"Unless we can manage to throw out all of the lurkers, this group is not safe."

[Binkie The Clown]

I saw that line posted in another group. I won't say which one, but I think you all know which group forbids dissenting views.

I'm proud to be supporting Bernie and of being able to participate in a group that welcomes reality in healthy doses. You people are great, and when I see other trying to shut down dissent I'm inspired to make another donation to Bernie.

So instead of a drinking game, I propose we have a donating game. Toss a few buck in the kitty each time you read somebody trying put down Bernie or his supporters, and when the total in your kitty is enough, write a check, or donate online whatever that total amount is. We are not rich hedge fund managers and bankers, but when we act collectively we can out spend them.

[HooptieWagon]

1. Of course they hate transparency.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I had to think a minute about what 'we are not safe' from 'lurkers' could even mean.

Since 'lurkers' aren't actually posting anything, it can only mean 'no one is reading what we say except us'.

The horrors! People might read what you write!

[Voice for Peace]

3. The danger from lurkers is the deadly alert button.

The person had a post hidden in their own forum.

[arcane1]

9. And by not posting they are eligible to serve on juries n/t

[Cleita]

13. I really wonder why people who have been banned from the group

are allowed to alert. It doesn't seem right to me.

[n2doc]

6. Well they don't have to worry about me reading their stuff

I trashed that group a long time ago. No regrets.

[kath]

4. In spite of the fact that the Admins have *repeatedly* said that posts in Groups still have to meet

the same community standards as the rest of DU, they continue to think that they should be able to say anything and everything in there. Then they wail and carry on when an obnoxious post is hidden. Oy.

[MadDAsHell]

5. Primary problem, IMHO, is posts in so-called "protected groups" can still make the Greatest Page...

So those of us who browse DU almost exclusively via the Greatest Page are exposed to these posts as being worthy of making it to the Greatest Threads page, but yet these posts have to be responded to like they're some fringe post made in some isolated group in the corner of DU. If you respond (in my case, often time not even noticing that the post isn't a GD post) in any manner less than glowing about the person/topic being discussed, your post is immediately hid or you're locked out of the group.

2 thoughts:

1) Don't allow posts in protected groups to rise to the Greatest Page OR

2) Make it dramatically more obvious to DUers that a post is in a protected group. Yes I know the text is there, but at least for me, what group a post is in is the last thing I look at. Always title and who posted it first. Fix this and we don't even have to waste our time responding or sharing our opinions in such threads (which ironically, would probably drastically reduce the exposure of said protected posts and keep them from making the Greatest Page in the first place).

[SoapBox]

10. Agreed.

My problem is that I look at Trending Now...that too can be a mine field of ending up in a wrong group.

Even when I have "that" group trashed, you can still end up there by selecting something from Trending Now. In fact, that's how I got my ban...replied to a post in TN before I realized it was in "that" group...was banned before I could even self delete.

Lastly, if I have user names on my Ignore list...I don't want to see their name or posts at all. Hide them from me.

[philly_bob]

12. Agreed. Have talked about this before.

I don't like your 1st solution because by viewing the Greatest Page I want to see a broad range of opinion.

Second solution could be something like a clear notice that this OP is from a protected group and that protected group standards of acceptable speech are much stricter than standards on the rest of DU, along with a link to the Protected Group rules.

In retrospect, I wonder what has been the cost of wholesale exclusions from the HRC Group? No way to know, but I've never forgotten my banning from the HRC Group on trivial grounds and have not contributed to DU since.

By the way, some admins consider this subject META discussion and ban it.

[MadDAsHell]

15. I was wondering about the META discussion issue myself. nt

[Lochloosa]

7. Toss a few buck in the kitty each time you read somebody trying put down Bernie or his supporters

I would go broke...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Weaver just said on MSNBC that Bernie has pulled down 5.2 million since last night. nt

[Contrary1]

11. One of them actually posted

that once Hillary wins the primary, he/she hopes that everyone who openly supported Bernie is banned from DU.

Way to inspire us, huh?

[RobertEarl]

14. We should let everyone back in

Just exterminate our banned list.

That would be one great example of the fact we are not afraid of the opposition.

Amnesty for all!!

[Paulie]

16. I was thinking the same thing

Re-earn your group ban. Then we will know who the true disrupters are on DU.

[RobertEarl]

17. Indeed

Quoting Paulie: " Then we will know who the true disrupters are on DU."

[philly_bob]

18. Great idea. Unfortunately, inertia leaves banned list in place.

It will take an epiphany or a crisis for DU admins and Protected Group moderators to decide to erase the current banned member list. Would mark a great moment of healing. Hope they do it.

Personally, I've been thinking about writing a personal/political "Dear Hillary" letter -- but why bother if I'm not allowed in the HRC Group?