New I/P Guidelines

[Lithos]

Please note the new I/P guidelines posted at the top of the forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=21970

Regards

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

HERE ARE THE NEW RULES, WITH REVISIONS IN BLUE

Welcome to the Democratic Underground Israeli/Palestinian Affairs discussion forum. As you know, this is where you may discuss issues surrounding the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. These can be very emotional issues for many. In order to facilitate rational discourse, we have found it wise to implement a few guidelines to supplement the general DU rules for discussing I/P issues that one will not find elsewhere on the website.

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the following guidelines. Offending threads will be locked or pulled. Offending posts may be deleted. Those who repeatedly violate these guidelines may be banned. If you are in doubt, please Private Message the forum moderators.

Who is Welcome In the I/P Forum, who is not:

• We welcome progressives of all stripes and specifically note the I/P forum has many progressives whose affinity lie on opposite ends of the I/P debate. Do not assume that because someone is Pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian they are not progressive. A good rule of thumb for those who will do well are those who are actively seeking a peaceful and respectful settlement and are genuinely interested in a rational discourse of events in the I/P conflict.
• If you feel great affinity to groups who are promoting hate in the Middle East such as Kahane, or Hamas; feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media; or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists, then you are probably likely to be banned.

Concerning the overall nature of the post:

• Do not embed graphics or photographs of any kind into your messages. Maps or statistical graphs are okay.
• Do not put anything in your signature line that has any relation to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
• Do not start a Poll in the I/P forum.
• Do not start a new thread on a topic that has already been covered. Duplicates will be locked or deleted.

Proper subject matter:

New Threads

• New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
• All threads must be based on material originally published no more than 3 weeks ago. The "clock" does not restart if an article is republished. Exceptions will be allowed, if based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
• The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.
• Editorializations and comments are to be saved for the Message body and must be separate and distinct from the text of the article.

General

• Do not selectively quote articles with the intent to change the original meaning.
• Do not discuss the truthfulness and/or stupidity of various religions. Do not assume you know what someone believes simply because they practice a certain religion.
• Do not make over-sweeping or stereotypical generalizations of any group or individual. This includes making statements, either overtly or subtly, which are Anti-Semitic or Anti-Muslim.
• Please stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent in order to bring up your pet issue.

Civility

• To re-emphasize, the general DU rules rules still apply for expected civility and behavior.
• Do not publicly accuse someone of being a conservative. If you feel such a comment is warranted, you may do so privately using the "Alert" button.
• Do not publicly accuse anyone of anti-Semitism, racism, or any bigoted bias. If you feel such a comment is warranted, you may do so privately using the "Alert" button.
• Inflammatory material that adds nothing to the debate is likely to be locked or deleted.
• Do not post accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry, personal attacks, plagerism, duplicate threads or any other rules violation. This includes claims against yourself or other people. Such posts add nothing to the discussion and often create more problems than the original rules violation. Use the "Alert" button instead, the moderators will deal with the post as soon as they are able.

A note on sources:

• Please use discretion when referencing obviously biased or factually questionable material. Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post or the UK Guardian and are likely to be locked. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself is the author readily identifiable and likely to be cited by the mainline world press or encountered in an alternate format (mass-published book, academic journal, newspaper article, radio or TV show).
• Please avoid posting "information" from overtly racist websites. A good, but not exhaustive, guide is Franklin's Hate Directory (www.hatedirectory.com).
• Posting from Whatreallyhappened.com, Chronwatch.com or Debka.com is specifically not allowed.

Proper use of certain words:

• Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words "anti-Semitism" or "Zionism." There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear.
• Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli.".
• Do not call Palestinians "terrorists" unless you are actually talking about people who blow up cafes or busses filled with civilians.
• Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis. Use of these terms is considered inflammatory and should be avoided.
• Do not call other members of this message board "terror apologist," "Palestinian apologist," "Israeli apologist," "Nazi," "Fascist," "Sharonist," "Likudist", etc.

Our goal is to provide a forum where issues concerning Israel and Palestine may be discussed openly but intelligently in an atmosphere of mutual respect for opposing sides. Please help us towards this end. If you have any questions, please contact the board monitors or the site administrators.

Thank you

[Lithos]

1. Also

I will post later tonight a version highlighting the main changes. (I am away from that computer).

Lithos

[bluesoul]

2. Hmm

This will be interesting... ;-)

[tinnypriv]

4. The cartoons thing rules

Good job :thumbsup:

[Skinner]

3. I just posted the new rules in Lithos's message above.

All the revisions are in blue text.

[Lithos]

5. kick

:kick:

[The Magistrate]

6. Excellent Adjustments, Sir

[Herschel]

7. Well done

"Do not publicly accuse someone of being a conservative." This is particularly welcome. We are all progressives.

[Herschel]

9. And if I may

"If you ...feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media;...then you are probably likely to be banned."

The tiresome talk of undue Jewish influence is repulsive and should not be allowed at a progressive site. I commend you.

[Darranar]

10. It doesn't exist...

though I agree that it should be banned.

[Jackie97]

22. I think that we have had some boarderline cases......

But that's all in the past. If somebody brings it into the future, then it might be harder to get away with.

[Darranar]

24. "israeli" does not mean "Jewish..."

though I agree that it is inflammatory and at times borderline.

[Lithos]

26. It has been misapplied several times

Same thing for the term Palestinians being used in lieu of terrorists.

[Darranar]

27. That is certainly true.

[Sesquipedalian]

47. how about Arab instead of Palestinian?

Does that measure up the same way?

Could you get away with throwing "Israeli" in quotes implying that they didn't exist or calling them the "fake Israeli people"?

I only ask because it seems that while the concept of Israeli is something sacrosanct, Palestinian national identity seems to be more mutable.

[Jackie97]

28. I do know that.......

But when somebody suggests that Israel has so much control over the Superpower, America, I normally do wonder about what's going on in the head of somebody who says that. Saudi Arabia and Eygpt also get very well overly tolerated by us (even though it looks like Saudi Arabia might have had something to do with 9/11), but noboby ever thinks of saying that one of those countries are controlling us.

But yes, I do understand the difference between a Jew, an Israeli, and a Zionist.

[Darranar]

8. Very nice adjustments...

Thank you.

[Flying_Pig]

11. After reading through the new rules, I have decided to cease ....

posting in I/P. My decision, is in protest of the following:

1. Too many rules. I suppose it has to be this way, given the high emotions on the issues, and the nature of the discussions. Honestly, I would not want to moderate an I/P forum, and have a great deal of respect for those who take on the job. By and large, I feel the Mods here have done and outstanding job, and have been very fair and communicative. Thank you.

Having said that, by having so many rules, I feel it will choke discussion to death. Catch 22.

2. The rule that states, ..."feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media."

While I do not feel there is a "Jewish" conspiracy to control our foreign policy, and our media, I am absolutely convinced there are efforts by pro-Israel people to influence our foreign policies and media. What thinking person could deny this? These people are not all Jewish though, and represent many different faiths. Nonetheless, they (for instance, PNAC) carry great sway in the development of our foreign policy, and, Israel does indeed have a great many friends and supporters in the media. Again, who that knows anything about the media could deny this?

I know these things, because of public record, and the fact I worked in the media for many years.

Still, if I were to discuss these things in the manner which I have done in the past, taking great care to differentiate between "Jewish" and pro-Israel supporters, I would nonetheless be attacked for my views, and insinuations made that my views were anti-Semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am of Jewish heritage, and am neither an anti-Semite, nor a "self-hating" Jew.

Anyway, I can see this rule being used to hang someone, even though they did not use the word or term "Jewish" in any way, and as in my case, even where they had taken great care to differentiate. I can see it happening, provoked by those who are disturbed by the truth being shown the light of day.

I have always sought to shine the light of truth on matters of political importance to this nation. I have done so for almost 40 years. I did it for over 10 years as a reporter, and several years as an editor and publisher, and I will continue to do so as a private citizen. ..... but just not in the DU I/P Forum.

Adios,
F.P.

[Resistance]

12. IMVHO, Flying Pig

you let them win, when you let them push you away with their attacks and insinuations of anti-semitism.

That being said, I do understand. Sometimes I feel I don't have the strength to fight them. You're absolutely right, you can spend all your time taking that great care to make sure that everyone knows it is the Likudniks and right-wing partisans who you are attacking, and not Jewish people, yet they come right back with their ignorant insinuations and mindless attacks.

Well, I doubt I can convince you to reconsider, so adios to you too FP. Your posts have been great.

[bluesoul]

13. Too bad

You'll be missed FP! ;-)

[drewb]

14. You are absolutely right...

What's next?

1. All posts will be forwarded to a moderator for editing before being posted.

2. Any post that shows emotion stronger than "tepid" shall be considered reactionary and deleted immediately.

3. Any post containing "ain't nuthin but shit" can ignore #1 and #2.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. It is sad that the posts that are locked seem to be the ones that

contain real discussions, with people learning things, looking at things from different points of view, being honest about what they know and don't, what pushes their buttons, and making a genuine effort to understand and resolve differing views - genuine constructive dialogue as opposed to "is not" "is too" batted back and forth like the Williams sisters on autopilot.

Perhaps the most dialogue-killing "rule" is not even new.

I am referring to the fact that it is forbidden for anyone to come to the IP forum and post a question.

Some of the most constructive and informative threads I have seen on this or any other board have started with someone, usually not a "regular." making a post with important, thought-provoking questions, and as it develops into the kind of discussion one would suppose that all forums exist to encourage, its brief light is snuffed out with the little note about articles or recent articles, which I note has now been extended to prohibit even more sincere attempts on the part of people to inform and educate themselves on the subject.

How many times have you seen someone post in GD or somewhere something to the effect of

"I have a question about such and such, I just started reading up on this and I understand A but can someone tell me what B means?"

and just when the thread is hitting its stride, it is moved to the basement, out of sight of other people who might also be interested, and then of course, it is executed in short order, and the questioner referred to the "rules," and off goes the questioner, baffled, shaking his head and wondering what could be so frightening to the management, not just of DU, but of the US itself, about working toward a non-violent solution to the conflict.

[Lithos]

20. Answer

I am referring to the fact that it is forbidden for anyone to come to the IP forum and post a question...

<snip>

...How many times have you seen someone post in GD or somewhere something to the effect of


These are two issues which are frequently asked. I will answer once again. Both restrictions are the results of the very divisive and emotionally charged debates which were the norm. You only have to look at the history of the I/P debate here on DU to understand why these I/P restrictions were put into place.

But to answer your specific points. Some questions have been allowed on a case-by-case basis after they have been approved by the forum moderators.

But the reason why free-form questions are not allowed is people have abused this by posting inflammatory strawmen statements which are not designed to browbeat opponents and promote a rational discourse.

And the reason why topics are not posted outside of the I/P focus is to sandbox the debate in one section. Again prior to the enactment of the rules, many people were put off by the outrageous behavior and tone of the posters. This is the compromise Skinner enacted to preserve any debate of I/P issues on DU. This allows people who want to debate I/P a place to come.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. I am aware of those arguments, mine is that it is counter-productive

IF, and I am not saying it is, isn't, should, or shouldn't be, but IF the goal is to have people educate themselves, and I will state without hesitation that there is a MASSIVE and CRITICAL need for education and information, then the policy is counter-productive because it stifles debate, stilts dialogue, and people end up spending more time trying to figure out how they can say or ask something without getting the thread locked or having one word of their post decreed "inflammatory" or run afoul of someone's discretion or digestion, than they do on imparting information, sharing views, trying to overcome prejudices, come to terms with unpleasant facts, or just plain get a handle on what is going on.

I understand that unsupervised teen computer use is not a question with a one size fits all families answer, and not all families make the best choice for their kids on this issue, and as a result, but it would be possible to lock or delete the "BOMB MECCA" posts, or if serious about stopping at the source, ignoring them completely, without empowering their authors to the extent ot effectively banning open and productive discussion by those whose abilities permit it.

[laura888]

15. too many rules - no one said democracy was easy

how is one to have a free-flowing, open discussion with all of these rules? I'm sure that both sides know that there is lots of strong feeling on either side, and that they're walking into the fire every time they post in I/P.

so what? no one said democracy was easy. this is closer to fascism.

Flying Pig had decided not to post because of this, and I don't blame him. I found his posts to be intelligent and factual and will definitely miss him.

One must ask = what is the purpose of this forum? Is it for all who agree with one side to sit around and agree with each other?

Hmmm.... maybe we should start another DU that is truely democratic....

[Violet_Crumble]

16. A question about one of the new rules...

Well, two questions, actually...

If you feel great affinity to groups who are promoting hate in the Middle East such as Kahane, or Hamas; feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media; or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists, then you are probably likely to be banned.

I've got no problem with that if the rule applies solely to those who think along the lines of a Jewish conspiracy that rules the world type of thing, but does this rule also apply to those who believe that lobby groups like AIPAC exert influence on the US govt?

Offending threads will be locked or pulled. Offending posts may be deleted. Those who repeatedly violate these guidelines may be banned.

I've seen some people repeatedly violate the guidelines over a fairly long period of time, so is it safe to assume that they may not be banned? I guess I don't understand why some people may and some people mightn't, that's all...

Apart from that, they're a bunch of good changes, especially the one about cartoons :)

Violet...

[Lithos]

18. Some questions

If you feel great affinity to groups who are promoting hate in the Middle East such as Kahane, or Hamas; feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media; or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists, then you are probably likely to be banned.

I've got no problem with that if the rule applies solely to those who think along the lines of a Jewish conspiracy that rules the world type of thing, but does this rule also apply to those who believe that lobby groups like AIPAC exert influence on the US govt?

US Foreign Policy, particularly towards Israel is an amalgam of many different interests and concerns. AIPAC is one of these, but by no means, the decisive or leading interest in dictating or controlling US relations towards Israel.

While it is acceptable to discuss lobby groups and other interests groups which affect foreign policy, The first thing which has to be asked is why the focus then on AIPAC to the extent of overlooking the other groups? Granted it is perhaps the most recognizable, but this still does not excuse the almost exclusive focus people make towards the foundation of US-Israeli relations. Either this is gross simplification or the basis of another problem which this statement of the guidelines addresses.

Offending threads will be locked or pulled. Offending posts may be deleted. Those who repeatedly violate these guidelines may be banned.

I've seen some people repeatedly violate the guidelines over a fairly long period of time, so is it safe to assume that they may not be banned? I guess I don't understand why some people may and some people mightn't, that's all...

It depends on the nature of the transgression and how often it happens in a given period of time. Not all violations are equivalent. Some transgressions will cause you to be banned immediately, others if persisted will develop a case to be developed with an ultimate banning.

Some options we pursue include:

- Deleting the post;
- Admonishing the User via PM;
- Banning the user from the I/P forum for a week or more;
- Banning the user from DU.

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. It is more than understandable that AIPAC would be a sensitive issue

Since both Democrat and Republican candidates benefit from AIPAC contributions, and unconditional support for Israel is one of the few areas of bipartisan unity.

I think that the problem is that it is difficult to criticize the US policy of unwavering approval and unlimited funding of Israeli government actions, irrespective of whether they are in compliance with either 4th Geneva, International Law, or the United States' own stated policy on human rights, without it being also a criticism of the official Democratic Party position.

While the argument that the policy is not in the best interests either of ordinary Americans or ordinary Israelis is a strong one, it does not change the reality of how US politics - both Democrat and Republican, works.

And it does not change the fact that without AIPAC support, no candidate can realistically hope to get the nomination of either party, much less win the election, even if you make the admittedly large assumption that all votes would be counted.

[Jackie97]

23. Thank you for making things more clear.........

I do think that the issue of the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby needs to be discussed more in the future though because I think that some here has misunderstood what and all you meant by that. I think that some believe that you are saying not to talk about it at all when you're really just saying not to make it look like a Jewish or Zionist conspiracy.

Also, I would appreciate it if more details were given on the idea of not accusing somebody of being conservative. One time, a post that I sent somebody got interpreted as my accusing them of being conservative when I didn't directly accuse them of that at all. I think it was because of my reference to a website that's considered to be conservative (but yet I know both left and right wingers who look at it for information). Anyway, I don't think that I would have realized that my post was getting interpreted that way.

But Flying Pig is right. You all do have a tough job here, and I would never take it (at least not on the I/P forum).

[Lithos]

25. A stab at an answer

Without seeing the exact circumstances that you are refering too, let me state one example dealing with referring to a website. For instance, saying people would be more at home on a conserative web forum is the same as calling them a conservative. Same with stating that is their only source of ideas, etc.

Saying that a source is conservative is okay provided it wasn't meant as a derrogatory to the poster.

If someone believes another poster is conservative, people are expected to use the Alert to make their case. However just because someone is a supporter of Israel or a supporter of Palestine does not make them automatically a conservative or a terrorist. Also absence of support for the other side does not connotate grounds either.

Hope that helps

L-

[GabysPoppy]

49. n/t

[Aidoneus]

29. There are too many deletions

What is it that is desired from such a policy?

[bluesoul]

30. Deletions

Way too many. :shrug:

[Aidoneus]

31. At the least, please directly respond to criticism

I get it that it's a non-paying/wholly volunteer job, and that's appreciated. All the same, please lighten up--in such an environment it is routinely very difficult to carry on a conversation or observe one after even a short period. Is that of any concern, or is a strict upholding of the rules held to be of more importance than the (falsely?) implied intent of having a "message board" for discussion? That's a problem if so, and it has been steadily so.

[edzontar]

32. I am sorry, but I have to question what I see as excessive deletions...

In the I/P threads.

Whole sections of these threads are being erased or rendered incomprehensible by deletions, usually at the head of a sequence of responses.

I have had a few deleted myself--some were justified according to the rules, but my point in a recent thread about the total confusion the frequency of deletions imposes on the readers was ITSELF deleted....despite the fact that a substantial number of posters agreed with me.

Look, I respect the care and sincerity which all the moderators bring to their unpaid and often unappreciated labors.

Getting rid of racist and bigoted posts and threads is fine with me.

But the ever increasing deletion of posts in I/P, and the at least empirical evidence that these are almost always directed to defenders of the Palestinain position, is having a poisonous effect which I am not the only person to comment on here.

Is it possible to ask you as moderators to at least consider reserving judgment or to reconsider the extremely deletion-friendly approach that you are taking lately?

Or is even asking for reflection in itself a violation of these increasingly draconian "rules."

[Resistance]

33. apparently

they are intent on driving people away.

My "Ask the Admins" question, posted earlier today

Oh, a big internet to discuss issues! Just not at DU! Where we say we are for progressives, that is, until we find out you're too critical of precious Israel - then we'll carelessly delete your posts, and brush off your ungrateful complaints by suggesting you go somewhere else. Who gives a shit that you spent a couple hours engaging yourself in debate and taking the time to refute things you didn't agree with? We didn't like it so we'll hit our little Delete Post button, and be done with that problem.

Great job, admins. I'm so glad to have wasted my time here today.

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. Well, unconditional support of Israel is also the Dem party position

It is also the one issue that more than any other single thing, defines the United States for people around the world.

So I can see that the admins are between a rock and a hard place.

How can they permit open criticism of a long-standing policy of the Democratic party, and one that has enabled many Dem candidates and office-holders to have enough money to run their campaigns?

This is only going to become more of a sensitive issue as the campaign progresses, we have already seen one candidate going to Israel and implying criticism of the bush regime for not financially supporting Israel unconditionally ENOUGH. And he is indeed, one of the moneyed candidates, the only one who has even suggested a mild criticism of the policy has almost NO money!

The other day, I suggested that theyrule.net was a good place to go see who rules the world, and gush shalom and bet salem were good places to go find out what Jews are doing. It was immediately deleted, and it took me a while, but I finally realized why. The corporations who benefit from the bipartisan Israel right or wrong policy do not want to hear about peaceful Jews or have people talking about how they (the corporations) are interrelated with each other and how they are ruling the world.

It is actually more in the interests of Politics, Inc. to have people arguing back and forth about how anti-Jewish this or that person is than to look too closely into who really rules the world and how Jews, like everybody else, are exploited by that.

On the other hand, I read your post in the Ask the Administrator thing and I agree with you that the more thoughtful people, the ones who do research and present strong but civil arguments, are probably going to increasingly find that other forums are probably better for that.

Is that a bad thing or a good thing for DU?

[The Magistrate]

35. In All Honesty, Mr. Fatwa

It is going a little far to imply criticism of Israel is not permitted in this forum. A fair amount of my own time, after all, is spent rebutting such criticism, when not indulging in it myself on appropriate occassions.

[DuctapeFatwa]

36. As I said, I can understand the dilemma of whether to allow it or not

and if so, what nature of criticism.

I think that Resistance made a good point in her AKA post, that there will be a reluctance on the part of more thoughtful people to post.

And the administrator answered her - it's a big internet, which it is, and he is entirely within his rights in allowing or disallowing the discussion of any topic at any time, for any or no reason.

It is his site, it is not receiving public funds, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and therefore is not subject to Constituional protections of free speech, as theoretical as those have become.

The only reason that I am suggesting that the admins might not want to cause offense to the Democratic party is because I have seen posts from the admins indicating that they plan to adjust the rules of the forum as the election approaches, including changes in policy regarding criticism of candidates, so it is logical to assume that what kind of things are said about Democratic party policy is now and will increasingly be a concern.

[The Magistrate]

37. Still, Sir

A great deal of quite vociferous criticism of Israel, much of it, indeed, your's, is present here: it is my impression, in fact, perhaps a little clouded by participation, that comments critical of Israel outnumber comments supportive of Israel by a noteable margin.

As to the future and the elections, it is, I would think, the purpose of all of us here to at the very least evict the criminals of the '00 Coup from their grip on office. Surely you would not suggest opposing a Democratic candidate on some grounds related to this issue in the general election, when the only alternative to Democratic victory is a continuation of the currrent usurpers in power?

[DuctapeFatwa]

39. Well, I think you make a very good point - of mine!

I can't really disagree with you that US (and Democratic party) policy regarding Israel appears to have fewer strong supporters than it has people who think it could use some work, but that very thing illustrates my point.

ESPECIALLY if there are few posters to defend, for example, the Policy of Starvation, and quite a few who are less than enthusiastic about it, it becomes all the more difficult to decide at what point allowing the subject to be discussed at all becomes a liability to a site that does not want to cause offense to the Democratic party.

Another very good point you make is that there are many people who feel that putting a Democratic face on the PNAC strategy is a higher priority than orchestrating regime change.

So the US's policy on Israel is not the only sensitive issue!

[The Magistrate]

40. Wear It In Good Health, Sir

The jacket suits you.

[Darranar]

41. Personally, I think even Lieberman would be preferable to Bush...

It's ABB for me.

Even if the Democrat is pro-PNAC, his domestic policies will be far superior.

[DuctapeFatwa]

42. LOL well we are in the wrong thread for this but

if PNAC is not thrown out, and I mean thrown out, as in Hague and garbage can, ground to dust and vaporized thrown out, that there is little likelihood that any domestic policies at all will be needed.

[Lithos]

38. To answer

We strive to not delete posts at all. I can assure you that the vast majority of the deletions are the result of stereotypical remarks made against Israel, Palestine and other groups as well as direct attacks against other users. Other deletions are either the result of early dupes or at the request of the poster.

The question you ask is that should we allow what you feel are informative posts that we are currently deleting to remain despite the inclusion of a stereotypical post or personal attack?

Realize most people are already very aware they should avoid commenting about posters or making stereotypical comments. Not only is this is a recurring theme in not only the I/P guidelines, but DU's general rules. To reinforce this most of the longtime posters have received at least one or more PM's reminding them of specific rule elements.

You would think if someone takes the time to develop an informative post they would take the time to avoid making negative comments about another poster or to avoid an over-generalization. Yet we have posters who don't, despite the posting of the rules and the previous PM reminders.

This places us in the position of allowing personal attacks and stereotypical comments from people who should know better or deleting posts and/or banning users. So far we've opted for deleting these posts. Yes it sometimes hurts the thread history, but we can't reward people for doing things they already know are not allowed.

As for the number, the percentage of deleted posts to total posts seems about the same to me so I don't think it is rising. It just seems like more because the forum has been busier because of the recent news. However, I do think the environment that is causing these posts is due to three factors.

- The almost persistent tension the I/P theatre. It seems like things move from one troubling event to another.
- A tendency of some posters here to take out their frustrations at least indirectly against their opposite numbers in the debate. All this does is take things to a personal level which is inappropriate for the I/P forum. Some posters are better at keeping their feelings separate, but alas, not all are this capable.
- As an adjunct to the above post. The increased personalization polarizes the debate even more and makes people more stubborn, confrontational, and long to forgive. Instead of being sensitive to troubling events and trying to reach out, some posters become more likely to take "cheap shots" and to call out other posters.

At times it seems to me like this debate has for some turned into a game for some and the all important goal is "scoring points" off their rivals. It is too easy to imagine the PM's flying after a particularly "good point" saying "congrats".

[edzontar]

43. Thank you for the thoughtful response.

And I really do feel for you--I wouldn't want to be the one who tries to moderate some of these forums.

I guess I have gotten the impression--perhaps an erroneous one, derived in part from my own experience--that some alert-happy and VERY pro-Israel types (and look, I too want Israel to survive and live in peace and security--so don't get me wrong here)---may be going a litle crazy with the Alert button.

After a couple of bad experiences of my own with this button--I alerted someone as a freeper who really wasn't one--i have become very reluctant to use that device....even in cases of obviously intemperate bigotry and personal attacks.

I wish that some other folks around here would adopt a similar policy.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I've also gotten that impression...

Derived in part recently from a PM from one of them informing me my posts were going to be alerted on and I was going to end up banned. But that's water off a duck's back to me. What I do see as more of a problem than excessive post deletions is what appears to be excessive alerting from certain folk who post here. A flood of non-stop alerts must be a pain in the arse for the mods to have to wade through, and that coupled with the reticence other posters have expressed about hitting alert at all has got me wondering why it wouldn't be a better move for the alert function to be switched off in the I/P forum and the mods could read through the threads and pick out posts that should be deleted. I know the mods sometimes don't have a lot of time to spend at DU, but surely reading through the threads themselves would take less time than going through a deluge of what might be sometimes petty Alerts...

And I agree with you about not wanting to moderate some of these forums. I think the mods sometimes are damned if they do and damned if they don't, especially when it comes to this forum, and it seems like a sometimes thankless task to me...

Violet...

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

48. Befuddled Kick

.

[JohnLocke]

50. Thank you, sir!

Two thumbs up for clarity!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Cassandra]

51. If I might add to this...

" or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists"
Could you add after Nationalism, "or supporters of Israel or Zionism", as there are some here who believe that terrorists lurk there, too.

The revision might read: "or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism, or supporters of Israel or Zionism, are terrorists".
I hope you will consider adding this. Thank you.

[Lithos]

52. We will consider that

L-