THE VOTE IS CANCELLED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

[Skinner]

Poll question: THE VOTE IS CANCELLED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

THE VOTE IS CANCELLED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

Some members are reporting problems, and we are unable to fix them. I am sorry for the inconvenience. We will try again later, after we fix the problem.

Skinner
DU Admin

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE BEFORE YOU VOTE.

As promised, this is your opportunity to express your support or opposition to the proposed rules to start threads in the General Discussion forum.

These proposed rules have been discussed by our members for the last 24 hours, in the following disucssion threads: here (#1) and here (#2). Related discussion of a similar set of rules (NOT being consdered) are available in the following threads: : #1, #2, #3, #4. Please note that we withdrew this set of rules because we considered them redundant and unnecessary, and confusing to our members.

Please be aware that these new rules will significantly increase the power of the moderators to shut down discussion, and will likely result in a substantial increase in the number of locked and deleted threads.

This vote will last for approximately 24 hours. The poll will be closed at around 12:00 noon, Eastern Time, on Thursday October 2, 2003.

Below are the rules which you are voting on. If approved, these rules will be pinned at the top of the General Discussion Forum.

************* BEGIN 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.

The moderators have the authority to aggressively lock or remove threads which violate these rules. Admittedly, the determination of which threads are inflammatory is completely subjective. When a thread is shut down, members have a responsibility to respect the decision the moderators make.

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 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.

************* END OF TEXT FOR NEW RULES *************

Do you support the proposed rules for the General Discussion forum?

[catpower2000]

1. I voted yes, gladly...

They're just fine. I have a feeling all those people screaming about censorship just don't want to have to think too hard about the quality of their posts.

GD has been damn near unworkable for a long time, something has to be done, and admin has come up with a workable and fair solution. No, it's not perfect, because not a thing in this world is. I applaud their initiative, and I hope everyone remembers how crappy this forum has been for the last few months.

Thank you, admins and mods, for your hard work!! :toast:

Cat

[bobthedrummer]

2. Keeping rules simple and fair is what I support

it's hell out there in GD and LBN lately. Moderator's got a lot to do too. Keep simple and fair is what I support here at this great American political website.

[wryter2000]

3. FWIW

I voted yes. :)

I thought the original rules were more complicated than this and might not have supported them for that reason.

I truly appreciate the moderation here. It's nice to hang out someplace where (most of the time) civility and honesty are not just expected but demanded.

[Skinner]

4. I think we should probably try to keep the comments to a minimum.

I certainly will not restrict anyone's ability to post a comment. But keep in mind that this thread is going to be pinned here for the next 24 hours. If we're not careful, we may have 300 posts by then.

I will be severely limiting my comments in this thread.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Abe Linkman]

5. No, because they have a chilling effect

I voted no because the moderators are only human, and will be too tempted to exercise their discretion whenever they feel like it...either to punish someone they don't like or to shut down discussion. And, there's no appealing their absolute power. And, since it appears that some people get away with the same things others get banned for, giving moderators so much power to exercise wide discretion will only have a chilling effect on free speech and serve the interest of those who can't stretch their minds and won't tolerate those who do. So, any view outside the realm of what a moderate Democrat (whatever that means) believes, is on shaky grounds and subjects the author to the possibility of being silenced forever.

Vote no.

[Garage Queen]

11. I agree - and also voted no.

I once had a post yanked for reasons which surpass all understanding, and yet the flame-baiting moron I was responding to was allowed to run rampant in the forum. (and no, I didn't engage in name-calling, making my post deletion all the more puzzling)

Vote no.

[NashVegas]

25. I Voted No Because of

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.

This changes nothing. Trolls will still continue to do this, who's going to expect on of them to go, "you know, I think goldberg is absolutely right."

And other reasons, not the least of which is that we have been given perfectly good 'ignore' filters.

[Girlfriday]

6. I voted a definite yes....

...hoping that it will change the tone of the board. :thumbsup:

[Brucey]

7. I generally don't like rules,

and although this is a tough call, I have to lean toward freedom of expression, even though the expression is not condoned by the majority. So, I vote no. Sorry, it's a principle with me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. I voted NO because I am an admitted free speech extrremist

And because I do not believe any human being should be forced to keep his ignorance secret.

I am not disruptable.

[edzontar]

9. I voted no, because I worry that enforcement will be a nightmare...

I hope I'm wrong, since it looks like a landslide.

[The Magistrate]

10. My Vote Is 'Yes'

And it is my hope the proposal carries by a landslide proportion.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Terwilliger]

12. I voted NO

I wanted to bring some balance to the results :D

[DrGonzoLives]

13. Yes

This is a private website. "Free speech" does not exist here.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the people who oppose this the most just want to go back to flaming everyone who doesn't support their candidate. Sad, really.

[soleft]

14. I voted yes - because

last night's post advocating the rape of a Bush official convinced me some stronger measures were needed to improve the atmosphere.

[Robin Hood]

59. Milque toast above ground floating in a puddle.

Last night's post in which I vented my frustrations with the traitorous karl Rove and my wish that he be sodomized in jail was nothing more than a venting at the right.

This used to be a safe place where liberals could come and vent their anger and frustrations, Bleed the wounds incurred in the battle field of the political arena. It is disheartening that so many people chose to defend Karl Rove rather than purge their own frustrations. This board is no longer democratic or underground. It should aptly be named milque toast above ground floating in a puddle.

The real problem here is, that you didn't have the decency to ignore the thread in the first place. How hard is it not to reply to something that you don't agree with? How hard is it to hit the back button on your browser? Obviously hard, since the majority of you Nancy's want your mommy and daddy around to control your reality. Pathetic!! You all call your self democrats. Shame!!!

[WilliamPitt]

15. I voted yes. Because.

[newyawker99]

17. I also voted yes, because! n/t

[DemExpat]

16. Yes for a new and improved DU....

:kick:

[mountebank]

18. Yes: GD is a commons that must be regulated

I support the new rules for two reasons:

1) Since time immemorial, human beings have come to the conclusion, in one way or another, that commons (e.g. public land, air, water, radio, public parking) must be regulated "in some way." Otherwise they quickly get destroyed because there is no disincentive for people to take too much, pollute, etc. Even Republicans can´t help but land on the idea for regulation of a commons, hence you have Nixon signing the Clean Water Act and Bush I signing the Clean Air Act. GD is a commons. As we have all seen, without some kind of regulation it degenerates into flame-fests and increasing competition for attention with incendiary thread titles and plain chest-thumping - to the detriment, in my opinion, of the forum´s incredible usefulness as a place to hone ideas and garner valuable information you don´t have time to collect yourself from primary sources. As long as the rules are fair and not excessive (except with commons that have the capacity to harm one´s health, like water, in which I am all for excessive regulation), they are a good thing for a commons. For an introduction to the "tragedy of the commons" see Garrett Hardin´s article from Science magazine, 1968 http://dieoff.com/page95.htm.

2) The second reaons I support the rules is that I will probably contribute more.... :)

[gristy]

28. Thanks for the tragedy of the commons link

I use that concept frequently in my arguments in FAVOR of gov't (and DU) regulation. :thumbsup: Oh, and I voted yes.

[Sarge]

19. Thanks Guys for having us vote!

:yourock:

Vote YES!

[blondeatlast]

20. My vote was YES. This is a private forum, the Administrators

can do with it what they wish.

And I am proud to say I have had posts deleted, and most people think of me as a really nice person.

[einsteins stein]

21. Voted NO - Dealing With #5 Isn't Worth Getting #1-4

"you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information."

Overly restrictive. What is the point of this rule? Drop this, and the rest is great. If we get to vote, we should vote on each rule.


BTW - who is to say that there are not single users out there with multiple IDs that vote multiple times?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[DrGonzoLives]

23. *yawn*

Why is it that people claim others are "thin-skinned" when they have the audacity to defend their beliefs? Interesting.

Is it that hard for you to start a thread about religion without being jerk? Try it, you might be surprised.

[VelmaD]

29. This is exactly why I voted "no"

I've been seeing "Deleted message" far too often lately on posts that I cannot for the life of me figure out why they were offensive or verboten or whatever.

[_Wayne_]

24. Yes.

.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. I voted no because

all of the rules should go without saying. If people want to act like children then let them. The adults can handle it.

[blondeatlast]

27. When will the new rules, if adopted, go into effect? nt

[underpants]

30. f**kYes!

I had to get that in there before the rules changed. Sorry.

[outinforce]

31. I Voted. Yes, I did.

Thanks to the Admins for caring enough about this discussion site to attempt to regulate it. Thanks also for inviting input from any DUer. And thanks for holding a vote.

I voted Yes.

[sandnsea]

32. Took a look at GD, cringed, and voted YES

[rbnyc]

33. While I think these are excellent guidelines, I voted NO.

I think that all this effort has been worth it either way. If we end up with these rules, they are well thought out. They make sense. I don't think they limit members' ability to express themselves, and do encourage more thoughtful expression. If we end up voting down these rules, perhaps some of the trouble-makers will have learned how much heartache and headache they've caused, and perhaps this exercise has helped them to realize why these rules make sense, and why it's worth it to attempt to police oneself.

But ultimately, I like them much better as guidelines, as suggested behavior instead of as rules. I think even enforcement will be difficult and will encourage a whole new wave of crybabies whining about being treated unfairly, and I also think that some people are mature enough to break the rules in a way that is humorous and informative, but will not be allowed to do so because rules are rules.

[rabid_nerd]

34. No

No way! 1 & 2 are good, but I don't agree with 3-5

[Robin Hood]

35. Hey Skinner!!

Honestly, It's telling me that I already voted when I had not? Will this vote be accurate. Why isn't it working properly?

[library_max]

37. It did the same thing to me.

Maybe our previous "votes" in the discussions were counted. If so, we canceled each other out anyway.

[Robin Hood]

39. I knew it. It's like 2000 all over again.

This is either rigged or malfunctioning, I assume malfunctioning, I still have a shred of hope for this place.

I suggest that this poll be done over since it is obviously faulty.

[5thGenDemocrat]

43. And me too

Oh well, my vote didn't count in 2000 -- why start now?
John

[Skinner]

40. That's not good.

I'll call Elad. Hopefully he can fix this problem. I am sorry for the inconvenience.

If anyone else is having this problem, please post in this thread or in the Ask the Admins forum. Thanks.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Robin Hood]

45. It would only be fair to stop this vote until the problem can be fixed.

How many other votes have not been counted by un-aware voters? I don't mean to be a pain in the butt, I'ts just that democracy is a pain in the butt.

[latebloomer]

47. same problem here

Told me I'd already voted.

[Richardo]

36. Yes. n/t

[SuffragetteSal]

38. it wouldn't let me vote

or rather it said I already voted and I did not.

Tell me, is this like a hanging chad? Please count my vote.

[Skinner]

41. We're trying to fix thte problem.

Give us some time. I am sorry about this.

[eleny]

42. thanks - it happened to me, too

[gristy]

49. Is that Diebold equipment you have in the back room there?

hahaha

[Zephyrbird]

57. snarf!

Yer a bad bird, gristy! :-)

[karlschneider]

44. It told me I had already voted, but I hadn't. ???

[Walt Starr]

48. Same here

Hmmmm, I wonder if Diebold had anything to do with this?

[Butterflies]

46. YES

and thankyou for doing this.

[Walt Starr]

50. I CALL FOUL!!!!!

This poll is claiming I already voted when I had not voted yet!

[Walt Starr]

52. Okay, I calmed down after seeing there was a problem.

I'll check to see if voting through another IP works.

Nope, tried connecting from the U.K. and it still says I already voted, so IP should have nothing to do with it.

[AndyTiedye]

53. Same Here. It Would Not Let Me Vote

It said I had already voted!

[mcar]

54. It just did the same thing to me

For what it's worth, I tried to vote yes.

[jono]

56. Skinner, I was unable to vote as well. (n/t)

[dbt]

51. It told me I already voted,

Which I did not, 1:32 PM CDT 10.1.03

:argh:
dbt

[HFishbine]

55. Uh Oh. BBV on this poll?

I just tried to vote -- for what I'm sure is the very first time. I got a message saying I'd already voted. How is this possible? Admins, can you cross-check an IP address against the vote for my ID? Something seems to be amiss.

on edit: didn't read the entire thread. Chalk me up as "me too."

[Skinner]

58. THE VOTE IS CANCELLED.

We are unable to fix the problem.

We will try a re-vote once we figure out what the problem is.

Sorry. I am as upset about this as you are.

Skinner
DU Admin