RedState threatens to violate promised confidentiality

RedState is threatening to violate the confidentaility of posters they deem trolls.  And worse they have threatened to track the user's private information such as his or her place of employment, other sites frequented et. al. and post them on RedState.

Kossacks beware.  Best not to give them some way of tracking you down.  They have no sense of humor and may indeed try to hurt you if they deem you a troll.

I have come across these posts recently at RedState:

GO AWAY!  By: Clayton  

Or your anonymous life will get decidedly less anonymous.

I know where you've been. Who you work for, and who's network you're using at what time of day to post to this site. Unless you feel like 'bringing it on', go the heck away.

PS  By: Clayton  

Using AOL addresses won't help you.

Ladies and gentlemen  By: Thomas  

This is why we should all fear and honor Clayton.

If this is mastery, then I'm a donut. - Mike Krempasky  

Even more so  By: MachoNachos  

When he's on vacation and doesn't wish to be disturbed.

Macho Nachos - a spicy Tex-Mex treat!  

Here is the RedState representation:

You want my address?

Your information will never be shared outside of RedState.

"Clayton" is Clayton Wagar one of the Directors of RedState. If he follows through on his threat, he will be violating his own community's standards......

My disclosure is that I was banned by RedState--but I have not attempted to post there since under any name at all and I am not the individuals that are referenced in the posts I have quoted.  I doubt Kos would ever stoop so low as these guys....threatening someone with a total and unethical violation of someone's privacy--because of an issue on a discussion board.

Fellow Kossacks, beware posting on RedState--they will not honor confidentiality.

•  Good advice

  by Carnacki on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:24:25 PM PDT

  •  Yeah,

    and it is just a discussion board. Too bad, they do have some good posts--but they are very much into the ends justifies the means type of thin .  

    by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:27:41 PM PDT

    •  "thinking" typo n/t

      by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:28:06 PM PDT

•  Scary!

  Thanks for the heads up on that group of thugs.  I've considered going over there before as I do live in a red state but from what others have said, I know I'm not their kind of red-stater.  I don't think they would welcome a liberal exiled Michigander even if I do live in Indiana.  

  by libnewsie on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:27:26 PM PDT

•  Please consider repostiong this again after

  the vacation weekend.

  I had an internet experience a few years ago when a bunch of right wingers decided to go after me after someone posted something about me (a misquote, sadly  -- and it was just too silly for words), and I got about a thousand hate mail messages and someone came and threw garbage on my lawn.  My husband was out of town and I was home alone with my kids and was terrified.

  So beware.  "Them folks" can be mean and dangerous.

  by Percheronwoman on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:41:23 PM PDT

  •  Decorum

    How would I re-post this Diary without violating decourm?  Should I delete this one, or just go ahead with a new one?  

    by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:43:38 PM PDT

    •  I don't think it's

      completely out of line to recyle a diary.

      by Omar on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:50:16 PM PDT

    •  Good point

      and I respect teh decorum around here and don't want to just say "repost"

      I think you change the title to relfect that it is about this topic of Redstate, and then in the new diary say that you posted this diary over the weekend and didn't gt very many comments and consider it important to people's safety and comfort level and so have decided to raise the issue again.

      By then you may have some idea how many people read the diary.  If a lot, no need.  If not, then i think this emrits re-presenting to the community.

      by Percheronwoman on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:51:07 PM PDT

    •  Have someone else post it for you

      It's a technicality, and I'm sure some would object, but hey.

      Rules are rules. :)

      by cskendrick on Sun May 29, 2005 at 08:40:53 AM PDT

  •  What if you give a fake address?

    I mean, no one knows, do they?  Fuck 'em.

    by keirdubois on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:52:07 PM PDT

    •  They have their

      vays....

      by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:57:14 PM PDT

      •  But...

        ...say you're at a public cafe or library or Kinko's or you're on wi-fi?

        by keirdubois on Sun May 29, 2005 at 04:20:13 PM PDT

    •  Not an expert on hacking

      but I think they were talking about tracking down this user's IP address and figuring out his location.  Clayton's comments pretty much hinted that he had already done so.  I'm not sure that sort of hacking, and then tracking down the user off-line, is even legal.  I don't know what this guy was referring to with the "using AOL addresses won't help you," but presumably he is claiming to be able to access AOL customer accounts despite their privacy policy.  Again, not sure about the legality of that.

      Whatever the threats meant, and regardless of his ability to carry them out, a Director of the website sure as hell shouldn't have been making them, and it's telling that other commenters didn't immediately call his ass to task for that.

      by GN1927 on Sat May 28, 2005 at 11:04:33 PM PDT

      •  Not to mention,

        if Clayton does in fact have access to AOL customer account information via illicit means and is threatening its customers with this information, I can guarantee you AOL, which (at least used to) required bona fide warrants to release customer information, wouldn't be too pleased about that shit.

        by GN1927 on Sat May 28, 2005 at 11:13:40 PM PDT

      •  Huh?

        but presumably he is claiming to be able to access AOL customer accounts despite their privacy policy.

        What? Are you sane?

        PRESUMABLY?

        I know exactly one person that works at AOL and I would have to get my cardfile to remember his name.

        Don't say stuff like this, it's just nonsense.

        by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:18:48 AM PDT

        •  It was clear that I was speculating in my post

          and in the subject of the comment I admitted my lack of expertise.  But thank you for clearing up the situation.  Namecalling wasn't necessary.

          by GN1927 on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:39:20 AM PDT

          •  You're welcome

            Using an IP address to determine someone's location is imprecise, but can be done. Furthermore, it's not considered hacking even by the most stringent of standards.

            
            For a quick exercise, go to whatismyip.com, then take your IP address and search on ARIN. This is the kind of information attainable. Oftentimes it includes geographic information. (if you don't trust me, simply visit the site and use "24.98.221.222". You'll see it's Comcast Cable, Atlanta.

            My comment about AOL addresses was more technically focused. AOL and some larger providers use servers that cache, or accelerate delivery of pages to the user. That means that the IP information Scoop collects is often the same for many different users. This makes it harder to discern one user from another.

            
            My comment, which I have strong reason to believe the mystery poster would understand correctly, means that there are other identifying traits besides IP address that the poster has. Using these traits we can determine the person that is violating our terms.

            
            I certainly hope you didn't understand my questioning of your sanity to be 'namecalling', but after you accused me of breaking the law I think it's an appropriate response. Presumably means "very likely to be but not certain". That's a pretty strong indictment of an illegal action based on MKS's (incorrect) expansion of my comment (without clarification) and a quart of special sauce.

            by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 08:55:39 PM PDT

            •  Presumably means reasonably

              inferred from the statement.  The very title of my comment was "I am no expert on hacking."  A response would have necessitated nothing more than a technical explanation of your comment.  Thanks very much for providing it; no thanks for calling me a name and now declaring that "questioning your sanity" isn't namecalling.

              I'll join in the non-name calling and tell you that you have a bit of an attitude problem.

              by GN1927 on Mon May 30, 2005 at 01:21:56 PM PDT

      •  From what I remember about AOL's IP addresses

        the IP address you are using is their server's IP.  Perhaps that applies to their dial-up and not their broadband service though.  

        I know that you can use Norton's Internet security to trace the location of a IP.  I've done that before when people were doing port scans.

        Nevertheless, that these Red State jackholes are contemplating is nothing short of harassment and, depending upon what they choose to do, could get them in hot water with the law.  

        Now, if you're going to troll Red State, just do it at home and not at work and you won't have to worry about them discovering who your employer is.

        by LionelEHutz on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:14:37 AM PDT

•  Privacy?

  It's their website.  Their rules.  If you don't like it, go elsewhere.  I don't have much of a problem with this; they owe you nothing that you didn't sign.

  by Adam B on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:49:37 PM PDT

  •  Their rules

    but those rules promise confidentiality.....so if they have an obligation to honor those promises or change their represenataions....

    by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:52:55 PM PDT

    •  It's a written representation

      and if they violate it then it could be argued all those online agreements are null and void by precedent.

      I do think their violation of that would be actionable.

      by peeder on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:28:27 PM PDT

    •  not to be obvious...

      But why exactly would we expect a blog run by members of a party that doesn't believe rules apply to them.. would follow any at all?

      What Clayton posted is the living embodiment of everything that dems have been saying about the GOP for the last few years... that you can't trust them to obey their own rules, and if you get to be to bothersome they will just stifle you....and if that doesn't work, threats.

      He just made everything said about republicans TRUE with this little stunt.

      by skippythebox on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:43:32 PM PDT

  •  Well, perhaps you are right on one level

    but I think from what I read in this diary, this sounded like a veiled threat.

    Is that okay with you in your book?  Just wondering.

    From my experience, I can tell you that having people come after you on the internet is very scary.  I don't think we want this kind of society. I don't, anyway, and appreciate being warned, although I don't read Freep or Redstate very often.

    by Percheronwoman on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:53:10 PM PDT

    •  The issue is that they have promised

      in writing that they will keep the posters' information confidential.  And, although I generally agree with most of acbonin's analysis, I cannot agree here.

       

      by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:56:20 PM PDT

      •  Well

        I don't agree all that much with Adma's analysis, he is bright of course.

        This is no exception. He is dead wrong.

        by Armando on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:09:30 PM PDT

        •  I know,

          and my Diary may have sounded a little snotty, but folks those guys can bite.....

          In reality, I believe it is a hollow threat and they just think it is funny to threaten such stuff.  If they followed through, they would be screwed....

          by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:15:22 PM PDT

    •  I saw what happened....

      on a Yahoo political chat room site to a woman who was a liberal Democrat. (This was during the last couple of years of the Clinton presidency.) That was like saying, "Hi, I'm Satan and I'm here to take your SOUL" to these folks.   She wouldn't back down for anyone, and they posted her name, address, sent letters to her employer, etc.  Never before had I realized the extent of hatred the rightwingers have toward liberals.  
      

      by Margot on Sat May 28, 2005 at 11:50:55 PM PDT

      •  How did they get her info from a Yahoo chat room?

        was she using her own name instead of a handle, and did she have a personal web page with her info? Otherwise, I don't understand how they could trace her.  

        That said, Yahoo logs your IP when you participate in their message boards.

        by LionelEHutz on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 06:17:40 AM PDT

        •  She taught

          at a state university. She mentioned what she taught, and where.  Someone went to the school's website, I guess, and deduced which person she was, or they must have, anyway.  Pretty scary.

          by Margot on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 04:12:11 PM PDT

  •  I think it's extremely inappropriate

    They basically threatened a poster with off-line harassment for doing nothing more than posting information which doesn't toe their political party line.  

    If they are going to engage in that sort of activity, they need to provide warning to their website users to that effect.  

    I posted a few comments on a Congressional Black Caucus thread there and was neither banned nor attacked, but was engaged by a few commenters who vigorously disagreed with me, respectfully for the most part.  I guess I was lucky.  I won't be visiting this website again and giving them the satisfaction of the additional page view counts.

    by GN1927 on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:08:02 PM PDT

    •  Once again

      hey basically threatened a poster with off-line harassment

      I did no such thing, nor do I have an interest in ever doing so.

      by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:20:20 AM PDT

      •  Yes, you did

        Or your anonymous life will get decidedly less anonymous.

        Your words, not mine.  If you didn't mean what this statement clearly says, good, you need to state that.  Most people will get pissed off and overstate something from time to time.  

        by GN1927 on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:44:32 AM PDT

        •  If you have a question about what I said

          Then you should ask it. Not one of you has done so yet, in this thread. However I see a whole bunch of people spun up about lots of things I DIDN'T say.

          by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:25:27 PM PDT

          •  Well again, thank you for explaining

            what you meant by your comments.  Although I'm a little confused about your indignation over my (I think, reasonable) interpretation, thank you for clearing things up.

            by GN1927 on Mon May 30, 2005 at 11:30:33 AM PDT

  •  Sheesh Adam

    They have a stated policy of confidentiality.

    You think that is not enforceable?

    Well you would be wrong.

    by Armando on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:08:30 PM PDT

    •  okay

      didn't realize the policy was so explicit.  I take it back. They suck.

      by Adam B on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:20:07 PM PDT

  •  You do not need a written contract

    to become contractually bound.  The legal doctrine that would apply here would be promissory estoppel--which all lawyers will remember from their Bar review courses.  Also, available is of course the theory of fraud.

    by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:09:12 PM PDT

  •  Their Rules

    From RedState.org FAQ

    
    You want my address?

    Your information will never be shared outside of RedState. In fact, your address isn't required at all - but we encourage you to share it. From time to time RedState will inform its users of events, get togethers, or other opportunities in your area. You can always opt-out at any time.

    It would seem that their rules don't apply to them.

    Of course, being uncomfortable with any site which imposes a dogma going in, I would be very uncomfortable with this rule on its face.

    Posting Rules

    A little clarification is in order. Pursuant to the mission statement, this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning. You may or may not get a warning -- it depends on how harried the moderators are. If you are coming from a non-conservative, non-Republican context, you are still welcome here, but you must respect the site's stated purpose.

    In other words, you are welcome here, unless you disagree with me, at which point I will threaten you with my technological brillance.

    At the risk of repeating myself, what a load of crap.
    

    If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 12:32:55 AM PDT

    •  They give themselves an open window

      "Won't be shared OUTSIDE of Red State".

      But they can post your particulars on their heavily-trafficked site til the cows come home.

      by cskendrick on Sun May 29, 2005 at 08:43:03 AM PDT

•  asdf

  They're Brown Shirts....As I said elswhere today, why pay ANY attention to a site where they quote the WaTimes and the Weekly Standard as if they told the truth?

  by caseynm on Sat May 28, 2005 at 09:53:17 PM PDT

•  That's one of the benefits...

  of using my own name. Everything is out in the open. No one can try to blackmail or cow me with a threat like that, because I have no anonymity to shatter.

  Works for me; though I understand many people cannot do it, for reasons of discretion.

  Pesky thing, that discretion. So glad I haven't any.

  : )

  by Maryscott OConnor on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:05:01 PM PDT

  •  That's one of the reasons

    I admire you...

    I should just give up reading their blog...but they do have some interesting things to say.  Yet, the heavy-handedness of this type of thing is quite disappointing and quite telling.  

    by MKS on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:11:57 PM PDT

  •  You have nothing to fear

    because you are an attractive white woman.

    by peeder on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:29:38 PM PDT

    •  Natch.

      Should I be abducted, no doubt it would be all over every news program across the country...

      Until they found out I am a radical leftist agitator...

      by Maryscott OConnor on Sun May 29, 2005 at 12:06:14 AM PDT

  •  Yes, but is your bathtub online yet?

    OMG, OMG, OMG, I think I just saw Clayton's bathtub, a quilt his wife made on their bed in their lavendar-walled bedroom, their kids' toys.  OMG, OMG, OMG.

    WHY do people put so much stuff online?  Just cuz you want to sell a house...  I'm not even GOOD at finding stuff on the web.  OMG, OMG, OMG.

    I feel so... soiled.  Must purify self and then have unholy communion of coffee and cinnamon doughnut.

    Oh geez.  Now THAT's on the web.

    Anybody who wants to track me down just has to Google that and start checking Dunkins at dawn.  OMG, OMG, OMG.

    Two doughnuts.  Go ahead and stare.  TWO.  And then I'm changing my name to Paris Hilton so they'll have to filter out so much crap they'll never find me.  Or my little dog, too.

    OMG, OMG, OMG...

    by KateCrashes on Sun May 29, 2005 at 02:31:52 AM PDT

    •  Yeah she's quite handy

      She does great work on quilts. If you need one, let me know and she'll give a deal on it.

      By the way, you've now done far more work at investigating me, than I did the original poster. Congratulations.

      Aren't my kids CUTE!!

      by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:22:19 AM PDT

  •  And we appreciate that, BTW

    Thanks.

    by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:36:51 AM PDT

    •  Sarcasm?

      I have nothing to hide. I'm certainly not posting at redstate to stir up trouble; it's not my style and I haven't the patience for it.

      I'm pretty sure krempasky, doverspa, trevino, thomas and aaronvb will confirm that. I have no hidden agenda, and I do my level best to behave "appropriately" at redstate.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:18:40 AM PDT

      •  No, it wasn't meant that way

        I meant it seriously. Sorry it was terse; I was trying to get packed to do some travel today.

        by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:27:27 PM PDT

•  the more I read things like this

  the more convinced I am that the term "political correctness" amounts to little more than projection among right-wingers desperate to protect their threatened egos. Hell, these people practically wrote the book on PC - orthodoxy will be enforced at all times.

  by James Benjamin on Sat May 28, 2005 at 10:27:29 PM PDT

•  Red(comunist?)State, WWSD?

  What would Stalin do?

  by Mike S on Sat May 28, 2005 at 11:18:39 PM PDT

•  Rightwingers are pathological liars

  It doesn't surprise me that they will violate one on their own guarantees without batting an eye.  

  Rightwingers find it easier to lie than to breathe.  When something isn't going quite their way, they won't think twice about throwing away their honor and integrity to make it come out OK.

  The Bush adminstration has shown us that, ad nauseum.  And these Red Staters are his cult, so they play by the same rules.

  Morality means nothing to rightwingers.  Honor means nothing.  Truth means nothing.  

  Power is all.  

  And for that, they have to be driven off a cliff.

  Stay tuned, it's going to happen very soon.

  by chumley on Sat May 28, 2005 at 11:33:55 PM PDT

•  Why would you even bother...

  These are people who have been advocating cultural purges ala Stalin or Mao ZeDong.  They want to name out professors for not toeing the State party line.  They want to purge libraries of books which don't validate their world view.  To them dissent is treason.

  Visiting StalinState.Org and especially posting there is just asking for trouble.

  Don't waste your time.  If you need a hobby take up crochet or knitting.

  by Steve4Clark on Sat May 28, 2005 at 11:36:09 PM PDT

•  All hail Clayton

  This is why we should all fear and honor Clayton.

  I am constantly amazed at the mentality of idiots. Clayton tells the lemmings he is God, and can perform miracles. Lacking any empirical evidence that Clayton is in fact God, lacking any empirical evidence that Clayton can, in fact, perform said miracles, the lemmings drop to their knees.

  What a load of crap.

  If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

  by superscalar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 12:05:00 AM PDT

•  Punchline: Wagar's flattering Kos with imitation

  I-M-I-T-A-T-I-O-N, not intimidation in one instance at least.  

  The RedStaters wanted to recommend diaries.  Woo-hoo!  What'll they think of next?  Being RedState's technocrat, Clayton set out to find a way. It wasn't easy, as he explained at Kuro5hin.org:

  Several have asked for Recommended Diaries code from the usual suspects. No reply has been given, for whatever reason.

  But finally, he went to the Source of Good Ideas -- Kos:

  Please enjoy the following code, meant to behave 'almost exactly' like the recommended diaries code on Daily Kos:

  http://www.redstate.org/redstate/reco_diaries_0.1.tgz

  Awwwwwww.  And I'm sure he sent Markos a thank you note!

  Meanwhile, back at RedState, I found this very interesting sign-off on a Clayton post about the FEC's notice of proposed rulemaking on regulating Internet communications (BTW, RedState's a 527):

  Note to FEC: Clayton Wagar maintains the Redstate.org webserver, and does so completely as a volunteer effort. This post was created and posted from a computer owned by a Fortune 50 company, and the data resides on a server I do not own.

  You'll have noticed a Clayton remark in the posts MKS pasted in up top:  

  I know where you've been. Who you work for, and who's network you're using at what time of day to post to this site.

  I suppose he could just mean that being the RedState technocrat he has the IP address of the person who's annoyed him and has matched it with that of someone already banned from the site.  OR he could be threatening to expose on-the-job blogging to the person's employer.

  Naw, couldn't be the latter, could it?  Not when Clayton's gone public with his own blogging habits.  He's probably just warning the person s/he could get banned again and might feel depressed about it.  That's probably the "it" Clayton means by "Unless you feel like 'bringing it on'" -- bringing on a bout of post-banning clinical depression.  What a caring guy.

  Thing is, if Clayton did mean something else, like causing the person to be harassed in violation of RedState's published posting rules, he'd be well advised to get out the old caulking gun and fill the gaps in his own armor.

  As a Googlenaut, I wouldn't even make Susan G's Gannonbusters farm team, but in a matter of about 10 minutes tonight, I had Clayton's home address and phone number, pix of his wife and sons, his genealogy, and his ham radio license number.  Not that I wanted any of that.  I was just looking around to see if any complaints had been filed officially or posted bloggially about him.

  Geez, maybe I shouldn't post this at all.  If somebody toiletpapers his house, the FBI will track me down.  But I promise, I'm not going anywhere near Georgia.  I'm not sending Clayton any funny e-mails or making any funny phone calls or sending his wife a card on her upcoming birthday.  That would be against MY family values, and I take them very seriously.

  I'm not even going to register on RedState and blogify him til he bans me, too.  

  But I do think it would be prudent for him to state more clearly if all he intends to do to the RedState member called "Deny Bolton" is to ban him/her faster than usual because his/her IP's matched that of a previously banned person.  As written, Clayton's remarks are ironically Boltonish -- that is to say, bullying.  And don't most people want to bully a bully right back?  

  :::sigh:::

  When do the grown-ups come on duty?

  by KateCrashes on Sun May 29, 2005 at 01:15:18 AM PDT

  •  You are so cute.

    You're really in a lather about me, aren't you?

    by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:25:57 AM PDT

  •  Recommended Diaries

    Recommended diaries is a GREAT IDEA! It fits naturally with the Scoop software, which was in use before I ever came to know Redstate

    .

    Yes, Kos and Rusty seem reluctant to give up the code. Others have asked, besides me. The nice thing about Scoop is that it's pretty easy to code up features like that yourself - so that's what I did, and in the spirit of Open Source Software I gave back to the community. GAVE BACK. You know, like us dirty Republicans NEVER do.

    And, by the way, Armando commented that he liked our Redhot feature. I offered to give Kos the code. No strings.

    Why is that a big deal?

    by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:30:29 AM PDT

  •  Anonymity

    Kate,

    I'm not trying to be anonymous. That's the point. I have nothing to be anonymous about. I even use my real name here. Should I be concerned about you stalking me?

    As I said before, it seems you've put about 20 minutes into finding out a lot about me. That's about 18 more minutes than I investigated the poster in question.

    This hole you dig gets deeper. You're manifesting the traits you're trying to project onto me. And luckily it's all on display for the world to see.

    by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:33:57 AM PDT

    •  Not at all, Clayton

      I was hoping for the best, but because your comments on RedState weren't even slightly clear as to intent, I wanted to learn more about where you were coming from.  

      I don't expect RedState to bow to a troll swarm any more than I expect dKos to.  Controls are necessary, but so is transparency and restraint.  The published policies on RedState reflect transparency and restraint, but your comments on that thread, whatever your intent, were not in the same spirit at all.

      So what was the history of how RedState performs?  That's what I wanted to know, but the other stuff that gushed out of Google left me amazed.  And like I said, I'm lousy at web-searching.  The experience has given me a lot to think about -- and not in terms of you or RedState, in terms of larger issues.

      And you, if you've got anything to think about here, it's how you articulate RedState policy when you want a poster to "go away."  Thugging it up undercuts your mission and does nothing to maintain order.  

      If you want to act in the spirit of RedState's published policies and you're just not the greatest when it comes to hyperspeed wordsmithing, get their authors to help you craft a little policing language.  

      It's perfectly possible to let a poster know banning is likely and attempts to return to RedState under other names are likely to fail without sounding like you mean to abuse your authority, which, whether you want to see it or not, is what the words you posted do convey.

      by KateCrashes on Sun May 29, 2005 at 12:26:54 PM PDT

      •  Slightly Clear

        Kate,

        The one thing that I haven't heard from this entire group is a question, of me, about my intent. What MKS did was attempt to throw back the light of day on a comment that I made to a gum-on-my-shoe irritation at Redstate. Instead, (s)he put a grow lamp on my comments and fabricated lots of stuff that I didnt' say. MKS has a grudge, and is using Daily Kos Diaries to slap Redstate around. Not too hard to see the beef there

        Secondly, your response by posting personal (but not private) information about me and acting hysterical after a Google search is exactly the kind of thing that undercuts your position. You didn't even have a dog in this fight and you chose to air my personal information in the name of preemptive warfare. Instead it comes across as petty, childish, and just a little creepy. Bad choice. I wish this latest comment is the one you led with, as it's much more in line with the conversation we should be having.

        Next, the poster in question has been asked, and warned, several times before about using multiple names. Additionally they've been notified about their behavior and violation of our terms. Their response is to continue. My comment was intended to send a stronger message that the obfuscation they employ to remain unknown to us is not perfect, and that I will be diligent in my responsibility to maintain the health, performance, and proper utilization of Redstate resources. That means that I will use information available to me (legally, and within the terms of our privacy agreement) to determine the real identity of a user of our system (legally, and with no effort to harass or coerce). I will make every effort to contact that individual at a known good email address and affirm that they understand their violation of our terms. And at no time is it necessary to divulge personal information to do so.

        MKS chose not to contact me about the meaning or intent of my words. Nor did any of the other several dozen commenters in this thread. Instead, I was accused of being a stalker, hacker, thief, and liar. You made fun of the fact that I posted photos of my home in order to sell my house (people do that now... it's called marketing). MKS chummed the waters and you guys dutifully circled and attacked - and looked quite the fools in doing so.

        But you know what nobody did? Nobody asked me what I meant. Nobody thought it important enough to get clarification. The only thing that was important was the fact that an 'unclear' statement by a Redstate Director was ready for action.

        You guys played the part. 24 hours later there's plenty of coin in Kos's purse and lots of you slept soundly knowing Redstate was the evil villan. I say fantastic.

        Your comment about "how Redstate performs" and "gushing out of Google" seem tangent to me. Please explain what you mean.

        by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:48:39 PM PDT

  •  By the way, Kate

    I'm going to take the high ground and let the whole Google-searching-orgy thing go, even though I think considering the venue it's pretty close to the line of harassment. Nothing you've stated is not publicly available - but it's clearly taunting.

    
    But the part about implementing Recommended Diaries and and giving it back to the Scoop community.. Seriously, what's your beef there? There are only a very few Scoop sites that have decent traffic, and we have to learn from each other. It's not a large user base (counted as number of sites).

    
    Furthermore, the disclaimer you quote from my FEC post was satire - and was designed to fit into the subject of my entire post. (I'll wait here while you go back and read it, and figure that out).

    
    We've had a nice discussion down thread already but this post does nothing to set the stage for a serious exchange. It was written in the style of someone who never expected me to see your words. Once I started participating, your posts became much more engaging and worthwhile. I've given you lots of time this evening, and made a serious effort to answer your questions candidly and thoroughly. In the same way, I'd like to know if you would have made these posts if you knew in advance I would see them.

    
    Something to think about.

    by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 09:43:59 PM PDT

•  A troll for the wingers

  is someone who tells the truth. One line of criticism against Bush and you are banned, I suppose? Thankfully liberals are more open to debate.

  by Joe B on Sun May 29, 2005 at 01:29:33 AM PDT

•  Correction requested

  RedState is threatening to violate the confidentaility of posters they deem trolls.

  I did not threaten to violate any current confidentiality. Your statement is false.

  And worse they have threatened to track the user's private information such as his or her place of employment,

  I'm making no such threat. That information is collected by every web server in the world when you visit. There is a great deal of information that is learned and inferred by IP addresses.
  Furthermore, Scoop (the software Redstate and Kos use) collects a good deal more information about you when you signup, and make comments.

  I made no threat to expose that information. Period.

  other sites frequented et. al. and post them on RedState.

  I made no such claim, and your statement is completely false. I have no way of doing so, and could no do so if I wanted. I would appreciate a correction.

  The poster in question continues to sign up and disrupt Redstate. The poster may enjoy anonymity to do so.

  If anonymity is precious to trolls, then I may ask the other Directors to allow certain information to be exposed to our readership. However why would we do this without a change in our policy and notification first?

  Your handwaving works well over here, MKS. Have fun with it.

  by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:12:20 AM PDT

  •  Query

    Clayton, if you "...did not threaten to violate any current confidentiality...", then what is the meaning of the comment:

    "Or your anonymous life will get decidedly less anonymous"?  

    I certainly would read that comment to mean that information about the poster would be made public, and find it offensive.

    by Wayward Wind on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:43:03 AM PDT

    •  You're the first to ask

      Thank you very much. You'll find my answer upthread, to Kate.

      by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:49:30 PM PDT

  •  No correction will be given

    You threatened the "anonymity" of posters you deem trolls. Case closed.  

    As you will note, you have not been banned from this site--and not even troll-rated.  

    The folks at dKos are for the most part very nice people.  The RedState people have an authoritarian and fundamentalist streak that is not becoming.

    by MKS on Sun May 29, 2005 at 08:48:27 AM PDT

    •  Oh my dear MKS

      It's Thomas you should be mad at, not me. He's really the one that sent you off into oblivion. But since I'm the easy target for you, I guess I'll bite.

      You threatened the "anonymity" of posters you deem trolls. Case closed.

      For someone who accuses others of being authoritarian, that sure sounds like the old pot and kettle thing, huh?

      As you will note, you have not been banned from this site--and not even troll-rated.

      I've not been troll rated because I'm not trolling. If I were banned from the site, I wouldn't presume to create another name and 'try again'. Furthermore, it would take a heck of a lot to get banned around here, and I think every single comment I've made has been not only apropos to the question at hand but chock full of content.

      The folks at dKos are for the most part very nice people.  The RedState people have an authoritarian and fundamentalist streak that is not becoming.

      As they say, everyone has an opinion. I've found that every group of people in life (be it politics, religion, race, geography, or anything else) has good folks and bad folks. I have many very close friends with which I have heated political arguments, but we know how to turn off the spigot and have fun, work, and exist together in most other ways. I have no doubt there are nice folks at dKos, but there are mean ones too. For all the harassment of me on this thread, I only heard one person ask for clarification of my position, and it sure wasn't you. But everyone was quick to pile on your Diary. Certainly nobody stood up and called foul when I was getting kicked.

      You took my words - MY WORDS - and made them something completely false, without seeking clarification first. You accused Redstaters of wanting to 'hurt' Kossacks. You stated that I would track reader's other visited sites, and post them to Redstate.

      Do you know what I meant, MKS? I meant that I would block network access to Redstate for the mystery poster's IP space. That's it. I would block his employer's addresses, I would block his clients addresses, and i would block any other addresses necessary to make him go away. Nefarious, huh?

      I don't really expect an apology or correction from you. I fully expect you to die on that hill, with your still unshattered rose-colored glasses still duct taped to your face. And I'm glad this thread exists, to demonstrate the 'kind hearted Kossacks' and their response to your ignorant interpretation of my words.

      You know, I was originally mad with KateCrashes but at least she has the decency to engage me in a discussion. You, on the other hand, have set your sights on Redstate as the object of your energy, and provide the elegant and all encompasing "case closed" as your defense. Maybe you're still mad about this little triumph.

      
      In any case, my responses throughout this thread provide plenty of clarification as to my meaning, intent, and desires. Should you decide to look through them, and then having done so understand them, you'll realize that your analysis is wrong. A correction is required, but not expected.

      by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 09:26:49 PM PDT

      •  Clayton

        Would you object to my posting my e-mail exchange with you on this topic?  As you know, the position you are taking now has "evolved" considerably.

        Let us revisit your words:

        Or your anonymous life will get decidedly less anonymous.

        I know where you've been. Who you work for, and who's network you're using at what time of day to post to this site.

        You did not say that you would block their addresses. Let's us look at Kos's stated policy.  Here is Kos's policy:

        Privacy Policy

        Daily Kos will not give out your information to any third parties. Period.

        Your comments above do not compare favorably.  You have continually changed your position here, qualifying and attempting to explain your comments--and it is a good thing you are backing away from your prior comments.  In the interest of full disclosure, I would think you would have no problem with my posting my e-mail exhange with you on this topic.  I look forward to your prompt response.

        And, yes, Clayton, I have clearly disclosed I was banned....

         

        by MKS on Sun May 29, 2005 at 09:57:52 PM PDT

      •   I e-mailed you BEFORE

        I posted my Diary. The response was not to clarify anything....Do you object to my posting that e-mail exchange?

        by MKS on Sun May 29, 2005 at 10:21:02 PM PDT

      •  I would most certainly question your intent

        The one thing that I haven't heard from this entire group is a question, of me, about my intent

        If I had know that you were a member of Kos, and that you would contribute to this diary, I would have most certainly waited to question that intent, but I don't believe my conclusion would change. Your words here.

        I know where you've been. Who you work for, and who's network you're using at what time of day to post to this site. Unless you feel like 'bringing it on', go the heck away.

        So in this statement you threaten to 'bring it on' unless this person goes away.

        Do you know what I meant, MKS? I meant that I would block network access to Redstate for the mystery poster's IP space. That's it. I would block his employer's addresses, I would block his clients addresses, and i would block any other addresses necessary to make him go away. Nefarious, huh?

        In your paragraph above you imply that your meaning of 'bringing it on' merely means the blocking of one or more IP addresses to affect your solution, that solution being, making this person go away.

        Which then begs the question, what is the purpose of the threat? In one sentence you, in effect, say 'if you don't go away, I will make you go away', and then explain this first sentence by saying, by way of your own explanation that 'I was just telling him that I would make him go away'?

        This is where you lose me, and the more I try to interpret both your statement, and your explanation of that statement, the kookier it sounds. You want this person to go away, so you are telling this person that if he does not go away, you will make him go away???

        Again I ask, why the threat? Why not just make the person go away, as this was the desired solution anyway.

        This is why we should all fear and honor Clayton

        There are two phrases that come to mind here.

        • If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
          
        • What a load of crap.

        If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

        by superscalar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 10:25:29 PM PDT

        •  Good point

          about not needing to threaten if all he wanted to do is ban someone....

          by MKS on Sun May 29, 2005 at 10:43:37 PM PDT

  •  You just did it again, Clayton

    If anonymity is precious to trolls, then I may ask the other Directors to allow certain information to be exposed to our readership.

    It's the word choices:  "...allow certain information to be exposed to our readership."  That sounds like you intend to enforce "exposure" arbitrarily against those you don't like rather than moving to reduce or end anonymity at RedState.  

    And it also sounds like you expect exposure "to our readership" to accomplish something.  What?  What's step 2 in this plan?  

    If it's that posters who must stand behind their words will post more responsibly or that those reading posts they don't like will be aware that the writer has been banned before or that those who have been banned before know they cannot keep returning to troll some more, fine.  

    But if it's that "our readership" will use the information you "expose" to harass or harm someone you've picked out for that treatment while you sit back and enjoy your imagined "deniability," not fine. Very, very unfine.

    One bit of good news in your post kicking off this thread -- what sounded in your responses to "Deny Bolton" as fait accompli is actually a hypothetical, right?  You're thinking about whether a change in policy would be good for RedState and will seek concurrence and public posting of any new policy, right?  That's very cool.  But your comments to "Deny Bolton" reflected nothing of the sort.

    There's a little fable about the blind men and the elephant.  In it, blind men who know nothing of elephants are given the chance to encounter one and file up to explore it with their hands.  

    • Ah, an elephant is like a boa constrictor, says the man at the trunk.  

    • Ah, an elephant is a little broom or switch, says the man at the tail (somehow missing the butt the tail's attached to -- hey, this is only a fable).  

    • Ah, an elephant is a massive wall, says the man at the elephant's side.  

    • Ah, an elephant is like a sturdy oak, says the man at one of the elephant's legs.  

    • Ah, why do I have to put up with humans, says the elephant (no, wait, different fable).

    So this pre-ADA fable's point is that we none of us have the full picture and have to base our assessments on the piece of the picture we've got.  

    You sound astonished by the way your words have been interpreted in this diary.

    But consider whether the way you choose to phrase things delivers only a tail or a leg and not the fullness of what you have in mind.  People must assess your meaning based on what piece they get of your larger internal -- and unarticulated -- picture.  They can't read your mind.

    See?  I'm still hoping for the best, Clayton.  I'm hoping that this is all a classic "failure to communicate," not an exercise in thuggery.  

    But while you protest our interpretations of your words, you turn around and post more words that are just as... well... creepy.  I truly do hope you don't mean it that way at all.

    by KateCrashes on Sun May 29, 2005 at 12:58:36 PM PDT

    •  Good gracious

      I have been working on a serious of policy changes for Redstate for several months now. This is all in line with several goals, some of which are:

      • Our mission for transparency as a 527 organization
        
      • Our active defense of bloggers and Internet sites with the FEC
        

      
      These two goals are often not easy to square together. For example, many forum and bulletin board systems present the IP, or portion of an IP, of the poster. It's not uncommon. In fact, the editors and Directors of Redstate can see the IP address used for every comment that's posted at the site. In this way, we are able to determine if a poster is using duplicate accounts to troll, as well as other useful functions. However, we are concerned about how the FEC would use this information in a world where the freedom of Internet speech was constrained. It's a difficult choice to make.

      Now, to the present stiuation. Hypothetically, if the Directors of Redstate.org, Inc. made a decision to begin posting the IP address of posted comments (To be very clear: we have made no such decision), we would make a policy change and notify our readership through every means available. This would allow readers and guests to make an informed decision about their participation going forward. Furthermore, this policy change would not be retroactive. I think it would clearly be wrong to post data collected under an old policy retroactively.

      Would this policy change the behavior of our mystery poster? I don't know - but what I do know is that it would make him "decidedly less anonymous". (Let's back into that sentence. By publicly posting the IP address, the poster would unquestionably be 'without identifying information'.) Perhaps that would help, perhaps not. But by exposing it to our readership I get the help of many hands of people who can help me police the site by correlating the information with previous posters.

      A policy such as that would also have consequences to the participation of some people at the site - as they value their anonymity and would probably not stay at Redstate if their IP was posted everytime.

      "Allowing certain information" has nothing to do with selective enforcement of any policy with regard to a specific individual, and can't be reasonably construed that way. And furthermore in the context of my entire post my words are even more clear.

      Stunningly, you selectively quote a sentence from my response but conveniently leave out the next sentence, which provides context:
      

      If anonymity is precious to trolls, then I may ask the other Directors to allow certain information to be exposed to our readership. However why would we do this without a change in our policy and notification first?

      Perhaps you're not aware of how privacy policies and such work, but they almost always work on a 'go forward' basis - meaning that any changes take place as the policy takes effect. At that point a participant can make an informed choice.

      Your last point concerning kicking off a conversation about privacy policies, behaviors, etc. - You've got one thing completely correct - this is a failure to communicate. Oxford (1) says communicate is to 'share or exchange information, news, ideas'. But what MKS did was to scurry off with my words, post them over here, and was designed to elicit a completely different result. A result that was achieved, by the way. I would honestly absolutely love any and all input concerning our policies - but I'm a traditionalist - the communication has to be approached with goodwill. This is, sadly not the case here, and I'm not the guilty party. Think of all the energy wasted here and then think about how much less energy it would have taken to ask a question.

      Finally, you present two choices as 'step two' for such a hypothetical policy change. I've outlined the intended outcome, which is pretty much identical to your first choice.

      Your second choice, which is swarm harassment, is exactly what's happened to me on this thread. MKS plays the part of the king of denial. And it's very, very sad.

      by cwagar on Sun May 29, 2005 at 08:44:23 PM PDT