Temporary guidelines for starting threads in this forum.

[Skinner]

The administrators (and many members) have become increasingly concerned about the quality of discussion in the General Discussion Forum. In an effort to find solutions to this problem, we are going to try a temporary experiment.

- These rules are temporary. They will be in effect from 11:00AM ET Thursday, August 7 until 11:59PM ET Saturday, August 9.

- These rules pertain to the General Discussion Forum only.

- These rules only place limits on the content of a post which starts a new discussion topic. These rules place no limits on the content of replies posted in a discussion topic.

We believe that a big reason why the quality of discussion is often so poor is because starting a thread is cheap. It requires very little investment in terms of time or thought to begin a discussion topic, so people start lots of threads without making any effort to flesh out their ideas or facilitate good discussion. The purpose of these temporary guidelines is to require a little more thought and effort to start a thread. We hope these temporary guidelines have a positive impact on the quality of discourse in the General Discussion forum. Regardless of their impact, these guidelines will be removed after the temporary period is over.

Temporary guidelines for starting threads in the General Discussion Forum.

1. Discussion topics must have a minimum of 5 sentences, in addition to the subject line.

2. The subject line of the discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. If you post an article or other published content, you must clearly state your opinion about the piece or your motivation for posting it.

4. Discussion topics may not use any profanity.

5. Discussion topics may not use excessive exclamation points or capitalization.

I repeat that these guidelines are temporary. Threads which break these rules will be locked or deleted. Thank you for understanding as we try to make the message board experience better for everyone.

Skinner
DU Admin

For additional information about these temporary guidelines, please visit this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=149059&mesg_id=149059

[gratuitous]

1. Okay, got it

Wait. What did your subject line have to do with the message? Mods!!!!

Just kidding, of course. All of the moderators do a wonderful job in a volunteer task, and I'll take this opportunity to publicly thank them and the site administrators for making DU one of the best sites on the Internet without porn.

[Skinner]

2. LOL

"One of the best sites on the Internet without porn."

Thanks for the compliment.

[gratuitous]

6. Feel free to use it as an endorsement!

:toast:

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

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

[shance]

123. You guys have been overzealous in your locking today

Overall you have been locking much more than I would say is in the least bit reasonable. Regulate those who need it, not those of us who I think bring a lot of positive input to DU.

I come to DU for different reasons, but mainly to have the freedom to say what I want about issues and to look for solutions to issues, and to meet other Dems. I dont know of anyone I have offended and the regulation seen today will diminish alot of the free thinking and honesty and make us feel beholden to you guys, which may be what you want, I dont know.

If you are looking for power, that is one thing. But dont regulate us Dems. I started a thread on Arnold and the fact that his father was a Nazi which is a fact. And you locked it? Did I not say MOther, or Skinner may I? That was just so silly to lock that thread. And then Lazarus locked one when I brought up that (as humor really) that the recall should be disbanned because Issa has quit. Now WHAT IN THE WORLD is wrong with that?

If we cannot CRITICIZE those that are destroying essentially our nation, then what the hell is this forum for? I used no cuss word, no profanity and stated a fact Skinner, atleast in the thread YOU locked.

This is a control issue that is subjective and allows for favoritism and in a way power issues to happen. I totally understand about locking those very OBVIOUS threads started by Freepers or Republicans that are designed to distract, depress, and diminish the value of Democrats and our movement.

But to begin censoring those of us because you may not like what we say but we are actually promoting good discussion and looking for solutions to various political issues, thus not offending anyone and not being ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, then I would have to leave.

[Skinner]

131. This is not a control issue.

This is a quality issue.

These rules are not subjective at all. There are completely clear and objective. They are very simple to follow. All thread topics are welcome provided that people follow the guidelines.

And it's only three days. Let's see how it goes.

[trumad]

5. Can I use Damn? Crap? If the subjects about Roosters can I use Cock?

And so on and so fourth... Will you post a 7 words not to use list?

[Skinner]

8. Let's try to avoid *ALL* profanity.

It's only three days. I think we can even avoid words like "damn" and "crap".

[treepig]

21. excellent idea

i used to use a lot of profanity but stopped when i realized i was just making an g*dd*mned, f*ck*ng *ss of myself :crazy:

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[enki23]

163. Is Vegas Dick damned if he craps out before the cock crows?

.

[Jacobin]

3. Thanks

It's been getting a bit scatter brained on GD lately. Hoping this will help.

[Skinner]

9. I hope so too. (nt)

[ibegurpard]

4. Question about profanity

No profanity in TOPICS only? Or no profanity period?
Topics I can live with but no profanity period is going to be difficult, I think.

[Skinner]

7. Discussion topics may not use any profanity.

I think the text above is pretty clear that these guidelines ONLY pertain to discussion topics. Replies to threads may contain profanity.

[ibegurpard]

11. Thanks

That's reasonable

[Jacobin]

12. Here, this might help:

Dagnabbit.
Consarnit.
DogBiteIt.
ForkinIdjit.
Heck.
GoshDarnit.
Darn.

[Cassandra]

41. Welcome to Mayberry

or is it Sunnybrook Farm? Actually, I'm fine with less profanity; expanding one's vocabulary is always a good thing.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

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

[outinforce]

13. No Profanity? Difficult?

I have posted over 1,000 posts here, and I believe I am correct when I say that except for quoting others, I have used profanity no more than five times.

I know I can live without profanity -- in fact, to my way of thinking, profanity only cheapens the debate.

[DarbyUSMC]

120. I was told once, by someone I respect that

people who find it necessary to use profanity, use it for lack of a vocabulary that contains enough words to get their ideas across. I think using it is a habit. The thing about it, IMO, is that when used so much, it isn't taken seriously. A parent that screams constantly is ineffective. So it is with profanity. Looking for a word that expresses your outrage or anger? Well, too bad, they've been so overused you'll have to invent new ones. Proof of the pudding? Remember when certain words were never heard in public? Now - - time has elapsed and they are common. Nothing wrong with common, except that it doesn't get the desired attention.

[shirlden]

126. Right you are DarbyUSMC

My dear departed father always said that people who need to use profanity to get a point across were only showing their ignorance. I have tried to live by that, but here lately, the Bush Admin has been sorely testing my ability to keep the profanity down. Sorry, Dad, but you would be having a problem also cause you were a loyal Democratic.

:hi:

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[Cascadian]

52. If these rules are to become permanent.....

then we should take a vote on this. Let's organize a poll to see if people like the new rules.

John

[Skinner]

54. Democratic Underground is not a democracy.

We will do a poll if we feel it is appropriate. However, we are not required to put all of our rule changes up for a popular vote.

[Cascadian]

62. That's ironic!

What? Democratic Underground not a democracy??? (just kidding!) ;)


John

[iverglas]

103. get ready to fall over

I think the rules are just fine and they should be permanent.

No profanity or exclamation marks or capitalization in opening posts -- WHO GIVES A SHIT?!!! Seriously. I'll save my outrage for something that matters, and I'm quite happy not to have to gaze at split-level thread titles composed of reiterated punctuation.

Thread titles that actually reflect the subject matter of the post? What a novel idea! Who would ever have thought of practising that? Not people who start threads with titles like "I'm so pissed off!!!!!", I guess.

Me, I've never suggested that whoever runs a forum couldn't make any old rule s/he wanted. There are those rules that I might think are arbitrarily and improperly applied ... but hey, that's another topic.

I vote to keep these ones permanent, if anybody's interested.

.

[synthia]

166. you hit number five on my top ten stupidest thread titles

10 ???????HUH??????????
9 OMG!!!!!!!
8 have you seen this???????
7 am i the only one who.......
6 IS IT ONLY ME OR........
5 i am so pissed off
4 CHECK IT OUT!!!!!!!
3 WTF???
2 rush shot while on air
1 BUSH RESIGNS

[XanaDUer]

104. "It's good to be the king"-

Mel Brooks. ;-)

[DagmarK]

10. EXCELLENT!!! Thank you!

*

[opstachuck]

14. does the word 'Bush' count as profanity? (nt)

[Brian Sweat]

27. It's certainly a four letter word

Especially around here. :)

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

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

[BevHarris]

15. Thanks. One I especially like

"If you post an article you must clearly state your opinion about it or your reason for posting it"

That gives a lot more fodder for discussion. Wish I would have followed that procedure on my last post: Libertarians file records request. My opinion about it: It's a very good thing, and a lucky break for the voting issue, because no matter what the answer to the records request is, it will show that a law was broken. The only question is -- which one(s)?

And these rules will help with the "hey, check this thread" posts that have nothing but a link.

All the rules look good.

Bev Harris

[trof]

16. Good move

Lately I've seen so much <krep> showing up in GD that really belongs in the Lounge.

[RichM]

17. These ideas are a step in the right direction.

Thanks for recognizing that a problem exists in this area. :thumbsup:

Re point 3: If one simply posts a news link (as opposed to an editorial piece or a column), how would it help, to state one's opinion about it, or the motivation for posting it? For example, "General Sanchez Says Blah Blah about Today's Car Bombing in Baghdad." It would seem silly to say, "I like this article" or "I am posting this to let you all know what this turkey said." :shrug:

[Skinner]

19. Because sometimes people post articles just to get a reaction.

In particular, if you're going to post a piece of right-wing junk, I'd like to know why you're posting it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. sounds good

The point about starting a thread being cheap is a really good point.

[AlinPA]

20. OK. Sorry I used "bastard" this morning when talking about Bush.

This is a good idea. Thanks for the effort.

[ibegurpard]

22. I'm very glad to see temporary guideline #2

And I hope it stays permanent in some form.
Last week(?) there were a couple of threads started that had NOTHING to do with the content. One said something to the effect of "Rush Limbaugh was shot" and then the poster said "Now that I have your attention I want you to look at this."
It was indeed an important subject but that deliberate bait-and-switch really pissed me off.

[ClintonTyree]

23. THANK YOU

Perhaps this will curtail and even eliminate absurd, time and space wasting ego threads. Great move!

[Sinistrous]

24. Question about the five line minimum:

Since the formatting in the composer is so much different from the formatting in the message display, is the five line minimum criterion an absolute, or will the mods cut us some slack.(e.g. this para = 3 lines).

I know I am always taken aback when my magnum opuses (opi?) are displayed and look like mouse cheeps.

[Skinner]

25. It's not a five line minimum.

It's a five sentence minimum. If you've got five sentences -- subject, verb, period at the end -- then you're fine.

[Sinistrous]

28. I certainly do have a way

of hanging my stupidity out for everyone to see.

Thanks for correcting my reading of the rule, even though I do have a fairly good idea of what a sentence is, even without your careful exposition.

[Brian Sweat]

29. Seems a little unfair to me,

because I tend to use a lot of conjunctions in my writing and as a result one of my sentences might be five times as long as all five of someone else's sentences, but you are the moderators, so I guess I will have to except your rules.

I will right like Hemmingway. I will use very short sentences. No more conjuntions. No comas.

:)

P.S. Why temporary? Some of these rules are good. They should stick around. Some of them will need work.

[Eloriel]

71. Ooops! Some of those "sentences" don't have verbs.

You'll have to work on your sentence structure to qualify.

:evilgrin:

Eloriel

[SoCalDem]

34. That alone will eliminate lots of freeps

verb, subject, noun, adjective, adverb..<does not compute..head explode..arghhh>

[Generic Other]

68. Skinner, if you can mandate grammatically correct sentences

you will have achieved something the English teachers/language police of America haven't been able accomplish!

You may have to cut some slack for fragments, run-ons and comma splices though. Not that DUers aren't above average in their writing skills, but these common errors are usually unintentional.

Now, you didn't mention spelling. How will you address this issue?
LOL.

Trying to be supportive of you as you sink into the morass where the English teacher curmudgeons of America hang out...

[Skinner]

69. LOL.

We don't really want to be the grammar or spelling police. If something remotely resembles a sentence, we'll call it a sentence.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[ColumbusGirl]

157. Trying to out the Freeper Lurkers?

Lord only knows they can't form complete sentances or spell worth a darn! ;)

[kentuck]

78. I like the idea of 5 sentences per post...

It requires just a tad more thinking and slows down the posting just enough on GD so that it does not freeze up continuously, hopefully.
However, with a few "buts" and "ands", one sentence can be quite long. Perhaps you might want to reconsider that and make it at least three sentences, because sometimes brevity is more effective than filler.

[Friar]

86. You should better define the 5 sentence thing then

Some of us are familiar with Faulkner, McCarthy and Joyce. We can construct sentences that go on for pages!

:silly:

[Kolesar]

100. How about "Five clauses"?

A clause has a subject and a verb. Multiple clauses are linked with appropriate punctuation.

[CWebster]

26. Harumph...I never start threads.

I think maybe I started 2 in my time, but lately I confess to shouting in capitals and lots of exclamation points and using some language that may scare off the church ladies. My most profound apologies, but it is boring where I work and excruciatingly slow during the summer.... just trying to amuse myself. ;-)

[Eloriel]

30. One of my favorite things about DU

Is that no one complains about length of posts -- and we do get some long ones!

But never did I imagine there'd come a time when there would be a MINIMUM length of post.

:evilgrin:

Just goes to show this is the THINKING person's forum. (Well, some days are better than others.)

Eloriel

[Liberator_Rev]

31. Excellent rule improvements . May I suggest another?

As much as I believe everybody has nothing better to do than to attend to MY thoughts, I don't believe I should be allowed to start more than one thread a day.

[Skinner]

32. Well, how about if you voluntarily limit yourself to one thread a day?

That should solve this problem.

[UTUSN]

33. Sorry, Me No Likee (Not that it matters)

1- At an early time of my life I learned (irrelevant where) to use all-caps for *surnames*. Then, here on the discussion board, the caps were the *fastest* way to give emphasis to *some* words (not whole messages)-----as opposed to using complicated keyboard formulae. To some it might appear to be an affectation like adolescents putting smiley faces in their "i" and "j" dots. It is literally *identity* to me.

(It's a *vast* investment of time and life energy to use emoticons and italics/bold. Some of us are already scolded about the amount of time we spend on the internet anyway.)

2- Who is complaining about *quality*?------sounds elitist. Quality on the internet?----being held to backing-up with links and quotations would appear to be the bottom line in quality, the rest being froth. It's fun to vent in a company of largely like-minded others. These rules generally have a tamping-down effect, a bureaucratic deadening either to stifle or to drive away us flakes (there must be more than just moi)----- except for #2 (accuracy of subject line) which is *great*.

3- How temporary is temporary?

4- So anything goes in the Lounge? Would that be a bastion of *free thought*?????? If I were to stay there, would I be able to be myself there?

Please accept my comments with the intended sincerity.

[Skinner]

37. Allow me to clarify.

1. Perhaps my wording is unclear. The rules forbid excessive capitalization. They don't forbid capitalization completely.

2. I hear complaints about quality every day. It is certainly possible that people like GD exactly the way it is, and we may decide to keep it exactly the way it is. But many people do not like the level of discourse in GD right now, and we figured this would be an interesting experiment.

3. Re-read the guidelines. I provided the EXACT MINUTE when these guidelines would end.

4. These rules pertain to the General Discussion forum only. They do not pertain to the Lounge.

[UTUSN]

40. Sorry About Missing the Time of Expiration

(and this probably provides significant data about my *skimming*, which has often gotten me into trouble before.)

Well, perhaps they will keep me from my *embarrassing* Friday-night-posts this week (and forever if they become permanent). LOL.

For better or worse, you have made our home, SKINNER. (Glow-effect here.)

[SoCalDem]

39. A quick perusal of the "Latest" page at midday should tell you why

recently there have been many duplicative and downright "odd" posts, sometimes posted in machine-gun fashion..

and it has always been a "peeve" of mine that the use of vulgar words IN THE SUBJECT LINE makes us look foolish. Again, we have no way of knowing which page of DU is used for most people , but if it is "Latest" and the link is given to someone (say a mainstream type), it looks really sleazy and immature to see 6 or 7 threads listed that are blaring profanity and vulgarisms (sp?)..

DU is kind of at a crossroads right now.. We were once a small community of pissed off Dems who could not believe that the election had been stolen, but over the intervening years, we have grown to a degree that probably has surprised even the admin..

If we aspire to be more than "a bunch of people arguing and slinging mud", we do need guidelines..

Not trying to be "number elitist" here, but you will probably notice that the posters who have been here the longest , still practice the art of discussion, and rarely resort to epithets .. There is a "breaking-in" period and some of the newer people may not have gotten the feel of the place yet.. The guidelines may help them fit in :)

[UTUSN]

50. I Agree There's Lots That Makes Us Look Bad

I totally agree about the vulgarisms. And they have crept into my outside discourse: I was surprised when some of my correspondents were shocked by my use of "Repuke" or when a NYT columnist was *shocked* by what is mild around here.

As for being more than "arguing and slinging mud"-------yeah, I am *constantly* distressed over the attacks on other Dems----and about *anything* that we work against ourselves with.

I'm not defending epithets, per se. But I also don't see much of the GOOD in GD to be *high art* either. The best of what we do is to share information, strategize, and vent in a safe environment.

I don't see much "art of discussion", more like cutthroat flame wars. But I appreciate your p.o.v.

[bearfartinthewoods]

85. pleading guilty on the language

but only when i am super angry/frustrated.

hmmmm...just like in real life. :grin:

easy peasy to lay of the f'ing. i find i make more sense when i need to pause and think of a profanity free way to express myself anyway.

[kainah]

129. How right you are, SoCalDem

I have found myself spending much less time on DU because the quality of threads has diminished demonstrably. Latest is my homepage and many times, I cringe at the headlines that greet me. Although I must admit, the headlines from the Lounge are my pet peeve. But then, I've always wanted to drag people out of the lounge and take them into the streets -- or at least blasting angry emails.

The very thoughtful threads which used to dominate DU are becoming harder to find. Since I've always considered DU a guilty luxury -- as its time taken away from activism -- when I have to search for interesting insight & analysis, it's harder to justify the indulgence.

I like these rules for GD and would like to see them extended. And, personally, I'd like to see some improved guidelines for headlines from the Lounge. :shrug:

[Cascadian]

57. I agree.

What is happening to freedom of speech? Are people getting comfortable with limiting free expression or thought?


I really am beginning to wonder if people in this country deserve a dictatorship.

John

[Skinner]

59. Let's chill out with the rhetoric here.

It's only three days.

[meti57b]

35. Good idea! Interesting threads in GD get pushed off the first page ...

too fast, because of dozens of one-liner thread topics.

[seemslikeadream]

36. Any suggestions for C-SPAN alerts?

At times there's great live stuff on C-SPAN and if I've got to type 5 sentences about what's happening (sometimes its hard to tell) its going to be over before I can post. It seems in the past folks have been thankful for the heads up and it has given them an opportunity to discuss live events.

[Skinner]

38. You have two choices...

Write the alert to comply with the rules, or post it in another forum.

[goobergunch]

164. Is LBN acceptable for C-SPAN alerts?

In the past it has been, but I'd just like to verify.

[Armitage]

197. i see your point

n/t

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

42. I see the

"Dean is an arrogant prick" thread has broken through the surface again.

[Skinner]

44. I locked that.

It was before the 11:00AM start, but I am going to lock the more egregous offenses as I become aware of them.

[SoCalDem]

51. about locking...

Instead of having 16 locked threads occupying page one turf, would it be possible, for the act of locking initiating a "trip to the end of the line"????

Since threads are no longer archived, people could still "find" their "lost baby" by sorting by name and looking for their own :)

[Skinner]

56. I think there will be a lot less locking once people get used to the rules

We'll see how it goes.

[meisje]

43. what abouit pee, poo, or kaka

;)

[Jacobin]

45. This apparently is the end of play by play televised speeches

That's sad.

New room perhaps for such things?

[Skinner]

46. It's not the end of the play-by-play speeches.

Anyone can come up with five decent sentences.

[Jacobin]

58. Gee, that one smarted

A thread announcing a speech doesn't seem as though it requires much discussion as presumably the speech hasn't started or is only part of the way through.

The meat of the discussion will be in the play by play.


Nevermind.

[CWebster]

63. make something up.

lol.

[Jacobin]

77. I did.

Skinner thought it was "fill" which it was and locked the thread.

Fork it.

[CWebster]

47. Maybe in another forum?

*

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. EG: TURN ON CPAN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (nt)

Rather than: Cspan, 5 pm
Al Gore's speech has just started. It is on Cspan 2. Will he run or won't he? Is he going to talk about the war? I hope so.

The threads that say TURN ON CSPAN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! With no text following are as annoying as any and provide no real contribution. Having a point makes it so much more interesting for the reader.

[Cascadian]

48. Freedom of Speech!

Thank God this is temporary!

No. I cannot agree with this. It seems there are certain people (not Administration mind you!) in DU that want to thwart freedom of speech. And they whine whenever somebody curses, makes a brief statement, or let alone break wind. It would seem to be somewhat Republican or right-wing to limit freedom of speech. We should not have to be baby-sitted. If somebody is disrupting the forum then they should be dealt with accordingly. But placing more rules will not solve the problem.

Just my opinion!

"There ought to be limits to freedom..."

-George W. Bush


John

[Skinner]

53. We'll see what happens.

I think we can all suffer for three days.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

82. How is DU limiting speech by asking people to speak?

IT seems to me that DU is a discussion board. People who start a thread are framing a discussion. The manner in which they frame it can make a huge difference.

When someone posts an article from David Horowitz's rag, I wish to know if they are implying that David Horowitz is correct in his interpretation, if they have a rebuttal to it or if they are uncertain and wish to have input for that reason.

It seems to me asking for five sentences ENCOURAGES people to speak ( and, God forbid, THINK.)

As far as THREAD titles, "Ann Coulter can suck my **^%" may be fun to post for our more sophomoric types but as one perusing all the threads, it would be a bit more informative to see...Ann Coulter just said "Hitler was framed."

[outinforce]

93. A VERY Basic Rule

One basic rule that seems to have been forgotten is that a person, before criticizing what another person has done, should try to "walk a mile" in th other person's shoes.

I don't know how many of us have ever tried to run a Website such as this one, but I would venture to guess that the number is pretty small.

Skinner is a person who has done us all a big favor -- a BIG favor -- by investing his time and his own resources to the creation and administration of this website.

Not only that, but Skinner invites comments and suggestions regarding his rules.

And, for crying out loud, these new rules are only temporary (though, speaking for myself, I would love to see them made permanent).

So it always frosts my coconuts when I see someone saying "I cannot agree with this", or other such comments.

I would like to invte anyone who cannot live under the rules here to go out and start your own Website similar to DU.

And we'll see how long it takes YOU to formulate rules similar to the rules we all live under here.

[WillyT]

116. Bingo ! And If Ya Wanna See A Discussion Board Run Amuck...

Go here: http://www.fuckedcompany.com/

Now I've seen some great stuff here, including leaked memos from corrupt corporations. And you can get a feel for how a company is doin by listening to how the employees feel about what's goin on there.

But the sophmoric turds you have to wade through to find those valuable gems is just too much!!! And GD was startin down that path.

I appreciate the rules, and will even try to remember them, LOL!!!

Thanks Skinner :hi:

[wakfs]

102. Glad I'm not the only one

Perhaps the name of this site should be changed from Democratic Underground, which implies the deliberate abandonment of rules, to "Democratic Strictly-enforced Rules-based Forums."

Ha hah, just being sarcastic there, Admin-guy.

[Democat]

108. These rules are ridiculous and very much against the spirit of DU

No profanity?

What are we, 6 year olds?

Sounds like some right wing site rule.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

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

[CheshireCat]

49. Hope it helps

I used to spend a good bit of time on GD, but lately it has been hard to wade thru all the "posts in response to other posts". Five sentence minimum is a good idea.

Profanity doesn't bother me at all, but I can refrain from using it for a while. It is just words.

You must admit that Georgie Bush easily provokes one to use profanity.

[Gingersnap]

148. I too have noticed a decline in quality

I have only been on DU since May, but in the last few weeks I haven't wanted to spend as much time in GD or P/C because many of the threads did not promote thoughtful discussion (or in the case of P/C just seemed like flamebait and oneupmanship).

I think the rules are a good idea and that it is entirely reasonable that the admins ask us to put a little more time and thought into posting.

[waldenx]

55. its already helping

although some people might not be adroit enough to adapt.

}(

[RevolutionStartsNow]

60. Applies to Politics and Campaigns also?

You should post the rule there also. Plenty of one liners and rude statements posted there too.

[Skinner]

65. No. These rules are for the General Discussion Forum Only. (nt)

[RevolutionStartsNow]

66. Ah

You locked one about Bill Schneider in P&C, citing the GD rules. But I like the rule.

[Skinner]

67. Whoops.

I'll go unlock that.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

72. Thanks for clarifying, Skinner

I really didn't care about the Schneider post, but I wanted to make sure where the rules applied.

[BeFree]

61. Good ideas

Something need be done and this is a good experiment. While I am no fan of rules and regulations, there does seem to be a need to enrichen the forum. Thanks ya'll for putting forth the effort to keep DU a top quality place as we continue to grow.

[DemBones DemBones]

64. I'm in favor of this move. The rules for LBN have strengthened it

and I believe these rules will strengthen GD.

Kudos to the admins! :toast:

[republicansareevil]

70. sheesh, a few sensible rules for 3 days...

and some people act like it's the end of civilization.

Skinner, you have more patience than I do. :)

[XanaDUer]

73. And more than I do...

Good idea, and thanks Admins and mods.

[inthecorneroverhere]

74. good experiment - let's try it

This is a good experiment at reform. Let's try it.

Isn't reform and change a Dem ideal, after all?

[Clete]

75. Maybe it's the posters.

I have seen many a good thread sink into oblivion because no one commented on it, yet it promised to have been a good discussion. Yet, flame threads about the same old topic over and over again seem to gather hundreds of answers.

Also, sometimes I and others post a heads up on a TV show, I think others might want to watch if the guests are interesting. It's hard to do five sentences on this when you haven't seen the show yet. Should they be posted in the lounge instead?

[Skinner]

76. We are hoping that these rules will cut down on some of the flame threads.

We'll see if it works.

As for TV show threads, you can either write five sentences, or you can post the thread somewhere else.

[Nicholas_J]

83. Sounds good

As to freedom of speech and other first amendment rights, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it communities can decide what is acceptable or unacceptabe behavior, within a community.
As this community has its officials, it has the constitutional right to set terms for what is aceptable freedom of speech, and what exceeds freedom of speech,d becomes unreasonable assault on the rights of others, or what is just plain dangerous to freedom of speech, shouting down others so loudly that their voice is not heard, or they fear to speak. I hope this rule becomes permanent and extends through the whole board.

[inthecorneroverhere]

81. good experiment

This is a good experimental idea because:

1. There have been way too many flamefests that center around religion. I think one's faith is a really personal thing, and that's why I don't discuss religion much here on a political site.

2. Interesting topics here or over in LBN have been dropping, and not getting replies, because a lot of people are preoccupied with some theological or a-theological flamefest or other.

3. I think it's entirely possible to express one's ideas and give discourse without resorting to swear words.

4. I think the miscellaneous flame-fests have distracted from the presentation of positive ideas about what Dems need to do, particularly about economic issues but also about war and peace. We should really be trying to think of positive things like proposals to discuss.

[Stephanie]

79. Thanks!

Any rules at all will be a challenge to the disruptors and the spammers. GD had gotten overrun with junk.

[Ramsey]

84. I think this is a great idea!

The quailty of discussion in GD is so poor at times that it can be really uselss forum. Maybe I'll be accused of being elitist, but I look for thoughtful discussions and different perspectives on issues, and I think GD could be the forum for anything that doesn't qualify for LBN. It could be an important forum for thoughtful discussion, if it wasn't so burdened by all the irrelevent bitching and moaning and venting threads. (Sorry for the expletive, but I think it's appropriately descriptive here.) I particularly like rule #2. Lack of descriptive subjects lines is a rampant problem in GD, and personally I won't even read threads if I cannot tell what they are about from the subject. I do suspect there will be a need to relax #3, for example for live threads commenting on C-span or other live media events.

The complaints about "freedom of sepech" are irrelevent, since DU is not a democracy but a privately run website whose admins can do whatever they like (and who are always extremely fair), and because you can still say whatever you want, you just have to say it in 5 sentences, without profanity, in a clear and explanatory way and without excessive caps. I fail to see how that limits anyone's ability to express themselves on any subject other than one that only warrants profanity and extreme brevity.

Finally, there are a dozen forums here, so making rules for this one doesn't limit anyone's ability to sound off in the manner of their choosing in any of the others (besides LBN). The LBN rules make it by far the best organized and most useful forum here, IMHO.

[Friar]

87. I have one other rule

I'd like to see implimented. 100 reply maximum. There's no reason that any thread is not exhausted by then. Except polls.

[Skinner]

88. We prefer to let threads die on their own.

If people wish to continue talking about something, then I see no harm in allowing them to do so.

[TahitiNut]

89. "... may not use excessive ... capitalization"??

You mean like "TEMPORARY GUIDELINES TO START A THREAD IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM"???

Uh-huh. :eyes: I guess that was exemplary, huh?

[Skinner]

90. Good catch.

I was kinda thinking that it was important for people to see this thread. But I suppose I'm not making a particularly good example. I'll go fix that.

[TahitiNut]

99. (chuckle)

I wasn't intending to be critical; merely bemused. "It's not easy being King." (Mel Brooks) And carefully composing fair and affirmative rules isn't easy either. ;-)

[quinnox]

91. I have no opinion on this

I am a non-paying member, so if the paying members want this, I can appreciate why this is being done.

[KamaAina]

92. What about "meme" posts?

Like this little gem from yesterday... :-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=128&topic_id=7831&mesg_id=7831

I'm waiting to hear THESE "sixteen little words"

"I, George Walker Bush, hereby resign as President of the United States of America, effective immediately."

Meme posts, by their very nature, don't meet the five-sentence criterion. Yet, since they are political in nature, they aren't really Lounge posts, either. Where do they go? Will we soon see throngs of homeless posts in our parks, on our streets, and in our subways? :-)

[Skinner]

94. You've got two choices.

Either add some more text to comply with the rules, or post it in another appropriate forum. That post could fit in the Politics and Campaigns forum or in the Bush/Conservatives forum.

[welshTerrier2]

95. the soul of wit

The idea of testing new policies before deciding to implement them is EXCELLENT ...

A big THANK YOU to our hosts for that ...

FWIW, and I applaud all efforts to raise the level of discourse in the GDF, I question the necessity of rules 4 and 5 re: profanity and punctuation ...

Is there something "special" about a base post that should subject it to censorship to a greater degree than replies?? My answer is: No ...

As to the abuse of exclamation points and capitalization, I have never seen this as a major problem ... Frankly I'm more concerned about vacuous posts (e.g. bush is a moron, bush is a jerk, bush is ...) that express opinions I may agree with but offer nothing in terms of insight or information ... overdone punctuation can be annoying, but it seems like we should have bigger fish to fry ...

As I said, I welcome all experiments that seek to improve quality ... I hope the spirit of rules 1, 2 and 3 are adopted although I would generally prefer to allow discussions to evolve as they will ... if a point can be made with a great one word photo caption (which is in essence worth a thousand words, is it not?), should we have to be concerned about whether we remembered the 5 sentence rule?

And to quote a pretty good writer I've heard of:

"Brevity is the soul of wit."
From Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2


Perhaps rather than implementing these ideas as rules, they would be better suited for a periodically displayed "posting guidelines" memo ...

Anyway, thanks for working at improving DU !!

[Skinner]

96. You're welcome.

The purpose of rules 4&5 are to require people to frame their discussions in a less inflammatory way. For example, you would be able to say "Candidate X is a loser" but you can't say "CANDIDATE X IS A MOTHERF****** PIECE OF S**T!!!!!!!!!!!!!" By limiting the methods by wish people can deliberately ratchet up the rhetorical heat, we hope to improve the overall level of discussion.

I think that the first post in a thread is very different than the responses to a thread. The first post sets the tone for the entire discussion. It is the post that grabs people's attention, and it is the only post that everyone will read. If the first post is thoughtful then the responses are more likely to be thoughtful as well.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[UTUSN]

97. Otoh, Progress Is Not Necessarily Endless Change

There's a quotation out there I've lost that said something like that.

It is entirely possible for something----a ripened fruit, a painting, a poem, a good discussion board----to reach an ideal stage, but the artist might continue to tinker and ruin it.

This ought to be considered a compliment to DU and its owners that it was pretty close to perfect in format and design. Actually I've liked a couple of the DU2 things-------like the Views #s that has been tossed (will it ever be back?).

Just saying that progress does not equal change, uh, necessarily, uh...

[Skinner]

98. We are aware that progress is not necessarily endless change.

But we are also aware that many people are dissatisfied with the level of discourse in the General Discussion forum, and we wish to do something about it (if possible).

We do not wish to be overly restrictive, and our number one priority is to keep an open exchange of ideas. But it would appear that many people are willing to accept some small restrictictions in this forum if it will improve the overall level of discourse.

[gottaB]

149. pet peeve

Polonious is the character who says "Brevity is the soul of wit." It's ironic. A defining attribute of this character is that he talks too much, and when he speaks, he offers foolish advice. His mouth is a vertible fountain of pithy maxims that utterly fail to get to the soul of the play.

Hamlet is the guy who rambles, long meandering soliloquies marked by introspective turns, flashes of insight, arresting metaphors, flights of fancy, and exclamations of deep existential despair.

And he's got good oneliners.

/pet peeve



On Edit: Removed tags on pet peeve

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

101. so, you havenow taken all the "fun" out of posting

Strongly disagree.

"5. Discussion topics may not use excessive exclamation points or capitalization"

The free interchange of emotions with capitalization &
exclamation IS WHAT MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT YOU ARE
TRYING TO CONVEY !!!!!!!!!!!!


geez.....this isnt DU grammar school.
This is the DU 'street gang' ranting place.


..and still can NOT believe that is is ok with DU mods
to leave threads with "anal sex" in the topic at GD forum.

If that is considered an
"ok" topic to discuss by DU mods then That should be in the DU Lounge, NOT GD.

---------------------

[Skinner]

105. The discussion topic is not anal sex.

The discussion topic is the nature of consent and the definition of rape. That is a legitimate topic, and that is why it was allowed to stay.

[truebrit71]

106. Kind of like using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat??

Don't you think??

What's the five sentence thing all about??

What's next, locked if you don't conjugate verbs correctly??

Bizarre and un-necessary IMO....and that profanity thing?? Sorry but that is simply childish...

Way, WAY to PC....

What a shame...

TrueBrit

[Skinner]

107. It's only a three-day experiment.

We'll try it out and see if people like it.

[Heddi]

109. Skinner! You have the patience of Job...

....either that, or a handy supply of vallium :)


Good job with the rules! Someone above said that the LBN rules really helped shape the forum, and I think that's very true. It's not hard to comply with LBN rules, or these temporary GD rules.

You guys rock! The new forum is great and DU is getting greater and greater every day. I love this forum. I'd be lost without it :)

[drdigi420]

167. we don't

i don't mind most of the rules, but the 5 sentence thing is a little silly

[kentuck]

110. Enemy activity will decrease significantly...

will be my prediction. When freepers have to write 5 sentences, they will be instantly deterred. If you don't believe me, go to their site and look at how many one line responses they have posted. They do not post long, thoughtful posts , as many of our dedicated DUers do.

Also, since GD has been so slow in the last few days because of the huge amount of traffic, I suppose(?), then this should make it run smooth enough to at least read the posts...

Although I do believe much can be said in 3 sentences, especially when we use commas, and when we use the word "and", but some sentences can really drag on when we use conjunctions such as "but and "if', if we notice?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. Question.

In reviewing this thread it appears some have interpreted the rule as no swearing in the BODY OF THE POST for the thread that is started.

I interpreted "discussion topic" to mean the HEADER of the actual thread that shows up on the "Latest"

Is my interpretation correct?

edited for clarification

[Skinner]

114. It is not allowed in the body of the post.

If you want to start a thread, you can't do it anywhere in the post.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

127. OK

My take on that is that it does seem a bit extreme.

I think the main complaints that DU gets (although you read far more complaints than I do) are about what appears on the titles.i.e. the front page, not in the thread. But I will comply and heck, it's not too bad an exercise anyway.

Reminds me of an old Vonnegut quote which I am paraphrasing: Never swear. It stops people who already don't want to listen to you from hearing anything you have to say."

[Skinner]

132. There is a reason for this.

I'm actually not concerned about "how we look" to everyone. The profanity in thread titles doesn't bother me in the slightest.

This is about cooling the rhetoric. The problem with profanity is not that it is offensive to our sensitive ears. The problem is that it makes topics more rhetorically hot, and therefore encourages flaming.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

145. Got it!

And I might add, after one day of it, I really wouldn't feel suppressed if the rules were tried for a MONTH or even permanent.

I wouldn't want you to be so restrictive as to inhibit participation or membership or support, but already GD has more discussion (it seems)

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[Ediacara]

112. I like em overall

1) I think this may be a little hard for some people to deal with, but willbe a good way to stop some superfluous "Topic: discuss" posts of late.

2) I am unclear why this hasn't been a rule before :-)

3) I like this. I suppose it should be noted that this only applies in here, and not to P+C or LBN or editorials or other forums where cut and paste news is the norm.

4) This applies only to the original post, and not the replies. You can write "fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck" all you want in a reply to a post. I agree with this, as the "latest" gateway points easy access to all posts.

5) Ya I like that too. I think a clause allowing capitolized subject headings within a post should be made.

[TheBigGuy]

113. this place is getting really anal.

I do agree about the "no profantiy" rule, though...

[Robbien]

115. I don't know, this rule may cut down on the confusion

there are almost three or four dozen different threads on Arnold today, most with a couple of posts only. Then with Dole going on CSpan there is one thread out of three dealing with the broadcast. It is hard to pick through them all to find threads one is interested in.

[kentuck]

117. Do you know the difference between "Dole" and "Gore" ?

Or was that just a Freudian-type slip ? :)

[Robbien]

118. Ha! See I did say picking through duplicate threads was making

me confused. Thanks.

[librechik]

119. OK--perhaps we need a Random Rant forum

to exorcise those profanity-spewing, capital-screaming demons that possess my (and others') fingers and brains occasionally--Don't make me go to smirking chimp or bartcop--I don't understand the forum design there! (whine)

Seriously, I'm watching this temporary experiment with interest. Good luck!

[Democat]

121. I see you locked Starpass's thread

You are hurting my opinion of DU with this nonsense.

You have a right to make any rules you want, but I have to say that these latest rules are absolutely over the top and unacceptable.

[Skinner]

133. Give it three days.

This is not the end of the world. This is a short-term experiment.

Starpass is welcome to re-post, she just has to make some minor adjustments to comply with the rules.

[Democat]

151. In less than three days the world might end!

Then what? :)

[DarbyUSMC]

122. I haven't laughed this much in a long time.

Reading the replies and the questions reminded me of giving instructions to second graders. "Print your name on the upper right hand side of your paper."

"Where do I put my name?"

"Should I put my name on the paper?"

"Your right or my right?"

"Should I use my last name?"

"What do I do? I'm left handed."

[Ivory_Tower]

135. I usually don't use the phrase "LOL"

But...LOL!

I was thinking about asking the question "Do compound sentences count as two?", but thought that sounded grade-school-ish. Then I saw your post and busted out laughing.

Good observation!

[Pobeka]

124. A non-paying member (small) gripe, wrt 5 sentence rule

I don't start a thread all that often, and a number of my posts have been purposely vague in order to *generate* a larger, hopefully valuable discussion. So I want others to voice opinions without asking questions that are overly leading, thus I really don't want to put too much verbage into the post, and the 5 sentence rule disables that type of post.

But I think the test makes sense, for the greater good -- If the signal to noise ratio in the GD can be improved.

I really, really appreciate all the hard work you all (moderaters, site maintainers) do, and support the 3 day test.

[DarbyUSMC]

125. Top ten reasons for not starting a topic during this trial period.

10. I am not sure of what topic means.

9. I'm afraid I can't string five sentences together.

8. I can't read my own typing.

7. New ideas scare me.

6. I hate rules. They suck.

5. No one tells me what to do. Well, except my Mommy.

4. This is a conspiracy to silence the leaders of the pack.

3. This is a pilot for a new reality show. I knew it.

2. I don't want anyone to know I don't know anything.

1. I will show myself for who I really am.

[CWebster]

128. lol

Good one!

[MrPrax]

130. Hear Hear! All Praise to the OPs

And a thousand thumbs up...
make the policy permanent...if oneliners with something to contribute can't 'add' to an existing thread...then forget them.
You can find loads of interesting topics on the Net with very little effort and there is NO excuse for Threads that start out with
Topic:HEY...DID YOU watch something on TV eariler!!!
msg: Dean was incredible!!!
paste: .jpg from Dean site

OH I used Dean coz I like him...but sub anyone or thing you want

Forums should be thought of in the same way Roberts conducts meeting...speak to the POINT and the CHAIR should make good points

Thx

[FubarFly]

134. I hate it when the solution is worse than the problem.

If people are engaging in an interesting intelligent discussion, I don't
care about the "quality" of the original post. The quality of the thread supercedes this. An active, stimulating thread should never be locked. We should be encouraging progressive thought and ideas. This is part of the essence of democracy, and a primary reason why i associate myself with the Democratic Party.

If the problem is too many posts clogging the general discussion thread,
the solution is the simplest one possible.

So why not break it down?

Separate questions and polls from discussion threads. The "I need help with freepers", and "Can anyone tell me what happened on C-span" threads are perfectly valid, but needlessly clog a forum which should be devoted to discussing and debating general political topics. So instead of locking these threads, you can simply shift them. The discussions continue, the forums are less congested, and everyone is happy. It initially be more work for the mods, but people will adapt, and it is much better than this counting 5 sentence foolishness that is going on now .

[Skinner]

136. There is actually a purpose behind the 5-sentence foolishness.

We're not trying to decrease the number of threads. We're just trying to get people to spend one minute to put their thoughts down.

The hope is that by requiring people to think before they start a thread we can actually start quality threads. The tone of the first post sets the tone for the entire discussion thread.

[FubarFly]

140. Okay, but can't a person stimulate a honest debate.

in less than five sentences? Sometimes the event being discussed is the message. Or sometimes you can pack a lot of thought into two or three powerfully worded phrases. I appreciate DU and all the work you do here, and I understand the need for rules, but IMHO these rules will cause more harm than good.
But I suppose that's why they are temporary. If the rest of this wonderful site is any indication, I trust that in the end you'll come up with a reasonable and workable solution.

[Skinner]

141. The beauty of the 5-sentence rule is its simplicity.

It sure would be nice if there was a way to write a rule that called for thread topics to include "a lot of thought" or that required thread topics to "stimulate honest debate." But you can't write a rule like that. It would be so difficult to enforce that it would be meaningless.

Because quality is a completely subjective thing. Everyone thinks that their own thread topics (and the thread topics of their friends) are the absolute best, while the threads started by those other people are the crappy ones.

If moderators had to make subjective calls about something as slippery as thread quality, the board would be in open revolt. We can only step in if a thread is really, really, really awful.

So the very objective 5-sentence rule is a surrogate for a more subjective rule about quality. We ask for 5 sentences, not because we have a fixation with the number five. We ask for 5 sentences because it forces people to think before they post. It forces people to flesh out their arguments.

The end result is better quality thread topics. (At least, that's what we hope.)

[FubarFly]

144. Perhaps there should also be a "twenty reply" rule.

Meaning that if a thread has, let's say, twenty replies, then that thread is viable despite whether the conditions of the orginal post have been met. Perhaps this would provide an objective counter-balance to the other rules?

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

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

[Oracle]

137. So you can't say 'fuck"?

In the subject area of a new thread and the posting message? Is that correct? Well, I should have no fucking problem with that...because I only use it in response to stupid, stupid posts, when my passion needs to make a point and I see no other way! I don't use it in intelligent post I respond to.

Thanks for the heads up Skinner.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[Dancing_Dave]

138. I'll be happy to see these rules go. They don't work.

These rules obviously don't have the intended effect of raising the quality of discussion. Instead, they lock out discusions before the conversation can achieve any depth. Some of the rules about what kind of posts can be used to start a new thread do seem reasonable enough. But squelching free conversation of issues just because some of it goes in a direction that offends someone, or WHATEVER, just leads to a shallower depth and lower quality and less critical thinking in the discussion. And it's just plain UNDEMOCRATIC!

[Skinner]

139. Not true.

If you simply comply with the rules when you start a thread, then your thread will not get locked. Period. It's actually quite simple.

The thread can stay and grow and achieve all sorts of depth. The point is to improve the chances that that will happen.

[Gringo]

142. I agree about topic headers...

I hate when they're too cryptic or deceptive. That being said, I think the five line thing is arbitrary and wrong.

Also, the lousy posts usually drop like a rock. As for the flame wars - some people enjoy them, and even get something out of them (sometimes) I think there's altogether too much snobbishness about what does or does not constitute the proper "quality of discussion".

I get as annoyed as anyone by the candidate bashing threads, but I've learned to ignore most of them when the title doesn't imply anything salient.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

143. Good idea

Let the moderators see if it works. If you can't take the time to post a whole paragraph, why bother? And some of the profanity might scare away some parents, or trigger a filter of some kind.

:)

[Rowdyboy]

146. Skinner, Earl, Elad...

and all the rest. I've never met a single one of you, but you guys impress me more than I can say. I'm just glad you care as much as you do.

The recent rule changes in GD are 100% okay with me. Hope it will help.

[Bertrand]

147. Absurd

It should be of no concern to the moderators the quality of discussion and only that of the participants. The whole concept of telling people how to frame their posts is totalitarian and ridiculous.

[VoteClark]

150. Uh-Oh! Now your gone!

Now you will be banned from the forum. All opinions must fit within the 1001 (now 1006) guidelines of DU. They can't be negative about Dean either. They must be all postive. This is Democratic Underground, it is NOT a democracy. I am a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I can't be a totalitarian too. Geesh! :shrug:


:kick:
J4Clark

[CWebster]

152. Actually

I don't really care that much about excessive capitalization, or run-on explantion points, or if someone can adequately express themselves in less than 5 sentences without using something stronger than "fiddlesticks", but the actual ability of the site to function is what drives me bananas. Yes, sometimes the circular firing aquads are exasperating, but It seems like every morning there are a few hours where everything moves at a crawl and connecting, if successful after repeated attempts, hobbles along it a snail's pace. Is this an ongoing problem or part of the scheduled testing process that cripples manueverability? Can't say I am computer savvy but it would seem to me this would contribute to discouraging greater participation and readership due to frustration in gaining access.

[CWebster]

153. Okay, what the hell was the matter with the Gore \Advisors

thread that was just locked?

I really hope the Mods aren't getting knife-happy with their newly unleashed powers.

Why was that necessary? How about a little well-balanced restraint?

[Shrek]

155. Just guessing since I'm not a mod

But the originating post lacked enough sentences.

[CWebster]

158. probably right

Just ignore my complaint. I was just about to post and saw that the thread had been locked and was annoyed that everyone would miss my profound insight into the matter of Gore's past advisors. LOL!

[Nazgul35]

154. Actually...

now all the people who employ these tactics have switched over to the politics board....and it's just as annoying there too!!

I vote for these rules to be continued....even though I know the admins are elightened despots...

:evilgrin:

[eyesroll]

156. What people are forgetting

is that DU is a privately owned company.

I do not know if Skinner, Elad and EarlG are the owners or just the admins, but it doesn't matter. They work hard and don't deserve all of the shouts about free-speech restrictions and being "just as bad" as whoever it is you hate.

Think of all of the privately-owned companies you visit.

<annoying analogy>

Take your local neighborhood tavern. In most states, it's legal to smoke in bars. But some bars are smoke-free anyway, and the manager will kick you out if you light up. At many neighborhood bars, if somebody comes in and starts trash-talking to a tight-knit regular crowd, they'll be asked to leave. If you start dancing on your barstool and shouting profanity, the bartender will probably get the bouncer to escort you out, whether you're drunk or not.

But are smoking, trash-talking or barstool-dancing illegal? No. Is restricting those activities an abridgement of anyone's First Amendment rights? No -- the proprietor has the right to restrict the activities of his or her customers in order to maintain the best possible environment. It doesn't matter if you personally want to smoke or whatever. Your choice is to comply or go elsewhere. That's how business works.

Owners/admins of privately owned Web sites have the same rights -- think of DU as their bar. If you don't like the new rules, of course you have every right to complain, just as customers have the right to complain at a bar. If you really don't like the new rules, you also have the right to leave. What you don't have is the right to demand your way. Even if you have a gold star next to your name -- we're customers of DU, not owners.

I personally would prefer that we have voluntary standards, not rules, but I understand that this is Skinner/Elad/EarlG's (I hope I'm not missing anyone) bar, not mine.

</annoying analogy>

[Skinner]

159. Additional information about these guidelines.

I have posted a thread outlining our justification for these changes. It is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=149059&mesg_id=149059

[madrchsod]

160. i understand the problem with gd

but...why aren`t the "arnie-california falling into the sea" posts moved to politics and camp..?

[xequals]

161. Most of the new rules work, some don't

A site like this is overloaded with traffic. We've all probably seen large sites devolve into off-topic chatter having nothing to do with the intent of the particular website. If there's no quality control things can and will go to hell on high traffic forums.

Some exceptions should be made for starting "real time" type threads where people are watching something on TV and interacting at the same time on the forum. Threads like that have to be started quickly and need to be very brief -- the thread topic is basically an announcement for when the event is to occur (if it isn't already in progress). The real posting usually starts as the event does (people post as they watch/listen/whatever).

I find this site to be the best resource for news relating to our candidates and everything in the world of Democratic politics, mainly because the threads usually reflect what's going on in the moment on TV, on the web, in the news, etc. I can log on, scan the forums and know instantly what's happening, what channel to tune into, what article to read, what web poll to visit, etc. It's real time information that changes by the second. That is an amazing thing, something that only large, high traffic, online forums can provide.

I guess it's a thin line between rules which improve the flow and quality of information and rules that do the opposite. It's a tough balancing act: too few rules and it's anarchy, too many and it's 1984.

[WHAT]

162. As an antidote to 1984...

I like it!

In the book, qualifiers and descriptions were reduced to predicate nominatives and that was the control mechanism by which ideas were limited. I see the same type of control in posts with x=y where discussion is limited and valuation is assumed because of the validation of x or y (Bush is bad...or Dean or Arnold).

Maybe it will take lomger than a few days to access but I do think it will make for more dynamic rather than merely excited discussion. Also, I do realize there are exceptions to every rule...wit, half-truths revealing big lies, the approriate curse, etc...but people could use those devices in responding to posts.

I LIKE IT!

[goobergunch]

165. A couple of questions

1. Do emoticons satisfy the rule 3 requirement? I often post articles in LBN and then post my feelings about it via emoticons such as :bounce:, :evilgrin:, or :-(.

2. Do polls have to comply with the 5-sentence rule? I don't think they should.

Other than these questions, I support these new rules...there has been far too much flaming in GD lately.

[Skinner]

168. Answers

1. We would not consider an emoticon to be a sentence.

2. We hadn't really considered polls when we wrote these guidelines. (In fact, we didn't consider a number of situations.) I think that they probably should not be required to comply with the five-sentence rule.

[goobergunch]

171. Thanks! (n/t)

[Yupster]

169. Ready to give my opinion of new rules

I think the five sentence rule is wrong.

Good discussions have been stopped for what I consider an arbitrary rule, and other first posts are obviously padded just to get to the five sentences.

I just don't see the connection between size of post and quality of further discussion.

[Skinner]

170. There is a reson for the 5-sentence rule.

Basically, the purpose is to to make it a little more difficult to start at thread. It forces people to actually think about what they are posting. If a topic is worth discussing, then it is worth five sentences of your time.

I think the last two days have shown that this works. The number of crappy thread topics is way down.

Of course, the last two days have also shown the limits of this approach. Good threads very clearly *have* been locked. But I think this would not be a problem if these rules were in effect longer and people got used to following them. Eventually all the threads stared in the General Discussion forum would comply with the rules, and very few would need to be locked. This is exactly what happened when we instituted rules in the Latest Breaking News forum. Now, nobody complains when a "good thread" gets locked in the Latest Breaking News forum because people understand the trade-off that is being made. People are willing to sacrifice some good threads because overall the forum is better with restrictions.

I can promise you this: These guidelines are not going to become permanent in their current form. I personally think that they have been effective in doing what they were supposed to do, but after two days it is clear that they are unnecessarily over-restrictive. Based on this experiment, I think it is possible for us to come up with a less-restrictive set of guidelines that fulfill the same purpose with less cost.

[UTUSN]

172. "not ... in their current form." Thankyou, Thankyou, Thankyou

and not just for that. For lots more.

[salin]

173. Did the rule just run out?

seems to still be some willful ignoring of the rule.

Personally - though I have not always made long/thoughtful first posts (though I try) - I think for the GD forum - its not a bad idea.

[Skinner]

174. No, they're in effect until midnight tonight. (nt)

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Democat]

176. Please STOP locking active threads!

I was trying not to comment again until you get rid of these B.S. rules, but the DU general board sucks right now because of all the thread locking.

Are some arbitrary rules more important to some of you than actually winning elections and having more people involved in what is going on here?

Please stop locking active threads that have replies.

You are hurting, not helping, Democrats with this nonsense.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[rellik]

193. It should help the discussion along.

I saw a really interesting article this morning. I will fetch the HTML for you. It should help the discussion along.