Post questions about the new rules here.

Despite the fact that we have a pop-up right in your face, some people are already testing the limits, and paying the price for it. If you have questions about these new rules, post them here and I'll try to respond as best I can.

Rules for the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum

In our continuing efforts to provide place where progressives can discuss issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect, we have instituted a few rules for the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Rules for posting anywhere in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum

1. The moderators have the authority to remove any post of any kind, which they consider to be contrary to our goal of civil discourse.

2. Criticism of Democratic primary candidates, their policy positions, and their campaigns is permitted. However, extreme and inflammatory attacks against Democratic primary candidates are not permitted. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether an attack is extreme and inflammatory. Inappropriate attacks include, but are not limited to, the following: Attacks involving swear words, long strings of negative words, comparisons to Hitler or Bush, unflattering graphics, etc.

3. Posts about the "messenger" rather than "message" are categorically forbidden in the GD: 2004 Primary forum. You may not make any statement whatsoever about another member of this message board, unless it is unambiguously positive. You may not post anything that is insulting or rude to any other member, even if it is extremely mild.

4. Broad-brush statements about all or some of the supporters or opponents of any Democratic Primary candidate are forbidden. Don't paint people as disruptors or cult members.

5. When discussing any Democratic presidential primary candidate, please refer to that person by their real name; do not use any rude, condescending, or otherwise inappropriate alternate names for any Democratic presidential primary candidate. When discussing a broad group of supporters or opponents of any Democratic presidential primary candidate, do not use any rude, condescending, or otherwise inappropriate alternate names for them. Forbidden nicknames include, but are not limited to, the following: "Deaniacs," "Clarkies," "Kerry Haters," etc.

6. Signature lines relating to the Democratic primary must be unambiguously positive. You may not use your signature line to attack any Democrat, either directly or indirectly. You may not use your signature line to compare your candidate to another candidate. You may not try to bypass this rule by posting a "fake" signature line directly into the text of an individual post.

7. You may not post any material from extreme right-wing sources, specifically WorldNetDaily.com, Newsmax.com, FreeRepublic.com, and their ilk. Material from more "mainstream" conservative writers or sources, such as The Washington Times and Fox News, are permitted as long as the post includes a clear warning about the source. (For example: "WARNING: Please note that this article is written by George Will.")

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.

9. Stay on topic.

10. Do not use excessive capitalization or excessive punctuation in any post.

11. 11. You may not post in this forum if you have accumulated more than 4 moderator warnings since 12:01AM, January 15, 2004. Our software automatically blocks people who don't meet that standard. If you create a separate username in order to bypass this restriction, or any other restriction in this forum, you will be banned from DU.

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum

1. If you start a thread in this forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether a thread topic is inflammatory.

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

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock similar threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

5. Thread topics which violate these rules will be deleted rather than locked, and the thread's author will receive a warning.

Sorry it had to come to this.

Can we get a clarification on the profanity and swear words issue? A couple times threads have been locked when they contained swear words that were part of a quote.

For example, when Clark said he'd "kick the shit" out of anyone who attacked his patriotism. Are we, in fact, allowed to use profanity as part of a direct quote?


Second, I presume Drudge is still an acceptable source, right? Some people think he shouldn't be, but even though he's personally right-wing, almost all his stories are links from other sources.

Thanks!

Drudge would be covered by this rule:

Material from more "mainstream" conservative writers or sources, such as The Washington Times and Fox News, are permitted as long as the post includes a clear warning about the source. (For example: "WARNING: Please note that this article is written by George Will.")

Because not ALL of his stories are from other sources. The "world exclusive" one from today, in fact, is an out-of-context, old news anti-Clark smear.

So I guess to add a corollary, what about Drudge "original" stories?

(I would imagine the stories Drudge links to would depend on the source itself, i.e. if Drudge is linking to WP, it's fine, if it's to FAUX, it needs a disclaimer, if it's to Newsmax, it's not allowed?)

DTH

If someone comes up to me and claims that Gore says he invented the internet, I'll roll my eyes, my voice will raise, I might froth at the mouth a little bit.

I'll shout the truth. I'll ask why so many people don't understand the truth. I'll ask why it's so hard to understand. I'll ask, "You're smart, why don't you understand this?"

And no one on the left will fault me for my reaction or my questions.

But months and months after Dean made his cockroaches comment, people are still getting it wrong, and suddenly the same reaction is taboo.

I love posting here, and I appreciate the efforts of the mods. But we have people being deliberately obtuse or beligerent and it's the reactions that get caught. I'm not leaving the board until I'm banned, but I'mreally sad that I'm going to be banned like next week because I reserve the right to get worked up.

How can you or anyone presume what is in the heart of a person?

Why is it wrong to be frustrated at repeated, deliberate misinterpretations?

n/t

let's take the Gore/internet example. There are ways to express the frustration - that don't violate the rules.

First keep in mind that the person who keeps refloating the internet story - isn't going to be phased by your reaction - so the reaction being civil or uncivil shouldn't be your point (just try to reorient your perspective)... instead ... make your point being to be "on the record" (eg on the thread) expressing frustration that the story continues to be floated even though it is disproven. There it is for others to read.

Second I think that expressing that one is frustrated - not by the poster - but by the situation - can be stated in a civil manner.

In fact, and Skinner can correct me if I am wrong, I would guess that the following post would work...

"Gore and the Internet... again"
Bear with me a moment as I vent frustration at how frequently this story is repeated - but without the full context. Folks may recall that Gore had been a member of the X committee that had authorized the funding of the computer based networking system that served as the beginning points for the internet. He didn't claim he invented it, he claimed to have participated at the inception of the technology that eventually evolved into the internet.

Sometimes it feels as if the context of Gore's statements have been lost in history as the hyperbolic story continues to float around as subtle and not so subtle ridicule. It gets frustrating to have to repeatedly give the context. However I will keep repeating it - everytime the issue comes up - just to make sure that folks reading have the whole story.

the nickname myself and some of my fellow Dennis Kucinich supporters have coined for ourselves: "kucinich kids"

while it is a nickname, it is our name for ourselves...

thought i'd ask first

thanks for your time and efforts!

ever consider a career in the day-care field Skinner?

i'm thinking by now you are more than qualified :)

one love
spike

(edit because career has only two "e's")

But the moderators will not remove your post if you are using these terms to refer to yourselves.

Just curious, because find it annoying, personally.

If the mods decide that it's "contrary to our goal of civil discourse" then they'll remove it.

I'll hit 'Alert' and see what happends. :)

IMO, they weren't the problem. Sure, a few freepers came in and started a thread and got tombstoned, but 100 times as many were genuine Democrats who contributed much to the conversations.

Just my opinion. Sorry you had to do this. :-(

Maybe I can reconsider.

Not to beg or anything. ;-)

I respect your decision, whichever way you go on this. I understand the position you were in.

Thanks for this forum. :thumbsup:

I lurk more than I post and some of the most egregious violations have come from people with high post counts.

Being a newbie or infrequent poster is not synonymous with flamer.

The only way this site will remain vital is through an influx of new voices. Instead of discouraging new people we should be welcoming them.

Now that I had the daylights scared out of me (the new GD 2004 rule page popped up when I hit post and I panicked for a sec)

Ahoy maties, it looks to me like you're trying to play "hall monitor". No Insult intended but come on guys! You don't have the time or the personal energy for that...nobody does!

Listen, people will fight and will even get nasty. Part of being an adult is dealing with that LIKE an adult. I admit I fall short of that once in a while, and generally I'm embarrassed as all get out when I do, but you know, the more you censor the more games we play.

Let people tell each other off over things, within adult reason... for example "Why are you acting so dense about this?". An adult knows how to respond to that. I think my question is are we doing each other any favors by playing dutiful parent/babysitter?

The singular rule should be "Act like an adult and you'll be treated like one. Act like a toddler and you'll be treated like one.", imho.

my editing window is long closed.

I was sort of in a hurry when I posted the above, and it comes across as heavily critical of the DU staffers. I didn't mean it that way.

Honestly, I'm working as a board Admin elsewhere and holy moly, it is not an easy thing to do! The gist of my post was please be careful about making more work for yourselves than is reasonable, for the sake of your own sanity.

I've run across so much criticism lately that there are days I just want to pull my hair out and run screaming from the keyboard. I can't because I accepted the responsibility of dealing with these things.

Even so I hope Skinner and all DU staff know when to pull the plug on clear-cut defiance just for defiance's sake, and I hope you all aren't driving yourselves completely off the deep end.

Letting new posters participate with a zero tolerance probationary staus, one mistake and they're locked out until they reach 250? I really do agree with jchild on this one. Either way, better days ahead.

IMO, it wasn't just the posters under 250 that were the problem. It was people who (shockingly) have been on DU for a long time and had post counts over 1000.

manage it.

A poster with less than 250 MUST have a star! If a disruptor is intent on fouling the board, at least make him/her pay for it!

Some of the better posts in last few days came from relative newbies.

He had low post numbers but was such an immediate asset to DU. I would hate for someone like him to be unable to post. Maybe a lower threshold perhaps?

I have a question about this rule.

"5. When discussing any Democratic presidential primary candidate, please refer to that person by their real name; do not use any rude, condescending, or otherwise inappropriate alternate names for any Democratic presidential primary candidate."

Does this include referring to Democratic presidential primary candidate Clark as "republican" "repug" repuke" "bush-lite" etc. etc.?

Teh "nicknames" rule is for situations where the person doesn't use the candidate's name, and instead uses a different name, like so:

"Weasley Clark is going to lose in New Hampshire."

But it doesn't cover this:

"Wesley Clark is a weasel."

The rule you need are these two:

1. The moderators have the authority to remove any post of any kind, which they consider to be contrary to our goal of civil discourse.

2. Criticism of Democratic primary candidates, their policy positions, and their campaigns is permitted. However, extreme and inflammatory attacks against Democratic primary candidates are not permitted. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether an attack is extreme and inflammatory. Inappropriate attacks include, but are not limited to, the following: Attacks involving swear words, long strings of negative words, comparisons to Hitler or Bush, unflattering graphics, etc.

I think that under those two rules, calling Wesley clark a "repuke" would certainly be forbidden. But calling him "Republican Lite" might be allowed. It depends on the context.

We need to get you a 'digital cattle prod'. :evilgrin:

Good one. :-)

Skinner,

Could we refer to something that somewhat has posted as, (for example), a "bonehead reply" ?

Some of us like to chide each other, knowing that we have differing opinions. We seem to respect each other, we just don't agree on candidates. We've gotten to know each other well-enough that a smiley face or something like that in the post tells us we're just poking each other.

sorry.

:) :)

It would be much like the scene in the movie "Ruthless People" when Bette Midler's character (Barbara Stone) was calling Danny DeVito's character (Sam Stone), a "stupid-son-of-a-bitch" and "you-cocksucker" and then immediately 'apologizing' to him --- claiming that she was 'forced' to say the things she actually meant.

I could see the same thing happening here. Every genuine, heartfelt and angry insult would be immediately followed by smiley faces and </sarcasm> tags. They ought not be a free-pass for handing out insults under the veil of "just kidding".

This is a wise decision.

-- Allen

Perfect characterization--the movie, I mean.

sometimes, I think of a somewhat witty sarcastic response to something... is there a way to post sarcastic comments?? can I specify I'm joking if and when I am?

I don't anticipate this is as being a problem, but it's always nice to know the official position of the mod's of site. I'd rather hear if from you guys here, than getting a post deleted or something.

thanks :D

Sorry.

:)

but it's not actually *in* the signature line, we consider that a "fake" sig line.

If someone types a sig line into their message, then that's a fake sig line.

Keep up the good work.

It's a pain in the ass for dial up users to turn off sigs and still have pages load slow because of fake sigs.

And have admired the Admins & the Mods for the job they do here. I may not always agree with them, but I sure as hell respect them.

I think This primary season has been worse than others for the simple fact of what we have sitting in the White House right now & alot of people think only their candidate can beat him. Well I will say it once again I don't care who the nominee is, he will get my vote & I'll live to fight another day.

Sorry for the rambling heres my question.

Does the appeal still work with General Discussion: 2004 Primary, or is it soley left up to the moderators? Sorry if it has been mentioned, I must have missed it.

The mods are human, and they make mistakes. Posts get pulled accidentally, or the mods misunderstand what the person is saying.

Of course, if you know in your heart that you were trying to be an ass when you posted something, please don't appeal it if it's removed.

even more accusations of moderator bias, since the mods have so much leeway now? I have not seen any evidence of bias and I'm sure that the mods will continue to do their job in a fair way, but maybe with these new rules others won't think the same way. You may have to crack down on any accusations so civility is maintained. Treat it as a more serious offense than something that just gets a warning.

I thought the mood was getting better here under the old expanded rules. I like to help out the mods by alerting on things that I think need their attention, and I had been alerting less - but I still like the new rules. Thank you for them. One more question: should I alert on those "drink the kool-aid" posts? Those always seemed uncivil to me but were allowed before.

It's damn frustrating, but I can live with that.

"kool-aid" posts are not permitted.

that you're creating a ton of work for yourself and the mods with very little upside to be gained? How many times down in Ask the Admin have you had to respond to people asking why their post was deleted? Since you made the new rules the number of those posts in AtA have at least quadrupled (you dont know how bad I've been trying to work that word into a sentence lately!).

Isn't having to babysit us a huge headache? Wouldn't it be easier to make GD2004 an Enter At Your Own Risk type of place?

More and more rules just creates a feeling of resentment towards yourself and the mods,and in the case of the rule against newbies posting is just plain unfair.(You dont have to tell me that it's not the newbies causing problems...I was a main offender myself).You have rules within rules (the Drudge subject brought up by DTH as an example) that you're going to be constantly having to explain to people no matter how clearly you spell them out.

I guess I'm just asking if you think all the hasle is really worth it,and if it wouldn't be easier for all involved to have a forum where kids will be kids?

I'm fairly doubtful that the hastle is worth it.

But I am here to serve the people who pay my salary, and they seem to think that it is possible to make this place better. I will do my best to make it happen.

But I'll tell you one thing: It's not possible to write more fascist rules than these. So if this doesn't work, I think we will have all learned something.

is that it's easier to control monkies on acid :D

However, at the same time I suspect the content will be really superficial. I think you made the right call on this, though. There really were only two ways you could have handled this forum without it driving everyone managing it nuts...either extremely strict or totally uncensored. Both have their disadvantages. I hope this works for you.

I also think you should keep the 250 post rule. It doesn't take all that long to build up that many posts, and it would be good for new posters to get a feel for the other forums first. This might actually help polls be more accurate as well, especially if you don't allow IDs with posts under 250 to vote.

I can not begin to list the ways in which I am appalled by this. I thought this board had too many rules in the first place ("excessive" capitalization or punctuation for example?). I sincerely hope you ditch this stuff as quickly as possible before our enemies start making Stalin jokes and any interesting people flee this site. I'm so disappointed and infuriated. Things were fine, if a bit totalitarian. Please, in such an important year, let's not waste another minute fighting such a losing battle. Ashcroft's assaults on personal freedom and free speech are primary reasons that I am a Democrat right now.

is that anything you have to say, can be said civilly.

Such as...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=645899

We could use a little levity actually.

Maybe what we really need is something that locks people out of the 2004 fourm every 30 minutes and forces them to go to the lounge.

Could be a winning formula.

I'll be good,I promise!!!!

Just letting you know.

not trying to be an ass...honest.

i feel very positive about the decision that inspired it but i need to know if it passes muster. thanks

Here's the rule:

6. Signature lines relating to the Democratic primary must be unambiguously positive. You may not use your signature line to attack any Democrat, either directly or indirectly. You may not use your signature line to compare your candidate to another candidate. You may not try to bypass this rule by posting a "fake" signature line directly into the text of an individual post.

It doesn't look "unambiguously positive". It's arguable that it's about the primary. Based on our previous discussion, I'm leaning toward no. But I'm not going to make a final decision right here.

it's a pledge to myself to retain my integrity.

:eyes: permittable?

Let's say a person gets a post deleted but they feel it was misunderstood and so they appeal but the appeal is denied. So now they have two demerits. I realize that it's a judgment call by the Administrators but the reality is that someone could make two abusive posts with actual intent (unlike the first person) that were more severe and without appealing, they'd have only the two demerits, the same as the person without intent. So I was wondering if it would be possible to delete a post without the demerit for more minor petty infractions? For example, if I was deleted for saying Skinner that's not too smart (alerted because that implies Skinner is dumb) as opposed to saying FU Skinner you rotten bastard! Right now if I understand correctly, the demerit would be the same, which is why I think there should be perhaps a third level where the punishment fits the severity of the crime. Would this be too difficult?

Otherwise, the rules seem fine if applied evenly and fairly, which I'm sure the good mods of DU will do. :)

However, you will get a second demerit if your appeal is deliberately rude to the admins or the mods.

Currently, we don't wish to create a class of rule violation which seems to be "approved" by the admins because you don't get it on your record.

That makes sense though, thanks.

my sig line?

...because the woman that dated Kerry donated to Dean. :)

this woman donated alot to Dean and decided to send the rest to Kerry

Is it ok or do I need to change it?

Sounds like you were thinking about supporting Dean, but then decided he wasn't good enough and chose Kerry.

It seems to be that part of the problem is overreporting of supposedly inflammatory posts that are not really inflammatory.

Just take a look at the posters who are constantly in the Ask Admin forum complaining about the posts of others. I would assert that these people share a common characteristic. Can anyone tell me what that is?

Hopefully, those of us who honestly don't know won't drive you nuts. I thought I'd ask before posting a link to an article there.

It's certainly not extreme right wing.

It's an article about the Democratic establishment (or lack thereof). It went a long way towards helping me understand some of the ideas behind the "movement" talked about by Dean supporters. I thought it might be useful in helping some others to understand more what they are talking about when they bring up party leadership.

If you're not sure, just type this at the bottom:

WARNING: This is from the Washington monthly. I don't know if they're a conservative source or not.

i don't keep track of papers since i only read nationals on line.

He's a liberal.

:shrug:

DTH

I want to applaud Skinner and all the Admins and Moderators for doing an exceptional job under trying times. I know these new rules are designed to support the majority who voted for enforcing more civility in this forum.

That said, I do believe the majority voted incorrectly and I'm not an inflammatory poster or even rabidly partisan, I don't believe.

Here are my reasons:

1) it's a discussion board and places like this shouldn't be afraid of controversy. After all, a handful of posters were typically responsible for the VAST majority of all inflammatory threads.

2) we're democrats and censorship rules seem so, so, er, Republican in the Delay/Rove tradition.

3) Skinner and his team have enough valuable work to do without being dragged into referring the playground.

4) new posters shouldn't be discouraged from participating. Many people are only now waking up to the election as the primaries grow near. It's sad that they must feel excluded.


OK, NOW a question for Skinner. If this workload becomes too onerous will you consider putting the question up to a vote again rather than simply overtax yoursel(f)ves?

I'll either put 'em up for a vote, or else I'll just scrap them myself.

I think I'll have a pretty good idea about whether it's worth it after a few days.

I think the rules are fantastic, and with a few days of vigilant moderation, the 2004 Primary board will be a credit to the forum and the party.

I like the idea of allowing newbies to post until they've proven inflammatory. Maybe there should be a "three strikes" policy for anyone, new or old - three demerits and you're not allowed to post in 2004P until you've accumulated 200 demerit-free posts elsewhere on the board.

One clarification: is it okay to refer to people deadset against a certain candidate as 'certain candidate' opponents, as long as you remain civil?

Just dont' call them "candidate haters".

In part two you say no comparisons to Bush are allowed. The problem with this is that Howard Dean made his whole campaign about calling the others "Bushlite" and even marched next to a sign that said Kerry = Bush. Well, to refute that perception I and some others point out that many of Dean's conservative positions over the years as governor are much closer to Bush than any of the other candidates.

How can we effectively make that point, or use Dean's own accusation that the others are "Bushlite" if no comparisons are allowed?

And you can compare them to bush.

But if you're posting "Kerry=Bush" then you've gone over the edge. And if you try to claim that any of these candidates is as bad as Bush, or worse than Bush, then you are crossing the line.

We now forbid *any* comment that is uncivil, whether its about a person or a candidate.

What is "uncivil" regarding candidates? I ask this in view of what the candidates are saying about each other. Is it "uncivil" to refer to a candidate as pro-war or even as pro-IWR and pro-PATRIOT Act?

(As long as they are presented in a civil manner.)

There was some confusion on my part after I starting to post despite the fact that I read the rules and I thought I understood them.

I was about to start a thread about my concerns about Will Marshall's PNAC connections and his influence on DLC members as the creator of DLC policy. I was about to post the thread when this forum went down.

I just re-read it and (in my humble opinion) it is not negative toward Democrats and in fact I point out that I imagine many may not even be aware of the connection. I do name the 4 Democratic candidates who are currently members of the DLC, but I absolutely do not slam anyone.

If you like, I would be happy to let you see what I wrote before I post it. I would hate to have the thread lost if there is a line or word you would object to.

Thanks.

Just be civil about it.

but I have a couple of concerns. I do like rule restricting new people from posting here. I have seen some people come on here and rack up huge post counts in a few days. I have also noticed that these people often tend to be rather disruptive. However, given the time frame of the primaries one month may be a little excessive, and might be shortened a little.

The other one is post counts. I have noticed that there are some very long time members who have very low post counts. I've noticed some of them beginning to come out of the woodwork to discuss the candidates now that the primary season is beginning. This is something that I think should be taken into consideration.

On the system of demerits, I'm wondering if you might try doing the same thing that you did with the original system, ie, giving it a week maybe in which people can go through the learning curve and then doing an amnesty, after which the rules go into full effect.

These are my suggestions, for whatever they're worth, and thank you for the effort you've put into this place.

I think they are inappropriate for a progressive message board.

I am sorry about that.

Just kidding. ;)

We really appreciate the headaches you've been putting up with during all this. I hope you know that.

5. Yes. Dean's going to die with a lot of money. Eye of needle. Camel.

So I'd prefer if you'd just hit alert.

Based on what I see here, my guess is that it probably wouldn't make the cut.

EDITED BY ADMIN

Thanks.

Nothing has been done. It's been up a while now and building angry responses.

And sometimes the mods disagree.

and post totally off topic snarky comments that are clearly an attempt at derailing a thread and causing problems on an otherwise positive and peaceful thread? I'm already seeing where certain individuals are trying to skirt the rules of civility by posting one line digs totally irrelevent to the thread topic. This is disruptive, in my opinion, but I'm unsure what the admin position is on this type of behavior. I've already alerted a couple of these kinds of posts but want to get an idea if this type of behavior is acceptable, or alert-worthy.

Thanks.

Hit alert, tell the mods you thik it's off topic. They'll check it out.

That's one of the things that really, really chafe my bum. There is too much thread derailing by people who only seek to start trouble. I'm glad this can be countered. Thanks.

new rules (actually, I did it yesterday, because of the last rule change -- a little late, but that's why I did it).

Thought it might be helpful for mods to know about this (and I presume I'm not the only one).

In terms of behavior modification, in addition to completely avoiding discussions of messengers (and discussing only messages), I'm no longer using the ignore feature.

It's because I believe the new rules will eliminate the situation that always led me to using ignore -- getting into arguments which became personal, rather than about the issues (or avoiding outrageous arguments that were clearly driven by something I said somewhere else rather than the thing I was saying in the specific thread).

I hope that you are right.

It's requires much less work for human beings if the ignore feature is doing all the work.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I did the same thing this morning.

DTH

I want to do it with facts, and with humor, I want the subject to be the issue at hand and not me or the other poster. And I think the new rules help towards that end.

Skinner, this new effort you are making is only going to work if you crack down on the obvious disruptors. I started a positive, upbeat thread that is currently being hijacked with posts that are off topic. I've alerted on the off topic posts and I realize this takes time to take care of, but in the meantime those derailing posts are gathering up responses that are just ruining the whole thread. Although I agree there is nothing wrong with valid criticism of the candidates, people should NOT be allowed to just post criticism on totally unrelated topics. If this is allowed I don't see where the new rules are going to help one bit. I don't mean to bitch, but I have really tried to be civil and follow the rules and seeing this type of behavior is just so disheartening it's not funny. I honestly just wish you'd ban all those who choose to repeatedly behave like assholes and just be done with it.

/end rant

Okay, I'm taking my kid to basketball practice now. I need a break.

it's the case that people post "upbeat" topics as an attempt at puffery. You can't rephrase spin as an attempt at sunshine and light and then complain that people are raining on the parade.

Take the "17 things about Howard Dean" post. No doubt it's an upbeat topic. However, I think it raises some very interesting questions about class, wealth, Keynes, and ethics. They might not be fun to talk about, but they're almost definitely relevant to the piece.

And I think this why so many people expect me to perform miracles, when I am unable to do so.

You started a thread with a random list of good things about Howard Dean.

Some people who don't support Howard Dean decided to add to your list, but they added things that weren't so good.

This is prefectly legal behavior, provided that it is done in a civil manner.

They weren't inflammatory or disruptive. They just posted a different perspective.

I will never be able to crack down on this. It is unrealistic to believe that I ever could.

then every post would be a sunny post. EVERYTHING anyone wanted to say would be said by blowing sunshine up your ass.

and have the actual subject matter of the thread discussed without certain individuals hijacking the discussion and essentially ruining it with repetitive off topic posts.

If you actually read the article and interview you know full well that it is about the personal and private life of Howard and Judy Dean, NOT about policy or politics.

However, I think you missed the point I was making. There are some posts that were made that were totally off topic. The article and interview I linked to was an interview essentially about the personal life of Howard and Judy Dean. There were several posts made that were entirely off topic. The article was long and it's highly possible that you and the other admins and mods don't have time to read it. Bottom line...it's not about policy or even politics really. It's an interview that shows the Deans as a normal family.

That is why I'm frustrated. The criticisms have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual article and interview. That means they are off topic, doesn't it? :shrug:

:kick:

even changed the rules again to be less draconian......I don't think those of us who were "FOR" rules change wanted to penalize new posters to only 250 and waiting a month. But, he's changed that and is trying to be mucho fair....

So, we need to read this, to see where he was coming from and that he listened when he felt it might seem too harsh and to hard too deal with.

:kick:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While looking for something else (natch! - I am easily distracted) I came across two threads (pg6) with interesting sounding titles that I might want to add some thoughts to. I wondered why they had fallen so far from the active threads. Then I saw they were both locked. Curious, I decided to take a look.

The first had been locked for reason of being "deliberately antagonistic". I did not see anything antagonistic there at all.

The second had been locked for "excessive punctuation". Well, the thread title was a question followed by 4 question marks. Hmmm. I often use double or triple question marks when my question is more showing puzzlement than being a direct question. It is a habit I have formed over time. So I could easily have titled a thread like that myself. It was a good question, and a good conversational thread. But now it is locked and fallen out of circulation.

That made me come to this thread to see if I might find an explanation or a complaint about those two threads or a complaint about the thread-locking.

btw - these were apparently locked by two different moderators.

I guess I don't have a direct question for Skinner. But I do feel this is pretty excessive. I would hope the moderators could ease up a little.

Unfortunately, we feel that we have no other choice but to institute a "zero tolerance" policy.

Not sure if this will work either. But it's worth a try.

My team is red hot, your team ain't diddly squat?

tee hee hee

But you can't. The mood is so toxic, that we have lost all sense of proportion and sense of humor.

Yo' mama is so fat, when she goes to a restaurant the occupancy sign says
350 people or
Yo' mama

Can I say that?

tee hee hee

Yo' mama is so old, Jesus signed her high school yearbook?

Thanks.

thanks for all of your hard work.
Turra

I appreciate it.

The part where I list my candidate preferences. I'll gladly change it if I need to :-)

It does not fulfill our criteria of being "unambiguously positive."

:-)

i clicked on a thread and alerted on a couple personal attacks before noticing the thread had been locked at the poster's request. will those alerts be considered? i'm thinking yes, since they were violations but i'm not sure. thanks

Even if a thread has been locked, the mods can still go back and delete rule violations.

Candidate Clean is not running to win. I'm not going to speculate here on why he is running, but it certainly is not to be president of the USA.

But if someone is referring to a canddiate as "Candidate Clean" then that is a violation of our rule against nicknames.

If someone posts something like that, hit alert and let the moderators decide.

I made up Candidate Clean for illustrative purposes rather than going with Clark or Dean. I didn't want to start a flame war. The statement is posted routinely about Kucinich and seems to stay despite alerts. However, I suspect a double standard in that if the statement was made about Clark it would be self-evidently imflammatory because a flamefest would immediately ensue. Which begs the question, is a statement that is imflammatory about one candidate similiarly imflammatory about another? A more common occurence with which you are already grappling is Joe is republican light, Clark is republican light, Dean is republican light, etc. Methinks that if it is imflammatory with regard to one candidate then to be fair it must be regarded as imflammatory with regard to another.

This is a message board, and the purpose of a message board is for people to share their opinions. You are certainly not required to agree with the point of view that your candidate is not in this thing to win it. But I see no compelling reason to restrict people from discussing DK's possible reasons for running for president.

but I do belive that if I posted that Clark was not in the race to win and the only reason he entered the race was to increase his profile within the party, flaming would ensue . . .

For most of 2003, I also thought Clark was not in the race to win. I thought he was running for VP. Currently, I can think of at least four candidates who in my opinion are not in this race to win. If flaming ensues from my posting that fact, it is not my fault.

However, if I came up with a deliberately, ahem, *colorful* way to share that opinion, then my post is flame bait, and the responsibility for problems would my own.

for sharing. I felt similarly about Clark but no longer. Personally I think all the current candidates are in it to win (except perhaps Al). That doesn't mean they all expect they necessarily will in fact win. Rather they believe that it is possible that they could win, particularly if people voted for them. And that's what they are seeking -- votes.

But my real issue is not so much the merits of believing some candidates are not in race to win. Rather concern is posters who go to threads about DK and purposefully post off-topic statements about not being in it to win. Its not very sporting. But such is life.

Thanks again for your hard work with the forums.

It is very difficult to enforce. But in extreme cases the moderators do have the authority to act.

Last night I posted a quote of Wesley Clark praising Reagan, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in 2001, and it was pulled for being allegedly inappropriate. Why?

Your "quote" was from the Drudge Report, a well-known conservative source. We have rules regarding use of conservative sources in this forum.

The speech was on VIDEO for goodness sake. It's not like Drudge made it up.

Thanks.

This phrase got me a warning ... is this not accetable anymore?

You can't call any candidate a Republican.

or GOP Lite? What about Neo-Liberal? Or New Democrat? :)

Clark in a blue tie, a Dean supporter in post #15 posted this graphic of Clark. It was off topic and obviously meant to inflame.

I have alerted twice and yet it remains.

Does that mean I am free to go about Dean threads posting the second graphic of Dean off topic and at will?

posting. See the same thread, post #44.

I knew the answer, I knew the posts were wrong and have no intention of doing the same. I haven't even read your reply yet but I do see that the offensive post has been taken care of. Thanks. I tried very hard to be patient, and I will continue to try harder.