A word about the ongoing Democratic presidential primaries

[Skinner]

This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the Announcements group).

After last night's primary results I think it's safe to say that the shape of the 2016 general election is starting to come into focus. On the Republican side, Donald Trump holds a commanding lead and will likely secure his party's nomination. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton continues to maintain a significant delegate advantage. She has not yet collected the 2,383 delegates necessary to claim the nomination, so technically it is still possible for Sanders to win. But the chances of that happening are exceedingly small, barring some sort of unexpected event that completely changes the fundamentals of the race.

So what does this mean for Democratic Underground?

Given that neither Democratic candidate has collected the necessary delegates to win, and neither candidate has suspended their campaign, it is still primary season on Democratic Underground. Members are free to support the Democratic primary candidate of their choice here on DU while the candidates themselves are still actively campaigning for the nomination.

But we also understand that many DUers -- even as they continue to support their preferred primary candidate -- are starting to turn some of their attention to the general election that is starting to take shape. I know it is something of a cliché to say that this year's election is the most important in a generation, so I'm not going to say that. But I think it goes without saying that this year is unique in that our likely opponent espouses a toxic mixture of unvarnished racism and incitement to violence that many of us had believed (wrongly) was beyond-the-pale for a major party candidate. Given such a repellent choice on the other side -- a candidate that displays outright contempt for many of the core values of this country and this website -- I have no doubt that every DU member will, in time, get past the divisiveness of the Democratic primary and vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. To do otherwise is unthinkable.

I understand that many of you are not ready to think about the general election yet, and that's fine. But to those of you who are starting to think about the need to get past the division and start to think about healing, I think it is important that we begin to tone down the most divisive and over-the-top rhetoric about our primary candidates and their supporters. And in case it's not clear, that goes for both candidates.

For the last four years we've allowed you all, via the Jury system, to set the standards for where you think the line should be drawn at DU, without interference from Admins. The system worked pretty well for a long time, but I think most people would agree that it has been stretched beyond the breaking point during the last few weeks of primary season. I knew there was a risk in sticking with this system in a highly-charged partisan environment, but we decided to place our faith in the members of DU -- believing that most DU members would be able to take off their candidate-supporter hats when serving on juries and make a good-faith effort to be fair to everyone regardless of candidate. I do not believe my faith was misplaced, but in hindsight I think that it was very difficult for individual jurors to hold the line against the worst-of-the-worst when it felt like standards everywhere on the site were in freefall. And let's be honest: Some of you have been serving on juries in a nakedly partisan fashion.

With this in mind we have been working on some significant changes to the Jury System which we think you will approve of -- I'm not going to go into the details because we're still working on it. Let's just say the focus is on reducing drama, providing better guidance for jurors, and setting clearer standards that better lay out our expectations for what Democratic Underground should be. Unfortunately these changes are still a couple of weeks to a couple of months away from being ready -- at which point the primary race should be pretty much over. Until then, we are going to implement some short-term changes to get us through primary season.

The short-term changes

We still believe that the vast majority of DU members are perfectly capable of participating in a productive way, and serving on juries in a non-partisan way. But given the pervasively negative tone of discussions here, we think it would be wise to provide a greater incentive for people to do so. Going forward if we see anyone voting to leave the worst-of-the-worst posts, or voting in a nakedly partisan fashion to hide posts which are clearly legitimate, then we will remove that person's ability to serve on juries. (We are not going to provide any notification to members who lose their jury privileges, because under the messed-up values of primary season we think many of you would see it as some kind of badge of honor.)

So, please, do the right thing when serving and let's clean this place up a bit.

We've also decided to try removing the current "five hides and you're out" restriction, mainly because we suspect that members would be more likely to vote to hide bad behavior if they didn't feel like one of their friends might get canned over it. So while members can still be flagged for review for getting posts hidden too quickly, there's no more five-hide suspension. And anyone who is currently suspended for getting five hides is able to post again as of now. We reserve the right to change this decision if it seems like it's having the opposite effect to what was intended.

And also we are not going to feature discussion threads on the DU homepage if they are posted in the General Discussion: Primaries forum, or in either of the two primary candidate supporters' groups. We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content on the front page of this website.

And so on to the part I'm sure you're all really interested in...

Who are we purging?

Nobody. However, if we see anyone puffing up Trump they will have to go do it someplace else.

tl;dr

General election season is on the horizon but the race is not over. Primary season continues. Nobody is getting purged unless they're Trump-humping. In an effort to improve the level of discourse we're going to remove Jurors who make terrible decisions (either voting to leave the worst-of-the-worst posts, or voting to hide clearly innocuous posts).

We'll be back with more news when we have some. In the meantime, let's all enjoy the fact that 2016 is shaping up to be a big year for progressives and a car wreck for conservatives.

PS. Fuck Donald Trump.

[Solly Mack]

1. Ew. You said Trump-humping. My brain needs purging now.

[MynameisBlarney]

124. Heh

Puffy trump-humpin fluffers! That's the code name for trumps army.

[senz]

213. He also said, "Fuck Trump."

As a heterosexual female (albeit absurdly elderly and ridiculously unattractive), all I can say is

[47of74]

369. Trump Humping. I need to hurl.

[Hekate]

2. 5th Rec .....

[calimary]

524. 522nd Rec ....

[Bad Dog]

3. I can't vote I'm English.

I want the Democrat to win, and I'm still fairly neutral about who that is. In a way I'm glad it's a decision I don't have to make.

[Orrex]

12. I could tell from your accent

[Bad Dog]

202. Is it so bleeding obvious?

I can vote, just not in your elections. I'll be voting in the Council elections in May, (Labour of course,) and to stay in the EU in the referendum in June. In the presidential elections in November the only things I'll be crossing are my fingers, and maybe my eyes.

[dixiegrrrrl]

290. Poor you...I see what Cameron is doing over there.

I am an Anglophile, so I do keep eyes on Merry Olde.....and whinge about Cameron's behavior.

[Bad Dog]

340. He's just been defeated in the Lords

For trying to pass Trade Union legislation that would effectively cut off a huge amount of Labour funding. Even his own party think it's out of order.

[LeftishBrit]

642. Yes, he hasn't really been having a great couple of weeks

Partly it's his habit of leaving practically all domestic policy to George Osborne, who's been getting more and more ridiculous lately. Osborne tried - unsuccessfully in the end -to drastically cut benefits for disabled people, to an extent that pissed off even some hardened right-wingers in his own Cabinet.

[Bad Dog]

643. I don't think Osborne will be the next leader.

He's not at all likeable.

[LeftishBrit]

645. Bloody hope not; but the alternatives aren't great either

Theresa May, who is thick as two short planks and seems to think everyone is an illegal immigrant. Boris Johnson, superficially likeable but even lazier and more inclined to leave everything to others than Cameron is, and a blatant opportunist on the EU issue. Who else is on the horizon?

[Bad Dog]

646. Nobody springs to mind.

I'm sure there's some as yet unknown wannabees though.

[Jopin Klobe]

350. "Labour" ...

... not "bleeding" obvious, but obvious ... ;->

[Bad Dog]

366. That's what it's called.

It's not an Australian political party.

[steve2470]

377. off-topic but I watched a few hours of the House of Commons debate on the "Snooper's charter" bill..

otherwise known as the Investigatory Powers Bill. I was very impressed at the quality of the debate, as always, and wondered what your thoughts were on it. Thanks.

[Bad Dog]

417. All today's news is about the budget and the new sugar tax.

As always the devil's in the detail. I have no trouble with suspected terrorists and criminals being spied on, provided they get clearance from a judge. I am against mass data trawling not just because it's an abuse of privacy but because it doesn't work. Wading through heaps of data has not resulted in one successful prosecution, unlike targeted intelligence led surveillance. This bill has been knocked back to the committee stage so we'll have to see what they come up with, but we don't want to give the government extra powers than can be abused. And they will abuse them given the chance, they always do. There must be adequate safeguards put in place.

Incidentally when a Labour government tried this the Tories were up in arms against it. Guess they didn't fancy being spied on by MI5 either.

[steve2470]

426. thank you, I think you, Labour and the SNP are on the right track with this! :) nt

[Bad Dog]

528. So do I but the road ahead isn't exactly smooth.

The success of the SNP in Scotland has helped the Tories in England. There was a bit of anti English rhetoric during the referendum. That's all it was, but some people took it seriously and voted Tory because they did not want a Labour government backed by the SNP.

Corbyn is a risk too. He may unite the young, the non voter and those who abandoned us for the Greens and get us back it, or it could be a repeat of the 1980s and long opposition. I honestly don't know which. I hope it's the former, but Corbyn needs to be a bit more dynamic, take a leading role in the stay campaign, and disgruntled MPs need to get behind him. He needs to be given a fair crack of the whip.

[Skittles]

489. my Brit mum thought Trump was "bloody ridiculous"

we value your opinion even if you cannot vote against him!

[Bad Dog]

527. Thank you.

I can post videos like this though.

He's going to take on IS, but he's scared of a man with a tuba.

This is the website mentioned in the above video. Click on it to pledge a brick and get a moose to grunt in Trump's face. So far 152,664,494 have. It's only been up two weeks. I think Trump is more hated than Dubya was, and he's not even been elected.

http://brickingitforcanada.com/

[Blue_Tires]

594. In lieu of voting, you can support Arsenal along with me

[Bad Dog]

599. That's fighting talk.

I'm Saints 'til I die. Arsenal took a lot of our best players, Walcott, Oxlade Chamberlain, Chambers. We train 'em up and the big clubs snap 'em up.

[LeftishBrit]

641. Same here. I do prefer Sanders, but the MOST important thing is no INSANE Republicans!

I don't know anyone British who likes Trump, even people who vote Tory here.

[Bad Dog]

644. Even Farage said he thought Trump was too extreme.

[livetohike]

4. Thank you Skinner.

[villager]

5. Well -- does this mean jury decisions are getting "juried?"

Or, I suppose, reviewed, a la our own court system?

Who will have time to keep Watching the Watchmen in such a busy, charged political season, though?

[PatrynXX]

128. more like they need appeals

we do have appeals in our system don't we. Heck appeals on certain adult sites get more traction than they do here. like zero they don't get a response. adult message groups at least you get a response. It might not be very nice but I prefer that over the silent treatment. I prefer because I have ADD , one points out this is what I did wrong this is why it's wrong and how to avoid it in the future. However if you remove certain Discussions off the main page that goes a long way to removing alot of the anger and banning one gets for inadvertently saying something stupid in a room full of people of the other candidate. I remember saying something pro faith in a room full of Atheists when DU3 was just forming. Banned before I knew it. It was posted to the main page by mistake however

[villager]

137. Well, I was just curious as to what the mechanism was. How will decisions deemed clearly "egregious"

...be brought to the attention of those charged with revoking folks' juror privileges?

[grasswire]

412. that was my question

It sounds as if all jury votes will be monitored for intent and motive. And that sounds impossible.

[villager]

414. It really does. How do you discern "intent?"

How are you alerted to which jury decisions should be overridden, and which jurors banned?

[grasswire]

416. yeah, wasn't the jury system automated, unless someone complained? nt

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Thanks - and I agree with your ps!

[Ed Suspicious]

7. I was ready to rage, but it all sounds pretty reasonable.

Undies unbunched.

[DownriverDem]

8. Question

Will folks till be locked out if they don't support Bernie? I still don't get that.

[Native]

185. If I were a newcomer to this site,

I'd probably think the same thing. I mean when you go to the main page and see discussions comparing Hillary to Hitler followed by 3 or 4 others that just hit the next rung below that level of offensiveness, one would probably think only Bernie supporters are allowed here. Moreover, I never thought I'd see the day when there were more negative posts about a democratic candidate on DU than on Free Republic, but we finally managed to reach that point! These changes are way overdue. Thank you, Skinner.

[mcar]

274. Supporting all Democrats!

What a wonderful concept!

[calimary]

525. This. ^^^^^

[maddiemom]

564. YES!

I've pointed this out before AND got jumped on by several posters. No one took the time to support me then. I'd prefer Bernie, but I've never seen a Democratic candidate get "hated on" as much as Hillary on D.U. in the past months.

[Mary Mac]

622. maybe it was this way last election and I didn't notice it.

Agree.

[giftedgirl77]

9. Fuck Trump

[marble falls]

10. Good stuff, thanks. I agree with the changes to the jury system, especially the time outs.

[Hortensis]

11. Sounds good.

[Arkansas Granny]

13. Thanks, Skinner. I hope this helps.

[Eleanors38]

14. Times like this prompt memories of my cat, a noble veteran candidate...

In Texas, where Republicans bow East for routine prayer to the Gran Phant, my selection of a candidate means little. So Katy, residing comfortably below the Afghan pine, gets my nod once again. Oh, she was a Democat, btw.

[Coolest Ranger]

15. So does this mean that

1STRONGBLKMAN, BEAVENACK and many others who had been suspended are now back among us? If so huge K AND R

[giftedgirl77]

22. Test

I got my 5th again last night.....

[giftedgirl77]

130. Oh what utter bullshit.

Take that nonsense elsewhere.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

262. Something about who you are must upset them. I wonder what it is.

[giftedgirl77]

26. So yes we can!!!

[ucrdem]

43. Welcome back! This is one I really like.

Also welcome back sheshe2, Magggie, KMOD, a couple of others!

[giftedgirl77]

47. B & 1SBM!!!

[ucrdem]

59. oh absolutely

[giftedgirl77]

65. I feel like a lil kid that just got ungrounded early.

It's like an early birthday present.

[ucrdem]

233. seabeyond and JoePhily too

It's like Bastille day!

[polly7]

240. oops, wrong spot. nt.

[Gregorian]

79. Yay!

[obamanut2012]

119. And LexVegas

Who doesn't post a lot, bit who is a strong liberal, and a man who supports his daughters' rights for equal rights.

[giftedgirl77]

133. Most certainly.

I didn't even know he was gone until he just posted.

[LexVegas]

303. Here I am.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

456. Welcome back

:

[SCantiGOP]

473. Welcome home

my wayward son

[JustAnotherGen]

241. Yep

[Number23]

258. I know someone whose name is an unmemorable tangle of letters and numbers who's going to be

incredibly disappointed by this.

Bravenak's biggest fan will soon have something -- anything -- to talk about again.

[bravenak]

487. LOL

[Number23]

491. There you are!!!!!

You know you need to be in AA right now.

[bravenak]

492. I'm on my way!!

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. Lame. You should have given us another month at least.

Wait until the election result is 100% clear.

[William769]

61. Exactly what do you disagree with on what is in Skinner's OP?

[Cheese Sandwich]

94. "I think it is important that we begin to tone down"

He saying ok guys we are moving into a new phase now so let's tone it down.

I think it is important that we begin to tone down the most divisive and over-the-top rhetoric about our primary candidates and their supporters. And in case it's not clear, that goes for both candidates.

"divisive" and "over-the-top" are in the eye of the beholder.

Reading between the lines the tl;dr of this OP is: Stop attacking Clinton. That's what it means to say stop being divisive at this point. He's presuming that the election result is known, and he's mostly right, but why not wait another month to be much more sure just out of respect for the people who are hoping for that unlikely comeback. Out of respect for democracy.

[6000eliot]

113. Attack away. I just trash all of those threads without reading them anyway.

[Bobbie Jo]

217. You're still fairly new

There was a time when the vicious backbiting wasn't allowed here.

I'm glad to see an effort to move back in that direction.

[SunSeeker]

335. +1

[Nitram]

458. Me 2

[SCantiGOP]

474. Make it 3

[calimary]

526. Four.

[CorkySt.Clair]

144. Wants another month to slur the nominee of our party

[SammyWinstonJack]

167. We have a nominee? Who is that?

[CorkySt.Clair]

170. Ok, likely nominee

Feel better?

I bet not.

[AtheistCrusader]

261. I'd like to remind you, Hillary lost 2008 with 1639.5 delegates and 257 superdelegates.

So, jumping the gun there a bit, AND dissent != slur.

There are no 'slurs' allowed that would be disallowed when the nomination is finally clinched, and you know it.

[kath]

503. Classy. Real classy.

[litlbilly]

174. totally lame. they are acting like M$NBC and all the others who are all in for Hillary.

Its just a wake up call for all us Bernie supporters and I for one am going nowhere. I wont give up and none of us should.

[Cheese Sandwich]

194. There's a reason we have primaries.

To be realistic, it's very unlikely Sanders can come back at this point.

Why not let the election play out, and THEN crack down on tone?

Just out of respect for the democratic process.

It's kind of funny that website owners like Daily Kos and DU have decided for us that March 15 is the day we have to fall in line.

After all the primaries continue all the way through June. Why shouldn't California see the same vigorous debate as Iowa and NH?

The truth is the March 15 tone crackdown is the owners way of putting their thumb on the scales.

[restorefreedom]

210. its actually very disrespectful to the residents

of the THIRTY places that haven't voted yet. i wonder how many are paying members and how many might wonder how well their money is being spent.

just a thought.

[litlbilly]

225. I am going to be mostly a lurker now, which is what they want. Wont do much IMO. The Bernie

momentum is just starting as I see it. He was supposed to lose by as much as 40 points in some of those states so, we have to be proud of where we are. DU has nothing to do with it much anyway so it's no big deal. If they want to be Hillary 24/7, that's fine with me. Just proves our point doesn't it, and that we were mostly correct in our push backs against the Hillary record. They took that as going negative, but, the record is what it is and it proves otherwise.

[restorefreedom]

302. yes, i am starting to back off a bit

i even started my own hashtag, #berniegrouporbust to reflect my recent trashing (yay) of gdp. i have had some nice exchanges with some very respectful hillary supporters but at this point, i don't need the stress when things get ugly with others.

[litlbilly]

392. How fun is DU gonna be now, it'll just be Hillaryites drooling all over themselves. Will be as fun

as watching M$NBC. I have better things to do anyway like working for Bernie

[restorefreedom]

413. yes.. dont forget jpr too! nt

[Hortensis]

314. Why on earth would TALKING ABOUT BERNIE be bad for HIM?

And Hillary has been insulted probably at least 10,000 times this year alone with the same insults over and over and over. Hillhaters are the only ones who read them so how is continuing that dreary business supposed to help Bernie? Instead of talking about him and his policies?

Frankly, even the slightest imposition of restraints on behavior can only be good for Bernie.

[BillZBubb]

370. The truth isn't an insult. Or at least it shouldn't be framed as one.

[charlyvi]

439. When it's not really the truth, It is.

[MoonchildCA]

272. I'm certainly tired of being told I have no say whatsoever in our party's nomination.

Coming from the state with the most delegates in the country, it would be nice to have some influence. I'm not just talking about this primary, I feel this way every 4 to 8 years.
Our current primary system sucks...

[restorefreedom]

300. yes, its almost as though the west coast is an afterthought

i think and hope that one of the things that happen as a result of this election is major election reform.

[LiveLong101]

326. One person one vote and get money out

If we could just get money out of politics and remove the delegates from the primary - it would be more democratic and fair.

[wryter2000]

374. I live in CA

And I don't feel the least bit disrespected. Skinner hasn't taken my vote away.

[restorefreedom]

378. thats true. nt

[Adrahil]

421. What is disrespectful about....

Asking people supporting both candidates to not be assholes to supporters of the other?

You can still support your candidate, even very strongly.

[restorefreedom]

433. nothing. but truthful facts about a candidate that are not flattering are not attacks.

personal stuff is always bad, i agree. especially towards other posters as opposed to the candidates. but bad policy should always be called out. and any suggestion that we should reign in the debate before all states vote is not cool.

if that is not what the op meant, then no problem.

[kdmorris]

536. Well I regret it now

There's not much chance that I'll pay for this again next year.

[restorefreedom]

547. i imagine you are in good company on that. nt

[litlbilly]

220. I see it as them putting their thumbs on the scale like DWS and the DNC. Just trying to dampen

the Bernie people. It wont work.

[a2liberal]

328. The March 15th is intentional

They (meaning establishment-supporting sites like this one and Kos) know that Hillary is only ahead at this point because of the map/calendar and that after today it shifts to states that are naturally more Bernie friendly. The hope is to take advantage of this calendar luck and paint this as a done deal to tamp down on enthusiasm and turnout in those states.

[Cheese Sandwich]

331. That's probably right.

The map gets a little bit better for Bernie as we move forward. I don't want to exaggerate it though. It's going to be difficult to come back. But out of respect for a democratic process, it's way too soon to call this election over.

[LiberalElite]

449. "come back" from where?

The thinking was always that March 15th was the high-water mark for Clinton. Sounds like you have accepted teh Ides of March "best by" date too.

[Fawke Em]

451. Ironically, that's the same date where the map gets easier for Bernie. eom

[Raine1967]

311. This post does not surprise me.

Skinner's post, however, is a good change to DU.

This isn't all about the election result, it is also about DU.

[Mary Mac]

635. exactly.

Hillary took Obama to the bitter end but she was a gracious loser. The tone at DU has been off putting with fault on both sides. Hillary supporters need to look toward the general. Hillary may hire Bernie or vica versa.

[harun]

541. +1, Hillary will not be the nominee.

[classykaren]

572. From your mouth to God's ear.

[LiberalArkie]

17. Thank you

[MariaThinks]

18. Completely agree with you Skinner. Thanks for doing this.

and fuck trump - he's a loser

[Starry Messenger]

19. Thank you for lifting the 5 and you're out rule.

It will be nice to have some of our AA posters back.

[Reter]

472. Explain 5 and you're out

Is it 5 jury hides in a short period of time and you're out? Because if you were here three years, and got 5, that's not really a lot.

[joshcryer]

497. 5 in 90 days.

After 90 days they disappear from your record.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

630. Yes, because all the posters that had 5 hides were

as innocent as babes.

[malaise]

20. Glad to see this

That NanceGreggs ban really upset me

[Pathwalker]

41. Nance Greggs was banned?

[ucrdem]

48. 5-hide ban I think

so glad to see this change

[malaise]

51. Details here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027681406

[Pathwalker]

82. Her profile says her account is still active,

so she was NOT banned. Thanks.

[progree]

102. I think the Active re-designation was real recent

I noticed for example, Bravenak's status is Active, but it wasn't a couple of days ago (and her time out was not due to expire until about May 11). So I think everyone who isn't flagged for review got their statuses set to Active.

[malaise]

121. You are correct and Skinner explained it

[muriel_volestrangler]

435. I don't think she was banned; it was just that her post was unjustly hidden

For instance, she was able to post in Omaha Steve's thread to thank him: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7681683
and she was able to post a few hours before Skinner announced this amnesty: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1503406
so unless there were other intervening hides which came within a day of other hides from 90 days ago expiring, I don't think she was blocked.

[malaise]

436. Thanks

Still I was really upset re that verdict

[yardwork]

150. There's a difference between 5-hide suspension and being banned.

"Banned" means that the poster has been kicked off DU permanently. The previous 5-hide suspension was just that, a temporary suspension of posting rights. Those posters were not banned. NanceGreggs was not banned.

[strategery blunder]

277. That was a really bad hide though

There was absolutely nothing offensive or ToS-violating in the post that got juried. A perfect example of what Skinner meant when he wrote about juries being used for nakedly partisan purposes.

That 5-hide suspension should never have happened.

And I say that as a lurking Sanders supporter who has frequently found Hillary supporters highly condescending and who misses the NanceGreggs we had when certain shrubs were overgrowing the White House.

I'm probably a hypocrite for disabling the jury service option on my account, lol. (I deal with enough crap at work and don't want to deal with more of it here.)

[malaise]

422. +1,000

It was the first time I wondered whether I'd be renewing my subscription at year end.

[gollygee]

319. Yeah me too

There were some ugly hides there.

[LibDemAlways]

21. I will support any candidate who is faithful to Democratic Party

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

traditions and causes. I will never vote for or say one positive thing about Trump. That said, I don't think DUers should have to pledge loyalty to any candidate with a D after his or her name who is a DINO. Just my 2 cents.

[greymouse]

93. I agree with LibDemAlways

I will happily vote for anyone who has Democratic principles, and only those people.

[Baobab]

565. Exactly, if Senator Sanders wins the nomination, he has my vote

I would never vote for a Republican.

[SammyWinstonJack]

173. Agree.

[kath]

513. Same.

I will not support Third Way, corporatist DINO types.

[blackspade]

23. Sound changes. Thanks.

[thesquanderer]

24. Like it halfway

I like that the home page will no longer include posts made "in either of the two primary candidate supporters' groups." (I even actually made that suggestion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599720 ) - but I think removing all GD from the front page takes it a bit too far, at least at this point. There's still lots of good conversation to have about the primaries, and I think taking out the "group" posts would naturally tend to greatly diminish the most partisan by itself.

[fun n serious]

25. I denounced Trump in a comment of a Trump video

Jury voted to hide...


On Sat Mar 12, 2016, 01:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Someone needs to see that for what it is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=338205

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is part of an orchestrated attempt to discredit Sanders.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Mar 12, 2016, 01:11 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What??? I do not see how this discredits Sanders.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Inappropriate post
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide it because it looks as though the poster is claiming Bernie Sanders is insane. Which he is actually the sanest of them all.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OFFS. fun n serious is talking about TRUMP!!!! Whoever alerted on this is being disingenuous or is misreading this, and whoever votes to hide is too.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There are so many trolls on DU. Calling Senator Sanders a "thing" is beyond the pale. How did this one get past MIRT?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I kind of want to give the benefit of the doubt that the post it talking about Trump but it just doesn't read like that.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 2:11 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=182288&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

IMPORTANT: Hidden posts remain on your Transparency Page for 90 days. If at any time your Transparency Page contains five or more hidden posts there are additional consequences: 1) your Transparency Page will be displayed and can be read by any logged-in member 2) you will be unable to post until there are fewer than five hidden posts remaining on your Transparency Page 3) if you are a forum or group Host and/or serving on the Malicious Intruder Removal Team (MIRT), you will lose those privileges



It was a Trump hate video. I said I could not imagine 1 vote for Trump let alone many but Sanders supporters hate me and used it to silence my voice. Please look into this and reverse it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. What would be the point of reversing it now?

It was a bogus hide - how jurors could mistake who you were talking about, I can't think - but those are the breaks. Since the 5 hide limit is cancelled, there's no point in changing it (which admin don't do anyway).

[dorkzilla]

89. It's because you said "he" and not "Trump"

People have been very sensitive around here. It is silly season after all.

[fun n serious]

91. I guess that makes it a valid hide....

HOW?

[dorkzilla]

97. I don't agree with the hide

Just pointing out it was hidden for the want of a proper noun is all. Relax.

[fun n serious]

107. OK. I'm not here to fight.

I want us together. My perfect candidate would be one a little more right than Sanders and a little more left than Hillary. I want to figure out a way Sanders can make that argument and get a position in a Clinton administration where his ideas would be hard to ignore.

[dorkzilla]

118. Me neither - I'm a lover, not a fighter :)

But the fact still remains that she hasn't gotten the nomination yet, so we'll have to see who ends up in whose cabinet.

[fun n serious]

129. Hear hear

[SCantiGOP]

476. No consolation, but

I had the same thing a month ago. I put up a snarky line about how the GOP would trash whomever ended up as the Dem candidate,and had the post hidden 4-3 because I was "calling people Republicans" and it hurt their feelings.

Actually,it was the only time I have ever literally(in the literal sense of the word) laughed out loud at a post.

[fun n serious]

486. There was a strategic effort to silence us

It's why we all left and you see us back today.... It turns people OFF of why they support their candidate.

[merrily]

284. The last place I want Sanders is in a Clinton administration.

[fun n serious]

301. If she is the nominee

His ideas would be better heard in a higher place of office. It would be good for the people.

[merrily]

306. Again, the last place I would want Sanders is in a Clinton Adminstration.

[snort]

391. Agreed

[BlueCaliDem]

518. I'm certain Hillary Clinton shares that same sentiment with you. eom

[merrily]

529. She's adopted so many positions of his that one must assume she admires him greatly--

as she should.

[redgreenandblue]

245. Because people thought you meant Sanders. nt

[fun n serious]

333. Insane, diagnosed and committed..

On a video of Trump. The 3 words above do not describe Sanders not even to a Clinton supporter. It was a " Target hide"

[tclambert]

27. Hey, Donald Trump is great. He said so himself. Many, many times.

He also said he's smart. Said that many, many times. And you know if someone repeats something many, many times, that makes it true. That's called logic.







( Really it is. Please don't purge me.)

[Quackers]

189. ...

[fleabiscuit]

28. K&R (Skinner)

[Rebkeh]

29. I have more questions than answers now

This answered a few but the intended nature of this forum is still very vague to me.

[rbrnmw]

30. Thank You So Much

[UglyGreed]

31. Personal attacks should always be

removed, they should never be allowed to remain be it now or in the future....... just my two cents.

[red dog 1]

172. + 1

[Gormy Cuss]

179. "Personal attack" is overused by alerters.

Someone saying you're thinking simplistically is not a personal attack ( the gist of a recent alert where I was a juror.) Calling a troll a troll isn't either, but that one is harder for n00bs to judge and I've seen such get hidden. With no suspension penalty the latter type of hide is less of an issue.

What I find boggling is how many jurors think "difference of opinion indemnifies RW views that are CLEARLY against the TOS.

[UglyGreed]

184. A personal attack is a personal

attack...... plain and simple. It's really not hard to determine

[Gormy Cuss]

276. Actually, based on some alerts that I've seen it seems to be a handy excuse

for some who dislike disagreement.

It's also evident that jurors feel comfortable hiding "you're a poopy head" but uncomfortable establishing a community standard in line with the TOS.

[UglyGreed]

280. Before this primary

I've seen many personal attacks remain, name calling without any doubt and that is what I meant by my original post in this thread.

[Gormy Cuss]

291. Lots of posts stand that should've been nuked.

Racist, sexist, otherwise bigoted posts and RW nonsense have stood so long as the comment wasn't in the obvious form of a personal attack. That's what I'm talking about.

[UglyGreed]

296. I believe we

are in some sort of agreement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

438. Yeah, calling someone a troll is a personal attack

Someone else may agree with it, but it's a subjective judgement about the person, not about one opinion of theirs, and it's designed to denigrate them.

[Gormy Cuss]

488. Calling you or me a troll is a personal attack.

Calling a n00b poster who's racking up hides disparaging DUers or Democratic pols a troll, there should be no penalty for that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

535. Yeah, that's still a personal attack

They're a person, and you're attacking them. If you think they're anti-Democrat, report them to MIRT. Your idea of who counts as a 'n00b', and who is too disparaging of DUers or Democrats in general isn't enough.

[Gormy Cuss]

566. Where is that 'report them to MIRT" button?

That's part of the problem. Until there's a direct way to send that signal, some posters are going to do it directly in a thread and AFAIK many such callouts either aren't challenged or left to stand by juries. IOW, jury fail under the "you take your chances" theory.

[muriel_volestrangler]

567. There's a list of MIRT in the Announcement forums

Which you surely know and have used to report suspected trolls, haven't you? I do.

Yes, some people may not be bothered to report them, but that doesn't make it OK for them just to start calling them trolls in replies. And calling them trolls doesn't get any trolls banned, either.

[Gormy Cuss]

570. No, I've never reported a suspected troll to a MIRT member

but to expect posters to go find out who is on MIRT and then send one of them an email is clunky and clearly ineffective, else posters wouldn't be calling out trolls in threads or asking why MIRT hasn't offed them yet.

I've never contacted a MIRT member via email. I have checked TOS violation on an alert but my understanding is that MIRT only sees that if a jury hides the post. There is nothing in the description of how MIRT works that encourages users to circumvent that process and contact a MIRTer directly (not that it's a bad thing, just that it isn't how the system is described.)

For reference:

How the MIR Team Works

If any logged-in member believes they have spotted a post by a malicious intruder, they may alert on the post as a Terms of Service violation. The post is first sent to a DU Jury who will determine if it is a violation of DU's Community Standards. If the Jury votes to hide the post, an email alert is sent to every member of the Malicious Intruder Removal Team (MIR Team), as well as the DU Administrators. (If the Jury votes to leave the post alone, an email alert is sent to the Administrators only.) If any member of the MIR Team or any Administrator then determines that the person who posted the message is indeed a malicious intruder, they may revoke the intruder's posting privileges.

The longer description of the process doesn't include contacting a MIRTer directly either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

588. If there's a specific post that breaks the rules, you can alert on it

You wanted a way to get MIRT involved not because of a post, but because of a general feeling that someone is a troll, didn't you? As an alternative to just posting to call them 'a troll'.

I have, for instance, alerted MIRT via mail when a banned person has returned (and, I think, received mail like that when on MIRT). Trying to explain why it's the same person to random jury members is hard in a short alert, and they're unlikely to know much about matching up people (and quite possibly not care).

[Gormy Cuss]

598. Great example of my point.

The system is not set up for this. Some posters use the work-around of directly contacting an individual MIRTer but I suspect most posters a) are unaware that this is acceptable, b) are uncomfortable reaching out to a MIRTer directly for whatever reason.

Reading the site guidelines one would never guess that direct contact was an acceptable approach. That's a defect in the system.

[muriel_volestrangler]

601. I think Skinner has said he feels a direct 'report to MIRT' button on each post would get abused

I agree with that. It would just be used by certain people as an easy form of "I want people I disagree with banned" relief. It might be worth adding something in Skinner's stuff about MIRT saying people can email them if they have specific reasons to think someone is a 'malicious intruder', yes.

But I think you've seen that your original point - that it's OK to call DUers trolls in posts if you you think they are - was wrong, yes?

[Gormy Cuss]

605. Actually, my original point on calling people trolls was that it's not a personal attack

worthy of a hide under the current system because of the other limitations in reporting tools.
As for not having a MIRT button, it can't be worse than the abuse of alerting already happening.


BTW, I hope that you understand that I'm arguing this point in the context of this thread, where admin has announced that they're fine tuning guidance.

I hope they do add text about notifying a MIRTer directly when there seems to be a trollish poster about. It seems more practical to make the case with links to several posts rather than hitting the TOS button and hoping the jurors see it based on one post.

[Turborama]

496. Strict enforcement of that rule was one of the things that made DU2 better than DU3

IMHO.

[hibbing]

32. Thanks

Some of the alerts have been so weak, it seemed like any negative thing someone said about one candidate was being alerted on.

PS. Barack Obama knows exactly what he's doing.


Peace

[Paladin]

33. Thanks for the constructive moves, Skinner. Greatly appreciated.

Especially the clean-up of the Home page.

[edhopper]

34. I get the sense that I am in the minority here

in that I like both our candidates and look forward to working for either one to defeat Trump.

[villager]

149. A Bernie supporter here who also thinks the Hillary venom is getting overwrought...

I simply agree with much more of what he has to say, so he has my primary vote.

That said, the entire notion of who will "get" to be President will shortly be rendered moot, unless the issues of climate change and eco-collapse are actually dealt with.

Something our political system... isn't actually equipped to deal with.

[yardwork]

160. Very good points.

[Laurian]

35. Bravo!

I especially like that you're removing GDP and candidate group threads from the home page. I had those forums/groups hidden and was often distressed to see the vitriol break through to the home page.

I appreciate your patience and fairness....and yes, fuck Trump!

[Surya Gayatri]

55. ^^^This!^^^

"I especially like that you're removing GDP and candidate group threads from the home page."

[Blue_Adept]

95. Should have been a feature from the get go

If you're got those forums trashed/hidden, they should not show up on the main for logged in viewers.

[BlueMTexpat]

191. +about a million!

It was like looking in on Free Republic! For that alone I thank the Admins.

But I am most happy to see that several of my favorite posters can no longer be alert-stalked in order to be deliberately silenced when they try to discuss issues that are important.

Those posters and their ideas are worth heeding, whichever candidate one supports. If anyone is offended, all they have to do is to put the poster on "Ignore" so that others who appreciate them can enjoy their participation.

Fingers crossed that the tone generally improves!

[justhanginon]

409. Same here. The first thing you saw on the home page were really nasty posts from

people you had on ignore and generally the same people every day. It would almost make you want to leave the site right then and there. This is much better. Ditto on Trump!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Can you clarify "puffing up Trump", please?

I think that Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in a long time - for the first time, I'm cautiously optimistic about holding the presidency - and in the past I've actively advocated that Democrats should "hold fire" on him until we're sure he has the nomination in the bag (although now that Rubio has dropped out, that's probably no longer necessary).

Can I confirm that arguing that Trump winning the Republican nomination would, in the long run, be a good thing is legitimate, and that it's only actual support for him as a presidential candidate that's beyond the pale, please?

[Gothmog]

278. We are hoping that Trump being the nominee will help speed up the process of turning Texas blue

Trump is an idiot but so was Pete Wilson when he helped turn California blue

[mountain grammy]

316. As much as I hate to say it

I think trump would win the south, including Texas.

[ScreamingMeemie]

479. Nobody here in my little corner of Houston can stand him.

They are all solid Cruz if they aren't supporting Bernie.

[mountain grammy]

483. All my in laws in Texas

My ex husband, his wife, all for Trump. Houston is a bit saner. I lived there 1978 to 1984.

[bvf]

349. Was wondering the same thing.

If I think Clinton would lose the GE to him, will saying so get me tombstoned?

[Skinner]

573. If the admins are convinced that someone is a supporter of Donald Trump...

...and wants him to be president of the United States, then we would ban that person.

The stuff you describe is not what we had in mind.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

603. Great, thanks for the clarification. N.T.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

37. Thank you

Fuck Trump.

[SCantiGOP]

477. Aren't you afraid

Trump will sue you for using the F word?

[davidthegnome]

38. No objections to any of that.

FUCK DONALD TRUMP VERY MUCH

[CajunBlazer]

39. Thank you!!!!!

[liberalnarb]

40. Sounds all good but don't mess with the jury system too much please.

The jury system is what makes this such a great democracy of a website. Don't restrict it too much.

[obamanut2012]

132. the current system is the tyranny of the majority

It has made du so suck.

[liberalnarb]

146. I totally understand what you mean.

I think the short term monitoring of the jury system is a great idea. But I don't want to see any permanent changes made.

[jsmirman]

248. People really broke it

it has been so disappointing to see it abused the way it has been abused.

It is hard to have any faith in it in the future, having seen one group targeted and hunted with the jury system as the weapon. Speech was chilled - speech that totally complies with the guidelines of the site - and that is really messed up.

I never thought I'd see my fellow democrats behave that way.

[Hortensis]

339. Self discipline is in short supply among some of us

at certain times. It seems likely that some of the worst offenders will over time no longer be serving on juries, especially the noxious game players.

[MADem]

376. I do think that it should be harder to qualify for privileges here.

Basically, a troll with a busy keyboard can, within the space of a few days, have pretty much the same voice as a person who has been here for fifteen years. I think that's the problem, really. Jury duty, particularly, should be a thing that is earned over time. How can you judge your fellow DUers if you don't even know how to link an article, or post a pic, or if you don't even know what the culture is, here?

I've always thought that jury duty ought to kick in at six months or several hundred (at least) posts--whichever comes LAST. That way, you know that the person serving on that jury knows a little bit about the culture and the way people interact, here.

I'm not a prude, I can swear with the best of 'em on occasion, but I have NEVER in all my years here seen some of the crudeness, rudeness and really vulgar vitriol that I've seen in this current election season. It's really disgusting--and so much of it is allowed to stand.

I am hopeful these changes will help get the place correct. People who don't get the idea right now, will, soon enough, I suspect.

I go out of my way to NOT get personal, but I enjoy HIDES because I don't favor a particular candidate. That kind of reasoning is just wrong.

[harun]

542. Agree, jury system is working.

[trumad]

42. Free at last, Free at last...

Hey alert stalkers...go F yourselves!

[lamp_shade]

108. ^^

[JohnnyRingo]

115. I don't doubt someone will alert on Skinner.

"over the top, rude and insensitive to those who disagree with toned down rhetoric".

Hahaha

[MuseRider]

127. Way to jump back in trumad! :-)

I thought you were back anyway? If I missed your most recent exit then welcome back.

[trumad]

134. I was..

And of course walking on egg shells because of alert trolls.

Glad Skinner killed them.

[polly7]

199. Agree with that!

I was out so many times because of every post I made being alerted on - it never failed.

It was really silly - people pm'd me asking, wtf??. Some people desperately need to get a life.

But, no more! Woot!!!!

[senz]

239. Totally. Thinking of cali & many other good ones and also my compadres

who too often have posted in fear of a 5th alert, like bmus, Segami, you, Fawke Em, pine box, et. al. (please forgive my inability to easily call up names -- I love ALL good Bernie supporters )

So glad for this!

Plus, we can always put the intolerables on ignore.

[polly7]

244. Right on, senz. Sooooo many alert stalkers.

I guess they can still do it, but it won't be quite as satisfying.

Glad to see cali and others will be back!!

[kath]

515. Ahhh, but you're wrong Polly. You've gotta get your mind right.

It's only H supporters and people of color who are alert-stalked. They are just so victimized. And it's all due to those evil BernieBros. They claim it over and over again, so it must be true.

[polly7]

520. I saw those sad, sad claims. Nearly broke my heart.

'We're being silenced!, bring out another cross'

* me.



Cali and others are back too now though, not sure if she cares anymore - certainly the Admins did nothing to stop what we all knew was happening to her. (To have a mole inside their 'Grumble', now that since all those screenshots they've hidden all their little plans up. lol. God ....... talk about needing lives).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

631. Those poor, "set upon" children of reason...

[William769]

44. This is a step in the right direction thank you.

With that said, I want to add that people who say they are voting third party or writing a candidate name in should also be banned because the fact of the matter is that would be helping Trump. And yes, FUCK DONALD TRUMP!

[NCTraveler]

49. And I believe it goes against the current TOS, does it not? nt.

[obamanut2012]

138. I second this, Skinner

It's also against TOS, and people have been prred for it before. that needs to stop ASAP.

[JonLeibowitz]

268. Saying you are going to write in a candidate name is not against TOS.

Saying you are going to write in a candidate name who is not the Democratic nominee is a violation of TOS.

[William769]

289. Your play on semantics is noted.

I still stand by my original statement.

No loop holes for you.

[Surya Gayatri]

45. Hallelujah! Praise be! A judicious and wise decision. And, none too early, either!

to you Skinner, and the rest of the gang.

[NCTraveler]

46. Fuck Trump.

Interested in seeing how the five hides aspect works. Seems possible that it will work with some of the jury changes. Could be a disaster. lol. Open mind as it's clear you always think these things through extremely well before implementing.

This is the most fun and addicting site on the web in my opinion. Thanks Skinner and crew.

Fuck Paul.

[Jenny_92808]

50. More evidence that DU is swinging to the right

already trying to dismiss Bernie's chance of winning.

[pnwmom]

58. LOL. nt

[cwydro]

77. I truly cannot imagine how you got that from Skinner's OP.

Amazing.

[Renew Deal]

96. He needs 76%

Of course, that's better than winning the lotto.

[a2liberal]

332. Bullsh*t

You must be counting superdelegates, ignoring the fact that if they choose to override the popular consensus the party will be torn apart. The number is more like 58% if you only look at pledged delegates, which is eminently doable in the upcoming states unless people start believing the media narrative that it's all over (which of course is why the media and Clinton supporters feel a need to push that narrative).

[Renew Deal]

343. Super Delegates count

And it doesn't matter if you don't like it.

Currently they do not need to override the popular consensus of the party.

I have a challenge for you. Tell me which states Bernie will lose and how Bernie will make up those losses?

[obamanut2012]

148. lolz

[YoungDemCA]

221. What chance?

nt

[Native]

402. Seriously?

[question everything]

52. Thank you, Skinner. About time

There is still the problem, and I don't know how you can handle it, when an identical post with only the names of the candidates changed gets hidden by one jury but not by the other.

And when a DUer is targeted on one thread so that each post is hidden by the supporting of the opposing candidate, leading to a suspension of the account, at least for a few days.

[kairos12]

53. Thanks.

[DCBob]

54. Good. This should solve the problem for now.

Glad to get rid of the 5 hides your out.

[Dem2]

56. Sounds reasonable

[lame54]

57. You had me at PS.

[Jerry442]

60. Vigorous debate and hard-fought primary: good. Circular firing squad: bad. NT

[tanyev]

62. Good call to keep GDP and candidate group threads off the homepage.

[DonCoquixote]

63. it's about time

asnd do not be afraid to go further if you need to. I know you cannot outright say "the jury system was a bad idea because it allowed cranks and dirty tircktsers to game it" but the steps you have taken have helped fic that anyway.

[morningfog]

64. All fine and needed, except lifting the 5 hide ban doesn't follow from encouraging hiding the worst.

There are disruptors here who cannot post without being total asses and the 5 hide ban is the only thing that keeps their toxic posting off the board. Hiding their post doesn't stop them, blocking them from a thread doesn't stop them, only a forced time out stops them. And that only stops them until they come back.

Otherwise, the changes look good and would make the place more civil but for giving the worst offenders freedom to offend without a time-out risk. I look forward to changes in the jury system.

[demmiblue]

99. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the 5 hide ban.

We'll see what happens.

Otherwise, it looks good.

[progree]

145. Yup, I think getting rid of the 5 hides suspension swings us too far back the other way

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

There are some ridiculous 5-hide-suspensions. For example I looked at Bravenak's last 3 hidden posts in full context, and they were ridiculous and nakedly partisan hides, and I say this from the perspective of a white BernieBro.

but there are some very very well justified ones too (think V...) calling everyone who doesn't agree with her a Republican troll or a misogynist, or sock puppet, and I forget what else now, but just gratuitous nastiness. I'm real sorry someone like that still hasn't been PPR'd after an endless series of well-deserved timeouts.

Edited to change the word "ban" to "suspension" for clarity

[kath]

181. THIS - about the 5-hide timeout being lifted.

Bad idea, to give the worst offenders free rein - see my post below.

[vkkv]

215. I was five hides banned because one of them came from commenting in a safe-haven group accidentally.

A second because, okay, I cussed at a guy who I believed was a true idiot ( IMO) and a third because I quoted a member with their moniker as if it's criminal to quote and 'call out' a member.. I love D.U. and have been here for many years, but I think that's weak. Oh yeah, two others were just a little too insulting to HRC followers.

Does that make me deserving 90 days no commenting? I've read far, far more insulting things since then that never got hidden..

[morningfog]

234. Well, it is only 90 days time out if you run up your 5 hides within a day or two.

I am not familiar with your hides or posting history. There are others though who stay on time out.

[merrily]

288. Even a time out doesn't stop them. They just switch from toxic posts to toxic pms.

[kath]

521. Yes, unhinged toxic PMs.

And it gets ridiculous how some of them - even one who has openly admitted (in a PM, IIRC) that she is just *pretending* to support Hillary because she was offended by something a Bernie supporter said somewhere sometime so now she likes to stir the shit - keep getting allowed back here over and over again after multiple timeouts, dozens of taunting shit-stirring posts that barely skirt the line, and after really hateful PMs have been reported to the Admins multiple times.

some are definitely more equal than others (and then there's the one who was exposed as having multiple socks yet is still here.)

[merrily]

530. And then there's a sane poster whose threads got hundreds of recs and replies.

Go figure.

[Skinner]

577. With regard to removing the 5-hides-and-you're-out feature...

Obviously, getting rid of the threat of suspension takes away a big incentive against bad behavior. So yes, there are going to be some anti-social people who take this as an opportunity to be even more anti-social. We know that, and that is why we qualified this change by explicitly stating we reserve the right to reverse it.

I would point out that DU3 had the jury system for a full two years before we created the five-hides-and-your-out feature, so running the jury system without the 5-hides function is not without precedent. And I would also point out that on DU2 we never had any automatic suspension function, and people thought that was ok at the time.

The reason we have decided to try this is pretty straightforward. As I said in my OP, I think that there are times when jurors are evaluating behavior and they know it is disruptive, but they cannot bring themselves to hide it because they don't want to see someone they like getting suspended from the site. There is no doubt in my mind that this effect exists, and is exacerbated by the partisanship that infects this place during primary season. Our hope -- and I admit it is only a hope -- is that getting rid of the five hides feature will tip the scales somewhat so jurors are more likely to hold THEIR FRIENDS and THEIR FELLOW PARTISANS accountable for their bad behavior.

If people are more likely to hide bad behavior, and if bad behavior gets hidden more reliably and consistently by juries, then our hope is that overall the tone of the site will seem to improve. And if people perceive that the tone is better they will improve their own tone. Now that the admins are removing jurors who vote to allow the worst behavior, in theory the juries should become less tolerant of bad behavior over time.

The bottom line is that we make no guarantees on this. If letting people back makes the site worse then we can easily put the 5-hides feature back.

[morningfog]

583. Fair enough. I hope it works. I'll do my best to do my part.

WHich started by putting the most toxic returnees on Ignore.

[ebayfool]

621. With no fear of suspension, GD:P has turned into a raging crime scene. In only a matter of hours.

Posters openly bragging that they no longer have to hold back for fear of suspension, and plowing through the forum like a out-of-control driver on a busy sidewalk.

My gawd - there has to be a better way than this! Dunno what, but something!

[Lucinda]

66. Thank you so much! And + eleventy billion on your P.S.

[Cary]

67. "Let's all enjoy..."

From your lips to God's ear.

Yes, yes. Trump is the enemy. Anyone who can't understand that simple fact, well, you know.

[Bleacher Creature]

68. This is a solid step forward. Thanks! eom

[morningfog]

69. I suppose this means no more visible transparency pages?

[progree]

227. So far, transparency pages are still visible

at least judging by one example -- Bravenak's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=300456&sub=trans

and 1StrongBlackMan's

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=273034&sub=trans

both have their account status as Active.

[Skinner]

578. Transparency pages will still become visible when someone has five hides. (nt)

[ananda]

70. I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is.

Period.

[JoePhilly]

71. You shortened my sentence by 2 days!!!!!!

Thanks for the pardon!!!!!



Well done!!!

[etherealtruth]

72. Thank you, hoping beyond all hope this works. I do have one major objection ....

Under absolutely NO circumstance will I fuck Trump; I have standards.

[one_voice]

104. .

[Spazito]

109. LOL...

and

[msanthrope]

73. Thank you. nt

[MrScorpio]

74. Fuck Donald Trump! nt

[Historic NY]

75. Thanks Skinner....and what you said.........

Fuck Donald Trump.

[onehandle]

76. Big thumbs up to removing GD-P and candidate groups from the home page.

Long past due. Should be removed from Greatest, as well.

[MH1]

428. ^^^ THIS. Of course, to remove them from Greatest, just trash them.

(I did that long ago. The Greatest page is MUCH nicer since I did that. Far more informative, also.)

The problem was that even if you trashed them, they would still appear on the home page.

I guess there was a technical reason for that. Sounds like it is technically easier to take them off the home page for everyone rather than go by the trash setting. Or maybe just what he said, they (finally) decided not to have our ugliest threads messing up the home page, period.

[Skinner]

579. we considered doing this.

And we might still do it. Until then, my advice is to use the "trash forum/group" function to remove them from the latest and greatest pages.

[cwydro]

80. Thanks for this.

[yallerdawg]

81. Thank you, Skinner!

And you never would have been banned from the Hillary Group!

[BlueStreak]

83. re: Fuck Donald Trump, patience. That is what the general election campaign is for.

For the moment, Go, Donald, Go !!! Win this thing !!! Be the face of the real GOP.

[kentuck]

84. No "Trump-humpers".

[applegrove]

85. Excellent ideas. Thanks Skinner.

[pdsimdars]

86. I wish people could say what they need to say in a concise form.

I majored in math, reading is torture for me. I can't read through all of this but I am sure you had some points you thought were important, but I couldn't make it through. Sorry.

[progressoid]

152. Just go down to the tl:dr part.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

88. Thank you so much. I'm glad you are allowing the 5 hide people to post. Nt

[DemonGoddess]

90. Thank you Skinner!

I agree with Don Coquixote as well. You do what you need to, to get this board in order. It is YOUR board, and we are your guests.

[cheapdate]

92. Concur. Thanks.

[Sky Masterson]

98. I can live with that

Because if Trump doesn't get the nomination then we all know he is going to go scorched earth and run as a third party.
If that happens we could have a Ficus Plant as a candidate and beat the Repukes.

[Johnyawl]

100. Thanks Skinner...

...it's always such a delight to see such even handed common sense from the admins. 14 years I've been watching you guys herd these cats and keep us from scratching each others eyes out, and I marvel at times like this that you haven't blown the whole place up.


PS. Fuck Trump

[oasis]

101. Looking forward to a new and improved 2016.

[rhett o rick]

103. I appreciate your efforts. I hope that your improved jury system includes limiting how often

can alert both for the SoP and CS. Some posters here use the alert system to harass others.

[obamanut2012]

105. domald Trump has to be degeated -- period

Whether it's Hillary -- probably -- or Bernie, in the event of something weird happening.

good post -- k 7 r!

[jillan]

106. Question for Skinner - If I say Trump is to the left of Hillary on trade and regime change

do you consider that to be puffing up Trump? Because I am not puffing him up.

It's just fact.

[trumad]

111. So you believe anything Trump says?

[jillan]

122. There are other candidates that I do not trust in addition to Trump -btw my question was for Skinner

[obamanut2012]

156. It is insulting HRC by puffing up Trump

It is a textbook example of it.

And, Trump isn't to the left of hillary on a bloody thing.

NOT

ONE

THING

[Nye Bevan]

158. If you say "people should vote for Trump because he's to the left of Hillary on trade",

then yes.

[giftedgirl77]

168. Sounds like you are promoting Trump over HRC

which may just be your ill informed opinion but it still is a TOS violation regardless.

[restorefreedom]

216. pointing out thst trump is vehemently against the tpp

while hillary sold it all over the world is factual data. it is not telling anyone how to vote, whom to vote for, or what issues to vote on. so it is not a tos violation.

when we get to the point where facts are banned, many of us will gladly be out of here.

[restorefreedom]

232. have a good one! my ignore list just grew by one, thanks! nt

[giftedgirl77]

235. Awww please no.

I mean it no, please whatever will I do without your wisdom. ✌

[restorefreedom]

237. i am sure you will be just fine. nt

[bravenak]

510. .

[Starry Messenger]

176. Trump is not to the left of HRC on anything.

It's just fact.

[joshcryer]

110. Donny Jingles is going to get so wrecked.

This is going to be a double digit landslide.

[Fla Dem]

112. Good direction to go in. YUUUUUGELY fuck Trump!

Thanks Skinner. The only other thing that really bothers me are posters who out and out say they will vote for Trump or a third party candidate or won't vote at all if their candidate is not the nominee. Their position run counter intuitive to both the DU Mission Statement and Terms of Service. Mods should be encouraged to ban posters who espouse such a position.

In your Mission Statement it is stated:

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

In the DU Terms of Service it is stated:

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees

Thanks very much

[Agnosticsherbet]

114. Thanks, Skinner. This is a breath of fresh air.

I, for one, appreciate the hard work and dedication that you and others do who provide this place.

[PatrynXX]

116. puffing up trump? only comparing buttrying to refrain from that

however I know Donald will use that and likely point out so and so connections so if it's not said, and he comes up with the BS and we don't know about it so we can counter it. he could end up winning and I sure as f**k don't want that. He crossed said line long ago. I've only stated who I won't vote for. and thats just one person. I will continue to vote for all the others with D or Left leaning people Congress on down. and what Bernie wants is for us to change bottom up. I don't think he even imagined he'd be in the race but I think when say in DU the Hillary people started banning people they didn't agree with. That struck a nerve and Hillary had already been doing that. So healing? First think I'd think would go is for the Hillary supporters here to unban people for awhile and set up some system of having warnings before ultimately banning someone. However this brings me to something you said Skinner " And also we are not going to feature discussion threads on the DU homepage if they are posted in the General Discussion: Primaries forum, or in either of the two primary candidate supporters' groups. We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content on the front page of this website. " that would help behind words. Fairly sure I've been banned outright because I responded to so and so's group thinking it was general discussion. Like all the cliche'd old jokes about walking into a gay bar and not knowing it X_X although if I walked into a room of Republicans I sure wouldn't prove them right. I'd get right in for a chat. I'm trying to stave off a clinical depression brought on by not being employed since Oct 20 2008 (yeah before Obama was elected and partially brought on by a dad who said mom and i were going to hell for voting for. thus 2009 was pure hell. name calling every day of every week of every month of every year all because some marriage couselor decided he wanted to try Psychiatry and almost got legally in trouble for operating w/o a license. Summer 2009... the Psychs, my Psychs have yet to fix that problem. 7 yrs later something akin to I use people for my own needs and drop them dead when I don't need them anymore thus to dad I'm the most selfish person alive except I've got to hell and back thinking he desperately needs a dog for his health. I still think this because 2 years ago he osconded a dog wandering around (lost dog) had him for about 6 hours till neighbors went calling for him. Pip? oh LOTR Pippens okay Mary. (sp) But I say this so that people understand why I can get irate sometimes.

These are my views. You can't change them however you can prove me wrong. That may or may not make sense. ie I have views... it's up to whoever to prove me wrong.. Yes I have panic attacks. I also come from a rather conservative faith background. So somewhere between Lutheran and George Carlin , rare to get offended unless it's something faith based.

I wish Liberals the best of luck. Using any other word just won't work this year. Maybe another year but again my opinion.

[Lizzie Poppet]

117. But...I WANT to puff up Trump!

With helium. A lot of it.

And watch him float far, far away.

[Saviolo]

120. And not -just Trump! Don't forget Cruz!

He may be even -worse- than Trump!

It's kind of like the difference between crap and poop. Let's heave'em both to the curb!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

159. The difference between a healthy horse poo, and a sick elephant poo.

[Gothmog]

287. Kaisch is also horrible on voting rights and women rights

Kaisch may be a stronger general election candidate than Trump and he is just as nasty in many ways as trump. Kaisch is just sneakier

[Saviolo]

293. I agree 100% on Kasich

I just don't feel like he has any chance whatsoever at the nomination at this point, with only one state under his belt.

[Gothmog]

294. Remember that he is sneaky

If there is an open convention, he is one who I would worry about

[MADem]

361. It's why he's so scary--he looks so NORMAL, but behind the mask, there is

a misogynistic, backwards-looking cretin. He just declares these sick views with a calm voice and a pleasant smile.

[Gothmog]

405. Kaisch is a sneaky liar

[NurseJackie]

123. Thank you.

[LostOne4Ever]

125. I disagree with removing the 5 hides rule

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]There are members of DU who are never on vacation, and then there are some who get 3 or more vacations in a year.

And, to be clear, I don't mean their hides are spread out, but rather they rack up 5 hides in less than a month and spend over 6months or more not able to post. They literally spend more time unable to post than able to post. Heck, many of them don't even participate in GDP much.

If anything, the 5 hide rule needs to be strengthened. Removing the 5 hides rule will only encourage the bad behavior from such members and make DU a less enjoyable site to visit.

I think this is a bad bad decision that is going to hurt DU.[/font]

[TexasTowelie]

178. I agree with you.

If anything this gives carte blanche to post even vile OPs and replies since there won't be any repercussions of getting a hide.

[840high]

453. .^that

[Behind the Aegis]

190. Once again, demonstrating why you are one of my most favorite posters!

The jury system needs an overhaul for sure, but removing the deterrent, well, let's see how that pans out.

[kath]

193. +1000. I posted about this below, but you said it way better than I did.

STRENGTHEN the rules on hides leading to time-outs, then permanent banning for the worst offenders.

[LostOne4Ever]

502. You made great posts here too, and not as redundant as mine. Great job!

Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)

[cyberswede]

283. I agree.

When some posters are on involuntary leave, it's actually a relief.

[TheFarS1de]

324. I fully agree

and I wonder at the reasoning in making it a free for all with the serial disruptors being given free reign over the site . It is one way to shut down discussion I suppose . A very bad idea .

[stupidicus]

336. those currently on one should at least have to do the sentence

imo

[MelissaB]

441. I agree as well.

The 5 hide rule was great, and I can already tell the barriers have dropped.

[winter is coming]

462. True. There are some who are on vacation so often that I hadn't bothered

putting them on Ignore, before today.

[lpbk2713]

126. I concur with your closing statement.

[Impedimentus]

131. I'm safe, I can't bring myself to speak !#%~$'s name, let alone write it on electronic paper.

[greatauntoftriplets]

135. This is great news.

Thanks Skinner. Fuck Trump, and Ron and Rand Paul, too.

[Native]

136. HALLELUJAH - AND JUST WHEN I WAS GIVING UP ON DU!

SO GLAD I NOW HAVE A REASON TO STICK AROUND. MAN WERE THESE CHANGES NEEDED!

[RockaFowler]

139. Thanks Skinner!!

[MuseRider]

140. Thanks Skinner.

I always hate this time even though I love it KWIM?

There are some very wonderful people here and some stinkers that stress us beyond anything else. All good as long as we can keep it under control.

Oh, and thanks for not purging us. As long as I have been here I did not think you were going to purge people who actually support another Democrat. I was right, thank you. All good for now.

[Bluenorthwest]

141. I looked it up, it was 1983 when my friend Neil made me swear to hate Donald Trump.

This was on the basis of his slumlord father and his ongoing pillage of NYC for development. "To be a good New Yorker" he said "you have to hate Donald Trump". And so I have. For oh these many years. So I am well practiced.

[phylny]

209. I worked and lived in NYC in the 80's.

ALL good New Yorkers hate Trump.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

265. Did Neil tell you any stories about how Donald did what he did? As to what

he bought, what he did after he bought something, etc?

I would love to hear from people who were actually there.

[Hoyt]

142. Excellent. Thank you.

[MadDAsHell]

143. Props for the change on what makes it to the Homepage.

"And also we are not going to feature discussion threads on the DU homepage if they are posted in the General Discussion: Primaries forum, or in either of the two primary candidate supporters' groups. We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content on the front page of this website."

Additional improvements would be:

-Make it more obvious when a thread was posted in a protected group. The website setup is poor in terms of highlighting the group in which a thread was started (especially in the case of "protected groups" and "safe spaces" where insta-bans are common). Yes, the group is stated, but it needs to be a blinking neon sign. Many of us see a thread on the Latest/Greatest Page and go to respond before even realizing the group that it's in. I think half of insta-bans would disappear if it was more obvious to us what we're posting in.

-While removing GDP and HRC/BS group posts from hitting the homepage is a start, alot of us skip right past the Homepage to the Greatest/Latest page. If someone feels they need the safe space of a protected group, they ought to also be accepting the fact taht their post will remain there, IMHO; keeping them from the Homepage is a good start, but those posts shouldn't be eligible for the Greatest/Latest pages either, IMHO.

[PADemD]

151. Question

If, God forbid, the Democratic nominee would be as awful as Donald Trump, would you change your rule on supporting the nominee?

[Duval]

153. Thank you, Skinner.

[yardwork]

154. Thank you. These short-term changes are welcome, and I look forward to the long-term changes as well

[onenote]

155. Thank you. Particularly with respect to juries

It has been distressing to see nakedly partisan language (Shillary, BernieBros) in jurors explanations of why they voted to hide or not hide. Hopefully there will be no more of that.

[riderinthestorm]

157. What about Loonix and Manny Goldstein?

I believe some posters have been banned over primary related threads that were the result of too many bullshit hides.

I'd love to see you re-consider some of those too please

[Renew Deal]

161. Loonix and NYC_SKP should apply for reinstatement

If they truly didn't mean what they said.

[yardwork]

171. They were banned for encouraging DUers to sign pledges that they would never vote for Hillary.

[merrily]

305. Your post is false. You should get your facts straight before posting.

[yardwork]

352. That information is directly from the PPR message from Admins on their profiles:

L0oniX: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=186380&sub=trans

"Posted a thread urging DU members to sign a pledge stating that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee for president if the nominee is someone other than their chosen primary candidate."

MannyGoldstein: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002&sub=trans

"Say he will not vote for the Democratic nominee if his favored candidate does not win the nomination, and encouraged other people to do the same. From the TOS: "advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground." "

I believe that you owe me an apology.

[MADem]

368. Facts, pesky old facts!

Looks like you had it right on the money.

[merrily]

381. No, I don't. First, your post did not even match what the admin said about Manny.

Your post said they had both urged signing of a pledge.

Beyond that, if you look at the actual posts in question, neither poster urged anyone to sign a pledge. Manny's post did not even refer to a pledge.

[Autumn]

415. Wrong, L0on did NOT urge DU members to sign that pledge. Here is what L0on posted for discussion.

It was a cut and paste with no comments by L0on. Not one single word. It was an article brought over from another web site about what some stupid people were doing. Posted here for discussion on a website where people... post things for discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128068973

[Amimnoch]

543. Stated directly by skinner. The assertion is correct.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599266#post1

[merrily]

544. I have already responded to this claim twice. Yardwork's post was incorrect.

As I stated previously, look at the two posts in question. Manny's made no mention of any pledge; L0oniX urged no one to sign any pledge.

Skinner did not affirm the wording of yardwork's post, having been written months' earlier. Please stop this nonsense. Thanks.

[Amimnoch]

545. Well then take it up with Skinner. Those are the reasons he gave in his own words in his own post.

at the link i provided.

Skinner wrote:

In the case of both L0oniX and MannyGoldstein, they engaged in advocacy. L0oniX posted an online petition so other people could pledge to withhold their support from the eventual nominee if their favored candidate did not win. And MannyGoldstein very clearly advocated that other DU members withhold their support from the nominee if their favored candidate did not win. As far as I can tell from the linked posts that have not been self-deleted, MaggieD did not do that. She stated her personal intent but did not expressly advocate.

[merrily]

546. YOU take it up with whoever you want. I know what the two posts actually said.

I don't have to take it up with anyone. I'm not the one making false statements about the posts. And, again, Skinner did not affirm yardwork's post (even assuming Skinner is infallible and objective).

For the third time, yardwork's post misstated and, for some bizarre reason, you jumped in and misstated, without linking to the actual posts, which I had already suggested to yardwork.

[Amimnoch]

550. Yes he did. You are wrong.

Yardwork:

They were banned for encouraging DUers to sign pledges that they would never vote for Hillary.

Skinner:

In the case of both L0oniX and MannyGoldstein, they engaged in advocacy. L0oniX posted an online petition so other people could pledge to withhold their support from the eventual nominee if their favored candidate did not win. And MannyGoldstein very clearly advocated that other DU members withhold their support from the nominee if their favored candidate did not win. As far as I can tell from the linked posts that have not been self-deleted, MaggieD did not do that. She stated her personal intent but did not expressly advocate.

You can disagree and huff and puff all you want about if it was a valid, or if the posts that caused the banning really actually did what was stated.

That IS what they were banned for in the words of the person who DID the banning. Yardwork's statement is correct, and the counter that it wasn't what they were banned for is incorrect. period.

[merrily]

552. READ yardwork's post. READ my replies. READ the two posts in question.

Look up the difference between "advocacy" and "pledge"

Look up "infallible" and "objective."

Have a stout in honor of St. Pat's Day.

Do whatever else you have you to do to help yourself get past this terrible tragedy in your life of yardwork's post being wrong.

[polly7]

229. I was going to ask that - they both deserve to be allowed back.

Heated discussion and posts taken the wrong way - I think that should be given some consideration, in all fairness. And NYC_SKP.

[Hortensis]

351. I read those posts. They weren't slips of hundreds of

keystrokes. They were deliberate flagrant violations of the TOS. They deserve to join other forms without where they can be free to attack the Democratic party and its candidates.

[polly7]

353. 'You' read the posts and interpreted them the way you wanted to ......... obviously.

Many thought otherwise.

[NuclearDem]

295. Loonix and Manny were banned for violating the ToS, not due to the jury system.

[TheFarS1de]

327. This only works one way .....

the third way

[Bobbie Jo]

557. No

Neither had excessive hides, so that wasn't the issue.

Just no...

[lamp_shade]

162. This is wonderful.

[IdaBriggs]

163. I am in tears. THANK YOU!!!

This was exactly what I needed to see.

THANK YOU!!!

[JohnnyRingo]

164. Kudos!

As usual you seek to improve the forum without stepping on personal opinions and measured response. DU has been my 1st internet stop each day for the past dozen years and going forward I predict a more unified and satisfying experience.

Thank you so much for your tireless efforts in this, the premier Democratic website on the internet.

[kath]

165. So how is allowing people who have 5, 10, 15, or god-knows-how-many hides to continue to post here

supposed to improve the atmosphere here? I think it more likely that it will get worse instead of better.

There are many who specialize in shit-stirring posts and personal attacks (and seem to take delight in doing so)-- so now there will be no punishment for that, they will just be given free rein?? Many of us had been hoping that the ones who have been put on multiple time-outs due to being unable to control their nastiness would be given the permanent ban-hammer after, say, their 3rd, 4th or 5th timeout. So now, those who CAN control themselves will be given no respite from the shit-stirrers and the hateful angry types?? Oy.

shaking my head.

[Fumesucker]

250. I'm tired of fighting conservatives, that's what I came to DU to get away from in the first place

All good things come to an end, this is not the only website I'll be visiting significantly less.

[kath]

259. Yep. Not much point in spending much time at a place with so many conservatives,cult-of-personality

swooners, etc.

change is hard, but you are right - all good things do come to an end.
(Hung at JPR last night and this morning - much better)

[Fumesucker]

411. This place is going to be a fantastic advertisement to independents looking at Hillary

It should draw dozens of them to revel in the awesomeness that is Hillary. They will learn what a great person Nancy Reagan was and how her low key activism launched the national conversation on AIDS and all kinds of other interesting truthiness.

So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

267. If I understand what is going on, what has changed is you no longer have to

be an advocate for the Democratic Party and the candidates of said party to post after the nomination is made.


Would appear to be a great many of people here who want to stay who refuse to advocate. I think it is unfortunate they wont advocate, but then I am looking at a big picture.

[Fumesucker]

360. You haven't seen me posting much lately

Been here long enough to read the writing on the wall.

No point to trying to be a good poster any more, just let it all hang out and there's no penalty besides maybe getting your post hidden and some people take that as a victory.

[deutsey]

575. Yeah, I've been here since 2001

I'm just coming here mostly for news from now on.

[Puglover]

263. Thanks for saying it Kath.

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Good God. SMH.

And on edit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10132863

[Autumn]

285. One has already gotten a hide

In this thread.

[cyberswede]

320. ...and is flagged for review.

So, I guess that consequence is still in place. Seems like it would make more work for Admins (having to review flagged posters).

[demmiblue]

362. 6 hides in two weeks?!

It is only going to get worse.

[Rob H.]

298. Welcome to Discussionist 2.0 nt

[melman]

434. Those people are all Hillary supporters

Coincidence? Probably not. More likely the rule was relaxed for that exact reason.

[joshcryer]

501. Why don't you look at the transparency pages...

...if all of these horrible people.

Dozens and dozens of hides that should not have been hides.

[kath]

508. In your opinion. Far more well-warranted hides for people with serious anger-control issues and/or

those who just love stirring the shit and being obnoxious.

And as Skinner has mentioned, one's reputation for being obnoxious can affect a juror's disposition toward hiding a post of that person's. The ol' "you reap what you sow" thing.

[joshcryer]

511. In my ethical, moral, compassionate opinion.

The fact that Skinner said that it's obvious there's a partisan element to it tells me he knows more than you do and your thesis is wrong. I've seen 100x worse stuff survive juries here to the point that I don't even alert on it when I see it.

It may be that you think it's ethical, moral, and compassionate over "jurors disposition toward hiding a post of that person."

[stevenleser]

647. Well, you have 8 hides now, so...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=129100&sub=trans

[gademocrat7]

166. Thank you, Skinner.

[Dawson Leery]

169. It's about time. The jury system needs to be reformed.

[FourScore]

175. Fabulous!! Thank you! n/t

[Mike Nelson]

177. "I think it is important that we begin to tone down the most divisive...

...and over-the-top rhetoric about our primary candidates and their supporters."

[Politicub]

180. Thanks, Skinner!

I've been on DU for a long time, and think the changes will help.

[phylny]

182. I may be the only worry-wart,

but I'm afraid of getting my hand slapped if I make the "wrong" jury decision.

Hear me out: I'm a Bernie supporter, but don't like any of our candidates being maligned, I've never alerted in my life, I vote to hide posters who say crappy things about either candidates or their supporters, and will happily vote for Hillary in the general election. I *think* I've been very fair with my decisions.

I can easily tell what the worst of the worst is, but what about ambiguously innocuous posts? I might, say, vote to hide a post where someone says "fuck you!" or "you're a loser" - those seem obvious.

Will it hurt my future opportunities to adjudicate if I decline opportunities to be on a jury for a short time?

I know, I'm the only one of thousands who worry about this, but give me a break, I grew up Catholic

[Skinner]

582. Declining to serve on juries does not hurt your future chances.

Also, I don't think people have anything to worry about here. As I said in my OP, we are only going to concern ourselves with those jurors who vote to leave the worst-of-the-worst posts, or vote to hide clearly innocuous posts. Anything in between is not our concern.

[vkkv]

183. I'm back Baby!!

PS. Fuck Donald Trump.

[kcr]

186. Those sound like good changes so far

Thanks, Skinner

[DemocraticWing]

187. I really hope this doesn't lead to an outright demand for Sanders supporters to STFU.

The vitriol has certainly been extreme on both sides, but there's sure to be consequences for the losing side. You don't have to say you're purging anybody for us to get the message.

I'll remove my signature when I think it's dangerous to have it on this website. That might be soon.

[TlalocW]

188. Dr. Samuel Johnson's right

about Olson Johnson's being right!

Also I agree with Skinner.

TlalocW

[NightWatcher]

192. So Hillary's fans can still shit on....

Ha, made you look.

April Fools!

[Itchinjim]

195. Long past due.

[stevenleser]

196. Thank you Skinner. I knew you guys would take appropriate action. nt

[Old Codger]

197. Good deal n/t

[progree]

198. One worry -- I vote to LEAVE posts that are no worse than what they are responding to

For example, if person A says to person B: "only a fuckwad would write a post like you wrote"

and Person B responds, "fuck you troll".

And if A alerts on B, and I'm on the jury to judge B's post, I won't vote to hide B. But rather I'll alert on A (if in context A is the instigator of the over-the-topness).

Going forward if we see anyone voting to leave the worst-of-the-worst posts, ... then we will remove that person's ability to serve on juries. (We are not going to provide any notification to members who lose their jury privileges because under the messed-up values of primary season we think many of you would see it as some kind of badge of honor.

According to this, I might lose my jury privileges, as B's post is certainly a worst-of-the-worst post and I voted to Leave it.

I'm also surprised with the decision to not notify people that their jury privileges have been revoked. I think the rationale is very weak, and its just the wrong thing to do, and effectively takes away the right to appeal too.

[missingthebigdog]

281. I think this concern may encourage jurors to better explain their rationale for their vote.

This is an element that has been somewhat lacking- in my opinion, a vote to hide a post should ALWAYS be accompanied by an explanation. It is the only way to discern whether a juror is actually applying some standard or is furthering a personal vendetta.

I am confident that the admins will use this option sparingly and judiciously. They have been amazingly patient so far. . . .

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

469. I've always try to do that

If one looks at the context of their post, i.e. what they're responding to, one can understand that what initially seems so vile is not such.

That said I voted for a hide today without reservation on a misogynistic post about Hillary Clinton. It was so bad I saw many hard core Sanders supporters calling the guy out.

[progree]

471. Oh sure, I agree. I think the context thing is mostly when two people get into calling each other

nasty things etc.

A misogynist post about Hillary Clinton is never justified as a response to say an anti-Semitic post about Sanders. Or vice versa of course. It's not justified, period.

If one looks at the context of their post, i.e. what they're responding to, one can understand that what initially seems so vile is not such. That said I voted for a hide today without reservation on a misogynistic post about Hillary Clinton.

Lots of times I only look at the context out of curiousity, knowing my decision isn't going to be changed by it.

[Maeve]

200. Thanks, Boss---I've been tempted to leave over the vitriol

Whether it is aimed at my preference or not. And yeah, some of the juries have been hit with partisanship of the overt kind...I'll be glad when it's over!

[Aerows]

201. Between Trump being the likely nominee

and Ted Cruz scaring the daylights out of me that he has managed to make it this far, I think we can all afford to be a little kinder to one another.

I still back Bernie, but hell will freeze over before I fail to vote against the likes of Cruz and the clown show.

[tavernier]

203. Skinner threw a tantrump.

[MADem]

204. LOL @ Trump Humping!

That IMAGERY is absolutely bile-inducing...but, at the same time, HILARIOUS!!

[awoke_in_2003]

205. "then we will remove that person's ability to serve on juries"

this will go toward getting some accountability. It isn't perfect, but I think it will be an improvement.

[warrprayer]

206. Fuck Donald Trump.

And what I see here is eminently fair.

[wysi]

207. Thanks Skinner!

Much appreciated.

[leftofcool]

208. Thank you, Skinner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[awoke_in_2003]

211. I do have one question...

A few weeks ago I got my panties in a knot, and opted to no longer be willing to serve on juries. How do I change that back?

[merrily]

310. Unknot your panties.

[awoke_in_2003]

354. That was the easy part...

my panties are now knot free.

[merrily]

382. Whew. Now got to "My Account" and fix your jury sitch.

[awoke_in_2003]

385. Thanks

I somehow missed it the other day

[merrily]

388. My pleasure.

[Lucinda]

379. Click on the "My Account" link - two over from your name, on the top right of the page

Then scroll down to preferences and click on "willing" to serve on juries

[awoke_in_2003]

383. I scrolled right past it the other day

The best place to hide things from me is right in front of my face. Thanks.

[Lucinda]

389. LOL

I know that feeling!

[Carlo Marx]

212. The worst of the worst here still does not compare the garbage at the Washington Post, MSNBC, etc.

[Warpy]

214. I have a headache

The headache is a permanent condition when fucking Donald Trump is being proposed.

The best idea is to have him go fuck himself. With a chainsaw. Sideways.

[Tarc]

218. Thank you Skinner, I am glad to be back among the land of the living, and...

PS. Fuck Donald Trump.

YES!

[Blue State Bandit]

219. Thank you for this.

"And also we are not going to feature discussion threads on the DU homepage if they are posted in the General Discussion: Primaries forum, or in either of the two primary candidate supporters' groups. We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content on the front page of this website."

[jsmirman]

222. I just have ONE question - what about advocating for 3rd party candidates or

advocating not voting for the Democratic nominee - are we going to start taking that prohibition seriously???

[RoccoR5955]

223. I may be too stupid to understand.

But could you please define "the worst of the worst?"
Thank you.

[cer7711]

226. Trump is unthinkable.

[nolabear]

228. Skinner for President!!

[lovuian]

230. Thanks Skinner

lov ya

[Mbrow]

231. Thanks for that

[stonecutter357]

236. K&R!

[beachbumbob]

238. Good job

[byronius]

242. Awesome post. Thanks for this.

As always, steady hands at the helm.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

243. And the horse he rode in on, and the dirt on his floor.

[libodem]

246. Yep

Fuck Trump.

[senz]

247. One thing, Skinner.

Would you please write an article, an essay, or even a book on what is it like to administer this website?

I am so curious.

[Hortensis]

356. Oh, I'd like to read that too!

[applegrove]

249. People have been blocked from both the Hillary and Bernie groups. At some point

I'm thinking they should be forgiven. I mean what if a Bernie supporter is now Hillary curious as many of us pivot to the GE? Don't know exactly if this would cause more trouble. Just a thought. More of a notion really.

[yardwork]

357. If you would like to be allowed back into the Hillary group, please write to one of the hosts.

I'm sure that the hosts of the Hillary group would consider your request. However, you might want to consider reading in the group for a while before deciding whether or not you want to be a member. Being "Hillary curious" doesn't sound very supportive, at first glance. Just saying.

[applegrove]

445. I am a Hillary supporter. I was giving that as an example. That we need to try to be inclusive at

some point. I'm banned from the Bernie Group. I don't need to go over there and gloat. I'm sorry for them. I really like Bernie. I think he's an angel really.

[Skinner]

587. Our current plan is that once general election season begins...

...there won't be any Hillary or Bernie groups on DU anymore. Once the primary is over, there is no more need for them. We will all be on the same side.

[applegrove]

611. Makes sense.

[boston bean]

251. For those of us with five hides and our

juror status basically zero, are you also going to relax that punishment so we can help and partcipate in the jury system?

[AtheistCrusader]

266. Yeah, why have any rules at all. Go nuts.

[boston bean]

312. Was I asking you?

[AtheistCrusader]

318. Don't care.

[truebrit71]

569. Hopefully not, there was a good reason you had five hides...

The real question is why aren't the repeat five-hides-crew given the pizzas they rightfully deserve?

[boston bean]

614. lol

[pintobean]

616. Currently, you have a higher percentage of hidden posts than her.

Just sayin'

I'm not defending BB, I'm defending the system. Be careful what you wish for.

[Skinner]

589. We have no plans to do that. (nt)

[BumRushDaShow]

252. Thank goodness

especially the part about GD: P threads on the homepage where one glance and a visitor would have thought they stumbled onto Free Republic.

[mcar]

253. Thank you!

And I concur with your P.S.

[dakota_democrat]

254. Appreciate the update and everything you do to make DU happen!

[Odin2005]

256. Thank you, Skinner, for suspending the 5-hide rule.

I had gotten my account restricted because of blatantly partisan hides that I thought were ridiculous, I don't think the jury system can function in GD-P because of partisan voting by jury members.

Oh, and DEFINITELY fuck Trump!

[thesquanderer]

257. Q: Does "not featured on home page" include Trending and Greatest lists? (n/t)

[Cheese Sandwich]

403. Yes. The site owners know DU helps spread info and stories so they are squashing that

Not even half the delegates have been chosen.

The website owners are changing the site rules in the middle of the game because it helps the candidate they are biased for.

[Skinner]

591. Yes.

They are no longer included in Trending or Greatest on the Homepage.

[leveymg]

260. I think this is reasonable and can be lived with by just about everyone here who wants to stay here

Far, far better than the transparent biased censorship that has been imposed at Site Yellow, where I no longer will routinely cross-post selected journals until it stops being a hyper-partisan stew pot of wannabe press secretaries and opposition research appachiks for the duration.

The only thing I would ask is amnesty to be extended, provisionally and on a case-by-case basis, to long-timers who crossed an invisible receding line. We all know who they are, and they have added immeasurably to the outrageous pleasure and the surprise of this place.

Here, here for Skinner and DU - Fuck Trump.

[amborin]

264. Thanks, Skinner! Very reasonable and admirable!

[Cali_Democrat]

269. Skinner's gonna free the inmates!!

[YOHABLO]

270. Bernie seems to be the uncle I've always wanted. Hillary, like the sister I love but >

stay away from. She's got way too much going on in that head of hers, a very smart cookie indeed but way too type A.

[Bill USA]

271. hooray!! I applaud your efforts to minimize of the hyper-partisanship which infected the jury

system. The jury system had been corrupted by vindictive partisanship which seriously compromised its intended purpose of fair, non-partisan judgement of posts with regard to, solely, being consistent with community standards of posting behavior.

[Bassomar]

273. SOunds like DU is starting ..

DU is starting to resemble Daily Kos. I just started here, but if my freedom to express myself is going to be limited. sounds like I will be done with this place soon.

[lamp_shade]

292. Awwww.... we'll miss you.

[obamanut2012]

304. lolz

[Cali_Democrat]

431. Please don't go.

I don't think DU will be able to survive without you.

[Lunabell]

275. I have served on a few of these juries

And have been really pissed that the post was even alerted on. I got even more pissed off when people voted to hide a perfectly good piece.

Another thing I have to say is if you are leaving the Democratic party because your candidate didn't win, or because "we have lost the soul of the Democratic party" then go ahead and leave. We really need to work to change this party from within.

[DrDan]

279. some steps in a positive direction - thank you

[Jarqui]

282. I think the GOP have done enough such that it's going to be a

brokered convention.

The odds are are against Trump getting enough delegates to clinch it before the convention - just like it's tough for Clinton to do that (though it's even tougher mathematically for Clinton).

The first vote goes according to the rules. Unless it's changed, on the first vote, the delegates who were won via a primary vote by a particular candidate will vote for that same particular candidate (if they're still running). The delegates who are "unbound" or with a candidate who had dropped out AND released them are free to vote for whoever. After the first vote, all bets are off - many are free to go with whomever.

Trump could well be 250+ short. (roughly unless he improves)

[red dog 1]

286. Thanks Skinner

Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:21 PM - Edit history (2)

The changes you're implementing will likely make DU even better than it is now.

I agree with UglyGreed's reply (post 31)
"Personal attacks should always be removed.."

I very rarely vote to "Hide" a post; unless it's a clearly apparent personal attack on another DUer.

Some of us support Hillary.

Some of us support Bernie.

But we are all Democrats; and we should always be respectful of others, even if we totally disagree with them; there is never any need to get "nasty"
We can disagree with others without resorting to name calling...that's just my opinion.

As far as those who say that
"Trump becoming the GOP nominee is the best thing that could happen"...
(because he would be easily defeated by either Hillary or Bernie)
I would remind them that, whoever he chooses as his running mate, he will be a formidable foe, with more money to spend on negative campaign ads than any presidential candidate in history..
Remember Charles Koch's pledge to spend $1 billion dollars to ensure that a Republican is elected, and he is only one of MANY GOP billionaires who are likely to contribute perhaps as much as $100 million EACH to make sure a Democrat is not elected, and also to ensure that the Republicans maintain control of both Houses.

And finally, we must not forget two things:

1) -- The effect of the GOP's numerous Voter ID laws that already have kept millions of Democrats from voting, and likely will keep millions more from casting their votes come November.
2) -- The ease with which Republicans are able to "flip votes" in the many states with Republican governors, Republican-controlled state legislatures, and Republican Secretaries of State, (especially in populous states such as: Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and Florida)

Defeating Donald Trump will require a MASSIVE "Get-out-the-vote" drive to ensure that there are millions more Democrats (and Trump-hating Independents) than Republicans that actually will go out and vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who that is, and also to ensure that Democrats take back the Senate and (hopefully) the House of Representatives as well.

If, in November, there aren't MILLIONS more Democrats & Independents who will leave their homes to go out and vote against Trump & the GOP House & Senate candidates, then we could likely have the horrific specter of a President Trump, along with a Republican House and Senate, and certainly none of us want that.

[deathrind]

297. Thank you for

The information.

I could not agree more with your post script 👍🍻

[COLGATE4]

299. Skinner: Thanks. The changes make a lot of

sense.

P.S. Double fuck Donald Trump!!!

[pat_k]

307. Objection to one of the changes

I just want to register my objection to this change:

"And also we are not going to feature discussion threads on the DU homepage if they are posted in the General Discussion: Primaries forum."

If, as you say, Primary season continues," it seems only far that "primary" oriented posts continue to be treated in the same way as other posts.

For example, below is one I just posted. It talks about the possible long term benefits of Bernie's campaign. It is "about" the primary, but also about long term goals for the party... even beyond the GE. There are other posts like this. I don't think such posts should automatically be excluded from being featured. (Not that this is getting enough votes to be featured, but I provide it to make the point.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511507143

[Jim Lane]

308. One point of disagreement

People who are surreptitiously barred from serving on juries wouldn't have the opportunity to explain themselves. There might have been a good reason to hide or to allow the post, even if that reason didn't occur to the admins. Alternatively, it might have been the juror who was ignorant. I saw this kind of misunderstanding with a response of "Cool story, bro." The DUer who wrote that meant it literally, as praise, but the other person took umbrage because s/he was aware of the Urban Dictionary definition by which it's meant sarcastically. Similarly, a juror might have gotten confused between two politicians or two websites with similar names.

I understand your point that a few people who are barred might even brag about it. To my mind, though, that's a price worth paying. Notice and an opportunity to be heard have been considered essential to good decisionmaking for many centuries now. It's a matter of fairness but it also helps prevent some bad decisions.

[merrily]

317. "Cool story, bro" is such a mindless cliche, it deserves a hide for that alone.

[Jim Lane]

323. I find it less annoying than "Bye Felicia" (n/t)

[merrily]

329. Context is everything. Bye Felicia on a heartfelt goodbye thread

or a grave dancing thread is is thuggish, trollish and ugly, as are, IMO, all nasty comments on such threads.

"Goodbye, Felicia" when Jeb drops out of the primary, on the other hand.....

[billhicks76]

309. Good Post...But...

I don't think super delegates matter till the convention as they switched in 2008 also. Hillary is only up a few hundred and that could EASILY change. Also, we all hate Trump but I must sincerely remind you that Hillary is only challenging him as if he's a reputable candidate. That disgusts me. She does not attack him like Bernie does. This is because she is friends with him. Just like she is CLOSE friends with GW Bush and his family. That is real. It's what makes me question her as a candidate. Did you see the picture of her hugging Bush and giggling the other day? It's not just revolting it's highly suspicious. Now she says her Iraq War vote was a favor to Bush and expected money for her state in return. We have a serious problem here. There is a reason few people trust her.

[Happyhippychick]

313. Thank you Skinner, I was giving up on DU.

This has helped a lot. I will enthusiastically support the democratic nominee.

[longship]

315. As long as the changes do not result in a lot of bad behavior, I am in.

But something had to be done and this seems to be a good start.

Good luck, Skinner.

[jwirr]

321. Thank you - hope this works

[lovemydog]

322. Thank you. I am relieved that my black friends

can post here again.

There are many of them.

It's being discussed in the AA group now.

A long list of people who, in my humble opinion, had their posts unfairly hidden.

[TeamPooka]

325. Fuck Donald Trump! nt

[SCantiGOP]

330. As usual

Thanks for trying to keep the game fair and productive.

[Pathwalker]

334. Thank you,Skinner. However -

I won't fuck Trump, he's waaay to skeezy, and I'm an old married woman, who loves her husband-

Hopefully this will help return some civility/sanity to DU.

[complain jane]

337. I once

managed a forum that had about 20 members and even that was a headache at times. I can't imagine trying to run this place and I really appreciate all your hard work and carefully considered management of the joint. Thank you for dealing with us and for providing us with an awesome community.

"We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content on the front page of this website." Amen to that. Obviously by my avatar and sig I support Hillary but I also love Bernie and can't imagine trying to tear down one of our own. It hurts me to see it here.

Thanks again for all your hard work

[Catherine Vincent]

338. It needed to be said

Thanks.

[skeewee08]

341. Thanks Skinner n/t

[Wounded Bear]

342. I never wavered from my commitment to support the Dem candidate..

Haven't participated in much of the GD/P discussions anyway. Have voiced my support for my preferred candidate, but have always maintained that I will vote against the Repub nominee and for our nominee.

Thanks for the rules clarification. I hope it helps to tone down some of the more divisive and hateful rhetoric.

[orpupilofnature57]

344. I have had the pleasure of serving many times as a juror and have seen much Hide Abuse in the last

6 months and have been hid, banned and kicked out more in the last 6 months than in the 12 years I've posted here, and I admit some were justified, and so I take what you say to heart and appreciate it .

[Jopin Klobe]

345. Puffing up tRump ...

... more? ...

... that's POSSIBLE??? ...

[philly_bob]

346. When will those banned from candidate groups be allowed to return?

I suspect that's up to the moderators, but as one who has been banned from the HRC group on flimsy grounds for a long time, it would be a symbol of reconciliation.

[ffr]

347. I know so little about DU, but the more I learn the better I feel.

Served it seemed almost daily recently on a lot of partisan in-fighting threads. There were probably some partisans on the jury who took sides, but overall most everyone decided based on the rules. Most of the ones I sat on I voted to leave as is. Opinions are not violations. Others on the other side felt the same way, so there were more adults in the room than not.

I read this with great interest, because I've posted on both primary forums that I want both sides to continue their GOTV drives. I'm encouraging both sides to get more people to the primaries. Let the best candidate win. Our involvement can only help the chances that one of our two candidates becomes president. I've lived through Republi presidential terms and it's awful! I never want that again.

Thank you DU!

[redstatebluegirl]

348. Thanks Skinner

This has been a brutal primary for all of us. Thanks for trying to get us all back on point.

[SunSeeker]

355. Not being able to put DUers on time outs will reduce alert stalking IMO.

As will the threat of losing jury privileges for frivolous and partisan jury votes.

[mwooldri]

358. Thank you :)

The air around here has been very divisive, even to the point that people who post in a particular candidates' special group/forum were banned from posting after making one post in the group. The post in the special group/forum could be supportive of the candidate of the group, or it could be about a completely off-topic matter not relating to the candidate of the group but something constructive and positive. Nevertheless because the person making the post happens to support a different candidate the moderator(s) of that group have decided that it is a good idea to ban a person from posting in that group.

As for the Dumpster, may he find one and go live in it. Forever.

Mark.

[Cassiopeia]

359. It's my understanding this wasn't done in 2008 when it was improbable for Hillary to still win.

Seems an interesting change in procedure.

[Skinner]

592. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

We had a completely different moderating system in 2008. It was a top-down moderator system in 2008, and now we have a member-moderating system in 2016. Stuff that would have been completely deleted in 2008 has been permitted in 2016 and even recommended to the top of the Greatest page.

So if you really want to compare now to 2008, the big difference is that in 2016 we are much more permissive. The suggestion that 2016 is more censorious than 2008 is just wrong.

[JDPriestly]

363. I will not remove posts so just remove me from the jury pool right now.

Removing posts shuts down discussion, and I think that is wrong.

I will repeat my pledge: I will vote for all of the other Democratic candidates on my ballot, but I will not vote for Hillary.
.
I think that DU is going to be a very boring place without us Sanders supporters if Hillary wins.

I am unwilling to vote for Hillary because I know firsthand what the corporate agenda is and how corporations work to achieve their agendas. She is not just supported by the corporations. She not only supports the corporations, but it is true that through various organizations including but not limited to the Chamber of Commerce, corporations, especially in certain sectors are working to protect their rights -- to destroy the environment, to treat working people arrogantly, dismissively and without respect and to lower the value of the lives and the standards of living of working people.

I think that people who know me on DU will admit that I am a knowledgeable person and, while I make mistakes, I would not say what I am saying if I did not have a basis for saying it.

I warn that Hillary, although she may not know it, is merely a tool of a sinister and well organized group of corporate leaders who see the earth as a place to be marauded and the rest of us as too stupid to stop them.

The attack on our environment and the profits that flow to the very few at the top of our world must be stopped. Hillary cannot and will not do that.

Bernie will do his best to stop it.

Shame on all who support Hillary. You know not what you do. You know not whose bell you are tolling.

I will gladly leave DU if Hillary is the nominee.

Until then, I will feel the Bern!

[Iggo]

364. "We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content..."

"...on the front page of this website."

Unrec Smartbomb for the win!!!

[oldandhappy]

365. Thank you and my 2 cents

I wish cross posting was limited to two. No need to see four of the same post because cross posted so many places. Also!

[Firebrand Gary]

367. Thank you Skinner!

I've made it a point to watch how I am handling my actions, I will keep that focus and continue to do better. We're better than the behavior as of late.

[wryter2000]

371. Amen

"Given such a repellent choice on the other side -- a candidate that displays outright contempt for many of the core values of this country and this website -- I have no doubt that every DU member will, in time, get past the divisiveness of the Democratic primary and vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. To do otherwise is unthinkable. "

And thanks for cleaning up the homepage. I'd trashed some of those forums, but they still showed up on the homepage, which is where I land when I only have a few minutes.

[47of74]

373. Yes. FUCK Donald Trump.

All day long. And twice on Sundays. Double fuck him, in fact.

[tomm2thumbs]

375. Great idea not to feature/trend posts in H or B forums

It only serves to get under people's skin on either side, especially when those are supposed to be particularly polarized forums.

Also, kudos for allowing the primary to be a primary.

[snort]

380. Progressives are officially in the dustbin.

It looks like the corporations have won.

[wyldwolf]

387. because...

... they can no longer as easily get posts hidden they don't like?

[snort]

396. I've never alerted on a post here.

So fuck that.

I wouldn't willingly advance the candidacy of someone who has enriched themselves by taking money from the same criminals who stole my home out from under me and my family. I would consider that person to be a dirtball.

That make you feel right, or warm and fuzzy? Good deal.

[steve2470]

384. Thanks for these short-term changes, Skinner

I look forward to the long-term changes.

[Peacetrain]

386. .....

[MaeScott]

390. Love you , Skinner! nt

[kpete]

393. YES

especially:

Who are we purging?

Nobody. However, if we see anyone puffing up Trump they will have to go do it someplace else.


peace and thanks for letting me hang out here,
kp

[Curmudgeoness]

394. I think removing the time outs is a bad idea.

Although I will agree that there has been some abuse on alerting, I also thought that five hides were still hard to get if you weren't being an asshole. Many of the people who were on time out deserved it---they did not ever learn how to play well with others.

I am already seeing repercussions from this new policy, and it hasn't even been four hours since you posted this. The bad players will just get worse now, and we will just have to deal with them. Lovely.

[Purveyor]

448. Yeppers. Just look around this place tonight now that all the

'nasties' are back.

Think it may be time to start 'purveying' where actual news/discussion takes place.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

395. Curious; have a question:

I always vote to leave a post alone for three reasons:

A) I feel like having the offender's post hidden absolves them from the embarrassing nature of whatever it was that was so offensive. It, to me, is kind of like giving the poster a mulligan.

B) I feel like the post should stand so that it may be refuted. There are instances where a poster's opinion could change, if a good and fair argument is made against it. I understand that this is somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking, but it has happened before, and will happen again. The best way to defeat an idea is to have a better idea, so to speak.

C) I do not like the thought of limiting someone else's speech, even if it's egregiously offensive.

On to my question:

Given the above, would I have my jury privileges revoked if I vote consistently to "Leave it alone?" My decision is never partisan. I think in my whole time here, I've only voted to hide a post once (and I can't be too sure about that; can't remember if I changed my mind). So, I'm either at 100% or 99.99999~%. I cannot remember the circumstance as to why I made an exception, but if I did, I actually wish I could take it back.

Even though I'm a Bernie supporter, I apply this principle equally to Clinton's and Sanders' supporters.

[Skinner]

593. First of all, voting to hide a post does not make the post disappear.

Anyone can click the "show" link and see what it said. So voting to hide the post does not absolve them from the embarrassment of what they posted.

Second, if you don't like the thought of limiting someone else's speech, you are on the wrong website. Democratic Underground categorically excludes at least half of the American political spectrum and does not even permit them membership. In practice, I think it's probably more like 60% excluded.

As for whether you will lose your jury privileges if you always vote to leave it alone: If something is truly awful and you vote to leave it, yes you will lose your jury privileges.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

604. Thank you for the reply.

I didn't realize about the hidden part.

[DinahMoeHum]

397. Love your postscript, Skinner. Thanks!

[randr]

398. Excellent decision my friend

[AgadorSparticus]

399. Amen to everything you said!! And thank you for posting this. Nt

[kwassa]

400. Thanks for suspending the five hides.

Please now get rid of anonymous juries. Anonymity creates the illusion of objectivity, but really becomes a cover for bad and irresponsible behavior.

[Turin_C3PO]

459. The only thing

I worry about is how will truly nasty posters be disciplined without the 5 hide rule? The system was abused, I agree, and some posters didn't deserve the timeout, yet some certainly did. Maybe an increase to 10 hides and then a shorter timeout?

[Wednesdays]

401. +1

I especially liked the last sentence.

[hrmjustin]

404. I hope this helps.

[AC_Mem]

406. Thank you

I was ready to leave after years here because I saw us going into the same ugly place that many of the GOP supporters reside. We are better than that, we stand for what our country and the world is in desperate need of, healing and positive focus. A world that will sustain not only ourselves, but our future generations.

Facts are facts, Hillary will be our next President and it is time to come to terms with this and pull together. My fondest dream would be a Hillary/Bernie ticket because I feel Bernie could pull her left and because it would be a landslide victory. I also feel that this combo could change the landscape of the House and Senate.

We must remember what the GOP has done to our President and to each of us, for the past 8 years. Their intent has been to divide and encourage hatred and ignorance since the day President Obama was elected, and far before that. Their goal is within reach if we do not counter with unity within our party.

Please, vote and take someone with you. Volunteer. Think about what our lives will be like should the GOP have majority in all three branches as well as the Supreme Court. This truly is the second most important election in our lifetimes.

Shine on,
annette

[cyberpj]

407. Thanks Mom and Dad (metaphorically speaking)

And also we are not going to feature discussion threads on the DU homepage if they are posted in the General Discussion: Primaries forum, or in either of the two primary candidate supporters' groups. We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content on the front page of this website.

Great Move.
Seriously.
So glad you adults are always monitoring us kids.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

408. Speaking to the issue of those that have the ability to take off their candidate supporter hats and

. those that find that a difficult thing to do ,and there are a few no doubt that simply will not take of the hat. So ya, a lot of mud slinging of late. And things seem to get seriously heated at times. I opened up the DU main page the other day and saw I was being welcomed into the new democratic party, told more or less.. It seemed to me their message was get with us or don't go away mad just go away. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but frankly the only new party I see in the works is whatever they fashion to replace the republican party which is crumbling away soon to turn onto nothing more than dust in the wind.

If there is anything good to say about Trump, I would say he has jettisoned that which is apparent into the inevitable,I have only actually seen one implosion happen in real time having been there to watch- and it is indeed quite the sight to see. The democratic party has always been about change and it evolves.

Through the primary madness it sure does help to have a sense of humor. Here at DU we are fortunate in that many DU'ers are gifted in that sense-, because without it, than what ?

[JudyM]

410. This looks good. Only question I have is that until the convention, delegates can still

switch their affiliation, or not show up, as in Iowa. So doesn't primary season end when the democratic candidate is officially the nominee at the convention?

[The Second Stone]

418. If trashing Clinton or Sanders is now prohibited, it was hidden in their

very cleverly. I think that needs to be clearer. As in unequivocally clear.

[rug]

419. Freedom!

[hrmjustin]

420. They let us out of prison!

[rug]

425. On to the Fortress of Solitude!

[kcr]

427. You, of all people, were on a time out?

Seriously? If so, if that doesn't show how badly the system needed an overhaul.

[hrmjustin]

429. I completely lost control and went over a line big time and got 7 hides in one day.

My sins are on my transparency page.

[kcr]

430. I understand. Long time ago before DU had the jury system I got really angry

during Hurricane Katrina and I think it was the only time I remember ever having posts removed by mods.

[kath]

494. He's been on several.

[kcr]

495. Thanks n/t

[hrmjustin]

548. Hey Kath!

[hrmjustin]

637. Gee Kath it looks like you shouldn't judge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=129100&sub=trans

[hrmjustin]

551. I was on three but the first two i felt were unfair. The last one I deserved.

Except for my accusers most of my Sanders supporting friends agreed the first two timeouts were bogus.

[kcr]

576. I thought a lot of people had simply just left because of primary whackiness

I had no idea so many people were on timeouts. I think posting in GDP enough and anyone eventually ends up there. I'd only just waded in there recently. I'm really glad Skinner made this change. It's good to see you back

[snooper2]

584. nah

[hrmjustin]

585. Hey Snooper!

Missed your sense of humor!

[joshcryer]

499. Wow, I didn't know you got timed out.

Looks like you had one bad day there.

[hrmjustin]

549. It was an epic meltdown.

A bit embarrassing.

[joshcryer]

553. I always said I couldn't understand how calm you were.

And felt you'd crack. Admittedly half of my hides are drunk posting, I mean shit-faced plastered posting that I don't even remember making the posts, but I think the other half were unfair BS hides.

[hrmjustin]

554. My first two timeouts were bogus.

But this last one had to be a record.

[joshcryer]

555. Like I said, you had a bad day.

Looking at the posts I know you were really out of it.

You're still one of the best posters here in my eyes.

The shit you used to put up with and the way you handled it always impressed me. Hope to see you back at it again. It was inspiring.

[hrmjustin]

556. Thanks my friend!

[steve2470]

619. great to see you back, Justin! nt

[hrmjustin]

620. Thanks Steve!

[Tarc]

424. I think we need to hear from Mr. Richie Havens

[JCMach1]

432. Primaries on DU have always been a jungle!

[Upthevibe]

442. I'm at lunch at work at my desk reading this. The professionalism regarding ....

the content is very impressive and I agree 100%. However, as I was munching on an ice cream bar and I got to the end,(p.s.: Fuck Trump) the ice cream came tumbling out of my mouth as I burst into laughter!

[DonRedwood]

437. Thank you

I could hardly make it through the top posts lately. It felt like I was in opposite world and I had woken up in the conservative cave.

[turbinetree]

440. I will second your P.S to the Trumpster..............and the horse he road in on................

F*** You Donald Trump






Honk------------------fora political revolution Bernie 2106

[bvf]

443. Hmm.

And anyone who is currently suspended for getting five hides is able to post again as of now.

Indeed.

Give us Barrabas!

[Hydra]

444. A great post Skinner, thank you for being clear and fair. n/t

[oldtime dfl_er]

446. Common sense!

[xocet]

447. You are not even kidding. Fuck Donald Trump and the wall he rode in on. n/t

[2naSalit]

450. Thank You!!!!

[PatrickforO]

452. Fuck Donald Trump. You bet.

He's everything we cannot allow this country to be.

[valerief]

454. Fuck Donald Trump is right! Eew! Wait a minute! Who'd wanna fuck him?

[Nitram]

455. Deus ex machina. Thanks.

[Ellipsis]

457. The "Trump humping" imagery is a bit unsettling...

...like a scene out of "Deliverance," but it's nothing compared to what's going on in GDP.

[Mary Mac]

460. yes

What bozo jury had me blocked from the Hillary group after like five posts? I'm in her camp goodness. I was at her rally!

[kdmorris]

461. The time-outs were instituted for a reason

And I think that removing them will make this basically Discussionist 2. The people that are perpetually on time-outs are that way because they cannot (or will not) be civil. Now, there are no repercussions whatsoever for being as mean and nasty as you want. A hidden post means nothing.

I wish you would reconsider.

Other than that - FUCK TRUMP indeed.

[kath]

498. "The people that are perpetually on time-outs are that way because they cannot(or will not)be civil"

+a brazillion!
And now they have carte blanche to be as nasty as they want to be and/or not even try to rein in their anger-control issues. Let it all hang out, baby! Woo hoo!

[kdmorris]

538. Yeah, I figure it'll make a toxic primary season even more toxic

I just can't see this making anything better.

Oh, well, there are plenty of other things to do with my life than hang out on DU.

[truebrit71]

571. Yup. I can't see how this could possibly backfire...

[Curmudgeoness]

617. I agree.

I think that we will see just how nasty things get when the perpetually pissed posters (the PPP's) continue to shit all over this board without any way to stop them or give them a cooling off period. Good luck with that.

[mia]

463. tl;dr

After reading the OP, had to look up the shorthand phrase "tl;dr". Thanks for your easy-to-read post.
Riding the train toward Democratic wins! Even rainy weather provides interesting scenery.

[VOX]

464. Thank you, Skinner! n/t

[Beartracks]

465. Anything on maybe suspending a person's ALERT privileges...

... if they continually alert on posts that clearly do not violate any TOS (e.g. alerting in a nakedly partisan manner)? A "bad alerter" rule could be a sort of corollary to the effort to remove "bad jurors."

Or is there already something in place to take care of that problem?

I was just thinking that too many bogus alerts can surely "demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time" just as much as too many jury hides.


Anyhow, I hope the new rules and new jury system help!

And I'll definitely be voting.

================

[Skinner]

596. This is something we are likely to do when we completely overhaul the jury system...

...later in the year.

[ViseGrip]

466. hello?

[kimbutgar]

467. +1

I applaud your changes.

[ALBliberal]

468. Being like #650 on Hillary group's banned list for nothing! Just

Middle of the night comments (thanks SheShe) plus banned from AA after begging for readmittance and not even a reply back from my pm!!! IN BOTH SITUATIONS I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW I WAS IN A CLOSED GROUP!!!

Relatively knew poster here and I feel somewhat unwelcome.

What if you lose all 600+ of us banned from Hillary group? Do you even care?

[ScreamingMeemie]

480. My honest opinion after 13 years? Nope. Not really. It's a message board.

Now here to make money and support causes that I may agree or disagree with. It's whatever. I don't take it too seriously.

[ALBliberal]

485. Good point. nt

[GitRDun]

470. I agree a minor intervention is in order.

I've stopped coming to DU because the flame throwing and excessive emotion had made it really not worthy of attention.

Neither Hillary nor Bernie are ideal candidates.

But they are both better than Trump.

That should be the focus.

[stevil]

475. Thank you

[Laura PourMeADrink]

478. Love you...but hate any sort of censorship

[bravenak]

481. Thank you.

[joshcryer]

505. I defy anyone to justify the hides you got bravenak.

It's the most obvious case of jury collusion on the site, imo.

[bravenak]

506. We all know it.

I almost think that it was what made the flaws look so obvious, so they did a good thing without meaning to. I thank them for abusing the system. It will be better from now on.

[joshcryer]

509. That last hide is also really telling.

All you have to do is look at peoples' profile and rec list and see what hypocrites really are. They literally reveled in your hide and then on their rec page they are upset about the toxicity around here. Hello?!?

One thing that Skinner should be applauded for is the transparency on our profiles.

[Mojorabbit]

482. Thank you! nt

[Blasphemer]

484. Thank you Skinner! I am looking forward to a new and improved DU... nt

[ellisonz]

490. I approve of these short-term changes and look forward to seeing what's coming.

[Ellipsis]

493. OK, who beat me to the 500th rec?

[Silver_Witch]

500. Perhaps this will put the end...

to Hillary supports blocking those of us who support Bernie from their blogs? Or not eh?

I posted one time...facts - not derogatory comments and was immediately block. Seemed rude but then I am a new poster here - although I have lurked about for years.

Thanks for trying to make things better.

Melodie

[Decoy of Fenris]

504. I -really- don't think you've thought through removing the 5-hide thing...

While yes, there may be admin oversight, there's now almost no barrier nor real stopping point to either using socks to rampantly and brutally abuse people, or to stop an established poster from saying "hell to it", going on a twenty-post bender full of profanity and/or mockery. While it may not see much play in GD or GD-P, you see it a fair bit in the Gungeon, where a new poster will rack three, four, five hidden posts in a thread attacking either other posters or posting lewd/malicious content. To my knowledge, none of the posters I've seen do that have been PPRed, so what steps outside of a group-ban (circumvented via a new account) could be taken?

I hope I'm wrong, but there is a huge potential for abuse here that these new rules, though well-meaning, may be abused by malicious or vindictive posters. Hell, look at GD; I saw someone with seven hides, three of which were today alone. There's no consequence for hidden posts other than the exceptionally mild slap on the wrist of being locked out of a thread.

[joshcryer]

507. Look at bravenak's transparency page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=300456&sub=trans

Which one of those deserves the hide? Not a single one.

I think Skinner knows more about the jury system than we know and if he says people are using it for partisan reasons, I think we should listen to his word on that.

They'll still be paying attention to people who get hides in quick succession.

[redgreenandblue]

609. Ok, I'll bite. I see three posts on which the alert clearly had some merit.

Whether they deserved to be hidden depends on how thick ones skin is I suppose.

I probably would have voted to hide at least on the Dolores Huerta one because it propagated the false meme that Bernie supporters are racists. One translation of "Probrecito" is something like "poor baby", so I can see why someone took offense. The Cornel West one: Some people consider him a progressive figure, and attacking a progressive figure in such a way is always risky.

The other two hides I do not understand, but that does not mean they had no merit. It is conceivable that the jurors had access to more information than me.

I should add that as far as I know this particular member has openly admitted to posting on DU in order to generate negative responses (which is the original definition of "trolling&quot , so I am not overly surprised or worried that the jury system ended up placing her on a timeout.

[geek tragedy]

514. So says the person who told Hillary Clinton

to "fuck yourself with a brick."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511459520

[Decoy of Fenris]

516. Not proud of that. Not walking it back though, either. Let's use it as an example, though.

Since you brought it up, let's take it for what it's worth and run with it:

Imagine I want that to stay up, prominently. Every 24-48 hours, I post the same thing, with those words in the Post OP thread. Some of them get hidden, some stay up. Either way, eventually, they all fall off the front page.

Then, a month later, or two months, or whatever I want, I kick them -all- back to the top. Now, GD-P, or whatever forum really, now has that message repeated fifty to a hundred times; page upon page of nothing but abuse, hidden or not.

I could soak 10, 20, even 30 hides, and unless I got banned in the process (Unlikely to trigger automated hide-detection software if I'm careful), now GD-P sees one message and one message alone, repeated for page after page after page, as many as I wished.


Now, that's an extreme example, but an example nonetheless. Imagine a "burner" account created solely to malign one person or one candidate, or even several at once; three GD-P pages of nothing but (This is just an example, Jury) "Fuck Geek Tragedy." Or "Hillary is a ****", or "Bernie's a ****".

And that's only in relation to trollery in OPs in a single forum. I know you're a thinker, so use your imagination; what person, or people, could be suppressed through blatant and relatively unpoliced, unstoppable (by Jury) abuse? When only the Admins are able to step in to police rampant abusers, we may as well have only mods and no jury system at all.

[geek tragedy]

517. Alert stalking has been a real thing here as well.

Most members of the African-American group were alert stalked into timeouts. One hidden comment was just a picture of Beyoncé.

The jury system does not work during primary season.

If your post had been about Jane Sanders or Elizabetb Warren, it would have been a 7-0 hide.

[Decoy of Fenris]

519. I'm not saying that alert stalking is not a thing.

I've seen it happen to Bernie supporters, HRC supporters, and those who point out uncomfortable truths that are not in-line with the prevailing winds on DU. The Jury system is indeed flawed and favors tyranny of the majority. That said, removing the time-outs removes all impetus to actually self-police your own posting.

I know it may sting a bit to think of, but I've seen people flat out censor themselves by stating "If I could say what I'm thinking, I'd get hidden." Well shit, that's a -good- thing. Not necessarily in the aspect that some thoughts should be eliminated, but there are times when yeah, you need to shut the fuck up and think about what you type (guilty). A recent example would be the OP you cited prior; Yes, I was expecting a hide, but would I have dare risked it if I was on my 4th Hide? Of course not. If I responded in the subthreads with the same vigor as my OP, would I have been on a vacation? Probably. But there's a -reason- I didn't respond, and there's a reason I didn't keep that post kicked or respond to other posters: Consequences.


Look at GD-P now, mate. With these relaxed jury rules, things are already starting to devolve. There's no reason to self-censor, no reason to really hold yourself back since there's no real consequences. Laws (or rules) without consequences are by definition useless.

[joshcryer]

523. You'd get alerted to death if you did that.

And you know it.

The timeouts were mostly useful to send a message, upping the stakes for those who vote on personality and not content. People get on a jury and don't like someone, they vote to hide just on principle, and then hope that the person gets another hide out of spite.

Your post alone was worse than anything bravenak or sheshe2 has on their transparency page. And they weren't allowed to post until the amnesty was lifted. 10 alerts, 10 hides, on two separate individuals, and your post was worse and was allowed to stand. If that's not partisan I don't know what is.

I think the new jury system will fix the whole partisan hiding certain peoples post thing, since people who vote to hide for personal reasons will be silently removed from the jury pool (I had this idea in the back of my head awhile ago but I didn't want to talk about it since people would've claimed that was creating a preferential jury pool).

Think of it more as a jury selection process where the lawyers and judges dismiss bad jurors. I think it's good.

[modestybl]

512. Thank you for avoiding the usual HRC supporter smugness and contempt... it is appreciated..

But many of us who support Bernie have been looking toward the general election from the start - which, among many other things makes us Bernie supporters. And that is, an HRC nomination = a Trump presidency.

So I know that you are gently and nicely trying to tell us to knock it off and get in line, but some of us are trying to nicely and respectfully suggest to you that insisting on her inevitability may be courting disaster for the Dem party.

That is all.

[LostOne4Ever]

522. Sorry for posting again but I don't know where else to post this

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]With this change, posters who are completely incapable of being civil or following the rules will have free reign to continue to harass people without end.

It is my understanding that most posters don't go on vacation. Only a handful do, and of that handful only a handful of them go on vacation after vacation after vacation. These posters actually spend more time in a years period not being able to post, than they spend able to post. These posters make posting on DU less enjoyable.

The 5 hide system kept them from posting, and made DU a better place overall. If there was a problem with the system it was that the constant vacationers were not deterred from coming back and being rude all over again. It didn't need to be removed, but Strengthened.

Removing the 5 hide temporary ban doesn't solve the problem and punishes the rule abiding members of DU. It is like letting all the inmates of Arkham Asylum (including the Joker) go free because Catwoman got railroaded in a trial.

What was needed, and what is still needed is a better system for appealing bad hides.

What that system would be is probably something for ask the administrators but just as an example, maybe, allow a person who gets a hide to appeal hide which would put up a a button on hidden posts fro 24 hours called "appeal hide" and if a set number of DUers push it, (lets say seven to make up for the seven Jurors) it brings the alert to a 2nd jury whose verdict will be final? Or maybe if like 20 or more posters push the button it sends it to you, the admins, instead?

The manner is beside the point. My reason for posting this is that removing the 5 hide rule is going to hurt DU. I think it is safe to say all of us (or at least most of us) know of posters who are like this. Making this change which affects all of DU just because of bad hides in GDP and other primary groups is a bad idea.

Please reconsider![/font]

[joshcryer]

531. Skinner knows it's being gamed. See post #523.

10 hides for two different individuals none of the posts of which were hide-worthy. People, literally quoting the text of someone else's post that wasn't hidden, who is a host of one of the groups here to boot, got their posts hidden.

Skinner recognizes the partisan aspect of people hiding people they simply don't like, not because of the content of the post, they just don't like them and see their username and hide the post.

[LostOne4Ever]

532. Which is why I said,

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]

"What was needed, and what is still needed is a better system for appealing bad hides."

I had a friend who got a hide because someone lied about what an abbreviation meant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=47932

So I am not trying to say it doesn't happen. But removing the 5 hide rule is going to set loose people who SHOULD be on vacation. People who deserved every hide they got and then some. People with like 15 hides in a year or more.

Putting in a better way of appealing hides would fix the BS hides, and would leave the 5 hide rule in place for posters are are constantly putting up post that should be hidden.[/font]

[joshcryer]

533. Let's hope the bad jury pool is decided by an appeals process.

I just posed a question to the admins in the Ask Admins group about this exact thing.

I like the idea of bad jurors. Let us appeal bad hides. Let the appeals process decide the shitty jurors.

But you're so wrong about the 5 hide rule. Most people I'm seeing in the amnesty threads that are posted maybe posted 3 bad comments but 2 terrible hides. So if you post 3 bad drunk comments (I am 2/4, any time now you can see my drunk as fuck posts on my transparency page) but 2 other comments are innocent, you deserve to be blocked for three months?

People have shitty days. People say shitty stuff.

But in the case of sheshe2 and bravenak, their entire transparency page is nothing, literally nothing, to what supposed "Sanders supporters" say on a daily basis. I am being real here. Real talk. Totally serious. Go look at their hides. And why is it that the AA community here is disproportionately affected by hides? I think there are real, legitimate reasons for this.

Name two people who should be on vacation, you can't do it. Most of the hides for vacation are total garbage. And the admins saw that and rectified it. Literally one AA poster posting a picture of a Beyonce picture, in a protected group, with a fellow friend DUer, got a hide. Literally an AA poster posting comments said about her, directly, and maliciously, got a hide. Incredible.

The admins wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think that the vast overwhelming majority of people on time out had at least one or two illegitimate hides on their ranks. And for what it's worth, you can expect guys like trumad to actually start behaving, because there's no joy in getting locked out of the site now over totally biased, wrong hides. (Sorry trumad, I'm seeing it already. You don't want to get actually PPR'd, you know I'm right.)

[LostOne4Ever]

537. I can name more than 2 people who have earned their 90 day vacations they gotten

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]In fact, I can name a few who I consider friends on this site, who earned their hides and served their time.

In Particular, I know of one really nasty poster (not a GDP poster and I am pretty sure he is a Bernie supporter) who has been here since 2014 who my friends and I try and predict how long he will be on before going on vacation again.

Sometimes he is back on vacation before 24 hours has even passed. Honestly, people like him are the reason we need the five hides rule. Posters like him are why we need to STRENGTHEN the punishment.

But the fact that you are making this about GDP, proves my point. This is essentially sacrificing all of DU for a primary issue. There were people like this before the primaries ever started. Constantly getting hides. Pick any controversial subforum and there will be people who posted there and got vacations and deserved every day of it.

Religion, Isreal and Palestine, The Gungeons, and the usual GD trolls. Even before the primary they were making trouble and when the primary is over...they will still be behaving badly.

Regardless, if there was a good policy to appeal bad hides the situation you describe wouldn't happen. The two bad hides would be appealed and over turned. But, I am sorry to say this, but if someone gets drunk and gets hides they deserve those hides.

I thought 3 months was a bit harsh at first, but since they instituted the policy I have come to the conclusion it was pretty good amount of time. If anything, it is more to protect those who follow the rules than to punish the rule breakers.

And someone who gets 15 hides in less than a year, well that person can't blame all 15 hides on bad juries. There is definitely a bad behavior issue there.[/font]

[joshcryer]

539. Name them.

I've named my posters against the 5 hide rule. We can look at their transparency pages and contrast and compare.

I know I am right, Skinner made the right call, move on, get over it.

[LostOne4Ever]

540. Sending a PM. Not posting them here.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Not moving on because letting these people constantly getting hides to post makes DU a less pleasant place to be.[/font]

[ScreamingMeemie]

602. "who is a host of one of the groups here to boot"

Let us not confer some sort of exalted status upon people who host because they want to host, not because they are somehow saintlier than the rest of us scrubs. Hosts deserves hides many, many (almost TOO many times). And no, I don't know who you are referring to. That just stuck out at me.

[MarianJack]

534. Yes,...

...FUCK Donald Rump!

PEACE!

[heaven05]

558. about time

and yes fuck the trumpchump and his trumpchump followers, big time. We are still heading toward a once in a lifetime election whose outcome couldn't be clearer on both sides. One has two reasonable candidates with pros and cons. One is the worst since Hitler. Democrats, your choice and if you don't vote, shame on you!!!!!

[pintobean]

559. Group hosts no longer lose their hosting privileges for having

their transparency page exposed?

PS. Fuck Donald Trump.

[Skinner]

597. Good question.

We need to check that.

[MineralMan]

560. I hope this works, but I have some real misgivings.

Already today, a post calling another DUer an "asshole" in the subject line of the post was left by a jury 4-3. I was a later alerter on that post, and was very surprised that such a blatant personal attack would stand. I can't imagine not voting to hide such a post.

The tone of GD-P, at least, seems to have deteriorated overnight, in my opinion.

I suppose changes will have to come in their own time, but I'm not certain that the alterations you've made will do the trick. I'll just hope for the best, I guess.

[PunkinPi]

561. Thanks Skinner!

And, fuck Donald Drumpf!

[lonestarnot]

562. Sounds good to me. Thanks Skinner!

[truebrit71]

563. Possibly the most short-sighted move since the implementation of the jury system....

There's a reason people were sent on vacation, many of them repeatedly, it's because they weren't playing by the rules. Now all of the turds come floating back into the pool and we're told that everything's going to be just fine. Well I don't share your optimism.

But hey, it's your pool, so you can clean it from now on...

P.S. Fuck Donald Drumpf. Twice. Sideways.

[freebrew]

568. It sounds pretty good...

too many bogus hides lately..



Oh, and PSS: Fuck Cruz too.

[Betty Karlson]

574. Nobody is being purged, but the one-sided re-entry of the banned

guarantees that Sanders supporters like me are being alert-stalked.

I think your bias is showing.

[Hiraeth]

580. Thank you, Skinner, Especially for this part:

And also we are not going to feature discussion threads on the DU homepage if they are posted in the General Discussion: Primaries forum, or in either of the two primary candidate supporters' groups. We are no longer interested in featuring the most divisive content on the front page of this website.

[BooScout]

581. Sorry Skinner...but this is most obviously not working.

I agree with the fuck Trump comment though.

[UtahLib]

586. How's that working out, in just one day?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

590. Fuck Donald Trump.....

Only with a ten foot long rusty spiked sewage pipe.
And a hazmat suit.

[The Straight Story]

595. So, what you are saying is that maybe posters were right about jury issues all along?

I would rather see a reddit style system. People up/down vote posts and go back to mods.

It seems everything you try where you let mob rule doesn't seem to work out well (but is easier on admins I suppose). We have had upvoting, meta, juries, and mods.

People aren't going to be objective, no matter how much one might think they will be. And now that it is affecting hillary supporters it is getting attention finally.

Maybe try out mods again, but this time put in a donate button to pay them for their time. Get people behind making DU a better place for all posters. And even if not that, you have folks who are willing to work for free to help the site out, leverage them and maybe give something back in return (free shirt/mug/etc - swag).

[pintobean]

600. Know who has a reddit style system?

Reddit.

[The Straight Story]

613. Wow, you are sooo smart! And guess what, they are pretty big and get lots of posts too

Far bigger than Du can ever hope to be.

maybe they are on to something.

Thanks for your, as usual, stunning brilliance.

[pintobean]

615. Maybe you should be enjoying their greatness

rather than wasting your valuable time on these piddly-assed little sites, and having to deal with peons like me.

[The Straight Story]

618. I am able to enjoy more than one place at a time. Maybe you can't

but others can open "tabs" and read more than one web site at a time.

If you need assistance with that I can help you (try chrome browser).

[pintobean]

625. "Number of posts, last 90 days: 10"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=148778

[The Straight Story]

626. And that means....what? Just trying to stir up things aren't you? Awww poor pinto

Did you miss me that much? Dream about me often?

And you have what, 15,000 posts total? And most of those are complaining about other posters.

[proud patriot]

606. Well said Skinner

[yodermon]

607. What kind of Underground rejects the Revolution?

The Democratic Underground.

[Wibly]

608. Big Assumption

Regarding Clinton being the nominee, or even Trump for that matter. Your post also refuses to look at the portent of a Third Party or Independent run.
People are not happy with the status quo, Clinton or Trump, doesn't matter. The people want change. Sanders is the only one offering it. He should not be discounted at this point.

[chknltl]

610. Right there with ya...until the 'p.s.'

Trump'd figure a way to translate getting fucked into votes. Our job at DU needs to be making the name Trump synonymous with EPIC FAIL!

[Agschmid]

612. I believe the 5 hide reprieve may have been a mistake...

But I'm not in charge, so there is that.

[In_The_Wind]

624. Why wait?

Oh, and fuck Trump too.

[underpants]

627. PS. Fuck Donald Trump

[Lionel Mandrake]

628. Hump Trump!

That has a nice ring to it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

629. That's great, but...

From my perspective some really deserve those hides, and by opening the gates you are giving them vindication of being targets of racists, bernie-bros, haters, dirty liberals or any other level if excuse to ratinaluze their bad behaviour.

Not purging anybody?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Some have been sent their DU pinkslip, andI believe that one could argue they were strategic hits: removing long-timers that didn't walk the line.

Also, 2016 will not be a big year for progressives unless tbe third way dissapears from the face of the earth.

[Agnosticsherbet]

632. What the administration did was a good idea.

However, GD-P is more acidic than ever, an rabid attack posts are now coming into the greatest from the Washington group and elsewhere.
I see posts that are vicious, and have little regard for fact.

Fuck Donald Trump, indeed.
But the toxic atmosphere is not longer limited to GD-P.

[baldguy]

633. So, DU is going to be safe for Democrats again?

We'll see.

[DFW]

634. I came back just to take a look at this post, when I was told about it.

It's a step in the right direction, anyway.

[uppityperson]

636. I realized I hadn't replied and needing to do so.

[lovemydog]

638. Thank you. Welcome back to my black friends

who were silenced by the racism (both soft and more straight-up) of mob-rule and / or trolls.

[Bobbie Jo]

639. This isn't working

Juries are still as backhanded and biased as ever.

You're enabling and catering to the bullies by allowing this to continue. Soon, that's all you'll have here.

Sad...

[athena]

648. The jury system is broken.

Side B insists on alerting every single post by side H. As a result of the randomness of the jury selection, every now and then, a jury is made up of the most biased members of side B, and they vote to hide a totally innocuous post by a member of side H. As a result, a member of side H has fewer chances to serve on juries. Over time, side H gets completely silenced, while side B gets more and more extreme in its rhetoric and attacks.

I've been seeing this in the juries I've served on. Completely reasonable posts by side H are getting hidden, while very offensive posts by side B are getting left alone. As a result, it's getting extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion about the primaries, even in protected topic forums. The DU leadership has to do step in and do something if they don't want to lose large numbers of members.

One solution would be to remove the rule that says that having a post hidden reduces the poster's chances of serving on juries. Another solution would be to increase the number of jury members from 7, which allows large statistical fluctuations, to something like 50.

Alternatively, DU could choose to rename itself as BU. It would certainly be a more accurate description of the content.

[Justice4JFK]

640. As long as a Democrat wins in 2016

Amazing what damage the Republicans of late have done to the Party of Lincoln.

[warrprayer]

649. .

[Mary Mac]

651. hillary may have the votes but Bernie definitely has the crowds, caucuses and Internet.

Probably the signs too.

[zappaman]

652. Well, if he's winning the signs, the SDs should really consider changing their vote from

who the voters actually voted for.

[JTFrog]

655. !

[redstatebluegirl]

653. What if we see someone who is real new to DU who are using Trump talking points?

He says he is a Bernie guy, but i don't think so, I think he is here to cause trouble. I don't want to get anyone in trouble, I have put him on ignore, but I just wondered where should that be reported so someone can look at it?

[herding cats]

654. My suggestion is to DU mail a MIRT member.

The current list of those serving is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10135783

This only works if they're under 100 posts, though.

Or, you could DU mail Elad or Skinner directly.

Either/or should work decently I think.

[Rhiannon12866]

656. You can alert on any of his posts

If they are promoting Trump, or, as herding cats suggested, pass on your suspicions to someone currently on MIRT. MIRT's job is to check out new joins. It's true that we can only ban those who are under 100 posts, but we can always take a look and pass the information on to the admins.

[redstatebluegirl]

657. Thanks, I never thought I would need to do this.

[laserhaas]

658. The post script to ..l.. Trump

Is priceless