The DU Rules have been updated (November 7, 2005)

[Skinner]

The DU Administrators recently finished our semi-annual review of the DU Discussion Forum rules, to identify places where the DU rules do not properly reflect the manner in which they are enforced, and to find areas where we feel they should be made more or less stringent.

Most of the changes are fairly small and not worthy of specific mention here. However, there were a few significant changes which I would like to point out to everyone. As promised, some of these changes make our rules more stringent, whereas some others make the rules more lenient.

NOTEWORTHY RULE UPDATES

1. Linking to other websites -- The rules include a new section that specifically forbids linking to bigoted websites and restricts the linking of conspiracy theory websites.

2. DU Groups -- The rules now include a section about special rules for DU Groups. Many of you should recognize them because they are the same rules we have been enforcing in the DU Groups for many months now.

3. "Sockpuppets" -- Multiple usernames are now specifically forbidden by the rules.

4. Religion -- Discussion topics relating to religion that have little or no relation to politics are no longer permitted in the General Discussion forum, and must instead be posted in the Religion/Theology forum. To offset this tightening of the rules, we have loosened our guidelines regarding what sorts of comments about religion are considered inappropriate, and we have added clear warnings to those who are easily offended by religious discussion. We retain the all-important distinction that "discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not."

5. The word "bitch" -- We are no longer actively removing the word "bitch" from our discussion forum. However, we have added text explaining the objection some members have to this word and asking members to voluntarily refrain from using it. We still reserve the right to remove it if we think someone is deliberately using the word to cause trouble.

6. Ignoring -- You are now permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

7. Medical Advice -- The rules now specifically forbid posts asking for medical advice.

There are a number of other very minor changes, which aren't particularly important, and aren't worth listing here. We advise everyone to take the time to read and learn all of our rules -- it might take a little while, but you might be surprised by what you learn. Here are links to the rules:

Discussion Forum Rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

How We Enforce the Discussion Forum Rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

It is the opinion of the admins that this is not a particularly significant set of rule changes. Most of the changes reflect things that the moderators have already been doing for months.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in this thread. But before you ask, please take the time to actually read what the new rules say. Many of your questions will likely be answered by what is written in the rules themselves.

Skinner
DU Admin

[texpatriot2004]

1. Can you be more specific? How about a list?

The rules include a new section that specifically forbids linking to bigoted websites and restricts the linking of conspiracy theory websites.

[Skinner]

6. Some day we hope to provide a list.

But we believe that the vast majority of DU members -- including members who repeatedly post links to such sites -- are well aware that those sites are conspiracy sites. You don't actually need a list to figure it out. And if we gave you a list, then some people would assume that everything not on the list is automatically okay.

[underpants]

2. Does this look infected?

GOD DAMMIT answer me!!!! Have you got me on ignore? You....


Got it.

[BigMcLargehuge]

11. I'll pray for you man...

DOH!!!! Wrong forum.

:)

[underpants]

15. The Lounge on is locked

I got right on this one though. :thumbsup:

[ronnykmarshall]

141. Oh bitch please!

[NMDemDist2]

good on you guys!

:hi:

[bryant69]

3. And I was just about ask for help with my infected . . .

Well i guess better i don't give the details.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RB TexLa]

4. Why the probation on asking for medical advice?

[ET Awful]

7. Because if someone gets bad advice and croaks, the site owners

can be held liable.

[Skinner]

9. Because if someone has chest pain, they need to go see a doctor.

They shouldn't be asking random strangers on a discussion forum what to do.

This is for your safety, and for our own liability.

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Skinner,

if my daughter decides to join, because we share a wireless router, won't her IP be the same as mine? How can I prevent that?

[Skinner]

19. Just let us know when she joins.

That's fine.

[Call Me Wesley]

22. Let the mods or admins know?

I share a connection with my wife, Heidi.

[Skinner]

32. Actually, in most cases people don't even need to tell us.

To be clear: We're not going to be actively looking for sockpuppets. It's only when someone is causing trouble that this is ever going to be an issue.

[serryjw]

31. Can we ask for advice as to WHERE to

seek further advice on a problem? Any good website? Does this ALSO include pet health problems?

[RB TexLa]

55. OK, I guess the liability concern is reason enough

of course even with chest pain or anything else I can't see anything wrong with someone seeking advice of whomever they chose before decided to spend money on a doctor or ER visit.

[hfojvt]

77. not always

and doctors are not all that. They were clueless about my anemia until my mom mentioned it as a possibility. Also when I was in the hospital, I had to ask for some food in my IV, the doctors were only giving me saline. Also I swear that the doctors were clueless about my dad's poison ivy, they prescribed some kind of creme instead of calamine lotion. Sometimes people who have a condition or have been through a disease know quite a bit about it.

Citibank used to give its employees a book called 'take care of yourself' in which it would run through symptoms. It would ask questions, like - is the pain sharp? If yes, then this, if no then that (another question or perhaps a remedy or suggestion). Only some of the answers led to the directive "see a doctor, NOW!!!"

For people without insurance, which would have been me 14 months ago, going to the doctor is a last resort. Some doctors think the best remedy is an emergency walletectomy. If you have a sprained ankle, I could tell you RICE, whereas a doctor would charge $100 to tell you the same thing and might even do an x-ray just to make sure it is not broken. I have successfully treated thrushes and ringworm with simple and cheap OTC remedies.

Ah well, it is not like I am a doctor wanna-be, and I understand how everyone needs to be wary of potential lawsuits. But don't think of us as random strangers. We are friends and potential friends. You should make some sock-puppets and mingle with the masses a little. If you registered as "Jesusrocks" and made some posts you would be walking a mile in the mocassins of a n00b. Or would your writing/thinking style give you away?

[ET Awful]

5. A long time ago, when there was a problem with log-in and validation

I created a second ID. To be honest, I have NO clue what it was and haven't used it other than the day or two when some ID's weren't working properly.

I wouldn't call it a sock-puppet since it's not in use and wasn't intended to decieve, but I can't really have you remove the ID since I don't recall what it was :).

If you find it based on IP, please feel free to remove it.

Other than that, the rule changes all sound fine to me :).

[Skinner]

12. If you don't use it, you'll be fine. (nt)

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. I am in a similar position to ET Awful.

Over the New Year's holiday of 2002 into 2003, I was locked out of DU by some problem. Spending a long holiday weekend without DU was unthinkable, so I joined from home on a now-defunct email account as greatauntoftrip. I created this username from my work email and could not request a new password because I didn't have access to that account. The name has very few posts to its credit.

I only posted for that weekend as greatauntoftrip and no longer have the password information. Obviously, I was immediately recognizable to many people, but I do recall getting attacked as a newbie.

[SoCalDem]

43. Me too.. I have locked myself out and created an emergency ID

a few times. Of course I do not remember the login or password, so the bones of my "sockpuppets" are languishing somewhere:hi:

[greatauntoftriplets]

45. I hated being a newbie again....

A few people were MEAN to me.

:cry:

Others PMed me to commiserate.

And :hi: back at ya!

[Susang]

58. I did the same thing as well!

My emergency log in's name is unimaginatively enough, SusangII. :crazy:

I have no idea what the password is and I'm sure the email address I used is long since been abandoned. :D

[Walt Starr]

65. Actually, an Emergency ID wouldn't be a "sockpuppet"

A sockpuppet is more of an alterego for some people.

I've even read a thread on another site where the OP had a flamefest with his own sockpuppet. I knew it was a sockpuppet because he told me so in a PM!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Thank you, Skinner.....

You guys are the greatest.......

And so is the DemocraticUnderground.com........

[Sapphire Blue]

10. What about posting offensive comments from bigoted websites, emails, etc?

[Skinner]

14. It all depends on context.

Other than that, this question is very vague and I'm not sure what else to say.

[Sapphire Blue]

38. Example...

"Look at this racist article/email I saw/received"... then posting the content of the article/email... including highly offensive terminology & pov... such as racist or homophobic slurs.

[Skinner]

39. That is permitted. (nt)

[Sapphire Blue]

80. So the content can be posted, but not the link?

:shrug:

[Skinner]

83. No, that's not correct.

Here's what the rules say:

Restrictions on Linking to Other Websites

Do not post messages that give publicity to websites that have little purpose other than to smear, disrupt, or complain about Democratic Underground. Currently there are only two websites that fall into this category. Their addresses are not listed here because we do not wish to give them publicity. They are easily identified by their bizarre obsession with Democratic Underground.

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites. While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance. Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore not welcome here.

Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites, except in our September 11 forum, which is the only forum on Democratic Underground where we permit members to debate highly speculative conspiracy theories. A reasonable person should be able to identify a conspiracy theory website without much difficulty.

Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided that they are doing so in the proper context.

If you would like to know if a particular website is restricted, please contact an administrator.

Maybe we need to make this more clear. The point is intent.

If your intent in posting is to say condemn the website then you can post or link to just about anything, no matter how bad. But if your intent is to agree with the website, then you can't do it.

[Sapphire Blue]

85. OK, are you saying that if I posted a comment from a nazi website...

... complete w/racist slurs, it would be permissible providing I expressed my disagreement w/the comment? There needs to be more of a defining line and clearer standards, don't you think?

[Skinner]

86. I think the defining line is clear enough.

We don't have much of a problem of people posting links to nazi websites, either to agree or disagree with them. It's a hypothetical that doesn't come up much, if at all.

If someone were to post a link to a nazi website one time to express their shock, then that's fine. But if they make a habit of it, we're not going to let it happen.

The rules are intended to deal with the situations we deal with on a regular basis. In other situations, moderators can improvise as necessary.

[Sapphire Blue]

dupe - delete

posted twice... though a double Thank You is warranted. :toast:

[Sapphire Blue]

94. In those other situations - a big Thank You to the moderators!

[Maat]

13. Sometimes, when I am discussing things in the ..

Religion/Theology forum, I post a link to www.agapepress.org (reflecting Conservative Christian viewpoints).

That isn't considered a 'bigoted' website, is it?

It is confusing to me just because they often talk about how 'homosexuality' or 'deliberate childlessness' is a sin. That is utter bunk of course, but it does often illustrate what is being discussed in these churches before voting day.

I think that the rules are appropriate, and I can live with them.

And thanks again to you, Skinner, and Elad and EarlG, as well as the hardworking moderators.

[Skinner]

17. It all depends on context.

You are welcome to post to conservative sites if your intent is to point out how much they suck.

[Maat]

20. That is definitely my intent!

:yourock:

Now, about that conspiracy on the part of the whole world to annoy the heck out of me today ...

[ClintonTyree]

18. No more linking to FreekRepublic?

Yippee! That's HUGH!!111!! :party: :toast:

I certainly won't miss it. It's like a train wreck over there, your morbid sense of curiosity gets the best of you sometimes.

[Skinner]

21. Actually, no. You can still link to Free Republic.

From the rules:

"Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided that they are doing so in the proper context."

[ClintonTyree]

25. Ahhh nuts.......

since 99.9% of them are bigoted morans I figured they'd be banned. Oh well, I'll just ignore them as always, no biggie.

Can we get this posted on the Greatest Page so everyone will have the opportunity to see it? I've nominated it, we need a few more. Thanks, Skinner!

[catmandu57]

29. Damn

I was hoping that made the list, okay so I'm safe to say that jr.* is a genuine son of a bitch? In my opinion that is.

[ClintonTyree]

33. Right, but that is not the official position of DU.......

yes it is, what the hell am I talking about? :silly:

[LoZoccolo]

74. Are people now allowed to mention the site I call "The Cuckoo Clock"? n/t

[madrchsod]

23. no more linking to

freerepublic, aunt lucy, or any other message boards such as yahoo, ect?
what about the gd-i/p forum? good luck figuring this problem out!

[Skinner]

30. Please read what the rules actually say.

It all depends on context.

[NMDemDist2]

24. Nominate this guys, it needs to be on the Greatest page

y'know?

:bounce:

[AngryAmish]

26. Medical advice ban is very good

I applaud you.

[goclark]

27. What is the definition of a conspiracy theory?

Would that be that "a lone gunman did not kill JFK?"

Would that be that "the levees could have been sabotaged?"


"... restricts the linking of conspiracy theory websites."

[Skinner]

34. Everybody knows what I am talking about.

There is no need for me to provide a list of what is a conspiracy theory and what is not.

[Wordie]

42. I had a problem because I was unaware of Raimondo's other writings.

And a followed a link from a different article to something of his on Niger-gate. The article I posted did not seem offensive in any way. How can a poster know when a site has been determined to be conspiracy-theorist, if not all writings on that site appear to be so.

Please not that I am in NO way challenging the idea that you would limit some sites, only asking a practical question. My only knowledge of Raimondo's being controversial at the time I posted was that I had read some Free Republic stuff trashing him. (At the time, it appeared to me that was a pretty good recommendation of him.) How can DU posters avoid problems of this sort?

[Skinner]

46. This will be dealt with the same way it always has been.

Let's take your case as an example: You posted a link to Raimondo. Your thread was removed. You contacted me. I told you that he was not permitted here. You were thus informed, and you won't make the same error again.

[Wordie]

51. I guess I'm asking a more practical question.

Because I have to say, I felt rather publicly embarrassed and had no way at that point to distance myself from whatever Raimondo has said/done that was considered offensive, since the post was locked. Or to even know what it was that was offensive. I'm sure this was not your intention, Skinner, but that was the result, from my side of things, at least.

How can a poster avoid this sort of problem, and post from a wide variety of sites, without doing hours and hours of research on each one?

[Renew Deal]

It's murky territory

I consider rense.com a conspiracy site. Others don't. Same for Prison Planet. I understand why you are doing it and you understand the issues the board faces better than I do. I just didn't think it was that bad.

[Skinner]

47. rense.com and prison planet are conspiracy sites. (nt)

[Renew Deal]

52. Cool,

Thanks!

[AntiFascist]

107. I hope waynemadsenreport is not considered a conspiracy site

some highly regarded Dems speak highly of him.

[Skinner]

117. It is considered a conspiracy site. (nt)

[AntiFascist]

128. Good thing I didn't mention it in my last post, then nt

[AntiFascist]

142. By the way, Madsen was on top of the secret black CIA prisons...

several days, whose info leak is now hitting the MSM news today.

[AntiFascist]

152. I'm only posting this here because I assume you want discussion...

of your recently imposed rules. I wonder if you are using the term "conspiracy theory" properly and if possibly you may be limiting discussion of potential conspiracy within the White House, namely that involving the WHIG group, which could ultimately bring down this administration once and for all? You know that the Watergate scandal was the "Watergate Conspiracy", and that it too started out as a conspiracy theory?

Please note the following that was written by Madsen:


2. It is more than apparent that there is a creepy kind of group think that exists within the Daily Kos community. There was a recent censorship and banning on Daily Kos of those who were accused of spreading "conspiracy theories," some for merely mentioning this site or my name. This may come as news for the Daily Kos group think overseers: the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) criminal statutes exist to combat criminal conspiracy. Note the word "conspiracy" -- it is not about fantasy but about criminal wrongdoing. Following dirty money is part of any criminal conspiracy investigation. Counterfeiting, financial feints and bogus instruments, non-monetary markers (e.g. warehouse receipts), shell corporations, and interlocking directorships all figure in such probes. "Following the money" was how Woodward and Bernstein exposed Watergate, how independent special counsels Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworksi won convictions in Watergate, how independent special counsel Judge Lawrence Walsh got to the bottom of Iran-contra, and how federal investigators won and will continue to get convictions in Enron. The 1980s junk bond, BCCI, and S&L scandals were all broken by following the money trails. The buying of the 2004 election involved some of the same money trails that involved Enron's mega-fraud. Those Enron money trails and their connections to election fraud '04 continue to be investigated.

3. This site does not exist to re-emphasize or dwell upon what is aired on corporate-controlled cable or broadcast news or what is printed in advertising-dependent newspapers and magazines. This will remain a "perception management-free" web site.

[dogday]

134. A lot of what Rense and Prison Planet offers comes

from Mainstream Media, just follow the article back to the originating source like AP CNN etc, and you will see it comes from an acceptable source, you only found it at rense or prison planet--so use the acceptable source when posting.

Got It? I hope so cause I am confused....

[Nordmadr]

127. Sometimes those sites have content that is factually based

and that information will also be linked to a less controversial site. In that circumstance you could provide the information with the acceptable link.

Olaf

[goclark]

50. I see nt

[LoZoccolo]

28. I think the change to the ignore rule is a constructive one.

In real life, there is reinforcement for being credible and compelling: that of attracting and retaining an audience. Now that you can tell people whether or not you are giving them your attention, that reinforcement will translate to this forum as well.

[Wordie]

56. Um...I am concerned there may be a downside, too. Skinner?

The downside may be less communication. I have only once had a person say they have put me on ignore. It happened to be a person who had apparently misread a comment I made and had jumped to conclusions, instead of trying to discuss the problem. What happens in situations such as this, I wonder. Because my concern in this situation was that by making the ignore comment publicly, the person was encouraging others to misread my statement too, rather than take the time to understand what it was I was really saying.

What happens in situations such as this? What's the best approach?

[In_The_Wind]

35. Thanks for making the rules clear.

I think the mods and the administrators are doing a wonderful job.

[Mr_Spock]

61. Yer doin' a heck of a job, Brownie

:D

Um, I mean Skinner :D

[In_The_Wind]

69. Lovely Mr_Spock!

:D

[meganmonkey]

37. Regarding linking ot 'CT' or 'bigoted' websites

Without a list, this rule seems arbitrary and counterproductive. If you (the DU admin) get to determine what qualifies as CT or bigoted, then we (the posters) should be able to know what sites we can and cannot link to. Some are very obvious, but others are not. If there is no concrete list, then what is the point of this rule? What if someone accidentally posts from unacceptable sites, multiple times? Will they be reprimanded? How are they supposed to know?

[Skinner]

41. I am going to re-post some of what I posted above.

Some day we hope to provide a list. But we believe that the vast majority of DU members -- including members who repeatedly post links to such sites -- are well aware that those sites are conspiracy sites. You don't actually need a list to figure it out. And if we gave you a list, then some people would assume that everything not on the list is automatically okay.

We understand that people make honest mistakes sometimes.

[Individualist]

40. Is medical advice for pets okay?

Please say yes!

[Skinner]

44. Sure, I guess. (nt)

[Individualist]

49. Thank you

I wholeheartedly agree with the ban on medical advice for people, but have gotten some good advice on cat ailments/behavior in the lounge over a period of time. :-)

[sepia_steel]

57. Thank you, I had a question about my dog's nose

and it's nice to know I can come here and ask other pet owners.

I completely agree with PEOPLE neding to get their advice from a Dr.

[mtnsnake]

95. What if we take that medical advice for pets and apply it to humans?

You know, something like "can anyone recommend a reputable veterinarian who might be interesting in providing quality neutering and spaying for all offspring of the Bush family"?

Would that be allowable?

Sorry, Skinner. Couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

[DeepModem Mom]

48. Thank you, Skinner! nt

[pinto]

53. Clear updates. Thanks.

[NNN0LHI]

54. All I want to know is...

...when is the next donation drive because I know I'm about due to kick in? Is it pretty soon?

Don

[Skinner]

63. Next week. (nt)

[NNN0LHI]

136. Thank you, Sir

I can't wait to help punch George in a nose.

Don

[Beaverhausen]

59. Thanks Skinner and all the Admins - did we hit 80,000 yet?

[Wordie]

78. 3 more to go (79,997 user registrations). WhooHoo! Will there be a party?

[mestup]

60. Sockpuppet Question

Skinner, I've been lobbying DU to change my username. (I made a dumb original choice.) So, if I understand this correctly: under the new/current rules rather than trying to change my username, I or my spouse can create a new username, start over with 0 posts, and stop bugging the DU Admins? Would I get "socked" as a puppet with just two usernames associated with my IP?

"I am NOT a Sockpuppet!" -Nixon

[Skinner]

64. To be honest, I'm not sure what would happen in every situation.

I mentioned above that we aren't going to be actively searching for sockpuppet accounts. If you aren't causing any trouble, we are unlikely to notice. If it came to our attention, and it seemed harmless, we would contact you about it before we delete one of the usernames.

[mestup]

67. Thanks!

[Streetdoc270]

62. Question on the CT rule...

How do you determine what a "conspiracy theory" site is? To some in this Country if you say 'Stolen Election' they cry Conspiracy Theory!!! Same as Aliens, and JFK. so what guidelines should we use when wanting to discuss one of these fringe topics with like-minded Liberals without violating the rules of the board?

[Skinner]

66. I think, in most cases, people know what we're talking about.

If, however, someone inadvertently posts something that does not pass muster you're not going to get into trouble. You'll figure it out if the post gets shut down.

[Mr_Spock]

70. Perhaps you should break down and have a "Conspiracy Theories" forum

They could go in there and bash each other to pieces. Most theories would be ripped to shreds and the few that made it out alive might graduate into the mainstream discussions :D

[Uncle Roy]

79. We already have one! Check out the September 11 forum some time.

But the theories that infest that place you wouldn't want to see in a mainstream discussion. In fact I think the mods keep it as a kind of looney bin / quarantine.

[EuroObserver]

75. Suggest use the phrase 'clearly crazy conspiracy theories'

(Crazy and/or irrelevant, perhaps. And a reference to 'the usual suspects').

Because, eg. the WHIG conspiracy is clearly for most of us very much for real.

In fact, 'conspiracy' is clearly defined in anglo-saxon law, is it not?

--> Yeah, I know: we all know what we're talking about. Many sincere thanks for your work, Skinner (and all).

ed: BTW (by way of (semi-serious) humour), there was a poll here the other day, along the lines of "Do you believe in intelligent alien (read extraterrestrial, rather than non-US) life?" in which one of the options was somethng like: "Yes, and they are in contact with the US government".

My lady and I laughed about it, amongst ourselves. I'm a graduate (multidisciplinary) environmental scientist, amongst other things. Based on my understanding of the nature of life itself, and of ecology in general, of the far-beyond-our-ken potential expanse of the knowable and imaginable unknowable universe in terms of space, of time, and beyond, my answer had to be: Yes: I expect there to be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. To imagine or to find ourselves to be, here on Terra, so profoundly Alone in the midst of such immensity, would be, mathematically-speaking, if you like, very odd: exceedingly strange.

...But, to go on from there to imagine the possibility of such intelligent extraterrestrial life choosing (or obliged) to have made "Contact" with the "American Government" (Only?) appeared to us to be such an oxymoron that it just cracked us up.

Conspiracy, this subject? I don't think necessarily so.

I hope you agree (with a wry, self-deprecating smile) .ROFL :rofl:

[phusion]

68. I disagree with the conspiracy theories rule

In LBN, yes, we should not be allowed to link to or quote places like rense.com and prison planet. However, members should be able to make up their own mind in GD and other forums about what constitutes a conspiracy theory and what does not. This is restricting the free exchange of ideas that I have come to value on DU. I feel this new rule is unnecessary.

At the very least, the rule should be changed to require some sort of disclaimer at the bottom of a post quoting or linking to "conspiracy" sites.

Just wanted to voice my opposition...

Thanks!

[Dinger]

81. I Agree

I'm not sure what I think of this yet. Guess we'll see. My immediate reaction to the new rules is luke warm.

[wrathofkahn]

71. The word "bitch"

5. The word "bitch" -- We are no longer actively removing the word "bitch" from our discussion forum. However, we have added text explaining the objection some members have to this word and asking members to voluntarily refrain from using it. We still reserve the right to remove it if we think someone is deliberately using the word to cause trouble.

You may want to make it clear that it's the noun bitch, not the verb bitch. I think it could be misunderstood that you are merely referring to the derogatory address of another person, rather than the act of complaining.



Oh, and I hope that "bitch" is still allowed in the "clinical" sense of a female dog.

[Skinner]

73. I think you missed the point entirely.

We are no longer removing that word from DU.

[cynatnite]

103. Sure, why not...

Whore is allowed as is a few others I don't care to name. I've complained about one specific name with no effect.

It disturbs me, Skinner, that DU is allowing more denigrating words applied to women. But we can't use certain words towards gays, minorities, men or any other groups? But women are okay?

I think you really need to clarify DU's position on this much better than the vague slope you've built.

[TorchTheWitch]

105. It disturbs me, too

and not narrowed down to just the word "bitch" either. :(

[Captain Hilts]

147. I find 'bitch' the noun AND the verb sexist and offensive. nt

[Skinner]

118. Here is what the rules have to say about the word bitch.

Special note with regard to the word "bitch": The word "bitch" has been the source of a great deal of controversy on this website, because some of our members consider it to be a bigoted slur against all women, while others do not consider it bigoted. For a while we actively deleted posts which included this word, in an effort to keep the peace. This effort helped to keep discussions on track, but it resulted in many deleted posts that were otherwise perfectly fine as well as many confused people. Futhermore, the moderators themselves were ambivalent about removing the word. For this reason, we no longer automatically remove the word "bitch." However, we strongly urge members to voluntarily avoid using the word if they wish to keep their own discussions from going off-topic, and we reserve the right to take disciplinary action if we think someone is deliberately using the word in an effort to disrupt or cause trouble.

I believe that our position is not vague.

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. I think the new ruling on 'bitch' is good

To explain to people who dislike the word: yes, it's an insult, and it should never be used about a DUer. It is normally applied to women, but it is a specific insult against a particular woman who is being discussed, just as "dickhead" is a specific insult against a man under discussion.It also describes a particular behaviour, for which, off the top of my head, I can't think of a good, well-understood synonym. It shouldn't be a general "I don't like this woman" comment, but sometimes it does communicate a definite meaning, and then, it's appropriate.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogday]

135. I am with you

using the words like bitch, whore, slut, ho,---all of them defamatory remarks. What are acceptable slurs that we have for people of race or gays, or anyone else for that matter. Can't you have a political discussion that does not have defamatory comments used to describe women?

[izzybeans]

72. For entertainment value (and utility?), can posts violating DU rules

be moved to a Quarantine, sans the user name, that is viewable by members? It might be instructive of the application of the rules on gray area matters, but also highly amusing in a Hatemail Bag, kind of way.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

162. I second your suggestion, izzybean. Entertaining and educating..

and, after catching glimpses of these posts before their deletion, funny as hell.

:hi: MKJ

[Coventina]

76. Regarding religion in GD: THANK YOU!

:loveya:

[QC]

82. Amen! n/t

[DanCa]

84. Two questions one slightly ot.

1: Does the religion restriction apply to the lounge as well?
2: OT question when is the next donation period on DU going to be?
Thanks, Danny.

[Skinner]

89. Two good questions.

1. I hadn't really thought about the Lounge with regard to the religion restriction, because I don't really think it's been too much of a problem. My feeling is that mods should be permitted to take them on a case-by-case basis.

2. Our next fund drive is next week.

[Neil Lisst]

87. What about conspiracy sites ABOUT sock puppets?!

Shari Lewis and Lambchop were not of this world, or so I heard.

[thinkingwoman]

88. I have a probably stupid question

Can I use the B word in reference to myself (as long as I don't put myself on ignore for it)?

I know it offends some women, but I use it all the time in an effort to take back the word and own it (like some people of a certain ethnicity use the word that begins with an n that makes me cringe). I don't want to give it up, but of course I will refrain from including it in my posts if you say so.

I respect your rules and the huge effot you and the mods put into maintaining this great site.

[Skinner]

92. Sure.

Feel free to use the word to refer to yourself.

[Bluerthanblue]

104. you crack me up-

cause we think alike in many ways- Actually, i consider the B word to be something complimentary- as i love dogs, and being described as a female 'humans best friend' is indeed, not a dis-- but an honor.
I do have a problem with a certian C word, and it's not cat- actually a female cat is called a Queen- something my son learned last year-

And i second your thanks to the Mods- this place isn't perfect, but it's a good and worthwile community of varied people who are susally passionate about discussing and enlightening each other- in a safe, and controled environment.

Glad to be a pare of it.
blu

[thinkingwoman]

108. a female cat is called a queen??

I had no idea!

I love cats. I love dogs. I currently have 3 of each and our house is bursting at the seams!

I used to have a big problem with the C word but that's starting to fade lately. I don't know why. :shrug:

Anyway, thanks for letting me know I'm not alone. :hi:

[applegrove]

90. Go Admin - Go Admin - Go Admin!!!

:woohoo:

[Cleita]

91. One question about posting links from conservative websites.

Can we still post links from websites like the Project For a New American Century? Sometimes it's necessary to back up posts on them by linking to a letter or article on that website.

I mean we have had a lot of discussions in the past about these people, considering that they are running our government right now, and we need to know everything about them, preferably from their own publications.

[Skinner]

93. Sure.

I am concerned that people are really getting the wrong idea here. Of course you can still linkk to PNAC.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

96. OMG we can put YOU on ignore now!?

You know, I was just testing it.

[terrya]

97. I especially think the "no asking medical advice" rule is a good one.

It's only fair...to the person asking (they should be seeking qualified medical advice), to the mods and admins, and to DU itself. It's an understandable impluse...to ask the DU community for all sorts of advice, including medical...but it just isn't a good idea.

[pinto]

98. "I got this email from a RW friend.".....medical question?

;)

[Beaverhausen]

99. Is there any way to see how many are logged in at the time?

Registered and non-registered?

I just thought that would be interesting.

[NVMojo]

100. never heard of "sockpuppeting" or that people did it. Amazing!

I have a hard enough time keeping up with my one self!!!

[EuroObserver]

101. Always something new to learn around here

Isn't that right? :dilemma:

[TayTay]

102. Is it permissible within a group

to have a clarifying discussion about the rules and explain what victimization is and why it is a bad thing?

In other words, can a group have a discussion of the rules, with the intent being to, ahm, explain the rules and not either trash them or complain about them. Just explain them and make them clear to others?

Thanks!

[Skinner]

119. We permit productive discussion of the rules.

We would generally permit the type of thing you're referring to.

[henslee]

106. No more late night sick doggy advice? You're kidding. I think that

sucks.

[WillParkinson]

125. He said it was OK

To solicit advice about our fur-family.

[henslee]

130. Whew. Me: "Did you hear that Sparky?" Sparky: "Ruff".

[LittleClarkie]

109. One problem: one man's conspiracy theory is another man's fact

Do you have a sample list of such sites so that folks will know what you mean? Or will it be pretty obvious?

[Skinner]

120. We do not have a list.

We hope to provide one at some point. But we don't think it's necessary to do so. If someone posts something inappropriate, they will figure it out when their thread gets shut down.

[Perky]

110. Applause Applause Applause.

I think the moving of the basher and protector of personal faith to the religion page makes alot of sense.


I am slightly concerned about Ghettoization of the religious, But my larger concern...I think what should concern all of is that the Right Wing lockdown of the religious community is increasing fractured. The tenor of some comments, right or wrong, guarded by first amendment or not, would likely push some back into the arms of our opponents.

I think this makes sense at least get it off the GD page.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

138. Adios

[hvn_nbr_2]

112. Question about the medical advice ban

That pretty much eliminates the "alternative healing" aspect of the "Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing Group," doesn't it? Will that group's name change?

[Skinner]

121. Interesting question.

At this point, I don't think it's going to impact any of the groups. We understand that some medical advice -- scraped knee, for example -- will not be a long-term threat to life or health. The rule is intended to cover situations that might represent a serious threat.

[DanCa]

113. Does medical advice include nutrition and exercies tips

For example say if i was asking for dietting tips would that fall under medical advice?

[Skinner]

122. That would not fall under medical advice.

Nutrition and excercise tips are permitted.

[DanCa]

131. Thanks on another site i was on it did. :)

I just want to be clear on what is legal and what is not Danny.

[Chovexani]

114. Thank you, a million times thank you for the new religion rule

The BS religion wars in GD stopped being entertaining even in a trainwreck fashion a long time ago. My favorite new rule! :loveya:

[etherealtruth]

124. Mine, too

[Swamp Rat]

115. Peace

;)

[Freedomfried]

116. Are we allowed to talk about Israel?

And their manipulation of the American government?

Or should we just hand this elephant the remote since he's in the living room for good.

[Skinner]

123. Members are permitted to talk about Israel.

We even have a special forum just for talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

But claims that Israel controls the US Government are bigoted BS, and have no place on DU.

[elshiva]

129. Thanks, Skinner!

[Wordie]

132. So it is OK to discuss, for instance, a "pro-Israel" faction in the WH...

as long as the post does not go way over-the-top and claim that Israel itself is in control of our government? I think I am understanding this a bit better now, and would agree that its an important distinction to make.

And are posts regarding this sort of issue, regarding our own U.S. government going to remain in GD or GD-Politics or Latest Breaking, rather than being moved to I/P?

And a related question...
Would it be possible to have a rule that if someone in a thread, not the OP, makes a reference to one of these offending websites, or otherwise breaks the rules, that the entire thread will not become locked? Seems unfair to the OP that some other person, because of these rules, now has a means of hijacking a thread.

[Nothing Without Hope]

133. Yes, I am wondering about this too. In the past, posts and threads on

AIPAC and its involvement in the Franklin scandal and alignment of some of its top people with Bush Administration officials (not just Franklin) were locked, deleted, or banished to the innappropriate Israel/Palestiinian relations forum. Since that forum is not only irrrelevant to the subject matter but DOES NOT ALLOW GREATEST VOTES (try and you get an error message), that's the same as burying the thread. Another thread began by ASKING for info about AIPAC leaders and overlaps/interactions with PNAC goals/followers and influence on some US politicians. Several articles were posted. Suddenly the thread was whisked from General Discussion into the Israel/Palestinian forum and the LOCKED because, the moderator said, only threads with recent articles were allowed there!!!

To me, this is clear censorship and I find it deeply disturbing.

Re "conspiracy theories" - is it now judged a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that perhaps the Bush Administration had some role in the 9/11 attacks? That some aspects of the preparation for and response to the hurricanes were deliberate? That the elections of 2000 and 2004 were not fair?

If we cannot discuss the evidence and counterevidence, then that is censorship too.

I feel strongly that there needs to be at least a partial list of "forbidden sites." You can put in a disclaimer stating that the list is only partial and that not being on the list is no guarantee. But at least a person could check before posting and not have all their concern and effort lost because a silent judgement has been made that information from one of the places cited is officially forbidden. It would also serve as an important headsup/warning on its own that there is reason to be extra-cautious about statements made at sites on the list. After all, a person unfamiliar with the site might well not know that there is a reputation for false or misleading statements and that they need to confirm everything they see there. That would be a service on its own.

I do think the censorship vs. free discussion issue is a very important one at DU. How often has today's "conspiracy theory" become tomorrow's important revelation? And how will we know if we are not allowed to discuss the evidence? I find this whole issue of censorship and hidden lists of forbidden sources of information deeply disturbing.

[Wordie]

140. Important clarification of above.

I should probably add that the distinction between saying that there are some in government who are highly pro-Israel (something that many of the individuals themselves are quite open about in their writings and statements) and saying that Israel itself is in control of our government is a distinction that I have ALWAYS made. What I am understanding better is DU's stance on the matter.

Sorry to take up space for this, but I don't want to be misquoted or misunderstood on this important issue.

[Jamastiene]

144. Thank you thank you thank you.

That whole Israel controls the US Government thing sounds like it belongs on some neo-nazi web site, not DU. Thank you for that one and for the no more religion in GD rule. Maybe GD won't be such a battlefield now. Can we still pick on GD for being a tough debating forum? We Lounge Lizards do enjoy licking our wounds and talking about how tough it is.

Again, thanks for the new rules. I would hate to see any links or pro-nazi crap infest DU.

[AntiFascist]

154. Okay, the above post is obviously flamebait...

but actually I'm beginning to feel deeply offended because, reading between the lines, it would seem that on DU if you feel Israel has undo influence over the U.S. government then the implication is that you are automatically bigoted and anti-Semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case, but I can understand your desire that you don't want to attract neo-nazi types. I have had close friends and business associates who are Jewish and never has it crossed my mind how much they may support Israeli politics. Need I remind you that Israel is a nation-state, just like any other, and Judaism is a religion. The two may be inextricably linked in your mind, but unless DU suddenly turns into a religious website, I don't feel that it is appropriate here.

[AntiFascist]

153. What about claims that AIPAC is, let's say, overly influential...

of the neocons in government? I'll bet that is what is driving many of the above posters.

[VelmaD]

137. I cannot believe you actually did this...

after all the long discussions and flamewars about the "b" word. I cannot believe you weakened your stance on using sexist slurs.

This site had been a much more welcoming place for women since the old rule was put into place. I hate to think we are going to backslide into the same old sexist crap that used to be tolerated around here.

[Iris]

139. I agree. I was even thining about finally making a donation.

I stayed away for a long time and was pleasantly surprised to find a better atmosphere when I returned. It took me a while to realize the rules had been updated.

As for donating now, I guess I'll have to wait and see.

[Skinner]

143. Yes, we did it.

We made a serious and sincere effort to be sensitive to the concerns of members of DU who felt the word had no place here. We changed our rules to forbid the use of the word, and we spent countless moderator hours enforcing it. However, after six months of relentless enforcement, we slowly came to the conclusion that a different approach would be more appropriate.

Given my job, I think some people probably think I take a great deal of pleasure from censoring other people. As a matter of fact, even after running this place for nealy five years I have never become comfortable with censoring other people.

And censorship becomes much more difficult when large numbers of our members do not agree with the need for a particular rule, and do not agree with the basic underlying assumptions that inform that rule.

As the administrator, it would seem that my power here on DU is limitless. After all, I have the power to remove whatever I please and ban whomever I please. But my power is not limitless. I cannot change other people's attitudes. I can delete someone's post, but I can't make them like it, I can't make that person think the way someone else thinks, and I can't make that person believe that they are being treated fairly by the system.

Moderating a community like this requires a difficult balancing act between openness and censorship. I can make the rules, but enforcement is extremely difficult when large numbers of people do not agree with or understand those rules. Members are willing to trade away some of their "free speech" if they feel that the restriction is fair and if the benefits of doing so are clear. On the continuum between openness and censorship, I believe that there exists a natural "comfort point" where most members understand the rules, agree with the need for rules, and are willing to follow those rules. But when the system goes too far away from that comfort point, in either direction, there are problems. Censor people too much, in an arbitrary fashion that they do not understand or agree with, and they will push back.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of DU members -- almost all of them good progressives who despise bigotry -- do not believe the word "bitch" is automatically bigoted, and most certainly do not consider the word to be morally equivalent to words like "nigger," "faggot," or "cunt."

The number of otherwise-perfectly-appropriate posts which were deleted because of the inclusion of the word "bitch" was unacceptably high. The number of angry and confused people who had their posts deleted because of it was unacceptably high. The amount of push-back against me and the moderators was unacceptably high. And for all of that, there seemed to be very little up-side to all of this extra work and headache.

If someone deliberately uses the word to antagonize other members or if they use the word in a manner where the bigotry is apparent, then we will not hesitate to remove it. And we have made it clear in the rules why some of our members do not consider this word appropriate, along with an unprecedented plea for members to voluntarily refrain from using the word. We made a sincere and good faith effort to understand and accommodate those who think the word should be banned. But after six months of automatically removing the word on sight, we no longer feel that it is in the best interests of this community for us to continue doing so. I am sorry.

[Jamastiene]

145. In other words, context made a big difference in the decision.

Some of us will refer to ourselves as a bitch, with a capital B sometimes just to mention a situation we were in where we had to become one to deal. In that context, I can see why a large number of people would be upset with their post being deleted. Calling someone else a bitch would be a different story though, I would think.

[bloom]

146. "Fox News: Bad Language Isn't Illegal (downplays sexual harassment)"

The lewd language of a Fox News Channel executive -- however tasteless -- does not constitute sexual harassment or discrimination, a lawyer for the network said Tuesday.

The lawyer was responding to a discrimination suit against the network filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and targeting the head of the company’s promotion department.

---

Steven Mintz, a Manhattan lawyer hired by Fox, called the complaint "legally baseless", saying: "We don’t view any of the assertions in the action as either harassment or discrimination. This is a case involving bad language."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1910512&mesg_id=1910512

--Chillemi routinely cursed at and otherwise denigrated women employees and treated them in a demeaning way (including telling women not to be a “p--sy” but to “be a man”, and referring to women as being a “bitch”).

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6282311.html?display=Breaking+News

[VelmaD]

155. Sorry if I'm not sufficiently sympathetic to your plight...

If the majority of DU members jumped off a bridge would you jump too?

I mean jesus christ...you catch a little flak and you cave. People get upset about being called on being offensive...and you buckle under. It would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.

It doesn't mean anything that the changes in the last 6 months made this place more welcoming for women...you know, half the population. Whatever. *sigh*

And we obviously have VERY different perspectives on what makes someone a good progressive. Good progressives don't use gender slurs. Period.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GirlinContempt]

175. Thank you.

[benburch]

149. VelmaD... If anybody uses language like that...

the people who actually matter will just shun that person as being a total worthless jerk.

And I think that the DU Women do not suffer for lack of self esteem, and will not be damaged by the prattling of such a low creature.

[VelmaD]

156. It's simply a matter of equal treatment

People tolerate gender slurs against women who would never NEVER allow racial or ethnic slurs. It gets old after a while.

And it's hard not to connect the tolerance for gender slurs to the plethora of posts I've seen telling us how we shouldn't fight supreme court nominees who are anti-choice. It's hard not to get the feeling that women's opinions aren't valued and women's rights aren't a priority to some of the so called "progressive" men on this site.

[benburch]

148. Would a site *debunking* CTs be an acceptable link?

I am thinking of things like snopes here.

[Zinfandel]

151. DU Rules!!!!

Oh yeah! :smoke:

[VelmaD]

157. One more thing you need to understand...

by no longer deleting posts with the word bitch...we will be returning to the days when EVERY post that uses it will be turned into a flamewar. Do you really remember what it was like before? The complaints you got about deleted posts will be nothing compared to what's coming when we have to fight this issue out repeatedly...again.

[Skinner]

158. You have posted in three different places. I will respond here.

First: Let me be very clear: We do not permit gender-based slurs in those situations where there is agreement among progressives that they are actually slurs. For example, we will continue to remove the words like "cunt" and "twat," and we will continue to remove words like "slut" and "skank."

Rightly or wrongly, it should be obvious to everyone that there is not anything close to agreement among progressives regarding the appropriateness of the word "bitch." Rightly or wrongly, it should be obvious to everyone that many progressives do not consider this a bigoted slur. These are FACTS. Simply because some people place the word on the same level as words like "nigger," "faggot," and "cunt," does not guarantee that others will agree. That is the reality that we are dealing with here. Sometimes, when people use the word, it is clear that no bigotry or malice was intended. Yet I took upon myself the task of punishing them anyway.

Second: This is not a clear men vs. women issue. Not all of the people who use the word "bitch" are men. And not all women believe that the word "bitch" is a bigoted slur against all women. For example, I am a man and I would not use the word "bitch" on Democratic Underground to describe any woman, friend or foe. But I have seen plenty of women use the term on this website, even since we forbade its use.

Third: This is not a situation where I got a little bit of complaining and decided to bail. The truth of the matter is that in practice the policy was flawed. I believe that people should only be censored on Democratic Underground if members can understand the reason for that censorship, and if they agree with the underlying assumptions behind that censorship. Rightly or wrongly, it is clear that large numbers of DU members do not agree with the underlying assumption here: that the word "bitch" is bigoted. Good people were getting unfairly penalized because they picked a word that they did not realize was "wrong." Some people may take pleasure from censoring others and imposing their will on others, but I do not, and my impression is that most of the DU moderators do not. For many liberals, it is not in our nature to be authoritarian. It it demoralizing to penalize those people who do not realize they are doing something "wrong."

Fourth: I have not asked for your sympathy. I have asked for you to make an effort to understand why we made this decision, just as I have made an effort to understand and address your concerns.

Fifth: Whenever someone uses the word, you are more than welcome -- in fact, you are encouraged --- to explain to them why you consider the word inappropriate, and you are more than welcome to ask them to stop using the word. Members are not going to change their attitudes because Skinner tells them too; the chance that attitudes will change is much greater when there is actual discussion between people. The rules as we wrote them make clear that many of our members do not consider the word appropriate, and they make clear that those who use the word are likely to have their threads taken off-topic. But having said that, I hope that you will not make good on your threat to turn every thread that uses the word into a flame war. Deliberately creating flame wars is a form of disruption.

Sixth: It is a surprise to me to read that people now say that the changes of the last six months made this place more welcoming for women. Because I was getting precisely the opposite message. No matter how hard we tried to stamp out all the vestiges of alleged sexism on Democratic Underground, the number of complaints about that sexism remained constant. This is precisely what happened in our efforts to stamp out alleged anti-religious postings as well -- our efforts led to a bunch of deleted posts, but the same people seemed to still see themselves as being persecuted. We crack down on something that some members consider offensive, but then we find the goalposts have moved. Wiping out the identified problem is not enough; now we must fix the new problem, which has become nearly as important as the previous problem which was dealt with. I am the one who reads all the complaints, and it was clear to me: The fact that we got rid of the word "bitch" did not seem to do anything to address the concerns of those members who feel that DU is a hotbed of sexism. The word was not there, but the underlying problem still existed, and the complaints of sexism were just as common as before (but now I'm also dealing with a lot more complaints about unfairly deleted posts). I believe it was not unreasonable for us to conclude that we were unlikely to satisfy those people who believed Democratic Underground is a hotbed of bigotry.

Seventh: When this very idea was put up for a poll in the spring of 2004, 80% of DU members thought that the word should not be banned. Still, a year later, I went and did it anyway. So I think it is not correct to try to paint me as someone who doesn't have the guts to try something. I went against the will of 80% of the members of this site.

Finally, I have not asked you to agree with me. But I would appreciate it if those who disagree with the decision at least read what I have to say, and address the points that I have raised. I have made a good-faith effort to address all of your points and address all of your concerns. If anyone would like to continue this dialog, all I ask is that you make an effort to address the points I make.

[VelmaD]

160. First let's address that poll result...

I could pick it apart on technical grounds but that isn't the point. This is the point...at one time the majority of people in the south thought segregation was a good idea...that didn't make them right. Just yesterday 75% of the voters in my state voted to ban same sex marriage in our constitution...that doesn't make them right either.

Second, what does it tell you that you get so many complaints about sexism? What does it tell you about the culture on DU? And now, within that culture, you are re-arming some posters with their favorite word.

The way I see it we're talking past one another even though I know that isn't either of our intent. The thing I think you aren't taking from my posts is this...I don't consider someone a good progressive if they believe it is ok to use gender slurs. Period. You keep calling people who use the slur good progressives and that feels a bit like a slap in the face. You wouldn't call someone a good progressive who used racial or ethnic slurs even though they weren't as bad as the "n" word.

And frankly I don't understand why the change was needed at all since the word bitch wasn't actually forbidden under the previous rules. Just more strongly discouraged. What I'm afraid is that the change in the rules means the moderators will be less likely to delete the word (and other gender slurs) because of a percieved lack of interest on the part of the admins. Even when they are ovbiously used in a sexist way.

[Skinner]

163. Yes, we are talking past each other.

But you are not correct when you say that I am not taking a particular idea from your posts. You have made your point of view very clear, I understand it, and I understand why you feel the way you do.

Here's the problem: Not everyone here agrees with your point of view.

I do believe that someone can be a good progressive and occasionally use the term "bitch." I have seen the evidence on this website many, many times. I could name some well-respected DU women who are fierce advocates for women's rights, who have used that word right here on this website. I know because I removed their posts myself. I believe you would agree with me that some of these people have rock-solid progressive bona fides. They just happen to have a different opinion of the word bitch. That is not a slap in the face; it is a statement of the facts as I see them.

To address the specific points in your post:

The poll: You are correct the majority viewpoint is not automatically correct. I was not using that as evidence that one side is right or wrong. I posted that simply to make clear that progressives are divided on this issue, and also to show that I do not automatically do what the majority tells me to.

The complaints: The fact that I get so many complaints about sexism actually tells me very little about the culture on DU. What it tells me is that DU is a diverse place where people have different ideas of what is appropriate and what is not. If large numbers of complaints were proof of anything, then we could reasonably conclude that Democratic Underground hates men and women, white people and black people, Jews and Christians and Muslims and Atheists, supporters of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, liberals and progressives and moderates. I could go on.

Word not forbidden under previous rules: The truth is that the word bitch was almost entirely banned under the previous rules. As a matter of routine, the word was frequently removed when there there was no bigoted or malicious intent.

I said before that we will continue to remove the word in cases where the bigotry is apparent, or when it is being deliberately used to cause trouble. I should add that we will of course be removing the word if it is used as a personal attack against any of our members.

[VelmaD]

164. OK...the thing about complaints cracked me up

*snort*

DU is like my little brother...he's not discriminatory..he hates everyone.

BTW, I really wasn't trying to sound threatening a couple of posts back about the flamewar thing. I prefer to discuss and try to educate rather than scream back and forth with people. I just remember what it was like before. And I figure it's going to go back to being that way.

My real issue with this whole rule change is that the result is going to take away energy we should be using for other things.

[Skinner]

166. I hope that these rules do not make things worse.

My hope is that most DU members are mature enough not to abuse the greater freedom we have given them. We shall see.

[VelmaD]

167. It's nice to see...

you haven't had your hope beaten out of you. Surprising...but nice. :)

[Skinner]

168. Not yet.

It does take a beating sometimes. But I haven't lost it yet.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VaYallaDawg]

165. Thanks, Skinner. You guys are terrific.

[TaleWgnDg]

169. Is there a way in which I may view all DUers latest posts in

.
Is there a way in which I may view all DUers latest posts in the DU latest webpage? For example, since the last change I cannot view DU Lounge in the latest page nor can I view any DU state pages in the latest page. How can this be corrected?

[Skinner]

170. I think that the Lounge posts are not coming back the Latest page.

I'm pretty sure state pages are still showing. Did you change your preferences?

[TaleWgnDg]

173. I checked it out. Went to . . .

1.) Registered User Options,
2.) Edit Your Preferences,
3.) Q: "hide the Lounge from the Latest page?" A: "no"
4.) Q: "hide State forums (from the Latest page)?" A: "no"

So the short answer is "no," and the long answer is . . .

Those were my answers prior to any DU changes; and my answers remain as is today. Yet, I cannot view DU's The Lounge in the Latest page, nor can I view any State forums in the Latest page. That's too bad that you think The Lounge won't return to the Latest pages. And, I have not a clue as to why, suddenly since DU changes, I've been unable to view any State forums on the DU Latest pages. Am surprised as such that no one apparently has raised this question.

[demobrit]

171. Just concerned that we are going down the road of censorship

Can I ask why these controls have been put in?
If a member was concerned about a post then he or she could sound an alert.
Conspiracy Websites afterall is just opinion.
Every DUer should be able to make their own mind up about such opinion

[hunter]

172. Sockpuppets, sockpuppets, sockpuppets...

I never use a sockpuppet, I have difficult time enough keeping my own identity from fragmenting, but it really would have been nice if we could have heard from Gray Davis in the hilarious A-Schwarzenegger "I was only kidding" thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5307938&mesg_id=5307938

Perhaps if we identified sockpuppets with a special icon -- sort of like the gold star or moderator icons -- we could then let them stay. One might even have a button to put all sockpuppets on "ignore."

Any socketpuppets not carrying the proper identification would, of course, be hunted down ruthlessly and tombstoned, sort of like a DU version of the movie Bladerunner.

[omega minimo]

174. Respect = "censorship"?

Skinner, I have read the revised Rules and your posts here about “bitch.” Please read my comments as perspective, no longer intended to persuade or seek change. :peace: I’m through :banghead:

The start of your message says, “...The DU Administrators recently finished our semi-annual review... to identify places where the DU rules do not properly reflect the manner in which they are enforced...”

A straightforward reading of DU Rules as written suggests that DU is more egalitarian than “the manner in which they are enforced.” The Rules may be an idealistic template that allows the AdMods to back themselves up when needed. I advocated non-sexism with a bold presence here ONLY because I thought that the Rules backed US up. It now seems that the meaning of Rules “based on respect” is in the eye of the beholder.

IMHO the Rules suggest that DUers will be able to read a page of OP or post titles without being frequently gobsmacked with something vulgar/sexist/ignorant and/or inflammatory (that stays up). That is not to be. Some recent the-bar-can’t-go-any-lower threads have proven that.

Some posters will use crude language in the OP title to grab eyeballs. There may be a more thoughtful or clearer way to title the OP or post and yet, to get attention, they go for the low blow. Some Mod decisions are based on opening the thread and reading and rationalizing why there was some logic that justifies (or not) the vulgar headline. So at this point, accepting DU as it is means that I will be using the “Ignore” function liberally as a default anti-gobsmack device.

Here is one of the reasons that sexist language matters-- aside from it “cheapens the discourse for everyone” -- it makes the poster seem ignorant and lacking credibility. IMHO.

It’s unfortunate that the use of respectful language-- and the practice on a “progressive” discussion board via peer support or education-- is seen as “censorship.” Nuff said.

DU women are told that if we perceive something as disruptive or derogatory, that it isn’t necessarily so. It doesn’t matter how it affects women, it matters whether or not someone else perceives it that way.

When DU women discuss women’s issues, women’s perspective, women’s experience, we are frequently assailed by DU men who PERCEIVE that this is somehow an ATTACK on them PERSONALLY. No amount of rational discussion will get through to them that we mean no harm WHILE we maintain the right to discuss our ideas. These men perceive the simple fact that we are discussing women’s POV as derogatory to them (it’s not) and disrupt many threads with their demands and derision. Somehow on DU their perception-- of derogation at the mere fact that we discuss women’s ideas-- has more power and legitimacy than OUR perception that sexist bigotry deeply embedded in common language IS derogatory and disruptive.

The reality of our experience on DU versus the idealism expressed in the Rules will inevitably have a chilling effect on the presence and visibility of non-sexist people on DU. So then that “vast majority” of DUers that you mentioned has self-selected and deleted the alternative voices that might have added to the process, the discussion, the ideas, the solutions and the character of the party comes out of all this. With all DU respect Skinner, that concern-- and appreciation for the potential power of DU-- is why I became a feminist champion here that I never expected to be.

This is from one of the threads where I did try to communicate with the belligerent beraters:

“I have enough confidence and respect for DU to ask these questions and raise these issues. I actually am curious about how men who sig line or blog with grand statements of concern for various progressive issues stop short of connecting the dots to women's rights. If the answer is "fuck off," that's a real discussion killer.

“It is automatic behavior expressed as casual sexist bigotry that we don't like and you guys don't like us pointing it out. We make you think about it. You make us the problem. You don't want to be bothered, you want to do what you always do with no one questioning your righteousness, your autonomy, your integrity, your commitment to our shared goals. You don't want anyone pointing out (inadvertently) that you don't know how to express yourselves any differently and that you REFUSE OBSTINATELY TO TRY.

“As perhaps you've heard from other Democrats, LANGUAGE MATTERS. Women's rights are human rights.

“Now that ya'll get it, can we talk about something else now?”

I have learned a lot from the belligerent beraters --as much as they cause otherwise worthwhile threads to "go off topic" and waste a lot of time and energy (is that called "disruptive"? :evilgrin: ) --because I listen to them. They make the mistake of projecting their fear and anger onto the cartoon cutout feminists they think they are dealing with; they mistakenly assume we have no humor, either. I learned that they are not "refusing obstinately to try" when they don't know how to see things from another point of view.

I still believe that women’s rights are human rights; that women’s issues are integral to progressive issues; that recognition and support for those issues are integral for progressive successes in the future. It seems the point of this thread is that on DU, that is not a shared belief amongst progressives at this time.

:hi: