Skip to main content

The outcome of collaborative, democratic writing of a new rule takes its final step today. This will be a "vote" by the Daily Kos community. To say "Nay" to the proposed rule, you should recommend this diary. To say "Aye," you should go to this diary and recommend it. Only the vote/recommendations of Kossacks registered before October 21 will be counted. Voting will continue until the recommendation period expires in 24 hours.

You can read diaries about how this proposal came about here, here, here, here and, most recently, here.

Out of the process has emerged the Final Version of a proposed stalking rule.

The proposal is not part of any plan to add tons of new rules. Daily Kos has always been governed by the idea that the fewer rules the better. Too many rules get in the way of hearty debate. Large numbers of users have, however, expressed a need to clarify some existing rules - including some long-standing "unwritten rules" - and provide a few new rules dealing with out-of-control behavior they believe has lowered civility and driven some users off the site.

You can read the proposed rule, some rationale for it, and some commentary on its use (if approved) after the fold.

As you can see in the work room generously set up for us by David Stern of MixedInk several versions competed with each other, and there are four runners-up in a process that included 70 active participants and more than 800 visitors. (To do this, click on the link and then on the browsing button.) Although the process was collaborative, the Final Version you're reading here (and voting for or against) was written by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.

Stalking is defined as having 3 requirements:

(1) On multiple occasions, one or more commenters follow a community member into diary threads; and,

(2) The commenter(s) engage in the conduct of posting comments that consists of false information, personal attacks, lies, rumors, or implied/express disclosure of private information; and

(3) The commenter(s) engages in this conduct with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster. This intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards and/or the nature of the comments posted.

Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards.

Before calling someone a stalker or tossing HRs at a person you think is a stalker, community members should post a comment explaining what conduct and/or statements constitutes the stalking with a link to relevant evidence so that admins and the community have a record to review.

Posters should not recommend a comment calling someone a stalker or HR'd for stalking simply because of friendships but should review the evidence provided in the comment to reach their own independent conclusions.

PDNC also explained some background:


When this process of drafting a rule started, I did not support adding a written rule on stalking. A couple things changed my mind:

(1) Many times when someone claims stalking, my review of the comments shows that it really was a case of spamming or thread hijacking or other conduct for which we already have rules. But then I realized that some are HR'ing on the grounds of stalking (even though we do not have an official rule on stalking) and; more importantly, some people are being tagged a stalker unjustly, and there are negative perceptions associated with being a stalker.

(2) While we do not have an official stalking rule, we already have a de facto rule of stalking. Community members are now claiming in comments that someone is stalking them. Sometimes people then toss an HR at the person who is called a stalker. Oftentimes, there are no reasons offered as to why the person is a stalker, or there may be general reasons provided, but people do not always provide links to substantiate the claim of stalking.

I think stalking is a serious allegation. Even if no administrative action is taken, persons who are called stalkers have been HR'd and there is the more serious impact of the perception in our community that a person is a stalker.

I think that a de facto rule can lead to arbitrary treatment. So, if we are going to continue to HR alleged stalkers or call members stalkers, then I think there should be some guidelines rather than HR'ing or tagging based on individual standards that may vary from one person to another.

This is what I think my proposed rule would accomplish:

(1) While spamming or thread hijacking can be a tool used to accomplish stalking, this rule would separate out real stalking cases from cases that are just spamming, thread hijacking or some other existing rule violation. The benefit is that the more negative label of stalking would not be tossed at persons who are only spamming, etc.

(2) The likely pool of real stalkers for which this rule could be used is probably very small, and that is good because real stalking is a serious charge. I think many cases where stalking is now alleged would have to be addressed on the real grounds, which are spamming, thread hijacking, and other existing rule violations.

(3) It will provide transparency and equality of application to the use of stalking as now the standard is arbitrary and the grounds and evidence are not always provided on the boards.

If the rule is approved, it will be added to the FAQ. It will not apply retroactively and evidence of behavior that may have violated the rule in the past will not be admissible as grounds for administrative action. As with all rules, enforcement will be primarily by community moderation. In some cases, this can lead to autobanning, that is, a violator may receive enough Hide Ratings to ban her or him from the site permanently.

As with other rules, administrative moderation will be incremental. Rule violators will first be warned in comment threads. If violations continue, the offender will be given a red-flag warning in her or his user file, followed, if necessary, by a temporary suspension of posting privileges, and, ultimately, if the violations do not cease, a ban. Repeatedly making unfounded allegations of stalking will be dealt with in the same manner.

REMEMBER: If you recommend this diary, you are casting a "Nay" vote for the proposed rule. The vote of anyone who recommends both the "Aye" and "Nay" diaries will not be counted.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM PDT.

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 recommend kos doubling your salary (39+ / 0-)

    because whatever he pays you ain't nearly enough.

    Thanks  for all you do.

    Clarification? - You can't change your vote, right?

    Once you unrecommend a diary you cannot rerecommend it?

  •  Nay (18+ / 0-)

    the 'rule' is still too subjective.
    this is my vote:

    Blog stalking is defined by one (or more) persons obtaining personal, ie 'real life,' information about another poster and taking their virtual fight into the real world.

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:07:59 PM PDT

    •  Eh, I think someone can be "stalked" without (18+ / 0-)

      it necessarily being taken into "real life"

      Free advice: Never argue with a Right Winger, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience

      by Muzikal203 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:15:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and i think taking (4+ / 0-)

        action from the virtual into real, physical life, sans on-going agreement to communicate, is the definition of stalking.  so we disagree.

        "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

        by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:19:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you can do both and it be stalking (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kj in missouri, sebastianguy99

          although if you take it into real life, I think it's really more harassment.

          Free advice: Never argue with a Right Winger, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience

          by Muzikal203 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:29:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  why re-invent the wheel? (4+ / 0-)

            "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

            by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:36:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  okay, so what's in this diary is more "harassment (7+ / 0-)

              and when people take it offline, then it's stalking? That works for me too. I may have to change my vote.

              Free advice: Never argue with a Right Winger, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience

              by Muzikal203 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:40:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, that's exactly what i mean (7+ / 0-)

                the line, to me, is clearly crossed when it moves from virtual to physical.

                but i think i'm in the minority.   :-)

                "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:43:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm with you too. We have a hard enough time (7+ / 0-)

                  determining people's motivations from what is posted here and subjectivity as well as politically-laced HR's already are a problem.  It's one reason not everyone is a deputy in real-time.

                •  This was discussed in drafting this rule (8+ / 0-)

                  the general consensus of those working on it was that we don't have any control over the real world in this regard. If someone takes an online interaction over into the real world, it becomes an issue for real-world police and they should be contacted. That is something way, way past community moderation.

                  We also debated calling it something else besides "stalking." The consensus there was that the community already seems to have adopted the term stalking for this behavior (numerous instances reviewed), so changing the terminology could be more confusing. And we couldn't really find a more accurate term. Harassment could be in just one diary, where this tries to focus on going from diary to diary to diary, attacking the same person.

                  Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ---Plato

                  by carolita on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:19:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your explanation (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kj in missouri

                    seems to support the notion that this concept makes light of internet stalking, which in my opinion should also be handled by the real police.

                    •  Should also be handled by the real police? (0+ / 0-)

                      I think this is a moot point, because it almost certainly will NOT be handled by the real police, at least not at any time in the near future.

                      "To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny." -FDR

                      by more liberal than you on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:38:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  work (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    took precedence over my ability to participate in mixedink beyond a weekend day.   i applauded the concept and decried the tools and am certainly sad to realize i missed a chance to weigh in on the word 'stalking' as that is one of my major objections to this 'rule' and which i've attempted to articulate in other posts.

                    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                    by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:19:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I suppose even this argument is how we (7+ / 0-)

                  interpret cyberstaling as opposed to real life stalking. Both have led to some dreadful tragedies.

                  I'll go and read Wikipedia, although I am opposed to it on general principle, I am that old fashioned.

                  Maybe this whole issue needs a lot more thought and interpretation and should be kicked down the road?

                  Because i don't agree with this limited definition of 'stalking' on line because pack and predatory behaviour can in fact lead to HRing someone out of existence, wwhich could be construed as deliberately setting out to destroy someone.

                  That is why I didn't get into it in the selection process.  It just seemed too arbitararyand subjective to me and as far as know i don't really know what people complain of when they complain of being stalked, since as far as i know i never have.

                  I've been gang attacked occasionally but even that seems to have died down after MB came on board in his Inspector Clouzot outfit.

                  •  sigh (0+ / 0-)

                    what you said.  

                    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                    by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:20:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  If the gang attack (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    notrouble, beijingbetty

                    Follows you from diary to diary it would be classified as stalking, ie, deliberate and repeated harrassment.

                    Actual stalking is rare but it happened to me here one as noted above and it was not fun.

                    Gang attacks are more common but covered by existing rules.

                    False accusations of stalking, praticularly as a device of ad homen attacks are becoming a nusance and the proposed rule addresses this as well.

                    Your last comment makes an indirect case for these rule changes; indeed MB is doing a great job improving moderation, has very objective and reasonable judgement, and inproving the rules is an excercise he inititiated.

                    Personally, I'm against an ecessive number of rules and quite tolerant of heated debate including the occasional ad homen tossed into the discussion; we are human.

                    However, things can get out of control and as the site population grows, the number of bad apples increases and can disrupt productive discorse.

                    Will success spoil kos?  With the judicious application of a few rules to maintain civility, no.

                    I agree the rule is imperfect but it is bound to be refined over time and I think they have it about right: stop the stalking and the false accusations.

                    Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                    by koNko on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:52:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Soccergrandmom, This diary needs YOUR thoughts (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kj in missouri

                    I have a great deal of respect for MB and this thankless task..

                    However this diary promotes itself as a "nay" dairy while offering essentially no reasons why the idea should perhaps NOT be adopted.

                    In fact, the diary ends with text on why the item should get an Aye vote.

                    I am agnostic on the topic. Or perhaps its better to say, I was uninformed.

                    However it seems that in fairness, any issue that has two opposing views should have as many considerations on both sides as possible - SUCH AS YOUR caution - presented in the diary itself.

                    One hopes that in fairness your caution - and perhaps other points on this side of the viewpoint spectrum - get a link by MB in an UPDATE to the diary itself, in fairness.

                    NOTE to MB [if you are reading these]: BECAUSE I did not see this end of the spectrum presented in the diary I felt squeamish about voting for the "Aye" view.

                    We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

                    by puffmeister on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:46:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Stalking is not defined by physical violance (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  But by repeated and persistent attacks or harrasment where the attacker follows the victim.

                  In the real world, the law does not require physical contact to occur.

                  BTW, generally laws classify extreme or repeated verbal abuse as violance.

                  Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                  by koNko on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:37:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  This refers to stalking on this site (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble, beijingbetty, Coilette

          ie, virtual. Stalking in real life would be a matter for LE agencies to police, kos does not exist in the real domain as a policing agent.

          I have been stalked here once according to the definition and it was not a good experience. Kept me off the site for 2 weeks as a precaution and made me seriously consider quitting for good.

          On the other hand, the number of false accusations of stalking in debates is increasing and ironically, in some cases, used as a retorical device of ad homen attacks.

          So I think they have got it about right; genuine stalking is rare, false accusations common, and hopefully the rule will discourage both.

          Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

          by koNko on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:24:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Mostly HRing seems to be used simply (7+ / 0-)

    for differences of opinion, I'd think this would be the same.

    If there are people doing serious harm I'd hope there are some sort of mods at this site to just ban someone and they can come back on with a new handle and a new attitude.

    "Don't fall or we both go" Derek Hersey

    by ban nock on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:11:40 PM PDT

    •  Once banned, you CANNOT come ... (13+ / 0-)

      ...back with a new handle.

      "White people are looking at you." - Wanda Sykes

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:15:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I share these concerns (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dunvegan, Coilette

      but presume that the mods will be looking at individual situations with a lot of nuance and not making this into an overly simplistic scenario.

      I voted "aye" but now would like to offer the qualifier that my "aye" is contingent on assurance that the moderators will really be looking at e-stalking and not just opinion differences.

      I've seen (and heard about) what I would consider ban-worthy e-stalking on the Kos.

      Real life stalking should, of course, be taken to appropriate authorities. Generally these would be federal authorities, especially if there is any blur between IRL and the net. That's a whole 'nother conversation, however.

      "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:52:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, most HR's are junk. (4+ / 0-)

      And misuse of HR my the FAQ guidelines.

      I very seldom HR, no more than once every few months, and only for patently offensive, mean-spirited, verbal violance.

      A quick review of hidden comments on any given day contains quite a few meeting the above description. Some people really act-out their worst on the internet and say things I doubt they would face to face. We don't need to tolerate it, they have a choice to lock themselve in a closet and spew at the wall if they need to unload the angst.

      In fact, my golden rule is don't write what you wouldn't say in a face to face discussion, and if you slip and go over the line, apologize.

      Common sense commonly works.

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:02:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To be aboslutely fair both diaries should (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All, caul, googleimage

    be listed equally and separately. As far as I can see one can only vote NAY by linking rather than going to the separate diary for NAY?.  This inmo weighs the AYE vote in a subtle internet specific way.

    In any event I would vote NAY because in principle believe that if a site is to be self-policing it needs to evolve itself into that state by its users consent and not by rules.

    So, NAY.  And if I have missed something by not scrolling down far enough in my browser to find a separate NAY diary, I apologise unocnnditionally and without reservation.

  •  I just don't think we need it (16+ / 0-)

    I can understand the need to define but adding layers of rules is counterproductive.

    The community moderation system seems to work fine and I don't want to have to consult my lawyer before finding out who I can respond to or not.

    •  Basically, it says give someone a warning (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      litho, citizenx, RiaD, thethinveil, CMYK

      instead of a slap upside the head.

      If someone is engaging in stalking behavior, then you post links to substantiate your accusation against the stalker. And the community can ascertain whether it's true or not.

      That way many eyes and judgments can be called to bear instead of friends giving hand to a vendetta between two people in the heat of an argument.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:13:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But it also can protect you from unwarranted (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizenx, koNko, gabriella

      claims of stalking by having it more clearly defined, so moderators can weigh in fairly.

      Starboard Broadside: Firing all guns at the Right since September 2008!

      by Cpt Robespierre on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:15:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As I mentioned in the Aye diary (13+ / 0-)

    I see a definition of stalking without any mention of it actually being prohibited, or of possible penalties (except when an HR might be appropriate).

    Before I vote, I'd like to have some clarification of how the site admins (or Director of Community) intends to deal with this people who meet the definition of stalking, since the rule doesn't actually forbid the practice. (It would probably be useful to post this in both diaries.)

    © sardonyx; all rights reserved

    by sardonyx on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:32:35 PM PDT

    •  Well, this is in the diary: (9+ / 0-)

      As with all rules, enforcement will be primarily by community moderation. In some cases, this can lead to autobanning, that is, a violator may receive enough Hide Ratings to ban her or him from the site permanently.

      As with other rules, administrative moderation will be incremental. Rule violators will first be warned in comment threads. If violations continue, the offender will be given a red-flag warning in her or his user file, followed, if necessary, by a temporary suspension of posting privileges, and, ultimately, if the violations do not cease, a ban. Repeatedly making unfounded allegations of stalking will be dealt with in the same manner.

      As regards mention of it being prohibited, I would guess it will be going in a section titled "prohibited activities" or whatever the current label is.

      "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

      by MRA NY on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:00:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (9+ / 0-)

      I would prefer to see something more straightforward, like:

      Stalking is prohibited on Daily Kos. Stalking is defined as.....

      Otherwise, it's like a speed limit sign in Montana.

      Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ---Plato

      by carolita on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:25:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not that I disagree with the rule, (17+ / 0-)

    it's that (2) and (3) are already criteria for HRing, so I'm not entirely sure why we're clarifying this as a separate category.  I understand PD's point that people get accused of stalking for arbitrary reasons (it's happened to me recently), and I read her explanations at the end, but it still seems like all this already falls under normal HR behavior.  This is doubly true since the progressive penalties for it doesn't seem that much different than, say, the penalties for HR abuse.

    I'm not inclined to take a strong stance on this, because I know people have been working to sculpt a set of clear and fair rules.  I'm just a little unclear as to what the real difference here would be.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

    •  hi pico! i think one real difference is (11+ / 0-)

      that right now we don't even know what are all the terms for the undefined current rule because they differ from one person to the other. there is no transparency, or fairness or equality under the de facto rule of stalking that has emerged and been increasingly claimed over the past 6 months or so.

      yet, people are being tagged a stalker, which i think is a pejorative term, and often receive HRs when the substance of the stalking claim is oftentimes disagreement, or violation of some existing rule, like spamming or thread jacking. I think claims of stalking are serious enough to warrant no HRs unless there is credible evidence provided to back the claim.

      Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

      by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:51:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  well, just like in the real world, there are (4+ / 0-)

      degrees to things.  Their is lying about someone - generally not brought to a criminal level (except slander/libel etc), then there is harassment, then there is stalking.

      All negative behaviors are defined by degree - theft (larceny, grand larcency, etc), murder (manslaughter, murder 1, etc) and harassment - bullying, harassment, stalking, etc.  And most build on the definition of the lesser behavior.

      I am undecided, but have yet to see a good argument here against the rule.  Will continue to read...

      "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

      by MRA NY on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:07:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand that, but I don't see (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, kj in missouri, RiaD, kyril, MRA NY

        how this behavior is being singled out for a different degree of penalty outside the normal set.  It'd be like living in a state that bans consumption of alcohol, and arguing whether we need another law banning consumption of liquor, with the same consequences for breaking it.  If stalking carried a much more severe set of penalties than HR abuse, that'd be another thing, and I'd agree with your comment.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:11:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nay. (25+ / 0-)

    Too much subjectivity.  Also, non-comprehensive.  There are people who misbehave on Daily Kos all the time and could be accused of being stalkers -- sometimes not of people but of whole communities, but the rules as stated would not cover them.

    This is a prescription for mayhem.

    "I'm sorry, I just don't have the votes" - Me, sometime in November, 2010 (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:33:03 PM PDT

    •  Is stalking like pornography? (4+ / 0-)

      you know it when you see it?  At my age I would appreciate a bit more attention. Sorry, I know this is DEADLY serious business.

    •  Too many lawyers here or too few? (0+ / 0-)

      I can't tell if the problem is that we have people who like lots of rules, or if it's that they aren't explaining themselves well enough.

    •  i'm leaning NAy as well for that same reason (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, AndyS In Colorado

      defining it seem, to me, to raise even more questions.

      I recently posted a diary and one commenter took it upon herself to literally post the same opinion of my intent several times throughout the diary almost in the exact same words.

      ultimately the commenter was just expressing a difference of opinion but it contained language that was personally disparaging to me.  It was repeated often.  

      So would that be stalking according to these rules?

      IMO, as annoying as it was, i wouldn't say so although i'm sure i'd have the same interaction with that same member in a similar diary again and again.  As it stands I was forceful and insisted that the commenter stop (and threw in a threat of similar type reciprocity). It stopped but to me, the rule seems like it might raise more questions than it answers.

      I'm seriously leaning NAY although I do like the idea of members who feel they are being stalked to post links and allow the community to decide.

  •  Nay. (9+ / 0-)

    Impossoble to really enforce without innocent people getting banned.  Its too vague.

    Laughter is a force for democracy - John Cleese

    by GlowNZ on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:36:51 PM PDT

    •  Could you elaborate? What would be an example of (0+ / 0-)

      someone who:

      On multiple occasions, follows a community member into diary threads, posts comments that consists of false information, personal attacks, lies, rumors, or implied/express disclosure of private information with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster

      where they wouldn't be actually stalking.

      I know there are often times when the same users have disagreements over the same topic, or several topics, and perhaps those exchanges more than once devolve into personal attacks, but are there any you can think of where this happened where the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate is evident? ("This intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards and/or the nature of the comments posted.")

      The cases involving disclosure of private info might be clearer than others, but I think the requirement to show evidence of stalking should allow the community to clearly determine whether or not such intent exists by the nature and frequency of attacks, lies, rumors.

      If you can give me a what if situation where maybe it would not be clear, I think it would serve the discussion here well.

      "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

      by MRA NY on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:16:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  calling someone a frackin idiot could easily (8+ / 0-)

        be taken as "attempting to humiliate" yet sometimes thing get heated.

        Sometimes people are being idiots and to call them that shouldn't be anywhere near stalking.

        The whole harass and humiliate thing is way too subjective......

      •  people here also (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        caul, Aquagranny911

        have with each other what is called 'history'.  Often times I meet the same people in different diaries and their opinion clashes naturally with mine regardless of the subject matter. There are also people who have similar interests or obsessions, who are bound to clash and be drawn to similar diaries. So if someone meets another and they use the same names and calling out, or gets heated about their differences which has been ongoing, then it seems to me it would be easy to claim stalking. It would become a way to invalidate and punish the other, and visa versa. It would give vigilantes and people with grudges another FAQ rule to shot HR's at whomever they ran into freguently because you do run into the same people and rehash the same differences. It's the nature of the site and politics, it's legitimate  conflicts in many cases.

        Falsehoods and Lies worry me as who's to decide what is true or not. I have been HR under the catch all This is a Democratic site...... part of the FAQ. The accuser has decided that what I said or propose was detrimental to the Democratic party when in fact I believe the opposite is true. So who's false and lying is open to interpretation, intent and motivation a lot of factors make up truths and lies. They are especially in politics never cut and dried.        

      •  Two points (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        1. Define multiple. Two? Five? Seven? Furthermore, we're a closed system here. If someone's a health care nut, they'll be following the health care diaries. That means that people can argue in multiple threads without it being stalking; they just happen to share a similar passion and keep frequenting the same place due to their shared interest. Common debating partners or stalkers? That's a very iffy judgment call.
        1. "follows a community member into diary threads, posts comments that consists of false information, personal attacks, lies, rumors , or implied/express disclosure of private information with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster"

        All of the italicized could be POV things. John Edwards adultery questions with regards to electability, for instance, would have been accurate but would've violated multiple portions, especially on dKos where he was favored.

  •  I think it will add to problem of HR abuse. (10+ / 0-)

    Wasn't the original idea to LESSEN the PROBLEM of HR ABUSE?

    Awfully legalistic and dense "rule" the result of which will be an increase in HR abuse as everyone claims they are "following the rule".

  •  What about false charges of stalking? (17+ / 0-)

    That happened to me, when all that really was going on was that a notoriously dishonest and abusive person was prolific in commenting in diaries before I happened to open them--based purely on my interest in the topic. This person would slander and denigrate people, put in links that had no relevance to the topic, thread-hijack routinely, etc etc.

    When I called them out on their most egregious abuses, they claimed I was "following them around." When actually, I hoped to avoid them completely.

    So is there a penalty for falsely invoking "stalker"?

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:39:49 PM PDT

  •  Also, this demotes the nature of true internet (16+ / 0-)

    stalking.  True stalking is not be made light of, it's a very serious thing involving sometimes the life of the person being stalked.

    We already have rules against being abusive to another poster.  We already can HR posters who are only there to harrass people.  And we already have rules about banning people who reveal a poster's true identity.

    Otherwise, we should all be able to be grownups here and even take and dish out a little heat from and to the people we have serious disagreements with and those who have serious disagreements with us, even repeatedly.  A stalking rule only encourages people to act like children.  Participation on Daily Kos is a voluntary affair.

    The best rule to follow on Daily Kos is "don't be a jerk".  This rule, I'm concerned, is a rule for children, and if you start acting towards posters as if they're children, they're more likely to act that way.

    "I'm sorry, I just don't have the votes" - Me, sometime in November, 2010 (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:39:51 PM PDT

  •  I voted Nay because I think there's a fine line (17+ / 0-)

    Here. Somebody can show up in multiple diaries because they're interested in an issue the writer writes about, and want to get their point across. That can be very annoying if they're constantly disrupting the threads by posting replies to every comment the diarist has. that say the same thing. But I'm not sure that should be defined as stalking.

    I would favor a rule against disclosing personal information, and a rule against posting the same comment over and over and over and over. And I would favor a rule against personal attacks.

    But I think it's too subjective to role it all into one. Some legitimate discussion and disagreement could show up as "stalking" under this rule, and therefore I vote Nay.

    I'm also posting this in the other thread.

    (Side note: I think it'd be better to have one thread with a poll).

  •  Jeez. This is really confusing. I see at least (3+ / 0-)

    three people have recc'd BOTH in the Tip jars? Or does that NOT count? Do you have to actually rec the Reccommend button too?

    No wonfder we argue all the time. All has finally been revealed.

  •  I find it too subjective (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All, caul, kyril, notrouble

    to be a rule. I do not know if the rule could have been written in a way that wasn't. It's not that I object to the intent or the work that went into writing the rule, I just think this, like HRing in general, is subjective. Even the way HRing is explained in the FAQs leaves room for subjectivity because no one knows intent behind a comment or an HR. Because no one knows true intent, including a moderator who makes the final call, then what's the point of a rule?


    •  Well, you have to supply a body of evidence to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      show intent - just like in the real world!  Intent is crucial to many charges and relies on the body of evidence, in this case the frequency and nature of the comments.

      "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

      by MRA NY on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:21:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sticks and stones (9+ / 0-)

    I voted "nay" because I think the rule is far to broad and covers a wealth of behavior that I wouldn't define as "stalking."  I agree with what some have said that the only real line for me is when someone starts obtaining, threatening to obtain, or posting real-life, offline information about someone else.

    If someone is just responding to all your comments in order to disagree with you, do what this wonderful medium we have enables--scroll right on by.  

    Obviously if the so-called "stalker" is posting ad hominem, off-topic personal insults that can be dealt with by HR or whatever else we use to deal with people who are being disruptive around here.  But hell, if the person just wants to disagree with everything you say in a topical manner?  Who cares?  If you don't like it, don't read it!

    •  The rule requires three kinds of ... (4+ / 0-)

      ...behavior linked in the rule by "and." So simple disagreement, repeatedly, in a hundred comments, would not violate the rule.

      "White people are looking at you." - Wanda Sykes

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:56:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In that case, this is what I don't understand: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri, caul, kyril

        (2) The commenter(s) engage in the conduct of posting comments that consists of false information, personal attacks, lies, rumors, or implied/express disclosure of private information; and

        How is this not already against the rules?  What new behavior does this cover that is not already covered by existing protocols (which seem to me to have worked relatively well around here)

        (3) The commenter(s) engages in this conduct with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster. This intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards and/or the nature of the comments posted.

        The "may be inferred from the number of times that a commenter follows a community member on the boards" part is what rubs me the wrong way and seems to be at odds with your assertion that simple disagreement, repeatedly, isn't enough to violate the rule.

        My point is that I don't have a problem with Behavior #1, I find behavior #3 to be annoying but probably best dealt with by having the "stalked" poster simply ignore the "stalker," and I thought #2 was already against the rules.

        Hence, my feeling that the rule is too broad. If #2 isn't already against the rules, then by all means, I think it should be.  But #3 and #1 make me fear that this can be used as a weapon by the oversensitive to instigate or escalate mere differences of opinion.

        •  Including the word "and" NARROWS, not broadens, (0+ / 0-)

          the scope of the referenced behaviors. The point of the rule is that unless your conduct violates all three conditions, you can't be accused of being a stalker.

          Relax - the adults are in charge now.

          by NWTerriD on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:37:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you think that a hundred comments (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri, caul

        expressing disagreement -- in response to various rebuttals, perhaps containing various degrees of disdain as a result -- can be viewed as constituting a "personal attack"?  I'm sure that someone less self-assured (or more prone to gaming the system) than PD could construe my having criticized the product of her hard work on three or four diaries now as "a personal attack."

        You are very familiar with First Amendment law, so you know exactly the sort of chilling effect I'm afraid of here.

        A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

        by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:38:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          caul, Seneca Doane

          and that PD is quite obviously detached from viewing anyone's attempts to poke or prod her work for holes as a personal attack is as much a reflection on her sense of good will, her 'strong link in the chain,' as would someone else's cries of foul, ie, the 'weak link in the chain.'

          i favor holding a high standard and not rewarding cries of wolf, which is, in my view, what prompted this entire exercise.

          i'm quite often wrong, also.  just saying.

          "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

          by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:08:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  An orchestrated attack of verbal assaults (0+ / 0-)

      is one of the most hurtful things a person can experience. Even when it takes place on the internet.  People have committed suicide because of nasty treatment on the internet.  

      You just can't tell how vulnerable a person might be.  

      I'm not saying there are no arguments against this rule.  I'm saying the "sticks and stones" philosophy discounts the cost of damaged mental health, and in cyberspace, we can't know what struggles a person is already burdened with.

      "I'm going to need ordinary Americans to stand up and say, now is the time." Barack Obama, July 1, 2009

      by keeplaughing on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:27:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's my concern with the rule... (9+ / 0-)

    the best way to improve the dialogue here is through community moderation.

    If someone calls out another user - the person being called out is likely to see it as personal and harassing. Do that often enough to the same person, and you fit all three criteria of a stalker - at least in the mind of the stalkee.

    So my worry is that rather than enhancing community moderation, a rule like this could have a chilling effect.

    I don't know how I'm going to vote yet. But I'll read others thoughts and eventually decide.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by NLinStPaul on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:49:59 PM PDT

  •  This says Oct 21st. Is that right? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor, kyril

    "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

    by justmy2 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:52:56 PM PDT

    •  You have to have registered by October 21 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiaD, Predictor, kyril

      In other words, your account has to have been created here at Daily Kos on or before October 21, 2009. People who joined starting October 22 through the end of voting will have their votes rejected.

      You can vote any time during the two diaries' 24-hour window of recommendability.

      © sardonyx; all rights reserved

      by sardonyx on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:07:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't it take a week until you can rec diaries? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        A day to comment and rec comments; a week to rec diaries...IIRC.

        "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

        by earicicle on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:43:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It takes a week before you can *write* diaries (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but I don't know about what the delay is, if any, to recommend diaries. I joined back when the recommending diaries had only been around for a couple of weeks, so what held then might well have been changed; the rec list algorithm certainly has been tweaked more than once. 24 hours before writing comments I also remember, but have also forgotten whether it takes that long to rec comments.

          The only other time delay I'm aware of is that of three months (it might be 90 days rather than being month-based) before you're eligible for TU status, regardless of your level of activity. It used to be that an absence of a week would be enough to lose TU status; now, it can hang on longer before vanishing, and seems to return more quickly, but these are subjective impressions on my part.

          © sardonyx; all rights reserved

          by sardonyx on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:01:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's poorly worded in places (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gray, kj in missouri

    Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards.

    "favorite diarists" is ambiguous

    Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

    by VelvetElvis on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:52:58 PM PDT

  •  This is a singularly bad idea. (6+ / 0-)

    I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just, and his judgement cannot wait forever. --Thomas Jefferson

    by soonergrunt on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:54:46 PM PDT

  •  Nay. People who post threats of bodily injury and (14+ / 0-)

    personal information should be instantly banned.  If someone feels they are being harassed on the web, they should send the info. to the moderators and a decision could be made from there.  There is no way we are going to be able to debate if someone is a stalker in the threads to any real conclusion as we are all posting anonymously and won't have the facts that can more easily be handled privately.  Finally, and selfishly, I think we've already got more drama than we can handle to moderate!  

  •  Vociferous difference of opinion v. stalking (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, caul, kyril, MRA NY

    I have been away awhile resettling in a new state and may have, probably did, miss a few rounds of this. My loss, but . . . .

    The trouble with this rule is that it does not distinguish between someone trying to attack a poster for a bad motive or reason, and a vigorous, passionate poster using language I would not use to put forth an opinion on the subject at hand, with or without all the information someone decides is not 'false' information.

    I have done a few diaries in my time and sometimes in the threads they generate I encountered posters of the vociferous category, folks who were sure I was being an idiot about something and didn't have all the facts they thought were correct, and thought I was confusing the matter either with incorrect or complete information or generally because in their view my thought process or evidentiary analysis was worse than my cat's, euphemism there, and should be discouraged from continuing to do so, and were not shy about saying so, as they should not have been. And some of them use whatever is current internet shorthand such as "Obama derangement syndrome" to express opinion, sloppy writing but not bannable. This is Kos, not a monastery. And if I as the diarist responded, they might rebut that response, on topic but vitriolically so. This is not stalking  in my view, but well might fall within this new rule.

    I think the rule should include something my lawyer eyes do not see that what the 'stalker' is saying is, first and foremost, basically off topic, and intending to be so. And that its plain purpose when read is to eliminate the original user's participation in Kos and the debate in question by means intentionally foul and intentionally not fair. Or to have the same effect on others desiring to avoid third degree verbal burns.

  •  had to go with no (7+ / 0-)

    Partly because it seems a bit vague, and partly because I am not certain everyone really understands this voting process. I wonder how many folks recced the other diary out of reflex because it's at the top of the list?

    "Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and legs collapse." - Al Gore

    by parryander on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:03:14 PM PDT

  •  I dunno... (7+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure I see any reason to post a comment making the accusation.  I'm not sure why a stalking rule would require anything more than a report to the staff.

    As with any case of cyberbullying or general inappropriate conduct, reporting it to site staff/administrator(s) should suffice, without getting the community involved.  If it's truly a stalking situation, then I think you might be inviting a dangerous situation by having members go public with it.  Who knows if they know each other in real life, especially if it's somebody who might in fact be a stalker.  The accuser(s) should be able to maintain complete anonymity.

    This isn't the type of allegation that should be left to the mojo system, if you ask me.

    •  well stated: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, kyril, googleimage

      This isn't the type of allegation that should be left to the mojo system, if you ask me.

      "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

      by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:10:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have to agree with you... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, caul, googleimage

      Stalking/bullying isn't something that should be dealt with by a community once it's actually taken place.  It's up to the community to stop it before it gets to the point of stalking.  After that there has to be some sort of authority to act as impartially as possible to resolve the issue.

      And by asking people to comment on why they think they/ someone else is being stalked it not only seems to promote crying "stalker", it would also derail the comments in the diary where the complaint started.

      Please check out my Etsy shop!

      by Coilette on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:08:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cure worse than the disease (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, caul, Coilette

    Should 51% of the voters get to determine rights for 49%?
    Nanny state mentality

  •  I don't think the rule is clearly stated... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, kyril, Coilette

    as it is. I like the concept but the implementation is just confusing to me. I don't quite get the differentiating role of moderators and trusted users. I am concerned trusted users will HR abusively. If this were entirely in the hands of a moderator, then I would be perhaps less concerned.

    The man who moves a mountain begins by moving away small stones. -Confucius

    by Malachite on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:22:18 PM PDT

    •  They do now why would this just not make (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Cobbler

      matters worse. In fact the very term Trusted User is a joke. It is actually Frequent User, but the acronym doesn't compute well!!!

      I got HR'd about Balloon Boy's Dad by someone i had never  heard of before, but I am vindicated today by no one less than Frank Rich and Norman Lear.

  •  Is this really a problem? (10+ / 0-)

    I'm a pretty long-time (41k UID) daily reader and poster, and I can't actually recall ever being "stalked" or seeing anyone else "stalked".  How often does this happen that it would merit a new rule?  And, wouldn't the main beneficiary of this rule be the birthers and 9-11 conspiracists who are (rightfully) hunted down and h/red to death in other diaries?  Or IS that who the new rule is designed to protect?

    I won't vote either way, cause I'm confuzzled.  But I'll happy post this in both diaries to get answers.  ;)

    A health care worker, beaten at work, then denied health care:

    by cartwrightdale on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

  •  Hey, Meteor Blades, if you ever decide to run (11+ / 0-)

    for office, these two diaries will end up in a Swift Boat ad:

    >>cue ominous music<<</p>

    "Meteor Blades was for stalking before he was against it."

    "Someone who does not see a pane of glass does not know that he does not see it." --Simone Weil

    by AgnesBee on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:23:54 PM PDT

  •  Nay (6+ / 0-)

    Too many gray areas, imo.

  •  Don't Need It (10+ / 0-)

    I view this as an attempt to spoil the fun of those of us who enjoy killing and eating the stalkers we catch by requiring a license to kill where before we slew freely and unrestrainedly in perpetual open season.

    Don't you agree?

    "Give me but one firm spot to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes

    by Limelite on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:34:33 PM PDT

  •  The truth about Meteor Blades (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Was Meteor Blades a drinking buddy of Glenn Beck? That is what I hear.

    And Mr. Blades, if that is indeed your real name, would you like to comment on this report that you are having an on going affair with on Orly Taitz?

    Four out five sock puppets agree

    by se portland on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:42:09 PM PDT

  •  Far too vague.... (8+ / 0-)

    ... and far too prone to potential forum drama abuse ("I've documented that every single time I post a diary, Mr X posts a comment disagreeing with it. So why oh why haven't the mods banned him?!?! They won't enforce their own policies." etc. etc.)

    And ultimately it would seem enforcement is up to the common sense of the mods, which does not seem to differ from the status quo by an appreciable amount.

  •  This will create much much more drama. (13+ / 0-)

    I am with others who think that,

    1. Stalking is not a huge issue at dailykos.
    1. Stalking is pretty easy to identify
    1. Stalking is serious to the point that once identified it needs to be dealt with swiftly by the site admins.

    In short, this "solution" is just going to create drama and the actual (rare) problem of stalking should be handled outside the scope of community moderation.

    •  Drama--just what we need around here (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, caul, jayden
    •  I never meta-semantic argument I liked (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, jayden, BardoOne, Coilette

      The thing I find most annoying about 'blogs is when when two or more posters get into a meta-semantic argument over how many ways a hair can be split into how many parts, and whether those parts are distinct, and whether they are truly derivative or are, in fact, integration by parts.

      I fear that this Stalking Rule will add a whole bunch of new opportunities for meta-semantic arguments, when it would be much more productive to discuss things like how to save Mother Earth from destruction by her dangerous parasites.

      Does this make me anti-meta-semantic?  I guess we'll have to argue about that for a while.

      I'm also voting nay using the same strategy I use for State of California Propositions: unless I am absolutely sure it's is a great idea, is truly necessary, and after careful research cannot find any down-sides, I vote against it.

      Big Joe Helton: "I pay Plenty."
      Chico Marx: "Well, then we're Plenty Tough."

      by Caelian on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:18:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Was Aghast when "Stalking" was Picked (6+ / 0-) MB for the first foray into rule-making.

    Of all the cockamamie "church lady" type issues, this has to be right up there with "bitch" being a "bad thing."

    The people who worked on this misguided IED (and it will blow up the community) have my admiration for their work and commitment.

    But oh-my-god.

    •  Me too, Pluto. :( (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, caul, kyril

      If you can't fix it with a hammer, then you've got an electrical problem.

      by panicbean on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:59:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The HR abuse problem has already driven (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        caul, Pluto, jayden, CMYK, Zagzula

        many people away and tends to limit true debate over controversial subject matter. It has already  had, as far as i can see anyway, a truly chilling effect and contributes to a lot of the irrelevance and repetition that creeps in.

        That does not prevent the site from being most instructive and entertaining if that is one of the reasons people come, but it certainly detracts from serious dialogue and debate.

        Frankly I don't care much one way or the other, as i take neither myself nor the site that seriously, except when I do. Which is sometimes.

  •  # 3 gives me trouble (6+ / 0-)

    Trying to determine "intent" by the standard proposed can turn the question into a popularity contest. So if the person accused is not as popular as the accuser, then whether or not there was intent will not matter as certain groups will simply side with fellow groupmembers.

    What happens if there are different diaries yet they are all about the same subject? So an argument about the appointment of economic advisers can bleed into a diary about economic news of the day,

    "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ...Bertrand Russell

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:53:17 PM PDT

  •  I actually don't spend enough time here anymore (6+ / 0-)

    to much care, but I think the idea of chasing phantoms on a message board is a little silly. And at the end of the day, I fully expect the administration to take whatever arbitrary action it wishes. That gets no complaint from me.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:54:45 PM PDT

  •  Even though I can think of a perfect example (4+ / 0-)

    of Stalking, which occurred to me. I oppose this rule.  Here is the circumstance of the "stalking" and why I oppose this rule:

    I entered a Diary written on a subject which I am mildly interested in... found the Diarists content to be very lacking and accusatory of a wide brash of people, and commented such.  The Diarist began questioning whether I was employed by some particular company (which I am not, and never have been) - but I ignored that accusation because some people ARE employed by them and it had nothing to do with the matter in the Diary.  

    After I repeated my question and explained why I was asking the question... the Diarist went to a few other diaries which I had commented in (and had absolutely nothing to do with the topic) and started Copy Pasting the exact same accusation as comments into them.  I responded that his following me around and posting crap was pissing me off, and HR'd him.  I later removed the HR, not because I don't believe it wasn't earned.. but because I really don't like to HR anyone for any reason.

    So, yea, I would consider that an evidence usable for this stalking rule, IF the rule had been in place.  Fast forward to a time period when this stalking rule will be in place (zero chance a rule like this will fail on a Democratic forum, which is ironic and unfortunate)...  If the same event were to happen next week, because this rule requires multiple examples before it actually becomes stalking - that means that I have to keep a link handy for every instance which I feel could constitute proof later.  Either that, or after I discover that the person has been following me around, I go back and search for the examples - which is something of a pain in the ass if I post more than 1-2 comments per day.

    In short, The burden of proof is such that most people will just HR the person who is stalking (for spam, etc), on each case, without worrying about developing the proof of stalking. But other people will feel compelled to develop this proof and it's entirely possible that some of them will instigate people who they view have short tempers.  

    Another argument against this rule is that I know that when I am reading a comment that looks entirely like a troll - I will often take a glance at a commentator's history and try to figure it out.  If I then see something in another diary which I completely agree with, or disagree with, I will comment on that. I would hate to have people refrain from this behavior just because it could be perceived as Stalking.

    Flowers Bloom for my Ex - though Honeybees are pretty cool too.

    by Yoshi En Son on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:58:29 PM PDT

  •  An Aye vote may protect the falsely accused (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, jayden

    Just a note to those voting "Nay" because they are concerned that it will promote false bannings of "e-stalkers."

    A rule like this may just as well protect those who have been falsely accused of e-stalking, something many of us have seen. It may wind up that someone who is simply voicing opinion and finds themselves falsely accused of "stalking" gets a HR which is HR abuse under this new rule.

    That's a good thing.

    That prevents false allegations, which may be more prevalent than actual e-stalking on this board.

    "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

    by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:00:25 PM PDT

  •  Why 2 diaries instead of a poll question? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Kind of odd to post a diary about rules, and break the rules on posting diaries...

    Why didn't you just write 1 diary with a poll at the end? Is it supposed to be funny?

    I've seen the future and I've left it behind - Ozzy

    by bejammin075 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:07:47 PM PDT

  •  Nay (5+ / 0-)

    A) Don't see why this is a special problem that needs a "rule," and B) Don't like the precedent that because some people are bothered by something, we change the rules.  I just haven't seen enough "stalking" to think it justifies this action.  (I also recommended this diary, if that's the right way to vote).

    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

    by FredFred on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:14:02 PM PDT

  •  Nay (7+ / 0-)

    Outing someone's personal information and disrupting a thread are already covered adequately by the rules and traditions.

    "Stalking" that does not break one of the already established rules does not seem very well explained here.  

    I thought this site was already a benevolent dictatorship where obnoxious people could be banned anyway.  What is a "red flag warning"?  Is that like a sternly-worded letter?   The sooner you get rid of obnoxious people, the better.

  •  Definition, not Rule: lacks if -> then (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, RiaD

    Sorry I missed this whole process - I'm a big fan of MixedInk to begin with, as well as collaborative rule-making - and I understand a final version has been created, but, for clarification purposes:

    The rule defines stalking - but doesn't specify what the consequence is. It doesn't even say "stalking is prohibited on Daily Kos", which should be the minimum qualification, following a definition, to make it a "rule".

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:22:37 PM PDT

  •  why not put a simple aye/nay poll up in sidebar? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This "rec this diary/rec that diary" with the same content is so ungainly and confusing. It's trivially easy to have a persistent poll up in the sidebar for a few days.

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:36:35 PM PDT

  •  I was wondering how... (6+ / 0-)

    ... the votes would be limited to registered users.  Since polls don't work that way.  This is the answer.  Guess I should go check the Rec list and see how it's shaping up.

    I definitely don't think this is needed.  Existing rules seem adequate to deal with all the problems I've seen evidence of.  And most of the "stalking" complaints don't even pass muster as real stalking IMO.

    At any rate, I have no idea how it gets decided whether someone is "following" another user vs. just ending up in the same place.  (e.g. I/P diaries...)

    Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden, 8/30/09)

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:38:29 PM PDT

    •  Totally agree. (6+ / 0-)

      I was just about to type these very words:

      I have no idea how it gets decided whether someone is "following" another user vs. just ending up in the same place.

      My other concern is that we already have a few people who complain frequently about being 'stalked' because other people regularly disagree with them and/or challenge them on their behavior or assertions. I think this will only get worse if this rule is added, and it will create more meta over what is and is not "mere disagreement" versus "stalking". I don't think this rule is needed and it may dampen discussion because people will fear being accused of stalking if they disagree too frequently or vehemently with the same person or people.

      •  We're gonna have the rule (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri, Pluto, jayden, CS in AZ

        Recs are running about 4-1 in favor of it.  I don't expect that's gonna change significantly.  I also don't expect to be directly embroiled in any stalking incidents directly - hasn't happened in four years here, so it's not likely to start now.  I just hope it doesn't turn into more than a small problem of people getting in those kinds of fights.

        Maybe there could be sanctions of some kind for false accusations of stalking?  (Or not...)

        Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden, 8/30/09)

        by Land of Enchantment on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:56:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Looks that way... and I must say I'm surprised (6+ / 0-)

          that so many people believe 'stalking' is such a big problem here that they feel a need for such a rule. It seems very childish to me. Oh well. I guess we'll see if accusations get out of hand. I feel for whomever will have to mediate this going forward.

        •  As someone who's been (4+ / 0-)

          falsely accused of stalking for "mere disagreement," I have really mixed feelings about this. If I thought it would help end that kind of thing, I'd be for it in a heartbeat. Those kinds of accusations are chilling, to say the least.

          But I'm worried the rule leaves too many questions open to interpretation. And in that sense, might actually feed the problem rather than solve it.

          I have alot of faith in MB and how he is likely to interpret the rule. So I'm not as worried about inappropriate discipline as I am about food fights in diaries over it all.

          I think I'd rest a bit easier if there was some portion in the rule that stated there would be sanctions against false accusations. That might make people think twice before throwing it around.

          Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by NLinStPaul on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:23:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  democrats (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Land of Enchantment

          Democrats love having lots of rules.

  •  My comment to the "Aye" side.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, caul, leonard145b, Cobbler

    To me, this isn't about "drama-queeniness;" it's about what I see as a fundamental flaw in the rule itself that wasn't addressed by the three "requirements".  Following is my comment to the "Aye" side, which was made, of course, without reccing:

    Well, I might as well add my few coppers' worth.

    There's a core concern I've got with the rule.  It's a good rule, to be sure, but the Achilles' Heel of the thing is that a member of the community could easily point to someone who constantly disagrees, diary upon diary and comment upon comment, on just one or two issues---and the way the rule is written would allow that person to be effectively tagged as a stalker.

    My concerns are, in order: Defining "following a community member into diary threads" (Requirement 1); "personal attacks" (Requirement 2); "harrass, harm, humiliate, frighten, or intimidate" and "inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards" (Requirement 3).

    Consensus kills debate, and it kills community.  It turns a place into a gated community; a "virtual homeowners' association" that effectively says, "Do as we do; say as we say; think as we think, or hit the road."  It allows a group to say, "You make us uncomfortable by pointing out the great big stains, holes, tears, and missing pieces in our security blankie."

    Like I said, it's a good rule---but with the potential for abuse of that rule, I'm going to have to trundle on over to the "nay" side, and post my recommendation there....

    And that's why I'm voting with this side....

    The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

    by Liberal Panzer on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:39:28 PM PDT

    •  initially voted 'yay'... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, caul

      then 'un-voted' for the same reason.

      I think the existing protocols are sufficient, and don't think an additional rule would be beneficial.

      (However, I've yet to vote 'Nay'....complicated, this thing is!)

      a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

      by quinn on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:00:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  agreed, and moreover, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this is slanted along the same lines as every 'keep us safe!' rule to go through any vote.

      Who's gonna vote on NOT being tough on 'stalking'?  Just like not being tough on ex cons, or not being tough on terror, and we get shitty rules as a result.

  •  yes, on stalking rule but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love

    nay on trying to fix HR abuse during this period. it's like not HRing someone you're arguing with (Do not troll rate someone you are actively having a fight with).

    besides, i'd hate to see DK overperturb its Slack plane.

  •  Rule AFAIK has no procedural aspects at all (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, TooFolkGR, notrouble
    I have to reject the rule as drafted. Any rule that regulates conduct must give fair notice of the penalty for violating it, and provide a mechanism for the fair disposition of alleged violations. The proposed "stalking" rule includes nothing of the sort, as staff counsel AdamB will probably point out if you ask him.  So I must vote no for now.
  •  Nay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, notrouble

    because it's too woolly. Will vote yes on a good anti-stalker rule.

    Absolutely no disrespect to PDNC who does superb work for the cause.

  •  Does anyone even take comments that seriously? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love

    Most diaries themselves are un-notable.  The comments on them even less so.

  •  voting "Nay" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, Pluto, TooFolkGR

    Because commenters may choose to react negatively to another commenter based off of their sum total experience of the original commenter, which would be based partially off of personal history and prior diaries.  This should not be construed as stalking, even though the original commenter could see the negative reaction as a personal attack.

    Based off of this definition, Bonddad could make a case that Meteor Blades stalked him.  I would personally think it would be a dumb case, but the rule makes room for it.

  •  No (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, TooFolkGR

    AS I told you in 234 comment and in all your diaries I oppose this measure.

    Now seriously, do we want to institutionalize all the ego trips and pi wars?

  •  Nay (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, kj in missouri, jayden, notrouble

    I think it's important to have a way to deal with stalkers.  I've experienced them, attacking me, not here but in other locations.  It makes it difficult to participate, and it damages the quality of the community and discussion.  It necessary for people to have a way to point out what is happening.

    But, I don't think posting comments with pointers is the proper way to deal with it.  It's already annoying having to read long conversations about it when it happens, and posting links will only  make it worse.  I thing it would be better to have an admin person that this could be reported to, rather than having the community manage it themselves.

    The less space and time spent on this the better for all of us.

  •  Let's assume the community moderation mechanism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri

    fails as to a particular individual and the Community Moderator has to step in what is the next stpe in the process?  Will it be a progressive disciplinary system: a warning, followed by a week suspension, followed by banning? Or, will you right to banning? And, if so, will everyone be treated equally, or will the discretion of the moderator enter into the equatiuon based upon the facts of the case (both as to what was done and who did it)?

    A rule can say almost anything at all; it's the understanding and intention of the enforcer and the means of enforcement that count.

    Plus vini, plus veri.

    by GOTV on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:08:56 PM PDT

  •  Nay because... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, panicbean, citizenx, Pluto

    ...I don't think the authority of management here ought to be hemmed in by rules.  

    This is a good, common-sense idea of a form of bad behavior that shouldn't be tolerated.  So, don't tolerate it.  You can ban any user at any time for any reason, warn any user at any time for any reason, and decline to ban or warn any user at any time for any reason.

    I think that's a good thing.  I think that it saves you needless time enforcing rules and evaluating what behavior is or isn't a violation.  The authority of the admins lies in their powers, not in the rules.  Your power is arbitrary to a degree, and it ought to remain that way.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:22:08 PM PDT

    •  I'm leaning Nay for this reason (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri

      I'm increasingly unclear why it's needed.

      "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:46:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, as this is about to fall off the rec list (3+ / 0-)

        the NAYS have been abandoned by reason.

        I shall be stremely interested tomorrow seeing how all this comes out of the wash. Seems less than kosher to me. But what do I now.

        As an observor/particpant the entire excercise has been fascinating.

        Going to watch Masterpiece Theatre and Sherlock Holmes. Maybe he has a clue, because i sure don't.

        •  Less than kosher? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Meh.  I expect to lose (I have a lot of experience) but I don't see what is wrong with their choice to do this.

          I disagree with it.  But just as their powers are generally arbitrary, so is their power to use whatever rule-making process they want.  This strikes me as being no better or worse than any other way of making rules.

          The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

          by Jay Elias on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:58:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only thing that bugs me about it is the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kj in missouri, soccergrandmom

            whole--if you'll excuse the phrase after kashrut's been mentioned--lipstick on a pig concern. This isn't a community in terms of power-sharing. This is a wholly-owned subsidiary of One Guy. That's great, I've got no real problems with it, but I'm not sure why we're so eager to pretend it's something else. I think that just confuses the issue.

            We're a community--or a bunch of communities--in that we chat with each other, support each other, etc. But institutionally, this isn't a community. It's a sole proprietorship or an LLC or whatever.

            And of course the powers remain completely arbitrary. The intent may be 'inferred' by some nature or some number. I dunno. Feels silly to me.

            But I enjoy silly, so I'm voting for both options.

            "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

            by GussieFN on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:52:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  hmmm (2+ / 0-)

          am wondering why i spent the day on this. ah well, nothing ventured.

          good evening, sgm.

          "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

          by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:00:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, can't... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri

        (1) Many times when someone claims stalking, my review of the comments shows that it really was a case of spamming or thread hijacking or other conduct for which we already have rules. But then I realized that some are HR'ing on the grounds of stalking (even though we do not have an official rule on stalking) and; more importantly, some people are being tagged a stalker unjustly, and there are negative perceptions associated with being a stalker.

        Posted in the Aye thread about why this seems necessary, more to protect people from false perception charges than to try to prevent cyber-stalking. Feel free to argue however... otherwise. I'm open to hearing all sides of this, personally. I've read a LOT of comments.

        But I would like people who have been unfairly stigmatized as stalkers to be able to be cleared of that association if need be. It's used too often in an unfair fashion. Real cyber-stalking warrants stronger intervention than a forum moderator.

        "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

        by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:59:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is this a real problem at all? (4+ / 0-)

          I've been here a long time, and posted in all kinds of diaries.  I don't remember a lot of people stalking other people, and I don't remember a lot of people being accused of stalking other people.

          My take on this is that the need is for people to get to feel like they are involved in how the community is run, and that this is an obvious bad behavior which is uncontroversial to make a rule about.

          The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

          by Jay Elias on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:06:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, there are a lot of allegations of stalking (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            especially in the health care diaries. There are people calling people lobbyists, and people calling those people lobbyists back. It's all really sad.

            I'd like to define "stalking" so we could throw it around less.

            "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

            by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:16:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've worried about the healthcare diaries too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              Maybe I don't watch closely enough to know the background behind the stalking accusations, but much of the time it has looked as though simple (albeit admittedly persistent) disagreement about the diarist's motives or the need for complete disclosure of insititutional ties was found to be insulting by the diarist or his or her friends.

              I'm a little afraid to post this, for fear of HR or other penalties. And I do honor the work of many of those who were insulted.

              But still, this old journalist found the troll-ratings of what seemed to be a free-and-easy flow of information and honest disagreement chilling . . .

    •  it's not (0+ / 0-)

      The authority of management is not hemmed in by rules because they have and they will continue to ignore any rules whenever they see fit.

  •  Nay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As with all rules, enforcement will be primarily by community moderation. In some cases, this can lead to autobanning, that is, a violator may receive enough Hide Ratings to ban her or him from the site permanently.

    I've seen too much of the "piling on" (Lord of the Flies?) behavior here that would result in autobanning without due process.

    I could change my mind of a review mechanism were to be established.

  •  Secondary objection (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner, caul

    The "Nay" diary is about to fall off the rec list. Many people will only see the "Aye" diary, read the reasoning of those voters, and never see the other side of the issue.

    •  This was me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, Just Bob

      I only saw the Aye diary on the reclist earlier, and it sounded reasonable.  Personally, I have not noticed much of the meta drama going on here since 2004, but I do notice lots of HRing on account of personal disagreements, which is unfortunate but certainly not novel.

      After reading comments in this diary, I'm going to side with the "less bureaucracy" crowd, as it tends to get better results with less corruption.

      I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the democratic wing of the Democratic party.

      by mediaprisoner on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I personally hate HR (5+ / 0-)

        I swear it's abused more than it's used. I don't comment enough to get to use HRs anymore, but when I did, I don't think I ever, once, used them. There's really no need. If people want to be complete asses, let them hang themselves on their own rope. If they completely break rules, just ban them.

        This would just make up a rule where other rules already work, but may not be fully utilized, while this new one has plenty of potential to be abused, whereas the old ones don't.

  •  Too vague (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, boran2, caul

    lets suppose that I support GMO food and I post a comment to that effect in every one of Orange Clouds diaries. Am I a stalker or someone who is standing up for what they believe in?

    "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

    by yuriwho on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:19:21 PM PDT

  •  I had to vote 'nay' after reading comments (5+ / 0-)

    both pro and con.  The rule seems open to abuse and in my short time here I have seen the HR used to try and shut down disagreement.  I love certain diarists and will always check out what they have to say.  Sometimes I comment, sometimes I don't.  I would not want to be accused of stalking but I read way more than I comment and I have never written a diary.

    Maybe I should just stick with the "pooties"  I feel safe and at home there.  Would that be considered "stalking?"

  •  I see several issues (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    panicbean, Debbie in ME, Just Bob, Vtdblue

    with the rule in itself, and am voting Nay. However, I am also seeing several issues with the process.

    The splitting of the vote into two separate diaries has caused discussion to be divided. For the most part, there are two choirs, preaching to themselves. Democratic votes in America often come with some discussion, debate, and attempts at persuasion. Having two separate diaries makes that unlikely to happen -- and based on the comments thus far, I don't think it will.

    The split has also caused what could be considered an unfair bias toward "Nay", which appears to have been posted first. Many users on DailyKos reflexively recommend a diary by a user, and more likely than not "Nay" would pick up some votes by virtue of it being first. Or, possibly, an unfair bias could also be generated by one diary receiving enough recommends to reach the list before another.

    To be honest, I'd much rather have seen this vote handled differently. Two tip jars in one diary back-to-back, an offsite poll that required you to submit the e-mail address linked to your DKos UID, something.

  •  The only problems i see with this "stalking rule" (3+ / 0-)

    idea are

    a: you're going to need a "kos police" .. and the nighmares that brings up are innumerable.

    b: it doesnt solve the real problems. gang-hring and hring of comments/diaries people disagree with are the biggest. Just go into an abortion or ip or even pootie diary and put forth anything that isnt 100% party line..

    c: theres no need. Ive had people follow me around. i ignore them. they go away. better yet find a dead thread and just tweak their nerves til theyre sputtering.

    We shouldnt fix problems that arent.. thats how our legal system became so ridiculous. Dailykos runs pretty well. We dont need a band of "minityrants". That very phenomenon is what killed every attempt to establish a #dailykos irc channel...

  •  Nay, because I've seen false accusations... (10+ / 0-)

    of "stalking" (usually as an ad hominem during a heated discussion) much more than I've encountered something that seems like actual stalking. I think having the rule would just increase the frequency of the false accusations. I think the real thing is probably rare enough here that the rule isn't necessary.

    I also think that people sometimes get paranoid when they keep encountering the same person disagreeing with them in the comments, and start to think that that person is "following" them around. In reality, it's often just that those two people have an interest in a particular niche area and thus often end up commenting in the same diaries. So I think in addition to maliciously made false accusations there is serious potential for mere misunderstandings/coincidences to be misinterpreted as violations of this rule.

    In general, I agree with the philosophy that fewer written "rules" is better when it comes to online communities.

  •  This crap rule will likely pass (5+ / 0-)

    just from comparing the length of the name list.

    Seriously, the very first reason given for the rule doesn't highlight instances of stalking, it points out there is LESS stalking than was even suspected.

    And then the second reason doesn't address the supposed stalkers - however unexpectedly few there might be - it addresses the passersby who inappropriately throw their HR donuts. Are you kidding me?!?!

    Paired together, this is like drafting a law against repeatedly calling someone's phone, admitting it happens far less than the already small number of times we thought, and then mentioning that when someone does cry stalker a lot of 'friendly neighbors' are running around slicing phone lines of the accused. What the fuck?

    You know what sort of taste this rule actually leaves in my mouth? The same taste that comes from giving any consideration to the conservative "Tort reform for healthcare" angle. A massive undertaking that misrepresents the magnitude of the effect, slings mud indiscriminately and adds an inordinate amount of complications for almost zero constructive results. All based on the 'public relations' angle of what the rule is named.

    If the thing had been called "The rule for considerate repeat replying" I think the Kos community would not have been led by the nose into this addition of mindless bureacracy. Now lets all count the loopholes that are created when people try to describe and define and delineate behavious into small stereotypical 2-dimensional chunks.

    Gawd, this is asinine.

  •  IMO (4+ / 0-)

    the fact that we have to come to 'yay' or 'nay' over stalking on a forum on the Internet screams to me that we are all fucked up.

    This the Daily Kos, an internet site, if someone wants to follow me virtually and say fuck off every time I post, so be it. We can't demand freedom of speech then censor it when it when we get scared or paranoid. Besides... why do we believe virtual stalking transcends into reality?

    I refuse to vote on this nonsense. Let's not trivialize what stalking really means and get back to business. Listen, people died today in this country. Let's focus on real issues.

    Mike Bloomberg and the 29 New York City council members that overturned the will of the people must be voted out in 2009.

    by jbjowe on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:27:39 PM PDT

  •  I am going to disagree with the process of... (6+ / 0-)

    ... creating two, distinct diaries to  deal with proposed rule questions.

    This confuses the issues because those in favor or opposed don;t know in which diary they should comment.

    Really awkward format, and I;'m not sure it accomplished what it sets out to do. That is, to offer pro and con opinions in one place.

    I think it prevents clear and deep discussion on the rule at hand.

  •  I support a rule... (4+ / 0-)

    ...that will draw bipartisan support.  Oh, wait...

    Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

    by boran2 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:35:38 PM PDT

  •  Is this really a problem? (4+ / 0-)

    If there are really cases where someone is following and stalking people -- and doing real harm (such as posting private information or issuing personal threats) then the admin SHOULD act and there's no need for this diary or vote.

    Otherwise, I think there's plenty of room for this to be completely abused. There are topics on this website that attract regular readers and commenters who frequently intermingle. They don't always like each other and it can, often, get testy. I'm afraid that people would use this as a means to accuse someone of stalking -- and once that accusation is out there, it's out there -- when really some people just comment on the same kind of diaries and don't see eye to eye. In those latter cases, the following rule should apply internet-wide: "Don't like the heat? Get out of the kitchen."

    Otherwise, let admin deal with real threats.

  •  General comment on rules and a Nay vote: (8+ / 0-)

    I have always thought the idea of "community moderation" addressed many of these issues.

    I think the delineation of issues (many of which are infrequent events, like actual stalking) into rules is a losing battle. The waters become increasingly muddied and the interpretation of all of these rules -- most of which rely on highly subjective observations -- will make more people unhappy than happy in the long run.

    Clear-cut rules, such as not "outing" another poster, are easily enforced. I think this particular rule is ill-defined and will be very difficult to enforce for a number of reasons.

    People HR for all sorts of reasons. More frequently, people are HRed for being, as an example, considered "anti-science" (in the vaccine diaries) or just generally assholes.

    I think the idea of community moderation is one reason why Daily Kos has flourished. I mean, who will know what all the rules are?

    I applaud the effort. I'm just not sure anyone will be happy the first time the rule gets applied.

    Rules about revealing personal information make sense. The definition is clear-cut. This one, not so much.

    I went back and searched the word "stalk". Here's a recent case where one poster accused another of stalking, while the accused poster claimed the accuser was uprating troll posts, in violation of already-existing rule.

    Read the thread.

    So now what rule applies? The one about uprating trollish posts... (That's a rule? I had no idea!) Or the one about stalking as claimed by the other poster?

    This is a perfect example of what I mean. Community moderation was put in place to allow the community to figure out who is being to assholish. If Meteor were to step in in this situation, which rule would he enforce, if any?

  •  I was kinda hoping I'd get stalked (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    By some hot babes. But after... hell, I dunno.. five years or so? I got nuthin'.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 07:02:36 PM PDT

  •  Who cares? I am aware of (0+ / 0-)

    a lot of the unpleasant episodes, but this is just further evidence of the sclerotization of dKos. So, I vote nay, though I no longer care.

  •  I've gotta ney here because... (3+ / 0-)
    1. I don't really like solidified rules overriding an intellegent "immediate" judgement and response to a situation.
    1. This "rule" is too subjective and vague.
    1. Any writing that says "engage in the conduct of posting comments" instead of "posts comments" is WAY too pretentiously overworded (in a Dilbertian pointy-haired boss fashion) for me to condone.

    I know I could have participted in the process earlier, but at this point I would suggest a reading of THIS before you guys "engage in the conduct of ink mixing".  Just sayin'.

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

      "This "rule" is too subjective and vague"

      This covers my thinking.  This rule could apply to almost anything.

      The thing about arguing on the Internet is that the Internet is fully of crazy people.  Instead of trying to fix the Internet, try to fix your approach to the Internet.

    •  I have just taken a journey of one thousand miles (0+ / 0-)

      in a nano second. You drove me from total euphoria to utter disgust in the blink of an eye.

      Why? because your stupid brilliant text refused to allow me to print it out before sending you money. You are a turd, my lord, a turd, I say. A teaser of the mind, a giver who taketh away.

      I despise you, you varlet you.

  •  There is no "pie" option here? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What is this, fascism?  Yes or no only?


    "We will now proceed to construct the socialist order."

    by 7November on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:47:46 PM PDT

  •  no, no, no, no (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Aquagranny911


    1. we don't need more rules, issues relating to stalking are already covered good enough by other existing rules,
    1. the administrators already do not follow the rules, having a more complex rule book will make it even more unlikely.

    I vote in favor of the existing rules being followed.

  •  I predict there will be a tidal of (3+ / 0-)

    certain select posters whining out 'stalking!' in short order.

    I've already got a "fan", one who started out here equating socialism to fascism, and has made a number of other heinous remarks. When I started watching the his/her postings and brought up previous statements, the 'Stalker' charge was quickly tried.

    Having been repeatedly accused of stalking by a clown will not change my behavior one iota. And neither will this 'rule', no matter how horribly it is twisted [as I predict it will be].

    Yes, it's important to have some rules, but I've worked for enough managers in my life to know that most rules are bunk.

    So be it.

    I will not be changing my behavior, and frankly if it means I have to find somewhere else to blog, so be that, too.

    One other thing: was there ever a consideration of sanctions against people who falsely claim 'stalking!', or has this site taken a step towards  becoming nothing more than a one-way mirror?

    Try to make it real, compared to what.

    by shpilk on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:14:27 PM PDT

    •  if you find one that is as much fun to browse the (0+ / 0-)

      Comment threads I hope you post it here on a frequent hourly basis. As for news or information this blog has become such a re-hash of all the other stuff floating on the scummy surface of the pond it has little relevance really.

      As an example just check the Groundhog Day nature of the 'health care' diaries today!.

      I only come here to graze the comments, make friends and sometimes identify enemies, learn what issues are really hot button and sensitive and see which way the winds of popular culture blow.

      My prediction. This rule won't change anything because noone will udnerstand what its all about anyway.

      Assholes will continue to be assholes, holier than thouers will continue to chastise us irreverant ones for our sexism, racism, classism and whatever other isms is fashionable or offends.

      And I shall continue to have fun and practise my satirical writing skills.

      Have a nice day on this the first post 'stalking' vote day of the rest of our lives.  Make sure you mark your calendars, Kossacks.  The earthquake has passed, the tsunami begins.

  •  this is a nightmare ready to happen (2+ / 0-)

    a whole other level to tar and feather people you don't like and a literal nightmare for admins to ever try to sort out fairly and supervise.

    "Er wer kampf kann verlieren, aber er wer nicht kampf hat schon verlorn."-Bertolt Brecht

    by ArkDem14 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:33:19 PM PDT

  •  Nay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BalanceSeeker, Cobbler

    Although I recognize this as a potentially serious problem, I think the wording of the rule is too subjective, and there is a chance that it could be potentially misused to remove someone for non-threatening but overzealous engagement, which I think is within reasonable bounds.

    "To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny." -FDR

    by more liberal than you on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:42:35 PM PDT

  •  Sadly, no. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I tend to think of myself as a law-abiding member of this community.  I put thought into my comments, and try to be as civil as possible. I'll also add that I have HR'd maybe two comments ever, and it was clearly deserved. In those cases, my actions were in line with the FAQ: the comments were "disruptive to the community". That meant trolls, not people I disagree with. Then, I had to go to confession because I felt dirty having done so. I mean, who am I to say, I think to myself, what "disruptive to the community" means?  And, I'll admit it: I shy away from controversial diaries. If I'm going to get covered in sh*t, I'm at least going to get that way cleaning out my privy, not engaging in juvenile behavior in some p*sssing contest thread. Just saying.

    I love the 'Kos, but I have pet peeves, too, and HR abuse is my number one. Reading this rule, however, I suspect that that we may be inviting more, not less HR abuse. I see a technicolor picture of a great deal of legalistic argument over what "stalking" is because the rule as written in this diary is too vague. Transsubstantiation makes more sense to me than this rule as written, and I say that with the utmost respect to MB and the community.

    I know a lot of work went into this, and I want to go on record as saying how much I appreciate any effort to improve the culture of this community. I know this proposed rule has the best interest of the community at heart, and am grateful that I have the opportunity to have a vote on this. However, I'm sorry, but I can't vote for it.

    Mainers, unite for marriage equality--NO on 1!

    by commonmass on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:07:02 PM PDT

  •  We need a rule, but not this one (0+ / 0-)

    I appreciate the process, and all the hard work that went into it, but the end result is poorly specified.

    Main objections:

    1.  The process should produce a charge of stalking against a single person, not one or more "commenter[s]".  Accusing a group of conspiring together sounds fishy.
    1.  The process for making the claim is ill-defined.  Apparently the accuser should write a comment outlining the evidence first, and then subsequently make a claim of stalking.  How does one make such a claim, if not through the comment?
    1.  The process for resolving claims is ill-defined.  Who investigates?  Who decides who investigates?  Does the accused get to offer a defense?  How does the community vote on the result: a pair of diaries like this pair?
    1. The evidentiary basis is muddled.  The second requirement combines two actions that are clearly malicious (personal attacks and disclosure of private information) with three actions that are just synonyms for arguments I disagree with (false statements, lies and rumors).

    Maybe we could change the rule later, after it gets abused a few times.  On the other hand, why not get it right the first time?

    I vote to send it back for rework.

    Democracy, not kleptocracy.

    by Cobbler on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:26:14 PM PDT

  •  Nay, because this rule is going to be abused. (0+ / 0-)

    There are folks who are not conductive to the discussions,who do hit and run jobs on a regular basis.

    There are a few folks working for the insurance industry with relatively low UID's who sound very reasonable at a quick scan when trashing the PO, but if you follow their comments, a pattern emerges.

    In other words, there are actually times when it is appropriate to ding someone every single time one sees them comment.  And no, this isn't about being vindictive, it is about keeping the pool clean, so to speak.

    No more Snowe jobs! Co-op is a cop out. It is not an option, let alone a public one.

    by JRandomPoster on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:49:05 AM PDT

JD SoOR, N in Seattle, Bob Johnson, social democrat, Colorado Luis, CT Yankee, Aexia, cdreid, jgkojak, rick, tunesmith, CJB, mbc, drduck, Politburo, Rita in DC, Ivan, Caelian, folgers, DelRPCV, AdmiralNaismith, HarlanNY, vancookie, theboz, Bob Love, iiiii, scrutinizer, Shockwave, exotrip, CaptUnderpants, TooLittleSleep, ChurchofBruce, weathercoins, strandedlad, westsyde, oysterface, pacified, FredFred, Mnemosyne, dsb, polecat, StevenJoseph, LeftHandedMan, elial, observer393, Spider Jerusalem, shpilk, bumblebums, Pd, td, sardonyx, soonergrunt, Addison, Cthulhu, Dee625, ganner918, jerseyjoew, pdrap, BradMajors, brackdurf, wanderindiana, Crimson Buddha, stevej, Hprof, mykej, altoid, bobinson, sberel, ThatsNotFunny, cmize, Iberian, Beelzebud, Cedwyn, sele, beauchapeau, OutOfManyOne, indefinitelee, sviscusi, IM, slippytoad, apotropaic, Eddie in ME, Guinho, Blank Frank, kj in missouri, JimWilson, Bulldawg, Nemagaiq, cph, mcfly, MaximusNYC, Tillie630, MeToo, exlrrp, FlyingToaster, gmhowell, parryander, mosesfreeman, sebastianguy99, Limelite, MNPundit, Karma for All, mediaprisoner, Bluesee, yuriwho, caul, Lying eyes, andgarden, betterdonkeys, kuvasz, Osiris, panicbean, truong son traveler, citizenx, eco2geek, Katal, EastCoastShock, Ex Con, Inland, scrivener76, jeff in nyc, kazoo of the north, unfounded, Jay Elias, northanger, Red Bean, Pluto, op, Land of Enchantment, CDinBoston, Paper Cup, drag0n, Jim P, maryru, makeitstop, Denny in Seattle, pico, poco, trashablanca, buddabelly, BalanceSeeker, Do Tell, Malachite, Cartoon Peril, ccmask, CurtJacobs, fromer, triv33, TalkieToaster, Marshall Collins, tcquad, arbiter, akogun, Caoimhin Laochdha, filmgeek83, AndyS In Colorado, soccergrandmom, dirtfarmer, sharilynn, Mikesco, ChapiNation386, TooFolkGR, high bitrate, fiddlingnero, Ryepower12, Elegant Blogosphere, ArkDem14, duha, Oothoon, jabu, Nulwee, Grannus, Joelarama, FresnoKossack, GATXER, ccritters, Must Have Been The Roses, terryhallinan, Great Uncle Bulgaria, jds1978, ggrzw, Inventor, Uncle Cosmo, Uwaine, malharden, NoMoJoe, psycho liberal, Seneca Doane, WillieStark, BlueInKansas, Icarus Ascending, Uberbah, Bronx59, MaskedKat, Got a Grip, Unlabled, cacamp, on the cusp, chicago minx, 123man, Patricia Bruner, aaronedge, Michael91, Shane Hensinger, VelvetElvis, glutz78, gimmeshelter, Argyrios, The Bagof Health and Politics, GlowNZ, Johnny Nucleo, parakinesis, fromdabak, sculler78, Rich in PA, golconda2, bugscuffle, skohayes, swalker007, here4tehbeer, happymisanthropy, Missys Brother, Quicksilver2723, temptxan, woolie, kyril, o the umanity, Cobbler, tlemon, allie123, Irixsh, Futuristic Dreamer, Yoshi En Son, dmhlt 66, greywolfe359, in2mixin, pwr2thepeople, TxFlipper, snackdoodle, Scott Wooledge, Physics Student, archer070, ids, banjolele, more liberal than you, RandomActsOfReason, CarrieNYC, notrouble, Partisan Progressive, m4gill4, zackamac, Kazmarov, barcode, corinthian, unspeakable, kets, CaliSista, Buck Power, soms, lastman, hyper, philipb, Kiku, mdmslle, Muzikal203, Nonconformist, Tommymac, Just Bob, Lazar, Fairy Tale, commonmass, Christy1947, Razorblade, bergman16, angry liberaltarian, Alec82, hippiechick13, Areopagitica, Darkmoth, eXtina, politik, teachme2night, CS in AZ, Ronald Singleterry, Lost and Found, AZphilosopher, coelomate, BonnieSchlitz, puffmeister, October Koan, scpato, chandu, gulfgal98, Mike in Denmark, afternine, JRandomPoster, Chris Purcell, damned if you do, googleimage, Publius2008, SunsetMagnolia, AdManAnt, The H Axis, kitchy7, According to Fish, Tinyboss, PaDemTerry, ban nock, ems97007, BardoOne, FreeStateDem, anyname, Laurdet, Zenara, Coilette, Liberal Panzer, bamabikeguy, llama taboot, CherryTheTart, Stizzealth, graycat13, Serious Blogger, JayFromPA, zapus, ml232, Aquagranny911, Marcus Lewis, NashvilleDem, James Protzman, happenstance, gudkatdedkat, johnva, Vaughner, jhw22, Zagzula, Besdeekian, progressive from Mass, Dhirty, Georgianna Darcy, glower, Billy3, left over flower child, thejeffreytaylor, Liberalindependent28

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site