A few words about the temporary General Discussion guidelines.

[Skinner]

Please read this ENTIRE MESSGE. It explains a lot. Thanks.

Obviously, there is a lot of complaining about the TEMPORARY guidelines to start threads in the general discussion forum. No surprise there. This is a significant change in how we run the forum, even if it is only a three-day experiment.

I have explained a number of times what our motivations are for trying this experiment. But allow me to explain one more time, all in one place, in order to clear up any confusion or misunderstanding.

These rules have NOTHING to do with our server problems. Most of you probably haven't noticed, but for the last three days the server has run perfectly fine during the peak hours from 11:00AM to 8:00PM Eastern Time. We have a wierd glitch in the early morning, but that has nothing to do with bandwidth. So please, stop trying to pass this off as a backhanded effort to fix our traffic problems, because those have already been fixed.

These rules are about improving the quality of discussion topics started in the General Discussion forum. People have been begging me, for months (and years) to do something about the quality of discussion in GD. I have ALWAYS been reluctant to put any sort of restriction on the General Discussion forum, and I remain reluctant to this day. That is why this is a temporary experiment.

We believe that one of the most important factors contributing to the quality of a discussion is the way which the topic is framed in the very first post. It is the post that sets the tone for the entire thread, and it is the only post which everyone reads.

Every one of these guidelines is intended to change the way people start threads, which will (hopefully) change the way those threads develop over time. These guidelines require people to 1) develop and flesh out their arguments before they hit post on a thread, 2) spend more than half a second deciding whether a new thread is necessary, and 3) cool down the intensity of the rhetoric.

There is a reason for the five sentence rule. I do not have a fixation with the number five. Nor do I think that there are no good threads with fewer than five sentences. The number five is completely arbitrary -- we could have chosen 10 or three. We are requiring a minimum number of sentences for a reason: It forces people to actually think about what they are posting. I believe, strongly, that if a topic is worth discussing, then it is worth five sentences of your time.

And if a topic is worth discussing, then it is worth posting with a correct headline, without profanity, and without excessive capitalization or exclamation points.

Starting a thread in the General Discussion forum is cheap. These guidelines are intended to make people expend a little more time and effort in order to get one started.

Here is what I would like from you...

I want you to actually make an effort to comply with the guidelines. Don't deliberately start threads that aren't in compliance in order to test the limits or thumb your nose at me.

If you hate the new guidelines, I want you to suck it up and deal with them for three days. (Actually, less than two days, since they're being removed at the end of the day Saturday.)

If your thread gets locked, just re-write it to comply with the guidelines and re-post.

Stop trying to whip up anger against me and against the new rules. If you have questions, then ask them in this thread or in the Ask The Administrators forum. But please don't start threads so that everyone can talk trash about how much the guidelines suck.

Give me one shred of trust. I am not perfect. But I don't make big changes to this place without agonizing over what the consequences will be. You will never know how many nights of sleep I lose worrying about this place. This temporary experiment is only three days. I am not going to make any permanent changes to your beloved General Discussion forum unless I am confident that it is the right thing to do.

It's only three days. It's not the end of the world.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[northzax]

1. amen

and thanks for all the cat herding you do, it must be like having 30,000 five year olds sometimes, huh?

it's remarkable how so many people can't bother to read, isn't it?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Rhiannon12866]

123. I'm confused. This is an excellent cause and I certainly think DU

is the perfect place to post this petition. The unbalanced reporting on FOX News is a recurring theme here. But I have a question. Why didn't you give it its own thread instead of burying it in a discussion about the temporary GD rules?

I have posted two petitions in the last week, both of them in the Activism forum. I think that your petition would be more appropriately posted there and certainly more people would see it. This is just a suggestion, but I'm sure that you want to gather as many signatures as possible. I'll certainly sign!:-)

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. Skinner, I would follow whatever rules you set.

This is your house, we just play in it. Keep up the great work!

[Rhiannon12866]

124. I agree and couldn't have phrased it better n/t

[Terwilliger]

3. kick

I RARELY start any new threads, so I should be safe ;-)

[meegbear]

4. Hear, hear ...

I agree. If you can ask a question / make a statement in less than five sentences, it probably belongs in the DU Lounge.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. Agreed on all points

Thx for your efforts and the explanation.

[CatWoman]

6. Right on Principal Skinner

I can't believe all the whining.

Herding cats...............

[Rowdyboy]

7. Your house, your rules...

They make perfect sense to me and I hope they're made permanent. However, if you decide not to, that's fine too. When someone throws a party and invites me, I go by "house rules". I don't smoke in non-smokers homes. I don't drink in non-drinkers homes. And if you want GD to be a serious discussion area, I have absolutely no problem with that.

Thanks for being sensitive to what most people want.

[dweller]

8. one suggestion

can this message be placed at the top of the forum list, with a stickypin like the original notice?
that way more folks will be drawn to reading both, and this one won't sink to page 2, etc.

otherwise, in complete agreement with all here.
great job as always!

dp

[Skinner]

13. I actually think people have blindness toward pinned threads.

If it's pinned at the top, then they assume that it's not worth reading.

Kinda like how people ignore banner ads on websites.

I'm going to let this float for a while, and later I'll pin it to the top.

[OrdinaryTa]

9. And Some Just Clap Their Hands

All God's children got a place in the choir,
Some sing low and some sing higher
Some sing out loud on the telephone wire
And some just clap their hands, their paws, or anything they've got ...

The new rules require topic originators to be able to write. That doesn't strike me as an unreasonable requirement, but I can see that it might cause some consternation. Some people have trouble putting five sentences together to start a topic.

In my opinion, if you're one of those folks who just clap your hands, your paws, or anything you've got, live with it. You're one of God's children, too.

[curse10]

10. Agreed

I don't really mind the new rules. Some people get their panties in a twist over the silliest stuff.

[Robin Hood]

96. And I would consider the new rules to be part of the silly stuff.

[sangha]

11. Thank you Skinner

AFAIC, you could go much further before I would complain.

[newyawker99]

12. kick

:kick:

[trof]

I'd ask only one exception.

Announcements about something on or upcoming shortly on TV.
Many times I have been indebted to someone who gave a heads-up for something that I was glad I didn't miss. Sometimes I didn't see it until the second or third kick, so if it is immediately locked it sinks pretty fast.

Also, many times these threads turn into blow-by-blows for the cube rats w/no TV and/or a good discussion about what was on.

Possibly these threads should be prefaced "ALERT"?
Just a thought.

[seemslikeadream]

21. I second that

C-SPAN is the only thing I post in GD. Since I am juggling 5 to 10 different things at a time, one being tuned into C-SPAN, I would like to alert people to live stuff but I am not quick witted or intelligent enough to compose 5 sentences in a flash so people will miss it before it ever gets posted. I actually don't care if it gets locked. My purpose is to inform and not necessarily to get a response.
Is there anything wrong with that?

[LynneSin]

36. If it's an announcement, it would be nice to have it's own area on the boa

board tha is -ran out of room on the subject line.

But yes, I agree if one person wants to start a discussion because "So-in-So" is on "real important news show" let's talk about it. I do find those enjoyable.

Maybe we could all start the subject line with TV ALERT: (topic here) and mods will know they are ok

[synthia]

53. i like the TV ALERT idea!!!

it does seem silly to require five sentances for a 'heads up' alert.

i'd hate to lose such alerts from GD. it's so hard to find the 'good stuff'. i really like the alerts.

[FlaGranny]

67. Yes, yes, yes.

That is driving me crazy. There is a Dean thread and a Gore thread about upcoming appearances. The Dean thread had 13 responses and was just getting going when it got locked. By the time someone comes up with 5 sentences explaining the post, the candidates appearance could be over. I would also add legitimate questions to your suggestion for an exception.

Also, there is one perfectly good thread that took up 3 full lines but only had 4 loonngg sentences. You guessed it - it was locked. Suggestion to whoever that was: make your sentences short. Don't use commas and dashes, use periods. If this is continued, it will be an exercise in sentence construction (no "and" "or" ";" or "-" - must use periods) to meet the rules.

Most of the posts I've seen locked were legitimate threads, many of which could have started long, interesting discussion threads. None have been inflammatory or flame bait.

[BrettStah]

78. Isn't there already a forum for this type of post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=102

[Vadem]

79. Trof, I agree...

I, also, have been indebted many times to posters for alerts of things I am interested in, such as hot topics on C-Span, Congressional debates, when Bob Byrd is up, NOW (which, for some reason, I forget on Friday nights), etc. I love the back and forth of the posting on those TV shows, almost like having your friends in your living room watching the TV together and commenting on the subject matter. The TV ALERT idea sounds like a great compromise.

Thank you, Skinner, for the fantastic job you do; I don't know what I would do without DU!

[mandyky]

14. It would also be helpful

if posters would at least look at the whole first page of posts in GD, to make sure it is not already being discussed.

And personally, I think all Presidential candidate stuff belongs in Politics and Campaigns.

Thanks Admins, for trying to get things whipped into shape!

[charlie]

15. S'alright by me

I don't mind the rules.

[Punkingal]

16. I am sorry you lose sleep worrying......

about DU. But that's how it is when you are a parent, and this is your baby. I, for one, am extremely grateful for DU, and you should run things anyway you want to, IMHO.

[GOPisEvil]

17. Don't make Skinner call Supernintendo Chalmers on y'all!

It's 3 days - live with it. :-)

[Bertrand]

18. Instead of DU attempting to craft "quality"

how about leaving it to the poster to do that? The whole spirit of communication is the exchange of ideas, and i think it's imperative among those that believe in the unabridged exchange of ideas and information that it's uncorrupted as much as possible. I understand your opinion here, and i commend your effort, but it really shouldnt be of your concern of how a message is crafted or its content, unless they differ extensively form societal norms, which appears to be the universal guideline here (although i disagree with this too)

I recognize there is a balancing act here, but i feel these rules are way past the line of board stewardship.

[Skinner]

19. Pehaps it should not be my concern.

I wish it was not.

But the fact of the matter is that people consider it to be my concern, and people actually do hold me accountable for the quality of the discussions on the message board.

[Bertrand]

25. You shoud tell them

that the idea of being a Democrat is that of being free-thinking and not enslaved to orthodoxy such as unneeded heirarcy and moderation. You would be a hero!


Seriously, please drop these rules here. Thanks.

[KoKo]

52. Bertrand what you're describing "un-needed heirarchy and moderation" could

become a "free-for-all" also. Why should we be able to say anything we please hear no matter what it is ...just because we are Democrats? There are plenty of other discussion places where you can say whatever you want...why can't people come here and expect some moderation of "the first thought that came my head" in what they put out on this board to discuss?

I've had many posts that embarrassed me because I didn't take a minute or two to think about what I said before blasting out on GD with Full Caps and Exclamation Points....and idiotic raving. Maybe this is worth a try for a couple of days. We need to have more patience.

[Armitage]

131. i agree

n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. i see it as being the difference between a discussion board and

a wall full of graffeti.

if i were Skinner and had devoted the time and energy to this place that he has, i'd bet i'd do what was necessary to aim for a little more substantive discussion. there are so many places where grafitti rules, i've hated seeing it invade DU.

this place is unique and has the potential to actually be a force in the body politique. that would require both growth in our numbers and a little 'self filtration' by us all. i know i have stopped telling people about DU because i've been embarassed but the
feedback i've gotten from those i've brought here.

maybe i'm the one who's out of step. the whole world is watching and i'd like them to see more of the better side of DU rather than a wall full of graffeti 'f#uck you' and personal attacks.

[ibegurpard]

37. My mother thinks "fart" is a vulgar word.

So she would probably dismiss anything coming from you just because of your name... My point being that "substantive" and "graffiti" as well as profanity are all pretty subjective.

[synthia]

57. you are right about the name

i've thought of changing it. i choose it because it would be immediately recognizable by any of my friends from the old days of the vietnam anti-war movement. i had hoped they might show up here, see it and we could reconnect. it's been about a year though and i'm losing hope.

i see your point...eye of the beholder and all but i really think this board could be a force. isn't that what we all want? a little more power? to have our opinions acknowledged? to have our input accepted by the candidates?

can you agree that to do this we need to put our best foot forward?

on edit bear posting...ooops forgot to log out of she-bear's account and log back in. i knew seperate accounts would be a PIB.

[molly]

20. Thankyou!!!

I'm sure you've noticed that some get upset about ANYTHING - they are just looking for an excuse for their rage.

[ibegurpard]

22. Ah yes...this coming from someone who has complained

about inappropriate and non-constructive threads in the LOUNGE!
:eyes:

[molly]

38. Example please

[ibegurpard]

54. After an exhaustive Lounge archive search

in which I was unable to find the thread that spurred my comment (seem unable to get anything earlier than July), I will have to try to reconstruct it from memory. Of course you can say "prove it" and I can't since I can't find the thread but here goes:
The topic was, I believe, something to do with circumcision and you made a comment, I believe, along the lines of "why are we wasting time on this when there are actually important things to discuss?". You caught a lot of flack for it, including from me, but I don't think you ever replied to it. I wouldn't have taken issue with it except for the fact that you were making an issue out of it in the Lounge. That's the best I can do without finding the specific thread.

Here's a recent comment of yours regarding your opinion of the "quality" of lounge posting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=54465&mesg_id=54465#54473
I'm not sure why the Lounge should be subject to sophistication criteria? :shrug:

[molly]

56. You must have a memory that surpasses even mine

you have decided that you will pursue ANYTHING I say - even in jest - for whatever hidden agenda you have. You must be on a MISSION!

on edit - I am truly flattered that you spent so much time on me!

[ibegurpard]

58. First off

Let me apologize for the flippant tone of the post that started this exchange...it did not exactly set a tone for a civil discussion about the point I was trying to make...which was that everyone has a different opinion about what is "quality" or "sophisticated." I sometimes tend to do that with people who have rubbed me the wrong way in the past.
I too have been frustrated at times when topics that I think are important seem to sink like rocks but I don't think the solution is to apply arbitrary rules on the one forum which is supposed to be for an open exchange of ideas and topics.
Peace

On edit: You DID ask for an example...LOL :P

[UTUSN]

23. Dissenters on This Just Want ...

Some of us HAVE been rude in HOW we expressed our dissent, but, surely hopefully, just the DISSENT is not being equated with rudeness itself. The bottom line is that the owner can do what he wants, fine. I can cut my Lhasa Apso's preternaturally long hair and I do, but he sure expresses his selfhood when I'm giving him a bath. WE are not the property, the site is. And we are profoundly grateful for the site.

But the main rationale advanced is "quality". This is verging on "propriety", which is verging on PC-ism. I FULLY agree with curbing the visibility of profanity and understand that DU is seen by significantly prominent outsiders who might (superficially) be put off by a bunch of rabble-babble, like when Michael JORDAN (?) lectured innner city youth, "Nobody is interested in seeing your underwear hanging out. If you want to play professional ball, the fans are rich and sophisticated and don't want to see underwear."

If that's all there is to it, fine. But an implication is possible that we are trying here to be The Atlantic or Harper's. I *do* want to get thoughts out there, and original slants, but am not pretending to literary "quality" (THAT's for sure).

Most of our beautiful fellowship here has to do with being among mostly like-minded people. When I'm with people I know really well and trust deeply, it ain't "debate" that is the attraction, and there isn't that much to "discuss" with people I know really well. The extent of "discussion" is pretty much: 1) Ain't it great? 2) Ain't it AWFUL? 3) Guess what happened NOW! and 4) Check out this. 5) Teach me this.

I just posted BEYOND the 5-sentence threshold on Tweety and got back the "discussion," "I'm convinced Tweety swallows." I loved it. It fulfilled "discussion" for me. I would love to have scores of replies, but how much discussion does Tweety take?----and yet, for me, Tweety is a NECESSARY, ONGOING topic in our landscape.

[synthia]

59. "quality" verging on "propriety", which is verging on PC-ism.

hmmmm.....that's some slippery slope you have designed.

how would you respond if the phrase in-depth were substituted for quality?

[UTUSN]

66. hmmm, that's some loaded language you designed into "slippery slope"

I think my point is that profundity ("in depth") is not necessarily a prime characteristic of what SOME of us are looking for in every, single GD thread.

[bearfartinthewoods]

90. isn't that what the lounge is for?

venting and off topic stuff? i wasn't around when it started but i thought tht was the reason.

it's not as if anyone is precluded from posting almost anything they want. as Skinner said, either craft it so it fits into the GD requirements or post it to one of the other forums.

i don't see this as extremely restrictive for anyone. LBN has improved 100% since specific rules were enacted. i can see the same thing begining to happen here as well.

with the exception of TV ALERTs, i'm hoping the new rules live long so we can prosper.

[UTUSN]

91. LBN Is a Very Specific, Self-Defining Venue

I myself asked, in the first rush of reaction whether I should just go to the Lounge, where I almost never have been, missing the definitions that GD is for POLITICAL topics. Despite one of my threads on IMUS having been relocated to the Lounge on the grounds that it didn't contain POLITICAL content, all I care to post about has to do with politics.

As for attributing "so we can prosper" to "the new rules" ------the registration up to 30,000 happened before the new rules.

But as I have agreed several times, the house makes the house rules, so be it.

As for the temporary rules not being overly restrictive, fine---we will get used to them if they stay. But I really don't see the relation between 5 sentences and "quality" or even in slowing down the pace of new threads.

Even before, it appeared the mods had plenty to do and really weren't catching all the duplicate threads. Now they are counting to 5. Here's a question: Don't the temporary rules say that if you post a quoted piece you are supposed to explain your own view in posting it? So, why was this thread allowed to flourish?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=151550&mesg_id=151550

And, yes, I am green with envy.

On Edit: "prosper", not "proper" (Freudian slip).

[Skinner]

92. That was allowed to stay because he explained his purpose for posting it.

His purpose was that he wanted everyone to see it. It's right here:

"I hope everyone caught this aspect of Gore kicking arse"

[UTUSN]

93. O.K. (Taking back the n/t) : Well, But

Isn't that basically why we all post something, specifically a quoted piece, so sometimes we want NOT to slant the potential responses with OUR slant from the outset. In the course of the DISCUSSION, the original poster's views would likely emerge. Or else, sometimes no explanation is needed.

I'm really NOT trying to be difficult. I've offered my 2 cents with sincerity.

[bearfartinthewoods]

108. i saw that one too. i even alerted on it. then i noticed the start date

it was started before the rules took effect.

[UTUSN]

110. Did It? (Sound of Butting Heads Here)

"Fri Aug-08-03 07:38 PM
Original message"

Also, is "arse" in the subject line not considered profanity? Not picking on that thread, just indulging my hideous envy. Well, Mr PITT is big enough to take this little gnat, and I HAVE called him "intrepid" before. Right now there's a thread describing the DLC with a slang word for masterbation.

But to take another jab at the "quality" issue: Just on page 1 of GD at any given time there are tons (Tweety's word) of threads alerting to upcoming events, critiqueing Faux and whomever, and ranting and venting. Information in itself is great and needed, but what does "quality" have to do with it?

Hope my replies are not coming across as quarrelsome, BFitW. Your, um, refreshing handle would seem to be on the iconoclastic side of rules.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[quinnox]

24. My take

I kind of like these new rules except for the 5 sentence rule, the one about no profanity in the initial post of a thread I think is a good one.

I would like to see an additional rule about no pornographic topics in general discussion, like ones that talk about anal sex and things of this nature. I find these topics really offensive, they should go in the lounge.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. It was a thread about defining rape and consent

I'm offended that it's so hard to DEFINE YES FROM NO FOR SOME...but it's life..i live with it and I advocate as necessary.

If I had wanted to frame a huge women's issue in terms of yaks and thongs, I would have posted it in the lounge. I used strict biological terms so as to NOT have the language take a turn the wrong way.

Frankly I think there are a few men that think any time a women's issue comes up it should end up on the back page of life after all people are dying in Iraq. Nevermind that 400,000 to 600,000 women are raped every year and that women make up over 50% of the population.

I am sorry that life and its actual events cause you dismay but I CLEARLY did not post the thread with an intent to offend and I think INTENT goes to the heart of any presumed infraction.

I think there are a few men at DU that would be happy to bully the subject away. In case you haven't noticed, I don't fold in the face of disagreement. To do so would be an integrity issue for me.

On edit: As to the subject of this thread, it has been a great exercise. When I joined DU, rules weren't real necessary for discussion quality. Almost all threads had some value and were thoughtful..with growth that has been difficult to maintain. Order is a part of any large society and I don't think asking people to think is a HUGE infraction.

[ibegurpard]

26. I don't know about this

There were a LOT of locked threads yesterday that I would've been interested in. Maybe that would change as people got used to the rules (if they are kept). I always kind of liked the idea of GD being a free-flowing forum. If yesterday was an indication of what GD would be like under the new rules were they to remain, I would vote that you not keep them.
I DO, however, think that the rule requiring A MINIMAL relevance between thread topic and subsequent text should stay.

[UTUSN]

27. Yesssss! 1) Curb/Profanity AND 2) Relevant Title. n/t

[ibegurpard]

29. I don't have TOOmuch of a problem with the "profanity" rule as is

but I would limit it to thread title.
I would VERY much be opposed to a rule that applied to ALL postings, including replies to threads.

[DrBB]

28. Quality versus velocity

I'm less concerned with quality than velocity, though maybe the two are inextricable. But as the number of members has increased, so has the number of thread postings to GD, which means that any given thread has--it sometimes seems--about 30 seconds to be read and rescued before it goes plummeting off the first page. A lot of worthy stuff doesn't have time to accrue an audience if it doesn't deal with one of the standard hot-button topics. So if the new rules slow things down a bit by eliminating some of the noise, I'm in favor.

[clar]

32. I appreciate the temporary rules

regarding GD. What a great move. I only hope that you see fit to institute them on a more permanent basis, though I can envision enforcement being an arduous and frustrating task. Anthing you do that promotes even a slightly more reflective forum is a positive move. I'd love to see folks take a breath or two, compose their thoughts and then post. If you can't be bothered to write five sentences sans profanity and multiple exclamation points, don't post.
Thanks for the experiment.

[MGKrebs]

30. I think the new rules are fine.

Even if they were permanent. There are many threads I just don't read because they are obviously (to me) just trying to be provocative with no real purpose or content. For some reason, these are also the threads that end up with 180 responses including 170 borderline attacks. Even if it ends up somehow on an actual issue, it is hardly worth it to wade through the BS to contribute.

LBN has special rules because I believe it is set up to achieve a specific goal. GD also has a goal- in depth discussion of issues (do I have that right?) Keeping the discussion relatively civilized and thoughtful seems like a reasonable path to that goal. Anything else that doesn't fit there also has a home- The Lounge.

I've been to "anything goes" discussion sites, and it is practically impossible to have a reasonable discussion.

You guys do a great job.

[joanski01]

33. I agree with you

and with Skinner. DU used to be my first stop every morning. Now I head for Buzzflash first. Sorry.

[mike_c]

34. actually, I'd already like to see the 5 sentence rule made permanent....

It's just too easy to be intellectually lazy in one or two sentences. Instead of STARTING A THREAD with "Lieberman sucks!" I'd really like to know why the poster thinks so, and hear some compelling arguments in favor of the candidate's suckitude. That's waht provides the foundation for the discussion that follows.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

44. No way

The length of the post is not proportional to the intelligence involved in creating it. It is often more difficult to make a point in a concise manner than to ramble on.

[LynneSin]

35. I like this idea and here's why!!!

I remember about a month ago I spent an hour writing a great General Discussion thread (or at least in my opinion). I had no idea what anyone else thought. Someone decided to start about 30 new threads about various regions acrosss the globe with nothing more than Subject: Country X, Message: Let's Discuss.

For all I know, what I wrote about may have been total crap, but what bothered me was it was never even given a chance in General Discussion since in one hour it was on page three.

I'm not trying to dismiss other posters here, but I like to see a "little bit of meat" when someone starts a post in GD. I don't think there is a required number of sentences that makes a good discussion, but what helps is if the original poster starts with an idea and their opinion and we can form one from there. And personally I think it's spam when someone posts multiple new threads in ANY forum that are all almost identically related. Example - if I posted nine new threads asking what people think of a specific democratic candidate. Couldn't I have started just one thread instead and say - let's talk about the various candidates - here's my opinion on the nine!

Flame me all you want, but I like this experiment!!!


And one final edit note: I like what the owners have done with this rule and making it only temporary. When all is said and done we'll think a little bit before we post. Sometimes we need a wake up call to help improve our world around us.

[CWebster]

39. Must we really have so many Schwartznegger threads?

Cripes it's bad enough that his face is beaming from every frontpage and news outlet in the world.

Just a little nit.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. This is your site...

and when I signed on to be a member I (and everyone else here) agreed to abide by your house rules.

I have no problems with your temp rules and wouldn't be unhappy if a few of them were made permanent.

I tend to agree with the idea of fleshing out a post when starting a thread because I have seen too many folks start a hit and run flamebait thread with a one sentance statement.

I don't feel the temp rules stifle my ability to engage in free-flowing dialogue or self-expression.

Thanks again for offering us this site --

[newyawker99]

41. kick

:kick:

[T_i_B]

42. Amen

Thanks Skinner! Love the site!

[thom1102]

43. Can we have the moderator who locks the thread

please point out what violation has occurred?

[Terwilliger]

48. I dont think your CNN poll thread should have been locked

I mean...its a poll, with a question and a link...it doesn't deserve 5 sentences.

[thom1102]

50. It had 5 sentences!

I counted them and included numbers after the sentences to ensure it! I don't start a lot of thread, of the almost 900 posts I have on this board, I would guess that less than 150 (probably a lot less than 150) have been initiating a thread. If I violated a rule in that thread, I don't know which it was, and I sent a PM to Newyawker to ask what I had done, but haven't heard back yet. I think that if a moderator locks a thread, then they should say what rule was violated, even if it is just a number indicating which was violated.

[Skinner]

55. To be fair, we are still ironing out proper enforcement.

Your thread was a borderline case. You violated the five-sentence rule.

People were trying to get around the five-sentence rule by posting one sentence relevant to the topic, and then four sentences of unrelated filler. We have been locking those threads because we felt that they pretty much defeat the whole purpose of the rule.

Your thread has four sentences and one sentence of unrelated filler. It was therefore appropriate to lock the thread.

But I'm going to unlock it. If you'd like to add a fifth sentence, that would be great.

Here's the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=149237&mesg_id=149237

[FlaGranny]

70. Skinner,

About that 5-sentence rule. Somewhere on page 5, or 6, or 7 there is a very thoughtful and good post, 3 full lines of text, with advanced compound sentences using appropriate punctuation. Now I'd guarantee you that half the people on this board would have made the same post in 5 or more short and "simple" sentences. It was immediately locked and it immediately struck me that the poster was effectively being punished for being articulate.

[Droopy]

45. So far it appears that the new rules are working well

The level of discourse has improved dramatically today. I wouldn't mind seeing these rules put into affect permanently. That probably won't fly with most people. Hopefully, the improvement will continue after the temporary rules end. I'm glad you guys decided to try this experiment.

[seemslikeadream]

46. Just to point out

there are now 17 threads on the first page of GD about Arnold or California election. Was this a good outcome of the new rules?

I'm so glad to see those who passed the intelligence test of 5 sentences are able to start discussions of value and diversity.

[Skinner]

49. Just a hunch...

But I have a feeling there would be just as many Arnold threads if we didn't have these guidelines. In fact, we'd probably have more.

This is the biggest story in the news right now, so that's what people want to talk about. Fairly typical behavior for DU.

[Individualist]

51. Thank you, Skinner

It would be nice to see a level of civility brought back to DU. IMO the personal attacks and flame bait threads have gotten out of hand. As for short posts, I have to plead guilty. After working for an employer whose philosophy was "summarize, summarize, summarize, be concise", I tend to express comments/opinions in as few words as possible. However, I post very few topics so it's not a problem.
:-)

[Skinner]

60. You're welcome.

We'll see how it goes.

[newyawker99]

61. kick

:kick:

[alaine]

85. I'm in favor of this, although I'm mostly in LBN when

I'm logged on here so I missed changes in the quality of discussion (due to the new rules) that people are talking about. I so appreciate the rule (or suggestion) for people who are posting a link to express their opinion of it, sometimes when people just throw something neanderthal up on a post without any statements like "this sucks" or whatever it's hard to tell where they are coming from. It's harder to hide being a "troll" or disruptor if you have to post five sentences about the link.

It does take a tad more thought to start a thread. I woke up this a.m. to the lovely sound of C-span's Brian Lamb begging for Bush supporters to call in to the show, he said all four phone lines for "disagree with resident Bush" were lit up, but the phone line for agree w/Bush was silent". This was about 7:00 a.m. and it was a wonderful way to start the day; I rushed in here to start a thread to tell everyone but I could not think of five sentences about it , so it made me think does it really need it's own thread. I thought about tying it into Gore's speech, which had preceded the call-in session, but I could not get onto D.U. to save my life (this has been going on for about three days, I think it is from this end, it seems my computer just can't find D.U. sometimes, but it's okay right now).

[KG]

62. I think the new GD rules should be made permenant.

the GD forum today is already better for it.

[ibegurpard]

63. Yes...instead of 30 one-sentence Arnold posts

we have 30 5-sentence Arnold posts. :P

[ramapo]

64. Bravo Skinner

Thanks for all your efforts...

I vote for the guidelines. A little more meat on a subject makes it tastier for everyone. Let's not be lazy.

[seemslikeadream]

65. Yea as long as the meat is an

Arnold burger.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. People who are complaining about this should have been here

when you temporarily did away with General Discussion entirely to try to get people to read and post in the topical forums. Their heads would probably have exploded over that! I supported that, even though it was a radical move, and I support this because there IS too much cheap talk in GD (and the Lounge is available for the silly stuff we all need at times.) And the topical forums aren't used as much as they should be.

Cheap talk has become epidemic in GD lately, with an influx of relatively new posters who may be here for the wrong reasons. We need regulations to control it. Without regulations, Late Breaking News would be a madhouse. LBN and GD are the most popular forums and both are fast-moving, due to the speed of news available. We NEED rules for GD, too.

I don't always agree with administrative decisions at DU (too rebellious for that!) and I rarely post to "the admins are great!" threads (too independent ot ornery for that!) but I do agree with the admins over this and (gritting teeth) I think the admins are great! (Well, sometimes.) ;-)

[chimpymustgo]

69. Make the temporary rules permanent. The board is much better.

The time and thought that it takes to post a mere FIVE sentences generally requires that the poster think more critically about the subject at hand. And that's a good thing,

[FlaGranny]

72. If the rules are made permanent

I'll probably become temporary. I have never been so aggravated. I rarely start a thread on anything, but I've clicked on so many locked threads today that got my ire up that I'm sure I need to go get some blood pressure pills.

"Subject: Dean on CNN Now 2:00 p.m.

Dean is from the Northeast. He should pick Graham for vice president if he is wins the nomination. A southerner and a northener would be the best ticket. If he doesn't say something about health care I'll be really upset. Please check it out and tell me what you think."

Okay, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 sentences. Will my post stay? Were any of those 5 sentences useful to help you turn in to CNN to see Dean if that's what you wanted to do? Or would my figuring out how to make the 5 sentences and you reading them caused you to miss the whole Dean appearance. What 5 sentences would be useful in this instance, if you don't like the one's I've chosen?

Please note that the following post would NOT be acceptable, as it has only 2 sentences, while saying exactly the same thing:

"Subject: Dean on CNN Now 2:00 p.m.

Dean is from the Northeastand I feel he should pick Graham for vice president if he wins the nomination, because a southerner and a northener would be the best ticket. If he doesn't say something about health care I'll be really upset, so please check it out and tell me what you think."

Gee I sound cranky. I'm sorry about that, but I am feeling a bit grumpy about some of the locked threads I've seen today, one of which had 13 replies.

Edit. Added a sentence.

[MGKrebs]

73. So post it in the Lounge. n/t

[Ramsey]

76. I like the new rules

They are keepers! No problem with a 5 sentence minimum here! I'm awfully verbose on the rare occasion I do post. You might need a maximum limit for me though :-).

The stickler seems to be the media alerts. I think we'll need a solution for live TV event alerts, which are frequent. Maybe designate a different forum for them?

[tuck]

71. in hindsight...

i hope ya didn't think that poll i posted in the lounge was an attempt to "whip up anger"... i really appreciate everything you do around here, and if it was offensive, i apologize....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. Make em permanent

[donco6]

75. A reasonable request, Skinner. /eom

[Booberdawg]

77. I like the new rules

The first post sets the tone. There are 30K members and growing. It's not unreasonable to expect a thread be started with some though and without rhetoric intended to incite negative reaciton. While some people feel they are the exception and don't need the guidelines to start a thoughtful, non flaming discussion, many others don't. There's no reasonable way to single out the worst offenders without resulting in accusations of bias and special treatment. So, the rule has to be for everyone.

I think all this talk about picking up one's marbles and leaving because of this is foolish. If I don't get my way I'm not going to play. It's not about free speech for G-d's sake. It's about trying to accomadate a community that is growing.

[XanaDUer]

80. Please consider making the temporary rules permanent!

They are making the GD forum a place that's fun and informative to visit.

[TennesseeWalker]

81. No problem.

Thanks for DU.

[inthecorneroverhere]

82. I am with you!

You have had my support since yesterday on this matter. I want to see the calibre of discussion improved in GD. I want to see more 'platform-type' discussion that might eventually influence :dem: agendas.

I am sick and tired of infighting. Infighting = defeatism.

[AlinPA]

83. Thank you. We really need to look at threads before posting

to help build good discussions. As we get closer to elections, we will need to focus our efforts, and keep the many ideas flowing.

[TahitiNut]

84. I can be the most annoying nit-picker around.

By nature, I'm critical and analytical, always looking for better. For the life of me, I cannot see what people are complaining about in this 3-day trial run. You've gone far more than half-way in communicating and are acting with far more prudence than anyone I've seen run such a forum. Thank you.

[alaine]

86. LOL

I can remember a message on the home page of a website I visited once that said, in a far less magnanimous tone than I've seen here:

"Punctuation, capitalization, and proper grammar. These are good things. Use them or feel the boot of my size nines!"

[Robin Hood]

95. Yeah, that makes for an inclusive board...NOT!!

Considering the State of Public education, how many potential dems are you going to make feel stupid? Is punctuation over politics more important to you?

Fuck!!! Wake up people.

[alaine]

103. The site in question was a fan site for a t.v. show.

It was completely non-partisan.

The computer literate demographic being what it is, I don't think the problem is a lack of education, or language skills.

I think the problem that is being addressed here has more to do with laziness and immaturity.

I hate to be so blunt, but all this whining disguised as moaning and gnashing of teeth is getting the hell on my nerves.

[Robin Hood]

107. You are assuming that all computer users are well educated.

That is not true. These days, a majority of computer users are blue collar to middle class. My Aunt who works on the assembly line at Frito-Lay spends her off time on the computer. She doesn't even have a high school diploma, because she had a baby when she was sixteen.

When she writes me email, her letters are all in caps, and she uses exclamation points like there were no tommorrow. But that aside, I enjoy her emails and understand what she is saying. I'd hate for potential voters like her to be alienated on this board, and perhaps end up in the welcoming hands of Freerepublic.

[alaine]

111. Actually I'm hedging a bet that the people who are

complaining loudest about this are well-educated. Judging, that is, from the grammar in their posts. I personally am not well educated and am also a blue-collar worker. I'm not going to get run out of here for fear of my grammar revealing my white trash roots, although it comes through occasionally when I am short on patience. I think folks need to stop nit-picking these rules and instead step back and look at the collective result of them, which would be to change what could be potential flame fests into peaceful, thoughtful discussion. I personally experienced weeks of flame wars from hell on a Dixie Chicks fan-site when all the controversy broke out, there was much name calling and every stipe of profanity and so much hate on that site I'm surprised everyone's computers didn't just explode. I was particularly upset with the epithets suggesting sexual promiscuity thrown at these women that had nothing to do with their statement about shrub. One day I started a thread where I calmly asked in an earnest genuine tone why people labeled these women with words like whore and slut when their statement had nothing to do with sex. Lo and behold, everyone on the board responded rationally to that thread, even people who had slung F-words at each other with abandon previously. (This is amazing considering that the first thread I had seen on that site was titled "Dixie Sluts").

[Robin Hood]

126. I'll take your bet..

I'm complaining and i'm a bus/truck driver.

[Jim March]

87. You know, y'all have put me in a really weird situation here...

Let me introduce myself. I'm not a Democrat. Sorry, but that's the breaks. I'm a die-hard gun rights activist, one of the top posters on http://www.thehighroad.org - normally, the kinda guy you chuck out of here at the drop of a hat.

Except I'm not here to stir up trouble, discuss gun rights, etc. I'm here because I'm a supporter of Bev Harris' Diebold investigation, and have an active California Public Records Act Request in play to dig into exactly what Diebold crud is installed in Alameda County, Calif. With Bev Harris' blessing and support - see also the URL in my tagline, and my two posts so far in the main Bev Harris/Diebold thread here on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=132675&mesg_id=132675

DU is "ground central" for the Diebold investigation. So I'm here. NOT to stir up trouble. But, apparantly, it'll be a hell of a long time before I can post a new thread because the only threads I intend to get involved in are Diebold and/or electronic vote related. If I get involved in the rest of DU's conversations...heh, y'all WILL get pissed :).

Sigh.

Anyways. You might find it interesting that the THR crowd is as upset with the Harris reports as anybody at DU - see also:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33256&perpage=100 - that is NOT a gun-related thread.

I guess one choice is that y'all could boot me as "not fitting in". I don't recommend that. I've done one hell of a lot with the California Public Records Act (this state's version of the FOIA). You may find me a weird ally, but also an effective one. And I've made a break with the NRA over their support of *Republican* Sheriffs in California who are screwing over us gunnies on gun permits - take it from a *deep* insider, the allegations that the NRA is a tool of the Republican party are 100% correct.

(If you don't believe me, download this 4.3meg video, 14 minutes playing time, Windows Media format:
http://keepandbeararms.com/video/AB1044.wmv - that's me going toe to toe with the NRA's head lobbyist Ed Worley, and being supported by Democratic Senator Vasconcellos.)

As to guns: I'll say just one thing, then shut up: if Bev Harris' reports are accurate, we're frighteningly close to a point where we'll NEED 'em for their original intended purpose under the 2nd Amendment.

[TahitiNut]

122. Welcome, Jim.

Contrary to the anti-DU 'spin,' I'm not aware of anyone banned merely for having an individual opinion. WHat I have seen are people who peddle regurgitated lies, falsehoods repeatedly debunked and shown to be overtly fraudulent. This is no place for people drunken with such propaganda to come and either "dry out" or get another "fix". While the 'left' is certainly not immune to belief in such myths, I have noted that DUers are relatively diligent in "cleaning out their anatomical attics".

I'm not a Democrat either. I'm an (anti-/non-) partisan independent with political ideologies firmly centered in the liberal/libertarian (in the traditional sense) quadrant of the compass. As such, I support all of the Bill of Rights, particularly the 9th. I also do not believe that corporations are "People" and eschew the elevation of the "rights" of corporations above the rights and liberties of People, whether citizens or not. While I certainly have been occasionally the target of some (misguided) zeal, I've not felt at all oppressed.

There's little question in my mind that the NRA has become an overtly partisan reichwing Republican (not your father's Republican Party, nor mine) organization, having left behind its responsible advocacy of 'rights' long ago in serving to exacerbate partisan division and animosity among the citizens of this nation rather than to find the most coherent and universal approach to strengthening all our rights and liberties.

[Isome]

88. The silliest part of it all...

People who are most troubled by the temporary rules usually (not all, but many that I've read) comment that the other forums (like Politics & Campaigns) aren't frequented as much as GD. Well, good golly Miss Molly, if people bothered to post in the proper forums, there'd be more traffic to them.

What's happened is that with the growth of DU there has been an influx of these who engage in what me & mine refer to as barbershop talk.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Robin Hood]

94. This is crap.

I didn't come here for an English class exercise. If posts suck, than they will fall. Let natural order handle it.

Furthermore, I have experienced that if you type out a five paragraph post, that it drops like a stone. Why, because Americans are lazy. Here on DU it has become an exercise to consolidate your thoughts in order to get a response. And that's the truth.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

98. agree !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

too many rules.
too much.

this is supposed to a "free for all"

rants, ravings, show how mad or pissed off you are
at Smirk, and/or so-called DEMs in Congress who lack
a backbone.

BEING NICE & PROPER IN A INTERNET LIBERAL FORUM ??

WHY ?

[Robin Hood]

99. Perhaps what they say about the far left and far right is correct.

Eventually they go to far and become totalitarians. We now have on DU, the punctuation and sentence police. I cringe everytime they get new moderators on here, cause often times they are a little gun ho.

But this has gone to far. If these rules stay permanet, I will have to find another board and will be forced to not let strangers i meet know about DU. I don't want them to think that I would belong to an elitest message board.

[Skinner]

100. You're on quite a tear in this thread.

Personally, I don't care about punctuation. There actually is a purpose behind this, which I have explained elsewhere.

But it's only for one more day, so it's not a big deal.

[Robin Hood]

105. I understand your purpose, and I hope that it's only for one more day.

Personally, I think that this board has done just fine without these rules. I am a believer of the free market, and if posts are lame, no one will buy them. Giving us the freedom to appropriately express our selves in however way we see fit is the foundation of Democracy, but you already now that.

People come here from all walks of life and education, It is imperative that we do not alienate potential liberals by nit picking their posts based on length and subject line. We are all here to hammer out our ideas and differences, and that above all should be the goal of DU.

I have also stated above that I have written lengthy, well thought out posts, that have sunk like stones with out even one reply. I have learned that the more you can make your thoughts the equivalent length of a haiku the better chance you have of starting a dialog.

Unfortunately, I too have become conditioned to this practice, and have left posts that are too long to read.

[alaine]

106. This may be my fault.

I posted a rule from another site that is pretty strict in comparison to these, for the sake of contrast, and humor, as the owner threatens to boot people for improper grammar. Although the owner of the other site apparently has a strict rules about grammar, this has nothing whatsoever to do with D.U.. Why it is being harped on is beyond me.

[SuffragetteSal]

97. Just my two cents

I have found that very long posts do not get the attention or credit they perhaps are due, but people are busy with their lives. Perhaps they are even at work, they don't have the time to read a dissertation. Besides there is much to read here, making your point in the most compacted version is the way to get attention, not a long piece. (even if it deserving). If you are spending an hour composing, you are spending too long...it really is an exercise and one will become better at it the more they post.

I think you should give newcomers a chance and be kind to them - as we all become become more experienced it will all work out.

No one wants to be corrected on their grammar or sentence formation and as someone else said above, "punctation should not be more important than the politics".

[Skinner]

101. This has nothing to do with punctuation.

I have explained the motivation for these temporary guidelines numerous times. This has nothing to do with punctuation.

[harper]

102. Please make these changes permanent

What I find annoying is when one person starts half a dozen one sentence topics that have nothing to do with anything. My life is too busy to wade through stuff like that in search of more important topics (which drop like stones under the weight of the crap). If its not worth the time and effort to think up 5 sentences when starting a topic in GD maybe the poster needs to reconsider.

[Robin Hood]

129. But it does have to do with punctuation.

in the thread below, if the poster had replaced their comas for periods. They would not have been locked. But because their punctuation did not meet the new rules, the thread was locked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=155252&mesg_id=155252

If it were me, I don't care if i stumbled upon nirvana, I would not post it again after being locked, and that would be your loss.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[shance]

109. Uncle****

I bet this three days has been a real honeymoon for you***

The only suggestion I would like to make would be to not regulate the length of the threads. Sometimes we just have a few sentences. Substance can still be brief....in fact it often is brief.

:)

[Oracle]

112. FUCK, Profanity??? I'm not sure where this ends? One can say "jack-off"...

on TV, radio, in a letter to the editor of a major daily newspaper and it wouldn't be censored.

I wanted to use "the Cocksucking, motherfuckers at the DLC" but, I respected your guidelines.

I wanted a reaction to what I was trying to say...so I sincerely thought I was doing it using YOUR guidelines, then it become a technicality, that writing jack-off is against the rules as well?

I don't think the thread should of been closed...it was getting serious debate and no one was out of hand.

Truly sorry if I offened...I just wanted passion, and that's what I was getting until you locked my thread.

[Robin Hood]

113. Here is a good example of how wrong this is.

if the poster of the thread below would have taken out his commas and replaced them with a period, The post would not have been locked. Despite the fact that it was an interesting post, it was locked on a technicality. This is ridiculous.


What if you have a legitimate question that you want to be educated on? A question is often one sentence long.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=154741&mesg_id=154741#154848

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Robin Hood]

127. Yet another example of how faulty the new rules are.

The poster below, asked a few good questions about Howard Dean and the post was locked because it was not long enough. I was interested in finding out what Vermonters thought of Dean as well. This experiment has gone terribly wrong and I want to make sure that the powers that be know it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=155252&mesg_id=155252

[Robin Hood]

128. And yet another example of a good discussion that was locked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=155075&mesg_id=155075#155498

[Feanorcurufinwe]

130. Increase the number of posts neccesary before you can start a thread

Increase the number of posts neccesary before you can start a thread to one or two hundred. That will do a lot by itself.