I think it may be time to remove the restrictions in the GD:2004 forum.

[Skinner]

We have had an impossible job these last few months. People want us to somehow put an end to the rudeness and flaming. But people also want the moderators to stop giving them a hard time. Unfortunately, you can't have both. You get one or the other: The incivility or the intrusive moderators.

I think we have actually been pretty successful at providing all of you with a relatively civil place to discuss the primary. The GD:2004 forum hasn't been perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But take a step back and look at the thread topics in this forum. Most of the discussion topics are pretty thoughtful. Inflammatory stuff gets locked down (eventually). There aren't dozens of duplicates. The moderators have done an amazing job, and they're running a pretty tight ship here. I don't think many of you really appreciate what you've got.

Of course, having a forum like this requires a trade-off by all of our members. In short: You can't say whatever you want. Unsurprisingly, people don't like being told what they can and cannot say. So I'm stuck dealing with the complaints. And I'm stuck dealing with the rude appeals.

But to be honest, I'm tired of being the bad guy. I'm tired of pissing people off. I'm tired of being accused of bias whenever the mods enforce the rules. I'm tired of creating work for myself, particularly when we've got many other more important things to deal with. I'm tired of being the speech police. I'm just tired. It is completely pointless to force people to do something that they obviously don't want to do.

Even though I believe the rules have succeeded in making this place more civil, I have never enjoyed enforcing them. And it's clear that many of you have not enjoyed having to abide by these rules, and I'm not surprised. I wouldn't want to have to participate under such restrictive and arbitrary rules, either.

So, until the end of the primary season, I propose that we scrap all of the special rules in the GD:2004 forum, take the cuffs off of you all, and let you say almost anything that you want. The only rules for the GD:2004 forum would be the NORMAL message board rules, which can be found here. The moderators will still be on duty, and they will still be actively enforcing those rules.

We also are probably going to make some changes to the deleted post notification system, to further get me and the mods off your back.

I actually think this would be good for all of you. As you know, you aren't going to be able to engage in partisan attacks against the Democratic nominee. I think it would be good to let some of you vent your anger now, because you aren't going to be able to do it for much longer.

And when this forum turns into a cesspool of ridiculous partisan flaming (and it will), I will remind all of you that you have the option of using the following excellent customization functions...

To hide a thread, click this -->

To ignore another member, click this -->

To remove GD:2004 threads from the Latest Page, go to your preferences page and set "Hide the GD: 2004 forum?" to "Yes".

I think this is the solution we need. Especially now that the primaries are winding down a bit.

So, what do you think?

(And please, if you are posting a response to insult me or the moderators, don't bother.)

[Burma Jones]

1. Good Idea, let's just get it out of the way

[Jax]

2. Just a question

Why? After Dean drops out the rules change.

Jax

[arwalden]

7. .

[Jax]

16. Oh you

arwalden. I have been a DUer since day one.

Oh you...:eyes:


Jax

[arwalden]

19. LOL...

My attempt at late-nite yuk-yuk was a visual distraction... that's why I deleted it. It was out of place in this announcement thread.

-- Allen

[King of New Orleans]

22. I thought it was pretty funny

you've been quite naughty all night.

[Skinner]

8. I think I made my reasons pretty clear above. (nt)

[Nicholas_J]

20. Looks like you just got

A good dose of the reasons you have decided that it might be a good idea to remove the restrictions in this thread.

I think both the mods and the administrators have been more than fair in trying to accomodate all of the requests made by everybody who has wanted rules and have wanted to be the exception to the rules everytime they broke them, (myself included) I think that the situation that existed before the creation of GD 2004 were more than adequate, All they required was common courtesy, and refraining from being personally abusive, and to be honest, the conditions prior to the new rules most closely mirrored what happens in the real world of campaigning and politics, so I for one think all of those who have labored to try to please everyone should simply revert to the old rules and save thmeselves the grief. The mods and the administators have done excellent jobs of trying to do the impossible, pleasing everybody all the time, and I agree with Skinner. Just creating a board like DU is service enough to the democratic community, and they should be thanked for these efforts instead of continually criticised.

[Jax]

33. Just remembering

when you stated right here on your forms that you own that you believed Al Gore blew the election and then asking if that made you a freeper.

Honestly? I was not sure, the Dem party left Al hanging IMHO.

But YOU...You put yourself out there with the banner..in the rain at inagrusham...that is why I am here. I was watching on teeveee that sickening day, I SAW you and responded. It was a light at the end of an unbelievable tunnel. Still is believe it or not, to me and mine anyway.

This election...Dean is the only one who has responded and plowed the road for the establishment candidates, just like DU has before Dean.

Dean is out, so are the rules. That is all I am saying Skinner.



Jax

[Nicholas_J]

126. That still will not stop

Those who demanded the rules from abusing the candidates left.

I think a modified version of rule 8 should be left in place.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. Do I get to go back to

referring to myself as a Clarkie????? :bounce:

[tokenlib]

25. I sure hope so!!

As it is a most admirable identity!

[arwalden]

4. We're Down To The Final Two

I'm guessing that the rules served their purpose, the world won't end if they go away.

Is there/was there/will there be any rules that prohibit declarations of third-party voting... or encouraging others to do the same (or to not vote at all)?

-- Allen

[Skinner]

5. Once we have a nominee

then we will start to enforce the General Election rules, which don't permit people to use DU to defeat the nominee.

[Lefta Dissenter]

9. Well, that earns you a big

hug and a kiss from me! :hug: (I know, just what you've been waiting for all these years!)

[Catch22Dem]

10. Now, THAT, Skinner

Is music to my ears!!! I was hoping there would be some mention about General Election rules.

[NWHarkness]

32. So, the warning I got for denouncing third partyism

Wouldn't be given if I had waited to make it later.

Wow. Just like being a "premature anti-fascist" back in the 30s.

[liberalnurse]

57. What if the nominee is behaving poorly ?

Can we identify and discuss the event, exposing the warts in a proactive fashion?

[Skinner]

60. Here is the rule:

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

In other words: It depends on how you do it.

[liberalnurse]

70. That is reasonable and within

my expectations.

[Adelante]

128. I am so ready for that one!

Skinner, you and your team have all broken your balls and ovaries throughout this time. We can fight it out ourselves and give you guys the needed respite you have earned. Whatever you want is my DU motto.

:toast:

[La_Serpiente]

6. Fine with me

:thumbsup:

[waldenx]

11. when is the purge?

after Boston or what?

[Catch22Dem]

14. What purge?

[NashVegas]

12. Ladies and Gentlemen, Put on Your Crash Helmets

:)

[MrSoundAndVision]

13. Sometimes...

rudeness is an essential tool of debate. Sometimes an inflammatory remark is the only way to get someone to listen.

It shouldn't be your job to judge when an inflammatory remark goes beyond usefulness in a debate, nor when rudeness is unnecessary. We're all adults.

Your job should be to make sure this forum doesn't degenerate into something along the lines of the Yahoo! chat boards, where every other post is something incoherently disruptive to the conversation at hand.

A tough job my friend. So don't take it too seriously. The DU is a good place to argue, but a bad place to confront. But outright confrontation should take place face to face where it is most effective anyway. These are the halls of ideas, not implementation.

[Endangered Specie]

15. Let everyone fire off the last artillery to get it out of their systems...

I think alot of people have some bottled up anger and emotion they need to get out before the GE run starts.

[Kanary]

110. Let me ask you this...

Do you "fire off your artillery" at your family, neighbors, friends?

If so, do they stick around?

We all have to learn how to vent our "bottled up anger and emotion" without firing at innocent bystanders.

It really is possible to not "bottle up our anger", and also not take it out on others.

Kanary

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. I am an unaplologetic free speech extremist

In my opinion, rules do not aid the free flow and exchange of information and ideas.

They are better suited to parliamentary proceedings and formal debate.

I would like to see all the rules julienned and served with a little romaine and an insouciantly elegant vinaigrette.

[The Magistrate]

34. Un-Sheathed Blades, My Friend

Big fun all around....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. No one should be forced to keep his ignorance or stupidity secret

Each person can set the bar for what he will respond to as high or as low as he chooses.

The administrators have even supplied programmatic means for people to select which posters' words, which topics they will see, or not, for those unable or unwilling to perform this service for themselves.

We have discussed this before, and I welcome the most infantile, idiotic and puerile attacks.

They make a better case for whatever argument I am making than I ever could.

Few people have your word-writin' skills, but every single person has the most effective anti-troll weapon ever devised - silence :)

[The Magistrate]

37. As Usual, My Friend

We approach agreement from different ends.

For myself, a target-rich environment is a pleasure indeed, and we are neither of us, as you say, disruptable....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Crunchy Frog]

18. I know it's been really tough

but I wish you would hold on for just a few more weeks till we have a nominee. I think that the rules work great. I've never had any problems, and I have strong opinions. I don't really think that you have to tolerate people being rude to you in their appeals, and would probably be more liberal about suspensions and bannings if they are.

I think this forum will become unliveable without the rules. After this is over I think we should hold a fundraising drive to send you to the Bahamas, I would certainly contribute to it.

Maybe once someone has gotten enough delegates to wrap up the nomination you could take away all the rules for a week, just to let people get it out of their system, before the new rules go into effect.

In the meantime, I would strongly urge you to continue what you are doing. I know you hear alot from the minority of people who hate you for it, but you don't hear much from the probable majority who really appreciate it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. The best rule is

8. If you make a highly questionable and inflammatory factual assertion about a candidate, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Rumor-mongering is not allowed. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.


I wish it were enforced more than it is.

The fact is, if I am saying something about a candidate that is true, I can find a link to back it up. Between google, thomas.loc.gov, etc. -- if you just spend a few moments, you can back up what you are saying if it's true.

This also correctly places the burden of proof on the person making the assertion -- otherwise, everything comes down to 'Prove me wrong'


Edwards is in favor of sending an additional 100,000 troops to Iraq.
Kerry is in favor of drilling for oil in ANWR.
Kucinich is in favor of invading Syria.
Sharpton is in favor of requiring prayer in schools.


Should such comments really be allowed?

[arwalden]

29. Yep... Without That Rule, DU Becomes A Graffiti Wall

[seventhson]

56. I think this rule is the most subjective and the most likley to be misused

One of the problems is that someone will post a story on one thread and the subject will come up again in another thread.

This happened to me several times in the Kerry "scandal" threads.

Assertions were made, sourced, and then discussed.

But when I mentioned them without a proper source (I could not find the original thread) in a new thread it was warned on. I see this happening quite a bit.

In the heat of back and forth debate you might say something like "well what about this: --------" and - instead of getting an honest rebuttal you get locked and warned. The question remains unanswered for you and the rest and the issue is unresolved - except you are afraid to ask about it again because you do not want to get timed out.

The admins admit that the rule is subjective. I do agree that if it is a completely false claim with no back up after some inquiry then it should be deleted. But I also believe that if it is sourced to right wing sources and they are used with warnings (or they are commonly known facts which are reported on only by the right) then they should be allowed to stand. The right is going to be airing them all over anyway and we need to be able to prepare our rebuttals.

This rule has been the worst one in many ways.

And the attacks from the right are going to contain such smears. We need to be able to discuss them without overworking or overtaxing the mods - and to explore the issues raised rather than just lock and warn.

I have some prime examples - but I will hold them for now.

I think the "Is this true...?" threads should be allowed and used to search ALL of the dirty linen.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

93. If you could to link it the first time, you can link it the second time

It's really not that hard to bookmark a url for future reference.

[LoZoccolo]

23. Nah.

DU is a commons. Inflammatory attacks serve no one but the group of people making them - they do not convince the rest of the people using the commons. Unfortunately, the Internet lends itself to the kind of diminished empathy that prevents people from knowing that. There's no punishment for messing with the commons if the new rules are taken away, the people who contribute find they have better things to do, and the place becomes a stagnant swamp. I just keep thinking maybe after a bit the people who habitually pollute our commons will get their four warnings and fall off the cliff, leaving the rest of us to have thoughtful discussion.

[La_Serpiente]

24. Will the warnings be erased?

and if so, when?

[juajen]

26. Rules, or no rules

I think you should do whatever is easiest for you. After all, you are not paid to babysit us.

I only got in trouble once, and I should have remembered the rules. Nope, didn't bother me at all that I got a post deleted; was just upset that a moderator had to deal with my stupidity.

Ya'll are all great. Thank you for DU. It's a wonderful place to be.

[Jim Sagle]

27. I vote for leaving the restrictions in place.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

150. As long as you can say "horseshit" everything's good.

HORSESHIT!

[Jim Sagle]

152. Yer post wuzn't nuthin' but shit.

;-)

[Nazgul35]

28. If the rules are going to go away...

tha those who were sent to Covantry should be allowed back with a clean record...

I believe that any time a law is removed, those still in jail are released....

The same should apply out of fairness.....many may not come back simply because they do not feel welcome any more, but I think it would be the right thing to do...

[Wonk]

30. Suggestion: Try it that way for a day to remind everyone what that's like

and then hold another vote.

Or don't. It's your board, and the decision is ultimately yours.

[RetroLounge]

31. I'd rather someone was rude to me as I have thick skin.

But having to walk on eggshells around here because my Dean Avatar would get me warnings is just B.S. on a progressive website.

It began to feel like DU had become the Dem version of Free Speech Zones, which drove off many long-time DU'ers and contributers too, for that matter.

So yes, dump the rules, enforce the GE rules when the coronation is completed, and let everyone play nice if they want, or not.

(No coincidence on Dean's Dropping out and the timing of the rules being dropped, so stop saying that...)

just my .02

RL

[Skinner]

47. So tell me, what would you be saying if Kerry had just dropped out?

Allow me to speculate:

"Oh, so now that your guy *Kerry* drops out, you are going to remove the cuffs and let everyone attack Howard Dean."

See? It doesn't matter what I do. There are people who will always spin it as favoring one candidate or another.

I don't see how this change favors *anyone*. If it hurts anyone, it's John Kerry and John Edwards, who are still in this primary, and who now are going to endure a torrent of unmitigated crap from disgruntled Dean supporters intent on payback.

It is clear that there are some people on this message board who will grasp at anything if they think it will further their partisan cause, or help them paint themselves as victims.

The moderators and I have enforced the rules fairly and equally for all the candidates. That is a FACT.

This is what you guys wanted. "The rules suck! The rules suck! These damned rules suck!" So, I'm getting rid of the rules. And what do I get? More complaining.

So, which one is it? Do you want the rules or don't you?

This is the exact same thing that happened when I put the rules in place. A bunch of people had been saying how awful it was that people were being mean to them and mean to their candidate. So I changed the rules so people couldn't be mean. And what did those complainers say? "You can't do this NOW!"

So, when is the timing fair? When am I permitted to do something which YOU ALL are asking for? Nobody told me that when you were complaining, you actually had a very specific time in mind when change was permitted to take place. Otherwise, my DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASK FOR would be interpreted as biased.

This is absolutely ridiculous. There isn't a damned thing I can do without being accused of bias. Even if I give you exactly what you ask for, I get accused of bias.

Whatever I do, it is not good enough. Whatever I do, someone will always move the goalposts. To hell with it all.

[ibegurpard]

55. I agree with your decision

I was not crazy about the rules to begin with and as time went on it seemed that they caused frustration to build...leaving people without much of an option if they chose NOT to ignore things except use rule violations as weapons against each other... I'll be the first to admit that I've done that and anyone else who denies it is yanking your chain.

[Skinner]

59. Thanks for that.

It was obvious that there were people using the rules as a weapon. I really did not appreciate being a tool in the partisan squabbles of others.

[seventhson]

61. That is the biggest problem

People who oppose you or do not like your opinion will alert on you at a drop of the hat.

Excessive alerting should merit some warning too. I do NOT favor banishment except for freeper ghouls and unsubtle spooks (of the BFEE "Intel"-sic-variety).BFEE Provocateurs.

[RetroLounge]

88. Is this all aimed at me? Okay, I'll respond.

Allow me to speculate:

"Oh, so now that your guy *Kerry* drops out, you are going to remove the cuffs and let everyone attack Howard Dean."
See? It doesn't matter what I do. There are people who will always spin it as favoring one candidate or another.

Do I think this is on purpose because Dean dropped out? No, of course not. That this favors Kerry? No. I don't think you would do that, or I hope not. But that's what it ends up being. Gep and Clark supporters may feel the same way. People on this board used the alerts as a way to attack the people they didn't like. Alerts were pressed at the drop of the hat. Posts were getting deleted because people weren't sickeningly sweet to each other. Then the people who got alerted started alerting back as revenge. Unintended results of a good plan. I got sucked into it too, and probably alerted on people just because they are annoying, and for that I aplogize to you.

I don't see how this change favors *anyone*. If it hurts anyone, it's John Kerry and John Edwards, who are still in this primary, and who now are going to endure a torrent of unmitigated crap from disgruntled Dean supporters intent on payback.

I don't think this truly is intended to favor anyone, nor does it hurt Kerry or Edwards, just perhaps a few of their supporters who may get an earful they justly deserve. Maybe. But DU in itself won't affect the candidates in any direct way, just our views on them.

And as far as disgruntled Dean Supporters, I think certain people on this board have a LONG way to go before we are "gruntled" again. After being treated like the enemy for months on end, having nasty Republican tactics tossed at our candidate, and then have those same tactics defended as "just politics", well, is it any wonder why Dean Supporters are a tad upset. The one place we have felt at home since 2000 became a forum of eggshell walking. Clark and Kucinich supporters may feel the same way.

It is clear that there are some people on this message board who will grasp at anything if they think it will further their partisan cause, or help them paint themselves as victims.

This has been going on since the campaign started. Yes, I agree. and it's from all camps.

The moderators and I have enforced the rules fairly and equally for all the candidates. That is a FACT.

This is what you guys wanted. "The rules suck! The rules suck! These damned rules suck!" So, I'm getting rid of the rules. And what do I get? More complaining.

Facts are one thing and perceptions are another. I will take you at your word, but I know others have a different perception. And sorry, the way things have been around here, complaining has become a habit. Hopefully that will change.

But you replied to MY POST, and now it seems like you are venting toward all of DU now. I can't speak for anyone else. So I will stop now.

So, which one is it? Do you want the rules or don't you?

No. I don't...

RL

On edit: removed some words that didn't look nice...

[Skinner]

99. I appreciate your response.

I would just like to make one observation.

First you are upset about the fact that you have been "treated like the enemy" for months. Then you are upset about the fact that you have to "walk on eggshells." If you think I can fix both of those problems, then you are guaranteed to be disappointed. Ultimately, I can only fix one or the other. You felt like you were being treated like the enemy, so I wrote a bunch of rules so everyone would be required to be nice to you. But then you felt like you were walking on eggshells because you were being expected to follow those rules.

I am only human. I cannot perform miracles.

There is nothing I can reasonably do to fulfil both of your contraditory expectations.

But I certainly understand why you and others are feeling upset.

[RetroLounge]

116. Thank you, and you are correct. They do contradict.

In all facets of life, expectations are what can cause hurt feelings.

Maybe if we DU'ers treated fellow Democrats here as opponents instead of enemies, there would be less of a problem. or not.

The enemies are the Republicans.

Thank you for acknowledging our feelings. I appreciate it.

RL

[oasis]

36. Thank you.

[gate of the sun]

38. I think it is a very smart idea to let the demon

out.....you know our rage...our anger.... . our absolute feelings of how wrong all these things we are asked to swallow make us feel.

[diamondsoul]

39. Well, Skinner, I'd have to say

all the Mods and Staff at DU have been awsome. I've had my warnings, appealed once or twice, and I know when and where I went out of bounds.

I've had a few frustrating days this week and posted some pretty well vent threads, neither of which have been locked as far as I know. From those threads, I already stuck a few posters into ignore. It's not worth letting myself get so ticked off I wind up booted from DU. I like too many people here.

[Lexingtonian]

40. a good idea

I'd suggest waiting about a week or so, though. The denial and bitterness levels are so high that there will be a lot of passionate nonsense posted for quite a while.

[TreasonousBastard]

41. I hate rules, but...

I've seen too many unmoderated, or poorly moderated, groups destroyed by personal vendettas. It's too easy to lash out when you're anonymous and don't have to worry about facing someone. It's also far too easy to just gas on about nothing. Far too many of the more serious people find they have better ways too spend their time and the group is left with the jerks.

On the other hand, why shouldn't I, or anyone else, be able to lash out at something or someone we think is idiotic, irrational, over emotional, or just plain wrong?

Personally, I prefer to argue the argument and not the people, but there are a few here who just plain piss me off on a regular basis. And I wouldn't mind saying so once in a while.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. I know what you mean about

" few here who just plain piss me off on a regular basis " -- but most of them have not been able to navigate the gauntlet of GD:2004, and I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with them until the GE rules kicked in.

[Kanary]

108. There it is in a nutshell

"Far too many of the more serious people find they have better ways too
spend their time and the group is left with the jerks."

That's what I've seen happen in group after group on the 'net. It eventually becomes an unusable cesspool.

I've read Skinner's posts, and certainly empathize with his situation. It's got to seem like an impossible situation.

It's really too bad that the "free speech" people just don't understand that there are reasonable limits to "venting". Nowhere in the "outside world" can you express yourself with impunity and not pay the price. We yell invectives at our spouses because we're frustrated with our boss or our doctor, or whatever, and we find, in time, the marriage deteriorated, probably beyond repair.

In marriages where there has been a tragedy, the ones that last through it do so because the couple comes together and supports each other, rather than taking their grief out on each other.

Same with friendships, and the same with any group, including internet groups.

I'm amazed in this day and age that people still don't "get" that you can be angry and frustrated with a situation, and can vent it in a healthy way without dumping displaced anger on others who have nothing to do with your situation. It's amazing that people still don't know you can disagree with another person, and still respect them and treat them accordingly.

Without that understanding, eventually the toll will be damaging noise, and the more reasonable will cut their losses and leave. It discourages me to see it happen over and over and over.

"The group is left with the jerks."

Indeed.

Kanary

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. In spite of the fact that I might bite my own hand

My request is to keep most of them in place until Super Tuesday. IF you want to modify them to suit yourself or accomodate the mods, then fine, but I like the notion that what is posted in here must have SOME semblance of a factual basis in order to be permissible.

[Cuban_Liberal]

44. I agree, Skinner.

I've never envied you your job, mainly because I know what it is to play 'the bad guy' on a daily basis (I'm a police officer). On the other hand, as a poster who has made a good-faith effort to abide by the rules but has still been 'dinged' a couple of times, I can speak presonally about the frustration that arises from that experience. It is additionally frustrating to see some clear rules violations seemingly ignored while at one and the same time seeing others punished; while I do not personally believe that there is any 'bias' on your or the Mods' parts, I will not bury my head in the sand and deny that the perception of bias does not exist. I essentially see the special rules as a no-win proposition for everyone involved, most especially you and the Mods.

In summation, I vote 'yes' to doing away with the special rules.

:)

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. I love the idea. n/t

[quinnox]

46. A fair proposal

I think the reasoning given is sound. Let the Kerry bashers have free reign for awhile. I got to be super critical of Dean for months, I freely admit. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I will be taking a break from this forum all the same, getting tired of the whining and third party nonsense. Will be back when the spirit of unity is at hand with a Kerry nomination and focus is shifted to where it is most important, defeating George Bush.

[JohnLocke]

48. If I had to chose between incredible rudeness and intrusive moderators...

...I'd chose the latter.

[seventhson]

58. Not me

The difference between the first amendment and fascism is just as fine a distinction.

I do appreciate the no name calling rules and no personal attacks rule though. I can handle rude. But name calling is infantile.

[Kanary]

109. It's sad there has to be the choice, but I chose the same one. n/t

[seventhson]

49. Geez - I woke up with this great idea and spent an hour pitching it here..

to take the GLOVES OFF in GD Primary 2004 and what do I discover when I finally post it?

What a maroon I am.

Thanks Skinner.

My thoughts exactly.

I think there are sound reasons for relaxing the rules even MORE now.

We are going to take many hits from the repukes and we need to KNOW how to respond and even what sticks.

I posted my ideas for GLOVES OFF in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=367677

and hope others will consider them.

My plan was to post a poll later on after people have digested the idea a bit. I imagine you had the same thoughts.

I admire that brilliance of yours, Skinner.

I think you are right.

[Skinner]

50. Please don't post a poll.

Thanks.

[seventhson]

52. Aww Shucks, Skinner. I get my best digs in in Polls -and take the hits too

Just funnin'.

I will let you do the polls on this one, boss.


I have to say, though some may disagree, that you have made this place so user friendly that I sometimes feel like the boss (because I can actually control a topic or thread as long as I stay within the guidelines). I can get results in minutes. I can get responses. I can get shared righteous indignation at anything from political idiocy to serious philosophy to the "problems" with the mods.

Thanks. I will stop kissing up now.

But I really DID want to do a poll on my proposal. You just beat me to the issue (probably by days or even weeks).

I won't, though, out of filial deference.

Peace

[NNN0LHI]

51. What do I think?

I think this site belongs to you and therefore you have the right to handle this any way you choose to. No questions asked. And I can live with what ever you decide to do. No problem with me whatsoever. And thats the honest truth.

Don

Edit: Almost forgot. If I decide there is something I find unbearable around here, I know where the door is at.

[Misinformed01]

53. I can't believe you are awake and perky

Do you have a contact hangover from dealing with my posts last night?

[Skinner]

54. I can't believe you are awake and perky.

Quite a night, huh? :D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. Yeah something about alcohol, magnolias, vinegar and barbeque

When southern women let their hair down it's a sticky mess!

[Robb]

62. What's the discussion board equivalent

...of burning mattresses flying through the air? :prisonriot:

:D As the saying goes, we opine, we opine, and we opine. But Skinner decides. If you think it's right, I'm there.

[Skinner]

63. I think we are about to find out.

:-)

[southerngirlwriter]

66. Skinner, I have one comment.

Do whatever you like, but if you drop the rule about not using flaky sources and start allowing rumor and innuendo, please bear in mind that the GOP will not have to do any opposition research at all. DUers who are still whining, angry, pissed off, and what have you that their candidate didn't win will be doing it all for them. If Rove needs a nasty, vicious rumor to spread to try to keep Dems at home or alter the outcome one way or the other, he won't have to even pay one of his attack dogs. The DU will have it provided for him, for free.

I think you and the mods have done a stellar job, and I personally don't care if the whiners whine until their throats and ears bleed. The one rule I think that MUST stay is the one about unsubstantiated gossip. Otherwise Drudge and his ilk will simply use DU as a laboratory for their rumor-mongering. And the "waaaaa! waaaaa! My candidate was the best but now he's gone!!" types will play along.

[DuctapeFatwa]

68. Why should you be prevented from debunking such rumors?

If people come here looking for information, maybe even if some of the stuff they read on other boards is true, and then find out that here it is forbidden to even mention it, will that be more effective than your own reasoned explanation of the substantiated facts?

[southerngirlwriter]

69. Ductape Fatwa,

Have you stopped beating your wife and sodomizing your kids?

What? You don't beat your wife and sodomize your kids?

I heard that you do. If you do, I don't want you to be President of my country!

What? You still say you don't?

Prove it's not true.

[DuctapeFatwa]

77. Any candidate for national office is going to be under scrutiny

Every aspect of his life, everything he has ever done, is going to be fine-combed and put under the microscope.

In my opinion, none of the candidates is stupid enough to put himself in that position if there is even a breath of anything that could not only thwart his bid for national office, but destroy his career and cause harm to his family.

Thus any scandalous rumors about wife beating and child abuse start at a very low credibility potential, and are more likely to damage the reputation of the rumor's source than that of the candidate himself.

I admit, I am in favor of free speech, and so my opinion is biased, but even if I were opposed to free speech, I would be very wary of forbidding a candidate's supporters, or just honest people, from telling the truth about an unsubstantiated claim, or a pure fabrication.

To do so gives the fabrication credibility that it does not deserve, and casts the candidates supporters in a questionable light, both counter-productive to the aims of those who would see him in the White House.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. Why are you avoiding the question? Have you stopped beating your wife?

This isn't about "forbidding a candidate's supporters, or just honest people, from telling the truth about an unsubstantiated claim, or a pure fabrication."

and it is disingenuous to suggest so.

It is about forbidding the unsubstantiated claim, or a pure fabrication from being made in the first place, on a messageboard whose stated purpose is to help Democrats and unseat George Bush.

However if I believed for instance, that there is no difference between the parties, that none of our candidates would be an improvement over George Bush and that positive change can't be achieved through the political process -- if I believed those things, I might agree with you -- but in that case my goal would here would not be discussion.

In fact, there is a big difference between the parties, any of our candidates would be an enormous improvement over Bush, and positive change, while agonizingly slow, can be achieved through political, democratic means.

[Skinner]

86. Allow me to add my two cents here.

I don't know why people think that I am somehow more qualified to be the truth-detector than the members of this message board.

If someone posts something which is questionable, I think it is much more fair to let the members of the board debunk it, rather than have everyone coming to me asking for satisfaction.

Furthermore, I think most of our members are smart enough to recognize immediately when they are being spun. Particularly if other, better informed DU members have the freedom to clearly explain why a claim is incorrect.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. That's what's so good about rule #8

It forces the discussion to have at least some tangental relation to reality.

[Skinner]

95. Actually, Rule #8 was a huge pain to enforce.

And many, many people were using it as a weapon. Whenever anyone says something you don't like, no matter how well documented, hit alert and claim that the person didn't provide a link.

It was stupid. People would make the most innocent claims, and some angry partisan would hit Alert and demand satisfaction.

Complete waste of time, IMO.

If someone starts a thread titled "Candidate X molests children" then we have the power to shut that down anyway. But we don't need a rule that requires a link whenever someone says that Howard Dean had a ham sandwich for lunch.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. Well, it's obvious my favorite rule is on the chopping block

C'est la vie.

Whatever you decide to do, I'm fine with it, because it is late enough in the process that I think I can make it till the GE rules kick in without blowing a gasket.

But I wonder about something in the GE rules.

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

Sensible, I think, but I'm confused about what our mechanism will be for discussing "partisan negative attacks" from the RW. It seems like their has to be some way to say "this is the latest lie they are saying about our candidate" -- but a disruptor might very well want to make the same post, without the word 'lie'.

Methinks things may get a little easier for you and the mods but I'm guessing it still will be a frustrating difficult job.

[Skinner]

100. You are welcome to discuss partisan attacks from the RW.

But you're not welcome to engage in partisan attacks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. I guess it is a distinction that can never be anything but subjective.

[DuctapeFatwa]

102. As a practical consideration, aside from the free speech issue

As I understand it, moderators are volunteers.

The more Byzantine and ponderous the jungle of rules, the more labor-intensive their job becomes.

With all the intelligent, resourceful, and informed people available to corroborate or debunk, it does not make sense to throw this task into the administrators' inbox.

As evidence, go post a quote from Howard Dean, fron his official site, saying "I had a ham sandwich for lunch," and come back in an hour and you will find at least 6 people offering long treatises to the effect that he did not mean he pesonally ate the ham sandwich, and pointing out that Dean is known to have eaten lunch very early on at least three occasions, so he really meant he had one for brunch.

Then go down to the Punishment Demand forum, and sure enough, someone will be insisting that the administrators take severe action against the freeper disruptors who are quoting candidates out of context to further the chicken salad sandwich agenda.

If the moderators have to spend all day googling for goobers, how will they have time to keep up with the dupes in the Breaking News Forum? Dupes there posted by me alone could keep a dozen of them busy.

[Tinoire]

111. Very beautifully and succinctly put! That rule was

a total waste of time & it was hilarious to watch all the people running to ATA whining. What is hilarious now will be too painful to watch in the GE.

You would think people would appreciate the opportunity to learn more, dig more, and ensure they've picked the best man who will be left standing.

All the head-burying in the world won't ensure a Democratic win if a weak candidate is chosen to compete against Bush. There are no mods, no rule # 8 in the GE.

[Kanary]

113. Your two cents is worth a lot more.

What you say is quite on the mark. Certainly people can respond to silly rumors and debunk them as well, and it shouldn't be your job.

However, the other side of that is the toll..... constant debunking of very silly stuff takes not only time, but also energy and emotional reserves. Little is left for satisfying, indepth discussions where we are actually able to probe our own beliefs, needs and wants, and come to a broader understanding of ourselves, each other, and our political process. The lack of those kinds of discussions has added to the dismal situation we now face.

In saying this, I'm not implying that it's up to you to create the atmosphere that would nourish those discussions. Not by any means. My goal is to point out what we lose with all the silly flinging of burning sacks of doggie pooh. Some of us long for those types of discussions. We're out of luck.

Kanary

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. Hear, hear.

[DuctapeFatwa]

127. A lot of people would agree with you, but there are others who enjoy

the process of researching and backing up their debunk even more than others enjoy being the Vice and Virtue Police, slinking around threads with the Popeil Infidel Finder, and hauling their battered heretic off to insist that the administators stop whatever they are doing and punish this evildoer severely and immediately.

The beauty of utlilizing the collective talents of the posters is that if you don't particularly care for googling, or just don't feel like it right now, you can be secure in the knowledge that plenty of people do, and are, and the offending poster will get his comeuppance courteously and publicly, providing a much more satisfying experience for fact hound and punishment voyeur alike, not to mention the benefit to lurkers and the timidfingered, who had always wondered if Kucinich wears boxers or briefs but was afraid to ask, but now thanks to the impertinent disruptor who states as fact that he wears a gold lame thong, now knows not only that while the congressman has chosen, whether unwisely or well, to keep his nethergarment preferences private at least until a nominee is chosen, that he is allergic to lame is a matter of public record.

And all without you, or anyone else disinclined or otherwise occupied having to lift a finger!

[Kanary]

130. You have the numbers

and the board is going to go your way.

So, it would be nice if those of you who really like the rough and tumble would pass along to the rest of us where we can find the quiet, thoughtful, probing discussions *we'd* really like to have. Several of us are looking, so if you come across such a beast, fill us in.

It's clear there is a chasm here that can't be bridged.

And, I've heard all your admonitions to use the ignore buttons. That's not the point.

Some of us need a more quiet atmosphere. That's legitimate, also.

Kanary

[DuctapeFatwa]

138. I have to disagree with your first premise. The posters on this board

overwhelmingly rejected free speech when it was offered. Twice.

The numbers were about 80% in favor of arbitrary and subjective enforcement of speech restrictions that would make Mullah Omar tremble and fall weeping with awe into the arms of a similarly verklempt John Ashcroft.

To address your second point, with apologies to those who read an earlier post, the essence of which I now repeat - YOU are the only one who can decide what you will respond to.

It is within your power to completely ignore people whose comments you don't believe are worth your time, topics that do not interest you for whatever reason, arguments that take turns that displease you.

And if you are unable or unwilling to do that for yourself, the administrators have even provided technical means to do it for you.

At the click of a finger, you can cease to see anything posted by SmallPenis4Jeb08, you can hide all threads about the toothfish question, you can even, if you wish, hide entire forums, further reducing the chance that topics you dislike will assail your eyes.

It is possible, if you wish, to tailor your DU experience so that the only things more than fleetingly visible to you are the posts by 4 or 5 people who enjoy sharing pictures of Paris Hilton in provocative but innocent poses with fluffy animal babies.

Or you can block all forums but IP and see first hand just how effective rules can be in squashing any attempt at productive discussion.

Political discussion and a quiet atmosphere may not be the most compatible roomates, but if what you seek is a discussion of politics where people who disagree with you are a rare exception, and compliantly fall into line after a few well-crafted phrases from you and others with the same view, it is unlikely that any rules will be able to ensure that.

Suffocating tangles of rules give an unfair advantage to people with certain talents, and unfairly penalize others.

Take the Magistrate, for example. I defy you or anybody else to come up with any rule or combination thereof that will prevent him from saying what he wants to say, and slicing you up for sandwiches in the process, without even spilling the tiniest crumb of Rule Violation for the hungry Hall Monitors sniffing ratlike at his every phrase.

Why should people who are intelligent, informed and whose opinions are just as valuable have their voices muted simply because they were not born with an innate ability to string words together?

Note for those who need a note: My use of the Magistrate as an example is intended as a compliment to him, even though he disagrees with me on almost every subject on earth, (and is of course, therefore, usually wrong), he does so in a very splendid manner that has some composition teacher, somewhere, smiling wide, and probably believing they deserve the credit for it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

139. I have to disagree with your first premise.

"The posters on this board overwhelmingly rejected free speech when it was offered."

No, the posters on this board voted in favor of a set of moderating guidelines to be applied in an extremely narrow circumstances - messages posted on a private, partisan, Democratic web discussion site.

This is not a public forum, it is a private forum. As in, this is not a public forum as understood in the context of free speech in the United States.

I also disagree with your assertion that the comments of people who are unable to state them politely are as valuable as those who do have that ability.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

136. There are many here who enjoy finding clever ways to disrupt

without violating the rules.

There may also be some who find battling and debunking those disruptions entertaining.

My guess is, however, that that is an extremely small number of people.

[sangha]

167. Bunk and debunking are disruptive

While it's true that any all of the ridiculous rw-inspired rumors can be debunked, in addition to the time and effort it takes to do so, these rumors are disruptive, as indicated by the reaction of DUers whenever a Freeper manage to slip through and post. Until DU gets around to banning them (and this is not a criticism. It sometimes takes time for it to become apparent) they usually attract a good deal of hostility, and I suspect that hostility doesn't just vanish as soon as the posuer is banned.

This hostility is like radioactivity in that it takes time to fade away, and until it does, it leaches into various threads. And it's not just Freeper who create this hostility. The recent Drudge rumors about Kerry is another example where the hostility created by the passing and debunking of rumors created a great deal of hostility amongst ourselves.

on edit: This doesn't mean that anyone who posts a rumor deserves to be banned. However, I'd like to suggest that you consider banning posters who have post unsubstantiated rumors and/or disruptive and unsubstantiated theories on a regular basis.

Asserting unsubstantiated rumors/theories as fact is rude and inherently disruptive.

[liberalnurse]

64. Okay, I'm going to say it......

I think it may be in the back of folks mind as well...


I think all the alerts that got posts deleted affected the fund raising efforts. There was an air of high anxiety 24/7 on the board. There was road-rage on both ends ....posting, alerting and delete/warnings. This compounded by the need to second guess one's replies carefully all for knot..... then get that Flashing Red Mail Alert......signaling punitive actions have been rendered...

The anxiety did not promote peer bonding which encouraged donations. I donate when I feel welcome, grateful, needed and appreciated and part of the group collective....like family.....

I donate a lot.....I gave $1,800 to Dean over 6 months..... I donate to Guy James, White Rose, MoveOn and so on.....My added DU donation was placed in pending status.....because of the lasting impression.

The fear/anxiety tension level was the first and last impression.....which does not encourage donating freely and in a support fashion for the "Cause" or the "Family".


It's time to go home to old DU......
The current rules are just too Ashcroft.

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. Posting with a Roget's in hand, while gazing into a crystal ball

The posting experience is becoming terribly frustrating, and may even be increasing tension instead of decreasing it, simply because one can post something they believe in good faith to be in compliance with the rules, and yet get 'dinged' for it simply because someone chose to take offense in some obscure way that the poster NEVER intended or even considered when posting originally.

Stop the madness, please. :)

[Skinner]

71. No surprise there.

It is no secret that many people decided not to donate to DU this past fund drive. We are very lucky that there were other people who were willing to give, so we could reach our goal.

And I believe you are sincere when you say that your reason for withholding your monetary support was the intrustive moderating.

But I do have a question, and I hope that you and other Dean supporters can answer this as honestly as possible, because it goes to the heart of the issue.

Clearly, there was a large number of disgruntled Dean supporters who were pissed about DU well before we started enforcing the draconian rules. Even before the rules, they were pissed at DU. But their reason for being pissed was the exact opposite to what they are saying now. They were upset that I would allow people to attack Democratic primary candidates and their supporters. If I had never given in to everyone's complaints, and if I had allowed everyone to keep attacking Howard Dean and the other primary candididates, would people have donated then?

I think that the answer is obvious: No, people would have withheld their donations under that situation too.

How do I know? Because angry Dean supporters were demanding their money back even before we had the strict rules.

I believe, in the very core of my being, that there was not a damned thing I could have done to satisfy these people. Because rules or no rules, it's still a presidential primary, and people are going to take things very personally.

Do I have any regrets? Absolutely. I regret trying to make people happy who refuse to be happy. But I don't regret the lost donations. In hindsight it is clear to me that there isn't a darn thing I could have done to get those donations.

If we never had these rules, and if we let people say whatever they want about Howard Dean, would you have donated to DU?

[NNN0LHI]

76. "and people are going to take things very personally" ALERT!

I think you may have fallen into the "painting with a wide brush" trap Skinner? I have never taken anything personally here at DU. At least that I can remember. I understand politics a little bit. And its not tiddlywinks. And I also think it would be good for some people to remember that.

Don

[Skinner]

78. It is clear that not everyone takes politics personally.

I suppose I should have said "some", but I'm pretty sure it's implied in the way I said it.

Yes, politics ain't tiddlywinks.

[Rose Siding]

156. Yes, it was clear you meant Dean supporters

And I'd think we were all a bunch of irrational lunatics from the tone of your post.

But as an example, how irrational is it to find this kind of freeper photoshop of a candidate offensive, and request its removal? Too "thin skinned"? I just think it's healthier when bushcheneyrumsfeldsnatorum are the subjects of such hilarious creativity.



Hopefully, I'm rational enough that this kind of hateful depiction of any dem would offend me. It puzzles me that a reasonable adult could actually defend this. (I can't be certain that you actually do, as you never responded to my message, but it hasn't been removed from the old post)

I don't post attacks, as a rule -no warnings at all yet-, so perhaps you aren't including me in with whatever nebulous group it is that "rufuses to be happy".

[Skinner]

158. Actually, it is clear that many people take politics personally.

It's not just Dean supporters. It's supporters of every candidate.

[ibegurpard]

96. My answer to your question

Yes...I donated to the previous two fund drives but not this one because I was tapped out.
From my observations, many of the people whose candidate seems to be receiving the brunt of the flak are going to complain about bias. You are never going to escape that.

On edit: I've made some pretty strenuous objections to rule changes in the past because, in my opinion, they usually come about because of a few very loud and pushy people constantly complaining about something. I would recommend holding your ground in the future.

[liberalnurse]

117. The anxiety level resulting from the

punitive actions or potential actions leaves an impression.....

Not a feeling of peer bonding which would evoke donating.... Many deleted posts and warnings, not necessary mine but plenty of others were rendered as passive-aggressive actions against the poster or reply ....something you could not control even under your best intentions.....The result was a defensive air within the board.

You and the staff addressed them fairly and that is to your admirable credit. Yet, the process was not business friendly and kept many at bay....not knowing if tomorrow they would be banned or just licking their wounds from Red Mail messages that were ultimately threatening in perception as there is a ceiling to how many deleted messages one could accrue.

I know nothing of the requests for any refunds.....I always donate in good faith and would never ask for my refund....Geeze.....

Many of the deletes and warnings were unfounded ....leaving many members feeling rejected by the board and peers. The vicious attacks pre and post the current rules garnered the implementation of the rules.....but then......the other shoe dropped.....It was the opportunity to let the mods use their imagination to interrupt the posts, "the gray area factor", that was the ultimate demise; it was abused and misused. Thing were typically repaired a day or so later but .......the damage was done, it distanced members, set-up a defensive post mentality and completely discouraged new membership via referral.

Let me add that many of the alerts were indeed warranted and I thank the mods for the voluntary efforts. It worked both ways......Boundaries were blurred and that gave way to the opportunity to exploit the messanger based on the message that may of been just part of everyday conversation.

[edzontar]

137. I think that early on, when the anti-Dean attacks really began to mount

And we had the "Stop Dean Movement" incidents, that many of us were naive at that point and actually thought that this stuff was so negative and downright dishonest that it would be shut down immediately.

I know I assumed that-- and was very upset when that did not happen, and even more so when attempts to "out" the deceptive nature of those threads led to other people being alerted and in some cases banned.

I think that things would have worked out better if those extreme and dishonest attacks had been disposed of right away.

That said, I think you have been brave and honest here and I want to thank you and support you for doing doing the right thing.

You have my complete support,

Thank you.

[xultar]

141. Wow, Dean folks wanted their donations back? That's rich! nt

[unfrigginreal]

157. What a crock

The draconian rules were already in place when I decided to withold my donations. It's just the more harsh 2nd version had not been implemented yet.

It became clear to me that fairness was an issue when this board allowed a new member to come on board and immediately start a stop Dean campaign. I still cannot believe that DU allowed some uncredentialed twit to come onboard and immediately start organizing against a Democratic candidate.

[Skinner]

159. And when people got together to fight against Kerry, what did I do?

I let them do that, too. Even under the draconian rules.

I understand that some people were upset that someone on DU wanted to stop Dean. But there never have been any rules in place that disallowed that sort of thing. This is a political discussion board. There were already many Democrats on DU and in the real world who wanted to stop Howard Dean. I saw no reason -- and I still see no reason -- to make it illegal for someone to do that.

You want to start a stop John Kerry movement? Go nuts. Until he's the clear nominee, our rules allow you to attack him.

ON EDIT: You are correct, there were stricter rules for starting threads in GD since last year (November, I think), even before we split it into two forums. (Those rules pertained to thread topics only, and did not pertain to replies.) IMHO, Howard Dean benefitted most from those rules, because he was the front runner that entire time, and everyone was gunning for him.

Those rules are still in effect in the GD forum (but not the GD:2004 forum), and you can read them here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=937547

[BootinUp]

67. I agree with you

basically what I concluded after your last appeal that was voted down.

nuff said

[Skinner]

72. That's why we're not having a vote this time.

I think many of the people who now hate me forget that I begged all of you to get rid of these rules before, but you voted against it.

We are not having a vote this time because I don't want to be overruled again. I just want to do what I think is right.

[greatauntoftriplets]

73. Please eliminate the rules.

I voted again them in the first place. Thanks.

[nomaco-10]

74. Absolutely agree that the rules should be ....

relaxed. Take the shackles off the posters in GD2004 and allow us to speak more freely. I can't even count the number of posts that have been deleted that had worthwhile content because someone decided they just ever so lightly touched upon some rule when other's posts were left standing because they were more clever in their wording. Parsing your words and semantics have become the rule of the day allowing some to circumvent the GD2004 rules while others are shut out because they aren't as sly and speak from the heart.
I whole heartedly endorse reverting back to the original rules, nothing but good, honest debate and a few hurt feelings that will heal can come from it. The paranoia and anger that has resulted from the previous rules will open up a new style of debate that will result to a more open discussion.
You may have your hands full at first, but my advice to the complainers would be, toughen up, it's a big, bad, cruel world out there, stop complaining and offer up your arguments to the poster not me, if your arguments are valid, they will stand on their own merit and the person's post that you disagree with will be left standing for relative disagreement, it's called DEMOCRACY.

[bearfartinthewoods]

75. please don't drop the rule about accuracy in the title.

this was the most senseble of the rules and i dread going back to the days when the board was filed with titles such as "do you think....." or "ever wonder...."

speaking for those of us who are stuck on dial up, i hope we won't
drop the requirement that the title accurately portray the content.

[LWolf]

79. Hey, Skinner.

I don't hate ya. :hug:

I'll do fine any direction you take. I do agree with NSMA; I'd like to see the new rules take effect after super tuesday. I've appreciated some restraint on the incivility, but I've also found that judicious use of "ignore" poster or thread helps. Ignoring flamebait threads keeps the blood pressure down, and ignoring repeated disruptors who don't contribute substance to a discussion does the same. I plan to clean out most of my "ignore" list after the convention and start over when we're all on the same team again.

Really, whether we use "ignore" features or not, if we don't respond to flamebait, it drops, and substantive debate/discussion can be left on the front page.

I'd love to see the threads with the most posts turn out to be those debated with thought, rather than with flames. And that's a choice every DUer can make. Don't like it? Don't feed it. Let it sink.

[nomaco-10]

81. Having the rules take change after Super Tuesday is .........

another way of saying, let's hold democracy off for another couple of weeks so we can have a love fest, unity board, it just doesn't work that way. Each and every day that democratic views are withheld from any society or community, is another day of lost freedom. We, as a nation and a group of democrats should realize that more than anybody.

[DuctapeFatwa]

84. Damn! That was good!

:yourock:

[Tinoire]

112. Bingo! n/t

[bread_and_roses]

129. Good idea. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

80. As a moderator and a Dean supporter I feel compelled to post some

thoughts.

Moderating is a very tough and subjective job. At times rewarding and others not so much. I would be a liar if I didn't say that moderating during this primary season has been extremely rough.

I am and will always be a supporter of Governor Dean. I went beyond just voting for him. I called, I wrote, I caucused. I still feel good about what I have done. My heart still aches that he is out of the race.

This primary forum was bound to be a place of ill will, bad feelings and reading stuff that one may not want to read. In my rational mind, that's politics. I know it, I've been here before. In my emotional mind it hurt to see the attacks on my candidate. Just as it hurts every supporter of every candidate. And so, at anytime when I thought my emotions were involved, I took it to my fellow mods for their opinions. They did as well when something involved their candidate. You have to trust me on this. Not one candidate was ever singled out for no holds barred bashing allowance. Not a lot is ever deleted or locked on a split second decision, unless it is an obvious rule that is being broken.

But, the main reason I am posting here is because DU is the best damn place for Democrats like us...all of us. We've got a good thing. As a Dean supporter I can say that I never once felt that this place was biased against Dean. If I thought that I wouldn't have stayed and I really wouldn't be a moderator. Dean has taken a lot of lumps, and so has Clark, and so has Kerry, and Edwards, and Kucinich, Lieberman, Braun, Gephardt, Sharpton...you get my point.

What I ask is that we put aside all that we feel right now, and think about life without DU. I couldn't bear it.

That said, it was extremely tough moderating these rules, and I think I did my best. I will always support DU, I will always donate to DU, and I will always be grateful for the people I have met on this forum. Even if I don't always agree with their views or care for something they have posted. I do encourage everyone who posts here on a daily basis to try your hand at moderating. It's a real eye opener and a very good experience on the whole.

:hug: Laura

[NNN0LHI]

82. "I think I did my best"?

You and all the mods here at DU definately did your best and it shows. You have all performed above and beyond the call of duty. You have taken upon a job that I know I am incapable of doing. I am just fortunate enough to know my limitations. Again thank you and all the mods here who have shown that you really are the best at what you do and your dedication here at DU. I am truly impressed. And a little jealous too, becuase you are able to do something so well that I realize that I could not do at all.

Don

[liberalnurse]

120. Great feedback there Ms. Grumpy.

Being a Moderator, a sincere and proactive one, had to be a horrific challenge. Thank you for all your dedicated time here in a most turbulent period of our democracy.



Thank you!!!!!!!! :toast:

[maddezmom]

122. You all have done a fine job

Thanks for all the hardwork, I know it's been difficult dealing with all the infighting lately. :pals:

[Kanary]

123. Reading between your lines, MrsGrumpy

You were able to take your concerns to other moderators. My guess is, when you did that, you didn't receive attacks or dismissal. My guess is you were met with a certain amount of understanding.

And that is what some of us have been asking for.

All efforts to decrease the amount of civility have been very appreciated by me.

It's clear that the choice has been made, and I understand it.

Doesn't make me stop wishing I had that comraderie that you have.

And, no, my life doesn't lend itself to putting myself in that position.

Just my perspective.

Kanary

[seaglass]

85. How are the GD rules working?

I don't have a problem with the rules being removed here, but I do like the idea of not continuing an argument from one thread to another - it minimizes duplicates.

[Skinner]

87. They seem to be having the desired effect...

...which is to facilitate more thougtful and civil discourse.

But the unintended consequences are just brutal. We're pissing off way too many people.

And on top of that, they are creating a lot of unnecessary work for me.

[Joe the Revelator]

119. I think its a great idea to toss the rules

:thumbsup:

[curse10]

89. Either way is fine with me

It's not going to change my posting habits.

[Duder]

90. Thanks Mods & other important people...

I agree with Cuban_Liberal in that there is a perception of bias and I don't think anyone would deny that there have been some irregularities in trying to enforce the current rules. So I do believe that it would be appropriate as a goodwill gesture by DU to grant amnesty to those passionate supporters that have been purged from the roster here during the administrating of what at times seems to be a subjective and 'hit and miss' application of the current rules.

There are philosophical differences that run deeper than what some have perhaps misconceived to be a candidate bias that need to be addressed. "Underground" implies a more anti-establishment avant-garde movement as opposed to the "status quo". While both the DNC and DU share the same goal of replacing Bush, there's a problem if DU becomes a mirror of the DNC and establishment with a "kid glove" treatment once a nominee has been officially selected. DU in the past has allowed reasonable criticisms of Congressional Democrats and I believe DU should remain a place where policy differences can be expressed and shouldn't go into a total protectionist mode just because a candidate has been anointed. I fear a heavy handed approach towards those with convictions and a favoring towards those that have found a candidate of convenience.

So perhaps Skinner, you could address these centrist versus progressive conflicts and reassure me that DU will remain a venue for dissent and is not evolving into the Democratic Establishment? I don't mean this as a criticism but as a point for clarification.

As far as the rules go, I always favor less restrictions for myself and so to be fair, I'd have to agree for the same for others.

Thank you.

[kodi]

92. i think poorly qualified moderators make for a bad site

all men and women are not equally capable of moderating this site, but the willingness of all of them to contribute their precious time is to be lauded.

i dont know how one screens out those overly anal retentive types who wish to moderate, but one would hope a way can be found.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. I hadn't noticed any poorly qualified anal retentive moderators

Even if I had a gripe about any situation, I noticed human beings operating within the framework laid out.

[YNGW]

94. Smart Move

I agree.

[cindyw]

97. bad idea. It has been bearable here for a while.

Otherwise the flaming gets so bad, it becomes impossible to avoid insulting people. Before the rules were randomly enforced. It felt like the mods were showing preferences. This way it has felt fair. If you do this, I think a lot of people will leave. IMHO that is why the people who are making your life hell right now are doing that. They want the rules to go away so they can harass the rest of us. All you are doing is taking the pressure off you and back on us.

[edzontar]

103. If you lift the rules, you should re-admit everyone that has been banned

According to the old ones.

That at least would be fair.

[Skinner]

104. We will likely re-admit the people in who were blocked out of GD:2004.

But I have no intention of offering blanket amnesty to the people who got themselves banned from DU.

In the past we have allowed banned members to come back if they made a compelling case for their own reinstatement. So if someone wants to come back, I would encourage them to get in touch with me and make their case.

[edzontar]

135. And I am endorsing this even though it may mean some of the

Nastiest critics of everything decent may be be coming back from the hells of their own making.

[DuctapeFatwa]

107. I agree. The rules in the primary and IP forums do more to prevent

productive discussion than facilitate it, which is the standard argument the pro-rule lobby usually cites.

Discussing issues is not and should not be twisted into a text-base MOO game. Playing games and talking about events and ideas are two different skills, and draconian hairballs of rules give an unfair advantage to people with exceptional verbal skills and excessive vocabularies, and silence a lot of intelligent, informed people who have very valuable things to say.

[mvd]

114. I have no problems with this

Bet you like hearing that, Skinner. :-) The mods and admin have done a great job of enforcing the hard-to-enforce rules (and you are all human, so there were bound to have been a couple times things could have been better.) Also, you and the other admins have tried what you think would be best for the board - and not what's best for yourselves. I think it's a shame that you are getting so many complaints. If my vacation doesn't get in the way, I'll apply for mod next term. If it does, I'll apply for the term after. Anyway, it looks like lately the posts have been closer to what they were like before the rules, so why not go back.

[fishnfla]

115. Skinner, I hate to see this

I dont like to see you beating yourself up over this. Please, do whatever you think is best as the leader of this forum, do right by yourself first! Everything else will fall into place. I dont want to see you frustrated and tired like this.

As I told you once before, people are going to complain about forum content no matter what, thats a fact. I think by your posts here today you realize that you are damned if you do and damned if you dont. But please dont let it get to you personally.

Whne you retire from this, you'll have plenty of experience to be a preschool teacher, or maybe a boxing referee:)

[MoonAndSun]

118. I'd like to add my 2 cents to this thread.....

I would like to see DU welcome back longtime DUers, and short timers too, who were banned because of the GD2004 rules. Let's give them another opportunity to be part of the DU family, if they want to.

There are probably many who will never come back, but there may be the ones who would like the opportunity to come back here.

[maddezmom]

124. Skinner it's your board

Do what you, the other mods and admin think is best. I can't imagine that the short version of the rules would be too hard for most to follow. :)

1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.
2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.
3. Don't post entire articles. Instead, post short excerpts (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with links.
4. Respect the wishes of the moderators and administrators.

[Blue_Roses]

125. I think you are very

fair. From the threads that you've posted---rules included--I've noticed that you do go out of your way to be accomodating to everyone, which has to be extremely draining, 'cause there is no way to please everyone, especially those who are miserable and like to complain. But for those of us who enjoy getting information that the mainstream media doesn't give us, as well as "constructive debate," this IS the place!

I know I speak for myself, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority on this board are thank-ful for you (and your staff as well) and the awesome amount of time and energy you give to keep this place up and running, so please know that you are appreciated.

[onehandle]

131. Keep the Iron Fist until after the primaries and maybe beyond...

In the Bartcop '04 forum, we have seen how nasty it can really get. We have to get serious with our members once in a while. With your population, I shudder when I think about how much you and your Mods see that we don't see.

The fat lady is about to sing as far as a nominee. Myself, I'll ignore GD:2004 if your members are allowed to pummel her and each other for the next few weeks.

I was wondering if you'd close the forum after the primaries or if you'll just rededicate it? We plan to let ours stick through November.

http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=11

[Skinner]

132. We have discussed a number of possible options for this forum.

At this point, we're not sure what we are going to do with it. But DU has grown so large that I don't think folding this forum back into the GD forum is really a great idea.

[littlejoe]

133. Thanks, principal Skinner!

For relaxing the rules and allowing me to feel as though I can come back to this forum to express my thoughts. It is true that I don't fully appreciate the task you have.

In all honesty, I felt as though you were a little heavy handed. But I am all better now, and will try to learn how to play well with others.

[West Coast Democrat]

134. I'm just going to have to start putting some posters on Ignore

Maybe we all should do that. I personally get sick of all the martyr and stupid threatening to leave the party threads. I'll just automatically put those people on ignore from now on so that I won't be tempted to break the rules.

140. I agree

even if it is self serving on my part since I got my first warning right before I got to 1000 posts a couple of days ago :dunce:

[mitchum]

142. COOL! Since I was able to respond to this...

I assume that you have rescinded the rules.

THANKS,
mitchum

[Piperay]

143. Drop the rules, if it gets to bad

in here then I will stay out. I don't like incivility but perhaps it will be good for those who really need to vent to have a chance to let off steam so they can eventually knuckle down and take on the real enemy...the repukes.

[incapsulated]

144. Please let us vent before the crackdown!

I wouldn't be anywhere near as irritated with some posts if I could just say what I wanted to without paranoia over getting banned.

Once the race is over, I will accept the new rules. But right now, for a lot of us, it's either post or feel like we are walking on eggshells. This will probably be over soon, and I feel a lot of us need to get some pent up stuff off our chests. It's been a difficult primary season for a lot of us, and not everyone is as adept as others in finessing the rules, which leads to a lot of frustration on both sides (us and the mods).

[Nimble_Idea]

145. I think you MODS have done a good job

But there is a clear bias for PRO DEAN supporters and against other people,

but I'll accept that for people like "F J KERRY" posts to get deleted, this will become a pool of trash, So I hope you can TUFF IT OUT, and keep the rules intact. at least till a week or two before we can't
trash the dem nomineee.

Or better yet, just make a new place for people to GO ALL OUT on the other candidates, and let people have it out there.
thanks

[Ramsey]

146. If it makes your life easier

Then I am all in favor.

[floridaguy]

147. Bravo! A good decision and a fantastic job. (n/t)

[kaitykaity]

148. I think you spoke too soon. It seems that the

child in several people has decided it wants to come out and play. I know you hate being the disciplinarian meanie, but it appears that some people still need a firm hand.

Sorry, Skinner.

[Meldread]

149. Good idea. Glad to see it happen.

I'm glad to see this happen. I've had many of my posts deleted because of those rules, and most of them were based on how things were worded. I've done my best to obey the rules and not repeat rules that I've already broken... but there are so many and well... a broken rule is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Then you get into the context argument.

Although I've only repealed one deletesion and it was over turned (for the above mentioned context argument), I know some of them -- in the heat of argument -- deserved to be deleted. "Flaming" on message boards is nothing new, and getting "passionate" is nothing new to politics, but if you combine them both you can come up with some nasty situations.

I support this change because I like the idea of people being able to speak their mind. I like the idea of having a diverse discussion with a wide range of opinions. I'll also say that I don't like the idea of not being able to say anything against the Democratic Nominee -- what if he REALLY screws up like umm... says something like "Gay people are going to hell" or something like that. I mean we *ARE* a progressive board, and I would think that we should be able to call him on that. (Of course that's an extreme case. There are less extreme cases that I think should also be allowed, regarding policy at least.) Of course that's neither here nor there, and we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

I wish this had been changed sooner, but better late than never.

[chiburb]

151. Sorry you're fed up, but...

I was fed up with GD2004 the way it was. My opinion is to keep the rules and enforcement in place.

Thanks for asking.

[flowomo]

153. There's a larger issue here

I've read just about all the comments in this thread and what I see is a re-inventing of the wheel of free speech. And that's not necessarily a bad thing -- sometimes the important lessons come from the inventing more than the invention.

DU is a society similar to all others -- we have our good citizens and our various categories of outcasts. We have our ways of rewarding good citizenship and of punishing bad citizenship -- including the online version of the death penalty, which, after all, is what a permanent ban amounts to (and why I object to such bans).

The question before us is how, and how far, to suppress free speech. Every society has faced this question and made choices on limits. No society is without limits, although here, in the U.S., a continuing, aggressive debate, and a deeply rooted preference against limits, has kept them rather tightly controlled, as these things go.

My wish, of course, is for no restrictions in DU and to hope that the citizens of our society grow to understand that civil discourse is superior to mindless shouting, while also understanding that a sharp word and frank acknowledgment of our problems are essential elements of effective discourse.

Nonetheless, some people never grow into good citizens, and since our borders are not sealed, as it were, enemies of our society show up here regularly as well. So those two groups, at least, pose a problem.

To solve that problem, we sit and think about how to suppress the bad citizens and other undesirables -- and we inevitably wind up doing exactly what every other society on Earth has done: we create rules aimed at restricting speech.

Now we are engaged in a very intense (and lengthy!) discussion of how to shape those rules. This is not without precedent in other societies, as you all certainly appreciate.

My only comment is this: I wonder who of those arguing for a large set of free-speech rules in this small society would be similarly accepting of a large set of such rules in the wider society. Given the fundamental purpose of the DEMOCRATICunderground, I would think that most good citizens here are quite skeptical of such limits in their real (i.e., offline) lives. But that doesn't come through very clearly in this thread. I find that puzzling, and at least a little disappointing.

If we have to have rules, let's have rules -- they may well be an unavoidable political feature of all societies.

But every rule should cause us to wince in recognition of that fact that even here, in a small world created for and by people who presumably treasure the idea of a fully open society, we are forced to act against our own ideals in order to function. Keep that in mind when you judge the real political world outside these forums.

[sistersofmercy]

154. GOOD and hot damn!

I believe the time for the "cuffs off" is now. Thanks for doing it. :toast:

[BeFree]

155. Thanks, Skinner, Mods, et al

I can imagine the hell ya'll have been through these last weeks/months.

It was a first. Now that DU is no longer wandering in that Virgin territory, and as we emerge into yet another unchartered (for DU) season, I am well assured that ya'll will do just as well to keep things shipshape.

[Forkboy]

160. Thank Christ!

:)

[Redneck Socialist]

161. The rules were successful in improving the atmosphere...

...in GD:2004. While I sympathize with the head aches it caused you, is "a cesspool of ridiculous partisan flaming" what you really want your board to be? I'm sure it was a hassle, and that you felt like you were trying to tame a herd of demented pre schoolers, but letting the inmates run the show is not the answer. I fear your prediction is all too correct and it makes the DU experience a poorer one. Keep the rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

163. Yes, but it doesn't seem like it has snapped back to it's

former level. At least, since the rules have been relaxed, (what, about, one day?) I've only had 6 personal attacks launched against me which have been deleted. Back at the worst of the flamewars it was like 20 a day. I think the whole episode made people a lot more aware of what they were saying.

[Redneck Socialist]

164. eh...we'll see

I'm not too bothered by "personal attacks" that sort of stuff I can handle. It is the blatantly inflammatory posts that drive me nuts. They serve absolutely no purpose other than to get people riled up. I suppose though what I consider inflammatory someone else might consider reasoned and insightful debate. I guess the ol' hide button will be getting more of a workout.

[rpf113]

162. Finally,

I was so tired of spending hours on messages being careful not to offend anybody over anything. That's impossible. I found I had a post removed for saying something that had been said by another person in that same forum and theirs had not been deleted. We're all grown ups here. If you don't want to get into a 'flamer' don't click on the message.

[jpgpenn]

165. Great News!

Democracy lives again at DU!

[meow mix]

166. omg this is exactly why i pushed for scrapping the rules

a month ago.
and everyone said i suck.. and it got like 20 votes.

now all of a sudden everyone loves the idea!!
ppl are dam wierdos ;p

[mlawson]

168. I think the problem was that, repeated, unchecked attacks against

candidates were allowed, almost no matter how distorted the message was, and no matter how many extremely negative posts by the same person. We have posters here who have set up cottage industries, relentlessly attacking the same person, with virtually the same messages. Why is that allowed?

But we were not allowed to defend our guys with any real spirit. That just doesn't work. The only times I got in 'trouble' was when I lost my temper at the attacks, and responded in kind.

My two cents, anyway. Personally, I would like to see a rule that limits attacks by the same poster. Why not allow one, or maybe two, and then say, "You have made your point; any more is counterproductive."??

[Skinner]

169. That's not correct.

repeated, unchecked attacks were allowed, but then we instituted a new set of rules starting in January that very much forbade repeated, unchecked attacks. And many people couldn't stand the fact that they couldn't say whatever the heck they wanted.

So now, as of Friday, we're back to allowing repeated, unchecked attacks.