How do you feel about the strict new GD:2004 rules?

[Skinner]

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the new rules for the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum. I am sorry for that. Ultimately, I think the rules are quite simple to follow if you just do one thing: Make an effort to be civil to one another. But it is clear that many people don't really want to do that, and they seem to keep getting nailed by the moderators. I am concerned that we won't have anyone left on DU after the primary season is over.

Many people have begged me to crack down on the incivility, and the broad-brush smears against candidate supporters, and the gratuitous personal attacks against candidates. After resisting for months, we decided to give it a try. Last Thursday we instituted an extremely strict set of rules aimed at improving the discourse here and addressing the concerns of many of our members. We're taking a much tougher approach to flame-bait topics; We're taking a much tougher approach toward attacks against candidates and their supporters; We're taking a much tougher approach toward general incivility.

So far, I think the results have been mixed. I think that the overall quality of discussion is far better than it would have otherwise been. But at the same time, we seem to be making a lot of people very angry. I try to tell these people that they would not have any problems with possibly running afoul of the rules if they just tried to be civil, but apparently they aren't that interested in doing that.

I am the first to admit that the enforcement of these new rules is *extremely* subjective, which is both their biggest strength and their biggest weakness. By giving mods broad authority, they have the power to remove anything that could cause problems. But it also leads to the inevitable why-was-this-removed-but-not-this problem, which is only one step away from the you-removed-this-post-because-I-support-Candidate-X complaint.

Anyway, It's my job to try to keep as many people as possible happy, which is a pretty difficult task at times like this. I'm just curious if this new enforcement regime is working for all of you, or if it's just a confusing pain in the rear.

I honestly don't have a strong preference in any direction. I am not easily offended by things posted on a message board, so I'd be perfectly happy just letting people be people. On the other hand, I know many people want us to try to make things "more positive" so I've been trying to do exactly that. I think we are making DU "more positive" but I'm not sure I'm actually succeeding in making DU any more fun, and I seem to be creating lots of additional work for myself and the moderators.

So anyway, I'm just kinda curious how you guys feel about this right now. So...

Which of the following comes closest to your opinion about the rules in the GD:2004 Primary forum?

This poll will remain open until approximately 2:00PM ET Wednesday.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I did ok under the prior set of rules so either are fine

but it is possible to carry on a conversation and even glean some information from threads without ferreting through all the drive-by's..so yes...I like the rules.

[styersc]

9. All the freedom of FreeRepublic but with none of that pesky free

expression. Good idea.

It's so much easier just mimicking what one reads here and even better to simply post what others want to hear. I'm hoping soon that we change the name of the page from Democratic Underground to Stepford Democrats. Then we will all just happily post what everyone wants to read.

And the other good part is I won't be bothered with all of that contributing money and all.

In closing let me say, all the candidates are equally glorious, all their supporters are wonderfully wonderful, all comments are bright and sunny. Happy, happy.

Edit: Oh, I'm sorry- I just added the silhouette of the donkey with "GOP can Kiss My" image to my posts- I hope its not offensive in anyway- I can remove it if it hurts anyone's feelings.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. I didn't see any rule that required agreement or suppression

Unless yelling fire in a crowded theater is suppressing.

I think it is rather humorous that people are only interested in protecting free speech when it is to be used to be as nasty as they wanna be. Don't you find that the least bit curious?

Rules only become rules by agreement.

Don't you think it's a bitch that at a baseball game you can't hike the ball over the fence? Or wait...it would be so much easier on a soccer field to pick the ball up and run with it than try to kick it while running...no?

Whatever happened to "my right to swing my fist ending where your chin begins?"

[styersc]

18. You hurt my feelings.

I've alerted moderators.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Just goes to show you can still hurt others feelings while abiding by the

rules.

But, please accept my sincere apologies.

[blondeatlast]

85. Start your own forum, then.

[KittyWampus]

2. IMO, The New Rules Give Moderators The Room They Need

I trust the Moderators and you to be Fair and Balanced.

Thank You for allowing us to use your forum.

I am personally trying my best to remain civil and unprovoked. The Hide Thread feature is invaluable.

[arwalden]

3. I'm Thinking The 250 Post Threshold Might Be The Biggest Improvement

despite its drawbacks.

[Skinner]

4. We got rid of that rule already.

Too many good people were locked out.

[arwalden]

12. Oh. Okay. Well then... that's different. --- Never mind.

It must be just the rules then. I vote to keep them. Things made much more sense in here after they were enacted. I could actually keep up with and follow (and participate) in a few discussions.

-- Allen

[Joe the Revelator]

5. I for one...

enjoy an environment where, as skinner said, people are allowed to be people. That means civil as well as mean spirited. This is politics, its not always a pretty friendly game. I'm not saying that I think everything should be an attack, but I'd rather read peoples ideas unfettered then to see them resort to innuendo or attacks under a thin veil of civility. As a progressive board, i think freedom of speech,within reason, should be held up and celebrated.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Personal attacks should always be condemned!

Political views are another thing altogether.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. My inclination is to vote for the older, less-strict rules

but the reality is, it actually is more pleasant now. So I say, keep 'em.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I like the rules.

Something had to be done to prevent DU from just becoming a huge irrelevant time sink on account of people who would pollute it.

[chiburb]

10. Keep the new, stricter rules in force...

I don't care if "some" people are angry over their loss of incivility, the overall tone of the board is MUCH better than before.

If you go to a free-for-all board, we're just the left-wing version of you know who... and what would be the point of that?

I appreciate your efforts to be 'fair and balanced' about this, but ultimately it is YOUR board. It isn't a democracy (as you have pointed out numerous times).

Finally, I'll make you an offer:
If a donor quits because of the civility rules, I'll make a supplemental donation(s) up to $100 to replace your lost income. I suspect others would do the same.

Thank you for all you do in creating a community that I'm proud to belong to.

[Joe the Revelator]

11. Question about the poll

Are the last two choices going to be combined and counted as dissent against the current rules?

[Skinner]

13. Yes.

If the new rules don't break 50%, then that indicates that they don't have majority support.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. I like the new rules

I think the climate here has improved dramatically since they were instituted.

I think maybe the 4 slip ups and your out may be a little draconian. Occasionally, otherwise good posters will get kind of carried away. Maybe a system of time outs would be best here.

Otherwise, I really like them.

[Zomby Woof]

16. I like them

You give us all the tools in the world - the 'alert', the 'hide-a- thread', and clarity of purpose regarding the personal attack rules.

I know it must be frustrating trying new things with mixed results, but the fact is, you listen to us, contrary to accusations of being autocratic and the like. That does put the 'democratic' in DU, even as you rightfully maintain the final say.

I think it is going quite well, despite any wrinkles.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. It is frightening to me how many people oppose free speech

So much so that you will reject it when it is offered to you.

On a message board that presumably you post on because you consider it progressive.

That is scarier to me than anything the bush regime has done.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. My thoughts exactly n/m

[bread_and_roses]

53. I too find it amazing

that so many are so willing to be "ruled"...this is not a theatre, a baseball game, or anyone throwing real punches. It's just words on a screen. Why on earth be offended? Don't read what you don't like if you don't want to.

Besides, among the great virtues of free speech is that one knows who one's opponents are, and what they think. Sunshine, sunshine, sunshine.

The support for these rules is, I think, another example of people being so focused on the "dangers" of freedom that they forget the dangers and price of suppression. A minor example, and of not much import in the world at large, but an example.

on edit, a PS: my heart-felt sympathy to the moderators, your job strikes me as both hard and thankless.

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. The popularity of draconian rules and authoritarianism here is just a

reflection of the larger trend in society as a whole. People want to be told what to do, and they want to be able to run to the speech police and demand "punishment" for those whose words displease them.

The fact that it is reflected so faithfully here is particularly chilling.

[DemBones DemBones]

57. It is very troubling to me, and I often argue for MORE civility,

less gratuitous profanity, more considerations of other's feelings. But give up free expression for an enforced and superficial politeness? Never!

[DuctapeFatwa]

58. What they want, what they DEMAND goes way beyond that

It transforms the whole thing from a forum for the free flow and discussion of ideas to a mutated hybrid of a bad S&M IRC channel and a kindergarten, a pseudo Stasi culture of denuniation, punishment, and revenge.

They want rules about what websites people can post links to, whether people can use nicknames, and far from being put off by enforcement that is "subjective and arbitrary," they embrace it, they make panties out of it!

I saw someone complain once, outraged that a poster said that he was "fed up with" a candidate.

"Inflammatory!" he wailed.

I have seen others wheedling for public punishments, a kind of cybergibbet where they may exult over their triumph in denouncing someone whose words displeased them.

If what is desired is open discussion of issues, this is not only counterproductive, it is not healthy.

[The Magistrate]

63. It Is True, My Friend, Some Want To Push The Thing Too Far

But every culture, every society, must have its codes of behavior, and some means of enforcement for them. Even a troop of baboons has its ways: the untrammeled "state of nature" is a mere philosoph's dream.

There are forms and styles of speech that are equivalent to blows, and the employment of these tends not to promote a free and open exchange of ideas, but rather to constrict and overpower a free exchange of thought. Those who are willing to employ these means force on others the need to adopt them in defense against the assault, just like the man willing to use violence toward his ends forces on all the need to arm or suffer his depredations meekly, or else to depart from his vicinity. One way or another, people will be driven off, and the discussion degenerate to snarls of rage and hate. A system of police simply alters somewhat who it is that is driven off.

[DuctapeFatwa]

66. Damn I wish I'd bookmarked the other thread where we had this same debate

I do not agree with restrictions on speech.

Every person, no matter how stupid or ignorant his views, should be free to advertise his ignorance and stupidity, and not be forced into secrecy.

I will agree that it alters who is driven off and who is not.

For the most part, the off-driven are the readers and thinkers, whose words may be blows, but they are damn well-thought out, informed blows that just might knock some sense into heads that lack that commodity, or at least knock them over to google to see if they can download a kit.

And with notable exceptions,Who are left are the Stasi fetishists, the whimperers, the vacant-eyed frustrated with their inability to hook up with Reverend Moon, demagogues proudly ignorant and ignorantly proud.

I am not disruptable. To draw an analogy from our usual drawing room, if I do not condone firing tanks at unarmed civilians, I cannot in good conscience engage in discussions with fools, trolls, foolish trolls or those whose abilities are not those that make themselves evident on a message board.

The best that the CyberBondage fanatics can hope to do to me is force me to put my mind into MOO (a text-based game played on computers) mode, not the most recommendable for intelligent discussion of world events, but neither providing a satisfying experience for the poor gibbering sector.

The administrators have even taken the added step of making it technically possible to ignore both posters and topics for those unable or unwilling to exercise their own freedom of reading.

A message board is not a high school forensics class. Nor is it a game. The IDEA is to have conversations, to find areas of agreement and disagreement, to expand perspectives, to inform, to learn, and as I just said in another thread, if you are lucky, maybe, just maybe, your words will make somebody think enough, and there will be one more person willing to hide people in their basement when the time comes. A useful sort of person, these days, as in those of not so old.

[The Magistrate]

72. As Usual, Sir, We Take The Stick By Different Ends

And you uphold yours ably indeed. You make sound points well, and are capable of dealing with anything that comes your direction by way of attempts to shout you down.

Perhaps our most signifigant point of disagreement in this exchange is our assessment of who is driven off by the instituted police. My experience at enforcing such a regime myself here in the past down in our usual sparring ground may give me some advantage of you in the analysis. In my experience those removed from the field were in the main precisely the "Stasi fetishists, the whimperers, the vacant-eyed frustrated with their inability to hook up with Reverend Moon, demagogues proudly ignorant and ignorantly proud" you feel are those most likely to be left behind. These seem to me those who thrive without a police, while those who absent themselves from an un-policed forum seem to me those who "are the readers and thinkers, whose words may be blows, but they are damn well-thought out, informed blows that just might knock some sense into heads that lack that commodity...." Many people answering to that description lack the patience or energy or sheer joy at battle needed to maintain themselves against or to prevail over the shouting swine, who thus come readily to predominate with their thoughtless clamor. This is why a regime like this, sensibly and moderately enforced, seems to me a good thing. It serves the same ecological purpose as a predator introduced into a mono-culture, opening space, and serving to actually increase the diversity of species the system can incorporate and support.

[DuctapeFatwa]

94. Free speech comes with a price, but it's cheap compared to the alternative

Thoughtless clamor there will be, with or without free speech, and with or without it, it is annoying.

That nameless and dank windowless room where you and I usually speak is an excellent case in point. There, the poster is mummy-wrapped in endless tentacles of rules and subrules and tangled kudzu hairballs of rules, to the point where diminishing returns has not only arrived, but has moved in and begun boiling cabbage, where more time is spent looking for a gap in the rules where one's words might fit, or at least go unnoticed long enough for someone to read and reply; discussion must try to slip in furtively before it is discovered and snuffed out.

Such conditions are hardly conducive to any productive dialogue.

No political forum can be a mono-culture, nor should it attempt to be one.

Free speech does indeed subject us to shouting swine, but it also lets us hear those who do not have the patience or skill to fit their thoughts through the barely visible apertures of the labyrinth of rules, but whose opinions are no less valuable, whose thoughts no less profound, and most of all, who are no less deserving of a voice than those who (with apologies and props to Harper Lee), can "write anything you got needs writin."

[The Magistrate]

106. Well, My Friend

Doubtless we will differ till Doomsday on many particulars.

Indeed, our cage-match down in the dungeon seems to me, in the contrast of its present state to its former, an excellent illustration of the utility of a reasonable police of an open forum. If you have not done so, you might find it interesting to take a look into the old archives where the materials prior to April of '01 are stored. The "discussion" of the matter consisted of little more than shrieks of "Nazis" and "terrorists", and it is that uniform clamor of hyperbolic rage that strikes me as the monoculture, and one of no more value than a pre-Cambrian algal mat. Granted, one might find on close examinaition a few things of more value tucked into tiny niches, but they were drowned out and powerless to affect the general tone of hysteria. That is no longer true down there. There remain a few single-shot sorts, but the great preponderance of the comments put up are well-reasoned and informative and more or less sober, and they are quite varied. No one would mistake it for an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally, nor for a Z.O.A. meeting, though it contains persons who might feel at home in such gatherings, and they are constrained to co-exist and to argue with one another, rather than to shriek and seek to triumph only by drowning out the opposition by a greater volume of shouting, as was the previous condition.

There are, however, some special conditions to that debate, that render it more susceptible to such a police. First, there is an actual body of objective fact involved. There may well be differences between you and me on how these facts are best viewed, but even were we so inclined, we could not safely make them up from whole cloth; we must agree that this took place on that date, and that person said this thing or the other. Second, the scale of the debate is manageable. It is possible for a pair of moderators to read for themselves everything that is posted, and the number of regular participants is small enough that a personal appreciation of each character can be readily formed by the moderators. This allows for a more discriminating application of the rules; a sort of community policing, if you will, with a personal touch, that is better suited to bringing out the spirit of the rules rather than a rigid application of their letter.

Police of this Primary forum cannot really benefit from these factors. In debating the merits of the various candidates, there really is no body of objective fact involved. The thing debated is largely what people think will happen in the future, in consequence of what might be chosen now. It is, for example, my conviction a particular candidate has the best chance at victory in the fall, but there is no way concievable for me to prove it, in the way it is possible for me to prove certain political conditions existed in the Levant in 1922, say. The volume of comments put up in debate concerning the candidates is quite beyond even six moderators' reading personally through every one, and there are not a couple of dozen but a couple of hundred regular contributors. These features do present some obstacle to a simple transfer of the Israel v. Palestine model to this venue, though it does seem to me the attempt has shown already some benefit, and is worth persisting in.

[bread_and_roses]

92. oh, well said!

"a mutated hybrid of a bad S&M IRC channel and a kindergarten" indeed! Priceless.

[woo me with science]

67. absolutely.

THANK YOU!

it's nothing short of chilling, and *especially* when it starts coming from the very people who need to stand *for* freedom.

[Bucky]

73. Ductape, there is not actual restriction of free speech w/ the rules

This isn't like the government clamping down on all self expression. There are simply community standards that are limited by the owners of the on-line community. You are still free to say whatever you like. You're just not allow to say it any way that you want to on Skinner's dime. There's a zillion other venues out there. Skinner is placing damn few limitations on content--too few to be real censorship. It's clear he's uncomfortable with the strictness, but every publication in the world has its publication standards of professionalism.

Look, say you wrote a letter to your local newspaper and the content of it was "fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck" or words to that effect. They would not publish it. That's not censorship, that's just them enforcing standards for their publication. The DU staff is trying to enforce civility so that the discussions here promote Democratic strength and the sharing and evaluation of ideas. If you can't express yourself within their limitations set on free memberships, then you're totally within your rights in this free country and on this censorship-free internet universe to go express yourself in any of a number of different places. (But I hope you don't leave).

[DuctapeFatwa]

91. LOL No restrictions on speech, just content? No offense but have you

considered employment in Washington? That is priceless!

The DU staff is asking you if you would like to exercise your constitutional right to free speech on their board.

They don't have to, they are a private business and not bound by the first amendment.

They have put in programmatic means for you to render invisible speech that displeases you, if you are unable or unwilling to simply ignore it through your own agency.

By asking your choice, they are suggesting that you are in favor of free and open debate of issues that affect how long you live, and whether your kids grow up, and if so, in what kind of a place.

Not everybody agrees on these issues, but almost everybody has an opinion. Some people state theirs in a civil manner, some don't.

Some people like to use a lot of $20 words, others like to use a lot of four letter words.

Some say their piece straight out, others prefer to twist theirs up in crinkle ribbon and make it look like a penguin.

That is the what happens when you have unfettered discussion and exchange of ideas.

This poll is asking you if you feel you are smart enough to make up your own mind about what you will read, and what you will respond to.

It is asking you if you would rather talk to people who are telling you what they think, whether they are eloquent or clumsy, whether they are leading authorities on or totally ignorant of the subject at hand, or whether you would prefer the stultifying wetwraps of hobbled tongues, struggling to work through a maze of rules that appear to be a joint venture of Kafka and Lewis Carroll, in a culture of frustrated hall monitors combing through every post assiduously searching for subjective and arbitrary "infractions" so they can trot over like proud and nervous terriers and present the long-suffering thought police with their wet little prize, then sit up and beg for the culprit to be punished pant pant and please pant can they watch.

The poll is asking you if that is what you call "civility."

[youngred]

20. can we have an other?

I like the rules for the most part, but a more lax policy on enforcement (getting stronger the further along we get) might be beneficial

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. I hope this won't be deleted

and another warning sent, but I honestly do not like the new rules. I feel so ....so..constricted. And my tongue is BLOODY from biting it so hard! :)They remind me of the school rules my son had to follow in 2ND Grade. Do not say anything bad about another person. Do not touch the person next to you. Do not talk while you are eating your lunch. Sit only with your group. If you have something to say, it must be nice. If you have a complaint about another student, keep it to yourself or tell your teacher. I think you get the idea. :) I have been here for over a year and in the last 2 weeks have had 7 or 8 posts alerted and a 24 hour suspension. The first alerted posts, EVER. IMO, the posts that were deleted were not "mean", sarcastic, yes, but not mean. This is a political discussion forum and we should be free to express our opinions and if someone doesn't like what is said....put me on ignore. Or hide the thread. Why do you have those options if not for the people who can't handle dissension? We are adults and do not need these kind of rules. It has become child's play to see which political campaign can alert the most posts. I might add, the FIRST time I ever alerted on a post was AFTER I received 6 ALERTS IN ONE DAY...just last week! After that, I started alerting too because I know who alerted my posts and it wasn't anyone from the Clark campaign. The rules suck, Skinner. JMCPO

Another point. A lot of this depends on which moderator receives whose alerted post, too. If a Dean supporter moderator receives a sarcastic, not so nice post about his/her candidate. What is he/she going to do? A Clark supporter moderator receives an alert on a not so nice Clark post, what will they do? That goes for every campaign and every moderator. I don't know who the moderators are and don't really care, but they have to be biased. They are human and like you said, it's all very subjective. JMCPO

Please don't ban me for this post. It's how I feel and I do love DU, just hate the new rules. :) The best thing to do is to have people use the "hide thread" and "ignore" button, not limit opinions.

[Skinner]

28. The moderators are not biased.

Yes, we all have our biases. I know. But we've got moderators from all sides of this fight.

If they are unsure whether something should be deleted, they ask for a second opinion.

Sometimes mistakes are made. That's what the appeal function is for.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Ok. n/t

[quinnox]

23. Neutral

I think the idea that DU is less fun may have some merit, because it can be fun to post shall we say controversial threads with strongly worded opinions for discussion. But there is also something to be said for a civil and polite tone, perhaps not as exciting but less conflict and bad feelings that way. Regardless, I have no problem with either approach.

[sangha]

24. I love them!

And I think they're long overdue. It may take a little while, but I think over time thee rules will result in a vast improvement in the tone on DU.

And for those who think the rules are too strict or too confusing - If I can post without being banned, so can you.

:-)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

25. I still think we should have a "free-for-all" forum where people can go to

vent and leave the other people alone also.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Yes!

A second DU 2004 Primary forum for the people who want to voice their opinion in their own "style"...I like that idea. I miss the old DU. I know, I know, I'm free to leave at any time. Noone is keeping me here, but I still like the free for all approach. There's always the ignore button and hide thread button....I have never used either button, BTW. I hide locked threads only and have noone on ignore. :)

[blondeatlast]

86. And the Freepers will pile on it like flies to

honey.

[DuctapeFatwa]

98. Let them pile. I am not disruptable

That's a good idea. Freedom of choice, freedom of speech.

One forum for the people who want to be told what they can say and how they can say it, and one for the people who want to discuss ideas.

[The Magistrate]

26. They Seem Excellent To Me, Sir

And that despite my own brief brush against them some days ago....

The tone of the conversation is measureably improved. Stripped of the excesses of hyperbole and name-calling, people are put back upon the resources of fact and logic to make their case, and this is all to the good. If a point cannot be carried without hyperbole, after all, it is probably not much of a point to begin with.

There is a sort of "Gresham's Law" of debate that operates as infallibly: just as debased coinage drives the pure silver out of circulation, so does shrill screeching drive sober consideration out of a forum. Persons are driven by the screams to defend themselves and their positions against a variety of smears and slurs, that are mostly put up to gain just that result. As those persons who contribute smears and slurs are often the most energetic, and what they do requires little effort, those they assail most often decide the game is not worth the candle, and the result is a monopoly by the hysterical in the forum. People are going to leave the forum in some number, by reason of finding it uncongenial, Sir, whether you enforce rules or no: the only real question is who is going to leave, persons who shriek or persons who discuss.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Thank goodness there is no rule prohibiting eloquence

or you would long be banned, Sir! :thumbsup:

[DavidMS]

60. I tend to agree.

Despite the subjectivity issues (we all have our biases) I see these rules as a major improvement. Without the hair pulling, name calling and childishness to distract me, reading this forum is much more enjoyable.

I hope these rules will an upper nastyness level similar to Godwin's law imposes.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html

[MarkTwain]

29. Talk about "Political Correctness"

These new rules are absurd. They are so Anti-Democratic as to be insulting to a progressive board that presumably prides itself on the free exchange of ideas. When you go so overboard as to appease an overly sensitive minority, you wind up insulting and abusing a far wider majority.

Moreover, this comes from someone who, in the past, has supported the implementation of prior guidelines.

But this? PC at its absolute worst, in my humble opinion.

Not only are the moderators going to be excessively challenged in making what are bound to be highly arbitrary and specious decisions, but many of the four digit wonders here are going to be hitting the alert button with the frequency of monkeys in a cocaine experiment. I just noted one post where the member indicated, relative to negative Dean posts, that he/she "was hitting the alert button as fast as (he/she) can."

[question everything]

30. No problem here, but I am new..

I have to admit. I was lazy. I would not get to vote until the beginning of March and thought that by then the race would be over. It still may be. But I do come here to learn about the candidates and about what their supporters say. Thus, I would have considered it a waste of time (and band width) to just wade through many posts that would just bad mouth candidates and their supporters.

On the other hand, this is what is happening on message boards every place. The anonimity of the Interent allows people to be rude, a behavior that in many cases they would not exhibit in a face to face gathering.

Yet, I am not sure about the criteria. Yesterday, or the day before, someone posted a very disillusioned post about how Dean started the fire and now he has been abandoned and the whole thread disappeared.

All in all - I am satisfied with the rules.

[The Magistrate]

33. Things Drop Down Pretty Quickly Here, Sir

It might well be down to page ten or so by now....

Allow me to welcome you to the forum, Sir.

[mvd]

32. I vote to keep the rules, but think..

since the rules are so restrictive, the suggestion that some made before is good - open another forum that is very unrestrictive. People who constantly complain about enforcement can go there. So you can have things both ways.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Most excellent idea! we could call it "Politics and Campaigns"

;-) :hi:

[mvd]

36. Hi, NSMA

Yes, that way a new whole forum won't have to be created. Make it so only threats and illegal stuff are deleted. I really think this would solve all the problems. :hi:

[mvd]

37. One more thing

Make the rules for the other, unrestrictive forum temporary - when we officially have our nominee, go back to the normal rules for DU. This isn't even for my benefit, since I'm not that type of poster - but Skinner would have fewer headaches this way.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Skinner would have fewer headaches if he chopped off his head!

:D

(not that I haven't given him a couple)

[mvd]

39. LOL

He'll always have some headaches running a message board like this. He and the other admins deserve a lot of thanks for doing a good job, and this idea would eliminate some problems at least. :-)

[candy331]

42. I am glad you stepped up the rules because the attacks

the viciousness of the attacks had become pathetic. I simply would not spend my time on a board to attack others but let's face it that is what some people are all about attacks. Attacking is so easy on a board because it can be done w/o face to face contact. I visit other boards and am registered on several and note the disruptor's soon invade those boards too so I think there are some people out there who seem to have anti-social personalities and use the boards to express it. I posted on a board I frequent just last night and received about 25 replies but 2 of the replies were the vilest of hateful speech, utterly repulsive. I could never repeat the words of those 2 replays. I think somewhere down the line hate speech is going to have to be addressed on the web. Please don't ease your rules or you will become a haven for hateful unrestrained speech.
I still enjoy DU so far and thank you for this service.

[bearfartinthewoods]

45. or thunderdome

i must admit, i might drop by for some free for all, from time to time.

[DemExpat]

93. I have thought all along that a forum like this would be a good idea!

An unrestricted, most minimally moderated room for fans...

:kick:

DemEx

[trof]

40. Having to go through the "filter" of re-reading the rules

is a total pain in the ass.
I won't be back here.

[LuminousX]

41. LOL - Reading that 'filter' tells you how to turn it off...

You may shut off this alert by clicking on the "Options" icon in the forum Lobby. Click "Edit your preferences" and set "Show GD:2004 warning page?" to "no."

[KoKo]

65. How many other folks don't know how to turn the "Rules Filter" Off?

Maybe that's why folks are leaving. I didn't find how to turn it off myself until yesterday! lol's I thought it was awfully strict and was going to complain when I saw that thingy at the bottom in little print.

[blondeatlast]

87. The problem is you actually have to READ THRU THE RULES

to get to the instructions.

That's way too much to ask of some, apparently.

[LuminousX]

43. They are good

The people talking about restrained speech are failing to understand that personal freedom ends when it inhibits the personal freedoms of another. Since DU is a shared resource, bombastic behavior needs to be curbed. And since there are still other venues on DU to discuss issues in bombastic, aggressive, vitriolic ways, keeping the Primary forum more civil allows greater participation from the community as a whole.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Having been busted and having my appeal refused w/o explanation...

my reply is extremely subjective also. The "rules" aren't that bad, the implementation seems a bit too "subjective" and biased.

[Loren645]

46. Thanks much for asking Skinner. I know how hard this is to moderate.

So here's what I think.

I think banning someone forever for four warnings, regardless
of how many votes they have total, is rather rigid.
I appreciate and respect the goal of decreasing flames.
But someone can have 5,000 posts, then have one bad day (where maybe
they're provoked and their resistance is down, or their body
chemistry is off, or they have PMS...) so they break the rule du jour.
Perhaps they've been a member in good standing from the start, then
have one snarky day, and they're banned forever. Hey, we are only
human. But this latest policy is close to zero tolerance for fallibility.

Please pick some reasonable rules and stick with them.
It's getting pretty confusing.
Today people were banned days after warnings were issued/read/agreed to, after they'd complied with the warnings protocol, after time out periods had expired, when they'd received no additional warnings, apparently due to a software bug.
There are posts about them in the admin forum.
As a result, the bans seemed harsh and arbitrary.

I don't want anarchy (we've seen that deregulation doesn't work).
So I'd prefer that you tinker with the current rules to give some
leeway for someone with years here, and/or lots of posts here,
who then has a bad day and acts human. Four strikes your out,
feels a bit too much like the gov'ts three strikes policy that
pot smokers get caught up in. Just not enough granularity.

I know this is probably hard to program into the system.
A flat four warnings is easier program wise. But I think it's
unfair.

Thanks again for the chance to give input.

[Rowdyboy]

47. I had a post deleted...I appealed

it was handled promptly. It wasn't a major point and the admin showed flexibility. In retrospect, I used a phrase that could have been taken as a slam. It wasn't meant like that, and my appeal was accepted but now I regret using it..

I think you guys are doing a tremendous job of keeping this place from boiling over. I respect your humor and patience.

Soon the nomination will be decided and life will return to something approaching normal...Until then...Cheers!

[DemBones DemBones]

56. But why should you regret using a phrase that COULD be taken as

a slam when it wasn't meant as a slam? Why couldn't the poster who thought it was a slam ask you what you meant by it instead of hitting alert?

These rules encourage the development of tattletale behavior among the thin-skinned -- a dandy way to get back at someone who posts something you disagree with.

How can we be expected to know what might seem offensive to someone else? The only way never to offend is never to post.

[Rowdyboy]

59. It was on a "congratulations to Candidate X" thread

and I really think extra care should be taken in a case like that. It was nothing immoral or mean on my part, just poor judgement.

[seventhson]

97. I think repeat alerters should ALSO be sanctioned for alerting

om posts that are not a cl;ear violation of a specific rule.

I know I want FEWER rules. But those who team up on an unpopular poster or one whose posts are consistently hurtful to an idea or opinion (esp
This kind of blind and secret behavoir can be VERY disruptive.

Every time the mods get an alert they haver to act (ignoring the alert is acting by failing to act). The act of alerting can be a disruptiuon as well.

I ONLY alert whn there is a very clear violation of a specific rule. Alerting because one does not LIKE an opinion or the use of language - should be viewed as suspect too.

I know the mods have generally often done a very good job on this.

But sometimes the deletion and locking or even warnings are just NOT anywhere clearly justified in the rules.

I originally like and supported the old rules - but the new ones are simply awful to me.

[The Magistrate]

102. An Excellent Point, Mr. Son

One of the real difficulties with a regime of regulation is that partisans will seek to turn the police of it against their opponents, seeing immediately that it offers them a chance to expell them, or at the least greatly hamper their activities. This is unavoidable to some degree, for regulations alter the ground over which the verbal conflict flows, and all regulations contain, properly viewed, instruction for both their exploitation and evasion. People will attempt to avail themselves of this weapon against their foes.

In ordinary life, it is a crime to swear out a false complaint to the police, and there is a good deal to be said for treating a malicious or frivolous alert here in similar wise. Indeed, if recollection serves, there is mention of abuse of the alert function in the origional ground rules of the forum. A person who makes an alert where there is no violation of the rules has put the moderators to a good deal of trouble, and has certainly made an unfair attack on a fellow member of the forum.

In a forum with such high volume as this one, such actions can be a serious problem, for the moderators must to a great degree depend on the alerts they receive to guide their actions. There are simply too many comments made for the moderators to have personnal knowledge of more than a small sample. Not even six moderators can hope together to have read themselves every single comment put up in this forum within even a given half-hour. The actual enforcement, then, of any set of rules will in large part be determined by the alerts they recieve. If these are mere trumped up things, rather than well-founded complaints, effective enforcement will be impossible, and the appearance of arbitrary and un-even enforcement will be reinforced for many members.

[mopinko]

48. warnings would be good

i, personally, would like to hear more form the mods. a warning here or there, instead of just a delete. i suppose that would only p.o. most disruptors. but it might also be instructive. i dunno. wouldn't take your job for all the tea in china. but the 'dean speech' thread sure show that people still have plenty of room to be nasty. it's too bad we can't be civil on our own, but clearly, we can't.

[sistersofmercy]

49. I think the rules are good and a necessary measure and here is why.

It seems quite clear to me, a vocal minority on this board, who have been complaining about unfair bashing of their candidate and incivility of other supporters, are not liking it much now that rules exist which disallow them to be insulting, as well. Furthermore, I suspect that if you did a survey on who hits the alert button the most and in addition, checked his/her posts, you may be surprised to find that he/she has been equally insulting without using profanity or naming calling (presently and pre-rule). I can honsetly say I have only hit the alert button one time, I prefer to either ignore the comment or respond. Although, I have never been subjected to namecalling, I can assure you I have been on the receiving end of some fairly insulting replies.

[Toucano]

50. New rules are improving the quality of dialogue.

Overall, at least.

I think the time-outs are good for forcing people to take a step back and calm down.

It was spiraling downward prior to the new rules.

[seventhson]

51. Subjectivity is the biggest problem. Personal attacks should be the only

major rule.


I voted that I find that the rules really do not work at all.

It is very unwieldy because it seems threads which fall into the gray area of "inappropriate" or "offensive" label are really more about what the mods find offensive than the rest of us here.

People can alert fopr pretty innocuous posts because they are "offended" by the opinion of the poster when nothing is really remotely offensive to anyone else. They just don't like the content.

The concept of "flamebait" is also way to subjective to be workable.

The most serious issues to some of us are usually the things that people on the other candidates' sides are most sensitive about.

As a trial lawyer who also argues cases in the appellate courts I am often confornted by subjective decisions of judges with personal biases which supercede their following of the law. Their attitude is "Fine. If you don't like it APPEAL" and then they get pissed if you do and are retaliatory towards you in the courtroom. (These are usually republican judges appointed by a republican goivernor).

So the issue of subjectivity in rule interpreting is important.

The posts which are locked and posters warned for posting things which are only "offensive" because the moderators disagree with the poster's opinion should NEVER be locked.

If threads are indeed fairly offensive or inappropriate to most people, but there is not a specific rule violation - then I have proposed (and it seems to have been accepted based on the locking without a warning for one of my threads) that the thread be locked if serious enough but that NO warning be issued (since it IS a subjective judgment call that reasonable people could disagree about).

Without OBJECTIVE standards (specifiuc rules like the name calling thing or prohibition of offensive personal attacks) then the whole process becomes unfair. Especially if a DUer can be banned and especially when a proponent of an "opposition" primary candidate can get banned, because the other side teams up and hits alert and raises a fuss because they think the post is "offensive" to their guy even when it breaks no specific rule.

Everyone, including moderators, has some degree of bias for or against the various candidates in this race.

So I think the rules at this point really do not work very well at all and should be chucked.

I originally voted FOR these rules and thought they would be fair. But I do not NOW think they can be implemented fairly if it is all up to the discretion of moderators whose personal candidate bias may impact whether they lock a post ore thread or issue a warning.

I think it is GOOD that sometimes posts are locked when they are VERY divisive or nasty. But I do NOT think that warnings and timeouts should be implemented when a large percentage of these lockings and warnings are primarily very subjective and discretionary.

I would prefer we go back to ONE main rule:

No serious personal attacks. I have no problem with mild jibes and the back and forth of "that is just dumb" or even "you are an idiot" type of responses. We should be able to handle that in a democratic discourse.

But accusations of paranoia, saying someone is "off their meds", accusing someone of lying etc. - nasty name calling that type of thing - those are the ONLY real rules I think we need.

If someone repeatedly posts completely fabricated lies about a candidate that maybe should be rebuked or deleted or sometimes warned.

But posting things which reasonable DUers can and maybe even SHOULD disagree about should be fair - NO MATTER how much someone may be offended by it.

Once the primaries are OVER, then things may change and the reins should be pulled in.


I think the BEST example is issues many of us have raised, for example, about Clark and whether the dseaths of civilians there makes him a war criminal. Some of us think that is true - others find it offensive.

Som,ething similar might be debated about Dean and the state cop who abused his wife: did Dean condone wife abuse. These are FAIR subjects for debate. The significance of Skull and ZBoines is another example with respect to Kerry. Reasonable people can disagree on whether these subjects are "offensive" - but they should NOT get locked or people warned because people do not LIKE these threads or fell it "hurts" their candidate.

The Bushes will raise all these issues and we should be able to discuss them.

I DO appreciate the effort you make, Skinner. I really do. I just believe it would be better if the rules were NOT subjective and were simple and clear. No name calling (at least no mean spirited name calling, jest is okay). No outright lying. No demeaning other DUers. No efforts to get people alerted or banned for disagreeing with your opinion. False alerting should ALSO be penalized -- especially tag team alerting to silence DUers.

Thanks

[bearfartinthewoods]

90. i tend to agree with you re: personal attacks vrs other restictions

it is ver difficult to really discuss some of the candidate and campaign issues under the new rules.

[Dookus]

52. As I said initially....

it's a shame they had to be implemented in the first place. But now that they are, I think they're working well, at least from my perspective. I'm sure it's hell on the mods.

I think the most important rule was "don't attack the messenger - attack the message." That alone has made me reconsider a number of posts, and makes me edit them before I get in trouble.

Even with the high tensions last night, I thought it went rather well. I don't know if you had a record number of deletions, but I didn't notice an unusual number of them.

I say keep 'em, as long as the mods can stay sane while doing so.

[DemBones DemBones]

54. Skinner has stated the problem:

"I am the first to admit that the enforcement of these new rules is *extremely* subjective, which is both their biggest strength and their biggest weakness."

Rules that are enforced subjectively are weak rules, bad rules, unfair rules, undemocratic rules. Every parent knows this, every teacher knows this, every boss knows this. So does every child, every student, every employee.

I can tell you about crises I've seen in schools and other workplaces, each caused in large part by subjectively enforced rules. I also saw this happen about seven years ago at a nonpolitical board that had far more active posters than DU. People can't have good discussions while walking on eggs to avoid saying anything that might be perceived as an insult by someone whose skin is a bit thinner.

Why not go back to the old rules? Clear-cut personal attacks ("You fucking moron," "you asshole," etc.,) ought to earn the poster a time out, and a pattern of such behavior lead to banning. DU has long had strict rules against bigotry. Enforce those consistently. Keep the rule about profanity and other excesses in thread titles. Expect people to act like adults and police our own behavior. (N B: Many of those whom society does not yet consider adults know very well how to behave like adults online.)

Remind everyone that a thick skin is needed to participate in political discussion boards. Use of the Ignore function and the Hide Threads function can help DUers deal with people/ topics that get under their skins.

Please, stop tinkering with the rules, scrap the newest rules, and go back to simple, clear rules that can be enforced objectively. Superficial civility being achieved at the expense of an end to passionate discussions isn't a positive achievement for a Democratic political board.

Thank you for reading this, Skinner, and good luck.

[seventhson]

61. I Hope, Mr. Skinner, That you will consider dumping the bad rules

even if a majority here supports them.

At least a serious modification of the rules to simplfy them would be best if any of the new ones remain.

As long as the lockings, bannings, and warnings are based on subjective criteria, the democratic nature of discourse will suffer.

I agree that we need to be civil with each other, we need to out and expose and get rid of outrright lies (errors need clarifiaction but lies deserve deletion).

But if we are afraid to post our opinions and to engage in some spirited debate with decent and not personal or too serious jibes, then this will become nothing but a group of teams preaching to their choirs with a handful of fringe thinkers who express noncontroversial or troublesome opinions.

Democracy is messy but THAT is WHY it is good.

But poor rulemaking does NOT enhance democracy even when a majority thinks it will. Look at the Reagan revolution. He had the voting and vocal majority - but it was disaster.

[spooky3]

62. I would like to encourage all who want a free-for-all board to

start one themselves and maintain it. The more people on the internet who can discuss Democrats with other Democrats, the better. But I appreciate the efforts of Skinner and friends to lift the quality of discourse, and I think it has succeeded. I come here to ESCAPE the Republicans, and do not want to endure the same type of rudeness, BS, sexism, racism, or simple-minded argument that they are so comfortable with. I like thinking of DU as a refuge where I can learn from people here who know SO much more about the candidates than I do and who have GREAT senses of humor. So thanks, Skinner, and everyone else who helps, for doing your best to create this.

[blondeatlast]

88. YES!

:toast:

[KoKo]

64. Skinner, could you leave this post up a little longer please? 36 hours?

I just saw it and have been checking in frequently.

[Endangered Specie]

68. To those who argue against the new rule bc of 'free speech'

Remember, that you choose to come to the board and to abide by the rules... There are probably places out there that are unruled.

There has to be rules, otherwise you would have anarchy.

(of course, the same can be said, too many rules=dictatorship, which, incidentelly, it is ).

I think this board should (to some, some degree) serve as a mature place for liberals and the like. When things get truly unruly, it looks bad. I HATE it when websites copy some of the more nasty things said on DU, and not all of the good things.

[DuctapeFatwa]

70. I look at these poll results, and I see Ashcroft get hard

The purpose is to engage in discussion for YOUR edification, not put on a show for people who I am sure are all for rules, rules and more rules, and you can go to one of them and see how they feel about free speech.

They are all for free speech as long as it is in agreement with their views, a sentiment that is all too prevalent on here, too.

Free speech is messy. It is annoying. It does not arrange itself into a pretty picture.

If some regime loyalist website wants to take one of my posts and hold it up as an example of terrorism in action, good. Let them. Maybe one of them will read it and think.

Even if they aren't won over to my point of view, they can at least see what the freedom is that all us evildoers supposedly hate.

That is, unless YOU, not the administrators, but YOU vote that I cannot make the post.

The administrators can set any rules they want.

They are asking you.

I look at these poll results, and I see Ashcroft get hard and smile at Rove, "see? That Goebbels was a smart fellow all right. Even our enemies have drunk the Kool-Aid."

[seventhson]

96. Very eloquently put, Ductape

but now I have to walk around with that image iun my head all day long!

Offensive! Inappropriate! How dare you say the opinions of the majority of DUers gives Asscrap a woody!!! Pure slander and lies! I'm hitting alert!!!

(Just kidding. We NEED humor as well as well-expressed imagery - even if it is vile and hurts the sensitive areas))

[tigereye]

105. your arguments are the best I have read on this topic

thanks for catching the complexity of free speech and the risks it engenders. My main difficulty with the new rules was the subtext level of complexity that it required, particularly, warning others that a right wing thinker was coming, i.e, George Will. That seemed dangerous in itself. Sometimes we really need to hear what some of these guys/gals think. Bland speech can also be dangerous. Stop the personal attacks, but be careful of censoring thought, questions, and the sometimes unpleasant truth. Just one newer person's opinion.

[Dancing_Dave]

69. This is no time to kick people out!

We're trying to build a majority here, so kicking out ANY sincere contributer is totally counter-productive! That's just the kind of mistake that can cost an election.

I realize that there are always a few bogus characters sent here by the Republicans. That kind of thing does happen in Internet forums, there are even some jerks who are paid for doing it. It mainly happens in issues like 9/11 where some wealthy and powerful people have a strong interest in making sure the truth does not get out. If these bogus characters take it to the point of messing up our cool Democratic groove, perhaps a few will have to go. But really, THE LESS PEOPLE WHO ARE KICKED OUT, THE BETTER OUR CHANCES IN THE NEXT ELECTION!:)

[Eloriel]

71. Missing categories for response

The enforcement is TERRIBLY uneven -- and don't read that as a charge of bias, although it certainly could include bias.

Some rules aren't even getting enforced at all, that I can see (e.g., stay on topic).

And most of all, the tone here is not substantively better. There are a couple of rules that help -- I am particularly enamored of the rule prohibiting assertions of "fact" that haven't been substantiated, for example -- but that doesn't help with civility at all.

GD04 is quite simply a TOXIC environment. So toxic I can no longer handle it, and don't intend to.

But the saddest thing to me, sadder than what DU has become, is what you're allowing to happen to our Democratic candidates. I told someone earlier today after foolishly reading just one thread here on GD04 today -- the only thread I've read -- that what is going on here at DU is the kind of thing, the kind of politics, we as Democrats should be fighting, not engaging in and actively promoting. There's no way to stand up to Republican dirty tricks and dirty politics if we allow it on our side.

But far worse, you are allowing the SAVAGING of candidates here (and I'm not talking just about Dean). It's unconscionable, possibly unforgivable.

I don't consider myself blameless, in either the civility department or the savaging of candidates department, but I can assure you that many of us have felt there there arrived a time at DU when we felt there was no option but to "fight back." This has been going on for a long time -- newer people have sen the candidate discussions as an already existing free for all with all sides guilty. Those of us who have been here longer know that's not quite how it went down.

In any case, I hate to see DU contributing to the Democratic Party's probable destruction, or at least further weakening, in 2004 (and I'm not talking about Dean -- that one thread I read today happened to be about Dean, but as I read it, with considerable horror, the overriding realization I had was that "this is exactly what's going to happen at the hands of the Repugs to WHOEVER our nominee is -- why the hell are we allowing this shit at DU?"

I understand very well that there are people here who seem to revel in the down and dirty of politics, and you've said as much about yourself. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't make it advantageous to getting Bush out of office in November. I can't for the life of me understand why you permit it. I just can't.

You really have to ask yourself -- and I predict you will, sooner or later -- what is going on here and why you are permitting it. Qui bono? Please ask yourself: Qui bono?

Right now, we are all playing the fool here, participating in our own destruction -- the party's destruction, the nation's destruction. Mark my words.

How long will you let it continue?

Eloriel

[Skinner]

89. We are allowing people to say negative things about candidates...

...because this is a political discussion board, and the purpose is to discuss politics.

[Maddy McCall]

74. Keep these rules, all of them.

The ban after 4 warnings is the stick that evidently was needed to make some folks behave.

I never ventured into this forum until the other rules were put in place, and it was still very ugly then. The new rules closed most of the loopholes that the rudest DUers were using.

Please don't toss out the new rules.

[arcos]

75. I'm mostly happy with them... I just wish there were no exceptions...

for example, this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=150649

All other threads about the Dean speech were locked, because there were enough already... however, this thread was allowed to stay. Why couldn't he post it to any of the other zillion threads about this topic? This is not the first time "an exception" has been made for this DUer.

Not counting this, I think they have been an excellent idea.

[Tinoire]

76. I think I'd like to see them dumped

The people whose hides aren't thick enough to handle discussion at DU might be more comfortable on the candidate forums- or even down in I/P where there are rules out the ying yang and blood all over the forum walls.

What made DU special, what made it great was that we were able to engage in open, free discussion and progress to common understanding and goals.

Right now so many people think they have to walk on pins and needles and the poor mods are the victims of a very vicious game at DU now. It's called "gang up and alert" and you see evidence of this in threads. People openly saying "I'm doing morse code with the alert button" and the poor mods having to deal with this absolute baby-ish garbage and trying to make Solomon-like decisions when they don't even have the time to read the entire flow because down in GD2004 there are 4 more small fires. Jeez and god forbid a mod send someone a warning because then it's the wailing and gnashing of teeth!

Amusing also to see are all the people who run down to ATA, whining that they hit the alert button a whole 5 minutes ago, a whole 5 times and nothing has been done! Jeez Skinner, I DO NOT know how you put up with this! I do not know how the mods who are our co-Democrats, our co-activists, our friends put up with this BS! My hat is off in total admiration to the mods who had to resort to something unheard of at DU- hiding their names so that they wouldn't get beaten up for making partisan decisions. Hah! If mods made partisan decisions, the Dean & Clark-supporting mods (back when I knew who was who) would have gotten me banned loooong ago for saying unflattering things about their candidate. Instead, not one, not even one measly twisted, stretched warning for any candidate thread/post. For the ones that I received over insignificant matters, I will simply say that my appeals were handled fairly and graciously.

I have no complaints against the mods for bias or unfair enforcement but I do have a complaint against members who would try to stifle discussion by smothering it under a ton of rules that will allow them to go on with their tea-parties and propaganda. That's what the candidate blogs are for and God knows that the biggest offenders of this have campign provided blogs to do this with. So why here? And at what price?

There is a very organized network right now sending people to our polls and to certain threads. I hope this poll isn't getting skewed the same way candidate polls and threads have repeatedly been skewed (and I say this because we've found proof of this too often). We're at the beginning of a very vicious political cycle and there's a lot of organizing/orchestrating going on behind closed doors/sites. He who plays dirtiest should not win. Not at DU. I miss the old days where everything was above-board & we knew who was who, who stood where, and who was up to what. Now we are so suspicious of each other.

These rules are taking a toll on all of us and I would like to see them go. Back to the old DU or at least back to the last set of rules.

Maybe some find the tone better but the tone is entirely changing and the zest of DU is disappearing.

Before all these rules there were few really hard feelings between the camps because people were able to vent and say what they had to as long as it wasn't a personal attack. Now it's practically war and for decent, open discussion I'm having to rely more and more on PMs. Even with Clark supporters that I'm trying to understand, trying to understand how people who are such Liberals can support someone I see as total anathema to the Progressive cause, I'm now resorting to PMs because the athmosphere above board is becoming artificial, childish and down-right cruel.

Last night what happened to the Dean suppoerters was shameful. If we're going to have rules, then gloating should be on there because that is more cruel and destructive than any broad brush or personal attack. But how do you enforce a "no-gloating" rule :shrug:

DU is a victim of its own success. Whatever decision you make, just know that the vision you implemented 3 loooooong years ago has been worth it and is making a great deal of difference to a great deal of people. It's also making a difference in politics because it's in places like this that the real grass-roots campaigns were started. If we stifle everything for tea-party rules, our board risks being over-run by polite regurgitation of campaign propaganda and we risk becoming another mouthpiece of the establishment.

The saddest part in all of this for me, is that I agree with the intent of all the rules. If you can't say something civilly, you probably shouldn't be saying it but the enforcement is a nightmare and there are too many hard feelings that aren't getting patched.

Just my .10 when you only asked for .02
As usual. Lol. Just be grateful I didn't kill you with excerpts and hyperlinks :)

We'll get through this yet. After the Primaries are over, I think each and every DUer owes you guys a trip to the Bahamas! You can leave me and my good friend Ductapfatwa in charge. I promise you won't recognize the place when you come back. We'll have it all cleaned up for you ;) I know- shiver & perish the thought! Lol.

Hang in there Skinner. No matter which way you go, we're with you! I understand the utter difficulty of this decision and wouldn't be the one who had to make it!

On edit: One rule I would REALLY like to see disappeared is the rule about using right-wing sources.

Last week I alerted on myself for having quoted an article from a "right-wing" source. Because it was unflattering to a certain candidate, we had wailing and gnashing of teeth and an attack on the source. On later examination, talking to Liberalauthor friends, they laughed out loud and told me that the Union Leader is one of the country's oldest papers and highly respected. So where do we draw the line?

O'Reilly, I found out from reading some of his own work, is a long-time Democrat (which the Freepers said explained everything about him :eyes:). So wow, under these rules O'Reilly would be in and Union Leader would be out.

Drudge if I recall correctly, is the one who broke the story about Clinton's pecadillo & gutsy little Carl Cameron of Fox has broken some great stories.

I request that we give consideration to eliminating this rule. It was mostly proposed by the same people who complain about stories in the Nation, Counterpunch, LA Times and AIM. This rule really should go and let the readers decide what is worthwhile and what is not. The comments will tell. I think it's more important to avoid our own propaganda- all that does is lull us into a false sense of security and start teaching us not to question.

Thanks.

.05 cents now :)

[sleipnir]

77. Yes, sure, censorship is a good thing.....whow repression won this poll

The new rules do nothing but promote rather bland dialogues between different candidate supporters, unless the mods aren't on duty, then it might get interesting. I like some heavy discourse that might offend people, but that's political work.

I did like the min. post requirement, though it should be at 100, not 250. I'm sick of "puppets" and I think that the 100 post requirement would end that to some degree.

[AP]

78. Censor vs civilzed discourse.

The rules are good in that people aren't attacking messengers anymore. However, people are definitely trying to censor people. How 'bout a rule like ten alerts that result in no warnings and you get 24h time out (however, one might get punished just because biased mod doesn't agree with your politics and won't warn on obvioulsy bad posts).

And how bout some sort of punishment for mods who get overturned frequently, eg, they need a second opinion on all warnings, and they're denied alerts don't count towards the new rule I've listed above).

[drfemoe]

79. I voted return to old rules .. however ..

.. that might not be the perfect solution. The new rules seem to be a lot more work than this place really needs to be.

There are some good things in the new rules. I've been happy to see that more threads have been locked in the past couple of days rather than disappeared even as I compose a reply, which was very confusing. I think leaving locked threads serves several purposes.

. less work for mods and admins and members
. instructive examples of what NOT to do
. retains viable information contained in the locked thread that can be salvaged for appropriate usage
. no twilight zone experiences when threads vaporize
. probably more which I am too tired to think of right now
....
Not knowing all the technical issues and procedures .. I get the general idea of what happens if something is locked/deleted, but couldn't recite exact outcomes for bad behavior in various situations, since they have changed, and fortunately I have avoided any deletions, etc. so I don't have user side experience with the system .. I'm at a loss to discuss those standards with anything like complete knowledge.

However, it does occur to me that a 24 hour time out might be somewhat strict and somewhat counterproductive. Again, not knowing the capabilities of the forum s/w set-up, from a practical POV, a slightly different enforcement procedure might constructive.

For example: "A" comes in and posts an obvious hate bait thread. A time lag is involved. Variables come into play. Is there a mod on duty? Is the mod watching the board. Does anyone care to Alert the thread. "A"'s hate-bait may kick to the top for hours before any action is initiated. Meanwhile "B" "C" and "F" have taken the bait and violated rules within the thread. Now what happens .. the thread is locked, messages deleted, and warnings sent to A,B,C,F .. if one of them happen to have 4 (3?) warnings, a 24 hour time out ensues. Very complex? Additionally, mods may need time to come to a consensus, or in the case of the new rules, a single mod may (or was) deleting the thread, sending warning(s) .. in some cases (?) mod discretion comes into play ... {Thank the gods this will be over in a few months}

It seems to me that a little more leeway has been given in the past couple days as well. From my POV, that seems to have allowed some serious conversations, with a fewer deleted posts.

Would something like this work: A posts hate bait, either as the OP or within the thread. Someone hits the Alert. A single mod has the authority to evaluate the possible rule violation and put a temporary lock on the thread until the process can unfold in the mod forum and a final decision agreed upon. At this point either the temp lock is removed or a final lock (deletion for individual posts) enforced. (I see the mods in ATA lock threads temporarily sometimes when Admin is not available to resolve the question.)

IF a final lock is determined, A gets a 2 hour time out (in this model). If he/she comes back and posts another hate bait, and a final lock is enforced, he/she gets a 4 hour time out. The same for people who post within the thread in a manner that breaks the rules. Delete their post and 2 hour time out, next offense, 4 hrs, third, 8 hrs. This can be repeated up to four times for a max time out of 14 hours, 4th offense. The next offense, if they persist, begins at 2 again. If someone pursues this to the point of 2 - 14 hour time outs = 56 hours, no more GD2004 postings. That would be a total of eight offenses, but could be spread out over several days or weeks, accounting for compliant behavior and time out periods.

Does this encourage someone to take the max 8 offenses? The total accumulated time would be 2+4+8+14 = 28 hours x 2 = 56 hours of time outs. GD4P lock out. A persistent rule breaker may be able to make 3 nasty posts in one thread! That would be a 14 (2+4+8) hour time out. This sounds complicated, but a database should be able to handle the calculations IIRC. This is just a rough outline and maybe a little stream of consciousness thrown in.

The benefits I would anticipate, is that if someone feels a little fury and shoots off one mean post, 2 hours will give him/her time to cool down and re-evaluate their behavior .. or sit and stew and come back for more depending on the individual. But if they return and repeat, 4 hours will give them more time to cool down. It provides a "training" method for "where did I go wrong", and removes them from the current conflict. After 24 hours (the current model) it's a new day and the previous day's 'lessons' may have been forgotten or never learned. In the progressive model, each 'offense' gives a little more time to reflect about one's purpose here at DU.

If a freeper shows up, as they sometimes used to, they can get 8 offenses pretty quickly and a resulting permanent lock out. You have offered an appeal process, which I imagine takes a lot of your time. If the mods take this approach and make a consensus of 2 or more mods in agreement, the 2 and 4 hour time outs cannot be appealed. If a third breach occurs, any or all three may be appealed during the 8 hour time out. If Admin agrees with all three, all is well. If Admin finds that the mods made a misjudgment, the member finishes the 8 hour time out and comes back with a *free* buy .. that is, the next deletion/lock is *forgiven*. I know what you're thinking. Someone has a free ticket to insult someone. That doesn't mean the post doesn't get deleted, but the 2 hour penalty is skipped with the free buy. If they are feeling daring and go on to make another insulting post, the 4 hour time out ensues. And so on. This gives individuals some power about how they use their posting privileges. This might not work out even money on hours and time outs, but if someone is a habitual abuser, they don't get a full refund... they get 2 hours back for each *mistake* the mods make.

I don't believe the mods would abuse the system. I think they would be more likely to enforce a two hour time out, as a warning when there is a 'close call' (ball on the line), and give the member an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves during the two hours. If the member feels the lock/deletion was in error, he/she needs to make a decision about how to proceed. Post with more awareness, or get mad and take it out on DU again. Which, of course will give them four hours to think about it. It is possible at any time for the member to do everything within their power to restrain themselves so that they don't go to the next 8 hour level, at which time they may appeal the three locks/deletions as above. You would have 3 appeals from one member to evaluate, rather than a constant flood (I imagine) of single case appeals, and the member is on an 8 hr time out, so immediate action is not anticipated.

In an extreme case, say Admin decides that 3 time outs were given when none of them were deserved, the member comes back with 3 TWO hour passes. One can be used for another 2 hour time out, another can be used to take 2 hours off the 4 hour time out, if they persist, and one can be used for the 8 hour time out. This has the potential for abuse. But IF there are mods who habitually abuse the system and have their decisions reversed, you may have a mod problem (although I'm not suggesting that's the case). This gives Admin the opportunity to improve understanding of enforcement expectations from the mod(s) if one or two of them habitually make inaccurate determinations. Everyone learns from the experience, if there is a lesson there. The ideal situation would be, someone who breaks a posting standard and sits out for two hours, he/she learns from that experience and determines to comply with posting standards, never going on to the 4 hour time out.

Part of this model includes a little more relaxed standard which I think I've seen the past couple of days, which allows discussions to develop and the 'adults' at DU to work out their issues among themselves. There still have to be standards for acceptable behavior though, imo. A few people can be really mean, and that does not lead to productive communication. It allows us to be a little thick skinned, without risking being outright insulted, and frees up the inhibition I know some of us feel about posting because we are not sure if what we want to communicate crosses the line or not.

I don't think you asked, and I may be just too tired to think straight and in the morning realize I am really full of it and blathering like an idiot. But I appreciate your willingness to work with the members to make DU a more productive and informative forum for everyone, an easier place to moderate and, hopefully less work for everyone involved. The one caveat I would like to see, if you are going to modify the rules in any way, is to keep the requirement that unsubstantiated, not generally accepted as true, assertions must be accompanied by documentation to substantiate the claim. I don't think it serves a purpose to allow DU to be a place where anyone can make any claim (or lie) and allow it to stand de facto. We are adults, and should be able to tell the truth and back up what we say.
tyvm. If my thinking on this is pure garbage, please attribute it to my fatique.

[seventhson]

95. Simplfy Simplify Simplify

Blatant and persomaal attacks. Clear and outrageous lies (which have NO sources).

These should be banned and folks warned and only the worst offenders given time outs if they are repeat blatant offenders who refuse to cooperate.

Those who play on the fringes but who do not violate specific rules while they are disrupting should be warned and maybe timed out.

We are adults. This is a Posting system. If we are offended ir think soemone is a loser we should be able to present our case reasonably without fear of being banned. OPINIONS should be allowed ALWAYS.

If folks are obviously freepers (especially newbies) whose sole purpose is to disrupt - then they should be banned after a warning or a few warnings unless they are really nasty.

Otherwise these rules are too damn subjective and complicated.

They should be simple and clear and should NOT be used to slanbt this board towards any primary candidate via the inherent potential bias of the mods on what is civil discourse or not.

SIMPLIFY - it is a lot less work and NOT subjective in most cases.

[Piperay]

80. Either set of rules is fine with me

I have been deleted once which was a wake up call for me to behave myself so I have just gotten in the habit of being very careful. :shrug:

[CWebster]

81. Don't you find it interesting

that many of a particular viewpoint--a more progressive one, share the same experience of bias and protest the imposition of the rules on those grounds, in opposition to a group who wholeheartedly embrace and endorse the rules--under the mantle of civility but obviously approving of the way they are enforced.
That should tell you something about the climate change.

"I am concerned that we won't have anyone left on DU after the primary season is over...."

Somewhere along the way, you lost the point.

Democracy is sloppy and people who demand truth, change and accountability might offend the tender sensibilities of those prefer safe illusions of don't worry, be happy. Anger is a virtue, these days there is much to be angry about. When citizens demand change and are dissatisfied with the status quo they are relegated as angry and lacking civility. It is a form of suppression to cast righteous and necessary anger as a public disgrace.

The hammer is going to come down hard on the Left--now is not the time to hold the nail for those who are doing the banging.

[Cuban_Liberal]

82. I think the new rules are just fine.

I've had no problems following them, so I think they should stay. The Mods are doing a great job enforcing them, too! :toast:

[Iverson]

83. mixed

I applaud and support all calls for civil discourse. I am also concerned that ordinary expressions of exasperation or strong disagreement on an issue may contravene them unintentionally.

[blondeatlast]

84. As a frequent smartass, I have to rethink my replies often.

I'm actually participating in GD2004 now, so I think they are great.

There are some who will never be happy unless they are allowed to mud-wrestle. Let them found their own forums.

I can actually find some enlightening information now. The AZ primary is about 3 weeks away, and I'm finally able to narrow my choices (down to 3 now, but every bit helps!).

Edit: For those who think free expression is being trampled upon, maybe you should simply stop for a moment and think about what you are about to say. I've posted reactively and when I step back a moment, I go and delete my own post (through Edit). Then I rephrase it if it's important, move on if it's not.

No one is limiting your right to express yourself; the Admins are simply asking you to think before you mouth off. I'm a terrible smartass sometimes, and I've had to restrain myself in public often.

I've gotten good practice here.

[seventhson]

99. I hate to even bring this up

But you have to factor in the stealth disruptor factor in this poll. As with the other polls on the candidates there is at least one candidate who we all know seems to have "freeped" our polls according to Skinner's own posts on the subject (the admins can SEE that).

I think that this particular candidate, veiewed here by some as the MIC candidate, has the MIC resources and strategic planning to subtly impact this board by making it user friendly to THAT candidate while making it tougher on some of the others.

The issues which trouble us most are the most difficult to determine objectively when we are offended or angry at a post.

But some of us do seem to believe that the stricter rules tend to seem to in practice favor certain candidates who are well organized to impact this borad by their collective efforts.

The mods may not even be aware of this.

But I know the admins are.

At this point it may be moot though.

I think DU has a tremendous impact on the public (for those who are tuned into it like the campaigns and the media). But it all really comes down to the next six weeks or so.

Our impact will be steadily diminshing unless there are HUGE gaffes (as some would argue the Dean tirade was).

Just wanted to make the point that those who benefit the most from gentle discourse rather than our collective democratic rage are those who seem closest to many of us to actually being players for "the other side". That is my opinion. And I think that fact affects this poll just like many of the opthers.

If we cannot dish legitimate dirt on the "opponents" then the truth gets buried when someone hits alert and even the campaigns and the media miss the story.

I saw someone on CNN say Kerry's medals toss, for wexample, showed he was basically a peacenik. NO coverage of the fact that he threw someone else's medals. These stories STILL get buried and DU has played, I think, a major role even, for example, in the candidacy of John Buchanan by spreading his story as far as we can.

WE matter here at DU. Stifling unpleasant posts that are arguably the truth HURTS the democrats IMHO.

[The Magistrate]

104. This Is Part Of The Problem, Sir

The assumption those who disagree with you on some particular matter are not "real" members of the forum, or real leftist and progressive folk who's views and judgements differ from your's is a pernicious thing. It is one thing to argue that a certain course of action will have a readily predictable result, and quite another to argue that a person advocates that course because that person is actually a paid or otherwise suborned agent planted in our midst to secure that result. If you feel a regime of civility works against the supporters of some candidate here, that would seem to me more a comment on the conduct of many supporters of that candidate than anything else, and to indicate that the problem, if any, lies with that conduct, and nowhere else.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. You didn't give the 250 post rule a chance to work.

[symbolman]

101. I'm actually ON the Campaign Trail here in

New Hampshire - and haven't been posting a lot due to travel, etc..

We are filming and interviewing ALL the of Candidates (and others in person) -- sometimes I can be a little flip or cruel (one of my heroes is Hunter Thompson) and as such, even tho I am supporting DEMOCRATS while doing all this (and this is making me sick as a dog running around in all this weather) I'm still scared to POST HERE NOW..

I posted something on the General discussion (honest mistake) and all of a sudden I'm getting all these warnings like I kicked over a cup of nuke material..

so I got mad.. then I wrote the mods that wrote to me and told them I understood that there was a mistake.. still I feel like I got a speeding ticket and don't want to take the chance..

I've got a LOT of good info you ain't going to get on the regular media - up close and personal and I'd love to share it - may even stream whole speeches, like Moore backing Clark (a great speech) - we're trying to set it up..

I'm working on partnering with other sites to do all this right on up to the NH primary..

also fresh from being a finalist in NYC in the Bush in 30 seconds we're airing our entry (which did not win) 2500 times in NH on Cable (both CNN and FOX) up to the Primary..

love to pass this on, but I feel a little stifled.. hell, I feel a LOT stifled and miss the old DU..

what should I do?

Hell, I go on Joe the Scar (MSNBC) show and others, and I always PUSH other sites than Take Back the Media (including DU)...

I'd like to think that (altho I don't want any special treatment, really) I've contributed a lot to both the movement of progressive and here at the DU, but I felt really Put Off the other day..

like I said, what should I do?

[KoKo]

108. I saw that post and then it was locked. I didn't understand why you didn't

repost it in the 2004 Forum. It didn't seem against the rules :shrug:

I hope this gets worked out, because this is just the kind of fresh information we need here instead of arguing about "who said what" and which candidate is "polling better than the other."

If the New Rules stopped your post then something does need to be changed. And, I've been a big advocate of the New Rules. I would retract my support if I thought you weren't able to post your information about what you and TBTM are doing.

Thanks...for heads up, for those of us who wondered what happened to that post.

[Dr Fate]

103. Fine with me Old Bossman...

...pretty much what I already do...

107. Politics is the art of compromise

so these rules are good.

[Skinner]

109. Final tally

Poll result (205 votes)

Overall, I think the strict new rules and aggressive enforcement seem to be a good thing. (133 votes, 65%) Vote

Overall, I think the strict new rules are overkill. I would prefer to go back to the rules we had last week. (36 votes, 18%) Vote

I don't really like any of these rules. Just let people say what they want. (36 votes, 18%) Vote

I am surprised by the result. I still believe some tweaking will be necessary, but I guess that for the most part we'll be sticking with these rules.