Proposal for Temporary Guidelines

[ellisonz]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DevonRex (a host of the Barack Obama group).

Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2011, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

1. Let's not ban anybody, lock threads, until we can draft some rules on posting in this forum and have an approval process.

2. If you've got beef, just alert and let some people get practice with the jury system.

3. We've got to show we're not "zealots" who stifle discussion. Just out debate someone if you have disagreement at this point.

4. I'd encourage anybody reading this to make a conscious effort to be more civil in DU3.

5. Yes We Can.

-ellisonz

[JTFrog]

1. I like the way the old groups work.

There's enough negative shit floating around the DU sites as it is.

[DevonRex]

2. Thank you. This is our safe haven. Says so right at the top. Nt

[DevonRex]

3. Hosts are here to address what juries cannot. Perhaps

you didn't know that posts had been alerted on but did not get hidden. There is a difference in what juries and group hosts can address, because of the group guidelines at the top.

Our responsibility is to those members who meet those standards, ie, supporting Obama and his policies, not to those whose only venture into his group is to argue. Our responsibility is to keep this a safe haven.

This is not a mini-Soapbox. This is the BOG. period.

[ellisonz]

5. Correct.

However, I think it's important to note that with the elimination of General Discussion: Presidency that sort of debate needs somewhere to go that is not Soapbox. The BOG group on DU2 never got many posters, in fact no one has posted there in over a month: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=388 - I think that if we act like our opponents we will become too insular and not welcoming. I think it's important to have an exchange of ideas and I think we are stronger for it.

I do not believe Obama supporters have to agree with the President on all issues and I myself have been critical of some of the administrations actions. I don't think we lose the element of control over posting standards by allowing spirited debate to exist. We all have strong skins. I do not need a literal safe haven, I need somewhere that there can be enhanced moderation while still allowing free flowing debate. How boring would it be if we all agreed all the time?

I think until we have some community standards, like I/P in DU2, that is detrimental to ban people without giving them a chance to become acquainted with the new reality of DU3. People are in the learning process of how to be civil once again. I am prepared to give them the chance to learn to treat their political opponents with respect.

Just my two cents.

[Number23]

6. There is no one on this earth that agrees with the president on all issues

And I'm pretty sure that includes the president as well.

The BOG as well as all of the DU Groups have very stated purposes. There is no need to go into the Cooking and Baking Group if you do not like or support Cooking and/or Baking. Do not go into the Astrology Group if you do not like or support Astrology.

DU is structured so that there are plenty of forums for the Perpetually Outraged to be heard. If someone doesn't like or support the president, there would be no need for them to participate in the BOG. It's really very simple.

[ellisonz]

8. So are we just going to ban anybody that posts something we don't like without warning?

Are we not going to engage in debate? I don't think that's a very productive approach. I think we'll lose way more hearts and minds through this approach than through a more tolerant one. I do not believe this is what we need to be doing as a group in DU heading into the 2012 election. If I'm a vegetarian should I stay out of Cooking and Baking if I don't like recipes involving meat? If I'm an astronomer do I have no business posting in astrology? I don't want to be exclusive, I want to be exclusive. So long as it's not disruptive, dissent should be tolerated; not all dissent is disruptive. It's only disruptive if you let it be disruptive.

I'm saying this as someone who is very public about his support for the President.

[Number23]

10. As I said

There are plenty of places on DU for these "debates." That is not the purpose of the BOG.

And no, not all dissent is disruptive. But five minutes on DU should prove to anyone that there are plenty of people who have precious little interest in debate so much as being disruptive.

I spent alot of time in the groups, for me it was the African American group, and they are just what they are supposed to be -- safe, fun havens for the supporters of the specific topics to have a good time without worrying about being accosted by ignorance. As long as there are a dozen other forums for folks to be as dumb and hateful as they want to be, then there's no need for them to bring that in here.

[ellisonz]

11. And as I've said

They're going to bring it in here whether we like it not. Then when you post elsewhere they're going to pile on you as a zealot. I'd rather be able to have my belief in the President and not be treated as domineering zealot in other forums. I don't want a target on my back. I'd rather earn their respect than engender further hostility. There is no more GDP. This is what is left. We have the chance to make a better GDP/Obama group.

You have plenty of tools to avoid ignorance such as ignore, hide and alert. I'm suggesting we have some sort of consensus system for banning people rather than just individual whim.

What does it say about the utility of such a group when no one has posted in the DU2 BOG in over a month?

[Number23]

13. It was explained to you why folks stopped posting in the BOG

One member, NanceGreggs, actually very publicly called for the BOG to be disbanded.

It was deliberately left to die on the vine. People are hoping that it will now be revisited, but that is not going to happen if we arbitrarily change the rules the way you are suggesting.

[ellisonz]

14. I remember NanceGreggs, she was a smart woman and a great writer.

I'd bet her point was that you ought to engage your political opponents on a reasonable level. We now have that opportunity.

All I'm suggesting is a tolerance of civil disagreement, otherwise the odds are it's going to fade anyways. Getting rid of GDP was a big mistake in this regard. It's alright, clearly the pro-hardline partisan and pro-softline partisan stakes have been drawn.

I won't be contributing to a forum where I know I'm going to get no result but short agreement. That is boring and not democratic. All I'm really calling for is some system for hosting rules to be enforced and for them to be somewhat flexible. I'm not advocating letting sheer ignorance reign, but without that it is simply arbitrary in a sense.

If GDP is so bad, you'd think more people would be posting in the BOG. But they don't, because for all it's problems GDP works pretty well.

[DevonRex]

7. You obviously don't know the history here.

People left this group because we had no say in how it was run. Now we do. And we expect people who post here to be those who support President Obama.

Bottom line is that you must be able to co-host this group, AS the guidelines stand. There are many other forums which are more like the one you describe. The BOG isn't it.

[ellisonz]

9. Well this is my opinion and it reflects a lot of time on DU.

We need to be open. This is precisely the time to revise the guidelines. I think we need new guidelines to meet our new hosting powers. Otherwise this forum is going to become irrelevant again real fast. I am perfectly prepared to accept civil disagreement, I think it's great that we now have more say over this aspect. I think that with the elimination of GDP that BOG needs to adapt to the new reality of DU3. The "rules of the game" have changed dramatically, and I think for the better. If there is no dissent I will have no reason to post as much as I do per say in GDP, I would not wish BOG to be an echo chamber.

These are the guidelines from DU2:

Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 07:31 AM by Skinner
The mission of the Barack Obama Group is to discuss information and news about the life, career, accomplishments, and presidency of Barack Obama; to provide a haven for those members of Democratic Underground who support the president and his policies; to discuss President Obama's policy positions, speeches, interviews, and other public appearances; to discuss President Obama's political campaigns; and to discuss the causes which President Obama has championed, including health care reform and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those who have a generally negative view of President Obama and his administration, support his defeat in the 2012 presidential election (in primaries or the general election), or who are generally supportive of those who do, are not welcome in the Barack Obama Group.

[grantcart]

4. I don't think an abstract list of rules is necessary

I think we will have a pretty good working consensus on what is suitable for the BOG as we encounter it.

We can talk and build a consensus as we go on.

I am guessing that this new method is going to put everyone on their best behavior for a while.

I noticed that even some of the most strident people are working as hosts and trying to get along in other forums.

By trying to objectivy everything we may just create unnecessary antagonisms.

[ellisonz]

12. And I've been removed as host for having a different opinion...

Are we really that incapable of defending our ideas

Polling this exact question in DU2: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x828741

[grantcart]

17. I am lost why you would think that the BOG and the GDP would be interchangeable, they serve entirely

different functions.

[ellisonz]

18. My reasoning

We need a new place to post Obama stuff and have it open for reasonable discussion. I want a better BOG in the absence of GDP. There's no hard rule that says things have to be same in DU3 as in DU2. There have already been a lot of changes in DU3 and I'd strongly suspect there are more to come.

I do not believe that we will have a reasonably open discussion if we just ban those with different opinion. I think the new moderating tools give us the ability to do that. Otherwise, I think it's pretty reasonable to guess that BOG will be just as dead in DU3 if it doesn't adapt somewhat. BOG only had 17 original posts over the last year. That's not absence of protection, that's neglect. GDP has that many original posts easily in a single normal day and no one's beliefs or opinions get totally smashed because we protect each other in debate. It's about teamwork.

Why should we resist adaptation and not put it to advantageous use?

Hopefully, it will become a lot easier to find this forum; it already is with subscription. Have you seen my proposal for streamlining the topic forums? http://www.democraticunderground.com/1013151#post13
I'm really hoping this happens, because I'm a big supporter of the idea of decentralizing discussion to an extent.

[JTFrog]

31. As it should be.

I don't think you were understanding the purpose of this forum.

Thank you for trying.

[SidDithers]

15. The BOG is a safe haven and should remain so...

I wouldn't suggest changing the mission statement at all from DU2. I'd support locking / hiding anti-Obama threads in teh BOG. I'd support banning disruptors the BOG.

The BOG at DU2 was intentionally allowed to wither. Maybe it will become active again at DU3.

Sid

[ellisonz]

16. Well then we're going to need GDP back.

Otherwise soapbox is going to be way overloaded, and there is going to be no place for Obama supporters who like a good debate to go. I don't want to belong to, nor participate in a fan club.

I'd bet 2:1 that BOG withers again without an open door. Not to mention it engenders a tremendous deal of unwarranted hostility.

I've been a member of other forums with both Republicans and Democrats of all different stripes and we were able to be civil. That's all I'm saying, that civil disagreement should be aloud and productive debate encouraged. I want to convert others to my political beliefs, I don't want to exclude them and send them packing to fester. It's

[Tx4obama]

19. Yes, if the BOG group isn't going to be a good replacement for GD-P then ...

we will have to petition Skinner to create for us a GD-P main 'forum'.

There are TONS of folks that post in GD-P on DU2 and it is reasonable to ask for a place that we all can end up at here on DU3,
since GD-P was one of the biggest forums on the old website.

[ellisonz]

20. I've created a petition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12401581

Who knows if it's going to be successful. But if we're not prepared to have some debate in this forum, we're going to really miss having GDP. Debate is the spice of life. And winning it is sweet.

I therefore concede the loss of GDP with disappointment that we could not revive it in a new, and some would say better form here in the netherforum of BOG.

[grantcart]

21. Civil disagreements are fine, vigorous arguments are fine, drawn out all out fights are fine,

That is what GD/GDP/SoapBox are for.

It is also fine for people who have a wide and deep commonly held conviction to have a place where they can hang out with others of similar point of view, for whatever reason they want, including enjoying the community that that particular experience brings.

That is true for the Gun folks, GLBT forum and those that are proud supporters of the President.

Frankly I spend several hours a day combating all kinds of idiots, including colleagues who can't correctly identify the birthplace of the President and some who think that he is the Anti-Christ. I get involved in a lot of discussions with right wing people who hate the President intensely.

I don't think it is too much to ask to have a place to come to where you can simply hang out with people of similar point of view without having to worry about getting dragged into another contentious discussion.

I also believe that other communities at DU who feel the same way should have the same opportunity. I find the GLBT to be one of the most interesting forums because of the support and interaction that exists there. I don't post there but I do read a lot of their posts.

My understanding of DU3 is that Skinner et al are trying to design a place where two different types of forums, open and aggressive discussion forums and supportive community forums can not only exist but build on each other.

Final note. It is clear from your posts that you wanted to change the definition of the BOG. You have run to GDP and are running a poll and generating outrage about your removal as a host.

I find that rather disingenous frankly. If you thought that the BOG needed to be radically transformed then why didn't you post that and try to build a consensus on that rather than volunteer as a host and change it by supterfuge. The issue was clear but you did not engage in an open debate on the central issue but rather tried to back door it.

This is why we a system that allows a group to grow organically and define itself will be a better solution than the old BOG.

If you thought that the old BOG was a 'fan' club then I have a difficult time understanding why you wanted to be a host here unless you thought that the old BOGGERS just needed someone to throw contentious issues in their face to wake up and become more serious human beings.

"endgendering hostility" Now why in the world would anything we say in the Barack Obama group engender hostility in other people?

Why would people who don't want to join this community give a damn what we think, unless they are already filled with hostility and simply want to find an accessible target to unload on? This does illustrate quite clearly why strong supporters of the President really do want to have a place where they can have discussions with like minded people without having to bear the burden of 'unleashing bottled up hostility'.

If you want to have a GDP separate from the Soap Box run a campaign and get it passed.

You can continue a public campaign against the BO(G) in DU2. We don't really give a damn.

[ellisonz]

22. I felt the old BOG had become irrelevant. Also, we posted within 3 mins of eachother.

17 OPs in all of 2011 aptly demonstrates that point quite adequately. How many times did you post in BOG in 2011?

I wanted to kick-start a discussion of what DU3 will look like for Obama supporters. If we don't want to go into that territory, fine. Leave it the way it has been and don't have any new guidelines to deal with the new ability to moderate discussion more effectively, so we can hit the ground running.

I wanted to get a wider sense of people's feeling of people's opinion of where DU should be going on this, hence the poll.

You're seeing nefarious intent where there was none. Dropping me as a host, was pretty petty, especially considering to my knowledge both the decision to ban pipomon and to drop me as a host were those of a single person. My intent was to have a collaborative effort to come up with some new guidelines to meet the new situation; that's not unreasonable.

Sign the petition. I've already conceded the point above. I'm man enough to see when I'm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12401581

"Who knows if it's going to be successful. But if we're not prepared to have some debate in this forum, we're going to really miss having GDP. Debate is the spice of life. And winning it is sweet.

I therefore concede the loss of GDP with disappointment that we could not revive it in a new, and some would say better form here in the netherforum of BOG."

[grantcart]

27. I stopped posting in BOG because a group of folks organized in an outside forum to harass BOGgers by

carefully manipulating the rules and mounting a daily campaign to interupt and disrupt.

Groups at DU didn't have the degree of control they have at DU3 to maintain their own group.

Transforming the BOG into the GDP would not meet the interests of people who were interested in the BOG but it would meet the interests of those that participate in GDP.

Simply because people participate in the BOG or BO(G) does not mean that they are adverse to discussion and confllict, it simply means that they don't want to engage in it ALL of the time.

Good luck in resurrecting GDP regret any misunderstandings.

[ellisonz]

28. No worries braddah.

I think it's also important to note that Skinner suggest we do simply come here and make a hybrid group - which is basically what I'm suggesting, and have been running with. If we don't get GDP back, which I'm strongly anticipating it would behoove the BOG to do so. Now that we have greater hosting powers we could stop such an organized campaign while still allowing things to be free flowing - with a warning system, consultation to hide threads, and a transparent vote to ban. That's all I'm asking for, and until we have a revised mission statement and enforcement guidelines we shouldn't be trigger happy. It's a brave new world.

From Post #26 below per the initial Skinner go to DU3 Preview thread:

Question from a DUer:
What is the equivalent of GD-Presidency on DU3?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=827775&mesg_id=827826

Skinner:
There is no equivalent.
But I think you will find that the Groups are much more active on DU3 than DU2. So, the Barack Obama Group or the Democrats Group might work well as a replacement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=827775&mesg_id=827902

BOG definitely seems more viable than Democrats. I've proposed making a Democratic Politics main forum with a BOG, a Democratic Party Group, and a 2012 Elections group.

Shoots.

[Tx4obama]

23. I think that the confusion came from the fact ...

that WE ARE supporters of President Obama.
The 'majority' of folks on DU2 that post GD-P are Obama supporters.
Now that we don't have a GD-P forum, BOG looked like a great place to bring over all the GD-P folks so that we could build a busy discussion group for issues regarding President Obama and his presidency.
But where ever we end up should support healthy passionate debate, otherwise we'd all be just singing to the choir.

[DevonRex]

24. Did people not know our mission statement before volunteering

to host this group? It's important. It's a group for a reason. The BOG doesn't have to fall on its sword and cease to exist as a safe haven just because Admin did away with GDP.

I guarantee you that no other hosts have asked to change the entire reason for the group's existence after becoming hosts of that group.

Petitioning to reform GDP is the way to go.

[Tx4obama]

25. Yes, I did read your mission statement when I first came to this group

Statement of Purpose

A safe haven for members of Democratic Underground who support the president and his policies.

----

I believe that the majority of DU members do support the president.

As far as his policies go you mean that members of this group have to support ALL of his policies 100%?

That no discussion is allowed regarding the polices that anyone disagrees with?

I am asking for a clarification because I think you've confused me.
What actually happens in this 'group' if there isn't any debating of the issues and the president's policies?

I don't think anyone has asked to change the 'entire' reason for the group's existence.
I've only seen Obama supporters here in this group.
I thought that this would have been a place for us Obama supporters/cheerleaders that enjoy discussing Obama and debating his policies, etc.

[pipoman]

30. That is exactly what it means

"That no discussion is allowed regarding the polices that anyone disagrees with?"

I like, support and will vote for Obama again this cycle. I was banned from this group because I took issue with one statement he made in my home state. ellisonz reinstated me, but I'll probably be re-banned after this statement.

100% agreement all the time is unbelievably boring and the current system for banning is dictatorial despotism...the crickets are coming, the crickets are coming!!1!1

[Bolo Boffin]

32. This forum is a safe haven.

Your criticisms would be allowable in more general forums, but this is the Barack Obama group and it's specifically called a safe haven.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. A bit of a repeat below, but since this group is specifically called a safe haven

I'd say criticisms of the President, however well intentioned, need to go somewhere else in DU. I can see the confusion in calling this an equivalent of GD-P.

[Tx4obama]

26. Here's is what Skinner said ...

Question from a DUer:
What is the equivalent of GD-Presidency on DU3?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=827775&mesg_id=827826

Skinner:
There is no equivalent.
But I think you will find that the Groups are much more active on DU3 than DU2. So, the Barack Obama Group or the Democrats Group might work well as a replacement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=827775&mesg_id=827902

[JTFrog]

36. Here is what EarlG said ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240250

These are the main differences between forums and groups on the new DU:

Forums

Forums are created by the DU Administrators only.

Forums are general interest, and permit a broad range of viewpoints. Disagreement is the norm in forums.

Members may not subscribe to forums (ie: Forums cannot be added to the "My Subscriptions" page).

Members may be blocked from a forum by the DU Administrators, but not by the forum hosts.

Blocked members may not post in a forum -- but they are able to alert abuse in that forum. Only members who have posted in a particular forum may be blocked from that forum.

Groups:

Groups can be created by either the DU Administrators, or by regular DU members. (This functionality is coming soon.)

Groups sometimes serve as safe havens for members who share similar viewpoints or interests.

Members may subscribe to groups, and have them listed on their "My Subscriptions" page.

Members may be blocked from a group by its hosts, or by the DU Administrators if no hosts are assigned.

Blocked members may not post in a group or subscribe to that group -- but they are able to alert abuse in that group. Only members who
have posted in a particular group may be blocked from that group.

[DevonRex]

38. Tx do you wish to host this group as the purpose is written?

We cant have hosts who disagree with the group's purpose. People come here for a safe haven. If you are unable and unwilling to provide our members with the protection they come here for, then you shouldn't host here.

If you really wished to host another kind of group or forum then I'm sure you can still volunteer.

[boston bean]

29. After reading through the thread, I think that some people

have really not listened to what you have said. And then they canned you as host? Wow.

I would have read and posted some if the mission was more in line with GDP and not the old BOG.

I like president obama, I just don't like many of his policies and I enjoy a debate. But if you folks decide there is no criticism allowed, well I won't read here because it will bore the ever lovin hell out of me.

Good Luck with the group!

[DevonRex]

37. This isn't GDP. This is the BOG. The mission

and purpose are what they are. Period. If you don't agree with it then this isn't the group for you.

Edited because either my iPhone or du3 has a weird hick up that repeats the last words in subject line down in the post.

[sufrommich]

33. I think most people who post on the BOG are

more interested in it "serving as safe haven for members " as most other groups also aspire to. I see it as a place to post good, positive news about the President without being mocked or derided for it. I think the forums are a better fit for debate and that is what they are there for.Groups should be reserved for their stated purpose ,I'm not sure why Skinner would think the BOG(a group) would be a good replacement for for General Discussion: Presidency (a forum). Personally, I don't get why a popular forum has been discontinued, but I don't see the BOG as a good replacement for it.

[JTFrog]

34. ^^this. n/t