WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL OPINION OF THE TEMPORARY POSTING GUIDELINES?

[Skinner]

Poll question: WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL OPINION OF THE TEMPORARY POSTING GUIDELINES?

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE BEFORE YOU ANSWER THE OPINION POLL!

Note: This opinion poll will remain open until 10:00PM ET Monday night.

For the last three days, we have had in place a set of temporary guidelines for starting discussion threads in the General Discussion forum. Thank you for your patience and understanding during this time. Now is your chance to share your opinion about those guidelines. But before you answer this opinion poll, I would like to say a few things.

1. Regardless of the outcome of this opinion poll, the temporary guidelines WILL NOT be made permanent in their current form. After three days, it is clear that the posting guidelines as they are currently written are unnecessarily restrictive. If we institute posting guidelines for this forum, we would only do so after making a number of modifications to address the various problems which you have helped us identify.

2. This is a non-binding opinion poll. You are not voting on whether to make the temporary guidelines permanent. The purpose of this poll is so that we can get your opinion about the three-day experiment which just finished. The administrators are not going to institute any rule changes based solely on the outcome of this poll. However, we will consider the results of this opinion poll before we make any changes to the General Discussion forum, particularly if the results show a strong preference in either direction. We would not make any major change to the General Discussion forum based on a narrow plurality of the vote.

3. I do not care strongly either way about this issue. I am perfectly happy continuing the status quo in the General Discussion forum if that is what people want. I don’t want to fix something if you think it ain’t broke. It is my opinion that the overall quality of discussion was improved by the temporary guidelines, and I consider that a good thing. But I also realize that the General Discussion forum is our most popular forum for a reason. The freewheeling, anything-goes atmosphere in here could be the very reason why people like it.

So, here’s your chance to let us know how you feel.

QUESTION: What is your overall opinion of the temporary posting guidelines, which were in effect in the General Discussion forum from Thursday through Saturday?

[sujan]

1. two thumbs up

The quality control is helping DU.

[Oracle]

90. As you show George Bush picking his nose...

[TahitiNut]

101. I guess the "ALL CAPS" prohibition is lifted, huh?

:silly:

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. Overall, they're fine

Especially the five sentence minimum. But since I like to curse like a sailor, I would favor swears in the subject line.

[cherryperry]

3. Yes, because IMO

the only 'swear' words are ethnic slurs, not 'coarse' language!

:bounce: :kick:

[Robin Hood]

4. You may be onto something.

"The freewheeling, anything-goes atmosphere in here could be the very reason why people like it."

Thanks for putting up with me.

[Oracle]

91. Here, Here...well said!

[JustJoe]

5. As others have suggested,

allow alerts on TV shows some leeway,
no five senetences at least.

[Clete]

6. Going to Catholic school, I got used to rules.

So if you had said that we had to have ten sentences and couldn't use passive voice, I would comply. However, some of the short posts can be very creative and I don't think should be discouraged. I do think that sometimes too many initial posts mushroom on one subject, especially when the Rovian trolls want to derail a legitimate discussion (abortion, gay marriage, religion, blah, blah).

A suggestion would be to let the DU'er with the most posts in his favor keep the discussion going and the rest would be locked in favor of that poster. Other than that I am always up for improving the quality of anything.

[Oracle]

92. It'll become an elite status forum...eeechhh!

[Clete]

99. Thats a point, but

it'll also knock the trolls back so a legitimate discussion can take place. I also thought that maybe the best post should be the one that stays unlocked, but that too makes it elite as only the best writers would get their opinions aired. So it is a problem, but fifteen posts on pro-choice vs. pro-life within a day is a drag too.

[ButterflyBlood]

7. didn't like them

a lot of posts under 5 sentences are quite good

[Robin Hood]

8. Your Howard Dean question was not worthy of a lock.

[Cha]

9. They're fine! I always think I'm not going to like something

like the hidden "post count" and then I don't even miss it. In fact it's better this way, no?

I've never started a "Discussion" but if I ever do those rules would be no problem.


I think, though, to save on megabytes or whatever they are called that DUers should try and not do "dupes"!

:-)

[Robin Hood]

11. Wow!! You got that many posts and never started a discussion?

Sorry, That baffles me.

[Cha]

29. Not everybody needs to start a discussion! I'm fine with jumping

into other People's discussions!

[Robin Hood]

46. That's cool.

But you have so many posts. I just can't believe that you never wanted to start you own. I don't mean to sound disparaging in any way.

[Robin Hood]

47. I duped cause it's buggin

[Oracle]

93. You should...you really have a lot to offer, zidzi

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

10. Lose the 5 sentence minimum

Reminds me of grade school. Quantity does not equal quality.

[RC]

63. Bingo! We have a winnerrr!

If a person posts whatever from another site, quite often the Subject line and a :wtf: can get across quite enough information about the starting post. Why a 5 sentence opinion on, lets say, another bu$h screw-up? We are mostly talking to the choir here, are we not?

I think the subject lines should be kept reasonable clean. And speaking of clean, the Lounge should not be accessible from the home page. We do need to think of the image we project here. Also removing the Lounge from the home page will in itself clean it up. We do have some stealth freepers among us working at cross purposes.

[qanda]

74. I do agree with this

I think a five sentence minimum is very limiting.

[TahitiNut]

84. While some manage to be devoid of both quality and quantity?

Color me unsurprised by the distinction-free low-Q/no-Q advocacy. :eyes:

[Oracle]

94. Grade school, exactly, that's what I thought of the past 3 days...

[CatWoman]

12. I love the new rules

establishes order.

We need order.

[Oracle]

95. I hated them!

[Rowdyboy]

13. The new rules have improved things...

I have no problem with them. Makes me think before starting a thread. I've never had one locked and would like to have it stay that way.

[Booberdawg]

14. Greatly improved the quality of discussion

and threads started to intentionally incite flaming. Some guidelines for intelligent discussion is not unreasonable.

[Bossy Monkey]

15. Have you considered the difference between guidelines and rules?

Perhaps a set of guidelines could come up on the posting page, just as the rules for posting on LBN do. The guidelines could be non-binding, just a firm suggestion, and you might also mention that many, many GD posts would probably do better to be posted on the other boards, particularly the Lounge and Elections/Candidates (hope I got that name right). Anyway, just a suggestion.

By the way, I couldn't vote on my first try. I got a message that said I had to be registered at the time the poll was posted. Backed out to the Lobby, came back, and it worked fine. Odd, huh?

[Rhiannon12866]

125. That's a very good idea n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

16. I thought that the guidelines were helpful and hope that you

will make some permanent rules about posts in GD. People griped about the rules for LBN and FA, too, but the rules improved those forums and GD is ripe for improvement. (Perhaps over-ripe.) Without rules, we'll continue being subjected to some inane one sentence posts. Having to write five sentences can help someone realize that they really have nothing to say on the subject and thus need not post.

I favor banning profanity from thread headers, too, because 99% of the time, a header that contains profanity comes across as very juvenile.

[Robin Hood]

21. How difficult is it?

Not to respond to a post that you consider lame? Hit the back button and leave it alone. What's with all the need for rules, rules, rules..

The results of this poll is becoming more evident to me that a greater percentage of DUer's are DINO's and not Liberals.

[blondeatlast]

17. Tain't broke; don't fix it. Between our own lefty radar

and the Mods, we handle GDF trouble pretty well. Freepers don't last long and troublemakers are easily ignored or put on "Ignore."

A noble experiment, but overall, unnecessary.

[Skip Intro]

18. Is there no alternative? (a vote for freewheeling discussion)

Evidently there was some situation which existed that made some think such new rules necessary. Is there no alternative way to deal with that situation?

I've been here for a little while, not nearly as long as many duers, but other than some disruptor problems, I hadn't noticed a problem so severe that more restrictive guidelines were needed. Besides, the don't feed the trolls thing, along with ADMIN's vigilence, seemed to keep that problem in check. But maybe with the primaries coming and the candidate bashing, this seems needed...

Maybe its an underlying libertarian streak showing, but I like the more freewheeling, less restrictive policy myself.

Just an observation...

[Iris]

26. I miss profanity.

I love profanity when it's used appropriately!

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

32. Fucking-A nt

nt

[Oracle]

98. I use it when it's absolutely necessary ...like...

when I'm refering to that motherfucking asshole pig shit George Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Guidelines were fine if one likes Teutonic discipline!

I thought they sucked!

Using a shotgun to get at a fly is somewhat disproportionate.

[OrdinaryTa]

20. Unskilled Writers Are Left Out

The temporary guidelines call for five related sentences that argue coherently for a point of view. This leaves out people who are either unskilled in writing or who lack confidence in their ability to convey what they mean. The guidelines unintentionally have an elitist effect.

People who lack self-confidence may have important things to say, but the guidelines may make them self-conscious about how they say it. When we hear only from people who are skilled in English and confident they can make themselves understood, there's no way of knowing what we are missing. "Inelegant" should not mean "unimportant".

[Skip Intro]

Very good point

Kind of felt that way myself, but didn't recognize it for what it was...

[Robin Hood]

24. Oh Man, Did you hit the nail on the head or what?!!!

Absolutely, "Inelegant" should not mean "unimportant". Well said, bravo.


This could also be an accessibility issue. Such as disabled people that use Dragon naturally speaking. That program can take you a half hour to make one sentence, only to be locked by a mod. or how about someone with Carpel Tunnel, should they have to type more than they need to?

These rules are ridiculous.

[KoKo]

30. On some posts like announcing Polls or asking for information, sentence

limit is hard....... and in some other cases......but have to admit that not seeing so many "One line" fly by posts was nice.

Maybe something can be done to categorize that certain posts like "Poll Results," "Requests for articles" could be less than five sentences?

[Robin Hood]

31. The thing is..

Just because you didn't find that one sentence post interesting, does not mean that i didn't find it interesting.

[arcos]

54. I agree, sometimes people just look for info...

Or just want to post a news article (older than 12 hours) for others to read it, and perhaps start a discussion, such as in LBN.

[MrPrax]

51. Inelegant?

I am sure the one-noters no matter how disabled could 'copy' and 'paste' and put down a URL...
Afterall, M$ is business and that assumes 'efficiency'
Which should include ideas...I love Che and Marx and the defenders of the 'spew-bot' Laz-Boy reflexion guard...BUT
The threads should be interesting and anyone can contribute to an existing thread with as much effort as starting a new thread...
some of the topic in New News are fascinating and any MOD could take one and put it into a Forum 'query' that is lively and brings out the best in debate...

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. i have four stiff fingers on one hand with which to type. that's it.

if i can manage, i think the carpal tunnel people can tough it out as well. as to the speak/type programs, are you sure your description is applicable to the present versions? the ones i have tried work much faster than your description would lead one to believe.

[Robin Hood]

79. I used to have a disabled group of passengers ride my bus.

They were wheel chair bound. I'm the bus driver, I was taking them to the local community college where they were spending hours a day trying to program their computers to recognize their voice, and even after they had completed it, it was still a huge hassle.

I had my wife(she has Carpel tunnel)try out Dragon naturally speaking and she tried programming it for a few hours before giving up. It was frustrating and annoying to watch her struggle with it.


That is my experience with those tools.

[bearfartinthewoods]

87. you are very right about the set up

for the speak/type programs. it's an almighty hassle but once they are set, they work much faster than a half hour for a couple sentances.

[DagmarK]

38. The only way to learn how to write is to write.......

and that's the truth.

And if they are unskilled to the point where 5 sentences bars them from participating, then I think they should continue trying to get it right......

And I have seen plenty of posts with 5+ sentences that indicate unskilled writing abilities and that never stopped the person from posting...

[drdigi420]

64. I disagree

A lot of more intelligent posters can make their point known in less than 5 sentences. These rules were the opposite of elitist. They encourage people to be less succinct in thier language. This was a slap at the people who don't need five sentences to express themselves.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

76. I kind of agree.

I lack a lot of confidence in my ability to convey what I mean, so I know where you're coming from. People say I can write well, but I don't always agree with that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

86. If that were so. unskilled writers would never speak in more than a

couple sentences. Writing is merely speaking in another medium.

Frankly, I think this gives the unskilled writer an opportunity to convey what they might have if only pressed to do so, thereby empowering them...but then again, I hold out possibility that people can train themselves to think rather than subject them to a life of "unskilled writing" with claims of alienation.

I think calling someone an unskilled writer and implying it is an absolute or a CONSTANT is far more elitist...as though the world were divided into skilled writers and unskilled writers with no hope for training and development.

[Oracle]

96. Your a treasure...Cheers!

[FlaGranny]

114. People confident in English

often are able to get the message across with fewer sentences.

[greatauntoftriplets]

22. Please fix the early morning constipation instead!

My quality DU time is between approximately 5:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. 7 days a week. The site does not work then. I tried to post something in GDF this morning and the site went down. I gave up in frustration, even though I had obeyed all the rules.

[Elad]

25. The early morning 'constipation'

is an issue with our ISP. We are trying to get them to address the problem but it's taking longer than we hoped, trial and error sort of deal.

I plan on implementing a temporary solution that I hope will help in the meantime, but we'll have to wait and see.

[rasputin1952]

23. I have to admit that the 'guidlines' added a note of respectability...

but 'guidelines' can often become 'censhorship'.

Since the only censorship I can abide with is self-censorship, I am wary of such things.

However...at DU, I can not see the admin going to any extremes.

It was a good experiment, and perhaps we've all learned a little.

[Oracle]

97. Yes, correct, exactly... Jack-offs!

[Skip Intro]

27. If the dang "greens" would just join the "blues" we could beat the "reds"

LOL!

:evilgrin:

er, um, sorry...

[FubarFly]

28. They are too restrictive in my opinion

It is painful reading a thread where the poster is obviously struggling to get to five sentences. Often I think their initial thought is valid enough. Usually the short posts which are good are either FYIs, polls, or questions. In each of these instances, one or two sentences is all that is necessary. It is also very distracting to have to count the sentences in each and every thread myself, just to see if I should reply to it or not. I would rather focus on the content, instead of the context.

The excessive capitalization and quotation rules I can live with. Although I think they are usually caused because the General Discussion Forum is over-crowded. They are mostly a means to gain attention- sometimes deservedly so- in what is essentially a competive environment.
I think the Forum contains too much information and should be broken down into two groups. One for questions, polls, and alerts, and the other for "meaty" discussion topics.

The profanity rule needs to be clearly defined. Right now I believe it is far too subjective. Personally I don't believe words have power unless you restrict them. I hate it when words are forbidden or taboo. Personal attacks on others offend me, but I would rather hear them using "honest" language than smarmily codified language. Again, that is my personal preference. In general, I am more offended that the words are banned, than the use of the words themselves.

The only rule I fully endorse is that the header should have a relation to the subject. That's just common sense.

I love this site, and would not take the time to post this if I did not care for DU a great deal. I appreciate and respect all of the great work that is done around here. I'm even ready to put my money where my mouth is, and finally donate. However, I would much prefer a looser, progressive forum, than a stricter, regressive one. Hopefully you'll be able to fine tune the rules so that they will forment quality debate, while also being as unobtrusive as possible.

Thanks again for a wonderful site. Keep up the good work.

:toast:

[Pobeka]

67. I agree with this, especially:

"The excessive capitalization and quotation rules I can live with. Although I think they are usually caused because the General Discussion Forum is over-crowded. They are mostly a means to gain attention- sometimes deservedly so- in what is essentially a competive environment.
I think the Forum contains too much information and should be broken down into two groups. One for questions, polls, and alerts, and the other for "meaty" discussion topics."

And I would add that it would be useful to transfer a question,poll or alert type thread to the "meaty" forum if the thread gains that merit.

This was a great experiment skinner. I think we've all learned a lot. I'm all for the improved signal to noise ratio that I saw over the past 3 days. Some small refinements and I think you've got a winner!

:toast: :bounce: :toast: :bounce: :toast: :bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[mike_c]

33. I especially liked the 5 sentence rule....

More thought. End of post, way too early....

[MercutioATC]

34. I DO, however, fel STRONGLY about right-justifying the posters' names

and the post number. This new left-justified system is HELL!

[Poiuyt]

35. Mostly good, but a 5 sentence minimum is too much

As a writer, I was taught to be brief. Drop it down to 3 sentences.

[kentuck]

36. I think 5-sentence rule should be changed to 3-sentence rule...

The rest I can take it or leave it....don't matter.

[Merlin]

37. 5 sentence minimum is very good. Meaningful title also excellent.

GDF should be a place where really meaningful discussions can be held. The rapid pushing out of position of threads of significance has always bothered me. Particularly when they are dislocated by frivolous posts. The Lounge is meant for the more frivolous discussions.

There are some wonderful minds on this forum. We have some really important issues to be aired out. I learn from others on this this forum every day. These rules, imo, make it more meaningful, and require at least the initial posts to be thoughtful and meaningful.

Good work, Skinner, and the others who developed this idea.

[drdigi420]

65. wrong

5 sentence minimum does not force people to think, it just forces them to pad their statements.

Many intelligent ideas can be expressed in laess than 5 sentences.

The other rules I can live with.

[4dog]

130. Big second on meaningful titles!

I never read ones where I have to guess the topic. It's just page clutter. There are a lot of apparently stupid question titles too, some rhetorical, some provocative. I don't think you can legislate people to think, but it would be nice if someone can figure out how to direct these things to a different place - the query forum?

[stevedeshazer]

39. I really like them, Skinner

I want the quality level of discussion to be higher than it often is. In my view, all you guys are asking for is to think before you post. I've always tried to follow that model, although I have failed at times.

How tough is it to ask that you have a point of view you can support with a few words? Some blindly post like throwing crap at the wall just to see what sticks. I prefer a more reasoned approach to posting when it comes to starting threads.

Thanks for conducting the experiment, it was worthy and seemed to help focus the discussion more than usual.

[Divernan]

40. Puhleeze keep the profanity ban in place!

That rule and the one requiring five sentences detailing the reason/background for a post have produced a quantum leap in the quality and positive impact of DU. I don't have time to waste wading through the juvenile posturing/shock seeking/ obscenity laden , conceptual navel-gazing that was beginning to drown GD. One of the quickest and simplest ways for disruptors to destroy the effectiveness of DU was to swamp the website with at best meaningless blather and at worst, off-putting obscenity. I felt the quality of GD in particular, and DU in general was being materially watered down. Now, i think it's better than ever.

There are a lot of other websites for people with a need to vent their personal sexual shortcomings, frustrations, fantasies - as opposed to serious discussions of sex-related policy/political issues (abortion, discrimination, gay/lesbian rights to marriage/adoption/employee benefits for partners, etc.) It just takes one topic heading - like, How many times have you tried group sex? to permanently chase away first time visitors who wondered what the Democrats had to say on the war, the economy, etc. With 30,000 registered members and who knows how many more unregistered readers, it's critical to not waste DUs resources and the opportunity to debate with, inform and influence voters .

[Democat]

43. Joseph Lieberman would love a ban on profanity - think people!

This is not a place where people come to be treated like children. The people Democratic Underground should be appealing to are liberals, not conservatives!

If you want to go to Barney.com, go ahead. This is DU, we are trying to save the world, not trying to feel good about some purple stuffed dinosaur.

The idea that DU would even consider banning profanity highlights one of the problems that the Democratic Party is facing right now.

Some people have noted that we are becoming the unfun party, the boring party, the uptight party, and these new rules risk proving that this site wants to become the same.

Ridiculous!

[Booberdawg]

49. It's just the subject line

and initial post! It's not an all out ban on profanity. The fate of the Democratic party doesn't rest on being able to to swear in the first post of a topic posted on GD! Good grief!

This is not a place where people come to be treated like children, but it IS where some people come to ACT like children. Discussions with titles and initial contents intended to incite people and generate flame wars have no value towards "saving the world", as you put it.

You can cuss all you want later in the thread.

GEEZE!

[Democat]

41. The rules suck, please don't disenfranchise DU posters

The rules almost made it to where I didn't even want to visit DU until you got rid if them.

They are an embarrassment, treating Democrats like we are kindergartners, and I strongly warn against keeping them. You will be doing more harm than good and discouraging, rather than encouraging, more people to become involved in politics.

[Speed8098]

53. I agree with Democat 100%

I don't need the sentence police telling me how much I have to say, just to get other opinions.

Some people can post 20 sentences and not say a damn thing, but others can post 2 or 3 words and blow you away.

Society has too many rules, let's not start oppressing people here.

[CatWoman]

69. Yeah -- I kinda miss all those MEANINGFUL posts

that repetitvely took up half the page:

Turn of the television!!!!!!!

Guess what Tweety just said (even though there were already 10 Hardball threads going)??????????

Help unfreep this poll (even though there were already 15 of the same polls posted)!!!!!!

Yeah, bring back the good ole days :crazy:

[mopaul]

58. too many narcs up in here

ALERT! ALERT! A DIRTY WORD! A ROTTEN ATHEIST ATTACK! CAPITAL LETTERS!.....i've never equated all caps to actually yelling. i've never been offended by an email or thread with all caps. i don't get that one. but there's just too many outraged snitches here who slow things down and disrupt as bad as freepers.

[Judi Lynn]

42. Such intense elements are involved.

Having rules in place doesn't harm anyone at all. It encourages "team playing" and thinking of the greater purpose in participating in a political message board.

Exhibitionism, self-promotion can happen anywhere. Why not leave this place for people who are damned concerned about connecting with serious people who want the country to overcome this total setback?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. Overall good, you should increase the # of posts needed to start threads

Overall good, you should increase the # of posts needed to start threads as well

[jbm]

45. I'm just..

an 'anti-rule' kind of person. I'd rather tolerate a little chaos then increase limitations. When I first came to DU,my experience with message boards had been at places with very strict,authoratative type moderating,and those sites seemed to have a lot of problems with flamers and disruptors and people getting banned. It seemed to me that the rules weren't a reaction to the problems..rather the problems were the posters reactions to the rules. Every new rule not only made the posters a little less responsible for monitering their own content,but created a little spark of anger or hostility or rebellion or whatever that is,as well.

I don't think that the changes you guys are talking about would cause that kind of reaction. Nor do I think that DU will ever become a 'strict' site,but I think any new rules added to peoples lives for whatever reason should only be done when absolutely necessary.

[jfkennedy]

48. A good idea perhaps

I think it went well. But a few changes in the policy with the 5 sentence rule should be made. Such a polls. DU has polls but so do other sites, and the DU policy for other sites that have polls should not be subject to the 5 sentence rule.

And some articles can be written in just one sentence, and be a great article. Perhaps the censor should be given discretion if the article that does not have 5 sentences has social merit, it can stay on.

And any article that as a group people say should not be on because it offends the group should stay on as long as it has merit.

[Robin Hood]

50. Skinner, Could the five sentence rule be an accessibility issue?

I posted this in a thread above but I wanted to be sure that it was addressed.

"This could also be an accessibility issue. Such as disabled people that use Dragon naturally speaking. That program can take you a half hour to make one sentence, only to be locked by a mod. or how about someone with Carpel Tunnel, should they have to type more than they need to?"

We need to make DU accessible to all those who are interested in the Democratic message. We need all the friends that we can get.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

88. Wow you are DIGGING aren't you?

Django Reinhardt played some of the most incredible guitar solos woth only three fingers on his fretting hand.

If one can type 5 one sentence posts, one can type one FIVE sentence post.

I use Dragon to write major reports that are dozens of pages long. It takes me about an hour or two to do so. The program can translate at 160 words per minute once it is trained.

I typed this entire post with one finger on one hand in less than three minutes. I used my caps lock to cap the beginning of sentences.

If you respond, I will type my response with my big toe.

[Robin Hood]

100. And all disabled people are like you.

I'm sorry, i'm making an assumption that you are disabled.

[Kenneth ken]

52. I picked option 3

I like the underlying idea of making the original post in a thread more thoughtful, and expressive. It helps responders if the OP is forced to clarify their thoughts from the start. On the other hand, I came across at least one thread, which didn't conform to the temporary rule, but seemed a decent topic as it was originally phrased.

For myself, I have started only two threads that I can recall in the 20 or so months I've been DUing, so it won't make a lot of difference to me, whatever happens.

[CWebster]

55. If it isn't enforced with an unneccessarily clenched iron fist

it is a wise move to tone down the gutter mud-slinging and improve the quality of discourse.

[trumad]

56. So will California have a 200 canidate televised debate?

That was the title of one of my threads that got locked a couple of days ago...

My comment in the thread was "Just Askin"?

It was locked because the Mod said they wanted to improve dialog... :wtf:

I hate any adjustment of GD ... MHOP

[mopaul]

57. i love DU too much to complain

and the rules didn't bother me. my only problem is the small number of SNITCHES who are always hitting alert or ignore every time they see a word that somehow offends them. we are all adults here, and words can't actually harm you. but there are too many narcs and tattle tails and politeness police who think like the church lady.

there are so many colors here, so many diverse opinions, i hate to see anything censored or restricted, but, the mods do a great job trying to make everyone happy.

the religious threads always crack me up. the same half a dozen zealots always chime in and hijack the discussion and it breaks down into name calling and mind numbing dogma. but i enjoy them. and if a person is offended by hearing something negative said about their particular religion, they should not participate in such threads.
but they really are hilarious sometimes.

[Q]

59. I can't see that you're asking for much of a change...

...as I usually can't STOP at fewer than five sentences. Hell...I'm just getting started at five.

- The gentle push towards civility is also appreciated.

[UTUSN]

60. About "Quality" Since This Seemed to Be the Cutting Edge

Overall, I'm with the "if it ain't broke" crowd.

There's a continued assertion that (somehow) the temp rules actually DID improve the "quality" of the board. Without pointing to individual threads, on any day and time of the temp period on p. 1, there were (unlocked, compliant) threads about THE USUAL topics----favorite candidates, unfavorite candidates, heads-up on what talking heads were saying, speculation about CA, and IN DEPTH meditations on the many facets of Ahhhnuld (emphasis on "many", none on "facets"). In no way is this a criticism of GD----that's what it is and what I like about it, but it's about pooling intell, fellowship with mostly like-minded people, being "miscellaneous and about politics"----so, I respectfully ask, besides accuracy and proof via links and exact quotations, what's QUALITY (of "discussion") have to do with it? At any given time the vast number of threads are "info" type as opposed so some deep "discussion".

Objections are raised about how fast good threads are pushed off the page by "junk" threads. The problem is for the mods: Just as there are "frivolous lawsuits", there ought to be a concept of "frivolous threads" and Admin and the mods ought to be secure in their judgment calls to lock on this basis alone, a judgment call the way everybody has to make in their jobs and lives all the time.

The LBN rules for LBN make sense because they derive directly from the concept of what LBN *IS*. The Lounge is wide-open beyond being "NON-political". GD is in between, vaguer (besides being POLITICAL), but doesn't need to be so regimented as LBN.

The mods appeared to have been overloaded as it already was, with seemingly increasing numbers of dupes slipping by, "Alerts" that go without response-----I am NOT criticizing the Mods, am talking about the overload.

(Sidebar, allow me to apologize yet again for the frivolous threads and posts I have made myself. Unfortunately, I can't vouchsafe I can stop myself at the time they bubble up in me. Yet, I have sometimes put an "Alert" on myself the morning after.)

[UTUSN]

61. P.S. Liked #2 Best, #4 O.K.

The title-accurate-to-subject is GREAT. Who has the TIME to be suckered with misleading titles? This addresses the "frivolity" issue. But sometimes the misleading titles are designed to get people inside the thread for a serious topic. These threads should be either changed-titles or given a warning to change it.

As for no-profanity-IN THE TITLE-not-everwhere, it would help for the DU image. The title line might also be the place for the small curb on caps and exclamation points, but not everywhere.

The 5-sentences-------this ain't going to stop me from anything, but it is nitpicking and arbitrary.

[drdigi420]

62. I like all but the 5 sentence minimum

A complete idea that matches the subject line should be enough.

The 5 sentence rule only leads to 'padding'.

[Ivory_Tower]

66. My $0.02 (without having read all of the other responses)

Overall, the quality seemed to improve somewhat, but I agree that the rules are overly restrictive. I don't know how workable my suggestions would be, but:

(1) Easing up the language restriction wouldn't hurt (is "crap" really that offensive?) -- of course, defining what is and isn't acceptable could be a challenge, though.

(2) The five-sentence minimum should probably be reduced to four or three. Alternatively, there should be an allowance for complex sentences. For instance: "I turned on Crossfire and saw that My Favorite Candidate was on, making some good points about My Favorite Topic." is one sentence. To get three sentences out of that I see things like: "I turned on Crossfire. My Favorite Candidate was on. He made some good points about My Favorite Topic." To me, that sounds like it was written by a fourth-grader. But again, I suspect that a lot of the determination of what is an acceptable complex sentence would end up being judgement calls (and subject to a lot of complaints).

(3) And I agree with others that C-SPAN alerts and such should not be subject to such harsh scrutiny, but there still should be some sort of content requirement ("TURN ON CNN NOW!" with no descriptive text is absolutely no help, especially for those of us with no television :) ).

Good luck in whatever you decide to do.

[BiggJawn]

68. I'm a Big Boy. I don't go crying to Admin if I don't like something...

I take it up with the poster, or I (usually) blow it off. I DO hit "alert" when I come across something that smells particularly "Frp-ish" to me, though.

We have always had "guidelines" in GD, IMO. Where do gun and Israel threads wind up getting moved to? Mmm-hmmm...

[Terwilliger]

70. No Strong Opinion/Don't Know/Don't Care

No, really!

[Tyler Durden]

71. Politics is a rough sport: WEAR A CUP.

If for one minute anyone is under the delusion that the other side respects "Robert's Rules of Order" or "The Marquis de Queensbury Rules" then I suggest they try posting on FREE REBPUBLIC, go and bookmark NEWSMAX, and glue their TV to FOX.

These people do not care HOW they remain in power, through fair means or foul. It is time we all grew up a little: after all, WE are supposed to be the "grown-ups," NOT THEM.

We should all grow a thicker skin and utilize our own community to practice up for the bar-room brawl that the next big election promises to be.

Remember: REVOLUTIONS DO NOT HAVE RULES.

[UTUSN]

72. Yep, QUEENSBURY Made the Rules But Didn't Live by 'em n/t

[qanda]

73. I especially liked the no swearing guideline...

I think it takes much more thought and intelligence to find alternative words to say.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

75. The new rules are great.

Much much easier to really know what a thread's going to be about when you click on the title.

[drdigi420]

78. Mebbe you should poll each rule individually

I see a lot of support for some rules, such as the subject matches the content rule, but a lot of negative reaction to some of the sillier rules, such as the 5 sentence minimum.

How about a poll of each rule individually?

[Robin Hood]

80. Skinner, your poll is broken.

It only let's me vote once.

[UTUSN]

82. LOL LOL LOL n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. I appreciated the intent more than the actual rules

My reasoning is as follows:

1. Setting up the initial post without swear words for the reason you mentioned doesn't mean a flame-fest won't follow but it does force the person initiating the discussion to have a POINT for the discussion BEYOND instigation for instigation's sake.

2. In regards to the 5 sentence rule, I would substitute that the point for starting a thread must be made clear ( or some variation) Or simply rule out starting threads that say "discuss" without framing an issue. ( not to avoid discussion but to avoid obvious trolling) Perhaps a one paragraph rule would make more sense.

3. As regards live television threads which will be caught in GD more likely than in a lower forum and are of import, I would substitute that the thread must say WHAT IS ON...so as to reduce the "turn on cspan NOW!!!!!" threads that give NO info. I would simply require that the thread state the obvious...what's on capan that we should all switch to it NOW?

4. Dump the punctuation rule. It's shitpicking. Even if it isn't, it's too easy to interpret it as such.

5. KEEP the rule that one must state WHY an article is being posted with NO restictions as to the number of sentences. (i.e. Davis Horowitz articles etc.)

[ibegurpard]

83. I liked the rule about making sure there was a correlation

between post topic and subject matter. The rule about making 5 sentences in a topic was too arbitrary, in my opinion (yes it helps cut down on frivolous posting but it also locks out worthy topics that are short and concise). The rule about profanity should be limited to thread headlines, in my opinion.

[Scottie72]

85. I like them....

I think GD had/has become too much of a free for all. There have been several post appearing in GD that most likely should go into the lounge. I totally agree that if one cannot put together a post of at least 5 sentences or more to begin a thread one should really reconsider posting the thread or posting it in a different forum.

[G_j]

89. I know of no better place

on the web to seek links and information on issues imporant to progressives. DU is a powerful research tool. Just a single example, I needed some informationon cuts in veteran benefits so I simply posted," I need some good solid links on cuts to veteran's benifits"
..and I received all the information I needed. This question would have been hard to stretch into five sentences. My only worry is losing DU as a research tool if the guidelines don't permit a simple question or request.

[UTUSN]

108. I Know of No Better Place

'nough said.

[MGKrebs]

102. I have no problem with the rules because

GD currently is basically a catch-all for anything remotely political. My perception is that the other forums, such as Politics/Campaigns, Activism, Media, suffer from low traffic as a result.

I would like to believe that if someone had to post something that did not fit within some theoretical GD guidlines, they would just post it elsewhere. Perhaps we all (including me) would learn to look around in here a little more.

If it's a convenience issue,then why do we even have different forums at all? Just lump everything together with no rules. But that would be a mess. The different forums, I would guess, are an attempt to ADD to our convenience. We just don't use them to their best advantage.

Besides, we already have a "freewheeling" forum. In fact ALL the other forums would be "freewheeling" (except LBN to some degree.) I don't see what we would be losing.

[alaine]

103. I agree...

I'd like to see GD slow down a bit and have less duplicate posts. The 5 sentence rule may keep threads on the first page longer and lengthen the discussion on them, plus cut down on the # of times something is posted on in one day. I really hope the rule about expressing ones point of view about links on freep or fundie b.s. is kept if none of the others are, just so D.U. doesn't give disruptors center-stage repeatedly. I honestly haven't ever noticed all caps or exclamations or profanity in the headers as standing out from any of the other headers, but I guess they do.

My hope would be for any new rules to cut down on flame wars and disruptors. Why? Because when there is a lot of this going on here I have to consciously remind myself that these are the good guys; and it doesn't take much to change the tone of a discussion from hateful to helpful

[Snellius]

104. I miss a place for small tidbits and assorted junk

Sometimes there are little snippets of information, or jokes, or curious facts that are very interesting and valuable to share but are too minor for a full scale essay-type thread. I like the lack of garbage in the new clean house but sometimes you find the best stuff in the trash. I wish there were a place between GD and the Lounge.

[arcos]

105. I agree! n/t

[NashVegas]

106. Poor Skinner

You've had your work cut out for you tonight.

Your tireless devotion is appreciated, even by those who give you the workout.

BTW - the downside of this rule is that along side someone who has a relevant point to get across and can do it in 5 lines or more, it also favors those who have a spleen to vent over someone who just wants to bring a matter to others' attention.

[UTUSN]

107. Huh? But Besides That, Why "Poor SKINNER"? We Love Him

I wish *I* had so much love.

[jono]

109. Overall, I like them

I spent more time reading in GD than I have for weeks, simply because I found it more civil than usual. That said, I would advocate for the following tweaks if the rules should ever be re-implemented: lower the sentence minimum to four posts; create a new "Small Talk" forum specifically for article requests, poll results, TV schedule announcements, etc. that are short in nature and not necessarily intended to stimulate discussion; and keep the profanity ban only on the thread title (not the message) but define it (e.g., can't include anything that would be bleeped on prime-time TV). I appreciate your efforts, trying to raise the level of discourse while respecting the will of the majority.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

110. I think you have come across an unsolvable problem...

Firstly, anyone who has seen the few original posts I have made, knows that I have no problem with posting more than 5 sentences. Hell, even more than 50, would probably not be a problem for me. However, I do believe that it has a chilling effect on many people, and I don't think it will have the desired effect.

From what you have posted, it seems that the primary problem is the tone of the board. You, the admins, and, I would wager, the majority of us DUers would love for this board to gain a kind of credibility that makes it a worthy resource for studying liberal opinion. We want people in the media, government and academia to see DU as a good place to find out what real liberals are thinking.

But therein lies the problem: how to get at what we are thinking, without stifling the very thoughts that liberals want to share. As many posters have said sometimes a single sentence can have profound meaning, while an entire essay (not unlike this one) could be essentially meaningless. Or so it may seem.

To me, the noise, as some put it, can and does have a value all its own. Not EVERY meaningful post appears out of thin air, some of them have come on the back of what most people would consider rather meaningless posts. Sometimes, the noise IS the signal. But, the noise can and does drown out those gems when they appear.

I guess what I am trying to say is that by supressing the noise, we may end up supressing the primordial thought soup out of which higher thoughts can and do evolve. The desire to enhance the quality of the conversation could in the end result in a far less rich discussion that becomes hollow and worthless.

I believe that by messing with the dynamic in GD, we risk changing the very thing that makes this place so great. Call it the Chaos Theory of DU Discussion. A small change may have far more profound effects than ever intended or expected.

Another way of looking at it is that yes, forcing people to write a minimum of 5 sentences does force them to think about what they are posting more, but that second thought, could cause a valid thought to be disgarded due to the idea that it may not be worth the trouble. The fact is, that post itself may not be worth it, but the replies it generates could hold the gem that sparks a very meaningful debate.

So, as I said in my subject line, I believe the problem is essentially unsolvable. Getting rid of the noise may seem like a good idea, but risks throwing out the baby with the bath water.

So it's not a matter of how to go about cleaning up the debate (5 sentence minimum or quality of post guidlines for the mods or whatever) but whether cleaning it up is a good idea at all.

Perhaps, what is needed is for the DU mods to have the ability to pin threads that seem to be generating good discussions on the first page, like this thread is. So rather than supressing the noise, we tune in the signal a little better?

Like I said, not all essays are meaningful, but I hope you found this one to have a little meaning. :-)

PS - Have I thanked you today for DU? Oh well, it can't hurt to thank you again: Thanks to the all the admins for providing us a place where we can argue about what is noise and what is signal, and where we can express ourselves, no matter how meaningless that expression may be!

[Democat]

113. Good post, what about this idea based on your idea

And a good thought about possibly trying to give the "good" threads more attention rather than banning those that don't meet some arbitrary guidelines.

I know that some forum software allows user "rating" of threads. Each member is allowed to vote on how good a thread. Perhaps DU could use a rating system on threads and higher rated threads could rise to the top and lower rated threads would fall faster. With anonymous rating, it wouldn't cause fights and it might solve the "problem" better than making some rules that discourage people from participating.

[FlaGranny]

115. Yes, quality has nothing to do with quantity.

I'm still fuming over an excellent post someone made that was 3 sentences long. The post was intelligent, to the point, and took up 3 lines of space. The poster could easily have made these 3 sentences into 5 or more by using simple (grammar school) sentences, instead of college level, compound, and well-punctuated sentences. I'm still angry when I think of that post which was immediately locked.

Instead of requiring 5 sentences to get rid of inflammatory, useless posts, why not ban inflammatory and usesless posts?

I can go along with most of the other rules, but I must say that using a lot of foul language does make the poster look crude and, I guess, by association, DU. It doesn't bother me personally that much - it just shows that the poster is not very good at expressing himself/herself if they can't come up with anything but profanity to express a thought. I use some 4-letter words myself on occasion, but if I do, you can be sure then that I'm really, really angry. Constant and everyday use of profanity greatly diminishes its effectiveness.

It is usually extremely obvious when a post is just flame bait, even before you read it, so, okay, ban those posts. Make people come up with subject lines that are thought out and informative, but not 5 sentence posts. Grammar school was a long time ago for more of us.

[Hubert Flottz]

111. It stopped several good topics!

Things I wanted to respond to! It doesn't always take a bunch of extra words to get a good point across!

WET PAINT! * STOP! * SPEED KILLS! * WRONG WAY! * VOTE DEMOCRAT! * YAK CROSSING! * FREE BEER! Get the idea????????

[FlaGranny]

116. How about instead of "one-way"

Please don't turn this way. The other cars on this street will all be traveling the opposite direction. You might collide with one of them. The collision may damage your car. You or someone else may be injured.

[Hubert Flottz]

117. Fine, but by the time you read it all you'd be roadkill!

?

[FlaGranny]

120. I was just giving an example of how pointless

it is to make posts have 5 sentences when the point can be gotten across with fewer. I'm on your side.

[Mandate My Ass]

112. I'm not a prolific poster

so the rules didn't cause me to modify my behavior any great deal. However, even if I totally hated them,

1) They're temporary and therefore I'd deal with it.

2) More importantly, this is not my message board; I'm a guest here.

I'm a paid guest in several other places that don't provide the benefits/info/entertainment that I can get here and I wouldn't dream of challenging the rules there so I certainly won't here.

[UTUSN]

118. Not Prolific, But Your Posts Are Gems and

at least once gave me the chance to have this punchline: "Thank you, Monica_L-------Gee, I never thought *I* would ever get to say that."

[Mandate My Ass]

119. ROFL!

Tea just squirted out of my nose when I read your post. How's that for a gem?

[leftofthedial]

121. I think some guidlelines are apporpriate, but

I think the mods should aggressively move GD threads to the specific forums where they logically belong (Politics and Campaigns, The Media, Activism and Events, etc.).

These other forums are grossly underutilized. Typically at any one time there are more discussions related to these specific topics in GD than there are in the specific forums. DU participants (like me--mea culpa) are lazy and just go to GD for eveything.

Is it possible for the mods to be more proactive about moving threads? Is it possible with the software to have a generic most recently posted threads forum that shows the newest topics, but then once you reply to the topic you are actually in the specific forum?

Still, all in all, this is the greatest place on the Internet and Skinner and the mods do an ancredible job. Thank you.

[Skinner]

122. You might have missed this...

Is it possible with the software to have a generic most recently posted threads forum that shows the newest topics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=latest_threads

[leftofthedial]

126. thanks. I use thesw latest threads to decide which forum to click on

I meant more of a forum style presentation of them, but you're right. THat's the same list of topics. It just seems not to get people into forums other than GD and the Lounge.

All in all, some kind of guidelines for GD would help.

[Love Bug]

123. I'd like to see stricter rules in Late Breaking News

Way too many non-politics related postings there that should either be in Editorials or the Lounge. I think too many posters are more concerned about being "first" than whether or not the posting should be in Late Breaking at all.

I'm all for keeping the limits on General Discussion, too. The 5 sentence limit is a bit arbitrary, but it does make the poster stop and think a bit before hitting that button.

[The_Golden_Child]

124. Overall opinion

Overall, my opinion of the temporary posting guidelines is that they should not be permanent.

[Blue_Roses]

127. Sometimes it's nice

to have mature debate without all the hype. I like the "thought" that was required in posting. Took out alot of the crappy stuff. However, it is nice to be able to post off the cuff when emotion hits!

[sweetheart]

128. no no no . keep voltaire's pure free speech

I am all for taking down a disruptive troll, but the loss of our ability to chat freely is impinged. Swear words are in the eyes of the beholder. You are restricting the artists craft and as a writer i ask you not put a hard restriction that i might use the word fuck in a headline for effect when it seems appropriate.

What makes this forum powerful is its tolerant censorship. When you censor your inspired writers when they swerve a bit from the road, you'll drive them off your forum. I like a huge tent, and i personally love distrupters, as open civil argument is really the best, and it upsets me censorship that restrains the artcraft of this new emerging writing genre - the chat tree.

[Starpass]

129. Skinner--Starpass, here, da' old broad ,the one who has been with

you from the beginning--and don't fucking underestimate what I have to say. I didn't even read the contents of this post but just want to pass along a "life type" experience thing....Son, do what the fuck you know in your soul is right. You are a Dem or a liberal or a Green or something like that, correct--otherwise why in the hell did you stand with those signs at Bush's installation--and that is where I saw your message??? Then you must know something. You have like 30,000 fucking people coming here. Obviously---quite obviously--not all of them post. The reason you put this site here (unless I totally was b.s'd by you, BUT I have a way of judging people after 58 years and I don't think that of you or Earl in any way shape or form)is you want thinking people who care about this country to fight the forces that are attacking it. Skinner, in order to do that, you have to let the "juices" that are pent up in the frustrated people of this nation flow. You cannot greet them with silly rules of grammer, punctuation, or verbal content. They need to speak in whichever way they wish to (and I've seen senile old fuck heads and 15 year old kids here)....or this place will become the policed realm of the "church ladies" and it will die. All of us are SICK of being told in this nation to SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET OVER IT AND GO AWAY. We don't need that again. Open this up to everything BUT those who are here to destroy the website with it's liberal/Dem/Green movement and let them speak. We have been "sensored" ENOUGH. We have had ENOUGH. We need to speak. You may lose some "church ladies " (and I'm a fucking Christian died in the wool church lady, too). But you will gain people who feel free to "speak"...a precious commodity in this scum nation and in many of our lives.

[UTUSN]

131. You ROCK n/t

[Skinner]

132. FINAL TALLY

Overall, I liked them (207 votes, 54%)
Overall, I did not like them (124 votes, 33%)
No strong opinion/Don’t know/Don’t care (49 votes, 13%)

Thanks for sharing your opinions. I am locking this thread.

Skinner
DU Admin