I’m fairly exhausted. I did, however, wade into the putrid thread that unfolded in Susan’s Don’t Be a Prick thread. I have rarely seen so much pontificating on matters that are so poorly understood. I have no desire to pile on a recently banned member, and I would have to do that pretty extensively to provide a point by point rebuttal of some of the more inane ramblings I was just subjected to.
Instead, I will set matters straight on the underlying controversy. Markos does not control Blogads. Blogads is its own company. Markos probably makes more money for Blogads than any other client, so he has a lot of clout. But he does not control them. Anyone can buy a blogad for this site by going to www.blogads.com.
Markos and Chris Bowers created a MiniNetwork within Blogads that incorporated dozens of liberal bloggers that had pre-existing accounts with Blogads. The benefit of this is that liberal bloggers can advertise for each other by placing the ‘Adveritise Liberally’ icon on our sites, and advertisers can make convenient mass-buys of ads through the mini-network.
As with any project, some things come up after a while that were not anticipated at the outset. After several months a decision was made to create some standards for members of the mininetwork. None of these standards had to do with content, but with layout, pop-up ads, placement of ads on the homepages, and with what makes up a blog versus a site like Drudge or Raw Story. Some members were told they would have to make some changes or they would no longer be welcome in the network. Most notably, Drudge Retort and Raw Story were essentially kicked out because their sites are not really blogs. I disagreed with that decision. I thought they should have grandfathered in the rules. But the sites were not kicked out for their politics. And they still are free to sell Blogads.
The effect on revenues for Raw Story and Drudge Retort may be damaging when politicians begin to buy bulk ads on the blogs next year, but that was not the intent. The intent was to tighten up the requirements so that only blogs would be in the network. Politicians can still advertise through Blogads on those sites and many probably will. So, Markos and Chris do not control where advertising dollars go and they have not played any games or played any favorites over whom can and cannot be in the network.
Another pet theory is that Markos and Chris are taking money from the NDN in return for pushing a more centrist policy agenda. This is not true. Chris is probably far to my left in his own personal politics and he has not pushed a centrist agenda. At most, he has been supportive of some centrist candidates when those candidates were running against Republicans. Markos appears to be an anti-war centrist who has never claimed to be particularly progressive on a variety of policy issues. Moreover, the degree of coordination and funding between the NDN and Markos and Chris Bowers has been dramatically overblown and is poorly understood.
There is indeed some money coming soon to liberal bloggers. That money is coming through Media Matters, which has received some funding through the Democracy Alliance (an arm of the NDN), but a lot of funding from other sources as well. The money is going to be made available for a variety of purposes that will potentially benefit all liberal bloggers. There are no strings attached, there will be no quid pro quos, and there will be no mandated talking points. The idea is really not that different from an artist cooperative where various photographers, for example, pool their limited resources to buy color printers. In this case, cheap or free technical support might become available. Or access to Lexis-Nexis. Maybe broadband can be bought in bulk. Who knows? These things are still under discussion.
As you might imagine, there are a ton of issues and potential pitfalls anytime money is involved. I can only tell you two things about this right now. First, an extremely good faith effort is being made to avoid a situation where the benefits of this funding are doled out unfairly or with arbitrary litmus tests. Smaller bloggers stand to benefit the most as liberal blogging gets more publicity and costs come down and expensive resources are pooled. But, secondly, all these good faith efforts will inevitably fail to avoid controversy, some hurt feelings, some winners and losers, and lots of conspiracy talk.
Finally, as far as I know, Armando has no financial interest in Daily Kos and he has no influence over Advertising Liberally, BlogPac, or any of this, really.
I know I have raised a lot of issues. But I have also, hopefully, debunked a lot of the groundless charges that were being relentlessly pursued on this site despite numerous warnings to stop slandering people.
I have never said that people cannot be criticized. But they cannot be repeatedly maligned and accused without evidence after numerous warnings, pleadings, admonitions, etc. This cannot be a forum for that. To anyone who thought this was about anything else, you’re just wrong.
Your transparency is admirable.
Thank you for being so open – way beyond any ‘obligation’ you have to the users. I believe most of us here have well developed sensors for being taken for a ride. My sensors never made a signal, however finely I calibrated them.
i find it very telling that none of the slanderers have showed up here to comment.
Well, looks like they have an entry up for their own fun (I have not opened it, but accidentaly saw a couple of comments when in ‘recent comments’.)
That everyone who posts in this thread is slandering someone?
Could you please explain what the HELL you are talking about?
yes.. so that means lets see
you and me.
As I stated in the post, only saw a couple of comments in ‘recent comments’ – did not open the entry, and do not intend to. There has been way too much going on lately – zapping energy from this place (my perception) and I’m sorry I waded into it again.
oh that thread. hell, i recommended it earlier today. I thought booman was referring to something fresh.
sounds like he “slandered” people, and even worse, didn’t have the gonads to name names.
It’s libel, not slander, if it’s in print.
What’s more, if Booman needs money–and sounds like he does–he ought to be suing these slanderers/libelers for big money.
Of course, accusing somebody of slander/libel when you know for a fact that the accusation is untrue, is itself actionable.
Not to mention that hiring an attorney to prosecute such an action is VERY expensive…and an attorney worth the weight of his law degree will advise Booman that such an action would, without a doubt, be unsuccessful.
I like the European system, in which the unsuccessful party in a slander/libel suit is forced to pay the legal expenses of the other.
WTF is this? Since you lacked the guts to reply to my post, I only came across this now.
You are the fly-by ratings abuser from last weekend. Apparently in possession of considerable gonadic fortitude. I suggest you check this entry out.
Unnamed “slanderers”, unnamed “terrorists”. So many threats, so little time.
“I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”–Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
People actually took that bait? Lame. I was very happy watching it disappear down the Recent Diaries list unheralded.
Good grief! It wasn’t “bait.” Whatever.
But hey, thanks for linking to it again. Maybe some good folks will read and make up their own minds.
How?
No answer. I would have thought that we knew each others’ writings sufficiently that you wouldn’t make such an accusation. I’m saddened and disappointed. š
Who are “they”? I’m a bit puzzled.
Well, manifestos take some time to type up…
Seriously, welcome back. Good to see you and I hope Susan’s off somewhere getting a massage or watching Deadwood reruns.
Dammit. Just when I was ready to give this a big goddamned rest, I see this. Who are you calling out here?
If they are slanderers, then why the hell have they not also been banned? If they are not really slanderers and you don’t have as much accumulated “evidence” against them to back up the accusation of actually BEING a slanderer, then why the hell say this in the first place?
See, THIS is what I don’t get and have been railing about in the few places that I have posted in the midst of this whole mess. If there is a rule, that’s fine, but let us PLEASE apply it across the board and in fair manner — is that unreasonable?
I’m calling out anyone who made any of the accusations or insinuations that I just debunked. The only member to be banned is the only member to refuse to stop spreading this disinformation after repeated warnings. I have not read 4 days of diaries over this, but from what I’ve seen, several people crossed the line. The rule is don’t be a prick. Relentlessly slandering people after being asked nicely not to, after being warned not to, after being ridiculed for having no facts, in other words after I tried about everything I could think of, well that is being a HUUGE prick.
So, have you seen a lot of people making these accusations, then? Becuase as much as I hate to admit it, I have been seriously avoiding my dissertation since you left and have been watching this trainwreck pretty damned closely — and, no, I am NOT saying that this speaks well of me at all, just saying that I have NOT seen these multiple attacks/slanders. Just as I have not seen a “raft of kos bashing”, or any other massive changes in what normally goes on around here in the last 5 days (I did take Sunday off and hung out with my kids — maybe that’s when all the EVIL happened). I’m just sick of people being called names, especially by people (not you, you haven’t been here) who whine about being called names.
So I am probably talking out of my ass. Nevermind.
Or the short version: “tempest, meet teapot.”
I don’t know who “the slanderers” are (and have not seen the other thread yet referred to in this diary). However, I will be happy to comment on the substance of your post (the only part that actually interests me).
There is indeed some money coming soon to liberal bloggers. That money is coming through Media Matters, which has received some funding through the Democracy Alliance (an arm of the NDN), but a lot of funding from other sources as well. The money is going to be made available for a variety of purposes that will potentially benefit all liberal bloggers. There are no strings attached, there will be no quid pro quos, and there will be no mandated talking points.
Politically speaking, NDN is not my cup of tea. Realistically speaking, even if there are no overt mandated talking points, one is always under pressure to consider the source of funds. I find your comments to portray a highly optimistic and idealized view of the potential impact on conversation on sites under the auspices of the NDN.
We never shy away from questioning bias from media sources that have political entities as sponsors. If that’s now considered slander, then the chilling effects of this anticipated sponsorship can already be seen.
NDN is not the source of the money. You do understand that Media Matters gets money from many sources. I think O’Reilly was claiming George Soros was behind Media Matters. I have no idea if Soros gave them money, but this is the same kind of allegation. Just because the NDN supplied some funding doesn’t mean the organization only dissemiminates that funding according to the NDN’s agenda.
Secondly, money will change things and that needs to be discussed. But not with groundless accusations and not with utter disregard for any form of informed correction.
I think that is the crux of the issue, for me it is, anyway. In an earlier post you say that some sites were thrown out of an arrangement that could provide a benefit based on layout, popup ads, whether they fit someone’s definition of a “blog.”
The popup ads I have a hard time arguing with, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to ponder the possibility that these other criteria of layout etc could be questioned, and there is also the spectre of layout today, content tomorrow?
My views are admittedly biased. I am not a fan of the business of US politics, and I would not want their money. I know that your view is different, which is fine.
I do think that it is very possible, even likely, that at some point, you will be faced with some unpleasant choices.
And because you have since you started this place, allowed people to participate who do not agree with you, who are not devotees of any of the politicians, I think that has been a big factor in people having a special feeling about the site.
And because of that special feeling, there is an anxiety. If content ever becomes an issue vis a vis money, I would want to know ahead of time.
DF-
the Advertising Liberally thing was a huge blowup, just a blowup that was kept (mostly) off the blogs and kept in email. As I said, I sided with Raw Story in that whole thing. But at the same time, the issue was about the mininetwork and blogs and magazines, and layout, and not about politics or rivalries or revenge as has been speculated about.
But, yes, money will change things. By all means we should talk about that. But that is not the same thing as making repeated unsubstantiated allegations that are false and not responding to repeated requests to stop.
I did not miss you saying you sided with Raw Story, I would have, too. It reminds me of companies who say 100% of our employees voluntarily contribute to United Way and anybody who has refused has been terminated for other reasons.
Maybe you could start a separate money will change things thread so that can be talked about separately from what is in my view, with all respect, a personality conflict. I also admire Parker’s writing, she may not score high on diplomatic aptitude tests, but she has unshakable principles and is not afraid to stand by them. You already said in a previous diary that these people are your friends, and it is unpleasant for you, personally and emotionally to have people launch ad hominem attacks on them here. That is understandable.
But it is not, from my perspective, related to the money will change things question, and while I hope that you and Parker will be able to work out your differences, I think the money will change things question is not only quite separate, but much more important.
i think I was totally upfront about whatever conflicts of interest I have. Basically, if you make shit up about Rush Limbaugh I neither care if you hurt his feelings, if he resents me for publishing it, and chances are I don’t know if the charges are true or not.
None of that is true when it comes to Chris Bower’s. So, I have a limited tolerance for seeing him defamed on this site. The same goes for my lawyer Cicero. I never pretended that there wasn’t a personal element here. Parker never pretended to respect that, or to get her facts right.
And you are the only person who can work out that kind of personal issue, and I have a notion that you will find a balance between your own personal feelings, basically how much someone pisses you off versus the value of that person’s voice, both to the smaller communtiy (here) and the larger community (lurkers and linkers).
And you are the only person who will be able to answer the how will money change things question.
Everything is a tradeoff, and I know you are aware of other sites, and no, I don’t mean kos, where money has turned a place for free and open exchange of ideas and information into such a byzantine labyrinthe of rules that posting there resembles more a text-based role playing game than any sort of forum for sharing thoughts, where readers and thinkers are weeded out, and threads are started on topics like “what should I think about X?”
I don’t think you want that, but at the same time, it does take money to run the site.
Maybe you could start a discussion of options, from having someone donate server space and bandwidth, I think you already have somebody donating nerdhood, that you won’t let him fix it where we can edit comments, which you ought to, to embrace those of us who are old and/or typing impaired. You should know by now that very few people would edit their comments for deceitful or nefarious purposes, and the people they would deceive and nefariate would cache and screenshot and be all over them like Ariel Sharon on a buffet table. But I digress…
If there are people from Politics, Inc. who want to give money, there will also be people from without it.
Maybe Old Europe?
boo,
my apologies if this is obvious to everyone else, but i’m a little dense when it comes to context and subtext. rather than make assumptions, i prefer to seek clarification. what do you mean by this comment:
So, I have a limited tolerance for seeing him [Chris Bowers] defamed on this site. The same goes for my lawyer Cicero.
does that mean that you have a limited tolerance for seeing cicero defamed on this site? or does it mean that cicero, like you, has a low tolerance for seeing chris bowers defamed on this site?
if its the first, has anybody been defaming cicero? and if its the second, are you implying that cicero, as an attorney, will take legal action if chris is defamed? is that legal action he would take on his own out of his own lack of tolerance, or action he would take on your behalf?
I presume that Booman doesn’t “name names” because calling somebody a “slanderer”–which is a very serious accusation–without proof is, itself, actionable.
I’m sure Booman’s attorney advised him of this, which is why he hasn’t said a single person’s name.
On the other hand, perhaps he’s using the same attorney as Hunter Thompson?
<i.”Sounds like big trouble. You’re going to need plenty of legal advice before this thing is over. As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you’ll need the cocaine. Tape recorder for special messages. Acapulco shirts. Get the hell out of L.A. for at least 48 hours.”</i>
brilliant. </sarcasm>
Lord, seeing as how you just joined Booman – um, today, by the look of your user number – maybe you should take a little time to get to know what’s going on before you go all judgmental here. You know, ask questions, read, evaluate, stuff like that…
My guess on this one, and it’s just a guess, is that it’s Shadowthief since Recordkeeper and himself have been using the Duloc/ Lord Faarquet analogy about this site recently and Recordkeeper just posted that ST was banned last night/ today.
Although I could be wrong, just seems a bit too coincidental.
Ah. ‘Nuff said.
cicero is one of my closest friends. No one has defamed him. But if they did I would have limited patience for it.
<sarcasm>Brilliant.</sarcasm>
I’ll just weigh in on one thing here. The restriction of the mini-network to that which the originators ‘considered’ considered blogs is just plain ole gerrymandering. The mini-network is obviously a boys club who does not want to share the wealth of bulk buys with others outside their boys club.
I’ve seen this type of blatant exclusionism in many industries and it is sadly just the type of rotten politics the excluder’s proclaim to denounce.
I have personal stake in this issue but I feel compelled to call a spade a spade and am sad to see the big $$$ corrupt what was once so pure and honest.
Goodbye blogs, Hello money.
I have nopersonal stake in this issue but…
Layout today, content tomorrow?
Hm.
And the Smirking Chimp, which has a layout similar to this blog and to DailyKos, was excluded.
There’s a longstanding feud between Jeff Tiedrich, the founder of the Smirking Chimp, and Markos Moulitsa, aka Kos of “DailyKos”.
Settling old scores?
It’s not personal…it’s strictly business.
It’s this sentence, and I don’t believe – make that I know damn well – this site has absolutely no agenda other than the one contained in the logo:
That money is coming through Media Matters, which has received some funding through the Democracy Alliance (an arm of the NDN), but a lot of funding from other sources as well.
DA’s goal was to raise somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million (nice neighborhood) and fund “progressive think tanks”. A portion of the funding was to be targeted to groups like Media Matters, and I would suppose MovingIdeas, AlterNet, and CommonDreams. Some was to be dedicated to those blogs clearly dedicated to “progressive ideas”, as I read it.
Nowhere was there a specific requirement to fly the big “D”, or to promote a party line anywhere in their announcement. One of the huge differences between the Frog Pond and “the other guys”, is the total openness, and stated hands-off policy regarding party affiliation. Left, progressive, moderate, even occasionally whacked, the management here has no loyalty oath.
And the only pressure I’ve seen is self-imposed to constantly improve the place. You’ve presented a valid concern, but no worries here.
DA’s goal was to raise somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million (nice neighborhood) and fund “progressive think tanks”.
I am vaguely recalling a WaPo article on the same, and at that time, read some statement that this would come “at the expense of special interest groups”. I’ll have to retrieve it.
I’m not sure that I am on board with DA’s definition of “progressive”. I will refrain from further comment on this until I am back up to speed on these various relationships.
Precisely so, DoubleHelix.
This is the same “chilling effect” one can see in the mainstream media. I have the acquaintance of several newspaper and television reporters who have tried to do investigative journalism in their communities, only to be told by their editors: “What? Are you crazy? INVESTIGATE ONE OF OUR BIGGEST ADVERTISERS?”
Now, this may not be a situation as blatant as that, but when the survival and prosperity of one’s blog depends upon a coordinated advertising network that has the potential to throw a great deal of money into one’s bank account…well, only the most naive of persons could claim that consideration never came to mind. It came into my mind, and I’m as naive and innocent as they come.
…to write this piece?
Just kidding. Thanks for giving us the skinny in such detail.
May I suggest that the next time the issue comes up, and it will, just link ’em to this post.
one. You always give me a calm feeling. Just seeing your name calms me down. I am reading a great book I was given from some friends from the Cocopah tribe. It’s an old original copy of their Indian tribal series called THE COCOPAH PEOPLE (river people in Colorado). It was a gift from when I met a lot of their tribal members and leader in Oklahoma at an event a few years ago. It’s really great and also calming. It is signed by Robert Barley..who was the chairman of the Cocopah Tribal council. Today he would be about 70. Anyway..I think I am going to do a diary about it. Just made me think of you.
Why is MB’s comment being downrated?
Who fucking knows, it’s really getting out of hand. The two 1 ratings are by two members who just showed up/ registered today. I have speculated as to who they are downthread because of the name one of them chose (the whole Fairy Tale Creature thing) and it is sickening.
Any respect I had is gone now. Meteor Blades is an outstanding journalist, blogger and one of the fairest people I have ever interacted with. To give that comment a troll rating is despicable.
You’ll get no argument from me on that. Attacking MB – especially unprovoked – just goes beyond the pale.
Lord Farqaat and Fluffy the Pink Elephant have decided that instead of seeking clarity on any gray areas they feel exist regarding the way this site operates, they would rather start a ratings war.
It feels so good to be here today.
[signing off to do more research for the Alito Protest that needs alot of volunteers]
exactly once. And never mega-trolled.
Little Lord Fauntleroy and Fluffy Pink are tempting me, however. They are obviously shit-stirrers, and their conduct is exactly the kind of thing for which people should be banned. And this is really the crux of the whole banning issue – it isn’t – or shouldn’t be – about one’s thoughts or one’s opinions, but about one’s behavior. These two may have presented themselves as having serious concerns, and maybe they do, but those concerns have been lost in a tangle of seriously immature behavior.
are in agreement here. Especially this:
And this is really the crux of the whole banning issue – it isn’t – or shouldn’t be – about one’s thoughts or one’s opinions, but about one’s behavior.
There is a blantant attempt to make this emotional and personal now, I’m done.
You’re right. The insincere sophistry coming from a small group, disguised as concern for the health of this site is becoming nauseating.
The provocations of late has a sole purpose – to provoke a banning. Once achieved, even more ruckus can be stirred up. It appears to me as if some users are blind to this, others choose to be blind – but this is the time when Booman needs some support – there is enough going on in his life at the moment, while the snipers are zapping energy from the site.
I don’t think there is reason to be shy with 0-ratings – they are there for exactly this purpose.
Who, pray tell, are these “slanderers”?
Perhaps you’d care to name the perpetrators, or “slanderers”, as you have labelled them, so they can come forth to defend themselves against the accusation that they ARE slanderers? You want to call people names, be a man and do it to their faces, old chap.
I haven’t a clue as to whom you are referring, quite honestly. It can’t be Parker, as she was banned and hasn’t posting privileges here.
Booman is talking about Parker, as far as I can tell. She got nasty, made unsubstantiated personal attacks and was warned not to do so, and she kept doing it. Whether there was some substance to her remarks or not, the way she chose to express herself, and her disrespect of the expressed wishes of the site owners/administers, was really out of line.
I feel like some of you guys are making this into some weird, paranoid conspiracy – like, you’re going to get banned for what you’re thinking, or if you make one misstep, you’re going to get thrown out.
Nobody gets banned for making a few unpolitic remarks. It’s ignoring the site owners when they say, “hey, that’s out of line. Please stop,” that gets people banned.
On the site where I sometimes guest-administer, it says: “All viewpoints are tolerated. Comments will never be deleted or edited except in cases of blatant disrespect or maliciousness as determined by the site owner.” I had this one guy who called me a “stupid cow,” and I didn’t ban him, but that was definitely ban-worthy, by those rules. I let the site owner tell him he was out of line, because they were friends in real life. But why should a site adminstrator, who’s taking all of this time and in many cases, money, to provide a forum, tolerate it when they are being disrespected in their own house?
I realize that it’s not always clear-cut, and it’s not always easy, but this isn’t one of those, “post a diary on a subject we don’t like, and you’re out of here” situations. It’s about being warned, “Hey, you’re doing X. We don’t do that here. Please stop. Okay, you’re not stopping. Then please don’t come here any more.”
It isn’t about subject matter per se, it’s about interpersonal relationships and how we treat each other.
(p.s. I liked whoever’s suggestion it was to have a “time out” period)
I don’t think there’s any “conspiracy theory” being proposed. When someone uses the term “slanderers” in the plural, that suggests more than one person. It is only natural to be curious as to who these multiple individuals allegedly are. Especially with a term as loaded as “slanderer” I would rather not take the accuser’s word at face value, but would rather have the opportunity to weigh the evidence. I guess I just don’t do the faith-based thing very well.
Maybe the plural is just an exhaustion-based typo.
weren’t you the guy saying “tempest, meet teapot?” because I really agree with that sentiment…
well, this is all very disheartening, I have a cold and I’m going to sleep.
Hopefully you’re right about the typo thing – perhaps it’ll get clarified. Perhaps not.
And yeah, it is all disheartening. I have believed since the days that Boo first made a big deal about so-called kos-bashing and so forth, that it was a mistake. What was and should be a tempest in a teapot has taken on a life of its own. The damage is pretty well done now.
Just got over some bronchitis/sinus infection thing recently. Rest is a good thing. Take care of yourself.
Thanks – it’s how I ring in the holidays – my annual Christmas cold… š
BooMan, thank you for setting the record straight despite having no obligation to do so. Again, we’re all glad to have you back.
Blogs will be like musicians: if they sell out, they soon fade away… if they don’t sell out, they succeed.
It’s just that simple.
Thanks for the rundown, BooMan. I will most likely file this awy in my “Too Much Information” file, but I wanted to applaud your efforts and ability to just cut to the quick of the problem.
Now (mom warning, mom warning!), go get some rest, curl up with BooMan, listen to some Dead or maybe some Rolling Stones, and just be easy.
Thanks BooMan. I hope that this can calm the waters of the pond.
I completely agree that no explanation was necessary, but posting this was a class act. Hopefully the people who have been making an issue of all this will now be satisfied and allow this site to return to being what it is supposed to be: a place where people can share information, ideas, greetings, and sometimes just trivial nonsense.
I hope every one will strive to make a visit to Booman Tribune a pleasant interlude for those who come here. There is no need for it to be a stressful and frustrating experience.
Quite a bit of the controversies and bannings at other blogs were a result of the type of behavior described in what I quoted from BooMan… and in some cases, because of situations that go beyond slander.
Sanity reigns. You are a good man. Having been through it all, I can’t imagine what Susan went through. The emotional rollercoaster was truly unbelievable. Words can really be a dagger, and cut to the bone. It was like a hurricane that didn’t let up for four days. I hope Diane is ok. It was really awful.
Are you sure you have actually been through it ALL? Your reaction to it seems a tad overblown to me, but I am sure I have missed something, and I am quite sure that you did too.
lol. Have you ever heard someone as melodramatic as she is? The world of blogs is her real life soap opera. Almost brings a tear to my eye.
those troll ratings you gave me to 4’s…why would you go and do that?
See my reply and some others’ replies below. Short version: Joe was trying to do the right thing. Try to cut the guy some slack.
I have a feeling you and I will eventually be friends, but right now you are really getting on my nerves.
Why would I re-rate the 1s to 4s? Well, I actually didn’t want to rate them 4s because I still don’t like the comments. Evidently, you are not allowed to simply remove a rating, so I was forced to select an actual number.
As I’ve already tried to tell you, it was wrong of me to give you 1s. But even worse, it was hypocritical.
You did a nice thing when you apologized to Chamonix1 in that earlier diary and a second nice thing when you followed up on the apology by changing the ratings you gave her, but this last comment of yours is personal and really nasty. Ordinarily, I don’t say anything about how people express themselves, but since I would hate it if somebody mocked me like that, I have to object when it happens to someone else.
and I’m a He. Chamonix is a wonderful French town in the Alps where I go skiing every year. I was pissed last year when they were calling french fries Freedom fries So I picked a French name. It’s about an hour and a half from Torino/Turin in Italy when the Olympics will be this Feb. I will be there. Last year I was blogging from the Alps about the same time the Gannon/Guckert story broke. It was wild.
Kansas,
I wasn’t trying to do a nice thing. I was trying to correct a mistake that I made. I do not believe in giving 1s to anyone. (Perhaps there may be some very rare exceptions.)
And yet, out of anger, I did it anyway and broke my own rule. So I corrected the mistake as best I could.
“Nice” is something I’m necessarily striving for. The only thing that matters to me is kicking these criminals and thugs out of office. In order to do that, I may occassionally find it necessary to be, perhaps, a bit shrill with people, even likeminded people, when they say or do stupid things. Or act like McCarthyists. Or lie. Or be hypocrites. This kind of behavior plays into the right’s hands. Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly can go on the air and say “See, I told you about those leftists…”
*I meant to say NOT necessarily striving for.
to whom is media matters distributing this money? who gets to decide how that money is spent and which liberal blogs will benefit from it. these things are still under discussion by whom?
how will small bloggers benefit the most? what expensive resources are going to be pooled? who decides who will get to participate in that pool?
all good questions.
I’ll make important mistakes if I try to answer all those questions, so I won’t try.
I will try to get those answers for you though.
I have discussed these issues with Chris Bowers at great length. I satisfied myself that:
thank you. i am looking forward to the answers to my questions.
boo,
any word from chris yet in answer to my questions about the media matters money?
Good, I think that the dem’s strength is their diversity. We will come up with better solutions in the end.
See my comment below regarding the exclusion of the Smirking Chimp–which is older than DailyKos, is demonstrably a liberal/progressive blog, and has four times the daily traffic of BoomanTribune.
I have yet to understand why the Smirking Chimp was excluded. As you are “in the know”, perhaps you will shine a light on this particular dark corner.
Pardon me, I was in error when I wrote that the Smirking Chimp has FOUR times the daily traffic of Booman Tribune.
It’s actually closer to FIVE times the daily traffic. I’m bad at math.
What all the fuss was about. To my mind people are completely free to speak their own minds… and it’s silly to expect that most people will think exactly like me.( ahem.. I’m too “special” :p)
If I ever get disenchanted, I’ll just leave for greener blogs… or make my own.
Thanks for this Boo, I feel like my trust in your transparency has been vindicated.
But I hope that folks don’t leave this episode with an impression of us vs them. There were certainly disagreements. But from my perspective, both hurtful and profound things were said on both sides of the disagreement. It might do all of us some good to think about what we can learn about ourselves rather than projecting right or wrong.
One thing I learned again is how different people approach the issue of trust. Given that we really don’t know each other that well, some project trust and some project distrust. Since I usually get burned by trusting too easily, I tried to listen to those who jump to distrust. Is it any surprise that liberals have many of those in our midst? I’m old enough to remember the saying “Never trust anyone over 30,” and we all have probably at one time had the bumper sticker “Question authority” on our car. There is good reason these have been hallmarks of progressive politics. But I do hope that we can be a little slower to assume the worst about each other.
My bumper sticker says “question reality” though….and the one I question most is my own! š
definition:
Slander:
Oops … unless one is “reading” blogs w/ software that reads it aloud to you, no “speaking” going on here.
Perhaps you mean libel:
The bitch about that one is you have to show that the person who defamed the “injured” party KNEW that what they were suggesting was a lie. Very hard to prove.
Most of the accusations I’ve hurled, and Parker too, for that matter, have been suggestions that there is a sort of collusion about coordinating “message” or focus, driven by access to influential parties. That is in no way suggestive that money exchanged hands. Even talking about connections about ads is merely pointing out the self-censorship that can set in when a cash source is involved. It’s “corruption” in the sense that a child learning that their parents lie is a corruption … or that your local independent record store pushed a disc a little harder b/c they met the band and got backstage passes. A realization that a person or situation isn’t what you supposed them to be.
In any event, you’re badly mischaracterizing what Parker did. You’re also implying things about certain of the rest of us that aren’t true.
So, I will take this as an invitation to no longer xpost my work as diaries here. I’ll probably stay around to comment, for a while, but it’s quite plain that you’re following kos/armando/bower’s lead. As we go into the very nasty internecine battle that will be the ’06 election, I prefer to remain independent.
This turn in your presentation makes me sad. I wish you the best in your new blogging life as part of the move to “help” the Dems in ’06. I hope you don’t look back on this time with regret.
Anybody who wants to knows where to find me:
Liberal Street Fighter.
Even talking about connections about ads is merely pointing out the self-censorship that can set in when a cash source is involved.
Is there a “cash source” that you would not question? Or do you think the kind of movement we need to organize can be accomplished without cash?
And please hear this as an honest question and not a snarky one. I really want to know.
not at all. The important thing is disclosure. Disclosure is everything.
We get hints and suggestions, but always this defensiveness when anyone brings it up. Parker is a vital voice, a voice silenced for political convenience. EVERY “community” need its naysayers and “cranks” in order to stay vital. They often turn out to be prescient. Hell, go back and watch Fahrenheit 911 now … it’s more powerful than it was when it came out, and it’s assertions have been reinforced by time.
There is a narrowing of voices in the bigger “community” blogs going on, one which will narrow the debate, yet do little to help foster new ideas and strategies to help the country from destroying itself.
Seriously, this makes me very, very sad. I would seriously encourage EVERYBODY to do James Benjamin’s thought experiment.
I guess I don’t see the defensiveness as all. What I hear is that more of your concern is over the issue of Parker’s banning. That’s not something I’m prepared to speak to. I just know that I have seen Boo and Susan be extremely patient with many folks and looks to me like they got to the end of their rope with her. We all have our limits. Yours just might be in a different place than theirs.
Thanks for the plug. š
vital, blunt and incisive, like you usually are. How could I NOT recommend it?
I think much of what you were trying to say has been mischaracterized. The explosive statement you made I saw as more metaphor for the underlying point. I would replace money(no one suggests something so overt) with influence and how shaping the message to make it palatable will pay “dividends”. Anyone who has been around can see it, and given the current status as “the voice”, it is imperative that we call out the bullshit. Ideals are compromised for personal considerations and this taints and confuses the agenda. Seriously, I don’t think you need to be terribly perceptive to see agendas and why is that offside? Your concern was drowned out by all the attached noise, but it is still there.
No, I am not. Maybe your mistake is to look only at her comments in that thread and fail to realize I have been having this argument with her for months and that she was the major cause of so much of my complaining about Kos-bashing. I never called her out by name because she was never the only guilty party, just the most vocal and least abiding by the prick rule.
I had almost banned Parker a dozen times before I actually did it. There is a lot more there than just Kos’s or Bower’s reputation. That is just the last straw in a long attempt to get her to get along within the culture of the site.
“get along” or conform?
I am a huge fan of Parker and follow what she writes closely. She is asking hard, but to my mind vital questions.
This medium has an enormous potential, a potential that will be squandered by ad networks and all of this talk of the “blogosphere”. The power here is in the WORDS, the ideas. The ferment … and no one adds to the ferment like a hardcore skeptic like Parker.
The blogs can help spread stories, “memes” (boy I hate that word), modern retellings of cultural “foundation” stories. This isn’t about electing just an office holder or two. We could do for liberalism what direct mail did for the radical right, yet far too many bloggers are buying into schemes by party ward heelers out of fear of the Republicans.
We can do so much more.
I agree with you.
But before we move on I take it you will be providing a check to Boo each month so he can pay for the servers etc. as well as a salary for himself and Susan?
Ads are a fact of life unfortunately. All you can do is be open about the types you’ll except and not allow the influence to affect content. So far Boo has done an admirable job not regulating anything we say… other than asking us not to be a prick & not to personally attack other posters or blogs… not “don’t question what they do or say”, but just make sure you have facts on your side and that it doesn’t become a nasty environment for us to hang out in… and from what Boo has said, Parker crossed the line repeatedly (I saw their interactions myself these last few months) and refused to cease and desist in the attacks when asked to on numerous occasions.
I encourage you to consider “BooTrib Haters”: A Gedanken Experiment.
Politics is messy, and if you’re serious about it, you’re going to “attack” somebody, and there are folks running influential blogs who use “rules” like those you cite to squelch questioning and dissent.
Open your eyes to the facts on the ground.
I did read it actually.
But I have this strange thing about discounting someone’s argument as soon as they start to get nasty and personal vs. just sticking to the facts… must be the Canadian in me eh?
Huh, I think I must be a latent Canadian…
well, I’m a Californian, does that count?
Susan gets a salary?
nope, but she should.
Susan and I don’t talk about our private arrangements. But the main reason Susan doesn’t get a salary is that I don’t get one. I have yet to pay myself. However, I now need to pay myself to pay my bills. Too bad I don’t have enough money to pay them and eat too.
I know, I was just sayin’… I have no problem if you guys make money doin’ this… it’s your job.
I don’t either, it’s the possible arrangements and disclosure that are at issue.
Like I said, I won’t trouble the site w/ anymore crossposts, so hopefully the angry emails from whomever will drop off, but independence is a treasure to be maintained.
Madman, why did you decide not to cross post anymore… I read your comments and I’m not quite sure why you wouldn’t want to keep posting your diaries here, but you will still comment… I like your posts, they are good… I hope you will reconsider that stance.
b/c of the attitude of this post. B/c of the whole “slanderer” thing. B/c I don’t like the way Parker, who I admire a great deal, was treated. B/c I think Boo is going to take heat from Armando and the rest of the kos blogheelers if I keep xposting here, and I think there is some small hope for him to wriggle free of their influence.
I have a blog where I can post, and as has been said many times, anyone who has a problem can get their own blog. Already have one, and I think I should concentrate my energies there. To judge by the dancing on my virtual corpse at dkos, I’m a dangerous radical to be avoided. Better to keep to myself.
Thanks for the kind words. Swing by LSF to read my stuff. It’s free, no ad hits and no party obligations.
Madman, this diary is a bit confused as to formatting, but do read my comment below. I would appreciate it if you would do me the favour of contacting me privately about joining Liberal Street Fighter.
shadowthief1962@gmail.com
Parker seemed to have been baited into her ban. A large number of people violated the rules much more flagrantly and just as often as she did, but appear to have been let off the hook because of the target of their posts. They kept posting inflammatory and hideously rude things in response to her diaries and comments, without so much as a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, Parker has regularly had the book thrown at her for posts and diaries that were perfectly reasonable.
I think it’s pretty clear that Boo didn’t consult with his lawyer on this, or he would’ve used the right term. To me, this sounds very much like retroactive excuse-making for a poorly-considered decision, rather than doing the right thing: apologizing and reversing the decision.
But hey, we all know that campaign finance disclosure for blogs is an even worse evil than investigating election fraud.
No she doesn’t. She just spends 16 frickin hours a day chasing down the latest news, commenting on it and posting it. One of the very best on the blogosphere at it too!
I am sure one of you would be very happy to do this for free, as she does, with her health problems as well.
Boo gets a whopping 25 cents a click on his ads. You can well imagine he is living in the lap of luxury. You clicked any ads lately?
It is amazing to me what some people here think is the right thing for other people to do. Anyone offering to quit there job and live off what they can earn as a blog owner of this size blog? Just curious. Of course it is only an 18 to 24 hr a day commitment. No biggie.
Geez Shirl! Chill! i just asked a question! i saw a statement that looked like new information to me and i asked about it. it was four words with a question mark at the end. no statement. no message. just a question.
and you respond with this intensity? by the way, who are the “one of you” that you are referring to in this statement: I am sure one of you would be very happy to do this for free…
and where is this coming from:
It is amazing to me what some people here think is the right thing for other people to do.
i said nothing about right or wrong things to do.
Contrary to your view, I am very chilled. The “one of you” is any one of you out there in frog land that think or might think that Susan and Boo are somehow rolling around in the money. No, no one said that.
Sorry, I took the question as an “OMG, Susan gets paid” reference, just my frame of mind at the moment. Didn’t mean to project on anyone in particular, cetainly not you or anyone else specifically.
The problem with writing words. . .none of us really knows how the other person intends them, no body language, no tone of voice, no facial expressions to go by. Mia culpa
In any event, you’re badly mischaracterizing what Parker did. You’re also implying things about certain of the rest of us that aren’t true.
It’s funny — if anything, this diary has vindicated Parker’s allegation of NDN’s (or DA’s, if you prefer)impact on the formerly independent liberal blogosphere. I still don’t understand the fuss over Parker, although perhaps I missed some specific threads.
As I mentioned upthread, I find Booman’s take on how this will shake out to be unduly optimistic given what I know about what happens “in real life” under these circumstances. I’d love it to be otherwise, but I’m pessimistic.
, I find Booman’s take on how this will shake out to be unduly optimistic given what I know about what happens “in real life” under these circumstances. I’d love it to be otherwise, but I’m pessimistic.
Luckily for you, it’s not your site so you won’t be burdened with worrying one second about it.
So don’t.
of the liberal blogosphere under a centrist agenda is something I’m free to think about, if I so desire. I’m sorry if this is upsetting you, or if it is now under the banner of verboten thought.
Remember that until recently this was just considered idle or irresponsible speculation.
I find Booman’s take on how this will shake out to be unduly optimistic given what I know about what happens “in real life” under these circumstances. I’d love it to be otherwise, but I’m pessimistic.
I think we will all just have to wait and see how this pans out. It appears to me that if there are unanticipated strings attached, BooMan will deal with it in an open and forthright manner, as he has done here.
on your first point, if you can read this and think that it vindicates Parker’s allegations then you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you just don’t trust me as far as you can throw me.
on your second point: I am not all that optimistic. I think it will cause problems and that the problems will occur no matter how hard people try to avoid them.
However, that is no excuse to make shit up and assert the worst unsubstantiated suspicions as facts when you are told better asked to stop warned to stop etc.
you just don’t trust me as far as you can throw me.
As somebody mentioned earlier trust/distrust relationships are hard to establish, virtually speaking. I don’t have a personal relationship with you, but you may be certain that “I don’t trust Booman” never entered my head. Please don’t position this as a Booman vs Parker issue — it’s not.
on your second point: I am not all that optimistic. I think it will cause problems and that the problems will occur no matter how hard people try to avoid them.
We are definitely in agreement on this, and I’m glad you see this.
on your first point, if you can read this and think that it vindicates Parker’s allegations then you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you just don’t trust me as far as you can throw me.
Or, you and dblhelix are misunderstanding each other. As you have not stated exactly what comments of Parkers you define as libelous — and it is libel not slander as this is a print medium — dblhelix may have entirely different comments in mind.
I know I would feel far more comfortable with what has occurred here if you would demonstrate what you mean by libel. It’s a very serious charge, a legally actionable one, and I, personally, have never read a libelous statement from Parker. Parker is prolific and my online time is limited, so it’s entirely possible I’ve missed something, but I still do not know, as a matter of fact, why Parker was banned. What did she say that was libelous?
I’ve been reading so much about this “Parker” person and became fascinated. I dug a little through her old comments and diaries and found them to be well above average. She is obviously a committed lefty and is quite passionate and quite independent minded from what I observed.
Based on my own experience getting my ass troll-rated off dailykos (twice) for having an independent mind, I’m not surprised that Parker was kicked out of here and I believe what you say.
you have a lot of nerve. You complain about being troll rated over there, then you come here and slam me with 5 troll ratings and then go back several days later and change a few of them to 4’s. This is no way to join a new blog. Get Real. This blog has standards and so far you aren’t meeting them.
I think the person was trying to make amends for those troll ratings. It was a gesture of good will, as I gathered from the “Don’t Be a Prick” thread.
And as a means of disclosure, I’m the one who suggested that it was possible to change ratings. Joe had also tried to apologize to you. I think he was sincerely trying to do the right thing.
our James. I hadn’t gone back to those awful threads yet. As I pointed out to spider below…there was a comment by him up thread that wasn’t very welcoming. But I am glad you are giving him some pointers. Perhaps things will calm down with him now that he is getting to know the lay of the land. I am a BooTribber and a Kossack and unless Booman tells me that’s not cool here, this is one of my two homes on the blogs and no one should slam anyone with troll ratings because they belong to dailykos. I never talk badly about either site and don’t plan on it any time soon.
Hey Cham… he actually had a reason… seemed to be trying to make ammends actually… well, a little bit at least.
And when I think of it, we here the phrase “don’t be a prick” used quite a bit. Joe actually made an effort to walk the talk. It took a lot of guts to acknowledge a mistake and actually try to make up for it.
Thanks for pointing it out..I haven’t been back to that Prick thread..but I did read a comment by him tonight here I really do appreciate you guys pointing it out. And for everyone that doesn’t know..I am a guy. That shows how well he didn’t know me before the 5 troll ratings.
What does one’s sex have to do with what rating their comments deserve? I’m not saying you deserved a troll rating. I haven’t read the comments in question. I’m just a little baffled by your statement. Unless one has a gender specific nickname or places gender specific comments in their posts, it’s kind of hard to tell in this format. How much research should a person have to do on another person before they rate a comment? Isn’t a rating supposed to pertain to the comment, not the person anyway?
he did issue two apologies directly to you. I hope you got a chance to read them.
response to spiderleaf
This blog has standards and so far you aren’t meeting them.
This person publically apologised today and at some length for his behavior in regard to you and, when told he could change the ratings, he went back and did so. Perhaps it’s a good time to let that very small incident go.
ughhhhhhh. I got it. I haven’t read it, but I got it. Where you all just waiting to pounce?
I doubt it. š
Consider it an effort by a number of individuals to try to spread a little good karma around here. š
and as I pointed out..I appreciated you pointing it out. However, his comment up thread was mean spirited and you clearly were supporting it with you comment right after his nasty one. What is wrong with you. I did nothing wrong..he did and you guys try and turn the tables and make me out to be the bad guy. He still left me 2 troll ratings when I last checked. His behavior was pathetic and still is up thread. Now lets focus on the National Nightmare we have all been living for the last 5 years and try and bring Alito down and bring our Men and Women home and stop killing innocent Iraqis. Take the angry newbie under your wing..good for you. Just let him know I can count the 0’s and 1’s that have been given out on both hands, since this blog first went up. Perhaps Parker will be like him and admit her mistake. You guys are really tough on Dkos/Booman members. You see an opening for the kill and you pounce. Are any of you ever happy, positive? Accepting of others that have been fighting Bushco for 5 years and know who the real enemy is and do everything in their power to help expose the BS, LIES and Bring THEM down…not our own. Funny…how at another blog, Kid Oakland can write a comment in one of my diaries that he thought it was one of the best Diaries he had read ever and over here I am called a Moron and troll rated and continued to be shat upon by about 5 of the Pro-Parker/Anti Dkos folks. We all are real people..and several of you guys have really crossed the line the past 4 days. Give it a Break.
Take the pill of chilling. I certainly wasn’t trying to make you out as a “bad guy’.
Oh well, I give up.
I also think the mischaractization of me as “unhappy” and ready to “pounce” as beyond the pale. As I said, whatever, I give up.
sorry, I had not read the rest of the comments in reply to your complaint and I had read your complaint many times the past couple of days.
I was not ‘pouncing’.
That seems to be the case tonight. The effort was wasted. Attempts to convince Chaimonix that our responses were benign will fall on deaf ears. Just the way it is. So it goes.
You mean trying to rectify one’s mistake is not permissable at this blog, according to the standards of this blog (i.e. the standards of Chamonix from The Daily McCarthyists).
Based on your comments, the only rules and regulations that seem to be missing from this blog are standards for intelligence.
It seems to me, Madman, that you are making decisions based on an assumption. I did not read your name in any of Booman’s comments. You are inferring that he is including you amongst the “slanderers” but I see no clear evidence of that.
I would certainly hope that if Booman is making such an accusation he would do so plainly and cite an example of said, and your are correct in your terms, libel. Libel is a serious charge. I’m still totally unclear as to where and how Parker committed this crime.
Madman, I hope you will not take your wonderful words away from this site over something that is still, I think, totally unclear. And, I hope for the sake of this site, that such clarity is forthcoming.
thanks for the kind words and encouragement. I’ll probably still read and comment for a while, but it’s plain to me that if I crosspost here certain parties will keep harrassing booman, and why cause him and me the aggravation? There is a strong contingent of people here who dislike ferment and confrontation (two things that are the life’s blood of politics), so it’s best to let them have their tranquil little pond.
This sort of pressure is only going to get worse as kos & jerome ramp up for their book and the ’06 campaign.
I hope you’ll drop in from time to time to read us at Liberal Street Fighter.
I’m puzzled. Isn’t this something like saying “Certain people want me to be quiet, so I’ll sit down and shut up now”?
Not that I’ve followed everything, and not that I don’t think people should post (or not) wherever they want to, it just seems like this reasoning is a bit off.
Also the one about the dislike of conflict and ferment, especially as it relates to political strategies, societal issues and so on. I think there is a general belief that conflict, ferment, debates and so on can be handled without going into harangues on people’s personalities, or simply troll rating someone you disagree with instead of engaging their arguments (if that is possible), and basically just using common courtesy.
I’ve not actually seen anything but substantive discussion in most of your diaries, (well, and snark) even if there is disagreement. Most all wind up recommended, too. Inviting people to think of something in a different way, or debate where lines should be drawn or if there should be lines at all, and who meets what criteria for support, and so on are not topics that have been discouraged here, that I can remember.
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed your work and of course know where to find it, I’m just sad that you are voluntarily silencing it here.
I have always tried to make my interchanges about ideas, though I have lost my temper w/ people like Armando and Biminicat from time to time. I almost NEVER “zero” anybody unless they’re posting nasty racist or misogynist slurs, but I’ve been hammered by such ratings at the other place. I’m convinced that that behavior will begin to show up here. I think it’s part of the way the sites are configured, and I think there is a lot of pressure from the kos axis to squelch speech that they think will hurt the “centrist” party of their dreams. I see no reason for this site to have to put up with that, and I have no desire to watch strong and smart posters like Parker be tossed into the drink.
I want to leave on a good note, before ’06 starts and gets nasty. I’ll drop into commenting, but I honestly believe that for me to continue to post here will only invite trouble.
All you wrote above are precisely the reasons I think you should stay. Or wish you would, or something like that.
There are many, many issues that need to be discussed, not only relating to blogs and their relationship to the larger Democratic (and other) party issues, but regarding the money and influence and all the rest of the stuff. These are things I believe will become more and more important (and divisive) in coming months and years.
What you do, by taking the ideas and the issues and highlighting them instead of the personalities is vital, I think … and fairly unusual. I’m sure any number of people know who you are referring to sometimes (when you are not speaking of elected officials and stuff), but the actual writing itself could be read by someone who has never even heard of kos and company, and it would still make sense because it is addressing the concepts and problems, not the personalities.
This, I feel, is where some people go wrong… because separate from the actual personalities that people have issues with, or businesses/sites, are the underlying issues that won’t go away. If it isn’t/wasn’t one major site taking the path, it would be another… nature and that vacuum and all that. Providing full information and disclosure helps people to decide if that is something they wish to be a part of… but absent that, providing scenarios and using the general ideas behind something to inform those who would not usually think of this or that part of things, is invaluable, because it provides tools to differentiate.
I think we are only at the beginning of what blogs and the blogosphere will become… there may be only a few 800lb gorillas now, and those gorillas may or may not be heading off in directions that are not beneficial to the overall progressive movement… but there will be others, with other priorities and decision making, and your voice, and others, will be vital for providing correctives, mirrors and cattle prods ;).
I think this site has the potential to become a counterweight to the direction other sites are going, but it’s going to take discussion, strategy, openess (which we already have a lot of) and a whole bunch of other things. Mostly, though, it’s going to take people who can see things and talk/write about them in ways that allow others to see them too. I think we can handle any blowback… we have before, will again… Booman can handle it too, especially if it’s regarding a discussion of the ideas and issues themselves.
Okay, I know the above is a long, confusing mess but I’m not editing it.
It’s true that you are immensely unpopular among certain front-pagers at Daily Kos. I could care less. Do you know how many Tribbers fall into that category, albeit with a little less fame? I don’t care.
What is bothering me is that you seem to think I banned Parker because of outside pressure. I banned her because she was unable to modify her behavior and thereby show me even a modicum of respect.
You made a few insinuations in your comments that I take to be slams on my character, and I am little surprised that you assume these things about me. I have always wanted you here and believe my first comment to you here was something like “what took you so long to show up.”
But, you are now engaging in the same kind of rhetoric that angered me about Parker. You assume that I want you to leave, that I am under pressure to ban you, that I would cave into such pressure, etc.
If we have a difference it is only that I want to comments section of this blog to be a place for respectful discourse. If that places a limitation on the rough and tumble of politics it is only a limitation of the author that does not know how to adapt.
no, what I’m concerned about is that my continued crossposting here will cause more ferment on your site. I also think that Parker raised legitimate issues, issues that no one wants to deal with. After the misrepresentation of what I write and what I did over at the howling mob site I have no interest in more of it. They will send people over here to harrass and highjack.
At no time have I said people were taking money. However, I do think the combination of ad money and closer access to the party has seriously deformed the conversation on kos and mydd, and I fear it will happen here.
As I tried to explain in another thread about this issue, influence can take many forms, and sometimes it is internalized and not recognized by the person acting on it. I was once in a position where I purchased the products that my store sold. The companies that produced those products would send us samples, treat us to meals and other events … all perfectly legal, as long as it is disclosed. It was part of our job to go to those meals and other events, w/ the idea that they would have some time to push what their priorites were, and we would have the opportunity to strengthen the relationship and perhaps gets get them to purchase advertising thru the company’s marketing program or give us some good discounts. Again, all legal.
However, it’s important when in one of those situations that you “check yourself” that your decisions aren’t being deformed by those cozier relationships. If you’re operating a business, you have a certain obligation to fulfill your customer’s needs at a fair price and to do it for them in a welcoming environment.
Of course, a community blog is different than a cash business, but the “product” here and at the other blogs in question is political discourse. It is a legitimate question to ask about, or even to point out signs of, connections or relationships that could effect what kind of dialogue is welcome.
Now, can we PROVE any of this? Well, no, but we can’t PROVE a lot of the things we all know BushCo are doing either. There are certain patterns that seem apparent from a distance … coupled with comments here and elsewhere about receiving emails from people, conference calls etc. Again, all fine, but disclosure is key.
I think the kos axis has turned very corrosive. I think that you’re going to catch a lot of flack if the likes of me and Parker are arround, and I would submit that the crap I’ve seen you take from Armando and his merry band of hyenas in threads over there over “bootrib haters” is having an influence, which is perfectly understandable, if only in the sense that you’re sick of hearing about it. You guys have poured a lot into this place, and who wants someone hanging around who’s going to invite other problems?
So I step aside. I think your heart is in the right place, but be careful of the pressure that is going to come from the party and party activists to mount a more “unified” front going into ’06 and beyond. It’s too early for unity and loyalty oaths, as we don’t even know what “Democrat” MEANS. The only way to find out is talk, shout, scream and pound our fists on the virtual tables until it’s hashed out. I’m convinced that the Scoop sites are unsuited for that, as the ratings system and diary system encourage pack behavior and systems to enforce preferred viewpoints.
We’ve all read over and over again that it’s a big blogosphere … so other than commenting I’m going to concentrate on my corner of it.
You raise too many issues.
Look, it’s natural that there will be a certain level of peer-to-peer building of personal relationsships among bloggers. This is especially true in Philly where we drink beers together once a week. Albert drinks beers with me on Tuesday and offers to help me move on Thursday. Then on Friday, if someone accuses him of being a sell-out I am going to be uneasy about that. And if I ask for supporting evidence and get nothing but more accusations… you know the drill.
Raising questions is one thing. Let’s not conflate that with what went on here, as everyone wants to do.
Secondly, I never tell people to get their own blog, but if you want to pound the tables this might not be the best place for it. Too often, it amounts to pounding other members. And as I have said, not everyone is as smart, informed, or well-written as you, so I don’t want people getting pounded on this site. There are other sites for that. It means, in your case, that you probably can’t use the exact same style of discourse that you are accustomed to. But you have to know your audience to be persuasive, which also means you have to be able to adapt your style. It’s good practice.
history shows that politics requires table pounding. Always has, always will, and one of the reasons that the left has consistently lost ground for decades is that unwillingness to confront. It’s possible to confront w/o going ballistic or silly. Look at Gore Vidal as an example, or Mark Twain. The New Deal happened because people got loud, broke things and had their heads broken. The right understands this.
I attack ideas and connections. That people make it a personal attack is something I can’t help. To me it’s like Wile E. Coyote (though he went by “Ralph” in these cartoons) and Sam the Sheepdog. They were like “Mornin’ Sam” … “Good Morning, Ralph” when they clocked in for the day, and then Wile would chase the sheep and Sam would smack him in the head. Once the day was done, they’d clock out and be cordial again.
I only make it personal when people misrepresent what I write, which Armando does constantly. I’ve no interest in wasting any more energy on it, and it’s going to continue when I post here. They want me gone. I’m not usually one to back away from a fight, but this is just a waste of time. I’ve already had Red Dan suddenly start showing up here and at LSF right after my defenestration, repeating the same stupid circular arguments we’ve already had. I’ll go off to my snooty little salon, and maybe they’ll lose interest.
The scoop sites can go ahead and become message organs for the Party. I’m not going to contribute my work to it.
all fine except for your last sentence which is another unwarranted slam on me.
you can take it that way if you wish. I’m just saying that the way the ad networks are set up, the way the sites work it could very well slide that way without you intending it to.
I can’t help that I see these connections. I’m not alone. My posts not being here will lower the amount of “shut that asshole up” pressure you’re going to get when you post at kos, or from kosweasles who come here looking for trouble.
The party is a dead shell. It means nothing … the important thing now is WHAT we’re fighting for, not the big shiny japanese Gundam-like robots we do the fighting in.
and what if I started referring to LSF weasels? Do you all not come to BT and bring your arguments with Daily Kos with you? Since you are all such good writers and have such important things to say I have been happy to have you here. But I haven’t been happy with the way you all tend to team up and get gung-ho on the Kos bashing. I get caught in the middle of a fight that I have no interest in. If that is why you are leaving, fine. But don’t pretend that it doesn’t take two to tango. The problem could be solved just as easily by keeping your personal fights in more appropriate forums. And I certainly am not pressuring you to leave, despite all these insinuations that are being made.
I know I’m confrontational. I consider the direction the party is pursuing to be dangerous, and a recipe for continued losses. I think what kos has turned into is part of it, yet no one wants to talk about it in a community forum and they are shutting it down over there.
That’s why I’m stepping away. You asked people to keep it out of here, and it’s a big part of the problem we face, so I can’t keep it out of my writing. Therefore, in order for me to not bring it here, I have to stop xposting.
If you don’t mind, I may comment in the diaries of many of the excellent writers here, but I’ll keep my other work away from bringing trouble to your door.
You can discuss this stuff on my forum. I have no intention of getting cozy with kos. Heck Booman hasn’t even talked to him so I doubt it even a possiblity. BTW, Boo appears to rely more on powells than blogads though maybe this is just because Kos won’t recommend him, I don’t know.
why are these distortions so common?
Kos has no ability to help my advertising or to hurt it. He and Chris would never kick me out of the Advertising Liberally group, because my site is identical to theirs. And even if they did it would only make a tiny difference in my ad sales. If they wanted to kick me out they would have to kick themselves out too. Plus, I make about $40 a month off Powell’s. That less than one blogad for one week. Do you see why I find this irritating?
Criticize Kos’s politics, his blog management, hell, even his business decisions if you know what you are talking about. But please stop spreading defamatory and inaccurate information about him.
I am not spreading defamitory info about him. I looked into blogads and you have to get an invite from someone who is in it already. That seems kind of cliquey to me, so I understand why people are suspicious of blogads.
I dunno, madman, it really chaps MY hairy white butt when I get called “Sergant at Arms” and “enforcer” and “ward-heeler” sent to quiet people down.
Nobody sends me anywhere, I am not hired, nor do I volunteer for particular tasks.
Misconstruing honest disagreement and turning into a factional squabbling, and then smearing one’s debate opponent by implying or directly asserting that they are not a free-acting dissenter is not particularly nice, not particularly liberal or progressive, and not particularly useful or effective.
It certainly does not rise to the level of slander or libel, but for someone who writes and thinks as well as you do, I hope for better.
I am certainly not giving up – I will continue to engage, quite simply because your ideas and thoughts are too important to let whatever opinions I have about your style, delivery, or personal qualities get in the way.
The same goes for BooMan trying to lay out exactly where he stands and how he sees the running of his site with respect to partners, competitors, funding, resources, and political ideals.
Talking about “following the leaders” and “new blogging life helping the Dems” and other such – you are implying that he is selling out…and that implication is unfair, unwarranted, and unsupported by any available facts. Until you can present those facts, you should refrain from making such accusations.
yet somehow, you follow me around.
Because I like your writing and agree with most of your ideas, and want to argue some of these things out in a way that brings us closer to working together for progressive change.
Because I like your writing and agree with most of your ideas
When did you change your mind?
heh …
š
I didn’t
I stated I agree with a lot of the basic politics espoused by madman in the marketplace (et alia)…and disagree vehemently and completely with their methods, tactics, and strategy.
Exactly what I have stated here on numerous instances:
I agree with most of the political views espoused, disagree with the tactics and strategy, enjoy the writing style and breadth (go look at madman’s recommends to find that I have recommended his diaries both there and here), and really, really disagree with the paranoid accusations of treachery immediately and vociferously thrown in the face of any who disagree.
The thing that strikes me about this response is that you seem unaware of how beyond the pale that diary and thread is or of it’s likely effect on the reader.
Untill you’re able to do that I don’t see much point in further conversation.
Actually it’s funny, I hadn’t read that thread until RedDan posted it here and yes, some of the comments were over the top, but some were quite enlightening… i.e. that EmDash, one of the Founders of LSF was summarily banned and harrassed… and that RedDan was summarily banned by OurWord… and yet members of both of those sites had such an issue with the banning of a member here. Interesting indeed. Glad I checked it out.
some of the comments were over the top.
do you think?
yup, I sure do & they most certainly would have violated the “don’t be a prick” rule here. I was just very interested in finding out about the other bannings at LSF and OurWord which seemed to be based on an arbitrary set of rules, which is exactly what some here who belong to those sites were accusing Boo of… neglecting to mention that Parker had been warned quite a few times to tone it down vs. just summarily banned. I don’t appreciate hypocrisy from anyone and that thread made crystal clear to me that it is evidently practiced all over the place.
which seemed to be based on an arbitrary set of rules
Yes, I take your meaning now. I know very little about how arbitrary those bannings were. In fact I know nothing whatsoever about the situation at LSF beyond the fact of a dust up or series of dust ups between the FP posters there. I do know that RD’s behavior on OW was less than productive but nothing about the circumstances of that banning either. I always tend to take such claims with a grain of salt, particularly when they’re being offered up and a rationalization and justification for the sort of behavior in that thread. Media Girl’s comments, (as usual,)nailed it.
I’m not sure that hypocrisy was involved and certainly would not be inclined to charge anyone with it due to the witness of the participants in that thread.
as an aside, as someone who used to frequent usenet, I’m not someone who is opposed to bannings and certainly don’t feel that Parker’s banning was arbitrary, just unfortunate. I was also uncomfortable with the way it was done and very uncomfortable with the unlikely juxtaposition of Parker’s banning here and simultaneous banning of Madman at DK. I don’t know that most people think Parker’s banning was due to an arbitrary set of rules, to be frank I think most people were expecting it, including Parker. My point in linking to that thread at all was to suggest to RD that Madman’s repeated requests that RD stop following him around are not “pananoid” or unreasonable and should be respected. Indeed, I would maintain that RD’s inability to respond to other people’s clearly stated boundaries was what got him banned on OW.
gotcha.
You’re wrong about OurWord.
When asked to sit down and shut up, I did.
After that request, I posted about 5 comments in the course of 4 months or so (I really don’t know the time-frame). When I did post, it was mostly not related to any other blog or blog conflict…except to say “I disagree”.
I visited quite often, and read most every post over the course of a given week.
I answered the survey sent out, and felt that the site was really good.
When I was blocked from the site, it was after a period of not having commented (but having read regularly) for more than two months.
That’s all well and good – whatever.
The point being this:
Don’t chastise some for behavior that many engage in; and don’t presume to judge why I “follow madman around” – especially given that my reasons for doing so are clearly stated – I like his writing, and agree with his politics but not his tactics or strategy. Period.
Don’t chastise some for behavior that many engage in; and don’t presume to judge why I “follow madman around” – especially given that my reasons for doing so are clearly stated – I like his writing, and agree with his politics but not his tactics or strategy. Period.
I really have no interest in further conversation
You never had interest in conversation to begin with.
poster at LSF? Why doesn’t Parker start her own blog if she has so many people wanting to read her stuff and fighting to keep her here? She has been banned. Finished. It is over. Move on.
Madman, a long time ago, I was invited to come join Liberal Street Fighter during the “pie wars” on DailyKos.
Is that invitation still open? If so, I’d like to cash it in. Is is casual dress or coat and tie?
Please don’t reply in open forum. My email is shadowthief1962@gmail.com. Do drop me a line either way. I look forward to your reply.
you can wear a tutu and breastplate, if that’s what floats your boat.
there’s a link to register at the top of the page, next to “search”.
I belong to a group where it is a piece of common wisdom that all you need to start a new meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot.
All you need to start a new liberal blog is a resentment and a pc.
the kitty pictures.
Just trying for a little levity. I don’t understand anything that is going on here. I guess you had to have been there.
Hay BooMan, besides all the other things taking place here recetnly, we did have a fabulous art fair on Saturday here:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/12/3/85552/3061
With the assistance of CabinGirl and Supersoling, both of whom posted many interesting images.
Maybe I’m nuts but I haven’t been really at all interested in the “wars” that go on here or on most any blog.
Basically, I think most of the liberal blogs are getting important stories out there, provide insightful analysis and can raise some money.
Some of the emphasis on the internal finances of the blogs seems rather myopic. I know were supposed to think globally and act locally, but prinicples about the internal finances of blogs is too local if it even matters at all.
should add though, I don’t think it was a waste of your time at all to clear things up.
The explanation regarding Drudge Retort and Raw Story–that they are not blogads–is credible. Booman has made it quite clear that he doesn’t agree with the standard applied, and neither do I, but neither of us run the business in question.
However, why was the Smirking Chimp kicked out of the advertising network? The Smirking Chimp is quite literally the “grandaddy” of the current crop of liberal blogs, going online with a substantial community long before DailyKos (in fact, Mr. Markos Moulitsa got his start blogging on the Smirking Chimp). The Smirking Chimp remains one of the top-tier blogs in the liberal/progressive blogosphere.
For those of you who may not be familiar with the Smirking Chimp, and wish to see the traffic it attracts, as well as its format, and clearly demonstrable commitment to progressive/liberal politics, etc, have a look at the site:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com
If you click on the Sitemeter icon on the very bottom centre of the Smirking Chimp’s main page, you will see that it has an average of 38,727 visits daily. By comparison, Booman Tribune has an average of 8,429 visits daily, and is included in the network.
Why the Smirking Chimp was excluded from the network is a mystery to me. It is clearly a liberal/progressive blog with high traffic, a layout not unlike DailyKos’ or Booman Tribune’s, and yet–it is excluded.
For purposes of clarity, I think it is also appropriate at this point to reprint the original complaint lodged by Mr. Rogers Cadenhead of the Drudge Retort, as it contains at least part of the questions Booman has addressed. The boldface are my own additions, as it’s rather a long piece to read and I wanted to highlight the salient portions:
My Due Diligence on the Liberal Ad Network
The Drudge Retort has been kicked out of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, a group of 75 liberal sites organized by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos and Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD under the guidance of BlogPAC, a political action committee that Moulitsas and Armstrong began in 2004.
Bowers personally invited me to join the network in May 2005, sending several e-mails until I agreed to become one of its founding members. I thought it was a good way to bring liberal blogs closer together and make some money in the 2006 election year, so I’ve been working on it for six months, running the network’s “Advertise Liberally” ad on the Retort 6.5 million times during that span and setting up a private blog for members.
The network has been experiencing a double super-secret flamewar since Bowers announced in mid-October that they were unilaterally changing the rules in a way that excludes several well-trafficked members, including the Retort, Raw Story and Smirking Chimp.
At this time next year, I planned to be sunning on the deck of a new yacht bought with political ad riches, thanks to our country’s lack of meaningful campaign finance reform. I saw myself picking up the New York Times, reading about the newly elected Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the first day of Karl Rove’s prison term and the Texas Rangers’ victory in the World Series.
Instead, I’ve just given six months of effort and free ad space worth $2,200 to a liberal ad network that’s now my competition.
Some conservatives will have a field day with this, suggesting that liberal bloggers don’t know the business world because we’re up in our ivory towers smoking medicinal marijuana as we search for gay spotted owls who want to get married. But things could be worse for the liberal ad network — it could be Pajamas Media.
I think the moral of this story is simple: Practice due diligence before getting into business with Moulitsas, Armstrong and Bowers. A trait that makes them entertaining bloggers — a talent for getting into fights they don’t need to have — doesn’t translate well to making a network of weblogs advertiser friendly.
I realized this a few weeks ago when Moulitsas used the Daily Kos front page to threaten potential advertisers:
… campaigns should advertise on blogs to reach readers, not to “endorse” the publication. We’re bloggers. We’ll say things that are “controversial”. If campaigns don’t think they can weather such storms, then by all means they should NOT advertise on blogs.
Because every time a campaign freaks out at a blogger and pulls their ads, we’re going to raise a stink about it and inevitably make that campaign look bad. So they should think long and hard before putting money into a Blogad campaign.
My jaw dropped when I read this response to the Kaine gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, which pulled an ad from Steve Gilliard because of his provocative depiction of an African-American politician in blackface. The political situation for a Democrat in a tight race, days before the election, was less important than a blogger’s need to keep it real.
Moulitsas can afford to say crazy shit like that, because Democratic politicians view Daily Kos as an ATM machine and assembly line for grass-roots liberal activists. He charges $1,400 a week for ads and regularly sells 6-8 of them.
For the rest of the 75-minus-me members in the liberal ad network, “don’t pull an ad or we’ll hurt you” is a bit of a tough sell.
http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2806/my-due-diligence-liberal-ad-network
markos got started on smirking chimp? what was his handle? i had always thought he’d started at mydd.com.
I am really getting tired of this Kos vs. Boo issue. Yes, I got beat up on Kos for trolling for recipes (needed a good chicken soup recipe so I sent out a frivolous diary), but I’ve never mentioned it. Lot’s of people have been beaten up – so what?
There are more important things to discuss and I feel like we should take the higher moral ground and give it a rest.
And this is why we need campaign finance disclosure laws for blogs.
“They agree not to do it.” – Terry Pratchett, Going Postal, describing the logic behind the “Chinese Wall” in business ethics.