Keep your posting privileges alive, please.

[MineralMan]

I don't care which Democratic candidate you support. If you can't post on DU, it's a loss to the conversation. Too many DUers are losing their posting privileges due to time outs for too many hidden posts. Many supporters of both candidates are among them.

It's easy not to get hidden posts. You don't have to avoid posting about your favorite candidate. You don't have to avoid fair criticisms of the other candidate, either. You just have to avoid being so angry that you lash out and have your post hidden.

Keep a cool head and be sensible in your posts and you'll be able to continue posting as long as you like. I don't care who you are or who you support. Why lose your ability to post here? It's not worth it, and does no good for your candidate.

Post sanely and politely and keep on posting, please, everyone.

[FSogol]

1. And always wear your seat belt...and remember to floss before bed...

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, those things, too.

However, they don't have much to do with DU.

[Orsino]

3. Yep. Even the most dumbass opinion counts, in my dumbass opinion...

...because elections are decided, in large part, by dumbasses. There are vacuous reasons to support or oppose any candidate, and the more DU mirrors the electorate, the more useful it is. Even if more annoying.

[MineralMan]

6. Elections are decided by voters.

Calling voters dumbasses probably isn't the best way to help whatever side you're on. Most people dislike being called dumbasses, it seems to me.

[Orsino]

19. Many voters are dumbasses.

I hope you'll note that I included myself, and my post (indeed, the thread) was not an attempt to sway anyone toward a particular candidate.

It's just a call for more DUers.

[Roy Ellefson]

22. yep

right on, dumbass.

[Bobbie Jo]

4. Yeah, well...

Some of us have to be more cautious than others. I think we all know how that works around here.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, I'm seeing people from both camps

getting too many hides. I'm not keeping a count, though. It does go both ways. Sentiments are running hot these days. It's too bad, in my opinion.

[m-lekktor]

9. you probably only see it as the people you agree with are getting wrongful hides.

more often than not when i read a hidden thread it is a stupid hide no matter which side the person is on. That is why i don't participate in the jury system and I never alert on people. if i did alert it would only be for hateful bigotry.

[VulgarPoet]

36. When ya know who owns this place...

[Bobbie Jo]

45. Huh?

Welcome to DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Yup, I have an alert stalking crew

but that precedes the elections... they are just there...

And I have utter contempt for a few of them. And a long list of people I try hard not to have any interaction with. See that contempt part.

[uponit7771]

7. Some post are being hidden for just posting facts and that's it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110744081

This is getting crazy

[Andy823]

10. That was a bad hide

I see nothing wrong with that post, and have seen many that are much worse that get left. The idea of shutting down all opposition to the "other" candidate is not helping change anyones mind around here.

[uponit7771]

18. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

29. One of many. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

47. How is it a bad hide? It's full of name calling. Bernie Bots and Yankees and only the

Southern vote matters? Fuck all of that noise. All of it. Civility means you don't do name calling. If you do, you risk a hide.

[beam me up scottie]

57. +1

[bigtree]

21. without a doubt

...that makes threads like this one pure bunk.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. It's full of name calling and invective.

If I called you a Hillary Bot and said I don't trust people from Maryland would you think that is 'just posting facts'? No, you'd object to it. That hidden OP calls people Bots and says Southerners don't trust any 'Yankees'. That's shitty stuff even if you can't see it. It is the very thing I want out of this Party, it's Republican style and not my style.

[one_voice]

25. Wow. AND it was posted in the Hillary group.

very strange.

[GusBob]

27. Proof that the OP is off base

I'd say what I really think, which happens to be true, but I don't want to get a hide

[mythology]

46. The name calling probably had something to do with it

Bernie bots isn't intended as a term of endearment.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. That is the fact.

That post is being said to be 'pure fact' but it had name calling and region bashing in it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. "BernieBots" is a fact?

News to this BernieBot BernieBro Sandersista uh, Sanders supporter.

Except for the lack of a ban, it's exactly the phenomenon MM spoke of.

[uponit7771]

54. You understand what HRC supporters and some blacks have been called around here lately?

... with reported on OPs and nothing done about them?!

Berniebots seems sublime

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Is 'Hillary Bots' an acceptable term? That post you say is all fact calls Bernie supporters 'Bots'

and also engages in region bashing while claiming the South never trusts any 'Yankees'.

Those are not facts, those are nasty opinions and name calling. How can you not see that? Do you call other people
Bots? Do you let others call you a Bot? Is that how you speak in life to other adults?

[uponit7771]

55. Do you think a post like that got hidden for the relatively sublime labeling?! Really?!

[Bluenorthwest]

68. It's name calling and you called it 'just fact' and now 'sublime'.

It's not a fact it is an insult and it's not sublime, it's an insult.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Yep. If you want to call people names like "Hillbots" & "Bernbots" you take your chances with a jury

Best way to avoid a hide is stop calling people derogatory names.

Such a simple concept.

[MineralMan]

60. I'm not talking about individual posts.

That one had some name-calling and a regional reference. I wouldn't have voted to hide it, but I wasn't on that jury.

In any case, a single hidden post doesn't keep the poster from posting additional ones. It takes five hidden posts within 90 days to lose posting privileges for a while.

I have one hidden post right now. It will scroll out of view soon. Looking at it, it's clear that I posted rudely in it. When it was hidden, I knew exactly why and resolved not to post anything like that again.

I've had maybe half a dozen hidden posts, out of 80,000+ posts. Each one I recognized as a poor post and understood the reason it got hidden. I have learned from those.

Simply posting reasonably and politely is pretty much proof against having hidden posts. If you call people names or trash someone in a rude way, there's a fair chance your post will be hidden. If you do not do those things, it's unlikely that your post will be hidden, even if you're in disagreement with someone or even a group of people.

There are occasional exceptions. Once in a while, a post gets hidden that probably shouldn't be. But, it takes 5 hidden posts in 90 days to get a time out. Look at all the people on DU with no hidden posts at all. Some of them are very open with their disagreements, but they understand how to do that without having their posts hidden.

[uponit7771]

65. I've been hidden just for posting a link to a Sanders vote, that's it... that was the only thing in

... the post IIRC and it was done 3 times in a night.

There are 1 too many cases like this were people are just posting mostly facts and that's it and they get hidden.

The system now is like a grand jury system and it looks like it is being abused

[MineralMan]

66. Are you talking about this 2015 post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=654858

If so, the link to that vote isn't the only thing you wrote in that post.

[uponit7771]

67. no, the others with just that link in it though... there were 3 or 4 of them... How did you find

... this one? I went back and couldn't find my other ones

Also, when it "punk ass'd vote" something that can't be said on DU?!

Please inform me of how this is an infraction of TOS... I would like to know cause that's one thing I have againt the current system is no one learns because its so subjective


Thx in advance for any help on this issue

regards

[MineralMan]

69. Alerts and jury service are not about the DU TOS.

They have to do with "community standards." Only the admins enforce the TOS. "Community standards" are set by the community, and only broad guidelines are used to define them. Every jury rules on alerts based on their concept of those "community standards."

When you're called to a jury, you can see the basic definition, and you can even click to see more details. Few people do, though.

The whole thing was set up, as I understand it, to allow DUers to determine what was and was not acceptable in posts. It works, but spottily, and sometimes posts are hidden that shouldn't be.

As for finding hidden posts, you can use the Google site search box at the top of every page. I found that one by searching for Hidden uponit7771. I could have added a year to narrow the search down, but that one was the first result in the search. Since it contained a link, I thought that might be the one.

Are all juries fair? No. Are all juries unfair? Again, no. As much as some people dislike me here, I almost never have a post hidden. Many of my posts are alerted on, but not hidden by the jury. I know why. I know what I have to do to avoid jury hides, so I write with that in mind. I refuse to let anger guide what I write. I refuse to call people names. I never use -bot to describe supporters. I try to be polite in my disagreements with people, while still making it clear that I disagree. I don't call candidates names, either. It's pretty easy to avoid the kinds of things that cause hide votes by juries.

[joshcryer]

70. The alerter on that post...

...is not a good person.

[AgingAmerican]

8. I agree

Some folks can barely last a week at a time and are almost always on vacation. They act like it's a conspiracy that they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

[NurseJackie]

11. "You don't have to avoid fair criticisms of the other candidate, either."

You don't have to avoid fair criticisms of the other candidate, either.

Theoretically, yes. But considering the typical 6:1 jury ratio (as confirmed by Skinner) I'm afraid that's not entirely true at this point in time. But your point is well-taken... and can be demonstrated by the number of folks who have "time-outs", and by the number of folks who have voluntarily slowed (or ceased) their participation.



Note to Jury: I am not making this up. The ratio mentioned above comes from this site's owner (Skinner) himself. The comment about "time-outs" and numbers of posters who participate less is my opinion based on my observations. Different people observe different things and come to different conclusions. This is my conclusion. It's not an attack or smear on any candidate or any candidate's supporters. Don't ban me bro!

[Paulie]

12. So what happened with the hide you got?

If it's easy NOT to get one, how did you accomplish it? Last out in anger as your OP mentions?

[MineralMan]

13. I wrote thoughtlessly and the post was hidden.

I just looked to see what was in that post. It was quite a while ago. The hide was deserved, and I could have easily avoided it. I've had a handful of hides from my large number of posts since I joined DU in 2008. I agreed with the reasons for all of them, and learned from each one.

Pretty soon, the hide that shows up now, will be gone. The 90 days are almost up. I hope never to have another one. I'll try not to.

[Paulie]

14. Please add your reply to me to the OP

It deserves to be front and center as well.

[MineralMan]

15. I'll just leave it in the thread, I think.

Thanks.

[Paulie]

17. Oh why? It tells the rest of the story!

It's like leaving off the last 3 paragraphs of a good sermon. It will give the OP the icing on the cake it needs. Dare I say "perfect" it? I dare!

[TheBlackAdder]

16. Thanks MM! It's only easy because there are those who want to suppress discourse!

.


Some of the topics, such as race, evoke passions that must be expressed and not hidden.


There will never be resolution if thoughts are shutdown mid-stream and not allowed to play out!



Too many want to act in a totalitarian manner and shut down these exchanges, or anything they want to control.

Most flags are not done because "feeling are hurt," most are done to control others!


It's all about CONTROL and ABUSE OF POWER!


.

[RunInCircles]

20. The tension and anger is so high this may not be practical

I do not respond to posts very often.
Today I saw a post Why do people not trust ?fill in the blank?
I responded in what I thought was a polite manner.
I even apologized for posting something negative within the candidate forum about the candidate.
I was immediately banned from the group.
I am sure it was my mistake that I believed that by asking a question an answer was requested.

[RiverLover]

23. You made a common mistake by new people. The groups are protected.

There are hundreds of people banned from that group. Don't take it personally.

(See "about this group" & scroll down. They're almost to 500 people banned!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1107

[snooper2]

32. That is too easy though, you aren't cool until you get blocked from the "Prayer Circle"

LOL...

One of the founders and main mods is always on vacation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1225

[kath]

35. A very long one this time.

[RiverLover]

59. haha wow.

Wrote something, deleted....will just stick with wow. Covers it.

[hedgehog]

50. I feel so left out now.

[RiverLover]

58. LOL!

Me too. All the cool kids are banned...

But I don't care enough to actually go to the Hillary Group and post something. (Though all I'd have to say is "Hi!" and I would be booted. )

[onehandle]

24. Them's fight'n words!

Kidding.

[casperthegm]

26. Is this post on the Hillary Clinton page worthy of being banned?

There was a post, asking why people didn't trust Hillary. All I did was answer question. I really tried to address it and be civil. See below;



I can only answer for myself but here are a number of reasons I don't care for her/distrust her;

Her position on Keystone (or lack of one). She waited until the same week that Obama made his decision before announcing where she stood. That's not standing up for the environment. That's politics.

Wall Street money. Whether it's impression or reality, it's there and it can't help but make me wonder. Generally speaking, it's hard to imagine the banks and Wall Street throwing all of that money at her and saying "here you go, we don't expect anything in return."

Her opposition to Glass Stegall. Though I do recall her telling the banks to "cut it out." Thanks Hillary.

Her Iraq vote. You may be sick of hearing about it but it's a big deal. It was poor judgement and lack of foresight. Sanders saw that it would destabilize the region. And it did. Now we not have the legacy of the Iraq war, we have the current ISIS situation.

Speaking of that, there is the no-fly zone proposal. Another poor foreign policy decision. What happens when Russian jets cross that line? You have to be prepared for that and I don't see it.

The email and server investigation by the FBI. Sorry, it's real. It very well could end up being nothing in the end, but what if it's not? What if it drags on until the general election and then she gets indicted? Then you end up with a republican in the White House.

Gay marriage. You can see how she has flip flopped over the years, as confirmed via politifact. Another change based on the political winds.

All of this and more have led me to distrust her judgement and her authenticity.

[VulgarPoet]

38. Nah, they probably just auto-assumed you were a RW shill

because you had the god-awful temerity to bring up a "right wing talking point". That, and the gall to question Clinton's "undeniable support" for LGBT people due to the Human Rights Campaign being arguably the arbiters of what is best for LGBT people.

[casperthegm]

39. Ha, thanks for the reassurance

I think that was the first time I ever got myself banned from anything. I really just wanted to address the posters question. Ugh.

[KittyWampus]

28. This forum is 80% thin-skinned Sanders supporters rigging the system here.

Anyone who doesn't agree with them is censored and there is no recourse.

And every hide means that makes dissenters that much less able to be on juries.

So they make it even more lop-sided.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Truer words can't be spoken./nt

[Tarc]

41. That's a +1 right there

When the juries skew towards one candidate over another, the more posts that get hidden results in those targets being less likely to serve on a jury. It's like a snowball rolling downhill, just getting bigger and bigger...

[longship]

31. I know. One of my good friends is on a rather long time out.

We were always very cordial with one another and I supported him in a particularly tangled battle in one of the DU groups. Even though we were on opposite sides of the core issue, we easily found common ground.

Sadly, when it came to candidate choice, he kept doubling down. It did not work out.

That is the message.

Nasty attacks should not be supported or tolerated here.

And people are on a hair trigger, so the bannings from the candidate forums continue. That's all we need. I say, do away with the candidate forums and enforce the TOS as to being non confrontational.

My best, MM.

[procon]

33. I don't think it works like that.

Maybe it use to, but now? Not so much. It's more like revenge scoring, or a tactic of suppression intended to eliminate opposing views via mob rule.

[MineralMan]

62. And yet, many people hold very strong opinions and are disliked

by other DUers, and manage to maintain a record of having no hidden posts. It does still work like that, but only if you post reasonably, whatever your opinion might be.

[ScreamingMeemie]

34. I would add... Stop alerting on stuff you don't like being said about your candidate...

(yeah, I'm looking at you, certain Bernie and Hillary supporters)

It's not an attack on you, and neither person is the Dem nominee.

I saw a clearcut case of a biased hide sending someone (someone I will admit I don't care for) on a vacation today. We are better than that.

I don't care for what the loudest of each candidates' supporters have to say here 90% of the time, but I won't vote to hide it just because I don't like the person.

[KingCharlemagne]

37. With all due respect, isn't this forbidden Meta? :) - nt

[MineralMan]

42. I don't think so. It's not complaining about DU or DUers.

It's not complaining about a lock or hidden post. It doesn't contain any of the things that make a post disruptive meta. If it did, I'm sure it would have been locked.

[KingCharlemagne]

43. JK, my friend, JK! - nt

[riversedge]

40. Good advice as usual. Thank you

[jham123]

44. Oh I see....

I missed my chance, I was asked to be a Jury member just a few days ago, I guess if I were a total hack, I would have jumped at the chance and voted to hide anything that supported Hillary.

oh, you didn't think this might be a "thing" with those that would like to suppress the voters voice like the Hillary campaign?

[bettyellen]

61. If speaking out against bullshit like "Fuck white people" gets me a hide.....

then so be it. When people fabricate hateful memes like that, they must be called out.
Shame on them.

[MineralMan]

63. Well, a post that said that would certainly get a hide vote from me.

In fact, I'd probably be one of the alerters. I haven't seen anything like that recently, though.

ETA: I just did a search to see if I could find any post that used those words. Nothing showed up. Are you sure someone actually wrote that here? I've never seen such a thing.

[bettyellen]

64. Well it survived. I also saw a suggestion to "feel free to round up minorities" .

:jawdrop: