NuSpeak, YouSpeak, DuSpeak

[canetoad]

Minor fascination with DU - what exactly is the criteria for having a post removed, especially from the 911 forum.

Rally round people, those of you who can say you never have been petty enough to report a post. You are the true liberals here, the ones who stand by your committment to free speech.

I'd like to ask you all, where exactly is your OUTRAGE line. What Outrages you enough to request that the post be pulled. I'm asking this because it seems that some people have a very low Outrage line. My personal experience is from cancelled posts that may have referenced an article contained within an 'unacceptable' website.

I am grateful that this site has a degree of moderation. I question the fact that one persons Outrage could be anothers firm belief.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. When the attacks become personal

then I hit the alert.

Here's an example from yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2798606#2798792

I reposted the attack on me, so that when the previous post got pulled there would still be a record people could see has to why it got pulled.

[canetoad]

3. I really can not envisage the situation

where I would ask to have a post removed. I guess my view is 'give em enough rope'. A True Dickheads colours will always shine through.

I guess I look at personal comments a little differently too. How on earth can these board posters ever presume to make a personal comment? The only insight they have is reading what I post. I tend not to take 'internet personal' as seriously as 'people your personally know and admire personal'.

So, do you give any slack in the personal comment area?

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. The poster in question

has attacked me personally a number of times in the past. You get to a point were enough is enough.

If someone can't have a discussion without resorting to personal insults and putdowns, then I don't want to waste my time and energy on such people. All they do is muddy the water with their distractions.

[canetoad]

6. Yah, I know where you're coming from

That is low.

We have not always agreed, but I can never see you having a post pulled just 'cos you disagree with the content. So, to take it one step further, do you think there is deliberate baiting going on?

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Sometimes

there are people who get pleasure from that sort of thing.

[rman]

2. I 've gotten the impression

that the criteria for having a post removed are not entirely disclosed, and are to some extend up to the discretion of the mod who happens to be on patrol at the moment. Thus it can happen that posts citing certain sources are left alone by one mod, but are locked or deleted by another mod.
Which brings me to another peve: what are the criteria for locking/deleting a post (so that it says "locked" or "deleted") versus completely removing a post (so that it is as though the post was never there).

[canetoad]

5. Part of the reason for bringing this up

is a similar situation. Once I referenced a site that apparently is banned and I didn't know.

Now, the article I linked to had nothing whatsoever to cause it to be banned, but apparently somewhere on this vast, meandering, serendipituous site, there are opinions that do not align. On the occasion I tried to do the right thing by dropping a terribly polite line to the particular mod, respectfully wondering why.

Decisions by the mods are one thing and we must be agreeable and respectful of that, continuing to be good citizens at all times. However, my concern is the bizarre surveillance carried out that I believe actively seeks to intimidate new posters. I suggest, quite openly. that the spirit of the board is being desecrated by those who chose to alert to alleviate their perceived outrage, rather than hold a discussion with the one who supposedly offended them.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. I had a simular experience to you canetoad with an article from a site that

apparently was banned. If there were a list of sites that are considered tabu, then posters could check and see. It's quite impossible when searching for information to always know everything a site contains that may be objectionable. Sometimes it obious and sometimes it's not.

In my case I was looking for a news article that I remembered reading back in the 80's and I finally found it on a few sites, and one was apparently tabu, while the other links I posted weren't. It wasn't all that quick and easy to find the article in the first place, but then of course the entire post was yanked.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

10. There's no such thing as censorship on a private site...

We're all here at the invitation of Skinner, Elad and EarlG, and they are the sole arbiters of the content that they allow on their site.

And glad to see that we agree on Alex Jones.

Sid

[Nozebro]

12. Call it "arbitership" if that makes you feel any better.

Your post amounts to making a distinction without a difference, as far as I'm concerned. And yes, Alex Jones DOES speak to more kinds of people than does the NYT.

[canetoad]

11. Yep. Exactly the same

circumstances, and I also asked where I could find a list of banned sites.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I don't think they a have a list, at least not a public one. It would have an up

side and a down side to have a list.

As to down side, it would be impossible for DU to have a truely complete list since new sites go up all the time, and it might make some posters believe that they are no responsible for posting crap from crap sites that weren't on the "official list."

On the other hand if they had a "these are some of the unacceptable sites list but not all" it could make life a little easier for posters wishing to be good citizens and for mods alike.

[Nozebro]

14. Good points. Thanks. EOM

nt

[mirandapriestly]

18. argh, I hate that

The article can be from the Washington Post, but the only place it is up will be "The UFO Chronicles" or "Israel Did 911 and all the Other Major Crimes since it's Inception.Com", so you
can't link to it..

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Anarcho-Socialist]

19. ...

1. Personal attacks
2. Accusing someone of being RW/Bushco shill/Fascist/Nazi etc
3. Links to banned websites (usually anti-Semitic)

[spillthebeans]

20. Has anyone seen the Olbermann/Gingrich clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXsi3JZvOZE

[Redstone]

21. The rules are pretty clear: A post gets pulled when it breaks the rules. What part of that

confuses you?

Redstone

[rman]

22. some of those rules are obscure

and open to interpretation by individual mods.

ie there's no public list of 'forbidden websites' and 'forbidden authors'.
posts citing certain sites and certain authors are banned by some mods but not by others.