Let us have difficult and controversial discussions as long as they are substantial

I have seen moderators reacting too forcefully to kill important and serious discussions. In such case, I find the moderators seem to react to protect their own political agenda or position, instead of objectively facilitating meaningful discussions on the board. That is anti-democratic crack down on people who are deeply concerned about the democratic party's ability to address the future of our society.

I propose we institute a "cop watch" program to evaluate complaints about moderators overbearing actions. Or some other ways for us to give our input in how to moderate certain difficult discussions. I do not want DU to become a totalitarian organization with tons of "unspoken" taboo. Those "taboo" will kill democratic vitality in DU, weaken true political capacity of Democratic Party, ultimately American democracy.

Let us allow most of our "controversial" discussions, as long as they are substantial. And people should have a say in its evaluation of "substance", not relying solely on moderators' reactive judgment, as they also can not escape human subjectivity on hot issues.



Thank you for your consideration and kind attention.

Just stick to the DU rules, and the moderators won't hassle you. Just click alert on any post and you'll see a handy list of the rules they are enforcing.

- Personal attacks, insults, name-calling, or questioning the character or motives of other DU members; discussing DU members rather than ideas.
- Insensitive (bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping) toward certain groups of people.
- Disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
- Harassment, threats, or advocating harm/violence.
- Expressing intent to not vote or vote third party, or justifying defeat of any Democratic general election candidate (unless a - non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative).
- Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats.
- Graphic content.
- Wrong forum or group.
- Forum-specific or group-specific rule violation for forums and groups with special rules.
- Inappropriate source or link.
- Copyright violation.
- Spam.
- Inappropriate signature or avatar image which could potentially distract attention from discussions.
- Interfering with forum moderation.
- Other (Please explain).

(And by the way, welcome to the "DU cop watch" program -- it's called "Ask the Administrators.")

I don't think we have ways to give our evaluation of mods judgment.

A "cop watch" you propose is like a police department doing their internal evaluation, a program run by the "authority".

A "cop watch" program I propose is a community feedback mechanism about moderator's overbearing behavior patterns.

I don't know if your community have a local cop watch program - but a cop watch program we have in Denver is run by citizens who are most likely policed, discriminated, targeted. We need to have our voice heard, not cracked down every time.

If supporting another members' attempt to get his/her discussion to go forward is so dangerous thing to do in DU, I don't know how we can move our national discourse to address our acute needs for progressive causes.

Thank you for listening....