Skip to main content

View Diary: Hide rates (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, ZappoDave, Oh Mary Oh

    YOu realize that any attempt to moderate anything will always result in people who claim that the result of the moderation was personally motivated, and that it was about getting them, and that everyone is against them, right?

    It doesn't matter what it is, when people are at odds with others, and when they act on that difference in a way that is intended to be incendiary, then they will feel whatever moderation is inflicted.  When they feel it, they'll complain that they were treated unfairly and  so on.  

    It takes a lot to get kicked off of this site.  

    What I think it is interesting about this is that Ek kind of says he doesn't really care for the vast majority of content on this site, but is still here to give everyone the benefit from sitting under his mojo bar tree until we reach the desired level of enlightenment.


    by otto on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 07:56:41 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I was a moderater at (13+ / 0-)

      a site full of wingnuts, and I moderated at Smirkin Chimp for a time.

      Aware of these dynamics. Sorta what I meant by

      It's emotional and not logical.
      With 'official site moderators' people can whine all they want, it takes the brunt off individual users and does more to 'protect' the site AND the average users.

      At yahoo news I could predictably get a comment hidden that said "There is no such thing as a liberal media: it is all owned by conservative interests".

      That would be thumbdowned to oblivion. One can hit the 'show comment' button and see the comment. Most people would be amused to find the hidden comment is a simple sentence, factual, free of foulness, safe for children and families.

      All it does is show the values of those who downrated it.

      I found it an entertaining thing to do in the run-up to the election.


    •  Look. People have repeatedly formed off-site (16+ / 0-)

      cliques to HoS people.

      They always start off as self-appointed cops who are going to "clean up" the site, and they always justify themselves with lots of stories about self-defense, defense of the site, or in the last four years, defense of the President.

      In short order, they invariably demonstrated why all unaccountable authority will be abused.  These groups always degenerate to simply attacking the people the don't personally like, and have at times sunk to outing and campaigns of harassment both here and off-site.

      We're talking about threats to destroy peoples livelihood.  The Auto-Ban system, while proven useless for even getting rid of blatant spambots in a timely manner, feeds and encourages this mentality.  

      I think Kos actually does a much better job as Mod than MB with one exception - Kos doesn't usually seem to be doing anything about HR's or the abuse of them.  

      HR's have their uses. But banishment shouldn't be among them.   If anything, the algorithm should be used merely to bring possible trolls to the attention of admin.

      dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

      by JesseCW on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is that really true? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        I've heard many times that "Obamabots" formed offsite cliques to silence poor hippies. I've never seen proof of it. Doesn't mean it isn't true, but I always thought that was bullshit.

        •  I don't know if the rule (6+ / 0-)

          is still in effect, but we were forbidden to talk about the one that proof was posted of. When MB was moderating he forbid that shit under his clean slate rule. So...

          I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

          by triv33 on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 08:36:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The vast majority of people who are part of (8+ / 0-)

          off-site groups are not part of groups dedicated primarily to trying to get people banned.  They're dedicated to promoting content with which they agree, which isn't anything particularly nefarious in and of itself.

          That includes most the "Obamabot" facebook groups I've joined under various handles.

          The worst of these groups have either been supposedly a-political, or have been entirely single issue groups.  For some, The President is a single issue.

          dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

          by JesseCW on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 08:59:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You've joined Obamabot FB groups under an assumed (0+ / 0-)

            name?  That's funny.

          •  I just don't get it (0+ / 0-)

            It becomes so petty.  

            One thing I'm pretty certain about, Docudharma is not being used as a place to organize people.  It would need more people for that to be the case.


            by otto on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 09:41:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OFA is for organizing people (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ek hornbeck, jarbyus, blueoasis

              is dkos? and if so to what purpose? Is it just the online arm of the party propaganda machine like OFA?  Electing better Dems? If that's the case then it leaves much room for divergent opinions about both what makes a better Dem or even just a Democrat and what is the best way to move the party to win and yet remain democratic. DD was not ever really an electoral blog and organizing for victories for compromise was never what it was about. Neither is digby or firedoglake they are liberal blogs issue oriented but not inside the D party machine.      

              •  OFA (0+ / 0-)

                I know almost nothing about it, other than the fact that some users seem to like to use it as a punching bag, and seem to obsess on it like it is some sort of conspiracy that a party would try to sell the party line through an organizing arm.

                I mean, sha!  Who could imagine!?


                by otto on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 01:20:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OFA has a new (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ek hornbeck, 3goldens

                  reincarnation it is now a non partisan issue org. I just love the smell of astroturf so natural and refreshing. I'm not a big fan of Politico but here it is from the horses mouth

                  New Obama group Organizing for Action says it’s non-partisan

                  “Neither OFA nor its chapters will be involved in any way in elections or partisan political activity,” OFA wrote. “Its exclusive purpose is public policy advocacy and development, and in particular, both enactment of President Obama’s legislative agenda and the identification and advancement of other goals for progressive change at the state and local level".....

                  Obama’s aides don’t deny the inherently political nature of their new group, which has been billed as the successor to Obama’s vaunted campaign apparatus and it’s being run by former White House and campaign officials.

                  Organizing for Action — like the Karl Rove-conceived Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity — is registered as a non-profit under section 501(c)4 of the tax code. Such groups are able to accept unlimited and secret donations from corporations, lobbyists and political action committees – cash streams that Obama attacked bitterly when GOP-allied groups tapped them.

                  Just because the Democratic party machine, all run and owned by DLC'ers and the New Democrat's (The Third Way) is trying to pass off this administrations anti-democratic policy and agenda as the non partisan inevitable line forward doesn't mean that people who are Democrat's necessarily believe that what OFA is selling is either Democratic or democratic. The talking points the new and non partisan OFA issues just piss me off and I'm a Democrat. No CT involved just not a 'line' I buy.
      •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

        I see you agree with me on the merits of what I said.

        Any time you have moderation, people will think that it's being done to them, and not to others.

        Self awareness is a vast conspiracy.


        by otto on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 09:36:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Awareness, one might hope, should include (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ek hornbeck

          perception of matters with which we are inclined to disagree.  Apparently, though, you are unable to recognize or acknowledge serious and always persistent misuse here of the tools of community "moderation."

          But yes ... objection to any possible pattern of such misuse, and by any new constituent group of malefactors, can only be a matter of lack of self-awareness and a vast conspiracy by those targeted.  

          So tell me, what are MajorFlaw and trashablanca up to these days?  Still HR'ing as self-appointed purity cops ... restrained only by those who objected to what was "done to them" in a "vast conspiracy"?  In the words of another long bojo'd self-righteous cop ... "bottles is always here, always watching!"  It's such an embarrassing pattern that some just can't bring themselves to recognize or acknowledge. Et tu, otto?

    •  It's not my tree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, TheMomCat

      Anybody can sit under it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site