Regarding the new forum that I proposed recently...

[EarlG]

In a recent announcement I noted that we were considering opening a new top-level forum to discuss the future of the Democratic Party, and where the left goes from here.

We have had "floating" top-level forums in the past -- you may remember the old "General Discussion: Politics" forum from years ago, or the various primary and election post-mortem forums that we've set up from time to time when needed -- so this is not unprecedented.

Now that Trump has returned to the White House as a lame duck, but with heightened powers and clearly intent on revenge, the paradigm has shifted significantly. The Democratic Party is looking to new, younger leaders, and seeking new strategies and ideas to compete in the age of Trump. We should be able to talk about those new ideas here.

In addition, we have already seen numerous discussions expressing dissatisfaction with the way some Democrats have been handling the presidential transition period, and it's likely that these discussions will continue after Trump takes office. I believe that we should not be afraid to have these discussions either, as Democrats chart a new course forward.

So I'm not proposing a new forum because I want to bury the conversation -- on the contrary, I think this is a conversation we should very much be having, which is why I think this should be a top-level forum. But I'm mindful of the fact that not all DUers appreciate this kind of discussion, so moving them out of General Discussion for the most part, and giving them their own space, seems like it would be helpful to both the people who want to participate, and the people who don't.

Concerns about the rules

I suspect that some of you may have questions about how the "Don't Bash Democratic Public Figures" rule might be enforced in such a forum. As you know, we employ a unique community moderation system which relies on the input of all members, which means that the system slowly evolves and changes over time to reflect the overall feelings of the community. It's been clear over the past eight years that the community at large has been far less tolerant of criticism of Democrats, and I totally get that. For the past eight years the Democratic rank-and-file has been unusually united due to the threat of Donald Trump.

But we are entering new territory now. Assuming America is still America by then (unfortunately, an assumption that may prove flawed) we will have mid-terms in 2026, and then both parties will engage in lengthy, combative primaries, with a large cast of characters seeking to replace the old guard. All of this is likely to bring more contentious discussions to DU.

With that said, bear in mind that the current DU rules were created during an extremely contentious time -- the aftermath of the 2016 primaries -- and they were written specifically to handle these kinds of debates.

If you take a look at the "Don't Bash Democratic Public Figures" rule, it's split into two parts. The second part deals entirely with criticism of Democrats during election season.

Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Right now, we are about as far away from an election as it is possible to get, so the above section is not particularly relevant. Now let's look at the first section of the rule:

Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures.

This is just common sense. We have people with many differing points of view on DU, and people have a variety of feelings about Democratic politicians. But we're not going to be able to have a sensible debate if people are throwing out things like "Genocide Joe" or "Fuck Bernie Sanders." That is explicitly what this rule is intended to combat.

In fact, if you look at the section of the rule called, Why we have this rule, it says this:

Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

So when handling appeals on removed posts in the new forum, I would certainly err on the side of allowing critical discussion -- since that would essentially be the purpose of the forum -- while prohibiting outright bashing. (As ever though, Juries will determine where the "fuzzy line" of acceptability is, so the more extreme your comments, the more you take your chances with a Jury.)

A name for the new forum

Assuming people are still up for this idea, here's where I'd like to get your suggestions. If anyone has an idea for a new name for this forum, please reply and let me know! If we get a number of good suggestions and I can't decide which is best, I may put it up for a vote. Just bear in mind that the name should be concise.

Thanks for reading!

(PS. Since this is an Admin-led debate about DU policies and one rule in particular, you may consider the "Don't interfere with forum moderation" rule temporarily suspended on this thread. That said, I would very much appreciate it if people could make the effort to keep the discussion on topic.)