Please help me understand the truth on DU policy...

[DuaneBidoux]

I recognize this may not be the appropriate place but I've not been participating in DU for many years and have thought to become more active again as we move toward elections.

I was talking to a friend the other day and mentioned this to him.

He told me that he had quit going to DU because they had removed his posts that were critical of the US Congress for being blindly loyal to Israel. He said DU now has an explicit policy against criticising Israel. I was incredulous. I remember many criticisms of Israel when I was more regular.

I told him his criticisms must have been perceived as racists against the Jewish people themselves as I know racism is not allowed.

What's the scoop on this? If he's right then I definitely won't be coming back All should be open to criticism in my books.

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Israeli/Palestine topics

have been relegated to the Israel/Palestine Group. If your friend posted about that very large topic outside of that group, say in GD, then yes, it was probably locked (doubtful it was removed).

When topics are too hot to handle and can literally take over GD if they're allowed to go on and on there, those topics get their own group. A good example right now is General Discussion - Primaries. Topics about the three Democratic Party candidates are relegated to that forum and that forum only.

[ellenrr]

17. However, that rule is strictly enforced for Pal/Israel - but not for gun discussion. nt

and I was banned from Israel/Palestine group by a moderator whom I was told is a zionist!
How do you have a moderator for a tense group like this -- not be a neutral party??

[Eleanors38]

26. I humbly request any correction and will defer to da all-powerful Oz...

...but can one (1) host in GD allow a post on a restricted subject, even when other hosts think differently? Put another way, is the restriction on...oh, I don't know.... say guns... now (and indefinitely into the future) dead letter?

As a corollary to all that, it remotely possible that posts on... you know (gunz)... can be vetoed by one (1) host's vote?

I respectfully ask you, since you may be closer to the source.

Thanks.

[KamaAina]

41. Both rules are supposed to be suspended when there is breaking news involving the topic

e.g. San Bernardino.

[etherealtruth]

2. Pinned at the top of General Discussion ....

... are the rules for GD

What can and cannot be posted in the General Discussion forum


The Statement of Purpose for the General Discussion forum says this:

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.

In an effort to provide greater clarity to members posting in this forum -- and to hosts trying to enforce this statement of purpose -- here is a detailed list of examples that should give some idea of where the line is drawn. As much as possible, we have attempted to describe current hosting practices rather than to place greater restrictions on what can be posted.

ISRAEL/PALESTINE
Threads about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Israel/Palestine Group.

Open discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

[Eleanors38]

23. "Posts about...guns... are restricted in this forum." It actually says that.

Let me know when da restrictions happenz.

[etherealtruth]

24. here's the SoP related to guns .... when we have a lull in mass shootings

.... we can have some restrictions in GD. sadly, there seems to be new and horrible Gun events on the tail of the last one

What can and cannot be posted in the General Discussion forum

This discussion thread is pinned and locked. It is closed to new replies.
The Statement of Purpose for the General Discussion forum says this:


In an effort to provide greater clarity to members posting in this forum -- and to hosts trying to enforce this statement of purpose -- here is a detailed list of examples that should give some idea of where the line is drawn. As much as possible, we have attempted to describe current hosting practices rather than to place greater restrictions on what can be posted.


GUNS
News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.

Local stories about gun crime and "gun porn" threads showing pictures of guns or discussing the merits of various firearms are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Gun Control and RKBA Group.

Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

[Eleanors38]

27. So "mass shootings" (a relatively new def., abundantly pushed by MSM) has rendered...

the restriction Dead Letter? This would be helpful for future posts.

Thank you so much for your cooperation.

[etherealtruth]

29. Read the SoP for GD .... the answers are there

you may not like or agree with the SoP (but, that is irrlevent as the SoP is what it is); addressing your concerns in ATA is always a possibility

[Eleanors38]

30. So, it appears there is in fact No restrictions on gun posts in GD...

Since there is no response to my questions about the dynamic of set in motion about the new def. "mass shooting" begetting "newsworthiness" begetting Constant postings re Guns in GD, I can only conclude the policy is Dead Letter.

[etherealtruth]

32. Some of us have not become desensitized to gun violence or mass murder

For those (as it appears you have, by your comment, that these news stories are "media driven" you can clarify your position with the admin at this site and ask them to revise the Sop to reflect something to balance the outrage triggered by gun violence and mass murder.

Your only recourse is to discuss the 'newsworthiness" of mass murder and gun violence. for those of us horrified by it, we can continue following the current SoP.

[Eleanors38]

33. "Desensitized." How clinical, given the level of hate and smear some

Just can't get enough of, here. But it seems a worthy substitute for "compassion."

You know, I know, everyone knows MSM drives these stories, esp. after the "mass shooting" construct was instituted. This is a generations-long cause this institution has fought in the same droll, liturgical and counter-productive manner. But it cannot let go. It's a Culture War that it is addicted to, and truth to is just a pain in the ass. Esp.when you can trot out the same 1970s cartoons.

As to your rather pithy suggestion on policy questions, it's been done. And I have posted suggestions here and elsewhere. I actually got a hide based on misstating TOS in GD, as over the top....



Here is my suggestion (again): GET RID OF THE DEAD LETTER POLICY regarding gun posts so that those on "both" sides of the debate know where to post without some violation of the TOS.

Do you have a problem with that, or do you think there is some advantage accorded to one side with the current policy?

[etherealtruth]

34. Its not my site

In my opinion (and mine only) the admins have been very gracious in giving the minority view on guns here an area in which to participate (commonly referred to as the gungeon) ... if you choose to espouse the virtues of gun ownership in GD following tragedies, terrorism and mass murder (involving guns) that is a choice you make. A choice that has no impact on me whatsoever

[Eleanors38]

37. Of course this doesn't address the issue of the dead letter in GD.

I will expect, however, that rather unbridled pro2A postings in GD will be as Kosher as anti2A postings in GD, when the exception is lifted (in other words, pretty much all the time), all in the interest of fair play.

[Go Vols]

47. I don't think its a "minority view",

as a poll indicated a few days ago that 60% here support the 2A.

[etherealtruth]

49. I think even the most ardent gun supporter knows it is a minority view here

progressive, by and large support gun control

[Go Vols]

50. I think most gun owners here

feel arguing with a ban gun type here will get about the same results as arguing with a street preacher,so they don't bother

[etherealtruth]

51. That one is most def a 2-way street

[LanternWaste]

38. That's a creative yet wholly unsupported allegation.

"a relatively new def"

That's a creative yet wholly unsupported allegation. Bias often compels us to do as such.

[Eleanors38]

43. Well, Lantern, is it 353 this year or 4? Mother Jones says the latter...

...and MJ is not too gun-friendly.



That "creativity" you mention is spread among four definitions mentioned in the Novenber 23rd edition of the Dallas Morning News. Not to mention the "Active Shooter" def used by other creative sorts.

Seems Anyone can be creative today. Given the buffet of definitions.

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. Well, with "mass shootings" conveniently re-defined, that day may never happen.

Might as well eliminate the unenforced restriction and just go with "GD" meaning "Guns Discussion."

Not that much actual discussion ever happens in GD gun threads...

[etherealtruth]

44. I would direct your concerns related to the identification of mass shootings to the admin

Perhaps they will agree that the murder of 12 (?) people and the wounding of many others does not fit the interpretation of mass shooting. I realize that there is great concern among 2A proponents that these horrific events are "over blown' .... address these concerns to the admin .... perhaps they will agree with you. Its not up to me.

In my mind these are horrific events warranting discussion ... even if it is simply outrage.

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. I can't say I care much any more one way or the other if there are gun threads in GD.

GD gun threads are almost uniformly useless: virtually no actual rational discussion, plenty of hate, vituperation, and divisive asshattery. They're perfect illustrations of what the Trash Thread function is for.

[etherealtruth]

46. Debating me on whether we should or should not allow is fruitless ...

... the admins are the only ones with the power to decide.

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. You think I'm debating you? Um...nope.

And to repeat: I no longer care one way or the other. I trash most of them, post in some of the remaining ones purely for amusement, not because I think there will be any useful discussion (there never is).

[Crunchy Frog]

53. In between mass shootings.

Which means not alot of the time these days, but I've certainly seen my share of locked gun threads.

[edgineered]

3. Levels of tolerance vary from group to group.

Take for example

Martin O'Malley Group
In it there are 55 subscribers and NO banned posters. A very open and welcoming part of DU with a 100% approval rating.

Bernie Sanders Group
In it there are 769 subscribers and 173 banned posters. Although not as free from controversy as the MO'M group it has an 81.6% positive atmosphere to it.

Hillary Clinton Group
With 241 subscribers and 305 banned posters they have a rating of 44.1%. They are either the most victimized or the least tolerant group in DU.

MO'M 100%
BS 82%
HRC 44%

Welcome back to DU. Prior to posting in a group where any deviation from a group-think mindset may result in alerts, banned posts, or even a tombstone it is a good idea to view the *About this group* statistics.

The Israel/Palestine Group has 175 subscribers and NO banned posters. It does not appear that you have reason for concern.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. HRC has more banned than subscribers? Yikes.

I think your math should have it a negative percentage.

[edgineered]

6. The total numbers are:

241 subscribers
305 banned posters

241 + 305 gives us a population of 546 members of DU. That 546 then represents 100% of our sample.

Of that sample of 546 members, 241 favor Clinton, therefore we can use 241/546 as the favorability rating.

241/546 comes out to be 0.441, or 44.1%.

If we were to take into account 141 members trashing the HRC group our numbers would get closer to zero;

241 + (141 + 305) = 687

Now we get 241 out of 687 for 35.1% of the active group FOR Clinton. Counting those thrashing the group, although making her numbers appear even LESS FAVORABLE, isn't a true representation however as the additional 141 are not active.

But, if you insist: 35% favor Clinton.

[TexasTowelie]

8. See my post below about tolerance in groups.

I realize that if a member is banned from one group it doesn't mean that they are a member of the opposing group. However, without checking both lists I suspect that there is a strong correlation.

Since I know that we both share a mathematical background I'm certain that you are aware that statistics can be used to make or break any hypothesis depending upon the assumptions that are made.

[edgineered]

12. The best part of statistics is they are in favor of the view taken! nt

[TexasTowelie]

7. Or the math could be viewed from this perspective:

305 out 769 Sanders supporters are banned from the Clinton group (39.7%) while 173 out of 241 Clinton supporters are banned from the Sanders group (71.8%).

Taken any good screenshots lately?

[edgineered]

10. Those figures are worthless

Nothing in the statistics show allegiance of banned posters to any group or candidate.

Provide supporting documentation to your claim please.

As for the screenshots, the HRC numbers have been getting worse and worse. This is something routinely watched - see for yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=70326

[TexasTowelie]

14. The comment about screenshots was not directed at you, but to the person I replied to.

I'm not going to research each person on the banned lists to view their avatars or see whether they are active in the opposing group. If you want to perform that analysis then you are welcome to do so.

I did scan both lists of banned members and from my experience voting on alerted threads as both a juror and as a forum host I recognize a substantial number of the names on both lists. I don't keep a running list of who is in what camp; however, I wouldn't be surprised if other members do. I will remind you that I am unemployed which means that I spend plenty of time online reading the threads and while I'm not at the top of mental abilities like I was a decade ago I am reasonably observant. In addition, when including the likelihood that the Clinton Group drawing more trolls than Sanders Group (because she has been hated by the GOP longer) I also suspect that the difference in percentages that I presented widens rather than decreases

The only thing meaningful that can be drawn from the statistics that you presented is that the absolute number of members subscribing to the Sanders Group is greater than the number subscribing to the Clinton Group and the absolute number banned by the Clinton Group is greater than the number banned from the Sanders Group. Your assumptions about the percentages you presented and what they mean are marred by what you wish to infer from the data and the argument you want to support; your assumptions are also not any more credible than the assumptions that I make. As a statistician I know how to present data to support any argument dating back from my first research paper in English Composition at college and my experience with tort reform with Texas (very liberal viewpoints) to working in the private insurance industry (a conservative viewpoint).

As I said before, you are welcome to research each member on both lists, check their avatars, favorite groups and user profiles to see if they are banned or remain active posters in order to support your narrative. I respect your right to do so, but it doesn't mean that I have to accept your analysis or your interpretation of what it means. You don't have to accept my observations or interpretation of the data either and I respect that also.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. Those stats don't tell the whole truth on tolerance.

The Bernie Sanders group, specifically L0onix, tried to throw down a block on me because I alerted on a call-out, not realizing it was within a "protected" candidate group. What was particularly bizarre about it was a)the poster who did the call out edited out the language, b) the block message stated that I wasn't pro-Sanders apparently based on the hosts' reading of some tea leaves, c) that hosts blocked me from emailing them thus cutting off any dialog, and d) the host(s) were unclear of the fact that posters can't be blocked unless they have posted in the group.

However, having hosted groups myself I suspect that many of the blocked posters in both BSG and HRCG are short term trolls who were offed by MIRT. Some group hosts clean out these trolls from the blocked lists but most just let them stand.

[edgineered]

11. While what you say may very well be true,

it is more fun being here bantering meaninglessly than it is mowing the grass!

[TexasTowelie]

13. Actually I checked most of the banned members from the Sanders Group and I came up with five

that were banned. There are about the same number that have accounts suspended, but nearly all of the remaining members have been active within the last 90 days.

I did not check the HRC Group, but I suspect the percentage that are banned is larger due to RW hatred of her that his built up over decades. Of course both lists would be affected by whether or not the hosts purge the lists, but I suspect that any of the hosts make the effort.

By the way, I was banned from the Sanders Group because I cross-posted a news story (without commentary) from the Texas Group into there and the host took offense so I understand why you view claims of tolerance dubiously. I deleted the OP from the Sanders Group, but it is still available in the Texas Group.

[SheilaT]

31. I was banned early on from the Hillary group

because they absolutely won't tolerate the slightest criticism of her. Nada.

On the other hand, the wonderful folks in the guns group, put up with me stating frequently that I'm in favor of total confiscation of guns. As you might imagine, I invariably got a lot of pushback on that opinion, but they have never banned me and only occasionally have I had a post hidden.

[Cal Carpenter]

16. I don't understand how the hosts would know who sent an alert

I thought alerts were anonymous to all but the admins. Can hosts see them too?

[Sissyk]

19. The host of groups can see alerts with alerter names

ONLY if it is an SOP alert. Host do not see jury alerts in groups, or anywhere.

[Cal Carpenter]

20. Aaah, thanks for clarifying

I think I actually did know that, somewhere in my foggy brain.

[Sissyk]

21. More than welcome!

And, to add to that; they can only see SOP alerters/alerts for groups they actually host.

[artislife]

35. Lots of people banned from Hillary and Bernie groups

I hear it all the time.
No one from Martin, I can believe it. I had a bit of a dust up with one poster but it didn't esculate into anything mean or nasty. I made a joke that wasn't funny. I do not make those kind of jokes about Martin anymore and I respect all the true Martin supporters. I do feel there are a few who just say it but because they never wax on why they support him or do any other kind of supportive posts or OPs. I think they say that to seem out of the fray, but it really is harmless so it doesn't matter much anyway.

So don't feel victimized...there is stil the GDP if you want to have debates.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. I don't feel victimized, just amused. n/t

[hifiguy]

15. The HRH group, like the one

from which many of its members sprang, is policed with an intensity and vehemence that would make the Stasi or the KGB most proud.

[earthside]

52. I would agree.

i was banned after a rather innocuous question/statement as I recall.

I don't get it ... in the real world of real politics you don't get a 'safe place' to go to keep the mean Republicans away.

[ellenrr]

18. you are wrong about that, I was banned. I am not sure of the reason,

in comments to me, someone thought it was bec. I had criticized the moderator.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. Was that on the old DU, or the current one?

Sorry, just checked it out and you are blocked.

You might want to appeal to the other host to be reinstated, since apparently any host can unblock someone.

I mostly just read these days, and don't post much, but appreciate your perspective there.

[ellenrr]

55. thanks, I don't think it is worth the trouble.. in general the tone of the entire DU

like the Dem Party ( no surprise ) is anti-Palestinian.

Both favor democracy and justice for everyone ...but shhhhh... don't say a word about the Palestinians.
In both cases the powers think they can make the Palestinians disappear by censoring speech, but
guess what?
long after DU is ashes, and perhaps the DP is ashes, the Palestinian people will survive.
Of this I am sure.

Of course in both cases there are very important exceptions..

PS: the reason "Pal/Israel" posts are ghettoized, is NOT bec. they stir so much passion.
The reason is that the powers that run DU do NOT want any discussion of the topic in general discussion bec. they want to hide the truth. this is clear.

[MADem]

28. What a pantload--the Clinton group has been in existence since DU2. You forgot that bit.

People were shitting on her back in 2008, back when nobody outside of VT knew who Bernie Sanders was. There are still plenty of people who just haven't "gotten over it." Even though she managed, just fine.

The Sanders and O'Malley groups just got fired up this year. I'll wager half the members of the former group will disappear from DU after primary season...

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Hardly anyone is able to give an objective description of their deleted posts or reasons for banning

We all say it was a question of being misunderstood, or there's an irrational bias, or unspoken ban, about something.

If you want to understand, then get him to give you enough to find the posts and examine them for yourself.

[Agschmid]

25. Yup.

[LanternWaste]

39. To understand truth, read philosophy and view art. To understand terms of service

To understand truth, read philosophy and view art. To understand terms of service, read the Terms of Service available on DU for all to review.

[KamaAina]

42. You are correct. This is not be the appropriate place.

Ask the Administrators is there for this kind of stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Ask The Administrators.

No, Seriously.