Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

Here is another problem: In the first instance, someone -- probably a Democrat -- reports the off-topic post which is why I see it and delete it. In the reverse case, nobody reports it so I probably don't know about it. However, days, months, or even years later, someone -- probably a Republican -- will cry about it in Website Feedback.

So you delete things without reviewing it to see if the reporter has a point? And you also ban without reviewing? Curious.

Just to add to my previous responses, here is an example of a report from someone with whom I probably agree politically that I reviewed and didn't act on:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/831098.page

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

Here is another problem: In the first instance, someone -- probably a Democrat -- reports the off-topic post which is why I see it and delete it. In the reverse case, nobody reports it so I probably don't know about it. However, days, months, or even years later, someone -- probably a Republican -- will cry about it in Website Feedback.

So you delete things without reviewing it to see if the reporter has a point? And you also ban without reviewing? Curious.

Where did you get the idea that I don't review the posts? Of course I review it. That's how I know that it should be deleted. In the hypothetical example the post removed was off-topic. Not coincidentally, the most common conservative tactic is whataboutism. It is almost unusual for a thread to reach three posts before someone mentions Clinton or Obama regardless of the topic. If those posts are off-topic, which they mostly are, they get deleted.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

Here is another problem: In the first instance, someone -- probably a Democrat -- reports the off-topic post which is why I see it and delete it. In the reverse case, nobody reports it so I probably don't know about it. However, days, months, or even years later, someone -- probably a Republican -- will cry about it in Website Feedback.

So you delete things without reviewing it to see if the reporter has a point? And you also ban without reviewing? Curious.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

Here is another problem: In the first instance, someone -- probably a Democrat -- reports the off-topic post which is why I see it and delete it. In the reverse case, nobody reports it so I probably don't know about it. However, days, months, or even years later, someone -- probably a Republican -- will cry about it in Website Feedback.

DP. I’ve started reporting more than I used to and I appreciate it when you delete the posts I report. However, there are some that you inexplicably allow to stand, even when they say things like calling Kavanaugh a “rapist” or other defamatory remarks. Why do you delete some offending posts but not all?

I probably do delete those posts but just not as quickly as you would like. Some posters appear to believe that I am completely focused on DCUM 24/7. For example, this morning I found a post expressing surprise that I hadn't removed a post that was posted about 2 minutes before midnight. Apologies to that poster, but I had better things to do at two minutes to midnight. I normally try to remove posts within minutes of them being reported, but sometimes it might be a couple of hours. On a fast moving thread, the thread would have grown by a few pages by that time. Unless you reread the entire thread, you probably wouldn't notice that the post was eventually removed. But, if I've missed any posts calling Kavanaugh a rapist, please report them again because I have been removing them (though "alleged attempted rapist" would be okay).

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

Here is another problem: In the first instance, someone -- probably a Democrat -- reports the off-topic post which is why I see it and delete it. In the reverse case, nobody reports it so I probably don't know about it. However, days, months, or even years later, someone -- probably a Republican -- will cry about it in Website Feedback.

DP. I’ve started reporting more than I used to and I appreciate it when you delete the posts I report. However, there are some that you inexplicably allow to stand, even when they say things like calling Kavanaugh a “rapist” or other defamatory remarks. Why do you delete some offending posts but not all?

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

+1
I see this a lot. Examples of corruption, etc. seem only to be allowed if it’s about a conservative. Never about liberals.

Other examples are the Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden threads. There are countless threads, pages long, mocking Trump, his family, his administration, etc. it seems there is no limit to the jokes made at their expense. That’s all fair game - until one mild joke is made at the expense of Warren (her cringey beer drinking) or the very valid jokes about Biden’s handsy-ness, complete with pictures. Those are deleted. I mean, come on. It’s one ugly remark after another about Trump, but if anything negative is brought up about the favored Democrats, that’s verboten?? The double standard is so very blatant.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

Here is another problem: In the first instance, someone -- probably a Democrat -- reports the off-topic post which is why I see it and delete it. In the reverse case, nobody reports it so I probably don't know about it. However, days, months, or even years later, someone -- probably a Republican -- will cry about it in Website Feedback.

Anonymous wrote:Are we ok to post a link to an article and write our own summary paragraph? I know we’re not supposed to just post links. But quoting paragraphs seems iffy if it’s a judgement call on how much is ok.

Yes, this is a great way to do it. I personally will generally copy and paste one paragraph or a couple of sentences and then add my own analysis.

Are we ok to post a link to an article and write our own summary paragraph? I know we’re not supposed to just post links. But quoting paragraphs seems iffy if it’s a judgement call on how much is ok.

Here’s the problem. Person A, a Democrat, will accuse an official of, say, working with foreign governments to dig up dirt. Then another person gives proof that a Democratic official did same with proof it occurred. It will be instantly deleted and said to be off topic. Yet it’s often allowed in reverse and sometimes done by the moderator, along with name calling etc

Jeff deleted a post of mine that was very lefty supporting that dealt with all the stories of prisoners who died or suffered grave consequences due to neglect in the prison system because I quoted the entire article.

He seems consistent on this to me.