Since we seem to be in super-double-bonus meta mode lately, herewith some details on administration:
1. New account approvals are glacially slow. That's because they're time-consuming; I have to weed out the Russian spammers, check the email addresses to see if they show up on the Viagra sites, and so on. And then there's the work of weeding out the trolls who make it through the process when that's done. They are processed in the order received. The upside is that the slowness of the process also weeds out people who aren't committed to the site.
2. Banning, aside from obvious trolls (none of the hard cases are obvious) happens for persistent failure to supply evidence and reasoning for points made. Again, as 5280 says:
But if someone wants to marshal an army to fight a battle of wills while playing fast and loose with the truth and using some of the same demagogic precepts that the right wing does, I am not particularly interested in that. In fact, I think it is acutely dangerous.
Demagogy isn't really verifiable, but playing fast and loose with the truth is -- certainly over time. If somebody can't supply evidence for their claims, it's easy enough to find out, with a given level of effort in pushing for links. "Any stick to beat a dog" is not an argumentative tactic welcomed here.
3. I haven't enforced civility constraints (with the exception of taking immediate objection to accusations of the lie direct, subject to the evidential constraints of point 2) because, as I said, my time is limited, and in any case civility is highly subjective; a truly skilled writer knows how to deliver a deadly insult while remaining civil in any case.
4. I enabled a flagging system, which allows flags to be thrown for quality of argument. I haven't used it much, but maybe I should use it more.
To me, it's the quality of the discourse and the strength of the argument that matters, not who makes it. Like anyone, I may slip and fall short of my goal, but that is the goal.
* * *
I don't see how you can build a progressive movement any other way, since the truth is always available for free to anyone with the right analytical tools, where lies must be created and maintained by an army of paid liars we don't really have the budget for. As Richard Morgan says, "We must think our way clear."
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
I'm sorely tempted...
...to click on the "Flag as offensive" thingy on this post. That's just the way I roll.
Really?
Why? Since I've been occupied for the last two or three days with flame wars, I dont' have a lot of time to respond. Or is that irony? I'm short on irony these days.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I'm really at a loss, Mandos,
to understand your problem with this post.
Care to explain?
Nonono...
*exaggerated patronizing sigh*
It's *obviously* for an added layer of delicious, delicious meta. Mmmm, meta.
Hmmm.
Plum outta meta appreciation.
This whole battle royale reminds me of Burger King: Have it your way.
We're all in the same book across the lefty blogosphere (at least most of us are, I hope), but not on the same page. This nit-picking is sucking the wind out of a concerted effort to effect true change.
Sorry for not getting it, Mandos. :)
I'm not sure we are on the same page OR book
Reducing the problems with the primary to "procedural complaints" is someone who is not in the same book as I am. The problem was that the procedures, whether part of the rules or not, were fundamentally undemocratic and unjust. The charges or racism and assassination plots were also pages from a book I don't go by. No one who published the RFK smears, doctored videos, or posted that the Clinton team darkened Obama images is using the same book as me. There has been little discussion amongst the perpetrators of primary process, much less any acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Until there is, I really do question that these folks are on my side or even remotely close. If you can abandon principles of truth so quickly and easily, how can I trust you on anything?
Only tyrants rig elections.
My book is titled
Making America Better for the We, the People
I'd like to think they want that even though they picked the less qualified candidate. But who really knows?
Policy
For me, the first and last question is policy and getting policy implemented. Procedure matters more only if one plans a massive reform.
Not denying any of this
but I think there are enough people of reasonably like mind to move forward. Shoving Obama left is going to be a three year effort much as the Bush administration, and we're just at the beginning.
That said, I'd deny that the whole TC discussion was a waste of time; rather, it exposed some differences in what two strains in the blogosphere think is important. Better to find all that out now, eh?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
How can you move forward without a proper mechanism?
The nature of the divisiveness of the primary should be an important lesson. There were some disagreements that got heated, sure, but the problem was the way the disagreements were handled. Without acknowledgment and recognition of what happened, I see little reason to believe that the next disagreements won't turn into a similar situation as that of the primary.
Even here, above, a poster says that "policy" is the most important implying that the ends justify the means. The right feels this way as well so they see nothing wrong with the Swift Boat Ads or The Arkansas Project, etc. The belief in infallibility, that we can use whatever means necessary to enact what we want because we are completely 100% right is dangerous.
Here's one way I see this. Why is it a crime to lie when under oath in a court of law? Because if people are allowed to freely lie than the whole process becomes an exercise in futility. Hell, we still have "creams his pants" Sirota telling us, after the election is already over to STFU
. How is that a lesson learned? Friends of mine who knew I didn't support Obama still don't talk to me because of that.
We are going to have some serious debates we are going to have to make regarding S.S. and if we didn't learn the lessons of the primary (which should have been the same lessons during the Bush era) than our disagreements will lead to similar results. Until the process is fixed, I see no reason to believe we will be able to change anything. How can we influence Obama if the STFU mentality is still prevalent?
Only tyrants rig elections.
mechanism
Elections are not a court of law, unfortunately. To me the question is, given that at present, the parameters of the system for electing people is suboptimal, how much policy can you implement by making which compromises.
We are operating from different books entirely, my friend
Different books entirely. When institutionalized disenfranchisement is so easily brushed aside as unimportant compared to day to day operations (as if you can only have one at a time), I can't say I'm even on the same shelf.
I reject the current "parameters" as inconsistent with a just process. Period. Sure, there are current in place parameters but that does not mean the parameters should remain in place. We needed to abolish slavery, we needed to give women and people of color the right to vote, etc. It was well within the framework of the system at the time to have fundamentally unjust parameters. But just because slavery and disenfranchisement were institutionalized did not make the framework just. We were able to progress on the day-to-day compromises that needed to be done and end institutionalized disenfranchisement.
Only tyrants rig elections.
Oh, I would agree
The problem is that I see folks like you focus on the disenfranchisement to the extent that you can't see a way to get anything else done. That's what I mean by "moving forward".
Jinx!
n/t
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
BTW,
I just read the thread at TL in which some contend that the only people who were banned at TL railed aganst Obama incessantly.
Not true. Some did, but not everyone. It became an Obama-friendly site. Period.
You know, it was all a matter of who *believed* and who was trying to be more realistic. Of course, it helped if you were into the latest Hollywood gossip, too.
Well, I was at TL throughout...
... doing the Unity
Pony
thing. Jerayln called me out for it, so I pushed back, not that it did any good, but no banning.
I think it was the way arguments were put, instead of the arguments themselves.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
There was no winning argument
for him. It was an election based on hopey, changey crap which sent many of us over the edge.
We were right about his inexperience. Time will tell if he's capable and strong and smart enough to be a good president.
She would have won, despite what the naysayers claimed.
Well, sure, but that's not the point
The point is that at TL I could keep making my arguments. This is a moderation (meta) issue...
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, but you made them
infrequently. Also, as a known blogger, you might have been given a bit more leeway, no?
Anyway, battle lineswere drawn, alliances were made and unmade. Too bad, because it has caused divisions at a time we need to be united. The 'bots have done far more harm than good.
Begging to differ, here
TL was my primary blog-home until the PDS kicked in full force, and it was quite clearly not about how things were put rather than the substance of what was said. Jeralyn was deleting posts and banning people so fast and for so little that it was difficult to keep up. She changed the posting rules of the site (which is hers to do and legit) but her enforcement became highly uneven, such that it easily approached the type of "arbitrary and capricious" quality that, in law, gets you in big trouble.
The reason I finally stopped commenting there was that it was impossible to anticipate what might put the bee under her bonnet on any one day (or in any one hour, even). The fact that you were not banned, Lambert, is not dispositive; many others were; some were tepid Obama supporters or waverers; some comments deleted were pretty damn innocuous. Iirc, you didn't comment at TL nearly as much as many other regulars (plus you have some considerable standing in the Exile community, which seemed to still count for something, to Jeralyn anyway), so you may have just escaped based on a combination of low volume and the roll of the dice on any one day.
Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen
OK, fair enough
We are definitely in a YMMV situation, and it wasn't really my community. I may also have dodged the bullet because I mostly commented on BTD's threads, unless something truly egregios (I know, I know) happened elsewhere.
And yes, the PDS stuff was just awful. And the creative class is setting itself up for a right wing populist backlash, too.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi