Proposed rules to start threads in the General Discussion forum.

[Skinner]

Until now, we have resisted repeated demands from our members for a crackdown in the General Discussion forum in the hopes that we could curb excesses by stricter enforcement of the rules we have on the books. Unfortunately, our efforts have failed, and we have reluctantly decided that new, more restrictive rules are necessary.

Below is the exact text of the rules which we propose. We are giving you one day of advance notice so you can familiarize yourself with these rules, and ask any questions.

Starting tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday) we will put these new rules up for a simple yes-or-no vote by our members. The vote will last for 24 hours. If a majority of members vote in favor of the rules, they will become permanent. Only people who have already registered to be a member of DU as of 2:45PM today (Monday) will be eligible to vote.

These new rules will not solve all of the problems in the General Discussion forum, and will undoubtedly cause a great deal of complaining about censorship and heavy-handed enforcement if they go into effect. But the administrators of this website believe that they will help improve the atmosphere here, and therefore efforts to undermine the rules will be dealt with harshly and decisively.

These rules are not currently being enforced by the moderators. They will not be enforced until the vote ends on Wednesday afternoon, and only if a majority of members votes in favor of them.

Skinner
DU Admin

EDIT: Changed section one under candidate threads to allow discussion based on recent events that may or may not have been reported.

********** PROPOSED TEXT FOR NEW RULES **********

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

The General Discussion forum is by far the most active of all the forums on the Democratic Underground message board. In order to improve the overall quality of discussion here, we feel it is necessary to restrict the type of discussion threads which may be started in this forum. These rules only apply to the very first message posted in a discussion thread, and do not apply to responses posted in those threads.

If you are the type of person who can’t remember a bunch of rules, just remember this: If you treat other people with respect, and if you frame your messages in a way that will facilitate quality discussion, you are unlikely to run afoul of these rules.

Please note that these rules are for the General Discussion forum only. Some topics which are not allowed in the General Discussion forum may be permitted in other forums on the message board.

RULES TO START DISCUSSION THREADS IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM

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

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or an excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided. Exceptions may be allowed for threads about our political opponents and/or policies which we generally oppose.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. No duplicates or same-topic threads. If there is currently an active thread on the first page of the General Discussion forum about a particular topic, you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information. Occasional exceptions will be allowed when an active thread has a large number of posts.

RULES TO START DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recent or current event, on a recently reported news item, or on a recent article or op-ed piece. If you are referencing a published item, you must include a link to the original article.

2. If you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support.

3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden.

4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

5. Discussion threads which paint supporters of any Democratic candidate in a negative light are forbidden.

[Padraig18]

1. My vote will be "Yes!"

:thumbsup:

[Pontus]

62. I vote no...

This will either be a nightmare for moderators to enforce or may be used selectively against those who don't share a certain (dare I say) PC view on a specific issue/event.

[Walt Starr]

2. Question?

Will there be one vote for the rules to start threads in GD and a seperate vote on starting threads about Democratic candidates in GD, or will this be one vote for it all take both or leave both?

How I vote will probably depend upon the answer.

[Skinner]

4. You vote for the entire package.

Up or down on the whole thing.

[Walt Starr]

K, thanks

I know how I'll be voting now.

[bearfartinthewoods]

146. regretably, me too

i could vote for most but not all of the rules...bummer

[janekat]

57. What! No line item veto? LOL!

Whoops - hope that didn't have too many punctuation marks in it.

[Walt Starr]

72. Hey, it was presented as two seperate sets of rules

I have a problem with one piece of one set of rules, ergo, I have to vote the entire thing down even though I agree with all of one set and most of the other.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. I don't like number 1 of the Dem Candidates rules

I think that is too limiting, given how limited the perspectives are in the major media outlets. I don't like all the flaming and demonization of candidates, but I don't want to not be able to post my views unless a coporate media pundit has them. The other rules are ok.

[Skinner]

8. There is a purpose for that rule.

It will limit the ability of people to repeatedly start threads about the exact same topics, over and over again.

Keep in mind that if you want to start a thread that is not permitted in the General Discussion forum, you can do so in a different forum.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. I don't believe that

It just means the spin of the week in the coporate media gets posted over and over. If you don't want the same topic posted over and over make a rule against it instead of forcing me to have my views represented by people who don't represent them.

[Skinner]

26. We did include a rule against duplicates.

It's in there.

And remember, if you want to discuss topics which aren't allowed in the General Discussion forum, you are free to do so in a different forum, like Politics and Campaigns for example.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. Then that means the the rule that forces me to use dlc

establishment press pundits is unnessesary. This is going to kill the Dean and Kucinich posters, who have candidate the punitocracy hates.

[never cry wolf]

31. It doesn't say mainstream media article or op-ed piece

I assume it could be from one of the many fine on-line progressive sites as well, n'est pas??

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Doesn't work that way in I/P

.

[never cry wolf]

44. I have rarely been to I/P

and don't know the rules. It would be good to clarify this point in the rules. Is Greg Palast's web site allowed?? Truthout?? etc., etc...

[The Magistrate]

51. Yes It Does

Citations from such journals as "counterpunch", "WSWS", "Z-Mag", and many others, are routine. This rule proposed above ommitts the vanity site restrictions of the Israel v. Palestine guidelines, and citation of hate sites is generally sanctioned in any connection here.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. I rest my case

. There are not as many moderate left sites as far left sites and not as many left sites in general as moderate and right wing sites. Since you have views that are well reflected in the mainstream media I am not surprised you don't see the problem.

[The Magistrate]

82. My Views, Friend

Are not particularly well reflected anywhere, for they are my own: there are damned few Confucian commentators nowadays, and none with a sentimental attachment to Spanish Anarchism and the Kouminchun of Feng Yu-hsiang.

The sort of sites you describe are numerous enough, and not prohibited by the proposed rule.

[Classical_Liberal]

88. The sort of sites your described are numerous enough

the sort of sites I describe that would like Dean and Kucinich aren't numorous at all.

[The Magistrate]

105. Is Not Gov. Dean Famous For His Web Presence?

Are there not press releases and web-logs from these camps?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Classical_Liberal]

110. weblogs are vanity sites

and don't consitute news or an oped, this is the view of every forum where this view has been put in place. Press releases are snore jobs.

[The Magistrate]

And So Not Prohibited By The Rule Above

That is a specific enactment in the Israel v. Palestine guidelines; it is not an interpertation, it is spelled out.

[Classical_Liberal]

125. Well I have had weblog articles removed form LBN

and editorials and articles for that reason even though it is not spelled out. They just don't spell it out.

I don't want to have to rebutt negatives about my candidate I want to post positives.

[sangh0]

137. LBN is not GD

Editorials (and other articles) belong in the forum that's mysteriously called "Editorials and Other Articles"

[Classical_Liberal]

145. a weblog is an editorial in my view.

sorry, I won't vote for this. I think it is annoying I can't use my own ideas about things.

[SoCalDem]

11. I like that one, actually

Some of the threads that have been started lately, are just ramblings.. The subject might as well read.."I like Cheese"..

I am beginning to think that soome folks just want to see "their guy's name" in print..

:)

[Classical_Liberal]

21. You won't like it in practice. You are not DLC

and most pundits are. That means those types of posters will have more to post than you.

those of us who aren't dlc have bloggers on our side and those posts will be locked because they are from "vanity sites". I have been through this before with I/P.

The prodean posters will be killed by this rule, even if they post positive things. The establishment pundits hate Dean.

[SoCalDem]

47. Wouldn't a link to the blog, suffice??

I doubt that things will get that severe... I think the goal here is to limit the number of "#### is a communist"..or "**** eats baby kittens".. you know..the ones that provide heat, but no light..

If people actually think before they post, it's a good thing..:)

DLC..DNC..ABC..XYZ..whatever..the goal is to get rid of GWB, NOT to harass people who happen to support a different person in the primary..

[Classical_Liberal]

65. It has gotten that far in IP

Read Magistrates comments.

[The Magistrate]

87. In Israel v. Palestine

The rule against vanity sites was present from the begining of the guidelines; it is not a product of increasing constriction and mission creep.

[Classical_Liberal]

130. That's nice but the fact that I have had LBN and Articles

and editorials mods remove posts for that reason indicate mission creep has occurred.

[damnraddem]

91. It's a shame that I will have to vote 'no.'

I like the general rules on starting discussions. But the article-citation rule is too restrictive. Many of us are involved in campaigns and have our own news to bring to the GD forum; it would be crazy to have to go find some article (even on a friendly website) to illustrate what we want to say -- or more likely, as cover for posting a thread with entirely different content. It's also not clear that a distinction will be made between advocating a point (e.g., splitting the Demo Party) and posting about an attempt to do so -- in effect, informing or warning about such attempts. Yes, we can state our opinions about an article, but will the fact that the article advocates something cause the thread to be removed no matter what our personal opinions?

[sangh0]

22. I'm not crazy about #1 either, but

the rest are good, and that one rule is not onerous, and it would eliminate or reduce some of the repitition.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. It would not eliminate repitition if only establishment

pundits are allowed to be posted. It will just eliminate the unique perspectives of those who don't have views the corporate media likes.

[sangh0]

50. I don't see how it's limits us to establishment pundits

Alex Cockburn, BartCop, BBV, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, etc are all allowed under these rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. Alex Cockburn hates all dems

and Franken, Crugman are supporters of Kerry. Bartcop is a Clark supporter. Dean and Kucinich will be nowhere in the mix.

[sangh0]

58. A suggestion concerning #1 on Dem candidate threads

It seems to limit us to "recently published news item or op-ed piece". Does the term "news item" include things like press releases from the candidates themselves, and essays posted to blogs, etc?

You might want to clarify what that term means.

[Skinner]

61. We would likely allow candidate press releases. (nt)

[janekat]

48. I think what they mean by that are those "cute" annoying "trick" titles

designed just to draw people in.

Like the ones that say something like "Wesley Clark is a murderer". Then you open it and it has a "funny" story about how he murdered an ant. They claim to be Clark "supporters" which may or may not really be true.

[Classical_Liberal]

74. read it over again it won't just do that

That means most of the coverage of Dean and Kucinich will be mostly negative because the press and the pundits hate them.

[Walt Starr]

81. Good point, so vote no

like I intend to do.

[wickerwoman]

95. I'm not following your logic.

If most of the coverage is negative, can't you just link to a BS story and then argue against it in the text of your post (as one of the rules requires anyway)?
How will that make coverage of Dean and Kucinich more negative? I suspect most people don't read the entire link with most threads anyway and you would have an opportunity in your post to refute the nonsense.
I'm a Dean supporter and I don't think threads on him are going to dry up simply because they need to be linked to an actual event instead of posters just pulling random opinions out of their asses and starting flamewars.

[Classical_Liberal]

99. I don't think I should have to

. I think I should be able to present my own views on the matter without having to reference other people.

Anyway the negative coverage also destroys the argument made for the rule. That it is trying to limit the demonization of candidates. I don't think restricting this to only articles in the mainstream echo chamber will do that at all.

[LittleApple81]

Thanks a million.

Following the future rules, this is my personal opinion.
I appreciate your efforts to make this board better.
Thanks again.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. I am down with this!

I fully support the proposed rule changes and will vote in the affirmative on the poll.

Great Job Skinner!

[StopTheMorans]

6. the rules look great

and, it's a reflection of the state of GD that it came to this, but I think it's necessary and will be a welcome change from what has come to be the ordinary of late if this happens:)

[gully]

7. Yes here!

:thumbsup:

[TorchTheWitch]

25. Good job!

Definite yes vote here.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. The only problem I see with enforcement is number 3 at the bottom

3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden.

How does one deal with Lyndon La Rouche who alleges to be a Democrat in that equation?

I also wish to thank you. I realize you have set yourself up possibly for more headaches as a result of whatever is decided but appreciate that you and admin have held yourselves out for this task in the spirit of the intent of this site which is to 86 "43"

[meegbear]

14. I got a feeling it's about another candidate ...

[Skinner]

16. This site has never rolled out the welcome wagon for Larouche supporters.

And we don't intend to now.

[cally]

71. I'm adding a comment here to address the same topic

I think discussion a candidate's party affiliation is a legitimate topic. It's important to judge a candidate. BTW, I'm very close to volunteering for the Clark campaign. I think the other rules will ensure that this topic is discussed fully and fairly.

[Cappurr]

10. Yes Yes Yes

The profanity rule will be a bitch tho. :evilgrin:

[returnable]

12. Looks good except for this rule:

"2. If you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support."

Kinda overlooks the possibility that a poster may be legitimately on the fence.

Reword it to included "undecided", and I'm all for it.

Thanks for trying to get this forum back on track :toast:

I'm just sorry it had to come to this, though.

[Skinner]

28. If you are undecided you can state that.

Stating that you are undecided would fulfils what the rules require.

[prolesunited]

63. Good because that was a question

I had. I think there are a number of us still on the fence. I think the rules look fine and I look forward to getting back to rational, intelligent discussion. :thumbsup:

[im4edwards]

15. great ideas, thumbs up

n/t

[MoonAndSun]

17. I'm with you on this, Skinner. Thanks

[The Magistrate]

18. My Vote Will Be 'Yes', Sir

Particularly for Nos. 3 and 4 in the Candidates section.

Such divisive foolishness as these forbid can serve no useful purpose whatever.

[Walt Starr]

148. My vote will be No, Sir

I have a problem with a single section. Since it's all or nothing, I have to vote for nothing.

[HFishbine]

19. Over-reaching, contradictory, subjective, and paternalistic

With all due respect to the admins, I will be voting no. But thanks for putting it to a vote.

[prolesunited]

67. paternalistic

Unfortunately, IMHO, too many posters need adult guidance and that is what necessitated these changes.

[ShaneGR]

20. AYE AYE! I love this rule:

2. If you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support.

[w13rd0]

23. So no more threads...

...bout how Kucinich and Cheney go clothing shopping together? Hurm...will our vote be counted?

[SoCalDem]

24. registration deadline....

"Starting tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday) we will put these new rules up for a simple yes-or-no vote by our members. The vote will last for 24 hours. If a majority of members vote in favor of the rules, they will become permanent. Only people who have already registered to be a member of DU as of 2:45PM today (Monday) will be eligible to vote."


pulling rank... (not terribly democratic, I know, BUT.. have you considered counting the donor votes and/or long-timers votes more heavily in case it's "close"???

We have had a recent influx of Rushies, and I would hate to see a "Kelleh-fornia" style vote, where outsiders determine the criteria for the rest of us :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Good point.

[Skinner]

38. That just doesn't seem fair to me.

I think limiting the vote to people who are already registered will help deal with the worst excesses. There are some things which we cannot control, nor would we want to.

[Padraig18]

43. The problem I see with that

Where exactly do you draw the line for the "I've been here since dinosaurs walked the cooling DU-Earth's crust?" A bit elitist, as you readily acknowledge. :)

[SoCalDem]

55. I know

:).. it's just that we are losing some long timers due to the behavior of "some" recent agitators.. It seems unfair to have policy set by the very ones who make the policy necessary..:)

[Padraig18]

77. Democracy can be messy, at times!

:P

[diamondsoul]

30. I'll vote yes here.

I'm sorry it came to this point, but I definitely think something has to be done.

[sistersofmercy]

33. I will most certainly support these proposed rules.

I think the rules are positive measure. Thank you.:thumbsup:

[graham67]

35. Yes

I'm not thrilled about the profanity filter and I don't know what exactly constitutes excessive punctuation and capitalization? Other than that, I'm all for it.

[HERVEPA]

36. I believe the people behing these new rules are all...

Pick One: {Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Graham, Gephart, Freepers}

supporters!,
doing this because they are afraid of

Pick One: {Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Graham, Gephart, Freepers}

[WilliamPitt]

37. No five-sentence rule, eh?

I guess that is implied by the new rules, but you might want to come out and state it...unless that is not on the agenda.

Otherwise, many many many thanks.

[Skinner]

42. No five sentence rule.

It's not even implied. There is no five-sentence rule.

It was a good rule. But the problem was that the motivation behind the rule was not clear, so it appeared totally arbitrary.

[WilliamPitt]

46. Gotcha

I think these new rules will render that idea moot, anyway.

:toast: to the mods, who are about to get busier.

[seventhson]

39. Just to be sure - These rules apply to STARTING threads only, right???

And NOT to opinions in posts responding to posts.

For example:

"5. Discussion threads which paint supporters of any Democratic candidate in a negative light are forbidden."

Does this mean that these are strictly FORBIDDEN in the topic line but MAY BE OKAY in response to another post or as a comment on the TOPIC.

Like:

A thread topic says "Clark Supporters are Wonderful"

and I respond: "IMHO they are all a bunch of republicans"

Will MY post get deleted???

I mean, for example - you all KNOW that I think Clark is really a republican and Kerry is a BFEE skull "secret" friend of Bush. Am I NOW prohibited from even whispering this in a thread or am I ONLY prohibited from posting it as a NEW topic? I just want to be sure.


Frankly I think this is a valiant effort, Skinner, and I welcome it - but I am concerned that these rules are too unwieldy to enforce and will be subject to subjective deletions of worthy topics. On the other hand I am grateful for the effort so I am undecided if I will vote for it at this time. I sure would love to see some of the stupid dupe topics mocking other posters deleted and the persoanl attacks diminished.

But DAMN, if we aree unable to call someone out as a rethuglican disruptor (even when they obey all the rules theoretically) then this board becomes much easier to infiltrate and distort the will of the real democrats here.

But thanks anyway for making the effort

[Skinner]

45. These rules are for starting threads only.

However, if a response post is overly inflammatory, we still reserve the right to remove it as we always have.

BTW: You haven't been able to call people republican disruptors for the last two years. So that's not changing.

[seventhson]

76. Thanks, I understand and appreciate THAT

I know you just can't CALL someone a disruptor.

I know youi have to hit alert.

But subtle hints are allowed, aren't they (just kidding. No response necessary. I know the answer)

THANK you for clarifying that for me.

I think I will vote FOR this rule. I may learn not to like it but - hell - there are a lot of things (mostly other posters) that make me squeamish here.

[spooky3]

84. you can always alert the admins if you think someone's a troll

I've done it a couple of times and they have been very responsive.

[seventhson]

126. Professional Spooks/Trolls are too discrete to "OUT".

They pose as lefties or Clarkies or whatever IMHO and the only wat to "out" them is to call them out and scrutinize them publicly -- but this is not permitted.

I have been called a Rove troll plenty of times.

Badjacketing is an OLD Cointelpro strategy and that is why direct confrontations barely work.

Close analysis of a pattern of posts and consistencies or inconsistencies is what clarifies a spook/troll/operative in my experience.

But we are NOT allowed to do this.

I only mention it because I sure as hell would LIKE to be able to do this (out them by poster name). But I DO think that these rulkes MIGHT actually work to slow them down as they are IMHO the worst offenders.

Of course many of us will be stifled too which is why this may not be the best way to vote (for this).

But I still say a spooky troll is easy to identify. You can tell by whom they support.

[Maeve]

40. Question on Dem Candidate Rule #1

Would a candidate's press release count as a "published news item"? This would allow for straight-from-the-horse's-mouth thread without the need for it to first go thru a horse's rear, er, pundit.

[Skinner]

49. I hadn't thought about that.

My inclination at this point is to allow campaign press releases.

[KoKo]

41. Message Removed......Skinner already answered above.

Thanks

[Skinner]

52. It would not be allowed in GD.

Instead, you can post it in another forum.

[spooky3]

60. thanks to all the admins for their hard work.

[salin]

53. My biggest challenge will be

Not slipping when calling for action on that damn *er* darn energybill spawned by Cheney that just won't die. ;-)

[catforclark2004]

54. I vote yes.....Can't we all just get along???? and beat Bush???

I was so exhausted in having to defend against negativity....Made me very hostile to my kids as a backlash!

[edzontar]

56. Too complicated.....

I predict enforcement will be a real pain in the neck.

I'm leaning toward No.

[Booberdawg]

116. But it's not your job to enforce, that's up to mods and admin

you only have to decide if you agree with the guidelines in principle.

my 2 cents

[quinnox]

64. Mixed bag, but some of the rules on candidate threads aren't good

I like most of the rules to start threads in general discussion, except #4 is a little vague. "...you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner.."

This is too much subject to interpretation, not to mention a "racy" headline is often needed to draw discussion in the first place. If the headline is boring, the thread probably will sink like a stone. Let's face it, controversy draws responses.

I don't like a couple of the rules on candidate threads at all.

#1 This is way too stifling. It doesn't allow any original opinion, if this rule happens, then I think most discussion will dry up about the candidates in general discussion.

#2 I don't like this one at all, you have to say you are against a candidate, the context of the thread usually gives enough info to make that determiniation. And the thing about you have to state what candidate you support is just wrong, in my opinion. It reminds me of wearing a name tag in elementary school, not to mention a little Orwellian.

#3 I agree.

#4 I somewhat agree, but this might lead to stifling discussions about the DLC, which might cause some resentment among those that like this topic.

#5 I agree.

[Skinner]

75. If you wish to post something which is not allowed in the GD forum...

you are welcome to do so in another forum, like for example the Politics and Campaigns forum.

[quinnox]

155. It's good that Politics and Campaigns forum won't be affected

But I will still be voting no, in my view these rules need to be tweaked on balance I think they will end up doing more harm than good.

[Girlfriday]

66. Yes, yes, yes....

a thousand times yes! Thanks!

[Flying_Pig]

69. Hmmmm. Sounds pretty decent, but....

the following could be pretty subjective, and open to wide interpretation by the Mods: "The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or an excessive punctuation."

As an example, one person's "excessive punctuation", is another's "normal". I would feel better if that part were deleted.

And as far as the use of profanity goes, I can understand wanting to keep it out of subject lines, but banning it in the message text? Isn't this an adult website? I think restricting profane language in the message text is unnecessary, and will prohibit free expression, and more importantly, greatly reduce the passion and color that go along with many normal, adult, political conversations. If the restriction were changed to "gratuitous profanity", I think it would be a much better and more acceptable restriction. As it is, I am afraid, despite agreeing with the bulk of the proposal, this item alone will cause me to vote no, unless changed.

In closing, I do appreciate your attempt to clean up GD. Just my two cents........

[Skinner]

79. Excessive punctuation...

...is when someone uses a dozen exclamation points or question marks.

If you post one or two or three, we're not going to remove the post.

[salin]

129. what??????????????????????????????

;-)

[FlaGranny]

96. I believe the rules said

that punctuation and bad language rules only apply to the first post. If you just cannot resist four-letter words and lots of punctuation, you can put them in your next post (in the same thread). :-)

[zeemike]

70. It seems to me

That the rules about starting a topic about democratic candidates were written to satisfy the Clark supporters.
Particularly #3 sense no one has accused the others of not being democrats.
But it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

But I forgot to ask, does that mean we cannot question Clarks support of Reagan Bush and Nixon? Can we still ask if Clark supports Republican goals?

[West Coast Democrat]

73. I think we should try a test first

and see how it works out.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

78. Nope... I don't like them.

First of all:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

It seems now that the definition of SHARED GOALS is Vote Democratic. Fair enough, it's your board. But you may as well say "Greens NOT welcome" and get it over with.

I also find it interesting that a rule has been made to protect a single candidate, while no other rules apply to any other single candidate alone.

Are we to take that as a BIAS in the rules? I mean we can post ANYTHING negative about any candidate if we announce our own affiliation, AS LONG as it is NOT the major criticism being aimed at Clark? Is this now the Clark Underground? If so, it's your board, but perhaps it would be better to just say so?

I will be voting no, at least to these rules in their current form, and as you said above there is no picking and chosing, it's all or nothing.

If these rules come into affect I will of course abide by them and support them, but I would hope that eventually you and the rest of the Admins feel that they have gone too far and rescind them.

[hlthe2b]

80. I like it, but would additionally like to request

that we require posters to exerpt at least some of the article they cite (along with the URL).

I don't want to be the DU Miss Manners, but it really is unacceptable to just post a title and a link, IMO. While I normally use a DSL connection, lately I've only had access using a slow wireless connection--- slightly faster than dial up. Thus, I truly sympathize with DUers who get locked up every time they get sent to a link. This can only be dramatically irritating, if the link is not something they were interested in reading anyway.

While I may be a lazy reader, I join most DUers in taking the time to cut/paste a representative exerpt so that others might be able to decide whether or not to hit the link. I think we'd all be appreciative if EVERYONE would do so.

[cally]

83. Thanks for addressing these issues but

I have concerns about point 1 and 3 in the candidate section. I stated above my concern about point 3 but to re-cap, I think this point is a major concern about Clark and I'm about to volunteer for his campaign. I would rather have the concern openly debated, then buried and not discussed. On point one, I get much out of what folks concerns are. One of the reasons I like the DU community is because of the all the informed folks with opinions and ideas that are not included in the media. I would prefer a well reasoned post by a DU member rather than one with a link from an outside media outlet. I think the other rules will take care of much of the candidate bashing without this rule.

[Skinner]

94. You would be free to discuss Clark's former party affiliation.

I, myself, consider it very problematic that Clark appears to have been a Republican a short time ago.

The problem are the people who argue that Clark actually IS a Republican. The guy is running for the Democratic nomination fer crissakes. He's not a Republican.

Same goes for John Kerry. Some have argued here that he is actually a member of the BFEE, because he happened to be in the same college secret society as Bush. It's utter foolishness.

I was actually thinking of both candiates when I wrote that rule, and Lieberman too. To me it is highly inflammatory to state that a candidate for the Democratic nomination is actually a Republican, a BFEE plant, or secret friend of Bush.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

114. I respectfully disagree...

I am speaking from experience - DO NOT put it past right wingers to plant people in left wing parties. Here in New Zealand they were active in the Labour Party for YEARS before they showed their true colours as soon as they got into power.

This is NOT an accident - one of them went on to be a major consultant for the World Bank, and another became president of the WTO - this is a standard tactic that has been spread around the world through these international organisations, and as such it would be surprising to me if one or more of the candidates WAS NOT a right wing plant.

In fact, here is New Zealand it became THE BIGGEST ISSUE in politics for as long as anyone can remember. It resulted in a change of our entire electoral system, and the near CRUSHING of unions, public health, public transport, public electricity supply and public telecommunications, and much more.

We are talking a MAJOR upheaval, and it all came about because half a dozen crypto right wingers gained control of the left wing party. One other thing, it ALMOST destroyed the Labour party in the process, and it took them a decade to recover.

[zeemike]

118. Well I am glad to hear that

But what if a Clark supporter doesn’t like me asking whether Clark supports republican causes and clamed I am calling him a repug?
Can I be shut down from someone’s inference?

[Mairead]

135. "To me it is highly inflammatory to state that a candidate for..."

...the Democratic nomination is actually a Republican"

Perhaps so, but can you think of a more clever move? And would you really put such a move past the people who thought nothing of creating a coup d'etat in 2000?

Perhaps it's only a holdover from when I was suspicious for my living, but I can't bring myself to accept that the proof that someone is a Dem is that he's standing for the Dem nomination!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

85. Number 1 and 4 will never work - 5 sentence rule worked!

1 and 4 have way too much room for interpretation, and one person's clever joke is another person's rule-breaking flame.

The five sentence rule was better - even though it was easily abused, for the most part it worked, at least by making people think twice. Try some more technical rules instead of restricting content based on what it means, which is always a matter of interpretation.

1. 5 sentence rule
2. Must add warning/disclaimer if posting a right wing site
3. No more than 5 new GD threads per 24 hours

The 5 rules about candidates are absolutely insane and will kill traffic and discussion.

How about requiring paid campaign staff and volunteers to state as much, perhaps putting another gold star next to their handle?

[FlaGranny]

86. Thank you, thank you.

Appreciate your attempt to raise the level of discussion. But you're going to hear lots of screams from the folks that demand their right to be obnoxious. :-)

[Skinner]

97. Yes, I know we will.

I tried to make that clear in my post that these rules may look good on paper, but many people will not like them if they actually are enforced.

If you guys don't want these rules, that's your choice. No skin off my back. I'm just trying to make things a little better around here.

[gristy]

89. I will vote yes

5. No duplicates or same-topic threads. If there is currently an active thread on the first page of the General Discussion forum about a particular topic, you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information. Occasional exceptions will be allowed when an active thread has a large number of posts.

Dupe threads are a real problem.

[Eloriel]

90. I think I'm in general agreement

However, there are a few things which I believe are going to cause problems.

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recently published news item or op-ed piece. Where possible, references must include a link to the original article.

Perhaps you didn't intend it, but that eliminates candidates' own words when seen by someone in person, on TV, etc., in public appearances, interviews, even debates. If followed to the letter, it would also probably preclude posts about some of our own DUers who are running for office.

I think that also eliminates something like Tinoire's research thread on Clark from yesterday. And let's be realistic, even tho Clark supporters and perhaps many other DUers may not have LIKED such "old news" reports surfacing, it's extremely important for ANY candidate to be fully vetted BEFORE they get to be a nominee. If not, they'll get destroyed more quickly and easily than otherwise by Rove&Co.

Other provisions contain terms vague enough that there's going to be trouble.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

Lotta people here, no matter who they support, find ANYthing critical about their candidate to be "inflammatory." It's likely to cause problems if terms like this aren't described or defined better.

Eloriel

[VelmaD]

92. May need clarification...

This rule:
"1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recently published news item or op-ed piece. Where possible, references must include a link to the original article."

seems to preclude thread like "What do you think of so-and-so's performace in the debate?" or "Just saw so-and-so's speech at BFE, Idaho and here's what happened". Am I reading it wrong? Do you intend for that kind of thing to go in other forums on the board?

I just think there should be room to discuss the candidates without always having to have a published news source.

DV

[Skinner]

104. The intent of the rule is for it to be news-based...

Rather than based on someone's random desire to discuss a particular issue.

If there is a legitimate news event, then the intent is to allow thread topics about that event.

I will try to re-word it to reflect that.

[VelmaD]

120. Thanks...

for taking my concern seriously. Makes me feel a lot better about this whole "rules" thing to know y'all will listen to us. :-)

*smooches*
DV

[VermontDem2004]

93. Wow I violated two rules today

I know those rules aren't in affect, but I am not sure I would vote. It would take alot of thinking, you know I want to improve the level of civil discourse desperately but I am sad it has gotten so bad it has come to this. :evilfrown:

[MadHound]

98. So much for DU being open to Proggresives of All Stripes

"Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate."

Look, its your board Skinner, but I think this is going a bit over the top, especially since this board purportedly welcomes ALL lefties.
I guess there is no place here for long time loyal Dems turned Green here eh? So sad, this was such a nice place.

I'll be voting no.

[VermontDem2004]

101. I didn't spot that

I will be voting no even though I am not a third party member and I won't support any third party member. But I like having discussions with other third party members on this board.

[Skinner]

106. Greens are welcome.

But if you want to use this board in a partisan effort to tear down the Democratic candidate, then no, you can't do that.

[FlaGranny]

117. You know, it's a real shame

but these rules would be totally uncessary if more people just showed a little respect for their fellow DUers. Skinner has always welcomed all lefties, but this is a board for Democrats first and foremost. At election time, the board does not allow campaigning against the Democrats by ANY other party, even the Green party.

[MadHound]

144. I agree with you, however. . .

These new rules look like they can be interpreted to mean that nothing other than towing the party line is acceptable. I'm sorry, but I feel it is fair to point out the major flaws that currently abound in the Democratic party. I do this not in the spirit of meaness or spite, but for the same reason I went Green, to hopefully wake up the Dems to the misguided path that they are taking. Maybe it will work, maybe not, but it is the only option personally that I see.

And I don't go into candidate bashing threads. Personally, I'm not thrilled with any of them except for Kucinich, and I doubt that he will get the nod. So why should I bash a candidate that I have no interest in?

I just feel like the big tent atmosphere around here will get a bit smaller with these new rules. You people bitch about candidate bashing, try walking in the Greens' shoes around here for awhile. While candidate bashing may soon be forbidden, it will always be open season for Green bashing. All on a board that says it welcomes progressives of all stripes.

[FlaGranny]

158. Nah, I don't take it that way at all.

Skinner, et al, have always been very tolerant of differing opinions. Everyone has been bashing everyone around here. There will probably be less Green bashing if there is less bashing all around. People get up in arms about one thing and then take it out on another subject. Then the spiral goes around and down.

Not to go off subject too much, but I've been around here since the beginning, and I remember the onslaught of (some) Green party members here. They were quite disruptive. I stopped coming to this site for about three months after 9/11 because of the "invasion." :-) It seems they (a couple) absolutely gloated about the WTC attck and were very self satisfied about it, telling us how much we deserved it, etc. It made me so sick, I couldn't come here anymore. So there is a little history there. Of course that was only a small handful of people and not all Greens. Of course, the Democrats here also went off about Nader. I don't remember the administrators ever squashing this "discussion."

I'm not against Greens - I'd vote for a Green for president without a second thought if the party had enough of a following to actually get elected plus a good candidate. I just believe we should disagree in a respectful way. It seems we need rules for some folks to be able to do that. It's a shame. But I'm for these rules because some people just don't play nice.

[damnraddem]

140. Well, it is a problem.

I've for three years defended the right of Greens to have run Nader and of people to have voted for him in 2000. Still, a Democratic-Party based board can rightfully wish to contain advocacy for other parties, especially now when defeating Dubya is our major concern. But I find it problematical because I am afraid that the Democratic Party could do something that would make me abandon it -- such as nominate Leiberman. But this IS a Democratic-Party based board, so the rule still makes sense for it, whether or not it does for you, or might at some point not for me.

[Mairead]

141. woof. I didn't see that one!

Mine will be another of the No votes.

[MGKrebs]

100. Coupla things:

We can start a thread with a vanity post, as long as it is not about a candidate?

And a request: Instead of locking or deleting most offending posts, could you move them to Politics and Campaigns? (At least for a while until we get used to it.) Wouldn't hurt to have a little more traffic in there anyway. :-)

Good luck, Mods!!

MGK

[Skinner]

111. Vanity posts are allowed...

as long as they comply with the rule about vanity posts.

[Armstead]

102. I agree with most -- except two of the specific rules

I agree with the intent, and most of the proposed rules. However, two of them I think go a little overboard.


>>>1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recently published news item or op-ed piece. Where possible, references must include a link to the original article.<<<

While I realize the intent, it does seem like it will stifle a lot of discussion, and limit it to the media "talking points" of the day.

If we see candifdate A say something really great -- or awful -- at a debate or otehr gathering, for example, we can't bring it up unless a reporter writes about it?

Or if we have a reaction of our own as general observation of events or issues, that should not be forbidden if there isn't article that says the same things.

>>>>4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate<<<


I realize that you are attempting to keep down the disruptors and bashing, but I think that is too likely to shut down honest debate about politics and the direction of the Democratic Party. That is a core issue underlying many of the other candidates and issues. Not just from Greens, but from Democtrats who feel immense frustration.

Let's say, foe example, someone like Joe Lieberman gets the nomination. Does that mean there is no discussion other than "Gee Joe is the Democratic nominee, so I think he's great and will support him unconditionally"?

There must be some way to curb the obvioius trolls and disruptors without the possibility of forcing everyone into a "happy happy Democrat" mode.

[Skinner]

112. Dissatisfaction with the Democratic party has always been allowed

and will continue to be allowed.

But if you are arguing that any particular group should leave the party, then that is not welcome.

[tjdee]

103. What about limiting the number of threads one person can start a day?

It's gotten better and hasn't happened in a while, but there have been some days in GD that half the first page is all one person's threads....obviously it isn't as much of a problem as some of these issues, but maybe worth a looksee....

[damnraddem]

107. Looking further at the proposed rules, I am even more concerned.

Regarding the rules for posting about Dems, I was thinking that they said that 'advocacy of ...' is prohibited -- instead they say 'discussion topics that ...' Combined with the requirement for basing on a news item or op-ed piece, and general rules about the subject line, this suggests that discussion of attacks on candidates or the party will be outlawed. Thus I, as a Dean supporter, might not be allowed to start a thread on how Faux News is attacking Dean. Thus, if a rightwinger attacked a Dem candidate for being a member of Al Qaida, and that constituted the title of the article (e.g., "Wesley Clark is a member of Al Qaida'), starting a new thread warning about this could be against the rules. Am I too sensitive to the language of the rules? Perhaps -- but remember that we are living in Dubya's America under Ashcroft's Patriot Act, so we are rightfully sensitive to rules being proposed for us.

[Skinner]

115. I think you need to give us a shred of credit here.

If fox news is attacking Dean, you can discuss it. After all, fox is a news outlet, and that is news.

If a ightwinger attacks any candidate by saying that they are a "member of Al Qaida" then you could obviously post that.

[damnraddem]

157. Yet, it seems to be outlawed by the wording of the rules -- e.g.:

"Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden." So, if a Freeper rag (like Faux News) attacks Dean as a closet member of the Communist Party would seem to be technically outlawed.

But my real concern is Dem-candidate rule #1 -- if I just get back from a campaign event (e.g., as when I did from Sen. Harkin's Steak Fry two weeks ago), I have to hunt up a news item about it (many of which did exist) in order to start a thread about the event.

[Crewleader]

108. Thanks adminstration .....

I'll be here to vote! :-)

[andym]

109. Yes

eom

[Wickerman]

113. I appreciate the mods effort on this

While I may not support every point, as a whole I think this is the kind of action that needs to occur to clean up GD and make it the great informaiton source it was when I was just lurking here.

I do have a quibble on that freakin' no profanity point, though!!! Whoops, that was a lot of 'points...

Thanks Skinner, et al - I for one appreciate your efforts to keep this a great place to learn.

[tjdee]

119. I think you can swear, but just not when startihng a thread.

Um...I think...

[FlaGranny]

128. Yeah, if someone just cannot

resist it, it's allowed, just not in the thread-starting post. :-) It just stuns me that so many folks cannot find enough words in the English language to post without swearing (unless it's at the bush administration), but it doesn't really offend me. I've been known to use some 4-letter words, but I use them if I've cracked my elbow, or dropped a dish full of sphaghetti on the floor and broke it(I actually did that). Try to avoid them in everyday speech. What the heck can I say when I get really angry, that would have any impact, if I used those words routinely?

[Wickerman]

149. It IS a limitation of my vocabulary

and I admit it. I should have the word power to express myself in a more dignified manner, but, but, oh fiddlesticks, sometimes f@ck just says it all. My apologies to all that I offend, past, present and future, I will try to improve my language.

And I appreciate those who point out that it is only in the subject line and after the original post...

:peace:

[ProfessorGAC]

121. Hey, Skinner!

I'm out of the office tomorrow and out of town tomorrow night, so won't be able to vote. However, i think these are reasonable rules (much better than the ones tried earlier), and would appreciate it if you would count me as a YES.
The Professor

[jimshoes]

122. Thank you Admins for your concern in this matter

and thank you for letting it go to a vote. Truly democratic.

[FubarFly]

123. I agree with the need for rules.

But if I may humbly make a suggestion, why not a one week trial period before we put it to a final vote?

Although I don't like many of the rules, overall I think they could be an improvement. I'm inclined to vote yes, but it would be nice to see the rules in action first. I hope this doesn't turn in to DU's version of the Patriot Act. ( ;-) )

Seriously, I do appreciate all the work that's done around here. Thanks for listening to our concerns and giving us giving us a chance to vote.

[stickdog]

124. Good, but you went overboard.

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recently published news item or op-ed piece. Where possible, references must include a link to the original article.


I don't understand this at all. Why can't we write our own op ed pieces? A sentence minimum here would be appropriate (even 10 or 12), but I want to read the personal thoughts of other DUer's here, not the "talking points" of published media exclusively.

If blogs count as "published media," then I can't see why you want to disallow self-published "articles" that address candidacies.


2. If you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support.


It's a nice thought, but we've already got too many fake undecideds and supporters of fringe candidates, IMHO, and this will only exacerbate this spectacle.


3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden.


What's this? The "hands off Clark" rule? Because I don't think these topics apply to anyone else.

[Walt Starr]

133. You bring up many vaild reasons to vote no

so do like me, and vote, "NO".

[Skinner]

127. I just changed one of the rules.

After reading some of the comments, we realized that the first rule in the candidate section was too narrow. Here is the new text:

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recent or current event, on a recently reported news item, or on a recent article or op-ed piece. If you are referencing a published item, you must include a link to the original article.

I have edited my post above to reflect the change.

[salin]

134. thanks for your responsiveness

not just on this point (good call)

but on revisiting rules for GD

I am sure you will get tons of flack for introducing this concept. I thank you. Things spun way out of control for awhile this weekend. I think we, as a community, showed that at least for now we need some boundaries.

Thanks again.

[sangh0]

142. Thank you Skinner

I think that's a big improvement.

[seventhson]

151. How about new revelations about old events?

This has been the bulk of my anti-Clark criticism because we are just now finding out about his past exploits --- so the articles may NOT be recent or the revelations may be old news that no media outlet has touched.

for example, I STILL am unclear if Clark had any command authority at any time at Guantanamo or over troops there when there were Haitian prisoners there. The article is now a week stale but the issue is IMO NOT stale. And posting it elsewhere on another forum will probably cause the issue to die.

Short of writing an article about it myself - HOW do I ask a Topic question about it or raise the issue for serious discussion under these rules.

I suppose I can't.

And that way a fairly serious charge remains totally unexamined

[Classical_Liberal]

152. That is better

.

[smallprint]

131. Absolutely not

Some of these rules are WAY over the top. The only ones that seem definitely useful to me are the technical ones: i.e. no duplicate threads, subject lines match content, refer to original article, etc. Those are fine-- they are clear and enforceable. But rule A3 for instance-- what is "conservative" for these purposes? What is "traditionally conservative"? Is it like porn, "I know it when I see it?" Many of the other rules are equally arbritrary.

I say, keep the technical rules, ban ad hominem attacks and start over with another poll.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

132. Let me get this clear - these rules only apply to the Original Post?

So if a reply to a thread breaks any of these rules, it will still be allowed? Or are some of the rules applicable to all posts - even replies?

So if someone posts something about Clark that is within the rules, and I was to reply to that post that Clark is a right wing plant, my post would be allowed?

How about the rules regarding third parties? Could I reply that the Green candidate (if there is one) should get the vote instead of Clark?

[FlaGranny]

138. That's what he said - original post.

I believe they want to discourage posts made for the sole purpose of starting fights, as so many of them are.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

150. I'd like to hear Skinner say that, just to be sure...

because a few of his other posts have made those two particular examples I gave seem to fall within the "to be deleted" column.

If it is clear that these rules ONLY apply to the first post, then I have no problem with them.

[Classical_Liberal]

147. Don't be taken in

you will be in for a wollop on the head when you see that most of the headlines are pro-clark and anti dean.

[Loyal]

136. Upon reading Skinner's detailed description of the rules,

I am inclined to support these changes. I believe it will improve the quality of the GD forum.

[pmbryant]

139. Overall, I like them a lot (EDIT: concern has been addressed)

Enforcement will no doubt be very difficult. But that is up to the Admin and mods and if they think they can handle this, that is great, because I think these rules will help to significantly raise the level of discourse.

:thumbsup:

The first set of 5 rules are wonderful. Perhaps the 2nd set isn't even needed if the first set is implemented. (Alternatively, the 1st set may well not be needed if the 2nd set is implemented.)

I don't particularly like rule #1 in the 2nd set (the one requiring a link to a published story for candidate threads). It doesn't appear necessary given all the other new rules. And I've heard many original opinions on candidates from DU posters that were quite insightful and that I've never seen in the published press.

If I had my druthers, I'd vote in the first set of rules without the 2nd. Or alternatively I'd vote in the 2nd set (minus #1) without the first. Either of those options would get a 'yes' vote from me in a heartbeat. I'd also vote for the whole set without the 1st rule of the 2nd set.

I'm not sure how to vote, though, with 'Rule 2.1' in place.

:shrug:

I'd hate to see an excellent set of rules get voted down because of one troublesome, and probably unnecessary, addition.

(Actually, I suspect it will be voted down simply because of the large number of new rules proposed and the 'all or none' option, and I think that would be a great shame. No doubt most, even while liking most of them like me, have one or two they have problems with.)

I'm tempted to vote 'yes' despite my reservations about that one rule, but am not sure at this point. Thanks for letting me ramble on. And thanks for trying to elevate the level of discourse in GD.

:-)

EDIT: Well, Skinner changed the rule I was concerned about while I was writing my post! :-) It sounds a lot less troublesome now, so my vote will probably be 'yes'.

--Peter

[Gin]

143. I will play by the rules...and I will be nice..I promise.

gin

[cally]

154. I mostly agree with Peter

I would like to see the rules broken into two parts. Maybe try out the first set and then add the new ones. :shrug:

[Skinner]

153. I'm locking this thread

Continue discussion in Thread #2:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=432481&mesg_id=432481

Thanks,

Skinner
DU Admin

[HereSince1628]

156. These rules don't mention Greens or other progressives

has their status changed? I assume they to be given similar protection, but this maybe needs to be stated.