Advice about the new DU rules

[DonCoquixote]

I got permission to post this from another DUer. It is NOT offensive, but I would not be surprised if some think it is. Let me say, do not insert names or personal thoughts, as IMHO, there are many people it applies to. Italics are mine, for emphasis.

And without further adieu:

Some advice:
As I'm sure you've all read, there are new changes to the jury system & how hidden threads will be handled in the future. If you aren't aware, there is a thread here, by Skinner: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10132863

Of note is the new rule that if you have 5 hidden posts in 90 days, you will be barred from posting until the oldest of the 5 posts "falls off" of your record after a period of 90 days.

I bring this up because previously, hidden threads only resulted in a member's transparency page being visible to other members, less chance of serving on a jury, and possibly being given a few-weeks-up-to-a-month time-out in a particular forum (as some of our friends here are aware).

However now, the price for hides is much greater. It will not just potentially get you a time-out from a forum/group, but it will ban you from DU for upwards of 90 days.

If I'm not making myself clear, I will state it outright:There is now an incentive to goad people to reply in a manner that will get their post hidden.

DO NOT TAKE THE BAIT THAT OTHERS ARE GOING TO THROW AT YOU IN HIGH-TENSION FORUMS/GROUPS

There are certain posters, whose names I do not need to mention but whom I feel we all know intimately, who are notorious for making posts that walk right up to that line between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" and yet their posts are never hidden. The responses to those posts are.

There are certain posters, whose names I do not need to mention but whom I feel we all know intimately, whose posts are never hidden, regardless how offensive, bigoted, hateful those posts may be.

We've all seen the jury results: "Well I've seen (insert group here) say mean things in the past so I'm going to let this slide," (insert group here) should grow a thicker skin," &quot insert group here) people on DU are a minority so I'm going to let this stay,"etc etc.

Folks, don't fall for the tactics they now have an incentive to employ.

And make no mistakes, THEY WILL EMPLOY IT

Our voices have already been silenced by the loss of many great members. They left voluntarily or not, and the reasons are not as important as is the fact that their voices are gone.

Some suggestions, if I may:

- use ignore. If you haven't used it before, use it now, and use it generously.

- update your jury blacklist if you haven't. If you are limited by not being a star member, please remember that you can be a star member for as little as $1 for an entire year and greatly increase the number that you can place on your jury blacklist

- employ a "time out" before responding to posts: Wait 10 minutes before replying. Or don't reply at all. As you know, many members on this site seem to exist only to get a rise out of others. Don't feed the trolls and don't take their bait.

- Relinquish your need to "get the last word." We know that bigoted, anti-(insert group here) posts won't be hidden, or at least have a large chance of not being hidden. Don't make their jobs easy. Let their hate stand for all to see.

We all need each other in order for there to be a cohesive voice of rationality on this board. When one of us is silenced, either through banning, voluntary leaving, or banishment from a group/forum, all of our voices are diminished.

Please, realize what these changes mean and how they change the stakes of what were previously just "innocous" posts that resulted in a hide.

And If DQ can humbly add, the purpose of my post is not to "Whine about DU", it is a call for everyone to keep their heads and not let this place devolve into a mess. I do not envy the jobs of Skinnet et al, but if we want a place where cliques and thugs do not intimidate people, we have to hold certain impulses in check, and draw certain lines. Yes, it is political, because the same bullying, evasive technique, Gish Gallops, that prevent us from solving problems are right here. We can either cry about it, whine about it, or keep our heads, until the bullies and haters realize that their tricks have worn off. It eventually does happen; sonner or later, in politics, and in chat rooms, the people that have nothing to back themselves up but lies and intimidation lose, and then we surivvie, and keep on doing the work we do, the work that sustains everything that does not suck.

[NightWatcher]

1. alerting

Nah, just screwing with you. Good advice. I've learned who to avoid/ignore

[DonCoquixote]

2. laugh

You know I was expecting that, you nearly gave me a heart attack

[napkinz]

10. IBTL

In Before The Like

[Vanje]

121. LOL! nt

[aikoaiko]

3. I foresee the clever troll creating 2 or 3 kamikaze socks to instigate members..

.... to respond poorly and then bam. Gone for almost 90 days.

[DonCoquixote]

4. Oh yes

and then make sure to use those 90 days to make sure someone who comes back gets blasted on sight.

[hrmjustin]

7. skinner said that creating other accounts will be considered a tos violation.

[DonCoquixote]

9. Maybe

But let's face it, that is nigh impossible to enforce.

[hrmjustin]

11. believe me he will enforce it. I really can not say much more on how but he knows.

[DonCoquixote]

12. Ok

From your lips to (insert deity or philosphy here)'s ears.

[hrmjustin]

13. I hope it makes people behave more.

[Rex]

45. It will.

nt.

[rug]

15. "Concealed within his fortress, the lord of Mordor sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth,

and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf: a great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame." —Saruman



Lidless.

[hrmjustin]

18. Mordorrrrrrrrrrr!

[awoke_in_2003]

49. You just don't walk into it. nt

[hootinholler]

30. I thought Skinner's neighborhood was more like

Candy Mountain

[awoke_in_2003]

50. You know what happened to Charlie. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. I think it's a bit more like the bridge guardian over the gorge of eternal peril.

"Answer me these questions three - ere your illicit socks you'll never see!"

Pity the questions aren't a bit tougher.

[Blanks]

92. What's your favorite colour?

[aikoaiko]

20. I hope so because it doesn't seem like socks or zombies get the hammer as much as they could.

I'm guessing, of course, but it seems like some of the same old disruptive extremists find their way back in short order.

[hrmjustin]

21. Well people do try to come back and if they behave a draw no attention to themselves they are

allowed to stay. Skinner has clearly said he does not want witch hunts. But those who cause trouble go back to PPR heaven.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Except banning usually happens for a reason, and if the welcome mat is out for zombies, it becomes

meaningless.

Same with socks. It's a fundamentally disingenuous, dishonest game that flagrantly disregards the rules and intellectual honesty of this place, and yet far too many are perfectly willing to play it.

[hrmjustin]

26. I think this is why the admins are taking the issue head on.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Hope so.

I certainly have seen from my terms on MIRT that there are some individuals- a small number, to be sure- for whom repeated hides just don't seem to matter... so the "time out" is a good call I think.

[hrmjustin]

29. I agree. I am glad they are dealing with it. Hopefully it means less work in Mirt for us.

[Logical]

41. It is not complicated. Cookies and IP Address is the main ways. There are easy....

ways around it.

[NYC_SKP]

87. The Cookies attract the trolls.

I mean who doesn't love cookies?!

[totodeinhere]

157. Oatmeal raisin for me. n/t

[totodeinhere]

156. I won't say how but anyone who is fairly Net savvy will know how to make

it impossible to detect.

[hrmjustin]

158. They are found. We do a good job in Mirt. The fact is if they are a disruptive they wil be found.

[totodeinhere]

173. OK, you can find them based upon their behavior. I don't doubt that. But there are ways

to set up another account with a separate IP address. That's what I was talking about.

[Posteritatis]

131. Most sockpuppetry is trivial to deal with. (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I'd like to see that put on a giant sign on the welcome page.

Personally. Because crap if that isn't one of the most annoying things some people have tended to do.

[NightWatcher]

8. Burner Troll- noun, a kamikaze sock puppet.

Use once (or five times) then discard.

[dkf]

5. Good advice.

I've already seen an alert that had no attack on any member come up as 3-3. Looks like the desire to enforce group think is running stronger than before because now some see an opportunity to clean the site of dissent.

This looks like it is going to get nasty.

[kestrel91316]

33. We NEED to clean house. Some of us are sick of people here supporting RW policies

more than Democratic/Progressive/LW policies.

[dkf]

35. RW policies like the ACA first proposed by Nixon?

And lifted from Mitt Romney?

Or bomb Syria as advocated by John McCain, a host of neo-cons and PNAC? Or total information awareness as envisioned by Bush?

Next will come the TPP I am sure.

[kestrel91316]

38. Still waiting for you to express overt support for ANY liberal policies.

(crickets chirping)

[dkf]

46. Single payer, anti war, anti NSA, pro choice, card carrying member of the Democratic Party.

Boo yah!

Atheist minority female too.

[dionysus]

56. you noticed that? someone trying real hard to redefine themselves.....

[rhett o rick]

63. I always worry about anyone anxious to "clean house". Just doesnt sound very "politically liberal"

is all. Just sayin.

[pipi_k]

86. Couldn't

agree more.

The concept, and the term itself, make my skin crawl.

[HappyMe]

89. I agree.

Clean house = stfu = lockstep

[DonCoquixote]

70. behavior is more the problem

I have no problem arguing with people who disagree; it's when people cheat and lie that makes the issue.

[hrmjustin]

6. Moral of the story is to behave. by the way as a GD host I feel the need to lock this.

Just kidding.

[Iggo]

101. LOL

I was all, "Wha...?"

[seabeyond]

14. i do not put much stock in it. i watched a hide not for the post, but the poster. the alerter

made it clear the fact that the poster had the audacity to come back to du, deserved a hide. luck of the jury. the only up side is i doubt the jury will be such, that it can happen 5 times in 90 days.

what happens, happens.

[Gormy Cuss]

155. and that will continue to happen. The only difference is that the juror won't mention it.

I'm glad to see a timeout for racking up hidden posts though. Frankly, a timeout until one of the hides falls off the 90 day list is a very generous policy.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. Well said, and I agree! Thank you, my dear DonCoquixote. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

19. to be fair

it is from another poster who asked I not name them...though said eprson did say exactly what I felt.

[mike_c]

17. when I first began posting on DU more than ten years ago I was a real hot head....

My views are generally to the left of left, and when I first began posting here I argued them vociferously. Ten + years of navigating the boundaries of civility on DU have taught me a LOT about how to make a point without being an ass, and how to let the asshats that haven't learned that lesson roll right off my back instead of getting into a flame war with them.

I agree with the OP that some posters have polished the art of provocation to a fine edge, and their posts are usually left standing after the folks they've baited have fallen for it and gotten into trouble. I also agree about the utility of ignoring them. Nothing is ever gained by letting trolls set your agenda for you-- just ignore them. It makes the DU experience much more pleasant.

[MrMickeysMom]

51. That prompts an idea, cause I think lots of us are likely to be like you described yourself....

... and that is, if I could (or took the time to go through the archives), I'm willing to bet that my posts would be hot headed, too.

I'm pretty sure that I asked for trouble plenty of times in "the dungeon", and that my ability to tolerate fools was far less.

I think I may have said in response to Skinner's update that it's probably good. But, I also think that there will be further baiting.

Let them...

[Skittles]

74. did I ever threaten to kick your hothead ass, mike_c?

[mike_c]

100. I think you were generally on my side, LOL....

[Skittles]

154. yeah well OK that makes sense

I am a hothead too

[annabanana]

111. Oh yeah, I remember

back when you were an ass.... I don't think I ever put you on ignore, though. I usually agreed with the substance of your posts, if not the tone.

[Nye Bevan]

22. "Don't rise to the bait" is excellent advice for life in general.

Not just for DU with the new rules, or even just for DU under the old rules. There are people in prison because they could not resist "rising to the bait".

It is very, very easy to avoid hidden posts. Be civil. Don't attack people even if you think they deserve it. Discuss ideas, not people. And don't rise to the bait.

[JDPriestly]

61. Discuss ideas, not people. I like that advice.

[Vanje]

126. Re : Rising to the bait

There are some members who can really lay out the bait.

We have a few master-baiters here.

[Nye Bevan]

128. Yes. The Weiner-bashers, for example (nt)

[Autumn]

23. Best thing to do is not respond. And if you must, keep it short and polite

Don't give in to the goading.

[etherealtruth]

28. Returning "guns" to the gungeon would help

[Walk away]

32. I don't see how you can do that when these mass murders are part of....

everyday's news. Relegating such an important issue to a fringe group just doesn't make sense to me.

[etherealtruth]

40. I am stridently anti-gun

Yes ... I would take everyone's gun away. I am open about my feelings and discuss them widely

However, I have really thought about this ... the gun discussions are not really discussions ... those that adore guns arrive en masse to any discussion involving guns, and appear to feel the need to respond to almost every comment in defense of these implements of death and destruction.


Those that simply own a gun and want to point out that not every gun owner is a deranged lunatic ... are lumped in with NRA supporters and true zealots


Instead of being "allowed" to discuss gun control, gun violence and extremely tragic events in terms of problem solving and rational gun control ... we end up being derailed by confrontation over gun design and engineering (to some you, can't complain about gun violence unless you can accurately name every part, know its proportions and weight ...).

Rational gun discussion does not occur here. I also believe that many that come here solely to promote guns and the NRA (right wing nut jobs = NRA) will become bored and leave if they can't engage and blather on about the almighty gun (I am NOT talking about every gun owner, or every person that posts rationally in favor of guns)

[daleanime]

58. Afraid thats par for the course now a days.

Very few places around where you can get a 'rational discussion' of nearly any issue.

[Eleanors38]

43. I agree. There are three (3) groups/fora opened to guns, when there was once only one.

I can assure you that pro-2A Democrats do NOT have an agenda to expand DU to "all guns all the time," nor do they seek to pump up an audience, nor do they seek to have DUers H'd or Mirted.

Gun issues have become corn sweetener: It creeps into everything.

[etherealtruth]

47. I think we've had this discussion before

As I recall, we both tried to at least consider each others point of view and 'lo and behold' a gun grabber and a gun nut completely agreed: 'Gun" discussion in GD are generally not productive and have ramped up the rancor here at DU

[Eleanors38]

48. ^^^

[99Forever]

31. Thanks DonCoquixote.

Had thoughts along those same lines, but doubt that I could lay them out as well as you did.

[leftstreet]

34. How do you create a jury blacklist?

Am I the only one who didn't know we could do this?

[hrmjustin]

36. Click on My account, then the tab for juryblacklist.

[leftstreet]

37. Oh duh

Thank you!

[hrmjustin]

39. Your welcome. It is very useful. I think I have 7 or 8 people on it.

[Cha]

42. Excellent advice, DonCoquixote!

Mahalo!

[Rex]

44. Yoda was ready, yessssss...

I like doing things beforehand.

[Dragonfli]

52. Very good post, thank the Duer for me and yourself for posting it well, there are other concerns

That I have that I would like to add that goes beyond just goading posters into breaking the rules, but rather targeting to remove a point of view or person someone or some group does not like, by spamming alerts that may have nothing at all to to with an angry or inappropriate post, but rather that plays the odds that enough alerts on a target (deserved or not, not mattering to the alerters) in a good bet that enough alerts will increase the chance of 5 bad juries to near certainty. Most appear to think that if you behave yourself, you can't rack up hides in 90 days, I disagree as there are bad juries and if one receives enough bogus alerts per day for ninety days, one will be screwed for nothing to do with breaking rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=3126

If singled out by say "a special group" and alerted on as a matter of being targeted

for removal from the site by said "special group". Mathematically the chance of a bad jury goes up damn near exponentially.

Example: If alerted on 4 times a day, and say 1 post a month is ACTUALLY questionable, one will almost surely get banned simply for being targeted. I mean "you better believe it" that some nasty buggers here like to claim people they do not like are "zombies" without a shred of IP proof or any proof other than not liking that person. Such people used to brag in meta about exactly this behavior and dance on the graves of those they harassed out of here.

I hope as part of these new improvements (and I believe they are improvements save for the bully "alert squad" loophole), they count the number of alerts from posters that alert unusually often, look for patterns of such alerts by small groups of such serial alerters that work together and since the number is high, look very closely into the validity of the alerts and ban the bullies trying to get people banned as part of a lynch mob mentality....

[winter is coming]

53. I'd be amazed if the admins aren't aware of this possibility.

No matter how DU is set up, there are going to be people who try to game the rules. My guess is that the same small percentage of DUers who were "problem children" before this latest change will still be high maintenance, and that the admins are well aware of their trifling ways and will be watching out for malicious alerts.

[Dragonfli]

54. One would assume, but one does not know as the issue was not addressed tho many others were

With the new rules, there is as much incentive to do more of this as there is to goad people, that's all I am saying and I would prefer it were actually addressed at the least and a rule about banning for such behavior declared, much like the banning of socks was addressed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Here is the admin view on the topic of frivolous alerts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=3520

FYI.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. Perhaps it's the intent, to ensure that people who post often

Only post things that are extremely noncontroversial.

[Dragonfli]

91. The thought had occurred to me

Meta revealed both the tactics and intent of the "better believe it" we'll get you banned crowd clearly. now I am told no such targeting has ever existed and "juries take care of such things". With meta gone, they no longer have a place to brag openly about it (perhaps the way it became visible there was an inconvenience) so out of sight out of mind and free to continue their agenda.

I expect unfortunately not to see you here very much longer now that their methods have been enhanced. I don't post very often so it may take a bit longer for me, I suppose we will still have our LTTE to write (as well as letters to our politicians to feed their waste bins).

We will also have a focused outlet to read Spamden and the party line (DLC leadership) talking points all in one place here with little distraction, I suppose that will be somewhat convenient for research.

[Swede Atlanta]

59. I thought the jury system would be a good tool for policing ourselves.....

what I have observed, however, is we have "eggshell plaintiffs" dominating most juries. If someone posts anything that is or could be remotely construed as a little "off", whatever that means, they vote to hide the post.

It reminds me of what I have read about the Gestapo in suppressing free speech.

I am all for self-policing but I terminated my star membership for which I was contributing $15.00 a month because of what I felt was encroaching censorship.

I used to read DU avidly daily and now I check it maybe every 2-3 days. I am hoping that I don't just give it up and decide there must be a better forum that is open to dialogue and debate.

I'm hopeful but not very optimistic.

[stevenleser]

81. I think the opposite is the problem. Most people do not vote to hide personal attacks.

Any post that attacks another DU'er instead of their ideas should be hidden.

[JDPriestly]

60. K&R. Thanks, DonCoquixote.

I don't like to see people silenced, but some posts are annoyingly petty.

This is great advice. I don't think I have anyone on ignore. I'm just too curious about people's ideas, what they will say.

But maybe I should rethink that.

[a2liberal]

62. You do realize it's trivial to figure out what group this came from despite your edits?

Just fyi...

[rhett o rick]

64. I think everyone knows who the bullies are here in DU. The Righteous Bullies.

Just look at who does all the alerting. They are just trying to form DU in their image.

[DonCoquixote]

67. Just fyi

It applies to everyone. The techniques used against (blank) are often used against (blank).

[a2liberal]

69. sure

I wasn't 100% sure if that was the purpose of your edits. Figured it probably was but also wanted to point out the ease of figuring out the source on the off-chance you weren't aware Sorry if it came off rude or anything

[rhett o rick]

65. This is an important post. After Meta was shut down, the bullies have been

going crazy trying to find ways to bully other posters. I appreciate the new rules but they will give the bullies an incentive to try to get their favorite targets pushed into 5 hides.

One thing you didnt mention, but one has to be very careful who you try to defend. "Apologist" is the kiss of death. I have seen decent posters trying to defend someone that the bullies are ganging up on, only to get themselves into trouble for being an "apologist" to whatever the victim was accused of.

[pipi_k]

88. Eh, I dunno...

I've been accused of being an "apologist" a number of times, for various reasons.

My reply back to my accusers is that I am afflicted with the unfortunate ability to see both sides of most issues at the same time.

Which is true.

I've gotten into trouble at times, with certain people, for not choosing one side over another.

Sorry...

Even a piece of paper, thin as it is, has two sides...

[quinnox]

66. Yep, I have learned to ignore some of the what I call, "junk posters"

They are the ones who usually post nothing but snarky one-liners. They aren't worth responding to. Maybe that is why most of them stopped replying to my posts, because they never got a reply back.

Occasionally, I will respond to provocations and personal attacks, but I can do it in such a way to avoid my retorts being hidden, usually anyway. That said, I think it is good advice to just not rise to the bait, and leave it alone. And of course, you can always alert on any rude posts or attack posts, so maybe these folks will start getting some of their personal attacks hidden, and start to learn a lesson of their own. Ya never know.

In any case, if this new harsher punishment system ends up being a mistake, and a censorship thing starts happening with bad hides and the system being gamed, I have confidence in the admins that they will make adjustments and recognize any problems that could result. The admins always have seemed to be sharp people, and they are quick on their feet to make corrections or respond to problems.

[DonCoquixote]

68. Thanks for the responses, and

The purpose was not doom and gloom, just a means of being wary. Even on a thread about not losing your cool and baiting/not baiting, I saw what seemed like baiting. Nothing to cry about, just an example of the mess we need to avoid here at DU

[Th1onein]

73. If it's not broke, don't fix it. I really don't see why they changed it.

[rhett o rick]

90. Innovators hate that expression. They certainly dont have that attitude at Apple. nm

[Th1onein]

164. Anything that makes it more costly to people who are here NOT to make trouble, is NOT a

good idea. Change is not always good.

[wyldwolf]

77. "goad people to reply in a manner that will get their post hidden."

I can't agree with this. You can't "goad" someone into acting uncivilly or breaking the rules unless they're likely to do so, anyway. And anyone who claims to have been goaded is just using that as an excuse for engaging in the behavior that got him/her busted.

[rhett o rick]

104. With respect, you dont know people very well. People can be goaded. Should they always

be in control? Of course. Are they? Not everyone. I have seen goading work here. But bullies always can justify their behavior by blaming the victim.

[wyldwolf]

139. I know people very well, hence my post

Hot headed people, quick to lose their temper, can always blame their behavior on the calmer person who "goaded" (snicker) them.

[rhett o rick]

143. I guess you've never seen a case where a bully continues to bully until the victim

fights back. I have lived it. It's easy to say that you shouldnt fight back. And I continually recommend that, but I dont judge those that do.

[wyldwolf]

148. not without the 'bully' being suspended/banned/flagged whatever

[PowerToThePeople]

106. "breaking the rules"

We need to say it how it is with the Jury system.

THERE ARE NO RULES TO BREAK

A jury can choose to hide any post based on any idea that the jury may have about said post or person who posted.
There are no written rules that must be broken for this to occur. It is only the whim of the jury to decide what posts live or die.

edit - I think that this leads to "rule of the mob" where if the mob does not like you or your beliefs, they can get you permanently banned from posting to the site. That is against one of the primary Democratic concepts of standing up for minorities.

edit2 - will this become AnarchyUnderground.com?

[redstatebluegirl]

78. I haven't been here very long but

on the advice of some long time DU folks I have tried to grow a thicker skin. Sometimes they catch me at a weak moment, but I try to be as respectful as I can be. We really do have some people who like to push your button to see if they can get you in trouble.

Generally I like it here, feel comfortable, something I can't feel where I live.

[Iggo]

79. META!

\m/ \m/

[MineralMan]

80. I think the Admins are aware of attempts to game the system.

Anyhow, it's easy to stay within the boundaries. Address issues and ignore personalities. That's pretty much it.

If attacked for a position you take, just let that attack roll off your back.

Don't get involved in long subthreads where you are going back and forth with the same person in a negative way. Just stop posting in that subthread.

If someone calls you a name or something like that, just ignore that person, either with the Ignore feature or the old-fashioned way by simply not responding to attacks.

Use polite language to disagree with other DUers. "I disagree with that, because..." is much better than "You suck!" Every time.

It's easy to be civil. Sometimes people take civility as weakness or passive-aggressive behavior. They're incorrect.

[HappyMe]

82. Excellent advice.

Stay out of flamebait threads, and don't get sucked into bickering.

[Capt. Obvious]

83. I have to laugh at people blaming others for their own behavior

Seriously? Having to tell people, "not to take the bait"? It's not that hard. I get hidden once in a while and it's just a lesson learned - don't make fun of sid.

I have to say, some of the loudest complainers on that thread fail to see the irony in their posts.

[redgreenandblue]

84. It's not really all that hard to not have posts hidden. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. A member I recently put on ignore had something like 14 hidden posts in the last 90 days

when I checked her transparency page. Definitely mid-teens.

That's insane, especially since she almost certainly had numerous additional prohibited posts escape a hide because of her many confederates, who (and I saw this on juries) would simply ignore obvious personal attacks because they agree with the poster. The number of hidden posts was likely only a small percentage of all her posts that technically could have been hidden for rule violations.

It was clearly her habit to get personal and hide-able.

This is a long-time member who posts frequently.

Clearly, the system was being massively abused by people like that. They should get a hefty ban if that's how they behave. The other option is just to put them on ignore, which I finally did with that one. The forum has been much more pleasant without her nastiness pervading it; the new rule is there to make it nice for everyone, and I agree with it whole-heartedly.

You are quite correct: if somebody can't control their own temper FIVE times in a three month period, that person has a problem with online forums and needs to sit it out for a while. They should certainly, as you suggest, practice strategies for controlling their outrageous behavior.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

114. agreed. unless someone is really trying this is a hard feat to accomplish. nt

[KoKo]

93. Five hides in 90 Days seems too small a number when especially when

a controversial legislative issue or event occurs when emotions can run high and the Board is filled with posts, discussion and controversy of difference of opinions. The NSA Revelations, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Syria, the upcoming TPP negotiations, etc. are examples of when there seem to be many more alerts and hides, plus Troll activity. Maybe 10 hides in 90 Days would give some room. Or, something like that.

[Junkdrawer]

94. I had a post hidden for saying "I just can't argue with someone so dishonest. n/t"

The poster twisted my and a major figure's in the news words over and over....after I provided transcript after transcript.

[KoKo]

96. I saw that. It's an example of why I think 5 hides is too low for 90 Days.

It doesn't give room for the overzealous alerter and a jury that you get a bad call on because of the issue or the poster. In 90 Days it's likely an issue comes up that posters and juries have divided opinions on and it's a "luck of the draw" where there could be several hides in short time of a poster who gets involved in a controversial discussion and the jury pool and alerters have an opposing view.

[rhett o rick]

105. If hides are going to be used to take away posting privileges then I would

think that bad hides might be brought to the attention of the Admins.

[MineralMan]

122. Calling someone "dishonest" is a direct personal attack.

There's always another way to dispute someone than to directly call that person a name.

Always. Personal attacks and name-calling are the leading reasons posts get hidden. Avoid doing that and attack the argument rather than the attacker and the post will stand.

You could have said, "I just can't argue with someone who will not listen to reason." Then stop arguing with that person.

That would almost have certainly not have been hidden. It's easy. Look at what you wrote before posting. If it says something equivalent to "You are...{anything negative}, just rewrite to be equivalent to "What you said is incorrect," and your post won't be hidden.

There's no trick to it. It's a simple rule: No personal attacks.

[Junkdrawer]

130. In the case cited. "dishonest" WAS a euphemism...

Believe it or not, I was being polite.

If I knew I was going to burn a hide, I'd have spoken my mind.

[MineralMan]

132. Calling someone "dishonest" is not using a euphemism.

It is a personal attack, just as much as saying that person is a liar.

The jury recognized it as a personal attack and hid your post. I'd have voted to hide, too, had I been on that jury.

[Junkdrawer]

134. fine

[rhett o rick]

109. I think 5 are too many also. But I think it will work itself out. If too many people are getting

unfairly silenced, I think it will be adjusted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. Some thoughts about being on juries, after a recent one I was on

I think my fellow jurors saw the word 'anti-semitic' in the alert, took the alerter's word for it, and voted to hide without thinking about it. We need to be more thoughtful, if our verdicts can get people blocked from posting. Here's the jury results:

At Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

RT: Children in Syria chemical attack video 'moved between locations' before 'staged' filming
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023691117

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Global research is an anti- Semitic conspiracy website who believes the Jews were behind 911 akin to Alex Jones nonsense. Tihis crap does not belong on DU.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:18 PM, and the Jury voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The globalresearch.ca site is just the server for the PDF - you can't even get to the homepage from the link. However, 'anti-semitism' is an accusation that, although I've seen on DU before, is not something for which there's ready evidence. While it does adhere to 9/11 conspiracy theories, there is, for instance, no mention of anti-semitism in the write-up at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca . Not a suitable source for LBN, but acceptable in GD if it's a believable claim.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with alert
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

I was #1. Now, maybe the other jurors have some evidence that globalresearch.ca is anti-semitic, but they, like the alerter, didn't bother pointing to it, so I doubt it. None of them gave any reasoning.

Even if the site really can be classed as 'anti-semitic' (and anyone, feel free to post some evidence, preferably beyond some commenter or forum user saying something anti-semitic), the post was about the RT article on Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib and her report, and nothing to do with Jews, or even Israel, at all. The poster had just added a link to a site hosting a copy of the report - which turned out to be globalresearch.ca. As I said in the jury remarks, you can't even get to the rest of the site from a PDF that you get from it. If there is something anti-semitic on it (and I looked at the front page at the time, and there was nothing about Jews on it at all), then you're not going to see it even by accident. And you don't increase their ad views by following a link to a PDF on the site, so the "you're helping them by following the link" argument doesn't really hold up either.

With more consequences to a hidden post, I think we should all take care with our verdicts. If any fellow juror sees this, and wants to explain the depth they investigated that site, and the reasoning behind the decision to hide, please do so. But until then, I'll suspect that seeing 'anti-semitic' in the alert made some, if not all the other 5, think "well, that must be bad - I have to hide this".

[Junkdrawer]

97. That was me. And checkout the comparisons made in other posts.

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Report by Catholic Nun = Denying Sandy Hook

Forget it Jake, It's Chinatown.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Yeah, well, I tried

Yes, "it's Chinatown" may be fair enough under the old rules, but a block from posting would be harder to shrug off, for me, anyway.

[Junkdrawer]

99. Didn't know it was you, but I appreciated the fact that at least one fellow DUer....

wasn't into censorship.

[KoKo]

103. Thanks for pointing that out. It's happened before on DU where

There's an immediate alert when the person was not posting from a CT Site but, was accused of it because their link in someway was picked up by a CT Site and the jurors didn't realize that the original link was not CT.

One could easily get five hides if one is not a frequent poster here and finds an article of interest not realizing that a post could get alerted on if there's any confusion over the source and they mistakenly don't track down the original.

I had a hide that I alerted to Skinner that I thought was unfair because someone posted something from Alex Jones on some issue and I quoted a couple of lines from the original link saying that AJ was considered CT...and my post got hidden when I said to the OP to be careful of CT with the two sentences. I was alerted on and it was unfair...but, it happened because whatever jury was there for some reason seemed to think I had posted the original link or maybe it was just a Jury that had members who had some dislike for me or something. It happens.

[locks]

179. I don't understand

the alerter's comments and why they were not questioned or researched.
I have found Global Research.ca to be one of the best sources for current information I've seen and have never seen any anti-semitic articles in it.
On Sept. 7 I asked in a thread if any DUers read Global Research and what they thought of it but I did not receive one reply. It is difficult today to find honest liberal media not bought out by the corporations and special interests and I appreciate it when DUers refer to sources they feel are helpful, even if I don't always agree with them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

102. or people can just stop being douchey. its hard to get 5 posts hidden in 90 days unless you

are trying to be a douche.

[rhett o rick]

108. So you are saying that if you get 5 posts hidden in 90 days you deserve it?

All 5 posts were because you were "douchey". I contend that if you are "popular" you might get a few hides just because the other side doesnt like you. Throw enough alerts at someone and you're sure to get a few non "douchey" hides. It would be interesting as to how many alerts Manny or Pro get in 90 days. I hope you dont think they are douchey.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. there are two people i can think about who ired others enough

that they got posts hidden randomly (iverglas and lozocollo). they both were massive douches and deserved to not be on DU. so yes, i stand by my argument, if you stop being a douche you wont have posts deleted and people wont randomly hate you (at least not so many people that on every jury you can find 4 people who hate you)

[PowerToThePeople]

112. what if 1 of 5 jury members is a rw troll or puppet from another site? n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

113. you need to have 4 out of 6 to get something hidden, right?

so 4 out of 6 du members have to actively hate you to hide your posts consistently. if you have achieved this, i dont think you belong here.

you belong wherever iverglas and lozocollo have gone

[rhett o rick]

115. You act like you are unaware of the liberal vs. conservative war raging here. People on both sides

are hiding posts because they dont like the ideologies of the other side. It's not a big deal, I am sure we will work it out. If posters go after Manny or Pro, I am sure it will be apparent.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

116. people vary in opinions here. unless users have gone out of their way to annoy a majority

on this board, they should be immune from random hides. if people dont want to be part of a community, and are only here to create acrimony, i for one am fine if they get PPR'd. at the end of the day, this is a community and it has standards.

[wyldwolf]

141. there are infinitely more people of the further left here than otherwise

[PowerToThePeople]

142. that is mathematically impossible. n/t

[wyldwolf]

146. I consider myself a Democrat of the ideological stripe of Bill Clinton.

You don't believe I'm outnumbered here by people who think more like you?

[PowerToThePeople]

150. No

This post is just my opinion.

I would say similar numbers of right to left. Many are just in the center. You see the center respond the same as the left on issues where the right is supporting views perceived as "Republican stances."

I see the center support the views you support on many economic issues. I see it as fallout from the cold war and McCarthyism.

[wyldwolf]

152. ok :)

[rhett o rick]

144. I agree, what's your point? nm

[wyldwolf]

147. It is unlikely you'll get jury full of people who don't think like you do

[Bobbie Jo]

181. Disagree with your framing

"conservative vs liberal"

Please stop the framing campaign. You have gone to great lengths in this thread to label and define your fellow DU'ers. This tactic, in my opinion, contributes to animosity and ill will around here.

I'm not a "conservative" in any way, shape, or form, and I find the dishonest framing tactic insulting and petty. I am a liberal, I am a Democrat....that's why I'm here.

The attempts to lump the "bullies" into this category are equally disingenuous.

I Rec'ed this OP despite the obvious spin because I'm beyond tired of the divisiveness and animosity. People taking ownership of their contribution to the problem would go a long way in the effort to clean up the mess they helped to create.

[rhett o rick]

182. There is definitely a spectrum of views represented here in DU.

From those that support Rep Kucinich, Rep Grayson, and Sen Sanders on one end of the spectrum and those that disparage them on the other. And all are Democrats. Lieberman was a Democrat also but not on my end of the spectrum. During primary elections we see quite a fight between the two ends of the spectrum. One end is more liberal and the other end is more conservative. This has nothing to do with my "framing".

I would say that the liberals here oppose the TPP, XL Pipeline, fracking, domestic spying, indefinite detention, and nuclear power. I dont think those here that support these issues are liberals.

Here is a post by a "conservative Democrat" that was very popular. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023707888 It is clearly ridiculing the liberals in DU. I dont see how anyone can call those that support this post by a self proclaimed conservative Democrat, liberals.

IMO, bullies in DU are not different than in real life. They are most always authoritarian conservatives that want to hide or lock threads that challenge their world view.

[Bobbie Jo]

183. Just. Stop.

Your framing tactics look a lot like "goading" to me.

You have expressed an opinion replete with strawman arguments, nothing more.

Just. Stop. You're not helping, you're contributing to the problem.

[rhett o rick]

185. I neither wrote nor rec'd the divisive OP I linked to. nm

[PowerToThePeople]

117. Maybe you are correct.

La Lioness Priyanka
113. you need to have 4 out of 6 to get something hidden, right?

View profile
so 4 out of 6 du members have to actively hate you to hide your posts consistently. if you have achieved this, i dont think you belong here.

you belong wherever iverglas and lozocollo have gone

You just straight up posted that I should go away. Jury appears to agree.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

Mail Message
At Fri Sep 27, 2013, 04:05 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

you need to have 4 out of 6 to get something hidden, right?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3739669

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

YOUR COMMENTS:

you belong wherever iverglas and lozocollo have gone. Attack.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Sep 27, 2013, 04:10 PM, and voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: A hard truth.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

118. i was using "you" as a universal "you"

in casual conversation, people say you when they mean "one".

i think most people got that, and i think you are going out of your way not to get it. i am not sure why you wasted an alert on this.

Jury appears not to agree with you, because they can read correctly.

[PowerToThePeople]

119. I read it how it was written

It was writen in a way to allow you to make the claim you now do make. But, it was also written to say exactly what you said. That is why you put the break in the text. You write with purpose. Others write with the same purpose. You write to give your true meaning "cover." It happens all of the time here.

If I am wrong, I apologize. But, The way it is written, makes the meaning obvious to me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

120. you're dead wrong and 6 other randomly chosen du'ers read it exactly as i intended

which means, it was easy enough to understand that it was not a personal attack.

[zappaman]

125. Good jury decision.

I read it the same way.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

129. i honestly didn't think there was another way to read it.

[PowerToThePeople]

133. I give back what others put out.

Read the threads on my transparency page. The "other" parties and/or posts were not some innocent, holier than thou bystander that I just happened to be insensitive to.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

137. i trust most juries to not be full of people one hates, unless one has tried to achieve this status.

this is really the gist of all my posts on this thread, and i stand by them.

i especially stand by them after you posted the extremely frivolous alert you made, and the jury ruled in a way that i expect rational people to.

this conversation ends now, because i am beyond bored with it

[PowerToThePeople]

138. enough has been said

[zappaman]

135. Not unless you try really really hard... n/t

[Kaleva]

127. Number of alerts means little

What counts is the number of alerted on posts a jury votes to hide. In the case of one member you mentioned, I see he has two hidden posts in the past 90 days. The other has 5 and his transparency page is showing. Looking at the titles of the hidden posts, one is clearly a PA.

My guess is the two are alerted on a great deal but the evidence appears to me that managing to get 5 hides on them in order to silence them would be a next to impossible task without the help of either shooting themselves in the foot by submitting a very hideable post in the first place.

[rhett o rick]

149. I hope you are right. It will shake out in any event. nm

[Kaleva]

163. I just looked at a few member's profile pages

Members who in my opinion attract alot of positive and negative attention for their views and also have been members of DU for awhile. Only one had enough hidden posts so that his transparency page is view able and it appears to me every one of his hides is legit. A few had no hidden posts and the rest had one or two.

Thus I think it'd be almost impossible to block out a member who follows DU rules and community standards by alerting on as many of that member's posts as possible in the hopes juries will vote to hide enough posts that the member gets blocked from DU.

On the other hand, it'd be rather easy to do to a member who routinely crosses the line and doesn't care enough to change his or her ways with the new rules in place.

[seabeyond]

169. did you

check me.

[Kaleva]

170. Not till just now and I see you have no hidden posts!

What gives? LOL! Before, you usually had around 5 or so!

[seabeyond]

172. i have reformed my ways, kaleva. i am a good girl, i am. nt

[wyldwolf]

140. Exactly! But some here would rather blame people for "goading" them.

[Hekate]

107. Good post

but just a teensy thing:

"adieu" is goodbye and "ado" is fuss

So "without further ado, I say adieu" and thanks for the thoughtful post.

[trumad]

123. Oh I'm totally fucked

and expect to be banned for errr 90 days.

[seabeyond]

124. lol. while i have been doing well... on the other hand. cute. i have faith in you trumad.

you can do it.

[Warren DeMontague]

151. but, see, you own it.

and that's all that matters.

[azurnoir]

136. another thing multiple hides from the same poster on the same thread

it concerned a very long time DUer and a contentious issue - guns, that said this person was IMO plainly being goaded and it went on for a while and then in relatively short order 3 hides from the same thread all comments being made in reply to the same person, the DUer wound up with their account under review as the 3 hides were enough to make their transparency page open, this IMO was an obvious case of exactly what your OP is about

[winter is coming]

175. If they're three good hides, I don't see a problem with them all being from the same thread or

the same brief time-span. I can imagine someone going on a rage binge and getting multiple hides. I don't think that's unfair. To me, it's a large clue that they need to push away the keyboard when they get het up.

[azurnoir]

178. in cases like the one I described I do

keep in mind all 3 were to the same person a person who was clearly goading the person who's comments were hidden, I was on the jury for the first hide (I voted to leave it BTW), but was off DU for a few hours before I saw the jury results, which was how I know what happened, in these cases once a person has a hidden post they can not post on that thread anymore so multiple hides after that are just IMO a pile on of sorts, back when DU3 was newer we saw people going back weeks or months to alert posts presumably to get a persons transparency page opened, the admins had the wisdom to make jury alerts only availible for the first 24 hours after a post was made, after that they go straight to admins, IMO something similar could be done with multiple posts on the same thread

[Skidmore]

145. Bottom line is that people should observe

common courtesy in discourse. There is no need to name call or make uncalled for accusations. I welcome the establishment of some rules addressing the incivility that had become so ugly here.

[trumad]

162. IE: Conform

like a good Bot.

[MineralMan]

165. More like a good citizen.

Civility is a good thing, all around.

[Skidmore]

167. No, being courteous is not being a "bot."

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Good manners cost nothing. Why can't something be said without rudeness and name calling?

[trumad]

174. Boring.

[MineralMan]

184. DU is never boring. There's too much going on to be bored.

What is boring is discussion that has no disagreement in it. That's boring.

Invective and insults are also boring. They're so predictable and never seem to add to the discussion. Rather than adding to the discussion, they bypass the discussion to attack individuals. That's boring.

[trumad]

187. You mean like Free Republic?

[MineralMan]

188. No idea. I have not been there for seven years.

So, I do not know what is going on there. I was zotted from that site in 2006.

[BlueCheese]

153. There's a person here with over 30,000 posts.

I generally find that person's posts interesting, and not offensive at all. I served on a jury for one of that person's posts, which left it alone with a vote of 4-2 or 3-3 (I forget exactly).

One of the jurors who voted to hide wrote the following as the reason, in its entirety: "Fuck (poster's username)."

That was a depressing experience.

Edited for grammar.

[Bolo Boffin]

161. I believe jury comments like this are being dealt with by the administrators.

They review them all now.

[bvar22]

159. Thank You, DonCoquixote.

Excellent advice.
Baiting and Swarming as a tactic for suppressing opinion has been around for a while.
The best strategy is to NOT respond to one line Ad Hominems, Attacks on the Messenger, Red Herrings (clear Hi-Jack diversions), and Strawmen,
but that is hard to do.

Personally, I would like to see the "Alerts Transparency" function activated,
and "alerts" totally transparent (added to a members Profile)


I have no problem with signing my name to every Alert I have used.

I also have no problem signing my name every Jury I have served on, and
signing my name to every "explanation" or "comment" I have given for my vote on a Jury. Some members of DU use the "explanation box" on Jury Service as a Free Shot, and this is not honorable behavior.

I am a believer in Transparency and Accountability.

DURec!

[Blue_In_AK]

160. I agree, Bvar22

I always add an explanation for my votes on juries, but I, too, would not mind if they were public. I do see the potential for abuse with this new system.

[MannyGoldstein]

177. Agree 100%

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[suffragette]

180. Very good point about the activating the Alerts transparency function

Seems like with the changes, it would be timely to do this now.

[upi402]

166. not worried about it

so free!

yay freedom!

don't think too much these days... doesn't pay.

just donate to ACLU, Democracy Now, Free Speech TV, and the odd REAL Democratic candidate.

done, EZ peasy.

[BKH70041]

168. How hard is it to politely disagree?

I haven't been here long, but it didn't take long to notice just how nasty and immature a number of the posters here are towards others. Or saying little snarky comebacks to try to egg other members on. Or any number of others things that just make you shake your head and go "Really?".

There also seems to be two distinct factions at war here. In the most basic of descriptions, one is the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd and the other is "The DLC Democrats are ruining the party" crowd. And both of them are equally as dogmatic. Makes for a lot of noise and not a lot of substance.

Common courtesy would be nice, but I'm betting that given what I've seen so far that there's been too much time and too many inappropriate words spoken for some to just forgive and forget. And I suppose on a site this size you have to expect some. But this board has an over abundance.

That is if the observations of a newbie mean anything to you.

[DonCoquixote]

176. they do

especially when you sum a problem up well

[DonCoquixote]

171. again thanks

But just in case, I need to restate that I really cannot take credit for this. Someone else wrote this, but was afraid of catching heat..so I decided I would be like Woody Allen in a movie called the front, a writer who sunck in blackilisted authors in the Mcarthy era

For what it is worth, we do need to investigate juries. I have no problem leaving a comment explaning myself...In my not so humble opinion, if you cannot explain your decisions and hide behind "no explanation given", why shoudl you have the right to judge, but then again, that's just me

[gulliver]

186. The 5-hides rule is extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Since the jury system here lacks voir dire, there is nothing to prevent opponent's posts from being singled out and alerted on only when your own faction appears to be in a solid majority online. Therefore it is a way to systematically shut up your opponents.

I posted it in the Administrator's forum here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593558.

[DonCoquixote]

189. I agree

Because while normaly it is hard to rack up 5 hides, it is not when you have a posse of people who want to get you, and you "better believe it."

[uppityperson]

190. Last word

Good post, thank you.