Can you explain why a post was deleted?

[jgraz]

I hate to quibble on individual deletions, but since my deletion count is used against me, I'd like to be clear on exactly what rule is being violated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=512895&mesg_id=512895

It's post 17 on this thread. If you're able to read it, could you explain why it was deleted? And why post 12, which outright accuses the OP of lying, is left standing?

Edit: OK, cool. Post 12 is gone (no "stopwatch" complaints here). I'd still sincerely like to understand the rule that was broken in my case. It will not embarrass me in the least if you repost the offending statement to illustrate the problem.

[Skinner]

1. Looks like a personal attack.

"Has anyone *ever* posted a statement critical of Obama where you didn't call them a liar regarding their support for him?"

"that statement makes me question if you ever really supported progressive principles."

[jgraz]

2. Normally, I wouldn't argue about 1 deletion, but this is illustrative of a bigger problem

And one that seems to hit me quite a bit.

"Has anyone *ever* posted a statement critical of Obama where you didn't call them a liar regarding their support for him?"

Pointing out that this poster has continually broken the rules by questioning the honesty of critics who profess support for Obama. My understanding was that this was allowed under the rules


"that statement makes me question if you ever really supported progressive principles."

An exact verbatim reproduction of the poster's words ("that statement makes me question if you ever really supported Obama."), followed by "See what I did there?" It's a clear joke -- at least it was intended as a clear joke.



Of course, this post will now be counted as another "rules violation", even though it's in the grayest of gray areas. I hope that whatever new plan is coming for deleted posts will deal with good-faith attempts at a dialog that may not conform to the rhetorical style that seems to be preferred by the moderators.

[Skinner]

3. Our rules make clear that it's a personal attack even if you believe it to be true.

For example, let's say someone goes around responding to your posts, "Oh, you again. All you ever do is post anti-Democratic garbage." They might think it's true, but it adds nothing of value to the discussion, and only serves to attack you and derail discussion.

In fact, I think we are likely to get even less tolerant of this type if thing.

The admins think that if we want to have any hope of fostering half-decent discussion among such a wide assortment of people, we will need to permit much less rude talk about people.

[jgraz]

4. OK, that makes it clear. Just one more thing...

I appreciate the explanation. One thing I'll ask you to consider:

The admins think that if we want to have any hope of fostering half-decent discussion among such a wide assortment of people, we will need to permit much less rude talk about people.

I've been around for a few of these cycles, and this is worrying to me. Not because I want to run around attacking people, but because of a simple reality: each time you tighten the rules, the board seems to get less civil. It's almost like people see it as a challenge to subvert the new restrictions and continue attacking people. I don't even think it's a conscious action, just human nature.

Also, more rules seem to foster bad feeling in and of themselves. On another board, if someone attacks me, it's just another attack and I blow it off. But on DU, they're not only attacking me, they're violating the rules. How dare they try to get away with this!!! ...and the flame wars take on an extra dimension of hostility that they otherwise would not have.

Of course, it's your board and you can run it how you please. I'd just ask that you pay attention to the pattern. Good-faith posters will likely post less or not at all, more mods will work harder with diminishing effect and (this is key) more rules-breaking flame wars will erupt over the rules -- a phenomenon that seems to be unique to DU.

If you do choose to enact more rules, I'll do my best to abide by them. And I'll probably fail as often as I do now. I don't like having my posts deleted, as I'm sure you don't enjoy deleting them. Which is why I'm asking that you consider a different solution. I wish I had the magic bullet suggestion, but I don't. What's clear is that the current pattern of tighter rules/less civility/even tighter rules/even less civility isn't working.

[Skinner]

5. There is some truth to this.

We are aware of the potential trade-offs to our approach. Before we throw the whole thing out, we have some other ideas that we would like to try first.

FWIW, I think the fact that DU is less civil now has everything to do with the fact that we have a Democratic administration. It's like primary season, except there is no end in sight.

[jgraz]

6. Ok, sincere good wishes on your efforts

Deleting posts is the easy part. Changing the feelings that lead to deleted posts is damned near impossible. I dunno... maybe we all need a day of unmoderated venting. :shrug:

When I think of the perfect solution that solves all of DU's problems, I'll let you know ;)