Welcome to General Election Season 2016

[Skinner]

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

As promised, General Election season on Democratic Underground starts today. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee, the Democratic primary voting ended last Tuesday, and you've had nearly a week since then to take your last-minute pot-shots at each other (if you felt so inclined). Whether you like it or not, the time has come to put the acrimonious primary behind us and start looking forward to the General Election fight against Donald Trump.

The good news is that most DU members have already started the transition to General Election season on their own. The tone of discussions has improved significantly over the last couple weeks without any new software or admin intervention. This should come as no surprise -- we have been through two contested primaries on DU before, and each time the members of DU were able to come together for General Election season. Most people understand that this is now a battle between Democrats and Republicans for control of the White House, Congress, and local governments across the country. And most people understand the importance of joining together to support our presidential nominee -- Hillary Clinton -- and defeat their presidential nominee -- Donald Trump. (If you don't understand this, then you weren't supposed to be here in the first place.)

Still, there are likely to be a few people on both sides of the former Clinton-Sanders divide who want to keep fighting the primaries. To ensure that this website does not play host to a never-ending rehash of the 2016 Democratic primaries, we have made some pretty big changes to the way we run it. I posted some useful information about these changes in a previous post here. Here's what you need to know:

DU now has clear posting rules
The biggest change is that the site now has clear posting rules about civility and content, and we will insist that all of our members follow those rules. If you want to know whether something is permitted, check the rules to find out. It is the job of jurors to make sure the rules are followed.

Our focus is on encouraging civility
Most of the discussion on DU about general election season has been focused on what people can say about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But the admins feel a much more important issue is what people can say about other DU members. The civility standards during primary season were awful, and it seemed like most of the discussions were aimed at vilifying other DU members rather than discussing issues. This needs to change. The new rules have a very strong focus on civility.

Your expectations are probably wrong
Judging from some of the discussions among members here, it seems that many people on both sides of the former Clinton-Sanders divide have unrealistic expectations about what is going to be permitted during general election season. In particular, many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that members will not be permitted to criticize Hillary Clinton. This is simply wrong. Constructive criticism of Democratic public figures is always welcome on Democratic Underground, and our rules still permit that. As I said in a previous post: "If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine."

We want people to stop bashing Hillary Clinton and also Bernie Sanders
It is going to be much harder for the members of this website to come together if we keep bashing former primary candidates or their supporters. We are Democrats and we are all Clinton supporters now. Our opponents are Donald Trump and the Republican Party. So starting threads to attack Clinton supporters or Sanders supporters makes no sense, and it is also counter-productive.

You are permitted to support Bernie Sanders' efforts to influence the platform and the party
Everyone, including Bernie Sanders, knows that Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination for president. But Bernie Sanders has made clear that he intends to use the leverage he has gained in the primaries in order to effect reforms he supports. This is entirely appropriate for him to do, and DU members are of course permitted to support his efforts. But everyone needs to understand that Bernie Sanders is not going to be the Democratic nominee, and those who support his reform efforts must do so without bashing Hillary Clinton or trying to undermine her candidacy against Donald Trump. The primary contest is over.

There will be some hiccups during this transition
The transition from primary season to general election season is a pretty big change that includes both software changes and rule changes. We have made every effort to smooth the transition, but we fully expect there to be some unexpected problems along the way -- software bugs, rule changes, confusion about expectations, or whatever. We'll be keeping a very close eye on things to make sure that everything is working as it should, so please bear with us as we make this transition, and try to be flexible and understanding.

Thanks again for being here at Democratic Underground as we move forward into an exciting general election campaign and hopefully landslide victories everywhere this November!

[Arkansas Granny]

1. Thank you, Skinner!

[Else You Are Mad]

2. Thank you for the clarification!!

[William769]

3. Thanks.

[liberalnarb]

4. Thank You!

And thank you for making the transition short. I don't want to spend any more time at Discussionist again.

[sheshe2]

17. Love your sig line!

[liberalnarb]

18. I appreciate it. Though I think half the site put me on ignore.

[sheshe2]

23. I don't....

I only had 4 people on ignore. I just took them all off. Not sure they are even here anymore.

[Walk away]

77. That's funny! I think you are one of the very few Bernie supporters that I don't have on ignore!

So don't be too sad

[liberalnarb]

110. Okay, not sure how I should feel about that. I'm not ditching Bernie, just supporting the nominee.

[Walk away]

116. That seems reasonable to me.

[Loki]

104. Not on mine

[awoke_in_2003]

134. This Bernie supporter

supports you new sig line.

[auntpurl]

27. I too love your sig line!

And admire your graciousness and your ability to take the long view and look at what's best for the country.

[Siwsan]

41. I had a long chat with another Bernie supporter, yesterday. Your sig line sums up our thoughts, too

[leftofcool]

44. Did you take a bleach bath after your trip to DI?

I went there once and had to scrub for hours.

[liberalnarb]

49. Well, I logged in, saw a trump supporter saying climate change is a hoax

And then logged the fuck back out.

[Gothmog]

125. It is fun confronting the idiot trump supporters

The latest is that they are unskewing polls

[calimary]

90. Thanks to Skinner - and also to you, liberalnarb!

Like your sig line a lot! REALLY appreciate it. Did you create that yourself?

[herding cats]

5. Just a FYI for others here.

You will not be able to rec threads until you attempt to make a reply and agree to the new TOS.

I thought I'd been banned at first.

Oh, and thanks to all three of you for your hard work to bring back civility here. It is appreciated!

[Skinner]

31. That was confusing.

We have fixed it so it should be more obvious what is going on.

[herding cats]

37. Thanks for fixing it.

I figured it out in a couple of minutes anyway. So, it wasn't really a problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. It might help if there was a sentence in this OP saying "you will be asked to agree

to the revised Terms of Service before you can continue to post", etc. That also means people can decide to take a few minutes to read them, rather then being presented with them the moment they want to rec a thread quickly. (If there is something like that in the OP, I missed it)

[HubertHeaver]

83. I was taken aback by that notice also.

Thought I was pink-slipped. Well, it is a pink border.

[herding cats]

91. There wasn't even a notice, it simply did not let me rec.

Which I assumed is what happens when you're booted. You open the site and suddenly you're on the outside looking in.

I changed devices thinking it was a possible bug with my browser/OS version. Nope. It looked like I was logged in, but when I hit the rec button it clicked, but didn't log the rec. The rec feature was obviously working, 16 people had rec'd the thread already. I hit reply to see if it ignored me the same way, and then got the message to agree to the new TOS to activate the full features of DU. Then I realized what was up.

I'm guessing now there's the same notice to agree to the new TOS when you rec for the first time as there was when I tried to post for the first time.

[stonecutter357]

6. K&R!

[brer cat]

7. Good luck!

I hope it will lead to greater civility on DU.

[IronLionZion]

8. Thanks Skinner

these rules seem fair.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

121. Yes, seems fair if both sides follow the rules, which, from past experience, I expect will happen.

[awoke_in_2003]

135. There will be assholes in both camps

but they are a minority. We all know what needs to be done. If Trump wins, i cannot afford to emigrate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

145. No way we can allow that tRumpster fire to win under any circumstances. Period... whatever it takes.

[DinahMoeHum]

9. As always, thank you, Skinner.

[MineralMan]

10. Sounds good.

I was working through the switch-over. Imagine my surprise when I came back.

I think this should all work out very well. It will take a while for GD:2016 to change over and the old thread list to scroll off the first page.

I agree to all of the new rules.

[sheshe2]

11. I just agreed to our new TOS!

Thank you one and all!

[MisterP]

12. so basically tronc

[Nye Bevan]

13. Does anything relating to the election have to go in GD:2016?

Sorry if I missed a statement on this elsewhere.

[Skinner]

32. Yes.

Although we aren't forcing people to post there.

[mcar]

14. Thanks!

[tekriter]

15. Eyes on the prize!

Vote Blue, top to bottom!
Beat Trump!
The Supreme Objective is the Supreme Court!

[greatauntoftriplets]

16. Thanks, Skinner.

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. Thanks.

[rug]

20. Lincoln Chafee 2016!

Such a nice man.

[MADem]

54. What's he running for? The GD2016 forum is for all elections, including downtix. nt

[rug]

60. Office of the Chief of Protocol

http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/

The right man for the right job!

[femmedem]

21. Thanks Skinner! Can you post to the rules whenever someone serves on a jury?

I'd love to be able to easily quote from the rules when I add an explanation for my vote as a juror.

[Skinner]

33. When you serve on a jury you will be presented with the relevant rule. (nt)

[femmedem]

73. Perfect! Thanks!

I think DU is going to much more enjoyable and useful.

[NurseJackie]

22. FOUND A BUG ...

The "Trash this Tread" button is missing from the new "Post Removed" notification.

Removed posts can still be trashed with the little "X" that's in the forum's subject listings ... but the little "X" is only visible in the desktop version (not the mobile version). Mobile users can only trash threads via the Trash Tread button.

[BlueMTexpat]

24. Thank you, Skinner, and all

who have worked to create and maintain this site. You literally helped me through the Dark Days of Bush-Cheney and I so appreciate this space! :applause

[auntpurl]

25. Question: what do we do about previous threads (still active) from GDP that violate the new rules?

Should we alert or just leave them to die eventually?

Edited to add: thanks, of course, for the new rules. I have been eagerly waiting for this!

[Skinner]

34. For now we are just letting them die on their own.

But I am occasionally locking them when they cross my radar screen.

[auntpurl]

36. Cool, thanks. nt

[yodermon]

26. Clinton email issue and "criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed"

I am curious how information regarding this particular ongoing story will be treated?

Will any and all posts regarding her private email server be considered de facto "tearing her down"?
And even if the OP is just innocuous, like linking to a mainstream news article on the issue, the thread itself will almost certainly devolve quickly.

just trying to get the lay of the land on this issue.

[Skinner]

35. We are going to enforce our rules.

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

[lancer78]

86. Skinner

that really doesn't answer the question the above poster had. If, for some reason, we see Clinton doing the frog walk in cuffs on CNN, will we be able to talk about it? And before anyone says we won't, noone predicted Trump would have gotten this far either. This election season has broken all the rules.

[Thinkingabout]

28. Thank you , Skinner, you have clean rules which will be easy to follow.

Now we have a candidate to elect to the office of president, looking forward to getting Hillary elected, she will work harder for us.

[stopbush]

29. I have a question, a serious question:

for the first time in decades, we have a vanquished candidate in the person of Sen Sanders who is openly continuing to run as a candidate, who has not conceded the race or openly endorsed Hillary Clinton, and who has been making noises that the convention will be disrupted.

We have long-serving Ds in Congress who are calling for unity and who are characterizing Sen Sanders actions as being counterproductive and even harmful in our efforts to elect Hillary as president, to retake Congress and to win big down ticket.

My question to the admins: how are you planning on handling this situation? If it is OK to criticize Hillary "constructively," does the same apply to Sen Sanders? This is a situation that has been created by Sen Sanders, not by pro-Hillary DU members looking to extend the wars between the candidates supporters. Are we as Ds to remain silent because the primary season is over, while a losing candidate is acting like the primary season has not ended? Is this very visible situation off limits for DU discussion, even as major Ds across the country and in the media are openly discussing the same?

And what about Sanders' DU supporters? Their candidate is urging them to stick with him through the convention. Are they not allowed to express support for his position that "it ain't over til it's over?"

Thank you for any clarification you can offer.

[Skinner]

30. We are going to enforce our rules.

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

[Amimnoch]

38. Rules question with regards to the primaries?

for the primary contests that are not yet resolved (house/senate seats), where's the best forum to keep pushing candidates in those?

[Skinner]

39. I think General Discussion: 2016 (nt)

[63splitwindow]

42. Everything else aside,

Don the Con, a wannabe latter day Hitler, must be defeated so soundly that it sets a record that will not be approached for hundreds and hundreds of years. Let him stand out as the most ridiculously unfit person EVER to be running for President of the United States and nominated by a major political party.

[RAFisher]

43. Let's make Clinton, our next president and Sanders, the next Chair of the Senate Banking Committee!

Here's to electing more Democrats!!!

[cstanleytech]

59. If he was 20 years younger I would say nominate him to SCOTUS but banking chair? No.

That is just to small of a chair for him, Appropriations would be far better fit especially if he can help cut some the overspending on defense.

[JonLeibowitz]

65. He is not qualified to serve on SCOTUS. No law degree, not a member of the bar, no legal experience.

[cstanleytech]

68. Not a hurdle.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx

Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

[Gothmog]

126. It has been a long while since a SCOTUS justice was not a member of the bar

[cstanleytech]

128. True but that doesnt mean it cant happen and if Bernie was 20 years younger he might make a good

justice and he sure as hell would be better than the conservative justices imo.

[The Green Manalishi]

148. Secretary of Treasury

He could up wall street's ass like a proctologist for 8 years

[cstanleytech]

150. Assuming he doesnt have to be a lawyer to lead it what about the DoJ?

[The Green Manalishi]

154. I'd sure be happy, but he really has the expertise to hit Wall Street.

I would like to see Kamela Harris, who is running for Senator here in CA for Atty General. We've got several other candidates who will make fine senators, Kamela kicks ass going after bad people

[cstanleytech]

155. Ya but as the head of the DoJ he might be more willing to pursue criminal cases against Wall Street

rather than give them a slap on the wrist with a fine thats a sick joke which has been largely what the DoJ has been doing for decades.

[Amimnoch]

62. I've been suggesting Secretary of the treasury.

Progressive fiscal policy is by and far his strongest area. Let him loose with no leash.

[leftofcool]

45. Thank you, Skinner!

[William769]

46. I take it that you are not going to reset the hidden posts that happened prior the new TOS?

Just curious.

[Skinner]

55. We are going to reset it to zero.

So people need to get five hidden posts starting at 2:20pm ET today before they get flagged.

We have a backlog of flagged people from before the switch. We aren't going to bring them all back at once because we don't want a flood of people behaving badly. But we are going to start bringing them back, and spread it out over a week or so.

[William769]

58. Thank you for that explanation.

I think I worded my question wrong.

Right now it says I am unable to serve on a jury because I have 5 hidden posts. Will those have to fall off in due time?

[Logical]

142. When will they be reset to zero? Nt

[question everything]

47. Since the "term of service" requiare a "signature" why was this not on top when I logged in

the way most announcements are?

Also, are people who were blocked from, say Sanders group - they were very active about that - will remain blocked?

Not that it matters much now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=139288

Also, I've always added an explanation to my jury decision, so I will miss this function. The new format is... strange.

[Skinner]

48. Because we forgot to broadcast it

I will go broadcast this announcement now.

[lpbk2713]

52. Must you Question Everything?

Oh ... Never mind.

[MADem]

57. Blocked people stay blocked. nt

[NWCorona]

50. Seems reasonable to me

[longship]

51. Gladly! R&K nt

[cwydro]

53. Thanks Skinner, Elad and EarlG.

I like the way you presented the new TOS and the requirement to sign it.

One hopes that nips a lot of possible problems in the bud, so to speak.

K and r.

Onward to a Democratic victory and the first woman in the White House!

[yardwork]

56. Thank you!

[hlthe2b]

61. I agree with the changes, but need to ask if the most aggressive/extreme gun advocates get a pass

from any "group criticism" based on the new TOS. Speaking only of myself, I will continue to try to ignore those who are most vociferous and most certainly strive to be civil to the rest in any discourse. Yet, I know the emotions of the majority of DU members (after yet another Newtown, Aurora, Orlando) are not really conducive to those who discount the tragedies with the usual memes.

So, is there the same blanket set of "protections" for those defending the NRA and similar groups against Democratic sponsored attempts at new gun restrictions/policies?

[JonLeibowitz]

70. So essentially,

you want a free pass because you cannot effectively engage with them in a conflict of ideas?

You are essentially asking to be able to call them "ammosexuals" and "nuts" etc. Not a very productive way to want to discuss the issues.

Need I remind you of the Democratic party platform on guns?

[hlthe2b]

74. Thank you for displaying so explicitly the level/tone/tenor of discourse we can expect.

A perfect example, replete with disingenuous accusations of comments I never made.

[JonLeibowitz]

79. You are asking for the TOS to not apply to a group you despise...

I didn't stretch anything.

[hlthe2b]

80. I asked Skinner to clarify approach during highly emotionally charged events.

--particularly as the most staunch pro-gun advocates and rhetoric may run headlong into Democratic efforts at reform.

[JonLeibowitz]

82. Yes, and to be clear we're allowed to oppose legislation brought forward by Dems, per the TOS.

We cannot tear down Democrats (esp. those running for office this November), but we can sure as heck disagree with their platforms.

[hlthe2b]

88. nor ascribe false motivations and statements to them...

as you have with me.

[renate]

63. mwah!

[Native]

64. At long last! Thanks. nt

[Hekate]

66. Hallelujah!

[L. Coyote]

67. I read that. Keep the Earth round.

[center]

[Maru Kitteh]

69. Oh crap. I just alerted on something completely in error.

Oh well I guess.

[Agnosticsherbet]

71. Thanks

[UtahLib]

72. Great new beginning!

[Renew Deal]

75. Is it possible to get the "Democrats" groups back on the latest page?

BOG, Hillary, Bernie, etc?

[femmocrat]

76. K & R and many thanks!

[obamanut2012]

78. Removed posts will be removed and not hidden?

[Skinner]

81. That is correct. (nt)

[BumRushDaShow]

84. K&R

It's gonna take awhile but hopefully it will settle down here.

[PJMcK]

85. Thank you to the Administrators

I've accepted the new terms and applaud the excellent work Skinner, Elad and EarlG and their team have accomplished.

[BainsBane]

87. I'm more than happy to follow the above rules

and think they are exactly what has been needed for a long time.

[Her Sister]

89. Welcome to General Election Season 2016

woohoo!

[nolabels]

92. Can i just say one word?

Okay, here goes , One word.


How did i do? was that okay? If it was i would like to say thank you for letting me get that in, and have a nice day

[alain2112]

93. Hear! Hear!

I look forward to the stimulating discussion.

[Kelvin Mace]

94. Given that anything I say

may be construed to violate any of the numerous rules now in force, my days posting on DU, on all but the most benign of topics, is pretty much over.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. First jury and I already see a major problem...

The post you are about to evaluate is below, highlighted in red. For context, relevant posts leading to the alerted post are provided. (If the alerted post is the OP, only the OP will be displayed.) Usernames, avatars, and signature lines have been redacted to reduce the possibility that you may be unintentionally prejudiced by a poster's identity. Decide whether the post breaks the given rule, and select one of the options.

Alerted post

1st poster (Original post)


I finally feel safe again!

Who knows what I mean?


Back to top

The post above may break this forum rule:
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.
Does the post above break this rule? Give your opinion:



It clearly
breaks the ruleClose call, but it
breaks the rule

It doesn't quite
break the ruleIt clearly doesn't
break the rule

Fantastic! Here's the problem...I don't know what group it was posted in?! I voted "It doesn't quite break the rule" because, well, I have no way of knowing and I will err on the side of the alerted.

Question: If I was going to alert on something to see the system, if I choose a category, is that the alert being sent, or does it allow me to see what else is there (such as an expanded definition)? Also, are "copyright issues" going to a jury now?

Why is the transparency being eroded?! The whole idea behind DU3 was transparency, now it is DU2, but with even less information!

[missingthebigdog]

100. Ummm. . . .

I'm pretty sure posting about the alert violates the new rules:

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.

[Skinner]

101. That wasn't supposed to go to a jury.

We need to fix that. Thanks.

[UtahLib]

112. Thanks for asking that question.

I found that confusing too.

[left-of-center2012]

96. I suspect most of us are happy to move forward n/t

[Surya Gayatri]

97. "It's a new day, it's a new dawn..." It's a new DU.

Best political forum on the web.

And, you guys just keep making it better.

Sincere thanks from a very grateful user.

[MFM008]

98. Thanks

[missingthebigdog]

99. Awesome.

And thank you for all you do here.

[laserhaas]

103. Humbug

Bah

Till then...it has dawned

[Loki]

105. Thanks Skinner

We have a lot of work to do, let's do it together!

[yuiyoshida]

106. doumo arigatou gozaimashita!

[Stinky The Clown]

107. Hallelujah.

I really do hope this makes DU more civil.

Thank you for trying.

[Pathwalker]

108. Serious question: Is the new GD2016 the old GDPrimaries?

If so, how can I "UN-TRASH" that forum? Thanks in advance to whoever answers.

[Princess Turandot]

114. Go to the forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1251

You'll see an 'untrash this forum' button at the top. Click it.

[Coolest Ranger]

109. Thank you Skinner

I'm willing to put things behind us. I'm just too terrified about the fall

[NastyRiffraff]

111. ThankyouThankyouThankyou!

Several more times, too. Although I'm sure the rules will be tweaked as most new rules are, they look good so far. Kudos to Skinner, EarlG, and Elad. I've already noticed a big difference in tone. (Including, hopefully, my own!)

Civility: Yes we can!!

[Stinky The Clown]

113. Just did my first jury. Just one minor complaint/suggestion.

I LIKE the new system. I like the anonymity of the posts and posters. I'm not sure about the shades of gray; I prefer yes/now.

My complaint/suggestion: let the end of the process take me back where I was when I got the jury notice instead of the home page (or wherever it took me).

Looking good, admins!

[auntpurl]

115. YES!

I've always disliked that in the old jury system, and still do now.

[awoke_in_2003]

137. Oh, the name of the poster in question

isnt shown? That should hopefully take out some bias.

[Chemisse]

117. It's great to see all this enacted. One unfortunate change, however.

I just served on my first jury, post-change. I am really disappointed that there is no pm about the results of the jury service. In your last thread, many people responded about how much they value that feedback.

With juror participation so pivotal to successful enforcement of the rules, wouldn't it be a good idea to make serving on a jury a rewarding experience?

[Jon Ace]

118. Thanks! Time to empty my ignore list! (nt)

[Skittles]

119. will I still be able to kick some ass

yes INDEED

[awoke_in_2003]

138. Who is going to stop you?

[Skittles]

139. WOOT!

[awoke_in_2003]

140. Just trying to avoid an ass kicking

[KMOD]

158. you'll have to catch me first

[DonCoquixote]

120. If these rules are followed

If these rules and regulations are followed, then I think we are but we will see if some rules get ignored, especially when it is done by someone who is a representative of a majority that knows they can get a mob behind them.

[PasadenaTrudy]

122. I got selected

to be on a jury even though I'm not a star member. I thought this wouldn't be the case.

[Mike Nelson]

123. Yay!

...I love civility!

[MH1]

124. Thanks Skinner, I like the sound of the changes.

I'm looking forward to how it all works out.

I really appreciate the renewed emphasis on civility to other DUers.

Edit to add: thanks also to Elad and EarlG and any interns or other helpers you had.

[progressoid]

127. TL:DR

[truebrit71]

129. Thanks Skinner! You're fucking awesome!

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I finally realized. I love Hillary Clinton.

[liberal N proud]

130. OK - Now, let's get some Democrats elected!

Get Out The Vote!

[DemonGoddess]

131. Thank you!

Special thank you to Elad, I know big upgrades/updates are NEVER easy. There's always something that can go south.

By the way, served on my first jury in the new format. I LIKE this format. VERY good way to do it!

[question everything]

132. Not sure about the jury system

As often happens, as soon as I log in, I am asked to serve on a jury. I always agree. I pay a lot of attention, would read related posts on the thread and always add an explanation. I think that both the alerter and the alertee deserve one. If you've ever seen "rebut" this comment was probably mine.

But today I had to decide among five alternatives similar to asking whether one is liberal, moderately liberal, moderate, moderately conservative and conservative. These were not the options; they were about following the rules of the board but in a similar gradient.

But they were confusing. When is a post considered to be hidden and when is it OK?

Mostly, the jurors never get an email notifying the results of the jury.

So.... I am not sure about my willing to serve on a jury in the future. If I do take time to read the post and what led to it, that often involves several preceding it, I would like to know the result.

I was going to post this in the "ask the administrator" but would like to hear others' comments.

[philly_bob]

153. I strongly miss notification of the results of my jury service.

I somewhat miss the opportunity to explain my vote beyond the narrow rule categories.

I am glad to see the opportunity to judge the "alerter."

Like Question-everything, I am not sure about being willing to serve on a jury in the future.

[awoke_in_2003]

133. Thank you

Especially for insisting the word "graphic" being included in thread titles where necessary. I think there are images that our country must come to grips with, but there should be a warning.

[Curmudgeoness]

136. Where will all the rules be posted for reference in the future?

Before I was able to post, I had to agree to a million words that I was not in the mood to read at the time, but I would like to read them later. Once I submitted my agreement, they were gone. Where are they found?

[Skinner]

147. They're all on the Terms of Service page.

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

And you can also see all of them whenever you click "Alert" on a post.

[marble falls]

141. Bravo! Any minor concerns I had have been addressed.

[bluestateguy]

143. We got through the 2004 and 2008 primary cycles battered, bloodied, but ok in the end

The same will (eventually) be true this year.

[mikehiggins]

144. Thank you, Skinner, for this.

It'll be nice to come here and not be greeted by partisan rants, lies and snarky posts.

I will, of course, vote for Hillary in November despite the numerous questions I have regarding her. There is no point to continuing raising questions, now that the Democratic Party has by and large spoken and support her as our nominee.

It does seem almost inevitable that she will move into the White House (can anyone really believe the Chump can beat her?) and us Bernie supporters can just get on with the work of reforming the Party as a whole.

[secondwind]

146. So happy to be a part of DU and look forward to a YUGE whoopass in November!!

[The Green Manalishi]

149. Thanks you. Well Done!

[steve2470]

151. Thanks Skinner

I think a lot of trolls are going to be leaving or upping their game considerably in order to stay stealth.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

152. Thanks, Skinner and all the admins

I like the new jury system so far. The more detailed options are better.

[PatrynXX]

156. ie GE doesn't start till after the convention

but I'll refrain from this subject all I'll say on this here. Thats how Democracy works. I'll accept the knew TOS. But fairly stay of one subject. But it will erk some saying the GE is on. Thats why we have a Convention. Then it starts. On with the show

[liberal N proud]

157. I like the new Jury system

It asks some great questions and highlights that things are not always black and white in a decision.

Kudos!