Reply #306: I think that the rules are the cancer which is killing DU.

[LoZoccolo]

Not that rules are bad, or even that particular rules are bad, but they have become an obsession and have served to turn DU into an intense online game that only seems like an activity which brings about political change.

1. The elaborate attempts to control the content and tone have given rise to the illusion that dominating the expression of opinion here is an activity of utmost importance, as witnessed by the "I can't believe that people on DU believe _____". People probably need to find out the hard way that trying to do something like this is futile because it only pressures people to act like they don't disgree (it doesn't even pressure people to actually agree, just that they don't disagree). It would be interesting to find out how much effort is expended by people in trying to control opinion rather than be persuasive.
2. Alerts and permanent bans serve to inordinately place the locus of disagreement on people, not ideas. How many threads devolve into accusations that someone has some other agenda, or is a troll, rather than the topic at hand? This is because the emphasis on the rules and their enforcement gives everybody the idea that an important function of the site is to judge and punish wrongdoers rather than discuss ideas and help people get things done.
3. People will have more respect for the community, it's tone, the moderators and administrators, and the intent of the rules, when the modicum of accountability that the Ask the Administrators forum provided is restored. Nearly everybody has broken a rule, and had it enforced against them. The tone of this enforcement, this attitude of "that's our decision and we're not discussing it publicly" will in turn give you an opportunity to alienate all of these rule-breakers. Will there be whiners in the Ask the Administrators forum? Yes. Will there be people who endlessly nag? Yes. Will there be people who use it as a weapon against other people? Yes. But with the right skill this task can be handled in a way where the benefits outweigh these meager costs, where people - not just those being talked to, but observers as well - come to understand the principles of community, and the people abusing the system only serve to embarass themselves with their attempts to abuse. An authoritarian model of rule-enforcement is often a mask for a lack of these skills, or an unwillingness to take the responsibility that comes with using them.
4. #3 will also complicate fundraising time as people's social behavior is strongly influenced by principles of reciprocity.
5. You mention that people will be judged by whether or not they seem to like DU and it's members. I would think that an overall criticism of "netroots" culture, which is still developing and can still take a different direction than it is today, is important to it's health. Yes, I think over 50% of it is junk, so? If there are big problems with it that need to be ironed out, I think more there is more political benefit to letting these things be said publicly and have people get their feelings hurt (or act like their feelings are hurt as a way of avoiding the real discussion) than letting the Internet serve as a "liberal pacification device"* and a massive time sink that does more harm than good. Would I be able to submit the list of rules as evidence that the administration does not like this community, as they are a catalogue of things which happen within it which you are not happy about? Or should I see it as something given in a manner such that you hope things improve, or acknowledge that a community needs criticism and maintenance?

I may now be posting something which will get me axed during the first round of reviews, which will be seen as a disrespectful insult rather than a brutally optimistic vote of confidence in your ability to make this place better. I don't even have much tangible advice on where to go save for some very radical ideas about implementing anonymous posting and only temporary bans similar to some Japanese-style message boards. I would not be surprised if 95% of the people here will not miss me should I get that axe. I do not even disown certain definitions of the word "troll" (I am not, however, a Republican or conservative, and feel that people like Socrates and even Barack Obama are skilled trolls). But I have been in a position with each thread that I have locked - and I have probably had more locked threads than any other user - to hear criticism, and it was solicited in this thread.

* This is a phrase that I borrowed from someone on a conservative message board who was offering some backhanded advice regarding real activism vs. Internet activism, mentioning that when "moonbats" in the sixties wanted to get together, they actually had to put effort into getting together to meet and thus had more impetus to actually get things done with this effort they put into congregating. To have this kind of real-life constructive activism happen today would be good, no? But the thread I started on the topic focused nearly entirely on the fact that the idea came from a conservative source rather than whether or not the idea was true or good or anything. This is what happens when a culture gets obsessed with rule enforcement rather than discussion.