Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"
by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:48:52 AM EDT
aka, brit on MyDD (full user rights restored, lol), has penned an excellent 'down the rabbit hole we go' account of the MyDD-DailyKos primary wars battle, which he fully participated within-- to an extent that surpassed my knowledge of the inner-workings of the matter.
It's a great article, written from the perspective of a pro-Obama supporter in the primaries, so go and read it all: This year's Democratic primaries weren't just fought on the hustings and in the television studios. Some of the fiercest battles took place in the blogosphere.
Its a compelling account, but I've a few inside-baseball quibbles that I'll point out. They don't point out flaws in the article, but just a different point of view (and if there were 10,0000 participants we'd have 10,000 pov's too).
First, I make it a point to distribute a majority of the income from ads on this site to other writers, and after the overhead and platform investment's I make, this has never been a profitable venture that I depend upon for revenue (which is how I'll always keep it too). I point that out, because there's a bit of 'finding the real reason' angle in the article that assumes MyDD was trying to be a haven for Clinton supporters against Obama for financial reasons. Peter joined the site in early March, but as all the users that had been here previous than that know, its was a site where the mission was to make all voices heard, and that was reflected with the Clinton-Obama debate as well. Even at the height of Clintonista support on this blog, there were still more Obama supporters that were welcome, and represented on the frontpage. This faulty suggestion was also made by the infamous fact-deprived Bob Johnson, which brings me to the second point. The reason why the diaries by Johnson were demoted was because he repeatedly, despite warning, wouldn't "refrain from diaries with inflammatory headlines", including 'racist connotations' which is clearly written in the guidelines to avoid. I think Peter and I came down on the same side of this issue, that labeling the Clinton's as racist, in any fashion, covert or overt, was not just counter-productive but a real affront to Democratic partisans (Obama did himself a great injustice by not being the one to take on that ugliness displayed by a few of his zealous supporters but that's another story). And as Peter notes, there were plenty of supporters of Clinton that went overboard and were banned, sometimes in groups as well. I will admit that the whole ratings flame-war was a issue that there was just no fair way to handle (and there still isn't). I participated on the edges of a massive building of the strongest blogging platform used on the web right now (for SBNation.com's blogs), and even though we pulled the best of the best from all blogs, we couldn't figure out a way to incorporate ratings, even though I believe that sort of community moderation is vital for the place to be less of a hierarchy and more of a community. Whatever editorial moderation's we attempted here with trying to limit the pile-on gang-ratings failed or at best just caused a meta-uproar. But, like all things, the primary came to and end and we found a way to restore those privileges to everyone that stayed to fight the next battle.
But anyway, go read the article, you'll love it as an insider to this world of political junkies.