Let's continue our discussion about building trust among primary partisans

[Skinner]

Thanks to everyone who participated in the thread I started on Monday, on the topic of 04/08 primary infighting here on Democratic Underground. It's apparent from that thread that this is a pretty serious issue that is unlikely to be solved with any quick fixes. It seems that the lack of trust runs pretty deep on all sides. I think we need to keep talking.

For this thread, I want people to focus their attention on the issue of what *DU members* can do to build trust among yourselves and across partisan lines.

Assume, for the sake of this discussion, that the DU Administrators are not going to create any new rules, and assume that "better" enforcement of the existing rules is unlikely.

Furthermore, assume that the primary infighting cannot be solved by just banning "a few bad apples," and assume that the responsibility/blame for the primary infighting is shared equally among the supporters of all the different candidates. In other words, assume that *all of the candidates* have some supporters who who are contributing to the problem of primary infighting, and all of the candidates have some supporters who are not contributing to the problem.

Responding that you "reject the premise of the thread" is not an option. I am setting ground rules here because there is a particular discussion I am trying to facilitate.

Is there any way to build trust among the people who are aligning themselves with different candidates and fighting with each other? Can anything be done -- by the members or DU administrators -- to facilitate greater trust and understanding across partisan lines? Have relations become so poisoned here that there is no possibility for reconciliation? How must we act in order to show our "opponents" that we are acting good faith? What would it take for any of you to believe that your "opponents" are acting in good faith?

Is it possible to facilitate this type of understanding?

[Deep13]

1. I assume other Ds act in good faith.

However vigorous the debate, in the end it is just a family squabble. Any of the '04 candidates would have been better than Dub-ya, even Lieberman. My primary concern is always victory in November and any criticism I may have for a candidate or and issue he or she advocates is motivated solely by concern for his or her prospects for electoral victory.

[Cyrano]

2. I would have backed any Democratic nominee all the way.

Doing anything else would have been insane.

"We" are not the enemy. The Republicans, who are in the process of shredding the Constitution, are the gravest threat to this country in my lifetime.

If you don't like a specific Dem candidate, steal a page from Ronald Reagan: ("Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican.")

Until we learn to rally around our candidate, whoever he/she is, we will go on being losers. (And this doesn't even begin to address the Diebold and ES&S touch screen machines.)

[CWebster]

3. If

we had a figure we all loved and wanted to united behind.

(And of course it would be my choice. Now, how could anyone argue with that? ):P

[LoZoccolo]

4. Perhaps we could improve the ignore facilities.

For a while I've realized that poorly-socialized people tend to show up in Internet message boards because the dynamics are different than what we've conventionally known as "society". Case in point: how many times has someone told you that they reject the premise of the conversation you are having? Managing this dearth of social graces becomes a perpetual exercise.

As a solution to this problem, I've taken to maintaining a sizable ignore list at times when I feel DU is being inundated with ragweeds. It is a good feature which allows me to act as my own DU administrator and tombstone at will. There are just a handful of minor things I think you could do to improve this feature, and I could tombstone at will much more easier:

- Add a "peek" feature which allows you to peek at one ignored response in a thread to see if it's worthwhile. I would use this because I still
- Add an option to see who posted an ignored reply.
- Put an "unignore" button that you can use when you are peeking, so you don't have to go back to your ignore list.

It may seem difficult to change the nature of the Internet, but it's not as difficult to find ways around it.

[AP]

12. I've been a long-time fan of tweeking the ignore technology to encourage..

...better bahaviour.

I'm not sure a peek function would make sense, because that undermines the whole purpose. It should be time consuming to undo your ignore list (or maybe there should be two ignore lists: permanent and one-week, one-day, or single-thread ignore).

The thing about ignore is that one of the incentives of posting at DU is that you presume people are reading what you have to say. So, if you realize that a lot of people have you on ignore, you might change your behaviour so that you don't feel like posting is a waste of your time - -that you're a tree falling in an unpolulated forest.

Also, say that ignore became the way to send messages to people about what you think of them. Well, that's a good thing because ignore means you're not engaging in the exchange of insults.

One problem with ignore is that, if you knew who was ignoring you, you might use it to talk about them publicly behind their back.

So maybe the thing to do is to give people a contant reminder of how many people have them on ignore (say, after they log-in) which other posters can't see (although it would could be a useful public indicator of a poster's unpopularity and therefore credibility). If you post on a subject one day and you see your ignore count go up, you know that you've probably just engaged in socially unhelpful rhetorical modes.

Ignored posters can also make a decision about whether the ignores are the product of unfair retaliatory action by a group of posters ganging up on them, but so what if they are? Wouldn't it be a good thing for all of one candidate's supporters to put all of another candidate's supporters on ignore -- wouldn't that go miles towards reducing the conflict?

Also, in terms of DU's business model, technological innovations are probably the best use of Skinner's time. If you tweek your technology (rather than your rules) and discover that it makes DU a more productive forum for discussing issues, you've just come up with some valuable intellectual property that you can incorporate in your software, patent, and license to other discussion forums.

[LoZoccolo]

15. I would rather it be easier to unignore people temporarily because...

...you would be more likely to ignore people if it wasn't difficult to manage a lot of ignored people. Sometimes I post a thread and one of the ignored replies to it and I have to log out or undo half of my ignore list at a time just to look at it.

[AP]

18. But it sort of defeats the purpose of ignore to make it so easy to...

...unignore them.

I think it would be better to retain a more permanent ignore (that requires you to click through some windows and check a lot of boxes one by one) and if you really want a temporary ignore to add a second kind of ingore -- something like "one-day/week and/or thread ignore."

[AP]

21. Furthermore,

if the point of ignoring is to reduce the interaction between posters who don't get along, then you destroy that by making it so easy to undo it. Maybe more people would use ignore, but then, if they're flaming back and forth, they'll just unignore all the responses, which is the exact same thing as not using ignore in the first place.

Making it hard to unignore people just means that you have to make the choice when you use the feature that you're committing yourself to not getting the last word because you really find it useless to go back and forth with that poster.

[LoZoccolo]

25. Not really.

I wouldn't worry about it.

[AP]

26. Throw the dog a bone!

Why not?

[LoZoccolo]

30. Because that's not the way I'd use it.

I probably use it more than anyone else (at one time I had nearly 200 people on ignore). My suggestions are based on my experience using it, and what I wish was there.

[AP]

33. Well, no wonder you want a more flexible ignore system!

If you use it that much, it probably is tiresome to undo it.

But I think you're probably outside the norm and if peeking were possible, for 95% of DU'ers there'd be almost no difference between having someone on ignore and not, which means that it would lose its effectiveness as a way to stop the conflict between two posters.

[CWebster]

28. Are there really that many you choose to ignore?

No one generally offends me that much and it defeats the point of coming here to debate and air the issues. Political discussion does, by it's very nature, get contentious at times, but it often seems like people advocate groupthink as unity and prefer to shut out voices that challenge or make us uncomfortable. There can be growth in conflict--and it makes us think about why we hold the views we do.

[AP]

32. Not that it's relevant, but I believe my ignore list is empty right now.

However, it has probably been as large as 20-30 at one point (during the primaries, when DU was at its worst), and it might have been at 10 as recently as two weeks ago.

Ignore is a tool I use at various times, and it's always changing. In my opinion (which I admit, might be biased) I've never used it avoid "challenging" ideas. I don't think it's useful to that end, because you're not censoring anyone's ability to talk to others. You're just elminating the stuff that you think is useless, which also means you're cutting yourself off from being able to refute bad arguments. The risk to defending your point of view is much greater than the harm you cause to someone else's -- which makes it a very interesting tool requiring a calculus that's very different from futherming "groupthink" or reducing diversity of opinions.

My point here is that it could be a more valuable tool -- easily taking advantage of simple technology -- to weed out unproductive exchanges and enhance the disucssion, and give people a different kind of feedback on how they are perceived which might encourage more social behaviour. But I think it would be much more effective if the person being ignored had some perception whether they're being ignored (because, as I said, people post here because they want to engage in disucssions or at least promote their causes, and being ignored means that you can't do that).

[tishaLA]

36. AP let me disagree with you...

because you and I have had some pretty heated disagreements in the past, particularly during the primary season. But we discussed our differences in PMs and we managed to communicate with one another, even though it was initially frustrating for both of us. I think that is generally what adults on a discussion board can do--overcome profound disagreements and act civilly toward one another--and besides that, I prefer playing out interpersonal dramas privately rather than in front of a bunch of other eyes.

I think, though, that some people who intentionally create flame wars based around primary candidates don't really care how they look and they don't want to engage in conversation. So letting them know that 27 people have them on ignore won't matter one bit. In fact, I have a suspicion that some people will get a kick out of it and might enjoy being egged on by other members of their faction who think they are doing a great job for the team. It's something I don't understand, to tell the truth.

[AP]

45. Since you won't know who's putting you on ignore...

...you won't ever be sure if people ignoring you are the target of your hostilities or casual readers.

Also, since your comrades won't know how many people have you on ignore, using it as a badge of honor would result in the unlikely and boring postings (in the Lounge? In supporters groups?) about how many people have you on ignore. I would be surprised if that were a frequent topic for discussion, or even of PMs.

Furthermore, I really don't think that most posters post here to preach to the choir, so I don't think many people will get excited within their groups about how many people outside their group have them on ignore. And if people who post for those reasons do get excited about getting ignored, having this feature is a wash -- it won't effect those people, but then again what would? And would it really exacerbate the problem if that's why the person were here in the first place? If you post to be an ass, would this really make you more of an ass?

Furthermore, say that it did cause an escalation in the use of ignore? Well, that's not a bad thing. Once you get over that initial hump where people ratchet up their use of ignore, encouraged by PMs or by engaging in anti-social behavior (within the rules) what happens after the plateau? You have the antagonizers cut off from each other, and what's left is more polite debate between people not ignoring each other, and you have a lot of people staring at high ignore numbers, not sure exactly who has them on ignore and how many people are actually reading their posts. And what if someone within a faction suddenly discovers someone else in the faction also has them on ignore? Now wouldn't that be a kick in the pants? If anything is going to change your behavior, it might be when someone with an Edwards avatar PMs me and discovers that AP has him or her on ignore, eh?

I really think that most people post at DU to sway the casual readers and, to a smaller degree, to antagonize people with whom they perceive differences. (And, like I said, the choir preachers -- I am sure -- are a much smaller group ). One question about the functionality of enhanced ignore is, how casual of a reader does the average poster want to reach? If you're not trying to antagonize any other poster and if you're mostly trying to reach people who aren't registered users, this won't influence your posting at all because unregistered users will be able to read all your posts even if you are on everyone's ignore list -- but you will find that nobody responds to your posts, which means no kicking your threads up and no chances to further clarify your ideas in response to friendly questions.)

In any event, I really believe that suspecting that either of those groups of people (the objects of your enmity and the registered causal reader) might not even be reading your posts will modify behavior.

As for our personal dynamics serving as a model for the value or lack of value of an enhanced ignore feature: I bet I had you on ignore briefly and it might have given me a cooling-off period where I realized that we weren't going to engage at all if I didn't change my tone. So, after some breathing room, I probably took you off ignore and then engaged with a different tone. I don't know who PM'd whom first, but it's not necessarily the case that ignore didn't help reach that point where I was able to have a productive rational discussion. The ignore feature isn't a static thing. You can change it. Using it can change you. I have also had very unpleasant PM's that followed public exchanges similar in tone to ours and those confirmed the need for ignoring that poster.

The bottom line, I think, is we won't know how this plays out unless we experiment, right? Like FDR said, we shouldn't be so wedded to our ideas about how things work that we don't try new things when it seems like things we're doing aren't working, right? And we shouldn't be afraid to let go of experiments that aren't' working too -- so why not try it, see if it works, and drop it if it doesn't?

[smartvoter]

55. I try to remember the common enemy when I read something I think is

over the line or someone slams me. It just happened because I did not word a question appropriately in some eyes. Rather than getting upset, I explained myself and moved on.

I know this seems like a cop out, but you really need thick skin to become politically active -- especially on our side of the fence where people read and think and don't respond to God and fear talk. There is no magic bullet for getting everyone on our side of the political spectrum to fall in line.

[AP]

75. The point isn't to get everyone to fall in line.

Like I said above, when you put someone on ignore, you're ceding the floor to them. You're actually giving the other side of the argument the opporutnity to make their arguments without your rebuttal. It's merely a choice not to participate in a discussion. To a degree, it's self-censorship, but if you thought it was a critical debate to have, you wouldn't use the ignore feature. So, it's barely even self-censorship. It's a comment on your perception of the value of engaging another DU'er in a debate. It's a time-management device more than anything.

The point of my idea is not to get people on the same page. It is to manage conflict in a way that doesn't turn DU into a hate-fest (and by that, I mean, a lot of interpersonal conflict under the banner of position/candidate-advocacy, and people resorting to RW-tactics to elevate their positions and candidates).

How better to manage conflict than to use the available technology in a way that (1) encourages people NOT to interact with people with whom they disagree to such a degree that they find engagement a waste of time and (2) gives the person being ignored a little feedback on whether their posts are getting the widest possible audience (ie, whether they're perceived as not having valuable contributions to make) -- which is information they're completely free to ignore or heed.

It amazes me that people would object to this at all, since the only change to DU would be that individual posters would see how many people have them on ignore -- they wouldn't know who those people were, and nobody else would know how many people have you on ignore. It's just giving you information on a feature that obviously many people use as it relates to your postings (I'm sure you wouldn't argue that we need to get rid of the ignore feature, right?).

I think this information is either going to encoruage people to be more reasonable, or they'll compeltely ignore it. I'd be surprised if the negatives (whatever they might be) outweighed the positives. And regardless of what you think might happen, don't you at least think it'd be interesting to give it a shot?

[AP]

78. I'll put this a different way: an enhanced ignore feature isn't censorship

it's encouraging people to disengage from unproductive discussions in way that is more meaningful than putting someone on ignore is currently.

Now, when you use ignore -- which many people certainly already use, notwithstanding posts by people who say they never use it because it's not compatible with progressive approaches to political discussion -- it is only meaningful to the person employing it. By giving it meaning to the person who is ignored -- simply giving that person, and only that person, an indication of the total number of people who have that person on ignore -- hopefully that will (1) encourage more people to use ignore rather than continue unproductive borderline flaming verbal battles, and (2) give people with high ignore counts feedback on how their postings are perceived by other DU'ers.

I think it's really hard to have a real world analogy to this since it's not the case that people speaking to crowds generally don't know whether people are listening. I guess the analogy is if you talked with an audience in a dark auditorium that was full when the house lights went off, they go on, and you're surprised to see that half the audience left. This is like having the light on for posters so they know how they're being received, and it's also gives standing up and walking out of the auditorium more meaning for the audience member, because you know the person on stage can see it.


I'm not guarantying this will solve the problems. But I think it would be an interesting experiment.

[smartvoter]

82. I use the "mute" feature in live games in this manner, and it works. nt

[Rowdyboy]

5. Basically, I like Democrats....almost ALL Democrats...

While I supported Clark in '04, I never disliked any of our guys (except for the obligatory bash at Lieberman). I like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Reid, Bayh, Feinstein, Clinton, Salazar-you get the picture, I like Democrats.

Sadly, many people here appear to only like one Democrat-the one they personally back. Some consistently tear down any and all Democrats for the hell of it. It becomes a game of "I'm purer than you are-I'm the true liberal, nyah, nyah, nyah".

I don't think there is an answer, other than putting people like that on ignore. They're certainly not going to stop voluntarily.

[Lerkfish]

6. FWIW, I think you'd have to elevate ABOVE the primary process, which

to me has become fundamentally flawed.
the problem with the primary process is that it pits candidates from the same side against each other at intense odds, until a nominee is chosen, and then they have to make nice again.
Please bear with me here, but I think this is relevant to our own situation...

The reason this has become the problem is for several reasons, but one main one in my mind: NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISING.
instead of candidates focusing on their own qualifications or platforms to achieve stated goals, in the past several decades, campaigns are almost wholly negative against an opponent. Often, these negative ads are written to such a fevered pitch they border being libelous (and sometimes don't even bother with the border) Although the republicans are more expert at using negative attack ads, we do still use them in democratic primaries.
What is wrong with that is it automatically creates an adversarial relationship between candidates of the same party until a single nominee is chosen. And this filters down to the the individual supporters for each candidate.

Imagine, if you will, what the difference would be, if COOPERATIVELY the primary process were condensed in time, and each candidate could only outline their own plans or their own qualifications. There would not be time for a great deal of infighting,and the political damage and hard feelings would not be exaggerated.

Now, to bring that back to DU...what is wrong with COOPERATIVELY viewing individual candidates as simply an elective rather than an exclusionary choice? by that I mean...maybe I like Wagner, but that doesn't mean I have to hate someone who like Capshaw. Maybe we need to in our own prohibit negative attack ads against other candidates and instead encourage positive support ads of our own choices?

maybe that's unenforceable, but if we agree to try to do that, maybe that would be enough?

[ClassWarrior]

7. Without muting the criticism, ratchet down the rhetoric.

Criticism = good. Vitriol = bad.

Language is powerful. We make big gains for the Progressive movement by using it wisely and strategically.

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

8. If all DU members would refrain from making posts

containing one sentence or paragraph stating outright slurs, smears and/or accusations about potential candidates and/or candidate supporters. If they have an opinion, they should have the good conscience of backing it up with supporting evidence.

If positive threads were not crashed by those only wanting to take a leak. Maybe using the old line...If I can't say nothing nice, I will not say anything at all.

If DU Members would use their ignore buttons, hide a thread features, or disable the Sig capability more often instead of whining and complaining that they don't like the threads that they are having to suffer through...and feel compelled to post a complaint within the thread - Example - "Why this 2008 thread? concentrate on 2006".

DU Members should recognize that supporters of any potential candidate are not monolyphic, and that one supporter does not represent all supporters of any one given potential candidate.

If DU members realized that when reading a poster saying something positive about a particular Democrat doesn't mean that this poster is stating that this particular Democrat is perfect.

[BeHereNow]

17. The "one liner"

IMMEDIATELY shuts down all channels for
discussion and thoughtful debate.
I guess if I could write one DU rule, it would
prohibit the one liner between members.
I am guilty of it myself and allways feel
ashamed when I do it- it is the choice
of a coward and a bully, a last resort
when you have no position to defend.

I am REALLY trying NOT to do it anymore
and therefore have to force myself to
try and stay out of those discussions.

BHN

[cally]

9. I think the biggest problem is the organized groups

who come to defend a candidate or promote their own. I noticed during the primaries, that if someone attacked Clark or Dean then the same group would end up in the thread defending their candidate. It hindered honest discussion and understanding of the candidates and their positions.

Almost every Clark thread would end up with several posts that he's a Republican and supports the School of the Americas. Almost every Dean thread would end up with that he's too angry and won't appeal to the South. The same posts are continuiing to this day. If DUers would stop the group actions, then I think the animosity would tone down.

Disclaimer: I supported Clark in the primaries although I probably supported most of the candidates at one time or another. I'm thrilled that Dean is the DNC chairman and I'm impressed how his campaign changed the Democratic party by empowering the grassroots.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Yes, but there are 2 questions that I pose in reference to your

observation.

"if someone attacked Clark or Dean then the same group would end up in the thread defending their candidate."

1. How can one tell that the attacks or defenses are organized?

I think that is an assumption and not necessarily a fact.

I personally never negotiated or conferred with others prior to defending my candidate. My thought has always been....many people who read these threads are lurking to get information on a candidate. In fact, some are forming their opinion on who to support based on the information via these threads. I can't, in good conscience, allow an accusation to remain unanswered, if I have a response to clear my candidate of erroneous mis-interpretation.

Certainly, it is true, that by the time I finished authoring and sourcing my post and hitting the send button, there might be 3 other similar responses to mine....but then, it would seem that one would have to organize to keep something like that from happening.


"It hindered honest discussion and understanding of the candidates and their positions."

2. How can a well researched debunking of a myth, attack, accusation or position criticism hinder a discussion?

I have personally read an attack on a particular politician....and it wasn't until after I actually read the rebuttals along with the links offered that I realized that the attack was unsound, and at times, untrue. Politician's nuanced positions can sometimes be interpreted in a variety of ways. Debating with the presence of facts goes a long way in clearing up what one might have meant, or what one might have written. I know that my candidate's written words have often been used against him....by posters doing selective "quoting". The back and forth are, many times, very useful, in clearifying what was actually meant....say, by including the context of the statement parsed by a poster.

So I don't totally understand what "group" action you are referring to.

(edited to correct singular/plural error)

[cally]

48. I don't know that it was organized beyond

the few references I've seen on threads. So let me rephrase it. When the same group of defenders or promoters appear on the thread time after the time, it appears like an organized group. I'm not talking about folks who post simultaneously because what I don't see that often on these threads. It just looks like a concerted effort to group together and support their chosen candidate. I quit posting on any of these threads for that reason.

When too many threads end up going over the same points and the same posters raise the same points of support or disagreement, we can't have honest discussions. It just is let's regurgitate the same argument today. It's gets old and boring.

[beyurslf]

10. It is important to remember that any D candidate is better than the R cand

in any race. Even if your cand doesn't win the primary, your choice should be the D. A conservative D is more progressive than a republican.

[BeHereNow]

11. "What would it take ?"

I am glad to see this discussion- thanks Skinner for
facilitating it. We NEED to have this discussion.

It is my observation that often, when threads "heat up"
it is due to what I call a "pack" mentality. Certain candidates
seem to attract "true believers" who appear no different
to me than Bushbots. No criticism or close examination
of the individual is allowed. Personally, I can not say that
ANY of the Democrats have inspired me lately and those
that have started to usually fall apart under my examination.

I wish we had a central figure that we could all agree
on without reservation the way the Bushbots have
rallied around Bush administration, however, I think
many of us are far too intelligent to pledge blind allegiance.
It is our nature to investigate prior to unleashing our devotion.

I have taken to completely hiding certain threads
because the nature of the member postings about certain
democrats ALWAYS turns into a brawl.

I think over all, everyone needs to practice more
respectful treatment of people who may not
share their same views or observation- I REALLY hate
the one liner insult posts that do nothing as far as
furthering genuine discussion and debate.

My rambling two cents...

BHN

[rhett o rick]

13. I am suspicious of the "establishment" even the Demo establishment

Many of the existing Demo Congress-people are just to comfortable where they are. We need to change some of them out. But first, it is important for the Demo's to clearly establish principles that we can all agree on. Then we need a strategy. It isn't enough to all get together behind someone we all agree is good. WE ARE IN THE MINORITY. We need to support a candidate that will win some of the moderates back from the other side. All is wasted if we don't. How about Colin Powell. Just a thought. Al Gore and Hillary are not electable. Al is way to intellectual for the moderates on the other side. Hillary is Hillary and I don't think will win many over.

[CWebster]

14. It is curious that it is so often partisans of one group

complaining about the others. That never ends.

I don't think any of these continued calls for civility are productive when posters express justifiable outrage about the issues. Often the outrage directed towards Democrats is because they are caving so often. And it is not on one or two issues--the frustration over the Dems lack of spine has been going on for years now.

I really like these navel-gazing threads.

[redqueen]

16. Wow

I missed that first thread, but here are my suggestions:

1. Be nice. After you've worked out your disgareement with your fellow Dem partisan, or alternatively, once you've worked out that you're not going to come to agreement, extend a nice exchange. Recognize each other as being on the same side. Acknowlede their value to the fight, their determination, their passion. Just anything honest and positive, really... this would help to stop everyday tensions from turning into feud type situations.

2. Be polite. Don't smear people. Don't use terms like 'republican lite' or 'loony left' or 'spineless' or 'fringe' or other insulting descriptions. I would think 'centrist', 'leftist', 'more liberal', 'DLC-ish' descriptions convey the same message, yet not in an insulting way.

3. Be reasonable. Make the ultimate goal an exchange of ideas and conflict resolution, rather than indictment and bashing. I think we can all recognize the difference in wording which might make what would be a productive or at least satisfying discussions a pol's site nothing more than fodder for a flame war here.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. Self Policing (Calling Out Bad Behavior By Your Own Side)

I think that is very important. On the old Usenet, that was often the only way for certain flamewars to get stamped out. There was once a split in the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup when Robert Jordan's fantasy series got an absolute ton of discussion. Eventually that problem was solved by splitting into a new newsgroup, but before that fix was implemented, there was a period of a couple of years where all posters posting about Jordan would put a big "JORDAN:" in the header so that other users could filter the threads out. The only way that happened was because the community of Jordan posters self-policed to the point where everyone was complying. Outside policing and/or criticism from the non-Jordan posters never worked, because it would turn into a flamefest and there was no trust involved.

I also think that people should try their best to refrain from hit-and-run and one-liner attacks, especially where the thread in question is a positive one.

DTH

[Radical Activist]

93. Great suggestions. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

22. It has been my observation that we have an oft repeated phenomenon

that leads to these pointless (and yes, destructive) flame fests.

A thread goes up about a particular Dem personage ... or even an issue thread goes up and later has the name of some personage thrown out there.

This name's simple appearance inspires the vilifiers. They come out, throw a hand grenade, and run. It is often the same grenade ... over and over and over. And as often as not unsubstantiated or just pure name calling drivel. It converts no one. It interests no one. It makes no difference at all. None.

But then along comes the posse. Posseperson A posts this refutation. Posseperson B posts that refutation. Posseperson C posts ..... you get the idea.

To those of us who were involved in the original thread on its own merits, both the hit man and the possepersons piss us off.

And by extension, the name to who's defense the posse came causes us to be pissed off. (Oh shit ... another of the pointless, endless <name> hater/lover war skirmishes.)

So I would argue for some self-restraint. Mainly, actually, on the part of the possepersons. If the person throwing the grenade gets a posseperson to post a refutation, let that stand. Don't pile on. It pisses everyone off. And I'm on *your* side.

At one time or another I've defended virtually every one of the subjects of these 'candidate wars'. I'm actually a supporter of one in particular. But that's neither here nor there. I agree with good thoughts and will defend what i see as good thinking ... no matter who does the good stuff. And I won't allow to go unanswered an obvious slur .... of anyone who doesn't deserve it.

Look, the members of grenade brigades are obvious. We all know who they are. I dare say they have little by way of sympathetic support. They're few in number.

But more to the point, they're not the loons the possepersons see them to be. They're committed to a viewpoint on *that particular name*. Endless refutations (often two or three scrolls-worth in a single post) do nothing to change minds and do a lot to piss off the citizens. And these people you see as loons on the issue of your 'name' have exceedingly valid and rational positions on other issues.

So .... they hate your guy. They make it eminently clear. And ya know what? Their bias is clear to everyone else, too and their view on your name is meaningless to the uninvolved. They convince no one on their view of your 'name'.

More or different rules and enhanced 'ignore' buttons with racing stripes, the optional turbo, and leather interiors will do nothing.

Common sense and a reasonable approach will do much more. Stop the pack mentality. Stop the piling on. And stop throwing the gratuitous hand grenades. You're winning nothing and pissing off many.

Just my 2 cents .....

[FrenchieCat]

35. Again, I think that the word "Posse" confirms an assumption....

that may not be factual. Many times the Posseperson "pile on" that you are referring to has not been negotiated and/or the result of a planned phenomenon. I know that I don't make a determination with anyone prior to posting a response to a comment that I might read. Nor do I feel that I actually speak for anyone else....i.e., my response may not include an important point that someone else judges should be made.

I think that part of the problem with calling DU members BushBots (not you), or Possepersons, just because they happen to support the same candidate, is that this is a faulty conclusion...that only feed and spreads rumors in reference to the activity of "organized" groups. I think making assumptions as to what is actually going on behind the scenes is pure speculation. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen....but it does mean that preconceptions are allowed to rule the mindset and often the attitudes of many DUers....which, in turn, is causing part of the problem at hand that we are currently discussing.

It is certainly possible that certain DUers may communicate with each other, while others do not. It is also possible that some DUer communicate....but not on how to respond within a certain thread.

Part of the problem, which I referred to in my first post on this thread, is that many judge one supporter as being the same as another....especially those who identify with a particular potential candidate. So if 2 or 3 supporters of the same candidate respond to one accusation, some may make an instant judgement that the "posse" is piling it on although this may be erroneous ...that, in turn, only feeds into some cynical belief that the supporters of "X" candidate are somewhat sinister and plotting.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Frenchie, I don't see the issue as being coordinated

and hope I didn't imply that. If I did, then I was inarticulate. I am absolutely certain many (most?) posse pile-ons happen much as you suggest they do ..... responses being written in a fast moving thread .... and similar posts all hitting at the same time.

But no matter the reason, to the uninvolved or unsympathetic - or worse yet, to detractors - that's simply how it might appear. And perception quickly becomes reality. Sadly. But's that's true.

Maybe it might be better to let that hand grenade sit there a while? See who responds. It could just as easily sink of its own weight. Most are nonsequitors anyhow. To say nothing of their remarkable sameness. They're just plain boring.

By contrast, that 'niceguywhatever' post in the "Andy" thread yesterday was really serious and harmful. That is a prime example of a post that needs to be countered and countered immediately. For the candidates, we have a lot of time to sort through issues and change minds. Little if anything is immediate.

The issue is also as much about the length of some of the responses. They're huge. By the sheer magnitude of the amount of real estate they consume they're very 'in your face'. I don't have any suggestions as to how big they ought to be or how much detail they ought to contain. But I'd venture a guess no one clicks any of the links and few, if any, bother to even read the basic post.

As I said earlier, I've defended probably every 'name' who's gotten hits. But sometimes you read a post, see that, on its face, its the same old endless, tired, long ago refuted bullshit, lies, and palaver. For me ... that's 'let it go' time.

[allemand]

67. Maybe one good refutation should be enough. As you said, it's often the

same old grenade... One refutation, and as long as they don't throw any new grenades no follow-up posts. There aren't that many grenades, anyway... ;-)

[FrenchieCat]

73. Well, it could be worth a try...... posting once....

trying not to get bent out of shape, and then waiting to see what happens.....Or using that "so-elusive" Demopedia for debunking.

Cause it certainly is true that I get tired of debunking the same old fiction mythlores....that's for sho'!

[allemand]

171. Many of your posts are a perfect example of such a "good refutation".

I remember them as being informative and well-written. Usually there is no need for follow-up posts.

[Adelante]

83. It would be nice, but

I've been enough of these to know the grenades just keep coming.

Even if you don't repond, you get, "You have no answer!" "You have no link!" "You know nothing!" "You have nothing to say!" "You are idiot neo-con war-mongering baby-swallowing collaborationists!"

The only thing that can stop a vendetta or flamebait poster is him or herself, or an alert, which generally gets the thread locked because it's floor to ceiling flames, which is probably the whole point of the exercise.

Since this is the case, and it is, I might as well defend with points.

[allemand]

175. Yes, that's exactly the "whole point of the exercise".

So why take the bait? It's a waste of time and energy.

Let these posts speak for themselves:
"You have no answer!" "You have no link!" "You know nothing!" "You have nothing to say!" "You are idiot neo-con war-mongering baby-swallowing collaborationists!"
They contain no new information. Their only purpose is to vent frustration that possibly isn't even linked to the matter that is being discussed.

Why not try a Gandhian approach of "passive resistance"? It's important to debunk the lies, yes, but I believe that it's possible to ignore the personal attacks (simply alert and let the mods handle them). You will have more time at your disposal and you will also feel better.

That won't stop the attacks, of course. I have absolutely no illusions about that. But it will make threads more readable for other posters who come to inform themselves about a certain topic.

[Adelante]

180. That's what I mean

The Ghandian approach doesn't work, either. Alerting doesn't work. Nothing works against this type of poster. You might as well talk back, if you have the time and energy, which I admit I often don't have.

But I'll give it another shot in the interest of peace and see where it goes. Thanks. :)

[Mairead]

23. "Is there any way to build trust?" No.

Absolutely not. Because 'build trust' assumes that pro- and anti-worker positions aren't really in conflict, that it's all a misunderstanding. But the 'primary wars' are about 'primary' differences--fundamental differences.

I 'trust' predators just fine--to be predatory! But that doesn't mean I'm willing to be prey.

[Larkspur]

29. I agree with you on this point

There are factions on this board that will never trust each other. That's a normal part of life.

This board is not Iraq. We can fight here and still go home without worrying about losing our lives.

I'd rather have the fights on this board than out in the streets during campaigning.

[paineinthearse]

24. Stop the "sniping"

There are some here I would consider to be "cultist". If you say anything they perceive to be bad about their hero, they immediately launch a personal attack. Beware of snipers.

[welshTerrier2]

27. trust will evolve from leadership; it can't be manufactured

it would be great for all of us to believe that all Democrats represent the best interests of the country ... it would be great to know that each and every elected Democrat would earn our respect on vote after vote after vote ... in short, it would be great if all Democrats (and all DU'ers) were on the same page ... that, of course, will never be the case ...

should we trust Democrats who vote for the bankruptcy bill?
should we trust Democrats who keep voting for more war?
should we trust Democrats who refuse to talk about the UK memo?
should we trust Democrats who vote against equality for gays?
should we trust Democrats who endorse ANTI-CHOICE candidates?

perhaps your answer to all these questions is: "Yes" ... but it is important to respect those who feel deeply about these issues and do not feel represented by Democrats who hold different views ... trust must be earned ... when voters feel their best interests on issues that are the most important to them are not being represented, trust disappears ...

building unity and trusting Democrats is an excellent goal ... but doing so by "making nice nice" is nothing but a game of pretend ...

as for DU itself, if we could promote the idea that strong criticisms of any Democrat should be totally acceptable as long as it is focused on issues rather than on character assassination, our disagreements might lead to constructive discussions instead of the inane, juvenile hostilites we're all sick and tired of ...

[XemaSab]

34. Agreed,

I think it's important to have discussions about the shortcomings of our so-called representatives here in a "safe" space.

I think there's a certain amount of draw to flamewars, namely that the participants know they are in one, and choose to participate. I know that if I start a thread like "So-and-so is the only REAL democrat running and if you have any sense at all you will vote for him" immediately it will become a flamewar. I can't imagine that all the people who post similar threads don't know that they are starting a flamewar.

But still we should be having discussions about the candidates, and if they turn into flamewars so be it.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. I think you make an excellent point there.

It should be possible to criticize or question Democrats and issues without doing it in such a way that it comes off looking like pointless sniping.

Is there any way we can focus on critiquing or questioning actual issues and positions without making it so personal, and without acting out like a tantruming two year old? Is it possible to actually have mature and intelligent debates without it turning into pointless baiting and attacking? Can people bear to have their favorite Democrat questioned without going into instant kneejerk defensiveness?

[eridani]

133. "as long as it is focused on issues"

My sediments exactly. I'm such an issues junky that I paid no real attention to the electoral process for years, except for throwing a few bucks at officeholders who supported what I was working on. I only started getting involved because Kucinich came out in favor of just about my entire laundry list, (except for that flag burning thing, and being way too wussy for my tastes on the election fraud issue). What was different about him was that, unlike Nader, he had actually held public office.

After actually being involved in the electoral process, I decided that however weak Dem resistance to the Repub agenda has been, it's all there is. Dems at least have PCOs, and Greens certainly don't. For strategic reasons, I'll vote for and work for any local or national Dem candidate, considering their records in the context of what the other options are. However, they just aren't ever going to be off the hook if I disagree with their positions. They are going to hear from me, loud and long, both IRL and in cyberspace.

I think I've been pretty good about posting on ideas rather than personalities, but if anyone thinks I can do better, I'll certainly pledge to try to do so.

[bobthedrummer]

31. I did try to open dialogues with some DUers but I don't think that worked.

I apparently am a boogieman to some organized groups here and I guess that can't be changed, if it isn't me it's "others" here that are the boogieman to them.

I'm going to take some time-out before responding to some provocative posters, I'm going to discipline myself away from the habit of trying to get the final word in, that's something I've done with certain posters in the past.

I'm also aware that when we use the alert button it just puts more work on our mods and the alert button, like the polls and hijacked threads, have been abused by groups.

That's where you come in, Skinner, what is Admin. thinking about doing to curb the group activities?

With everything else on your plate I can understand that it's going to depend on how we all interact.

[FrenchieCat]

38. I think that assumptions, speculations and conclusions

that may be erroneous are part of the problem that we are discussing here and now. It allows for a chain reaction that may not be warranted.

Conclusions such as yours are as big a part of the problem, as those who are actually doing what you are implying as a foregone conclusion.

Using terms like "organized" groups is saying more than you actually know. You have made a predetermination that is coloring the temper of your comments.

Please see my post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1776768&mesg_id=1776961

[bobthedrummer]

77. No, I am one of three DUers named in a post at chat.for clark.com

by a fellow DUer that I posted in Skinner's first thread, which, though locked, can still be read in archives to support this post's veracity.

That is a fact, not an invention of mine. My perceptions are only my own, of course, just as you own yours.

That post from April 10th at chat. forclark.com also (conclusively for me) is a specific example of a DUer calling for group activities here at DU.

If you are in denial of that fact, I don't know what else to say.

Group activities might also include voting in polls, nominating posts to the Greatest Page and hijacking threads-which other DUers have done regardless of their support for particular 2004 POTUS candidates.

I've never engaged in any of these types of group activities here and cannot understand why I would be targeted along with other DUers by, in my case, a DU Clark supporter at chat.for clark.com, I've also suffered the misfortune of having a couple of threads started by other DU Clark supporters that basically are disinformation and full of real conspiracy theories, fortunately the mods got rid of those.

That's about all I have to say to you in response to your post, FrenchieCat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. I commented some on this type thing down thread (post #57)

All kinds of things go on on the internet; in chat boards, in blogs, in PM's and emails. It is the classic reason why traditionally main stream media disregarded the internet as a real source of news. I am of course referring to a departed era when Main Stream Media had some real interest in reporting News.

Three people can become a "Group" on the internet, using a name that makes them sound just as real as Amnesty International. Most people use made up names when they post and there is little accountability regarding bending of truth. It is very easy to set off an ongoing feud on message boards and they easily take on a life of their own since sooner or later everyone gets slandered. There is no internet police (yet, and I don't think I would welcome them if they showed up). We all give too much power to these activities. Sometimes they are actually innocent and are just being twisted out of context and mischaracterized, other times they are poorly thought through, and sometimes even malicious by intent. But usually very few people are involved. It almost always gets blown way out of proportion.

And the other thing is we all see reality through our own lens after all. We may or may not agree on which threads contain misinformation for example. Be that as it may, I think you are just as welcome to post here as I am. I don't think you have an axe to grind, but if I were differently inclined I could take a few of the comments you made that singled out "Clark supporters" for starting disinformation threads and the like as evidence to the contrary. That is exactly how feuds take hold. That's why I said what I did in post #57. For what it is worth I will defend you on these threads Bob if you don't make sweeping negative generalities against any group.

[bobthedrummer]

87. Well, I'm not on Karl Rove's payroll and I'm not a Freeper mole.

DU Clark supporters started threads here that made such insinuations, those threads were locked.

DU Clark supporters used to petition against me in ATA because of one thread I started after the false announcements that General Clark had declared a 2008 candidacy.

Tom, the fact is they all just happen to be DU Clark supporters.
I'm not alone in having this experience here, other DUers have shared their experinces with me.

Those experiences and hearing similar stories from others here piss me off at the tactics of individual DUers that operate in groups, regardless of who they were for last year.

I think the suggestion of self-policing has a lot of merit too, Tom, I sincerely know that you could be a major part of that, it would be helpful.

I do understand that during the campaigns there were some arguments and things that involved groups like Dean and Clark partisans, I wasn't part of that-I was for Dennis Kucinich.

Since I post a lot about militarism and fascism and corruption and was against the Iraq War (not Afghanistan) and am not a vet perhaps some of the things I post about other than former POTUS candidates piss off some with military service. It shouldn't.

That's all I wanted to say in response to your post, Tom.

[Crunchy Frog]

91. Bob, I made a post in ATA about a thread that you started

that I felt, and still do feel, was flamebait. The admins disagreed with me and that was that. It was something that I did on my own, not as part of some great conspiracy against you.

If you ever did much hanging around in ATA, you would know that posts like mine were a dime a dozen. Sometimes the admins would agree with the posters and lock the threads, sometimes they would disagree with them, sometimes there would be a huge debate between the poster and an admin on the subject.

It's very easy to cherry pick things like that and build up a case that there is some sort of organized campaign against yourself. I am honestly telling you that my ATA post was not part of some sort of organized campaign against you, but was my own honest response to my own feeling that your thread was inflammatory.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. The type behavior you describe

Even if we start with an assumption that there was no legitimate basis for it happening, that type behavior has been done by supporters of several different candidates, both at and off DU. I've seen it happen, sometimes it seems totally out of place, other times I see where people are coming from then watch it just spin out of control. There are a lot of Clark supporters at DU right now. Not because it's like joining a "cool" fraternity or sorority to be a "Clarkie", just because a lot of people currently here have a lot of respect for Clark. A lot of people at DU have a lot of respect for other leading Democrats. There are thousands of people on DU. It is amazing how the actions of a few bitter people can directly influence the actions of hundreds of others, yet I have seen that happen too often to count.

We can and should each individually redouble our efforts to promote a basic degree of civility and open mindedness in our postings, and "self policing" as you call it has a role to play also. Both restraint against responding to provocation, and the avoidance of provoking in the first place, are frequently in short supply at online forums. "Candidate attacks" seem to happen in waves at DU, and much of our trouble is started when a Democratic Party leader, be it Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich or anyone else, is set upon with long knives drawn. Clark was historically a major target at DU for outrageous personal attacks, and that is at the root of why so many are quick to defend him here now, but other Democrats have come under withering fire also. As long as that continues in a wholesale manner, often unrelated to any actual position taken by that Democrat on a specific issue, at other times because of an unrelenting focus on one small aspect of that Democrat's total agenda and beliefs, some will step up to defend him or her. That part probably won't change, nor should it really as long as it is done in a responsible manner.

[Tinoire]

113. That's a bit disingenious

This was sent in an e-mail and has been posted on several Clark sites:

New Posted May 2, 2005 at 10:34 PM

Dear Friend,

As you may have heard, Wesley Clark recently gave a speech in Los Angeles which all but announced his intention of running for President in 2008. All of his efforts now are toward positioning himself for a run in ’08, and he will need our help. Grassrooters, it’s all systems go !! Please check in at the new Clark Volunteers center as we put this train on the tracks.. http://www.clarkvoluntee rs.com/index.php

There is also a new Yahoo discussion board being organized by the original Clark drafters from 2004. This will be the main epicenter of all discussion regarding 2008.. http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/clark08

Don’t forget that Wes Clark has started his own PAC. http://securingamerica.c om Please consider giving a contribution https://secure.ga3.org/0 1/wespac as we need to help Wes fund his efforts until an official Presidential Exploratory Committee is formed.

Also, please participate in Wes’ blog http://www.forclark.com We need your ideas and input, this is a great place to share. Also, Democratic Underground has a Clark blog which you may want to participate in..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

Best wishes, and hope to see you on the trail.

xxxx
http://wesleyclark.meetup.com/44/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1382052

This is neither the first nor the last and out of ALL the candidates, for directed traffic to DU, the Clark campaign gets the number one slot everytime. Everytime this has been pointed out it's been met with smooth denial and talk of how people just can't help but be mesmerized by Clark as if no one was being directed here until the evidence is presented and then the excuse is switched to "but surely everyone does it". And the campaign-organized direction to DU began before Clark was even running (if you need the dates, I can post the precise dates for you because I received a ton of PMs to the effect of "who are all these people?" and several of us researched to find out where all the traffic was coming from, who was sending it and have kept an eye on that ever since).

So don't you think it's a little disengenious to pretend that people are just landing here out of the blue :shrug: and that so many people "currently here" have a lot of respect for him?

This also explains why so many, not all but too many, who come here can talk of nothing but Clark and lay the campaign propaganda on so thick.

The real answer is "There are a lot of Clark supporters at DU right now" because there's a concerted effort to be very visible here.

[Texas_Kat]

118. I'm sorry, forgive me for being a little slow....but...

I didn't understand the point of your post.

If the point of your post was that Clark folks are internet saavy then I'll have to agree. If the point was that the Draft movement was organized through the internet, I'll agree with you there too.

It follows then that there are a lot of Clark people (and have been since before he 'started running') and that they use the internet effectively.

I have no idea why in the world you'd think differently. Does the internet belong to just one group (or candidate)? Is DU open or is it closed?

What cut-off date for new admissions to DU would you suggest? What sort of test of someone's un-Clarkness would make them an acceptable candidate for DU membership?

The link to the Clark Forum on DU is a legitimate 'group' to point interested people to. If it wasn't, Skinner and the admins wouldn't have spent so much time and effort establishing them. There are many Clark folks who honestly cannot handle the invective, name calling and outright falsehoods that get posted here on such a frequent basis, so they avoid DU like the plague.

Don't think for a minute that anyone is 'recruited' to join DU and don't think for a moment that ALL Clark folks post here. As one of the preeminent discussion boards on the Democratic side, anyone who doesn't know about DU just hasn't been paying attention. Understand that Clark supporters are activists.... both on the internet and in the real world.

I don't understand what your problem with that is.....

[incapsulated]

119. Most Clark supporters...

On the Clark Blog (CCN) and elsewhere want nothing to do with DU, period.

"Recruiting" them would be a tough sell.

I can't imagine why, when we are welcomed with such open arms!


:eyes:

[Sparkly]

120. I can vouch for DU having an anti-Clark reputation.

I stayed away until he dropped from the presidential race for that very reason.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

141. DU Had an Anti-EVERYTHING Reputation Back Then

There were slings and arrows flying all around, against everyone.

The reality is that Clark supporters fought it out and were always the largest or second largest contingent here. After we stuck it out and many of the Dean supporters got banned or left, we were unquestionably the largest group here, and have remained so since that time.

In light of that reality, I'm not sure how DU can truly be anti-Clark, at least not any more. If we're the largest group here, it's kind of hard to oppress us. Unless there is some concerted effort to do so by Mods and Admin, which I absolutely do not believe.

DTH

[incapsulated]

142. But DTH...

It's the very fact that we stayed in large numbers that is the cause of such hostility directed toward Clarkies here. The insinuations that we are plotting and scheming, trying to take over, "attacking" people, and on and on and on...

The reason most Clark supporters don't want to come here, I've found, is because of the fighting and shit-slinging that goes on, especially in Clark threads. They don't see the point of coming to a "Democratic" forum where Democrats have to fight like a pack of wolves to defend... another Democrat.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

143. Oh, on That We're Totally Agreed

We're the largest group here. That leads to lots of unfounded assumptions (particularly regarding organization...from what I've been able to gather, the worst anyone can allegedly point to lately is MAYBE a half-dozen people hanging out together on another website and cross-posting some polls) and, unfortunately, some bitterness or resentment or perhaps even jealousy. Such is almost always the case when you're the biggest group.

I can see why some Clark supporters wouldn't want to come here. But there is fighting and shit-slinging going on against everyone, not just Clark. There are Clark supporters here who fight and sling shit against Kerry, Edwards, and others, too. It just seems to be the nature of the beast, and that's one reason, IMO, that Skinner wants to try to ameliorate the situation.

DTH

[incapsulated]

146. I can only speak for Clarkies...

But I wouldn't be surprised if supporters of other Dems had the same reaction. Clark takes beatings regularly here, but he is hardly alone.

I've never been one to encourage censorship of any kind. I was always outspoken against any gag-rules here when it came to discussing Democrats, candidates or the Party.

But there comes a point when it ceases to be "open discussion" and just turns into the old circular firing squad, and I don't see that changing, especially when there is such a willingness to place blame on this or that "group" as the source of all the problems.

I swore I would stop coming here, recently, and would probably be better off if I stuck to that vow.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

147. I Hope You Stay

I mean, where would the great Clark conspiracy be without its leader? :D

DTH

[incapsulated]

151. Oh...

I can still control my minions and direct the conspiracy behind the scenes...

:evilgrin:

[CWebster]

184. Just a little observation

"The reality is that Clark supporters fought it out and were always the largest or second largest contingent here. After we stuck it out and many of the Dean supporters got banned or left, we were unquestionably the largest group here, and have remained so since that time."

"...Dean supporters got banned or left, we were unquestionably the largest group here"

Mission accomplished, eh? Maybe this post will be overlooked and maybe it will dredge up old antagonisms, but here it is, in your own words. Clark supporters "fought" to eliminate the competition and yet what do we see here? Clark supporters whining about everybody else. How can anyone expect there not to be bitter feelings?

There are things that make me uncomfortable about Clark - his militarism, and yes, his statements on SOA (which are indefensible and his supporters know that--that is why they don't want to hear about it). But, his character and intelligence are admirable and as a politician he is more likeable than others. But, there is no having a balanced discussion with any true believer - from any camp. So, I don't know whether there is a way to get past all the rivalry- almost like religious wars at times.

[CarolNYC]

187. This is true

Most of the Clarkies I know from elsewhere really do want nothing to do with this place and I can't say that I blame them for the most part. I am happy for my time here, even though often it's not enjoyable in the least, because I have come in contact with some good folks who I wouldn't have otherwise, but I really often do get the feeling that I'm not welcome here because I continue to support Wes Clark, not necessarily for Pres in 2008, but just in his current and future activities within the Democratic Party.

I do find it curious that it's considered a bad thing to recommend this site to others. All of the other internet commuities I'm a part of, political and otherwise, think it's a good thing to grow their communities yet here it seems desirable for membership to be limited or even shrunk. I guess there is just some dynamic going on here that I don't understand. I don't see how it adds up to us as Dems ever winning again, though. Perhaps that's not the objective of this place, Dems winning again. :shrug:

[Tinoire]

126. Yes. I can see that...

That is only about version 103b of the same excuse that gets posted everytime it's pointed out that traffic is directed here to tilt things.

Lots of legitimate groups at DU. Very few traffic signs redirecting traffic to them. And still, I have a sea of bookmarks from one particular campaign. Go figure :shrug:

If you can't even see a problem, we're certainly not going to solve anything together as was the intent of this thread. That is your intent isn't it?

[incapsulated]

130. "defensive"?

You are the one sounding defensive.

You accuse Clark supporters of doing something nefarious and horrid simply because of a friggin' link to the DU Clark group. You don't want to hear "excuses" when someone takes issue with the idea that there is something wrong with that.

Jesus tapdancing Christ, how many times do we have to say it?

THERE IS NO FUCKING CONSPIRACY.

DU is just an internet forum, not the source of all power in the party and on the internet. Why anyone imagines that we would be expending all this energy to somehow "take over" this place is beyond me.

Most Clark supporters have no desire to come here, from my experience. Most Democrats have no desire to deal with the endless fighting and bitching and petty bullshit that goes on here.

[bobthedrummer]

134. "THERE IS NO FUCKING CONSPIRACY"

I find that extremely difficult to believe, I'm aware that there is no Clark leader here and that you are speaking your individual opinion (as I am) so I am only speaking to you-you don't speak for anyone but yourself when you shout that in your post.

[incapsulated]

135. Oh, but I would know!

You see, I am the founder of the nerve center for the entire conspiracy, honey, the Secret DU Clarkie Group.

I'm the Godmother, if you will, of the whole den of evil.

Show some respect.

[Tinoire]

155. Let's not play any games

Conspiracy? I wouldn't elevate it to that level. More like inept backroom manouverings that keep getting exposed and yet no matter how many times they're exposed, the denials from the same small core group come like clockwork.

I so wish ATA were still up because I'd refer you to certain posts there. But it's not up, alas. Now if you really want to re-read them, let me know and I'll be glad to provide external links. The sordid business and the same sordid denials were captured/mentioned on several web-sites experiencing similar problems. And as one site very clearly put it "not Kucinich folks, not Gore folks, not Dean folks, not Clinton folks, just you folks in Clark's camp".

If you're not interested in discussing what the problem is and what to do about it, please cut the crap. YOU may not think it's a problem, but I assure you many DUers do and a good deal of excellent posters decided to leave DU over it- to the great detriment of issue-related causes that meant a great deal to some very dedicated people.

"a friggin' link to the DU Clark group" as if there were only one or two or 20 or 100. Links urging people to DU were discovered and annotated from the very start. Links pointing to DU polls were so prominent that DUers kept stumbling all over them and Skinner had to shut one of the big polls down because the evidence was all on the servers. Why spin?

No matter how thrilled I am to learn expressions like "Jesus tapdancing Christ", I can see that this is a discussion that won't go very far but thank you very much for the chuckle.

[incapsulated]

158. lol

If that's not a conspiracy you are describing, I don't know what is.

Yes, you're right, you've found us out.

We are here to "pump up our numbers", link to DU all over the internet, and fix every poll. In the end, you will all be overrun by Clark supporters, and become one yourself, or die. That is the plan.

Or maybe, just maybe, you found an email from a brand new Clark site, that had several other places that Clarkies post at, Yahoo groups and yes, the DU Clark group. I never got that email. But then I'm not aware of half the shit the Clark Conspiracy Theorists have as their "evidence". I must be slacking in my duties.

Maybe there were links to some polls from some enthusiastic Clarkies on other sites. Because we all know that winning any of the hundreds of polls on DU ensures... what the fuck, exactly?

Go ahead and quote the old ATA forum posts, I'm sure you have them copied somewhere. You have those Clark bookmarks that you've been copying and pasting since the primaries, and you neglected to save all that good shit?

[Texas_Kat]

132. Ah, perhaps you've misunderstood, so let me clarify.

The focus of this discussion is to find ways to avoid the vitrolic nature of some posts (and posters) and finding a way to reduce the impact those who cannot 'play nice with the other children'.

You posted an invective that indicates you resent some sort of 'invasion' of your space ... that Clark folks are organized and that somehow this isn't playing by the rules.

Not exactly what I'd call a 'coming together to solve the problem' type of post.

My confusion is not about the topic of the thread, but why you thought the email was worth posting (and yes, it looks like one of the several versions of the same email that was passed around). It must mean something to you....

Lots of legitimate groups at DU. Very few traffic signs redirecting traffic to them.

Is that really the problem? Linking to threads from outside of DU? I'm asking because I really want to know what the issue is. (I suspect several other posters with similar refrains might feel the same way, so I'm trying to understand your logic.)

We live on the internet, not a CD-ROM.

I will repeat that Clark folks are activists... expect them to be active.

(Oh, and thanks for the snark, hon)

[kevsand]

123. I'm not denying the existence of that email.

I don't remember seeing that particular one, but I may very well have. I've certainly seen a number just like it. It looks legitimate. All the links work. They all point to real places where Clarkies should go to keep informed.

The DU link points to the well known and officially sanctioned Wesley Clark Supporters Group, a public forum which (as with several candidates) DU and Skinner have been gracious enough to make available for us. Of course we tell people about it. Is that a problem?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I just really don't understand your point there. Should we keep that forum a secret? Should we do away with all the individual candidate forums? What solution are you proposing?

I don't spend huge amounts of time at other boards. I'm registered at several, and drop in on them from time to time, as much out of curiosity as anything. And yes, one of the things I am curious about is what they might be saying about Clark.

I frankly don't care for most of the blog formats, like the ones powered by Scoop(?). I really like the format at the Yahoo groups, and also the one here at DU. My wife has been here for years. I genuinely like it here, and had met several DUers personally before I registered myself. I invite lots of people here, whether or not they are Clarkies.

I also specifically invite Clarkies here, because there are threads I think they will find interesting. Sometimes they are threads where someone is being an asshole. Other times they are threads where someone has posted a personal report from an event, or something similar.

I will probably invite Clarkies to read this thread and the previous one, because I think these threads are valuable, and because I'm hopeful of a change in the dynamic, and I want Clarkies to understand that we need to be part of the solution.

Should I stop inviting people to DU?

[Tinoire]

127. Not at all

Keep inviting Clark supporters to DU all you want. It's a free country but do not meet the observations that people are directed here or that there's an organized effort to do so with exclamations of innocence and protestations that the numbers here aren't being pumped up. You didn't just do that but it's been a constant source of tension- not so much that it was being done, but the denial that it was being done despite the evidence. Just like the poll freeping that happened here and at other places. I hope I made the distinction clear enough because that distinction is, imo, a big root of the problem here.

[kevsand]

139. I see what you mean.

It is sometimes difficult for me to know what others are really aware of, and what they are assuming, so (when I stop to think about it) I try to stop short of judging others' statements or actions. On those rare occasions where I might have suspected someone, Clarkies included, of shading the truth, it has bothered me, as well.

All I can speak of with anything approaching absolute certainty is my own activity and statements. I try to be up front about what I'm doing, so that the discussion can be about the appropriateness of the behavior itself, rather than whether it has actually occurred.

And then there are those times when it looks so obvious to me, and I jump off the cliff by mistake. I'm counting on everyone to let me know when that happens... :-)

[tishaLA]

140. It looks like all those important bookmarks

direct readers to Clark-specific sites (or, in DU's case, a sub-group within the regular site). Surely you don't have a problem with people who support a given candidate congregating in one place, do you?

I hate to try to read minds, as I don't pretend to be very good at it--unlike, one might say, some others--but it seems to me that it is entirely possible to gather this type of information about threads at groups for Kerry supporters or even at The Site Which Shall Not Be Named simply because supporters, by their very nature, like to be involved in supporting candidates. I have never begrudged supporters of any candidate their support. In fact, I have actively encouraged posters who support others to post information about activities because we are better off when we hear more voices from more directions.

Posts like yours, in my estimation, don't try to heal the warfare at DU but instead attempt to exacerbate it.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. And Bob, somebody from an organized group scoured through

all the postings on the CCN blog to find something incriminating and then made sure that you saw it. There is more than one organized group engaging in activities on this board.

I've actually seen some posts at various candidate supporters forums here at DU that discuss other DUers by name and vent their frustrations at said DUers and discuss alerting on them and other tactics.

What came off to you as looking like a plot, may have been nothing more than an honest venting of frustration at the way certain posters were constantly hijacking threads and launching attacks at that person's favorite Democrat.

That two of those people ended up being tombstoned may reflect the fact that they were genuinely disruptive, to such a great extent that people were complaining about them off board. In other words, the thing that got them tombstoned may be the same thing that pushed someone into venting about them off site.

It's a chicken and egg thing. The way that certain organized groups have presented the information to you makes it look like there was some kind of direct causal relationship between the CCN post and the tombstonings, when the reality may be the opposite.

The fact of the matter is, that when people on this board get frustrated with certain posters, they sometimes go and vent at other sites. It's not just Clark supporters who do that. People who are already inclined to see it as a conspiracy, may read more into this sort of thing than is really there. Especially when there are organized groups pushing that meme around.

I have enough respect for your intelligence and openmindedness to have a genuine hope that you may be willing to look at the bigger picture.

[bobthedrummer]

103. I'm open to consider several points in your post, CrunchyFrog.

They sound more than plausible. It's a fact that we do have organized groups here. There are real trolls and operatives.
We should all acknowledge that and take it into consideration from now on.

I would be just as pissed seeing such a post regardless of what candidate the OP supported or what blog it originated from, I know that you would be too.

I can see the forest as well as the trees.

Schisms have developed here, not just in GD-P, a lot of this was during the Terri Schviao and Pope events, some of those threads were very emotionally powerful, divisive and unsettling to many DUers, myself included.

As far as groups go the suggestion of self-policing sounds promising and I hope it is effective, I think you could help out if you're so inclined.

I would encourage all DUer's involved in groups to exercise restraint and open dialogues with other groups where possible. Think positive.

We all need to make an effort at patching up what we can here and, most of all, help take back our government.

[genius]

37. Perhaps we should ban false attacks on Dem leaders and allow retractions

after these fallacious attacks are posted.

Too often when I post something about Kucinich, people feel the need to jump in with completely false statements about his positions. I also have serious doubts about the party affiliations of those posting false attacks the champion of Democratic values.

Dennis is not just a candidate. He is a goal. He is what those of us who are inspired by him hope all leaders will become. Attacking him is like attacking Jesus or Buddha or Gandhi of JFK, Sr. It is not just an attack on a candidate but an attack on the greatest good our party can achieve to lie about him.

As for the unelectability myth, Bush is still in office, so no candidate can claim to be more electable than another. I'd like to see an end to attacks on Democrats' electability. We'll find out who is electable when we get Bush out of office.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. This Level of Hyperbole Makes Me Rather Pessimistic

Attacking him is like attacking Jesus or Buddha or Gandhi of JFK, Sr. It is not just an attack on a candidate but an attack on the greatest good our party can achieve to lie about him.

I like DK a lot, but no way I feel anything remotely like this, and I do feel he's made some statements which are, shall we say, hardly praiseworthy.

And before you say it, I think Clark has made some statements like that too, and I am not blind to his shortcomings.

If a small but vocal minority of every candidate supporter group feels like this, I'm not sure we're ever going to make any progress in terms of what Skinner's asking about. Because every criticism, no matter how minor or even valid, is going to elicit flamethrower responses.

Maybe this has been obvious to everyone all along (perhaps even me). This comment just really brought it out in stark contrast for me, however.

DTH

[Eloriel]

90. That level of hyperbole makes ME wanna puke

And there are DK supporters who like to talk about a cult of personality afflicting Dean supporters. No irony there. :eyes:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

137. Heh

Of course, there are absolutely no Clark cult of personality posters at all, though, as we all know. ;-)

DTH

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. I think it's dangerous to compare ANY politician to Jesus or Buddha

Even Ghandi and JFK. In fact, you underscore the BIGGEST problem in this debate. Some people treat their favorite politicians as ICONS who are above challenge.

By the same token, those who treat their favorites as ICONS have no problems generating slurs toward those with whom they have disagreement.

[redqueen]

41. I understand what you're saying...

True, he's the only candidate who refused corporate cash, and for that having a candidate like him IS our shared goal... but to use Jesus, Buddha, and Ghandi... well that's just shooting yourself in the foot.

[Adelante]

89. I think there is merit in your retraction idea

I don't know how it would work. Perhaps a moderated forum for anonymous panels of judges to weigh each side of disputed claims and where determined to be untrue/true issue a retraction/confirmation. I think it would be an interesting project and maybe it would help alleviate some of the resentment that results when there are two sides to a story and neither side wants to give.

[Guaranteed]

164. Actually, I find myself disagreeing with him entirely

on a number of issues.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. It's going to be every DU'er to him/her self

Some people just post in bad faith and eventually get themselves canned. The now tombstoned poster Marcologico is proof of that behavior.

I have great friendships with DU'ers I've vehemently disagreed with...I also have some that are on a vendetta against me since I didn't support their candidate.

What it takes for me to consider my opponents as acting in good faith is to not regard them as a broken record. Some people post one liner attacks on every single John Kerry story as though they didn't even bother to read the story. Others do it to candidates I didn't support but their behavior is still unreasonable.

DU has banned Democrats who were more trouble than they were worth. Mike Hersch comes to mind.

I say stick with the program. If someone's participation on DU is more DESTRUCTIVE than CONSTRUCTIVE..warn them and if no good happens, can them. This is a discussion board..your product is discussions. You can't have discussions with a board full of locked flame bait threads.

[LittleClarkie]

54. Marcologico was a Kerry supporter I used to alert on

The way he attacked Dean made my teeth itch. I was so glad when he was banned. I didn't want Kerry supporters acting that way.

I think we need to stand up for fairness, regardless.

[wyldwolf]

60. Marcologico was the DUer formerly known as edzontar

...according to edzontar...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

61. That's Pathetic (eom)

DTH

[wyldwolf]

65. yes it is

There was a whole hate thread "over there" dedicated to me - and he revealed that little bit of info in it.

Which is why I stated in the first thread in this topic that there are current DUers who also post "over there" and participate in very inflammatory threads - calling out other DUers by name.

How can we be civil to them when we are aware of this?

[Adelante]

173. I don't know if that's true, Wyldwolf

It may be true or it may be chain-yanking. I've seen posts on that site, purported to be posts from another site, that were fabricated out of whole cloth, including user name and post count (both slightly altered), for what purpose I don't pretend to understand. Anything on that site should be taken with a big dose of salt. Edzontar says he was Marcological? Chances are even he was not and is taking some twisted kind of dubious credit. It's just how they get their rocks off.

[WildEyedLiberal]

102. Yep. He was never a Kerry supporter

His Dean attacks were just a sick form of satire, trying to make Kerry people look bad.

Pathetic, isn't it? He posts regularly at the Website Which Shall Not Be Named.

[LittleClarkie]

109. PM me with the url for the Website Which Shall Not Be Named

If You Would.

And oddly enough, I defended Dean and the good name of Kerrycrats by alerting on guy.

Now that would fit into the category of what not to do on a website where we're trying to promote Dem unity.

[LittleClarkie]

43. I've been defending others besides Kerry

and surprising a few Clarkies and Deaniacs I think.

I try to point out the differences between criticizing and bashing.

And that if one is going to criticize, it's good to have one's facts straight. Sometimes it seems that folks go off half cocked. And when someone like me tries to correct the half-truths and misinformation, we are called apologists.

Sometimes I think we are entirely too willing to believe the RW media if the politician in question is not one we support. We shouldn't let some elements of either the Far Left or the Far Right divide us. We need to question the timing of some reports and actions, and whether they're meant to inform or divide.

But some of it is inevitable because we're on the internet, and what you wouldn't say to someone's face, you will say across cyberspace. Sometimes I think folks are having more fun being snarky than trying to have a decent debate.

[welshTerrier2]

44. Far Left?

perhaps this label itself is a bit inflammatory ...

it is frequently used to label those of us who do not agree with the position of the Democratic Party on the war in Iraq ... i'm not sure what you consider Far Left to be but i virtually never see what I consider to be Far Left posts on DU ...

for example, while i might consider myself a Socialist, my posts on DU (that relate to economics) primarily focus on corporate abuses ... i might even go further to suggest that the Democratic Party takes too much money from big business and is too influenced by mega-corporations ... would this qualify as Far Left? for me, it should qualify as seeking to restore our democracy ...

i think the neo-con strategy in Iraq is to prolong the "war" until bush gains total control over Iraq ... i believe the Democratic Party is wrong to shy away from calling for a timetable for withdrawal because I believe nothing good will derive from remaining there as long as bush is in power ... does this make me Far Left?

I oppose the support shown by some Democrats, for example Ed Rendell (Dean?), for an ANTI-CHOICE candidate like Bob Casey ... does this make me Far Left?

perhaps DU'ers should define their terms ... it seems the use of the label Far Left is almost always intended in a derogatory manner ... perhaps some clarification is in order ...

[LittleClarkie]

47. Are you still a Democrat?

If so, I ain't talkin' about you.

I'm talking about some factions outside of the Democratic Party who might not have an interest in seeing it grow up big and strong.

I seek unity and an ironing out of the many differences, including figuring out how so many different interest groups can work together in the same party. That is not everyone's goal. Some consider the Dems useless, and seek to build a stronger third party.

Some of the divisiveness is fueled by those who would rather the Dem Party would go away.

If that description does not fit you, then there is no need for you to take my comments personally.

[welshTerrier2]

52. thanks for the clarification

i hope you endorse the idea that some of us who are deeply critical of the current Democratic Party do NOT want it to "go away" ... i am not only "still a Democrat" but I am an elected member of my town's Democratic Committee ...

i wish others would understand that, even though I, and many like me, are angry at the entrenched power in the Democratic Party over many issues, we (at least many of us) see the Democratic Party as our best chance for change ... having said that, however, does not mean we are at all satisfied with the state of affairs in the Party ... many of us do not feel we have a voice ... our differences and our criticisms of certain elected Democrats often run very deep ...

our criticisms, and I speak for my own intent, should not be labeled as "bashing" when they are focused on issues ... there's a difference between calling Kerry a "pathetic loser" with nothing to back it up and being disgusted with him because of his refusal to call for a withdrawal timetable ...

anyway, i would find it helpful if those who frequently use the term "Far Left" intended it as you do ... it's one thing to criticize, however harshly, and it's something else again to be advocating that Democrats should lose ... if "Far Left" is a criticism of those who want Democrats to lose, no problem ... when it is intended as a criticism of those who strongly disagree with positions the Party takes, i consider the label inappropriate ...

[LittleClarkie]

53. I mean it the first way

I picture publications like Counterpunch when I say "far left". They hated almost our whole table of candidates this year except for Kucinich. I cringe whenever I see it being used as a source. If a Kerry bashing article is being used by a Deaniac, I have to remind that Deaniac that there are Dean bashing articles there too. And vice versa.

That's what I mean by "far left" not those within our own party who are critical of its direction. And as an elected member of the Committee, you damn well have the right to say what you want. You're in the trenches.

[CWebster]

186. Kucinich is still a Democrat

Maybe you should keep that in mind when you decide who is eligible to be a member of the club.

[wyldwolf]

63. let me clarify something

I use the term "far left" only in response to other labels being put on me and others.

And when I use it, it doesn't apply to those who do not agree with the position of the Democratic Party on the war in Iraq per se, but rather those who come across as rigid, simon-pure, uncompromising, and advocating pseudo litmus tests to be a Democrat.

They usually will imply that one isn't a real Democrat unless they take a given position on a given issue (Irag war, abortion, etc.)

welshTerrier2, if you yourself believe that the Democratic party is a big tent full of differing viewpoints on a range of issues and that no one position is the proper one to be a Democrat, then the term "far left" doesn't apply to you.

[welshTerrier2]

98. and let me clarify as well ...

first, i do not use labels unless labeled ... when someone calls me or my views "Far Left", I have decided to respond in-kind by calling the poster "Far Right" ... we would be better off without either label being used ...

now, as to your other points about "big tent tolerance", let me clarify my views ...

fundamentally, i don't agree with your view on this issue ... while you may use such negative terms as "rigid, simon-pure, uncompromising and advocating litmus tests", I prefer to see people with very deeply held convictions on certain issues ... surely supporting or not supporting any given candidate or even the Democratic Party itself is a question of degree ... it's a spectrum ... would you vote Democratic if Lieberman were the nominee ... OK, but how about Zell Miller ... regardless of how you might vote, it is understandable to me at least, that many Democrats would not vote for Zell Miller ... one could readily ascribe the same terms to those who would not understand: "rigid, simon-pure, uncompromising and advocating litmus tests" ... blind party loyalty can just as fairly be viewed in these terms for demanding rigid adherence to supporting the Party's candidates ...

just as you seem to not respect those who would abandon the Party over their deeply held beliefs, can you understand that those who disagree with the Party could just as easily lose respect for you and your views when you, in their view, sellout to support the republican agenda? ... my point is NOT to argue whether Democrats have or have NOT done this ... i'm only trying to explain that your viewing me as "rigid and uncompromising" leads logically to me viewing you and your views in the same way ... and it seems to me that a reasonable political objective, within some limit, would be to not label those who have left the Party (or might leave the Party) in such a negative way ... perhaps it would be better to make your case for what you see as politically viable ...

i think it's important to tell you that I rarely feel like the Party represents my views on two very important issues ... first, as you know, i strongly disagree with how the Party has handled the "war" ... and it's not just that many elected Democrats continue to vote for "war" funding and that none of the top echelon seems willing to address the UK memo; it's that it seems to be the position of the Party itself ... it's not easy to see the "war" as the centerpiece of corporate exploitation and see the Party you hoped would stand in opposition failing to do so ... and, perhaps it's really the same issue, but I see the entire foreign policy and probably the entire domestic policy of this country doing nothing but catering to mega-corporations ... Democrats may speak out about corporate crime or enhanced disclosure requirements for lobbyists but i don't see them addressing the core issue ...

so, what's the point of all this in the current context? ... the point is that I am in a quandry as to whether it makes sense for me to remain in the Party ... and it seems to me that labeling me as NOT "Far Left" while I remain and labeling me as "Far Left" if I were to go doesn't make any sense ... the continuum on which I base my decision is whether I believe there is any hope whatsoever to get some kind of positive response from the Party ... if I, and others, fight for change WITHIN the Party as hard as we can and come up empty handed, i.e. we are unable to influence policy at all, then we have a decision to make ... and making that decision as to the degree of representation we feel within the Party should not move anyone from being "NOT Far Left" to being "Far Left" ... it also seems pointless to me to attack people who make this decision ... my views on the issues that matter to me did NOT change; my decision as to whether I can influence the Party's policies changed ... why would you criticize someone who chose to stop wearing a coat that no longer fits them?

anyway, sorry for the long ramble ... hope this clarifies more than it confuses ...

[wildflower]

46. A great piece of advice I read once about Internet posting

(as well as other forms of communication):

It was simply, "Check your motive." It seemed trite, but I found just remembering that little phrase before posting was actually very helpful. (There's also the one that says "Wait an hour before you post, and see if you still want to post it," but that's not always practical.)

I also liked DoveTurnedHawk's post #20 about self-policing and thread-tagging. I think having the ignore feature available to people is a big help as well.

And in my view, the way DU recently came together to help someone in need has gone a long way toward forging trust within the community again.

We agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I hope we keep reminding each other of that; I believe it helps.

And where disagreements occur, I believe in trying to look for the common ground with another person, and using statements of feelings (the "I" vs. "you" thing).

Finally, and I know I've said this before, but I believe it has helped to have separate forums where people can voluntarily go to post about the primaries or to vent.

Just my observations.

-wildflower

[understandinglife]

49. I bookmarked the following thread because I thought it a reasonable ...

.... example of how a person, by skillfully posing questions, achieves discussion (the raison d'etre for DU) on sensitive topics without inciting a flame war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3619616

The topic is not about a candidate, but it is a sensitive topic that required true skill in eliciting input of quality responses.

Even more than not inciting flame wars when discussing the merits/demerits of a particular 'candidate,' we each actually can contribute to any candidate if we are able to pose issues about them in ways that are open to constructive criticism. Those constructive critiques might well help a candidate or their staff, and the likelihood that candidates and their staff follow discussions at DU is much higher if the quality of the criticism is sound rather than hateful.

Bashing is what it is and it is readily recognized. Folk who bash are not at DU for discussion, critical or otherwise, they are here to inflict damage.

Given that we are all susceptible to a 'bad day,' it is reasonable not to ban someone for an obvious 'bash/flame comment or OP.' But, it is also reasonable that once warned, repetition buys a blocked IP address(es).

As I mentioned in the original thread, you have much to celebrate in the behavior and community the DU discussion board has enabled. And, it is admirable to attempt to improve, but its the members, not the administrators who either continue to expand the value of DU or not.

In other words, it is perhaps most important for each member to recognize that the bulk of the responsibility for the quality of DU is ours, and no amount of rules and regulations will change the simple fact that if most of the threads are locked/deleted, then the goal of those posting is obviously not discussion.

Thank you.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Donailin]

51. What it would take for us to come together is

Hope.

Remember how it was days before the election? Remember the feeling when the exit polls showed possible defeat for Bush?

I remember. I remember the hope that enabled me to lose my animosity towards the opposition.

I truly beleive that we have lost hope because we see folks getting away with highway robbery, murder, and other federal offenses day in and day out and nothing is stopping them. And it's not like we didn't make great efforts and go to great lengths to expose the lies.

I think we all experienced trauma and I think we all need to collect ourselves and remember that things will change. Until then, we will continue to lash out at one another because what has happened is illogical, it does not compute. And when that happens, it's natural to lash out at whoever is closest. When shit goes wrong at work, you come home and act shitty to your wife, right?

But one, just one fucking small victory, would be nice.

[Adelante]

56. Vendetta posting

In the previous thread at Post #80, Tom Rinaldo discussed vendetta posting. A large number of DUers of all persuasions saw immediately what he was getting at and posted in support.

Briefly, it's the compulsive, repetitive, and destructive appearance, in any conceivable type of discussion on any topic whatsoever, of a negative post against a particular Democrat or Democratic policy, of a nature the poster has already posted in possibly hundreds of other threads, turning any discussion into a firefight.

The vendetta poster on a mission will, some days, hop from one thread to another, spamming each thread with spew.

A variant on the vendetta poster is the one who will drop into a thread just to leave behind some cutting remark, showing no respect whatsoever for the topic, and no respect for other DUers in the thread, contributing nothing to the debate except negativity.

As Tom also said, candidate booster threads will die on their own if there is no interest, and would likely die a quicker death without the inevitable flame war to keep them kicked.

Don't be a vendetta poster and probably half the problems go away.

I want to disagree with one of my favorite DUers above, who is married to another of my favorite DUers: It's not the firefighters who are to blame, it's the flame-baiting poster who sets the blaze.

I don't flame anybody, but I don't take shit, either, and I don't see why I should be expected to take shit.

If the flame-baiters and the vendetta posters curbed their anti-social behavior, "greater trust and understanding across partisan lines" would come naturally.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. Resist the temptation to talk about sub groups of candidate supporters

The internet is wider than the wild wild west. Everything under the sun exists online, plus lots of stuff that will only be found in virtual reality.

If you think there is someone trying to torment you online, that is certainly possible. If you think that two or more people have found a way to talk about you behind your back, that is certainly possible. If you think there is a cluster of folks, who by nature are obnoxious, who have found their reason to live through idolizing or demonizing so and so, that is certainly possible. And though a certain "bad" behavior might appear, rightly or wrongly, to be more concentrated in one "group" than another, it is never unique to one "group". Not on the internet where absolute strangers with god knows what personal problems can easily find each other and team up. Some dysfunction, no matter how it is defined by whoever's standards, will always turn up, seemingly wherever three or more are gathered. And those dysfunctions are not candidate specific. To focus on all of that is missing the point.

Democratic Underground is not like High School where folks are required to attend and where cliques naturally form simply because people like belonging to groups and that is where they spend their time. None of us have to be here. DU is not a value neutral social activity, it is a political web site devoted to pursuing certain social changes revolving around the Democratic Party. We are not here to discuss each other and pass judgment on each other. But human nature is involved and sometimes we become the focus of our activity here rather than our original purpose for being here in the first place, the pursuit of a common political agenda.

And grudges are part of human nature. Things often spin out of control when generalities are invoked about "certain supporters". I know DU has a rule against calling out individuals in posts, and I understand, accept and support that. The problem is that without being specific all kinds of people get caught up in an accusation net, and that almost always rankles and raises tensions. And it is all just one huge diversion from what really matters. Any time we find ourselves talking about ourselves on DU rather than the issues, a warning bell should go off that we are straying off the marked path. We need to listen to that warning bell more often and stay on topic.

[Atman]

58. We need to rearrange the furniture.

Metaphorically, of course.

I'm 46 years old, and there have been only two "new" pols in my entire life...Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both unknowns before they entered the presidential race. I was so adamently opposed to Carter that I boycotted the election rather than vote for either he or Raygun. It was foolish, but I was very young. He now has turned out to be perhaps one of the best president we've ever had; he always led by example, whether it was turning down the thermostat and weaaring a lame sweater or what. But the republicans -- THE SAME DAMN ONES RUNNING THE SHOW NOW! -- destroyed him the same way they destroy every dem candidate that comes along. They simply make shit up about 'em, and if it's all lies, so be it...we have a game to win.

For us now, however, every candidate we're fighting over is a re-hashed recycled name from the past, the same people who run the show every year, for my entire life. Face it, we are in a serious funk, and anyone knows the best way to get out of a funk is to rearrange the furniture. Change everything. Get a fresh start. I don't see us getting a fresh start, I see us retrenching behind the same sack of losers who've been leading us into the ditch for years now. I don't know who the right candidate is, or how this helps the discussion, but much of my frustration is borne of watching us making the same mistakes over and over again, and then expecting that if we run the same rehashed candidate once again that somehow it will be different this time.

Meanwhile, the GOP just sits and laughs at us as it concentrates its power and furthre crushes dissent.

I voted for DK in the 04 Primary because my state (CT) was totally Kerry and it was the first time I've been able to vote FOR someone, to vote my conscience instead of holding my nose and voting against somebody.

Honestly, Skinner, I don't thing liberals are wired for the sort of group-think that is required. Republicans throw principal out the window every time in order to WIN. That is what makes them republicans. Lock-step mentality (and greed and hatred) works well for them, because their only goal is power. But that isn't our goal, our goals are on a "greater good" societal level. We like to compare and contrast and consider options and possibilities.

In all fairness, I do think a lot of republicans actually believe that God everywhere would be a good thing and that trickling down on the poor is not akin to just pissing on them...but they still will always vote for whom they are told, while we compare, constrast and deliberate.

Face it, if we were like republicans, Skinner would only have to say "EVERYONE MUST VOTE FOR CANDIDATE X!" and we'd all do it. But we're not like republicans. We deliberate and consider options. That is always going to make it more difficult for a large group to agree on any one thing.

But then, as I really think about it, I get back to thinking that worrying about a candidate is a complete waste of time, because our opponent's party control the balloting and tabulating and coding and polling and reporting and...I mean, wtf? Candidate, schmandidate...until we get Diebold, ESS and Sequoia out of the picture, you just might as well get used to this same group of assclowns for many years to come.

[smartvoter]

59. There is one obvious solution!!!

Everyone should see it my way. :evilgrin:

[Adelante]

62. You may have the only answer there

:D

[smartvoter]

81. See, it's working already! nt

[Sparkly]

104. Whaddayaknow, I agree!!

I see it my way, too!! :D

[WI_DEM]

64. Respect is the only way I know

Repect the candidate and the supporters of any candidate who runs. If you disagree with a candidates position don't attack it but offer a reasoned argument against that position. And when a supporter of the candidate responds--respond in kind--don't attack the poster or his intentions, but offer counter arguments as to why your candidate may be correct. Furthermore don't attack any candidate as not being "a real democrat" or a "dino"--whoever gets the Democratic nomination is a REAL democrat. Whoever runs is a REAL democrat with strong convictions. I can't think of a single candidate who is being spoken of for '08 who isn't a strong Democrat. I disagree with some of their positions, but overall they have all served the party and democratic prinicples well.

[Adelante]

85. WI_DEM is one wise DUer

We can disagree over positions without smearing anybody. It's simple.

[Crunchy Frog]

161. I think that's it in a nutshell.

I believe the unwillingness to show respect for others is the ultimate source of problems on this board. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to persuade people who are full of hate and vitriol to behave in a respectful fashion towards other people. I guess the only real thing to do is try to lead by example and let the bad apples weed themselves out.

[madfloridian]

66. Bottom line.

There is no longer any party mindset, a whole group thing. The loyalty to primary candidates is total and complete, leaving no room to build and grow as a party.

It is like being lined up at the starting line for 08...everyone behind their original candidate....waiting for the ready set go.

No one trusts anyone else. If someone tries to be reasonable, then they are made fun of or attacked or put down. Many try, most just get ignored. I have seen several posts lately by people asking for a coming together and compromising. They usually get ignored.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

68. From My Perspective That's an Overstatement

I don't think the microcosm of DU, or even online in general, is anything like what's happening in the real world. From where I'm sitting, people are starting to shake off their malaise and gear up for 2006 (or here in L.A., for the mayoral race, although I'm hoping that one is a foregone conclusion).

DTH

[madfloridian]

69. But the question was about DU.

In our area locally, things are different, though still pretty rough in our area which is so conservative. There are divisions locally, but not like on line.

I was referring to DU.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

71. Sorry, My Bad

Of course that makes sense.

DTH

[LoZoccolo]

76. Another bottom line is...

...that we have to be the change we want to see in the world. This includes not taking an accusatory approach to rhetoric, where one person creatively interprets what the other is saying, and then accuses them of having nefarious motives.

[necso]

70. I think that there are two sides

to the problem to be considered.

(I am afraid that almost all of my post is rather tangential to your questions and beyond the set bounds, but I must address the problem in terms that I can relate to. Moreover, I think that my thrust, directly eliminating much of the bickering and other unpleasantness here, will work to build trust -- and I am not sure that one can begin to build trust without first doing so.)

The first (side) is that people bring their likes and dislikes, personalities and personal agendas, to this board. And given that people are (largely) free to express themselves here, then all sorts of difficulties are to be expected. People also look more or less naturally to follow some leader. And as this is often accompanied by the followers' refusal to see their leader's negatives and by their embellishment of his positives, this leads to disagreements (often nasty and sometimes openly ridiculous). Moreover, all this is complicated by personal (member to member) animosities (which, I believe, are considerable, but often hidden) -- and by the low standards of political discourse that exist at this time in our country.

My solution to this would be to have a social contract that each member agrees to -- and that goes beyond the rules, to create a sort of social ethos. Violators of this contract would be handled in the manner described by Pericles: "as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment". (That is, other members would call the offenders on it, or shun them -- and I would make those "laws" written in this case.)

But, of course, this is rather idealistic, as we are not citizens of some ideal polis, but a diverse group of people, not all working for the same ends.

The second part of the problem is that (and perhaps here I far exceed your parameters for discussion) there are any number of members who seek to fan the flames of flare-ups, exploit opportunities and etc (for whatever reason).

Let me give you an example. Recently we had a thread-wave (a continuing disproportion of threads, sometimes vituperative, on some subject) about the new Pope. At some point, some members attempted to counteract that wave (other members bolder than me started the counter-threads -- I merely put in my 2 cents worth) and this attempt was reasonably successful. However, there were a number of members who were not prepared to let this thread-wave die down (not die, just die down and acheive a more balanced and proportionate treatment). And in the event, one of these members was even a former mod, since tombstoned as a troll. (I mention this only because I was inclined to cut a former mod some slack -- silly me -- and because his are the only posts of this sort that I can specifically remember.)

I remember looking at his posts (counter-counter-wave posts to my mind) and thinking: "Suicide by ridiculous claim?". But whether or not this former member was looking to commit assisted suicide, what was clear was that he(?) was attempting to keep emotions high, the controversy (so visibly) stirred up and etc.

And I see this sort of thing fairly often. Where I believe that the member is a troll and that I have some chance of bringing about a tombstoning, then I alert. Otherwise I generally add the member to my (rather extensive) ignore list. (Which is probably one of the reasons that I don't see as many problems as other members do -- it is often the same people who cause the problems.)

Now, a solution to this and other forms of provocation is potentially simple enough, even within the current system -- just don't respond. But, again, this is rather idealistic -- people will respond. As an example of this, I would point out that even when a simple and obvious driveby-trollery occurs, people always respond -- always.

And at the very least (and at the risk of going into forbidden territory -- delete this post if you wish), well-intentioned members of this board should be aware of certain things about it. For example, on this board there are a goodly number of members who do not share the objectives of the Democratic Party (or what these objectives could/should reasonably evolve to be). Therefore, members should be judged by the content, placement and timing of their posts, and not by their number of posts, length of membership, "status", "name", etc -- and a certain amount of suspicion is healthy. Additionally, in order to mitigate both deliberate trollery and other excesses, one (a member) might think about doing the following :
1) One should consider why a post is placed where it is and why it says what it does. If there is any question that the motives behind the post may be something objectionable, then the post should not be responded to, or the poster should be referred to other threads (in a general way perhaps). (Alert the thread if appropriate.)
2) One should look to see if there is an appropriate thread to respond to before starting a new one (the Lounge is different, I would allow).
3) One should consider the broader context before making a post that is going to stir things up. For example, if a broad event like a thread-wave is occurring, then one should consider what role one wishes to play in this event -- abettor, avoider (my usual choice in large part) or counter-actor.
4) One should reflect on one's posts -- at least where these might offend one's allies -- before posting, if only briefly. Myself, I almost always compose "offline", which requires a couple of cut and pastes, and then I preview the material before submitting it. In practise, I find that a goodly percentage of my potential posts never get posted (although many of these are not posted because a "why bother" frame of mind tends to set in -- a fate this post is bordering on).

In any event, control of the (a) board can come from the top or the bottom -- and in practise it is often some of both. (And both members and events need management.) And we could use some further improvements from the bottom. (I believe that some improvements have already been made.)

But I don't think that there is any chance of broadly changing member likes and dislikes (etc) -- there is only a chance of moderating the expression of these (which would help to keep problems from growing) -- and the most systemic and universal means of doing so would be to have members pick up the burden of controlling their own behavior even when they are not required by the rules to do so. (And, personally, I would also allow a certain amount of member "social regulation" to occur in support of this.)

Let me conclude by saying that trust is something to be earned -- and that this is much harder in an environment where the few are allowed to stir up the many -- as happens here on a regular basis. And I believe that the members themselves can (and should) act to regulate this and other destructive behaviors, in a manner that it is civil and consistent. But then, I believe that this is an important element of a liberal, civil society -- expecting and demanding certain behaviors not subject to the penalty of law.

[politicasista]

72. We need to take things one day at a time

As I have said earlier, we have an arrogant, corrupt, dangerous and incompetent adminstration we are up against. There has been way too much infighting here. We have to get Congress back in 2006 first, then focus on election reform.

I will say this again and again, at the rate * and the country are going, it's nice to dream about 2008, but keep in mind, whomever wins the nomination (and hopefully the presidency) is going to have a huge, massive, I mean MASSIVE mess to clean up after * leaves office.

Think about it and be careful what you ask for.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. I vote for NO censorship. Let ideas flow ! We will all come together

in the end.

[Sparkly]

79. A few ideas.

I'm glad you're asking what *we* can each do, because it's easiest to say what we want others to do. There's definitely a stimulus-response here and I'm sure we all believe if the aggravating stimulus would disappear, so would our negative, unproductive responses. But we can't control the stimulus -- only our responses.

Demopedia could be a great resource for stemming flamewars. Frenchie mentioned this above. So often, it'd help just to be able to say, "See refutation #28, here." The accusations are that repetitive, and frustrating.

It's very difficult for me, and perhaps many of us, to let a falsehood stand. I worry that others will see it and buy into it, and indeed that happens easily, particularly with newly-milled smears. (Someone posts "XYZ said QRS!!" and immediately people come in and express dismay or aggravation at XYZ -- whereas the whole thing was a misrepresentation, at best.) But I've taken note of the idea not to "pile on," posted by "Stinky the Clown" above.

On motivation to take responsibility: People who make such accusations become people I distrust. People who stand up for most Democrats across various threads are people I *do* tend to trust. If I know someone to be reasonable, when they challenge something or someone it carries more weight than the flame-throwers, and I take notice. If others feel the same as I do about this, it might be worth us all being aware of how misleading, careless or closed-minded flame-throwing affects credibility here. We might give some thought to our own "creds" as DU members, and own that.

Perhaps it's possible to make use of *civil* PMs rather than inflame or derail thread discussions? Because I really would like to know how I can support Democrats in general, and General Clark in particular, without causing people to like *him* less. I'm sure we all feel the same way toward our particular heroes/heroines. So, I would really like to listen to people's thoughts about how that can be done.

[ulysses]

84. you'll have to find a way to facilitate mutual respect.

I'm not so much involved in the candidate squabbles as I am in the ideology flamefests, but at the end of the day, it's about the ideology isn't it?

We're entrenched here. All the partisans know each other and where each stands. Thus, the predictable flames. And there are very real issues up for discussion.

If we're going to have any kind of understanding, we have to be able to talk to each other openly. Tempers *are* going to rise, because there are real differences of opinion. However, I've found that I have a great deal of respect for certain more conservative DUers with whom I've been able to get past at least some of the automatic assumptions on both sides.

Maybe you could host a series of moderated discussions? Would enough folks from all sides participate? Hell, Skinner, I don't know.

[Radical Activist]

92. We need more info on '06 races.

I've said in at least a few threads that I wish people would focus on '06 more than '08 for the time being, and that's a frequently repeated view posted by others as well. One problem with doing that is the lack of information about important races for Senate, Governor and Congress across the nation.

Is there some way we can facilitate or highlight discussion of those important '06 elections? It should be the concern of everyone whether Tennessee can elected a Democrat to replace Bill Frist this year, or if Illinois can pick up two Congressional seats. Both of those things can happen, but most people don't know much about those kinds of races around the country.

Maybe its a matter of people speaking up about those races more, or maybe resurrecting campaign underground would help.

GDP seems focused on campaigns and politicking. Maybe it should be renamed the "General Discussion: Election '06" forum and be listed as the main room next to GD on the Discussion main page. That would take the focus off of '08 and might force the battles between '04 contestants somewhere else.

[Adelante]

95. There are already subdivisions

There is a Democratic Party forum, for example, but it doesn't stop regular posting about Democratic Party issues or leaders, or whatever. There are also 2006 and 2008 forums. I think people just want to hang out in GDP without feeling segregated off in a corner. GDP was formed out of GD, in the first place, because people wanted to talk about elections and were driving folks in GD crazy with it. Now we're looking to break that off.

I think it's a danger forcing these divisions. I think members should be able to post their interests and those who are not interested can pass on by. Really, I'm not getting it, except for your point about the importance of 2006, which I absolutely agree with, but what's the problem with having threads other people are interested in that don't interest you?

[Radical Activist]

105. Its a matter of focus.

Many people won't post in the '06 forum now because not many people visit. If you move it up under the main GD page, and move the "'04 rehash and bitchfest" to a more obscure spot in the forums listing it will shift the discussion.

[Texas_Kat]

112. Segregating the 06 election in a separate forum is a nice idea, but

let's face it. The 06 elections are state-based, not national elections. State-based contests (unless you're talking about a handful of 'hotly contested' races in a few states) just don't inspire the kind of rhetoric that national races do.

Interesting as they may be regionally, I suspect that the majority of DUers would find a discussion of which Dems have been putting out feelers in the Texas Senate race or which Dem has the best chance of beating the Republican in CD-X in Louisiana pretty boring and uninvolving.

I just ran a search for '2006' in the thread header for the GD-P forum. There are only 2 active threads. ONLY. 2.

From an organizational point of view, those discussions probably belong in the State forums any way or better yet. in the 'real world' that DU doesn't even reach.

Most complaints about not focusing on 2006 elections seem to be in an effort to avoid discussing anything in 2008. That's okay if you don't want to talk about 2008 yet. I can certainly understand that. Many of us spent 18-20 hours a day on the 2004 campaign and are not ready to move onto the next national campaign.

Some of us are doing both, though. Calls to "concentrate on 2006" would be more effective if there was any indication that DUers wanted to talk about specifics. The only evidence I have that no one is really interested in making them the main topic of conversation is that nobody seems to care... at least no one is making much of an attempt to start threads about it.

[CTLawGuy]

94. We are living in times which are not conducive to trust and unity

This is NOT 1990's Democrat-in-the-white-house, booming-economy America.

This is the 2000's Republican dominated America.

You have a criminal invasion of a sovereign nation, and now we are stuck there. You have fear, fundamentalist domination, and Roe v. Wade hanging by a thread.

What we have in the Dem Party specifically is a tension between two very passionate, very desparate schools:

1. the philosophy of "We must win at any cost. If we don't the Republicans will wreck this country beyond repair. In order to win, we have to ensure that enough people will vote for us, that means reaching out to independents. In order to do that we have to compromise, support what is "popular" and move to the right at times."

2. and the philosophy of "We must remain true to our principles. We must fight the Republicans at all times when they are wrong. We can't be worried about how we look, we must defend what we believe in now. While we do otherwise, we cannot be successful."

both philsophies are very resistant to compromise with each other, and the events under Bush* have made that stratification run much deeper than normal.

For example: If there is no Bush to go to war, then there is no temptation by the move-righters to back him, and there is no need by the fighters to oppose it. Bush creates these situations.

Also, the very nature of US political parties contributes to division. In a plurality-wins system that we have, it follows to have only TWO parties. In a natural political environment, there are more than two positons and stands on every issue. that is why in parliamentary systems, there are multiple, highly unified parties.

The democratic party is like a holding company over a bunch of real political parties, which have no real name and no real organization except during primaries. Its the same with the Repugs. Because we all hate the Repugs, we are unified pretty much only to see them defeated.

In a parliamentary system, we'd have the DFAers with their own party, the more lefty PDAers with their own party, the DLC with its own centrist party, a very large fusion of christian fundies and business interests on their side, as well as a moderate party (though they might join with the DLC) and a libertarian faction.

[wyldwolf]

97. interesting analysis...

However, I don't know any Christian fundies in the DLC.

[CTLawGuy]

99. I meant the moderate Republicans might join the DLC

maybe I didn't write it clearly enough...

[FrenchieCat]

106. Please, please, please

Don't call them "Fundies"....that's way too cute.

They are the religious Wrong or the Religious Extremist.

This point is important.....Please, please, please.

[Eloriel]

100. First you have to get DUers to WANT to trust one another

I don't at the moment -- I don't trust a huge pile of other DUers, and I for darned sure don't trust DU.

There are a number of reasons I don't trust DU, but I'll confine my remarks to the primary fights issue which is waht prompted this.

During the primaries, DU allowed disrupters who very, very easily could have been identified and removed, and definitely should have been. These were of two kinds, from my observations:

* Those who came here either from a campaign or perhaps on their own, whose sole purpose for being here was basically to spread lies about the other candidate(s). I'll mention one in particular to let you know exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: Nicholas_J I think was the ID he used. He shoulda been banned as a disruptor about 1 week after he hit DU.

* The organized wave of people for ONE candidate, which really precipitated the primary "wars." Things were for the most part very respectful until they arrived and were especially vicious in their attacks on supporters of Dean (you may remember this because a BUNCH of Dean supporters eventually left after trying unsuccessfully to counter their lies and fend off their attacks, and a number of them have never returned). This group was most recently were found freeping a NashuaAdvocate poll: http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/05/former-nato-supreme-allied-commander.html

In short, you allowed DU to be used. People tried to get your attention on this, and you refused to listen. Not all attempts to "use" DU can be stopped, but a lot could have been.

So for me, the issue of trust requires two things which would necessarily fall on DU's shoulders by their very nature:

1) That outright lies about candiates NOT be tolerated. I'm not talking about matters of opinion or even interpretation. For example, while I think Dennis Kucinich is brighter and savvier than to have put out what I consider gross mischcaracterizations about Dean last week, I could begrudgingly say, okay, it's a matter of interpretation whether DK is lying or not. But where there is very clear, unbiased rebuttal or debunking with credible sources, any futher iterations of THAT lie ought to be prohibited. And this is where Sparky's idea in post #79 might bear wonderful fruit: use Demopedia as a repository of those things which have indeed been refuted. Or just a pinned thread for each candidate, or whatever.

2) That members who are identified as those who repeatedly post inflammatory material (esp. the outright lies) about candidates other than the one s/he's supporting, and not much if anything else (IOW, those types of posts are the bulk of their output), be banned. They're here as professional disruptors (whether paid or volunteer, doesn't matter). I think DU's most recent flap with the longterm members who were in reality disruptor trolls points up the necessity for turning a more finely tuned eye toward monitoring members in general.


And there's one more thing. One HUGE reason I can't trust DU (and this doesn't have anything to do with the primary wars) is that you can be very cavalier about banning longterm members, and I'm not talking about people who've reached their inane 1000 post level. Sometimes the way the bannings have been done were nothing short of violent. So I think you ought to have some sort of mechanism for reviewing termination of really longterm members, or a cool down period or probation or something. Someone upthread mentioned that discussions are your product, which means that your members are your suppliers. Some of your best suppliers are gone forever and despite the fact that there seems to be a neverending supply of new members out there, no one who's gone can ever truly be replaced.

And aw hell, while I'm at it: I really think closing ATA was a mistake. If you have, let's say, welfare cheaters, you don't shut the program down, you manage the problem. And please don't post important info in the Lounge. Some of us never go there.

[LoZoccolo]

107. I just think there'll always be some really forceful personalities.

I think there'll always be people with a kind-of authoritarian slant too, who try to use power (and not necessarily theirs) to shut other people down...I don't think it's necessarily an organized thing. I've seen primary people on here bring the hammer down on people who support the same candidate for not being as forceful as they are. It's just a part of message boards.

Also, sometimes you see people who are kind-of cultish about their guy, and get really defensive of them like an attack against them is an attack against something huge and really important...I think that's more a personality thing rather than an organized thing.

[Eloriel]

108. With all due respect

yes, what I am talking about was organized. Please don't insult my intelligence. And I don't even quite know what your second paragraph is referring to in my post, but I find it dismissive and patronizing as well. A shame because I've seen some posts of yours recently that really impressed me. I probably don't need to say: not this one.

There IS plenty of "oh, they're just passionate," or whatever that goes on here. What I'm talking about goes way beyond that. Look, it's taken Skinner long enough to begin to figure out that there ARE organized attacks and purposeful longterm disruption at DU (thanks perhaps to CubanLiberal and friends), puh-leez don't try to lure him back to his innocence and denial, huh? For ANYone who doesn't think this sorta shit goes on, wake the hell up and pay attention, will ya?

[LoZoccolo]

110. I still think a lot of people are just passionate, though.

You really can't tell which is which...but really in the end it doesn't matter. If it's offensive and abrasive, it'll be so whether or not there are other people involved in it or not, I guess.

Have you ever thought an idea is so important that you let yourself be combative and offensive about it? I don't know about you, but I do all the time. I guess I'm just looking at my own faults and relating them to trying to explain other people.

[madfloridian]

121. She is right.

It became survival here. It did not have to be that way. The word cultish should not even be in our vocabulary....that is a right wing code word.

Getting defensive over unjust things is necessary. It is an organized thing. It is still going on, and now other groups are joining in. I will not point you to them, but Eloriel is right.

One after another were banned here when it was planned in other forums. A lot of anger could heal if this were addressed.

[Sparkly]

125. "It is an organized thing."

It is still going on, and now other groups are joining in. I will not point you to them...

I suggest either pointing to them, or not mentioning them at all; because veiled whispers about conspiracies don't help anything.

One after another were banned here when it was planned in other forums.

Again, if you have a specific accusation to make, please go ahead and make it openly.

I will say that I've seen direct attacks on General Clark and specific Clark supporters in P4C. Yet no Clark supporters I know of are out to attack or undermine Howard Dean; their cause is simply to defend Clark.

If there's something more I'm not seeing, please elucidate. Perhaps if we can get the gripes out in the open, we can deal with them and come to some agreement.

[bobthedrummer]

138. Targeting apparently happened to me. And other DUers.

http://chat.forclark.com/comments/2005/4/10/15343/7983/233#233

[wyldwolf]

168. well...

If you want to see targeting of DUers, just go to the Dean Underground/P4C forum. The vitriol there against DUers (often by other DU members) makes what you posted look very weak in comparison.

[ClarkUSA]

129. This post has inflammatory elements

Making blanket negative statements about one group of supporters and posting links to a very partisan blogger with banned DU friends who are parked in his Comments section is an indicator of an agenda that is not about making peace but rather one that contributes to the present atmosphere of war.

It's sad when I think of the energy wasted here and on other websites that is solely directed at targeting fellow Democrats instead of the GOP/PNAC government.

I understand some hard feelings are natural due to the essentially tribal nature of human psyches, but at some point, we'll have to unite and focus on something more important than holding grudges and acting this out in dysfunctional perpetuity here at DU and partisan boards.

Enough with the conspiracy theories and veiled smears and feelings of victimhood. Can we move on or not? Or do we nurse grudges and imagined slights until 2008? That's the real question.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

131. To Focus on One Point

The organized wave of people for ONE candidate, which really precipitated the primary "wars." Things were for the most part very respectful until they arrived and were especially vicious in their attacks on supporters of Dean (you may remember this because a BUNCH of Dean supporters eventually left after trying unsuccessfully to counter their lies and fend off their attacks, and a number of them have never returned).

I was here long before the large influx of excited Clark supporters (which is only logical, as he had a large number of grassroots supporters -- second only to Dean -- and when he announced, there was much celebration all over the net) occurred, and I will tell you that from my perspective, there was plenty of acrimony all around. There was a huge contingent of Dean folks -- again, only logical since he had the largest number of grassroots supporters -- who were often celebrating their own candidate's successes, and not always in the most polite fashion to other candidates, particularly Kerry supporters.

It was ugly all around, and before Clark jumped in. It got the ugliest during the Clark-Dean flamewars, of course, because we were the two largest contingents here. But there were flames from all sides, and there were aggressive postings from all sides.

I am not claiming all Clark supporters were angels. But IMO you are being very unfair if you are claiming that all Dean supporters were angels. There was plenty of blame to spread around. From my perspective the Dean supporters were worse. From yours, undoubtedly the Clark supporters were worse. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

DTH

On Edit: To put it another way, Dean had a near-monopoly on DU for quite some time. When Clark joined, that monopoly turned into a duopoly. Ugliness naturally ensued. The fact that Clark supporters challenged Dean supporters for biggest group here is not a function of some sinister plot, it was merely a recognition of the reality that the two candidates had the largest, most vocal grassroots supporters who were VERY passionate about their respective candidates. What happened next was a foregone conclusion.

[tishaLA]

144. I agree again with DTH

First, that not all supporters of any candidate, including Wesley Clark, are all angels. I remember various times when supporters of all candidates made asses of themselves....and that is in the past. I don't even think it's worth worrying about now, in fact, except that it seems to be the genesis of so much discord now.

What I think we have to do now is to deal with people as individuals rather than monoliths. People talk about "Dean supporters" and "Edwards supporters" and "Kucinich supporters" and "Kerry supporters" as if they speak with one voice. It's much more effective if we recognize that some people are just asses and deal with them that way instead of a false premise about "group think." I know not all Dean supporters belong to The Site Which Shall Not Be Named, where they may or may not denigrate candidate X or Y--I don't care whether they do or not, to tell the truth--so it is unfair of me to paint them all with the same brush.

I find the vast majority of supporters of every candidate are decent, and sometimes exemplary, people. But there is something deeply troubling about the borderline messianic comments some make about how they have been victimized by people grouping up on them. And these comments, from my experience, come from supporters of every FORMER--remember: it's FORMER--candidate.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

145. Wild Applause (eom)

DTH

[wyldwolf]

167. oh my...

The organized wave of people for ONE candidate, which really precipitated the primary "wars." Things were for the most part very respectful until they arrived and were especially vicious in their attacks on supporters of Dean (you may remember this because a BUNCH of Dean supporters eventually left after trying unsuccessfully to counter their lies and fend off their attacks, and a number of them have never returned).

So, what you're saying is that Dean supporter were always here and were nice and respectful to everyone.

But that isn't how it happened. Dean supporters were the first to be real enthusiastic over a candidate here. By my observation, many of them could not handle dissent from Dean. They could speak ill of anyone but if Dean was criticized, they blasted you with all manner of vitriol.

Yeah, other candidate supporters picked up and imitated that behavior but the Dean people were the first.

[cally]

185. Even before the influx of Clark supporters, I

felt attacked whenever I questioned the Dean candidacy. Many were supporting Dean after the California speech and his grassroots activism. I loved his speech and most of his stances. I just believed a NE Dem was going to have more trouble getting elected than a Southerner. This was before I chose a candidate to support. Any question I had was attacked. So, I disagree with your timeline and placing all the blame on Clark supporters. I was appalled at the viciousness from many of the candidate supporters. I don't think any were blameless.

[Just Me]

101. I would humbly suggest competition with an elevated floor.

The floor is: "NO PERSONAL ASSAULTS", PERIOD!!!

NONE. NO EXCEPTIONS. CLEAR LINE. PERIOD!!!

Anything even suggesting a personal assault is DEAD, PERIOD.

ISSUES ONLY CONTEST!!!!

Full assault on representation of any issue is A-OK. Any assault on the person is ended, quickly.

[Tinoire]

111. Well. Now what you ask...

I had a very long post to you that I can't use after re-reading that I must not reject the following premise:

assume that the primary infighting cannot be solved by just banning "a few bad apples,"
and assume that the responsibility/blame for the primary infighting is shared equally among the supporters of all the different candidates.
… assume that *all of the candidates* have some supporters who who are contributing to the problem of primary infighting,
and all of the candidates have some supporters who are not contributing to the problem.

O.k… I will assume ALL of those things in order to not further inflame the waters and answer your questions bluntly and one by one. If you wish for specific examples, I have them in my first answer which I saved.

Is there any way to build trust among the people who are aligning themselves with different candidates and fighting with each other?

What trust there is existed long before the Primaries because regardless of whom we were backing, most of us knew each other and shared the same philosophical fundamentals. That trust was not destroyed by the Primaries regardless of who backed whom. Rather a certain allowance was/is made for people you know to share your philosophy but who believe in addressing the problem a different way.

The problem arises when there's a sudden, inexplicable, influx of people who have not shown to share your philosophy and who instead would insult it when you refuse to buy the defensive spin that organizations such as the School of the Americas, the NED, the CSIS are good things.

It's a problem in philosophies and a problem in how many of our most deeply held beliefs some of us are willing to knowingly sacrifice. It's fine for not everyone to share them but it's not fine to be insulted or targetted for standing up for them. So my answer to that is, the trust that existed before the Primaries remains, regardless of who was backing whom but afterwards none was built, and the trust that could have been built by just participating in non-candidate-related threads where there was no need to be defensive and start spinning, was not.


Can anything be done -- by the members or DU administrators -- to facilitate greater trust and understanding across partisan lines?

- Delete all sock puppets, duplicate IDs and IDs of people who haven't posted over the last X months.

- Anytime heavy traffic is directed here from specific sites to taint the accuracy of polls and tilt discussion, please put a stop to it and expose it in the hopes that with enough embarrassment, that will end.

- Reinstate the people who were banned from the Primary wars giving them a clean slate because certain things happened in the last few months (and are still going on) that should make any decent person blush.

- Is there any way, for the polls, to see who voted what or even just who voted in the poll? I LOVE the poll feature but no longer trust the integrity of many polls here and believe that it would be a great thing to see who voted in them. I would even raise the money for this if Elad could program it. This would lay all cards on the table so that if Candidate X won a poll, everyone could see just how on the up & up the voting was.

- Don't reward partisan groups who turn threads into flames in order to get them locked. Delete their posts. Ban (suspend) them for a few days but keep the threads open.

- A manner for board members to vote disruptors off the island (I thought your suggestion a few months back asking people to weigh in on a member moderating system was a fine one and that the poll should have been left up long enough for more people, and not just those glued to DU or directed to certain threads, to vote in it- mho).

Have relations become so poisoned here that there is no possibility for reconciliation?

It will be slow. I hate to say that but that's how I see it because certain things went on too long and even in this thread there's quite a bit of apologetics going on.

How must we act in order to show our "opponents" that we are acting good faith?

Stop spinning. Come clean. Admit when your hero has feet of clay. Don't tell me pro-war is anti-war. Don't tell me a neo-con like McCain would be a SWELL Vice President. Don't tell me green is blue or spin 3000 words to defend a clear 10 word sentence. Don't throw an unbecoming hissy fit because you can't defend what you’re saying or don't like the proof someone posted. Explain yourself intelligently.

What would it take for any of you to believe that your "opponents" are acting in good faith?

An end to organized activities that keep getting exposed. An end to the apologetics that everyone does it when we all know that isn't true. An end to insulting people's intelligence by saying that it must be our lying eyes.


You asked Skinner so I answered. I'm glad you asked. Thank you.

[Sparkly]

114. Tinoire, I'm asking this sincerely.

We've had our run-ins about SoA, General Clark, Ramsey Clark, Milosevic, and definitions of what's "right" and what's "left." And I'll admit that there was at least one time when I wasn't completely reasonable with you.

Is there a way I can disagree with you that would be acceptable to you? Are there certain words I can use ("in my opinion," "as I see it," "ymmv," other) to disagree with you, and words you'd offer for disagreeing with me, that would help us to agree to disagree here?

Can we agree that we both want peace, and neither wants to see people killed, wounded or traumatized, and we both hate imperialism, fascism, theocracy and hegemony? Or are our disagreements about the two Clark's, the NED, the SoA, what truly promotes "peace," and what's truly "leftist" so different that we can't even talk?

[Tinoire]

124. You can disagree anytime you want Sparkly

Lots of my friends do.

Most DU posters don't agree with me on abortion or religion and I have no quarrel with them over it.

My problem with things such as the NED is that people like me can post, from reputable sources, all of the NED's nefarious involvments in Latin America and yet, in order to support Clark, the same group of core supporters (and believe it or not, regardless of our one faintly memorable disagreement, I did not count you in that group) will assault the information and tell you that it's a lie and that you are a liar.

That's the kind of stuff that really gets my gander up. And it's not just Clark. It's the war in general. I have the same problem with people who are aghast at what Bush is doing in Iraq but whitewash the 8 year war that Clinton waged. Truly, I don't mind when people disagree with me - it makes life interesting- but I do mind when I KNOW that they aren't even trying to listen because they're so stuck on blindly defending something and trying to shout down unflattering information.

I personally know several Clark supporters (ok 2 but out of my area's DU antiwar contingent, I think 2 is pretty good numbers!) so I KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt that their heart is in the right place. I also know that they, like many fine posters who support Clark, do not freep polls or gang up on posters with whom they disagree. So that's all cool. My problem is with troublemakers- no matter who they're behind- and with spin meisters. Life is too short. Too many people dying. So much to do and change that it gets frustrating to spin your wheels with propagandists (again regardless of the camp) or apologists.

I've never considered you one of the problems because we've seen you all over the place offering your opinion, weighing in on ISSUES and if it hadn't been for your avatar no one would have known who you supported. The big problem is that there are too many people who are just here to support a candidate & not to engage in discussion.

But you ask an important question:

Can we agree that we both want peace, and neither wants to see people killed, wounded or traumatized, and we both hate imperialism, fascism, theocracy and hegemony? Or are our disagreements about the two Clark's, the NED, the SoA, what truly promotes "peace," and what's truly "leftist" so different that we can't even talk?

The NED & the SOA are show-stoppers. I can accept that someone is a solid Democrat/social Liberal and support the "necessity" of those things but what boggles my mind is this:

How can you accept, defend, excuse the known, exposed, tools of that imperialism, of those wars and at the same time say you hate imperialism? It really boggles my mind. So I think, "well, let me take this person down the rabbit hole and show them what these organizations really are" and the conversation is fine and pleasant and informative for both sides because I too learn things until wham bam, the spinners and apologists show up.

We can talk. Reasonable people can always talk and even if neither one of them changes their mind, the exchange can be rewarding but at the entrance of posters whose loyalties are to a person and not an ideal, the atmosphere becomes poison.

The fluff, polite words like imo, ymmv, well they're nice but they're just polite fluff. People can speak their minds & disagree without using them and still have a good exchange.

I think that some of us made some very good Clark supporters feel very defensive when, regretfully, that was never the intention but I can't, because of that, refrain from voicing my heartfelt concerns about his candidacy or any one else's. Thank you...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

136. I Must Disagree

- Anytime heavy traffic is directed here from specific sites to taint the accuracy of polls and tilt discussion, please put a stop to it and expose it in the hopes that with enough embarrassment, that will end.

During the primaries, there were links to DU polls and discussions on both the Clark websites and the Dean websites.

Today, I cannot imagine there is more than a trickle of traffic redirected here from websites of ANY candidate supporters.

- Reinstate the people who were banned from the Primary wars giving them a clean slate because certain things happened in the last few months (and are still going on) that should make any decent person blush.

There is a perception (a misperception, IMO) that many Dean people banned during the primaries were banned unfairly. I would like to point out that the only TRULY organized "disruption" of this website (and I don't count poll skewing, which IMO is pretty puerile and insignificant, and happened on both sides during the primaries) came when a large group of Dean supporters decided to do their big Lieberman joke.

You may also recall that during the initial stages of a certain other primarily pro-Dean website, MrsGrumpy (who I love, who was very pro-Dean, and who was a Mod here for much of the primaries) vouched for the fairness of the moderating process, and expressed dismay at all of the people who claimed otherwise.

Don't tell me a neo-con like McCain would be a SWELL Vice President.

I think he'd make a lousy VP, but then Kerry/McCain would still be a hell of a lot better than Bush/Cheney, IMO. See, that's the thing. Propositions you assume as a complete given aren't quite so black and white when you consider other factors.

DTH

[Tinoire]

160. DTH

I have always vouched for the fairness of the moderating process here. While I believe that mistakes have been made, that people who should never have been mods were mods, that certain prejudices were brought in- overall, I KNOW that the process as it's designed is fair and has safeguards built in. But I also know that certain people were targetted and egged on to tie the rope around their necks. This isn't the first time this happened in DU's history. There was another group, way before the primaries began, that engaged in similar activities and got people they didn't like pushed out. I didn't like those juvenile tactics then and I didn't like them post Primaries. And like you, I do remember acrimony. I do remember an influx of Dean supporters that was totally obnoxious (many of whom were fairly tombstoned) and I was very vocal about their immaturity. But they didn't descend en masse and at no time did anyone ever find links on draft Dean sites or on Dean official sites telling them to come here. It seemed more gradual and I have PMs from other posters confused about all the noise they made but it was nothing like what happened when Clark invasion started. Maybe it's because many of them seemed like normal people whereas the first waves of Clark supporters came in cutting and pasting the same old spontaneous stories all the time. They couldn't talk about any of Clark's positions because Clark hadn't drafted any yet. And aside from a small handful, mostly of old time Clark supporters like you, they couldn't talk about issues. All they did was keep shouting Clark is the greatest, Clark is the best and keep flooding this site with stories about Clark rappelling down a cliff, Clark looking so presidential, Clark being such a military man. People didn't even know if he was going to declare as a Republican or a Democrat at that time and yet we were still snowed with 5 million posts about how Clark would be the greatest President ever. You and the recently arrived Tameszu were among the VERY few who could say anything intelligent about him and carry on a conversation. All the majority at that time were doing was what the draft Clark people told them that Clark asked them to do - "Crank it Up" (and original story here and they did that loudly-too loudly for the small numbers here at the time.

and then we kept stumbling on things, what I call traffic signs, like this:

Posted to Official Campaign Blog (Call To Action) on Tue Jan 13th, 2004 at 12:01:47 AM EST

Matt Bennett is the Director of Communications at Clark for President. General Clark asked him to pass on this message to the online community and supporters.

General Clark is outraged! The New York Times and pundits on CNN have utterly distorted the facts about his statements regarding Iraq and al Qaeda.

Here are the facts: Wes Clark has always said that there was some link between al Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence agents. But he has also always maintained that there is NO evidence that Iraq was in any way responsible for 9/11 or for training or equipping al Qaeda operatives. He said that in 2002, and he is saying that today.

The New York Times and CNN have been hoodwinked by our opponents. They're just wrong about this.

Make your voice heard - take this information to other blogs (Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Free Republic, etc.), to your friends and family, to other news media. Make sure that the FACTS can catch up with the distortion. They may buy their ink by the barrel, but you can help us fight back.

http://campaign.forclark.com/story/2004/1/13/0147/96985

I think also you may recall that Dean supporters weren't happy with me when I exposed Trippi's underhanded tricks and his history of underhanded political tricks such as stealing busses and tickets from other candidates supporters to pack the halls with the politicians he was working for and putting out campaign literature that was misrepresentive. I have tried to be consistent and honest about saying what I see regardless of who the candidate is and giving them all a chance because I care more about my country and the world, than I do about any one man. This to such a point that a lot of people were upset with me for leading a constructive thread about Kerry despite my grave reservations about him. But it got tiresome because eventually too many propagandists from the various camps set it and DU turned into "who can tell the smoothest whopper and spin the tallest yarn to save THEIR man".

You know exactly what reservations I have about Clark because you're one of the few who took the time to understand where the philosophical difference was coming from and why. I will also thank you right here and now for not ever having called me a liar, unlike certain extremely rude posters here who did neither Clark nor the Clark campaign any favors by attacking so many people because their precious candidate was criticized. And I will also thank you for having openly told certain people, regardless of camp, that their on-line behavior wasn't right.

And now I have to go to bed but I didn't want to ignore your post because you've been a long-time, very thoughtful poster here and I respect your thought process even though we've often taken opposing viewpoints from I/P to GDP, you've never held a grudge, acted churlish or tried to spin long yarns insulting to people's intelligence. We just see some things differently but at least, a long time ago, we took the time to figure out why and how. Good night DTH.

[allemand]

179. I like the idea that polls should not be anonymous.

Some polls really were freeped (by real freepers), e.g. the poll about non-Christians going to hell. There would be much less suspicion if all could see who participated in the poll and what they voted for.

I disagree with the idea to create a mechanism "for board members to vote disruptors off the island", because this would really open Pandora's box and create real incentives for large scale manipulation. It would also intensify the "group wars", I guess.

And I have to say that many of the "solutions" you propose are a little bit like post #59...

[madfloridian]

115. Tinoire and Eloriel, thanks for the courage.

I have been fighting some other battles here, and I could not bring myself to say those things.

Yes, it was organized. I have many times said that there would be no healing and working together until that one issue was confronted and dealt with.

I hurt for the many old-timers who are gone now. We have to confront the organizing, and if we don't we can't solve the problem.

I have watched a lot here today, though only posted a couple of things. I see Kos has been viciously attacked at least twice, with the threads going on and on. He is a respected blogger. I don't always agree with him, but I can not see using one Democratic forum to bash another.

I see the same things being said over and over, candidate worship, implications being clear.. I think there is one thing that Dean supporters have as an advantage now.... I tried to explain this to Skinner in a recent email. We do NOT have a candidate. We do NOT have a horse in the race. We can look ahead to what is best for getting our party back. It is hard. It hurts to see compromise, but it has to be there. We have to compromise.

I think we have to call it like it is. We did try to talk about it. None of us is guiltless. There are a few supposed Dean supporters I would like to grab around the neck and tell them to shut the heck up. But I am also not really a Dean supporter now, so much as I work with DFA locally and online, and with the DNC locally and on line.

I don't think the group forums should be used for attacking others. That is harmful. If we can not get out of the primary mindset and soon, it is going to be too hard to post here at all.

There is also an issue no one has mentioned. I know about it because I was partly a victim of it. There are more and more rumblings of 3rd party. Sadly, though, the ones who are talking about it are not just trying to pull the party to the left....which I have no objection to. Many are trying to hurt it. They have an interest in seeing Howard Dean fail as chair. That is scary to me. In the long run, he is our best bet right now. They intend to use DU and the DFA forums themselves to accomplish this purpose.

The organizing is still going on, and when it is found, it just goes underground. It is not just one group, either. I seldom take time to just read the board, all forums. I did today, and felt sick by some of the attacks. I am always told to get a tough skin, but that will not solve the problem.

[Sparkly]

117. "Yes, it was organized."

What was?

I have many times said that there would be no healing and working together until that one issue was confronted and dealt with.

What one issue?

implications being clear..

What implications?

I think we have to call it like it is. We did try to talk about it.

About what?

The organizing is still going on, and when it is found, it just goes underground.

What organizing?

I seldom take time to just read the board, all forums. I did today, and felt sick by some of the attacks.

What forum, and what attacks?

If we're going to "call it like it is" and "talk about it," let's go ahead and call it like it is and talk about it. (No "if you don't know, I'm not going to get into it" responses in this thread, please.) I know there are many attacks from different groups against different other groups on different sites -- and P4C is no exception.

Regarding "Dean supporters" -- what does that even mean anymore? Anyone who has "an interest in seeing Howard Dean fail as chair" is no loyal Democrat. I would certainly *hope* that 99% of people on a forum called "Democratic Underground" are now supporters of our DNC leader! I applaud and defend him, and will continue to do so. Otoh, people will criticize him, as well; and as I've said, I only consider it out-of-bounds to promote falsehoods (including misleading paraphrases, which he's now subjected to rather often) or other baseless attacks.

But please, let's not propagate more infighting with veiled references to some mysterious "organizing" or efforts to undermine our chair. If anyone's doing that, I'm sure we'd all want to know about it.

[tishaLA]

148. Who precisely has an interest in seeing Dean fail as chair?

To believe that is to believe that supporters of candidate X or Y place loyalty to a person above loyalty to the party, and I just don't see that. I think that MOST supporters of every Democrat want to see Democrats succeed. And I really believe that. If we can gain seats in the house and senate--and if we can gain statewide seats, as Edwards, Dean, and Clark are working to have happen--we will have greater success at pursuing a truly progressive agenda.

It seems to me that what you are accusing people of doing is tantamount to party treason. I find those claims untenable and unnecessary.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

150. My Impression Is

That MF is saying some non-Democrats (perhaps people more liberal than most Democrats, or perhaps out-and-out disruptors) here seem to want to see Dean fail.

I have also noticed a lot of acrimony lately between a decent number of (supposed) Dean supporters and a decent number of (supposed) Kucinich supporters.

DTH

[kevsand]

116. I have to say I'm impressed.

There are an awful lot of people talking to each other in this thread who at other times would just as soon have hacked each other to pieces with a machete. And we're (mostly) actually listening to each other.

That's how we build trust.

I didn't post in the first thread on Monday and Tuesday, in part because it took so long just to read it all, but also in part because what I would probably have said wouldn't have been all that productive. Too many times in that thread, I saw people doing the exact same things that we all know lead to brushfires, the same things that most everyone else was complaining about, in the middle of a thread by the owner asking how to prevent it.

I found myself wondering what planet these people lived on. I thought of a dozen ways to shoot them down or poke fun. And then I bit my tongue (or rather, sat on my hands).

This thread is different. It's better. Yes, there are still hard feelings, and sometimes not at all hidden. But at least there's meaningful dialog.

I don't see that we need to change the rules all that much, or even revise the structure. (Okay, maybe a Joementum punching bag forum for universal stress relief. Or not.) I think what we mainly need to do is just "be excellent to each other."

Many of us have talked about this in other threads. It's clear that a lot of us have thought about it. I've been thinking more about how and why I post, and how it might look to someone else.

I have a tendency to be a little flippant. Something pops into my head, and I laugh out loud, and I type it up and off it goes. A couple days later I realize that I was probably too cute by half, and probably the only one laughing. That has almost certainly infuriated someone along the way. Probably a lot of someones. I'll try not to do that anymore. (Unless it's really, really, funny. ;-) )

And if somebody makes a habit of pushing my buttons, I'll try really hard to respond once and be done. Everyone who said above that the troublemakers are easy to spot was right. We can ignore them. Most DUers already do. The majority of DUers see right through it, and are not part of the problem. I will try to follow their excellent example...

[Tinoire]

128. Very good post. (edited and no longer n/t)

There's so much in there I agree with. So much in there I wish I had said but I'm too tired now.

I really wish DU luck with this issue because I have loved this forum for 4 years, to the point of making personal sacrifices for it because I considered it as important as some of my off-line activism and I haven't liked the state it's been in since the Primaries.

There are so many people at fault here. I sincerely hope the trust can be built because it would be a damn shame for our country if it isn't.

I have NO problem working with Clark supporters who are ex Republicans and yes I know there are many here (not at all saying that the majority aren't Dems but there are an awful lot of ex Republicans/sing voters) but I mainly ask for 3 things- honesty about people's positions, honesty in polls, & honesty about damaging baggage regardless of the candidate.

I demanded the same thing from Dean supporters when it came to war/occupation/was he a progressive or not; the same thing from Kerry supporters trying to nuance in & out of certain alarming statements and votes; the same thing of Kucinich supporters over the abortion issue; and the same thing of Edward supporters over his war vote which Edwards had the refreshing honesty to settle himself by saying that he had been for the war and not duped.

That's all. Without that, 2006 and 2008 just won't happen.

[Stinky The Clown]

149. " ...... supporters who are ex Republicans ....... "

Thanks for mentioning that. I'm in the ex Republican category. My conversion predates the prominence of any of the subjects of the candidate wars by years. It was very much a personal philosophical journey.

That said, it is often noted that some of the country's very best citizens are its first generation immigrants. They made the *choice* to come here and are glad to pull more than their share of the load. I suggest that the same case can be made for the political converts. I'm not talking about swing voters (although I'm always glad to have them). I am talking about now committed Dems who came here from the Republican party.

It serves no purpose to talk about one's party 'purity' (and I am not saying I've ever seen you do that - I'm just using your comment to raise the issue). Like so much else, it is more appropriate to ask what one is doing *right now*. Life is a journey. We do things and we evaluate the result. We adjust. We do things. We evaluate. We adjust. In my 40 years of political awareness, I've done much of that. At my age now, I know who I am and where I'm going. Clearer than any point previously.

It is hurtful personally, and harmful generally, to view (and deal with) converts with undue skepticism.

[tishaLA]

152. On that post, Tinoire, I can agree with you

We all have to be responsible and be willing to have honest, and sometimes painful, conversations.

[FrenchieCat]

153. Tinoire, I have read what you have written....

and I will give you much credit for being a persuasive individual....but I'm not buying a lot of what you are saying. Let's put it this way...I've been to that "other place" and there, discovered quite a different Tinoire.

This statement from you...."I have NO problem working with Clark supporters who are ex Republicans and yes I know there are many here (not at all saying that the majority aren't Dems but there are an awful lot of ex Republicans/sing voters)"

was the statement you chose to make as you gingerly handed Clark supporters an olive branch?

WOW!

That statement (and a couple of others), in my humble opinion....was uncalled for but you chose to articulate exactly what you articulated. I don't know if the statement was made for the benefit of those who might admire you; but who are restricted to the cheering section.....or what?

The question--Was it a great performance, or is twisting a knife in the back of the one you are smiling at, the way to negotiate a peace these days?

I find that in your more subtle manner, to have done exactly what we have been talking about refraining from doing. Maybe there were a lot of words all around to soften the blow...but the hit was there, in plain view..... nevertheless.

I don't even want to comment anymore than this.

Instead, I'll sit on my hands till they turn blue out of respect for the topic of this thread and for what Skinner is trying so very hard to accomplish.

[Tinoire]

156. I am certainly not extending an olive branch

Where on earth did you get such an idea? I'm not at war with Clark or Clark supporters- just apologists, site-to-site poll freepers wailing their denials and spin meisters, especially consistently rude ones. I am not extending olive branches to anyone, clearly said it would be a long process and explained why.

Very sorry to disillusion you.

[FrenchieCat]

157. No, actually you haven't.....Tinoire

But this "in your face" post is much more what I expected from you....and what I have grown accustomed to. So thanks for not disappointing me.

"just apologists, site-to-site poll freepers wailing their denials and spin meisters, especially consistently rude ones."

We can talk about being part of the solution....or remain part of the problem. I guess we all shall see.

I'm just sayin'.

[Tinoire]

162. Tight shoes but oh how they fit certain feet

I'm just sayin' too.

Glad you're no longer thinking that you were offered a false olive branch since you were offered no such thing. And sorry for not dancing to your merry little tune but the refrain got old under your first moniker here.

Sad. If it's not Clark, Clark, Clark, it's insinuations and slurs about other people's character.

But go ahead Frenchy, remain part of the problem. I guess we all shall see. I'm just sayin'.

[Crunchy Frog]

163. A kind of ironic post. "Insinuations and slurs about other people's

character". I'm just sayin'.

[ClarkUSA]

183. The only insinuations and slurs I've read here have one group origination

and it isn't from FrenchieCat.

I'm just sayin'.

[kevsand]

154. Thanks.

You're doing pretty good yourself for being tired. And you're absolutely right about every candidate's baggage. They've all got some (Clark included) or they wouldn't be human. I haven't met the candidate yet who I thought was perfect, or who I agreed with 100%. You pays your money, and you takes your choices, and somewhere along the line, you always have to cut them some slack.

[IChing]

122. Presidential primaries mean nothing

right now, your goal is 2005-2006 elections
and that's it besides organizing for that
Four years is too long to talk about what may be
Look what happened in this nation between
1963-67
in those 4 years it gave us
a change of culture
a youth revolution
a war
new music
deaths of leaders
beatles
student strikes
labor strikes
assassinations
and countless other changes that we could not have foreseen
those were turbulent times, just as now
and more is at stake now
not just for you
or this nation
but for the whole world.


support who you want but I think endless talking on presidential candidates 4 years down the road is just unbelievable, and just pandering.

[Kenneth ken]

159. Given the parameters of discussion, no.

The premise of the thread is (as I read it) that you don't want to apply more enforcements on members but want to somehow push members to be more trusting of each other.

I do not think trust is something that can be effectively imposed; it is something that can either be granted or earned. I could post 900 positive posts about candidate X, and then one negative post and would lose any and all trust I had developed by some supporters of Candidate X.

Some people just take message boards far too seriously, as though it were life and death that their opinions/ideas/values be accepted by everyone who reads them. I think they're potentially a good place to gather information, but it is still up to me to evaluate that information, form my own opinions and act on them. It's never my obligation nor is it my right, to make anyone else act according to my opinions.

Sorry to be less than encouraging on this topic, but you set the parameters, I'm just offering my opinion within them.

:)

Now, if you want to talk about tweaking rules, I could maybe offer a couple potentially helpful ideas, but that isn't what you asked for.

:hi:

edit: "up" is spelled with a "u" :eyes:

[jfenway]

165. Thanks Skinner.

For taking the initiative to address the root of the issues. Frankly, I have not been on DU since you removed Clark posts from the greatest page. I had made my opinions on that known to you already so I won't rehash it here. :-)

My opinions regarding the challenges are as follows. I realized you say assuming no rule changes. On the other hand, I don't see how that could be done, so here it is:

- self-policing isn't going to work in any diverse AND open group. I think fundamentally fair rules, selective policing (which could be both admin and peer based), and technology innovations are the only ways to go here. I think when the majority of subscribers believe that DU (both in policy and technology) can provide a fair platform, trust will naturally follow because there is a system in place to discourage the opposite.

- rule update: posts that refer to any Democratic supporters as freepers, cultists, groupies, etc. should be deleted. Those are fighting words to most of us, regardless of who we support. I'd rather somebody curse at me than accuse of me being a freeper.

- rule update: this is trickier, but repeating ad nauseum blatantly false statements (i.e. the launch grenade and run type) should be against policy as well. Perhaps along with the alert button, one could point to an URL where the poster had repeated the same arguments previously without following up with credible sources. I usually try to separate facts and opinions when I respond - opinions of any sort are tolerated. Obvious false statement of facts should not.

- if you ignore somebody, the software SHOULD LET THAT PERSON KNOW when they try to respond to your posts. If that person chooses to respond, on the thread it should be clear that the original poster will not read that particular response and ask them to reconsider responding directly to that poster. For every topic that the ignored person posts, there should also be a button that says "read but keep in ignored", if you are ignoring that person now. This way, if enough people start ignoring the **********'s of the world, they will get the message and hopefully change tact or leave. If you read an ignored post, but without "unignoring" that person, it's also easy to take them off the ignore list. Perhaps ignores should automatically expire after x number of days (or the user is presented with 3, 7, 10, 30 and max X days).

- winning an election and effecting policy are organized activities. I always chuckle when somebody complains about Clark supporters being organized. Personally I see it as a compliment. It's certainly better than being known as the disorganized supporters. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the fact that outside sources refer to polls in this group. DUers do it about Yahoo and other stories all the time to rate it up. If somebody posting on Clark Community Network or a Clark mailing list a link to a DU poll, some of us will follow it and vote on it because we might have missed it otherwise. Once again, there is NOTHING fundamentally wrong about this concept. That said, the problems to be addressed with polling are as follows:

- automated rigging of the polls should definitely be forbidden. I know enough about technology to understand the challenges behind this, but I think with some heuristics and perhaps post-poll log analysis, you'll find the happy medium. The nice thing about DU is that only subscribers can vote so most of the problems go away there.

- if you DO want to fundamentally change the character of the votes, you can limit voting on polls to those subscribers that has visited or posted DU in the last x days. Certainly it wouldn't hurt to only allow votes unless you've been a sub for y days. I am sure somebody is still going to complain "well X supporters are organized and make sure all their DU users meet those criteria and they are always cheating". To those I say, get over it and you should start wondering why they are better organized than you are. I repeat again - organization is GOOD. On the flip side, I can argue that some Republican group can organized their supporters to vote in the polls here. Well I think that directly goes against the charter of the group so addressing it is still fundamentally valid. But IMHO, if Kerry/Dean/whoever happens to motivate their supporters better and can get them out in droves to vote for DU, more power to them. Right now, that happens to be Clark, but I don't think he or his supporters should be punished for it.

- hijacking threads. I know the screen is only so wide, but display the threads with some indention would really help here. It's much easier to read through threads in a tree format instead of simply treed-topics and flat posts. One side benefit of that is one can easily skip over the threads they are not interested in. Perhaps a way to ignore SUB-threads would be helpful here. Frankly, I do not understand the complain on this. I managed to skip every Schivo post on DU so I don't see why anybody should have any problems skipping Clark/Dean/Kerry/etc. threads. I understand certain poster's frustration on both the "grenade launcher" and the "posse defenders" but I don't think contributing to the flamefest or getting annoyed at both is productive. Perhaps another rule update is to make sure posters stay on topic and delete sub-threads if needed.

- Maybe you just need more moderators. An automated method of allowing subscribers to rate individual moderators would be good as well. This way, a rogue moderator can be flagged relatively quickly and the cream will rise to the top.

- Allow a dynamic list of "too hot to handle" topics/arguments and list it on top of every post. Suggest a cool off period and ask posters to not post any topic or arguments in that list.

- Allow the creation and update of Wiki style Frequently Posted Topics (call it Most Debated Posts or whatever). Somebody wants to rehash the same argument for the 203rd time? Respond with a link directly into the FPT and be done with it.

Phew. That's all for now.

Thanks,

J.

[Q]

166. RWingers always rant and rave (literally) about...

...Democrats being 'partisan'. But even as they say it they know they're putting Dems on the defensive with rhetoric that implies the other side is being unreasonable. Thus...partisanship becomes the focus of debate instead of Dems having the same right as GOPers to defend their positions and agenda.

I see the same thing happening on DU. Instead of debating the issues on their merits or lack thereof...posters representing various factions or agendas accuse thread authors of having ulterior motives like 'bashing Democrats' or their favorite candidate. The discussion is redirected to whatever the 'disruptors' want it to become and the thread is locked as 'flamebait'. Which threads stay alive becomes dependent upon the sole discretion of the moderators and the number of 'partisans' that want to see it shut down. In other words...whether a thread is successful or gets locked depends upon which 'faction' can muster enough disruptors to feign indignation or push the alert button.

Those of us who have been here since Bush versus Gore can see a pattern emerging that has destroyed so many political boards in the past. Certain groups gain enough voices and 'power' to determine which subjects are acceptable and which will be drowned out. Discussion is overwhelmed by personalities and pissing contests.

Another problem is that the primary process is being controlled / manipulated by outside forces that insist that only certain 'centrist' candidates have any 'chance of winning'. Their ongoing crusade to stack the deck in favor of their chosen Centrist candidates and to demonize liberals and progressives in and of itself causes divisions in the party and polarized campaigns.

As to candidates and campaigns...it's obviously TOO EARLY to be debating which are viable for 2008...or 2006 for that matter. Given the pitiful state of the union...it's rather like thinking about which color to paint your house as it burns to the ground.

We 'should' be discussing why and how our country is turning towards fascism / totalitarianism as answers to the many problems we face and why there are so many enablers / collaborators in our party.

[Crunchy Frog]

169. Speaking as a person aligned with a potential candidate,

(There are no actual candidates at this point, only potential ones), I can honestly say that I don't want to fight with anybody. There are some Democrats who I do not like and do not support as potential candidates, but I have decided that talking about this here is counterproductive. I don't believe that you make any friends or influence people to consider your point by making ugly attacks on people that they may support.

I have to say that many of the things that I have seen on this board recently have sickened me, and make me wish to avoid this place. I'm sure that there are people here who will cheer at this because for them, my type is seen as the root of all evil on DU, and frankly, that sickens me even more.

I have always found the periodic waves of intense attacks on Clark to be very dispiriting. There are also continuous and vicious attacks on Kerry. I have found the recent waves of Dean/Kucinich wars to be truly disgusting as I like and respect both men, but don't regard either of them as perfect or above criticism. I was disgusted when I recently saw a positive Edwards thread get hijacked by supporters of my own candidate to the degree that it had to be locked for becoming a flame war. I hate all of the threads that seem to be started for no other purpose than to attempt to bait people into engaging in a flamewar.

Although I am often preoccupied with defending Clark from attacks, I find myself more often stepping in to defend Dean, Kerry and Kucinich from attacks as well. I am seeing more people defending Democrats who are not there personal favorites from attacks, and I think that is a healthy development. By the way, I reject the claim that I've seen that there are no Dean supporters because Dean is now DNC Chair. Of course there are Dean supporters, ie, people who are passionate about and inspired by, Dean. How many flame wars were ever triggered here because someone criticized or even viciously attacked Terry McCauliffe?

I think that flame wars can be avoided if people refuse to rise to respond to bait. Posts that are clearly intended as flamebait will sink if nobody responds to them. Drive by snark attacks within positive threads can remain as isolated turds in the proverbial punchbowl if nobody responds to them. I do make a distinction between responding to flamebait and responding to a genuine lie or piece of slander directed against a Democrat. I do not believe that those can or should remain unchallenged because, as we saw in the last election, an unchallenged lie can easily come to be regarded as truth. If I care about Wes Clark's chances as a future presidential candidate, or even about his attempts at strengthening the Democratic party, I simply can't sit back and let lies about him go unchallenged. I would expect supporters of other Democrats to feel the same way.

There is a bigger question. Why do these attacks have to happen at all. Why must so much energy be expended on a Democratic board on attacking and Democrats and defending Democrats against attacks? I think there are just people who like tearing down other people, and DU gives them a forum for it. I'm not talking about people who express legitimate criticisms and concerns about certain Democrats, or about issues they have with the party. I would hope that most people here can tell the difference.

The problem may simply be that this place has gotten too big and is the victim of dynamics that inevitably afflict large internet communities. At any rate, I tend to get so caught up in the Democrat bashing and general vitriol that I pretty much lose touch with what originally drew me to this site, the coverage and discussion of news events and politics, and the sense of solidarity against the Republican enemy.

I don't know what the solution is for you. For me, it may be to hang out at a smaller progressive site that has more reasoned discussion of issues and less vitriol.

[BootinUp]

170. Well I' ll make this short

I don't see any benefit anymore for myself by being a member here. Perhaps reducing Clarkie headcount by one will help your "problem" Skinner.

[incapsulated]

174. I'm right behind you

I should have kept my word when I said I wouldn't come back.

The writing was on the wall, it has been decided that Clarkies are the cause of all evil on DU.

I wish I could make them all leave, just to prove that absolutely nothing would change here.

Fuck all this.

[Adelante]

176. Incap, I don' think you and Jim4 should leave

There is an "organized group" working so hard to get Clark supporters purged from DU and I think they should have to work even harder.

I think they should have to work their butts off. :shrug:

[incapsulated]

177. Well..

If the old ATA forum was still up I could point to the moment I gave up any real hope of fair play for us here.

I knew then it was over, but I stayed because of my buddies here.

But this is truly pointless. I wish I had half the power that has been conferred upon me and mine. Who knew we had the power to get people fired, banned, fix polls all over the internet, take over a major Democratic site and all because we support a guy named Wes Clark.

You would think with such juice, we could've gotten him the nomination without breaking a sweat.

[Adelante]

181. You mean

My :shrug: didn't work? :evilgrin:

Incap, my house is burning :cry:

[Crunchy Frog]

172. On the subject of scapegoating.

I have noticed a disturbing tendency recently. There seems to be a concerted, dare I say organized effort on the part of a few people, most of whom are members of a Site That Dare Not Speak Its Name, to make Clark supporters somehow the source of all the problems that afflict this board. These range from subtle insinuations to outright accusations of all sorts of crimes. In the previous thread, I was personally accused of conspiring with others to get a DUer fired from his job, and of engaging in a campaign of harrassment against another DUer. No evidence was offered in support of these accusations other than the fact that I participate in a private forum that is allegedly behind various nefarious schemes.

Other posters seem to hint that my presence at this site is somehow illegitimate. Why? Because I'm a Clark supporter who joined this site in the fall of 2003. I could always argue that I found this place in March of that year when I hadn't even heard of Clark, but what good would that do. I'm almost certainly lying. After all, I'm a Clark supporter who joined in the fall of 2003 and that fact alone condemns me no matter how I behave on this board.

A whole series of bookmarks and copies of emails and old posts on CCN condemn me. They prove that I was somehow nefariously directed to infiltrate this place in the name of General Clark. My protestations of innocence mean nothing in the face of this overwhelming evidence of my guilt. And to compound my guilt even further, I'm a member of the "secret" group that's at the epicenter of all the nefarious scheming and plotting.

I am personally responsible for lowering the level of discourse on this board, for driving away countless Dean supporters, for getting people banned. "Certain people were targetted and egged on to tie the rope around their necks". Who could possibly argue against that statement? How could one even begin to defend oneself against such a crime? When it comes to interactions with Clark supporters, no one can be held responsible for their own behavior. Even if I do nothing, my mere presence is enough to drive some people into such fits of obsessive hatred that they simply can't help but "tie the rope around their necks". I'm still guilty because my very existence on this board "egged them on" to it.

There seem to be some people on this board who will be satisfied with nothing short of all Clark supporters vanishing from the board, or at least getting down on their knees and confessing to all of their sins, real, or invented, or projected onto them.

Maybe the solution then is to ban all the Clark suporters, and forbid any positive discussion of Clark (negative discussion of both Clark and his supporters would be allowed in the interests of encouraging group cohesion).

Of course, were that to happen, people might take notice of the fact that the Kerry forum is by far the most active and organized one on this board and that the Kerry people have *gasp* "secret" groups of their own from which they may be hatching nefarious plots and freeping polls and the Greatest page. People might notice that there are roving packs of Deanies who go around aggressively attacking all other Democrats and their supporters, and, some of whom also hang out on site which isn't exactly secret, but which can't be openly discussed here, and on which, vitriolic and hateful attacks on other DUers are frequently posted. People might begin to notice that there are "groupies" among supporters of all the popular Democrats and not just Clark. People may notice fights and rancour breaking out between supporters of the centrist, Dean led DNC, and the true progressives of the PDA. There will continue to be heavy politicking for potential candidates other than Clark, even this early. In short, the same problems will still be there, people will simply have to find someone else to scapegoat and blame for them.

Maybe we should start trying to understand the real sources of the problems here and stop looking for scapegoats.

[sendero]

178. This whole idea...

.. has officially :) jumped the shark.

Almost this entire thread is posts of people justifying the way they post and what they post and putting everyone else into categories that they may or may not belong to. Many of these folks are decidedly more a part of the problem than of any solution.

As long as this board is used by some as a pulpit for them to promote their idea of the perfect candidate, which by definition means that other candidates are not as perfect, there will be those who disagree and who point out why.

Looking for a solution to that is futile.

[blondeatlast]

182. Why waste another moment of life on people who simply refuse

to behave like reasonable adults?

The issue gets replayed in a more concentrated form every time you post one of these.

I ignore them and I expect 95% of the GD and GDP fans do as well.

It's your board--I say that every time the inevitable "free speech" drama comes up. You administer it professionally and IMHO, fairly.

Don't let the tiny minority ruin your life or what you've built.

Do what you must and let's get back to saving the country.

[Skinner]

188. Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread.

I feel like I am learning a lot, and I hope you are too.

I think this discussion was better than the last one, and I think we made some progress. The admins have been following the discussions with interest. Each thread opens up new questions that are begging for more discussion.

We think there is potential here, and we're going to do what we can to keep the discussion going.