How is this group a "safe haven?"

[merrily]

This discussion thread was locked by demwing (a host of the Populist Reform of the Democratic Party group).

It seems as though every time I try to spend time in this group, I see the same kind of contradicting, challenging and nitpicking from posters who are not known as DU's left as I do in GD.

For their part, posters seem to feel a lot freer to contradict and challenge statements in this group than I would feel doing the same in any other group. They are not as respectful of the "safe haven" aspect of this group as members of this group have been of other groups.

Why don't these posts get deleted, as their counterparts would in any other group on this board?

If I wanted to see posters free to make leftists defend their statements, I'd stick to GD and other parts of the board. If I don't want to see it at all, I have to go to some other board, I guess.

[Scuba]

1. Your powers of observation are working just fine. Corpo-Dem members of DU attack here a lot.

[merrily]

2. Thank you, Scuba. I wasn't questioning my own observations on the issue.

As best I can tell, I have not yet begun to hallucinate posts that do not exist.

Maybe I should have addressed the hosts specifically to see what their thinking is on such matters.

Except for this group, I tend to post right off the Latest Threads page. On rare occasions, I have posted in a group simply because I neglected to notice the group when I clicked on the title of a new post. As soon as I realize my mistake, though, I self delete and, if I don't, a host acts on the double. And, if I have made that mistake five times in all my time at DU, that would be a lot. In this group, there is not that simple respect from other posters and the hosts are a lot less zealous.

[DonCoquixote]

5. the point was

all animals are equal here, but some more than others..

[demwing]

78. Not in OUR group

I have only had to ban one poster, and only for 30 days, but if I am told about violations, I will act quickly.

do you have anyone or anything to brings to my attention?

[DonCoquixote]

3. as people as diverse as 1strongblackman and Behind the Aegis can tell you

there are the rules, and then there are what people OBEY. The fact is, if you are not a centre-right Reagan Democrat ready to vite for you know who in 2016 and accept the general rightward slide of the party as somethign good, you are fair game. It also helps if you have a certain complexion that makes social connections. Note that both of the two posters I mentioned, who had to scream to get some of the really LOUD trolls off, both claim to offer points of view that are NOT dedicated to stroking the ego of White anglo saxon protestant males, who already get offered many outlets (even a certain site that rhymes with "corruptionist" that seems to welcome trolls and help stitch together sock puppets, as I am sure they are doing right fucking now for the people that got kicked off.)

All the same, this only stiffens my resolve to make sure that these posers do NOT grab the wheel. They are gloating that Obama listened to them, and think the Clintons will be the main course. But to quote a very misunderstood band called the Clash: "You can crush us/You can bruise us/you can even shoot us/But you'll have to answer to us." Indeed, the hijackers will have to answer to us, because even if Hillary wins, we will make sure she has to pull left to win our support, just like her husband had to give up his plan to gut social security and court us after he got caught smoking cigars with an intern.

[merrily]

4. His Presidency may have ended but he didn't give up his plan to keep "reforming" "entitlements."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12772143#post19

Reply 19, third link down.

because even if Hillary wins, we will make sure she has to pull left to win our support,

I don't share your optimism about making Hillary pull left significantly (or even your optimism that she can win the general). However, if she ever does become President, I would love to be proven wrong about our ability to pull her left.

[daleanime]

62. Oh, I expect some left ward talk from her....

as she continues to drift toward the right.

[merrily]

65. As do I. I've already seen posts here saying, "Of course, she'll run differently than she did in

2008." I don't doubt that for a second. Among other things, she lost in 2008. Among other things, 2008 pre-dated the shift in the national consciousness wrought after Occupy Wall Street. However, I don't much care how she campaigns. We have a catalogue of many years of her actions.

[daleanime]

74. Exactly!

It's what worries me when people say she's the only choice.

[onecaliberal]

54. + 1000

[Android3.14]

6. So what would be the populist purity test?

If a person supports HRC, does that disqualify them from discussing populist reform? Does any statement spouting misinformation go unchallenged as long as it sort of sounds populist?

I would disagree with "yes" answers to the previous questions. As populists, we should practice what we preach.

[merrily]

7. Case in point. Did you read the OP? It speaks to posting behaviors, not purity tests.

I criticize President Obama a lot. But, not on every issue, certainly. If I saw a post in the BOG that I agreed with, it would, I think, be as appropriate for me to support Obama in the BOG as it would be for me to support him anywhere else on the board. Nitpicking or challenging statements by BOG posters, demanding links if they make a exaggeration or a humorous post, or even a post about what does or does not belong in the BOG, not so appropriate.

As populists, we should practice what we preach.

Please don't go sanctimonious on me for no reason.

Kindly specify how am I not practicing what I preach? Also, my OP has to do with rules for posting in DU groups. It has nothing to do with populism.

And, forgive me, but Hillary is not a populist. Defending that statement is exactly the kind of debate that does not belong in this forum. For that, you have the GD and lots of other places on this board. To get support for the opposite proposition, you have the Hillary Group. If you made that statement there, you would get a lot of support from group members, probably zero argument; and I certainly would not post there to contradict you or challenge you. The exception would be if I made a pure mistake, as I described elsewhere in this post--and then a host would be on me in no time. That is what "safe haven" means.

The only place I have to say that Hillary is not a populist without worrying about getting an argument is this group. Or that place should be this group, but it isn't. And that is exactly the issue the OP addresses.

[RiverLover]

8. It should be, but you're right it isn't. I was told this group isn't "an echo chamber"

Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 02:00 PM - Edit history (1)

by someone I assumed was a host when I called out a poster for being anti-populist/progressive. The person who told me that wasn't actually a host.

[merrily]

9. Then I have to go back to the subject line of my OP.

Is the BOG, the Hillary Group and every other Group an "echo chamber? If so, what s the reason this group should be less of a safe haven than other groups?

What is the point in posting here, rather than in GD?

[RiverLover]

11. Maybe a host can answer that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12772010

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. The BOG and HRC are frail groups

Populists are a more robust group ;~)

The "echo chamber" serves a purpose within a community.
It can also spell disaster when the group think deludes
the members into believing their own BS.

It's one thing to discuss or debate an issue.
It's quite another thing to seek to disrupt discussions
or debase and undermine the groups values.
Feel free to send mail my way.

[merrily]

24. Then why have groups at all? And, again, what is the advantage to

posting something in this group and posting it in GD?

BTW, flattery will get you absolutely nowhere.

[Cosmic Kitten]

27. See post #26

[merrily]

51. I did. See Reply 34.

I simply think posting here should be "safer" than posting in GD. If it's not going to be, then, for me, there is no particular reason to post in this group rather than GD. If others feel differently, God Bless, as they say. However, I don't think it should all be up to the hosts and only the hosts, either. JMO.

[demwing]

108. Thank you CK, this is exactly the kind of advise

I hoped you would be giving when I asked you to co-host

[Android3.14]

39. "posters seem to feel a lot freer to contradict and challenge statements in this group than I would"

Why is this an issue? If someone posts nonsense, ignore them. If someone makes unreasonable demands, ignore them. If someone challenges your statement with reasonable support, then defend it.

I've found that deflating the whole "HRC for Prez" crapola is relatively easy. It is obvious to me that her nomination means we lose. Even if she wins the election we will lose.

You are not practicing what you preach when, as a person wishing to promote "populist reform" you attempt to exclude people who wish to participate in the discussion. That would be anything but "populist".

[demwing]

109. Participation in a discussion

Last edited Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

does not include disruption of that discussion

[sabrina 1]

29. You post contains a Third Way talking point which was designed to specifically attack

the 'left' as they so revealingly call Democrats who do not support Right Wing policies.

There are a list of them, something perhaps we might want to post here so that people recognize them when they see them.

As populists we should stick to supporting POLICIES that are not from the Heritage Foundation eg.

You seem to be miffed that someone posted an OP in a Group pointing out what we all know and have experienced in GD.

Why would that bother you when it is obvious and the reason why many Dems have moved on to other venues.

This group was created so that people could discuss policies without having to waste time dealing with attacks on the 'left'. For that we can go to GD.

The word btw, is 'purity'.

If being a 'purist' means supporting Democratic Party principles over Third Way, what do they call it, 'pragmatism', then most people in this group are Purists and you may not feel comfortable here.

[Android3.14]

36. I'm unsure what your point is

I'm anything but a fan of HRC. I'm just trying to understand why the OP is miffed.

It sounds like the OP wants to eject anyone that disagrees with him or her under the guise of a misapplication of the concept of a Safe Haven.

The great thing about populist reform is that it occurs within the crucible of healthy debate. If someone is being unreasonable in the populist safe haven, such as constantly arguing that there is no need for populist reform, then kick that person out. If the problem is that you disagree with the scope and direction of populist reform someone espouses, the I would suggest you argue the merits and adjust your stance accordingly.

[sabrina 1]

40. I think the point in the OP is clear. The OP doesn't want this group to turn into GD

where anyone who dares to tell the truth about the Dem Party's sharp shift to the right eg, is immediately attacked with Third Way talking points.

There would be no need for this group if DU had remained a place where Democrats could speak freely about Right Wing Policies as was the case throughout the Bush era.

If YOU haven't experienced what many DUers have, then either you are being careful not to offend the Third Way, or you agree with them.

Many have simply left, they are not interested in supporting Reagan/Bush policies especially on a Dem forum, and are not willing to waste time arguing over what should not be arguable at all on a Dem forum. But the reality is our party has been steered to the right by people like the Clintons, something most people did not realize until relatively recently.

The very fact that this group became necessary is sad.

People who in the past would have kicked off this site as trolls, now are perfectly acceptable. The admins however, have provided this space for those who are sick to death of seeing arguments for Right Wing policies on a forum where this should be least expected.

I'm not for banning people from the group, but not interested in going over the same old arguments we can and will be engaged in in GD. I can go there to do that.

Best solution is for people who are not very fond of the Left to decide on their own, that this group was not created for them.

[merrily]

46. My concern is that people who are fond of the left may own that this group was not created for them,

any more than this board was.

I have seen too many members of the "left of the left" alert stalked, banned, etc. and just as many who left because they'd had enough. And, if they are not completely gone, they post here one hell of a lot less than they used to.

So, yes, IMO, a safe haven for the left of DU's left is very necessary on this board. And, if it's not going to be a safe haven, I may as well post in GD. And, if GD doesn't work for me, either, then maybe I, too, don't belong in DU.

It's not even so much about sharing views, although those that have common views tend not to engage in the posting behaviors that I described in the OP. It's the faint derision of posters and posts, the disruption of the discussion, etc. (As woo me with science so often posts--correctly, IMO, it's not about trying to persuade people to a view. Disrupting the discussion will do just as well, if not better.

It's no coincidence that not a single poster on this thread whom I consider to be among the left of DU's left (a) engages in disruptive behaviors on other threads in this group or (b) has expressed any confusion or uncertainty about the meaning of my OP. They all know exactly what I mean.

Because of the others, however, this thread is not a discussion about what SHOULD be done, but about what my OP means and whether I am in poutrage or some other inanity.

[sabrina 1]

57. You are right, the left here understands perfectly what you are saying:

It's the faint derision of posters and posts, the disruption of the discussion, etc. (As woo me with science so often posts--correctly, IMO, it's not about trying to persuade people to a view. Disrupting the discussion will do just as well, if not better.

People are sick to death of those old, jaded tactics, NOT intended to promote discussion, but to derail it.

So, what should this group do, to get back to your point, to prevent that from happening here?

I would hope, as I said above, that those who are not particularly fond of the Left, would avoid this group so that no one has to be banned and they can continue their tactics in GD if that is what they want to do.

[daleanime]

66. Amen....

[merrily]

77. Clearly, they are not all avoiding this group, or even avoiding the specific posting

behaviors that I and others have observed here. Once again, we are being asked simply to put up with things we don't want and that no other group on this board is asked to put up with.

Posting on the topic of separation of church and state I got shrieked at by a poster AND her husband for supposedly carrying a GD fight into the religion for literally posting a single sentence about Hillary and The Family as part of a several sentence post. Posting (purely by mistake) that Hillary is likely to lose the general if she is the nominee got me a reply from a host in about 4 seconds, pointing out that my post was in the Hillary forum and requesting that I delete it (which I did). Here, I get personal insults from some just for asking what it is about this forum that is supposed to be safe for us.

Here as usual, we either have to put up with it or leave. Same choice we have IRL.

[sabrina 1]

81. Yes, for some it's difficult to avoid any opportunity to

slam the Left. However, the group is still new and I am sure that there will be a consensus to keep that kind of rhetoric out of here before too long.

[merrily]

85. I hope so, but I am not sure.

[merrily]

116. Not only does "the left of the left" understand what I am saying, they've been saying it before I

ever did. I don't want to single out anyone, but look around this thread and other threads on this board.

Clearly, some those who are what I sometimes term unconditional loyalists have not been avoiding this forum or the issue would not have arisen, not with me and not with other posters who have been noting this on individual threads, but without doing an OP about it.

IMO, those posts are disrespectful, but that brings us to another poster's point that some on DU are more equal than others.

So, what should this group do, to get back to your point, to prevent that from happening here?

Same things other groups have been doing for years. I don't think how to keep a group safe is a mystery in general. Letting most people post pretty much whatever they want does not seem to be the norm in other groups.

Also, it's not just about personal insults, but about why did you post?

Did you post because someone said something about Hillary or Obama or Kerry or Democrats in general that you don't agree with 100%, perhaps some exaggeration or hyperbole, or re-phrasing, so you are going to debate or challenge or nitpick that, or mock the person who posted it? It's pretty obvious from looking around the threads in this group which posts are in that vein. IMO, there are lots of places on the board to do that kind of thing, but, here, it's not in furtherance of the purpose of this group. I don't see that as any different than my intentionally going to the Hillary Group to criticize Hillary or mock or snark the posters there praising her.

Or did you come to discuss what might be done to make the Democratic Party more populist/New Deal/left, or whatever term you want to use?

[demwing]

110. So what SHOULD be done

I'd like your honest advise about what would make this a truly safe haven?

[merrily]

118. My "honest" advice? As opposed to what?

First, I am the only poster who has complained about extraneous posts in this group. I have not spent a lot of time in this group. Nonetheless, I've seen other posters noting/complaining about it on threads, albeit not in an OP. Mostly, their comments (and my own) within the body of a thread got no response that I know of. And I certainly never saw anyone who complained being expected to outline a solution before.

Second, safe haven groups are not anything new on DU. I have never been a board owner, or a mod on any board or a group host at DU; and I am certainly not a host of this group. I don't even know which powers DU group hosts have. I typically don't worry about things like that because I read the rules and then do my best to follow them--or take the risk of consequences.

And I did not volunteer to be responsible for this group in any way. So, I am really not sure why I am the one who is supposed to come up with solutions. (No, I don't subscribe to the view that people should not complain unless they know how to fix the problem. Few things are worse, IMO, than even putative responsibility coupled with zero power.) So, I would think hosts would be asking each other for possible solutions--if they think there is a problem.

But, okay, I'll give it a shot, as long as we're all clear that I do not have any expertise or experience in this area, nor have I sought any.

Before I do anything else, I want to be very clear: For me, it's not about including or excluding posters, but about the content and nature of a specific post, regardless of who made the post.

If a great suggestion for making the party more populist comes from the "most rightest" Dem on this board, so much the better. If, on the other hand, the nature of the post is nothing but to nitpick, gadfly, challenge, etc. does including that post in this group make sense, even if FDR somehow came back to life and posted it?

So talking about more people participating does not make sense to me. I am not thinking of excluding people. Of course, a particular poster can be so persistent in posts that are inconsistent with the purposes of this group as to be undesirable in this group, ever. But, I don't think this group is ready for that discussion yet.

Next, simply describing a group as "safe" does not make it safe. Unless action is taken to make it safe and keep it safe, describing it as safe only confuses people like me and leads to OP's like the one I posted.

All that said, the first step, IMO, is that you, demwing, as head host, have to get very clear in your own mind about just how "safe" or how "inclusive" you want this group to be at this moment and how much you and the other hosts are willing to do to make it safe at this moment. If this is a trial period, then maybe the group is not a "safe" place yet and should not be described as such yet.

If you never want to have "subordinates" or if are loathe or to lay down rules, you are not, IMO, ever going to have a "safe" group. Ditto if you and the other hosts collectively are not willing to spend a decent amount of time on enforcement.

Any of that would be just fine. DU's TOS still apply here; and it's not the end of the world Just don't claim the group is safer for leftists than, say, GD is. It's the disconnect between the description and the reality that causes confusion, not that any of us is too frail or too emotional to put up with something that is like GD as far as "safety."

Next, you and the other hosts have to get on the same page with each other. You, as head host are posting on the welcome thread and on this thread that this is a "safe" group, but also that you did not want to exclude. I don't think it's possible to have it both ways.

Meanwhile, as you post those things to me, another host is posting to me, on this very thread, variously that I need to be patient about expecting safety just yet and that this group has no need to be safe like other groups. That host is also posted to me on another thread, in essence, that I should learn how to live with it.

Therefore, I think step 1 is for you to decide truly what you want, given that this group is not going to make itself safe. After you do that, step 2 would be, IMO, to make sure the other hosts are on the same page with you. Step 3 would be to develop a description of what is and is not acceptable here. Step 4 would be enforcement. And, if there is any confusion, maybe contact hosts of other groups that seem relatively safe and ask what they do.

IMO, the hosts have to take the initiative to keep the board safe, especially at first. If safety is the goal, I don't think it is going to happen if the expectation is that posters are going to send a pm every time they see a post they think is off base. That is not realistic in general, but especially true if posters don't get a shared vision about what constitutes safety and what constitutes appropriate corrective action.

Or, again, you could simply decide that "safe" is not really the direction you want.

[demwing]

119. You've made several comments that deserve a response

Last edited Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

But I am at work for the next several hours and cannot respond in depth.

What I can say is that you've got to lose the idea that this group being a safe haven is totally dependent on the hosts. A group, like a Democracy, depends on participation.

You can participate by making positive posts, and by reporting disrupters.

I'll respond more thoroughly this evening...

[merrily]

120. My post did not say that the safety of this group is totally dependent on the hosts.

You took little time to consider to what I spent a fair amount of time thinking about and composing before you rushed to contradict--and to contradict something I never actually said to boot.

[demwing]

125. You wrote "You took little time to consider to what I spent a fair amount of time thinking about"

And I wrote "But I am at work for the next several hours and cannot respond in depth." then promised a proper response this evening.

Was that not clear?

[demwing]

133. My "Proper response"...

I've spent the last few days publicly and privately trying to work with you to come up with solutions. I've listened, and made it clear that you're voice would be considered.

After all that, you wrote:

I certainly never saw anyone who complained being expected to outline a solution before.

Merrily, If you're used to complaining without being asked for possible solutions, then perhaps you've been reading the wrong forums. We're here promoting grass roots populist reform-not implementing top down policies.

If you want to complain without taking any responsibility for helping to make this a better place, then you're in the wrong place.


You then continued:

But, okay, I'll give it a shot, as long as we're all clear that I do not have any expertise or experience in this area, nor have I sought any...If a great suggestion for making the party more populist comes from the "most rightest" Dem on this board, so much the better.

Thank you for your voice. I mostly agree, which is why the first 2 Co-Hosts I selected were NYC_SKP--a co host at the BOG, and Manny Goldstein, DU's satirist extraordinaire, known for his posts as "3rd Way Manny." I wanted ideas from all areas of DU. Not because I am fond of the type of posts found in the BOG, but because I didn't want to dismiss a great idea just because of the source.


You continued:

If, on the other hand, the nature of the post is nothing but to nitpick, gadfly, challenge, etc. does including that post in this group make sense, even if FDR somehow came back to life and posted it?

That's ironic, because my personal opinion is that your posts in this thread epitomize the nitpicking, challenging types of posts you seem to find so senseless. Should the hosts have locked the thread? Maybe, but I chose to try to engage you. You appear to have devoted a great deal of energy to this topic, and I had hoped you could direct it constructively.


You them wrote:

So talking about more people participating does not make sense to me. I am not thinking of excluding people. Of course, a particular poster can be so persistent in posts that are inconsistent with the purposes of this group as to be undesirable in this group, ever. But, I don't think this group is ready for that discussion yet.

And I disagree. This group IS ready, and so is DU. i believe the hosts are in agreement on that point, as are the many people that have come here.

Next, simply describing a group as "safe" does not make it safe. Unless action is taken to make it safe and keep it safe, describing it as safe only confuses people like me and leads to OP's like the one I posted.

It's only confusing when you expect the Hosts to police your posts. Hosts enforce the rules, but posters have to alert us to the violations. It's the same with Juries, its the same with MIRT. And FYI - violations may involve Hosts. We're just people, and not above fucking up sometimes. If a Host acts contrary to the rules, or refuses to enforce the rules, PM me.

Why is that confusing?


Continuing, you wrote:

All that said, the first step, IMO, is that you, demwing, as head host, have to get very clear in your own mind about just how "safe" or how "inclusive" you want this group to be at this moment and how much you and the other hosts are willing to do to make it safe at this moment.

You assume I have not...

From the rules: "Everyone starts out as welcomed. No one earns their way in - only their way out."

That's it. Inclusive, and safe. If you were expecting "safe" to mean "no risk of ever encountering a troll" then I'm afraid you have a naive view of safety - especially if you think that the hosts can manage that all on their own without preemptively banning people before they disrupt. What you seem to want is not realistic, and neither is it safe. It's autocratic and contrary to the mood of a populist reform group.


You added:

You are not, IMO, ever going to have a "safe" group...if you and the other hosts collectively are not willing to spend a decent amount of time on enforcement.

On this we agree, and as the hosts can attest, our recent conversations have been about stepping up our presence on the board. That's why we went from 1 host to 3 hosts to 5 in our first month. However, I would hold you, and all our members and guests to the same challenge. Step up your presence, step up your post count, and step up your participation in the building our Safety Net.

5 hosts cant do it alone, but 200 member sure as hell can.


You wrote:

Next, you and the other hosts have to get on the same page with each other. You, as head host are posting on the welcome thread and on this thread that this is a "safe" group, but also that you did not want to exclude. I don't think it's possible to have it both ways.

I don't want to preemptively exclude, and I prefer to not have to ban anyone. You may not think it possible to offer a safe haven along with inclusivity. I respect your right to your opinion, but I don't share it. Our solution requires your assistance, just like a democracy requires your vote. If you don't believe that such a system can work. I just can't be concerned.

Lead, follow, or scoot.


again, continuing:

Meanwhile, as you post those things to me, another host is posting to me, on this very thread, variously that I need to be patient about expecting safety just yet and that this group has no need to be safe like other groups. That host is also posted to me on another thread, in essence, that I should learn how to live with it.

And I say that your interpretation of what Cosmic Kitty (no need to withhold names when we can all read the thread) has written is not correct. Period.


And you finish:

Therefore, I think step 1 is for you to decide truly what you want, given that this group is not going to make itself safe. After you do that, step 2 would be, IMO, to make sure the other hosts are on the same page with you. Step 3 would be to develop a description of what is and is not acceptable here. Step 4 would be enforcement. And, if there is any confusion, maybe contact hosts of other groups that seem relatively safe and ask what they do.

I wish you would have posted this paragraph earlier in our conversations, because I very much appreciate each of your points. My only comments are that
1) I already know what I want - I want a group of like-minded progressive, populists adults that are empowered to regulate themselves -- with the hosts there to enforce solutions to escalated problems.
2)The hosts ARE on the same page - but when we're not, we talk it out. There is no Host email that we can use to communicate freely, so communication can be clumsy...but we're doing it.
3) This is your best recommendation. I feel that clearly defined expectations decreases conflict and increases enthusiasm. We'll get on that over the coming days...
4) Enforcement is already in play, what we need is members to participate in the building of our safety net.

Thank you for your comments. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I do respect you for standing up for what you believe. BTW- Be careful, the last person that fit that description became a Host.

This thread has now run its course, but I'll give you the last word.

24 hours from now this thread will close. Feel free to respond before the lock

Demwing

[Enthusiast]

64. You have my greatest admiration.

[merrily]

44. The OP has already told you twice that it is not about different positions but posting behaviors.

Once in the OP itself and once in specific reply to you. The fact that you totally disregarded that twice and insist it's about someone having a different view than I do says something about you.

BTW, sabrina's post did not mention Hillary.

[sabrina 1]

70. Whenever someone makes a post personal, there is no point in trying to talk to them about

issues. The fact that you did clarify what you objected to but were ignored twice, is why this group became necessary. That kind of disrespect and unwillingness to engage in a 'healthy' (to use the poster's own word, debate, is what created the need for the this group, or as an alternative, for many Dems here, a different forum altogether where left policies actually are supported.

[merrily]

72. "is why this group became necessary" But,

every behavior you and I have been describing occurred in this group. Which is my point.

[demwing]

111. So lets correct that!

I chose not to start this group with a draconian mentality, to give people the chance to cooperate and participate, not to be merely subordinate.

From our Welcome Page:

SOME GROUND RULES:

• The PRG is a safe house for DUers interested in the progressive, populist reform of our Democratic party.
• If you disagree with PRG's message or goal, that's OK. Find a group that fits, or enjoy the DU forums.
• Everyone starts out as welcomed. No one earns their way in - only their way out.
• Follow all DU rules. Don't put the group at risk

If you have questions or concerns, ask a host.

None of the above works if you don't ask a Host for help.

If you don't feel a particular Host is following the intent of this group, come to me. I promise I will listen to your concerns with an open mind and heart, and take all required steps to ensure that this group IS the safe haven I intended it to be.

[merrily]

117. "I chose not to start this group with a draconian mentality"

Then, it's not a safe house yet. It's a group where the DU's TOS apply, just as they apply everywhere else on the board. And that would be fine, if that were clear.

I posted for years on board that had no rules at all because some friends of mine from a defunct board were posting there. There was some lip service to no racism, but white supremacists posted there, including one who posted at the same board under another name. (The mods did semi-out him, but they did not delete any of his racist posts.) So, it quickly became clear that the mods saw their only duty as moving threads to their "fight" area if the threads just got too wild. Once I saw that, I adjusted my expectations. As it got worse, though, I decided my old friends were on their own if they wanted to remain there and I went where I felt somewhat more comfortable.

It's not a matter of encouraging every poster to participate. It's about the nature of the post, not the person. If the same kinds of posts are allowed here as are allowed elsewhere on the board, you are not really encouraging "everyone" to participate?

Lots of leftists have left this board as a whole, or reduced their participation significantly, because they got tired of certain kinds of posts. Does making everyone feel free to participate here include them? When this group was newer, I emailed a couple of posters who had left DU because they got tired of what it had become. I told them to try this group because it might be different. So far, they haven't posted, but, candidly, I have not asked them why.

Please see also my Reply 116.

[Enthusiast]

61. No matter what she says, HRC is as establishment/status quo as can be.

So, yes.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. merrily, please be patient.

Clearly you have a very valid point to make.
there are many unacceptable posts and challenges
made to the members and visitors to this group.
That will change in the very short term.

Speaking for myself as a host...
the Populist Reform Group (PRG) would be better served
by an inclusive position that allows intelligent,
and meaningful debate on relevant issues.
To that end it would not serve us well to be
"protectionists" like the BOG or HRC groups.
We should not fear or banish meaningful debate
if it serves to strengthen our goals and perspectives.

It is not acceptable to bash, belittle, or otherwise
diminish the goals, values or integrity of the PRG.
Posters who find it necessary to debase the PRG
will be addressed and given the opportunity to become
constructive members, in support of the PRG values.
Otherwise "superpowers" can be applied to rid the
group of scurrilous trolls and gratuitous contrarians.

Often it seems that the policy of "giving them enough rope"
is all that's necessary to "separate the wheat from the chaff".
And.... "you can't tell the players without a program"
Hang in here, the mops and brooms are coming ;~/

[merrily]

15. If the hosts believe that this group should be "inclusive," what will being patient do for me?

And what would be the advantage to posting in this group, rather than GD or other places on the board?

BTW, I did not know until today that you were a host. I thought the hosts were Demwing, NYC SKP and Manny Goldstein.

[nxylas]

17. And Rhett o Rick

I just checked.

[merrily]

19. Yes, so did I. They number of hosts increased, which is fine.

[Cosmic Kitten]

26. What sort of "advantage" are you suggesting?

As a "group" Populism is a pretty broad coalition.

But by it's nature Populism has a left of central bias.
Populism has a "People" and "Public interest" focus.
It is in contrast to neoliberalism, the 3rd-Way, right-wing
authoritarianism, which are each antithetical to populism.

The obvious advantage to posting here is to bring
relevant news, events, concerns and ideas to the
attention of like minded people.

We all cannot scour the interweb, or be everywhere
and know everything, so the group is a "hub" for us
to compare notes and raise awareness.

We are stronger together, which is a great advantage and
the remedy for the right-wing tactic of "divide and conquer"

[merrily]

34. I am not suggesting any advantage. I am not referring to any advantage, other than the

advantage other groups have and the one your Reply 23 (quoting the Board's standard statement for each and every group) states.

As far as being stronger together and not subject to divide and conquer, how does that hold if the behaviors that are allowed on GD are allowed here? I've seen threads in this group where the majority of posts are from DUers I would not classify as those seeking populist reform of the party and they were disrupting the OP's purpose and point as much as they do in GD.

[PassingFair]

12. When someone ANYONE with a progressive bent formally announces ...

This will be brought to a head.

[KG]

13. Rec

[Hoppy]

14. I give up. What "safe haven" group are you posting about?

[merrily]

16. This one. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277

Start reading at "This is a group, not a forum."

If that doesn't address your question, then I have no idea what your post means.

[RiverLover]

18. As a host of the Elizabeth Warren group, I can tell you its a safe haven to a large degree.

Much more than here. And if you look at the loooong list of posters banned from the Hillary group, you can definitely see its a safe haven. Zero dissension allowed there.

[whereisjustice]

105. Hillary/Obama groups, banning, censoring, controlling with authoritarian zeal - that's everything

wrong with today's Democratic Party. The authority trolls can't stand it when citizens think for themselves, none more than the dissent that is motivated by the suffering our political class inflicts upon the nation every day - and that includes both Democrats and Republicans.

[vlyons]

20. What? You don't like free speech?

If you can't defend your position, maybe it's not worth defending? Or maybe you're just lazy? If another opinion bothers you so much, just click the back button and go read something else. As to trolls and corp. Dems expressing stupid stuff, so what? Let them. As my mother used to say, "Foolish names and foolish faces, always show up in public places."

I strongly support free speech, unless it's life-threatening. That kind of stuff should be deleted. And this site has a mechanism for deleting vile, vulgar, and threatening posts. So relax, allow people to have their say, even if they say stupid stuff. Have compassion for stupid people saying stupid stuff. Their minds are clouded with delusions, frequently selfish, dark delusions.

[merrily]

21. You are not making a distinction between posting in a group vs. posting elsewhere on the board.

And in general, FYI, no one has a right of free speech on a message board that is not government run.

Since there are groups here that ARE safe havens, what you are really advocating is that some views should get protected here in safe havens and some shouldn't. That is not free speech at all, but the opposite of truly free speech.

[Cosmic Kitten]

23. Actually this is NOT a "free speach" zone.

This is a discussion group.

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group.

Got it?

[MADem]

33. It is if the SOP doesn't say otherwise, but the hosts can do what they want.

Most of the groups that enforce "safe haven" use that term in their SOP to make it clear to posters what the playing field entails. The SOP of this group doesn't use the term. Yet, anyway...

[sabrina 1]

69. This group is for Democrats who oppose Third Way/Right Wing policies. Anyone who agrees with

that, should not have any problem here. Those who support Third Way/Right Wing policies will not be comfortable here. It really is very simple.

The group became necessary due to the influx of Third Way talking points and anti-Left sentiment that over came to an extent, DU over the past few years.

So many Dems went to other venues where the Left is still where Dems stand on issues, so this group gives people a place to be on DU rather than join all those who are engaged elsewhere.

[MADem]

71. The group is pretty well described in its title and the SOP.

The question the OP asked was "How is it a safe haven?"

My response is "that's up to the hosts."

The "religion" group is a group, but it is not a safe-haven. People go in there and fling shit six ways to Sunday. Same deal with the Gungeon--it's a free-for-all, but it's a group, not a forum.

Just because a group is a group, and not a forum, doesn't automatically make it a safe-haven. That depends on the SOP and how the hosts pick/choose the people they allow to post in the group.

[sabrina 1]

76. If you mean should the hosts start banning people, I believe it was decided to wait

and see. It was made clear what the group is about and why it is here. Now it's up to people to use the freedom to post here with respect. If that doesn't happen, and we begin to see the same old Third Way personal attacks on the Left, then there will be a revue to determine how to keep the group free from that.

Do people need threats in order to respect other people? Is that what you are asking for? That may be the case, but so far other than a few mild examples of what the group doesn't want here, most people appear to be respectful.

[MADem]

79. I meant what I said and nothing more.

The hosts can do what they want. It's up to them, not you or me.

Every group has its own vibe. The Gungeon and the Religion group don't run around banning people. Other groups DO limit the conversation, and it's perfectly within their charge to do so. They're the ones who are taking the time to police the group, so they're the ones who decide how it is to be run.

WTF are you on about with the "threats" stuff? How odd. I am asking for nothing, not sure why you even think that.

Don't put words in peoples' mouths--it never goes well.

[sabrina 1]

84. I asked a question as your post wasn't clear in terms of what you think

the 'hosts should be doing'. I have faith in the hosts of this group. But if you don't want to answer, that is fine. However I put no words in your mouth,, and this is exactly the kind of comment that makes GD what it has become. When someone asks a question, the respectful thing to do is to answer it, rather than become defensive and combative about it.

The hosts HAVE decided what to do for the moment. So I'm not sure why you are commenting on them having the ability to 'do whatever they want'. We know that. Which is why I asked the question, and which you took as putting words in your mouth.

[MADem]

86. My post was entirely clear. The hosts can do whatever THEY want.

They are policing the group--not you, not me.

If they want to exclude anyone whose name begins with S or M, they can do that, too. Not saying they will do that, but they are the guardians of the standards here--they make them, they can change them, they can enforce them (or not). That's how groups work.

My initial comments about hosts were in reference to the OP, which does not mention the hosts at all.

[sabrina 1]

90. I don't think you understand this group. The hosts are not 'policing' the group, we don't need

'police' here. They are REPRESENTING the group with the group's approval. When they feel a need to take action to protect the group from disrupters, we have given them right to do so. We are Progressive Dems who generally don't adapt an authoritarian attitude towards adults.

Another thing we on the Left would like to see less of. Militarization of everything, policing of everything including internet forums and more respect for the fact that adults are capable of getting through this life without constant 'policing'.

[MADem]

91. Well, thank you for speaking so authoritatively for the hosts. I guess. (????) nt

[sabrina 1]

98. Do you have some disagreement with anything I said, do they? They are free

to disagree if they wish. You didn't address my comment, just ME once again. Thanks again for a demonstration of my, and most of the members of group, point about why this group became necessary.

[MADem]

99. Have a nice day, now! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

114. I think your post falls into the category the OP is calling out

Aiming a "WTF" at Sabrina is exactly what's not going to happen in this group, at least not twice by the same poster.

It's uncalled-for behavior that's unfortunately accepted in other parts of DU, but it is not acceptable in decent company generally, and in this group specifically. Either fix it and apologize, or find other groups to post in.

Let me know via DU mail if you'd like to make amends and act apropriately moving forward.

[demwing]

107. You're right, it's up to the hosts to keep the rules

But it's up to the members to help keep the hosts aware.

And ultimately, it's up to me to take action if a host isn't doing their job.

But again, it's up to the member to help keep me aware.

I'm asking for your help.

[merrily]

92. P.S. The welcome thread does say:

• The PRG is a safe house for DUers interested in the progressive, populist reform of our Democratic party.
• If you disagree with PRG's message or goal, that's OK. Find a group that fits, or enjoy the DU forums.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=1

[MADem]

93. Good for them! They have the right attitude!!! nt

[vlyons]

53. I understand your point of view

I just don't happen to agree with it. Refusing to hear what others want to say is being closed-minded.

[merrily]

58. It is not cosmic kitten's point of view. It is the rule for posting in every group on this board.

Other places on the board are freer, but no place on this board is entirely free. The board is private property, not a public forum. If you want to come into my home, I am entitled to set rules for your behavior while in my home. Skinner is entitled to set rules for posting anywhere on his board.

And, again, nothing is "free speech" about protecting the views of certain groups but not others. That is discrimination on the basis of content. If you are okay with that, then you don't understand the first thing about free speech. Well actually, the first thing is that it applies only to public fora--and you missed that, too. That discrimination on the basis of content is impermissible is probably the second thing.

[sabrina 1]

100. Where does it say anything about refusing to hear what others want to say?

I really would like to see where that is written, because if anything like that is included in the goals of this group, it needs to be removed, as I'm sure most here would agree.

[eggplant]

25. You have my compassion. n/t

[merrily]

28. It's always interesting to me to see what it takes to get very infrequent posters to post.

vylon:

Profile Information
Member since: Mon Aug 1, 2011, 07:53 AM
Number of posts: 688

eggplant:

Profile Information
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 1,870

But vylon's Reply 20 doesn't evince a need for compassion.

[vlyons]

55. I'm not an infrequent poster.

and whoever generates some compassionate thoughts my way, thank-you!

[merrily]

56. Your profile says otherwise.

Everything is relative, of course, but, at DU, fewer than 700 posts between August 1, 2011 and January 2, 2015 is infrequent posting. Besides, I posted the numbers, which gives readers what they need to make up their own minds.

[daleanime]

68. That is a fairly low rate......

not the lowest I seen, still kind of low. But don't worry, some of us are just more talkative.

[merrily]

80. Not worried at all. Or miffed. Or poutraged. I just do, as I said, find it interesting to note

what it is that motivates an infrequent poster to post. On this one thread, for example, not one but two, two infrequent posters were motivated to post.

[daleanime]

82. I'm not that quiet...

am I?

[merrily]

83. To the best of my recollection, none of your posts has

caused me to focus on your post count to the point where I wondered how many years were involved and looked at your registration dated. If that had ever happened, I probably would have mentioned it.

[eggplant]

89. I thought my reply was obvious, but apparently not.

vylon wrote "Have compassion for stupid people saying stupid stuff." QED.

I've been on DU for forever. I'm an infrequent poster because I am (usually) able to avoid getting sucked into the psychodrama threads, and I tend to stay on the front page threads. I believe I only had one post hidden in all this time, and had a number of people privately message me that they thought my post was reasonable.

I do spend a surprising amount of time on juries, though. I am disappointed in the current jury system -- I have been on tons of juries where trolls don't get called out, and people engaging in reasonable debate get hidden.

[merrily]

95. I have no objection to infrequent posters per se. I wish I were an infrequent poster and may

yet achieve my goal.

However, it really does interest me, sometimes in a good way, sometime not so good, to see what motivates an infrequent poster to post.

I think most of us would say that the jury system can be arbitrary. Some of us say it is sometimes even worse than that meaning that posters get targeted for being too far left or too far right or too whatever in general, even if that behavior has nothing to do with the post being judged.

I have had only two posts hidden.

One was a "Fuck you" that I fully expected to be hidden but seemed worth it to me at the time. I have since seen jurors let people off the hook for that, though. In the other, I was doing a take off (in my mind) on Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, saying kids in elementary school should stop taking advantage of taxpayers and start creating jobs instead. (Sigh.)

I actually started to include a sarcasm emote, but decided that the sarcasm was so obvious that I would be insulting the intelligence of DUers if I used it.

[thesquanderer]

30. Group confusion

I click on interesting threads that come up on the home page, and (AFAIK) the only way to even *know* that it was posted from within a "group" is if you happen to notice the path line toward the time of the page, which honestly, I hadn't even noticed for years (and still don't usually look at, actually). I wasn't even aware that threads I was replying in often were part of groups in the first place. So I think sometimes when you see these "challenging" replies in "safe havens," the people don't even know they're replying to something in a group. And honestly, until this very post, I didn't even realize that the groups were supposed to be "safe havens" as opposed to simply a way for people who have a particular interest to hone in on just posts relevant to that interest. Is that actually an official purpose of a group? Live and learn... I imagine that is documented somewhere, but people discover a forum, find something of interest, and start to post... Most people probably spend as much time reading a forum's guidelines as they do reading an itunes licensing agreement.

[merrily]

32. By every group's name, including the name of this group, you will see this:

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.

[thesquanderer]

47. I've never seen that disclaimer.

Because of the way I use DU, I would never see such a thing.

I clicked this thread because of its appearance in "Trending Now" on the home page.

I'm not a DU pro. The only way I read things is by clicking them from the home page (Trending Now, Latest Breaking News, Greatest Threads, etc.).

I do see a list of Topics on the left, I've never used them. And a "forums and groups" tab up top, ditto.

Anyway, my point remains, if someone finds your thread by an appearance on the home page, it is very possible that they are not aware of it being in any particular group, much less that there may therefore be certain rules that apply. I've probably been on DU for over 10 years, I check it almost daily for articles of interest, and I post now and then... and this is the first I'm learning about this. None of this is evident to a casual user who rarely goes beyond whatever articles happen to appear on the home page. So I wouldn't assume that negative comments are necessarily from intentionally disruptive trolls.

Maybe a thread in a "safe haven" group should have a big notice at the top of the page, so that, no matter how someone arrives at the page, they are made aware that this isn't a place for back-and-forth discussion, but rather, a place for mutual support of like-minded people. Honestly, until today, I wasn't even aware that DU had such things. And while not a pro, I'm not a total novice, either.

[merrily]

49. Well, now you know.

Every thread seems like overkill. The rules for the entire board are one place, not on every thread or in every forum. The rules for every forum are at the beginning of the forum. That warning is on the first page of every single group, including this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277

Thing is, in other groups, if you "stray," a host will tell you in very short order. That doesn't happen in this group.

[merrily]

38. There does not seem to be quite as much confusion about other groups as there is about this one.

I post almost exclusively from two places, the replies I get to my own posts and Latest Threads. On one or two occasions, I clicked on an OP title in Latest Threads without noticing I was getting myself into a group. In one instance, I realized as soon as I posted and deleted, leaving an apology in place of my original text. In the other instance, a host replied within about four seconds of my post, informing me I had posted in a group and requesting that I delete my post, which I was happy to do.

[corkhead]

75. I had an identical experience. I accidentally stumbled into a group when I saw something

ridiculous that had popped up on the "Greatest Page" which I felt compelled to respond to. It was immediately made clear to me that my opinion was VERY unwelcome in The BOG this group. It felt like Lord Of The Flies. At the time I didn't even know there was such thing as a "group". Since they didn't seem to want to hear facts from someone that doesn't share the equivalent level of blind adoration, I decided that particular group was of no value to me and I put it into "hide" status.

My DU experience has been all the better for it.

[MADem]

31. Not sure what you're referring to, specifically, but that's the job of the group hosts.

If the hosts don't like what people are saying, they need to block them. It is the job of the hosts to enforce the group SOP. If the hosts aren't doing that, then that means they're either not paying attention to the comments on their board, or they don't mind a bit of dissent.

Also, some posters in groups make it a point to put "***This is posted in the (fill-in-the-blank) group****" at the top of the thread as a way to warn people that flinging an opposing view into the mix is not appreciated.

Finally, there's nothing in the SOP that calls this group a SAFE HAVEN. The SOP says, specifically:

To discuss and debate issues, candidates, and strategies related to the promotion of progressive, populist reforms within the Democratic Party.

If the hosts want the group to be a safe haven, they can have an admin add that to the SOP.

[merrily]

35. I am not confused about whose job it is. Please see Reply 2.

As far as your other points, please see replies 16 and 21.

[MADem]

37. I didn't think you were confused, but the bottom line is that the hosts decide who can/cannot post

in a group, so it's their charge.

[merrily]

42. Is your point that my posting an OP was the wrong thing to do? If not, I am not sure

what point you are trying to make to me.

[MADem]

43. No. No where did I say such a thing.

The point I am making is that hosts make the decision about who is allowed to post in a group. You probably want to clarify your issues with them.

[merrily]

45. I am still not clear what you are saying.

The point I am making is that hosts make the decision about who is allowed to post in a group.

Since we both have already agreed that I know that, repeating it does not not clarify the reason for your post.

You probably want to clarify your issues with them.

That is part of the purpose of this thread and a host has been participating in this thread. Are you saying I should be trying to pm four or five hosts individually to get them to agree with me? If not, again, I have no idea what are you saying to me.

[MADem]

50. Yep, that's it. Whatever. Hopefully they will give you your answer. nt

[merrily]

52. Trying to get consensus among five hosts by pm'ing them, one by one, is "it," in your opinion?

Why was that so hard to say directly? But, as usual, we disagree.

Meanwhile....

merrily: Is your point that my posting an OP was the wrong thing to do?

MADem: No. No where did I say that.

[MADem]

73. No--you could PM the lead host and let them figure it out, if you'd like. But do what you want.

Don't act like anyone is trying to stop you, because they aren't.

You didn't say a word about hosts in your OP, but now that you're "on" to them, knock yourself out.

Have one of those Real Nice Days, now!!!

[merrily]

88. Thanks, but starting this thread is what I wanted to do and I have already done that.

Doesn't much matter if I said a word about hosts in my OP and I sure did say something about them in Reply 2, so I am missing your point on that issue, too, if you have one.

And you did reply "that's it" to a post where I spoke of pm'ing several hosts.

Don't act like anyone is trying to stop you, because they aren't.

Yeah, I didn't act like anyone tried to stop me from posting this thread. Not even close.

Have one of those Real Nice Days, now!!!

Happy New Year to you. (no sarcasm).

[Doctor_J]

41. The hosts will probably have to start booting the Turd Way and the Fan Club at some point

they can preach from the Gospel Of St. Barack Rodham Reagan in all of the other forums, and have likely misinterpreted the purpose of this group. And of populism in general.

ETA: For those who fall into the "New Dem" category, what are you doing here? You are not going to talk us out of our populism, and we can read your triangular arguments in the other forums.

[merrily]

48. I had recommended this group to a couple of leftists who had left DU in disgust about how the left

was being treated on the rest of this board. Now, I wish I had waited. I sure don't see them posting.

[onecaliberal]

59. I am in that group.

So many discussions purposely derailed and thrown off topic. Not sure why they are allowed to continue, but I sometimes skip it because I can read the same third way things in GD.

[merrily]

60. AFAIK, you are not in the group that I contacted. Other than that, I know what you mean.

Glad you are posting.

[onecaliberal]

63. I guess I will disregard the DU mail confirming I'm in the group.

[merrily]

67. ? I am referring to people I pm'd and emailed. I have nothing to do with DU mail.

I didn't say you weren't in the populist reform group, only that you were not in the group of those I personally contacted, as stated in my Replies 48 and 60.

[demwing]

87. AS the founding host, my intention was simple

to provide a forum where DUers could freely discuss populist, progressive reform of the party, including pointed criticisms of our party leadership, without worry about disruptive posters. If criticisms of corporate bought and paid for candidates offends you, post elsewhere. If my opinion that Obama too often sides with corporate interests offends you, post elsewhere. If you disrupt, you will be banned.

That being said, I have neither the time nor patience to police this group 24/7, so I rely on your feedback. In the last month I have had only two complaints about posters, one which resulted in a chat, the other a banning.

The hosts cannot do this alone, and if you are harassed but don't report it, we cannot make it right.

Have any of our hosts been lax about enforcing these rules? Are we getting complaints that are not being acted on?

I'm very glad you asked this question, because we need to refocus for the new year, and I'd like the group to become more constructively critical of our party leadership. I'd also like to see us generate at least one action that breaks ground for building a foundation of reform. Your post is an opportunity to open the door to such discussions.

The real strengths and benefits of this group have yet to be realized. As the next election nears, I expect that to have changed considerably, if not radically.

Feedback?

[merrily]

94. I have complained right on a thread where this was occurring and discussed it on that thread

with someone who I only today learned is actually a host. He or she told me on that thread that he or she didn't "mind" it. (Mind you, I like and admire this poster a lot and cannot recall ever having disagreed with him or her on anything else.)

That was a while back and I pretty much wandered away from this group then. Because, while, of course, everyone is free to post wherever they wish, and put up with whatever they wish, I honestly don't, for myself, see the point of posting here if certain behaviors are acceptable here.

Today, I returned to see what was going on here and went directly to a thread started by Manny Goldstein, whom I know to be a host. I observed what I consider undesirable behaviors on that thread. So, I poked around a bit more and saw other posts on other threads that IMO, would never have been tolerated in other groups. Then I started this thread.

I am not really talking about people harassing me per se. For one thing, I haven't posted here that much. But, I do often read down an entire thread before I post a reply. And there is an atmosphere here that I have just not seen in other groups.

As I think you can see from the replies, I am not the only one who feels there is a pattern and/or atmosphere here that is not paralleled in other groups. No one who is not a staunch defender of almost everything Dems do is the least bit confused about what my OP means--and I have not been conferring with anyone about this off board. They simply get my OP.

I think I've learned a couple of useful things from this thread, one being that a decision was apparently made at some point to hold back for a while. If that is accurate, I personally can certainly live with that. But, if there is a view that open discussion in this group is desirable, I personally am likely to remain a sporadic visitor.

[merrily]

103. Just to clarify, if needed: I have zero doubt that your intentions and those of all the hosts are

impeccable.

[merrily]

97. I disagree. People who wish to avoid criticism of Obama or debating about their praise of him are

pretty much safe in the Barack Obama Group. Ditto Hillary and the Hillary Group, Kerry and the Kerry Group, etc. DUers who don't live in the South don't visit the Southern Democrats Group to snark at the South or at Southern Democrats. I've yet to see anyone visit the Massachusetts Group to snark at Northeastern liberals. Etc.

[DonCoquixote]

113. I refer you to 1strongblakman

where people posted crap right out of stormfront in the african american group. It is ojne thing to post it to gd (even though it should not be accpetbale either) but IN the AA group? That is like wearing Klan robes in Watts.

[merrily]

115. The hosts allowed it? If so, why? But, my OP is not about outsiders, just DUers who come to this

group, not to further discussion of making the party more progressive, but to nitpick, challenge, etc. That is standard operating procedure in other places on the board, but not in a group that is supposedly a safe place.

[Warpy]

101. Mods can ban the worst offenders from posting in the group

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from trolling the group and alerting on any post they don't like.

Ask any atheist.

[merrily]

102. How confined are the hosts really, to only the so-called "worst" offenders?

And I guess they can also ask any poster to delete a post, as I was asked PDQ (and rightly so, IMO), when I accidentally posted in the Hillary Group that, if nominated, Hillary would likely lose the general.

In part, it is because some DUers are more respectful than others. I don't think the hosts of many of the other groups have to monitor 24/7.

But something also seems to me to be off when Manny, a host of this group, gets mocked on his own thread--and not by only one outlier.

I've seen that happen to another host as well. Other posters did speak out on both the threads that I saw, but, while well-intentioned, that added to the disruption (just as it does in GD).

[BrotherIvan]

104. I agree

I asked to join this group because I was tired of the constant disruption. It feels like someone yelling in your face while you're trying to form an idea. It's totally pointless. I thought this would be the place to have meaningful discussions on liberal policies and to form some kind of plan of action.

I have had a few conversations with posters I have had the same level of discourse in GD, so it's sort of a wash. Granted, I have been away and not as active as some posters. But in the Manny thread were all the disruptors I wanted to get away from. I think there are many intelligent people on DU, but the centrists are making me stay away more and more. If this group is open to the same shit as GD, what exactly is the point?

[sabrina 1]

106. I don't think this group is open to the same shit as GD. I think we'll see some of the

disrupters here from time to time, this is after all, afaik, the first group that provides the Left with some control over the usual disrupters we see in GD.

If they do come here and can refrain from the snide, dismissive of the left, trolling they get away with on GD, if they can contribute in some meaningful way, eg, express an opinion even if it is not one the group agrees with, for discussion, something those I am thinking of never do, then there would be no reason to kick them out.

I doubt those I have in mind could do that however, so if they show up here trolling as they do in GD, they will most likely be blocked.

[BrotherIvan]

112. I've already seen the ones who insist the most on their safe havens

come in here and disrupt. I'm not a mod so I can't say, just putting it out there that it serves no purpose to allow disruptors to do their work. I think it would be nice to have some discussion for a while. Perhaps because the threads of this group are pretty active, they make it fairly high into the greatest page. I wish the admins would give each group a colored link besides blue (easy to do) so people would know when they click on it. That's all. I don't want to have big signs at the top of posts and I wish the need to be as forceful as other groups didn't exist, but it's just so annoying. The Manny thread was particularly bad as Manny is stalked everywhere.

[merrily]

121. Well at least one benefit was pointed out to me, namely having a lot of threads on the same topic

in one cyber place. And that is so, whether the group is "safe" or not.

I would prefer a "safe" group because the left of left has none at DU, but, more than even that, I would prefer the reality to match the description of the group. It's never going to be perfect. You cannot force posters to respect boundaries. So, posts are going to show up before ANYone can humanly catch every single one. But I do think more can be done.

[Cosmic Kitten]

122. This thread has run it's course

It appears that any further "concerns" about the groups
policies, hosting, or practices only serves to undermine
the purpose of this group.

How about less hand-wringing and more constructive
participation on the ACTUAL concerns of Populists?
OK?
Otherwise, it would appear that said "hand-wringing"
only serves to disrupt the group objectives through concern trolling

[NYC_SKP]

123. As a host, Cosmic Kitten, I can support locking this thread as having "run its course".

I don't believe that there's a penalty to the posting member the way there is for jury hides.

In any event, it's become meta and unproductive at this point.

Lock if you wish to, check with other hosts if you like.

[demwing]

128. Please drop this now

If you SEE conflict, report it to me in a PM.

I will not allow the integrity of ANY host or member to be speculatively challenged in public.

[demwing]

127. Do Not Lock this thread till I have a chance to respond to Post #118

I promised a response by this evening, and it will be the last word that I have to contribute to this conversation.

I want those comments in writing, and in public.

thanks!

[NYC_SKP]

130. Sounds good!

I'm sorry for having missed that detail.

I'll be away for much of the day and wanted to chime in without sending multiple PMs.

[aspirant]

124. As a host, I have a question

I noticed NYC SKP is double hosting, here and on BOG. Isn't there issues where this could be a conflict, maybe ObamaTrade?

[NYC_SKP]

129. Good question! If I might....

It's quite possible for a person to adjudicate impartially by simply following the SOP guidelines for each group.

I stay out of a lot of issues in the BOG, but still support the president and that group.

My tenure as a DU moderator over several terms had provided me with a lot of practice in using power in moderation and I think other members with long histories here will support that characterization.

Best regards, and it's a very good and fair question to raise.

[demwing]

131. I had a slightly different take on this subject

I appreciate your willingness to discuss, but I think the question is speculative and challenging.

If I'm being too sensitive, my apologies...

[NYC_SKP]

132. I agree, and don't think it's too sensitive.

I don't mind replying, and maybe others wonder about that, it might be good for out group that it's addressed openly.

To me, the most well functioning people and groups are able to take different sides at different times.

And, Obama is in the past, we are about finding new candidates and champions.

It may even turn out that Obama becomes helpful in this effort, post presidency.

You never know!

[demwing]

134. Locking

Meta debate that has now run it's course.