It's your site, your rules, you done great so far, carry on.

Far as I'm concerned, 6/16 can't come soon enough.

wearily,
Bright

[Skinner]

232. The votes are tallied as a binary Yes/No

The gradations exist so the admins can get a little information about how the jurors felt.

[TygrBright]

239. ah, OK, got that.

You mean... y'all actually PAY ATTENTION to how site users feel? <--too lazy to insert 'sarcasm' tag here

Thank you.

gratefully,
Bright

[demosincebirth]

230. Back to where Democrats support Democrats. What a relief!!

[stevenleser]

233. Amazing concept, no?

[demosincebirth]

244. Yup.

[Doctor_J]

382. and where liberals are persona non grata

a distinct change from the early days, but we can't say we didn't see it coming. let me practice for the new du: libya's great!!!

[demosincebirth]

430. Ahh, I can hardly wait for June 16th...like a kid waiting for

Christmas.

[desmiller]

234. ...........

[left-of-center2012]

235. What are "Transparency pages"? thanks n/t

[Skinner]

237. It shows your hidden posts.

Go to your profile, then click the button that says "transparency"

[nolabels]

240. Thanks for the comedy!

[steve2470]

241. This is an excellent start, thank you very much

I think this will solve about 90% of the current problems.

Now, a subject near and dear to my heart....

Even though I'm a middle-aged Caucasian man, I have the deepest of sympathies and respect for the AA community, both here and in real life. I do think you need to have a long chat session with that forum. Since I grew up in the highly racist South with African-Americans and with a "second mother" who was an African-American woman, I am keenly aware of any "under the radar" racism towards that community.

I truly believe you are a good man, Skinner. You've proven that to me over the years. Please come talk to the AA community. I do think your efforts will be rewarded.

Thank you for listening.

Steve

[NaturalHigh]

247. So apparently there will still be no penalty...

for those with more than five (or however many) hides. As the past few weeks have shown, those posters will just continue to disrupt, as there is no penalty for bad behavior.

[Skinner]

250. Not correct.

As a short-term stopgap, people will automatically get flagged when they get five posts removed. Longer-term we have some other ideas.

[NaturalHigh]

251. Oh. Thanks for clarifying that.

[TygrBright]

253. Skinner- A possible suggestion for future consideration on the "jury results" issue.

Like many others who've commented in this thread, I do like to see how my jury responses fall in the spectrum, so I'll probably miss getting those little "results" emails.

Howsever, it's totally worth it for the overall end result, so, yeah, since people haven't learned not to inject the jury process into contentious threads, in spite of it being an existing rule, take that out of the mix.

(And, frankly, without the comments it wouldn't be nearly as amusing/infuriating, anyway.)

Might it be possible, sometime in the future, though, to establish a "juror" tab on the user's profile, and shunt an aggregate result there? Something like : Jury service 20160608 16:50 Clearly breaks (2) Close call (3) Doesn't quite (1) Clearly doesn't (1), with whichever option the user voted, highlighted in blue?

Just an idea for a future tweak. Might be fun to look at one's own record of jury service anyway.

interestedly,
Bright

[The Straight Story]

254. Yet you will change nothing on DI? Where homophobia/etc stands (against TOS), anyone can serve, etc?

I am not even sure why you have a TOS there if anyone can ignore it - sort of defeats the purpose IMHO.

[Kelvin Mace]

255. Question:

Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures.

So, once a "Public Figure" affixes a "D" after their name, they are immune from criticism? I understand that I will not agree on all issues with almost anyone, so, somebody may be pro-gun to some extent, and OK on other issues. But how many issues can they deviate on before being called out? Why do I get sanctioned for calling out a "Democrat" who has an A+ NRA rating, is anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-fracking, pro-drilling, pro-death penalty, or any combination of these and other "rightwing" views? We have way too many Dems who worship at the altar of "bi-partisanship" and "pragmatism" and are happy to give the GOP what they want while getting nothing of substance in return. When I see a "Democrat" working with Republicans to "reform" Social Security, I see a "Vichy Democrat"

And before people lecture me on the need to "compromise" I would point out that "compromise" is a two-way street and requires both sides possess a baseline of sanity. This last requirement practically excludes the entire GOP.

If I accuse DWS of betraying a Democratic principle by championing the Pay Day Loan Industry then by definition I have implied she is a traitor, and thus as she is a "Democrat", I am subject to sanction. If I express disbelief at her "change of heart" on the issue, I am implying she is a liar, and again, I am subject to sanction.

Who defines what are, and are not, Democratic values/principles, and how many must be violated before we can safely criticize the offender?

[squirecam]

387. this is why

This is not ultra-lib underground. That's why.

The rules should make any democrat welcome here. Even your hated conservative dems.

The rules say we support all of them in the GE.

If you want an ultra-lib purity site, you can go there. But that is not what this site should be. The rules make this site now (once again) open to every democrat.

[Kelvin Mace]

407. I am sorry, was I speaking to you?

Is your name Skinner? Are you an Admin?

[Lord Magus]

492. Criticism does not mean insults.

Not a hard concept.

[eppur_se_muova]

257. "registered for at least one year - more than 1,000 posts - active Star membership" -- 2 out of 3 ?

I have alternated between employed and unemployed for most of the last decade. In the latter phase, I have to make tough decisions about every expense, no matter how seemingly trivial -- and that includes Star membership. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Maybe something like: 25 pts/year ... 25 pts/1000 posts ... 50 pts/Star ... -25 points for 5 alerts (e.g.)

Hit 100 pts and you qualify for Jury service. Just a thought.

[annabanana]

262. Sounds good

I hope the roll-out goes smoothly!

[IrishEyes]

268. Everything looks good but I have a question.

Does this mean I can't be on a jury anymore? I can't afford to be a star member right now since I lost my job. I liked being on the juries.

[Skinner]

271. That is correct, but...

I would point out that there is no minimum amount to become a star member. If you can spare $1 you can get a star.

[ymetca]

270. Kinda defeats...

...the "underground" nomenclature when the small d is excised from the word "democratic".

The word "underground" seems to imply a certain amount of snark and name calling is expected. Otherwise what's "underground" about it?

If this site is now just a rah rah section for all things "Democratic", then I wonder what your take is on "inalienable" rights. Are they just something "American", or are they something truly universal?

Small d democratic = global, in my estimation. It appears you are now shying away from that, perhaps?

[tallahasseedem]

274. Thank heavens!

I was just thinking last night about this...especially the days of mods vs. the jury system. I look forward to a great election season!

[ProfessorGAC]

275. Well, Most of This I Dig

Especially the part about jurors just having to decide if something breaks a specific rule or not.

Not getting the results of the jury when one is a participant, not so much.

Kind of picking nits, though.

[brer cat]

283. This sounds good!

Thanks for all the hard work to make it happen.

[adigal]

288. I hope every criticism of Hillary isn't labelled sexist and flagged as such

Because right now, that seems to be the accusation du jour, and it's not true in many cases.

[c-ville rook]

289. I think...

... that as we all acknowledged at one point or another -- both the supporters of Bernie and Hilary -- there are issues with the primary system. And if we begin to look at reform in earnest we may all regret some of these changes as the debate on how power will in the future be divided will be as much, if not more contentious, than this election. At this point we were just having a go at each other over two candidates who could have or may become President. When the hypothetical is extend out and leaders for the next 30 years are at stake ... let's say, I think the line between constructive and criticism will get blurry to say the least. I am not pointing fingers but it is going to get "Hot up in this joint." And not in a sexy music video way.

My worry I guess is best summed up this way. For years our friends in the GOP insulated themselves from criticism and now Birchers run the party and look at their freakin' candidate.

I know "constructive criticism" -- again, easily blurred line looking up or down the ladder, across the aisle, or just at the seat next to you.
Everyone loves your honesty until you say something to them.

[Behind the Aegis]

290. Comments and concerns

First, I think it is great you and the others are looking into making changes to improve DU. Second, I am sure there were hundreds of hours put into the changes, which will surely have all kinds of bugs, a headache for the future. Finally, I once again relay the parable of the Man, the boy, and the donkey and understand not everybody can be, nor will be accommodated. That said, here are some concerns I have...

I do not like that DU3, which was supposed to be about 'transparency' has morphed back into DU2. Once again, we have people who can say whatever they want and the post will be hidden from sight. With the transparency list also disappearing, again, we see the lack of, well, transparency. There will always be drama, but I'd rather it be based in something which is verifiable. So, as for those changes, I think they are a move in the wrong direction, which is back to DU2. In the same vein, I will also say, end the self-delete function, or rather, limit it! Allow people to "self-delete", with no record, within a 24-hour period, anything past that, it will be a "self-delete" which can still be read if one clicks on a link. People still won't be able to respond to it and if it is a thread starter, it will 'lock' the thread, as it does now.

While I think serving on a jury should be a privilege, making people have a star membership, is a step too far. I LOVE, I will repeat, LOVE the changes of "one year, and more than 1000 posts"! This eliminates trolls getting on the juries, like I saw earlier this year with a repeat anti-Semitic troll who was bragging about serving after being here for 3 days, and 22 posts (of course, it was his 78th incarnation, so...). With the 18hr "rule", and the added new rules, it will really limit the jury pool, especially if people "opt out" and then "opt out" of certain rules. If people have been here more than a year and have more than 1000 posts, they are committed to DU (though some may still be trolls, they will eventually trip up) and should have a say in what stays and goes, as they have put in the time.

•The Jury system still forbids "double jeopardy," but posts which were alerted for a particular rule and survived a Jury can now be re-alerted for a different rule.

That is one rule likely to be abused. But, I do actually like it. There have often been posts which slipped by a jury and when I saw the alert, the person totally missed something which would have led to a hide, IMO. I also like the "in thread" review, meaning, one doesn't see the entire thread, just the posts around it. While I try to adjudicate a post on its merits, there are times when the preceding posts do make a difference in how I will vote.

I do not like that alerters and jurors no longer get results. Again, transparency is slipping away. Sure, it will mean much less mail for some of us, but not knowing isn't any better. I also think your assumption "most people forget after 15 minutes" is off, especially given that alerters can't alert until a jury has been decided and the number of times you have been asked in ATA why a poster didn't receive a result email. Given that there will no longer be "alerter comments" or "juror comments", I really think the days of posting results will be heading for an end. There really aren't that many as it is. I see them every now and again, but not like a few years ago and with the new changes, why would anyone really have a need to post them? If anything, you could make it a rule that jury results are no longer allowed to be posted and if someone posts them, they lose the right to serve for a month, and then increase the penalty, including the idea they could lose posting privileges all together.

[hr]

I am marking this, so that if this is "tl;dr" your eyes will come to this section and this part will be read. I hate the new feature which will deprive alerters of making comments.. HATE IT! While it certainly has been abused, there were ways to report it and repercussions (at least we were told there were) for violations of the alert feature. I can guess as to what "violations" will be on the checklist. For the most part, it will be easy enough to pick one and agree/disagree if the post violates the rule. But here is the fly in your buttermilk: BIGOTRY.

Unlike other rules, bigotry, isn't always cut and dried, and it can be misapplied. One of the biggest complaints in my view is minority DU'ers not feeling heard and/or comfortable here because of bigoted posts getting by the system. I am going to make my argument a one of those minorities, a Jew. I am not going to speak for all of us, just my experiences and how I feel. Anti-Semitism is a real problem here. Is it the most prolific bigotry present at DU? Not by a long shot. But, IMO, it is one of the most excused and ignored bigotries (sexism ranks pretty high too)! I have had a number of juries let anti-Semitic posts slide because the juror didn't know what the hell anti-Semitism was. FFS, we still have posters trying to "define" anti-Semitism as 'prejudice against "Semites"'. The only people who do that are either ignorant or bigots, but if they are on a jury for an anti-Semitic posts, they will "leave" it because it doesn't violate their fabricated definition.

"KIKE!" seems to be an easy one to identify as an anti-Semitic slur, unless it is quoting someone or being used in some sort of self-deprecating sarcasm (or in an instructional/educational sense, as I am doing with this post). But how about, "Schumer (D-Tel-Aviv), once again demonstrated he is a traitor to the US by not voting for that bill! Menendez (D-NJ) also voted against the bill, but that was expected!" Anti-Semitic? Hell yes it is! The problem is people don't understand the eons old "Jews are not loyal citizens" canard and if the only thing an alerter can do is check "bigotry", that post will definitely stand! Chances are it might now unless someone really lays it out because most people here really do not understand anti-Semitism. Given bigotry often gets a pass because of "grey" areas, having our hands tied by a simple designation of "bigotry" will actually allow more bigoted posts to survive.

It is difficult enough for minority posters already having to over-explain why a post is bigoted and hoping people understand, with the changes, it really will be out of our hands all together. Of course, there will be those who abuse it; there always are. Those who claim something is bigoted when it isn't in order to silence others. Many claim anti-Semitism is one such charge, and sometimes it is, but so is "Islamophobia!", "Sexism!", "Racism!" and the list goes on, but in those cases, it isn't about the minority being the aggrieved party.

I hope you at least read this part, and I will leave you with this quote from our president, Barack Obama:

"Racism — we are not cured of it," he said at one point. "And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say 'n-----r' in public."

He added: "That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not," he said. "It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior." (source)

[hr]

Despite the "sour" note sound of my post, there are some good changes you are suggesting. I have already spoken about a few above, but I'd like to add the addition of an appeal process is long overdue. Though I think you may be creating more work for yourselves. At some point, perhaps it can just go to an appellate jury. I also like that you will look at and consider posts which "sneak by the jury" and look at action against the post. This may actually help address some of the concerns I have in the marked section above.

Should be interesting.

[seaglass]

344. BtA, I have to say I agree with much of your post. Especially the part about transparency and

allowing the alerter to add some explanation to the alert. When it comes to bigotry I think most of us can learn, we don't all know everything and having an explanation by the alerter can provide some honest insight.

[Ms. Toad]

404. This concern ^^^

Unlike other rules, bigotry, isn't always cut and dried, and it can be misapplied. One of the biggest complaints in my view is minority DU'ers not feeling heard and/or comfortable here because of bigoted posts getting by the system. I am going to make my argument a one of those minorities, a Jew. I am not going to speak for all of us, just my experiences and how I feel. Anti-Semitism is a real problem here. Is it the most prolific bigotry present at DU? Not by a long shot. But, IMO, it is one of the most excused and ignored bigotries (sexism ranks pretty high too)! I have had a number of juries let anti-Semitic posts slide because the juror didn't know what the hell anti-Semitism was. FFS, we still have posters trying to "define" anti-Semitism as 'prejudice against "Semites"'. The only people who do that are either ignorant or bigots, but if they are on a jury for an anti-Semitic posts, they will "leave" it because it doesn't violate their fabricated definition.

"KIKE!" seems to be an easy one to identify as an anti-Semitic slur, unless it is quoting someone or being used in some sort of self-deprecating sarcasm (or in an instructional/educational sense, as I am doing with this post). But how about, "Schumer (D-Tel-Aviv), once again demonstrated he is a traitor to the US by not voting for that bill! Menendez (D-NJ) also voted against the bill, but that was expected!" Anti-Semitic? Hell yes it is! The problem is people don't understand the eons old "Jews are not loyal citizens" canard and if the only thing an alerter can do is check "bigotry", that post will definitely stand! Chances are it might now unless someone really lays it out because most people here really do not understand anti-Semitism. Given bigotry often gets a pass because of "grey" areas, having our hands tied by a simple designation of "bigotry" will actually allow more bigoted posts to survive.

I can't count anymore the number of times that I've had to explain why "mAnn Coulter" is transphobic, and the last two times I explained it (or something similar) in an alert it was left standing. Far too many who are not part of the community against whom bigotry is addressed, are unaware of the culture surrounding the bigoted post, and it is left standing - generally not out of malice, but out of true ignorance that comes from not having lived in the skin of a member of the minority community. As far as I can tell there is one shot to hide a bigoted post and no automatic way to appeal. That means both the poster expressing bigotry, and the jury that didn't get it (because they don't understand the history of abuse directed toward the community) will have their (bigoted) inclinations reinforced when the post doesn't disappear.

It is a concern I have expressed since this DU3 was in beta mode - a concern that has been dismissed or ignored in ATA repeatedly (even when I have included dozens of examples) and (partly as a consequence of letting the community vote on minority experience of bigotry) the site has become less and less welcoming to minority populations.

I think most of the changes are good, but it troubles me that after years of experience, and expressions of concern, the site will still operate primarily on the basis of a determination by the majority that a post does not insult a minority.

[stevenleser]

416. In an ideal world, alerts regarding bigotry would be sent to jurors from the group in question.

Accusations of sexism would go to 7 women who identify as feminists, accusations of homophobia to 7 LGBT members, accusations of anti-semitism to 7 Jewish members etc.

[Renew Deal]

291. I think you're personally taking on a lot of grief

Most of the changes aren't a big deal for most of us.

I don't like the new double jeopardy change. It gives more opportunity to alert stalk.

I think the appeals process is going to create a lot of work and arguing. Most criminals think they are innocent.

Other than that, looks good. I'm happy to be a tester.

[Nye Bevan]

390. The appeals process is going to be a huge pain in the ass for the admins.

Because the type of people who rack up a lot of hides are the same type of people who would appeal every hide as a matter of course. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to impose a limit on unsuccessful appeals (just like with instant replay in baseball).

[xocet]

299. Out of curiosity...could you please comment on...

How many posts per day, alerts per day and hidden posts per day are there - in round numbers?

Numerically, roughly how uncivil does DU become during Primaries versus normal times?


[hr]

The rules look really good, but I believe that jury results will be missed: they provide a token acknowledgment of service and a sense of completion.


The idea of removing identifying information is a good one:

"Jurors will no longer evaluate posts in-thread. Instead they'll be taken to a separate page. On this page only the portion of the thread relevant to the alerted post will be displayed (or just the OP if the OP was the alerted post), and usernames and other identifying information will be removed."

Wouldn't that be easily circumvented by a site search, though?

[IronLionZion]

309. So DU is going to start supporting Democrats

instead of throwing everyone under the bus? Sweet!



I'm glad that an official written top goal is to increase elected Democrats and decrease Republicans. Sometimes people forget and it gets crowded under the bus with the relentless punishment.

6 years of tea party congress control needs to end. It would be sweet for Dems to have the white house and both houses of congress for the next judicial appointments and general direction of budgets and legislative priorities.

[warrprayer]

310. It's PUPPIES!!!

[gademocrat7]

311. K&R

[RockaFowler]

313. Love the new Jury System

Thanks for the update!

Oh and I'm willing to help with any new software updates

[lovemydog]

315. bookmarked

Thank you.

[Geronimoe]

317. Presumptive nominee is not the nomiee

In all fairness to the 46% plus democrats that support Bernie, they shouldn't be forced to endorse the presumptive one until she officially is the nominee. These are unusual times given the 100 plus FBI agents investigating Hillary.

There is no logical reason to end supporting Bernie who is a viable democratic presidential. Any claims who will get the nomination is pure conjecture. No one has a crystal ball and six weeks in a very long time in which just about anything could happen.

[leftofcool]

330. No one is forcing you to support anyone.

This is a privately owned message board and there will be new rules like them or not. Oh, and please link to those 100 FBI investigations, thank you.

[Geronimoe]

449. Here is the link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/28/there-are-147-fbi-agents-involved-in-the-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

147 FBI investigators!

[Blue Idaho]

318. Thank You Skinner!

I have been supporting and voting for Democrats since 1968. I found DU about eight years ago. During that time it's run both hot and cold. I look forward to the change in rules, the promised civility and respect, and the chance to discuss and support Democratic Party candidates for office.

Thank You and Best of Luck to all the admins!

[pamela]

322. You'd better get a good lawyer!!!

Just kidding.

[Renew Deal]

326. lol

I'm contacting the FBI RIGHT NOW!

[FSogol]

362. Uh oh, that's 101 now...

[MFM008]

324. good, lets get on with supporting democrats

and going after republicans! Especially Rump.

[one_voice]

328. I appreciate all the work you guys

are putting in to try an bring back some civility. I'm sure it will take a bit for bugs to be worked out and there will be some tweaking.

My question is about hosting. I know you've just done a lot with DU overall, but do you think that in the near future there could be a conversation on hosting? There are some issues I think are worth talking about some involve formatting/programming --not sure if those are the right terms--mostly on the way we see alerts/how we have to basically have another tab open and keep refreshing to see them.

Again, thanks for the changes here, looking forward to seeing how it goes.

[tavernier]

332. Is there any way we could have a rule

where when two members get in a pissing contest with each other ( it's black - no it's white - no it's black - no it's white ... ad nauseum), after twenty such posts, they must either stop or continue in a personal message format. It just takes up so much space and time, and no when else is interested; and quite often has nothing to do with the content of the OP.

It's like attending a party and having to sit next to two people going through a divorce.

[RKP5637]

336. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Algernon Moncrieff]

337. Suggestion re: Jury time frames

•Jurors will be given a maximum of 30 minutes to evaluate whether a post is acceptable or not.

I'd personally recommend 15. The rules are straightforward, and the "close call" options you enumerated should allow people to express their feelings quickly.

[NurseJackie]

369. Enhhh... There've been times when I accepted a jury invite when browsing on my phone ...

... but because the jury process was kinda difficult to perform on the tiny screen and virtual keyboard, I'd boot up my computer and finish jury duty online. (With my "antique" system, that wasn't always a quick process.)

Perhaps if it's just a "tap to select" the reason, then jury-by-phone-browser may be easier.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

451. I'll admit there have been a few when I had to go look at the thread to get context.

That can take some time.

[cui bono]

338. Curious as to why, rather than instuting these rules earlier, you opted for a free for all

by giving the worst offenders amnesty and free reign?

You know I think it's because of your bias toward the candidates and I'm sure you can easily see which supporters are the nastiest and have the most hides. So you know what I think about that.

But really, why would you not have done this sooner? For your own sake? You allowed anti-semitic posters back after they were FFR for a while, you allow a slur meant to paint all of one candidate's supporters as racist and misogynist, you let back in the most hate-filled and mean-spirited posters on here to wreak havoc and now, when you need civility because your chosen candidate is declared the presumptive nominee, NOW you want civility.

How convenient.

.

[stevenleser]

343. I know some of you Sanders supporters believe this, I just can't see how you can delude yourself

The worst offenders were Sanders supporters. Not only did they mercilessly attack Hillary supporters, they are 85% of the jury pool, control juries and when Hillary supporters responded in kind, Sanders supporters retaliated by hiding their posts.

To put it more plainly, Sanders supporters gave themselves, via the jury system, free reign to attack Hillary supporters, and if Hillary supporters responded with 1/3rd the level of nastiness they got posts hidden.

While Skinner hasnt come out and said this explicitly, the admins clearly noted that there was unfairness going on regarding the jury system and the only way to handle it was to give a blanket amnesty to everyone including a fair amount of Sanders supporters that had been given timeouts.

As to why the now, the admins arent dumb. They know that anything they did ever, like the blanket amnesty you noted, would be twisted as them stepping on the scale somehow for one candidate. And you aptly demonstrated that with your comment. So they waited until the primary was decided to implement the change.

[cui bono]

420. If that were true, then all the more reason to enact the rules earlier so as not to show bias.

But we all have eyes. We know Hill fans were actively targeting Bernie supporters. It was documented in screenshots from the Clinton Cave where they talked about their juries on DU. And we have all seen the nasty shit they post here, let alone the vile hatred that was spewed over there. We know who the nasty supporters are, the Clinton Cavers showed that clearly. You don't see the same on pro-Bernie sites that were created by DUers.

Keep justifying the bias. I suppose you think there were no problems with the election process either.

.

[stevenleser]

421. Keep pretending you didn't control the juries and the overall tenor on DU.

Keep hoping we didn't notice that 85% control of DU wasn't enough so you guys had to create Jackpine Radicals so you would have a 100% echo chamber.

As far as the election process, the person who has won the nomination received the most votes. I know it annoys you that the voters stole the nomination from Bernie but that's whats called Democracy.

[cui bono]

424. LOL! Yes, THAT'S why JPR was created. WE WANT TOTAL CONTROL!!!

Because that's how progressives are.



.

[stevenleser]

425. You can call yourselves whatever you want, it's what you did. nt

[cui bono]

465. I forgot to mention what you did. Posted one of the two most vile OPs in DU history.

You know, anti-semitism and all that. Iirc, it at least got hidden. The infamous Not Good Enough, Bernie didn't. That was the other top two vile OP posted by a Hillary supporter. She never apologized or deleted.

So you can stop pretending Hillary supporters were the persecuted bunch. We've seen all the evidence of the viles OPs and posts as well as the scheming on the Clinton Cave to get Bernie supporters hides by alert stalking and manipulating juries.

Don't understand why you have such a problem with the idea of having implemented these new rules earlier. If what you say is correct you would think that would have been wonderful and yet you don't. Hm...

.

[stevenleser]

482. I'm Jewish, so no, I posted nothing anti-semitic. Nice try though. nt

[cui bono]

494. So? Another DUer who is a PoC posted a racist's rant and an anti-semitic post.

Your OP was hidden iirc, so yes, you posted something very ugly and many felt it was anti-semitic.

Go ahead and provide a link to it, let's see what it was, exactly.

.

[stevenleser]

499. You made the allegation, you provide the link. nt

[cui bono]

505. 1. We all know that's against the rules. 2. I'm no longer a star member so search is useless.

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:32 AM - Edit history (3)

EDIT TO ADD:

FOUND IT!!!

Here you go, links to OPs about your hidden OP (so I'm not linking to your post directly) - including link to said hidden OP - that DOES exist and was hidden and called out for anti-semitism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280115291
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280115290

And done the cowardly way too, in a 'protected group'. Throw something like that out there and don't even give anyone a chance to rebut it. Sheesh.

Found this little gem of a post by someone else while I was searching:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511677501#post20

Wow.


And btw... you didn't respond about why, if you think Bernie supporters are the worst offenders, you don't think that provides all the more reason to have enacted the rules sooner. Since then it would have obviously worked in your favor if your premise is taken as being true. So why not? Why make it a free for all, letting such egregious offenders loose to spew shit all over DU rather than enact the new rules and bring civility to the site sooner rather than later? Why?


----------------------------------------------------
Original pre-edited post:

You know very well what I'm talking about, it's one of your hidden posts, an OP. Oh, I guess I can check if you have a transparency page showing and it should have been soon enough to find or at least let you know which OP it was.

Well, I don't see it so it either was too old or I'm attributing it to you incorrectly - or maybe it wasn't hidden, just locked. If I am wrong I apologize, but memory tells me it was your OP. I will see what I can find because if I am wrong I would like to set the record straight, but again, I can't really do much searching as a non-star member.

.

[stevenleser]

514. I'm so glad you raised all of this nonsense. I've been waiting for the opportunity.

I am so glad you posted all of this. It's exactly what I have been talking about regarding the tactics of some Sanders supports. I call it the Triple D tactic, or "Datamine and Distort in order to Discredit". With an emphasis on distort.

Lets take the Yakov's elixer video that I embedded into my article about Sanders offerings making him a snake oil salesman. That clip comes from one of my favorite movies and has one of my favorite actors of all time in the starring role, Danny Kaye. I've watched this movie around 30 times so I am very familiar with it.

In the clip Danny sings about Yakov's elixer. Now it is alleged that my posting that was somehow insensitive towards Jews. First off, lets acknowledge that Danny Kaye is Jewish, and his wife who wrote the musical scores and lyrics for most of the songs he sung during his career, Sylvia Fine, was also Jewish. So, throwing in the fact that I am also Jewish, the accusation here against me is off to a bad start.

Folks who are actually interested in Jewish issues will recall that Kaye in his older years starred in a movie called Skokie where he was one of the Jewish leaders fighting against neo-Nazi's who intended to march on that town. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie_(film)

What makes this accusation further laughable, is that the troupe to which Danny Kaye's character belongs, and this includes Yakov whose elixer he is hawking are not Jews, they are Romani. Unfortunately the wikipedia entry calls them Gypsies which is not a politically correct term, bu the point is they are not Jews:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inspector_General_(film) and thus the reference is not a Jewish one and thus not antisemitic.

Kaye and Fine passed a few years back, but they both would have laughed at any accusation like this that claimed their movie was antisemitic and would have really fallen over in hysterical laughter at the ignorance of claiming those particular characters in the Inspector General were Jewish.

In fact the accusation against me is itself antisemitic because it assumes that the song is about Jews swindling people as if those are the only people who would do that. So congratulations reposting an antisemitic contention.

My no snitching article has been discussed at length in the African American group. No African American person has claimed it is racist. So not even a nice try there.

The post that you refuse to link to is yet another case in point. The post I had hidden was one where I referred to six different Twitter users who had noted that they were bullied at a caucus by Sanders supporters. Using the Triple D tactic, some Sanders supporter datamined one of those twitter users and found that at some point in the past they had tweeted out antisemitic comments. So they discounted not only that persons account, but the accounts of the five other Twitter users and also my post and had it hidden.

And that is the point of the Triple D tactic. Sanders supporters who dont want to address issues use this tactic to avoid addressing criticism of Sanders and don't care how ugly they are being when doing so. This is one of the many reasons why I can't wait until Skinner shuts all of this down in a few days. I know exactly which folks are going to have a hard time if they can't avoid discussing issues by distorting people's past posts and attacking them.

[msanthrope]

515. I think you just got your rear handed to you. nt

[Major Nikon]

483. Results...

On Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I forgot to mention what you did. Posted one of the two most vile OPs in DU history.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=7014

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Nasty personal attacks like this are inappropriate and disruptive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:07 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The two most vile posts on DU in recent history were made by BS supporters, WillyT's and RobertEarl's horribly racist screeds about Hillary's voters. One of them still posts here. So Cui Bono's post is an unfoubded personal attack. KitS
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not really
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack.

[cui bono]

507. Thanks.

Not that I really give a rat's ass at this point.

.

[JTFrog]

481. "Progressives" who wanted to be able to

call our candidate disgusting, vulgar names you would never get away with here.

That site is full of brogressives, so don't act all high and mighty. Nothing much progressive there.

[Miles Archer]

518. "The worst offenders were Sanders supporters?" I just can't see how you can delude yourself.

"The worst offenders were Sanders supporters. Not only did they mercilessly attack Hillary supporters, they are 85% of the jury pool, control juries and when Hillary supporters responded in kind, Sanders supporters retaliated by hiding their posts."

And you have actual numbers that prove this? You keep track of every OP and comment posted here? No I didn't think so. There has been no shortage pf "merciless attacks" from "The Clinton Group." Show me the actual numbers that back up your assertion and I'll believe you. And you tally every member of the jury pool, and you profile them? You don't find that behavior to be just a little bit disturbing?

"While Skinner hasn't come out and said this explicitly..."

You're 100% correct on that, and yet you go on to imply that it's exactly what he communicated:

"the admins clearly noted that there was unfairness going on regarding the jury system and the only way to handle it was to give a blanket amnesty to everyone including a fair amount of Sanders supporters that had been given timeouts. "

This is the part where you tell me that "a fair amount of Clinton supporters" were not also "given timeouts." Go ahead, I'll be waiting right here for your confirmation of that which shows actual numbers, not your opinion.

And that's pretty much all that I see in your post...your opinion, backed up with no substantive fact.

And of course, that's your right. Just know that it's what comes across, and that you don't speak for Skinner or anyone but yourself.

[Capt. Obvious]

474. This post is spot on.

I'm surprised you didn't get a single reply.

[Stinky The Clown]

339. Kudos to you! Good start. One small point . . . .

I used to eagerly await the result of the juries on which I served. I liked to know how my vote stacked up against the others. I often thought I would be an outlier vote and was pleasantly surprised to see I wasn't. On the other hand, it was very helpful to me to see when I was the "1" 6-1 or 1-6 vote.

Anyway. Small point, but I will be sorry to see this data point go.

[backscatter712]

342. Question on "Don't bash Democratic public figures"...

Last edited Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

It's kind of vague on where the line gets drawn.

Because as we all know, there are some public figures with the "D" next to their names who behave unethically, or go too far to the right.

These days, the target du jour seems to be Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but in the past, figures have included Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Joe Lieberman, just to name a few, who were incredibly obnoxious in obstructing a Democratic agenda, or pushing right-wing crap from wars to screwing the working class to religious nuttery.

Where does the line get drawn as to what's hideable? For example, today, I'll say that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's support for the payday loan industry is legitimately worthy of criticism.

[sheshe2]

345. Thank you, Skinner.

Same goes to Elad and EarlG. Great job.

I will be happy to be a tester for the new system. I would like to get a feel for how it works before going live.

My only issue was stated above by others, no results on jury decisions. I like to know I got it right. Since there will be names attached, we won't know the players anyway. Just a thought. The rest is spectacular!

[angrychair]

346. I appreciate the effort but do have concerns

First, right-wing source:
Sorry, this is a very abused term. I have seen people call a news website in one OP "right-wing trash" and then source a news article from the same site in another OP.
Far to often, the only requirement for a "right-wing source" is an article you don't agree with or a writer that wrote an article you didn't agree on in the past.
I agree that you shouldn't be posting from the NRA or hate sites like tomatoebubble but not every article from a Fox website is automatically wrong or bad. Just because it is from a site or writers you don't always agree with doesn't mean it is "right wing".

Second, the "support Democrats" rule

There are going to be cases where the left-leaning Independent is the better option (name recognition, experience and track record on Democratic core values) . There are cases, Senator Sanders being a good example, where they caucus with Democrats and not supporting them could jeopardize our seat count in the House or Senate. As long as that left-leaning Independent caucuses with the Democrats and is the better candidate than it is only to our benefit to support them.

[wysi]

350. This sounds good to me

I like civility.

[nolabear]

351. Can't wait! And thanks for everything.

[H2O Man]

356. Okay.

Your site, your rules. I agree with most of them. I disagree with a few. No biggie. While I believe that an unintended consequence of your updated rules will be the prevention of the very discussions that the Democratic Party absolutely needs to have …..I accept that they cannot take place here.

I’ll continue to participate here on non-political issues. Yet, more and more time is spent with other true progressives on other internet forums. In my opinion, that’s a shame. But nothing stays the same, I suppose.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Hissyspit]

470. No, this looks bad, H2O Man.

Shame is absolutely the word.

[littlemissmartypants]

358. Thank you. Kicking.

Any word when LBN will actually be LBN again?

[floriduck]

359. Skinner, This is still a bit nebulous.

Are sources such as The Hill, Real Clear Politics, and those type of publications considered right wing? They have at times presented a right wing slant to topics but may not be considered right wing sources. I think a more precise definition would be helpful.

"Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits."

[Skinner]

368. Of course not.

The Hill and Real Clear Politics aren't right-wing. They don't exist to push a particular ideology.

Breitbart is right-wing.

[PoliticAverse]

403. The Hill does lean right but I find their reporting on factual issues to be rather reliable.

And they often are the first to report about important things that will be happening.

[BumRushDaShow]

363. Hopefully civility will begin to return.

[horseshoecrab]

365. K&R ...

and Thank You!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

370. Are all the current hides going to be erased and everyone starts with a clean slate or is everyone..

...with 5 or more hides about to disappear?

[truebrit71]

373. That worked out so well the last time....

[Demsrule86]

441. Everyone should start clean

We know some of the juries were unfair and some people here were stalked too.

[Skittles]

378. argh, I will have to behave myself more

yes INDEED

[VOX]

379. Looking forward to a spirited but civil DU...

DU was once an island of sanity; hopefully the transition will make it so again.

Thanks, Skinner.

[Greywing]

386. I say thank you also!

I had been avoiding this site for a few months. Trying to scroll through all the personal conflicts was exhausting!

[Number23]

385. So many of these are great but I hope you're not opening up a massive can of worms with this one

Previously Jurors had two options: "Hide it" or "Leave it alone." Now Jurors have four options: "It clearly breaks the rule"; "Close call, but it breaks the rule"; "It doesn't quite break the rule"; and "It clearly doesn't break the rule."

I predict a world of hurt with that. But I guess time will tell if it's working or not.

These are kind of strange too:

Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after Jury service is complete.

Transparency pages are going away, since they only seemed to serve to create forum drama. (They may be replaced with something else at a later date.)

but again, we'll see what happens. Your decision to once again enforce civility and to discourage the bullying, stalking and personal attacks that have run rampant on this site for years is very encouraging news. Thumbs up from me!

[SaschaHM]

388. K&R!

[tarheelsunc]

391. THANK YOU!

"Making clear that this website actually has a partisan purpose"

In the minds of some, "I'm a proud Democrat" are the four worst possible words you can say around here.

[FarPoint]

395. I " Bend the Knee" Skinner...

GOT style...thank you for the upgrade.

[JesterCS]

398. Thanks Skinner

I especially see THIS rule as being a positive for sure.

No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

[Peachhead22]

401. About juries

I agree with the others in this thread that want to still see the results of juries they've served on. Respectfully, I think the rule about not 'posting the results after' should be sufficient to tamp down any drama on the subject.

I'd also like to bring up the change regarding 'no comments (in the jury form) from the jurors'. I don't understand the reasoning behind that. Jurors are already prohibited from saying anything in those comments that are out of line. I think it serves a purpose (for other jurors, the alerter and the alertee) to see a juror's reasoning behind a vote.

Also, about the different categories: since it's a binary result (hide or don't hide) don't the "Clearly breaks a rule" and "close call" count exactly the same as each other (likewise a "doesn't quite break a rule" & "Clearly doesn't break a rule&quot . Why four categories vs two if the result will be exactly the same.

[stupidicus]

409. yep, cult-like reverence for dem public figures

like practically any and all criticisms won't be judged thusly, or that you will be willing to put in the time and effort to discern/decide and act upon which ones are and aren't "within the rules".

Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate,

and particularly if BS supporters go elsewhere or simply desert this place in high numbers shifting the jury pool numbers in HC supporter direction.

Hopefully this will be useful feedback about the "new rules"...

I must admit it is a tad amusing given the way the repubs are set to violate Saint Rayguns 11th commandment in a wholesale manner that you'd be implementing a dem version of it here.

well done

[Hissyspit]

473. Some of these rules are amazingly vaguely worded.

[stupidicus]

488. indeed they are

some of them would likely be voided for vagueness if they were "the law".

I found this one ridiculous because it justifies the alerter as well as serves their purpose of killing the post and poster as any rightwingnut SYG law does the killer in that case. It's all about the perception of the poster alerting which should also make them immune from any and all reprisals as well, like that horribly punitive, devastating, and surefire behavior modifying rule about losing their alert button for 24 hours...lol

[DesertRat]

410. This sounds great. Thanks. k&r

[PatrynXX]

417. Don't believe in the word spoiler anymore though...

I can say this now. Can't say this when it goes into effect. But thats my opinion. the second person who does not have enough Delegates Bernie is more of a spoiler if you want to call it that for Plump. Because by and large most people who don't like trump have been rooting for Bernie. I don't expect Independents and Republicans to root for anyone else other than anti establishment candidates. for GE discussions I'll refrain from such discussions although this should be allowed in the groups right? or are Bernie only groups barred? I haven't been on the site much since April. Mostly for my own health. Way too many attacks from non Bernie supporters and they were very personal attacks but DU tended to let those slide. Except those attacks alienated me from ever supporting her. She'll have to live with that. Either that or she doesn't know what her own supporters are doing. It was those attacks I was defending against and after having a number of free speech postings hidden. I gave up. Joined a Bernie Sanders discussion group and thats mostly where I post. The only Spoiler there might be is if there was another establishment Candidate. And that is probably the idiot running as a Libertarian but he's actually a Republican. X_X do'h. never supported him even in 2012. I did support someone else at the same time as Obama But only up until the Convention. But again airing this now before the rules set in. And right now she's 200 delegates away. So as messy it is here it will be very messy in Philly. I've been told circa 1968. Although I feel more like a combo of 1968 and 1984. Not as bad as 1984 though. I will support down ticket Democrats. Since change always happens bottom up. Hopefully we'll have a much more Liberal Congress next year. Veto proof.

[countryjake]

418. The work that you three must have put into these changes is appreciated, but ...

I suspect that there may be some challenges to honest participation at DU, coming both in the near future, and, depending on the outcome in November, for those of us who have worked tirelessly (in real life, not online) to move our Party to take on a more progressive platform that better reflects the urgent problems of our nation and the world.

Judging by what I've witnessed here during this Primary Season, I can see the rule about not "viciously" denigrating Democrats becoming severely misconstrued as some of the more centrist/moderate members get busy with your new moderation system. DUers who are passionate about many different issues, such as Anti-War; Climate Change, the Fossil Fuel Industry, the Animal Agriculture Industry, and Chemical Agri-Corps; Inequality, Systemic Racism, Civil Rights, and Bigotry against any Minority; Trade Deals; Education; the Working Class; Poverty; Imperialism, and the MIC; Police Brutality and the Prison Industrial Complex; and the Crumbling of Capitalism, Fascism...so many of these things, when brought up for discussion here, could be viewed as "denigrating" Secretary Clinton, whether vicious or not, especially if she becomes our "Madam President". I've seen that happen already this silly season, when some attempted to post about Big Oil/Coal or Fracking, or Drones or the War on Terror, or inattention to Racist Policy, and I watched it happen big-time back in 2008/09, when Marriage Equality or Civil Rights or Racism was brought up.

I just hope that you will not be overwhelmed when it comes to the final arbitrating on whether criticism of our presumptive nominee is constructive or not.

A great big THANK YOU for attempting to return this community to some semblance of civil discussion.

I do look forward to members not making DU suck!

[Historic NY]

422. Thanks hopefully people will comply or just leave.

[SusanCalvin]

428. I do appreciate that you keep on trying.

This sounds well-meaning and good.

[Demsrule86]

433. Thanks for the information.

Sounds fair, and I can see much work went into this.

[Socal31]

434. I've stayed out if the primary discussion intentionally.

But here is one more vote to re-consider the jury comments and results notifications.

By raising the qualifications to be a juror, I would think the problem with the results posting/meta derailing will be greatly reduced.

Giving results feedback to each juror lends to a bit of accountability, which will instinctually lead to more thoughtful and quality verdicts.

[billhicks76]

446. Easy Peasy Except RW Talking Points

For example, I believed most of the Wiretapping support were right wing talking points but many centrist democrats went along with them.

[snot]

448. I'm worried about this language in the rules, too.

The right will use all possible arguments against Dems, some legitimate, some not. I can't believe DU means to prohibit reasonable, fact-based critique?

[Nye Bevan]

450. I support the Citizens United decision and also free trade.

Many DUers would say that these are "RW talking points" BUT the ACLU strongly supports Citizens United and President Obama strongly supports free trade (judging by the number of new free trade agreements he has signed and the fact that he has never disavowed NAFTA). OTOH I have been very open in these opinions and have never once had a post hidden because of them, so I anticipate that to continue under the new system.

[hopemountain]

454. there will be a contested convention -

and the dnc super delegates have not officially cast their votes.

calling it GE on the 16th is undemocratic, skinner.

[captainarizona]

456. looks like I won't be posting on the election soon

I don't see how mike malloys stays on du after june 16 with anything about clinton either.

[liberaltrucker]

457. So, in a nutshell, common sense?

I'm OK with that.

[pangaia]

459. What is the rule on avatars?

[seabeyond]

461. I am excited Administration. I can do this and the opportunity it is giving to DU. Very exciting.

There was not one thing I cant take issue with though reading juries were always interesting.

You all did good on this change. DU4?

[Silver_Witch]

462. I won't be able to serve on a jury until 2 days after the general election...

Rats! I wish I could remember my old information from my days of lurking and being to timid to post. After several years of Disqus my confidence grew.

Great rules - I hope they work!!

[flying-skeleton]

463. AGREE 100%

Agree 100%

[Lunabell]

464. Not fair on the jury system

I can't afford to be a star member and I am sure there are others! Furthermore, I have served on plenty of juries in the past and have made very thoughtful and carefully considered decisions. Just because you can't afford to pay to play isn't fair! I understand the other changes, but the money part really ticks me off.

[Renew Deal]

477. $1 gives you DU with no ads for a year

And some other functions. Juries are in now too.

[cui bono]

466. You should add how many times someone has been on a jury back to profiles.

If people have to pay to serve they should know the stats.

.

[cui bono]

467. Will the rules apply to "Groups"?

Because there is some serious nastiness going on in "protected groups" when they are not supposed to be protected from hides so that people can spew hate, they are supposed to be "safe havens". That's a different concept and some groups are being exploited and being used for bad purposes.

.

[bobGandolf]

468. Very Happy.....

to see changes under CIVILITY. I for one have not posted on numerous occasions because I feared that my post (me) would be torn to shreds via comments. The changes will also help new members feel comfortable posting. Right now a number of long time members, and posters, feel it is their duty to tear into newbies for not meeting their posting criteria.
Looking forward to the changes.

[Hekate]

469. Very comprehensive. I look forward to implementation; jurying should be interesting.

[DonCoquixote]

475. IF this part is followed

No personal attacks or flaming
Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.

I will be pleasantly surprised. However, let's be honest,half the jury traffic is because this rule has been run over more times than a cigarette butt on an interstate.

[athena]

479. This is great, but has one flaw.

The number of jurors is too small. With a number like seven, there will be wild fluctuations. This is a simple matter of statistics: seven is a small number. As a consequence, there will be an element of randomness in each decision to hide a post. If you really want posts to be hidden fairly, you need a larger number of jurors. Rather than 4 out of 7, something like 7 out of 12 or 9 out of 15 would be much more reasonable.

Given the rest of the rules, what this means is that you will get many more appeals that result in overturned decisions than you would with a larger number of jurors.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

496. Great point.

[zipplewrath]

485. Blue Dogs

Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website.

I'm curious how we would have a discussion about the Blue Dogs of yesteryear under these rules? I'd suspect we couldn't even call them Blue Dogs. How would we discuss the Yellow Dog democrats of the past? I'm curious how these rules would have even allowed any discussion of the desegregation of the democratic party in early '60s given that a huge portion of the democratic party openly resisted.

[zipplewrath]

486. Links to or reposting of outside works

I'm wondering how links to or reposting of content from outside the site will be handled? During DU2, people would post highly inflammatory writings from authors, pundits, LTE, or Op-Eds that if written by the poster would be a violation. But far too often there'd be some "I don't agree with everything, yada, yada, yada....

And somehow that meant that we could post stuff that we otherwise couldn't write? It would seem to me that linking or posting of writings that violate the rules should be subject to the same rules as original content here on DU.

[Puglover]

487. I hope this works. Not to be a Debbie Downer but I doubt it will.

Frankly I think since I have been on DU you have been fighting a riptide. People like to argue and bitch at each other on the internet. It's a fact. And no matter how many rules you put in place people will brawl. One thing I notice that all of the DU spin off sites have in common is that they all eventually go away because they are echo chambers. I know that is NOT what you are going for but Aunt Mary's Tea Party won't cut it either.

"You won't be able to peek at other peoples hidden posts." How is this different from "deleted message" when the mods were around? You went on and on about transparency when DU 3 began. No matter how you look at it this and not having transparency pages is a step away from that.

But good luck.

[Behind the Aegis]

490. DU3 is morphing back into DU2, just without moderators.

Little by little, the concept of transparency is being eliminated from DU3. It started with Meta being limited to viewing by "stars", then it was closed, then it was disappeared. How many people were ignoring you was erased. Hosts from smaller groups were kicked out of the hosting lounge. Then "Name Removed" became a permanent member of DU (though, I do agree some of the zombie troll messages need to be wiped from DU). Now, we are back to messages being hidden, that we can't see, nor do we know why.

I outlined my concerns about alert messages being eliminated above, especially as it relates to alerting on a post which is bigoted in nature.

[stevenleser]

491. Probably because every bit of transparency has been abused and provided much more drama

Than utility. I say that as someone who has posted my share of jury results.

The other side of that, of course, is that without the posting of those results, we wouldn't have known how bad the jury system was failing in certain cases, particularly regarding bigotry and bias.

Admins should revisit this transparency issue after 6 months to a year when, hopefully, the new rules bring about a much more civil DU. Another shot at transparency is worth it IMHO.

[Behind the Aegis]

493. Rather than denying transparency...

...it is easy enough to make a rule that posting jury results is no longer allowed. It is as I said, DU3 is turning back into DU2.

[cui bono]

495. Also, the amount of times someone served on a jury was eliminated.

And now only star members will be allowed on juries. Soon, the more you donate the more you will be on juries if that's not already coded in. Sound familiar?

.

[Puglover]

498. Exactly.

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:41 AM - Edit history (1)

I wish I could muster up a give a crap. I barely could crank out my post.

DU2 redux. Without the pesky mods to deal with.

Nice to "see" you.

[deaniac21]

501. Transition to Echo Chamber

[MADem]

503. Pfffft. If by "Echo Chamber" you mean people who hate Democrats are going to be checked, bring on

the damn echo. I'm sick of all the Dem bashing and trashing--if I wanted that crap, I'd go hang out at Free Republic or some Trump Humping site.

[cui bono]

506. I'm pretty sure they meant the right wing of the Democratic Party fawning over a center-corporatist

candidate and moderate Republican policies. I believe I heard something about Hillary running as a third Obama term, which is moderate Republican in terms of policy according to Obama himself.

The left wing of the Dem Party would like to continue to discuss the party getting back to its roots, away from the corporate money that Bill Clinton sold us out to with the DLC that Obama continued in his presidency and Hillary in her candidacy.

.

[deaniac21]

516. Hey,

I heard that twice

[saidsimplesimon]

502. Skinner, it is your site.

Some of us appreciate your efforts to keep peace while herding cats. Rules and limitations are part of living in a civil society.

On the other hand:

If there is no debate, why do we call ourselves, Liberal or Progressive? "Follow the party line" is repugnant to those capable of critical thinking. Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts.

[One Black Sheep]

508. Whoa, so this place is becoming a full blown and super loyalist to the Democratic party type site.

That is loud and clear. "Draconian to the max" is the phrase that comes to mind when I read all those various rules and regulations.

All I can say is that I think your web site traffic is going to plunge, like, off a cliff. The vast activity on this site has always been the subversive element, such as the Bernie supporters (this particular election season), while the establishment type Democrats have always been in a rather small minority.

Some obvious intentional loopholes in the rules are that there is going to be lots and lots of posts (and threads) not considered "party line" or "correct thinking" that will be hidden, by hook or by crook, with multiple chances and bites at the apple for like minded enforcer type groups to alert those "wrong think" type of posts...notice how a ton of threads are being hidden lately, that will become the norm, until traffic starts to decline for the site, driving away all those who are not super conformist types.

And, Only the insiders will be allowed on juries, to effectively run the place, so that will cause further strict standards, and an iron fist style moderation where only conformist posts and opinions will be allowed...

The infighting and the passionate debate is a big part of why forums are and become popular, strictly moderated forums quickly become ghost towns and just a real bummer and uninviting for most people...

Good luck.

[AgadorSparticus]

509. Skinner, would you consider leaving the notifications of jury results?

I understand that some have used the results to create more drama. But you could easily just ban that and make it against tos to post jury results anywhere.

I just like to know the results of the jury decisions to see iwhere I stand on different issues and if I voted with the majority. Most of the time, I do. But it is good to know when I don't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

510. Suggestion about members with many hides: set those at 5 or more back to 3 or 4

This would mean that those who have been breaking the rules more than most would have to be more careful, once the new system starts, while allowing them back to start in good faith if they want to. Setting them to 3 gives them one chance at getting it wrong under the new system; 4 means they have to be careful from the word 'go'.

[randr]

522. The inability to see entire thread

makes it difficult to jury alerts to one post withing a thread.

[DemonGoddess]

523. After having over a week

to get accustomed to the changes and everything else, GREAT JOB!!!!!!

I think you guys don't hear that often enough. It is NOT EASY to admin a discussion board, of whatever flavor. Thank you!

[LeftInTX]

524. I like the changes.

I stopped coming to DU because after the 2012 election, there was so much Obama bashing. A lot of posters were saying things like he was "worse than Bush"....It just really got to me. I felt it was unproductive.

(I joined in Oct 2012 so I wasn't around for primaries prior to 2016)

The new jury system is much objective.

I hope this site will remain cohesive after the election.