Any thoughts about the resurgence of primary infighting here on DU?

[Skinner]

Some days, here on DU, it looks like the 2004 primaries never ended. I must admit, I find the whole thing extremely difficult to understand. I simply cannot relate to the whole thing. It's been more than a year since the presidential primaries ended, and the next presidential primaries don't start for three years. I just don't understand why -- at this moment in time -- we have people voluntarily aligning themselves with particular politicians, and fighting among each other. The whole thing makes no sense to me, and I'm completely perplexed about how to deal with it.

I suppose we could just try to write a rule along the lines of "no pointless attacks, or no pointless puffery, toward 2004 and likely 2008 primary candidates" but I don't really think that would help. I suspect the likely result would be for some of the hard-core partisans to try to use the new rule for their own partisan advantage.

Another thought I have is to simply segregate all this stuff somewhere and forget about it. But I'm not sure that would really help either.

So I'm at a loss.

My impression is that most people -- even hard-core partisans -- don't really like that this is going on, and don't want the primaries to start any time soon. But I also get the sense that none of the partisans wants to unilaterally disengage because they think the other side won't back down. So, there is a trust issue here.

I suspect there may also be a resentment/revenge or hurt feelings issue as well. I think some people may still be angry or upset about the primary infighting from 2004, which provides an incentive to keep fighting.

And then there's the perception among some people that the DU Administrators or moderators are biased against certain candidates, which provides another justification for continuing.

Lacking any clue how to approach this, I'm asking for your thoughts.

What (if anything) could be done -- by the DU administrators, or by the members themselves -- to deal with this issue? Can we do anything to improve the distrust that seems to fuel this? How do we reinforce the idea that we are all on the same side? Isn't it okay for a person to support Dean *and* Clark *and* Kucinich *and* Kerry *and* Edwards *and* Clinton *and* any other Democrats?

In particular, I would really like to hear from some of the most entrenched partisans. What needs to happen in order for this to end? Have relations been so poisoned here that it is not even possible to foster an atmosphere of mutual trust?

I don't think writing more rules will deal with the root causes here, but we'll do it if that's the only option. I believe the only way to find a lasting solution is for all of you to work it out amongst yourselves. Any ideas on how we can all facilitate that process?

[RandomKoolzip]

1. Let god sort them out, Skinner.

I have no idea why people think, "I support x, therefore y is EVIL AND MUST BE STOPPED!"

It's not even amusing to red about anymore, like it was in 04.

[genius]

65. I think the big issue is accuracy.

There are people here who regularly post untrue information about Dennis. If untrue information is posted, there should be a right to set the record straight. The problem is that setting the record straight and getting out the truth about what Dennis actually said or his real position on the issues is sometimes perceived as an attack on the person who posted the untrue information. But an attack, based on false information, of one of our heroes should give supporters of that hero the right to make sure that everyone who might have read the false information has the opportunity to see the truth.

If I said that John Kennedy raped Grace Kelly, someone should have the right to say that that is not true. If the thread got 200 people posting follow-ups about what a slime JFK was for doing this and was prominent for a week, the rebuttal should be allowed some prominance.

When people support the truth, they are good guys. They should not be warned or banned for trying to do the right things. An untrue attack on Kucinich is far worse than saying a poster is posting false information. Everyone knows who Dennis is but no one knows who the people are who are after him. Also these pseudonyms are anonymous.

It seems that Kucinich is the subject of the worst and most frequent false attacks. Some people here go to the most extreme measures to attack him on a regular basis and to attack anyone defending him. I would like to see those who present the truth about him protected from constant attacks for their attempts to post the truth.

[cestpaspossible]

86. I agree that it is unfortunate.

I understand the point that the admins and mods don't have the time to be factcheckers for everybody, but it seems like there is a point where there should be some consequences for posting untruths.

[genius]

155. I'd like to see the DU follow the honorable policy of posting retractions

When the information is well read, false and harmful to the leader, most publications and organiztions follow the policy of publishing a retraction. This gives the organization more credibility. The issue is not so much who defamed the other individual as in who hosted the information. In defamation cases, everyone who publshes or repeats the defamation is as liable as the original utterer. That's why retractions are so important. They are like a "Don't sue me" olive branch.

[Adelante]

365. I like that idea

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

167. Ask for them to back it up then.

That's all that is required. If they can't do it, forget 'em.

Don't take it personally.

[cestpaspossible]

175. A bad-faith poster won't care if you ask them to back it up.

[blondeatlast]

198. That is EXACTLY my point. nt

[JabbatheHutt]

2. How about restoring those where were banned for supporting..

their own candidates other than John Kerry after the elections of 2004? I remember lurking and seeing the Long Knives occur YET again after the elections of 2004. Several prominent members were banned. If they are allowed to form their own opinions, soon after the elections, then they shouldn't be banned in the first place.

Otherwise, there's truly nothing anyone can do about the primary infighting because frankly, John Kerry lost, and we obviously can't stop analyzing and re-analyzing what went wrong, and who should have been the nominee in the first place. I'm sure, with time, the primary infighting will die out.

That's all, and you have a nice website here, Skinner.

[Skinner]

16. Interesting idea.

First, a point of order. Nobody was banned "for supporting their own candidates." People were banned because they were unwilling or unable to follow the rules. We have always been very clear about the fact that "priminent members" are not exempt from the rules, and risk losing their posting privileges if they choose not to follow them.

However, I am not going to dismiss your suggestion out of hand. If this type of symbolic measure on the part of the DU administrators would make people trust each other again, I would do it.

In order to do this, I would like reassurances on two things: First, that people who wish to come back intend to become productive members of our community. And second, that active DU members who are currently re-hashing the primary wars would voluntarily back off if I let their friends back in.

I am understandibly quite skeptical that either would actually happen. But I would be willing to take that leap of faith if others are willing to do so as well. And if others understand that I intend to hold them to their assurances.

[FrenchieCat]

113. However, I would suggest that you look at your stats...

of locked threads discussing potential 2008 candidates and note if there have been more or fewer locked threads due to flame wars since "certain Du members" have been banned.

I would suggest that, since your most current purge, there have been fewer. Since part of the problem you are commenting on in your OP are flame wars on 2008 discussions....I suggest that you investigate those banned members thoroughly prior to opening up the "Ban"dora's box....

[BootinUp]

153. If I may be so bold

The rule breakers were warned more than once I assume. I would think your hopes for unity would be met with much the same as what caused the banning in the first place. These "groups" are loose affiliations, people act independently and according to their own desire to fight, make peace, or whatever. Its a nice dream though.

[mzmolly]

246. I like the idea of reinstating some posting privs b/c the primaries

DID get really heated. Things were not typical.

[Adelante]

299. An amnesty is a fine idea

We could all start from scratch and see what happens.

[ClarkUSA]

59. Those who were banned were banned for good reason

They made DU life absolutely miserable for their chosen targets. All of them seemed terminally unable or unwilling to follow the rules. If they came back, flamewars would become much worse, IMO.

Maybe there are some here who miss the banned DUers. I certainly don't. Many are still doing the same vicious attack/smear/disinformation schtick elsewhere on the blogosphere. Some are signing up at DU under new aliases and still following their old MO until they are found out. Some banned DUers are using their friends to start flamebait threads. So it's hard to miss them.

I feel DU is working very well as a forum. DU rules are reasonable and the mods are responsive. Most DUers are terrific, brilliant people. Perhaps the suggestion of making a separate 2008 forum may be a very good one under the circumstances. It would focus all of the relevant threads and attendant controversy in a small area of DU instead of spreading it into GDP or GD.

[JabbatheHutt]

91. Oh, so those who support Dean

deserves to be banned? Kucinich supporters deserves to be banned? Edwards supporters? Those who doesn't stand up to the psuedo-Republican Clark deserves to be banned? Is that what you are saying?

(Yes, I still believe that Clark is psuedo-Republican because of his support of the SOA, which NOBODY even answered)

[Skinner]

96. Let's not turn this into a flame war.

Thanks.

[JabbatheHutt]

119. See? Every time I post something that was reasonable

Those who support other candidates has to jump in on my throat? Point made. :)

[returnable]

130. Calling a candidate "pseudo-Republican"...

...based on one issue is hardly a reasonable argument, and it's those kinds of tactics that led Skinner to start this thread in the first place. Such antics aren't part of the solution. They are part of the problem.

[Stinky The Clown]

239. Thank you

It is exactly this kind of post that gets the fire stoked. And it is certainly not the province of the detractors of any one candidate. This sort of thing happens in threads discussing (let alone supporting) any Dem personage ... 2004 candidate or not.

Personally, I find it all very tiresome. The drive by hits and the eager and endless "corrections" by the given personage's supporters.

My usual tactic is to avoid the thread or post a simple:

:popcorn:

But given my druthers, I'druther have substantive and thoughful posts or good natured clowning. If I want vitriol, I know that CNN's on my cable system's channel 2.

[Adelante]

138. Welcome to DU, JabbatheHutt

:hi:

You're very well informed for a newbie ;)

[blondeatlast]

170. Indeed... nt

[gristy]

211. All 19 times?

LOL! Might want to study up on your singular/plural, too... :)

[Jai4WKC08]

158. If you don't want a flamewar

You don't allow smearing of good Democrats.

Calling Clark a "pseudo-Republican" is a baseless smear. The poster could have started a thread somewhere about SOA. He/she could lament that Kerry, Edwards, or any number of other good Democrats have supported SOA and question why our party hasn't taken a stand against it. But no, he/she just throws out there that Clark, and Clark alone, is the "pseudo-Republican" for his opinion on one issue.

If you can't or won't stop this sort of smearing, as you haven't here, then the supporters of those Democrats are gonna come to their defense.

Didn't the Swiftboat liars teach us that we can't let this sort of bullshit go unanswered?

[vikegirl]

97. Self-delete

Skinner addressed this.

[Skinner]

98. Please.

Let's not turn this into a flame war.

[FrenchieCat]

117. Jeeze.....

We have here a "prime" example illustrating the topic of this OP. It only takes one, to antagonize quite a few. That's the problem in a nutshell. I don't believe that the problem ones are the supporters of any candidate....but those who would just shout out some smear out of left field with no support when it isn't even the topic at hand. It happens all the time, Skinner. That's the kind of post that would get alerted on in real DU life.

See...now I feel like I need to post about SOA...again. But then, I would be accused of being a hero worshiping Barker. That's the problem in a nutshell.

on edit: 19 posts but knows all about DU banned members. Intelesting.

[Clarkie1]

225. "the psuedo-Republican Clark"

Statements like these are the kind of crap that needs to be flushed down the toilet and off of this website if you wish to achieve the goal enunciated in the OP.

Edit: I really appreciate the work you do in maintaining this website, and I share your goal of focusing on 06' and the here and now.

[CWebster]

300. Couldn't help but notice that myself

It isn't a very convincing argument when the objections are raised from such obvious partisans.

SOA is a point of contention for me as well, although I can see the appeal of Clark, the candidate.

[mzmolly]

247. I think it was more a matter of a passionate primary that got out of hand.

Supporters from all groups were banned. I think that many of the people that were banned, were here for sometime without much ado?

[jmaier]

3. In a free speech zone

it is pretty hard to police every sort of inane flame-baiting. I'd argue that it is a combination of hard feelings, immaturity and the fact that for many it is more fun to argue than it is to discuss, examine, etc.

I'd just let those who feel that they simply must participate, argue away and let everyone else ignore the fray if they so choose. It really is pretty immaterial.

Of course, the usual DU rules of locking flame threads, insisting on mutual courtesy, etc. should be enforeced by the mods.

[crispini]

9. I'd disagree with that, and here's why:

A newcomer, not knowing the active history of the "fray," can pretty easily post something which will get him or her a royal flaming. It's way too easy to fall into something about which you know or suspect nothing and get a major ass-chewing from one or the other of the various partisans, just because of the history of the board.

That said, I don't have a useful solution either, although I'll give it some thought....

[BootinUp]

134. I was once a newcomer, in fact we all were

It is not that hard to watch and learn for a stretch before jumping in. On the other hand if you haven't been flamed at least once, your're not a full member, heh.

[BootinUp]

133. Hey

Good to see you around.

Pretty much agree with this post. And the more seasoned DU members should lead by example and focus on current events and the upcoming 2006 elections.

[AuntiBush]

278. I like your suggestion best.

Actually, this helps frame what Democrats are all about: "Free Speech..." Right!?! I like it. As a rule, if I find someone looking to argue with me, I don't reply. But I'm only human and might be having a bad day.

I also think that "right now" we're all under a lot of pressure with not knowing what's going to happen regarding N. Korea, Iran and all the other daily BS we're seeing from the Rethuglicans. Even the worries of another 9/11 has many seemingly worried this past weekend on DU.

All I know is I love DU and don't know what I'd do without this place some nights. This is my solace. The only 1 place I have for "real news." Sometimes we have to take the good with the bad, in all situations.

Skinner has done a great job and wonderful service for all of us. Many fellow Du's postings give me hope, and a sense of belong in a world that's trying to alienate us all. So some of us don't like Clinton, or whatever... just move on to another thread.

I will say this: I've not been here as long as many of you, but I do seem to notice some that appear to be willfully disrupting things. "Freepers, maybe?" I dunno.

[Inland]

4. Hyperbolic statements to win the primary and lost the general.

Why not say, "I respect them all but some are better than others?" Especially if it's true, as it is for me!

No need to resort to hyperbolic statements like the declarations that some are "out" or "marginalized" in the hopes of making it true.

Just think of what a freeper would quote back to you if you guy didn't make it. That's a pretty good guide.

[ewagner]

5. Just an opinion here....

I don't believe there is any reasonable way to stop the fighting because, in the end, people will be people.....

I think segregating the fighting into a forum for "partisan posts, re: Democratic candidates and Primaries" midght be the best bet. Let the insults and accusations fly around there and only those who want to "duke it out" can venture in there...anything that leaks over into the other forums can be either deleted or moved...

Let those spoiling for a fight have their fight....let others ignore them....

[Skidmore]

6. I would like to see all 08 primary threads banned

until the official primary season starts, Skinner. I think our biggest problem is an unending campaign. If we must focus on anything with elections, it should be the 06 elections. Just my $.02.

[LittleClarkie]

106. The problem is

some folks see "2008" threads in every thread that is started about someone who MIGHT be running in 2008.

If I want to post about Kerry's latest speech, and one of the first posters says, "Fuck Kerry in 2008" does that mean that my thread is a "2008" thread?

I vote for free speech. No banning unless someone crosses the line. Flames will be deleted, and flamers will be banned. It's only been 6 months. I think things will settle down as 2006 gets closer.

[melnjones]

140. Very good point. nt

[Jo March]

405. And Alert is your friend

LittleClarkie, I have seen some nasty things being hurled back and forth. I just Ignore the poster or Alert if things get nasty.

I think that we all need to remember that we are adults, that posting here is a privilege and that we need to respect each other.

[skypilot]

7. I think that some people just like to...

...get out a certain amount of aggression on message boards. I posted something on one of the threads in the NON-POLITICAL forums and was appalled at the pissy response I received over something so inconsequential.

[suziedemocrat]

62. I think you have hit the nail on the head !

This isn't just a DU problem.

[skypilot]

69. Not just a DU problem.

I know. It's something that the anonymity of the internet brings out of people. However, after posting here for three years I'm still a bit surprised to find the problem here at DU. I just expect more from the people here.

[Stinky The Clown]

241. "I just expect more from the people here"

I agree, but I also see the flip side of this.

Yeah, there are obviously some who like to throw cyber molotov cocktails. The reality is, there are very strong sentiments on all sides. That passion's a good thing. It sure beats the alternative, which is apathy.

That same passion leads to overheated threads.

Defender one weighs in with a counter to a flame baiter.

Okay ... point made .....

Defender two weighs in with similar, related, or complimentary material to defend.

Okay ... more info to chew on (and for some of us .. to chew on again and again and again) ....

Defender three weighs in .......

.... and on and on and on ........

Might it not be better for the 'defenders' to know they've got it out there, allow it to go by with one or two posts in defense (just for the record, yanno?) and then move on?

In the end, the inveterate cyberbomber needs an audience.

Don't give him one.

[returnable]

8. I think the obvious solution is to create a 2008 folder...

...and the mods can move any threads that even hint of 2008 elections into it.

It won't stop the infighting. In fact, I don't think there is really any way to stop that, cuz there are just some folks here who don't know how to, um, move on.

But a 2008 folder should help keep the other forums clear of such nonsense.

[wildflower]

29. This is my thought too.

All discussions of 2006 or 2008 could be moved into a "Primaries" or similar forum.

Within that rule (or in addition to it), any threads that involve name-calling toward other candidates would be locked.

-wildflower

ON EDIT: I know GD: Politics was originally a forum set up for negative posts (I think it was called "fighting and rancor"?) right after the election. Maybe that forum could be restored somewhere?

[enigmatic]

66. I completely agree w/ this idea

You'll never get get most of the partisan candidate screamers to come to their senses, so put all the threads pertaining to the 2008 election into a another forum altogether like the 9/11 forum and let them scream at each other there.

[melnjones]

142. But the problem with this,

as LittleClarkie mentioned above, is that often people start a thread without any intention of it being an '08 thread, but others jump on it as an opportunity to "assume" that the OP was only trying to promote their "candidate." If Dean, or Kerry, or whoever says or does something I like, and I share it on DU, does that mean I'm promoting them as an '08 candidate?

[returnable]

145. That's true. Threads do get hijacked. But...

...I think having a 2008 folder would be a good place to start, regardless. It won't eliminate all the problems, but it will help isolate the discussion to an area where people know what they're getting into. It most certainly should stop all the "why are you posting about 2008?" antagonism that often triggers flame wars in otherwise innocuous threads. Why are we posting about 2008? Cuz we're in the 2008 folder, that's why :)

I for one would hate to see 2008 discussions banned entirely. I know we need to focus on 2006, but I don't see any harm in looking ahead to 2008, either. In fact, I find the optimism that we can run a winning candidate in 2008 and retake the White House to be completely energizing :hi:

[blm]

10. I guess what prompted me to speak out was the post that treated Kucinich

supporters as delusional. This occurred after countless threads were started against Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Dean, et al......

We get so much spin against Democrats from the corporate media that we really don't need further disparagement, more specificallly, useless insults to further alienate and dishearten the supporters of those candidates who come here to DU to discuss Democrats in a positive light and share strategies that would strengthen the party with the eye on 2006 first.

You can still be critical of a Democrat and a specific policy while seeing the positive aspects of that person and their contributions.

Isn't that how we ALL would expect to be treated? Isn't that what makes us progressive thinkers and Democrats?

[Kerrytravelers]

11. I'm not trying to take us off topic in any way.

Before I joined, I lurked for several months.

I have noticed lately a trend to be nasty. It is often over candidates, but I have also seen it on other topics as well. There have been attacks when there was no reason to be upset.

I'm curious as to why there has been such an anger streak on DU. Other members have posted this before, only to be attacked. I am pleased to see an admin posting this. Now maybe it will be taken more seriously by DUers.

My thought is also, and I have no specific names or threads in mind, that perhaps some freepers are having fun over here, applying the divide and conquor, splintering concept to DU. Could the disrupt be from outside sources who gain when we fall apart?

When someone posts a hateful, angry post, perhaps the mods and admins can be alerted and they can somehow track the history of this poster? If there is a history of anger, that person needs to be contacted and a dialogue needs to happen. Being that I have never been a mod, I don't know the logistics of such an idea. Would this even be possible?

Perhaps a no flaming rule might be valuable. But how would it be written? We don't want to turn this site into a kool-aid sipping, goose-stepping site where dissent isn't allowed. We have our government for that.

Since I am not a part of that partisan flaming war (that I know of) my opinions may not matter as much, but I thought I toss in my two cents, especially regading an overall hint of anger I have been detecting as of late.


Peace and Strength,

kt

[bertha katzenengel]

12. I don't get it, either. I don't suppose it's possible that all the big,

loud, ultra-partisan folks are disrupters, is it? If that's a possibility then I think we have a BIG problem.

I wish I had a suggestion. I'm sorry I don't.

[CWebster]

13. Cult of personalities

and the inability of worshipers to see any flaws on their idols that would threaten a crisis of faith.

Wholly human and somewhat unavoidable.

[enigmatic]

67. Bingo

well said.

[melnjones]

148. This "cult" or "worshipers" theme has gotten really old.

Besides, the tendency is to call anyone who likes a candidate that one has a problem with a "worshiper" or whatever other term is witty at the moment. People can disagree with you without being part of this "cult."

[CWebster]

283. What it is

It isn't a question of simply "liking" the politician. The danger is when the politician is the filter through which the issues are viewed. Some may dismiss Dean's casual support of Bush's "successful" Occupation of Iraq as "mis-speaking", but for the very reasons that I have supported Dean in the past, I call his present statements into question.

His public pronouncements on the subject aren't anything I chose to brush aside or compromise positions on just to give him cover.

[JNelson6563]

284. People are able to discern the difference

and yes, there are definitely cult mindset folks here. They have quite a presence. So much so that I haven't promoted DU in the real world for some time, I think they are embarrassing.

Julie

[cestpaspossible]

320. A strawman insult for those with such weak debate skills

that they can't discuss the topic at hand and have to resort to namecalling.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

14. I am fairly new, but I think there's no single focus for dems now

Social security "reform" has fallen by the wayside a bit, the election is finished for now, the war in Iraq isn't making headlines every day and yet the Repukes are steadily chipping away at the gains dems made under Clinton. With all these different issues fighting for attention, the disparate groups who normally make up dems are focusing on their own issues at the expense of group cohesiveness - right or wrong. My $0.02.

[politicasista]

15. Some ideas

This may or may not sit well but you could:

1. Change the Campaign 2006, 2008 forum to "Campaign 2006" (drop the 2008, add it until after 2007). Most 2008 posts are becoming flamebait, not just in GDP/but in that forum as well, therefore, the primary infighting continues.

2. Continue to delete posts that contain personal attacks on candidates.

3. Immediately lock threads that contain 2008 in the title.


I am sort of new, but that's some ideas. :shrug:

[knowbody0]

17. it has been difficult to accept

the 04 election results. we are a group of very depressed warriors with no one to lead us out of the abyss.

[ginnyinWI]

259. All the Dem leadership needs us to do more than complain

Everyone who can should go to their local county Dem meetings and pitch in and help build the party up from the grassroots. That's where we should put our "frustration" energy. If you are a Green, then work with them. Whatever. Just get out there--you'll feel better.

[bobthedrummer]

18. In all honesty Skinner there are just a handful of DUer's that I have

issues with. I know I'm completely fed-up with group tactics, which you mentioned a while back after editing the Greatest Page. Yet I'm only one member of the community here.

I've found ways of getting over some disagreements with most folks, and I may be a fool-but I don't care how robustly organized or big a group is when they're using dubious tactics.

That's my .02 on some of the rancor here.

[BootinUp]

135. Interesting comments

What group do you belong to bob?

This question could go to anyone reading it.

Or stated another way, when you venture into prospective 2008 candidate threads, which ones do you root for and which ones against? Is there a need to repeat the same memes over and over in many threads.

If you answer yes, your part of the issue being raised. The only solution is to self abstain or limit how often you go into those threads. I find it a useful tactic for DU harmony and lower blood pressure.

[bobthedrummer]

307. You are one of the few I'm referring to Jim4Wes

Btw, here's a link to a Clark chatroom where some Clark supporters call on "all of us DU Clarkies" to hassle other DUers and involve DU Administration in their agenda. Deal with it.
http://chat.forclark.com/comments/2005/4/10/15343/7983/233#233

[BootinUp]

344. Why do you want me to deal with that?

Do you think I have power over other anomyous posters on the Internet? Why don't we all deal with ourselves. If you have a specific issue with one of my posts, I will wait patiently while you search for a link. Otherwise, STFU.

[bobthedrummer]

356. Aren't you also a member of that board, Jim4Wes?

I think you are based on preliminary reading at that site, and watch your mouth please-Skinner has asked that we not get inflammatory.

[BootinUp]

361. You accused me of being a problem

Cite the posts that I have made to back up your charge. As far as my language it was in response to a baseless post and a charge that I am harming this board. Fully justified IMO, in fact I repeat it, back up your charge against me and not some other anonymous Clarkie or shut up already.

And stop with the six degrees of separation attempt to connect me to a conspiracy theory. I thought down below you already lost that argument.

[Name removed]

364. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

366. In other words

Bob cries "Uncle."

[bobthedrummer]

368. No, this isn't a game Jim4Wes, I don't have anyone on ignore

yet. I just don't think that we could begin to dialog, which is productive.

[BootinUp]

372. The first step

is yours bobby. Retract your baseless charge against me.

[bobthedrummer]

375. I have a suggestion, PM me so that we can go into specific details

about your claim of a charge. Or take it to Administration or just drop it.

[BootinUp]

379. Post 18 and post 307

Those were your charges and you singled me out. I have zero expectations of settling this with you bob becuase I am all too familiar with your history here. But since you decided to take me on, I decided to give you a good match. You can drop it anytime, it will be left as indicated, completely baseless on your part.

[bobthedrummer]

384. We've met in other threads like the one in which it was suggested

that I'm some kind of a Karl Rove RW mole assigned to Wesley Clark, that was a hoot. It got locked of course, and the OP has never responded to my denial of such bullshit.

This is a pattern that other DUer's have experienced, some PM me about it.

I finally sent what they sent me to Skinner in a PM, after opening discussion about it in this thread (post 243).

You were in that thread too, remember? It got 54 responses before locking. Much of this should be discussed in a PM if you want to attempt to dialog imo.

[BootinUp]

385. Oh, ok I was in a thread where this happened...

Damn, I gotta watch where I go or else get smeared by bob, I got it. The only discussions I will have with you are out in the open for all to see.

[Vincardog]

19. Skinner the 2008 forum sounds right. better yet make a candidates BS forum

when ever a thread starts about the new primary wars sent it to 2008.
When ever somebody wants to advocate or despise a candidate bounce them to the candidate forum. Out of sight out of mind.

[janx]

31. My thoughts almost exactly--see my post below. n/t

[emulatorloo]

20. Create a DU Group - "I Hate Democrats and Those Who Support Them"

No I am not being facetious. Tiring of petty attacks on good Democrats clogging up the top level of DU. I believe at least a significant percentage of these come from disruptors, but hey that's my opinion. I know that other posters are sincere and well meaning in their bashing of Democrats.

"I Hate Democrats" That can be the general group.

Then you can break it down to

"I Hate Clark And All His Supporters"
"I Hate Kerry And All His Supporters"
"I Hate Hillary And All Her Supporters"

etc.

[Blue_Roses]

33. if you name a group, "I hate Democrats" then why come to DU at all?

I don't think this is the solution.

[emulatorloo]

38. There are indeed DU'ers who don't like Democrats, as per site rules

That's part of the nature of DU, and they are welcome here. To me there is a difference between criticism and bashing. . .

[Blue_Roses]

53. But if you allow "I hate Democrats," or "I hate this

candidate or that candidate," not only is it counterproductive, it opens the door to all kinds of flame-wars. It wouldn't work.

[emulatorloo]

57. See Post #27 or #40 -- "dungeon" or "flamepit" - better names/same idea!

:hi:

[NightOwwl]

85. Actually, I believe the rules state otherwise:

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[blondeatlast]

176. While I agree with you, there is plenty of Dem-hating on DU.

I don't hink it emanates from committed LWingers, though.

[CWebster]

304. It is a little more complicated than bashing good Democrats

Who decides what the good Democrat is?

My perspective of the ideal Democrat might be along the lines of Tom Harkin or Russ Feingold--maybe yours is a centrist-styled candidate. I would argue that centrism damages the party's ability to make a principled stand and present a solid platform to the voter, whereas you might argue party allegiance first and foremost.

If you care about the party, what it stands for and it's ability to make it's case and voice heard, then don't you think debate should be allowed instead of dismissing it all as bashing?

[katinmn]

21. Practice civility and realize that if we keep beating down our leaders

we'll always be losers.

I admire all of our progressive leaders. When someone puts any one of them them down, I take it personally and want to defend them.

As progressives, it is our nature to fight for the underdog. Just remember that when you cut a Dem leader down, you're cutting a fellow DUer, too.

[KoKo]

22. The candidates in the primaries represented different "factions" within

the Democratic Party itself. The fighting will continue because these factions each have DU supporters.

An example would be here in NC where the supporters of Dean/Kucinich and Nader/Greens all united under Kerry. But it wasn't an easy or comfortable fit. Now we are trying to find our own way through PDA and other groups which have splintered from the traditional DLC/DNC alliance.

After the Election those of us who had ideological differences with Kerry went back to trying to get "our" issues recognized by the Democratic Party. As in most states the new activists were made up of Dean/Kucinich/Nader/Greens who had been active on the ground and on the internet during and before the primaries.

The issues of the "primary candidate partisans" on DU go to the heart of our Party and the reform that many of us who have been here awhile on DU are dedicated to.

That some people here are bitter and angry is the result of their voices not being heard by the Party and the way the Primaries were "front loaded" which meant most Democrats had no voice in Kerry being chosen so early. That bitterness hasn't gone away because we are constantly told by Dem Pundits and Media Dem Mainstreamers to become more like the Republicans because we who supported any of the candidates "aren't mainstream."

I'm frustrated with some DU'ers pushing candidates for 2008 here when we should be concentrating on Dem Candidates for 2006. Only suggestion I would have, for whatever it's worth, is that all "Speculative Discussions" of possible 2008 Candidates be banned from GD and GD/Politics forum.

Our individual Candidates who ran in 2004, still represent to us "leadership" in the Democratic party and so there will still be fights among our factions...and it's healthy, I think for the party. So much is going on internally in our States and the Country with a new push for grassroots that the Dem Establishment is pushing us back and it makes many of us very angry. Why not vent it here and hash out ways to deal and forge consensus? This site is still called "Democratic Underground." Why shouldn't we be able to constructively argue amongst ourselves short of flame wars? :shrug:

[MoonRiver]

23. I don't understand why we are not, it seems, allowed to voice negative

feelings about different prominent Democrats. It seems to me that as long as we don't bash DUers we should be allowed the right to speak our minds about Democratic politicians. I don't want to be forced to behave like the brain dead lemmings in freeperville. When one of my favorites is being bashed I'm perfectly capable of getting into the fray and defending him/her. If some re too thin skinned and delicate to do so let them ignore the threads! A lot is hinging on who is nominated for 2008, and we all know that the race is already on in the real world, NOT just on DU.

[Skinner]

28. You are allowed to voice negative feelings about Democrats.

But I think many of us feel that there is a point when it potentially becomes counterproductive, and harmful to the community as a whole.

[janx]

34. That race is already on in the real world?

Where? I mean this sincerely. Am I missing something?

[MoonRiver]

36. IMHO yes. You are free to disagree.

And might I ask just what got your dander up about my statement?

[janx]

39. Here's the problem. My dander is not up. That's why I added

that I was sincere. I really am. I've seen no evidence of any primary race activity other than speculation on DU. :shrug:

[MoonRiver]

45. I hear about candidates openly discussing it and making strategic visits

to give speeches in parts of the country that they need to win. The fundraising and exposure has to start very early any more for a candidate to have any chance of winning. That was the biggest problem my favorite, Clark, faced during the last primary. He started way too late to get momentum.

[janx]

50. There are no candidates yet.

All of our Dem leaders are working hard for the greater good. Let's see if we can emulate them, yes?

[mzmolly]

290. The RACE against Republicans never ceases. Choose your battles.

or your a fool and a tool.

[housewolf]

63. Hmmmm... let's see....

c-span's weekly "Road to the White House" series every Sunday evening?

Newspaper reports about things like "Edwards in is New Hampshire," "Kerry is in Iowa," "Clark hints to '08 candidacy at Calif Dem meeting," "Biden posioning for '08 run" "Hagel is in New Hampshire for 3 days this week," "McCain says he's qualifed and wants to be president but won't decide till '06" and the like?

Polls reported in the news on an almost daily basis to the effect: Hillary wins name recognition over any Repub candidate"

It started months ago, how have you missed it? This country is in an eternal campaign mode, how could DU be any different? No one will commit yet (good thing!) but speculation runs rampant and there's no escaping it.

[mzmolly]

291. *

[Stinky The Clown]

242. Check Southwest Airlines' pax manifests into New Hampshire recently

Dem and Repub ..... as said in that immortal line from Casablanca ...... 'round up the usual suspects'

It is unrealistic to say the 2008 campaigns have yet to start. They started the day after the last election. In the real world and on DU.

[ClassWarrior]

37. I think the issue is criticism versus bashing.

First of all, when has anyone ever "not allowed" you to "voice negative feelings?" The whole reason this thread exists because people ARE allowed to "voice negative feelings." And, to the mods' credit, the reason it is allowed is because true, productive negative criticism DOES have a legitimate place in our discourse.

The real issue is when negative-yet-productive criticism becomes a big nasty game of "Bash the Democrat." I think we all know the routine here. Someone trashes the character - not the record, but the CHARACTER - of some Dem or another, and then when another poster asks them to please act like a responsible member of the community, they wail and gnash their teeth and scream censorship. And meanwhile their irresponsible, divisive words continue to destroy our morale and further alienate us one from another.

All that being said, I do have to agree with another poster on this thread who believes that it's a small group of disruptors who are mostly responsible for this crap.

NGU.

[MoonRiver]

42. Well I think people should be allowed to post whatever they want,

including bashing or criticism (however one arbitrarily defines it), about public figures, both Democratic and Republican. The line is crossed, imcpo, when we go after DUers. So, I repeat that I don't understand why negative discussion about candidates is being suppressed (i.e. threads locked, posts deleted) when people are not making personal attacks against DUers. However, I accept that the mods are in control, and I am free to participate or not on DU.

[ClassWarrior]

54. What do you mean "should be allowed?" I'm talking about personal...

...responsiblity. Do you advocate yelling "Fire!" in a crowded moviehouse?

NGU.

[MoonRiver]

56. That is not even close to being analagous.

Do you have a problem with open and public discourse about our politicians? The truth hurts sometimes, and people do have their opinions about what constitutes truth (damn them :sarcasm:).

[emulatorloo]

76. MyPetRock had an affair with John Kerry's Intern!

I read it on Drudge, it must be true! Then MyPetRock lay naked in the Skull and Bonz coffin while Barbara Bush Senior did a hootchie cootchie dance with Elvis Presley!

At least that is my opinion!

:toast:

ON EDIT; there are CrAZY things like that posted about all our national Dems. . .just because something is somebody's opinion doesn't make it valid or true.

[MoonRiver]

82. OMG, I may not recover from this revelation!

My life has been ever so much more exciting than I knew! :D

on edit: Seriously, I'm not talking about crazy slanders against Democrats. I would just like to express my opinions, even if they are perceived as negative by others. I also think opinions contrary to mine should be allowed.

[emulatorloo]

87. Well at least Barbara Bush Senior was fully clothed. . .

I think in general people are definately allowed to express their opinions on DU and that is the great thing about it. OTOH sometimed you have to be prepared to take the heat.

I just get mad at outrageous stuff and quoting out of context (recent threads on Dean for example) to represent good Dems as demonic Bush clones - basically flamebait threads

[MoonRiver]

89. Well I think it's hard to discern the motives of posters.

I get mad too at a lot of stuff I read here. If I think it's from a freeper, I alert and let the mods decide.

But sometimes we Democrats just believe that somebody is not the best candidate, or have issues with his/her policies and actions. If we can't express those reservations here then this is not the place I originally thought it was.

[mzmolly]

288. What did you "originally" think when you saw the words 'DEMOCRATIC

underground" Wow! This will be a great place to bash Democrats?

[ClassWarrior]

95. Round and round in a circle we go.

Please see post #37.

<LOL>

NGU.

[mzmolly]

289. Why not spend your time telling the "truth" about Republicans?

If people want to advocate for bashing Dems, there are plenty of places one can do that. Go there.

[Totally Committed]

400. I understand and sympathize with al lot of what you've said...

in my heart of hearts (in times past), I have said much the same things, myself, and felt as strongly as you do. So, bless your heart, I know where you are coming from.

That having been said, this Party is in need of a swift kick in the pants right now. The last election was the last straw for a lot of us. I have been a Democrat all my life, and never thought I'd be so disgusted and disappointed with my Party as I am right now. And, I agree, that soometimes those very feelings come out of me sideways and with a twist. I sound angry and I am. I write with dripping sarcasm, and I never used to. I am up to here with the lame-ass wimpy gutless spinelessness that has taken root here and I tell it llike it is.

Is it my intention to injur the Democrats? No. Is it hate that makes me say the things I say lately? No. I have loved this Party since I was a young girl. I have fought so hard and so long for the great ideals of left-wing liberalism, I feel I am watching this Party I loved so much disappear before my eyes. It is in absolute and utter frustration that I criticize this Party and the choices it has made to bring us to this point in time.

That last election was just a reality check from hell, and I vowed to never, ever, ever again allow any of what went on to happen again. Not any of it.

So, I am out early, doing what I can for a candidate I believe in. Since his name recognition is not that of a Clinton or a Kerry, I have posted that way. When I see him smeared by those in his own Party, I see red. When I see him questioned, I post answers. When I see him praised, I join in. I thought this was the way it worked. I thought this is what I should have done last time.

As an addendum:

Why can't we all just do this about the candidate we support, and let others do the same. Why the need to jump into a thread for no other reason than to piss on it? I refuse to believe it's human nature to be so negative and cruel. So, what is it?

TC

[ClassWarrior]

432. So kick THE PARTY in the pants, and cut us supporters a break!!

Geez, when are people going to realize that Kerry, Dean, Obama, Reid, or Mrs. Clinton DON'T read DU. So the only people you're kicking in the pants are people AS FED UP AS YOU!! The closest we get is Mrs. Edwards (God bless her soul), and I don't think she's phoning up Dr. Dean with everything Totally Committed said.

NGU.

[Totally Committed]

442. I think this whole damned place needs

anger management and some manners.

"So kick THE PARTY in the pants, and cut us supporters a break!!" -- WTF are you referring to? When have I ever gotten on your case?

I take back what I said. It's not just the Party I'm steamed at.

TC

[mzmolly]

287. ?

Why would you come here to "bash" "criticize" Democrats?

When I joined DU it was to gain support amongst the insanity, not to listen to MORE of it. If I I need my fill of Democrat bashing I'll turn on Limbaugh ~ I suggest others do the same.

[mzmolly]

286. Go to Freeperville or Greenhaven if you want to bash Democrats.

I doubt the sincerity of anyone here who takes up the "waaaah, why can't we bash democrats more" :cry: banner. Dems get bashed here DAILY. I question the goals of people who think it's more important to advocate bashing Dems than it is Republicans?

Again, this is why I say we must determine the "goal(s)" of DU.

[CWebster]

306. Maybe people are frustrated and bash the Dems

who are agreeing and alligning with the Neo-Cons instead of rallying against them?

[ClassWarrior]

315. So the solution is to throw a tantrum and inflict pain on the rest of us??

Cripes, if I get hacked at a Dem - ESPECIALLY one who sides with the neocons and corporatists - I take out my frustration on THAT DEM. NOT my fellow DUers. And it's a damn selfish and cowardly DUer who does take it out on us and not the culprit.

NGU.

[CWebster]

318. We agree, but some take an attack on a Dem

personally. Lol-- that is the point. This thread is really telling. You see all these partisans demanding the banning, under a variety of guises, of anyone who dares criticise their heartthrob.

[mzmolly]

348. Who demanded banning? I said "DETERMINE THE GOAL"

before you can determine any "action." If this is a SUPPORTIVE place for Democrats, make it such. If it's simply a place to spew shit, have at it.

How long do you think "Green bashing" would last on a Green Party Board? How bout Bush Bashing at Free Republic? Why the F are DEMOCRATS the only group expected to enjoy counter productive trolling?

[CWebster]

354. Oh, c'mon Molly

First I wasn't addressing you in particular and second you act as if there is any discussion other than a Dem pep rally (even if they are voting along with the Repugs 9 times out of 10) is akin to attacking your religion.

In addition, "supporting the party" is by holding party leaders accountable to us when they are enabling the Repugs. You want to be an enabler of that?

[mzmolly]

362. If any Democrat votes with Republicans 90% of the time, let me know.

Even Lieberman doesn't have a record like that. This is more of the BS that some here use to justify working against defeating Republicans.

Funny how those that accuse Democrats of voting with Republicans, are doing THEIR work for them. What more could Bush himself ask of a good progressive than to help tear down the Democratic Party?

Further, I'm not acting like my religion is being attacked, I'm acting like this is a discussion board to support DEMOCRATS. And, as such people should share the goal of doing so.

I think Party leaders should be "accountable." I just don't think they should be targets of misguided leftist arrogance because they are now "party leaders."

[CWebster]

369. How many opportunities do they need?

Look around the threads Molly, it is the story of one disappointment after another and people want desperately to be able to support leaders for more than just not being Republican.

'I think Party leaders should be "accountable." I just don't think they should be targets of misguided leftist arrogance because they are now "party leaders."'

Talk about doing the work for the Right.

[mzmolly]

389. I understand disapointment, I just don't get the idea that were supposed

to demand agreement with every Democrat on every issue, (while still allowing for/dissent) when we "demand X think like me on every issue" or else?

When I speak about the arrogant left, I am doing that from the inside, and not making blanket statements about "the left" k?

[ClassWarrior]

434. I thought it was the Republicons who responded to disappointment with...

...ridicule and character assassination.

I thought Progressives were supposed to be better than than that. I thought we responded to disappointment with understanding and motivation.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

374. Read your own post title... why does it have to be an "attack" on a Dem?

Why do some of us refuse to criticize instead of attack?? In that sense, yes, this thread is EXTREMELY telling.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I'm willing to bet that not a single person here has raised ANY objection to constructive criticism. So why to you keep trying to put those words into the mouths of the people who are simply asking for responsible behavior??

NGU.

[CWebster]

377. ?

You know what they say about one poster's criticism being the next posters example of a vindictive poster.

You know why some posters claim others are "vindictive"? Because some posters bring up points, or refer to the record regarding a politician's statements, and the fan can't defend it--so they take it as a personal attack.

[ClassWarrior]

383. I'm not talking about what others think. I'm talking about...

...personal responsibility, and I have been all along. By far the majority of the vindictive threads are by bitter little people who know better but throw selfish, infantile tantrums anyway... or trolls.

Sure, there will be a few that involve hurt feelings, but the more people are responsible for their own courtesy and decorum, the easier it'll be to spot the rare whiner.

NGU.

[BootinUp]

376. So banning has nothing to do with the rules then?

I guess I'm confused. You seem to be saying that people have been banned for criticising democrats. I think there's a little more to it than that.

Its been awhile, but I still remember having spirited debates with you, and I never wished you were banned or asked a mod to ban you. At what point does advocacy become heartthrob and shall we appoint someone to make that call? You perhaps?

[mzmolly]

347. Like I said, go elsewhere, or find a perfect "party" if you can.

There are surely boards/groups where it's en-vogue to work against the Democrats from the left and/or the right.

And, I don't get why some feel THEY get are more qualified to determine what "alligning with the neo-cons" constitutes?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. Here's My Thinking as a Clark Partisan Who Also Loves Other Dems

There are three things that really annoy me:

1) People pissing in positive threads;
2) People starting (at times thinly-veiled) slam threads; and
3) People who make broad generalizations about supporter groups.

I dislike this behavior regardless of who is being attacked.

All three contribute heavily toward bad feelings and a resurgence of the primary wars.

On the first subject, perhaps I'd allow posters the choice of labeling any particular original post a "positive thread" along the lines of the Daily Democrat threads back during the primaries (although obviously this would be a more decentralized, common process under my suggestion). In these threads, negative comments would be deleted. The labeling of the thread as a "positive thread" would also make it easier for people who consider such threads to be vapid "rah rah" fests to hide them. (Perhaps the label would need to be in the subject line of the original post.)

On the second subject, there will always be a thin line between discouraging such negativity and limiting the free exchange of ideas that makes this place great. I think the Mods do a good job currently of shutting down the flamewar threads. Perhaps a separate forum for discussing the merits and flaws of particular individual Democrats would be a decent idea too, though. Maybe another alternative would be to limit the starting of "discuss the flaws of" (to put it generously) threads to posters with higher counts, to discourage the inevitable disruptors.

On the third subject, I would suggest a return to a "ban completely" policy in turns of generalizing about supporter groups, rather than the discretionary policy currently in place. I personally see zero value in letting any such posts stand. Speaking from personal experience, I really got upset the other day for this exact thing (and I'm not referring to the ATA scrum re: Clark) when someone made some blanket accusations against Clark supporters.

My $0.02.

DTH

[tishaLA]

105. I would echo most of this

I don't think we need a separate forum for discussing the merits and demerits of a particular candidate, however. I think those should occur openly. In fact, I think what Skinner describes as "puffery" is simply looking at the positive attributes of candidates, something I believe we should encourage here for ALL Democratic candidates.

I honestly don't know what to do about the so-called negative threads because I don't post shit like that and I am loath to respond to obvious baiting as I prefer the alert button. Sometimes, though, "negative" baiting threads turn around and resonate with positive energy. So, again, I just don't know.

[jpgray]

25. Y supporter: "If X supporters would stop lying about Y, we'd get along"

I think this has to be a self-regulation sort of thing. If the mods impose rules to stem internecine warfare, ways will be found around the rules so that the substance of the infighting remains exactly the same even while superficial requirements of the new rules are met.

The worst part of this is that there are probably less than a half dozen truly nutbag hero-worshipping partisans for each candidate, and yet these few folks bouncing off each other account for 90+% of the posts in the primary refight flamewars. It isn't even really about the candidates or the issues anymore--an attack on an unremarkable misstatement can generate 100 acrimonious posts and a few branch threads of the same bile. These threads aren't really trageting the candidate in question--they're meant to piss off the people who hero-worship that candidate. And it usually works, dragging in a few reasonable people who mistakenly think it's actually a discussion about what the thread is ostensibly talking about, when it's a continuation of the same boring conversations we had a year and a half ago.

So my solution is self-regulation. If you post in one of these flamewar threads obviously meant to refight the primaries to the gain of nobody at all, just politely point out what you think is going on, state why you disagree with the way the subject was presented, and then leave the thread. Obviously your post will be deliberately misquoted, misinterpreted and claimed as an act of persecution by various hero-worshippers of various candidates, but those tricks were developed precisely because they bloat worthless threads into 100 reply objects of attention. And those threads don't deserve the attention. State your case, disagree with the snarky methods and then leave the thread. That's my advice. If you find yourself arguing because it's pleasant to argue, or snatching on some minutiae just to stick it to those X supporters, stop what you're doing please.

[meganmonkey]

26. I think there are a lot of people who who like to fight

and who think that they are always right.

Those are minds that cannot be changed. Those who choose to participate in such threads are mostly the same way. I say let 'em fight. If people don't like those threads than they should stay out of them. Of course if people cross the line with personal attacks the posts should be deleted.

Now that there are DU Groups there are safe places for people to discuss their favorites. It's a shame that so many people are incapable of having rational discourse on issues they disagree on, but whenever someone points that out to them, they seem to think they are being suppressed for their opinion rather than their attitude.
On edit: the worst thing anyone can do (who doesn't like the fighting) is to post on the thread. If they have a 20 post argument with someone they are enabling and participating and they have NOTHING to complain about. They are part of the problem by posting on the thread.

[janx]

27. Dukakis/McCaffrey '08! (cough)

I don't know, Skinner. We can't even joke about it anymore. It has gotten so bad that yesterday I read some of the mosts vile posts ever in my years of reading and posting.

One problem the board seems to have is the cheerleader threads, which are OK just as long as someone who isn't on a particular team doesn't start posting in them. That's when all hell seems to break loose, sometimes for no apparent reason. Anything that is construed as criticism, no matter how loosely, is viewed as an "attack." Surely people are better thinkers than that. Surely people are more civil than that.

I do not understand why some people can't be members of the larger team. And I don't understand why people go after Dean--he's no threat to anyone (any Dems at least), and he's not running for anything.

If people insist on continuing the primary wars, why can't they post in their respective "candidate" forums? Nobody's even running for anything related to 2008 yet, so why even include that sort of thing on the larger and more visible forums?

I was on a literary listserve at one point some years ago. The admin of the list created a special section called the Dungeon. It worked fairly well--when people in a fighting mood insisted on disrupting the list, the threads were shuffled to the Dungeon. After awhile, it began to be more amusing than anything else, and the regular disruptors stopped their tooth gnashing eventually. I'm not sure if that would work at DU, but it might be worth a shot, simply because the hard-cores aren't many--they're just insistent and loud.

[loudsue]

68. Then, some otherwise great threads, could be sent to the "dungeon"

I would suggest that maybe the flame-bait posts be sent to the dungeon, with a new dungeon icon, and if anyone else wants to fight with that person, they can go to the dungeon thread and fight all they want to.

:kick:

[janx]

102. Not really.

While it's unfortunate that a perfectly legit thread may be sent to the dungeon because of some hard-core disruptive/argumentative types, the thread by that time is usually wasted and ruined anyway. It's actually pretty funny when the thread gets thrown into the pit, because the nasties keep on for just a little while and then fizzle out.

Another example I've seen, on Compuserve over ten years ago, was a place called "Section 0" into which obnoxious posters were booted. Section Zero was a kind of limbo. I don't remember the particulars of it well except that the only people you could correspond with there were admins/mods. It was hilarious. Again, that board was a literary one--it was a lot smaller than DU.

[youspeakmylanguage]

30. The reason morons and criminals continue to be elected to public office...

...is precisely because the "Cult of Personality" aspects of grassroots politics have been fused with NASCAR-like marketing by the modern republican party, and unfortunately it was feverishly embraced by the unwashed masses in 2004.

I think one of the reasons Kerry lost is because of the "W". While the intelligent and sophisticated among us understood JK's nuanced positions, the repugs were slapping "W" stickers on their SUVs and shouting groupthink from their rooftops. While we dabbled at a beautiful and intricate paint-by-numbers, they slapped giant "W"s on the walls of barns and trailers with red, white, and blue paint. It became the cult (or revolution, if you will) of "W".

While it may be distasteful, perhaps we need to take the same approach in order to win back our government. And perhaps bitterly-divided "Cult of Personality" posters are what we need to spurn on our own revolution in 2008. Just a thought.

Skinner: Love your site. Keep up the good work, and I'll keep sending donations your way.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

Two thoughts:

Predicated upon the fact that this ain't my first goat rodeo.

1.Fact is, some of this sort of thing comes from people who...well, let us just say that their motives aren't exactly pure. Green grows the astroturf, not to mention those who have no wishes for any Democratic Party success.

2. Amnesty and re-admittance is one of the better ideas I have heard in a long time. I am, by nature, a forgiving person and I have found that a little of that goes quite far. We can use the vibes that forgiveness and re-inclusion might create.

[understandinglife]

32. I perceive it as a magnificent statement of the success and value ....

..... of DU to our democracy.

I would herald it. I would post, periodically, a story about it on the DU homepage and highlight some of the more intense exchanges.

DU is ever stronger as a result of continuing to enable folk to argue the merits and demerits of any of these potential candidates. And, it also enables others to learn that important values in a 'free press' are that it supports choice and withering debate about the options.

Those who do not want to read or participate in the debate, can post on other topics and read other topics.

No one is forced to read any thread on DU; each person clicks on a URL as a matter of choice. And every person can, with one click, remove threads and posters from view.

As to DU newbies, I suggest they receive a primer that cogently informs them that if they launch a comment or post along the lines of 'candidate x sucks' or 'candidate y is the greatest' they'd best be prepared for whatever comes their way (and, the above mentioned 'highlights of the past weeks most intense exchanges') should provide sufficient context. In other words, "you've been warned; don't whine."

Celebrate the power of DU discussion board; power that is directly proportional to the open, and at times intense, ability to disagree and be taught how to be ever more effective in debate. Such a training ground is a great threat to the freeps.

When you couple that power with the enormous good-will, recently demonstrated by all those DUer's who have contributed so that Andy will have his treatment at JH, you've got ..... well, you've got DU.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Prepare for MNA 1608 as it is tragically soon upon us

[LeftCoast]

35. PromoBots

I've noticed some users seem to post nothing but puff pieces about their candidate. They have that candidate as an avatar and a banner ad for him in their sig line. They never seem to post anything unrelated to their candidate. In short, they seem to be what I call PromoBots.

[bobthedrummer]

43. or "barkers" n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

51. Skinner, These Are the Sorts of Generalizations I Oppose

In reference to my #3 point in my post above.

DTH

[Skinner]

61. Self-delete.

I was not familiar with the term "barkers" but EarlG has explained it.

[bobthedrummer]

64. self-deleted

[Adelante]

111. The poster can't seem to help himself

It's a twitch :freak:

[bobthedrummer]

132. I know you love me, and you know you love me too.

So stop flirting.
:blush:

[KoKo]

191. Skinner, I hope you will read and consider the posts of us here, who don't

have "groupie followers" who will verify or argue with our posts. Some of us these days feel like "lone voices in a DU Wilderness" because we were so "independant" that we weren't able to "cultivate a following in the DU LOUNGE...where one "makes one's bones" here on DU. :-(

[KoKo]

193. Skinner...is this a "first step" to get us into "Self Moderated Forums?"

I know you've advocated this in the past but the answers so far seem to me to be supporting the "Self Modrated Concept."

:shrug: We really need more communication from you now that the ATA Forum is gone.

It's you site...and we have all been here as your "guests." Please declare where you are coming from?

[melnjones]

143. I have a candidate avatar

and sig line. I also participate in a wide variety of threads, as do most of the people I see. Can you really monitor the boards enough to prove that that's ALL someone posts about? BTW, Clark is the reason I now call myself a democrat instead of an independent. He has been very influential on my choice of party. It only makes sense that I might have an avatar or sig line of his.

[LeftCoast]

174. re: PromoBots

Username is also usually part of the promotion. I also didn't really offer any opinions about them. I imagine they'd be pretty difficult to control, but I do think people should be aware of them.

[BootinUp]

180. I guess thats me then.

I wish I could have an open minded discussion with you, but alas I have been programmed to only discuss Clark issues. There's a small needle mark at the base of my neck, maybe its related.

Its been a hard struggle to get many at DU to even accept Clark as a well meaning democrat. I chose a simple way to say I am one. I participate in many threads other than Clark, not as much in the last couple months but thats because I haven't spent as much time here.

Anytime you judge someone based on their nick instead of their posts you're bound to make some poor judgments.

[LeftCoast]

183. No sir, you lack the ad banner

:D

[Jai4WKC08]

216. OK then, say it to my face

I've got the "ad banner," the avatar, and when we were allowed to change handles after the election... well, you can see for yourself what I chose. I'll go ya one further. I probably do post more about the subject of my banner and avatar than most other subjects. It's what interest me.

What the fuck is wrong with that?

Far as I can tell, all I am doing is expressing my interest in a particular potential candidate in a fairly obvious way. I'm not inflaming every conversation. I'm not attacking any other Democrat. I have never attacked a DUer who didn't attack me or my candidate first, and in most cases not even then.

I'm not hurting anyone in any way that I can see.

If you choose to discount what I have to say because of the way I "decorate" my post, as far as I'm concerned, it's your loss. If there are people who would make assumptions about my character and ability to think or write, or label me as any kind of "bot" based on something as superficial as a banner or avatar, well, it says more about them than about me.

I always thought Democrats and other liberals were usually "pro-choice." I mean, it's not like I'm asking that you be required to wear a particular tag, or any tag at all. Why can't you accept that other people make choices other than what you would choose, and that it's ok? It's just a different mode of expression. Isn't there room at DU for a variety ways of doing things?

[dogman]

418. Do you think it's proper to promote

democracy at Democratic Underground? Don't you want to join the clique with all the "too cool for school" kids? Pro-choice? Now there's a novel idea.:kick:

[davsand]

40. Create a "Flame Pit" forum and consign them all to it.

Frankly, I could give a shit about the posts saying "_______ (insert candidate name here) is a pig." A lot of times I just don't bother to read the threads. It is called self regulation and is comparable to turning off the TV set when something offensive is on. I find FOX's political perspective offensive so I don't watch it. I find certain candidate opinions offensive and I don't read those.

I highly resent the implication that certain members are here only to disrupt because I see them contributing all over this board--not just in the GD Politics forum. I think it is a major mistake to toss out an entire group of posters simply because they are committed to any one candidate early.

I also think it is a major mistake to try and keep a lid on primary discussion on ANY political board. Primaries are how ANY party sorts out its platform and its policies. There is a big misconception that a lot of people hold that Primaries breed anger. They can and do, but that is only if people forget what it is for. If they hang onto the anger for too long that primary IS counter productive. If they move on after the primary is over then all is well and it served its purpose.

So--we have an impasse. Some frail types don't like vivid debate. Some folks feel battered by it. (You can see that evidenced in the Lounge when you look at the number of "Oh My Gawd, GD is bloody and I'm never going back again" posts.) Others come here exactly FOR those debates. They come to support or advance the early work of a given candidate and to hone their skills for the real world. Neither group is wrong, but both come here expecting to be acknowledged.

My suggestion is to create some kind of "balls to the wall" forum that is minimally/lightly moderated and is accessible only to those who sign a pledge that they will not take stuff from there out into the rest of DU. Call it a rumpus room or call it the flame dungeon--either way--it will allow everyone to act as they wish.

Just my two cents (and maybe it is worth less than that!)


Laura

[BigBearJohn]

41. I love this idea.... a flame pit. Relegate all flame posts to the pit.

[jpgray]

44. I support trying that idea

It could also be a test case for lighter, looser moderation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. Here is my problem with this idea

Though I will say that in some ways it is better than the status quo. How can I say this delicately? Sometimes people register at Democratic Underground BECAUSE they have a personal or political agenda to be disruptive. My fear is that if we created a flame pit, it would in essence grant free license for anyone who wanted to make any and all undocumented and/or distorted attacks that they chose to against any leading Democrat and/or his/her supporters.

Let me talk about the right wing for a second. They intentionally introduce despicable lies through at best quasi respectable sources. Then they let them perk there for awhile until enough people pick up on the charges and start talking about them in slightly more reputable circles. Then they call it mainstream news and we devote a critical month of a Presidential election to debating whether or not John Kerry earned the medals he won in Viet Nam.

I do not want intra mural wars going on here at DU. I do not go out of my way to trash anyone here, but I do not sit idly by and allow a good Democrat to be unfairly smeared either. That should be a cardinal rule for all Democrats. The last thing I want is a flame pit at DU where hate can be spewed at other Democrats with little or no accountability to the poster. That would put me in an impossible position. Either allow a campaign of lies and deceit to take root there unchallenged, or spend hours every day engaging in unending truth and fact checks with sometimes disingenuous posters.

If I had to choose, I would prefer locking the threads that spin out of control. At least that way they sink out of sight. The problem with that is that some disruptors disrupt intentionally because they want to destroy a thread. So here is my suggestion to DU. I would suggest that DU Administrators and moderators keep an ongoing updated directory of all locked threads for themselves to review periodically. I think if they did they would soon figure out who is participating on those threads with a primary desire to look for and stir up some trouble. Then those individuals can be talked to.

[davsand]

220. You raise interesting points, Tom.

I agree that we have folks who come here to do nothing except mess with the "loony lefties" on DU. It sounds strange to me, but evidently these guys have nothing better to do other than make trouble on message boards. I'm sure there are DUers who go to Free Republic for sport as well (and I don't understand THAT either, but different strokes...)

Anyhow, I think you are right about not wanting to open the door to THAT kind of crap. That is why I suggested a "lightly" moderated board where the Mods really only are there to keep the riff-raff out. I think we all have a pretty good feel for the folks who are here only to trash the Dem candidates. (If it starts out by blaming Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or a Penis you just KNOW it is probably generated by somebody who is NOT an true DUer...) I think that if people USE the alert button disputers can be controlled.

What I do think, is that the presence of a "flame forum" will probably discourage people from starting flame threads because they know the threads will end up there rather than getting attention in a legitimate forum. If you want honest discourse you start honest threads and behave accordingly. Right now, I'm not seeing that all the time.

You and I both know that as the primaries do come closer the boards will be a mess of new people flooding in to defend the candidate Du jour. There will be accusations thrown that "candidate X" has brought in a bunch of carpet baggers, there will be people crying foul all over the place, and Skinner and Earl and Elad (and all the Mods) will be left sopping up the blood and tears when it is all over.

If we establish a protocol NOW that demands a level of civility to stay in the main (legitimate) forums, maybe we can avoid that scenario in the future.

I dunno--maybe you are right--this was just an idea.

Peace.


Laura

[bvar22]

46. I have mixed feelings.

I believe that steel is forged in hot fires. Let the children fight it out. Those who are reasonable and intelligent can avoid those threads. Usually, an overtly partisan and childish thread title tells me ALL I need to know about the content.

OTOH, the recent increase in the number of partisan attack threads have been a distraction for those who come to DU looking for information, adult discussion, and intelligent perspective. Threads containing well thought out and well written positions offering insight, perspective, and information were scrolled into the basement by threads screaming "Your guy sucks!!!"

I wish these threads could be limited to a discussion of POSITIONS, and not personality, emotion, appearance, and partisanship.

Most of these threads were dominated by a single individual posting MULTIPLE times. Perhaps it would be helpful to LIMIT the number or times an individual can post to the same thread. How many posts does it take to state your opinion , and then let others have an opportunity to post theirs? I have had conversations with DUers who are frightened to post to threads in General Discussion because some threads are DOMINATED by an angry wildman who rudely ATTACKS anyone who dares to post a counter opinion. This would also motivate people to create well thought out, clearly written and supported posts.

[FrenchieCat]

47. I think in the end, you should do what the majority considers reasonable..

as a Clark partisan, I will remind you that the corporate media is discussing 2008 potential candidates constantly. Polls are coming out almost weekly, and many of the 24/7 stations have regular segments on this very topic.

I don't believe that it is necessarily "too early" to educate future potential voters who may be lurking to get information on potential candidates. There are many Democrats who are interested in 2006 and 2008, some more interested in 2006, some more interested in 2008, and some not interested in any of this stuff at all.

Separating the 2006 from the 2008 forums might be a good idea. Those interested in both, can look at both. Perhaps restricting the GDP forum to current events and issues....even if they do relate to a potential 2008 candidate is most likely a good idea as well, i.e., Kerry speaks on a particular topic or is slated to make an address should not be restricted to the 2008 forum...because it is a current bonafide event.

I believe that DU should be ahead of the curve and not behind it. If the Corporate media is actively discussing 2008 candidates, so should DUer be allowed to. Ignoring the discussion until 2007 is a risky proposition indeed, and poster may end up going elsewhere, where conversation on that topic is not only allowed, but encouraged.

[liberaltexas]

48. Infighting is fine now, after the convention we need to unite!

We should fight like hell and debate out everything before and during the convention. But what we DESPERATELY need is a substantive platform that we can easily articulate and that *IF* you are a member of the democtratic platform then you support.

Allowing ourselves to splinter into a million voices and having no singular and clear message makes it difficult to present ourselves as an alternative to the republicans.

Will we have to comprmise? Anytime you have more than 1 person who's authoring a platform of beliefs then you will have comprimise. But we will nail down the best comprimises we can to meet the needs of our party and when it's nailed down, then we need to fall in line behind it.

Divided we fall, as we see over and over and over.

Show me 10 democratic politicans who can aritculate our position on key issues and be consistent with each other these days?

Disaster.

Time to correct this problem.

[AngryAmish]

49. Let 'em fight

This is a political board where ideas are born. In conflict comes resolution and victory.

[BeFree]

52. I didn't know there was a problem

Of course, I hardly ever click on '2008' threads or candidate this or that.

Creating separate folders for such threads may be a solution. It works for me.

At the times I have ventured into such threads, the passion exhibited therein is amazing. 'Tis a shame to harness such passion, but experience tells me that it must, at times, be harnessed. Asking for our advice, well before it really gets hot, is a wise thing indeed.

[WilliamPitt]

55. I'm sure you know the story of King Canute

He went down to the shore and commanded the tide to roll back. Predictably, it didn't. That's kinda how I feel about attempts to stop people from attacking each other here along these lines. You have three things going against you:

1. Internet group dynamics. A certain segment of any anonymous online group is always going to cause trouble within the group, and that trouble spawns trouble. If there has been a solution found for this, I haven't seen it, and it happens everywhere people get together online. I've heard stories of online knitting clubs blowing up for exactly the same reasons.

2. Cults of personality. A certain segment of any group of candidate supporters will be beyond reason and sanity when it comes to their candidate. They never forgive and never forget, and since their candidate walks on water, anyone who says bad things about them is worthy of sustained abuse. No group of candndiate supporters is immune to this, and no one group is worse than another. But they will be like dogs in a fighting pit.

3. Flat-out depression. Liberals across the spectrum are dealing with the fact that we don't control congress, the courts, the white house or the media. In other words, we are screwed spherically, i.e. from all sides. In the absence of the ability to successfully assault the GOP-held high ground, and with a need to do SOMETHING, a lot of lefties are turning on each other. That angst has to be let out somewhere.

The thing about Canute, though, is that he did the tide-commanding thing deliberately, to show his people he was not all-powerful. You, Skinner, can't fix everything, and I don't think you can fix the problems in here that stem from #s 1-3 above. It is what it is, sadly.

Check your PM.

[VelmaD]

70. We've talked about this and I agree with you but would add one thing...

people are willing to say things on an anonymous board that they would NEVER say in real life. It's easy to be "brave" when no one knows who you are and even easier to be an asshole when you don't have to look the person you're attacking in the eye. When you add that in with #1-3 in your post I think it wraps it up pretty nicely.

[WilliamPitt]

71. That's the core fact of group dynamics online

Anonymous courage.

[VelmaD]

73. It has been the most fascinating part for me,

as a social scientist, of being on the net. I've had the good fortune of having regular net access since around 1993. As a people-watcher I've seen a lot of groups with a variety of interests experience the same things that go on here. It's amazing to watch how people interact. It's one of the reasona I find DU gatherings so fascinating...what happens when you meet that person you called a troglodyte DINO in person.

One of these days I'll get my doctorate writing a thesis about this place. :)

[understandinglife]

128. Interesting observation. I've wondered what DU would be like if ...

.... we were required to identify ourselves.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Prepare for "MNA 1608" as it is soon upon us, tragically

[ieoeja]

123. What's the point of the Canute story?

He was an idiot. All he had to do was time it for high tide. And you want us to take tips from him? No wonder the Democratic Party is in such a terrible state.

:evilgrin:

[Chicago Democrat]

58. This isn't some Communist Day Care Center! Let's argue honestly

from a place of respect but not with so many rules. People should feel free to criticise fellow Democrats' ideas. I'm not at all supporting personal attacks.

For example, calling Hillary Clinton a Likud-loving, me-too, DLC sell-out is valid. Calling Kucinich lovable and unelectable is something that needs to be said. Who'se not a little pissed off at Kerry? I am, but I still support him 90%. I like honesty and really want to know if a candidate I like really pisses off other Dems. I have great love for all DU members. Even Likud-loving, me-too, DLC Democrats. In my family, we like to argue, but with respect and its not personal.

This is the place where we can say the things that need to be said, early on and with passion and no hold-back.

[Kolesar]

72. It's only a message board

Discussions here have scant impact in the big picture of political life.

I, for one, have not seen all these attacks that Skinner refers to. I have avoided those threads and those forums. I have lots of pleasure with LBN, E&E, and my favorite DU groups. However, I am not a moderator or adminstrator, so I probably have not seen the scale of escalation of attacks around here as the alerts come screaming in. Good luck, mods.

[AP]

60. I say move the puffery to the supporters groups when you see it, unless...

...the poster meets the (low) burden of explaining in their OP why the think it's newsworthy -- ie, they can say, "I think this is important because it relates to issue that was raised today."

For example, if the role of the US in the UN is in the media, the OP should say, "In response to the debate about the UN, X politicians said this today:....", or "I attended the X talk today, and the media would never report on this, so I will:..."

You can enforce that rule liberally (which I think is fair, because it's important to discuss potential candidates'/party leaders' position on the issues, and it's important to circumvent the media with guerrilla reporting by DU'ers).

Also, once a thread hits 10 or 20 posts where all the posts are "hey, thanks for posting this," "kick" and "we love you" it might be time to move it to the supporters group as well.

Puffery, in itself, is relatively inoffensive, but it does encourage DU'ers to use the GD and GDP forum for proselytizing, which sort of is not what those forums are supposed to be about. Preaching to the converted is not what the supporters groups are about, but that's a better place for preaching than GD and GDP.

The issues debates which orient themselves around candidates can be relatively interesting and important to the extent that they limn the candidates policies and persona. But when the descend into echoing Rush Limbaugh-inspired criticisms of Democrats, they can become very destructive. I really don't know how to deal with that other than to confine them to, say, GDP, or a new GE-2006/08 forum and to liberally apply rules, like no attacking the messenger (the personal attacks are usually the first sign things have crossed the line).

[melnjones]

146. How do you differentiate between

those who are only adding "puffery" for their own candidates from those who truly appreciate a post? I post on a lot of threads that could be considered "puffery" for OTHER "candidates," because I make an effort to learn about and support more than just one democrat. There was a Dean post awhile back that could have been considered "puffery," but I found it really interesting and it really deepened my respect for the man.

[AP]

157. As I said...

...the OP should make a case for why it's relevant as news. It just needs to make a prima facie case. And if they do, but the post evolves so that it is clearly has no value other than "thanks" (ie, if it encourages no real dialogue) then move it.

Incidentally, I've seen no Dean puffery posts in a while. Because he's DNC chair, there's more than ample opporutunity to discuss him without resorting to the empty calorie puffery postings.

[AP]

173. The effect: if you're not posting to have a discussion, the post

will end up in the supporters group.

Conveniently, there's a supporters group for all the groups prone to puffery.

[Adelante]

74. I'm a partisan, I admit it

I don't think I've ever started a 2008 thread, although I participate in them. I am interested in 2008 and a lot of other people seem to be, as well, given the number of threads every day for some combination of potential candidates. I think I counted twelve on the front index page of GDP just yesterday. I happen to agree that the time now is for 2006 and not 2008, but maybe there's no reason we can't do both, since no matter what anybody says or does, people keep putting these threads up. Those people are not all partisans, I don't think, but explorers. Either way, they should have the right to post their interests.

I don't think the occasional "puffery" is bad, because it's a way people calm down and enjoy themselves, like having a beer together. It's no big deal and people don't have to go into those threads. I never go into "feel good" threads for anybody but Clark, or if I do by accident, I leave. I figure it's private time for supporters of a particular leader and not my place to interrupt. I certainly don't care that a thread like this is up -- why should I? Why should anybody care?

I don't mind criticism and discussion. I do mind lies, nasty smears, and all out attacks.

A DUer who wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq came into the Clark Group the other day. This is a person who knows what he or she wants, but wanted to get Clark's take. We told him/her straight out that Clark was not the guy for this and explained why. There was discussion back and forth, but no flaming, no discourtesy, and no fight. That DUer was listening and talking.

The problem is, instead of listening and talking, what we generally have going on is hardline imposition of an adopted line of thought, with no room for give and take. At some point, at loggerheads, one or the other side resorts to name-calling. You're a Republican! You're an anarchist! You're a right wing idiot! You're a left wing idiot! :crazy:

And some of the trouble, a lot of the trouble, in my experience, comes when somebody enters a thread, or even starts a thread, or comes into the middle of a totally unrelated thread, with the planned purpose of picking a fight. I don't want to fight. I'd much prefer give and take, each person arguing a side of an issue. But when somebody goes out of their way to pick a fight, I fight back. Sometimes my temper overtakes my judgment and I don't pick my words carefully enough and I regret it, but most times I don't regret it, because most times I've been provoked.

The thing is, it is possible to talk about an issue or a Democratic leader or an action, without inserting an insult to a DUer or a nasty smear on a Democrat. I've been in enough discussions on DU to know it is possible. All it takes, though, is one troublemaker to start things off, and ignoring them doesn't stop anything, believe me, it just encourages them. So, yeah, there's a trust issue, but it is learned behavior.

So as an entrenched partisan, I'd say it should be possible to disagree with other entrenched partisans in a respectful way. It should be possible to discuss policy issues without calling a Democratic leader "Hitler" or "War Criminal" or "Flip Flopper" or "Candy Ass" or "Traitor" or "Asshole" or whatever. It should be possible to talk about the war without calling the troops "murderers" and "rapists" unless you are talking about a known murderder or rapist.

It should be possible to disagree with the party chair on a specific point without being accused of treason, but at the same time, the party chair doesn't have to be accused of treason every time he says something we all can't, 100% of us, agree with. John Kerry doesn't have to be accused of being anti-civil rights (!) because he is not carrying the PC line on gay marriage, but the Democratic party line of civil union.

It should, most of all, be possible to criticize a leader without recourse to GOP talking points and right *or* left wing spam.

This doesn't address your 2008 problem, Skinner, but it seems to me there are way larger fights going on here than over 2008. In fact, the 2008 fights are mere squabbles in comparison.

Sometimes I think we did better before the rules, I swear, when everybody just let it rip. But I realize that is not good for DU in terms of its identity as a Democratic site. It is not good for the party, either, because what we say here can be used against us and will be used against us, need I say, in 2008.

What I see as a far more serious problem on DU than 2008, is kneejerk overreaction in the course of no time at all on everything coming down the pike. Harry Reid is a hero on Monday and a villain on Tuesday. Let's kill Hillary, she said this or that. Let's love Obama and hate him an hour from now. Let's bash a Democrat today!

What do I think you should do about 2008, Skinner? I think you should do nothing. If people don't like a thread topic they can skip it. It's not like there is no choice in what threads to enter or leave alone. It may ultimately be more important that DUers feel they can post to their interest and not feel closed out of the community.

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. Great post WesDem! n/t

[Totally Committed]

88. Kick-ass post, WesDem!

Also, I have to add that if Kerry had won, and/or people felt they saw some "leadership" emerge in 2004, I don't think we'd all be scrambling so much to find our choice to fit that bill.

I, myself (read: just my opinion), felt so let down and so disgusted by the 2004 elections that I completely devoted myself to making sure that scenario was never, ever, ever again repeated.

I feel that strongly about it, and yes, I know it shows at times, but my posting here is a definite response to the last election, so looking forward to 2008 cannot happen soon enough for me. That does make some of my posts partisan. I will never again apologize for supporting anyone I choose to support, because when it all came down to it: In 2004 I WAS RIGHT.

TC

[Clarkie1]

240. Great post wesdem! n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

75. I don't know what to suggest

It IS nasty, and I wish I could suggest something to curtail it. Honestly, and I am sure this would lead to lots of acrimony, but if it were me, I would strictly enforce the DU rules re: constructive criticism of Democrats. I've seen threads criticizing particular Dems, and I have disagreed, and added my two cents, but I was not offended, because I am bound to disagree with some people. No one has a problem with that. But there remains a certain persistent vocal minority on DU who insist on smearing and slamming certain Democrats with unfair, ad hominem, and/or unsubstantiated scorched-earth attacks. To me, this is unacceptable. If people want to say "I disagree with (X candidate) and think what he/she is doing here is bad/unproductive/pandering", well, we can all deal with that. But when people start saying "(Candidate X) is a DINO! A sellout! Hypocrite!" or any other number of baseless invectives, that is where I think the mods need to step it up in terms of strictly enforcing DU rules, in order to make this a welcoming community for all, from Kucinich to Clinton supporters.

Posters with a consistent, predictable tendency to post flamebait, ad hominem attacks on other Dems should be given a warning, and if they insist on continuing their divisive attacks, I think they should be tombstoned, I am sorry. Posts (and posters) like that detract from DU more than they add to it, and harm the community as a whole, by constantly trying to sow division and rancor. Again: constuctive or accurate criticism is acceptable to all but the most thin-skinned of DUers (many of whom, incidentally, tend to be the most vicious to candidates other than their personal favorite). But these repeated attacks on good Dems, attacks that mirror RW talking points in so many ways, need to stop.

I doubt my suggestion will be taken, since I am sure that said vocal minority who insist on bashing Dems will complain of persecution, but it's just my two cents.

[xultar]

77. I haven't noticed, I've decided to hang in da Lounge with my new buddies

I feel like the new kid on the playground with cooties.

[Generator]

78. Yawn

No, take that back. It's somewhat amusement. As many of us feel, will there even be true elections in 2008? It's like thinking about some way out future for me..because unless Bush and the criminals that surround him are somehow outed for what they are 2008 won't amount to a hill of beans.

I wasn't around for primary 2004. And I will never understand the passion that goes into such BELIEF that whomever is the ANSWER for us.

I still love Kerry....and Edwards..and Dean..but as for 2008..there is so much to worry about from election reform..to Iraq..to making it alive until then without what's left of our liberties destroyed..screaming Clark or Dean! or Kerry! just seems absurd. But whatever..it's just sport for some because it's just madness otherwise.

I didn't answer Skinner's question either. I mostly ignore those threads. This is an outsider's view.

2008 is a mirage right now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Key in on Vendetta posters

There are a small number of individuals who have a real chip on their shoulders against one or another national Democrat and/or his or her supporters. I am talking about posters who are almost obsessive in their need to regularly show up on threads to inject negative opinions against their seeming target(s), frequently inserting their target(s) into a thread where they were not the initial focus of discussion. Other times a relatively minor thread sharing this or that piece of positive news about a National Democrat suddenly becomes, in my opinion needlessly, a platform for an intense debate on that Democrat's short comings

I am calling this vendetta posting because when I step back and look at the forest and not just the trees, that is the picture that forms. What is going on is rarely apparent from just looking at an individual instance of one or two posts. Sharing a negative opinion about a past or future candidate and/or some or all of his or her supporters falls well within political speech and all of that. The thing is though that regulars in these forums can predict like clockwork who will drop in on an otherwise positive thread about some Democrat to make a snide and cutting remark or to recycle for the umpteenth time the same accusation that has already been debated to death on 50 other threads. The fact that a few people hop from thread to thread blasting the same people for the same perceived "crimes" tends to set up a fighting environment with people taking it personally.

The problem isn't candidate boosters starting threads to talk about who they are enthusiastic about. These would sink under their own weight quickly were they not turned into flame fests. Non partisans would either open the thread up to glean what news value it offered or not, as they saw fit. But the vendetta postings evolve into running grudge matches. I put the onus on the negative vendetta posters rather than candidate backers for a reason. I start with a presumption that we are virtually all Democrats, or mostly sympathetic to Democrats at DU, and that there are worse political enemies to train our fire on, like Republicans for example, than to obsess on attacking fellow Democrats. Most people come here to DU to be around sympathetic thinkers; we have to battle with the right all day every day in our real lives.

I concede above that it is essentially impossible to tell from a single post, or from only a few, whether or not a given poster is on a vendetta to tear down one or more Democrats on DU. But a pattern IS NOT hard to make out with a little attention. I know that it is asking a lot of all the moderators, but you folks are in a position to see the forest for the trees just as much if not more so than regular posters at DU. Now, when none of the leading Democrats are officially running against each other for anything, is not the time to relentlessly focus on the perceived negatives that any one of them might have. Criticism is fine, a obsession to conduct a virtual campaign against any one of them now is not.

If it was possible to reign in the repeated, virtually spam like, candidate specific negative postings made by only a couple of dozen posters at DU, the atmosphere here, in my opinion, would lighten up considerably.

[cestpaspossible]

84. What he said

[Totally Committed]

92. Here, here, Tom!

I agree absolutely.

TC

[DoveTurnedHawk]

93. I Agree With Tom

Totally agreed.

DTH

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. Thanks..great post, astute observations

[emulatorloo]

103. another "me too" for Tom's post - sorry mods, more work for you. . .EOM

[Adelante]

109. That's really it: Vendetta Posters nt

[MuseRider]

115. I will join in

on this post. You said it all really. We can argue policy until this happens and then it gets personal and ugly and counterproductive.

Great post.

[sharonking21]

118. I think this is a feasible idea

I too have noted that there are repeat offenders as to posting OPs that intentionally pit one candidate against another or that have a hidden agenda against one candidate or another. Also there are those who specialize in going into any thread on "X" "Y" or "Z" and posting highly negative things on a routine basis. If it can be managed, I suggest that you look at behavior over time.

Also, one point I would like to make is that for your average voter or average Democrat, the thing that really gets them stirred up and willing to work for the party in local and state races is often their interest in one or two of the primary stars in our Democratic firmament. I think we should use this to our advantage. On a local level here in Texas, I really look forward to the visits of any of these Democratic "stars" because there are at least 50 grassroots people who will become activated for every one that that becomes activated by a state or local candidate. Yet they end up working for the party as a whole.

I think most of the Democratic "stars" are already "running" to some extent and it is less than candid to pretend they are not. Nor do I begrudge any one of them that right. And the average person is interested in this. In my opinion we should use this interest to make Democratic activists out of them. So, banning the subject is probably not going to work.

[sharonking21]

125. Criteria

(Edited to correct misspelling)

Were you to look at posters over time, I think you should look at several things. It is kind of a matter of good DU citizenship. Over and above the current rules of not attacking one another, you should look at things like this.

1. Do they routinely start puffery threads for their candidate when nothing is really happening or do they post valid OPs when their candidate is actually doing something that is noteworthy?

2. Do they routinely post threads that intentionally pit one candidate against another or have a "hidden" agenda against a candidate who challenges their own candidate preference and that anyone who is not new to the board could figure out?

3. Do they ever come out to post on a thread to defend some Democrat other than their own candidate?

4. Do they ever post on anything but primary threads? Are they ever interested in issues or topics other than candidate "X" "Y" or "Z" (For or against)?

5. Do they post negative comments in a manner that almost anyone looking at their posts over time would consider as motivated by a vendetta?

I don't think there are many who would convincingly be measured as falling outside these rules of good DU citizenship. I think they should be warned a couple of times --because people can fall into this kind of trap without knowing they are doing it--and then be suspended, then finally taken off.

[KittyWampus]

121. Okay, You Have A Valid Point. I Forgot The Vendetta Posters Cause I

put the ones who were so totally predictable on ignore.

There are a few DU'ers who can't keep themselves from opening any thread with X's name in it and drop a load of the same old stink regardless of whether what they're saying even fits the ongoing discussion.

Yes, there are posters with predictable, disruptive patterns that are still posting here.

[Lerkfish]

122. I think this idea has some merit.

I think the danger is changing the structure because people are abusing the structure, when all that should be done is changing those who abuse the structure.

*shrugs* but its a tough question, I don't think its entirely black or white. I know people that are naturally argumentative and abrasive...that's just the way they argue. I think any policy that is zero tolerance has abandoned thoughtful discretion.
there should be a way to handle this on a case by case basis without unduly restricting those who aren't causing problems intentionally.

I wasn't here during the primaries, so I don't have that history to know the extent of the problem. But in my observation, it seems that many people are enamored of certain candidates to the degree that a crticism of the candidate is considered a personal affront.

[crispini]

124. Yes. Vendetta posters.

Some are all too ready to jump your shit. And it doesn't take much reading at ALL to see who they are.

[blm]

126. Well said. and the vendetta postings become self-evident over time.

so, it would seem fairly clear to anyone that their purpose is not driven by actual productive debate or the strengthening of the Democratic party.

[paulk]

131. what tom said

also, "wild eyed liberal's" post generally expresses my feelings on this.

there's a fairly small group of posters whose removal would do this place good.

[janx]

137. Somehow I don't think that Skinner, admins, and mods need

to identify these people. From what I've gathered from his post, he wants to know what to do about them.

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

149. Assuming that is the case

I think it will over the long term be very worth the time invested for a senior DU Administrator to PM those people and initiate a dialog with them about what constitutes "Vendetta Posting" vs a straight forward expression of a contrary position. Like I said janx, I honestly think only a couple of dozen people at most fall into this category, and I am sure more than a few of them have just gotten swept up in back and forth emotions. Likely candidates for that discussion can be culled by reviewing all of the locked threads over a recent period of time, looking for patterns of specific posters tending to feed and/or start flame fests. I would presume all of them innocent of malicious intent at the start of such "discussions". The goal would be to work together to keep DU on track as a productive place to exchange honest views and differing opinions while avoiding feeding into running feuds.

I am not looking for new purges, just a break in the reinforcing cycle of escalating tensions caused by what I term Vendetta Posting. We can all live with a basic level of disagreement around here if that doesn't become knee jerk compulsive and obsessive in its expression.

I would anticipate that over time a few people will still be unable to control themselves adequately and I can accept that some may be tombstoned as a result. That is never my first choice but after patience is exhausted with an individual then sometimes the good of the many needs to be protected. And I know enough about politics to simply assume that from time to time someone who wishes Democrats absolutely no good will participate on DU in a manner calibrated to contribute to diverseness. That should be guarded against.

[blondeatlast]

187. Precisely. Some posters maybe need a "time out" to see the error of

their ways (one poster who was allowed to return has made quite the positive change!).

For those who don't, perhaps another board would suit them better.

We shouldn't have to abandon the enjoyment of the vast majority to satisfy the whims of a very vocal few.

[melnjones]

152. Tom,

You are my hero. :pals:

[blondeatlast]

182. Excellent idea. We've seen this behavior in this thread already! nt

[Maddy McCall]

194. Tom's right.

Vendetta posters are the problem. A small group of people are responsible for most of the pre-2008 flamewars.

Punish them. Don't make all of us pay for their bad manners.

[mzmolly]

253. Excellent assessment.

:toast:

[Sparkly]

261. I like that term. It makes sense.

"I put the onus on the negative vendetta posters rather than candidate backers for a reason. I start with a presumption that we are virtually all Democrats, or mostly sympathetic to Democrats at DU, and that there are worse political enemies to train our fire on, like Republicans for example, than to obsess on attacking fellow Democrats."

I agree. I'll accept all responsibility for anything I've said in defending Democrats. But if there weren't repetitive "vendetta" attacks -- whether leftover rightwing smears of Clark, hindsighted attacks impugning Kerry's motives, or creative new paraphrases of Dean's words -- I'd have nothing to fight about. It starts with the attackers, not the defenders, and I think it should stop with them as well. (Although again, I take full responsibility for my own responses.)

Respectful disagreements based on the truth, fine. Consistent, repeated attacks based on nothing -- or worse, for the sheer sport of it -- no.

[Laurab]

271. I think he's got it

that's exactly what happens, over and over again, no matter how innocuous or positive a thread may start out. "Candidate specific negative postings", and the same tired old arguments over and over.

If it is possible - what he said in his last paragraph would probably do it.

[CWebster]

311. Sentiments such as yours

must be assessed from your own position as an advocate for one candidate. That would make anyone who challenges--or even questions your favorite as vindictive, wouldn't it Tom?

[KittyWampus]

419. Not Really, Because As Someone Who Embraces ALL Democrats I've

noted several posters who INSIST on crapping in Kerry threads and some who INSIST on crapping on Dean threads as well as the few who INSIST on crapping in Clark threads.

And I've also noticed a few posters who regularly pit one Democratic plotitician against others.

Edit: by crapping, I don't mean criticizing but refer to inane labels,
namecalling and repeating of slurs and mischaracterizations.

[cestpaspossible]

436. inane labels, namecalling, and repeating of slurs and mischaracterizations

yep, that's the difference. Although I would just say characterizations, because again, whether it is a 'mischaracterization' is in the eye of the beholder.

[cestpaspossible]

373. A bit of Devil's Advocate on the vendetta thing

As a dedicated Kerryite, I'll take the case of someone I might perceive as having a vendetta against Kerry. Let's call him 'DUerwhodoesntlikeKerry'. OK, he doesn't like Kerry, but it's not necessarily blind unreasoning hatred. Let's get specific. Say they think 'I will never forgive the IWR vote'. Sure, Kerry's IWR vote has been discussed tens, hundreds, and thousands of times here at DU. Nevertheless, it certainly is valid for someone reading a thread about Kerry -- no matter how full of enthusiastic Kerryites like myself -- to want to interject their opinion: "I can't forgive Kerry's IWR vote" - no matter how off-topic to whatever specific issue is being discussed in the thread, it is not off-topic to the issue of Kerry.


However, that is a relatively neutral way of expressing an opinion - throw in an invective and a judgement and a characterization and it becomes much more inflammatory: "I'll never vote for a warmonger who voted for Bush's war"

Just another difficult judgement for the mods and admins to make...

[Chicago Democrat]

425. Need to sort out 'vendetta' vs. 'passionate rebuttal' which basically

goes back to the rules about personal attacks.

If someone is going to have a thread about how great, say Liebermann is.. Someone bringing up specific refutations or counter evidence could be percieved as a personal attack but still not be, as long as the discussion is civil.

Some of the best threads come from divergent views. I wanna know all the dirt early on. I just worry about shutting down legitimate debate. I love for example that we can swear here. I am not afraid of free speech and have a great deal of affection for all Democrats, and I really haven't seen these bad threads Skinner is talking about.

[realFedUp]

81. A forum just for 2008 election

I wouldn't mind a forum with nothing else
but these posts...out of GD and Political forums.

They are useless right now to everyone but
candidates who are thinking of running and
their minions IMO.

[melnjones]

151. While this may get some threads out of GD,

my concern is that it would be like giving permission to have a big flamefest. I can't imagine such a forum being positive.

[snowbear]

456. That sounds like a great idea!

The idea of a forum for discussing 2008 candidates would probably make life easier on the Mods? :shrug:

Having them all in one area.. would also reduce the possibility of duplicate 2008 polls, etc..

:headbang:

[GreenPartyVoter]

83. I think this is symptomatic of feeling powerless

Not on DU, but in this country in general.

I agree I think perhaps a forum for 2008 will keep GD and GDP more polite and less cluttered, but it won't abate the anger. (Which is why I posted the question about IRV in the primaries in GDP. I think there is a good chance that might help alleviate the candidate wars to some degree.)

[Q]

94. Good afternoon, Skinner...

...As you know...I've been here since almost the beginning. Many of us came here hot off the heels of having an election stolen in broad daylight and facing the reality that the Democratic party leadership wasn't going to do anything about it. As many DUers now know...I've gone from supporting my party 'right or wrong' to holding their feet to the fire on many issues.

You use the term 'hard-core partisans' as if you're surprised that politics is partisan and that people choose sides on issues. But isn't this what politics is all about? This board gives people a chance to debate and argue about what THEY think is right for country and party.

We NEED to discuss these things. We need to discuss why some Democratic leaders are giving Bush & Company a free ride and act so powerless. We need to discuss why so many Democrats voted for an illegal war and the Bankruptcy Bill. We need to debate why those who call themselves 'new' Democrats seem to be taking positions that harm the party's rank and file.

Just recently I've seen DUers asking for a six month 'moratorium' on 'negative posts' and criticizing candidates. I asked: ...'why not a year or a complete ban on all negative threads and posts'? The point is that where would it end? The end result is that rules like this would drive posters away and chill the discussions of those who remain...making them afraid to offer any kind of criticism...constructive or otherwise...at the risk of being called 'traitors' to the party.

The problem is finding a definition of 'constructive criticism'. Some believe it's constructive to 'out' DINOS who vote with or support the other side on important issues like illegal war, tax cuts for the rich and making the Bush White House accountable.

Perhaps you can start a forum away from the 'general politics' discussion areas? (Like you did with the 9-11 and other stuff.) That would leave interested DUers to cheerlead for their candidates and the rest of us to discuss 'general' topics like Bush's Saudi friends who finance terrorism and the separation of church and state?

Good luck.

[MaineDem]

100. I'd eliminate all the candidate avatars

If I remember correctly they were just added during the primary campaign last year. I'd take them all down until candidates announce.

Other than that, I don't have any idea on how to stop the "trash" talking from happening. I do agree that the anonymity of an internet message baord is part of this problem and I don't think anything will stop those who intend to disrupt.

Good luck, Skinner! This is still the best site on the web and I'm so thankful to have found you all.

[fujiyama]

101. Personally

I'm somewhat tired of certain posters flooding the non-2008 election forums with what seem almost like advertisements.

I'm also tired of certain posters claiming that their chosen candidate is perfect.

[LittleClarkie]

104. Part of the problem is several of the former candidates are still active

and so their supporters post bits about them on the main group. Which seems to invite attacks. I as a Kerry supporter refuse to stop posting positive articles about the guy because someone wants to hijack the thread to bitch about the 2004 election.

Neither will I seek out Hillary threads to bitch about how she can't get the nomination etc. I'm not thrilled with her. I don't want her in 2008. But I will support her election reform bill. And I will not seek out posts about her latest speech to bash her.

I will into a thread about any of our prominent Democrats, and defend them if they are being attacked unfairly, regardless. Criticism is one thing, but at least the criticism needs to be based on facts.

I esp. get disheartened when folks show up on a thread to not only criticize and/or bash, but amuse themselves by sending out snarky little zingers.

None of this is productive. But neither do I see it stopping, esp. whenever one of our former candidates does something noteworthy but not necessarily popular. I was shocked when the latest victim was Dean.

All I can do is fight the negativity by promoting unity.

Hence the sig line. I have the Dem Party's back, regardless of who I may or may not support come 2008. It's just too damn early.

I suspect after those who can't control themselves will eventually step over the line and be deleted. I've seen a couple of Kerry folks go bye-bye, and believe it or not, I've cheered. Obnoxious behavior is not good, no matter where it's coming from.

Or maybe 2006 has to get closer. The distraction of that election season should help us forget 2004. Meanwhile, I don't expect the Dean people to stop posting articles and news, or the Clark people, or the Kucinich people, or the Clinton people, for that matter. And I'd hope others could be the same way for me and the occasional Kerry news.

If only people would just use the damn "hide" or ignore buttons more. I don't understand why that's a problem. It seems some folks like the strife. Personally, I find it annoying as hell.

Regardless of who's running in 2008, we need to focus on what's being done now. Yes, some people are very obviously running. But some people are very obviously fighting the Bush agenda as well. I wish we could ignore the former for now, and focus on the latter.

(le sigh)

[Debi]

107. I think we should all be able to support who we want

but we should all be able to NOT support who we want.

If one thing is posted about one candidate or the other that isn't glowing then the war is on.

(I've been guilty of this myself when Dean has been bashed and I defend him - and I will challenge glowing posts about candidates that I disagree with as well - I'm no innocent here).

I don't understand the personal attacks after these posts.

If you don't agree with candidate X then you are a freeper/troll/rovian etc.

If you like candidate Y you are insane/stupid/a lemming/loser.

Why don't we keep the personal attacks out of the political wrangling.

I'd consider a rule that would lock-up a thread that had personal attacking posts in it and suspend for a period of time the offender. Who wants to continue to lose their voice b/c someone attacks someone else on their thread?

[Festivito]

108. A suggestion of colorful warning.

Program a small warning in the title block of each post for certain posters. With each Alert the severity increases.

BEWARE of partisan views.
..next..
BEWARE of extreme partisan views.
BEWARE of outrageous partisan views.
..finally..
DANGER WIll Robinson DANGER

Also, the entire post could be colored first in amber, then orange, pink, and finally blood red.

All Edwards partisans however, can post in a beautiful shade of mint julip green.

If this helps I'll be just as surprized as you.

[NightOwwl]

110. After reading through all the posts, I tend to agree with those who

suggest a Campaign 2008 forum. But that still leaves two gray areas:

1) Who qualifies as a candidate?
Is a candidate defined as someone DUer's (who are fans of that particular candidate) are hoping will run, or whose actions strongly indicate they intend to run, or some other factor? So I think the first step would be to come up with a list of people who qualify as potential 2008 candidates.

2) What constitutes a campaign post?
Let's say we've all agreed on the candidates. Do all posts about this candidate go in the 2008 forum? For example, what if they are commenting on current legislation, or issuing a press release, or making a statement to the press? My personal opinion is that any post referencing a potential candidate should be posted in the Campaign 2008 forum. And the reason I suggest this is because personally, I am getting really tired of the PromoBots^TMLeftCoast who post press release after press release then wait for the oohs and ahs from the fans, but have no qualms about personally attacking anyone who dares criticize their "chosen one." I use the ignore thread now, but honestly, I am at the point where it annoys me just to see the names of some of these posters because I know it's going to be the same old "love it or leave it" thread.

So to sum it up:

• Create a Campaign 2008 forum
  
• Define the list of candidates
  
• Determine the criteria for a campaign post
  
• Qualifying threads/posts go in the new Campaign 2008 Forum
  

DU has been a source of comfort, joy and camaraderie. Whatever action you decide to take Skinner, I will support.

[Adelante]

112. If we followed your #2

We would end up with a Howard Dean forum.

[Cooley Hurd]

114. As much as it seems like capitulation, I'd lean towards creating...

...a new forum called "GD: 2008 Primaries," and the rules could be the same as GD's or the Lounge's rules. In short, attacking any pre-candidates would be fine, but attacking one another wouldn't.

And, whoever is unlucky enough to pull mod duty there should be paid, or at least given extra time in the mod hot tub...;)

[KittyWampus]

116. The Times DU Has Amazed Me Most Was When Skinner Said "Let's

all investigate this... or let's all research that... or somebody said "let's all donate to this worthy cause".

I would like to see occassional posts from Skinner or Administration calling for some kind of group project.

It helps foster the Community Spirit and move us ALL in one positive direction at least for a little while.

And in these dark times when Democrats hold no lever of power... any positive group actions are appreciated.

As for the Primary nonsense- don't think there's much you can do. I personally just avoid most of it.

[CTLawGuy]

120. We're liberals

and liberals emphasize thought, change and individualism. The conservatives emphasize conformity, ranking, and staying in your place.

So naturally, liberals are going to disagree. The Democratic Party has a broad constituency, from quasi-right wingers to avowed socialists.

Couple that with a couple of disasterous elections and thats a formula for a lot of infighting.

What makes it worse is that after the Clinton Era, the Party has had no real leadership. So every interest in the party is taking advantage of the power vacuum to advance their views within the party -- just as it would be in Iraq, if the US left tomorrow. Without a central power force, every faction would be fighting for control.

So I wouldn't be too worried about what is going on. Once a Democrat actually wins and there's a face on our party, there will be more harmony.

[mzmolly]

398. Very good analysis.

:toast:

[wyldwolf]

127. Sorry, Skinner

I've e-mailed you privately and posted in Ask the Admin section about the primary infighting on DU. Most of it stems from anti-moderate/centrist/DLC posts.

You want to know how to end it?

Enforce these rules:

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion.

Quite frankly I've grown tired, and several others have as well, of being called "traitor," "fascist," etc. for simply supporting DLC Democrats and other moderates. Granted, no one has labeled me as such personally (at least not publically), but how else is one to interpret the spirit of the rule posted above unless it means people who follow a certain candidate or ideology. Logically, if DLC Democrats and moderates can be called "Republicans," "traitors," and the like, then those on DU who are supporters of such are being labeled that as well.

Further, the abuse was given a DU stamp of approval apparently by posting a vitriolic anti-DLC diatribe on the front page.

Some of us have been given no choice but to fight back by applying labels as well.

Please note that sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not categorically forbidden. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

I believe there needs to be a uniform procedure for this and not left up to the mod's discretion. Both sides of the ideological spectrum feel they have sufficient proof of moderator bias based on postings in the old "ask the admin" forum.

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.


How about this: In reference to the primaries, members who were here during the primaries who post OLD articles to prop up their OLD arguments against a Democrat are clearly doing guilty of posting flamebait. It's possible they missed the article the first 10 times it was posted on DU - but I doubt it.

... Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.


But we get them all the time...

And finally, everyone is aware of certain other message board that allows personal attacks on DU members. Some of these attacks are carried out by current members of DU. When we see ourselves being attacked across the street - sometimes very hatefully - based on our political allegiances and candidate preferences, it makes it hard to be civil to those DUers who suddenly reply to your posts on DU.

[Q]

141. And then there are labels used like the 'loony left', 'fringe groups'...

'liberal elite'...and others applied BY those who complain the loudest about being 'attacked' for their support of the DLC.

Some would call threads about the DLC 'echoing the tone of our political opponents'..but the fact is that OUR political opponents have no reason to attack the DLC because they're allies on issues such as the Iraq invasion and occupation. Is it 'flamebait' to point that out? Quoting the DLC or cutting and pasting from their website or other authors can't be said to be 'sweeping statements'.

Why the objection to posting 'old articles or arguments' if they express a point of view still held by the subjects of the thread? The DLC's rants against Moore and the 'liberal elite' could be called old arguments and articles...but they reflect their current attitude about what they call the 'special interests' of social Democrats.

Besides...the DLC itself is not in any way a part of the Democratic party. They are a lobbyist group/think tank backed by corporate money. Unlike the DNC...they're not beholden to rank and file Democrats in any way and operate outside the parameters of the party.

We're approaching dangerous ground when there are suggestions to put together lists of groups that are out of bounds for criticism. This is nothing more than supporters of certain organizations trying to silence their critics.

[wyldwolf]

147. which I addressed in my post

Read it. I plainly said, "Some of us have been given no choice but to fight back by applying labels as well."

Stop with your labels and we'll stop with ours.

The rest of your reply is the typical "Q cut and paste" job.

Besides, Skinner asked that no flame wars start in this thread, do you want one?

If you want to once again for the 100th time start a anti-DLC flamewar, don't hijack this thread for that purpose. Just start another of your weekly diatribes.

My post was directed at Skinner, not to you.

[KoKo]

178. Why would you go on a thread and say: "typical cut and paste job?"

It's amazing you would come on a thread posted by the OWNER OF THIS SITE and accuse a fellow DU'er of "cut and paste." Shaking head and wondering. :-(

[wyldwolf]

218. why would Q try to hijack a thread?

With yet another anti-DLC diatribe?

I was giving the OWNER OF THIS SITE an answer to his question. And why would you flame me and not Q?

Shaking head and wondering. :-(

[Q]

223. This particular discussion...

...is very relevant to the topic of this thread. In my opinion...DLC fans attack anyone who starts a thread about the DLC...thus taking the thread down in flames with their insults and alerts to the moderators.

Many threads have been started (by other DUers) objecting to the DLC's trashing of Democratic candidates (like Dean) and liberals/progressives in general. Please keep in mind that THEY started this tirade against the 'liberal elite' with their attacks in the media. It seems that they don't want every Democrat to have an equal say and voice in the party.

I submit that this is a good example of how groups of posters can shut down threads simply because they object to the subject matter and by acting insulted or put upon and running to the moderators. More times than not...the DLC threads aren't 'flamewars' until certain groups show up to disrupt.

This is relevant to the campaign/candidate threads in that the same thing happens when fans of the candidates show up to disrupt and shut down the thread...even if the subject contains legitimate criticism. They don't want ANY criticism of their candidates...even criticism with merit.

[wyldwolf]

226. once again

In my opinion...DLC fans attack anyone who starts a thread about the DLC...thus taking the thread down in flames with their insults and alerts to the moderators.

1. The thread isn't about that. It is about how to END such things.
2. In my opinion, anti-DLCers can't stand to be challenged on the facts and often "disappear" when confronted with the simple request: PROVE IT.
3. That's what the "alert" button is for.

Many threads have been started (by other DUers) objecting to the DLC's trashing of Democratic candidates (like Dean) and liberals/progressives in general.

So? Has the DLC done this on Democratic Underground? I think not.

Please keep in mind that THEY started this tirade against the 'liberal elite' with their attacks in the media.

Sorry - the 'liberal elite' started the tirade in '94 when we lost the house and senate. They immediately pointed fingers at the DLC without the convenience of fact.

It seems that they don't want every Democrat to have an equal say and voice in the party.

In politics, nothing is a given. As I've said to you many times, you don't want to work to bring your agenda to the forefront. You don't want to organize. You don't want to raise money. You want political power and influence handed to you like soup in a soup kitchen. Ain't gonna happen.

I submit that this is a good example of how groups of posters can shut down threads simply because they object to the subject matter and by acting insulted or put upon and running to the moderators.

Now THAT'S funny! No one has "run" to moderators. This thread is in response to a question from the SITE OWNER. YOU are the one who hijacked it.

More times than not...the DLC threads aren't 'flamewars' until certain groups show up to disrupt.

I take that back. I thought what you said up there was the funniest. But this is. You might as well have said, "the DLC threads aren't 'flamewars' until certain groups show up to dispute the unproven allegations, which pisses off the anti-DLCers because they can't have the place to themselves."

[KoKo]

227. I don't think you really get the "message" here...You seem to dwell

on DLC and those who have "trashed it" in your humble opinion while deniying that the DLC and Clinton "Alliance" have any part in the "decline of the Dem Party."

If DU can't support "Anti-DLC" Factions after THREE FAILED ELECTIONS...then who the Hell are WE?

A voice out there in the wilderness? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

229. I think it's YOU

If DU can't support "Anti-DLC" Factions after THREE FAILED ELECTIONS...then who the Hell are WE?

A voice out there in the wilderness? :shrug:

1. There is no evidence that the DLC caused the failed elections unless you've been holding out.
2. This thread isn't about that.

[KoKo]

234. Absolutely...this is Skinner's thread... good reminder...eom.

[JNelson6563]

285. Defend your view everywhere

that is, ifit is even defensible.

If you don't like the DLC-ness of DU (which you are a major promoter) posted elsewhere then don't post it here. Some things are worth discussing where there is more freedom. You are free to defend your views anywhere on the net. In fact, you should consider it. The only defense I've seen on your behalf is to deny your devotion to the DLC, which you proudly display here in this post.

Sometimes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself instead of through surrogates. Or you can cry "victim" on DU, we all make choices in life, don't we?

:toast:

[cestpaspossible]

332. Excellent example of a post that doesn't break the rules but

typifies the kind of behavior that poisons the discourse.

Your palpable contempt of the other poster and insulting tone make me sick.

[wyldwolf]

408. not only that

She doesn't address the purpose of the thread nor the points in my post.

I'm going to ignore her in this instance so she doesn't hijack the thread.

[Lexingtonian]

129. I agree with

Will Pitt, WildEyedLiberal, and Tom Rinaldo.

It's pretty evident to me that there is a pretty deliberate and semicoordinated disruption effort going on. It might be as few as four or five people with three or four userids each.

But the problem is not really the disruptors, it's that they have found a market. And that is the internal Democratic debate of the day, which reflects the sense that Democratic recovery of majority and power is within reach but slipped out of grasp one more time.

I see this argument about the '03/'04 primaries as one more round of indulgence in the pathologies of long term powerlessness - power worshipping opportunism and leadership role demanded by the most adamant of the more conservative 40%, and the excessive ideological/purity focus by the most adamant of the more liberal 60%. I see almost all the Presidential candidates being touted in all these distorted and emotional ways as proxies in this game of grievances, immaturities, ideological rigor mortis, and living in the past.

I think there is room for a 'Merit-free Debate About The Merits' rule, or a 'We've Seen This Movie Before' rule, for a couple more months, maybe the rest of the year.

If you're going to set up a forum to which to banish threads, I will ask for an exception for Kerry threads that involve him campaigning for stuff that helps the Democratic Party. I believe to construe his work as selfish, or ideological betrayals, is to miss the point- I'm inclined to see his work as that of the 2004 Democratic Nominee doing what he believes to be a duty, that it is far better thought through than most DU Monday morning quarterbacking can ever hope to be, and is aimed at helping break away Republican moderates from the GOP rather than please Democratic activists. He's not our Lincoln in this war, nor our Grant, but he is our Sherman.

[MoonRiver]

139. But the issue is not what each of us perceives to be the correct

view of one politician or another. The issue is freedom of speech and the right to present divergent opinions. If this board squashes that (and I think we're almost there) participation will suffer. JMO of course.

[Tom Rinaldo]

162. It's great that we are having a First amendment type discussion

But we know that 99.9% of Americans understand that there are always a few common sense restrictions on total freedom of speech starting with not shouting out Fire! in a crowded movie theater. There are also laws against slander and libel for another example. Plus in time of war you can't warn the Nazi's where the D-Day invasion is planned to land etc.

All I am suggesting is that well over 90% of the friction between Democrats who hold positive feelings for differing past or possible future Presidential candidates is being generated by well under 10% of those who express opinions on them. We are participating in the Democratic Underground, not the generic Political Underground. There is an assumed basis of greater unity that this site openly attempts to further among Democrats. Pointing that out to the few individuals who keep feeding into permanent flame fests here seems reasonable to me.

[MoonRiver]

171. I'm not talking about shouting "fire" for goodness sake.

But if we're all supposed to walk in lockstep few will participate. Through the years I have seen this repression happen on one board after another. People keep thinking they can herd Democrats, but like cats we have our own ideas about where we want to go.

[Tom Rinaldo]

190. What I am talking about is disruption. Some of it innocent

Some of it by design. The latter is particularly worrisome. I am in favor of giving people the advantage of the doubt. Nine times. The tenth time I become suspicious. The 30th time I get angry. It is hard to have this discussion in the abstract of course, but most of us have experienced systematic disruption somewhere in our political life. Almost certainly here I suspect. Some of the most notorious disruptors at DU later admitted to really being Bush supporters (at Free Republic for example) after they were tombstoned here.

I am not talking about yelling Fire. I am not talking about saying negative things about another Democrat. In the rare cases that concern me I am talking about a literal fixation to go around picking fights wherever possible and using the equivalent of hate speech to make sure that an online brawl will almost certainly happen. And then repeating that pattern time and time and time again. If DU has 40,000 members I estimate that 25 ID's at most are engaged in this behavior. Whether or not that represents 25 distinct individuals, I don't know. I am saying if that dynamic is brought under control, hopefully though private non judgmental discussions with those involved leading to no negative repercussions against them, that Democratic Underground will become much more conducive to real debates about actual issues.

[NightOwwl]

192. One man's meat is another man's poison.

You are assuming 1) everyone agrees with your point of view; and 2) we all support Kerry.

That's amazing.

[Lexingtonian]

236. I'm answering Skinner's questions

the way I see appropriate, for Skinner. It's not business that involves giving your opinion special consideration, just as comments that you direct at some other person do not concern me directly.

I suspect you're responding to my post because some of it rang true with you- whether it is a bearable truth or one you are in denial of I can't quite tell.

Kerry is the '04 Democratic nominee for President, and as such he speaks for the Party in some way. Do I care whether he speaks for you, or for that matter, for me? No.

[NightOwwl]

262. Everyone thinks their candidate is the exception to the rule.

"If you're going to set up a forum to which to banish threads, I will ask for an exception for {Clark / Dean / Kucinich / InsertCandidateHere} threads that involve him campaigning for stuff that helps the Democratic Party..."

Isn't that the GDP forum we have today?

[Lexingtonian]

273. Kerry

is first among equals in the mind of the public. He won the primaries, no matter whether you or I like or dislike that result.

You can level things any way you like in your mind, pretend the '04 primaries never happened and that everyone regrets their result, but Kerry (and e.g. Gore) are simply different from the others in American public discourse. I don't see why DU should impose a false egality and ahistoricism.

[NightOwwl]

274. Wow, you really don't get it. Never mind, then. n/t

[tritsofme]

279. Kerry deserves no more reverence than any other potential 2008 candidate

Kerry was the 2004 candidate, now he is just one senator out of 100.

At least in my recollection it has never been the case that George McGovern, Fritz Mondale, Michael Dukakis, or even really Al Gore spoke for the Party after their respective losses.

Today Kerry is just trying to keep his name in the news on some bizzare notion that he has another chance to be president in 2008.

I don't see him as any more important than any other potential candidates, and all of them are out there promoting the Democratic cause, not just Kerry. And I say all of this as a person that still remains uncommitted to any candidate.

[Lexingtonian]

280. hmmm...so let me get this straight

Carter and Clinton, virtue of their victories and despite massive defeats, are permitted to speak for their Party. Kerry, otoh, is making some effort to do so and, despite 11 million more votes, is Just Another Senator.

And John McCain's idea that Kerry's running for President a second time is not just a Republican talking point, it's somehow a selfevident truth because no Democrat would ever do such a thing out of duty. Or to fulfill a pledge made in November 2004 not to leave the Democratic Party with a vacuum as Clinton and Gore and Gephardt did in 2001 and 2002- leaving Tom Daschle struggling with ridiculous expectations and unable to avoid 24/7 exposure to Republican attacks and media bias.

You obvious have no clue of John Kerry's personality. I'm sure he's more skeptical and cynical of becoming the '08 nominee than you can ever be. But as a professional he sees what people here do not, which is that there is not much need to appeal much to the centrists- they're only with Republicans in matters of the War on Terror now. He does see the present Republican Party as a monstrosity, that the polling shows it is vulnerable to being broken down, and there has to be some active national campaigning to polarize and split moderate Republicans from the hardcore ones for the breakdown to be far enough for Party victory in '06 or '08.

Now, who is stepping up to that job, who has the credibility and stature and political acumen to successfully do the work of wedging Republicans? At least he's volunteering. Oh, be nice enough to thank him if it works out and Democrats take back Congress next November.

[XemaSab]

136. As one poster put it,

each candidate in the primaries represents a different future and different direction for the party.

I enjoy the 2008 threads, and I'll admit that there are certain candidates who I will never support and I'm guilty of saying so on supporter threads, which fuels the flames.

We should all be able to air our opinions about a candidate, such as pointing out the fact that a certain primary candidate has voted republican for most of his life, or the fact that the National Right-to-Life coalition has rated a certain primary candidate highly, or the fact that a certain primary candidate has a purty haircut and has only served one term in office, or the fact that a certain primary candidate has a history of sticking his foot in his mouth often, or the fact that a certain primary candidate looks like Lurch, or the fact that a certain primary candidate is a fascist republican DINO who is gaining nothing but Joementum towards an early retirement.

We should be able to discuss why we don't like certain candidates and give the supporters of those candidates a chance to respond and try to change our minds, and vice versa.

I think having a Flamepit or Dungeon for flamewars sounds like a great idea, but trying to ban members or lock threads sounds like a hassle for the moderators and a good way to turn DU into something really dull.

[cestpaspossible]

154. Yes

you should be able to say all those things, but as is discussed upthread, if you make a vendetta out of it, you're not helping the discusion here. I think part of the problem is that if you do say some of those things, the negative reaction you will get from some others in reply might tend to goad you into a vendetta. That tendency must be fought.

[Goldeneye]

144. How about time outs

for those continously starting flame wars. Maybe we could have a thing where if we feel someone is continously flaming or picking fights we could have a kind of "alert" button on them and if they are alerted enough times (by different posters) they could be given a no posting period. Of course this could really get messy with people just "alerting" on anyone they don't like...so maybe you should have to give a reason for "alerting" on someone. And there would have to be a limit on the number of alerts one poster can make over a set amount of time to prevent overuse.

[melnjones]

150. ha ha, i have a mental image

of children being sent to the naughty chair for time-out. Sorry, not to discredit your idea at all. Just made me laugh.

[SGBL]

156. It's the cult of personality

You see people with giant Clark, dean, whoever banners. As a result people are more likely to inject an attack on the candidate the person has a huge banner for along with whatever else they didn't like.

I have noticed progressive posters (including my self) have been assaulted with BS along the lines of "BTW - DK supported the war" just asking for it.

I would ban the giant candidate banners some people use. It just screams target X candidate if you don't like something the poster said.

In fact just today I received a PM from someone mocking me with something alone the lines of "DK supported the war. Truth hurts"

[melnjones]

160. It would be a shame though

if we couldn't use our avatars and sig lines to "support" democrats, when so many people are tearing them down. Also, I think it can be very positive for people to see who someone supports, like when you get supporters of several candidates agreeing on something in a thread. It sends the message that yes, we can actually get along as democrats.

[SGBL]

164. Yes but people are using them

to attack others. I have been drawn in to it my self.

I identified my self as supporting DK and what happened? I got a PM mocking me for it as well as DK.

[blondeatlast]

165. I don't think anyone wants to ban avatars or sig lines.

As a vet of the primary wars, I'm pretty sure Admin would put the kibosh on that idea from the get-go.

[SGBL]

172. Why not?

What is the point of them? It seems like advertising to me, and otherwise asking for that candidate to become the topic of conversation in any thread that person posts to.

What about the person with the giant clark image on this thread alone? If he posts on a thread about - say - helping Andy, what purpose does his giant clark image have? And if he chooses to post on a thread about something Dean has done what will his giant clark image do?

[LandOLincoln]

195. Well, for starters, if someone with a "giant Clark image"

posts favorably about another Dem, that promotes party comity and unity. It's equally true if somebody with a Kerry/Dean/Kucinich/etc. image/avatar supports or speaks favorably of Clark or another Dem.

I'm wondering why you have a problem with that?

[SGBL]

199. I think you are wearing rose glasses

that would be nice in theory. However, within 24 hours of saying I supported DK I received a PM harassing me for it. Obviously it's not working the way you seem to think.

[LandOLincoln]

206. oh gee, overreact much? ONE "harassing" PM and you're

all for banning ALL avatars/banners that support Democratic politicians?

[SGBL]

208. One harassing PM

and many harassing posts.

[melnjones]

235. I always especially appreciate it

when a supporter of a different "candidate" posts something positive about Clark. It does promote unity, and we're not wearing rose glasses.

[blondeatlast]

201. For pity's sake--are you serious?

Shall we ban the Lounge Lizard sig too?

I reserve the right to pick my own battles--that's just ridiculous, IMHO.

[SGBL]

202. If you think it's "ridiculous" then tell skinner about it

as for me I agree there is a problem. Again, I have already been PMed and harassed for my support of DK. Obviously there is a problem and the giant candidate advertisements are not helping.

[LandOLincoln]

Are you saying that the "harassing PM" came from someone

with a "giant candidate advertisement?"

And even if it did, why would want to ban all such banners? Why not just alert the mods to the "harassing" PMer specifically and let them deal with that person? That's what they're here for, you know.

[SGBL]

212. Because it's in the threads too

Nice job dodging the issue and making it sound like it's all about one PM. Even skinner has noticed the problem and that's why this thread exists. It's nice you want to pretend it doesn't exist, but it does and I'm simply saying that I have been victim of it and some even drew me in to some arguments about it.

[blondeatlast]

210. Sorry about your troubles. I've been on DU for several years,

with over 16000 posts. I don't think I need to be told how to use the handy dandy DU features, but thanks anyway.

[SGBL]

215. I would still like to know

Why some people need a giant candidate banner that takes up half the screen. What purpose does it serve?

Why can't they have a little avatar like most everyone else? I only see two purposes for huge candidate banners - a desire for argument or moving every discussion to that candidate OR serious personal security issues.

[cestpaspossible]

321. I just wish I could turn off images in sigs

I like reading the text sigs so I don't want to turn them off altogether, but I find images sigs to be distracting.

[blondeatlast]

159. DU is my life and sanity saver, first of all. I live in a deep red county

in a purple state. I'd go nuts without it.

We got through the primaries. We can get through this.

So many issues, but here's a few that stand out to me:

1. The beauty of GD and GDP is they are a great place to sharpen one's chops for the real world debate. It isn't a stretch to think that the opposition is making use of it. I believe that they are, and they are damn good at it. But not perfect; the best way to draw them out, I believe, if they are here, is simply to challenge them for proof. The weak and inexperienced simply will not return to a thread when challenged. We were all newbies once and we've all made that dreadful mistake, I suspect. If it happens a couple of times, you learn from it. If it happens more than that, maybe you quietly walk away. If you are deliberately disrupting, you learn that we are too damn smart and studied for you.

I've seen it happen far too many times to think that these were all sincere liberals/progressives. If you are committed, you stick with DU, I suspect.

2. Every one of us has the choice to passively or actively ignore the threads. I simply never look at them. I'm too focused on now and on 2006 to bother with the communal backbiting. We need to emphasize that as adults, we have a choice not to participate.

3. Censorship CANNOT exist at DU. As long as one is relatively free to participate or not as one sees fit, there is no censorship. I work in a library, and have seen the real thing. Just as simply choosing not to carry a certain material in a library (such as a book with lousy reviews) isn't censorship, neither is expecting participants in a forum such as this to behave reasonably civilly.

It's a private board, there can be no censorship here.

4. GDP exists because of the notorious infighting and backbiting that occured during the primaries. Perhaps it can be relegted to discussions about 2008 only.

5. As to a flameepit, I think it's a BAD idea. The trolls and "professional" disruptors would be all over it like flies to poop. I'm a vet of the "Straight Dope" boards, and while it works there, here at DU, it's a loser, IMHO. That isn't why DU exists.

Just my thoughts; just please, let's not ruin DU. I NEED this place--and so do many LW colleagues, who rely upon me for the news they don't get in the corp-whore medi.

[newsguyatl]

161. minus many of the clark supporters

i don't really see that happening.

then again, i've pretty much stayed out of gd and gd politics for several months now...

[BootinUp]

163. comic relief

Maybe you should consider changing your nick. lol.

It would be interesting to track threads positive and negative against and for various issues and or possible candidates for analysis later. Maybe this type of analysis would be "news" worthy to other Du'ers at some point. Certainly more so than a broad brush attack like I am responding to.

[newsguyatl]

166. interesting to see a clark supporter

responds in THIS thread within minutes to me...

heh

and as far as changing my "nick" -- i don't come to du for the news.

[BootinUp]

169. You seem to be fixated

on Clark supporters. As if there are no other democrats worth mentioning or commenting on. Pretend I was a Kerry supporter that called your bluff in the previous post.

[Tom Rinaldo]

168. I will accept the second part of your statement

You haven't keyed in lately . You unintentionally I am sure just threw gasoline in the direction of a fire. I would appreciate it if you refrained from giving me a compelling reason to defend myself and other Clark supporters. I either have to let your assignment of blame for a complex problematic dynamic go unchallenged, or risk diverting the subject of this discussion away from the original purpose for this thread. I clearly choose the former but I resent being put in this position by you. It is not helpful.

[Jai4WKC08]

179. Perfect example of a vendetta poster n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

181. Actually, your post is a perfect example of it happening n/t

[SGBL]

184. I agree that the clark supporters

seem to be the most "in your face" especially as far as the giant banners go.

[Adelante]

185. Vendetta Poster

The perfect example.

[JNelson6563]

282. I don't blame you

after that concerted attempt to get you booted from your job I too would be most wary of going anywhere near those responsible for the effort.

Julie

[Adelante]

294. Oh, yeah

There was NO such effort, except once against Will Pitt during the primaries, and it wasn't by Clark supporters, as you know quite well. If the poster you refer to doesn't want people to know where he works, maybe his screen name is the problem.

[JNelson6563]

423. heh heh

I see all the participants of the secret forum jumping in here, funny, all the same players from where the alleged (and hotly denied) plot was hatched.

How intriguing.

Julie

[BootinUp]

428. ...the alleged (and hotly denied) plot was hatched.

I have never denied that at the private forum you reference some members cussed up a storm at the poor victims you are consoling and even imagined his demise. Its called venting frustration. I've seen you do it too at other web blogs. So I accept that you too are human.

Does it equal a grand conspiracy concerted effort as you describe? He's anonymous for crise sakes, we don't know who he is or where he works. Please bookmark this reply to remind yourself of these salient facts the next time you forget.

[Name removed]

429. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

330. A work of fiction, being passed off as truth,

which is what the corporate media specializes in.

[JNelson6563]

422. You were there

I beleive you were in on the discussion but I could be mistaken. It was in the secret forum, just before you all locked it up tight.

But I don't blameyou for denying it. I also fully expect all efforts to harrass poor MF will be denied as well. If I knowingly did such nasty things I'd lie about, that's for sure. Especially if my words were lockedup tight except for a chosen few. So how goes the PR effort in soothing the ruffled feathers of the UNworthy Clarkies? Have ya'll opened up the forum to 'em yet or are you all still denying the existence? Hard to keep up with you Clarkies.

Julie

[Crunchy Frog]

427. I was in on A discussion in DU Clarkies, but it wasn't about trying

to get anyone fired from their job. The thread that I took part in was a discussion about harrassing and threatening emails sent to one of the members by the person who is presently throwing out the undocumented accusations. If I, or anyone else on that group was in on a plot to get someone fired, then why am I and all the other members still posting? Why have I not been tombstoned? Why does he still have his job if we were going to go after him? If you're going to throw out accusations like that, please present some evidence other than simply your word.

Yes, we do still choose to maintaing a private place to chat. From the looks of this thread, it seems we still need a place where we can be free from harrassment. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, and that you have such a need to fixate on it.

Please also back up your accusations about us with respect to MF. Please find any posts where any of us in that group have interacted with her in a way that could be considered harrassment. Please provide links to the relevant threads and posts.

The site that you hang out at is very open, and I really hope that the admins will take a look at what has been going on there recently. Because, if there's any organized harrassing going on, it's emanating from that site, and not from ours.

[BootinUp]

346. How do you define concerted effort?

That is a baseless, below the belt bunch of bullshit. I suggest you make some attempt to back that up or retract it in order to show you are more than just a spreader of lies and distortions.

[JNelson6563]

420. Oooh, struck a nerve, eh?

Unfortunately I can't provide the quotes as it's fromt eh secret Clarkie forum. I do recall discussing it at length with Tom Rinaldo though so perhaps he is honest enough to share it?

Julie

[BootinUp]

426. Quotes from a private forum is your definition

of a concerted effort then?

I would expect much much more to justify your claim. See I don't think CNN or any other news org management read that forum. So how exactly did those posts equal a concerted effort to do what you say?

I am looking for any substantial explanation from you to support that claim. Forget links, just lay it out, how did people try to attack said victim in a way that could cost him his employment?

edited to widen the scope of news organizations, cause I sure don't know where the bleep he works.

[newsguyatl]

409. yeh it's a shame

"they" are all still here at du.

crawling around everywhere.

:shudders:

[JNelson6563]

424. Yeah, leaving a wake of chaos and bad feelings

but we see more and more websites waking up to the reality of it all.

Hang in there newsguy, the truth often makes its way to the light of day.

:toast:

Julie

[dogman]

430. Strange that we bother you.

We're just a figment of our own imagination, aren't we? You never run into any of us in real life, where you run the Democratic Party, working full time at it, not having time to post here or on other forums. You can't handle the truth, that's why you fabricate these persecution fantasies. It's fine for you and your P4C cronies to come here and attack Clarkies? i suggest you find a full length mirror and look real close, or as I said, you can't handle the truth.

[Zensea]

177. On all "sides" of this

Reading through this thread it looks to me like a lot of folk on varied sides are saying that if we just isolate the few bad apples, (who are of course on the other side) give them time outs, get them off the board etc. -- then things would clear up.
I wonder.
I thought that the system you have in place now was designed to do just that by tomsbstoning people when they got too far out of line. Yet the situation keeps reoccurring anyway.
I think that you might be dealing with something inherent and systemic that might not have a solution.

I also wonder because I think that everyone at one point or another allows their feelings to run hot and to post accordingly. Given the size of the board this means that at any given moment there is bound to be the possibility of some flame war breaking out.

Although I can see why you as administrators ask what can be done to deal with the issue and I share your concern, it really comes down to each individual poster just deciding to be a bit more polite, the old count to ten cliche and I don't know if there's really any way for that to be enforced by DU much differently than what you've done up until now.

[WI_DEM]

186. I think that we just need to learn to respect other people's views

We're not going to be able to stop posting about '08--it isn't only the media which begins to focus on '08 this early, but many perspective candidates are also organizing and raising money--if not outright announcing their intentions, so it is only to be expected that supporters will also begin to become organized and share information.

The problem is (and this is not any isolated case or candidate supporters--it's everybody) that if somebody, for instance, posts a postive thread about, say, Hillary Clinton--perhaps she held a rally--you can be sure that many people will hop into the thread and denounce her as a DINO. Why? I'm not sure. The same thing if someone posts a positive thread about Kerry, Clark, Edwards, DK, ect.

Maybe it should be a rule that if someone starts a positive thread which doesn't attack any other candidate--just information about what their candidate is saying or promoting--that people should not try and disrupt it with the usual "She's a DINO", or "He's a Republican" or "Yeah, another loser." If somebody does this maybe they should get a warning. If they get three warnings perhaps they should be barred from GD-politics for two weeks?

I don't know--there are no easy answers.

[Malva Zebrina]

188. I think that some more thought has to go into the blind "adoring"

or adoration of any one person/candidate on the part of those who are stomping already. It becomes almost a cult, this adoration, imo.

I am of an age where I have transcended that complete, blind adoration in favor of making up my mind according to the facts and my own decision. I suspect I will never join in to any club and ignore the published facts, simply because others, who are caught up in adoration, are doing it and they want their "man" to win, no matter how much they have to become apologists for that man and spin the facts.

That to me is not productive both for me and for those who are supporting that man. That, to me is almost desperate "sell" or manipulation, although the person doing the spin and selling may be unaware, having been caught up in the adoration and obsession of supporting any one person.

I tend to be a realist-- non joiner. I usually do not read those threads where it is obvious that groupee, cult like thinking and drum beating for the favored person,or candidate prevails.

There are times when I hesitated to express my views about Kerry for fear that I would be banned or something of that nature. I had doubts. Did not dare to say it.

There is little doubt that almost EVERYBODY on DU voted for Kerry because of ABB. Anybody who did not was shunned,flamed or deleted , reported or banned. The prudent person recognized that and did not express a view that was contrary to the prevailing mode.

I think there comes a time when one realizes what the flow and what the expectations are and operates here accordingly. I am not sure if that is good or bad. I do think that it removes some of the creativity and spontaneity necessary for creative and intelligent analyis.

No man or no woman in politics today,imo, is excused from any criticism simply because someone else who is caught up in that group think, says so and is caught up in blind adoration with a finger on the "alert" button along with all of his or her buddies.

It is my personal opinion that far too much has been made of "freepers" as the hated enemy to be rooted out, leading to far too much suspicion and paranoia,and that is often taken up by connected groups, and the completion of such a purge of any "freeper" is often viewed as a victory to be celebrated. You know, that becomes trite after a while.

What exactly is this "victory" I have often wondered? Nothing much except as a rather adolescent satisfaction of winning the fight and revenge, giving a sense of control over one's political thoughts and the strict autonomy of DU.

Does DU in order to exist to make more and more rules, thereby limiting itself to a more and more narrow view than is necessary or enlightened or expedient? It may seem to be a control that is necessary, but, in the end, eliminates, possibly valuable discourse and may even lead to more exclusive clubs.

To me this is a waste of energy.

As for the dilemma of what to do? I don't know. I now mostly lurk and hesitate to post my opposing view, so I don't think I am much of a threat to anyone.

[WildEyedLiberal]

197. Not, not EVERYBODY voted for Kerry because of ABB

And you can't quantify who did and who didn't, so don't bother to try.

Nice broad sweeping generalization, though. :eyes:

[Malva Zebrina]

205. Sorry If you do not like it.

Just my quite honest thoughts. Surely everybody that posted on DU, supported Kerry. I saw no Nader voters or no socialist voters posting at that time. Any who did not, were not visible nor did they advocate a vote for anyone else even though they had their doubts.

Can't see anything wrong with an honest opinion such as my post, can you? I take that back. Apparently you do see something wrong with that, and that is the problem as laid out by Skinner and personified quite succinctly in your reply. You seem to want to start a fight over Kerry votes and his failed bid and seem not to want to discuss that very factual failure. I don't feel that is productive nor very conducive to intelligent analysis.

Many many people voted for Kerry, because ABB.

Did I make a mistake in your eyes? Why? Lots of people here did not vote for Kerry in the primaries and that is my point in my post. Certainly those who did not, most likely did NOT vote for Bush or any other candidate than the Democratic candidate in the election and that was Kerry.

[WildEyedLiberal]

I see nothing wrong with your opinions or even your post

I am simply pointing out that you cannot make such a broad assumption of the motives of DU as a whole. I have no doubt that many were ABB. However, you might be surprised to learn that many people did and do support Kerry on his own merits. Can't see anything wrong with that, can you?

Actually, me pointing out an exaggeration in your post is really not the sort of thing Skinner is talking about, but then again, neither was your post. What he's talking about are the people who can't seem to restrain themselves whenever they see a mention - no matter the context - of the name of a candidate they hate, and cannot refrain from posting drivel like "Traitor!" or "Repub-lite!" or "I hate him!" I think you would agree that that sort of bile lowers the level of discourse, no?

[Malva Zebrina]

213. No, I can't, but why try to sell it now?

Many do not support Kerry now either. Why are you continuing the election when Kerry lost?

There is no exaggeration in my post. And I would think that not only is Skinner, from my read, not only aimed at people who cannot restrain themself but also at people who cannot restrain themself from blind adoration and obsessive promotion of any one person , such as Kerry, who lost in the election, but people continue to advocate, defend and attack others, when he is not even anymore any sort of a candidate. He is not anywhere NEAR becoming the candidate in "08. NO ONE is.

That is the point of Skinner's post as I see it. The guy lost. He was supported by many, even those who were voting ABB, and believe me there were a lot of them.

People, such as yourself, who, I suspect, cannot let go, see him possibly running in '08 and are already defending every single thing he says and attacking those who may criticize, based upon the assumption that he is indeed, THE Democratic candidate in "08.

That is Skinner's point!

You are wasting energy by attacking anyone who is analyzing this , as you attacked me, with this bizarre defensiveness when the guy is not even a candidate for anything but Senator from Massachusetts.

Kerry lost. We do not know if he will run again.

He lost.

There are many reasons to be argued and posted upon why he lost. This is not the forum to do so, but the FACT remains, he lost and we do not KNOW if he will be a candidate ever again. OK?

and knowing that, it would seem to me, that those who are so uptight about him, in their relentless defense of the failed candidate, are coming off as desperate in this attempt to promote him ad nauseum to the point of attacking those who dare to say one negative thing about him, are the ones who make DU posting here difficult for others.

He is not the candidate. NO ONE is at this point in time. Trying to get a jump on it because of adoration or some other stubborn adhesion, reeks of desperation and serves absolutely no purpose but to try and "sell" a man who one THINKS may be in the running.

That kind of persistant adoration and persistant conflict with others who do not agree, is what is divisive here and what, I think, Skinner is talking about.

[WildEyedLiberal]

214. What. On. Earth.

I HARDLY "attacked" you. Also, it's quite rich of you to accuse me of "hanging onto" the election, or not being able to let go, when YOU are the one who brought it up with your "ABB" comment in the first place. That sort of shoots your point all to hell, doesn't it?

Actually, Skinner's point was about the acrimony between various factions of DUers, and the namecalling and denigration of certain candidates and their supporters. You're the one who keeps going on about '08 - I've not said a word about it. I'm not "setting anything up" for 2008 - I'm much more concerned with 2006. I merely pointed out that it is impossible for you to assume that ALL DUers were ABB. You don't KNOW 90% of DUers. That is all.

[Malva Zebrina]

224. Well that is good that you are not setting up anybody

to run in '08. I am relieved. The very fact that people are still arguing over Clark, Dean and Kerry, is telling.

So why did you respond to the post in the first place?

Because I said that many voted ABB? Well, many did. You also do not know how many did or did not vote ABB. Plenty were voting against Bush and the only other choice was Kerry, who lost.



So let's just get over that and admit that there is NO ONE at this point in time, who is, by any stretch of the imagination, a candidate for '08. And that is Skinner's point--it is futile and as I said, a waste of energy, and disruptive to keep up the primaries, Clark, Dean, Kerry in the hopes of gaining support for their failed candidate that will last until '
08.

[ginnyinWI]

263. What I don't think a lot of people get about us Kerry supporters:

I am not a Kerry supporter because I am hanging onto the 2004 election, nor am I thinking of the 2008 election.

I am a Kerry supporter because he's one of the Democrats who are out there in government right now fighting for what's right.

Look, we don't have the White House or majorities on Capitol Hill. All we have now, on the national level, are our good Dems in the House and Senate who are fighting hard to beat back the Republicans' agenda.

I like to follow what Kerry's doing, but also Sens Clinton, Biden, Reid, Schumer, Dodd, Feingold, Lautenberg, and let's not forget Teddy Kennedy! It gives me hope to see that all is not lost, and that somebody is still out there fighting.

[Tom Rinaldo]

264. That is an excellent point

Very well said, and I think that those of us who feel aligned with a different Democrat have much the same experience. I appreciate a lot of what John Kerry is doing in and out of the Senate right now. I appreciate it for what it is, standing up for some of the things I believe in against Republican control. While I am hoping Wes Clark runs again in 2008 I care about what is happening now. If I didn't believe that Clark did also, there is no way I could support him in 2008, and the same goes for other leading Democrats.

[Laurab]

275. Looking more and more like several good examples

of "vendetta" posts to me.

I voted for Kerry because I liked Kerry. I don't adore everything about him. I back almost EVERY dem - every single one who is fighting the good fight. I make it a point never to bash a decent dem, although I certainly don't always agree with them. I have wound up defending decent dems far too many times, and not as many times as I could have/should have.

This thread is not about that, although your posts seem to be a good example of what the admin. would like to get away from.

[RAF]

189. although I've "aligned myself with a particular politician"

I wouldn't even consider arguing with someone over it.

Personally I voted for Clark and felt then as I do now that our country is missing this man as president. The man is focused on average everyday people and the future course of our country like no other. Through out the 2004 Dem. primaries he was about the only person speaking in specifics about new technology and how we need to reshape the country so we can once again lead in many areas of modern development.

[Donailin]

196. Perhaps this is what happens

when you realize that some people in the WH as well as in the house and senate are there because they cheated. That kind of anger can make people really frustrated. We played by the rules, got the vote out and succeeded, except the other team cheated and now we're left to figure out what we can do differently -- different cadidates? Different values? Different priorities? We keep forgetting that we weren't wrong to begin with.

I'm just sayin'. .

[WI_DEM]

200. It's funny but in going through many of the responses on this thread

you see the problem. Attacks on certain candidate supporters and sweeping generalizations. I'm not sure that is what Skinner had in mind when he posted this.

[janx]

203. Ironic--

;-) isn't it? There's a lot going on in this thread.

[blondeatlast]

207. Ain't it the truth? The moment I see any potential candidate's name

come up in a response, I just had to laugh ironically.

There is far more going on than we want to discuss, I suspect. I understand the reluctance, too, but things may have to come to a head if we don't.

Edit: I swear, I'm surprised we haven't seen the dreded "Deleted Message" SL far more often!

[bobthedrummer]

243. Here is a specific example of a "sweeping generalization" this was

sent to me by a fellow DUer. What kind of tactic is this to play out here at DU by any group of DUers on others?
http://chat.forclark.com/comments/2005/4/10/15343/7983/233#233

[Tom Rinaldo]

250. I happen to agree with you

I very rarely alert on anyone, but I guess if push comes to shove I think it is better to let DU's moderators review a budding flame fest from any and all perspectives than it is to jump right in and contribute to them raging on unchecked here for hundreds of posts. I have alerted on only one post in the last two months, and it wasn't to any by you. In my opinion that person was way over the line in pursuing his own agenda against a specific Democrat. That one person did more to inflame the atmosphere on DU than any ten other posters I can think of combined.

But feelings do get frayed and people do get stressed and our ability to discuss differences together gets strained when that happens. The more of us who can step back from rising to the bait and getting needlessly personal, the more things will calm down around here all the way around.

[bobthedrummer]

252. Thanks Tom. I PM'd Skinner with this too. I'm sick of this stuff.

It's just a few people doing it, it really needs to stop.
I know I've had many positive discussions with Clark supporters that aren't playing dirty.

[Adelante]

295. Bob

That's not a tactic, that's a blog, where people get to say what they want to say. You can go trolling around other blogs and find all the "evidence" you want of whatever you are looking to find. There is no conspiracy against you, I swear it. :tinfoilhat:

[bobthedrummer]

305. I wonder what Skinner and Administration think about the tactic of having

someone urging "all Clark DUers" take concerted action against DUers that don't think your guy would make a good POTUS?

It gets better, WesDem, there's lots more specific examples of what used to be called "sweeping generalizations" here at DU directly involving Clark supporters.

I'm not alone, nor am I a RW mole as another Clark supporter charged in a thread that the mods locked after 54 responses and the OP ignored my response to such McCarthy like smears.

There is an element within Clark supporters that isn't going to be allowed to beat up on other DUers, concoct stories and go running to Administration about individuals they have issues with here-that's what Freepers do.

[Adelante]

319. I've seen posts linking bobthedrummer to seventhson on the Web

Seventhson, for those who don't know, came out as a Freeper here after the 2004 election.

Do I think bobthedrummer is seventhson just because I saw something on a frigging Internet board? Do I think bobthedrummer is even a friend of seventhson? Do I think bobthedrummer is a Freeeper because his name is next to seventhson's in an Internet post?

NO.

I think bobthedrummer appears in a Google search on the same board as seventhson, who was an admitted Freeper. It does not make bobthedrummer a Freeper. Guilt by association is simply a Freeper tactic and I don't do it. I wish bobthedrummer wouldn't do it.

McCarthy-like smears is a Freeeper tactic. I don't do it and I wish bobthedrummer wouldn't do it.

Finding a few Clarkies talking on a blog about bobthedrummer and DU does NOT make a conspiracy among Clark supporters.

If some anonymous poster somewhere on the www wants to urge "all whatever DUers" to take concerted action against WesDem, more power to them. Who gives a shit?

If I *were* to accuse bobthedrummer of being part of a "conspiracy," it would be a concerted effort by a group of DUers to get Clarkies kicked off DU. Bobthedrummer, for all I know about him, is not part of any particular DU sub-set, and I couldn't care less if he's been influenced or is banging his own drum.

My point remains, searching for whatever you want to find on the Internet is a chump's game. Using it as "evidence" against a group of DUers is as lame as it gets.

[bobthedrummer]

323. I hear a familiar tune in your post. For the record of truth there are

many DUers that are members of that board. I was banned there then reinstated after a couple of years as me, bobthedrummer.

I'm proud of the fact that I'm on the internet as an anti-fascist, not some RW political operative.

That doesn't deter some "DU Clarkies" from playing mind games though.
In fact, I simply use that fact against the source of the disinfo, if needed, this tactic used by some Clark supporters could be construed as a personal attack imo, but I've never alerted-other DUers have and some disruptor's are gone.

I've got a PM from a banned DUer that talks about Clark supporters creating accounts at other boards using targeted usernames provided by Clark supporters then using that crap to get people banned.

Sounds like information warfare, doesn't it?

[Adelante]

328. I've heard the same about Dean supporters

"I've got a PM from a banned DUer that talks about Clark supporters creating accounts at other boards using targeted usernames provided by Clark supporters then using that crap to get people banned."

You hear all sorts of things on a discussion board. But it is interesting that the PM system is used this way to organize against DU Clark supporters.

Yes, sounds like information warfare. Thanks!

For the record, I googled your user name first time this morning in response to your post and to make a point. I have no clue what "that board" is you were banned from and then reinstated, nor do I care.

[bobthedrummer]

331. Well put up a link then, like I did or retract your flawed attempt at

disinformation about me. It's simple. Even I can put up a hyperlink.

[Adelante]

339. I attempted no disinformation

I attempted to show that if one is determined to find something on the Internet it can be found.

I found your username in the same sentence as seventhson and used that as an example of disinformation.

I stated clearly in several ways I do not connect you with seventhson.

Here is the first link I found to demonstrate my point:

http://web.pitas.com/gfz/23_03_2003.html

I looked no further after it.

[bobthedrummer]

341. For anyone really interested in the truth you must be refering to the post

by dori dated Thursday, February 13, 20031:46pm, right?
This is an important point-that is the post you mean, right WesDem?
It's a big thread you linked to I just read it, I need to make sure that that is the post.

dori is a DUer btw.

[Adelante]

350. It may be an important point to you

I don't know dori and I don't know her site. I didn't read the thread or even the post.

I googled your user name alone -- I cherrypicked the spot in the cached version of the page where your user name was highlighted and saw seventhson's name in the same sentence.

This is how disinformation works: out of context, outside the realm of reality, and out of line.

Nobody likes it when it is done to them, understandably.

The point still is that it can be done any minute of any day on the Internet.

So it is not important to me what post it was or what the post was about or what the outcome of whatever was the circumstance. It only had to serve my purpose to give an example of how disinformation can be spread about anybody.

In this case, you, bobthedrummer.

But since it is important to you, I checked again, and yes, that is the post.

[bobthedrummer]

353. "It only had to serve my purpose to give an example of how disinformation

can be spread about anybody. In this case, you, bobthedrummer."

Hey, I'm going to lunch this information warfare burns calories, but maybe we have a dialog beginning?

[sybil]

441. Sounds like bullsh*t to me.

[cestpaspossible]

336. No, you are not alone.

[bobthedrummer]

360. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[bobthedrummer]

312. Hello, how come the plan called for "all of us DU Clarkies" and since

it was posted a month ago it precisely describes some of the recent events here at DU?

[Adelante]

325. Nobody speaks for all Clarkies

It's popular sport here to depict Clark supporters as "bots" or some such insulting term, but this is incorrect. That poster may refer to her friends as "all us Clarkies" -- who the hell knows? But it doesn't mean what you are trying to imply it means.

I am not responsible for all Clark supporters and no Clark supporter is responsible for me, just as no Kerry supporter, Dean supporter, Kucinich supporter, and so forth, is responsible for every last thing that happens on DU and involves one or more of their fellow supporters.

I think you just want to stir shit, myself. Have fun :hi:

[bobthedrummer]

326. I don't think you read post #233 in the hyperlink.

Read it slowly, it's from a month ago yet it certainly describes what happened here at DU. Note that I'm not the only DUer targeted.
Skinner addressed some of these tactics and started this thread yesterday. It's his call on what to do about group tactics, I'm merely exposing them for discussion, you have a nice day too WesDem:hi:

[Adelante]

333. Well, then

I admit I didn't realize this thread that was posted yesterday was directed solely at Clark supporters.

I didn't read it that way.

Skinner didn't write it that way.

If you, (and others in this thread who have interpreted Skinner's meaning this way - - exposure of a Great Clark Wing Conspiracy), are correct, well, fire away, but it would mean open season on Clark supporters, for real, and I sincerely hope you are wrong.

[BootinUp]

352. Whats disturbing

Is the way you openly accuse DU'ers of certain actions (in this thread) based on which candidate they support or blog they may have one time or more in their life visited. READ THIS: Neither I nor WesDem have any control real or imagined over other Clark supporters. GET IT?

[Adelante]

342. Recent events?

You mean, recent events such as two of the three DUers mentioned in that blog post were tombstoned as sockpuppets??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=114135

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&index=M


Too funny! I seriously doubt Skinner takes our advice on whom to tombstone.

However, I am sorry your name is included there, because I do not think you deserve the association, as far as I can tell.

[bobthedrummer]

392. I truly appreciate your repudiation of that post.

on edit: this is the post I'm refering to, post 233 right at the top of the link.
http://chat.forclark.com/comments/2005/4/10/15343/7983/233#233

[BootinUp]

396. That post that concerned two sockpuppets and bob?

You ain't had enough yet bob?

[janx]

401. Jim, it might be best to stop this now. Skinner has asked

for no flames in this thread. You really don't want to continue, do you?

[BootinUp]

404. I am simply pushing bob to support his charges that are

laced all over this thread. If you really want to see this stop you need to trace it back to the original foul post and make your plea there.

Its the broad brush attacks I am against.

[janx]

411. It seems to me that a number of people have been pushing bob.

Ironically, that is exactly the kind of behavior that lead to this distasteful situation in the first place.

[BootinUp]

414. Janx. Do I have to link the posts together for you?

Please don't waste my time.

[Adelante]

433. Actually, Janx, I found my "pushing bob" quite enlightening

I learned a lot from bobthedrummer today and I appreciate it very much, indeed.

[Adelante]

402. I repudiate your *association* in that post

with two tombstoned DUers, since you haven't been tombstoned and I assume from that you are legit. I don't repudiate any post, because it's none of my business what people post on their personal blogs, and I don't see it, in any case, as evidence of some vast conspiracy.

From what you've said about DUers PMing you, Bob, and your PMing Skinner, it does seem to me you may have been pulled into something here of a larger design than you, yourself, may have had in mind.

There is a group on DU, some of them here in this thread, and who belong to a group of banned DUers, if you read carefully you will see the messages, that want Clark supporters off DU and won't stop until they are satisfied.

They've been surprisingly effective in their campaign, noting the Clarkie-bashing that is going on unimpeded in this thread, which I guess has approval of management.

At the end of this discussion, it may be clear there is no place on DU for Clark supporters. We'll see.

So I'll say goodbye, Bob, since I won't be posting in this thread again, and I think we've probably said whatever can be said to each other at this point.

[bobthedrummer]

403. I meant that sincerely and you read it right and I respect you for that.

You may be 100% correct in the matter of what I call information warfare here, if I'm reading your post right.

[mzmolly]

256. I agree, and I think DU can "ban" generalizations about Dems

period. "leftist looneys, facists, DLC hacks" etc. We can all be guilty of this, and it should be eliminated without question.

[sellitman]

204. I put HARDCORE supporters of one candidate on ignore.

I no longer read their post and no longer get mad at their propaganda. It is really only a handful of these HARDCORE supporters I am talking about. 5-10 people. I think this is the answer. I feel better already. Try it...you'll like it!


Kevin

[LynneSin]

209. As long as it's not personnal and it's confined to one forum

....then I say let it rip

I do like the concept of this only allowed in one forum, that way if folks wish to discuss elections in a positive manner only then they know to steer clear of the "All Hell's broken lose" forum

:D

[NightOwwl]

217. Now that some have mentioned it, large pictures/photos of candidates...

...and/or big flashy campaign slogans in a sig line can be somewhat unsettling. I won't deny that it gets my dander up every time I see the pensive pose of a certain candidate who lost a certain election, because it brings back all of the anger I felt when said candidate abruptly removed himself from said election proceedings.

Maybe eliminating candidate photos and slogans in sig lines isn't such a bad idea. And to take it a step further, maybe all photos should be eliminated. That way, people with slow connections would benefit. This would only apply to sig lines, not to posts. So if someone wanted to include a picture of Joe Schmoe in all of their posts, they could. But that takes a little effort, unlike a sig line which only takes a minute to set up.

(BTW, I know sig lines can be turned off, but most of them are fun to read so I leave the feature on.)

eta: Candidate avatars should be allowed. They are small and unassuming, and don't have the same "in-your-face" attitude as the sig lines.

[Jack Rabbit]

219. I think it's silly

The primaries are three years away. The issues will change between now and then. Perhaps who would appear to be a good candidate now won't look so good in three years and one we are not yet considering at all will emerge as a good pick.

[blondeatlast]

221. "Fan club forums" requiring passwords, dues, and oaths

to "defend _your favorite candidate's name here_ until the day you die."

It worked with my friends relating to Donny Osmond!

[unfrigginreal]

222. It's been an interesting thread to read

Skinner, I hope you do give some thought to reinstating casualties of the primary wars. You know where many of them are and should be fairly certain by now that they're not freepers or anything of the like.

I found it particularly interesting that some here advocate banning "vendetta" posters. Where the hell were they when many of us were begging admins here to quash the Stop Dean campaign.

Anyway, I think that many posters were banned, not without reason, but because they were pissed and lashing out. We all screw up from time to time.

My .02 cents

UFR

[mzmolly]

255. AGREED.

100% Anyone who actually CARES has been passionate to a fault at one time or another.

[Corey_Baker08]

228. Cool The Primaries are Still On in 3 years?

I figured Bush would have done found a way to screw us out of them!!!!!!!!!!!

[patricia92243]

230. ENFORCE the rules that are already in place and that will take care of the

majority of it.

People are ALLOWED to be rude to each other - so they do.

I remember when I first joined Du I said something like "Me thinks I smell a Republican." I got a reprimand from the mods.

Get back to the high standard of moderating that we used to enjoy and 99% of it will go away - I guarantee.

No new rules - just stringently enforce the ones we already have.

[Skinner]

296. We do enforce the rules.

If someone said "Me thinks I smell a Republican" they'd get their post deleted.

[Hippo_Tron]

231. I think we need another version of Campign Underground for 2006

The attitude here seems to be that Dems aren't going to win the majority in congress in 2006 and therefore it is a lost election year, so therefore let's just start glamorizing our presidential preferences for 2008.

But here's the thing though, there is more up in 2006 than just congress. There are Governors' races, Lt. Governors' races, state legislature races (you know, the guys who DRAW the congressional districts), and oh yea there's Secretary of State races (you know the guys who COUNT and CERTIFY the votes). Since there's no presidential race in 2006, it's a good year to start working from the bottom up. All of the work that we do for state and local dems WILL pay off when we're trying to get a dem President elected in 2008.

[janx]

233. I agree with you, but I think that's what we should be discussing

in the GD Politics forum. Things should start gearing up very shortly with respect to 2006. It will be an exciting time.

[blondeatlast]

297. Excellent idea. Whether we win a majority in 2006 or not, it is essential

that we make GAINS.

Without it, not only the Democrats die. So does the nation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

232. Skinner, I don't know where this all came from

:shrug:

As one who supported Kucinich in the primaries, I naturally noticed the spate of "dump on Dennis" threads that popped up all of a sudden, but undoubtedly supporters of other candidates noticed the "dump on whoever" threads against their own candidates.

Could this be due to

1) Disrupters from The Other Side? OR

2) DUers who get bored if there isn't a flame war going on? OR

3) People who are heartsick about how Bush is getting away with so much and are obsessed with thinking, "If MY guy had won..."?

[blondeatlast]

298. 5) All of the above. It would be nice if the answers were as simple as

one, but I think all ovf us whho came out of the primaries relatively unscathed know better.

[Imperialism Inc.]

237. I generally avoid the candidate threads because I haven't

found them to be very productive and they always seem to rehash the same old arguments.

This suggestion may seem off the wall , but stick with me. It would fall in the self-regulation solution and at the same time help improve an under utilized DU feature.

Since the flame wars often go over and over the same material why not promote training and use of the Demopedia for particular candidates. It seems like the perfect place for this kind of material. The entries would obviously have to adhere to a neutral point of view policy but that generally isn't too hard. You just have to say "supporters say x and detractors say z", instead of presenting things as black and white truths.

Each candidate might have a more general page and then a page called "Pros and Cons" or some such name (that might not be the best name for it). Another subpage could be created called "Daily News" page that would list news items about that candidate. There is also the possibility to include that sub page in to the main page. For an example of the latter see http://www.wikiverse.org/education . Wikiverse is a static copy of wikipedia. Now, as far as I know, the list of news items you see there, from news feeds, is not something wikipeida can do natively but there is a way to simulate it with a manually maintained news page.

There are other areas where this kind of treatment could help. To offload common arguments essentially, and allow people to just reference the entry and say "hey, this has already been discussed many times. if there is nothing new please drop it." I personally messed around with the Demopedia and tried a few times to generate some interest but I think a lot of people are intimidated by it. Or at the least I had basically no success. But, maybe a more general training effort by some of the people using it regularly would work.

This wouldn't solve the problem entirely but it would provide another outlet for people to provide info about a candidate. It has the advantages of 1)being persistent and removing the need to rehash old arguments 2)available to paying and non-paying members alike (correct?) and 3)allowing people who aren't interested in the candidate wars to ignore it and people who are to visit the news pages frequently and 4)funnel the energy for certain candidates toward productive purposes 5)an interesting side effect would be that both supporters and detratctors would have to work together to create an acceptable neutral point of view entry for the "Pros and Cons" entry.

Or, heck, maybe I am just interested in seeing more people use this resource and am looking for a good excuse. A problem it can solve.

[sendero]

238. I read about 1/4 of this thread..

... and saw exactly what I expected.

Many people are sure they know the "motivation" for the posts in question.

Many people are sure that vigorous debate about specific candidates should never include criticism, after all that is "bashing". Why can't we just get along?

Folks cannot even restrain themselves from engaging in the very behaviors that the OP is hand-wringing about in this very thread.

It would be funny if it weren't so damn sad. We are not particularly into groupthink. Many of us feel strongly, either positively or negatively, about certain candidates, and some of us are not afraid to express our opinion - actually we feel compelled to.

I've been accused of all kinds of nonsense for doing just that, but until I'm tombstoned I'm going to keep doing it. The easy way to stop it - stop posting rah-rah cheerleading threads that remind me of Republican talking point propaganda, and that have a decided 2008 angle. Because when I see that shit, I just can't help but rebut it.

[Arkana]

244. Nothing to say, Skinner, other than the fact that I hate what I'm seeing.

As Dr. Zoidberg once said, "Why always the fighting?..."

[welshTerrier2]

245. OK ... i don't have a solution either ... but please read this anyway ...

first of all Skinner, thanks for asking ... and secondly, thanks for approaching issues like this cautiously ... most of us would love to have a greater sense of unity in the Party and on DU but unity cannot be forced ... DU can make whatever rules it chooses but what value is there in not reflecting the truth about where things are at under the big tent? perhaps when there is peace among Democrats there will be peace on DU ... and perhaps there will be no peace among Democrats anytime soon ...

i've thought of writing to you many times to discuss this issue ... the truth is, i'm perplexed as to whether any changes are warranted ...

i think you've omitted an entire category of conflict from your description in the BP ... one category, as you've identified, is the I'm for Dean, I'm for Clark, I'm for Kerry wars ... but the other category is not directly candidate-based at all ... this category includes posts with themes like: Senate Dems enabled bush's occupation by voting for the Iraq supplemental ... or I can't believe Dean just called for "pro life" candidates to run as Democrats ... or Dean promised a greater voice to the grassroots; where is it ... or Kerry just stabbed the "gay marriage" crowd in the back ??? ... i frequently make posts criticizing the Party or a specific Democrat on a policy issue ...

now, whether you agree with the themes in these examples or not, what is the usual result ??? the usual response I receive is: "frankly i'm not so sure you even believe in those issues; i think you have "ulterior" motives ... why do you find it necessary to "bash" Democrats? ... here we go more anti-Kerry bullshit ... admit it, you've always hated Dean ... no one cares what you left-wing extremists think" ...

well excuse me !!!! if DU or these candidate-supporters, who very rarely respond to "issues" threads, feel it is inappropriate to speak out on these issues and criticize, sometimes very harshly, those who enable bush to carry out his evil policies, DU might as well change its name to www.WeLoveDemocratsNoMatterWhatTheyDo.com ... frankly, i often feel DU doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up ... to me, an "underground" should seek to challenge the Party's establishment and question, sometimes very aggressively, the Party's entrenched power ... instead, DU's mission often seems more like a cheerleading club for the Democratic Party ... i want the republicans out very badly; but we have to stand for what we believe in and we have to believe in something more than just winning ...

i hate all the in-fighting on DU but i guess i don't think i see any changes i would recommend to stop it ... perhaps there is some benefit to letting Party insiders "hear the noise" ... if they think it is just a vocal minority, they can just continue on their merry way ... if they think it reflects a broad problem that needs addressing, perhaps the noise will serve some purpose ...

one last thought on "name calling" and labels ... if we must label people as left, right and center, fine ... but if i am to be labeled a "left wing EXTREMIST" or categorized as the left "FRINGE" or as a "Democrat BASHER", i have chosen to return the labels in-kind with the following: from now on, those who are so proud of themselves for being "fair and balanced" centrists or moderates are now the "right-wing EXTREMISTS" or the "right FRINGE" of the Party ... and those who want to say that strong criticisms of their candidates are "BASHING" are now "BPL's" (i.e. blind Party loyalists) ... if we are seeking greater civility without stifling creative thought on DU, perhaps all of the terms in this paragraph could be banned ... and perhaps it's important to spell out the differences between criticisms, even very strong criticisms, and bashing ...

the measure of an online community should not be the size of its membership but rather the ideas and energies it contributes to making our lives better ... as DU has been inundated by more and more mainstream Party loyalists, especially during the primaries, the community has undergone a significant transition ... i'm saddened that many who envisioned real change, change that stood for more than just "getting back in power", are no longer here ... in the end, perhaps the greatest problem is not that the various candidate supporters continually fight with each other but rather that we even have candidate supporters at this point in the election cycle ...

[Stinky The Clown]

277. NIce post, but re:"we have to believe in something more than just winning"

At this point in time, winning's got to be the primary focus. I'm with you on the notion of standing for something and see that as tied to winning. But right now ...... I'll go with winning.

How does this relate to this thread?

Easy. You said, and I agree, there needs to be much more interest in issues and a little (lot?) less in candidates. Right now this party can't even agree on the issues. How the hell can we expct to agree on a candidate?

[harpo]

248. I think people are trying to figure out how their candidate can win in 08.

So it may seem like a lot of fighting...but some of us are asking for specific things...like why this person can't win...or why they dislike certain people. Feedback is good for those who are planning NOW...but just negative comments without good feedback is not good.

[MAlibdem]

249. I agree...what foolishness

We need to unite for 2006 and keep up the pressure on the republicans.

[mzmolly]

251. Part of the reason it's continued is because some of the bitter candidates

are rehashing stuff?

And frankly, the only way to prevent infighting is to have a rule not to slam Democrats here. But, it might not be a very interesting place if that is done?

I guess the question comes in how do we seperate bait from legitimate discussion/concern? Are opinions stated respectfully or not? Does a thread seem counter productive to the "cause" and what is the "cause." What is the goal here?

I think we have to answer these questions before one can decide what course to take.

Perhaps we could find a way to seperate that which is productive criticism vs. that which is just plain BS?

[Guaranteed]

266. You're right- squelching doesn't work. You've got to call it out.

That's all you can do.

[Sparkly]

254. I'm glad to see this question asked!

I wasn't on DU until after it was clear Kerry would be the nominee, so I missed the "primary wars." I have defended several Democrats who are frequently attacked here, though (most notably Clark, Dean, and Kerry, as I see it).

I think it's wonderful for people to have heroes/heroines. I like seeing threads where people are trumpeting something a particular Democrat did, said, wrote, etc. -- no matter who! What I don't like are threads and posts designed simply to attack, often for sport, it seems. There also does seem to be something about the insulated world of DU that allows us to forget who the real opponents are, and to divide into rival teams instead of seeing ourselves as belonging to the same team.

While nobody's officially "running," many have the potential and more than a few have PACs of some sort. So reminders that it's not yet 2006 aren't necessarily effective. (On the other hand, once we're closer to 11/06 and directly involved in local races, that focus could help things settle.)

The DU rules are fair and cover a lot of ground, and the Mods do a great job. However, I think the rules that apply to interactions with other members might apply to our discussions of prominent Democratic leaders and potential candidates, as well. For example, opinions of their opinions are fine; but meaningless insults shouldn't be tolerated, lying about them shouldn't be tolerated, attacks straight out of Rove's playbook shouldn't be tolerated, twisting their words out of context shouldn't be tolerated, calling them "DINO's" when one disagrees with them on some issue shouldn't be tolerated, and categorical insults to their supporters shouldn't be tolerated. It all amounts to truth and respect.

Threads expressing outrage over something a Democrat said, based on paraphrases rather than direct, linked quotes, shouldn't stay, imo. Untruths that have been refuted over and over should be deleted, perhaps referring the poster to the Demopedia. People who consistently make unfair, disrespectful attacks on any one Democrat or several of them (and/or their supporters) should be stopped or banned. Those measures would go a long way toward creating peace, imho.

Since this is a big-tent party, and DU is a big-tent site, I think the tent itself should be of high priority in decisions about rules. Respect for honest disagreement is critical. I'd like to find ways to foster unity, and to stop attacks on people who hold differing views within the realm of what the Democratic party reasonably embraces as a whole.

And there it gets somewhat tricky, because the category of "people generally supportive of progressive ideals" is not easily defined. There are people here who disagree with the overall stance of the party and our representatives on one or two specific issues, such as gun control, the confederate flag, choice, or the role of the military. That's to be expected. But there are others who take the rightwing view of many of these, yet insist they're "progressive" because they consider the military evil (and are thus supposedly ultra anti-war). I don't know why such people are allowed to linger so long here, given the stated rules. (Some have been banned recently, and that's helping already.)

I don't think I've ever attacked any prominent Democrat, party leader, past candidate, or potential candidate in DU posts -- I certainly hope I haven't. I think most of them are doing terrific work under extremely difficult circumstances, and leaders like Dean and Reid bring excitement and hope for the future. I will continue to defend them all. But if there's more I can do, or ways of defending them that I should avoid, I will work on it. None of them make me angry -- I'm only angered when they're attacked. I'll try harder to do whatever I can to help create unity here, and to make peace with other members. I know I haven't always been perfect myself in exchanges with attackers. O8)

And again, I appreciate this discussion. :hi:

[Tinoire]

257. Smash the porcelain dolls Skinner. Let it rip.

You're in a no-win situation on this one Skinner. You've become a victim of your own success and this site is now crawling with political operatives and die-hard candidate supporters who are here for no other reason than to support X, Y, or Z. Gone are the adolescent days of DU when people were more concerned about issues and we’ll never bring them back because you now own a very valuable piece of political real estate and there are clever signs all over the internet directing traffic to DU precisely to pave certain people’s way to the Primaries.

Politics is not a pretty business- it's downright rough and brutal and it's time people got used to that.

If people want piss-free candidate adoration puff pieces, they should post them in their respective candidate forums or on their candidates' web-sites. If they post them in GD politics then the information in those threads should be subject to the same realistic treatment they will get from the media, from the Left and even from the Right. No one is forcing anyone to start the candidate propaganda so early and if they choose to, they better be able to deal with people's valid concerns and differing opinions.

I'd like to learn a little more from other DUers besides "Candidate X is going to be on Fox at 8 pm" or "Candidate Y rates #1 in abc poll".

Please, no more additional rules to force a false sense of camraderie. If people can't take the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen. I've been quite unhappy over the last year to see the implementation of so many new rules at DU, so many new fixes that only allowed for better, more clever manipulation and stifled frank discussion to the point that the forum is unfairly being accused of censorship by people who were banned because they didn’t play the game quite as well or lost their temper over the shenanigans. (And mark this down as a vote to bring them back- I do not believe that democracy is well served by banning people especially the long time posters who built this place into the valuable piece of real estate it is today).

I don't want to be sitting around in 2008, doing a repeat of 2004, wailing and gnashing my teeth as Jeb Bush gets inaugurated, moaning that the media was so unfair or that people were so boo-hoo mean when another walloping loss could have been prevented by frank examination of available information and frank talk.

We need to decide what we want- a tea party for a bunch of porcelain candidates or adult discussions? No candidate is made of porcelain and if they are, then they and/or their supporters need to get out of politics.

It's not a tea party. Treating it as such may just be why so many people feel hurt and stunned when we get walloped in elections. Squelching fellow DUers’ criticisms is a shallow victory. Kind of like freeping polls- what do you gain from it other than to paint a false picture that, if believed, will pave the way for grave disappointment down the road?

I'd like to see us go into 2008 with eyes open wide because there will be no ABB vote; that pathetic concept is hopefully dead. What we need in 2008, as for any election, is the best man that THE MOST people can COMFORTABLY rally behind WITHOUT having to hold their nose, or feel a need to abandon sinking ship and vote third party.

It is indeed ok "for a person to support Dean *and* Clark *and* Kucinich *and* Kerry *and* Edwards *and* Clinton *and* any other Democrats"! I doubt anyone has a problem with that and if they do, they need to be off this board but it is NOT ok to try to squelch discussions, organize attacks against posters you don't like, get threads locked, freep polls, go whining to the Adminstrators every 10 minutes, flood this board with candidate propaganda, or indulge in premature candidate circle-jerk-fests outside of the thoughtfully provided candidate forums etc...

How can you facilitate a healing? IMO? You can help it along by not molly-coddling on a political discussion board. Stop the locking of threads, especially now that there is no recourse to ATA, as unknown mod perfunctorily announces that “this discussion has run its course”. Run its course? How can a discussion have run its course if people are still interested in discussing, even arguing? That is so wrong and only inflames the existing tensions because things fester underneath as supporters of position X cackle in glee and supporters of position Y feel the thread was locked just as they were making their point. It also leads to other unfortunate impressions that hidden agendas are squelching open discussion of topics certain people would rather see tossed in the conspiracy bin.

Another thing, IMHO, would be to allow DUers to have more say in who gets to be a mod and who doesn't. It doesn't help when you had mods openly admitting that a majority of mods were supporters of candidate X. How could that not lead to dangerous perceptions? And it does no good to assure people that the system is impartial- unless people have moderated on a board like this, they have NO idea how tiring it is and that mods can barely keep up with the posts.

Sincere congratulations Skinner. DU has succeeded beyond your wildest dreams and is now a prime piece of political real estate.

[NightOwwl]

265. Great post. n/t

[enigmatic]

270. Great post n/m

[Q]

281. Excellent post and points...

...and you're right about the PRIME REAL ESTATE that DU has become. The thought of soap-boxing 60,000 people could be very appealing for someone looking to gain an edge for a candidate or agenda.

Because of the anonymous nature of boards like this...it's difficult to know if you're 'debating' with a political operative with an agenda or someone simply more stubborn than yourself.

To be frank...I haven't seen a candidate I felt was worthy of support since Gore. And that's only because he was the underdog...victim of a stolen election, corporate media and conservative Dems that thought he had betrayed Clinton's third way with his populist, anti-corporate greed language. So I usually don't have a horse in any of the races or threads that promote campaigns and candidates. Like many other DUers...I think the 2008 threads are nothing more than a distraction from the real fight of making the Bush government and the Democratic leadership accountable to the people and the Constitution.

I also agree that more rules to force a sense of 'togetherness' will only work to the advantage of those who are best at getting threads they disagree with locked with clever disruption and manipulation.

I once started a thread asking 'Newbies' and 'lurkers' in general for their opinion about which direction the party should take. The thread was quite 'successful' in the sense that it got hundreds of posts from many 'lifelong' Democrats that wanted to 'take their party back' from those trying to move it to the right. I was surprised by the number of 'Newbies' posting and I received dozens of letters in my 'inbox' from lurkers who stated that they were literally 'afraid' to post in places like 'general discussion' because they thought their 'old fashioned' politics would be torn apart by those 'strongly' promoting a 'new' Democratic party.

This is important to note because the supporters of certain candidates and agendas can overwhelm and dominate a thread with sheer numbers or viciousness in an attempt to drown out and chill discussions. This is especially true when the dominate group pounces on a thread they feel 'attacks' their candidate in an effort to close it down.

I'm sure Skinner knows by now that there are no easy solutions. But given that our country is under the control of wannabe fascists and theocrats...I hope that free speech is part of any attempt to moderate the discussion.

[blondeatlast]

308. Tinoire may be right about this. DU must come to a decision about

what kind of board it is. What may have started out as a gathering place for disillusioned Dems, has, DUE TO ITS EXCELLENT MANAGEMENT, become THE place for the left of all stripes to debate openly and intelligently--and most DUers do. Some are more educated, some have more gift for language--it doesn't matter. There is some incredibly enlightening debate on the GD and GDP forums.

It's why we need to allow the Greens and other non-Dems in, at least up until E-Day or shortly before, IMHO.

Please don't let a minuscule minority wreck it for the rest of us who tend to behave ourselves like adults. To hell with the embittered with cement blocks on their shoulders. Most of us debate, get angry, deal with it--and come out wiser and more prepared for the fight from it.

It's essential that DU administrators decide what they want DU to be, and stick with it.

Just like with children, you can't be the "friend." Sometimes you gotta be the momma or daddy and lay down the law.

[Skinner]

317. I agree with most of this, Tinoire.

Politics is most certainly not a tea party, and people need to understand that. I think that managing expectations may be the most important thing. There is no reason why people should expect all sweetness and light on a message board devoted to politics, and we have given members a number of tools to customize their experience -- such as the ability to ignore people and hide threads. Heck, if you don't like the candidate fighting, you can stay out of the GD: Politics forum entirely.

At this point, we have no plans to create any more rules restricting what members can and cannot say. (We are considering a ban on "sockpuppet" usernames, but that is a different issue IMHO.) Now that the ATA forum is gone, and people do not have an easy soapbox to pressure us into greater restrictions, our inclination is to move (a little) toward fewer restrictions rather than more. Specifically, we are currently reviewing how threads get locked here, with an eye toward permitting more threads to stay open longer.

Anyway, I appreciate your insightful post. Thank you.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

386. I'm a Little Surprised

Based on your original post, my impression had been that your preference would have been to try to stave off the primary wars, to the extent that was possible. My personal opinion is that it would be doable, and it wouldn't even require a "false sense of camaraderie" to do it.

But if you want to go the other way, that's totally fine with me. Somehow I doubt that a "hands off" approach will stave off the inevitable -- and mostly unfair, IMO -- complaints of bullying, swarming, oppression, privilege, or whatever, that Clark supporters routinely get tagged with here, however.

My hope is that if you truly want to adopt a more laissez faire attitude on this subject as a general matter, that you will similarly be more laissez faire when it comes to the inevitable complaints about Clark supporters that I describe above. People can't have it both ways.

Anyway, thanks for your time and this discussion.

DTH

[Skinner]

395. My hope was that...

...there might be some way to build trust among the members, so that top-down, admin-enforced rules would not be necessary. Sadly, hardly anyone even considered that aspect of my post.

My sense is that virtually everyone in this thread seems to think that the problem lies entirely with *other people* but not at all with themselves. That is human nature, of course. But it does not bode well for any top-down solution.

Everything that anyone does is seen through a partisan lens. Anything I do to try to stave off the primary wars is inevitably interpreted as being calculated for the benefit or harm of some candidate or other. *I* know that is absurd, but there is no way to convince *anyone else* that it's not true, particularly when they do not want to believe it.

Perhaps I am naive, even after four years of running this place. But I really think the only way for there to be any improvement is for members themselves to voluntarily decide that fighting isn't really very much fun, and it might be worth the effort to try to build some trust among the membership. A peace conference, if you will.

[AP]

445. Everyone should read this.

This post is probably going to change my own behaviour...

[BootinUp]

448. I read it.

Its another sign that the admins think the rules aren't working and that all fighting referenced in the OP are two sided things and no effort to sort them out on a case by case basis is going to work. I strongly disagree.

As for my behavior, I am always open to discussion about any of my posts, if I say something unfair, or rude I try to see the other persons point of view. On the other hand we have yet another thread full of attacks on "Clark supporters" that calls for some strongly worded rebuttal.

[Sparkly]

446. I hope so, too.

I saw your original post as both a call for ideas and opinions, and a plea for us all to take responsibility.

So I offered my ideas and opinions, answering "What needs to happen" with suggestions for limiting baseless attacks, attacks based on falsehoods, and attacks on entire groups of people. That's what would do it for me, fwiw.

And I took responsibility for my own part, saying "But if there's more I can do, or ways of defending them that I should avoid, I will work on it. ...I'll try harder to do whatever I can to help create unity here, and to make peace with other members. I know I haven't always been perfect myself in exchanges with attackers."

That was after being called a "PromoBot" and a "barker," and being accused of all sorts of things, as a Clark supporter. I hoped to open a door toward conciliation. Yet the post you replied favorably to was the one right after mine, advising "Let it rip." I thought the original question had to to with fostering peace.

DU, at its best, is such a great forum for amazingly in-depth discussions of issues and for organized action. If I wanted "realistic treatment," I'd go to AOL or Yahoo where rehashed (rightwing) falsehoods rule. I would hate for DU to become a Democratic version of that.

[dogman]

449. Amen

[enigmatic]

450. I'd love to see this happen

But honestly, I don't know if people will drop the chip on their shoulders for any amount of time to make this do-able.

I'm conflicted on the whole thing; on one hand, I understand what you're saying completely but as others have said, it's limiting speech here, even if it's entirely understandable. But I don't know if the handful really want a productive dialog between the supporters of different candidates; it just seems like screaming at the top of their lungs is more important.

I really don't have the answer to this.

[Kolesar]

322. Great Post, but please tell me more (more, more, more!!!)

I would like to know more about these "clever signs all over the internet directing traffic to DU precisely to pave certain people’s way to the Primaries"

[cestpaspossible]

351. lol

:tinfoilhat:

[cestpaspossible]

327. I agree that too many threads get locked.

Especially when it is done for no stated cause, or a bogus one such as you describe - or what I find even more objectionable - 'too many personal attacks' - which means a small group can get a thread locked that is publicizing an issue or fact they don't want spread around, just by launching a large number of personal attacks. It's not right, the rules should be enforced on the offending post and the offending posters but the discussion should not be stopped just because a few people can't follow the rules.

[AP]

329. I agree with this up to a point.

I, personally, feel that there were a few people at DU who put their fingers precisely on the problem with certain candidates in 2003 -- they smashed the porcelain dolls with great insight. But I think a lot of that level-headed, insightful commentary was drowned out by incredibly aggressive puffery and manipulation.

I think there is an avenue down which you can have reasonable discussion without having it drowned out by aggressive campaigning.

Like I said above, the way to do that it is to encourage the discussion part, discourage (or send to the Siberia of the candidate forums) pure puffery, and discourage the aggressive personal attacks and the hounding and the scab picking based on the fact that someone doesn't support your candidate. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I think a free-for-all actually would replay the parts of DU 2003 that didn't work.

[cestpaspossible]

337. Eye of the beholder

what you call puffery, someone else will call exciting news about how politician zed is leading the fight against the Republicans.

[AP]

359. I think 'puffery' is pretty objective.

I'm not afraid to call my own puffery threads 'puffery.'

[cestpaspossible]

371. Well, I don't so clearly there's no unanimity of opinion on the subject.

I guess that makes it a subjective judgement.

[AP]

380. It's a legal term...it's meaning is objective. Whether a certain situation

constitutes puffery isn't.

puffing

n. the exaggeration of the good points of a product, a business, real property and the prospects for future rise in value, profits and growth. Since a certain amount of "puffing" can be expected of any salesman, it cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for fraud or breach of contract unless the exaggeration exceeds the reality. However, if the puffery includes outright lies or has no basis in fact ("Sears Roebuck is building next door to your store site") a legal action for rescission of the contract or for fraud against the seller is possible.

See also: fraud

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1689&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

[cestpaspossible]

387. You are wrong about whether it is a subjective judgement.

No matter how many dictionary definitions that don't back up your opinion you cite.

[AP]

388. I didn't say that. I said "puffery" is an actual legal term that has a...

...concrete meaning. If you alleged in a complaint that a salesman engaged in fraud that went beyond mere puffery, there'd be no debate over what the terms "fraud" and "puffery" ment (just as in a criminal case, people don't argue over what "murder" or "assault" mean).

However, there would be a debate over whether the facts constituted "fraud" or "puffery".

I think there's a big difference at DU between a post that is puffery and one that is a discussion. For example, puffery threads tend not to have any discussions. They only replies are "thanks for posting this" "you're the best" "no, you're the best" "we all love one another."

[cestpaspossible]

390. Yeah the word has meaning and it is a subjective judgement

as to whether that meaning fits any particular post.

[AP]

391. I edited my reply. I think it's obvious when a post is just puffery.

The precise moment at which it crosses the line might not be perfectly clear, but the difference between a discussion and puffery is obvious.

[cestpaspossible]

393. To you, it is obvious. But others will disagree.

That was my original point... surely you aren't claiming that no one will ever disagree with you about what's 'puffery' -- are you?

You will label something as obvious puffery - someone else will say you are obviously wrong - using the word 'obvious' doesn't strengthen an argument, especially if the entire argument is the assertion that it's 'obviously' x, y or z.

[AP]

399. Do you want to pick a post you think is not puffery that I might think

is obviously puffery and we can talk about whether I would and why I would?

[cestpaspossible]

410. No, because we could gain nothing from that.

When you avoided my question: surely you aren't claiming that no one will ever disagree with you about what's 'puffery' -- are you?

it became obvious that the conversation we are having is a waste of time. Have a nice day.

[AP]

444. If I agree that it's not puffery, we might gain a great deal.

[janx]

415. Yes indeed it is. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

451. Of course, some folks see operatives behind every tree

Sort of a leftist version of a John Bircher.

Some of us just happen to like whoever it is we support.

[NVMojo]

258. by doing this infighting, we only empower the Repukes.....

...and I think it is too early to pick sides against each other.

[politicasista]

260. Three strikes you're out policy

After being warned twice, the poster should be banned.

[cestpaspossible]

378. Do people get warnings when their posts are deleted?

When someone's post is deleted, do they receive a message telling them so, and why? If not, I don't see what the mechanism is for getting feedback to people when they are lowering the level of discourse here. Is there one?

[eridani]

267. I have an agenda, myself

I think that we should have universal health care--everybody in, nobody out, no exceptions.
I think that trade agreements favoring corporations at the expense of workers and the environment need to be shitcanned.
I think that Dems must either eliminate DREs without paper ballots and secret proprietary tabulation software, or get used to the idea of going out of existence as a party.
I think that military conquest of other countries for the sole purpose of dominating resource extraction by force should not be endorsed, indirectly or otherwise, by any Democrat ever. All prominent Dems should be constantly exposing this as the true Bush goal in Iraq, regardless of what they think is a reasonable withdrawal timetable.
I think that the War on Some Drugs needs to be eliminated and replaced with a sane harm reduction policy.
I think that the PATRIOT Act is an unconscionable assault on the Bill of Rights.
I think that we need to eliminate a major chunk of our military budget as totally unrelated to defending us from anything, and throw those resources ASAP into inventing the post-oil economy.
I think that all Democrats should be held to the standard of defending the economic interests of average Americans by fighting the Bush attempt at Social Security destruction, the Bankruptcy bill, outsourcing, CAFTA, etc.
I think that 9-11 was at the very least preventable, and lean LIHOP.
I don't think anyone is expendable. Not gays, not minorities, not women, not labor activists, nobody.

I understand that all of the above makes me a crazy member of the loony left, a Stalinist and way out of the mainstream, at least according to Republicans and to a small subset of this board. However, I intend to keep defending and advocating those positions anyway, and to push any and all Dems into adopting them (and rag on them mercilessly if they don't), at my LD meetings, at public issue forums, and everywhere I go in cyberspace.

And sometimes I and others of the loony left win a few. We intensively lobbied the New Democrats who advocated passing the bankruptcy bill in the house. Three, count 'em THREE, in my state changed sides after signing their letter and opposed the bill. The New Dems were primary actors in getting NAFTA passed 10 years ago, but after extensive lobbying (which has gone on for years, actually) as a body they just published a letter against CAFTA. We don't intend to stop there either. (Personally, I'd prefer to change their positions than replace them in office--much less work that way.)

Oh, and Dennis Kucinich isn't God. He voted for the flagburning amendment, and has been way wussier than I like on election fraud in Ohio. God wouldn't do those things.

[Sparkly]

272. That's "loony left?"

I dare say at least 90% of DUers agree with at least 90% of that.

I haven't seen such views called "loony left, Stalinist and way out of the mainstream" here, but I'll keep an eye out for that.

[eridani]

276. Kucinich is loony left and unelectable because he advocates them

Capeesh?

[Guaranteed]

355. I find nearly all of that entirely reasonable.

You're not "loony left"- unless, of course, you left something out. :P

I KNOW loony, too.

[TrogL]

268. There are four basic problems

1. Campaign 2000/2/4/6/8 issues taking over GD and GD Politics (and the lounge and every place else you could possibly imagine).
   
2. Thread hijacking
   
3. Stalking
   
4. Multiple user names
   

Solutions:

You need a clear set of rules and they have to be enforced strictly and fairly and out in the open. I would bring back the ATA forum.

1. All campaign issues go to a Campaigns forum. No exceptions.
   
2. While an easy flow from topic to topic can occur within a thread, the intrusion of campaign issues in a thread on another topic constitutes a clear case of hi-jacking. The offending post (and all subposts) will be removed and the offender warned. If someone thinks their thread is being hi-jacked, they can alert, perhaps with a "hijack" keyword. There could even be a "hijack" button. Repeat hijackers could be banned.
   
3. Some people feel the need to chase people from thread to thread to harass them. This should be alerted and discouraged. In many cases this will result in a hijack so the above applies.
   
4. Some people appear to use multiple user names to achieve their goals, or get banned and resurrect themselves under a new name. It shouldn't be to difficult to track people's IP addreses. Most people post from the same computer. Even with DHCP, most ISP's let you keep your lease open at least a few days. At a minimum, you stay within the same Class B subnet. If someone gets banned, a "flag" should be posted on this subnet so that mods can watch for resurrection attempts.
   

[JNelson6563]

292. Amen! Kill the sockies!!!

I'd also add "cull" the "registered posters" count to more honestly represent how many active posters are really here.

Julie

[OzarkDem]

303. Hear! Hear! Good suggestions

The sooner the better.

[smartvoter]

269. This is an interesting thread. I think if you're going to participate in

a forum like this, you simply have to get thick-skinned. The fact that we debate each other and disagree with each other is something to be proud of. Our side of the political spectrum is not made up of sheep.

The country is a disaster right now because the other side is full of people who fall to their knees when the hear the word "God" and the middle is full of people who respond to fear tactics. As a result, the Republican party has been completely uprooted from its platform on fiscal issues, privacy issues, states' rights and so on, all because of manipulation.

DU is a prime example of why we can't out-Rove Rove. Everyone thinks we should get our own puppet master to even out the playing field, but our side would never swallow the crap the other side guzzles down. I, for one, am not anxious for our side to join in the lobotomy games.

My guess is you'll never get a handle on this, other than to have the moderators shut down threads that get out of control, and to aggressively police the "freeper" calling on new people, which will clearly run them off.

This doesn't mean people couldn't use more tact -- they could (and should). But the bottom line is if you have thin skin, you don't belong in a political forum. We're all on the same side when it counts. You can call me names, slam my candidate, flame me and the like, and it's fine because when push comes to shove, we'll be together calling Sinclair's advertisers when it tries to tip elections, marching on the Capitol for voting rights and reform, writing the media when important issues are glossed over or blacked out, donating to friends in need and opposing radical, right-wing agendas 24/7.

[Califooyah Operative]

293. put up huge 2006 is next year, 2008 is in 4 years banners and keep remindi

ng everyone that if we don't build a permanent party from the ground up and make significant advances in 2006, 2008 is going to be a hell of a lot harder.

Not to mention, united we stand divided we fall. Unity is a message that needs to be emphacized around here, less positioning for 2008.

[OzarkDem]

301. Have you started a separate forum yet?

Its either that or start banning the Repub trolls. Its easy to spot most of them by the "Rush-speak" and Rove talking points they use.

I'd hate to see DU become irrelevant and ignored because of it.

[Skinner]

310. Um, we do ban Republican trolls.

We've been doing that since day one.

[OzarkDem]

345. Good to hear

I'm sure they're difficult to spot sometimes.

[blondeatlast]

302. A weekly reminder of what the Republicans are doing to the nation

might be more helpful than it at first appears.

Some horrendous photo of Captain Bunnypants, and one of his more pathetic quotes, or another similar combination such as a weekly reminder of how the Republican controlled Executive, Judicial, and Legislative Branches have repeatedly screwed us over would help.

Perhaps we could even get a periodic (say, weekly) action alert; something so egregious that we need to get on it. It's certainly been effective in the past when you've asked us.

Remember the black/white Bush, for an example.

Keep in mind that GD and GDP are still offering mostly productive
debate. This is crucial to keep in mind in the midst of this.

To a DUer, we are hurt, and the bitterness we feel isn't going away anytime soon. Many choose to endlessly replay the past, and I can understand them, but I don't open those threads for anything.

There is tremendous positive energy here. The problem is, there is no one point to focus it on. Occasionally, one will come up--coming together for Andy, our mutual grief at the horrendous losses of nostamj and khephra.

Let them argue, let them get nasty even. Even in those threads, there is always a point at which the line gets drawn (yes, like a traffic accident, I have to look).

The vast majority of GD and GDP fans ignore them. Most of us want to think, not react. In the end, like in the primaries, most of us will come around to seeing that we hang together, or we hang separately.

[mzmolly]

349. I like that. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

errr, somethin like that.

:hi:

[Adelante]

309. Amnesty and trust and responsibility

I think the proposal for an amnesty for DUers who were banned in 2003-2004 is a good idea.

It may not do that much to build trust between antagonist groups currently, but it may, for all we know, over time and by the time of the 2008 primaries, have that effect. That would be good if it happened. Straight off, I think an amnesty would at least dampen antagonism toward DU itself among the groups whose friends were banned back then.

I would like to see any amnesty combined with Rinaldo's recommendation in Post #80 regarding vendetta posters.

Between the two, we have both a move toward trust and a realistic barometer of how and when that trust is broken. And if the trust is broken, it's nobody's responsibility but the member who broke the trust.

I believe this is basically what did happen with these banned DUers, broken trust, but an amnesty/vendetta post policy for the future would clarify the issue for the admin's sake and all of ours, come the inescapably heated primary races.

[Larkspur]

313. Did it ever occur to you that the "infighting" here reflects what goes

on inside the Dem Party as well as outside this board? The DLC regularly "bashes" progressives and moderates who won't blindly follow them, and progressives return the favor.

The Democratic Party has been in a state of atrophy for at least 30 years. This "infighting" may be a healthy sign that the Party and the Progressive Movement as a whole is working to overcome 30 plus years of political sclerosis.

I say let what you call "infighting" threads continue as a way to vent steam. Of course, refereeing language and personal attacks on posters should continue, but leave the threads unlocked. The threads will expire as posters tire of the subject and move on to another thread.

You could also remind posters who have problems with other posters to put their problem poster on Ignore for a while. This way the threads can continue and individual posters can take a "time-out" with conflicting posters.

[kentuck]

314. I don't understand either....

Why can't it be discussed without committing to any one candidate? It's too damn early to pick the candidate. Most of us ended up voting for Kerry because he won the primay battle. I'm sure most will do the same in 2008, regardless who they support now. No one is gaining ground by aggressive support for any one candidate at this time, in my opinion...
It's OK to support whomever but don't try to force it on others.

[Q]

316. Could it be that the candidates themselves now run a perpetual...

...campaign? They started campaigning for 2008 the week after the election. This is very insulting to the voters and puts supporters in the awkward position of having to defend their candidates early campaign.

And it should also go without saying that the Corporate Media is partially to blame. They love to spread rumor and innuendo about the latest, greatest best-hope candidate for the party.

[cestpaspossible]

324. Kerry is doing fundraisers for Hillary

If they can manage to work together towards 2006, leaving the 2008 battles for later, it seems like we should be able to as well.

The fault lies not in our stars, but ourselves.

[paineinthearse]

334. I gave this some consideration overnight, solution may be unpopular.

As much as I support DU groups, I think the ones associated with individuals may be breeding grounds for polarity. Admins may wish to freeze them until that person announces his/her candidacy, and encourage discussion in the existing DEMOCRATS forum, or start a "presidential election 2008" forum.

[cestpaspossible]

338. ugh no way... don't take away the one place

you can say something good about someone without fear of being shat upon.

[Crunchy Frog]

335. Allow DU to become an online version of Lord of the Flies?

That seems to be what alot of people want. Maybe that would be the best route to take.:shrug:

[Catchawave]

340. I think your "problem children" are a small percentage here....

..but you know what they say about "rotten apples", heh.

I think my problem with the "alert" function is that I don't want anyone "tombstoned" because of me. Perhaps I don't understand that function? Otherwise, there would be no *unnamed candidate* supporters left here?

I've been here 8 months, and still can't figure out the difference between the Lounge-GDP-GD.....they all trash "the other guy".

I'm also a *veteran* of environmental/animal protection groups'wars, and realize that the industry/Rovian lobbyists do plant moles everywhere.

I do know that most of those "mink releases" and "SUV acid attacks", are "industry related"...hmmmmmm?

Remember when those new homes in Maryland were burned down? The MSM picked up "Must be the dastardly ELF" ?!? No news here when it was proven it was a derranged-racist-industry security guard ?

IMHO, there's a movement to destroy the DU....we must work smarter, not harder
:evilgrin:

[question everything]

343. Start a new forum called "past primaries"

and direct posts about them to that forum.

Many of us probably won't even bother to visit that forum and eventually the few who still fight the last war will tire of this.

Yet, one needs to separate the support or oppositions of the candidates - and I have not read any of these threads - from lessons learned.

For example, was it wise for the leaders to arrange for a quick resolution of the primaries? Did this prevent Kerry and his campaign from being ready for the attacks that Rove et al lobbied at him?

What lessons can we learn from the failed Kerry's campaign - it failed because it allowed Rove to to concentrate on non issues of abortion and gay marriage - to be better prepared in 2008? Even in 2006?

[renate]

357. That is such a useful idea! I love it!

First, I think your suggestion about having a forum for people who still have a beef about the 2004 primaries is excellent, and hilarious.

But I do love your "lessons learned" idea. It obviously wasn't all that useful to have professionals running the show last time, and suggestions from those of us who are actually out in the real world--talking to friends, neighbors, and coworkers and hearing what they're thinking--could be a valuable resource for next time.

For example, we helplessly watched the Swift Boat lies getting traction while the Kerry campaign blithely assumed (okay, maybe I shouldn't say blithely--just mistakenly) that they would go away, just because they weren't true. (So sweet, so naive.) Anyway, the professionals do need to get more input from the people who actually watch the evening news, not just the ones trying to get air time on it.

[Guaranteed]

358. Probably not the greatest suggestion, here (I made it during the

primaries, too), but...

We're just lacking cohesion. Our slight differences get rather amplified by the fact that we're drawing from a somewhat smaller group of people than out in the real world. So we get people arguing about piddly stuff. It's kind of an inbreeding thing... :P

Just an idea, but you could consider letting the neocons come on the board, maybe for a little while, maybe for a long while. I get the feeling our group would get a lot more cohesive if we had the chance to shoot at some game other than Democrats.

[mzmolly]

363. I agree! I think having a place for them would be a great idea.

:hi:

If were going to allow bashing from the so called left, why not from the right? We could ask party affiliation when people register, and have a special avatar to define who's who? It might make for less "trolling" and more open debate.

[nomatrix]

367. I agree

How about a thread titled

"Take it outside" when push comes to shove.
(add a link to point where the fight goes to for a the Jerry Springers who love to watch)

And on the other side

When threads get to mushy

"Get a room". No explaination needed.

[blondeatlast]

435. "Take it outside." "Get a room." EXCELLENT!

Dead on perfect. Maybe those who can take those types of threads ought to just adopt this idea.

I lurk occasionally, but never post in them.

Love it! :rofl:

[NightOwwl]

407. Then DU becomes just another left-right shout-fest.

Candidate in-fighting is small potatoes compared to what would happen if this board were opened up to people who do not support Democratic ideals. I think this is the absolute worst thing that could happen to DU.

[Guaranteed]

412. The point is that we'd all be on the same side, though.

If the problem is that we're all fighting each other...well...

It's just perspective. "New" (meaning "bad") ideas to give us something to rail against other than each other. The pool is too small, too many recessive genes.

We have a well-established presence here. Nothing's going to kick us off the board. We're going to win everything. And, if things ever got REALLY out of control, Skinner can just pull the plug.

[BlueInRed]

370. I think it is because the stakes are so high

and everyone has a different opinion about what will work to win. We are all desperate to get Bush and the Republicans out of power, but we simply can't agree on a course of action. If the stakes weren't so high, I think the discussions would be less heated. JIMO.

[Mairead]

381. It's a basic conflict seeking resolution

The 'primary wars' continue because they are 'primary' in the sense of 'fundamental'. They're about whether the Democratic party should be the party of working people or the well-off, whether winning even matters if the 'prize' is only more of the same old same-old, whether people should stay or bail, whether there's hope.

Right now there are an awful lot of faux-Democrats here. 'New Democrats'. People my mum, who never once voted anything but Labour or Dem her whole life, would instantly identify as Tories and Republicans. She'd say there's no doubt about what they are: their mouths condemn them. They do not have the best interests of working people at heart, and as long as they're welcome to spread their poison here, fight or flight are the only options.

The 'primary wars' will cease here only when one side pulls out or is forced out.

[PurityOfEssence]

382. It's a question of manners, hopefully not of more rules

Damn. Miss ONE day of reading this site, and look what happens.

I am posting on this as soon as I see it and have read the headers and a few posts. Having been involved in this recently, it's an ethical necessity to chime in here.

My suggestion is to express (or re-express) a couple of voluntary codes of conduct. I've posted about this before and had a fairly good response with one about limiting oneself to starting no more than two threads in a forum on any given day; now that there's so much traffic here, posting more is the equivalent of screaming at a cocktail party, and sadly swamps threads that were just starting to get interesting.

Here are the two suggestions for this: 1) If your candidate has 3 or more threads started in his/her honor in the first 2 pages of this or the GD forum, DON'T START ANOTHER and 2) stay out of rival candidates' love-fest threads, except to politely and briefly disagree.

I'm an Edwards supporter, and have been since early '01, about the time I started on this board. As most of us know, there's a lot of friction between a few other of his supporters and the most strident of the Clark supporters. Until near the peak of the flare-up, I stayed out of the MANY threads started to praise Clark, but it seemed that every thread started to praise Edwards (none of which did I initiate) was hit fairly hard by Clark supporters. It was these threads that I posted in, but even though they were pro-Edwards threads that were being attacked, I was attacked as if I'd attacked people on their home turf. When I started a thread that questioned Clark's current stance on a hot-button issue, it got 35 responses within an hour, and spawned a counter-thread claiming to completely disprove me (which it didn't) and one poster raged in all caps in his header line that I didn't even have the right to post on their thread. It got very ugly, and both threads were pulled.

When I offered another quote to refute the letter and spirit of the thread's starter post, it was ignored, and then equivocated.

I don't want more rules, but should they be desired, it's not going to mess things up too much.

To me, it's better to state some "manners" and suggestions for comportment and see how they fly, so I go with these two, which are, once again:

Posteth not on rival candidates' lovefest threads, unless with goodly restraint and respect.

Foresake drowning the board with more hagiography if there be a trio of gushings still active.

Dammit.

[democracyindanger]

394. You'll never solve the root of the problem

Partisans will always remain partisans. Kicking people out, creating new rules and deleting posts are only pruning methods, and will unavoidably create accusations of the mods being partisan themselves.

The best option is to, as you're considering, seperate them out. Maybe a forum like GD: Infighting, where it's widely known that every flamewar that erupts in there is, in the end, pointless. At the very least, it'll allow the mods to maintain some semblance of sanity in GD: P while avoiding accusations of partisanship. Eventually, hopefully, the flame warriors will get the point.

[Guaranteed]

397. I'm thinking that this is a product of familiarity and a stagnant,

small pool of people from which we are pulling DUers. We need perspective and an opposition if we're not just going to fight amongst ourselves.

Think about it- people are GOING to fight. Do we want us, as Democrats, fighting each other, or the Repukes?

Well, at the moment, all we've got around are Democrats.

[democracyindanger]

421. Good points

Maybe I shouldn't have termed it a 'problem.'

But I think it would be healthy for all if there were a forum expressly for the kind of primary-wars that Skinner's talking about. Kind of a 'Take it outside so you don't bust up the furniture' sorta deal.

[flpoljunkie]

406. We have far more important fish to fry than to obsess over the '08 primary

Like Social Security "reform" and, of course, next week--the "Nukular Option"--and Dubya's giveaway to the energy companies bill, soon after.

Dubya has already rammed through class action "reform" and bankruptcy "reform" with the help of Dems who have not learned they "must stick together" like the party is always asking the base to do.

We must focus on the disaster that is the Bush administration and work like hell to stop in its tracks whatever corporate payback legislation we can.

[BootinUp]

413. I am at a loss as to why

you are at a loss Skinner.

Are you saying that in politics, people do not align themselves with certain public figures who for some reason or another represent their hopes for the future? I would have to disagree. There are PACS for people to support them financially, there are events to publicize. There are letter writing campaigns. etc, etc.

The one thing that surprises me the most, is that you seem to be getting flip floppy about your rules all of a sudden. If people can't follow the rules after repeated warnings then it is certainly no fault of anyone but themselves that they are banned.

I am not against second chances, third chances for disruptors, whatever makes sense to you. But as I said above, there can be no peace between groups of independent people who will act independently. There is no real organization that sets down policy other than you. The rules and the policies here do work, I wish they worked faster sometimes, but I believe they do work.

[TroglodyteScholar]

416. self-delete

oops

[Renew Deal]

417. There's a lot here.

I think people need to calm down for a while. 2 years from right now, the warfare will and probably should heat up. But until we get some declared candidates it's pointless.

I think everyone should just stand down. Wholesale promotion or degradation of candidates should be put off. It just doesn't make sense. The most organized and united group anywhere is the Clark group. I have found this online and offline. I was one of the Clark people. I still like him, but I don't know if he is my first choice in 2008. I blame some of this on the Clark group. They are way ahead of the pack and just crush opposition. That creates resentment. Every Clark thread turns into a flamefest because there are enough people to defend him. Everyone else gets crapped on by the Clark people because the Clark people feel like victims. That leads to retribution.

I saw retribution threads break out the other day. It reminded me of the old days. They were intense, but legal.

What should you do? I'm not sure. It's hard to create a candidates forum because there aren't any candidates. If Clark or Dean or Kucinich or Hillary or Mark Warner do something, it's not necessarily presidential aspirations related. So you can't just move threads on what they do.

Do you remove the supporters forums? I don't think that would work. Does everyone take a truce until 2007? Probably not sustainable.

I suppose the solution is that people should treat each other with respect and no organized hooliganism allowed.

[janx]

437. That's the hilarious part--nobody's running yet.

And Dean, for instance, won't be running for president. This reductionism, this oversimplification, has gotten so ridiculous! There are no "Dean supporters" except for everyone who hopes he does a good job as DNC chair.

:rofl:

I don't blame anything on the "Clark group," because behavior ultimately comes down to the individual, and individuals, no matter whom they "support" or used to "support" are ultimately responsible for their own behavior.

The pack mentality flamefests you describe do happen, and the reasons you cite are accurate. But again, it always goes back to the individual or individuals, not any whole political group.

Man, I just think that when some out-of-control threads rise from the mists, Skinner and the admins and mods should just move them somewhere, let the participants have at it, and let them burn out when they aren't any fun anymore. That way, the worst offenders can make asses of themselves, and the rest of us can either go about our business or watch and laugh for awhile. :rofl:

[BootinUp]

438. Yeah but there is plenty of smearing and just outright lies

being spread anyways. I would be thankful if I was not on the receiving end and have to defend myself, followed by getting classified as a whiner a nutjob or take your pick.

But your post is so intelligent and above all that I should just let you live in your little world undisturbed.

[janx]

452. I've been on the receiving end plenty, and so have many other

people here. But here is what I learned: I don't have to play. That means I don't have to lash out, and I don't have to feel like a victim; hell; I can get offline and write a story or read a book or play with the dog. (You can see a couple of his pics in my posts. He's a weimaraner. His name is Huck.)

But you're not going to be able to do that if you continue to post barbs, because that will only make you feel more defensive and possibly even guilty in the long run. :shrug:

You, too, can shirk those feelings of victimhood and defensiveness. Think about this: How many people posting on this board do you actually know?

See?

Here, Jim:



Have a beer.

[BootinUp]

454. And miss out on Skinners great thread?

I'll take a raincheck though. :)

[neuvocat]

431. Its just really strange.

I have my preferences of course and I have always been of the position that the choice of a candidate is a personal matter. However I find that irrelevant, given that we are MUCH closer to 2006 than we are to 2008. Maybe there should be more focus on that for the time being here because it won't matter who gets elected without a strongly democratic congress.

[dhinojosa]

439. Make an Infighting/Fight Club room. I am serious.

It would be more work on the admins part. If there is a blatant post deriding a democratic candidate, admins should throw it in there. Many people would love to be there. Many people would hate to be there. Let them continue to gripe, complain, bitch and moan. Let them attack each other for all I care.

You can even have an introductory screen that explains that this is room for such a purpose and the posts in here don't reflect democraticunderground. Mention that the contents also tend to be abusive and angry. That way no one blames the forum as an entirety for being a bunch of infighting assholes. :)

I really think this could work for both sides of the magnet.

...and they say we are the party of no ideas.

[FrenchieCat]

440. After 440 posts in this thread, I note a certain resemblance this thread

has taken to the flamethread that are usually locked after 200 or so posts. I note, with a bit of slight distress and some disappointment, that Clark supporters and even Wes Clark have been mentioned much more in this thread than any other folks.

Although I find all of it somewhat perplexing, there is a certain pattern contained in this thread that emerges.....and that I believe could sheds some light on what might be the problem. This is just for those interested in such matters.

I guess the question is, what came first....the chicken (Clark or Clark supporters being disparaged or attacked) or the egg (Clark supporters responding or attacking)?
-----------------
Here's what I cull...just from this thread. (disclosure) Certainly, I am a Clark supporter....but I can also read, and can see the post number on each posts...so I know what comes when and what comes after.....

Quote:
Post #18 Bobthedrummer - In all honesty Skinner there are just a handful of DUer's that I have issues with. I know I'm completely fed-up with group tactics, which you mentioned a while back after editing the Greatest Page. Yet I'm only one member of the community here.

I've found ways of getting over some disagreements with most folks, and I may be a fool-but I don't care how robustly organized or big a group is when they're using dubious tactics.

That's my .02 on some of the rancor here.
-------
This is a thinly disguised slam on another occurence at another time about Clark supporters. But Clark supporters did not take the bait until post #138. Then there was a back and forth between Bob and a Clark supporter.

The next occurrence is in post #35...starts with the topic of "Puff" pieces. No particular supporters named (good). But then Bob the Drummer decides to use the Barker name he'd given Clark supporters in a different thread at a different time....Clark Barkers, he called us.
-------
Quote:
Post #35 LeftCoast - PromoBots
I've noticed some users seem to post nothing but puff pieces about their candidate. They have that candidate as an avatar and a banner ad for him in their sig line. They never seem to post anything unrelated to their candidate. In short, they seem to be what I call PromoBots.

Quote:
Post #43 Bobthedrummer - Reply to #35. or "barkers" n/t
------
Next, we have the already imfamous JabbatheHutt....stating something negative about Wes Clark and calling Clark supporters "Psuedo-Republican" came in post 91. Skinner's response right below it is relatively mild...as the post should have been deleted .....as it did not lend anything to the conversation, but in fact illustrated a problem and broke DU rules. No only that, but this newbie knows quite a bit about DU. Is there some research going on about this poster? I hope so. Several Clark supporters replied to that post. Wonder why? Now, some might determine that this was a "organized" response? But was it?...or was it that this poster was really out of line and a response was required, and several Clarkies....and non Clarkies for that matter responded accordingly.
-------

Quote:
Post #91 JabbatheHutt - Those who doesn't stand up to the psuedo-Republican Clark deserves to be banned? Is that what you are saying?

(Yes, I still believe that Clark is psuedo-Republican because of his support of the SOA, which NOBODY even answered)
-----
So after getting a few negative responses.....JabbatheHutt is upset
-----
Quote:
Post #119 JabbatheHutt - See? Every time I post something that was reasonable

Those who support other candidates has to jump in on my throat? Point made.
--------
Here, the poster just comes out with it...no thin disguise here. Then implies that an organized hit again has occurred...because Clark supporters aren't supposed to be reading this thread that they are posting in....I guess.....
-------
Quote:
Post #161 - newsguyatl.
minus many of the clark supporters
i don't really see that happening.

Quote:
Post #166 - newsguyatl. interesting to see a clark supporter
responds in THIS thread within minutes to me...
--------
Here's another, SGBL who just doesn't like the banners. However, it's the Clark banners that he/she doesn't like. All other banners are acceptable...it appears....
--------
Quote:
Post #184 - SGBL. I agree that the clark supporters
seem to be the most "in your face" especially as far as the giant banners go.
--------
Here, the poster subtly refers back to the "freeping" of polls that Skinner had alluded to in the infamous ATA Clark supporters controversy of a few weeks ago.....
--------
Quote:
Post #257 Tinoire. Smash the porcelain dolls Skinner. Let it rip.

..now own a very valuable piece of political real estate and there are clever signs all over the internet directing traffic to DU precisely to pave certain people’s way to the Primaries.

..Kind of like freeping polls- what do you gain from it other than to paint a false picture

..NOT ok to try to squelch discussions, organize attacks against posters you don't like, get threads locked, freep polls, go whining to the Adminstrators every 10 minutes, flood this board with candidate propaganda, or indulge in premature candidate circle-jerk-fests outside of the thoughtfully provided candidate forums etc

..hidden agendas are squelching open discussion of topics certain people would rather see tossed in the conspiracy bin.

..It doesn't help when you had mods openly admitting that a majority of mods were supporters of candidate X.
--------
The next highlighted posts is breaking DU rules again.....Clark supporters being painted with a broad brush...being accused of all kinds of things.....same poster as before...Bobthedrummer:
---------
Post #305 Bobthedrummer. I wonder what Skinner and Administration think about the tactic of having

someone urging "all Clark DUers" take concerted action against DUers that don't think your guy would make a good POTUS?

It gets better, WesDem, there's lots more specific examples of what used to be called "sweeping generalizations" here at DU directly involving Clark supporters.

I'm not alone, nor am I a RW mole as another Clark supporter charged in a thread that the mods locked after 54 responses and the OP ignored my response to such McCarthy like smears.

There is an element within Clark supporters that isn't going to be allowed to beat up on other DUers, concoct stories and go running to Administration about individuals they have issues with here-that's what Freepers do.
-----
Now the plotting goes on. But is it Clark supporters plotting, or certain DU members coming up with a plot, a theory and conclusions based on not much of anything? Maybe Tinoire will PM him with the "plot".
--------
Quote:
Post #322 TheBorealAvenger Response to #257. Great Post, but please tell me more (more, more, more!!!)

I would like to know more about these "clever signs all over the internet directing traffic to DU precisely to pave certain people’s way to the Primaries"
-----
More from Bobthedrummer....
-----
Quote:
Post #323 Bobthedrummer. I hear a familiar tune in your post. For the record of truth there are

I've got a PM from a banned DUer that talks about Clark supporters creating accounts at other boards using targeted usernames provided by Clark supporters then using that crap to get people banned.

Sounds like information warfare, doesn't it?
-------
More speculation on theory of conspiracy by Clark supporters by Bobthedrummer.....and Skinner's "Clark Supporter's freep polls" ATA post is again included as part of the proof for Clark supporters just of the bad sort.
--------
Quote:
Post #326 Bobthedrummer. I don't think you read post #233 in the hyperlink

Read it slowly, it's from a month ago yet it certainly describes what happened here at DU. Note that I'm not the only DUer targeted.
Skinner addressed some of these tactics and started this thread yesterday. It's his call on what to do about group tactics, I'm merely exposing them for discussion
---------
At this point, the conspiracy momentum takes on a life of it's own....
-------
Quote:
Post #384 Bobthedrummer. We've met in other threads like the one in which it was suggested that I'm some kind of a Karl Rove RW mole assigned to Wesley Clark, that was a hoot. It got locked of course, and the OP has never responded to my denial of such bullshit.

This is a pattern that other DUer's have experienced, some PM me about it.

I finally sent what they sent me to Skinner in a PM, after opening discussion about it in this thread (post 243).
---------------
A "pile on" on Clark supporters truly takes hold after that....and Clark supporters defend themselves...asking for evidence on accusations. back and forth, back and forth.

Now, which came first? The chicken, or the egg?

The blanket accusations against Clark supporters need to stop. The snide comments need to stop. People need to get off Clark supporters and attend more important topics. Those who are not part of the solution....are part of the problem. Clark supporters respond because they can....and why should they not? That's how threads get out of hand....in a nutshell--this thread shows this.

[Totally Committed]

443. Thanks, Frenchie...

Good try, and as usual, great post -- but I'm feeling pretty discouraged right about now. Everybody's pretty entrenched in their own mishugas.

No olive brances offered, no hands extended -- just the same old anger and venom.

TC

[dogman]

447. We see the same attacks against other candidates supporters,

often by many of the same people. This post has definitely brought out the anti-Clark ones though. They likely feel emboldened by recent successes. But if flaming is the desire it is not likely to be worked out in a sensible fashion as the Op suggests.

[Swamp Rat]

455. I agree with you FrenchieCat about the divisiveness, but Tinoire is my

friend and I like Bobthedrummer too. Why can't we get past this and unite?

I like Wes Clark, but I also want to listen to those who have serious doubts about him, especially those folks I mentioned as my friends - they are very intelligent and knowledgeable people, and our allies in the war against fascism. Tinoire is a font of knowledge about Haiti, for example. :)

[Swamp Rat]

453. David Allen for President!

:D

Anyone not supporting David Allen for President gets spanked! :spank:

[Skinner]

457. Thanks to everyone who participated.

I think this thread pretty well illustrates the enormity of the challenge we face here. Nonetheless, I have not lost hope in our ability to rise above the petty squabbling and learn to trust one another. Hopefully, if we continue this dialogue, there is a chance for some progress.

It is apparent that some of you are disappointed that I'm pretty skeptical about the potential for new rules or greater enforcement to fix what ails us. After doing this job for four years, I think I have a pretty good idea of what rules can and cannot do. With this in mind, allow me to repeat my closing paragraph from my post that started this thread:

I don't think writing more rules will deal with the root causes here, but we'll do it if that's the only option. I believe the only way to find a lasting solution is for all of you to work it out amongst yourselves. Any ideas on how we can all facilitate that process?

Thanks for all your insights. Let's continue this discussion soon.