I’m donating my diary quota today to stark. Diary below is hers.
This is not defeatism. This is a realistic assessment of the situation:
THEY AREN’T LISTENING.
They are deleting the emails, throwing away the faxes, ignoring the
phone
calls.
It is time we let them know, in person, live-in-the-flesh and in living
color: greetings from your friendly neighborhood nutcase! I would like
to
kindly request that you start doing your motherfucking JOB because I am
tired of paying your salary for NOT doing your job.
Awww. You wanna call me names? Tsk. Tsk. That’s not very
nice
of you. Pls understand, it’s tax time again, so I’m feeling a little
more
uppity than usual, cause you see, I got this check here to write to the
IRS.
And I’m tired of paying for flag-draped coffins and ice trucks that
never
arrive in NOLA, yaknow? I’m tired of paying you to sit around and look
pretty and pander to the ‘swing voters’ to the right of the
left-that-isn’t-even-left.
So I have come to politely and kindly request that you get off your
fucking
lying-in-the-lameass-lap-of-luxury campaign tour and DO YOUR JOB.
Our Mission: to persuade each of our Representatives to
support
Impeachment: Support John Conyers’ Watergate-style investigation
(H.Res.
635) of Bush’s Iraq War lies – and immediately introduce Articles of
Impeachment for Bush and CheneyGetting Out of Iraq: Support John Murtha’s bill to remove troops from
Iraq
(H.J. Res 73) and Jim McGovern’s bill to end funding for the Iraq War
(H.R.
4232)The Problem: For a year, we have tried all of the traditional
lobbying
techniques including marches, petitions, emails, letters, calls, town
hall
forums, and even face-to-face meetings with our Representatives. Yet
despite
all this effort, not one Representative is willing to introduce
Articles of
Impeachment, while fewer than 30 have co-sponsored Rep. Conyers’
Watergate-style investigation. On Iraq, John Murtha’s bill has nearly
100
co-sponsors but not the 218 needed to force a floor vote; Jim
McGovern’s
bill has fewer than 20 co-sponsors, even though George Bush just asked
for
$120 billion more for a war America does not support and cannot
afford.The Solution: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King faced
far
worse resistance from political leaders when they tried to end
segregation
in the South. So they took their movement to the streets and marched
peacefully directly into the face of that resistance. We will take our
inspiration from them, and bring our movement peacefully into the face
of
our resistance: the 435 Members of Congress who are supposed to
represent us
but refuse to do so. (We’ll make an exception for the House Honor Roll
–
Members who support our three priority bills above. For those Members,
we
will focus on Member Meetings to persuade them to introduce Articles of
Impeachment.)Home Protests: Every weekend, we will march peacefully in front of the
homes
of our Representatives. (We suggest Saturday at 10:00 a.m. because that
is
when Members are most likely to be home, but local groups can set their
own
times.) We will carry signs and distribute flyers to their neighbors
with
our simple demands. Here are flyers to print and hand out. If
your
group is really energetic, here are some “extra credit” ideas.Birddogging: Whenever our Representatives appear at public events in
our
communities, we will protest peacefully with our signs and flyersMember Meetings: We want to schedule face-to-face meetings with our
Representatives in their district offices to get immediate action on
our
legislative demands. The best dates are:February 20-24–Presidents Day Recess
March 17-24–St. Patrick’s Day Recess
* March 19: 3rd anniversary of start of war
April 10-21–Easter Recess
We have diary quotas? News to me. What are they? Is it 1 per day? 2? do we have quotas on # of comments too? What about smiley faces?
The whole diary quotas thing was news to me, that’s for sure. I thought that was more of a Big Orange thang. Go figure.
when this site was created it used the rules from pastordan’s daily kos community guide, which has the two diary rule.
2. No single-line diaries. If you want to bring attention
to a single link, or make a one-line pithy comment, head on over to the
Open Threads or an appropriate post or diary entry.
3. No repetitive diaries. If it’s been blogged or diaried,
there’s no need to repeat it. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn’t
been blogged. And if you post your same diary entry twice, consider it
grounds for banning.
4. Use “Extended Copy” box. If your diary entry is longer
than three paragraphs, use the extended entry box. Be considerate and
don’t clutter up the Diaries home page with epic entries.
I added the prick rule later.
In a year, only two or three people have ever broken the rule, so it seems to be well understood.
In the past, I notified the person of the rules and that was the end of the story.
DailyKos has since changed to a one diary a day rule and they have automated it.
Here, you can still post two, and no one bothers to police the other diary rules. Me included.
…and no one bothers to police the other diary rules. Me included.
Except the “Don’t be a prick” rule. Folks tend to like that one enforced.
And some like it more than others!
😉
Cafes and PhotoDiaries must be an exception? BooMan, I have to apologise, I honestly didn’t know about the limit. I’ve broken the rule more weeks than not (maybe every week from mid June through the beginning of February)
Could that fact of multiple cafes by the same users confuse the rule? Because I don’t think it was just me doing it.
BooMan, I’m very sorry if I contributed to the confusion on this issue.
yeah, the cafe is an exception I guess. It seems to me that it gets reposted after about 100 comments by whomever is available.
I worried about the rule initially and thought about creating some kind of autogenerated cafe, but I decided I liked the personal touch of the individual cafes.
I hope it is an ambiguity that can be tolerated.
How is your website going?
HI BooMan!!
I think things are going pretty well at my website. It takes a lot of my time and thought — but I’m enjoying it. And we’re building a pretty good library of health information.
Back to the multiple diary thing, I agree that the personal touch and the toleration of ambiguity is fine — but it should be explained. Maybe as a footnote in the Diary Templates? Just a quick sentence that as a community project, the Diaries don’t count in an individuals quota?
Because some days those diaries fill up so fast there are actually several right in a row on the recent diary list. And if this rule (that I actually never knew about) is going to become important, having that disclaimer could save some conflict.
(sliding back to lurk mode and opening the window to work on today’s Commitment Clubhouse
I didn’t know about the 2 a day quota either. As the young folks say “whatever.”
If there are days that you don’t plan to post 2 diaries, and would like to donate your quota to stark, email me and I will send you stark’s email address. (I have her permission to do this)
My email is DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com
ductape, no back end channels. Link to her stuff in another forum.
If I undertand you correctly, you are saying that I may not post a diary that contains the words or thoughts of someone other than myself?
no. I am saying you can’t act as a conduit to post her diaries.
me, I want to make sure that I am not inadvertantly suggesting to anyone that they break any of the rules of your site.
Also, I know that as the site’s owner, you would not want to leave any doubt in anyone’s mind exactly where the line between posting a diary containing the thoughts and words of someone else, and “acting as a conduit for their diaries” lies, as well as to which individuals this would apply.
Suppose that someone who is not stark emails me an article, or a rant, and I want to post it here, with their permission, of course.
Would that be against the new rules?
I can see how what I wrote was unclear.
I meant, if you want to discuss her ideas and quote her, link to her writing. If she sends you personal correspondence you can of course include that.
What I don’t want is for you to post her diaries under your name.
this down and post it. I am not saying you have any obligation to do so, just that I think it may save you some aggravation in the future.
If I am not mistaken, earlier you suggested to stark what might be interpreted as the suggestion that she ask people to post diaries for her if she had more than the quota.
Now, if I understand you correctly, where this diary breaks the new rules is that it was posted as her diary, or otherwise identified as her diary, so is forbidden.
However should she send material to me in email that I want to post, I may do so, and attribute it to her, as long as I do not identify it as her diary, that would not be forbidden?
I am assuming that this would apply not only to stark and to me, but to everybody, for that reason I am asking for this further clarification, and suggesting that you write it all down so that there can be no misunderstanding and we can all be sure that we are not posting forbidden text or breaking any of the rules, new or old.
okay.
Forget today.
In the future…
Stark is prohibited from posting comments or diaries here. Under her name, or under anyone else’s name.
However, she will probably find somewhere else to write or publish other writings in the public domain. Anyone can treat that as you would any other source in the world.
All I am prohibiting is her using members here to publish diaries of hers that she is not allowed to do under her own name.
What is to stop her from composing a piece, and emailing it to me, or anybody, and having them then include the text of that email in that diary attributed to her?
How will you know, how would I or anybody know, if she intended the piece to be a diary for here unless she states that specifically?
If she knows that it will be forbidden if it is so designated, how can she be prevented from simply omitting any reference to diaries, or BooMan Tribune, and thus circumvent the new rule?
And to be fair, how can you know if she does designate it thus or otherwise indicate her intention that it is to be a diary for here, if she sends it in an email to me or anybody else? The recipient of the email could also circumvent the rule simply by omitting that part of the email where she states that intention.
You are a champion hair-splitter.
any rules he chooses, at any time, applicable to one person, three, seven, or all.
He pays the server, so the obligation is all on our side, not his. We have an obligation, if we want to post here, to obey any rule he makes, at any time.
I think we also have something of an obligation to point out if a new rule appears like it might be difficult to enforce, or as in the case of this one, difficult for him to determine when it has been broken.
drink Trappist specialties. Maybe I will be able to count the angels on the head of a pin when I return.
:::sniff:::
Isn’t life easier if we try to police particular behavior, and not particular people?
I don’t mean to be radical, just asking.
one particular person, a list of people, or all participants is entirely up to BooMan.
It would still be difficult for him to determine whether the rule had been broken, regardless.
I do wonder how one would know, unless of course the site’s owner were to have his attorney(s) subpoena the suspected occupant’s isp for a copy of all their emails (perhaps in such occasion, it might be better to ask our Federal government, as I’m sure some spy somewhere has complete access to such data 😉 ) in order to determine definitively that indeed the occupant in question has dared to post a “stark diary” under the occupant’s own name.
I don’t know about all the legal minutia involved, but that seems to be one hell of an undertaking.
Would strike me as much simpler to merely trust one’s occupants rather than to not.
for the recipients.
But that does not address the question of stark herself. If she fully and knowingly writes the piece intending it to be a diary, and then emails it to someone deliberatedly omitting that intention, he still would not have any way of knowing whether the rule had been broken.
This indeed does get into tricky territory – not only for the proprietor but for the unwitting frogpond occupant.
I can’t help but find the whole conundrum amusing.
I don’t believe Booman suggested it. The “suggestion” came from Stark and Booman seemed willing to accomodate her, presumably to avoid… well, the sort of draining and painful mess that’s happened anyway.
I say “seemed” and am guessing as to his motives since I don’t have any communication about this other than being a person reading and whose fucking head is going to explode, so that’s what I’d be thinking. Have you read all of the exchanges?
Here’s Stark in the cafe this morning:
And here she is in her thread:
I ask because as a very reasonable, respected member of the community, your questioning of the rules makes it seem as though there was some confusion in the previous threads on this. There was not.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but every banning that has happened here has happened after warnings and explanations, right? The person being banned has been given a chance to correct the situation. Stark was given more than ample opportunity to correct it this morning. It’s really not fair to use Boo’s willingness to go accomodate her as evidence that the rules aren’t clear.
That said, I think you’re right that it’s a good idea to write this stuff and link it prominently.
and I believe there was a reference to making prior arrangements.
Somebody with better skills than me can find that, if not I will try to do it after I reboot. It is a very large thread and I cannot open it if I have other windows open.
Whatever he said, however, he has no obligation to be consistent with that in making the new rules.
But as I said in a previous comment, I do think that we have an obligation, not only to obey the new rules, if we want to post here, but also to speak up when it appears that a new rule may cause confusion or trouble for him in the future.
The problem I see with this rule is that it would be difficult for him to know when it has been broken, since the “diaryhood” or lack thereof of the text in question would be in the intention of someone who is not here, and even if expressed to a recipient, for instance, in an email, it would not be possible for BooMan to know whether the recipient was also breaking the rules by posting only part of the email – not the part where stark expresses an intention that it be a diary.
Yes, Booman said those things in response to Stark’s suggestions which I posted above. He was being accomodating towards her, not unclear on the rules.
I agree that it is good to have things clearly laid out. However, if we’ve learned anything from right-wing rule, it should be that those in power can’t and shouldn’t legislate every possible way that people can find to break rules. The sort of specificity that you seem to be asking for would, in my opinion, lead to a bad, rigid climate on the site.
If rules on this site were being enforced with no warning or unfairly, I’d see your point on needing more and clearer specifics. However, as I said, no one to my knowledge has been banned without warning or without being given a chance to remedy the situation.
And the situation today with Stark is an especially bad context in which to have this discussion. The meta-message behind repeated requests to clarify things is that they have been or currently are unclear. There was nothing unclear today. Stark flagrantly broke a rule, was asked to correct it, became insulting and refused. She was warned nicely that this would lead to her banning. She made a very clear choice.
I was “banned” TWICE in 24 hours, BooMan explained to me today that I had not ACTUALLY been banned because he “promised to ‘unban’me later” — I was not given “opportunity to “remedy” the situation” — I had my voice SILENCED because I was being (in some eyes) disrputive, in my own eyes, I was defending myself against public declarations that my “ANGER” (a big no-no apparently) was an indication that I needed mental help.
Parker was summarily banned for saying things that most people now take for granted, as far as I can tell because her “style” was not welcome.
So I will say the same thing to you that I said to Martin: just because YOU haven’t seen it read it heard it, doesn’t mean it hasn’t BEEN.
I think the “stark context” is a perfect one in which to have this discussion — made SOO much easier by the fact that she can no longer comment, don’t you think?
Brinn, I followed closely the whole situation with both you and Parker and stayed out of all of those arguments out of respect for you and a couple of other people. I have seen it, did see it, and feel you were in the wrong in both cases.
which cases, exactly?
I’m glad to know that you think I was wrong — would be really interested in knowing about what.
The cases you just brought up as examples — Parker’s banning and your own semi-banning.
exactly. Trying to learn here, but it’s is very very difficult. Like yanking teeth, even.
Why do you want me to explain how I think you were wrong? It’s completely beside the point. Our dispute here in this thread seems to be over whether people are warned before being banned and whether or not they have the opportunity to remedy the situation.
Starting a new discussion on my opinion of your previous argument hardly seems constructive. I’ll explain if you’re genuinely interested, but it won’t help resolve the current disagreement and would probably only lead to hurt feelings and more arguing. Neither of which I want.
Talking things through is the ONLY path to resolution and/or understandings. As I siad in Diane’s diary, calling for the latter without being willing to engage in the former seems a recipie for failure. Yes, I’m genuinely interested, otherwise I wouldn’t have asked — I am really tired of my motives being continuously questioned and assumptions being made.
But Brinn, do you see how, in every “community” it is not fair to the community as a whole when someone deliberately blows off the rules?
What if you had written a diary that you were proud of and wanted people to read, but because 6 diaries popped up within minutes of each other, all written by the same poster, your diary slipped by unnoticed?
It doesn’t really have anything to do with whether you agreed with stark or not. She could have done several things: consolidated her diaries into two, asked BooMan’s permission to post more than the limit, or ask other members to post her diaries BEFOREHAND.
Even if she didn’t know about the 2 a day rule, when notified she didn’t need to get all defiant and start calling people names. She’s the one who characterized it as an act of civil disobedience, not a misunderstanding of the rules.
“call people names”? Ok, it doesn’t matter.
I am not arguing that stark didn’t have an opportunity to ‘remedy” the situation, I am saying, in response to Izzy that NO, that has not been the case always.
As far as the we should all follow the rules question — I agree 100%, my bitch the last 4 months has been that they are not made clear, or are deliberatley vauge (sorry, but one person’s prick may be another’s popsicle, if you see what I mean) and that the heirarchy is EITHER top-down or community-driven, there is no having it both ways.
Both you and Parker were warned beforehand, just as Stark was.
that is, I was told to shut up and go away and when I didn’t had my commenting ability cut off — you can go see for yourself. It really is quite clear.
it’s his call, and they are his rules!
This particular rule, I think will be difficult to enforce, however clear it may be, because whether the text is forbidden or not would be in the mind, or the intention, or someone who is not here, and he would have no way to verify whether the rule had been broken with regard to people who are still here.
I suppose if the proprietor had a few friends in the CIA, he could always have the alleged offending person(s) renditioned and vigorously interrogated (what we used to call torture back in the day), or try various “truth serums” or polygraphs or the like, but each of these methods – in addition to the questionable ethics, as well as legality – is far from reliable in terms of getting at the requisite information.
Failing that, one is stuck with the great unknown – what is actually going on inside the heads of those posting from another computer terminal.
One is left then with two default choices: make the assumption that the occupants are behaving correctly (i.e. trust them) or make the assumption that some subset are troublemakers (perish the thought, I know), make blanket accusations and perhaps try a mass purge or two. That latter assumption will lead to considerably more friction than the former, but them’s the breaks.
in my view, spell out very clearly under which circumstances and for which infractions, or in the case of this particular fule, for investigations to determine whether an infraction has in fact occurred, these operatives will be deployed in the manner you have outlined.
Also, it would be helpful to delineate whether stark herself would fall under the jurisdiction of such a provision, since BooMan has banned her.
A very good argument could be made that having been banned, she is no longer able to violate any rules, therefore no investigation or interrogation on the subject of her intentions would be possible.
In effect, it appears that by banning her, he has precluded taking any action whatsoever against her, regardless of how flagrantly she might violate this rule, which to my understanding, is specific only to her.
Thus the banning leaves the site quite vulnerable to potential continuous rule violations by stark.
I’m glad you two find this so amusing.
Another happy customer!
I shall be able to sleep soundly now.
Every comment in this thread so far has been about the procedure about the posting of this diary. There has been talk about the content of the diary.
I appreciate the ideas laid out here I am wondering what kind of mechanism we could lay in place to begin to plan events like these or are these to happen spontaneously?
With so many folks here who claim to believe a political solution is possible, and admiration for this or that politician or party, I would think these are very appealing ideas.
As you probably know, I do not share those particular views, I just posted the diary for stark. She is much more right wing than I, who am a moderate.