Please comment: We may require campaign topics be posted in GD:2004

[Skinner]

Please read this entire message before responding.

Since the end of the primaries, we have not had mandatory rules regarding what should be posted in the General Discussion (GD) forum, and what should be posted in the General Discussion: Campaign 2004 (GD:2004) forum. Instead, we left it up to you to decide where to post. We felt that after the primaries most members just wanted the moderators to leave them alone. We hoped that most people would voluntarily post campaign stuff in the GD:2004 forum.

Over time, the result was inevitable. Everyone wants to start their threads in the regular GD forum, because that's where the eyeballs are. Which is fine, except now the GD forum is so busy that its usefulness is decreasing. New threads last only 10 minutes before falling off the first page. People are constantly posting duplicates. As is often the case, the attention goes to the people who scream the loudest, and lots of good posts are getting lost.

Here's what we propose:

I think we should no longer permit threads about the 2004 campaign to be posted in the regular GD forum. If someone posts such a thread, the moderators will quietly move it to the GD:2004 forum. We won't lock your thread, we won't give you a hard time; we'll just move the thread to the other forum.

This will have a few positive effects:

1. It will slow down the regular GD forum a little bit, and give topics a slightly longer shelf-life in there.

2. It will immediately increase the amount of traffic going to the GD:2004 forum. If people know that they have to go in there for discussions about the campaign, then people will start clicking on that forum voluntarily.

3. It will consolidate campaign threads in one place, and eliminate the need to duplicate postings across the two GD forums.

4. In general, it will greatly improve our ability to handle the expected increase in campaign threads as we enter into the campaign season.

We think that this simple change will make DU much more useful and enjoyable for you, our members. But before we go ahead and implement it, we'd like to hear your thoughts. Please take a moment to let us know what you think.

David Allen
"Skinner"
DU Administrator

[newyawker99]

1. kick

[stevedeshazer]

2. Works for me

I think the dupes are problematic, and this plan would probably reduce the sheer number of them.

[AwakeAtLast]

3. I think that is a well conceived idea.

Which makes the case to have a GD-2004 in the first place.

[Beaverhausen]

4. sounds good to me

whatever you say Skinner!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. I support that decision

It gives all threads a chance to live longer before being archived...and it makes sense.

[Walt Starr]

6. It's worth a shot

Especially if it helps keep things running smoothly.

[jay-3d]

10. you must be a liberal skinner

LOL, how many members now?

[Walt Starr]

19. ??????????

:wtf:

[Maeve]

7. What better use for GD:2004? Go for it! eom

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Sounds good to me.

:hi:

[Bake]

9. Depends on how you define "campaign topics"

Does that mean anything Kerry-related? Anything poll-related? There could easily be a lot of "gray" topics.

I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm just asking for more info.

Bake

[Skinner]

28. There wont' be a clear line.

For the next three months, everything is related to the campaign in some way. I am certain that wherever we draw the line is going to piss lots of people off, and we will inevitably get lots of "why-was-this-moved-but-not-this" complaints.

My hope is that most members will be able to decide on their own where to post. But when they don't (and many people won't), we'll have to step in and move some stuff.

Ultimately, it's likely to be a gut call: Would a reasonable person think this thread topic is about the campaign or not?

In practice, that likely means:

- Anything and everything about John Kerry or John Edwards would be campaign topic.

- Anything about Bush campaigning would be a campaign topic, but posts about general presidential duties would not.

- Anything about polls or electoral votes or campaigns or media coverage of said topics woudl be a campaign topic.

- We haven't decided yet whether to only include presidential campaign stuff, or to require discussions of other campaigns to be posted in GD:2004 as well.

When the complaints start pouring in, I'll just have to keep repeating, "It's a judgement call -- I'm sorry if you disagree."

[papau]

34. Good Luck! LBN will dry up a bit, but I think it a good idea.

:-)

[Skinner]

37. We woudn't change anything about LBN.

Campaign topics would still be permitted in the LBN forum. This change would only be relevant to the two GD forums.

[Maeve]

131. Could you make one exception with LBN? Drudge sludge

Please, please get the recycled sludge he prints to slam Kerry out of LBN!

[ibegurpard]

47. I don't know why anyone would get upset about it being moved.

Locked or deleted is one thing but just moved is pretty innocuous. I think, however, you're going to have some major headaches on your hands deciding what is and isn't campaign related.

[Generic Other]

52. Everything Bush does is about campaigning

"Anything about Bush campaigning would be a campaign topic, but posts about general presidential duties would not."

He uses Air Force One for campaigning, he calls campaigning "working vacation." He is always collecting money. Or slammng Kerry. How will we be able to differentiate between the candidate and the man?

I hate to see the Bush rants disappear completely from GD. They always brighten my day so!

Would discussion of the whole GOP convention be off GD then? :)

[Skinner]

76. Discussion of the whole GOP convention would be off GD.

But remember... There would be lots of traffic in the GD:2004 forum.

[TahitiNut]

78. "reasonable person"???

You called? :evilgrin:

[Redneck Socialist]

107. I share dbaker41's concerns

Not opposed to the idea mind you, but I do think you're creating a lot of work for yourselves. I think you're going to be very busy moving posts for a while and you will be fielding many questions and complaints.

If, however, it slows GD down a bit it will be worth it.

Good luck.

[wicket]

11. I'd like that

[redqueen]

12. Sounds good to me

Y'all are so democratic. Asking for input... you so rock.

[hang a left]

13. Excellent idea.

If you want LBN go to LBN

If you want to discuss the election go to GD2004

If you want general discussion go to GD

If you want to talk about nothing go to the lounge

[BeHereNow]

14. Yup, Yup, Yup...

Sounds like a splendid plan!
I have hoped for such a directive for some time now.
Thanks David!
BHN

[pmbryant]

15. I like it

Recently I haven't noticed much difference between the 2 GD forums; GD2004 seemed superfluous. This should fix that. :-)

And I also like the plan for low-key enforcement. :thumbsup:

Thanks!

Peter

[proud patriot]

27. Hi Peter

:hi:

[pmbryant]

38. Hi P.P.!

:hi:

I haven't been posting much the last few months, but I'm still lurking here regularly. (Even more so since the convention started last week.)

Peter

[gpandas]

16. good idea n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. I don't know?

It's certainly not as bad as it was during the primaries.

I think just cutting back on the duplicates would be better. Like the other night, did we really need 15(?) Obama threads?

[SW FL Dem]

18. Sounds good to me n/t

[nomaco-10]

20. I totally agree!!! Great threads are running off the page because....

of dupes and the GD2004 forum is definately underused. It seems to me that duplicate threads are constantly rolling down the screen because people are choosing to participate only because the subject title seems more intriguing or sensational (you can't judge a book by it's cover), or they may pick one over another because they are more familiar with the author's username. Many threads are started in reply to existing threads and all this is causing great threads to roll off the page at an amazing rate of speed and into the archives.

I know it would be alot of work for the mods, but it's getting to the point, it's frustrating as hell to try to post here anymore. You have my total support in doing whatever is needed to be done.

[psyntist]

21. It's the end of the world

But I feel fine.

Sounds like a plan, Stan.

[A_Possum]

22. Go for it n/t

n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. sounds good nt

[kaitykaity]

24. Great idea.

A couple of good posts got lost today because they fell
off so fast.

I was even thinking about trying to find a slower forum
because GD was moving so fast.

So thank you, :thumbsup:, good work.

[kentuck]

25. Would a post about the Kerry's hamster be considered GD2004 ?

Or something else ? :)

[Walt Starr]

30. Let the mods decide

If you post a thread about the Kerry hamster and you can't find it in GD, check GD04 because it was probably moved.

:evilgrin:

[Skinner]

31. That would definitely be GD:2004. (nt)

[Imalittleteapot]

26. Go for it. Great idea. n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Works for Me! (eom)

DTH

[Bluebear]

32. I'm cool with anything but what would GD be for?

Non-political topics?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. I don't see how you can avoid the campaign here in GD

I disagree. Too many issues come back to Bush etc....
As an example, look at how this "terrorist threat" became part of the campaign.

[Skinner]

35. You can't avoid it.

See my post #28 above for our thoughts on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2139830&mesg_id=2140027&page=

[NWHarkness]

36. That makes sense to me

[qanda]

39. What we really need is forum strictly for

What people just saw on tv-- that would kill a good number of the new posts in GD.

I'm not really serious, but it does get a bit annoying when people say they just saw something on tv and give absolutely no explanation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. Actual a 'real-time radio and tv commentary' forum isn't a bad idea.

imho

[Tweed]

89. There is a forum called MEDIA

It's highly untouched though. Scroll down on the main page and you'll see it.

[DeepModem Mom]

40. Difficult call --

DU's existence, as I read your accounts, is rooted in Bush's illegitimate Presidency, and everything seems connected to that, and a determination to get him out of our White House. As I look down the page of GD topics, however, there are some discussions that do not directly relate to the election that probably deserve more time on the first page. (I hope, however, that GD doesn't become a neglected forum.)

But, guys, I trust your judgment. Thanks for everything, and rock on!

[Beaverhausen]

41. obviously not many people are reading this...

[necso]

42. Good!

It wouldn't hurt to be a little harder on dupes too --- it seemed to be that way for a time recently as I remember a bunch of mod locks, but the problem is growing again.

I support any effort to make the DU "commons" better structured and leaner... even if my replies do get "orphaned". (I can always repost on the surviving thread if I wish.)

Thanks!

[never cry wolf]

43. Oh, God NO!!!

You know what that would mean?? In order to bury the important threads it will take SO much more work! I will have to recruit more disruptors and trol... er, um, I mean, oh NEVERMIND!



Good idea!

[TWiley]

129. Sounds good, One possible suggestion follows

Would a keyword search be possible when someone entered text into the subject line of a new thread? It might work like many help files do now.

[TexasSissy]

44. Good idea. I like to go to GD 2004 for news about campaign, but I

know I then ALSO have to read GD, in case someone posted something about the campaign there.

[nicktom]

118. I completely agree with TS,

I rarly post, but I do enjoy reading the posts and keeping up to date with the latest political scuttlebutt. I am in favor of your idea, I also like the idea of a separate forum for live TV/Radio responses, at least up until the election.

[kymar57]

45. 1 Aye vote n/t

[Sparkly]

46. I think it makes good sense

and I think that as we see how you're moving things, we'll get the hang of what goes where.

And thank you! :)

[TOhioLiberal]

48. Good idea...

GD is moving Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too fast right now!
:thumbsup:

[mandyky]

49. Great idea! Also, could we remind

folks not to post duplicates on the same topic when something in the news breaks - like Plame, Sandy Berger, etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. A good idea - especially for the Republican convention

because you know there will be hundreds of DUers screaming at their TV, and turning to the computer to vent their feelings - in a new topic.

It was touching to watch the joy in GD during the Democratic convention, but it certainly buried the non-convention threads. You might even consider a temporary 'rant' forum, just for people to let steam off in ...

[The Spirit of JFK]

55. Perhaps a "Time Out" forum will be necessary...

Where people can go and either look at pitcures of liberal cats...and calm down, or for those people who forgot to use *&$!@ (or "Cheney you!") and need, well...a time out.

[slojim240]

51. I agree with this proposal

Makes sense. There are too many things going on besides the campaign that need to be addressed in GD.

[The Spirit of JFK]

53. Makes absolute sense

And I'm sure we will figure out what's supposed to go in which forum before TOO long. We ARE pretty edumacated after all.

[Snoggera]

54. Seems logical

A campaign discussion should take place in a campaign discussion forum.

An idea that will never fly:

Separate it into two parts
A. Discussions related to the democratic campaign.
B. Discussions of the latest RW smear tactics and slurs. I, personally, get tired of seeing them plastered all over the board because I attempt to avoid hearing every little bullshit lie that spews out of all the members of this administration and their friends, the mainstream media.

[Joe Fields]

56. Good idea...n/t

[LWolf]

57. I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

[never cry wolf]

58. BTW: shouldn't you also post and pin this in GD2004?

For all I know there may be some GD2004 junkies (maybe the missing holy joe supporters, like some japanese soldiers on isolated islands fighting WWII 10 years later) who have no idea what has been proposed.

Doubtful, but ya never know, just to be fair.

[merh]

59. Works for me!

thanks. :hi:

[troublemaker]

60. excellent proposal! n/t

[Lerkfish]

61. seems reasonable..nt

.

[Wonk]

62. Works for me. nt

[NightOwwl]

63. I like the idea. n/t

[jarab]

64. Seems workable ...

My first thought was that this might require (re)assignment of another mod - up from four - to a forum (2004) which likely will be much busier.
...O...

[drdigi420]

66. sounds like a good idea at first

but it will mean that election topics will get ignored more than normal

I like GD the way it is (well, I liked it better before, but that's another thread)

I personally don't want to have to keep up with 2 forums.

[Justice]

67. Good

[Octafish]

68. Where do you go to BASH Bush?

That's a politcal thing to do. Then, again, the facts are the guy's a treasonous bastard. That's as important as anything gets.

[Sugarbleus]

69. Don't be so logical, it confuses me.

Hey, I wondered why there was so much "cross posting" anyway. Let's do it your way. I'm in. :D

[joanne]

70. How the hell can it be 50/50?????

It should be 99/1

Are people STILL that stupid???

[TrogL]

71. Good on you

Should have been doing it all along.

[Lindsey]

72. I'm with ya!

n/t

[dancing kali]

73. Good idea.

But then again I'm somewhat retentive about organizing such things.

[Jane Austin]

74. Makes sense, but

could you then move the Campaign thread up higher on the lobby page so we don't have to scroll down it to click?

Thanks, and thanks again for DU.

[DemBones DemBones]

75. Yes, please do this. I've been hoping you would.

Discussions about Sudan, for example, get lost in all the campaign threads cluttering up GD.

[chiburb]

77. Yes. n/t

[TahitiNut]

79. I'd be inclined to do wholesale movement of threads ...

... regarding campaign events, polls, and election projections to GD:2004. I think I'd be more conflicted regarding issues.

Good luck, mods! :hi:

[MaineDem]

80. Another "aye" vote (nt)

[americanwomanone]

81. Great Idea Now I'll know where to go! n/t

[arwalden]

82. Okay... Will You RE-Arrange How They Appear In The Lobby?

Move the link for the GD Election forum above the link for the GD forum.

-- Allen

[arwalden]

83. Maybe GD:2004 Needs A "Makeover" Or Renaming

I tend to avoid it now because of how vitriolic it became (at times) during the primaries. It still frightens me.

-- Allen

[Hoping4Change]

98. Renaming it is a good idea. Maybe something more punchy.

[louis c]

84. I'm fine with that

I like the idea, but it seems like a lot of work for you guys.

On a positive note, I have noticed that this entire effort at DU is getting much busier. That's a good thing.

[louis c]

85. I'm fine with that

I like the idea, but it seems like a lot of work for you guys.

On a positive note, I have noticed that this entire effort at DU is getting much busier. That's a good thing.

[KC21304]

86. Great idea, but will someting so logical work here?

Seriously I agree totally. Thanks.

[NV1962]

87. Sounds good to me - better to move topics than to lock 'em - n/t

[incapsulated]

88. The Campaign Forum has slowed down...

for some reason and now campaign news is getting posted on the GD. I don't know why, it's happened in the past month or so. It does make the GD2004 seem useless, not the other way around. And real GD topics are being swallowed up by campaign topics, too.

I think pushing the campaign threads back there would be a good move, right now, because it's only going to get worse as the fall rolls around.

The problem is topics like media coverage could be in either forum, which makes it a bit confusing deciding where to post.

[johnfunk]

90. I like it! Not reason not to DU it!

n/t

[JI7]

91. i agree, it's a good idea

especially with all the polls for individual states which will be released day by day as we get closer to the election.

[RamboLiberal]

92. I agree - GD is moving at warp speed some days

eom

[Selwynn]

93. I don't like this at all, in fact I wish there was no GD:2004 forum at all

But as usual - I'm in the minority.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

94. Agreed

MKJ

[Padraig18]

95. EXCELLENT idea, Skinner!

You have my blessing!

:thumbsup:

[CO Liberal]

96. Sounds Like a Good Idea To Me

And I'd also like to suggest that the GD:2004 forum be reserved for stories related to the presidential campaign only. Stories related to specific states should go in the proper state forum.

[A_Possum]

97. Soon please! Like, now!

Important threads are rolling off General Discussion way too fast. Before I can ever post a reply, a thread has rolled to page 2, within a minute or so. :(

[KoKo]

99. Sounds good. More organized than the "free for all" GD Forum can be

when folks are posting campaign stuff with other issues.

[JohnLocke]

100. Please do!

[mzmolly]

101. I like, though I would like an idear of what is considered a campaign

topic etc.

:hi:

[flpoljunkie]

102. Sounds reasonable and efficient.

[John_H]

103. Great idea. And it should be coupled with an zero tolerance for trolls

policy--like no warnings, IMHO.

Look at it this way, the very few people who post trolling threads and who are not freeps, certainly are idiots who couldn't possibly contribute to the quality of DU anyway. Ban trolls on their first offense.

[LynneSin]

104. call me silly but that's what I thought was the whole purpose

of the GD vs. GD2004 threads

Go for it!

[welshTerrier2]

105. my two cents and a request

My two cents:

before reading the text of your post, i thought this was a bad idea ... things seemed to be working pretty well as is and i saw no reason to burden ourselves with more rules and more administration ...

HOWEVER, your post has convinced me that we should keep "campaign" posts in the "campaign" forum ... DU will only get busier as we move closer to the election and GD will suffer if there's too much volume ... i'll go along with your idea ...

one very important point: posts that focus more on policy being expressed by Kerry or Edwards that don't include how that policy will affect the "horserace", should be allowed in GD ... the "campaign" forum should be for posts about the "horserace" or those that explicity focus on campaign strategy ... i think it's important to clarify this distinction ...

my request:

NOW, you still owe me an answer, or better yet a discussion, on my "dem-Green unity" theme (see my thread on this on page 2 of "ask the admins") ... I would greatly appreciate some follow-up on this issue ... i think i can make a strong case for showing more flexibility than the current DU policy permits ...

[madfloridian]

106. Why not include in GD2004 just those who are actually still running.

Others who are not campaigning, but still in the news could be posted in GD.

I would like to see it be ok to post about state and local candidates in GD2004, not just Kerry and Bush. I know we have become very interested in helping candidates from all over, and many seem interested in reading about them.

[Catt03]

108. I agree. Particularly about the thread life and duplicates

[eleny]

109. I wouldn't want to be a mod

Sounds like they'll be so busy moving topics. Feels like a drag all around. But this is your site and the final decision is with the owner(s).

[Scorpious_Maximus]

110. Good Call

[RedEarth]

111. sounds good to me

[Tight_rope]

112. I totally support this idea.

In all honest, I have not frequented GD:2004 because it seems that most of the action is in General Discussion and I know no matter what is posted, people never fail to post important issues surrounding any of the campaigns.

Once again, "You have my blessings"!

[WillyT]

113. I'm All For It !!! - You Are Talking About The Original Posts Right ???

IOW - If somebody posts a general question about impeachment and the laws\procedures involved, and the thread evolves into examples of why Bush should be impeached...

Would it be moved?

Is it the original idea\post, or the balance of the thread itself?

Thanks!

:hi:

BTW - Thanks for all the great pix of the convention. Looked like you guys were having a great time. Glad DU was well represented.

:yourock:

[auburnblu]

114. Sounds right to me

That's why a special section was set-up I'm assuming for this very purpose.

[MoonRiver]

115. OK. It has been confusing knowing which forum to post this stuff in.

GD moves faster and seems to have higher volume (but that may be changing lately) so I often gravitate toward it. But really big political stuff/news obviously fits better in GD:2004. What to do?? What to do?? :crazy:

[liberalpragmatist]

116. Would This Include Non-Presidential Races?

My understanding is yes. Am I wrong?

[Toucano]

117. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. n/t

[genius]

119. Is all Kerry stuff considered campaign related?

My guess is "yes" since he's our nominee.

[Skinner]

121. I would say yes. (nt)

[mcerise]

120. Sounds Great!

[Swamp Rat]

122. Good idea, but...

I wouldn't remove EVERYTHING from GD concerning Kerry. Then to be consistant you'd have to move everything about Bush there too. Right?

Go ahead and try it out. It won't hurt to experiment.

[gulfcoastliberal]

123. Absolutely a great idea!

I fully support this idea 110%. Please implement this policy ASAP!

[TheDonkey]

124. I like it, nothing wrong with order

GD & GD: 04 have turned into mad houses lately.

[drfemoe]

125. Yes Please .. n/t

[patricia92243]

126. I'm not sure which topics will go where. Most politics right now is about

the campaign. Example: I want to ask a question about Republican Governors delivering their states to Bush. Is this just GD or GD 2004? All in all though, it is a very good idea to separate them out; especially since you are going to cut us some slack if we post in the wrong forum. :)

[Skinner]

127. That would clearly be GD:2004.

It's about Republican Governors delivering their states to Bush. Seems pretty cut and dried.

[unfrigginreal]

128. Makes perfect sense to me, I'd even go a little further...

Set up GD2004 for the Presidential Campaign as you've suggested but also set up P&C as the forum for all campaigns other than the Presidential. This would get all of the campaign threads out of GD but would also create a dedicated spot for the down ticket campaigns without them being smothered by the main election event.

[TWiley]

130. Good idea. one possible suggestion follows

Would a keyword search be possible when someone entered text into the subject line of a new thread? It might work like many help files do now.

[BlueScreen]

132. I think it's a good idea

[Skinner]

133. Thanks for the input, everyone.

I think we'll probably do this sometime on Friday. :thumbsup:

[Dr Fate]

134. Whatever you say, Old Bossman...

...I vote yes...

[sleipnir]

135. Gets my seal of approval.

I was just lamenting how GD: 2004 was having horrible traffic. A thread would get posted, maybe have 5 replies and it's still there the next day. Not much use of the forum right now and that'd be great to change.