Housekeeping

by von

Please keep in mind that a goal of ObWi is political diversity, even though the commenteriat may lean decidedly left of late.  This is not an activist site for the Democratic party.  (Nor is it, obviously, an activist site for Republicans.)  Please also keep in mind that you need to stay away from personal invective in your comments, per the Posting Rules.  You'll be a more effective commentator by thinking about and responding on the merits to someone else's post, rather than snarking by it, instantly dismissing it, or getting into pointless arguments about who is a "troll" or what is "trolling." 

Finally, I'm about as loose as they come among the regulars (past or present) when it comes to personal invective and Posting Rules violations.  I've never banned a commentator.   When I shut down comments to a post, it's probably because things are pretty out-of-whack.  Cool down folks.

UPDATE:  The first sentence originally read, "Please keep in mind that the goal of ObWi is political diversity."  Katherine rightly points out that this is too strong, so I've corrected it. 

Comments

[Charlie]

Well, I did wish you a "good morning" this morning, but I'm not sure if that's "redeeming" enough for your vote. I guess you can't win them all.

[LizardBreath]

I didn't say our commenters weren't generally nice -- we are. I'm just saying there's no rules. Hostility gets dished out on the basis of arbitrary personal reactions, rather than anything objective or fair.

[Slartibartfast]

I suppose it's probably far too reasonable to suggest that the (what's the opposite of fawning?) over Charlie is going to have the opposite of the desired effect.

Or not, if the desired effect is to keep him constantly engaged. Your choice, folks.

[cleek]

One genuinely funny campaign slogan that Charlie came up with

maybe he came up with it on his own, but on Drum's site, it predates Charlie's mention by at least 6 months.

[cleek]

what's the opposite of fawning?

scab-picking ?

[Steve]

I wonder if there's any chance that everyone will get their feeding impulses out of their system in this very thread. That would be an acceptable resolution.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: Or not, if the desired effect is to keep him constantly engaged. Your choice, folks.

Well, no. It's up to the HiveMind if Charlie gets banned or not: if he isn't banned, he'll be here for years, doing what he did on Washington Monthly. There's nothing that us plebs without the power to ban can do about it, one way or another.

[Slartibartfast]

doing what he did on Washington Monthly

Provided he continues getting a response, yes.

There's nothing that us plebs without the power to ban can do about it, one way or another.

Agreed, providing you continue feeding him. So far, it's been nothing but Haagen-Dazs bars from the "plebs".

[Slartibartfast]

...and that's all I'm going to say about that.

[double-plus-ungood]

I take the pledge. He (or she) no longer exists. And I'm looking into a GreaseMonkey solution as well :-)

[Charlie]

I thought "the pledge" was to not get into pointless arguments about who is a "troll" or what is or is not "trolling"? For the record, that is "the pledge" I took above.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: Provided he continues getting a response, yes.

He always will. Regulars on Washington Monthly tried ignoring him, tried warning newcomers to ignore him, even succeeded on one thread (about Fahrenheit 911, which Charlie made a point of commenting on about eighteen times to tell us all that he hadn't seen it) of not responding to him. Charlie keeps going. The only way to stop him is to ban him. I'm speaking from years of watching him operate on Washington Monthly: you've had, what, two days of him? Which of us is likelier to be right?

[Chuchundra]

I think Bril is right. President Bush simply needs more slack.

[Charlie]

If there's anything I've posted in this thread which violates any stated rule(s), please advise immediately as that is not my intention.

[double-plus-ungood]

Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?

[Jesurgislac]

Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?

I'd use Firefox for that. Share.

[cleek]

d-p.u.

i'd use it

[Charlie]

Me too.

[double-plus-ungood]

I'd use Firefox for that. Share.

I'll have to write it first, and I'm just looking into the product now, but it looks promising. And fun. I'll keep people posted.

Should be able to convert any particular user's posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Rules are merely the minimum ENFORCED general understanding.

The idea of ObisdianWings (if I may be so bold) is to attempt to have fruitful/interesting discussions between people who don't share much space on the political spectrum. Things that help this:

Trying to be polite.

Trying not to mischaracterize the positions of the people with whom you are discussing.

Trying to explain your position instead of merely asserting it.

Trying to understand the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.

Trying to empathize with the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.

We're all human (I think). We probably can't pull that off all the time. I know I have trouble. But like good governance, that isn't an excuse to stop trying. You can be working against the idea of ObsidianWings even if you aren't violating the rules.

So by all means don't violate the rules.

But contributing to the idea of ObsidianWings would be even better.

[Anarch]

Slarti: So far, it's been nothing but Haagen-Dazs bars from the "plebs".

That's partly because we were upbraided by the Management for warning people not to feed him.

dpu: How about... the Borkinator!

[Charlie]

Thanks for the info, Sebastian.

[double-plus-ungood]

For the programmers in here, GreaseMonkey is indeed a powerful tool. You might want to take a glance at it.

[cleek]

For the programmers in here, GreaseMonkey is indeed a powerful tool.

i'm one step (barely) ahead of you. :) trying to figure out how to run my little scripty, since the instructions there don't seem to match FF 2.0x. looks like fun, though.

[double-plus-ungood]

I'm about to hit the bookstore and pick up the O'Rielly book on it. This may be a new career path :->

[Jesurgislac]

Should be able to convert any particular user's posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.

To whom? Have you seen The Dialectizer? It's the verbal equivalent of Thai green curry sauce: makes anything sound better.

[Anarch]

That's just cruel, Jes, seeing as how I'm ill equipped to make a curry just now. And I'm hungry. On the plus side, my local Asian market is now carrying Thai eggplants which, in conjunction with coconut milk and curry paste, is a most satisfying base for a curry.

[Anarch]

But no actual netiquette.

The worst I can say about Unfogged is that they tend to ignore the non-regulars. For verily, do I love the snark.

[double-plus-ungood]

To whom?

If we went that route, we'd have to include Glasgow patter for yours. Although I do that mentally for your posts anyway, Jes.

[BrianM]

dr ngo writes:

... because I know my contribution to ObWi is minuscule compared to many others...

And I don't imagine I'll forswear ObWi completely, or forever. It'll just be among those "Favorites" of mine that are relegated to what I literally call the "B List" - and somehow never get around to reading.

dr ngo is one of the two commenters whose comments I value most. His comments are a good example of what makes this blog special. Charlie's comments are not. They're an example of what could make it a typical political blog. I hope the Hive Mind thinks about that.

(Unlike so many, I am not related to him.)

[LizardBreath]

The worst I can say about Unfogged is that they tend to ignore the non-regulars.

Argh. My apologies for that, and to anyone else who feels that way -- I do really like having different people around; much as I love our regulars it's awfully clubby and inbred. I will work harder on being welcoming.

[OCSteve]

dpu – for the non-programming types on this blog you might want to clarify “O'Rielly book” lest someone’s head explodes. :)

[Charlie]

"Trying to be polite." Thank you for your comment, BrianM.

"Trying not to mischaracterize the positions of the people with whom you are discussing." You are saying that it would be a loss to ObsidianWings if Dr. NGO stopped posting.

"Trying to explain your position instead of merely asserting it." I think it would be better for the purpose of fruitful discussion if NEITHER of us stopped posting because you and others could a) hear both points of view, b) learn something you may not have known previously, and c) decide for yourself which view triumphs.

"Trying to understand the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them." If you want me banned, I obviously disagree, but I am willing to listen to why you think that way, especially if you can post to ANYTHING I have posted that merits my banning.

"Trying to empathize with the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them." I again appreciate what a loss it would be for Dr. NGO to never post here. I'm sure you will miss him.

[Jesurgislac]

Although I do that mentally for your posts anyway, Jes.

I'm no a Weegie!

[ScottM]

OT: I enjoy the last few days of front-pager diversity. While I love Hilzoy's posts, I'm very happy to see so many other good opinions and topics brought up.

[Slartibartfast]

Should be able to convert any particular user's posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.

Or, better yet, video. Surely some comments can be put to the tune (and imagery) of Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss singing Touch-A Touch-A Touch Me, or similar.

[Donald Johnson]

"what a loss it would be for Dr. NGO to never post here. I'm sure you will miss him"

I would. Dr. NGO is an historian, and his posts are extremely informative. He's corrected a mistaken belief I had (along with many others) about how many people were actually killed by US troops in the Philippines (lower than I though), while informing me that the indirect number of deaths was even higher than I had thought. It's a pleasure reading him and if he goes and is replaced by someone at the other extreme, who has said nothing worth reading in two days of posting, it will be a sad loss.

[Steve]

The problem with using a Greasemonkey script is that the posts in question ALREADY resemble the product of a greasemonkey script. Type ctrl-F and type "pointless" in the box, for example.

[Anarch]

Surely some comments can be put to the tune (and imagery) of Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss singing Touch-A Touch-A Touch Me, or similar.

Frankly you had me at "video". And "Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss".

[Charlie]

Donald Johnson:

I'll take that as a hypothetical rather than a personal attack.

[spartikus]

Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?

It is my sincere belief that such an invention would would SAVE THE INTERNET

[cleek]

ObWi Greasemonker Disemvoweler ...

i can verify that it's working for me. :)

[Slartibartfast]

Tht's nt vry nc, clk.

[.Charlie]

Tht's nt vry nc, clk.

I agree.

[Jesurgislac]

It is my sincere belief that such an invention would would SAVE THE INTERNET

Sadly, no. It still takes banning to deal with trolls. As we see...

[.Charlie]

Jesurgislac:

I believe the Rules state: "Although pointing out when a commenter is violating the posting rules in an ongoing thread is every participant's best tool to help bring civility back to a discussion, if commenters wish to recommend a banning, per se, we ask that they do so via email. That helps take it offline and makes the roles of the authors in the banning process clearer to everyone."

Thank you for abiding by the Rules.

[cleek]

Tht's nt vry nc, clk

there's nothing a programmer loves more than a programming challenge.

i promise i won't make anyone use it.

[..Charlie]

Tht's nt vry nc, clk

Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, I suggest that there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated, as you know. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel. YMMV.

[Piglet]

Cleek, you're a mensch!

[.C.harlie]

TEST

[Pooh]

Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?

I already run the pie filter for balloon juice (changes all of a designated commenter's posts to "I Like Pie!" which is a demonstrable improvement) so yes please.

[Pooh]

Argh. My apologies for that, and to anyone else who feels that way -- I do really like having different people around; much as I love our regulars it's awfully clubby and inbred. I will work harder on being welcoming.

I actually like that about Unfogged. It's like sitting in a bar with a bunch of old friends who you've just met. You may not get all the jokes, but the mutual good feelings are palpable.

[.C.harlie]

I was just checking out "Unfogged" too.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Should be able to convert any particular user's posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.

Oh no, please do this. I found myself several times only just restraining myself from responding to provocations in this and the other thread (which is sad, really, given how infrequently I de-lurk to comment), but when I tried "dialectisizing" the comments, I couldn't take them seriously enough to find them inflammatory.

(Yes, technically, I could do this myself, as I should count myself amongst "the programmers here", but I won't, as I must count myself amongst "the lazy programmers here"...)

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, I'm convinced.

What shall we talk about now?

[Slartibartfast]

My apologies; I just had an Al Haig moment.

[Ara]

LJ:

I like your argument against me, and all I will say to it in reply is that if the goal here is to facilitate conversation, you seem to suggest reasons (being obtuse, stoopid) which have nothing to do with trolling. Maybe you're right about that: I'm an agnostic on it right now. I was just trying to address the narrow point of troll-banning, and it seems stoopidity is something broader than the notion of a troll.

[dr ngo]

Thanks for the kind words, BrianM.

(Unlike so many, I am not related to him.)

Coincidentally (I assure you) in today's lecture I was talking about "fictive kinship" in Southeast Asia, e.g., ritual co-parentship (compadrazgo), informal adoptions, a variety of ways of turning people not biologically related to you into "kin."

So I suppose something could be arranged. ;}

[spartikus]

Grrr....can't seem to install Greasemonkey. Might be restrictions at work, though we're supposed to be able to install FF extensions.

[Ara]

How about this for a suggestion?

We take it to the street, figuratively.

Rather than banning, we make tighter guidelines on when a thread gets moved onto a related blog. Anyone who wants to pursue the sucker can pursue it there. ObWi remains civil and pristine. The brawlers can brawl in a place known for sharp confrontations. If the posts can be cross-referenced that will make it easier for people to move over.

Technologically, there is no really new technique needed because anyone who *doesn't move it over* can be banned for being pointlessly uncooperative.

What do you all think?

[rilkefan]

"What shall we talk about now?"

Unfogged links?

Whether habeas corpus applies to us?

Mansfield Park?

[cleek]

Whether habeas corpus applies to us?

wow. Abu G is one twisted mofo.

[spartikus]

Paul J. Cella has a book coming out.

[Josh]

Paul J. Cella has a book coming out.

For his sake, I hope he gets paid by the word. He'll be rich!

[rilkefan]

Cella on "savage fire". So bizarre.

[spartikus]

It's got a catchy title - "Burning at the stake, reconsidered"

[Francis]

gee, it must have been at least a whole three hours since i was last called a traitor.

[cleek]

Paul J. Cella has a book coming out.

i read too fast an inserted a comma after 'book'. that changes things a bit.

[Ugh]

i read too fast an inserted a comma after 'book'. that changes things a bit.

heh

[kovarsky]

this priggish dialogue on civility is enough to make me want to french kiss a shotgun.

if you find yourself debating etiquettte, it means you probably shouldn't have entered the substantive conversation in the first place. much like if you find yourself talking generally about bush being good or bad or about godwins law.

it's not the uncivility that's annoying, it's the overwhelming volume of meta-dialogue about it.

[Bruce Baugh]

As long as we're considering cases: One thing that I don't regard as directly Charlie's fault at all is that some of his self-designated enemies set about spoofing him. A lot. If a script blocking posts by user comes into play, ObWi will need an authentication system of some kind, to judge from the Washington Monthly. It wasn't just Charlie's own trolling that helped to destroy discourse in comments, it was others further poisoning the stream with so many impersonations that only a handful of people had anything like reliable identities, and it turns out that when you have no reason to trust that the person you're talking to this time is the same one with the name last time, there's no history or advancement in an exchange.

[Anarch]

LizardBreath: I will work harder on being welcoming.

Eh, no worries, I'm not at all offended. It's cliquish in a good way, if that makes sense.

BrianM: (Unlike so many, I am not related to him.)

There aren't *that* many of us...

Josh: For his sake, I hope he gets paid by the word. He'll be rich!

Nono. Paid by the syllable.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I just want to reiterate that as a hard rule, you aren't supposed to impersonate other commenters.

[cleek]

"What is past is past, including President Bush's long-infuriating, now-acknowledged mistakes. He remains our president, and we remain Americans, and Americans are a good and mighty people. Our cause in Iraq, and against terrorists worldwide, is just. Let's give the president the support he needs to lead that cause to victory."

you can almost hear the Star Spangled Banner playing the background.

[Gary Farber]

"Also, I don't think banning trolls is a sound policy. My friend tells me I'm the head of the Slippery Slope Fan Club (because I make lame Slippery Slope arguments all the time), but I hope we can agree that what trolling is is too nebulous a concept that involves too many presumptions of troller-intent for us to manage."

Not remotely. Trolls are very obvious.

[bril]

What happens at Obsidian Wings when someone finally decides to support the President?

They get mocked...

Cleek says...

you can almost hear the Star Spangled Banner playing the background.

And that my fellow posters... is the tone that is most often projected at Obsidian Wings.

Only one of those moderately toned swarms following this post would make the point clearer. ; -)

[Slartibartfast]

I just want to reiterate that as a hard rule, you aren't supposed to impersonate other commenters.

I don't think anyone did. Charlie impersonated himself, though.

[Jesurgislac]

Ah, Bril. Even you look good next to Charlie! *big squishy hugs*

[rilkefan]

"*big squishy hugs*"

DNHTT.

[Gary Farber]

"1. For future reference, a less assholish way of responding would be to assume that I wasn't aware of that particular website."

I don't know how to assume that, when it you were pointed to the link in the comment you responded to, Von. I'd have to assume that you didn't read the comment your responded to. There doesn't seem to be an alternative available.

"Regarding your argument in response that certain of your blog posts are not self serving because they communicate information"

That was not my argument.

"I may have (made a mistake), but I disagree that the discussion in that thread was salvagable."

Where in the ObWi posted policies is a statement that says that if a blog-owner decides that discussion in a thread isn't salvagable, the thread will be shut down? Is this a new policy you've discussed with the others, an old policy I missed noting, or something you've pulled out of your... creativeness, this week?

Will it be posted as policy any time soon?

[Gary Farber]

"But I can't determine whether (for instance) Dr. Ngo is posting in good faith or whether he's the alter ego of Donald Trump engaged in some sort of crypto-advertising for his next show "THE BLOGPRENTICE," and that, although his plans are currently unclear, we'll all realive that we've been played for fools in the fall of '09."

I can! Sorry to hear about this perceptive deficiency on your part.

It's actually entirely easy.

Sebastian: "I just want to reiterate that as a hard rule, you aren't supposed to impersonate other commenters."

If it's a hard rule, I suggest that it needs to be put in the posting rules. If it isn't there, it's not a rule, plain and simple.

Very simple. Very emphatic. If it's not checkable, it's obviously not a rule.

[Slartibartfast]

How can the blogowners be insane monarchs if all the rules are out there for everyone to see?

[LizardBreath]

The really beautiful part of that comment is that it works just as well no matter which way you take it. A carefully placed "Bwahahaha!" might disambiguate it. But where would be the fun in that?

[a louis wain cat]

So usually I just lurk here, but after going to that amazing American Spectator link cleek posted, I had to point out the fact that there's an advertisement on the side there for a book entitled "In Defense of Hypocrisy."

I really can't think of anything I can add to that. I mean, there are things I could say about the editorial itself, many of which would violate the posting rules, but I don't think there's anything I could say about it, or the American Spectator in general, which that ad doesn't say already. It's as if they looked at the most cartoonish strawman ideas of what a conservative is like, and decided to actually become that stereotype. I particularly like the juxtaposition with the other ad for "Values in a Time of Upheaval".

(on the subject of the thread, well, I agree with Jesurgislac and Anarch on that, but we'll see how this turns out. I've seen trolls ruin the quality of discussion on moderated blogs by obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit, and I hope that doesn't happen here.)

[spartikus]

If you like that....

Dinesh D'souza has gone soft.

[cleek]

What happens at Obsidian Wings when someone finally decides to support the President?

oh bril, poor Bush-worshipping bril... the Iraq war is now less popular than the Vietnam war ever was. and yet, Bush insists on escalating it. no bril, Bush doesn't need 'support'; he needs restraint.

[KCinDC]

Spartikus, it's worse than that: he actually admitted on national television that he agrees with the terrorists.

[double-plus-ungood]

cleek, you are indeed a God. Nicely done.

[Steve]

Many of bril's ideological comrades spent the 1990s accusing the President of rape and murder... but now, I see we are a kinder, gentler nation, where even gentle mockery is enough to warrant a complaint! Ah, progress.

[double-plus-ungood]

Oh man, the previous few threads read so much better now. Thanks, cleek. Today's meat-world commitments took precedence, and so I wasn't able to work on the GM script. I shall take yours as inspiration.

[cleek]

cleek, you are indeed a God.

i am the God of Greasemonkey.
and i bring you...

even gentle mockery is enough to warrant a complaint

when the target is Bush, it's not mockery, it's blasphemy, to speak as i have done. and now i'll burn in the fiery pit of bril's disfavor, for all eternity! woe is me.

[Slartibartfast]

Crs y, clk. Crs y t hll.

[liberal japonicus]

Speaking of Dinesh, Colbert eviscerates him and then stiches him up. from crooksandliars

[Charlie]

TST

[bril]

Steve,

Many of bril's ideological comrades spent the 1990s accusing the President of rape and murder... but now, I see we are a kinder, gentler nation, where even gentle mockery is enough to warrant a complaint! Ah, progress.

Are you talking about my comrades that voted for Clinton in 1992? That's who I voted for.

I support gay people getting married. Are those my comrades you are referring to?

If people want to do drugs... I'm okay with that, too. Are they my comrades?

Abortion... don't really care one way or the other. Guess I can't get love from anyone there.

If I could be the one to identify my comrades they would be the ones who serve in the military and the people who actively support their mission.

I'm also for Universal Health Care. HSA's sort of suck right now but they could be good if implemented properly.

I'm also against pollution and toxic waste.

I just priced solar panels for my house. I'm looking at investing 20K. I'm also looking a system from gridpoint it's about 10K. I may just go with the gridpoint system to reduce my footprint because solar panels just aren't quite effective enough where I live. By the time you pay them off you need to buy new ones.

Goodness, I've just discovered I'm a closet leftist. Someone please help me!

[Tom Beavo]

bril wrote:

So many of you here really do want to see Bush fail. You hate Bush. You hate what he's done to the country.

You're absolutely right. I DO hate Bush, and I DO want to see him fail. I want to see him behind bars, too. It's not MY fault that he's an incompetent boob who doesn't understand the Constitution, or that he's incapable of abiding by the law.