Overall, what is your opinion of the mandatory split of the two GD forums?

[Skinner]

Poll question: Overall, what is your opinion of the mandatory split of the two GD forums?

It's been almost a month since we started to require campaign topics be posted in the General Discussion: Campaign 2004 forum instead of the regular General Discussion forum. Now that you've had to live with this change for a while, we're taking a non-binding opinion poll to find out what people think.

This is pretty informal. We'll probably take this poll down sometime this evening. You are welcome to post your (polite) comments in this thread, but please take care to do so in a constructive manner.

Overall, what is your opinion of our policy requiring campaign topics be posted in the General Discussion: Campaign 2004 forum instead of the regular General Discussion forum?

[mrboba1]

1. I find it much easier to navigate

the way it is now - no bouncing back and forth to read about election stuff...

my $.02

[pmbryant]

2. I find it very convenient

It's nice to have one-stop shopping for campaign threads.

--Peter

[LittleApple81]

3. I miss stuff... good posts on GD, good posts on GD2004... switching

between the two is not fun. And the Latest page is good, but then you don't see what is "hot"
So I prefer a single forum.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

66. I agree - I rarely go to the "campaign" forum.

Most of the time it seems that the topics overlap.

[hlthe2b]

4. I think many are unaware or confused, resulting in post after post

getting moved. Frustrating if you happened to reply to a post or two and it has disappeared.....But, given the volume of posts right now, it is probably necessary, although I no longer really know what goes in GD!

[notadmblnd]

16. Exactly, I just never seem to get it right.

nt

[TahitiNut]

64. Well, it doesn't take an optimist to find a pony in GD.

:D :silly: :D

I'm happy the moderators are "mucking out the GD stables."

[Warpy]

5. Great decision

It makes the whole thing easier to avoid during those periodic campaign overload times.

[DemNoir]

6. Its ok but falls short

DU needs a "We are doomed" forum.

[Renew Deal]

7. I like it.

But I have screwed up a couple times and posted election stuff in GD. Sorry about that. :dunce:

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I Voted It's OK, Overall

I'd suggest a little tighter and narrower criteria, though for moving posts.

I've seen posts that mention swift boat liars, and then it's moved to GD:2004. Not sure that this is really a campaign issue on some of these threads, as much as it's a philosophical musing about why lying is so accepted.

I understand the need, it's your site, and it's probably a really good idea, but there is some capriciousness in how some threads are moved and others aren't.
The Professor

[Eloriel]

11. Exactly. Plus Enforcement sucks.

Sometimes things that are of importance otherwise get moved; sometimes things that are REALLY GD04 specific don't. Sometimes it seems to depend on what sorta mood or who's on duty. Sometimes no one seems to be on duty.

I vote for tigher, narrower criteria as well. Not sure such criteria needs to be spelled out for DUers, but it certainly needs some cogent discussion among the mods (or just Admin). I've seen numerous threads moved that I would have missed entirely, to my great dismay, had they been locked and moved before I saw them first in GD (since I never go to GD04, and don't intend to).

I'll also repeat my complaint that I posted in Ask Admin yesterday that I also object to ALL the 9-11 discussions getting locked and moved to the hidden 9-11 forum, apparently so they can't be an "embarrassment" to DU. AND my suggestion that if you persist on that, then all Environmental topics, all Activism threads, all Media topics, all discussions about Conservatives, all Economics topics, etc., etc. should be moved to their respective appropriate forums.

[welshTerrier2]

20. right on the money

this point is right on the money: I've seen posts that mention swift boat liars, and then it's moved to GD:2004. Not sure that this is really a campaign issue on some of these threads, as much as it's a philosophical musing about why lying is so accepted.

NOTE TO SKINNER: I think the way you worded the question may be distorting the poll results ... you should have emphasized the term MANDATORY SPLIT in your question ... it seems like many may be responding to merely having two separate forums ... i like having two forums; i do NOT LIKE having a MANDATORY SPLIT meaning that any post that even remotely relates to the campaign will be moved out of GD.

the swift boat liars is a perfect example of what's wrong with a MANDATORY SPLIT. imagine you wanted to write a post to discuss the evolution of the political views of veterans since the Vietnam war ... you did NOT want the entire focus of responses to relate to whether the sbl's (swift boat liars) have hurt Kerry in THIS ELECTION ... you wanted the focus to be on the long-term trend with THIS ELECTION being only one of the effects ...

in GD, you have at least a prayer of generating a good discussion on the topic of how veterans vote ... in Campaign 2004, forget it !!!! all you get back is "Kerry should have said this or he should have used Cleland to do that" ... discussing the effect of veterans on this year's election is a perfectly valid topic; forcing it to be the focus of a post about the evolution of veterans' politics is not a good idea at all ...

NOW HEAR THIS: if you change the "setting of a post" you change its meaning ... let's do away with the unnecessary rigidity of the MANDATORY SPLIT ...

most of us understand there are two different forums ... let's let DU'ers decide where they want to put their posts ... at best, the current rules might yield a small degree of convenience for those who don't want the "traumatizing burden" of switching between forums; at worst we are twisting the author's intent, stifling discussion into narrow campaign perspectives and needlessly restricting the author's freedom of expression ...

let's trust DU'ers; let's not restrict them.

[Eloriel]

26. I disagree

I'm routinely aghast at some very clearly campaign-only posts made to GD, as if the posters have never seen the new rule. If you "trust DUers," ALL campaign topics (or 95+%) would end up in GD.

It's the CRITERIA (which you address very well with an example) and the enforcement that need serious tweaking.

[welshTerrier2]

29. i do NOT disagree

i have no significant disagreement with your disagreement ... but i would say that the Campaign Forum has become more established now and I think abuses of GD would be less common today than before the new rules were instituted (if the rules were now removed) ... i also think that many members have a decided preference for one forum or the other although i'm sure many of us bounce back and forth ... now that "campaign only" DU'ers have found a home in the campaign forum, I think they are more likely to remain there regardless of the rules ...

one key problem i see with not "trusting DU'ers" is that it puts the mods into the unenviable position of trying to determine the "degree of campaign-relatedness" of a post ...

so yes, there are abuses in GD of campaign only posts ... some of them clearly don't belong in GD ... but you know, i'm not sure it's the crises some make that out to be ...

i suppose the best policy would be to "transplant" posts that are almost totally campaign-related ... but those that should not be narrowly channeled into a campaign perspective should be left where they are planted ...

[TahitiNut]

65. Well, when the moderators muck out the GD stable ...

... I'm not gonna complain about a little horse-shit as long as I can find the pony. :silly:

I also don't get too worn out clicking on 'Alert' when I want to go riding. :D

[G_j]

9. the only problem I saw

is probably not as relevant now that the RNC is over.
It seemed that posts on the protests in GD-04 didn't receive as much interest as they did in GD. I posted a thread on SOA activists in NYC in GD which received some interest, it was then moved to GD-04 and it quickly died. I think the type of folks interested in campaign issues may not be that drawn to activist and protest stuff. I think I would have preferred that the 'protest' posts remained in GD.

[KoKo]

14. Agree, that "activism posts" do have a shorter life...but that might be

just because there isn't a sustained interest here in it anymore with so many other posts vying for attention. Post just move so fast it's hard to keep attention on any subject it seems unless it's a hot button like religion, gay rights or right to choose where a discussion gets going.

[G_j]

24. and also having the RNC and protests

happening at the same time made for a very busy GD-04 forum.
The dynamics should be less confusing now that the RNC is over.
All in all, I like having the two forums.

[Eloriel]

27. And that's a perfect example of the kind of thread I'd LIKE to see

in GD, and which IMO has less to do with "the campaign" than with politics in general, and protesting Bush in particular.

Polling numbers, policy stuff, some (not all) speeches, etc., should be moved. If it's something that would be of interest whether or not there was a campaign going on, even if it happens BECAUSE there's a campaign going on (the Swift Boat Liars for example), ought to be left in GD if that's where it's originally posted.

Otherwise, just about anything that mentions Bush (who's a candidate, remember) or Kerry or their surrogates, needs to be moved to GD04.

[G_j]

31. sounds good to me

I think that makes sense.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Just look how fast topics go into archives

it seems there's no choice now but to have separate forums.
Congratulations on what is obvioulsy increased traffic!

[welshTerrier2]

12. two forums yes but NOT MANDATORY SPLIT

NOTE TO SKINNER: I think the way you worded the question may be distorting the poll results ... you should have emphasized the term MANDATORY SPLIT in your question ... it seems like many may be responding to merely having two separate forums ... i like having two forums; i do NOT LIKE having a MANDATORY SPLIT meaning that any post that even remotely relates to the campaign will be moved out of GD.

why institute such rigidity on a progressive website ??

is Kerry more likely to win or lose if, God forbid, someone posts a campaign-related thread in GD ??? I've had posts moved from GD to Campaign 2004 that I specifically preferred be left in GD ... I chose GD because the essence of my post was not about the campaign but rather on the broader issues I was raising ... I did not want the focus of responses to discuss the "horserace"; I wanted to prompt a discussion of the issues ...

i object to the MANDATORY aspect of the new policy for the same reasons I object to mandatory sentencing: it takes judgment out of the hands of the individual participants ... there is a different flavor between GD and Campaign 2004 ... it should be up to the author of a post to determine the best setting for the ideas he or she wants to convey ... we gain nothing by having such a rigid policy ...

my vote: keep the two forums separate but remove the tyranny of the mandatory split ... let's trust DU'ers to make the right call !!

added on EDIT:

your poll question included the phrase requiring campaign topics. that's the essence of the problem with the new rule ... who gets to decide what is a campaign topic ??? as the author of a post, I would like the privilege to decide whether I am primarily writing about a "campaign topic" or whether I prefer a discussion of the issues I raise that affect, but extend beyond, the campaign. As an author, the determination should be mine and should not be enforced by an inflexible rule ... btw, I also don't think the mods should be left in a position of trying to determine the degree to which a post is or is not a "campaign topic". let's make the right call on this; it's important.

[Skinner]

25. I've been trying to stay out of this thread.

But since you are questioning the fairness of the question, I feel I need to respond, specifically, to that part of your post.

The title of the thread includes the term "mandatory." Also, when I state the actual question, I use the term "requiring" which makes it clear that I am talking about *requiring* people to post in the other forum, rather than simply leaving up to them to decide.

The question is both clear and fairly worded. I think that the vast majority of respondents understand exactly what is being asked.

I am not going to respond to the other issues you raise, as I have not responded to any of the other issues raised in this thread either. I do not wish to act as an advocate for either side. I'm just looking to find out the general opinion.

[welshTerrier2]

59. to clarify

while we disagree about the fairness of the poll question, i did want to clarify something after reading your response.

i hope you did not infer, nor did I mean to imply, that your poll question was "intentionally" unfair.

I would have preferred some flavor of the following:

Some time ago, we created the Campaign 2004 forum to keep posts specifically focussed on this year's election separate from posts of a more general nature that normally are posted in the General Discussion forum.

About a month ago, we instituted a new rule that required all posts on "campaign topics" to be posted in the Campaign 2004 forum. Posts in GD that contain "campaign topics" are now in violation of the rules and are being moved to the Campaign 2004 forum.

The poll question is: should we continue the current policy of moving posts out of GD if they contain "campaign topics" or should we allow some flexibility for posts that may make reference to the campaign but are not centrally focussed on the campaign?

Choice One: i like the mandatory rule that requires posts that contain "campaign topics" to be moved to the Campaign 2004 forum.

Choice Two: i like having some flexibility to post in General Discussion if the main theme of my post is not a "campaign topic" even if a part of my post makes reference to the campaign.

Choice Three: other ... please explain if choosing this option.


While I'm at it, perhaps it would be helpful if you would clarify how the current rule is being enforced. What criteria are used to determine whether a post is a "campaign topic"? Is the current rule that any post that makes any reference to this year's election, even if that reference is not the central point of the post, is in violation of the rules of the General Discussion forum?

The central premise of my objection to the current rule is that it takes an all or nothing, black or white approach ... To quote a Norman Mailer line from the Chicago conspiracy trial: "facts are nothing, sir, without their nuance." The issue I'm raising is that, as writers, we should understand that we have more than two colored crayons at our disposal. Many posts should not be categorized as either a "campaign topic" or not a "campaign topic".

[Skinner]

63. If I posted this in the way you suggest, it would be virtually useless.

You are proposing a choice between two hypothetical options that currently do not exist. Your option which is supposed to represent the "mandatory split" is simply incorrect in its interpretation. And your option which is supposed to represent "let members decide" is not a clear representation of what our old policy was, or of anything, except a statement of personal preference in favor of liking flexibility.

In other words, you are holding up two "options" which do not exist, and trying to claim that this is the choice which we face. When in fact we do not face that choice at all.

The reason why I have offered the poll in the manner which I have is that in REAL LIFE, we never face hypothetical perfect choices. It would be really great if we could give people the flexibility to do whatever they want and at the same time somehow get all of the threads to sort themselves into discreet categories which meet the vastly differing standards of a broad and diverse membership, but I can't. I can only offer you this:

You've got two imperfect choices. You've been forced to live under both options, so you know the strengths and weaknesses of each. Knowing what you know now, which of these imperfect approaches do you prefer?

We strive to be fair and consistent and sensitive to all of the concerns of our members, and we will constantly do what we can to improve this place, as we always have. I've been reading all of the comments in this thread, and many of them provide useful feedback that can help us in that effort. But that's not the purpose of this poll.

[leftofthedial]

13. I like it, but it is a little confusing

when an issue is topical or becomes hot on the campaign trail, it is difficult to know which forum to put it in.

[gasperc]

15. fine, but when my posts are locked and moved

because I forget it irks me but I wouldn't be a Dem if I didn't bitch about something

[xultar]

17. It's confusing...or maybe I'm a dumb ass... n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. I think all the posts up to this point make valid points

I like the split, but if a conversation that PERIPHERALLY involves the campaign but is in a greater sense about issues NOT solely unique to the campaign ends up in GD and is already flourishing, then please don't move it. An example would be using the SBVT lies to start a conversation about propaganda in general...that issue would then be far more served in GD due to the difference in traffic that peruses the two forums. I know it's tough on you and the mods...I guess what I am saying is that while I like the split and it keeps it cleaner, it really doesn't need to be strictly enforced.

[bemildred]

19. Excellent!

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

21. I think it's a good idea.

I find it easier to navigate when subjects are put into a structured format. I like to read from all of the different sections, although I do not post in all of them. Having the two GDs is a good thing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. It will be easier to search for archived threads this way..... nt

[lostnfound]

23. Why are protests against * at RNC getting moved to Campaign forum?

It doesn't make sense to me that the protests against at the RNC are often getting moved out of GD into GD-Campaign. These protests aren't related to the campaign so much as an expression of massive public outrage over various issues. It's terribly important stuff, but quite the opposite of politics or a political campaign.

Other than that, I really like the split.

[TryingToWarnYou]

28. All the topics are similar ...its just yet another room to check.

Put everything back under General.

[chiburb]

30. I jokingly voted "unaware", but seriously...

My only problem with it is that some great threads now move too quickly to the back pages of GDC2004. I think all you've really done is shift THAT problem from one forum to another.

On the plus side, I like the idea of knowing where to look for campaign topics. I'm in favor of keeping things exactly as they are.

OT: I suggest that all threads expressing "depression" or "fear" about the campaign/polls/Kerry be moved to the Lounge. They are "vanity" posts, afterall...

[LiberalCat]

32. We may have to keep it this way until January or beyond,

if 2004 turns into the fiasco 2000 was.

[graywarrior]

33. I need a course in critical thinking to determine where to post

I have a lazy brain. Other than that, it's fine by me.

[Kazak]

34. It's like having two GD forums!

When I get bored of one (or it's full of clicked links), I switch to the other...then back.

[DemWitch]

35. I like it, I just find it a bit confusing...

talking about a politician this time of year often leads to a discussion of the election this year, even if it wasn't mean to lead into it... But overall it's a good thing...:thumbsup:

[Jim__]

36. I find it irritating to continually open a thread only to find that the

actual thread has been moved. I'd suggest that once the thread is moved, delete the original from the original folder - but I know that will cause problems for people looking for the thread they posted in.

Outside of that, I think it's a good idea in that the GD folder wraps pages so fast, and if the election threads were there too, it would probably wrap twice as fast.

[drdigi420]

37. Makes it harder to keep up with the latest threads

I end up running two browsers, one in each Forum. GD's main attraction was that it was fast moving. Now it's too slow.

What can I say, I'm old fashioned that way, I'm a one-forum man.

Hehe

[DeepModem Mom]

38. Like it -- have two thoughts --

1. Maybe some bigger, red-letter indication to remind people in GD that campaign threads go elsewhere. Some forget, some are new and don't know, some might be returning after a while.

2. It's always a judgment call as to whether to move a thread, but some I thought might could have stayed in GD, as I recall, had to do with things that Bush has done in office that have become campaign issues. Seems they could be discussed generally. Also, seems some discussions of Bush family members, administration officials, media, etc., while related to the campaign, could be discussed separately from it.

No real gripes, though -- I would imagine everything non-campaign related would get completely lost amid campaign threads.

And, as always, a big thanks!

[chaska]

39. I'm not here often enough lately to figure out what's going on, but...

it sure is a PITA to click on a thread and see the 'it's been moved' thing. Happened three times in a row the other night.

[LiberalVoice]

40. I think it's great.

Specifically during the conventions when people are making a thousand threads in GD 2004. The people in plain ole GD can still concentrate! :D

[RoyalWickedness]

41. I've only recently joined the forum

but I think it's a good idea. There's so much going on here, I feel that it's easier to follow if it's broken down some. Just my humble opinion.

[Rose Siding]

42. I'm not wild about the seperation but I have a question.

Is the rapid movement of the campaign "news" a main consideration in the split? If so, I have a suggestion.

How about an "OMG! Did you just see what (insert name of conservative blockhead or liberal champion) said on (CNN/MSNBC/FOX/CBS etc)" forum. -Unlike the media forum but more real time, like "What's on now" kind of thing.

I think that would remove more clutter from the substantive topics, it would be a quick check and easier to sort out.

[Kipepeo]

43. I like it much better

GD was moving too quickly before and interesting non-campaign related topics would fall off the first page within minutes.

It was much too crowded before. It's no bother to check more than one forum for interesting news.

[KC21304]

44. I think it is a good idea.

And I don't understand someone saying they like the idea but do not like it strictly enforced. I would think this would render it useless. I don't believe anyone has ever been chastised for infractions so I don't see the problem.

[expatriot]

45. i like it but there is a lot of gray area....

i find myself debating a lot whether something is more 2004 election or just general political subject.

[cheshire]

46. maybe politics should be seperate for good.

[napi21]

47. It is a bit confusing. The posts about Clinton today ...where should

they be posted? I would have thought they belonged in the general discussion because he is not a candidate, but the information has an impact on the campaign too. As it turns out, most were posted in the Campaign 2004 group.

Some subjects are very obvious, but some are not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Great, but

Wouldn't it make sense to merge the 'Politics and Campaigns' forum with the GD 2004 forum?

[karlrschneider]

49. I think it works pretty well but sometimes it's a bit hard to decide which

one some topics belong in. In a way, almost anything political is directly or peripherally connected to the 04 campaign...but I look in both so it's not really a problem.

[A_Possum]

50. Definitely should keep but...

I think the mods have been a bit overly aggressive in defining what's a Campaign 2004 post. As others have said, almost everything can be related to the campaign in some way, and I've seen posts moved that didn't seem directly related enough. I'm sure it's very difficult to draw a hard line, but maybe not be so quick to move things into C2004, which is getting too busy anyway. If the original poster didn't think it was directly related enough to put into C2004, mods might be a little slower to assume it is.

Just a suggestion, not a criticism.

[Generic Other]

51. I'm one who always forgets the rule except when others break it

I'm a jerk.

[diamond14]

52. implies NO IMPACT on anything we may choose to discuss...

when in reality, EVERYTHING we choose to discuss is directly related to the Campaign 2004....healthcare, the draft, books, schools, college tuition, roads, cars, environment, clean air, clean water, families, reproduction...EVERYTHING is related to the Campaign 2004....the "push" into separate state discussions also prevents many people from discussion issues of mutual interest between states and getting ideas from those discussion....although I give credit to your links for all the state candidates links, although much needs updating...don't forget, bush* dirty air and dirty water doesn't just stay within ONE state's border....


the 'separation' of GD from Campaign2004 really degrades Democratic Underground....it's an extremely radical barricade to any discussion of "Democratic" issues, and degrades those members who wish to inform and discuss the MAJOR IMPACTS and interactions of the campaign 2004 on our lives today....

[WoodrowFan]

53. you forgot to add

"clicky thing" or "robb is a dingbat" we can't have polls without those options!


(I voted yes)

[EST]

54. What you are doing is terrific, however, since I'm limited by

Dial-up modem, moving around is soooo slow. Having both GDs together would help some.

[ibegurpard]

55. I don't care one way or the other

but I thought it was kind of odd that you wanted to do it because I would think it creates a lot of extra work and headaches for you and the mods.

[miss_kitty]

56. well i'm new here and hang a lot in the lounge, but my $.02 is

more of a technical bitch. the 'moved thread' links open in a new window. i guess it's not a big deal. but it annoys the crap outta me! heh heh :)

i guess it's cool to separate the two, but sometime the subject falls in the 'gray area' so i get confused. again not a big deal...the confusion part is totally my problem.:smoke:

"...non-binding opinion poll..." hahaha! that cracks me up!:D

thanks for asking.

[Jack_Dawson]

57. Confusing - Too much overlap

We're all talking about the same things for the next 60 days anyway - might as well have one forum.

[LWolf]

58. I love it.

It's all about the issues. The issues are what drives me to engage in politics, or political discussions in the first place. I like having a place to find them.

This election is so vital to the survival of our nation that we should be thinking and talking and focusing on it; I don't want fewer posts, or less discussion. I just want to be able to find the issues, too. When the campaign is in it's own forum, I don't have to scroll through pages of campaign threads looking for the day's conversations about the issues that make politics, and the campaign, matter.

Thank you for keeping them separate!

[malatesta1137]

60. silly

to have this division. People miss a lot of good posts and EVERYTHING relates to Election 2004 anyway. GD: Campaign 2004 is a waste of time.

[Jack_Dawson]

61. Amen - Itz Dumb at this Point

We're all going to be discussing the f'ing election from now til the second recount anyway - what's the point? Merge 'em.

[sffreeways]

62. I'd prefer if it wasn't a seperate forum

My reason is that there are way too many posts on that same issue or event that get one or two posts.

For example during Zells rant there were so many people posting their personal thoughts as threads instead of posting those thoughts in a few threads that you could not get any kind of decent discussion going. Any good interesting observations disappeared from the page almost immediately. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the seperate forum but it seems that when these threads are in GD more people tend to go with posting their identical thoughts in threads rather than starting one everytime they have something to say.

I felt frustrated by that. I also felt it was the format or because there is an entirely seperate forum for it that folks were motivated to start a thread for every sentence Zell made that irritated them.

[VOX]

67. It's okay, but it's getting more difficult to distinguish between...

what constitutes a GD post, and what constitutes a Campaign 2004 post. Obviously, there is content overlap -- when a Bush* item is posted in GD (with a GD-appropriate subject), and it includes a Kerry response, the lines of demarcation are fuzzy at best.

I have seen some threads moved from GD to C04 that have surprised me.

[yellowdawgdem]

68. worked best with vp selection

It was a good idea, and worked well before Kerry chose his vp. It still works ok, but many of the topics overlap. One good thing about keeping the forum until election day is, it cuts down the sheer volume of posts in gd, so that you can actually keep up with some of it.

[Bluebear]

69. Hate it hate it hate it

But what do I know. Seriously, the guidelines are so gray sometimes and the campaign is 90 percent of what we're talking about anyhow. I look for a post and it's gone, too much navigation. Just 2 cents.

[Massacure]

70. I like it

There are a few things threads that I think the mods allowed/put in the wrong forum, however it is much better off than it was before.

[moondust]

71. It's okay but...is it time to start a rubber room?

For the handwringers, the worrywarts, the gloom and doomers, the basket cases? It might also help to neutralize the psy-ops posters intentionally trying to plant uncertainty and doubt.

Just wondered. Thanks!

[arcos]

72. I miss posts, but I missed more under the old policy... n/t

[Pallas180]

73. But I hate that 9-11 topics are buried where you never find them again

:hi:

[I_like_chicken]

74. I really like the split

and I think it should be strictly enforced, with anything even remotely mentioning the election be moved to GD 2004 Elections. I really don't understand what the big deal is when a thread gets moved.I think the biggest problem people have with the rule, is that they don't like being told what to do.

[TNMOM]

75. Would be more convenient if combined

I read both and it's confusing to define what falls into one category or the other -- it's all politics at the end of the day.

[Rowdyboy]

76. Very much hope you keep things as they are until the election, at least

Threads disappear so rapidly that I can't imagine going back to only one forum for both topics.

[Swamp Rat]

77. Overall, I like it. We should keep it this way until election day... and

thereafter, though there will be no need for this particular bifurcation. Eventhough a mod wrongly moved one of my posts from GD to the other, that was just a minor nuisance. Overall, I think you guys were right to do this.

Any chance of creating a forum dedicated to religion? I know I've asked you this before, but I still think we need a bit more "separation of church and state" here too.

On edit: By separating the threads it makes it easier and faster to search, and likely reduces the burden of the server. So therefore, splitting up some of the forums may have an unseen positive effect as well.

[HarveyBriggs]

78. Confusing & useless.

One more set of links to go through. I often don't know which is which.

The split during the primary season was very good, quite useful.

But this is a political forum during an election year, for crying out loud, there is bound to be some substantial blurring between what is appropriate.

I'll offer an insight as a moderate whose been camping with the Democrats for a few years, and always on the fence -- the thinking behind this split is classic Democrat, "Why unite behind a common cause, when we can split each other up and cause infighting?"

I can never understand why Democrats are always looking for ways to fuss with each other, particularly at a time when there is such a good reason now to unite.

Where the nastiness of the Republican party has turned me off, this hair-splitting stuff within the Democratic Party is the biggest reason I have yet to find a home in it. And it's not just with the forum, it goes on at the local HQ and goes all the way up.

I bet John Kerry wouldn't equivocate nearly as much if he didn't have to speak to a constituency so willing to split hairs and fight over them.

Harvey Briggs

[democracy eh]

79. Raw has more talent, better stories, Smackdown....

whoops wrong forum

GD/GD Campaign 2004 A-OK!!!!

[Guava Jelly]

80. I hate it it slows down the boards

I would rather have one board to check then 2

[Skinner]

81. Thanks for the input everyone.

I will be discussing your comments with the moderators. Hopefully we can make some improvements so implementation is less confusing for all of you.

Skinner