View Story | 281 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
As a result of this thread, I've just gotten the following email from shergald:
Any right wing Zionist who accuses anyone of being shergald is immediately banned. Anyone one who accuses anyone of being recruited by shergald is immediately banned. Is Kos really on the AIPAC/ZOA take? I have not been around DKos for almost the past three weeks. But I am coming back now. And no amount of cookies will stop me. Kos may own Daily Kos, but he does not own the content. He said so himself. But when you attempt to do that anyway through banning individuals, it has gone too far. Kos will determine the political positions of DKos members nor determine what can and what cannot be discussed among the left wing of the party. shergald
Any right wing Zionist who accuses anyone of being shergald is immediately banned. Anyone one who accuses anyone of being recruited by shergald is immediately banned.
Is Kos really on the AIPAC/ZOA take?
I have not been around DKos for almost the past three weeks. But I am coming back now. And no amount of cookies will stop me.
Kos may own Daily Kos, but he does not own the content. He said so himself. But when you attempt to do that anyway through banning individuals, it has gone too far. Kos will determine the political positions of DKos members nor determine what can and what cannot be discussed among the left wing of the party. shergald
For the rest of this, I'm not speaking "officially" for the site in any capacity. I'm speaking for me, personally.
For those of you following the I/P dramas, you can see two things from the above email. First, this particular character is quite obsessed with everything going on at DailyKos -- within 20 minutes of the his name coming up, he knew about it and had responded to it in a pissy email to me. This is standard practice, and demonstrates that either he's on this site 24/7, or there's an ongoing number of people who are still working with him to make sure he knows when pro-Palestinian threads are going up. That's neither here nor there, but an interesting subtext that isn't lost on the admins.
Second, I believe this demonstrates why 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.
So at this point, here's my question. On both sides, this debate has devolved into one of manipulation. There's no "solution" to be had, just an ongoing stream of high-invective trollrating wars while two entrenched sides that aren't ever going to be convinced and who don't give a flying damn about any other issues on the site launch into each other, attempting to fight the whole I/P issue out in miniature, thread by thread, much to the embarrassment of everyone else on the site who holds views distinctly in the middle of both extremes.
How do these discussions have any merit, at this point? Clearly, both sides are merely using Daily Kos as convenient outlet for propaganda. Nobody gives a flying damn about actual policy resolution; nobody is going to convince anyone. It's all "Zionist"-this and "anti-Zionist"-that and so-and-so-is-a-racist and so-and-so-is-a-reverse-racist. No Democrats worth voting for or listening to are going to take these debates seriously, and activists from far-right to far-left simply use them as (perhaps accurate) examples of the worst of each side of the debate. The vast majority of us are sick of them, just like we got sick of the 9/11 "why didn't the towers fall sideways" crap that would require gravity to suddenly alter its very nature in order to prove the "theories" correct and actual scientists wrong.
It should be clearly noted here that from where I stand, the pro-Palestinian side is more organized in their manipulation of this site in an effort to make their views seem more dominant then they are. And that's entirely because of a very small but ongoing collection of posters surrounding Shergald. He lost a lot of his old friends when he lied to them, repeatedly, about sockpuppeting here -- to their distinct credit, they cut him loose when they found out about it -- but it seems there's never any shortage of new associates he can hang out with. (It's especially aggravating because I am personally quite empathetic to the Palestinian side of the debate -- they've gotten screwed quite constantly by Israel, a point which isn't lost on reasonable people.)
That leads to the obvious point -- one not arrived at strictly because of shergald, but because his "style" of dishonesty and manipulation are the standard practice in most of these diaries, among a great number of posters. I'm personally thinking it's time to ban these discussions outright, and send them elsewhere.
Alternatively, we can clean them up, hardass-style. We can just go through the old threads and ban any of the various people who post virulently in these threads to the exclusion of all other Democratic/liberal topics. Or we can go through and just nix all the people who are middling along past the autoban now because of their constant trollratings in these threads, and that would eliminate a very healthy number of the most venomous arguers from both sides. Something to that effect. (Or, hell, we admins can rightly determine that the pro-Palestinian side is far, far more invested with sockpuppets and dishonest manipulations, and just ban that side of the argument outright. That'd maybe be the fairest short-term thing to do, but I don't see any reason to reward the crap heaved from the other side, either, which is long-term what that would be doing.)
So what should we do, here? And don't give me any horseshit about how valuable these discussions are, because they're not -- at no point has either side even come close to attempting to reach policy positions with the other, it's just one constant, high-drama piefight with race-baiting and teeth-gnashing.
So I'm game, let me know what to do. Everyone who wants to continue having these debates, it's up to you to find a solution that can clean them up and make them have sufficient merit such that it doesn't result in the site being embarrassed to even host them. If you want to post some proposals or something, I'm all ears. But at this point, banning them seems the solution that will best serve the entire rest of the site.
by Hunter on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:11:19 PM PDT
Because we're not making much headway in limbo. Every time there's a new "outrage", people talk about summoning the admins to the discussion. Now you're here, perhaps we could all come to a consensus, and stop the "I'm gonna email them!!!" posts once and for all.
...i realize now / you were not to be blamed, my love / you didn't choose your name, my love...
by Diaries on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:16:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
with instant bans of ANYONE who brings the topic up.
Rod Torkelson's Armada Featuring Herman Menderchuk
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:20:21 PM PDT
having this discussion over and over again. Let's keep the Israel-Palestine diaries, or let's ban them. But for goodness sake, let's decide. Continual threats to ban from administrators aren't any more helpful than continual threats to report comments or commenters within the diaries themselves. Every week, it's the same deal - "these discussions should be banned!" "no they shouldn't!" "i'm emailing an administrator!" "go ahead!" "look what Hunter said!" "Damn what Hunter said!" - etc etc.
Can we please just decide, and stop debating the need to decide?
by Diaries on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:35:38 PM PDT
because some people want the diaries stopped....and they will continue to complain....
I know, BAN the complainers!!!
Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92
by mattes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:39:30 PM PDT
n/t
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:41:17 PM PDT
Because if not for the complainers (who, unsurprisingly, tend to come from one side of the debate), the admins wouldn't have such negative attitudes toward the diaries themselves. There's clearly one side interested in banning the diaries outright. Maybe we should just ban that side.
by Diaries on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:42:08 PM PDT
80% of the time, you might have a point, but after being called in to track down the latest shergald for the dozenth or so time, and after wandering through all the trollratings on a daily basis, I can assure you I'd have a negative attitude towards the diaries regardless of whether someone told me to or not.
I'll say that my own email is divided 50/50 between the two sides, however. Make of that what you will.
by Hunter on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:04:08 PM PDT
Although these diaries are a long standing problem, I'm afraid this particular bullshit shitstorm is my fault given that I emailed you. I don't usually email you about anything at all (in fact, I don't recall if I have ever done so), and I am only an occasional participant in these diaries. It appears, however, that I was wrong in my email suggesting I believed desertpeace was shergald, and I apologize for that.
I said this above, but it warrants repeating to you here. I've googled the desertpeace site (which obviously I should have done earlier), and it appears shergald is not desertpeace. I found several posts where shergald, commenting as himself, is talking to desertpeace. I believe my error in memory came for some strange reason from that Ben Heine diary which I think was posted around the time shergald was banned.
John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"
by taylormattd on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:17:33 PM PDT
No, he's not shergald, but the only reason he didn't hit autoban today is because he didn't post any comments in his own diary... which counts as sufficiently manipulative that, when added to a cartoon taken from one banned poster and and an offsite association with another, I'm not going to feel bad about it.
by Hunter on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:36:13 PM PDT
for all your hard work on this, Hunter. Others might not agree, but I think you've been extraordinarily patient with all you've been bombarded with.
I gave up on posting much in I/P diaries lately after getting tr'd for cutting an pasting your shergald warning in a diary by shergald :O) Made the point to me that it was no longer about the discussion; just about the sides people were taking, which is a shame.
There's a comment below with an interesting suggestion that is worth consideration.
Whatever you decide to do, thank you for all your hard work. It is much appreciated.
Have you read about the Kurds and the Zoroastrians yet?
by jhritz on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:19:42 PM PDT
not sure if anyone's still reading these comments, but anyway.
Hunter, you say:
"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."
Well, that's just totally unfair (and putting "fair" in scare quotes doesn't make being so less important). If you don't have time to continue to hunt for and ban shergald sockpuppets, then why not employ an additional moderator, perhaps one whose sole focus is the I/P diaries? However you decide to deal with it, surely the absolute worst outcome would be for legitimate, serious diarists to end up banned. Yet that's the route you seem to be opting for, I guess out of frustration.
"It should be clearly noted here that from where I stand, the pro-Palestinian side is more organized in their manipulation of this site in an effort to make their views seem more dominant then they are. And that's entirely because of a very small but ongoing collection of posters surrounding Shergald. He lost a lot of his old friends when he lied to them, repeatedly, about sockpuppeting here -- to their distinct credit, they cut him loose when they found out about it -- but it seems there's never any shortage of new associates he can hang out with. (It's especially aggravating because I am personally quite empathetic to the Palestinian side of the debate -- they've gotten screwed quite constantly by Israel, a point which isn't lost on reasonable people.)"
What "manipulation" of the site? Reading the actual diaries and comments, it seems blindingly obvious to me that there is a sizeable section of commenters whose aim is simply to disrupt or distort the debate. It is equally clear that they overwhemingly come from the side that designates itself "pro-Israel". Do you disagree?
"I'm personally thinking it's time to ban these discussions outright, and send them elsewhere."
Right, and what would that achieve? It would silence from mainstream Democratic discourse, as represented on this site, discussion of what is surely a morally despicable aspect of current U.S. foreign policy, and one in the Democratic party looks likely to further perpetuate if allowed to do so.
"Nobody gives a flying damn about actual policy resolution; nobody is going to convince anyone."
That's not true at all.I really think your understandable frustration is clouding your view of the I/P debates as a whole. The purpose, incidentally, isn't necessarily to convince those who have obviously made up their minds already (these are the people you usually find commenting below a diary). The purpose is to inform the wider DKos community, which may read the diary but avoid commenting.
"Or, hell, we admins can rightly determine that the pro-Palestinian side is far, far more invested with sockpuppets and dishonest manipulations, and just ban that side of the argument outright. That'd maybe be the fairest short-term thing to do"
Except that it wouldn't. In what possible way could that be considered "fair"? It would be, to use the language of I/P, collective punishment,which, I may add, is a crime under international law. :)
The Heathlander
by heathlander on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:09:02 AM PDT
Just creates more hate. Targets the innocent.
by mattes on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:32:16 AM PDT
...to apply that kind of heated language to a question of web site policy.
BTW, your sig - it would be 'you're' :-)
"There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto Prince Bismarck
by MBNYC on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:37:43 AM PDT
by mattes on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:51:08 AM PDT
I'm proposing a solution here.
Please read President Obama, American Jews, and Israel
by another American on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:10:34 AM PDT
on something for the first time ever probably indicates it's not a bad idea.
by dfb1968 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:41:40 PM PDT
Frankly, I get more mojo from Bill in Portland Maine, anyway. And I can do without the nightly increase in my blood pressure.
by dfb1968 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:19:51 PM PDT
A number of people have put forward non-extreme positions, such as support for the Clinton Peace Parameters. I won't presume to speak for the people generally regarded as "pro-Palestinian," but many of us who are generally regarded as "pro-Israel" have criticized a variety of Israeli policies and actions.
A number of us, myself included, also post on non-IP topics. I will acknowledge, however, that a felt need to counter-act diaries that, IMHO, go beyond criticism of Israel to attempts to demonize and delegitimate it has led me to devote much more of my time than I would prefer to this discussion.
My initial response to your proposed courses of action is not to ban I-P diaries nor, at least just now, to ban people. Rather, to the extent you and the other administrators are willing to invest the time, I suggest
Personally, I am pollyanish enough to believe that, were the I-P diaries to be cleaned up, some good might come from developing a significant measure of agreement around the Clinton Peace Parameters and the importance of presidential candidates and the Democratic Party committing to trying to realize them.
by another American on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:22:47 PM PDT
"are willing to invest the time."
im sure thats the problem.
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:26:32 PM PDT
a clean slate together with a zero-tolerance or one-strike rule.
In all events,
by another American on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:30:20 PM PDT
is to simply remove the ratings abilities of posters who regularly get into fights in I/P diaries. I/P diaries are notorious for ratings abuse -- rating up vicious attacks, rating down things that shouldn't have been. So nobody ever hits autoban (though for the life of me I can't figure out how anyone keeps TU status, either).
But if people don't have others surrounding them to rate up their own most vicious statements, people will start dropping like flies in the face of the autoban. That'd solve the problem right there, though once again, it requires an investment of time by the admins that, honestly, these threads just aren't worth.
by Hunter on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:42:44 PM PDT
banning people who post non-substantive attacks (or substantive attacks surrounded by vicious or inappropriate language) should suffice. Nor do the admins need to invest time to read all the I-P diaries. If proper complaints were acted on properly, and improper complaints resulted in a warning followed by punishment if repeated, then, I believe, the acting out would largely stop.
by another American on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:46:46 PM PDT
by mattes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:48:29 PM PDT
by another American on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:52:38 PM PDT
that posters in these threads could do themselves, and solve their own problem. If people would stop rating UP non-substantive attacks by their own side, and instead troll rate them as they should be, the admins would have to do nothing. The problem would solve itself, just like in all other debate topics on the site except this one, and people would again learn quickly what was and wasn't acceptable.
It's only because neither side in this fight has the desire or capacity to police itself that the admins have to do anything at all. That's what's so infuriating -- the complete collapse of responsibility by all the posters involved, such that the only way these threads can be policed is by emailing the admins to do it manuallly.
That's what makes me so convinced that anything short of wiping these diaries out entirely, at least for six months or so, won't work. Anything less than that is just asking the admins to babysit posters who have proven, through their own ratings, that they don't want the discussions to be substantive, they just want to call each other Zionists, anti-Semites, etc., etc., etc.. We'd have to wipe out so many posters, just in looking through the threads of the last week or so, that it'd amount to a defacto ban on the topic right there.
by Hunter on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:47:54 PM PDT
If you fine folks establish standards and guidelines I believe that all in the community would respond appropriately. Why not try defined guidelines?
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot
by Bouwerie Boy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:34:03 PM PDT
probably are sufficiently defined. The problem is that folks have become completely entrenched, and they uprate their compadres, even when uprating is clearly unwarranted. The corollary is that sometimes the TRs fly far to easily. Heh. See, e.g., this diary.
At least that's what I see. Although I did so today, I usually don't enter these diaries from the diary scroll. Instead, I tend to visit them after a comment in the diary shows up in troll alley.
It seems to me that quite frequently, a comment from these diaries that deserves to be hidden is only hidden for a brief period of time, and is then uprated by folks on the same "side" as the commenter. And it does happen on both "sides."
So I think that is what Hunter is talking about.
by taylormattd on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:57:39 PM PDT
It's full of stars... T. Roosevelt: Great thoughts speak only to the thoughtful mind, but great actions speak to all mankind.
by Terra Mystica on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:12:12 PM PDT
drives out good behavior. But some consistent and even-handed banning, even-handed in the sense of banning because of the nature of the comment not its politics, would do wonders, I think, to clean things up.
by another American on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:06:01 PM PDT
perjorative. What is good behavior, and what is bad behavior in this case/debate? It's an argument in which many agree and many disagree. Passionately and factually.
We all are in this together to make our country and world a better place. It is only in the strenuous arguing that the salient points come out. For us and other observervers.
by Terra Mystica on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:24:54 PM PDT
are willing to be "hard-assed" in an evenhanded manner, I can live with that. If there are further additions to the FAQs related to I/P, I can adjust to those.
I rarely drop donuts even when I have them and I don't uprate comments solely "to counteract abusive TRs;" so I don't know what more you would like me to do related to ratings abuse. Outside of the relatively small circle of Israel's critics related to Evenhanded Democrats, my opinions or warnings do not appear to have much influence.
Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism
by Rusty Pipes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:26:54 PM PDT
If technologically possible, delegate to one person on each "side" the ability to nominate candidates for banning to the admins. If the admins find that the power is being abused, then the delegate can be banned and replaced by someone else. Requests for banning from anyone else could be ignored or punished.
by another American on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:51:59 PM PDT
put up a poll asking what EVERYONE thinks about it not just us uberpartisans in here.
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:53:13 PM PDT
Is ban people who are clearly posting diaries as an attempt to get a vicious headline on the blogroll.
My rule of thumb would be that if a diary is pro-Palestinian, pro-Israel or most of all pro-Peace and substantive, that's good.
If a diary is primarily anti-Palestinian or anti-Israeli, that's bad.
If a user has a pattern of doing drive-by "anti" diaries that aren't even particularly newsworthy (AKA they are same stuff, different day) where the only clear purpose is to propagandize dkos WRT a foreign conflict, that poster has gone way beyond what this site should be about and should be banned.
I'll note that nobody wrote a diary about the arab league making plans with Livni today to hold a meeting in Israel with the government in the near future.
I'm on the "pro-Israeli" side (which, BTW, runs the gamut from left-wing Meretz to center-right Likud -- personally were I Israeli I would have voted Labor the last election and then regretted it after Lebanon).. I'll say that at the least corvo, litho and mattes are honest brokers. Sappah, DesertPeace and Umkahlil on the other hand fit the description of "propagandist" to a T.
I haven't been reading these diaries for long enough to find a really bad anti-Palestinian diary... my personal parameters would be that the Hamas mickey mouse one was funny/novel enough to warrant a diary (especially a comedic diary) but repeated diaries excoriating Hamas for business as usual every 2 days would be propaganda and ban-worthy.
So yeah, for whatever that's worth.
by unfounded on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:58:51 PM PDT
some of the most egregious comments are the ones that get hidden. If you take away the ability to tr, wouldn't that leave the comments visible, when both sides of the debate would want them hidden?
There's a comment below with an interesting suggestion:
i've said it many times (5+ / 0-) the only i/p threads that serve any purpose are those that talk peace and reconciliation. i have no use for the relentless "israel is evil" diaries, and i have no use for the (more infrequent) "the palestinians suck" diaries. i consider both sides victims- of each other, of the wider middle east political dynamics, and of the machinations of europe, russia, and the u.s. both sides are terribly traumatized, and both act with an understandable lack of rationality. if we are going to discuss this issue, we need to have the rationality they lack. otherwise, we only repeat, here, the dynamic there- and the only winners are the bullies on each side. i would enforce a strict rule that the only i/p diaries that are allowed are those that discuss ways for the two sides to move forward. i would remove any and all i/p diaries that simply demonize one side or the other, and i would ban people who keep posting such. by Turkana on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:12:10 PM PDT
i've said it many times (5+ / 0-)
the only i/p threads that serve any purpose are those that talk peace and reconciliation. i have no use for the relentless "israel is evil" diaries, and i have no use for the (more infrequent) "the palestinians suck" diaries. i consider both sides victims- of each other, of the wider middle east political dynamics, and of the machinations of europe, russia, and the u.s. both sides are terribly traumatized, and both act with an understandable lack of rationality. if we are going to discuss this issue, we need to have the rationality they lack. otherwise, we only repeat, here, the dynamic there- and the only winners are the bullies on each side.
i would enforce a strict rule that the only i/p diaries that are allowed are those that discuss ways for the two sides to move forward. i would remove any and all i/p diaries that simply demonize one side or the other, and i would ban people who keep posting such.
by Turkana on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:12:10 PM PDT
That's be my vote with the addition that those who recommend such diaries or post like-minded comments could be subject for banning as well.
For my part, I gave up posting much on I/P diaries a while ago (might have been the kidney stone I'm fighting - owowowowowow) after getting ganged up on too much. It made it seem like that was all DKos was about and I didn't want to have that perspective when there are so many other issues to discuss.
(That came to a head when I was tr'd for cutting and pasting your warning about shergald on a diary that was written by shergald...)
However you proceed, I want to compliment you for your patience in dealing with this. Others may not see you that way, but I think you've been extraordinary considering how bombarded you've been.
My vote is for the suggestion pasted above, but I'll support your decision either way.
by jhritz on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:05:49 PM PDT
by Terra Mystica on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:39:54 PM PDT
Bush chose to not be involved and look how far that's gotten us. Time to open the book wide.
by mattes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:24:19 PM PDT
how many I/P regulars would disappear if they were banned.
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:31:00 PM PDT
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:32:04 PM PDT
...but one sadly unworkable for this blog.
If we want a Scoop-based blog for all comers to talk as much as they want in any way about I/P, we can have one. But Daily Kos is both a source of livelihood for many people, and also a blog with a mission that the acceptance of those who violate rules cannot abide.
Daily Kos is bigger than I/P. If we all have to be kicked out, so be it.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken
by Jay Elias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:31:25 PM PDT
good point.
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:33:33 PM PDT
be exempt.
by mattes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:41:24 PM PDT
...that Hunter brings up is that one rule breaker has gone to such lengths to break rules and continue to break them that it causes a problem that he needs to address.
Like I said upthread, I thought Shergald was an asshole, but not a troll or a bad participant here. But when he did cross the line to trolling, he set clearly a new standard for it. I regret that. But his actions may now result in widespread silencing and censorship, and there may be little other choice for the site management. And there really is no one to blame but Shergald in this instance; his rule-flouting has gone so far as to demand some sort of action to prevent its continuance.
To prevent him from being exempt, others may be dragged down because of him. How fucking selfish of him to make that happen.
by Jay Elias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:50:36 PM PDT
ask if he is helping or hurting the Palestinians with his actions long term.
by mattes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:54:24 PM PDT
...or be more convinced that the best thing is for you and not me to say it.
Because how annoying is this crap? How much do you and I both not want it to be an issue at all?
I don't know why he was even banned, to be honest. I wish he had managed to not be, since I feel he was smart and useful for this subject. But his behavior since he was banned has been remarkably disruptive. How that helps anyone at all is utterly a mystery to me. I thought the whole idea of the blogosphere was that the issues are bigger than we ourselves are.
by Jay Elias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:59:56 PM PDT
by Bouwerie Boy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:38:10 PM PDT
What is the actual Shergald problem? He's being an ass, of course, but what damage is that causing.
Shergald is clearly violating the rules. Hunter has repeatedly banned his sockpuppets.
I'm honestly no clear on the specific problem. Nor am I clear that Shergald has the ability to be more than (massively) annoying. I'm not actually seeing any direct harm he can do.
Can someone enlighten me? If we understood the problem, we might find a solution.
by weasel on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:00:44 PM PDT
by mattes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:05:32 PM PDT
...that it is simply contributing to the noise factor, and creating an (even more) inflamed environment where people like you and taylormattd are hurling troll-ratings at one another.
Because the sockpuppets are real, and are problematic, because they cause fights and noise. And the Shergald hunters are bad, and do the same thing.
Massively annoying is a real problem. It makes the system, which works as well as it does because we care about the environment we participate in. But also a real problem is the site's status to the outside world, which matters both in terms of how much impact we can have, and also affects the actual livelihood of some, including Hunter.
I can't tell you the details of why it really matters to Hunter; I'm no part of any of that, nor do I fully understand it. But these problems are not ones that have always existed. When MB is saying that this issue has changed here, I tend to both agree and believe him.
by Jay Elias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:37:04 PM PDT
by Terra Mystica on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:47:15 PM PDT
...that runs this blog. With the diaries and commenting and ratings.
by Jay Elias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:46:56 PM PDT
by Terra Mystica on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:07:43 PM PDT
...while I may not always find myself on your side or on Markos' side in issues, if there is one thing both of you are superb at, it is at managing the various personalities which cause problems to the actual function of the site in a fair and evenhanded way.
I trust your instincts on this matter implicitly, and your judgment more than any of ours. Up to and including banning myself and the posters in these threads I like best, you have my support.
Good luck.
by Jay Elias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:26:15 PM PDT
address, and I am sure he is reading this now as well, I will ask him to stop, privately and publicly, as banning will only hurt finding solutions to this dilemma....and yes, there is a political solution.
And I just got permission from The Forward to post an article in a new diary....
by mattes on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:35:55 PM PDT
he should stop asap. i dont know the guy so someone who does should tell him to put a sock in it.
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:40:12 PM PDT
in coming back to the site (despite the knowledge of how his return sabotages the discussions we have) than in us being able to have the discussions at all. And we seem to be getting punished for his selfishness.
by Diaries on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:43:51 PM PDT
what does he think goading hunter with ridiculous emails is going to accomplish for the palestinians? how is serial sockpuppetry helping the palestinians? all its doing is making everyone on his side of the argument suspect of being in with him.
by howardx on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:48:21 PM PDT
now at the left coaster and docudharma
But first I want to say that I do not believe there should be mass bannings or a cut off of the I/P discussion at DK. That will probably surprise some here.
and, most importantly,
Those who violate the new guidelines would be subject to banning. BB
by Bouwerie Boy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:24:37 PM PDT
Sometime one has No Choice but to take things to Law Enforcement- I think Kos need to their complaint to them. Boy wont Shergald be Surprised to Hear that knock on their Door.
"Spell check helps, dyslexia still wins"
by npbeachfun on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:13:36 PM PDT
that what I meant- sorry
by npbeachfun on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:21:52 PM PDT
for shergald's former enablers to see this e-mail, where shergald unequivocally outs himself as an anti-semite of the most despicable sort, with his reference to "ZOA," acronym for "Zionist Occupied America."
This term is also, note, employed by the sort of poisonous rightist anti-semites that the Oklahoma City bombers ran with.
Shergald was a troll from the moment he stepped on to this site, and his trollery once he was finally banned here has continued at such a fevered pitch that he now threatens to amputate an entire section of discussion . . . because his mere existence, as the comments in this diary indicate, cause people to go at each other like animals.
At the very least, now that shergald, with his digusting ZOA reference, has outed himself as a despicable anti-semite, people on this site should stop defending him. And understand the frustration felt by both admins and "Is" that he is one troll who has not only not gone away, but has managed to do as much damage once banned as when he was here, casting a pall over all other new "P" posters because of his refusal to stay away. Both admins and "Is" are skeptical of new "P" diarists because, in truth, so many of them have turned out to be shergald. He is not going to stop; I would imagine that, if he hasn't already, he will eventually begin methodically turning over diaries wholesale to other users to post under their IDs.
Shergald is, at this point, all about creating his own reality. When here, he hallucinated that Kos was permeated with "GIYUS trolls" protected by "Zionist" admins. Now he is creating such disorder on the site that it may result in the admins banning the entire topic, or a goodly portion of the participants, which would thereby allow shergald to crow that he'd been right all along. Not so. If the topic is banned, he, the mighty defender of the Palestinian people, will have banned it.
One. Sick. Puppy.
P.S. Like Hunter, I am grateful for the former Kos compatriots of shergald who, appalled by his behavior, have cut ties with him. I note too that the Evenhanded Democrats site removed him from the roster. But his obsession, his fanaticism, is such that, even as he has alienated many of his former friends, he has managed to go out into blogistan to recruit a new crew of people who, apparently, think he's just roses.
by blueness on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:48:50 PM PDT
You're confusing it with ZOG, "Zionist Occupied Government."
If Venus is made of ketchup and lions play pinochle, why doesn't the framistan frizzmaz the flomaton?
by zemblan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:08:00 PM PDT
I first heard the term "Zionist Occupied America" more than thirty years ago, among Jew-haters at the college here. Fifteen years later, the term was so common among the Palestinians I worked with that it was used even by those who geniunely felt no animosity towards Jews at all. One of shergald's recent recruits to this site has employed the term, for which s/he has received some heat.
"Zionist Organization of America" is a more recent formulation, devised in an attempt to deflect accusations of anti-semitism.
by blueness on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:55:49 PM PDT
shergald, by I also understood "ZOA" to refer to the Zionist Organization of America, a once-great organization sadly in decline under its current, albeit now longtime, right-wing leadership.
by another American on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:20:56 PM PDT
my family supported ZOA for Years. They are the oldest pro-Israel group in America- They use to do great things for woman Really.
by npbeachfun on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:39:52 AM PDT
because his mere existence, as the comments in this diary indicate, cause people to go at each other like animals.
Shergald is a menace because some allow him to be a menace.
Whatever I believe in, I try to apply it everywhere. Even here. I try not to go accusing posters of this and that unless I'm sure. There are quite a few "Is" who don't seem to be so restrained. It's accuse first then apologize later, if there's an apology at all. And yes, I have apologized for being wrong and have admitted when someone else is right. I'm a b*tch. But I ain't a hateful b*tch.
I get as sick of the Shergald Sockpuppet Lynch Mob about as much as you get sick of the shergald sockpuppets, both creating hostility among members here.
Personally, I can deal with sockpuppets. Most are stupid who usually out themselves sooner or later. And it's rather pathetic when they come back. BFD. It's the accusations I can't stand, made worse when they're false. And regardless as to how many sockpuppets shergald had, the false accusations are more destructive imo, creating much havoc and resentment. Want to reduce some of the flamewars? Send an email to admin before accusing. Is that too much to ask?
Don't publicize it by accusing someone in a thread. What if you're wrong? People get involved, take sides, hard feelings when you find out you were wrong. An apology after that is often too damn late. Look at the mess made. That shergald has been many sockpuppets isn't enough of a reason to accuse each new Palestinian partisan that signs up here. No one is forced into accusing new users of being a shergald sockpuppet. One makes a choice to do so. One freely acts by posting the accusation when an email to an admin is sufficient.
Some care and learn from it. Others don't and they'll do it again and again and again not giving a shit about the possiblity that they could be wrong.
shergald is not the devil. He's an idiot. An annoying idiot that some have allowed to have power over them every f'cking time. How do you allow someone you don't even know to have this much power over you? Fuck him. Damn. A heathlander diary, which are always excellent, have gotten hijacked by shergald discussions and accusations. If we're determined to discuss the I/P issue, then why in the hell would we allow anyone to interfer with that? Especially a banned user??
This bringing up shergald all the damn time when there's no reason to do so, as exampled here, is disruptive. Helps nothing. DesertPeace is troll? Ban him. That g-damn bein heine picture is enough for me - a deliberate act to incite. But why post an email from shergald? Oh, so the enablers that Hunter doesn't even know exist can stop enabling shergald although Hunter doesn't know whether anyone is actually enabling shergald AND as if these enablers, Hunter doesn't know who they are remember, can somehow prevent someone, who's where again?, from signing up to dkos as a sockpuppet. And don't forget, we all, the "Ps" only, are somehow suppose to peep out a shergald puppet and not enable him. Does this make any sense to you?
As for shergald being anti-semite. Well, by your measure, I had considered naming some names. But I reconsidered. Would this be helpful or hurtful? So, I'll leave it like this. Those who propose moving Arabs to another Arab country 'cause they're all alike, those who make a point of distinguishing between 'good Israeli Arabs' and 'bad Israeli Arabs' (or "good nigras"/"bad nigras"), those who make jokes of Jewish slurs, and those who define tragedy that befalls Arabs as propanganda should fit right in with shergald as racists. Each one of them have said things here about Arabs that I've heard all of my life from racists. You view shergald as an anti-semite. I'll respect that and I won't defend him. But there's some long-time racists on your side of the road who aren't banned but should be...
Just so you know, I'm speaking out of frustration...
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.
by callmecassandra on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:56:10 PM PDT
I agree with you absolutely that people who suspect a diarist or poster of being a shergald zombie should not shout it out on a thread, but should instead quietly contact an admin. I think I've stated that here before. It's not productive; it simply raises the temperature on threads that are already almost always near the boiling point. Inevitably it results in false and therefore unfair accusations, because not every new "P" poster is a manifestation of shergald. A person falsely accused resents it, justifiably so, and the credibility of those whose accusations turn out to be wrong suffers. Like you, I wish people would stop crying "shergald!" on the site. Do it via e-mail.
I don't doubt that there are racists on this site. I wrangled with a couple people the other night, in a non-I/P thread, that seemed to me to be pretty malodorous. I trust your judgement here. And will therefore henceforth scrutinize more carefully those "on [my] side of the road." If there's anything you'd like to share privately, my e-mail is in my user profile.
You say "Shergald is a menace because some allow him to be a menace." That is true. I think it is also true, however, that he is a menace because he is exhausting the patience of the administrators--whose only marginal appreciation for I/P is evaporating into nothingness as shergald continues his endless, relentless assault against this site. Whether the offending banned user be shergald, MSOC, tlh lib, red tulips, or whoever, the admins are going to be pissed off at somebody who not only refuses to respect the rules, but more or less defiantly vows to bring Kos down. The difference between shergald and other persistent trolls like, say, Paul Gaskin or that Blue Sky weirdsmobile, is that the persons and positions of the latter have no audience. That shergald does is what has led to the admins considering just banning the whole topic. You and I both know that, shergald or no, I/P discussions here generally involve a certain level of toxicity. The "shergald factor," has I think, pushed it, in the admins' minds, to the very edge of acceptability.
Anyway. Just some more thoughts.
by blueness on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:45:10 PM PDT
How do you enable what you don't know exists? Being pissed about shergald's sockpuppets is one thing. Expecting anonymous users to sniff out shergald's sockpuppets is another. Well, not just any anonymous users, a specific group of anonymous users and it's stated with the same casualness of a reasonable expectation. As if we all know each and can control each other's actions - a banned user in this case. Banned. And if we can't do this impossible thing, control shergald-a banned user, then the I/P diaries are threatened. To be blunt, and no offense to you, this is bullshit. What Hunter's talking about, wrt this point, makes absolutely no sense.
Also want you to know, my remarks about lynch mobs was never directed at you.
by callmecassandra on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:32:39 AM PDT
I'm relatively new to these debates, and have become enmeshed in them to the detriment of things I actually care about. For example, a bunch of us, primarily Kossacks, went to Albany yesterday for the State Democratic Committee meeting. You're going to see a lot of posts from New York about a new telecom law, about reform in general, red-to-blue strategies, that kind of stuff, because we're going to try and play a leadership role on all of these.
The point that I'm making is this: a lot of very smart people take part in these debates, who could contribute to the site in numerous ways if the temptation to get involved in flamewars were removed. I would suggest that the admins either institute a subject ban, because it's clear that we can't have these discussions without peeing on one another's legs, or lay down very strict ground rules, such as simply stating that every relevant diary must be strictly focused on American policy remedies, legislation, something along those lines. One of the things I personally find most offensive about the slash-and-burn diaries is this: there aren't any remedies discussed, and other than shaking one's head over the alleged brutality of whomever it is that's being excoriated, there's nothing for Kossacks to do or to learn.
There are different ways to make either the people involved here more productive, or to bring the subject matter into a context that's relevant for all of us. I can also tell you that the I/P diaries on DKos came up yesterday at a private chat among the bloggers in Albany, and if there' a consensus there, it's that they are a cesspit that's either ignored or reviled.
So yeah, some remedy is called for here. This is the third I/P diary published today, and really, it's getting to be too much.
by MBNYC on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:31:40 PM PDT
enemies? At a user's request or Admin decision, A & B can't reply to each other's posts or diaries?
Is there a "slow-down" option? Once a diary* reaches X hundred posts, no one user can post more than once every 15 minutes? An encouragement to substantive discussion instead of one-liners (possibly heated).
*need an mechanism for realtime "hearings" theads
If your local service workers don't get a living wage (including healthcare) then your local social contract is broken
by julifolo on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:08:34 AM PDT
The first Political Position Daily Kos Bans will be Peace or lack of Peace in the Middle East?
Lumping current events with worldwide importance into the same category as 9/11 and conspiracy theories.
Well I for one, find the very Idea Absurd-
by npbeachfun on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:42:50 PM PDT
I've heard all month.
" Every Thanksgiving, Bill Clinton stuffs a kitten inside a puppy inside a chimp inside a dolphin. It's like a turducken, only more evil. " balancedscales
by buddabelly on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:47:19 PM PDT
I look forward to my next trip, as an Israel/American. All the questions about "pro-Israel forces" and "Zionist Groups" that run American politics, you have no idea-
‘Insert name’
"How can you claim this "Cabal" doesn’t exist when in America you cant even debate the Israeli/Palestine conflict on the largest Democratic Blog in the United States?"
If you don’t think the world is watching us, you are wrong. I receive emails form everywhere.
We are standing on a precipice – the Republicans under Bush have lost the Libertarian vote, with this new influx of Voters we will start to see a number of controversial Issues...
What’s Next? Evolution Partial-Birth Abortion Islam Gun Rights Military
We are either a Big Tent Party or we aren’t.
I have been on a Dairy written by a Muslim stating how they need to join the democratic party- I challenged members that didn’t think they were "Democratic enough" do we want to kick out over a million voters? 10 million, 20...
by npbeachfun on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:05:25 PM PDT
I/P as discussed on this site has nothing to do with electing Democrats or reforming the Democratic party. The stated purpose of this site.
Almost every one turns into an absurd flamefest with no redeeming value.
If people could discuss like rational adults then that step might not be nesc. but they don't.
There are 1 or 2 commenters here who actually carry on a cogent discussion the rest fling poo.
It makes the site look as bad as some of the other shitholes out there that I come here to avoid.
We alredy do not allow consp. theorists here and the whole ZOA and the AIPAC rules crowd along with the anything anti Israeli policy is anti-semetic crowd are pushing the biggest con theorys around.
So my feeling in accordance with the no con ban then I/P goes unless or until the subject can be discussed on the facts and not the emotions.
by buddabelly on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:39:41 PM PDT
IMHO Peace in the Middle East is one of/ if not the Most Important issue in Our Foreign Policy-
I find 3 major problems with the I/P debate
This really shouldn’t be a team sport- I enjoy reading
litho diaries- but I believe in a two state solution Jay dairies- I agree on most of his points (but a big one) Jerusalem Mattes dairies – keep me up to date
I could go on...
I participated- and have been placed on the Palestine side- even though I am an Israeli. I receive about 20 email a week (if I don’t write a diary more if I do form members that read the dairies and comments but wont comment out of fear- they very form Israeli/Americans, Liberal Jews, Pacifist, Peace Actives, Muslims...
As to the Admits they need to make a few things Clear-
Problem solved
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As An Occasional Lecturer this is Worth Repeating
I look forward to my next trip, as an Israel/American. All the questions about "pro-Israel forces" and "Zionist Groups" that run American politics, you have no idea- ‘Insert name’ "How can you claim this "Cabal" doesn’t exist when in America you cant even debate the Israeli/Palestine conflict on the largest Democratic Blog in the United States?" If you don’t think the world is watching us, you are wrong. I receive emails form everywhere.
by npbeachfun on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:52:38 PM PDT
The "Quick Fix" ~ Authors can Ban user from commenting- That would end the pie fight Today, everyone could read them and you could post a rebuttal dairy the Next Day-
Look if ebay lets you ban bidders from bidding on your items it has to be an easy program.
But if I/P dairies become band- it is like throwing Gas on a fire. "America is RUN by Jews" "AIPAC controls/owns Democratic party" points I don’t believe and often argue ageist when I Lecture!
by npbeachfun on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:18:38 PM PDT
reasoned disagreement in her own diary?
by another American on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:14:00 AM PDT
But its better then Ban I/P Dairies altogether. I said it would be a quick fix...
I not for banning reasoned disagreement~ In fact I welcome it, I value your input and many people that see themselves as my adversary?
I have found some member (a tiny few) that add nothing and whose soul aim seem to be disruptive. Spamming diaries, thread jacking, well you know- you would have the same right to block.
I dont care to name, names? What I will say is I wouldn't ban you, red sox, paul, adam, jay, I dont think I would even ban Kieth.
Wow, this goes back to the comment I made above.
I find 3 major problems with the I/P debate 1. Its clickish 2. People take things personal 3. People are quick to see the worst regarding the other side
1. Its clickish
2. People take things personal
3. People are quick to see the worst regarding the other side
by npbeachfun on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:27:16 AM PDT
here. Please forgive the diary pimping.
by another American on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:12:19 AM PDT
Why should i/p get the special treatment. If the users can't police themselves now why would this be any different?
by buddabelly on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:29:37 AM PDT
extraordinary measures.
If you have anything more to say on this subject, which I welcome, I invite you to do so here.
by another American on Fri May 11, 200
