Much as I’d feared, there has been at least one other banishment. I received an email from Shadowthief this morning letting me know that he has found himself locked out of Duloc.
So what is the reason this time? Was he one of the amorphous “slanderers” Booman alluded to in his Ideas on Slander. I have yet to see a clear definition of either “slander” or “libel,” because libel is what it is in a print medium such as this. If management is using a yardstick to determine what constitutes bannable offenses, I think that measure needs to be spelled out a little more clearly than the highly subjective word “prick” and accusations of “slander/libel” with no demonstration of how it interprets those words.
Is writing this diary a bannable offense? See, I have no idea. I find it very disturbing that I should even have to question my right to articulate my concerns about the direction of this site. But, the truth is, I find the atmosphere here sufficiently chilled that I am uncomfortable asking legitimate questions about matters of policy. I had hoped this site would never become that kind of place.
Update [2005-12-8 19:46:32 by Recordkeeper]: I’d like to personally thank everyone who has participated in this diary and the diary that preceded it. I had to step away from the computer for a little while to take a much needed break from this and attend to some domestic demands (which is a fancy way of saying housework). I have glanced at this diary here and there this afternoon, but it is only now that I have been able to sit down and read through it in its entirety. What can I say? I am saddened. I’m going to need to take a step back from this site whose community I have treasured for so long. No, this is not a GBCW announcement. But, I will need to re-assess what if any contribution I can make here. Either this place has changed dramatically or it wasn’t ever what I hoped it was. Nefarious plottings. Jihadists. Warnings that management will be scrutinizing the membership to weed out miscreants. It’s all just too bizarre for me. And it feels far too much like the real world political climate I have dedicated myself to fighting.
Again, thank you all for indulging the questions I was attempting to raise in these diaries, whatever your opinion on them. To one and all, Namaste.
My thoughts exactly, RC. I don’t think this is going to be pretty, especially since the continued bannings and repeated accusations of “slander” (which seem to have quite obviously not been checked with a lawyer) seem to confirm Parker’s fears.
Incidentally, does anyone know if she has a blog of her own?
Without knowing anything about the circumstances of shadowthief’s predicament, it is impossible to make any meaningful statement.
Actually, that’s kind of my point. We don’t know why he was banned. If I hadn’t brought it up, no one on this site would even know that he had been banned, though some of us would notice the absence, as happened with Parker. It fell to the members to raise the question of whether or not Parker had been banned until it was answered by, well, Shadowthief, who had been notified via email.
Perhaps a statement as to the reasons for this banning will be forthcoming. I would hope that said statement would demonstrate a clear policy and guideline so that members know where the line in the sand is, because right now it seems completely arbitrary.
Yerp. This is getting kind of ridiculous. Perhpas we need to implement Cicero’s due process right NOW!
I don’t know what to say, I see many different sides of this, I just wanted you to know that I hear your concerns. Unfortunately, I have little power (regardless of pete richards’ perceptions about BooTrib “insiders”) to do a damned thing about it.
But you missed my point: we don’t know if this even was a banning or as another individual pointed out below, possibly a technical problem.
letting me know that he has found himself locked out of Duloc
Maybe a technical error? I’m not going thru these threads again, but I’m sure I’ve read any number of times that site management says they send an email and try to work out the problem before banning.
Could be. On the other hand, he did post some stuff on the Slander thread that was really damaging to the “BlogAds is absolutely innocent” story.
I’m not going to wade into this whole debate again, but I would like to clarify that all he did was post one person’s opinion of what happened with the Liberal Ad Network (not blogads, they are separate… LAN is a subset of the larger blogads network which has nothing to do with dkos or BlogPAC). Boo posted his take on it, Shadow posted the Smirking Chimps take on it.
Who to believe? I have no idea, but not actually reading what Boo wrote about LAN vs. Blogads and then painting Blogads as part of the problem is exactly the type of blanket generalization that pisses people off… just something to think about when we’re throwing accusations around.
I don’t know. I found kostradamus’ prophecy of bad coverage for campaigns that pulled their ads to be plenty damaging:
(I believe this was a direct quote of kostradamus himself) Of course, “freaking out and pulling ads” could also include pulling ads as a consequence of kos saying or doing something the politician doesn’t like. This seems to me like a very blatant attempt to enforce loyalty to party over loyalty to ideology, and ensure that politicians that side with the ideology crowd don’t get traction.
I hear ya, but I assume that’s about the BlogAds/ LAN thing, not about BlogAds themselves since I am 85% sure they are a separate company… but I could be wrong.
Certainly seems to explain why Booman’s so strict about preventing criticism of kostradamus, though, doesn’t it? From the sound of it, if the people on his site start asking too many difficult questions or pointing out too many mistakes, Boo loses his “Advertise Liberally” funding because he’s suddenly no more a blog than Smirking Chimp was.
Wasn’t this exactly the kind of thing Parker was warning about? Hm.
inform yourself. I have made it clear in comments and my diary that this speculation is groundless and rooted in a total misunderstanding of how blogads works. I will answer any questions you have to the best of my ability. But, do take this opportunity…because I will not tolerate the further spreading of this rumor. So ask and I will explain. If you don’t believe my answers then you probably are not going to want to be a part of this community, but if you trust me I will tell you how the ads work and you will understand why this rumor has infuriated me.
So, Boo, can you concisely and coherently respond to the allegations posted by the author of Drudge Retort? And explain how, if kos and Bowers could get DR removed from the Advertise Liberally group for going against him, they can’t do the same for you? Or are you just going to use your standard reply: “They’re friends, they wouldn’t do that”?
The allegations, in case you somehow missed them, can be found here.
Note that you cannot, by your own rules, contest that this occurred. You must also accept that it happened for the reasons given – that Cadenhead’s account is 100% accurate. Doing otherwise would be saying something negative about a public blogger (to whit, that he’s a liar), which is forbidden.
Yes.
Bowers came up with standards for who should be in the mininetwork. Among those standards were that the sites should be blogs, they should be regularly updated, they should not have pop-ups, etc. Nothing about content. Nothing about friends or enemies.
Then he passed down the new rules from on-high and gave people a few weeks to make any adjustments to their layout. Smirking Chimp, Raw Story, and Drudge Retort were too different from blogs to really adjust. The Chimp site is a little controversial because it is at least blog-like. But DR and RS are not blogs by any interpretation.
We had a passionate debate over the fairness of these rules. I thought the rules were good, but that they should only apply to new members, not be used to retroactively kick people out. I told Chris this not a week ago, and I said it at the time. I think he made a mistake. I told John Byrne of Raw Story that I thought he got screwed.
But I also told John that he wasn’t going to lose much money over it and he agreed. All you have to do is go here to see why. That is where most ads are bought and John is still ranked right at the top.
Chris and Kos could not kick me out because my blog is identical to theirs and they have no possible explanation. They don’t want to kick me out and they didn’t want to kick anyone else out. It was not some conspiracy to punish rivals. It was just handled poorly and little heavy-handedly.
I hope that is concise. None of those websites have had to lower their rates as far as I can tell and they are all still thriving and selling blogads.
I appreciate you answering these questions.
Is there any way under your current agreement that BooTrib could be dropped?
Is there a mechanism for reviewing these standards (of what a ‘qualifying’ site is)?
Is it possible to change the rules in the future in such a way that other sites may be forced out?
Is it one site, one vote, or is it proportionate to the traffic, or some other non-one-to-one apportionment?
Are there ways that member sites can apply pressure to other member sites to sway their votes?
Are there provisions to limit the possibility of vote dillution? Or could a few of the bigger blogs “spawn” new blogs which would also get membership/votes? Is that automatic, or do you all have to vote new members in?
FWIW, I think your gut was right on this one, Boo. I don’t see the harm of letting the founding members be grandfathered in. Their ouster set the stage for these accusations/questions. But worse, they also set the precident for future changes to the membership roster to force out current members. If they had followed your advice, all of that would have been moot, and its not clear there would have been any downside whatsoever. As for pointing out that the money-trickle hasn’t created much differential, I would hope for the member’s sakes that isn’t true when the funding spigots are turned on for the election.
Yaright,
I didn’t know quite where to insert this post, so I’ve just picked one of your comments arbitrarily. I just wanted to acknowledge some truly beautiful comments from you, not only on my last two diaries, but throughout the site during this controversy. I have learned from them. I think you are a remarkable individual with sterling insight, genuine integrity, and excruciating honesty. I may not have responded to many of those comments, but I read them with rapt attention and I just wanted to acknowledge the power of your voice. Namaste.
I’m… really not good at responding to compliments 🙂 So, thank you. It means a lot to me.
Just because I can’t express something well in words, doesn’t mean I don’t feel strongly about it.
And I think that’s true of a lot of us.
This whole thing has been sooo frustrating to me. I could see people making good points — sometimes clearly, and sometimes less so. The clear ones were misunderstood nearly as often as the less clear. The responses to the misunderstandings seemed to dismiss the original concerns as unimportant, and also to dismiss the commenter. This just puts the whole basis of this place — conversation and discussion, out of whack.
Sometimes the reaction to that was the perfectly normal reaction of responding in kind. That too easily leads to escalation.
In the name of ‘defending’ this blog, it was being torn apart. It was like there were people who were defending the principles of this site, and people who were defending the implementation of those principles, and there was no middle ground.
It was depressing. That’s why I silently quit last night when I closed my browser.
But I came back as a lurker this morning, to see if anyone else was feeling the way I was. I was encouraged to see there were — there were actually quite a few. All of you stuck with it when I had given up.
Frankly, Recordkeeper, if it weren’t for your diaries… I think you had the courage to say what many of us were thinking. No, it wasn’t a popular thing with some people. But you not only published the first one, you published this one. And the commentary in this one by everyone has done a lot to convince me that the lines of communication are really still open.
Booman deserves a lot of credit for that too. He stood here and answered the questions he was asked. He didn’t dismiss, ban, or even ignore the askers. He treated them and their questions with respect. I think this is all we wanted all along.
But RecordKeeper, you knew how unpopular your first diary was, and I’m sure the thought you might be banned for this one crossed your mind. But you stuck to your principles and posted it anyways.
The only reason I posted at all today was because of the discussion you started. You showed a lot of courage. And I thank you for that.
I hope you’ll be sticking around for a while longer to see how this plays out.
I hope you’ll be sticking around for a while longer to see how this plays out.
Thank you, Yaright. I’m going to need to sit with all this for a while. I wish I shared your sense of optimism, now that Booman has weighed in. I don’t. I’m actually left very uncomfortable with the direction things seem to be moving in. It all feels very ominous to me. I think this is about to become a very oppressive environment. I hope I’m wrong, but I have a bad feeling.
I don’t blame you. I mean, I’m encouraged that so many people share your concerns (as I do), and they’re being treated seriously. That alone is a huge change from a few days ago.
I’m happy that on a personal level, some of us are being given a chance to make peace with one another. At least if things don’t work out we can leave over ‘creative differences’ instead of with animosity.
But the concerns that you, and I, and Egarwaen, and dblhelix, and so many others have expressed are still there, unresolved. Actions have been taken that don’t appear likely to be reversed. Its unlikely we’ll just roll this back to the way it was.
I still wonder if this incident and the new rule won’t triggger the first big exodus. If so, I think it’ll be a pre-pie war style one — not so much encouraged to leave as no longer feeling at home. If it does, I hope it can be as amicable as the original Bootrib-dkos split was, and folks will feel welcome calling both bootrib and whatever new place home, while others will happily settle into just one or the other.
No matter what, we all want this administration out. What to replace it with, and how… now that’s the question.
technically speaking, I could be dropped unilaterally by Chris. Realistically speaking, I could not be dropped without it causing the total breakup of the network. In other words, I feel zero pressure about conforming to anything, which is the point of debate here.
Also, according to Chris the Smirking Chimp is not considered a blog, and that point has been acknowledged by their owner. The reason? They do not do commentary, but only link to other commentary. I don’t think anyone from the DR, RS or SC has claimed that they were kicked out for personal reasons. If they feel that way they are wrong, in my opinion.
Also, anyone can apply to start their own mininetwork. I belong to three. I belong to the UK blogad network for EuroTrib, and to both Advertising Liberally and the Philly Ad Network. So, it is just bullshit that Chris is some kind of czar because he controls the adveritsing liberally network. He runs that network, other people run other networks.
*disclosure. after I left the Pennacchio fundraiser last night with Atrios I went and played trivia with Bowers, his brothers, and some girl friends. See? It’s all a conspiracy!
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
I hope you’re happier with the level of discourse in this thread than you were with some of the ones from when you were gone. This is an amazing community we’ve got here. I think your williness to work with its members makes all the difference.
Blog-like? Looking at the front page, I fail to see how Smirking Chimp can possibly be classified as “not a blog”, except by people deliberately looking to exclude it for other reasons. Heck, it looks like Slashdot, and if you’re going to say that things that look like Slashdot aren’t blogs, then neither BooTrib nor Daily Kostradamus are blogs. Period.
In my experience, when something’s handled that heavy-handedly, there is always something behind it. In almost every case, it’s been personal animosity or a personal power-play.
aware of so why is he being attacked here?
Whoa!
I didn’t read Egarwaen’s comment as an attack on Booman. Did you? Which part?
We ought to be careful with that sort of language. If someone is ‘attacking’ Booman, then I suppose we can just ignore the content of the post and ignore the poster as ‘bad’, right? That accusation freezes the accused out of the conversation.
If you really feel Booman was being attacked, can you clue me in on the attack, and maybe even refute it?
I read it as:
Booman: <here’s my explanation of what happened, and the reasoning that was given>
Egar: <the reason you were given doesn’t seem to make sense, given that smirking chimp is..etc.>
Egar(since I’m not responding to em, I can’t see the correct spelling) then says that in his/her experience when a reason is given that doesn’t quite fit, there is gemerally an unspoken reason that does.
I’m not seeing how that’s an attack on Booman, unless disagreeing with Boo’s interpretation of events is now considered an attack.
It was done politely enough. I’m just not seeing the problem here.
But then, you made your point with a single sentence, so its very possible I’m not understanding your meaning.
I just wanted to step in here and say that I am sorry for snapping at you the other day, and I was making a general statement not directed at you and I know it sounded like that but it was late and I was tired and I just blew.
Tell you the truth I wasn’t even sure at times who I replying to as I seemed to be surrounded and just answering it all with comments to you, I guess and it had been about 4 days of commenting on the subject..One of the reasons I had to take a break, step away and try to avoid getting caught up in these things.
I will even extend that apology out to anyone else I may have snapped at or lost my patience with ever.
You didn’t have to do that! But I appreciate it all the same.
My own responses to you were well intended, but like you, I was caught up in the meta-situation and the words I chose probably didn’t convey my intentions very well. I’m sorry for that.
I have to say that was a low point for me. I never would have imagined exchanging words with you, diane!
I don’t know if this place can ever be like it was, but its encouraging that so many of us are trying to work it out. I know I still have a few more apologies to dole out as things cool down.
Yaright, I just wanted to say that I always enjoy the thoughtfulness of your posts.
Thanks CabinGirl.
I had no idea.
I hope to join you and the CabinBoys at a march one of these days.
Neither would I, but seems I read yours last of the series and just replied to you…well anyway it was a crazy time and I was in this mode since Friday with another diary and it was just one long thing and I let it all out on you it seems.
I have talked to shirl a lot about how we get so wrapped up in all of this stuff and I was even yelling at my family on Sat. and in a terrible mood. Then after it was all over I thought how silly to put this much energy to a negative situation and get caught up in it to where I couldn’t sleep and smoked a zillion cigs…lungs have had it rough. Had to do a reset of priorities.
I was thinking about this while I was at my daughters and wanted to apologize and was in a hurry to get home to do it, would have done it before, but didn’t seem the time and I was just so burned out.
Well, Shirl is the astrologer, not I. But I do know that Mars is going direct this week and tempers are riding high pretty much everywhere.
no astrologer, just a star gazer. . . ;o)
My bad. I knew you did psychic work of some kind. Your nickname kind of threw me there. Well, in time, we will all be stars.
Of the stars, in the stars, dust of stars, be the stars.
Apologies to your Record as well, not sure if I snapped at you or not, can’t bear to go back and read, so if I have snapped at you, please accept this sorry.
Yeah, was there a full moon, or planets in retrograde, whatever that means, but yes, things seem to be in the air, but I am calm now myself, the priority thing.
Apology accepted.
No full moon, but from what I understand a number of interesting astrological events going on this week. I’m a psychic, but I am no astrologer. I find it baffling. But, I have friends and clients who are so I get the reader’s digest version from them. Mars goes direct today, I believe. I’ve been given to understand that this transition is kicking up a lot of anger. I find it very cleansing, but that’s just me. I’ve been immersed in shadow work for some years so I am, perhaps, more comfortable than a lot of people are when muck gets kicked up. I’m a lets-get-it-out-on-the-table kind of person. I’ve actually been feeling quite calm and centered through all of this. I’m a little sad right now, but I’m not angry — not at anyone. I’m just sad for what has occurred and where I see it all headed. Ah well. Such is life. Peace to you. Namaste.
That’s exactly what I was trying to get at. I’m not saying that Boo was lying. I am saying that, based on my past (and, unfortunately, frequent) experiences with “You’re not allowed in this club” policy changes, there is almost aways a hidden reason for it behind the scenes. Especially when, as in this case, the excluded were publically critical of the “club owners” and were (at least in Smirking Chimp’s case) on the borderline of the new policy.
In short, when the owners of a club don’t lean towards keeping existing members in it, this is usually a sign that the policy changes were based on the need to remove said members, rather than said members being removed as a side-effect of policy changes.
i talked about this again last night over beers and trivia with Chris.
Here is his version of what happened.
He was getting a ton of new requests to be added to the network. He was having trouble figuring out how to determine who should be added and who should not. And that led him to draft up the standards. He basically needed an on the record standard to justify rejecting some requests.
Now, we did this a little differently with the Philly Ad Network. We would get an email with a link to a new site and get asked for feedback. But we have a trickle of requests and can handle that kind of system for that ad network. We would have had to spam-block Chris if he asked for feedback on every request he was getting.
So, he made up the standards, and there was some feedback and some adjustments in the two-week period before the rules went into effect.
It was not done to punish anyone. It was done to handle a problem of volume. Anyway, the Smirking Chimp site was determined not to be a blog because they do not do original writing. I never even noticed that controversy, but not everyone agrees with that standard. Chris claims to have an email sent to him by the owner of SC that acknowledges that the site is not a blog. I believe him.
Anyway, that is story from Chris’s point of view and he doesn’t disagree with my critiques of how it was handled. I think he knows it should have been handled better. He didn’t argue with me when I said the rules should have been grandfathered in, but his rationale is also valid. He didn’t to have to tell a prospective new member they couldn’t join because they didn’t meet a standard that also not being met by an existing member.
The whole thing has been a headache for him. But he isn’t complaining. He’s just a little surprised by all the furor and suspicion.
See, where I come from, that’s just expressing differing opinions and perceptions on a contentious issue. So is having a different take, on a sensitive issue, from Booman’s a banning offense? Maybe I’m not understanding your point.
My point is about making sure the facts are as correct as they can be when making accusations that are potentially damaging… that was it. Nothing to do with the banning itself, just making sure we aren’t painting BlogAds as being the same as LAN.
And pointing out that there are two sides to every story – in this case, Boo’s side of what happened and the SC’s side of what happened.
Nothing to do with the banning itself, just making sure we aren’t painting BlogAds as being the same as LAN.
Of course they aren’t. I once looked at the blogads.com entry portal, and it is clear that there are multiple networks to choose from. That’s just market segmentation for bulk buys: regional, women’s issues, etc. Presumably, each have their own administration.
Like you, I’m not going to review all of the posts, but I interpreted the usage of ‘blogads’ to mean simply the twinkling colorful spots, not the blogads.com company.
But speculating and raising questions is not “accusing.” It’s the lifeblood of journalism. If what Shadowthief said in that thread is accusation or libel, we should all be preparing for subpoenas from the Bush, Cheney, Rove, Scooter, DeLay, et al., because we’ve been libeling them like mad. We’ve all made statements far more “accusatory” than any question Shadowthief raised in that thread.
to this I would comment that if the banning did take place, I would interpret it as an application of the “friends” rule.
But I wasn’t responding to what Shadowthief wrote, I was responding to what Egarwaen wrote – really damaging to the “BlogAds is absolutely innocent” story.
Clearly those who comment on the subject should differentiate between:
blogads — twinkling ads, for Casey Jr, for example.
blogads.com — company w/ servers that sponsors the serving of ads to multiple sites, some of them grouped together into their own mini-network, and probably takes about a 1/3 cut for their trouble
LAN – Liberal Ad Network — blogads.com mini-network, administered by Bowers, kos, perhaps others to facilitate bulk buys for so-called ‘liberal’ sites, where the definition of what constitutes ‘liberal’ is at the discretion of the LAN administration.
I agree w/ you that people should be careful w/ usage.
friends upset about the banning of Parker and also probably Shadowthief. I always enjoyed Parker’s words and challenges to take a moment and briefly put a different shoe on. I love Recordkeeper mucho too because we share a lot in common in real life and I respect her concern and opinion on this issue. I also trust Booman. This is what Booman was meant to do, it is his calling and he has always been upfront and honest about things including money. He told me that he was a snob, but he isn’t a snob about monetary things…..so I would suppose he is an intellectual snob. I also witnessed the rightwing media makers at Crawford. The right has the money people and they have the connections to get what they film as “news” put right up there. I began remembering the protest for the recount in Florida when I was in Crawford and there is no doubt in my mind that it was handled the same way. When the protesters were there their own film crew was there, and they shot “exciting” film of what took place that was sent to all the networks who ran it because it was exciting. Going after our own “media” and making accusations that are not founded in any way or evidenced in any way scares the shit out of me you guys………..the middle and left must grow and find funding to fight this out and out “media lying” of the right and enable the people to take back this nation! We are all concerned about how money will change things and that includes me. I’m ponying up though with the guy I trust in this and that is Booman. He has to eat and so does Booman the dog. If the other bloggers do step out of line I know that Booman will address it, he always does and sometimes in the past it has been painful too for him.
Hi militarytracy,
I appreciate your impassioned comments. Booman last night made a comment along of the lines “clearly you don’t trust me as far as you can throw me.” I really don’t know how to react to these types of statements coming from someone I’ve never met.
With respect to this diary and others like it — I think we’ve been told as much as we’re going to be told. There’s a “don’t criticize my friends” rule, where the friends happen to be admins of the LAN. I do not sense that this rule will change or be fleshed out any further for us.
Next, we have a banning, or perhaps some bannings. I have read multiple statements both from Susan and from others that our feelings in the matter will not be part of the equation. So, that takes care of that.
Next, we have an open question with respect to the influence of centrist organizations and their resources on the LAN member sites. Before we go any further, I would like to mention that Simon Rosenberg of NDN has penned the forward to kos’s book. I am not going to spend my time tracking who is putting what into the “liberal” blogosphere — my questions have already been largely answered. I am quite willing to bet that by the New Year, new blogs will emerge not affiliated with a centrist outlook, so I have ceased to worry about this. As has been pointed out numerous times, we are free to go where we’d like.
With respect to the feeding of Booman and his dog — Look, everything stated above is a consequence of decisions that he’s made. In other words, he could have chosen conventional employment and a member donations supported site to retain openess and independence. He has taken a different route. That’s his decision. Now others have their own to make. It’s not personal at all — sometimes things change, that’s all.
but I think that you are still able to criticize anyone , as long as it is done maturely and with respect. That, as opposed to being a prick and “bashing” (man do I hate that word).
something came up. I don’t have a hate campaign out for him though nor am I creating a disinformation campaign against him. We share a lot of things in common and some not at all. Look, I even told Kos right to Kos that I reserved the right to punch him in the stomach just once over the whole “marching doesn’t do shit” diary he front paged…….and I’m still not banned on Kos. One day I was having a Kos fit and someone said told me to knock it off with my Kos fit and I did and it was done and I apologized to those I needed to. This whole LAN conspiracy theory is bullshit!
Me too (well, not the punch in the stomach part…).
Peace. I have no issue with you.
Over that thread, I trolled rated him. Then I wrote about the Mothers and Grandmothers of the Dissapeared, and told him how they had: removed presidents, had presidents elected, change national laws. changed intenational laws, even advanced mediacal research, etc. I finished by challenging him to put his money here his mouth is: If he had accomplished anything with his blogging, that even came close to what these women had done, would he be willing to quit blogging? I never got an answer.
Anyways, I have been recently banned from there, and this is the first time that I have even mentioned it. Honestly I wish them the best. It is simply not for me, and just as I hate people talking behind my back, I will not do so to them.
Ummm… as Shadowthief just showed up to recommend this diary I take it he has not been banned.
Well, at least that can be put to rest now.
‘Fraid not.
the banned can often still comment-rate, recc etc, just not post. In any case, if you’re correct, we will see a post soon?
I have received an email on this. He can log in and he could recommend the diary, but he cannot post or rate comments.
Okay, perhaps it’s a tech glitch or a “time out”.
Strange though that one could be banned and then still be able to rec diaries.. maybe a scoop thing.
formally quit this site on October 25th while sending me an insulting email that I responded to with “Fuck you” and then more text afterwards.
He then came back as though nothing had happened and I was too busy to get around to banning him. I have now formally fulfilled his own promise that he did not have the honor to respect himself.
Booman,
Lots of people have announced their departure and gotten angry and not been banned for it. Again, I would ask for a bit of clarity on the standard being applied here.
don’t send me emails quitting the site that cause me to respond with ‘fuck you’ and then come back as though nothing happened.
No one causes another person to say “fuck you.” Those were your words. You chose them. I don’t know what he said to you and I can’t comment on his tone. But this was private communication between you that the membership was not privy to. I would hope that banning someone would have to do with their conduct as it affects the site and its membership. Again, if there’s a rule that says don’t express anger towards management, I haven’t read it.
are you trying to anger me? Seriously. I am beginning to feel like there is a concerted effort to create problems on this site.
You cannot write me highly insulting emails announcing that you are quitting the site and then come back as though nothing happened. Period. I’m not going to divulge private correspondence. It’s irrelevent.
To tell you the truth I am contemplating several more bannings, including several members that have signed up since I went offline.
And my standard is going to be the prick rule, a highly subjective rule, but all the stronger for being vague and allowing wide discretion.
No one should ever worry about getting banned unless they are serial violators of the prick rule. Unless, of course, the mainline the prick thing by sending me offensive personal emails.
I have been very very lenient in banishments but I’m not going to let this site be overrun with trolls, no matter how clever.
Sowing discord is a prick offense, and if I think a poster is primarily interested in sowing discord I will ban them. It is subjective but I can’t help that.
And there it is. How did I know that? And I suppose I have been sufficiently warned that I have “angered” you. I am so very sad for what is happening to this site.
Capriciousness it is then. That shall be the rule of law in the frog pond. How very, very sad. You had something truly unique and lovely here. But I’ve seen this movie before and I don’t like how it ends.
It’s not capriciousness, it’s his judgment. His rule, his judgment.
We have something truly unique and lovely here. It depends on people being willing to defuse conflicts, and apologize, and be Bigger Than All That.
My capricious judgment says you’re being a prick in this comment, and you look forward to the martyrdom of being banned. I’m not sure how BooMan or anyone could read your last comment differently. (I personally think BooMan’s referring to the actual trolls who’ve joined us recently.)
Please don’t go there. You’ve made your point, and some people agree with you. But this hasn’t been going productively for quite a while now. I like what you write when it’s not meta, and I appreciate dissent. Don’t run away–it doesn’t help anything.
caprice 1a. An impulsive change of mind. b. An inclination to change one’s mind impulsively. c. A sudden, unpredictable action, change, or series of actions or changes
accusing me of caprice is another example of questionable behavior on your part. Are you looking to sow discord or are you serious?
My point is that you have now carved out wide latitude for yourself to ban people at your whim. Having done so, I fully expect that you will use it. You have made yourself clear. Raising concerns about your methods is not acceptable behavior on this site, and I will consider myself warned. It saddens me, but I acknowledge that angering you, even unintentionally, puts me one step closer to the door. Very well.
Booman is lenient, workable, and flexible.
And yet I can’t recall him ever, ever make broad sweeping accusations about a slanderous ‘them’ out to create havoc on this site.
In the past when he’s stepped in, I thought he’s been more than fairminded in his approach. I thought he’s made it clear that it was the manner of speech, not the content, that was the issue. And I thought when he did intervene, it was to set things right and restore peace to the site.
There certainly has been a disturbance here. Some folks were labelled as ‘subversives’ — for their actions (Parker), for questioning actions (Shadowthief, Recordkeeper, etc). And some folks took it upon themselves to ‘defend the site’ against these ‘subversives’ by piling on and speculating all sorts of nefarious motives for the ‘subversives’.
Seems there’s plenty of opportunities there for peacemaking, based on his past actions. But this isn’t following the pattern of past actions.
He’s banned some of the ‘subversives’. He’s contemplating banning more. He’s not said a single cautioning word to the ‘defenders’, who have certainly played a significant role in dividing up the community with their own ‘shit-stirring’ as it were.
I really don’t think past actions are much help as a guide this time.
i missed 4 days of back and forth on this, almost all of it totally misplaced. But I will say this: there are people trying to disrupt this site. Proving it is difficult, but the best evidence is that many of the most disruptive have been banned from other forums in the past, or have a relationship with other blogs. Some people move from blog to blog getting banned and howling about free speech. It’s a problem on this site right now. And I don’t intend to let it remain a problem.
Another tell-tale sign is that these people never respond when confronted. They change the subject. Some people have genuine concerns, but many others are just serial troublemakers. Unfortunately, the pond needs a skimming.
I do appreciate this answer. Of course, I was busy writing the comment below, so I didn’t have the benefit of having read this when I wrote that.
So, just to clear the air, I have two questions:
(even if the answer to the first one is ‘yes’, I’d hope you’d consider the second. 😉
in this thread, I haven’t seen any of your comments so I have no opinion on those comments.
I intend to ban anyone that I deem to be on a mission to disrupt. Obviously, newly minted members with no track record are the most likely suspects.
However, it’s possible that others have recently decided to join some Welshman jihad and exact retribution for my pointing out Welshman’s dishonest and coordinated campaign to undermine Jerome a Paris’s reputation at Daily Kos. I will bring holy hell down on any of Welshman’s minions if I decide that is what they are upto. And it is no coincidence that this disruption began the day my argument with Welshman ended and I went off line.
Oh, so Parker and Shadowtheif were Welshman’s minions, Boo? Somehow, that stretches the bounds of plausibility just a tad.
no. Parker and Shadowthief are seperate issues. Parker was banned after months of bending the rules on civility and repeated nudgings, warnings, admonitions, etc. And she just would not let up with the lies about the NDN, especially as it concerns Chris Bowers and his decision making and his politics. I told her she was wrong repeatedly. I explained why I didn’t want that kind of bullshit spread around and I was very open about it.
Shadowthief I have explained. But all this crying about free speech smells of the Welshman.
Risking banning for saying so:
Welshman is an idiot. He turns a good phrase, loves the kudos, but beyond that, there’s just not enough there there.
There. I’ve posted something negative about a public blogger.
My free-speech (or longing for the right to say what I think about a topic whenever it comes up, as long as I’m civil to the posters here in that particular thread at the time I do so) concerns have nothing to do with supporting Welshman. They have more to do with the creation of the new ‘leave orange alone’ rule out of the old “don’t be a prick” rule, which also happened while you were away.
I can’t be the only one caught in that timing coincidence. The right time to question a rule is when its introduced. Which is why I posted elsewhere that I wish that rule had waited til your return to be enacted. As I recall, the creation of the prick rule originally actually had some high degree of conversation as well, and certainly not 100% of it was positive — tho it was no where near this contentious, but then it wasn’t viewed as limiting conversation as much as this is.
Yes, Shadowtheif you have explained. Though if you really were serious about that rule, he should’ve been banned a long time ago. About the time he started flaming brinnainne and others for being “anti-military”.
As for Parker, you keep saying she was bending the rules, but again, you’re being inconsistent and disingenuous. She may have been bending the rules, but was often baited or trolled by others who bent the rules far more frequently and flagrantly because they knew they could set her off. Of course, they were also loyal to the Party Line.
I also seem to remember that Parker posted convincing defences of her opinions on the NDN and Rosenburg several times. Certainly convincing enough to justify posting such opinions and warnings as she did on blogs.
Past actions do count for something in all of this, and I’m referring to those who have a long history of trying to stir things up and create dissent on blogs in general (and it’s not Parker or MiTM that I’m referring too). And BooMan has always been fair and tried at length to avoid banning people. I don’t think that’s changed either.
The timing of all this shit-stirring (when it was well known that Booman would be offline, and unable to defend himself) is no coincidence.
This isn’t really about free speech for those playing the game; it’s about creating chaos and dissent.
Or you feel that it is not? CabinGirl I love you muchly and I know you’ve been around here longer than I have, but it is this kind of thing that just has me wondering “what the fuck is going on? and how much longer can I bring myself to care about it?”
You all know that I care about you, but is it only me who sees comments like this (and CG, I am not attempting to single you out, I can get other examples if anyone wants them, they have been ALL OVER):
I’m referring to those who have a long history of trying to stir things up and create dissent on blogs in general (and it’s not Parker or MiTM that I’m referring too)
and this:
The timing of all this shit-stirring (when it was well known that Booman would be offline, and unable to defend himself) is no coincidence.
to be completely infuriating?!?
To the first kind of comment, my reaction is always, then who the fuck ARE you refering to? What am I supposed to do with this comment? Either say straight up what you’re talking about and let chips fall where they may, and, more importantly, let people defend themselves against your (hopefully) honest opinions of them or DON’T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE SUBJECT!
To the second kind of comment, I roll my eyes and say “oh, really? what evidence do you have of THAT?!” (I mean, come on, isn’t this what this whole rhubarb is about? libel and slander and baseless accusations and such?? I mean isn’t it? Or have I totally slipped my wig here??)
I know that I have lived a long enough time to trust my instincts. And they usually serve me pretty well.
And my comment sums up my feelings about this whole thing. I know we all look at this from slightly different viewpoints. If I’ve infuriated anyone, I’m sorry, but I stand by what I said.
Now, did you see my comment over in your lyrics thread? It’s far more entertaining than this… 🙂
No evidence required? Trusting in your gut?
Ok. Where have I heard that before?
Hey Parker, how are ya?
Recordkeeper, it seems to me that you have the answer you have been wanting to hear, not the answer you’ve been given. I honestly don’t understand where you are coming from on this or what you are trying to accomplish.
Where is it written that a site owner should put up with malicious comments and insults? Granted, there is always going to be an element of insults being in the eye of the beholder (or the insultee, rather), but at some point, enough is enough.
And you know, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a person to want to stand up for his friends. Loyalty to people is important. And I haven’t seen any evidence that this loyalty comes at the expense of free speech or reasoned discussion. If Parker had just asked about the blogads or raised this issue as a topic for discussion, rather than accusing people of being sell-outs, I doubt we’d be at this point right now.
As for further bannings, I’m rather hoping Booman refers to Lord Fauntleroy and Fluffy Pink Bunny, who appeared on this site as of today, only to dispense troll ratings to people like Meteor Blades. Which is pretty much proof to me about where they are coming from and what their motivations really are.
Hint: they are not about free speech.
Lord Fauntleroy and Fluffy Pink Bunny obviously let their personal feelings get involved, and acted to enforce ‘justice’ in their minds, perhaps to defend their friends. That’s usually a recipe for problems. To be fair, the first troll ratings started a day or two earlier, and were perpetrated by people who now wish to have us believe their hands were clean, and all their actions were pure. I assume they had the exact same motivation and excuses for their behavior as well.
So while I hope you’re right about the bannings being limited to the two userids, I don’t understand why you’d assume that. Chamonix and Ask have been clamoring for my head, Recordkeeper’s, Parker’s, and Shadowthief’s, Madman’s, and others. Two out of five isn’t bad. What of all the concerned folks like Brinnaine who’ve also asked hard questions, but tried to not take sides? What of all the folks who’ve given 4’s to the aforementioned folks? Are they also on the short list for possibly endorsing positions?
I’m still at a loss as to why Booman didn’t just answer Parker’s speculation about NDN and LAN with the truth, as he has done now after she was banned. I saw many cases where he told her she was wrong, or out of line, or assured her her line of reasoning was off the wall. But why he withheld the evidence (which he has now shared) and didn’t just let us see/decide for ourselves is beyond me. Perhaps then Parker could have explained her reasoning, and at worst we could agree to disagree and move on.
Speaking for myself, there is no cabal here that I’m aware of. The only person on this site that knows how to contact me via email is Booman himself. Heck, last time Shadowthief and I interacted here, I didn’t exactly have a favorable impression of him. Before that, we did. Thats just the way I am, I agree with the point not the person. I find the insinuations about me and my motives made directly by some posters here, and indirectly by Boo’s preamble paragraph to his LAN explanation to be highly malicious and offensive, personally. If they didn’t intend to include me in their group of ‘subversives’, perhsps they should have come right out and said who was and wasn’t on their lists.
you should point me to the comments you’ve made that would lead me to consider you a subversive (not a word I recall using BTW). Because I haven’t even seen any of your comments regarding this.
Thanks.
No ‘subversive’ and ‘defender’ were my own words. The others in use seemed a bit more charged (not that ‘subversive’ isn’t).
As for why I’d fear being a ‘subversive’ when that wasn’t your intent — I think this gets to the bottom of the concern I have over recent actions. I’m positive I’m not the only one who feels you were speaking of themselves when you were thinking of others. I think Madman expressed he felt that way too. All the folks who commented on Recordkeepers two ‘swamp’ diaries, and all the folks who showed concern/support by handing out 4 ratings to those of us who expressed concern that this place was changing to be more like other blogs we’ve been at.
I don’t see a grand conspiracy to take down the frogpond. I see one group who would embrace a more orange-like rules/atmosphere here, and I see another group who questions/challenges authority — any authority, including yours. I see a group here that wants civility over any particular political concern (that’s the group I feel part of), and a group that wants to root out centrist/corporate influence over Democratic groups (I’m in that one, too). I have no sacred cows, and to me no one is above questioning.
So why would I think you might consider me subversive? I’ve got very little respect for a certain blog and its leaders. I disagree with the substance of one, and the style of the other. Despite your explanation, I’m concerned about the overall effect of the LAN, and can’t help but wonder if your newfound attention to anti-orange thought is 100% disconnected from the fact it would appear the orange leaders have demonstrated they can in fact cause blogs to be excluded from the LAN. I wonder if it is conceivable that Booman Tribune could be kicked out of the LAN if someone like Madman were to publish a damning but factual expose’ on the big Orange. I don’t think you let one drive the other, but I don’t fault those who might question if you do.
If someone wanted to paint me as an anti-orange agent, I’ve certainly published enough commentary to fit the description. If someone wanted to paint me as a bootrib loyalist, I’ve got enough commentary to support that, too. If someone wanted to claim I’m an interested participant in non-meta-blogging issues, I’ve got enough commentary to conclude that as well.
In each case, I post it as I see it. I agree with folks I happen to agree with, and disagree with folks I disagree with. I don’t coordinate my activities with others. I don’t play favorites. I don’t defend my ‘friends’ when I think they’re wrong, and I give 4’s to folks who’s styles I don’t generally like if they make a convincing point.
Lately, I’ve found myself in agreement with folks you’ve banned, and I’ve given them ‘aid and comfort’ in the form of 4’s and agreeing comments.
Am I a subversive?
The fact I even have to wonder tells me this place has changed, for the worse. The things I value — different viewpoints, civility, the sense of trust and ability to make mistakes without being punished — are severely impacted.
Maybe it was time to use a sniper rifle to thin the herd. I think there were other ways to handle it, but I don’t live with the same pressures as you do.
But it feels like something between a shotgun and an airstrike was used, rhetorically. If there is a secret cabal working to undermine this site, expose them or monitor them. But to speak of them openly as a group without naming names just invites everyone to play ‘guess who’. And right now, I happen to feel as if in the minds of some on site here, I’ve been named, and that they feel vindicated in their thinking by your vague words of a threatening group.
How that’s supposed to bring peace to the site, I dunno.
the site has been hijacked by people pretending to be defenders of Parker. Yes, there are genuine defenders of Parker. I am not speaking of them. How does one tell the difference? It’s not easy. If it were easy then this would be easy to solve.
Essentially, there are a few posters here that have been banned from other sites. That alone is not a problem. But when they become vocal critics of mine without any supporting evidence and they do not respond when confronted, and they post diaires to expand a flamewar, and new members begin showing up and throwing themselves into the debate, then you know you are under attack. That is what has happened here and a sniper rifle is what is needed.
I have always been fair and I have never had a trigger finger. And if you don’t trust me then you probably have no good reason to want to be a member here. That’s the bottom line.
No one has been banned for supporting parker of shadowthief. People will be banned for being part of a cabal to create problems. And I will back up my decisions.
You know what.
I believe you.
I don’t think you understood how many of us (the non-cabal Parker or shadowthief supporters) felt targeted by your harsh words towards the cabal.
I hope any that were get a chance to see what you just wrote here.
I’m still nervous as hell about the effect this ‘cabal’, and the fear/aggression it will inspire in members (not frontpagers or you) will have on this site.
Shadowthief may have been out of line with his McCarthy analogies. You yourself have just said there is a secret, undisclosed group. You have the list. Unless more people are exonerated, I fully expect public accusation and insinuations to be instigated by others.
And if there is a cabal, it would be insane for these folks to not start accusing innocent members of being in the cabal. If you’re gonna form a cabal to take down a blog, why wouldn’t you engage in misdirection?
So the logical conclusion is to suspect everyone on every side of being in the cabal, as long as their actions sow dissention (aka spawn disagreement) on the site.
Ugh. I want to go back to September. Or at least to where we could expect people to be judged on the current actions, and not second-guess their motivations.
Since you didn’t answer my questions up thread…I am glad to see you are coming around down here with Booman. Perhaps I was one step ahead of you in my assumption. Anyway..I know you have been around here forever…I just wish you could have seen what was going on and not have been so defensive when members in good standing were trying to be taken out. I trust Booman 100% and know he will make the right choices. What ever he does I stand by him and Susan 100%. So far so good. This is what happens when a blog becomes bigger and more popular. I hope this has opened up everyones eyes who cares deeply about the Booman Tribune.
Does this mean you no longer think I’d be a good ‘ban’ candidate?
I haven’t answered your questions because the last time you and I had a discussion where we disagreed, it wasn’t pleasant at all. That was Susan’s big ‘new rule’ thread where you brought over a dispute you and I had in a different thread in as evidence of all that was wrong with this blog today, and mischaracterized my position (which you did later admit to). Its that thread where I got the no-so-veiled impression you thought I and others should be banned.
Boo is convinced there is a cabal here. Frankly, I am not. I haven’t seen the evidence that there is one. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence. It only means that I have no reason to believe it myself, but I respect the right of others to believe there is.
There is no harm in posting in a way that concedes certain disputed points to get to what you think is a larger point. My larger point is (and has been) whether there is a cabal or not, a lot of damage has been done to sincerely non-cabal members here the last few days.
I have seen folks who aren’t in a cabal be accused of being in one. Myself for sure. Others I’ve seen accused but based on watching them post here for up to six months, I disagree. I think the paranoia factor about who may or may not be causes far more damage than the actual threat. Kinda like the Patriot Act was an overblown response to 19 guys with box cutters.
I wish you’d drop the “members in good standing” phrase. Brinnaine and I are members in good standing, as far as I know. She’s been pretty neutral, and I’ve seen valid concerns where you see only cabal mystification. Heck, from emjw’s web diary, I think Parker got more acknowledgments than you or I combined. Doesn’t that imply she was a “member in good standing” too? Either way, “member in good standing” is a bit of an elitist phrase that doesn’t exactly help newcomers feel as important. And people who are truly “MIGS” usually post with a quality that just screams it — like meteor blades. They don’t need to draw attention to themselves with a phrase, even a newcomer can pick up that they’re the real thing.
I don’t trust Booman 100%. But I still think he’s the most dedicated blog-owner I’ve met so far. If he wasn’t, I’d leave here just like I left the big orange — quietly, and on my own terms. If I didn’t have some trust in him, I wouldn’t be wasting my work day writing in hopes of helping restore this place and healing whatever wounds have been opened the past few weeks.
I still come away with the impression you think purges are necessary and good as a blog grows. That concerns me, and isn’t my belief at all. Its another instance where orange does things one way, and green has done them another. I know you are okay with the orange approach. My concern is that its the orange approach, moreso than the size, that leads to the condition of the orange. This is why I’ve always defended the ways green is different than orange and really questioned any attempts to make this place act more orange. And I’m sorry that has caused you anI wish some of your friends here would pull you aside and let you know how that and other behavior reflects on you. And any such critique should come from your friends, since I don’t think you’d take it seriously if it came from myself or another.
d I to butt heads more than once. I’m fine with us disagreeing on that point, tho.
When you allow for each person to hold beliefs that may be contrary to your own (like you did above with me), people can have a civil discussion.
Well the one thing we’re doing that is ‘orange’ related is breaking the margins of threads… 😉
And for that, I have to not only give you a 4, but say I’m doing it with a comment! (my first)
members in good standing is something I only started using this past week with the War that was going on here, especially when I was troll rated 6 times and called a DKos Moron, and then jumped for suggesting that the person who had Posted the Diary “Is Dkos Kaput” Consider deleting it (in a very kind way) as it had been 24 hrs since Dkos had been back up and working and there had been several diaries on the recommended list about it at BooTrib. The person who had posted the “Kaput” diary, had no comment history and I think maybe one other dairy. The minute I asked for them to consider deleting it I represented the absolute Worst of Dkos and thus was hammered and I felt treated like shit. That is where things started with me. Not to mention I have been continually troll rated over at Dkos by a member here about 5 times. I guess MIGS was clearly misunderstood, I did not mean that everyone else was not a MIGS. It was just a sign for folks who didn’t know me or newbies that I was a MIGS. (MIGS not to be mistaken with WHIG). Now about the Cabal. Please give me a link or links where I request for members to be Banned? If you did I could look at it and see if I was just pissed off or it was late at night or I really meant it. Parker I do remember, others???? I do know, that I believe there are, in my mind, a minimum of 6 cabal members 2 of them my have another user screenname. So minimum 4 people. When other members here jumped on the bandwagon and started supporting them..honestly I took it personally and it freaked me out so I may have written a few comments I regret and if that happened or I offended anyone I am sorry.(it was kind of like a war zone with non stop fire for like 36 hours.) Once again I am sorry if I lumped you into a group which you did not belong. I would still like to see links to complaints in regards to my requests for banning. And yes…I do think a Purge needs to happen…be it 2 or 6 people..enough is enough..When you break the rules..(what little rules booman has set down) repeatedly..through diaries, comments, emails…enough is enough. btw/ I did not send one email to either Susan or Booman requesting anyone be banned. Everything I have said is transparent and a record exists on this blog. Unless a comment has been trollrated into eternity. Hopefully we can overcome our differences and spend our time bringing down the real ememy..the Worst President and administration in the History of the United States.
The person who had posted the “Kaput” diary, had no comment history and I think maybe one other dairy.
The person posting the ‘kaput’ diary was someone wondering why DK was offline. They weren’t being critical of DK.
A great many people seem to dislike the habit of policing diaries which is a feature at DK. I tend to ignore DP comments and always have but some people find them objectionable, rude and usually unnecessary.
that I believe there are, in my mind, a minimum of 6 cabal members 2 of them my have another user screenname. So minimum 4 people.
Could you name the members of this cabal? I was once accused of being the leader of an email cabal by a FP poster on DK and have been fascinated by the concept ever since. I think that what happens is that some people, particularly those have been blogging for a long time, who have long established friendships and affinities. Is that not a possibility?
thanks for making me aware of a BoomanTribune unspoken rule that it is trollish or awful behaviour to ask someone kindly to “Consider” deleting a diary that was not only 24 hours out dated but had been diaried and commented on ad nauseum. Remember I also prefaced it by saying I had never even done it before. I am not a so called “DP”. “Dkos Being Kaput” was also a ridiculous title. I loved finding out that Parker worked at Burger King and several other things as I got to know her better. She is incredibally smart, articulate and a great writer. As far as naming names..I never considered you offensive or a member of the cabal. Your take on it (above) could be correct, but I stand by my number of about 6 with 2 of them having 2 screen names. I have a feeling it is over and the people have either been banned or have left or will leave. Also, when I start getting troll rated at another blog, by members here…because they don’t like that I belong to both place is crazy behaviour and vindictive. Before writing several of the comments I wrote, I did research and still believe several people took advantage of the situation and reaked havoc. I am only hoping the wounds can heal and we can concentrate on the real enemy and work harder to get the criminals, crooks, liars and murderers out of office. I don’t mind pushing peoples buttons, but when the knifes come out I have to draw the line. Several people made fun of me when I wrote some of my comments..now it seems many others are in agreement. I can only hope it is over. Thanks for your communication. I also learned that when people, for whatever reason, have problems with you (me) they will look for any words that were said and try to create a drama. I am probably guilty of that too. Live and learn. I had no idea that one comment could create such an uproar.
Back, with a couple of glasses of wine aboard.
Just wanted to add a point – to some, maybe minor – Chamonix initial comment (which may have been the trigger of a lot of what was to come) – was not rude or condesending in any way. As I read it, it was cautious and polite in requesting delition of a redundant entry.
Now, it was posted sometime Sunday – close to 24 `hrs after Kos was back online. I have seen posts indicating that some folks still had trouble getting to Kos on Sunday.
Would it not suffice to point that out instead of starting flaming away. Maybe there was something between the posters prior to this incidence, but I have not seen posts suggesting so.
I think this started out as an overreaction.
The accusation doubtless came from someone who is in the practice of firing emails back and forth to his/her playmates when he wants backup in comment threads. So what you’re seeing there is both projection (the person assuming you do what he/she does), and the sort of bullying that is also being practiced in this thread with nameless people being accused of promoting “slanders,” and the ridiculous suggestion that there is some kind of plot to destroy this website that was contingent on its administrator being offline for a few days.
I’d assume that because that’s what I’d do, probably, based on what I’ve read here.
But I haven’t read everything, and I’m not privvy to private correspondence. As I understand it, the banning decisions got made after email exchanges between the parties – or attempts to engage a person, which failed.
I’ve seen a number of comments and actions (down-rating) that I thought were pretty immature and disruptive, on both sides of this. I didn’t comment on a lot of these, didn’t rate them and certainly wouldn’t light torches and push for banning. To me, it comes down to a question of balance, e.g., what is the balance of this person’s behavior and what does he/she bring to the site? That, ultimately, is a decision that only the site owner can make.
Lord F. and Fuzzy B. seem to be here only to cause problems, so that’s why I’d ban them.
And as an FYI, I’m only commenting so much today because I’m home sick and actually have some time to do so.
None of my posts had you in mind and my early post in susan’s ‘Don’t be a prick’ story a few days ago expressed a wish that parker’s situation could be worked out. However, since then – in my perception – the discourse has deteriorated. I find it non-productive and disruptive and have every right to express my sentiments.
I vaguely recall that you have taken on a ‘mediation-role’ on earlier occasions. Maybe you can find common ground here as well.
Thanks Ask.
I completely agree, the discourse has deteriorated.
I know you have the right to express your sentiments. Its a right I know I’ve used liberally the past few days. We all do.
I’ve posted all over this diary, so I won’t repeat myself much. I’ve thought of posting a diary, but I am convinced if I did so it would rapidly become BooTrib’s first Orange-style GBCW diary, complete with mocking, lynching, and other stuff. Seem impossible, in light of the last few days? It used to be unthinkable – here.
I’d love for their to be mediation. The trouble is that would only work if all parties were viewed as legitimate. Right now, one large group simply doesn’t have any. Boo feels there is a group out there to take down the site. Lord F and Fluffy Bunny (I havent’ actually seen their comments, have them been erased) are considered cranks. People like Recordkeeper aren’t given much more consideration. People are assuming that anyone that doesn’t agree with Boo 100% on this are part of the group Boo is going after. (See Chamonix’s post below — I guess anyone I’ve given a 4 to recently is part of said ‘cabal’).
So I don’t think mediation is possible — not until Boo absolves enough of the dissenters and the community comes around to seeing them as legitimate members here, unlike FluffyBunny and Lord F.
And if mediation were possible, I wouldn’t fit the role of mediator anyhow. I’m clearly one of “them”, I guess.
Meanwhile, we all talk about “them”s as if there are shadowy groups only our “guts” can detect, and we can’t share the names of those in our detected cabals because… well, then they’d expect evidence and darn if that wouldn’t make it into work.
So, I “outed” some folks. If we’re gonna hash through this, lets at least use real people and not strawmen or bogeymen.
I used myself elsewhere in this diary as an example of a dissedent. Boo cleared me (for now?). That’s progress. Lets get on with clearing more folks. I called you and Chamonix out. I think you’re willing to differentiate between ‘real threats’ to this site, and folks like me who happen to share their expressed concerns (but not their agenda, whatever that may be).
Chamonix still sees a murky group of enemies. A whole cabal, I guess. The site owner says there is one, too. Not much progress there, but at least C is an actual name of someone who thinks there is a lurking threat. Maybe he even has actual names to throw out there. Then those folks could put up their defense, and we could convict on evidence, not on “gut” like Cabingirl has.
Myself, I think Brinnaine has done a fantastic job trying to be a mediator. She’s not endorsed either viewpoint. She seems to consider both to have legitimate standing. She’s been trying to get down to details that could be assessed and past the vague accusations.
If you really want mediation, give her a hand. I’d support you in that, if I could.
Yaright, any judgments I’ve made on posters whom I don’t think are legitimate are based on their user information (i.e., LF and FPB joined today and have immediately inserted themselves into this controversy), comments and ratings, all of which can be viewed on their user information page. That’s how I’m looking at it, I can’t speak for anyone else.
I appreciate what you’ve done.
You were honest and didn’t just accuse ‘them’, you named names. You made a case. And by doing so, you differentiated the named from those who may have sympathized with the named (or the positions of the named), and by explaining your reasoning, you gave folks the chance to see how their own actions differed from those whom you named.
As it happens, I tend to think that the two you named are people who were (or are) involved in this discussion under other names. Perhaps they were banned. Perhaps their position was dismissed as being ‘cabal’ish. Perhaps they’re people who no one would guess, who are afraid to speak out against the way their friends are behaving. Perhaps they are part of the ‘cabal’, trying to cast a bad light on the ‘non-cabal’ folks they give 4’s to. Perhaps they are part of the ‘anti-cabal’ who are satirizing the concerns of the other side.
Any of those ‘perhapses’ would have an understandable desire for getting involved in this dispute. Depending on which one it is, you may find yourself sympathetic, in agreement, or opposed to that person.
That’s why I prefer penalizing behavior. If Lord F were Parker, or Shadow, or SusanHu or Booman, or whoever — I’d rather say “the behavior demonstrated by Lord F” is unacceptable here. Its not a perfect position — for some of the ‘perhapses’, the intention of the behavior is just wrong. At best its well meaning but counterproductive or uncompelling. But by singling out the behavior as the problem, you avoid shaming/blaming folks who are sympathetic to the message they may believe Lord F was trying to communicate.
Yaright, I hear what you’re saying. But these two came in and immediately started flaming and troll-rating. Which to me tends to undermine any legitmate purpose they might have had to return.
Yup.
And I don’t think they were operating at the “persuasive argument” level at that point. They were at the “make a point” level. I assume most people tuned out the point because the manner it was delivered was deemed offensive.
I look at what their message was, stripping off the heated rhetoric.
I look at who their targets were.
I read what their targets have been saying, and see if it was pointed and accurate, or broad-brush and vague.
There have been real trolls here before. I’ve witnessed one of the previous bannings “live”. There was no question — that one was a troll.
These two, for all their trollish behavior (which alone warrants whatever punishment, including banishment of those ids), were more like… well, forget analogies — I think these two had a point to make. Something between being arrested for civil disobedience and a PETA campaign.
But then, I’m the sort that doesn’t believe that terrorists are just ‘evil’. I speculate on their motives, and try to understand what would drive them to act the way they do, without ever ‘condoning’ or ‘forgiving’ them for doing it.
That said, I despise troll rating (probably more than flaming) and flaming.
Thank you for a more nuanced view. My main problem has been that I have found some of the arguments disingenious – it is seemingly about free speech, my sensors suggest it is to force a reaction, seeking banning to stir up more noise. Most of us here – I gather – have quite a bit of faith in our respective sensors, so it is difficult to let go of own perceptions. As I see it, anyone who feels that the rule(s) of this site are constricting can easily move on. As I will do, if the day comes that I feel bullshitted.
So much energy has been put into argument by talented people – why not use it to build the ‘perfect’ site that functions according to the stated ideals. Instead of so forcefully trying to make someone else’s site become this ideal. In particular because so many of the site’s users are apparently satisfied with the way it already functions.
I am unable to participate for the rest of the evening – it is the season for all sorts of (mostly useless) social functions. I have to meet curly in a few minutes.
to your claim. As a matter of fact I gave Diane101 credit here for coming back to her thread and apologizing to Parker.
Yes and recently I did make a comment that many, many months ago I had requested Parker be banned. Prophetic wasn’t it? I look forward to links on your other accusations. And as for the Cabal..you talk about supporters and 4’s that several of us have gotten from other posters. I suggust looking at your rating history in regards to some of the people in question here and the support you have thrown out their way. Btw/ I would associate with anyone who would give MB a Troll rating. You are on the wrong side of this argument. I could also support another recent comment I made in support of Parker. However now I am glad she is gone and I look forward to banishment of several other trolls and people trying to bring down the Booman Community. Why doesn’t someone point out where Parker is a Diarist or front page blogger so others can go to that Blog and read and support her thoughts and writing? Has she and others been banned from other liberal/progressive bloggs as I suggested in a comment several days ago? Is she front page at LSF? Yaright…you are YaWrong.
I wouldn’t associate with anyone who would give MB troll ratings.
Okay, I think (hope) we settled this elsewhere in this thread, but for anyone following in thread order, I’ve honored your request here and now.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/12/4/123633/428#44
That is the link you requested.
But I really hope we settled this in the other comment in here somewhere.
And, I’ll let you decide if you still think anyone who’s replied positively to or 4 rated some of my recent comments are really part of a Cabal, and me a part of one also. If so, I guess you should inform Booman about us, because I think he just cleared me earlier today in this diary elsewhere. I don’t know if you mean the 2-3 people who 4’d me in the linked thread, or the 13 or so who did so in my comment elsewhere in that same diary.
Anyhow, not exactly sure how modifying my id to YaWrong advanced discourse or avoided being prickish, but that’s just me.
(personally, I always thought of it in this context…)
Yaright, whatever.
(er, have we settled this, and agreed its okay for us to hold opposite views on topics, and that we should be civil to each other even if we do disagree? Personally, I’d like that.)
ok…now that I have to go and take a shower after following the link you provided…I sugguested no one be banned. I did refere to a group/gang, but didn’t call for anyone to be banned. Just asked for them to respect Boomans rules. One thing I did write to you that I found offensive, but not prickish was “You must have had a wicked childhood” and for that I apologise. God that thread is vile. I am hoping to never go there again. There is one guy who has been troll rated into oblivion. I agree..let’s try and be civil with each other. I am just about done with all the fighting with people that are pretty much all on the same side. I have gotten to know some people around here a lot better the past week. With Booman’s divorce/move…Susan’s mother dying…Dkos going down at the same time…the stars lined up, the full moon came out and things just got totally out of hand. I was looking at the big picture..and should have tried to look at the detail more.
I second the advice to avoid that thread.
Peace, Chamonix.
Booman, I support your right to ban whoever you think should be banned from this site. I want to say that upfront.
However, I think you are going about it in a way that is causing resentment and fractures within the community. That is a shame because you, Susan, and a lot of other people have worked really hard to build this community, and it is an exceptionally strong one for what it is. Most online communities have much looser bonds, and hence much cruder behavior. Part of what keeps a community like this strong is trust.
Please understand – it’s not that people don’t trust you. That’s certainly not the case for me. But, if you make unilateral decisions without telling the community what is going on, they don’t get the opportunity to weigh your words and arguments and decide that they trust your judgement. And they start to wonder what you’re hiding. They speculate. Then some people start to hint that you’re doing something nefarious – which you probably aren’t, but even so, if you won’t explain your side of things, then those hints of nefarious activities are the only thing out there, and become the default truth.
Every online community sometimes find it has to expel troublesome members. One popular approach to this is that the administrators do it privately, with the proceedings remaining a secret, and little or no official comment. This approach always ultimately causes resentment, anger, and division in the community. We’ve all seen it time and again.
There is an alternative. You CAN be open about the decisions you make, and why, without invading people’s privacy or divulging private correspondance. An example of how this is done is below.
I play on an internet roleplaying game, a MUX. It’s a very large game, and sometimes troublesome players must be banned. Sometimes they’re given short “timeouts” of a few days or a couple of weeks. But for any significant banning, the staff always posts a full explanation to the entire game of why the person was banned. The staff of this game gets accused of favoritism from time to time; any staff of any online community suffers that. They get accused of biasing game outcomes toward players they like; any GM gets accused of that. But what they don’t get accused of is banning players capriciously, arbitrarily, or just because they didn’t like something that person said.
Please note none of the specifics of any of the conversations or correspondence were shared. The general problems were shared, the actions the staff took to correct them were shared, and there is enough transparency that the playerbase can assure themselves that JoeBob was not persecuted or punished for being a maverick – even if he and his friends show up claiming such. This approach inoculates the staff from all sorts of unpleasant accusations.
I would recommend implementing something like it for future bannings. I hope this helps.
Furryjester — good proposal.
That’s the problem with bannings, you’re not just ridding a site of a problem, you’re severing relationships. Sometimes it has to be done. But doing something like what furryjester suggested gives everyone in those relationships a chance to understand what has happened, and why.
I’m sure its not all flowers and kisses, but I can see where such a procedure would reduce the normal speculation and friction in a community.
I think sending the host of a site an insulting email which the inventor of the “don’t be a prick” rule felt strongly enough to respond to with “fuck off” and saying he was done with the site speaks for itself.
I’m fine with it… If I went into a bar and started saying similar things to the owner I would expect to get thrown out… and since he’s now troll rating Meteor Blades as “Lord Faarquet” tells me all I need to know about his MO.
“Similar things?” What things. Do you know what Shadowthief said? I don’t.
Perhaps telling Boo to “be a real man” in the slander thread finally did it for him and reminded him that he was a prick. And basically resigning from this site again by asking Madman if he could still join LSF… seemed pretty clear to me that he didn’t want to be here… so now he isn’t.
Whatever, I really couldn’t care less at this point. Troll rating Meteor along with his pal “fluffy pink bunny” is enough of a reason for me at this point. Just proves the point that this was not about principle, it was about causing shit for the sake of being a martyr or something.
You know what spiderleaf. I think if we went through everyone’s posting history on this site we’d find innumerable reasons to ban lots of people. We all think it’s easy to label “prickish” behavior. But “prick” means different things to different people. Where does it stop? Where is the line in the sand? Wherever Booman says it is that day? We all think our perceptions of things and situations are obvious assessments, but it isn’t that simple. That’s why we are a nation of laws, not men. There need to be standards and some vehicle for impartial interpretation of those standards.
Take a look at the interaction between Madman (who feels similarly to ST) and Boo in the slander thread for the answer.
Yes. Madman presented his argument without name-calling or nastiness.
prickish behavior of one kind of another in the past. When it was brought up though resolution and solution was sought instead of more discord. I think that is the difference here.
I find it a little distressing that you would come to that conclusion having only heard one side of a story based largely on private communication.
I don’t have any private communication with anybody here right now other than Cabingirl and Brinnaine. When I was in Crawford I talked with Susan and Diane and Booman once too, but I don’t have any “private communication” here with anybody other than CG and Cat.
communications between Susan and Parker or Booman and Shadowthief……I saw a constant seeking of more discord and further unfounded allegations in the posted threads that everybody else saw. That is what I am drawing my conclusions from.
do you care if I ban you?
It seems to me that you have an obsession with standards about banning but I have no idea why this matters so much to you.
No one has been banned from this site without extensive warnings except hit and run trolls and spammers. Shadowthief quit the site. His banishment is purely a matter of formalizing his promise to quit this site since he was not satisfied to insult me and quit, but felt quite entitled to come back and insult me some more. If I wasn’t preoccupied I would have banned him before last night. No standard needs to be articulated for such actions as the offense could not be more clear cut.
You act as though you need to worry about sudden arbitrary justice coming down on your head. I wonder why you feel the need to worry about that? It isn’t because I have suddenly become arbitrary.
Since you ask, for me it is a matter of principle. Ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you that I care passionately about the right to free speech. My professional background is in publishing. Free speech is a pet cause for me. I believe the language that most needs protecting the language we hate the most.
I fully recognize that a website is private property and that you can do as you wish. I have no argument with your legal right to ban whomever you please, only the morality of it. I find it deeply ironic that a website dedicated to upholding American values of liberty and justice would so quickly revert to such capriciousness when the voices of some become uncomfortable. I know you think the standards are plain, but the controversy over Parker’s banning is clear proof that they are not. I know you think Shadowthief’s transgressions to be obvious. I don’t. I know both of these people can be gruff and abrasive but I think those are personality issues. I think greater specificity is required to keep off the slippery slope towards banning whomever we don’t like. Is that a little clearer?
consider that this site bans right-wing talking points. This is not a free-speech zone. It aspires to be more free than most sites of its type. I ask people to deal respectfully even with Republicans, as long as those Republicans are not spewing O’Reilly talking points. But it is not a free speech zone. It only seems like one when there are no Dittoheads around for us to silence.
So, your whole standard is off-base from the get-go.
You also cannot go around insulting members. You can’t write lies or unsupported innuendo about public bloggers here without me giving you warnings or asking for evidence.
Have you ever seen me silence someone for their political opinions or policy positions?
The problem we currently have is that there are several people that seem to be engaged in disruptive behavior.
If this is a free, respectfull and democrat speech zone, then I am 1000% with you.
“public bloggers”? Eh?
As opposed to private bloggers? Is it be you can’t insult anyone who blogs? Does that include people who write comments only? On every site there is? If the person doesn’t publically complain that they have been insulted is it still an insult?
I can’t even tell anymore if these are rhetorical questions or not.
We attempt to not insult others here and we do our best to not spread disinformation and discord among liberal and progressives where none truly is. I know you are passionate and caring, I think this debate is wearing on you and our mutual goals are getting lost in the fray.
It would be hard to sum up…I have been asking myself that question for the past three weeks. Ever since catnip left. When I can explain it better than my pathetic attempt in the “Because I Don’t Have Any Words” diary I put up today, and if I feel like it might actually contribute something, I’ll give it a go, but I make no promises on that front — reading some of my comments there, might give you a better idea.
Thanks, lady, I would call you, but all of the boys are home today (no one is sick, they just closed everything down ’cause we had a quarter of an inch of ice on the road this morning — oh, the horror!) and we probably couldn’t talk without interruptions of all kinds. Are you going to be around tomorrow? I’ve been thinking about you and wondering how you’re doing for quite a while now too….
Give me a ring
If it’s posters, there’s a whole lot of kostradamus’ followers who need to be banned for insulting Parker.
But we all know that’s not going to happen.
Spider, I could not agree more. That and the McCarthy pic were all about provoking for the sake of provoking and had nothing to do with articulating a point of view.
so with “letters of resignation.”
Sometimes the answer is “yes.”
We’re dealing with a lot of PTSD here in New Orleans, but before the storm, I saw a lot of PTSD online as a result of the election, and the ongoing battle to literally save our country.
People get angry and say horrible things to each other that they later regret. I would just hope that those who remark and respond without thinking would later have an opportunity to come back and mend their mistakes.
Believe me, this is something we are struggling with 10 fold here. Everyone is under so much pressure. I would just hope we find a way to keep the lines of communication open.
I’m especially going to miss Parker, as she often brought up points of view that were wholly original.
Susan said the door was still open for Parker. If she chooses to step through it then good for her. If not, that’s her choice too.
Okay, yet again I’m going to be either daring or stupid and step into something I know very little about.
BooMan, I do have to say that, though overall I trust you and think this is a great site, the banning of posters is always more than a little troubling to me, particularly when they’re not specifically trolling.
You can say they’re sowing dissent or whatever you say up above, and while I might agree with you that certain posters can be abrasive or over-the-top from time to time, I also have to say…
that’s essentially what blogs are for. Disagreeing with each other. Discussing it. Ideally with respect, but sometimes tempers do flare, and people say things in the heat of moments that they might later regret or rephrase.
And anytime you ban a member of a blog, a member particularly that many of us have interacted with, it does serve to put a certain… fear and unease into the general posting population. As in: what does “prick” mean? If I lose my temper, or unwittingly offend you, am I next on the list? Where are the boundaries of acceptable conduct? Do I want to be associated with a blog that bans people for unknown reasons? I believe that’s what Recordkeeper, for example, is trying to get at. And these are perfectly reasonable points, IMO.
I guess my point, as much as I have one, is that I think that generally you should be very, very cautious about banning active, participating members of this blog. Even if they offend you, they are members of a community that is both run by you and that is larger than you.
I will trust your judgement overall, at the moment, but please bear in mind that if you push that trust to far or too often, it will break — not speaking personally (my limits are pretty open, hell, I still post at The Other Blog, too), but more generally.
Please don’t let personal offense on your part start tearing down the trust you’ve built up here. I’m only saying this because I give a shit.
All I’ll say on the matter; carry on.
I think this is a good summation of why people don’t agree with bannings. I don’t agree with them either as a general rule. I was upset that Parker was banned and I questioned Susan about it. She said Parker had been repeatedly asked to tone down the rhetoric and be more respectful in how she posted things… seeing for myself their interactions the last few months I knew that Parker chose not to take those warnings to heart. Therefore, at some point, they said “enough is enough”… but Susan also said the door was still open for Parker to come back.
But that’s the one thing everyone who is defending Shadowthief is missing here… he was asked to stop being a prick repeatedly too and refused. He also sent Boo an unpleasant email and ‘resigned’ from the site. Then he came back and started up again… so Boo decided enough was enough.
There are warnings, prodding, chiding, reminders, etc. and if they are ignored then you may no longer be welcome to participate here.
I know this from personal experience… I got pissy in a women’s rights thread with a new poster who, at the time, seemed to be just here to stir up right wing propaganda. Boo came along and said I was pissed off… so I apologized and walked away until I calmed down. Did I get personally offended at Boo? Nope, I realized that I was lowering the level of discourse and getting personal vs. arguing facts… really a hard rule to follow sometimes, but an important distinction.
And anytime you ban a member of a blog, a member particularly that many of us have interacted with, it does serve to put a certain… fear and unease into the general posting population. As in: what does “prick” mean? If I lose my temper, or unwittingly offend you, am I next on the list? Where are the boundaries of acceptable conduct? Do I want to be associated with a blog that bans people for unknown reasons? I believe that’s what Recordkeeper, for example, is trying to get at…
You have characterized my concerns very accurately and succinctly. Thank you for acknowledging my feelings. It gladdens my heart to know that my central concerns are clear to at least some people on this board.
I’ve been an observer to this and I can see many important issues addressed on various sides. I appreciate your contributions and wanted to say so while I had the chance. You have far more to offer than credited in your update but I fully understand the feelings you’ve expressed. I have had some of the same during my time here. I think the situation is a common dynamic of sorts that needs to evolve through it’s own process. It is very similar to what many of us set out to battle on a national scale as we were somehow drawn here.
I have no answers and my opinions are not solicited. I’m here because I feel the good potential outweighs the negative possibilities and compromise is a key component that I set out to spread as a useful concept. I appreciate the honesty of discussing these issues and my concept of compromise when needed might not be the right answer. Only time will tell.
I hope you reconsider and only step away for a short break.
Nail. Hammer. Head.
I do have to say that between the bannings and the cavalier useage of such terms as “slanderers”, and accusations of some unidentified “cabal” that is “sowing dissention” and attempting allegedly to “attempt a coup” at the site has also taken its toll. I’ve lost my ability to trust here a bit. I was especially saddened when those whom I thought knew me well enough seem to wish to now characterize me as one of the so-called “bad guys.” For better or worse, I tend to be long of memory and short on forgiveness. I’ll need some time to think a few things through I guess.
One of the many rotten effects of this ‘cabal’ talk is that taking non-mainstream positions here just got “risky”.
And since the ‘cabal’ is connected, associating with a suspect person (like yourself? ) with either a comment or a rating subjects oneself to suspicion.
Its just so…. not green!
The heck with that. I’m commenting AND rating you here.
I don’t know if that helps you (I think I’m cabal-free), hurts me (are you cabal? Have you been cleared?), or hurts you (maybe I am considered cabal after all!)… bah.
Is there any way to prove one isn’t ‘cabal’? Is there an ‘opt-out’ checkbox on this form?
I’m tired of being swept up in it all. I’m tired of seeing others swept up in it. It just isn’t healthy.
Just because things haven’t gotten back to normal doesn’t mean I can’t.
I’d rather be duped or tricked by simply taking everyone at face value until I see evidence to do otherwise, than be suspicious of everyone.
is great advice.
I’ll pick bridges over bombs any day 🙂
I suppose the next step is loyalty oaths. “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of The Cabal?”
Obviously those who’ve not gone around making the sorts of blanket accusations I was talking about I feel I can still trust. The person who accused me of “baiting” with my diary has lost my trust (along with those who endorsed that person’s comment), as have a few others. Just the way it is.
that’s what I’m accusing you of belonging to. I wish this entire discussion had only included members of your cabal. I’ve mostly stayed out of this up to now because there’s just so much shit being tossed back and forth that I didn’t want to help the “conversation” continue. But you have been so persistent, so forthright, and so considered in every comment that I wanted to let you know how much I admire both the quality of your thoughts and your willingness to keep trying.
I did comment on people attempting to disrupt in a generic way. I should have been more specific, because a lot of folks whose comments and opinions I respect and even enjoy feel it might have been directed at them, and I’m sorry for that. So, to be more specific, Shadowthief and whoever is hiding behind the FPB and Lord F and Pete richards usernames were who I was talking about.
I see a lot of people here who genuinely were concerned about what they felt was the unfair silencing of another member (and I said in another thread that Parker has brought plenty of good to the table, along with the over the top moments, but I also understand Boo and Susan’s position too), and I think someone (ST, et al) used that as an opportunity to create a larger problem and advance his own agenda. And now there are a lot of hurt feelings. Mission accomplished.
Anyway, just wanted to clear that up.
From what I have been able to gather, the “slander” has to do with alleged agreements between people who run other blogs to facilitate some receiving a benefit. BooMan says this is not true. I say if it were true, so what?
Anybody has the right to get together with other people and make any kind of arrangement they wish regarding fund-raising and advertising, and include or exclude anyone they want, on any basis that they choose.
It actually speaks well of BooMan that he considers that such a horrifying thing that he will call it defamation and slander. I would consider it politics as usual.
It seems to me that the root cause of that aspect of the discussion is the same sort of thing you see where people are horrified that some politician or other has done some politician-like thing. And now has lost a devotee who perhaps did not realize what being a politician in a corporatist cartel means. So they are shocked. They are shocked to learn that their gunmen commit atrocities. They are shocked to learn that this or that US policy has done terrible harm.
BooMan has not done this all his life. He is going through a difficult time personally, and he is taking things personally, which appears to be horrifying many people. He also has the burden of deciding whether to suffer the slings and arrows of people who say bad things about his friends and are rude to him. And perhaps this makes him a little too horrified that anyone would suggest that people you like might do things that horrify you.
I remember a post he made a long time ago, to the effect of, remember that not everyone is as smart as you, as well-read as you, as informed as you. It was good advice.
Well, BooMan, everybody is not as polite as you, as civil as you, or as tactful as you.
It is up to you how you want to fund your site, and I look forward to a discussion that focuses more on that.
It is also up to you to decide who will be allowed to post on your site, based on any criteria you choose.
Several people have pointed out that rudeness, or prickhood, is subjective, and there are people who have been just as rude and prickish who have not been banned. That is not incorrect. It is up to BooMan whether he wants to enforce his rules consistently. That is just as subjective a judgment as “right wing talking points,” which from my perspective, I see on here all the time. I have even debated a few of them with BooMan, who makes them himself. His far left is my far right. My subjective view of BooMan’s politics is that he is about a cheneyquint to the left of Rutherford B. Hayes, and nobody should be horrified to see right wing talking points on any message board in a nation that does not have a “left.” And if it ever gets one, you will know, don’t worry that you might miss it.
BooMan owns the site, the people on the site own that intangible and indefinable and subjective thing called atmosphere, ambience, mouthfeel.
We cannot do anything about his choices regarding his site, except give him advice and wish him well, and anything that he might try to do about mouthfeel will moebius itself. He could ban half the people here, and he would be left with a completely different site, that he might like better and the remaining half might like less, and as a result participate less, and so on.
If someone here is rude to one of us, we can decide whether we wish to leave the site because of that, or reflect that this rudeness has not killed us, and the benefit we receive from the other people outweighs the unpleasantness of the rudeness.
In that sense BooMan is no different from any of us, except that he can banish the rude person, but he must do so in the knowledge that he banishes not only the person’s rudeness, but the valuable qualities that caused the person to come here in the first place, not to mention that whole greater than parts. A recipe may call for only a pinch of asafoetida, but if you leave it out, it will not taste the same.
This is a special place, and with few and fleeting exceptions, does not tend to attract utter trolls and fools. It does attract some operatives, as does any blog, but as I have said to Arthur Gilroy on several occasions, so what? That is nothing to be horrified about either.
Nor would it be horrifying if BooMan were to obtain some marijuana of particularly excellent quality, and without saying anything to anybody, because it is none of our business, smoke it.
but I want to make a specific point. Rutherford B. Hayes is a damn fool.
No, seriously. This is what is bothering me about the specific charge of the NDN pulling strings. It’s not true and it is being spread around like a virus. Essentially, the NDN has donated money to Media Matters along with many other donors. And media matters has agreed to put some ‘incubation’ money forward to help amplify the left-wing (you know, American version) blogosphere’s voice. When all these charges started I was concerned that they were true and I looked into it. They are not true.
And it is simply unfair to accuse Chris Bowers, who is about as far left as an American is allowed to be, of wanting to push the party to the center and to use underhanded and deceptive practices to accomplish this. I don’t have to publish that crap over and over again after I have debunked it.
And people seem to forget that I am publishing your comments. I have been threatened with lawsuits for things that users have written. So, I do not have an obligation to publish everyone’s comments when I consider them to be untrue and to represent a defamation of the character of a friend of mine. Why this is so hard to understand is somewhat mystifying to me.
Anyway, rock on Ductape.
from Mulla Umar, and who does not consider that the left-right differential between Democrats and Republicans is any more substantial than Paris Hilton’s eyeliner, it is hard for me to understand why anyone could make a credible threat to sue you.
There are all kinds of people who consider themselves to be trying to “push” the Democratic party one way or another. This is not illegal.
The post you made about certain blogs being thrown out of the agreement because of layout etc, well, that’s not illegal either, and if they had stated that they were throwing them out because they didn’t like their content, or their socks, or their choice of breath mint, that would not be illegal.
I will commend you again for thinking these allegations so awful, and I do not dispute your contention that they are not true, though I think that the very reason I commend you reduces the likelihood that anyone would tell you if they were doing something that you would find distasteful. And the very thing that is being alleged either is or will be done by some entity or entities at some point.
Which is why I really really hope that this conversation can transition very soon to that how will money change things topic.
Your personal feelings will subside, but that question will not go away.
all that “pond scum” stuff, your comments glow on the horizon like an oasis of non-pricktitude.
The privilege of being a member in any membership group, such as BooMan Tribune, is that you get to keep the company you choose as long as the Company chooses to keep you. Period.
Notice the word “privelege.” A membership society is hardly the place to demand rights. How by being allowed to post here does any User Name come to believe he/she/other has rights of membership? Where are the organizational documents of Booman Tribune that describe and lay out any rights? There are no such documents delineating any such rights because this isn’t an organization.
We have “community” here because we foster it, not because we incorporate or legislate it. If you want to remain a member of a community such as this one, it seems fairly obvious that fostering it is another of those priveleges. And what a lovely one it is.
So, membership here has priveleges but no rights. We are “citizens” of a virtual community. Membership or cessation of membership here will NOT AFFECT YOUR REAL LIFE (assuming any User Name exists in the real world ;^} ). What do you need rights for, then?
Blast away.
Any time anybody sets up anything where the general public is technically able to register and/or post messages, in a way, I think you could argue that a kind of right exists.
Anybody has the right, for instance, to go to your blog or mine, and if we have haloscan, or the sucky blogger comment thing, make comments.
As the owner of the blog, we have the right to delete those comments, and if we want to make a larger, albeit symbolic gesture, we have the right to ban their IP.
However, if we have a lot of people exercising their right to make comments, and we begin banning people, we risk reducing our right to a pyrrhic victory.
In other words, if people choose our blog to post their opinions, they have conferred upon us a great privilege 😉
It is a very interdependent situation. As commentors, we depend on the blog owner to provide us that forum.
However the blog owner depends on us to create that mouthfeel that will keep other people commenting, and if the owner is very privileged, the commentors may come to think of it as a community…
I can live with symbiosis.
Howdy, RecordKeeper. I just thought I’d drop in and point you to my belated reply to your earlier comment on my post in diane101’s diary. But before you read it, I’d like to apologize for the snide tone at the end of it. In light of some of your comments in this diary, I feel that I should apologize for that. However, I still feel that the content of my post there, perhaps minus some of the incendiary terms, is very close to exactly how I still view the whole ‘thing’.
I can agree to disagree with you on some points, and I hope that you will stick around. I truly don’t think you have to worry much about being banned, or that the atmosphere is chilled for true debate. I think that occasional crossing of the line from civil to uncivil discourse doesn’t put a person at risk here of being banned. I don’t see controversial topics, as such, being dismissed. I just don’t see the pattern in that direction that some have claimed to see. However, I admit that I do see a pattern along the same lines that BooMan has expressed. Maybe others don’t. I’m OK with that.
Part of my feelings in this matter have to do with the fact that during a recent thread where I had a lengthy exchange with Parker, Parker equated me and a large group of people with the Devil himself and refused to retract her characterization. I was willing to let that go as a personal disagreement, but after the big hoo-hah started I looked into it further, and found other examples of non-civil discourse propagated by Parker. So, no love lost there.
When the debate got hot and heavy, I tried to enter into a discussion with shadowthief. Shadowthief refused to use the English language properly and insisted on his/her own definitions of words. At that point, I wasn’t impressed with shadowthief’s attempts to hijack the English language, and I wasn’t impressed with shadowthief totally ignoring my argument by slandering, yes slandering, me by saying that I loved dictatorships. Shadowthief’s bad behavior was not confined to me, but was directed in shotgun fashion at anyone who tried to engage in reasonable discourse.
At that point, shadowthief and all those who supported him in his non-responsive diatribes lost my respect. In fact, I saw a pattern of abuse developing towards BT and BooMan and SusanHu and the sense of community shared by many who frequent the site. I still question the motives of those who attacked frequently and relentlessly, repeating talking points over and over about how supposedly bad everything is here in the pond.
I do believe that some who argued the mechanics of bannings had good points, and some were sincere. Those who offered their opinions respectfully to the community were OK, imo.
Whatever one may think about the mechanics of banning and how they might be improved, it is not generally helpful to start with personally attacking the ones who have had to do the hard work of deciding to ban someone. The closest I can personally come to a comparable situation is when, in the past, I have had to fire someone from a job. To the person who gets fired and his/her friends, it NEVER seems like the right thing. But to the person who did the firing, it may very well be the hardest, most gut-wrenching decison they’ll ever have to make. To come to the conclusion that my organization will be better off without a certain individual in the mix is a horrible feeling for me, and because I think BooMan and SusanHu are basically good people I don’t think they enjoy banning anyone either. As with any authority figure, you may not agree with a specific decision they make, but imo, you should look for long-term patterns and trends before delivering judgments about overall executive worthiness.
And one can, of course, deny reality and rail against all authority simply because it is authority, or one can learn to distinguish between good authority figures and bad ones. I choose this blog because I accept the authority figures as basically good people, with no hidden agendas. I realize that others may not see things that way, but if they don’t, I really don’t see why they would choose to beat their own brains out against a wall and keep coming back to protest the same things over and over again with the same tired arguments. I’m not inviting anyone to leave, I’m simply saying that if I felt that the site was administered in a corrupt fashion, I would leave faster than you could say “Boo”.
When I left the big orange, I came here and my first diary was about how to fix big orange. I soon realized, with some help from a few old-timers here, that the pond was about something bigger than fixing that other place. So I am totally in agreement with BooMan about ad hominem attacks against ANY bloggers in the ‘sphere. I may be mistaken, but he never totally ruled out diaries or comments about any other blogs, even unflattering ones. IIRC he did set the bar pretty high for diaries on such topics, for example, that they be about some large issue in the blogosphere, or about how different sites handle the blogging experience.
Anyway, here’s my reply to the earlier post.
Look, this is Booman’s pond. He can do with it what he will. Period.
I know that if I had a serious beef with something Booman had written or done, I would write him a nice email outlining my argument. I would then wait for Booman’s response before I decided to turn it into a public battle. Common courtesy? Benefit of the doubt? These tired old cliches are so for a reason.
What I wouldn’t do is start another thread war. These things are really getting old, people.
I was banned from Democratic Underground. Why? Because I broke their cardinal rule: I attacked another member, in this case because of his religious convictions, convictions I found to be idiotic. But DU has a rule that commenters never attack another member. I think this rule is a bit draconian — what if Bob Novak joined the site, for example? But so be it. Their site; their rules; my error.
Booman can do whatever the hell he wants — it’s his site — even if I, or you, or all of us disagree with it. He can also simply unplug the server and be done with it, should he choose to do so.
We should all try to keep that in mind and just agree to disagree.
I agree with all of your comment but I wanted to add another perspective that’s related.
Observing guidelines while being a member of this blog or any other community is, in my opinion, the equivalent of being an invited guest into someone’s home. I try to maintain that attitude of being a guest to conduct myself accordingly.