Proposed rules to start threads in the GD forum (REVISED!) Thread #2

[Skinner]

After reading all of the comments about our proposed rules, it has become apparent that many people were confused about the second section, which dealt with thread topics about Democratic candidates.

The three admins discussed the issue, and realized that most of those rules were unnecessary or redundant. We believe that most of the excesses in candidate threads can be dealt with under the first section of the rules, since vanity posts and duplicate threads are going to be held up to a greater level of scrutiny. Furthermore, the existing message board rules already restrict certain types of posts about Democrats. So we decided to ditch section two entirely. But we reserve the right to add rules like it at a later date -- with or without a vote -- if we think it is necessary.

It would be a mistake to assume that the removal of section two allows "anything goes" discussions about the Democratic candidates or the Democratic party. While specific subject matter will not be forbidden, you will still get your thread shut down if you post in an inflammatory manner.

In addition, be aware that voting for these rules will give the moderators greater authority to aggressively shut down flame bait thread topics, and the text of the rules has been changed to reflect that.

Due to the change in the proposed rules, we are going to postpone the vote for one day. A vote on these rules will take place starting Wednesday, and will last for 24 hours. These are the rules, exactly as they will be offered for a vote. There will be no more changes.

This is a re-post of a previous thread, which is here.

********** PROPOSED TEXT FOR NEW RULES **********

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum

The General Discussion forum is by far the most active of all the forums on the Democratic Underground message board. In order to improve the overall quality of discussion here, we feel it is necessary to restrict the type of discussion threads which may be started in this forum. These rules only apply to the very first message posted in a discussion thread, and do not apply to responses posted in those threads.

If you are the type of person who can’t remember a bunch of rules, just remember this: If you treat other people with respect, and if you frame your messages in a way that will facilitate quality discussion, you are unlikely to run afoul of these rules.

The moderators have the authority to aggressively lock or remove threads which violate these rules. Admittedly, the determination of which threads are inflammatory is completely subjective. When a thread is shut down, members have a responsibility to respect the decision the moderators make.

Please note that these rules are for the General Discussion forum only. Some topics which are not allowed in the General Discussion forum may be permitted in other forums on the message board.

RULES TO START DISCUSSION THREADS IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided. Exceptions may be allowed for threads about our political opponents and/or policies which we generally oppose.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. No duplicates or same-topic threads. If there is currently an active thread on the first page of the General Discussion forum about a particular topic, you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information. Occasional exceptions will be allowed when an active thread has a large number of posts.

[Ediacara]

1. In response to a post by Liberal_Guerila in the first thread.....

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.
While I don't personally have a hard time with this one, it is still attached to the rest of these lousy rules. it also limits creativity.

Um, this is meant to stop threads with titles like:

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

or:

WE MUST STOP THIS NOW

How about a little less vagueness! People might actually bother to read your thread

2#. Is too damn obvious to me. More limitations on speech and creativity. The moderators will become punctuation and grammar police. I know that some of you get off on those sort of power trips but it really does make you look petty.

I don't think the purpose is to be the grammar police, or else every mod, admin, and poster would be thrown into grammar jail. The point is to stop this stuff:

LIEberman is a fucking Republican!

or:

LIEBERMAN, CLARK, KERRY, AND DEAN ARE ALL LIKUDNIK FASCISTS AND SHOULD BE SHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and other such examples I am sure you can find in almost every thread in GD

3#. I don't necessarily understand this one. Why must someone post their opinion. I have found some articles that need no commentary(Though I usually can't help my self). Some articles do a good enough job of starting a Discussion all on their own.

The point here is to make the job of finding trolls easier for the mods. A 100-post poster could have gotten by by just posting newsmax articles, and nothing substantive. If the poster is forced to defend the article, or at least try to bash, the mods' lives will be much easier.

4#. I particularly have a hard time with this one. Not that I am disrespectful. I just think that it will limit creativity, and is to loosely based. And I will be livid if I spend some time composing a post only to have it yanked into oblivion by someone else's interpretation of this rule. This is a slippery slope.

Your argument about stiffling creativity is frankly without merit. All the rule says is, "be nice."

5#. Let's start off by saying that there are a lot of good original posts that come out of replies, but are buried in a thread and deserve the attention that an original post would get. I don't think that it's right to limit possibly brilliant insights, ideas, information to a reply. This will not encourage the sharing of ideas and dissemination of information, it would only serve to stifle it.

I agree with this point. Many very thoughtful replies can be burried in the maze of an unreadible thread, and I think a prohibition on starting new threads based on new points burried in old threads is going to far.

[kainah]

11. thoughtful replies buried in the maze

5#. Let's start off by saying that there are a lot of good original posts that come out of replies, but are buried in a thread and deserve the attention that an original post would get. I don't think that it's right to limit possibly brilliant insights, ideas, information to a reply. This will not encourage the sharing of ideas and dissemination of information, it would only serve to stifle it.

I agree with this point. Many very thoughtful replies can be burried in the maze of an unreadible thread, and I think a prohibition on starting new threads based on new points burried in old threads is going to far.

This is an excellent point. Usually, though, these buried jewels tend to be an insight/new source that is provocative enough to be posted under a new topic concept. I suppose it will depend on how rigidly the mods define "same topic." The rule would seem to me to be broad enough to allow a variant of the original thread that wouldn't run afoul. Or perhaps we could call them "stepchild" threads and let the mods judge accordingly. And, of course, the rule does allow threads #2, etc., if the original has become unmanageable. Overall, I think this is not (yet) a serious enough concern to scuttle the rest of the much needed improvements.

[Robin Hood]

47. Dear Dinoboy. a reply to your rebuttal.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.
While I don't personally have a hard time with this one, it is still attached to the rest of these lousy rules. it also limits creativity.

Um, this is meant to stop threads with titles like:

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

or:

WE MUST STOP THIS NOW

How about a little less vagueness! People might actually bother to read your thread

If people are not reading those threads than they will eventually go away. If they are worthy than they will remain. And if it bothers you than you can just hit the back button and ignore that thread. The solutions are really very simple without having to impose on personal liberty and the moderators time.

2#. Is too damn obvious to me. More limitations on speech and creativity. The moderators will become punctuation and grammar police. I know that some of you get off on those sort of power trips but it really does make you look petty.

I don't think the purpose is to be the grammar police, or else every mod, admin, and poster would be thrown into grammar jail. The point is to stop this stuff:

LIEberman is a fucking Republican!

or:

LIEBERMAN, CLARK, KERRY, AND DEAN ARE ALL LIKUDNIK FASCISTS AND SHOULD BE SHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and other such examples I am sure you can find in almost every thread in GD

No, I have not seen such outrageous posts here on DU, and I spend a lot of time here. Furhtermore, If those posts bother some people, they can always chose to ignore those posts and not respond to them.

Why must we pass laws and rules for every damn thing under the sun?

3#. I don't necessarily understand this one. Why must someone post their opinion. I have found some articles that need no commentary(Though I usually can't help my self). Some articles do a good enough job of starting a Discussion all on their own.

The point here is to make the job of finding trolls easier for the mods. A 100-post poster could have gotten by by just posting newsmax articles, and nothing substantive. If the poster is forced to defend the article, or at least try to bash, the mods' lives will be much easier.

There is a certain post count limit before you can make a major post on this board. because the moderators fail to catch freepers within this time frame should not take away from our personal freedoms. And if a freeper rears his/hers ugly head after 100 posts, they will and have been dealt with appropriately.

personally, I like challenging those dumb sister fuckers and don't much care for our Freeper law.

4#. I particularly have a hard time with this one. Not that I am disrespectful. I just think that it will limit creativity, and is to loosely based. And I will be livid if I spend some time composing a post only to have it yanked into oblivion by someone else's interpretation of this rule. This is a slippery slope.

Your argument about stiffling creativity is frankly without merit. All the rule says is, "be nice."

I disagree, Why must I be nice? If someone is an asshole, I will let them know exactly how big of an asshole they are. However, I do think that harrassment should not be tolerated. Though I have dealt with offensive harrassers by placing them on my ignore list.

See, The tools are already there at your finger tips, and it's not necessary to impose these dumb rules on a democratic board.

5#. Let's start off by saying that there are a lot of good original posts that come out of replies, but are buried in a thread and deserve the attention that an original post would get. I don't think that it's right to limit possibly brilliant insights, ideas, information to a reply. This will not encourage the sharing of ideas and dissemination of information, it would only serve to stifle it.

I agree with this point. Many very thoughtful replies can be burried in the maze of an unreadible thread, and I think a prohibition on starting new threads based on new points burried in old threads is going to far.

Well, At least we agree on one thing. But I urge people of good conscience and non apathetic morals to vote NO on these rules.

[Pepperbelly]

2. I am 'down' with whatever you want to do.

Just drop me a line if I stray afield so I can modify before I get tombstoned or something.

[blondeatlast]

26. Agreed--a PM would be very helpful.

[bluestateguy]

3. I'm voting No

I oppose rule #5.

[seventhson]

37. You can't wait until a thread is NOT on the first page anymore? What IF

I guess if it keeps getting bumped or kicked up then it could be on the first page for weeks --- but that appears to be a glitch rule.

And --- umm --- it will be easy to get a rule broken by responding to a thread that is OFF the first page to get a new post into a violation.

Is that RIGHT???

Maybe rule 5 is too strange or I do not understand what "being on the first page" means.

Maybe it should be time related: LIKE: no new same subject posts if the old subject is less than 3 HOURS old.

ANYONE can keep a thread bumped up to the first page for days (I know because I have done it)

Any thoughts or do I miss the way these things work?

[blondeatlast]

78. Covered in more detail in post 81, deleted by the poster

[blondeatlast]

75. I think it's one of the most sensible rules, since it deals only with the

first page. Let's really think about this,gang--these aare permanent.

I'm still leaning no-ward.

[XanaDUer]

4. This is revised thread number two...

right? Not the second thread, that was not revised?

I just got back in and have not been on for a few hours.

So , this supercedes all other threads, right?

[goobergunch]

5. Correct. (n/t)

[XanaDUer]

6. Thanks.

n/t.

[kainah]

7. I vote aye!

I may be off-line tomorrow but these have my vote.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Works for me and this is why.

I have been avoiding GD and staying more in the lounge lately because of the flamewars and redundant threads in GD.

Titles at the very least should be clean (no profanity) because even though I am currently unemployed, there have been a few thread titles that could have gotten me into trouble at work.

At the very least the new rules should stop interesting threads from needing to be bumped because of 18 zillion "Candidate A said X in 1972 while boiling live kittens!!!!" threads.

[KoKo]

9. BUT! What happened to some of us's IDEA of: Politic's 2004 CANDIDATES?

as an alternate.......for banning posts about Candidates in GD (Which Lots of US Really Like) to allowing things to stay the same....but with "new rules." Many of us would be happy with a "CANDIDATE 2004 FORUM" where we could Blast and Argue about our "Favorites" to our heart's content....but it would FREE UP GD for really General Discussion Subjects???


Did you listen to us......??? What about this proposal ....

[Wonk]

12. It's called "Politics and Campaigns" and already exists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Tinoire]

25. Skinner explained that in the previous thread

basically politics IS the GD of DU so they will never remove the discussions from GD. Makes sense (consistent with the whole meaning of this board) if you think about it

[Zhade]

54. I like this idea. It makes sense - very topic-specific.

NT!

[Tinoire]

58. I seconded it in the last thread but I understand the reasoning

I could go either way. I like the topic specific, condensed part of it because there's nothing I hate more than having to wade through a bunch of "Jenna drunk in Paris"-type posts to find the last Gephardt thread someone started...

If I had to vote, I'd go with Election 2004 but I think the Admins reasoning is that that's what this entire board is supposed to be about- "Election 2004"

What a pain in the ass to see both sides.

[bearfartinthewoods]

72. to aid those of us who are looking for candidate threads

if you use the candidate's last name as the first word of your post title it facilitates finding via the sort by subject method.

ex 'Gephart seeks union backing' or 'Kerry to speak in PA'

[Chovexani]

10. I'll vote yes

I've been avoiding GD like the plague lately because of all the crazy flamebait threads, maybe these new rules will make the waters a little safer.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. I'll vote no

Too many rules. If you don't like a thread, don't respond to it. It's really that simple.

[Tinoire]

59. How do you feel about reading a thread one minute

and then not being able to find it 10 minutes later because GD was just under a DOS/thread attack?

That was a major complaint in Ask The Admin for weeks and I can sympathize with the people who complained because lately I've had up to 15 DU windows open at a time just to not lose the thread.

There are work-arounds but why should the behavior of a few cause the majority to waste their time thinking up work-arounds? This only creates resentment among the majority against the few and that's not the healthiest athmosphere on a discussion board because suddenly we start using really unfair broad brushes (like saying X supporters are Z) because a few really loud ones are making it seem that way and then the vicious cycle of unintentionally offending the X supporters who never acted that way begins...

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

[Oracle]

14. Which ones would be deleted and why?

"Everyone in DC knew Plame was CIA." WilliamPitt

"My understanding of where this Wilson leak thing came from,
and why" WilliamPitt

"Did the Traitor in the WH violate the Patriot Act?" Stephanie

"DUers: Let's let Novakula have it!" annagull

"Wolf Blitzer says "Democrats smell blood..." kentuck

" Traitorgate: The COVER-UP" skip fox

All the above are currently on the first page, so all would be deleted except one?

Which one?

[Dookus]

15. why would any of them be deleted?

what rules do you think they violate?

[Oracle]

16. New rules...

5. No duplicates or same-topic threads. If there is currently an active thread on the first page of the General Discussion forum about a particular topic, you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information. Occasional exceptions will be allowed when an active thread has a large number of posts.

[Dookus]

18. ahh...

I don't think they'd be considered duplicates. They all discuss very different aspects of a large news story.

I could be mistaken, but I think the duplicate-rule isn't intended for cases like these.

[Oracle]

19. I'm not sure, how do you interpret it?

"you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information."

[Dookus]

20. I'll let Skinner...

do the interpreting.

[Zhade]

56. Er...so, like, only ONE thread on, say, Bush?

He, himself, is a topic. Too vague?

Okay, what about this: only one thread on the topic of TraitorGate? Or is it more like, only one thread on Wilson re: TraitorGate, only one on Rove re: TraitorGate...

We're going to end up 1) endlessly splitting hairs on what constitutes a "different enough" thread and 2) with looooooooooooong threads because of a "chilling effect" on splitting off topics.

I'm unsure of my vote at this point.

[FubarFly]

17. A duplicate maybe?

[blondeatlast]

27. Excellent question! I am trying to figure it out and am stumped.

Skinner, my vote may depend on the answer; could you elaborate on this?

I suppose all but the earliest posting, barring any other violations?

[sandnsea]

30. Different angles on the same story

As opposed to the same angle on the same story for 6 months running that continues to be posted over and over and over...

On edit:

(Just my opinion, I'm in no position to create policy!)

[Oracle]

39. And what about polls on the same subject or topic?

Do they count as the same kind of post topic?

Just fucking with you a bit skinner.

[sandnsea]

64. Uhm, just to clarify

I was expressing my own opinion, I'm not skinner and have absolutely nothing to do with setting any DU policy. Just to clarify here.

[Skinner]

83. About polls...

Polls that are the same topic as a non-poll thread will be allowed. Polls that are the same basic topic as other polls will not be allowed.

[Skinner]

82. I haven't read those threads.

Based on their titles alone, I think there is a decent chance they might all be allowed to stay. But I'm just not sure.

Enforcement of the duplicates rule will likely have to be refined over time. Our intent is to allow threads that are on substantially different aspects of the same issue. But we're trying to cut down on certain excesses, like: "I was thinking about this other thread, and my idea is so great that I just couldn't bury it in there. Instead, I'm going to start my own thread." There is also a huge problem with candidate threads that as soon as someone posts a thread on a particular issue, the supporters or opponents "run with it" and flood the board.

To be honest, we simply won't know where we draw the line until we're faced with making the actual decisions.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Why not just give people an MMPI in order to register and post at DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Would save you the hassle of a new set of rules

[Dookus]

23. What's an MMPI?

on edit:

OH! The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index (or something like that?) lol

[Oracle]

24. Wow, below is the same advice you just gave me.

Now I'm sure I know what you think of me. Oh well.

"...just remember Mark Twain once said, "Be yourself is about the WORST advice you can give to some people."

[sandnsea]

34. rotfl

Somebody said there was a tutor to help people pass these tests. I really don't think that's possible with an MMPI, but somebody could make a TON of money trying! Sign me up!

[library_max]

22. I'll vote yes

But I preferred the original version. I think this version puts an awful lot of pressure on the moderators to define "inflammatory rhetoric," which, note, is "to be avoided," not forbidden. So many bashing threads and death-to-Democrats threads begin with disingenuous, "what-me-bash?" messages. I guess the new rules will help, but I suspect that they'll let a lot of the let's-all-kill-each-other stuff through.

Question - what about a thread which begins with one of these sweetly innocent messages, which the poster him- or herself immediately answers with a screed?

[Ripley]

28. Thanks for your flexibility.

I think you folks in charge of this board are very smart, compassionate and doing that Democracy thing. Thanks.

Personally, I agree with your changes...maybe it will stop the depression and hatred, yes hatred (towards one another), that has overcome GD.

[sandnsea]

29. I changed my mind, I vote yes

I would only like to add that I would like to see #3 applied to ALL news pieces. I just went into a thread with an article posted for the umpteenth time with NO opinion from the poster. Just a 'what's this about' sort of thing. Sometimes that's legitimate, but too often it's just there to provoke. Changing #3 to all articles would encourage a little more research into an issue before posting the topic.

And I still say no dupes in the first 3 pages.

Thanks guys!

[5thGenDemocrat]

31. Great. Fine. Okay.

When's the vote?
John

[Dookus]

32. Starts tomorrow...

for 24 hours.

[goobergunch]

33. Can they state it Congress-style?

The question is on adopting the rules. Those in favor of the new rules will vote "YES". Those opposed will vote "NO". Voting will occur by electronic device. This is a 24-hour vote.

*gavels*

All right...you can leave out the gaveling part.

[Lexingtonian]

35. Ok, you'll get my vote

Seeing how the things changed and arguments cited are pretty much what my post yesterday pointed to, I can't find fault with it

[seventhson]

36. I think I can endorse these now - No WAIT!!! #5 is a problem

ANYONE can keep bumping or kicking a thread to keep it active on the first page. Right???

So a crafty poster can KEEP their thread active on the first page and block anyone else for days.


I know no changes are desired \ but I suggest that this would work better if there was a TIME limit to similar posts/topics instead of a first page limit.

A 6 hour rule, for example.

Say --- I post:

"Clark eats at confederate 7-11's"

then a post that says


"Clark eats at democratic homeless shelters"

would have to wait, say, 6 or 12 hours (an obvious dupe or imitator post) before posting on a dupe subject.

I think the point is that making it a "first page" rule is unmanageable because they can repop on the first page for days.

Maybe one such imitator post or similar subject per 24 hour day

ON EDIT: THIS RULE WILL NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE TO WORK NO MATTER HOW YOU DO IT

[Skinner]

84. The moderators have the power to deal with situations like that.

If someone is deliberately gaming the system, the moderators will deal with it.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

38. I'd have to agree with these.

Although I wish you had included the 5 sentence minimum again. I'll probably vote Yes.

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. I'm voting NO because I see a lot of posts I don't like at all

I see posts with views that I not only disagree with, I think they are prima facie evidence that the poster has a negative prior history of exposure to the concept of independent thought and probably written language as well.

I see posts by people whose parents tragically were not aware of the benefit their abstinence could have given the planet.

I see posts that are clearly trolls, disruptive, ill-thought, profane, scatter-brained, an embarrassment to the species, an indication that the writer is not only suffering from cerebral dysfunction if not absence but has cooties and is also a doo-doo head.

So I'm voting NO because NO ONE, not even Karl Rove himself, should be forced to keep their ignorance and stupidity secret.

I'm voting NO because free speech is annoying as hell, and because I will go to the wall to protect the right of every last one of the sub-simian doo-doo heads who impede my thoughtful discussions with others to keep on doing just that - they are usually a better argument for my point of view anyway, and if they are lame enough, they make me look better by comparison.

[Tinoire]

44. You're just voting no because you're determined to be contrarian

But you know I love you

Your points are well taken and I'm not much of a rule person either because I LOVE to see people make total fools of themselves and have the evidence there for all to see. Trouble is we've grown so large that allowing it opens the board up to be hi-jacked, over-run and exploited. Our goal is too important to allow the chance of that happening.

[Brucey]

50. A tough call.

But on the whole I would rather go with DuctapeFatwa and lean toward freedom, and against rules. I know we need guidelines, and we should try to stay on task, informing and discussion among Dems, but it's like radar: no matter what rules you devise someone will invent a radar detector. It's better to let it be open, police it ourselves through ignoring and educating and discussing and learning. Let the Greens and the Freepers show themselves and we will correct their errant thinking. Let the flamers flame each other. It's a bit humorous, actually. And good to know who they are; have them out in the open. I'll likely vote no.

[Tinoire]

53. I'll tell you why I'm for them

because they tie the hands of the juveniles who have been trying to prevent information they don't like from reaching other DUers.

It's all fine and well to make your point by telling someone you don't agree or that they're stretching or that their source is suspect or whatever but to stomp your feet and get together with your buddies to start 20 some ridiculous spam threads to prevent important information about candidates from reaching people needs to stop.

This isn't some art board, it's a visionary political board with some very dedicated and determined people who have devoted three years of their lives to researching, discussing and fighting. Now that the fight is here, it would be a crime to have it derailed because hyper-sensitive posters who are over protective of their candidates need to restrict the flow of information at a crucial moment before the battle.

I find the need for any rules lamentable and pathetic but that behavior needed to be stopped and I see no other way to do it.

We already practice censorship here- we don't allow freepers to come post their trash and drag this board to the right. Should we allow them here in the name of free speech? If we did, we'd never get done any of the stuff we get done; we'd be afraid to meet up at gatherings or work on BBV or give out contact information to help other DUers with their projects. So... not to get too military about it, but in the interests of reaching our goals, certain things have to give a little- just a wee, wee bit.

That's just the way I see it because I'm the type who doesn't want to spend 2 months setting up a rally and have a bunch of freepers show up claiming free speech. Your freedom ends where it infriges upon mine. Somewhere there is a line... The tricky thing is finding that line and I think we may have found it here...

Like I said though... just my 2 cents

That all said... I will be reading the fine version of the final draft with a magnifying glass before I vote- not that I don't trust the admin or the mods- just that I don't ever want to see the type of censorship happening in I/P happen here. I'm going to pay particular attention to the wording especially around the word inflammatory in rule 4.

On edit: Also, one point in favor of rule #5

I do a lot of research in our archives and it would be a hell of a lot easier to find stuff if there were only a few threads about that subject. That's a selfish reason I know but there is a silver lining. It's especially important now because the bookmark feature at DU won't be worth much until the Admin has the time to tinker with it and insert the notes section again.

[DuctapeFatwa]

57. I am an unrepentant and incorrigible free speech extremist

In addition to free speech, I believe in the freedom of ignoring idiots, so if Daniel Pipes himself wants to come on here and bleat about the Menace of the Muezzin, it's just so much elevator music to me, I will probably not even notice it.

There is no viewpoint or opinion that I believe is so powerfully attractive that it needs to be silenced, unless of course, we are talking about my OWN opinions, which I admit are too persuasive for most people to resist, unless, of course they are cootie-laden doo doo heads.

Whatever the rules are or are not, on any board, I would recommend being discrete about posting contact info, times and places, etc, simply because it IS all publicly readable.

Love you, too, Tinoire, and when the Revolution comes, (and it will) do not fear, you will be spared

[Tinoire]

63. lol- huge laugh at my key-board!

Yes- I'm with you except that for the last few weeks in GD it felt like everytime you posted an important piece from Uri Avnery, a dozen Daniel Pipes and Steve Emersons flooded the forum with junk so that people wouldn't see what Avnery had to say. You see this everyday on TV... flood them with junk and they might not make it to the C-Span channel.

Some DUers, lucky devils, only have about an hour a day to spend here so they come to get their news fix and can find nothing because they don't have the time to wade through the junk...

I do because I have no life until after the Primaries but I understand the people who do and I miss seeing their input simply because they can't find the threads during that brief hour or two they have.

We were beginning also to lose our sense of community in GD and that wasn't good...

And for the posting info on the board- I don't think anyone is that stupid... At least I hope not!

Peace and lol, I'll be right there next to you for the revolution- you can bank on that Do svidanya Tovarishch!

[TahitiNut]

94. Let's not conflate abstinence with celebacy.

... nor articulate with insightful.

[jiacinto]

41. I am considering changing my vote to no

It is unfortunate that DU is going to give the Greens free reign to use this board to bash Democrats and to help re-elect Bush next year. Frankly, if the Greens are going to be allowed to use this site to campaign, organize, and undermine Democrats, then maybe DU should consider changing its name. That way there won't be any confusion over what DU is about. That would solve the problems at least with me.

It just botheres me to see a site called "Democratic Underground" advocating Green candidates. I see the Green presence here as running counter to the mission of this board: defeating Bush next year.

I have nothing against Greens posting here, but I do have signfiicant problems when they openly campaign against Democrats. Why can't they have their own board where they can do that? Why must they hijack this place to do that? And why should I, as a paying member, continue to donate when it is clear that this site will allow certain elements complete free reign to undermine Democratic candidates?

What does the Green contingent bring here that is positive? I really want to know. Let me state that there are a few Greens here who are positive contributors to DU. Unfortunately, however, there is a group of Greens here that does nothing but use DU to undermine the electoral fortunes of Democrats. Again, what is it that thse few Greens bring to DU that is positive? It seems like all they do is attack and undermine Democrats.

I was going to vote yes because I thought the new rules would finally curb the growing Green control of DU. I was wrong and it is sad that this board is going to be used by people who have nothing but ill will toward the Democratic Party, who won't support its candidates, and will do anything possible to divert members' precious votes away from the Democrat so that Bush can be re-elected.

In the new, watered down edition, I see little difference than the previous rules. So I am inclined to vote no now.

[noiretextatique]

60. why don't you just alert?

whenever you see the green menace enacting its evil plot to 'destroy the democratic party' by posting on DU (which is JUST an internet discussion board, one that doesn't reflect the views of the majority of mainstream americans like yourself anyway, per you, btw) do you see greens under your bed, and in your closet too?

[Tinoire]

65. I think

the mods are in on the conspiracy Someone should warn the admin

[TahitiNut]

93. Oh?

[FlaGranny]

91. Give it a try, Carlos,

the rules probably will help a lot. I don't see how it could make things worse. At least it will curb threads started purely to inflame and will cut down the total number of stupid threads so that we can find the useful ones.

[Code_Name_D]

42. My concerns have been addressed.

The changes made have removed my stated concerns. Enough so that I will confirm the new rules when placed up for a vote. But I am concerned that these rules may be difficult for the mods to enforces. Especially without the continued assistance of the members.

The DU2 has new features that are not being utilized. The ability to pin up post to the top make it possible for moderators to alert the members to developing problems, or to give members information about the types of post the moderators might wish to see removed, and to have them alerted.

More liberal use of this feature may prevent abuses. Some times the members just need a reminder of the rules, or to be made aware of problems as the arise.

[jiacinto]

43. Yeah

Rules that now basically allow DU to become a de facto Green board.

[Iverson]

69. repetition fallacy

Repeating a claim does not make it true. I thought that they still taught that in college. At least I do.

Skinner pointed out in an earlier thread, possibly #4 of the first version, that there already is a qualitative difference in the rules here between Democrats and others. If you disagree with that, then perhaps you should ask Skinner for a clarification.

The simple repetition of your dubious claim will only have the effect of fostering antagonism. Surely that is not why we're here.

[Walt Starr]

45. I feel much better about these rules

I'm on the fence about how I'll vote, but they aren't nearly as draconian as the previous set.

[jiacinto]

46. Yeah of course

because they allow DU to become a de facto Green board.

[Iverson]

71. incorrect. see note #69.

n/t

[regnaD kciN]

68. I agree...

...these seem pretty reasonable.

[Cronus Protagonist]

70. I'm still with you on that

#5 seems to me to be a poor rule. The question for me is; is it bad enough to vote NO. Right now, I'd say so.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets!>

[Robin Hood]

48. Hey Skinner!!! here is an example of what's wrong with rule #5.

This post below was closed by a moderator because I had already posted on that topic.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

When this person posted this, My post was on page 5.
My post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now here is an excellent example of the faulty thinking behind rule #5. A whole shift of Duers missed out on a chance to vote in something that they believe in. Is this something that we want to continue promoting?

[Generic Other]

49. Our last experiment resulted in a ridiculous number of locked threads

I would hate to see a repeat of that.

I think at one time all the threads on page one were locked!

Are we going to get that silly again?

[Ramsey]

55. That's inevitable at first

That prior experiment only lasted a short time, and it will take a few days for people to get used to the rules, or even bother to read them.

Look, the rules are ONLY for GD, because it is a very active forum, if you find them too constraining on your creativity, feel free to utilize one of the dozen other forums. Once people get used to the guidelines, locked threads will decrease.

I remember before LBN had specific guidelines, and it is much better and more useful now. Yet months after rules were implemented and despite the fact that the first thread in the forum directs users to the rules, there are still multiple locked threads in LBN every day. One this morning was some incoherent rant about monkey brains with no news, no substance and no link. If the new GD guidelines will cut down on the detritus, I am all in favor!! It might actually become a useful forum for exchange of information and opinions, rather than freaking flamefests and ill-conceived rants. What is so bad about asking people to take a few seconds to formulate a coherent thought???

[Skinner]

85. What Ramsey said.

There will be a ridiculous number of locked and deleted threads for the first few days. Eventually, people will understand the rules and they will stop posting threads that violate the rules. After a week, the number of threads should be much less.

[BiggJawn]

51. Why not just move all the candidate posts to a new forum?

Build it along the lines of "The GUNgeon" and let everyone sling shit at each other?

Call it "The Pig Wallow-Not for the 'Thin-Skinned'..."

Just what do you think makes GD "The most active" forum in the first place?

[Skinner]

86. HEre's why...

What is the point of having a General Discussion forum on a political message board, if we don't allow discussion of the most important issue facing us right now? It makes no sense to me.

[hedgetrimmer]

52. NOPE! all different reasons why, essentially every rule can

be used by moderators... there has to be no vote at all... the adminstration can act upon any thing they want... it is their board and we the paying public can get lost if we do not like the adminstrations regulations...

the administration has been more than fair in any sort of election process...

as a member i find the process assinine... i will vote no... the 5 point selection has other points within each point, one votes the whole enchilada no or one votes the whole enchilada yes... i vote the enchilada no...

thank you for getting the people involved, it is very inspiring to me and i wonder how i can use the same level of interest in their knowledge of their candidates and the election process... again, thank you...

[Oracle]

61. If one is angry and passionate and uses...

asterisk's, for let's say "that M*therf**king Bush," in the threads subject line, will it be cause for a deletion?

Just wonderin.

[annagull]

67. That's my worry, too

Also the one about one thread for a topic. I don't know if this is the way I'd go.

[Skinner]

87. The use of asterisks in place of profanity will not be allowed.

The purpose of the profanity rule is to cool the rhetoric, and increase the chances of fostering good discussion. Simply swithcing "M*therf**king" for "Motherfucking" doesn't cut it.

However, please note that there is an exception written into the to the profanity rule for our political opponents.

[John_H]

62. Damn. And you almost had it nailed.

The proof is in the pudding. When checked back after hearing about the new rules, I hardly recognized DU--there were actually discussions about issues, policy, and political strategy. The trolls, hacks, and disruptors had apparently seen the handwriting on the wall and took a hike. The results were astounding.

With the new wimpified, Green and Rethug coddling revisions, y'all will now have the pleasure of "uninflamatory" dem bashing, or more accurately and even more fun, psuedo-uniflamatory dem bashing and then huge arguments about what the definition of inflamatory is.

Check GD. A few of 'em are already back.

Guess we're just bound and determined to allow ourselves to help out the folks who want us to lose in '04. You guys are eventually just going to have to decide whether this is a board for people who want dems to win in 2004 or not. You almost got it this time, but almost don't count in politics. Best of Luck.

[Skinner]

88. Read my explanation in the first post closely.

You will see that we still have a great deal of power under these rules to deal with inflammatory crap.

[Sephirstein]

66. Awww...I still liked my section 2 compromise...

RULES TO START DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recent or current event, on a recently reported news item, or on a recent article or op-ed piece. If you are referencing a published item, you must include a link to the original article.

2. Unless you are a bashing Joe Lieberman, if you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support.

3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden. Naturally, this rule does not apply when discussing Joe Lieberman.

4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate or the Democratic party candidate is Joe Lieberman.

5. Discussion threads which paint supporters of any Democratic candidate in a negative light are forbidden, unless they support Joe Lieberman. Even then, they need to be corrected as opposed to insulted.

[mandyky]

73. So, when and where do we vote? I say yes,

at this point anything would be an improvement, and hopefully help elevate the civility factor on this board.

[bearfartinthewoods]

74. "at this point anything would be an improvement"

this is one of the scariest sentiments i hear lately.

[NashVegas]

76. A Big BIG NO

It's wrong to curtail the posting activity of those who aren't abusing DU because of a dozen or so people whom are repeatedly a) starting and continuing obvious campaigns to promote their preferred candidate and undermine support for another and b) promoting obvious campaigns at disruption in general. Come on, we should all be smart enough to recognize marketing tactics when we see it.

It's not that difficult to spot who the main offenders are. The posts should simply be deleted, threads locked, and on their refusal to get a clue, tombstoned.

On edit:

Oh, and here's a fun coincidence - two days ago I started putting the offenders in my ignore list. About 14 people. When I open any of these flame provoking threads, there's a whole lotta "ignored" in there.

In this thread, debating DU rules, there's a grand total of one post that has the 'ignored' indicator. I also notice the absence of two posters who I am considering putting on my ignore list for their grandstanding, but haven't yet.

Doesn't that tell you that the people who are doing this pretty much don't give a damn about DU in the first place and are only using it as a tool?

[hexola]

77. The problem is the General D Forum itself - you have 15 forums! use them!

I think you should drop "General D" altogether...

The fact that you have this category alone is attracting a cetain type of poster...if you've broken it down to 14 other categories then there should be no "General D" forum needed. I don't expect the banter here (General D) to rise much above the DU Lounge level...perhaps your expectations are too high...

I have to be honest - I never read the other 14 forums...if you just dropped "General D" altogether...you would certainly force people to read and post in the other forums. I doubt I would quit reading DU!

At least...enforce the use of the other forums somehow...be a bit more agressive moving threads to their proper topic...the General D forum allows people to skip one step in the thinking process. I'd say half the Subject lines at any given moment in General D could be moved to another forum.

seems like these rules are trying to fix the symptoms of a greater site concept/scaling/moderation issue(s)...

[arwalden]

79. Will The Voting Booth Have An "Undecided" or "Abstain" or "No-Vote"Option?

Or will it be Yes/No only?

I imagine that there are some folks who are genuinely undecided who might not vote at all... but if there were a "no-opinion" option, we'll have a good idea on who's aware (but didn't care)... or who was following the issue, but just couldn't decide.

I think it would be interesting to know how many folks don't care one way or the other.

If you were to make it a "no-vote" option, then it would still be simple enough to declare a "majority-rules" decision (since casting a no-vote isn't really a vote, right?)

-- Allen

[Skinner]

89. No.

If you want to abstain, you can just abstain.

[StopThief]

80. OK, It's Wednesday. How do I vote?

nfm

[Skinner]

90. We'll start a poll later this morning. (nt)

[blondeatlast]

81. DU is not a Constitutional Democracy, YES in this corner

I have been leaning to NO since the beginning, but as I read through the arguments and the increasingly more clarified statemnets of the new rules, my vote will be yes.

Here's why:

1. If we let things in GDF continue to deteriorate, if we allow an increasingly "anything goes" attitude to prevail, we open the doors widely to being Freeped. This is why a "flamepit" (my example is always the "Straight Dope" board) would allow the Freeps free reign.

Those who feel their "freedoms" on the board are curtailed will just have to take their keyboards and start their own progressive boards or go elsewhere. I'd be interested how long it would take before they start instituting the same sorts of rules!

2. There seems to be a lot of concern over Rule #5, which bothered me for a while too. After careful thought, I think it is quite clear and a good rule, I posted this already under the Rules thread, pardon me for repeating here:

Take the WMD issue, for example. This is purely for example, OK?

Evidence of WMD found, CIA says

Someone else WANTS to post the following:

Ex-CIA operative says WMD claim is faulty logic

It should simply go under the first thread because it leads to a more informed and balanced discussion.

If topic #2 becomes an entirely separate thread, the FACTS in both cases cancel each other out. The posters who DON'T believe weapons were found will post in #1 to argue down the story, while posters who DO believe the claims post in #2 for the same reasons.

It leads to more intelligent and balanced discussion to have them in one single thread, even though it will cause a great many hurt feelings at first.

I'm not an anrchist, myself. I don't believe we can expect humans to always be civil to other humans. My vote is YES.

Discuss . . . (actually, argue it, that's why I posted).

[kentuck]

92. That would tend to keep all the posts on front page longer...

For people that complain that their posts drop off too fast, this would help.

[starroute]

95. These rules are starting to seem totally ass-backwards

As I read through this thread, it's becoming clear to me that the core problem these rules are meant to address is that there are far too many useless or disruptive threads in General Discussion and this is clogging up the board. However, the proposed solution seems like shooting flies with a shotgun.

Clearly, the administrators started out by making a list of characteristics of those threads which were more noise than signal: vague headings, stylistic excesses, conservative trolls, vanity posts, and close duplicates of existing threads. And I agree, that's a pretty accurate list.

But at that point, the process went badly awry, because when you try to translate a list of characteristics into a set of rules, you get something like racial profiling. You've gone from noting that drug smugglers on the New Jersey Turnpike tend to belong to certain ethnic groups to randomly pulling over anyone who appears to be a member of one of those groups.

If even Will Pitt has to ask whether submitting drafts of his articles for feedback could be banned as vanity posts, something is very wrong.

I predict that if these rules are passed, the thoughtful posters with the most to contribute will be constantly self-censoring or not bothering to start threads at all. At the same time, the ego-trippers and disruptors will keep posting merrily away, slipping through as many as they can and keeping the moderators constantly hopping from side to side like cats after a laser pointer.

I would be much, much happier of the administrators merely said, "We are going to start deleting garbage threads. We reserve the right to define what is garbage, but here are some of the criteria we will be using."

I was inclined to vote for these rules at first, but that was because I didn't understand their real purpose. Now I am definitely going to vote NO.

[Maddy McCall]

96. Skinner, please tell me that all the hostility and namecalling will NOT

migrate to the Lounge. There is already a thread there this morning accusing Clark supporters of "cowardice," under the vanity heading of something like "Why I decided to stay" or something similar.

So will people be allowed to just post the same old candidate-bashing, name-calling topics in the lounge under a "vanity" heading?