I don't know if there's some more formal process I'm supposed to follow to make these recommendations, but I might as well just put them out there and let folks comment on them. If something of value is seen in them, then the staff can do what it does and maybe hold a vote or something at some point. If not, no harm, no foul. I just feel like content standards have begun to fall behind the curve, allowing an increasing number of things through that actively work against the stated purpose of electing more and better Democrats. Lines have already been repeatedly drawn that hold those objectives to be a higher priority than diversity of opinion as an end in itself, particularly in banning CT, so there is precedent.
Detailed descriptions are just suggestions, so the core principles can be implemented in any number of different ways:
1. No lying.
This should be common sense in a reality-based community. Lying is neither liberal nor progressive, instructive nor constructive, and only serves to confuse, demoralize, disrupt, and divide a community focused on results. Obviously this doesn't mean people should have to document every opinion they express, nor should we be required to document things we can reasonably assume are accepted by consensus (unless someone challenges it), but it is reasonable that a contentious factual claim be proven - not merely hinted at, promoted through innuendo, circularly justified, or cited with opinion pieces and tabloid rumors.
An account that engages in a pattern and practice of deception, promotion of discredited memes, and/or inadequate or nonexistent justification of contentious factual claims after being repeatedly warned, shouldn't be allowed to continue here.
2. No rumor-mongering.
This is a corollary to and supporting facet of Rule #1, and basically it just says you could not cite a rumor or a media article based on rumors as evidence to support a contentious claim. You could note, as a fact unto itself, that the rumor exists and is being promoted by the media, but proper caveats should be attached to avoid insinuating that this is evidence of the rumor itself being true. Promoting rumor as fact should be regarded at first as just sloppiness, but if the pattern of behavior continues it amounts to lying.
3. No innuendo against Democrats.
Criticizing the Democratic Party on a Democratic website is necessary to achieve accountability and improve performance. Innuendo, however, does neither - it simply insinuates a climate of resentment, bigotry, suspicion, and discord without creating an opportunity to rationally resolve issues and come up with ideas. It has zero instructive value, and hampers the ability to work together. People who make a habit of innuendo against Democrats even after being asked to keep it substantive are really not on the team. One exception would be snark, humor, or satire diaries, as in these cases it may be instructive to exaggerate or inform through absurdity.
4. No blanket attacks on the Democratic Party.
This is a partisan website. We can criticize the party substantively, following all the above principles of factuality, and offer intelligent solutions to the problems we identify, but simply slamming and condemning the Party has no value. The Democratic Party is our main vehicle for achieving concrete political change, and it neither makes rational sense to damage it nor ethical sense to slander all the people who put in so much work in it to serve their country. Generalized smears against the Democratic Party do not belong here, and neither do people who continue to make a habit of them after having been informed of the problem.
5. No promoting GOP memes.
This would not mean a ban on ever agreeing with any GOP policy or proposal - on rare occasions they endorse a sane policy by sheer coincidence, and obviously one should be able to argue for it on a factual basis with those who disagree. However, that is not the same thing as a GOP meme: These are sets of unspoken premises, unargued assumptions, conservative values, and propagandized talking points that serve their agenda, and they spread through conformity and Window-dragging rather than by making any kind of sense. Sometimes it's hard to identify them, but other times it's plain as day - e.g., when someone is outright parroting the talking points of Republican campaigns running against our own candidates. Basically the rule is, don't be a Republican mouthpiece on a Democratic website.
6. No attacks on Democratic candidates after the primaries and before the election.
Contested primaries are open season on Democratic candidates, but once they're over, criticism of our candidates should be limited to helping them get elected. The purpose is to help them win, not to commentate indifferently or hostilely. Primaries are the time for the "better Democrats," and after the primaries the focus shifts to the "more Democrats." Attacking Democratic nominees in an election year would also break Rule #5, and usually Rules #3 and #1. You always have the option of refusing to vote for them on election day, but a website for electing more and better Democrats is not the venue for undermining Democratic general election campaigns.
--------------
Individual comments could be HR'd under these standards without necessarily accusing the people who posted them of being trolls - everybody makes mistakes - but those who continually break these rules would conclusively identify themselves. I'm aware that my own work doesn't always rigorously meet all these standards - it's kind of hard to put in effort that isn't rewarded by equal effort on the part of others you disagree with. But I would be happy to work harder to meet these standards as part of a generalized framework of conduct that everyone together follows.