All this talk of a need for more rules

[B2G]

cracks me up. We have AUP. We have mods. We have an alert/jury process in place. We have ignore.

Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever will be.

Maybe we could all try being adults and letting the process work. And if something offends you that is allowed to stand, there's this nifty little red X at the top right corner of the screen.

Grow. Up.

[MineralMan]

1. DU? There are no longer moderators on DU.

I'm not sure what AUP is. In any case whether more rules are created is up to the owners of the website, and not up to us. We're all just guests here. Some of us are donor guests, but guests nevertheless.

The admins of this site have a vision of what they want it to be. They can make whatever rules they wish to try to achieve that vision, I think. If their vision and their rules do not please some of their guests, those guests can find a site that pleases them more.

It's funny how that works. DU is what it is, and that's always subject to change. It will always reflect the vision of its owners, just like every other website on the Internet.

[sabrina 1]

3. "Those quests can find a site that pleases them more". Exactly, the owners of the site have

created the site they want, obviously. But it seems there a few here who do not like what the administrators have created.

That, I believe is the point of this OP who appears to be quite happy with the site the Admins created.

Your advice might be more appropriate in some of the threads that appear to be railing AGAINST what he Admins have created.

This one appears to be perfectly happy with it.

Oh, and me too, I think the site is a work of genius and am in awe of the amount of work and thought that went into creating it.

It's kind of rude of those who keep trashing it, yet continue to post here imho. They could always start their own site.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes. I'm also happy with how the site is administered.

I wasn't referring to that poster as someone who doesn't like it. For me, DU works just great and provides a discussion platform with just the right combination of features and a unique community moderation system that seems to be a great idea. It's a work in progress, of course, and I expect to see changes from time to time.

I'm quite happy with DU. I'm not always happy with some DUers, but that's something I can address in posts.

[sabrina 1]

15. I just wondered why you were advising a poster who is clearly happy with the site

rather than those who clearly are not.

I would so myself, but not interested in kicking threads that consistently bash DU and longtime DUers.

Let them rail all they want, all they are doing is exposing themselves and that's not a bad thing either.

I'm neither happy or not happy with DUers. Except for a few but not to the point of obsessing over them.

My focus is on those we elect and how they are representing us. DUers do not have the power to affect the lives of the average person and are all entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they may be.

Elected Officials are a different story.

Which is why I can't understand why some people spend all their time trying to control what DUers have to say. They can't, even if they succeeded in their mission to ban everyone they don't like which is apparently most of DU. All that would happen is they would continue to express their opinions, everywhere else, probably even more loudly.

[MineralMan]

22. I was making a general comment and clarifying what an AUP might be,

along with restating that we do not have moderators on DU. I have no interest in keeping anyone off DU, except for the newly-registered spammers and disruptors, which is why I'm on MIRT. I'm perfectly capable of stating my disagreements with any DUer with whom I disagree. I don't want anyone banned.

[albino65]

37. We are all a work in progress

When we cease to be, we ought to take a dirt nap.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. AUP stands for 'Acceptable Use Policy' which DU calls SOP and Community Standards.

nt

[intheflow]

45. Thanks, I was wondering.

[B2G]

17. Sorry, I should have said

'we have people who review posts, lock & move threads, and tombstone disrupters'.

[MineralMan]

27. Actually, nobody on DU moves threads. That's not possible

in this version. There are hosts in each forum and group, and they can lock threads, but only if they are outside of the Statement of Purpose for that forum or group. Very few posts get locked, except in LBN, which has strict rules about what posts get into LBN. An enormous majority of all other posts remain unlocked. You can see that by looking at the post list for any forum or group.

As for banning disruptors, MIRT can ban newly-registered people, but once the 100-post threshhold is reached the admins handle all of that. Mostly, MIRT bans spammers, repeating disruptors and obvious trolls. Nobody would enjoy DU if those people that get banned by MIRT managed to stay on DU. Truly.

For any long-term DUers, even those with just 101 postings or more, the admins do any banning that is done. That's how it works. Admins ban DUers rarely.

Posts get hidden if a jury of DUers votes at least 4-2 to hide the post. That's all juries can do. So far, I've served on 500 juries. The vast majority of alerts I've voted on ended up being left and were not hidden. Juries tend to give the benefit of the doubt in the vast majority of cases. I certainly do.

[B2G]

29. And I think that all works just fine. nt

[MineralMan]

31. I understand that you do.

I'm just trying to get the facts of how DU operates accurate. It has nothing to do with you, but you said some things that weren't correct, so I'm correcting them. Not everyone knows how DU works. That's too bad, but it certainly is the case.

So, I'm just clarifying.

[B2G]

33. I appreciate that

Very informative.

[TBF]

35. It changed when

We moved to this version of DU a few years ago. Minute Man is just detailing what changed.

I agree with your overall point - it can get juvenile sometimes. I tend to gravitate towards a few of the smaller groups where you can get to know folks a little more

[Rex]

2. Yeah, this is all over a few posts not getting a hide.

My last few alerts are all strikeouts. I guess I should hold it against this entire place and go on a witchhunt!

[JaneyVee]

4. At least bring back unrec, its the democratic way.

[sabrina 1]

6. No need for unrec, all you have to do is either avoid threads you don't like, or go in

and express your opinion on why you don't agree with it. That is far more conducive to actual discussion than the lazy way out, just clicking 'unrec'.

Unless people don't like discussion of course.

Which begs the question, if that is the case, what are they doing on a political discussion forum in the first place?

[JaneyVee]

9. Unrecs are more democratic.

It allows users to actually vote what gets on the main front page here and builds consensus. Without unrec only one side of the story gets told.

[Bobbie Jo]

12. Exactly.....

Mob rule, etc.....

[sabrina 1]

18. Lol, you might not like what doesn't get on the front page if people had the option to unrec.

I don't care, it never affected me one way or the other. I suppose people think that having that option means only THEY can decide what gets unrec'd off the front page. The fact is, so do others. It doesn't ensure that what you want off the FP or on the FP will be the result. There are a whole lot of DUers who will have a say in that also. Unless you'd like only those who agree with you to have the option?

[JaneyVee]

23. I agree. Why not let "a whole lot of DUers" participate

Instead of just a handful. Good or bad, its more democratic than mob rule.

[sabrina 1]

25. But if everyone has the ability to rec what they want on the FP then it is not 'mob rule'

All it means is a majority of all who have the ability to rec do so.

There has been plenty on the FP I don't particularly like, but if that is what the majority wants, then I can live with that.

I'm not for silencing the majority, even when I don't agree with them. Sometimes we get what we like and sometimes we don't. And I may be wrong, but I think even with Unrec, it was much the same result.

I don't have strong feelings about it, not arguing for or against it, just not sure what difference it would make since we would all have the same ability to use it our way.

[JaneyVee]

26. But its not the majority, its 300 out of 200,000.

Thats the point, let the actual majority have a voice.

[zeemike]

36. And if there are 300 trolls on here they have a voice too.

One that can cancel out the recs of the rest of us...and that is exactly what they would do too and you know it.
now all they can do is rec posts that support their own view, or posts designed to create divisions or calls for a witch hunt...but they can't use that easy mouse click in a negative way...and that is a good thing.

[sabrina 1]

39. They DO have a voice. And that number is everyone who registered since the founding of the site.

Many have left, some have been banned, probably some lost their passwords and signed up again, making that two people etc. Not to mention sock puppets.

But what difference would it make if there was an unrec option? Even if 300 or so agreed with you, it would still not represent the majority by your logic.

I remember unrec, didn't see much difference in what ended up on the FP. Generally it OPs that defend Democratic issues and principles.

The 'silent' majority CAN rec if they are signed up. Lurkers are not counted in the numbers so they cannot rec, and why do you think that IF they could, anything would change? I don't think so.

[MineralMan]

24. One of the ways that can be handled is to start a new OP

from a different perspective. If other DUers agree, they will rec that one and it, too will appear on the front page, greatest page, or in the Trending list.

[Rex]

7. Yeah I think that is a good idea.

I mean we have trash thread etc..but unrec is a feature I miss too.

[one_voice]

10. +1

I'd like to see it brought back too.

[JaneyVee]

14. It would help ease the divide here as well.

Take the p.o.s. used car salesmen thread, it made the front page, made the OP a rockstar among rightwingers, which made his ego want to go ahead and double down, yet with unrec it probably would be at zero recs. That would be the consensus among posters here, but you would never know it because 300 people out of 200,000 decided to rec it.

[Whisp]

20. Exactly. Shit like that rises to the top w/o unrec, and it is Not representative. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. and he drags his entourage everywhere he goes..

And THEY accuse others of "hero wors
hip".

[fizzgig]

13. i miss unrec

i also miss the hilarity of the anti-unrec people.

[TheKentuckian]

5. There is a little circle that is always trying reshuffle the deck in their favor that gets their way

but not what they actually desire as an aim so now they are trying to go more direct. It would be hilarious if once again they won the battle only to all be hid to death in response to their own incessant Democrat bashing. Of course what they are going for is to protect politicians but I'm comfortable holding them very stringently to a more inclusive interpretation.

[Whisp]

16. Gawd but these posts that sound like a know-it-all loud drill sargeant annoy me.n/t

[sabrina 1]

21. You must have hated the one begging for the banning of a majority of DUers. I thought it was

hilarious, speaking of drill sargeants!

[Whisp]

28. banning of a 'majority' of DUers.

tribbles are multiplying.

[MineralMan]

34. The majority of DUers is mainly silent, so none of us really

knows what the majority of DU believes. The majority of DUers do not post, use the DU Rec feature, or do much of anything else but read on the site. All you have to do is look at who recs threads. The majority of those are predictable, based on whoever wrote the OP. Most DUers do not participate in that process at all.

I wouldn't even think of trying to say what the majority here believes or thinks. DU has far more readers than posters, and those readers are also DUers. Recommendations are pretty much meaningless as a way to determine what the majority here thinks.

[sabrina 1]

38. They were hardly calling for the banning of those whose opinions they DO NOT KNOW, were they?

We know pretty much what the majority of ACTIVE DUERS think.

If you don't, then speak only for yourself. Those calling for bannings, certainly know and appear to be frustrated that they are unable to control a majority of DUers.

The whole thing was funny, 'ban everyone who doesn't agree with meeee!



This is Democratic Forum where the MAJORITY of DUers support Democratic issues and principles which is why most threads standing up for those principles DO get the most approval ratings, as it should be.

[JoePhilly]

40. Now if only that group could generate some progressive candidates.

They are very long on "principled" bluster, but very very short on acceptably progressive candidates.

[sabrina 1]

42. This is what made me laugh and everyone else also. The absolute

nonsense going on in a desperate attempt to try to distract from doing just that, force the Dem Party to stop pushing Third Way/Right Wing candidates and start backing Progressive Candidates.

Yes, yes we know that god forbid anyone have any principles. Most of all our elected officials. What a horror!!! We want people with PRINCIPLES in office. You're RIGHT, who needs principles?

Exactly as I thought.

Progressive doesn't mean what you think it means. Republicans are not progressive dems no matter how they dress them up.

[JoePhilly]

43. Where are the acceptably progressive candidates?

I see lots and lots of complaining ... yet no candidates being proposed by those doing the complaining.

Shouldn't you be proposing them?

[MineralMan]

41. I have called for zero bannings.

That's not my thing at all.

[HereSince1628]

19. What's new? It's always been, if you can't win under the rules...

CHANGE THE RULES!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. Is that why the Admin moved us to DU3? They weren't winning so they Changed The Rules?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. They sound more like a demand for more Loyalty Oaths.