Confused about the new rules regarding Election 2004 forum

[ringmastery]

Do I understand correctly that posts critical of the eventual nominee will be banned from this forum?

I don't understand the logic behind that. Constructive criticism can be very helpful to the eventual candidate.

[Jim Sagle]

1. As I understand it, criticism of candidate is OK if it's not over the top.

Criticisim of a candidate's FOLLOWERS is forbidden.

[BruinAlum]

2. Here's the applicable rule

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

[ringmastery]

3. so I take this to mean

advocating for any third party candidate such as Nader will be banned?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. You have understood this correctly

[genius]

5. That's fair. There is one thing I'm unclear about. When someone

lies about your candidate just to be nasty, what exactly are you permitted to say about their comment. Is saying it is "false" okay? What other words are acceptable?

[BruinAlum]

6. The text above applies to AFTER the nominee is selected.

The rule for what you are asking says you can call the message a lie but you cannot call the messenger a liar.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. You just have to show that the information is wrong.

For something to be a 'lie' there must be an intent to deceive. To label something 'a lie', therefore, you are speaking not only about whether the information is factually correct, but also about the motive of the person posting the information. That's the key - you are saying something about the poster instead of just about the post. So you can say a post is false, or that it isn't true, or point out contrary facts or internal consistencies but you can't call it a lie, or an attempt to deceive, or say anything else that in some way talks about the poster.

As I understand it anyway.

[Toucano]

8. That's a bunch of malarky! n/t

[countmyvote4real]

9. LOL

Ooh. Will that be permitted? What about chewing gum?

[Toucano]

10. As long as it can't be SEEN, it's okay.

[countmyvote4real]

12. Houston, we have a problem. n/t

[corporatewhore]

11. Amy Goodman a highly respected journalist would probably be banned

Three years ago, President Clinton placed an Election Day call to "Democracy Now!" For Clinton it was supposed to be two minutes of get-out-the-vote happy talk with a progressive radio show and then: Gotta go.
Except Goodman began by asking: "You are calling radio stations telling people to vote. What do you say to people who feel the two parties are bought by corporations and that at this point their vote doesn't make a difference?"
"There is not a shred of evidence to support that," Clinton rejoined.
And they were off and running, Amy and Bill, debating American politics, the health effects of sanctions against Iraq, and whether Clinton would pardon native American activist Leonard Peltier. Why, she asked, did he fly back to Arkansas in 1992 during the presidential campaign to execute a mentally impaired man?

Goodman is the reporter who sinks her teeth in and never lets go, and he was the president who never gives up hope of winning you over. "You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone," he scolded Goodman at one point.
Then he kept on talking.
In this insider media age when oh-so-serious reporters measure status by access to the powerful, Goodman is the journalist as uninvited guest. You might think of the impolite question; she asks it. She torments Democrats no less than Republicans.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0310-02.htm