Good news.

david

Armstrong, you've cemented yourself as the biggest joke in the liberal blogosphere with this move.

Because there are people on both sides whom are guilty.

I do not believe this is good start in adding objectivity to your rather subjective standards. Believe me, you probably should considering adding caution to the wind--or you may create another blog site that will rival or surpass your own. Please watch the aura of cockiness that your statements bring, Jerome.

There is no discrimination by the administration of this site against supporters of either candidate.  This seems needed.

I'd like to point out this poster, who called me the "PC Link police".

Here is one who has been trolling the site all night.  You will find most of his comments in HC.

http://munodi.mydd.com/user/munodi/comme nts

Feel free to make the job easier by putting links to offenders in the comments

MyDD user "Munodi": Repeating the same troll-rated spam over and over again.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/64#64
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/59#59
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/48#48
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/41#41
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/24#24
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/3#3

As an Edwards supporter now favoring Hillary, I applaud your efforts to save MYDD and remain, as Edwards said, "the grown up wing of the Democratic Party." It is sad what has happened to the Daily (Obama) Kos and other sites.

I got in just under the wire.  Can I have a prize???  I want the stuffed panda!

But, I got a message that I'm posting too many comments (I misstook the post for preview button a couple times and posted duplicate comments) and that my account has been locked from posting comments?

But I couldn't find anyplace that explains how many comments I'm allowed to post, only that if I Post my lock out time will double.

I appreciate you're trying to keep things civil, but...eh...are all these controls really making things better?  Crazies are still roaming the halls calling you facist and communist and all manner of slander.  Is locking the place down really having a positive effect on the discourse?

Three cheers for Big Brother!

    Hip-Hip...Hillllaryyyyy!

    Hip-Hip...Hillllaryyyy!

    Hip-Hip...Hillaryyyy!

...although it's not hard to find.

Do Not Realize. MyDD does not have the same ability to monitor the site for BS as Dkos does.
Dkos has many more admins - paid admins.
Dkos also has a huge amount of "I'm telling the admins on you!" O supporters.

I have found myself tiring of almost all the things I, a political junkie, used to enjoy.

Such as:

Dkos
Many of the host on AAR and Progressive radio.
Many of the so called "Democratic and Progressive" blogs.
... and so much more.

Yes I am a Hillary Clinton supporter but I AM a Democrat FIRST!
...

The following comes from a previous comment I made:

The popular vote count and the delegate count are slightly in Obama's favor but they are almost at a 50/50 split. The number of states means absolutely nothing.

I am exasperated with people wanting to end this when no one has the number needed and that it can still swing either way. - Yes... I know that it leans heavily towards Obama and that Hillary is fighting an uphill battle.

What I don't understand is why people like you (some Obama supporters), the ed schultz and randi rhodes types keep bashing on Clinton, when all of you think it is just a matter of time and counting before Obama takes the nomination.
If this IS what you truly believe, then WHY do you even care what Hillary Clinton does? Ignore her, marginalize her, "move on" and start running against mccain... OR is it that Obama, you and all of the others are actually nervous that Hillary Clinton has a chance to take the nomination?

Stop your whining and bashing and just Move Along.  OK? - (This last part could be directed at some of the supporters of each candidate)

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 03825/617/57#57

we could also get a warning on using obviously unacceptable sources?

How about a statement against citing Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Debbie Schlussel, Charles Krauthammer, etc for use in an attack?

There was a front page post about a month ago calling out the use of Drudge -- which I agreed with and said so -- seems that as of late, we've gotten a slew of obviously unacceptable being used for reference purposes.

I have a new thing: 'write new entry' up in the toolbar.

What is the difference between an entry and a diary?

On another note, how do you post a quote and/or a Youtube and make things bold?

I can't find it in the FAQs and my ignorant mind can't get around the explanation offered on the screen before posting a diary.

Go here:

http://www.mydd.com/write/contactus

It is from the "Contact Us" at the bottom of the site.

I wonder if cleaning up would include folks who do not participate here - no diaries, no comments, etc., but recommend diaries by a certain well-known poster.

I listed several screennames here.  I stopped posting after 10 names because I didn't want to go overboard, but there are many other names that recommended "his" diary that never participate here, as well.

Regardless, thanks for working hard to make this a site for Democrats...real Democrats.

John

I assume we are to Rec this diary as well as post.

I still love peeder's method, but that is a knife fight in a meta cantina.

It will be between those who are serious and post like adults, and those who are not

Excellent. Although I don't remember it being explicitly stated in the rules, I've always thought that simply acting maturely should be a prerequesite for membership on any progressive political blog.

This diary, and the diarist's comments within it, is a recent example of extremely immature discourse that adds nothing of substance to this site, and detracts greatly from it.

My take on it is this: it's ok to get frustrated once in a while and accuse someone in polite language of being reading-comprehension-challenged. Some people are, or pretend to be.

It's not ok to name-call, use derogatory names, make wicked-witch analogies, accuse people of being racists or sexists (unless they clearly are -- merely supporting a candidate does not make one a racist or a sexist) or of being anti-American, post clearly trolling remarks (as opposed to unfairly troll-rated remarks, and we've seen those on both sides), etc.

As absolutely tedious as it is, I don't think it's an offense to repeat the same overly-tired arguments that have been debunked a thousand times... but I'd say it's then forgivable if someone blasts away (politely, without four-letter-words and character assassination) in reply.

I call on Obama supporters to post people who do this sort of nonsense in Obama's cause, and for Clinton supporters to post people who do this in Clinton's cause. This shouldn't just be about getting the other guy, it should be about weeding out the trolls whoever they are. I'm also asking you (whoever you're for) to stand up and agree that someone's a jerk, if they are, even if they're "on your side". Jerks who are on your side really aren't.

I would also vote for giving people a break. One rant gets you a warning. A bunch gets you toasted. This especially goes for long-timers (which I'm not) -- but at the same time, I've seen some long-timers go way off the rails too.

Just a bunch of thoughts from a self-acknowledged relative newcomer, who's trying hard not to be one of the jerks.

What will the DKos boycott newbies do now? Or was it because too many of them were coming over as new members, but in doing so, brough over a lot of the unwanteds also?

The name calling has been getting ridiculous lately!  Hope this action helps!

http://munodi.mydd.com/user/munodi/comme nts

Clearly, this prolific and well-known poster's first sentence in his latest diary is a lie.

He provides a link to a CBS article that states "Clinton was meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial board..."

But this diarist's headline says "Clinton meets with Scaife," and then takes off on the latest Hillary-lies with "Yesterday, Hillary Clinton met with the very rightwing lunatic who spent millions of dollars trying to bring the Clintons down..."

He didn't just distort, he flat out lied.  Nowhere in the article does it say that Hillary met with Scaife.  She is in Pennsylvania, trying to win the primary, and she met with the Pittsburgh paper's editorial board...big deal.

But this diarist makes it a huge deal, with lots of additional junk, and once again his diary is on the recommended list - no doubt aided by recommenders who do not participate here at all, except to recommend his (and perhaps others like his) diaries.

I don't think this is right.
I hope you can clean it up.

Thanks,

John