The New Rules
Welcome to Delaware Liberal 3.0.
Along with the site redesign, we have decided to grant a complete and total amnesty to all previously banned or moderated commentators out there who have broken our site rules in the past.
Why?
Because we wanted to post iron clad and transparent rules for commenting on Delaware Liberal so that no one can claim we are censoring anyone when we moderate a comment or ban a commentator, or that we are being arbitrary in our moderating a comment. So, going forward, when we moderate a comment or ban someone, you will know precisely why.
There will be a two-tier system. In the first tier are two categories of comments that will result in instant and irrevocable banning of the commentator without a warning. Those categories are:
1. Personal threats or intimidations of physical violence.
Political debate can get personal here, and we expect name calling at times. Hell, we even engage in it from time to time. But no one can ever be allowed to personally threaten violence in order to either win the argument or to shut up his or her opponent. We are not talking about general hyperbole here (i.e. Republicans should be round up and shot). While such general hyperbole is wrong, it is not bannable. All that will result is you being roundly condemned. I should know.
2. Outting
This is self explanatory. If you post a comment that reveals personal, private and identifying information concerning any Delaware Liberal contributor or commentator that uses an anonymous or pseudonymous user name or handle, you will be banned instantly with no recourse.
The second tier has two categories of comments as well. However, instead of instant banning, the commentator of such below comments will be given a warning and will lose posting privileges for 24 hours. The warning will be sent to the email you provide when posting your comment. If you provide a fake email, then we will embarrass you by posting the warning publicly in the comment thread. The offending comment itself will be deleted. Repeated violations of the below rules after the warning will eventually result in banning, but that will be at the discretion of the editorial board of Delaware Liberal.
3. Vile bigoted statements
We are talking about racial, homophobic, sexist, ethnic, and antisemitic slurs. We are not talking about profanity or profane name calling. Calling someone an “asshole” is ok. Calling someone a “f__” is not.
Here is an example of a comment from Kaveman that resulted in his banning (offending slurs are redacted):
I love the DOI and I love getting filthy rich selling guns and ammo in the shadow of the n_____ King!!! Hell, even the head n_____ can’t be all that bad once he threw f____ under the bus!!!
Now, sometimes such slurs are used not as slurs but as examples or actual quotes of what other people are saying or thinking. We advise against that, but if you must, please redact those slurs as I have above. This will be known as the Context Exception.
4. Spam
Sometimes a commentator will repeatedly post comments that are off topic to the thread and have multiple links in them to promote their pet issue. This is allowed in Open Threads (which will become much more frequent in this new design), but not in topic-specific threats. I doubt this rule will be an issue, as most real spam is caught by our automated Spam Filter, but sometimes it misses one, or sometimes a new commenter decides to go nut and copy and paste spam into every comment spread.
So, we are starting over, and hopefully some of the previously banned commenters will embrace this second chance. Realistically though, some of the previously banned will no doubt break the above rules again and will have to be warned or banned again. But hey, we are liberals and we like to believe in rehabilitation.
Tags: Delaware
This is quite cool and something we should be all proud about.
I’m steadying my aim for Mike W.
The block quote text is still very light.
The blockquote is the same color… Perhaps you should also have the eyes checked for other issues.
Now it is. Thanks geek
first of all liberal geek, LOVE the icon picture. second DL ruffians (aka contributor staff) LOVE the new site.
When does UI make the contributor list?
yeah for UI.
Thanks for noticing John. Someday I hope to be important enough to be listed as a contributor.
you are on the list now….yeah!
anyone remember this crazy MF’er: http://www.moore2010.com/main
had the 10 Commandments in his courthouse….
can we make this a separate page on this site so people can see it all the time.
Also, if I don’t read it does it still apply?!
neaner,neaner neaner!
LOL. Good idea re separate page. Oh Geek. LOL.
Click on “About” and you will see something very close to this post.
Very good.
Thanks for the invite back.
One site suggestion, your new format is awesome but it would be nice to see the post author without having to link into the post.
Nancy, it is at the bottom of the post. I had trouble seeing it too.
Thank goodness the extra adjective “bigoted” is included in rule #3. I thought I was done for. 🙂 I pride myself on nasty, vile and ridiculously profane insults intended to make a general mockery of the proceedings… but I would never use racist or homophobic epithets.
Actually, Nancy, you can see the post author on the front page without clicking through. It is just in a different place than you are used to. The author name is no longer located under the title, but at the bottom. Look for the red boxes:
Yes, we had to make sure we crafted a rule that would not result in the banning of ourselves. LOL.
It would be nice if you didn’t use an actual epithet in the rules.
A1–
I redacted them. But I had to refer to specific epithets so we can be clear.
I was referring to the statement “Calling someone a “f**” is not.”
You could redact that as well. Not a big deal, but since it is going to be a permanent part of the site, I don’t think it is necessary to use that word. Unless it is a “Context Exception.” 🙂
Whoops. Missed one. My apologies.
It was written:
When you said it was fixed last night, it wasn’t on my ‘puter. I use Firefox 2.0 at home, and IE 6.0 at work; I’ll see here what it looks like on IE.
OK (using edit function), it is the same font color on IE 6.0
It is fixed for me, Dana. I used both IE and Firefox. Trying clearing out your cache and cookies.
Congratulations on the new site. I have to get used to it. I am a conservative after all. All this change is unsettling, but I will give it a chance. Thanks for posting the new rules.
LOL. You will get used to it easily. I already have. It took me a day to feel comfortable with it myself.
To be clear, I know that a certain local media personality is now posting using her/his own name sparingly while applying an anonymous handle for the most part. Once recently, this person used their real name and their handle on the same post thread.
Once when I was using a handle, my identity was outed. It also happened to Liz Allen by a different DL contributor. The DL contributor who outed me had decided that s/he had that right because I usually use my own name. I would hope that one has the right to use a handle if one deems that appropriate for whatever reason, as long as the rules are followed, whose business is it how one identifies oneself?
There is nothing in your rules that declares that I may not use an anonymous handle when and where I wish, correct?
~~~~~
2. Outting
This is self explanatory. If you post a comment that reveals personal, private and identifying information concerning any Delaware Liberal contributor or commentator that uses an anonymous or pseudonymous user name or handle, you will be banned instantly with no recourse.
What you are talking about is sockpuppetry, and it is currently allowed under our rules and software. On Daily Kos and other sites, it is banned. We have not discussed whether to outlaw sockpuppetry, and it may become an issue later on.
The problem I have with sockpuppetry is your purpose in having two handles. Donviti changes his handle often for comical reasons, but not to hide his identity. If you are already “out” as Nancy Willing, why do you, or anyone, feel the need to comment anonymously or pseudonymously? I feel it has something to do with the content or substance of your comment. Maybe you are not comfortable saying something as Nancy Willing, but you are anonymously. If that something you are uncomfortable with is a criticism or an attack on another, then we are getting into a grey area of inpropriety.
Suffice it to say, if you are posting anonymously or pseudonymously with no other handles, any comment revealing your identity is outting.
If you are posting under two or more handles, one under your real name and one under a pseudonym, it gets iffy. Surely, no one should be outing your anonymous handle, but what if you are using it to attack others?
It is an issue we need to debate.
Hmm…and here I am twisting my normal handle.
It’s really an effort to eff with DD’s mind. 😈
Ah, Smitty, I’d recognize your emoticon style anywhere!
Yeah, Smitty. I should amend my comments that handles that are based off other handles, where the connection is clear (like yours and the many Donviti incarnations) is not sockpuppetry.
For the record, and for the 5ooth time, I identified Nancy as Nancy on DownWithAbsolutes. It is a site that I have no administrative control over, nor inside information about. Based on Nancy’s word choice and general crux of the comment, I guessed that it was Nancy and said so. I am not sure that this is outing behavior.
Now… If I saw Nancy commenting over here under a pseudonym, where I have administrative control and knowledge, I would not.
And if Rick Jensen showed up on DelawareLibertarian with comments under an assumed name, I might comment there and say, “You are as dumb as Rick Jensen, perhaps you are Rick Jensen.” What do the rest of you think? Is that outing behavior?
“Nancy Willing, why do you, or anyone, feel the need to comment anonymously or pseudonymously”
Because on the rare occasion that one may wish to post a particular comment as anon due to employment considerations 🙂
That is a good reason, Mark H. Indeed, that is the reason many of us post pseudonymously or anonymously.
And I’ve never posted anon on this board, but I have on others, so at least I’d have some sort of “plausible deniability” if someone at work took issue with a comment 🙂
Somehow I highly doubt you folks would be able to abide by your own rules. You were unable to do so when they were fluid and unstated. I certainly wouldn’t expect some of the more hypocritical & bigoted DL contributors to change their tune now.
We’ll see I guess. Welcome back by the way.
LOL mike w. Glad ur back — I guess.
I’m not back, just dropping in for a sec.
I like the site redesign by the way.
Some have to post anonymously to avoid employer problems.
OK I will buy the anon posting to avoid employer problems. But then there are others who use the fact that some of us post under our real names to attack our businesses or our jobs. Jason’s inheriting a business (and I don’t even know if that’s true) has been attacked repeatedly; Dave Burris got lampooned for being an upper-end real estate agent; and even here Geezer has refused to deal with my arguments by instead criticizing me for working at a “fourth-rate university.”
So while you are all (legitimately) concerned about outing anon and pseudo-anon posters and judging them purely on the merits of their arguments, should there not be some consideration about how to treat the real, non-blogging lives of people who actually post under their own names? Because while you can say we invite that by using our own names, it really does strike me as a double standard.
People who need to invoke your employment or family as a stand-in for a real argument are always a problem — the lazy or cheap way out of an argument you can no longer articulate is just to attack your interlocutor.
Are you thinking, Steve, that people who are attacking your business need to be banned or somehow moderated? Or dealt with in some other way?
And as I look at these rules again it strikes me that we need something on Fair Use rules.
Cassandra
No, not talking about banning or anything; hey, I started my own site under my own name and I thought about it for a long time before I did.
But my point is that we are all oh-so-sensitive about not outing anons and pseudo-anons, but pretty much don’t discuss the idea of what I would call “civil conduct” toward those who use their own names. By “civil conduct” I don’t mean DD and I can’t call each other assholes, but no matter how hot the dialogue has ever become between DD and me (or you and me for that matter), neither of you would ever take a shot a my professional life or my family. Sad to say that has not been the case for a lot of commenters.
I guess this means I am now free to tell folks like Cassandra, Pandora, and Jason to “back up what they say or leave.”