OT Super Tuesday Poll -- How will AN vote?
by humdinger on Feb 2, 2008 11:48 PM PST
326 comments
[UPDATE BY BASEBALLGIRL] I'm not deleting this diary because I am not in the business of censorship, but consider this is a reminder: There are no politics on AN. Everyone needs to answer to the CGV system based on their posts, and this diary is not exempt, nor the comments posted, nor is any of the AN administration.
I've been seeing these Obama ads on AN lately, so it got me wondering about the political leanings of the posters and readers on this site. I have a guess as to which way it will probably go, but who knows, it might be interesting to see. Please submit only one response.
0 recs |
326 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
can of worms alert!
As innocuous as your poll may seem, it's probably better to refrain from posting diaries about political matters––including elections––altogether. It just invites trouble.
For example, now I feel compelled to list my political views:
RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD
BAN THE IRS
SOCIALIZE HEALTHCARE
ANNEX PUERTO RICO
COLONIZE MARS
Wow, the ad works!
Barack's going to take 90% of the vote!
I wonder if the ad was bought on SBN sites only, or is part of a larger ad deal through the Kos family of web sites, which would explain a bit more. It does put the admin in something of a pickle with the no politics thing, given that (per Grant at MCC) each site has the right to refuse sidebar ads (which is not the case with the banner ads).
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 3, 2008 12:47 AM PST reply actions
Yup, but per the Urban controversy
the go-to strategy seems to be "no comment."
Just so you know.
This is a CGV
I guess it is only non political until someone comes to Blez with $$$$$$$$
Blez should be ashamed of himself for bringing politics to the site in such a blatant and money grubbing way. But no doubt he is too busy laughing all the way to the bank
I for one am disgusted by the political advertisements on AN.
As I write this I read the words above my response that state:
"All members are expected to adhere to our community standards. Treat everyone with respect or face expulsion."
Guess that doesn't apply to everyone, only everyone not named Blez.
But since Blez has opened the door allowing political commentary on this blog maybe I should chime in with my push for John McCain. cos as I see it the Democrats will only bankrupt the country.
Go ahead Blez CGV me and then make sure to CGV yourself. I have already filed a complaint against you
What a load of crap.
Blez You Make Me Sick
by onlysaying on Feb 3, 2008 1:22 AM PST reply actions
So... Clinton voter, eh?
I kid.
Um No!!!
Actually even though I lean republican and Obama is about as liberal as you can get, I am excited by the energy and freshness he brings to politics. I would not be upset were he to be elected.
Having said that, I still believe that Blez is a hypocrite for allowing these ads to be on his site. I used to think AN was a nice community where the glue that held all of us together was our love of the A's regardless of race creed sexual orientation, religion and politics.
Guess I was wrong about politics. If you are not a left wing Nazi. then you are no longer welcome at AN. Yet another example of left wing loons trying to control our lives. Go Read "Culture Warrior"
If I hear nothing by tomorrow, I will email Bill O'Rieilly at "The Factor". He is one of the very few fair american journalists.
by onlysaying on Feb 3, 2008 3:22 AM PST up reply actions
LOL
If I hear nothing by tomorrow, I will email Bill O'Rieilly at "The Factor"
i don't really follow ratings stuff, but isn't that like the highest rated show on cable news? i'm sure blez doesn't care what some blowhard tv pundit thinks of him, so basically you're threatening him with... publicity for AN? brilliant.
Blez is a Hypocrite - Pure and Simple
The thing is - which many don't understand - is that the left wing loons are invading on our (and by that I also mean YOUR) personal freedoms.
In your wildest dreams, do you think you would ever see an ad for Romney or McCain on this web site? I doubt it. Obama or Clinton? Sure Proof is here and left wing lunacy runs wild.
I liked that AN used to be (PAST TENSE) immune from race, gender or political bias. OK, now that Blez has decided he is voting fot Obama and accepts his money, what is next??
Blez to me right now has ZERO credibility. He is nothing more than a schill. I have lost what little respect I used tio have for him. What is next? Maybe "AN Loves Obama" tee shirts?
Perhaps Blez should pursue that route. He is better at selling shirts than writing on the front page. I used to believe that this website was about his fandom, and despite the fact that he is a lousy writer (thank god for Nico BBG etc) now his website is about selling out - Wow way to go Blez You are a star
by onlysaying on Feb 3, 2008 4:23 AM PST up reply actions
hmm
Actually I have already written Bill
well it's good to know you're a man of your word and not a hypocrite.
is it possible you may be overreacting just a bit?
you're writing to a tv show host, do you really think this controversy is tv-coverage-worthy?
The thing is - which many don't understand - is that the left wing loons are invading on our (and by that I also mean YOUR) personal freedoms.
now you're just ripping off the big lebowski:
"Don't run away from this, Dude! Goddamnit, this affects all of us! Our basic freedoms!"
I have heard
Bush called many things, but you are the 1st guy I've seen call him a left wing loon.
Not to get dragged into anything political...
And you should also go Google the name 'Andrea Mackris'.
And, like, (CGV be damned) seriously, get less dumb.
Whoooooaaaa there
What makes you so sure that this diary, posted 11:48 pm at night, was actually seen by Blez or other moderators? Doncha think Blez might be, you know, asleep or doing something else?
You need to chill out.
Gee
I'd understand this attitude if Blez had run over your dog or something but this seems to be a bit over the top.
You mention that AN used to "immune" from race, gender or political bias and I gotta tell you... as someone who has been here since Day 2, that's not true. Those topics have been severly limited over the years but they have been tuched upon more then once. We've got a freakin' presidential election coming up, it was bound to come up in discussion sooner or later.
I think it's interesting that you CGV'd Blez. You know what, I've always said that this is Blez's house and we play by his rules but I think you've got a point. We know Blez isn't about to ban himself but I think taking a strike for posting the Obama ads would be appropriate. I like the symbolism of the gesture.
However, I'm a right-wing Communist and I just got asked to write on the front page so I think your bit about sharing a left wing bias or go home is complete bullshit. It's over-reactions like yours that justifies the general ban on political topics.
Wow...Over-dramatic much?
by OaktownPower on Feb 3, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
OBAMA
by ConditionOakland on Feb 3, 2008 2:29 AM PST reply actions
this diary should probably just be deleted
Just saw baseballgirl's "update"
and agree with its stance: The diary's author should be held accountable, everyone commenting should be accountable, no one, including administrators, should be exempt from accountability, and the diary should probably be ignored more than it should be deleted - though it should never have been posted in the first place. But no one is forcing anyone to make political comments just because the forum has been offered (inappropriately) by an AN user.
I agree Nico, but I also think
that political ads on AN are an implicit invitation to discuss politics. In other words, the forum has been offered (inappropriately) by AN to talk politics.
Yeah, I was putting aside,
as a completely separate issue, whether or not the ad should be there. I was staying only with the publishing of this diary and the publishing of comments within the diary. I think the "AN/Blez/advertising" issue is a whole other discussion independent of the "diary/comments within" issue.
Well, yeah, naturally this diary violates
the CGs. Although my interpretation of this diary is that the user simply didn't know the guideline. It doesn't read as a political rant or niggle. (I'm rather amazed that Oz hasn't been banned for the latter).
That's why you get three strikes,
not just one, before you're out. Ignorance of the law is not a defense...But one "strike" does not a Crosby AB make.
What did you call me??? First political, now
racial. I refuse to be called a niggle.
by theblackpearl on Feb 3, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
how about "Canadian"?
I know, comparing someone to HollywoodOz is pretty low ...
< weighs multiple snarks >
< judiciously abandons them all >
that's not a nice thing to say about Sean Young
hollywoodoz
(I'm rather amazed that Oz hasn't been banned for the latter).
a few theories:
-oz comes through dead diaries late at night and leaves random comments/pics, most people probably don't see them.
-after a few CGVs, he's more subtle now. most recent example:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...
-the CGV policy is not applied fairly. i'd hate to think this was the case, but we already know that oz got a third strike and was able to get out of it after a private email to nico. whereas everyone else who participated in the discussion (started by oz) did get a CGV.
meanwhile paul thomas is close to getting banned. pt provides intelligent baseball analysis, oz thinks maris is in the hof. WTF?
Xb, I don't want to discuss someone's
status/"strike history" publicly, but your recollections of past events are very inaccurate (I even looked it up before posting just to make sure).
my recollection
i remember oz making political comments, which led to a very long and heated political discussion. i remember oz getting quite hostile towards the bottom of that diary, going on about a "bullshit strike" and being a jerk to mcfood (yelling at the local kids to stay off your lawn). i remember many other participants in the discussion also getting strikes.
then:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...
"So when I got my strike handed down, I got all sorts of pissy and outraged, in public and behind the scenes."
"Anyhoo, long story short, to my utter surprise (and appreciation), the CG committee listened to my complaints and came to the conclusion that a 'group punishment' is indeed uncool, and decided to reevaluate the thread in question on a per-person basis. I don't know what happened to the others, but I know my strike was duly switched to a warning."
that's a nice conciliatory comment from oz, but of course that's to be expected considering he got his strike removed. apparently getting pissy and outraged in public and behind the scenes pays off, at least if you're oz.
and of course he has not changed his behavior:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...
from my emails with the other people involved, i know no one else had their strike re-evaluated and reduced to a warning, even though almost all of them have a much higher baseball comment to inappropriate political comment ratio than oz (not hard to do).
so how exactly is my recollection of past events inaccurate?
If you really want to know ...
you should try e-mailing Nico.
I'm sure he won't discuss it in detail here.
what is there for me to discuss?
i'm quoting oz, either nico is mistaken or oz is, and there is no good reason to not believe oz.
you say email nico, but nothing productive can come of that. the entire process is secretive, he'll just say the same thing: that he will not discuss it but that i'm wrong.
this way at least everyone else can see the evidence.
if only baseball umpires would give bobby crosby 7 strikes or however many it is that oz gets...
I don't know ... nor do I much care ...
but you posed specific questions to Nico. I was just suggesting that if you want any chance of a real answer, you'd be better off e-mailing him.
that's an interesting take on things
but i publicly responded to sal, about oz. nico then publicly responded to me, saying that my recollection was very inaccurate. why should i then take it to private email?
and nico seems to be perfectly willing to discuss the specifics of a third party's strike history when it suits him ("It wasn't Oz's third strike").
the rest of the comment could be publicly responded to as well, but of course it won't be.
I'm proven wrong ...
at least you can admit when you are
It wasn't Oz's third strike,
as you claim in the comment I corrected, and everyone who asked for a review of their verdict had their verdict reviewed - there was no special treatment.
The fact that the requested review was granted ought to clue you in as to how important fairness is to the sub-committee - all of whom volunteer time out of their busy lives to help out as committee members, I might add.
And the process isn't "secretive," it's duly discreet so as to avoid, as much as possible, things like me talking to you about Oz' "strike" status while thousands listen in. Honestly, if you'd stop acting so paranoid about a "secret process" perhaps you'd actually just feel appreciation for the very people you are, instead, pretty much insulting.
second strike
i know it was his second strike, he said so in the diary. i just noticed i wrote third, i meant second.
so, that one word was inaccurate. you pointed out the inaccuracy and it has been corrected. nothing else in the comment is inaccurate.
I think it's VERY misleading
to say, "from my emails with the other people involved, i know no one else had their strike re-evaluated and reduced to a warning" - as if anyone else asked to have their strike re-evaluated and was refused, or was told "sorry the ruling stands as is". In fact, no one else asked, so obviously no one else had their strike re-evaluated.
And your "one word" made a rather big difference. If it didn't, Crosby would be a much better hitter.
oz:
the CG committee listened to my complaints and came to the conclusion that a 'group punishment' is indeed uncool, and decided to reevaluate the thread in question on a per-person basis. I don't know what happened to the others, but I know my strike was duly switched to a warning.
email from you:
Yours is a "no news is good news" scenario, as there was discussion of both "downgrading" and "upgrading". There was some discussion among the sub-committee as to whether similar CGVs, in two separate diaries/posts, in a short period of time, should be reported/ruled as one or two "strikes," and the sub-committee decided that at least in this case, all comments should be lumped together as one complaint, subject to only one "strike".
i did not ask to have my strike re-evaluated, and i doubt it was since your response came 40 minutes after i emailed you. from both the oz comment and your email, it seems clear that my statement above is not misleading:
from my emails with the other people involved, i know no one else had their strike re-evaluated and reduced to a warning
Did you report Oz?
Because maybe the reality is that people are not reporting him. I would probably not report someone unless the offense was abusive remarks directed at another ANer and maybe a lot of other folks feel the same. Besides now the water is pretty muddy...it doesn't seem that political chat bothers the administrators much. This diary proves that.
Does Paul Thomas really have two strikes? Because I am with you... Paul isn't the most lovable guy on AN but he knows his baseball. I think that a lot of people feel threatened by that and they like to pick at him. If he were banned the site would lose an interesting voice. Too bad the testosterone set can't stand the way he delivers his info.
You are correct, IM4Oakgal,
that how many "strikes" someone has often says more about whether or not their CGVs have been reported than how many times they have violated the CGs.
As we've said roughly 1,000,000 times, the sub-committee doesn't actively look for CGVs - it evaluates complaints as they are lodged.
Yeah I get that.
and the reality is that many of us have committed CGVs and never been reported(I know I did when I discussed religion in a baseball thread ) and I think most Aners have pretty good sense about filing complaints. Otherwise the committee would be swamped sorting through complaints.
BTW? TY to the committee for taking on an unpleasant but necessary task. And I support your privacy policy even though I do think it's quite understandable that the process (because of it's confidentiality) is going to draw questions.
At first I actually opposed it
(it was the one thing Blez and I disagreed about when the system was first launched), precisely because I dreaded comments like X's above going on and on about "secrecy" and "conspiracy" and "does the committee really exist or is it just a front for Blez to make decisions..." and blah blah blah.
But now I see how much committee members would be personally targeted and demonized if the process ware public, and I actually think Blez got it right. No system is perfect, but I think this one works darn well and gets it right about 95-99% of the time.
Agree with that.
It would be very uncomfortable for many if the names of the committee were known. Not just the people on the committee but for all posters.
no, i don't participate in the CGV process
there is no transparency, there is no objectivity.
i'm not a member of the politburo and i'm not going to turn in others.
- the oz situation that i mentioned above.
- the mychael urban controversy, deletions, "no comment" from admin.
- a diary comparing US troops to nazis and those who support the troops to nazi sympathizers. AN admin actually defended the position in the comment section, then those comments and the nazi comparison were deleted and no CGVs were handed out to anyone:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/story...
- previous incidents where admin (specifically nico) made potentially CGV-worthy comments and then later deleted them.
If you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the problem. You choose not to participate in a process that most of the community finds fair. Guess the whole world's out to get you. As for #4, my reaction is "Huh?" but maybe you're referring to something I don't recall - remember, I AM drunk about 23 hours out of the day.
well i would provide more info
if it was possible to link to things that had been deleted by AN administration.
that also applies to #3 of course.
my comments in this diary are me attempting
to be part of the solution.
if i lived in north korea, i would not attempt to be a part of the solution by voting for kim jong il in fake elections. but i might vandalize a few walls with anti-government graffiti.
Do the committee members recuse
themselves if they are involved in the complaint? For instance if you had a beef with Paul could you still vote on the CGV?
would, not could
CGV's are stupid...
I miss Oaktoon.
And if PaulThomas and Oz end up gone, I'm gone, too. PaulThomas' opinions often make me sick to my stomach, and that's exactly why I like reading/responding.
As for Oz... he posted the photo of Kiger's woman in the knee socks with the cocktail. That's worth two reverse strikes, if you ask me.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
I read the link that you posted X
and I thought Blez did a good job of answering you. His response seemed reasonable. Sometimes, you need to be able to bend a little and put yourself in anothers shoes. I am certain that there are times that the committee and the admins. make a wrong decision. It doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy against those with different political or personal beliefs. and Nico is a guy with a high level of sarcasm, wit,and goofiness too. You could report a lot of what he says but some of it is tongue-in-cheek and some isn't. But why? What would AN gain by lessening his bite? That's where judgement comes in.
I think you need to knock the chip off of your shoulder. You are an excellent poster. I like that you counter some of the over the top leftist stuff that happens on AN.
how does one file a CGV
against deleted comments?
Blez answered you.
He said that the admins would remember what you were talking about and would consider your complaint.
which means....? absolutely nothing.
It means you should have reported
Batman. and then perhaps he would have earned a strike for his obnoxious and grievous remarks. ( They would have been grievous to you and to me but the committee would have thought they were ok most likely but might have given him a strike for their political nature). But you chose not to do that.
there are thousands of people reading this site
plenty of ANers (mikeA, paul thomas, etc.) seem to get strikes without me reporting them, and for a lot less than comparing those who support the troops to nazi sympathizers like batman and louismg.
Someone did report them
that didn't like what was said. So they exercised the same right that you could have exercised. That you chose not to is on YOU not on the people that had a problem with Paul and Mike.
how do you know
who has reported who? how do you know who got a strike and who didn't?
It's not like the authorities
are somehow prohibited from looking for violations if no one reports them. And, in fact, grover and myself were told in no uncertain terms that we were going to be punished for overly harsh argumentation even though both of us agreed that neither wanted to have anything to do with having the other one thrown off the site. The "we can only see it if it gets reported" position is a facile one.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for someone to report a CGV is if they want the reported person to get tossed. I have yet to encounter such a person even among the multitudes with whom I've crossed rhetorical swords. So I haven't reported anyone. Most people are not as scrupulous as I am.
Disagree.
Reporting a CVG does not mean that the person reporting it wants the other person tossed. They want them to change their behavior to a less offensive level. That's my IMO .
but the point is
the admin does give out CGVs themselves and not just in response to reports from users.
harsh (baseball-related) argumentation between pt and grover may fall into that category, batman and louismg calling those who support the troops nazi sympathizers does not.
Why does it have to be a conspiracy?
It strikes me as a perfectly predictable extension of the way people normally behave, which is to be nice to people they like and harsh with people they don't like. Even our justice system, which is theoretically supposed to be as objective as possible, is riddled with this kind of thing.
The differential reactions to my comments and FreeSeatUpgrade's on the Swisher thread amply disabused me of any notions I might have had to the contrary. I received two strikes for a mildly caustic criticism. He received, as far as I can tell, one for a tirade which would have gotten him banned from virtually any other site I'm aware of.
I remember the
incident well. I didn't know that you got two strikes for it. I don't believe that you deserved even one strike. However, this is the process and a needed one. It doesn't mean that the committee will get everything right ...just like every jury. but we still need juries and we still need a committee. I am sorry that you were treated like that and I think I was very vocal about it at the time and said it was Bull$hit.. I was very disappointed in the AN leadership for the way they handled that.
can we stop comparing the CGV committe to a jury
before i get disgusted and quit law school?
the bottom line is there is no transparency and there is no objectivity. it absolutely IS a secret process, that is not a conspiracy theory.
it matters who likes you and who does not, it matters whether certain people agree with your opinions or not, and it does not seem to matter how much or little you contribute to AN otherwise.
I don't know enough
Paul, I urge you to write and complain about the retroactive strike and ask the committee to reconsider. It's outrageous and maybe someone will have the decency to rectify the wrong.
and Blez? If you are reading this.. It's your blog you have the final say... I urge you to fix this. It's a black spot on the blog and the committee. Thanks.
-- Laurie
I'd like to weigh in here
I got my strike for telling Nico to go F*** himself. Love me or hate me, I was getting a strike on that one.
I don't like that it is a secret process but I understand why it is so. One change I'd like to see is to allow the alleged offender a chance to defend themself. The CGVC could e-mail the offender and offer the person the chance to explain what happened. Maybe there would be a mitigating circumstance that would earn the person a warning instead of a strike.
If it makes you feel any better, grover,
I did take your advice that time. It was good, and it was good for me too.
I have no problem with the idea of allowing a strikee to defend him/herself, but I think that option is implied - if someone gets a strike and says "please reconsider..." the committee is obviously at least open to it: case in point HOz. But frankly, 99% of the time I issue a "strike" letter and get a "that's so unfair!!!" reply back, I think to myself, "Uh, telling someone they're an idiot is a CGV even if they disagreed with your opinion..."
But why leave it implied?
Why not make it an official thing? E-mail the offender and tell them that they're being judged (for lack of a better term) on a particular comment, provide a link to said comment and then tell the person they can offer a defence addressed to blah-blah@web-address.
grover, a "strike" letter says
"the sub-committee felt that your comment __ violated __ part of the CGs," which I think is what you're asking for.
As for Xbox's latest complaints, there is no formal appeal system, and there isn't intended to be - that's not the system AN set up. And the "strike" letter ends noting that I am only the messenger of the information, because...well, it's true! And it's sent from my personal email account, because...well, it's the only one I have! Why exactly do I need another one to send "strike" emails? Good lord.
There is a difference
between telling someone "you're up for review, please explain your comments" and telling them "you've been given a strike, if you want to complain, go ahead." Maybe it's only semantic, but it seems like people are much more likely to feel that their side of the story was heard (and therefore that the process was "fair") if you don't tell them ahead of time what the result was. The current system appears to put the burden of proof on the accusee.
wrong
people are NOT told "if you want to complain, go ahead": "that option is implied".
so the strike recipient has to know that oz got a strike and that he was able to get it overturned, so they might get it overturned as well. i assume they are supposed to know this either from his one comment on the subject or from my comment above.
this continues to get more and more ridiculous...
also
strike emails are sent from nico's personal email account and not from the committee.
not only does it NOT say that the person can contact either nico or the committee to get the strike reduced, it DOES say:
As you may know, I am only the messenger of this information and am not in a position to answer any specific questions about the sub-committee voting itself.
Regards,
-Nico.
in other words, don't bother to respond to this email, i'm only the messenger (LOL), there's nothing you can do.
Correct: I'm the messenger, not the jury,
there is no formal appeal system, and unless you reach out to ask for reconsideration and the sub-committee decides to, you're outta luck when a community member complains about a comment of yours and 3 or 4 out of 4 volunteers just trying to get it right as often as they can agree it violated the stated CGs.
If it doesn't sound like a democracy or the court system, it's probably because no one ever said it was - it's a blog trying its best to keep spirited discouse civil, and doing a pretty good job of it thanks to many hard-working volunteers.
uh
if it DID matter how much you contributed to AN, then wouldn't that ruin the objectivity you're looking for.
What the fuck prompted this? Seems like these complaints came out of nowhere, unless they've been festering for a while here.
And obviously you're complaining about strikes given to people you do like (mike, PT) and about strikes not being given to someone you don't (Oz). That's the very thing you're arguing against, for the CG enforcers. Some might label this hypocrisy.
also
Can anyone direct me to this Swisher thread with the supposedly unfair strikes? Piqued my curiosity. Obviously I'd be biased in my judgments of those two listed posters, but...I'll try not to be, heh.
The relevant portion
is about 2/3 of the way down... it's 600 comments long, so I'd suggest not reading the first bunch unless you really want to revisit the Swisher trade.
I stand by everything I said in that thread, BTW. I don't believe my comment even constituted a CGV to begin with, and treating it as equivalent to FSU's "reply" (a profanity-laced direct verbal assault) was the single most grotesque example of favoritism I've seen on this site in almost a year of posting here.
Favoritism?
I knew the rules, I consciously broke them, I reported a violation on myself, and I got a strike exactly as the Rules proscribe. Sounds more like "the system working as designed" to me. Quarrel with the design of the system if you like, but in this instance it worked on me precisely as it would have on user # 6895.
FWIW, other than ratting myself out as described, I've never reported a CGV on you or anyone else.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 6, 2008 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
maybe un-favoritism?
PT may be sarcastic and arrogant, but i don't see how his comment was worthy of a strike (and he essentially got two). there are plenty of sarcastic/arrogant comments made every day, and they're not considered CGVs.
also, what about the favoritism shown by AN administration to mychael urban over billy beane?
both are members of "the AN community" according to AN admin (not according to me). yet personal attacks against urban can mean strikes and even deletions, whereas your "fuck billy beane" apparently does not.
And Billy's user ID# would be...?
He comments in threads...when?
Grasping...
At...
Straws...
<thud>
so it's not enough that
beane has done numerous interviews for AN, come to multiple AN days, etc. unlike urban he's not a part of the AN community... unless he has an ID# like joe morgan?
Did you report the "fuck billy beane" comment
to the CGV committee?
They do not act on anything that they do not receive a complaint about.
no, but joe morgan reported it
Is he a user on AN?
If you think that the rule should have been enforced on that comment, you, as an AN user, have the right to report it. If you choose not to report it, you don't have much of a right to complain about it not resulting in a strike.
This is like the zombie thread
that wouldn't die.
In any event, I think the point xbx is making isn't that they both should have gotten strikes for criticizing public figures-- it's that neither of them should have. Reporting someone else's borderline CGV-able comment just because you received a strike for something similar is purely vindictive.
True on the zombie-ness.
This thread sleeps through the season, but late in every off season it resurrects itself. Specific participants and charges may evolve, but the thread runs through them. Next up will be the armageddon which is new AN. Then pitchers and catchers.
Its a sign that spring is near really, like daffodils.
by green star oakland on Feb 7, 2008 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, and on favoritism
Given the number and vitriol level of a number of public clashes I've had with Nico and Blez, I don't exactly qualify as a favorite of AN admin. Or anyone else, for that matter. Though my mom claims she loves me.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 6, 2008 6:34 PM PST up reply actions
I talked to your mom, and...
well, you might want to double-check with her.
FSU...You underrate yourself.
I am positive that the administrators recognize your value to AN. You may have had some skirmishes with them regarding the "NEW" An format but they like and respect you. That's easy to tell even in print. We all like you ...you are a very talented writer.
It's also easy to detect animosity in many posts that Nico and BBG(to a lesser extent) have directed at PT. Their response to the verbal dressing down that you gave to Paul pretty much told the story.
The response to blame Paul for you deciding to vent your anger publicly is why some of us use the word favoritism. Why you would have thought that Paul baited you unmercilessly until you justifiably lashed out at him judging by their comments! I don't see it (or read it) like that and for someone to see it like that would mean that their view is slanted by SOMETHING. That of course is only my opinion. But it is indeed the way I view the comments made in that thread.
So you reported yourself? What are ya? Some kinda nut???????? ;-)
ah, the soap opera
Seems pretty obvious FSU wouldn't have reacted in the way he did if that was the only dealing he had had with PT. Judging by the fact that FSU lashed out at the person rather than the post, it's rather apparent that the dislike was there for a while. This was the tipping point--it's irrelevant that this particular inflammatory post may not have been any more egregiously provocative than others. I haven't yet figured out which, but PT either doesn't know how to adjust what he says to the circumstances at hand, or he simply doesn't care to (I suspect the latter, given the guy's glorification of "arguments" over the people who make them). This inability or refusal to adjust one's writing situationally angered me before, but I've learned to lower my expectations a bit. The guy makes for a good A's fan--BB's shit doesn't work in the playoffs, PT's schtick doesn't work when fan favorites get laid off. Heh, that's a bit of a stretch...style over substance there.
Anyway, Dogfather's post made that thread worth reading.
Give me some credit here
I was a little on edge myself, and irritated that what seemed to me to be a pretty unique situation was-- inevitably-- being tossed in with a bunch of unrelated moves as though it was the final proof of the Master Conspiracy.
You're quite right, however, to observe that the "provoked" response was clearly not really a response to that particular post. Which makes the position Nico and BBG adopted all the more implausible.
With due respect, IM4Oakgal,
because I really do appreciate the heck out of you, I wouldn't be too quick to gauge the levels of animosity I do or don't feel towards PaulThomas, FSU, or others. I adjust how I regard people based on how people do or don't choose to adjust their attitude/behavior when given a chance (e.g., through feedback).
I have to say, for example, that I have really enjoyed PaulThomas' recent posts - just as insightful as before but far less edgy or condescending. And sometimes, just because I'm an administrator, I keep my feelings about people to myself - so at times I am just responding to comments I don't care for, not to be confused with not caring for the person.
In other words, if I "don't like you" it's because I don't like the way you treat people or conduct yourself. But change how you treat people or conduct yourself, and I'm prepared to notice and I'm prepared to change my "don't like you" - when given a reason.
I see that about you, Nico.
I never would have thought differently, and I don't blame you for wanting to set the record straight. Very well said.
Maybe so
How much would you, or anyone else for that matter, have gotten out of the probably dozens, at this point, of comments that I've deleted because they might possibly have been construed as CGVs?
As I pointed out below, there were comments I could have made on this thread (and many other semi-controversial ones) that I'm 99% sure would have been unobjectionable (and might, if I was really feeling it, actually have been funny)-- but frankly, the 1% risk wasn't worth it.
I dunno - I don't think it's hard to avoid CGVs
Basically, don't personally insult or belittle people and don't bring politics onto a non-political forum.
You'll never be one of the cool kids ...
with that 4 digits uid of yours ...
; )
And for the record
Tirade is accurate; profanity-laced is not. There is but one profanity (which is not of itself a CGV-able act) in the entire rant.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 6, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
how is that hypocrisy
if someone is facing a (potential or eventual) ban from AN, there should be a cost-benefit analysis regarding how much they contribute and how disruptive their CGV comments are.
if person A makes 1,000 intelligent/productive baseball-related comments and 3 comments that are CGVs, they should probably be given another chance. anyone who comments that much is bound to cross the line withh one or two comments. if person B makes 10 comments and 3 of them are CGVs, banning them probably won't have a big negative impact on the AN community.
I actually agree with that
but it's inconsistent with your...other...argument that comments should be judged on equal footing, in a vacuum, objectively, etc.
The committee can't be asked to
go into the detail of how many good posts someone has made or what their sabermetric value to the community is - a CGV is a CGV and if you get three of them you crossed the line too many times no matter how many wonderful comments you made in between.
Remember, all of two users have EVER received a third strike, and any "strike" rolls off after 4 months of no strikes. Last year (2007) there were exactly 23 "strikes" given out. If you got 3 of them, and couldn't go 4 months in between strikes at any point, well - maybe AN isn't right for you!
Here's a thought - kinda out there but I'll try it anyway: If you don't want to get banned, don't repeatedly personally insult people to the level where someone feels compelled to make a report.
First of all, the committee members
are AN users who are welcome to report CGVs just like any other user is - the point is their job does not include looking for CGVs any more than any other user.
And PaulThomas, while I think your post is very sensible I don't think even natural favortism plays a big part - I have seen sub-committee members go overboard to be fair to users they may not care for in some way and you have to remember there are 4 members for a reason: No one member's vote or view carries enough weight to tip a vote. Nothing is ever 100% free of bias, but I think this system does a better job than most out there in the world - partly because the committee members are so committed to fairness.
And as for X's comparison to juries, jury votes are also completely anonymous so your analogy actually defeats your argument rather than supporting it. The system says that a group will collectively come up with a just verdict, not that each juror has to be prepared to go to dinner with the defendant after the trial, announce his/her identity and explain the verdict.
Let me make clear
I don't expect some kind of full judicial proceeding. It's a website. That would be ridiculous. No one's losing life or livelihood over a ban from a blog.
That being said, there are some fairly elementary things-- like having someone replace the names of posters with "poster A" and "poster B" before having committee members review transcripts-- which you can do if you're serious about trying to reduce the inherent bias in the situation. I would also-- perhaps this is just the populist in me-- like to see some form of "appeal to the community" for people who get "third strikes", not necessarily as some kind of ban-or-no-ban referendum but just so that people can comment on the situation, instead of having someone mysteriously vanish from the site all at once.
That makes sense, PaulThomas -
just FYI, only two users have ever been banned for reaching a third strike and they ignored many "last warnings" designed to give them yet another chance to choose not to violate the Community Guidelines in the way they spoke to others. It's not like users are banned often for getting 3 strikes (remember that strikes roll off after 4 months without one) - you have to work pretty hard at it.
Good info Nico.
Good to know that most people who earn strikes learn from the experience. AN folks are smart cookies!
This is correct
It may be interesting for the public at large for me to add, and I don't think (given that it's strictly referring to information that was sent to me) that this is violating any privacy statutes, that the "first" strike was given to me retroactively (in the form of a retroactive upgrade of a warning) on the occasion of my receiving the second one.
I would have complained, but quite frankly I'm not going to bother wasting my energy on "justice" which consists of people who I don't know, can't control and have no say in appointing, who are not accountable for their decisionmaking process, judging me. (This is not insulting, guys-- it's just the facts of the situation.) If the powers that be want to ban me, they'll find a reason. I'm at peace with that fact. It's generically true on virtually every bulletin board on the planet, so it's not like I'm not used to it.
Although if it does happen, I wouldn't mind a few testimonials from y'all to try to get me reinstated...
retroactive strike
for being a troublemaker. don't get on their bad side again.
I believe that bridge
has already been crossed and subsequently burnt down to the pylons.
i've met them all
and they're decent people. the system may be a bit screwed up, and some people may get a bit defensive at times, but i doubt they'll ban you.
I didn't mean that to imply
that I have some kind of persecution complex-- I don't-- just to point out that I've already been involved in arguments with at least three front-page writers (monkey, Nico and BBG).
That's messed up ...
since first strikes are completely meaningless until you get a second one, it's kinda stupid.
nothing about this is "kinda" stupid...
I consider that a personal attack!
Not only are you disagreeing with me, through some convoluted leaps of logic you're implying that I'm more than "kinda" stupid.
I don't agree
with BBG and Nico's stance. I don't think we need to nitpick each other...but the diary should have been deleted. It's a CGV diary. Why leave it? You have always deleted politically motivated diaries before. I remember it happening more than once. You fell down on this one. I wonder why?
I didn't say by whom
I can't speak for xbx, but I meant that humdinger should delete the diary -- not that an admin should.
Sorry, I should have clarified that. (But now I'm just buttering you up.)
Hold me accountable with threats of CGV strikes
...if you must, but I stand my post.
WE MUST COLONIZE MARS (lest the Australians beat us to it!)
by Jeremy Belvins on Feb 3, 2008 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
Banned for Life?
If I am wrong, then the left wing loons have not won. If I am right, then they have, and Blez is your biggest loon. Enjoy AN and their ultra left wing political message. Hope Blez doesn't brainwash you - though he is trying!!!
For unbiased political reporting try watching The O'Rielly Factor on FOX News, cos AN is anything but unbiased - or at least Blez Obama is anything but unbiased.
Go ahead Ban Me you freakin' hypocrite
by onlysaying on Feb 3, 2008 5:08 AM PST reply actions
By the way Blez
by onlysaying on Feb 3, 2008 5:16 AM PST up reply actions
Its a free country my friend
and last I heard the internet is not a dictatorship. You reserve the right to come and go as you please, and if you choose to go because you are so repulsed by something so trivial then by all means, please go.
Standing around, waving your arms up in the air and yelling "the sky is falling" does little for your credibility. Except if maybe credibility is not something you worry about because you are in fact a troll.
You can throw as many insults as you want, it doesn't mean anything because it is clearly obvious you are only trying to instigate something and the IQ level of the members here is at least high enough that we know that you are only trying to get everyones knickers all up in a knot. It's not going to happen, sorry.
As for the political advertising on this site, I can understand how it can maybe seem a little odd and out of place, but look I am not about to go criticize the man for bringing me my favorite blog on the internet...FOR FREE. So if I can watch The Office or House M.D and not throw a hissy fit when they air a (insert candidate of choice here) commercial, I don't see why it should upset me here. AN is free, and until any of us fork over any money to be able to run, maintain the site, none of us really have a right to complain about how the site is paid for.
The Ads are a different issue
than allowing this diary IMO. The Ads are a business decision. They are not an editorial. Money is money and I see no reason to turn down money. If a Republican candidate wanted to advertise it'd be allowed wouldn't it?
BS...
If you don't allow politics to be talked, then you don't take political ads, that's all there is to it.
Furthermore, everyone needs to get a MULLIGAN from this thread because the moderators allowed it to stand. The egg is on their faces.
I, on the other hand, love talking politics, but not on political sites. I only talk baseball on political sites, using players and situations as metaphors.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
such a noble soul -- a tue martyr for justice
I tell you what, if Blez lacks the "stones to at leat [sic] tell the rest of AN" why you were banned, then I will tell them... that you were off your meds today.
by Jeremy Belvins on Feb 3, 2008 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
unbiased political reporting????
the o' reilly factor? seriously? wow...o' reilly is as much a journalist as the monkees were a band. his own views are beside the point - that he mascarades them as "news" is the problem. his show is opinion, not news. i've got no problem with anyone stating their political views - but do not call it news. journalism is about looking for all the facts and political context, not cherry picking information to give your perspective, catering towards specific interests, or covering the spin from the left or right as facts. sadly, that is all we have in the mainstream press, and our nation suffers for it.
by guy incognito on Feb 3, 2008 7:00 AM PST up reply actions
O'Reilly has often said he's not a journalist.
Usually after he's been found out to have lied about something (his boycott on France 'cost them billions', there's 'no homeless veterans' in America, he didn't sexually harass a producer with a loofah...)
He claims he's a 'commentator'.
And that it's fun to use tabouleh as lubricant.
Hummus is the lube, brother!
spread the word!
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions
Oh...My...God...
This discussion is a perfect example why a no politics rule is needed. For every 19 people who can discuss an issue reasonably, there's one who goes insane and rants and screams and makes everyone else uncomfortable, ruining the chances for interesting conversation with intelligent people of different viewpoints. Only saying...
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 3, 2008 9:28 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, one other thing
When you get banned, onlysaying, it will be because you come in here and act like a jerk (loon, pathetic, hypocrite, brainwash, make me sick, etc), and not because of your political views. There've been leftist ranters who've met a similar end on AN.
So getting 86'd won't be because you're conservative, though I'm sure you'll edit that little truth out of the martyr story you tell yourself later.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 3, 2008 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
Damn. I came here to say just that.
So, ditto (hold the head).
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
i know politics is dry tinder
but, come on, poople (i love that typo!) here get in fights over even inane things. people get too uptight about religion and politics. i think it's damaging to be so insular.
What?!
Grammar is the glue that binds intelligent discourse! Could you at least capitalize the pronoun "I" when you make such misguided comments? People "here get in fights over even inane things?!" No, we don't! And if we do (which we don't), it's only because we eventually crack under the strain of suffering the onslaught of poor grammar that is bringing civilization to its knees!
If you ever disparage grammar again, I'm filing a complaint. You're on notice.
Didn't you mean
"your on notice"?
civilization can s-
Nah, better not go there.
I'm with you, there.
Most humans are foam peanuts anyway... filler material to provide the illusion of a populated world to those rare few of us who actually have souls.
No, I'm not kidding.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Brava!
by kkdaz on Feb 5, 2008 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
If you have these severe
criticisms of Blez why not email him? That would be a lot classier and a lot less divisive than saying these ugly things publicly. You are being extremely rude to someone who created this great blog.
Whoa
Dude, how about thinking for yourself, thats the problem with us left wing loons, we prefer open discourse and coming to our own opinions. We don't need some jackass commentator to tell us how to think.
However, you are correct that ANY form of political ad should not be placed on this site unless its a global - Get out and vote - type of thing.
However 2, this diary is probably not a good idea and will only get people all lathered up.
...so, how about those super bowl ads?
GOTV
Hold on there, bub -- I'm a royalist, and I'd be opposed to seeing any get-out-the-vote ads.
You, peons! Stay at home! Get back to work!
i'm very anti-GOTV
unless of course the votes depressed align w/you
My candidate wasn't even in the AN poll...
...and I'm quite frankly disappointed that after all the hours I've spent stuffing online polls on his behalf, that I can't do it here at AN.
Every year, I write in a vote for Billy Beane, yet his dark horse candidacy goes unmentioned, even on a site that puts out T-Shirts that say "In Billy We Trust."
Damn dissapointing, if you ask me.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
How about including all the candidates.
Where's Mike Huckabee? He is favored to win my state. (Oklahoma)
No kidding...
I'm pissed it doesn't have a "Not going to vote because all upper tier politicians are crooks" option, you know, for the handful of sane people who actually realize that? /tongueincheek
No Huckabee cuz the resident primadmin is
... a little touchy about that whole "evolution" thing.
Against which theory I offer the following rebuttal: 
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
Thiiiiis isn't gonna end well.
I think you'll only need to bring the pie
there will be plenty of punch in the show.
Well
I guess since Obama supports the fairness doctrine I expect to see other ads. like a romney, paul, or nader ad
My guess:
If they bought one, it'd run.
FWIW, Glenn Beck ads regularly run on dKos, even though he's hated by those who go there daily.
You spend the dime, you get the time.
Obama's biggest supporter will be the person he
chooses to be Vice-President, because he will be the new president when someone inevitably can't stand the sight of a black president.
Unless he makes the brilliant
tactic of choosing clinton as his VP.
I'm not touching the direct discussion
in the thread-- this is a freaking minefield and I'm not about to get my leg blown off.
I will say this, however-- at minorleagueball, they posted threads like this one with the specific instruction not to comment in the threads. That seems like a much better way to go.
Question:
Does anyone know of any sites where people discuss consipiracy theories, pornography, baseball, and politics, all at the same time?
That's where a lot of us should be, not here. (Myself included!)
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
Unfortunately, there's a great point lost in all
Somewhere in the rants above there are valid points. Unfortunately, that poster cannot seem to convey his message with any level of respect whatsoever. Kinda makes him a hypocrite as well. You see, you can make your valid point without all the insults and attacks. See:
First and foremost, the inclusion of political advertisements on this site is in direct violation of it's own standards and rules. A lot of the reason some folks don't post, rarely post, quit posting, etc is due to (I know I've brought it up before) the dreaded "double standard". If the rule is in place, then is it not in place for all? Of course, there is the arguement that it's not our call. Although there are rules in place, the creator of the blog can essentially do what he feels to keep the site rolling along. Personally, I do think it is a shot to certain folks' credibility to allow ads that violate current standards and guidelines. I find it very hard to believe that the thought never occured to any of the "powers that be" at this site that the ad in question was, well, questionable. In an effort to maintain credibility, and an overall sense of community and fairness, if it were my decision, I'd graciously decline the ad and find another. Something tells me it's not hard to find another advertisement for that space. After all, something will have to go there after elections, right? Also, it's equally troubling that the "powers that be" have yet to adress the issue (unless I missed something, which I very well may have).In the end, it's thier site, and thier credibility. They are free to do with it what they desire. As individuals, we have the right to take our internet traffic elsewhere. Rather than spouting off, just leave. Refuse to return. Enough people do it, then the "powers that be" may eventually learn the lesson. Alienate your users, alienate your own site. Seeems to me that the responsible, and frankly the right, thing to do would have been to never allow any form of political advertisement on the site. I have a feeling they wouldn't allow any sort of porn or other "unsavory" ad to be there, and political advertisements should be treated as such. Hopefully, the correct actions will be taken from this point forward. I wish I had more time right now to continue, however my own responsiblities have come calling. Take care all, and hope you all have a great day.
Personally...
I'm more annoyed at the Be A Red Sox fan ads than I am about political ads. For one thing, it shows really bad advertising on whoever signed up for it and really, the Red Sox?
But as to your point, I do recall reading that he doesn't necessarily approve/disapprove of what's being used in the ad space, that it's part of a service. I could totally be making that up though, so don't quote me on that.
One would think....
He has some sway one way or another. It would be possible to contact whoever does make that decision (if it indeed isn't the site's owner) and let them know that there is no politics allowed in any way, shape or form on this particular site. The comparison to porn still stands. I'm sure if it were an ad for something pornographic, there would be a channel of communication in place where the owner of the site can ask for the removal of the ad in question. I am willing to bet any reputable company that enjoys having customers would work with the person who owns/runs the site.
by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 3, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
One would also think:
Who cares.
That ad pays for you to be able to read and post here. Don't want to click on it? Don't click on it. And anyone who doesn't want to stick around will likely not be missed.
Pretty simple, really.
Agreed...
And that's the point. You can respectfully take issue with something and handle yourself accordingly. Please don't read any more into it than that. They are valid points, and I'm sure Blez and Co. will at least adress the issue at some point in time. Me? I won't quit coming, and if I recall correctly, wasn't this an issue before a few years back? I dig your loyalty to the community there Oz, as I dig your general persona/stance quite often. I do think there's a mis-understanding there though that I wish to attack the site, and that's simply not true. Merely showing that one can respectfully take a stance on an issue and present thier points without being a total jackass.
by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 3, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
I gots no beef with you.
Peace, love and mung beans, baby.
How about....
Bacon then? Will you have pork with me if beef is outta the question?
by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 4, 2008 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
where I live...
Yeah!
Respect the Backbacon!
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
Barack the Vote
I've commented on this before
when a right-wing ad for a proposition appeared on AN about two years ago and the community went nuts about it (I don't remember the exact proposition now). The truth is that anyone is free to buy an ad on the site. If any of the candidates wanted to buy an ad here, I would accept it because advertising and editorial are completely separate in my view. You may disagree with that view, but newspapers all accept political advertising that can even run in the sports section yet they don't have political discussions from their sports columnists.
I firmly believe that editorial is separate from advertising. If I found the ad offensive or felt that someone might find it objectionable, I would not have accepted it. There was an ad that I didn't accept once because I found that the messages on the tee shirts that place was selling were antagonistic and degrading to conservatives. I don't see anything offensive about that ad.
Ultimately, I view advertising and editorial as separate as that was how I was trained in journalism school. I choose to keep political views out of the editorial (I would guess that most of you have no clue which way I lean politically) and that includes the users. If Romney, McCain or Clinton wanted to advertise, I would gladly accept it. That's not being a hypocrite IMO. But ultimately, if you don't like how I run the blog, go ahead and leave. No one is chaining you here.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 8:17 PM PST reply actions
That's not true - you know full well
that the only reason I still write on Tuesdays and Fridays is that you've chained me to my computer. And I really freaking have to pee.
Isn't that why I sent you that
giant 32 ounce A's cup? God, why are you ALWAYS complaining?
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
My cup runneth over
Oh, quit bragging.
Here's the big question
If an ad you place on the site spurs a political discussion could the person who started the discussion get hit with a CGV? According to the guidelines the answer is yes.
But you've raised the flag, you've said "Look at this!" It only makes sense that the item you highlight will generate discussion, the people who are paying for the ad aren't hoping the good folks at AN will ignore it.
Blez, I understand about the cost of doing business. I appreciate the idea to keep advertising and editorials seperate. But you've said it yourself at least a dozen times, AN was designed to be a sports bar folks could hang out in and talk baseball. You come walking in wearing a T-shirt that says "Ask me to show you my tits"... even though it's not a strip club there will be people asking for a show.
If you're going to have political advertisements then you're going to have to allow civilised political discourse over those political ads without fear of a CGV strike.
I don't feel any need to discuss Verizon high
speed internet right now ...
To be fair
I've ignored the Verizon ad.
Then again, I hope people have more of an opinion on politics then they do their internet provider. 'Course, that could be me being naive.
Well I feel a need to discuss it.
Because I have DSL and it's as slow as a slug and yes...my real life name is Carolyn and my husband is Bill... Yes. We're the SLOWSKYs.
Actually AN does run a t-shirt ad
with someone wearing a t-shirt that says "blow me" so...Well, I'll just post a diary about it...
There really does need to be a poll
For who is your favorite model from the T-shirt ads.
Unfortunately, they recently added some new ads, and my favorite was among those that was phased out. :-(
And if it will make you feel somehow better
I'll gladly take a strike.
No one has to discuss the ads. As a matter of fact, people rarely ever discuss any of the ads on the site. If you don't like an ad, ignore it. They aren't exactly right in your face as you describe them.
As I said, if you don't like it, you can leave. Only Nico is chained here ;-)
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
the only thing
I've seen people discuss, and it's not really an ad, is last year's AL West standings and the reminder that we finished 18 games behind the Halos.
So if we see a McCain ad, and then
a Hillary ad, it's three strikes and AN is shut down? Bummer.
I'm trying to imagine this scenario
and I'm really having trouble.
Has anyone ever banned themself from their own blog before?
Sadly I have.
The content sucked so bad that I started a spamming it just to piss off... err... well, myself. I got so pissed off over the spamming that I kicked my sorry ass off the site.
Way way OT
While I have never been banned from my own blog, I almost had to write myself up when I was a manager once.
Lesson for you kids out there: if you create a zero tolerance policy for production errors, make sure you exclude yourself from the tracking process, or make sure you don't make more errors than half the staff.
and then what will you do
on Tuesdays and Fridays?
Not drink out of my 32 ounce A's cup,
that's for sure.
For the record
I did see a McCain ad on this very thread earlier. It was a Youtube-style video. At the same time, the Obama ad was elsewhere on the page.
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm hward86 and I approved this message.
by BWH on Feb 3, 2008 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
But
If you run an ad and the ad is about a previously taboo subject (in this case politics and political leaders) and people discuss the ad then is it fair to give them a strike?
I think the answer is no.
But if a person does discuss politics or canidates in a reasonable manner and gets a strike then hell yeah you too should get a strike Blez. Running the political ad opened the door.
As for me, I don't need to discuss politics to get myself in trouble... I just need to be me.
Nico can correct me if I'm wrong
but I don't think we've ever issued a strike for the political things unless people veered off into the personal attack area (which inevitably has happened when politics have entered the AN arena). We have informed people over email that political discussions are taboo through email though. Again, Nico can correct me if I've misspoken here.
But you're ignoring the fact that I've said, editorial and advertising are separate entities. I would run an ad for any other candidate as well. All I can do is my best at running the blog the way I see fit.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not ignoring you
You've got to admit that the CGV's have not been enforced on a consistent level. An outrageous foul is an outrageous foul but people can be dinged for a technicality. I'd link the Community guidelines but I'm sure you can find them on your own. I blockquote:
The following are simply not acceptable on AN (excepting, in some cases, for obvious humor between people with an existing rapport); they violate AN's Community Guidelines, and are subject to sanction as outlined below:
- Comments that bring politics into AN (which is a non-political blog), e.g., "Bush/Clinton ruined this country by...", "Check out this link about the war in Iraq," etc.
There is no distinction between making an acceptable political comment and making a non-acceptable comment in the Community guidelines. By the letter of the rules this diary was a CGV. Baseballgirl even talks about deleting the diary, other posters were expecting the diary to be deleted BECAUSE it brought up politics.
All of this confusion because you posted a political ad and someone thought to write a diary inspired by that ad.
Blez, I'm all for you not giving humdinger a strike for posting this diary! But I do think you need to address the confusion this diary has brought up.
I guess the point is that our
community guidelines are exactly that. Guidelines. We make choices based on reasonable judgment as to whether there is malice involved or not. I don't think humdinger had intended any malice by it, so I would say that he/she doesn't deserve a strike. There was a general ignorance there.
The committee judges everything on an individual basis with the rare case of my judgment being the final say when their isn't a final verdict.
Unfortunately the world of blog rules and etiquette can only be a rough guideline. Obviously others have violated the community guidelines pretty clearly in this thread and that's exactly why we usually encourage all to steer clear of the topic. I don't think it's that hard to understand. Steer clear of it on the blog. And advertising and editorial are separate.
I don't know how much more clear I can be. Seriously.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 10:33 PM PST up reply actions
There's a very simple way to be more clear
I think this is a point that you need to bring up on the front page. You've run a political ad as a matter of business. Have I ever given you grief for how you make your living? Advertising and editorial are seperate, sounds great in theory. Your ad inspired an editorial, that's reality. You cannot absolve yourself of your link in the chain of events. Any time someone has gone on a political rant on AN you could count on a half dozen posters chiming in to say "We don't talk politics here". Not "we only discuss politics in a civil manner on AN, and only if it pertains to baseball and/or the Oakland A's in particular." The community line has been We Don't Talk About Politics. You think things are clear. Then why was BaseBallGirl even thinking about deleting this diary? She's staff and it seems she was leaning the wrong way.
I've been way too sensible for a Sunday night and I need to stop. I feel cheap when I come across as trying to be reasonable.
<shudders at the thought of responsibility>
She was leaning towards deleting it
because it had gone the way many of any political discussions do which is why we usually delete them.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
Deleting the diary
because 1 poster went overboard. Isn't that why we have the strike system? Furthermore, don't you think it's telling that so many long-time posters reacted with "This diary should be deleted because it's political" when the reality is it was a poster, not the writer that caused the problems? Xbhaskarx and monkeyball suggested the diary be deleted, salb thought at the very least the diary was strike worthy, Nico thought it should have never been written. Baseballgirl clearly says: There are no politics on AN.
All because the content was of a political nature. There was nothing in humdinger's tone that warrants such a response.
You don't want politics on AN? Fine with me, never been my cup o' tea. But you are running a political ad and it did lead to a political diary. If you want to avoid further political diaries I think you should come out on Monday and say "I've got a wife and child to feed, I'm getting paid good money to run the Obama ad and if you want to bring up politics on AN my PayPall account number is (fill in the blank)."
Problem solved.
The diary should be deleted
because of what it tends to lead to which is people going overboard.
That was my opinion and probably many others.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 11:30 PM PST up reply actions
Going overboard?!
If that were the standard I'd have capsized a couple dozen diaries by now! Hell, you'd have had to scuttle at least half of the threads oaktoon took part in.
Someone else want to continue with the wrecked shipping lingo, I've left some choice options.
I'm trying to figure out from
this post whether you're political views are veering slightly star board or hard to port... oooh iceberg! i'm gonna get me some snow cones off the bow!!!
Dude, what's the BFD?
The Food Network doesn't run any political programming ... should they not be allowed to accept political ads?
Who cares?
Have you read this thread?
Obviously lots of people care.
I didn't say Blez couldn't run political ads on AN, I just said doing so led to a political diary which is something AN has tried to avoid in the past. It is Blez's responsibilty to make sure that AN's readers understand the house rules and I would argue that running political ads raises the question of whether or not it is OK to bring up politics on AN. A simple reiteration on the front page that ads and editorials are seperate and politcal discussion (unless it pertains to baseball or the Oakland A's) is not welcome on AN.
To borrow from Blez, I can't get any clearer then that.
Skimmed it ...
I think most agree with me ... they don't mind the ad, prefer that AN remain more or less free of politics and don't see the two as inconsistent.
As best I can tell, essentially every medium in the land that doesn't have a specific and overt political leaning operates under the policy that content and advertising are entirely separate and it seems to work just fine.
I understand that you're not alone in your opinion ... but you are an individual whose opinion I am more interested than most on this site ...
So I don't understand, what's the big fucking deal?
I'm looking ahead
I think most agree with me ... they don't mind the ad, prefer that AN remain more or less free of politics and don't see the two as inconsistent.
Devo, I agree with that sentiment, OK?
Blez ran a political ad.
Humdinger saw the ad.
Humdinger saw the ad and was inspired to write a diary.
Humdinger was told he did a bad thing and he probably committed a CGV and could possibly have his diary deleted.
Humdinger was spared either punishment. (I'm happy about that by the way.)
What started this entire chain of events?
It is nothing for Blez to come out and say that he is being paid to run the ad and it is not an endorsement of Obama and the ad does not open the door to political discussion on AN. Make a mention on the front page, add a little language to the CG's if you like and everything is warm and fuzzy.
If Blez doesn't do that and a week from now someone who didn't see this diary looks at the ad and thusly inspired writes a political diary because if the man who runs the website is running ads on the 2008 election it must be OK to broach the topic and if that person gets a strike then who is responsible for starting the whole shebang? Same guy who started this diddy.
Wow, I think that's a legit run-on sentence!
Except ...
the same guy who didn't see this diary ...
may very well miss Blez' comments as well and probably wouldn't bother to read the community guidelines while Blez' diary likely inspired an idiotic rant about how he's a hypocrite ...
I don't disagree that it would make sense to add a note to the guidelines, as you suggest ... I just don't see why it's that big of a deal, regardless ...
Except
Blez has then taken action to avoid the future problem. He has created the opportunity for our mystery poster to be responsible for his actions. It's the difference between ignorance and stupidity. If you don't tell someone that the problem exists then when it bites them on the ass you're partially to blame, maybe even completely to blame. They were ignorant and you were responsible to tell them what they needed to know. If you tell them the problem exists and it still bites them on the ass then they're to blame.
Good suggestion
I added a note in the guidelines. It only makes sense that it be outlined there.
Thanks for the input, devo.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 4, 2008 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
Here's the logic:
The reason political posts, as opposed to other kinds of off-topic posts, are disallowed on AN is because such a post is likely to start a large and inflammatory discussion. Having a political ad on the site is likely to do the same thing. That is a good reason not to have political ads on AN.
I realize that reason might not be big enough to outweigh the effort and lost income that comes from a no-political-ads policy. Blez has made it clear that in his judgment it does not, and that's his call. Still, it's a solid argument against political ads, even if there are stronger arguments in favor of them.
It sounds like there's a consensus on this thread that it would be good to have AN's policy that advertising and editorial are completely separate spelled out more clearly somewhere, at least in the CGV section and possibly somewhere more prominent. It might not find everyone, but it would help some and it won't hurt. I hope we see that added soon.
I still don't understand why this diary wasn't deleted. Humdinger simply didn't know the policy, and once it was explained to him he was entirely reasonable about it. Seems to me that a private email to Humdinger plus deleting the diary was a simple solution. I don't buy the idea that that would have prompted a "censorship" argument, since it's such a cut-and-dried case here.
I also don't understand why Humdinger didn't/doesn't delete the diary himself. If I posted a diary that was in violation of a CGV I didn't know about, and then a moderator pointed out my error to me, I would surely delete it.
Perhaps the email to Humdinger could have said, "We won't delete the diary for you, because we don't want to unfairly censor you if you disagree. But if this was a simple oversight and you agree with the policy, please delete your diary ASAP."
If this diary was deleted by admin
I can promise you there would have been six more; all talking about Big Brother and unfair censorship, and hypocrisy, and would raise way more questions that have been answered here. Might as well keep the discussion in one thread and deal with everything out in the open.
by baseballgirl on Feb 4, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
Bull. Shit.
Sorry bbg, gotta call it like I see it. The ONLY time people had a problem with "censorship" was when a diary was deleted for being too critical of a not-to-be-named hack.
So...
if I'm understanding what you'd really like to see (at the least) is for a note to be added to the Community Guidelines within the polito-talk jabbering something to the nature of "which includes discussion of political ads that may or may not appear on this site since these are meant solely as advertisements and in no way contributes to the editorial nature of this site?"
At the least
Bring up the issue on the front page. It probably wouldn't hurt to add the ad/editorials are seperate things in the CG's but that's strictly optional IMO. What I really liked was my joke about bribing Blez via a PayPal account to write political stuff on AN.
The thing is that the Food Network
or newspapers or whatever, do not have users actively providing content, unlike most blogs like AN.
A user watching the food network who sees a political ad, cannot post a reply to it on the Food Network.
meaning of "subject to sanction"
I swear the title of this post is not a Clinton joke.
In any case, I read "subject to sanction" the same way that a traffic violation is subject to citation. A cop pulls you over for speeding or an illegal turn or what have you, he can write you a ticket if he wants. He can also let you off with a warning if he feels you don't merit punishment.
Not as clear cut as your example
Sure, the posted speed limit is 65 and if you get caught going faster then that then you could get a ticket.
This is more a case of driving at a speed safe for the road conditions but the officer thinks your still going too fast.
Well...The rule of thumb is more
that politics directly relevant to baseball/sports discussion - such as a politician's stance on steroids testing or something - is fine, but any discussion of politics that has nothing to do with "the discussion at hand" is not really allowed.
That being said, I'd say the more inflammatory the political comment is, the more likely it is to be deemed a "strike" - because we don't want to jump on the occasional joke/quip, or technically-political-but-clearly-harmless comment. That's the "gray area" - but bottom line, if it's political and unrelated to the true purpose of AN (sports, baseball, A's), the CGs say you are at risk.
{That wsa a reply to Blez}
Blez...I totally understand your position ...
on the ads. This is a business for you. And really? Turning down political ads is more of a political statement than accepting them if you think about it.
But what I do not understand ...is why you have deleted some diaries in the past with political content and yet, this one is allowed. I am curious to know why that is the case. It is not consistent with your past actions.
Turning down ads
is a political statement?
I guess, if you consider the following:
Comments that bring politics into AN (which is a non-political blog), e.g., "Bush/Clinton ruined this country by...", "Check out this link about the war in Iraq," etc.
to be a political statement. I actually agree with that characterization, because I believe that all statements are essentially political (and personal... see my many prior critiques of the notion of "personal attacks")... but at the same time, I recognize that I seem to be in an extreme minority position on these issues.
All I'll add on the "delete diary" front,
IM4Oakgal, is that in the past when diaries have been deleted, it has spawned new diaries about "censorship!" and "you shouldn't have deleted the diary! Yes he/she should have!" to where the meta-discussion about the deletion itself caused more noise and distraction than the content that caused the diary to be deleted in the first place!
All of which is to say that when it comes to diaries that warrant being deleted, as a moderator you pretty much can't win.
I do understand that.
and you could well be right. Is this going to be the new policy then? Or will some diaries with political content be deleted and others not? and of course if you allow political diaries then ...they will get comments and pretty soon you will get a plethora of diaries about politics. That's why I would rather see political diaries deleted. They really are divisive. and BTW? You are all grownups...what if people do play the censorship card? Just stick by your guns and remind the people complaining that the diary was a CGV diary and stick with the policy that you all agreed on. Sticks and stones...you get my point.
Bingo!
You can't win as a moderator!
Therefore, don't try.
This site is way more entertaining with people trashing each other than with everybody playing nice.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
That's exactly why I haven't deleted this one yet
You're in a no win situation.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 3, 2008 9:56 PM PST up reply actions
The BBTF policy,
which, I like, appears to be anything is fair game. That is the ethos of newsgroups.
Don't nitpick about the number of occurrences.
The bottom line is that it has happened, and the exact same thing would happen again if this diary was deleted.
"personal attacks" in the deleted diary/tags.
Which spawned the meta-discussions over which AN users can be attacked and which can't. The meta-discussion in here is about the ad having "brought politics into AN" in the first place. Point is, it's better to leave the meta-ing in the original diary than to have it rehashed (with the added bonus of "censorship!!!") in the protest diaries that would pop up if the original was deleted.
and so what?
Delete the next diary about politics too. What is all of this worrying about diaries about censorship? Administrators need to show some balls for Pete's sake. They have a policy in place and they should enforce it as they have in the past. None of the explanations have the ring of common sense to me. I think the criticism of political ads is pure nonsense but sticking by deleting diaries that are about politics is consistent with the spirit of the Community Guidelines.
A word of advice
which you may or may not choose to heed. (I know, I know, advice from me on interpersonal relations is like advice on personal hygiene from Attila the Hun...)
While it is certainly technically/legally correct that if someone dislikes something intensely, their only true recourse is to leave the blog... putting things in those terms comes off as heavy-handed. Most people posting on AN are doing so because they like it. They're trying to get the rules changed because they would like it better if they were changed.
Everyone has a certain tipping point beyond which they will feel excessively unwelcome or frustrated and stop coming. Something like this Obama ad flap may not actually push someone over the edge, but it may well push them closer to it-- and that's important enough to warrant complaints to the administrator, even if someone doesn't actually plan to leave immediately if they're not addressed.
And from personal experience, having your complaint met with "if you don't like it, you can leave" is, to me, deeply irritating. For two reasons, really-- first, it emphasizes the fact that the reader/poster/customer is in a position of powerlessness vis a vis the admin/seller, and second, it implies that the complaint is not being taken seriously (since it implies a dichotomy of outcomes from which the customer's desired third position-- a change in policy-- is excluded). I certainly doubt that this was your intent. If it was, so be it-- but if not, I would humbly suggest finding a different way to make your point.
Kids who say "it's my ball, so if you don't like my rules, don't play" frequently succeed-- but what they succeed at is getting people not to play, not in getting their rules established.
hmm...
there was a kid in my neighborhood that would take his ball and go home if we didn't play the way he wanted us to...
Until the day I grabbed the ball from him and said it was mine, and what the f**k are you gonna do about it?
Of course, he started to cry and ran home to tell his dad. So, his dad came out and started yelling at me, and of course, my reply was that my dad can kick your dad's ass. The boy's father, realizing that my dad really could put him in the hospital without breaking much of a sweat, walked back inside and said, "You're on your own, junior!"
I'm not a bully at heart; I was just using bully tactics to teach a crybaby a lesson. Of course, I thought he would learn his lesson, and when I gave him his ball back, I fully expected the game to resume on more democratic terms. However, true to form, he took his ball back into the house, and not only did the game end that day, but he never came out to play with the neighborhood kids again.
In retrospect, I wonder if maybe I should have just bought my own football, and ostracized the little twerp until he was willing to play more fairly... Or maybe I should have kicked his ass, let him run home crying and bloody, and maybe that would have been the impetus to get him to toughen up... Maybe my dad and I should'a double teamed'em and beat his ass and his dad's ass.
Anyway, all of this leads to my main point... If you'd just write in Billy Beane on your ballot for President like y'all should have in the first place, we wouldn't be having this little discussion, now, would we?
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
Paul Thomas...
I couldn't have said it better. I was looking for the words... you found them. Thanks for stating this so clearly.
by AthleticsPTBNL on Feb 4, 2008 8:23 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry.
I've never read the guidelines and didn't know political posts were not allowed (although it makes sense after reading this string). But in all honesty, I didn't mean it as one . . . entirely. Everyone probably agrees that this is an important time for our country, so I just thought it would be an interesting idea to see how the cross section of the populous that follows the A's and frequents this site stands politically in generally, and on this election more specifically. You know, compare people here to the rest of the country.
But I should have asked to not post comments so as to keep the political back and forth out from it. I also should have included Paul, Huckabee and "no vote" option. Oops.
I don't regret posting it though, cause the results are sort of interesting [small sample-size critique predicted].
I don't know what CVG means, but you can go ahead and do it to me if you want.
Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.
Personally speaking
If you had put up the poll and then asked people to NOT comment on their choice, this would be perfectly fine. The voting is anonymous and everyone could go about their merry way. I'm rather surprised by the overwhelming support for Obama. Definetly a "huh" moment for me.
Yeah,
and McCain getting more votes than Clinton. That one got me.
Obviously, people are heeding the ads
Demography in action
First, please note that this post will contain no subjective judgements of the candidates or their politics, I'm just talking math here :P
It's not that surprising that Obama gets a large percentage of the support. All the demographic elements support just that.
First, AN itself. I think it's safe to say that almost every poster at AN is an A's fan. It's reasonable to assume that most of us currently live or have lived in the Bay Area, which is one of the most left-leaning areas in the country. It's not at all surprising that the two Democratic candidates listed have better than three times the support of the two Republicans. I doubt they'll do even that well in the Oakland polls on Tuesday.
Also, sports fans tend to be male. Not all of them by any means, but a fairly significant majority. I don't know everyone's gender, of course, but I think a rough guess of between two-thirds and three-fourths would be close to accurate. We'll come back to this. Beyond AN itself, people on the Internet skew somewhat younger and more educated than the American populace as a whole. "Younger" and "more educated" are two of the three categories of Democratic voters that Obama does best in. The categories Clinton does best in, especially older women, are the least likely to be represented here.
The "core" ANer (demographically speaking, that is. Grover's contributions are no less valuable just because he's eighty-four,) is a male in his twenties who lives in the Bay Area, a category of voter that is likely to go heavily for Obama on Tuesday.
The poll reflects exactly that.
I'm 84 in muppet years
Divide by 2 to get an accurate read on the mileage.
Did they teach you the difference between...
mutiplication and division when you were in grade school? (teasing)
My husband used to tease our girls by saying...
" I don't even want to think about what they're not teaching you at that school."
All he said was he was 84 in muppet years
and that there was division involved. He didn't specify whether 84 was the product or not ;P
Hard to say, really.
No wonder
You couldn't read english so they made up funny shapes for you to try and communicate with. Come around next Saturday, I'll try and incorporate hieroglyphics in my new diary.
Nate...
I just can't find the words to explain how disappointed I am with you.
Yeah, but we all know the A's don't like ...
... black people. So, 'splain me that, Mr. "I'm the divider."
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
It's CGV, and it stands for
"Community Guidelines Violation" - if you read the Community Guidelines (see link on right side bar) you'll understand...
FWIW
It was clear to me and most readers, I think, that your question was posed through pure curiosity with no bad intent. And if it should nab you a CGV, hopefully you won't let that bother you too much. Paraphrasing the point that Nico has often made, a single CGV isn't much of a problem unless you're too stubborn or foolish to learn. And you don't seem like either of those.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 3, 2008 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
Good point
Your 1st CGV is like a really bad date. It's got to happen sooner or later, the important thing is to learn from it.
I voted
and that's all I have to say about that.
the reason I come to AN
is to talk baseball, but i know all too well that AN gets off topic every now and then. and we can choose to add our own opinions or...ignore them
What about the diaries? They, like ads, are front and center and invite open discussion; the difference being, as Blez staed, advertisement and editorial are two different things.
But they are similiar in that AN rightly chooses which diaries to comment on and which ones to ignore (like mine for example...haha)
And speaking of diaries- and guidelines- well, we aren't particulary a stickler for those either.
"A diary must in some way belong on AN--in other words, it must relate to the A's, or to baseball, or to AN, or to an existing thread or diary, etc."
We get away from the A's ALL THE TIME (look at today's front page). So why is this one such a big deal?
as have what diaries should be about
i agree politics have their own place. so does the super bowl. and it's not on AN. My opinion.
i agree
but it's not an AN topic either
i guess for me it's a little more personal. i got absolutely hammered for my initial diaries even though they were strictly about the A's. it was one thing to disagree with me but folks were a little harsh. and then nico came in and saved the day, saying, "look folks, you don't have read him" (um, thanks nico...haha)
let's call it a truce IM4Oakgal. you're one of my faves here.
I am fine with a truce Marquez.
but I don't feel that we are fighting. Just discussing a topic. Of course, the bottom line is that this is Blez's blog. Whatever way he wants it to go is the way it will go. I am just giving my opinion. Thanks for the nice comment. I enjoy you too. Your family pic diary was one of my favorite diaries ever. :-)
yeah i guess we weren't
really fighting, we we?
and thank you for the nice comments, too :)
I HATE YOU BOTH!!!!
Hmm... I was always the nerd
who picked on the cool kids...
Good thing I was the nerd training for a black belt in Renbukai!
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
never ever, nico
I'm a strong supporter of the no-politics-on-AN
rule. I discuss politics quite a bit elsewhere, but I prefer to see none of it on AN.
But in spite of that, I don't have any problem with this diary. It's patently obvious from the title that it's going to be about presidential politics, and if you're not ready to read about that you should just stay out.
I'm far more offended when a provocative political comment slips into a game thread or DLD. There, you have people attempting to discuss baseball and other innocuous topics and suddenly there's a political opinion you strenuously disagree with and your only choice is to either bite your tongue and take it, or dispute it which will inevitably blow up into a big argument. Neither is a good option.
But there's really no problem with this thread. There's no discussion to be hijacked, because politics is the discussion, and it's perfectly well contained within the thread.
By the way, I can definitely understand why onlysaying was pissed off by the Obama ad that's been on the site for the past week. But I can also see that Blez is drawing a clear line between advertising and content, so we all need to just ignore the ads and not discuss them.
As for the poll: Uh, hello? Surely I'm not the only person who lives in a state that doesn't vote this Tuesday. Not to mention all the teenagers on this site who aren't old enough to vote.
???
Who is being fraudulent?
I didn't vote in the poll here, since my answer -- ie, I'm not going to vote on Tuesday -- isn't listed. Besides that, I think I wouldn't have voted in the poll anyway, because even when it's anonymous, I don't like to express my political views here.
Sorry
Forgot the <sarcasm/comedy> tag.
Under-age voters, non-resident voters, dead people voting... mixed in with all the natural silliness a political thread brings to AN. With me yet?
Hell with it, next time I go for funny I'll just post a Youtube clip of the 3 Stooges!
Hey, mdl, the guy I voted for absentee
isn't even in the race anymore!
No -- Keyes hasn't dropped out yet!
Funniest line in Audacity of Hope:
Obama recalling his first meeting with President Bush:
"Thanks for the advice, Mr President."
"All right. I gotta get going. You know, me and you got something in common."
"What's that?"
"We both had to debate Alan Keyes. That guy's a piece of work, isn't he?"
I actually rather like Alan Keyes, but he's ... well, like the President said.
And GWB would be...?
A piece of non-work!
a piece of...
...umm.... well... umm...
Monkeyball projectile?
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Does Bruce Bochte get a CGV
for recommending this diary?
Seriously, I never would have noticed it if it weren't on the recommended list.
You have to punish the poll-users too!
Just because they didn't say anything political they thought about it damnit! Thats not cool on AN.
by SwisherSweet on Feb 4, 2008 12:28 AM PST reply actions
Saw McCain speak at Sac State
back before the primaries in '00. I was pretty impressed back then, and while he's a little more right-wingish again, I'd probably vote for him now.
And, to a certain extent, McCain does have an interest in sports legislation. I distinctly recall him speaking about cleaning up boxing. More recently saying MMA is essentially human cockfighting. And he's generally been outspoken against steroids in baseball, not that any politician would be for steroids. So at least there's a smidge about baseball in here.
All that being said, this was a quite a discussion.
McCain?
You need to do more reading I guess. McCain is not a true right winger. He is a neocon. He is a warmonger who wants a "100 year war", his words not mine. So I guess he'll keep us in Iraq after we are bankrupt. Arizona, his home state is not even behind him as he couldn't secure the border. He is all about big government and big spending. He is trying to pass a bill to regulate the internet. Ever hear of McCain/Feingold? If not, do some reading and it will change your mind forever. Want more reasons to dismiss McCain?
The media is picking our candidates, the uneducated or unwilling to research will support whom ever the media likes. Very, very sad...
by Beanecounter on Feb 4, 2008 2:04 AM PST up reply actions
Human cockfighting?
Well, there is an awful lot of "wrapping legs around the opponent's neck/arms and thrusting."
Not that kind of cockfighting, you say?
Pshaw.
He is against online poker
which is a minus for me.
Think People!
Whoever posted this poll sure didn't think it through. You inadvertently censored the poll, just the like MSM likes to do only intentionally. Where is Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee? (sp?)
To the guy who said to watch Fox News and Bill O'Rielly. Are you serious? Fair and balanced my a$$. The MSM has a job to do, and that is to censor and spin. O'Rielly is one of the biggest spinners around and the Fox network is so right wing its not even funny. They have their own agenda just like CNN and the others.
People need to educate themselves b/c our system is setup to fail. Heck, do a youtube.com search about Fox censorship. Visit a blackboxvoting.com to find out about vote fraud and Diebold. Its sickening what is happening to this country and b/c we are so naive we are not taking it up the wazoo...literally. Our society tends to vote for people that are good speakers or tell us what we want to hear. Has that ever worked in the past? Bush campaigned on small government and fiscal spending. See how that turned out?
I could go on and on, but it will prove to be fruitless. For the record I refuse to lean to a particular "party" as its pointless. What does being one or the other have to do with running a country? Oh yeah, nothing. Bush is going to turn out to be the worst president of all time and I voted for Gore b/c he was the lesser of two evils. Then voted for Bush the second time around b/c Kerry was the worst. This time I'm voting or Ron Paul for several reasons and too many to list. I suggest you all read up on him as many of you have a lot to learn based on your comments to this diary. Lastly, I will write him even if he drops as I will not let the media control my vote by telling me someone isn't electable.
by Beanecounter on Feb 4, 2008 1:42 AM PST reply actions
I like Ron Paul.
I would have absolutely no problem with him in office. I also like John McCain. Don't worry, I've done my homework. But after that, you just got to go with your gut, you know? And I agree with most of your points. The media absolutely govern the majority of American thought. I cut my teeth on Chomsky. First step outside the box, you might say.
Regardless, I figured since the debate was open, I may as well step to the plate and take a swing.
I have to admit...
Some of those absurdly high online poll numbers for Paul are inflated partially by yours truly.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 6, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
One word, folks: FireFox(*)
I had no idea there were ads on AN.
(*) Or maybe two words, I'm not sure and I'm sure not gonna look it up.
I had no idea there were diaries
Yeah well, some of us skip the front page, too.
I really only come here for the standings report in the right margin.
Any chance of seeing that space used to record a count-down to Spring Training? At least after Jan 1?
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
BIG Breaths.
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
Who is this?
My guess would be Katherine Heigl after about 7 vodka sours, but all celebrities look alike to me.
is that you salvatore?
I'm clearly in over my head here
Someone throw me a life preserver.
Seriously, who's the woman? This is niggling me.
scarlett johansson
... sauced and saucy as ever.
by Jeremy Belvins on Feb 4, 2008 11:02 PM PST up reply actions
I don't believe you.
I bet if we stripped you to your boxers, hooked you to a polygraph, and threatened to DFA Denorfria if you didn't talk, you'd blurt out her name quicker than an excitable senior shouting bingo.
"The Moment of Truth: AN Edition!"
Deep Breaths
I understand most of the points being made on this post. I applaud AN for NOT deleting the post. (1) It is an election year so a political discussion is not unexpected. (2) The post was in response to an advertisement placed on this very website.
As long as no personal attacks have been made, it seems like a fair post to me so far. That being said, I do realize the difficult position members of the AN "board" find themselves in. However, we are all grown ups. Educated at that. So, I find it healthy and mature that the post was made, survived, and no one died. Good job everybody.
Please vote tomorrow. You don't need to implore others on AN to vote for anyone in particular. You can voice that by voting in the poll.
I'm voting for the candidate who will
I'm voting for the candidate who will
... cease to fill on-screen roles for explicit gay Iranian videos.
I've seen McCain ads
on here too.. so whats the problem?
I see it right now "Make Sure It Doesn't Happen! Paid for by John McCain 2008."
by ConditionOakland on Feb 4, 2008 3:49 PM PST reply actions
Well
As I have grown quite accustomed to, my candidate is not an option. I'll be casting my vote for Ron Paul. My reasons are simple. I am a pacifist, I believe strongly in non-aggression, voluntarism, and individual liberty. The free market is the only economic state in which goods and services are exchanged for the benefit of each party, and coercion is not a legitimate means of transfer. Just as I believe government intervention in the free market is pernicious in nature, so too is military intervention in other nations. Both fail to achieve their stated aims and create a myriad of unintended consequences.
I feel sorry for anyone who believes that Barack is an anti-establishment or peace candidate. I mean that sincerely.
by Sigur Ros on Feb 4, 2008 3:58 PM PST reply actions
Wait, are we in no-holds-barred political comment
mode now?
Is this thread fair game?
No, even the thread itself only asks people
for whom they will vote, not what they think of the candidates for whom they are not voting. baseballgirl said it well: Everyone is responsible for every comment they make, and the Community Guidelines that guide the sub-committee are easily found on the side bar. Talk on...
Wait a minute!
Didn't George W. Bush campaign on "accountability" in the 2000 election? Real slick, Nico.
by Jeremy Belvins on Feb 4, 2008 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
Talk on?
After that "endorsement"?
No, thanks.
Here, you can have this hemp rope back. I won't be needing it.
Aw c'mon, I double-dog dare you.
Methinks Nico's got an eye-out for a new scape-Goat.
by The Dogfather on Feb 4, 2008 6:16 PM PST up reply actions
Fail to achieve their stated aims?
Well, that depends on the stated aims....don't you think? In the words of the Govenator when queried about what is good in life..."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women". (Best done in a Teutonic accent)
I so wish that he would announce that Kaleefornia is going to solve its solvency problem by invading Nevada. I don't know what we would do with that God forsaken desert after the liquor is gone though.
have there been viagra ads on AN?
that should have provoked some stiff discussion.
Now THAT got a rise out of me
oh good, you are alive and kicking
the small superbowl thread was, well a few of us, were wondering about your whereabouts. (broken bottles, harsh words, shouting, broken dreams, etc.)
I don't do football
Unlike, say, a mannequin, football has nothing to offer me.
Just throwing this out there....
Mainly to the jerk above and any other people that have legit things they'd like to discuss with Blez respectfully. Contact the guy through his e-mail respectfully. He will explain himself very clearly and equally respectfully. If I'm going to take the time to express concern over an issue, I'm also going to take the time to praise the man for taking full responsibility and taking time out of his busy day to discuss the issue with me privately. So, tip 'o the ol' cap to Blez. Well done sir, and great job. Keep up the good, hard work that continues to make this one of the strongest communities online.
PosterNutbag is right
I once e-mailed Blez about Nico's goat fetish and Blez respectfully explained that no animals were harmed during the making of this site.
But a mannequin was mildly mistreated.
I once emailed Blez about
my goat fetish and he forwarded the email to all my friends, co-workers, and colleagues, the SPCA, and the Humane Farming Association. Of course I got a promotion the next day and now I'm on the Board of the SPCA, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
