It's time to FULLY police ourselves

[AWD]

...regarding candidate-bashing.

From now on, I call on ALL DUers, no matter WHO your candidate of choice is, to do the following.

Whenever you see a thread that is a clear bash (such as the "4-month Tour Of Duty" thread), respond to it ONLY with a "Yawn".

Nothing more...just a "Yawn".

Put it in the title, the text, whatever. But ONLY type "Yawn".

Eventually, the power of those bored with bashing will overcome the crap swpewed against DEMS.

Thatnks. Agree???

on edit - this is not to say that nobody is handling it from DU moderation or administration...but what are we, a bunch of children thatneed constant baby-sitting? Let's whip this problem ourselves.

[soleft]

1. Why respond at all - don't post and let them sink.

[AWD]

2. Because some

...like me...can't resist the urge and it gets kicked up anyway.

Or the person kicks it themselves. This happens a lot in P/C forum.

Besides, the power of seeing 20 yawns will drive a message hard.

[Terwilliger]

3. No

it seems people around here cant handle any criticism

I'd say we should have more candidate bashing threads...cuz this shit aint even gonna compare to the days when we're fighting the Pukes

[XanaDUer]

4. Agreed.

This is nothing. I feel that Kerry's record is strong enough to withstand stupid shit like the four-month-tour-of-duty thread.

[bryant69]

5. Is there a difference between Bashing and Criticism?

Or is there a difference between saying that Kerry made the wrong call when he voted for the Iraq Resolution, and saying he's a Spineless Amoral pig? The first can be discussed and verified; the second can't really.

Oh, and Kerry is one of my favored candidates; just so you know.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[XanaDUer]

6. I figure,

this is a political discussion board. This stuff is normal. Opinions, after all.

[Terwilliger]

12. oh sure

but DU would have to change its fundamental nature to get rid of the bashing

Still, this is an internet discussion forum. Kerry, Kucinich, Edwards, Gephardt have to worry about FAR more than us.

[mindfulNJ]

7. In the end it doesn't matter

When all is said and done I think most of us will back the Dem nominee, and we'll all be a big happy family again....right?:pals:

[Egnever]

9. Right!!!

:yourock:

[ixion]

8. I have to say that I'm torn on the 'bashing' issue

on one hand, I believe that we need to be unified, on the other, I'm a firm believer in open, uncensored debate. In my opinion, the bashing should be allowed until the primaries have ended, at which point we should unify around the winner. This gives us the best of both worlds.

[XanaDUer]

10. Right.

What's the big deal? So, someone here wants to post about Kerry's tour-of-duty in 'Nam and how he got out, I assume, because he's a chicken.

So what?

Veterans are backing Kerry hard. That means a lot more than a post on a political message board with less than 50,000 members.

The poster is obviously disturbed by what he or she perceives as Kerry's ducking out on service. They are entitled to their opinions, after all.

[BurtWorm]

11. Just one problem with that (and a better solution)

Suppose an overly zealous supporter of a candidate labels a legitimate criticism, offered in good faith, with a yawn. Might not yawns become a way of avoiding dealing reasonably with legitimate criticisms? Isn't is best to debunk the false charges or ignore threads pushing already-debunked false charges so they fall off the page.

I like nothingshocksmeanymore's solution better. She suggests we have a repository thread in a slow-moving forum like the meeting room where myths about candidates that have been vetted in GD and debunked are stored with the facts that debunk them. As an example, if you see someone claiming Jack Schitt (not his real name) voted for building a monument to Segregation in Trent Lott's hometown, you might title a thread like so:

MYTH: Jack Schitt voted for segregation.

Then in the body of the post:

FACT: Jack Schitt voted for a bill that was perfectly progressive except for a piece of pork Trent Lott stuck on in return for his vote. Jack Schitt's opponent who made the charge also voted for this bill. <links to supporting documents>

Once the facts are verified, the post moves to the debunking thread in the meeting room. When someone repeats the myth in GD, anyone can reply to it by posting a link to the debunking thread.

[XanaDUer]

13. I assume they got the "yawn" idea from me...

I posted a yawn in the Kerry-four-month-tour-duty post. Usually I defend my candidate more vehemently, but I was up most of the night.

And I agree it's not the best way to deal with criticism. In that case, however, I felt it was justified, since it is such a dumb post.

PS- the term "FULLY police" also makes me nervous. There is something Asscroftian about it.

[BurtWorm]

15. Well, I'm certainly not arguing in favor of banning *yawn*.

Just arguing against making *yawn* signify something other than *yawn*.

[XanaDUer]

16. Right. In my case

it was:

yawn...dumb post


and yawn, dead tired.

PS-I would have had more respect for the post if it had some real evidence backing it up.

[Bandit]

14. Yawn....

;-) just kidding. have one on me :beer:

[Kolesar]

17. PM me if you want to compare "ignore" lists, anybody

I put about four people on it in the last few days and it has made my view of the P&C forum nice and informative again.

I have noticed how these garbage threads barely have a dozen replies, but they junk up the view of the important threads. I cannot see anyway to deal with this than to ignore the trash so that it sinks to the bottom.