I enjoy reading trade magazines and being bored, I actually spent about 40 minutes reading the FAQs at this site last night and I was fascinated. Yes I'm the guy who reads those boring magazines and enjoys them but hasn't read a mystery or adventure novel in years. So I've learned new words like troll and sockpocketry. But I am confused and fascinated at the same time.
This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum,
But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.
And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog.
The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions.
The majority of people posting here fall on the liberal side of the US political spectrum, however people of conservative views are welcome to come and debate. If you are polite, you will be treated politely.
That seems great I have a very republican friend who is very conservative and I am going to tell him to come here and politely post his views. I'd love to argue with him. It is wonderful that this site is so open to opposing views.
Unfortunately, there are some people who post comments or diaries with the sole purpose of provoking others. These people are called trolls.
Okay I learned this word but how do you determine that this is someone's sole purpose?
There are many reasons why people would choose not to reveal their real names. Revealing the identify of someone who has chosen to remain anonymous is a bannable offense. It is also a morally reprehensible thing to do.
This one confused me. I only have a bachelor's degree but I know the word bannable is not absolute and is the equivalent of the word "may." I agree revealing someone's identity on a blog is a morally reprehensible thing to do but "bannable?" Have there been people who have done this here and if so were they all banned?
The first thing to remember when writing a comment is that it is going to be read by other people. Personal attacks are strongly discouraged. If you disagree with what someone is saying, express your disagreement, but don't go directly after the other person.
What is a personal attack/
Diaries should be substantive. A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs to write about your subject, you should probably post a comment in an open thread, or in a recent diary or front-page post that covers a topic relevant to what you wish to write about.
Now I made this mistake. I tried posting a short diary a few weeks ago and something popped up suggesting I put it in open thread. This was great so I knew. But I still saw someone say "not a diary" but the site already built in a mechanism to stop this so every diary is a diary.
When you quote material that is not your own, please provide a link whenever possible.
When is whenever possible?
Duplicative diaries are prohibited. Please scan the recent diaries and front-page posts before starting to compose your own diary. This rule operates on a sliding scale. A repeat diary with minimal analysis or originality (particularly on "breaking news" items) is prohibited.
confused. Can people have similar thoughts but a different point of view? And what if something has scrolled off?
As a corollary, diarists should always make it clear when they are expressing an opinion - please do not assert opinions as facts, as this tends to be needlessly inflammatory.
Diaries which engage in wild speculation without any proof are strongly discouraged. Repeatedly posting diaries consisting largely or entirely of wild speculation is an abuse of site policy. Bear in mind that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Diaries which contain hateful or defamatory writing are prohibited.
Diaries which are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.
What's hateful?
Hide rating: Comments whose only purpose is to disrupt the discussion. Do not hide posts simply because you disagree with what the commenter is saying.
This is confusing.
Some posters create accounts at dkos strictly for the purpose of causing disruption. It is considered acceptable to hide all of the posts made by such people, even the ones that are not in and of themselves trollish. It should be emphasized, however, that this should not be done lightly
This is confusing too. this means you can hide comments of all users believed to be disruptive but at the same time you are not supposed to do this because you are only supposed to judge the comment? I'm not a rocket scientist but it seems to me that this is some kind of set of rules out of the Bush justice department.
To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating.
Still confused.
Do not troll rate people for expressing a contrary opinion, so long as it is expressed in a civilized fashion.
Can contrary be disruptive? Confused.
Do not troll rate someone you are actively having a fight with.
But that's mostly the case isn't it?
Do note give retaliatory troll ratings.
Huh?
Though there is no officially articulated penalty for 'Sock Puppetry', there are many recorded instances of banning for the offense.
So sockpocketry (just learned this word) is okay because there is no official penalty but you can ban someone.
One of the reasons why I am no longer a republican is because I saw a mentality of
Its Okay If You Are Republican.
These FAQS, while fascinating, give me the same feeling. Help clarify my confusion.