About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Censorship on Blue Hampshire?

by: Digger

Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:41:47 AM EST


Once upon a blog, someone dared to defend the fact that Governor Lynch was helping a Democratic president get an appointment they desired.

Then, a "contributing writer" from this blog happened along the fact that someone (not myself) dared defend our governor's actions.  That contributing writer (whose name starts with an "e") then stated this:

Please don't be insulting.

It's one thing to say that the people who disagree with you about whether the DSCC would fully back the nominee are wrong.
It's a different matter to tell us that campaign funding is important, as though we are slow students.

You really are not in a position to educate Blue Hampshire on that.  

Allow me to set the scene.

I come here to read the blog; if it's something of interest I follow it "below the fold", but I'm typically busy reading between 4-10 online newspapers/magazines, so I don't often post.  Also, I'm a lifetime Democrat, never voted GOP ever, and I work with and donate to Democratic campaigns.

Well, I admit, the above post from a "contributing writer" ticked me off.  It was not the first time I had seen this person get unnecessarily snippy and deliver an incredibly patronizing and arrogant retort to someone simply for disagreeing them.  Why not simply refute the post with facts or opinion?  Why the need to get snotty?

So I posted something back to this "contributing writer".  Something along the lines of "Wow, I can't decide whether that was arrogant or simply patronizing", with a post that defended what Lynch was doing.

Later, I returned to check my posts, and when I clicked on two of them, they were gone.

I didn't go over the line or use innappropriate language so I was very surprised, and concerned.  I made inquiries.  I was told that, if I was a registered user, I would be able to see them.  I checked again, and I couldn't see them.

Finally I was told that they 1) either were deleted or 2) they are hidden forever because they got some "1.00" ratings.  To this moment, I don't know what was true.

As a Democrat, I'm really surprised that what I have termed as "soft censorship" is allowed on a Democratic blog.  Keeping people in line with hardcore tactics is something I associate with Republicans; Democrats support debate and the free association of ideas, don't they?

So I raised the censorship issue.  If you have ever seriously disagreed with someone here, or stood up to the "bullying" or patronizing behavior of one of the "contributing writers" here, you know what likely followed.  The accusation that I was a (please choose 1 or more of the following):

1) a GOP operative
       or
2) a troll whose only aim is to "disrupt the blog"

Accusing someone of being an "enemy", simply because they disagree with you, is variously hilarious, pathetic, and honestly very strange, not to mention indicative of a potentially weak argument by the accuser.  Consider that I have Obama memorabilia and a picture with him in my house, making it particularly surreal to be accused of being an "operative" for the enemy.  Maybe I was a participant in the phone jamming scandal and I can't remember it?  Am I the Manchurian Operative, activated by seeing the "Ellen" TV show?

Seriously, a mindset here has been constructed that (perhaps unconsciously) ends up putting people on the "enemies list" simply for raising a question about the conduct of the "contributing writers" or for arguing for a moderate Democratic position.  Why?  Please, show my posts (with their context please) where I have been consciously disruptive and adovcated Republican opinions.  I don't believe they exist.

These "contributing writers" have developed a tendency to be very agressive in their disagreements with people, and what I object to is that there is a double-standard at work; if you respond aggressively to one of these people it seems your posts dissapear.  Isn't that just a little scary?

I understand that this blog is a liberal Democratic blog, and that the idea of what Lynch had done would not be universally welcomed by readers here.  But where's the ideological tolerance?  How do you have a free exchange of ideas with this type of restriction of the exchange of ideas?

Also, I think it's appropriate to raise a censorship debate here.  Were my posts deleted or are they hidden?  Was the blog involved in the deletions or was it solely based on "troll" ratings by a few hardcore posters here intolerant of different views, or of someone willing to stand up to the a few bullying "contributing writers?  

Digger :: Censorship on Blue Hampshire?
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Whoops, sorry about the multiple posts... (0.00 / 0)
I was just trying to view the diary while I was editing, I didn't think it would be saving and displaying multiple versions...

I have no dog in this fight, (4.00 / 1)
and do not wish to enter one. However, if you:

1. are logged in, and you

2. navigate to the word "menu" on the left hand side of the page, then you

3. click on the words "hidden comments" (just below "new diary"),

you will no doubt see what I just saw, four comments of yours that are now hidden.

And FWIW, a quick click on the "rated" number for each comment will show which members provided the ratings that put the comment into that state. I have no way of knowing if there were more comments that no longer exist, you will have to decide that for yourself.

No opinion here, just fact.

Perhaps this will help; good luck.

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.


Dragnet ? (4.00 / 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

"The story you are about to see is true", "Just the facts, ma'am", "We were working the day watch" - phrases which became so popular as to inspire much parody - set the realistic tone of this early police drama. The show emphasized careful police work and the interweaving of policemen's professional and personal lives.

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops


[ Parent ]
Thanks very much for the info Mike... (0.00 / 0)
I'm pretty good with computers Mike, right now here's what's under my menu:

Home
- Diaries
- Digger's Page
- New Diary
- Your Comments
- Hot List
- Log off Digger

If I click on "Your Comments" I have exactly the same menu there.  Weird.

Of possible interest, one of the posts I placed yesterday is also now coming up empty, so that makes 3 total messages deleted.  Maybe JonnyBBad has seen my "Hidden Comments", or maybe they are simply and inherently "Hidden".  My menu's apparently gone 'rogue' on me...


[ Parent ]
The answer finally comes (though why did it take so long?) (0.00 / 0)
Apparently Mike, according to Dean, I haven't achieved "trusted user status"!  Only then can I see my "hidden" posts.  In other words, to me and anyone else, they have been made inaccessible.  Exactly how that differs from deleted I'm not sure, but let's not lose sleep over it.

I know you don't want to put a dog in this fight, but I gotta tell you, I don't think I'm completely insane here.  I can be a bit cranky, and I certainly don't like standing by while bullies have their way, but I've done my best to raise this issue in a civil and mature manner.  I do wonder why not one single user here has chimed in, though I suspect it' because there are maybe 15 peolple that actually post regularly, and the regime doesn't take kindly to supporting uppity types.

I do thank you for the neutrality.  I'm beginning to think even that might be dangerous around here, so you may want to check your "trusted user status" and make sure it's still in effect!


[ Parent ]
The Big Ig, or Dig? (0.00 / 0)
Always the dilemma, particularly for an idiot like me.

Have you considered Blue Mass Group? This diary might interest you.


Oh the irony (0.00 / 0)
Somehow that diary got hijacked into an "English as the official language" discussion. WTF?

[ Parent ]
Interesting... (0.00 / 0)
I don't think "fleeing" this blog is really an answer, especially as it bills itself as a progressive Democratic blog which should support what I'm asking for.  I want to explore the issue of whether there is some serious intolerance here towards moderate Dem thinking, and I also think the issue of whether there's "soft" censorship going on within a blog that calls itself a Democratic blog is a worthy topic.

I think exploring the idea mentioned on that blog regarding an "echo chamber" is a valid one that could too easily apply to here.  If you examine the debates here it's often splitting hairs on a fairly liberal viewpoint.  Go back throught the Gregg at Commerce posts and watch what happened when someone actually dares step towards the middle.  Especially regarding Elwood (who I think is the primary offender regarding intolerance and who leverages his position here towards being an unrestrained and patronizing bully, IMHO), it's just hilarious to see how people get so heated about someone daring to take a moderate Democratic position.  That's simply ridiculous.

And look at how over-the-top the accusations are when someone seriously disagrees with the accepted mode of thought here; I've been called an "operative" or "disruptive force" with the intent of implying I'm a full time GOP employee in D.C. so many times that it might be hysterical if it wasn't indicative of a mono-think culture that is seemingly endemic here.  Honest to God, it has bordered on being mildly fascistic.  I've seen a response to that concern along the lines of, "Hey, we have differences of opinion here all the time, and our debates are very vigorous!"  I'll admit that I don't stray into the diaries often, but the main posts don't have many serious debates at all.  I think what has happened here is that anyone that dares to be moderate is hammered hard enough that they just write the blog off as a leftist playground and go somewhere else.  But why can't the blog grow up a little bit?

What the hell ever happened to intellectual openness and curiousity amoung the netroots?  That Mass site seems to value discussion and debate; what's the matter here, are Elwood and Susanthe going to melt if they're exposed to opinions other than their own?

I think maybe Dean needs to set some standards that are evenly applied to everyone, and not give a pass to a few favorites.  Either chide them for coming down so heavily and offensively on people that disagree with them or allow people to swing back with equal force.

And please foster an environment where more than one narrow way of thinking is welcome, or get rid of the public registration and just send passwords out to friends who think the same way and build a fort out HTML that no one else can find.  Diversity of thought is one of the strengths, and hallmarks, of the Democratic party.  I don't see why it should be any different here.  


[ Parent ]
What baloney. (0.00 / 0)
I'll admit that I don't stray into the diaries often, but the main posts don't have many serious debates at all.

We can go further than that: the ONLY posts you have made here are a) originally to defend the Gregg deal; followed by b) self-referential attacks on the community itself, primarily on me and Susan.

Maybe BlueHampshire shouldn't re-tune itself to better meet your very, very narrow interests.


[ Parent ]
That's better... (2.00 / 2)
See, you're getting nicer already.  Respect can be taught...

It was what I  a) saw at the Gregg postings that made me  b) start making critical comments of the bullying behavior I saw.  Acute observation.

My narrow interests are welcoming a wider debate and tolerance for such, and calling you and Susan on your bullying, both of which would make this a better blog.  Not so narrow.


[ Parent ]
Missing my point (0.00 / 0)
BMG values discussion and debate, as do we, but they don't get it. They get sniping.

BH proves the value of a Democratic blog, not because we agree on everything (we don't), but because it's extremely valuable for us rank-and-file types to hash things out and occasionally just blow off steam.

If I want to argue with Republicans, there are plenty in my office.


[ Parent ]
Define "rank and file" (0.00 / 0)
My point is that rank and file aren't always welcome; rank and file that "think like us" are welcome, while others are "sniped at" by bullying "Contributing Writers".

It's selective sniping, and I'm trying to open a few peoples' eyes to it.  If you're against sniping there, it would be great if you could speak up when your own buddies do it here.


[ Parent ]
Rank and file (0.00 / 0)
Rank and file are Democratic activists who are not elected officials.

My buddies snipe only when sniped at. And it is necessary, as Blue Mass Group proves.

I think you are being selective in what you call bullying.

One more time, for ... oh, I don't know what for: We all have our Elwood scars. He is the loudest "bad cop" around here. But those of us who like it here come to appreciate that, because these woods are full of trolls.

I am going now, from this thread. If you are sincere, be sincere. If you are either a troll or simply too mad to look at the big picture, good night and good luck.


[ Parent ]
Ah... (2.00 / 2)
Selective?  You go on to call him a "bad cop"; that's close enough to "bully" for me.

What I would suggest is that the "bad cops" here grow up a little bit and realize that "the woods" are not filled with GOP trolls anymore (election year being over), and that they look pretty stupid accusing anyone they disagree with of being "operatives".  It just looks extremely goofy and stupid, and it's a hack method of disagreement.

You can be OK with him being a bully Jim because he's a bully you like, and you can accept your scars without fighting back, but please don't expect others to be that passive or criticize them when they strike back at him.  If he's such a big, bad cop, he can stand up for himself.


[ Parent ]
awwww....poor Digger....poor poor Digger.....perhaps (4.00 / 1)
you should actually post about something besides your own sad story of being abused. ::::(

You've had little to say of any value, and contributed nothing to any discussion. Your sole purpose so far would seem to be to complain about how badly you are treated, and how you've been bullied. How you've been censored, and how those who don't engage in groupthink aren't welcome. Boo hooo hoooo. You're a poor moderate Democrat - or so you claim. Well maybe you should butch up and prove it.

You need to step up to the plate and actually contribute instead of whining. Your poor me routine has already had its 15 minutes of fame.

I don't care much for whiners and crybabies. If you don't wish to be perceived as  a whiner, than do something to change my perception.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty


[ Parent ]
Quality post Susan, great job. (1.00 / 4)
Have you ever noticed that you never actually engage any relevant point in the discussion thread?  No, churlishness is a full time job.

Oh wait, you're trying to goad me into responding with the same rudeness you're demonstrating!  Ah, bravo dear!  Then my post will get buried and disappear, and you will stand proudly triumphant!  Quite a system here, a soft, quiet, comforting censorship!  Bravo!

God Susan, don't be so obvious, not where everyone can see anyway.  Hide your hollow strategies, don't throw a spotlight on them!


[ Parent ]
Escalation (4.00 / 3)
A tried and true troll tactic.

[ Parent ]
Well, there you go being respectful, just like you were taught... (1.33 / 3)
Have you ever noticed that you never actually engage any point I've brought up?  No, too busy being churlish, aren't you?

Oh wait, you're trying to goad me into responding with the same rudeness you're demonstrating!  Ah, bravo dear!  Then my post will get buried and disappear, and you will stand proudly triumphant!

God Susan, don't be so obvious, not where everyone can see anyway...


[ Parent ]
Susan, can't you do better than this? (1.33 / 3)
Have you ever noticed that you never actually engage any point I've brought up?  No, too busy being churlish, aren't you?
Oh wait, you're trying to goad me into responding with the same rudeness you're demonstrating!  Ah, bravo dear!  Then my post will get buried and disappear, and you will stand proudly triumphant!
God Susan, don't be so obvious, not where everyone can see anyway...

[ Parent ]
Out of a pile of comments (4.00 / 6)
left on this blog by you, four of yours have been "hidden" by the community rating system you try hard not to understand.

All four are as insulting as writing a whole diary accusing me and Laura of censoring you, so I'm not surprised they were troll-rated, even though I didn't do the troll-rating.

You can't see the hidden comments because you have not earned "trusted user" status, which comes when others give you a number of "excellent" ratings on your comments.

That you have racked up four hidden comments in such a short time is very telling.  Out of 60,000 plus comments since this place was born, my rough estimate from a quick glance shows that we probably have under 100 hidden comments, and most of them are from obvious drive-by attacks by those openly trying to disrupt the site.

We are nearing on 2000 users on this site, and the diversity of opinion is wide.  It is a mark of pride for me that we have some very centrist Dems and some very liberal Dems who have amassed piles of "4" ratings and can debate each other earnestly and passionately, but without personal attack.

Your sorry record here, not so much.

birch, finch, beech


This I did not know, (4.00 / 1)
You can't see the hidden comments because you have not earned "trusted user" status, which comes when others give you a number of "excellent" ratings on your comments.

thanks for clearing up that mystery, as I guess I must've missed that feature in the man pages. I am happy to learn at least one new thing every day.

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.


[ Parent ]
Interesting... (0.00 / 0)
By the way Mike, two very civil posts I've put up in this discussion have been "erased" already.  Fortunately, I had copies of them, so I've reposted them.

Just in case you know what this blog was really about; now you know.


[ Parent ]
Thumbs down n/t (0.00 / 0)


Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
To me sir? (0.00 / 0)
You can find things in the posts that are offensive?  I worked so very hard to make them fair, nice, and to the point...

[ Parent ]
I'm talking to you, troll. (4.00 / 2)
You haven't offended me. You haven't been completely wrong. BUT, you have completely missed this blog and how it works.

Since you cherry pick observations to point out how deficient this forum is, I assume you came in here with that preconceived notion.

Dean can't ban you fast enough, as far as I am concerned.



Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
Well, I suppose it is a bit warm for these gloves... (1.00 / 4)
Ahhhh, Dean.  You have a nice little blog here, and you do a good job of getting a lot of info out.  Bravo, and I'm sorry about Dodd.

Unfortunately, you've been a bit dishonest.  My posts weren't rude, certainly no ruder than your "bad cop" Elwood.  If they were viewable I could have compared my posts to the rudeness I was responding to and let people judge for themselves, but that probably wouldn't suit you Dean because it would prove my point.  Your little minions are running amok, and you haven't the strength or inclination to control them.  Scapegoat me if you must, but that's fact to anyone wishing to see it.

With your "trusted user status" (hilarious name by the way), I can't prove that my posts were, in reality, quite mild.  Tell me, how does one tell the difference between "tiered user status" and "poor sucker unable to defend himself or prove anything because he can't get to his posts"?  Very nice Dean, very slippery.  One supposes you're the kind of lad that wouldn't object to fighting someone whose right arm you had just tied to their side.  Bravo.

However, the fact remains that your mission to boost "progressive" Democratic politics is suffering mightily from the hypocrisy that arises out of de facto censorship.  Oh, I'm sorry, I meant "trusted user status deficiency disorder".

Before you let the Blue Hampshire phenomenon get you too high and mighty (a vulnerability of Latin teachers if I recall correctly), remember that your nice little blog has flourished under what we might call the "WMUR effect"; right place, right time, like a little shack of a bar in a pohunk town that benefits from a nearby gold strike.  You are the product of a valued location in a fluky primary system and if that primary goes bye-bye, so goes your fame, trip to the Convention notwithstanding (they'll drop you as quick as they picked you up son).  At that point, with the blog down to 25 unique users on  good day, I bet you ride the help to be a bit "nicer" and get a little more accepting of a diverse palette of opinion.  

Until then, keep the focus narrow, hand out "trusted status" to those that accept the bullying and agree most of the time, and let the help run amok.  Don't allow critical voices of loyal and dedicated Democrats that have an issue with something here, and by all means attack them if they do post and avoid the issues they raise!  What the hell, it looks like the primary might stay here, what do you have to worry?  But don't kid yourself that you're supporting progressive values like freedom of expression.  You don't really have it in you.



[ Parent ]
From the Getting Started Page (4.00 / 1)
On the other hand, if you feel that a comment was written whose sole purpose is to degrade the conversation or be intentionally abusive, you may choose to give it a 0 or Troll rating, a substantial number of which will cause the comment to be deleted.

For the record, it was the portrayal of Dean as an enfeebled King Arthur and the rest of us as the Orkney faction that forced my hand.


[ Parent ]
Up a few floors, on the left (2.00 / 2)
Hey JimC, let's test your ethics.

Look at Susan's post, up a few posts.  Nevermind, let me post it here:

awwww....poor Digger....poor poor Digger.....perhaps (0.00 / 0)
you should actually post about something besides your own sad story of being abused. ::::(
You've had little to say of any value, and contributed nothing to any discussion. Your sole purpose so far would seem to be to complain about how badly you are treated, and how you've been bullied. How you've been censored, and how those who don't engage in groupthink aren't welcome. Boo hooo hoooo. You're a poor moderate Democrat - or so you claim. Well maybe you should butch up and prove it.

You need to step up to the plate and actually contribute instead of whining. Your poor me routine has already had its 15 minutes of fame.

I don't care much for whiners and crybabies. If you don't wish to be perceived as  a whiner, than do something to change my perception.

OK Jim, how would you score Susan's post?  This will be quite interesting Jim...


[ Parent ]
Yes, test my ethics (0.00 / 0)
But I'll need a more honest jury than yours.

You should read David Sedaris, my friend. In one story he describes a character trying to demean him. It doesn't work. He writes, to paraphrase:

It was as if I had taken a dump in the woods, and he ran around carrying it in his hand, yelling, "Look what he did!"


[ Parent ]
two points for Orkney ! n/t (4.00 / 1)


for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

[ Parent ]
Not your average troll (4.00 / 4)
This is tedious. Please stick a fork in it.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
ErinnF-esque? (4.00 / 2)
A classic:
Delete my f****** account, Kos

I want out of this farce of a website. I thought this was on open forum for progressives to discuss their views. Instead, it is little more than the internet wing of the Democratic propoganda machine. Now that I want out, a fair minded and liberal website would let me delete my account and go. Instead, DailyKos will give me no such option. Like some sort of cult, I was welcomed in freely but am now being barred from leaving. I do not want to simply leave and let my info remain here at a website I am disgusted by and want no further part in. Since Kos won't allow me the decent option of deleting my account (just about every blog DOES let you delete your account when you want to), then somebody here needs to delete my account for me. To deny me deletion of my own account is unacceptable.

You all suck. A lot of you wouldn't know what a progressive thought was if it bit you in the ass. To you, a progressive thought is whatever the Democratic party line spoonfeeds you. A tremendous amount of you are Democrats because mommy and daddy were Democrats. Churches and political parties are full of blind conformists that are simply towing the line they've been told to from the get go, with little regard to actual political thought, let alone progressive political thought. The amount of blind conformity that goes on in America is what fuels the corrupt two party system. DailyKos exemplifies blind conformity, and I regret any and all association I have had with it. I should be allowed to delete my account and go; Why should I be forced to stay amid this pathetic cult of personality? The herd mentality that goes on here sickens me now, AND I WANT OUT. Regardless of my personal experience here, EVERYBODY WHO SIGNED UP TO THIS WEBSITE SHOULD BE FREE TO DELETE THEIR ACCOUNTS IF THEY SO WISH TO. For Kos to deny us this is downright fascist.
Since I can't delete my account myself, my only recourse is to be as abrasive and disruptive as I can be UNTIL MY ACCOUNT GETS DELETED. As long as my account remains here, I do not feel comfortable leaving. Is it really such a tough request to delete my account so I can go? Just what kind of website lets you join up but won't let you leave? One that regards people as little more than statistics, that's what. How like the Democratic Party for Kos to view his site's members as little more than statistics.
DELETE MY F******* ACCOUNT, KOS. You don't want me hanging around, and neither do I.



birch, finch, beech

[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
There's something insanely brilliant (brilliantly insane?) about this line:

the internet wing of the Democratic propoganda machine


[ Parent ]
Well, I guess it is a little warm in here for gloves... (1.00 / 4)
Ahhhh, Dean.  You have a nice little blog here, and you do a good job of getting a lot of info out.  Bravo.

Unfortunately, you've been a bit dishonest.  My posts weren't rude, certainly no ruder than your "bad cop" lwood.  If they were viewable I could have compared my posts to the rudeness I was responding to and let people judge for themselves but that probably wouldn't suit you Dean, because it would prove my point.  Your little minions are running amok, and you haven't the strength or inclination to control them.  Scapegoat me if you must.

With your "trusted user status" (hilarious name by the way), I can't prove that my posts were quite mild.  Tell me, how does one tell the difference between "tiered user status" and "poor sucker unable to defend himself or prove anything because he can't get to his posts"?  Very nice Dean, very slippery.  One supposes you're the kind of lad that wouldn't object to fighting someone whose right arm you had just tied to their side.  Again, bravo.

However, the fact remains that your mission to boost "progressive" Democratic politics is suffering mightily from the hypocrisy that arises out of de facto censorship.  Oh, I'm sorry, I meant "trusted user status deficiency disorder".

Before you let the Blue Hampshire phenomenon get you too high and mighty (a vulnerability of Latin teachers if I recall correctly), remember that your nice little blog has flourished under what we might call the "WMUR effect"; right place, right time, like a little shack of a bar in a pohunk town that benefits from a nearby gold strike.  You are the product of a fluky primary and if that primary goes bye-bye, so goes your fame, trip to the Convention notwithstanding (they'll drop you as quick as they picked you up son).  At that point, with the blog down to 25 unique users a day, I bet you ride the help to be a bit "nicer" and get a little more accepting of a diverse palette of opinion.  

Until then, keep the focus narrow, hand out "trusted status" to those that accept the bullying and agree most of the time, and let the help run amok.  Don't allow critical voices of loyal and dedicated Democrats that have an issue with something here.  What the hell, it looks like the primary might stay here, what do you have to worry.  But don't kid yourself that you're supporting progressive values like freedom of expression.  You don't really have it in you.


[ Parent ]
Enter The Fail (4.00 / 2)
Any comment anyone makes on Blue Hampshire can receive a rating of zero (troll/deliberately disruptive/rude/etc) or four (excellent) from any other user of Blue Hampshire. People who get a sufficient number of 4 grades are automatically granted Trusted User (TU) status by the system, as this indicates that the Blue Hampshire community has collectively determined that these people are making a positive contribution to the dialogue that is central to Blue Hampshire. This is not a top-down process; TU status comes from community response.

Troll ratings, conversely, are not a form of censorship on the part of Blue Hampshire; they are the community's way of indicating that something is not only unproductive, but actively harmful to civil discussion. Insulting other users, raising debunked Republican talking points, intentionally trying to disrupt debates, snide and ignorant diaries accusing the site of censorship when it is in fact the community of users who have judged one's comments - all of these (and many more - and no, this is not an accusation of having done all of them, just a list of some possibilities) are things that will lead to comments being hidden. Unpopular positions in and of themselves do not; it requires an added element that indicates an unwillingness to abide by the generally-accepted bounds of civility and purpose.

In short: The contributing writers and managing editors are not the ones who single-handedly perform 'censorship' on Blue Hampshire. The users who read posts and mark the excellent or out-of-bounds ones are preventing the blog from devolving into a free-for-all that would require higher-level involvement to restore the site's central purpose and tone.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.


L.A., via Omaha (0.00 / 0)
Welcome to the Dew Drop Inn.

Now the last thing I wanted was to get into a fight
In Jackson Mississippi on a Saturday night
Especially when there was three of them and only one of me

They all started laughin and I felt kinda sick
And I knew I better think of something pretty quick
So I just reached out and kicked old green teeth right in the knee

Now he let out a yell that'd curl yer hair
But before he could move I grabbed me a chair
And said "Now watch him Folks cause he's a thoroughly dangerous man!"

"You may not know it but this man is a spy.
He's a undercover agent for the FBI
And he's been sent down here to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan!"

He was still bent over holdin on to his knee
But everybody else was looking and listening to me
And I laid it on thicker and heavier as I went

I said, "Would you believe this man has gone as far
As tearing Wallace stickers off the bumpers of cars.
And he voted for George McGovern for President."

"Well, he's a friend of them long haired, hippy-type, pinko fags!
I betchya he's even got a commie flag
tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."

"He's a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys.
He may look dumb but that's just a disguise,
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage"

They all started lookin real suspicious at him
And he jumped up and said "Now just wait a minute Jim!
You know he's lying I been living here all of my life!"

"I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch
And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church.
And I aint even got a garage, you can call home and ask my wife!"

Then he started saying somethin bout the way I was dressed
But I didn't wait around to hear the rest
I was too busy moving and hoping I didn't run outta luck



Whack-a-mole, anyone?

Seriously? (4.00 / 2)
Did we all waste that much time on this malcontent. Onwards and upwards friends. Don't poke the trolls, even the ones who doth protest too much. We have too much progress to make.

res severa verum gaudia

Mostly agree (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't entirely wasted. He attacked us on several fronts, and new people here probably needed to hear some of our defenses of our principles.

[ Parent ]
Let me clarify... (4.00 / 2)
I agree with you Jim, it was good to clearly explain BH policy. I just hate wasting time on rabblerousers.  

res severa verum gaudia

[ Parent ]
zzzzzzzzzzzz (4.00 / 2)
For the record, afaik, I know absolutely no one else on this blog personally.  I have found everyone to be civil.  I have never had the pleasure of an extended disagreement with elwood, but while he can be curmudgeonly, it's hardly enough to send reasonable people away in tears.

And why do these people always have such long posts?


Staying on the same road. (4.00 / 2)
This is a difficult thing for me to sort out. Not that this should be taken as an important thing in any one else's life. I have had Digger's same bad feelings about some responses to my posts here. I would like to think that the boots that descended out of the blue (in my opinion, pun intended) were reasonable from the point of view of their wearers. My criticisms are, in general, of a specific kind and they tend to revolve around recommendations for improvement. So often, those of us who think of ourselves as being "in the trenches" are told that the new organization of the Democratic party is intended to be from the bottom up and then when we provide suggestions or whatever which we consider in our purview, those suggestions seem to be dismissed with prejudice. For my own part, I suspect some suggestions of mine probably recapitulate stuff you old hands have dealt with too much, things you don't see as rising to your level or whatever. That makes me sympathize with Digger. I don't know who or what that person might be but still. I don't directly run a web site though I have some sympathy for the argument that those that do have to protect both against hostility which I have seen close down other sites and also time wasting - we're all way too busy if we are any good at anything and passionate about anything. Still, some bad feeling remains in me. Perhaps that is a price of doing this business these days. For my part, I think it is tragic. Just a few more "I thinks" or "having done this for a whiles" or "please understand that from my point of views" or like that would take the hard edge off of what certainly is censorship. I don't think that any of us expect perfection in arbitration but particularly in cases where a recommendation is involved, it seems to me that when the boot descends it could better serve what I still maintain as our commonality by changing into an explanation with apology to take care of those instances in which the poster is carrying baggage only poorly typed. I'm sorry but it makes me about as mad as I think Digger is at this point. He may be a troll, whatever that might be. Still, he may be restating my point, or better making it or whatever. In a perfect world, wiser heads don't descend with boots out of the blue no matter how busy they might be. So let's go back to working on the wiser heads part which is the real problem of existence both on sites and off.

Thanks for saying so (0.00 / 0)
I see it as more gladitorial than censoring. I absolutely believe no one prominent here wants to censor people, or I'd stay away.


[ Parent ]
Slogans (4.00 / 2)
This crowd is intolerant of slogans. There is more tolerance of slogans from the left, but none for those from the right.

I think Digger, et al. fell into a trend of using certain GOoPer catch phases. Folks like elwood and Kathy are exceptionally keen on picking this up and they are quick to pounce.

Bill Gnade comes here on occasion with his hyper-civil blather, pushing conservative perspectives. It is rebuffed, sometimes rudely, but he is honest about his disposition. He uses slogans that are deconstructed and drawn out, showing some depth of understanding of the root of the slogan. Your run off the mill troll does not do that.

I like slogans. They are succinct. The best ones fully capture a profound concept in a few words. (Yes We Can) As a blogger integrates slogans into an arguement, woe comes to those that cannot mix the cliche with the nuance. Here, I pity the parrot.
-----------------------------------------------------

Part of Digger's complaint was about the user strata that exists here. For the newbie and part-timer, I can see a clear disadvantage. The "usuals" have a familiarity, so a days blogging is put into a context that may stretch back a year or more. I see things in this blog that are cryptic. Those not familiar with some inside baseball won't know the difference. They may sense it by watching the trend of a thread, but often times words are used that relay some offline dynamic. I this hope this doesn't give the blog cliquey feel.

IMO, this forum is open, but ya better bring your curiosity and commitment.


Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
But Digger, in my opinion, truly outed himself at the end. I had some hope he was just aggrieved, but he became so randomly hostile ("Your little blog is falling apart" or something like that) that I have to conclude he had a long-held hostility to BH.

And I actually think all hostility, even hostility we disagree with, should make us think. So I thought, and tried to keep my mind open. I do hope the troll gets his hug, but it's not coming from me, not in this case.

Quiet days ... can't Sununu make it official or something?


[ Parent ]
Judd reports for duty. (4.00 / 1)
In the battle against quietude he cannot be called AWOL.

[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox