Attention, visitors to the John Kerry Group

[Skinner]

In the last few days, the moderators have removed a number of messages from this group which were linking elsewhere on Democratic Underground in order to point out people you thought might be disruptors, or to encourage group members to alert on some person or some post. This is not an appropriate use of this group.

The purpose of this Group is to discuss topics of mutual interest to John Kerry supporters. Do not use this group to organize member actions out on the rest of the forums, or to gang up on people you don't like.

If you believe someone might be a disruptor, just click alert on one of their posts and explain to the moderators why you think that person is a disruptor. Thanks.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Mass]

1. Sorry for involuntarily breaking the rules , but I have a question

Could you explain why pointing to unfair attacks on Kerry by newbies is wrong in the Kerry Group?

[Skinner]

3. I am not sure which post you are referring to.

But you should understand that we do not automatically remove posts just because someone alerts on them. If the post does not break our rules, the moderators won't remove it, no matter how many alerts it gets.

As for why it is wrong to point to "unfair attacks on Kerry by newbies"...

Two things:

First, your inclusion of the phrase "by newbies" suggests that your concern is that the person is a disruptor. Our rules are very clear that you cannot publicly call another member of this message board a disruptor. So pointing out that a newbie is posting things you don't like would be against our rules.

Second, pointing out what you believe to be unfair attacks is not welcome because the administrators of Democratic Underground wish to put off the next presidential primary for as long as possible. If supporters of one candidate start using the DU Groups as a home base to organize activity out on the board, then supporters of other candidates will feel that they must engage in the same activity. I believe this would inevitably lead to an escalation on all sides, until we are engaged in a full-fledged repeat of the 2004 primary. I think most members of this website do not wish to see a repeat of the 2004 primary until it is absolutely necessary.

[Mass]

4. Thanks for the answer anyway.

I will stay on this forum in this case, as I cant see balatantly false statements about Kerry without answering.

[Skinner]

9. You are welcome to answer those posts.

This is a discussion forum after all. If you see someone making "blatantly false statements about Kerry" you should respond to the post and point out the falsehood. In fact, if the falsehood seems like deliberate disruption, you should alert the mods to let them know about a possible troll.

Just don't come back here and ask everyone to respond to the post.

[MH1]

5. A couple questions...

1) is it okay to point out "an interesting thread in GD-P" or something like that?

2) what would it take to get a rule change that says no Democratic U.S. Senator or Representative (or other national Dem such as DNC chair) can be referred to as "spineless", "wimp", etc? (although, for example, calling a particular statement "wimpy" would be okay as long as the poster is not trying to cleverly evade the rules.) I realize this would be censorship, but censorship is currently applied to personal attacks on DU'ers, and it seems to help the site, at least IMO. So why not also rule out personal attacks on leading Democrats? Just wondering. If enough people asked for this rule, could it happen?

[Skinner]

10. Answers.

1) You are welcome to point out threads that you consider interesting.

2) We are unlikely to institute a rule like the one you are proposing. Our rules currently do disallow attacks that are highly inflammatory. But I think it is unlikely that we would forbid people from calling Democratic leaders spineless or wimpy.

[MH1]

15. Okay, thanks.

I guess I'll just have to figure out where the bar is for "highly inflammatory." I have been resisting the urge to alert on most attacks because I don't want to be "crying wolf" if my idea of inflammatory is different than the mods.

That's fine though. I appreciate this forum and what you all do to try to keep it running and within certain boundaries. I know it's got to be a tough job some days!

[globalvillage]

7. I think I'm going to take a break.

This is really confusing, Skinner. Either our motives are misunderstood, or I'm just not getting it. In either case, I need a day or two to think about this.

I have never seen a JK group poster attack a DU member (unprovoked) or any Dem pol. We only respond to attacks on Sen Kerry. That's what we do. I think it's included in the definition of "supporter". If I see someone attacking Dean, Clinton, etc., I will do the same, BTW.

I have seen a lot of attacks in GD and GDP. Sen Kerry gets trashed daily. As a Kerry supporter, I don't think it's out of line to come to his defense. When they gang up, it seems only fair that we respond in kind. But we're not attacking the messenger, only the message, so I'm not sure what rule this breaks. I will take some time to think about it.

As for '08, I think it's rooted in the hopeless situation we find ourselves in. Sign of the times. That being said, most of the people here in JK are supportive of all Dems, though Sen Kerry is obviously our preferred candidate. Most of us post only positive statements re other candidates, though. Check my posts, you will see lots of support for every leading Dem. It's what I believe. I have sometimes criticized an action, but never a Dem (Zell doesn't count, does he?).

Thanks for your attention and for this incredible forum. You really have built a great community here, and I'm proud to be a member.

evidence:

[Skinner]

11. You are welcome to respond to attacks on Senator Kerry.

Just don't bring them back here so you can call in the troops.

[politicasista]

18. Sorry Skinner

[globalvillage]

2. Sorry.

Guilty. Bad GV.

:spank:

[karynnj]

6. Sorry, I was not sure of the rule

The thread I called attention to was by someone with fewer than 25 posts, which stated as fact that there was a problem with Kerry's discharge and that he hadn't opened his records. This is blatantly not true and very harmful. Regardless of whether you like Kerry as a person or agree that he is making a positive contribution to the Democratic party, it is totally unfair to continue the RW character assignation that Kerry had to endure last year. I have not seen similar comments on other Democrats.

I will abide by the rules and never post anything like that again.

[Skinner]

12. If someone posts something like that

you do have other options. First of all, you can respond to the attack yourself. And second, you can alert on the person and let the mods know that you think they are a disruptor.

[paulk]

8. is it ok, then, to use this forum to notify other members of threads

where disinformation/lies are being spread about Kerry, as long as we don't encourage an alert on a specific post?

It is, after all, a "mutual interest" of this group to set the record straight, vis a vis Kerry...

[Skinner]

13. We would prefer that you not do that.

You are (of course) welcome to respond to any attacks on Senator Kerry. But we would prefer that you not bring them back here in an effort to call out the troops.

This is the same standard to which we hold all the other candidate supporters' groups.

[fedupinBushcountry]

14. May I ask ?

Are you telling all the supporter groups the same thing, or are we being singled out ?

I was just wondering because other groups do the same thing.

Example:

Clark Supporter Group:

Anyone know anything about this?

Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 02:05 PM by Totally Committed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

If you do, you might want to reply to it? I know little or would do it myself.

To think we have 2-1/2 more years of this nit-picking bullshit to deal with is daunting. And demoralizing.

Thanks.

TC

[emulatorloo]

16. Attention Skinner -- 1. it is not cool for Mods to trash Democrats

w baseless unsupported snarky one liners. I know they are members too, and entitled to thier "opinions" -- but they need to articulate their opinions, not just pull a hit and run. I am still smarting from that one. But thanks for not tombstoning me!!!!!!

2. What would be the problem w linking to a thread where Kerry or any other good dem is being bashed w lies/right-wing talking points?

3. No one here has ever "gang up on people don't like." Personally there are only a few people on DU I don't like. . .I pretty much avoid them. But we don't like lies and distortions about any of our good Democrats.

Thanks for the site . . .these are all serious observations and questions -- I know you have a tough job.

[TayTay]

17. I think I got it. And thanks for DU

It's my favorite place on the web to hang out. I love the energy here.

I have never alerted on anyone in my (nearly) one year at DU. I was brought up to believe that if an idea has merit you submit it to the court of public opinion, and have at it. I have occasionally replied to threads in GD or GD politics when it seemed interesting. I like the rules the way they are and will abide by them.

My sympathies on trying to get everyone to focus on 2006. One of the things we have tried to point out in DU posts outside of this group is how far away, in political terms, 2008 really is. Anything can happen to any pol who is currently being mentioned as running for Pres as a Dem. People we think are running won't, front-runners will suffer setbacks and drop out, illnesses and family events will preclude running for some and so forth. A week, as Katrina proved, is a long time in politics. 15 months, which is when 2008 will really begin to take shape, is an eternity. 2006 is so important, not only to get Dems elected, but to lay the groundwork for what we ALL hope we will be a successful Dem Pres campaign in '08. Again, good luck with making this the focal point of the various political discussion forums. Dems being Dems, herding cats would be child's play next to this.

And again, thanks for DU. It's lively, argumentative, at times brainy, at times playful and at all times interesting. I'll do my part to try and make it also work for everyone without getting too many people's feelings hurt. Despite our differences, we are all working to get more Dems elected. We do hope that this attitude is the same across DU and all it's discussion forums.

[TheDonkey]

19. Is this the first group to get in trouble?

We definetly are the leaders of all DU groups. :)

[wisteria]

20. What this is all about are complaints from other

posters that imply we are an organized group of Kerry defenders who intimidate anyone who so much as says anything negative about Kerry. This is an attempt to decrease our replies and eliminate a reference check point.
Frankly, I don't mean to be smart, but this will not have an effect on the number of posts we make in John Kerry's defense. We don't need to come here to be alerted, most of us scan the other sites anyway and post in defense if we want too. Stopping one Kerry group supporter from alerting others in the group about a questionable post, will not result in fewer pro-Kerry posts and less "war". We are all aware there are other small organized forces out there who are on a mission to trash and discredit Kerry and lesson his appeal to others. They do this with bullying and intimidating terms. And they do this by deliberately posting inflammatory untruths disguised as benign headlines. Why do you not recognize how disruptive these posts are and clamp down on these posters? They cause more harm than our alerting notifications/linking and posting do. They are on the increase too, which is why it may seem there are more posts in defense of Kerry. They all seem to come out in force whenever John Kerry receives media attention or other positive recognition.They are an organized force, for after the original post there will always be a negative post in agreement with the original and thatposter carries the anti-Kerry rhetoric even further. It is amazing how these posts seem to attract other negative repliers so quickly, like flies to food. As I see it, they are the problem not us,but I will honor your rules and not post a link referencing the need for attention in another forum from this group page.

[sandnsea]

21. Well never mind

I just saw the thread about creating a separate email list, which invalidates everything I had said in this post about this group not using those kinds of tactics for any purposes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. "Gang up on people we don't like"

I don't think I've ever seen that happen here. I've seen people point out lies that have been spewed on DU, but I don't believe I've ever seen a malicious and systematic targeting of particular DUers because we disagree with them about Kerry. We do, however, point out when anyone on DU is egregiously lying about Kerry and trying to disrupt. This is fine, I think we can all stop posting these threads.

But really, perhaps what would be more productive is to get to the bottom of why we feel the need to point out flamebait threads about Kerry. Many of us here feel that systematic disruption and smearing of Kerry is allowed on DU to a greater extent than it is about other candidates. We DO alert, but often, flamebait threads in which Kerry is being called everything from a coward to a rightwinger are allowed to go on for 100 or 200 posts. It's not about the primaries - it's about stopping the spread of vicious lies about a leading Democrat on a progressive webboard where thousands of people come to get their news.

I know you try to be fair about "candidate's groups" (as I remember the brouhaha about the Clarkies and the greatest page), but yet, I feel that to an extent, simply telling us to not alert others to the prescence of flamebait ignores the fundamental problem, which is the fact that disruptive posters amass thousands of posts on DU attempting to trash and discredit Kerry and other prominent Democrats.

I agree with (I forget who) upthread, who asked why it is acceptable to make ad hominem attacks on Kerry, such as calling him "spineless." I don't understand how such one-liners, which of course have nothing to do with any "issues," improve DU's discourse. I don't understand what constitutes breaking DU rules about "working against the Democratic party" when people can get away with calling Kerry any manner of horrible things, and openly profess their hatred/disdain of the Democratic party. I understand you don't want more rules, but I honestly do not understand why ad hominem attacks of Democrats and the attempt to drum up support for a party other than the Democratic party is acceptable here.