The heated controversy surrounding Firedoglake does not seem likely to dissappear in the next few days. Since HRs and threats of HRs are unfortunately ever-present in those discussions, a little clarification on what is/isn't HRable seems propitious.
There is a site FAQ-which one would think would be sufficient. Apparently it is not-as both newbies and some site old-timers seem confused about what is HRable.
Think as I must that I am objective on this issue-I yet yield to the realization that I am blind-sided by my own prejudices in the matter. So, I turn to Meteor Blades-the admin who in the diaries themselves decides what is/isn't HRable.
Apart from the subject of HRs, I have also included recent Meteor Blade comments related to Firedoglake outside the context of HRs. Those comments reflect his personal views-and so unlike his view on HRs-can be accepted or not. I personally see much wisdom in his mixed views on it.
(All bold type added by me.)
WHO CAN YOU HR?
Don't HR people in your own diary.
Don't HR people in your own diary. n/t (0+ / 0-)
by Meteor Blades
on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:50:49 PM PST
Don't troll rate the person you're arguing with.
From the FAQ: (1+ / 0-)
Do not troll rate someone you are actively having a fight with. If you are in a heated argument with someone, you should not be judging whether or not what they say is trollworthy. Leave it to others to decide what behavior is or isn't over the line.
by Meteor Blades
on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:39:15 PM PST
Insults are HRable: Obama-haters, Obamabots, Leftbaggers or Fucktards-regardless of who started it.
Here's the deal. Insults are HRable. Period ... (60+ / 0-)
...People who insult others - calling them "Obama-haters" or "Obamabots" or "Leftbagggers" or "Fucktards" should not come complaining to me about HR abuse if they collect some zeroes for making these insults. Or give me some playground excuse of "She started it."
--snip--
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:42:25 PM PST
I never said nobody can call anybody ... (14+ / 0-)
...an "Obamabot." I said HRing the term - along with terms like "Obama-hater" - is not HR abuse.
by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:50:14 PM PST
Someone HRs "Obama-hater," which ... (1+ / 0-)
...is an acceptable use of an HR. Someone else comes in and HRs the person who gave the zero, or uprates the person who used "Obama-hater." That is abuse.
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 03:06:39 PM PST
Yes, I think this statement is an insult ... (17+ / 0-)
Progressive idealists are the mirror image of Teabaggers and other conservative purists.
You later soften that in your update, which I am sure is appreciated.
But your original comment, the whole rationale for your diary, was based on being irked that people were saying you aren't a true progressive. That's a totally legit complaint. I've watched as more-revolutionary-than-thou stances have wrecked progressive organizations.
---snip---
HRing has always had the same requirements. They are never for mere disagreements. And people who HR (tip jar, or other) should explain themselves, or give a "4" of assent to someone else who has explained her or his HR.
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:45:50 PM PST
many democrats share philosophy (0+ / 1-)
Rahm and probably Obama for instance.
by bucadibeppo on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 01:54:06 PM PST
HR abuse. n/t (0+ / 0-)
by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 02:40:55 PM PST
bernie added more help to rural (2+ / 8-)
pos neocon farmers who are going to vote for the biggest nazis the can. thats the payola, they all care about the little bit they get for their state .,,, not the country.
by washdcnow on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 08:56:13 PM PST
Upraters beware. n/t (0+ / 0-)
by Meteor Blades
on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 02:18:55 PM PST
A "few" similar comments isn't spamming.
I don't think responding with a few ... (4+ / 0-)
...similar comments is spamming. If you do it 20 times, however...
by Meteor Blades on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 07:13:45 PM PST
On connections to Firedoglake
I see Firedoglake has given you your instructions (7+ / 2-)
Lets see... You slam Obama at 1:00 p.m. and Slinkerwink follows up at 5:00. Sounds like a plan to me.
by Trial Lawyer Richard on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:33:02 AM PST
I don't think this comment rates an HR ... (1+ / 0-)
...However, Brian has explained that he's not paid and doesn't receive instructions from FDL or anybody else. Therefore, unless you have proof he is lying about this, I urge you to stop this specific avenue of accusatory commenting.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:22:28 PM PST
FDL: FOIBLES & VALUE OF.
On the value of Fire Dog Lake
Firedoglake, the site ... (3+ / 0-)
...that Jane started, has many excellent writers. One of the best is the brilliant, Marcy Wheeler (who blogs as emptywheel there and occasionally here).
by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 12:41:01 PM PST
I think Marcy Wheeler is ... (6+ / 0-)
...terrific and have for several years. And others at FDL are great, too. I read several of them every day.
But diary-pimping for Ron Paul - and promoting his candidacy - got people banned in 2008. And still does.
by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 08:53:11 PM PST
The blogger you cite ... (20+ / 0-)
...is simply one among many diarists at FDL. Just as there are many diarists at Daily Kos who do not represent the views of the site, there are many at FDL who do not.
by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:12:05 PM PST
I'm a good deal more critical of ... (20+ / 0-)
...Nate's point of view (not his numbers skills, which are awesome). But I am in full agreement with this.
However, I will not stop reading FDL. There are too many good things on that site. And, despite what are in my view two horrendous moves in a row - partnering with Norquist and going on Fox and Friends - I still believe the good at FDL far outweighs the bad.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 02:16:00 PM PST
On the foibles of Fire Dog Lake: Norquist
I think all of your questions are ... (22+ / 0-)
...good ones. And the answers would no doubt be enlightening.
For me - and I know some others who feel the same - the problem is that some of her sharpest critics are people who themselves have no history of praxis and who have aligned themselves, if not in theory then in practice, with the more reactionary elements of the Democratic Party. I therefore take their critiques of Jane with a salt shaker in hand. That doesn't make me want to give her a pass. As I said, I think she has greatly erred in her alliance - however temporary - with Norquist, and I think it will come around to bite her. What I am most concerned about is that may also bite left-progressives.
The last thing we should be doing in this is getting focused on personalities. The principles are what count. And one of those principles, which is why I am so critical of her in this matter, is not signing on with the forces of darkness out of expediency or perceived common interests. Left-progressives have no common interests with Grover Norquist and other rightist thugs.
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 09:10:41 PM PST
It's bullshit. If Grover Norquist actually ... (47+ / 0-)
If Grover Norquist actually...wanted to do anything but smash Democrats (much less progressives), it might make sense. But he doesn't. What this "alliance" gives him is assistance in defeating Democrats and progressives, his ultimate goal. What exactly do progressives get out of this alliance?
by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:56:42 PM PST
As a one-eyed man, let me just ... (22+ / 0-)
...say that, on this, I think Jane has made a very big, damaging mistake. Fighting hard is not a mistake, and neither is criticizing the Obama administration. While I have had some differences with FDL's tactics in the health care push, for the most part I have agreed with them. But on this matter, absolutely not.
The problem is that personality is driving 90% of this debate. Perhaps that's inevitable. Celebrityhood drives so much of our society. But we'd be better off with a discussion without names (and without name-calling) that is completely focused on the issue of what makes sense for progressives to ally themselves with, even temporarily. (I don't mean namby-pamby kumbaya diaries, but ones which address the matter head-on.) A handful of diaries have made that attempt, but most didn't get much attention. Too bad. We had a teachable moment and we lost it. I am as much to blame as anyone.
by http://www.dailykos.com/... on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 08:04:22 PM PST
I think we view the left very differently ... (2+ / 0-)
...The left I am talking about is left of left-of-center, and has always included many people who are not Democrats but who vote for Democrats, or did in the past couple of elections because they viewed this as a way forward (or at least a way to overturn ultra-right rule). That left of left-of-center operated together with moderate progressives, call them left-of-center and center-leftists. All of these opposed Blue Dogs, anti-choice Democrats and what we now label ConservaDems.
What I am talking about is that Jane has greatly contributed to - not created - a split of the left of left-of-center. And I don't think that group - skeptical of party politics all along - was split so very much before now.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:21:11 PM PST
I agree with everything you say ... (21+ / 0-)
...but Jane's recent actions have not just divided left-progressives from more moderate progressives and centrists. She has divided the left. Given what a tiny fraction of the population we already are, that is not a good thing, indeed, it may be politically lethal. Unlike the conventional wisdom, many of her critics are well to her left, and some have been in struggles dating back to the days when in some places people of color had to get a public drink of water out of separate fountain. If Jane wants to be a leader of the left, then she'll have to accept what she dishes out to others - criticism when she fucks up. Operating in tandem with Grover Norquist is a big fuck-up.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 06:47:10 PM PST
I think the demonizing is wrong. It's the ... (20+ / 0-)
...content of her choice in this matter that should be critiqued. It's her choice that has created the diversion. Unfortunately, that has now become a 24/7 mutual shit-flinging session that anybody who was active in the 1960s-'70s can tell you has precedents that were politically lethal for progressives then.
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 06:30:57 PM PST
I often have supported Jane. I don't ... (27+ / 0-)
...support her in this latest matter. She's wrong. And I think she has damaged her credibility.
But when we start saying who gets to call themselves a progressive and who does not, we're headed for the same kind of purges that demolished the left in this country 40 years ago. Making bad calls, making tactical mistakes, does not put somebody outside the circle. Otherwise, there won't be many of us left.
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 05:59:59 PM PST
We all have to draw the line ... (12+ / 0-)
...for ourselves.
Not so very long ago, many people on this site said that fighting over the hateful Stupak-Pitts amendment was ridiculous and that the most outspoken people who were doing it - more of them women than men - were hysterical, irrational, hypersensitive, overreacting. They were told, by some of the same people arguing for drumming Jane out of the circle now, that we shouldn't be drawing a line in the dirt on this issue.
We should criticize this move. But we should also recognize that people sometimes make the wrong choice. If Jane were to continue to do that, if it became a habit, then that would be different.
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 06:24:39 PM PST
While on the subject of Norquist, here are two non-MB quotes by Slinkerwink & Nyceve on Norquist (that hopefully ease tensions a bit).
Nyceve's Diary
Would I have signed a letter with Grover or any of his ilk? Probably not....I am not a fan of Mr. Norquist.
I don't agree with Norquist and I think it (17+ / 0-)
was the wrong tactic to use. I do agree with going after Rahm, but not the use of Norquist for it.
by Slinkerwink
On astroturfing (this is only the MB quote not from the last 10 days).
...It is our view – that is, the administrators of Daily Kos – that slinkerwink and nyceve are not engaging in astroturfing. We are satisfied that their disclosure of their financial relationship with FDL’s health care campaign now gives readers enough information in this regard.
---snip---
In slinkerwink's and nyceve's diaries, therefore, demands for additional disclosure and claims of astroturfing will, henceforth, be viewed as threadjacking and handled accordingly.
This does not mean that users are forbidden outside these diaries to discuss supposedly inadequate disclosure or alleged astroturfing in regard to FDL's campaign or to DailyKos policy in this matter. Users may post their own diaries on these subjects and discuss them as often as they wish.
by Meteor Bladeson Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:34:12 AM PST
On disclosure.
We're trying to encourage groups ... (3+ / 0-)
...like the ACLU, Immigration Policy Center and others of that nature to keep posting but adding a byline to the top of each diary so that we know the individual involved. However, given that most users post here under monikers - including lots of us whose real names are well known - I am not sure how "fair" such a byline policy is.
by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 01:31:16 PM PST
Meteor Blades (really) needs our help. Not so much in looking for loopholes to throw HRs at the other side, but in counseling our own side against making HRable insults.
Thank you. The more this happens ... (9+ / 0-)
...at Daily Kos - the challenging of out-of-line comments by people with whom you agree - the more productive the conversation will become.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 01:40:33 PM PST
Damn, Mr. Overlord, Sir (0+ / 0-)
I hate publically agreeing with you. Your principal fault lies in making too much sense.
by DaNang65 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 03:16:03 PM PST
UPDATE:
Thanks to Kalmoth for this from MB
Nobody gets banned for ...
...disagreeing with FPers, or dissing them. Advocating murder, on the other hand...
Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.
by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 08:48:43 PM MST
Thanks to MB for this from Meteor Blades on use of "shills."
No words are banned. What has repeatedly pointed out is that when a user insults another user - I was asked about some specific insults and responded - it is not considered abuse to HR that user...I have never said that users cannot respond vigorously to what they consider to be misrepresentations or lies. But what I see a great deal of is people claiming lies are being told and claiming misrepresentations are being made, but without presenting evidence to back it up. Hence, to give one for instance, we have people accusing supporters of FDL strategy of being paid shills and FDL supporters accusing FDL opponents of being paid shills.