Should we split the General Discussion Forum into two forums?

[Skinner]

For a long time, members have asked us to move all of the discussions about the Democratic primary out of the General Discussion Forum and into the Politics and Campaigns forum. We have opposed this approach because we feel that the Democratic Primary is among the most important issues facing Democrats, and we don't want to "bury" it where it won't get any coverage. We still think it would be unwise.

However, recently, when we look at the General Discussion forum, it seems as if the candidate discussions have crowded out discussion of every other issue. In our reluctance to bury discussions of the Democratic primary, we have inadvertently buried almost every other issue.

The administrators now feel that some solution is necessary. We propose that we split the General Discussion forum into two General Discussion forums. The two General Discussion forums would have the same rules about inflammatory thread topics which have caused so much consternation as of late. The only difference is that one General Discussion forum will be specifically for the discussion of the Democratic Primary, and the other will be for discussion of everything EXCEPT the Democratic Primary. When the primary is over, we'll likely change the forum so that it is specifically for the Presidential General Election. The two forums will be called:

General Discussion
General Discussion: 2004 Primary

We don't often put things up for a vote from our membership, but we would like to hear your opinions on this change. So:

Do you support splitting the General Discussion forum into two separate forums, one to discuss the Democratic primary, and one to discuss everything else?

This poll will be open until 5:00PM ET Tuesday, December 16.

[Don Claybrook]

1. My personal preference is for one forum

I'd rather do the filtering with my eyeballs than by visiting two different forums. But I wouldn't lose sleep over it either way.

on immediate edit: this looks like a lonely (and losing) position. :)

[Kanary]

2. I guess it depends on if you want to have issues

If you value having issues discussed, then you will make that feasible.

If the candidate bashing is the only thing of value, then it will be kept as is.

It would also be nice if there was a place for support, as anyone working in political issues gets very tired and burned out. But, that doesn't seem to be a value at all.

I hope you can see all the demoralized bodies laying around.

Kanary

[Maeve]

3. I'd rather have a forum to ignore than filter thru

When and if I feel like browsing the candidate wars, I will. so far, only the Daily Democrat threads have been worth my time on that.

[TrogL]

4. I might add, however

That there's plenty of non-political discussion in GD.

Some of this easily belongs in other forums eg. economics but others has no real home eg. science. Where should it go?

[HereSince1628]

13. If it has a public policy/political connection GD

If its other stuff it belongs in the lounge.

For example, is it worth spending money on another moon shot seems a fair question for GD.

The...saturn v rockets are the coolest thing ever on earth type threads belong in the lounge.

[rucky]

5. What about the politics & campaigns forum?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Kind of a shame that our primaries are straying so far from the issues

but for one...I voted yes

[CMT]

7. I reluctantly voted NO

the reason is the administrators have done several things regarding enforcement of rules and allowing members to hide threads they find offensive. I have a feeling the GD--2004 Primary page will really go off the deep end with one hate thread after another. I think one GD forum will be easier to monitor than two.

[thom1102]

39. But that is all GD is now, anyway.

Listen, I was a daily visitor to GD and enjoyed participating in the lively political discussions there, but it has became so unpleasant and uncivil in GD with all the candidate bashing that I retreated to the lounge, where I almost never venture back into GD, and have said on many occasions that I will not venture back into GD until after the primary. With this solution, that could change, needless to say I voted yes.

[nostamj]

8. since I *very* rarely participate in the candidate threads...

i've pretty much written off GD for the time being.

(and yesterday's feces-fest over the SH capture was as demoralizing as the cable news coverage.)

this has potential. give it a shot.

[SoCalDem]

I stay away from GD because it's too candidate oriented.

I have not attached to any particular candidate and I get worn out from hiding all the rest.. Then my page one has like 9 threads to choose from.. I just go to the other forums and mostly the lounge..

Nothing productive is coming from the bash-a-dem threads anyway.. Why not put them all in one place and the ones who want to bash each other and helpo Rove make commercials can just have at..

It's too bad that the software cannot be set up to automatically move any thread that has a candidate's name in it.. That would save the moderators a ton of time moving stuff..

I would LOVE to have GD back the way it was... When we discussed a variety of things..

Another option would be this.. Pro<candidate's name here> pinned thread that would allow posting.. and an Anti<candidate's name here> thread..

Then ALL posts regarding that candidate would have to go there.. That would eliminate the 19 threads about Kerry,Dean,Edwards et al..

[smirkymonkey]

9. Yes, it has gotten to the point where I don't even

go to GD anymore because I know that most of what I'll see are candidate bashing posts and I am really tired of it.

I would like to see a GD forum addressing other issues such as the state of the economy, the Iraq & Afghanistan mess, Global issues and Republican BAshiing!!

[arwalden]

26. Yep... You And Me Both, Smirkey!

-- Allen

[never cry wolf]

10. Great idea!!

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!

Another idea, maybe under P & C, how about a forum for each candidate under their name so their supporters can post positive news for their guy, organize meet-ups, etc. I believe BBV has something like this.

[PunkinPi]

11. How about moving candidate discussions to P & C?

It seems more appropriate. :shrug:

But, whatever the decision, it's ok by me. :)

[rbnyc]

14. I agree.

Why don't people use P&C?

On the other hand, I like it over in P&C and hope that it doesn't take a turn for the worse.

[edzontar]

12. I voted to keep one forum, because it is easier to search...

I don't think the probem can be solved by splitting forums.

I think the real issue is, and will increasingly continue to be, how to control the abuse of the forums by disruptors and opportunists like the ones who were all over the place today.

As we all know, some threads that really should have been locked--and in some cases were locked and then re-opened, and then locked again--ended up pushing the sensibilities of many on the board to their absolute limit.

Given the recently stated policy of trying to increase the level of civility and constructive discourse, I was amazed that these sinkholes remained open for as long as they did.

I would support a more stringent policy of banning posters who start deliberately disruptive threads like the "Join the Stop Whoever Movement" threads.

Maybe in some cases the bans could be short--say, one month--duration. To teach a lesson, as it were.

In any case, I suspect that splitting things up further will not help. Having spent some time in the spiderhole of despair that is I/P, I would hate to see a similar marginalization come over the oltical forums when we need them most.

But I appear to be in a minority on this point.

[supernova]

15. Yes support the split

For two reasons:

1) Issues related discussion is getting buried, as some have noted, in the barrage of "My Candidate Is Better Than Your Candidate" threads.

2) The primaries and the general election are important enough to have their own places anyway. Too important to be split across LBN, GD, P&C, etc.

[DS1]

16. Call it Election 04 and be done with it

:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

30. That's a good idea too..

If it's got a candidate's name in it...IT GOES THERE..

Like we did with the 9-11 forum.. Actuallt that one could have all its stuff dumped into a different forum by now.. There is little action or anything new on it.. When it started it was to stop the same thing we are discussing here.. OVERKILL..

[blondeatlast]

62. Great idea. The only way I would support a split.

[RainDog]

17. Yes, please do!!

and thank you, thank you, thank you!

I also find GD more and more difficult to visit. there are so many negative candidate threads that it is hard to find the other threads, and they get buried too soon.

we used to have some interesting threads on issues, and people would go find links and these were very informative threads, to me.

if the candidate threads were in one place, those other issue threads would be more accessible AND the forum which people see most often when they visit DU would not seem like one big fight.

[Kamika]

18. I think that would be stupid

The primaries SHOULD be talked about because that's 'relevant'.

What are we gonna fill GD with? conspiracy theories and insults to Rush?


Better thing wuld be to lock threads that are obvious freepers like

"It's all over we will lose" etc etc etc

or "Lieberman is a Rightwinger he dont support a socialist country"

Those types of threads are so obvious a freeper and yet they dont get locked

[thom1102]

41. How would it lose its relevance if it is given it's own forum...

I think that because it is so relevant, that it SHOULD have it's own forum... but that is just MHO.:shrug:

[catzies]

101. We'd fill GD with the same stuff only then it wouldn't sink so fast.

I voted FOR the split. Give me back "my" GD! :)

[imhotep]

19. I voted no

the new primary forum will just be the same as the current GD, with the non-primary forum being totally deserted.

[thom1102]

42. See, I don't think you realize how many of us in the lounge avoid GD...

because of the candidate bashing. It is the running gag there that you need to be sanitized after visiting GD because you are covered with the sh*t that has been flying in there.

[Paragon]

20. Only if you call it "2004 Primaries" (plural)

There is more than one, after all.

[AlabamaYankee]

21. I voted for two

IMHO the sheer volume of the candidate-advocate threads overwhelms other important, and to some of us, more interesting topics. While I've got a preference I'm solidly ABB. The passion of rthe candiddates is fine, but turns too often to venom. I'd put the threads on "ignore", but there wouldn't be anything left.

[cprise]

22. Duh, it's called "Politcs and Campaigns"

I think moderators should kick lazily-placed posts right out of GD into P&C or other applicable forum.

GD has been incoherent and overrun for too long. Don't multiply the problem with another GD.

[rbnyc]

53. Yeah, if we split GD, what is P&C for? (nt)

[goodhue]

73. well put

GD: 2004 primary and P&C would be redundant. P&C is often slow moving. Why not just force primary stuff from GD to P&C rather than create another forum. While I understand the motivation I think it may just cause more confusion.

[arwalden]

23. I Voted Yes... But Now I Wonder

Who in their right mind would want to be the moderator for that new forum? What a nightmare it could become! Maybe I just answered my question... perhaps the qualification would be finding someone who isn't in their right mind... some daredevil perhaps.

-- Allen

[SoCalDem]

28. Make that forum a no-hold's barred forum

If you are ready to bash someone elses candidate, you might as well be ready to have YOURS bashed as well :)

[TrogL]

36. I'll do it!!

Everybody knows I'm :crazy: and I don't have a dog in this fight.

[sistersofmercy]

24. I voted no because

what I see as being part of the burying problem are a few DUers who post far too many threads about their candidate at once. It appears to me they purpsosely work to fill the first page of GD with these threads.

[blondeatlast]

63. I've noticed that too. It needs to stop.

[hlthe2b]

25. I've thought this made sense for a long time... now I think it is critical

to do so.... I've about given up on GD. Threads move so quickly through there that anyone who is not logged on continuously gets little out of it. I think having one forum for GD-Dem primary will also make it a bit easier to weed out the redundant threads, while preserving those that genuinely DO offer a different angle.

I like your suggestion, Skinner. Let's go for it.

[Heddi]

27. I voted Yes

because as of a few weeks ago even, there were a sizeable amount of non-candidate threads on the first 2 pages of GD. There was room for discussion about abortion, pay equality, women's rights, the economy, etc.

Now, all those threads are quickly 'kicked down' to pages 5, 6, and 7 (if not further) within a few minutes/hours of being posted. It's not that they don't have members participating in them, but rather, they're being kicked down by the constant infighting and "my candidate is better than yours" and "Your candidate's momma wears army-boots" types of posts.

I don't take part in the Candidate-Bashing threads, or even many of the candidate-loving threads. I enjoy DU, and GD in particular, but lately, when you open the first page, all you see is threads about stopping one candidate over another, whether one candidate uses Crest as opposed to Rembrandt, or whether one candidate chooses to starch their socks lightly, or heavily.

it makes Generall Discussion much less "General"---it's all candidate focused, and because of that, I find myself not only spending less time in GD, but posting less because there aren't any threads that I'm interested in.

And I appreciate the 'ignore thread' option, but I'd spend all day locking out the candidate threads and end up posting on threads that have been dead for a week and a half......

I say go with 2 GD's for the time being.

And thanks for everything the Admin and Mods have done to make DU the absolute best discussion board on the face of this green planet.

[goobergunch]

29. I'm voting no because I don't want the General Election topics...

being split off into another non-GD forum.

Plus, election-night monitoring will be horrendous.

[blondeatlast]

31. No, no, no.

[leftist_rebel1569]

32. I wanna hide this thread, but I can't!

x(

j/k...I voted yes because it would filter out the "my candidate is better than your crappy candidate" threads and make the whole GD experience a bit more enjoyable.

But that's just my lounge opinion...:)

Edit: (Note to self - Buy dictionary at store to look up the difference between "hide" and "lock") :P

[goobergunch]

33. QUESTION: What will happen to this forum in December 2004? (n/t)

[welshTerrier2]

34. A Home of Their Own ???

This is essentially a repeat of a question I posted in the Ask the Admins forum ... The question being asked is: What is the nature of posts for the "Politics and Campaigns" forum versus those in the GDF? Here was my post on the subject:

While I would not like to see heavy-handed censorship of "candidate ra ra" threads, I have wondered why the moderators don't move them to the "Politics and Campaigns" forum ...

There's a fine line between a thread that discusses a candidate's views on the issues versus a candidate's campaign tactics ... "Dean up 2 points in latest poll" seems related to politics and campaigns ... doesn't it? It's not that one couldn't consider it a "general discussion topic" (although often times this type of shallow data is not even accompanied by a discussion), but rather that the volume of these posts clogs the front pages of the GDF at the expense of other, more discussion oriented posts ...

and the dividing line isn't always clear ... a statement like "Kerry criticizes Dean on Flag Issue" becomes a matter of judgment ... my judgment is that it doesn't belong in General Discussion ... the issue relates to the campaign and discusses the best political strategy about how to win in the South ...

Now, if someone posted a thread analyzing voting trends in the South or the demographic composition of southern voters, and mentioned the "confederate flag flap" only to enhance the broader discussion, then that's different ... a post like that does belong in the GDF ...

I completely agree that there is nothing to be gained by these constant, inane, cheerleading discussions and polls ... there are other forums provided for these things ... and I do think they detract from the quality and the integrity of DU ...

The point I'm trying to make is that not every post that mentions a candidate should necessarily be excluded from the GDF ... it's a judgment call ... if the essence of the post is politics, move it to a different forum ... if the essence of the post is issue oriented, even if it refers to a position taken by a candidate, the GDF seems like a good place to discuss it ...

My real concern isn't just the clogging of the GDF with so many candidate threads, it's that the primary focus of DU has become "my candidate versus your candidate" ... and segmenting the GDF will do very little to fix that problem ...

[alphafemale]

35. Sounds like a fantastic solution!

[Cooley Hurd]

37. Given the mess that GD had become, we might not have a choice

Sadly, I found myself thinking today that maybe Admin should shut down GD all together temporarily until the shitstorm subsides. Of course, such action is extreme and would be the equivalent of declaring martial law on DU, but things have gotten a bit surreal and might warrant extreme actions...

[sujan]

38. Yes I support the resolution

to split the GD into two.

[kentuck]

40. Double the page lengths so threads would not disappear so fast...

Once they get off the first page, many forget about them...or just make the first page of GD double in size.

[VermontDem2004]

43. A question

So it will start off like this
General Discussion: 2004 Primary
After the Primaries will be over it will be
General Discussion: General Election
What will it be after the GE if a democrat wins?
General Discussion: Dean(or either of the other 8) Presidency?

Or would you just remove the second general discussion forum?

[SoCalDem]

44. Probably just archive it

:shrug:

[Myra]

45. Yeah, I have to say that the tidal wave of candidate promoting/bashing

Makes it necessary.
It's overwhelmed GD.

Thanks for always looking for ways to make the DU even better Skinner.

[this_side_up]

46. an excellent idea

Looking at the present and thinking ahead,
IMO a Hussein Only forum would also be a big
improvement.

[Piperay]

47. Two forums

best solution. :thumbsup:

[Festivito]

48. Sure, but what's the difference between this and P&C

Hot Issues: Politics and Campaigns versus a new General Discussion: 2004 Primary. It's still two windows to open and refresh, which is the real reason GD gets overused.

Perhaps another two-column page alike to the "Latest" using GD and Hot Issues: Politics and Campaigns. The problem is not the name not including GD nor that you don't already have a place to reposition campaign posts, the problem is that we readers already have too many windows to open, thus GD gets more viewing since it is the most fast-moving and interesting to those of us who drop by when we can.

A single column Last Response page pulling from all 20 forums at once would probably take the heat off GD and would be very usefull for people who don't live online even though we'd like to be on DU 24/7 without eating, sleeping or breathing.

[buddhamama]

49. two forums please

important discussions are getting crowded out by the continuous flood of candidate threads. every statment, sneeze, whatever gets dissected and analyzed. we are facing 'other' serious issues, right here right now, i'd like to see more focus and discussion on those issues and less he said she said.

[GreenArrow]

50. No

After the primaries, things will settle down. And really, wouldn't Politics and Campaigns be the de facto primary board anyway?

[JanMichael]

51. Yes. I'm tired of getting pissed off at people over candidate bashing...

...when I'm still undecided. I've defended both Dean and Clark from the other's assaults.

Not fun. Plus you're right that it kills all of the other hugely important issues like the FTAA and other Cheap Labor Conservative moves.

I've tried, with some success, to keep issue threads kicked but it doesn't have to be that difficult.

So YES!

[IndianaGreen]

52. How in the hell are you going to split GD, Skinner?

If a candidate speaks about a current event, is that primary news, or is that general news, particularly if it is done in the context of replying to something Bush has done or said?

Allow me to illustrate: Drudge is saying today that Clark and Dean have violated campaign laws by taking contributions from foreign sources. Is this primary news or general news?

Bush took issue today with Dean's comments about 9/11, specifically the view advanced by some that Bush had prior warning that an attack from Al-Qaeda was in the works. is this primary news or general news?

Regardless of how this poll goes, I think splitting GD will create more problems. You will have problems of interpretation on the part of the mods, which will invariably will be followed by the usual complaints we see in the basement.

I think the mods have a full plate as it is without having to add another one.

[G_j]

54. I thought about that also

would it be too wierd to just have a GD1 and a GD2 simply to make more room?

[Deja Q]

55. Definitely a smurfy idea!

(I voted "Yes, split" so the use of "smurfy" is a positive-oriented use!)

[LawDem]

56. Same thought, slightly different rationale

I have to question whether GD is getting too "big for its britches" anyway. DU has become so popular (a good thing) and the General Discussion forum has become so popular (also a good thing) threads have started moving down the column at the speed of light (not always a good thing). The truth is that unless the poster for a thread is William Pitt, or another high volume/high profile DUer, no thread, other than an incendiary one, can usually survive long enough to catch fire. A lot of good and somewhat more thoughtful threads die "without having ever really lived" in this way.

So, somewhat reluctantly, I vote yes and suggest some thought be given to making the (two general discussion) change permanent.

[G_j]

57. growing pains

yes, it just moves so quickly that I think it discourages people from putting a lot of time into writing well thought out quality posts.

[cirej2000]

58. yes...things are two hot and heavy here as it is

It's hard enough to keep up with the furious pace here without having general stuff mixed in with our primaries.

[GURUving]

59. I believe there should be one forum

the interest is in the candidates for now. If other events warrant the interest, they will not be lost in the shuffle. Sure, there are a lot of candidate posts - we are heading into an important election year.

Don't separate/segregate the political discussions. Wouldn't be prudent!

[citizen snips]

60. Only one.

Lets just keep it as it is.

[Eric J in MN]

61. voted No because almost every issue ties into the primaries

Everything that happens might theoretically help one of the candidates, or raises an issue which should be addressed by the candidates.

[David Zephyr]

64. I'm Voting "Yes"

And I'm glad you asked the question, Skinner.

It will be a good thing.

[BiggJawn]

65. I don't get diddly out of the current GD cesspool.

I posted a non-Clark-Dean-Green posting yesterday and it slid off the first page in 9 minutes. Perhaps if I had titled it "Dean tells Nader:'Suck Me!'..." it would have gotten some notice.

I used to look at candidate threads to find out about the candidates, but now? But now? NOW????
They're just shit-slinging contests.

Break-up the GD forum.

[Q]

66. Sounds like a good way to go...

...until all the passion settles down into apathy.

[sendero]

67. Since the moderators...

... have failed to do what should have been done from the get-go, i.e. delete blatant Dem bashing posts and ban those who persist in making them, I suppose splitting it into a separate forum is the next best thing.

[Stephanie]

68. Yes to the Primary folder, No to a split after the Primary

After the Primary I'd like to see GD once again United Against the Bush Regime. The problem right now is that our anti-Bush threads are crowded out by anti-Dean, anti-Clark, anti-Kerry etc. threads. But after the primary we should all be on the same page, and I'd like to see GD be all about defeating Bush, by any (legal) means necessary.

[goobergunch]

72. I concur.

I'm all for splitting off the candidate threads, but not at the expense of losing the anti-Bush threads.

[liberalhistorian]

69. Excellent idea, Skinner.

While I understand your reluctance to take that step, I really feel that at this point it's become necessary and that seems like the logical solution.

[rbnyc]

70. I really hope we don't do this.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Either make no change, or exile democratic primary discussion to P&C, a totally appropriate forum for discussion of the primaries. But if you create a Democratic Primary GD, what is P&C for? I just don't get it.

If people feel crowded in GD, they should spend more time in the other forums.

I always seem to be in the minority on these issues.

Sigh.

[goodhue]

74. your not alone

I concur wholeheartedly.

[Skinner]

85. "Why not Politics and Campaigns"

Because I don't think it would be good for the politics and campaigns forum to throw all of the crap down there.

The politics and campaigns forum is like all of the other "small forums". It has its own group of folks and its own feel. It can get pretty flamey, but the purpose of the forum (and of all the other small forums) is to provide a place where discussion can take place at a slower pace, removed from the insanity of the GD forum. Dumping the primary discussions down there would ruin the P&C forum as it is currently.

Also, I have a gut feeling that people will be more likely to visit a new forum with the words "General Discussion" in the title, rather than changing their habits and visitng Politics and Campaigns.

[Devlzown]

71. I voted yes, because I'd rather see

GD split up than remain the candidate bashing forum that it is. However, I think it would make more sense to make people put candidate posts into politics and campaigns. But y'all do what you think would be easiest for us and the mods. I've seen so much dirt on all these candidates, I feel as if I've personally given each of them a rectal exam. Give me a break, I'm gonna have to like one of these guys after the primaries are over!

[realFedUp]

75. We already have another forum called Politics and Campaigns

Either the politic threads get sent over there
which is a lot of work for the Mods or with a split,
will be a lot of work for the Mods.

Keep it one Forum and we'll sort through the mess.

[Myra]

76. *Please* divide it into 2004 Primary/Candidate!!!

As others have suggested.

I'm really tired of GD being used by some supporters
to provide saturation coverage of their candidate,
and intimidate supporters of other candidates.

I think the only way to prevent this is to have a forum
for each candidate under GD. Then it won't be such a
perverse contest to keep a thread kicked.

It may be more work for the mods.
I'm sorry about that.
Tho' it might result in fewer dupe threads.
Dupes are another problem, or outright strategy, on GD.
They're clearly used to further saturate the forum and keep certain
pet subjects visible.

Anyway, right now GD is horrible.
It's occupied territory.

[Myra]

77. And another thing! GD is used to repeat stuff from LBN or Editorial forum.

On a regular basis, if it reflects well on someone's candidate
or poorly on the *other* candidate.

So it's duped in GD.

I don't know if further dividing GD will help alleviate that
problem, but it may. And as long as we're discussing (ok,
ranting about) problems in GD...

[Spirochete]

78. Make a new one..

and call it "My Candidate is a God - Yours Sucks"

[davidinalameda]

79. no--we need to use P&C more

start bumping some of the campaign threads down there

[JaySherman]

80. I'm all for it.

But then maybe we should get rid of the existing Politics & Campaigns forum. Seems redundant having two.

[Skinner]

86. Then every issue forum is redundant. (nt)

[molly]

81. I voted Yes, but we have the P&A forum - why can't

we just use that for the Primary 2004?

[skeptic9]

82. NO! It is not possible or desirable to separate candidates from issues...

...in any way that most DUers would consider fair, IMO.

I think an attempt to split GD along the lines suggested actually would worsen conflict here and cause many people to get dissatisfied and not return to DU so often.

Right now the big problems are candidate-bashing and lack of civility. I think it is quite possible to define and ban both candidate-bashing and lack of civility. I believe that goal already has been accomplished for the most part, with the new rules on incivility. Only a very small minority of disruptive DUers and outside agitators will be affected by the new incivility rules.

But trying to split GD into separate discussions of candidates and issues would create many new conflicts where none existed before, and make posting very complicated.

Please read the two excellent posts above by welshTerrier2 (now #34) and IndianaGreen (now #52). They delve into the practical difficulty of splitting GD according to the level of a discussion's involvement with issues rather than candidates. IMO, providing moderators with detailed, objective rules for moving discussions from one GD to the other would be very difficult. I predict individual moderators would be accused of subjectivity and bias by people who now are very satisfied with their DU experiences.

IMO, it would be much easier and more feasible (though still quite a chore for moderators) to BAN and REMOVE candidate-bashing than to try to contain it in one place (like the I/P forum).

If a new forum is to be created, I agree with Kanary ( #2 above) that it should focus on supporting direct action. If I ruled DU, I'd make it easier for progressives to follow the example of the Freepers and "Freep" Congress and the media on our issues.

[IndianaGreen]

84. and we know what a rousing success the I/P forum has been

NOT! The only forum in which an issue is reduced to slogans!

[Skinner]

87. Banning "candidate bashing" would be impossible.

Believe me, we have considered this issue forever. One person's "bash" is another's "fair criticism".

Rules for splitting topics between the GD forum and the GD/Primary forum would actually be really easy. If a thread topic mentions a primary candidate, then it goes to the GD/Primary forum.

[0007]

83. I've notice a lot of freepers posting crap and then going back to ...

FR and shouting out what the DUers are posting.

It would be easier to pinpoint some of the on going mischief.

[Skinner]

88. This is actually extremely rare.

It happens, at most, once every two weeks. Let's not blame freepers for problems caused by our own friends.

[Junkdrawer]

96. I voted Yes, but I fear the rules will be gamed...

I believe there is a very healthy, sophisticated minority here that knows exactly how far to push the rules without being tombstoned. My guess is that this will help, but candidate bashing will still continue in unrelated threads.

[RandomUser]

102. I suspect you're right

I, too, voted yes. But I think you're right in your assessment.

I went away from DU for a bit because of the ugliness here, and only came back because Skinner put in the new automatic moderation system to improve civility. I suspect the closer we get to the primaries, the uglier it will get on DU, and I'll probably have to take myself away every now and then because I can't stomach the ugliness.

[blondeatlast]

89. It really is disturbing to see so few responses to this.

C'mon, people--VOTE.

[ProfessorGAC]

90. I Reluctantly Vote Yes

It shouldn't be necessary, but the internecine fighting is getting a bit much and if i can avoid it this way, i think i'd like that, at least for a while.
The Professor

[CWebster]

91. The thing that bothers me about is

It compartmentalizes reality. I\P is buried and heavily monitored but it doesn't diminish its relevance to the political landscape. It is always an explosive issue beneath the surface, supressed, twisted by those with an agenda, but still poisoning our relationships, still unresolved, still festering. Imagine if the issue of our day was slavery, would it be something forced onto the back pages because the debate was too loud and controversial? Maybe so, maybe it is too much to ask of a site on the internet, that must maintain stability and order in the midst of chaotic conflict and change. And maybe important change will always be as a result of small groups of people who persevere despite all the roadblocks, and never lose sight of the goal.

[Tinoire]

93. I voted NO for the same reason

and plus I hate seeing this forum which had been tweaked to near perfection be changed so drastically because some people are trying to use it as a propaganda board and make it unpleasant for those who want to discuss things.

This week alone several of our best DUers have stomped out and it has nothing to do with 1 forum vs 2- it has to do with the utter rudeness of people who think they need to cover up facts and prevent discusssion so that their golden boy doesn't look bad.

This board has been over-run and it's a damn shame to see it change so drastically after years of building it up to this point.

[SoCalDem]

95. Reality IS compartmentalized

Every person has many compartments.. You present a different YOU to your co-workers, spouse, kids, friends, etc.

The "problem" we have had, as I see it, is that "some" people see things in a "Bushian way
when it comes to their candidate "black or white"..."good or evil".. "with us or against us"..etc..

Believe it or not, there ARE many people who are ABB, but NOT for any specific candidate yet, and it's annoying as hell to go to GD and see the WHOLE freaking page with nothing but 12 Dean threads, 9Kerry threads, 2 or 3 Edwards threads, and then an equal amount of threads that are Anti each candidate.. For the ones who are actively promoting or denigrating those candidates, it must be a hoot & a half, but to the rest of us, it's just "noise" and "clutter", and nothing productive comes from it..

You bring up I/P.. I/P is very much like abortion, or guns, or gays..No one is going to convince anyone on "the other side" to change their mind.. It's just a circular argument going nowhere.. The
argument" has been going on forever, and most likely will continue.. Both sides are wrong and both sides are right.. A discussion board will NEVER solve the problems in the middle east, and serves little purpose except to irritate each other..

A person who is 100% Dean, and has donated to his campaign will NEVER see criticism of him by a Kerry-supporter, as constructive..The reverse is true as well..If there are people here who really want to argue and discuss, I say Bravo..Do it.. Just don't spam the GD with a new thread every time your candidate eats a bowl of cereal, or changes his clothes..

There really are other issues going on in the world, and if they have a relationship to a candidate, that's one thing, but to look at GD we would never know it..

[RandomUser]

103. Well said, Julinda!

Well said, indeed.

:toast:

[skeptic9]

104. Would a "candidate-bashing flame-bait" section discourage or ...

ENCOURAGE candidate-bashing?

The devil would be in the details of the rules for moderating a split GD. See especially posts now numbered #34, #52, #98, and #100.

If only extreme cases of candidate-bashing go into a new split-off GD, both those who've voted yes and those who've voted no will be satisfied. But wouldn't it be just as easy to BAN and REMOVE such candidate-bashing threads and posts?

Banning and removing unwanted posts discourages them, while segregating them in a new forum could just as easily encourage them as discourage them.

[WoodrowFan]

92. do I get a paper receipt for my ballot?? (NT)

[TreasonousBastard]

94. I voted "No" because`

it seems to me that's what P&C is for, but there are apparently legitimate reasons for keeping this out of P&C.

I'm not sure the reasons are good enough, and yet another forum seems like it might make this place even tougher to navigate. Everything will still be on "Latest," won't it, and shove threads to page 10 in an hour or so?

A new "Primary" forum somewhere might work, but no matter how it's handled it falls on the the mods to deal with it, and it seems they are already overwhelmed with Herculean tasks. Every time a rule pops up or is enforced, someone has to test it, flaunt it outright, or find a way to skirt it.

The biggest problem is the viciousness between some elements of the Dean, Kerry, and Clark brigades with a few others getting their licks in here and there. So, it looks like it won't slow down much when a few of the others drop out in a month or so. We're probably in for it up until the convention, or at least until the winner is known.

Perhaps a new little graphic to be put on threads, maybe a skull and crossbones or some symbol of Hell, could be used for bashing threads and flamewars. It could be as useful as the hide-a-thread function is.

[VT70]

97. I support two GD forums

nt

[Capn Sunshine]

98. Hey, why not a General Discussion: Flame wars section?

oh wait, that's what the primary is all about, isn't it Will?

[BackDoorMan]

99. You and mods will have to cipher through all the shit. The borderline shit

if just a canidates name is mentioned, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Democratic Primary" it's going to be a pain in the fucking ass with a lot of disgruntled people, who will be pissed off at you or the mods moved their thread.

But that's what you get paid the big bucks for.

Personally, I'm all for it (I vote yes)...I'm not a fucking idiot!

[diamondsoul]

100. I'm voting yes, with a recommendation-

if supporters quote a candidate on an issue in GD don't go nutty and remove the posts just for the mention of a candidate.

Just a thought about something that could become a moderating problem. Bashing is one thing, offering a candidates stance on an issue under discussion shouldn't necessarily be called out of bounds.

side note- kinda sad that we have to tell adults how to act in the first place.

[Skinner]

105. FINAL TALLY

Poll result (596 votes)
Yes, I support two GD forums. (498 votes, 84%)
No, let's keep only one GD forum. (98 votes, 16%)