Skip to main content

View Diary: Ion Sancho - Election official hammered for telling the truth. Enter the lawyers... (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did a widdle baby get his feewings hurt? (3.40)
    You don't care for my ratings, I don't care for yours. You think this diary should be at the top of the recommended list. The community does not. Deal with it.

    Or go start your "All Bev Harris, All the Time" blog. Betcha that'll just pull in the traffic like nobody's business.

    Wanker.

    •  Well I don't think it should be deep-sixed (none)
      by the "Community" you seem to include yourself among.

      Who else do you include in your special Community exactly?

      •  When you have proof that happened (4.00)
        and not just, what was it you called it, "a bunch of blue-smoke handwaving and assertions by an anonymous poster," then we can talk. Until then, you're just a wanker with a bad attitude and nothing worth listening to to say.
        •  Beating a dead horse here, but one more time (none)
          I cited the evidence very directly. You were  blowing blue smoke and speculation how about your private fantasy as to how this diary got deep sixed off of the Rec list, without providing any proof to back up your unsupported claim. Unless you are an accountable  DKos administrator and are willing to own up to the fact and back it up with real evidence  , you have no basis for foisting your BS speculation into a comment and expecting anyone to take it any more seriously than any of your previous comments.

          Otherwise you are simply not a credible source, (to borrow one of your Bev-bashing friend's  quotes   ).  

          •  Uh, no (3.00)
            You counted a few names on a list, and from that one data point you concocted a paranoid fantasy out of whole cloth.
          •  what a crybaby (none)
            yeah . . . . and a wanker, too.  TINFOIL EVERYWHERE!!! CORNER ALERT!!! how dare you quote me to defend yourself, you sniveling dweeb? please try to compose yourself and stop acting like a total paranoid conspiracy troll and cowardly ratings abuser.  too much here for me to work with.  go back to being a plain vanilla psycho BevBot, mmkay? :)
          •  Tinfoil Explosion on Aisle 3 (2.50)
            Shumard, do you know how to fucking read?

            The process for determining the recommended list was explained to you but yet you pretend to have not heard a goddamned word.    Number of recommends is only part of what is factored in as was explained to you which you have ignored to carry on with your paranoid delusional conspiracy theory.

            Oh and btw....you forgot to bold cookiebear in your asinine calling out of those who had the good sense not to troll rate me.   I guess Plutonium Page is a troll too for giving me, an obvious troll, a 4. LOL

            Priceless shit.   You obviously got some of the bad acid.

            •  He explained it well. (none)
              His explanation included the number of recommends the diary received, AS WELL AS the time the diary was created.

              Older diary, with fewer recommends, still high on the recommended list. New diary with more recommends, dropped off the list.

              Personally, I noticed that it dropped straight from near the top of the list (don't recall the exact position because it was quite a few hours ago) to completely off it, in a way which I have never seen before.

              And I pay attention to the decay rate of diaries, because I'm a programmer myself, and I'm curious about how other people develop algorithms for things like that.

              "Freshness" of recommendations is a possible, albeit very unlikely explanation. The only way it would work is if the older diary sat unrecommended for quite a while, then this diary got all its recommends in one large burst, then the older diary got moved up onto the list because of its recommends. Not impossible, but so unlikely as to almost meet the mathematical status of being a pathological input to the algorithm.

              Also, the fact that we have two people who presumably have front-page powers involved in this discussion leads to the much more probable alternative that someone bumped it off the list on purpose. Although the only reason I say it's more probable is because they (presumably) have the power, and the alternative explanation is incredibly improbable.

              congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

              by bartman on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 12:38:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  uhhh wtf (none)
                "Freshness" of recommendations is a possible, albeit very unlikely explanation.

                You haven't been here long have you.   What you just said is very unlikely is an indisputable fact.   Stick around.....pay closer attention and study how it works.    It works exactly as was explained.    There is no if about it.

                •  I'm not saying (none)
                  that freshness isn't used in the algorithm.

                  I'm saying that based on the evidence presented, the algorithm's use of "freshness" is not a likely cause for the diary dropping off the list.

                  I've been observing this algorithm in action for seven months now, and I'm commenting on it based on my experience as a computer programmer.

                  BTW, I'm going to try to "reset" my annoyance level in my comments, so as to facillitate a civil, hopefully productive discourse.

                  congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

                  by bartman on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 01:37:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  When I looked at the reco list this morning (none)
      there was one blank space where a diary was clearly there, but not visible.

      So it didn't even fall off before it disappeared.

      •  Chincoteague (4.00)
        care to explain your ratings abuse, coward?
        •  You're one to talk (none)
          Check out this comment which Avilla decided to troll rate:

          Anyone can be a troll

          The high-and-mighty have been known to fall from their lofty perches in other cases.

          Or perhaps [this one: ]

          Google 'BradBlog and Brad Friedman'

          before you play that  DHinMI-style trollish 'not a credible source' game.

          If you were on the level and a real progressive who paid attention to what is going on in the progressive blogosphere, you would know better than trying to smear Brad Friedman's work, in order to stoop to trying to bait Bev Harris in a cheap old ploy.

          Shame on you.

          In the second one, you actually troll-rated someone for disagreeing with you.

          When you refer to people as "ratings abusers," it comes off kind of like the Republicans complaining about the overly partisan nature of politics today.

          congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

          by bartman on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 12:29:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  nope, you're wrong as usual (4.00)
            you need to reread that in context.  

            I explained at least four times why I don't consider that site a credible source . . . . . my buddy Shumard chose to misread it and to alter the context in his grand, sweeping persecution crusade.  wanna discuss something? fine.  just keep it honest and don't fabricate words I never said and put 'em in blockquotes to make it look like I did.  

            first comment troll-rated for obvious reasons (troll comment).  

            When you refer to people as "ratings abusers," it comes off kind of like the Republicans complaining about the overly partisan nature of politics today.

            in your dreams, propeller-head.  I'm fucking appalled at the ratings abuse in this thread and I've been very, very restrained in my own ratings . . . . . trust me on that one.  not for myself 'cuz the ratings of Bevbots, like their opinions, don't even begin to register.  you fuck with longtime members of this community, User #61680, you're made an enemy.  capiche? :)

            •  Are you fucking insane? (none)
              You're going all "Mafia Horse-Head Threat" on me now?

              I never put ANYTHING you said into block quotes. I put the comments you decided to troll rate into blockquotes.

              If you're so restrained in your ratings, then why did you troll rate me for commenting that anyone can be a troll?

              There are some serious overly-inflated egos running around this place lately. First DHinMI saying that if anyone claims he's a troll, then they are claiming Kos is a troll, and now you acting like I'm gonna get kneecapped if I say things you don't like.

              congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

              by bartman on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 12:52:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  calm down (4.00)
                I said Shumard put it in blockquotes.  do you know how to read?  and where is this threat you're freaking out about?  nevermind.  I didn't threaten you, but go on and cry if you want.  

                here's my .02.  you get out of Daily Kos what you put into it.  be a responsible member of the community, 99% of the time, things work out fine.  this thread is an anomaly and the worst single case of ratings abuse I've ever seen here.  your histrionics, although amusing, aren't exactly "productive" . . . . . . but chill. I'm not gonna rate you up, down or at all.  

                •  My perception was (none)
                  that when you said "you fuck with longtime members of this community, User #61680, you're made an enemy" that it was a threat.

                  Perhaps I misunderstood.

                  I must say, this diary has generated some amazingly rude, arrogant, hostile comments, and I've been quite taken aback at how vile the behavior has been.

                  BTW, I've been here seven months. I'm certainly not an old timer, but I've been around long enough to learn the basic etiquette of the place.

                  If you can refrain from insulting me, then I will do the same with you.  OK?

                  congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

                  by bartman on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 01:36:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  The irony (4.00)
            When you refer to people as "ratings abusers," it comes off kind of like the Republicans complaining about the overly partisan nature of politics today.

            Republicans don't follow rules....break laws to get the ends no matter the means.

            You're bitching about following rules..... then break rules to post wahtever.....the only thing that matters is the end....the means are shit.    

            Your analogy is simply asinine and you're defending the gop by defending the abuse of ratings here via your own analogy.

            Try again.

        •  Ratings abuse? (none)
          Coward?

          LMAO!

          You're not respectful, you aren't saying anything substantive, and your comments are definitively unproductive.  Hell, you aren't even the one I rated unproductive, unless you're Musing in disguise.

          Now, do you have something to say, or just try to whip people into obedience?  

          •  please read for comprehension (4.00)
            You're not respectful, you aren't saying anything substantive, and your comments are definitively unproductive.

            RILLY?  I thought I had posted about a dozen links to substantive evidence, which I consider productive . . . . if I say so myself.  respect is earned, grasshopper - not given.  

            Hell, you aren't even the one I rated unproductive, unless you're Musing in disguise.

            I know you didn't rate me.  the fact that you abused the ratings system on others changes what?  oh, that's right . . . . . . it changes nothing at all. still a coward and ratings abuser and your overly defensive reaction proves my point.  

            I asked you to explain your ratings.  can't do it?  won't do it?  don't want to do it?  fine with me.  no answer, in this case, is all the answer I needed.

      •  Uhhhhh (4.00)
        That means a diary was deleted by the author.   This one is still here.

        Oops, there goes your conspiracy theory.   Go ahead and troll rate this comment to User #69777.  :-)

        •  Or maybe, as was suggested (none)
          the site decided to 'invisible' it.

          I have no dog in this fight, I'm simply telling you what I saw.  You seem to have a problem with truth. That's your problem, not mine.  

          I haven't troll rated anyone.  Another indication you have a serious problem.

          •  fuckin priceless (4.00)
            You seem to have a problem with truth. That's your problem, not mine.  

            Really?  Because I'm the one sticking to known facts when you're going out on a limb claiming something happened that you haven't the slightest bit of evidence of EVER having happened on this site without it being stated by the admin who did it?

            Go ahead and back your allegation up with even the first bit of evidence.   If you can't then you've just made a farce of that statement above.  

            I have no dog in this fight, I'm simply telling you what I saw.

            And I told you what it meant.   The fact that you can't accept reality truly is not my problem ;-)

            I haven't troll rated anyone.  Another indication you have a serious problem.

            You're obviously new here or you'd know what that meant.

            What a truly ridiculous post.   You made a suggestion that was shown for what it was....absurd.   Once you're called on it you insinuate that I'm a liar and out of touch with reality....and that is fuckin hilarious.

            Cheers :-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site