A few words about the new rules for starting threads in the GD forum.

[Skinner]

Please read this entire message before you respond.

ON EDIT: The new rules have been posted at the top of the General Discussion forum, here.

Now that the vote is over, the yes votes outnumber the no votes, and we will be implementing the new rules shortly, with a few modifications. We think that these changes will not be controversial because they serve to better clarify the rules, and they address one of the most serious concerns raised by DU members.

Changes to the rules.

1. We are getting rid of the entire "preamble" to the rules, because we think people won't read it anyway. In it's place we will just add a couple quick sentences.

2. In rule 2, we are adding the word "shared" before "political opponents" to better clarify when we may allow exceptions.

3. Due to the number of comments (from people on both sides of the issue) that rule five was a bad rule, we are completely ditching it and replacing it with a rule that is narrowly targeted to the problem it was intended to address -- flame wars that spread to multiple threads. The new text of the rule is: "You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time." After much discussion, we decided that there was simply no way we could possibly enforce rule five as it was previously written.

Helpful hints for complying with these rules.

We thought it might be helpful to provide you with a short list of suggestions to give you an idea of what sort of behavior we expect from you. This is not a complete list, so you should not assume that your thread will be automatically acceptable if you follow these helpful hints. We just thought these might be useful...

Imagine yourself in a room full of people who disagree with you. The doors are locked, and they’re angry. ;-) State your comments in a way that is likely to persuade them, rather than antagonize them.

Avoid using rude or condescending names for prominent progressives. (ie: Coward Dean, Weasley Clark, Tom Dasshole, Saint Ralph, Holy Joe, etc.)

Avoid using rude or condescending names for groups of progressives. (ie: Clarkies, Greenies, Deanholes, etc.)

Avoid broad-brush smears against groups of progressives.

Try to avoid “navel-gazing” threads about Democratic Underground, its members, or the state of the General Discussion forum.

Don’t deliberately break the rules. Don’t start threads to test the limits of the rules or to test the admins.

Don’t start threads in the General Discussion forum to complain about the rules or the moderators. If you have a concern, you should ask a question in the Ask the Administrators forum, or email the administrators directly.

If you know your thread topic will not be permitted in the General Discussion forum, do not post it. Remember that your topic may be permitted in another forum, so try posting elsewhere.

A plea for healing.

People have fought hard on both sides of this issue over the last few days. I have no doubt that everyone is sincere, and I know that you are motivated by your love of Democratic Underground and your desire to do the right thing for this place. Now that the vote is over, I hope that we can set our differences aside and remember that we are all on the same side here.

I know that some of you will want to continue this fight, even though it is now over. Please do not do that. I expect all of you to comply with the new rules, and I expect that people will not deliberately try to undermine them or undermine the administrators. I hope that you will trust us enough to know that we have no intention of ruining Democratic Underground. If we decide that the rules are not serving their intended purpose, then we'll revisit the issue.

If you have any questions, please post them in this thread.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Kick

:kick: to keep this near the top.

And one DUer's grateful THANK YOU for the new rules.

[Terwilliger]

2. kick

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. i still don't know what a flame war is

:shrug:

[Skinner]

11. I'm not sure I can give a specific definition.

It's more of a "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" kinda thing.

A flame war is when people are flaming each other. They are fighting with each other in a particularly disruptive way.

[Maeve]

15. If I may demonstrate...

How can you POSSIBLY say something like that? Are you blind to what has been happening in this country? Or do you just get all your info from FAUX???!!
Get your tin-foil hat off and come into the real world!

I know you are, but what am I?

End of demonstration.

[prolesunited]

24. Very good!

You must have done that before. ;-)

j/k, I know you don't engage on that level, but it was a very apt example.

[Maeve]

31. Thank you! I've only WANTED to do that before!

and I've seen it too many times!

[Kamika]

16. its basicly

When its no debate anylonger its abunch of personal attacks mixed with abunch of emotional statements

[gkdmaths]

19. I want to know what

"navel-gazing" is.

I mean, I have an idea...but, I mean...nah...it couldn't be...

:shrug:

[Skinner]

20. See my post below...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463597#463705

[gkdmaths]

22. yup

:thumbsup:

you're too quick.

but still...navel-gazing, I mean, is like a reference to...er, um.....

oh, nevermind.

[Skinner]

23. It's a reference to the belly-button.

I thought "navel-gazing" was a fairly common phrase. Sorry that I was wrong.

[gkdmaths]

28. I'm sure it's used often,

I've heard it before re: oral sex, I think.

Okay, I got over my prudishness and said it.

Did I break any of the new rules?

[Skinner]

30. No, you didn't violate any of the rules.

I never heard that navel gazing was a reference to oral sex. You learn something new every day!

[bearfan454]

68. You don't ? Post a thread about hunting and you will see

what a flame war is.

[lazarus]

4. kick

"Imagine yourself in a room full of people who disagree with you. The doors are locked, and they’re angry. State your comments in a way that is likely to persuade them, rather than antagonize them."

Damned fine advice for all situations.

[rasputin1952]

25. Agreed...

sometimes there are times to fight, but generally speaking, you get back what you put in. If one is gracious and not condescending, most likely, you'll get your point across; or at least calm the waters.

[arwalden]

5. What Was The Final Vote? And...

... do you have any guess as to what percentage of currently active users actually took the time to vote? (By "active" I mean the ones who come to DU on a semi-regular basis... not the ones who have gone away or who were tombstoned.)

-- Allen

[Skinner]

8. The final vote...

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

Poll result (796 votes)
Yes. (512 votes, 64%) Vote
No. (284 votes, 36%) Vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=453696&mesg_id=453696

On any given day we get about three or four thousand visitors.

[Ardee]

64. Is there cause for concern

that rules were implemented for thousands on the votes of a few hundred ?

I understand that these rules could have simply been thrust upon us and Im appreciative of the manner in which they were....thrust upon us.....sorry but my sense of humor isnt always in check......

On the face of it I believe that the rules are simply common sense methods for ensuring a pleasureable forum but my experience with group dynamics gives me much pause in that the moderators have much more discretion, much more power and much more responsibility......you simply cant legislate common sense and this may well come to bite us on the posterior.......

[ixion]

6. Kick

for the healing. :grouphug:

[tnlefty]

7. pardon me, but, what is navel-gazing and how does it apply to threads?

I'm not familiar with this expression.

[Skinner]

9. "navel gazing"

Navel gazing refers to threads about us, rather than about issues.

The purpose of Democratic Underground is not to discuss Democratic Underground. The purpose is to discuss politics.

A certain amount of navel gazing is to be expected. And we have no intention of deleting this type of thread. But I think we could clear up a fair amount of space in the General Discussion forum if people just avoided starting threads like that.

[tnlefty]

17. thanks I thought I was missing a lot of bare bellies or something

Now I can get back to reviewing the new rules. Thanks again.

[VelmaD]

10. Thank you

That you all were still willing to make changes even though "yes" won the voting on the previous version of the rules means a lot to me and says a lot about the people who run this site.

There seemed to be a lot of concern over rule 5 especially. I like the new version a lot and appreciate y'all's willingness to listen to the concerns of the minority during this process.

:toast:

[DrBB]

12. I'd voted "No" largely b/c of #5

...So I'm pleased that you reconsidered that one.

Thanks again for all you do to keep this thing going.

[ewagner]

13. I am impressed

...with your efforts to accomodate

...with your efforts to heal.

Thanks for all the hard work!

[seventhson]

14. Very wise. I approve 100% but have a question -

Please move this to the "ask" forum if you prefer -- but it is YOUR topic.

First: Can we have a restatement of the rules with the changes?

Can you guys come up with a clean and clear definition of "FLAME WARS"?

One of the BIGGEST problems here is NOT necessarily the first post in the thread. Usually the FLAMING begins with inappropriate insults etc. (I know I have been guilty of it before in my exuberance) and the thread gets locked due to the flamers. If the flamers RESPONSES were deleted then the problem may be solved. Often a deleted poster will bitch about it or start a new flame fest thread -- but this will be taken care of under the rules.

Those who FLAME a thread in violation of the rules need to have their posts deleted.

For me it will be difficult to avoid responding to provocative posts (flame bait). It will also be difficult to sometimes refrain from posting a ggod jibe in response.

But I think the flaming of legitimate posts en masse by any group in inapproriate ways "You need you meds" or "another tinfoil hat post" or "aren't you late for work at McDonalds' (a recent fave targeting me which actually inspired a teenage girl to privately DU mail me to find out why I was so smart for a kid heh) OR you're paranoid, etc...THESE typers of responses DO violate the rules and should be (and have been sometimes) deleted or at least WARNED on.

I have tough skin and can take the heat and do not like to alert. And I can give as good as or better than I get so... I prefer NOT to alert but to spar. It can really get boring though with persistent felons who wait and bait and keep the flamefest going.

And an unresponded to charge is often like an admission otherwise people think you are conceding a point.


Anyway - thanks for the efforts as always

STARTING a Flame war intentionally is sometimes not intended but may very well be caused by those who want the thread deleted. If the offending RESPONDERS are penalized a LOT of these problems will now, with the new rules about STARTING threads, be GREATLY reduced.

[Skinner]

18. Answers...

The rules have been posted at the top of the General Discussion forum, here. They are now in effect, and cover threads started after 1:00PM ET.

See my post above about flame wars. I don't think it's possible to give a clear explanation that covers all the bases. It's more of a subjective thing.

Flaming within a thread is not appropriate, and the moderators have the authority to deal with it in extreme circumstances. Our hope is that by requiring the first post to be non-inflammatory, we can improve the likelihood that there will be fewer flame wars in the threads.

Comments about needing meds or working at McDonalds are personal attacks, and they are not permitted. If someone posts something like that, you should hit the Alert link on the post so the moderators can remove it.

[mumon]

27. What I didn't understand....

was "excessive punctuation."

I really have no clue what that means. Does this mean 3 question marks with an exclamatin point together?

I don't want to go George Carlin here, but I really couldn't figure that one out.

[Skinner]

29. It's for those flamey posts with 50 exclamation points.

Three question marks is fine.

[Capn Sunshine]

32. Make it easy on yourself Skinner

Give us a "Flameon" feature in the posting icons so we can avoid these. Kind of like the "Hot" discussion icon. With more red.Yeah. LOTS of RED. Hell,make the whole text box RED. Make the background red.Make it ALL Red.

Maybe then the emotive flamers will feel a satisfied keyboard jolt. :)

[Skinner]

33. LOL

I'm sure some people would love that.

[seventhson]

69. Great !! Thanks!!!

I will.

I think that statement alone will do a lot to stop a lot of wasted space here at DU


I'm with Dean/Edwards right now.

Kucinich for Secretary of DHHS.

Sharpton for Civil Rights Commission.

Braun for Secretary of Commerce.

Gephardt - Secretary of Labor.

Gore - Secretary of State

Defense Secretary - Sam Nunn

Homeland Security - George Mitchell (until he goes to the Supreme Court)


ENVIRONMENT?? Ralph Nader?

Suggestions for the cabinet?

I'll post a new thread

[drfemoe]

26. Who can make you flame?

No one can "make you flame" .. :nuke: You have the choice on how to react to antagonistic people.

I loathe violence of every sort and believe a case is never made stronger by calling names and personal attacks. (Just ask George.)

Real life flame wars include hockey dads beating each other to death or baseball fans knifing a first base umpire. Is that really the sort of society we want?

If we can't respect each other, why would we expect anyone else to?

Biologically all humans have hormones that make us aggressive in certain situations. We also have chemicals that urge us to bond with each other. Human development (evolution) involves knowing which reaction is appropriate in any given situation.

Let's evolve :+

[sham]

21. JFC!

Clarkies, Deanies, Greenies... That's offensive? I am truly astonished by my fellow liberals sometimes. Let's all do some feel-good healing hugging now.

Goodbye, DU. It was... well, it was neither real nor fun.

[einsteins stein]

34. WOW, A million thanks for the #5 reprieve!

I voted NO because of #5, but fully support your revised rules.

Excellent job, the new rule does make sense, and I can now see what you were initially trying to do.

I feel like our voices were heard, and respected.

THANK YOU DU!

[Garage Queen]

51. Agreed. #5 is MUCH improved!

Thanks, mods!

[Skinner]

35. kick (nt)

[Maeve]

36. Little surprised you didn't pin this up top

:kick:

[indigo32]

37. Kick

:kick:

[Maeve]

38. Front page for the afternoon crew

[newyawker99]

39. deleting

dupe post

[newyawker99]

40. another kick

and let's hope this does the trick!

:kick:

[opihimoimoi]

43. I for one am so glad this passed. Lets all hope it works

as intended.

Positive rather than Negative.

Truth rather than deception. distortion

Sanity over Fantasy.Delusion

etc

Come, I light the fire, cook pig/ribs/hind quarter, chill the wine, ice the beer. Come, we laugh, eat, smile, sing, enjoy.

[rbnyc]

41. Thanks again. I voted no, even tho I like the rules...

...and I will follow them.

I voted no because I hoped that all the focus on GD behavior problems would lead people to use the rules as guidelines and police themselves. But I think the rules make great sense and I hope they'll improve the climate in GD.

[StopThief]

42. I want to change my "YES" vote to "NO"

I only voted yes because of rule #5.

This is outrageous!!!!!

:evilgrin:

[Maeve]

44. Bad StopThief! Bad!

:spank:

[VermontDem2004]

45. About rule 2

Can you say stuff like "Here is what f---- happened(I don't know if that is a good example)". I can understand making a rule against "you f----- suck." Let's see if I can explain what I am talking about better, cursing is only bad depending on how you use it, ex. "Today is a beatiful f---- day." that is a positive, a negative would be ex. "You f---er!" I hope you understand :wtf: I am talking about.

[EarlG]

47. You can curse as much as you like

when replying to messages. The "no profanity" rule only applies to the post which begins each thread. So when you start a brand new thread, you can't use profanity in the subject line or the message body. But any replies may use profanity.

By the way, this rule isn't because we're ashamed or frightened of profanity - it's to try and tone down heated rhetoric in the first post of a thread. We believe that the first post in a thread usually sets the tone for the rest of that thread.

[VermontDem2004]

48. I see

I am little scared of breaking the new rules but can I still DO THIS!!!!!!!!

[Maeve]

52. YES!!! You CAN!!!

Just not in the subject link of the thread or in that first post...unless it's something like ASSSSCROFT RESIGNS!--at which time I'd bet even Skinner would go for caps and multiple !!!'s.

[LuCifer]

54. oooooooooooooooooh ok

Aw crap, I musta miss read that.

IT'S CLINTON'S PENIS's FAULT!!!!!

Well, so much for my idear fo an anythang goes section! Unless ya wanna, but then again, there's only like 392 sections as it is!!!!!!

Say it loud, say it proud: Bush & Rush are an ASSHOLES!

Ah, that felt so good!

Lu

[VermontDem2004]

46. kick

I am surprised you didn't put this thread at the top of the page.

[LuCifer]

49. I have an idea...

...and I know yer all gonna laugh, but what the h*ll.

How about a new section to post in, call it something like The Terrordome or something, and have it with NO cuss word restrictions, and ya gotta prove your 18+ whatever else?

Lu Cifer, I'm going to go f*rt now

[LuCifer]

50. kick

kick or something

[Ardee]

65. funny you should mention that

a forum called freshpress has a section called Cacaphony which contains subsets for various temperaments, one particular one has a rule insisting upon profanity or the post is deleted!

Alas it is a closed forum and accepts no new members.........

[MGKrebs]

53. Who the heck is Saint Ralph? n/t

[Skinner]

55. Ralph Nader. (nt)

[Sheila Samples]

56. This is probably silly, but...

How am I to know, without clicking through multiple pages and titles, that I am not posting something that is already in progress? I rarely have the time to do that and also post...

Thanks,

[DrGonzoLives]

57. I just check the first couple of pages

If you don't see it, chances are it's gone. If someone else catches, then chances are it will stay, since the other thread has sunk so far.

[Sheila Samples]

59. Good...'Cause like Bush says...

I would be "humulated" if Earl or Skinner pulled one of my posts for anything but cussin'

Ish

[Skinner]

58. You don't have to.

We changed the duplicates rule. Please go read the rules, you will find that the onerous duplicates rule has been removed and replaced with something much more narrow.

[Sheila Samples]

60. I DID read the rules, Skinner...

It's just that I obviously don't have sense enough to understand them...LOL

Don't make me come up there..

[Sephirstein]

61. Joe LieberBush is a "prominent Progressive"?

Skinner, I think you've been working too hard. :shrug:

[Skinner]

62. Yes.

And his name is Joe Lieberman.

[BiggJawn]

63. "Imagine yourself in a room full of people who disagree with you..."

The doors are locked, and they're honked at me, right?

May as well take a few of them with me since I'm gonna get an ass-kicking anyway...:evilgrin:

[bluestateguy]

66. Much better

The revisions are a welcome improvement.

[Ohio Dem]

67. A question about the "no profanity in the first post" rule.

What about when Bush or someone like him is reported to have said "Fuck Saddam" or something of that nature? I'm assuming that quoting the profanities of conservatives wouldn't be considered a flame or flame-baiting. And the DU'er wouldn't be the one engaging in profanity, but reporting on the profanity of a conservative.

What would be the ruling in that case?

[Sephirstein]

71. Correct me if I'm wrong...

I believe it would fall under the section 2 guideline of shared political opponents, so I guess you'd be able to get away with it if you used it as part of a worthwhile criticism. Again, though, it would be a judgment call.

[Ohio Dem]

73. That's what I was thinking, too.

But I'd like a ruling from the admins, just in case.

You never know when one of them will implode, and if I'm the first to catch it, I'd like to post it to GD.

Rush might crack tomorrow, for all I know.

[Skinner]

76. We will allow quotes.

We would allow profanity in quotes, provided that you have a legitimate reason for posting the quote.

If you just use them as a way to get around the rules, then we won't allow it.

[drdigi420]

70. GD, we'll miss you, RIP

This was such a great place for highly spirited debate.

Maybe the admins will see the light and bring you back to life.

[seventhson]

72. It is not going away. It will hopefully be more civil and...

more controlled

It could be worse

It could actually become better

[Dookus]

74. It's already better...

I'm a mod, but GD is not my beat. I'm speaking only as a regular reader/contributor to GD.

Today was the best day we've had here in a very long time. We've had a variety of topics, the flames were minimal, and civility rules.

I hope it stays that way, and further, that nobody feels they're being censored. I can't imagine any idea I could have that I would be unable to express following these rules.

[greyl]

75. "I can't imagine any idea I could have that I would be unable to exp etc."

what about total and utter lies? Are those cool with you?
By lies, I mean statements that have been proven to be false here at the DU many times...

The type of cancerous notions that you see in the meeting room from time to time...

?

[Skinner]

77. One more kick.

(In case anyone's wondering -- I unpinned this thread because it was taking up too much space at the top of the forum. And because I think some people automatically ignore threads that are pinned to the top.)

[janekat]

78. Thanks - great solution

n/t