Welcome to The Hiddens, an ongoing series of diaries unofficially discussing and documenting moderation activity on Daily Kos for the benefit of the TUs (Trusted Users) who affect it, the Kossacks who are effected by it, and the public who may be curious about it. My name is T. Max Devlin, please call me Max, and I will be your facilitator. As indicated, all opinions and claims made are unofficial and my personal perspective. Contributions of all types are encouraged from the entire DK Community, and all its parts.
One important note I'll share from ace TU aoeu:
At DK3 one could see replies to one's own comments even if hidden through one's hotlist. At DK4, not so much. If you would like to see it as a non TU sees it then logoff and look again. Alternatively you can open another browser and look. My primary browser is FireFox and is always logged in. I can open IE and see what a non-TU sees simultaneously. It's the only way to tell if a common is really hidden.
To be honest, I wasn't aware of this. Since most of the contentious stuff I'd like to see go away is often in the threads in reply to the hidden comment, it makes some difference in how my suggestions might effect things. But I don't think it changes much, really. There are still questions; was my link to that comment a CM violation, since technically it is hidden as the reply to a hidden? The public embarrassment of TUs ridiculing someone who can't read their comments might be mitigated, but if DK was originally dedicated to nothing but ridiculing people who disagree, it no longer is just that, I hope. TUs should still not be replying to hidden comments (or comments that might become hidden!) and if extensive discussion is called for, it should be in some place like The Hiddens, not in the regular diary threads. IMHO.
Today's edition represents the one week anniversary for The Hiddens! So far so good, I think. As far as I know, this is the first look non-TUs (and the general public!) have been able to get at what stuff is going into hiddens, and perhaps the first many TUs have learned as well. I'm not sure if the handful-a-day of incidents I've been reporting as they occur are far more than most people expected, or far less. Post your perspective on that in the comments.
I think this is perfectly true:
But unless certain groups first grapple with privilege and take a good hard look at it - it will continue and it will never "transcend".
I think the author of that quote should be aware that 'certain groups' includes the one the author is a member of. I think every group here needs to grapple with their privilege, the privilege they have to shut down contentious and contrary opinions using both community and social moderation (and, of course, the cause of most of the issues of moderation the author sought to address, the bullying combination of the two.)
I've been a bad boy. Let me tell you about it, then we'll get to the records.
In my bid to do what I can to help DK moderation, I've tried to mostly keep out of the way. I could have been far more active in interacting with the cases, though I admit I haven't been entirely hands-off. Over the weekend though, I made a number of contributions. All of which were readily panned by every observer that I could see.
To anyone who I might have I offended, I apologize for offending you. To anyone who wasn't offended, better luck next time. I wasn't saying anything offensive, to my mind, but I am not easily offended so that doesn't mean much. A lot of people on DK are easily offended, and always will be.
By itself that isn't a bad thing. Despite the uneven history of BK, they and all the other special interest groups (LGBT and feminists to name two others I might have upset) are an extremely strong component of DK. It is a primary job of moderation, imho, to protect the diaries of those groups from gratuitous trolling. But even in these groups, there is a balance; the privilege of controlling the discussion brings with it the responsibility to allow contrary opinions. It is a shame that activists representing groups like this need to confront the same (or what seems the same) denials and derailments time after time. But that is the work of being an activist, after all. We should be allowed to "go off" on each other, rhetorically, without it causing grueling long-term schisms and resentments.
Enough babble for today. Please join me in comments to discuss these and other incidents and events, and/or try to take Yours Truly to task for having ideas.
A lesson for the new DK4 sensibilities:
Incident: 'duct tape'
Incident notes: Hidden by Request (1/6/2*(8))
Diary notes: WAYWO What Are You Working On DIY group
User notes: TU, requested hide
HR notes: accidental creepy
Disposition: closed Status: all good
Double-check before you click "Post" when there are children involved
Yesterday's 'Undermine the GOP' diary has spawned two hiddens for the diarist:
Incident: 'doesn't get it'
Incident notes: Ron Paul Troll (0/4/2(6))
Diary notes: Libertarian GOP troll
User notes: Subject troll
HR notes: Professional troll
Disposition: GOP, Admin Status: CM, open
The would-be contributor doesn't seem to realize that it doesn't matter how he spins it, advocating for Republicans isn't something that we tolerate on DK. The posting history makes it obvious: this user is not interested in anything but trolling for Ron Paul, a GOP libertarian, and the account should be at least warned and probably disabled, imho.
Sunday was quiet in general; here in The Hiddens and on the hiddens. I imagine spring and Sunday (which means tons of real content on DK so less time to waste on meta meta) are why. Thanks for dropping by, please share your thoughts, updates will be posted.
&&&Dedicated troll, contrarian Kossack, or libertarian shill?
Incident: 'politically incorrect or just incorrect?'
Incident notes: LGBT (Anti-gay) (0/2/16(21))
Diary notes: LGBT, unpopular popular science
User notes: Libertarian Kossack
HR notes: "Have a bite of a big gay donut!"
Disposition: Pile-on Status: unproductive, open
There isn't any chance the comment would get uprated, so why is everyone discussing it? And if everyone is discussing it, why hide it? And why doesn't anyone discussing it actually discuss it? There's gotta be something better than snide ridicule available to these activists. And the lib troll (self-avowed; check his profile) should bear in mind that his point is factually incorrect, hidden for being stupid, not for being controversial.
Yours Truly has had a rough day. I've caused some dust-ups in and near some of the incidents, as previously described, and its taxing to suffer their slings and arrows of fortunate outrage. And the response to my poll is just plain nasty; 7 out of 10 votes for "I don't like you"! I was even set to just pack it in for the day, maybe the whole project. But you know me, gotta check one last time. And what do I see, but the very next incident is the other of the "two nastiest little fucks on this site", as I referred to him only last week. (BTW, to those 7: I will count the other 151 Kossacks who read today's edition so far but didn't answer the poll as on my side, but too shy to say so. Mnyeh!)
It isn't just that it is a particular TU that first hit the hidden; it appears there are now a string of pie fights in several diaries.
Incident: 'You have yet to prove any of your accusations (or: As if we haven't heard that before'
Incident notes: huh? (5/17/8(12))
Diary notes: DK, GBCW-ish
User notes: TU, troll-hunter
HR notes: AYCMAR? followup, BK v OTK (Old Timer Kossacks)
Disposition: double-gainer Status: half-twist, open
Apparently the author of the comment was drawing attention to an earlier comment that had gotten hidden (and was I believe unhidden); there doesn't seem much but an argumentative tone (see above, Incident) but its the middle of a pie fight anyway, on whether BK Kossacks can call OTK Kossacks racist or not, I think. I'm not trawling through the threads to see any more, I'll just point to the whole mess and say, "See? There! That's what I'm talking about." This isn't (and is!) trivial stuff or just personality clashes. This is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and the nation; can we find our better angels, or will we just keep bickering?
Dinner time. I'll post this just so it is up, at least. I'll report on the other new stuff (there's too much for tonight, but I'll try) when I get back. &&& I picked up another vote for personal animus in the poll while I was eating, but six more readers than that, so I'm still doing well on that end. Any of you haters should feel free to throw a donut in the tip jar, if you have enough self-respect to identify yourselves. ;-)
This next one is a "fill in"; a hidden that pops into the middle of the hidden comments list, because of datestamping and sorting, although it only recently became hidden. I don't usually even remark when this happens, as I don't guarantee that The Hiddens records things chronologically (although that is usually the default case.) But I thought I'd mention it this time, because the next few were comments posted on Sunday that have only now dropped into the hiddens.
Incident: 'progressives suck because progressives rock'
Incident notes: Coalition building critique (2/7/1)
Diary notes: Long, divisive call for unity
User notes: Obamaphobe
HR notes: Joke
Disposition: F-word Status: friends
When one old timer who thinks that President "Obama doesn't give one damn about average Americans or what we want" says "Fuck You, Moron" to another old timer who says this:
One wing is progressive, anti-corporate, and distrusts the free market. The other wing is neoliberal, pro-corporate, and trusts the free market.
in a diary calling for "coalition building", it is a joke, I think. One way or the other.
In a front page article:
Incident: 'Wonderful - oops (or: don't mention horses)'
Incident notes: Inadvertent comparison (gay marriage) (0/3/6)
Diary notes: 02B (with echoes)
User notes: TU, (good on taxes, bad on LGBT)
HR notes: Easy call, messy response
Disposition: Oops Status: short
The TU who posted the comment seems to believe that "the Democratic party LOSES votes on the LGBT questions", which accounts for the messiness of the response.
This one is a type of hidden I've seen before, but not since starting this documentation project. The "weather troll" is when a Kossack thinks it is cute to drop comments ridiculing religious "tragedy blaming" into diaries dealing with meteorological emergencies or natural disasters (or even climate change):
Incident: 'tornado'
Incident notes: Weather troll (0/8/3)
Diary notes: Breaking weather emergency
User notes: newbie
HR notes: almost flawless
Disposition: Oops Status: raptured
I'm pretty sure every TU and Kossack agrees that we all want DK to be a place where people in trying circumstances are not disrespected with flippant jokes.
Just before the Aidos debacle which immediately preceded the start of The Hiddens, I noticed a commenter who seemed a bit questionable; over-eager in fanning flames. It didn't seem to catch anyone's attention despite almost half a dozen comments getting hidden. The account has been open since 2008, but only 2 months ago the first contribution occurred (an otherwise unexplained "out of lurk mode" message) and since the start of May has been launching into discussions of pie fights with an insider's spin and a definite penchant for trying to stir up trouble (and targeting it at specific Kossacks.) So this next record may be something other than what it looks like to me, but I'm calling it the way I see it, and will leave it to others to double-check me.
Incident: 'that one'
Incident notes: 'Let's you and them fight' (F-word) (1/6/1(4))
Diary notes: BK, GBCW-ish
User notes: suspicious
HR notes: pie fight (trivial)
Disposition: redo, admin Status: hmmm
This account is a sock puppet being used by a banned user. It was a dormant account for years, activated recently for no apparent reason, posted only mojo-bait comments until the required time had passed, and then immediately launched into the thick of the pie fights as soon as they got TU status. The account needs to be checked by admin and disabled.
Late note, it appears I'm not the only one to have noticed, at first or now. I just posted a comment in reply to a message (not coincidentally denying sock puppetry) that was left in a newbies diary.
&&&
Yes, it's all out donut-war out there at the moment. The hiddens are arriving (and popping in and out) quicker than I can even hope to keep up with. But let's forge ahead.
A more pristine example of the trivial pie fight could not be dreamt of:
Incident: 'uprate (or: trivial is ugly)'
Incident notes: Personal insult (5/25/11(110+!))
Diary notes: trivial (tip jar 22/41), republished by "Trolls" group
User notes: old timer, call out
HR notes: pie fight (trivial), mega
Disposition: scorecard Status: epic, open
It's another knock-down drag-out steel cage grudge match. To those Kossacks who can't accidentally stumble across this gargantuan swamp of muck (110+ comments in reply threads? seriously?) because you don't have TU status, consider yourself lucky.
&&&
From the same diary as above:
Incident: 'often (or: retirement)'
Incident notes: trivial (1/3/5(12))
Diary notes: trivial (tip jar 22/41), republished by "Trolls" group
User notes: newbie
HR notes: trivial
Disposition: bleh Status: oh no u dint
Calling the President a "racist turncoat" is out of bounds (according to 3 TUs, and cool according to 1).
Who says we only fight about politics?:
Incident: 'religion (or: the other pie)'
Incident notes: Personal insult (0/17/7(48))
Diary notes: Anti-religion (tip jar 28/0), republished by "Religious Watchdogs" group
User notes: diarist, TU, old timer
HR notes: "moron" as direct insult
Disposition: transcendent Status: pious, open
Of the 37 Kossacks who rec'd the comment ("Obnoxious diary") that prompted the insult, none HRd the diary's tip jar.
Now back to the 'trivial troll' diary from above for another hidden from a new face:
Incident: 'gObots (or; if only that were the worst of it)'
Incident notes: trivial (0/7/7(14))
Diary notes: trivial (tip jar 22/41), republished by "Trolls" group
User notes: TU, old timer, trivial, certified asshole
HR notes: "ethnic cleansing", easy call
Disposition: Ophobe Status: certified, open
Comment's author reportedly familiar to BK group.
Evidence of swift correct response to trolling:
Incident: 'now that's a troll'
Incident notes: blarg! (0/17/5(12), 0/19/7, 0/15/6)
Diary notes: 2, unrelated
User notes: 3 comments, as above
HR notes: troll-hunters
Disposition: Admin Status: bony mojo
I mentioned yesterday that I think a too-swift bloodletting might encourage trolling by denying Kossacks a negative example and lead to hair-triggers. This was not an example that supports my case. The contents of the messages were obvious trolls; tough to say if it was casual or professional, but it was almost certainly a repeat offender.
Not just anybody can get away with bashing the President. Fewer all the time, but there are still some here. This young lady is not one of them:
Incident: 'tainted'
Incident notes: trivial (1/16/12(20+))
Diary notes: O in Ireland
User notes: TU, PUMA
HR notes: are all bankers crooked?
Disposition: Ophobe Status: arrogant beyond her years
(For those who believe I'm hammering on this person or being misogynistic, it is simply a comment on how extensive her social networking is. I normally make no mention of the demography of those mentioned in The Hiddens, but there are exceptions.)
That's it for tonight. That troll that got banned saved me some documentation time, but it is still late. See you tomorrow, in The Hiddens.
