Question about TOS (Sorry another one!)

[Bonobo]

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Is there anything in the TOS that prevents me from telling people to shut the hell up because my vote belongs to me and me alone?

Hell, when I was a kid growing up in the 70's, a person's vote was something that no one would even ask about let alone DARE to try to bully or cajole other people into.

My parents didn't even force each other to tell how they voted. And the idea of a more distant family member asking was WAY out of bounds.

THAT is how sacred people took that power, that right, that privilege. And it is no exaggeration either. The power to vote is something that people shed blood for. It is our only method of directly affecting the political leadership of our country and it is not something to bully people about.

On second thought, instead of saying the above, maybe I'll just say "take your oath and shove it". Is that okay with the TOS?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Table of Contents? nt

[Bonobo]

3. Ugh, been translating all day...

My brain is a ruined mess.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. hee hee. nt

[LWolf]

2. I tried

to say the same thing, a little less bluntly, but you did a much better job with this.

[seaglass]

5. Other than a possible hide for rudeness, I don't think it is a problem. No one is forcing you

to state who you are voting for.

As far as I can see the issue isn't people keeping their vote private, it is people announcing they won't vote for whichever Democratic candidate wins the primary.

[restorefreedom]

6. jury results

On Thu Nov 5, 2015, 05:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Question about TOS (Sorry another one!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251768819

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This disruptive meta OP is essentially flipping off the administrators of this site. The continual viscious attacks directed at DU'ers and admin doesn't belong here.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 5, 2015, 05:33 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is childish, unnecessary meta. Grow up.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'll keep this simple. First, to answer the OP, "YES"! The TOS also prohibits posts abusing other members and the Administrators. If people can't comply they should consider moving to another site.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break. This post is expressing discontent at the plethora of "You must vote for Hillary if she is the nominee" threads that appear like clockwork.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To whoever alerted, grow up.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DanTex]

7. "Who are you voting for?" is a pretty harmless, natural question. Particularly in a

political discussion forum.

The environment you grew up in seems kind of strange. I've literally never met anyone who was afraid to say who they were voting for, or who I didn't want to tell who I was voting for. This includes, friends, family, work, etc. Discussions about politics come up all the time, and sometimes people disagree, and they debate issues, and it's all fine.

Obviously, there are certain times where political discussions are inappropriate, for example in business meetings. But an anonymous online political forum is about as far from that as you can get.

[AlbertCat]

12. who was afraid to say who they were voting for

No one's afraid.

It's personal. And no one's business.

That's the way I are up too in the 70's.

The difference was one party hadn't completely lost its mind...until Nixon.

[Android3.14]

17. Poison posts are exactly what this OP is referencing

Your ilk demand repeatedly for people (who despise the supporters of the Iraq War, despise the corporate puppet masters of HRC, despise the the anti-democratic tactics of the DLC/DNC/HRC, and uncounted other issues) to vow they will vote for Hillary, and the motivation for it is the same as it was for slimy communist political officers and fascist narcs - to try and silence dissent.

Anyone promoting loyalty oaths or asking public proclamations for individuals to agree to vote for a candidate deserve a middle finger.

[DanTex]

18. Actually, people who help the GOP deserve the middle finger.

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government.

If you don't believe that, then you're on the wrong website.

[MineralMan]

8. You're right. Everyone should vote as they see fit.

That's absolutely true. The TOS says nothing about people needing to declare how they will vote or for whom. Anyone can keep that information to him or herself and never run afoul of the DU TOS.

On the other hand, lots of people are clear and open about their voting intentions. I am. I will vote for the Democratic nominee for President. I always do.

Others are equally clear about their intentions not to vote for one or another candidate if that person becomes the nominee. In fact, some have signed some sort of pledge to that effect. In some cases they have encouraged others to do the same and pledge not to vote for a particular candidate if that candidate becomes the nominee.

In those cases, there might be a conflict with the DU TOS at some point in time.

So, sure, you can tell anyone who tells you how you must vote that they should shut the hell up. You can also simply refuse to disclose your voting plans in public. If you tell someone to STFU, though, it's likely that your post might get alerted on and, depending on the particular jury, it might be hidden.

I wouldn't ask you how you or anyone else will vote. It's none of my business. But I sure will say that I intend to and will vote for the official nominee of the Democratic Party for President. That, too, is my right to do. Might I be vilified for that statement? Yes, I might, and have been. But, I can simply ignore that. I will not have to worry about the DU TOS, in any case.

So, yes, you can tell people to shut the hell up. It's a little risky with juries, though, depending on how you do it. But vote as you see fit, Bonobo. Everyone should do that. You needn't tell us your voting plans, but you can if you wish.

[gollygee]

9. A political discussion forum isn't really like the Thanksgiving dinner table.

You go to a political discussion board to discuss politics, obviously, so "who are you voting for" is a reasonable question here, even though it would be rude elsewhere.

[Hiraeth]

10. Who are you voting for and why :should: lead to conversation and debate on a political

message board ....

[PowerToThePeople]

11. K&R.

I highly rec this op.

No Sanders supporter would ever say anything about their vote if there was not a HRC loyalty oath OP every hour on the hour here. It gets fucking old. Then the same people posting the flame bait oaths are spewing meta ops bitching about our responses.

The are baiters, not quite master baiters but they work it constantly.

[Adrahil]

16. It would have never been a problem if....

... there weren't Bernie supporters declaring they would never support Clinton if she gets the nomination.

[JTFrog]

13. Right back at ya...

But if you aren't advocating for a spoiler, why so concerned about the TOS? There is no obligation to state who you are voting for, right? And let's not pretend that people haven't been running around accusing Clinton supporters of having no intention of voting for Sanders.

There are plenty of spaces on the internet that will allow you to rant rabidly about not voting for Democrats or to bash Democrats to hell.

[UglyGreed]

14. We need a

[mmonk]

15. I understand your frustration.

The poster in question was a lot less rude than many in GD: P. In fact, I've just returned despite the vitriol and accusations that have no basis in fact. I think it was done due to strict interpretation of the rules here. That is how I see it. I very much thought highly of the poster in question. But it is what it is I suppose.

[BainsBane]

19. After you have spent the last several months telling us we are voting wrong?

Seriously?

[WillyT]

20. K & R !!!

[cwydro]

21. Of course, you can tell people that you don't want to say for whom you are planning to vote.

However, if you directly tell another poster to "shove it," or some variation thereof, you risk a hide.

There's no reason we can't be civil to each other.

It amazes me how seriously people take conversation on this board.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. You don't have to tell anyone how you're gonna vote.

You're just not allowed to "advocate in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidate".

This is all right there in the TOS link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

You're welcome!