Proposed rules to start threads in the General Discussion forum (REVISED!)

[Skinner]

After reading all of the comments about our proposed rules, it has become apparent that many people were confused about the second section, which dealt with thread topics about Democratic candidates.

The three admins discussed the issue, and realized that most of those rules were unnecessary or redundant. We believe that most of the excesses in candidate threads can be dealt with under the first section of the rules, since vanity posts and duplicate threads are going to be held up to a greater level of scrutiny. Furthermore, the existing message board rules already restrict certain types of posts about Democrats. So we decided to ditch section two entirely. But we reserve the right to add rules like it at a later date -- with or without a vote -- if we think it is necessary.

It would be a mistake to assume that the removal of section two allows "anything goes" discussions about the Democratic candidates or the Democratic party. While specific subject matter will not be forbidden, you will still get your thread shut down if you post in an inflammatory manner.

In addition, be aware that voting for these rules will give the moderators greater authority to aggressively shut down flame bait thread topics, and the text of the rules has been changed to reflect that.

Due to the change in the proposed rules, we are going to postpone the vote for one day. A vote on these rules will take place starting Wednesday, and will last for 24 hours. These are the rules, exactly as they will be offered for a vote. There will be no more changes.

********** 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.

The moderators have the authority to aggressively lock or remove threads which violate these rules. Admittedly, the determination of which threads are inflammatory is completely subjective. When a thread is shut down, members have a responsibility to respect the decision the moderators make.

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 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.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Great!

I was actually reconsidering my yes vote after an experience last night.

One thing I really do appreciate is that you are looking for way to improve that make this board a MUCH MORE USEFUL tool in our stated mission.

:thumbsup:

[synthia]

57. i was a sure no because of this thread

this morning, bear and i were talking and had a question about Dean. naturally, our first thought was to ask here. the question was clearly asked in the title but we fleshed it out slightly so it would NOT seem to be an attack.

read for yourselves what happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=437734#437898

if this many people jumped to a negative assumption as to our motives, the new rules would have made being a mod a nightmare.
much, much too much subjectivity involved.

i'm sure the main poster in this won't mind me using this thread as an example since it seems that was exactly what he or she sought to do with our question.

syn aka she-bear

[demnan]

2. Yes, this is much better

I could go with this.

[Khephra]

3. I take it "Event" warnings, like the Ashcroft one up now

Is still ok for lesser political events or repeats of said events?

[Skinner]

6. Well, do you see anything in the rules which would forbid it? (nt)

[Khephra]

8. Just checking....

I'd rather double-check than get something wrong off the bat.

[newyawker99]

4. Looks good!

:thumbsup:

[Tinoire]

5. This is much better but I think BeFree also found a great solution

BeFree (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-30-03 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #23

43. Easier to move them to their 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.

----


A dedicated forum for these elections seems like an awesome idea....

[Skinner]

9. I have said this repeatedly...

... we really, really, really don't want to do this. It would be much more restrictive than what we are proposing.

There may be a day when we open up another forum. But I am very much opposed to removing this topic from the general discussion forum. It is probably the most important issue facing us today.

[Tinoire]

16. Oddly enough, I agree with you but one more question re 4

Which is a point I made in a previous post. This is the day we've been waiting for 3 years!

I could live with these common-sense rules since they're not shunting anything aside to less visited forums and the real estate remains equally accessible to all candidates..

Thanks for taking the time to get our input. I can only imagine what a royal pain this must be!


On edit: No 4 is going to be a problem and possibly tricky. Certain people here are very thin-skinned and consider any thread that's less than glowing about their candidate to be inflammatory. I agree that there is a way of writing these threads that won't make them as inflammatory and that it would be a great improvement if we all did that.

So just to be clear- this will in no way affect reputably sourced content, just the manner in which the thread author presents their case?

The actual opinion, no matter how inflammatory to some, will still be allowed just as long as it's stated in a non-inflammatory manner? That's what the rules state the way number 4 is written and the way I read them, but I just want to make sure we're all understanding the same thing. Thanks!



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.


If this is the case, then I'm totally aboard!

[MadHound]

7. Much better Skinner! Thank you!

I can rest easier now, and also vote yes on these. Thank you!

[FlaGranny]

10. Sounds good

to me too.

[judy]

11. WHEW! What a relief...

Thank you Skinner...
I thought we were about to lose DU, by over legislation, and suppression of opinion.
Thanks for revising the rules. These are basic human rules, and they make sense.

[charlie]

12. Oh yeeaahh

You just flipped my vote. BIG smiles here! :thumbsup:

[MGKrebs]

13. I LIKE IT!

I think I would have voted yes on the other, while lamenting the fact that it had come to this. But this is very good.

Thank you. This is why you guys run the best board anywhere. You is smart.

:-)

[RMJ]

14. These are good.

I feel much more comfortable now that all the, "forbidden, Forbidden, FORBIDDEN!" is taken out.

Section two was a little strong.

:-)

[monobrau]

15. More like it

There was really too much focus on the content of replies in the previous revision. I know it can get ugly sometimes, but that's what democracy looks like.
And let's not forget that having a (d) after your name doesn't make you immune to critisicm.

[Robin Hood]

17. Vote NO on the new rules.

They're all lame, but I especially think that #4 sucks "bigtime".

[RichM]

28. Why, LG? What is wrong with #4?

I'm just asking. But honestly, I can't see anything so bad about it. :shrug:

[Robin Hood]

42. This is why.

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.
4#. I particularly have a hard time with this one. Not that I am disrespectful. I just think that it will limit creativity, and is to loosely based. And I will be livid if I spend some time composing a post only to have it yanked into oblivion by someone else's interpretation of this rule. This is a slippery slope.

[RandomUser]

The rules only apply to starting threads

You can still be as inflammatory in your opinion as you like in posts responding to a thread. It won't limit your creativity in discussions. Regarding the slippery slope, you can err on the side of caution in starting a thread, and then be as creative or reckless or inflammatory as you want in the replies.

[Tinoire]

75. Hmmm, re-read those

Inflammatory is only applying to the manner in which you present your opinion, if I read this correctly, and not the opinion itself.

My understanding is that the opinions are still uncensored but a little more civility is added.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

18. Do You Plan to Enforce Rule 4 Vigorously?

Because IMO that is the heart of this ruleset. Thanks.

DTH

[Skinner]

20. Yes, we plan to enforce all the rules vigorously.

I hope everyone realizes that the moderators are going to be much more active if these rules pass.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Thanks, Good Enough for Me!

I was undecided with the old ruleset, but I'm full on board now.

:thumbsup:

DTH

[JanMichael]

19. I need to complain!

Thanks for hearing me out!

:-)

[E_Zapata]

22. Perfecto.

I predict a landslide win. :-)

(and a landslide election win for anything will be good fodder for visualizing our democratic landslide win in Nov. 2004. Visualize and it shall be.)

[JasonBerry]

23. I will vote yes

I think scrapping the first section makes a lot of sense. This set of new rules addresses civility more than content and it will now have my support. Thanks for all of your hard work. I know it must seem completely thankless at times.

[janekat]

24. So I guess we'll continue to hear the following

"Clark voted for Reagan" or "Kerry (or Clark) is a war criminal" over and over and over again

Will untruths like this still be allowed:

"he has fucking praised.... the Iraq slaughter"
"he aided in the sell of American citizen's privacy to our rethug, fascist government."
"all of the dead Serbs he saved from genocide"
"Clark is a war Criminal"

or the folowing attacks on candidates and their supporters:

The Clark Brownshirts
garbage peddlers
a damn freeper
Clark is a Republican militarist
"Clark is a friend of Bushs"
Serbian war criminal
Dracula
Weasely Clarkisaurs
thin-skinned, uninformed,
PHONY-to-the-core candidate.

Might as well go hang out at the "Freeper" board where there's more civility and fewer attack on my candidates (Clark, Kerry, Gephardt, Kuchinich).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. I Think Rule 4 Would Nix a Lot of Those

IMO, anyway.

DTH

[Skinner]

31. No you won't.

Trust me.

[janekat]

82. good

I wasn't sure if you all were backing down from your inital "crack down" or what.

Thanks for trying to improve things by the way. I know it's not easy to please everybody...

[JohnOneillsMemory]

47. Do you hear yourselves? "Anything other than the Truth is Inflammatory...

and therefore is Not Allowed." wow...Please try to continue to allow two important elements on this board:

1) The right to be wrong and helpfully refuted by others. Called a dialogue amongst interested and knowledgable parties. Beware banishment of 'extreme points of view.' They may be your own anytime. New people come and go from this site and want to catch up on the

2) The right to express the emotional content of the text so as to accurately reflect the poster's intentions. If you mute the tone of conversation to 'polite library levels,' you will not be able to say 'your house is on fire' without using euphimisms that diminish the content to irrelevance.

Moderators, ask yourselves "What would COINTELPRO do?" and then, don't do exactly that.

This ought to point the rules in the direction of an empowering energized community working to take back our government!

[Robin Hood]

67. Well said... bravo sir, bravo.

Those are my feelings exactly.

[Iverson]

26. These look fine to me.

My previous reservations concerning inequalities are now withdrawn, in case that cuts any mustard with anyone else.

[RichM]

27. This is fine. Much, much better. (Long live democracy on DU!)

Thank you! :thumbsup: :bounce:

[Cha]

29. Thanks! And I, also, appreciate that you are trying

to have the discussions on DU be "non-inflammatory".

[Selwynn]

30. I like this much better

(nt)

[kentuck]

32. I do not feel restricted by any of these new rules...

yet...:)

[Armstead]

33. I can support these wholeheartedly

I was one of those who raised objections about a couple of the proposed rules in section B. Without those this seems much better, or "Just right" (as in the Three Bears).

Seems to tread the balance between free expression and taste and common sense. Thanks.

[LynneSin]

34. This Statement should be on the top of every post you make

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.

[XanaDUer]

35. Is the GD Thread #4 about this gone?

I had a question about articles on it that I was curious about. :)

[bearfartinthewoods]

71. it's locked but here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=437785

[Demobrat]

36. Thank goodness.

Maybe I'll stay after all.

[alexwcovington]

37. How is the vote going to be taken?

This doesn't seem to be full of specifics...

[Skinner]

40. I'm going to post a poll tomorrow.

It'll give everyone a yes or no vote. The poll will be open for 24 hours.

[Crewleader]

44. Thanks Skinner, Earl G. & Elad

for all your efforts of making GD better for all! :-)

[alexwcovington]

46. Will you post both sides of the case on the poll posting?

I think fair elections are very important. Whether or not we agree with Liberal_Guerilla -- both sides of the case should be presented.

[Skinner]

49. I'm not going to post either side of the case.

I'm just going to post the proposed rules, and ask people to vote yes or no.

[alexwcovington]

60. Ok... so you're making a big lead-up with your own case, but not for him?

You're already enforcing Rule #5 and it hasn't been adopted.

Pardon me, but however much you feel this may improve the forum -- this is not the way fair elections are run.

I would ask that you ask L_G for a *short* statement of his case -- and write up an equally short statement of your own -- and post it with the vote -- and present it in an equalitarian manner.

This will ensure a fair hearing of both sides by everyone who votes.

[Skinner]

65. No offense, but...

I don't have to put this up for a vote at all.

If you read my post above, I'm hardly making the case in favor of these rules. I've been completely open and honest about the fact that they are 1. totally subjective, and 2. handing more power over to the moderators. I have not tried to sugar-coat these rules at all. I know better than anyone here that enforcement is going to be hell, and many people will be making my life miserable. I even admitted that the rules aren't going to solve all of our problems.

[alexwcovington]

107. None taken

I'm just trying to point out that you are tilting the playing field here. If you had wanted to simply impose this on us, that was your perogative, but putting it up to a vote calls for some semblance of fairness.

Admitting to two caveats is not the same as allowing equal time for the opposite view. Your message is still by and large supportive of the idea.

Putting equal time up on the ballot measure will be a great step towards resolving the imbalance, and will go a long way towards opponents of the measure accepting the legitimacy of the vote.

[Robin Hood]

38. Vote NO on the new GD rules.

I know that the majority of you will flame me on this, i don't care. I think that the new rules, or any rules other than harassment rules are bad for this board. We are all adults and don't need grammar, punctuation, and subject line police to stifle our discussion topics.


Here they are in all their glory.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.
While I don't personally have a hard time with this one, it is still attached to the rest of these lousy rules. it also limits creativity.

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 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.
2#. Is too damn obvious to me. More limitations on speech and creativity. The moderators will become punctuation and grammar police. I know that some of you get off on those sort of power trips but it really does make you look petty.

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.
3#. I don't necessarily understand this one. Why must someone post their opinion. I have found some articles that need no commentary(Though I usually can't help my self). Some articles do a good enough job of starting a Discussion all on their own.

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.
4#. I particularly have a hard time with this one. Not that I am disrespectful. I just think that it will limit creativity, and is to loosely based. And I will be livid if I spend some time composing a post only to have it yanked into oblivion by someone else's interpretation of this rule. This is a slippery slope.

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.
5#. Let's start off by saying that there are a lot of good original posts that come out of replies, but are buried in a thread and deserve the attention that an original post would get. I don't think that it's right to limit possibly brilliant insights, ideas, information to a reply. This will not encourage the sharing of ideas and dissemination of information, it would only serve to stifle it.

As far as duplicates go. If I take the time to post on a subject that may have dropped away and I am not aware of. And i post my topic and someone kicks the same topic up again from page four, then my topic becomes subject for removal? Am I supposed to scan every post six pages back?

Those are my mis givings about these rules. I hope that you will agree with me and vote NO tomorrow on the new GD rules. Thank you for your support, and God bless America.

Skinner, I knew that you would lock it. I don't think that it was right to stop me from campaigning against these new rules.

[alexwcovington]

43. I am disturbed with how they're framing the campaign

Both sides of the case should be heard in any election. Both arguments should have their own original message, with discussion underneath.

Otherwise, it can be argued the admins are rigging it, especially by locking threads when people against the changes post up their own messages...

[Robin Hood]

45. I couldn't agree more.

It does seem to be rigged. Slowly but surely, I am becoming the enemy on this board.

[alexwcovington]

48. I hope not

It's hypocrisy for liberals to censor anything....

[Robin Hood]

64. All I thought that I was doing is campaigning for my beliefs.

Is it wrong to campaign on this board when it runs counter to popular sentiment?

[loudsue]

68. They don't HAVE to do ANYTHING!!!

It's Skinner's baby, and he doesn't even have to allow a vote if he doesn't want to.

Quit whining and making trouble. They're trying to be as fair as possible, and I think they're doing a damn good job, as usual.

So just stop your belly-aching! :nuke:

[Robin Hood]

70. You're right he doesn't have to do anything.

And I don't have to be here either. I'm sure others will feel the same way, and whoemever is left can have their little boring circle jerk all to them selves.

P.S. Belly aching is an American under pinning.

[RandomUser]

77. how do you feel about

yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

[Robin Hood]

84. How does that apply here?

Apples and Oranges.

[RandomUser]

86. Somewhat

"It's hypocrisy for liberals to censor anything...."

I just wanted to know whether you stood by this statement with respect to "Fire"

Or would you say it's not inflexible?

[Tinoire]

88. The way I've read

in the actual thread title.... censorship- there's only a wee, wee bit where they're asking people not to put it in the title of the thread. Just one string of 5-12 words with no profanity (yes it IS censorship) but to avoid 20 spam threads just because people didn't like a point that was made and decided to throw a temper tantrum in GD.

This liberal hates to blush, but I'll sacrifice.

In spirit I agree with you however and am sorry that juvenile tactics have brought us to this...

[KittyWampus]

39. Thank You, Yesterday I Would Have Abstaineed

Now I can vote and feel good about it! :)

[welshTerrier2]

41. Once Again the DU Admins

have navigated their way thru a minefield ...

the new rules as originally proposed were far too restrictive ...

i commend the admins for closely monitoring the feedback they received and choosing a wiser path ...

let's hope that the rules as now proposed lift the quality of the GDF experience for all concerned ... kudos to the admins for the judgment they've shown !!

[starroute]

50. Clarification on rule #2?

I asked yesterday whether the no-profanity clause would prevent quoting news items or articles which themselves contained profanity, and got the answer that it would not.

I was expecting to see this exception in the revised rules, and am disappointed that it is not there and that you say, "There will be no more changes."

Is there any possibility of modifying #2 at this point to read, "may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation (except when these elements are present in quoted sources)"?


On edit -- I wonder, for example, if this would be considered excessive capitalization?

"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."

[Skinner]

51. I think the intent of the rule is obvious.

If there is profanity in a quoted source, the moderators are not going to remove it.

[starroute]

63. Nothing is obvious

That is why rule-making is such a treacherous business (and why lawyers get rich.)

I've sometimes seen people here complaining that there is too much profanity in posts and that it could give this board a bad reputation. I thought that was at least part of the reason for the new rule. If it isn't, and the rule is entirely directed towards keeping the discussion civil, you really do need to make that clear.

If you don't, you are going to have people self-censoring unnecessarily.

[OrdinaryTa]

52. Yes, No, and Abstain

I would like to see "Abstain" as a vote category. I don't oppose the purpose of the rules but I think implementation will be arbitrary and unwieldy. The original rules would have been a horror show, but the revised rules still rely on moderator judgment calls.

I want to record that I voted neither Yes nor No.

[Skinner]

54. You will have the option to abstain

by simply choosing not to vote.

[OrdinaryTa]

76. Abstention

Making the ayes and the noes aware that an abstention vote was cast has more impact than simply not voting. It lets both sides know that they didn't get the vote of a voter. It says that I cared enough about the issues but chose not to endorse either alternative.

It's what I plan to do next year if the Democrats foolishly nominate a warmonger.

[RandomUser]

53. A loophole?

Since these rules apply to starting new threads, but not responding to them. What happens if a spammer kicks a bunch of old threads, all with the same topic, thus flooding the front page with duplicates?

Or more innocuously, what if person A is reading a topic on the front page, but it slips to the second while he's responding. Before the response, Person B, seeing nothing on the front page, makes a new topic. The response from person A kicks in and voila...duplicate threads on the front page.

I would be a lot more comfortable if the page restriction on duplicate threads was changed to the first two pages instead of just the front page. This gives a cushion to avoid the innocous scenario, and encourages people to browse the second page's topics before posting a new thread. Considering the speed of postings on DU and rapidly shifting thread orders, I think this cushion would be wise.

And this page cushion doesn't detract from discourse, since if someone finds the topic interesting on pg 2, they can kick it up by replying. (Edited to add: Actually, it improves discourse because it makes people pay more attention to topics on the second page)

Regardless, I think this revised ruleset is an improvement over the old one. So any chance of that page cushion change on rule #5? Or do you feel it's unnecessary to change it from one page to two pages? Thanks.

[Skinner]

55. The moderators have discretion to do what is necessary.

If someone deliberately kicks a bunch of threads in order to be an ass, we would put an end to that behavior pretty quickly.

[RandomUser]

59. Thanks

Then I'm voting yes for these rules.

[DuctapeFatwa]

56. A request to those who plan to vote yes on the new rules

Before you vote, imagine that you are a person from a conservative or Republican etc website, poking around DU to see what the "liberals" consider free speech.

Read the rules from the point of view of someone who would like to criticize people who have had comments on repression of dissent and free speech in recent months.

[Skinner]

61. I wouldn't worry about what conservative republicans think.

They already hate DU. They send us emails every day about how we "can't handle" debate.

I can live with that. This website doesn't exist to make them happy. It doesn't exist to make liberals look good. In fact, it makes us look pretty bad.

[DuctapeFatwa]

74. My intention was that posters reflect on THEIR feelings about free speech

Positing themselves as someone with a different view is just a technique toward that end.

Only the suppressed word is dangerous.
--Ludwig Börne

[TahitiNut]

81. "The greatest threat to free speech is irresponsible speech."

I don't know who said it; maybe just me? :shrug:

[RandomUser]

87. Agreed

Example: Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal.

[DuctapeFatwa]

105. Which speech forbidden by new rules is comparable to fire in theater?

That is exactly the kind of consideration I would hope everyone would give the question up for vote!

[RandomUser]

110. The point

I was trying to make is that "free speech" sometimes needs to be managed and restricted to prevent anarchy. In the case of "fire" in the theater, the result is obvious.

Here, the result is a bit more insidious. The sheer number of duped threads prevented meaningful conversation for occurring. That seemed to be the intent of the spammers on a smear campaign. They would post something, and it wouldn't matter if you refuted it, because they would then go on to repost that same thing in ten different new threads, pushing the thread with your refutation to bottom and the next page. And unless you wanted to post the exact same thing in every thread, they would say aha! you didn't address the issue, so it must be true! I'm not sure if this was by design, of if there were lots of people, all starting their own threads, not aware of the previous ones. Unlikely given that the same topic is made into numerous new threads a day, many of them on the same page at the same time. Although I will allow that for some, it might just be that the time of day is different and they didn't bother to read all the threads. But the end result was that sensible debate couldn't be conducted, and GD was drowning in sheer number of dupes.

So you see, that is the correlation between restricting speech here, and restricting speech in a theater. To create an ordered structure to accomplish a purpose. In this case, rational discourse.

[Cooley Hurd]

104. "In fact, it makes us (liberals) look pretty bad..."

I'm sorry that I found that statement funny (but I did!)

I'll vote in favor of the rules. Without civility, DU's membership will dwindle (contrary to popular belief, most people don't enjoy being in a flame war), contributions would dwindle and DU would cease to exist.

[quinnox]

58. Although I still think #4 won't work, and will have to be junked later

I could vote for these rules as they stand. As an experiment, if nothing else. I think the removal of the second set was wise, with the exception of casting supporters of candidates in a negative light. I would have kept that one.

[arwalden]

62. I'd Be Willing To Bet Money...

... that if adopted, these new rules are still malleable.

I'm thinking that changes are possible if the rules proved to be totally unworkable... or if the needed tightening, or loosening, or tweaking, or if the climate changed for the better or the worse, or whatever other external forces and insights came to the surface.

Am I too far off base?

I'm not going to sweat it for now.

-- Allen

[DemExpat]

66. I'd vote YES for the other ones, but these are better.

Hope they really help keep the flow of info here at DU, but presented in a respectful- of- others manner!

:kick:

DemEx

[Don_G]

69. How About An Absentee Vote?

I'll be on the road to Chicago tomorrow and may not get a chance to vote in time.

I vote "yes." :thumbsup:

[loudsue]

72. Thanks, Skinner. I only wish you could start a duplicate of

DU where only O8) progressives O8) were allowed!!!! (Those of us activists who are being called "extreme leftists" around here these days).

Seems like DU has drifted squarely to the right in the past 4 months.
All us peacenik weirdos used to have a majority here. It makes me sad...feels like the WHOLE PLANET is drifting to the right, misnamed the "center". Ugh!

Anyway, thank you for making such a gallant effort on behalf of those of us who live here...these rules should help hold down at least some of the disruption.



:loveya:

[Skinner]

73. You still do have a majority here.

The fact that a few people disagree with you does not change that fact. There have been centrist Dems here since day one.

[dfong63]

78. imho these rules are vague, so how about

... a trial period before the vote? have a moderator go thru and mark each current GD thread as either pass or fail under the new rules. if fail, cite the rule that it violates; if pass then elucidate why it does not violate any relevant rules.

[Skinner]

83. I think we're going to do it this way.

If people have concerns, they have the option of voting no.

[MrPrax]

79. Much better...congrads

to the MODS...
They should run the country...the people spoke and they listened...
Nothing here no one can really disagree with...(#3 might be problematic)...I pasted a TOMPAINE.com piece once, somewhere else, and a few chatters came back with..."that right wing fascist site!!" "agit-prop"...maybe it is, maybe it isn't...made a good point about war spending and dead GI kids tho

But if a piece is well-written and well-argued, I don't care about the label.
It goes into the memory bank with the rest of the stuff

Needless to say Conservative is a relative term (hell Buchanan and a few of the real conservative pundits are as horrified with the Cabal as Democrats!!)

But KUDOs to the MODs...yeah and zero-tolerance on the 'swearing' and cussing in the topic posts--regardless of the outcome of the vote...
Fine in the threads...but childish, off-putting and essentially a no-go elsewhere in the chat universe...

[PurityOfEssence]

80. What is this, Christmas or something?

That's great. Virtually all of my frustrations and complaints evaporate in the face of this revision. Not limiting the candidate threads to ones based on recent media coverage keeps the less prominent candidates from being further marginalized, and that was huge for me.

I love the duplicates bit too; if you remember, I've bellyached about people who clog the board with numerous essentially identical threads to jam their point home, while forcing many other interesting subjects into obscurity. This is a great buffer against that kind of mania.

[rbnyc]

85. Thanks. I was going to vote No before...

...now I'll probably vote YES, but would still rather people were able follow guidelines on their own.

[goobergunch]

89. BEAUTIFUL!

I was going to vote yes on the old ones, but I was beginning to have misgivings. These I can vote yes on without any problems.

Admins, :yourock:

[Loyal]

90. What happened to some of the rules?

I know this was revised, but, a whole chunk of the rules have been removed :shrug::

"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."

Namely these 5. These rules were the whole reason I wanted to vote for the package as a whole. I'll most likely still vote for it, but these were good rules, Skinner. Why take them out :shrug:? In my opinion, they would help usher in a whole new era of civility to the GD forum.

[Skinner]

91. Perhaps you should read my explanation.

It's right at the top of this thread. I explained very clearly where those rules went.

[Loyal]

92. Thanks

I hope the rules work as well as everyone thinks.

[Skinner]

93. They won't.

They will curb some of the current excesses, but they aren't going to solve all of our problems.

[cally]

94. I agree with these wholeheartedly

I was opposed to the full set at this time, but the revised version looks great. Thanks.


Heres a :toast: to the mods. The next few weeks will be difficult while all get used to these if they win will not be easy.

Thanks admin for paying attention to what the members want.

[library_max]

95. Just so we're clear

Under this revision of the rules (if passed), will it still be OK for threads to be started with messages that categorically insult and defame mainstream Democrats, so long as the posters can avoid profanity (substitute "posterior" for "ass," for example), excessive capitalization, and excessive punctuation (which I guess means multiple exclamation points)?

If so, I liked the original version better. I believe that there are excellent reasons for banning freepers and other RW disruptors from the site, who come here only to insult us and defame our beliefs and our candidates. They would also argue that they have a "free speech" right to be heard, but I would argue that it should not be in our forum. But I don't see how it's so different for LW disruptors (or disruptors who represent themselves as LW) to come here and insult us and defame our beliefs and our candidates. And an awful lot of bashing and to-hell-with-Democrats threads have been started with disingenuous and oh-so-innocent "constructive" criticism or "what do you think of this?" followed by a right-wing or anti-Democrat screed.

[Skinner]

96. No.

If the thread is inflammatory, it'll get pulled.

[Loyal]

97. Thank you!

I expect the level of political discourse on here to be greatly elevated by these new rules. I'll be voting yes!

[Darranar]

98. Thanks, Skinner!

Much better.

[RandomUser]

99. Question

What's the order of locking? When a dupe is made, do you lock the newer thread? Or the original thread?

Over in P/C, a thread was begun, and accumulated many replies. Someone started a dupe, a few hours after the first thread. The dupe was allowed and the earlier thread with more replies and more recent replies than the dupe thread was locked. Both were on the same front page.

Just wondering if it's at the moderator's discretion, or if there's a specific order that the threads are locked in when such a situation occurs. Is there a preference?

In the above case, I would have preferred for the new dupe to be locked instead of the original, since the original thread had more replies and more recent replies as well.

[Skinner]

100. That sounds like an error.

Typically, the older thread is allowed to stay, and the newer thread is locked.

Sometimes, if the newer thread has more replies, the newer thread will be allowed to stay, and the older thread will be removed.

[RandomUser]

102. Glad to see it was an error

It was a bit jarring to be cut off in the middle of a conversation. The funny thing is that the locked original thread with 6 replies is still above the unlocked dupe with 1 reply.

[sandnsea]

101. These are a little weird

First, not starting a new thread if the thread has dropped off the first page isn't going to do alot to squelch some of the bashing threads. I think it should be Page #3 at least. There are alot of great threads that drop quickly and it would be nice to encourage people to click a couple of pages just for general principle.

In some instances, I'm not sure why I would need to respect differences of opinion. Especially when you qualified inflammatory rhetoric on political opponents. Does that mean Democratic candidates as well, who some will consider their political opponents? Many people here consider almost everybody in Congress their political opponent. I thought reducing flame threads was the point.

I think the rules could be kind of simple:

Click through 3 pages before posting a new thread.

Express an opinion and some basis in fact for the opinion.

No cursing or hype in subject lines.

No inflammatory rhetoric unless directed at our joint political opponents.

Just my penny.

[IndianaGreen]

103. Much better than the original version of the rules

I was very concerned about being unable to properly analyse a candidate's qualifications for office. This is normally not a problem when a candidate has an established record in public office, but it does become problematic when one has to look at candidates whose only record is as activists or in the military. In both cases, one may have to rely on articles and reports published a while back abaut actions in which the candidate was involved. Two such cases are the Tawana Brawley case, and the war in Kosovo.

[FubarFly]

106. These rules are a fair compromise.

I will vote yes, and hope for the best.

Thanks again for listening. Once again you've proved why this is the best site on the net.

[zeemike]

108. Thanks Skinner

I don’t see anything in the new rules that I can’t live with
And thanks for the work you have done here. I know that I would not be able to do the job you have taken on and still keep my sanity.

[Skinner]

109. I'm locking this thread.

It has gotten too long.

Continue discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=441481&mesg_id=441481

Skinner
DU Admin