Abusing the guidelines

Bumped from the diaries -- Jonathan... This isn't an intraparty or candidate-based issue. Regardless of the topic of the post or comment, don't troll or hide rate others simply because you do not agree with them. To reiterate, this goes for supporters of any candidate, or people forwarding a particular policy, or basically anything else. The only way this site can function is if people are not abusing the rating system -- administration and ensuring that real trolls (Republicans, spammers or otherwise) can't muck things up can't happen nearly as efficiently if non-trolls are down-rated. So please get familiarized with the guidelines and use the rating system accordingly.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/25/2 31254/360/1#1

Sorry pile-ons, there is nothing in that comment that in anyway abuses the MyDD guidelines. Every single one of those who troll rated or attempted to hide that comment has lost their ability to rate and recommend diaries on the site (you don't lose the ability to rec, but if you lose the ability to rate, you also lose the ability to rec).

This is a Democratic site. Clinton is a Democrat, and she has supporters here. If you are an Obama supporter, and don't like that, tough. Deal with it.

The ratings system works different here than at other scoop blogs. The troll-rating pile-ons of people in the community that you don't like the opinions of does not result in that person losing the ability to post.

Abuse the guidelines and you'll lose privileges and be could be banned.

Tags: MyDD (all tags)



Re: Abusing the guidelines

I lost my ability to rec before that post, but will we ever be getting them back?

by gcensr 2008-05-26 11:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Dude, your screen name is uncalled for.  Seriously, Jerome has done a lot of things I disagree with this primary and IMHO has ignored the bad behavior from one group while going after the bad behavior in another group which is just as bad as the bad behavior.  But show you are better than that instead of stooping to that level.  I've seen 65 year olds act like 12 year old kids on this site this election.  I'm not sure your age, but you as well are acting like a 12 year old.  Grow up.  Act like an adult.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-27 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

....I must be missing something.

"gcensr" is really that atrocious?  Come on.

by BishopRook 2008-05-27 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Lol. That was a different user who seemed, let's say, vague, about his/her real feelings towards Jerome. He decided to address his vagueness with a specifically disgusting username.

I suspect she/he is out in the cornfield.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Daily Reich has zero tolerance

Paging Dr. Godwin.  Jesus Christ.

So Dailykos is now on par with the Third Reich?  Ooooooookay.  

Seriously, I don't know if Jerome is intentionally trying to drive down traffic on MYDD, but his actions will certainly have that effect.  

Perhaps there was a bit of a pile-on on Alegre's post, however, she's always the first one to chase those who don't agree with her off of her threads (or at least encourages them to go post somewhere else if they don't care to drink her particularly noxious brand of Clinton Kool-Aid).

Her "Is this snark?" comment was tantamount to an attack on the diarist in my opinion, since she was obviously aware that it was not 'snark.'  She belittled a well thought out diary, and deserved getting some 1s for it (though not so many).

by cato 2008-05-27 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Daily Reich has zero tolerance

"is this snark" begs the question.  it does not actually need an answer, it is rhetorical bluster.  it was not at all a serious question, she did not want an answer.  she never wants an answer, she doesn't even want discourse.  no, "is this snark" is a direct attack on the diary and poster.  it is meant to immediately impugn the diarist and the content of the diary.  if jerome can't fathom how so many people could be annoyed with this kind of posting, and see it as trolling, he has lost his objectivity.  

by math 2008-05-27 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Daily Reich has zero tolerance

Bull, this is justification after the fact.

No it was an annoying comment but nothing special, I can dig up a thousand of the same sort of comment made by Obama supporters or Clinton supporters alike in the last month, most of them get uprated even.

Yet only one got 50 troll ratings.

It's clear that who said it was more important than what was said.

by Ernst 2008-05-27 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Daily Reich has zero tolerance

Her "Is this snark?" comment was tantamount to an attack on the diarist in my opinion, since she was obviously aware that it was not 'snark.'  She belittled a well thought out diary, and deserved getting some 1s for it
I missed the "pile on"; but I agree.  That comment was, though veiled, unquestionably a sarcastic and personal attack on the diarist.  To use that as an example of what is permissable opens the door wide IMHO.

by rb608 2008-05-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Daily Reich has zero tolerance

Correct.  Not only are comments like that permissable, but giving them anything but a 2 rating is now a banable offense.

Prepare for every pro-Clinton diary to be peppered with "Is this snark? Serious question."

The fact that people are even complaining about it, rather than just getting themselves 5 accounts at a time and switching everytime they're docked over something ridiculous means that most users still have some faith in the fairness of the admins.  As soon as people stop complaining - and that's beginning to happen now, then you've got a problem.

Jerome, you could avoid all this if you would just spend half a minute putting yourself in the shoes of an Obama supporter before you punish 50 of them at a time.

by Jess81 2008-05-28 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

The last (and one of the only) 0's I gave out was to a user attacking Alegre (and I'm an Obama supporter). The last 1 I gave out was to a comment by Jerome that I felt was unnecessarily antagonistic towards users, and I explained as much in a reply.

I've not gotten a 1 or 0 in a long while. I've been a well-behaved user. So, what gives?

by really not a troll 2008-05-27 04:23AM | 0 recs

Abuse the guidelines and you'll lose privileges and be could be banned.

So when will you be yanking alegre's?

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/27/0 16/72198/9?mode=alone;showrate=1#9

Re: Trouble in the Heartland (1.91 / 12)

People will get to know Obama sooner if Hillary acknowledges that she can't win the majority of delegates and endorses him already.

Number of delegates needed to clinch
[under the rules adopted by the DNC, including Clinton staffer Harold Ickes]
Obama     49
Clinton   246

All data from: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:06:18 AM EST
[ Reply to This ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:
rfahey22     2
elie     2
alegre     1
DemsRising     2
neonplaque     2
JJE     2
Priest Valon     2
futbol dad     2
catilinus     2
Firewall     2
mefeck     2
blue2008     2

It's hard to take the guidelines seriously when they're enforced so unevenly.

by kraant 2008-05-26 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

I'd say the commenter is equivocating apples with oranges...but it's more like fresh apples with rotten fruit. One may be digested (Jerome's position), while the other is simply not acceptable to the sensibilities of a typical person's palate.

Asking a legitimate question is not a troll-ratable or hide-ratable offense!

The troll-rating by Alegre was legitimate. The commenter's comment was simply a gross distortion designed to bash a candidate.

For starters, Obama's not 49 votes away from obtaining the nomination...especially since MI and FL are about to be seated. More like 150-200 votes away. And, that's assuming the SuperDelegates vote as they're indicating now...which we all know is subject to change over the next 90+ days, too.

So, yeah, distorting a candidate's situation as far as the delegates are concerned--directly or indirectly--is a legitimate cause for a troll-rating.

T.R.'ing someone for asking an honest question, because the comment is from someone at the forefront of the Pro-Hillary segment of this blog's membership, is not an excuse (for the rating).

And, above all else, it's Jerome's blog! So, get over yourselves!

by bobswern 2008-05-26 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...


* Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Do not hide (rating as 0) a comment unless it is an abuse of the guidelines. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned.

by kraant 2008-05-26 11:27PM | 0 recs
You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

with regard to an isolated incident.

That can hardly be construed as participating in a pile on. I believe Jerome's focus here is to act in the interest of preventing mob rule/abuse.

Likewise, alegre is not a serial abuser. Look back in previous diaries of hers, and you'll see people who didn't participate in tonight's pile on, but who regularly troll rate many of the comments she makes to deprive her of a 2 rating.

And then there's those who don't appear to have a life off the internet who lie in wait for pro-Hilary diaries to appear so they can swoop in to hyjack and disrupt the commentary flow with insults and disparaging remarks.

And don't even get me started on a few who call alegre and other Hillary diarists/supporters racists on a regular basis.

That's alot of negativity for one person to contend with. Under the circumtances, she does remarkably well keeping her attitude positive and slips minimal.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-27 03:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

So why are the Clinton serial abusers that do exist allowed to continue abusing? Jerome hasn't seem the least bit interested in doing anything about them. Interesting he galloped in to "save" Alegre.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

Well for the most part, while I disagree with his/her position ALEGRE is actually a pretty intelligent poster.

But HE/SHE has done many patently offensive posts and diaries.  The person shouldn't be banned, but the same standards need to be applied and frankly Jerome isn't doing it.  Maybe he is doing it unconciously.  but he is doing it none the less.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-27 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

A comment having 50 troll ratings and 3 good  is going to stand out more then a comment having 12 good ratings and one troll.

I don't care about Alegre at all, and find her diaries completely unreadable, but I'm not surprised that the first scenario gets acted on, while the second does not.

Now I'm sure that Alegre deserves to have her ratings pulled but to complain about it not equal measures is dishonest. Fifty people swarm rating one user because they don't like her is a lot more disruptive to the site then a single one downrating a comment they don't like.

If Alegre losing her mojo privelidges would stop the complaining about this subject I'm fine with it. But I'm currently sick of all those comments and taglines about what marters those are that lost their rating abilities.

by Ernst 2008-05-27 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

Wow - this subthread is about my comment (which was a very straightforward presentation of the state of the delegate race) which was downrated.

I am consistently downrated by Alegre and others for perfectly civil, logical posts. And I almost never downrate others.

So, frankly, yes, I do think there is a double standard on this site.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

actually, I started asking why people were giving out TR's... never got a response from any of the people that did it though.

I get TR'd, well, not frequently, but it happens.  I just have learned to take it as a sign that someone disagrees with me but would rather not put into writing the reason...

But, if the rules are the rules, they should be enforced equally...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-27 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

I usually suffer my troll ratings in silence, but NO LONGER!!

I intend to scream like a stuck pig the next time one of the Clinton dead enders troll rates me for pointing out Obama has won this race.  Maybe we should set up a daily ratings abuse diary so the Admins can see all the abuses in one place.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

It depends on the phrasing....  I have seen TR's that were appropriate because the way the poster said "Obama won" was inflammatory and insulting...

I have yet to say Obama won by the way...  He has not yet secured the nomination although he is within inches now.

It's some of the uprates that I find amusing... there are a couple of posters that can just post some wildly insulting language and people uprate them for it because they are on the same side.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-27 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

I will point out what occurs to me and that is this....  ever since the post over at No Quarter -- yes, that bat-guano crazy turd of a Larry Johnson blog - encouraging people to come over here because Jerome was "like-minded", this place has been nearly as ridiculous sometimes in tone, AFAIC.  I come here for that on and off bit of good information, but for the most part, i am shocked at the number of bitter, utterly crazy Clinton supporters that are here as well.  The discourse needs to change, folks.  I'm sorry, but if you are one of those people who will vote for McCain because "your guy lost"  the primary, you are insane.  If you are convinced that Obama is some kind of evil Manchurian Candidate because of all the shite on No Quarter, you are insane.  Your buttons are being pushed by a former CIA agent and a bunch of diarists who think his crap doesn't stink.  That may, in fact, be the definition of insanity.  Voting for McCain because you like Hillary.....

by funknjunk 2008-05-27 04:37PM | 0 recs
Well, we'll never know

since Alegre's ratings have been scrubbed.  

by kellogg 2008-05-27 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

I beg to disagree with you. Alegre downrated me about 6 times yesterday and none of my comments were offensive.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 05:10AM | 0 recs
Says you

I went to your coments page and checked. You were downrated one time total yesterday, and it wasn't Alegre who did it.

Please just stop this. I'm telling you it's not good. I'm starting to wish I never heard the name Barack Obama.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-27 05:44AM | 0 recs
Alegre's ratings...

I went to your coments page and checked. You were downrated one time total yesterday, and it wasn't Alegre who did it.

... have been erased.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/27/3 529/79363/54#54

by kraant 2008-05-27 05:47AM | 0 recs
Ok I'm over this

I'm relatively new here, and from what I've observed, Obama supporters are decidely bullyish and abusive in their behavior in a way Hillary supporters are not.

This is a game you are playing, it's destructive and nasty, and I am astonished that you care not at all about the wedge you are driving in the party.

Have fun, and good luck on Nov. 4. Something tells me you're going to need it.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-27 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok I'm over this

What?  You are out of here because the poster above was proven correct?  Jerome remove alegre's ratings but still it is all about those Obama supporters?  What about the wedge you just drove into party unity?  Could this not be considered bullish, and abusive?  The game you are playing is also destructive if you post and run.  Reasonable discourse should always be encouraged, even in alegre diaries.

by temptxan 2008-05-27 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok I'm over this

Phoenixdreamz,  I got bullied off of plenty of Alegre posts.

Give her supporters some more credit, you act as if they are all inocent baby lambs or something.

save the drama for O.....

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-27 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

Exactly. Check out dailykos, where mob rule is the norm. It's become an ideologically homogeneous nightmare because dissenting voices are driven into the sea by troll-ratings.

by doyenne49 2008-05-27 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

Sorry, but there's nothing in the guidelines about participating in a pile-on. Abusing a TR or HR is just as bad no matter how many others did the same.

And as for Alegre not being a serial abuser. So what? I lost my ability to rec after my first time ever giving a TR, and I did it for good reason.

She deserves no special circumstances. Especially since, while some of her diaries ARE positive, some of them are downright inappropriate, such as the one calling all of Obama supporters naive. That is a personal attack on half the community here, and was on the top of the rec list.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-27 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: You are attemtping to play a game of gotcha

It's a double standard here.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-27 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Funny, because I see it as the exact opposite. I thought the comment she TR'd was perfectly legitimate, but her own comment, I took to be an insult to the poster, effectively saying, "What you've said is so stupid, I'll ask if it's snark, even though I know the answer is no, because I want to tell you how dumb I thought it was without saying so."

But that's just how I read them.

by mattw 2008-05-26 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

I agree with you.

I thought Allegre's comment deliberately and stupidly offensive

by wrb 2008-05-27 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Thats how I interpreted it also, but rather than troll rate her (which would be stretching the site rules at best) I thought it better to simply ask her what her reasoning was and let her silence do the job of discrediting her opinion.

by protothad 2008-05-27 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Silence likewise discredits Faux questions.

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 08:03AM | 0 recs
I would welcome an answer

I would welcome the opportunity for polite and rational debate on this and other topics.  It just seems some prominent posters here would rather do hit-and-run posts but not engage in real debate.  I was hopeful that my post would get a reply, but past history of the user in question had me betting it would not happen.

I will extend the same question/courtesy to you.  Do you think the diary was snark?  If so, why?  What points do you disagree with?

by protothad 2008-05-27 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I would welcome an answer

I haven't read the diary and have no intention to.

However, I can speak from my own experience. Childish demands that posters pull all nighters to answer the irrational demands Obama supporters does not merit a response.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/12/2 15134/739/5#5

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 08:39AM | 0 recs
That seems a bit odd to me...

Commenting in a comment thread for a diary you haven't even read?  How can you even hold an oppinion about the 'snark question' if you haven't read the diary it was refering to?

And yes, I don't expect a user to spend all night answering every question, particularly if they would just end up repeating themselves... but one assumes most people post in these forums because they actually want dialog.  Failing to answer legitimate questions about ones statements just undermines credibility.


by protothad 2008-05-27 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: That seems a bit odd to me...

People vocalize opinions about Alegre's diaries within seconds after she's posted it, without reading a word. This phenomonem among Obama supporters seems to happen with remarkably frequency.

Demanding a diarist "hop to it" or "iron my shirt" undermines the credibility of the questioner.

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: That seems a bit odd to me...

You are wandering off point.  The fact that some Obama supporters are jerks does not answer the question at hand, which is 'why does Alegre feel the diary might be snark?'  The two are not at all connected.  I've never told a diarist to 'hop to it' or said anything as sexist as 'iron my shirt', so I don't know what that has to do with anything... unless you think it is fair to paint all Obama supporters with a brush dipped in the vitriol of an ugly few.

Look, Alegre is free to post what she wants and is under no obligation to answer questions about what she posts, but if she fails to address legitimate questions about the stands she takes, it WILL undermine her credibility.  The same is true if I do it, or you do it, or Jerome does it.

by protothad 2008-05-27 10:47AM | 0 recs
The official position pro tem

is 49 delegates needed. As a statement of the official position surely this is indisputable, unless, or until, the Rules Committee change the previous ruling on 31 May.

So to assert that saying 49 is trolling, is quite bizarre.

by diranuk 2008-05-27 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

"Moderation" here is a farce.  Either swallow the Clinton orthodoxy, or get yourself some extra usernames and get over it.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-26 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Or you know, just actually follow the rules.

by Ernst 2008-05-27 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Follow the party line, and rules don't really matter.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-27 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

attica! Fight the represion! attica! attica!

Come on. 50 people troll rated a flippant comment that was no worse then yours just now.

Yes alegre gets treated specially, but not by armstrong. Alegre is annoying and ticked off a large part of the Obama supporters. I personally think clinton supporters would be better off without her  But don't pretend this was more then a group of 41 users troll rating somebody because simply disliked her so much that they couldn't be objective anymore.

I can understand why people don't like her, but those that troll rated her can't be trusted to be objective enough to rate.

by Ernst 2008-05-27 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

If I had more than one 50th of her prominence, I might comment more carefully.  She's powerful enough that the rules don't apply to her, so the only thing someone can do when tired of her rants is troll-rate her trollish comments.

If you think she is not a troll, please explain why not.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-27 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

I don't think she is a troll because for the love of mike I can't see any difference between her and you.

by Ernst 2008-05-27 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

1. Number of recommended diaries.

Your turn.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-27 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...


by Ernst 2008-05-27 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Differences between alegre and guazatragicness.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-27 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Yeah, alegre TR'd for what was clearly not an attack on another user. Hence, alegre violated the guidelines, and if there is any consistency in enforcing the guidelines, she should lose her privileges.

How about it Jerome? We all know you're reading.

by gcensr 2008-05-26 11:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Apples and Oranges, obviously.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Supporters and non-supporters of Our Girl, obviously.  FAIL.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-26 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Not in any way that's obvious to me. Alegre's "question" was obviously not a question, and was intended to insult the diary, if not the diarist.

OTOH, the post she TR'd was merely stating a fact. Could one argue that one should worry about MI/FL? Perhaps, but the comment even says, "Under the rules adopted by the DNC", i.e., with a full penalty on their delegates.

If anything, it seems to me like her snarky question was the content-free bash at the diarist, and the comment she TR'd was a legitimate statement.

by mattw 2008-05-26 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

I don't think the post by politicsmatters should have been troll rated.  That said, I don't think an errant troll rate here and there is a bannable offense.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 01:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

She does it all the time to me, frankly.  I don't have the time right now to document it, but I wrote back on threads yesterday asking her why she downrated me - She did it at around 6 times just yesterday.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

I haven't really been following the dispute so I'm not up to speed.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

So you don't think multiple inappropriate troll rates by one poster merits punishment of that poster, but you're okay with a single TR by multiple posters resulting in punishment for everyone involved?

by nathanp 2008-05-27 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

I'll do whatever the DNC... er I mean the powers that be... decide.  


by BPK80 2008-05-27 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Does the same apply in this case?  Or not?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-27 12:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Or not.  They probably didn't support Our Girl.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-27 12:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Jerome responded to me below.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-27 01:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Instead of putting a one line response, how about actually responding to this and explaining your position.  Because the enforcement of the rules is extremely vague and does not appear to be consistent.   So please, do the users of a site a favor, and explain your position so we can try and actually follow the rules.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-27 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Its apples and oranges in that there was no mob pile on but in this case Alegre came right in to a well thought out and well-written post about the primary process and immediately declared it snark, which if not against the guidelines was childish, petulant and unhelpful to the dialogue on the site. In the other case she gave a one rating to a comment that had otherwise gotten all 2's. Why does she seem to get special treatment in this situation?

by wasder 2008-05-27 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

not really, just because BHO folks organize on dkos to gang up-rate (ALSO against the rules) each other does not mean the rest of the ythread should be ignored nor does justify the pure hatred that pours on her head every time she posts

by trytobereal 2008-05-27 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

geezus, I got an HR in this diary for asking the same question lots of people here asked?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

yep more BHO'er ratings abuse gone un-noted, just more whines from them

by zerosumgame 2008-05-27 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

actually the commenter you quoted has been playing headgames with myself and alegre for a while now which kind of borders on the stalkerish side.  not excusing - just saying.

by canadian gal 2008-05-26 11:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Oh for heavens sake - responding to someone in  a diary is not stalking!  Alegra gets comments from the same people because she insists on repeating falsehoods and not responding when called on them.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-26 11:43PM | 0 recs
this is not what i am talking about.

lots of RL questions etc.

by canadian gal 2008-05-26 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: this is not what i am talking about.

Alegre uses her real life stories in most of her diaries - so much so that a number of people speculate that she is creating situations to fit her narrative.  She puts it out there - it's fair game.  As Hillary likes to say, if you can't stand the heat....

by interestedbystander 2008-05-27 01:01AM | 0 recs
Re: this is not what i am talking about.

Yesterday my RL question was whether you lived in southern Canada because you used the phrase "you'all"  In the real world, that's called a joke.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 05:13AM | 0 recs
If you read the thread...

...from where the commenter's pulling the TR rating from Alegre, it's self-evident that, in context, Alegre was the recipient of some outrageous, over-the-top abuse, in that particular comment thread. Read the damn thing then say Alegre wasn't pretty damn good about maintaining her cool! I mean, there were commenters outright calling her an ASS in the headlines of their freakin' comments in that brief thread for god's sake! WTF!?! So, go read the thread, and judge for yourself, in terms of CONTEXT. It was completely out of bounds, IMHO. I have to commend Alegre for only TR'ing that comment, frankly. We're talkin' serious abuse here! Sheesh!

by bobswern 2008-05-26 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: If you read the thread...

funny how that was 'overlooked' when the link was posted...

by zerosumgame 2008-05-27 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

fwiw, the ratings were erased.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

Erasing her ratings serves two purposes.  One, it clears any wrongful TR's she dished out.  Two, it prevents anyone from seeing the wrongful TR's she gave out but was not punished for.

by map 2008-05-27 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

 When the commenters (like you) ratings ability was pulled all your rec/ratings up or down were erased. Not alegres, at least I think that is what seems to happen.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-27 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...

My ratings weren't erased, just my ability to issue new ones.  Alegre's on the other hand, were erased shortly after it was pointed out that she abuses the system too.

by map 2008-05-27 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...


by nightsweat 2008-05-27 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrrrm...


by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-27 10:54AM | 0 recs
I love your sig

John McCain has issues with Roe V Wade.

by Student Guy 2008-05-30 12:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Wow, I've never seen that many ratings for a comment. This was a DK-style pile-on.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Its pretty obnoxious mob mentality, thats for sure.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:21PM | 0 recs
Is This Snark?

Serious question.

by kraant 2008-05-26 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

No. Serious answer.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:30PM | 0 recs
Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

is it Obama's supporters you take issue with or Obama himself?

by sricki 2008-05-26 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

Neither. I've said many times that if Obama wins the nomination, I'll vote for him and hope he wins. I'm fine with Obama supporters being here. This doesn't have to be binary.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

Then why do you go out of your way to protect Alegra, who made an obnoxious post to a serious, well thought out diary?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-26 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

It has nothing to do with the poster. It was in the cue on the hidden list. And the pile-on warranted the diary.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:39PM | 0 recs
Given your obvious candidate preference,

does it not seem the slightest bit opportunistic that you'd locate a post by a favored pro-Clinton blogger and use it to disable the rating abilities of ~25 non-Clinton supporters at once?

by Firewall 2008-05-26 11:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Given your obvious candidate preference,

If I see an abuse on this scale the other way, it'd be the same result. It had nothing to do with the user, but the actions.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Given your obvious candidate preference,

Respectfully submitted for your attention.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-27 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Given your obvious candidate preference,

That was already dealt with, I see by looking at the admin.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-27 12:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Given your obvious candidate preference,

Thank you.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-27 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Given your obvious candidate preference,

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/26/2 21447/282/6#6

Here is one for you. This person had a lot of TR's that people felt were unfair.

by Hillarywillwin 2008-05-27 12:12AM | 0 recs
Then why does it seem as if they're

treated differently here? Even I've noticed it. Is it because you saw the insanity that descended upon dKos when the Obama-mania began, and you decided to prevent it from happening here? If so, that's unquestionably a noble effort, but I believe it's gone awry to some extent. And if that isn't the case, I'm not sure I understand why a bias seems to exist at all.

by sricki 2008-05-26 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does it seem as if they're

There may be a bias. Without knowing the complete list of commenters who have lost their rec privileges, I can't be sure. I agree that most of those who have stated their status are Obama supporters.

On the other hand, a lot of the more outspoken Clinton supporters have disappeared from the site, and I can only imagine they've been banned entirely: hwc, Truthteller, Fleaflicker, TexasDarlin, linfar, etc. The latter two were reinstated (rightfully so, in my opinion), but I was always wary of hwc because in between some good points he would do things such as use Obama's middle name gratuitously.

So the hammer does fall on both sides, though perhaps not entirely evenly.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:47PM | 0 recs
if there wasn't a bias...

removing the rec ability of 41 users who considered Alegre's comment inappropriate probably means there is one now.

by Casuist 2008-05-27 12:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does it seem as if they're

Its always been a site that promotes all the candidate supporters being here, and that's not changed.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does it seem as if they're

You certainly do a better job than most places.

It would be really nice, though, to have some assurance that rec/rate bans will be removed after the primaries.

Otherwise, I'll just start posting now on a different name to save myself the trouble.

by gcensr 2008-05-26 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does it seem as if they're

Yea, at some point, there will be amnesty.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-27 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does it seem as if they're

June 4th?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-27 01:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does it seem as if they're

Im quoting Jerome on this one!

We need a date,  there is no reason not to have amnesty.

He knows the source of this crap will be gone on June 5th period.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-27 07:24AM | 0 recs
Yes, it has changed

Obama supporters are not welcome here.  We are suffered, and only barely respected.

Whenever there is a dustup, with plenty of blame to go around, only Obama supporters are told to leave if they don't like it. Supporters for both candidates have routinely gotten out of hand, but for some reason the Obama supporters are always cast in the worst light.  We frequently get mocked and taunted in frontpage posts, as a whole, and the site guidelines seem to be selectively enforced to the benefit of out-of-line Clinton supporters.  

I've lurked here since 2005, and have always been proud to think of myself as part of the MyDD community.  What has happened to this site is sad.  We all deserve better than this.

by mffarrow 2008-05-27 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, it has changed

you really need to calm down, there was a diary last night with a poll asking people to vote if the have their ratings ability pulled or not. from the last numbers I saw there are many more BHO people left here then HRC and about the same ratio of rating/not rating appled to both groups so your little rant really does not seem to reflect reality.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-27 06:59AM | 0 recs

for your concern.

by mffarrow 2008-05-27 05:04PM | 0 recs
I don't think it's that bad.

I know of at least three or four Clinton people who've been banned and others complain about losing their privileges.  If both sides are complaining, they must be doing something right.

by psychodrew 2008-05-27 02:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think it's that bad.

Intellectually lazy Broderism. "If both sides have issues, we must be right!"

Having unhappy fanatics is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being right.

by really not a troll 2008-05-27 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

I've definitely seen TR violations from both sides. I'm not sure what it takes to lose one's rating privileges, but somehow a giant pile-on like that feels qualitatively different that a single spite TR. That felt more like personal hatred.

Actually, can someone tell me the difference between a hide rating and a troll rating?

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:37PM | 0 recs
incredibly well put.

it lends meaning to the word pile-on.

by canadian gal 2008-05-26 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: incredibly well put.

Thank you. I really enjoy your opinions and writings, and so I'm particularly gratified by this comment.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you tell me

It is a pile-on because it was not a comment that would normally draw massive hide ratings. If you or I responded to someone with "Is that snark" it is possible that someone would troll rate us, but we certainly wouldn't get hit by every person who read the thread. The massive troll and hide rating of a relatively innocuous hostile comment makes other motives likely. Given that alegre is famous user who has a pretty massive hate club, it is fairly obvious that people noticed that alegre had posted something that could arguably fit in the rules of what can be hide rated, so they all dumped their hide ratings on her at once.

by letterc 2008-05-27 01:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you tell me

Actually, Alegre is a articulate and staunch Clinton supporter. Many people respect the thoughts and opinions contained her diaries and recommend them.

Many so-called Obama supporters, who are far less articulate, abuse the rating system in an attempt to silence these voices.

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you tell me

You aren't actually arguing with me, just translating my neutral statements into biased statements. Did you misread "hate club" to refer to alegre's cadre of lurkers? If you reread, I think you will understand that it referred to the group of anti-alegre commenters who just got themselves restricted for gang-piling.

by letterc 2008-05-27 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you tell me

Contrarily, many Obama supporters tend to ascertain rather pointed vitriol from Alegre's diaries, and rather than acquiesce, we have taken umbrage.

Our attempts to engage said diarist have been read upon with blind eyes.  Therefore, it appears, a concerted effort was made to display our consternation for her constant condescension by employing a measure of solidarity contrived to indicate our disdain for her refusal to acknowledge our repeated requests for political discourse, namely by refusing to address any posts which rebutted those she had initially made.

/"articulate" enough there for ya?
//OBAMA '08

by doschi 2008-05-27 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

from Teh Rulez

* Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Do not hide (rating as 0) a comment unless it is an abuse of the guidelines.

So, 1 for attacks, 0 for breaking site rules.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-27 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

Thanks Sricki for standing up for the principle, even though you support Hillary.

I guess, though glad to be saved from DKos piling on, even several Hillary supporters realise that they have a slightly protected status on this site.

It makes sense - just - so that the blogosphere, otherwise massively pro Obama, has a bit more balance, and can represent millions of voters.

But my fear is, just as the rec list has begun to reflect reality, with a sample of more Pro Obama diaries for once, and fewer of the vanity publishing efforts from diarists (who don't respond to comments or read other people's diaries, and seem to bring an entourage of recommenders as soon as they post) that you could be accused of fixing the rec list by removing the reccing powers of Obama supporters.

That makes some limited sense too. You don't want to lose them because they will be important in the site in the future.

But my guess is that actually, a lot of these younger Obama supporters will be loyal to the site in the future. Just as in voting patterns, it's about catching people's imagination when they're young. In the meantime, a lot of the more celebrated pro Hillary diarists will just disappear when her campaign is over.

So I'm glad you've explained (a little). But I would urge you to do more, for the sake of MYDD, to allow it to shift opinion when the nomination is basically decided.

by duende 2008-05-27 12:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

wow, your first sentence and all you could do was make a snide swipe at all HRC supporters. yeah, your a real manly man...

by zerosumgame 2008-05-27 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Even as a Clinton supporter, I'm curious,

Wow. I commend a Hillary supporter, who then mojo's my comment, and you get all ad hominem. Not sure what kind of man you are, but bitching behind your keyboard doesn't promise much

by duende 2008-05-28 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

What is the appropriate response to a diarist that has two diaries a day on the rec list, usually rec'd by members that never bother to post here, whose diaries are filled with provable falsehoods, and whose response when the falsehoods are pointed out is usually "WTF is wrong with you?", if she responds at all?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-26 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines


by mikeinsf 2008-05-26 11:37PM | 0 recs
pure gold

by semiquaver 2008-05-27 12:16AM | 0 recs
How do you add things like your "Donate...

to Barack Obama" button near the Reply and Parent buttons?

by nklein 2008-05-27 12:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"What is the appropriate response to a diarist that has two diaries a day on the rec list?"

1. Applaud the diarist's success in getting to the rec list not infrequently....

2. Check to see if it violates the site's rules (probably doesn't).

3. Check your vision (I oft times have double-vision.)

4. Cross yourself prior to delving in.

5. Don't claim surprise if some of the themes seem repetitive or lifted from a prior diary.

6. Assume diarist with entered this site with an institutional 100 SD lead, and won't easily be voted off the list.

7. Write a great counter-dairy.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 01:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines
7. Write a great counter-dairy

which will probably not make in on to the rec list, if it ever sees the light of day at all. And if it does, you'll immediately be jumped on (metaphorically, of course) by folks from the other diary who will tell you that you should have just written a big comment responding to the first diary instead of posting your own diary, and you should delete your diary immediately.
by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-27 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I'm not defending the system here, which I don't really grasp in totality yet.

However, you're wrong. There have been multiple counter-diaries this week that made it on the rec list at the same time as the original targeted diaries.

Seems to me, there's more pro-Obama posters here than pro-Clinton posters, but the pro-Clinton posters &/or people that rec their diaries, have their actions a little better coordinated.

Criticize this site all you wish, but don't claim it's an echo chamber without Obama supporters on it.

Sorry for the rant, but the coffee gone's to my head already.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

obvious the appropriate response to this, per jerome's actions, is to protect said diarist at all costs, because said posting is important to the diversity of the site.  

by math 2008-05-27 05:30AM | 0 recs
mob mentality

Even among many who support Obama, as I do, there is a recognition of the mob mentality among some in the so-called progressive netroots (among both Obama and Clinton supporters).  I know some who were early supporters of the "progressive blogosphere" and who despair of the lack of reality based views on blogs.  The RFK comment hysteria on some blogs was the latest example.  A front pager on at least one blog stirred up the mob.  Meanwhile, people like Axelrod actually were very good and did not see the comments as so terrible.  On Hardball on Friday, Axelrod refused Mathews invitation to misocntrue the statements.  Watching the You Tube, it was clear that Axelrod thought Mathews was crazy.  Yet the view rejected by Axelrod (and later by Obama, who "took Clinton at hr word" about the statements), was the prevelant view on Friday when I last looked at a few blogs.  

Many blogs and blog readers/commenters are all about emotion now.  Anger and rage.  Demonizing the opponent.  For some Clinton becomes worse than Bush; for others, Obama is worse.  Both views are ridiculous.  Both Obama and Clinton are good Democrats and good people.

In combination with a mob mentality (on both sides at times), the "progresisve blogosphere" is becoming, at least in some places, the Democratic Party version of Rush Limbaugh.  That is unfortunate.  It could be a good tool for change, but I think it will just end up being entertainment.  And so it goes.

by TomP 2008-05-27 05:53AM | 0 recs

From the most practical of standpoints, this (below) summarizes why I post here:

The ratings system works different here than at other scoop blogs.
   --Jerome Armstrong

Thank you, Jerome! (For 'providing shelter from the storm!')

by bobswern 2008-05-26 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: FWIW...

At least at DKos I can click once instead of twice to go back.  What is up with that?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-27 07:21AM | 0 recs
Based on its users...

this site is becoming more and more like DK every day. To me, that's not a compliment.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:17PM | 0 recs
You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

...yet you keep coming down on supporters of only one particular Democrat.

Why is that?

And should that Democrat become the last one standing in the nomination process, how will you reconcile the vitriol against that Democrat on a site that purports to support the election of a Democrat to the White House?

by Firewall 2008-05-26 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

I don't know how long you've been here, but anyone who's been around a while knows thats not the case.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:45PM | 0 recs
Is This Snark?

Serious question.

by kraant 2008-05-26 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

I've been reading since March (perhaps earlier), and there hasn't been a week I've been here when I haven't read a diary by someone threatening to vote for McCain if Clinton isn't nominated.

Then there are the Rezko diaries, the Wright diaries, the overturn-by-convention diaries, etc.

Then you've got the fact that dozens of Obama supporters have had their rec abilities stripped, while comparitively few Clinton supporters have been disabled.

How's this going to change if and when Obama becomes the nominee? Are you still going to give haven to people like Michael Begala? Are you going to continue removing rec abilities of Obama supporters? Are you going to let the rec list be populated with diaries asking for further investigations into Rezko, further probes into Jeremiah Wright?

At what point will you make a decision whether to let this site descend into H44 madness or become, once again, a site dedicated to the election of the Democratic nominee?

I haven't even mentioned your front page posts, but those are as much a sign of this site's perogative as anything. Will the tone of those posts toward our nominee and approximately half of your user base change, or will this turn into a haven for people who just didn't get over the end of the Clinton candidacy?

by Firewall 2008-05-26 11:52PM | 0 recs
may i ask a question?

you seem pretty shook up about mydd and the administering of the site - no?  and i know this may sound harsh (and i am by no means advocating that you leave) but why do you still come here?

if i was clearly disturbed as you appear to be, why subjugate yourself to something that bothers you so?

by canadian gal 2008-05-26 11:57PM | 0 recs
LOL. I'm not shook up, or disturbed.

But it is very interesting to me on an intellectual level. I've never seen a site disintegrate in real time due to the actions of the site's administrator. Ordinarily, that itself would be reason enough to visit, but the decision to make an account came when observing the strangeness of a rec list frequently populated by lies while the site itself continued to identify itself as one committed to the election of Democrats. This isn't H44 (yet), but it would sort of be like reading a site called Dems are 44 in the DK blogroll, coming over, and seeing H44 in everything but the name, complete with a rules section describing the site's devotion to the election of Democrats.

I'm really curious to see where the site goes in the coming weeks. It's like when astronomers discovered a comet was going to crash into Jupiter, and everyone trained their telescopes on it. The difference here is that you actually have a chance to steer the comet away from the planet, but so far, he's chosen not to.

by Firewall 2008-05-27 12:02AM | 0 recs
histrionics aside.

on an intellectual level i agree with you - but what i have personally witnessed here in the past few weeks has been frightful. and unfortunately mostly coming from people who state they are BO supporters.  spamming diaries, attacking people personally, calling any positive HRC diary/non-positive BO diary a smear (and not the real trolls)and really being down-right nasty.

so - my point is that depending on who you talk to each person feels differently about how mydd is being moderated.

by canadian gal 2008-05-27 12:09AM | 0 recs
Re: histrionics aside.

See my post below. Regardless of our disagreements on the site's moderation, at some point, if this is a site supporting the election of a Democrat to the White House, a lot of the stuff currently written about Obama will have to go. If not, this just becomes another site spreading FUD for McCain. I'd say the same if Clinton somehow became the nominee and DK became filled with diaries about Vince Foster.

by Firewall 2008-05-27 12:13AM | 0 recs
Re: histrionics aside.

Absolutely right on in the last post Firewall.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: may i ask a question?

Remember that same question being put to Clinton supporters at Dailykos right before they left? The path you take is the same path that ran Alegre out of Dailykos. Only in reverse.

by Hillarywillwin 2008-05-27 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: may i ask a question?

Well, for me, the reason I haven't abandoned the site entirely is because I am emotionally invested in MyDD, and once thought it was the best political site on the net. It was certainly my favorite. While I still respect it a great deal, it has dropped off a lot during the Clinton/Obama jihad, and I truly wish the site would be closer to what it was when it rocked.

I lived through 2000. I have been here so long that I remember that MyDD used to stand for "My Due Diligence" and not, "My Direct Democracy." MyDD was one of my rocks when the world really, really sucked. I really miss that MyDD.

Yes, I am an Obama supporter (now, at least-- originally, I was for Edwards). And primarily a lurker, but one who used to come here multiple times a day. I even liked the fact that MyDD was flying against the left blogsphere a bit on Obama versus Hillary.

But over time, MyDD has gone from a place where neutrality was maintained to one where it feels one group is favored. I suspect this is more subconscious than anything else, but the bottom line is that there's a clear disconnect between the MyDD's stated goals and what actually happens. In short, it feels like there is one set of rules for supporters of one candidate, and one set of rules for another.

MyDD feels like a place where I am a barely tolerated and unwanted minority. And the unequal treatment is a constant reminder of the wound which I feel is NOT being healed in OUR party.

I don't enjoy being here anymore, but I come here anyway because I once really did.

by alteran 2008-05-27 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: may i ask a question?

This is spot on.  It will be interesting to see how this shakes out June 5th.  Laying in a supply of popcorn.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-27 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

In the last few days, two front-pagers pretty much said that Hillary is waiting around for Obama to be assassinated. Most of the recommended diaries right now are pro-Obama/anti-Clinton diaries. It's not as bad as you make it seem, in my opinion.

This site feels much more balanced than many of the others out there--with so many Obama sites that feel incredibly extreme to Clinton supporters, can we maybe try to deal with one that may have a small to moderate pro-Clinton tilt?

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

The site is definitely closer to 50/50 in terms of C/O supporters, but, as the adage goes, that doesn't entitle the site to 50 percent fiction and 50% reality. Diaries hoping for more Wright videos, diaries attacking Michelle's patriotism, diaries about "McCain Democrats"--that stuff's only fit for GOP blogs, no matter how invested you are in Clinton or Obama.

I do think it's gotten better than it used to be (more Clinton supporters seem to acknowledge the greater threat of McCain, just as fewer Obama supporters on DK are thinking of sitting out the election). But there's still a lot of stuff here that doesn't pass the muster for alleged members of a party that's about to declare its nominee. There's a certain point where calling Obama an "empty suit" or a "Chicago businessman" becomes nothing more than shilling from McCain, no matter how much of a Clinton supporter one claims to be.

That time will be here shortly. Many would argue it's here already.

by Firewall 2008-05-27 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

Wasn't there a diary at the top of the rec list a few days ago basically agreeing with the premise that Hillary is hoping that Obama gets assassinated? I mean, what could be worse than that?

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 12:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

At DK? Not to my knowledge. There were several diaries concerning her comments, and it's hard for me to see how her comments could have been interpreted in any way but one suggesting the possibility of an assassination justified her continued presence in the race. This is one of those issues where how you took her words made all the difference.

by Firewall 2008-05-27 12:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

it was here and it was at the top of the rec list.

by canadian gal 2008-05-27 12:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

To be honest, though, I can see where a lot of people (particularly Obama supporters) would have got that idea from.

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Personally, I found her words incredibly thoughtless if not incredibly craven. Given she'd said them on at least two separate occasions, they not only appeared craven, but malicious.

But we're probably going to disagree on this one. Personally, I think we'd be a lot better off if none of our candidates repeatedly raised the spectres of assassinations--whether in the context of defending their extended presence in races or in discussing the weather or in marveling at grassy knolls. Some things are better left unsaid when running for office.

by Firewall 2008-05-27 12:34AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

Bobby Kennedy's own son wasn't offended, and understood the context of Hillary's statment. Seems to me if he understood the statement in context, this shouldn't escape even the most irrational Obama supporters.

"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 08:52AM | 0 recs
What could be worse than that?

How about Senator Clinton saying she's staying in because in June of 1968, RFK was assassinated and anything could happen?

For Christ's sake, she said it. A half-assed explanation and a quarter-assed non-apology followed by the usual round of finger-pointing at everyone and anyone not named Clinton doesn't even begin to atone for the monumentally stupid comment she made, it certainly doesn't erase it from memory.

by nathanp 2008-05-27 12:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What could be worse than that?

See, I can't take anyone seriously who believes that's what she was saying.

It is incredibly obvious that she simply meant that primaries have gone into June before--in both 1968 and 1992. Honestly, even if she were hanging around hoping that Obama chokes on a pretzel, why would she be so stupid as to say it out loud?

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

In the last few days, two front-pagers pretty much said that Hillary is waiting around for Obama to be assassinated.

Well before she went back and explained herself, (if you want to accept the explanation at face value. Clearly some of us have difficulty taking Senator Clinton at her word for some reason,) that was pretty much what she said.

by nathanp 2008-05-27 12:22AM | 0 recs
Can ya'll STOP calling him "our nominee"

unless and until he IS the nominee?  Perhaps it has escaped your attention that BHO is not, as of this date, May 27, 2008, the nominee of the Democratic party?  

by aurelius 2008-05-27 12:05AM | 0 recs
You're right.

You're right.  The commenter should have said "presumptive nominee"

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-27 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

I've been here four years, and I still can't get my old user name Brit to work.

Over those four years, MYDD has been a pool of sanity, but something has happened during these primary wars, and though the site has the right scale and a nice mix of different viewpoints, the truth is that Obama supporters have operated under a sense of fear here, where I've been trolled with impunity by some senior pro Hillary diarists, merely for disagreeing.

I think everyone can understand you don't want this to be dominated by one candidate's supporters, and that - because that candidate has large, perhaps inordinate support on the blogosphere - you've had to enact strange and perhaps extraordinary measures.

Now that the primaries are nearly over, I hope you'll be able to reinstate most those users, and let the natural democratic flow of support flow back to this site. It will be best for it in the long run.

by duende 2008-05-27 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

This strikes me as well-balanced comment.

Perhaps because Obama's supporters tend to be younger and wealthier, they are disproportionately represented on blogs. For whatever reason, a fair number of people on blogs are quite hateful, whatever their allegiances. Reading comment threads attached to many blogs, and even news articles such as at the NYT and WaPo, is blood-curdling for a Clinton supporter. The amount of hatred is astonishing.

I do hope it passes, but really, after this latest assassination business, I feel like we're on different planets.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

I don't see where you sling the younger and wealthier stereotype around. That's largely a product of the media, if you're outside of Appalachia, like me. I'm barely breaking 24,000 a year, and I've got a baby I'm raising all by myself, and I'm trying to finish school, so... a little insulted.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

I meant that he gets the young vote, and he gets the wealthy vote. Not that he gets the young wealthy vote, nor that all his supporters are young and/or wealthy.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

For whatever reason, a fair number of people on blogs are quite hateful, whatever their allegiances.

I agree, and I think a lot of this comes from the relative anonymity of internet posting. I'm not saying we should all use our real names all the time (I obviously don't), but the fact that people using pseudonyms are writing to people they've never met using pseudonyms can lead to folks saying things they otherwise wouldn't, knowing that their comments can't/won't be traced back to their real identities.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-27 05:13AM | 0 recs
As the sole remaining Obama supporter

with rating privileges, I must administer mojo to this comment :^)

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-27 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: You keep saying this is a Democratic site...

I would have to agree with Jerome, that's not the case.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-27 12:14AM | 0 recs
As someone who was on DKOS

in '04 and supported Edwards, I guess I would say I have been through this before.

In general I don't have a problem with a site being pro-Clinton, and last year there were candidate diaries on the front page here from many candidates.

I will say, though, that my tolerance for the Clinton nonsense on Florida and Michigan is making my blood boil.  In 2004 I made sure I was always respectful to the Dean supporters on DKOS.

I am struggling maintaining a similar stance here in this cycle, because I think the Clinton position is completely outrageous.  

by fladem 2008-05-27 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: As someone who was on DKOS

But you're from Florida.  What right do you have in disagreeing with Hillary supporters that the Florida delegates should be seated a certain way?

(someone please, just ask it already...)

by doschi 2008-05-27 10:01PM | 0 recs
Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

what about the Obama supporters who are unfairly HR'd? I don't know that I've ever seen a massive pile-on like that, but I see plenty of TR abuse from both sides.

by sricki 2008-05-26 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

I've gotten so many inappropriate troll ratings and hide ratings, mostly from the same people who still have their rec abilities.

I've only troll rated like one or two comments in my entire time here, but lost my rec abilities a long time ago.

I don't see why these people should be targeted just because they happened to TR or HR on a comment that so many other's did as well.

Its a really poor system for taking away reccing privileges. Some people can abuse it every day and never get caught, while another person gives their first TR ever and then gets they rec'ing abilities taken away without explanation.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-26 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

I'm sure there is, and there's nothing we can do about it. No one works the site 24/7.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-26 11:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

What about insisting that if diaries are cross-posted, they be labeled as such, and limiting people to one diary a day?

by mikeinsf 2008-05-27 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but


How did you find out about that comment you're referencing, Jerome? Did someone send it to you and ask for help?

by ragekage 2008-05-27 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

I'm sure it just stood out on the list and they saw it when reviewing it.  I just find it amazing that he decided it was worth stripping everyones abilities over it.

It was a trollish comment and she deserved the troll rating.

by map 2008-05-27 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

I've sent them many obviously and blatantly against the regs comments... and they were all ignored. I don't buy he "can't moderate 24/7"

by ragekage 2008-05-27 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

Did you try sending them to Jonathan?

by catilinus 2008-05-27 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

Yup, and he's better about it... but I think he's still influenced, in large part, by Jerome.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Jerome, I can see that, but

Is there a way we can bring things to your attention as needed?

by Matt Smith 2008-05-27 08:11AM | 0 recs
For the same philosophical reasons...

...the Supreme Court says it's NOT okay to yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, it's not okay to pile-on someone just because they are at the forefront of a particular side of an argument.

Clear ratings abuse going on against Alegre. No bout a-doubt it.

Why? Because she's outspoken? That gives nobody the right to abuse ratings priv's. That's just malicious and vindictive crap. And, Jerome's saying, "No! That's not acceptable behavior here."

And, that's a good thing.

Q.: The alternative?

A.: Let the community run roughshod over the minority. (That's what happened at Kos and that's what happened at other Scoop sites.) And, that's totally uncool.

by bobswern 2008-05-26 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: For the same philosophical reasons...

The rules only have meaning when they enforced on everyone. People see alegre TR people for no good reason, and that a) creates a lot of resentment and b) makes people more likely to TR her.

No one has a problem with the rules or consequences that come from breaking the rules. All we're saying is that they should be enforced consistently and not biased against whichever Democratic candidate someone supports.

by gcensr 2008-05-26 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: For the same philosophical reasons...

Instead, we're letting the minority oppress the majority, in a big way. Channeling Senator Clinton here, this offense is exactly like living in Soviet Russia, or North Korea.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 04:15AM | 0 recs
I hesitate to ask...

* Post as many comments as you like, but users that post comments that do nothing but name-call, denigrate the site users, or make inflammatory remarks will either be warned, or outright banned.

-from the guidelines. There was nothing the least bit constructive about alegre's comment. It did not address the subject of the diary in any way substantively, and was mainly there for the purpose of mocking the diarist. I don't know if it falls under the "name-call," "denigrate," or "inflammatory" clauses... but it can't have been far off the latter two.

by Casuist 2008-05-26 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I hesitate to ask...

"There was nothing the least bit constructive about alegre's comment."
You quoted the guidelines. Where does it say that every comment has to be constructive? Alegre's comment in question was snarky, but not name-calling, denigrating, or inflamatory. At least not if you're not very thin skinned. But the guidelines don't say anything of a special treatment for extremely sensitive diarists.

"I don't know if it falls under the "name-call," "denigrate," or "inflammatory" clauses... but it can't have been far off the latter two."
See? You don't know. So not enough reason to TR it.

by Gray 2008-05-27 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Just reviewing that list, I noticed that a number of those who gave that a '2' have been pretty egregious with the 1's and 0's elsewhere.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-26 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I suppose the only thing to do is treat Alegra's diaries with the respect they deserve, and ignore them altogether.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-26 11:46PM | 0 recs
Her name (for the millionth time here)

is alegrE, not alegrA (which is an allergy medication).  Just an FYI.

by aurelius 2008-05-27 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Her name (for the millionth time here)


by interestedbystander 2008-05-27 01:11AM | 0 recs
Some people aren't gettin' it!

Some would say this is a very troll-ish comment worthy of a T.R. by MyDD guidelines, in and of itself!

Do you understand what it means to call out and insult another commenter/diarist?

I suppose the only thing to do is treat Alegra's diaries with the respect they deserve, and ignore them altogether.

by bobswern 2008-05-27 12:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Some people aren't gettin' it!

Yep, as is "WTF is your problem?", which is Alegre's response to anyone disputing any claims in her diary.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-27 12:49AM | 0 recs
Others don't get it, either!

For instance, this commenter, just upthread here:

At DK? Not to my knowledge. There were several diaries concerning her comments, and it's hard for me to see how her comments could have been interpreted in any way but one suggesting the possibility of an assassination justified her continued presence in the race. This is one of those issues where how you took her words made all the difference.

The entire story about HRC was a total freakin' sham! Entirely and grossly taken out of context. A veritable lie. For the commenter to comment:

This is one of those issues where how you took her words made all the difference.

"How you take her words" is in context! It's called: "lying by omission!"

If the editors at that editorial board in South Dakota, where HRC said this, along with RFK, Jr., himself, agree with this assessment (as would any sane reader of the entire thing, in context), then everything else just pure b.s. It's called: lying! This is a totally fabricated story.
And, the commenter's handling of this here, just one or two comments upthread, is also worthy of a t.r., too!

Even in this comment thread, people just continue to be extremely troll-ish. And, I'd have to say that these two comments, both in this comment and the one preceding it, are from borderline serial trolls on this blog, as well!

Enough! (Even here?!?!?)

by bobswern 2008-05-27 12:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Others don't get it, either!

Assasinatin+june+1968=historical reference to how long primaries can go on, including her husbands campaign.  No it doesnt.  In Bills own book and in his own words he said he had it wrapped up in April.

She meant anything can happen.  She was right.  She pulled the assasination spectre two other times before, but she was more artful than in South Dakota.  Words matter.  She could have just apologized to the person she drew the bullseye on, but no.

I'm not sure I ever could rec or hide or whatever.  I've never figured this site out, but it doesn't matter anyway.

by Adept2u 2008-05-27 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Others don't get it, either!
He was still campaigning in June, whether he had it "wrapped up" or not.
Somewhat like Obama, no?
by skohayes 2008-05-27 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Others don't get it, either!

but he didn't have anybody calling him unelectable, or working actively to tear him down using rovian memos and talking points.

by Adept2u 2008-05-27 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Others don't get it, either!

Yeah he kept campaigning all the way to November. He was working the general... see this diary:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/27/2214 15/560

by Tatan 2008-05-27 06:31PM | 0 recs
Absolute power corrupts absolutely

I have condemned blog owners for using their power in a bias manner by harassing users who don't share their views until I got my own blog and found I was quickly corrupted with power and did the same thing. The only solution is to eliminate blog owners and form community blogs by committee or something otherwise we will always be dealing with corrupt blog owners like myself. (my bias eventually destroyed my blog community)  

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-05-26 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolute power corrupts absolutely

This is one of the more open and insightful self-critical comments I've seen in an "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" community, of which I am a part.

Can I ask which was your blog?

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolute power corrupts absolutely

That's one of the reasons DK's a much more interesting site; he's got a set of front pagers with extra powers, but he generally stays out of things and leaves the site up to community moderation via TUs. Besides that, he very rarely goes about personally banning or demoting users; instead of being in the trenches and taking things personally, he stays above it. That's a kind of leadership. The setup on this site is much closer to petulance on the front page, and bullying via ratings removal. It doesn't work; not here, not at H44, not anywhere.

by Firewall 2008-05-26 11:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Honestly, to me, this site is far better than DK. The rule-by-mob mentality there is frightening to behold.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolute power corrupts absolutely

The same thing is happening here that did happen there. Nothing is different.  It is just the reverse of what happen there.

by Hillarywillwin 2008-05-27 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolute power corrupts absolutely

If anything, this site is less pro-Clinton than it was a month or two ago.

Just take a look at the rec list. This isn't a reverse DK.

What's with your screen name, by the way?

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 12:10AM | 0 recs

maybe they can go for tea with hillmygal, ilikebillnot or rodhamclintonfeh

by canadian gal 2008-05-27 12:17AM | 0 recs
Feh! ;) n/t

by sricki 2008-05-27 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Feh! ;) n/t

You forgot "blowjobbillclinton." R.I.P.

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 09:01AM | 0 recs
That person was originally

pretending to be a fanatical Hillary supporter (as a joke), but now s/he seems to be making halfway normal posts. S/he should probably get a different user name if s/he wants to do that, since "Hillarywillwin" is already recognized as a troll by a lot of people.

by sricki 2008-05-27 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Don't worry, Jerome just fixed it so it is now.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 04:16AM | 0 recs
This site is SO much better

The vicious mob mentality is why I left DKos.....I don't want to hang out where I get called a bitch for supporting HRC.

by aurelius 2008-05-27 12:10AM | 0 recs
Re: This site is SO much better

Really? In my experience, every time someone uses the B word to describe Clinton (or her supporters), they get troll-rated. Every time. It's one of the lines people don't cross there. I'd be very surprised if people were actively using that word in Any fashion while getting uprated and not HRed.

by Firewall 2008-05-27 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: This site is SO much better

There are two or three troll rates and ten or fifteen uprates.
Here's one example:

[new] I am a 54 year old woman (15+ / 1-)

If I want to call her a bitch I will. Fuck this sexism shit. I am so fucking sick of it.
A real woman would not invoke an assassination as a reason to stay in the campaign.
As you can see by my age, I remember 1968. I was 15 on June 6, 1968 and very politically aware. I cried for days about the death of RFK.
And yes I think about it all the time. Especially during this primary season.
So yes Hillary is a BITCH for making such statements.
She has lost any and all respect I could have ever had about her.
She hasn't even apologized to Obama about her statement. A real woman would. That is not a sign of weakness. That is a sign of a very ego-maniacal person. I cannot call her a woman. A real woman would not have done this.

by skohayes 2008-05-27 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: This site is SO much better

Polst a link to the whole thread, please.

by Black Anus 2008-05-28 07:46PM | 0 recs
Jerome's about 10X more accountable!

I have not seen another blog owner come CLOSE to making an effort with regard to their personal accountability like I have here with Jerome and MyDD.

Truly, show me a blog owner (other than Jerome) that REGULARLY does what Jerome's doing in this diary tonight? (Not once in a blue moon, but all the time!)

People take a lot of crap for granted. It takes a lot to do what Jerome's doing here, right now. He does NOT have to subject himself to needless crap like he is right here in this diary. But, he does! He makes the effort. He extends himself. And, there's actually a comment here from a commenter or two about how they like DKos more? So, what are those commenters doing here?

Go try to get into this kind of conversation and accessibility with Markos. See how many times that happens? It doesn't!

by bobswern 2008-05-27 12:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's about 10X more accountable!

Truly, show me a blog owner (other than Jerome) that REGULARLY does what Jerome's doing in this diary tonight? (Not once in a blue moon, but all the time!)

Remove rec/rate privileges from dozens of people who hold opinions he disagrees with? I'm pretty sure it's done all the time at freeper-type blogs.

by nathanp 2008-05-27 12:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's about 10X more accountable!

Looking at the list of those who abused the ratings system and were sanctioned, they've frankly been abusing the system for a long time.

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines
The article that comment followed.

Would someone please point me to anything at all in this article that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that it is snark?
by nathanp 2008-05-27 12:20AM | 0 recs
It doesn't have to be Jerome who responds

Anyone can jump in here. I say this because, along with what I would assume is a majority of those who TRed Alegre's post, I was unable to take her post at face value. (The 'serious question' disclaimer would suggest that on some level, even Alegre was aware of how ridiculous the question was.) If this is correct, the ruling here is that we should have taken her post at face value.

The irony is that we were unable to do so, because she was apparently unable to take the original post at face value, despite no apparent reason not to.

by nathanp 2008-05-27 01:01AM | 0 recs
Seems to me...

Her post was clearly a troll.  But she's in the protected class around here.  Had I seen her comment, I'd probably have TR'ed it as well and I'd be in the same unfair boat as a bunch of others are now, simply for stating my opinion that she was trolling.  

Essentially, that's what happened here.  In the heart of an Obama related diary, someone came in and posted a "Are you joking?" type of comment when it was clear they weren't.  Because this was an Obama diary, many Obama supporters saw it and were offended.  They're now being punished for being offended.  It's like Alegre set a speed trap and nailed a bunch of Obama supporters, all at once, with the help of the judge, jury and executioner, Jerome.  

Frankly, this is ridiculous.  As I've said before, if the clear bias around here doesn't evaporate in the new few weeks, I'll find no reason to continue here.  And I suspect many Democrats supporting Obama will do the same.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-27 05:04AM | 0 recs
I guess I'm unreasonable..

"Undemocratic? What else would you call an election where the establishment candidate started off with a 100-delegate advantage, before the first vote was cast?"

Sure sounds snarky to me.

Oh, btw, nothing in the guidelines says you're allowed to TR unreasonable people, as long as they don't violate the rules. Just in case...

by Gray 2008-05-27 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess I'm unreasonable..

It doesn't sound like an accurate statement of the superdelegate lead she started out with, to you?

When her supporters and her campaign have been dismissing caucuses as "undemocratic," pointing out that the Iowa caucus allowed him to cut about six delegates into a triple-digit lead she'd already built up seems snarky to you?

Bitter irony, I suppose. I'll leave others to judge whether it's reasonable.

by nathanp 2008-05-27 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Dude, that is unadulterated crap. That was a legit diary that made the rec list and the poster backed up there postitions with facts. To say that post was not insulting to another user is a flat out lie. That comment should have been hid rated.

by Djo 2008-05-27 12:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

With all due respect to all concerned the issue of ratings bans has come and gone several times on this site over the last few months with both factions complaining equally vociferously, at different times, that they were being unfairly treated.

Say what you will about the outcomes, and I am sure there are cases where the limited attention of the moderators has meted out unequal justice in detail, the overall intention has been to create an environment where both factions less inflammatory advocates have been able to post and opine with a modicum of respect and good-will.

The moderators have better things to do than patrol this site but it is necessary and probably seems heavy-handed to those who get caught in the sweeps but from the moderators point of view it is an unpleasant but necessary task which wastes valuable time otherwise spent on adding content to the site.

Say what you will about Jerome but please don't demonise him, it's his site and I disagree with him about a lot of things but I assure if treated fairly he will respond in kind.  The accusation that he would even consider using the unfortunate but necessary housekeeping of restricting ratings of certain posters in an attempt to manipulate the discussion on this site is disrespectful and irrational.

The tolerance he exercised recently in response to the ratings in his front-page posts should be an indication, you may disagree with him, as I often do, but you are here at his pleasure and he is nothing if not scrupulously tolerant to the free expression of opinion, including his own.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-27 12:47AM | 0 recs
I'll speak to this...

I just got banned for my "Is This Snark?" comments, shot off a quick email whining about it by pointing out that if what I posted was out of bounds then so was what alegre and got re-instated.

He's got bias (who doesn't) but I gotta admit he's a mensch for doing that, he could have just ignored me and I couldn't have done anything about it.

by kraant 2008-05-27 12:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll speak to this...

Of course, he shouldn't have done it in the first place.  You were only reinstated because the hypcrisy of it was so obvious.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-27 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll speak to this...

Actually that just proves the bias.  

He banned you for your usage and defended Alegre for hers, and then after the fact reinstated you to cover.

by map 2008-05-27 05:07AM | 0 recs
one can definitely applaud

the sentiment and disagree with the implementation. The practical effect is that people who tr'ed in this instance did so against a comment that was, within a reasonable interpretation, violating site guidelines. Since most of those were Obama supporters, this has the effect of one side getting their privileges preferentially removed because the ratings built up to a greater amount, being at the top of a rec list diary. The practical effect here could biased no matter the intent.

by Casuist 2008-05-27 01:13AM | 0 recs
I strongly recommend...

that you go away, find a palatable name and then come back if you so desire.

by Casuist 2008-05-27 01:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Kapow!

IP ban for the win?

by gcensr 2008-05-27 12:53AM | 0 recs
So out of line... See ya. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-27 12:56AM | 0 recs
Re: So out of line... See ya. n/t

Don't go!

by map 2008-05-27 05:08AM | 0 recs
LOL, what? I'm not going anywhere.

I was saying "see ya" to that person because I'm assuming anyone with a user name like "JeromeArmstrongisadouchebag" has a pretty good chance of being banned.

by sricki 2008-05-27 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL, what? I'm not going anywhere.

Ah!  They deleted that account then and I thought you were replying to the thread in general.

by map 2008-05-27 08:40AM | 0 recs
Oh, I didn't realize they'd already deleted

him. Heh. That was quick. I'm flattered that you didn't want me to go, though. ;)

by sricki 2008-05-27 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"Is this snark?"

I joyfully joined the "pile-on" but didn't troll-rate or hide rate it. Who can resist commenting on "Is this snark?"

I can't trust myself with troll-rating, so I don't do it. My judgement could be off, & I don't want to be wished out into the cornfield (remember that Twilight Zone episode?)

I guess, sooner or later, I'll end up amongst the corn stalks anyways. Later's better than sooner.

Sorry to see anyone trolled unjustly.
Sorry to see people lose privileges by actions that others "seem" to them to get away with.

Strange though.

I noticed that the person who was "piled-on" has a diary on the rec list now. Seemed like it has 100s of comments, & I couldn't find 1 in support of the diary. Granted, I'm half-blind, but it seems odd to me that a diary could be on the rec list but the people who rec'd it weren't present in the comments.

I'm probably stupidly misunderstanding something, or maybe all the supporters' comments were hidden. I know the diarist has fans, but where were they?

by catilinus 2008-05-27 01:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Busy at His44 - she e.mails them to rec her diaries, which they invariable do, without commenting.  Check the list - it's the same for every diary.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-27 01:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines


by catilinus 2008-05-27 01:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Wrong. As usual.

by KnowVox 2008-05-27 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines
Actually, that pisses me off more than the abuse of the troll ratings around here.
People that are registered on this site do have a right to rate comments and rec diaries, but when they never participate in the community, it hardly seems fair.
To be honest, I have seen similar diaries on DKos encouraging My DD members to come here and rec Obama diaries, so it comes from both sides.
I think we need a TU ("trusted user" for all the non-DK'ers here) status like Dkos. Though I don't think that affects the user's ability to recommend diaries, unfortunately.
by skohayes 2008-05-27 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines
"Granted, I'm half-blind, but it seems odd to me that a diary could be on the rec list but the people who rec'd it weren't present in the comments."
Why should this be odd? Rec'ing a diary is much easier than writing a comment.
by Gray 2008-05-27 06:56AM | 0 recs
Small question

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I've tried to wrap my brain around this sentence, and I don't really understand it:

"Every single one of those who troll rated or attempted to hide that comment has lost their ability to rate and recommend diaries on the site (you don't lose the ability to rec, but if you lose the ability to rate, you also lose the ability to rec)."

I'm not being snarky, but I'm confused what the penalty was.  It seems that some moderate violators can recommend but not rate.  Losing the ability to rate means losing everything, I suppose.  

Did people lose ability to rec or to rate (which would be both)?  Thanks.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 01:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Small question

I thought rec and rate abilities were tied together. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, though.

by gcensr 2008-05-27 01:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

BTW, please REC this diary so it stays up a while. It may save many from the cornfield.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 01:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guideline

If you are an Obama supporter, and don't like that, tough. Deal with it.

I don't think anyone wants this to be a Obama echo chamber like Kos, Jerome. But it shouldn't be a Hillary echo chamber, either. I'm not excusing TR abuse in the slightest, but there doesn't need to be any double standards here. I would hope you would moderate TR wars against us the same way.

And, last time I checked, Barack Obama was a Democrat too.

by Massadonious 2008-05-27 01:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guideline
"But it shouldn't be a Hillary echo chamber, either."
Why not? There's really too few of them. The blogosphere right now isn't representative of the primary results at all, but seriously biased for Obama. There have to be some sites that still support the Clinton point of view.
by Gray 2008-05-27 07:09AM | 0 recs
One strike and you're out

I understand that this is a site for democrats, but, does this site also operate under principles that democrats cherish, such as due process and equal protection of the laws (or rules, in this case)?

I'm a relatively new poster here, so this idea of a "pile-on" is new to me and I had no idea or notice that some of my posting privileges could be taken away for having engaged in such behavior.  I don't see "pile-on" as one of the listed abusable offense, moreover.  

Whether the revocation of privileges is fair and consistent with the rules, then, should really depend on whether the troll-rating was for a post that engaged in a personal attack or not.

I believed that it was, and one of the worst kinds, because it was an insult to a diarist who had clearly put a lot of effort into what any reasonable person would have understood to have been a serious, well-reasoned diary.  I troll-rated the "Is this snark" comment because I put myself in the shoes of the diarist and came to the conclusion that I would have felt insulted if the first response to a serious diary I had written was one that treated it as if it were a joke.  

Moreover, I troll-rated the comment, not only because it was not substantive, but because I believe it would have had the foreseeable effect of derailing the thread, especially as the first post in the thread.  And it did.  

Additionally, the penalty is inappropriate and unduly harsh.  First, if it is a permanent removal of privileges, then the punishment clearly is excessive, especially since many, like me, were banned for just that one offense.  No warning was given nor were people informed of the consequences of engaging in "piling on."  It was one strike out and we were out.  

Second, even if amnesty can be granted, I am not aware of the basis for amnesty or how long the punishment will stand before amnesty will be considered.  This is akin to indefinitely detaining prisoners and denying them any procedural mechanism to contest their punishment.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-27 02:48AM | 0 recs
Respectfully ProfessorReo

I went to your ratings page, and fully 15 out of the last 30 comments you rated were either troll rated or hide rated.

That makes 50% of your ratings negative ones.

You have zero credibility from which to argue being treated in an inappropriate and unduly harsh manner.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-27 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully ProfessorReo

Uhh, I went and looked, and those comments were well deserved of that rating. But heck, don't let that get in the way of your ad hominem. Take a look at some Clinton supporters, and tell me why it's okay they've got over 90% TR/HR ratings in normal threads.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 04:20AM | 0 recs
Oh come on now

If everyone here had a 50-50 negative-positive ratings ratio, this site would be a total mess and a joke which is precisely why Jerome is up in arms.

Something is out of whack when things go that far. It explains why dKos for example has a 5 negative ratings limit per person per day.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-27 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on now

You look at one snapshot of thirty ratings, and make a judgment on that user... when I'm talking about people in a monthly timeset, which even Clinton supporters are pointing out to Jerome here.

I guess the moral is, judge not unless you really want to.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 04:46AM | 0 recs
No ragekage

ProfessorReo's comment title reads "One strike and you're out."

It prompted me to take a peek at his current ratings page, and clearly he/she is on a troll roll.

I didn't selectively choose anything.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-27 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: No ragekage

First, please be more accurate.  I checked, and of the last 30 ratings, I've troll rated 14, not 15.  

Second, it really is not relevant.  My "first strike your out" statement was in no way implying that the offending troll rate was my first troll rate.  

Third, is your percentage of troll rates to positive rates a new metric to determine whether revocation of privileges is justified?  Is this new metric in stated in the rules?  

Ragekage is correct, you are making an ad hominem attack as a way to avoid addressing the merits of my post.  I stand by what I wrote.  If you look carefully at my troll rates, you'll see that I've troll-rated alegre only once, when certainly I had more opportunities to do so if I was maliciously troll-rating people.  

As I said, I am a new poster and I do not have any long-standing grudge against her.  So, I had no desire to "pile-on," a blogging phenomenon that I was first introduced to last night when I read this diary.  The implication both you and Jerome raise is that I troll-rated alegre because I disagree with her opinion.  That is erroneous.  While I acknowledge that I disagree with some of alegre's views, that wasn't why I troll-rated her post, as I explained earlier.  

Moreover, I've actually recently praised alegre, something which you conveniently failed to mention in attacking my character.  During this weekend, I actually wrote a comment supporting her when some overzealous posters tried to hijack a positive diary she had written about Hillary Clinton.  In fact, I even recommended alegre's diary, even though I personally do not have very positive opinions of Hillary Clinton.  The diary is the one with the clever title involving pantsuits.  

So, I do take offense with your ad hominem attack on my credibility and my motives based, it seems, solely on one arbitrarily chosen metric.  If you want to discuss this further, I will do so only if you address the substance of my comment and do not resort to further baseless ad hominem attacks.

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-27 08:35AM | 0 recs
Here's the comment from alegre's thread

Back when I actually could recommend a thread.
---------------------------------------- ------

Re: As Long As That Pantsuit is On and Working, We (2.00 / 1)

I admit, I was a bit skeptical when I saw the title to this diary, but, great work.  Thank you, alegre.  Rec'd.  

I'm sorry that it's gotten side-tracked by comments that have no business being in this thread.  

by ProfessorReo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:35:57 AM EST
[ Reply to This ]

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully ProfessorReo

This doesn't mean he's wrong. Seriously... you spend hours digging through polls and writing up a decently argued post, and the first comment asks you if it's a joke? I'd be way, way more annoyed by that than I would be by getting a 1 on a comment.

by vinc 2008-05-27 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully ProfessorReo

"Seriously... you spend hours digging through polls and writing up a decently argued post, and the first comment asks you if it's a joke?"

So what? That's life. You can't always get what you want...

by Gray 2008-05-27 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully ProfessorReo

Sure, unless you're protected by site admins.

by vinc 2008-05-27 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully ProfessorReo

Even if that was true (which it isn't): So what? You Obama supporters can't dominate every site.

by Gray 2008-05-27 03:32PM | 0 recs
I've noticed a number of diaries that

aren't originally written but just a repost of an article printed elsewhere.   Isn't that a violation of copywright law?

by mishiem 2008-05-27 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I've noticed a number of diaries that

Yeah, I've noticed that too. The general rule that is observed by the Hating Hatefilled Haters at DailyKos is to excerpt 3-ish paragraphs from a given article and make sure to include the link. Copying too much (and definitely copying entire news articles) crosses the line from fair use to copyright violation.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-27 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I've noticed a number of diaries that

Yeah, it's a violation of copyright law by the individual poster.  The site's not liable for its users' illegal actions.  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

by semiquaver 2008-05-27 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Good to see. Many in that crew have taken to gang-troll rating my comments, and most are new members. Perhaps they'll learn that this is not that kind of site.

by souvarine 2008-05-27 03:40AM | 0 recs
Jerome, it's your sandbox, but...

I'd take your outrage a little more seriously if you could point out similar cases where Clinton supporter abuse resulted in the banning of all of those involved. I've seen rampant abuse on both sides here, some by folks commenting on this very thread, and they still are around to recommend the diaries of the chosen every day. So what have you done to rein in Clinton supporters lately?

by Travis Stark 2008-05-27 03:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I'm not going to lie, coming from a Clinton supporter perspective, it would seem that the taking away of rec/rating privileges seems unfairly tilted, and Alegre's comment on the thread that you point to seems extremely inflammatory, while I disagree somewhat with the OP of that diary, it was assuredly not "snark" and to insinuate a diary like that is should be worth taking away rec and rating privileges.

by zcflint05 2008-05-27 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Kudos for being fair-minded

by catilinus 2008-05-27 05:55AM | 0 recs
Jerome Armstrong,

you disgust me.

Ban me if you wish, I care not.

I have been in and around the blogosphere since before MyDD dealt with politics, and was "My Due Diligence" related to investment and business issues. I was a participant on DailyKos before it went scoop, and was among the very first to comment and participate. I have been around for some pretty spectacular flameouts, and I have to say that I have never seen such a descent into blatant, despicable, self-serving and utterly nauseating insularity, solipsism, narcissism, and islationist self-serving hypocrisy.

I enjoy reading Beeton, Singer, and some of the other front pagers. There are some good diarists. On occasion, you write good posts - not much of late, and not for the last months. I liked your book...would that you went and reread it, perhaps thought about what you wrote then and what you're doing now.

Thank heaven Bowers left when he did, and one wonders when the others will leave.

This thing, like a fish, has rotted from the head down.

by RedDan 2008-05-27 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Armstrong,

Spot on comment RedDan.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-27 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Armstrong,

"I have never seen such a descent into blatant, despicable, self-serving and utterly nauseating insularity, solipsism, narcissism, and islationist self-serving hypocrisy."

Uh, but you did read the guidelines, didn't you?

by Gray 2008-05-27 07:24AM | 0 recs
I don't get the analogy...

When a fish dies, does it really rot from the head down? I figured it would just rot all over at about an equal rate. Is there some enzymatic death-process specific to fish such that upon death, the head rots faster than the remainder of the body? And what type of fish are we talking about? Cartilaginous? Bony? Because certainly cartilaginous fishes, such as sharks and rays, rot faster below the head. (Shark teeth, for instance, stick around for literally [not figuratively, literally] eons). So you must be talking about bony fishes. But still, that doesn't make sense to me. The skull's pretty full of ossified bone... hard for any bacteria to really break down that stuff... But maybe you're just talking about the "non-bone" parts of a bony fish. But then this reasoning becomes somewhat circular...  because, again, I really don't see how a fish head would rot faster than a fish tail.

Please explain. I'm rating this an "excellent" (or whatever the new ratings levels are... haven't rated anything in months) so we can all join in this discussion. I urge others to "pile on" positive ratings. This post is awesome. I think we can really learn something new about Biology if "RedDan" is correct in his analogy.

by NCDem 2008-05-27 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Free passes for the HRC die-hard deadheads; not an ounce of tolerance for Obama supporters who might object to the lies, smears, and slanders emerging from posters like Alegre

I joined recently, mostly because I wanted to see what made the diehard HRC supporters tick

And now I know what it is:  rage and fear and entitlement

by fightbull 2008-05-27 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

This is a self-policing website, right? People were self-policing a comment they thought was out of line. Now they are banned because of this?

I've seen some clear cases upthread of users abusing the troll rate. Can we have an update on how those cases are being handled? Were privileges taken away in those instances? If not, we've got a clear case of treating people "separate but equal".

I thought we were against treating people differently. I thought our party stood for something more. Being able to have a different opinion and dissent are principles Democratic Party. If this blog supports Democratic candidates, it should have a thicker skin when it comes to other opinions.

by applejackking 2008-05-27 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

No they aren't banned. They lost their powers to police because they were misusing it.

While Alegre's comment certainly didn't deserve uprating the only reason why it got 50 troll ratings was because they didn't like the user who said it.

indeed, If this blog supports Democratic candidates, it should have a thicker skin when it comes to other opinions. and not troll rate a comment 50 times because who said it.

by Ernst 2008-05-27 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

The people who have their mojo/troll or recommending taken away are essentially banned for voicing their opinion. The wide swath of taking away the ability to rate was ill advised. Perhaps looking and finding a few egregious posters who abuse the privilege would have been more prudent. That would take care, time and a little bit more responsibility. Banning everyone that rated was overkill. There was a better way of doing things.

by applejackking 2008-05-27 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

They can comment, they can write dairies that seems a strange form of "essential" banning to me.

All that they are missing is the ability to police, which they have shown not to do all that well.

Could it have happened better? Yes. But this mob troll rating seems pretty much to qualify as abusing the privilege very easily.

To be honest, I'd rather have that more people lose their ability to rate and rec from both sides. The most inane and moronic statements get uprated by both sides as long as they're in support of their own candiate and troll rating seems based upon who you support. (And yes, in my experience Obama supporters are a lot quicker on the trigger with troll ratings) I've been sick and tired of this system ever since the primary mood started here.

The only major group that behaved reasonable with giving mojo or troll ratings was the Edwards supporters (Of whom I wasn't one) The more supporters lose the rating power the healthier this place will be.

by Ernst 2008-05-27 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

They can comment and write diaries. If you can't uprate them, then they can't get on the rec list, right?

by applejackking 2008-05-28 04:20AM | 0 recs
I agree

And I hope we can depend on the fact that Anti-Obama trolls will be dealt with as well.  Including diarists who issue non-political and personal attacks on Democratic candidates.

by lollydee 2008-05-27 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

Don't hold your breath.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-27 06:42AM | 0 recs
Silver lining,

My concern, no matter what the excuse the punishment seems to be influenced by who was TR'd without regard for frequency of abuse by the offender.  

The "mob" judgment is also problematic as it cast all raters equally.  It would be difficult to cast the 1st, 2nd or 3rd person to rate that as part of a "mob" while you could argue the 20th was.  If the 1st person deserved to be denied privilege then that means that individual TR's rise to the level of loss of privilege and that rule needs to be applied to the same abuses pointed out later in this thread.  

The good news, while some of you have (possibly) lost rating privilege in a unfair manner a clear line has been drawn on single abuse punishment standards.

Now you get to see how consistently that standard is upheld whatever candidate the abuser supports.

by nextgen 2008-05-27 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I only became interested in internet politics after Geraldine Ferraros statement.  I had been a Hillary Clinton supporter at the time, and I heard this site was where democrats went.

LOL what a joke, this place is the gulag archipelago.  A Clinton Soviet state.  I have never seen such an echo chamber of delusion in my life.  Any presentation of a differing view of the most glorious presentation of Hillary Clinton is met with a veritable shit storm.  

When I found out this Jerome person actually owned the site I about fell out of my chair.  I've read diaries by him where the pronounced suspension of reality was mystifying.  You could almost seeing him crying in his keyboard that he won't get to dance at Hillary's innauguration.

Well cheer up folks.  Despite your rude treatment you are still invited to Obama's.
You better smile though.

by Adept2u 2008-05-27 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Well, so long as we're not being rude...

I haven't seen such rude, ugly, graceless, and poor winners since...

...well, since Republicans in '00!

However, I expect Republicans to be classless bullies, even in winning. I did not expect the Inspired Ones, so full of hope, wanting change, wanting to end the division, blah, blah, blah, to be so!

I am a fan of irony, though.

by Juno 2008-05-27 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

You guys are crazy funny.  I STARTED THIS CAMPAIGN WITH A FAT CHECK TO HILLARY.  She had to lose my vote and support, and she lost it when she didn't reign in her head harpy Geraldine Ferraro.  

I'm not one of the dreamy ones I'm a storm trooper.  If you spit on my face im not gonna smile and take it.

by Adept2u 2008-05-27 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"Any presentation of a differing view of the most glorious presentation of Hillary Clinton is met with a veritable shit storm."

Lol. If you consider 1 or 2 nasty comment out of 100 a sh^t storm, then you're right. That's my ratio for pro-Obama diaries. Tempest in a teapot might be more accurate. Have you bothered to read the pro-Obama diaries here?

With your use of foul language and generalizing re: friend and foe, your post stikes me more representing traits you attack than what you claim to defend.

To wit, neither Clinton nor Obama supporter seem you to be.

Pyro, is that you?

by catilinus 2008-05-27 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I'm a Democrat who joined the fight with Mondale on the campus of the University of Southern California when republicans chanted peace through strength.  Like Michelle Obama I waded through institutions that told me they would rather make a buck than divest from South Africa.

I am Albert Johnson Jr.

I and my people fought for progressive ideals at the cost of blood and police records.  

Anybody who stands up as the candidate of the good hard working white voter, and candidate that wont go to my church, and any candidate who equates june of 1968 with anything other than tragedy will meet my rudeness and be lucky thats all they are meeting.

by Adept2u 2008-05-27 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Darn, now that last post I have to agree with.
Too similar to my own story. I began the democratic journey keeping hope alive with Jesse Jackson. Even before that, I was with Campaign Against Apartheid at UCB. My mom fought for the unions, and had the police record for it. My granddad was a socialist who voted Democratic only once (for FDR). Great granddad was the "Red" mayor of Vancouver. And before that, we took on the Rebs.

Ain't families wonderful? Most everyone has one.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Which is why this vitriol is tragic.  WE'RE ON THE SAME SIDE!!

I'm not happy people are disappointed that Hillary isn't in position to win.  I would actually be the first to apologize for any offense I may have caused and hope to party over the grave of neoconism with them!

by Adept2u 2008-05-27 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Did your great granddad deal with a Wobblie incident?

by Black Anus 2008-05-28 08:11PM | 0 recs
good for the goose?

You left out the fact that Senator Obama is also a Democrat and has supporters here.

by feliks 2008-05-27 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Typical of Jerome to take sides with the Clintonistas. The assassin candidate.

by comingawakening 2008-05-27 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Now see THAT derserves the troll ratings.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-27 06:44AM | 0 recs
That happens regularly to Obama

supporters but I've never seen a front page post about it. Also, Clinton supporters attack the presumptive nominee and also attack the Party but I never see that being dealt with at all much less through a front page post.

Seems to me this is much less a site for Democrats at this point than it is for Clinton dead-enders.

There are a few folks who remain sane but just a few.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-27 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

In my opinion, Alegre, as a frequent poster of diaries others feel to be worthy of recommending, is likely to attract the agreement of many individuals and the disagreement of just as many more.

Is it not reasonable and beneficial for all involved to insist on the simple requirement that disagreement be in the form of productive and respectful dialog? Troll-rating a comment will not cause any reader to consider an alternate opinion and perhaps find it to be valid.

The purpose of this blog is to encourage debate for the good of advancing the Democratic Party. There will be no debate if those who expend the effort to write diaries are allowed to be marginalized by others who express disagreement without even bothering to engage in simple conversation. Those who have lost their rate/rec privileges are still able to comment - and thus, are still free to express disagreement in a productive way.

It is unfortunate that the ability to rate and the ability to recommend are tied together as a single permission. Hopefully, that will change sometime in the future.

by ckrenbre 2008-05-27 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Exactly what dialog do you feel is appropriate for someone who, in the first response to a well researched, well thought-out diary, writes, "Is this snark?"

by nathanp 2008-05-27 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I feel there are at least 2 good options:

One is to simply reply with something like: 'It does not seem to be snark to me. What, specifically, in the diary caused you to wonder if it was?'. If the person who commented has a legitimate concern about the diary, this will give him/her the opportunity to bring it forward. If no response is given, the comment has lost legitimacy and other readers will likely ignore it.

Another option is to simply ignore the comment altogether. This is perfectly valid because the comment does nothing to promote discussion.

It seems to me there is a lot of anger and frustration in the Democratic party. Tensions are high and suspicion of the opponent is rampant on both sides. For nearly 8 years the current republican administration has refused to acknowledge or respond to criticism. Perhaps Democrats, having had no place to direct their anger for so long, are taking it out on each other. This may explain the unreasonable tone many HRC and BO supporters are so quick to take up when their favoured candidate is criticized.

by ckrenbre 2008-05-28 02:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Too little too late. I got walloped with TR ratings on Friday and no one did anything about it. I never called anyone out, never insulted anyone, was advancing a point of view. Yet I was TRed endlessly. I don't think the problem is people understanding the guidelines -- the problem is people understanding the guidelines and ignoring them anyway.

by VAAlex 2008-05-27 05:01AM | 0 recs
Just wait till after the primaries...

when Jerome's relevance abilities get removed.

This blog has officially passed the crap threshold.

I am very disappointed. Later, Jerome Drudgestrong.

by notxjack 2008-05-27 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

What happens if I troll-rate Jerome on this?

by french imp 2008-05-27 05:04AM | 0 recs
I'd do it if I could just to find out...

by chrisblask 2008-05-27 07:13AM | 0 recs

I guess all of the petty name-calling and blatant TR'ing by HRC supporters is excusable on this site. Good to see democracy vibrant, alive and well here.

Oh well, I find Dailykos much more informative anyhow. I fail to see how this site could even stay relevant in a couple of weeks because uh.. no offense, but the finger traffic is a tad bit on the light side.

by april34fff 2008-05-27 05:05AM | 0 recs
You talked the talk, now walk the walk
"I find Dailykos much more informative anyhow."
That's really too sad. Goodbye, then.
by Gray 2008-05-27 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Did you wipe out Alegres ratings list so people couldn't go back and check what she's TR'd?

by map 2008-05-27 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Gone with the Wind...seems a little suspicious.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 06:05AM | 0 recs
I can tell you she TR'd this post

Re: Just A Punch Line - How Sad (2.00 / 4)

I am truly saddened by the death of Eight Belles, but even sadder to me is that animals are still treated like this in this country.  In my opinion, it is not much better than dog-fighting--feel free to disagree with me because many do.

As for politicizing, this wouldn't have even made the blogs had Hillary not made the announcement she was betting on this horse in the first place.

The whole situation is just incredibly unfortunate.

Notice how my ratings number is now (2.00 / 4) since alegre's ratings have been erased.

This comment earned me my first TR--and the only one to TR me was alegre.

by asherrem 2008-05-27 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Why was Alegre's ratings list removed? I just went to see where she downrated me and I can't document the pattern.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Hey!  You answered your own question.

by map 2008-05-27 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

It is just a coincidence.

I am sure 100% of Alegre's troll ratings were way above board.  Nothing to see there.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Wow, are you kidding me?

Some people get banned, some people get their reccing and rating privliges removed, and Alegre gets a clean slate.


by Massadonious 2008-05-27 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines
When your rec and ratings privileges are taken away, so are all your previous ratings.
Jerome mentioned that above.
by skohayes 2008-05-27 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Not true as my privileges were taken away but my previous ratings are still viewable.

by map 2008-05-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
This, after the "purges" I heard about

when I got here.

FleaFlicker, Alegre and many others objected to my arrival and commented safely to each other "didn't we have a purge?".

I think I got my rec/rate (and diary?) abilities taken away for asking someone if their statements about supporting McCain in the fall were related to a McCain site that a Clinton supporter created with the same username was he (777denny.wordpress.com), but Alegre is OK calling canadiangal a Troll.  Maybe it was yanked because I TRed so many people for calling candidates "racists"...  Of course, I will never know the reason.

This, after this piece of crap is a frontpage article.

Jerome, it's crunch time.  MyDD was the originial, it is now a far-second.  There is more to it than just that your candidate lost while slinging filth in all directions.

The technology and tools of this site stink.  Focus on some web upgrades.

The tone of this site stinks.  You are leading it with a false ear towards what people are saying on it.

You've got some career decisions to make.  Do you want this blog to be competitive with other leading progressive blogs, or would you like to just rename it the Gravel Blog and let it slide into inconsequentiality (though he does have a cool video)?



by chrisblask 2008-05-27 05:25AM | 0 recs
Ratings Abuse!! Gray gave me a 1 for this!

Teacher!!  He's touching me!!!

Whatsamatter, Gray?  Say something you didn't like?  Care to express yourself more eloquently?


by chrisblask 2008-05-27 06:04AM | 0 recs

"Teacher!!  He's touching me!!!"
Call the Wahambulance! :D

No, seriously, imho "This site stinks" obviously is an over-the-top attack on Jerome. In your post, you didn't even try to say something constructive, like which tools you would like to see. It's almost pure namecalling, and, since I now read the guidelines for the first time (ggg), I saw that your post warrants a TR. But I guess you're well aware you was on thin ice.

by Gray 2008-05-27 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Nananananana

Well, at least you seem to have caught the irony in the "teacher" comment (or maybe not - text and inflection - maybe you thought I was serious).

I have previously provided input into the better features found not only on DKOS but elsewhere.  My concern is that either Jerome is not paying attention and needs more than a polite comment to get him to, or he has no post-Clinton-support-forum plans for mydd.com in which case it will likely die off.

I've called him out several times in the past few days.  Someone he listens to should say the same things for his own best interests.


by chrisblask 2008-05-27 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Nananananana

"I have previously provided input into the better features found not only on DKOS but elsewhere."
Good for you. But this site isn't dailkos.com, nor elsewhere.net. What have you done for mydd.com recently?

"My concern is that either Jerome is not paying attention and needs more than a polite comment to get him to, or he has no post-Clinton-support-forum plans for mydd.com in which case it will likely die off."
Well, I once tried to get Aravosis (of the A-blog) to get rid of those anti-net-neutrality ads (this was before the A-Blog became a hotpot of Clinton haterz). No luck. Instead, he banned me for a day for constantly bringing it up in comments. And, rightly so, I have to admit. He explained the ban by stating that he simply won't and can't pick up every proposal by a single reader, and that it is, after all hos blog, his call. Fair enough. I guess you can't expect Jerome to see this any different. Especially since your very critical stance doesn't give you any additional clout here.

In the end, the best way to make a difference is still to do it on your own blog...

by Gray 2008-05-27 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Nananananana

"In the end, the best way to make a difference is still to do it on your own blog..."

I don't think so (have several of my own, but neither the inclination nor focus to make them Grand Discussion sites).  My firm belief is that the best way to make a difference is to talk to people.  For that, you either create a Town Hall or you go to the ones already with people in them.

This is one of the places people gather, and historically they have been people with whom I disagree with.  Talking to folks here is much more my style than pulling the blanket over my head and talking to myself (or those with identical opinions).  

All of these sites have frighteningly latent "Dittoheading" tendencies - which is no more attractive on Democrats than it is on Republicans.  My habit (inclination, obsession, call it what you will) is to seek out and engage those I disagree with, dittoheading mobs bore the life out of me.  You can find me listening to and calling into Far Right radio shows as well.

Nope, I'll let those who can justify the full-time effort create the public forums.  I'll just come to them and talk/lecture/cajole/listen/moderate/bark /or whatever else I think is appropriate to move the better-world goal forward.  Sometimes I'll even be right, or at least wrong in ways that are educational all around.


by chrisblask 2008-05-27 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Nananananana
"I'll just come to them and talk/lecture/cajole/listen/moderate/bark /or whatever else I think is appropriate to move the better-world goal forward."
But always according to the guidelines, pls!
by Gray 2008-05-27 09:14AM | 0 recs
Phantom Rec right back atcha! ;~)

I try (usually).

I'm starting to feel for Jerome.  It cannot be a pleasant experience he's going through.  Doesn't do me a world of good to bark at him (and he likely isn't listening, anyway) but I feel this MyDD ship listing lower in the water.

Having to institute draconian rules is, in itself, not a measure of success of an open forum.  I don't know Jerome from Adam other than the lightest wikiing (wikying?), but I know market dynamics fairly well.  What I see is DKOS going through the roof and MyDD (DKOS' "blogfather") sinking into the weeds.

All this "how do we institute open forums using modern communications" stuff is near and dear to my heart.  It's fascintating to watch it evolve.  But this recent flurry of activity here stikes me more as a Neaderthal tribe thrashing angrily with sticks rather than a homo sapiens community hunting and gathering their way to biological supremacy.

Enough analogies for one day.



by chrisblask 2008-05-27 01:15PM | 0 recs
"Sail out to sea and do new things"
"piece of crap" "slinging filth" "stink" "stink"
I guess that's your way of saying good bye. Don't let the door hit you.
by Gray 2008-05-27 06:44AM | 0 recs
I'm not going anywhere

but thank you for demostrating my point.

Clinton supporters can accuse me, Senator Obama, and everyone else within flinging distance Racist/Sexist/blah blah blah and get on the REC LIST for it...

I comment on the bias and technology on this site and I get a TR...

So, yes, the filth flinging by the Clinton camp, the piece of crap diaries pawned off as commentary - including those by the Site Owner, and the features (or lack thereof) of modern blogs here are MyDD - all these things stink.


-chris blask

by chrisblask 2008-05-27 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not going anywhere
"I comment on the bias and technology on this site and I get a TR..."
Come on, the problem is in how you commented: "this site stinks"! Do you call this a serious comment on the state of technology here, NOT inflamatory and NOT insulting? :D
by Gray 2008-05-27 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

One strike and you are out - cruel new world.

(the serious point is that it is possible to slip on the scrolling finger when giving a rating and accidentally give the wrong rating especially when using a mobile device, in my opinion 'tis a pity the diary announcing that "every single one" had lost the power to rate did not offer an appeals process)

((but I am pleased to see the guidelines have been updated to take account of the difference between troll and hide ratings))

by My Ob 2008-05-27 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Slashdot has a system where you cannot rate and comment on the same thread. You can do one, or the other, but not both.

You would want to ability to recommend diaries, but not recommend comments if you instituted this system. It seems to keep flame wars at Slashdot under control.

by Alice Marshall 2008-05-27 05:33AM | 0 recs
No Obama diaries on the Rec List

for a while I suppose, given how all those stripped of their privs were mostly O supporters.

Once Obama is the nominee, it'll be interesting to observe the shift in this site's editorial demeanor.

by lizardbox 2008-05-27 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: No Obama diaries on the Rec List

well, since the commenter and diarist in question is a regular poster at noquarter, you can imagine what the result will be.  the fox is guarding the henhouse.  it is over already.

by math 2008-05-27 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

as a newer poster, I saw the comment as offensive to the diarist and troll rated.  I think this is where your feelings about the candidates and a controversial diarist who is bringing many people from both sides to your site, is clouding your judgment here.  many people above have documented alegre's rule breaking, but you obviously have given her the benefit of the doubt and protect her as often as you can.  but if a few people disagree with both you and alegre on the meaning of her "is this snark" post, then all those people are culled to protect one.  this simply does not seem fair or warranted.  

moreover, this kills any sense of rational debate that might have existed here at one time.  why would anyone dare to criticize alegre at all now, you have shown that you will do anything to protect her, not matter how egregious her actions are.    

by math 2008-05-27 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

There is zero chance that people who did this to an Obama supporter would be punished... or at least zero chance that they would be punished by Jerome.

That being said they still shouldn't have done what they did.

by JDF 2008-05-27 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

at this point, the name of the site should be changed to my daily clinton talking points.  no one with a contrary opinion has the ability to rate anymore.  turn of the lights and shut it down.  this is pathetic.

by math 2008-05-27 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Have the "you know what to do" posts at those other site that drive a handful of tendentious diarists to the top of the rec list been mentioned? Or is that okay since it happens on the right side?

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-27 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

In that sense, it maybe a case of the inmates taking over the asylum, or at least it's rec page for 3 diarists in particular. The speed with which Tinfoilis44 sponsored diaries get posted & then shoot to the rec list is...stunning.

I wonder if the Clinton supporters who don't like Tinfoilis44 understand that process. Their are intelligent Clinton supporters here who have issues with that site. I've seen them. They exist.

I don't know where Jerome falls on this issue, and it's probably good that I don't.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 06:16AM | 0 recs
Glitch in the ratings system

I have had people who have posted no diaries and no comments giving me a 1 rating or 0 rating (all of them Obama supporters). I find that to be preposterous. It is as if these guys enroll just so that they can suppress dissenting views. Please do something about it.

by tarheel74 2008-05-27 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Glitch in the ratings system

Is this snark?  Serious question.

by map 2008-05-27 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Glitch in the ratings system

Sadly, no.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Glitch in the ratings system

People have likely created second accounts to rate with so that they can express their honest opinions. Some likely have lost their ability to rec/rate, others are fearful of reprisals should they give troll posts that favor Clinton troll ratings.

In your case, reviewing your history, you have five posts that have received TR/HR in your recent history.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/26/1 22232/706/211?mode=alone;showrate=1#211
2 mojo, 1 troll... I agree with the troll. So make that two troll ratings. If we're not allowed to attack Hillary, we're also not allowed to attack Obama.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/25/1 2949/3988/41?mode=alone;showrate=1#41
2 troll, 1 mojo. Telling people to go to dKos, calling Obama "your Messiah", direct attack on others, troll rate warranted.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/25/1 2949/3988/35?mode=alone;showrate=1#35
3 troll, 1 mojo. You hate Obama and call him a "silver tongued Janus", troll rate warranted.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/24/1 3648/4720/13?mode=alone;showrate=1#13
1 mojo, 1 troll. "There is a hi-tech lynch mob out for Hillary". I don't agree, but I wouldn't have TR'd it. Some may consider it an attack on people who disagree with you, but it's dicey.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/24/1 21048/420/57?mode=alone;showrate=1#57
1 mojo, 1 hide. The hide is abuse. You say Obama campaigned in MI/FL, which I believe to be a semantic argument, but not an outright violation of the rules.

I concur that two of the troll ratings/hide ratings were inappropriate, but only one warrants further investigation. I don't believe that there is a concerted effort by any group to suppress Clinton posts here based on your history. If you have other evidence, I'd like to review it.

by TCQuad 2008-05-27 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Glitch in the ratings system

If they've posted no diaries and no comments, how could you know that they are Obama supporters?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-27 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

i don't think that insulting readers with how they read graphs is helpful in keeping a community of divergent opinions from doing the same, from insulting others. Doesn't matter what side of the divide you may align yourself on.

a huge problem with how this site functions was on perfect display with that diary Jerome. Why? because you insulted perfectly reasonable arguments.

It's not a surprise you want somewhat civil discourse but its not a surprise that you're getting less and less of it these days.

When making graphs, the success of them are a reliance on great data-sets. The same can be said about an intelligent and gentile audience (us readers). If you hand us great information, we'll debate it with intelligence. If you hand us bad information, you'll have a tangle of a mess in certain cases.

by alex100 2008-05-27 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"* Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user."

So just to get this straight:

Repeating Republican talking points does not merit TR rating?

Purely negative comments about Democratic candidates do not merit TR?

Content-free, sarcastic chain-pulling does not merit TR?

Is there any mechanism to discourage these behaviours, given that it is impossible to police every comment from above?

The only thing that actually merits TR is 'attack on another user'? How do you define 'attack'? Would it be an 'attack on X' if you said that X often wrote things that are stupid and nonsensical?

Sure, the guidelines are the guidelines, but they don't seem to correspond to common-sense notions of what 'trolling' is. That mismatch seems to cause problems.

by stringph 2008-05-27 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

my point exactly.  please enjoy my invisible mojo.  

by math 2008-05-27 06:21AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

by JJE 2008-05-27 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

And look at dozen people have made this comment now, and nobody thought to troll rate it...

Djeez... Maybe the original comment didn't need 50 troll ratings?

by Ernst 2008-05-27 06:29AM | 0 recs
Did I troll rate it?

No.  Perhaps your complaint would be better directed at someone who did.

by JJE 2008-05-27 06:33AM | 0 recs
I escape with my rate privileges...

Because my browser malfunctioned.

Compared to other sites, I find the rules as printed a bit esoteric. I know I'm a bit new here (I squealed with girlish glee this morning when I saw someone rec my first diary), but I'd like to show you why I thought that comment should have been troll or possibly even hide rated based on what the guidelines said.

The post was a long, explicit detailing of why the race was stacked in Clinton's favor from the start. Well written, annotated, logical.

The first comment was "Is this snark? Serious question."

If you are attacking a post with no contradictory information and no counter argument, then all that is left is ad hominem. That comment, in no uncertain terms, attacks the credibility of the post and the intellectual honesty of the poster in a manner that is, no pun intended, trollish.

It is difficult to mentally interpret the written phrase "Serious question", and I believe that this is where you and the TR'ers differ. You, agreeing with Algere, took it as an indicator that this wasn't a trolling attempt. I, along with quite a few others apparently, took this as sarcasm or snark or as an attempt to dissuade TRs because some people may be unsure if it was serious.

Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Do not hide (rating as 0) a comment unless it is an abuse of the guidelines. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned.

Combined with...

Post as many comments as you like, but users that post comments that do nothing but name-call, denigrate the site users, or make inflammatory remarks will either be warned, or outright banned.

Led to a HR at worst, a TR at best. This comment did not add to the discussion. It directly attacked the poster. It was clearly inflammatory, in violation of site guidelines (and thus subjected to a zero if necessary). It was...

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Questioning the intellectual honesty of a diary is trolling it. It attempts to disrupt discussion and divert attention. When the rules are ambiguous, brief or otherwise difficult to completely interpret, people will fall back on their basic understanding of what they mean. If you intend to limit 1 ratings to attacks on other people and 0s to breaking the rules, I would suggest renaming troll ratings to attack ratings and hide ratings to abuse ratings. Using the term "troll" necessarily means people will rate troll posts with the troll rating. It's kind of unavoidable.

In any case, I would suggest rewriting the site guidelines for clarity. There should be a separate section (not just a single line) that describes what is troll appropriate and what is hide appropriate, preferably with general examples. The last people I gave TR to were two who decided to post a series two-word subject lines with empty text and have the discussion that way as well as someone who said you don't need to argue facts with Clinton supporters. Are those TR worthy? Did I abuse my rating privileges in that case? Rewriting the guidelines would be advisable to take care of cases like this.

I still believe, no matter how explicit your guidelines are, that some people will find that comment to be a troll, because, to be honest, I believe it is.

by TCQuad 2008-05-27 06:22AM | 0 recs
Phantom Rec!

by chrisblask 2008-05-27 07:08AM | 0 recs
Same here

I was going to drop a O on that comment by the one whose name is half of a city in Brazil, but my browser crashed then.

by Student Guy 2008-05-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I escape with my rate privileges...

There is no question in my mind the comment Alegra made was a troll.  And it not only succeeded as a troll (look at this mess!) but it got 20 to 50 people who dissent from her view squashed in the process.  Those folks no longer have a voice in expressing their preferences on this site any longer.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, it was like a speed trap was set and Jerome came in and enforced the penalty as judge, jury and executioner.  The fact that Alegra and Jerome see eye to eye on the whole Hillary/Barack deal makes it clear to this writer that the rules are different here depending on your allegiance.

"Is this snark.  Serious question."  When this is the only comment made, no rationale given, nothing else said...  She may as well have said "You're full of shit."  That's how it reads.  So, a bunch of Obama people are drawn to the post, see this TROLL at the top and they rate it appropriately.  There is no question in my mind they did exactly the right thing.  

The results, all of the Obama supporters are punished while Alegra is defended and her own ratings mysteriously disappear so as to protect her further.  The intent of all of this is clear, Obama supporters ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.  Jerome can say otherwise but all of this actions, in this case and in almost everything he's done for months supports this conclusion.  

You don't have to kick me in the balls more than once to get your point across.  I get it.  And I think myDD will suffer in the long run for this type of shortsightedness.  

Jerome, you could accomplish your goal much easier if you just posted an "Obama Supporters Not Welcome" sign at the top of the front page.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-27 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Well, it's clear that Jerome is playing double standard when it comes what he perceives as "abuse".  It's OK for some to sing their vitriols as long it is against Obama and not Hillary.

Goodbye, myDD.  It's nice knowing you since 4 years ago.  I'll not be back again until Jerome has come to his senses. Good luck.

by sbbonerad 2008-05-27 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

This seems a bit of a playground squabble to me - any stray Republicans who've wandered in must be laughing their heads off. Sorry if I'm being a bit dim here, but if there aren't actually any consequences of troll-rating for the troll-rated person, as Jerome states in the diary, then what is the big deal? Over at DK you get troll-rated comments all the time and administrators don't seem to bat an eyelid. Why not just let it go?Maybe it's because it's a much bigger site, and harder to administer, but maybe they're just less autocratic over there? At any rate, I'm waiting with interest to see how Jerome manages his about-turn in a week or two when HRC drops out of the race. That should make for some entertaining reading.

by al1 2008-05-27 06:29AM | 0 recs
Oh yes, the GOP is smiling over this diary

This sort of stupidity is the goal of True Trolling.

Divide and conquer!  Cause dissension!

Congratulations, Alegre, you got your wish.  You made John McCain supports happy.


by chrisblask 2008-05-27 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

The biggest joke of all this is that Jerome claims it was the sheer number of TR's that made this wrong.  If one person TR's a comment not at all deserving of a TR they apparently haven't violated the rules.

So, the more people that see a comment as deserving a troll the bigger the punishment... for the people that took offense, not the commenter.

On the flip side, if Alegre troll rates a comment that nobody else thinks is deserving... no harm no foul.

Seems that the stated site rules aren't actually the rules.

by map 2008-05-27 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I'm pretty sure I didn't troll-rate that comment (as I don't rate comments, good or otherwise) and yet I've lost my privileges this morning in the latest McCarthyian purge.

Sigh.  Jerome's obviously got some issues right now and needs to take it out on someone.  Here's to the day when we're all on the same side again.

by Deadalus 2008-05-27 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Okay, upon further investigation I'm 100 percent certain I didn't troll-rate that comment.  

Looks to me like Jerome has some anger built up, and needed an excuse to punish his political rivals, and this was the best he could come up with.

Only problem is, he punished us for being Obama supporters, not for abusing site guidelines.

Now who's the troll?

by Deadalus 2008-05-27 06:49AM | 0 recs
By those actions, apparently Jerome is the troll

by chrisblask 2008-05-27 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

MyDD has jumped the shark, no question;  I am amazed, because I used to think of Jerome and the rest of the gang here as the good guys, fellow progressives, supporters of the democratic party

But for months this place has been Hillary Central, permitting the most egregiously deceptive and abusive and denial-ridden diaries to stay on the front page for days, and censoring most opinions to the contrary

I am a democrat, a lifelong progressive voter, a highly educated and rational person, not some crazy-eyed cultist for Obama; yet when I come here I see crazy-eyed Hillary cultists shouting down people like me, and patently deceptive front page posts with phony baloney numbers and graphs and the most egregious screeds abusing Obama and his supporters

It's like having your favorite band go on tour after a 10 year hiatus, and you show up at the arena and none of the original members are there except the lead singer, and he's so strung out on drugs that he barely makes a sound

What the heck happened here?  Jerome, do you really feel so strongly that Obama is either evil or doomed to lose that you will support Clinton right down to the bloody shirt?  

You realize that she will not win if she is the nominee at this point, right?  African Americans are not the only Obama supporters who will simply stay home or vote for McCain or write in Obama -- all the same threats the HRC die hards are making over and over again here and at Hillaryis44 aqnd TalkLeft and Taylor Marsh

The one difference, however, is that Obama is legitimately winning the election by all the established and agreed upon metrics

That's called legitimacy, and you may not like it, and you may think the election has somehow been "unfair" to Hillary Clinton, but everyone who loses an election says that, blames the media, blames his/her candidate's opponent's supporters, etc  

If American politics were scrupulously fair, Gore would have been president for 8 years and this would be a moot argument

If Hillary can't win an election that doesn't bend the rules in order to be "fair" to her, or in which the media is not completely in her corner, how is she going to win the general against the evil, dirty politics of the modern GOP?

In about one week, MyDD will cease to be relevant until its leaders and members introspect about how they allowed a progressive community -- one of the best and strongest on the web -- to decline into a junior high school food fight

I thought my fellow democrats and progressives were made of stronger stuff; turns out that at least some of them are the biggest crybabies on the block

Clinton cannot win the general election now; all she can do by continuing this insane crusade is destroy the best chance we've had to take back the white house (and the congress, and the SCOTUS) in a generation, at least

You may not agree, but that's why we have elections, and elections have rules;  Hillary could have won this, and she looked like she would for the better part of a year

But she was beaten on fundraising, message discipline, supporter energy, and by the rules of the election, and now she and her supporters want to change, bend, ignore, and reinterpret those rules to hand her a victory she has never won

I supported Howard Dean in 2004; I swallowed my disappointment and voted for John Kerry, even worked for him, even though I thought he was a terribly weak and flawed candidate, very similar to my view of Clinton now;  if Clinton won the election fair and square, I'd support her just as strongly

But at this point, she only wins by stealing it, and I feel no dissonance at all when I say she will never again have my vote, not even for the senate in NY, where I live;  she's disgraced herself, the party, and the process by her childish conduct, all the while as her supporters are calling Senator Obama's supporters childish (or even children)

If I didn't know this couldn't be true, I'd assume someone around here was on the Clinton payroll;  be aware, though, that she doesn't pay all her vendors

Ban me, see if I care

by fightbull 2008-05-27 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I love the smell of irony in the morning...


Ya know there are many here who just get tired of EVERY diary from alegre immediately going to the Rec list because of the "pile-on"" recs from her friends at the passive sites of Hilisfortyfour and notwentyfivecents who "pile-on" their rec's and then leave.

Most other diaries generated here might get 5-10 recs...
Awhile back there was a sudden banning/restriction of privileges on persons who simply
rec'd a Bob diary...
As for a Dem site?
I will assume that ANY poster/commenter referencing supporting McCain over Obama will be subject.(ya know now that hiding or trolling is not an option.)
It is also wrong, in my opinion, that privileges are lost over the "snark" episode...

After this "cleaning", can I assume there will be less talk about the "disenfranchised"?

Meanwhile...we only have till 3/6 to learn the words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxNf2uCxd 3E

by nogo postal 2008-05-27 06:54AM | 0 recs
Thank you, Jerome

I appreciate you addressing the ferocious abuse of TRs and HRs at the hands of myriad users on this site. I know you have been criticized for addressing more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters, but as far as I can tell, there's a real pack mentality on the Obama side that isn't mirrored on the Clinton side, and this causes them pile on in abuse of the ratings.  

Anyway, I have spent less and less time here the last two weeks as Obama supporters have continued to escalate the Haka and abuse the ratings system even more. I'll try checking in more often in light of your actions. Thanks for trying to make this a safe place for all Democrats.

by anna belle 2008-05-27 06:57AM | 0 recs
The pack mentality has changed

it was a Pro-Clinton pack mentality, but since fewer and fewer people support her it has become an Obama majority (like everywhere else in the nation).

Stay and debate by all means, but if FleaFlicker-era Purges are the metric by which you measure fairness, perhaps you were not interested in debate in the first place.


by chrisblask 2008-05-27 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The pack mentality has changed
"since fewer and fewer people support her it has become an Obama majority"
I can't find the landslide we're sseing here in the polls. Where is it?
To me, this looks more like an orchestrated effort by Obama supporters to pwn this blog.
by Gray 2008-05-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Jerome

"pack mentality"

So sad. It's really pitiful. probably an intelligent person in real life.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Jerome

No pack mentality behind HRC?

by mikeinsf 2008-05-27 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Jerome

This is pretty funny coming from the self-avowed Retaliatory Troll Rater.

by Kysen 2008-05-27 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

What will Jerome and Alegre do when Obama wins next week, take their ball/blog and go home?

It's going to be a cruel summer for these people.

by blue2008 2008-05-27 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

your abuse has been notice and reported.

have a nice day

by zerosumgame 2008-05-28 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

and reported by me too

by zerosumgame 2008-05-28 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

so who's one comment no diary sock-puppet are you?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-28 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I am not a sockpuppet, I give out a lot of mojos to both sides. I notice that you like to inject personal insults to both posters and democrats in threads. Just because you don't use flame words doesn't mean you aren't trollish from time to time.

And if you get me banned, I have plenty of other names I can get back on with.

So you stop abusing Obama supporters.

by blue2008 2008-05-29 07:02AM | 0 recs
Amnesty at MYDD

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/27/3 529/79363/50#50

Just waiting for Jerome to announce the date, which will obviously be June 5.

We should start a diary and conclude that June 5 should be amnesty day.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-27 07:26AM | 0 recs
Phantom Rec!

What's the answer, Jerome?  Democrats are all equal on what day?


by chrisblask 2008-05-27 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Jerome, thanks for addressing this problem (again).    

by grlpatriot 2008-05-27 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Here is a real example that is in a current diary?
What is the proper response?

"Ooops, TOO LATE.  McCain already nailed him.  With B O's empty talk on Iraq, Iran and ME, he still hasn't stepped foot in Iraq, this after even becoming CHAIR of the Foregeign Relations sub comittee on Eurpean Affairs.  McCain alrady asked HIM to join him on a trip to Iraq.

by LindaSFNM on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:47:35 AM MDT"

by nogo postal 2008-05-27 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

The acceptable response is for one person to troll rate the comment since Jerome only punishes pile-ons, or for one or many people to openly mock the comment, since that isn't a violation of site rules.  

by map 2008-05-27 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Oh no. Because if you are the first or second person to troll rate the comment and then a bunch of people agree with you then you will all be banned.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-27 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

True.  How about this... only troll rate comments that are in no way deserving of a troll rating.  That way there won't be a pile-on.  Seems to work for the serial abusers.

by map 2008-05-27 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Never troll-rated.

Personally I have never seen a comment on this site that I would troll rate. I've seen plenty that I disagree with. Plenty that I thought were stupid. Plenty that were posted by people who I thought were arses.

Maybe I'm just one of the few polite people left in the world and that I wouldn't want to troll rate or hide anyone's comments.

Even someone saying that they really like John McCain and plan on voting for him should be welcome here and free to post such a comment.

by carrieboberry 2008-05-28 02:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Ignore it and realize people have as much right to post their own opinions as you do.

by Scotch 2008-05-27 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Can I at least hope that someone pointed out that Iraq isn't in Europe?

by nathanp 2008-05-27 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines
and you're damn right I find certain commenters who repeatedly refer to our probable candidate as BO to be wrong for a Dem site..
I find a frequent commenter and writer of diaries writing this extolling McCain over a Dem candidate
But i got your message loud and clear Jerome and let it slide..don't want to lose my privileges.
by nogo postal 2008-05-27 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"and you're damn right I find certain commenters who repeatedly refer to our probable candidate as BO to be wrong for a Dem site.."

But HRC is perfectly fine with you???

by Gray 2008-05-27 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Hey..I don't use it.
But Hillary Rodham Clinton is HRC..(some people are too lazy I guess).

BO is commonly used to refer to Body Oder plain and simple..
I did refrain from mentioning the racist overtones of a black man and body order..but they are clearly there.
His initials are BHO..

by nogo postal 2008-05-27 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"But Hillary Rodham Clinton is HRC..(some people are too lazy I guess)."

But using BO can never be a sign of simple lazyness?

"BO is commonly used to refer to Body Oder plain and simple.."
Never heard that before, thx for that info. This led me to checking if there are other meanings for HRC. I found it stands for Human Rights Campaign, "America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality". So, obvioulsy, everybody using the short form HRC wants to spread the view that Clinton is a lesbian. Boo!

However, I understand that BHO would be ok with you? Not a problem that it also stands for "B+H Ocean Carriers Ltd" and  "Browser Helper Object"?

by Gray 2008-05-27 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Jerome, is there a way to bring TR abuse to your attention when it happens?  I've noticed it before and don't know the process for getting it resolved.

I'd also appreciate if the moderators would post a comment saying "This was TR abuse and has been addressed" sometimes, so that people know it's happening beyond the infamous purges of Obama supporters.

With all due respect, it's not surprising that this kind of incident happened around alegre in particular.  She's become so dominant here, together with some friends, that tensions are high for many people.  I guess it won't matter soon, when the primaries end.  But it could be worth instituting some structural limits so that nobody can dominate the discourse so thoroughly in the future.

by Matt Smith 2008-05-27 08:10AM | 0 recs
Abusing the guidelines

It's pretty bad that another person had to come in and clean this post up.  You can't even make a post about people needing to behave without telling Obama supporters to "deal with it."  Wow.  Way to lead by example.  

by venavena 2008-05-27 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

A large part of what I do for a living involves moderating a discussion forum. I personally wouldn't have troll rated the "Is This Snark" - "Serious question." comment. That said, it is only because I would be giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt.

The comment is on its face entirely devoid of content. The most logical interpretation of the comment is as a way to denigrate both the post and poster without going to the trouble of making a substantive argument. This would seem to fit quite well into the guidelines for troll rating a comment.

Only the most generous interpretation of the comment would actually see it as a serious question (stating "Serious question." doesn't automatically make it so).

It is interesting that the most generous possible interpretation is given to the comment, but that those that might think they are legitimately troll rating the comment are not extended this same consideration.

by loebrich 2008-05-27 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"That said, it is only because I would be giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt."

Exactly! And that's what those other raters should have done, to, imho.

by Gray 2008-05-27 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

I don't disagree. I am all for reading every post and comment in the best possible light and giving the benefit of the doubt unless a clear pattern of abuse exists on the part of the person in question.

My point was more that this was actually a fairly ambiguous example of what would seem to constitute an inappropriate use of a troll rating based on the guidelines.

There are plenty of cases that are far more clear cut. It would seem less divisive to limit revoking privileges to circumstances where the issue isn't in a gray area. People are less likely to see it as bias and more likely to just see it as good moderation.

by loebrich 2008-05-27 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

"There are plenty of cases that are far more clear cut."

I understand you're free to point them out to the admins. Don't hesitate.

by Gray 2008-05-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
Thanks, for speaking up!

Setting the boundaries is crucial, and people need to be educated (or re-educated) about the rules here.  Those "0's" just are too easy to reach for and many times get overused. One of the nice things about writing at this website is that the kind of ugliness at Daily Kos is not allowed.  A serious exchange of ideas cannot take place in an intimidating, threatening, and hateful environment.  You've done a great job, Jerome, of managing the whistle, and blowing it when it's been needed.  Without that, we would only have bedlam here.

by izarradar 2008-05-27 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

i didn't tr Alegre's post, but you've got to be fucking kidding me, Jerome.  Alegre's comment was stupid, pointless, contentless, and needlessly provocative--nor did she stay to address any of the points.  Trolling is not defined by disagreement, but rather by disruptive behavior.

A troll to me is someone who refuses to attempt to address topics and deal with them in good faith.

After almost a month of diaries that stretch the bounds of credibility and with no attempt to defend those diaries in the comments, for Alegre to make that sort of comment (and refuse to argue the point) in response to a clearly well-argued, fact-based diary is the classic trolling.

You can't blame people for troll-rating that comment.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-27 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Give me a break.  You would shut down every opinion or blogger on the site who didn't meet your personal approval, if you only knew how.  

by Scotch 2008-05-27 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Lol--you have any evidence to back that up?

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-27 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

While I appreciate and share Alegre's passionate support of Hillary Clinton, I often don't agree with her diaries and comments both in terms of style and substance.

When I don't agree, I don't recommend the diary and I don't rate the comment. While sometimes she writes things that might seem stupid or silly, she's never a troll and her comments don't deserve to be hidden.

Rate positively the comments you agree with. Recommend the diaries you like. If you disagree or don't like the diary or comment don't recommend and don't rate.

Disclosure -- I did not see the comment in question.

by carrieboberry 2008-05-28 02:21AM | 0 recs

....any criticism toward alegre will not be tolerated.

by hootie4170 2008-05-27 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

It is amazing that some would consider the sentance, "Is this snark" to be troll ratable.  Come on people, get a grip and lose the obsessiveness.  People are on edge and angry and so they are losing all the objectiveness and ability to look at small things as small things.  Many of the people on the list of raters go to her diaries and post much worse comments mocking her and generally just spamming the entire thread, but simple words like she posted should be troll rated.  Wow.

by Scotch 2008-05-27 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

And they get troll-rated for it.  Often en masse.  It's hard to find a single comment in ANY of Alegre's diaries that doesn't have at least one troll rating - it's all 1.56/20 or whatever.

by Jess81 2008-05-28 07:52AM | 0 recs
I am glad to see guidelines and the

determination of the admins to enforce those guidelines. However, they are clearly being selectively enforced. As others on here have pointed out, Alegre and many other "popular" bloggers on MyDD have troll rated comments simply because they disagree and not because of the content of the post.

Please, do enforce the guidelines. I applaud you in doing so. However, make sure you enforce them across the board.

by DrPolitics 2008-05-27 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Quiz time..
What is the proper rating for this comment in a diary today?

Obama is going to have to run on his own merits.  "Hope", "change" and a single 2002 antiwar speech have been good enough so far, but he will never be able to morph McCain into Bush.

Bad as he is, McCain has accomplished more by accident than Obama has on purpose.

by Upstate Dem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:03:42 PM MDT

by nogo postal 2008-05-27 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines
If you say troll or hide?
you are wrong..
by nogo postal 2008-05-27 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Oh,,,for those with the nerve to claim folks like alegre..linfer..texdarlin recruit from Hilisfortyfour? (you may be right)
cut and paste asking for rec's for her current diary..

"#  linfar Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Hi all,

New diary called Imperial Tales-about how Emperor Has No clothes :)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/27/1848 35/441

Please come and visit. You know what to do :)"

by nogo postal 2008-05-27 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Abusing the guidelines

Your indignation at the treatment of Hillary Clinton and her supporters would carry more weight if you weren't so obviously one-sided.

Since lurking here, I've discovered that, in order to keep "balance" at this blog, you've had to tie the hands of one candidate's supporters to rate or recommend, while freeing the hands of the other's to post smears, right-wing sources, and anti-Democratic Party propaganda as they silence any challengers.

Fair and balanced. Yup.

This is as sad as I'd heard.

by BobzCat 2008-05-27 07:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads