Enough with the lower post shaming on DU

[titaniumsalute]

I've been a reader and daily user of DU since 2008. (Actually about 2003 but I deleted an account for awhile and then came back as I was sick of the Bush politics in 2007.)

However, I have never been a big poster. Many times I read from my mobile device and I just don't like typing any more than I have to on that thing. I usually post from my laptop when I do.

I've seen a number of instances in the past six months or so when a lower post count DU member says something they are sometimes chastised as not knowing much or how DU works. I don't mean the people that have 20 posts....I'm talking people with over 1,000 or so. I came here way back to look for a place of like-minded political and cultural individuals to share ideas, read ideas, etc. I guess you can call it my "safe place."

Well it was directed to me the other day. I commented on a post and immediately was called out about what I know because I only have 3,700 posts in nearly 10 years. I must be a casual user of DU and don't know how this works. It wasn't any RW talking point nor was it even political in nature.

You know something...that is exactly the kid of thing that our party doesn't need leading up to the 2018 election and in general. I feel that this fun, like-minded club is turning on each other many times for ridiculous reasons. I understand heavy debates like Hillary versus Bernie, etc. But post-shaming people really?

Frankly I don't give two shits personally. However, I think more about others who may be more delicate and those types of posts could chase away good people from DU. If it is a poster spewing RW talking points then it is fiar game to call them out. But if you simply disagree with someone that isn't a reason to shame them for a low post count or simply being new.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I'm wary of people who make right wing talking point, however subtly or veiled.

[titaniumsalute]

3. And I agree with that...

That is an obvious litmus test and yes if someone with low post counts post something pro Republican or Pro Trump then it is pretty clear they are a troll.

I'm not talking about that however. The post I made wasn't even anything political.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Trolls are usually less direct; posting "concern" or stirring up internal Democratic conflicts. . nt

[WinkyDink]

46. My favorite is: "Help me to convince my R-W FB friend/Aunt/Granny/co-worker who says THIS...." And

then proceeds to post all FOX talking points that he "needs help" to "refute."

[Roy Rolling]

76. DU statistic

The exact number has only been a feature of a member's name for a few years. It's a relatively new thing and creates more contention than discussion benefit. Counting how many times I open my mouth is an arbitrary number. Sometimes I open my mouth and nothing useful comes out.

[Salviati]

128. As I recall it's been a part of DU since the beginning.

I remember when getting into the "700 club" was a milestone that marked your "coming of age" on DU.

[canetoad]

133. Long as I can remember

The posts were enumerated up to 999 and after that forum and group posts showed '1,000+ Posts'. To see the actual number, you had to read the member's profile.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. In the past 24 hours I have seen posts

In the past 24 hours I have seen posts where one author strenuously argues FOX is a mainstream news organization and another where the author argues that Antony Podesta is likely to be indicted.

[Demsrule86]

135. I saw both of those and how about those who say things like 'will Podesta be indicted?"...they

pretend that it is Podesta that who was in Hillary's campaign when all that really happened is their was one story that Podesta's brother's business was being investigated...or the one about how ...there must be truth to the uranium story because other outlets are reporting it besides Fox...blah blah.

[Maraya1969]

136. How do I miss these? I would definitely confront something like that. I hope someone did

[titaniumsalute]

4. I also found it creepy that someone

took the time to click on my history to do the math of how many posts I have had since 2008 and then call me out on it. I really never look at someone's account history while posting or reading comments.

[samnsara]

7. me neither...thats a lot of trouble to go thru to make a point...

[stevenleser]

140. Take it up with the admins. They provide the information. They must think some users will find it

useful.

In fact post count is useful. Particularly when a low post count user posts right wing talking points or a concern troll OP.

[cpamomfromtexas]

2. I totally agree!

[samnsara]

5. i agree.... no place for shaming other DUs or Dems....

...and remember all this is a DEMOCRAT site. Even tho we don't register to a party in Wash State I am a DEM and I have voted Dem almost all my life ( 100% since Newts Contract on America).

Maybe I's and R's have their own site?

[whathehell]

40. Hmm..

I think you might mean "democratic" site.

[WinkyDink]

48. I thought that, too. ;-) But then I realized the poster means "place for Democrats," so OK. :-)

[whathehell]

51. Okay, thanks.

[SonofDonald]

72. Yes the shaming is strong here

I may now and then say a word or a phrase that seems to upset the more delicate among us to the point of apoplexy, I would apologise but when I'm castigated because of some new unknown politically correct stance it really makes me just not care.

I've lived my life loving others and respecting them, no color shape religion or sex makes any difference to me, it's the person.

So it seems I break some unknown rule now and then and get vilified because I just don't get how it's supposed to work .

My question them becomes when am I supposed to have gone to school to learn all the new must have thoughts and stances on issues?, I must have missed that email I guess.

I find it laughable then to be called a number of different names and be charged as something I'm not, and the only place on earth that happens is here.

Where we are supposed to be tolerant of others and their views and let the little things slide, it ain't happening here.

If we have a difference of opinion that's fine, if I disturb you with something I said then I apologise but if you attack me right off the bat......

I'm not learning anything from you, and I never will with the attitude that I deserve confrontation because of some supposed transgression that doesn't exist.

I don't receive any hate from the deplorables side, why do I receive it here?.

But in the end I could care less what some person living far away among the millions in this country thinks of me.

Nobody will care or remember a year from now.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

[roscoeroscoe]

131. An example?

Curious. thanks.

[Bluepinky]

6. There are some bullies on DU.

[tomp]

31. They are legion...

...and like all bullies , extremely thin-skinned (can dish it out but can't take it). Any deviation from Democratic Party entrnched leadership orthodoxy and they swarm in droves. They will alert at the slightest whiff of an insult, apparently completely oblivious to their own offensiveness.

[treestar]

49. no, there are bullies on the "Bernie" side too

really, trying to pretend it is only the "entrenched leadership orthodox" and adding in some negatives right there about them?

And this is the reason low post count people can be suspicious.

[plimsoll]

65. Why does a high count reduce your suspicion?

I rarely post, because I don’t waste my life feeding trolls. Having the time to post all that stuff is suspicious too.

More importantly, post counts snark, tldnr snarks, and yes even the Bernie/Orthodox Leadership B.S. distracts from the problem: People who want to contribute or understand are excluded because other people use irrelevant points to bypass reason. It’s just more sophisticated trolling.

[treestar]

74. There's a reason you are under MIRT

surveillance until 100 posts. The longer you are here, the less likely you are a troll that just signed up to snark. Like all general rules, there are exceptions. There have been a couple of them who were very high in post count and here a long time, but they were subtle enough about it that it was tough.

New members who are fervidly on one side or hinting at right wing talking points are naturally suspicious. Commenting on that doesn't get them busted, though. MIRT decides, or the board owners if they are at over 100.

There are also repeaters - they bet banned and then come back. You learn about them being on MIRT.

[plimsoll]

85. Point taken, but

100 posts or 100,000. A good troll isn't going to be noticed. Yes MIRT will catch stupid trolls, but in a Darwinian environment you're just making the professionals (paid) and motivated monkey wrenchers more adept.

I use a different algorithm personally. You would gather points, your answer addresses my question and raises other things to consider.

In a medium that doesn't provide the queues our primate brains are designed to handle we have to find other signals to determine who will be civil and who won't. And by civil I don't mean agree with me. I mean civil.

Thanks for the reply.

[defacto7]

86. a lot of truth in this...

I'll have to admit some of the exclusive snark has improved for me or maybe my luck has changed. There are posters actually answering my stupid questions or kindly correcting my less than perfect comments and I don't mind that. But I don’t care how many posts someone has, I think it's anti-productive for democrats to kick democrats to the curb.

[tblue37]

105. A high post count can be deceptive. Remember super troll Operation Mind Crime? nt

[emulatorloo]

71. There are thin-skinned bullies amongst the more binary thinking Nina-crats and Our Revolution set

Who cannot deal w any tepid criticism of strategy or statements w/o flying off the handle and screaming at folks and alerting.

[treestar]

100. Yes, there is an insistence on criticism of

Democrats. Then you see a lot of posts "oh, more Bernie bashing" if there is any criticism of Bernie.

[SonofDonald]

77. Lol, I used the word "delicate" but

Thin skinned works too.

[Bluepinky]

83. Have seen this firsthand.

They are unable to have a thoughtful discussion; if a poster brings up a different point of view (not a RW talking point), they start attacking it, and others soon join in. It’s often the same DU members who repeat the same things over and over again.

Some posters pride themselves on having a high number of postings, but one should take into account the quality of their posts. 50 divisive, repetitive and shallow postings may be of less value than one or two deliberative, respectful posts.
Quantity doesn’t equal quality.

[smirkymonkey]

93. I agree. Some of the best OP's/posts I have seen have been from people with fairly

low post counts. Of course the content of the post is what is important. There are some very obvious trolls, but I don't think having a differing viewpoint or questioning certain democrats and having legitimate issues necessarily mean one is a troll.

Some people here are really too "touchy" and need to lighten up a bit.

[emulatorloo]

110. If folks push anti-Dem CT they'll probably get pushback.

May not be "RW" content but CT is still CT.

Somebody claiming "no evidence of Russian interference it is an excuse from Dems" may have gotten that off of Greenwald, who I guess is supposed to be a leftie. It's still bullshit though.

That being said totally agree about post count, and definitely appreciate what OP posted. We have to do better.

[RandomAccess]

67. Authoritarians too

they actually make me shudder when I think of what they would do if there were a more "normal" authoritarian administration than Trump's, run by a more charismatic, competent person. Seriously. There are some of them who'd fall right in line.

[emulatorloo]

73. Yes, some folks on DU appear to need an infallible Daddy figure who cannot be questioned

They don't make me 'shudder' though because all DU'ers I know are seriously committed to progressive values. So I seriously doubt they'd be susceptible to a competent right-winger.

[better]

112. Susceptibility to being misled by a competent right-winger is certainly worth consideration

Whether one is seriously committed to progressive values is an inherently dangerous metric upon which to evaluate someone, though, especially with regard to their level of susceptibility to a competent right-winger, and especially where it fails to take into account what they know about the relationship between their commitment to progressive values and party affiliation.

To put that into sharper contrast, I have for my entire life been dedicated to progressive values. It was not until my late twenties, however, that I figured out that Republican governance truly is antithetical to those values, because I was born in the mid 70's and raised in the deep south.

In my case, seeing George W. Bush (for whom I regret to say that I did vote in 2000) veto funding expansion for SCHIP made that clear for me, and precipitated my becoming a Democrat, whereafter I learned a great deal more about what it actually means to be "a progressive". But before I made that observation, I was indeed susceptible to competent right-wingers.

Being committed to progressive values only protects one against competent right-wing propaganda if one actually recognizes that it is propaganda, which competent right-wingers have become devastatingly adept at preventing. For indisputable proof of this fact, one need look no further than the prevalence of "devout Christians" who strongly oppose such undeniably progressive values as feeding the poor, healing the sick, and sheltering the homeless.

We should be very careful to consider where a person is along their political journey, especially right now, when so many are belatedly coming to grips with the reality of what the modern Republican Party has become. We need to consider not only where someone is, but also in which direction they are moving, because that tells us most accurately whether they need to be opposed or fostered, and it is very easy to mistake one for the other if we fail to assess the difference between what they actually believe and what they think that belief means they should do, and why.

[emulatorloo]

114. Fair enough and thanks for the thoughtful reply

Reagan's second term disabused me of any notion I had that "the parties are just the same". I always ended up voting for the Dems anyway, but yr points are very well taken.

[better]

119. Thanks right back at ya for your thoughtful reply!

Reagan was a bit of a difficult one for me, probably mainly because of my age. I was only 14 when he left office, and while the effects of trickle-down economics and the racism behind "welfare queens" didn't really enter my worldview at that age, the collapse of Communism most certainly did, since I am just old enough to have spent my childhood years with the fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Compounding this, Carter was the only Democrat to hold the Presidency from the time I was born until I was 18, and given that Carter left office two months before I turned six, my awareness of him was pretty much limited to that he had been the President.

Naturally, since Republicans had held the White House for more or less the entirety of my sentient life by the time Clinton came into office, I didn't really have much upon which to evaluate the difference between the parties. And of course my attention was somewhat preoccupied with pursuits other than politics, shall we say, throughout my late teens and early twenties.

I've long held that there is great importance to the concept of paying attention to where someone is on their journey. We seem to get this intuitively with some things, yet overlook it with others. Nobody seems to get upset with a 10 year old for not knowing algebra, because we all recognize that it's not reasonable to expect them to yet. But when it comes to politics, it's all too easy for us to overlook that it's a far more complicated subject to master.

Even once we start being taught algebra, there's no concerted effort to teach us that the answer to 2x / 4 = 4 is fruitcake.

[Squinch]

8. There is good reason for posters to be suspicious of RW talking points from low number posters.

I know that's not you and the person who called you out clearly made a mistake, but suspicion of low number posters is a sad but inevitable ramification of the trolls who stalk us here.

[titaniumsalute]

10. No I get that clearly

You can usually spot one from a mile away as well. In the cases I have seen it has simply been over disagreements in opinion. Yeah if someone is throwing a RW talking point out they are fair game to be called out...which I have done myself.

[louis c]

16. I agree with you

Everyone has a right to post on this site.

But when I recognize a suspicious post that is selling division, and then notice 20 posts and a member for 2 months, with no donation, we'd be crazy not to be suspicious.

In this last election, the other side ate our lunch. They threw caution to the wind, there were no rules for them. Yet, we abided by them, because that's who we arte.

If we don't toughen up, we're going to get fucked again.

I have posted on my name since 2004 and have contributed to this site since 2008. It's Democratic underground, and let's live up to that name.

[dumbcat]

25. "Everyone has a right to post on this site."

No, they don't. Not according to the Terms of Service.

[louis c]

54. they can post and we can alert

and the post can be removed.

but anyone can post. Whether the post remains, well, that's another thing entirely.

[dumbcat]

61. Then I guess it's not a right

is it?

Never mind, I was just making a point about the TOS of a private board.

[louis c]

92. Freedom of Speech is a right, by way of example

but you still cannot commit slander or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Everyone has a right to post, but the rules of this site can take down the post.

[titaniumsalute]

115. I agree if they are posting blatant RW talking points are subtle division

But I'm speaking of when two people are debating and one alludes to post count as somehow more posts = more value or weight in an argument.

[louis c]

132. Of course the number of posts are of no consequesce, provided it's not a newbie

I look at other factors when I'm not sure if the poster is a troll.

If they have 1,000 posts or more with a gold star, then I always give that person the benefit of the doubt if I'm confused by the intent of the post.

but ever since the election eve shutdown, I am more suspicious of new people posting controversial and divisive subjects.

[plimsoll]

58. Why assume they made a mistake?

That seems like a great way to shut someone up. Saying it was a mistake is giving them permission not to consider their behavior at best and not recognizing a potential troll at worst.

[Squinch]

84. I am assuming that because I am familiar with the poster and know he/she is not a troll.

[plimsoll]

104. So you think their behavior is OK?

[Squinch]

130. Titaniumsalute's behavior of posting something that someone else disagreed with, after which the

other person told titaniumsalute that their opinion was invalid because of their low post count? Yes, I think that there was nothing wrong with titaniumsalute's behavior.

WTF are you offended by?

[Old Vet]

91. Yes thats true, Although I have a low post count. Ive been a paying member here for 12 years.....

I had to look that up, And Ive seen these so called trolls myself. Ive even called them out on several occasions.

[NNadir]

9. I personally feel that people with more than 20,000 posts talk too much.

I know at least one who is pedantic and insufferable and often generates appropriate hostility from people with less posts.

He's inarticulate and often relies on smiley's to express his somewhat vapid thoughts.

[titaniumsalute]

11. LOL

[rpannier]

59. I posted on something similar about 7 years ago

Mine was snarkier
Something like, "All hail my 30000 posts replete with 5000 +1 n/t and 1000 "I agree n/t" and 898 "You speak for me. n/t etc"
Many of the Lordly High Post counts offer little in the way of depth. And that's okay. Sometimes it's good to offer support. But with some, you'd think their amazingly high post count had the room riveted with their genius, that every word was being compared to the masters of old or something.
I mean... mine are of course because I'm that interesting

Seriously, many of mine are of little analytical value

[defacto7]

120. Yeah, I know a couple of those.

It's good you're not one of them.

Changing the subject... in my opinion you're one of the few really intelligent posters on this site and one of the 2 or 3 who will actually comment to those on this site who dwell at the level of semi-stupid where I am. You articulate an authoritative opinion that I don’t always agree with, and you piss me off at times: that's ok because I can tell you're from New Jersey so it's expected. But I appreciate being challenged. I'm not one of the smart ones but I'm overtly enthusiastic about information which is misleading.. (although I am talented and no one on this site will ever know what those talents are. Hmm.. that's ambiguous...) anyway..

Don't be concerned about that pedantic, insufferable, hostility creating, inarticulate, overly smiley, vapid thoughted, 20,000+ poster because at the most you're only a couple of those things.

[NNadir]

149. Thank you for your kind words.

They actually mean a lot to me.

[hlthe2b]

12. Long term DUers (including myself) should remember the infamous high numbered, long term posters

who eventually were outed--years into their tenure here. We've had quite a few trolls that only revealed themselves--not because they were exposed--but because they just got bored, I guess.

So, I agree with the OP, but also with the point that newbies WILL be suspect IF they post clear RW talking points--especially without any countering comments. And, that is especially true for those posting only links, whether to a video or article that is clearly a RW source or meme.

[titaniumsalute]

13. Anyone who posts RW talking points is fair game to call out

[RandiFan1290]

18. They are still here

One of them posted that the Charlottesville murderer was a Hillary supporter because they saw it on twitter, and got away with it.

They are still actively posting their rw bullshit here everyday and almost no one calls them out. I got tired of coming close to PPR and not taking anymore chances if no one else gives a shit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I saw that...

I sincerely hope that was an innocent mistake, to believe otherwise is hard to digest.

[treestar]

52. And for long periods of time

It seemed like a miracle when one in particular was finally banned.

[cyclonefence]

14. I agree

I have experienced the same condescension and nastiness. Of the people on my ignore list, not one of them is there because they disagreed with the substance of what I posted. I enjoy exchanges with the rest of DU, having eliminated people who seem ill-humored or like they're looking to pick on something--anything--just to help get the bile out of their systems. I also have blocked people who repeatedly don't get jokes and want to tell the world about it.

I am not a delicate flower; I love a good argument. That's not the question here. Nor do I worry much about Republican trolls. I come here expecting a like-minded group whose concerns about politics and the world at large align pretty well with mine. All the rest is noise.

And I never thought I'd become addicted to cute animal videos, but there you go.

[louis c]

17. You've got a gold star

that means a lot to me.

Trolls are not donating money to this site. DU doesn't accept cash, so the individual has to be known through his or her Credit Card or Check. It's not just the money, it's the end of anonymity.

[titaniumsalute]

19. Well said thank you

I just had to look at my account. I don't think I've ever put anyone on ignore or block.

[cyclonefence]

22. It's a good solution

for repeat offenders.

[Wounded Bear]

57. I've done it, but rarely...

but then, I have a few on my "mental" ignore list. I just don't open their threads and skim over their posts.

[Voltaire2]

15. If thats the best argument they can muster youve won.

[titaniumsalute]

20. Very true!

[AngryAmish]

21. said just like a dirty lost post-counter....

/s (necessary?)

[titaniumsalute]

23. HAHA

I kind of hate the sarcasm thing anyway...sarcasm is better when you don't have to explain it was sarcasm.

[Wounded Bear]

62. In the current condition of public discourse it is almost necessary...

Trump and the Repubs are rapidly making sarcasm redundant. They are definitely irony challenged.

[Orrex]

24. I only make fun of people who have between 57K and 58K posts

Those newbie losers.

[GatoGordo]

26. I have run into the same problem

I have lurked for many years, and only recently began posting. The typical knee-jerk response to a forumite who doesn't pass some arbitrary "DU" litmus test is the accusation of being a troll or shill.

I think it is an inherent problem with forums that cater to niche users, not just DU. There are plenty of users who post daily and they have no qualms about calling out those who don't espouse the orthodoxy of (fill in the blank).

[Clarity2]

27. I'm probably

one of the newest here.

I understand trolls, bots, disinformation because I've been on twitter since 2009 & I pay attention to things most dont & am pretty good at spotting fake accts and people who portray themselves as something theyre not. So I understand people's leeriness about trolling on here.

I come here mostly to find quick information on what's going on rather than go through a million threads & opinions of the same
subject on twitter. Sometimes I get an urge to post, but generally I don't have the energy to prove myself on here or post long or frequent posts because most of the time I am exhausted by Trump. I'm on information overload, and I already came through an exhausting life event the year prior. On the flip side it's easier to retweet something or type 140 characters. And maybe because I sense people's leeriness I am more reluctant to post.

With that said, I also came here to find a "safe place" because I've got 2 members of my family who are dems, and they are out of state. I'm not sure I'll ever find that. And so I lurk. It's kind of the loneliest, isolating time of my life personally. My husband is sort of apolitical because he thinks all politicians are corrupt.

I think we are all suffering from being more sensitive these days. It's the nature of what this admin is trying to do to us. The propaganda/gaslighting machine. The disinformation that splinters our own party too.

So to you and every person who is feeling a little out on the fringe here, I send a

[Madam45for2923]

98. I love your posting name! CLARITY!!

[Clarity2]

126. Thank you : )

I should have made it "seekingClarity", because I don't have any. lol

[Madam45for2923]

127. Clarity is awesome! Makes the next move, the next step clear, easy & effortless even if bravery is

required!

Clarity makes time stop.

It is almost like you can see the molecules and the atoms. And coordinate between them!

[AllaN01Bear]

28. whose buisness is it anyway .why does this site trumpet how many posts one makes.

[Squinch]

87. Why not?

[stevenleser]

141. See my #140 above. nt

[delisen]

29. I know people who have followed DU for years

but never post.

So I agree with you.

[txwhitedove]

30. Too true, and thank you. Love DU. Here since 2006.

[Island Blue]

33. I agree.

I joined in 2004 and used to post frequently (particularly in the JK forum), but in recent years have been more of a casual observer. My post count is low for someone who has been around that long (I honestly think the number went down after we were hacked last year, but whatever).

Anyway, unless the person with a low number is obviously a troll, I see no reason for them to be shamed.

[sellitman]

35. I've been here since 2004

My post count isn't even 10k. I guess you could say I should be shamed too.

The Question is where does that stop?

[vlyons]

36. point well taken

I never look to see how many posts someone has. But thanks for pointing out a reminder to not be condescending based on number of posts.

[left-of-center2012]

37. Agree 110%

While someone can be "alerted" on for personal attacks, a lot of verbiage (?) criticizing others seems to fall through the cracks.

I've been posting online since the 90s, beginning with 'newsgroups' and sadly there's always some one (or more) who feel they must have their say about the other posters.

How the critical comments are phrased 'may' make a difference ... or not.

"You may not be aware ..."
comes across better than
"You don't know what you're talking about, newbie!".

Hang in here, which I think you will.

[LakeArenal]

108. There are many words we "low posters" hear...

" That's silly", "that's ridiculous", "you obviously....", :you are uniformed", "low information" when you ask a question,

I have had ulterior motives attributed to me... and I have been told I need psychiatric help..

I welcome anyone to cruise my history. Not much rabble rousing there.. Just trying to make it through this horrible time in US history.

I have been reading since G W started America's long decline. So Low numbers can be meaningless.

[left-of-center2012]

109. In my humble opinion ...

Often someone who tends to sit and listen,
knows more than those who are always talking.

[LakeArenal]

111. I hear you!

[tavernier]

38. Most intelligent, thoughtful post of the month.

Please share more often.

[il_lilac]

39. Lol! Here since 2004

Can't even get to 1000 posts Call me a snowflake but I come here every day and choose not to post because I don't feel like dealing with the negativity. I know my low post count makes me suspect so I stand back. However I'm the first to speak up in the real world

[titaniumsalute]

41. Rock on! Thanks!

[titaniumsalute]

43. I also like the situation where I have posted and then went back to working

Later in the evening I log back in and someone accuses me of a "hit and run." I make a post and then someone challenged me in a reply. When I didn't get back right away they said I can't take the heat, etc. LOL. Yeah I fucking work and also have a life beyond DU.

[Wounded Bear]

63. Yeah, some folks treat this place like a chat room...

You can see it sometimes in those long, extended threads where 2-3 people go back and forth with their posts.

I don't work, but I did when I first found this place. Not much you can do about it.

[MountCleaners]

137. It's funny when low post count people get flamed...

...as if we have never done any activism. Some people mistake being new to DU to being new to the Democratic Party.

In any case, I've been on here since 2002. I used to have another name with thousands of posts, but I had a serious illness and relocated, so I was gone for a while. Just shows you shouldn't assume.

[Sunlei]

138. wow you are from 2004, thats when DU first started? & I see you got hit by the DU election day hack.

That Hack removed all your Journal posts and replaced them with a 1969 date.

I started posting here when "digg" another aggrite news site got bought out by Republicans because we posters were so harsh on Romney- I think a bunch of Mormons bought digg & gave it to a Mormon youth group to manage.

[davsand]

146. DU began in 2001 when Dubya was inaugurated.

At that time there really were not many places for us to be in the online world. In the early days there was a subsection of the site that you had to be approved to access called The Underground. (Hence the name here!) I came here in June of 2001 so I was not part of the first wave. By the time I got here, the community was pretty well established, and it was customary to welcome new people whenever you saw somebody with a low post count.

It's changed a lot here since then.


Laura

[Thekaspervote]

42. Thank you for that!

I read and follow closely and give to du..since 08. I'm educated and in fact used to write a weekly column for 3 small newspapers 52 weeks a year for 10 plus years as part of my work. Having 400 posts should not make me less worthy than those with several thousand. Du should welcome all, new or well seasoned commenters

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. Sorry you got hit. I look at many factors not limited to length of time on, postcount and post rate.

I always look at the content of the post first and foremost and address that. If there is some nonsense, I call it out, regardless of what the post count is or time a member or post rate.

If someone has 100 posts in 3 days, that is suspicious, but at most is indicative and is far from definitive. For one thing, the highest count posters on DU maintain that as a long time average. But it is noteworthy if a member makes a flying start like that.

If someone has a low average rate they are unlikely to be a troll.

Trolls are making an investment and don't want to spend a lot of time or posting before they start shit-disturbing.

DU's MIRT is very good at catching trolls while they are in the single or double digits.

The person who hit you sure sounds like an idiot. For one thing, 9 years on board is a definite commitment and not a johnny-come lately.

3000+ posts is high, not low. There is a long tail on post counts. The highest I've seen is 180,000+. But the average is much lower and the more-useful median measure is even lower. It would be good to see statistics, but I would guess that the median post count is below 1000.

I definitely do not consider post count on its own because everybody has to start somewhere. Some posters like The Ferret post with great insight from Post 1.

[titaniumsalute]

55. While I visit and read daily

I tend to post much more around elections. Debate nights, run-up to big elections, etc. Problem pretty common actually.

[Akacia]

45. thank you.

I have been here since Bush days. I used to post a lot more then, but lost that account here since I could not remember what user name I was using and no longer had access to the e-mail account I used at the time. I really think it is a shame when people try to shame others like that, and it makes me reluctant to post. This site saved my sanity during the Bush years and the lead up to the war. I posted less and lurked less during Obama`s time in office because I trusted that we were in capable hands. Now I wish that I would have payed more attention then, since I am certain that the nightmare we are in now had some precursors I was not aware of. All I know for certain at this time is that all the Republicans I know are against everything decent and good in this Country. I hate them.

[Rorey]

47. I've been here for many years, on and off

I couldn't remember my info when I needed to be among "friends" prior to the election, so I had to start all over again. I appreciate your post about this. I'm not "delicate" but I'd be certainly more inclined not to even read here if I was admonished for my low post count.

I judge (so to speak) each post by its content, rather than by the name of the poster or the number of posts they have made.

I learned a long time ago that it doesn't make me, personally, feel better when I go online and attack other people, and it doesn't do a thing to change their mind or understand their point of view better. I am not here to fight. This is a place to come to learn and a place of refuge.

Anyway, thanks.

[dlk]

50. The Trolls Are Everywhere

[volstork]

53. Thank you for this.

I have a similar DU history, and "lurked" for years before I signed on to post. I still don't post often, mostly because there are others who express my thoughts in ways I think are more eloquent than I could. We should be vigilant for trolls, but careful about alienating allies.

[TNNurse]

56. I have never looked to see how many posts a person has.

I recognize some names by their frequent appearance, but that is it.

If I agree, I say something or "rec" it, but investigating everything about the writer is not a consideration.

Maybe I will go check myself.

[ProfessorGAC]

70. I'm In That League, Sort Of

I see the post counts, but most the it's for 1 of 2 reasons:
1. I see a username that doesn't ring a bell. I see 600 posts, and I now why. Either they seldom post, or they're pretty new
2. Names I've been seeing forever and I look to see the number. Since I've been a long time, I'm amazed at how many more posts some have compared to my rather puny 30k.
But, like you, it's not anything on which I judge.

[Blaukraut]

60. I've been here since March 2001. Went through name change amnesty back then, too

I don't have a ton of posts because I only reply when I feel compelled to add my two cents - which isn't often. That being said, if low post count individuals are clearly disruptive with obvious right-wing talking points, it's okay to be wary. But not need to shame them. Just keep an eye out.

[Denzil_DC]

64. Yes, it's something to be aware of in any long-lived mainly anonymous forum.

The other side was my recent enjoyable experience of being repeatedly challenged by a new member: "What are you up to?"

Dude, I keep a busy journal, I'm not an ultra-high poster, but a simple Google or forum search will reveal my attitudes about all sorts of things over the past near-decade, and my rec list is there for all to see.

If you're still left wondering what I'm up to, it's not my problem!

[MaryMagdaline]

66. Reading religiously for years

I have read DU since the Bush years. I mean all day, all night. I don't watch TV news at all since 2000 election. Couldn't stand Bush's face, couldn't stand most politicians since the Iraq War. Couldn't stand the obstructionists during Obama years. I would not have survived the Bush years without DU. If I am murdered and they look on my browser history it will be DU 20 times a day. I read for headlines and for nuance. Some of the posters are really knowledgeable. What we don't know is supplemented with articles from newspapers and magazines. I will never be a high volume poster because I learn more than I can teach.

Did not post because years ago set up a password and since I did not remember it, I could not set up another at same email address. Same problem with Amazon. I am impatient with technology and cannot take half hour to fix a problem. If there is no IT department to help me through something I just give up. I have a second email address and no longer an issue.

[Scruffy1]

68. I am not ashamed of my very low post numbers.

The reason I come here is to get a perspective that I wouldn't get otherwise. I spend a lot of time reading posts and find that most posts are quite adequately covered and I have littlle or nothing to add. I consider DU a great resource. I am herer daily and always learn something that I wouldn't have through my other reading. I have no desire to debate via keyboard because I'm an old geezer who would rather do it face to face.

[NewJeffCT]

69. Back in 2003, somebody mistook my first thread

on DU, but I was happy that several other DUers stood up for me. I had a few replies and my first original post was asking for help rebutting GOP talking points. Of course, one person glanced over my asking for help with a rebuttal and thought I was a freeper.

[Jim Dandy]

75. Worrying about what people think

... is the definition of futility.

[Awsi Dooger]

143. My father had an awesome quote in the later years of his life

I wish I had recorded or written it down.

It was something like..."When you are a baby you are thrilled when you notice others are thinking about you, then you go through life worried about what others are thinking about you, until you are old and realize nobody ever gave a damn about you."

[emulatorloo]

78. Sorry that happened. Good post and thank you.

[Mrs. Overall]

80. I lurked on DU right after 9/11 and joined at the beginning of 2003, but my post count

is low.

I feel like I'm an active poster, but I guess I'm really not.

[quickesst]

81. I've been a member since 2004...

I've been a member since 2004 with fewer posts than you've had since 2008. Anyone try to shame me for a low post count? Have a ball!

[Wernothelpless]

82. Same here ...

Then I read Phyllis Chesler's "Woman's Inhumanity To Woman" and was reminded of our ever present anthropology ... we're tribal beings ... cliquish by nature ... so I read and move on ... it's unfortunate, but 10,000 years of evolution (or more) hasn't changed much ...

[LuckyCharms]

88. The people here and elsewhere who give others a hard time...

for whatever reason...well, they are not very witty or inventive. They may think they come across that way with their bullshit and snark, but they can be slapped down quite easily. Don't let these shamers get you down. A person with 10 posts deserves the same respect as a person with thousands of posts, until they prove themselves to not deserve that respect.

[PatrickforO]

89. Your point is a good one.

You say it seems like this "fun, like-minded club is turning on each other many times for ridiculous reasons."

While it is a strange world we live in today, a strange world that may have 'moved on' in the Stephen King sense, I suggest that there might be some other, more sinister, reason we're turning on each other.

I'm thinking about trolls. Now, I'm a big reader, so I've read Tolkien many times. In the Hobbit, there is a scene where three trolls have captured the dwarves and the hobbit and are talking about eating them. It is late at night and the trolls argue so much the sun catches them and turns them to stone. It turns out Gandalf was insinuating himself into the conversation, and keeping the argument going the whole time. Gandalf, you see, had acted in the same way our modern trolls do - he created strife and prevented the trolls from doing what they needed to do to survive. They were too into the artificially created argument to worry, as they should have, about getting back to their cave before daylight.

I have been appalled at the extent of Russian trolling on our social media sites. With every revelation, I become more concerned. These click-bait posts criticizing Bernie or Hillary, I think some of them may be started only for the reason of tearing us apart. I harken back to the primary, when trolls put out the meme that Bernie was racist because he cared more about economic justice than social justice. Wow. I can remember being so angry about that, writing reams of refutations, basically saying, "Wait, don't you see - we're being manipulated! Someone's using the 'divide and conquer' strategy with us that has worked so well over centuries for the monied classes."

Do you who remember being on either side of this debate on here think there might have been some trolls keeping it happening? It did make us take our eye off the ball for a time. And sadly, there are still hurt feelings on here because of it.

Was it trolls? Was it Russian trolls? This is the Russian "Internet Research Company" building in St. Petersburg, Russia. According to several reputable sources, it employs hundreds of trolls who are supposed to go on social media and shape the message according to instructions from the Kremlin. Here's a link to an article in the Nation talking about how this Russian trolling is worse than we thought, and goes one even now. https://www.thenation.com/article/russian-trolling-of-us-social-media-may-have-been-much-greater-than-we-thought/

So, next time you're tempted by some click-bait pseudo-conflict post on here, be mindful of this.

[Vinca]

90. I think we're wary of Russian trolls. I've never said anything about anyone's post count,

but if I encounter a comment I find odd I sometimes look at it.

[Alpeduez21]

94. 3,800? Are you qualified to start this thread?

[catbyte]

95. Agreed. I've been here for almost 15 years & haven't broken 10K yet.

It doesn't mean much.

[Purrfessor]

96. Member since early 2001. This is my 969th post.

[Enoki33]

97. I have been a lurker here for years, probably still considered one by some,

who comes here primarily for the news and reactions to it. There are some really smart people here l try to learn from. If there is something worthwhile l think I may have to contribute l do so with simple respect for others within that context. I understand the problem of trolls in the age of Russian disinformation and agree with how this site deals with it, as l know a little about having to prove oneself. Beyond that l care little what others may think as my Dad once told me to be beware of those who will chew you up and spit you out. Thankfully the people here are not like that.

[randr]

99. I don't pay attention to people with over 10000 posts

They obviously have too much time on their hands and must be posting just to get a high count.

[treestar]

101. you don't have much time left!

But the number of years should be considered, too. That can build up.

[randr]

106. So true, figuratively and in reality

[Sunlei]

102. This is the #1 D message board in America. Our country is infested with RW paid trolls, foreign

foreign trolls, professional "social media" businesses who are paid to try to influence on message boards & comment sections across America. Corporations troll also. Even individuals 'game' & follow some posters to harass.

Some of the pros are very good at their work- they WANT to divide the D party because that does win elections.

Nothing wrong with a low post count, perhaps it would be better if post count wasn't even shown. I think this message board has clear rules and a pretty simple jury system. The owners know who you are.

I agree with the OP- on a cell phone I never post. I hate that tiny screen


p/s one of those "anti-DU message boards" was hacked a couple weeks ago, perhaps some of the new posters are refugees

[stopwastingmymoney]

103. I leave my 700th post here

Let's see 13 years, 700 posts is...anyway

I'm here daily and I'd just like to add that many of us are more readers than writers.

[titaniumsalute]

116. Nice!

[judesedit]

107. Remember it could be a troll or bot trying to divide us

Don't take things personally....one of the "4 Agreements" you should make with yourself.

[Randomthought]

113. Low post count

I have been a member since 2005 and a star member for several years.

[ancianita]

117. I feel you. You are right. This is an important issue for DU to think over.

You hit on an important issue for this community. I think DU at large wants what you want.

One of DU's strengths is that it wants to be a safe space for thinking through political and social issues. Especially its newer members, which you are obviously not.

DU is not perfect, but it should also strive to allow for imperfections. DU struggles to be good at allowing a range of opinion.

To do better DU has to be better than what you recently experienced. People need to pause, and stop impulsive posting. Disagreeing doesn't give one a license to be rude or judgmental. Just to ask a simple "Why do you think this?" could improve others' understanding of a lot of posts.

DU'ers can't engage in credible public discourse in the larger arena of politics if posters exhibit habitual judgmental, purist, or passive-aggressively rudeness. I say "habitual" because sometimes everyone here has made a regrettable post.

On the other hand, we're living in coarse, vulgar, narrowly ideological times, in a political arena debased by coarse, vulgar attack rhetoric of the most manipulative and tribal kind. Sometimes a person can get "caught up" in it.

There probably isn't one of us who hasn't taken a turn in writing a judgmental or rude response to another; we've all taken our turns at posts we've regretted as impulsive or rude.

I just ask that you please give DU the same kind of break you ask of DU. I hope your opinions are better received in the future, or at least left to stand as they are.

[argyl]

118. This from someone whos been here nine years and hes less than 4,000 Posts.

Just kidding. Hell, I’ve been here for fifteen years and have just over 2,000 posts.

[Locrian]

121. I almost didn't post this....

But then I figured - hell, been here since 2001. Why not??

[Skittles]

122. you want I should kick some low post-shaming ass, titaniumsalute?

although I do reserve the right to call certain single-digit posters "COMRADE"; yes INDEED

[defacto7]

123. Just a general observation of all the replies so far,

It seems a troll could be a poster with the following attributes:

High post count
Low post count
Below 100 posts
Above 10,000 posts
A middle post count
A bully
Waits years to post
Posts many right after joining
Subtle
Agressive
Weak
R wing
L wing
Progressive
Bernie suporter
Hillary supporter
Middle way
Wears a clown suit

It sounds like we're all trolls in one way or another. It just depends on who's deciding.

[Blue_true]

124. The low post observation to dismiss a poster is both arrogant and snobbish.

Nothing irritates me more than to see a poster open with that. Better to look at the content of a post and ask questions if clarity is needed. Another thing that irritates me are grammar police, many seem ignorant of regional mannerisms of saying it writing things and also seem unaware that if they studied literature, they would see several methods and sentence structures used to say the very same thing.

[Thegonagle]

125. Hello. I've been here 13 years. This is my 800th post. nt

[Binkie The Clown]

129. I came here when Howard Dean was in the running.

After he didn't make it I kinda lost interest for a while, forgot my account name and password, had to change my email address, and found myself unable to log in any more. Several years later I joined again under a new username, so I have been here many more years than my profile or post count would indicate.

[canetoad]

134. Good post. K&R

And welcome to DU

[Kaleva]

139. Chill. Remember that this is an internet forum & nothing but an internet forum

I recently got banned from a group here despite being one of the original members of the group and having long record here going back years of arguing in favor of the goals the group . But the host decided I was one of the other guys or not pure enough so I got the boot.

No big deal. This is after all an internet forum and nothing but an internet forum.

[Cadfael]

142. I have been here practically since the beginning

I have an extremely low post count (considering) and I can’t say i’ve ever felt like someone has “talked down” to me because of it. YMMV.

[alittlelark]

144. I got 'shamed' in 2003 when I started posting here...

... but at that time there were trolls everywhere - so I get it.

I understand it now as well when I see divisive posts from >300 +/- post posters...... The DU bridge has MANY trolls under it.

[Garrett78]

145. With fewer than 4000 posts, you don't deserve to be heard.

So, I didn't bother reading the OP.

[Rhiannon12866]

147. Back on DU.2 there was a specific rule prohibiting it

And it still can be considered a "personal attack." MIRT works very hard vetting brand new joins and I can say from personal experience that very few disruptors make it beyond a first post or two.

[GreenEyedLefty]

148. Agreed.

I've been here under this account since 2006 and have just a little over 1,000 posts. I read way more posts than I comment on.

[genxlib]

150. You described me

Been here for more than a decade under a current and former screen name.

Voraciously read but judiciously post.

The only thing that doesn't describe me is the thin-skinned part. Anybody that wants to challenge my cred can kiss my ass. That is just changing the subject.

I find the biggest downside is just not having a reputation. The high-post characters have a following that tends to generate interest and discussion. Without much of a reputation, it is harder to generate interest.

[titaniumsalute]

151. Good points...thanks!

[Orsino]

152. Every online community that lasts has its would-be aristocrats...

...but we are also wary of new posters who repeat right-wing talking points or who seem to be concern-trolling.

When we get triggered, we panic and react based on little or no other information, and are probably often wrong about a newer poster's intentions.