Civility and "backsliding" in the General Discussion Forum.

[Skinner]

Hey, everyone.

I just want to say a few words about the new General Discussion Forum rules, and incivility in the General Discussion Forum.

Since we instituted the rules for starting threads in the General Discussion Forum, I think there has been a significant improvement in the overall tone of discussion here. The moderators have done a great job with with thoughtful, non-invasive enforcement of the new rules. And most members have made a real effort to voluntarily comply with the rules. That's good.

But I also sense a little bit of regression back to the "old ways" which is unfortunate but not surprising. Now that it's been three weeks since we instituted the rules, people are starting to "forget" what is expected of them, and are backsliding to their former habits.

So, I am politely asking you to make an effort to treat your fellow members with respect. If you want to start a discussion on a controversial topic, the rules require you to state your case in a manner that is not inflammatory.

I have just asked the moderators to be more pro-active about enforcement. In particular, I have instructed them to give extra scrutiny to thread topics about 1) Religion, 2) Democratic Presidential Candidates, and 3) Green/Dem. If you want to start a thread about these topics, make an effort to do so in a way that is not inflammatory, or else don't post your topic in the General Discussion Forum.

Also, I have just edited the profanity/capitalization/etc. rule to remove the occasional exception for "our shared political opponents." We were rarely allowing this exception, and I think we're better off without it.

We need everyone's help to keep DU a civil place and encourage thougtful debate.

Thank you.

Skinner
DU Admin

[liberalhistorian]

1. There seems to be a lot of religious discussions and

Green/Dem threads lately, and a lot of them seem to quickly deteriorate into the same old inflammatory arguments and name-calling back and forth. Do you think maybe a separate forum for these discussions might be a good idea? It seemed to work well for the I/P debate.

[Skinner]

3. I'm not sure I want to do this.

I think we could certainly do without some of these threads. But My preference is to curb the excesses rather than banishing them entirely.

I have instructed the moderators to be a little more pro-active in enforcement on those topics.

[Skinner]

2. No response after half an hour.

Hmmm.

ON EDIT: I stand corrected. There has been one response. :thumbsup:

[Octafish]

4. Remember, there are two things Americans aren't supposed to talk about:

1. Religion
2. Politics.

So ... We get to write about them, thanks to you and your colleagues, Skinner!

[Skinner]

9. LOL

That's right. Maybe we should outlaw all discussion, and just have one thread a day in the GD forum where we all share new and creative insults for George W. Bush.

[drdigi420]

67. Thats about what it's turned into

[kodi]

68. three, somebody else's momma

.

[salin]

Hey Skinner...

I hadn't peeked in GD when I wrote you guys a note in the forum below. Sort of a similar theme - more though a comment on the hard work of renorming the 'cultural' behaviors of a group (even if it is 'online culture'.

While you are likely to get some vocal resistance (sincere, but more 'squeaky wheel' - as in sounding more 'broadspread' due to noise volume rather than number of people volume), let me speak up and say we can disagree with respect.

The tone set in a thread - does often get set by that first post. Hijackings, of course a notable exception - but even then often the thread will return to the original topic. The more folks are willing to take responsibility for the tone that they choose to set, the more a little bit of thought is likely to go into that originating post - and the more content focused the overall thread is likely to be.

Thanks for your hard work. I know we can be an unruly bunch.

[Skinner]

11. Yes, it is difficult.

I am not surprised that it is difficult, people are quite resistent to change. Perhaps more imporatantly, people tend to be hyper-sensitive to the transgressions of others, while assuming that their own paricipation is above reproach and doesn't require modification.

It's been frustrating, but overall I think it is working. Most members really do want to help make this place better.

[salin]

14. hehe... thanks for knowing what I meant

realized that the second paragraph sounded like i was saying we (as in you and I) can disagree with respect... which of course was the opposite of what I was trying to say - which was agreeing with you, that we as a community can learn to disagree with one another on various topics, with respect.

But you caught that (thanks). Just wanted to be clear to casual readers.

[drdigi420]

57. It's not working

Like you said, its 'backsliding', but now it's just hidden and complicated.

[CWebster]

5. Well, that just about covers it all

Religion and politics.

;-)

[quinnox]

6. Maybe this thread should be

made a "sticky", so everyone gets a chance to see it.

[Skinner]

8. I have found that many people are "blind" to pinned threads.

It's kinda like how they are blind to banner advertisements on web pages.

They subconsciously ignore threads that are pinned to the top, for some reason. It's amazing how I'll have a thread posted to the top for a while (for example: the Dem Primary Poll) and some people will simply not see it. They're like "Poll? Where?" when the poll is pinned right at the top of the page with 100 replies to it.

So I'm going to let this float for a while. And maybe later I'll pin it to the top.

[quinnox]

13. Good point

n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

21. on that note....may i remind everyone

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446532231/democraticund-20

this is DU's Amazon portal. if you are going to buy anything from Amazon, using this link donates a portion of your payment to DU!!!
You won't pay more. There is nothing you need to do except use that link to go to Amazon.

Talk about a painless way to donate! please...as you do your holiday shopping, remember to enter Amazon via the link at the top of the DU HOMEPAGE and support your favorite forum!!!

[kimchi]

24. Some people don't even go into the discussion forums.

I know I don't--unless I'm looking for an old thread. I just go to the "latest" column and work my way down so as not to miss anything. I didn't see the Democratic poll because I was only able to get online for a short time that day.

I realize that its MY problem, not yours, but I just wanted to point that out. It could be why sometimes your "pinned" notes aren't noticed.

[IrateCitizen]

7. Screw you, admins and mods!

Just kidding! ;-)

Thanks for trying to keep things under control here in the flame forum, and keep up your great work!

[WilliamPitt]

10. Kick

[kentuck]

12. Yesterday I posted, "Bush is a Bullshitter"...

Is that unacceptable per the new rules? Is that considered "profanity"?

[Skinner]

15. "Bullshitter" is profanity.

Thus, it is not allowed if you are using the term to start a thread in the General Discussion Forum.

[RichardRay]

74. Actually, it's scatalogical, but that's OK, it's still an issue.... (n/t)

[salin]

16. kentuck... are you really asking that question?

or did shit just become nonprofane? ;-)

[kentuck]

28. It's like pornography...

It's in the eye of hte beholder... :)

[sistersofmercy]

87. Hey Kentuck, I liked your thread!

O8)

[OKNancy]

17. Skinner

does it bother you or the mods if someone gets "alert happy"? I've been feeling like alerting a lot of threads but I don't want to be a pest.

[Skinner]

18. Depends how it's done.

We welcome alerts, we even welcome lots of alerts, but we would appreciate if our members would keep the following in mind.

1. Don't insult the moderators in your alerts, and don't demand that the moderators do something.
2. Don't send multiple alerts on the same violation.
3. Understand that sometimes the moderators will decide not to take action on the alert.

If you remember those guidelines, feel free to hit alert on anything which you think might be a violation.

[WilliamPitt]

26. One caveat

I have double 'lerted on a thread. Did it just yesterday, actually. A thread was crude, and I alerted, and two hours later it was downright vomitous, and so I alerted again. OK?

[Skinner]

27. That's fine. (nt)

[WilliamPitt]

29. Thanks n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. a thought.....

have you considered leaving the name of the poster who's post has been deleted in the thread?

i think i have had maybe four or five posts removed but i really don't know for sure. i realize that there is no way the mods can inform us of a pulled post as used to be the case but lacking any such notification, it's hard to know when you have erred. i realize some of the posts are obviously way over the line but many may be just a bit out of line. i'd like to be made aware of when i become a detriment to the board and if i see my name, attached to a pulled thread it would be easier for me to figure out how to tone down my posts to insure that doesn't happen.

thank you for your consideration and labor on our behalf.

[Skinner]

20. If a particular person becomes a problem

the moderators will let that person know. We send many private messages to people who are causing problems, and we give people a reasonable opportunity to correct their behavior before they get banned.

We have considered leaving the name of the person who broke the rules when we delete their post, but we decided that this was unnecessarily antagonistic. Perhaps we need to be a little more hard-assed, I'm not sure.

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. hard assed?? hmmmmm

if i'm doing wrong i don't consider being told that i'm doing wrong hard assed. for someone to just clean up after me and let me go my merry way is, sort of enabling, don't you think?

maybe it would be embarrasing for everyone to know i screwed up, i guess. but that would be an extra added incentive for me to clean up my act. the way it stands now, it's sort of people making an obscene phone call before the days of caller ID. Caller ID has certainly cut down on that sort of abuse of the phone and i think deleted poster ID would do the same thing here at DU.

Take the protection of anonimity away from the deleted and i'd bet money people would think twice before posting.

[Skinner]

25. We don't let people "go their merry way"

Problem people get messages from the Moderators. Long-term problem people eventually get banned.

Unfortunately, many people don't take deleted posts gracefully like you do. If they see their name up there, and feel they are being publicly shamed, then I have little doubt that they are going to waste my time with endless complaints about unfair enforcement and out-of-control moderators. We consider the anonymity to be appropriate for our belief that everyone here is capable of changing their behavior and becoming a constructive citizen.

And if they don't change their behavior, the get banned.

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. okay....i hadn't considered the backlash effect.

and i should have, since i visit AA frequently and see the BS you get as it is.

[drdigi420]

60. Its not unfair enforcement

or out of control moderators.

You guys are great, and had an incredible forum that I loved dearly up until you instituted these arbitrary, debate stifling, religion-protectionist rules.


The RULES are the problem, not the mods.

[newyawker99]

44. Maybe some people would like to remain anonymous.

I think leaving off the name is a good idea. Anything that would open that person up for ridicule should be avoided.

[drdigi420]

61. Is begging for the return of GD

going to get me banned?

It's out of love for the old, not hate for the new.

I just miss the heated debates that used to happen here before the rules came out to protect the religious folk from being offended.

[Booberdawg]

22. Agree with you and others who have noticed significant improvement

in the quality and tone of discussions in GD since instituting the new rules. It does seem to be working for the most part, albeit a difficult transition for a minority of members, and your willingness to put up with the initial enforcement headaches is most appreciated. :toast:

[drdigi420]

59. The enforcement headaches

are due to the overbearing rules

[Skinner]

31. kick (nt)

[Iverson]

32. Thank you for the reminder.

:toast:

[Terwilliger]

33. Skinner's right...

I am an uncivil bastard.

[northzax]

34. east coast lunchtime kick

or is it just that I want to kiss up to Admin, saving brownie points for my next burst of random incivility and gratuitous offensivness? you be the judge...

[DemExpat]

35. Kick

n/t

[MrPrax]

36. Hear Hear...Keep the Potty Mouth Out of the Thread Headers

I ain't against the replies, but the the headers...like being confronted with a GD list with the odd, 'FUCKIN'" this...or 'PISSED' about...

Here is a handy-dandy tool to increase your Word PowerNOW

English Synonym Dictionary
http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search

Feeling a little risque?
Try...The World's Largest Collection of
Masturbation Synonyms
Why sound like an ordinary longshoreman, when you can sound like a clever longshoreman!!
http://www.worldwidewank.com/synonyms.html

Randomly generated mastabatory putdowns...
Imagine...hit the the button...and wall-lah!!
'Insert your Dem candidate' should spend some quality time with the purple-headed custard chucker!!
It's that easy!!!

[burr]

92. here hear hear, heel!!!

time ta teach them clever longshoremen that lesson they will never forget..:spank:

[Malva Zebrina]

37. I am confused

I have been a DU 'er for a while and all of a sudden within the past three days, I find out that I am perhaps, being crude, I am being deleted and accused of having bad thoughts about Laura,and starting a thread that is impolite, while I observe bad thoughts about Barbara Bush are allowed to stay. Beats me. I mean really, I mean no harm, but I am really confused as to what determines the criteria for the mods--the fact that someone, someone with perhaps a little more power and recognition than your ordinary DU'er, alerts them twice and complains about someone being crude? What is crude in that person's eyes is not clear --can't help it--criticizing Laura and the Pope is not, imo, anything to be reported to the mods for, especially if one is being reported by others who over time have been really really crude themself here. I know that may sound petulant to some, but I really have seen some unequal practices here in the last three days and frankly, I am a little taken aback by it. My two cents--I feel there is too much personal judgement using criteria perhaps personal to certain persons.

[Skinner]

38. In case you haven't noticed, we have new rules in the GD forum.

That is why things seem to be different. These new rules are posted at the top of the forum, and I encourage you to read them.

If you want to start a thread in the General Discusson forum, you need to do so in a manner that is not deliberately inflammatory. We had a vote on the rules, and they passed overwhelmingly.

[Malva Zebrina]

39. Oh

OK--missed that vote--I will read it and ask questions if I need to understand something

[drdigi420]

It was like the Cali Recall

Voters werent given time to totally weigh the consequences of their decision.

Damn this used to be the best forum on the internet.

It's like losing a friend having it squelched like it is now.

[Skinner]

40. kick (nt)

[hiphopnation]

41. kick

n/t

[hiphopnation]

42. Here's a question.

Why were there multiple threads allowed bashing Rush after he admitted his addiction? I found that repulsive.

I was against the new rules, but I was trying to follow them. Are the rules only enforced when the thread concerns the above mentioned topics? Are the rules out the window when bashing our political opopnents? I hope not.

Thanks. :hi:

[Skinner]

45. The rules apply to all thread topics in GD.

But if you read them closely, you will see that multiple threads on the same topic are not strictly forbidden. They are only forbidden when the intent is to continue a flame war from another thread.

Rush's addiction was a big story. I think it is unsurprising that there were multiple threads on that topic.

[mcar]

43. Kick

n/t

[jarab]

46. kick !!

...O...

[Malva Zebrina]

47. So

where do I go to post my dismay about Laura's unkempt appearance and horrendous taste in tablecloths and upholstry? LOL Is that a forbidden topic? Or is it acceptable--first lady fashion has been a subject throughout all presidencies. Recently I saw pictures of Calvin Coolidge's wife, Grace, in his home, now a museum in Plymouth, Vermont--lovely woman and dressed beautifully in elegant taste. Serious about this.

[Skinner]

48. Sounds like a Lounge topic to me.

First-lady fashion. :shrug:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

54. How about the candidates habberdashery?

Recently I have noticed a growing number of
unruly brouhahas about Howard Dean's French
cuff links and General Clark's baggy suits
and that sort of thing that are beyond any
reasonable pale.

[Skinner]

63. Depends how it's done.

Since they are actually the ones running for office, and since our culture is so shallow as to consider that important, then (sadly) that topic is relevant.

But we would expect members to do so in a relatively non-inflammatory manner.

[Malva Zebrina]

69. Skinner

it is important how one presents oneself--it important and further it is a clue to how they think about themself and their relationship to the world especially if they are in the position of the top representative of a culture. I mean that. Anyone who consistently looks sloppy and unkempt,disorganized in their choices and bizarre color arrangements, even though they have the monitary means to present an intelligent and concerned look about things, is sending us a message. The message is that they do not care at all who they represent as far as the American woman goes. It is too much of a bother to spend any creative time on it. One does not wear tablecloths and draperies, and consistently look like a pathetic loser when one is representing such a powerful country as this. If one is lacking in the talent to dress themself neatly with aplomb and with panach, then one , who has a lot of money to do so, recognizes the lack and hires someone that will make them look intelligent, sophisticated,and concerned and with it. Note how the British Queen , Elizabeth, a woman who is just as zoftic and endowed as Laura in the upper body, always looks neatly groomed and her fashions have sleek lines that are complimentary, and one does not see bulges and embarrassing wrinkled body lines--she needs to send her designer to Laura I think.

[hiphopnation]

49. Ki

ck

[Padraig18]

50. I was a bad boy the other day...LOL

I got soooooooo pissed off at a person who shall remain namless's calling me a Clark supporter that I told them to "Kiss my Irish ***!"; my post was deleted, and rightly so--- but it FELT good, knowing they read it before they alerted the mod to it. :P

[bearfartinthewoods]

52. you're assuming that the person you were rude to is the

person who alerted on you...

you know what happens when you ass-ume, even if you are irsh. :grin:

i rarely alert on posts made to me but prefer to alert on issues where i'm not involved in the thread. i find it's easier to stay neutral and not use the alert as a weapon in an arguement.

[drdigi420]

58. Another debate stifling incident from the arbitrary rules

[kaitykaity]

51. kick

:kick:

[Maeve]

53. Back to the first page for the afternoon crowd

[SOteric]

55. kick

:kick:

[drdigi420]

56. Actually......

The sterilization of GD has been terrible

You have to really dig to find a decent debate now.

I've seen topics locked for silly reasons, ones I would have liked to respond to. This has been a disaster for GD, PLEASE change it back to the old way, which was much more fun than this 'neo-civility' that just stifles debate.

How about making a forum for those that are uber-sensitive and let the GD forum go back to being fun? You can warn the easily offended that they should be in the Whitewashed Forum, or Censored Forum, or Boring Forum, whatever you want to call it.

[Skinner]

62. Sorry you don't like them.

I have learned that I cannot please everybody.

ON EDIT: I think six posts on this topic is enough to get your point across, thanks.

[drdigi420]

66. I think allowing further debate on these rules

instead of a rushed 'vote' would have served DU, GD, and all of us much better.

It does appear that appeasing the religious people became more important than the quality of GD discussion, though.

I've noticed almost every thread that takes an honest look at the religious myths gets locked quickly.

Religion already hijacked the republikkkan party, should we really allow it to take DU as well?

[Cheswick2.0]

71. I see you are still obsessed with science myths

the myth that everything can be explained by what science has "proven" is certainly persistant on DU. We have already let the repugs take the conservative christian vote, shall we give them the liberal christian vote too? Will you be happy when the democratic party is getting 10 percent of the vote in any election?

:hi:

[bearfartinthewoods]

76. maybe, if you aren't having /fun/ here anymore

you might consider finding a forum which focuses on religion in which to debate that issue and come here primarily for the political talk?

i know religion intersects politics but i don't see a threads trashing the pope and mother teresa as being anywhere in the neighborhood of that intersect.

[Booberdawg]

84. There was no "rushed vote" - the need for guidelines to promote

better quality discussions in GD had been discussed for a long time and practically begged for by many. The vote indicated that DU members were overwhelmingly in support of the new guidelines. The quality of discussions and topics has significantly improved. The guidelines are not difficult to follow - they only apply to the initial post in a thread. Is that really so difficult?? I don't think so.

I think your characterizations peppered throughout this thread are unwarranted. Your difficulty adjusting to some simple common sense guidelines to promote civility, improve the tone of discussion, and treat fellow members with a degree of respect when discussing controversial topics does not constitute a problem for the majority of DU members. Nor does it justify renegotiating the GD guidelines or calling for "do-overs" on the vote. You can either accept the new guidelines, or not. Your choice.

[Cheswick2.0]

72. it really sucks to have to think rather than flame, huh?

Oh those good old days when one could just flaunt whatever bigotry suited them.

[bearfartinthewoods]

80. i think it's more than that, Cheswick

some people get their jollies from the battle, from the flame wars. i say good on'em but they should take all that energy out into other forums and do battle with freeps. i love a debate as much as anyone but i love real debate about issues, not name calling or cop outs.

GD seems very debate friendly lately, imho. we had a nearly 400 post thread on a traditionally hot buttob issue and i bet the number of deleted posts was less than 5%.

i was amazed......

[gristy]

79. I disagree

I've recently participated in many excellent threads filled with insight, questions, challenges, and civil debate. Don't change a thing, skinner.

[Skinner]

64. kick (nt)

[TrogL]

65. kick

:kick:

[newyawker99]

70. kick

:kick:

[MGKrebs]

73. I think it's working great. n/t

[Ksec]

75. I stopped coming here

because of a bunch of troublemakers in a certain forum who were bound and determined to label me as a freeper , regardless of the fact that I have been a proud Dem for longer than most here. I mentioned my dislike for the woman joining the mens tour in golf and you would have thought I was admitting that I was Tom Delay or something. After that no matter what I said I was targetted by the lynch mob . Im glad to see those posters are gone. I have been coming back for a few weeks and have been having a good time here conversing with those of my stripe. Thanks for doing a good job of stopping the troublemakers from ruining this site.

[Clete]

77. From my personal observation.

Some topics are thrown out by the swamp dwellers with the intention of diverting attention from honest discussion. Gullible DU'ers have flocked to these threads like a bar serving free beer. The subjects are divisive and tap into the polarizing issues of today, namely religion, gender politics, partial birth abortion, illegal immigrants, Greens, and why each candidate is not______________(fill in the blank), and many other trivial but divisive issues.

The same poster who is often of recent registration, with usually less that a hundred posts and no star sometimes posts confliciting threads, trashing one candidate one day and then another the next usually over something silly like their unpressed suits. In understandable frustration you have forbidden or put a temporary moratorium on the topics.

The problem is that those topics need to be discussed but in a rational civilized manner. Yes, many DU'ers are racist, misogynist, homophobic, and religiously intolerant. They need to be shown why they are that way. There are questions about the candidates that need to be aired in a respectful and non-combative way. But, unless these things are aired there will be no way to point out the fallacious reasoning that accompanies these prejudices.

I have noticed that many of these posters don't back up their claims with facts. I too have been guilty of this. Perhaps one of the rules you need to instigate is that each poster provide a credible source for their statements if they are controversial. I think this would chop a lot of the religion and racist threads in their tracks because no one can really prove or disprove the existence of God nor can they back up their statement that illegal aliens are really stealing jobs and lowering wages. However, I do believe the institution of religion, as created by men, is fair game for criticism and discussion. My two cents.

[Sterling]

78. maybe you can do something about the people who insult

9-11 skeptics? That has always stuck out as something that is an example of uneven treatment in regards to rules on civility.

I think it should be against the rules to call people names for wanting to discuss 9-11.

I know you personally are embarrassed by 9-11 skeptics or at least you posted that at one point but if you truly have an interest in keeping the tone civil you would address this problem.

Given that the issue is becoming mainstream I think it is to DU’s credit that much of the work of people on this site has helped contribute to that and they should be protected from immature chiding and ridicule from people too lazy to discuss the topic in a meaningful way.

[Sterling]

89. Kick

wish I could get a response.

[DemBones DemBones]

81. Skinner, I appreciate your continuing efforts to make DU a

great forum. We are all supposedly Democrats, or people who typically vote for Democratic candidates, and that is enough of a reason for us to be civil to each other and respectful of each other's viewpoints. We can disagree without disparaging other people or their beliefs.

[Flying_Pig]

82. You're right Skinner...

I am as guilty as some others too. An example was this morning. With all we have on our plate, and bad news by the barrel full, another one of those "Democrats are doomed" threads popped up. And while the originator made some salient points (ie: about Dem unity), I was personally sick of threads like that. And as I hadn't had my coffee yet, I was a bit rougher with the person than I should have been. We old coots get like that sometimes, and I apologize.

I'll try to be more cheerful in the future.

:hi:

[Malva Zebrina]

83. Old coots are cranky sometimes

and that is the truth. We have worked hard all of our lives and now we see everything deteriorating maybe. Whatever--we do get cranky because, well because, things hurt--like the fingers and the back and the hips. We all get "old cootish" at times and embrace crankiness, whether or not we are advanced in age or on the brink of advancing in age--ie , young. I like DU because of it's mix--you younguns are particularly astute--you olduns are , well--sometimes cranky, but, nevertheless, wise.

[bearfartinthewoods]

85. kick for the mountain zone

[lovedems]

86. I am relatively new

to DU (and enjoy it) but got "chewed out" and insulted for the first time a couple of days ago and that wasn't very pleasant. You won't have any trouble here. I have 4 kids and know the importance of WANTING people to follow rules and how frustrating it is when they don't. Thanks, love it here!

:hi:

[sistersofmercy]

88. Thanks Skinner! I really like the news rules.

[Booberdawg]

90. kick

[burr]

91. HowdEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe!!!

I just want to say a few words about the new General Discussion Forum rules, and incivility in the General Discussion Forum.

Many of us opposed the new rules, but still make every possible effort to obey them despite this. Civility may not be my strongest area...but I do my best!

I can understand if a moderator removes an occasional rude, freeper, or bigoted post and a name because he or she feels it violates our new rules. However it is only "civil" to notify the person with a Personal Message that the post has been removed, and to give a justification for its removal. It would also be "civil" to remove the post in such a way that no individual can respond to it after its removal.

Many people will post on this board and come back later and see the post has been removed. But if your day is anything like mine...you would neither remember what the post was about or, therefore, why it was removed! Often times when I login after a few hours, I will read my last posts just to get myself in the same frame of mind as when I logged off. This isn't easy when our posts are just removed, and we don't know what it was about or even if it was ours or someone else's!!

In other words if we lived here or were mindreaders..this would not be a problem. So kindly remember this when you choose to remove future postings.

[Booberdawg]

93. See #20 and #25

[burr]

95. very nice....

so when do I get notified?

I know we are "supposed" to be sent a PM, but I must of had two or three messages deleted now with nothing...zip!

I didn't post any complaints on this until now, but after enough of this you begin to lose something every moderator should have..trust. How will I know my next post will not be eliminated if I was not given the justification for my last post being eliminated?

I have learned with time that I will not agree with every justification, but at least I should know what to avoid in the future. I have read every rule and still have my postings removed, but most recently it happens without any explanation..just a disappearing post, a missing name, and some asshole posting an insult on top of injury stating how he loves seeing a response to him get removed!

[Booberdawg]

96. Did you read #20 and #25? Apparently,

you have not been naughty enough to warrant a PM or a warning. :D Nine times out of ten it's a personal attack. It's happened to me too, but I'd just rather not sweat the small stuff.

[burr]

97. maybe you're right...

it's still nice to know when it happens so I can avoid doing it again.

I know we are all too human...posters and moderators. And we should expect nothing more or less but flawed human behavior at DU.

[Terwilliger]

94. oh kick

I'm magnanimous!

[bearfartinthewoods]

98. me too