DU: Our Community Standards

[MineralMan]

My boldfacing on this excerpt from this link:

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

Our Community Standards

It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. These broad community standards of behavior are maintained through the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not.

Members who cannot hold themselves to a high standard risk having their posts hidden by a jury of their peers, and being blocked out of discussion threads they disrupt. Those who exhibit a pattern of willful disregard for the Community Standards risk being in violation of our Terms of Service, and could have their posting privileges revoked.

This is what DU juries are supposed to base their decisions on. That's it. The rules here are broad, but the boldfaced sentence is pretty simple. Everything else is a matter for the admins, who make decisions about Terms of Service issues. Here's a link to the DU Terms of Service:

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

It's pretty simple, really, and very well constructed, in my own personal opinion. It is what should make DU work smoothly and make it a good place to gather and discuss things.

I'm posting this so people can read it one more time, or for the first time, if they haven't actually read it before.

[pipi_k]

1. Yep, and...

when I'm on a jury, that's the only criteria I use.

Occasionally there will be an alerter who insists that the post be hidden because s/he is SURE the person is a troll, even though the post itself doesn't appear to violate CS.

In cases like that, even though I might be thinking something impolite, I explain in my vote that the post doesn't violate CS, and I'm voting to let it stand.


It's not the jury's job to silence people because someone thinks they're trolls. If they are true trolls, MIRT will find and eradicate them.

[MineralMan]

2. Yup. Me, too.

When I'm on a jury that boldfaced statement from the DU Community Standards is the only thing I consider. And I give the benefit of the doubt to the poster when I'm not sure. Every time. No matter who the poster is or whether I agree with the poster or not.

That's what we're supposed to do, based on how this system is set up, so that's what I do. Every time.

[pipi_k]

10. Same here...

I don't play favorites or penalize anyone I haven't gotten along with in the past.

It's the words.

[MineralMan]

13. I think that's what is expected from juries on DU.

I don't think that's always what happens, but that's how I do it.

[pintobean]

8. All alerts are reviewed by admin

An alerter's comments may be directed at them and/or the jurors. I think you take the proper approach. A juror's job is to judge the post, not the poster.

[steve2470]

3. interesting post

I think many posts violate that rule. However, I'm in a very small minority here.

This old graphic tends to explain a lot:

[MineralMan]

9. Sadly, that's too often true.

DU has a pretty loose interpretation of this, and adult language is normally acceptable, so we can use some language that might not fit on some other websites. However, when insulting posts or personal attacks occur, I think those posts should be hidden. That's how I vote on juries, anyhow.

Strong opinions are fine here, as is strong disagreement with what someone else has posted. But, there are limits, and when a post steps over the lines in that bolded text from the CS statement, I vote to hide.

[Ms. Toad]

36. Just keep voting according to how you feel

Too many people are voting based on rules they think exist, or what they believe the collective wisdom of others has decided should be allowed, or by what else has been "let stand" in the thread.

The reality is that if everyone added a comment like: "I don't like it, but it seems to be allowed here," or "there are worse comments in this thread" actually voted according to whether they believed the post was offensive, the community standards would come to reflect what people want - rather than what people believe others have decided to tolerate.




That said - on a mostly unrelated issue - your graphic disturbs me. I am active in around a dozen online communities - most of which allow the use of pseudonyms, and most of which are indistinguishable from conversations I have in real life. DU being the exception, or closest to an exception in terms of conversational tone. Anonymity + audience doesn't make a normal person act like a total fuckwad. Instead, anonymity is exploited by people who are total fuckwads anyway, and looking for a safe outlet to behave as they are naturally inclined. That abuse of anonymity needs to be controlled by tools directed to the behavior - rather than banning (or condemning) anonymity.

Pseudonymity plays a critical role as an internet tool for good, but because of the misperception that anonymity is causing the bad behavior, many otherwise sensible people are calling for the abolition of pseudonymity. Just one example of its importance - the nationwide online discussion on mental illness (a White House initiative) fell flat on its face, in large part because they chose as a host an organization which had decided that real names were required to use the forum because (in the minds of those who created the forum), anonymity was causing the problem. Given the huge ramifications for public disclosure of mental illness (either your own or others'), there was not a large enough population to sustain the conversation without the ability to use pseudonyms to provide some measure of protection from real life dangers. (I was involved in the behind the scenes conversations with the moderators - so I have pretty direct knowledge of why the conversations never took off - and the forum is, in fact, one I had worked pretty intensely with on the issue of real names around discussions involving LGBT issues, mental health, and bullying - among others - discussions in which pseudonymity is critical to creating a space safe enough to allow open discussions in an ungated community.)



...but I don't have strong feelings at all about this

[steve2470]

37. yes I think the graphic was imprecise to say the least

Decent kind people in real life don't immediately devolve into bullies online. There is much good to be said for pseudonymity. I think DU accomplishes many good things because people can be free to state facts and opinions here.

I do think, however, that many people take the opportunity to say unkind things that they would be very hesitant to say in real life. Yes, some people will say anything to anyone at any time, but most of us are restrained by social norms or just fear of getting our nose punched.

[uppityperson]

55. Yes, one post has to be the first one hid on a thread of similar posts. If you are on the jury for

one on such a thread, it is ok to hide the first one.

[Jesus Malverde]

81. Good points...nt

[Scuba]

4. As someone who visits several forums, I'd like to remind members that DU has the best behaved ....

... membership/posters by a wide margin. Yes, we occasionally get rude or post crap without basis, but compared to the other forums I visit this place is a model of decorum and fact-based discussion.

Sadly, we've seen popular blogs taken down by their parent sites because of boorish behaviour. The DU jury system is imperfect, but overall we are miles and miles ahead of most sites.

[Ichingcarpenter]

24. I disagree Youtube comments rock

because they can say



Just wanted to share a moment of sanity., decorum and intellectual rebuttals

[Ms. Toad]

38. YMMV -

In the dozen or so online communities where I actively participate, DU has the worst behavior.

(That said, I don't participate in journalistic (broadly defined) discussion forums which certainly are poorly behaved. My experience is with places which - like DU - which intend to be communities of shared interests. DU is the only such forum I tell almost no real life friends I frequent - in large partl because of the the tone of discourse.)

[DeSwiss]

42. ''...DU is the only such forum I tell almost no real life friends I frequent....''

- Slumming or research?

[Ms. Toad]

46. Habit.

There was a time when it was possible to have discussions that were not just shouting matches between two black and white positions, although that was quite a while ago. So partly some perverse hope that it might be possible actually have substantive discussions - and partly because although I have other communities I participate in for general discussions, local civics/politics, and other specific issues - I don't have another political forum. But even though it still partly fills some purpose for me, the incivility makes it a place I'm not particular inclined to invite friends to share.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. Open profanity sucks

It also lets the trolls run free when it is acceptable. The past few days there have been tons of trolls posting in GD. They can be their natural selves when we allow profane attacks into the discussion. They have a hard time faking being polite.

[Whisp]

6. Hosts will lock this, apparently reviewing DU rules is against some rule.

but pieces of smelly turds can thrive and live well here.

[morningfog]

7. I never see the hosts lock anything as against the SoP.

All whining about DU, all posts about DU or DUers should be locked as against the SoP, but they never are.

[Whisp]

12. I edited, ty. n/t

[bobduca]

80. Another "pogrom" thread was locked last night

Not much gets locked in GD it seems, but there were two last night that I saw, and rightly so.

[MineralMan]

11. I don't think so. I'm not whining about DU at all.

I'm just posting one of its most basic statements, verbatim.

[Whisp]

14. see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024739139

[MineralMan]

16. Yes. I'm not calling for anyone to be banned from DU, though.

In fact, I'm not calling for anything at all. I'm posting a paragraph from the About Us page on DU.

There is a real difference between my thread and the one that was locked by the GD Hosts.

[Whisp]

18. We know RWers have existed and exist here right now

There was no naming names in that OP.

How can one explain all the bannings of 'rw trolls' here over the years.
How can one accept that they are now all gone? They aren't.

[MineralMan]

23. Bannings of any DUer other than new sign-ups is

strictly up to the admins. I can't really address that, because I'm not an admin. It's their site, so they make those decisions.

[Agschmid]

22. You sent the SOP alert... No?

I confused at this point.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. GD Forum Statement of Purpose

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories.
No whining about DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

It's pretty simple really. There used to be a Meta forum, but the admins put an end to that. Ending Meta was the best decision they have made on DU 3, allowing it to return under the same auspices is a mistake they are currently making.

[MineralMan]

17. I'm not whining about DU at all.

In fact, I think the DU member moderation system is very well designed and works pretty well. I'm just posting the Community Standard statement in GD.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. is that because the admins did not post them already?

I repeat, when the admins got rid of Meta, it was a good thing. The SOP of GD exclude Meta discussion of DU.
This is not even the first 'I'm just posting the CS' thread this week. Playing coy does not really help.

[MineralMan]

30. No. It's because I wanted to post them.

I'm not playing "coy" or anything else. I posted something from this website's About Us page. The only thing I recommend is reading it. I can't see anything Meta or whining in that at all. It's just a restatement of a set of Community Standards that I think are very well conceived and written. They bear repeating, I think.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. If you say so.

Lord knows your word is your bond!

[L0oniX]

19. They will still alert on Manny and Cali anyway.

[MineralMan]

21. Many alerts are made. Many fewer posts are hidden.

The jury system actually works pretty darned well. We don't see most of the alerts or jury decisions when a post is not hidden. I'm certain there are far more of those than ones that are hidden.

[Gothmog]

76. I was a jury for Cali a while back

We voted to leave her post 5 to 1 and I was part of the five

[truebrit71]

20. Like suggesting someone is a "RW Racist"?

Funny... a jury of peers amazingly didn't see it that way...

[MineralMan]

25. I can't say. I wasn't on that jury.

I've been on 500 juries, exactly, since DU3 went live. The vast majority of them ended up with the post being left, not hidden. We don't see all of those that are left. We only see posts that are hidden. We have no idea how many have been alerted on. Juries decide each one. So, I can't answer your question.

[MineralMan]

27. That's what juries decide. Does a post violate community standards?

That's the only question they're supposed to answer. I can't say that I always agree or disagree with what a jury decides. I can only vote on juries when I've been called on to vote.

I posted the Community Standards statement so people could read it again or for the first time.

Juries will vote as they vote.

[MineralMan]

33. Perhaps since you only recently joined,

you haven't seen the system at work very much yet.

[Drew Richards]

29. That depends on your interpretation of the definition of is is....

[sufrommich]

32. "because they are directed at the "opposite" party"

You mean republicans? This is a democratic board,the personal insult rule applies to other DUers,not moron republicans.

[CJCRANE]

34. It's a partisan message board. Go to Free Republic

and you'll see the restrictions from the other side.

I don't go over to FR and tell them they need to allow pro-Democratic or anti-conservative messages on their site.

[Iliyah]

45. Majority of the RWer's sites as well as hate radio shows and

the so called news stations do not allow "free speech" but only when it's RWer's views and opinions. Forget facts. And they are generally very angry hateful posts. They are in general very angry people, something I hope that the DU will not fall into.

[grahamhgreen]

39. Our goals: no war for profit; Medicare for all; tax the hoarders; get off oil; end costly trade, etc

[MineralMan]

44. I didn't discuss goals in my OP.

The admins of the site have stated their goals for the site elsewhere at that link. I quoted only the Community Standards statement. You can look up the goals of DU, as stated by the admins, for yourself.

[DeSwiss]

40. Take your pick.

[center]



“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ~George Orwell





“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed:
everything else is public relations.” ~George Orwell





''Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ultimately a custard pie...
a dirty joke is a sort of mental rebellion.'' ~George Orwell



[/center]

[MineralMan]

41. Not my site.

Not my rules.

[Ms. Toad]

53. Big difference between censorship of ideas -

which is what these people are speaking out against -and agreeing as a member of a community to express ideas about which we disagree in ways which are civil and productive.

(Not to mention that if you are really a purist about being able to express whatever idea you want, whenever and however you want, this isn't the place for you - the prohibitions on the expression of certain ideas is much closer to censorship than is the ability of fellow community members to hide posts which express permitted ideas in ways which are civil and productive.)

[DeSwiss]

60. While that sounds great......

...that's not how it works.

True freedom of expression has to be able to piss people off. Or its not freedom of expression. How can I know what will piss you off? And if I do curb my speech, what am I leaving out?

How can the emotions that I feel be expressed under the civility of which you speak. Are they not legitimate forms of expression? And more to the point, are there standards of civility that we can all agree on? Obviously not or this convo wouldn't even be taking place.

The DU standards are a wonderful attempt at imposing artificial civility for outward appearance's sake, but as Martin Luther King Jr. acknowledged: ''You can't legislate love.'' Nor civility, either.

However, I also realize that only Unconditional Love can provide the atmosphere you refer to and would like to see. Unconditional Love is the answer to everything.

When we're ready to deal with the truth, then we have a chance to move in the direction that you and I both would like to see. But when people choose party or personality loyalty over the TRUTH, then I'm afraid that's where we must part company. No system and no person is greater than the TRUTH.

Censorship only shuts out voices and amplifies only those that conform. And as an old protestor from the days of civil rights, with the scars to prove it, I am nothing if not a nonconformist.

[Ms. Toad]

61. If you are such a non-conformist,

then why are you posting here, where there is express censorship of:

• advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents
  
• bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season
  
• opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians;
  
• asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans,
  
• claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel,
  
• arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood.
  
• 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
  
• anything which could be construed as a threat toward any person, on DU or elsewhere
  
• any private/personal information about any person, even if it is publicly available elsewhere on the Internet.
  
• shock content" or porn, or
  
• extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust.
  

Do you really believe that the expectation that you will civilly and respectfully discuss ideas is greater censorship than the express ban on discussion of the above 19 issues? This isn't a question of whether ideas can be censored. On DU they expressly are. It is a matter of your behavior toward others in the community while you are engaged in the (expressly) limited range of discussions which permitted on this site.

I am also an old protester from the days of civil rights, and although I was too young for my parents to allow me to participate fully enough to have physical scars, I have emotional ones. And I strongly believe in the power of TRUTH - I just have littler tolerance for people who insist that the only way to express TRUTH is to be deliberately offensive and hurtful - or to persistently insist on expressing it in a way which repeatedly results in requests from those on whom your feet are firmly placed to step off and find another way to express your ideas.

[DeSwiss]

62. Oh that's easy, because I don't believe in any of that stuff.

- And I like to watch. Oh yeah, and because [font size=3]FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION![/font] Another of my favorite freedoms.....


''…we are led by the least among us – the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons…'' ~Terence McKenna

[Ms. Toad]

63. IOW - all that complaining about censorship

was just high falutin words. You really just enjoy the cat/dog fights.

[DeSwiss]

72. Oh no not the fighting.

- That's for barbarians. I like to watch the Awakening of people to the bullshit and the lies. Because I know what's at the end of it and I also know that this is just sound and fury signifying nothing.

Namaste.

[center][/center]

[Ms. Toad]

73. Dang good thing I got rid of my vertigo a couple of months ago -

otherwise that image would have had me down for the count. (Seriously. You don't know how many visual triggers there are for vertigo until you live with it a for nearly a year . . .)

[DeSwiss]

74. Oops!

- Good point, sorry. I like Kurt's better anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

79. It isn't something I would even have thought of

until about a year and a half ago. Amazing how many little things are unexpectedly big things. I am grateful for the year of being less than able bodied, if only because it made me much more aware of how clueless most of us (including me) are about body space (since being bumped sent me into panic mode), and visual stimulation.

I am also grateful that it is almost entirely gone - but trying to be mindful of the lessons I learned during those 11 months.

[mountain grammy]

43. The first few times I served on a jury, I voted to "leave it"

I didn't think I could ever vote to hide a post. So much for thinking. The first post I voted to hide was so egregious, it made me feel sick. Since then, I've hidden a couple, but for the most part, free expression rules, even when it's disagreeable.

I've never sent an alert, but I'm sure that day will come too.

My eyes and ears are open every day here. As a Democrat, I rely on DU to get the majority of my news and commentary. This site has made me a better Democrat and a better person.

[Iliyah]

48. Well said!

Every single progressive/liberal site I've been to always has allowed "free" conversations pro and cons. Plus a lot of poster are humorous in their descriptions of events and feedback which I find refreshing.

The GOP/RW/Libertarian's has ramp up the onslaught degrading of the Democratic Party, Liberal, Progressives and any other fraction that does not toll in line with their insanity.

[Rex]

47. It would be nice if people stopped making meta posts in GD.

nt.

[frylock]

50. that'd be great

?w=400

[ColesCountyDem]

49. I bear this in mind EVERY time I serve on a jury!

Thank you for posting this!

[MineralMan]

51. I hope most DUers do the same when they serve on

juries. It's important, I believe, if DU is going to work as its creators want it to work.

[ColesCountyDem]

52. I agree!

I've voted 'leave it' on some posts i would personally have never made, but others are 'no brainers', in terms of deleting them.

[itsrobert]

54. Thanks.

I hope future members of the jury get the message.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. THIS is "Over The Top"....

[MineralMan]

57. I NEED that ceiling cat VISA card.

I'd use it every day.

[Gormy Cuss]

58. And jurors frequently use their own best judgment without regard to that line

else a lot more posts would be hidden. Rude and insensitive posts in particular seem to get a pass. What also seems to be overlooked is that "center-to-left viewpoints" standard.

That's why jury results are all over the map.

[MineralMan]

59. Yes. That's true. I think it's unfortunate.

I would like to see discussion here be lively but civil. When name-calling and other rudeness enters the discussion, no useful discussion can take place.

[DrDan]

64. ToS states "When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong

criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them."

[MineralMan]

65. I'm not talking about criticism of politicians.

I didn't even mention that in my OP. I'm talking about civility in general.

[DrDan]

67. we have quite a few who seem to feel criticism is "inappropriate" and should be dealt with

either through juries or by the admins. Just wanted to point out that it is allowed at this time (outside the election cycle.)

[MineralMan]

68. Those are TOS issues and are the admins' responsibility.

The only thing that juries are supposed to act on are community standards issues. Of course that's not always the case, but that's how it's supposed to work.

Hosts deal with Statement of Purpose statement for individual forums and groups, and aren't supposed to do anything else.

There is a system in place. Rude, disruptive, and other over-the-top civility issues are what juries are supposed to deal with. The rest have other people judging them.

It's a pretty good system, but only if everyone follows it.

[DrDan]

69. overall, I like the jury system, but . . .

I have certainly seen cases where "cool table" synergies are at work

[ismnotwasm]

66. Thank you

A reminder is always good

[LanternWaste]

70. Community Standards are a grand thing when used to defend our sacred cows...

Community Standards are a grand thing when used to defend our sacred cows.

Otherwise, vulgar, rude and inappropriate language is not merely pretty much par for the course, but rationalized and defended itself-- and rarely, if ever, questioned, if even noticed-- by anyone.

But again, I see far too many instances of posters holding The Standard of their sacred cows much, much higher than The Standard of the simpler, secular meats...

[MineralMan]

71. Community standards are loosely defined.

They have to do with language choices people make when they write things on DU. Choices. It is not about substance but about style. Personally, I would prefer that people discuss things without resorting to personal attacks. They make for a poor argument, indeed. They also diminish the level of discussion.

We have Community Standards, as stated in the quotation I posted. I'd like to see people follow them, and avoid the things mentioned in that statement. But, I'm tolerant of some level of such things. It's a movable standard, as we've all seen. I wish it were applied more evenly by juries.

[flying rabbit]

75. There is no perfect.

At least DU makes an attempt. Thanks for the reminder.

[Gothmog]

77. Great Thread

I enjoyed reading this thread.

[CBGLuthier]

78. I wish we had a rule about not lecturing people about the rules

as if you fucking owned the place or something. Sheesh what a load.