Should DU stop trying to moderate the candidate wars?

[Skinner]

Poll question: Should DU stop trying to moderate the candidate wars?

Allow me to just get to the point:

Point #1 - I believe that flaming about the Democratic primary is inevitable. Regardless of how many rules we try to create, hardened partisans will continue to seek out ways to score points against their opponents. There is little we can do to stop it, other than to ban lots and lots of people, and we don't really want to do that.

Point #2 - In my opinion, our efforts to crack down on the most egregious problems have been successful, and I believe the level of debate regarding the primaries would be much worse without our efforts and the efforts of the moderators. HOWEVER, I belive that our attempt to moderate the rhetoric on all sides has come at a terrible cost. The level of distrust and animosity toward the moderators, toward the other administrators, and toward me personally are simply unacceptable. We have created a situation in which our efforts are automatically assumed to be motivated by bias, which greatly undermines our authority to take any enforcement action.

Point #3 - I'm just sick of the whole damned thing, and I want very much to just wash my hands of it. Want to put an asterisk after Howard Dean's name? Go nuts. Want to compare Wesley Clark to Hitler? Be my guest. Want to call John Kerry a lying sack of shit? Please do. Want to post your entire thread topic in all caps, with a dozen exclamation points at the end of every sentence? I have no desire to stop you anymore. The moderators and I can no longer be attacked if we simply allow everyone's bullshit flamebait to stay on the message board.

Point #4 - If you don't like a thread, you can hide it. If you don't like a person, you can ignore them. If you think this entire forum is crap, nobody is forcing you to post in here.

Point #5 - Whatever you decide, we're going to keep enforcing our old rules which forbid personal attacks against individual members of this message board. It's unlikely to do much to contain the flaming, but at least they'll be easy to enforce. Or, what the hell, maybe we can just stop enforcing the personal attacks rule in this forum, too.

So, here is your poll question:

Which of the following options comes closer to your own opinion about what we should do with the candidate wars?

NOTE: This poll will close around 1:00PM ET, Tuesday.

[Born_a_Democrat]

1. let people talk

I think people will always find a way...so rather than try to police that...just give them a forum where they can scream their heads off and if the rest of us don't like it we just don't go in there...

I think that'll work

[formernaderite]

11. I agree wholeheartedly

For some of us, this is the only place we can sound off. It's a democratic forum, we should have divergent opinions and be able to express them. Once the primaries are nailed down I can understand the rules to unite everyone.

[Born_a_Democrat]

16. Let me just make it clear

that I don't start (or I try not to start anyway) flame wars and the like. However, I think that people will always find a way to do what they want so, instead of spending all this time and energy and resources in trying to stop them...just divert them to a place where you will only see them if you decide you want to.

[KoKo]

12. No! Valuable information will be lost because "Serious" seekers of

information about Candidates will be drowned out, shouted down or attacked. There are many posters here who don't want to learn about the candidates they want to push their own Candidate and attack those who disagree. It's like a "Sport or Game" to some folks just promoting a "free-for-all" in the GD 2004 Forum. These folks don't read anything if it doesn't support their candidate and those of us who try to read the links to be better informed are turned off when we see threads with people bashing each other over and over just trying to score points. Information is lost in the clatter and din of the game.

I don't know what an answer would be if Admins and Mods can't deal with it all. If it's that big a headache maybe another forum would be an answer where folks can post "Candidate Research Only," and leave the "Candidate Discussion 2004" as an Open Attack Forum where people can go at each other like in the "Gun Dungeon."

There has to be someplace here where articles and research about candidates can survive with out bomb throwing. Disruptors should be thrown off DU if they can't behave. Look at how much better "General Discussion Forum" has been since the change.

[lovedems]

66. Agree with KoKo all the way. Keep the rules. n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. well said! Although draconian rules and restricted speech are popular

both here and in society as a whole, as has been mentioned, people are empowered with the ability not to see anything that displeases them.

Further speech restrictions here will not change the minds of anyone who has something to say. If they can't say it here, they will say it somewhere else, thus depriving you of the opportunity to counter their argument.

Your face looks better with a nose, and noses taste terrible.

[KoKo]

31. Any "Society" needs rules to keep civility. How far those rules are

imposed is always the question. DU is certainly not a supressor of Speech or Thought, but there need to be "rules" to keep the whole thing functioning so that the voices of the "weak" are not drowned out by the loudest shouter.

Some of us would prefer it if the "shouters" did take their shouting, name calling and lack of ability to reason an argument to other Forums on the Internet.

But, it's the Admins business whether they need to be referees all day between folks who can't control themselves and are determined to drown out any voice but their own. I hope they will go with keeping Rules of Civility.

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. Since all of that is so subjective, why not let all voices be heard?

Even those who displease you.

Whether forbidding certain speech is suppressing it or not is a matter of both opinion and semantics.

Let those who like lots of rules and prohibitions impose them on themselves and follow them.

My personal opinion is that many people who post here are intelligent enough to decide for themselves.

If they believe someone is screaming, and they disagree with the scream, I believe they are capable of either doing so or disregarding it without help from you, me, or the administrators, who have provided programmatic means for them to disregard it if they do not wish to see it and are unwilling or unable to ignore it.

[KoKo]

60. "Subjective" is in the "eyes of the viewer." So what's "subjective"to

you, might not be to me. If you get my drift.....

[DuctapeFatwa]

70. An EXCELLENT argument for free speech!

Which I will defend at any and all opportunities.

I am an unreconstructed, unrepentant, incorrigible, radical militant and triumphant free speech extremist.

"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."

--Ludwig Börne

[lazarus]

2. If you unleash this madness

I would ask only that you take GD Primary 2004 off the Latest Page.

:D

[xultar]

5. Yes, I'd prob lock it down to members only also.

Why, cuz I'd hate for bad press to get out. If the rules are sidelined it will get pretty ugly and hateful.

[Renew Deal]

75. lol

"unleash this madness"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Please don't stop moderating!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. If We Ditch All of the Rules, We Will Be Held Up to Even Greater Scrutiny

And while I know we shouldn't care about what the RW thinks about us, the practical fact of the matter is that DU is indeed getting more and more attention, from the RW and elsewhere.

I don't think it behooves us to descend into a complete pit. Doing so will have an incrementally negative impact on how our Party is perceived, IMO, and that should be avoided.

The Moderators have my sympathy and compliments.

:yourock:

DTH

[Richardo]

6. LEt the Mods do something more productive, but keep the special forum

that's my vote. I like the segretation, God help me. I've no interest in cluttering up my screen, bandwidth, etc, reading 99+% of the candidate stuff.

Thx, Skinner.

[soleft]

7. What about keep GD rules and ditch special rules?

[Renew Deal]

76. Tables and Chairs

Yee Haaaa

[wtmusic]

8. Fine line

between criticism and flaming. I'm for fairly open discussion--obvious flamers are an easy target and usually get nailed immediately.

There's been a good balance so far.

[MuseRider]

9. So the incivility

has moved from the forum to the moderators and the administrators? Great. Sorry, we should all have a bit more respect than that.

[xultar]

10. Who are the LAME A$$Holes lashing out @ the MODS and ADMINS

That is what I wanna know.
What yellow-bellied, lil school aged, tattle tailed, screaming ninny, is going around blaming the Mods and Admins for enforcing the rules and bias.

GROW UP PEOPLE!!!

[Cheswick2.0]

33. Hey, I've heard that before

B-)

[GalleryGod]

13. Yo,Skins! Thank God for the Spell check!

I was going a tad mad watching bad reasoning being spelled worse!:dunce:

Your Man in the Faculty Lounge:donut: bringin' the donuts,
G.G.

[markus]

14. Keep it up

Yes, they're trying to make it hard for you, but I think that the entire debate might collapse under excessive twit listing, thread hidding, etc.

And we would be shortly invaded by armies of the, uh, Sub-Bridge Dwelling Socially Challenged.

I can usually only get on once a day from work, and maybe once again by evening. That probably makes me a poor candidate for a moderator. But if the moderators are getting fried, perhaps its time to grow their ranks (or to enlist "Junior Moderators" like media watchers who will commit to be ready on the Alert button). Or just ask everyone to be ready to hit Alert as required.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

15. I can imagine

how crazy it must be for you moderators Skinner, and I feel for you.

But please...I can't imagine any type of enjoyment here at DU without the great job you guys do.

I fear we'd find out there's a hell of a lot of fire hidden in all the smoke.

[DancingBear]

17. Please keep the rules

Although it takes time, I think many of us are learning to respect, if not some posters opinions, then some posters themselves. I've engaged in productive dialog with Dean supporters, and vice versa. I've also looked at Dean posters with disdain, and vice versa.

There are many here who have never been through a primary, and hence tend to take things very personally. It is easy to push buttons, and we all know who can be "agigtated" and who can't (to say otherwise is not to be truthful). It really depends on the individual him/herslf as to how they want to frame the discussion. For some, "your mother! - no, YOUR mother!" is the way to go - for others, no.

There are still too many points to be addressed here to allow it to run amok in a sea of insults and hate. Tombstone those who only look to incite, but leave the rest of us to duke it out, in hopes that the strongest and best candidate to defeat Bush will emerge.

P.S. Apologies in advance if I f#%k up and get a warning message. :)

P.P.S. For thse who think the mods have some type of biased "agenda" here - are you nuts????

[mopinko]

18. institute a democratic process

i post often on a bird board that is overrun every summer with bored little trolls. although the board has rules, the owners do not enforce them. some of the regulars put together a plan to designate someone a troll, and pledge to ignore their posts. since it is easier to get someone banned here, i think it would work even better. we basically used the "pornography standard" if a person had no redeeming social value, they were trolls. it was not a majority vote situation, if the person had passionate support, particularly from a valued member of the community, they were saved.
perhaps a similar process could be introduced here. perhaps there could be a forum- tombstone polls, with links to offensive postings. the mods would be the final arbiters, but maybe some input from the community in general would make the whole thing less emotionally draining on everyone.

[mopinko]

23. ps

i think the no holds barred mud wrestling of the democratic party is its great strength. i think the only problem is the stupidity of the media in focusing on this aspect to the EXCLUSION of the content of said wrestling. i think us mud wrestlers need to find a way to stand up and say, muddy, yeah, and damn proud of it! pipe dream, i know.

[mopinko]

44. also, mods should issue warnings

i think it would be very useful if the mods issued some sort of warning before deleting messages, or tombstoning people. i was surprised at the couple of bings that i have gotten. they were not nasty rants or anything. it would be a learning experience to have a more open process.

[PATRICK]

19. No,

The nature of the Net lets people feel safe in going too far. The actual skills developed in catching intruders has been invaluable and these trolls will turn up in other venues. They can't avoid the lure, especially the paid hacks.

Needs skillful moderation and the practice of the same tolerance desired from the posters.

It also keeps the education on how carry on fruitful, non-destructive debate open, which will be invaluable in the future should the enemy not be such a uniting, obvious menace.

Admission that mistakes will be made on all sides are better than flaming free for alls. The right thing is always the difficult, often unsatisfying thing at the time but results will be better.

Also gets people focused on focus, which seems a handicapping waste of time but is not given the newness of DU. Many of the enthusiastic problems and weaknesses here have to do with missing the point, though these are natural, not fatal to democratic discussion.

[SadEagle]

20. Whatever you do, please keep the signature rule.

It at least keeps all the stuff from spilling out onto other forums

[bitchkitty]

21. I shudder to think

what it would be like without the rules. I'm already on the verge of just leaving, if the astroturfers and disrupters are given full reign it will put the last nail in DemocraticUnderground's coffin lid.

[BootinUp]

22. Actually I wish there was

a way to let us moderate the forum ourselves with some type of post rating system. But since that is not an option I chose option one.

I would of course change my vote if this was simply too much of a burden on the moderators.

[GainesT1958]

24. Not to make your job any harder for you all, SKINNER...

But I think you folks have made a Herculean effort in trying to hold down the level of the food-fight in both GD and Primaries forums. I don't blame you for being sick of it, however; one can only take being spat upon daily by seemingly otherwise civilized, agreeable people for only so long. But you're doing the best you can in an extremely THANKLESS situation, and I am glad that you are giving it your best shot. So, yes, I favor keeping the rules you all laid out for us. As "primarily" angry as we may get from time to time, our eyes--and our angst--are best kept on the prize--removing the un-elected squatter from the Occupied West Wing.

B-)

[blindpig]

40. I meant to say that.........n/t

[NashVegas]

25. I Guess It Depends on What You Want for DU

Skinner, your site has become the victim of its success.

I don't envy you.

[bread_and_roses]

27. the problem with rules

is that they tend to grow exponentially...as you say, people WILL find ways to get around them, create new tactics, whatever, as your own experience shows.

I think you made a valiant but doomed effort, and I don't blame you for being "just sick of the whole damned thing, and I want very much to just wash my hands of it. Want to put an asterisk after Howard Dean's name? Go nuts. Want to compare Wesley Clark to Hitler? Be my guest. Want to call John Kerry a lying sack of shit? Please do. Want to post your entire thread topic in all caps, with a dozen exclamation points at the end of every sentence? I have no desire to stop you anymore. The moderators and I can no longer be attacked if we simply allow everyone's bullshit flamebait to stay on the message board."

When people speak freely it is easier to distinguish who is fanatic, illogical, driven by anger, etc., from those who are using reason and reflection.

And I very much doubt the right wing needs US to come up with their talking points. They did a fine job before DU ever existed.

Thanks for all your work.

[KoKo]

32. But that gives free reign to Chaos. People aren't very good at policing

themselves, unfortunately.

[bread_and_roses]

58. Sunshine is a great disinfectant

...what do all these rules do but make a lot of work and ill-feeling for the moderators? So what if people make ill-considered remarks or use abusive language? It is an internet forum, not a classroom. If people do not police themselves, so what?

[rucky]

28. Either Ditch the Rules or Put Some Teeth In 'Em

in the form of a tombstone.

I'm for ditching the rules, but keeping the fence around the OK Corral. We'll mostly be ABB soon enough, and we could use all the (ahem) enthusiasm we can get when that starts happening.

[NV1962]

29. Steady as she goes

The end of the world -- the DNC's nomination -- is upon us soon enough.

The primaries are understandably a hotbed of strong opinions; moderation is a supportive function to exchange of ideas, not exchanges of immature behavior. But moderation is also a human task, and as far as I can tell from here it's done to the best of everyone's abilities and availability. So let's cut the mods and the admin some slack, and look in the mirror thinking about what Mommy would say a bit more often.

It's only a temporary bumpy ride, so I'll keep hanging onto my hat.

Kudos to the DU team.

[The Magistrate]

30. My View Is That the Current Regime Is Good And Useful

The tenor of the discussion on this matter has somewhat improved since the imposition, and enforcement, of the new regulations, and the seperate primary forum.

I am aware of the difficulties of enforcement, and the great call imposed on the time and energies of the moderators and Administration of the forum. It is regretable that the behavior of some imposes this on others.

The accusations of bias, unfortunately, will be made no matter what course is adopted: such accusations are a standard part of the energetic partisan's tool-kit, employed to explain any lack of active support for the view such are engaged in pressing. My own inclination would be to view those who make such charges with extreme disfavor, for those who make them know they are baseless. To a dispassionate observer, there is no discernable bias in the enforcement of these regulations.

One of the difficulties with regulations is that partisans of all sides seek to turn them into weapons against their opponents, and to achieve by the medium of the police what they cannot achieve in open debate, namely the routing or silencing of those who disagree with them. Those who do this are totalitarians at heart, and not really interested in discussion: they generally bring little of value to the debate on any question.

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

36. Personal Attacks, NO! Everything else, fair game

I haven't been around here long, but I don't see much of a problem from my vantage point. I frequent the 2004 board.

[dweller]

53. Many thanks Magistrate.

Before i voted i wanted to read both sides of the issue from others. Not that i can't decide for myself, but realizing i was only voting for myself. What would another want?

But as usual, you have clarified and brought to the forefront the crux of the issue, the values that come from the heart.

Peace,
dp

[GabysPoppy]

54. Hello, my friend

I was thinking about you all day as I've not seen nor heard your moderating voice downstairs recently.

I always look forward to your guidance and wisdom (you know where) and it has been sorely missed recently.

GP

[JohnLocke]

103. I agree, judge.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. That's a really tough one

The thing I have learned about these forums is that they more you try rules to control behavior, the more people will use those rules to disrupt.

Dump the rules, except the ones about graphics (in defense of dial ups)keep the forum GD2004 and save yourself a lot of trouble and effort. There is a lot of baiting going on. Unfortunately all people respond to it at one time or another. If people were not able to bait someone into a rule violation, because there weren't any(except for ..I don't know, grapic profanity) I am sure many of them would take their marbles and go elsewhere.

[liberalnurse]

37. I don't see the rules working anyways.

Since this is an Administrative thread....I would like to comment that the Moderators need to be re-evaluated. Essentially they are fine, dedicated volunteers but they are not all unbiased enforcers.

Just let the crap fly freely.....the disruptor's take great care into being careful, to disrupt effectively. The rules are porous.

Let us duke it out and get it out of our systems....

Relax.....

[CWebster]

38. Response

Moderation became too heavy-handed and skewed. You may object to charges of bias, but as a consequence, it resulted in a significant number of regular posters, made to feel ostracized and unduly targeted for punishment over questionable infractions. This was a repeated pattern and similar experience of many who shared a common political outlook.

Who are the rules serving and what has been the recent changes in DU which account for the ratcheting up in acrimony? There used to be debate but now there is often political conflict on a fundamental level of identity.

Impossible to take a true or false position on the poll when it deserves a lengthy essay.

[Walt Starr]

39. I agree with your assessment

ergo, I cast no vote.

[Mairead]

41. Focus on civility, not content or persons

There are enormous -and I hope obvious- differences between

• You're a lying gobshite who wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the arse


• You're lying


• That is an obvious lie


• I believe that to be a lie


• I am sure that is not true and I think you know it's not

The first one fails the civility test spectacularly. The second and third are barely civil. The fourth and fifth are 'owned' by the speaker and therefore completely civil.

In my view, moderation should focus on civility toward other posters. Saying 'Candidate X is a lying gobshite who's the spiritual descendent of Hitler out of Mao Zedong' is nothing more than cheesy political hyperbole that will probably embarrass the writer the next day if s/he is actually a grown-up. It should be ignored by the mods.

Them's my views, any road.

[kaitykaity]

42. Please don't give up.

I can understand your frustration, but it's almost
over and we'll have a candidate. Please don't let this
become a free-for-all. Please.

[edzontar]

43. I think the main problem is Repuke disruptors

And other freeper moles who are sneaking onto these forums disguised as supporters of Dem candidates.

Some are idiots and easily detected, but others are sneakier, and I really do think you should consider some of the alerts and complaints you have been getting in more POSITIVE terms.

Many of us amog the "masses" would like to see this board survive....but have been repelled by all the freeperism in Dem clothing that we are seeing around here in recent weeks.

We could be in this together....this doesn't have to be a WAR between Admin. and members of the community.

One good way to start clearing this up would be by banning all "Stop Candidate X Movement" threads and the people who posted them, now and in the past.

These are my thoughts.....

Make the best decision...Ed

[Rowdyboy]

45. GD2004 sans moderators?........Sounds like "Lord of the Flies"

Five minutes after the last terrified moderator jumps in rooftop helicopter and takes off, rioting will begin. Tribes will forms, revenge attacks, pre-emptive strikes, and finally THE PIG HUNT!

Why bother to read the book when you can see it in real-time.

[Renew Deal]

74. ROTFLMAO

I almost crapped myself reading this.

:yourock:

[Rowdyboy]

88. "If you can just touch one person..."

I thought it was an apt comparison myself.

[Clark Can WIN]

104. Well thanks to you rowdyboy

I no lnger need to use the restroom. Thanks.:silly:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Maybe trying to enforce the 'off-topic' rule would help.

I know it is a bit vague and difficult to enforce, but it I think it would help if people had to stick to the topic at hand, whatever it is.

[Eloriel]

62. Now THERE'S a thought

To my knowledge that's never been enforced here at all -- at least not that I know of in the time I've been here (since members were around 10 - 11,000).

Of course, that too gets subjective, but it's not like we don't deal with an awful lot of "subjective" in the enforcement of everything here as it is.

Eloriel

[FubarFly]

47. So if I somehow got all of the candidates to register

under their own names, would the rules against personal attacks apply to them as well?

I think we should put the impending post-primary rules in place now. We are past the point where tearing down any of our candidates is useful in the long-term. The ISSUES are of course still worth discussing and disagreeing over, but the 'candidate X is a lying, racist hyprocrite' garbage needs to stop IMMEDIATELY. It is helping NO ONE. That the premiere progressive message board on the web is allowing the "Goring" of our Democratic candidates is an absolute joke. Many people here take attacks on their candidates personally, so personal attacks against candidates should be banned for that reason alone. The Republicans are gearing for a full scale assault against the Democratic Party, and if we do not prepare to face them NOW, then we will be doomed. Or at the very least, DU's charter mission as a website devoted to defeat the fraud b*sh, will have failed.

[Eloriel]

64. Another one I agree with wholeheartedly

I'll have more to say on that later. IMO, that's probably the only thing that is practicable.

Eloriel

[meow mix]

48. due to point #3, you all should have voted "ditch rules"

imo at least heh =)

i suggest you all grow an ignore list.
mine is quite extensive.

just keep a couple of the more reasonable dean supporters like padrig..
he's a good envoy.
i know theres few to choose from..

[CWebster]

50. Gee, that helped

You know what I mean?

:eyes:

[Lisa0825]

49. I think the rules help to an extent

Maybe for those who really like to hash it all out, there should be an "Anything Goes" forum?!LOL

[qanda]

51. Does it have to be all or nothing?

Is there any room for compromise? I think some of the rules go over the top and others are a necessary part of participating in an open forum.

I don't think moderators and administrators should have to play nanny on this board and for that reason alone, I vote to end the rules. However, I like keeping the GD boards separate.

[HFishbine]

52. As one who opposed the new rules initially, I say

keep, 'em. With one caveat. If the new rules are truely sapping the joy out of operating DU for the admins; if dropping the rules would improve their sanity (not that there is any indication that such is to be questioned), then go for it.

[curse10]

55. This is hard

I might have to abstain from voting because I really can't make a decision.

[Mass_Liberal]

56. thanks for asking

I appreciate that you ask our opinions, instead of just making rules without asking.

[LWolf]

57. Some points:

I didn't vote yet. I'm still thinking. Here are some points to consider:

1. I agree with points one through five, except I believe you should keep cracking down on personal attacks against individual members.

2. I can easily ignore posters and threads; I have. Only when they seem determined to be offensive. I can do plenty more if I need to. Would a rush of "ignores" affect the server/bandwidth/software to a significant degree?

3. I have no beef with any moderator, and am sorry to hear that they have been subject to member abuse. A reminder...this is a volunteer position keeping the board open for our use; the appropriate attitude to throw a moderator's way is one of appreciation.

4. While I'm leaning to "dump the special rules, keep the regular rules," I don't want that to be seen as an invitation to be ugly just because we "can."

I'll think some more and vote before the deadline.

[mzmolly]

59. I voted for the rules, but am unhappy with them. We all have bias

if we have an opinion. I didn't vote here, because I don't trust the polls. However, I say it has to be all or nothing.

Let people say as they wish until a nominee is apparent *keeping personal rules* then apply the GD2004 rules.

It's really your decision.

[Tinoire]

61. Where's the option to tell those who don't like DU, as it is, to lump it?

I am sorry for the toll this is apparently taking on the Admin and the mods.

I hate a lot of the new rules, but alas, I see their necessity :shrug:

Animosity towards the mods, admin and you personally? I am frankly stunned and sorry to hear that.


Point #4 is your best one: If you don't like a thread, you can hide it. If you don't like a person, you can ignore them. If you think this entire forum is crap, nobody is forcing you to post in here.

I don't know how much clearer things can be.

Thank you for DU

On edit: I must add though that I have been very saddened to see how many old DUers left with the advent of all these rules and perception that the board's tone had turned right. I don't think it's going to get any better than it is now.

One poster wisely pointed out that you and the rest of the admins are now victims of your own success. Just remember what the battle was about the day you started this board and KNOW that it's worth it. The majority of us are grateful to have this discussion board and appreciate all the hard work that goes into it.

Don't believe me? Look at the last fund-raiser. Hold another one if you need to but my suggestion would be to have a permanent one called the Admin Bahamas fund- you might be very surprised to see how quickly it fills up. We DO appreciate the efforts of the mods and admin!

[Clark Can WIN]

63. It must be a pain in the ass

to deal with all of this. I voted for dumping the rules.

[meow mix]

65. exactly!

thats what i thought too. can u imagine how crappy it must be? yeeps

[TexasSissy]

67. Keep up the good work. We need you.

How do you put up with it? Without moderators, there would be anarchy and posts bordering on threats and violence, and reasonable people would discontinue to post.

Keep up the great work. I think you, in particular, are doing a great job, as are all the moderators. This happens to be a particularly trying time in the nation and for the Democratic Party, so I think tempers are flaring.

In about a month or so, tempers should settle down, as a nominee becomes more apparent, and we all focus more on the general election.

I was surprised to read your post and discover - gasp! - there's a human being behind that moderator's handle. I forget sometimes.

[Turkw]

68. Aren't you glad that presidential elections are only once every four years

Thanks for all the hard work that we put you guys through. I have never once complained about what you are doing. BUT I haven't taken the time to tell you guys thanks for putting up with our Sh@T, and that is my mistake. So ...

THANKS!!!!!! A WHOLE BUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yourock:

THANKS!!!!!! A WHOLE BUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yourock:

THANKS!!!!!! A WHOLE BUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yourock:

THANKS!!!!!! A WHOLE BUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yourock:
:yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock:

[Octafish]

69. I’m a DEMOCRAT.

I’ll vote to dump the rules and go along with what the majority decides. No matter the outcome, I'll go by the decision and I won't beef about it.

OTOH, as a DEMOCRAT, I am entitled to know all I want. That means the rules as I prefer them would enable me to see all the evidence, hear all points of view, and respond in all matters of opinion.

Even when I don't agree with something, I can blast back my take or laugh and move forward. Same rights go for the owners and moderators and all DUers.


PS: Hey, this is your house, Skinner. We're just guests. Thanks for inviting us in.

[MidwestMomma]

71. Make GD2004 similar to Late Breaking News forum by making timeliness

the basic requirement for starting a thread.

My suggestion is that you should only be able to start a thread in GD2004 if you have something CURRENT and newsworthy about the candidates and the primary.

My suggestions for valid thread topics:

Allow recent press releases from any candidate.

Allow any thread linked to recent news article concerning candidates or primary race.

Allow debate threads at time of debate and then follow-up threads as debate is followed in the media.

Allow new poll figures to be posted.

(I'm sure there are others people could think of.)

This would re-invigorate the forum IMHO. I think most people here would agree we are aware of all the basics about all the candidates...good and bad...and nobody is going to change anyones mind. I feel we are missing a lot of new information on the primary and the candidates because of the relentless dead-horse beating threads and I think this would fix it by making posts relevant to a current event in the primary/candidate's campaign.

Thanks for listening.

ps People who bash the admins and moderators for being biased should get a :spank:.

[Skip Intro]

72. GD2004P/GD2004PU - moderated/unmoderated

move rule-violating posts in the moderated forum, GD2004P, to the unmoderated forum, GD2004PU. Enforce basic rules throughout.

[Renew Deal]

73. GD Primary 2004: Anarchy Special edition

C'mon. Do it. It would be great. No rules.

[Adjoran]

77. I'm with ya - in the minority, it seems

But we are down to crunch time.

I am still undecided, with a primary coming up Feb 3. I know for many of these candidates (only Dean, Clark, and Kerry really have the money to go much beyond Feb 3 if they don't do well) this is the final stretch, make-or-break time.

The candidates, except Clark, have been at it hard for over a year now. They've devoted a year of their lives to it because they truly believe they have something to offer our country. They and their supporters have a lot of time, money, and emotion invested in the campaign. They're tired, and nervous (even Dean) about the actual voting.

2003 was a remarkably clean campaign, historically speaking. The candidates mostly concentrated on giving their own ideas, a positive view for America. But the primaries are at hand, and it is only natural that those behind will begin to draw sharp distinctions between themselves and their rivals. It's inevitable, in fact.

It's also inevitable that the targets will take exception, and there will be infighting. It gets nasty at times. As an older member, I've been actively involved in political campaigns going back to 1968. I've seen at least three Democratic Conventions where fistfights broke out on the floor. Those people weren't ruffians; they were respected community leaders in their states. That's just how high passions can run when you're committed to an issue or a candidate.

And it's not a bad thing - as long as it's like the old Irish brothers who would pummel each other in the backyard, but fight to the death for each other if an outsider threatened either. The people who care and sacrifice for their beliefs with their all are the people who get things done, who effect real changes.

I say, let 'em have at it! Just pledge everyone to remember that we will be fighting side by side this fall, so try not to permanently wound each other.

[Zomby Woof]

78. keep the rules, with one suggestion

The rules in here are far from perfect, and considering what a hardship it is to enforce them, and the attacks you, the other admins, and the mods have to endure, I understand your frustration level completely.

But the chaos of letting go of them could be far worse. Very likely much much worse.

I am no angel in this - I have posted some less-than-stellar crap in between a few thoughtful and fair threads (really! I do post some! lol), but accusing the mods of bias is much too much.

Perhaps a five-and-out rule (or another number you can agree upon). Five alerts and/or PM's that are abusive towards the mods and/or admins accusing them of bias or anything else hateful, should be banned. The number of bans will be high at first, but will level off to a manageable level soon enough. If not a ban, then a week-long timeout. Something long term in any event.

So - keep the every-5-warnings 24 hour timeouts with a 30 warning limit for personal attacks and flamebait threads, and then a 5 warning week-long timeout or permanent ban for abusing and accusing the mods and admins of unfair enforcement and bias.

This way, you really don't have any new rules, just a new way of weeding out disruptors to keep DU much more manageable and civil.

[Crunchy Frog]

83. I think that's an excellent idea Zomby n/t

[Renew Deal]

79. OK, seriously... Keep the rules. Change nothing.

This will all blow over in a couple months and we will be a happy family then. Please just tough it out for a little while longer. We are almost there. Then again, we can have a brokered convention and you will all have white hair and heart problems by June.

Either way, I think you are doing a great job and should leave it as it.

[sleipnir]

80. Skinner, the "Points" have nothing to do with the Poll? Why?

If it were a vote on the interesting "Points' you posted, I would have voted either 2 or 4? Why can't we vote our viewpoints based on your numbered system?? Why must we have a black/white Yes/No on the rules? I'm honestly much more in favor of #2, but I could live with #4 if it were so deemed.

[Crunchy Frog]

81. Skinner, I know this must

be frustrating as hell for you, personally I don't know how you even manage to keep your sanity doing what your doing, but I have noticed that since the new rules went into effect that there has been a dramatic improvement in this forum and in the level of civility.

This forum can be very painful to spend time in, but without the rules it would be absolutely intolerable and the only people left here would be the flamers. As it is, I can still use this place to get helpful information and engage in some degree of civil dialogue.

Please, please, please keep the rules in place. This hell is only going to last for a few more weeks. Afterwards, we should hold a fundraiser just to send you to Tahiti for a couple of weeks.

You really are doing an outstanding job, even though it probably doesn't feel like it from where you're sitting.

Edited to add: Maybe it would be a good idea to open up a new forum where there are no rules, and flamers can flame to their hearts content, or people can just go to vent their frustration.

[lib 4 all]

82. I think we need uninhibited debate to make the most informed choice.

I've seen important points that need to be said get censored... and remember, Karl Rove will not be censoring his attacks come this summer.

[arwalden]

87. Nonsense... None Of The "Uninhibited" Threads Have Informed Me Of Anything

other than how ugly people can be. Oh... I've also learned how "clever" people can be in finding ways to skirt the rules, and I see how petty others can be and how cruel some others can be and how immature a few more can be.

If there's anything to be learned about the candidates in those types of threads, then it's well hidden. I'm learning more about human nature and how to "win" a flamefest than anything else.

What a waste of bandwidth.

It's a nonstop game of "gotcha" trying to pester and annoy the opposition... I see no real issues being discussed.

A series of contradictions is not a debate.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

Yes it IS!

It is NOT!

Is SO!

Not!

Is!

Not!

Is!

-- Allen

[Padraig18]

90. Hear, hear, Allen!

Well and succinctly put! *applause* :thumbsup:

[Piperay]

84. So if the rules are

dumped than those of us who like civility will have to avoid coming here so we don't get burned to a crisp, phooey. :argh: :grr:

[Padraig18]

85. Continue to enforce the rules, and crack down on the ass hats!

I vote in favor not only of continuing enforcement of the rules, but urge you to treat the 'cute' posts which are TECHNICALLY in compliance just the same as those which are not; those posts are easy to spot and are almost always posted by the same handful of posters.

Keep up the smack downs, Skinner, and SHAME on those who criticize you guys for enforcing the rules!

[Gore1FL]

86. Is it possible to ban from a forum

If people get stupidf in the gen deic 2004 primaries can they juust be ousted from it for a some standard time period?

[anti-bush]

89. Have TWO primaries forums

Have one moderating forum for discussing the primaries.

Have one anything goes forum for discussing the primaries. Some of the good stuff will be lost if censorship is invoked, however it can be overwhelming to sift through the crud when you are trying to get good information.

[arwalden]

91. What "good stuff" are you referring to? Can you be specific?

Any pearls of wisdom that are to be found in the cesspool of vitriolic personal attacks and flamebaiting are barely worth the search.

Would YOU explore the holding tank porta-potty (at an outdoor concert) to retrieve a quarter that someone dropped? How about the diamondique ring that someone dropped? How about a GENUINE diamond?

Hardly worth it, in my estimation... besides, that's what Usenet is for. If you want unmoderated "discussion" then the place for that already exists. Why should we duplicate it here.

The folks who LIKE to flame and argue are doing so only for the SPORT of it all. It's a game. One great big game of oneupmanship and tit-for-tat insults (whether it's veiled personal attacks or baseless innuendo and outright attacks and lies on the candidate) it's all part of a game.

-- Allen

alt.binary.politics.freeper.erotica.amateur.nudes ... THAT ought to be real popular, eh?

[anti-bush]

93. No I can't

I can't offer any specific examples. But I do read through the locked threads to try to gain an understanding of what the criticisms of the candidates are, and will be when the republicans come calling.

I find out what kind of lies and distortions are being spread, and the points of rebuttal that are going to be important when those lies are spread against the candidate I support, or will support when the nomination comes.

I get an idea about why people feel negatively about certain candidates, not just a positive "Rah Rah" fest.

But more than anything, I think the free speech merits are important with regards to our presidential elections. I realize this is a private board, and that there are other places where this can occur. But obviously the moderators of this forum are inclined to give the idea of an unmoderated debate a chance. If they want to do this, I think it would be best to separate the unmoderated content from the rest of the 2004 Primary discussions, where information about policies, issues, stances, and news are brought to our attention.

[Padraig18]

92. Tombstone a few ass hats!

I won't name names, because I don't want a moderator warning, but we all know there are a mere handful of ass hats here who routinely get 'cute' with the rules and wind up posting 90+% of the flame bait here. If you'll recall, I've even brought this subject up in ATA, Skinner. My suggestion would be to treat any obvious attempt to 'skirt the rules' as a violation of those same rules. 99% of us know what the rules are and make a sincere effort to abide by them, and I think it's time to get tough on those who continue to clearly violate the spirit of the rules, while barely adhering to the letter of the rules.

There are people here who *deliberately* try to skirt the rules, and it's time they felt some negative consequences.

My $.02.

[JNelson6563]

95. Actually Paddy

that $.02 is worth more like $.0125

;-)

Julie

[Clark Can WIN]

106. Padraig18, don't you think that would lead to greater cries of

discrimination still? Asking the mods to enforce on a "spirit of the rules" standard? Although the rules are somewhat subjective now it seems that standard would open the door for still more people to cry Bias! Discrimination!

After reading many of the suggestions I have seen here, and reading some excellent points by many members including yourself, this is what I would suggest:

Make the 2004 primary forum Members Only

Enforce a rule against direct personal attacks i.e. "you're an ass" "you obviously lack a basic understanding of logic" etc.

let the flames begin.

[Killarney]

94. I know it must be difficult

to moderate this board right now and at times it probably seems like a thankless job, but I really appreciate the moderation. Without it, this place would be a mess. There would be flamebait everywhere. Freepers would be joining by the dozens just to post flamebait with the appearance for being for another democratic candidate, yet what they really want is for all of us to hate each other.

I think DU is a better place because it is moderated. I think the moderation should continue and all flamebait should be locked because it does nothing to add to the conversation or the cause and that flamebait only weakens us as a party.

Thank you. :)

[Iverson]

96. Your position is similar to a teacher's.

You should not opt out of setting a good example or fighting the good fight. Of course not everyone will get the message, and of course it is sometimes frustrating. Perfection is not the reasonable standard. Sure, try for it, but don't expect it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

97. Why don't they have a free-for-all forum in addition to this one....

When you want to get away from the sniping you can go to another one where only issues are discussed.

You'd get rid of the "rambunctiuous" posters from the main one too.

[spooky3]

98. It is your board; do what you think best

and never forget how grateful to you the vast majority of us are.

[Duder]

99. Since you've asked...

Point #1 - I believe that flaming about the Democratic primary is inevitable. Regardless of how many rules we try to create, hardened partisans will continue to seek out ways to score points against their opponents. There is little we can do to stop it, other than to ban lots and lots of people, and we don't really want to do that.

While I agree that the flaming is inevitable, more could be done to contain the flames, imo. The redundancy of multiple threads on the same topic that are thinly disguised as being different could be combined to just one pro and one con on the more generalized topic.

Point #2 - In my opinion, our efforts to crack down on the most egregious problems have been successful, and I believe the level of debate regarding the primaries would be much worse without our efforts and the efforts of the moderators. HOWEVER, I believe that our attempt to moderate the rhetoric on all sides has come at a terrible cost. The level of distrust and animosity toward the moderators, toward the other administrators, and toward me personally are simply unacceptable. We have created a situation in which our efforts are automatically assumed to be motivated by bias, which greatly undermines our authority to take any enforcement action.

My eyes see bias but another pair of eyes might be looking somewhere else. While I don't believe that there's any "intent" by the moderators the fact that some assume a bias whether real or imagined means that there exists a problem. Not all candidates are equal in the sense that, for example, there won't be multiple threads about CMB being attacked by the supporters of eight other candidates. An awareness that one candidate may be flamed disproportionately should be a consideration with regards to action taken and moderated fairly with some flexibility, imo. Certainly though, there have been many times when the thankless task of a moderator who has taken action such as locking a thread, when I have thought "thank you". So let me say now, thank you mods.

Point #3 - I'm just sick of the whole damned thing, and I want very much to just wash my hands of it. Want to put an asterisk after Howard Dean's name? Go nuts. Want to compare Wesley Clark to Hitler? Be my guest. Want to call John Kerry a lying sack of shit? Please do. Want to post your entire thread topic in all caps, with a dozen exclamation points at the end of every sentence? I have no desire to stop you anymore. The moderators and I can no longer be attacked if we simply allow everyone's bullshit flamebait to stay on the message board.

Actually, there is another alternative that could be considered. While these days with posts from such sources as Newsmax makes it sometimes difficult to tell we're of the same party, there does seem to be different levels of transgressions. Perhaps a third level for what might be perceived as a petty infraction of the rules in the heat of debate might give the moderators more freedom to delete at their discretion. So you'd have tombstoning, the 5 strike infraction rule, and then the less severe "crappy post" delete without penalty other than one less crappy post that has been removed. This might give the mods more freedom for the more petty infractions that may occur during a spirited debate.

Point #4 - If you don't like a thread, you can hide it. If you don't like a person, you can ignore them. If you think this entire forum is crap, nobody is forcing you to post in here.

I can't argue or add to this, other than say try to ignore flamebait.

Point #5 - Whatever you decide, we're going to keep enforcing our old rules which forbid personal attacks against individual members of this message board. It's unlikely to do much to contain the flaming, but at least they'll be easy to enforce. Or, what the hell, maybe we can just stop enforcing the personal attacks rule in this forum, too.

It should also be understood that while attacks on candidates are allowed some might consider and take personally the name calling that sometimes is prevalent. A personal attack is not always obvious and is subject to interpretation at times. For example, if a person is talking about candidate x in a reply and that is interpreted as talking about the poster.

That's my thoughts, but thank you Moderators and Administrators for what you do and I hope that you don't give up on trying to raise the quality of discussion to a higher level.

[John_H]

100. I WAS afraid of moderator bias, but it hasn't happened AT ALL.

I saw it a few times before the new rules, but none after. Believe me,as a paranoid former political op, I've been watching closely.

Before I sold out to the corporate man, I used to do politics for a living, and DU is the only place I can have the kind of serious, ball busting, discussions about politics I used to have every day at work.

To me the rules are perfect. They keep the current political ops from operating the way they would probably like to, but the let regular folks like us go at it.

[CWebster]

105. With, of course, your unbiased perspective

you would be in a position to determine?

Here is the telling pattern that emerges: Clark supporters see or experience no bias and plea for the rules to be imposed. And Dean supporters? Is it a different story for them?

I vote against the rules, because I think they have been abused in an attempt, consciously or not, through whatever influences are at play, to deliberately mold the forum.

[Clark Can WIN]

108. I take it CWebster you are one who accuses the mods of bias

Your theory is not holding up though. I voted against the rules but would like to see a continuation of the rule against personal atacks against memebers and I would like a Primary season 04 board for members only. So I don't fit into your Clark conspiracy.

Do you not believe that some Clark supporteres have felt that the moderatin has favored Dean? I'm sure there are.

[CWebster]

109. Yeah, I noted when your post went up

after mine.


As for your speculation, you would be very very surprised at the overwhelming majority consensus among DU supporters of Dean.

[mastein]

101. Flames=weakness of position

We must police ourselves as letting too much crap to fly just creates a circular firing squad and weak candidate in the end. Also, we know those that do not agree with us monitor the board just looking for juicy stuff to fling. As a result, we need folks like you to keep the house clean. Hopefully in the next at most 8 weeks this elimination round will be over, and life as we know it will return.

Let's pray we don't have a brokered convention.

[deutsey]

102. Let the damn fools form their circular firing squads

I voted to keep the rules, but it doesn't matter.

There are partisans of all stripes here who just can't seem to realize how much they're weakening our cause (defeating Bush, for those who have lost sight of that).

I'm saving my ammo for Bush, which is why I rarely post here at DU anymore.

[windansea]

107. one suggestion Skinner

if you post threads that are flamebait and it is locked you should get a "demerit" the same as for a deleted post

[Skinner]

110. Thanks for voting. I'm locking this thread.

To be honest, I'm stunned by the result.

Poll result (254 votes)

Keep the GD rules in this forum, keep all the special rules relating to the primaries, keep locking flame bait, and keep trying to impose special rules to crack down on the candidate debates. (200 votes, 79%)

Ditch the GD rules from this forum, ditch all the rules relating to the primaries, let people say what they want about the candidates, and just keep all the flaming segregated in its own forum. (54 votes, 21%)