And thank you for making the transition short. I don't want to spend any more time at Discussionist again.

I only had 4 people on ignore. I just took them all off. Not sure they are even here anymore.

supports you new sig line.

And admire your graciousness and your ability to take the long view and look at what's best for the country.

I went there once and had to scrub for hours.

And then logged the fuck back out.

The latest is that they are unskewing polls

Like your sig line a lot! REALLY appreciate it. Did you create that yourself?

You will not be able to rec threads until you attempt to make a reply and agree to the new TOS.

I thought I'd been banned at first.

Oh, and thanks to all three of you for your hard work to bring back civility here. It is appreciated!

We have fixed it so it should be more obvious what is going on.

I figured it out in a couple of minutes anyway. So, it wasn't really a problem.

to the revised Terms of Service before you can continue to post", etc. That also means people can decide to take a few minutes to read them, rather then being presented with them the moment they want to rec a thread quickly. (If there is something like that in the OP, I missed it)

Thought I was pink-slipped. Well, it is a pink border.

Which I assumed is what happens when you're booted. You open the site and suddenly you're on the outside looking in.

I changed devices thinking it was a possible bug with my browser/OS version. Nope. It looked like I was logged in, but when I hit the rec button it clicked, but didn't log the rec. The rec feature was obviously working, 16 people had rec'd the thread already. I hit reply to see if it ignored me the same way, and then got the message to agree to the new TOS to activate the full features of DU. Then I realized what was up.

I'm guessing now there's the same notice to agree to the new TOS when you rec for the first time as there was when I tried to post for the first time.

I hope it will lead to greater civility on DU.

these rules seem fair.

but they are a minority. We all know what needs to be done. If Trump wins, i cannot afford to emigrate.

I was working through the switch-over. Imagine my surprise when I came back.

I think this should all work out very well. It will take a while for GD:2016 to change over and the old thread list to scroll off the first page.

I agree to all of the new rules.

Thank you one and all!

Sorry if I missed a statement on this elsewhere.

Although we aren't forcing people to post there.

Vote Blue, top to bottom!
Beat Trump!
The Supreme Objective is the Supreme Court!

I'd love to be able to easily quote from the rules when I add an explanation for my vote as a juror.

I think DU is going to much more enjoyable and useful.

The "Trash this Tread" button is missing from the new "Post Removed" notification.

Removed posts can still be trashed with the little "X" that's in the forum's subject listings ... but the little "X" is only visible in the desktop version (not the mobile version). Mobile users can only trash threads via the Trash Tread button.

who have worked to create and maintain this site. You literally helped me through the Dark Days of Bush-Cheney and I so appreciate this space! :applause

Should we alert or just leave them to die eventually?

Edited to add: thanks, of course, for the new rules. I have been eagerly waiting for this!

But I am occasionally locking them when they cross my radar screen.

I am curious how information regarding this particular ongoing story will be treated?

Will any and all posts regarding her private email server be considered de facto "tearing her down"?
And even if the OP is just innocuous, like linking to a mainstream news article on the issue, the thread itself will almost certainly devolve quickly.

just trying to get the lay of the land on this issue.

that really doesn't answer the question the above poster had. If, for some reason, we see Clinton doing the frog walk in cuffs on CNN, will we be able to talk about it? And before anyone says we won't, noone predicted Trump would have gotten this far either. This election season has broken all the rules.

Now we have a candidate to elect to the office of president, looking forward to getting Hillary elected, she will work harder for us.

for the first time in decades, we have a vanquished candidate in the person of Sen Sanders who is openly continuing to run as a candidate, who has not conceded the race or openly endorsed Hillary Clinton, and who has been making noises that the convention will be disrupted.

We have long-serving Ds in Congress who are calling for unity and who are characterizing Sen Sanders actions as being counterproductive and even harmful in our efforts to elect Hillary as president, to retake Congress and to win big down ticket.

My question to the admins: how are you planning on handling this situation? If it is OK to criticize Hillary "constructively," does the same apply to Sen Sanders? This is a situation that has been created by Sen Sanders, not by pro-Hillary DU members looking to extend the wars between the candidates supporters. Are we as Ds to remain silent because the primary season is over, while a losing candidate is acting like the primary season has not ended? Is this very visible situation off limits for DU discussion, even as major Ds across the country and in the media are openly discussing the same?

And what about Sanders' DU supporters? Their candidate is urging them to stick with him through the convention. Are they not allowed to express support for his position that "it ain't over til it's over?"

Thank you for any clarification you can offer.

for the primary contests that are not yet resolved (house/senate seats), where's the best forum to keep pushing candidates in those?

Don the Con, a wannabe latter day Hitler, must be defeated so soundly that it sets a record that will not be approached for hundreds and hundreds of years. Let him stand out as the most ridiculously unfit person EVER to be running for President of the United States and nominated by a major political party.

Here's to electing more Democrats!!!

That is just to small of a chair for him, Appropriations would be far better fit especially if he can help cut some the overspending on defense.

justice and he sure as hell would be better than the conservative justices imo.

He could up wall street's ass like a proctologist for 8 years

I would like to see Kamela Harris, who is running for Senator here in CA for Atty General. We've got several other candidates who will make fine senators, Kamela kicks ass going after bad people

rather than give them a slap on the wrist with a fine thats a sick joke which has been largely what the DoJ has been doing for decades.

Progressive fiscal policy is by and far his strongest area. Let him loose with no leash.

Just curious.

So people need to get five hidden posts starting at 2:20pm ET today before they get flagged.

We have a backlog of flagged people from before the switch. We aren't going to bring them all back at once because we don't want a flood of people behaving badly. But we are going to start bringing them back, and spread it out over a week or so.

I think I worded my question wrong.

Right now it says I am unable to serve on a jury because I have 5 hidden posts. Will those have to fall off in due time?

the way most announcements are?

Also, are people who were blocked from, say Sanders group - they were very active about that - will remain blocked?

Not that it matters much now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=139288

Also, I've always added an explanation to my jury decision, so I will miss this function. The new format is... strange.

I will go broadcast this announcement now.

I like the way you presented the new TOS and the requirement to sign it.

One hopes that nips a lot of possible problems in the bud, so to speak.

K and r.

Onward to a Democratic victory and the first woman in the White House!

from any "group criticism" based on the new TOS. Speaking only of myself, I will continue to try to ignore those who are most vociferous and most certainly strive to be civil to the rest in any discourse. Yet, I know the emotions of the majority of DU members (after yet another Newtown, Aurora, Orlando) are not really conducive to those who discount the tragedies with the usual memes.

So, is there the same blanket set of "protections" for those defending the NRA and similar groups against Democratic sponsored attempts at new gun restrictions/policies?

you want a free pass because you cannot effectively engage with them in a conflict of ideas?

You are essentially asking to be able to call them "ammosexuals" and "nuts" etc. Not a very productive way to want to discuss the issues.

Need I remind you of the Democratic party platform on guns?

A perfect example, replete with disingenuous accusations of comments I never made.

I didn't stretch anything.

--particularly as the most staunch pro-gun advocates and rhetoric may run headlong into Democratic efforts at reform.

We cannot tear down Democrats (esp. those running for office this November), but we can sure as heck disagree with their platforms.

as you have with me.

[center]

BOG, Hillary, Bernie, etc?

I've accepted the new terms and applaud the excellent work Skinner, Elad and EarlG and their team have accomplished.

and think they are exactly what has been needed for a long time.

woohoo!

Okay, here goes , One word.


How did i do? was that okay? If it was i would like to say thank you for letting me get that in, and have a nice day

I look forward to the stimulating discussion.

may be construed to violate any of the numerous rules now in force, my days posting on DU, on all but the most benign of topics, is pretty much over.

The post you are about to evaluate is below, highlighted in red. For context, relevant posts leading to the alerted post are provided. (If the alerted post is the OP, only the OP will be displayed.) Usernames, avatars, and signature lines have been redacted to reduce the possibility that you may be unintentionally prejudiced by a poster's identity. Decide whether the post breaks the given rule, and select one of the options.

Alerted post

1st poster (Original post)


I finally feel safe again!

Who knows what I mean?


Back to top

The post above may break this forum rule:
Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group
Don't start new threads that conflict with a forum or group's Statement of Purpose. The Statement of Purpose can be found by visiting the main page of any forum or group and clicking the "About this forum" (or "About this group&quot button.

Why we have this rule: All forums and groups on Democratic Underground have a specific purpose, and we want to ensure that new discussion threads are on-topic for the forum or group that they are posted in.
Does the post above break this rule? Give your opinion:



It clearly
breaks the ruleClose call, but it
breaks the rule

It doesn't quite
break the ruleIt clearly doesn't
break the rule

I'm pretty sure posting about the alert violates the new rules:

Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).
Why we have this rule: The purpose of Democratic Underground is to discuss politics, issues, and current events. Open discussion of how the website is run tends to distract from our core purpose.

We need to fix that. Thanks.

I found that confusing too.

Best political forum on the web.

And, you guys just keep making it better.

Sincere thanks from a very grateful user.

And thank you for all you do here.

Bah

Till then...it has dawned

We have a lot of work to do, let's do it together!

I really do hope this makes DU more civil.

Thank you for trying.

If so, how can I "UN-TRASH" that forum? Thanks in advance to whoever answers.

I'm willing to put things behind us. I'm just too terrified about the fall

Several more times, too. Although I'm sure the rules will be tweaked as most new rules are, they look good so far. Kudos to Skinner, EarlG, and Elad. I've already noticed a big difference in tone. (Including, hopefully, my own!)

Civility: Yes we can!!

I LIKE the new system. I like the anonymity of the posts and posters. I'm not sure about the shades of gray; I prefer yes/now.

My complaint/suggestion: let the end of the process take me back where I was when I got the jury notice instead of the home page (or wherever it took me).

Looking good, admins!

I've always disliked that in the old jury system, and still do now.

isnt shown? That should hopefully take out some bias.

I just served on my first jury, post-change. I am really disappointed that there is no pm about the results of the jury service. In your last thread, many people responded about how much they value that feedback.

With juror participation so pivotal to successful enforcement of the rules, wouldn't it be a good idea to make serving on a jury a rewarding experience?

yes INDEED

If these rules and regulations are followed, then I think we are but we will see if some rules get ignored, especially when it is done by someone who is a representative of a majority that knows they can get a mob behind them.

to be on a jury even though I'm not a star member. I thought this wouldn't be the case.

...I love civility!

I'm looking forward to how it all works out.

I really appreciate the renewed emphasis on civility to other DUers.

Edit to add: thanks also to Elad and EarlG and any interns or other helpers you had.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I finally realized. I love Hillary Clinton.

Get Out The Vote!

Special thank you to Elad, I know big upgrades/updates are NEVER easy. There's always something that can go south.

By the way, served on my first jury in the new format. I LIKE this format. VERY good way to do it!

As often happens, as soon as I log in, I am asked to serve on a jury. I always agree. I pay a lot of attention, would read related posts on the thread and always add an explanation. I think that both the alerter and the alertee deserve one. If you've ever seen "rebut" this comment was probably mine.

But today I had to decide among five alternatives similar to asking whether one is liberal, moderately liberal, moderate, moderately conservative and conservative. These were not the options; they were about following the rules of the board but in a similar gradient.

But they were confusing. When is a post considered to be hidden and when is it OK?

Mostly, the jurors never get an email notifying the results of the jury.

So.... I am not sure about my willing to serve on a jury in the future. If I do take time to read the post and what led to it, that often involves several preceding it, I would like to know the result.

I was going to post this in the "ask the administrator" but would like to hear others' comments.

I somewhat miss the opportunity to explain my vote beyond the narrow rule categories.

I am glad to see the opportunity to judge the "alerter."

Like Question-everything, I am not sure about being willing to serve on a jury in the future.

Especially for insisting the word "graphic" being included in thread titles where necessary. I think there are images that our country must come to grips with, but there should be a warning.

Before I was able to post, I had to agree to a million words that I was not in the mood to read at the time, but I would like to read them later. Once I submitted my agreement, they were gone. Where are they found?