"And so you are banned as well." by Matt Stoller

My  comment to you is "Grow Up"!!! And don't contact me until you do... Spoiled punks like you are not welcome here in East Texas. And it is "Zit Kids" like you that give Democrats a bad name here. Do us a favor and find another party to ruin. May I suggest the Republican Party...

Roger L. Owen

Tags: (all tags)



Bad form Roger, bad form.

...There are some things we all need to accept:

   1. The owner/organization/sponsor of the blog calls the shots. If you're going to complain about the infringement of your right to free speech please go ahead and start your own blog - if your content is good maybe others will show up to read it. Or maybe not...

Circular firing squad
by Michael Bersin 2005-12-27 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Wha?
I've always said, "If you're going to shoot yourself in the foot, take careful aim". I'm getting to old for foolish/childish attitudes. This person cut someone off who offered a view on some issues he truly believed in. In my book, you do not stop another Democrat from sharing his or her feelings. I spoke up in defense of this person with no regret.

My words may have been strong, but  this Yellow Dog stands by them. Thank you for the advice.

Roger Owen

by Whiny Roger Owen 2005-12-27 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Wha?
Without knowing the exact context I can't find it in my heart to sympathize with your stirring and passionate defense of another individual who posted here (?) and ultimately got banned.

The owner/operator of a blog has access to a lot more identity information than the average user. Identities (however much an individual protests otherwise) are not verifiable by other users on these venues. Not every person who posts here is who they purport to be. The opposition sends people in mind numbing numbers to disrupt.

I am speaking from experience. For 14 months I was a moderator/administrator for a national campaign/PAC Internet Forum. I made decisions to ban users based on content incompatible with the purpose of the Forum, as well as to ban "trolls" who posted from some eye opening IP addresses - some of it, in my opinion, in direct violation of federal law (and federal campaign law).

I've seen natural selection work in actual practice - I was a troll hunter.

You see, unless you're the person who was banned, you don't have all of the information. The people who run this site do - and it's well within their purview and rights to ban anyone.

"Free speech" allows that banned individual to start their own web site. It doesn't allow them free reign on someone else's, no matter how noble anyone thinks their voice or cause is.

If you're a candidate for Congress shouldn't you be spending your time doing something a bit more productive? Like maybe, going door to door in your district and bashing dubya's lack of adherence to the Fourth Amendment?

Don't shoot yourself in the foot, friend - pick your battles wisely.

by Michael Bersin 2005-12-27 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Wha?
If you have any idea what you are talking about, would you mind sharing it with the rest of us?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-27 01:02PM | 0 recs
Was a diary necessary?
Isn't it better to post in an existing diary which sparked this confrontation? Reading this, I don't know what the hell you are complaining about other than someone got banned.

The least you could do is give us some background if you are going to clog up the diary listing on my screen.

by Pravin 2005-12-27 11:22AM | 0 recs
by Whiny Roger Owen

That had to have hurt.

Before the "Internets" the saying about the media was: "Don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

by Michael Bersin 2005-12-27 11:56AM | 0 recs
check out the link
IF this is how Texas represents the Democratic party, I'm all for succession!
by Slapmaxwell 2005-12-28 06:13AM | 0 recs
It's not over yet
Texas still has Kinky Friedman.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-28 08:14AM | 0 recs
It's gonna take more than this...
...to get rid of Gohmert in the newly-gerrymandered 1st CD.
by DC Pol Sci 2005-12-28 07:29AM | 0 recs
Exhibit # 1 for an "unrecommend" choice
A week or so ago there was a post about potential changes to MyDD.  Someone suggested an "unrecommend" choice, so users could express a preference to remove a recommended diary.

This diary could be exhibit # 1.  What is valuable about this diary such that it warrants "recommended" status?

by Steve Hill 2005-12-28 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Exhibit # 1 for an 'unrecommend' choice
What is valuable about this diary such that it warrants "recommended" status?

You would have to ask the folks who recommended it. An "Unrecommend" button would cause even more problems.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-12-28 06:48PM | 0 recs
My Position...
....has always been that a few trolls are not too bad so long as they don't eat up a big patch of the blog. If you are creative and forward-looking, you can use the troll comments as a springboard to make great points. It would be good to possess some universal "troll-be-gone" fix, but too much troll suppression has got to generate collateral damage. We are not just commentators on a blog. We are human beings, some of whom have feelings...

People say you need to be tough to be involved in blogging, but consider: politics is 90% about feelings.

by blues 2005-12-28 08:51AM | 0 recs
One suggestion I'd make for banning users: don't make a public scene of it. Just send them an email to tone down. If they don't, or they are really bad, just block their IP with little or no fan fare.

I know trolls can be a disruption, but having a quick trigger on trolls will surpress the discussion as well.

And Roger-
Put a link so people know what the hell you are talking about.

by michael in chicago 2005-12-28 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Matt-
You're assuming that the management has the time and the resources to "send them an e-mail to tone down". In a high membership (and high volume) site there isn't a lot of time to deal with disruptors and observe artificial niceties. You want Marquis de Queensbury and we're in a knife fight.
by Michael Bersin 2005-12-28 02:07PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads