Tweet
Sorry, but this blog has been marked as spam as defined in our Terms of Service.
The admin has already been contacted to review.
Re: http://my.firedoglake.com/barefootaccountant/2012/10/05/progressives-are-in-need-of-a-supportive-webblog-in-which-to-communicate-and-organize/
Spam? Really?
It just happens over and over here and the mods never learn a thing or get any smarter. Entire diaries and comment strings censored not because they are spam, or egregious violations of the posting rules. But based on simple disagreement, on thinskinned, pearl clutching, straight to the fainting couch inability to deal with any criticism. Are your egos really that fragile? Is the control freak inside that hard to control? Modding ain’t that tough a job; when in doubt, let it ride. Don’t insert yourself into the process as a censor if there is any ambiguity to the situation. Basically don’t be a censorious asshole. DailyKos would be proud.
Edit: For the record it is reported that the diary in question (containing dozens of interesting posts by other FDL members in good standing) was officially deleted for the reason that the author, pseudonymously named Barefoot Accountant, had used other pseudonyms on the site. Why this correction didn’t appear in the original thread as a clarification rather than an entire thread deleted, well I’m still working on that one. I suspect the pseudonyms would never have become an issue had the original now deleted diary not been unpopular with the moderation staff. But that’s just my personal theory.
361 Comments
Thank you, Kurt.
This censoring “business” is NOT best practice, and reflects VERY BADLY on Firedoglake.
Frankly, Kurt, your comment On Barefoot Accountant’s diary was among the best, and further, just as frankly, the fact that BA’s dairy has been disappeared yet still appears in the “lights” to the right is disturbing.
“SPAM”? I think not.
However, the worst aspect of this fiasco, is that Barefoot Accountant is no longer listed as a member of FDL … he has joined the “disappeared” … and we are all diminished in the loss of his perspective and meaningful contributions to this site.
No one expects FDL to be perfect, but a reasonable expectation of rational behavior is not unreasonable nor an “enemy” to the good that FDL IS capable of.
Recommended to to all the usual “suspects” … and even those who are, apparently, unfazed and unmoved by such disappearances …
David W. Bartoo
Thanks for this, Kurt Sperry; brave and good of you to spotlight this.
I’d read the thread this morning, and reckoned I might offer a comment after a morning appointment. I was surprised, grieved, but not shocked that the post was gone. I clicked the author’s username, and it went to Ruth Calvo’s art post.
I will say that the spam page said it was under review, perhaps the mods are just checking it over, and will restore it.
Your post, juliania’s, and a few others were exemplary, but the bare knuckles on display were hard to witness. We can’t seem to argue things without personal grievances coming out. It makes me wonder about unifying for the big fights if we can’t get this inconsequential stuff figured out.
Rec’d in hope and admiration.
Yes, thank you very much, Kurt Sperry. In light of the fact that on that particular thread I made the point that often a post I disagree with has very good comments on it, and also the fact I praised FDL for having the grace to post all parts of the spectrum so that we could disagree, this abrupt action seems like not a good thing.
As a heads up, there is an excellent post by Kevin on his dissenter page on the ongoing peace march in Pakistan which in my view should be frontpaged by now. It’s a ‘hearts in our mouths for a good outcome’ occurrence I hope FDL will pay attention to.
Hopefully, calm minds will prevail as they so often do here.
Lots of links are screwed up, including the ones to this piece which is available through the Front Page recommended list, but not through its links in the MyFDL recent or recommended lists.
Of course this happens quite a bit for me and I usually attribute it to WordPress funkiness.
I thought that message was a result of people having clicked on “Flag this post as inappropriate” in which case it would be a community decision, not an editorial one.
Even if the diary is “under review”, censorship is the blog equivalent of the nuclear option. Why is it deemed necessary to preemptively take that terrible step prior to a final decision? The whole things stinks of authoritarianism, of hubris, of petty vindictive dick swinging. There is nothing remotely moderate– the root of moderation– about it. Moderation is not about hysterical over-reaction, not about deliberately creating large controversies out of small ones, not about emotional inflammatory action.
I’ve done plenty of moderation and this step of going nuclear can only lead to two polarizing, unnecessarily acrimonious results: wagons are circled among the staff, the censorship ethos doubled down on and expanded ad hoc to include any of the inevitable ripple effects of the immoderate action resulting in bans and huge unnecessary general drama or alternatively the staff reconsiders after a long contentious and again wholly unnecessary drama plays out leaving nerves frayed and mistrust sown between the site staff and the site users.
To repeat moderation is simple, when in doubt, let it ride. Don’t insert yourself into the process as a censor if there is any ambiguity to the situation. It’s not like we haven’t been through this before. Einstein’s definition of insanity covers the situation pretty well.
Wow. Just wow. I just tried going back to the Chicken Hen Gang vs Fierce Debaters diary to find my comment there where I asked FDL moderator to not consider just-banned Robert Alexander Dumas (and the comments I left in his diary from months earlier) as spam. Was going to say here, I never heard back from a moderator. Remember that diary? It had hundreds of comments. This is what I found:
http://my.firedoglake.com/realitychecker/2012/03/26/the-clucking-hen-gang-vs-the-fierce-debaters/
Did realitychecker get banned? There goes our history.
Recommended.
If entire threads can be censored by a couple of accounts (which could easily be one person) pressing a button with no human involvement, then that would represent a serious– and obvious– flaw in the way the site is built. You should have the nuclear censorship button out there where anyone can set it off. That would be reckless and irresponsible.
Hmmm.
Interesting thought, marym.
I wonder how many “clicks” it takes for “a community” to disappear a diary?
Perhaps, my “vote” is not worth anything, however, I vote that the diary be restored and Barefoot Accountant be re-appeared as a member of the community of which ALL of us, here, are a “part”.
DW
This brings up another good point, when a diary is disappeared the moderators are not only censoring the original diary they are censoring everyone who replied to it– often large numbers of thoughtful and useful posts by a large and diverse group of the site’s membership. That’s why I call it the nuclear option, it destroys everything in a completely untargeted way, the replies that get erased are just collateral damage, but collateral damage far exceeding the censoring of the original post.
I guess it would be tempting from the staff perspective to disappear these comment strings where the members discuss whatever shitstorm the mods have created via censorship, they are likely to be hugely embarrassing to the staff to have on the record. And they should be embarrassed. But the answer to being embarrassed isn’t to cover up, conceal and hide, it is to take a lesson from the episode and move forward having incorporated that lesson. Perhaps erasing that lesson gives some the illusion they can simply forget it as if it never occurred instead of learning from it. But it just sets up the next inevitable recurrence because the same errors will be repeated.
If there is a “nuke button” that x number of clicks sets off, why not an “un-nuke button” with the same threshold? It seems only fair.
Yes.
To all particulars, tvt.
Not only may a “diary” be banned, so too may the “member” who wrote the diary be disappeared … along with ALL other diaries which that member has “published” … those are the “rules”, which you have agreed to … whether you know it or not … all strictly up-front and above-board.
“History” is determined by those who have the power to erase the thoughts and contributions of others … as history should tell you … but, conveniently for some, leaves that wee fact “out”.
One hopes this “incident”, today is simply a “misunderstanding”, soon to be rectified
Yes.
DW
The diary author was banned for a violation of MyFDL Terms of Service. Specifically, he had created and used 3 sock puppet accounts on the diary:
And Kurt Sperry, please read the Terms of Service as this diary is also in violation.
I agree with and second everything DWBartoo said.
I was extremely interested in the content, including the 45 comments, at: http://my.firedoglake.com/barefootaccountant/2012/10/05/progressives-are-in-need-of-a-supportive-webblog-in-which-to-communicate-and-organize/
I infer that firedoglake.com is establishing itself as the opposite of a-supportive-webblog-in-which-to-communicate-and-organize …
To older members than I: Do these things usually get a corporate whitewash-type article of explanation, and perhaps a hearing for Barefootaccountant, or is barefootaccountant just really, actually, “disappeared”?
Does anybody know where I can I get a copy of the article (a mirror, archives, cache?) or contact info for barefootaccountant?
Thank you, Kurt for raising this issue, and perhaps risking disappearance …
Dakine … I am very much surprised to to told that Barefoot Accountant used sock puppets.
And, might you inform all of us specifically which Terms of Service Kurt Sperry is violating?
Would that be asking too much of you?
David W. Bartoo
So nuke it and all the other comments people have made because you don’t like it and because you have a fine print legalistic fig leaf to hide your censorious actions behind. If you truly think that is the correct and wise thing to do. Because otherwise I don’t see the point of your post with its ugly implicit threat.
Exactly.
We must endure post-killing trolls, polluters, diluters and minuters, but evidently we must be protected from dissent in the ranks.
It’s a shame.
while i typed i think dakine01 answered some questions …
is dakine01 an agent of firedoglake.com?
I’ll say it just like I did in the other diary: You post here because of the traffic. This is not your blog. If you want to continue to post here, I suggest that you follow the not unreasonable policies. Nobody is forcing you to stay here. To that I’ll add that name calling is puerile and not a bass for a debate and comparing this site to Daily Kos is absurd.
12th bullet point under “Ground Rules at Terms of Service linked in my initial comment – bullet point directly above the information that sock puppets are not allowed and grounds for banning:
Further, dakine, hiding behind WordPress, rather than stating explicitly, up front and honestly, what happened, what your decision was and upon what your decision was based, right from the “get-go” is, frankly cowardly and thoroughly dishonest, in my opinion.
Now, if I have transgressed the “rules” in MY statements and questions, then I should very much like to know what those rules are.
David W. Bartoo
Yep, they sure didn’t do anything ‘illegal’.
dakine01 linked to those rules @ 14. All you have to do is click and read.
When did that become a rule? And how “transparent” is the intent of that rule.
Dakine, if this blog and those who “decide” are that thin-skinned, that it and they cannot allow a discussion AMONG members of the community about issues that affect each and everyone of us, then FDL is not as mature and committed to democratic principles as they ought to be and SHOULD be.
Pathetic. And very unfortunate.
David W. Bartoo
We have lost many good writers whom I considered treasures.
That became a rule either at the time or before registering became a rule several years ago. It’s part of what you agree to when you create an account.
Margaret, I thought you were “done with” me?
Dakine is a grown up and can make clear, specifically and explicitly, whatever he might wish to share.
Simply because rules exist does not make those rules just, propeer, or conducive to civility and democracy.
The “Presidential Debate Commission” do NOT further democracy and the “contracts” which the commission requires the legacy party candidates to sign do NOT further the interests of the people.
Arbitrary rules are the “defense” of those who do not truly wish open or honest debate.
David W. Bartoo
My decision was based on consultation with Jane and others. I informed her as soon as I discovered that Barefoot Accountant had created at least 3 other sock puppet accounts, all of which were used on the diary in question last night. The MyFDL (not WordPress) Terms of Service are quite clear that sock puppets are not allowed. Barefoot Accountant had 3, “yippie,” “democracy, and”robertcapelleti”
I answer to Jane Hamsher for my actions and I did so before I took the ban action.
I am answering your question now, on this diary, as soon as I noticed it was up.
The little question mark in the upper right hand corner of the blue “MyFDL” banner takes you to the Terms of Service for MyFDL. I’m fairly certain the ToS have been linked on other diaries of this nature in the past as well. The Rules as written are not onerous by any stretch.
If the lake keeps “weeding out” the controversial contributions, what is its purpose, other than to enforce some sort of conformity. I think the world has too much conformed thought already, and indeed is part of our collective problem.
Someone suggested the other day that FDL was for sale. Maybe so.
I vote to keep BA, she always had good stuff. Rec’d
Now I’m up to speed ;->
Thank you for your response, dakine.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in timely and straight-forward fashion.
However, I maintain that these issues are important for all of us and that IF community-wide concerns must not be discussed BY the community, that it will negatively impact FDL’s ability, in future, to maintain the trust with its members that has, heretofore, been central to its success and broad influence … and I sincerely hope that Jane may understand and appreciate my genuine concerns regarding that specific issue.
David W. Bartoo
Point of my comment @7 was that I DID e-mail FDL moderator and never heard back, nor did a modertaor post an answer in the diary where I asked the question. I imagine (can’t go back and check cause it’s disappeared!) that we all here commented in that diary and some might like to know my update. E-mailing a moderator (several times!) can feel like mailing yourself to the trash can. I am seeing red. You look yellow. I feel purple. Breathe. Breathe. Breathe.
Why not post that on BA’s disappeared diary page? Now you see it, now you don’t, here’s why.
Even that being so, by nuking the entire diary you censor not only the diarist but everyone who posted to it. That is clearly inappropriate, I and the others who posted our thoughts on the issues raised did nothing to deserve having our posts collectively erased. Did we?
Do we really want to enshrine collective punishment as an integral part of the FDL ethos?
I wasn’t even aware of the fact that people here could be banned. And if I HAD KNOWN THIS WAS THE CASE, I WOULDN’T IMAGINE THAT “BAREFOOT ACCOUNTANT” WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO WAS BANNED.
This marks a sad day for me, and especially those banned, as FDL participants.
BA posted entries that I always tried to read. That’s as decent of a rec as I could make for keeping someone here. Hope the mods bring her back.
Hmph! And used two of them back to back to attack me. One to imply that I must support Obama’s policies, (which I responded to), and the other to suggest I needed lubricant in a crass metaphor involving anal sex, (which I flagged). How come I’m not surprised? I’m always being called bad names and having very ugly suggestions made to and about me when I render my opinion but head fro the hills and Katy bar the door when some of these folks are talked to like they do me! Because apparently they are entitled to their opinions but when I point out reality or render mine, it’s greeted with sneers and ridicule, entirely without irony. So Kurt and wendy and DW and Barefoot Accountant and entitled to express their opinions in these diaries but Margaret, not so much.
I marked Barefoot Accountant and his sock puppet accounts as Spammer (the means of “banning” in the current system.) The behind the scenes technology did all the other actions. I actually had no desire to take down the diary, that is a byproduct of the system as it exists
Exactly the point I made @ 39. DW Bartoo is entitled to and insistent on rendering his opinion but Margaret should just stfu and let the adults talk, is that it? And if not, please explain what your point actually is.
Margaret, I am sorry that you have been treated badly, and you must remember that I have said so and POSTED about such in the past.
Yet you unfairly, in my opinion, suggest that you are the only one subject to unfair treatment, to verbal abuse, and to being maligned.
There is a certain front[pager whose has engaged in ALL of those “tactics” on numerous occasion, none of which, if memory serves, were directed at you …
Again, I am sorry if you feel singled out, yet note that you are possessed of a rather sharp tongue, yourself, which I suspect you will neither deny nor regret.
However, if differences may not be kept essentially civil and discourse essentially respectful, then ALL of us lose as do those ideas we wish to share and, hopefully, appreciate, for the effort, humanity, and concern which inspire them.
DW
Yes, rc was banned, and he never learned the reason. RAD was also banned (and yes, he was being a jerk, although I’d hoped he might get a Second Chance, knowing part of why he was in meltdown.) His posts were all removed, and were singularly valuable, especially the ones coverning GMOs and union issues and strikes. (Both of which I’ve attempted to cover since. Caveat: I did cover both to a certain extent while he was still here.)
Regarding deleting our diaries, from my recollection that terms have changed. Pretty sure the site used to say that: all opinions at my.fdl are solely the author’s, *and* that all diaries were their property.
*Now* it says this:
“Copyright Information
All users who post on this site retain copyrights to their work. By posting on MyFDL you grant the operators of MyFDL a non-exclusive right to publish your content online on MyFDL and its affiliated sites, its archives, or its future formats in perpetuity unless otherwise negotiated or noted.”
Wholly different, of course, if management can delete them at will.
Please see my comment @41, Margaret.
And no, I’m not “done” with you, yet, as I actually appreciate you, most of the time, and thoroughly respect your technical grasp of so very many things.
DW
THAT, wendy, is precisely where the “rules” become “onerous” and contrary to stated principle and democratic respect of ALL persons.
DW
Wow. Three socks. Very impressive.
Of course, one must ask: did he use those socks to recommend his own diaries?
I always feel slightly guilty recommending my own, but I rationalise my self-promotion because of the sociopolitical (not to mention high literary) value of my fine, though also never frontpaged, contribution to this blog.
But, I mean, the ability to recc/pimp your own diaries four times does seem a bit excessive. However, I am against banning, Couldn’t you just ban the socks and issue a stern public warning/shaming?
Sorry. Meant 46 to be directed to Dakine01 AKA “the bald mod with the blue conure toupee”.
I have one of those too. A blue conure, I mean.
Damned meanest ass bird in the world. A troll’s troll in the aviary.
LOL — actually, ROTFLMAO
LMAO! Not at all! I made the point yesterday that my continued membership in good standing here is proof positive that one can have a sharp tongue and yet remain within the bounds spelled out in the terms of service. Like I said, I’m nobody of consequence here and I have even annoyed Jane on a couple of occasions. I have been warned more than once by the moderators. My tongue should be seen as evidence that the rules here are not that harsh. For the record, dakine01 says that BA created sock puppets and so I fully support his forced hiatus, even though I have no vote in the matter. Maybe some find the rules onerous or stifling the debate but I find duplicity and misdirection even more poisonous to reasoned discussion. As for the remark you responded to, I was just pointing out that dakine01 did link to the rules that you asked about further down this page.
I look at it like this: If I wrote it and felt it merited publication, it’s false modesty to not recommend your own diary.
A recommendation for FDL regarding sock puppet policy: If I were you I would embarrass the crap out of them rather than ban them. Like when the alleged offender here created two sock puppets and swarmed Margaret it would have been great for the Mod to put a statement in each of his sock puppet comments that stated “This is a Barefoot Accountant sock puppet.”
Frankly, resorting to sock puppets is a weak and dishonest tactic used when someone cannot win a debate on the merits of their own argument.
No offense to Barefoot Accountant, but making examples of offenders might help to serve notice to others who engage in that tactic that they’ll be outed and embarrassed w/ transparency, and then left there in their own thread to have to explain their dishonest behavior.
Hey Margaret, even though we are not on friendly terms or otherwise to my knowledge, I just want to let you know that I think you rock and reule!
With all due respect, Dakine, I’ve been wanting to ask questions for quite some time on the issue of using graphics and photos in diaries. Many posters have used images not attributed, and the issue has gotten more confusing since the New Rules.
I cannot remember (albeit a low bar given my memory issues) *any* of your end-of-the-day posts that you announced as Water Coolers, in which those site discussions are supposed to occur. As far back as Bill Egnor as My.fdl moderator, I can’t remember a single time my questions about *anything* to do with site business, including bannings, were answered. I will say that sometimes, questions to mods *were* answered.
I’m with Wendy in this case: If we can’t get over the inconsequential shit, how are we going to organize for the important things? I can’t think of many people here who I wouldn’t proudly march beside in any number of issues.
I absolutely agree with that, Margaret. A site where I used to write long ago *actually showed* who had rec’d whose posts, and even then, a denizen there said exactly what you have here. I’ve even joked here that some of my posts aren’t worthy of my rec’ing them… ;o)
X2 to the nth power. WTF!! If posts rationalizing and displaying slavish devotion to Obama and his regressive policies can be glorified and tolerated, why can’t those that don’t be disappeared?
I realized that dakine made that link, Margaret, but felt that the occasion and circumstance required a specific recitation.
And yes, you do push the “envelope” (for which I thank you) in many more “ways” than one …
When I, on occasion, “push” you, it is for the purpose of extending dialogue and perspective, and sometimes, making use of “opportunity” to make clear the obscure, as I perceive it, not to challenge “hope” or to imply any lack of understanding on your part … as your sentence regarding misdirection and poison makes clear that you do, fully, understand … as it applies to many “activities” and “forms” of false argument and deceit.
DW
BA was banned because he created sock puppets and used them to attack people who disagreed with him. You should read further for more information because this has been gone over.
You are too kind in your evaluation. The response is an Epic Fail!
Well, I try to put up a Water Cooler post most every night when I am working wishing Happy Birthday to various living and dead musicians.
The Terms of Service list the allowable sources for both videos and images. When I insert an image to a diary, I am usually using flickr’s “Creative Commons” and I credit the picture owner as the source (assuming they have a legit license.) I do not use pictures that are marked “non-commercial” on the license page. I will use the “Share>HTML code” for images while with YouTubes, I just use the “Share>Long Link” Those are the only 2 image and video sources I have used to date other than pics I have taken or scanned on my own from family things
As far as “site business” in general, I may not have an answer but I will attempt to connect you with someone who does. It may not in the end be an answer you like but that’s the nature of things
Then removing the sock puppets and their comments should have been an adequate response. The post itself and the non-sock puppet comments should have been left intact.
I too had a problem with attribution of images and videos. I’m not sure how so many people are able to find the images they do on flickr which allowed to be reproduced and republished so I try to either find a musical youtube or take my own pictures which I know I can use!
By the way, congratulations for voicing your support for Jill Stein in the upcoming election.
Please read the comments. I am not a member of the FDL mod squad. This has been explained. You’re griping at the wrong person!
In fact, IIRC, it was the presence of the Water Cooler posts was one of the items BA found distressing.
I guess the Obama camp has been putting pressure on Jane & Co.
And I just did a diary calling him an ineffectual suck up and ass kisser.
Oh Dear !!
{{poof !}}
dakine, I do not know if, in fact, you have been promoted to the role which Scarecrow used to fill, yet I should like to tell you that you are filling a extremely difficult job, very well … and it is appreciated.
DW
I’ve always supported Stein. It’s only since the debate that my mind has been made up though. If she had been allowed there, both major party candidates would be around 25 percent each.
IMO BA’s issue was more with the fact that he had never had a diary put up on the front page of the flagship that he objected to. Sorry BA but neither have I if you don’t count an occasional Pull Up A Chair, (which really doesn’t count). I pointed out then, (very civilly in fact), that there were plenty of posts that criticized Obama up every day. He responded by attacking me, (it turns out with sock puppets!), and not civilly at all. That’s not “discussion” that’s pure self interest. He made sock puppets to marginalize my comment and make me appear more isolated than he could have done by responding honestly and as himself. Good riddance.
It is one thing to ban a person. FDL has done way way way too much of that over the years. So the views that get expressed here are all a reflection of the site’s owner(s). rather than a reflection of the free reason of the individuals commenting. Those who don’t go in for the requisite amount of self-censorship get banned.
But worse than that is the disappearing of all of the diaries of someone who gets banned. Sometimes years have passed. And then whammoo. All are gone. In short, it is nothing less than book burning for the digital age. Firedogshit, where books are burned. Congratulations. One day the history of these blogs will be written and it will be nothing to be proud of. Bush and Obama diasppear people. The corporate media and the “professional left” disappear ideas.
Say it again. Book Burning.
I’m not griping at at you, I’m suggesting a reasonable solution to the the problem that doesn’t penalize those who didn’t violate the “rules”.
Couldn’t just watch your comment to “pass” without further response, donkeytale.
Possibly, despite “appearances”, BA might actually be a quadruped, who, regardless of his “barefooted” claims, wears socks on occasion?
Your suggestion of banning the socks and baring defeat, publicly, has much to recommend it … the embarefootedment of it all would serve, not as a “badge” of “honor”, but as dressing-down of soleful revelation and an actual deterrent …
DW
I’d hope that the support for the corporatist duopoly candidates would total 25%, at best. Together they equal one George W. Bush.
dakine01
Been a lurking member for at least two years. I have trouble believing BA used sock puppets and am distressed to read s/he may be banished altogether.
But to see this Orwellian rule, transparently designed to stifle dissent, is a rude awakening. And to see its obviously authoritarian intent buried in legalese is more, not less, alarming.
Maybe “griping” was the wrong word. I’m impotent in these matters. You need to take it up with somebody who can actually DO something about it. I’m just a checker in a game of chess.
Start your search using http://www.flickriver.com/
mfi
So, in your opinion making up persona and using them to attack people with whom one disagrees should be okey-dokey? Do I have that right? It’s a simple matter to prove that someone has made sock puppets btw. It’s not just an opinion.
I vote that way too. BA is a valued member of the FDL community. Of course, this isn’t about voting. Blogs are often owned by corporations or a single proprietor, and so ultimately, the community aspect can always be trumped by the owner, or those appointed to positions of authority.
Yes, we have. Unfortunately.
Where is the line between the rules of the blog and the ongoing community who are the regular commenters?
I can definitely see the “no sock puppets”. How about inserting reason for removal at the time of deletion? I think it would be more transparent. Giving people reasons at the time cuts a lot of potential for disgruntlement.
However, I’d like to see the “complaining diary” rule removed.
What’s “a sock puppet” account?
X2. Most important post of the thread.
I agree with and endorse that.
sock puppets
dakine,
is that true that realitychecker was banned? i’ve been wondering here he was. can you let us know why he was banned?
thanks
Ah, c’mon. I’d rather see the funds, not only monetary but also in terms of physical and intellectual energy, go towards lifting up issues, reporting on injustice, rather than playing mickey mouse with folks who already signed on the dotted line about what the Rules Of Service are.
It’s a waste of time, in my consideration.
I’m free to say that, right?
You didn’t ask me but I don’t know if dakine01 is still around and that question requires an answer. A sock puppet is an account created by a diarist or commentator using a separate pseudonym from the one normally used by the creator to create the appearance of a diversity of people where none exists. For example if I created an account using a name other than “Margaret” but didn’t disclose that it was actually me. I could then use that new name to create an impression of more widespread support for my positions or opinions or use it to set up a false debate to drive up traffic, etc. It’s duplicitous and dishonest and grounds for banning on every blog I’ve ever frequented.
Yes he was and for what it’s worth realitychecker was a sock puppet from previously banned “razorbrain”
Have a cookie. Fresh baked oatmeal raisen.
Who, IIRC, was a sock puppet of “fuckno”.
MyFDL editors and moderators reserve the right to take down any diary or comment (in part or in its entirety) and ban users at their discretion; please refer to the site’s ground rules.
The ground rule in question.
Sock puppets are prohibited and grounds for banning.
It’s a perfectly reasonable rule to prevent behaviour that is dishonest and unreasonable. Sock puppets are deliberate blatant and flagrant lying.
How exactly does deliberate blatant and flagrant lying square with:
???
mfi
Well, how come I get away with calling you Peggy, Peg, or Pegalicious?
(I know you know that’s snark. Just wanted a few people here to smile for a smidge.)
Huzzah, Mark.
(I’m sorry I missed you this morning at PUAC in real time.)
Holeybuybull @61 has the appropriate solution to that. My primary objection is to the use of rules repressing complaint of moderation. The ability of mods to weld unopposed control, as eblair@70 so eloquently points out, results in widespread censorship, not just of the banned dairy, but of whole threads of considered responses.
Barefoot Accountant, who authored that post, created three sock puppets then and there and used them to both support his position and to attack his detractors while keeping their true identity secret. THAT is both blatant and flagrant lying, not the subject matter of the post. When he was banned for using sock puppets, his diaries went away, which has been explained.
I did not know that. Missed it somehow.
But, certainly shows a pattern of behaviour.
Greetings demi
mfi
I am not the new “Scarecrow” as it were. But I was the person who found the deception, reported it and started the process that led to this ‘contretemps’
Markie!
All this talk of spam, (seeing it in the title each time I refresh) has got me hankerin’ for some good Irish Corn Beef.
With fondness, from D. Moore.
The rule about sock puppets and the enforcement of the rule seem perfectly reasonable. In my opinion, people who use deceptive techniques to direct the discussion aren’t engaging in the free expression of ideas, they’re thwarting honest conversation.
I’m getting tired of saying this so PLEASE, for the love of whatever you hold dear, PLEASE read through the comments and try to understand. Barefoot Accountant was banned for creating and using sock puppets, NOT for the subject matter of the post. Kurt Sperry didn’t know what was going on so he reflexively, (and erroneously), assumed that it was the diary, not the sock puppets which got him banned. Though I agree that the no criticism of mods is a bit harsh, I don’t know of anybody who has been banned because of it, nor do I make the rules.
Precisely the point I was making. It’s blatant and flagrant lying. The precise opposite of what’s wanted when trying to build a
mfi
Aaaaaaaaaargh now I’m hungry and nostalgic and it’s all your fault!
(((((demi)))))
Although amazingly enough corned beef is what I’ll be feeding Dubhaltach Erdla and their horde tomorrow for Sunday lunch when they come over to visit.
mfi
The funniest sock puppet expose evah.
Don’t know what happened there:
Arrggghhh
http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/greenpuppet.html
Peg, I, like you, tend to occasionally have sharp elbows. Coupla other folks around here too. But, I think it comes from the passion we enjoy, and not any evil intent. Maybe that’s too harsh. Not from any place to really feel good and someone else’s pain.
Just pointing out that as you said earlier, we haven’t been banned. I hope that this thread was educational. I really hope.
But, that and a dollar will get me what?
Yep. Spot on. But apparently there are many commentators around who believe what Sperry said about the diary being banned due to it’s subject matter when that isn’t the case. Sperry can perhaps be forgiven for leaping to that conclusion but after what dakine01 said @ 14, specifically:
I can’t understand why people continue to flog the whole “it must have been the subject matter of the diary” canard. Sorry that I misread yours. I was taken aback a bit.
I don’t know how hard it would be to implement this, but if sock puppets or other rule breakers were exposed, were exposed, then us readers would probably shun them, so object would be achieved. It would have the additional benefit of keeping us all connected. I understand that this is a privately-owned blog, and I am endlessly grateful to Jane and the crew that keeps this the cleanest, sweetest place on the intnets. I mean, have you ever tried to read the comments at Truth-out? Great content, but on the rare occasions that I click Show Comments I soon regret it. At FDL the comments are often the best part.
Again, I am only a mostly-lurker, but it creeps me out when someone is disappeared with all their diaries with no reason given. I think we are old enough to know the truth.
Well you don’t need either that or a dollar to get a friend, friend.
correction banned DIARY
Nice!
On a personal note, and you know my extended family includes the Muslim tradition of Ramadan, I am grateful for how the calendar has moved forward so that it doesn’t affect Thanksgiving Dinner time.
Enjoy the fam and the food. I imagine (mmmmmmmmm) that you will.
Aww damn it why didn’t you tell me that?
I’d have poked him regularly with a stick. “Razorbrain’s” meltdowns several of which were directed at me were really rather enjoyable in a gruesome sort of way.
mfi
Your point, mark, is valid, however, your comment, Kurt Sperry’s comment, juliania’s comment, and many other comments, on the thread in question, were also valid, in the context of the trust and expectation that the author of that diary WAS being honest.
Those comments remain, on each individual’s comment history.
However, how may the disappearance of ALL of an author’s diaries, even when sock-puppetry was not the issue that caused the banning, be squared with be squared with essential democratic principle?
If the author has copyright protection, which the rules suggest that she/he has, then ought there not be some mechanism whereby those diaries might be retrieved BY the author … with the understanding that said author will no longer be “published” at this site?
That is the sticking “wicket” which seems to have been unanswered all along, and which FDL has some responsibility, if it claims respect for democratic principles, to honestly and openly address and seek to find a better resolution around.
Not forgetting, as well, Kurt Sperry’s concern that all who have commented, over time, to banned diaries, are “punished” and their comments, which remain on their personal comment “history”, lose the “connection”, “perspective”, and purpose which was intended.
If FDL seeks to bring about an actual democracy in this nation, including the right and the power, of the people to NOT permit the wars and genocides that the whims of the leaders engage, then does FDL not have the responsibility, in a fundamental sense, to engage in those practices which enhance democracy and the PRACTICE of democracy at this site quite as much as it has the obligation to support democracy in the workplace, at home, AND in society as a whole?
These questions seem central and necessary to me … and I should like to think that others will find that such questions matter to them and our shared future.
DW
DW
oh my!
Biiiiiig Hug, Honeybunch.
Agreed. I think there should be some kind of explanation given, just to avoid appearances of capricious and opaque intentions. This diary may not have been written if there had been an explanation of why BA and his posts went bye-bye.
And I do note that this post is still up, regardless of the clear violation of the no criticism of the site or mods rule. In the world of blog rules, maybe that one is a class C misdemeanor while the sock puppets are a felony.
That is hilarious.
mfi
I didn’t know before, but I sticked him anyway, and felt the ripples off of that one. For a while. Still, in fact.
But, when I see other commeners out there sticking to what the truly believe, not this BS, oh waaaah, FDL’s so mean, I feel encouraged and inspired to do the same.
Yeah, razorbrain was fun! I thought he’d died of hypertension or something.
OK. Now I know what a “sock puppet” account is. Seems to me that SPs aren’t cricket, and should be grounds for disciplinary action. But I’m not sure banning is necessary. Why not just have a moderator inform the readers of a post that a particular party was posting “SP” comments and identify the SP. Seems to me that would elicit community sanctions against the offender and would serve as a real deterrent.
You must, then, have had the means to discover the deception, dakine, whatever your role at FDL may be … however, I was seeking to express my appreciation of the calm and thoughtful manner that you have displayed in dealing with the consequence.
Which “manner” is typical of your participation and interaction over all the time which I have known and respected you.
And, I hope, therefore, that you shall convey to Jane our collective appreciation as well as the thoughtful concerns which many others have shared, here, today.
Namaste
DW
That solution has been offered. I would support that on a one strike basis. Publicly call that person out the first time, ban that person the second time.
I’m not a lawyer and have only my streetwise relationship with the law, but, to my uneducated and sometimes feeble mind, I would think that when you have copyrights to your words, that’s that. But, you must “SAVE” your own words if it’s that’s important to you. You, meaning anyone, the plural you. I don’t see where it’s incumbant upon FDL to “SAVE” your copyrited words for you.
That’s how I see it. Tell me why you think FDL is responsible?
Sincerely submitted.
I will definitely enjoy the horde despite or perhaps because of recently hearing the twins describe me as “really really old”
mfi
Actually, realitychecker made a considerable effort to not be quite so easily provoked as razorbrain and seemed, to me at least, to have made considerable headway toward a more reasoned, more tolerant, and more thoughtful presentation of his ideas, considerations, and appreciations.
DW
i totally support that instead of immediate permanent banning.
personally, if i knew someone was cloning sock puppets, i’d never again read their diaries or comments.
And I would go further and say that a person ought to own their words and not hide behind a fiction. I agree with you though. FDL has no duty to preserve everything we’ve ever said like the Library of Congress. But it seems that something might be done that would keep an unobjectionable diary even if it’s author has been banned. Dunno tech stuff but I believe dakin01 when he says that’s just a consequence of banning the author.
That knowledge would certainly reduce their credibility to less than zero in my eyes.
Were FDL to say, “Save yer words, else “POOF!”, then would I have no problem, demi.
I doubt that some who have been banned INTENDED to have a meltdown or flip-out, and the loss of considered work, and it does constitute work, is not merely theirs … if you catch my drift.
I have a spiritual and democratic problem with disappearing people, books, and considered words.
A failing, no doubt, yet one I fully intend to hold fast to.
YMMV
;~DW
When I get banned from a blog by an overzealous moronic prick of a moderator, I wait awhile and sign up with a new name. Does that make me a “sock puppet”? Why should I be banned for life due to moderator deficiencies? Because “The Mgt”?
that first photo by fiaz tariq is really stunning.
I can claim no knowledge of tech stuff either, Margaret, yet I am quite certain that those who do have such knowledge could, without insurmountable difficulty, devise a way to allow authors the time, if an author so wishes, to retrieve their work.
DW
By definition, yes.
You are apparently working with a completely personal system of definitions. Not a compliment.
Then you apparently know more about it than I do because I can’t make any such assumption. I would also argue that one who has demonstrated the willingness to use subterfuge and duplicity to make their case doesn’t deserve such consideration. As for my comments…I don’t give them any special value. I always assumed that like stories submitted to magazines or photos submitted to newspapers, they become the property of the publisher.
Yes. The book burning analogy is an apt one. The methodology is different, nut the underlying impulse is clearly the same, to erase opinions that are contrary to those held by those doing the erasing. The fine print in the TOU is just useful for post hoc rationalization. Does anyone reading this really think the “sock puppet” rule would ever have been invoked in the case of it being used solely in non-controversial speech?
Essentially nobody reads the fine print in either TOUs or really in any of the myriad “Terms and Conditions” one must click on to get from point A to point B when navigating the internet. Invoking them is inevitably only done when an ad hoc agenda is being pursued. Commonsense and basic and broadly accepted codes of conduct and civility should apply. I– and I’m sure others here– are far more concerned with cases where posters are habitually abusively belligerent to other posters, and certain front pagers have been repeatedly, or with instances of staff abusing their authority to silence legitimate dissent than with relatively trivial misdemeanors that are technically outside the TOU. Everyone understands when habitual abusive conduct is punished; using fine print technicalities to silence opinions, even when such actions can be justified by invoking the fine print, is on a whole different level of odiousness.
David that is, with all due respect, complete and utter twaddle but there’s an easy solution for you to untwaddle it. Contact Jane directly bearing the funds in your hot little hands to pay the considerable costs involved in paying for programmers who will write, debug, and integrate into the existing codebase the code needed to implement your suggestion.
Money … mouth … put …
The rules of behaviour on this site are very reasonable and very loosely enforced. If you don’t like those rules (which you signed up for when you registered) and how they are enforced nobody is stopping from setting up a forum of your own. As I remarked on Barefoot accountant’s posting the entry costs are very low cheap wordpress hosting – Google Search.
mfi
No, I am not. Unless you believe that I have editorial control at wikipedia that is. I’ll call your attention to the part I’ve highlighted here just for you:
Would yuu like to hurl any more absurd accusations my way?
Actually she is not as this copy from the first para of the wiki definition I linked to above covers precisely the situation that you have mentioned (my bold):
Not necessarily. I resell web-sites. I can operate the CPanel dashboard, which allows me to set up accounts and do routine stuff such as allot space, add email addresses, reset (but not see) passwords, look at stats and terminate accounts, but it is like driving a car. I can choose which process to do, but I can’t change the process. Of course it *can* be changed, but it would take some high-priced programming. Why?
Me, if I am posting I just keep a copy on my (tiny, pathetic, no-traffic) blog, or in a notepad file. Which reminds me, BA actually has a blog. And you can find it if you google, I just did.
Yep. “Name and shame” would be a far more civil, measured and appropriate response than going nuclear, banning posters and erasing diaries and comment strings en masse. The reaction is so obviously out of proportion to the action that it is almost prima facie abuse of authority.
I remember the time maybe a few years ago, at 57, my daughter said, That’s a really Big Number, mom.
Gotta love ‘um. And, with all your heart.
Blessings, Mark.
I’d also very much appreciate an apology from this user for deliberately maligning me but I don’t believe I’ll get one. By his/her own admission, s/he has been banned before and suggests that it’s been more than once. Not indicative of one who is capable of making apologies imo.
In the most strict of “definitions”, at the threshold of total honesty, and open integrity, then, the use of any name but your very own “given” name, unless you “legally” change it, the use of “handles”, however cute or clever, is a form of sock-puppetry, whatever the reason, and many are legitimate … and a means of protection from “consequence”, could also come to be frowned upon and render one beyond the pale …
What then, is the rational limit, the statute of limitation that should apply? And, that question IS asked in the climate of this nation’s current economic plight, as well as the suggestion by certain “administrators at Penn State, that since the statutes had “run out” so too, has their culpability.
What are reasonable human beings to do?
I pose those questions only partly in jest, for too often the “fine print” is deliberately onerous and intentionally unfair.
Someone might even write a book about such fine print … and its implications.
;~DW
Catastrophically failed lobotomy was my theory for razorbrain’s behaviour.
Never understood why “razorbrain” – who pretended to be a lawyer – didn’t sue the socks off their neurosurgeon.
mfi
Are you now going to update your post to reflect that it was the sock puppets and not the subject matter that initiated the banning of Barefoot Accountant? Just curious.
1) There is no praise, defense of support of a third party or organization — which is the primary purpose of an actual sock puppet. 2) When banned for an erroneous reason by a prejudiced moderator, what recourse would you recommend when there is no way to review or correct the moderator’s faulty performance? I do not believe moderators are perfect, do you? I simply use a pseudonym to protect my privacy and to express political opinions.
Looks like I owe ya a drink
I do use my own name. I always have used my own name from my earliest days of blogging.
It’s a wonderful site that I visit regularly.
mfi
Well I wouldn’t suggest hurling insults at people who are gracious enough to answer my question honestly and civilly. Just saying.
Oh, yeah.
Dakine’s cool beans.
I mean IMHO.
You are being more than slightly disingenuous David.
mfi
For what do you think you deserve an apology? I am not a “sock puppet,” just a commenter commenting only for myself. Go ahead, review all of my comments… As usual, you then go on to make insulting accusations against someone else — for which you feel you needn’t apologize. Of course.
Heh. Not for me, thanks.
No, David, a pseudonym is not sock puppetry. Pretending to be three different people commenting on your own post is sock puppetry.
Well, mark, I have it on rather good authority, that it is possible and not terribly expensive. It does, however, require a revamping by someone far more knowledgeable than I.
Were the site owner amenable to considering such change, then it might just be possible to arrange a meeting of certain minds.
And, I do not understand the “need” of such dismissal and a reference to “hot little hands”.
Might you care to share the reason for such a hostile perspective?
I have always treated you with the respect that you and your words deserve.
Should you not consider that mutual, then I shall have a far better sense of just who you think and imagine you that are, and that will surprise me for then I shall have to apologize for misjudging you and your wisdom, your thoughtfulness and your perspective.
Ah, well …
DW
The action in question being blatant and flagrant lying to dishonestly attack another person’s point of view. Tell me how does banning a blatant and flagrant liar in accordance with a very liberal and very liberally enforced set of rules to which that blatant and flagrant liar agreed when they registered constitute:
mfi
LMAO! That is the lamest attempt to put this off on me that I’ve seen yet. You insulted me and then made of point of telling me it was an insult.
(my bold)
Sound familiar? Meanwhile, all I said in response to your question of if what you described made you a sock puppet was “By definition, yes”. How is that anything other than civil and courteous?
I should have included a snark tag, mark, as I was being facetious, and pondering when, or whether, the banned can ever, somehow, redeem themselves/s
;~DW
Hmm, I believe DW was making a reference to the Book Salon. to which I am immediately heading — thanks, all, esp Dakine01. Thanks for the reminder, DW.
Yes, a snark-tag, HotFlash, should have been included.
DW
BTW, you’re completely ignoring one crucial fact: I didn’t make up the definition of sock puppet!
I know that, Margaret, as have I. And I suspect we do so for the same reason. We need not hide nor disguise who we are.
DW
It does.
Ah, you got it, HotFlash!
(Still, the snark-tag … might have made things more clear.)
DW
Put your money where your mouth is david and spare us all the waffling. I very much doubt that you have it “on rather good authority” – unlike you I am aware from direct personal experience of how difficult and expensive it is to make major code changes to wordpress multi-user sites. Which is what this site is.
mfi
Well, demi, we are capable of differing “milage”, and yet we retain mutual respect and appreciation and that, I consider, is a very good and much-valued thing … it might even serve to encourage the same among others.
;~DW
I’m not disguising who I am.
For example, there are some on this site who know my real name.
Peg, uses it All the time, it’s Deb.
And, you know what? I actually posted a video of my own sweet self as an introduction to a PUAC.
YMMV.
You seem really riled up today.
Could be taken wrongly. If ya get mah drift.
Ah, I see and understand, mark.
Namaste
DW
Hasn’t done shit thusfar.
Regarding the tweaks to the system, one of my favorite banned diarist’s archives are still here. That leads me to believe that at some time the system was tweaked, but I have no idea at what expense.
Just came back; can anyone tell us what the sockpuppets were called?
And I’m fuzzy about a new identity being called a ‘sockpuppet’, *and* if there is some amount of time before becoming a new username is permitted.
Again, demi, I should have added the snark-tag.
And, I hope that you might see my comment @169.
DW
I really can’t be bothered with more of this increasingly ludicrous discussion. So here goes:
Barefoot Accountant was a blatant and flagrant liar who got kicked out for being a blatant and flagrant liar.
Good.
If you wish to consort with a blatant and flagrant liar go right ahead a simple Google search will give you the URI you need to visit Barefoot Accountant’s blog.
mfi
After the comment.
I understand more now. Not a lot, but some.
Well, we must never give up the effort, demi.
And, I do think the idea is growing on people, however slowly.
We can’t get “there” without it.
;~DW
Aren’t both realitychecker/razorbrain and Barefoot Accountant/Kurt Sperry/et al part of the same crowd that descended upon MyFDL in the spring of 2011 after being kicked off at least one other blog because they were trying to hijack that one?
It’s those Terms Of Agreement and ‘everyone’s’ clicking OK that created so-called Private Law beginning back when your operating system and software were only ‘licensed’ to you — for many, it was in the 1980s. Private Law now rules because ‘everyone’ acquiesced. But it’s not accurate to say hardly anyone reads those agreements.
What you can do to circumvent FDL’s sock-puppet (arbitrary) rule is have several devices (Internet phones or tablets) or PCs (each with its unique IP Address) and several ISP’s along with several respective email accounts.
It’s not unlikely that undiscovered socks post to FDL regularly.
That is from the wikipedia definition of sockpuppet, which I’m apparently responsible for. In other news, I’m thinking of reclassifying pickles as igneous rock and becoming all insulted when people don’t feel obliged to start using pickles in lieu of granite.
Bless you.
> LMAO! That is the lamest attempt to put this off on me
> that I’ve seen yet.
“Not indicative of one who is capable of making apologies imo.” Where’s my apology?
For those who speak English: “A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.” There is not one hint of that kind of behavior in my posts, as you are forced to admit. When one is banned for content, as I was at balloon-juice, that does not make one a “sock puppet” — wikipedia notwithstanding.
Like the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, FDL does not tolerate true progessive blogs but showcases everything but truly progressive content. Our country is on the verge of a revolution and FDL promotes what? Michelle Chen? Yeah, we know, it’s safe.
I guess the “bottom line”, demi is that nomes de net are often hilarious, or “something else”, but sometimes necessary … the hilarious and “something else” I like, and appreciate, but the “necessary” reflects the very problems, of losing one’s job, of being “identified” and categorized”, that cripple honest democracy and civil society.
That sort of thing …
DW
I. Didn’t. Make. Up. The. Definition.
Jane Hamsher has said that sock-puppets and proxy use are banned to prevent the PR people from posting. Maybe that’s clear, no one asked her for clarification when she made the comment. Her interests and concerns in this regard tend to be more crucial than any poster’s.
I think you’re being rude and belligerant, and on this thread of all other ones.
Shame on you.
B’Gawk!
Are we sure this isn’t razorbrain? Irrational behavior and absurd accusations were his mo too.
Poke it with a stick if it goes nuclear it’s probably razorbrain.
mfi
He’s like the mysterious green fog, slipping into space.
You’ve noticed he doesn’t comment much at the eversofabulous new place.
I’m done. Think I’ll pick up the book and trip a different way for a while.
Much affection…until another time.
Bye Mark, David, Dakine and others commenting, no offense meant for the not naming.
Use your blog time wisely.
Kurt, after reading your diary and all the comments, I’ve got a simple question for you: Why are you here?
My answer is here. I’d love to hear yours.
Anyone else who wants to take a whack at that question is welcome to do so.
I’m wondering why s/he got banned from Balloon Juice. Maybe arguing with John Cole about classifying earthworms as annelids?
Markfromireland.
You are an inspiration to me, always.
Passion, fact, personal experience. You know what I mean.
Authentic.
Now, really…
No idea. But I miss “razorbrain” whose meltdowns were classics of the genre. I always regret not realising that the “razor” in “razorbrain” was an artful reference to the scalpel wielded by the neurosurgeon who performed what has to be one of the most spectacularly failed lobotomies in history.
mfi
Well, you can always start your own blog…
Well, I’m taking my cue from Deb. I have a book to finish and it’s sequel to start. Laters!
Done.
I think I’ll be laughing about that for at least a week. Thanks for the smile.
Could well be Margaret
mfi
Oh, that must have been like pulling your own teeth! Now, laughing my ass off, I think I’ll bid you all adieu.
Still laughing.
Take it to email, please.
(Hangs head in shame for leading Margaret into temptation
)
mfi
I do happen to know RC offline. He is not barefoot accountant, he is an attorney, and practiced in NY for many years. He has almost zero tech knowledge, and wouldn’t know how to create a sockpuppet, much less use one for nefarious purposes as BA apparently did.
He was not fuckno, but I’m pretty sure that I know who that username belonged to. RC told me that at the time of his initial banning, he sent numerous emails to Jane Hamsher requesting that he could discover what he’d ever said that was determined to be ‘hate speech’, but never received any reply.
To his credit, since he was banned a few months ago, he is discovering that life without so much online time is a good thing in the main.
He is my friend, and I don’t like seeing him slandered here, though it looks like it’s a form of entertainment for some of you.
No
mfi
Couldn’t resist one last *snort*.
Good on ya, man.
Never appreciated the humor before in FDL’s own self description as “a leading progressive news site … and action organization”. So when a real progressive calls for progressive organization, no coverage but banishment. lol
Hey, I get it now: FDL really stands for “F*cking Democrat Lovers”
Thank you, Wendy. He is my friend, too, and this making me pretty sick.
That’s So Cute.
Thank you, wendy, I consider your comment entirely spot-on, and rc to be a genuine friend.
Namaste
DW
and you remain here because?
Sockpuppetry is a bannable offense on pretty much every blog and message board worthy of the name. Always has been, always will be.
Blogs that don’t ban sock puppets get overrun pretty soon — which is what happened to Salon’s “Table Talk” message boards early on, before it went to a pay-to-post model, which stopped the sockpuppeteers in their tracks. (Now it no longer exists at all, and the letters sections are overrun by trolls and sockpuppets to the points of uselessness.) Salon tried to rein in the problem by creating killfiles called ENUFs (Evade Noisy User Filters) for their registered commenters, but that only helped their registered commenters — people who read the comments threads without being registered or without signing in had to scroll past pages and pages of utter garbage. Worse yet, the most avid sockpuppeteers created so many SPs that the ENUFs soon got choked to overflowing.
That was not the case with reality checker.
As I noted in Comment 40, the diary being “taken down” is purely a product of how the backstage system operates. My ONLY action was to mark BA and his sock puppet accounts as spam. I wish the damn diary had stayed up and saved us all a lot of aggravation.
I wonder how many of the same people who defend the diarist’s creation of multiple sockpuppets so as to swarm and attack people he doesn’t like were horrified when John Fund’s pro-gun sockpuppetry was exposed?
Nope. Not your fault that a lot of people here are apparently uncomfortable with a blatant and flagrant liar being treated the way blatant and flagrant liars should be treated.
mfi
Who do you imagine is “defending” sockpuppetry, PW?
I have seen NO ONE do that.
Deceit is deceit, and it is destructive of trust, of respectful civil discourse …
Once it was made clear what had occurred, the most any argued for was a different “approach” to the act, no one that I saw, suggested that such deceit was acceptable, unimportant, or not worthy of serious concern and consequence.
Has there not been enough bashing?
Is it not time to stop attacking and belittling?
DW
Precisely.
mfi
Yes, agreed. I find those tactic reprehensible, and the only reason I would have gotten on the post was to disagree with the author’s characterization of what gets ‘front-paged’. To me, that means the MotherShip paged, not left-paged at My.fdl.
He/she also named Dave Swanson as pro-Obama, which is just too daffy for words.
Only times I remember visiting that diarist’s post was to object to all the Mormon conspiracy stuff re: Romney. I am seriously no fan of LDS dogma or eschatology, but I think unless someone can demonstrate how a candidate’s religion might affect how he/she governed, it should be off-base. I remember as a child how difficult that issue was for John Kennedy, and said that, and also that one day a Muslim, a Jew, who knows, might run for that hideous office, and we should be careful what we do with Mormons and Mormonism.
Sorry Om but nobody is making fun of reality checker, they are making fun of razorbrain. I’ll have to take wendy’s word for it that he wasn’t fuckno, (thanks for that wendy, I can’t remember who fuckno became), but I have to similarly take dakine’s word that reality checker was razorbrain. It’s an easy matter to determine and the evidence is never ambiguous. Sorta like finding out what calls were placed from your phone, if not who the user was. And, again I’m sorry to say, razorbrain deserved to be made fun of. Dunno if you were around to read his stuff back then but it was spectacularly irrational and delusional. I agree that reality checker never left me with that impression which is why I was astonished to read that but it is what it is. Reality checker and I had a adversarial but respectful relationship while razorbrain and I did not. The way markfromireland characterizes him pretty much fits what I remember about him too. I hope you’ll take this in the way it is meant.
Religion is not off limits to criticism, especially those which use their faith as a weapon to deny fully human status to those with whom they disagree and poke their tax exempt noses into public policy. The LDS spent a lot of time and energy pushing the denial marriage equality to LGBT persons in California and other states, that’s indisputable. And yes, that does raise very relevant questions about how one will govern.
Welcome, OmAli. It makes me ill, too, and has caused me to wonder if much of this couldn’t be construed as ‘hate speech’.
Hey darlin’ — are you an absolutist regarding sock puppets and do you think FDL should be absolutists about them? I ask because, while I agree that they’re usually awful and disruptive, maybe they could be allowed here only on Halloween, providing they say ‘Trick or treat’ first.
Wendy, with respect,
RC said on the Diner, twice, two consecutive days, that I was someone with serious pyschological problems and asked my friends to do an intervention.
No one said a mummblin’ word.
And, I’m still standing.
Yes, some made fun of razorbrain.
I suggested that he would be wise to temper his responses with a bit more human compassion and tolerance.
When he returned as reality checker, he told me that he considered what I said to him to have been useful and that he was determined to try to be more patient and tolerant, and in large measure he succeeded in that effort.
I am pleased to learn that he has found more peace and serenity and feel that we all deserve nothing less.
I hope to converse with him soon to relay to him, more directly, my sincere appreciation of him as a friend and a worthwhile, compassionate, and thoughtful human being.
And I hope that you might not mind if I convey your thoughts about the relationship, “adversarial but respectful”, which you considered to have existed between the two of you, when he was realitychecker?
I will say nothing, of course, unless you agree that it would be acceptable to you.
DW
Margaret, I appreciate and respect you and your comment, but I hope we can agree to disagree. I never knew razor brain, so I can’t address that, but I feel the digs at reality checker, acutely. I think I’ve said all I should about it, but I hope to retain your, and rc’s, friendship and respect.
Actually, there was no great tell involved. Razorbrain always claimed he was a lawyer “who never lost a case.” RealityChecker made the same claim in a comment and when called on it admitted he had been razorbrain previously
Of course you may.
Speaking for myself only, it was never in doubt sweetie.
Was that on one of Kevin’s threads when TBogg drove by?
I did not know that, demi, and assume, knowing you as I do, that you did not retaliate in kind.
When I speak with realitychecker, I shall ask him, if you do not mind, what possessed him to do such a thing.
DW
Good. Same here.
Night, pupses.
ohmmmm
I don’t recall the specific thread. I think I saw it more than once before I actually said something
Thank you, Margaret.
DW
I miss too much in the mornings these days…
Good evening, OmAli.
May you sleep restfully and well, later tonight, for tomorrow we must all find the courage and humanity to continue the efforts, which all of us here, despite seeming difference, are engaged upon.
DW
No mind here, DW.
I know what I saw and I read it.
This may help you understand some of my bias.
Biasese?
Sleep well pups, I’ve got to scoot too.
Night.
Aye, so it does, demi.
DW
Good night, demi, may your dreams be delightful and refreshing, your sleep sound and deep.
DW
This is purportedly a progressive political website, but FDL has banned BA, and before that, Michael Calvan, two very progressive voices, instead of supporting their call-to-arms to progressives. Perhaps that’s one reason why progressives can’t get it together to combat the forces of evil represented by Wall Street, too-big-to-fail corporations, and their political surrogates.
It sort of reminds me of an old gestapo trick: shoot one of your own to prove you are not one of them.
Ah, David.
Look, the thread still goes. And, what wonderful conversations we have had.
Even to the point of honesty.
Well, I’m off too. Having finished the one book, it’s time to crack the next. Adios my friends.
*sigh*
Pumpkin!
PW, please! I saw was BA’s diary last night. Place for progressives to organize, fine. I didn’t care for the tone the thread took, so I left, but thought I would check back to see if there were any interesting comments. Today it’s gone, BA’s gone, and the notice said ‘marked as spam’. Nothing about sock puppetry. We are not the sort of crowd to leave something like that just lying there. As I said, it creeps me out to have someone I know be disappeared without a trace or explanation. (First they came for the Barefoot Accountants…) Kurt’s enquiry was reasonable, dakine01′s answer was informative and nearly everyone agrees that sock puppetry is a serious offense, so there we have it.
But the problem was, we didn’t *know* about the sock puppetry. It was as if a neighbor had been taken away in a black van in the middle of the night. We simply wanted to *know what happened to BA*. Now that we know, fine. Turns out some other people who vanished were sock-puppeting, fine, more mysteries solved.
Next topic discussed was, is there a better way of dealing with people who break the rules around here? Such as name and shame. Which would involve the whole Lake in deciding, and Jane wouldn’t have to be bothered when us pups get into a food-fight. And we would all understand a lot more about how to build and work in a community, b/c we are going to have to do that in order for the human race make it out of this. Why are people who agree with each other more-or-less please stop yelling at each other?
Also, too. Are we sure that it was sock puppetry? Identical ISP numbers are persuasive, of course, but I suspect that hpschd and I would come in under the same ISP number since we both run off the same wireless router.
Sigh. Can I have another round of that nice young man celebrating his 22d b’day, please?
Has it come to the point where we eat our young? I thought that was “the other side’s” way. A couple of people up-thread suggested a middle ground. If BarefootAccountant, or anyone, is a known entity with a good history and some degree of respect, I don’t think they should be renditioned (disappeared) on a first offense. In such a case, I think a firm warning, perhaps suspension, is reasonable.
I realize implementation might not be easy, particularly the technical/programming side, but it might not be too hard either, considering the talent of the diverse group that is FDL. In any event, policy comes first. All things considered in this case, I think the punishment is disproportionate to the crime and the criminal.
You have a quite extensive fa,iliarity of things here at FDL and MyFDL for someone who just registered and made your first comment less than 2 hours ago. How many times have you been banned here before?
dakine,
I am one of the volunteers at the progressive political organization, Connecticut Politics, here in Connecticut supporting third party candidates like Rocky Anderson. BA served as the point person for his campaign in Connecticut.
Last evening after we held our monthly meeting, a bunch of us joined in on the blog with BA about what we felt was the unfair exposure of progressive blogs by FDL. What you presumed was one blogger was really a few of us volunteers replying to comments made by Kelly and Margaret on our blog call to other progressives. So you banned BA, me, and Christian.
Of course, we have the same IP address: our office uses the same router, and we only have three computers here. Duh?!
Your banishment simply reinforced BA’s original blog: that FDL is a democratic party shrill in a progressive disguise, like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.
You got flagged. FDL and the Mods are not quite the Gestapo.
We all make mistakes and a few such as me are always causing mischief. Mostly, we are proud to fuss and fight fairly. But false identities, used to attack individuals, misrepresentations, also suggests the Posts are fraudulent.
I suggest BD, you go on the Twitter, to call people names, such as the Gestapo.
Oh, Frankie, go take a pill and relax
Sorry but each computer on an individual router would have a different assigned IP address and would not be simultaneously using the same one. I operate two different computers, one PC, one Mac and while I occasionally get a conflict notice, I don’t get the same IP at the same time.
Exactly. The salient issues are 1) the adequacy – or inadequacy – of a system which automatically bans, not just the author of a diary, but erases the entire diary itself with accompanying comments at the first infraction/abuse of the sockpuppetry rule, which could be handled in a less draconian fashion
2) the advisability – or lack thereof – of a rule forbidding the use of a diary to discuss such automatic – and unexplained – bans and subsequent disappearances, especially in light of
3) IMO the disturbing frequency in this thread of reports that emails to moderators and management seeking explanations for such disappearances – the proffered remedy in lieu of open questioning – go unanswered.
Good cover story!
But we do not say “Daily Kos” here. We say “Great Orange You Know What”.
I will not take a pill. But I will start a drinking game for everytime FDL gets compared to nazis or veal pen websites.
Frankie, are you Edited by Moderator. Do not insult other commenters? I didn’t call FDL the gestapo. If you could read, I said the banishment reminded me of an old gestapo trick.
Get Edited by Moderator.
Flame War! I need a drink. Are you really Megan McCardle?
hey, dakine, we were using the main computer. there’s three of us…LOL
what is this? the inquisition? you guys interrogate as if this is….oh, I can’t say it, Frankie will have a hissy fit.
No, OmAli, it wasn’t. RC is a classic injustice collector, and as soon as he perceived a slight he lashed out and got nasty and ugly. I respect you and consider you a blog friend, but please understand that RC was nasty and demeaning to me and a few others (i.e. the “clucking hens” he called those he didn’t consider worthy) and I wasn’t sorry to see him go.
But we don’t have to like each other’s friends to remain pleasant and friendly to one another.
You might want to remember your lies – especially when there were “four” of you at the same time
Is this still the case if the router is assigned a static ip address?
I may be mistaken but I think each router connection gets a different IP address, especially with different machines involved
Not so. Most use a type of Network address translation (NAT) call One to Many. Where the IP address inside the local intranet for each machine is translated NOT to it own outside address but to one single IP address and a unique source port address.
So each machine on the inside intranet would have it’s own – usually private – IP address but the servers like FDL would see only one IP address. Though the source port would be unique.
Also called IP Overloading.
There’s always Usenet with unmoderated discussion groups in real time. Blogs got popular when broadband became widely available. Most people online never heard of Usenet. Google Groups bought the Usenet archives (which go back to the 1980s) soon after Google started. Conveniently, Google Groups also posts Usenet group postings simultaneously with its own interface, though by no means does it include all the groups of Usenet.
Most ISP’s used to offer Usenet access for free, but since 2007 (for political reasons), they no longer offer Usenet. But you can find servers that offer Usenet, for a fee if you want to be separate from Google and its TOS, or you can post to Usenet via Google. You can even start up your own Group.
You’re not mistaken.
Look at it this way. If the router can’t distinguish between the three (or four) computers attached to it, then all hell will break loose when one person goes to Red State, another goes to FDL, and a third goes to Sesame Street and each one gets the wrong website.
You beat me to it. I often wondered whether trying to ID a sockpuppet by IP address was always reliable.
Wrong..uses NAT IP Overloading. See above. Trust me on this. Id this stuff for over 30 years.
Well you would have to log the IP and source port together.
Of course once IP V6 gets pushed out to the user ISPs, this all changes. As I understand it IP V6 is already on the back bone sites. Just not pushed out to the users yet.
Perhaps that is true and perhaps unicorns can fly. But this group ganged up against one or more FDL people, without identifying themselves as part of a gang.
And the very very crude comments made here, are rather thoughtless. Maybe you should apologize, just to prove you are a real human being.
I could be wrong, but I think I read from AT&T that IPV6 is already implemented by AT&T but not yet automatically for each client, although each client can presently click at AT&T and be upconverted to it.
Since I retired two years ago, I don’t keep up with it quite as closely, although I do still subscribe to a couple of tech Listserv lists. And I didn’t do network stuff more recently. I was mostly in management and then did IT policy. So I’m not as up on it as I useta wuz.
I am late coming back here, and it was a long read, but I do want to add some thoughts. First, I think it was helpful that Kurt began the thread, and understandable that we would suppose the reason to be about content, since there indeed was some that was abrasive, and I’m sorry I didn’t originally support Margaret – she was right to feel hurt by the comments targeting her.
When dakine explained the reason for the diary being pulled, that was a good explanation, to my mind. Deception was involved in the diary thread, and it worries me a bit, I must say, as to the frame of mind Barefoot Accountant might have been in to do such a thing, having had some informative posts in the past, the latter being why he/she was being defended. I hope he/she is okay.
I don’t know realitychecker personally, but he and I had banter of a goodnatured sort and I guess he had a bad day with demi back on one of our marathons. Do, if you are still reading DW, convey to realitychecker that I miss him here – we had our disagreements over gun carry laws but he was always charming.
Funny though, I just picked up a children’s book maybe others know – “The Strange Case of Origami Yoda” by Tom Angleberger. It’s about an origami fingerpuppet in a middleschool setting, quite hilarious. As we deal with sock puppets on this thread, Origami Yoda might have one of the last words:
Cheetos for everyone you must buy.
(Well, he’s only made of paper after all.)
Years and years ago (mid-1990s) when I discovered hotmail (at the time, it amazed me that there could be an Internet-based, non-ISP dedicated email service), I passed on the news to our college’s Director Of Computer Services and the college’s VP For Administrative Services (a U of Chicago bizschool PhD hotdog). The Director asked, and ISYN, “Why would anyone want to have more than one email account?” The VP sneered at the name ‘hotmail’, inter-assured it was a porn net.
Could very well be. All OS implementations support IP V6. Personally I do not see any advantage to converting to it one ones home machine though.
For larger server implementations I can see it but not home use.
So, let us be clear, what you are saying is that Barefoot Accountant was not making use of sockpuppets, but that you and at least one other person were the voices behind what this site perceived to be sockpuppets?
If this is correct, do you not imagine that had you said so, clearly and calmly, without rancor, that then there might, just possibly, have been an opportunity for understanding and patience?
Frankly, bellydanccer, I did not comment on the thread in question, even though I had considered doing so this morning and, in fact, my reading of the comments, what you claim are some of your comments, in response to Margaret and Kelly did seem to me to be less than well-considered and hardly conducive to thoughtful discussion. Now, that is my opinion, of course. However, apart from that, I am hard-pressed to understand why you have not sought to seek a better outcome, here, today, if you value Barefoot Accountant as you claim to do.
DW
Will do so, gladly, juliania.
DW
M or Ms dancer, may I observe that berating people is probably not the quickest way to persuade them to your cause?
Thank you for that vote. I guess I’ll never understand why some people feel allowed, no insist on being able to disagree but when I do it’s into full on attack mode. Like when I responded to OLogician’s question in 131 above with three simple words: “By definition, yes”. If you’ll then look at the comments s/he made to me afterward, one would think that I am solely responsible for defining the term “sock Puppet” and did it solely to disparage and ridicule OLogician, both of which are arguably irrational. I freely admit that I have a sharp tongue and I don’t gladly suffer fools but I never start the hurling of insults and in fact, I try to avoid ever engaging in that activity. I don’t know what it is about my coming along and putting in my .02 in a public forum like every other commentator here that raises peoples’ ire but I’ve had about enough of it. If it’s not outright hostility, it’s a more subtle form of patronizingly telling me to stfu cause I’m in over my head and obviously cannot render a relevant opinion. Such things are not only unlikely to persuade me but also serve to wreck all future credibility of the attacker(s) from my perspective. Yes, I am baffled and sometimes hurt by those responses but I’ve lived through far worse in my life and I’ll no doubt live through worse again. Sometimes it makes me want to stop coming here at all but I’m not going to surrender to bullies. I didn’t when my skull was fractured and my ribs stove in so I’m sure as hell not going to knuckle under because keyboards mean courage to some people.
Goodnight all, thanks for the thoughful and thought-provoking discussion, and thanks to Kurt for asking the question in the first place.
And you know, in all the hooha I forgot to rec! Done.
But you very clearly compared FDL to the Gestapo:
Which is in my opinion a loathsome and abominable thing to say, not only for the site operators and to the community at large but to the millions of the victims of the actual Gestapo. If this was my blog, you would be so banned just for that so I think your accusation of editorial intolerance here is hugely exaggerated.
Cavlan was proud of being banned by the Green Party and he deliberately challenged Jane, the site owner on her thread outlining what is acceptable and what is not. That didn’t remind me of the Gestapo though, it reminded me of the office jerk who decided that s/he didn’t like the new office policy so s/he flaunted it and dared the boss to fire him/her. In short, Cavlan practically begged to be banned when he initially had support and welcome extended to him. He decided that this blog wasn’t to his liking so he attempted to hijack it and to remake it into something that reflected his point of view. Defending him is an absurd and unsupportable position to take.
Anyone who is really paying attention will have seen that and will understand that that was in fact the case.
There are those who witness and still do not see.
Yes, Michael strode deliberately into that place, Margaret …
DW
Yeah, I’m hep. They’ll be disappointed to learn that they missed their shot at me though. I just finished my bike ride today so they’ll have to try to run me over with a bus tomorrow.
Hug your neck for me, girlfriend
With eyes open, challenging Jane to ban him. Dunno why he thought she wouldn’t or why bellydancer et al thought she shouldn’t.
Among the wonders that never cease.
DW
Done and one coming back at ya. (((Peg)))
Is that you Calvan?
dakine01,
I run networks for a living, if I were to post from each one of fifty computers at one of my locations, you would see me as posting with the same IP address.
The address you see from your end is the IP address of the network interface card on the internet side of my router, it is not the address of the card in my computer.
To prove this to yourself, check it from any network with multiple computers connected to the internet with the same router;
Sit down at each computer in turn and navigate to http://www.ipchicken.com, this is a sight that will display the IP address that the rest of the world sees as you.
Every computer connected to the internet through that router will display the same address.
While no one knows who’s a dog on the Internet, I envy their 7x download/upload speeds.
Confirming – I have a DSL router with up to 4 computers on my private net, all using the private subnet 192.168.1.*, and NAT does the translation so from the outside all seem to have the same IP address (the address of the DSL router). I’ll put my 30 years along side cmaukonen’s to confirm his statements. I can’t say one way or the other about the “truthiness” of bellydancer, et. al., but the overloading of the IP address could have confused the moderators monitoring software. (sorry for posting a day late…)
(oh, only several hours late…)
Suppose 30 users at Starbucks are online and posting to various sites, all via Starbucks’ wifi. One IP address (or one for each of however many ‘routers’ that Starbucks uses), and it’s Starbucks’?
Well it’s kind of a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation since there is no really good way do determining who is posting from where.
I would have given the benefit of the doubt though.
Yep..that’s about the size of it. And at large installations it gets even more squirrelly. I used to work in IT at a Univ. with 50K students plus staff and educational personal. All…I repeat…All IP addresses were NAT. A good percentage of with using IP Overlaoding.
Who posted what from where ? Good luck with that.
Do you think Bradley manning’s defense attorney knows this?
The comments of cmaukonen, PascoBill, and Watt4Bob add a definite “twist” to this story, and ought, so it seems to me, to suggest that things may well not be what they “seem” to be. If that is indeed the case, then what should reasonable and rational people do?
I do not have the answer.
However, it might be worth a few more questions, properly framed, considering the circumstance and the consequences … for everyone.
DW
Well, I do have access to what the rest of the world sees as my IP(s) – both from here and at other locations. And I have seen multiple IPs from the same router
You’re responding to a Red Herring Richard, Read what “bellydancer” has to say from 249 on. They can’t keep their story straight either see 257.
mfi
Oh, I know. I pointed it out at 259 :})
As others have mentioned, home network routers assign internal private addresses that are mapped to an internet IP address assigned by the provider.
The result is that in a home network with multiple computers, all the computers will share the same IP address exposed to the internet, despite the fact that internally, they have unique addresses as assigned by the router.
Keep in mind, I am referring to home networks. Things can change in bigger setups where a router can have multiple internet IP addresses. Still, even in those cases, the router still assign unique internal addresses to each box in the network.
The result is that multiple unique computers with unique people at the helm, can, and do, share the same internet IP address.
Another thing to consider is that providers don’t necessarily permanently assign the same IP address to a location. IP addresses are released and re-assigned for a variety of reasons so that an IP address can “float” across physical locations as it is returned to the pool of addresses and re-assigned.
We have also to decide to understand that an office with five or six people working in concert can, and probably should be considered ‘sock-puppets’.
In that sense it’s entirely correct to consider your blog is being conned, either by a clique or worse, by a PR campaign.
I will concede that it may be wise to ban a user based on IP whether the source is a clique or a PR firm.
Barefoot Accountant has been accused of using sock puppets, a most serious accusation and an offense worthy of banning under the rules of this site and, accordingly, he has been banned
Is there any reason or reasons, at all, to consider that that accusation which is most damning and amounts to a very serious charge may NOT be accurate?
In other words, is there the possibility of doubt, of reasonable doubt?
We have bellydancer, @249, state that she/he and several other persons were the voices behind those alleged sock puppets and used, in the same office, either other computers (or the same computer, there seems to me to be some confusion in bellydancer’s statements) to make those comments.
And then, we have cmaukonen, PascoBill, and Watt4Bob, all of whom claim considerable and specific knowledge, stating that it is impossible, in certain circumstances, to determine the specific origin of comments on separate computers served by the same router.
If these things are true, and there is, apparently, no way to know for certain. Is bellydancer telling the truth? Was the router, in this case, at an office, such that separate and discreet “addresses” may be attached to each separate computer? Depending upon the answers to these questions, then does there not exist an obligation to search further for the truth?
Barefoot Account stands accused of a VERY serious infraction of the rules of this site and of the breaking of conventional understandings of proper and reasonable interaction among honest human beings thereby impacting the trust which must exist between human beings for meaningful dialogue to occur.
In fact, he has been stripped of his privilege of commenting here. He has been banned. He cannot defend himself or offer explanations which might change the outcome.
Considering, in my opinion, and it is only that, and I hope that I shall not be shouted down for sharing my opinion, there does appear to be some doubt, approaching the reasonable. Banning is akin to the death-penalty,in its finality and permanence and, just possibly, a rush to judgment, which is understandable on the “appearance” of things, occurred and that a moment or two ought, possibly, to be taken to consider the implications of this judgment, not just for Barefoot Accountant, but for Firedoglake, itself, as well.
While many might wish to put the incident behind “us”, looking forward, without an open and honest assessment of what happened, of a search for the truth, as much as it may be discerned, of what occurred … leaves everything hanging most uncomfortably, especially doubt.
It is difficult for me, not being an expert, to muster any certainty about what actually happened.
Perhaps, others have no doubts and ARE certain … but the facts are not clear, and the responsibility for making “certain”, as best as may be done, rests where it rests.
Doubt, however, is itself a burden to trust, and it is not a good thing to leave unresolved and uncertain, something, anything, of the importance and moment of the events and decisions of the last several days.
DW
I agree, Bob, yet wonder how it may be clearly ascertained whether a clique or a PR firm IS involved in this case, as each case must be examined and considered on its own demerits.
Likely, it must be a judgment call … an arbitrary decision by the deciding authority, based upon assessing such evidence and dispassionate expertise as is available.
DW
Technical issues, (which I am not qualified to respond to), aside, if what bellydancer says is true, then apparently everybody in that office is a crass, self righteous person who hold identical opinions of FDL, myself and Kelly Canfield. Even my siblings aren’t that homogenous in their attitudes. Even accepting that the puppets were three different people, they operated as a team from the same office while presenting themselves as independent, which is also dishonest. It would be no different than if I wrote a diary and had several friends come over and create accounts from my computer in order to post comments in support of of my position without disclosing that they are affiliated with me. That would also be fraudulent. I concede that it’s possible that BarefootAccountant could have read my comment and said something like, “Hey you guys, this bitch is giving me a hard time”, after which his co-workers created accounts solely for the purpose of bashing me. But without disclosure, I don’t see how that would be any different than creating those accounts and posting those comments himself. Because if we concede that they were individuals but in the same office, what are the odds that they were all acting independently? Somewhere between winning the lottery and zero I would think. Add to that the disparity between the number of puppets vs the claim about number of computers available that dakine01 pointed out @ 259 and something still smells funny.
Ummm, if it’s “based upon assessing such evidence and dispassionate expertise as is available”, wouldn’t that by definition not be “arbitrary”?
Yes, then a decision, a judgment would NOT be arbitrary. However, have we, now, that dispassionate situation, that atmosphere of reason, Margaret?
Do you consider the comments, even certain recent ones, such as your own @305, to reflect dispassionate, calm, and considered assessment?
Will these last hours come to be held as being among FDL’s finest?
That is a larger though quite germane question which certainly arises.
A question which cannot be answered in the emotion and heat of this moment but only over time and the from distance of longer perspective.
That is the gist of my deeper concern.
DW
Absolutely I consider mine @ 305 dispassionate or as dispassionate as I could possibly be about it. I’m not mad and I never really was. In the original post, I made one comment, replied to one and flagged one other and that was the extent of my involvement. When the attacks began in earnest, I was hurt by them but I saw nothing more productive could come of it so I never returned to the thread.
But allow me respond to the theory that the attackers were separate people but in the same office in another way. Consider: if I was to post a diary under the heading “DW Bartoo is mean to me”, and then I had a couple of friends who have never had any involvement whatsoever with FDL come over and encouraged them to set up accounts under, say CaptainKirk and Gravedigger, who then posted comments saying something like “Yeah! I think DW is mean to Margaret too”, without disclosing they were my friends, would that be dishonest? How would that be different than me setting up sock puppet accounts as CaptainKirk and Gravedigger and typing those comments myself? Even if we concede what bellydancer claimed is true, the odds of those people behaving independently with no stimulus at all from BA are so low as to become absurd.
I think this whole thread has been helpful which possibly explains why it is still up despite clearly violating policy. And I think as it has evolved in the latter comments has been a great examination of who we want to be as a community. I dunno how much you know about me personally but on more than one occasion in my life, my honesty and reasoning power were all that was left to me and I’ve never surrendered or compromised those. I cling to those like some cling to god and guns, to paraphrase somebody else.
I agree completely, which is basically what I posted;
Whether the efforts of an office clique, or a PR firm, the attack of sock-puppets is detrimental to the FDL environment, and the response makes sense from that perspective.
Absolutely.
mfi
Shorter Version: The fact is that barefoot accountant and his accomplices made a concerted attack on the integrity of this site using blatant and flagrantly dishonest means to do so. They admitted it.
EOD
mfi
Yep. I was making an attempt to expand on what you were saying. Sorry I was still a bit sleepy at the time.
IF</em> they were accomplices, a claim which I’m not convinced of, though I concede the possibility.
I am also glad this thread has remained accessible, Margaret.
I do not claim to know you, completely, yet as much as I do know ,I respect and appreciate.
When I differ with you, which is not quite so often as you might, on occasion, consider, it is done, as I hope you may understand, in the spirit of mutually seeking a deeper and further clarity, a more useful and usable understanding, of value, I hope and desire, to the larger community, here at FDL and beyond.
I find your courage, your conscience, your steadfast (and evident) resolve to NOT be, in any way, diminished by the behaviors or attitudes of others to be admirable and precisely what the world, the time, and collective human consciousness demands … of all and of each of us.
And I appreciate you patience and well-honed capacity with words very much indeed.
DW
Wow! How many joules wasted here?
Comrade Bartoo, I suggest an alternate Punishment: modify the WordPress account database and make
Any new characters from the same current IP address as these CP convicts shall be threatened with banishment if they do not self-identify with “@ Connecticut Politics, halfway house of FDL parolees”.
Oh you could well be right, then again this seems like an admission to me:
Source: comment 249 above.
mfi
Ah, you know me, Ludwig, joules to the left, joules to the right of me …
Tilting at windmilling phantoms, energy be damned, the heart and the mind of it … and so on and so forth.
Are stripes “in”, or orange … jumped-in suits, what IS the fashion?
In-fashion or out?
Certainty rules, there ain’t any doubt …
How “universal” is that “application”?
Damned if I know, damned if I don’t … some say it’s “will” and some insist it “won’t”.
… and what is this “halfway” busyness? “All or nothing” is the clarion call … but devil take the hindmost … most, of all.
;~DW
As to my being absolutist about sockpuppets, I absolutely think the Wiki doesn’t reflect what other sites do as far as definition. This was what I thought defined them.
Having said that, I almost named my identical twins Sockpuppet I and Sockpuppet II until I read one of those ‘Most Popular Baby Names of the Year’ lists, and saw how utterly common the name was they year they were born.
So in the end I went with Spam and Tweet. (Hope I see them again before I die…)
Yep, I read that. But like you said, either way it represented duplicity and dishonesty. I also noticed that bellydancer doesn’t mention “robertcapelleti” in 249, which dakine01 identified as one of those sock puppets in 30. I happen to know that the robertcapelleti account was created solely to be crass with me as I went to his activity page to flag the comment.
It is something of a backhanded compliment to FDL’s effectiveness at getting traffic that there’ve been several attempts to hijack it.
mfi
@ Margaret:
Somewhere up yonder you argued that Saints kinda have a strong political arm, which…may be stronger than I knew. But in CA, the black Christian churches were called out like crazy for tanking Prop 8, too (later amended slightly…).
This ex-Mormon (not simply Jack Mormon, and it’s hard to leave then Church on your own), agrees with you that it’s relevant to Romney’s candidacy, but because of the secrecy of the LDS Church.
I’d remembered Romney as pro-choice, but googling I learned he started veering away from the in 2007; my point being that I reckon he’s not so dedicated to his faith any more than Reagan was. Reagan promised fundamentalist Christians the world, and delivered…nothing, not that it matters to this day. He is still their hero; go figure.
Anyway, I still disagree with you for the aforementioned reasons, but it’s not a strong article of faith with me given the Mormons seem to have bankrolled Prop 8.
Spot on. As I mentioned in the comment that apparently began the firestorm of sock puppetry, people, (even people who hate FDL), post on this blog because of the traffic Jane gets. But in the end, it’s Jane’s traffic, not BarefootAccountant’s or Michael Cavlan’s traffic. They were attempting to hijack it, presumably because the three or four regulars they get on their own blogs don’t give them enough exposure. I don’t object to people coming here and posting diaries to get more exposure, that’s what the MyFDL side was created for. What I do object to is the sense of entitlement some of them seem have about their right bully the rest of Jane’s traffic who may not agree with their points of view. They have no right to do that. Period.
Hmph! I really don’t care what absurd branch of superstition a politician practices. I would almost certainly vote even for a Republican if I could be sure s/he was atheist All superstitious politicians inject their ridiculous beliefs into policy decision and once again, criticism of that is never off the table in my book.
This thread has gone from confusion to some clarity to let’s change the rules of the game to fit our biases.
Using Sock Puppets is defined as one individual using multiple aliases to game the discussion.
Dakine used his surveillance powers to track down the offender BA and banish him/her for this offence. This appeared to be fair until multiple commenters showed that dakine was ignorant of the complexities of office networks and made his decision based on faulty data. Since multiple individuals of this Cabal were banned they couldn’t defend themselves until one reregistered under another user name and explained their side of the story.
Now some people here want to change the rules arbitrarily to exclude groups of commenters just because they share the same location and opinions even though we have the same kind of cliques here that don’t share the same location.
BA’s original diary may have been strident and somewhat unfair to FDL but the use of faulty technical excuses to banish commenters reminds me of how our government is suppressing dissent.
I have my own Minder here who has bookmarked my comments to try and catch and document any heresy against this site even if i don’t attack FDL. Since i try to be careful how i state my comments i can offer an opinion as to where to stick his bookmark.
Ah; I’d thought you were specifying the relevance of Mormonism to a politician.
And last night I realized that I should have mentioned that some day, an *avowed atheist* will run for Prez, too. Same right to privacy on that, imo.
Governor Ventura wants to run in 2016.
I am curious as to HOW you “happen to know”, Margaret, if that is not a trade secret, that an account was, “created soley to be crass with …” you?
I assume that the Great Carnac was not consulted? And that all of the envelopes, from first to last, cursed in measured harmony?
Your powers amaze me, forsooth.
DW
Comrade! Thou bravest the Lance of St. Mahgret, Sister of the noble projection.
Top Stuff, babe. No doubt about it.
That is exactly what my brain has been wrapping itself around.
But, you know, when we try to be honest, clear and call that stuff out, we somehow are engaging in hate speech.
It’s too bad, really.
Watch it, bub.
I’ve never been party to a group that was called out for potential Hate Speech before.
Like I’ve said, I learn something new here everyday.
And, for those of you who enjoy language, I was looking for a pumpkin patch event to attend this afternoon with sonny, who is reading a large portion of words in a textbook for Sociology right now, when I found a place sorta nearby that has not only pumpkins but a cornfield. They have carved a “maze” into the cornfield for folks to navigate through. Maize = Maze.
Ain’t that fun? I think we’re going later.
A little Field of Dreams experience.
Like Voltaire, comrade demi.
Egad! Thou dost, now, fain apprise me of yon sharpened functional analysis? Where lodgeth, heretofore, thine concerns? Didst thou not well perceive, in far advance, mine danger?
I most need to reduce anxieties, to deplete them, not enhance nor embolden them … and most clearly, Sir Ludwig, ’tis thou who are fair to blame, what with thy coy reticence and densely inpenetrable prose … how might I have realized, in time?
Mayhap, I am full undone, if so, then let that be ripened to rot upon your puny conscience, knave, you deceitful, raw fellow, you.
Humph! Say I and heartfelt mean … begone!
DW
Wot??? Ventura’s an atheist? Kewl!
But shoot; I answer your other question, and *this* is what you respond to instead? (Guess if I’d gone with ‘I almost named by *breast implants* Sockpuppet I, II, yada yada…it may have been more illustrative of my point.
But this may be a new wrinkle (given that I sometimes miss things): I clicked on a post about a map of Walmarts worldwide that are on strike. Given that I just posted about the Walmart Warehouse workers strikes in SoCal and Chicago, I was interested.
Is it a new thing since yesterday?
After several tries, and clicking on the diarist’s name that went to a Calvo post, I get this page repeatedly.
Here’s the thing. Since the matter of identity has become somewhat clouded (up there in the stratosphere of technology) there is at least the possibility that what bellydancer posted may have been the case, that more individuals than Barefoot Accountant himself were proffering comments. I didn’t see the thread after I posted, and if that was going on excessively I can see that would harm the conversation.
Separately, there is the objection of personal attacks, which I think are also offenses that can be and sometimes are moderated. That’s probably more automatic than anything else, as there are some of us (not to say which is best) who don’t flag.
On the point about cliques, I have seen book salons in which it appeared there were a whole new bunch of people commenting, natural enough when an author has a following. I have also seen some of the regulars using a different registered computer – but they always identify themselves as doing that.
In sum, I am glad I do not have to sort all of this out. Sites do get attacked, so I can understand there would be sensitivity to that, and for the greater good probably mistakes are inevitable.
Apart from the personal attacks I didn’t see this kind of an assault occurring, but as I say, I did not see the entire thread. Thanks, though, for the extended thread. It does help us get to know one another.
We’ll all need to be responsible for our own moral inventories, demi. It’s not a painless process, at least for me. But knowing that I’m guaranteed to die in the not-so-distant future, I find that reminding myself of the Yaqui way of knowledge admonition:
We should live with the awareness that Death sits just over our left shoulder, just out of sight, at all times, ask ourselves: Is this what I want to be doing at the moment of my death?
Master, you appear to be in full possession of your wits, for your language is impeccable and your aim exact, but I see you tilt at windmills, incessantly. It is for this I warn you, and again, and beware of the stealthy insanity which creeps up on us all.
O look, I spy a pond for us to refresh our steeds and ruminate on your haphazard mission.
It’s too late to say Don’t ask me, huh? I repeated your clicks and got similar results, but when I clicked on that author, I went to a different diary than the one your click opened. So I submitted a report, clicking on the “» NEW: Report site problems and bugs” up there on the right, under “About MyFDL”.
A few minutes ago, when I turned on the tap water in the double stainless steel kitchen sink, a panicky Wolf Spider leapt from the drain in the dry sink, but couldn’t grip the steel walls. I coaxed it into a large plastic jar and let it outside. Different sight, different bug.
Where, Sancho?
I prefer lakes, as you well and truly, by now, know …
And, why oh why, do you insist that I sit astride my noble steed facing backwards?
Dementia that creepy stuff, once again, and I shall be forced to … to … indeed, yes, well … there it is, clearly.
I beg your pardon, dear Sancho Panza, I’m just not at my best today, that Captain of the Inquisition has been too often jumbling with my thoughts, and the rearward view reminds me overmuch of him … and then, you mention “creepy” and …
Yes, let us refresh OUR plans regarding the hazards of our mission whilst the noble steeds ruminate, just as you wisely suggest.
Among the many twists and turns, you keep us set aright, and Pancho, I well realize the truth of that, and thank you, thus and so …
;~DW
Well DW, I pointed out that I went to the activity page where I saw that the account had been created and the crass comment had been made to me about a minute later. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
On a related topic, why do you always have to be so self righteous about everything? Why couldn’t you just ask like a normal human being without all of the sarcasm and the superiority?
Since we’re back to hurling insults at Margaret, I think I’ll just leave.
It’s nice that some or even many are willing to give the benefit of a doubt to the banned posters, but I’m not willing to do so because I was born with a limited number of benefits of a doubt to give, and I have reason to believe that I’ve already spent most of them during my career. I don’t know how many I have left, so I have to be economical.
Another side of me is more willing to offer an anti-benefit of doubt, consistent with statistical probability: There were likely four, not three, sock puppets, originally, and one was mysteriously whooshed away by the Washing Machine Syndrome.
Wow. That would certainly keep Carnac busy.
Yeah. Often the 11 angry men win.
Ah, Margaret, I appreciate your answer.
It is not “superiority” so much as caution, for I am not so certain of many things and thinks as you, often, appear to be, and what you call “sarcasm” is a gentle reminder to you, in that comment of mine, of your own seeming readiness and willingness to invoke old Carnac as it applies to what you perceive others to imagine or infer about you … and about others.
Since we are, apparently, engaged in an honest assessment of each others thread behaviors, do you ever much wonder how you appear, in your comments, to others?
Now, from my perspective, too often there seems to be a lack of patience and a willingness on the part of many at this site, and beyond, to speak roughly and harshly, even unfeelingly to others, to attack, to malign, to insult and belittle, all done in a spirit of that very (so it seems to me) “superiority” and sarcasm” which you make mention of.
I am appalled when it is directed toward others, especially when they are named but not present, for that does not seem either wise not indicative of either compassion or understanding, two attributes quite lacking in our society in general, at the moment. When vitrol is directed towards me, I usually seek to back away, for a time, until I might find my own patience and consider how best to unruffle my own feathers.
No doubt, I do not always succeed, but that is my intent.
How do you, Margaret, “proceed” when you feel unfairly maligned, or worse, misunderstood?
Now, lest you think that I consider you given to unreason, that is not so, for I well recall many of your humorous comments that very often have left me gasping for air and certain another storm of laughter will strike before I might catch my next breath …
It seems that this is an especially fraught time, what with the election and so on.
I do not find it strange, or in any way odd, that both of us will likely support Jill Stein, any more than that we find ourselves, at times, on differing perspectives of certain issues.
That is one reason I value you, as I truly value demi, it is in those differences that I find, either that I must rethink, or more seriously (or humorously, depending) seek to make clear, to myself, and hopefully others, why I think as I do.
I suspect that you will agree that the same is also true for you.
And that, Margaret is the beauty and value of having friends with whom one can reasonably and compassionately, amid the passion, honestly and openly disagree with.
I should be very bored and little animated if everyone were the same, for it is the rational and reasonable difference which is the treasure, as I perceive it of life, and of encountering others, of sharing the journey and even the whacks, of realizing how much more interesting it is, how much more enlivening.
What do you think?
DW
yep, we’re all gonna die.
I do a fair amount of self reflection myself.
though despite being here for 6 years,or so,All my comments are moderated at book Salons,that is why i email the contributors
It might just be a bug in the system, as I experienced that also, but once I raises the issue with FDL, it was cleared up.
A most excellent Book Salon up “top”, right now, sadly.
I hope you might try to comment and see what happens.
Your voice would be much appreciated.
DW
thanks,i have tried,but it still happens
thanksDW
love your writing and thought process
My stars; the page at the link has changed. Earlier, along with the ‘this post has been reported as spam’ (or close), there was a small box inviting one to comment as to why this should *not be* so, along with a Submit button.
How odd that it’s gone now…Now it says admin has been contacted to review.
But if yer gonna talk spideeees, ish. I loathe them, evil lurking bastards…
If I may in, David. I don’t find you superior at all, but sometimes in your attempts to be as diplomatic as you can (that you may allow us to see ourselves without putting up defenses against your words) the message might get overly-velvetized.
For instance, were you to say to me:
‘wendydavis, lass, you speak unskilfully here, but if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice’, I would probably get it. ;o)
And I might reply:
‘Thy wit is a very bitter sweeting, it is a most sharp sauce.’ ;o)
Tangy stuff, there lass, well near a “10″ … such that the kitchen staff is peering out … in no little awe of the “capacity” of the well-budded tongue.
;~DW
My Favorite Billionaire
Hope they dinnae brrrreak no dishware; they would surrrely be docked forrr them. ;o)
I kneel in gratitude, my friend. After 11 minutes, I fell in love with her wisdom. So many noteworthy sentiments, and so many fit with what was going to be my next post, which was frozen out of me by so many comments on this post.
It’s working title is:
‘We interrupt your (sic) regularly scheduled broadcast to bring you this.’
Pinging on too many of Rowling’s gems to bring any here, srsly, but that imagining others’ lives can also be used for dark purposes…oy. Thank you.
I was reading a profile/interview in TNY, never read any HP or saw any, read her wiki, then hoped for a YT, wanted to know what she looks like and sounds like, and you know the rest. ;o) I’ll get her just published The Casual Vacancy.
One of my not-so-guilty pleasures is Harry Potter. The moving staircases at Hogwarts echo this bit from young Gore Vidal I may use. He was referencing Constantine teasing a member of the clergy, I believe:
“Ascesius, take a ladder and get up to heaven by yourself.”
Night; sleep well. ;o)
I’d forgotten to say that it was nice Rowling confirmed that Professor Dumbledore is gay. (horse’s mouth, all that…) ;o)