TO BE CLEAR: You are still permitted to criticize candidates.

[Skinner]

We seem to be getting a lot of alerts from people, complaining about "negative comments" about candidates. In case some people are confused about the rules, it is still legal to criticize Democratic primary candidates. Here's the relevant rule:

"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."

So, if you're on-topic, and you're relatively civil, you're allowed to say negative things about the candidates. You just can't be deliberatly inflammatory, rude, or extreme.

[Rowdyboy]

1. How about openly calling a Democratic candidate for president a Republican

or inferring that he is a Republican? Might as well clear it up here and now to save energy later...

[Skinner]

4. Depends.

Wesley Clark's partisan history is a legitimate topic for discussion.

But calling Wesley Clark a "repuke" would clearly not be appropriate.

We're still figuring out where to draw the lines. To be honest, we're still figuring out if calling a candidate a "Republican" is "extreme and inflammatory".

[Jerseycoa]

7. What if it is not true?

Clark was never a Republican. He was an independent, like 96% of Arkansas, until he registered Democrat. In the military he served under Democrats as well as Republicans. So his partisan history is that he was never a Republican, although he worked for Republican administrations, just as he worked for Democratic administrations. If it were true, I wouldn't feel compelled to defend him on this point 25 times a day. I'd just say, okay, it's the truth. Like I never object when somebody says he voted for Reagan and Nixon.

You see the problem, Skinner?

[Skinner]

8. The mods have made their decision.

Calling a candidate a Republican is not appropriate. In fact, they felt that it was pretty much the definition of "extreme and inflammatory" on a progressive message board.

[Jerseycoa]

9. Yayyy!!

Thank you very much. :)

[MoonRiver]

14. Hip, hip hooray!!!

:thumbsup: Skinner and mods!

[hellhathnofury]

10. Can we call him a former-Republican?

After all he did admit to voting for Reagan and Nixon.

[Ruby Romaine]

17. I can't think of anything worse

to call someone!
:)
Ruby Romaine
Democratic supporter since birth!

[ModerateMiddle]

21. This is an excellent decision

because if someone wants to state the truth of the matter, they can say that he praised Republicans, or that he voted for Republicans. Saying he *was* a Republican is clearly not the truth, because he was registered as an Indpendent.

This was a good decision, IMO.

[Rowdyboy]

12. To me, its the ultimate insult that I feel I simply cannot ignore...

Its like being called a child molester on this board. All I can say is I would consider it highly inflammatory to be called a Republican, as would 95% of the posters on this board. You can call me a fascist, a chauvinist, an illiterate-southern redneck, a bore, or a sissy, but don't call me a stinking Republican.

However, I will respect your decision-just please let us know so I won't be bothering the mods unnecessarily.

edited: While I was writing this, you decided. Thank you.

[Skinner]

13. See above.

The mods have sided with you.

[mike_c]

5. I'm a bit confused about this one too....

I've recently had a post removed for noting that one candidate's political history appears solidly Republican (civilly, I might add) while another candidate-- a former VP candidate-- is routinely criticized here as being either Republican-lite or flat-out better aligned with the Republicans. I'm no longer certain where the line is.

[Skinner]

6. Well, I think you need to keep in mind

that the "routine" criticisms of the former VP candidate occurred before we instituted these new rules approximately 4 hours ago. So that's not really relevant here.

I'm discussing it with the moderators at the moment.

[Padraig18]

2. Okee dokee.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

[wtmusic]

3. Ha! I like the 'comparisons to Hitler or Bush' part

Bedfellows! :-)

[JVS]

11. Is it ok to use biblical allusions to imply a candidate will be damned?

Because I've seen that lately.

[Skinner]

15. Saying that a candidate is going to hell is not permitted.

I am aware of the comment you are referencing, because the mods have been discussing it for about half an hour. If you look at that particular comment in context, it does not appear that the person who posted it is trying to comment on the candidate's state of salvation. Rather, tt looks like a discussion of the candidate's frugality.

Currently, the mods are split on whether it rises to the level of being "extreme and inflammatory."

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Rowdyboy]

16. Principal Skinner

Ralph Wiggum touched my backpack!...Ewwwww!!!!!

[Clark4VotingRights]

18. :) Can I say that all the other candidates have cooties??? :)

If I'm pretty sure it's true...?

Ok, probably not the time to mess with you.
(Or is it???)

[mitchum]

19. *D a t s c o o l !

[HumanPatriot]

20. Hrm...What about Draft Candidates, can we insult them?

Or Vermin Supereme, or does this only refer to the 9 candidates?


Just seems to me I could draft anyone and then take them to town according to the rules. But if you do not allow this you may be being exclusive and only allowing criticism of the "major" candidates, which clearly isn't fair. Where is the line drawn?

Skinner for president!

[Skinner]

24. Vermin Supreme?

You must be a DC primary voter!

[bitchkitty]

22. Is this a parody thread?

[Skinner]

23. I don't understand your post. This thread is serious.

We have been getting a bunch of alerts from people who are upset when someone criticizes their candidate. In order to cut down on the number of unnecessary alerts, I thought it was necessary to clarify that we are still permitted to criticize candidates.

[jsw_81]

25. I think the rules are far too complicated

One almost needs a lawyer to help you wade through it all. Why not just say: No profanity, no threats, no Republican lies and no personal attacks. That would be a lot more user-friendly than page after page of rules and regulations for a silly message board, wouldn't you agree?

[Skinner]

26. Actually they're pretty easy to follow, if you just do one thing.

If you are trying to act in a positive and productive manner, you are unlikely to have any problems with the rules.

But if you're looking for ways around the rules, then you're guaranteed to have problems.

[BootinUp]

27. Thats the key

If you are not trying to raise a ruckus you really should have no problems.

I think the moderators are doing a great job and a thankless one for the most part.

Here's one thank you.

:hi:

[Skinner]

28. kick (nt)

[Skinner]

29. kick (nt)

[edzontar]

31. What of another candidate says that a rival is a Republican?

Are we allowed to agree?

A case like this has been in the news just in the past few days.

And let's be clear, making this label out of bounds is a big -plus for one candidate in particular--you know, the one who has a history of supporting Republican candidates.

Doesn't this skew things a bit in this person's favor?

[Skinner]

32. You can state your agreement when it is on-topic. (nt)

[Mairead]

33. "comparisons to Hitler or Bush"

Pointing out that some candidate's declared policies are the same as/similar to/worse than Bush's/Hitler's/Pol Pot's/some other creep's is certainly a 'comparison to', but I'm at a loss to know why it wouldn't be a legitimate one. Presumably we want to avoid nominating someone with despicable policies!

[Skinner]

34. If someone has a similar position on any issue that Bush has

you are certainly welcome to say so.

But if you're calling someone equal to or worse than Bush, you're way out of line.

And any comparison at all to Hitler is just wrong.

[Maddy McCall]

35. kick--BUT YOU CAN'T CALL CANDIDATES REPUBLICANS

Per Skinner; read the posts above.