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
In reply to the discussion: Welcome to General Election Season 2016 [View all]Behind the Aegis
(55,097 posts)95. First jury and I already see a major problem...
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"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
Fantastic! Here's the problem...I don't know what group it was posted in?! I voted "It doesn't quite break the rule" because, well, I have no way of knowing and I will err on the side of the alerted.
Question: If I was going to alert on something to see the system, if I choose a category, is that the alert being sent, or does it allow me to see what else is there (such as an expanded definition)? Also, are "copyright issues" going to a jury now?
Why is the transparency being eroded?! The whole idea behind DU3 was transparency, now it is DU2, but with even less information!
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
158 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
That's funny! I think you are one of the very few Bernie supporters that I don't have on ignore!
Walk away
Jun 2016
#77
Okay, not sure how I should feel about that. I'm not ditching Bernie, just supporting the nominee.
liberalnarb
Jun 2016
#110
I had a long chat with another Bernie supporter, yesterday. Your sig line sums up our thoughts, too
Siwsan
Jun 2016
#41
It might help if there was a sentence in this OP saying "you will be asked to agree
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2016
#102
Yes, seems fair if both sides follow the rules, which, from past experience, I expect will happen.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Jun 2016
#121
No way we can allow that tRumpster fire to win under any circumstances. Period... whatever it takes.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Jun 2016
#145
What's he running for? The GD2016 forum is for all elections, including downtix. nt
MADem
Jun 2016
#54
Question: what do we do about previous threads (still active) from GDP that violate the new rules?
auntpurl
Jun 2016
#25
Clinton email issue and "criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed"
yodermon
Jun 2016
#26
Let's make Clinton, our next president and Sanders, the next Chair of the Senate Banking Committee!
RAFisher
Jun 2016
#43
If he was 20 years younger I would say nominate him to SCOTUS but banking chair? No.
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#59
He is not qualified to serve on SCOTUS. No law degree, not a member of the bar, no legal experience.
JonLeibowitz
Jun 2016
#65
True but that doesnt mean it cant happen and if Bernie was 20 years younger he might make a good
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#128
I'd sure be happy, but he really has the expertise to hit Wall Street.
The Green Manalishi
Jun 2016
#154
Ya but as the head of the DoJ he might be more willing to pursue criminal cases against Wall Street
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#155
I take it that you are not going to reset the hidden posts that happened prior the new TOS?
William769
Jun 2016
#46
Since the "term of service" requiare a "signature" why was this not on top when I logged in
question everything
Jun 2016
#47
I agree with the changes, but need to ask if the most aggressive/extreme gun advocates get a pass
hlthe2b
Jun 2016
#61
Thank you for displaying so explicitly the level/tone/tenor of discourse we can expect.
hlthe2b
Jun 2016
#74
Yes, and to be clear we're allowed to oppose legislation brought forward by Dems, per the TOS.
JonLeibowitz
Jun 2016
#82
We got through the 2004 and 2008 primary cycles battered, bloodied, but ok in the end
bluestateguy
Jun 2016
#143
So happy to be a part of DU and look forward to a YUGE whoopass in November!!
secondwind
Jun 2016
#146