Our approach to the primaries has failed. Would you support this approach?

[Skinner]

Poll question: Our approach to the primaries has failed. Would you support this approach?

Please read this entire message before you vote.

After weeks of trying to fix our primary problems through coercive, arbitrary, top-down, speech regulation, the administrators of DU have come to the conclusion that our efforts have been a failure. On this message board we seem to have two groups of people -- people who want to fight about the Democratic primary candidates, and people who want to discuss the positives about the Democratic primary candidates -- and neither group of people is getting what they want from DU. In or efforts to act as the honest referee between all of the different groups, we have satisfied nobody and alienated way too many people.

Here, we propose a radically different approach. This is what we wish to do:

1) Get rid of the GD:2004 forum as it currently exists, and get rid of *all* of the special rules for discussing the primary.

2) In place of the current GD:2004 forum, we create two new forums: 2004 Primary: Open Debate, and 2004 Primary: Positive Only.

3) The only rules in the 2004 Primary: Open Debate forum are the normal message board rules. Personal attacks against individual members of this message board are NOT permitted. But you may start threads about any aspect of the Democratic primary, and be as inflammatory as you like. Attacks against candidates are unrestricted, broad-brush statements about supporters are unrestricted.

4) Other than the normal message board rules, the 2004 Primary: Positive Only forum has exactly one rule: You can't say *ANYTHING* negative about any Democratic primary candidate. You can't ridicule any candidate. You can't even compare one candidate to the other. It's all good, all the time.

5) The "Latest Threads" page will not include any thread topics from the 2004 Primary: Open Debate forum.

6) The normal General Discussion forum will not permit any discussion of the Democratic presidential primary or the Democratic presidential primary candidates.

7) We wipe clean everyone's record of moderator warnings, because we understand how difficult it has been to follow the ever-growing, Byzantine rule structure, and to comply with the subjective rule enforcement.

We believe that this is the only solution with any hope of addressing our numerous problems. We know that it will not make everyone happy, and there will likely be many unintended consequences of this approach. But compared to our current approach, we believe this approach is more likely to give individual people the opportunity to experience DU in the manner which they prefer. If you don't like negativity, you never have to set foot in the Open Debate forum. But if you want vigorous debate you can jump in with both feet. If anyone complains to me about all the negativity, I will tell them to stay away from the Open Debate forum, and make liberal use of the ignore feature and the hide threads function. If anyone complains about stifled debate and overzealous moderation, I will tell them to stay away from the Positive Only forum.

We believe the beauty of this approach is that it gives people choices. If you choose to continue to be unhappy, the choice to do so is your own.

One more thing. We regret that we have added to the problems on DU, and made participation much more confusing, because of the frequent rule changes these last few weeks. Whatever you decide in this poll, that is the approach we will use until the end of the primary season. No more big rule changes, I promise.

We are asking for your approval to radically change our approach. Which of the following comes closer to your opinion?

This poll will remain open until approximately 12:00 noon ET, Friday, January 23.

[indigo32]

1. Skinner

people will still be upset by what goes on in the open debate forum. Frankly all I'd like to see people do is:
1. quite stereotyping supporters, just leave it alone, we aren't all the same.

2. honestly the 51rst post on the same subject is not necessary, 50 is enough

3. Don't perpetuate right wing talking points, most of which don't have anything to do with policy.

thats just my 2 cents.

[MercutioATC]

4. I disagree. It would those who wish to actually support their candidates

a forum in which to do so without having to wade through negative, off-topic posts.

Those who wished to discuss differences in the current manner could use the open forum, but at least they's know what they were getting into.

[wtmusic]

2. If it ain't broken...

Skinner, the board was working. 'Fighting' is going to happen, it's part of discussion. When it really got ugly we'd see the little 'Deleted message' message and everyone would chill.

Getting rid of the sex threads was great. It was too much, and inappropriate. But political discussion is always going to provoke arguments, and as long as you draw the line at getting personal, there's no problem.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. I agree

Good points all. :toast:

[question everything]

92. Well said. Thanks. n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

133. I disagree. It's not working.

It may be working for the partisans who have already chosen their candidates, but for undecideds like me it offers NOTHING. In fact, it has only increased my dislike for EACH of the candidates, without really learning about ANY of them.

[blondeatlast]

Hear, hear! One candidate had lost my support for good, largely due to

said candidate's supporters.

[hlthe2b]

3. A question on the Positive Only Forum:

If you wanted to criticize your own candidate and discuss ways in which his campaign might change to meet whatever the current challenge, is that allowed? Or no debate (even constructive) on ways to improve a candidate's performance and chances?

[Skinner]

8. I'm not sure.

My gut says that constructive criticism from supporters might be permitted. But to be honest there are some real jerks here that would use any opening like that as a wedge to post any old crap.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Yes, that "constructive criticism" part is an entering wedge

We've got a couple of "constructive critics" on the Kucinich threads who seem anything but constructive.

On the other hand, if campaign staffers are lurking, it's good for them to see real constructive criticism, as in "Our candidate needs to mention this issue more or pay more attention to that demographic."

[Bertha Venation]

24. "Constructive Criticism" is an oxymoron.

Criticism degrades. What's constructive about that?

JM2¢

[kerry-is-my-prez]

163. Whaaa? You're never supposed to "criticize" anyone for any reason?

That is the only way one learns...

[drfemoe]

168. I think you are confusing

education with criticizing. I've never believed criticism was "constructive" either. Contradictory terms.

[Clark Can WIN]

25. I agree, we already have many supporters of one candidate who pretend

rather poorly I might add, to be other candidates supporters. Avitars and all.

[The Magistrate]

35. And That, Sir, Is The Problem

There are people who wish to smear and slur only, and will not be denied.

It does not seem to me the Positive Forum would draw too many customers for long; conflict sells, and blood attracts spectators.

Further, many of the more positively oriented persons deem the slingers of smears and slurs and distortions to be doing active damage to the electoral prospects of the Party in the fall, and so are inclined more to fight them than to segregate themselves into a preserve for mutual congratulation. To such persons, it seems important that the scurrilous comments, where they appear, be outnumbered by the sensible ones, so that persons looking in to the debate can draw the conclusion that the slime-artists are, at least, a minority only.

There is the future to consider as well. Sooner or later, the nominee of the Party will be evident. At that point, the continuation of slurs and smears against him, and declarations of intent to oppose him by some means, will be hugely counter-productive, and there will be no effective difference between such calls from leftist or rightist ground. Persons who have hardened their hearts and honed their smears to a fine edge up to that point will have great difficulty in changing their ways then, certainly.

This analysis, of course, largely leaves out the difficulties you who police the board are encountering; the heavy commitment of time and energy that entails, the attempts to make use of your efforts as a tool in combat, the insulting accusations that come your way. This, too, is a serious factor, and is a real and powerful reason to alter the present practice, either in the way you have proposed above, or by simply resigning the effort and restoring the previous regime. The ordinary rules against personal attack, and persistent jerk-ism, do contain sufficient tools for weeding the worst out, if employed to that end. It seems to me that, with only a few exceptions, the additional regulations on Primary discussion are really little more than descriptions of how those more general ground rules apply in this specific situation.

[JohnLocke]

37. Words of wisdom, judge.

[question everything]

99. I think that you just convinced yourself that the new rules are not going

to work.

I think that the way it is - keeping out attacks for the sake of attacks - is the best way to go.

I also disagree with limiting posting of RW. You have to know what your enemies are saying to launch an effective campaign. Let's face it: there are many, too many, who get their news and information from Fox, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. (I once read a message on Yahoo referring to him as Limpdick. Is this allowed?)

And, judging from other threads from yesterday, we need to educate many among ourselves. If there are people who would rather sit on their hands in November than voting for the final nominee - we have a problem.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Positive only - no contrasting or comparing candidates - sounds dull

and uninformative.

[hlthe2b]

38. Yes... I think what people are looking for is a way for a candidate's

supporters to discuss without fear of intentional disruptors coming in and taking over the discussion, even in less overt ways. I just don't see a positive only forum providing that. I doubt, ultimately, that it would stay very active for that reason.

Perhaps we should just ride it out as we have it now. Perhaps after Super Tuesday, things will begin to shake out and a change will be less necessary...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. The campaign blogs work pretty good for that

or PM's

[Pale Blue Dot]

139. It is absolutely uninformative NOW.

I am undecided, and I can learn nothing about the candidates from DU because the discussion is so caustic in GD2004. No candidates or their supporters have been exempt from the petty, unconstructive behavior I have seen in that forum.

I WANT, no, NEED a place to go where I can learn about the candidates in a positive and constructive way. This forum would do that.

Believe me, I am smart enough to make my own decisions without having 500 people screaming at me at once (which is how I feel going into GD2004)

Please support this measure, and give those of us who are undecided someplace to go.

[tishaLA]

6. If you break them into 2 groups,

why not just put the "positive" stuff in the GD Smooth section?

I think the forum is working fine now. I have started ignoring threads and it works wonders. Besides, what could be in a "positive" section? People assuring each other about how great their candidate is and basking in the glow of endorsements? I infinitely prefer the mix.

[demothinker]

16. I'm thinking the same thing...

What is the vision of what the use of a "positive only" forum would be? If it's just a place where people can say, "We're the greatest, our candidate is the greatest!", how many times do people need to say it and do you need a separate forum for it?

[redqueen]

7. I think the proposed approach sounds good

Less complaining would be a good thing. :)

[Bonobo]

10. I agree, but...

There should be NO rules in the "Open" forum. Other than really obvious ones.

If people want to do things which are embarrassing to themselves, let them do them. Eventually, they will be shamed into stopping or leaving.

Water finds its own level.

[redqueen]

27. Well Ithought that was the idea

No 'special' rules, just regular board rules.

I certainly don't want to see personal attacks start in a debate on a candidates' policies or whatever.

[reprehensor]

9. It doesn't matter.

There are too many jerks posting absolute garbage here to possibly stem the tide.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Perfect. 2 Forum approach

is the perfect way to go! You couldn't make it any better than that. I LOVE it.

[cally]

12. I like the idea of the open forum

and clearing everyone's warnings. I don't like the rules for the new positive forum. I think we can be positive and compare candidates. For instance, I would like to discuss the electability of Clark and Kerry. Clark has more military experience, less of a record to pull attacks from, and less of a patrician background. Also, he comes from the south and will pull some of those voters to the Democratic side. Kerry has a long record of domestic policy experience, much more experience in politics and campaigns, a good background in national security, and a history of defending himself from attacks. If we had a forum that kept it positive, then I think we could have a decent discussion about this.

[WilliamPitt]

14. I voted to keep it the same because

this is temporary. Super Tuesday is March 2, only a little more than a month from now. In all liklehood, the deal with have gone down by then. Perhaps, if it hasn't, reconsider this new rules structure. For now, however, keep it as it is. There is no way - no way - to stop people from fighting during the primaries. You can create forty subforums with 23,000 different rules, and the fighting will still break out through the seams.

[seventhson]

154. All the more reason to have a positive forum and a no holds barred forum

if you cant stop it --- contain it

[trof]

15. I would also exclude Lounge from Latest Threads.

[Desertrose]

55. I agree with that...no Lounge on the Latest...

I don't really care what anyone posts there, but always felt it should be a bit less accessible to the front page.....

We know we like to get crazy but things can & are, taken out of context...

:shrug:
a thought

Peace
DR

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Opposite viewpoint.

I don't spent alot of time in the lounge, till late in the day when I am tired of debating, but it is fun sometimes to see an interesting-looking thread that pops up on the latest page and take a short break from politics.

[VelmaD]

17. I am increasingly concerned...

about the Balkanization of the board. I understand why some hot topics (like guns and Israel/Palestine) have to have their own forum. But I'm concerned that we have to keep adding new forums to discuss the biggest political issue of the year.

I don't understand why people can't just use the ignore function or simply avoid threads that they know are going to piss them off. That they do not leads me to the conclusion that they WANT to get pissed off. I'm like that myself sometimes - I like to get all het up. :) The problem with that though is that if the people who are unhappy are unhappy because they WANT to be...then nothing you do is going to change that. You can create all the separate forums and make all the new rules you want. They people who want to get their panties in a wad will still find a way to do it.

[bicentennial_baby]

18. Yep

I don't see how breaking it up even further will solve anything.

[cally]

36. Great point

Maybe just relax the rules in GD04 and let folks have at it. Many long time DUers just avoid that forum. Many others just have extensive ignore lists. I survive that forum because I just refuse to respond to some folks or a certain type of post.

I think the mods and admins are doing a heroic job.

[drfemoe]

170. I have never thrown the ignore

switch on a single member. If I am not mentally disciplined enough to filter out information based on individual evaluation, I need more practice.

That doesn't rule out the very likely probability that I would enjoy one Room free of contrariness in order to consort with like minded individuals. Most of us who disagree about the name by the ballot punch, find other things in which we are in total agreement. As it stands now, if a Democratic candidate is in any way a part of that agreement, there is no appropriate forum for that discourse at DU.

[bearfartinthewoods]

147. what she said, i saytoo

[diamondsoul]

19. Sorry, Skinner-

I'm with Pitt and some others on this one. Current tally seems to show a near even split of opinion. It won't last forever and I know it sucks to moderate this mess.

Maybe you could square a rule that there will be a postive only thread a day for eah candidate, regardless of who starts it, and ineffective of other positive threads. You could have mods mark the first positive thread for each as positive only and leave it at that.

[JohnLocke]

20. Please don't!

Don't make us choose between complete anarchy and "positive discussion." Your system is working fine. Keep it up!

[leyton]

140. Ditto.

I don't want to sit around praising candidates (well, OK, maybe Edwards) but I don't want inflammatory stuff to slide either.

[drfemoe]

171. Don't make you CHOOSE?

Choices are very much a part of grown up life. Smart parents begin choice training when their children are very young. When you say "don't make me choose" you are actually saying "don't make me responsible".

[Clark Can WIN]

21. I voted to approve your changes

I admit that I prefer the board the way it is but I can't help thinking about how hard it must be to arbitrate all this crap.

A personal attack is fairly easy to determine and not very subject to cries of bias.

A "happy thoughts only" forum solves the problem for those who would cry about negativity.

Opening the rules reduces censorship and allows for more freedom of expression without fear of retribution.

I predict a week or so of unprecedented chaos and vitriol followed by a season of.......... slightly less chaos and vitriol.

[kentuck]

22. Time will resolve it....

Otherwise, the only solution is outright censorship, which I doubt you would want to go that route.

[Cena]

23. I don't like this new approach....

since this is a Democratic Party website, I don't think we should be allowed to bash or say hateful things about one candidate or another. With the way the current state of the Democratic Party is in, with all the divisions among members and the like, we should be supporting one-another and not going "WWE style" on each other.

Maybe the current rules can be changed slightly so that so many warnings aren't issued. I don't have any ideas right now on how to change them, though. :shrug:

That's just my 2 cents.

[TrogL]

74. Just to clarify

This is not an official Democratic Party website. Certainly it's a place for Democratic Party people to do their thing and there's plenty of contribution from Greens, independents, Liberals (various countries) and others and it's primary purpose (IFIC) is to facilitate a Democratic Party President (or lead to the downfall of Dubya, which is probably one and the same thing).

[quinnox]

26. Too much tinkering, it is going good as it is

I think the current rules are working well, and the forum is fun with a good tone, while there is still room for some controversy and debate.

If it is split, it will just cause both forums to become dead zones.

There is no reason to have three forums (including politics and campaigns forum) for the primary season.

I think it is as close to perfect the way it is now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. I voted to stick with the new rules

Because they certainly have made the experience more enjoyable for me. But the proposed new approach doesn't sound bad either.

[Raven]

29. Keep it the way it is.

There are always going to be people who are disruptive and nasty. I think as posters we need to police ourselves a little better. The forum, after all, is supposed to be an exchange of ideas not a candidate love in. You guys have done a terrific job so far...keep it up. If you have a separate forum for positive stuff only you will end up spending all of your time deleting posts that should not be there. I, for one, am determined to be civil when I post on GD2004 and I am going to be more active about calling people on it when they get out of line. Thanks for your hard work and don't get discouraged!

[Bertha Venation]

30. Question about # 4:

"You can't even compare one candidate to the other. It's all good, all the time."

"All good all the time" CAN include comparisons. If you split the primary forum as you've proposed, if there's a way to amend that rule, I think it would be a positive thing.

[kaitykaity]

32. Sorry Skinner, a split is a lousy idea.

I would suggest, however, that allowing positive
candidate threads in the regular GD forum would
solve your problem.

I would also do away with the 'byzantine' rules,
post an ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK sign on the candidate
forum, and then wash your hands of the whole
goddamn thing.

:hi:

[CWebster]

33. Change it and rid yourself of the headaches.

Get rid of the deletion policy and heavy-handed monitoring that causes people to be restrained based on guesswork of what is a violation here but not a violation over there. It is like walking on eggs. Too arbitrary and causes resentment and suspicion.

[drfemoe]

172. Sound Advice n/t

[SheilaT]

34. I'm not at all sure how to vote on this.

I post in a number of forums, including GD:2004 and like some others have already said, I've learned to ignore the worst of the threads and not respond to the most outrageous attacks and statements.

What I can't figure out is how anyone could get more than one or two warnings. Disclaimer: I've never even gotten one, so I'm either doing something right or I'm not expressing my own opinion forcefully enough.

Maybe more people need to be temporarily suspended from posting in GD:2004, like for twenty-four or forty-eight hours. Than might improve the level of discourse.

All that said, I'm getting very tired of the snarky ("What do you make of THIS?") posts even when they're against my least favorite candidates. It's not the kind of thing that improves anyone's knowledge of the various candidates or helps them to make up their mind about whom to vote for.

Just one suggestion: Could spell checking be made mandatory? Could you suspend people for using apostrophes incorrectly?

[ModerateMiddle]

39. I really like the idea of two forums

One of the things that happens for me is that I open a thread that has a great initial post, and I am interested in the comments folks have about it. But before very long reading down the thread, the conversation devolves into a he said/he said kind of thing and I get disgusted and back out. The problem with that response, though, is that I most likely miss out on some very thoughtful responses beyond the negativity - that I never see because of the mini-flame war I encountered.

I think we have excellent candidates and I love talking about them, and talking process. But I can't stand the posts where folks have this huge amount of animosity and spew vitriol against any of the candidates.

With the proposed system, I can have my happy threads without the little wars, and if I am feeling like watching (or participating) in the rough and tumble, that option is also available.

I don't really understand why anyone wouldn't like this approach, but obviously (as of this writing), DU is split in its response.

[CWebster]

41. People vote against their own best interests

doncha know? Change scares them, even if it is for the better.

And get rid of the stop sign too (while I am at it)

[Skinner]

42. If you read the page with the stop sign

it tells you how to get rid of it.

[CWebster]

44. yeah, I know

I keep meaning to do it, but I forget between clicks.

[DemExpat]

40. My preference is to keep it as is......but add the Open Forum

with minimal moderation for those who love the rough stuff...

:-)

I really do think an Open Forum would help here, while keeping the new rules for those who want more "focussed on the positive" discussion.

DemEx

[mvd]

Yes, I still think that's a good idea

But it doesn't look like Skinner's considering it - that's why I voted to make Politics and Campaigns or a new forum another GD: 2004 Primary forum with normal DU rules at most.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. I really think the forum for 04 should have the EXACT same rules

as the rest of DU. There is no reason to create a system of arbitrating. When DU bans a freeper, it is often due to a sense that the person came only to disrupt. There is ample evidence that some in GD 04 come only to disrupt.

Frankly, I felt the rules WERE working for people who came to debate and were NOT working for people who came only to flame and disrupt.

One can be open and civil. I have a reputation as being fierce in my advocacy of causes and issues. I have not had one single post removed. Certainly if someone as unruly as myself can survive so can others. It's called using your head.

On most California highways, the speed limit is 65. Most people go 80. If we say it isn't working and change the speed limit to 80...isn't it likely people will go 100?

[Maddy McCall]

48. Excellent post, NSMA--

I voted against the proposal--your point about California highways--exactly the way I feel.

[sistersofmercy]

80. Agree with you, NSMA!

[SoCalDem]

81. The ignore and hide features should solve most problems

It is very obvious that "lots" of people who "need" the 2004 forum in the first place are "closed-minded" about their candidate..that's the hallmark of partisan politics.. If people did not care, there would be no need for DU at all..

Some people just cannot bear to have their ideas "added" to an existing , and similar , if not identical thread, so multiple duplicates flood the board, which only encourages people who support OTHER candidates to spam the board to achieve parity..:(

If I ruled the world, I would structure it like this..

1. Ignore and hide, should be the first two choices...not alert.. People have opinions and if they disagree with you, they are not automatically a disruptor...GROW UP..

2. I like the part about not having them show up on "Latest".. I have long thought that Lounge posts should not be there either..

3. Disruptors are a fact of life..Engaging them only gives them the credibility they crave..

4. Regardless of what we at DU think, there will be ONE GUY who emerges as our candidate.. If you seriously think you cannot support ANY of the candidates (even if your guy loses), you probably do not belong here..

5. NOTHING THAT ANYONE POSTS HERE WILL CHANGE SOMEONE'S MIND ABOUT THE CANDIDATE THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTING ...FINANCIALLY OR EMOTIONALLY..

6. DUers are human, and if you insult THEIR guy, you will likely have YOUR guy insulted.. GET OVER IT..

disclaimer.. I have only made 2 or 3 posts in the new forum since it "opened" , so I may or may not know what I am talking about :)

[salin]

110. My concern

is that the open forum will be used, as I have seen happen (before the split in GDs), to push fraudulent propoganda, and that this propoganda will end up floating to the otherside. I have seen instances of stories generated here at DU, started as speculation, and then refered to as factual later by those who are predisposed against a particular candidate. The bigger problem is that people can use this AGAINST all democrats... as the story is linked back to DU... as in "See - the democrats are pushing this - so it isn't GOP dirty tricks." I don't think this is necessarily intentional - some folks are just so prone to passion for their candidate (or against a particular candidate) that they get carried away.

I think being able to call folks on fraudulent material that borders on slander - is legitimate. Just being able to do so on a board doesn't prevent the damage of fake stories being repeated as fact.

It would be a shame if a place that was created to play a role in bring folks together who want to see bush out.. ended playing a small role in keeping bush in by discrediting the eventual candidate (whoever that may be)...

Just one Duer's opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. I am in COMPLETE agreement

[BootinUp]

112. I don't see how any credible

journalist, no matter what their political leaning is, can reference an anonymous bulletin board as a source for proof of anything. And if they do it is so easy to swat down.

I just want to keep making a point: I learn more about how to defend my candidate by going through the flamewars here (under the old rules). Since the latest rules went up, this candidate forum has been a wee bit boring to tell you all the truth.

[salin]

113. While it is harder to think through

how to critique content rather than poster - it forces stronger logic, research and use of legitimate documentation.

The cost of "more boring" vs. "working to serve the rw propoganda" seems worth it.

RW propoganda writers are not legitimate journalists - but they get a heck of a lot of airtime.

[BootinUp]

118. The current rules

restrict content, not just personal attacks. They also restrict characterizations of supporters.

I am all for critiquing content and restricting personal attacks. I am not for restricting legitimate political discussion of issues that are being talked about elsewhere anyways. I think our forums should not be afraid to discuss and debunk all politically motivated attacks.

If DU is mined by Rush Limbaugh for airtime, all that tells me is that he is running out of real material. Other people will see that too. And if they stop by they can learn the facts.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

117. What credible journalists?

The Al Gore LOVE CANAL story was fed to the pundits by Counterpunch. While they often have good articles, not all their writers have a monopoly on credibility.

Sorry if you aren't entertained. That's what porn sites are for.

[BootinUp]

119. I thought

your reference to porn sites was a little distasteful. Sounds like you favor a continuation of political apathy in our country.

The reason that Al Gore was smeared effectively is because he couldn't defend himself if his life depended on it. (Overstated for effect).

cheers

[salin]

124. It didn't help that some democrats (in press, and just in public) repeated

the lies. Indeed those voices gave an implicit "truthful ring" to the lies.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

126. But you just said you were bored with lack of distastefulness?

:shrug: what gives?

[BootinUp]

129. Please read post 118

I did not say it was missing distastefulness, it is missing restricted content that is legitimate political discussion.

[chiburb]

114. I agree but for one point...

"I don't think this is necessarily intentional - some folks are just so prone to passion for their candidate (or against a particular candidate) that they get carried away."

Reading some of the flames, I have to wonder if the posters aren't really disruptors disguised as Dems or Dem supporters? Wouldn't it make sense for the 'other side' to employ a certain ammt. of folks to bash perceived threats to Boy George? It wouldn't take much: 2 or 3 assigned to DK, 4 or 5 to Dr. Dean, 6 or 7 to Kerry, etc.

It would certainly explain some of the 'drive-bys'...

[salin]

120. I was being

diplomatically generous. I do think that many folks who are over the line are there honestly. I also think that some who go over the line are here for 'sport' and other games.

[CheshireCat]

46. The forum setup doesn't bother me.

Skinner, anyway you set it up is fine with me.

What really bothers me are those posters who seem to choose their candidate, then spew nothing but negativity about all the other candidates, as if they were as bad as Bush.

After we choose a nominee, Dems need to unite behind that candidate, whether or not it is their choice. 2004 is not the year to be picky. We must defeat Bush or our democracy is DEAD! That means supporting the Dem candidate that runs against him, no matter who it is.

The division this infighting is creates is playing directly into the hands of the Repukes.

In most past elections, I have been much more idealistic, but at 52 years old, I have never seen a danger to our country greater than GW Bush.

We must defeat the idiot in chief!

[rtassi]

174. I agree

defeating George Bush is what is important. I would vote for Zippy the Pin Head. In the end it comes down to which box you check.

[Rowdyboy]

47. The current system is working well...itneeds to be given a little time....

if you can. The proposed change would result in one forum too angry to approach and another too dull to imagine.

I'd much prefer to stay as we are now-but it's your party.

[fishnfla]

49. More issues, less personalities

attack the policy, not the candidate, not the poster

[joefree1]

50. We DU Dean supporters had to start our own group

Just so we could talk positively about our guy.

After all that's what DU is about, a place where we Democrats can talk positively about Democratic issues. Same thing.

Yeah, I'm all for a separate positive tread.

[CWebster]

51. So yesterday they argued against greater freedom of speech

and today, while provided with forums for those who protest the discord and acrimony and seek only sweetness and light, they still resist their own freedom of speech...

Welcome to Ashcroft's America, for those of you who always believe that the Government can always be trusted to determine who the terrorist(communist, bad guy, evil doer, etc)is.
And this on a progressive board? No wonder we keep losing elections.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. My humble impression of absolute freedom of speech on DU

Fuck you

OH YEAH!!! Fuck you!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. that about sums it up

[CWebster]

56. Not really

and one time I read an absolutely scathing attack by you against Dean supporters and I restrained myself from firing back. I never forgot it, because it offended me to such a degree. Everytime you post about the need for greater civility--as if it was always someone else's fault, I recall that post. We all have an agenda, I know I can be a hothead and sometimes I let it get the better of me, sometimes outrage is justified, but it might be too strong for some unprepared for intensity. So what is wrong with having more forums to meet different needs?

The problem is people always think lack of civility is always someone else's problem and often the first to demand more of it are the biggest abusers of it.

[chiburb]

57. And sometimes those that demand more...

Freedom of speech are the very ones to abuse it.

[CWebster]

59. Hmmmm

wonder what that means? LOL!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

141. Legalize passion. Heat and light are intertwined. Simple reminders only.

Howzabout:
Instead of that list of posting rules that looks like the back of a credit card bill (I blew thru a few times and only now just read the thing carefully as I suspect many have), a simple pre-posting reminder to try to shed more light than heat and respect the other du-ers?

Y'know, the equivalent of "please refrain from talking during the movie and avoid aggressive driving." -???

A simple karma advisory to 'keep it human, do no harm, remember we're all on the same side here'?

BUT PASSION IS CRUCIAL TO GENUINE HUMANITY! There are issues of life/death, outrage/justice, hope/frustration kicking around here. And that means sometimes using capital letters and, atleast, curse acronyms such as 'WTF?!

I have learned amazing things and my opinions have evolved from some of the heat that I have both expressed and witnessed. Mea culpa: I made an exasperated comment about 'Clarkies' and TheMagistrate was compelled to weigh in with his in-depth research on Kosovo and we had a dialogue regarding pragmatism and survival. Subsequently, I've spent more time and energy considering complex situations such as the life, career and stated values of Wesley Clark.

Seperating posts into positive and negative camps will distort the dialogue horribly.

This site must remain not only 'civil' but human, with all the fallibilty that implies. There are ways we DON'T want to be more like the Republicans to win while we consider how to do so.

And that means respecting 1st Amendment values or else it's gonna whither in vitality, just like our government.

[drfemoe]

175. Interesting comments

Please consider
a simple pre-posting reminder to try to shed more light than heat

I like strobe lights, I like black lights, I like multi-colored lights. I like 40 watt bulbs, 60 watt bulbs, 100 watt bulbs... even a sun lamp produces a particular kind of light, as well as a good amount of heat. If the Democrats are not the party of diversity, there isn't one.

ps. I prefer not to read for understanding with the aid of a 5 watt bulb or making love under a sun lamp, although someone else might. Context and preference.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. At the time scathing statements against Dean supporters were not

outside the guidelines. To my knowledge I didn't single anyone out.

I don't post about the NEED for greater civility, I DO post about the need for SPACE for intelligent debate which dumbass flamebait oneliners preclude.

BTW, you proved my point by admitting you demonstrated restraint. One can be outraged and still communicate within the guidelines.

BTW< whatever I posted, it obviously was hurtful to you and frankly I like you and did not mean to hurt you so I DO apologize. You should not be tarred for the activities of some. I still HAVE my issues with some.

[diamondsoul]

71. Oh, but you've paid

Kucinich supporters back in spades. Please spare us the victim act, won't you?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[chiburb]

52. Sorry Skinner, but I voted to keep the Mods busy...

Others have articulated it above, but I'll add that I question the party or candidate "affiliation" of those that continually refuse to participate on this board in a civil manner. I believe you when you say that the biggest offenders have more than 1000 posts. It's easy to build up a post count when your sole contribution is one-liners or "drive-bys". I don't know, maybe it's because I'm "older" that I have less tolerance for freeper-like behavior than you do. I just don't see any room for it at all, let alone its own room!

[TrogL]

61. I'd still like to see a Dungeon

Flame warriors never give up. I know because I'm one of them. Sometimes a flame warrior's emotions will run away with him and he will post things that he and others later regret.

I would see the Dungeon serving three purposes.

• a repository for threads that have exceeded people's sensibilities
  
• a "solitary confinement" for flame warriors who have lost control but whose input is still welcome when they have settled down
  
• it would be blocked from "Latest"
  

There would be a warning sign basically saying "abandon hope ye who enter here". Rules about copyright, obscenity, threats and out and out slander (ie. legally actionable) would still apply but the area would be "gloves off" to participants.

A thread would start its life in the (hopefully) appropriate forum, but if it gets out of hand, a moderator would delegate it to the Dungeon, leaving a placemarker pointing to its new location. The Dungeon could have separate repositories for ongoing problem forums such as I/P, 911 and our current problem child, 2004 Primary.

I'm surprised that DU does not currently have this capability as I have found it on several other boards and the members have found it extremely useful. There's an example here (http://www.hardcoretalk.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi) - the Free Speech forum.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. So if someone doesn't like a thread...

...all they have to do is start a flamewar on it, and it gets tossed in the Dungeon?

Can we trust the integrity of our discussion to the lowest common denominator? I know where you're coming from, and it does take two to flamewar, but even one commited disruptor could stifle worthwhile debate like this.

However, it seems to be working well at hardcoretalk.com, so perhaps Skinner should check out that site.

[newyawker99]

62. I believe that the rules should be given more time.

I have seen an improvement in the forum since the new rules were put into place.

I don't like the idea of separate forums. As others have said in this thread this is the primary season. We are going to try to elect a Democrat and send him to the White House. I think this forum works best as is because a person can read the pros and cons of all the candidates. There will always be disagreement. There is no way to remove that. I think members should be allowed to disagree but my only wish is that they would do this in a respectful manner.

The idea of a forum that is only positive is not very interesting. I think this forum would not get much traffic. A forum where "anything goes" sounds like a disaster.

Re: the rules...perhaps the rules should get a second look and maybe some can be modified and some can be removed. I believe these are good rules and have helped GD04 become a better place.

IMHO the problem in GD04 is not the rules but how different members regard the rules. Some take them seriously and try to stay within the guidelines while others seem to have no regard for the rules.

I have come to love this forum and I would like to see it remain as it is. :-)

[Rowdyboy]

67. It really has gotten a lot better over the last few days

hasn't it?

[edzontar]

70. I too have noticed a small improvement....

After the low-point of Monday night.

[TrogL]

63. Maybe we just need more mods

especially some who "have no dog in this fight", and/or the existing ones need to be more "trigger happy" with the worst offenders.

[FlaGranny]

64. This is my first foray into this forum, led here by your poll.

While I voted to keep things the same as they are now, I realize that no matter what you do, not everyone will be happy. Every time you make a rule you get 100s of messages to the effect - yes, I read the rules, but can I still do blah, blah. We got more nit pickers around here than in a convention of people with head lice.

Some people will never lean to be respectful of others and to them, free speech is only the freedom to be as insulting as possible. So maybe your idea is not so bad. It WOULD give people the freedom to discuss their candidates without being exposed to the adolescent disrespect of the few who love to do that sort of thing.

So, in other words, although I voted "no change" I'm not altogether convinced that there should be no change. Whatever you decide is fine with me. Just keep the adolescents out of the regular GD. I'll be forever grateful to you for doing that.

[edzontar]

65. I think it is up to every individual as this thing gets tighter...

To keep things as upbeat as possible and to try to avoid stepping on each other's toes.

The way to do this is not to change the rules, but to encourage people of good will--of their OWN ACCORD, and not as part of any "deal" or new rules--to desist in posting pointless flamebait attack threads.

I do NOT mean that we should not discuss the various controversies that arise or recur regarding each candidate in a spirited manner,.

I do NOT mean that we should enlist each other in ABB loyalty-oath threads.

I mean that evcery one of us should do everything we can avoid the really vicious stuff, and have some sympathy for supporters of other candidates.

I imagine that the clark supporters here, for example, should be expereincing some of the nervousness and apprehension regarding the very fluid and uncertain NH race that many of us in other campes felt just a few days ago in Iowa.

I hope that you will not have to go through what the Dean folks here suffered at the hands of some of your colleagues the other night...indeed, this next round may very well provide the ultimate test of the viability of these forums and the redemption this divided and damaged community.

[geniph]

66. Either option works for me

as I'm still mostly avoiding all primary threads so long as people continue to be childish. However, my two cents' worth on the topic; if I want unbridled, unmoderated fighting about the candidates, there are innumerable message boards where I can read that. They quickly get taken over by whoever shouts the loudest. I do not frequent such message boards. I will not frequent them. If DU ever devolved into one of them, I'd avoid it, too. It's not a free speech issue so much as a staying on point and civility issue. If people are not capable of staying on issues rather than personalities, and they're unable to be civil, then they need to be muzzled or go somewhere else. No one is impeding anyone's freedom to be as inflammatory as they like SOMEWHERE ELSE. Keep DU clean.

[bigfishsmallpond]

68. GD 2004 Fight Club & GD 2004 Polite

might be better titles. we still want debate

[newyawker99]

108. Hi bigfishsmallpond!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mvd]

69. Voted to keep things as they are here

But with a couple modifications: there shouldn't be as much subjectivity as far as the rules go (sometimes I don't even know what to alert on,) and I think Politics and Campaigns could temporarily be another GD: 2004 Primary forum with normal DU rules.

[mvd]

87. One more thing

Make this rule a little different: it seems like only extreme broad-brush statements are being deleted, so state that extreme broad-brush statements will be deleted.

[Shananigans]

72. Werd...

Why can't we just let anarchy reign? Most of us have figured out who the dickheads are and we steer clear of them. The thought of MORE censorship on the DU scares me. After all we are a pretty leftist group and the more "rules" we have the more centrist or even rightist we become...

(I just love the "ists," can't you tell?)

[Kamika]

73. Just have one primaries forum, but NO rules except most basic

Create one board for primaries and just have most basic rules.. like

No personal attacks, no racism and no republicans.

Oh and change my yes vote to no

Two primaries forums are WAY overkill

[nuxvomica]

75. I like the new scheme. I think it will be cathartic for some folks

We are talking politics after all and sometimes people just have to have the opportunity to blow off steam. With the existing rules, some people may spend a lot of time seething until they finally blow up and get warned.

[Walt Starr]

76. I will voice my support for a split

In one, anything goes except personal attacks.

I would not frequent that one.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. GDP:2004 OD will be a Freeper resource without parallel

Why do the Republicans' work for them? The proposed forum will quickly descend in the worst of negative politics, guaranteeing the furtherance of bad will and ill faith among candidate supporters. It will create the maximum number of wedge issues that disruptors can exploit handily.

The ideal atmosphere would be one where potential criticisms of each candidate are raised, the best defenses are constructed and examined for flaws, and flamebaiting is absolutely prohibited. This might require a higher level of moderation, but I'm sure there are plenty of long-time DUers who can take up the slack. Avail yourselves of them.

[BootinUp]

86. Is that what we are worried about?

honest question. I can see where we want the forum to not be offensive so as to draw in new democrats, that can be done by separating the heat off to the side and providing a warning.

As far as a freeper resource, we can never hope to compete with the current kings in that regard.

I would add one more rule to new forum. No cut and pasting from RW attack sites, keep the content out of the body of the post, allow links though with a warning and opinion.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. I think a place for considering actual attacks and possible attacks...

...is a worthwhile goal. Knowing the role that attack memes played in the 2000 election, a place to build the best defenses on potential weaknesses for any candidate is something worth doing.

But should this be a public endeavor? If we set up a place to air dirty laundry in public, we shouldn't be surprised at who shows up to take notes.

[BootinUp]

98. You would have a place with the best

in the game beating back attacks that are already out. That means that some people will be educated properly by reading the rebuttals.

You can't hide the stories, if people can't read about it here, they are gone in a nanosecond to read it somewhere else. It would be better if they read it here and read the rebuttal too.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. True

...and if the forum was about stating the stories and the rebuttal, minus the flamewar and the reposting of issues as flamebait, the forum could and should be public.

Anything that increases the think-tank and brainstorm possibilities of DU and minimizes the attack-modes and wedge issues is what I'd like to see happen here. I don't see separating into Pollyanna and Pinhead forums as a step in the right direction.

[BootinUp]

105. But the issue you raise

is easily dealt with by each user hiding the threads they do not want to have popping up and down.

If an issue has been debunked so to speak it only takes one post linking to the past thread to pretty much kill it for anyone really interested in reading responses.

[BootinUp]

78. I would much prefer the new proposal

with some slight modification. First off, with the hide thread option, I do not see any reason why people should complain about threads in the first place. We are all capable of deciding if a thread topic is of interest or not.

I like the old rule about the thread title matching the content, keep that one. I like the controls against personal attacks. Also, I would still lock duplicate threads. But other than than we should be able to discuss this stuff. I like the idea of keeping the "hot" stuff off the front page of the website.

And as far as the positive thread stuff, I think thats great to keep it in another forum, somewhere they won't scroll off the first 2 pages so quick.

Come on folks lets take a burden off the moderators.

[Jerseycoa]

79. Haven't voted yet

Skinner, is there any consensus among you overworked mods and admins? I would like to vote to make your lives easier. I have been deleted a lot more than I would have expected, since I think I am generally not a rude person, but I don't appeal, because I figure you guys are making the call and I can live with it. But, overall, it seems to me the system's working quite well except it's probably driving you guys nuts. So what do you want?

[Skinner]

93. The preference of the Admins is to go with this new proposal.

We believe that it would make our lives much easier, it would make the rules easier for the mods to enforce, it would make the rules easier to follow, and it would cut down on all the people actively trying to "game" the system to their own advantage. It would also provide people with a clear choice to experience DU in the manner which they prefer.

I cannot speak for the moderators. Some of them seem to think this is a good idea, others think it is not.

[Jerseycoa]

96. Okay, thanks nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. OK that's what the mods like...but can YOU really live with what will be

posted in that free for all forum? Consider the best and the worst.

[genius]

82. The problem with the current rules is that they prevent issue discussion.

I belong to a great many Democratic groups and none of them seem to censor issue discussion as much as the rules here. You asked how we felt about the new rules and I hope that it is okay to say this. I am usually positive but when I see something that is really extreme (such as certain candidate positions), I'd like to point out that it is extreme. We all hate Bush but we should be able to discuss whether certain choices made by a particular candidate are worse than even those made by Bush in that area so that people can look at whether the candidate in question needs to change his approach or whether this candidate is just so bad that we need to forget about him. It's a matter of being allowed to be accurate and present the whole picture. There is still time to choose the best candidate.

Perhaps the best approach would be to tone down the policies in an effort to allow more freedom of discussion on the issues. Personally I would like to see a restriction on the "should drop out" and "unelectable" threads. These are far worse than pointing out how bad certain positions on the issues are. I have no problem with a rule prohibiting calling candidates and their supporters names. It is not being allowed to label extreme positions for what they are that concerns me the most.

[rbnyc]

83. So sad.

I think this is a smart idea. But as usual, I am in the minority. I've been in the minority in every rule vote you've had. Well, I guess it's just my destiny to be a minority voter during primary season, no matter what the vote is about.

Maybe the vote will turn around, but I honestly hope you'll do what you think is best no matter how the vote turns out. Listening to us in the past hasn't really worked out, has it?

[BootinUp]

84. Excellent point - Skinner read this one

[arwalden]

85. If You Create Two New Forums...

would you also consider giving us the ability to "hide forums"?

Also... the ill-will momentum and mood that's created in the "free-for-all" forum has the possibility of spilling over into other forms, yes? (But then you've probably already considered that.)

-- Allen

[Skinner]

88. Read the proposal closely.

We would automatically hide the Open Debate forum.

[arwalden]

103. Yes... I Understand. But...

... my suggestion about "hiding" the forum was referring to users being able to hide it and prevent it from being listed the Lobby as well. (Similar to how we can hide individual threads. It would just "disappear" and we wouldn't have to think about it any more.)

BTW: I reject the premise of your subject line... "Our approach to the primaries has failed. Would you support this approach?"

I suppose it depends on how you measure success and failure. Also, on-the-fly tweaking and fine-tuning the rules never hurts. I wouldn't give up so easily... but then I'm not you... I haven't had to endure.

-- Allen

[Joe the Revelator]

106. If you don't have the will power

to not go into a forum that you don't want to look at then you should step away from the internet. :)

[arwalden]

107. You're Probably Correct About That

But it's like asking me NOT to slow down on the beltway to gaze curiously at the flashing lights of the emergency vehicles on the scene of a horrible twisted accident.

I have no control.

-- Allen

[hippiegranny]

90. as with most poll questions,

the answer closest to mine is somewhere between the two and a combination of both!

i ended up voting to keep things the way they are. i think this hysteria is temporary until after the primaries. and since there is already a separate forum for debate about the candidates, to further segment it seems like overkill. while i do sympathize greatly with the mods, they are going to be just as busy in the open forum, i'd bet.

as for myself, when i need to preserve my wa i stay away from the 2004 primary forum altogether. on other ocassions, when i do want to "take the pulse" but things start to get too ugly, i just bail. i think we can all create our own moderating standards on what we will tolerate.

yes skinner, people are definitely being jerks lately, but i would wait to see if that crap continues after the nomination is said and done.

[silverlib]

95. I agree with William Pitt and think Diamondsoul has a good idea.

I think you guys do a great job and in the end hope you do what ever is easiest for you guys. I hope no one is beating you up over this.

Politics is a nasty business, as well as a passionate one.

Once March rolls around, new rules will probably have to be in place for those who choose to leave the party (that sounds like a pun), but I think things will take a natural turn.

Peace!

[mikehiggins]

97. Stay BUT

keep the primary postings out of the latest listings. Everyone who wants to cross swords should be able to do so, but it shouldn't be inflicted on everyone else who might not want to wade through page after page of dueling bull**** to find out what someone thinks about Bush's Bizarro World SOTU address.

Also, without the feedin from "Latest" we'd soon devolve into five or six fanatics hammering away at each other.

That's my suggestion.

Its your board.

[DS1]

101. I don't expect anyone to agree...

I think a single GD Primary should be unregulated with the exception of freepers. I have this idea that in the long run, when the votes are finally in, people will realize how useless all the hate and anger was in the first place. Perhaps everyone will get behind each other and focus on beating Bush. Then again, I think my naivety has taken over, and nobody will learn a damn thing, and DU is so far apart from mainstream America nothing said here means a damn anyway.

First and last post in GD Primary, thx for listening.

[Cronus Protagonist]

102. I want a choice to return to the normal GD forum and get rid of the other

I don't think bifurcating GD helped at all, so we should go back to one forum.

"FUCK Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[citizen snips]

109. Sounds good to me.

n/t.

[Alex146]

115. If I ran DU

I would suspend all of the offenders. But I don't run it, so I simply block all the people who I have issues with. I've blocked about 10 and I've found that things have gotten better.

[AP]

116. How 'bout this:

One positive forum where you can compare ideas/policies -- no rumour mongering, have to cite your evidence unless it's common knowledge

and one forum that is a free-for-all, no rules.

It seems like one positive-only forum and one free-for-all thread leaves no room for people who want to discuss the ideas rationally.

[salin]

123. I disagree.

It is very possible to discuss ideas in a positive light. One just has to step away from the idea that a particular candidate or those who support that candidate is somehow inherently vile. If one can try to "see" what others value in the candidate one is discussing, and then works to dicuss content from that empathetic perspective

a) the conversation will get much more meaningful more quickly (as one won't turn off the other poster immediately and only be discussing said point with folks who also think that x candidate is vile and the conversation moves into a series of taunting high fives... as happens ALL of the time in this forum).

b) It pushes folks to move past the taunting threads that are posted not so much for thoughtful discussion - but to play "gotcha".

[AP]

128. I still want to compare and contrast candidates.

the all-positive forum doesn't allow you to do that or you get warned and the free-for-all forum will make it too annoying -- making good arguments will be the last thing that's valued there.

I was just hoping there'd be a way to protect comparing and contrasting. Perhaps there should be THREE GD2004 forums. But I'll tell you know which one will be dead (all positive) and which one would be interesting (compare and contrast) and which one will be like Guns and Whatever (the free for all).

I don't think there would be a good discussion of comparisons and contrasts in an all-positive thread. People would be too fearful of getting a warning. In an all-posititve forum, could I argue about class as a symbol in Kerry's campaign, or the irrelevance of Clark if Bush pulls out of Iraq, or the "onward Christian soldier" futility of Kucinich's campaign? I doubt it in an all-positive forum, and those arguments would get totally lost in a free for all thread. However, if the people who want to go negative are drawn to the free-for-all thread, you probably could have an interest discussion in the one that allowed reasonable comparisons and contrasting.

[La_Serpiente]

181. I really like this idea

Polls are really overrated here on DU, and many users place a greater emphasis on discussing who is going to win what instead of discussing tax & finance issues and other topics.

After all, the purpose of primaries is not to just select a nominee for your party. It is also a chance to debate the issues and frame them in a healthy manner.

[jpgpenn]

121. Open discusssion is without a doubt the way to go!!

We live in a Democracy for heavens sake. Of course there will be strident opinion per different candidates. The majority of folks here are adults. Adults curse, get angry, say things they regret but also have praise, positive messages and caring for the same party we are part of. Why should there be any rules pertaining to discussion in an open forum. I have never understood this.

To continue the rule set as it has been applied here, that last few weeks, is just crazy. It gets to a point you have to rethink yourself before psoting and ask ...is this all worth my opinion. All that makes zero since to me.

[Joe the Revelator]

130. AMEN nt

[John_H]

122. I don't see anything other than spirited primary politics on GD2004

Sure, there's more than enough dopeyness to go around (mine included) but you can't legislate dopeyness.

[goodhue]

125. I like the concept and voted yes

although the rule about "You can't even compare one candidate to the other" seems maybe slightly too far although perhaps necessary.

For example, I really like Howard Dean because like my candidate Dennis Kucinich he spoke out on the war against Iraq as based on lies.

And as another example, I really like John Edwards because like my candidate Dennis Kucinich he speaks about positive populist change.

Although I can see how distinguishing between positive and negative comparisons might breakdown, no comparisons whatsoever seems too far.

Also, maybe things are getting better? At least today some of the negative stuff seems to have migrated to P&C.

[xultar]

127. Maybe raise the warning limit in GD2k4 to 10. That gives some

breathing room and keep the same rules.

[Cassandra]

131. Just wondering why...

you never used the Politics and Campaigns Forum for anything. It's become the poor stepchild. Why not make that the happy talk forum?

[Pale Blue Dot]

132. Wow.

I think that this would be a wonderful solution, and I'm very disappointed that so many seem to be against it. VERY disappointed.

As an undecided, this would benefit me GREATLY.

Kudos on the great ides, Skinner, even if it doesn't pass. Thanks for continuing to try.

[AlabamaYankee]

134. I have avoided the GD Primaries Forum

I am still undecided, and welcome solid information about candidates - even negative. The Primaries forum, however, seemed to be providing much more heat than light. If this passes I would be more inclined to visit the "sweetness and light" forum and still avoid the brawling in the open one.

[MMT]

135. For selfish reasons, I hope you keep things as they are

That's because I work with one of the women who have stopped posting here recently because of receiving unjustified demerits. We're making more progress on our project now that she isn't spending time here! (I have the feeling I'm going to get email about this anyway! :) )

[Toucano]

136. We were doing pretty well, IMO

until the Iowa primary.

There have been too many people kicking Dean. It's savage to beat up on a guy when he's down. This includes Clark supporters, btw.

Could we just put a moratorium on I-Hate-Dean threads for a few days?

I think if we split into two forums, one will be a bile-filled wasteland and the other will be useless for actual discussion.

Thanks for asking, by the way. :)

[Pale Blue Dot]

138. As an undecided, it was never doing well.

I got turned off very early. I have seen partisens for ALL of the candidates make unfounded accusations, refute accusations with nothing but a snide comment, and react with absolute glee at a fellow Democrats missteps. This has only led to discouragement for me. And it has led to something else that I NEVER would have guessed: I no longer trust DU and DUers to give me the best information.

If you all REALLY want to help your candidates, you will support this rule change and give those of us who are undecided a place to go to LEARN.

[salin]

142. I definitely agree.

Snide comments have become the discourse of the day.

I have come to see many folks as having HUGE agendas and no longer able to discuss issues with objectivity. Sadly, as a result, I also agree that I no longer trust DU and DUers to give me the best information.

BUT my conclusion is different than yours.

I think that the level of discussion has increased greatly with the new rule changes. Folks who have an agenda shouldn't win - and be able to contribute to the ongoing slander of candidates that often passes as political discourse - that shouldn't be what shapes discussions. A free for all would be no better than freerepublic in terms of outright distortion and repitition of propoganda, smears and items that are intended to make a democratic candidate lose - not just the primary but the general election as well. I find that apalling.

[GabysPoppy]

137. I just want to know one thing

Will DU pick up my legal expenses for having my attorney explain to me WTF is going on next week compared to this week as opposed to last week?

Thank you in advance

GP

[salin]

143. If you go with an new open forum

May I suggest the name "The Ugly Democrat" - as undoubtedly smears, slander, attacks, and propoganda generation will rule the day. If folks want to work to kill the chances of the future general election candidate (and one of those getting smeared WILL be the eventual candidate) in the effort to be a "warrior" on the behalf of their candidate - so be it. But from what I have witnessed ... it brings out the absolute ugliest in people.

[Woodstock]

146. Agree, the open forum will turn into a HUGE hatefest

And there still won't be real debate, because rational people will stay away from the debacle.

[Woodstock]

144. I like the current way

I think things have become much more respectful lately - of each other and of the candidates.

PLUS now there are actually some substantive debates about the merits of the candidates.

[XanaDUer]

145. I voted for the rules before, but I feel I was wrong to do so...

You cannot satisfy everyone. That is Life. Don't even try it anymore. I know of several wonderful posters who have left because of these confusing rules dealing with minutae with subtle nuances.

Someone in ATA was "happy" you dropped "rule #8". I don't even know what rule # 8 is, and I used to know the rules fairly well.

All my time here, I have never had one of my posts pulled for rudeness, abuse, anything, so I feel quite confident that I can continue here without problem.

I also see the admins being harassed in the ATA forum over stuff that is SO FREAKING PETTY, it is becoming a joke.

So please drop the Draconian, cofusing rules, and implement these two fora. And come down hard on anyone who refuses to follow them.

I am going to persuade my friend to re-think leaving DU, because they really are a wonderful addition to the place, and are polite. I was shocked that they were getting warnings!

My two cents' worth.

LC

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

148. OK give people their free for all

In exchange for giving them a demerit (ala time out) every time the same cry babies post a complaint in ATA. The EXACT people for whom the rules have been repeatedly retooled are the same ones making life HELL in ATA.

Let people put JOHN KERRY ..ANOTHER SKULL AND BONES BUSHNAZI in their sigs.

Let people do what they want against the benefit of the common good. May as well let DU look as banal as the rest of American dialogue.

WTF...if it bleeds, it leads.

[pscot]

149. I voted for your proposal, but I think Will Pitt is right

In thirty days this tempest will have blown over and we can all get down to the serious business of plotting the pResident's downfall. However I have no doubt that you and the mods find this bickering a bit stressful; sort of like riding herd on a disfunctional family with 40,000 kids. I think you should count the votes and then do whatever you think will be best.

[LTR]

150. I say keep it the way it is

Most of the ones that seem to criticize the board are the ones that post the most negative stuff.

Adding another forum will do nothing. People will still complain.

People don't realize they can simply 'hide' offensive threads and ignore offensive posters. I do this, and I have few complaints about GD04.

Let's face it, some people just complain too much. If they don't like it, they don't have to post here.

[KoKo]

151. Geeze Skinner! this latest poll of yours looks like America! Repugs vs.

Dems. It's that close......I have no idea which side is which on this...though but the similarities are startling! Free Hate Speech Uncensored VS. Reasonable Discourse!

You will have to be Solomon. Cut the baby in half, or.....???????

[Endangered Specie]

152. Why not have all three?

One no rules - Open debate
Semi rules - regular one
super rules - positive only

[Piperay]

153. I gave my approval for two forums even though

I personally don't believe we should have to have two forums. I am just sick of the whining and complaining and the DU sounding like nap time at a daycare center. I am so sick of all the whining and sniveling from adults who should act civil so I say 'go ahead tear each other up, knock yourselves out', then maybe we won't have to hear anymore about it.

[seventhson]

155. FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!

It can work in a zone where the only rule is no hate speech and ugly names.

Those who wish to avoid it can say nice things about theri candidates and say nothing challenging at all abvout anyone else.


FRANKLY I wish I could say all the horiible things I want about Kerry and that the media and the world (which actually does pay attention to us based on Limpballs and other mentions in the mainstream) could hear it here in our underground. I am afraid of getting locked and banned for saying the things that worry me MOST about Clark and Kerry.

THAT is not how democracy works.

At trhis point it is critical for us to argue these points.

After the primaries - or until the convention is settled and we have a VP candidate -- we NEED to speak freely AND without venom toward one another. We CANNOT SHOUT Here. It is ALL thewritten word.

Reasonable arguments will prevail. Stupid posters will be ignored. assholes will be clearly seen and avoided or challenged - as it should be.

LET US SPEAK FREELY AS DEMOCRACY CRIES OUT FOR!!!

[sweetheart]

156. rules regulation and censorship

We're adults in a political forum, outside of the personal attacks rules, a free and open discussion should be however it works best, but please fewer rules is better.

THe current approach is working just fine. We don't need a playpen area. Rather i think the moderator "bong" messages are working to some degree as they are taken more seriously by those who get them.

I think perhpas that each user might get a rating like none, 5+, 10+ moderator messages, 20+, etc.. This would let the readers know, by the name's colour of the posting person, whether they are a persistent flamer. Such ratings would allow us to, similar to ebay, assess each others "credit to be civil" and to selectively use the information in how we use the forum.

Besides that, i accept however you guys see fit.

God bless you, ABB.!!!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

164. The current approach has tons of rules... Can't even keep them straight.

I feel sorry for the moderators.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

157. Agreed - send the PR-only puff pieces to the closed forum

and we can have an open debate in the open forum. Sounds good to me.

[philosophie_en_rose]

158. "Positive only" sounds weak.

How about "GD2: Campaign Support" or something that implies vigourous strategy and not a forum for sycophants.

[Ardee]

159. One small voice

I have read some very excellent opinion on this subject here. I have also stayed away from DU since the rules began to multiply. Politics is a rather inflammatory and passionate subject, especially with our nation in crisis as it is now.

Rules cannot legislate common sense or morality, nor should they be used to restrict opinion which, in the end, is what they do. I know of several posters like myself who have chosen to remain away from DU while the well meaning administrators discovered for themselves that these ever increasing restrictions ,while well meaning, were not accomplishing their intended purpose.

There is a wide variety of political opinion contained within this board, those on the right of this spectrum and those on the left may create sparks between themselves but ,in the end, they mean well for our nation. I would like to see rules governing only civility and nothing more. I could give a damn, frankly, about the opinions of Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the like about what is said here, after all, like the democrats have found out at last, compromise with these sorts is useless.

Out of the most spirited of debates great truths may or may not be found, but passion is always a good thing. We are all adults here and ,if commentary gets a bit raucous and out of hand sometimes, well so be it. That is far, far better off than an ever more restrictive and confusing series of rules that only serve to drive away good folks. I am in favor of the tombstone for disruptors, though I can think of at least one particular such banning that was ill done.

Let is return to a minimal amount of rules, lets make the moderator's task easier and lets let common sense and good taste rule the threads as most will remain aloof from the mud and those threads will die.

[bitchkitty]

160. I think it's a good idea -

but then I'm one deletion away from being banned! ;)



I am trying very very hard to be good!

[BootinUp]

193. LOL

I also think it is a good idea, but for different reasons ;) Here's hoping they go with the new proposal.

:toast:

[arewethereyet]

161. absolutely the right thing to do, perfect

bare knuckled or sweetness and light and NOONE is forced to be anything other than what ehey are.

Beautiful !

[kerry-is-my-prez]

162. Love the idea about 2 forums.... I don't know how people expect the

moderators to keep babysitting everyone.

[David Zephyr]

165. It's OK As It Is, Skinner.

You and the mods have done a great job at keeping it all together. I think the alternative would have a completly sacharine forum and the other would be degenerative in direction.

I think the way you set it up is fine for there is balance and peer checking. When something is over the top, I think it's obvious to all.

However you decide will be OK with me, but I'd say leave it as it is.

[LWolf]

166. I voted to leave it as it is. But...

I'm not really sure. The ideal, of course, would be to have an open debate forum where the "rules" included civility and truth. It would be ideal if moderators did not have to parent supposedly adult people to keep them from tantrums, clicques, and bully tactics.

I like to hear from all sides. It must be all the years I've spent in elementary school; I like people with manners. Good ones. I think moderators have done a fine job trying to walk a fine line between enforcing a minimal level of good manners without impeding on open expression. I think I would go with:

GD2004 primary forum...one. Enforce a minimal level of civility. Let us be responsible for our choices; read/respond to flame bait, or not.

[drfemoe]

167. well I am surprised

I thought a lot of members were lusting for a rule free zone in which to engage in unrestrained bloody sport. My memory must be selective.

I don't go to cock-fights, bull-fights, dog-fights. I do enjoy an exciting horse race; where I am always apt to holler for my horse to *RUN* *BLOODY RUN* .. so. what will be will be ..

[Cheswick2.0]

169. I could not vote yet because there is one thing bothering me

I think a thread that smears or whines about any group of supporters should be against the rules. That kind of thread IS a personal attack and the board will be nothing but a couple of groups ganging up on a third or fourth with no way for the attacked group to respond except to start a thread of their own. If you are going to allow those threads then I think you should get rid of the rules about personal attacks altogether.

Let people fight it out. Isn't that how it was long ago? People got called on their nonsense right out in the open, it was a form of peer presure. If you got called a freeper and you weren't one you'd stick around and prove it. We all lived through it.


BTW, I think you are right about what the rules have done to turn people off, and having the opposite effect from what was intended.

[Tinoire]

173. Closest? I'll vote to change... No more rules.

I've taken an entire day to think about this, weighing the pros and cons in my mind and vacillating. At the end of the day, I've decided that I prefer the way we were before these rules.

The rules were well-intentioned but the more rules you have, the less comfortable people are. Between the ignore feature and hide thread, I can't, for the life of me figure out why people can't use them and avoid whatever it is they don't like. It has dawned on me that certain people refuse to use those tools because they want to regulate the speech- that is not right. If you don't like a poster or a subject- IGNORE IT!

It was three o’clock in the morning, and the receptionist at a posh hotel was just dozing off, when a little old lady came running towards her screaming. "Please come quickly," she yelled, "I've just glanced out of my window and seen a naked man," the receptionist, immediately rushed up to the little old lady’s room. "Where is he?" asked the receptionist. "He's over there," replied the little old lady, excitedly pointing to a block of flats opposite the hotel. The receptionist looked over and could see a man with no shirt on moving around his flat. "It’s probably a man who's getting ready to go to bed," said the receptionist reassuringly, "and how do you know he's naked, you can only see him from the waist up." "The wardrobe!" screamed the little old lady, "Try standing on the wardrobe"!

===

For whatever reason we've lost too many members and the level of discussion has sunk abysmally.

Where are all the fine members who brought light on PNAC and warned people back in the days where that was considered a tin-foil hat theory?

When I first came to this board it was clear that you needed a thick skin to be involved. You need an even thicker skin for politics. I don't think this is the right time to ask the admin and the mods to baby-sit a tea party between the Hatfields and the McCoys. We don't pay the mods, they do this thankless job as friends of ours and are now forced to hide between anonymous icons because, well because you just force the Hatfields and the McCoys to act a certain way- you'll get killed in the cross-fire.

In some ways I'll miss the more civil discourse but not at the price it cost us.

We have work to do to get Bush out. It's not going to be simple and it's certainly not going to be pleasant. If people can't handle what fellow Democrats and Progressives have to say, how the hell are we going to face Rove and the boulders that are going to come bearing down on us? Are we going to call moderators in on Rove too? Ask the Admin to ban him? Say that Bush made a personal attack and hit the alert button to get him tomb-stoned? It's not going to work in real life and it shouldn't work here.

There is so much ill filling caused by these new rules and I've seen the moderators be accused of bias for the most ridiculous reasons. So camp A gets upset feeling it's been set up by camp B as camp C plays both sides against the other.

Hell, unregulate it. People who have to cry to a moderator everytime they feel their precious candidate has been attacked maybe aren't cut out for this board and would be better suited on a campaign blog.

However the vote goes, I'll still love this board but hope we dump the rules. I miss the fascinating place this used to be & what's more, I miss many of the people who have left. Additionally, I think the deal for the Admin and the mods sucks. I've been so appalled reading ATA that I just stopped reading it. Half of it is complaints "Why didn't you delete this post" "Hey, I was attacked and I hit alert 5 minutes ago- why is that post still there" "Isn't this a broad-brush" and yada yada all sorts of thin-skinned nonesense.

Had we been smart, when we set up the last rules, we should have imposed fines and used the money to buy every Mod and Admin a vacation in the Bahamas. $10 for each locked thread? $5 for each deleted post? $2 for each stupid alert? You guys would all be well on your way to a well-deserved tan right now!

Maybe the forum was shocking in its openness but NOBODY forced anyone to come here.

Rules stifle. We are Democrats. We are not Republicans. We don't all think alike or act alot like Stepford clones. We are a party of diversity that welcomes Progressives of all stripes who want to work in one direction "FORWARD"!

Peace and thanks... For everything.

DU rocks regardless!

[mohc]

176. I know this would be somewhat problematic...

But has any thought been given to establishing forums for each candidate? Allow only supporters to post in each candidates forums, thus replacing the "positive only" forum. If someone started posting unsupported content, that thread could be removed just like it would have been from the positive forum, but it would allow for supportive criticism. I know, I know, too many forums, but it would also allow us to have little safe zones for our candidate of choice.

[aquart]

177. Your rules kept me sweet and good.

And I have strong pitbull tendencies.

Wish my soap opera board had adopted your fair and just rules. Really, really, really wish it.

[Tinoire]

179. Really? I always thought you were sweet and good

I must be slipping or something! :)

[Adjoran]

178. I don't object to a "positive only" forum

as a separate entity. I would have visited it often early in the campaign. But I was able to gather plenty of information on the candidates' positions and biographies without it.

I'm still uncommitted. I have no dog in this fight, so I think I'm an objective observer, especially after my 42 years of following Democratic politics on all levels.

As the voting approaches, I don't think it is realistic to expect no criticism of competing candidates. It's not even realistic to expect no vicious lies about competing candidates. That's the way it's been in American politics since Adams versus the first Democratic candidate, Jefferson.

Candidates enter the race because they fervently believe they should be President. Supporters join them because they agree, to various degrees of certitude. The most passionate supporters, having exhausted their recitation of their man's great qualities, inevitably turn to discussing what worthless bastards the opponents must be.

So it is, and so it has always been. It sucks. Important national issues get ignored as one's peccadilloes and warts are compared to another's. It gets dirty and hurtful.

One day we may find a better way. Plato outlined a great Republic, which would have been dandy, except for the dearth of qualified Philosopher-Kings in the inventory of the human race.

In the meantime, we've muddled through with the dreadful mess we've got for over 200 years. If the Democratic Party can survive and prosper through over 50 Presidential campaigns, surely this forum can survive one primary season without special rules. The regular DU rules seem effective in stopping personal attacks and disrupters.

[Tinoire]

188. What an excellent post! n/t

[Raine]

180. Voted YES on two forums

not because I personally favor it but mostly I am just tired of all the complaints and two forums would make the job easier for the administrators and hopefully for the moderators. :shrug:

[patricia92243]

182. Nobody is making anybody read anything-if you don't like it don't read it.

Put people/threads on ignore if you don't like them.

All in all - just lighten up.

Quit being such big babies that you have to have a "nurse" to look after you and be sure you don't read anything you don't "like".

[madaboutharry]

183. With all due respect Mr. Skinner, sir,

I think #4 is downright silly. What is everyone supposed to do, go to charm school? I think the way the board is set up currently reflects the real world. This is the way people are today.

[mdmc]

184. hOW ABOUt an ignore button?

along with a "hide" feature? Already got it? Then who keeps bitchin. Don't read or respond to what offends you.

[NoPasaran]

185. I voted to keep the current system

I would like to see the addition of daily positive threads for each of the candidates. I think they would be a more useful and more widely read as part of the GD2004 Forum than if they were part of a seperate Happy-Happy Forum. And I'm worried that GD Bloodbath would quickly resemble some of the nether regions of Usenet.

[Spirochete]

186. If you make a "Positive Only" board...

some of the same people will go into it and post things like "I am POSITIVE {Dean/Clark/Kerry/Edwards/etc} can't win the election."
Deleted message will probably be the bulk of the posts.

On Edit: guess I can't use those brackets. Oops. :shrug:

[SOteric]

187. I'm tending toward thinking along the lines of the Magistrate

in post number 35 of this thread.

Any forum restricted to niceties only will have very little traffic and is likely to die of neglect.

Threads of this description already do and have for some time.

Even those who wish for more rationale discourse often display a compulsion to educate the unruly masses. They, too, end up in the fracas rather than the ivory tower of intellectual discussion.

I suspect that if there were such a market, such a high demand for reasonably-toned debate on a variety of political and societal topics it would be springing up of it's own accord and be patronised by vast crowds.

I wish that there were some easy way to satisfy everyone. Ultimately, we have to be responsible for our own experiences here at DU. We have to find ways to work and play well with others.

The Admins and moderators have tried to support the desires of a very diverse group of people, and from my perspective that's more than generous of you. Whatever the outcome, thanks.

[ramapo]

189. Keep the current scheme

A Positive only forum sounds very dull.

I really don't see the problem here. If a thread offends me or doesn't interest me then I don't read it. If somebody goes off the deep end on something I ignore it.

The primaries are messy, ugly business and some of the discussions mirror that reality.

The primary discussions are isolated; the good, the bad and the ugly. The rules aren't complicated. Basically, don't behave like an ass. That's good enough for me.

[Kamika]

190. Change my Yes to No, have one forum with no rules at all but basics

topic

[Armstead]

191. Keep things as they are

I totally agree with the seperation of the primary threads from general Discussion.

But I think that's good enough. The approach you suggested would make things too confusing. And, as was noted above, I really doubt many people will read the Positive Only threads. It'd get really boring.

Much as I dislike the excesive aspects of it, this whole nomination process is a brawl. If that is reflected in the nomination section of DU, so be it.

[MoonAndSun]

192. I hardly visit DU anymore because of the ugliness, having these

2 forums would be a big help. Whenever I now go into GD 2004 for the latest news on the candidates, I see nothing but bashing and trashing.

Having the 2004 Positive Only would make me not so reluctant to visit the Primary threads.

[Skinner]

194. FINAL TALLY

I guess our current approach isn't such a failure after all. Thanks for voting.

Poll result (460 votes)

I give my approval to the proposed approach with two primary forums. The current approach does not adequately address our problems. (212 votes, 46%) Vote

I would prefer to stay with the current approach. It seems to be working well enough. Changing your approach is unlikely to help. (248 votes, 54%) Vote