Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Which of these rules are going to force members of DU to comply with "message discipline"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:12 PM
Original message
Which of these rules are going to force members of DU to comply with "message discipline"?
Please choose all that apply.

LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS

{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
- Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
- Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "fuck off," or the like.
- Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
- Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
- Calling someone a bigot.
- Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.
- Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.

{ } Broad-brush or Extreme Group Attack - When discussing groups of DU members, the following are considered broad-brush group attacks:
- Broad-brush attack - intended to paint all people belonging to a particular group in a negative light. (The word "all" can be explicitly stated or implied.)
- Name-calling - Referring to any group of DU members by names intended to paint them in a negative light.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are conservatives, disruptors, or similar.
- Belittling people who are new or have a low post count.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are not Democrats, liberals, or progressives.
- Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive.
- Note: As a general guideline, if it is possible to identify specific individuals who are being attacked, then it is against the rules. But if the attack is against a vaguely defined group of "some but not all" people, then it might be permitted.

{ } Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
- Race or ethnicity.
- Gender (women or men).
- Sexual Orientation.
- Religion or lack of religion (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.).
- Geographic region or place of origin.
- Disability (mental or physical).
- Weight or other physical characteristics.
- Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "cunt," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).

{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
- Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.
- Advocating violent overthrow of the government, or harm toward high-ranking officials.
- Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
- Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
- Sexually explicit content.
- Graphic violence, gore, pain, or human suffering (except with a legitimate political purpose, and with a clear warning in the subject line).
- Asking for medical advice.
- "Gravedancing" or "gravemourning" when someone is banned.
- Signature line/avatar image violates DU rules, is controversial, or is likely to cause discussions to go off-topic.

{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.

{ } Harassment or threats
- Any type of threat against another member of this community, either explicit or implied.
- Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise.
- A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person.
- Digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere.
- Stalking someone across discussion threads or forums.

{ } Rule enforcement issues
- Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.
- Publicly accusing the moderators/administrators of bias.
- Publicly "calling-out" the moderators/administrators over specific enforcement action.
- Continuing an argument from a locked thread or from a thread you have been blocked out of.

{ } Spamming
- Posting the same message repeatedly.
- Personal fundraising, for-profit advertising, or selling products or services (except in the DU Marketplace forum, or if given explicit permission from the DU administrators).
- Posting entirely in capital letters.

{ } Off-topic/Wrong forum
- Any discussion thread or post that is off-topic for the forum or group in which it is posted.
- Non-news items posted in the Latest Breaking News forum.
- Highly speculative "conspiracy theory" topics outside the September 11 forum.
- Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.
- Discussion of purely religious topics outside the Religion/Theology forum.
- "Rallying the troops" in a forum or group to disrupt elsewhere on the website.

{ } Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
- Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
- Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.

{ } Copyright violations
- Excerpt exceeds 4 paragraphs, or does not have a link to the source.

{ } Other (Please explain)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why copyright violations of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Does is matter? We have been disciplined anough said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Spamming is a good one n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Its sad when people can not have a discourse without ranting and name calling
and bigotry. Some days DU looks like free republic - just bigotry and hatred toward different groups
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm sorry, where was there a statement from TPTB about "message discipline" ???

:shrug:

Serious question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. There isn't one. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I'm a little confused. Are you saying there is a de facto message we
are supposed to adhere to, or are you saying there SHOULD be?

Again, serious question...I just woke up, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Some people are implying that the rules are meant to do that, but I do not think so.
I'm wondering when I'm going to hear from one of them, so that you and I can hear the explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ahh, OK. Thanks, man.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
40. You Must
refrain from advocating anything but the official line, including for other non-official candidates, i.e. third-party. You cannot say that Democrats are deluded, not playing with a full deck, or otherwise wrong in some way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. Seems to me people have problems with the following:
- Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
- Calling someone a bigot.
- Name-calling - Referring to any group of DU members by names intended to paint them in a negative light.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are conservatives, disruptors, or similar.
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.
- Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.
- Publicly accusing the moderators/administrators of bias.
- Publicly "calling-out" the moderators/administrators over specific enforcement action.
- Continuing an argument from a locked thread or from a thread you have been blocked out of.
- Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.

There's the source of the Sturm und Drang.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. I'm wondering if I can get them to change the "Inappropriate attacks against Democrats" header to
"shit statements"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReverendDeuce Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Wow... I didn't see these...
Some of these make sense but... Complaining about the rules is a violation of the rules? Whaaa?

Eye-opening summary of the new rules. Thanks for the heads up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Those aren't new rules.
Same rules have been in place for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. It's about basic civility and intellectual honesty.
Name calling and swearing in capital letters isn't the kind of thing most people want to read on a regular basis. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Is this thing THAT important?
It's a recreational message board. Why is it so offensive that mods are setting some rules of the road on a site which is theirs to manage as they see fit?

:shrug:

As others have said, if there are people who can't make a point without delivering insults in the process, there's a problem right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReverendDeuce Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. I think the issue is not the fact that rules were announced...
But rather the content of the rules is in question.

Let's not try and confuse the issue here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
41. Well, They Can Manage
as they see fit, but in liberal tradition, we can dissent as we see fit. The problem some people may have is that a few of the rules come a bit close to outlawing disagreement.

And, well, no, it isn't that important. The Internet has no shortage of opinion outlets. One just is tempted to want to point out some dissonance with the liberal way of thinking before figuratively moving to Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
13. I don't know but I love watching this debate you are having with yourself...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. One of the first things I said was that it wasn't the rules themselves that were bad.
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 01:33 PM by LoZoccolo
But it was the obsession with the rules that spilled out all over threads. I think the new terms of enforcement will actually mitigate some of that. And yes, I've changed my mind somewhat too. Maybe I should be more like George W. Bush* who wouldn't often change his mind or admit mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. It's the obsession that's bad?
Says the guy who's made 3 posts about the rules in the last 24 hours.

Do what you like man, like I said I'm enjoying it. You have the whole Gollum thing going on..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. "Gollum thing going on.".
:spray: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. Calling Obama "Barry", a name he used to use himself, is a personal attack?
I would think it would depend on the context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. My parents used to call me Polecat.
But I wouldn't like it if people called me that now. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Yeah.
The context is almost universally insulting and patronizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. ALMOST universally insulting and patronizing...
so context does matter, then? Look, if his nickname was *, "Darth" or "A-hole", I'd agree it's always a personal attack, but if someone refers to him as Barry, in the context you've suggested, wouldn't they probably have also broken a few other rules in the process?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I think they're using it as an example of stupid shit not to do.
It's not like anybody has ever innocently called Obama "Barry" in a friendly manner, and then unfairly gotten their post deleted.

Being purposefully obtuse is not an excuse to break the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Google "barry soetoro" and see what comes up. Calling
Obama "Barry" is used almost exclusively by birthers and teabaggers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. And the only way we can identify birthers and teabaggers on DU
is by their use of "Barry"? Don't their comments usually violate a whole host of other rules as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Who said that? You asked why calling Obama Barry would
be considered disrespectful. Myself and others have just told you why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Why would you call him Barry? For what purpose? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. I don't call him Barry, I just don't understand why that would AUTOMATICALLY
be insulting or derogatory. Referring to Bill Clinton as "Bubba" was not always considered insulting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Clinton embraced Bubba (and it was effective to do so) while Barry is
really only used by the rw birther nuts and others who want a quick dig.

I just don't see how this rule is that big of a deal. If you have a beef with the rules why focus on this one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. This one doesn't seem to make much sense, to me.
Here's what it comes down to. Sure, this is a nickname that the RW uses a lot, and should probably set of a flag in your head that the poster who used it may be on his way to a pizza, but if the only thing you can find offensive is the name Barry, why pull the post automatically? And if this is just a warmup for the usual teabagger/birther horseshit to follow, why do you need "the Barry rule" at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. the context almost always reveals it as derogatory, and
there's no situation in which not being able to call Obama "barry" will prevent anyone from making a substantial criticism of his policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Which isn't really the point...
We can get by without calling him "Mr. President" as well, and while that has no default derogatory connotations that I'm aware of, it doesn't prevent anyone from make positive or negative comments on his policies as well.

If "Barry from DC" can call into a radio show, why is the simple use of the name "Barry" (IF no other negative context is provided) a reason to automatically pull a post?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/obama-wtop-prank-call-bar_n_400889.html

And if negative context IS provided, why isn't that enough to pull the post if warranted, regardless of the name used?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
31. It's amusing to read that again
having seen so much of it violated through and through, day after day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
34. Some of the guidelines were always there but have been ignored
I've never thought extreme vituperation, vulgar language or needling advances anybody's point of argument.

As for this guideline:

"Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates."

I've so often felt sold out by corporatist Democrats that I think a third party might be a good idea. I've never 'advocated' it, though. I assume most of these types of guidelines would depend on context, to a degree.

Although not ancient in years I believe in civility. I used to cringe when filthy obscenities -and even 'humorous' calls for assassination- were directed at President Bush. I'd get sniped at here years ago when I occasionally objected to extreme language. I predicted that lowering the bar of discourse would come back to bite us when a Democrat was elected president. And it has come to pass.

BTW, how do we know who the mods are if we've not received warnings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
37. Are you sad that you aren't allowed to Grave dance anymore?
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 02:33 PM by Oregone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
39. A longer list of words and their responding unacceptable usages, I have never seen.
Not on the debate team, on line communities from the days of BBS's at 300 baud to present of all sorts, a variety of corporate environments, not in dealing with government contractual obligations. Nowhere except in literature, history, and political science courses that I can recall and never in a positive way but with largely similar justifications.

Off hand, I'd tend to say the US Congress would be far less restrictive than I interpret both rule and intent.

Much, much simpler rules dictate decorum in even less than fancy free environments.

Words have meaning, they represent thoughts of specific notions and particular things and to restrict the word is always a sin against expression and should only be done at great and specific need.

I read the elaborate edict and the screams of the term "thoughtcrime" with the accompanying conditioned responses way, way, way too much to even bother picking the shit apart to give a detailed and legalistic point by point.

I shouldn't have to. I would hope that most of us would have been educated in environments that would condition against easy acceptance of that level of dictates on free expression.

It is sad, similar easy acceptance has led us to pissing on much of our promise as a nation. This is how we get into wars without aim or end, how we end up going through the gauntlet at the airport, why our communications are monitored without recourse or repercussion, why we may be murdered if our associates or opinions are not tolerate, why we tortured and the perpetrators go free, and endless and worse more.

What is it not to get???? Rule #1 in the how to deal with thoughtcrime is to remove the words that act as placeholders for thoughts, people, ideas, and objects to make them difficult to relay.

Rule #2 is that some wiseacres will be able to still express the taboo concept, person, object so make sure that such expression is unlikely to be observed and absorbed as possible. If seen ostracize, impugn, and minimize.

Rule #3 If 1&2 don't work, if the subject's is still able to effectively communicate thoughtcrime they must be reeducated and if they cannot be or are not worth the investment then they are to disappear.

Who hasn't seen that playbook before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC