I know this seems strange, I actually couldn’t believe it, especially in view of Kos’ views on criticism. Ironically, it seems BillO isn’t the only one who likes to shut off peoples mics. Take a trip below the fold for more.
Here’s what happened, Kos posted about Jet Blue caving on the front page. I posted a comment questioning the use of the term caving. My manner of questioning the use of the term “caving” was to suggest the possibility that Jet Blue didn’t want to take the time to get involved in figuring out who was wrong and who was right between dKos and O’Reilly. In doing so I copied and pasted this from the FAQ:
From [2] Hunter:
“… every single new pro-Palestinian poster in these threads is going to be presumed guilty until proven innocent, from here on in. I ain’t gonna screw around trying to invent elaborate ways of detecting this clown, I’m just going to ban anyone that sounds vaguely like him. I don’t have the kind of time in my day necessary to worry about any more “fair” solution, and no inclination. If that results in his side of the discussion being completely wiped from the site except for already well-established posters, then frankly I’m having a hard time getting all teary-eyed about that.”
Does anyone really think that holding someone to their own standards is trolling? If so I suggest reading the link on criticism again. I’m cross posting on Booman and will limit my discussion of this to that site because I understand how low the BillO types will stoop to cut off someone’s mic.
Huh?
I don’t get it either.
I think it is pretty obvious. I’m pretty sure you know what he is talking about. If not, I can explain, but I really don’t want to. It was a serious DKos low point and I don’t get off pissing on Kos, even if I am a not a fan of the site. I can imagine that finding out that pro-Palestinian authors would be silenced would be shocking to someone who wasn’t aware of the history.
It’s still pretty shocking to me and I always thought I was jaded. :>)
Apparently, I suck as a writer.
I have several points, the first being that I posted part of their FAQ and they troll rated it. To me, after having read countless directives to “read the FAQ”, it is hysterically funny that any part of this revered document would be troll rated.
The second point is that whoever troll rated it obviously felt the principles in the FAQ didn’t need to apply to the elite of the site. That’s more sad than funny, IMHO, because it undercuts all of their complaining about the Bush administration’s claims of exceptional power.
And lastly, I get a kick out of seeing kos get his knickers in a bunch when Jet Blue treats him the way he treats others (it’s his FAQ and his site after all).
Okay that’s clearer.
So Hunter’s outburst is not officially part of the FAQ?
That’s odd.
Anyway, what does JetBlue have to do with Palestine?
‘not’ should be ‘now’
Another point, which was not well received, is that I understand how some use their TR’s to silence those they disagree with by sending their comments to “hidden comment land” which IS oblivion to the unwashed masses who neither have nor aspire to dkos TU status. There is much complaining that I’m not sticking around catching more of their tr’s.
My reason for cross posting was to give any who might wish to discuss the state of affairs an opportunity to do so without fear of reprisal.
.
Refers to original post on May 10, 2007 by Hunter in a discussion about the figure(s) shergald:
OK, here’s the deal. ◊ by Hunter
Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:11:19 PM PDT
1. From Hunter’s original post, two paragraphs up from the out-of-context quote strategically placed (for now) in the FAQ:
For the rest of this, I’m not speaking “officially” for the site in any capacity. I’m speaking for me, personally.
2. Who put that out-of-context quote into the FAQ? Why, it was somebody with the handle Maryscott OConnor. On May 15, 2007 – i.e., after Maryscott OConnor was banned from DKos.
“In time you can turn these obsessions into careers.”
by looking italian on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:29:10 PM PDT
Front page –
● JetBlue caved ◊ by kos
Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:03 AM PDT
Damn, almost feel like I’m writing on dKos again … instead of behaving like a refugee.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."From the FAQ:
But, what about Freedom of Speech?
Doesn’t the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?
No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.
Controversial 9/11 Diaries
DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:
1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse
Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.
[UPDATE]
From [2] Hunter:
“… every single new pro-Palestinian poster in these threads is going to be presumed guilty until proven innocent, from here on in. I ain’t gonna screw around trying to invent elaborate ways of detecting this clown, I’m just going to ban anyone that sounds vaguely like him. I don’t have the kind of time in my day necessary to worry about any more “fair” solution, and no inclination. If that results in his side of the discussion being completely wiped from the site except for already well-established posters, then frankly I’m having a hard time getting all teary-eyed about that.”
This clearly says the site is kos’ and he makes the rules which include the FAQ. Trying to blame MSOC is very dishonest.
I don’t care about any of this but what does any of this have to do with Palestine?
It has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine, IMHO.
Content-wise, it has nothing to do with Palestine. In terms of form, it has everything to do with Palestine and Daily Kos’
FEAR OF AIPAC!
It is a pattern of claiming, “I own the blog, but not the content,” when this claim is total bullshit. Kos attempts to moderate the content on his blog and only a fool today could think otherwise.
In regard to Palestine, I believe that Booman is correct. Kos fears that if Palestinian advocacy get too much volume on his blog, Democratic Senators and Congresspersons will avoid the blog for fear that they will be targeted by AIPAC for doing so. Look at Conyers’ response to Jimmy Carter’s book. Here is a guy whose relection is virtually in the bag every two years based on the location of his district. Yet, he along with Pelosi caved in and put Jimmy Carter’s honest appraisal of the situation in Palestine, down.
In short, Kos does moderate the content on his blog in contrast to his claims that he allows the Left to create its own agenda. Hypocracy is the correct term here, and whether he does it himself, or orders a second rate underling like Hunter to do the chore for him, it is hypocracy nonetheless. Kos is DLC when it suits him and he should own up to it. Using scapegoats like Shergald to pretend that he has principled reasons for sending his dog named Hunter out to take down peace activists of the Palestinian kind is perhaps the greatest form of hypocracy yet seen. Only the Daily Kos right wing Zionist groupies have agreed it is something else.
It’s not really clearer. He posted an I/P issue in a non IP thread on a day when the IP diaries were out of control. The comment was off topic and and inflammatory and was troll rated for that reason as far as I can tell.
Sorry, at work now and have to go but you’re not even close.
Quelle surprise.
Long after the fact I return to this.
My comment was not an I/P comment in a non I/P diary. My comment, as I’ve indicated, was included a part of the FAQ, which is NOT an I/P document, that I felt bolstered my opinion about throwing stones while living in glass houses. The I/P aspect of it all was tangential in Hunter’s piece(the part of the FAQ I quoted), his policy, as stated in the FAQ, dealt with dealing with banned users NOT I/P. To claim I was posting about I/P in a non-I/P diary is very dishonest and disingenuous.
I looked up the comment in Hidden Comments and looked over the thread and I think what happened is that people simply didn’t understand what sfflyman was trying to say.
Sfflyman might have a point that JetBlue decided to pull it’s sponsorship of YKos (which I believe consisted of donating some free airline tickets) because it did not want to give the appearance of taking sides. Who knows why they pulled their sponsorship, but it also gives the appearance of siding with Billo.
However, to make his point, sfflyman brought up an inflammatory issue, which relates to a lot of endlessly nasty fighting that seems to go on in I/P diaries and some character named shergold who seems to get banned and then reappear in multiple sockpuppet incarnations to stir up more trouble.
Now I don’t even know how sfflyman knew about this comment of Hunter’s — part of which made it into the FAQ — since I hang out at DK a fair amount and knew nothing about it until seeing this diary here today. Color me clueless.
But to bring up Hunter’s comment as an illustration of how JetBlue might be neutral just doesn’t make sense, since Hunter was not trying to be neutral. He was saying that he was at his wit’s end as an administrator trying to deal with the endless fighting and complaints (which included a lot of people sending email to him) and that a solution for him was just ban anyone who sounds like shergold. (Maybe not the ideal solution, let’s face it, is this the debate that sfflyman wants us to have? I personally don’t read I/P diaries and have no stake in the matter either way except that as a general rule I believe debate should be encouraged as long as it’s civil.)
Anyhoo, I just don’t see the connection between this and JetBlue’s decision. It seems like quite a stretch, and gives the appearance of someone who has an ax to grind about the decision that Hunter made for whatever reason, otherwise why bring it up in this context?
It’s an inflammatory issue, plus sfflyman’s comment was unclear, hence the troll ratings.
.
FAQ was edited with a quote out of context!
Context (1+ / 0-)
The subject matter invariably gets people riled up. I wouldn’t protest an argument that Hunter had a weak moment. But he was targeting one troublesome user based on a pattern of misbehavior, in contrast to the JetBlue CEO creating distance from an entire community based on pressure from a smear merchant.
I’d like to see proof of Hunter actually banning an “innocent.” It’s clear that the post in question was not intended to be a general administrative rule for site behavior. Someone who wanted to embarrass Kos cherry-picked the quote and slipped it into the FAQ.
That may have been MSOC. It’s highly likely that it’s someone who, at minimum, sympathizes with her. But the FAQ user system is independent from the main site user system.
by looking italian on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:23:14 PM PDT
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thanks for the further clarification, Oui. It seems that there’s a whole history surrounding the Hunter comment that I didn’t know about. I also wasn’t aware that users could modify the FAQ.
I would add that this makes a poor analogy with the JetBlue situation. In effect, the implication seems to be that “JetBlue is to Daily Kos as Daily Kos is to shergold and his sockpuppets. So Kos behaves just like JetBlue and shouldn’t complain when the tables are turned and JetBlue treats him the same way he treats a troll with multiple sockpuppets who persistently infests and disrupts his website.”
We’ve all had our problems with DK, but I have to admit that I don’t quite get the equation with an endlessly self-replicating and disruptive troll. If that’s the implication, it’s pretty hostile, so no surprise that people started throwing donuts (foofight).
I think you are right that my point wasn’t clear. But I also think that we have discussions to clear up misunderstandings if we are dealing in good faith.
The reason I posted the Hunter comment from the FAQ was to highlight the disparity in how Kos treats people on his site and how he reacts when people treat him with the same indifference, i.e., they didn’t have the time or inclination to worry about a fair solution, and they weren’t worried about the collateral damage caused by their choice. Kos has left himself open to criticism on this point by including Hunter’s bit in the FAQ. His piece on criticism – linked in the diary – would seem to indicate he expects criticism and is up to the task of answering it himself.
What I didn’t write about was how I feel about this disparity. That would have been troll rated too. When kos treats people with such indifference he forfeits all rights to complain about it when he’s on the receiving end of it, IMHO.
Just so you know, I didn’t know the history of Hunter’s piece (and I don’t think it is relevant to the issues of omnipotence and indifference), I only know the part they included in the FAQ. I assume if they wanted someone to read more into it they would have included more of it’s history than they have. As it reads now, to me, they reserve the right to ban anyone they want for whatever reason. I don’t dispute their right to do so, I just don’t think they should whine when others exercise their rights in a similar way.
So, you see, I wasn’t using Hunter’s version of Dick Cheney’s 1% solution to illustrate how Jet Blue might be neutral but rather how they might be indifferent.
So, to sum up, dkos is run by hypocrites. Another day, another revelation.
dKos, like Booman Tribune, is a business owned by someone who, like it or not, can get used by pondscum like Billo to construct their alternate reality. It seems clear to me that Booman or Kos can set whatever rules they want for the rest of us to use their stuff. So thanks Booman for being better and more inclusive. One of the reasons that dKos has lost it’s “edge” (I don’t know if that’s the right word but I’m late for an appointment) is that in his mind Kos has to be concerned about how his site and the comments others make on it will get misused by buttwipes like O’Reilly. I personally think that is because Kos wants to be a player in the Democratic Party but that is only rampant speculation worthy of the MSM. Let’s see if he ends up in an Edwards or Obama adminstration. He probably has a better shot if Hilly and Billy win.