Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Announcements
Showing Original Post only (View all)DU General Election Season Begins Soon: What You Need To Know [View all]
This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the Announcements group).
Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)
UPDATE: General Election Season Begins June 20. More info here.Last week I wrote an announcement providing some broad information about General Election season here on Democratic Underground. Now that the primary voting is almost done and it has become clear that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, we are sticking with our plan to transition to General Election season
This formal transition to General Election season is not a new thing for our website. For every presidential election since this website was founded in 2001, we have expected our members to support the Democratic nominee. It has been written into our Terms of Service for nearly as long as the site has existed, and all of you agreed to it.
But this year's transition is a little different because during the switch-over we will also be instituting some big changes to the way we run the site -- including software changes. We have two main goals with these changes:
1) Making this website a more civil and welcoming place for everyone.
2) Making clear that this website actually has a partisan purpose, especially during election season.
Here's what's going to happen:
[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]DU will have rules again
For the past six months we have been planning and developing a hybrid system which takes the parts of the Jury System that work well, throws out the stuff that doesn't work, and incorporates a number of ideas from the "old" DU. In a post about the primaries back in March, we noted that the new system would focus on "reducing drama, providing better guidance for jurors, and setting clearer standards that better lay out our expectations for what Democratic Underground should be." We want this community to be a friendlier place for everyone, and we believe the only way we can do that is to insist on some standards of conduct.
The first step is to bring back rules -- a set of standards that members are expected to follow when posting, and that members are expected to enforce if asked to serve on a Jury. These rules were created by looking at where we are now as a community, but also by reviewing our old rules from DU2. In fact, if you joined DU any time between 2002 and 2011, much of this will look very familiar to you.
The rules are separated into four sections. Here they are:
[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]Forum Rules (Draft)
CIVILITY
No personal attacks or flaming
Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.
Why we have this rule: Civility begets quality discussions. Democratic Underground members are highly passionate about politics which means discussions can get heated -- but they don't need to get nasty. There's no reason why a community of intelligent adults who agree on a majority of political issues can't have a conversation without insulting each other or resorting to other anti-social behaviors.
No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.
Why we have this rule: Substantive disagreement on important issues is always welcome on this website, but our members should not be made to feel unwelcome simply because they hold a different point of view. Democratic Underground welcomes all people who are members of the Democratic coalition, including the full range of center-to-left viewpoints and supporters of all Democratic public figures.
No bigotry/insensitivity
Members are expected to respect diversity and demonstrate an appropriate level of sensitivity when discussing related topics. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of bigoted intolerance are not permitted.
Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes people of every race, sex, religious belief (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, gender identity, body type, disability, age, etc. We want to promote a welcoming atmosphere for all of our members, and do not want to provide a platform for bigotry.
POLITICAL
Support Democrats
Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)
Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).
Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.
Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.
Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.
Why we have this rule: Most of our members want this to be forward-looking, friendly community that is focused on creating a better future for our country. Continuing to rehash old fights that have already been resolved is divisive and counter-productive.
CONTENT
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.
No graphic content
Do not post content that is Not Safe For Work (NSFW), which includes sexually explicit material, graphic depictions of bodily functions, or images of extreme violence, gore, pain, or human suffering. Exceptions are permitted when an image adds important context to a legitimate news story, but the post must include a "graphic content warning" in the subject line.
Why we have this rule: Most people do not enjoy stumbling across extremely graphic content while browsing the web.
No kooky, extremist, or hate content
Do not promote ridiculous, bigoted, or extreme-fringe conspiracy theories. Do not promote extreme fringe views. Do not reference hate sites or other extremist/fringe sources.
Why we have this rule: Democrats are supposed to be part of the "reality-based community." Some amount of skepticism toward powerful institutions is healthy and appropriate, but that doesn't mean every paranoid fantasy is true. Posts about mass shootings being "false flag" operations, 9/11 being a controlled demolition, no airplane at the Pentagon, chemtrails, black helicopters, the Illuminati, or other nonsense make us all look like fools. This website may have the word "underground" in our name, but we are not extreme fringe.
No commercial spam
Do not post commercial spam or hawk commercial products or services.
Why we have this rule: It's fine for established members to plug or post links to their own products, services, or publications every now and again, but we do not wish to provide free advertising space for spammers.
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" 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.
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
Respect copyrights
Excerpts from copyrighted sources must be no more than four paragraphs and include a link to the source. See our DMCA Copyright Policy for more information.
Don't post anyone's private or personal information
Don't post private or personal information about any person (including public figures) even if that information is available elsewhere on the Internet.
No malware, phishing, cracking, or other malicious code
Don't post or link to malicious code, or attempt to interfere with this website's software or administration in any way.
Don't post anything that violates U.S. law
Don't post anything that violates U.S. law -- including but not limited to: linking to illegally-shared files, attempting to organize hacking or DOS attacks, sales of weapons, alcohol, illegal drugs, or other illegal products, etc.
Don't use an avatar or signature line that violates any of the other rules
Members may opt to make use of an avatar or signature line that is appended to all their posts. Avatars and signature lines must not violate any of the other forum rules.
We will expect all DU members to follow these rules when posting, and enforce them when serving on a Jury (Note: All alerts sent on rules in the "Legal/Administrative" section will be handled directly by Admin. Alerts sent on the rule "Don't start threads in the wrong forum or group" will be sent to Hosts).
[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]The Jury System: What's staying the same and what's changing
Next, we have made technical changes to the Jury process, implementing various improvements that people have requested over the past five years, and adding a few of our own. We also ditched a number of things that we felt were not working. With all of these changes our focus was on looking for ways to increase civility, set clear expectations, and reduce forum drama and meta-discussion.
Serving on Juries should be as straightforward as it was before -- in fact, we've streamlined the process to make it even simpler. You do not need to know all of the technical details below in order to serve on Juries -- they are provided merely for people who are interested in exactly what changes are taking place. Please note that we're tried to make the list below as comprehensive as possible, but it's possible that there may be further changes or additions as we go forward.
What's staying the same
- The software will seat a Jury by calling seven randomly-selected eligible members.
- Jury service is optional; members have five minutes to decide if they want to serve as a Juror.
- Jurors will be given a maximum of 30 minutes to evaluate whether a post is acceptable or not.
- Jury results will be decided by majority rule.
- Posts deemed acceptable by Juries will be left alone; posts deemed unacceptable will be hidden.
- Jurors won't be asked to serve again for at least 18 hours (unless the site is really busy).
- If a Jury votes unanimously that a post is acceptable, the alerter will not be able to alert again for 24 hours.
- If your post is removed, you will be notified.
- There are still certain triggers that will flag your account for review, and we are adding some new ones to put the brakes on people who repeatedly break our rules. When flagged for review you will not be able to post or use other site functions. (This is a stop-gap measure: We have a number of changes planned in this area that we aren't ready to implement yet; we'll have more to say about this at a later date.)
- The privilege to serve on a Jury is now only offered to members who have been registered for at least one year, have more than 1,000 posts, and have an active Star membership.
- Alerters will no longer be asked to provide an explanation for their alert. Instead they will be presented with a short list of rules written by the Administrators and asked to select which rule they believe the post breaks.
- Jurors will no longer be asked to evaluate the post based on the alerter's comments and their own gut feeling. Instead they will be asked whether they believe the post breaks the specific rule selected by the alerter.
- Jurors will no longer evaluate posts in-thread. Instead they'll be taken to a separate page. On this page only the portion of the thread relevant to the alerted post will be displayed (or just the OP if the OP was the alerted post), and usernames and other identifying information will be removed.
- The Jury system still forbids "double jeopardy," but posts which were alerted for a particular rule and survived a Jury can now be re-alerted for a different rule.
- Previously Jurors had two options: "Hide it" or "Leave it alone." Now Jurors have four options: "It clearly breaks the rule"; "Close call, but it breaks the rule"; "It doesn't quite break the rule"; and "It clearly doesn't break the rule."
- Jurors will no longer be able to provide comments.
- Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after Jury service is complete.
- You will not be able to peek at other members' hidden posts. Only the author of the post can check the text of a removed post.
- You will be able to officially appeal if a Jury removes your post. We have built in an appeals system that allows members to send an appeal directly to Admin. Admin will review the post and provide a final ruling. If your appeal is convincing, the post will be reinstated.
- The Admins may also step in from time to time and remove a post if we think a Jury blew it and allowed a rule violation to stand.
- If you can't bring yourself to enforce a particular rule when serving on a Jury, you can object to that rule and you'll never be asked to serve on a Jury for that rule again. The Admins will keep a tally of objections which will give us useful feedback about the rules.
- Transparency pages are going away, since they only seemed to serve to create forum drama. (They may be replaced with something else at a later date.)
[div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold;"]Software Testing
These are big changes, and they require some pretty big changes to the software we use to moderate the site. Elad has spent countless hours this year programming all this stuff, and it's almost ready to go. But before we go live next week, we need to test it to make sure it works. That means we will need some DU members to serve as testers for the new software. We'll have more information on software testing coming soon.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
525 replies, 291841 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
525 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That's a very uncharitable suggestion of all the people who choose not to or cannot pay.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2016
#211
People used to buy others a star in the past. Usually if the person was a valued member who
kerry-is-my-prez
Jun 2016
#276
I don't have extra $$ to donate to DU like I used to. I don't appreciate the assumption
auntAgonist
Jun 2016
#521
Thank you. And I hope there will be a big ass link to the rules page at the start of each forum!
Native
Jun 2016
#11
I have to agree. It only serves to drive the people we need away from our party and candidate.
kerry-is-my-prez
Jun 2016
#278
The flaw is that some people here are 'organized' and they will keep alerting on a post
-none
Jun 2016
#303
By your standards Bernie would be a conservative as well. Lumping Hillary in
redstateblues
Jun 2016
#427
New Democrats love foreign wars and intervention in conflicts having nothing to do with us.
Ikonoklast
Jun 2016
#489
If they are shot down unanimously, as one would expect to be the case if it is totally frivolous,
Nitram
Jun 2016
#88
Skinner, if the posting of Jury Results was alert-able violation - we'd quickly learn not to do it.
vkkv
Jun 2016
#165
I would be less inclined to pay for a star in order to serve on juries if...
ChisolmTrailDem
Jun 2016
#272
I just took myself off the willing to serve. If I can't find out what happened....
trueblue2007
Jun 2016
#519
I just served on a jury for the 1st time under new rules, totally unsatisfying!
mentalsolstice
Jun 2016
#520
My first reaction was not to like this too but I think in the new incarnation of the jury system it
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#197
That must have been a great deal of work for Elad! Good luck with this, I really hope it works
MADem
Jun 2016
#23
Sounds good, a lot of us can do better individually, and we can all do better collectively nt
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#27
I do a lot of SQA IRL if you need help. AND I get the cast off my hand today so I can be effective!!
PeaceNikki
Jun 2016
#32
"The privilege to serve on a Jury ...active Star membership." That's beautiful, man. n/t
jtuck004
Jun 2016
#34
I think the Lounge may still accept non-political kooky content. Don't lose hope!
LonePirate
Jun 2016
#120
A lot are leaving and going to be leaving too after the treatment they've gotten here by...
ChisolmTrailDem
Jun 2016
#279
Overall I say the changes should be good. I'm looking forward to your tweaks too.
LiberalFighter
Jun 2016
#38
Don't you think one would be able to determine if they were off base or not
notadmblnd
Jun 2016
#285
From what I read there'll no longer be an opportunity for comments when adjudicating offensive posts
notadmblnd
Jun 2016
#408
well I feel there will be no benefit from letting people post their judgemental remarks
notadmblnd
Jun 2016
#415
You are provided a link to the post when you are asked to perform jury service
notadmblnd
Jun 2016
#406
Prior to the required "subscription" model, DUers dis buy stars for other people.
Miles Archer
Jun 2016
#517
Yeah, I mean, I'm not a star member, but I'm also not that concerned about serving on juries...
kjones
Jun 2016
#98
Good idea - those non-star members who have to face the advertising on this site are still playing
vkkv
Jun 2016
#186
Agreed. "Star members who have been members for a year and have at least 100 posts"
Nye Bevan
Jun 2016
#154
You managed to get pretty much the opposite of what Skinner was saying. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#115
Here's a good example. "I don't agree with Bernie's characterization of his history of support or
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#176
Sure, I dont agree with Bernie supporters characterization of the email investigation.
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#348
Calling out bad policies, losing strategies, corruption and outright lying has always been permitted
Renew Deal
Jun 2016
#300
This change: Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after Jury service is complete
vkkv
Jun 2016
#71
Posts should be able to reference RW pages when demolishing them or posting excerpts as examples.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2016
#183
A list might be good. & Skinner posted the rule which shows that RW links OK in the way I suggest.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2016
#245
After I posted, Skinner replied to someone else that there won't be a list
passiveporcupine
Jun 2016
#269
Does "No divisive group attacks" mean no discussion of Third Way vs. traditional Democrats?
senz
Jun 2016
#82
Generally, don't you find that free things and opportunities are less appreciated? Plus,
vkkv
Jun 2016
#97
So, what's legitimate criticism versus "bashing" Democratic public figures? All those names deserve
leveymg
Jun 2016
#209
Take Rahm Emanuel as an example. I would vote to hide this post on the grounds of "bashing":
Nye Bevan
Jun 2016
#261
Agree, those are easy cases. But, it's the hard cases that are the problem, and
leveymg
Jun 2016
#327
"Hard cases" will probably end up with 4-3 jury decisions, one way or the other.
Nye Bevan
Jun 2016
#371
The 'first amendment' is only a protection from the government. (As are all the BoR rights.)
X_Digger
Jun 2016
#458
Yea, no more holding our own's feet to the fire or calling out authoritarian and right-wing...
ChisolmTrailDem
Jun 2016
#296
Does "the portion of the thread relevant to the alerted post" mean all posts in the 'ancestral line'
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2016
#89
Not having folks like you claim everyone they disagree with is a paid Brock shill is worth doubling
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#129
This is not the Democratic party this is an owner operated web site. Don't bash Democrats here
upaloopa
Jun 2016
#138
I notice that about 98% of the recs to this announcement are members of the HRC group.
panader0
Jun 2016
#117
Don't you have your jack shit or something other web site to keep bashing Hillary? Go there
upaloopa
Jun 2016
#121
I don't think insulting posts like yours will be allowed under the new rules.
panader0
Jun 2016
#126
a lot of people will have to learn the relevant differences between criticism and name-calling
LanternWaste
Jun 2016
#208
As near as I can tell, it's a website that exists for the sole purpose of taking pot-shots ...
NurseJackie
Jun 2016
#366
That's not a site that I visit. If you see someone touting it or encouraging defection ...
NurseJackie
Jun 2016
#405
The objections to the civility rules from one corner is evidence enough. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#225
The objections to the new civility rules from one corner is evidence enough. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#307
Bear in mind Newsmax, where you appear isn't going to be on the approved sources last...
truebrit71
Jun 2016
#361
Sure it will as it will when I appear on Fox. You are twisting Skinners rules
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#367
Good to see. How about not letting people use Polls to create an "enemies list".
mackdaddy
Jun 2016
#119
long overdue. the rules system worked very well, the jury system has proven quite flawed
unblock
Jun 2016
#123
With the new rules, let them, they will lose their juror privileges. I may empty my blacklist
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#360
With the move to GE standing, will Admin permit User Name changes now or after November? . . .
Journeyman
Jun 2016
#141
Q: where is the list of prohibited right-wing publications, authors, or pundits?
john978
Jun 2016
#145
I agree with your analysis - seems DU wants to be the definition of establishment. nt
john978
Jun 2016
#301
Joe Lieberman did become an "Independent" and was elected Senator running against a Democrat. n/t
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#191
It seems from your posts in this thread that you have issues with the new rules, and that is fine,
still_one
Jun 2016
#353
Skinner, what about locks aquired during the primary process, will they reset back to 0?
Logical
Jun 2016
#156
I hope that is it, the trouble makers will get 5 soon enough. Thanks for all you do! Nt
Logical
Jun 2016
#201
I am sorry if someone asked and I missed it but are you implimenting the 5 hide rule like
hrmjustin
Jun 2016
#158
So, when do we get the GD-General election forum opened??? I'm ready to bash some trump!
Amimnoch
Jun 2016
#160
I agree with everything, except for "Alerters and Jurors will no longer receive notifications after
lunamagica
Jun 2016
#184
I'll miss serving on juries, but the changes look good -- I have no beef with them. Thanks! . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2016
#189
So nobody can call me a Republican Troll or an uneducated voter again :-)
redstatebluegirl
Jun 2016
#219
We believe that these rules do not disallow any good-faith discussion of issues.
Skinner
Jun 2016
#228
Skinner- A possible suggestion for future consideration on the "jury results" issue.
TygrBright
Jun 2016
#253
Yet you will change nothing on DI? Where homophobia/etc stands (against TOS), anyone can serve, etc?
The Straight Story
Jun 2016
#254
"registered for at least one year - more than 1,000 posts - active Star membership" -- 2 out of 3 ?
eppur_se_muova
Jun 2016
#257
BtA, I have to say I agree with much of your post. Especially the part about transparency and
seaglass
Jun 2016
#344
In an ideal world, alerts regarding bigotry would be sent to jurors from the group in question.
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#416
Enhhh... There've been times when I accepted a jury invite when browsing on my phone ...
NurseJackie
Jun 2016
#369
I'll admit there have been a few when I had to go look at the thread to get context.
Algernon Moncrieff
Jun 2016
#451
Curious as to why, rather than instuting these rules earlier, you opted for a free for all
cui bono
Jun 2016
#338
I know some of you Sanders supporters believe this, I just can't see how you can delude yourself
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#343
If that were true, then all the more reason to enact the rules earlier so as not to show bias.
cui bono
Jun 2016
#420
Keep pretending you didn't control the juries and the overall tenor on DU.
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#421
I forgot to mention what you did. Posted one of the two most vile OPs in DU history.
cui bono
Jun 2016
#465
So? Another DUer who is a PoC posted a racist's rant and an anti-semitic post.
cui bono
Jun 2016
#494
1. We all know that's against the rules. 2. I'm no longer a star member so search is useless.
cui bono
Jun 2016
#505
I'm so glad you raised all of this nonsense. I've been waiting for the opportunity.
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#514
"The worst offenders were Sanders supporters?" I just can't see how you can delude yourself.
Miles Archer
Jun 2016
#518
The Hill does lean right but I find their reporting on factual issues to be rather reliable.
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#403
Are all the current hides going to be erased and everyone starts with a clean slate or is everyone..
ChisolmTrailDem
Jun 2016
#370
So many of these are great but I hope you're not opening up a massive can of worms with this one
Number23
Jun 2016
#385
The work that you three must have put into these changes is appreciated, but ...
countryjake
Jun 2016
#418
I am excited Administration. I can do this and the opportunity it is giving to DU. Very exciting.
seabeyond
Jun 2016
#461
I won't be able to serve on a jury until 2 days after the general election...
Silver_Witch
Jun 2016
#462
Very comprehensive. I look forward to implementation; jurying should be interesting.
Hekate
Jun 2016
#469
Probably because every bit of transparency has been abused and provided much more drama
stevenleser
Jun 2016
#491
Pfffft. If by "Echo Chamber" you mean people who hate Democrats are going to be checked, bring on
MADem
Jun 2016
#503
I'm pretty sure they meant the right wing of the Democratic Party fawning over a center-corporatist
cui bono
Jun 2016
#506
Whoa, so this place is becoming a full blown and super loyalist to the Democratic party type site.
One Black Sheep
Jun 2016
#508
Skinner, would you consider leaving the notifications of jury results?
AgadorSparticus
Jun 2016
#509
Suggestion about members with many hides: set those at 5 or more back to 3 or 4
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2016
#510