Should there be a GDP-like forum in DU3 and is the Barack Obama Group an acceptable replacement?

Should the Barack Obama Group be used as a replacement given DU3's enhanced moderation features?

The DU2 Barack Obama Group hasn't had a post in over a month (similar Democratic Party forums about the same low usage level):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=388



GDP has no stated additional rules.

There's so much going on in the world that having one forum specifically for national US politics especially involving Obama really helps.

On DU2 the group forum just is not a place for that; not the place for disagreement except from an accepted few whose loyalties are already well known. On DU3, it COULD be different and even sufficient as a GDP-type place if the hosts and regulars are willing to let that happen. It's honestly up to them given the powers granted in the new software.

I know there are some who are up for civil disagreement and those who want it just for support. Maybe if the latter group see more of the former they'll come to accept/appreciate its worth.

I think that people are used to posting all kinds of stories in GD. Right now I see "A Christmas Movie Recommendation for You All," "Skinner and Administrators appreciation thread," "Soda's Evil Twin: The Dangers of Fruit Drinks," (is that last one "policy"? And where else would it go ... to the lounge?) along with some policy and political issues, and a lot of threads complaining about the new DU site. T

hen we have General Discussion: Presidential, which has never been about presidential issues alone, but Congress, State issues, Supreme Court, as well as WH issues, plus a smattering of other stuff.

Put these already mixed-up forums together in one big kettle and it's going to get really diluted and mixed up.

As for the Obama Forum, I've never gone there, even though I am a fairly strong Obama supporter. There's really not a need to, because there are threads that discuss his speeches and policies in GDP. Otherwise, it's just like a fan club. I think a lot of people from there have mostly left, because of the general hostility towards the president here.

My main question is at what point (if ever) will the ability to bash the Democratic candidate (it's already clear that we have a candidate because there are no serious challengers) be curtailed? It's a delicate question now that the candidate is also the current president. But I hope we don't have to wait until after the Democratic convention in August or September to instate some sort of rules--at least one that says you cannot advocate for the defeat of the Democratic candidate. If this continues, I think the Democratic Party would be well advised to make this site change its name. I know that's a rule when I lived in Massachusetts: organizations and groups that contain the name "Democratic" in their title can't, for example, endorse a non-Democratic (say Green, or Independent) in an election. It became an issue for my group, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, when our local chapter toyed with endorsing a Green candidate for governor who happened to live in our town. It was simply not possible.

GDP has been very successful and it's absence is already plain. I don't want to be part of a fan club, I want to be part of a vibrant community, with a variety of opinions, that are expressed in a civil, and reasonable manner.

I think it's up to Skinner when we go into campaign mode, but I suspect it will be whenever the GOP has a de-facto nominee, which my best guess is February. It's looking like Newt and at that time it's going to be important to have a semblance of unity. I think many people have forgotten how united we were in the months leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election.

I think it's an acceptable use of the BOG group - a group for Obama supporters, but also for people who want to respectfully put their two cents in. We now have even more power to define the meaning of respect and enforce it. I'm against arbitrary decisions with no justifications and believe such decisions should be open to group purview.

That's the Democratic way:thumbsup:

The discussion should not be about Barack Obama the person. It should be about the Presidency--including all the executive agencies the President controls: Departments of State, EPA, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Justice, etc. To make it about "Barack Obama" is way too anthropomorphic to me. And it only exacerbates the situation we have here with people thinking the president is some sort of king who makes all the decisions, has imperial superpowers, and/or is responsible for things that are far outside his purview.

There is no discussion allowed on BOG, none. How could it possibly replace gdp?

I appreciate your reasoned assistance prior to your removal, Thanks.

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

We all need to let Skinner know our opinions on this issue.

GD-P needs to be one of the main forums,
not a group forum that is hidden away and hard to find and hard to get.

The BOG shouldn't be replacement for GDP.

If you think that there should be a forum dedicated to Presidential Political discussion exclusively you could propose that.

That forum would include all discussion, including those who don't support the President's candidacy or support it only as a marginly comparatively better alternative to Republicans, as well as those that support the President with more enthusiasm.

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

where discussion isn't allowed? Where kumbaya is the only song on the radio? Why does nobody really post in the BOG on DU2? Could it be because there is nothing to talk about? (Oh I read on DU3 the speculation that nobody posts there because...what was it? Oh, because too many disruptions.) I'm not buying it. If everyone on any discussion form HAS to agree with/on everything any one person says or believes, it is boring...especially a President. I am not saying people who oppose the president should necessarily be allowed to post anti rants, but must agree with EVERYTHING the President says or does...really? Help yourself, the crickets will take the place over in a month...I happened into the BOG on DU3 by accident, I'll never come back under any circumstances...(unless maybe the whole idea of appointing a dictator and repression of ideas is reviewed and decided to be anti-democratic and anti-progressive, as it is)

is beyond absurd so I didn't bother reading anything beyond that.


In the GLBT group they don't want to have discussions with people that aren't for same sex marriages, in the Gun forum they don't want to have discussions with people who don't share their particular understanding of the second amendment and so on. In the BOG and the BO(G) there are people who don't want to have discussions (at least while they are in that forum) with people that don't share a strong desire to see the President re-elected and admire his character.

That you can be strongly for the re-election of somebody and admire their character and yet not agree with everything he says or does is understood by most adults.

What is less easily understood is;

1) Why people like yourself who are so antagonistic to the idea of a BOG continue to end up going there. If that forum doesn't seem like a fit for you then why do people like yourself end up there? What is the attraction for you?

2) It is informing, I think, that while people object to a forum like the BOG because they are worried about mass deification of the Mr. Obama no one raises the same objection to the other groups that are formed by adherents of other Democratic politicians. No one is chastising the Denis Kucinich group for example. So it appears for some it is fine that other Democratic leaders have a group that supports them but only the group that supports Mr. Obama raises such an incredible level of animus and disruption.

Now that wouldn't be because he is left handed would it?

Why was I banned there yesterday? Because I didn't agree with one statement made by Obama while he was visiting my state, that's why.

That you can be strongly for the re-election of somebody and admire their character and yet not agree with everything he says or does is understood by most adults.

Apparently not by the leadership of the bog on DU3.

1) Why people like yourself who are so antagonistic to the idea of a BOG continue to end up going there. If that forum doesn't seem like a fit for you then why do people like yourself end up there? What is the attraction for you?

I got there unintentionally, by finding a link to a story in my state on the "latest" page. I wasn't aware that there was a place where everyone had to agree with the keeper of the club marbles...I found out otherwise.

2) It is informing, I think, that while people object to a forum like the BOG because they are worried about mass deification of the Mr. Obama no one raises the same objection to the other groups that are formed by adherents of other Democratic politicians. No one is chastising the Denis Kucinich group for example. So it appears for some it is fine that other Democratic leaders have a group that supports them but only the group that supports Mr. Obama raises such an incredible level of animus and disruption.

It's because nobody ever goes there on DU2. Posts made to the BOG on DU2 aren't listed on the "Discuss" page. As another poster put it, there has hardly been a single post in the BOG in 30 days on DU2...just as it will be on DU3 with the intolerant, dictatorship leadership over there..it will be a ghost town. I have supported and voted for Obama and will again. To post in the BOG I must agree with 100%...I don't and never will.

The only acceptable response to any policy decision or statement by Obama (or the #1 host for that matter) in the DU3 BOG is "+1"...how many of those do I need?

edit..Here's a link to the thread which resulted in my being banned. Is this your idea of a place where free and open discussion IS allowed?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/du3/110242

Ahhh, that explains the sudden interest in the BOG. It's been on DU forever and I've never seen you post there.

But I think I understand the sudden interest now.

What Skinner said on Tuesday...

Question from a DUer:
What is the equivalent of GD-Presidency on DU3?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=827775&mesg_id=827826

Skinner:
There is no equivalent.
But I think you will find that the Groups are much more active on DU3 than DU2. So, the Barack Obama Group or the Democrats Group might work well as a replacement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=827775&mesg_id=827902

in any forum or group which doesn't allow for discussion, I only post "+1" posts about 5 times per year. Check out the BOG on DU2..what do we see here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=388

We see that the last post was 2 weeks ago. The second post was last replied to 30 days before that. The 3rd and 4th post was 30 days before that. The 5th post was 3 months before that...there have been a whopping 5 posts in 6 months...not threads.....posts...:rofl:

Really, why do you think that is? We are talking about the Democratic President of the US' group on the largest, most active, all Democratic forum on the web. Couldn't have anything to do with not allowing discussion could it?

edit..Oh, and this oh-so-active forum suddenly has, what? 6 hosts? Really? :rofl::rofl: edit again..all with "super powers"? :rofl: Used to be 6, but host #1 didn't agree with hast #2, so host #1 took away host #2's host status...:rofl: Oh, man, I think I may have just crapped myself..

As well as the overuse of the :rofl: smiley? Is there a point to all of that?

And it has been explained over and over again exactly WHY no one posted in the BOG. And see that's part of the issue, the folks that actually did participate and supported the BOG on DU2 already know why no one was posting there.

Where has it been explained? Explained by whom? If the explanation is anything less than, 'nobody on a discussion forum is interested in a group devoted to not discussing, and banning anyone who tries to discuss', well, I doubt I'm buying it. Don't you see...Nobody participated on the BOG on DU2..nobody..even those who have planted their flag in the group on DU3 didn't participate on DU2..There have been a grand total of 17 posts for the entire year of 2011..posts, not threads..The thread with the most responses on the first page has 37 posts, that thread was last posted in November of 2010...nobody is there...it is a ghost town..what is the utility of that?

It is not my fault that either you do not know the explanation or do not understand the explanation. But it has been explained. And it was explained by the posters who actually participated in the BOG which was deliberately allowed to die on the vine in protest of the ridiculous amount of anti-Obama sentiment and propaganda that blankets this web site. Some BOG posters felt that this would send some kind of message to Skinner. I don't know why they thought that but they did. And thus people stopped posting.

Will you respond to this post once again talking about how nobody has posted in the BOG in x number of months to which I will have to respond ONCE AGAIN that there is a reason for that and that it has been explained 100 times?

Enjoy your time in solitary confinement, whistling in the echo chamber..

Those of you who have banned will just have to watch and see.

so I'm not sure what you mean by: "In the GLBT group they don't want to have discussions with people that aren't for same sex marriages."

While I suppose that's true as a generality, expressing anti marriage equality views is forbidden everywhere on DU, not just in GLBT.

Obama is opposed to marriage equality. So adding two and two is not so hard.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/du3/12401581

That seems to be what people want.

:fistbump:

Skinner hasn't even hit the "Make Site Live" button on DU3 and there is already more drama, bitching, wailing and moaning than an off-off-Broadway production.

People screaming about being "silenced" as if a web site is their entirety of their existence; getting a taste of "power" and getting all puffed up; being made hosts and then getting dropped for not understanding the rules, and then getting hot about getting dropped. I'm almost starting to get damn near as sick of DU3 as I am of DU2 already.

Just my word of advice. DU3 is basically beta-testing right now so some clashing is inevitable - this is what is supposed to be happening. But the elimination of a major trafficked forum is a substantial deal for some of us. I've never screamed about anything on this site; it's not my nature.

:shrug:

But there has been plenty of screaming, you can believe that.

And it's not the beta-testing that's the issue. It's people not understanding the rules for various forums and groups.

;-)

and it's largely, IMO, about people coming to GD: P to try and look down their noses at whom they label 'cheerleaders' and 'sychophants' and 'blind followers'. I saw a post like that just the other day.

Put everyone in the same broad space and let them own their disdain more in the open, as it were.

...it'd either get flamed or drop like a rock.

GDP has been around since 2003 because people got sick of the primary stuff being in GD. The title has changed several times since, but the basic division of content has remained. I have think skin and can take a primary war, or flame war, I can choose to participate or not. What I'm going to miss is the dedicated space to the Elections and their result.

Just my opinion...

My guess is that biggest factor will be posting traffic. If soapbox becomes unmanageable like GD by itself was before GDP, then something like GDP will be back. I personally will be splitting the material I generally OP lately such as Obama speeches and cartoons between Good Reads and the groups.

Thank you for bearing with me, I've loved this forum since 2003.:hi: