A proposal to change the rules regarding posting in this group

[Kaleva]

I think it would be helpful if there were restrictions in place on who could post in GC/RKBA. Standards that would help keep the troublemakers out and may improve the reputation of GC/RKBA as it will appear we are making an effort to police our own.

To be able to post in GC/RKBA one must first:

Have been a member of DU for at least a year.

Have at least a 1000 posts.

Have less then 5 hidden posts in the past 90 days.

Anyone who does not meet the above three criteria and does post in GC/RKBA will be blocked until the 3 requirements are satisfied. These requirements would be pinned under a title such as "Warning! Read this before posting!" so few would have the excuse they didn't know the rules. Those blocked will be unblocked once the requirements are met. I had asked krispos42 permission to post this and he replied in the affirmative and said that Admin could put in place the software which do the above automatically. He also suggested I cross post this in Meta which I will do.

It appears to me that a great majority of regulars already satisfy the requirements and while some may complain about the hidden posts restriction, I do not believe it's a valid complaint as it is very easy not to have any hidden posts here at DU. One needs to be very aware of community standards before making a post. I have just one this year and I knew it was going to be alerted on and hidden before I posted it. I also think the 1 year/1000 post requirement will prevent almost all trolls, zombies and troublemakers from ever posting here as they will end up being Mirted or PPR'd long before meeting those two requirements.

Basically, pro gun people will have to prove themselves before being able to post here. New DU members who are pro gun control will be able to post in the new gun control group which is being formed.

[hrmjustin]

1. It certainly will help with the new posters who come to disrupt.

[Kaleva]

4. It would certainly frustrate the zombies.

[atreides1]

2. Agreed

[petronius]

3. No thanks. I feel the same way about this as I do about blocks - we don't need procedures,

rules, policies, standards, structures, processes, etc, beyond what is already in place across DU (alert, ignore, MIRT, trash thread, trash group). Particularly in groups that are designed to contain discussions which are - in theory, anyway - excluded from the main forums...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. usually I agree with you petronius but, I am tired of taking the heat for them and having my

credentials as a Democrat questioned because I post in here.

[LP2K12]

5. I'm torn...

I agree with this because of the negativity I've seen thrown around there. However, what about the new members who don't cause trouble? It's as if you're saying, we... yes I coun't myself since I'm under 1,000 posts, are good enough for the "general population" of DU, but we have to earn our exclusive membership to GC/RKBA.

Either way I wont make a fuss.

[Kaleva]

8. While I have a great interest in guns and gun policy...

I would have been able to meet the threshold I propose if it had been in place when I first joined because of the many other groups and forums which I find very interesting.

While I really like GC/RKBA, it really wouldn't matter much to me if the place was shut down because of all the other parts of DU which I read and often post in. I'd still be here at DU as often as I am even if there was complete site wide ban on any discussion about guns and gun policy.

[jody]

6. Disagree, but would support guidance for juries that include accusation as "right wing" "NRA troll"

and similar invectives as justification for removing a post.

Second, the jury system allows people to be jury members who have a vendetta against pro-RKBA DUers.

They permit ad hominem attacks against pro-RKBA DUers and vote to remove even shallow attacks by pro-RKBA DUers in defense. That is decidedly unfair but even good systems have assholes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. Agreed. 100%.

[Eleanors38]

62. Boy, knocked that one outta the park! Thanks!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. fucking A got that shit Right!!

[jeepnstein]

7. FREEDMOM OF SPEECH!

Let's just let the fools prove it right away. They never last terribly long anyway.

[Kaleva]

13. There was a recently PPR'd member who'd been here since 2003 but had less then 1k posts

[gejohnston]

14. which means what?

I read through and subscribe to other forums and groups. Frugal and Energy Efficient Living and Rural Life among others. I learn a lot, but I don't post unless I think I have something to say other than "I agree". The same could be true with this guy, Or he just didn't have the time to get on the site.

[Kaleva]

15. Which means a troll can hide for a very long time if they don't post much

This guy had less then 500 posts since July 6, 2003.

With the 1000 post minimum that I propose, he'd have not been able to post here in this group for a long time yet at the rater he was going.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Well if a troll doesn't post much then they're not much a disruption, are they?

therefore, low post-rate trolls are not a significant problem.

Aside from the fact that such a poster is not a significant problem, I think if there's any such threshold it should be much lower (maybe 100 posts) and apply to all groups. Make the person survive in Main forums before being allowed to access ANY groups... not just a particular group. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Kaleva]

27. If they get PPR'd they caused enough of a problem to attract the attention of Admin.

[Clames]

9. No. Why special rules for this group and not other contentious groups?

Doesn't pass the common sense test.

[Kaleva]

10. Regulars of those groups are free to propose the same thing.

[Clames]

16. You go do that.

See what kind of reactions you get. Just seems like a way of stifling discussion which is of no benefit to anyone.

[Kaleva]

39. I'd like to hear your arguement as to how trolls, zombies, socks and such contribute to discussions.

What I propose isn't all one sided. There are long time members of DU who are very much anti-gun but couldn't post here because they have 5 or more hides in the previous 90 days. At least not till the number of hides drops to 4 or less.

[RZM]

32. FYI, the I/P group does have special rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134287

They are pretty comprehensive too. Every OP has to link to a news article and there are specific rules about language. You can't equate 'Zionist' with 'Jew' or 'Terrorist' with 'Palestinian.' And you can't accuse other posters of racism or anti-Semitism either.

So there is a precedent for this type of thing.

For the record I don't really post here or in I/P, but I read both and thought it was worth pointing out.

[Clames]

40. FYI, every group has special set of rules...

...that's why they call them SOP's. I see nothing in any group's SOP that mentions specifically limiting group membership to those that have met certain posting criteria like what had been suggested in this thread.

[Eleanors38]

63. Sounds like old DU rules governing "Guns" which I lean toward.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

105. yeah but, common sense ain't so common any more.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. whatever the Admin say.

[Kaleva]

12. krispos42 suggested I also post it in Meta so it'd be more likely Admin would see it.

So I did.

[ehrenfeucht games]

17. I think that this is my 12th post.

I guess it would be a while before I could post here under these proposed rules.

[Kaleva]

18. There's a new pro-gun control group that may be starting up soon.

If you are more of the pro control type, you wouldn't have any restrictions on posting there.

[ehrenfeucht games]

28. Yes, I read about it a little earlier. I suspect that that one will be more to my tastes. (nt)

[57_TomCat]

133. Why no restrictions there?

I have been here many, many years and still have yet to get to 1000 and you want to silence my RKBA voice yet the Pro Gun Control is open season... Sounds like chicken manure to me.

I have limited posts in other sections here at DU but see no reason why my entry to this forum should be limited.

I have no problem with a pro RKBA and a Pro Gun Control group having the same rules and both requireing membership for a year and maybe a 100 post limit. I have far too many other places to visit with limited computer time to spend all my time here to jack up a post count. I have yet to post here with anything that was not a valid point and to the best of my knowledge never simply added a simple "I agree" to boost numbers.

This sounds like a specific plan to restrict open discussion...something I, as a classic liberal find completely insulting.

[Puha Ekapi]

29. This is my first post, I guess....

....I'm screwed.

[hrmjustin]

31. No No welcome to DU my friend.

[Flyboy_451]

20. I think that is the wrong solution

Using myself as an example; I have been a member for four years, but I seldom post. I spend more time reading and researching than anything else. After four years, I have not made 1,000 posts. Does this mean that my posts are somehow less acceptable than someone whose post count is 10,000, yet has only been to constantly nod their head and agree with those around them?

The easy solution for those that come hear to disrupt is quite simple. Ignore them. Don't get your undies in a bunch. Don't respond. don't dispute. In other words, act like an adult. Give them the amount of attention that they are due; ZERO.

JW

[pop topcan]

21. Why not just propose what you really want: Anyone who favors the 2nd Amendment should be

shitcanned immediately.

[Kaleva]

22. A person who doesn't break the rules isn't shitcanned.

That goes for anyone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. I wish that was true

We have zombies, some are booted, others are not

[Democracyinkind]

36. How about sticking to the rule of shitcanning those writing about "black control"?

Worked fine for me.

[Kolesar]

101. pop topcan Account status: Posting privileges revoked

typical

[rrneck]

23. The admins will have to tweak the software. I kind of doubt they will. nt

[chibajoe]

25. I think it is a stupid idea.

I have no desire to spam a bunch of threads in other forums just to get my post count up to the point where I'm "allowed" to post here. I'm here, I've been here a while, and I don't post a lot: get over it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. I'm a Strong Gun Control Person

I vote no.

More speech.
Not less.

We have a jury system.

Besides....DU directs ALL gun threads here. We need more subscribers ...not fewer....who come not only when there is a massacre but 7 days a week.

Good intentions.

Bad idea.

In my opinion.

[gejohnston]

30. we agree

[Kaleva]

33. GC/RKBA is the most trashed group and many people refuse to come here for a reason.

Now there's a movement to create a new gun control activist group which will probably pull a few more away from here and turn this place into more of an echo chamber with less actual discussion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Perhaps

Not my vote.

[Eleanors38]

64. Do you have some links to this proposal? Thanx.

[57_TomCat]

135. For all of our disimilar points of view...

you have well explained my position on this point.. More speech, not less.

[Kaleva]

35. The example of glacierbay

glacierbay was PPR'd at the end of November for being a previously banned disruptor. He had joined DU under the name of glacierbay at the end of August of this year and quickly racked up close to 2500 posts before getting banned. Just under 800 of those posts made by a previously banned disruptor were posted here in GC/RKBA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=289093

While glacierbay would have quickly met the 1000 post threshold that I propose, he still would have had to wait until the end of August of 2013 before he could post here. In the meantime, no one could accuse the group of harboring a suspected zombie.

From what I gather, glacierbay fit in here very well but it was his posts outside of the group that nailed him.

[ileus]

37. No

[Kaleva]

41. The example of 4th law of robotics

He joined on April 16, 2012 and quickly racked up 6801 posts before he was banned for being a troll by EarlG. 20% of his posts in the 90 days before he was banned were in this group. If the proposed restrictions were in place, this troll couldn't have posted in GC/RKBA until April 16 of 2013 at the earliest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=283527

[gejohnston]

42. how do they determine who is a troll and who isn't?

or someone doing a Lazarus act for that matter? I get the latter could be IP address, to some degree. The former, I have to wonder. Like, what did fourth law say that sent him over the edge?

[Kaleva]

43. One would have to ask Admin about how they determine who is a troll or not.

[realism101]

102. Troll definition:

Anyone that disagrees with their viewpoint.

[Kaleva]

44. The example of iverglas

It isn't just gun troll that I'm talking about but also trolls who were very anti-gun. Iverglas's talent for racking up hidden posts kept her transparency page visible for much of the time she was here at DU3 and that would have prevented her from posting in this group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=100133

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I miss Iverglas.

I never considered her a troll, just fed up.

[Starboard Tack]

92. +1

[57_TomCat]

134. I too miss her...

she made me think and changed my mind on a few things though most I disagreed with.

[aikoaiko]

45. I don't know. I see what you're trying to achieve, but this group is what brought me to DU

And its not just the pro-gun noobies that are problematic. I've noticed quite a few low-post count folks staking out the "ban them all" ground. You never see the opposite position "no regulations at all". Talk about extreme.

[gejohnston]

46. I haven't come across a "no regulation at all"

or if I did, the individual didn't stand out.

[Kaleva]

47. Wanting to have the same guns as the military has it pretty close to "no regulation at all"

I've seen posts calling for the reopening of the registry and even for repealing the NFA.

[gejohnston]

48. I can get behind reopening the registry

as for repealing NFA, not so much.

[57_TomCat]

136. Your statement is plainly false.

"Kaleva

47. Wanting to have the same guns as the military has it pretty close to "no regulation at all"

I've seen posts calling for the reopening of the registry and even for repealing the NFA."

I sincerely believe the gun is but a tool and NOT the cause of firearms misuse and abuse. I am a past soldier and I currently own or have owned several examples of military firearms in the current inventory to include a "full auto" M16A1 that is transferable. My desire to own, shoot and collect military firearms is a legitimate purpose of the RKBA. The National Firearms Act is a morass of conflicting crap and should be repealed so that some sense can be made of the future of gun control. I have seen MANY, MANY posters here that want a reasonable set of rules that make sense AND actually try to prevent gun violence. Your statement above is simply wrong.

A new National Firearms Act that eliminates the manure and allows for responsible ownership of small arms, including full auto while still protecting the public from legal abuse as well as intentional firearms abuse is a worthy goal.

It seems that you might have a bias in your proposal that is to limit speech rather than embrace it.

[Eleanors38]

65. Same reason I came to DU. I know there are some

who want me outta DU, and have alerted me with comments like "NRA/RW troll" and worse. Frankly, I am more interested in 2A not because it is more important than other issues, but be cause I see gun-control as an albatross to those issues.

Just yesterday, some grew very angry with me because I used the term "Demos," instead of what I don't know.

The problem with this group is that heretofore crap language used by many controllers is now sanctified with little chance it can be successfully alerted. I would favor a return to the "old" DU, or perhaps the estab. of an activist 2A group.

Jody has it right.

[Kaleva]

49. The example of SGMRTDARMY

He joined on May 26, 2012 and was banned on Jun 15, 2012 for being a zombie and a distruptor. Looking at his positng history, about 150 of his 599 posts were here and he certainly was very pro gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=285085

[Kaleva]

50. The example of Meiko

Joined on Apr 12, 2008 and managed to get up to 1076 posts before being PPR'd by EarlG for being a RW troll on Jul 18, 2012. Looking at his posting hisoty for 2012, the great majority of them were in GC/RKBA.

[gejohnston]

52. then there is this guy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=297283

[Kaleva]

54. Yes. He wouldn't have been able to post here at all.

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

What I propose doesn't just affect RW trolls but also disruptors who are very much anti-gun and want to see GC/RKBA shut down.

iverglas, although having been a member of DU for many years and who had thousands of posts, would have had a hard time being able to post in GC/RKBA because her transparency page was usually visible.

Edit: i just looked at the profile of a member who wants GC/RKBA shut down and while he's been a member of DU since 2002 and has over 30k posts, he also has 9 hidden posts so that'd prevent him from posting in GC/RKBA.

[tortoise1956]

53. I think it's a bad idea

But then I would lose my posting privileges until I get another 480 or so posts elsewhere. The vast majority of my posts have been in this forum, with some very occasional posts concerning religion, atheism and agnosticism. I guess I could go find other forums to post in, but this one is the most important to me.

My views on RKBA have changed over the past 3 years, due in large part to this forum. Reading and discussing issues with other posters have made me reconsider many things. If there had been a limit when I started, I doubt I would have been able to stick with it this long.

[Kaleva]

55. The example of permatex

He joined on Jun 27, 2012 and got up to 1,299 before being PPR'd as a returning disruptor by Skinner on Jul 25, 2012. Looking at his posting history, he had quite a few posts here in GC/RKBA.

Edit: While he would have quickly made the 1000 post threshold, this disruptor would have been prevented from making a single post in GC/RKBA until Jun 27 of 2013.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. The example of AtypicalLiberal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=264598&sub=trans

When will the gungeon clue up?

Member since: Mon Nov 8, 2010, 01:42 PM
Number of posts: 5,412
Number of posts, last 90 days: 896
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 178 posts in the last 90 days (20% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 509 posts in the last 90 days (57% of total posts)
Last post: Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:48 AM

[gejohnston]

57. ironic

given this sig line towards the end.

[CTyankee]

59. Reading that was refreshing!

It is good to be free of noxious fumes...

[Kaleva]

60. The example of HankyDub

Joined Jun 14, 2012, made 246 posts, and was PPR'd by EarlG on Dec 21, 2012 for being a previously banned troll. 38% of his posts in the last 90 days were here and he was very much pro control. He wouldn't have been able to post in GC/RKBA at all had there been a 1000 post/1 year threshold.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=285928

[MineralMan]

61. Any such rules would have to be programmed by the Admins.

I'm not sure that's something they'll want to do.

[SEMOVoter]

66. After Friday's NRA press conference...

I think learning to harness the stupid together is the way to go. The NRA 'Gun Lover' brand is damaged. I wouldn't interrupt that with censorship.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. Is that why they are gaining 8,000 members per day, since the shooting? N/T

[needledriver]

67. Low post count zombie here.

I joined DU in 2004 under the name needledriver. Got tombstoned for making what I thought were civil, reasoned replies to a subject that that was too touchy for the OP. Waited two years and found out I could re-join. I re-joined under the same name because I was not trying to hide.

I have a low post count because I don't post much. I have made posts in this group which have received interesting and well thought out responses, for which I thank the group membership. Under the proposed rule, I would not be able to post.

"Basically, pro gun people will have to prove themselves before being able to post here."

How am I supposed to prove myself if I cannot post?

[Kaleva]

69. The example of rwilson32zoom

This member only lasted 3 posts in GD in one thread before being Mirted as a gun troll but I wonder how long would he have lasted had he just posted in GC/RKBA for a time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298543

His posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2068898

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2068887

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2068871

[Kaleva]

70. The example of TheMoreYouKnow

Joined Dec 18, 2012 and was MIRTed on Dec 26, 2012 after making 63 posts. Almost all of them in GD and pro-gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298288

His 8 posts in GC/RKBA are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=94976

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=95007

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97367

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97369

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97372

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97654

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97692

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97328

Reading the above posts, the former member fit right in here at GC/RKBA but his posts about gun control and gun rights in GD got him tagged as a malicious intruder and he is a member no more. TheMoreYouKnow could have lasted a long time at DU if he had hid here in this group and built up his time and post count beyond what Mirt can deal with.

[gejohnston]

71. I missed the malicious part

was he a "bad guy" or a witch hunt victim?

[Kaleva]

72. He stuck out like a sore thumb in GD

[alpine44]

73. Cool! Te be able to attack 2A more efficiently let's just throw out 1A as well

This is NOT what one would call a libertarian democracy.

[uppityperson]

74. DU is not Congress. Here is the text of 1st Amendment. Private websites can and do have rules.

Remember those rules and guidelines you read when you signed up? 1st Amendment relates to CONGRESS. And, as far as I know, DU isn't Congress. And no, DU isn't "libertarian democracy" either.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Kaleva]

75. The example of Gold Rush

Joined Nov 23, 2012 and made 30 posts of which 17 were here before getting PPR'd as a returning disruptor on Dec 16 by Skinner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=297283

Here's a typical post he made here in GC/RKBA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=93107

[corneliamcgillicutty]

76. Please forgive my assertiveness in making this post.

I am new to DU and was so happy to find great people of like mind to help me through the stress of the election. Feeling comfortable and welcome, I proceeded to post. Then it happened! I posted about an experience I had that was relevant to a very important topic. To my surprise, I was basically called a liar by another poster. Since that time, I have been disinclined to engage. I am not a person who is easily discouraged--quite the opposite. I guess the point that I strive to make is this. Will setting rules and regulations regarding a topic of paramount importance hinder the exchange of ideas and information? Should DU become exclusionary and take on the appearance of elitism on such an important topic? I really don't know. I am merely sharing my thoughts as a newbie.

[Kaleva]

77. Some people here aren't interested in exchanging ideas or info...

except with those of similar views. Some want nothing more then to see this group, GC/RKBA, shut down and all the so-called regulars banned from DU. Then there are RW trolls who come here and they can last a long time at DU because they are hanging out with Dems who have a similar interest which is guns.

A Right Winger who loves chocolate chip cookies and never tires of talking about them can hang out with progressives who also love chocolate chip cookies and never tire talking about them. Nobody will be the wiser unless the topic of conversation is changed and that's often what gets the trolls who come here. It's not their posts in GC/RKBA that gets them. It's their posts in GD and other places that lead to their downfall.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

78. So, the upshot is you're afraid of new people

Is one of these people you're trying to get rid of me?

Will you be grandfathering in all the people who are here posting now, or is this just in reality an attempt to get rid of any new people?

It really seems there are more than enough mechanisms in place for those who are disruptive.

Will you be taking the time to read what everyone who wants to post here has posted elsewhere?

This whole notion of yours is unwarranted and unwise.

In the short time I've been here and the short time I've been on DU, I've written a number of hot topic posts. Quality is not the result of either time here or quantity.

Basically, you're afraid, and you're trying to hide from anyone who challenge you. You're afraid of the threat of ideas, of any thinking not in lock step with yours.

[Kaleva]

79. I'm not afraid of anything here.

If you read my posts, you'll see that I don't have any issue with others challenging my views and I don't have any problem challenging others either for their views. I did notice you didn't bother to try an provide any evidence to back up your assertion. But DU is just a forum and no one is required to provide facts that would support their ideas.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

80. you seem to be afraid of new people

otherwise you wouldn't be trying to ban them from participating; it makes no sense to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which is what banning anyone who hasn't made 1000 posts or been around for a year would be doing - preventing any new person who is not disruptive or a troll from participating.

That sounds like fear to me; there seem to be plenty of remedies for bad people that stop well short of preventing new people from participating.

[Kaleva]

81. Why do you insist on repeating yourself?

That's not a discussion. It's, IMO, just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you wish to discuss new ideas, then please do.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

83. Are you talking about grandfathering in current people before imposing this nonsenes?

And have you made any attempt to quantify the number of people you consider problems, compared to other new people?

If you do, I think you should list those people; it makes a huge difference if people agree with who you characterize as problems requiring such draconian measures.

Make no mistake, these are Draconian measures, and frankly they seem very silly for such a minor annoyance.

Unless you are afraid of new people and new ideas that might challenge you. Because typically if there are draconian measures proposed for something without a clear and equally serious problem, someone is behaving in an emotional and irrational way.

So quantify this for us. How many new people have you counted joining in the last year, and how many of those people have posed problems versus people who have been here for a long time posing problems?

And how many of those have not been dealt with adequately by existing rules?

And how many people have posted 1,000 times - and how many have posted less?

You're proposing a solution which requires a lot of counting, so presumably you have quantified the problem to require such a quantifying solution? Otherwise the question exists - why do this at all, if you can't demonstrate both that a problem exists which is not solved by existing measures, AND that your proposal will solve that problem better than existing solutions.

You've demonstrated none of that, yet you propose something which will drastically limit participation in a DU group.

I think that requires documentation; otherwise the whole thing is just an emotional response, not a rational or analytical one. Which prompts the next question; if this is an emotional response, what is the emotion driving it?

[Kaleva]

84. In response

"You're proposing a solution which requires a lot of counting"

That's your opinion.

"...you propose something which will drastically limit participation in a DU group"

Another opinion not supported by any data.


I have posted examples of of trolls, disruptors, zombies and socks who have posted in GC/RKBA and continue to do so. You have offered nothing in response other then opinions. I'd be more then happy to engage in a discussion with you but please make an effort to support your opinions with something other then just opinions.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

85. Examples don't quantify the problem

and if you are proposing excluding people who are here, already, and not grandfathering them in, than on the face of what you propose, someone has to look at every commenter and poster's record of posts, conflicts, and start date.

On the face of it, what you propose means a lot of counting up who did what.

You posit that there would be some future tech fix that would do this going forward. But absent confirmation of that, someone has to do it manually.

Would that be you? Are you going to be the DU gungeon 'narc' doorkeeper?

That is draconian, capricious, arbitrary, and gives one person too much power, OR it proposes something unworkable.

Take your pick.

But you have failed to show that the existing methods of dealing with problem people are insufficient.

Therefore I don't have to prove anything; I'm not proposing anything. You on the other hand should expect to quantify, not merely qualify a problem to justify a significant change...and this is a significant change.

[Kaleva]

87. The only people I have to convince is Admin.

Your comment:

"Therefore I don't have to prove anything..."

Nor do I have to prove anything to you. Now I highly doubt Admin will accept my ideas and implement them but I'll keep plucking away at it. One never knows.

[57_TomCat]

137. I sincerely hope they do not.

Why change the rules for a problem that does not exist. All of your examples show a sysem that supposedly is working though I think some of those PPR's were unfairly administered.

Your proposal lacks supporting data and instead you post anecdotal evidence that tends to show the system is working. Makes me wonder what your hidden purpose is.

[Kaleva]

143. "...for a problem that does not exist."

[Kaleva]

82. The example of Toronto

Joined Dec 14, 2012 and made 183 posts, 119 of which were posted in GC/RKBA, before being PPR'd by Skinner for being a troll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298014

[gejohnston]

86. a troll?

OK so he or she couldn't be a Democrat, but he or she sounded like a Liberal or NDP type. Shouldn't that be OK? Toronto wasn't a LUFA mole or anything like that.
But, hey it's Skinner's house, his rules.

[iiibbb]

88. Seeing as I have < 800 posts I am against this.

I also think it's silly to have a separate "gun control group", but that's just me.

[Warren Stupidity]

89. The example of loknar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117299529

[Kaleva]

90. PPR'd as a returning disruptor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298861&sub=trans

[Kaleva]

91. The example of Marinedem

Joined Jun 20, 2012, made 145 posts in the last 90 days of which 14 were here. PPR'd as a troll by Skinner Jan 5, 2013.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=286136

One of his comments, under the name of markfall, he made at AR15.com about DU:

"I spend a lot of time on the democratic underground. Don't get me wrong, I hate those fuckers, but the gun forum is hilarious and I get to come back over here and think that GD is actually smart.

My question is, do you think if I stuck my head in over on stormfront to see what a different group of ra-tards are going on about, would the black helicopters come for me?

Serious question. Not about the black helicopters though. Well maybe."

I won't post the applicable link to AR15.com here but one can find it in a thread in Meta.

[Kaleva]

93. The example of PavePusher

Joined Jun 14, 2009 and was PPR'd by EarlG for being a troll on Jan 7, 2013 after he made 615 posts here in GC/RKBA in the past 90 days. While he was a long time member and had over 15,000 posts, he would have been prrohibited from posting in this group as his transparency page was visible. At least until his transparency page was hidden again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=241790

[gejohnston]

94. not that I'm defending Pave but

most of the posts that pushed his buttons were, quite frankly, as bad if not worse. If it were about any other group than gun owners or Mormons, they would have been PPRed before Pave. Seriously, it's fucking disgusting.

[Kaleva]

96. I knew him here in GC/RKBA but not outside of this group...

except for his posts in Meta or in a gun thread in GD.

[gejohnston]

97. I read his hidden posts

and the ones preceding it. So, if you read other groups, but don't post for whatever reason, you are now a "troll"? That's bullshit. I read and subscribe other areas but rarely post there because, I don't have anything to say outside of "me too". Perhaps I need to do that more often.
I noticed a bit of a trend.

[Kaleva]

98. I subscribe to 13 groups but routinely post in only a few of them.

As for PavePusher, I saw the thread started about him ealier in Meta but made no comment as I really didn't know him outside of here, some posts in Meta and what he said in gun threads in GD so I wasn't going to say if he was a troll or not as I didn't know.

Others, and most importantly EarlG, said he was and when I saw that he had been PPR'd, I added his name to this list.

[gejohnston]

99. I rarely go to Meta

most of the time doing jury duty. Most of the time it is umm, not my thing.

[Kaleva]

95. The example of generalhh

Joined Dec 21, 2012, made 20 posts of which 12 were here, before being PPR'd as a gun troll by MIRT on Jan 7, 2013.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298411&sub=trans

[Kaleva]

100. The example of trouble.smith

Joined DU on Aug 17, 2012 and was PPR'd as a gun troll by MIRT on Dec 15, 2012. He made 155 posts here in the 90 days before being banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=288860

[Kaleva]

106. The example of S. Taylor

Joined Jan 8, 2013 and managed to get 3 posts in, one of which was in this group, before being banned as a malicious intruder by MIRT.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299336

Here is his post in GK/RBKA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=101415

[Kaleva]

107. The example of former-republican

Joined DU on Aug 15, 2012 and made 78 posts here in GC/RKBA in the 90 days preceding his being PPR'd by Skinner on Jan 10, 2013 for being a RW troll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=288785

[gejohnston]

108. one of his hidden threads was a youtube video

by a police armorer. I would like to see the rational for that alert.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2141120

Instead of stricter control for posters, how about jury reform?

[Kaleva]

110. The example of -..__...

Joined DU before July 6th 2003 and had 7,776 in total of which 62 posts were made in this group in the 90 days prior to his being banned by Admin on Jan 11, 2013 for posting shock content.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=127101

While he was a long time member with well over 1k posts, his transparency page was visible.

[Kaleva]

111. The example of jody

A member of DU since 2001 and had 26,624 posts of which 177 were made here in GC/RKBA in the 90 days prior to his being PPR'd by EarlG for defending James Yeager.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=108116

While jody was a very long time member and had many thousands of posts, his transparency page was visable at the time he got PPR'd.

[jeepnstein]

112. Some folks want to be right no matter what.

So on DU that means getting anyone who doesn't agree banned. It really kills the quality, if that is a term that can even be used around here anymore, of the discussion. These days it's just hysterical ranting followed by attempts to ban anyone who dare disagree. How progressive.

[Kaleva]

113. Making it easy for trolls to post here in GC/RKBA doesn't improve the discussion IMO.

[gejohnston]

114. true but

If you look at many of the hidden posts, some of them were frivolous. While some were not, some of the remaining were replies that was equally or more trollish. Ultimately, it isn't about making DU a better place, it is about stifling diversity in thought.

[Kaleva]

115. However, as I pointed out in the OP, many avoid GC/RKBA now because of its reputation

That in itself stifles diversity of thought.

[Kaleva]

116. The example of TPaine7

Joined DU Apr 12, 2008 and had 66 posts posts here in GC/RKBA in the 90 days preceding his being PPR'd by Skinner on Jan 17, 2013 for being a gun troll. His transparency page was visible at the time he was banned.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=218832

[gejohnston]

117. have you read the alerted on and

hidden posts? One reason I don't mention guns outside of here.

[Kaleva]

118. If Admin says he was a gun troll, then he was a gun troll.

[Eleanors38]

119. Trolls are a problem, but worse is the foul stuff dumped on pro-2A

Members on a REGULAR basis, and the jury system which seems to have been corrupted to the point where that garbage is sanctioned. No amount of troll catching can or will stop this dynamic. I've seen the "rationales" and even celebration for this bathroom stall graffiti. And it continues unabated.

On a personal note, a few friends where I live (those with no investment in guns or gun control) have told me that they won't visit DU because of this crap. And here I was recommending they visit.

[Warren Stupidity]

120. It bears repeating: you are posting pro gun messages on a progressive liberal democratic forum.

Try posting pro gun control messages at FR. What did you expect, hugs and kisses?

[gejohnston]

121. read the TOS

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 though 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.

So jurors are ignoring Skinner's rules?

[Warren Stupidity]

123. The TOS has to do with who gets evicted, why posts get hidden has to with

who we are as a community. We are a liberal progressive democratic community, and consequently we will, on average, have a very low tolerance for gun nuttery. You all know that. It is obvious, thus the complaints. Too bad. Nobody is forcing you to post pro gun messages here.

[gejohnston]

128. Don't think so,

the big tent seems to be Skinner's intent. When an post as benign as a police armorer explaining the difference between an assault rifle and an "assault weapon" is hidden but bigoted rants that look more at home at FR stays, the word "liberal" doesn't come to mind and "democratic" certainly doesn't either. "Authoritarian" and narrow minded certainly does, which is the antithesis of liberal. I'm guessing if you were in charge of the DNC, Ted Strickland and Brian Schweitzer wouldn't have speaking roles, but wouldn't even be allowed in the door.

[Warren Stupidity]

129. Think whatever you want.

You should be able to list all the people who have been evicted from here for being too pro gun control.

Do I need to list the recent evictions of anti gun control people? Really?

But aside from that inconvenient fact, community moderating, the jury system set up by the admins, results in "the community" establishing standards quite separate from the TOS.

As I and others have repeatedly explained, a direct consequences of that is that anti gun control posts and anti gun control posters are, on average, going to get harsher treatment from juries than pro gun control posts and pro gun control posters. That is the way it is, and the owners of this site were quite aware of this sort of consequence from their system when they set it up.

[Eleanors38]

122. I expect less hatred from liberals. Controllers do not dictate what is or is not liberal.

[Warren Stupidity]

124. You do get less hatred here. Over there you would get one post.

Here you get to post, sometimes for years, before the admins get fed up and kick you out.

[Eleanors38]

125. Did that happen to you?

[Warren Stupidity]

130. Why don't you try it?

Tell me how many pro gun control posts you manage before getting "zotted". It shouldn't take more than a minute. I'll wait

[Eleanors38]

138. If I follow, you get zotted (how many times?) for advocating gun-control in a civilized way on DU?

Or in the gungeon?

[Warren Stupidity]

141. apparently you are wandering around chasing your tail.

I'll spell it out for you more clearly:

Here, in horrible DU, people can advocate for gun control or against gun control.
There in the paradise of Free Republic you can advocate against gun control but not for gun control.

Did you follow that? Or is it still to complicated?

[Eleanors38]

142. Through the fog of your writing, I discerned the Free Republic. What makes you think I care about

group? Are you drawn to them? Are you intrigued by them? I'm not.

[tama]

127. Controllers control and dictators dictate.

Authoritarianism is not limited to RW but another dimension on the political map. And social groups continue to seek unity through common enemies, which they dehumanize and demonize. That's inside each of us, to various degrees. So who want's to cast the first stone? Or who hasn't, in some way, at some point of their lives?

[Warren Stupidity]

131. Ah yes du is a fartress of fascism.

Whatever.

[tama]

132. I perceive this as discussion forum, not fortress.

And it is not uncommon for brain farts - such as this post is responding to - to appear on forums.

[Eleanors38]

139. We all lose contenance as well, but we don't (hopefully) make a lifestyle of it,

or make it an organized practice.

[tama]

140. It is good to stay aware

of the potential and it's dangers.

[apocalypsehow]

145. No one's forcing you to post NRA talking points on a progressive discussion board.

"On a personal note, a few friends where I live (those with no investment in guns or gun control) have told me that they won't visit DU because of this crap"

[mike_c]

126. while I agree with the overall objectives of this request...

...and would certainly qualify for posting under the proposed rule change, I'm generally OPPOSED to creating elitist posting rules on DU. If you can post anywhere on DU, you should be able to post everywhere on DU. And the same rules regarding civility should apply everywhere. That's my opinion.

[Kaleva]

144. rDigital was prohibited from posting in GC/RKBA for a bit.

Even though he could post anywhere else on DU. Groups are given some latitude as to who is allowed to post in a group.