MyDD :: I'm with Matt

I'm with Matt

by Steve Hill, Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 04:04:42 PM EST

Thanks to the keepers of this blog for the modest amount of policing that is done to maintain some degree of credible and civil conversation here.

First, if I'm following things correctly, I agree with the banning of the person who posted his classic conservative response to a post about increasing the minimum wage.

There is a great deal of mythology in conservative-ville about the horrors of increasing the minimum wage. The arguments sound good, but simply stating something as fact or science doesn't make it true. (Many of the myths against raising the minimum wage have been debunked here.

Yes, there should be room to post alternative perspectives here. Yes, we all need to know what the other side's arguments are. But, the poster was abusing the site by posing as a "liberal" but spewing every insufficient conservative argument.

Second, it's called MyDD. Not "OurDD" or "YourDD." There are a zillion blogs out there. If any of us are asked to leave this one, well, that's what the right of this blog's keepers. It's their blog. They built it, they get to set the rules.

Thanks Matt, Chris, Jerome and everyone else who contributes to a great blog community here.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Flow of discussion is all that matters (3.00 / 1)

If someone wants to reiterate right wing talking points under the guise of a liberal, how is that affecting conversation unless said person keeps repeating same points over and over despite a discussion going on which refutes the point.

If anything, discussing with such people will lend better clarity to liberals who want to advance their views. Then again, if the guy is unreasonable and refuses to respond or acknowledge something when his talking points are refuted, then he is not engaging in honest discussion and is a good candidate to be banned.

I know I got a better understanding in the transit strike discussion and got more sympathetic to the workers as the discussion went along. Someone could have easily dismissed me as some right winger posing as a liberal if they read one or two of my transit strike messages.
I have had more of a problem with the Gary Boatwrights who I actually happen to agree with on some of the major issues. All he does is go on personal attacks on anyone he doesn't like and posts mean responses and doesn't follow up when you show why he is wrong. Is he being given a free ride because of his ideology? I mentioned in another diary that he troll rated a bunch of my posts in the space of a few minutes out of spite and no other reason because not all my comments pertained to the same topic. So by doing so, he has already violated the honest discussion of ideas by injecting personal animosity into discussions. Despite my negative feelings towards him, I have never troll rated him when he put up a topic I agreed with and even praised his posts on occasion and so I don't even get the payback angle to this.

While I thought it was whiny of that Texan politician to put up a diary regarding Stoller's ban statement, when I looked up the thread after my initial puzzlement, I kind of saw his point. Stoller's comment seemed abrupt unless there is some past history with this texan I am not familiar with. It is possible for a liberal to spout seemingly conservative talking points(as I did one time during the transit strike despite my support for unions to function effectively). As long as he is being polite in the discussion and subsequent comments are ADVANCING that discussion, I see no harm in him in educating him about an issue. All you got to do is correct him. If he repeats the same exact talking point in the future despite being shown it was wrong and he had no further response, then he is banworthy because he is hear not to discuss honestly and learn, but to just spout talking points to provoke us.

I understand that the blog is private and all, but still, there is nothing preventing users from suggesting what is right and what is wrong. Without the give and take from the users, this blog would not be popular.

by Pravin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 04:26:14 PM EST

Not exactly (none / 0)

I posted this elsewhere a long time ago.

...Navel gazing and self-reflection in moderation can be a good thing, but it musn't interfere with the business at hand.

There are some things we all need to accept:

1. The owner/organization/sponsor of the blog calls the shots. If you're going to complain about the infringement of your right to free speech please go ahead and start your own blog - if your content is good maybe others will show up to read it. Or maybe not.

2. Longevity does not confer gravitas, quality of content does.

3. Being a newbie doesn't quite confer a lower status, just the same, don't be an [xxxxxxx] - and don't be defensive about being new.

4. Wailing about being victimized doesn't wear well on anyone. It's laughable when it comes from supposedly self-reliant right wingnuts.

5. The opposition is organized - they come to the progressive blogosphere in mind boggling numbers to disrupt, sow dissension, and lower morale. Not everyone who posts on progressive blogs is who they want to appear to be. Trust me on this one.

6. Trolls and those intent on disruption should be crushed and mocked without mercy - and the management should remove them as soon as possible, leaving their wasted carcasses as an example for others. While recipe posting is a brilliant tactic, too much attention to battling trolls distracts the members of the site from other much more important business.

7. The media reads the blogs. They are lazy. They look for stuff which smells like dissension. You are irredeemably stupid if you uncritically and breathlessly repeat right wingnut talking points, stories, and memes. The media will use such because they are lazy, superficial, and stupid. Did I mention that they were lazy?

8. The odds are against any of us being the next great professional political strategist or pundit. Okay, considering the Faux News Channel and the rest of the cable news network talking heads this isn't my strongest point. Don't take it personally. Learn to throw an elbow and to take a head butt.

9. If the progressive blogosphere is to reach its true potential it will take all of us turning the philosophical and theoretical into the practical. If you haven't already signed on to volunteer for a 2006 local or statewide campaign you're just occupying space and wasting bandwidth....

The blog owner/operator has all of the information they need about users (including IP addresses of posts) to make a decision about banning someone. The rest of us don't. This kind of tempest in a teapot hand wringing about allowing their "dissenting" crap just adds to these trolls intended distraction.

Gee, have you noticed an increase in this stuff of late? Could it be that the opposition is starting its work for the 2006 general election already? You think?

I'm speaking from experience. Let the management do their job without your adding (well intentioned or not) to the useless noise. If that all offends you, go someplace else.

As for the trolls, I'm disappointed. We're obviously getting their eleven year old home schooled fifth string bench warmers. That takes all the fun out of clubbing the baby harp seals.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 04:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

>If that all offends you, go someplace else.

Are you saying feedback from the users is useless? And the only feedback should be positive? No one is forcing the owner of the blog to put up policies for a vote and enforce it the way the vote goes. We can state our opinions and if the blog admins don't like it, they can ignore it. But to indicate dissenting opinions about policies are not welcome is no different than what is being done on right wing blogs.

by Pravin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 04:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's not dissenting opinions... (3.00 / 1)

The banned comments were thoughtless. They lacked reason and logic. One tirade likened increasing the minimum wage to passing a law banning cancer--suggesting that our power to promote economic justice is as misguided and unreasonable as passing a law to change the laws of nature.

I'm not interested in an echo chamber. I'd like thoughtful conversation (which is why I come here versus a few other popular blogs). But you can't have reasonable conversation with people who are completely unreasonable.

by Steve Hill on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 05:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yawn (none / 0)

You're not paying attention.

With a site such as this the opposition sends individuals to disrupt it. The operator(s) of this site have the tools to discern such activity. You do not. You add to the disruption (and perpetuate the intent of the disruptor[s])when you step into the fray.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book for an individual to cry "censorship" on a blog or forum when they get caught as a disruptor. I've seen really valuable sites rendered almost useless because of administrators who were hesitant to take on this activity. Not here (though it is taking a toll - we're spending time on this when we could be doing something more productive, aren't we?).

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 06:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn (none / 0)

I did pay attention to your post. I read Stoller's and Hill's posts in this diary and I will accept their views at face value. No need for freaking condescension with the yawns. I treated your post with respect and merely excerpted what I disagreed with. You probably did not pay attention to my reply which acknowledged the owner's right to do what they want and I just laid out why I felt it was OK to express what I thought. I laid out some examples of what I felt were more disruptive to the flow of discussion.

You want noise? Just go to the sensibleDemocrat's Moderate thread or even some of the threads during the Transit strike and look at the free for all that goes on there. A lot of useless unprovoked namecalling that occupies bandwidth. Overuse of the word troll. I know I reached my limit and started attacking others who attack me in those type of threads.

by Pravin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 07:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn (none / 0)

I agree with some of your points. A lack of, uh, maturity, has seemed to increase lately. Some of us have bigger (or smaller?) egos than the rest of us. I'm not sure where the hate comes from, but it most unpleasant. And unnecessary.

by Steve Hill on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 07:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn (none / 0)

...No need for freaking condescension with the yawns...

You earned it.

So, I hope you've found a local, state, and/or national candidate for the 2006 and/or 2008 cycles that you can support and are now volunteering for them. That's the most important thing you can do to cut through all that noise.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 09:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn (none / 0)

>You earned it

Nice way to advance a discussion. You don't think I felt like insulting you. I am tempted to flame back, but this thread has gone long enough without much progression.

by Pravin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:50:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yawn (none / 0)

...Don't take it personally. Learn to throw an elbow and to take a head butt...

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're just kissing ass... (none / 0)

...As for the trolls, I'm disappointed. We're obviously getting their eleven year old home schooled fifth string bench warmers. That takes all the fun out of clubbing the baby harp seals

I rest my case.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 04:47:33 PM EST

If you are tuning in late (none / 0)

There were a few diary posts and comments that have been taken down since I posted this diary.

They were disrespectful and irresponsible, making derogatory references to the MyDD blog keepers.

Thanks Matt for taking them down, and for taking out the person who was posing as you (I was wondering why my response to his/her comment wouldn't post).

by Steve Hill on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 04:58:00 PM EST

Re: If you are tuning in late (none / 0)

We're going to work on turning this into a real community over 2006. That means asking all of us to listen and learn. The absense of that cooperative ability is a problem, because it forces us to choose to use our bandwidth for often polite but still disruptive people, or a real community.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 05:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you are tuning in late (none / 0)

Chris mentioned back in September that a document specifically laying out the guidelines for the community you're trying to build will be forthcoming. I could have missed it, but I don't recall anything along these lines being published. Is this still in the works?

The spirit of what you're saying makes sense; I'm not sure it's entirely clear, though, what "real community" versus "polite but disruptive" means.

by arenwin on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 10:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is Matt Soller? (none / 0)

I love this MyDD.. its the only blog I am a member of. I arrived last October after Googling polls, and several of Bowers' lucid and erudite posts came up. I have been impressed by the depth of analysis offered by the moderators, and how judiciously they adminster the website.

The moderators have done a great job facilitating our discussions, and leading by example when it comes to appropriate behavior. I remember when the issue of sexist comments came up earlier this year. I think it was Chris who asked MyDD members not use sexist terms to disparage other members. It was a sublime and respectful example of leadership, there were even members who apologized for their posts.

Even more impressive was Chris's response to NeoLiberal's pro-Al Gore diary, in which he suggested that Chris deliberately left Gore off the straw poll because he was pro-Hillary. I am all for Al Gore, and I recommended the diary, but Chris was pissed off by the suggestion, and made his displeasure known. When I read Chris's posts, I realized that he was justified in his indignation, and I felt bad about recommending the diary, but I was impressed that Chris allowed the diary to not only remain, but stay in the recommended column for several days. This was a testament to the strength of Chris's character (there is not a petty bone in his body) and set a great tone for MyDD, that the moderators were so respectful of us members that they would tolerate our comments even when they occasionally crossed a line.

The moderators are right to be concerned about trolls, and about flame wars in general. Talk about a waste of band-width, a string of 50 comments that are nothing but an exchange of personal attacks. Remember Metonym, the so-called graduate student from Ohio, who would always have to get back to writing her disseration? But she had enough time to start flame wars, and was allowed to lurk for months. If I had any problems with how MyDD was moderated, it was that these obvious trolls were allowed to lurk for too long. But these trolls never seriously interfered with our discussions, and I assumed that the moderators were more concerning with wrongly banning a sincere member than with requiring a strict adherence to the rules.

And I have been more concerned since the implosion of BushCo this year. I assumed that deep-seed trolls would join MyDD, earn some Mojo, and subtely cause trouble on the site. Blue Dreams was probably one of these people, and I dont have any criticism of him being banned for that reason.

By I am concerned by Soller's attitude in dealing with people in his Universal Health Care diary. Blue Dreams posted an anti-minimum wage comment. Soller called him a liar and banned him from MyDD. Who cares if BD was a troll. You dont just call people liars and silence them. This is a Bush-Cheney tactic: If you dont support the war in Iraq, you are betraying our troops, being unpatriotic, and supporting the terrorists. The political ideology is diametrically opposed.. the methodology is the same.

If Soller wanted to dismiss these conservative arguments, he had an obligation to all of us to do the work that a legitimate response required. I, for one, know very little about macro-economics, and would have been the better for such a post. And I have never seen Chris or Jerome call people liars and toss 'em.

I am more concerned by what followed. I expressed concern with this tactic, another member respectfully agreed with me, and Soller banned that member too. This is not the type of leadership that has made MyDD one of the best political blogs on the internet. (And why wasnt I banned too?)

Later in the diary, Gary was informed by Soller that he is not to use the term "mainstream media." I dont like when ideologues tell me not to use conventional terms because they are not compatible with their orthodoxy. And coming after a series of casual bannings, there was a dangerous implication that failure to comply would result in being tossed from the board. It reminded me of when I was living in Cuba.

Chris has posted several comments stating how proud he is of the popularity of the this site, and rightly so. I hope to advance the goals of MyDD, and plan on contributing substantially (finally out of residency) to the poll that Chris is designing regarding the impending impeachment of Bush. But if Soller's tactics (as a "guest blogger") are allowed to set the new tone on MyDD, I suspect that the popularity of this website will decline precipitously.

So anyway, friends, if you dont hear from me again.. I have been banned.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 08:56:17 PM EST

Sorry.. Who is Matt Stoller (none / 0)

The name was inadvertantly misspelled thoughout the post. I know it looks bad, but it was a mistake.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 08:59:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry.. Who is Matt Stoller (none / 0)

The individual lied. It wasn't a disagreement.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 09:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry.. Who is Matt Stoller (none / 0)

I am trying to work with you, Matt. I have read over the post a few times, but I dont know enough about economics to have an explicit critique. If you do, I think it would have been a good idea to make it, before calling that guy a liar and banning him. Personally I support a national minimum wage.

But what is up with this?

Winston: You banned him? What does that mean? I think we should be tolerant of people expressing opinions that we dont agree with.

Roger: Matt, I respectfully have to agree with Winston on this issue. Here is the best place to consider such views.