Should DU be Purged?

What I'm thinking is a two step process:

1. Change the rules for what constitutes an acceptable post at DU. Radically change them. Raise the bar. Raise it a lot.
2. Ban, ban, ban. Kick the folks out who will not or cannot adapt to or learn the new rules. This could be 5%, 10%, 20% of current posters. It could be a lot of people. A lot of them will be Democrats.

The objective here is radical change. To change DU into something different. Indeed, to change it into something that could eventually attract many more folks than it loses because of the Purge.

Skinner will remember better than anyone his experience when he first opened DU and he was absolutely overrun. I still remember what he wrote about the experience of battening down the hatches and banning people left and right with abandon.

But this is Skinner's house, and he gets to choose who he wants at his party. Does he want to continue to let folks in the front door where the only requirement is that they wear a "Democratic Party" button on their hat? Once in his house and they start mingling, does he want to continue to let them stay when much of their activity seems hell-bent at simply ruining the party?

Ultimately, DU should be a reflection of the style, morality, mores, thoughtfulness, and intelligence of its owner. To the extent that it may no longer be an accurate reflection, I suggest that Skinner may want to consider a change.

Whose style, morality, mores, thoughtfulness and intelligence will be banned and whose won't? I think it would be presumptuous of anybody to make those decisions.

It's his house.

booting the people who are embracing Karl Rove and his tactics. Does the Karl Rove play book really belong in the Democratic party ?

I never thought I would see DUers embrace such slimy tactics. But here we are.

thx

I thought the Democratic party was a big tent party of many factions.

I can imagine a house party where you or any number of people could be mingling and respectfully debating and educating each other on a variety of topics. And the party's host would be pleased.

The primaries ARE a poison pill, but I think things will go back to a running pace once they're over and the REAL work is at hand...

i.e., moderator envy?

No, DU (read that as our admins) shouldn't select members.
Yes, members should face a limit of removed posts and other violations.
But, I think these measures are already in place.
Big Props to our Admins and Mods.
:thumbsup:

now that all primaries-related posts are relegated to GDP, the rest of the place is not so bad.

Just let the shit congregate to GDP, and let keep it there.

If you can't tell if a post is being used ironically, or sarcastically the mods should tombstone that person?

as much as i'd like to see that...i think they're talking about basically getting rid of the rest of us who won't be standard bearers.

That's what I'm not clear about. Are you talking about allowing only posts that give information or plot strategy? Would these rules apply to every forum or only GD and GD P?

edited for clarity

The inherent differences of a political forum notwithstanding, it would be wonderful if their level of discourse could be achieved or even approximated.

Ozymandius's (sp?) daily financial thread is a very good example of what could be a reasonable goal for all threads at DU. That thread seems to be self-policed, and I see very few junk posts there. In fact, I've only seen one there, and the poster was very quickly admonished.

Voting rights=disgusting
Karl Rove = insightful
Arkansas project - a good thing.
MSM - on our side.

It will change again soon (already changed once - from EU to OU)

can quite successfully eliminate posters they don't like by using the "Ignore" feature. "Hide Thread" works well too. It's a self selecting kind of censorship.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Whoever owns a site can do whatever they please with it, of course. But I wouldn't want you running for any kind of office, any position of power, anywhere. Purge, ban, kick! All for the greater good! You scare me.

Keep in mind that this is a private site. I'm trying to stick to the house party analogy, and that Skinner gets to do whatever he wants, and that the eventual outcome is a reflection of his tastes and desires.

that it is Skinner's house and his rules. I said as much, that's not the point. It's the "purge, ban, kick" mentality that I run away from. First they came for the trolls?

They make GDP really miserable sometimes. Fortunately I finally put them on Ignore. Maybe this is all is required.

On the other hand some posts that are allowed seem to be over the top Flamebait. Theses threads should be locked right away but many are not.

I think I would ban members who are really nasty and partisan.

Then others take their place. These primaries are something we all feel passionately about. There are bound to be volatile disagreements during this time. If we start changing the rules now, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot. Things will calm down. Patience.

I'm talking more about the next election. But that's a long way off.

It's really disgusting to come here for discourse and read a bunch of swear words.

But you'd by surprised at what an unpopular position that is.

But ignore is not always a good thing. If I had put a certain member on ignore the first few times they called me a racist, I wouldn't have been able to hit 'alert' the next dozen times they stalked me from thread to thread doing the same thing. That's the kind of member we can do without, imo.

It should also be mandatory for everyone to identify at a minimum the state residence. Possibly down to congressional district. It would also require that posters have their profile active.

Too bad it couldn't be programmed for each posting to have state abbreviation or country code if outside the USA of the poster.

:sarcasm:

"To the stocks with you!"

More :sarcasm:

It seems the GDP has been cut loose and given free reign.

One just has to laugh a lot of these silly posts (including some of mine). There are some good ones, however.

I think it's a actually a nice place for people to blow off steam. Unfortunately, people take these insults/lies against/about candidates too personally. But when things are a free-for-all, there's a nice sense of raw politics. We are a microcosm of the various messages of the campaigns (and their portrayal in the media). If one can get some distance here and a sense of objectivity, then the posts (even the most asinine and immature) can be quite revealing.

or whatever it is called.

We have heard many testimonials about people who just dared to post something against the orthodoxy of freepervilee and were immediately kicked out.

I do hope that DU does promote exchange of ideas. Yes, trolls get kicked out, as well as really abusive ones, though when I went back to read some posts of someone who, many were relieved, was tombsoned, I did not find any of them offensive (perhaps they were the ones that survived).

I have never used the ignore option, did not even know what it was for until I found comical comments from posters wondering what did someone say since they could not read it.

If you cannot stand a political discussion, yes, even the ones with a lot of innuendos, than you do not belong in this forum.

I do hope that Skinner et al will reject your suggestion soundly.

:mad:

you are going to get many different types of people. Lots of different ideas. Most good some bad. Personally, I think Skinner & our mods do an incredibly wonderful job as it is. Even with all the craziness right now, I would hate to see it change.

is that it suggests, through a mask of adulation for Skinner (thoughtful and intelligent), a gratuitous slap at same (he may be thoughtful and intelligent, but I can't understand why he lets all you stupid fucks screw up the place).

Here's an idea - as Skinner is indeed a thoughtful and intelligent man, how about we let him decide whether or not the site needs to be purged?

I don't get it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html
Make liberal use of ignore. Hit Alert if need be.

But GDP should be exorcised.

very subjectively...can't see how that can be done since what some people see as the "truth" about one candidate, the tohers sees as lies. Besides, hwo many moderators do you want to line up to enforce something at this level? and finally, the nature of posting (here and elsewhere) is that it's semi-anonymous, so people often post before thinking.

I say leave it alone, and just walk away from it from time to time.

and Lee Mercer X-Files into his house.

insinuating that they are traitors to the country. I believe in the freedom of speech. It is one of our most sacred rights (I use the term sacred because even in the Catholic church by canon law people have a right to express their opinions to the hierarchy without fear of censure, now writing and publishing is something else). Sorry for that, my point now: I was admonished and rightly so by a 1000 post DUer for calling another 1000 post DUer a troll because s/he called (and this the theme of this thread) all who were arguing forcefully for their favorite dem candidate, and, sometimes using expletives, "adolescent behavior." I did not apologize because of Bush and his administration's attack on Freedom of Speach. Just read Adam Kokesh's post on "Case Dismissed, Jan. 10, 2008" <http://kokesh.blogspot.com/>. Civics and civility have influenced the politics of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. In their view, we are nothing but ignorant adolescents who do not understand the decisions of those experienced in the polity of congress and the DU is just an exercise in SHARED IGNORANCE. I believe that our opinions, comments, reactions, and statements here on the DU have influenced the candidates and congressional representatives public discussion of the issues that concern us, our country and world. Take for example Wolf Blitzer's interview with Nancy Pelosi:

PELOSI: It had enough votes to pass, but it did not have enough votes to be heard, to be heard so that a majority, a bipartisan majority of the Senate could have sent this to the president's desk.

We have been trying to reach out as the American people want us to do in a bipartisan way to build a bipartisan consensus to redeploy the troops out of Iraq safely and soon.

BLITZER: You know your base is frustrated, really angry.

PELOSI: I'm frustrated myself.

BLITZER: The war continues and they say you should be doing more. And that's reflected in what former Senator John Edwards, the democratic presidential candidate, repeatedly says. He says this. He says, "Congress must stand up to President Bush and pass a funding bill with a time table for withdrawal. If the president vetoes that bill, Congress must send it back again and again, as many times as it takes for the president to finally get the message that he can't defy the American people." Why don't do you that?

PELOSI: I completely concur, but I just said to you, we did that. We sent it to the president. He vetoed it. Any further attempts to do that have been met by the 60-vote barrier in the United States Senate.

Now I'll be the last person to give you a civics lesson about what that means. But what it does mean is that the republicans in the Senate have now taken ownership of the war in Iraq. It's President Bush's war. And now it is the republicans in Congress' war. And that marks a big turning point for us because we had hoped to have bipartisanship in redeploying the troops out of Iraq, to do so in a timely fashion. Now we have a loss of life that continues, a loss of readiness to our military, which harms our ability to protect America wherever our interests are threatened. We have the loss of money.

BLITZER: So are you telling your angry base out there the Democratic Party that wants to see this war over with, wants to see the U.S. troops home that you as speaker, there is nothing you can do? You have to just throw your hands up and say ...

PELOSI: I didn't say that at all.

BLITZER: Given the legislative problems in the Senate and the president's stubborn refusal to back down, that there is nothing you could do?

PELOSI: How could you ever have gotten that impression when I have said, for those who pay attention, is that we will hold this administration accountable, time and time again for the conduct of this war in Iraq.

I don't have to discuss how we went in on the false premise. That's well known to the American people.

What we do have to do is show them every step of the way how the president is taking us farther down a path from which is going to be harder to redeploy out of Iraq.

BLITZER: But when you hold the president accountable, I just want you to explain what does that mean, besides just complaining and holding hearings? Specifically, is there anything else you can do?

PELOSI: Holding hearings and the oversight that we have on the corruption and contracting in Iraq, the hearings that we're holding and the harm to the readiness of our troops that the president is causing with his abstinence in this war in Iraq.

The retired generals tell us that if we want to talk about the stability in region and that's what we're trying better. How do we have a vision of stability in the region? Democrats are saying our vision for stability in the region begins with the redeployment of troops out of Iraq and the generals say you cannot have stability in the region until you redeploy the troops out of Iraq.

So what we are saying is now with what happened in the past two weeks, with General Petraeus' presentation and with what happened on the Webb resolution in the Senate, that republicans are committed to a ten-year war in Iraq with the highest level of troops presence there with permanent bases.

The democrats are proposing a redeployment out of Iraq, a greatly diminished mission there out of the civil war, protect our diplomats and protect our troops who are there, fight the al Qaeda and if we have to train the troops, if we have to continue to train the Iraqi security forces, it doesn't have to be in country. And it doesn't have to be all American. That can be done out of country.

So we are talking about a greatly diminished force there and a redeployment when safe and responsible within the next year. The president is talking about ten years. And then after that, a Korea- like presence in perpetuity. That's the choice.

BLITZER: And I just want to be precise. Impeachment, that notion which some of the base clearly would like, that's off the table.

PELOSI: I've always said that impeachment is off the table. This is President Bush's war. It's Vice President Cheney's war and now it's become the war of the republicans in Congress.

BLITZER: And tomorrow you are going to hear what the house speaker says about President Bush, the rest of my interview with the Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That will air tomorrow. Right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/25/sitroom.02.html>

<snip>

The two points: 1. Ending the war in Iraq using the power of the purse; and 2. Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, have been encouraged by so many here on the DU and not on any other blog or forum with such force.

My voice alone will not be heard. But the DU forum has given me the opportunity to share my thoughts and opinions abiding by mine and your sacred right of "Freedom of Speach," (yes with self-imposed limits, I will never incite anyone to violence or use racist slurs and language or make arguments ad hominem).

Enough said. As many say here on the DU flame away! And, I really mean it. It's your right to exercise your Freedom of Speech!!!

edited: oops, didn't give proper acknowledgment to the transcript of the Blitzer/Pelosi interview.

Personally, I like the wide range of views.

At times, it feels like I'm already preaching to the choir enough as it is.

Too much agreement leads to a boring website.

our nominee, and all the hootin' and hollerin' is from labor pains.

But the Lounge would win. :D

I can tell you from experience that a policy of mass bannings doesn't do anybody any good. The first moderating gig I had was back before "Al Gore's Internet" in 1992, when we still got on line via dial-up 33.6 modems to a DOS based BBS. This was on a "survivalist" network, so as you might imagine, some of the participants there put the Freepers to shame. To make things even more interesting, I was moderating the "religion" forum, and for a while, it was my liberal west coast ass against a collection of wackos ranging from Texas secessionists (yes, that was an actual movement in the 1990's) to racist Christian Identity "reverends" to an airline pilot from Alaska who wouldn't even open a checking account, much less hold a credit card, because banks were evil.

Obviously not the type of people I would associate with in the real world, but I can't say it was ever boring. Deleting posts was rare. Banning members even more so, and when it was done, it was done by a vote of those who hosted the network on their BBS systems.

Another board I moderate at currently has very few rules, and we ban very few people. Even mild disruptors are tolerated there, because the established members will kick their asses into oblivion for doing so. Of course, that board doesn't get nearly the amount of traffic that DU does, so I wouldn't expect Skinner to switch to that model.

Nor would I presume to tell him how to run his board at all, but only to speak from my own experience. Moderation should mean exactly that. On a political board, you're going to have heated discussions, especially when you have the current elected lineup of Democrats in office who don't always act in the best interests of those who elected them. Banning members for saying so isn't necessary, in my book.

We all know who the Freepers are when they log in here. Most of us even know how to point them out without breaking the rules, and the granite cookie usually follows within short order. So in my opinion, it seems like the system works.

Rule One — NO FREEPAHS!

Rule Two — No member of the Admins is allowed to mal-treat the trolls in any way — if there's anybody watchin'.

Rule Three — NO FREEPAHS!

Rule Four — Now, this primary season, I don't want to catch anybody not eatin' popcorn.

Rule Five — NO FREEPAHS!

Rule Six — There is NO Rule Six!

Rule Seven — NO FREEPAHS!



Crack a tube!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

You're taking a temporary situation and blowing it up into something bigger. The rules are fine. You have a lot of new people who haven't learned them yet. The mods give most of the new people time to learn the rules (the most obvious freepers are of course banned right away) and then if they continue to willfully violate them, at a certain point they get tombstoned. Seems like a good system to me. Are you saying that there are a lot of people who have been here for a long time that should be banned?

Isn't this one supposed to be for discussion about the Primaries?

I'm one of the loud screamers who often insists that any bigotry aught to result in getting tombstoned. But I understand it's a subjective call.

I think that those of us who deal more with civil rights volunteering and activism are better trained to recognize the ingrained and subtle examples of prejudice, and they seem more obvious to us than to other people. But lets face it, a whole lot of people who support civil rights have pretty blatant prejudices. There is often a disconnect between what people believe, and what they want to believe.
:shrug:

So, there are probably a lot of very good reasons for only tombstoning the people with the most blatant abuses.

Disclaimer: This does not mean I will suddenly start agreeing with moderator decisions when I see bigotry stay up on the forums. I remain a curmudgeon. :P

nt

Why not just remove the alert buttom from their posts, so as to bother the mods?

sorry...the "purge" notion was too hard to ignore...

I would never recommend this place to a fellow Democratic. I'd be ashamed of many of the slimy type posters that exist to bad mouth a fellow Democratic. At the way primaries are going...this race is going to be a LONG hard slog and I don't know that we can stand it. We're doing far more harm to our party than good. This place is soooo divisive and I'm tired of Republican (right off FR) being copied and pasted here. Time to stop and post something positive about our own candidate. Isn't that what DU was started for in the first place? :shrug: