Skip to main content

View Diary: Jane Hamsher & the Big Jerk-Around (277 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  don't you have (6+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, askew, deaniac83, kalmoth, Viceroy, Onomastic
    Hidden by:

    a primary challenge to Bernie Sanders to organize?


    "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

    by durrati on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:47:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  ratings abuse... weak sauce n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  those accusations are lame - and false. (3+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        willibro, TomP, Situational Lefty
        Hidden by:
        Aexia, deaniac83

        maligning people doesn't fly.

        facebook pals - disclose!

        by jj24 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:45:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  dude, you tossed a donut... (0+ / 0-)

          to somebody you argue with. Your comment is "lame and false", and shame on you.

          •  "dude." it was a response to a hit-and-run (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            comment - hardly anyone i'm "arguing with" or having any kind of heated discussion.

            i'm not into the maligning bullshit.  you are - go ahead, uprate.  if you're sick and tired of this crap that poses for real discussion - then don't.

            facebook pals - disclose!

            by jj24 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:34:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you know, when you are wrong... (0+ / 0-)

              a little wrong, perhaps, even with some provocation from your opponent, the right thing to do is to be nice, or to disengage. The wrong thing is to dig in and start compounding that little wrong into a bigger one. Good night.

        •  Even if it's true (0+ / 0-)

          you can't HR someone you are arguing with - and yes, this qualifies - I learned this from MB the hard way.

          HR'ed for HR abuse.  Remove your HR and I'll remove mine

          •  MB might warn you again... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            willibro, jj24

            As far as I know you are only allowed to up-rate for HR abuse.  HRs in response to HRs are considered retaliatory.

            -9.50/-7.59 Fire Summers!

            by Situational Lefty on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:37:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's retaliatory only if I HR (0+ / 0-)

              someone in response to them HR-ing me.  And actually, it is alright to HR an abuser, with 100% certainty that the original HR was abuse (in this case, it's a clear cut thing).

              From the FAQ:

              Do not [sic] give retaliatory troll ratings. If you get what you believe to be an undeserved troll rating, do not retaliate. Leave it to others to decide if the rating was abusive. It is begrudging community practice to respond to an undeserved troll rating by troll rating the ratings abuser, thus reducing their own level of "trustedness" and making them less able to abuse ratings in the future. But don't do it unless you are absolutely positive the original rating was abusive -- and I mean 100% positive. And never do it if you're the one that got troll rated. I repeat: do not troll rate fights that you yourself are in.

          •  you can't call that an argument... but i'm sure (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            you did this b/c you really care about the integrity of the site?

            i won't be lied about here or maligned with ridiculous accusations by some drive-by BS as whats-his-face decided to do to me.  it isn't out of anger - it's out of principle.  and if that is the new way to define argument, i could do that to you all day long. (don't worry, i don't have the time or the inclination.)

            call my HR an "executive decision."  and by all means, report it.  i stand by it, regardless.

            facebook pals - disclose!

            by jj24 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:24:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can call that an argument (0+ / 0-)

              As I said, I learned this one the hard way.  The term in the FAQ isn't even 'argument,' actually, it's 'fight'.  Which one would think would be even a more stringent standard than 'argument.'  But it isn't.  It's interpreted very loosely.  See here.  The person I had HR'ed there - I had barely two back and forth with him/her - matter of fact, I only replied to that person once before I HR'ed.  MB slapped me down and said that was a fight and I couldn't do it.  Again, the standard is very loose.  It could be a mere disagreement or dispute and you can't HR, even with one exchange.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site