Skip to main content

If you go to the DKos FAQ you'll find, near the very top of the long list of answers to frequently asked questions, a block quoted paragraph that explains the purpose or mission of this forum and who should be it's participants. It's kind of a mission statement. Just a quick paragraph to let new users and visitors know the reason for it's existence who should consider belonging and contributing here. It's not complicated...as a matter of fact it's elegantly simple.

This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.

It basically says that all wings of the Democratic party and their respective views are welcome here at DKos...Left, Center and Right are all legitimate factions of the party and have an important role to play in the ultimate purpose of DKos which is to elect more Democrats. One can't help but respect the aims stated in this Mission Statement  as they are reasonable, inclusive and reflect the best of what makes the Democratic party just plain better than the Republican party. Unfortunately this site bears little resemblance to what's described there.
(before you attack read the whole diary please...)
That "mission statement" type paragraph sounds great and would lead one to think that DKos encourages discussions of viewpoints from all facets of the Democratic spectrum. It would further lead you to think that as long as you are a Democrat of any stripe, are willing to try to reform the status quo and have as your goal to elect more Democrats that your ideas and views would be welcome here.
WRONG!
In my experience that's just not the way it operates here.
I've found that if you assert an opinion that isn't endorsed by the main participants or regulars that seem to hang out here (probably including the opinion I am offering now), then you can and probably will be attacked, ridiculed and even censored. You can be labeled a Troll, or a Concern Troll (I think meaning you are "concerned" we aren't doing things right which seems to be considered treason), or a Freeper(?) or probably other things that I don't know about or understand. It's completely up to the discretion of these elite members to decide who is legitimate and who is a secret operator for the Republican party or something akin to that. And accordingly...anyone who says anything that goes against the grain of current DKos political correctness is liable to get Troll rated. It has happened to me several times and frankly I am confused and fascinated by the dynamic that plays out here on DKos.
I have been a Democrat longer than many of the members here have been alive. I consider myself a dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool, staunchly liberal Democrat and have been involved in Democratic politics off and on for over 20 years. I am known to my friends as a "pain in the ass" Democrat who never shuts up about politics, the state of the country or how the Republicans are ruining it. I'm proud to be a Democrat but it isn't that popular where I live which is in a pretty Conservative area in Pennsylvania. My unabashed support of President Clinton had gotten me into more than a few heated discussions with other Democrats and lots of Republicans. I am considered by those who know me as a bit over the top in my support for Democrats and my complete disdain and contempt for what has become of the Republican party. I do respect others right to disagree with my politics and am happy to discuss (or argue) differing views all day ...as long as they voted in the last election. If you don't vote I have no time for your argument because you don't matter. I have made it a rule that all the people that report to me at work get time off on election day to make sure every one of them votes.
I have canvased for votes by knocking on doors, manning the phones, given rides to the elderly to get them to the polls, contributed hundreds, even thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates over the course of my life....yet at DKos I am considered a Troll and have been attacked, ridiculed and censored here for stating my views.
And to make it even more absurd when I am called this "Troll" they seem to be intimating that I am a secret plant from the opposition party that is sent to wreak havoc on DKos by offering my "disturbing" opinions. At first I thought it was a joke but I seriously think they believe this!
Some are so suspicious of anyone who writes a diary that espouses a position in anyway critical of Democrats, for instance suggesting our rhetoric concerning a date certain to pullout was hurting our party's chances in the November election, was enough for me to be attacked by many DKos regulars and eventually censored. Censored!
I was censored for saying that we should keep our mouths shut about a date certain for withdrawal and to be careful in our rhetoric so as not to alienate Independent voters. Treason??
Fascinating and scary.

Why is this the case here at DKos? There seems to be a mechanism that creates a hierarchy of users that I think accounts for this behavior. It seems that if you write diaries that get recommended by members and especially some elite members of this site you accumulate status and power here. The more diaries of yours that are recommended the more power you accumulate until you become one of the hyper-involved "trusted users" or TU's. Once you become a TU then you have status and power.
There is no posting that says exactly how many recommends you need to become a TU but it seems simple enough to understand that if you keep saying what everyone already believes you will get recommends to your diary indicating that people agree with you,. The more people agree with you the more likely it is that you'll attain the elite and mysterious TU status and get the power. It's a self-enforcing mechanism that discourages dissent or alternative viewpoints because only by having people agree with you will allow you to gain authority.
What is that power that these users acquire? They get the power to censor the diaries of other users. They get to hide those users comments from anyone BUT the other TU's and so effectively they determine what users are allowed to read on this site. They can and do say what ideas are allowed to be discussed. If they are hiding your comments concerning an argument they disagree with then they are eliminating the basis for your argument. Simple. The Soviets used to do that.
They can alter the tags that appear on the diary so as to give an immediate bias to the reader that THEY have determined this is dangerous propaganda and should be ignored or at least understood as such.(especially if you want to get to be a TU!)
The net effect of this seems to lead to a lot of piling-on of condemnation towards a dissenting or alternate opinion. Once the opinion is deemed unacceptable there are many "me too's" and "fuck you's" that begin to appear. It's weird but it gains momentum...
I have to admit I've thrown a few right back and said some things in frustration that I'm not too proud of...but the saddest part is that there is never any real discussion. I've found there's very little interest in discussing the issue, but plenty of energy for condemning it with no discussion.
And so it goes...like the  Stanford Prison Experiment when power is given to a few belonging to a seperate group, who can exercise it over others that they consider to be misbehaving, inherently such power leads to abuses manifested as control and ultimatly punishment. Not a direct analogy but there are some similarities to the behavior. I doubt that was the intent of this site and I wonder if Kos himself  realizes this is how it has become. I have to assume he does but I've heard him say he is not in control of this site, that it is run by it's members.
I am incredibly curious to understand how a place that is designed as a forum for open discussion becomes so rife with "group think political correctness".
Somewhat encouraging is the fact that there ARE a lot of people that question the virulent Troll and Concern Troll ratings thrown around here but they are drowned out by the cacophony of negative comments and vitriol.

So I am called a Troll for expressing my opinions, a Concern Troll for expressing my concern (oddly enough) and I am accused of being a Republican rabble-rouser for thinking differently and saying so. Where are we when it is more important to agree with a party line than say what we believe? How is it healthy that just because you CAN limit speech and experssion of ideas that you should do that? Sure, DKos has the right to do whatever it wants in terms of what it allows on this site but I think the effort to bring about a consensus and ultimatly a Democratic Congress suffers when a few frame the discussion and decide what ideas will be entertained.
I thought DKos was all about reform? How is that reforming the party for the better??
I have seen members question whether something bad could be going on at DKos and ask if things are getting a little out of control with the Troll stuff. I have seen signs that some are as troubled as I am about the Troll rating epidemic and written carpet-bombing of dissenting views but that's not been the rule.
I am a Democrat and always have been. But here my legitimacy is questioned because I don't agree and say so. Doesn't that sound familiar? Why be exactly what we despise in Republicans? Why so afraid of dissent? If there are Trolls (and I'm sure there are of some kind) isn't it better to ignore them than go crazy and paranoid in trying to guard against them? Isn't that what George Bush is famous for?
You're welcome to go look through my diaries and judge for yourself whether I am a Troll or not, if they're still there.(I think there's a way to link to them but I don't really know how). I do know comments of mine were deleted and ratings were erased.  I know at least one diary was edited by a TU to assert that I was pulling something sneaky by editing one of my diaries and thus providing proof I must be a Troll.
I had changed a diary after submitting it and getting unexpectedly pummeled. I had expressed the opinion that we shouldn't say too much about Iraq withdrawal, that it could hurt us in the elections. There was an outcry because I said Sen. Kerry should "shut up" about it. Not a great choice of words. I did edit the diary in an attempt to reduce inflammatory language which people complained was in the diary. Editing the diary was suggested to me by a commenting member so people wouldn't freak out at the diary. He seemed to be saying it wasn't what I said but how I said it that caused the out-cry. So I changed the diary in an attempt to be more neighborly.
Next thing I know I was accused of pulling a fast one and lending proof I was a Troll.
I admit some diaries of mine were not backed up by links and quotes or as thorough as they should have been but I didn't think I'd spend all my time defending myself but spend some time discussing it. I thought we'd have an exchange of ideas. Then I would have a chance to flesh out the arguments more and possibly change a few minds or have mine changed by someone else's argument. I tried to adhere to the basic principles of a proper diary but I readily admit I could have done a better job at supporting my assertions.  Also I didn't really catch on as quick as some with the formatting (I'm still not very good at that) so it was difficult to add the links I was referring to that helped support or explain my ideas, especially in the beginning.
So censor me and others if you want DKos elites. I am not here just to be agreed with to gain status. I DO want to elect more Democrats. I had hoped to try and help the effort to elect Democrats and reform the party back to it's populist roots and centrist, middle and working-class values. But DKos isn't the most friendly place for Democrats as far as I'm concerned. I wish it was different. It's an amazing experiment of crossing an Internet community with Democratic political activism. But the truth, as I see it, is it could be so much more if  agreeing with the prevailing line of thought wasn't the most important thing. If elites didn't control the content that members can see and if ideas were welcomed and debated on their merits.
Democrats shouldn't attack Democrats for expressing an alternative view. That feels kinda too Republican for my taste. The Democratic party is different than Republican party in that way. We've always been like herding cats, like Will Rogers said "I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat!"
Conformity isn't a virtue but tolerance sure as hell is!
I know this diary will probably not win me many friends here but it's an honest portrayal of my feelings along with a desire to understand and possibly discuss the situation.
So please consider this assertion as not intended to provoke a visceral response from the members but rather to open an honest dialog with anyone interested in discussing it here at DKos. Please respond in a reasoned manner, refrain from attacks and vitriolic remarks if you wish to explain to me how I'm wrong. Or agree with me if you've noticed this trend too.
I will leave a tip jar (I've never done that before so I hope it's appropriate) which I think is designed to measure agreement with the supposition of a diary.

Originally posted to MrBlue on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 07:54 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I lost my TU status this weekend (10+ / 0-)

      pointing out that a comment disparaging Clinton made a valid point. My timing could have been better, in retrospect, but I experienced the same vitriol and name calling you describe, from someone who insulted my sexuality (I'm hetero, for the record, and as a long line of women including my wife and kids will attest) told me I had my "head up my ass," (I can't do that)and then told me I'd enjoy being urinated on. As you might expect, I was disturbed.
        That being said there is a validity underlying this  process. As the site gains notoriety and influence a lot of what we opine in seeming privacy can come back to haunt the site. In that respect I regret my comments but I agree there is a core group here who are the Deciders. It's not unjust, it's their site, not mine. We tend to think of the site as the property of all the users but that's a bit Quixotic.  It really can't be, otherwise it can degenerate into something like DU.  Still, it hurts to be called a troll when you know you're not one and you've done as much work or more for the Democratic Party as some of these longtimers (my own work goes back to Gary Hart's primary against Mondale).
         What I take away from it is this: it's legitimate to feel hurt by the arbitrary nature of the "troll" classification, but it's an unfortunate cost of doing business.  Get past it, and keep posting, just watch yourself a little bit. If people say inappropriate things the mission of the site can be compromised, and that's really what we're here for.

      Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

      by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:08:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You lost your TU status (5+ / 0-)

        from two troll ratings? Give me a break.

        It's not that hard to become a TU. Just make smart comments, write decent diaries, and don't drag up straw men when discussing Gore's 2000 strategery.

        Watch a movie about the irresponsible folks at the March of Dimes

        by zenbowl on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:34:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think so. (0+ / 0-)

          Anyway it doesn't matter. I'm still posting.

          Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

          by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, that's all it takes (0+ / 0-)

          None Dare Call It Stupid!

          by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:40:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  2 troll rates (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SallyCat, Ahianne, trashablanca

            hide a comment, but they don't eliminate TU status.

            Watch a movie about the irresponsible folks at the March of Dimes

            by zenbowl on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:43:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They often do (0+ / 0-)

              None Dare Call It Stupid!

              by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:52:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Zenbowl, go through my comments (0+ / 0-)

              How many troll ratings do you see?

              Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

              by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:55:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne, BobzCat

                you've only been posting since the beginning of this month. The TU formula isn't posted for the public, but it would be hard to imagine that someone who started posting in one month could have built up enough Mojo to offset troll ratings.

                For the record, I didn't think your troll-rated post was troll worthy. It wasn't smart, or accurate, but it wasn't a troll post.

                That said, you have to get used to taking some lumps around here, particularly in election season, if you bash Bill Clinton.

                Watch a movie about the irresponsible folks at the March of Dimes

                by zenbowl on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, zenbowl, I've posted for several months (0+ / 0-)

                  There are hundreds and hundreds of earlier posts that for some reason are not there when you look at my comments. I think out of all of them, one was troll-rated, and that was possibly a mistake, because everyone else rec'd it.  I have no idea where those comments went.

                  Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

                  by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:07:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  They went to Archives. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RunawayRose, mrblifil, trashablanca

                    Try checking that Search Archives box if you want to see your older comments. This isn't rocket science.

                    Who you gonna call?

                    by Ahianne on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:41:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RunawayRose

                      Thanks.

                      Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

                      by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:43:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your two recent TR'd posts (1+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SarahLee
                        Hidden by:
                        mrblifil

                        The first one "Your post is asinine", in my opinion anyway, contained some good, cogent thoughts interspersed with ad hominem attacks.  In other words, it wasn't the content of that post that got you TRd, it was the way you stated it.  You seem to have gotten ticked off at the person you were debating with and then attacked him or her while continuing to respond and debate.

                        So, I think the 3 TRs you received on that post were deserved.

                        Your second post "I don't like to be blindsided by insults", on the other hand, contained nothing worthy of a troll rating.

                        I republish the entirety of it here for the benefit of the DKos community.  I would recommend it in order to unhide it, but, as you'll see, time to do so has already expired.

                         

                        I don't like to be blindsided by insults (0+ / 2-)
                         
                        Particularly when I haven't insulted you at the outset. Evidently someone on this site likes it, though, because I've apparently lost my TU status today.  But that's beside the point.
                        My point is only this--you're in office eight years. You have eight years to actually sleep with only your wife, then you can do what you want.  That's not that a great sacrifice to make to preserve the integrity of your party.  You have to know that if you screw up, you will be screwing not only your self, not only your marriage, but your legacy. Somewhere in the back of your mind you have to know that there will be people after you who will be building their careers on what you do. It's a "party," not a soliloquy.
                        Five years ago I would have agreeed with you.  I was single then and I had the exact same view towards what Clinton did as you now espouse. Now, with two kids added, I put myself in his position and I just shake my head with disbelief.  It stuns me. Maybe that's a bizarre reaction, but I don't think so. And the fact that he may be imn a loveless--or more appropiately--sexless marriage -- doesn't impress me. Being the President is an utterly unique position. And this affair wasn't a sporadic thing--it was a continous, planned out, fully knowing affair, fraught with risk.
                        Citing what JFK or LBJ or whoever did is beside the point. That was a completely different era and the press would turn a blind eye. Same with citing "everyone in Washington." "Everyone in Washington" is not the President. Clinton knew this and disregarded it.  
                         People are allowed to make mistakes. Presidents make mistakes. But this wasn't a "mistake." It was a deliberate, repeated course of action in the face of logic and common sense to the contrary.

                        Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

                        by Dartagnan on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 10:05:44 AM EDT
                        [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                         

                        The people who TRd that comment of yours seem, to me, to have been abusing their TU status in that case.  As such, I would have recommended yours but for the fact that time has expired.

                        If anyone out there can point out anything in the Troll Rating article that merits the above post having been TRd, I'd be happy to hear and discuss it.

                        I also TRd the response to your second comment. I did it not because I disagreed with the responder (mrblifil)'s use of TRing, but due to this language:

                        While you're pondering, have another doughnut for sniffing about TU status after you dropped the ad hominem bomb first. By their deeds shall ye know them.

                        I consider that to be inflammatory in that its intent was to further raise the ire of an already clearly dejected and unhappy user.

                        I also consider it to be an ad hominem attack due to its last sentence implying that the user is a troll.  A quick review of Dartagnan's comment history reveals him or her to be an honest Kossack and not a troll.  He/she made one mistaken posting and was clearly being repetitively punished by someone who disagreed with his/her viewpoint on some of Clinton's action.

                        I tend to be wary of anyone who refers to a TR as a "doughnut" because, in my experience, it tends to be a term used almost exclusively by those who, in my opinion, abuse their TU status.

                        For those interested in my positions on TRing, please see the following comments I've made on the subject:

                        You cannot troll rate a diary

                        TRing a tip jar is malfeasance at its worst

                        your problem is your tone...

                        "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                        by Mike McL on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:19:08 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Mike McL

                          I really appreciate your taking the time to do that.

                          Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

                          by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:33:01 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Which user? (0+ / 0-)

                            I see no user called out by name in that post.  And even if a user were called out by name, what makes that an offense that merits a TR?  I can find no mention of calling out users by name in the Troll Rating article or in the Daily Kos FAQ as a troll offense.  Maybe you're referring to:

                             

                            Personal attacks on other site users, including following them from thread to thread.

                             
                            or
                             

                            Attempting to "out" the personal information of other site users. This isn't just trolling, but is expressly forbidden and will almost certainly result in immediate banning.

                             

                            If so, I cannot see a violation of either of those.

                            Regardless, what I don't get is this: who's the user being called out by name and what is the basis for that meriting a troll rating?

                            If you are unable to find any backup for that being a TR-worthy offense, then what about it makes you think it should be a TR-worthy offense?  I'm all for changing the rules if there's good reason for it.  But right now I just can't see it so I hope you can explain it further and provide either some foundational evidence or a well reasoned argument.  Thanks.

                            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                            by Mike McL on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:21:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Personal attacks (0+ / 0-)

                            You troll rate the post, not the poster, right? Therefore any untoward singling out of other users, without their permission or cooperation, is uncool. Like, for instance, using a comment to call someone out by name as an example of behavior deemed impure. I don't need that shit personally, and if you persist in directing the attention of others toward me, as if I'm an example of a bad actor, you will be responded to.

                            But right now I just can't see it so I hope you can explain it further and provide either some foundational evidence or a well reasoned argument.  Thanks.

                            This is the time honored method of finding a way to imply someone is stupid, while you're point of view is scented with lilacs. This is also known as a personal attack, along the lines of pretending to doubt someone's ability to read. I can read the FAQ as well as anybody, I don't need a guided tour given throught the prism of your own subjectivity, and I'm not making up any new rules. It is widely accepted that if I create a diary called "Mike McL-Fishmonger," or say something in a comment like "that asshole Mike McL, as evidenced <link>here</link>..." that I am attempting semi-appropriate your handle for my own purposes, in order to compromise your ability to express yourself on the site as you see fit. It's not cool, it happens quite a bit around here, and I don't like finding myself on the receiving end of it. If you have something to say to me about how I use ratings, drop me an email. I'll get right on a response to it. You betcha.

                            Link to my posts if you must, but please allow me the freedom to construct my online identity as I see fit, and allow others to come to their own conclusions, should they so desire to identify the poster, as distinct from the content of the post.

                            Foundational evidence? You are the foundational evidence, buddy. You're soaking in it.

                          •  Please see my second reply (0+ / 0-)

                            I did not realize what you were talking about when I wrote the first one.  I was talking about a sequence of events that occured in which you participated.  I ended up issuing you a TR for one of your posts in there and explained why in my above post.  I did not say "you" were anything.

                            You state this:

                             

                            But right now I just can't see it so I hope you can explain it further and provide either some foundational evidence or a well reasoned argument.  Thanks.

                            This is the time honored method of finding a way to imply someone is stupid, while you're point of view is scented with lilacs. This is also known as a personal attack, along the lines of pretending to doubt someone's ability to read.

                             

                            That is not a "time honored method" of doing anything other than demanding that someone who makes an assertion back up that assertion with facts or retract his or her statements.  It is not a personal attack because I did not state anything about you personally, I merely stated that I couldn't see the reasoning behind your argument because you didn't provide ANY references to anything that might backup your argument.

                            From the Daily Kos FAQ:

                             

                            Diarists are strongly encouraged to back up all assertions with facts (and preferably links to supporting materials) whenever possible. Use reputable sources whenever possible. If you can't find a reputable source that supports your position, then perhaps reconsider writing your diary

                             

                            I submit that this rule for diarists applies to commenters as well and that your reply lacked any links to supporting materials.  I asked for some and you attacked me personally:

                            "Foundational evidence? You are the foundational evidence, buddy. You're soaking in it."

                            Again, I state that you TR'd my comment as a retaliation for my TRing of your comment in a different thread.  If you do not retract it, I will bring this to the attention of the site administrators.  Good day.

                            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                            by Mike McL on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:51:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't submit (0+ / 0-)

                            I submit that this rule for diarists applies to commenters

                            Who died and made you the Queen of Arbitraria?

                          •  Even if not, (0+ / 0-)

                            it is not an unreasonable request or an ad hominem attack to ask someone for supporting links to an assertion they make.

                            I again submit that your TR was a forbidden retaliatory response and demand it be withdrawn.

                            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                            by Mike McL on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:02:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Make nicey nice (0+ / 0-)

                            Undo yours and I'll consider it, in the interest of comity.

                          •  You be trippin' (0+ / 0-)

                            If you do not retract it, I will bring this to the attention of the site administrators.  Good day.

                            Even if I accede to your point that I troll rated you in retaliation, which I emphatically do not accede to, check out this little nugget from the Troll Rating dkosopedia entry:

                            Banned Users. Here's one more important tip. When someone is banned from the site, they've been banned for a reason. In 90% of the cases, it's because of behavior: they've proven to be so disruptive in conversations that it's just not worth whatever contribution they think they're making to the site. Banning people is a decision that rests entirely with Kos, although the frontpagers will frequently give their own opinions or bring particular disruptive posters to his attention.

                            Are you a front pager? Why are you threatening to stifle my right to express myself how I deem fit? Am I hindering the mission of the site? Please check out my diary and comment history. You will find I'm trying to aid the aims of the site. Am I supposed to be afraid of your awesome powers to communicate with site administrators? Are you attempting to intimidate me to alter my approach or style? Who have you similarly taken issue with?

                            I TR'd you for good reason. You called my ID out in a comment without my consent, attempting to hold me up as an example of bad behavior, without offering countervailing evidence that I also serve as a good guy. You are attempting to control debate and define paramaters for expression in a way that suits your preferences and needs, not those of the site. I would be happy to make this clear to the site administrators as well.

                            In parting, since you're so fond of authoritative texts:

                            Don't have long off-topic conversations accusing someone of being a troll. If it's not patently obvious to most comers, then they are NOT trolls. And if you're following the rules and rating the posts and not the poster, the question of whether someone is or is not a "real" troll shouldn't come up. Judge them based on their actions -- don't disrupt entire threads worrying about whether or not they might disrupt threads themselves. I mean, geez...

                          •  I called your action out (0+ / 0-)

                            as an example of bad behavior.  I stand by my conclusion that your post was bad behavior.  I also stand by my conclusion that your rating was a retaliatory TR.  You have have yet to provide any links or references to any supporting materials that shows my original post above to be out of compliance with any of the rules of this site such that it merited a TR.

                            And last I checked, anyone can submit a grievance to kos about something.  He may not do anything about it.  Heck, he may disagree with me entirely.  But I still have the right to submit a grievance and intend to once 24 hours have passed from the time I posted my original comment if you have not withdrawn your TR.  That is all I have to say to you.  Good day.

                            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                            by Mike McL on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:15:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You do that jocko (0+ / 0-)

                            Hope that all works out for you. Sheesh.

                          •  Ahh, I see... (0+ / 0-)

                            You TRd my post because I mentioned your follow up to Dartagnan's post and my reasons for TRing it.  

                            If you check out the Troll Rating article and the Daily Kos FAQ, you'll see nothing in either which supports your TRing of my post.  As such, I demand you retract it or back up your reasons for it with evidence that my actions did in fact merit a TR.  There is no "calling out users by name" reason for TRing a post.

                            I submit that your TR of me here is a retaliatory TR which is expressly FORBIDDEN by the rules.

                            Retaliatory troll-ratings -- troll rating someone simply because they troll rated you -- is forbidden. Period. Do it with frequency and you stand the chance of getting your rating ability taken away.

                            Retract your TR or I will feel compelled to bring your conduct to the attention of the site administrators.  Good day.

                            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                            by Mike McL on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:37:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Where's your foundational support? (0+ / 0-)

                            Retaliatory troll-ratings -- troll rating someone simply because they troll rated you -- is forbidden. Period. Do it with frequency and you stand the chance of getting your rating ability taken away.

                            Even accepting your premise that my TR was "retaliatory" (which I don't, I simply read your post, saw my name and your lies about me, and acted), you have yet to show that this is something I do with frequency. Let's see those links. Get crackin' Monsieur Librarian. Find lots of examples of my compulsive retaliatory troll rating, and bring your sheaf of files to the steps of Capitol Hill, so that the site administrators may be satisfied.

                            Yeah. You do that.

                        •  C'mon (0+ / 0-)

                          when I haven't insulted you at the outset.

                          This is a fucking dodge. He very well new that he insulted later in the thread and is crying about lost TU status, as if his shit didn't stink. If you want to keep TU status don't insult others who haven't (yet) insulted you. If I am insulted, I hit back. Plus it is very bad form to whine after having received a definitive smackdown. So he should lose points for style at least. Any self respecting Ratings Polizei ought to know that.

                          •  Here's a historical timeline... (0+ / 0-)

                            The first post was this one by Nestor Makhnow which can reasonably be summed up as a disappointed attack on Clinton's performance on Wallace's show along with an assertion that Bush's election was made possible by Clinton's infidelity while in office and a hard to follow theory about right-wing media and secret deals with Congress.  I confess that I do not really follow the argument NM made in that regards.  This post received (2+ / 9-)

                            We proceed to this post by withthelidoff which is a curt response to the points made by NM including the one about Clinton making Bush possible.  This post received (8+ / 0-).

                            We then get the first post by Dartagnan in this thread which is a defense of NMs point about Clinton leading to Bush, asserting that Clinton's infidelity problems made it impossible for Gore to run on the Clinton Administration record, along with an appeal to those who TRd NMs post to rethink their TRing of it.  (1+ / 2-)  Here is the full text of that post:

                             

                            Actually, he did. (1+ / 2-)

                            It was because, as the poster noted, that Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants , that Gore was unable or afraid torun on the Clinton record. Clinton's irresponsibility--gross irresponsibility (he knew the right had its knives out for him, and he knew the risk he was taking, but he didn't f*cking care)doomed what should have been a cakewalk for even the rhetorically challenged Gore, and made Bush possible.

                            Yes we're seeing the venom now after the fact. Where the Hell has it been for the last six years. i know Clinton is a big money draw, and I know blacks love him but we have to get over this "hero worship."  Triangulation and the Third Way may have worked for a charismatic like Clinton but its not going to work for the rest of the party or our 08 candidate who is not going to have his charisma.
                            The poster was troll rated unfairly by all of you.
                            You should re-read his post and think about what he wrote.  He's making a good point.

                            Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

                            by Dartagnan on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EDT

                             

                            We then find ourselves at mrblifil's response entitled "You have your head up your ass too" in which you assert that the Clinton infidelity means Gore couldn't run on Clinton's record is a right wing talking point.  (5+ / 0-)

                            Here's the full text:

                             

                            You have your head up your ass too (5+ / 0-)

                            But thanks for your views of who it is that "blacks love."

                            You are giving credence to the Starr report with tripe like this. You know Bush Sr., JFK, Nixon, Eisenhower and others before them had trouble keeping the dick in their pants. It's nobody's fucking business, unless you prefer a society where I get to inquire where exactly your dick has been. Though I think I already have a pretty good idea.

                            There are many mistakes that were made, resulting in the perfect storm for "electing" Bush (Gore won by the way, in case you hadn't heard). Blaming Clinton's dick is appropriating the worst right wing tactics for no earthly reason. Fuck that shit, say I.

                            Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence

                            by mrblifil on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 03:29:22 PM EDT

                             

                            I believe that post to be inflammatory in that it contains a direct personal attack in its very title.  It's general content, particularly "unless you prefer a society where I get to inquire where exactly your dick has been,"  seems rather harsh and uncalled for as well.  But that does not excuse the next post.

                            The next post was Dartagnan's post entitled "Your post is asinine".  I will not link to it nor reproduce its contents here as it is, to me, clearly a TR worthy post containing repetitive personal attacks.  It's general point was that Clinton's actions were, in the poster's opinion irresponsible.  The phrasing used, however, was also irresponsible and full of ad hominem attacks.  It received a rating of (0+ / 3-).

                            The response to this was this post by mrblifil.  Because it is the post to which the one I refer to above was a reply, I will merely reprint it in its entirety.  I think it speaks for itself.

                             

                            Your response is ass in nine (7+ / 0-)

                            Perhaps you don't think a president who risks the future of his party and his Presidency, and in fact provides the opposing party with just the ammunition they need to keep his successor from relying on what would otherwise be a stellar record, is irresponsible

                            Wow. Was that English? I found that rather hard to follow, let alone wrap my brain around. Responsibility? No. Let me pose a question to you. Ever had a man's penis in your mouth?

                            What's that? None of my business? Beginning to get my point? Are you an example of responsible behavior? Ever made anyone pregnant? Have any kids? Ever get a parking ticket? Should I be mad at you 15 years from now if the answers to any of those questions end up assisting your enemies?

                            What other risks did Clinton run? Healthcare reform. Kosovo. Somalia. Haiti. Gays in the military. Kyoto protocols. Big tobacco lawsuits. Elian Gonzales. The list goes on and on. Those are the behaviors that affected people's lives. Not who he slept with. Why wasn't he brought down by the opposition for those things? Because they couldn't ratchet up the Wurlitzer loud enough with such tiny puffs. Let me tell you the "ammunition" the opposition had. Tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Lawyers and judges with no ethics. Media moguls more concerned with consolidation than with justice. Powerful men, ALL OF WHOM had had affairs, were divorced, were hiding their sexuality, and demonized by whatever means they could. And here's a news flash. No blue dress, no Starr report. The fact that Monica kept the prop as a means to blackmail (or as a souvenir) is all that they had, and it turned out it was enough.

                            To put a finer point on it, by your lights, there should be a spotlight on George Bush's sexual habits, since his allies were the ones who were offended by Clinton's consensual affair. Why isn't he paying the price for not admitting how faithful he's been to his wife, and how many times a week they employ the missionary position?

                            I'm not defending his affair. Of course it was a mistake. Of course it was irresponsible. Of course he took horrible advantage of an impressionable person. Guess what? Most of the guys and gals in Washington behave this way, they just haven't been unlucky enough to be so famous that their semen stains are viewed as keepsakes.

                            I may be a "half-wit peon," but you need to come clean if your use of the term is an admission that secretly you enjoy being peed on. In your mouth. While fucking a porcupine.

                            Of course that's pure conjecture on my part.

                            Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence

                            by mrblifil on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 09:22:53 PM EDT

                             

                            I think that post, which somehow received a rating of (7+ / 0-) was replete with TR worthy statements.

                            Such statements as:

                            "No. Let me pose a question to you. Ever had a man's penis in your mouth?"

                            "Are you an example of responsible behavior? Ever made anyone pregnant? Have any kids? Ever get a parking ticket?"

                            and

                            "I may be a "half-wit peon," but you need to come clean if your use of the term is an admission that secretly you enjoy being peed on. In your mouth. While fucking a porcupine."

                            all clearly constitute ad hominem attacks and the fact that anyone gave that response a positive rating sickens me.  The reply post to this is the one I reprinted in full by Dartagnan in my original post above.  Quite frankly, you seem to have attacked Dartagnan first with your "You have your head up your ass too" post, which he/she replied to with an equally undignified post, which you then replied to with the above, disgusting post, which he/she then replied to with a cordial response.

                            If you wish to offer some defense of the above, or to dispute my history of the posts, please feel free to.  You obviously have no need to feel obliged to answer me and I certainly have no authority to make anyone (except my pet cats) answer to me (and they don't ever answer anyway).  But I look forward to whatever you may say if you do decide to respond.

                            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                            by Mike McL on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:12:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

                            all clearly constitute ad hominem attacks and the fact that anyone gave that response a positive rating sickens me.

                            Your opinions about what is acceptably harsh and what is unacceptably harsh are about as valuable to me as last night's wad of toilet paper. That's a plain statement of fact, not a criticism. To paraphrase Shakespeare, when I wrote those remarks "there was no thought of pleasing you when they were conned." I'm glad you were sickened. I was similarly sickened by the attitudes that began the discussion. I go for the visceral, and am not interested in your views of propriety in the least. Again, that's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Where in the FAQ does it state "thou shall never be provacative?" I make no camparisons between myself and my betters, but would you have argued to jail Lenny Bruce, on the basis of over harshness and lack of civility?

                            I will put this question to you. How many other users have you taken to task in a similar way? And have you had any success in getting them to change their writing style? Because if you have you must also be invoking methods derived from voodoo practices, which I believe are potentially bannable offenses according to the FAQ. If you can cite other examples which yielded the intended results, I'll give you a cookie.

                            THE VERY SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENT that you so meticulously site was the treatment of personal information, in the matter of Clinton/Lewinsky, and the effect it had on the election of Bush. I was merely posing the dilemma "would it be right if..." or "how would you like it if I...."

                            Here's an idea. Why not turn yout treatise into a diary? You've already pecked away enough to fill a ream of legal size paper. Let's submit your findings for peer review. But try this exercise. Leave the links in place, but don't call out any users by name, even though historical accuracy (which does not trump all) might be compromised. See where the discussion leads. Let's see if A) anyone reads it, B) if anyone agrees with you, and C) don't forget to leave a tip jar. From henceforward, when discussing your obsession with the historical record, I would rather you did not mention my user handle outright. Simply say, "this user." Failure to do so will be taken as a sign of harassment by me, and will prompt further indignation in response.

                            As for invoking your pet cats, that is a bald and blatant attempt to garner sympathy for yourself. The fact that your cats love you (because they are beholden to the one who provides their food) is not germain to the topic at hand. Please desist in bringing up those vile beasts again. Or do I not have the right to tell you what to write, nor how to write it?

                          •  You say (0+ / 0-)

                            Where in the FAQ does it state "thou shall never be provacative?"

                             

                            It states the following in the Daily Kos FAQ and the Troll Rating article (links to both in previous posts), respectively:

                             

                            Most trolls tend to be blatant, posting comments or diaries that are clearly intended to provoke an angry response.

                            (bolding is my own)

                            You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie.

                            Your comments, in my opinion, were clearly intended to provoke an angry response and thus were trollish.  There were simply inflammatory and thus trollish.

                            I again submit that your TR of my post was a forbidden retaliatory rating and again demand that it be retracted.

                            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

                            by Mike McL on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:09:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  From the same source (0+ / 0-)

                            Language is not generally policed here, in terms of "shit", "fuck", or any of those other terribly uncivil words. There are times when a little creative incivility is much needed. Sexist or racist language, however, is not welcome.

                            Don't have long off-topic conversations accusing someone of being a troll. If it's not patently obvious to most comers, then they are NOT trolls. And if you're following the rules and rating the posts and not the poster, the question of whether someone is or is not a "real" troll shouldn't come up. Judge them based on their actions -- don't disrupt entire threads worrying about whether or not they might disrupt threads themselves. I mean, geez...

                            My one argument with the anti-Troll Hunter crowd is that determining the cutoff point beyond which a stated post or opinion is so offensive as to be unworthy of the site is a delegated responsibility of the users of this site. It just is, and it is sometimes a very difficult judgment. You can argue that people are doing it to aggressively, but don't argue that it shouldn't be done. We have certain community standards here, and we require those standards to be enforced, and it requires personal judgments.

                            Submission denied.

            •  it depends (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RunawayRose

              I've had TU status come and go 3 times now...it disappeared yesterday after I made a couple of comments that only got one rec or none. I failed the algorithm (or whatever). I haven't been troll-rated since I unwittingly made some of my first comments on a CT diary several months ago.

              Strange days indeed...most peculiar mama (WWJLD)

              by anniethena on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:08:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I usually drift in and out of TU (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne, BobzCat, anniethena

                I've never done a diary, so it's all based on my comments.  When I get busy with other stuff, I lose TU until I do more comments.  (It's actually kind of restful, I don't see a lot of the piefights and I don't have to worry about whether a comment needs a donut.)

                Right now I am a TU, so I keep my eyes open for comments that need smiting.  I don't get a sense of power from it, it's more like being a janitor.

                Sig: A rose by any other name would probably be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation".

                by RunawayRose on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:36:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  You don't have to write diaries at all. (7+ / 0-)

          I never have. I got TU status apparently just by getting enough rec's on my comments - and have no clue what "enough" is.

          Mr. Blue, some of your complaints sound like nonsense. As far as I know you are the only one who can edit your diaries. If another diarist deletes a diary you commented on, your comments go away with the diary. TU's and admin have nothing to do with that. Admin can delete diaries and comments but they do so very very rarely. Most instances I've seen involve publication of another poster's personal info or making serious and specific threats. TU's do not and can not delete your comments; all we can do is make them disappear to Troll Alley - or, on occasion, rescue them from there. We can edit the tags on your diary, but can get banned if we do so frivolously a/o maliciously.

          Democrats are welcomed in the door. Democrats who turn out to be bullies, bigots, or nutcases frequently get tossed back out the door. Nondemocrats who come here to discuss issues in a civil way are generally welcome. Non-Democrats who show up to push their own parties, disparage Democrats, or otherwise disrupt things get booted.

          TU's aren't some small cabal that makes decisions in secret - we are a large diverse group with the common factor that we are active on this site. To keep the site functioning with a minimum of disruption, we are entrusted with the responsibility to hide disruptive comments and get rid of persistently disruptive posters. Since TU's do this as an informal, unorganized posse, yeah, it can look like a gang. It's really a bunch of individuals with varying standards of discourse deciding what they personally can and should do.

          Who you gonna call?

          by Ahianne on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:37:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I have TU status but (5+ / 0-)

        I remember my first diary and it was severely troll rated.  I read the comments from the KosCommunity and you know what, they were right.

        I had used some loose language that ill-defined all Iraqis and rightfully got my nose bloodied.

        I acknowledged my lapse and went on.  

        My diaries don't get the attention that I and a lot of us think they should but that's life.

        Often times I read a thoughtful comment and follow the poster to his diaries and that works well.

        Although I have TU status, I've never troll rated anybody.  I do occasionally review the hidden comments and agree with those who have been troll rated.

        No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow

        by craigb on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Question (5+ / 0-)

      I agree with you that the Dkos system many times steamrolls dissent, even reasonable and pondered dissent. I know this is a focused place not an open forum, so I understand that trolling should be kept to minimum. What I don't get is just after critiquing the system, with some good points and some exaggeration, you go straight asking for mojo. Doesn’t it seem incongruent to you?

      I recommended your diary though; I think is one of those regularly discussed things that eventually help as this space grows.

      •  I may have used a tip jar for the (2+ / 0-)

        wrong reason. Sorry, I thought that was to measure agreement with a diary or supposition. I don't want or need mojo...whatever that is.

        •  It's kind of both. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike McL

          Although disagreement with a diary does not equal a TR-ing of the tip jar, unless the diarist is viewed as a troll.

          We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself.

          by TheBlaz on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:13:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "mojo" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SallyCat

          Is what makes a user a "trusted user."  Otherwise known as a recommend.

          There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

          by ThirstyGator on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:14:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Mojo is how you become a trusted user. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          condoleaser
        •  "whatever that is?" (5+ / 0-)

          why would you come here, and then not give a shit about how the site works?

          bullshit

          -8.38, -7.74 Schadenfreude is a dish best served piping hot.

          by condoleaser on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:30:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not fair. (4+ / 0-)

            You're being harsh.  Just because someone isn't familiar with the way the word mojo is used here?  Give me a break.

            •  sorry (4+ / 0-)

              "mojo" isn't just a cute term...it's the underpinning of how this site functions. The statement "whatever that is" implies that this poster doesn't care what it means. Hence my rhetorical question.

              -8.38, -7.74 Schadenfreude is a dish best served piping hot.

              by condoleaser on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:57:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  he knows what it is (8+ / 0-)

              look at his history of diaries and comments.  I even had a run in with him last week (and I hardly have run ins with anyone around here).

              Witness this.   He has a batch of concern troll diaries, has a lot of hidden comments and knows damn well what this site and tip jars are about.

              Screw him - even if his points are valid, they are diluted by his prior history.

              •  You're partly the reason (0+ / 0-)

                I wrote this diary...
                We had a run in I think because you called me a douche bag. And I guess I'M THE PROBLEM!

                •  gee I'm flattered (not...) (4+ / 0-)

                  but clearly you are completely misguided, and I still don't care what you have to say because you blew all your credibility with your prior diaries and comments.

                  good day to you.

                •  I thought it was all about your concern (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BobzCat, condoleaser

                  Here's your history of "concern". The opening lines from a few of your other diaries:

                  I wrote a diary yesterday complaining that democrats should shy away from giving details about a withdrawal from Iraq and commented that giving specifics can only hurt our efforts in the mid-terms. I again got some heat from the DKos crowd but that's ok, I am used to it by now.

                  As I have been trying to explain for months here at DKos withdrawal from Iraq with a date certain is liable to lose us enough midterm elections to cost us control of Congress.

                  Over the past few weeks I have been trying to explain to the DailyKos folks that making the withdrawl of troops thier major plank in the upcoming elections is a losing strategy and have been screwered royally for it.

                  A week or so ago I wrote a diary who's thrust was Sen. Kerry's and Sen. Feingold's amendment calling for a date certain for withdrawal of troops from Iraq was a foolish tactical move which will give an advantage to the Bush administration and GOP Congress in the mid-term elections.
                  Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

                  And one of my faves:

                  I have always been a partisan Democrat. I am not proud of the fact but have in the past walked into the voting booth and pulled the straight Democratic lever without even considering who the Republican candidate might be. I don't really recommend that because I think it makes the Progressive/Liberal voter the same kind of mindless team player that I despise in the robotic-ranks of the GOP. But there is one Republican that I have voted for and for whom I might vote for again and that is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

                  Sell your concern troll shit to someone else.

                  •  So your point is (0+ / 0-)

                    never show any concerns for the way things are being handled in our approach of winning back the House/Senate or it makes you a Concern Troll? Or show ANY concerns in any way if I properly infer what you imply from the obtuse post above??
                    If you have a concern we're hurting the effort it is better to ignore it, or pretend you don't have it, or just act like you agree with the current prevailing notions of how to proceed...
                    That's ridiculous. And the last quote from one of my diaries that you claim is your favorite (impying it's the real "kicker")says so very much about your mindset that I think it deserves to be fleshed out a bit.
                    Explain to me that if I was to consider voting for a Republican sometime in the future(that isn't up for re-election on this round of elections and would NOT impact the current fight for the House or Senate) that I must be a traitor, a Troll...not a REAL Democrat??
                    You've lost your way my friend. You've put loyalty to  the party and this site above loyalty to your country, above the good of the country and to the principles of our democracy which is reprehensible and irresponsible.

                    You illustrate the problems with a forum that insists on political idelaogical purity but WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE IS DETERMINED BY YOU!
                    YOU are the arbitor of what's correct, acceptable and even speakable. You should be ashamed of that attitude.
                    But I dont' ecpect much in the way of dialouge here as you have already shown that even talking about it is enough to be TRoll Rated by you.

      •  to be fair (4+ / 0-)

        by posting a tip jar, we gain the opportunuity to troll rate him.  Most actual troll diarists don't give us a target to shoot at.

        Reading Blue's comments though, he brings it on himself by being abrasive and dismissive.

        This diary is tilting at windmills though.  

        Changing French Fries to Freedom Fries was arguably this Republican Congress' biggest achievement. - Stephen Colbert

        by Scientician on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:22:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Give Him A Break (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheBlaz

          Mr.Blue confesses to being "a pain in the ass Democrat."  Lop off Democrat and he just becomes a pain in the ass in general.  It would appear to me that he comes to this site to communicate, however assy that might appear, and doesn't give a hoot about the intricacies of the system.  I say if he cleans up his paragraphs, give him a break, and deal with his real arguments.

          For all we know, he is very, very old and we all know that little thing about respecting our elders?

          "Man's life's a vapor Full of woe. He cuts a caper, Down he goes. Down de down de down he goes.

          by JFinNe on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:41:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Meekness is a virtue here? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cake or Death

          Reading Blue's comments though, he brings it on himself by being abrasive and dismissive.

          Just go with flow, people. That's the new dkos mantra?

          The guy is absolutely right. Dkos is infested with intolerant drones who get off on busting people for speaking out.

          newsroom-l.net News and issues for journalists.

          by Jules Siegel on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:11:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Intolerant drones are like assholes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rick Oliver

            They usually don't get TU status, because they are annoying and condescending.

            As a former TU I can tell you:  I never "got off" on trolling people.  I did enjoy troll hunting, for those that abused their privelege to comment:  by using abusive language, tp's, or posting things of a "liberal wacko" nature to discredit this site.

            When I must guard my thoughts, feelings and words, lest I be unpatriotic...then my country is lost

            by crimsonscare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:46:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nice false-dichotomy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trashablanca, Zoskie

            So we can only choose meekly accepting the status quo or being abrasive and disrespectful?

            Changing French Fries to Freedom Fries was arguably this Republican Congress' biggest achievement. - Stephen Colbert

            by Scientician on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:16:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  He deserves mojo for his diary on censorship (0+ / 0-)

        Simple as that. It's not incongruous at all.

        newsroom-l.net News and issues for journalists.

        by Jules Siegel on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:08:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Abuse of troll-ratings (9+ / 0-)

      I think the idea of troll-ratings were to give users a quick and easy way to "hide", or remove, very offensive or outlandish comments.  Sexist, racist, etc.  MOre and more, people seem (just my observations) to using them more liberally, for comments that are fair and honest, but unpopuluar.

      I've never used a troll-rating in my life, b/c there's just too many good diaries to read to get worked up about some comment.  I'd suggest either putting on some body armor and getting thicker skin (b/c people anywhere and everywhere can be opinionated), or finding a different blog--God knows there are a ton or 'em!

      Republican recruitment for the 82nd Chairborne at an all-time high...

      by topicalstorm on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:18:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I agree with you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        topicalstorm

        I've used one, against some jerk-off who insulted Cindy Sheehan.  But I know there are users who log on to this site every day gleefully dispensing their "troll rating" on anything they happen to strongly disagree with. You can spot these people by their comments. It's just one after another, "troll this" and "troll that," as if they're performing a public service.

        Now watch--my comment will probably get "troll rated." :)

        Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

        by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:32:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Troll-ratings (5+ / 0-)

          Take this from someone that has been a TU my entire duration (10 months) on DailyKos:  we do not troll-rate dissent or disagreement; we troll-rate obnoxious, rude, or vile comments.  I look through the hidden comments almost every day, and I cannot remember seeing a single comment that deserved to be uprated because it was troll-rated for dissent.  Not a single one.

          I would encourage users to get familiar with the way the site works before criticizing it.  Both you and the diarist seem to be newer users.

          We're all just monkeys burning in hell. SmokeyMonkey.org

          by smokeymonkey on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:55:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not criticizing it. See my comment upthread. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            smokeymonkey

            I think it's a valid process, and you're right I am a newer user, comparatively. But I have seen comments by people who can only be objectively described as "troll-happy." I'm not going to name them, and they don't include the 2-3 people who have troll-rated me. I think my 1 or 2 troll-rated (and that's all there are) posts probably deserved it, in retrospect.

            Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

            by Dartagnan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh come on. (4+ / 0-)

            I've been troll-rated for posting unpopular opinions on more than one occasion.

            And, for what it's worth, I've been around here a lot longer than you have -- uid 8648.

            Stop lecturing people in a condescending manner. It's just another technique of discouraging dissent.

            newsroom-l.net News and issues for journalists.

            by Jules Siegel on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:14:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Condescending (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              crimsonscare, trashablanca

              I was not condescending in the least, nor lecturing, nor discouraging dissent.

              Both the users I was addressing have expressed their unfamiliarity with the rating system.

              We're all just monkeys burning in hell. SmokeyMonkey.org

              by smokeymonkey on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:36:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I find... (0+ / 0-)

              that I'm suspicious of TRs given by anyone who refers to a troll-rating as a "doughnut".  Ditto for any TRs given by someone who is an active participant in the thread in which the TR is given.  

              Unless someone's attempting to out personal information or has said something that is straight out racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, etc., you should rely on the community to troll rate someone you think has been inflammatory towards you.

              In my eyes anyway, a person and his or her views gain a lot more credibility by taking some hard punches, ignoring them, and continuing on debating.  But that's just my personal views on the matter.

              And I agree with you about people being TRd for unpopular opinions.  I've seen it at times.  Thankfully I have yet to be subjected to it though.

              "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

              by Mike McL on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:37:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I've seen a few. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RunawayRose, smokeymonkey

            Rec'd to unhide, left a comment to say why I was doing it, checked back to see if anyone has answered with an argument for hiding.

            Who you gonna call?

            by Ahianne on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:46:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hiding (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mike McL

              I think I was misunderstood here, but that's alright.  I was specifically talking about hidden comments only, not the occasional ineffective troll-rating.  I've certainly seen comments that have a couple of recommends and a couple of troll-ratings.  I meant that looking at the hidden comments, I have never had the opportunity to unhide a comment that was hidden inappropriately.  That probably has more to do with my being slow than that they aren't there.  It is that others get them out of hidden pretty quickly.  

              The system works, was my point.

              We're all just monkeys burning in hell. SmokeyMonkey.org

              by smokeymonkey on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:10:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was talking about hidden comments. (4+ / 0-)

                If I see a comment there that doesn't look like it should have been hidden, first I check its context - go to the parent, sometimes up several levels, read the subthread. If it still looks OK, I'll check the poster's other comments, the most recent few. I'm not interested in rescuing a comment by a troll even if that comment is innocuous. If it still looks like the comment shouldn't have been trollrated, I'll rec it to take it out of Troll Alley, then comment so people will know why I did it. Sometimes someone comes back and points to reasons why it got the TR's. If the argument seems valid, I'll withdraw the rec.

                Who you gonna call?

                by Ahianne on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:34:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  take this from someone (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BobzCat, smokeymonkey, Mike McL

            who has been here for years, we do troll rate people for dissent when it is called for... as in they are posting right wing talking points. We also do it when they advocate third party organizing against a democratic party candidate.

            •  Wingnut talking points (0+ / 0-)

              I agree, in so much that you mean that the person is merely posting a right wing talking point and not posting it along with a thorough debunking of it. :)

              "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

              by Mike McL on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:48:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  People (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne

          get 5 opportunities to troll rate per day.  Pretty hard to troll rate eveerything in sight with that.

          "the Greater Good and the Greater Profit are not compatible aims" -- Yann Martel

          by baba durag on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:59:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It used to be unlimited (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheBlaz

            and, admittedly, there was a lot more abuse.  But it was typically an isolated user (or handful), and easily compensated for.

            When I must guard my thoughts, feelings and words, lest I be unpatriotic...then my country is lost

            by crimsonscare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:49:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

              I got pounded one night until I explained the background of the argument to people on the thread.

              The reason kos dropped it to 5 was people began to team up and 'go on patrol'.  They'd gang up on people they disagreed with in an attempt to make the autoban feature ban someone due to high troll ratings.

              "the Greater Good and the Greater Profit are not compatible aims" -- Yann Martel

              by baba durag on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:09:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You make it sound dirty (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne, trashablanca

                Like we were rape gangs or something, ew.

                Seriously, though.  I've seen plenty of "trollpiles" done to users, but never to someone who wasn't in desperate need of an ass-whoopin'.

                And not to be a jackass myself, but I would have to see the specific incident to understand why you were team trolled.

                In the year I've been posting here, I think I've only been trolled once, and that was actually someone abusing the privilege because they missed the point of some off-color comments that I and others were making in an open thread.

                When I must guard my thoughts, feelings and words, lest I be unpatriotic...then my country is lost

                by crimsonscare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:26:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It was dirty (0+ / 0-)

                  That's why kos put the limit on troll ratings.

                  I made an assholey comment to someone who had been a real jerk for a couple of months.  That's what got me gangbanged.  As soon as I explained the background it stopped cold.

                  "the Greater Good and the Greater Profit are not compatible aims" -- Yann Martel

                  by baba durag on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:48:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not everyone has the presence of mind (0+ / 0-)

                    to double check user comment histories before they troll.  I personally tried to be habitual about doing that before pulling the trigger on a troll rating.

                    But I also was once chastised, appropriately, by pastordan for going overboard with one trollsih character who infiltrated his "Brother and Sister's" diary one Sunday.  I became pretty reserved about using it after that.

                    I'm not a TU currently, and there have been a couple of times that I've missed having the ability, but it doesn't really affect me one way or another.

                    When I must guard my thoughts, feelings and words, lest I be unpatriotic...then my country is lost

                    by crimsonscare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:34:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Gangs are never a good thing (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      crimsonscare

                      Markos was wise to find a way to damp that down.  It still happens, but it's rarer now.

                      It's kind of like bees vs. wasps.  Bees know there is a cost to stinging, and use it as a last resort.  Wasps have no such compunction.  At least that's my take.

                      Good on ya for checking first.  It's a responsible approach that doesn't get taken enough.

                      "the Greater Good and the Greater Profit are not compatible aims" -- Yann Martel

                      by baba durag on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:45:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Can you recommend some? (0+ / 0-)

        I really enjoy the concept of DKos, and the other sites I've checked out seem to be diaries written by just a couple of people and/or very limited in subject matter.  I love getting so much information about so many subjects as occurs here.  But I am already worn out by the negativity and the game playing, and I feel sometimes like I've started watching Fox or something.  Same kind of kool-aid mentality, just a different flavor.  So I would like to find a site similar to this, but without the little power games and nastiness, with people talking at each other rather than to each other.  If you do and would pass them on, I'd really appreciate it.  I'm not quite ready to give up all the positive things I've found here in order to avoid the negative, but if I could find a site with the former and not the latter, I'd be in heaven.

        •  you're asking for diff blogs? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm guessing my suggestions will be debated as "good" or "bad", but here are a few.  Again, no blog that I know of lets anyone and everyone write the content like  this one does.  And a few (like Atrios) have so many...what's the nice way to say it...."random" comments that reading them drives me nuts.  

          For reasoned comments and good debate, I like balloon-juice.com, talkleft.com, thewashingtonnote.com (Steve Clemons is uber-rational and straightfoward).  Firedoglake.com is also popular, but I don't go there becuase their banning policy is so extreme that I got banned...and have absolutely no idea why.

          Republican recruitment for the 82nd Chairborne at an all-time high...

          by topicalstorm on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks. There are several there that I haven't (0+ / 0-)

            checked out and will do so.  I guess what I'm looking for is a site I can visit when I'm feeling overwhelmed by the politics here (and I don't mean Repub vs Dem; I mean the personal politics).  I'm pretty new to the blogging thing, and have reveled in being able to get a more progressive slant on things than I could on the MSM.  But I need a little more variety I believe.  So I do appreciate you providing me the information.

        •  Try newsroom-l (0+ / 0-)

          It's not a blog, but an email discussion list populated mainly by journalists. See http://www.newsroom-l.net for instructions on joining and the very effective policy on civil discourse.

          newsroom-l.net News and issues for journalists.

          by Jules Siegel on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:16:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  dkos does not practice liberal democracy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anna, Jules Siegel, edsdet
      Dissent, critical thinking, fact-checks are unwelcome here.

      The culture is evolving (partly by deliberate emulation) along the lines that far-right circles developed during the Cold War years.

      Stray from the line, and you get beaten back into line ... and the line gets narrower month by month.

      The ultimate destination is likely unintentional self-caricature.

      For now, enjoy the repartee ... just as you would enjoy a browse through Free Republic.

      None Dare Call It Stupid!

      by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:51:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And what parallel reality are you from? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trashablanca

        Hmm...Most of the diaries that are not of a personal anecdotal nature usually have citations to them (ie: links).  And most diarists I'm acquainted with like it if someone corrects a factual error they made, or presents something that clarifies their topic.

        I have seen plenty of unpopular opinions presented on this site, those that are well-defended are also well met.  Those that consist of nothing more thatn "you're wrong, moron" or some variation of this, are also appropriately met.

        And if this site is so horrible to you, why do you keep coming back?

        When I must guard my thoughts, feelings and words, lest I be unpatriotic...then my country is lost

        by crimsonscare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:00:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's fascinating - like a building implosion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          edsdet
          Yes, debate proceeds on peripheral topics (though even there it's weighted heavily to valence statements (who do we like, who do we dislike, and how much) rather than fact statements.

          Once upon a time, dkos was a go-to blog for information on critical topics (we were "Best War Blog" once, y'know).

          The primary enterprise now is building the enemies list, and constructing grievances against them.

          Sort of a massively multiplayer world-game emulating party dynamics in a Soviet era republic -- see who's denounced, who's rehabilitated, and how fast everybody can realign on the latest hairpin turn of dogma.

          None Dare Call It Stupid!

          by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:59:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

            Dude, you mean this isn't a Sims server?

            </snark>

            OK, now you've irked me, and I'm going to have to pull out the obscenities:

            This is not a fucking game, asshole!

            This is as real as it fucking gets.  Right now, there are people dying, our own and others, because of a handful of greedy heartless social elitists policies.  Because of all the divisive bullshit rhetoric that has been spewing over recent years at the speed of light, this country is bitterly divided.

            This isn't a fad or fashion site.  There are no "hairpin turns" of dogma.  If there were, I'd be too old to keep up with this place.

            Cut out the simpering teenie angst bs.

            </rant>

            When I must guard my thoughts, feelings and words, lest I be unpatriotic...then my country is lost

            by crimsonscare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:47:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Real people die in the real world (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edsdet
              ... and dkos used to deal with that world, but this is now a gamespace where role-players take on make-believe monsters and make-believe villians.

              And your post is typical of those that would be troll-rated ("for language") if they had their valences crossed.

              None Dare Call It Stupid!

              by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:26:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry. 9/11 conspiracy can go elsewhere (0+ / 0-)
                The volunteer trollraters often misunderstand the system and do more harm than good, that kind of weeding and pruning is better done by the resident gardeners, but the forum needs boundaries ... and that stuff's beyond the pale.

                None Dare Call It Stupid!

                by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 04:11:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BobzCat

        You have been around here long enough to know your falsely negative cartoon-level slam of this community is not at all close to reality.

  •  Hoboy (7+ / 0-)

    Here we go again.

    Throw the bums out!

    by Mikey on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 07:55:41 AM PDT

  •  you obviously put a lot of thought (20+ / 0-)

    and effort into this diary. too bad you couldn't have spent it doing something else. washing the dishes, electing democrats, the laundry. whatever.

    "joke about the rapture here"

    send NYBri to the NY state senate!

    by lipris on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 07:57:25 AM PDT

  •  Not another meta-whine. (6+ / 0-)

    We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 07:59:05 AM PDT

  •  If you're going to yell at people... (9+ / 0-)

    keep the diary shorter.

    there is no chance people are going to read that.

    An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

    by Alter Ego Manifesto on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:00:34 AM PDT

    •  I skimmed and skimmed and skimmed (13+ / 0-)

      until eventually the diarist got around to describing (vaguely) the actual events he was upset about. He would have done better to have put that complaint at the top, and to have been more specific.

      So next I went to his diary. It turns out that the last six entries have been about how the Democrats are doing everything wrong, and only he has the answers. If, as he claims, he's been a Democrat for years, it's funny that his only chance at influencing anybody is to write a dKos diary. Where are all the fellow Democrats he must have spent time with over the years?

      Finally, in his most recent entry, he predicts that he's going to be flamed for it, but goes ahead and posts anyway! To quote the old joke about the bear: "Say... you ain't here for the hunting, are you?"

      If he isn't a Republican concern troll, then he's the most unpersuasive speaker/writer ever: he can't seem to catch a break from any of his "fellow" Democrats, on or off Daily Kos.

    •  Also (4+ / 0-)

      The two most boring classes of meta diary are those complaining that Kossacks are too negative and moaning all the time, and those complaining that Kossacks are too bullish and over-confident all the time.

    •  Actually, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edsdet, Cake or Death, MrBlue

      I read the whole thing.  Why?  Because a user on this site has a problem with the way people treat him and others.  And that's a legitimate gripe.  People around here preach tolerance of all sorts of groups, but when it comes to someone with a differing opinion or a person who may be sensitive to criticism, well screw them, right?  We tolerate the LGBT, all faiths, all skin colors.  We don't practice gender bias.  We don't discriminate against people from other countries.

      But a fellow Kossack is bothered by comments made toward him and SLAM!

      Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.

      •  He's been doing this for awhile now. (5+ / 0-)

        Practically all his diaries are about how he has all the answers to save Democrats, we should listen, we're being unfair, we're persecuting him for being unique, etc etc.

        People around here preach tolerance of all sorts of groups, but when it comes to someone with a differing opinion or a person who may be sensitive to criticism, well screw them, right?

        I love how people say that. I've taken plenty of highly unpopular stances. So have NUMEROUS other people. I've been TRed less than 10 times. Probably less than 5.

        Recently, I got TR-ed a few times. HOLY SHIT, MY WORLD IS FLYING APART!!

        A few of the people who uprated me are people I've disagreed with time and time again.

        Just recently I wrote a diary about how another recommended diary was completely off-base. I got PLENTY of disagreement in that one, not ONE TR to be seen.

        This myth of "TU's TR disagreement" is just asinine.

        Some people do, I can admit that. Guess what? They're shitty TU's and not representitive of TUs as a whole.

        MrBlue sees people asking him for proof of his claims of "If Democrats do this then they'll win!", asking him to modify his "I'm fucking brilliant and here's why everyone should listen to me" tone as repression and stifling.

        That's simply not the case.

        His first diary, he suggested people "Blow him" and "find your balls and reply."

        That diary has been deleted since then, but numerous diaries of his are espousing the same "Dailykos / Democrats are doomed unless you listen to me" babble.

        Saying TUs are persecuting MrBlue is like saying toasters are persecuting someone who keeps jamming his fingers into an operating toaster.

        He knows what's going to happen when he posts inflammatory and baseless shit like this. He does it for kicks.

        We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself.

        by TheBlaz on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:32:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I admitted in the diary... (0+ / 0-)

          I have said things in anger and frustration that were ill-advised but I have not initiated that type of talk but responded in kind...
          This seems to be you're only response so far though..."Mr Blue said mean things so he has no relevent point." Read the responses that caused me to respond that way TheBlaz (if they haven't been deleted) and I think you'd have to admit I certainly didn't cast the first stone...

          •  Actually, I have read most of your diaries. (4+ / 0-)

            By and large, you have an arrogance about your writing that implies that you alone know the proper course. You also seem incapable of LEARNING from previous mistakes. EG:

            In your first diary which was deleted, you made some grandiose claims about how to fix the democratic party, alluding to a poll and an article.

            I asked you for the links to those. You flipped out, insisting that I had no right to ask you to prove your claims, and it was up to ME to go find the articles.

            That situation has repeated itself over and over, MrBlue.

            You make a claim, don't back it up, then get accusatory and angry when people don't take you seriously. You then insist that the reason we're not taking you seriously is that you have a unique perspective, and all we want is to stifle dissent.

            It apparently hasn't occured to you that if you come here saying "Here is how Democrats win / Here is how Dailykos gets more effective", you need more than vague references to polls, arrogance, a stubborn insistence that you alone have the right of it and anyone who disagrees is just stifling dissent and censors you.

            We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself.

            by TheBlaz on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:44:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was making suggestions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheBlaz

              as to how I thought it best to move the effort forward. I apologize for not doing so in a more humble manner. I am learning as I go and have tried to supply more facts and links to back up my assertions.
              However, that doesn't completely explain all the vitriol and condesending remarkes if what your saying  is that I am angered by people asking for facts to back up my opinions. Some are just that...opinions and shouldn't require some links to express them.
              I appreciate your comments and will try to be a better diarist but come on, I think you have overstated your case a little bit...I never said I refuse to provide the basis for the arguments and sometimes I think you're requirements for proof are a bit over the top.
              But I say so respectfully...

              •  My personal requirements for proof (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne, Rick Oliver, trashablanca, Zoskie

                are, if you cite a poll or article, link it.

                If you make a claim and say "Such-and-such supports my view," link it.

                I apologize for not doing so in a more humble manner. I am learning as I go and have tried to supply more facts and links to back up my assertions.

                I probably gave you a harder time than was deserved, and if so I apologize for that.

                You don't need to be humble, on your knees "Please allow me to address dailykos"-style.

                Eh, it's hard to explain. Just keep feeling it out.

                A big help to you would be to stop looking at it from a view of "Why are they censoring me" and more along the lines of "Why did this diary / comment not work".

                You don't need to write to please people (if that were the case, I'd have been booted from here months ago). But accusations will immediately ruffle feathers and put up guard, not because of group think but because accusations are a staple of a right-wing troll.

                So, it's best to think of a better way to make your point.

                Also (and this is just the english major in me) PARAGRAPHS!

                I beg of you, line breaks!

                We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself.

                by TheBlaz on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:59:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agreed... (0+ / 0-)

                  I'll take your suggestions and I appreciate the advice. I realize that it was too long a diary especially once formatted for DKos (it didn't seem that long when I wrote it) but I agree it is hard to read and rambles, that's what writing on a train at 5:30am can do to you.
                  Thanks again for the advice...

  •  This'd be a lot easier to read... (10+ / 0-)

    ...if you formatted your paragraphs properly. As is is, I can tell there's something about DKos's TU that annoys you, but I can't be bothered to sift through all the verbiage to find out what that may be.

    More clarity, please.

  •  wah! (23+ / 0-)

    The diarist has one hidden comment over the past six months, because he called someone an a-hole (and provided no further analysis).  Waah!

    My wife's new novel -- THE GUY NOT TAKEN -- in stores now!

    by Adam B on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:01:24 AM PDT

  •  You (10+ / 0-)
    You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    I've just read through a few of your diaries, and yes you do express opinions that are unpopular here.  But you also tend to be unnecessarily antagonistic in some of your language.

    Presupposing that we'll respond with to an attack with vitriolic remarks just waves red meat in front of the fight/flight response.

    The issue you seem to be finding disagreement with is the Murtha plan, am I right?  I am not surprised.  It's a life-and-death issue that touches many of us personally.

    •  It's not just what one says (8+ / 0-)

      But how one says it. And who says it.

      This site is a community, and a floating conversation. That means that if you want to be received by the community and participate in the conversation, you have to have an ear for how what you write will be understood and received by those who are to be reading it.  That's an essential component of any successful communication: not only articulating your views, but doing so in a way that they will be given a hearing.  Many people think they've done what they need to by just putting what they believe or think down in words, without giving a moment's consideration to the disposition of their intended audience. It's a recipe for being misunderstood... and even scorned.

      DailyKos is a large and diverse community, but there also are some shared values and common beliefs which will be reflexively and vigorously defended when questioned... and the motives of someone who does so will be questioned.

      I've seen people on this site write posts contrary to the prevailing attitudes here and be attacked for it, certainly.  But I've also seen people do so and be taken very seriously (by many, even most) and stimulate important debate.

      What distinguishes the former from the latter?  

      A few things...

      One is knowing the audience and directly addressing their attitudes with respect and understanding, even if one is questioning some aspect of them.

      Another is having built up some credibility over time by participating in the discourse on the site constructively and becoming a known presence here. People are rightfully wary of people who show up here and right out of the gate post diaries that are antithetical.

      While I am trying to take my country back, my government is setting the world on fire.

      by Malacandra on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:29:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  2,500 Words (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, Feanor

    Can someone boil this down to a mere 1,000 or less?

  •  MrBlue- (8+ / 0-)

    UID 90881.  21 Comments with 1 or more TRs here, 20 of them hidden.

    A tip- the best thing to do about Troll Ratings is apologize and let them go.  Complaining never works.

  •  A sense of humor is the best antidote. (7+ / 0-)

    I'm a moderate Dem and have been experienced my own share of smack-downs here.   My advice for what ails you is to avoid the posters and threads that you don't like and enjoy the rest.  There is plenty here for everyone.  

    Can we talk about taking back the senate? We need six states.

    by Radiowalla on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:03:41 AM PDT

    •  Oh please (11+ / 0-)

      I'm a fiscally conservative independent and a TU.  There is plenty tolerance of diversity of opinion here.  It's all about how you want to approach it.

      If you want to have a real dialogue - and respectfully engage folks - it can be done.  I do it all the time.  Plenty of TUs here who are pro-gun, even pro-life, etc.  

      OTOH, if you are being purposefully antagonistic in your language and tone- then you are trying to piss people off. Don't whine when you are successful at it - it is what you were trying to do.

      If you haven't been successful engaging folks in dialogue - the problem is with you.

      If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

      by trillian on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:13:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hell Even Kos Has Experienced Smack-Downs (6+ / 0-)

      on occasion. It is just part of communicating with a lot of people who believe passionately about their positions. My experience is that it has more to do with how you say something then what you say. If you present your viewpoint aggressively, you will definitely find someone who will respond aggressively. If you present something as fact and can't back it up with links that substantiate that fact, you are going to be challenged by someone no matter what.

  •  Two things: (10+ / 0-)

    First of all, becoming a "trusted user" isn't a big deal.  At all.  I've gained, lost and regained that status many times over, and as near as I can tell it hasn't made one bit of difference in my life.  The coolest thing about it is that you get to read the "hidden" (banned) comments.  

    Second, so what if a few people don't like what you write?  You can publish a diary here every single day and get exposure to many thousands of readers, which is an amazing opportunity for any writer.  You can post comments as often as you like, and for the most part they'll be left up for people to read.  As long as it isn't too cranky, there isn't much chance of having it troll-bombed.  But if it's directly confrontational, it probably WILL end up hidden.

    And a bonus Third, if it really bothers you that much, the internets are a big place, and you could always start your own blog, just like Markos did.

    There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

    by ThirstyGator on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:05:00 AM PDT

    •  Uh....OT question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat, trashablanca

      How does one LOSE TU status?  Hell, I didn't even know I had it until a few months ago.  Now I wanna make sure I keep it...

      Does it have to do with the numbers of diaries posted?  Who loses TU, and why?

      Republican recruitment for the 82nd Chairborne at an all-time high...

      by topicalstorm on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:27:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne, trashablanca

        it's more to do with general activity on the site, not diaries, per se; I've never posted a diary, and I've got TU status.

        •  It's a complicated formula (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SallyCat, Ahianne, trashablanca

          As near as I can tell it's a sliding scale of sorts.  If you post diaries, you seem to require fewer recommends to become a TU.  If you're strictly a commenter, you need LOTS of recommends.  Regardless, give it two or three weeks of posting inactivity and the status will become tenuous.

          Of course, if you have mojo to burn and you get hit with a bunch of troll-ratings you won't have much to worry about.  If you are on the edge mojo-wise, it only takes a couple of tr's to take your status away.

          There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

          by ThirstyGator on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:40:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  you lose it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SallyCat

        essentially either by disappearing from the site for extended periods and losing accumulated mojo, or by receiving multiple troll ratings.

        Watch a movie about the irresponsible folks at the March of Dimes

        by zenbowl on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:36:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lutefisk (9+ / 0-)

    1 kg dried fish
    100 g caustic soda
    30 liters of water

    Saw the fish in suitably sized pieces or leave it whole. Put in water. Leave in water in a cool place for 5-6 days if cut in pieces, 8 days if the fish is whole. Change the water every day.

    For the luting use a plastic or stainless steel or enamelled tub (the enamel must be unchipped). Wooden vessels, china or stoneware may also be used.

    Place the fish in the tub with the skin side up. Dissolve caustic soda in the water, pour over the fish until covered complete by lut water. Leave the fish in a cold place for 3-4 days.

    When the fish is completely luted, it will be well swollen and you should be able to put a finger through it. Rinse the fish and leave in cold water 4-6 days. Change water every day.

    If the fish stays in water for too long after the luting, it may be soft and difficult to boil. Test boil a piece, if you are uncertain.

    Do not make lutefisk in the warm season.

    Thwarting the forces of idiocy since 1978. -6.38, -6.00

    by wiscmass on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:05:22 AM PDT

  •  btw (6+ / 0-)

    it's "quash dissent," not "squash dissent."

  •  I've only been here a couple of months, (11+ / 0-)

    but here's how I understand the ethos(?) of the place:   a wide variety of views is welcome, as long as the underlying focus is on improving consensus (not on enforcing consensus) and on mutual support and encouragement.

    a hope that may come close to despair

    by epppie on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:14:41 AM PDT

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat, raines, trashablanca, MO Blue, epppie

      I have posted something a couple of times that I was sure would get a troll rating because I disagreed with the comment/diary. However because I was respectful and didn't call someone an asshole or speak in a disrespectful way a discussion insued. It truthfully isn't the disagreement that gets you TR here it is usually a respect issue. I have found the majority (by far) to be tolerant and willing to discuss different viewpoints. That is why DK is better than any other site I have been to. People that come in to start shit are not welcome and civilized discussion can occur.

      FRODO FAILED BUSH HAS THE RING

      by FrankieB on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:27:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have to disagree (13+ / 0-)

    I posted a very critical diary last week, questioning the "shut your fucking pie hole" mentality that seems to have a lot of adherents here.  I was only troll rated on one of my comments, and in fact, ended up having a fascinating and intense debate with a lot of different folks here.  This is a partisan blog, but even independent voters like me can find a niche, and become TUs.  Being a troll is not about having a contrary political idea--it's about not articulating your ideas in a mature and responsible manner.

     

    Visit Sinister, the home of a left-handed left-wing Okie Jew.

    by ethanthej on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:20:40 AM PDT

  •  We over at the hatter boards (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie

    call this gatekeeping.  The left and the right, both being arms of the very same weapons of mass distraction industry keep the population confused and misdirected enough such that the elite can continue to maintain control.
    As a result extremely few "Americans" can conduct any type of serious discussion.  This does apply to all facets of life.

  •  While we're on the subject ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    klamothe, FrankieB

    Raw Story just posted this. Kos has also commented. 'Tis the season.Gop aide busted for fake blog

  •  oh please (11+ / 0-)

    almost every one of your diaries have been confrontational, telling the rest of us why we are wrong and using right wing talking points to make your case.
    You might very well be a democrat and I am the first to admit that some people around here go on hysterical troll hunting jags, but that doesn't seem to be the case with you.
    If you are in fact a democrat, you need to stop using language/ideas which sucks up and appeases the right.  You need to stop making everyone of your diaries about why dkos is wrong (As if there were just one opinion here and you the lone voice of dissent, a ridiculous idea.)
    I thought you were a troll the first time I read one of your comments frankly.  Sorry about that. If you are a democrat for real you might want to figure out why people have that reaction to you and fix whatever it is you are doing wrong.

  •  I wil KISS it for you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat

    It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Respectfulness and coherence counts. I'm "powerful, mysterious and elitist" Who knew?

    ACMsX

  •  You have to earn it (9+ / 0-)

    Your user ID number indicates you have only been here a few months, and while that in itself is not a problem, you have to remember that a lot of people here have been here for years.  You need to build up your credibility before you start getting in people's faces. I looked at your other diaries and comments, and while your arguments are reaonable, you are pretty abrasive.  When someone new shows up and says everyone here is fucked, that is not going to go over too well.

    I sometimes take unpopular positions and can be abrasive.  I also accept the fact that this doesn't make me too popular and my TU status comes and goes.  If you really think the party is in trouble, then figure out a way to get your message across and quit your whining.  

    Chuck Norris and Mr. T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly destroyed, as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.

    by Mia Dolan on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:36:30 AM PDT

  •  Seems to me you answered you own question (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raines, Iberian, bibble, epppie

    I have never experienced what you are saying except during the Israel – Lebanon war where the community was rather polarized with support for and against the actions of Israel.  During that time, I found it best to get the drift of opinions first so I could frame my thoughts in way that did not offend.  But I think this understandable.  After all, Israel is special to lots of folks and war is something that is deeply despised here.

    But I think you answered your own question.  Telling some Democrat to “shut up” is over the line.  There are lots of politicians who blog here including Kerry himself on occasion.  Telling him you think he is in error is cool, if that’s your opinion. Telling him you think he is hurting the party is cool if you think that way.  But telling him to “shut up” is the same as troll rating him because you disagree.  Personally, I can see both sides on the date certain, and would just as soon see it left vague.  

    There are many times when I think some diary is hurting our cause.  But I try to point out why.  I don’t just tell them to cease with the nonsense.  I tell them why I doubt what they say, or why I am sure they are wrong.

    By the way I don’t agree with the idea that this place encourages group think.  It does encourage consensus, but not because of troll rating, but because of recommends.  

    I hope this helps.  You should be careful to be civil and respectful of those you disagree with.  But other than that, I don’t see people’s opinions being suppressed.  Frankly, my opinions are generally to the right of people here.  I guess I’m more “middle of the road” than I want to admit.  I’m certainly not as strident as many so my diaries and comments don’t get a huge number of recommends.  But that’s the consensus thing.  And yet, I have reached that TU status.  Not that I use it or have I found comments by troll rated people to be particularly interesting.  So hang in there and you to will become TU.

    Do the right thing 'casue it feels better.

    by John Boy on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:37:53 AM PDT

  •  T.U. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anna, trashablanca, MrBlue, epppie

    Of course, everyone is correct. There are TU's who troll rate people for ridiculous reasons, including simply disagreeing with the comment. It may not be the majority, but it does happen, how could it not?
    Like others here I have gained, lost, and regained TU status before, and I haven't posted a diary in the better part of a year.I very rarely troll rate people, and pretty much always for personal attacks, or just out and out drivel. I come here precisely because I want to read other opinions and participate in discussions and arguments. I assume that is true for most here. Still, sometimes the best intentioned people get pissy or a little full of themselves and on a pasionate topic like politics there are bound to be people who cross over the line, both by writing trollable comments and by issuing foolish down ratings.
    It doesn't hurt TU's to be periodically reminded not to be thought police, and it just might be a occasionaly usefull for people who get troll rated a lot to read over their posts and see if maybe they could express their position better.
    We are, a self policed site, yes you do have to have "special TU powers" but they ain't hard to obtain.
    Comment a lot, and make an effort to engage people politely. Lay off the personal attacks and name calling, and stop trying to guess everyone's motivations.
    We're trying to hold a conversation with an enormous number of people participating, and it's a good idea for all of us to try and keep it civil and wide ranging.

  •  You know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat

    I have had a few troll ratings myself, I don't even acknowledge them, I pretty much ignore the whole process.

    If I get troll rated for advising an obnoxious poster what he/she can do with his opinions when I belive it is deserved, getting banned is almost worth it.

    Ya know in other countries, expressing your views can have far more dire consequences, and yet people do it anyway.

  •  Community diversifies,but the TU'ers roll on (0+ / 0-)

    Some good points in this diary: current wisdom,a comfortable group think that is self enforcing...but as others say if you don't have a thick skin,stay away from the pie fights. My gripe:

    I don't understand the easy comfort many have with obscenity. Granted there are enough dreadful things going on in the world that beg for it BUT, we as a site have some standards,and reasoned civil discourse is the  key feature, not anything unusual.

    In high school and college there were free speech fights about the right to say f3@$ and sh!> and the 10 dirty words or whatever.  Nothing was improved,or conversely lost while avoiding them. The use is a shortcut and a lack of a more precise definition turns into intellectual laziness and contempt for the audience, be it written or spoken.

     It isn't the way most people speak, even when they are upset.

    Once they start flying, the crud drowns out or turns off people who might otherwise contribute to the discussion. It is like, "FU&$ you! now you shut up because I have the last word!"  

    Many of the best writers are rarely heard from because they are actively engaged in other work just as important as here and studies and political organizing away from their keyboards. Then there are the people who are very good at this and have the time to spend on it and get better.

    All this means unless you take some time and effort, your own skills and impact won't grow and the effectivenes of delivering progressive Democrats won't get furthered as fast as you would like.

    OK............ Next!

    by Pete Rock on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:49:49 AM PDT

  •  This is an excellent letter that would be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    begone, trashablanca, Zoskie

    best left in a drawer before sending it. It's a personal complaint, that really doesn't advance the discussion much. You read the directions. So follow them, or leave the site. We are in the last 40 some days of an important election, and you're still confused by the instructions for FAQ. No time for this now, mate.

    •  I'm not confused... (0+ / 0-)

      I just stated that I don't think the behaviour here matches the mission statement and I stated how and why I think that happens.

      •  When all else fails, read the instructions . . . (0+ / 0-)

        Your state of denial does not alter the instructions of the FAQ. At this point, your pursuit of this topic should reveal the vertical cliffs of the blind canyon.

        •  Don't the FAQ also state... (0+ / 0-)

          that ALL views from any wing of the party are valid? Not just the ones that further you're particular focus and I happen to believe I was constructive in moving towards the aims of the site, as listed in the FAQ to reform the party (including Democratic participation here)and get more Democrats elected.
          The blind cliff you speak of could be the one your standing in front of since you don't seem to be willing to broaden the scope of any discussion towards tactics as well as ideology.
          Thanks for your opinion I just think you're wrong on this particular issue.

  •  A lot of the matter's meat... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheBlaz, Zoskie

    ...is in how YOU discuss your position and how YOU react to dissent. I've seen lots of GBCWs from people with eggshell egos, and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

    Generally things go well. If one of my comments draws a live-in TU concern troll, I ignore and move on. When one of my diaries draws a nay-sayer, I defend. Civilly and reasonably, or I've got no business writing a diary in the first place. I don't lose any sleep over TRs, and don't pass 'em out much either. Every now and then if I find myself getting overly excited, I go outside and enjoy the mountain air. Life's too short...

    Satan himself had a 33% approval rating even as he was booted out of heaven.

    by Joy Busey on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:30:58 AM PDT

  •  Aw, crap! (5+ / 0-)

    I knew there was something important I was supposed to be doing this weekend!

    Instead of finding a new place to live and moving furniture, I was supposed to be here practicing censorship and squashing dissent.

    God damn it.

    There goes my TU again.

    Seriously, though - I know I'm not the only TU who isn't a Democrat - so what does that do to your thesis? I'm more than happy to toss a donut to someone that's just being an asshole, and give a rec to someone who's politely dissenting, but the definitions of "asshole" and "politely dissenting" are different for every TU. In fact, they're different for everyone.

  •  I wonder what this diary is about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zoskie

    since no way am I gonna read such an unnecessarily long whine.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site