Proposed rules to start threads in the General Discussion forum. (#4)

[Skinner]

Until now, we have resisted repeated demands from our members for a crackdown in the General Discussion forum in the hopes that we could curb excesses by stricter enforcement of the rules we have on the books. Unfortunately, our efforts have failed, and we have reluctantly decided that new, more restrictive rules are necessary.

Below is the exact text of the rules which we propose. We are giving you one day of advance notice so you can familiarize yourself with these rules, and ask any questions.

Starting tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday) we will put these new rules up for a simple yes-or-no vote by our members. The vote will last for 24 hours. If a majority of members vote in favor of the rules, they will become permanent. Only people who have already registered to be a member of DU as of 2:45PM today (Monday) will be eligible to vote.

These new rules will not solve all of the problems in the General Discussion forum, and will undoubtedly cause a great deal of complaining about censorship and heavy-handed enforcement if they go into effect. But the administrators of this website believe that they will help improve the atmosphere here, and therefore efforts to undermine the rules will be dealt with harshly and decisively.

These rules are not currently being enforced by the moderators. They will not be enforced until the vote ends on Wednesday afternoon, and only if a majority of members votes in favor of them.

Skinner
DU Admin

Note: Section one under candidate threads has been changed to allow discussion based on recent events that may or may not have been reported.

This is a continuation of my first threer threads, which are here (#1), here (#2), and here (#3).

********** PROPOSED TEXT FOR NEW RULES **********

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

The General Discussion forum is by far the most active of all the forums on the Democratic Underground message board. In order to improve the overall quality of discussion here, we feel it is necessary to restrict the type of discussion threads which may be started in this forum. These rules only apply to the very first message posted in a discussion thread, and do not apply to responses posted in those threads.

If you are the type of person who can’t remember a bunch of rules, just remember this: If you treat other people with respect, and if you frame your messages in a way that will facilitate quality discussion, you are unlikely to run afoul of these rules.

Please note that these rules are for the General Discussion forum only. Some topics which are not allowed in the General Discussion forum may be permitted in other forums on the message board.

RULES TO START DISCUSSION THREADS IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or an excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided. Exceptions may be allowed for threads about our political opponents and/or policies which we generally oppose.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. No duplicates or same-topic threads. If there is currently an active thread on the first page of the General Discussion forum about a particular topic, you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information. Occasional exceptions will be allowed when an active thread has a large number of posts.

RULES TO START DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recent or current event, on a recently reported news item, or on a recent article or op-ed piece. If you are referencing a published item, you must include a link to the original article.

2. If you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support.

3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden.

4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

5. Discussion threads which paint supporters of any Democratic candidate in a negative light are forbidden.

[tjdee]

1. Do people UNDERSTAND that the rules are for STARTING topics only?

I don't think some people get it.

You can still call Clark/Dean/whoever a blah blah blah, as long as you back it up, and say who you support.

You can even curse about him and use all caps as long as it is NOT THE FIRST POST IN THE THREAD.

Hello?

[WilliamPitt]

2. I'll say this much, Skinner

The mere appearance of these peoposed rules yesterday had an extraordinary effect on this forum. The afternoon and evening stretch yesterday here was the best and most informative period of time I've spent on DU in three months.

*tipping cap*

Thanks.

[Skinner]

12. LOL

Funny how that happens. Too bad these periods of good behavior never last more than a day or two.

[Skinner]

3. Something to think about...

I get the sense that if I simply said "All candidate discussions are forbidden in the GD forum, and must take place in the Politics and Campaigns forum" then there would be a lot fewer complaints about censorship.

Which is strange. Because these rules, as they are written, are a compromise which allows many candidate discussions to remain in the GD forum, while moving some of the more egregious and repetitive crap out of the GD forum.

In other words: These are less draconian than simply shutting out candidate threads entirely.

:shrug:

[Maeve]

6. You may have to consider that as Plan B

"All candidate discussions are forbidden in the GD forum, and must take place in the Politics and Campaigns forum"

Sigh. I hope to be able to read GD again someday....

[JVS]

13. That would be better

[KoKo]

22. Yes.......take candidate discussions out of GD....altogether.

Plan B.

[Skinner]

23. Why would that be better?

That is MORE censorious. Not less.

:shrug:

[Tinoire]

27. Because it would keep all the political threads in one place

keeping the playing field even for all the candidates and their supporters.

GD is prime real estate Skinner. Enact these rules and pretty soon GD will mostly have predominantly Clark and Dean for President signs on its lawn.

This is either part if the grass-roots effort or an extension of the media.

Plan A allows for too much control of that front lawn, in favor of certain candidates.

Plan B at least throws all the signs in the back-yard so democracy is preserved but now you have to go look for it.

[KoKo]

40. It's not censorship.....but organization....Candidates should be in the

Political Forum..... But issues having to do with Politics should be Discussed in GD.

Just my Opnion. But when GD is full of Candidate Ads and Attacks by all of us in a freeforall .....then it doesn't seem like censorshilp to move it to the Politics Forum.

Organization not Censorship. :shrug: Topic Organization....

[BeFree]

43. Easier to move them to own Forum: "Election 2004"

And have no rules at all, except for the basic DU rules.

Moving them to their own forum would mean:
Less work for the bosses and less clutter for the masses.
Not censorship, just putting things in their proper places.

For these reasons I might have to vote no. Durn it.

[Tinoire]

69. BEST IDEA IN THIS THREAD YET!!!

I like that - Election 2004

This would have the added benefit of keeping politics & campaigns cleaner for state and local issues

[Tinoire]

70. Dupe

[KoKo]

72. That sounds Great! Election 2004!!! It gets interest just because title

just draws you in! Wow!

[Walt Starr]

73. Now that is an idea I'd support 100%!

Good thinking!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

56. I disagree - it's LESS censorious.

Because the new rules affect more than just candidate threads. If you drop the new rules but just require all candidate threads to go to P&C it will be less work for the mods and the admins, and no great hardship for the candidate supporters, while leaving the rest of GD untouched.

For example there can be no arguing about whether a candidate thread is allowed in GD, unlike the arguments over whether a specific thread is "inflammatory" or dealing with "current events". If it refers to a candidate, it belongs in P&C and is moved or locked. Once there, anything goes (as long as it is within the current rules).

It worked for I/P threads, why not Candidate threads?

[tjdee]

7. You're absolutely right.

I am at a huge loss as to why people are acting so ridiculously.

First, just vote no then, if you're so upset,

and

Second, make sure you *understand* the proposed rules. Really, Skinner, I don't some people do--although I don't know how you could be clearer.

:shrug:

[realFedUp]

10. You could have saved yourself some typing...

if you had just written that Skinner. :-)

I am appreciating the thinking that some have
already taken with their posted comments.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

50. Do it Skinner! You know you want to! :-)

Actually, I think that is the LESS draconian measure. You see, the forum is called politics and campaigns, and it seems candidate threads ARE campaigns, thus making it the appropriate forum to discuss such things any way.

Secondly, moving such threads to P&C WITHOUT changing the rules for GD means LESS censorship of NON-CANDIDATE threads.

It worked for I/P issues, why not Candidate issues? You don't even have to create a new forum, because there is a ready made one sitting there waiting to be fully utilised.

GD is saved, The bashers and defenders are happy (they get to keep bashing and defending) and your and the mods work loads are minimised.

I think it is the best of ALL worlds.

Vote NO on the new rules, YES on moving candidate threads to P&C!

[Skinner]

53. That's not the choice you face.

I doubt I will never move the candidate threads out of GD. I see no point in having a General Discussion forum if we are unable to discuss the most important issue facing Democrats right now.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

60. Oh well... It couldn't hurt to try!

I appreciate all you and the other admins have done Skinner, and I hope you don't take my posts as bitching. I guess I just like the rules the way they are and wish we could deal with the Candidate threads in GD without having to change how GD operates.

So, I will just have to:

Vote NO on the new rules!

(The rest can wait :-) )

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. No to the news rules on *content* instead of rules about posting

The moderators will have to make too many judgements about a post. Instead, let's bring back the 5 sentence rule and limit the number of new threads in GD.

[Skinner]

9. The problem with the five-sentence rule.

I happened to love the five-sentence rule. I thought it was very successful in cutting down the clutter, and it forced people to flesh out their ideas. Plus, it was really, really easy to enforce.

But here's the problem with the five sentence rule... It seems totally arbitrary. And people don't like to follow rules if the purpose for the rules are not obvious to them.

I imagine that I would have to explain the rule, every other day, for the rest of my life. And I don't really want to do that.

[OrdinaryTa]

28. Judgment Calls

I believe that John Kerry's medals might have been the kind that officers get - cheap ones. Civilians don't realize how much officers cheat. Obviously, there are no statistics to support this statement.

The rules make it difficult to express even well-founded suspicions. It's still possible that Kerry is a gold-plated phony. He didn't pull a full combat tour in Vietnam .... he didn't pull half a tour!

Edit: clarification

[Tinoire]

35. Sources sources sources

and then discussion discussion and people make up their own minds!

[OrdinaryTa]

64. Sources

I have not been able to locate a statistical breakdown of awards by military rank of recipient. I believe that percentage-wise, officers get more awards, and higher awards, than enlisted personnel. The rank of the recipient matters a great deal. I don't think there's anything unusual or provocative about this statement.

Kerry's valor awards don't seem well-substantiated. His witnesses are people who reported to him and whom he later rewarded by having them transferred to safe duty. Kerry got a Silver Star for chasing a single sniper into the brush, raising the possibility that Lt. Kerry shot the VC in the back as he fled. He received the Bronze Star for fishing another American out of the water while exposed to enemy fire from the shore.

I raise these doubts because civilians seem to believe that military awards are proof of heroism. In fact that's not always the case - the award system is as corrupt as anything else in the military. I haven't researched Clark's Silver Star, but his wounds weren't trivial, as Kerry's were. And Clark pulled a legitimate, full tour. Kerry got out after four months.

[Tinoire]

79. Lol... I could have gotten you that information

Your belief is correct... A specialist will routinely get an AAM while an officer would get at least an ARCOM or MSM for the same thing but it's kind of a lost argument because the higher you go the more inflated the award.

It's ridiculous the emphasis civilians place on it. I'm fully retired and proud of my service but I've never understood the relevance this has to politics. Lots of people are walking around with things they didn't deserve, with more than they deserved or without what they deserved.

We're on the same wavelength on this one.

Military awards aren't proof of squat. I'm proud of the ones I got and some of them very high but damn... trust a bunch of people who don't know how the system works to be impressed with shiny decorations.

[Cronus Protagonist]

32. I agree with you about the 5 sentence rule

I think the quality of the discussions rose dramatically when it was implemented.

And are you ready to try to explain all the nuances of section two for the rest of your life, because I seriously think that's what's going to happen? I'm concerned it will be a daily battle between moderators and posters and will not be at all conducive to the kind of spirited discussions we sometimes have here.

Did you consider a trial of the new rules to see what people thought this time around like you did the last time on the 5 sentence rule? Why no trial this time?

[Cheswick2.0]

5. can't we do something about the astroturf?

I know, I know..... it just gets boring.

[Tyler Durden]

14. I'm sick of everyone undermining everyone else's candidates.

Imagine "The Big Pie Fight" with diarrhea and vomit instead of whipped cream.

That's been my view of things lately.

[jiacinto]

8. Rule #4 should be added in any event

I am sick of Greens using DU to undermine Democratic candidates.

[MadHound]

19. I'm sick of Dems whining about Greens

Especially when there is no basis to their whine.

Look, this board welcomes progressives of all stripes. It is also noted that you need to have a thick skin to participate here. Apparently that is lacking in some people around here, judging by all of the posts whining about Greens.

Look, with the new rules you are going to get the slanted playing field you want, we are not going to be able start Green thread. In fact some of us will probably leave over this.

So quit your bitching, its baseless and meaningless now. We Greens now realize that the "welcomes progressives of all stripes" rule no longer is going to apply to us.

[Sephirstein]

31. Well...

Here's the truth of the matter: This website -- while for progressives of all stripes -- is mainly to support the Democrats against the Bush Crime Family and encourage the DNC to be more progressive.

You can lament all you want about how you wish the Democrats could adopt this, that, and the other thing from the Green platform (most of us would probably agree anyways), but undermining and opposing the DNC -- except in extreme circumstances (Lieberbush maybe? lol) -- contravenes the fundamental goal of this site: To get a progressive or at least a centre-left Democrat in the Whitehouse in 2004.

[MadHound]

41. So this is a "big tent" board

Until a person decides to criticize the Dems, even if the criticism is valid? Doesn't sound very progressive to me, in fact that sounds rather regressive. Look, the DNC as it currently is, and the DLC as it has been operating is what drove most of us life long Dems away. Now the purge is complete except for silencing the critics. And that will come soon.

Real big tent, real thick skin. People around here can baselessly slam the Greens, yet if we decide to constructively criticize the DLC we get slammed, banned and purged. No wonder the Dems are becoming more and more irrelevant, they can't take the medicine that will ultimately do them the most good. Who do you think most Greens are? They're Dems that the party in its quest ever rightward left behind. Why do you think most of us went Green. To ultimately help the party, to shake it up and wake it up. We agree on more things than not(including the damage that the DLC is doing). Why not listen to us instead of scream at us? More and more around here it looks like the answer is simply to have a scapegoat to kick around.

Real mature, real good way to bring people back into the party.

[Sephirstein]

44. Read carefully...

Criticism is fine. It's " undermining and opposing " that's the problem.

[MadHound]

46. And where is the line drawn?

There are posts on this board, some mine, that are meant and stated to be constructive criticism. Yet invariably at some point somebody bitches about the how the Greens are "undermining and opposing" with that particular post. I'm afraid that this will be defined very narrowly, for it has been stated earlier that there will be no "Dem bashing" allowed come election time(directed at the Greens), and there are also many people on this board openly advocating for the complete banning of Greens.

So once again, where is that line going to be drawn, and what criteria will be used to define it?

[noiretextatique]

48. is *undermining and opposing* really a problem limited soley to greens?

or is that simply a figment of a few overly-paranoid imaginations?
greens too often become the whipping boy when *some people* don't like the criticism of Democrats...from Democrats.
i have seen this a lot lately in some of the clark threads...some people labeling other people "greem" because they disagree with their favorite candidate. some people just need to learn how to discussion topics without using "greens" "the far left" "socialists" "McGovern"...and whatever the whipping boy du jour is, as an excuse for their inability to articulate a coherent position.

[MadHound]

63. No, it is not limited soley to the Greens

However I think you can understand why some of us Greens have "overly-paranoid imaginations". Consider the comments you mentioned above. Add to that mix the fact that we've been unjustly(and repeatedly) blamed for the '00 debacle, the '02 debacle, and how we could rig it so there's an '04 debacle. Also consider that there have been posts and at least two threads on banning Greens completely from this board, that we've been accused of being 'Pugs, working for the 'Pugs, and now that we're going to throw the CA election to the 'Pugs.

Yeah, we're a little paranoid. I think we have good reason to be.

I have a specific case to ask about. If I start up a thread (factually) pointing out how the Dems are becoming more like the 'Pugs because they are taking the same corporate money the 'Pugs do, thus answering to the same corporate masters the 'Pugs do, thus acting more and more like 'Pugs, will it get deleted?

Just curious. And yes, a touch paranoid.

[liberalhistorian]

78. I'm sorry, I hate to burst your bubble,

but the Greens, unfortunately, deserve the blame they get for 2000, it is NOT "unjustified!" I think a lot of Greens still don't understand the strong resentment against them because of that.

[MadHound]

82. OK, let's go over this one more time for those who are scapegoat impaired

The Greens had nothing to do with the '00 debacle. Let me show you the ways.

1. The Supreme Court, gee they were the ones who actually gave the election to Shrub

2. The Republican machinery. Darn those 90,000 scrubbed votes. Did Greens scrub those votes? Last I looked Katherine Harris and old Jebby boy were 'Pugs.

3. The Democrats and their puzzling actions and inactions. Two parter on this one. First off, Gore was handed the vote scrubbing blockbuster while the recounts were still well underway. This is something that would have guaranteed a Gore win. So what did Gore do with this info(on the advice of his DLC handlers)? He sat on it, thus ultimately losing the election. Secondly, advocating the wrong method of recounting. In this one, Gore could have legally asked for a complete statewide recount, and as we all ultimately saw, that would have won him the election. Instead, on the advice of his DLC handlers, he tried to cherry pick his recounts. This wound up backfiring on him and getting the whole mess into court. Not so smart move.

4. The Democrats and their puzzling lack of a spine. Throughout the whole race it simply amazed me at how little fight was in Gore. He was continously slandered, yet did nothing about it. During the recounts the 'Pugs were resorting to tricks like busing in "mobs", yet they were never called on it. You know, if they had shown a little fight during the campaign then they probably would have won(and probably picked up a few more votes too, nobody likes a wuss).

5. The Democrats and how they ran away from their base. Look, this is the party that brought us NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, the '96 Telecom Act, welfare "reform" and gutted offshore drilling regulations. Funny about that last one, because that really hurt Gore in FL.
So much so that 397,000 registered FL Dems(and don't go telling me they're not really Dems, all the Dixiecrats and Reagan Dems fled the party years ago), and 198,000 self described FL liberals all voted for Bush because they felt they had been screwed by Gore's enviromental policies, and wished to double screw him back. Ten percent of either of those numbers would have given Gore the election. Man, its a bitch when you don't pay attention to your base, they get all uppity and cost you an election.

These are the reasons why Gore lost. The only role the Greens played was as scapegoat because many many Dems are in denial.

[library_max]

71. A freeper or other RW disruptor

could make exactly the same argument you are making from the other side, with exactly the same validity.

[OrdinaryTa]

54. Caving In

If it were true that ideological purity cost us elections, the case for stifling dissent would have more of a foundation. But there's the example of Jean Carnahan who voted for the war and lost the election anyhow. Would standing up for principle have done any worse?

The argument for caving in isn't as strong as it sounds. In fact, caving in may cost Democratic candidates as many votes from left-leaning Democrats as it picks up from centrists. The net net may be that it's a wash!

[Iverson]

55. broken record

Are you equally sick of phony complaints abouts Greens "undermining" Democratic candidates to the point where you will cease producing them?
Are you equally sick of dodging questions about your unsupported assertions?
Will you at long last admit that having a non-identical opinion is indeed what you're construing as "undermining?"

I'm asking these questions while such speech is still permissible.
Critiques made in deliberate bad faith shouldn't be given a free pass.

[liberalhistorian]

77. Hear, hear!

I think a lot of us are sick of that, as well!

[Tyler Durden]

11. Yes, and thank you.

It has been very tiring reading what begins to look like group therapy for sufferers of some bizarre version of Tourette's.

Thank God that we aren't representative of the rest of the party and the the country. Someone would have pushed "the button" long ago.

[WilliamPitt]

15. Clark, f*ck! Dean, as*hole! Kerry, s*it! Snuh! Snuh!

That's mean, but funny. :)

[theboss]

16. One question

Can I criticize other Democrats in response to posted topics? I read "topic" to mean the original post. So if someone writes a post praising, say, Al Sharpton as the greatest living human since Paul Revere, I can respond by saying that Al Sharpton should be in gen pop. But I cannot begin a discussion stating that Al Sharpton shhould be in gen pop. Or am I being too lawerly?

[tjdee]

18. You can do both.

In my understanding of the rules, you can start a thread saying Sharpton should be in gen pop, as long as the text isn't "and he sucks eggs too!". I think you'll have to give thought out reasons for your opinion, and then say something like "that's why I'm a Moseley Braun supporter".

There are no rules at all for replies.

I'm sure Skinner will be along to answer your question and clear it up for both of us.

[Skinner]

20. Please...

Find me the rule that says you can't say bad things about Al Sharpton. Or about any Democrat.

[Cronus Protagonist]

47. Skinner, are you beginning to see that the new rules are not clear?

I hope so, because if they pass, you're going to have to deal with this ongoingly. I hope you vote NO.

[Walt Starr]

17. A plea to vote NO on the new rules

GD is the crucible of DU.

In a crucible, a mixture of substances is brought to a melt. In the crucible the bullshit gets burned away. Occasionally the slag will rise to the top and need to be skimmed off, but when it's all said and done, what's left in the crucible becomes something very pure.

I know the crucible has been boiling over regularly lately and a lot of people don't like that, but I plead with you, DO NOT TURN DOWN THE HEAT!!!

Yes, the candidate bashing gets viscious. Yes, it's painful, but in the end we will all be armed no matter who ends up being the nominee. We'll will have heard it all. There will be no "surprises" sprung by the Repukes because we will have arrived at the pure substance. We will know how to answer all the bullshit because the bullshit will get burned off here in our crucible.

If you turn things down to a slow simmer, I guarantee the Repukes will spring surprise attacks on our nominee and we will be blindsided.

Let's turn the heat UP rather than down. Vote down these rules and let our crucible burn away the bullshit!

[Capn Sunshine]

21. ON Burning away the Bullshit

with 7/8 of the posts lately , particularly in regards to candidates
you're left with nothing.

new rules, same effect.

[DemExpat]

24. Let's keep all of the information coming but on a different TONE.

To welcome more people to DU, more souls to help get a Democratic candidate in the White House!

The craziness in GD is so bizarre, so unattractive, so destructive to Dem goals - and has little to do with progressives in the 'real world'.

I want to see all the info and ideas coming in, but in a respectful way.

Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

Some people won't be respectful or civil unless 'forced'.......that's too bad for DU to even NEED such rules, but it's reality here.

A big YES to the new rules....at least until after the election.

DemEx



:kick:
DemEx

[Crewleader]

25. I couldn't agree more.....what time is the vote?

Sarge gets to vote in this one too! :-)

[Cronus Protagonist]

34. I'm with you on that, Walt

You said it better than I could.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets!>

[JVS]

45. I vote no!

[WilliamPitt]

I disagree

I have written three books, largely on the strength of what comes and goes in this very forum. In the last three months, the insane clashes have buried the good, hard data that makes books and moves policy and people. Tone down the clashes and that data will still be there. The crucible will remain; only the ones who cut us apart will be burned out.

[Iverson]

57. wishful thinking

"only the ones who cut us apart will be burned out"

It is quite clear that the proposed rule changes will have more than the effect of reducing the incidence of "bashing." They will also encode partisanship for a preferred class of discussants. Anyone outside the partisan group, no matter how thoughtful or progressive or scholarly, had better watch out lest they be "burned out" for the wrong party affiliation at the wrong moment.

Are you prepared to have me banned, Mr. Pitt, for being insufficiently constructive in the discourse while keeping other shrill voices protected by a magic "D?"

[Skinner]

62. Sorry to break it to you, but ...

the partisan divide is already written into the rules, and has been for a very long time:

...

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

...

Perhaps the most critical question currently facing progressives is who should receive the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. In order to encourage a robust and thoughtful debate on this topic, we are instituting a few simple guidelines.

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

[Iverson]

67. the question stands

Clearly, an existing partisan divide will be made more acute. This is not merely my forecast; the point has surfaced repeatedly in discussion about the proposed changes.

Your emphasis is along the lines of your original answer to my question on thread #2. Mr. Pitt's claim went in a different direction. That is:
"The crucible will remain; only the ones who cut us apart will be burned out."

With a partisan divide worsened, the meaning of who cuts us apart is likewise worsened, and accordingly any existing double standard is too.

Therefore, I remain interested in Mr. Pitt's answer to my question.

[library_max]

74. The actual double standard as I see it

is that RW disruptors and enemies of the Democratic Party who hope to keep us out of political office are already categorically banned, but disruptors and enemies of the Democratic Party who call themselves progressives but who also hope to keep us out of political office are merely restricted from starting new threads calling for the death of the Democratic Party, etc.

[Walt Starr]

61. Like I said, sometimes the slag floats to the top and must be skimmed off

That's why I've been clicking page two a lot lately.

If you want the slag skimmed off, all you have to do is click on page two, and send the pure stuff back to the top.

I don't need censorship rules in order to do that, either. It's pretty easy to skim the slag.

[Cronus Protagonist]

66. That's a good idea, Walt

I think I'll try that myself.

[Wickster]

26. Sounds good,

where's my precinct?

[jarab]

29. I'll be voting YES on the proposal for GD

Only the Admins are really in-the-know as to whether change is needed. We're privileged to have this vote, and if some of the proposals don't pan out, they may be changed again - with or without our input.
I can foresee lots of problems with enforcement, but the site is not mine to nurture. No single member or clique will be responsible for the failure or success of these rule changes. The "general" tone may improve, and that appears to be a goal.
Does anyone think the owners would take such "drastic" measures if they weren't necessary? I'm convinced these changes are well-thought-out, and I can live with them - and can live without those who can't live with them.
mho
...O...

[rabid_nerd]

30. NO NEW RULES

nt

[Sephirstein]

33. Not bad but this would be a bit better...

RULES TO START DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recent or current event, on a recently reported news item, or on a recent article or op-ed piece. If you are referencing a published item, you must include a link to the original article.

2. Unless you are a bashing Joe Lieberman, if you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support.

3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden. Naturally, this rule does not apply when discussing Joe Lieberman.

4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate or the Democratic party candidate is Joe Lieberman.

5. Discussion threads which paint supporters of any Democratic candidate in a negative light are forbidden, unless they support Joe Lieberman. Even then, they need to be corrected as opposed to insulted.

[Tinoire]

37. In other words

Let Lieberman be the whipping boy as Clark passes under the radar?

Lieberman underwent the DU exam as did all the other candidates- just because Clark showed up late for the exam is no reason to waive him through and send him to the head of the class.

No. Equal treatment- equal scrutiny- equal discussion for all candidates.

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. Heh - good one :)

I think we're coming to a compromise :)

[Brian Sweat]

36. I have a problem with rules 3, 4 and 5 of section 2

3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden.


As a Clark supporter, it really angers me that people accuse Clark of being a Republican, but I think this rule is a bit draconian. There may be legitimate reasons to discuss the loyalties of a candidate. Will this be judgement call or an absolute rule.


4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

I hate Greens more than anyone else here, but I thought DU was not big "D" Democratic specific. Can third party supporters still post threads supporting their candidates?

5. Discussion threads which paint supporters of any Democratic candidate in a negative light are forbidden.

Does this just refer to threads that paint all supporters of a candidate in a negative light. How about if a group of supporters do something untoward? Can we discuss this as long as we make it clear that we are discussing this subset of supporters?

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. I'm not going to vote:

I don't see the point since my debating style was already neutered by the old DU rules. I enjoy this forum, but I've already been relegated to self-censoring due to past experiences. Now I drop a line or two, here and there, but I don't allow myself to get too caught up in a debate any more.

However, DU should do whatever they feel they need to do. Most of the time those heated debates are with people that I don't really think should be on these boards at all. So it's possible that the new rules will eliminate the trolling that provokes the fighting.

[Brian Sweat]

65. How did the old rules neuter your "debating" style?

[The Backlash Cometh]

68. Let's just say...

that the threads and posts which I felt actually hit points that were interesting to me, never survived more than 24 hours, and sometimes less than that. They could never be retrieved through archive searches. Too probing in the wrong direction, I guess. Also, rules weren't applied evenly. I've had posters call me a liar, and their posts survived, while mine disappeared.

It's really irrelevant. You asked, so I answered, but it's not a critical issue for me any more. I can live with the limitations.

[dwckabal]

76. Yeah, I've had posts deleted

for telling someone to "lighten up". Amazing, really, how some people on this forum take every statement as a personal attack.

People, if you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, you need to move on. Or use the alert button.

[bearfan454]

39. I'm okay with the new rules.

I just want to be able to have good discussions.

[Don_G]

42. The New Rules Sound Good To Me

GD got out of hand and with the lack of voluntary restraint, I feel something had to be done. If anyone can't live within the new rules, they can still post in the P/C Forum.

Thanks Skinner.

[starscape]

51. I'll vote "yes"

I've invited friends here, hoping they would get more involved, but none of them have stayed very long. This place will make you think all of the Dem candidates are crooks, liars, etc if bashing is allowed to go on unabated. It's frustrating, it's irritating, and I always leave feeling much less excited about politics and, particularly, our Democratic "family" then I did when I got here.

I hope that after the primaries, the climate will be different and the rules could be rolled back. I don't think that's out of the question, is it?

Carry on. Oh, and vote "yes."

[The Magistrate]

52. My Vote Will Be 'Yes' In This Matter

[Armstead]

58. Sorry, but I still diasagree with 4B

>>>4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.<<<

I agree with the overall effort to clean up GD. But just my two cents on this one aspect that bothers me.

I realize the purpose of 4B is to avoid disruptors, and also the interminable "Dems suck, Vote Green" flamefests.

However that is too vague and open to censorship of actual discussion. Suppose someone wants to advocate "strategic voting" for example, is that advocating splintering Democrats and therefore banned? Or is someone who advocates doing things to send message to what they perceive as "Pink Tutu" Dems trying to divide the party or in their view make it stronger?

Not to get philosophical here, but many progressives feel that the Democrats have come to assume that they can coast on the Anyone But Bush (or insert the appropriate Republican) strategy. It seems discussions of that would be prevented by this new rule.

Also, in my opinion, discussions about the direction of progressive pol9tics and what the Democratic Party represents is a legitimate underpinning to many of the debates over specific candidates. That seems especially important to encourage during the primary season.

[XanaDUer]

59. Skinner, some thoughts on published articles...

I understand the some of the problems with pulling up older published stuff about candidates. And I am not talking about obvious right-wing sources like Newsmax.com, et al. However, I do think it is important to see articles about how a candidate voted in the past. Or, if a potential president did not have to vote for something, what his/her positions were on topics dear to liberals' and Democrats' hearts...etc.

Also, some of the best articles are on a pay-for-view, subscription- basis only. Can we list a citation to an article that cannot be linked to full view? The Internet is great, but as you know, incomplete and not authoritative. Like, Counterpunch offers special editions you cannot get online unless you pay for them. Or, some of us can get acces to full-text databases through work or library sources, but cannot link the entire article, provide the link, or exceed the four-paragraph limit.

I guess we could post the pertinent parts of the article, and then give the citation? Or how about an abstract? Many of the candidates have careers that span decades, but the Internet is only good for a few years.

Thanks.

[Rowdyboy]

75. For God's sake, you guys act like Skinner is Joe McCarthy...

and DU is the Red Scare. He wants to offer up FOR A VOTE some suggestions to make this a better place because members have complained-rightfully.

GD currently resembles nothing so much a an out-of-control middle-school study hall with snot-nosed pre-teens screaming at each other and slinging shit. Threads requiring thought vanish in minutes because some ass wants to repost slurs over and over and over to "educate" us. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

GD is definitely broken. Will the new rules fix it? I don't know , but I'm sure as hell gonna vote yes so I can find out!

[Jen72]

80. Yes

nt.

[shimmergal]

81. I have a problem with Section 2, rule 2,

because it does not allow for those of us who're not at this time "supporters" of an individual candidate to raise issues about a candidate.

Or does it? Can you start a thread saying one candidate's position/ statement seems wrong, and simply add, "I haven't committed to a candidate yet, but this is a factor I'll consider." Or something along that line.

[Skinner]

83. IMPORTANT NEWS!

We have changed the rules, and have posted a new thread. It is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=439282

I am locking this one.