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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gun Writer is suddenly a pariah. [View all]Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)191. I have seen that in ATA, Skinner wants alerters to be not identified
He has said that in several posts but I guess it is OK for some hosts to do what they want.
Skinner The number of alerts is already really small.
I don't think there is a need to make the names of alerters public.
I don't think there is a need to make the names of alerters public.
Skinner There are valid reasons not to make alerter usernames public.
First, the username of the alerter is not necessary for jurors to evaluate a post. In fact, it could actually be prejudicial.
Second, making alerter usernames public would create a disincentive to alert. But we do not need any additional disincentives to alert. We get very few alerts already. We don't have a problem with alert-stalking or excessive alerting. And people whose alerts are found to be without merit temporarily lose their alerting privileges.
Third and most importantly, making alerter usernames public would create more meta-discussion and forum drama. If I send an alert (and yes I send them regularly) the last thing I want is for a disgruntled juror (or poster whose post got hidden) to start a thread calling me out as a cowardly net nanny who is unfairly picking on innocent people who never did anything wrong. I would stop alerting immediately, and so would almost everyone else. So it is unlikely that we will ever make alerter usernames public.
First, the username of the alerter is not necessary for jurors to evaluate a post. In fact, it could actually be prejudicial.
Second, making alerter usernames public would create a disincentive to alert. But we do not need any additional disincentives to alert. We get very few alerts already. We don't have a problem with alert-stalking or excessive alerting. And people whose alerts are found to be without merit temporarily lose their alerting privileges.
Third and most importantly, making alerter usernames public would create more meta-discussion and forum drama. If I send an alert (and yes I send them regularly) the last thing I want is for a disgruntled juror (or poster whose post got hidden) to start a thread calling me out as a cowardly net nanny who is unfairly picking on innocent people who never did anything wrong. I would stop alerting immediately, and so would almost everyone else. So it is unlikely that we will ever make alerter usernames public.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
304 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
Best not bate your breath for too long... that leads to fainting and other nasty stuff.
1monster
Jan 2014
#276
Wish I could recommend a million times. Everyone needs to read about this.
GreenEyedLefty
Jan 2014
#6
Actually, if you look at demographics, we really should hang our hat on it, so to speak...
CTyankee
Jan 2014
#186
another Poll: Support for strict gun control drops to pre-Newtown levels
Duckhunter935
Jan 2014
#202
Yes, most people are not as wrought up on gun control as the pro movemen in this country.
CTyankee
Jan 2014
#227
A telephone poll, maybe. Other types of scientifically done anonymous polls is a different story...
CTyankee
Jan 2014
#235
" someone will make a start" Why not you, or are you a keyboard commando? n/t
oneshooter
Jan 2014
#131
Even if a repeal of the 2nd Am happend, what do you suppose that would accomplish?
Lizzie Poppet
Jan 2014
#144
Actually, one more SC Justice like those who wrote Dissent in Heller will bring some sanity to
Hoyt
Jan 2014
#56
You guys need to do research - Heller overturned precedent set in United States v. Miller, 1939.
Hoyt
Jan 2014
#210
Seriously, Renchamp, I don't alert on posts here and wouldn't call your sup. I'd delete that if I
Hoyt
Jan 2014
#251
You keep talking about other people's fear and yet you remain in a constant
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#290
Ha. See if you find any signs of diversity at your favorite gun store, or Guns and Ammo in OP.
Hoyt
Jan 2014
#292
Who supplies the weapons they use for training and when they get deployed?
PowerToThePeople
Jan 2014
#120
Right, so this is primarily about corporate control of media and the squelching of dissent
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2014
#79
I fully support this GD host, there are many on DU who support discussions of guns in GD
Bjorn Against
Jan 2014
#100
Keep on believing I actually harbor those pretenses, if it makes you feel better.
Paladin
Jan 2014
#300
For allowing the corporate bullying! You bet we are. Time to stand up.
mountain grammy
Jan 2014
#102
What was this guy thinking? He didn't know to expect that they would set their hair on fire
Dustlawyer
Jan 2014
#22
Don't take away a gundamentalist's manhood extension. It's really not fun to see them
Nanjing to Seoul
Jan 2014
#29
I don't think they are talking about rational gun owners. Only the nuts. Cold Dead Hands mode. n-t
Logical
Jan 2014
#219
I agree. I own guns and have a CC license. But know that guns cause problems....
Logical
Jan 2014
#233
best to wait until there are 600 million. That will make the problem easier to deal with.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2014
#86
Where is the Republican outrage over his right to free speech?...or does that only apply to ducks?
world wide wally
Jan 2014
#126
He also outs alerters in public forums, despite Skinner having a problem with that.
Lizzie Poppet
Jan 2014
#150
So you started off in this thread with a personal attack against me in post 14.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2014
#179
Where the discussion wanders off to does not really affect what an op is about.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2014
#257
You mean Metcalf tried being sensible and the non-sensible gun nuts didn't like it?
Vashta Nerada
Jan 2014
#192
As I have said in the past: who voted with progressives in the Heller decision?
CTyankee
Jan 2014
#234
To the extreme gun owners, nothing can be rationally discussed. Right Wing nuts. n-t
Logical
Jan 2014
#213
You sound rational to me. Gun Control does not work. But their motive I think is to stop people....
Logical
Jan 2014
#238
Hmmm, looks like Oneshooter has another quesiton in AtA. I wonder what that's about?
Electric Monk
Jan 2014
#304