Visualize a Democratic Underground where rule-breaking posts are no longer deleted by the moderators

[EarlG]

Sounds crazy, right?

Well, if we weren't going to do anything about rule-breaking posts then I'd agree that it would be completely bonkers. Fortunately, that's not what we're proposing.

Earlier this week Skinner talked about our new approach to the DU message board rules (you can read his post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9563958&mesg_id=9563958">here). In a nutshell, our new approach is this:

1) Big-tent content. DU should be open to a broad range of viewpoints from center to far left, which includes both the robust defense of Democrats as well as the robust criticism of Democrats from a liberal perspective.

2) Increased civility. Posts that question the motives, character, or good faith of other DUers serve to poison the atmosphere and make respectful discussion impossible.

So how are we going to make that happen if we don't delete posts that break our rules? Well, we believe we have come up with a better system that still allows for rule violations to be removed from the message board, while giving members a second chance to make those posts fit within the rules -- and learn more about our community standards at the same time. In other words, we're moving away from a system that punishes members for breaking the rules, towards a system where members are encouraged to make a good-faith effort to fix their mistakes.

Just to be clear, this has not been programmed yet, and we are still open to making changes if we believe they will improve the system. But this is currently at the top of our list of priorities, and we hope to have it up and running very soon.

Here's what we propose...

The Edit Request System

When the moderators become aware of a post which breaks the rules they will send a request to the member who posted it asking that they edit the post to comply with our community standards.

When this happens, the post will be temporarily hidden from the board, and replaced with a message indicating that the post is currently in the process of being edited by the member.

The member will receive the edit request automatically via private message, and they will not be able to post anywhere on DU until they have dealt with the request (if they attempt to post they'll get an interrupt page telling them that they have an edit request). The member will also be provided with the rule (or rules) that their post breaks.

The member can then deal with the edit request in one of two ways:

1. They can self-delete the post.

If the member decides that they do not wish to edit the post so that it is compliance with the rules, they will be provided with an option to simply delete it. If they do this, their post will be permanently removed from the board, and replaced with a message indicating that the member chose to self-delete it. There will be no immediate penalty for choosing to self-delete. (However, note that the purpose of this new system is to work with people who want to participate in a good-faith way -- if a member is constantly receiving edit requests and self-deleting their posts, then we may take a closer look at that member.)

2. They can make a good-faith attempt to edit their post.

The member will have the option to edit their post so that it complies with the message board rules. As soon as the member finishes editing, the post will immediately be returned to the message board.

You may be wondering what happens if a member does not make a good-faith effort to edit their post, but instead chooses to willfully ignore the moderators' request by either leaving the rule violation in their edited post, or worse, adding new rule violations. We have a plan to discourage people who might want to do that.

When a member finishes editing their post and returns it to the message board, it will be auto-alerted so that the moderators can take a look to make sure the second attempt is within the rules. If it no longer breaks the rules -- great! Everyone can move on. But if it still breaks the rules, the post will be sent back once again to the member, and this time around they will only have the option to self-delete. Once they click the self-delete button the post will be removed, and the member will be locked out of posting for a very brief "penalty period" -- we'll probably try 15 minutes to start with.

So that is what we propose. What do you think?

-----------------------------

While I've got your attention...

...I might as well make a crass plea for donations. This week is our Fourth Quarter Fund Drive, and if you can help us reach our goal of 1,000 donations then please http://www.democraticunderground.com/donate.html">click here and donate today. Thank you!

[AngryAmish]

1. really/

[MadHound]

2. Hey, did you get your black belt?

And is that going to be part of the new enforcement policy around here:evilgrin:

[EarlG]

4. I only have a black belt in Tekken

Elad did pass his test though, yes :)

[Dr.Phool]

69. If we don't edit our posts, are you guys gonna kick our ass?

:evilgrin:

[bigwillq]

115. YAY for Elad!!!

:bounce: :toast:

[CLANG]

133. Good one!

:rofl: :rofl:

[The Doctor.]

197. "Oh No! Dad got Feng Wei!"

Tekken is how we settle disputes in this house (that I don't settle directly). My team is always random to be fair.

Congrats on the Black Belt. I hope to see a Mokujin tournament win one day.

[walldude]

3. Sounds like more work for you guys but

I think it's a good idea.

[SharonRB]

5. Let me be the first K&R

I think this sounds like an excellent solution!

On edit: Guess I wasn't first by the time it posted.

[northzax]

6. what do I think?

best. idea. you. have. ever. had. yes, more work for moderators, but it gives posters ownership of their posts and the community, and gives troublemakers plenty of rope. bravo.

[appal_jack]

107. I agree - a great idea.

Ideas like this, and the consequent actions by the site Admins help to keep DU a DISCUSSION board. Glad of it.

:thumbsup:

-app

[CakeGrrl]

7. Sounds fair to me. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

8. Sounds like a good idea

Thanks for all of your work.

[blondeatlast]

9. Great idea; I've actually posted things I regret posting, gotten responses before

the editing period expired, and ended up apologizing. I generally let the offending post stand and offer an apology.

I like this--it gives the poster a chance to cool down!

Now--can we get GrovelBot back?

[Renew Deal]

23. We did the "cool down" thing in 2004 and it didn't go particularly well.

Mods can make the decision if people need to cool down. I don't think a system that punishes you for deleting rather than editting does that.

[tkmorris]

38. I don't think it punishes for deleting vs editing

It doesn't read that way to me in any case. Moreover if a poster is getting a lot of requests to edit/delete posts from the Mods due to rules violations, I'd think the added attention and/or punishment might be warranted.

[laughingliberal]

48. Disagree. I think self deleting rather than being willing to move towards more civil debate,

if that is the repeated choice of a member, is evidence of a lack of good faith in helping this community move towards a place where people can have free discussion of the many issues facing the progressive community and Democratic party. The sports mentality approach to debate moves no one forward towards solutions.

An occasional snark can be forgiven but people who know no other way to debate and who show no inclination towards learning a more effective way are not part of the solution.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. I think this is a very good idea.

It looks like a nuanced approach, and I suspect it will work well.

You administrators have obviously put a lot of thought into this, and I applaud your hard work.

Thank you, and recommended.

[sufrommich]

11. Great idea. I like it. nt

[no limit]

12. You guys are awesome, thanks for this.

[blondeatlast]

13. What's important is this--

what does GrovelBot think of it?

[Catherina]

14. Thank you! Rec'd. I like this, it's galling not to know why, or even if, your post was deleted

thank you for all your hard work! Donation coming soon.

[nashville_brook]

15. great way to encourage ownership of one's own words.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. Sounds like a good idea.

[ixion]

17. I welcome this change. It sounds very constructive.

It would be nice if we could bring back the many loyal DU'ers who were tombstoned for their criticisms, too. :)

[CTyankee]

18. I donated after I read Skinner's post earlier because I welcomed the changes.

I hope the new system applies not only alerted on by other DUers but by the mods themselves if they happen to run across it...

[TK421]

19. Sounds fine, but I would like to point out a minor bug...I mentioned this

last year I think. Sometimes I do not get the flashing red "new mail" indicator

I realized this when I checked for someones response to a question once when they stated they sent a reply, and there were indeed new messages there...are you familiar with this by any chance?

Other than that, sounds like a fair method

[EarlG]

26. I'm not familiar with that PM bug

I can ask Elad to look into it though. Regardless, we wouldn't just notify someone via PM when they received an edit request. We would also use interrupt pages -- if you try to post when you have a pending edit request, you'll see a page telling you that you need to take care of an edit first (with a link so you can straight away go and do that).

[TK421]

28. Got it, thanks...n/t

[Make7]

166. I think the NEW MESSAGES indicator only shows up on the main pages (Latest, Greatest, etc.)...

... and won't be seen by members that are only browsing in a single forum (General Discussion, Latest Breaking News, etc.) or spending an extended amount of time in a lengthy thread. It would be helpful if a NEW MESSAGES indicator could be placed on every page (forums, sub-forums, and even threads).

Thanks,
Make7
 

[glitch]

20. The Time-Out is brilliant. nt

[Renew Deal]

21. Why do you want to make members and moderators jump through so many hoops?

This idea is "over moderating" the board. You propose almost a demerit system where if you chose to "self-delete" it's bad, and if you can't figure out how to get the post right the second time it's worse. You are proposing forcing mods to read a good number of posts every day that they otherwise wouldn't read.

I don't understand DU's almost obsessive need to "show people what they've done wrong" or whatever it's called this time. DU runs well. The member survey showed that. Just enforce the rules and you'll be fine. The half-hearted enforcement of the personal attack rule has been one source of issues here. Skinner says you will crack down on that. That's a good idea. Unrec has been another source of problems on DU. It is a failure and should be eliminated.

Enforcing the rules and eliminating unrec would solve most of the problems. Forcing people into a draconian system of self moderation will overly complicate the website for the members and the moderators.

[leftstreet]

91. I think most members already 'self moderate'

Sounds like they're trying to deal with chronic offenders, and, on the rare occasion, newbies who don't realize they can't scream FUCK YOU at everybody


:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

22. It sounds like people will be able to break the rules before they follow them. n/t

[boston bean]

31. i wonder if this applies to replies?

I think this is a good idea. And will find out soon enough if it works.

[EarlG]

42. That's probably still preferable to the way it is now

where people break the rules and then don't follow them.

This isn't going to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for jerks. We still have other methods for dealing with people who constantly and gratuitously break the rules.

But aside from that, the proposed system is intended to allow people to fix mistakes that were made in good faith. The idea is to stop punishing people who occasionally break the rules, and instead give them a second chance to correct themselves, while educating them about DU's community standards.

People who don't or won't use the system in a good-faith fashion -- or who refuse to learn how to follow the rules -- will find themselves spending a lot of time looking at the edit window and/or deleting their own posts.

[LoZoccolo]

46. I do see what you're saying, and I've previously held back on ideas about

writing large essays because I know people will comb through them looking to lock the post on one or two points, whereas now I might go ahead. I've actually wanted to post a series about strategy and game theory but was reluctant because I was worried that there might be some part or other that would be seen as a call-out of people who adhere to the strategy and all the time I would have spend on it would be wasted; now if I accidentally go there, I can just axe that part. I've also in the past requested "summary judgements" from the moderators ahead of time, which has similarities to this concept. I guess we'll have to see if it's abused and how often.

[EarlG]

55. I'm glad to hear that

If the new system encourages people to write longer, more thoughtful posts that they otherwise would have felt less inclined to write, then I'd consider it to be a big success.

[David Zephyr]

24. Brilliant.

This will be a breakthrough policy. I think it might have saved a lot of decent, good people here from being TS'd had this been in effect. It's a safety valve that can let off steam and give the poster a chance to reflect on her/his words. While the DU has correctly TS'd some obvious disrupters, posers, and people with thinly veiled bigotry, I feel some posters were banned who had simply let their emotions over rule their heads temporarily and I wish we could bring some of those individuals back.

This policy is smart. Very smart.

DZ

[Renew Deal]

25. Is what you're saying different than what LoZoccolo is saying?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9569527&mesg_id=9569643

It gives you a free shot at another person aka "letting off steam."

[LoZoccolo]

29. Except that I do not think that that is a good thing.

I was for the "break the rules once and you're locked out of the thread" rule.

[Renew Deal]

30. I don't care for that one either

It would spill out all over DU and I think people often talk out their differences.

[LoZoccolo]

41. I can see that; people would start new threads to continue the ones from which they were banished.

I'm not sure if they could do it at this point, but if I were starting DU from scratch I would just make a hard-and-fast rule about supporting the Democratic Party (constructive criticism would be OK) and ban everybody who either advocates voting against them or uses it to spread propaganda that's right next door to that idea (i.e. "Democrats and Republicans are the same.") That is the huge major conflict; eliminate that and there might not have to be constant adjustments of the rules. But like I said, I don't think they could do that at this point; I think a lot of people would be ticked off and it would affect funding. If it was done from the beginning, maybe it could have grown as a Democratic site and more people who wanted one would have stayed here and supported it financially. If you plug random numbers into the user profile lookup page you'll see that there are a lot of people who made less than one hundred posts and left; were they people looking for a resource for supporting the Democratic Party who were chased away by infighting?

One way they might be able to continue their large user base and also satisfy dedicated partisans is to establish a dedicated partisan forum, which was an idea they previously floated. If we had something like that, I might end up spending as much time arguing with people about whether or not to support the Democratic Party as I do arguing with consipiracy theorists in the September 11 forum (which is almost no time at all).

[CTyankee]

63. I'm not sure about your "dedicated partisan" forum idea...or maybe I have a different

defintion of the term from yours. It seems to me that a "dedicated partisan" is usually some kind of proselytizer. We want to argue our point of view to persuade others. If there is a forum where only one viewpoint is presented, then there is not much to discuss since everyone there "agrees." I find opposing points of view sometimes informative. I've changed my mind about a position because I was on a thread with fair minded folks who challenged my thinking and gave me good reason to change it.

[LoZoccolo]

88. Here's my view of what I'd like a "dedicated partisan" forum to be.

It would be for people who have decided that in nearly every actual case (like 999 out of 1000), it is better to elect a Democrat over a Republican, for their use in discussing ways to achieve that goal. The question of whether or not the Democrats are doing a better job than Republicans would be considered to be already settled, and the question of whether or not a particular Democrat is doing a good job or a bad job would be considered unconstructive within the dedicated partisan forum, but could be discussed in other forums such as General Discussion. It would be for the purpose of advancing Democrats electorally. I'm not sure how you could keep factional disputes out such as disputes about whether or not a 50-state strategy is better; maybe they could say that you could not debate decisions which are entirely in the hands of other people, though you could present ways to support whichever strategy you prefer (as in, if you like 50-state, here's how to support DFA, and if you support a more traditional strategy here's how to support DCCC/DSCC, and we're not going to talk about which is better in the dedicated partisan forum).

I'd like a place where people can find out things they can do for the Democratic Party, really. Without the constant distraction of people trying to influence it by complaining to other people. I've looked at other places and I don't think they are at the point where they could make it happen as easily as here; they have a longer way to go.

[CTyankee]

110. It's a good idea. I like a forum where there are constructive suggestions made, not complaints.

I will give you my own experience in learning a different point of view: A few years ago I was one who believed that we should ALL have "civil unions" and get rid of the term "marriage" as far as the state was concerned. In a thread here at DU I was persuaded that this view was unfeasible and thus it was unequal since our American usage of the term "marriage" was not about to change in the near future. I got the point. While I still think we really should have the western European idea of civil unions, I bow to the reality and what that reality means in the lives of real people who are living with hellish inequaity in their lives. We all need re-education, don't we?

What I do NOT want to see in the partisan forum is one person with an agenda and it just goes on and on, like the bore at the dinner party. Or the little clique that decides it's time to just take over the thread and make it what they want it to be and basically "shouts" down the OP and other who may agree with the OP, a kind of "mob rule" experience. If you are the OP the only way you can solve that is by abandoning the thread -- when you leave, the thread dies.

I hope this elucidation has been helpful to you...good luck!

[John Commonsense]

145. Some were TS'd for less. Purges are never pretty, and the aftermath

leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the present and departed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

146. EVERYONE who was td's feels its unfair. otherwise they would have to admit to being wrong

[John Commonsense]

160. And those who were TS'd unfairly? Do they have to admit being wrong as well?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

212. generally speaking i think du takes far too long to TS, rarely have i seen it be far too quick

[emilyg]

27. Like.

[KittyWampus]

32. That's ridiculous. I can't believe you are doing this.

[tkmorris]

45. Perhaps you could share your reasoning?

[Ozymanithrax]

33. I think this iw worth a test drive.

Sound good.

[immoderate]

34. I'd like to see some editing/formatting upgrades.

I remember an indented format being talked about a year ago. And needing to put html tags into posts to get styles is (I would guess) not difficult to remedy. Is this to prevent "formatting abuses"?

--imm

[Hissyspit]

44. I would SO love autoformatting here.

[blondeatlast]

47. Yes, yes, yes! nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

35. Good idea, but I have a suggestion re: the PM's.....

As the software appears to me now, the indicator that I have an awaiting Private Message only appears on the "Latest Threads" page or on the DU Home Page.

May I suggest that you guys alter this notification capability so that it also appears next to the "Expand Threads/Enlarge Fonts" hyperlinks at the upper left of the top of the body of the page where the list of threads begins.

Like this;


That way, if a user stays in GD or any other forum for that matter for an extended period, instead of clicking back to the Home Page or the the Latest Threads page, they will still know they have a message waiting.

[blondeatlast]

65. Agreed; I spend virtually all my time in GD; that would be very helpful, IMHO. nt

[snooper2]

36. Will be an interesting experiment for you

And a lot of work...


So, lets say I post some lyrics from a Too $hort Album. It is in perfect context of the thread being discussed, and actually art to some people, who's to judge whether it should stay posted or not?

Too Short if you are not hip to it :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKvSF8fWW1I


And how do you make that judgement?

Are people also going to be forced to use the sarcasm smiley? "Yeah, I beat my (insult slur here) of a wife every day" :sarcasm: (Say in response to a Mel Gibson thread)

[damntexdem]

37. Visualize whirled peas.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. I don't know I like this.

I think it will create more work. Why not go back to the idea, unless it isn't feasible, where a post is deleted and the author can see the reason, but no one else, why his/her post was axed. It removes violations and it lets the member know why the post was deleted, which is often the biggest question for many. Allowing edits destroys "evidence." Even if you guys keep track of persons having to edit/re-edit posts time and time again, if you decide to eliminate the poster, there really is no reason you can give because you don't know which rules were broken; unless the message to edit is kept as a record as it will have which violation occurred.

[foxfeet]

78. =1

[TygrBright]

40. I like this idea! (Of course, I'm not modding this term... heheheh)

But seriously, it looks like a great way to deal with the "good faith" rule violations-- the folks who just get het up or careless and let fly, without meaning to start (or pursue) a vendetta, or cause trouble on a larger scale.

OTOH, I can see a few trolls and professional troublemakers already rubbing their hands together and wrinkling their brows as they figure out a way to subvert this mechanism to continue the prosecution their unpleasant personal (or employers') agendas.

However, since that lot would attempt to subvert ANY attempt to make DU a more interesting, civil, intelligent discussion site, who gives a rat's ass what they think anyway?

This will allow those who simply have "hothead moments," or who are PUI, or have brain temporarily in neutral and emotions fully engaged, but are otherwise valuable DU citizens, to deal with their own mistakes in a much lower-risk, less-provocative environment.

Indeed, I wish this system had been in place for a couple of MY "hothead moments." I can think of a coupla posts I really, really, REALLY wanted to self-delete after the editing deadline had already passed.

In fact, I can see this being a way for me to, uh, proactively, deal with my less-brilliant moments by alerting on my own post and setting up the self-delete sequence.

Which offers its own food for thought in the "plausible deniability" category ("Did I post that? I never posted that... I never WOULD post that...")

But that's another discussion thread.

Anyway, bravo!

appreciatively,
Bright

[seabeyond]

43. it may take some time getting use to what is now not acceptable

and how to change post so it is accepted. with the new line, i have had a couple posts deleted. one i didnt see any reason. one i get a bet more what you are talking about though intent to call out poster wasnt there. so, we long time duers might need time to adapt too. not that we are not all capable.

[myrna minx]

49. I think it's worth a test drive.

Thanks for coming up with new ideas to make this site better.

[pacalo]

50. It sounds extremely fair: the second chance, time away from posting.

The moderators will have a better grasp of posters' true intentions. The written word sometimes comes across more harshly than what the poster intended, & the second chance allows him/her to tone it down. Those who use other DUers as punching bags for venting their own personal anger/discontent can be more effectively weeded out.

I appreciate the time & careful thought put into this by the admin.'s. Thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

51. You are making extra work for yourself. Enforce the rules or don't. nt

[MicaelS]

52. Well, it's better than the current system, BUT.....

The 60 minute window is far too short. What happens if someone makes a bad post, and has to leave? There is no recourse. I propose a 24 hour time limit to edit a post. And frankly I would like to see the names of people who keep getting their posts deleted. It makes it easier to avoid them. Leave the name and delete the title and the content, replace the title with "Post deleted by Moderator" or "Post deleted by Member".

[EarlG]

53. The 60 minute window doesn't apply to this system

It will work independently from the regular edit system, which as you point out has a time limit of 60 minutes. The Edit Request system will have no such time limit (although having said that, there probably will be some kind of time limit so people aren't forced to go back and edit posts from weeks or months earlier -- we still have to figure out that specific detail).

As for leaving the name of the member on a self-deleted post, we also have to figure out that detail, but at this time we are leaning towards leaving the member's name (so it says something like "Post self-deleted by Member X").

[MicaelS]

54. OK, that sounds good,

But why was the 60 minutes limit chosen for regular posts? I maintain that 60 minutes is far too short. I would strongly urge that this be changed.

[EarlG]

59. Yeah, this is something we've been considering on and off for a long time

Still no firm plans at this moment, but the 60 minute restriction on editing posts is something we may take another look at.

[MicaelS]

60. Thank you very much. n/t

[uppityperson]

80. Thank you, time is my concern here since post and get off for the rest of the day

[Warren DeMontague]

56. The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of the deleted posts are essentially content-free.

Or, to put it another way, worthless.

I'm not sure how someone is going to edit, say, a glaringly racist, anti-semitic, etc. post, or a post that says "Fuck you, you fucking fuck" and turn it into a worthwhile, productive addition to the conversation. Maybe, but it doesn't seem to me that the vast majority of rule-breaking posts would make some actual point of discussion, if they weren't just worded badly.

:shrug:

[Lex]

62. But some of the posts that are deleted do clearly show what a jerk or homophobe

or racist, or shit-stirrer, the poster is. And when they get deleted, it's like it never happened. I think jerky posts should stand (be locked, but still stand) so everyone can see what jerk the person was.

[gkhouston]

76. O/T, but I *so* want a smiley of someone stirring a murky pot.

Yeah. Not helping. :blush:

[EarlG]

64. That's true

The difference is that under the current system people post "Fuck you, you fucking fuck" and then waltz off and leave the moderators to clean up their mess after them. Under the new system they'll have to go clean up their own mess, so hopefully this will encourage them to think twice before posting that kind of crap in the first place.

Of course, if something is glaringly racist or anti-semitic or whatever, the person who posted it is likely to end up banned without us bothering to ask them to edit their post. So in that respect, we will probably still retain the option for moderators to delete posts, but expect them to use that option only when absolutely necessary.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Okay, I missed that part.

The part about not being able to post until dealing with it.

Makes more sense.

[bettyellen]

125. is the "whatever" referring to sexism here, because a lot of mods look the other way

always have, maybe because it's not taken seriously enough for you toto mention here.
I sincerely that;s going to improve. I stopped donatng because it's such a boys club when it comes to this.

[laughingliberal]

57. K & R nm

[LynneSin]

58. "Democrats as well as the robust criticism of Democrats from a liberal perspective."

Um, so you're saying Democrats could not be criticized from a centrist prospective then? If someone was a big Heath Shuler fan, they have no right to complain about the dems being too left?

Just playing devils advocate here.

[GreenPartyVoter]

217. Maybe it should read center-left/liberal?

[Hosnon]

61. Sounds good enough to give it a shot, to me. nt.

[Angry Dragon]

66. K&R

[JVS]

67. I predict abuse of this feature.

I don't quite know how, but I'm sure someone will figure out a way to cause trouble.

[gkhouston]

73. LOL, bet you didn't have to break a sweat to make *that* prediction. n/t

[H2O Man]

68. Recommended.

I hope this means that Skinner & you are not going to allow people to say rude things to me. I really do try to be nice to others here. Usually, barbed comments thrust at yours truly bounce off the armor of kindness I have grown. But -- particularly on damp rainy days -- I have have brief periods of crankiness. If we all try harder to be nice to me, DU will be a better place. (grin)

Your efforts are appreciated. DU is, in my opinion, the best socio-political internet discussion site.

[TK421]

129. ah, you and your concerns can go take a flying fuck elsewhere!!!@#!

:D just kidding of course!

[Iggo]

139. Nice.

:thumbsup:

[yowzayowzayowza]

70. So this would temporarily lock & hide an OP with an issue?

Sounds workable. Twould be good to get rid of the deletion black hole, tho it seems a shame to go that far w/o implementing a feedback loop, like posting the moderation interaction as a reply visible to members only.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. That brings up the question of what happens with threads that would be locked now

It'd be good, in theory, to allow an OP to be modified where it would currently be locked; and while that's happening, the thread would have to be frozen. Would it be better for the other posts to be visible while that happens (as, I assume, posts underneath a pending edit in a sub-thread would be), or should the whole thread become temporarily unreadable?

Or would this new system only be used for posts and OPs that would otherwise be deleted?

[struggle4progress]

71. I have no objection to trying it

[blondeatlast]

72. Will responses to the offending post be visible during the "cool-off"

period or will the sub-thread vanish with the offending post?

[gkhouston]

74. This is a good point. If someone spawns a semi-inflammatory subthread, you

really don't want a pileup of people replying in kind to ratchet up the thermostat when the mods are hoping to turn it down.

[NNN0LHI]

75. You guys think of everything

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

77. Well, they kind of SEE everything--and act on it with reason

and savvy.

Skinner, Elad, and EarlG 2016?!

[JuniperLea]

79. This is getting waaaaaay too complicated.

State rules, state consequences of breaking said rules, and quit kissing rule-breaker ass... that's my humble opinion.

[jwirr]

82. I would not want to be here. I do not want to be part of a site that lets

freepers take over. The rules protect our site from the people who come here only to cause trouble.

[LWolf]

135. Actually, disruptors would have a much harder time,

since their disruption would be hidden until fixed, and they couldn't post any other disruptions until they did. Chronic disruptors, with this system, would spend a lot less time posting.

Tombstoning would still happen, as well.

[laughingliberal]

155. That's how I see it. nt

[saracat]

207. Very interesting. Intelligent discussion flies out the window when personal insults begin.

You may be on to something here.

[marketbreakaway]

83. I've Had Posts Deleted

I could not figure it out. Why was my honest post deleted?

I am certainly a democrat but more of a blue dog than a liberal. In the post that was deleted it was I who accused some of my fellow democrats for the horrible election results because there ideas are too far left and too expensive. I offered links to statistics and so forth.

So I went to look at the posting rules again. I saw nothing that I did wrong on the first page. So I clicked on the link that offered "further explanation" and there it was.

I'm paraphrasing here... it said that only posts that supported the "Progressive Ideals" would be accepted.

AHA! Now I get it. This board is for the discussion among Progressives, not necessarily Democrats. So, I would imagine that Communists, Socialists, Greens and others who support the progressive agenda are welcome but Democrats who go their own way and do not support anyone's agenda are not.

Okay Moderators. Here are some of my positions. How about a reply to say which ones are acceptable.

1. I support the Democratic Party (as has my family before me).
2. I support school vouchers (because the bigger the federal role the worse education has gotten)
3. I support Medicare for everyone (because it is immoral to tax the young to support the old. It is for all or none. However Obamacare is much worse than nothing).
4. I am strongly against government employee unions (because tax payer money would be going to support the union who's job it is to get more tax payer money for its members, and unlike private enterprise there is no such think as bankruptcy to control behavior).
5. The military is too big and too expensive and needs to be brought under control (but not eliminated).
6. The Space program is a matter of national joy and Obama was wrong to cancel the moon mission.
7. Krugman is wrong and the national economy does not need more deficit spending. (Nothing can help this economy except a massive amount of new immigration).
8. Speaking of immigration, let everyone in who can prove that they have a job and have bought a house. However, to merely give asylum to those already here is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Okay, I don't have time to continue now, but you get the idea. I do not think that Sarah Palin is stupid. I also do not think that Charles Rangel should be punished. I am offended by the term tea bagger. Likewise I am offended by posts which identify all conservatives as morons. Are Democrats like me who have their own ideas welcome here or only those who support the Progressive cause?

[lonestarnot]

84. I like the edit request thingy.

Sometimes fingers don't connect with message in brain. :evilgrin:

[TexasObserver]

85. Sounds good.

[Rex]

86. Good idea, man you guys are full of great ideas!

That would totally rock and fix SO MANY problems here imo. :yourock:

[obxhead]

87. Incredibly awesome!!!! Best DU change EVER!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[pitohui]

89. ack double post EOM

yo

[pitohui]

90. i think it sounds like a real hassle

you're going to start a fund raising drive at the same time that you're going to kinda, sorta ask your members to do your job for you? if i post something somebody doesn't like, for pete's sake, just delete and move on, i may be out in africa or something for a month before i get back to see your "edit" request, by then i don't know or care & neither does anybody else...

you assume that just because a person posts on DU, they have no life and can keep coming back to re visit/re write old posts? while that's prob. true of a lot of people, it's not a very nice assumption really...

i say if a post breaks the rules, delete it and move on, life is too short

[Cronus Protagonist]

98. lol

That's my method of dealing with these things. It's not like any personal commentary posted on here has any value, even my own. It's just fun mental masturbation for the most part. I'm always trying to be funny, but some moderators have no sense of humor, so I would just choose the delete option just about every time. I hope I wouldn't be penalized for that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. If someone didn't return to DU for some time, it'd be rather like it is now

Rather than seeing 'Deleted Message - Name Removed', everyone would see "Message is being edited by muriel_volestrangler". If I didn't do something about the offending post, it'd be much the same as it is now, even if I did nothing for months. When I finally decided to make another post, I'd have to either delete that previous message permanently, or fix it.

Until the DUers tries to edit a post, the work for the mods will be the same - evaluate, discuss, if teh consensus it it's broken a rule, take the action. If the DUer has a new try, then there's some more work for mods; I guess admin are hoping the chance to say "OK, I went too far, I'm sure this is an OK way of putting it" will get people behaving better, so that the number of edits that cause further problems will be small.

Yeah, if someone's away for some time after a rule break, maybe no-one cares about getting a 'legal' version of it. In that case, they just self-delete, and move on. That's fine, as an end product.

[chill_wind]

92. Sounds like a very possibly constructive solution, Worth the try.

K & R.

[SDuderstadt]

93. I applaud this approach, but...

I do have one question. In the following section:

"2) Increased civility. Posts that question the motives, character, or good faith of other DUers serve to poison the atmosphere and make respectful discussion impossible."

Can I assume that does not preclude questioning factual error, flawed thinking and/or bias from another member?

[WingDinger]

94. I love you man!

[quinnox]

95. Damn, that sounds like a lot of work

for mods to keep up with. Interesting idea in theory though. Not sure how well it will work in practice when mods get flooded with work that this system probably would make.

[Joe Fields]

96. I sincerely want to thank you.

As you are well aware, emotions do run high, on any number of given issues, from education reform to military involvement. I, as well as many others here appreciate the latitude by which the administrators of this site are giving us, because we are all impassioned, informed democrats.

As an aside, I will do my utmost in the future to police myself.

Thanks.

[Cronus Protagonist]

97. AFAIK the "rule violations" I've been accused of, were in the minds of the moderators

Editing the message would not change that.

[blondeatlast]

130. *snort*

You're funny! :rofl: (You meant to be, right?)

[Hawkeye-X]

99. Or #3, Give Skittles a job

as the asskicker - send her to fly all over the country/world and kick ass if they don't COMPLY with the rules!

[taterguy]

113. +44-6

[Adsos Letter]

218. Yes INDEED!

[herbm]

100. A fair hearing is fine. I like this change a lot.

[Peacetrain]

101. So you are not just going to ban people without at least giving them a heads up

anymore?

We'll see..

[Wednesdays]

154. I think he said (further up the thread) that

if the infraction is serious enough, people will still get TS'ed immediately.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

102. One potential problem -

Many times an offending post gathers quite a lot of comments before it is deleted. If X posts something that offends, and A, B, and C post heated replies in return, then X gets a chance to tone down his comment, then to anyone joining the thread after that it sure looks like A, B, and C are the jerks.

My possible solution is that when X gets his chance to re-post, there needs to be some small disclaimer at the beginning of his comment that the post was changed to fit in the new guidelines.

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. That sounds a good solution to me

We already have the 'edited by X at 10:04' message (which sometimes let's you know why some replies say what they do); a 'modified to follow DU rules at 10:04' message would be a good idea.

[Rhiannon12866]

103. K&R! For one of the most important DU posts ever...

Love the idea, think it's brilliant, though I must admit to being slightly biased at this time... ;) :applause: :kick:

[Odin2005]

106. Thank you Skinner! What a brilliant idea!

[rug]

108. You should have a function where, for a fee, donors can view the pms between the mod and the poster.

It will eliminate the need for fund drives.

[gkhouston]

134. I like that idea. The mod's identity could be concealed.

"Mask the Administrator" :evilgrin:

For that matter, so could the poster's, and DU could charge a buck a throw to guess the mod's and poster's identity. Winner gets stickies or somesuch.

[rug]

141. See #116.

I'm in for two bucks.

[Wednesdays]

156. And for a slightly lesser fee, you can see the mod or the poster posing naked.

:spray:

[Violet_Crumble]

111. Will this happen in the I/P forum as well?

Seeing it's moderated differently than the rest of DU, I thought I'd ask. Even though it looks like a lot of extra work for mods, it'd be good if it worked and it was used in the I/P forum...

[bemildred]

112. I approve, and I admire your courage and industry.

If this works well, could we look forward to someday having fewer subject dungeons?

[Toucano]

114. Brilliant plan!

I love it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

116. What if someone disagrees with the moderator?

I think there needs to be an escalation and appeals process.

[PeaceNikki]

120. Yeah, it might sometimes be nice to discuss it.

However I understand the decision not to open THAT can of worms. There are some VERY high-maintenance personalities around these parts. While it could be productive in many cases, I could see it becoming frustrating, unproductive and personal for others.

[Tx4obama]

117. Sounds great. n/t

[The Uncola]

118. Sounds like you folks have put some..

.. serious thought into this. Most forums are far too Draconian in their handling of posters IMO. People get tossed without much thought, sometimes for no more than bruising the egos of the "moderators" in power at those sites. Leave it to the best NONconservative site on the web to come up with a better, more fair and constructive way. Kudos. You guys rock.

[LawnLover]

119. This sound suspiciously like the MPAA

and their rating system. Edit the film, buddy, or you won't be able to show it in a decent theater.

[Kerrytravelers]

121. From a mod point of view, and only my point of view, I'm not speaking for all mods...

... this won't be creating more work for the mods. We review all alerts as it is. When a post is alerted on throughout the day, it is reviewed each time, so re-reviewing (uh-oh, did I just make up a Palinesque word???) posts is generally par for the course.

[GliderGuider]

122. It looks great in principle. Try it and see if how it works in practice. nt

[ProudDad]

123. Brilliant! Very fair and adult response to the problem! Thanks...

When the moderators become aware of a post which breaks the rules they will send a request to the member who posted it asking that they edit the post to comply with our community standards.

When this happens, the post will be temporarily hidden from the board, and replaced with a message indicating that the post is currently in the process of being edited by the member.

The member will receive the edit request automatically via private message, and they will not be able to post anywhere on DU until they have dealt with the request (if they attempt to post they'll get an interrupt page telling them that they have an edit request). The member will also be provided with the rule (or rules) that their post breaks.


On edit: I gave at the office :)


Oh yeah. In my professional opinion (42 years programming/design experience)m this is a very well designed and programmed site. Not like some (freep!) I could name...!

[On the Road]

124. From a Behavioral Point of View,

having users make a choice to modify or delete their own words is infinitely better than forcing the choice on them by deleting these posts. It a long-run rather than a short-term tactice, but it is much better directed toward the goal of users monitoring themselves.

Sometimes inflammatory posts can poison an entire discussion, so it might be worth hiding these posts if or until they are edited. But in any case, it's a big step forward.

I have been very impressed at the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of DU's moderating process. Unmoderated boards are poison to read. Overly moderated boards are poisoned by their own admins. DU has struck the best balance I know of on the internet and has always stayed ahead of the curve.

(And BTW, I did contribute as a result of your last paragraph.)

[DainBramaged]

126. And what happens if the member is no longer on the board when the request is made, say bedtime?

and it's decided the post needs editing, what is the time frame until the member can no longer edit the post?


I WHOLEHAEARTEDLY agree with this system. Way way too often posts are deleted without explanation as to what rule was broken, or knowing what the offense was and this gives everybody a chance to reduce unnecessary deletions and thread locks.


But suppose there are members alerting simply because they claim they are offended, or some of the folks no longer with us who spent time getting threads locked and posts deleted when they didn't approve of a member's point of view, will this be taken into account or posts simply deleted after edits have been made? What if not to the satisfaction of the Mod that asked for the edit, will a re-edit be allowed or the post simply deleted?


Thanks in advance for your reply.

[WilliamPitt]

127. KICK. ASS.

Me = big fan.

[pipi_k]

128. Great idea, IMO, and worth a try n/t

[flying rabbit]

131. Heh, behavior modification 101

this could be very interesting. Fess up- who came up with this?

[CLANG]

132. Make it 24 hours. People (including me) will get the message.

Otherwise, the entire idea is BRILLIANT! But come on!?! What kind of penalty is 15 minutes? You are bound to have to increase that almost immediately. :toast: :beer: :hi: :fistbump: :headbang: :yourock: :applause:

[varelse]

136. I love it :)

Can I be a beta tester?

:P

[crim son]

137. I think it will work.

Excellent idea.

[krispos42]

138. Excellent! n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

140. i think 15 min is not a deterrent. at the very least it wouldnt deter me

if i was angry enough. a day would though.

[pasto76]

142. Most forums I visit hae a "Dont be a jerk" rule

everyone knows when they are being a dipshit. moderators should delete that stuff. Keep it simple.

[RoccoR5955]

143. Vizualize whirled peas too.

It'll NEVER happen.

[harun]

144. I think an increase in item 1) is going to lead to a decrease in item 2).

But I think The Edit Request System is brilliant, albeit a lot of work for moderator's.

Looks like you thought it out well, look forward to seeing how it will work for everyone.

Thanks!

[WolverineDG]

147. Good

Requiring the mods to identify the rule being broken will prevent certain groups from getting others' legitimate posts deleted "just because."

dg

[Kerrytravelers]

167. We do actually cite at least one rule for removing posts, etc,. when discussing an alert.

Now it will be available for members to see, which, in my opinion, is a great move. Before I was a mod, I often wondered why something was deleted.

[TexasObserver]

173. I agree. This is a very significant improvement.

The lack of feedback on deletions made their corrective value very limited. First, you didn't even know one of your posts was gone unless you were looking for it and remembered where it was. Then, if it was removed, you had no idea of why that particular post in a string of contentious posts was the one that was unruly. It made all post evaluations PASS-FAIL, with no little erudition.

This new system will dramatically help. It makes it easier and faster for mods to make a decision to suspend a post, while allowing the poster a chance to clean it up and get it reactivated.

I hate getting a post deleted, but it is a never ending process figuring out where the line is.

[WolverineDG]

177. I never received any such notice

but it was a quick way to learn that some folks have their own mods who will delete posts from posters who aren't in their clique.

dg

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. It's always recorded along with the deleted post, for mods and admin to see

and (when I was a mod) a link back to the discussion among mods about whether the post should be deleted, that lasts as long as the mod session. No, the user didn't get it as a notice, but all mods could see it, and the idea that "some folks have their own mods who will delete posts from posters who aren't in their clique" just doesn't hold water. Deletions are discussed, and recorded. If other mods or admin saw any mod being partisan, it'd be a big event. Never happened during my 4 or so mod sessions.

[WolverineDG]

196. Well, that was my experience

and I stand by what I said.

dg

[Kerrytravelers]

200. No notices were ever sent.

Mods work as a group. No one mod can make any decision. And that is still the case. It is full consensus, and full consensus only. All mods who are currently logged on must agree on an action or no action is taken. One mod may stop an action.

[Chan790]

148. I pretty unambiguously hate this idea.

I think it's a step in the wrong direction frankly. "Corrective" editing is IMO a problem in its' own right and not-possibly part of any solution. I really think we're going overboard on the civility desires here; to some moderate extent, derision and condescension are legitimate means of behavioral control in a self-policing environment. Say something offensive and stupid, expect to be called-to-bear on it. It works for me. I call people on their messes.

This just seems childish to me. We don't need civility nearly as much as we need people to buck-up and take responsibility and ownership of their positions, thoughts and statements/posts.

[theFrankFactor]

181. I wish more liberals agreed with you - I know I do.

[pipi_k]

189. Hmmm...I'm not really seeing...

Where people refuse to "take responsibility and ownership of their positions, thoughts and statements/posts".

I mean, it's not like the majority of people are posting stuff and then claiming the devil made them do it. Or their evil twin tied them up in the cellar and posted outrageous opinions. I actually see where people do take responsibility for their opinions and statements, often to the extent that they can't separate themselves from those statements or opinions.

And that, I think, is a major problem. People seem to be virtually identifying themselves with their statements and opinions, and that itself is what causes a lot of the rudeness here.

If "I am my opinion, and when you say my opinion sucks, then you are basically saying that I suck". Or something similar. That is what I see, and that is where a lot of the problem lies.

I think that it's unfair to put it all on the heads of people who "refuse to take ownership" of their statements because that lets those who actually ARE rude and obnoxious off the hook.

[tavalon]

149. Question

Will there be a time limit for editing posts? I often post just before I go to bed and I'm a nightshifter so doing an 8am post and then disappearing until 5pm isn't unusual. Now, I'm hoping I don't make any posts that require such editing but since I have had a post or two deleted in my time............

[klook]

150. I like it.

Creative idea and it should promote civility. Good going guys.

[DeadEyeDyck]

151. dude, haven't found work since sept 2008

but I will try to get something out to you. Just won't be $50

[Pirate Smile]

152. So you can't be uncivil to other posters but you can say just about any uncivil thing about

President Obama or Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrats.

Sounds a lot like what you can read on newspaper or website comment sections which I generally don't bother reading because they get so nasty - a tone increasingly common here also.

Doesn't sound appealing. The people who don't like that have been gradually leaving any way. It'll just continue.

[EFerrari]

165. Skinner covered that in his thread. Here's the link in case you missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9563958&mesg_id=9563958

[WonderGrunion]

153. Question: Can we have robust criticism of Liberals from a Democratic

perspective under the new rules? Particularly when we feel their strategy is costing us congressional and presidential victories?

This is not a sarcastic question.

[alittlelark]

157. Thank You.

[Wednesdays]

158. I support this wholeheartedly, in theory

However, there is serious potential for abuse (something that's not been mentioned yet). I'll be contacting the mods about it shortly.

[EFerrari]

164. If the poster isn't told what rule they are violating

I can see a problem.

[Dead_Parrot]

175. AFAIK, The plan is that they will be.

We sometimes do this anyway, if we spot a broken rule in an otherwise good post: If it's within the 1-hour edit period, we might PM the poster asking them to make whatever change they need to fit the rules. They don't always make it of course, but it can work well.

[Renew Deal]

180. I've been here 7+ years and I have never had that happen.

:shrug:

[Kerrytravelers]

211. It has been done.

[EFerrari]

201. Good to know.

That always seemed like a missing link to me. There's an opportunity in the moment to redirect people which could pay off in the long term.

[HEyHEY]

159. Does this mean I can talk about that rash on my cock now?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

161. Throw 'em in The Penalty Box till they pick up their own poop! I like it!

[laughingliberal]

193. +1 nt

[pengillian101]

162. Great idea! K&R n/t

[eridani]

163. Excellent idea. Hope the moderators have time to implement it properly n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

168. What about when your post gets sent to Israel-Palestine even though it is

about larger issues or Israel-Palestine is only peripherally related to it, and then the mods at Israel-Palestine say "Oops! It does not meet our (stricter) requirements?" and it is deleted. Will this fix do something about that?

Can DU handle the sudden increase in free expression about Israel-Palestine?

Or, will our little heads---and the donor base---explode?

[Jamastiene]

169. Too bad you can't make it retroactive to the archives.

I have a couple posts from years ago I still regret. They weren't deleted by mods or admins back then, and probably did not break the rules, but I'd still like to delete just a couple. Sometimes we say things and later, they either came off all wrong(not like we intended) or we said them due to a misunderstanding or out of anger, and regret them later.

[fishwax]

170. sounds intriguing -- a few questions/comments about subthreads

If people respond in anger (but stay within the rules to do so) and then the initial offending post is edited, then the subthread that remains may be confusing or give a misleading impression of the discussion.

I suppose that could even provide a potential for abusing the system--post something intended to provoke an impassioned response, and then edit it in such a way to make the people who respond look bad. I suppose that extending the general editing period (a possibility raised elsewhere in this thread) may address that, but I think that creates other issues as well.

Also, editing within heated subthreads may become confusing. If person A's post and person B's response to that post are both removed for editing, it may be difficult for person B to edit without being able to refer to the initial post or the edited post (if person A decides to edit). So Person B has to either (a) adjust their response without knowing what they are responding to anymore, (b) self-delete, or (c) not post anywhere else on the site until Person A edits their post. Maybe that's not really an issue, but it seems worth mentioning.

Overall, though, it sounds like an interesting idea, and one that--even just by making disruptive behavior much more inconvenient--may really help.

[Shining Jack]

171. Good point. n/t

[Celtic Merlin]

172. Sounds to me like an IMPROVEMENT to the system. TRY IT!

If it doesn't work out, you can always return to the old way.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[riverdale]

209. Freedom of speech!

We can control whose posts we want to read through ignore.
Moderators need to step back and let people have conversations.

[Celtic Merlin]

210. You prefer the current method?

Currently, stuff which is subjectively deemed against a moderator's interpretation of "the rules" gets blown away into the Bit Bucket. At least with this new method, we get to re-word things to maintain our original intent.

The 1st Amendment applies to GOVERNMENTAL attempts to curtail your right to free speech. On a website, your speech is subject to the rules, regulations, and vagaries of the site in question.

Moderators should permit more than they do. But they don't. This is a step in the right direction.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[DFW]

174. As Pete Seeger once said

"Any damn fool can get complicated. It takes genius to achieve simplicity."

For all it's worth, and I'm definitely out of the mainstream here, I'd stick to deleting offensive
posts and personal attacks. I would not try for a bigger tent. Obama has tried that and got mauled
for his efforts. I have similarly seen (and occasionally been the target of) posts from the extremes
of the political spectrum, both left and right. Extremist solutions in politics always seem to favor
those in power enforcing their own rules, whether left or right. Marxists and Fascists have both
failed in power, and tend to bring out the worst aspects of what Churchill described as the fanatic.

The DU tent is, IMHO, like Baby Bear's porridge--just right.

[era veteran]

176. OK, sounds fair

[DemocraticPilgrim]

178. Makes sense, it's a fair way to go.

[zipplewrath]

179. Sounds good on paper

I suspect for a large number of posts it will work well. I'd guess, partially from personal experience, that people get posts deleted for "unknowingly" doing something that a simple reword would fix. Alot of people got caught by a change in attitude towards Rahm's "retarded" line.

The 20% problem will be the "distrupter" issue. If someone posts a "distruptive" post, it's not going to be a simple wording change to fix it. You're basically telling them that their contribution is inappropriate in particular thread. Short of letting them create a new thread, or participating in a completely different way, there's often not alot of editing that is going to solve that problem.

[LWolf]

182. I'm fascinated, and eager to see how this plays out.

When do we begin?

[Plucketeer]

183. Sounds do-able

[Javaman]

184. While I applaud all of your hard work...

doesn't it seem that it's become a giant ball of crazy? That the DU rules have so slid down the slope of being over engineered that the whole concept of moderating and rule making is now over kill?

It just seems to me that what ever "controversy" that caused or began all of these various redefinitions of the rules is just seems like and odd reiteration of the past rules.

But what do I know? I don't moderate nor do I play one on TV so I haven't a clue what goes on behind the scenes.

All I know is: I want hate mail back!!! ;) LOL

[MilitarismFTL]

186. Wow...

that almost makes me want to donate. But then I am beginning to remember the previous account I had that was banned and the post that I made that got it banned, and then I realized this policy is basically the same thing.

[Evoman]

187. What you guys should do is stop moderating AT ALL for a week.

That's right...everything goes, no holds barred.

And then after a week you guys show up like heroes on a white stallion. And people will stop whining about you being too strict/not strict enough because they will be so damn thankful that you're back. And all will be well with world. And people will stop giving you such a hard time.

[yellerpup]

188. The new standards should make DU stronger and

more cohesive. The new changes that allow posters to make good faith attempts at editing should take a lot of guess work out of the moderating process, especially when poster are able to clarify what they actually mean. Thanks. :hi:

[madrchsod]

190. excellent idea...

sometimes people say things that they regret after posting. this gives everyone a chance to make amends

[mikelgb]

191. Excellent idea.

[durkermaker]

192. any time you give yourself more options, you can do a better job nt

[garthranzz]

194. I like the idea. Emphasizes what makes DU different

The ability to have civil discourse about civic matters. Understanding what Hume meant when he said, "Truth emerges from argument among friends."

[LiberalAndProud]

195. Maybe this should have been a poll.

I am surprised at the people who don't welcome the chance to rephrase their thoughts within the rules. I'm looking forward to the proposed changes. It will either make the site better or not, but it's worth a test run, IMHO.

[grahamhgreen]

198. Not bad, but you should NOT have a penalty period

You want people to remain engaged on your site, you dont want to drive them elsewhere

[patrice]

199. Excellent!! The only improvement I would put on that is to put such posts in their own forum.

And all posts in that forum would be STRICTLY limited to constructive analysis. The point of this would be to assist those OPs who, in good faith, don't know what they don't know.

[BlueCaliDem]

202. Sounds very fair, but more work for the Admins. K&R eom

[The Green Manalishi]

203. May well lead to longer, more thought out posts.

The way I look at it, anyone, anywhere, in any context, who ascribes anything other than good will and good intent to another American is an asshole.
Even former President Bush. Even Teabaggers. I have not met, nor has there ever been a person who did wrong or evil for the sake of doing wrong.
Attack another person, with the exception of convicted criminals, instead of that person's beliefs, and you are an asshole who should never be let near the internet or allowed to write.
I dislike plenty of viewpoints, nay I *hate* some viewpoints, but I believe to my last breath that the person *holding* those viewpoints has the best interests of their country at heart.

[John Q. Citizen]

204. I like it and look forward to it's implementation.

[scribble]

205. What doesn't work with the current policy?

On Usenet political newsgroups, I notice that trolls and flames always appear on any message list and most posters and lurkers just don't read them. I don't think DU has a big problem here, compared to those old Usenet posting days.

Posting useful, on-topic messages works better than moderation to take care of trolls and flames. On newsgroups, I find that making sure we post five to eight good messages a day tend to "shape" the message list in a newsgroup, and strongly discourages off-topic messages of any kind. They still appear; just not as many of them, and a useful post encourages a flame or troll to stay on-topic.

Most threads end after three or four back-and-forth replies... longer threads tend to shrink to just two or three contributors and don't tend bother anybody else, especially if those replies are just back-and-forth flames. The flames just became buried.

Over-moderation works better than anything I know, to kill a newsgroup, an email list, or a message thread -- whether it is on Usenet, Yahoo, or a political website. Even good third-party posters are left feeling "chilled" when they see a post has been deleted. This mild, temporary dismay decrease their posting frequency. If a good poster sees moderation that leaves him/her "chilled" more than two or three times in the space of about a month; they tend to go away and not come back.

So: I personally don't think that a complicated moderation process will work. I think that posters will take care of most trolls and flames in the course of posting. You can't eliminate all trolls and flames from a popular thread; only control their frequency. I think your current moderation methods already control this.

=-=-=

I know that DU has problems that newsgroups and email lists do not have, and threads here still probably need some moderation. I think that DU already does a good job of recognizing harmful and threatening messages without giving undue power, either to grammarian-moderators or to the kiddies and krypto-Republicans they chase through the threads.


sc

[dreamnightwind]

206. These policies would be an improvement

Nice work.

[dixiegrrrrl]

208. "You spill it, you wipe it up".

Such attention getting rule enforcement worked wonders on my teenagers, and it was how I was raised.

Taking care of a self created problem before you are allowed to post makes a lot of sense.

I have some curiosity about the length of time allowed for cleaning up or ignoring a post.
Seems it would be a balancing act between too much time and the need to consider a member's "away from the keyboard" schedule.

When does this start??????

[defendandprotect]

213. LOVE the very sane reasoning behind these changes.....it's a very affirming and caring

attitude towards the website and its members!

Think it should work -- !!

:)

[ecstatic]

214. I think all messages should stay in place with a few changes

1) Keep the message surpressed (readers will have to click a link or plus sign to see what the offensive post says)
2) Instead of the link saying "Deleted message," put "Message Flagged as Inappropriate."
3)Instead of "Name removed," show the user's name.

I think this is a better way because, on principle, I don't think it's fair for trolls to give mods extra busy work. Secondly, if someone has a history of bigoted or anti-Obama posts, I want to know about it! Deleted messages allow trouble makers to skate by for years and years.

[LiberalLovinLug]

215. Love it!

Although my preference is just transporting the flamers to some specially created Outpost forum so they can duke it out there, with other posters joining sides and others, like me, just lurking in on the chaos. It also would serve a purpose other than entertainment for sick puppies like me, it would also create a place where opposing sides could duke it out...and come out the other end maybe learning something from each other, maybe not.

I just hope this place doesn't become too fake nicey nice. Passion is GOOD thing. I'm not as thin-skinned when hearing posters name-calling in the heat of the moment, as others I guess.

[Dr Fate]

216. LOVE IT AND I WILL DONATE NEXT WEEK!

You have my word on that.

I have been wishing for something like this for a while.

Nothing worse than working hard at crafting a post or thread, only to have it deleted with no explanation as to why.

This seems to solve the problem.

Grand, I say! Quite Grand!