Proposed rules to start threads in the General Discussion forum. (#3)

[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

Note: Section one under candidate threads has been changed to allow discussion based on recent events that may or may not have been reported.

This is a continuation of my first two threads, which are here (#1) and here (#2).

********** 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.

[goobergunch]

1. Restating my earlier question...what will be the policies regarding polls?

Especially the candidate preference poll...it's hard to square with these rules.

[Skinner]

6. Don't know.

I suspect they'll be threated as vanity posts.

[goobergunch]

8. Thanks

I'll be voting FOR these rules.

[mcar]

2. Thank you, thank you, thank you

for this and everything you guys do.

[bpilgrim]

3. these rules are startin to suck up valuble above-the-fold real estate ;-)

:evilgrin:

peace

[jiacinto]

4. I support the rules

especially rules #2, #3, and #4 under the section 2 part.

[stickdog]

5. DU's Patriot Act?

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 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 rule would 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.


*****


Yes, there is a problem in GD that should be addressed. But have you considered a more incremental approach to address it?

[imhotep]

#3 is a bad idea

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.

SO if in fact a candidate is not really a Democrat, there is still no discussion about it allowed?

[Skinner]

9. Ah, yes. The obligatory Patriot Act comparison.

1. The purpose is to restrict discussion to current events related to the candidates. If your op-ed is current, it would be permitted.

2. Not really sure this is a problem.

3. No. It's intended to crack down on all the stupid conspiracy threads that claim that various candidates actually are stealth Republicans.

[goobergunch]

14. Nitpicky question regarding Zell Miller

Since Miller isn't actually a candidate for anything...can we still question whether he should be kicked out of the party?

[stickdog]

24. Fair enough. I just think it's going a bit too far.

1. This could be addressed better by a 10 sentence minimum if not based on a current event rule, IMHO.

2. If it isn't now (and IMHO it is), it's about to be.

3. Well, to me, these threads are very obvious and thus easy avoid. So I don't consider them a big problem. But this is JMHO.

[Spentastic]

162. Skinner then why not

Post rules that define what standard of evidence is required?

[jiacinto]

11. I think #3 also deals with Lieberman

who has been maligned here unfairly. I don't see it as a "Patriot Act".

What I do think is that DU shouldn't be used by the Greens to defeat Democrats. And I think Skinner is being perfectly reasonable here.

[Iverson]

15. speaking of unfair maligning

It is a gross mischaracterization to assert that DU is used by Greens to defeat Democrats.

I think that it detracts from serious discussion of the proposals to engage in the very kind of bashing that they seek to limit.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[newyawker99]

12. I changed my mind. n/t

[Walt Starr]

66. I think of it as DU's Fluffy Bunny Act

This political site will cease to be a political site and will become a fluffy bunny piece of crap site.

[trogdor]

188. Yes, hands off Clark.

Hands off Joe Lieberman, and hands off the other eight candidates. There is a really GOOD reason for this, and that is to not hobble the eventual nominee with negative vibes from within our own ranks. One of these ten people will get the official endorsement of the DNC, and most of us would like to see that person become President of the United States.

Not only does violating this rule degrade the quality of discussion, it provides grist for the enemy's mill. The First Amendment only applies to the Government curtailing free speech, not DU's moderators and admins. You are still free to talk trash about your least-favorite Dem. candidate, just don't do it at DU.

I vote in favor of these rules.

[ClintonTyree]

7. Thank you..................

I have found myself avoiding DU lately. The level of discourse has taken a nose dive on the past few weeks. Hopefully these guidelines will ease the situation.

[DulceDecorum]

18. I totally understand, DumpGump

and I am rather hoping that the 9:11 forum gets cleaned up afterwards.
I really like the Democratic Underground (and the welcome new members recieve) but we do have a few weeds in our garden and that kinda chokes up the flowers.

[Cha]

10. Thanks! I've read it! And am looking forward to voting on them...

:kick:

And thanks from me, too, for all that you, elad, EarlG & mods do! :yourock:

[catpower2000]

13. Re: the vote--are you looking for a mandate? (repost from last thread)

I have a feeling the vote is going to be very close--if, for example, "yes" is ahead by one vote, will it be "yes" even though nearly half the voters were against it?

Cat

edit: here is the rest of the text from my last post:

BTW, I am a "yes". I have some reservations, but I think GD has been damn near unworkable for a long time and any change is better than the status quo. Plus, I think the rules are reasonable and lend themselves to intelligent discussion. It does make things a bit harder when posting, but really, shouldn't we be effing thinking about these threads when we're posting them anyhow?

[Skinner]

19. We're just looking for a majority.

But if it was a narrow majority, I think we would be setting ourselves up for serious problems, and we might reconsider.

If we lose, hey, that's cool too.

[zeemike]

25. Just curious

Is there any way to keep people form voting more than once?

[Skinner]

31. The software only allows one vote per username.

So some unscrupulous people can vote more than once if they have more usernames.

[zeemike]

36. That is good

I can assure everyone here I have never posted under any other name than this.
Is there any way to find out if one person has more than one username? It would be nice to know that.

[quinnox]

16. Just want to reiterate my no vote

Overall, these rules would do more harm than good. I can foresee avoiding general discussion if these rules are implemented.

[stickdog]

28. Bribes like this

raise ethical questions.

;-)

[Booberdawg]

33. Just want to reiterate my yes vote

Overall, these rules would do more good than harm. I can foresee vast improvement in the quality of discourse in GD if these rules are implemented.

[imhotep]

17. Another Question

Why is this being put to a vote?

[DulceDecorum]

21. We vote because we are democratic

and we count the votes fo everyone who casts them, and not just those of the Five Fingers.

[imhotep]

22. the question

was for the Admins. It may be noble to put things up for a vote , but it is in my humble opinion a bad idea to run a website democratically.

[Skinner]

29. Good question.

We have always maintained that Democratic Underground is not a democracy, and that continues to be the case. Ultimately, we decide what should be done with this message board.

People have been begging me to crack down in the GD forum for a while now. I have resisted because I know it'll be ugly, and many people will be upset.

We're putting this up for a vote for a very simple reason:

I'm not going to waste my time if nobody wants these changes.

[imhotep]

53. thanks

sounds good.

[Romberry]

63. Yes, it will be ugly but...

...it would be hard to get much uglier than it is now.

One thing that flashed through my mind the other night was the idea of a minimal monthly fee. Yep, pay to post. Past exoperience in http://tabletalk.salon.com">another forum pretty much showed that trolls (or closet Freepers) scatter to the wind rather than open that old wallet.

I know it costs DU a significant fee to process transactions but something like Amazon payments isn't overly expensive and would make a small two or three dollar/month fee possible.

As a variation on a theme, several college football boards I frequent offer "open" forums which oddly enough have the same problems as the GD forum here. Their solution was to leave those boards open but add "premium" forums that required the payment of a fee to post. Sort of a tiered way of doing things. It turns out that people who pay the fee and know they aren't getting it back if they get kicked off for acting like an A$$ tend to engage in a more reasonable "tone of discussion". Same folks go over to the "free boards" and act like three year olds that missed their nap.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

20. Repost: Vote to keep the GD we all love, vote NO on the new rules!

Why do so many people post in GD? Why are the other forums so under utilised? I believe it is because we all recognise the power of GD as a meeting place.

We WANT to see diverse opinions, even if it is just to argue with them. We WANT to verbally duke it out sometimes, because it empowers us, it helps us to feel less helpless in the face of overpowering right wing bias and propaganda in the media and elsewhere on the net. This is the place where we progressives rule, and it feels good to be able to argue about the finer points of our beliefs rather than having to defend over and over again the basis of those beliefs from ignorant right-wing talking-point spewing nincompoops.

Yes the GD forum has been over run with candidate threads - but that is ONLY because these are the issues we are most focused on at the moment. It is NOT GD or its rules that are wrong, it is the fact that we can see how important this election is and we want THIS election to COUNT like it has never counted before. This means that we are fired up, and it leads to HEATED discussions, and outright flame-fests, but at least we can vent our heat, we can refine our arguments, and sometimes we can learn something new about our favourite candidates and others favourite candidates, WITHOUT being forced to once again argue the fundamentals of liberal beliefs.

We can afford to pick at the little things because before we had no other option. Before, we always had to fight the right wing before we could even think about the little things, and sometimes we never got around to them.

I have said this before and I will say this again - DU is the best thing since sliced bread - DU as it is RIGHT NOW! Don't change it because of a few (and yes in the overall scheme of things it is a FEW) threads we don't like. We may miss what we have once it is gone.

In fact I think many of us have become complacent. We are overinflating the problems we see because we have become spoiled - we've had it too good for too long, and we have forgotten what it was like BEFORE we had DU.

Recently I have seen people saying how they didn't want to recommend DU to people any more, or saying they didn't want to come here any more, but the question I have to ask is: Is there anywhere BETTER? Sure we could all take off from DU and go to a new board, but wouldn't we just take our arguments there? It's NOT DU that is making us this way, it is us, and it won't be ANY different if we go somewhere else.

Can we change DU without changing the rules? Of course we can. Do we want to? Well, obviously not. Why do I say this? If we did want to change DU, why would we need rules to do it? No matter how many times I have seen a flame bait thread, I have seen that same thread kept on the front page NOT by the original poster or supporters, but by those who want to argue against it, and they do this while bitching about how bad GD has become and how bad DU has become.

YOU are the ones keeping these threads alive - you the people bitching about these threads. Don't post on them and they will quickly die. But you can't do it can you? You can't, because you WANT to fight it out just as much as the original poster did. So quit bitching!

Sorry to go off on such a long rant, but these new rules got me to thinking, and this is the result.

So I hereby announce the creation of the Save GD! Party, and announce my intention to campaign for DUers of all stripes to:

VOTE NO!

-

This post was originally meant to be a new thread, but Skinner wanted everything kept in one thread. So I am reposting it here. There were a few replies on the thread that I never got a chance to answer, so I will try to do that here:

WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-29-03 05:27 PM
Response to Original message

1. What's this "we" shit, white man?

GD sucks ass now.

So you never posted on any of the threads you are now complaining about? You never started any threads that mocked such threads? I'm sorry Will, but I saw you in more than one of these threads, and although it is in the lounge there is even a mocking thread you posted CURRENTLY circulating.

It's all well and good to complain, but if you just let them die, then they would be gone quick smart. Or do you enjoy arguing these issues too?

Booberdawg (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-29-03 05:29 PM
Response to Original message

3. Excuse me but doesn't Skinner already have a thread on this?

I'm not really interested in your problems with cleaning up the place, or stirring up a flame war in protest about it.

As you can see, Skinner agreed with your idea of keeping this post in his thread. I disagree, but he's the boss.

Secondly, where in my post do I stir up a flame war? In fact it seems YOUR response is the one asking for a flame war.

TorchTheWitch (46 posts) Mon Sep-29-03 05:30 PM
Response to Original message

4. speak for yourself

I'll vote how *I* want to vote for the reasons *I* have.

Who the hell are you to tell anyone how they should vote?

Firstly I am not TELLING anyone anything. I am ASKING them to vote NO. Secondly, Isn't this exactly what ANY election campaign is? Asking people to vote in a certain way? I sure hope you don't participate in such things, after all YOU wouldn't want to go around TELLING people how to vote, would you?

Cappurr (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-29-03 05:32 PM
Response to Original message

5. People post a lot of repitious stuff in GD

They rarely cite any sources for their "information" but insist that its gospel anyway. They deliberately title their threads to inflame and start flame wars. Sometimes lately when I've logged on I think I'm on a right wing site with all the "Clark is a Republican Plant" and "Why don't you conservatives leave DU". Its gotten ugly. We are supposed to be a community here. Not a community of robotic thinkers, but a liberal community that respects opinions of others without flaming them for it or telling them to go join the Republicans.

So I say Vote Yes

Fair point. But if you or others who disagreed with those posts refrained from posting on them, how long would they last before they dropped off into the archives? It is people who go into these threads and argue against them that keeps them alive. Just ignore them and they will die.

I still believe people should vote NO.

This was all the replies except for Skinner's telling me he was locking the thread.

[starscape]

26. on your first response, (re: let the threads die)

It doesn't work. I've seen mean-spirited, disruptive threads and though someone will post something like, "don't respond to this, let the thread die," someone else who agrees with the post will intentionally keep kicking it. In fact, they kick it just to piss people off even more.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

34. I have never seen a thread with only "kicks" in it.

They ALWAYS have at least one or two people coming on to the thread to say "don't respond" then someone responding to that post in order to agree, then someone complaining about how bad GD has gotten, then a couple who couldn't resist responding to the original post, and then it is all on.

In fact, if people did what I said they should do, I would be surprised - because people WANT to fight these things out. If they didn't, they wouldn't.

Nobody forces anyone to post on a flame bait thread, but they still do. Why? I can only assume that they enjoy the fight as much as anyone, but they prefer to put on the white hat and loudly denounce the post while continuing to argue its merits.

What is even more astounding, is that you can EASILY add such self-kicking posters to your ignore list, and then no matter how many times they kicked it you would never see it. Why don't people do this? Once again I can only assume that it is because they WANT to see this person's threads, even if it was only so they could jump in and once again say "don't respond" and "GD has gotten so bad".

So I stand by my response to Will Pitt. If you don't like these threads don't post in them and they will soon die. If people respond to them then it is because they WANT to respond to them, and new rules are restricting them as much as the original poster.

[starscape]

37. well, it happened.

Your point is well taken. But, it happened yesterday - A thread that was really bad, something like "(Candidate) is a JOKE" was posted, and I went in and said, "just let the thread die." I did it right after someone else posted, so I wasn't kicking it much, not significantly,

And the thread started to fall... and fall... and then, what the hell, a person (I won't name names) came right in, right after my message, and wrote "KICK."

Just a big F.Y. to me. a few more people kicked it as well, and then, your explanation took effect as people couldn't resist jumping in and posting.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

44. I understand - being from NZ I miss some of the afternoon stuff

So I must have missed this one, and yes I can see how that would be frustrating.

But if you can only think of one such thread, it seems to me to be more of "the exception that proves the rule" than anything else.

As I said, YOU could have and DID ignore it. That is one small step. Now if EVERYONE who would vote YES on these rules would do the same thing, then there would be no reason to vote YES would there?

Let me just say that I enjoy participating in some of these threads at least the ones that actually make useful arguments such as Tinoire's posts from yesterday (I think it was). That post would be banned under these new rules, yet it was a valid post, and the only flaming came from people who disagreed with it. If they had kept away, then the post would have been discussed by those who agreed it for a short while, and then it would be gone.

It's like those people who go into "Conspiracy Theory" threads just to debunk them and then when confronted say it's because it makes DU look silly. More often than not these threads last far longer BECAUSE of the debunking skeptic rather than the reverse, so in fact the debunker is largely responsible for how silly (at least in their minds) DU looks.

What actually annoys me the most is people complaining about other posts dropping of the front page. This happens because people aren't replying to them. How much of the whining over GD has to do with people being bummed by having a post they worked on, and wanted to see do well in the crucible of GD, dropping off the front page faster than a brick?

People act like it is because of these flame bait threads being replied to, when in fact it is because THEIR threads are NOT being replied to: basically people were less interested in them than in participating in the latest flame war.

This is what I am trying to get at. People WANT to be in these flame wars, no matter how much they may say otherwise. If they didn't they would be posting on the other threads instead and they would be getting kicked back up over the flame wars.

[Ardee]

42. You are indeed aptly named....

Thanks for a concise and defining post about these new rules....I abhor rules for the most part and simply think that it is very easy to avoid topics , refrain from responding to them, and let them sink to the bottom.......

The more rules we have the more complex becomes the task of the moderators and ultimately the administrators who will be subjected to endless appeals for reinterpretation. The current mess is due, in large part, to the campaign and will, in time become less messy, if political discourse ever does.

DU is, for the most part, the best political discussion forum on the net (at least that I have unearthed) so why continue to tinker with it as that may lead to its becoming rather less than it is now......

Vote NO, on the California recall and the DU rule revision(addition, whatever).......

[Devils Advocate NZ]

46. Thank you.

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who loves DU just the way it is. There will always be excesses when emotions are running as high as they are at the moment, but sowing the field with landmines will not make it easier for the flowers to grow.

I agree:

Vote NO on the new rules, YES on Skinner, Elad, and EarlG for the Nobel Peace Prize! Or the Pulitzer... Or whatever!

[kentuck]

23. Why I cannot vote for these rules....

Although I agree with the sentiments of those that are worn out from the attacks and divisions amongst the various candidates. However, I think it should be done on a voluntary basis. And it should be up to the discretion of the Mods to make the decision whether or not a post is over the line, per the rules above. But, I think it might be just a bit too restrictive for the ideas that flow here on DU. I think we should be able to work things out, although I can understand why some people have given up hope. Obviously, our power of persuasion is lacking.

In summary, I think we should attempt to follow the rules above on a voluntary basis. If there are posts that are over the line, it's sort of like pornography -"I know it when I see it" - then the Mods should be able to use their discretion on those.

And I have posted on this very problem...But I cannot vote for the solution to put the rules into writing and to "require" adherence. That is a bit too restrictive, in my humble opinion.

[starscape]

30. but...

nobody is, or will, follow the rules on a voluntary basis, because I think that nobody honestly feels that "they" are the problem.

Or, somebody new comes along and posts the same tired tripe that we were hoping to avoid.

I don't like the new rules, personally. I consider myself still pretty new here, and I like the open, honest communication. But right after reading this, I went back to the main page and saw the "Clark is a disrupter" crap. Egads! over and over and over. Freedom is one thing. The right to not have my gag reflex hit every day is another thing.

I will vote YES.. and hope that we will reach a point later when the rule can be repealed.

[TennesseeWalker]

27. I generally am reluctant to support additional rules. However:

These really aren't rules. They're common sense and good manners. Nothing wrong with that. I also think they will help control intentional disruption of the board by those seeking to cause problems. I can live with them.

I want DU to stay a safe haven for center-left info. I don't have any problems with being nice about Democratic candidates either, especially with all the "Clark is a Republican" crap. Clark is a good American, as are all the Dem candidates.

[newyawker99]

32. I have been thinking that the transition to the new rules

would be smoother if we give it a trial run. Many of the questions asked here could be answered in this way and also problems that you have not thought about could be addressed. I believe that if members see how the new rules will work, they may not be as resistant to them. I don't think it would hurt if we tried it out for a day and see what happens.

[rasputin1952]

35. Interesting...

Let's see how the vote goes.

Very good points were made by everyone who bothered to post in the thread.

BTW, Skinner; thanks for putting this up for a vote, many sites would not be so gracious.

[eleny]

38. I guess I don't mind profanity

in either the starting post of a thread or in responses - so long as it isn't used excessively in almost every sentence. I don't use it myself, much. But a few f's or whatever doesn't bother me. I mean, profanity is all over tv, so it's not a big deal to me and is sort of like blowing off steam.

Also, I'd like to know how long a thread needs to get before someone can create a second thread to continue discussion. With the new rules restricting us to an appropriate thread, this may be a new issue pretty soon.

I'm new here. And I feel that trying out some new rules can't hurt. They can always be tweaked.

Thanks

[welshTerrier2]

40. I'm Voting "NO" to Censorship on DU

How Would DU react if the republicans in Congress proposed a national referendum on whether newspapers that criticized bush after 9/11 and during the invasion of iraq should be banned?

the argument would be something like: it is a critical time for our nation and we must pull together to defeat evil ... "we're being democratic" they would argue ... "let's let the people decide" ...

the problem with holding a vote on whether a majority has the right to abridge the constitutional rights of the minority is, of course, that it is unconstitutional ... it would violate freedom of speech and freedom of the press ...

so, what makes it right to hold a vote on DU to determine whether we should be muzzling the free speech of other progressives ... we democrats have always stood up for protecting the freedom of the minority to speak their views ... let's not forget we're progressive democrats ... let's say "NO" to censorship on DU !! let's say "NO THANKS" to the new rules ... the admins should be commended for trying to improve DU ... but this is not the right solution ...

like most DU'ers, i hate threads that offer little more than name-calling and offer no information or analysis ... improving the quality of the GDF is an admirable goal ... but DU can only be as good as its membership ... and rules cannot fix that ... we need education and communication ... not censorship ... time will heal these problems ... rules like the ones proposed would have far more merit once a democratic nominee is selected ... but they are wrong during the primary season ... we don't need the heavy handed imposition of stifled thought just because some DU'ers drag down the quality of discussion ...

i'm voting "NO WAY" to these rules ...

[Brucey]

41. Tough call. But when in doubt, I say

down with rules. Let people be what they are. I'd rather find out than stifle. I'll likely vote no unless I hear some more convincing arguments for the new rules.

[quaker bill]

43. I support the proposed rules

Though I would expand number one to include current written policy positions of a candidate even if not published recently (such as the last few days). By this I mean policies that continue to be advocated by a candidate notwithstanding publication date.

The discussions of whether a candidate is or is not a member of the democratic party have not been substantive in my experience. They are all running for the nomination and as such further discussion on the topic is simply not relevant. I warmly welcome an end to this topic.

Being a discussion forum on the "democratic underground", rule number 4 seems particularly relevant.

Thanks

[IkeWarnedUs]

45. a question Skinner

Would a discussion of the connections between the DLC and PNAC be considered a violation of The Democratic Candidates' rules #3, 4 & 5?

[Walt Starr]

47. thread # 3 and post #3 urging everybody to vote against these rules

I am opposed to these rules.

[goobergunch]

48. Huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=434070&mesg_id=434101&page=

[Walt Starr]

49. My third post saying "vote no"

:evilgrin:

[goobergunch]

173. Ah

I thought you were talking about bpilgrim's post.

[RichM]

50. Something must be done, but this draft is too heavy on censorship.

In the second group of 5 points;

#3 = The Clark Protection Act. The fact is: his credentials as a Democrat are dubious at best. So now it will be forbidden to say so? That doesn't make him any more bona fide a Democrat, it just makes it impossible to say important relevant things about him.

#4 - The Democratic Party itself is not that good, not that holy, as to be placed above serious criticism. With its manifest faults & weaknesses, criticizing the party is desirable & necessary. Otherwise, we are limiting expression to the sham level: pretending that something is so when it isn't so.

#5 - The Clark supporters' behavior on DU is not at all like the behavior of any other candidate's supporters. Making it illegal to say so protects them in their bullying; it doesn't protect anyone else, because no one else bullies the way they do.

[welshTerrier2]

52. this really is the problem with the rules

#4 - The Democratic Party itself is not that good, not that holy, as to be placed above serious criticism. With its manifest faults & weaknesses, criticizing the party is desirable & necessary. Otherwise, we are limiting expression to the sham level: pretending that something is so when it isn't so.

good analysis here, Rich ... the problem with the rules really is that they assume that criticizing candidates and criticizing the DEMOCRATIC PARTY hurts the candidate or the party ... it's a very dangerous policy ...

both candidates and the party itself must have the opportunity during the primaries to respond to attacks and criticisms ... messages must be sharpened for the battle with bush ... and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY must clearly understand what turns on its supporters, and, just as importantly, what turns them off ... if all they get to hear is "happy talk", they will be living in a fool's paradise ...

[Suspicious]

76. I agree.

I was going to say that I am particularly concerned with the quashing of constructive, warranted criticism of the Democratic Party, itself, but that part of #4 seems to have gone missing...? :shrug:

[roughsatori]

118. dupe

[roughsatori]

119. 3,4,5 seem like a "protection program" for Clark and his supporters

It sort of validate fears I have of what this candidate will do to the Democratic party. I know this site is not the Democratic Party but the fact of even broaching these 3 rules worries me.

I understand the his supporters love him for the belief he will win the Presidency and save the party. The rancor comes in because some members (as do I) believe that Clark and his kind it the death knell for the party. These rules will shut those of us up who are in the last category--and that won't matter unless in the future it turns out that WE and not the Clark supporters were right. But then it will be to late, and "I told you so," is meaningless at a funeral.

[DrBB]

51. Well, I dunno. I think I'm with Walt here.

I'm one who has complained a LOT recently about the Clark bashing--and really it's just the general issue of posting insufficiently-scrutinized reichpundit anti-dem talking points here as if they were valid, irrespective of the candidate, that sickens and depresses me.

And quite honestly, I have seriously considered abandoning DU altogether over this recently. And I am deeply concerned that we are participating in a process that is ultimately damaging the chances of whoever wins the nomination to take down the Flying Chimp--than which NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING is more important.

But I don't think enforced niceness works, and I'm afraid that fthese rules will undermine my trust that something authentic--however far out on the left and occasionally loony--is going on here.

I understand the kind of pressure Skinner and Elad and the rest are under, but I think we ought to try to ride it out.

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. I intend to vote "NO".

This is rather reminiscent of what happened here before the last election (temporarily banning the Greens and anyone else who wasn't 100% behind the Democratic candidates, and, yes, I was here then, just under another name). It was a bad idea then, too. And some of the proposed rules would be extremely limiting to the scope of discusion. This smacks of totalitarianism. So some people are, unfortunately, offeded by some of the things being said in this forum...well, that's really too bad, but they should get the fuck over it. This is politics, and in politics, unfortunately, you're GOING to get offended. When that happens you have to learn to take it and fight back. Not start snivelling and whining like some fourth-grader running to teacher.

[kentuck]

55. Politics is war....? and war is hell ?

huh? :)

[Walt Starr]

60. If this doesn't get voted down, I'm outta here

DU will be dead if these rules go into effect, IMO.

I won't stick around to watch the morphing into a fluffy bunny political site.

[stevedeshazer]

82. I like the fluffy bunny

Let's see how many times you can work it in.

[Walt Starr]

90. Probably not many

After the DU Fluffy Bunny Act of 2003 wins in a landslide, there will be no reason for me to hang out at DU.

:shrug:

[stevedeshazer]

97. I've got a feeling

That you will be on the winning side here, even though I disagree with you.

Peace

[Walt Starr]

100. I predict 72% in favor of the Fluffy Bunny Act

to 28% opposed.

People like fluffy bunnies. They make them feel all warm and cozy.

Nobody wants in your face shit, that's why this thing will win hands down and DU will become the Fluffy Bunny Politics Site of the internet world.

I further predict a Democratic victory in 2004 with all "anti-whoever_that_dem_is threads" (i.e. all threads that call this as yet unknown Dem on the carpet for bullshit) banned completely on DU by 2006, sorta like how RimJob operates when conservatives get pissed about Bush on FreakRepukelick.

[Ardee]

170. latest poll results

after taking a representative sampling of 14 people in Hibbing, Minnesota, who have never even heard of DU, we prophesize overwhelming support for the rules proposals......

Sorry I got carried away by all the polling data currently flooding the media. This one is at least as accurate as those!

[Walt Starr]

179. Since my post was a *prediction* and not *poll results*

I really don't understand your flippant remarks.

[bearfartinthewoods]

177. the problem is we need warriors..not fluffy bunnies

for those with tender sensibilities, there are options.

don't click/don't post on threads you know will upset you.
use the ignore feature.

the party will suffer if we 'dumb down' debate to be non offensive to the most easily offended. our choice will be less effective if we never hear the negatives. as someone else put it, we are trying to pick the candidate with the fewest negatives. now is the time to hash this out. now, not in the general.

speaking of the general....can someone tell me if rive will follow rules?

we need warriors, not fluffy bunnies.

[regnaD kciN]

105. Why would it "win in a landslide"...?

Last time I checked, Skinner hadn't installed new forum voting software from Diebold...

:evilgrin:

[Romberry]

56. Excellent and reasonable if you ask me.

All for it and can't wait to vote.

[curse10]

57. Well, at least people wouldn't be allowed to accuse Kerry of being BFEE

but really, really, really, really have a problem with the profanity rule. IMHO, it's fucking ridiculous. We should all be adults on this board, and if you are either 1) too infantile to know when profanity is appropriate or 2) too thin-skinned and are offended by such language, then get the hell off the internet.

[Ardee]

171. with all due respect

While everyone is familiar with "those words" I must state that people who cannot make their point sans profanity have little to say.......

[GreenArrow]

58. not crazy about it

a few random thoughts...

#4 in the "general Discussion" guidelines seems to put the nix on the popular "rant" posts that a lot of people use to blow off steam. I guess these will carry over to other forums.

The "Democratic candidates and party guidelines" seem overly restrictive to me. It's easy to imagine all sorts of potential posts with legitimate questions that would run afoul of the proposed guidelines. DevilsAdvocate mentioned one in his post above. I assume this sort of post will migrate to other forums. Possibly, if there is enough migration of that type of post, there will be complaints and suggestions of applying the new rules in those forums.

Part of the perceived problem is that there is no universally accepted defintion of bashing. I've seen plenty of posts with links/documentation that called into question this aspect or that of a given candidate, posts that seemed reasonable to me, (especially given that this is primary season) that are imediately branded as bashes, flames, disruptions, etc. by partisans of that candidate.

I think it's kind of disengenous for people to complain about bashing posts when some of these same people are gulity of name calling, put downs, sarcasm and so on. Changing the rules about how posts are made isn't going to make much difference if people can be rude, disrespectful, and loutish within the body of the post itself. It always amazes me how people can say things on the anonymity of a message board that they would likely never say to people in real life.

And there is always the risk of promoting a uniformity of accepted opinion.

must be the zeitgeist...

[Maddy McCall]

59. Thank God! Maybe I will venture back into GDF after these are enacted

Especially LOVE # 3, 4, 5. Thanks admin for flexing when circumstances demand it.

[Dr Fate]

61. I support these fair rules 100%...

These are rules that I would naturally try to follow anyway...

The rules have allway been fair- but these leave less room for mischeif/propaganda during this important primary period...

...I'm sure Bossman will relax things after the elections or when the flames calm down...

Thanx Bossman- love that DU!!!!

[Enraged American]

62. Where can I vote on these piece of trash "rules"?

This is horrible. I already have had to restrict my speech on right-wing message boards. I like being able to say whatever I want here.

There's no way you're going to tell me that I have to support every single Democrat from Lieberman to Miller. No sir. If we don't put pressure on these and make it clear that we WILL NOT tolerate their crap, say hello to a state where parties are just nominal and everyone stands behind our Great Leader George Bush II.

Where can I vote?

[Dr Fate]

64. Only the government can restrict your speech...

Bossman can only stop anti-DEM speech on his web-site, that he pays for, solicits funds for, and maintains on his OWN time...

dont distort the facts by suggesting this is a "speech" issue.

Anti-DEM speech is welcome on hundreds if not 1000s of boards on the internet-It will not be restricted on RW boards as you suggest!

What about MY "free speech" of discussing DEM strategy without being disrupted by anti-DEm propaganda? Whaty about MY 1st Amendment freedom to associate with folks who ALSO want to elect DEM candidates in 2004?

Skinner provies me a Constitutionally legal and viable a forum for these things!!!

[Booberdawg]

73. I think you should read the original post again

It appears you have several misinterpretations. It also explains when you can vote.

[mike_c]

65. I will vote "no" despite my agreement with most of these rules....

Unfortunately, part of the ferment on DU is the partisan screeching of candidate cheering sections in GD-- it's not always nice and it's not always in our best interest, but we should embrace it nonetheless. Anyone who can't adjust to the changing realities of American politics, e.g. "my candidate didn't get nominated" will self-select out. Until then, however, limiting the discourse is counterproductive IMO, despite it's being more civilized.

[inthecorneroverhere]

67. I intend to vote 'yes'

This mess started to become evident a couple of months ago.

Although I have largely stayed out of the candidate threads, back in August, I made a post to GD that was a sarcastic response to:

1) The strong tenor of regional prejudices that are here, no matter how much certain folks deny their presence
2) More importantly, the rough and unpleasant language that is used here.

My sarcastic post violated almost all of the proposed new rules, deliberately. This was to prove a point. If I'm in the gutter crowd, well OK, then let's talk 'gutter.' It was clear to me that this space on the internet was going downhill. I had tried previously to ask people directly and politely to be more polite.

I want DU to be better than that. But the loud, rude, and bashing atmosphere would not admit to polite requests for cleaner language and more temperate attitudes.

I was *plonked* for my message by a couple of individuals, including one well-known poster, who completely failed to understand my use of sarcasm. (To this individual): Oh, by the way, I might have showed up at the speech this Sun. at the UU in A'ville, had ya not 'dissed' me back in August. But, 'cuz of the diss, I gave it a miss and stayed home yesterday, thank you much!!! Cheerio!

However, I was not dropped from DU (duuh!....posting here).

I basically stopped posting, except to briefly chat about Lovely Isabel the Hurricane LOL.

With absolutely no sarcasm but just telling folks directly how I will be voting: I will vote 'Yes' on the new rules for GD.

[philosophie_en_rose]

68. Vote no!

GD is sometimes aggravating, obnoxious, repetitive, vicious, and ugly. It's the "Fight Club" of DU - except that everyone talks about it. Sometimes I cringe as the same poster posts twelve messages about the same thing. Sometimes I avoid GD and sometimes I linger.

However, I greatly dislike the idea of banning provoking messages. No one should be obligated to react in a certain way, as long as it doesn't violate the general rules. I am against censoring messages that are unpopular, simply because they provoke discussion.

Instead of the new rules, I propose the following:

1) Each poster may only post one thread about any particular topic and all posters are encouraged to stay within the same thread, instead of starting a duplicate. Thus, we don't have to look at pages of "Dean Rox!!" or "Lieberman eats babies." I personally don't care to suppress any opinions. However, it's ridiculous to have millions of threads on the same issue.

2) Negative attacks against democratic candidates must be distinctly labeled For instance, "{Anti-Kerry} Candidate doesn't pooper scoop at national park" or "{Anti-Moseley-Braun} Rove says unelectable." That way, it doesn't matter what the inclinations are of the posters. People can screen their own issues.

3) If a thread has no value besides "dueling candidate bashers," it may be deleted. I think the new rules give a lot more work to the mods. Don't they already have discretion to lock threads? Maybe putting that explicitly in the rules (if that isn't already there) will clarify some things.

*Tensions will undoubtedly escalate as the competition gets tough. It doesn't have to be an ugly situation. GD could be more civil. However, we are all grown ups (for the most part). We can handle it.

[gate of the sun]

69. The candidates themselves

point fingers at one another, The fact remains people should know about these candidates. I personally feel we should leave the rules as they are. As a kucinich supporter you don't here me whinning. I have heard plenty and one of the negatives pointed out about Kucinich changed my views on him yet I still support him, knowing allows me to keep an eye on the candidate I support. I also don't mind defending my candidate if I have the facts to support it.

why do we even have debates with the candidates if it is all just blind following? This seems silly to me and I know it is coming from people who can't stand their candidate bashed. I still think if someone brings something up that is to the best of their knowledge true and can support it that is not bashing.

These are just my thoughts of course. I think it will be a sorry DU that can't debate it's own candidates. I also think some of these candidates need some scrutiny. But then again that's just me. I guess if the majority on here want censorship I guess at least we will know it was democratically elected censorsip. Personnally I wouldn't opt for censorship I want as much freedom as I can get. But then again that's just me.

[LalahLand]

70. Isn't "inflammatory rhetoric" in the eye of the beholder?

Some people get really inflammed by trivial things. Others may twist your words to say or mean something that it doesn't.

So who's eyes are we viewing this from?

[SWPAdem]

71. Thanks, but no thanks

I really appreciate all the hard work that Skinner et al have put into trying to stop the nastiness in GD. But, for those of us that do not post that often, the new rules are too specific and will be hard to remember.

The candidate bashing and arguments over ideological purity do drive me nuts...and make me angry as hell. But, I learned over the weekend that using the ignore button, and "just saying no" to certain threads work REALLY well.

[Dr Fate]

72. Hard to remember?

SOURCE your material,declare your candidate (you already have a Clark banner, so you are taken care of there) be polite, dont lie.

This is restrictive and "hard to remember"??!!!

[SWPAdem]

78. Gee,

the rules I read had more than a few paragraphs and there have been tons of questions, so I guess I am not the only one that is having a little trouble. If you really want to simplify the mess, just say that all candidate threads should be in P/C forum.

I'm an adult and can make my own choices, thank you.

[philosophie_en_rose]

80. The rules are more specific than that.

And they punish everyone based upon the actions of a few.

[carpetbagger]

74. Hypotheticals: LaRouche, Trafficant, Jeffords, etc.

1. What about truly bad people like Lyndon LaRouche?

2. What about corrupt politicians like Jim Trafficant? Doesn't it often put party loyalty above national loyalty (or even the party's long-term success) to vote for them?

3. What about people, like Jim Trafficant, who say they'll vote for things like a GOP speaker? Aren't there cases where accusing a democratic candidate of being a stealth republican is objectively accurate, based on unequivocal, specific comments of the candidate?

4. Would the rules regarding support of non-democratic candidates apply to races where only two candidates have a real chance at victory, neither democratic (e.g. Jeffords v. GOP v. a dem at 10%)?

5. What if a candidate and his/her supporters eat puppies?

[w4rma]

75. That's a heck of alot to remember. IMHO, it might be best to either phase

in these rules slowly (most important first) and/or set them down as recomendations, as opposed to hard rules, on how one should conduct one's self.

A couple of potential problems:
Complex set of rules which can be tough to remember at all times.
Complex set of rules which can be daunting and confusing for newbies.
Stricter rules (especially if enforced strictly) could end up in many bannings.
Stricter rules (especially if enforced strictly) could end up in more complaints about choices of arguments.
Rule number 3 means we have to consider former DINO Representative James Traficant of Ohio a Democrat.

Note, I plan to vote "yes" on these rules, anyway.

[DemVet]

77. Question on....

...Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided. Exceptions may be allowed for threads about our political opponents and/or policies which we generally oppose.

This opens up any inflammatory rhetorice since this board consists of Democrats of varying degrees, correct?

Secondly, I've not made up my mind about which candidate I will be supporting. More debate is needed before I can seal the deal. Is stating "undecided" acceptable for criticizing candidate viewpoints?

Also, what are conservative sources? Yeah, that's pretty much a no-brainer most of the time, but will there be a list of sources, both progressive and conservative, set in stone?

Thanks for your time.

[Tinoire]

139. Skinner - Follow up to Same Question Different Angle

Also, what are considered mainstream sources or progressive sources?

Don't think this is a smart-ass comment because to my shock and amazement, over the last 2 weeks, I've had people accuse CounterPunch, Fair and I can't remember which other ones of being "right-wing sources".

It's been anything and everything lately to attack the information, the source or the messenger. After 3 years here I really thought I had at least figured out which were conservative sources and which were progressive ones.

[DemVet]

79. I'm also concerned with..

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


Isn't this what the "weeding out" process of selecting a candidate all about? I'm not talking intentional flaming here, but legitimate criticism.

[Robin Hood]

81. Here on DU just as in the rest of the country,

There will be a majority who won't have a problem with giving up their freedoms. I'm sure that this will pass in a land slide.

I will vote NO on this. I don't want anyone to dictate to me what i can or can't write, especially on a democratic board. Just because it annoys people what others write about, It is lazy to make rules and restrict freedom of content based on that. if you don't like what someone posts then hit the back button. It's not like this is real life here.

If someone pisses you off, you ought to be able to tell them to go to hell without any diplomacy involved. There are plenty of posts on here that I think are shit, but rather than reply to them or get annoyed about it, I just ignore them. What's the big deal?

The only reason this is happening is because we have a bunch of Nancy's on here who whine non-stop to the moderators about BS issues. The only thing that these guys should be concerned with is harrassment, and leave the rest to us.

Extremely un-happy minority, LG.

[Walt Starr]

83. I agree with you, the DU Fluffy Bunny Act of 2003 will win in a landslide

I will stick around until that happens, but no longer.

[Robin Hood]

86. Yeah me to.

I guess this is one way of Skinner to get rid of me. I'll probably just end up at LBN.

[Walt Starr]

88. I only ever pay attention to LBN and GD

Take away GD as we know it, and there's no reason for me to be a DUer any more.

I damn sure won't be hanging out in a Fluffy Bunny GD.

[Robin Hood]

93. lol..Fluffy Bunny GD

That will pretty much sum it up. I'll probably leave as well, just keep up on LBN.

[jfxgillis]

84. Rule #5 for GD seems

impossible to practibly enforce.

We open a fresh topic un-discussed on the first page, someone replies to a topic on the second page, BOOM, dupe topics on GD page 1.

As far as I'm concerned, your rules 1 through 5 on the Democratic candidates are way too soft on this rabble!! (half-joking--they aren't too soft, but we are a rabble).

[KaraokeKarlton]

85. Sounds good to me, although I would add one thing

Just as right wing articles should be discouraged, so should articles written by any parties other than the Democratic Party when used to discredit any of the candidates. This is something that is being done a lot, and it misleads a lot of people. Although Greens and parties like the Vermont Progressive Party have interests similar to Democrats, they are MUCH more radical and they are generally not very honest in their writings because they support someone other then the Democrats. I think those kinds of articles are even more damaging than right wing articles, because at least with the right wing articles it's obvious that the information isn't to be trusted. The same can't be said of the third party articles.

[hobbes159]

87. Why not start a "candidate review" forum?

Move all the GD discussions about candidate issues to a new forum and see how people deal handle it there -- implement rules there if needed. Let GD go back to being a "general discussion", since it has pretty much become the forum to discuss pros and cons of candidates....

[LWolf]

89. I'm ambivalent.

I think we need something, but I don't know if we need to go this far.

Profanity doesn't bother me. Not using profanity doesn't bother me either. Sneering, belittling, patronizing, smearing, and other obvious breaches of respect and civility bother me.

It's the candidate portion that concerns me.

# 1 (recent/current event etc.) is fine. After all, there is a "Politics and Campaign" forum for other discussions of candidates.

#2 is also good.

#3 is problematic. I don't think the candidates should be smeared. But...if Rumsfeld resigns and runs as a dem next week, are we not allowed to mention that he might not "really" be a democrat? If there is evidence of a real reason to be concerned, I'd like to be able to say so. Not as a political strategy for my candidate, but because it should be a consideration. I'm not referring to Clark here. I know he is the focus of this problem. I just wonder how a rule written specifically for him will play out in the long run. If the rule is put into effect for Clark, does that mean that there will never be a future candidate that is a concern?

#4 is the real concern. I'm a democrat. But...I'm also a progressive. Is our tent growing smaller, that we will not invite/admit non-dem progressives? It seems like we should be joining as progressives, not rejecting people or discussion on party lines. I find all viewpoints worthy; both the moderate and the independent/3rd party DUers have value to add to the whole.

#5 has my full support. Although I would enlarge it to "progressive candidate."

I don't know how I'll vote. I'll be pondering the balance between the need for manners, respect, and civility, and the freedom to express ideas and concerns, especially about elections, freely.

[Code_Name_D]

91. With respect. I find these rule proposals offensive and alarming.

The admin is not above making mistakes. But they have shown to have the power to learn from those mistakes in an objective manner.

However, this can not be said of the DU community at large. Especially when it comes to issues of maintaining the integrity of the debating environment. And even more so when the DU community dose not have sufficient time to weigh the arguments revolving around the issues.

I applaud the mods final action to bring the General discussion room back into sanity. I myself have been one of the voices demanding action. However. The rules changes proposed her will not address the issues at hand, and risk the General Discussion board into a "Clark only" board.

I am out right alarmed by the probation. For these issues are in fact at the vary heart of the manner of the integrity of the United States of America. Such prohibitions of topics IS censorship of the worst order for they directly attack the point of many arguments. They also seek to force an ignorance of current political realties.

I wish the mods to heavily consider the issues currently being debated in the GDB. Currently, Wesley Clark's past is beginning to show numerous connections and dealing with the Republican party. He has been invited to, and has accepted, opportunities to address an official Republican forums. He has raised money for Republican candidates, and has spoke in praise of seated Republican officials. It is the conclusion of many that this demonstrates a pattern of allegiance to the Republican party. A logical conclusion, and a natural summery of these points, is to charge Wesley Clark of being a republican.

But rule number 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."

Specifically forbids the expression of this vary conclusion. Even though the supporters of the Clark Campaign do not dispute these things have taken place. But their implications are clear, shall the mods thus forbid expressions of knowledge or evidence of such actions? If not, will this not create a silk screen, through which critic's of Clark must dance behind? Where we can see the slowest of facts, but are not permitted to see the facts themselves? We hear swore words bleeped out all the time. But if I say type f---, is this censor truly successful, or becomes its own reducible?

If these arguments are the thrusts and conclusion of Clark's critics, than shall not probation #3 be interpreted as an informal endorsement of the Clark campaign? Is this the intentions of the moderators, to security indorse, through action, a specific candidate? Clark's critics ARE places at a real and present disadvantage by this probation. So to would the critics of Joe Leabermen, as well as the critics of the Texas state senator who broke ranks with his party, and has essentially handed five seats to the Republican party.

If this is left up to the members of the DU. I fear that the Clark supporters are numerous enough to call for, and enforce this probation. They no doubt cheer the moderators move to silence Clark's critics. They will no doubt celebrate the silencing of my voice, as I have made this vary argument, and work to support it. I am not the only one. Mike Maloy has made this vary same claim as well, shall the DU dismiss his stated opinion as well?

[Walt Starr]

94. Sad, but true

I was on board for Wesley Clark, all the way up to the point that I found out his previous Republican tendencies. That's why I'm again undecided, although Clark's past has probably cost him my vote.

Had these rules been in effect for the past two weeks, I might be ray rah for Clark still.

It will be a sad day when General Discussion becomes Fluffy Bunny. I say when instead of if because I expect these rules of censorship to win in a landslide. It seems to me already that Skinner supports them.

[RichM]

104. Very well stated. The rules annoint & protect Clark, & forbid criticicism.

Why don't we just put DU out of its agony? Let's hereby proclaim that Clark is the nominee -- and NO ONE is henceforth permitted to say a single word about it (nor offer a single pip of criticism of the Democratic Party -- which, as we all know, is perfect and infallible).

[Clark Can WIN]

92. You have my yes vote

I came here at the reccomendation of a Dean friend of mine to exchange information and to learn, not to rip, destroy and devide which is what seems to be the whole raison d'etre for some folks here.

I don't have a problem with honest discussions about differences in policy but some posters in here {and you know who you are) repeatedly use cut and pasted bits of pure crap gleaned from Republican and conservative whacko websites along with other questionable material with the sole purpose of tearing down a Democratic candidate they do not support. I hate to see this place turn into a place where right wing talking points are given breath and life and worst of all, credence.

It's tiring, and we are only providing pig boy and the like with talking points, helping them to keep us squabling with ourselves instead of GETTING WHORE-HEY BUSH OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

[Tinoire]

141. Just for edification- since I brought this up in a previous post

before reading yours- could you poing out some of these Republican and "conservative whacko sites" that people are using? If so, this is an alarming and recent development.

[Cappurr]

95. What some of you aren't considering

Is that this site is read by a lot of political people. Hell, One post showed up on Rush Limbaugh's show. If you continually post things like Clark is a Republican Plant or Liberman is a republican=lite. And you post them over and over again in the subject lines for goodness sake, don't you think some of these political operatives might just figure out what a candidate's weakness is with his or her base? They publish enough bullshit without us giving them ammo.

These rules don't mean you can't discuss these issues, but you can't put out multiple threads, you have to document where you are getting your information and if you are bashing a particular candidate you have to be honest and say which candidate you support. If you don't bash, you don't hafta say who you support.

These rules are reasonable. I remember the ruckus when I/P rules went into affect :crazy:. But before those rules no=one wanted to go into I/P. Now many more people participate and there is no problem with the rules. Rely on the moderators to enforce the rules sensibly. Vote YES and at least give it a try.

[Walt Starr]

96. Sorry Capurr, I disagree vehemently

These rules are slanted and give a single candidate an advantage, IMO.

The day they go into effect is the day I stop visiting DU.

[Cappurr]

103. Well Walt......

If you want to take your marbles and go home (a threat I have read on at least three of these threads tonight) then that is entirely up to you. This is a group....my way or the highway doesn't work well in groups.

[Code_Name_D]

114. It works well, for he who controled the toll booth. N/T

--

[Walt Starr]

178. GD and LBN are the only forums I pay attention to

GD is attractive to me specifically because it is hard hitting and doesn't pull punches.

Putting these rules in effect will change General Discussion to Fluffy Bunny and the forum will no longer hold any attraction for me, ergo, there will be no choice but to move on and find another hard hitting, no punches pulled forum.

[Code_Name_D]

101. A mark of sencorship.

Is that this site is read by a lot of political people. Hell, One post showed up on Rush Limbaugh's show. If you continually post things like Clark is a Republican Plant or Liberman is a republican=lite. And you post them over and over again in the subject lines for goodness sake, don't you think some of these political operatives might just figure out what a candidate's weakness is with his or her base? They publish enough bullshit without us giving them ammo.

Am I to beleive that my voice should be restricted, becase it may be repeated by others? The DU dose not hold a monopolie on the truth. Indeed, the truth and arguments must be openly exchanged, to be of any value.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. Well gosh then with NO rules of this sort, the open exchange of ideas

should have been self evident this past weekend. :eyes:

All i see in these rules are guidelines for that open exchange of ideas to occur but for a couple restrictions.

[Code_Name_D]

120. They are TARGGETD restrictions.

These rules are targgeted to silences ligitimate debate currently taking place, handing a defactio, moderator inforced, idiological victory directly to the Clark suporters.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

130. I really don't think so

Since some of Clark's supporters are just as big offenders, I think this is an equal opportunity muzzle.

[Code_Name_D]

135. These rules are specifically tailored to prohibit the most common criticis

These rules are specifically tailored to prohibit the most common criticism used against Clark, and the DLC

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.

Removing any discussions about Clark's past, and past affiliations with republican forums and campaign events for Republicans.

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.

Many Clark defenders charge that every chrisms leveled at Clark is some how an orchestrated attack launched by one of the other candidates. Dean is most often sited. This is nothing more than to force a return address, so that the Clark defenders have the option of attacking the posters candidate of choice.

But I am force to wonder. What about posters who have not chosen a candidate, such as myself. Do I have the option of remaining neutral? I also find this most offensive as this destroys our right to privacy. We do not have to declare our loyalty to a candidate any more than some one else has a right to look over our shoulder as we cast a vote.

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.

I have already discussed this in post #91. Rule three is a direct attack on the most common, and the most relevant criticism placed against Clark.

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.

This attacks the broader position of preciously why many are developing a growing distrust of Clark. It is because the Democratic party IS split. This is not a mater of a poster suggesting a course of action, but stating an obvious fact of the current political landscape. It attacks Green party activist, who are a direct threat to the Democratic party. This is an attempt to silence potential rivals, even though they may still be liberal or progressive. Rule 4 forces an allegiances to the DLC wing of the Democratic party, and places all other voices at a disadvantage.

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

A catch all thread, forcing an allegiance to Democrats, regardless of their ideological disposition.

I have yet to see a single Clark supporter violate these rules in the past. I find it difficult to believe they will be constrained by them in the future.

[Tinoire]

131. As I was googling seaching for DU + Wesley Clark campaign

Found this... and thought that you would get a kick out of it: http://www.thepoorman.net/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2071

You're famous!

[Tinoire]

145. I/P isn't a good example

I'm less worried about Rush figuring out what a candidate's weakness is with his/her base than of that base pushing forth a weak candidate.

Lord knows I'm not a Dean supporter but his base will NOT ever abandon him no matter what Rush says- if anything his base is growing and continues to grow everytime Rush opens his mouth (unfortunately for my candidate).

Also, we've both seen the blood in I/P. Let's not use that as an example because nothing has ever been resolved down there. If anything the hate is so thick you can't cut it with a knife. The only people in I/P who think the rules are fine and dandy are the same ones who keep pushing for rules and restricted forums.

I/P, I think, wasn't a very good example ;)

[union_maid]

98. Yes

I'm voting yes. It might take a little time to memorize everything, but I'm in favor of it in the context of this site. There are plenty of places to have a free for all on the web.

[E_Zapata]

99. I was with you until I got to #3

That is purely to protect one specific candidate. A whole rule for one candidate? yeeeekkkks!

[regnaD kciN]

102. Then the name of the forum shoud be changed...

There are a number of forums on DU that have specific posting rules. I thought the whole purpose of GD was, in fact, for political-oriented postings that didn't fit into any of those categories.

Silly me.

It seems that, now, "General Discussion" would not be open to general discussion. After all, it will be only under very specific circumstances that a thread about a Democratic candidate can begin. And God forbid that anyone should accuse a Democratic candidate of being a DINO! (Should these rules be known as the "'Be Kind To The DLC' Act of 2003"...?) By the way, how far will that go? If someone were to point out, say, that a hypothetical Democratic candidate (let's call him Senator Mell Zillar) had a voting record that was more often in line with the Bush administration or the Republican side of the Senate aisle, would that result in disciplinary action? If Jon Stewart had posted his joke about Joe Lieberman ("the candidate for those who think Bush isn't Jewish enough"), would he be subject to banning?

And, in fact, isn't this at least in part a warm-up to a 2004 version of the infamous "2002 rules" that were put in place a few weeks before the election, virtually banning any posts critical of any Democratic candidate? I think those rules did a lot of damage to the community back then, and I've been worried about a sequel this year. This has the whiff of DLCer and DLCerer about it.

Needless to say, I'll be voting NO.

[jiacinto]

108. Should DU become a Green board then?

If the referendum fails I suggest that DU should change its name to either "Socialist/Green Underground" or "Progressive Underground" or some name that does not bear any connection to the Democratic Party. When I joined here I expected to find a site of people interested in working with the Democratic Party to defeat Republicans.

As for the "2002 rules", as I recall, they just barred members from advocating that other DUers withhold their precious votes from Democrats running for office. It didn't "ban any posts criticla of any Democratic candidate".

What angers me is that there is group of posters who blatantly hates the Democratic Party, won't support its candidates, and will do anything in their power to defeat the party's nominee next year. They have gotten too much power here.

Why should DU become a place for people to subvert Democratic candidates? I am sure that I, along with many members, didn't expect DU to be such a place when we joined here. Unfortunatley, however, policy here has evolved to a point where some members can blatantly use this web site to undermine Democrats.

I think that a lot of the problems would disappear if the name of the board were changed. That way people would not have any misunderstanding as to what its goals and missions are.

[Terwilliger]

111. he must know he's free to leave

It's like CA said earlier today...it's a link, you ain't gotta click it...Carlos already has me and others on ignore.

[noiretextatique]

115. this hysteria actually illustrates the need for more rules...maybe?!

will slurs against greens, socialists and the "far left" be allowed under the new rules? many of these folks carlos and other routinely malign are HERE supporting democratic candidates and the democratic party.

and what about the habit some have of using McGovern's name as a slur? or Dukakis? or Mckinney? all three still members of the Democratic party, so i assume they would be covered under the party protection rule?!?! or would this be just for candidates?

[regnaD kciN]

143. Of course!

will slurs against greens, socialists and the "far left" be allowed under the new rules?

I see nothing in the rules that would cover those, or even attacks on candidates for being "too liberal" -- only a prohibition against calling a candidate too conservative.

:puke:

[Iverson]

126. contrived outrage...

... over nonexistent problems is essentially anti-intellectual.

What angers me is that open discourse among progressives can be so easily subverted into anti-progressive discourse by assigning motives to others in order to discover them there.

I think a lot of problems would disappear if people, particularly those who had the benefit of higher education, would quit pretending that there is only one (partisan) way to achieve social and political goals.

For shame.

[regnaD kciN]

142. Oh, cut the crap, Carlos...

DU should be what it has usually (except during the weeks of the "2002 rules") been: a board for left-of-center politics. At this time (and over the past century or so), that has meant a pro-Democrat board, because Democrats have, largely, been found on that side of the spectrum. However, if it becomes merely a "Democratic Cheerleading Forum," where only positive things are allowed to be said about Democratic candidates (at least, as long as they're not too far left), then this place becomes as useless as Free Republic to me.

Of course, since this new set of rules specifically forbids criticism of Democratic candidates for being too conservative, but without a similar proscription for those who would blast any for being too liberal, it is no surprise that this set of rules seems designed to polarize DU between the "centrists" and the "progressives." Not that this was the moderator's intention, but it will be the effect of it.

And, by the way, when you write "When I joined here I expected to find a site of people interested in working with the Democratic Party to defeat Republicans," I can only comment that I wish that more of those in the Democratic leadership (or Democratic Leadership) seemed to show as much interest in defeating Republicans as they do in defeating liberals within the Democratic Party. As long as they remain a force, I cannot support rules that would work in one way only, that would protect more-conservative Democrats from being portrayed as too much in accord with the Republicans, while offering "open season" on those on the left.

[jiacinto]

189. You cut the crap

I am tired of Greens using this board to defeat Democrats. Why is it so bad that Skinner is actually trying to make sure that they don't use DU to subvert Democratic candidates.

This place will only become "uesless" to you because you won't be able to advance the Green Party agenda. As for bashing Democrats well I don't have a problem with that, as much as I do with blatant whoring for the Greens.

[Carmerian]

106. The way many people here are acting

I suspect they think these rules are for all posts in GD, and not just for posting new threads. You guys DO know these rules would be just for posting new threads, right?

[Robin Hood]

116. So where does it stop?

[MisterP]

107. my picks:

for II:1, I must say, "what's past is prologue"; although many retrospective threads can get smelly, II:5 should prevent excesses from getting out of hand
II:4 could be abused via misinterpretation of threads (e.g. connections between Dem groups and Repub groups), but may not give too many problems if circumpspection on both sides of the button is observed
II:5 might be "discussion topics" instead of "threads" (just a possible loophole)

[Terwilliger]

109. I applaud Skinner's thoughts and actions

if for no other reason than to say I participated :hi:

[noiretextatique]

112. comments on the "candidate" rules

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.

who decides what is "negative?" this seems way to subjective to be enforced fairly. and what is the purpose of stating which candidate you support?! this seems way to mccarthyesque...are you now, or have you ever been...
and...what if someone lies? this doesn't make any sense to me.

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.

well...this seems reasonable. but of course, it seems custom-made for the only candidate who recently declared himself a democrat.
i do see the logic here...but this seems a bit heavy-handed and locksteppish. if this is consider a "personal attack" wouldn't existing rules on that be sufficient? seems like overkill.

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.

again...couldn't this be covered under existing rules against personal attacks? what is the problem with just sending an alert?

[regnaD kciN]

144. It's not about Clark...

well...this seems reasonable. but of course, it seems custom-made for the only candidate who recently declared himself a democrat.

It seems to me more that it's custom-made for the DLC and its minions.

:puke:

[noiretextatique]

151. like i said...

custom-made :hi:

[Wonk]

113. re: Section three, number five (maybe this has been covered already)

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

Does that mean that ridiculing, say, Fred Phelps for example, becomes taboo because he happens to support of one of the Dem candidates? I assume he does, anyway... he calls himself a Dem.

Other than that I'm fine with the new rules as currently written.

[gate of the sun]

117. a big phat juicy on the i can believe the hipstyle of NO!

i call all of you fellow duers to say with me NO!

the administration has folded to the whining of a few, it has brought forth a new paradigm of rule selection....

and to this "vote", the adminstration and the few i say NO!

i say NO, for it will limit the derogatory and often accurate and irate discussion about would-be candidates of sloth-like qualities...(you know who you are)

i WILL vote NO! NO! to the few, NO to the desire for a squishing of discourse, NO and those of you fellow duers, that will also say NO, do not let the few over power and beat the masses for that is unjust... let not the idea of history be against you.... and those of us who prefer open mayhem, forthright derogatory and often accurate irate discourse say NO with me.

NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

[hedgetrimmer]

124. hey that post belongs to HEDGETRIMMER!

you scoundrle, you theif, you, you, stole my post...

i can not believe this... the audacity, the crime... i will tell skinner on you me and my nine friends are going to complain to force a vote about whether or not someone can hijack someone-else's name...

o...o...O i can't believe this! you will go down!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

127. ATTENTION

the formentioned post was brought to you by a scammer....

"gateofthesun" did not "hijcak" anyones name....

"hedgetrimmer" has done the hoochie, coochie with "gateofthesun" and then proceeded to use ### computer without reloging in...

once again, sorry for the miscommunication.

[nolabels]

138. I will second that and raise it to a NO *, I do this under the pretense

and the expectation it comes to pass. It breaks no tradition of mine to take such stands. Other people always try to screw over other people that they don't know and will never have to worry or care about. I feel it’s just another affront, the people that own and run DU don't want to do it, but feel compelled by others. Some others come here only make others angry or play games and make jokes of some serious subjects being debated.

_______- rules work against free speech, but we all know this not a publicly owned site. Putting the clamp down so harshly might drive people away and make for a creditability gap, also making posters and others less than they could be by missing something important, such as the right to critique. It necessary in life to be able to sustain a critique even learn and grow from it.

There are consequences for each and every move made in life of anything that takes form. It is undeniable, some facts hurt but are necessary to look at and will not be served by such things as denial. I feel this type of rule pronouncement is a negative but could be no worse that what is actually happening to * at this present time. People that would want to become free thinkers will have a difficult time swallowing any rule especially when it has to deal with telling them how they can express what they think. Expression will come regardless, with or without DU. I can say I learned a lot on DU and hope to continue with it. Regressive things sometimes offer learning also, so we will see what becomes of this fork in the road.

There has been a lot of good posters that have come and gone at DU, once in while you see them pop back in, but a lot of them don't stay long, this may or may not be a detriment to the place, but it is fact you notice if you stay here long enough, that being said I found this piece the other day, and noticed it was written by another poster here on DU this amazed me somewhat. I appreciate others that put the effort to help others and not put others down just so they can try to make themselves feel better, the psychic zombies will suck all the life out of you if they are given enough room to do it.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/83715_comment.php#85050
(snip)
25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back
by Oracle Wednesday September 24, 2003 11:04 PM

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back
Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often (snip)

[janekat]

121. Like all rules except #5 - will have some long-ass threads....

n/t

[The Magistrate]

122. My Vote Will Be Yes

These will be helpful as primaries and the election draw nearer.

"LEY'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[FubarFly]

123. Overall I will live with the rule changes, but if I may rant:

Rule # 3 is bullshit. The other rules will be strong enough to make up for any perceived damage that this rule addresses. What if Candidate X really is a stealth Republican? Are you saying that this can't be possible? Or what if it turns out that he is close buddies with the shrub? How will we know unless we dig and discuss. Blind dismissal of any conspiracy topic is IMO- to put it bluntly- ignorant. Speculation has a place on any political discussion board worth it's salt- no matter how "out there" it may seem. Are we also not supposed to discus LIHOP, or Wellstone's assassination? Are we to buy in to the right wing spin that the mere mention of these topics make us left wing loonies? Presidential candidates, or the Democratic Party should not be above rigorous scrutiny. These topics might be of vital importance to the health of the Democratic Party and should not be "exiled" to a lesser visited forum. Civility can still be enforced in these threads. Scrap this rule and I will be in general agreement.

Also please define profanity. Are we to go with the strict Christian
definition? We can't say any of the seven forbidden words- is George Carlin now forbidden to start threads in GD? Is profanity something we can agree on or is to defined by those who bitch the loudest? Can you give us a list of words we can and cannot say? Or in contexts that we may say them? Sometimes things need to be said in a heated passionate way. If we can't do this, then important things which are said and should be said will be stifled. This does a disservice to everyone.
I was against the limited profanity rule in the first set of changes, and I am opposed to this more draconian version now. Most DU'ers have been very good about self-censorship. I think this rule creates more of a problem then it solves. By far.


I would still like to have a trial period before we put this to a vote so that we can decide for ourselves whether these rules are effective.

--

Rant over. Thanks for listening.

[Dob Bole]

125. Question: why do we censor conservatives?

I may be in favor of the new rules. Having said that, though, it seems that we censor conservatives way too much on this board. Are we scared of them, or something? Why can't we have a little more freedom of thought? It would make for better discussions.

[hexola]

128. My rules for a good post.

Those are TOO Complicated...You need a simpler code...or a "short version" - I liked the last attempt at rules better.

Here's my rules for a good post:

-50 word minimum

-Paragraph libererally (it makes it easier to read...)

-refrain from profanity (I'm not above it - but its generally unimpressive)

-resist all name calling (its fun - but unproductive/silly)

-try to include a question (an invitation to reply)

-save some of your argument for replies (sometimes you know what people will say...let them...then reply.)

-Think before you post (I know I can't be the only one who has wished for an "Unpost Message" button...at least you can "edit" here at DU!)

[leanings]

129. Bravo! Looks good, save this one:

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.

Profanity should be left alone, or at least have "excessive" parked in front of it like caps and punctuation. We are all adults here, after all, and profanity is an acceptable emphatic modifier when adults speak. I'm not sure if I agree about exceptions for political opponents, either. First of all, frothy-mouthed rants are childish regardless of their target. Secondly, who's a "political opponent"? Again, Zell Miller? Many on this board would consider him to be a political opponent, so is it OK to cuss and holler at him? How about everyone just attempts to engage in civil, adult conversation? Momma always said that the first person in an argument to raise their voice is the loser.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

132. I think GD has been used...

terribly by many the past few months. I have said so in many treads.

With that said, I will be voting "no" on the rules as they stand. The whole Dem candidate/party posting rules smack of having been put into place for a particular group. It also is anathema to open, free discussion.

I was one who lamented the latest go round in GD. BUT, I feel much of the problem can be addressed using existing rules and perhaps the bringing back of the five sentence rule. If a thread is a dupe, lock it down. If folks are TRULY flaming each other (and I don't mean "Mommy he hurt my feelings" crap) delete the message and give the poster a warning to keep it clean or leave the board. If a thread is truly a campaign thread, move it to the appropriate forum. I don't think it's too hard.

As someone who has been here for a VERY long time, I have seen GD at it's worst and it's best over the years. GD has NEVER been a ladies' tea party -- it has been rough and tumble, in your face, and wonderfully informative. This latest rumble has been only one of many -- good heavens, the Gore/Nader fights make this look like CHILDS PLAY. And, unfortunately, we have seen freepers, partisans, the enemy camp and, since the begining of the 2004 Presidential race, political operatives come here to disrupt the site and use it for propaganda.

I for one am not abandoning this site to the creeps. Of any party. This site is too important. And I feel, in a way, that to take on these rules as written will be letting the creeps win.

And with THAT said, I appreciate greatly that the Admins are attempting to clean up an unsightly situation and that they have given me and others the chance to voice our concerns and vote our choice. I cannot imagine being the Admins OR the mods at times like this.

One thing that I would request is that voting go on for more than 24 hours. There are many DUers who only get online on weekends or every three or four days who I'm sure would be very interested in participating.

Thank you.

Hell

[Carmerian]

134. I agree with that

Voting for this should be held longer than just 24 hours.

[smallprint]

136. I third that

...I think it's a good idea to change the duration 48 hours at least. Or else delay the start of vote for a day or two so people know what's going on. This is too important for DUers to miss.

[Oracle]

133. I'll vote NO!

Just as I will vote NO on the CA recall!

[Tinoire]

137. I vote NO - No on the Recall and No on these new rules

DU started out as a political discussion board intent on the mission of getting Bush out of office. Let it remain so. I can't imagine WHAT subject could possibly be more important for General Discussion that everything revolving around the coming Primaries! The only constant exception I can think of is BBV.

We've spent 3 years on this board exposing PNAC, the DLC, and the entire evil machinery that got us to where we are today. Someone please tell me what is more important to us 3 years later? A nice tone in GD so that people can talk about some silly cartoon or the very event we've been anticipating for years? These primaries, the coming election were the entire point of this board the way I understood it and for 3 years people bonded, fought, stormed out and then back in, but most of all they discussed things openly and pored over information to understand what was going on.

What happened? :shrug:

We now have a candidate who is viewed with alarm by many Progressives and it's only going to get worse as time goes on. This is no time to clamp down discussion simply because some posters are too thin-skinned or their candidate's campaign HQs are not prepared to give them the information (on issues) that they need to refute some information. People who can't handle discussion of their candidate need to either ask themselves if they're on the right board or go do a little research and come back to address the points intelligently. Juvenile tactics of spamming the board to annoy other DUers and continuing to do so after having been politely asked to stop in thread after thread is what needs to be stopped- not introducing a new set of rules to change the "tone" (ironically a tone set by some of the very people now complaining the loudest).

These additional rules could stifle debate and become a nightmare for the traditional Democratic Party; anyone innocently voting yes should take off their blinders, push aside their partisanship and ask themselves if they really want to vote for rules that will protect Clark from the scrutiny that every other candidate has had on this board. Every other candidate has been judged by his/her words and actions. Clark must be no exception. It should not be our problem that he waited so long to enter. This was one of the risks he chose to take. Many analysts have said that it wasn't a risk- and instead was a calculated move precisely to avoid the intense scrutiny that the others got. Can we afford this during America's most dangerous time? Can we afford to clear all the critical posts about Clark out of GD with these new rules? That reaklly runs the risk of turning GD into a propaganda platform vs a place of discussion.

What we are fighting now is not just Bush. Only the most naive people could believe that that inarticulate frat-boy is the real problem. The problem is the entire machinery around him. We have a rather good idea of 9 of the candidates stand and for them are able to make informed individual votes, according to our conscience, our convictions, and whatever issues are most important to us. We now have a 10th candidate we know very little about but are finding out that in March 2003 he was lavishing praise, by name, on the very people we're trying to get out of office. By the time we can piece things together, it's already met with yawns of "that's old news", howls of derison, down-right bullying or agonized cries of "we've already refuted that" (but no one can ever provide a link where it was already refuted).

I would invite anyone interested in what I've said to please read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423043 before casting a yes or no vote because our country is standing on the brink of a catastrophe and what our party is fighting over now is "Do we follow the crowd and turn Right, or do we save ourselves and turn Left?". When we have a candidate's own words from a few months ago, I submit that they should not be shunted away where they can be better hidden from view. We need as open discussion as possible because we have a duty to find out and a right to know what we're buying this election.

Please choose wisely and remember that anything or anyone that can't stand up to open discussion here among a bunch of amateurs using google will not stand up to the Rove machinery because they have a room full of files and videos on every candidate out there and you can bet your sweet ass that there is an entire room-full dedicated to Clark and all people at his level. I guarantee you this from first hand knowledge. This is no time to be sheep and get slaughtered again.

I understand that DU Admin is caught between a rock and a hard place over what to do with all these complaints- an impressive amount which are coming from extremely new posters who are distraught at the 'tone'.
But I submit that this used to be an excellent political discussion board until quite recently and can become so again if we stick to 2 rules already on the books and add a third:

1. Use the ignore button
2. Have a thick skin
3. If you are more interested in cheer-leading than in discussing, maybe you are better suited for your candidate's own forum

DU should not become a site for controlling a candidate's message and making sure his image remains as untarnished as possible. That is not what we're about.

This is just like the Califnornia recall- the entire principle is wrong.

Vote No on the Recall!

My sympathies lie entirely with the DU Admin on this on. I appreciate you putting this up for a vote but request you consider leaving the vote open for one full week because many DUers don't check the forums daily during the work-week and could miss it since they won't be receiving e-mails telling them to come vote in this poll.

[whirlygigspin]

140. No No NO

say what you will, live free or die.

[regnaD kciN]

146. That's just the problem...

We've spent 3 years on this board exposing PNAC, the DLC, and the entire evil machinery that got us to where we are today.

If these rules pass, kiss "exposing...the DLC" goodbye. After all, they're Democrats, and it isn't permissable to portray Democrats as closet Republicans or supporters of Bush. From now on, only nice, supportive things could be posted about the DLC. Of course, it would be quite acceptable to join the DLC in attacking those Democrats who are "too liberal" for them...

:grr:

[Tinoire]

148. If these rules pass here- the DLC will be one step closer

to 'winning' this election- the primaries I mean.

And to me, that will mean that the 3 years I spent at DU were totally in vain.

Hell. This is an election we're talking about!

NO SPECIAL RULES FOR ANY CAMP! If we have to institute special rules to protect one group, what kind of a democracy is this and what kind of a democratic election are the New Dems planning?

[stickdog]

147. I'm not 100% sure why, but I find your post utterly persuasive.

IMHO, Clark supporters infiltrated the board, built up their candidate through an (arguably artificial) show of strength, and used Republican argumentation techniques and bullying tactics to make GD all but unbearable.

Then when some supporters of other candidates -- yes, most numerically Dean -- started fighting back, half of Clark's supporters started whining while the other half proceeded to bash and bully even more unbearably idiotically (with the exception of the many who did both at once).

Add in a few "special guest star" posts explaining that this devolution was just the "natural state" of "group dynamics" and suddenly it became time to put on the kid gloves before Clark so much as slapped up an issue section on his website.

[nolabels]

149. Maybe they should just censor disscussions about the ...........

I mean after all there was posting about voting for Nixon and praise for * and how he was doing such a great job. How much more info does somebody need to be outed on their true loyalties?

(see, that oclussion game anybody can play, Censorship never works, it just twists things around)

[Dookus]

152. there is absolutely no censorship...

in the proposed rules. ANYTHING you want to say can be said on DU, either here in GD or in other forums. The rules mainly address how to start new threads.

[noiretextatique]

153. apparently, you haven't read all the rules

there IS censorship on what is permissiable regarding democratic candidates...when starting a thread. it's naive to believe that won't apply to posts in the thread too.

[Dookus]

154. yes...

what is permissible in GD.

It doesn't affect other forums.

[DemExpat]

150. YES! Rules of behavior,discussion - not censorship.

Much needed here at DU.

I want to see ALL of the information and ideas, but in a more respectful, intelligent form.

:thumbsup:
DemEx

[noiretextatique]

155. rules of behavior are not about content

i support the rules regarding behavior, e.g., name-calling. i don't support censorship of content.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

156. Actually this thread proves that NOTHING can stop an antagonist

from antagonizing...maybe rules won't make a difference:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=436268

[noiretextatique]

157. and...he failed to mention which candidate he supports

:eyes: anyone care to guess? :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

158. I have a huge problem with group 2,#1 and a lesser one with group 2, #5

If one is limited to starting candidate threads based on their media coverage or some form of current subject, it is further--and extreme--discrimination against the lower ranked candidates who are allowed less coverage by the media. Thus, we become an amplification of the very media we hate. To justify our desire to post about a candidate, we thus have to cobble together some convoluted justification to weasel our way back to talking about a particular candidate; it's a waste of time and obfuscatory, but I guarantee you that much energy will be spent doing so.

This is just another obstacle to the lesser supported candidates. That's the beef with #1 of the Candidate Threads rules.

Here's my problem with #5 of the Candidate Threads rules: if a very pronounced trend exists within the supporters of a certain candidate, I think it's fair game to point it out; indeed, I think it's important that such things are pointed out. For one thing, this is indicative of the candidate, and for another, it's a form of redress against various intractable groups.

Profanity shouldn't be such a big damned deal, and I police myself on this already--at least in titles--but I suppose it won't hurt anyone.

On the positive side, I LOVE #3 of the first group; it's nauseating to deal with mealy-mouthed and inscrutible statements where the poster is effectively bomb-throwing. I also like #2 in the second group; it'll get rather cumbersome, but it's nice to do this to cut down the stealth slagging.

Overall, I would agree that this serves to benefit the front-runners and give undue cover to Clark, and unfair advantage to him and Dean. I don't think that was the intention, but it will help facilitate it.

[Mike Niendorff]

159. "No".

I think there are a lot of ways that GD could be modified to deal with the influx of members and posters that DU is experiencing, but these proposed rules are far off the mark.

First, they are clearly partisan. Not "progressive", partisan.

I have long felt that one of DU's finest qualities is its willingness to embrace virtually all flavors of progressive discussion, not merely those that fall under a particular party's political label. That is a Good Thing, which has helped to open up extremely productive channels of dialogue among DU's membership, and it has helped to foster a broad sense of progressive community that recognizes a political party as a means to an end, rather than as an end unto itself. It helps us work out our differences so that we can recognize that what unites us is stronger than any factional differences that divide us, but it also reminds us that the values that unite us as progressives are values that transcend party, and we must not let our loyalty to a political party hamper us in holding its representatives accountable when they fail to properly represent those values. THIS MATTERS. To replace that vision of broad and empowered progressive community with one bounded instead by a single political party is, in my opinion, a terrible blow to the potential that DU represents.

Second, I have to weigh in on the "profanity ban" portion of these rules. Maybe some of you can fully express your disdain for the fascist right using only Sunday-school-friendly sentences. I, for one, cannot. Such a rule will effectively ban me from putting together any (readable) opinion piece in the forseeable future. At best, it will force me to post in a neutered form that is not at all reflective of my contempt for the far right. And, personally, I do not think that expressing my sheer unmitigated disgust and hatred for the far right is a bad thing. I think we progressives need to stop apologizing for our strength of conviction, and, instead, need to start learing to stand up and unapologetically send a million middle fingers soaring right smack into the smug, lying faces of the far right. If that means that I include the occasional (or more-than-occasional) profanity in a discussion topic, then so be it.

DU got where it is today by understanding things like this, and by trusting its posters to exercise proper discretion as needed.

My suggestion:

If there are posters who are abusing the good faith of the DU community, then give the mods the discretion to make appropriate judgments, to toss the threads that are a waste of space, to restrict posters that are causing problems, or basically just whatever it takes to keep DU usable.

Start from a "good faith participation" standard, and work from there. Trust the mods to exercise proper discretion. Trust the posters to do the same. If a mod doesn't measure up, toss 'em. And if a thread (or a poster) doesn't measure up, give the mods the authority to do the same. DU will understand that this is part of the reality of keeping this place usable for all of us.

This isn't a free-for-all, it's a community, and every community requires trust and mutual respect in order to keep it thriving. This means trusting the mods to exercise proper judgment (rather than trying to over-compensate for mistrust with a proliferation of rules and restrictions), as well as expecting users to respect each other and the community at large by not intentionally (or unintentionally) degrading the forum.

You can't codify this sort of "good faith", and you shouldn't have to. Just give the mods some reasonable leeway, and make sure that you pick mods that have the respect of the community at large. If a situation goes sour, pick a new mod or restrict the person causing the problem as needed.

The admins here -- Skinner, Elad, et al -- have done a great job with this place since its inception, and I mean all of the above in the highest sense of "constructive criticism". I just don't want to see you choking off the air that has helped this place to grow and flourish since its founding.

Rant over. Take it as you will.


MDN

[Cronus Protagonist]

160. I'm ready to vote a resounding NO on these rules

Although I am a supporter of less restrictive and not-so-nit-picky rules, I won't vote for this heavy-handed proposal.

I would vote yes on points 1, 2 and 3 in the first section, but if it's all or nothing up or down, I'm not going to be voting for what would, IMHO, effectively be the demise of DU.

Is there any chance we can vote *each rule* up or down? That would be even more democratic and possibly also more Democratic too.

Cronus

[Spentastic]

161. No way - Really no way

This is absolutely ridiculous. You're about to ruin the best site I've ever seen.

Let me guess, the literati have found things uncomfortable of late? Well it's been uncomfortable before and it'll be uncomfortable again. But if these rules are implemented GD will be rubbish.

For your consideration. This is how New Labour operates in the U.K. I'd suggest that dissenting voices are THE most important.

[Iverson]

165. gee whiz

From my point of view, the literati are the ones most likely to produce that dissent.

This is based upon the argument that critics from the left will be supplicants rather than equals unless they support the Democratic nominee for President. That may not be the intent, but I foresee it as an effect.

[Jen72]

163. brilliant.

This board has become purely entertaining to read.
The constant bashing and flame baiting, is not going to make anyone
take them seriously.

Skinners new rules will improve the board and make a serious discussion board once more. Also it is his site and he can do what he wants.

[newyawker99]

166. Why is it that when any new rules are discussed that

would make this site a bit more pleasant, there are those who always cry censorship? Isn't it possible to discuss a topic showing respect for both sides of an issue? Isn't it possible to start a thread in an intelligent way without trashing a candidate? This is after all a Democratic website. The purpose of this board is to help to elect a DEMOCRATIC candidate next year. The purpose of this board is to learn more about the candidates so that a each of us will make the best choice.

What is the purpose of threads such as these:

"Anyone who supports candidate X is vile"
"Candidate X is a mass murderer"
"Candidate X is a Rovian plant"
"Candidate X eats cats for dinner"
"I just noticed that candidate X's shirts are too tight"
"I think Conservative Democrats should leave the party"
"I think all Democrats suck"

This is not constructive criticism and I can give many more examples of it.

I love the GD forum and the lively debates that take place here but it seems that there are some people who are here, not just to discuss topics seriously but to disrupt topics as much as they can. It is a shame that these rules are being proposed but without them this forum becomes chaos.

I see no censorship here. I see an honest attempt to try to bring some order to this forum. As I said previously I am voting YES for the new rules and I hope they are adopted.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

180. What amuses me is that most of the people who complain about these

sorts of threads are the same ones who go into them and participate in flame wars in them, thus keeping them kicked to the top.

On my post further up this page is a good example. I basically call for people to vote NO on the new rules, and a DUer responded by saying that GD sucks now. Of course that didn't stop him from playing an active part in the flame wars, even AFTER he posted that!

I mean why bitch about it if you are part of the problem?

Don't respond to these threads and they will die. If you DO respond to them, then don't complain about them staying on the front page. We all know how DU works, we know that replies kick them to the top, so just don't do it.

[arwalden]

182. Easier Said Than Done. --- Your Reasoning Is SO CORRECT...

... but human nature isn't always reasonable.

That's why I have a hard time forcing myself to "ignore" what's staring me in the face and have opted instead to keep adding names to my ignore list.

Whether it's fair or not, the ignore list is certainly more effective (for me) than trying to weed through the flamefests that simply won't drop off page one... no mater how HARD I ignore it, and no matter how many replies that I *don't* post in it.

-- Allen

[Tinoire]

191. They may have no validity but they have a purpose

and that is to knock threads containing valid, source information that is uncomfortable off the front page.

They are also designed to minimize the validity of certain information that was recently discussed.

Those are they type of excesses that should be dealt with and that shouldn't be very difficult because there are clear patterns involved and the offending parties should be dealt with individually- it's not like there are that many of those parties.

They're the political version of a DOS attack.

There are certain people wanting to sabotage the grass-roots effort, for which a forum like DU, is a vital tool. If that happens, then DU will no longer have an appeal for the grass-roots people and it will morph into yet another propaganda platform.

The result is that many of us who believe in this grass-roots effort could leave and have to do our work elsewhere and we don't have the time to build a new site.

We are fighting for the soul of DU and the soul of the Democratic party.

Maybe what we need is a sand-box to park those type of mocking threads which are always unsourced.

[Mairead]

164. I think 90% or more could be solved with two new rules

1: You must support your assertions, if challenged, with a link. Assertions are claims, e.g. '{I believe|everyone knows|all right-thinking people agree} X is/are Y', 'isn't it true that X {is|are} Y', 'X really {is|are} Y, {isn't it|aren't they}', etc. Refutations count as assertions.

There need not be any 'gold standard' for links. Those few people who 'support' their assertion with a link to a source without general credibility will be laughed to scorn.

2: No dupes on the first two pages.

[arwalden]

167. All Seems Fine With Part One EXCEPT...

... the wording about "excessive capitalization". It's not too clear what's meant by "excessive".

Obviously we would find out, eventually through trial and error, what was acceptable and what wasn't allowed.

I do like the idea that a rule would be in place to prevent or minimize messages that were in all caps from beginning to end---however, back when you guys experimented with new GD rules for a few days---I seem to recall seeing more than one message that was LOCKED because a user used CAPITALS to EMPHASIZE multiple words throughout a message. (In that instance, it was CLEAR to me that the use of capitals was IN PLACE OF using HTML formatting like underline and italics... like THIS.)

In any case... the capitalization that I saw appear to be consistent with the message and the emphasized words were logical... yet... it was locked and the "excessive capitalization" clause was cited.

Even in giving an allowance for the fact that the rules were experimental and admitting that the moderators had not been given enough time to establish standards of enforcement... the ambiguity and subjectiveness of the word "excessive" is bound to cause problems.

Will the moderators have wide range of enforcement options on this? Will the standards vary from moderator to moderator or between new semesters of moderators?

In principle, it appears to be a good thing... but as written, I see that it could be problematic. At the very least, you'll have a dozen or so folks testing the limits continually and a dozen or so more folks who LEGITIMATELY use capitals and who will be caught up in the dragnet unnecessarily.

I need more time to think about Part Two.

-- Allen

[MarkTwain]

168. Absolutely, Yes.

Anything to clean up this part of our home.

Maybe it'll then be worth visiting more than once a day - which is what it is now, sort of like an accident - you can't help but turning your head once to see the gore.

[bearfartinthewoods]

169. i really don't understand why we must vote on both

packages of rules together. the first bundle are basic good sense and seem non controversial. the second bundle have political consequenxex that will hit some candidates harder than others making them much more controversial. this is like bundling the money for the troops in iraq with the money to rebuild iraq. bush is doing that to insure the second package passes. maybe that's a bad comparison as i don't mean to compare you with bush but the result is the same. it's that all or nothing choice that bugs me the most.

won't you reconsider and break them up into group 1 and 2?

[arwalden]

172. You Know What's Funny?

I've added about two-dozen people to my ignore list that have (IMO) proven themselves to be consistent flame-bait thread starters.

What I find notable is... of all those folks on my personal ignore-list... only 3 or 4 of them have BOTHERED to check-in and comment in ANY of these threads discussing the proposed new rules.

Do they have no interest? Has it escaped their attention? Or are they still busy looking to start more under-the-radar flame war threads?

The world may never know!

[Lexingtonian]

174. a hesitant No vote here

I agree with all, really, but #3-5 about the candidates seem to me unnecessary additions.

It would be better, imho, to declare such topics/behavior as disruptions in the present period of time, and as such that they will be locked and moved and the perpetrators given three strikes (with appropriate warnings).

As for third parties and such, maybe the Moderators can post a notice of inappropriateness for DU discussion and lock it under a rationale that organizing and promoting activites for other political parties is incompatible with the DU charter.

So my sense about #3-5 of the candidate discussion rules is that they are already dealt with under more subtle but more solid rationales. Of course the topics mentioned must be explained to be covered. It's just that the word "forbidden" suggests that content per se, not the behavior and incoherence and inappropriateness associated with them, is being regulated.

[Iverson]

176. forbidding discussion of "third parties and such"

Your argument is incompatible with this minor detail:
"1.This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives."

Please be clear as to whether or not you are advocating a purge.

[Cheswick2.0]

186. and other progressives who will work with us to achieve mutual goals

don't leave out the "will work with us" part. Working to defeat democrats is not working with us.

[emad]

175. re: stealth republicans/friends of GWB:

can see the logic of including this one in the rule book. Just hope that history does not eventually over-ride any libel considerations you may have had when including this in your list of taboo subjects! It does leave little room for considered cynical/satirical postings....I mean, what would you do if someone wants to post a cartoon that alleges, for instance, that Al Gore has been outed as a Halliburton consultancy fee payee or some such scenario? Or that Hillary is secretly married to, say, Ken Lay, or some such thing? Are you actually going to censor anything with a mildly satirical leaning just because if breaches your stealth republican/secret mates of GWB ruling?

on edit: spell check up the spout...

[MUAD_DIB]

181. Great! The rules seem fairly doable to me.

Considering that this is a FREE forum, where we are occasionally asked to donate, I think that Skinner is showing how Democratic DU really is by giving us the chance to vote up or down on the issue.

When/where do we vote?


...and thanks for giving us the option.

[Gman]

183. I love it!

And to hell with "democracy". No need for a vote. Just do it. Fascism does have some merit! :-)

[latebloomer]

184. I'm glad we get to vote on it

Because I find these proposed rules ALARMING!! I have not participated in any flame wars, but I am truly concerned about Clark and have found a great deal of useful information here about the dubious nature of his background and candidacy.

Also, I have felt at home here as a progressive who usually, but not always, votes Democratic, because I find much to criticize in the Democratic party. If I am no longer permitted to say what I think here, it is no longer the DU I have known and loved.

[CheshireCat]

185. After reading the rules

I have decided to vote against them.

Yes, I have complained about the quality of postings in GD. So many have been petty and childish. No thought is being given to the future when we all need to join together and support one candidate, if we are to get rid of the Resident Evil.

Skinner, the rules are very well thought out. If we must have rules, you have done a good job of making them as fair as possible.

Saying something needed to be done about the quality of posts in GD was easy for me. However, as I read the rules, I feel that censorship is not the answer. We cannot control what people think by controlling what they read.

It's easy enough to ignore a thread, a forum, or a poster. Hey, it is just like changing the channel or turning off the TV if you don't like what is on.

Peace

[JVS]

187. Rename GD as "Right-wing Democrat circle-jerk" if you pass these rules.

That is what it will be.

[Skinner]

190. I'm locking this thread

Yes, I've read all the posts from last night.

You can continue discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=437785&mesg_id=437785

Skinner
DU Admin