New 1-delete lock-out rule...

[SidDithers]

has there been any information about when it will be going live?

I really want to see some of those making personal attacks locked out of threads.

Sid

[AngryAmish]

que?

[Stinky The Clown]

1. For once we agree

The issue is who gets to decide what constitutes a personal attack.

[SidDithers]

5. As always, that would be the mods...nt

Sid

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Sure

[mikelgb]

2. lol

[Stinky The Clown]

3. +

:snort:

:thumbsup:

[Individualist]

8. ++

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Go f-ck yerself!!!!

Testing, testing. Is this thing on?

(just kidding)

[joeybee12]

7. Can we still make personal attacks on internationally-recognized scum?

Such as Bush (all of them), the Quitter, Jan Eva Braun Brewer?

[Ohio Joe]

9. Link?

I'm here sporadicly lately and missed this.

[SidDithers]

10. Here's Skinner's thread from June 21...

but it's got 1700+ replies, so it's pretty long :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8603151&mesg_id=8603151

The relevant part is this:

3. When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread.

We understand that this idea may upset some people. We understand that nobody wants to be blocked out of a discussion thread because of an honest posting mistake, and we do not want to do that to any of our members. But we believe blocking one person out of a thread is a less draconian solution than locking the entire thread so nobody can participate.

We know many of you are tired of threads getting locked when the original post does not break the rules. We are tired of locking those threads. Members have long complained that under our current approach, a determined person (or group of people) can get a thread locked by repeatedly breaking the rules in the thread so it is almost impossible for the moderators to clean up after them.

If someone is blocked out of a thread after their first deletion, then they have a disincentive to break the rules in the first place. Furthermore, it provides an incentive for other people to alert on rule-breaking posts so the author of those posts can be stopped from causing further damage.

Would this always be fair? Of course not. But our sincere hope is that we could completely stop locking threads when the original post does not break the rules. We also hope that we could completely stop the practice of deleting entire sub-threads -- which often results in "innocent bystanders" having their posts removed unfairly.

Sid

Edit: fixed link

[Ohio Joe]

13. ohhh, I remember now, sorry

I must have read and replied to quickly... I got a totally different idea of what you were talking about from your OP. Sorry.

[sailor65]

11. YOUR MOMMA....

Is a fine, fine woman

please don't block me

:rofl:

[etherealtruth]

12. Excellent

i've been on vacation and missed this

This sounds great