TPMCafe Site News
I wanted to bring everyone up to date on some upgrades we're making to the site and also discuss community rules for posting and commenting. As you've probably been able to see over the last few days, comments and reader blog posts are now appearing on the site much more rapidly than they were before. We're also planning on pushing through another upgrade to the publishing software that runs TPMCafe early this next week and that should resolve some remaining glitches that have afflicted the site since the relaunch in early February.
It's been almost three years that TPMCafe has been online. It's gone through several designs and iterations. And it hasn't been since early on that we've had a community wide discussion of acceptable behavior at the site -- something that's become even more important since we've now integrated TPMCafe more deeply into the rest of our network of sites.
We're going to be posting acceptable behavior guidelines shortly. But I wanted to start off by setting out some key elements of the community discussion area we're trying to create what guidelines are necessary to help foster and preserve it. I'd also like feedback from readers on what they agree with, don't agree with and what they'd suggest changing.
A good baseline for behavior is that no one should talk to anyone else or at anyone else in a way they wouldn't in an actual, real-world cafe. That dictum is obviously open to a great deal of interpretation. But if we all ask ourselves this question candidly, I think it actually clarifies the great majority of questions about what's okay and what's not. The simple fact is that lots of people who are perfectly well socialized in real world behavior check all that at the door when they discuss things online. And our basic message is, don't.
This doesn't mean everything that we want flood of elaborate pleasantries in every discussion or that we don't want passionate debates. But in a real coffee house the most probable outcome of kicking off a conversation by calling someone a moron or a jerk is a physical confrontation or just getting kicked out of the establishment. We don't want it to be uptight like some Victorian-era gentlemen's club. But we'd like to build in some of that sense of restraint to stop things from escalating and preserve a place for vigorous and passionate but respectful discussion of important issues and ideas.
One other point I'd like to discuss. A lot of you have argued that the tone of the conversations at TPMCafe and in the discussion areas of the other TPM sites has gone downhill in the last couple months. I think there's a lot of truth in that. And I think that's for two basic reasons. First, the redesign that went online in early February opened TPMCafe up to the other TPM sites, thus bringing in a lot of new people, and also lacked some of the discussion moderation functions of the other publishing platform. That meant a lot of new people who weren't familiar with the norms that had built up at the site over time while also removing some of the tools that helped keep things in line. Second, and I think even more important, is the simple fact that the bitterly contested primary race has created what is in the history of the site simply an unprecedented level of intra-community acrimony. Those two factors together have taken a toll.
So we're going to begin an effort to raise the level of the conservation, along these lines.
So, a few other bullet points.
Profanity. We don't want to and probably couldn't ban four-letter word type profanity. But it should be avoided. Sometimes it's appropriate and even necessary. But allowing it to become commonplace degrades the conversation.
Four-letter words or denigrating language directed toward other Cafe denizens is grounds for having a comment removing, commenting privileges suspended or revoked.
Hate speech and expressions of prejudice of any sort, exhortations to violence or statements that may be deemed libelous are prohibited.
Political disagreement in itself is never a grounds for banning or exclusion from the site. The great majority of Cafe denizens may be progressives and liberals. But conservatives and people of all political persuasions are welcome here and should be made to feel welcome.
Josh, you have been done in by this software, too! Too funny, or sad.....
April 12, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those of us who watched Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and other progressive blogs disintegrate to crud can tell you exactly what has happened.
And it is tragic to see it happening here.
Obama zealots have an aggressive take-over mentality. I strongly suspect that at least half of these people are right wing.
There are not nearly as many as it appears, because these pros operate under scores of different ids. They do this to skew web polls, and to penetrate and destroy our blogs.
They get in, ignore the article, and post angry, mindless anti clinton or pro Obama hype. They gang up on and snark Clinton supporters, then they complain about them to administrators to get the posting privileges of Clinton supporters removed.
The goal is to stir up anger and chaos, and to keep Clinton supporters from having a visible voice on the web. They know the media scans these blogs, and reports what "the blogosphere" is thinking. So they want to make sure the media thinks everyone here is solidly behind Obama.
It's all fake.
The only way to end this is to throw them all out. One superb progressive blog did this, and civilized Clinton supporters can discuss in peace.
I respect that you want to be open to everyone, but if you will look at what is happening at MyDD, you will understand that it is very hard to do. Here is that blog's recent history:
The Clinton supporters on Daily Kos were being harassed ad threatened by Obama people. They were told that if they contined at dKos, they would be "outted."
At that point, the Clinton supporters too refuge at MyDD. All was fine for a few weeks, then the Daily Kos gang followed them over, and started wreaking havoc by filling their diaries with Troll posts, or writing idiotic diaries and pretending they were written by Clinton people, then referring to them and crowing. All kinds of "Return of Nixon" tactics.
Their creepiest trick is harassing people until they finally use profanity, then complaining about it and getting them thrown out.
Just my observation after being in Daily Kos since '04, and watching it morph into spam almost overnight.
April 12, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of telling Josh to get rid of the majority of his progressive posters, may I suggest that go go back to MyDD and wait for all the really "smart" people to arrive?
See ya!
April 12, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
snark i assume
April 12, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary had stuck to attacking Obama on his lack of experience and his stands on issues like health care, the debate would probably have been quite civil. In fact, it continues to be quite civil on such issues.
Instead, Hillary chose a different type of campaign. We all know that has been the case since South Carolina. When you turn up the volumn on race, religion, class, gender, guns, .... you get an entirely different kind of discussion.
April 12, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. for a while it seemed worthwhile to try to engage, but seriously, it's next to impossible.
Truth be told, as an Oregon voter who might finally get to vote in a primary where her vote counts, I deeply resent the efforts by Obama's supporters to take my vote away. But - they really don't give a damn about a fair election and counting votes, do they. Just winning.
oh wait, that's the charge laid against Clinton. We're not allowed to say that about Saint Obama - no matter how very Bushian he was about Michigan and Florida.
April 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda fitting.
April 12, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, you just need to log in again, dude. Then it won't remember you. But just hit it one more time... it's very intuitive.
Sorry to poke fun but this is priceless.
April 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I can see, the loss of decorum here is 99.9% related to the primary election, and only to that because the candidates have "gone negative". In my opinion it is the Clinton Campaign that is the worst offender, but I am biased, so my opinion is highly colored by that.
I also think that too few of us who have been here for a long time have tried to set good examples for others. Too many of us, including me, have been dragged into the bitter recriminations flying around due to the Clinton-Obama race. I find it extremely difficult not to do that, but I hope to try.
I like Josh's "golden rule" for posting here - "act civilized". Act civilized even if you still drag your knuckles as you walk. Act civilized even if you lack the common sense God gave to a baboon. Just act civilized, period. I shall try.
April 12, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
what Clinton supporters?
Most have been run off.
When they post an article here, it is instantly termited
with anti Clinton venom.
April 12, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
TERMITED? with anti-Clinto VENOM?
Well, that moves the conversation forward!
I have seen very few actual "pro-Hillary" blogs, although I have seen too many to count Anti-Obama blogs and posts. But the thing that has stuck me the most is that most of the Anti-Obama things are aimed at his supporters, rather than at his policies.
And the knee-jerk reaction to that statement is, "What policies?" May I humbly suggest that those who are in Hillary's camp may not be paying attention to Obama's policies, so they say he doesn't have any, hoping that they will be believed?
In fact, I can't recall a single, "These are the things that Hillary brings to the table," that is more substantive than the "35 years of experience" myth.
However, true venom has been delivered, not only to Obama (empty suit, fake, superficial - without one word of fact to back it up) but MOSTLY to Obama supporters: Kool-Aid drinkers, Right-wing GOP sympathisers (can't figure out where that came from, except for a particular poster) Believers rather than thinkers, etc.
Insulting fellow progressives is not the way to win; and the Clinton, throw the kitchen-sink at Obama philosophy got that negative approach off the ground -- not her supporters; she did it herself. Her supporters are left with the charge to attack Obama supporters. Not a pretty sight. Truly disappointing.
We need someone who can bring people togehter next year; not someone who encourages divisiveness.
April 12, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy,
this is the best post on this thread so far.
Thanks.
Suggestion to others;
At the start of your post, please type the name of the person who's post you're referring to, it makes it easier for an old man like me to follow.
April 13, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh's photo says that he really means biz.
April 12, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahem, so does your photo, dear Evainne.....
Moving on....
"Don't say anything you wouldn't say face-to-face", sounds like a good rule of thumb to me.
As you can see, I put my name out there. I think the nom de blog is why people feel free to say things they would speak in public..... But we're not going to change that.
Some sites have flags that you can click on if you feel a comment is over the top. That might be something to consider if you are concerned. But I wouldn't bother. I haven't been offended by what I see here.
I did like the rating system. It was just fun to get that feedback. It went away with the changes, so maybe the percieved escalation of irrate rhetoric may be connected. Giving someone the 1, might be enough of a release without the rant.......
I think you are doing fine. An occasional reminder to be good boys and girls is enough.
April 12, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are going to install just such a 'flag' widget. But what we'll try to make clear is that it's not there to click for a worthless or even sort of offensive post. There are several thousand comments a day here. And only one member of the staff has primary responsibility for day to day maintenance of TPMCafe. So there's really no way for us to know when someone comes in and writes a racist diatribe, or something that is potentially libelous, or something that just egregiously violates the rules. We need readers to flag this stuff for us. That way we can get on it quickly before things get out of hand. As it is in everyday, often it's one person who escalates things and says stuff really aggressive or offensive and that leads others to respond in kind. So we do think this is important, not because we we're under the illusion that we're going to be able to micromanage commenting. But because we want to create a way for readers to alert us when something clearly beyond the pale gets posted.
The comment rating did have a lot to recommend it. But our general sense was that the repeated down-rating wars generated more acrimony than it did benefits.
April 12, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Josh,
You can start with this guy. Having a KKK hood on your avatar and spewing racist, disgusting nonsense it a clear example on how the expulsion system should work.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/leroys
LeroyS is formally known as Marginal Player. While comments about race are common, violent derogatory comments about race should never be tolorated.
April 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
LeroyS has acquired a new headgear for his avatar to parody Marginal Player's avatar. However, LeroyS' verbiage is exactly opposite the racist rants of Marginal Player.
April 13, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Leroy S. does not post racist comments. I've always considered his comments to be constructive contributions to the discussion. Some are offended by the KKK hood, because they don't understand the context of the parody.
April 20, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So we're going to begin an effort to
So funny. That is priceless.
On a more serious note, the reprehensible behavior stems from what sociologists, wait, that really is just too funny.
Laughing with you Josh, not at
April 12, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politics and religion generate great passion - in real life or on the net. In real life if there's a REAL discussion between people of opposing views you'll very often get shouting and name-calling ... and physical confrontations are far from rare.
Censorship has been tried. If you use it you'll end up banning the minority which doesn't share your liberal views. How? Liberals will take it for granted that they have an unrestrained right to snark, ridicule, and demean their opponents for not sharing what - to them - is the good and the obvious. If we respond in kind we will be banned for "lack of manners".
Face it. If you want real political discussion you're going to have to tolerate name calling such as "moron", "jerk", "idiot", etc. Those who can't take it - and I include some of your paid regulars - are simply in the wrong field.
April 12, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, I take it you do a lot of your REAL political debate and discussion outside in the parking lot next to the cafe? ... probably under the glare of flashing neon come-ons, where it's not rare to find more physical kinds of contests and displays -- even shouting? various ritualistic posturing, assuming stances or broad and brazen body-language, etc ...
that's really considerate (taking it outside), because I'll bet the management of the cafe might be concerned about the safety or well-being of his patrons (not to mention loss of property), what with the prospect of broken chairs and tables or even shattering glass doors and windows, the inevitable lawsuits involving negligent damages, etc you know, REAL headaches ...
I've seen plenty of old cowboy movies to know what can happen until the Marshall shows up again to restore law and order and peaceful good-times!
I was thinking of calling you something you remind me of, but it has five letters, has to be over the top, and might quite possibly be intolerable in polite society!
April 13, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with most of what you said, (or meant to say if it had all gotten in), and I appreciate all your work. I also appreciate your goal of having this site be one of civility and discussion. As ticked off as people used to get about the rating system, it did serve a purpose in reeling in abusive posters. I agree that this primary has contributed to the general increase in nastiness (I would argue that the tactics of one of our "potential" nominees has not only contributed to this but also provides proof of the divisiveness her candidacy would evoke.
That said, I believe that criticisms should be limited to the potential nominees themselves, and not their backers. Calling people Clintonistas, or Obamanoids is not a way to get our ideas across. It is disrespectful of our thoughts and efforts in making our decisions.
I was recently told to STFU and to FO by an old-time TPM poster because I support Obama. I don't believe she is uncivilized, or stupid; she is just extremely bitter at this moment, and maybe it clouded her perception about how to relate to a fellow poster. How would it be if we met in a cafe? I hope, far more civilly.
AND ON THAT TOPIC:
May I say that it is uncivilized, disrespectful ad behavior to have a FLASHING AD ABOUT WINNING A LAPTOP THAT ONLY GOES AWAY WHEN YOU SCROLL DOWN AND YOU KNOW DAMN WELL YOU HAVEN'T WON A FREAKING LAPTOP????????
OK, OK. It is an improvement over the Ann Coulter ads, but, this is my question:
Would you go to a cafe that had neon signs that flashed in peoples' faces, and pictures of Ann Coulter on all the walls?
I didn't think so. Maybe you could have a special area, like a "smoking section" for people who insist on insulting other posters, or who want to wave ugly banners with Coulter's 5 o'clock shadow smiling at them....
April 12, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For heaven's sake! As Josh says:
April 12, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your words speak for themselves. I never told you to STFU or to FO. That is what you said to me; and it was only because I support Obama, and believe that he is better than Hillary -- and you say that I am getting personal! If you recognized yourself, fine. I didn't name you because I didn't want to embarass you.
Being an ex-Edwards supporter has nothing to do with your current behavior. Support anyone you want; I never had a problem with that. You are the one who can't stand Obama supporters. I am done with this "conversation."
April 12, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, I'll expect not to see anymore personal snark from you on the threads aimed towards anyone, including me. That will improve my experience here.
Perhaps an ignore function Josh?
:D
April 12, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My decision about the "conversation" being over was directed to you only, and was based on your insulting comments to me. That doesn't apply to anyone else.
If my honest comments bother your experience here, I hope you will do some research so that you can cope with others' heartfelt thoughts about all of our candidates. I hope that you will find some positive things to add to the conversation.
My last words to you: Holding a bitter grudge is like eating rat poison and waiting for the rat to die...it poisons YOU.
April 12, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
BS! Is this MF America? Freedom of Speech! Sometimes a clown needs to get his MF ass kickt to shut 'em the F up! Esp these lying-assed Clintonistas! hear what the F I'm sayin?? Feel me?
Obviously I need to get my last zingers in before you nitwits change the format.
LOL.
April 12, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the MF way ... Aw forget it.
April 12, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahaha sure needed that comic relief just then!
chuckles galore!
April 13, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still am a bit grumpy that Andrew answered one of my emails by referring to "your own little space", that we miss. I answered him that it was not that it was little, or our own, but that there were multiple spaces where conversations could occur, because of both the various venues and the tracking/replies feature.
Now we have neither tracking of general activity, nor knowing about specific replies, and you have a new clique, even ruder at times than our other bunch ever was (barring certain famous trolls).
Apropos this subject one reader had this post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/selfcensored-social-networks.php
Ratings, what a concept!
April 12, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Obama, Andrew does not always choose his words perfectly. But it's a contentious crew he sometimes has to deal with here. Even bitter sometimes.
April 12, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andew can do no wrong in my book, because his smile is so cute! Now your professorial "eye-glass peering" just scares the pee out of all of us!
April 12, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama reveals his thoughts in words that are hurtful, well...he is just "not choosing his words carefully" enough, but when Hillary says that she used to hunt as a child she is a "lying Bitch". That's the way it goes here at TPM-Obama Central. We all get it Josh.
Why need he "choose his words carefully" in the first place if he is not trying to hide anything? What was he trying to say with his crack about clinging to Religion and Guns? Should he have qualified it to hide his real meaning? Is "choosing your words carefully" a way to get the message across without drawing attention to your real meaning, which--of course--only the "elite" can discern? On the contrary: tell us what you really think. Be honest. Don’t obfuscate. That will further the democratic process. Reading focus tested flowery pabulum from a teleprompter might persuade the unwary, but it is not helpful in my opinion.
April 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama zealots have an aggressive take-over mentality. I strongly suspect that at least half of these people are right wing.
Is this what we are talking about? How can anyone call someone who supports Obama (your word) a zealot if you don't know them? You may suspect them being from the so-called right wing but where is the proof? I also wouldn't go as far as calling some ofSen. Clinton's supporters zealots because I don't know them on that level.
I am old enough to have had some life experiences which informs me on what I know, why I know it and why I think the way I do.
April 12, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read Josh's post very carefully.
Is snark banned?
As long as a poster's snark doesn't include name-calling, four-letter words or racism it should be encouraged.
April 12, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, here's my real point, Josh. Why is the current headline story on TPM about Clinton's opinion about Obama's comments, but there is no significant story on Obama's rebuttal?
Obama addressed this very clearly, both yesterday and today. Why emphasize a captious criticism from a desperate Clinton campaign and not give a full balance? I know it's the weekend. But either deal with the story fully, or don't deal with it at all.
Hopefully TPM won't fall into the trap of parroting the MSM.
April 12, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, most of the readers' posts have addressed Obama's rebuttal. They sure have a different ring than the MSM and the paid posters, though.
April 12, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't evaluate the site in isolation. Last night on the main blog, I posted the video of Obama's response, which I thought was very good. That was I think the first reference to the whole brouhaha on the front page. Greg had this interview with Garin scheduled a few days in advance and this turned out to be the main topic of discussion. So if anything this stuff from the Hillary side came after we had given the front page to Obama's rebuttal.
April 12, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough.
April 12, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
josh,
you hinted that you might discuss updates to the system. all i saw was basic MMA "no eye gouging ...". did i overlook the system discussion?
April 12, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hunter your paranoia is palpable.
April 12, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who just 'joined' a few minutes ago, I am grateful for the guidelines and the urgings to keep a civil tounge. More flies are caught with honey than vinegar, says the old proverb goes. I'd like to preview what I write before I post it as there is a fat finger or two on my hands.
April 12, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Overall, the tone and content of most post is good, but I must regularly remind myself of what TPM means and does. It is focused on the moment or most relevant moments, and not necessarily in the correct order of actual events, this is caused by the nature of this media. The updates or upgrades are great. Yes, TPM has its point of view but I follow for the views of the others who post at TPM. This site operates far better and easier than most; a preview or spell check function would be nice but the current set encourages attention.
In recent months the discord has been similar to the overall tone of the democratic primary. For those with words or thoughts over the top, they are generally overwhelmed by others who do not share that mania. Humor, irony and good natured cynicism is often expressed. As suggested above, after the primary ends most of the rancor should stop. On balance the debates and post are excellent; I have not seen language that would be of concern nor any personal comments to be alarmed about.
On the secondary posts( bloggers, guest, and so on) I would prefer more specificity as they tend to ramble a bit much, and often generate long post or responses that ramble more. I recognize this is a tall order but I seek to have the collective knowledge base expanded not the idealogical or political base expanded.
April 12, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope it works. On the other blogs, the most aggressive use it against people who don't go along with the status quo.
April 13, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Wholly Rogue Emperor
Your post is a perfect example of just what I'm talking about. This thread is full of snark, there are proverbs about the dangers of discussing politics and religion, wars are fought continually over such disagreements as history amply demonstrates....
And you can't see it.
All you can do is try to ridicule me for not conforming to what you think are the politically correct views on the proper rules of polite discussion.
Take note, Josh. I know YOU are capable of seeing it. I also know you're caught between a rock and a hard place. Partisans HATE being really challanged and might no longer frequent your site if you call them on it.
April 13, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
But conservatives and people of all political persuasions are welcome here and should be made to feel welcome."
That's great, Josh, but it has always been one of the great flaws of TPM Cafe that you all are generally unwilling to ban anyone. I understand your desire as publisher to welcome the nutters. It expands your market, after all. But for the community, it's not useful to allow right wingers to disrupt the ongoing discussions here by allowing them to post and comment with impunity.
Do you even remember what it took for you all to finally ban davai from the old site? It took weeks and weeks of repeatedly complaints and urging--weeks during which his trollish behavior was allowed to continue, he continually disrupted any discussion on Israel, and much of MJ's posts were subject to his whims. If you really want to have a "community" here at TPM Cafe, you have to man up and ban people quickly when they become a problem.
April 13, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand your complaint, Reece. Under the current protocal, all you need to do is simply characterize an adversary in any argument as a "right winger," "neocon," "Zionist thug," etc., and you win.
April 13, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Reece
much of MJ's posts were subject to his whims
He should have received a medal
If you really want to have a "community" here at TPM Cafe, you have to man up and ban people quickly when they become a problem.
Aww... Poor delicate baby. But why be so unsympathetic and selfish? Why not insist upon mandatory "re-education" camps so that the outcasts and troublemakers can be taught the benefits of "community"?
April 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rank stupidity, offensivetoyou. Do you really think that banning trolls is equivalent in any reasonable way to establishing reeducation camps? There's no real reason to respond to that.
April 13, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Reece
There's no real reason to respond to that
So you replied because...?
You really don't get it. Do you want a therapy group or a political discussion group when you talk about community? Because if it's the latter you must - I repeat must - dispense with censorship. Bar Kafka nailed it - snark and lack of response are the way to deal with trolls. But when dealing with intelligent people who really disagree with you you'll have to live with the possibility that you are totally and completely wrong. Painful, I know. Very, very painful.
April 13, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, offensive, you agree with me? If I don't get it, it's because you're not saying anything coherent. Trolls don't go away. When I see an "intelligent" conservative who honestly disagrees with me post on this site, I'll let you know. Those people aren't going to come here. What we do get from time to time are right wing trolls who are here specifically to disrupt the ongoing discussions and debate.
This is the only political site on the web that is unwilling to ban trolls. There is no reason for that policy to continue.
April 13, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
@reece
If I don't get it, it's because you're not saying anything coherent. Trolls don't go away
Ah, how clever of you! I'm a stupid troll. I don't go away. Therefore you must be right!
What we do get from time to time are right wing trolls who are here specifically to disrupt the ongoing discussions and debate.
You're not smart enough to participate in real discussions and are incapable of recognizing one. Obviously, you can't keep your mouth shut when faced with a troll. You must have the last word. What a loser you are!
This is the only political site on the web that is unwilling to ban trolls.
And a complete ignoramous as well. Never been to "Comment is Free" over at the Guardian? It reveals many of the posters here as the pretentious, over-protected, inbred, ingrown, hang-nails they really are.
April 13, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou said:
"Never been to "Comment is Free" over at the Guardian? It reveals many of the posters here as the pretentious, over-protected, inbred, ingrown, hang-nails they really are."
Wow, offensive, if I were you I wouldn't come here anymore.
April 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, Tex, I don't know how you got off track here. In the series of posts you said:
To which I responded:
You see, I wasn't calling you a troll, I was making a counterargument. Your mistake made this hilariously ironic:
The Guardian doesn't count because a) it's a newspaper and not a political website, and b) it's British. But if you like it so much, you're welcome to spend more time there and less here. (How's that for snark?)
April 14, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we all raise our hands? Like, so we know who we all are? Thanks.
April 13, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Communities happen, and we have one here, with new members replacing the old farts (me, etc.).
If we had tools such as ratings and hiding comments we could self-enforce. Lacking that we need more active participation by staff.
April 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta strongly disagree, Tom. We just don't need another ratings system. If an argument cannot be countered without base insults, broad simplistic characterizations and other ad hominems, then there simply is no more argument. If and when actual trolling occurs (as opposed to passionate but genuine disagreement over an issue or a particular remark), then we all share an option to deploy either snark or ignore mode. Sorry, but this is only as big a problem as we ourselves make it.
April 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sympathize, since you had you had to defend minority postions regularly.
The value of ratings was to hide the hateful stuff, both from lurkers and from search engines. We used to get fake liberals that would say outrageous stuff to make TPM look bad (hosting extreme views) as well as straight-up hateful trolls.
If rating was a privilege earned after some period, then it would not be abused. It was too easily applied by sock puppets like Fred Dobbs' alter egos.
April 13, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate very much the service which Josh and his crew provide here. I find TPM to be the most reliable site for election and muck information.
I find the comment threads here to be nowhere nearly as toxic and silly as at other sites tracking the campaign.
I do not understand those who urge banning commenters who are consistently "offensive." The reason, I think, that the offensive folks hang around is because they almost always receive a response, thus the attention they seek. Ignore them and, in most cases, they will move on.
It doesn't take long for each of us to determine which "reader blogs" and commenters to skip.
April 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand those who urge banning commenters who are consistently "offensive." The reason, I think, that the offensive folks hang around is because they almost always receive a response, thus the attention they seek. Ignore them and, in most cases, they will move on.
Also, ban them and they move on. One way is much simpler than the other. Which do you think it is?
April 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, obviously reece; but what's easiest isn't necessarily the best.
The problem is when one gets into censorship and banning is that someone must decide upon what criteria to apply. And as Josh explained there is one staff person monitoring thousands of comments each day.
So it just might be easier for those commenting to ignore commenters whom they consider offensive.
April 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
ah... but you can ignore them and i can ignore them and five hundred and sixty three other people can ignore them but all it takes is that one person...
ignoring works. but only if everyone does the ignoring. and that just isn't going to happen.
April 14, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I won't even use the term "troll." There are posters here whose contributions to discussions consistently don't interest me. When I scan down and see their avatars, I keep going.
Simple.
April 20, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've really liked a system on some other boards where I can just "ignore" certain posters. I'm not censoring them, as they can still post. But I'm just not bothered by people who, over time, have shown me there's nothing for me to listen to.
At first, I was a little worried that I might be missing something, but with experience... nope. In practice, too , it was only 2-3 people.
April 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss the wysiwyg editor. Also, my old account disappeared and I had to change names. Other than that, I haven't the time to follow a discussion thread back and forth all day, anyway. So the other features don't matter so much.
I really do enjoy the ability to just comment on the occasional headline post, or maybe create an entry of my own once and a while. So thank you very much for all the hard work you put into this. It's pretty awesome.
April 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
test. If it works, it means they've finally fixed the change password mess, although it's still non-intuitive.
April 13, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that does not seem to work is that when you enter without being logged on, there is at the top of the page in tiny font a logon field that is populated with a small button. This small button does nothing.
At the bottom of the page, there is logon to comment field and that one works.
If the one at the top isn't working, why not get rid of it, since it isn't needed.
April 13, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have absolutely no problems with any of the posting guidelines Josh has laid out.
I have been around these parts for a LOOOOOONG time, as have many old familiar faces on this thread. We have had more than our share of scrapes around here over the years but always seem to work them out. But most of the time, even in the most vehement disagreements, there has been a tone of mutual respect in the comments. Reasonable people can disagree at times...
That being said I miss the old format. I miss being able to track my posts. As silly as they were at times I miss the ratings system. But we are in a Brave New TPM Cafe World now. C'est la vie, it is what it is...bottom line is it is all up to us posters how successful or mediocre this site will be. Josh gets outstanding contributors here so let's try to make the maximum effort in making this place as good as it can be by making the discussions outstanding.
April 13, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Libertine, the comment ratings for the moment. It was a close call but our feeling was that it generated more flame wars then effective moderation. But we're not going to be dogmatic about it. If it seems like it's really making things worse then we'll look into reimplementing. However, we are working on a new post and conversation tracking system. So hold tight. that will be back.
April 14, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hiya Josh...
I do agree with you on the problems that arose from the ratings system, which has been the topic of many discussions around here in the past. While I personally miss them on a certain level I realize, in terms of the big picture, as an on-line community we are probably better off without them...just me venting a bit, lol. We've had civility "problems" on and off at times in the past but if everyone takes your comment guidelines to heart those problems can remain in the past.
My main concern is tracking my posts and the overall activity on the threads I've posted on. I am very happy to hear that issue is being worked on.
I realize that after the format change we are still in a state of flux here...a work in progress. So I think "patience" needs to be the key word for everybody. Thanks for update and for the work being done by everyone here.
April 14, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard anything about the old internal messaging system, which was useful, especially for the promulgation of messages with high time value (I recollect a conference call that Steve Clemons set up with Lee Hamilton and some other heavyweights that needed rsvp within maybe 12 hours to get on the call--I doubt if I would have tried emailing him, but the internal message system cut down ambiguity on both ends and made it easy.)
April 14, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh,
Wow, I like your site. Speaking of flame wars, I have one going at me right now. Here is where I ask for help, and include other links below my content to point to you to the same person. Is this normal on TPMM, or have I been living in a cave full of flame throwers? LOL
April 15, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Libertine, nice comment!
April 14, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
test
April 14, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cokie Roberts explained away Hillary's victory in New Hampshire by describing the demographics as older and white. If Obama can get away --as he has so far -- with claiming racism everytime somebody reports that blacks are voting for him.
Now can you imagine that if a Geraldine Ferraro (keep your cool) had won a Presidential Primary in New Hampshire in the pass that Cokie would not have mentioned it?
Go back and read Bill's comments in context and tell me precisely what you believe was racist!
April 14, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, maybe start a separate thread for technical issues apart from civility issues, as it's hard to read through all the back and forth to see if particular technical issues have been discussed.
"Recent comments" shown in the user profiles are not sort of random instead of chronological. Is this intended? I look in my profile to find a link to recent comments to check for replies - when they aren't listed it's very hard to find the post.
Also, I miss the feature that takes you to the actual comment in a post rather than taking you just the top of the post. When there are many comments, a particular one can be hard to find.
I appreciate the speed at which comments are now posted!
April 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
meant "now" sort of random, instead of "not" sort of random.
I look forward to return of preview and edit functions.
April 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also miss the information on user profiles about how long the user has been a TPM member. Will that return? Or is it available and I'm just overlooking it somewhere?
April 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
i understand the problems that were sometimes created by the ratings system but beyond my having grown weary of all the clinton/obama crap-ola, not having the rating system is a big reason i don't venture into the reader comments anywhere near as often as i used to.
while i think all of the tiresome obama/clinton garbage has generated more marginal comments than ever, they are less tolerable when i can't quickly register my disapproval and move on. if we want to use the real coffee house/cafe analogy, the ratings system was my way of shaking my head in disagreement or disapproval or nodding my head in agreement. in a heated conversation at a coffee house i wouldn't feel as if i had to speak at length or engage someone verbally in order to feel a part of the conversation. and when someone says something that's just kinda stupid, i often find it more productive to just shake my head dismissively at their comments so that the conversation might be directed at someone who is actually making interesting points. (likewise, i find having to say 'well said' or 'interesting point' instead of just being able to rate a comment 'good' or 'excellent' a bit too tedious to bother and a bit a like calling up rush limbaugh with nothing more to add than 'ditto'...)
maybe if the ratings system weren't used for moderating but were just there for 'getting a sense of the room', they wouldn't be such a problem. i don't know.
April 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Reece
A correction
"Comment is Free" is a political blog RUN by a newspaper, not a newspaper
and a comment
That it's British doesn't matter in today's world. It's in the english language and english speakers living anywhere with access to the Internet can and do post to it - as is the case with this site.
For the rest, I'll let it go since it has become a personal dispute of no interest to anyone else.
April 14, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that it's British is relevant because we're talking about political websites. British sites essentially aren't about American politics. Whatevs.
April 14, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Reece
Our conversations would be so much more interesting if you actually knew what you were talking about and had the wit to do even a bit of research before speaking
Comment is Free
in case the html doesn't work the URL for "Comment is Free" is
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/index.html?gusrc=gpd
If you look through their archives you'll find the names of several writers who appear here. Dean Baker comes to mind immediately.
April 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The posts seem to be MUCH faster with no discernable lag time. Thanks, Josh!
April 14, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a very serious problem right now. Please help. Other than using email, please tell me what to do. Help.
April 15, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack!
Same crap, different month.
Same tech problems nothing fixed.
Looks like I'll have to give it another month or two.
Hello to all who I have bugged over the past 2 1/2 years.
Josh -- Your intentions are good. It's the implementation, or lack thereof, that sucks.
It's back to the boat for the ol' Decoy here.
~OGD~
April 16, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've tried complying with good etiquette, but sometimes I just can't help myself. It's almost as if there were someone else inside me trying to get out.
By the way, the Recommend lists simply don't work - lots of "me too", "yeah, that's right" meaningless stuff driven to the top of the list if it's supporting the right candidate and other specific triggers. Better to have a moderator flag which posts are trivial, non-entertaining and uninterestingly infantile.
April 16, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink