{DU - GD | Rules | Vote} A Do-It-Yourself alternative to Rule 5 (and 1&3)!

[scottxyz]

If you are interested in the vote being held for new rules for the General Discussion forum, I would ask that you read the alternative suggestion at the link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=453696#461224

This suggestion would cure the problems addressed the following proposed GD Rules attempt to address:

- proposed Rule 5 ("No duplicates or same-topic threads. If there is currently an active thread on the first page of the General Discussion forum about a particular topic, you are forbidden from starting a new thread about the same topic -- even if your new thread provides a different viewpoint or new information. Occasional exceptions will be allowed when an active thread has a large number of posts."). This rule has been VERY controversial, and has made many vote NO on the overall rule package.

The suggestion at the link above, "tagging" thread headlines with a "Category" at the beginning surrounded by {...}, would still allow multiple threads per topic, but would allow the user to SORT the threads better by Title.

- proposed Rule 1 ("The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.") and

The "tagging" suggestion at the link above would handle this very well. No more threads titled "Pigboy has to go" drifting around, for those of us who have no idea who "Pigboy" is! It would instead be something like:

{Plame - Rove} Pigboy has got to go!

(I'm guessing PigBoy is Rove. I have no idea!)

- even proposed Rule 3 ("If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.")

For example, the following Thread Title would obviate the need for Rule 3, because you could just post the (conservative) article under this header and not include a commentary of your own.

{Plame - Novak | Revealing sources} Novak revealed a source in 1998 -- Robert Hanssen!!

Other threads could be titled {Coulter | No Comment} to make it clear you don't agree with the (conservative) column but don't feel the need to dignify it with a rebuttal. (Very Zen!)

Please click on the link above to see EXAMPLES of what I'm talkinga about. Scroll down to the end of the post to see real-live examples of 200 "tagged", categorized thread titles!

The post at the link above includes real-life examples of 200 posts from the General Discussion forum (as of about 2AM ET Fri), now "tagged" with a category. Check out the posts and see if you'd feel comfortable navigating the forum this way (assuming you sort the Forum by Title) or posting new threads with this special "category tag" prefix at the start.

Think of this as a filing system, similar to folders on a computer or files in a cabinet. To manage the growth of DU, we simply file Threads under Categories.

This would help bring order to the increasing chaos of General Discussion, while maintaining the diversity and free-wheeling discussion many love GD for. It would also avoid the problem of creating super-long merged threads which might load too slow, and it would still allow us to have a quick indicator of which topics are "hot" by the number of different, grouped threads out under them.

Note: This thread itself is an illustration of the need to override Rule 5 - sometimes - and not just because there's "lots" of posts on the old thread - but because I really think this thread opens up a whole new angle! Rule 5, forbidding multiple threads on a given topic, would not technically allow THIS thread to be posted here at "top level". But because I truly feel this is a full-fledged alternative to proposed Rule 5, and because it includes such a fleshed-out, real-life example, after great consideration I would like to post it separately from the original thread.

I would (and did) title THIS thread something like:

{DU - GD | Rules | Vote} An alternative to Rule 5

I'm trying to get the ball rolling. If you like this idea, you can just do it!

The future
This would be only a temporary workaround, which we could try out "by convention" without software modifications or official rules changes. People could "just do it" if they like the idea.

If it were to catch on and solve the same problems Rules 1, 3 and 5 aimed to solve (and avoiding squelching diversity or creating over-long merged threads), then we could formalize it more into the system, either by empowering the moderators to modify the categories (to fix miscategorized threads), or asking the programmers to add a new, separate column called "category" alongside the existing Title and Author and #Replies columns. (Also, brining back the #Views and the Avg Rating columns we had for a while might help address other issues, even the civility and profanity ones somewhat. Maybe a "Profanity" check box could be added so people concerned about that could filter it out.)

My whole point (full disclosure - I am a computer programmer with an interest in "social software") is that

- DU is VERY important in the world now and we should be careful to maintain it and help nurture it

- sometimes it's better to build something into the software, like a new column or a "tag", rather than centralizing more power on the moderators, which could annoy both the moderators AND the posters.

[Robin Hood]

1. I won't be posting or hanging around on DU any more.

I will be here from now on. http://www.guerrillanews.com/index.html

Good luck Scotty. You did a magnificent job of fighting the good fight. Thank you.

[scottxyz]

2. I'll email you at your website Liberal_Guerilla if the "good fight" wins

I think if we lose a particular 10% of DU because the rules pass (and that 10% will be the free spirits, it won't be the law-and-order types who seem to have arrived after Clark announced), it would be a great loss for DU.

I'm trying to criticize as constrictively as I can. Sometimes I think DU might be REALLY important to driving politics in this country right now BECAUSE of DU's diversity lighting a fire under the one-way media.

Any tendency of DU to become more centralized, even in the face of a very real need to evolve somehow, should be fought if we can find a BETTER way to grow WITHOUT centralizing.

I am not against RULES per se. I am proposing an alternative rule myself. I have LOTS of posts in the voting thread and I hope people would be interested in going through them if they really care about DU.

[Robin Hood]

4. Thank you.

If you come by http://www.guerrillanews.com/index.html My user name is Robin Hood.

You wrote.
"Sometimes I think DU might be REALLY important to driving politics in this country right now BECAUSE of DU's diversity lighting a fire under the one-way media."

You know, the last couple of days I have been thinking about this subject. And after a year and 5,000+ posts later, i have come to the conclusion that no change is really made here, in fact I am viewing it as a waste of time. There are so many other constructive things that I could be doing with my time, Like starting my own truly liberal free for all web site and forum, I do have the skills.

I came here for companionship of like minded people and the seeking of knowledge. I have either deluded my self into thinking that I was getting that out of this site, or the climate has changed. Either way, There are few here that are champions of liberal democratic values.

It is not us who have changed the tide in this country, it's the opposition them selves who have toppled their kingdom. We haven't really done squat here except succumb to the recent episode of lord of the flies. A real testament to pseudo liberal politicking.

Take it easy bro, you did a fantastic job.

[Booberdawg]

3. LOL! The New GD Rules are passing with an overwhelming majority

in their current form. What on earth makes you think you are entitled to suggest an alternative now? And after the majority of people have already voted?

You are in the minority on this. Sorry.

I think you are blowing this waaaaay out of proportion.

[0rganism]

6. What on earth makes you think he ISN'T entitled to suggest alternatives?

Just so you know, your precious Yes column is ahead by 220 votes out of about 700 cast. There are ~32000 registered DUers, and assuming that ~20000 of them correspond to unique current forumers, 3% have voted and your margin of majority is about 1%.

Your majority on this could change tomorrow. Sorry Jeb.

But there's a larger issue you're happily ignoring. We weren't asked to approve of which rules were up for consideration, nor whether they would be voted separately or in omnibus form. They essentially came out of committee this way, and we had no say in the membership of the committee making those rules. In summary, this is no democracy, so stop pretending the "majority rules", or some such crap, makes you right and scottxyz wrong.

These are major changes, ANNOYING changes, and I'm quite disappointed that a forum I supported for YEARS would pull this crap.

[kaitykaity]

5. Locking.

If you wish to repost your concerns, please feel
free to do so in the Ask the Administrators forum.

Thanks.

kaitykaity
DU Moderator