On Moderation

So, apparently David Mizner considers being banned from Open Left something to be proud of. He also thinks that I have "translucent skin." It is nice to read an invective against me on the front page of a blog where I still have written far more articles than anyone else, and received way, way more flack than anyone else. Mizner should have seen me cry at the death threats I received during the Googlebomb campaign that I conducted here. My skin really is pretty thin.

For the record, here are the comments that led me to ban Mizner from Open Left. First:
It's pretty amusing that you've put yourself in the positon of defending the occuption of Iraq.
Ah, I love comments like that. Nothing makes me feel better than to be told how pro-Iraq occupation I am after spending several months leading the charge online against residual forces in Iraq. Second:
Let me say...this...slowly..so..you...understan d.
I also enjoy being called an idiot.
I find weaknesses of logic and coherence, just I found weakness in Stoller's claim that Edwards is racist, and weakness in your condoning (now immediately retracted) the occupation of Iraq.
I particularly enjoy having positions attributed to me that I never supported, ever. More:
And unlike you, Chris, I don't care if Peter Daou gives me a mean look at Yearly Kos
This is another example of Mizner finding more logical holes in my arguments, I guess.

Let me say something straightforward here. One of the reasons that there have been numerous diaries on MyDD complaining about the lack of decorum here is that I am no longer banning people. I used to ban a lot of people when I was on MyDD, and I didn't feel the least bit bad about it. Calling people idiots, implying hidden agendas, attributing positions to people they don't hold and never stated, throwing charges that people are conservative or pro-Bush / occupation in some way without backing it up with quotes--these are all offensive, anti-social actions that can start flame wars on progressives websites. When Mizner engaged in them all on Open Left in one thread, I banned him, just as I banned dozens of people on MyDD for the same offensives during my time editing the blog. I did this in an attempt to reduce the flame wars as much as possible, and make certain that community remained friendly and productive.

In my experience, allowing this type of commentary, especially against front-page posters, results in a less than productive community. I was pretty lenient on bannings here in 2004 and 2005, and the comments were overrun with trolls like Parker as a result. I figured that putting up with irritating commenters was just part of being a blogger. Then, after banning a few of them, I noticed how much the comments and the diaries improved here at MyDD. So, with a new warning system in place, I began to moderate the site in a pretty strict fashion. About six months ago, I wrote a front-page piece explaining some of the many things that could lead to being banned, which is all on top of the anti-social, baiting behavior I documented above from Mizner. I tried to read every comment on the site, and follow every argument, to make sure that no one engaging in these behaviors was not first warned, and then banned if the problems continued.

Of course, MyDD is no longer my main blog home. It is not my job to moderate the community around here (although I do sometimes still go to old posts can clean out the spam robots). Jerome, Jonathan and Todd can moderate this community as they choose. I am writing this in the diaries, instead of on the front page, for that reason. However, given Mizner's latest front-page post personally attacking me on a blog that I helped build from 800,000 visitors to 28,000,000 over the course of more than three years was far too much for me to keep quiet. It also struck me as a perfect example of what many commenters are complaining about here on MyDD. Seriously, after all I have done for this site and this community, now I'm getting attacked on the front-page here? I guess no one deserves any respect here, if they cross that terrible line of not endorsing your favorite candidate.

I am upfront about have a heavy moderation style, and a quick finger when it comes to banning. Long experience with flame wars and moderation have convinced me it is better to err on the side of banning too many people than banning too few. Letting people feel insulted and pissed off by the comments on your site is a terrible way to buld a community. As such, I am acting at Open Left the same way I would have acted at MyDD, and I find nothing more tiresome than the claims about free speech and openness. Blog are not open message boards, and if they are treated as such the comments will invariably descend into utterly useless flame wars. If you hope to build an activist site, that simply is not acceptable. Maybe we should turn the DNC convention into an open forum with no moderation and a mad scramble for the podium. I'm sure that will turn out well.

Just my two cents. I wrote 3,100 articles for MyDD, presided over about 95% of the all-time traffic, links and new account sign-ups here. It still bears my name, and will always be a major part of my life. Maybe it is just because I have translucent skin, but being attacked on the front page here as part of a seemingly endless argument over 2008 candidates was extremely disappointing, and I hope is not a sign of things to come for the blog.

Update: If anyone thinks Mizner was acting in good faith, consider that what he said to me is exactly the same thing he has said about all bloggers who have not endorsed in the past. Here is one such comment:
The fence-sitting of the bloggerati smells to me like a fear of losing traffic.
And here is another one:
And if you're not doing something for fear of straining your relationships with people in power, friends or not, it's time to reevaluate your priorities.
Mizner has a history of accusing those with whom he disagrees of having hidden agendas. He isn't acting in good faith. And yes, people like that should be banned.

Tags: meta (all tags)

Comments

215 Comments

Re: On Moderation

David Mizner:
I voted for Nader in 2000, in New York.

He is a Naderite through and through. These Naderites were marginalized during 2004 election. They are changing tactics to disguise inside the democratic party in order to destroy it.

There is no doubt they will do more damage to the democratic party inside as opposed to a pure Naderite.

The progressive blogs are infested with these Naderites, they are capitalizing on this opportunity to do GOP's bidding.

by areyouready 2007-09-25 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

it would be quite amusing if Nader ran in the general again ....
Of course there's only one  candidate that he'd run in the general for..

\ Bloomberg will run if Hillary is the nominee

by TarHeel 2007-09-25 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Why would Bloomberg run if Hillary is the nominee?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-09-25 10:55AM | 0 recs
he's thinking

if it's someone other than Giuliani i.e. someone pretending to be a "social conservative" and a polarizing figure like Clinton he can bankroll his billions and have a chance down the center.

by TarHeel 2007-09-25 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: he's thinking

Bloomberg is not going to run if Clinton is the nominee.  She is way too strong.  But if by chance one of the others make it through his chances rise at a 30-30-30 election, which would then open the door for a possible run.

by georgep 2007-09-25 05:32PM | 0 recs
i thought bloomberg already said he wasn't...

running.  why has this subject come up again?  has he changed his mind???

by bored now 2007-09-25 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: i thought bloomberg already said he wasn't...

I don't know.  I am just responding to a hypothetical Bloomberg point made.   He pretty much has ruled it out, but there was quite some media speculation that he would change his mind if one of the "below Clinton" candidates wins and opens the door for a possible 30-30-30 election, which I think makes some sense.  

by georgep 2007-09-25 06:34PM | 0 recs
gotcha...

by bored now 2007-09-25 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: i thought bloomberg already said he wasn't...

Al Gore said he wasn't running either but that hasn't ended months of speculation and thousands of people from getting involved with the candidates who are.

by edgery 2007-09-26 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: i thought bloomberg already said he wasn't...

this is false. Unless you are speaking of the recent "I will endorse someone" comment he made- this is the closest thing yet.

by leewesley 2007-09-26 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: i thought bloomberg already said he wasn't...

i was thinking of this...

by bored now 2007-09-26 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: i thought bloomberg already said he wasn't...

i was speaking about Gore, I think I got thread confused

by leewesley 2007-09-26 11:58AM | 0 recs
Nice
Protocols of the Elders of Nader, much? A fine tone to take. Very productive.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

im glad you took time to let the substance of the diary sink in.

by leewesley 2007-09-25 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Do you not realize how stupid you sound ranting about "disguised Naderites" when the guy openly admitted that he once voted for Nader?

If anyone has an agenda opposed to the long-term interests of the Democratic Party, it would be you, with your persistent diatribes against liberals and progressive politics in general.

by Steve M 2007-09-25 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Agree, bringing up an old Nader vote is idiotic.

by NCDemAmy 2007-09-25 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

I know a lot of people who voted for Nader in 2000, and they don't bear any resemblance to the people you're describing here.

by justinh 2007-09-25 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Damn those Naderites and their losing us NY in 2000.

by Englishlefty 2007-09-25 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

What a stupid person you are. Just shut up!

by hanna 2007-09-25 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

This individual brings nothing, as you see, to the conversation.  Talk about banning someone.

by iamready 2007-09-25 01:13PM | 0 recs
by david mizner 2007-09-25 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Here's the full exchange: judge for yourself:

MIZNER: I don't understand why you've made "no residual troops" the gold standard rather than no permanent bases, including the Embassy, which is massive and amounts to a continued occupation. Shouldn't progressives promote the end of the occupation as well the end of the war? Aren't the thousands of troops who would be stationed at the embassy "residual troops?"
BOWERS: The embassy line is a bogus line that has been thrown around for months to try and obfuscate the difference here. We have embassies in every country, and in every country they have military contingents gaurding them. Further, embassies are considered American soil. to try and pull that line again is, at best, utterly bogus and, at worst, intentionally misleading.

Every candidate will have troops gaurding our embassy in Iraq, on American soil, and just like every other embassy in the world. The issue is how many troops they will leave in Iraq on top of that. And yes, that is a bigger difference than permanent bases, because you can't have permanent basis if there are no troops in those bases.

To spell this out as simply for you as a I can, residual forces supercedes permanent bases because you can't have permanent bases if you don't have any residual forces. However, you can hae residual forces without permanent bases. Thus, the residual forces issue goes beyond all others.

Clear enough? .

MIZNER: Touched a nerve, did I? Not all embassies are the size of Vatican City, and we didn't just, you know, invade and occupy all coutries. How can antiwar progressives not oppose this? [long quote describing embassy] How can antiwar progressives not oppose this?

BOWERS: What is your point? The embassy is still US soil, and thus not in Iraq.

To try and equivocate leaving tens of thousands of troops in Iraq outside the embassy with having a large embassy that all Dems support is unbelievably intellectually dishonest. you are trying to blur a large embassy plus tens of thousands of troops with a large embassy. And that is just crap, right up there with your bullshit hit job on Stoller.

MIZNER: So what if it's not Iraqi soil--that indeed is the problem, that we're occupying a large chunk of real estate in the heart of the country and calling it American.

Look, as I said below, I think Richardson's position is better than that of Obama's and Clinton's and a little bit better than Edwards. And it's worse than those people who think the permanent base called the embassy should be torn down. It's pretty amusing that you've put yourself in the positon of defending the occuption of Iraq.

But I can see from you comment that this is really about Iraq, it's about old news. But since you brought it up: do you agree with Stoller? Do you think Edwards is racist?

BOWERS: Defending the occupation of Iraq? So now you have resorted to sliming me and intuiting my position?

By your logic, anyone who supports any Democratic candidate is in a position of defending the American occupation of Iraq. That is a funny statement coming from comeone who once wrote a diary saying "Hey Losers, Stop Bashing Hillary".

I am working as hard as I can to end the American occupation of Iraq. You seem mainly concerned with attacking and sliming anyone who stands in the way of your shilling for John Edwards. Truly gross.

We don't have a warning system here, like we did at MyDD. But consider yourself warned. Continue attacking front page posters will result in being banned.

by david mizner 2007-09-25 02:26PM | 0 recs
I'm almost certain that

CAP's 'Strategic Reset' plan abandons the palatial Baghdad embassy.

Okay, checked: "Furthermore, the United States should discard its plan to build the world's largest embassy in Baghdad and instead make plans to reassign diplomatic and intelligence personnel throughout Iraq and neighboring countries with adequate protection."

FWIW.

by BingoL 2007-09-25 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Funny that you would respond... Chris would have banned you LONG LONG ago had he still been here.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-25 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

The ad you are running for Richardson is that an endorsement of his candidacy or an attempt to push your Iraq agenda ?

You are perfectly within your right to endorse any candidate you want but I just wanted to clarify that .
Richardson just killed his chances in the election , if I was a candidate the last thing I want is the endorsement of a blogger , but Richardson just topped himself , he actually cut ads with bloggers . No way in hell will I consider him in the primaries after that .

His Iraq position is political pandering at its worst , it is not only an unworkable proposition , it is very reckless and he is a conservative democrat and has been in the top level of governance to know the position he is advocating is just pandering.

by lori 2007-09-25 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation
I explained it all in the announcement post:
I am thrilled to be working with Bill Richardson on this issue. While this ad is not an official endorsement of Bill Richardson's candidacy, it is an endorsement of his no residual forces plan for Iraq. It is an endorsement of his leadership on the issue. It is an endorsement of the need for a public debate on how many troops Democrats plan to leave in Iraq, what those troops will do, and how long they will stay in Iraq. Every Democrat should be aware of all candidate plans for residual forces in Iraq before they decide who to support in the primaries. Just because a candidate says he or she will end American military involvement in the war in Iraq does not mean that he or she is actually proposing to end American military involvement in the war in Iraq.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

How smart do you think it is for Richardson to claim now without occupying the white house or with disregard to the impact of such a policy that he will withdraw all troops.

I am surprised you don't see that as pandering. No responsible Presidential candidate will say what he is saying.

To me he is done as a candidate , he was a moderate/conservative dem , someone that natural appeals to me , but his Iraq position is ridiculous and an act of callousness .

by lori 2007-09-25 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation
Did you even even read the paragraph you are responding to?
Another nice comment, though. I'm a sucker who isn't very smart.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 10:43AM | 0 recs
welcome to my world
the person you are answering once responded to me that I sounded like one of those north eastern liberals who hated southerners and didn't think they should have the right to vote.  It was totally unrelated to anything I had said.
Considering my state of origin is TX, it was also very funny.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

I grew up in Southern Arizona - we learned early on not to mess with them mean Tejas liberals.

by Michael Bersin 2007-09-25 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

on top of that I am 5'10", German and Scott with the personality to prove it.  LOL

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

Wouldn't someone of Scottish descent know that it is abreviated as Scot?

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-25 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

Wouldn't someone of Scottish descent know that it is abreviated as Scot?

Probably. Ever hear of an "abbreviated" typo on the Internets?

by Michael Bersin 2007-09-25 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

bite me, I spell it as I like thank you very much.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-26 01:27AM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

dont be a menace

by leewesley 2007-09-26 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

I have lived most of my life in rural areas.  I have never called tarheel a redneck.  WTF is wrong with you? What is with your need to label and categorize people?  Geez lady, judge people by their merits not where they live.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to my world

Or even better, just don't judge people.

by Denny Crane 2007-09-25 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Good grief! Did you happen to read any part of Chris' diary? Did you forget to put <snark> and </snark> around your message?

Let's see. You called Chris names, cast aspersions on his intelligence, and impugned his progressive nature.

I happen to agree with you that Richardson's position on Iraq is bogus. But let's frame our disagreements within the confines of civility. I'm beginning to understand now why there were so few flame wars on this site, until recently.

by Bob Miller 2007-09-25 11:39AM | 0 recs
yeah cus he banned anyone

who disagreed with the majority sentiment.

that aint very progressive to me.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:36AM | 0 recs
His position is complete bs

he is claiming "no residual forces" in Iraq, no combat troops period when he would have them at the embassy as well. Its complete bullshit and a farce.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: His position is complete bs

embassies are actual part of the country whose embassy it is. So yes. there would be no troops left in Iraq. And they would have no authority to operate outside the gate, on Iraqi soil. That part makes an enormous difference and is not a mere technicality.

He's my least favorite candidate, but please educate yourself.

by Ernst 2007-09-25 02:41PM | 0 recs
And back at you

how exactly do you think those troops get in the embassy? Think they are all airlifted?

and do you know the difference between Richardson's position and Edwards's position?

If so, tell Richardson because he sure doesn't.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: And back at you

My god. Are you seriously comparing troops moving from an a airport through a city to an embassy to an occupation?

According to your logic, the US invades a country every time a servicemen leaves an embassy to go out for a drink. The US has several hundreds of embassy's. Most of those feature servicemen. So we're occupying the entire world. If this is the level of your reasoning...

As for the difference between Richardson's position and Edwards? Do your own homework I feel no need to do it for you. I'm not against Edwards, I'm not for Richardson, so I don't feel the need to get into a fanboy discussion.

by Ernst 2007-09-26 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

You can do whatever you want on your 'openleft', but I don't believe it's productive for you to police myDD anymore.

by areyouready 2007-09-25 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

i wonder why...

by leewesley 2007-09-25 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation
Considering that you have been warned four times, and have a mojo of only 1.1, I don't think you are in a position to talk to others about moderations.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Thank you.  On of the worst posters on this site, period.

by iamready 2007-09-25 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

He is without a doubt one of the worst. But I'd be careful denouncing him if I were you as your conduct here is far from spotless as well.

Pot and Kettle.

by Ernst 2007-09-25 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Except most people have been REACTING to him.  If he was gone, I'd bet money the site improves tenfold.

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-25 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

If we start banning people to improve the site it sure shouldn't be just limited to him.

I've noticed that the people who scream the loudest to have him banned are also the people who should be next in line if they get their wish. I've got little patience for people who claim it's alright to be troll because somebody else did it first. Especially as they're not half as discriminate as they claim they are.

Only a troll would constantly react to another troll by sinking down to that level. No matter how you sell it two people being assh*les = two people being assh*les.

by Ernst 2007-09-26 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

My conduct, PALES, to that individual, period.

by Edna Howard 2007-09-26 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Come on Chris... One more Ban... for old time sakes... you'd make a LOT of people very happy on here.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-25 04:23PM | 0 recs
oh snap!

Killer comeback Chrissie!

You BURNED him/her!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:37AM | 0 recs
Its pretty sad really

looked through a number of David's posts in that diary and you (and Matt) trollrated him merely for having the audacity to disagree with you. And it seems pretty clear thats why you banned him as well.

Hardly "open" and hardly "left", at least not the progressive left.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 10:33AM | 0 recs
Just one example

http://www.openleft.com/viewRating.do?ra teCommentId=12113

check out the zeros.

as the founders of OpenLeft you do your own site a disservice for silencing what appears to be honest disagreement.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 10:42AM | 0 recs
and it seems pretty clear

that everyone's opinion depends on what candidate someone supports.  You support David because David supports Edwards.  It is all such a fucking bore and so transparent.  Geez, if kos says Clinton is running a great campaign, he's a Clinton supporter and supports the Iraq war and Murdoch.

If Gore doesn't run I will probably support Clinton.  I am not terribly upset about her position in Iraq, but I am not thrilled by it either.  I disagree with Lori.  She is a conservative democrat, I am practically falling off the left side of the democratic platform on most issues.
I'd be perfectly happy if we had pulled every last troop out two years ago.  I am willing to believe there is not a damn thing we can do to fix the place and I am not going to condemn any of the candidates for their ideas about Iraq.  Let's just start getting the hell out of there and start placing the blame where it belongs, on bush and the republicans.
This bashing democrats is bullshit.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 01:27PM | 0 recs
well, let's test that comment...

because you like to bash democrats here a lot.  but now that we know how you feel, let's see you live up to it.  i'll believe you when i see you act on it...

by bored now 2007-09-25 01:48PM | 0 recs
baloney

I call other people on their bashing and lying.  

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 03:49PM | 0 recs
you call other democrats on their whatever...

i don't see you focusing on republican's bashing and lying at all.  kinda weird, but whatever...

by bored now 2007-09-25 06:25PM | 0 recs
Do you really?

here's one of your recent wonderful comments:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/9/18/1 83533/667/76#76

"pssssttt.... (0.40 / 5)

because there is no real issue.  It's all bullshit and gossip.  John Edwards is an ass and he's desperate.  He's losing and he is trying to dig his nails in before he falls off the cliff altogether.
I will say this for him though, he isn't hiding behind his wife anymore and making her look like a harpy. "

and a hell of a lot more like that.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: and it seems pretty clear

Let's just start getting the hell out of there and start placing the blame where it belongs, on bush and the republicans.
This bashing democrats is bullshit.

I agree with you completely.

by Freaky Thirsty 2007-09-25 05:36PM | 0 recs
While its a nice statement

her actions don't quite back this up:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/25/1429 /47799#158

her hidden comments are full of things just like that.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: While its a nice statement

I don't disagree with you. Just agreeing with the point.

by Freaky Thirsty 2007-09-26 03:12AM | 0 recs
And yet you bash democrats

all the time, certainly much more than you actually have positive posts.

Regardless of who I support or who David supports, his comments arent worth being trollrated and don't deserve being banned for.

Its as simple as that even if you can't see it. Your post is a perfect example of what you seem to be complaining about.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Its pretty sad really

If I had to moderate a site, I would tolerate more crap than Bowers. However, the point he made was not just the namecalling, but the attribution of false views without backing it up. I have noticed that a lot on MYDD where we argue in circles because half the time we are trying to set the record straight.

by Pravin 2007-09-25 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

I hate to say it Chris, but I really find what David said in those links you provided as someone trying to have a productive argument with you.  Of course, since you are one of the moderators on OpenLeft, you have the right to ban someone, but I also believe that he has the right to point out that he thinks it was wrong, whether that's on DailyKos or here at MyDD.

Look, I understand that you and Matt did a tremendous amount of work here and should justifably be proud of that, but by continuing to harp on his postings it just makes you look more petty than you actually are.

Just my $.02.

by minvis 2007-09-25 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation
It is not just a tremendous amount of work. What I did on MyDD is, without exaggeration, my life's greatest work. I dumped everything I had into this site for over three years. So yes, it matter to me. It matters to me a lot. And if you think it is petty for me to object when I am attacked in a front page post here, I think you greatly underestimate what I put into this site emotionally, physically, psychologically, and intellectually. It was my very being. It was who I was, and it changed my life forever.

And can you really say that telling me I am in favor of continuing the occupation of Iraq, attributing a position to me that I never agreed with (a massive American embassy), telling me I am dense, and then saying I hedge my writing based on what Clinton staffers think of me is productive? There may have been an argument to be had, but it was lost in the tone and the invectives. The same thing happened in this latest post. No one commented on what he wrote--the comments were all negative about me. I think that pretty much sums up the message that gets through in Mizner's writing.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

I just read through the whole thread again and I think both of you are to blame.  Sure, I don't have the emotional investment in this site and the work you have done for it, but I think it would have been better to let the thread continue and see where it ended up.  As I looked at the thread, the argument between you and David had ended and other posters were bringing up other points.  It was only when you upbraided another Edwards poster for upgrading David's post about the embassy, that David responded again.

That is why I think you must accept some blame as well for this.

by minvis 2007-09-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

I feel you, but you must take feeling "out of this".  I did not find anything offensive in his argument with you.  Nothing.  He just disagreed.  Sometimes it is like looking at the piece you wrote, 4 eyes are better than 2.  Maybe you should have had someone unaffliated with the piece to read it and the thread, then listen to what they had to say.  I think you explained it all above, by your feelings.  And a lot of times, feelings do get in the way.

by iamready 2007-09-25 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

He certainly misused his candidate diary. His support seemed to come largely from Edwards supporters. the support felt more based on pure primary partisanship then actual merits. He acted wrongly.

by Ernst 2007-09-25 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

I agree.  I was shocked to see a pissing contest from openleft brought over here into a candidate front page diary.   It probably should have been separated into substantive frontpage diary and simple diary for the pissing contest, but I really don't see why this stuff has to be hashed out here anyway.  The same is true for dkos stuff.   Not really needed here.  

by georgep 2007-09-25 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Bower and Stoller are both too pro-hillary.

Anyway , isn't it Stoller the guy who called Obama supporters maxisist kids on a web video?

by JaeHood 2007-09-25 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

He did.

But Bowers claims that it is the invectives that mizner uses are the problem.

Interesting standards for others.

by pioneer111 2007-09-25 11:29AM | 0 recs
I think you mean

they aren't sufficiently full of hate for her. It is like a disease for some of you.  If anyone admits she is right about anything or admires her campaign or gives her credit in any way, you all accuse them of being moderates, supporting the Iraq war, being in bed with corporate America and secretly being on her payroll.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 01:40PM | 0 recs
you know, i occassionally say something nice...

about hillary and her campaign, and i've never once been attacked for it.  i've been questioned by hillary supporters because of it, but never once attacked for it.  so you are wrong...

by bored now 2007-09-25 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re

Well... I don't think people will mistake your comments in favor as endorsements long as you've got your Grover Norquist quote up. Besides your position that you don't want Hillary to be the nominee is well known even with out that quote. So it isn't completely the same.

The front pagers and ex-front pagers like Chris and Matt do tend to get a lot of flak for everything positive or neutral about Clinton, even though most of them have gone on record as against her nomination as well.

And Jaehood is one of the worst offenders. But this site could do with a little more respect all around. Davids taking his dispute with Chris to the front page was particularly laking in class.

by Ernst 2007-09-25 03:06PM | 0 recs
good point!

although the quote is more for those who couldn't believe that there were insider conservatives who were desperate for hillary to be the dem nominee.

and, yeah, i'm not exactly silent about what i think...

by bored now 2007-09-25 06:27PM | 0 recs
blah blah blah
I am not talking to you, are you the blog owner in question or a Front pager at any of the blog being discussed?  No?
BTW, I am right.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 04:13PM | 0 recs
i thought your comment was directed at JaeHood...

who i don't think is either.  but, regardless, the point stands.  again, i note that i never get criticized for saying something nice about hillary...

by bored now 2007-09-25 06:28PM | 0 recs
OpenLeft

I used to check out Open-Left but stopped because the blog sounded too much like HillaryHub.com

by JaeHood 2007-09-25 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft
Wonderfully substantiated comments.
Can you actually find any flaws in my polling analysis, or do you just not like it because the numbers are not what you want to see?
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

I actually read your blog and several others and I am not bothered who you support .

It is the iraq position you are pushing in that ad that I have a problem with.

You are perfectly within your right to choose whoever you want to support or endorse and in most cases your analysis is usually fine but on Iraq the Bowers/Richardson position is irresponsible.

Richardson knows better than that , he is looking for a rise in the polls in Iowa especially , because  that position I don't believe will play well in New Hampshire.

by lori 2007-09-25 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

I actually think a support from a blogger is counter productive and for Richardson to go as far as cutting an ad , shows he is not a serious candidate.

by lori 2007-09-25 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

This has always been Richardson's position on Iraq and I have no problem with it.  He's not pandering.  He believes like I do that there is nothing we can do there and that the Iraqi people have a right to want us the hell out.
I also believe that Clinton is sincere in her position.  I simply refuse to judge any of them on their position on Iraq.  I do however judge them for attacking each other and trying to make political points by acting like jackasses, like Edwards and Obama have been doing.
It's a national freaking tragedy and for these candidates and EE to be trying to make points off of the worst international FUBAR in our history at the expense of another democrat is despicable because it takes the focus off of who is really to blame, BUSH and the repubicans and the media.

My dearest wish is that Gore runs and wins, because he gets it, everything that is wrong and how to fix it.  And as much respect as I have for Hillary and as great as it would be to have the first woman president and I think she is far superior to anyone else running now, Gore is who we really need.  But I don't want to see Clinton supporters act like the rest of these people.  There are lots of valid opinions about Iraq.  No one can claim there is only one valid way to look at this and we can't possibly know what is going to happen there no matter what we do.  We can only hope and pray for the best.  The best outcome is still heart breaking for the people of Iraq.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

I wish that Gore would run too. It would make making up my mind who to support a whole lot easier.

by Freaky Thirsty 2007-09-25 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

For the record, Chris, while I disagreed with the inflated polling theory (as I have stated in the original diary, if anything, the polls probably understate Clinton's support somewhat) I think you are one of the best poll analysts around, bar none.  

by georgep 2007-09-25 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft
And I always found you to be a very productive commenter who didn't engage in personal attacks. We don't have the same opinion on the primaries, but you are a good guy to have around.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

Your post is problematic, as it pursues the exact track that we should not go into as often as you do (flaming, insults, etc.)   I think that the site could use a somewhat tighter screen for such personal insults.    

by georgep 2007-09-25 12:58PM | 0 recs
is calling someone obnoxious...

or whatever a personal insult?

i may not just have a thick skin.  i may have a thick head or something...

by bored now 2007-09-25 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

i like george's haircut- hip but restrained.

well done sir.

by leewesley 2007-09-25 04:06PM | 0 recs
I agree

Chris,

the google bomb your organized in 2006 is still one of the greatest bits of activism ever.  I have a different take on banning  than you do, but that is because I am not a good joiner, I don't get into joining gangs of whiners organized to bait and then whine about people they want banned.  It happens more than you think and even if you aren't responding to that sort of thing lots of blogs and message boards are.

Many many times those people are acting just as badly, but they people they are insulting don't have a crew backing them up and can't be bothered to spend time complaining to admin.
However I think you are certainly entitled to do what you want with your blogs. And you have the courtesy to explain yourself which many people do not bother to do.
My experience has been that the more you have moderators and rules the more you will have people trying to find out how to manipulate them, because no matter what, during primary season there are going to be battles.  But with more rules the sneaky snotty people will prevail.  And I really don't like sneaky snotty people. I prefer people with thicker skins who can roll with the punches.... your mileage may vary.  

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

Wonderfully substantiated comments.
Can you actually find any flaws in my polling analysis, or do you just not like it because the numbers are not what you want to see?

It would be the latter.

by Denny Crane 2007-09-25 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

I don't agree at all.  I find some great posts there and continue to go there almost every day.  This is not a case of Open Left or Chris or Matt being horrible shills for anyone.  This is just an unfortunate event for everyone involved.

by minvis 2007-09-25 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: OpenLeft

likewise.

It's got the best analysis around. I'm not convinced about the bush dog campaign yet. But I'm glad that Open left is around. One of my daily reads.

by Ernst 2007-09-25 03:11PM | 0 recs
boy you need some reading goggles

Stoller is one of the founders of the he man hillary hating club (harvad chapter)

yes he is swoon-y for clark and all confused, but that doesnt change he is a charter member.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:42AM | 0 recs
I find Open Left

to be uninteresting.  Others may find it interesting.  It really is not very important in the grand scheme of things.

by TomP 2007-09-25 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left
And this is relevant to what I wrote how, exactly? But thanks for dropping by to make a general attack on my new venture. Very productive.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

Chris, you shouldn't be bothering with these Nader 2000 supporters.

by Adam B 2007-09-25 11:24AM | 0 recs
Wow

Low blow!

Nader's people can still vote can't they, and this is a new election isn't it.

OR are you implying that some voters don't matter?

by dk2 2007-09-25 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Nope, Anyone who voted for Nader in the past is to be sent to Dante's hell.

Adam is part of the "new politics that is inclusive" as defined by Obama.  
He is such a good example of it.  LOL.  He really is amusing me these days.

by pioneer111 2007-09-25 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

which circle?

by leewesley 2007-09-25 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

And this is relevent, how?

People don't care who others supported back in 2000. Most people don't dwell in the past but work in the here and now.

by NCDemAmy 2007-09-25 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

It goes to their judgment now, as does Edwards' own legislative record.

by Adam B 2007-09-25 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

Are you suggesting that good judgment means supporting the same candidate as you?

by justinh 2007-09-25 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

Of course not.

by Adam B 2007-09-25 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

So this is a trial for two MyDD users? I thought it was a discussion on the topic of moderation.

Some days, Adam, I think you're one of the classiest people on these blogs.  Some days are like this, and I wonder if someone has hacked your account.

by Junior Bug 2007-09-25 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

I'm sorry to have disappointed you; I just get tired of the personal harassment.

by Adam B 2007-09-26 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

Interesting finding. So TomP and David both voted for Nader in 2000. Need we say more?

by areyouready 2007-09-25 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

I think you do.  What's point are you making by who they voted for in 2000.

by justinh 2007-09-25 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

Do you really want areyouready to say more?  I would prefer if he said less, wouldn't you???

by pioneer111 2007-09-25 06:41PM | 0 recs
ban him, burn him, hang him high!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:44AM | 0 recs
Everyone knows i didn't vote nader

and I have no problems with Edwards' judgment.

I think the attack on people based on who they voted for in 2000, especially when they have quite obviously seen the light, is a non-sequitur.

by DrFrankLives 2007-09-25 02:15PM | 0 recs
its those that HAVEN'T seen the light

that are the prpblem.

To see how many of those are at these sites, I suggest you look at the diaries yesterday here and at kos about the news that Nader is (as Ive frigging been saying he would!) again...

About half of the comments are from Nader supporters and enablers...

Which makes then enablers of a Bush enabler...)

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:47AM | 0 recs
Adam...

Weren't you just yesterday talking about how important it is not to make it personal?

by citizen53 2007-09-25 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam...

always tries to sound like he comes from higher ground.

LOL, he is so transparent.

by pioneer111 2007-09-25 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam...

I get told all the time by y'all that information about me that I've made public (like, that I'm a "lawyer") is fair game.

by Adam B 2007-09-25 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam...

When my friends are personally attacked, I will defend them.

by Adam B 2007-09-25 06:39PM | 0 recs
Your definition of personal attack...

is laughable.  Almost like your views on what is constitutional.

by citizen53 2007-09-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

Did TomP vote for Nader in 2000?  That would explain the persistant bully behavior and the sense of entitlement and complete cluelessness to the rights of other people to have a voice.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

yes

by areyouready 2007-09-25 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I find Open Left

Sounds like a self portrait to me.  What a bunch of self righteous prigs.  LOL.

This is the funniest thread in a while, quite unintentional I am sure.  

by pioneer111 2007-09-25 06:39PM | 0 recs
A lot of good people

supported Nader. So what? That's old news and neither here nor there. That has absolutely nothing to do with thid diary or with what is being discussed here.

And it is very rude to bring in personal attacks based upon comments at another cite. You really should know better than that.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A lot of good people

Don't you know?  Adam is perfect just like his candidate who can do no wrong.  

They both have perfect judgment, always.  LOL.  

by pioneer111 2007-09-25 06:37PM | 0 recs
It seems it

would be relevant to mean that the world goes on even if Top Bloggers who have "a possible major" site, think that all revolves around what they write and say, kind of like MSM and all the journalist that have given up on writing truth and substantial articles vs. taking any easier route and just writing what they want because they think it is important because "they" said it and they have the venue (front page).

by dk2 2007-09-25 11:49AM | 0 recs
lol, shorter TomP

they don't love Edwards, they don't hate Clinton.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-25 02:47PM | 0 recs
Peace

Censorship is never a good thing. We need the opposition voices. If nothing else they help to make our points seem more relevant.

I did not see anything objectionable to the comments you posted above. They are annoying but hardly offensive. If it were me I would not have banned the person. But it is your blog and your choice. I do think that the person frontpaging the episode here was probably not the coolest thing to do.

Honestly we all need to remember that essentially we are on the same side. We disagree on methodology and messenger but in large part we support the exact same goals. Let's try to be friendly and respectful with each other and save our fighting for the Republicans.

by Freaky Thirsty 2007-09-25 11:14AM | 0 recs
friendly and respectful

That seems to be the environment that Chris is trying to maintain. It's basic human nature. Until rules are enforced some people are just not going to respect them.

What happens on the roads when there are no cops around? What speed limit?

MyDD is no longer enforcing their stated rules on banning. Can we call this place friendly and respectful?

by JoeCoaster 2007-09-25 11:27AM | 0 recs
dude you just want to ban those that dont agree

with you.

Just like Bowers.

Just like anyone, ever, that tries to BAN  dissenting speech.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: dude you just want to ban

Clearly there's a difference between "dissenting speech" and disrespectful or combative discourse, right?

by justinh 2007-09-26 06:24AM | 0 recs
to ban

is to silence.

---

I think your pro nader wahoo is ridiculous

but i would never ever ban you, or silence you

even though i might wanna bop you on the head

with a union made campaign lawn sign

and make everyone aware that youre a danger

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

I think all you have to do is compare the before and after to draw the conclusion that MyDD was a better and more interesting site back when Chris was implementing his approach to moderation.

Of course, the folks who would be banned in an instant if real moderation were taking place here say that things are much better now.  But they would, wouldn't they?

One suggestion, Chris, is that I'd draw a distinction between personal attacks in general and personal attacks on yourself as the site owner.  It's easy for me to say, but sometimes I think you have to be more tolerant of the latter, and let people take shots at you that you'd consider banworthy if they were attacking a regular user.

There's still a line that shouldn't be crossed, of course.  But I think it's impossible to be objective when you're the target of the attacks, and you don't want your site to get the reputation of a place where it's forbidden to disagree with the site owner, even if you think it's silly for anyone to think that.

Mull it over, I agree with your approach to moderation on the whole, but I think it's a little tricker when it's your own interests you're defending.

by Steve M 2007-09-25 11:17AM | 0 recs
Excellent post

personally I don't think things are better here now with them gone - we could use more active moderation here.

But the approach taken at OpenLeft seems to be an extreme in the other direction. A healthy middle ground on both sites would be nice with the goal of encouraging honest discussion and not stifling it even when it does strike a bit close to home.

by okamichan13 2007-09-25 11:24AM | 0 recs
I think there are a bunch of total

idiots here - and I do think some folks have horrible manners- but as long as their Democrats - I think banning ANY of them would be a grave sin.

I simply cant understand any one who doesnt defend their right to their opinion.

As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'

Anyone who wouldnt, is a punk.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I think there are a bunch of total

Go Voltaire.  And at least he was eloquent as often as he was mistaken.  I would forgive a lot of the trespasses of others if they were at least witty or well-spoken.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-25 04:45PM | 0 recs
Dont you be messin' with my Voltaire -

Willis!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Dont you be messin' with my Voltaire -


To hold a pen is to be at war.  This world is one vast temple consecrated to discord.

Voltaire

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-26 06:13AM | 0 recs
oh man is that good!

it gave me a chill.

and made me think of my old pal (don't tell anyone - then theyll REALLY  hate me here) Christopher the Hitch.

Those words really do fit him well.  He is always at war, always at battle.  Always, always, always.

I admire him enormously. Though i disagree with him frequently.

And im not just talking the war...remember, in the 90s he wrote a book about the Clintons, called I believe:  No One Left To Lie To: The Values of Americas Worst Family.

Yikes.

IMHO, the Hitch has been way misunderstood.  His whole war stance is about the fatwas on his pal Rushdie and the plight of the kurds under Saadam. That built ih him an honorable anger.  On those two things, between us, there isnt a crack of daylight..but...

A few years ago, actually the night after bush's second inaug, I was sharing his flask outside the warner theaters alley and I said to him that the Bushies were using him - and man, did he explode at me... It was Great.

The best part of his recent state of being a man with no flag is to watch the right wing freaks pretend and believe that he is one of them and try to corral him under their banner as a convert...oh does he eviscerate them, bowel by bowel, when they try to do that.

Im gonna send him that quote and say hey.   Ill expect back a response in about ...5 1/2 weeks...though brilliant, he is a sloppy guy in his correspondence...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: oh man is that good!

He probably already knows it.  I agree with him about a lot of things, and find other views of his totally indefensible, but he is a fine example for us all of a person not lazily adopting whatever belief system is fashionable lately among one's circle friends and co-admirers.  We could use a healthy dose of The Age of Enlightenment right now.  I love the notion of individual sovereignty with all the risk and responsibility that implies.

I eagerly studied 20th Century history as an amateur enthusiast most of my adult life then had a major epiphany when I finally read Chomsky; I walked around for days like I had just awakened from a coma.  Then the 'belief system' rot set in again, as it always does.   Reading their debates made me feel a bit like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-26 03:28PM | 0 recs
chomsky is an alien of smartness

i mean he, by his self changed the entire study of linguistics, and I used to believe every single word he wrote - bt....I knew that some of the things he wrote about binia-croatia-kosovo were way off the mark - so now I just buy about 92% of what hes selling - but that still is a shattering view.

Hitch, is also I think on some kind of personal angry response bit - his brother, the nation, sidney blumenthal etc...and all ...but I do believe that he believes hes been defending the right thing...ie the kurds and those like his pal rushdie who get gang fatwa-ed by muslim extremists.

He still is one radical son of a bitch.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: chomsky is an alien of smartness

Yeah, I like them both.  Chomsky is my geopolitical hero though, he is also a card carrying member of the IWW, by the way.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-27 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: chomsky is an alien of smartness

i tried desperately to get him on the old labor funded radio show i produced , but he's a semi hermit...hitch we had on all the way through to the last day we got our plug unplugged.

he is gonna be a terror on the clintons  if (ill give that 'if' to ya, though i think its now a ludicrous necessity) Hill is the nominee...yikes...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: chomsky is an alien of smartness

Yeah, I kinda' agree with him but you've convinced me that if she's nominated we will just have to grin and bear it.  I'll vote for her in the general in that case.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-27 09:47AM | 0 recs
you better

i dont wanna hear no bitchin from you until the cherry blossoms pop again -

man i f-ing hate winter

its 80 degrees today and im already cold

(in truth im on my sailboat with the ac on - but i am really worrying about the end of warm days..

eh...but i do expect to busy from the week of the nh primary on...)

though ill be up there as a very biased...neutral...of course...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: you better

Yeah, wish I could be there.  Hmmm...  I gotta' hit the sack it's 4:00AM here and the roosters are crowing...  Catch you tomorrow.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-27 10:00AM | 0 recs
swell

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: chomsky is an alien of smartness

i tried desperately to get him on the old labor funded radio show i produced , but he's a semi hermit...hitch we had on all the way through to the last day we got our plug unplugged.  He was our last guest in studio...

he is gonna be a terror on the clintons  if (ill give that 'if' to ya, though i think its now a ludicrous necessity) Hill is the nominee...yikes...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 09:30AM | 0 recs
the first poem that shook me

The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death.

The mighty hand leads to a sloping shoulder,
The finger joints are cramped with chalk;
A goose's quill has put an end to murder
That put an end to talk.

The hand that signed the treaty bred a fever,
And famine grew, and locusts came;
Great is the hand that holds dominion over
Man by a scribbled name.

The five kings count the dead but do not soften
The crusted wound nor pat the brow;
A hand rules pity as a hand rules heaven;
Hands have no tears to flow.

Dylan Thomas

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:48AM | 0 recs
Yeah...

In My Craft of Sullen Art

In my craft of sullen art
Exercised in the silent night
When only the moon rages
And the lovers lie abed
With all their griefs in their arms,
I labour by singing light
Not for ambition or bread
Or the strut or trade of charms
On the ivory stages
But for the common wages
Of their most secret heart.

Not for the proud man apart
From the raging moon I write
On these spendthrift pages
Nor for the towering dead
With their nightingales and psalms
But for the lovers, their arms
Round the griefs of the ages,
Who pay no praise or wages
Nor heed my craft or art.

Dylan Thomas

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-26 03:50PM | 0 recs
Nor for the towering dead

many moons ago when I was sub my twenties, I took a nice girl to the white horse tavern wher DT,famously consumed his last 18 scotches and then we went over to the Chelsea Hotel where for the first night of my life, I a new adult, was going to rent a hotel for some nightime a-frolic...

I drunkenly asked the night clerk if we could have the room that Dylan Thomas died in...he responded, I dont know what room it was - but I know what floor...

and then she and I,we, went to visit him..

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Nor for the towering dead

That's a great tale...  I hope your sweetheart enjoyed the visit as much as you did.  It was my old man who put me on to Dylan Thomas, I looked up that poem in on old dog-eared volume which is one of my most cherished possessions.  My Dad revered him.  You just can't explain it to people, they either get it or they don't.

Oh I was young and easy in the mercy of his means, time held me green and dying though I sang in my chains like the sea.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-27 08:22AM | 0 recs
it didnt end well

i told her we had to get out befor 6 am...cause my check (they used ro take checks 25 yrs ago imagine) was gonna bounce...and we over slepped (shock)and were awakened by a very pissed off hotel manager and she had to get the dough..

when i was around 11 or 12 or so, i was on my uncles sailboat with his visiting and extremely brilliant son, who was a rising acclaimed sculptor and he was reading a paperback dylan thomas...and i asked him what that was all about...and he answered by telling me that someday "Id find out..."

and though this was true, he sadly died before we could have the chance to discuss it...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: it didnt end well

Yeah, I got thrown out of this lovely lasses little flat in Tokyo early one morning without my clothes (well they followed me down the stairs) when I made the fatal, youthful, groggy mistake of asking her if we had 'done it' the night before.  I'll never do that again...  Shucks.

Well you lived to discuss it with somebody, anyhow.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-27 09:51AM | 0 recs
now...thats...

funny!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 09:59AM | 0 recs
now...thats...

funny!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-27 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation
One thing I will say is that front page posters are attacked, a lot. The personal attacks are far more frequent against us. If we tolerated those, we would be tolerating about half of all personal attacks on blogs this size or smaller. It wouldn't cut down the attack very much.
As far as the objections to personal attacks against front-page poster being taken more seriously than those against other commenters, those worries are very much unwarrented. The "especially" comes in simply in that I notice the ones against me quicker. If you want to speed up the banning process, do something bannable that I will notice right away.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 12:34PM | 0 recs
every critical comment i write is dissapeared

exactly.  thats my problem with you. i dont give a damn.  im writing directly to you.

im serious buddy.  tell lux.  after feb 5 - we will be coming right after your funding.

expect it.  know its coming.

the grown ups dont like the yipping insulting attacks by your partner on our party leaders.  we feel youre leading a lot of easily influenced dem leaning people the wrong way, for your own benefit, not the party's.  

but, youve also built a nice group of young dc dem activists who hold u 2s arrogance in great contempt.

id luv to tel ya more, but i dont wanna give too much away.

ill give ya a hint though.  you and i have met.  and my colleague who is gonna round up the new round of dc pol tech pros - to press this before the general - is a stars star of the dc pol youth - and he knows stoller well - broken bread with him - and cant stand him.  We have had meetings with powerful young pol women who have kept lists of sexist remarks from your bro --  and most importantly, we have a great angle to come at you with, but that i wont mention...why should i - youll just disappear that too.

thats the reason i personally, have contempt for you and know youll lose - because anyone i go to - any senator say - or a pres nominee and show how you actively forbid free speech..?...you think youre gonna win that argument?  what with the defense that free speech just gets too unruly?

good luck with that!

And thanks again for your arrogant post today.  its gonna be a great help.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 12:56PM | 0 recs
I am not giving you a 0 rating

because I think it's better for this comment not to be hidden.

Where do you get off making threats like this? It doesn't reflect well on you.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-25 01:08PM | 0 recs
because i am talking directly to him

i am allowed my pov

just like you

petty tyrants (like stoller)arent the only ones who are allowed free speech in the dem party.

i think you have written some pretty extreme and nasty anti clinton stuff - but i wouldnt ban you either

i dont care about youre ratings (though it does seem quite petty and childish to me)

i didnt get in politics to make nice, i got in it to support the election of democrats. period.

stoller has written that if hillary is elected -

"maybe WE should consider primary-ing her in 2012??  

i mean - what the f is with that comment??!!

i wasnt making threats, i was telling him whats coming.

i want bowers and stoller to know that people who dont like their actions have not forgotten some of what theyve said.

and if they want to take money out of the institutional democratic pie - they had better change their ways, between now and then.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 01:24PM | 0 recs
maybe WE should consider primary-ing her in 2012?

got a link for this comment.  i wouldn't have seen it since i basically don't read openleft.  but it seems out of place, and i can't believe they said that without confirmation...

by bored now 2007-09-25 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: maybe WE should consider primary-ing her in 20

stoller said it - looked at the site - no search engine - i started to page thru - but itd take too much time - he said it - i saw it - and realized he was even more crazed then even i thought

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 03:39PM | 0 recs
naw, it's not worth it...

i don't read openleft.  it seems like a very strange thing to say and leave it at that...

by bored now 2007-09-25 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: because i am talking directly to him

you made a very personal threat actually. but its all good cause you clearly proved yourself to be a big strong man.

by leewesley 2007-09-25 04:13PM | 0 recs
and Im smarter then you too

and better looking

Dont hate me for it.  Maybe your next life...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 04:18PM | 0 recs
and Im smarter then you too

and better looking

Dont hate me for it.  Maybe your next life...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: and Im smarter then you too

smarter THAN you.

by leewesley 2007-09-25 04:31PM | 0 recs
MERDE!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: MERDE!

victory is mine!!!

by leewesley 2007-09-25 04:52PM | 0 recs
Drats!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: every critical comment i write is dissapeared

i seem to remember someone complaining about threats earlier in this thread, who was that?

ps. did you fap while writing that rant?

by leewesley 2007-09-25 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: every critical
You should not write something like this on a board- it's almost menacing- let's not lose control here, folks.
by reasonwarrior 2007-09-25 05:44PM | 0 recs
Holden

I don't think I've ever replied to one of your comments before. I've got no problem with you, you've got no problem with me. I'm a proud Democrat working to defeat Republicans (albeit in my free time, not as a job). You and I are on the same side.

With all of that said, this comment and the others like it scare me. You complain about forbidding free speech, and at the same time threaten the funding that allows Chris and Matt to operate? Isn't there an inherent contradiction right there?

Frankly, I don't care how important you are in Democratic circles, making threats to someone's livelihood crosses the line. It's pretty damn scary, and it's eerily reminiscent of threats used by a lot of bad characters throughout history to silence those that disagree with them.

In other words, as an advocate for free speech, you aren't doing yourself any favors.

Now, on my blog (shameless link), I take a very different view than Chris. I let people say whatever they want, try to engage them on the substance of the issues, and plea with my readers to maintain a civil tone. That works most of the time, but not all of the time, and sometimes I do have to draw a line and say enough is enough.

On Open Left, Chris has drawn the line in a different place that I would have, but he has every right to do so. A newspaper can choose not to publish a letter to the editor, a radio show can choose to cut off a caller, and a blog administrator can choose to delete a comment or ban a user.

Are any of those people right all of the time? No. But by participating in a given forum, you have to accept that there will be rules which govern the debate. When you disagree with the implementation of the rules, you can state that and you can work to change the way they're implemented.

But don't you think most people would think you were pretty wacky if you tried to get companies to stop advertising in the local paper because they didn't publish your LttE?

I don't know. I have a lot of respect for Chris, and am giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. But your comment scared the hell out of me.

by Fitzy 2007-09-25 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Daily Kos is for the political community, MyDD is for the advocates, Open left if for the political number crunchers.

It's a more limited audience but far from elitist.

by Ernst 2007-09-25 03:20PM | 0 recs
OK

While I understand the need for orderly conduct, I have to say this line from you says just about all for me:

"especially against front-page posters,"

I might have agreed with you Chris, if that line wasn't there.  It is all about Ego! Unfortunately for too many.

Why is it the getting to the top of a major blog changes from a priviledge to be thankful for to, I am suddenly the GATEKEEPER?

Not all monitoring is bad, but there is a big, huge difference in letting ego, and gatekeeping mentallity rule under the appearance of monitoring.

by dk2 2007-09-25 11:27AM | 0 recs
what a nancy...

What is it with you people "banning" people all the time?  Grow a pair Bowers.  I have read your buddy Stoller write things that make me want to blacken his eye, but I'd never say that he should be silenced because i disagree with him.

What is it about the word FREE SPEECH that you dont understand?

After Hillary wins the nomination (I know saying that used to be a bannable sin when you guys were here) I will make it my effort to explain to your funders (starting with my colleagues in the SEIU)why this crypto fascistic culture that you promote, silencing dissent, is not a positive as we learn to use the internet as an organizing tool.

This new net world is still just a babe.  The powers now may have little effect in just a few years.

There will be major changes for sure .  Expect it.

And tell Lux to expect a hell of a lot more pressure to either change or abandon your effort after Feb 5, then he has gotten so far.  Bet on it.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: what a nancy...

Union members LOVE Hillary.  They are crazy about her.  (source:  Gallup 9/17:  Amongst union members Clinton beats Edwards by 28%, Obama by 26%.)

by georgep 2007-09-25 05:57PM | 0 recs
Are you still a Moderator here?

I did not know that.

As for being attacked at a blog you built, come on Chris. Stoller seemed to attack Jerome a while back at Open Left on the Front Page there.

I think the better argument is that the attack on you had nothing to do with Edwards' candidacy.

But that you were attacked it seems to me, is the least of it.

In any event, this is Jerome's shop and he runs it as he pleases.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-25 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you still a Moderator here?
A. Jerome didn't help build up Open Left.
B. I deleted Matt's comment on Jerome when I saw it. I have seen no similar action taken on Mizner's diary, or on Jerome's original attack on us.
C. You are right, Jerome can run the blog anyway he wants. I said so in the diary.
D. I'm not moderating anything here. I'm just offering suggesstions.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you still a Moderator here?

Fair enough.

Good luck Chris. The best to you and to Matt.

I disagree with the two of you utterly on strategy and tactics right now but I know that you guys are acting in the manner you believe is best for the Party, for progressivism and for the country.

Later.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-09-25 01:42PM | 0 recs
what ?

by banning dissent?

That is a loser all around.

And as the net grows in actual influence in politics (believe me, I work in and outside - ie DC and campaigns)rather then just the perception of influence, we will look back and marvel that some of these big privately owned blogs BANNED those that differ with an aggressive majority or a tyrannical controlling "moderator"

Democrats believe in free an d open speech.  The exact thing that Bower says above that he has no time for.

It shocks me and I find it disgraceful that so few rebel against this kind of kingly crack down on unpopular commentary.

If this was done on the NYT  or another media site, people would be outraged and scream Rovian control and such...

Here and at Kos people join in the game.  Banning is sport on the net.  Its an embarrassment and an outrage.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 03:48PM | 0 recs
I'm just offering suggesstions.

aka

saying this place was so much better when I was around!

aka

do what I say, dont dare criticize me!  Im stopping the war! Im so important the gop put a hit squad after me!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 05:58AM | 0 recs
i just caught this...

I find nothing more tiresome than the claims about free speech and openness...

Man, I cant wait till these primaries are over - so we (there are a bunch of people in DC who can't stand your "townhouse" arrogance) can come out and go after your attempts to get funding.

I have friends on four of the campaigns who have said that will happily enjoy this.

Thanks for the diary.  i'll file it as evidence and ammo for when we come to prove just what a damaging influence your type truly are on our Party's internal dialog.

I like mike, everybody likes Mike.  But this won't be about Mike.  This will be about whats good for the Democratic Party.

No one, not one person I know who actually has more then a few years in Dem politics think that you and Stoller are good for the Dem Party.

Expect a pushback fella, its coming.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 11:55AM | 0 recs
threats don't make you look good

I think Bowers and Stoller have often been unfair in their assessments of Edwards, but I totally disagree with any attempt to undermine their sources of funding.

For someone supporting the "inevitable" candidate, you seem inexplicably angry at bloggers.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-25 11:58AM | 0 recs
im not trying to look &quot;good&quot;

and I dont care about Mojo"

I care about one thing and one thing only.  The Democratic Party.  That means, winning back the White House and expanding our majorities.

I think that Stoller in particular is a net negative for our Party.  Maybe, he can change his act, but he already has said many, many things that many people I know were shocked to read.

I love the internets, I know its our Party's future great tool.  But what you dont understand is that these sites are Funded by those in the wide Democratic institutional community.  Its not like they get their $ from pay pal...

There are right now less then one hundred thousand active, participating members at these "big blogs".  But somehow, the media keeps referring to them as our "base".  in the future, there will be MILLIONS  of Democrats communicating thru the net, I do not believe that petty tyrants like Stoller or gatekeepers like Bowers are the future of this activity.  At least as those concerns funded by Party organs are concerned.  Why do you think they brought Lux into their venture?  Because this is exactly what it is they want to be.  Insider Dems funded by Dem oriented organizations and sources.

There are only three things that make me angry about the blogs.

1) Nader enablers and those that threaten to not vote Dem if we dont do as they wish

2) Those that accuse ANY of our candidates of being "corrupt" (I haven't seen this here by any of the front pagers since Stoller left)

3) Those who try to stifle debate, by banning those that disagree with an overly aggressive majority or a tyrannical minority.

Stoller has repeatedly been guilty of #2 and today, Bowers has proudly bragged about being a singular representative of #3

We'll see.  But in my humble opinion, these fellows have way overestimated their power and their influence on the Democratic Party.  We'll see.

Mike Lux was their best move, I didnt say that theyre idiots, but from what i hear its not enough.  They had better tone down both their attacks on other Dems and their own arrogance.

Of course, if Bill Richardson, they'll be quite safe, but...come on...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: im not trying to look &quot;good&quot;

well, that's good.

ya know, i basically agreed with the first two comments you posted (03:35:00 PM EST and 03:44:52 PM EST), but this posts points to exactly why i have a problem with you.  you seem to be deluded into thinking that you (and perhaps you alone) know what's good for the democratic party.  now you've defined the democratic party down to what would basically be a fringe party, but that was just stupid.

you seem exceptionally disturbed by progressives.  your commitment to the party makes you -- at least you say -- intolerant of people with principles, and people who are more willing to stand by their principles than they are with any political party.  sure, as a labor person, perhaps you can ignore the ideological people who identify with the party.  after all, when the fdr coalition was constructed, racists were not only tolerated, they were "the base."  so perhaps ideological loyalty is directly opposed to partisan loyalty in your mind.

unlike you, and your narrow definition of the democratic party, i want the party to be able to reach out and appeal to a very broad spectrum of people in this country.  even people who voted for nader in 2000.  they aren't to blame for gore demise, and it's incredibly stupid to continue to blame them for his failed campaign.

unlike you, i want a democratic party that is a strong majority party, one that is a lot more flexible and tolerant of dissent than you could ever live with.

unlike you, i welcome people from all perspectives, people who think of themselves as democrats, even if they aren't straight ticket voters.

unlike you, i don't bury my head in the sand nor ignore the canary in the coal mine.  yes, you are absolutely right, there are people who are threatening not to vote democratic if hillary wins.  and we have a variety of reasons for this.  but instead of threatening excommunication -- and more years without a democrat in the white house -- a person who really cared about the democratic party would be more concerned with the reasons why.  democratic voters are.  not everyone is comfortable with the polarizing aspect of hillary's candidacy -- but very few people feel compelled to excommunicate people just because they can't vote for the democratic presidential nominee.

for whatever reason, you seem to believe that you are the democratic spanish inquisition.  you don't represent the democratic party that i work for or the principles that i'd like to see it represent.  rather, you represent our dark past, the things that we should be moving away from, the back room deals and the divine right of candidates (or is it just clintons?).  you seem to me to be the polar opposite of what both the party and mydd represents.

finally, we can only laugh at your disgust that the media would view the blogs as the home of the democratic base.  while i don't doubt that there are people who resent the kind of attention the blogs get from the media, you don't seem to understand why this is or what it means.  let's just admit that you are not a strategic thinker.  i agree with you that the blogs are not the democratic base, but they are a part of the activist base.  there are a lot of members of the democratic base who have never seen a blog.  but the media doesn't know who they are because they don't put themselves out there.  who's to blame for that?

more importantly, the blogs represent an easier path to partisan activism than what existed prior to their existence.  unlike you, i welcome the inclusion of all the new people who were activated by the net, who would never have gotten involved because they never knew how.  this is especially so in the states where the democratic party has become especially moribund.

for me, the question is, should the democratic party be a majority party -- an inclusive, tolerant, activists party -- which is what i advocate.  or should it be the minority, perhaps even fringe, party that fits your needs?  this is a major philosophical difference between us that cannot be assauged.  personally, i only want to be a member of the democratic party if it stands for things worth believing in, not merely because it is the democratic party.  even though i grew up in a democratic home, love of party was not the reason for our loyalty.  you completely miss the point.  democrats are democrats for a reason, for a purpose, not just because you want them to be...

by bored now 2007-09-25 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: i just caught this...

It's kind of funny to read these threats after you just got done passionately defending the right to free speech.

Free speech for all, unless it's bad for the Party, in which case there will be serious consequences.  Sigh.

by Steve M 2007-09-25 12:15PM | 0 recs
at least he's consistent...

by bored now 2007-09-25 01:43PM | 0 recs
oh, please

For moderators: If I constantly call people idiots and threaten that funding will be denied once Hillary is office can I stay on this site, too, and not be banned?

For dem dem: please tell us more about how important you are and how many important people you know and how much experience you have. For the record, if Molly Ivins were still here, she would direct her famous wit at you that you dare call yourself a yellow dog dem. She also said, "think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." You make it so easy.........

by royce 2007-09-25 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: i just caught this...

Gee, for someone making a declamatory case for free speech you sure seem to be collecting more than a few hide-your-comment zero ratings.  Are you collecting them?  Apparently some people think so.  I'm with Voltaire on this one as much as I can understand that some other posters find some of your comments offensive and overbearing.  If you have the cojones to question the motives and threaten the livelihoods of well known blog-site personalities I reckon you have the right to bear the consequences of your actions without being silenced.  You may have to stand and deliver at some point but somehow I imagine you are up for it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-09-25 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: i just caught this...
Again, I don't think something like this is appropriate- if you want to say something like this to someone, send them a private email, I don't see why it has to be made public- it doesn't look good at all.
by reasonwarrior 2007-09-25 05:51PM | 0 recs
I believe in second chances for banned posters

I think that if someone signs in under a different username and follows the rules, he or she should be able to keep posting.

I disagree with DKos protocol that says that once you have been banned, you are forever banned barring some extenuating circumstance (I saw that lovingj was able to negotiate reinstatement at Kos, but others have not been able to).

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-25 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I believe in second chances for banned posters
Part of the problem for smaller websites is that they attract a lot of the commenters who have been banned at Dailykos. A significant percentage of our pool of commenters comes from people who were banned there, and are looking for somewhere else to spread their bile. We tend to be troll magnets.
by Chris Bowers 2007-09-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Damn!
...A significant percentage of our pool of commenters comes from people who were banned there, and are looking for somewhere else to spread their bile...

...and I thought they came here for the waters - or was it the writing? I was misinformed. Whatever, there used to be a dubya involved in there somewhere.
by Michael Bersin 2007-09-25 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I believe in second chances for banned posters

Thanks for pointing that out.  I've always liked Mydd because it was a smaller community than Kos, and because it seemed posible to link the blog to concrete activism (indicated by Matt coming up here to CT to help Ned against Lieberman).  But it has recently seemed to devolve more and more into peurile ranting.  has there been an uptick in this behaviour, or am I just noticing it more?

by justinh 2007-09-25 12:40PM | 0 recs
when u post 20 posts defending Nader

in todays NADERS RUNNING thread - you deserve more then you got bucko

by holden caulfield 2007-09-25 03:50PM | 0 recs
I would like to find a place

with less hostility bandied about than DKos.  After what is nearly 5 years there, I would love to find an alternative where the emotions weren't as hot.

Perhaps when you discuss politics that is not possible.  As a lawyer I find it pretty easy to argue like hell and not take it personally; others seem to find this more difficult.

I do know this.  I am VERY tired of reading threads that turn into the intellectual equivalent of kindergartners yelling "liar liar pants on fire".  I wonder if people who engage in that practice realize how ridiculous the exchanges appear to others.

So maybe aggressively banning people is the answer.  It's dangerous - DKos has lost some of its best writers (and in a couple of instances the replacements have not been their equal) as a result actions that are frankly not entirely clear to me.   But its worth the try

by fladem 2007-09-25 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I would like to find a place

I agree with you about finding people to really debate with, which means being able to acknowledge a point made.  

Right now with the primary there is never an acknowledgment of a point.

Only Edwards people that I know have agreed that his vote in 2002 sucked but that his change in perspective caused us to reconsider him.

Everyone else seems to need to prove their candidate is flawless.  You can't debate in that context.

by pioneer111 2007-09-25 03:45PM | 0 recs
oh this is deep self criticism...

"Only Edwards people that I know have agreed that his vote in 2002 sucked but that his change in perspective caused us to reconsider him."

Oh thats deep...Deep...DEEP!

Oh, how that must have Tortures you!

Oh, youre so honest and open to self questioning..

If only those other nasty awful people were as honest as you...

boy, wouldnt that be swell?

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:02AM | 0 recs
Ha

To be honest, the exchange that got David banned didn't seem particularly egregious to me.  At various points, it seemed like David tried, specifically, to ratchet down the escalation and noted that he actually AGREED with Chris that Richardson's views on withdrawal were better than Edwards'.  That being said, Iraq is clearly a huge issue for Chris and I can understand why he felt insulted by, even indirectly, being labeled pro-occupation.  

All that being said, I do wish that there was a bit more room for forceful disagreement on the merits.  One thing I noticed at MYDD, right before Chris and Matt left, was what seemed to be an increasing rigidity to some of the front pagers views.  If you don't support 'x,' then your not a progressive.  So and so is a "bad" Democrat b/c they didn't do 'y.'  Certainly it's important to stand by core principles, but on some issues -- especially those involving war -- I wish Chris and Matt were more open to having a discussion about WHAT the application of those values should mean.  

Anyway, just my thoughts.  Above anything else, I continue to enjoy Chris's insiteful analysis.  Including when I disagree with it.

by HSTruman 2007-09-25 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Ha

The two days before Matt and Chris left were horrible.  They both had the audacity to write something complimentary about Clinton, and the wailing and teeth-gnashing was incredible.  Threats of a revolt by several Obama posters, accusations that they both are in Clinton's backpocket were thick as cream.   I almost felt that the constant never-ending personal attacks were the reason they decided to quit this place.   I guess it was planned long before, but, boy, was that some crazy crap from a LOT of rabid posters here.    

by georgep 2007-09-25 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Ha

Rabid posters, but I must admit I was pretty fed up with some of Matt's stuff before he left.  Your general point, however, is accurate.  The primary season really seems to have negatively infected this site.  I'm actually an Obama supporter myself, but strangelly don't think that obligates me to hate the other candidates.  In fact, and this may be shocking to hear on Mydd, I even think one can be a good progressive and disagree with me.  I know, radical stuff.  

by HSTruman 2007-09-25 08:28PM | 0 recs
yay!

the crap stops with Harry S.

my man!

wisdom from the midwest

indeed!

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:04AM | 0 recs
It's Making Me Dizzy

What I can't stand is a post that is convoluted or cloudy or woolly headed. I have no idea what 1/3 of the posters on this thread are really trying to say (won't tell you which ones!). When I have something to say, I just come out and say it. Frankly, I usually can handle flamers with ease. My problem is that posts with obscure, or even completely muddled arguments bother me severely. It seems to me that one could wreck ten times more havoc on a blog by obfuscating than by flaming or threating (which is odd indeed). I would be looking in at OpenLeft more often, but it looks pretty similar to MyDD to me, and I have my own special style, so I just started my own new blog.

I just think these are bad blog days around much of the 'net. Sometimes there are wonderful posts for a month, and then the murky stuff predominates for awhile. I'll continue to read at OpenLeft now and then. My guess is that if it hopes to become distinguished, it will have to pull some sort of a googlebomb style coup. Just my guess. Well good luck with it anyway.

by blues 2007-09-25 03:02PM | 0 recs
blind blog writing

haha, seems overblown, all of this... if saying "let-me-say-this-slowly" in response to "clear enough?" is the threshold, I'd be banning myself.

Let's all focus on helping Donna Edwards win.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-09-25 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: blind blog writing

...or Hillary Clinton.....    :-)

by georgep 2007-09-25 06:05PM | 0 recs
I'll Pass

by iamready 2007-09-26 04:57AM | 0 recs
u still havent responded to unfair banning at kos

that bullyboy yogi-shimo or something got everyont to troll rate and auto ban me - because he "proved" I was Aretouready

but you know thats not true

why have you said nothing?

does truth and fairness matter to you?

or do you to believe in banning dissent?

stand up or be a punk. your choice.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:09AM | 0 recs
Do you ever stop?

I disagree with Chris Bowers (I am joining the club)...george p is ridiculous on numerous levels.

Your love of national primary polls, when only around 15% of the sample actually votes (and low-info non-voters LOVE them some Hillary), is one of the reasons you are ridiculous.

Honestly, at this point, supporting Mrs. Unelectable is ridiculous.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-09-26 06:17AM | 0 recs
serving various purposes

I personally am very thankful for the leadership and insight that Chris has shown over the past years.  He's offered insights and perspectives that we could not find elsewhere, and really making time to analyze issues that otherwise wouldn't get proper attention.

My preference is the issue-focused dialogue on OpenLeft.com, though I now see a distinct purpose for mydd.com too.  OpenLeft is focused, in my opinion, on issues, strategy and some candidate matters.  Mydd has evolved to focus much more on candidates and their campaigns/elections.  I think we have plenty of room for both and people will naturally migrate to the sites most appealing to them.  I like to think of it as a way of expanding the progressive blogosphere.

In terms of moderating commenters, I find that most of my comments on mydd serve to try to moderate when posters misrepresent facts and, like with the mainstream media, some assumptions need to be challenged.  I support the bloggers setting clear expectations, holding the community to those, and removing those who don't meet them.

Frankly, anyone who wants to post according to their own rules can start a blog, and if others find it interesting, they can join them too.

Perhaps the future of blogs will evolve even more to blogs that are community-based and others that are individual-based.  We can see this trend now, and as blogs grow, it makes sense that they will each carve out their own niche.  This separation of sorts seems like a natural progression of this media.

Regardless, I'll reiterate my gratitude - not just to Chris - but to the leaders and diarists of the progressive community.  Though imperfect, I think this kind of dialogue shows how this space is maturing, expanding and figuring out the future.  This space was hardly just a few years ago, and now it/we are having an impact on fundraising, influencing issues, having politicians recognize us as an important group within the party.  I see all of these as important signs for our vibrant blog-o future.

by passionateprogressive 2007-09-25 05:45PM | 0 recs
i think that site is fine and his work is good

i just wanna beat him with a 2 by 4 when he defends the banning of dissent and actually scoffs in the diary above - at those who claim the right to free speech and an open debate.

That bad, to me, negates all his good work.

And I suggest he reform this dictatorial part of his nature, as he and Stoller clearly want financial support from the democratic community at large.

Politics is a TEAM sport buddy.  You cant BAN your teammates who dare to disagree with you.  Not if theres a D on the front of your uniform.

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation
Mixner's comments did not seem to justify a banning- obviously there is more to it than that- a culmination of things that started way before the series of comments that you point to. But then again, it's your site so you can do what you want. I don't see what the harm would be in letting him continue to post there, though. After comparing Edward's speech to the Gettysburg Address, I don't see how anyone can take him seriously, anyway.
by reasonwarrior 2007-09-25 06:01PM | 0 recs
This site is dieing

under the weight of the rabid OCE crowd.

Even tho I didn't and still don't agree with everything you and Matt Stoller said and did, I totally respect this site and what it used to be.

I am a Clarkie that would try and lead other Clarkies to this site for the substance. Many "feared" coming here because some here could really be hard on others. I called it street tough. But it never was like it is today.

It is sad.

by kevin22262 2007-09-25 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: On Moderation

Ugh. This's just nauseating. It's too bad that you've got thin skin, Chris, but this really isn't an appropriate reaction to that. Much as I respect a lot of the stuff you and Stoller have accomplished in the past, consider me one OpenLeft reader you've lost, at least until/unless your policies on dissent become less draconian.

by McSnatherson 2007-09-25 07:06PM | 0 recs
Shouldn't this Ode to Moderation...

... at least be written as an open letter to Matt Stoller, as well?

by Vermonter 2007-09-26 05:59AM | 0 recs
i believe the french say...

touche' ...

by holden caulfield 2007-09-26 06:19AM | 0 recs
All these will pass

After the primaries, the heat will cool down.

Not having a candidate,  I could see objectively what happened in 2004 blogwars between Clarkies and Deaniacs.  But I dont think it was as heated as today.

by jasmine 2007-09-26 08:05AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------