I wish we could have a forum where we could discuss the campaign like

[MGKrebs]

mature adults, with stricter rules about attacks, insults, and hyperbole.
The issues need to be discussed, but it is almost impossible in the main forums. Some people just can't refrain from accusing one candidate or another of every depravity known to man. Every past vote cost thousands of lives, every issue position holds the fate of humanity in it's pronunciation and accented syllables. Many threads devolve into partisans attacking one another for supporting such an abhorrent Democrat.

It's just not that hard to hold a civilized discussion, with respect for each other and thoughtfulness before posting. The adolescence of the internet, where everybody gets used to having their own soapbox and anonymity removes inhibitions, is getting tedious. That's not to say that there should be restrictions everywhere, just that it would be nice to have a place to go where the testosterone and Pavlovian drooling is kind of checked at the door.

I can even suggest a few rules:
- Never refer directly to another poster
- Never accuse a qualified Democratic candidate for any office of murder, genocide, destruction of one group or another, or treason, except in the event of an actual indictment or court case.
- Never directly accuse a qualified Democratic candidate for any office of lying, stealing, cheating, or other immoral behavior without demonstrable proof.
- Facts must be supported. If you can't prove it, it's an opinion, and you statement must reflect that.
- Common rules of courtesy apply, as if the conversation were taking place somewhere where you were a guest.

DU has the best interface anywhere, and the liveliness is intoxicating, but like most places where you get intoxicating things, sometimes you need a back door so you can get away from the noise and smoke for a while.

[NanceGreggs]

1. AMEN!!!

Well said - and thanks for saying it!

:kick: & Rec'd!

[JeffR]

2. K & R!

You're damn' right.

[Grandrose]

3. Agree absolutely!

Especially this part: "I wish we could have a forum where we could discuss the campaign like mature adults, with stricter rules about attacks, insults, and hyperbole."

:applause: :kick:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

4. Yes! No attacks, insults, and hyperbole from adolescent Pavlovian droolers!

[MGKrebs]

5. No such rules in THIS forum!

[Frances]

6. Great suggestion

[murielm99]

7. That is why I use the

ignore function liberally during primary season.

I am happy to discuss, but I dislike being attacked.

[AZBlue]

8. I'd like this to be Rule #1

"Facts must be supported. If you can't prove it, it's an opinion, and you statement must reflect that."

[ReadTomPaine]

9. Sorry, but we've actually been advised to expect lower standards, not raised ones.

Needless to say, I agree with you.

[RedEarth]

12. lol.... that's encouraging

As you mentioned, I also agree with the OP.

[madfloridian]

26. I believe it was "lower your expectations".

I just keep lowering and lowering. :-)

[ReadTomPaine]

32. I stand corrected! Thank you...

I recall your writing here during that period, and appreciate it.

[autorank]

10. I agree but not complete.y. K*R

I've been the recipient of some really nasty personal attacks in my time here (;( boo hoo and so forth, OK I'm over it) and I agree that serious discussions are no place for negative personal remarks.


- Never refer directly to another poster:

=> Not even to praise them or engage in a colloquy. I actually enjoy being contradicted when it's from a sincere source. It gives me a chance to reflect and change my mind.

- Never accuse a qualified Democratic candidate for any office of murder, genocide, destruction of one group or another, or treason, except in the event of an actual indictment or court case.

=>Well, Lieberman wants to invade Iran. It's a serious proposition and deserves serious comments including the charge that he's a war monger or that he's coming unglued. Won't work. When was the last time a politician was tried for anything like that? Not practical, although such charges should be backed up by proof. Lieberman said he thought attacking Iran was a good idea.

- Never directly accuse a qualified Democratic candidate for any office of lying, stealing, cheating, or other immoral behavior without demonstrable proof.

=>Agreed, or anybody else for that matter.

- Facts must be supported. If you can't prove it, it's an opinion, and you statement must reflect that.

=>This would make things very interesting and set apart this forum from others in requiring that standard of debate, albeit it in just one forum. Great idea!

- Common rules of courtesy apply, as if the conversation were taking place somewhere where you were a guest.

=>YES!!! That is the standard. There are all sorts of exchanges here and elsewhere on the internet(s) that are just disgusting and posters who make their reputation by being unbelievably rude. I see this and think, they certainly can't behave like this in their 3-D real world. If they did, they'd at least be asked to leave and, in some cases, do so with a round of buck shot aimed at their retreating back sides for being such thugs. This is a great standard.

[MGKrebs]

13. Good comments!

Referring directly to another poster: I think something like "That is a great comment" or "Those are interesting ideas" are preferable to "you are so smart". The model for this (in my mind) is the US Senate and many other deliberative bodies. Senators are not supposed to refer directly to each other. They are to address the President of the Senate, so they can say "The Distinguished gentleman from New Jersey makes a good point" but not "You make a good point". Seems trivial, but I think it makes a difference. The whole idea is to create a mechanism which minimizes the chance of personal attacks, i.e., stay focused on the ideas, not the speakers. We would have to decide whether "Autorank makes a good point" is OK or not. If it is, then we might need a more explicit rule about decorum to prevent "Autorank sucks" posts. Otherwise, we could just not have direct references at all.

As far as murder, etc, I would think we could be able to say something like "Invading Iran will likely result in many deaths", or "an invasion of Iran without world consensus should be considered a crime" (no specific name mentioned) or "Lieberman does not seem to be as concerned about the probable loss of life as I am". We would be trying to avoid having people say "Lieberman is a murderer", but I am unsure whether something like "I would consider Lieberman a murderer" is OK or not. I lean to 'not', but it is stated as an opinion.

[autorank]

15. Very good MGKrebs "Autorank makes a good point" is OK

I see your point on speaking to a third party. That's a form of enforced restraint. Less likely to say, Mr. Moderator, "Rank is a fatuous jackass." Why does the moderator need that.


How about this for Lieberman, now?

Since we're clearly involved in a war in the Middle East, Lieberman's remarks, if turned into a vote or a vote plus a resolution enabling a war would make him a war criminal, as defined by Princeton's worldNet dictionary: "War criminal: an offender who violates international law during times of war." While offensive and bellicose leadership bears careful attention, Iran most recently assisted us in Afghanistan and the weapons program claimed by Bush has been denied by General Meyers and Secretary Gates refuses to give it any real credence, thus making an attack on Iran a preemptive attack based on, at most, ambiguous information. This violates the norms and rules of international law, and therefore represents an international violation of law, a crime.

There is some question as to the legality of this doctrine under international law. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat. At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense. The tension between these two principals is evident in the doctrine of preemptive war, which claims to be defensive, yet does not come in response to an attack. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

[MGKrebs]

17. I am trying to transpose that discussion onto the floor of the Senate.

"The Senator from Wisconsin has sponsored a resolution declaring the (is Joe the senior Senator?) Senator from Connecticut a war criminal. Whereas the norms of international law and common decency... " blah blah blah. Maybe on things like this the participants in the forum discuss whether to "designate" Lieberman a war criminal! We could have a DU Court of Virtual Justice and have mock trials. lol.

On second thought, I don't think so. A dictionary isn't a court and Lieberman hasn't, to my knowledge, been charged let alone convicted. The only thing we could really charge him with at this point (regarding Iran) is Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes.

[autorank]

30. You're right. Today, it's free speech but, "IF"

"...if turned into a vote or a vote plus a resolution enabling a war would make him a war criminal,"

Not ripe yet. He can say whatever he wants, others do no matter who is offended or upset.

In fact, I want him to tell us what's really on his mind.

How about a formal invitation, "Joe make our day, please show up for the big debate..." :)

You may not get a forum for this but you could get a "group" which, I'm told, gives the group more control over what's allowed. You lose visibility but gain quality which would attract attention. I use KOS as a benchmark of sorts. I see some outstanding OPs there but the discussion doesn't result in these sorts of rules. I think you're onto something. I'd participate.

Thinking about it, the pace would be slower, which would make for much better, cleaner posts.

[Longhorn]

11. K&R!

I know we can get along better -- we do it in the groups. It would be nice if there was a place where we could actual discuss politics with the same civility! Thanks! :hug:

[lonestarnot]

14. done

[MGKrebs]

31. That's fine. Being opposed to impeachment is OK.

There are good reasons for it, and if they are stated in a mature, coherent, and courteous manner then it would be perfectly appropriate. However, I thought the 99 bottles were supposed to be on a wall. We'll need new lyrics.

That guy's OK isn't he? Is that a "Harp" outline instead of a "chalk" outline?
Or is it a Killian floor?

[RubyDuby in GA]

16. On second thought, my feeble attempt at humor isn't amusing to even me

I'll just say that I agree completely with you.

Shall we shoot for another Atlanta area DU gathering?

[MGKrebs]

18. Hmm, I didn't see it. Something snarky?? lol.

Hi Ruby! We'll be at Fox & Hounds on Collier this evening if you don't have to rush home. Otherwise, we do need to set something up. I know Uly's been trying but we just can't seem to get organized. Heh.

Say hi to Little Jeezy!

[RubyDuby in GA]

21. Me??? Snarky??? You bet your life it was!

And do you mean for me to say hello to Superbaby?!?!



But then again, what do you expect with parents like these:

[MGKrebs]

24. lol!

Is he sticking out his tongue?!

You know, I've been to Metropolis...

http://www.metropolischamber.com/

[RubyDuby in GA]

25. Ha! He is sticking out his tongue!

I came away from Metropolis with some serious Wonder Woman swag! Good times...good times...

Sorry we can't make it tonight to happy hour. We have to have some planning time :(

[DeepModem Mom]

19. I've been posting some lately in the POLITICS/CAMPAIGNS forum. Join me?

It doesn't get much traffic, but some might want to give it a try as an alternative.

I post articles, both pro and con, about all the candidates, usually with little or no comment. (I never post an article about Hillary Clinton in GDPolitics. Always a flamefest.) And I alert -- to no avail -- every divisive poll asking about Dems DUers wouldn't vote for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=108

[MGKrebs]

23. I'll try!

[Iris]

20. If I could add, participants should actually read other responses before responding themselves.

I'm thinking this would create more of a dialogue and not just little quips from various parties. When someone has an idea that someone else has already mentioned, perhaps they could ADD to the discussion instead of just putting their idea out there on its own.

[MGKrebs]

22. That would be good.

I've tried to think of a way to build in a delay, i.e., you have to wait five minutes after you submit something and then confirm it before it appears, but I don't think it's feasible. But even so, only in this "fantasy" forum, because even though so much stuff is clearly just reaction and not even responsive, it can be entertaining and sometimes brilliant to just spout off.

[Iris]

33. right! I'd hate to see the spouting off stuff go away but

sometimes I think we get caught up too much in our own cleverness. And those quick quips are what seem to start the ruckus!

[OzarkDem]

27. I'm not interested in the campaign, its a diversion

The only reason Dems and the news media are making a big deal out of it is to distract from the mess in DC right now.

Its no secret our Dem leaders in Congress have no intention of doing anything meaningful and would instead prefer to whine about Bush and use him as an excuse to raise money for 2008.

We didn't elect these people to run for President in 2008, we elected them to get something done in Congress now.

Forget 2008, focus on 2007.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. Each of the candidates has a forum

and is much less contentious and is everything on your wish list. Feel free.

[MGKrebs]

29. Hmm. I have some habits to break. :-)

I will try.