« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What I Learned on My Summer Suspension
I had the experience of being scolded and punished for bad behavior on TPM over the past couple of days. I was restricted from posting comments on reader posts for a time. It was (mostly) not fun, but it was educational, so I thought I would share.
For context, all the gory details are here.
Primarily, I had my first direct experience with censorship, and it was unpleasant. I did not like it when it was imposed on me in the form of a comment restriction, and I should not have liked it when I imposed it on someone else. In the cold light of day, posting a 93 page comment on a thread does tend to shut down conversation, and this is a form of censorship every bit as much as restricting my ability to comment. In this case, I think the punishment did fit the crime, as I was only restricted from posting comments on reader posts. I was still permitted to write my own posts, and to comment on center-column posts. This indicates to me that Lila's intention was to take away only the medium in which I had behaved badly, not to completely cut off the ability to express thoughts.
As a result of this experience, I have also learned that the TPM community is a really cool group of people. I don't mean to make myself out to be Spartacus here, but many of you guys put yourselves right out there to stand up for me, regardless of whether or not we agree on the usual issues. I'm glad I had my wife calling me a geek for being so bothered about not being able to post on "that stupid blog thing" to keep my head from swelling as I read through the thread.
I also learned that something about my profile, avatar or tone makes people think I am a "she." I am, at last inspection, a "he."
Finally I learned that Josh and Lila are good, fair people. They both came right out and explained directly, listened to all of the feedback, and assured us that the communication will be better next time this happens. I can't think of a better outcome.
Thanks for indulging me the post mortem, and a special thanks for CaliforniaPaige and everyone else on Lingr the other night.
Comments (101)
"I am MassDem!" (said in best Kirk Douglas voice.)
July 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been waiting to see a post from you ever since your release. You have been quite understanding, more so than I think I would be. Or will be at some point, who knows.
I'm sure it goes without saying, but glad to see you back.
July 3, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard others call you 'she' so I followed suit.
Happy to have you back...and in correct gender.
July 3, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to be back, thanks to all
July 3, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
FREE MASSDEM!!!
Oh, can I stop now?
:)
er, hallo Hobbes
July 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back - But, please tell us you haven't abandoned your mischievous side! That would be too sad (for all).
July 3, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right gladde am I that thou art once agayn of our felaweshipe.
Fredom is soote, i' troth.
July 3, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know, to translate that comment, someone is going to have to post a middle English dictionary.
Now: will Lila see that as promoting or preventing a lively discussion?
Ah, TPM has finally hit a slippery slope... that's why "if it ain't broke..."
July 4, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say we start a club.
Get Rid Of Slimy Site Editors.
G.R.O.S.S.E
Just kidding. We love you, Lila.
"Benevolent" Censorship: It's what's for dinner.
July 3, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back, MassDem! I'm glad the lingr room helped get the word out. (Chat room plug, in the interest of inclusiveness: http://www.lingr.com/room/TPM-aholics All are welcome.)
July 4, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
MassDem - I feel horrible and rotten! I was without The Interwebs for a week (sad!) and missed all the drama. I totally left you hanging alone on this one, especially since you and I both spam posted on the SAME DAY (and I think to the same post??). I promise I didn't mean to ditch you...
That said, I know you've expressed contrition and I regretted my spam posts within seconds of clicking send. However, I'd like to voice my frustration with the fact that you were banned without notice or warning for a first offense (for which you almost immediately apologized), but I wasn't banned and the posters who called us both names (I think we had a few F-bombs flung at us...you didn't name names, so I won't...even though I really want to) apparently weren't banned because they were criticizing you on your last blog. It seems a little hypocritical, and if TPM is going to set "standards" then they should be applied evenly. Just my two cents. Please don't ban me. I have my interwebs back and would like to use them.
July 4, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
MassDem - I'm happy that you are mature/reasonable as to be able to grok what went down. And be cool about it.
I don't expect you to recall, but I'm one who quickly (and on several occasions) ran with your novel "open thread!!!" concept. However, I limited my obvious spamming to posting recipies. I have to admit to being one who found your insanely verbose pastes to be annoying. Funny, in that I came thisclose that last time to calling you on it, but opted not to for being on the same team, so to speak...
Anyhoo... glad that matters were settled --all around-- with minimal blood shed, and with greater understanding -and respect- all around.
But, fair warning to the LaRouchies: I've got a shitload of recipes I'm keeping handy... ;-)
July 4, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you're back, MassDem. I look forward to many more wonderful posts from you in the weeks and months to come. =)
July 4, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had no desire to see you or anyone banned. I thought that some statement from the site managers on the issue of spamming and a warning would have been sufficient.
I'd like to point out that in the post in question, other readers very effectively debunked all of Michelle's points. I don't understand why people can't see that if we get hysterical and spam a post the troll wins. But if the post is coolly and logically debunked the troll loses. Think of your candidate. One of his most attractive qualities is his coolness under pressure when he responds to criticism.
July 4, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see that the Tiger has been unleashed! Roam free :)
July 4, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find this quite intriguing. I was followed around by a poster telling other posters not to talk with me. I've had a poster write on this site of that pressure and admit he couldn't talk to me for fear of offending his clique. When someone attacks another poster and tries to limit what can be said by intimidating their friends do they won't talk with me, I consider that a kind of mobbing.
It wasn't worth the energy to keep on.
TPM social chat rooms about being lonely and drinking continue to be a daily event. Plenty of interesting posters with complex ideas for discussion are kept off the boards here. The site suffers under the weight of the mob. The number of posters is in decline. To see the same social chat room come up every day from the same posters is really silly. This kind of posting which is neither intellectual discussion nor satire weighs on the general sensibility of the site.
The simple fix is to have the software prohibit continual blogs from the same people--limit them to once a week. That would open up the blogs to new posters, and make room for new pieces to be recommended. Look the recommended post, the same group every day. That's the clique who controls the site.
Not worth the effort.
July 4, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on a second. I joined TPm and wrote my first post on May 3rd 2008. I was somewhat reluctant at first, since I also perceived a clique that might not be welcoming of newcomers, but what I have found is the polar opposite. The membership of this community, including those who are perennially in the rec list, are nothing but welcoming and receptive to new posters, provided they being something to the table other than complaints.
July 4, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've had very different experiences then.
July 4, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who did that?
July 4, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey. I've just discovered this site over the past few days and have been watching the action. I'm surprised at what shows up on the recommend list, since a friend I respect said this is a good place for thoughtful talk. I haven't found much worth weighing in on to be honest. For a newcomer it does look like 8-10 people claiming all the white space. and a lot of "private conversation"--chat room type stuff. I'll give it time though.
July 4, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoagie,
I encourage you to stick around a bit. Many (probably most) of the regular readers on this site expended so much energy during the primary season, and we're also in a low news cycle -- so there hasn't been much, beyond the FISA issue, to draw people back in.
That said, there are some interesting discussions going on, even now. I recemmend Allburg's recent post on "constitutional rights" if you're not suffering from FISA fatigue; the discussion thread there will give you an idea how this site works when it works well.
July 4, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, CaliforniaPaige. I did look at Allburg's thread and found it informative. I don't know much about those issues so don't have anything useful to say. Maybe I was put off by the FISA overload. I will spend more time looking around, however, I just was told on another thread (We Are Family) to leave by the beer drinking bee.
July 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't tell you to leave, blue guy, I just answered your put down with an understandable observation
July 4, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue guy? Huh?
July 4, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, got cut off--I'm in an airport killing time. WorkerBee, are you suggesting that Hoagies is someone else? This always confuses me!
July 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Killing time? With wot?
Yes, I think Hoagie's a psued. My reasons? That would clue in the perpetrator and ruin my fun in spotting them.
July 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such intrigue! Killing time with TMP, I guess, a 2.5 hour layover. Tired of my book, dreading 7 hour flight to London in the middle seat, steerage.
July 4, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor dear
Can you get to Paige's chatroom?
http://www.lingr.com/room/TPM-aholics
Exceeds at time killing
:)
July 4, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! This will do for another 40 minutes, or until my card cuts me off again!
July 4, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee: You did:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/we-are-family.php#comment-2948135
Thanks for representing the TPM website so well.
July 4, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donner,
As chat room "founder," I'll address your points on that:
The idea, in setting up a forum for silliness (and yes, silliness abounds, though I personally don't see it as a place for lonely drinking), was to enable those who wanted to chat about everything from the weather to popular culture with a sprinkle of politics to do do without disrupting the "intellectual discourse."
The reason I mention it (and I try to do so only appropriate contexts, and only very briefly) is that the last thing I would want is for someone to feel unwelcome to join that discussion, because of some perceived "cliquiness." I will also add, that the content of those discussions isn't always silly; it is also occasionally philosophical or political. That all depends on who happens to show up on a given day. You would be most welcome to drop in, if you felt so inclined, and I'm fairly certain that, if you posed a weightier intellectual question, others would be glad to be involved in that discussion. (Though I do think there's an unspoken agreement to keep, or at least to re-present any political arguments that arise in that forum here, so as not to leave out those who are keep on intellectual refreshment and would prefer to ignore utter silliness.)
July 4, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see no problems with friendly chat rooms, but not every day from initiated by the same poster. I don't anyone should be posting more than once a week. I see two posts right now from the same poster. You are not going to convince many posters that an inside group controls a lot of the space on the site.
I posted comments and political blogs for weeks with virtually no response. I know people who have left TPM for this reason, and we continue our dialogue by e-mail.
Click on my name. See the history. The archives here are a real history of what goes on at the site.
I don't imagine either that the 8-10 posters who the person above mentions will show up today to speak for themselves.
July 4, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me correct the typos. No coffee yet at the bunkhouse.
I don't think anyone should be posting more than once a week.
You are not going to convince many poster that an inside group DO NOT control a lot of the space on the site.
July 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, in the case the chat room is persistent, and people come and go as they choose, so commenting about it doesn't initiate anything. (However, I'm happy to make a point of mentioning it with less frequency. I just don't want it to get into a situation where anyone feels left out because they didn't know they had the option to join.)
I looked at your archive, and I finally read your Willie Keil blog, which I'd noticed previously but hadn't sat down to enjoy. (Because of the title, I'd expected a much longer story than it turned out to be, and I often save those longer blogs for when I have a leisurely moment to read them carefully.) But I do remember seeing that on the rec list, and I also saw plenty of comments on that particular blog. I also saw a number of entries about polling companies, and I will admit that I never read those posts, simply because the topic didn't interest me. It's possible that other people had a similar reaction.
As far as your one blog per week suggestion, my understanding is that is the sort of area in which the TPM staff would prefer the community "police" itself; that, if the community standard is not to post too frequently, we should only be recommending posts from people who do not abuse the system. I think there is a dichtomy on this site between people who want to comment on the most up-to-the-minute political issues, and those who are looking for a more measured discourse. Posting once per week (whether by choice or mandate) doesn't make as much sense for the former group as it does for the latter. I also think that the 24-hour expirations also push reader content away from more sustained, involved conversations and measured discourse and would personally love to see a version of TPM where I could catch up on those sorts of posts at the end of the week, or on whatever day I have time to sit down a fully engage.
I do agree that people here tend to underestimate the rate at which new people find this site and occasionally fail to take into consideration that a post or comment based on something that happened in March could seem insiderish.
July 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was instructive the other day when one of the regulars ran a comment on whether quinn was a real person or not. This poster went so far as to track down quinn's MySpace site and say that his friends matched quinn's profile.
That's stalking. Period.
You are kidding yourself if you don't realize that significant numbers of posters stay away because they realize that they have little chance of being posted here without a lot of playing politics with the in- group, one way of other. Everyone knows this.
There is the issue also of what the site wants to accomplish. It is already seen as the "serious site with a difference," so to speak. I have no idea how it does in terms of revenue. The rates are not cheap, depending upon the source of the advertisement.
But the "game" on the net is not only content, but traffic. You have to get people here and keep them. To that end, the dramas of the avatars is attractive from a marketing view. The site has its more serious places to comment, and then this wild theater of pic- people. That attracts readers. I showed the site yesterday to a rather serious academic who was immediately enthralled by the possibility of posting as some sci-fi character. What's his other option, to name himself and his university? Because a small number of posters here meet and have drinks with each other doesn't make them special, and most certainly shouldn't give them a reason to attack or stalk of other avatars.
Again, the tactics and concerns are about likes and dislikes. No one ever talks about any problem with the funny and wonderful Monica/Crankypants. Who knows who Desidero really is? I know who his in terms of his brilliant myth-making as an artist, and his zany and deep writing. I need to know more. Really I don't want to know more. The mystery is the reality.
Whether my posts were rec'd or not doesn't matter. What matters is how many other posters have had the same experience. And if you went through many posts where donnerpass was never answered by anyone--you get the message.
The fact that you can choose a provocative avatar -especially as sexualized female pic--tells a lot about the site. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, I'm just saying that all this goody-two-shoes
explanations of the TPM community and its openness os bullshit.
July 4, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what to say about quinn's experience. I didn't see the thread you're referring to. On the one hand, I think (or at least hope) all of us using this service know that it would be pretty easy to figure out who we are if a determined hacker wanted to, and quinn was passing around an imeem site that he said was his personal identity. On the other hand, that does sound invasive.
RE: "Playing to the in-crowd"
I grant that there are various webs of people, and that people here gravitate toward familiarity. But my take is that the most effective "playing to the in-crowd" simply involves contributing to other discussions. I know if I see someone say something interesting in a thread, and then later on see that they've written a post, I'm much more likely to read it. I don't think that's inherently a bad thing, though I can see how it can work against new blood. I think that the "ones that got away" posts are an attempt by TPM staff to help with that.
As far as "what TPM wants" -- I don't have any insight. I think your questions are the right ones; and I assume that they prefer to maximize traffic that generates ad revenue and minimize any traffic that uses bandwidth without generating revenue, as well as maintain the main blog reputation.
July 4, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting to me that on one addresses the issue of having one of the regulars having two posts in the rec'd list. Clearly this is not a good thing -had I done it people would be all over me. This points to a grip the regulars have over the site, and when someone brings up a problem, they are silent about it. Why didn't you comment on this? Your silence indicates acceptance. I give you a great deal of credit for taking these questions on, since you are the only one of your group who is doing so.
July 5, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next time you see Hoagie, perhaps you want to welcome him/her to TPM. Prove me wrong on that. Show me how TPM is a welcoming site.
July 5, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I would like you to read the following discussion taking the dates into account. Especially the the reasons for asking why people should follow and make efforts to reveal someone's real life
name.
And second notice the good-faith effort to ask these same questions and the dismissive responses.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/readers-contributions-to-tpm-p.php
July 5, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are primarily referring to this comment, I take it? http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/readers-contributions-to-tpm-p.php#comment-2839496
I haven't checked the terms of use of TPM, but those terms sound reasonable and authentic. However, there's plenty of gray area as well -- for example, if I mention that I live in San Francisco, and someone happens to remember that, is that "collecting and storing personal information about another user"? It probably is, but I don't think that it would violate the intent of the TOS to do so. That's why I say I don't feel qualified to comment on quinn's experience without knowing the details.
Oh, and far as my "group" -- I will also say, for the record, that I don't feel as though I have a "group" here. I have a few closer connections, and I have also come to appreciate a rather large set of the population -- some of whom I speak to more than others, either because of comfort or becuase they chose topics that I have something to say about -- but all of whom I respect. But I'm ultimately here because I want to learn something from people who know more than I do and from people who've had different experiences than I've had, especially the ones I haven't "met" yet.
I think there's a tricky social aspect, which is that, due to limited time, I tend to short cut through posts to read the ones by posters who have established themselves (in my eyes) as consistently producing interesting content, and I agree that there are some pitfalls associated with that approach. The only way I can think to correct for those pitfalls, though, without simply adding more time to my day, is to rely on other people to comment about the interesting things they've read -- much as you and Evainne were doing here yesterday.
July 6, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the issue of multiple posts. I knew there was something I'd forgotten. Probably it's more accurate to interpret my silence on that as disagreement on how important an issue that is than on tacit acceptance of the pattern. I'm happy to give my thoughts, though.
To begin with, the two posts you're referencing were by Allsburg, and they were very different in nature. One was a political discussion, and the other was a plea to bring back some of the liveliness that a previous poster used to contribute. I had no problem with seeing both of those posts on the rec list. Reasons: the particular poster has not posted much else recently, so it was not as though he had dominated the list in prior days and the content of the discussions in each post was very different.
I think, perhaps, that there are two (well, more than that, but let's start simple) primary use cases for TPM message boards -- one is commentary on current events, and it is characterized by a quick, simple post, relatively light on analysis, and ephemeral in nature; the other is a more involved, political commentary that delves into issues that are more long-standing and requires more effort to discuss with any authenticity. I do not think that the TPM Café structure does a good job of enabling both types of discussion to inter-operate. Instead, the focus in on a middle ground -- an attempt at quick reactions, but with more polished and cogent analysis that sometimes works but leaves little room for either extreme.
So, what I'm trying to say, is that I think the problem is not necessarily multiple posts by the same user but a very divergent set of goals from the different users of TPM.
July 5, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a response to California Paige and Donnerpass.
I'm only talking about this site. I don't really know what the chat room is. I don't even think Donnerpass does either from his comment.
My take for what it's worth:
Some view this site as purely political and can't tolerate anything that ventures outside. Some think it's a place to unwind from a long day at work and more interesting than watching an old re-run of Seinfeld. Some get insulted because people don't agree with them. Others get intimidated by some of the intellectual heavy weights. Some come to try out ideas. Some come to work out their feelings of insecurity and issues with not being assertive in real life. Some even
use more than one identity to work on those issues. Some come just to show off, others to make friends because they're lonely and this site seems to be more real than their real lives. And the list goes on...
I came because, similarly to Michelle Obama, this is the first time in my life that I have become so involved and excited about the political process. It's not to say I haven't been involved in important issues in the past, but Obama's candidacy and finding this site has made this campaign more personal to me. And often, I'm here to have fun too.
But I have really been annoyed at all the discussions that have tried to ban ANYONE from this site. Geez, people were complaining about me when I started to polyglot with Desi. So what? People got over it and I still do what I want. Heck, people even started to use their translating software to follow our conversations.
I belong to the group of those who say if someone is on a thread that is annoying you or is intimidating, just stay away. What could be simpler than that. But I've seen people who want to have it both ways. They play the victim and yet go after the person they think is inflicting harm.
Mainly, I find that the culprit to these sites is the fall out from the high speed responses. Some are more adept at it than others. Some have more time to spend composing extensive, considered answers. Others go with lightning speed and as a result, sometimes hurtful remarks. Even so, we're all grownups (or at least should be) and can deal.
I read somewhere once that when we type we are using the right side of the brain, the result is the more emotional response. And when we write using paper and pen, we are using the left side, the more considered intellectual side. Hence, be carefull when doing those rapid fire e-mail responses at work, etc...
Perhaps something to think about as we type away here at TPM.
Well, that was a lot of rambling. Probably just exhausted the right side of my brain. Now to some left side calisthenics.
July 4, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
A level headed take on things? Nah, that can't work ;)
(thanks for the nice post!)
July 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nett von dir. Vielleicht hättest du auf Deutsch geantwortet um die TPM polizei zu verärgern!
July 4, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht. Schade :) Aber es gibt hier schon genug Ärger.
July 4, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
elitists..
I don't talk to fountains without knowing if I can have a drink with them. In your case, that's a possibility as you've mentioned your real self resides in Central Park. OK. You're approved. No need to do a background check.
July 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can always have a drink from my fountain.
July 4, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well said, GFTB. And I like how you brought the discussion back to the original issue of this post (censorship and banning) without batting an eyelash.
July 4, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I have no knowledge of your chat room. I'm talking about using space here as a personal chat room that fills up space on this page.
I still see two posts by the same person on different topics in rec'd reading. No one sees a problem here?
July 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! Then we have been talking somewhat at cross purposes. I created a chat room, on another site, and posted links here (like the link in my first comment in this thread) -- so that those of us who wanted to be silly could do so without taking over the rest of the site in "chat room threads." (Though I still think the "chat room threads" are useful, just that they needn't be overdone.)
July 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, donnerpass.
July 4, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the solution, gasket? You've been around a long time. What seems fair to you? Room for everyone and keeping it "real" so to speak.
July 4, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
'twas an accurate and fair assessment. IMO
July 4, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw a post go down this morning by one the most interesting bloggers here. Never gets rec'd. I don't comment on his blogs because that would only lesson the chance for rec's and his future.
That fellow has been putting up wonderful posts as long as I've been here. To see him go down another time, and see yet another
group of insiders have a chat room rather than allowing interesting blogs to be read is proof positive of their control over much of the space on the site. Period. End of story. Over and out. Factual.
If there was an historian of TPM, and perhaps there will be one some day, and the archives are still here, the case would be proven quite clearly.
July 4, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you give a link to post?
July 4, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want that poor fellow associated with me. He'll be in worse shape. Why don't you go into today's posts and see what's there? It's different from the same old stuff here, and it's deeply relevant. He's just a smart and sensitive guy who has no status here, and doesn't get involved with the group hugs.
July 4, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're being paranoid about your influence, but I can respect that. Personally, I think that the status you're talking about comes more from exposure and familiarity than from likes and dislikes, but that may be my own biases coming through. Nobody has time to read through everything, so, for the a newer poster, if the title isn't draw, it's pretty easy to slip through the cracks. And I do think that's a problem, but I don't think it's caused exclusively by people supporting their "friends."
So, for this particular post, I thought you meant it had scrolled off the recent posts list. If it has, I don't know how to find it. But it sounds like that's not what you meant at all, so I'll go look.
July 4, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look how this poor Hoagie person is being treated. What do you think on that?
And what do you think about trying to track down people's identities in the real world as was done to quinn, CaliforniaPaige? Right or wrong? I think it was shameful and a form of stalking. What do you think? Important here to answer the difficult questions, not just comment on the easy ones.
July 4, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm not ignoring your previous comment. I'm thinking about it.
July 4, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, I'll check back later then, CalifornianPaige, to see if you've thought it through and have some answers.
July 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
July 4, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure you should wait up on this one, gftb. An hour and half to go before the post goes down, and then it's too late for the answers. The TPM shuffle, I'd say.
July 4, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've commented on the post, so you can find it again easily. I can't promise I'll have any answers, but I am thinking about what you're saying, and I will reply.
July 4, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing that interests me is who you know that quinn offered the MySpace profile? Did you find that thread? Which is it? I'd like to go back and read it. The question for me is why he feels he has to present evidence on this kind of thing?
And if he does, why doens't cranky pants? Doesn't it seem clear to you that some posters have it out for others? And their "rules" are applied to pic-people they don't like?
I'm hoping that you come back and discuss these points. I'm sort of keeping a history of these kinds of discussions to that when I post on these issues, I can refer back to the threads.
You seem like a fair person.
July 5, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's an example of quinn sharing a link in BG's last thread: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/i-know-more-than-you-do.php
Beyond that, I don't know much.
As far as why a new poster is accused so quickly of being a fake, it seems that people on this site like to know with whom they're speaking. Like the familiarity thing, I think. So it's a little disconcerting when a new character shows up with a working relationship -- as if, for example, your mother's best friend came over for tea and started asking personal questions about, oh, how your relationship was going. So that's part of what goes on.
Also, I think that some posters here find the idea of one poster taking on multiple voices to make a point (while pretending to be different people) manipulative. For Crankypants, MonicaL, idiotic, and fake Sinbad, the part that's different is that they are clearly fictional characters. From the start. It's like you're looking for a restaurant, and you read a bunch of reviews saying this one particular place is great. So you show up, and the food's ok, but it's nothing to call your friends about. And then you find out that all those reviews were written by the restaurant owner. Nothing's really been compromised; the owner didn't do anything mean; but you feel a bit used. Taken advantage of. Confused. I don't think people like that. (Though some here enjoy the game of figuring it all out, I'll admit.) So I think some of what's going on is that peole are worried about getting suckered into going to another "meh" restaurant, and they're suspicious. (I'm sure if I knew more about psychology, I could write pages on that. Luckily I don't.) So suspicion, jealousy, whatever it is -- nobody wants to be a sucker or a rube -- makes people cautious. Perhaps overly so.
I'm not saying that's a fair thing, or even a good thing. I'm just saying I see a causal relationship.
Me, I don't mind so much interacting with a putative "psuedo." I just make my peace that I don't actually know to whom I'm talking, and as long the other voice stays in character, it works for me. I suppose it's the part of me that abstracts and compartmentalizes that rules there.
July 6, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I really can't wait until TPM implements the discussion tracking feature they used to talk about. Then it wouldnt' matter so much if the post dropped off....
July 4, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. If one continues to comment, then you can't track the post because new comments obliterate the old ones. So it's a matter of keeping the link on the desktop. Every time I've done that and gone to find it, most often no one comes back. So I've stopped the effort.
July 4, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, I did reply above. Not sure I addressed everything, but I tried.
July 4, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poster is 1843 and he posts under his name Going. The things I've discussed here don't really impact me. I come or go, and make no effort that doesn't interest me of a few others. But what I'm describing is true, as you might gather from the other long-time posters. Obsession here is never a good thing. And accusing people like this Hoagie person is than kind of obsession. Following what people post, where their post to discover them or learn more about them is equally obsessive and I'd hope you'd see the problem there. Thanks for the answers.
July 5, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
see above also
July 5, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you donnerpass, you are speaking in the area of uncomfortable truths for many here. I applaud it.
July 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scrolled off, sorry --with only one rec, mine. The guy doesn't even rec his own posts.
July 4, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
CAPaige:
The tone of TPM has definitely grown more cliquish since the start of the 2008. Cricket comments on this fairly often.
I attribute this to the winnowing down of the Dem field of candidates to Obama. While this is a political board, if you are centrist, you will be perceived as right-wing. And despite the calls to openness, there has been a gradual evaporation of people that used to make solid posts (DF and TheraP come to mind immediately). So a diversity of opinions have left and the resulting content isn't compelling for many to stay.
I really liked the idea of your establishing a chatroom because it would move the more "social" interactions there -- which is did. It also seems to have the unintended effect of bringing that tone back to TPM and hence increasing the cliquishness when your chatroom participants post here.
Boards evolve, so it goes. I neither mourn nor celebrate the state of TPM today. But the user comments used to be more uniformly political, but with a more spirited discussion than the Cafe. And with the recent paranoia imposed by lurking moderators bumping off people, I expect to see more evolution on the way.
But that's life.
July 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If people were limited to one post per week, wouldn't that open space for all kinds of posts? The idea of the "community" policing the site doesn't work because the inside group controls the rec'd
blogs. The only reason I get into it is because of people expect some drama, and the only way I ever got donner a voice here was by creating the drama.
You've thought about it a lot. Where do you see it going? What would make a variety of folks happy, open the board to new people, and keep the site a mix of different kinds of pieces--from crazy stuff to the more serious? I miss Crankypants and company.
It's the mix that works, I think. I agree with you about the lurking moderators --lurking and not commenting today here.
July 4, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been reading TPM's front page for a long time, almost 7 years now. Later when I started to see the comments sections, I never felt the need to join in. This election, I felt so alone in the blogs I used to visit because they were all pro-Hillary all the time. I left them and trolled Republican sites for a while. That was fun for a while but ultimately lonely too.
I signed up to be able to comment here. I felt accepted from the beginning but I noticed that there are two very distinct insiders club. If you do not see it you are being disingenuous or belong to it. Still, I carried on commenting. I still carry on commenting. It's possible that someday I might even post but I will do it with the full acceptance that it won't get read or get any recs. That's ok. At least I will have had my say.
Having said all that, I still read one group of the established writers when I see their post. I like them and notice they don't write more often these days. I think it's not only that it's slow, but I think they are giving others a chance. Yes, I believe them to that kind hearted. I also rec up people I've never read. I like that there should be a mix. There are mean people here. Some willfully mean and arrogant and others sorta mean in passing. I'm sure I've been part of the latter group at times and felt bad afterwards.
I know of the poster that Donnerpass is referring to. I saw his last post and it was more of an alert in nature and I certainly investigated the link. Still wondering how it could have been commented upon, Donnerpass? Your blogpost, Donnerpass, was seeking comments, his did not.
July 4, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, I would never deny being part of one of the cliques, or anti-cliques. Though most of these rag-tag folks you are speaking about post less, if I have your meaning. Nor would I say that there isn't a fair amount of mean commenting from the posters. In my case, I just got pissed off with being treated badly and launched my own group. Monica is one of favorite meanies.
I wish she would come back.
As to your second idea I would point out that the regulars don't ask for comments all the time. People just start commenting. I've seen the poster we're talking about ask for discussion and not get it. Why would he keep asking? And I've seen him comment on other posts, but I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYONE ANSWER HIM.
July 4, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may have read that guy's post, but you didn't rec it. Right?
July 4, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I did not, donnerpass. I regret that, in retrospect.
July 4, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a very fine fellow, and his pieces are quite wonderful. I would only hope that more people would take the time to consider his posts, their meaning and their relevance.
For many (not suggesting you here) it comes down to skipping posts because of the author, or not recommending them to keep space on top for yourself or your friends. Everyone knows this is true. There are pic-people here who are more honorable, but more who are not in this respect.
And where has everyone gone who commented at the top of the thread. What a mystery. Not a peep.
July 4, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. The regulars do not ask. You're right that this guy also should not have had to ask to get reader comments. My bad, donner. I've seen only one of his posts and that only after I read you mention him by name, again, my bad. I'm writing this and examining my own reactions and feelings to the reader list. I think you have a valid point.
July 4, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have learned a lot from his posts. I'd have to say that that he's one of the posters here that really has had a profound effect on me, and especially how I understand a very important part of American history. That his posts are so incredibly relevant to what Obama means in American history, and he has been so roundly ignored, speaks very badly about the posters here --and that is not about me.
July 4, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have thought of writing one about Obama in our historical conciousness at this point in time. He's the counter-memory come back. The counter-memory is nigh upon us. That's what is so fraking exciting about Obama, for me. There are other points of intersections, for me, but that one blows my mind. ;)
July 4, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get it on, feline.
July 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink