MyDD :: So, that 'Pyro' troll was banned (ratings privileges).

So, that 'Pyro' troll was banned (ratings privileges).

by Shem, Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST

It's good that the blatant Republican troll who spammed nothing but copy-pastes of Obama religion/family smear emails yesterday was banned. Their comments occupied the entire first page of the Hidden Comments section, and I'm glad to see they were all deleted. They were disgusting.

Contrary to current popular belief among Obama supporters, I don't consider MyDD an unfair forum for expression. I've been here since the 2004 primaries, and still prefer MyDD to Daily Kos despite being an Obama supporter (indeed, those who consider Markos Moulitsas the new leader of the "Obamasphere" clearly don't remember the Daily Kos' own anti-Obama streak while John Edwards was still in the race). Jerome's current biases don't overshadow the fairness of the other front-pagers, and pro-Obama diaries still make the rec list regularly (and while you still have to compete for the slot, it's no more difficult than making Kos' rec list while Edwards was still in).

But if Pyro's comments were disgusting enough to warrant a ban and deletion, why does the MyDD user who ran around uprating all of them yesterday still have ratings/rec access? I won't call them out by name, but they're easy to spot. Find any random personal attack against an Obama supporter in the Hidden Comments section and you're almost guaranteed to find their name next to a "2" uprating.

After seeing someone get away scratch-free after repeatedly uprating a banned right-wing email copy-pasting troll yesterday, I'm starting to wonder if it's much easier for Obama supporters to lose their rec/ratings access nowadays than Clinton supporters. And I'm an older MyDD user who wasn't previously sympathetic to such suspicions. It's starting to feel as if every Obama supporter's privileges are hanging by a thread, while Clinton supporters' abuses have to be extensively documented and prosecuted via email.

Poll

Votes: 49
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: MyDD, meta (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

All I ask for. (2.00 / 7)

All I ask for is due diligence* in the application of these suspensions. It's starting to feel as if every Obama supporter's privileges are hanging by a thread, while Clinton supporters have to be extensively documented and prosecuted via email.

*That's a funny.

John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.

by Shem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:31:15 PM EST

Re: All I ask for. (2.00 / 1)

And apparently, someone's past ratings history got scrubbed. Can't see how this person rated.

I noticed a lot of seeming abuse from this person, but no punishment.

/shrug

If they want to selectively enforce rules on this site, that's their business.

Obama in November.

by Artemis Jax on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a trick (2.00 / 1)

Get an axe.

...er, I mean, "no comment." I don't like the rating system in general.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:49 PM EST

Yeah, can someone tell me what (2.00 / 1)

the ridiculous "1" rating is for? Why do we need that?

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know, but... (2.00 / 1)

I do know that, when you have to post a commentary on why you rated someone negatively, it occurs to me that you're doing too much work just to justify spite.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think it has anything to do with spite. (2.00 / 2)

When someone TR's me, I actually prefer to know why. If I said something offensive, I'd like to know. Also, sometimes people TR/HR accidentally, and explaining the rating rules out that possibility.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I agree with that... (none / 0)

...I'm just saying that, in basically the time it took for them to rate you and write that comment, they could have also have simply written a comment refuting your statement and actually, you know, inspired debate... which is what this site is about, theoretically.

I hardly ever downrate anyone because it only leads to an eye-for-an-eye situation and everyone gets distracted from discussions that actually matter. Ratings are lazy shorthand for honest debate.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:54:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right, and generally the comments I (2.00 / 3)

downrate are the sort which would never inspire any type of intelligent discussion -- like one recently which read, "Maybe Sen. Clinton is praying to god to assassinate Obama." That helps no one, and it's inflammatory.

I uprate constantly (especially when I see ratings abuse), but when I give out HR's, I've noticed it seems to be the same people over and over again -- and it seems to be a pretty equal spread of Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. There's one Clinton supporter in particular who can't seem to make a single comment without referring to Obama as a cult leader. No point in trying to engage in debate with that person. She's just trolling for the hell of it.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can see your point. (none / 0)

I personally think a well-worded evisceration is more memorable to the casual reader who scans the comments than a number that doesn't really mean anything... heck, look at how some of the rec list diaries appear immediately at the top and remain there for some time due to organized support. Ratings fail to mean much when you've got organized efforts to manipulate a system going on.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, can someone tell me what (none / 0)

The 1 rating is an Obama supporter trap.

by french imp on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, that 'Pyro' troll was banned (2.00 / 1)

Good point.

The serial abuser will not be punished for uprating disgusting comments, and they won't be punished for zero rating legit comments.

Turns out the site rules aren't the site rules. You don't get in trouble for zero rating a comment in violation of the rules as long as you are the only person to do it.

That's the precident that has been set.

One person gives an HR or TR to a totally legit comment = NO PROBLEM

Many people give an HR or TR to a trollish comment = RATINGS ABUSE

Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:37:04 PM EST

I agree with Jerome on the recent Alegre pile-on. (2.00 / 2)

To be clear, those who HR'ed Alegre's comment were abusing their access.

Those who TR'ed the comment? Alegre's sarcasm (questioning the diarist's sincerity) probably warranted the 1's. I can understand removing the ratings access for those who 0-rated, but not the 1's.

John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.

by Shem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, that 'Pyro' troll was banned (none / 0)

There seems to be a misunderstading here, regarding the definition of "insulting". Many here obviously think that it's grounds enough for a TR if they think something is insulting. This isn't so. Jerome is the decisive authority on what's insulting, not them. I guess that's because it's his blog.

by Gray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once an Edwardist, never an Obamaniac? (none / 0)

"those who consider Markos Moulitsas the new leader of the "Obamasphere" clearly don't remember the Daily Kos' own anti-Obama streak while John Edwards was still in the race"

So what? People change their minds all of the time. David Brock of MediaMatters once was a Republican. Arvosis of the A-blog once was a Republican. Christopher Hitchens once was a Trotzkyist. Many Neocons once were Marxists...

So, why shouldn't Kos be considered to be "the new leader of the "Obamasphere"" nowadays?

by Gray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST

Not the point of the diary. (2.00 / 1)

Bottom line: Markos got in line behind the presumptive nominee, and his rec list became a monolith of nothing but pro-Obama diaries. Which is fine.

John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.

by Shem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not the point of the diary. (none / 0)

"Markos got in line behind the presumptive nominee, and his rec list became a monolith of nothing but pro-Obama diaries. Which is fine."

Uh huh. Fine, yeah? So, it would be fine for Jerome, too, to have only pro-Clinton diaries on his rec list?

Well, that's ok with me.

by Gray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

I don't know, privileges seem to be removed on an ad hoc basis with no system to serve as guidance. Maybe it's a function of the number of complaints a particular user generates, and if the user is coming from a more popular side of the argument, there will be fewer complaints? I don't know - there are certainly some people that I consider banworthy but who regularly contribute diaries here.

It's funny, I had my ratings privileges removed sometime in early February (not sure why), and they remained so until two weeks or so ago, when Jerome authored a diary on how to improve the site. I asked for and received reinstatement, and I don't think that my privileges have been in danger since then.

by rfahey22 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST

Alegre is the worst (none / 0)

abuser of the system..sad place this has become...really other than kos's site being Obama biased, there is no comparison to the quality of news and info available there-this place has become a tit for tat site literally, with no decent content except for the very rare diary about MCcain

Hillary-The corporate candidate

by cdnminer on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST

Rating privileges (2.00 / 3)

What I find really interesting is that the posters who 'contribute' most frequently to the hidden comments page are

A) Mostly conservative Clinton supporters
and
B) Most have their privileges intact

As we have seen in diary after diary and by the volume of "can't rec or rate" sig lines among progressive posters on this sight, it takes very little to lose those privileges if you are indentified as 'pro-Obama'.
It appears that that you may engage in all manner of offensive dialogue if you support the "right" candidate.

Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.

by awobbly on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:15:10 PM EST

Re: Rating privileges (none / 0)

"What I find really interesting is that the posters who 'contribute' most frequently to the hidden comments page are
A) Mostly conservative Clinton supporters
and
B) Most have their privileges intact"

This is not at all surprising under the assumption that Obama followers misuse the TR and HR tools to harass Clinton supporters. Which seems to be the case, as Jerome pointed out.

by Gray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Recced (2.00 / 2)

Reced and Mojoed....

If someone asks me to mention the nastiest thing I Saw on the Dem side of the primary (canidates witdrawn)

I would have to say it was the repeted Obama sweeps I saw on this site.

Literally I saw Bob write a diary, the diary got took down and then EVERY single person who recced it lost their rights to rec again.

Its really sad, thank god Jerome never truely admitted to those specific events,

I saw thank god because i recognize how embarrassing that would be as the right wing blogs got to make fun of us for years.

Imagine if Townhall was banning Pro McCain supporters before during and after wax figure Romney dropped out.

http://www.truepat.org/

by CrushTheGOP2008 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.