I was asked to take a look at some comments on the site. Some commenters have engaged in what I consider to be inappropriate “troll” behavior.
So at least temporarily I’m declaring a new rule. I’m open to change and invite comments on this post.
New Rule: It shall no longer be permitted for the same user to post comments under multiple identities. You can remain anonymous, but you can’t use multiple anonymous identities, unless you clear it with me. However, anyone can request an exception from me by e-mail: [email protected].
The second thing I’m doing is unapproving comments I deem inappropriate. So far these are only on the “Debate parameters” and the “Open thread” post. I may remove other comments if I see ones that trouble me. They’re only unapproved, not deleted. So I can restore them if that’s the will of the community.
Also, at least temporarily comments from new users will be held for moderation. But that’s not permanent yet. Not yet.
If anyone has comments on the new rule, the new user moderation, suggestions for new rules, etc., please post comments on this post and this post only.
This is all temporary at least for now.
–Warren
ps: If anyone thinks this is personal, there are at least a couple of people I hate that I haven’t banned. The NY libertarians can back me up on this.
@221 I had already restored the deleted ro13 comments.
@222 No objection. P.S. rot13 is your friend.
Since the thread seems to be dead for the moment and no one was actually complaining about it this time, should I restore Andy’s comments about the Fincher petitioning controversy and let that tangent continue? Anyone object?
@219 It seems they are still here. I tried logging out to check whether that was because I am logged in, and it wasn’t.
No one is as smart as some theople pink they are!
Sorry. I deleted the rot13 comments. Didn’t get it.
I’m not always as smart as I think I am.
Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com
Jryy guvf pbzzrag jvyy trg qryrgrq be inaqnyvmrq fbba, ohg sbe gur srj bs lbh jub jvyy or yhpxl gb ernq vg svefg, jung vf fb greevoyr nobhg vg? Cyrnfr gryy gur gehgu. Gunaxf gb Oevna, jub unf n tbbq Trezna snzvyl anzr. V pna abj ebg 13- zl bevtvany pbzzragf onpx be sbejneq naq xrrc cbfgvat gurz, fb fbzr bs lbh pna pngpu gurz hatneoyrq, grzcbenevyl ng yrnfg….
Gurer jrer n pbhcyr bs bguref juvpu frrz gb or creznaragyl qryrgrq hasbeghangryl.
” vg zreryl nfxf jul jr ner abg nyybjrq gb qvfphff jung gur gebyy oryvrirf vf Vfenryv vaibyirzrag va 9/11?
Lbh ner gur gebyy Senaxry (gbb onq V nz abg nyybjrq gb cbfg cebbs), naq dhrfgvbavat gur Ubyl Ynaq naq Pubfra Crbcyr vf abg crezvggrq urer; lbh jbhyq xabj.
“Nf sbe pregnva crefbaf trggvat snibenoyr gerngzrag sebz gur ehyre be ehyvat pynff, fbzr navznyf ner zber rdhny guna bguref V thrff. ”
Ur fnlf jvgubhg nal uvag bs vebal. Avpr gb xabj gung gur fngver bs Fbivrg pbzzvffnef ol Bejryy vf lbhe npghny thvqrobbx ba ubj gb eha guvatf.
“Tvira gur gebyy greebevfz (gebyybevfz?) jr whfg rkcrevraprq, guvf grzcbenel rzretrapl zrnfher jnf jneenagrq.”
V jnf zreryl fgnegvat gb qbphzrag rivqrapr gung lbhe znva rqvgbe vf n pevzvany. Gung’f gebyy greebevfz? Ubj fb? Orpnhfr gehgu vf ab qrsrafr ntnvafg lbhe rzcver bs yvrf?
“Ohg V’z tbvat gb guvax nobhg jung Cnhyvr fnvq naq cebonoyl erfpvaq nyy rzretrapl zrnfherf. Orpnhfr V yvfgra gb Cnhyvr.”
Lrf, ur qbrf ab jebat. Naq ur qbrf abg unir n choyvp pevzvany erpbeq sbe senhq, sbetrel, choyvp vagbkvpngvba, qevivat jvgubhg n yvprafr, naq pevzvany gerfcnff fcnaavat uvf grraf, gjragvrf naq guvegvrf. Ur unfa’g oenttrq nobhg urnil qevaxvat, qeht nohfr, qeht qrnyvat, snzvyl zrzoref naq nffbpvngrf va betnavmrq pevzr, orngvat crbcyr hc (naq znlor jbefr) sbe gur zbo, yrnivat n penpx pbpnvar phfgbzre va n jurry punve nf n oenva qnzntrq dhnqencyrtvp sbe gur erfg bs uvf yvsr, tnzoyvat ceboyrzf, naq fb ba.
Gurer nera’g choyvp pevzvany erpbeqf, uvf bja ibyhzvabhf pbzzragf, ahzrebhf rlrjvgarff ercbegf naq zrqvn fgbevrf gb onpx nyy guvf hc. Ur naq uvf sevraqf unir abg unq gur cbyvpr pnyyrq ba gurz, orra neerfgrq, vaqvpgrq naq pbaivpgrq va ahzrebhf fgngrf sbe ahzrebhf qvssrerag punetrf ahzrebhf qvssrerag gvzrf. Naq vs crepunapr gurl qvq, vg’f nyy abezny fghss gung unccraf gb aba-pevzvanyf nyy gur gvzr, evtug?
Lrf, lbh fubhyq qrsvavgryl gehfg fbzrbar yvxr gung. Jvgu lbhe yvsr naq lbhe puvyqera’f yvirf, rira. Vzcyvpvgyl. Hadhrfgvbavatyl. Nyjnlf.
“Hz, ab. Bofrffvba/pbzchyfvba jvgu pbagebyyvat qvfphffvba vf jung “erdhverq” gung.”
Ovatb!
“1. Gur pbzzragre gung vafcverq guvf punatr jnfa’g vagrerfgrq va snpvyvgngvat qvfphffvba. Gurl jrer fubhgvat qbja nyy bgure ibvprf va gur ebbz.”
Ab, vg’f gur bgure jnl nebhaq. V nz cerfragvat rivqrapr, naq jrypbzvat qvfphffvba bs nalguvat V cbfg, naq V fnvq V unq zber rivqrapr gb cerfrag vs nalbar dhrfgvbaf nalguvat V fnl, juvpu V qb.
Vg jnf V gung jnf fuhg qbja.
” Vg nccrnerq gb zr gung gur erprag gebyy jnf zhpu zber bowrpgvbanoyr guna gurl jub ner nffvtarq gurve bja guernqf.”
Rnfl pynvz sbe lbh gb znxr jura crbcyr pna’g whqtr sbe gurzfryirf nsgre gur pbzzragf va dhrfgvba ner erzbirq, pbagenel gb cebzvfrf.
” V’z gur bayl bar guvf gvzr nethvat NTNVAFG zber pbageby bs pbzzragf guna orsber.”
Orpnhfr bgure crbcyr ner prafberq? Qhu.
“snyfr pevzvany npphfngvbaf ”
Jung znxrf lbh guvax gurl ner snyfr?
‘Though I be accused of beating a dead horse, may I suggest, that the proper method of protect the integrity of IPR AND preserving the protection of free speech is to ‘vet’ the individual prior to his/her
gaining posting rights in the first place.
Example, here is a note I sent to a prospective member of Oregon Libertarian Dialogue; “Can you tell me what your actual name is, I have a policy against ‘anonymous’ posters. You don’t have to use your real name when posting, but I need to know, simply to limit trolls and spammers.
Thanks and regards,
Dave Terry owner/moderator
Quite simple!
JP @ 212; “The troll’s intention/job is to disrupt the site, and he’ll still be doing it if we leave his un-readable posts.”
…AND, he will have won if we begin to betray all of our libertarian principles by allowing the “authorities” to decide what is “legitimate” and “allowable” commentary.
we can insert “comment withdrawn” or something
That would be better than deleting/hiding comments. But for the reasons listed @206, we wouldn’t want to make the original comment unrecoverable.
Similar to your suggestion, I’ve already inserted a preamble to each rot13’d comment above:
Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com
We have to figure out a way for the troll to stop bothering, and I think the best way is to delete his comments altogether. If he doesn’t get anywhere, he’ll go elsewhere. I understand the comments in response look dumb, but we can insert “comment withdrawn” or something. There’s no perfect solution here. His name would still show in the left comment column, though, which is why I prefer total deletion.
there might be a majority of comments left by the troll
As opposed to a majority of comments that either 1) respond to now-missing comments or 2) debate why the comments are missing.
So, if someone new comes to the site, there might be a majority of comments left by the troll. They’ll click on a comment or two, and see gobbeldygook. Why would they stay or come back?
The troll’s intention/job is to disrupt the site, and he’ll still be doing it if we leave his un-readable posts.
I agree with this technique.
Ah, Brian is the moderator that pulls deleted comments out of the trash. I thought it was you.
I think it’s idiotic. It looks stupid, cheapens the site, and takes up space.
BH @ 207:
I like this new system. It’s kind of like a high-tech version of Pig Latin.
Besides, almost anything is better than outright censorship in my book.
I’ve temporarily restored the troll’s rot13’d comments above, that some moderator deleted after I rot13’d them.
I’d like some community feedback on this technique as an alternative to outright deletion of trollish comments.
Fellow moderators: here is a Greasemonkey script that can rot13 a textarea: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/9234. It lets me rot13 a troll’s comments with just 3 clicks: 1) quick edit, 2) rot13, 3) Update Comment.
Fellow readers: here is a Greasemonkey script that can rot13 a comment in-place: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/60942
People who don’t use Greasemonkey can rot13 text via copy/paste at http://rot13.com
rot13’ing preserves numbering, undercuts censorship complaints, can be applied to deliberately-borderline comments, publicly shames the troll, and preserves content for editors and readers to independently evaluate moderation decisions.
[Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com/]
“snyfr pevzvany npphfngvbaf ”
Jung znxrf lbh guvax gurl ner snyfr?
[Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com/]
” V’z gur bayl bar guvf gvzr nethvat NTNVAFG zber pbageby bs pbzzragf guna orsber.”
Orpnhfr bgure crbcyr ner prafberq? Qhu.
[Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com/]
” Vg nccrnerq gb zr gung gur erprag gebyy jnf zhpu zber bowrpgvbanoyr guna gurl jub ner nffvtarq gurve bja guernqf.”
Rnfl pynvz sbe lbh gb znxr jura crbcyr pna’g whqtr sbe gurzfryirf nsgre gur pbzzragf va dhrfgvba ner erzbirq, pbagenel gb cebzvfrf.
[Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com/]
“1. Gur pbzzragre gung vafcverq guvf punatr jnfa’g vagrerfgrq va snpvyvgngvat qvfphffvba. Gurl jrer fubhgvat qbja nyy bgure ibvprf va gur ebbz.”
Ab, vg’f gur bgure jnl nebhaq. V nz cerfragvat rivqrapr, naq jrypbzvat qvfphffvba bs nalguvat V cbfg, naq V fnvq V unq zber rivqrapr gb cerfrag vs nalbar dhrfgvbaf nalguvat V fnl, juvpu V qb.
Vg jnf V gung jnf fuhg qbja.
[Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com/]
“Hz, ab. Bofrffvba/pbzchyfvba jvgu pbagebyyvat qvfphffvba vf jung “erdhverq” gung.”
Ovatb!
[Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com/]
“Nf sbe pregnva crefbaf trggvat snibenoyr gerngzrag sebz gur ehyre be ehyvat pynff, fbzr navznyf ner zber rdhny guna bguref V thrff. ”
Ur fnlf jvgubhg nal uvag bs vebal. Avpr gb xabj gung gur fngver bs Fbivrg pbzzvffnef ol Bejryy vf lbhe npghny thvqrobbx ba ubj gb eha guvatf.
“Tvira gur gebyy greebevfz (gebyybevfz?) jr whfg rkcrevraprq, guvf grzcbenel rzretrapl zrnfher jnf jneenagrq.”
V jnf zreryl fgnegvat gb qbphzrag rivqrapr gung lbhe znva rqvgbe vf n pevzvany. Gung’f gebyy greebevfz? Ubj fb? Orpnhfr gehgu vf ab qrsrafr ntnvafg lbhe rzcver bs yvrf?
“Ohg V’z tbvat gb guvax nobhg jung Cnhyvr fnvq naq cebonoyl erfpvaq nyy rzretrapl zrnfherf. Orpnhfr V yvfgra gb Cnhyvr.”
Lrf, ur qbrf ab jebat. Naq ur qbrf abg unir n choyvp pevzvany erpbeq sbe senhq, sbetrel, choyvp vagbkvpngvba, qevivat jvgubhg n yvprafr, naq pevzvany gerfcnff fcnaavat uvf grraf, gjragvrf naq guvegvrf. Ur unfa’g oenttrq nobhg urnil qevaxvat, qeht nohfr, qeht qrnyvat, snzvyl zrzoref naq nffbpvngrf va betnavmrq pevzr, orngvat crbcyr hc (naq znlor jbefr) sbe gur zbo, yrnivat n penpx pbpnvar phfgbzre va n jurry punve nf n oenva qnzntrq dhnqencyrtvp sbe gur erfg bs uvf yvsr, tnzoyvat ceboyrzf, naq fb ba.
Gurer nera’g choyvp pevzvany erpbeqf, uvf bja ibyhzvabhf pbzzragf, ahzrebhf rlrjvgarff ercbegf naq zrqvn fgbevrf gb onpx nyy guvf hc. Ur naq uvf sevraqf unir abg unq gur cbyvpr pnyyrq ba gurz, orra neerfgrq, vaqvpgrq naq pbaivpgrq va ahzrebhf fgngrf sbe ahzrebhf qvssrerag punetrf ahzrebhf qvssrerag gvzrf. Naq vs crepunapr gurl qvq, vg’f nyy abezny fghss gung unccraf gb aba-pevzvanyf nyy gur gvzr, evtug?
Lrf, lbh fubhyq qrsvavgryl gehfg fbzrbar yvxr gung. Jvgu lbhe yvsr naq lbhe puvyqera’f yvirf, rira. Vzcyvpvgyl. Hadhrfgvbavatyl. Nyjnlf.
[Moderated comment. Can be read via http://rot13.com/]
” vg zreryl nfxf jul jr ner abg nyybjrq gb qvfphff jung gur gebyy oryvrirf vf Vfenryv vaibyirzrag va 9/11″
Lbh ner gur gebyy Senaxry (gbb onq V nz abg nyybjrq gb cbfg cebbs), naq dhrfgvbavat gur Ubyl Ynaq naq Pubfra Crbcyr vf abg crezvggrq urer; lbh jbhyq xabj.
The reason those threads exist is because people said this topic was a distraction from others. I don’t know who it is that you thinks cares about this and is hanging on every word being posted about it and hasn’t already read it all before. I doubt anyone like that exists, and if anyone like that does exist they can follow the links. I do generally issue some warnings first, so I am not going to take down anything that is already posted, including Andy’s all caps lengthy comments from earlier in the thread. Give me about 12 hours give or take to get back here and I’ll email it to you.
I said I’ll email you the comments, you don’t have to type them again, you just have to post them o the correct forum. I am outta here til the evening, and I’ll deal with it then.
“You canh ave as many rounds as you want in those threads. Just not here.”
It needs to be on a current thread which people are actually going to read.
The bottom line is that Knapp supports contract fraud, misrepresentation of the law, and hypocritical double standards, as long as it is done by somebody who is appointed to a position of “authority”.
“paulie // May 17, 2013 at 6:29 am
You’re welcome to post it on the threads linked @190. ”
You should post it there. I went to a lot of trouble to type it, and I should not have to type all of that again.
Also, if you are going to be fair, you should take down or move all of Knapp’s comments which lead to my rebuttal. I really don’t like the idea of somebody reading this thread and then seeing Knapp’s ridiculous comments without my rebuttals to shoot down all of his ridiculous comments.
I don’t think that it is fully accurate to refer to the state LP coordinator as the client. The client was the Libertarian Party as a whole. It is not as though the state LP coordinator put up all of his own money to fund the registration drive. The LP state coordinator was just appointed to over see the drive. They apparently did not do a very good job of this because they unnecessarily changed the terms of the deal midstream, misreprsented what the law is, and only applied this misrepresentation to the registration workder in Albuquerque and not to the one in Las Cruces (an obivous double standard).
The objective of the drive was to place more registered Libertarians on the voter roles in New Mexico. This objective was met, including with the registrations that lacked an SSN, as well as the ones where the SSN had been “guessed” by the registration worker in Albuquerque.
If anything, the LP state coordinator created an unnecessary controversy and should have been removed from their appointed position.
You have both had multiple rounds of rebuttals, including after being asked to take it to the correct thread for that discussion and even after being warned that I would start enforcing the policy.
You canh ave as many rounds as you want in those threads. Just not here.
You’re welcome to post it on the threads linked @190. I asked politely, gave it time, then said I would enforce the policy and gave it time, so at this point there is no excuse. There are already people in the line at the courthouse, and I still need to take a shower, walk over there and eat, so I am running late. I can email you the comments that were removed when I get back from work and you can post them in those threads if you want, but you can’t post them in other threads, including this one. Other IPR editors can review to see whether my decision was correct. I need to get going.
This is bullshit to leave his comments up but to take down my rebuttals.
“paulie // May 17, 2013 at 5:31 am
Sure Tom, and Andy and Steve aren’t either, correct? Good lord. Why do you guys insist on making this so difficult? ”
Hey, I don’t like you taking my comments down here. I spent a lot of time refuting everything that Knapp said here, and this side of the story, the CORRECT side of the story, ought to be read by all who click on this thread. If you are going to take down my refutations of what he said, then you should take down everything he said that prompted my refutations as well.
So basically, Tom Knapp thinks that it was OK for the state LP coordinator to lie to the registration worker in Alburquerque, by not telling him that he was going to make SSN’s a condition for payment (when it had NOT been a condition for payment when the registration worker worked in New Mexico several months prior to this) until a few weeks into the registration drive, and to misrepresent what the law concerning SSN’s and voting really is, and to only issue this retroactive edict about SSN’s to the registration worker in Albuquerque, but not to the registration worker in Las Cruces.
If the state LP coordinator had told the registration worker BEFORE he decided to go back to New Mexico for a 2nd round of registratrions that, “Hey, just to let you know, I’m doing things differently this time. What I’m doing differently this time is that I’m going to require you to get SSN’s from everyone you get to register to vote, and if any of your registrations lack SSN’s, I’m not going to pay you. Oh, and I’m only going to apply this to you, not to the guy that is going to be working of the registration drive in Las Cruces.” If the LP state coordinator for the drive had been up front and told the registration worker that he was going to do this, the registration worker in question would have DECLINED the job and not driven to New Mexico in the first place.
Knapp is also defending deprivation of rights under color of law, because a person has a right to register to vote without an SSN, yet the LP state coordinator wanted to coerce the registration worker in Albuquerque into bagering everyone to fill in the SSN box even though that box was an optional field, while at the same time never giving this command to the registration worker in Alburquerque, who got paid without question, including for registration cards where the SSN was left blank. Deprivation of rights under color of law actually is a crime.
Thomas Kanpp: “What is relevant is that Andy publicly defends lying to petition clients in order to get money. The word for doing that is ‘fraud.'”
What is amazing is Tom Knapp defending contract fraud, as in changing the terms of a deal – a BOGUS and illegal change at that – AFTER the deal was made, and then only applying the change to one worker and not the other (the one in Las Cruces).
Steve M // May 16, 2013 at 12:17 pm
SteveM: “I don’t believe Tom thinks the Social Security Numbers were mandatory. I think, he thinks that someone other then the registrant modifying the data on a voter registration application is fraudulent. I tend to agree with Tom.”
The FACT that NO charges of fraud were ever pressed should tell everyone something. The reason that no charges of fraud were pressed was because NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED, because the SSN box was an OPTIONAL FIELD on the registration form.
Why would anyone fill in “fake” SSN’s on a voter registration. Because the LP state official who had been put in charge of the registration drive CHANGED THE TERMS OF THE DEAL AFTER IT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND APPLIED THE NEW TERMS TO REGISTRATIONS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED BEFORE HE CHANGED THE TERMS OF THE DEAL (this is known as contract fraud, and it is still contract fraud even if the contract was oral, because oral agreements are legally binding).
The individual in question had actually worked on two voter registration drives for the LP of New Mexico. The first one was conducted several months prior to the one where the controversy happened. The individual came to New Mexico, worked on the drive, and got paid reguardless of whether or not the voter had filled in the SSN box or not. There was no controversy during the first registration drive. Several months later the same individual who had worked the first drive got asked to come back to New Mexico to do another round of registrations for the LP of New Mexico. The individual was not told anything different this time for the first time, so they came to the state and worked just as they had the first time. The New Mexico voter registration included a box that asked for an SSN, but due to this individual’s prior research into the law, as well as their past expierence in registering people to vote, they knew that the SSN box was NOT a mandatory field that was required for a person to become a registered voter, as it was really just a way for another government agency to collect more information on people, no doubt so they can share it with other government agencies. However, midway through this 2nd LP registration drive in New Mexico, the state LP coordinator received misinformation that the SSN box was mandatory, so they changed the terms of the drive for this individual by telling him that he was not going to pay him for any registrations that lacked the SSN (in spite of the fact that lack of an SSN did not disqualify the registration, although the state LP coordinator may not have known this). What made this situation even worse, is that the state LP coordinator wanted to apply this new edict to registrations that had ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED BEFORE HE ISSUED THIS NEW EDICT, as in registrations already collected but not turned in yet. The individual working on the registration drive had left it up to the voter as to whether or not they wanted to fill in the SSN box. Some of the people registering did in fact fill it in, but others left it blank. The individual working on the drive did not bager anyone into filling in the SSN box, because due to their reserach of the law and past experience in registering people to vote (including their past expierence in doing this in New Mexico), they did not think that it mattered if the SSN box was filled in or not. After the state LP coordinator changed the rules to get paid midstream, the individual in question did not like the idea of getting stiffed on a bunch of registrations which they had already collected, especially for a reason which was bogus, so, facing the prospect of getting stiffed over work done, or facing a long protracted battle to prove that the registrations where the voters chose to not fill in the SSN box, this individual made the decision to fill random numbers in the SSN boxes on the cards where the voters did not fill them in their selves.
I have not been in any situations exactly like this, but I have been in situations where somebody changed the rules on me midway through a deal (as in where they breeched their contract with me, either written or oral), and I can tell everyone that it is not a pleasant experience. Somebody may say, “Well then take them to court.” Taking somebody to court is far easier said than done, particularly when one is a traveling petitioner/voter registrar. If you don’t have regular year round work in a state, and you don’t have a regular home in a state, and you are not even regularly near a particular state where a dispute took place, it is not really practical to take anyone to court, due the the cost of having to travel back and forth to make court appearances, not to mention the cost of hiring a lawyer. Sure, if there’s enough money on the line it might be worth it, but to make it worth pursueing, the amount of money would have be a pretty good amount, I’d say maybe at least $10,000. It cost a lot of time and money to take somebody to court, and even if you win a judgement there is not any guarentee that you’ll ever actually collect any of it.
I know that the individual in question did not have a lot of money, and getting stiffed on a bunch of registrations, or even having a long pay delay trying to prove that they were correct that the registrations could be processed as valid even without SSN’s (WHICH IT TURNED OUT THAT THEY WERE), they filled in random numbers on the cards where the voters left them blank.
Is this how I would have handled the situation? No. I would have taken the protracted battle route to prove that I was correct the registrations could still be processed as valid by the board of elections without the SSN boxes filled out, however, I do a better job than a lot of people of managing my finances so I’m not so low on money as to where getting stiffed on one pay is going to cause major problems for me (unless the amount I’m being stiffed for is a really large amount). I’m generally not one or two paychecks from the edge of disaster. This does not me that I like getting stiffed on anything, it just means that I’m better prepared than a lot of people to weather the storm from getting stiffed.
Was this action illegal? No, because the SSN box was NOT a mandatory field on the voter registration form. The mandatory fields on all of the voter registration forms was correct, as in the citizenship and voter eligability status, the names, the street addresses, the dates of birth, the places of birth, and the day’s dates. Those are the mandatory fields. If it was found that anyone of those were incorrect, there could have been fraud charges pressed. However, all of that information was correct, and the only thing “wrong” (beyond any errors of course, which can always happen, especially when deal with a large number of registrations) on some of the registrations was the random numbers filled in the SSN boxes, but this was not a crime because the SSN box was an optional field on the form.
Did this look bad? Yes, to stupid and uniformed people, including a surprising number of Libertarian who obviously do not understand or know that a person does not legally have to use an SSN in order to be able to vote.
Sometimes appearances of something bad can have effects that are similar to actually doing something bad. This would be like somebody pretending to sneeze or to pick their nose, even if they did not really do it. So in other words, just because it may have looked bad (at least to the stupid and uniformed), it does not mean that some really bad thing actually happened.
What I think is the really bad thing, is the constant demand for people to supply SSN’s, even though SSN’s is a voluntary program (going by the law), and even though Social Security is a grossly inefficient program, and is something that the government does not even have any constitutional authority to be involved with in the first place.
Here’s another thing which shows the hypocracy of this situation. The indivdual in question worked on the registration drive in question in Albuquerque. There was another person who worked on the same registration drive in Las Cruces, one who was favored as kind of a “golden boy” by certain people at LP national. Las Cruces is a few hours south of Albuquerque. Well, it turned out that the LP of New Mexico coordinator for the registration drive DID NOT ISSUE THE EDICT ABOUT HAVING TO HAVE SSN’S ON ALL OF THE REGISTRATION FORMS OR DON’T GET PAID ON THE FORMS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE SSN’S to the “golden boy” who was working on the drive in Las Cruces. Yes, that’s right, the person working during the same time period in Las Cruces was never given the memo of, “You will not get paid on any registrations that lack SSN’s.” from the LP state coordinator. Why did the LP state coordinator only give the SSN edict to the individual working Albuquerque and not the indvidual working in Las Cruces? Did he forget, or was he just so in awe of the “golden boy” that he did not want to say anything to upset him for fear of it angering somebody at LP national? I don’t know, and the state coordinator would never answer this question when I asked it to him several times on discussion boards. The “golden boy” even later bragged that he got paid on all of his registrations whether the SSN boxes were filled in or not.
This was clearly a double standard, and I have seen double standards happen during petition drives and registrations drives, and in life in general, and I’ve never liked double standards.
Sure Tom, and Andy and Steve aren’t either, correct? Good lord. Why do you guys insist on making this so difficult?
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/08/thread-for-discussion-on-petitioners/ or https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/thread-for-discussion-on-petitioners-2/ …it’s really not hard to find, and you could have looked it up as easily as I did. I need to get ready for work. This is eating up time unnecessarily.
paulie @ 186,
“Asking nicely doesn’t seem to work, so I’m just going to say that further discussion of petition controversies is no longer welcome in this thread.”
I’m not discussing petition controversies per se, and continuing to pretend that I am won’t make it so.
no Dave that would take all your fun out of playing in the mine field
As a relative neophyte to this battlefield, can (or will) someone tell me how many “quarantine threads there are (there seems to be more than the CDC) and where to locate them.
Asking nicely doesn’t seem to work, so I’m just going to say that further discussion of petition controversies is no longer welcome in this thread. Those controversies have their own quarantined threads at the request of numerous readers, and at this point I will need to start enforcing the policy. You all are welcome to continue the tangent, but only on the threads devoted to that, not here.
Steve M @ 183,
Bingo.
As much as Andy wants to cloud the issue with arguments about whether or not Social Security numbers are mandatory (either in general or for purposes of New Mexico voter registration), all that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Andy publicly defends lying to petition clients in order to get money. The word for doing that is “fraud.”
I certainly don’t want to finance petitioners who intentionally miss-lead voters or ones who fill in forms without the permission of the voter. I am very weary about petitioners who try to excuse that type of behavior.
I see no point to helping people make a living who curse at me and call me names.
And since I have given significant amounts of cash specifically for petition drives to get Libertarian candidates on the ballot…..If that is how you make a portion of your living…. maybe you and Paul need to re-think your attitudes.
I don’t believe Tom thinks the Social Security Numbers were mandatory. I think, he thinks that someone other then the registrant modifying the data on a voter registration application is fraudulent. I tend to agree with Tom.
Thomas Knapp said: “HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT FRAUD IS OK IF IT MAKES ME OR MY FRIENDS MONEY?”
THERE WAS NO FRAUD. THE REGISTRATIONS IN QUESTION ENDED UP BEING PROCESSED AS VALID. IF THERE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN FRAUD, CHARGES WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESSED, WHICH THEY WERE NOT.
Paul said: “I have no idea why either of you would want to pursue the Fincher voter registration SSN matter any further – you aren’t going to convince each other or anyone else – but if you do insist on pursuing it further, please take it to the petition controversies threads.”
The individual in question is NOT even the REAL ISSUE HERE. The REAL ISSUE HERE is that Social Security Numbers are NOT mandatory boxes on voter registrations forms. It did NOT REALLY MATTER what was in those boxes. They could have had the Russian alphabet in that and it would not have mattered.
I remember the first few years that I petitioned in California, it actually said on the voter registration form that the box which asked for an SSN was not mandatory. They changed the form in latter 2000’s and did not bother mentioning that the box that asks for the last four digits of an SSN is opitional, but it still is. The same thing with when I first petitioned in Alabama, which was in 2006. The voter registration form in Alabama actually said that the last four digits of an SSN was OPTIONAL. They changed the form when I was back there a few years later, as the new form did not bother mentioning that that box is optional, but it still is. Myself and another petitioner actually contacted the voter registrars office in a state and after some discussion on the subject, got them to admit that the last four digits of an SSN box was not mandatory. It is mandatory for people to supply their date of birth and place of birth, and this is what is used to determine if a person is legally qualified to vote. The last four digits of an SSN is NOT necessary to check this. Reality is that it is simply a way for another government agency to collect more information on people.
Voter registration forms also ask for phone numbers, but this is an OPTIONAL box as well, and I know that in California, they also ask for email addresses, which is also NOT a mandatory box on the form. A person could fill in phone numbers that do not work, either because they’ve been disconnected, or they were made up phone numbers, and it would not disqualify the registration. A person could fill in an email address that bounces, or even somebody else’s email address, and it would not disqualify the registration. Why? BECA– USE THESE BOXES ARE NOT MANDATORY.
The fields that are mandatory on voter registration forms are the questions about American citizenship, legal qualification to vote, street address, date of birth, place of birth, signature, and the day’s date.
Tom Knapp sounds like one of the indoctrinated people who have not done any research on their own so they ASSUME that Social Security Numbers are mandatory, when in fact they are not.
Thomas Knapp said: “Thanks for publicly demonstrating exactly what I was talking about with reference to your ‘antics,’ Andy.”
I did NOT say that you were the troll Tom, I said that I WONDERED if you were the troll. This is NOT the same thing as saying that you were the troll.
Paulie said: “Also, I’ve never seen him have any problem being as nasty as he wants to be under his real name. And I don’t think he is a racist.”
“As Nasty As He Wants To Be” would be a good name for an album. Thomas Knapp: As Nasty As He Wants To Be. LOL!
“Steve M // May 14, 2013 at 10:35 pm
@132, Pray tell me why i should finance anyone who insults me?”
Which petition circualators is it that you want to finance? Do you even know any petition circulators? Would you prefer to hire the California mercenaries who intentionally padded their numbers by getting people to sign who were not eligable to sign in Illinois last year, thus intentionally ripping off the Libertarian Party? Would you prefer to finance the bums hired off the street by the Libertarian Party in Philadelphia, PA last year who got a horrible validity rate, and almost caused the party to not make the ballot in that state? Would you prefer to hire a phony “libertarian” like Eric Dondero who frequently misrepresents the Libertarian Party, and petitions in general, to the public, and who was recently in Arizona (and who may still be there) working on a blocking campaign for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that is to block petition circulators from gathering signatures on the petition to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio from office, and who falsely claimed to multiple people that libertarians support his blocking campaign, and that libertarians support Joe Arpaio?
You ought to re-think your comments against Paul here.
Saul good.
@paulie:
“Warren, if you are still reading, Steve M is actually way more annoying than even the nazi troll, although far less obviously ban-worthy.”
Sorry. I checked out for a while. Busy dealing with court bureaucracy. Trying to decide whether I’m more annoyed by the incompetence or the indifference.
Makes all of this seem amusing as I now have to spend 3 hours of my day to go to Court for nothing.
@Jeremy:
“Has Warren really considered the implications of banning things like calling someone a criminal?”
Yes I have.
“What if I want to use the word colloquially — I say, “I think that what Aaron Starr did in Oregon was criminal”? Should that be treated as the same thing as accusing someone of a crime?”
No, because the moderator “I think” makes it an opinion rather than a statement of fact. A defamatory version of the statement would be factual rather than opinion: “John Doe was convicted of a crime.”
“If some admin does treat it that way, am I not allowed to nitpick?”
This thread amply shows we do not have an anti-nitpicking policy.
“Or take the Kurt Brackob case in Nevada, where the guy was convicted of statutory rape under a communist government in another country. If I call him a criminal, is that defamation?”
No, that is not defamation because it is a true statement of facts. It would be a little safer if it said “he was convicted of a crime in X country.” These, by the way, are not my rules as to what is defamation. They are the law by which we are all bound as determined by our esteemed judiciary, whether we like it or not.
“If I say he’s NOT a criminal because Communist laws aren’t real laws, am I making a false statement and at risk of being banned?”
No, because it’s not defamatory to say someone is not a criminal.
“Does Warren really want his admins making this sort of decision without any recourse for appeal?”
Who said there’s no recourse for appeal?
“I think Warren is too close to some of these issues”
Now it’s my opinion that you’re criminally absurd. Too close? I’m an absentee landlord. I only popped into this because of complaints from members of the community.
The title of this article is appropriate, as the comment thread is a veritable gallery of trolling. It’s like a troll sandbox.
I didn’t ask why you were talking about it earlier. I already knew the answer why you went off on that tangent. I was talking about moving forward, as in after this point. In other words, please either stop or move it to one of the threads dedicated to that discussion. A couple of rounds of back and forth is OK, but if you are going to have a bunch of back and forth about it after that, it would be better if it was kept from interfering with other conversations. Even one that has at this point gotten as stale as this one, so it’s not AS big of a deal.
Paulie,
“I have no idea why either of you would want to pursue the Fincher voter registration SSN matter any further”
I was content to non-specifically state that if I were an infiltrator wishing to harm the LP, I’d want to keep Andy as active as possible, not find a way to drum him off of IPR (which appears to be the troll’s goal).
YOU were the one who claimed to not understand to what I was referring. So I explained, and his even more explanatory, 1,000-word plus, at least half-caps, through the ceiling ” HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT FRAUD IS OK IF IT MAKES ME OR MY FRIENDS MONEY?” rant was, as I expected, quickly forthcoming.
Brian,
True, I have a very bad habit of responding to way too many things. Problem acknowledged. Best thing for me is not to read the people I have identified as counterproductive, but it’s harder to do when TLK and others talk to them. I’m sure you probably skip reading a lot more IPR comments than I do, and are far less afflicted with responditis, so it’s far less of a problem for you. I’m trying to do better in this regard, but with not nearly enough success so far.
Tom and Andy,
I have no idea why either of you would want to pursue the Fincher voter registration SSN matter any further – you aren’t going to convince each other or anyone else – but if you do insist on pursuing it further, please take it to the petition controversies threads.
Paulie:
For most of these trolls, the only words from them that I ever see are the words you quote.
For the record, no, I am not the troll. I’m perfectly willing to get as nasty as I want to get under my own name, and I don’t consider spewing racial/ethnic vitriol to be worthwhile.
But of course, if I was the troll, I’d say all that anyway, wouldn’t I?
Thanks for publicly demonstrating exactly what I was talking about with reference to your “antics,” Andy.
“Tom Knapp has got to be a pretty dense fellow, because this was already explained to him multiple times on this forum years ago.”
Yes, you have explained multiple times that you think it is OK to forge Social Security numbers if doing so makes money for a friend of yours. We all get that.
@ 83 “we manage to sabotage ourselves without any outside help” Thats why I don’t renew my memberships to the L.P. A lot more personal aspirations than political agendas, I don’t know what to make of it,(actually I do but I’m not saying). FYI
I hope Paulie can stay. Steve M is almost always boring; Dave Terry is less boring and even writes something good once in a while, especially when debating Grundman, but as a favor to Paulie I will never respond to him or mention him after this.
I think Concerned Citizen might be the troll. Although he does remind me a bit of myself in 2008, except that we have opposite positions on most issues.
OK, I’m pretty sick of all this, honestly. Warren, if you are still reading, Steve M is actually way more annoying than even the nazi troll, although far less obviously ban-worthy. It really, really makes me want to take a long, long break from IPR, maybe a permanent one. Honestly, I need to cut all this crap out and work a lot more, do fun stuff offline, etc. And online, just read articles more at all kinds of different sites rather than fighting endless unwinable battles over comment moderation policy and reporting standards here. Hell, even online porn is more productive than this. Why am I missing sleep…for this? I clearly need to stop, this is way unhealthy.
If I stay, I really need to add him along with Dave Terry to the list of people whose comments I never read. It would really be no problem at all if no one else ever replied to them.
That’s a lot of ifs. From what I read about the case there was supposedly a lot of evidence, not just a confession. I don’t know if it was actual, manufactured, planted or anything else. I do think it is very, very likely that at least some Americans did in fact molest at least some Romanian children those years. What court do you think could have tried them?
Not necessarily, but I also would not presume the individual is innocent either. After all, real pervs really do go to all kinds of countries ruled by all kinds of corrupt assholes to commit real crimes such as child molestation, rape, sexual battery, and so on. Allegedly in the case that was discussed here there was video and photo evidence, but I have not seen it.
If no conviction from such a court ever meant anything, the logical inference is that there is no act whatsoever that anyone could commit in such a country for which one could ever legitimately be deemed guilty.
I’ve made no such assumption.
At this point I see no reason to care, although I don’t see much of a reason to keep the tangent going past this point. I did not realize that they really get you off that much when I posted what was originally a throwaway comment, but hey, whatever gets you through the night.
Not talking to you, Steve. Some other people here have claimed on various occasions to appreciate all my hard work, including on this website that appears to be a virtual shit stall for you. As for you I would also not read anything you write, except that unlike Terry I am still actively considering whether you warrant being banned altogether, and have yet to decide. And as far as asking you for a favor, it would be a huge favor to me if you did NOT not read (much less respond) to anything I write, since you don’t think I should receive any favors.
I could be wrong, but I think the thread is pretty much at the point where tangents and even some randomness are welcome, to relieve the tedium if nothing else.
It’s not my hedge trimmer, Steve, nor have/will I be playing with it.
The only finger I worry about is the one on the trigger of the hedge trimmer…. but then maybe that was a complement in that they didn’t think a weed whacker was enough for the job?
Paulie @ 91: “Fuck you very much.
Thomas Knapp @ 113: “Fuck off.”
Paulie @ 144; “Fuck off.
Paulie @ 150; “Bullshit”
Judging by the similarities. One could deduce that perhaps Paulie and Thomas Knapp are the same person? Maybe, THAT is the troll you’ve all been searching for
But WAIT a minute! See what Paulie wrote after someone said they thought that Knapp was the troll, “Knapp is a better writer and more creative; if he wanted to be a vicious troll I think he would do a better job of it than the nazi doofus we’ve had to contend with.
Pretty high praise. Is he talking about someone named Knapp or himself. OR is Knapp putting words of praise into Paulies mouth (err fingers).
Does anyone really care?
So Paulie…. if you knew an individual was convicted of a crime and that torture was used to extract a confession and that guilt was based upon that confession… Well they are guilty right?
What if you thought…. torture might have been used… and that the confession was the only evidence?
Well of course they had other evidence but they had the confession so they didn’t ever produce the other evidence?
No, I do not remember anything even remotely like that.
That’s only slightly less likely than that I am the troll and don’t even realize it. I know Andy very well. He always says exactly what he thinks (other than biting his tongue somewhat when he is working). Usually ad nauseum and at far greater length than necessary. No hidden agendas; the cards are all on the table face up from the start.
@152 if a court in another country convicts you of a “crime” and that court doesn’t meet the standards of of justice that we expect as Americans with a derived system of justice starting under English common law and the Magna Carta, with legal representation and a jury trial, then we libertarians are all right with assuming that that individual is guilty?
Then…. we are willing to assume anyone who associates with this “convicted” individual is also guilty?
I think not!
I don’t think so. No new quarantined subjects since 2011.
So basically, you can commit any crime you want in most foreign countries, because any courts that might convict you of those crimes are not to be trusted, correct?
Dave, A careful reading of @146 seems to indicate that the discussion of gas powered hedge trimmers and their alternative uses is not quarantined in any thread. I am not sure if using the word fuck while doing so is required?
Bullshit.
Doesn’t seem like his style. Knapp is a better writer and more creative; if he wanted to be a vicious troll I think he would do a better job of it than the nazi doofus we’ve had to contend with. Also, I’ve never seen him have any problem being as nasty as he wants to be under his real name. And I don’t think he is a racist.
Paulie @ 144: “Fuck off.”
But Golly, Paulie; if I’m not worth reading or responding to or even banning, – Why waste a perfectly good expletive on me?
So since you introduced gas powered hedge trimmers and their alternative uses into this thread… when they otherwise would be irrelevant…. further discussion about them in this thread is acceptable?
No. If 9/11 truthers or anti-truthers start taking over massive amounts of threads we might. Hasn’t been a big problem so far.
The quarantined subjects are
1. PLAS
2. US Parliament
3. Petition grievances/issues beyond a few iterations
4. Debate parameters/comment policy issues.
Otherwise, please try to stick to either the subject of the post or the subject of the conversation as it gradually evolves. If you want to introduce a subject that does not fit any existing post or ongoing discussion, and is not one of the quarantined subjects, please post to the open thread, especially but not only if it is a news story we should cover, however please do not post in open thread or anywhere else other than the quarantined threads about quarantined subjects, and please keep each quarantined subject separate in its own thread.
@144 personal favor? but why do you deserve any?
Anything else ever said to DT is excess verbiage. I’ve read enough of his posts that I have determined that they warrant neither reading nor banning, IMO. If he ever writes anything that makes him worth banning I’m sure other people will let me know, and if anyone claims he ever writes anything I should actually read, sorry, but I’m just not going to believe you.
It would still be easier, simpler and a personal favor to me if no one else responded to him ever for any reason.
Well, since even this thread seems to have gone afield, and I was good and didn’t post this video during the entire “troll” discussion, and whenever I hear the word troll I can not help but think of Eduard Khil doing his “trolololo” valse, here it is.
http://youtu.be/1orMXD_Ijbs
This can be deleted if this is too too off topic, I won’t be offended 🙂
You mean excerpt. Different word than exert, although some people would pronounce them the same way.
@138 at least we get an understand your sexual attitudes and as such are not surprised about your other anti-social behavioral tendencies.
Have fun playing with your hedge trimmer.
I’ve monitored it more closely than anyone else. Appears to be one person, almost certainly. There would be more variety of writing style, fake names, fake email addresses, etc otherwise.
Andy @ 135; “WTF???
What ABOUT Wednesday, Thursday, Friday?
Andy @ 136; “Oh, the FFF being the letter code for 666, kind of like how 88 is the Neo-Nazi code for HH or Heil Hitler.
So what is the #code for Marilyn Monroe (MM)?
and here I thought that HH was Hubert Humphrey.
Should one consider the Future of Freedom Foundation as ‘satanic’? This will come as a huge surprise to Jacob G. Hornberger.
I know Jacob likes to toot his own Horn- but a satanic disciple? GMAB!
Good, because you aren’t my type either. And there was no offer; more like “go fuck yourself/get fucked with a gas powered hedge trimmer”…very much.
@132, Pray tell me why i should finance anyone who insults me?
Can you do so in less then 59 lines of 80 characters per line and at 5 characters per words.. some 900 words… to counteract the 26 words that I wrote ….
I should be abused, sworn at called names because I don’t like the Beauvoir of the moderators and that I should tolerate their behavior and donate thousands of dollars that they use to live upon because?
Oh, the FFF being the letter code for 666, kind of like how 88 is the Neo-Nazi code for HH or Heil Hitler.
I did not really give a shit about the Functional Frugal Fillmore thing, I was just commenting on the FFF thing, which was more of a joke than anything else.
“Concerned Citizen // May 14, 2013 at 10:16 pm
I am sorry Paulie. I was wrong. I now believe Andy is the troll. Remember that he derailed my Functional Fillmore Frugal movement a few months ago by calling it Satanic.”
WTF???
Thomas Knapp said: “But it wasn’t petitioning I was referring to, specifically, when referring to your ‘antics.’ I was thinking more of your habit of publicly screaming ‘fool!’ at anyone who doesn’t swallow your pet theory on 9/11, a theory for which, for more than a decade, you have either failed or refused to come up with so much as a crumb of evidence; and your insistence that the LP should ‘publicly debate,’ and highlight the opinions of its Fucking Loon Tendency on.”
The subject of 9/11 RARELY comes up when I’m out in the field working on ballot access drives, or even just doing volunteer outreach. Usually when it comes up, it comes up because somebody else brought it up to me, and the people who generally bring it up to me are 9/11 Truthers. I have attended some 9/11 Truth protests and outreach events, and I have handed out a lot of 9/11 Truth videos and flyers, but it is generally not something which comes up very often during the course of gathering petition signatures.
As far as a public debate being recorded on video and posted online goes, yes, I do favor this, so “guilty” as charged. I don’t like people who hide behind computer screens and call names. If a person is not willing to back up their name calling with a public debate, I call that intellectual cowardice, which is something that I do not respect. This is like Democrats and Republicans who refuse to debate their minor party and/or independent candidate opponents.
I am sorry Paulie. I was wrong. I now believe Andy is the troll. Remember that he derailed my Functional Fillmore Frugal movement a few months ago by calling it Satanic. He’s trying to frame people he doesn’t like and his long boring posts are characteristic of the troll.
“Steve M // May 14, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Note to self… next time I make a donation for a petition drive… be sure to stipulate who it can not be used to pay for.”
If you are making a reference to your debate with Paul, this is not a rational statement to make. There are VERY few actual Libertarians who work on petition drives. Paul is one of the few, and he’s one of the only people who does anything to build the party, and he has in fact done a great job for the LP for years.
Most of the people whom the Libertarian Party hires are not Libertarians, they could care less about the LP, or about the “third party” movement in general, or about anything else in general beyond making money. These are people who’d be just as happy to petition to place a Top Two Primary initiative on the ballot as they would to petition to put the LP on the ballot, and in fact, I know that the LP has actually hired people who worked on the Top Two Primary initiatives. Some of these people do not even do the job properly, in some cases due to incompetence, but in other cases they have intentionally SCAMMED the Libertarian Party out of money, by doing things like intentionally padding their numbers by having anyone sign a petition, when the petition requires people to be registered voters in a particular state to sign. I know of a case last year in Illinois where a certain mercenary who does a lot of work for the LP brought in some petitioners from California whom they know off the mercenary initiative petitioner circuit. These people are long time pros who know how do to the job properly, however, they thought that they could “take advantage” of the LP of Illinois by “padding” their numbers by “working the petition like a plebiscite” (which means having anyone sign rather than screening people as to whether or not they are registered voters in the state, and that they sign with the street address where they are registered), so they gathered a lot more signatures than they would have gotten otherwise, and they got away with it, at least for a little while. What they did not know is that the LP of Illinois had people doing validity checks. After checking the validity of these California mercenaries, they found that their validity was HORRIBLE, like in the 20s-30s percent range. The LP of Illinois had set a minimum acceptable validity rate of 67%. The LP of Illinois ended up having the group they were with (which included some other petitioners who did turn in an acceptable validity rate) turn in more signatures which they did not pay them on to make up for the bad validity. One of the California mercenaries involved with the scam ended up confessing later that they had all padded their numbers by not screening out any signers.
Another example is the fiasco that happened in Pennsylvania last year. The crew that was hired in Pennsylvania (which was lead by the same mercenary who brought those California people to Illinois mentioned in the paragraph above) did not contain any Libertarian on it, and they had horrible validity. Their validity was so bad that the LP had to pay for more signatures than what they originally budgeted to pay for, and then they got challenged (and note that in PA, potential challengers have a week to examine the signatures of those whom they are thinking about challenging before they do the challenge, and if the examine the signatures and find bad validity, that greatly increases the likelihood of a challenge happening), and they barely survived the challenge, which came at a great expense and headache for the Libertarian Party. This could have been AVOIDED if the job had been done by Libertarians, or at least people who cared enough to at least try to collect valid signatures.
There are very few Libertarians who do any petitioning work. You can tell the difference when you are talking to an actual Libertarian petitioner (as rare as we are) and a mercenary, because the mercenary seldom talks about philosophy (and on the rare instances that they do, it is usually not libertarian philosophy), and they never talk about political strategy, or more specifically, using political strategy in the struggle for more liberty. All the mercenary talks about is money. Sure, Libertarian petitioners like money too, but we can tell the difference between an anti-liberty campaign and a pro-liberty campaign, and we go with the pro-liberty side.
There are some aspects where I don’t even like working on initiative, referendum, and recall campaigns due to the prevalence of mercenary petitioners and mercenary coordinators (some of whom are major rip off artists). Sure, I get a long with some of them, and I can still find some enjoyment in the work, but there have been quite a few times where I found myself at a petition office during an initiative, referendum, or recall petition drive where I’ve been appalled by some of the comments that I’ve heard. I remember being in a petition office in California back in 2002 where the coordinators were shocked that I refused to carry the Water Bond initiative and the After School Programs for Kids (the proponent of which was Arnold Schwarzenegger who later went on to become Governor) initiatives. I told them that I would not carry them because they were because I’m a Libertarian, and that I would not work the Water Bond petition because bonds lead to more debt and more taxes, and that the After School Programs for Kids petition was for more socialist indoctrination of the youth. They looked at me with a baffled look and then one of the coordinators said, “Uh oh, it looks like we’ve got an activist on our hands!” LOL!
@130 …. Dave Terry…
yep name calling from all sides is wasted breath…
SM @ 125; “But as long as you engage in name calling rather then discussion…. It wasted breath…. wasted time…
“Fuck Off!”
Thomas Knapp @ 113
Do we need quaranteened threads on libertarian philosophy and 9/11 truth?
Ah, that slope is getting slipperier by the minute!
Andy, Engaging in discussion is absolutely ok….. its when you or Paul or Jill or Tom or perhaps even myself resort to demonizing (trolling) others that a red line has been reached.
Defend your record….
Defend your position…
Don’t use guilt by association…
Refrain from name calling..
Don’t use guilt because a 3rd world corrupt court says you are guilty.
Don’t be both the Judge and the Prosecutor and we will get along respectfully fine.
Thomas Knapp said: “3) Although all you ever seem to talk about is the money you claim you’re owed and have been screwed out of by (LNC, Constitution Party … others?), ”
This is ENTIRELY FALSE. The only reason I brought up money owed is because after waiting for weeks, or months to get paid money that was owed, and STILL not having been paid, I wanted to shed some negative publicity on those who failed to pay the money owed. I waited for a long time before I went public about getting ripped off by Virgil Goode, much longer than a lot of people would have waited before “going public.” The same thing with when there have been pay delays with the LP. I’ve actually been FAR MORE PATIENT than most people would have been. Ask Paul if you don’t believe me.
I’ve been ripped off on initiative, referendum, recall, and plebiscite petition drives as well, but I generally don’t talk about it here because this website is about minor party and independent candidates. Most of the people here wouldn’t even know who I was talking about if I posted about getting ripped off on an initiative, referendum, recall, or plebiscite petition drive.
Since this website is about minor party and independent candidates, I think that it is a relevant topic for discussion if a minor party or independent candidate rips of somebody on a petition drive, whether it is me or somebody else.
Note to self… next time I make a donation for a petition drive… be sure to stipulate who it can not be used to pay for.
@124
“Knapp’s comments here are not only offensive, they also reek of ignorance.”
Nothing Tom Knapp has posted here deserves calling him a troll…. Nothing…
You can type as many sentences and waste as much time as you like…
But as long as you engage in name calling rather then discussion…. It wasted breath…. wasted time…
Thomas Knapp said: “3) Although all you ever seem to talk about is the money you claim you’re owed and have been screwed out of by (LNC, Constitution Party … others?), it’s everyone else who is a ‘mercenary.'”
I’ve already explained this multiple times as well. Yes, I am not a member of the Constitution Party, however, I do agree with them on a lot of issues, and I’m particularly sympathetic with the more libertarian wing of their party. I do of course have disagreements with the Constitution Party as well, however, my disagreements with them are small in comparison to my disagreements with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Therefore, I would consider it to be an overall improvement if the Constitution Party elected a candidate or candidates as opposed to the Democratic or Republican parties electing a candidate or candidates, although, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution Party is, in most cases, not likely to elect anyone to anything.
So if I work on a petition drive for the Constitution Party, I’m petitioning to get a party on the ballot which I agree with on a lot of issues, maybe not all issues, but a good number, so if they were to win it would be an overall improvement over mainstream D’s or R’s, but they are not likely to win most of the time.
The first few years that I did this whenever I petitioned for a party or candidate, I only did Libertarian Party. I was actually ENCOURAGED by Bill Redpath, Wes Benedict, and Richard Winger to petition for other parties/candidates. Why? Because in 2004 in Texas they had a deal with the Ralph Nader campaign to refer petitioners to them if the Nader campaign would refer petitioners to the LP. Also, in 2006 in Arkansas the Green Party had a law suit over the fact that the state was trying to illegally increase the signature requirement to gain full party status in Arkansas from 10,000 signatures to 23,000 signatures. The Greens needed to get standing to sue by gathering enough signatures to meet the 10,000 signature requirement. Richard Winger ENCOURAGED Paul and I to work on that petition drive, which we did, along with 3 other Libertarian petitioners, and we succeed in gathering more than enough signatures for the Green Party to meet the 10,000 valid signature requirement. The Green Party of Arkansas then went on to win their law suit, which would not have happened without the signatures which we collected, so the signature requirement for full party status in Arkansas remained at 10,000 signatures instead of the more onerous 23,000 signatures. A few years later, the Libertarian Party of Arkansas was able to take advantage of this by gathering the 10,000 valid signatures necessary to gain full party status. This happened for the 2012 election, which ended up being the most successful election year ever for the LP of Arkansas. Paul and I both worked on that LP drive in Arkansas, and that drive would not have happened if the Green Party had not won that law suit back in 2006.
I’m not a Green Party member, but I do agree with them on some issues, and even though there are areas where I disagree with them, I consider them to be better than the typical Democrat or Republican.
Another fact of the matter, is that if there is a state where there is no law that prohibits petitioning for multiple parties or candidates, then it makes economic sense for the for the different parties/candidates to “piggyback” off of each other. Why?
1) It can save the campaigns money, as in they will not have to shell out more expense money to bring in more petitioners when there are already petitioners there working on another petition, so they can just give those petitioners their petition, and bingo, they just saved the time, trouble, and expense of bringing in more petition circulators.
2) There are a lack of locations where petitioners can go to gather signatures in most states without being harassed and kicked out. If there are multiple petitioners running around with multiple candidates or parties in the same state, it means you will have multiple petitioners popping up at the same locations, which can cause a lot of problems.
3) A lot of the public does not differentiate between minor party and independent candidates. I’m talking about people who may have signed the petition to place say the Green Party on the ballot, but then when asked to sign the petition to place the Libertarian Party on the ballot, they will think that they already signed it, because they do not know the difference between the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, and they in fact will not even remember which petition they signed. They will have a memory that they signed a petition to place some party or candidate on the ballot, but they won’t remember which one. This is why it is generally better to have all of the petitioners carrying all of the petitioners for all of the parties or candidates who are petitioning for ballot access at that time, unless of course the law does not permit this, as is the case in Illinois (Richard Winger has said that somebody should sue over this in Illinois).
4) Different petition drives in different states compete for the services of petition circulators. I like to work on stuff that I agree with, or at least mostly agree with, or where I’m at least neutral on the subject. I do not like to or want to work on things for which I disagree. Having said this, if there is something that I agree with or am neutral on going on in two states, and one is paying more than the other, then there’s a good chance that I’ll go to the one that is paying more. Last year during part of the time when I was petitioning in Alabama, there were a couple of initiative petitions going on in Arkansas, one was for a Casino Gaming initiative, which went up to $4 per signature, and the other was a Medicinal Marijuana initiative, which was paying $2 per signature. They also paid for travel and motels. That’s a pretty enticing deal, and the Libertarian Party could not afford to match that deal. I’m in favor of Medicinal Marijuana, and I’m in favor of Casino Gaming as well, although Casino Gaming initiatives are generally not written in a purely libertarian manner, and this one was no exception, but I would have worked on it had I been there. I ended up not going, in large part because I was able to petition for the Constitution Party and the Green Party in addition to the Libertarian Party. Most of the petition business is actually NOT in qualifying candidates or parties for the ballot, but rather in qualifying initiative & referendum petitions for the ballot. There were also lucrative initiative petition drives last year in Washington (which had a Charter Schools initiative which paid $4 per signature, plus I know that at least some petitioners got expense money on top of that), Michigan (they had a Casino Gaming initiative which paid $3 per signature, plus some expense money, plus they had several other petitions, including a referendum about a bridge, which I believe also went up to $3 per signature), Arizona, etc… The Libertarian Party has to compete with initiative, referendum, and recall petition drives for the services of petition circulators, and the LP is NOT always able to compete with them economically.
I actually consider Knapp’s comment here to be offensive, because I’ve actually TURNED DOWN A LOT OF MONEY by NOT working on campaigns that were for things that I did not support. Yes, I’d have A LOT MORE MONEY RIGHT NOW if I took the attitude of most people in the petition business, and worked on anything for money. The majority of stuff that I’ve worked on over the years has either been libertarian, or libertarian leaning.
Knapp’s comments here are not only offensive, they also reek of ignorance.
Andy @ 119: “Tom Knapp has got to be a pretty dense fellow, because this was already explained to him multiple times on this forum years ago. Is Knapp really this dense, or is he just playing dumb?
Knapp isn’t smart enough to pretend (convincingly)
to be that dumb.
the main moderators of IPR believe that anyone who descents with their opinions and their behaviors is a troll.
So uncreative and so irrational… and so predictable.
Thomas Knapp said: “2) Anyone who says anything you don’t like about your petition work is a criminal who should be put in jail; and”
When the hell did I say this? I don’t know what in the hell you are talking about here. It sounds like you don’t know what you are talking about here either.
Given how absurd Knapp’s comment is which I referenced above about a 1999 controversy which did not even involve me, I’m starting to wonder if Tom Knapp is the troll.
Thomas Knapp said: “1) You’ve publicly claimed that it’s OK to forge Social Security numbers on registration forms, if that’s what it takes to make money; but that”
Jesus-F’ING-CHRIST Knapp, I’ve explained this to you MULTIPLE TIMES. First off, I was not the one who did this. Second of all, THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOX ON THE VOTER REGISTRATIONS WAS OPTIONAL. THE BOX WAS NOT MANDATORY, BECA– USE IT IS ILLEGAL TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO SUPPLY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS IN ORDER TO VOTE. THE VOTER REGISTRATIONS IN QUESTION FROM THE INCIDENT BEING DISCUSSED WERE IN FACT PROCESSED AS VALID VOTER REGISTRATIONS, BECA– USE THE ELECTION OFFICIALS HAD TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SSN BOX WAS AN OPTIONAL FIELD, SO IT DID NOT MATTER WHAT WAS IN THAT BOX. THE ONLY REASON THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION EVEN DID THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECA– USE A STATE PARTY OFFICIAL CHANGED THE TERMS OF THE DEAL MIDWAY THROUGH THE DRIVE, AS THEY MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THAT THE SSN BOX WAS MANDATORY, SO THIS INDIVIDUAL DID THIS BECA– USE THE STATE PARTY OFFICIAL HAD SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PAY THEM IF THE BOX WAS NOT FILLED IN. I THINK THAT THE PERSON IN QUESTION DID NOT HANDLE IT PROPERLY, BUT REGARDLESS, IT DID NOT MATTER BECA– USE THE REGISTRATIONS ENDED UP BEING PROCESSED AS VALID ANYWAY, BECA– USE THE SSN BOX WAS NOT A MANDATORY BOX.
Tom Knapp has got to be a pretty dense fellow, because this was already explained to him multiple times on this forum years ago. Is Knapp really this dense, or is he just playing dumb?
Knapp keeps dredging up an incident from 1999, which did not even involve me, and I was NOT EVEN IN THE PETITION/REGISTRATION BUSINESS AT THAT TIME. I did however hear about the incident years later, and unlike Knapp, I actually researched it, by researching the law (as to whether or not SSN’s are mandatory, which they are not, and as to whether or not supplying an SSN can be used as a mandatory field on a voter registration form, which they can not), as well as discussing the issue with ballot access expert Richard Winger, as well as a couple of members of the LP of New Mexico who were actually there when the incident took place, and who actually witnessed the individual involved doing the work, and neither of these individuals in the LP of New Mexico thought that there was any wrong-doing, and they both thought that a big deal was made out of nothing. Furthermore, the fact is that no charges were pressed because no laws were broken.
I’ve personally never “guessed” on anyone’s SSN, but I have had incidents where people neglected to fill in the day’s date, so I filled it in, and it is possible that I could have guessed wrong on the date some of those instances.
Do we need quaranteened threads on libertarian philosophy and 9/11 truth? There may be a slippery slope between discussing particular candidates and general political philosophy/ideology, but it seems like lots of threads get taken over by the same few people discussing the same few things. While it’s often very interesting, most people can probably only read it when in a certain mood, and it often gets repetetive or personal very quickly.
TK @116;
Sorry for giving you the benefit of a doubt. Obviously what you typed contradicted your original supposition. So you admit that your sub-conscious logic is superior to you conscious reasoning power.
Clearly your right index finger is smarter than YOU are! But knowing you for what you are you probably defer to your right middle finger!
Just as I suspected!
“BTW, did you intend to write”
Ah, usually going all typo police is the first, rather than last, resort of the befuddled. Congratulations for rising, however briefly, above your usual mental state.
TurKey@ 113;
“So you have a mouse trap.”
an unsupported supposition.
“And it’s never caught a mouse.”
another unsupported supposition.
“And it isn’t catching a mouse right now.”
and yet one more unsupported supposition
“And there’s no sign that it’s never going to catch a mouse.”
SORRY, one out of four isn’t passing. BTW, on this one you ARE correct. The fact that I ‘might’
1.) have a mouse trap and 2.) it has never caught
a mouse and 3.) it is not catching a mouse right now; has absolutely NO bearing on it’s future effectiveness.
Have you considered that there are no mice in my house for it to catch?
BTW, did you intend to write “there’s no sign it’s
EVER going to catch mouse”? If so, you just lost to your sub-conscious logic by 25%.
OR, is this just a round-about way of saying that you DON’T HAVE A CLUE?
> “Fuck off”?
Spoken like the true mental zero, that you are. :>) LOL!
Andy @ 107,
“Since you’ve never worked on one petition drive with me, and you’ve never engaged in one outreach activity with me, and you don’t even really know me outside of a few message boards online, I don’t think that you are qualified to comment here.”
Your near-complete non-acquaintance with me has never stopped you from commenting on damn near everything I say or do.
I do not know, nor do I claim to know, the quality of your petition work, other than that:
1) You’ve publicly claimed that it’s OK to forge Social Security numbers on registration forms, if that’s what it takes to make money; but that
2) Anyone who says anything you don’t like about your petition work is a criminal who should be put in jail; and
3) Although all you ever seem to talk about is the money you claim you’re owed and have been screwed out of by (LNC, Constitution Party … others?), it’s everyone else who is a “mercenary.”
All of that is from, so to speak, the horse’s mouth.
But it wasn’t petitioning I was referring to, specifically, when referring to your “antics.” I was thinking more of your habit of publicly screaming “fool!” at anyone who doesn’t swallow your pet theory on 9/11, a theory for which, for more than a decade, you have either failed or refused to come up with so much as a crumb of evidence; and your insistence that the LP should “publicly debate,” and highlight the opinions of its Fucking Loon Tendency on.
DT @ 112,
“are you going to respond to my cordial request to explain; ‘HOW you would resolve conflicts in your non-state society?'”
So you have a mouse trap.
And it’s never caught a mouse.
And it isn’t catching a mouse right now.
And there’s no sign that it’s never going to catch a mouse.
But I’m not allowed to notice any of that until and unless I’ve patented the mousetrap that DOES catch mice?
Fuck off.
TK @ 104; “Wrong again.
Perhaps you have missed this obvious fact, but a simple two word denial is no more conclusive than a four word accusation.
>”Not that that’s surprising. You seem to have > made a career of it.
And YOU have made a career out of making out-of-context statements and drawing irrational
conclusions from them.
BTW; are you going to respond to my cordial request to explain; “HOW you would resolve conflicts in your non-state society?”
“my club is bigger than your club??????”
Here are a couple of reviews of my work from a few years ago. Unlike Tom Knapp, these are people whom I actually work with and/or dealt with in person.
“Re: Andy Jacobs’ great work @ gun show
From
Jim March
To
deuchner
petitionguy
CC
dfn@
Andy absolutely kicks ass at this.
I watched him take at least 20+ of these and I can tell you this is a very high-grade pile – existing voters who are already politically
aware. I would be surprised if the failure rate crosses 20% and I suspect it will be much less…this is a grade-A primo stack of paper.
Let me make a suggestion here: if it’s OK with him, I’d say pay him up-front for at least 2/3rds of these, and then when we get the
“success rate feedback” forms from Pima’s Recorder, we then settle up accounts for any more. Upshot is, he won’t have to wait until the
Recorder finishes for most of the money, BUT he’ll still in the end only be paid for those that are successful.
I gave him eight sheets worth of the “voter name turn-in sheet” forms I developed for the Pima recorder’s office, and am also giving him the PDF of the form and a dozen more such sheets tomorrow AM. Since I’m CCing him here I’ll include that as an attachment. (Note that it can be printed in B&W and still work.)
I’m also doing him a one-page flyer on “Election Observation and the Pima LP”, I’m drafting it now.
Look, this guy is SO much better at this than me it ain’t even funny. By far the most effective thing I can do is just make sure Andy is able to operate full-tilt, helping handle logistics, housing, documents, etc. If he needed me to walk his dang dog I’d do that :).
This ONE guy just working the gun shows can net us all the registrations we need both Pima and *statewide*. It’s like watching
Michaelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel :). Or more seriously, the dude could give the “Shamwow” guy on TV a run for his money :D.
Jim”
This is a message from David Euchner, who was at the time the Treasurer for the Pima County Libertarian Party, about the results of a batch of voter registration cards which I had collected in Tuscon:
“your latest batch of regs
From
deuchner
To
petitionguy
CC
1.jim.march
The Recorder’s office notified me yesterday that your latest batch of regs had been completed. 57 out of 61 were good. Of the other four, two did not provide proof of citizenship, one gave a business address & wrong tel #, and one was out of county. Still, 57 out of 61 is remarkable!
How shall I get a check to you for $342.00, are you in town now or shall I mail it? Also, will you be at the gun show the weekend of May 2-3?
Thanks again
Dave”
Here’s another article everyone should check out:
THE PROPAGANDA WAR: THE CIA’S DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
http://www.american-buddha.com/cia.america.htm
Exert:
“Much of what was done outside the law under the COINTELPRO and CHAOS programmes has since been legalised by Executive Order No. 12333, signed by the President on December 4th 1981. This gives the CIA extended license to carry out domestic operations in the United States and limits the public’s access to information about these operations.
Also under Executive Order 12333, government infiltration “for the purpose of influencing the activity of domestic political organisations” has received official sanction.
The CIA’s methodology, applied so ruthlessly abroad, has now been given full legislation for use at home….”
Check out this article:
Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, not the Exception in the USA
http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/part-ii-infiltration-political-movement\
s-norm-not-exception-united-states
Exert:
“How many agents or infiltrators can we expect to see inside a movement? One of
the most notorious “police riots” was the 1968 Democratic Party Convention.
Independent journalist Yasha Levine writes: “During the 1968 protests of the
Democratic National Convention in Chicago, which drew about 10,000 protesters
and was brutally crushed by the police, 1 out of 6 protesters was a federal
undercover agent. That’s right, 1/6th of the total protesting population was
made up of spooks drawn from various federal agencies. That’s roughly 1,600
people! The stat came from an Army document obtained by CBS News in 1978, a full
decade after the protest took place. According to CBS, the infiltrators were not
passive observers, monitoring and relaying information to central command, but
were involved in violent confrontations with the police.” [Emphasis in
original.]
Peter Camejo, who ran for Governor of California in 2003 as a Green and as Ralph
Nader’s vice president in 2004, often told the story about his 1976 presidential
campaign. Camejo able to get the FBI in court after finding their offices broken
into and suing them over COINTELPRO activities. The judge asked the Special
Agent in Charge how many FBI agents worked in Camejo’s presidential campaign;
the answer was 66 agents. Camejo estimated he had a campaign staff of about 400
across the country. Once again that would be an infiltration rate of 1 out of 6
people. Camejo discovered that among the agents was his campaign co-chair. He
also discovered eavesdropping equipment in his campaign office and documents
showing the FBI had followed him since he was a student activist at 18 years
old.”
Paulie said: “Please elaborate; I’m not sure what you mean. That’s not to say that I believe it is an organization. While that is not impossible, I think it is more likely that it’s an individual without any organizational backing, most likely with mental problems, who feels personally and/or professionally slighted by me, has unresolved issues, probably although not necessarily racial and other collective animosities – perhaps stemming from incidents in their life, who frequently lurks at IPR but most likely usually does not comment other than the troll outbreaks.”
We don’t really know for sure whether this troll is one person, or if they are multiple people trolling.
I followed the trail from the racist video links that got posted here by a troll at one point, and they went back to some guy in Washington whom I’d never heard of by the name of Brad Trun (I think that this was his name). The guy is apparently some kind of disgruntled libertarian who is also a racialist. I have no idea if he was the one posting here as a troll, or if somebody just posted some videos here that were on his YouTube channel.
Thomas L. Knapp // May 14, 2013 at 4:53 pm
“Paulie @ 100,
‘Please elaborate; I’m not sure what you mean. ‘
I mean that if I were trying to damage the LP, I would encourage, not discourage, Andy’s antics on most fronts.”
Since you’ve never worked on one petition drive with me, and you’ve never engaged in one outreach activity with me, and you don’t even really know me outside of a few message boards online, I don’t think that you are qualified to comment here.
Ask Paul, or anyone who actually knows me as they can all vouch for my effectiveness.
“Thomas L. Knapp // May 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
I can’t see it being an organization that’s trying to hurt the LP. If that was the case, they wouldn’t be attacking at least one of the targets they’re attacking.”
It could easily be part of an organized attack against the Libertarian Party. The few Libertarians who do any petitioning work do most of the “boots on the ground” in person outreach for the party. I personally have handed out tens of thousands of Libertarian flyers, pamphlets, etc… (including handing such material out during the course of initiative and/or referendum petition drives). I’ve person signed up numerous people to be on the Libertarian Party’s announcement list. I’ve personally registered numerous people to vote under the Libertarian Party’s banner, both as a volunteer and for pay. I’ve personally helped start up or grow Libertarian clubs on numerous college campuses. I’ve told numerous people about jury nullification. I’ve gotten positive coverage for the Libertarian Party during the course of ballot access drives in newspapers, radio, and TV. Etc… Paul, Jake, and the other few Libertarian petitioners out there have done similar things. We have also advocated for years that the Libertarian Party do MORE OUTREACH during the course of ballot access drives.
So yeah, I think that the forces for big government would definitely have a motivation to shut us down, or to slander us.
Yeah, there could be other motivations, such as a person with a personal vendetta, a person who is mentally ill, or a person who is just doing this for laughs, but I would not discount the notion that this could be an example of political sabotage.
Paulie @ 100,
“Please elaborate; I’m not sure what you mean. ”
I mean that if I were trying to damage the LP, I would encourage, not discourage, Andy’s antics on most fronts.
DT @ 102,
“You are, for want of a better word, a ‘Nihilist’!”
Wrong again.
Not that that’s surprising. You seem to have made a career of it.
Paulie @ 91: “The moderation policy is a quarantined subject, and may only be discussed on quarantined threads. Comments discussing moderation policy on other threads are subject to being removed. ”
Are you at liberty to inform us just WHAT subjects are “quarantined” (is this due to the possibility of infection) and WHERE those “quarantined” threads can be found?
TK @ 98: “I’m neither an idealist nor a perfectionist. I predict that there will always be conflict, warfare, violence, etc.”
You’re right! I erred. You are NOT an idealist, because “idealist” actually believes in “something”!
You are, for want of a better word, a ‘Nihilist”!
You curse the ‘state” in the way a child curses the sun: “That god-damned sun always comes up when I’m trying to sleep in the morning and
then the sob goes down just as my friends and I are playing a game of softball.”
“I predict that there will alway be either too HOT days or too COLD days, thanks to the g.d. sun!
And WHY can’t days be just as long in the winter as in the summer. You just can’t depend on the g.d. sun!
The Sun will NEVER, ever work the way “I” want it to. so to hell with it!
“It’s just that political government, aka the state, is a PARTICULARLY stupid response to those things. It institutionalizes them,”
Surely you aren’t implying that conflict/violence is a “creation” of political government? I’m not sure what you mean by “institutionalizing” them,
but I’d presume that ALL Libertarians who advocate a “mini-state” ALSO acknowledge the need for the state to assume the responsibility of ‘standardizing’ the terms and uses of force (with the “consent of of governed”, of course)
I am seriously curious as to HOW you would resolve conflicts in your non-state society?
@91 Paulie,
“Fuck you very much.”
Thanks for the offer but you are not my type.
Please elaborate; I’m not sure what you mean. That’s not to say that I believe it is an organization. While that is not impossible, I think it is more likely that it’s an individual without any organizational backing, most likely with mental problems, who feels personally and/or professionally slighted by me, has unresolved issues, probably although not necessarily racial and other collective animosities – perhaps stemming from incidents in their life, who frequently lurks at IPR but most likely usually does not comment other than the troll outbreaks. I would guess that most likely, presuming the racism is genuine and not for effect, that this person is not courageous enough to be very active in racist groups, or is a very peripheral member who is not held in high regard by fellow racists. Just a guess based on probabilities.
BTW, when you and other people respond to Dave Terry that poses a bit of a dilemma. I have determined that reading any of Dave Terry’s comments has a net negative value, but what do I do with the comments of people whose comments I usually do read when they respond to Dave Terry? For now, I have decide to not read the responses either, so as to not accidentally see any of Dave Terry’s comments quoted or be tempted to read any of his comments; I hope I’m not missing anything interesting. It would be so much simpler and better if everyone else stopped reading his comments, or at least responding to them, too.
Starchild,
Regardless of whether that’s a good system for comments or not, as previously mentioned, we are not aware of any way to implement anything like that in wordpress or its plugins. If you or anyone else knows of a plugin or any other way to do that, let us know, and we can then debate the merits of something we can actually do, rather than something we can’t do.
DT @97,
I’m neither an idealist nor a perfectionist. I predict that there will always be conflict, warfare, violence, etc.
It’s just that political government, aka the state, is a PARTICULARLY stupid response to those things. It institutionalizes them, centralizes them, normalizes them and in so doing does the opposite of minimizing their damage.
With ALL due respect, Mr. Knapp; you clearly represent the fallacy of ‘idealistic-perfectionist
projection’ very well.
Let’s try an example from the REAL world, were we all live. Consider the “historical record” that the tires on your car have never, ever, ever, not even once “worked”! Tires inevitably go flat; either the rubber wears too thin and irreparably
damaged, or the valve stem malfunctions and the tire goes flat.
Clearly, tires are not the answer! Should be go back to iron or wooden wheels, or horses, or just walk everywhere we go?
OH! you say, tires work fine, as long as people periodically check the tread wear and tire pressure and change them when they are worn.
Isn’t it ironic that tires AND government require individual attention and awareness? Just like the
wheels on your care, your “small” government requires your attention AND participation to keep it in working order.
Government, like ANY “mechanical” device requires monitoring and remedial adjustments.
There is no perpetual social order any more than there is a perpetual motion machine.
Machines generally need lubrication to keep all its’ moving parts working properly, and similarly, to paraphrase Jefferson “The ‘motor’ of liberty must be “lubricated’ from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
OK, so now, WHAT alternative to limited government do you prescribe. Totalitarianism??
Authoritarianism? Oligarchy? Monarchy? Tribalism? OR ‘G-d-forbid’. ANARCHY?
PLEASE? For the elucidation of us ‘unwashed’ masses; TELL US how, and where anarchy has produced ANYTHING other than conflict, warfare and ultimate an authoritarian state!!!!
I usually try not to pay much attention to this sort of thing — the old adage about not feeding the trolls.
Thus my basic feeling is just ignore them and leave free speech alone. However I’m also mindful of experiences such as Jeremy relates @87, and can see how the combination of anonymous commenting and truly vile speech, threats, allegations of criminality, etc., can be too much to abide. I’m not sure whether I saw any of the recent batch of troll posts in question — from what I’ve heard, I sure didn’t miss anything — but I did see one post attacking Paulie that I thought really crossed the line, and would have responded if I thought the attacker actually had any credibility.
Ideally, imho, there would be some method for community moderation, so that posts would disappear only if they got negative votes from too many different users, or low enough scores in a system where people could rate posts from 1-10 or something (perhaps where everyone got only a few “1” or “10” scores to assign, and were expected to judge on a bell curve, so that people wouldn’t just mark “1” for anything they disagreed with).
I also rather like the solution Brian Holtz suggested @5, for comments deemed so noxious they need to be censored. It has the virtue of allowing anyone who really wants to read a troll’s post to do so — it would just take a lot of time, so most people probably wouldn’t bother, which seems fair and just.
Another creative possibility might be to allow other people to rewrite a troll’s postings under certain circumstances, allowing the community to have some fun at their expense, which also seems fitting.
But I do realize any such complex technical fixes could be difficult to implement.
I guess my preferred solution in the absence of such fixes is that people bone up on their ability to shun and ignore trolls, but failing that, my bottom line is that I’d like to see whatever steps taken that need to be taken in order to avoid the community losing valuable members like Paulie and Jill, short of outright banning either vicious attacks or anonymous comments.
The former can have their place, I suppose, if someone has truly earned a vicious comment, and the latter I think represent an important concept to defend on the Internet in an era where privacy and anonymity are under assault, even though I haven’t posted anonymously on here myself and probably never will.
@94,
“The solution is, as I see it, [is] for the ‘middle majority’ who believe, in the face of an historical record which says that it never, ever, ever has, not even once, believe that ‘limited government’ can work.”
There, fixed that for ya.
TK @ #93; “I can’t see it being an organization that’s trying to hurt the LP.
Not per se, however the most extreme violators are, in my opinion, disgruntled libertarians representing one of the extreme caucuses, sniping at members who either represent (or thought to represent) other ‘deviant’ caucuses.
It is clearly an example of ‘rule or ruin’!
The solution is, as I see it, for the ‘middle majority’ who did NOT support EITHER an aggressive foreign policy OR no government at all, to step forward and reclaim the mantle of the LP.
I can’t see it being an organization that’s trying to hurt the LP. If that was the case, they wouldn’t be attacking at least one of the targets they’re attacking.
Deran: Thank you.
Langa: Sorry, but they have demonstrated that they don’t always go away quickly. And not everyone will ignore them, even if some of us do. I understand that some people like you want less moderation than we already had, but I have to balance it against those who want more. As for me, I have only so much I am willing to do, and I am already doing it.
Anyone who wants to replace what I am doing and do a better job can demonstrate that they can do it by doing it and I’ll be happy to hand off some of this to them. I’ve already handed off most of the actual article posting, mostly to Chris so long as he is willing to do it. I forward most of those stories to IPR and do some light post-editing after the articles are published.
When someone else demonstrates a good propensity and willingness to keep a good balance of light moderation, I’ll be more than happy to let them do it.
Well, I overslept of course. Grrrrr.
Jeremy: your comment makes sense, but it ultimately comes down to judgement calls. If I take time to write more than I have written, all that will do is create a basis for second guessing. I’m not sure what good it will do. I’m also not sure if I have any more to actually write by way of written rules than I already wrote above. And honestly, I have other things to do with my time.
If I got the sense that the people who wanted no moderation at all were the majority, I would give them what they want and leave, because I would not want to subject myself to that kind of hostile environment. I am getting the sense that most people want at least some moderation, probably more than what I want.
I’m not willing to do more, and I’m not willing to do less. I’m willing to do what I have been doing, or to do nothing and leave.
Steve M: Well then too bad, and I certainly hope Jill ignores you. You are welcome to comment on IPR on subjects that are not quarantined on any thread. The moderation policy is a quarantined subject, and may only be discussed on quarantined threads. Comments discussing moderation policy on other threads are subject to being removed. Anyone who persists in posting lots and lots of comments about moderation policy on other threads anyway is subject to being banned for the same reason as Ogle and Milnes.
You don’t have to like it. You can live with it, or leave. Complain as much as you want, but only on threads like this one created for that purpose.
You have the wherewithal to make IPR better or create a better site. Instead you choose to use your time disparaging and discouraging the people giving you a free service, at detriment to ourselves. I am actually spending so much time here that the opportunity cost is causing me unnecessary financial difficulties, and I get no pay. Jill is reportedly having physical maladies related to all the effort she has been putting in here. I may be as well. It’s still not good enough for you? Fuck you very much. If we were the assholes you say we are, you would be long gone. Keep up the shit and you will be.
If you define a “troll” as someone who is saying things that they don’t really believe, just to be disruptive (as opposed to defining it as simply someone with whom you strongly disagree), then I still maintain that the best policy is to simply ignore them. They are engaging in such obnoxious behavior for the sake of getting a reaction, and if they don’t get one, they will usually leave quickly.
I favor some moderation to keep the trolls at bay, and I trust paulie and jill’s discretion.
@84 Jill, I certainly don’t trust your “discretion”
This is a very interesting discussion. The issue of comment moderation is a difficult one that can have serious repercussions for any blog, no matter what choice is made. I’ve had a lot of experience with this issue from a variety of perspectives, including with the multi-author blog I edited from 2006-2009.
When I first got involved with blogging, I was a strong proponent of the idea that banning anyone or setting any comment policies at all was a violation of free speech and free association and would destroy the political movements were supposed to represent. I fought a losing battle on that front on Daily Kos, and eventually left the site because of it. I thought I was witnessing the destruction of that community, although the commentariat there seems as vibrant (and as tyrannical) as ever.
Afterwards, I got to see the other side of the equation through no-banning sites like My Left Wing and Political Flesh Feast. What tended to happen on those sites was that the loudest and most aggressive voices would drown out everyone else and eventually drive them off the site, resulting in a very small echo-chamber community filled with assholes.
Most recently, I’ve been frequenting a baseball blog that has a really draconian comment policy — even the use of swear words is banned (on a baseball blog!). My sense is that this policy was instituted about five years ago, and that it was immediately followed by a mass exodus of people unwilling to abide by it. The community then gradually rebuilt itself with people who are fine with the rules, but it took years and is still somewhat smaller than other similar baseball blogging communities. On the other hand, for the people who are there, it’s probably the most friendly and efficiently-run blog community I’ve ever seen.
What I take from all this is that you have a real Hobson’s choice when you’re trying to decide whether to create a more restrictive comment policy in a pre-existing blog community. I personally enjoy the rough-and-tumble of having trolls and people like Milnes and Dave Terry around, but I recognize that there are probably a lot of people, most of them readers who never comment, who are turned off by the aggressiveness of the commentariat and who might otherwise participate a lot more in the site. On the other hand, creating a more restrictive policy might trigger a mass exodus of the people already here, depending on how the policy reads and how it’s handled.
My recommendation would probably be a Solomonic one. I think having mandatory moderation is a good idea, but I think Paulie should write the comment policy, precisely because he doesn’t want a comment policy at all and will be inclined to be gentle about it. I like Warren, but I don’t like his comment policy for reasons that I don’t think Warren probably even realizes. The points seem reasonable, but there is a disturbing trend toward authoritarianness that would surface in their enforcement. Take the point about defamation as an example. Has Warren really considered the implications of banning things like calling someone a criminal? What if I want to use the word colloquially — I say, “I think that what Aaron Starr did in Oregon was criminal”? Should that be treated as the same thing as accusing someone of a crime? If some admin does treat it that way, am I not allowed to nitpick? Or take the Kurt Brackob case in Nevada, where the guy was convicted of statutory rape under a communist government in another country. If I call him a criminal, is that defamation? If I say he’s NOT a criminal because Communist laws aren’t real laws, am I making a false statement and at risk of being banned? Does Warren really want his admins making this sort of decision without any recourse for appeal? I think Warren is too close to some of these issues; the comment policy should be written by someone who doesn’t WANT to use it, not by someone who is itching to bring out the banhammer.
Another effective technique I’ve seen is giving people cooldown bannings or warning bannings, for 48 hours or a week. Often, the people will either apologize and become better community members, or they’ll get mad and self-ban by leaving the community. That’s a good compromise where it’s been used.
You CAN try to do something more draconian than this, or institute the policy Warren described above, but it will result in a mass exodus followed by a multi-year period of community rebuilding. In the end, you’ll get the community you want, but it’s a hard process, and — this being third-party politics rather than baseball — there’s no guarantee the fans will stick around long enough to see it through.
Food for thought, at any rate, from my ten years’ blogging experience.
Legitimate comments have not been removed. Jill and I are the ones who have been doing the moderation, and we don’t want to spend time being second guessed. Warren said he trusts my judgement. I understand that you disagree and I understand why.
The comment by CT that you say is legitimate which was removed was a continuation of smuggling PLAS into a non-PLAS discussion after a warning had been issued, so it was taken down. Most of CT’s comments are fine, though.
I need to be up for work in 5 and a half hours, I don’t know why I’m still sitting here discussing this.
Most people have expressed that extreme troll comments need to be taken down, and I do that. It’s enough work going through all the comments here to provide that service without the second guessing. Some people may think I’m too lenient or not lenient enough, but I’ll keep doing what I’m doing. I can’t please everyone no matter what I do.
So far Warren has backed me up, and as long as that is the case, that’s what I will stick with.
If you see any obvious trolling feel free to help. If you are not 100% sure of whether it is obvious trolling based on our standards, put it in trash or pending and we’ll take a look later.
If you don’t want to help, fine, but I’m honestly tired of the constant criticism of every little decision. That’s more time consuming than the few actual troll outbreaks, potentially much more.
Everybody makes mistakes but checks are the only way to minimize mistakes. I’d much rather have a troll comment remain than have a legitimate comment deleted.
I can currently live with the prior system, especially now that there’s been discussion of what should be removed. I would not want to second-guessed as to what has been deleted, though. If I can’t be trusted to use discretion, what’s the point?
So, some writer would delete some comments, and another would pull them out of trash? That seems confusing. It would certainly be confusing to our readers, and it would be empowering for the troll.
“I wonder if it is a part of a larger campaign to sabotage the Libertarian Party & movement.”
Sometimes I think that but we manage to sabotage ourselves without outside help anyway.
FDS: I agree, the previous system was fine. I can manage the few outbreaks of spam/crap we get 99% + of the time.
Andy: I don’t really care if this person is working for a group or is a “lone nut” and whether he or she really believes the crap that is posted. End result is the same. The rationale behind it is largely irrelevant, especially since there is no way we can actually know.
All this censorship crap. Someone needs to put on their adult pants and grow a skin.
This is the same crap that killed Third Party Watch among others.
The previous system of removing troll posts that were anti-Semitic (according to definition #2 and not #1 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semitic?s=t) and racist garbage and spam were just fine.
It wasn’t broke. Don’t fix it until it is.
“My bet is that it was one person who is probably mentally ill.”
Yes, it could just be some crazy person as well.
Another possibility, as I said above, is that the entire thing is a joke from somebody with a sick sense of humor.
“paulie // May 13, 2013 at 9:17 pm
I don’t think it was an organization.”
It could have been one individual who is working for an organization, like the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, or some other alphabet soup agency. I say this because I wonder if it is a part of a larger campaign to sabotage the Libertarian Party & movement. I would not be a bit surprised if Paul, Jake, and myself, as well as anyone else who has done of lot of work/activism in the Libertarian Party & movement has probably had their name added to a government watch list of some type.
I don’t think it was an organization. It seemed to be a distinct writing style, patterns of fake names and fake email addresses, and use of the same two IP anyonymizing services all the time. My bet is that it was one person who is probably mentally ill.
Perhaps the trolling problem was from an “organization”, and not an individual.An oraganization that likes the duopoly party system and has alot of time and resources for such petty ,sytematic endevours.
@68
I’m not talking about this particular case, but generally. I can see the posts in the trash bin right now, but I wish there was something like a trash bin where the deleted comments would remain indefinitely for those with permissions to see. That would promote transparency.
WR @ 66:
“It is my view of the law that defamatory comments must be removed.”
And it is your preference to obey the law in this case.
No problem. But it’s still just a preference.
Fairly often. I’d like it to happen more, not less. For example, we picked up some new people as a result of the Pennsylvania and Nevada controversies who have stuck around and commented on other stuff.
All of the IPs you banned belong to IP anonymizing services, which means that random people unrelated to the troll may get assigned those same IPs when using those same anonymizing services for any number of reasons, some of which are legitimate and some of which are not. Also, those same anonymizing services AKA proxies have other IPs that you did not ban, and there are many other such services you did not ban.
Agreed, this is the worst one yet. Which is pretty good with a site that has close to 200,000 comments to date.
I don’t know of any plugin like that on wordpress.
Warren – you may want to use something other than angle brackets to designate quotes.
Plain old quote marks are ok, or italics or blockquotes. The comment software interprets angle brackets as html tags, so it seems to be screwing up some of your comments, a couple of which I have fixed.
As in I removed them. Who posted them – we don’t know for sure. Some of us think we know.
>>I still wish that whenever something is removed or altered, there be a way to see what was removed or altered and who did it.<<
I "unapproved" the comments. Users with sufficient credentials, including Paulie, Jill and at least a few others, were able to see them. Paulie moved most to the trash, where they still sit.
However, making defamatory comments available to the everyone would perpetuate the defamation. That would not solve the problem.
The nature of the removed comments has been discussed extensively and many users saw them before they were removed. I fail to see what would be added by going over them again.
As for who did it – I did.
Yep. Also posts from people who post about quarantined subjects on non-quarantined subject threads, as well as any and all posts from the thus far two individuals in five years who were given quarantined threads and showed chronic disregard for the policy. As far as racism, if it is a reasoned defense of racial views that is pertinent to a topic or ongoing discussion it’s in bounds; if it’s malicious and gratuitous slurs, it’s out. Anything that looks like a serious personal threat. Yes, there are judgement calls involved with all of these, but I believe we have to make them at some point so the site does not turn into a virtual sewer. I try to be very light in the moderation. There is no way to have 100% objectivity, and I’m not going to put in a bunch of time arguing over these decisions. If we start continuously second guessing these decisions, that’s more work than I want to put into it.
>>In fact, there is no “requirement” for moderation in any way, shape, manner or form.<<
It is my view of the law that defamatory comments must be removed. And it was my view of this particular troll incident that it was damaging the site/community and I perceived a need to remove them.
With the latter I agree that required may be the wrong word.
I would say I'll be more careful in the future but that wouldn't be true. The word nitpicking comes to mind.
There is if it is put in the trash can, but sometimes it’s easier to do it a different way, particularly if the person keeps doing it and you don’t have time to monitor them constantly. Also, when there are trash comments I often empty the trash can quickly, especially if I am not in doubt about the removal.
Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon.
He means that when you said you had to remove the troll comments, you did not really have to, you just chose to because that’s what you wanted to do.
Warren @ 51,
“I must not be that bright, because I still don’t understand the term nor Knapp’s usage here.”
Well, I intended it as shorthand for this:
You have used the word “required” in reference to moderation practices several times.
In fact, there is no “requirement” for moderation in any way, shape, manner or form.
It’s all a matter of preference, not “requirement.”
You can have no moderation, complete moderation, anything in between, any conditions you want to set. And whatever you have, it will be because that’s what you want to have, not because it’s “required.”
In this case see the trash can. 78 comments total. As best I can tell, all from the same troll.
Whether you apologize should have nothing to do with what anyone believes.
Oops, you’re right. You are actually pushing for a less restrictive policy than what we had before this change. I would have preferred to keep things as they were. In any case, the “inside job” hypothesis makes no logical case in my case.
I cleared one of Phillies’ comments before work this morning. Unless he was posting from a different IP, which may be the case with some regular users if their ISP uses floating IPs, that should have had nothing to do with your new rules. It may have had because he had both an email address and a link in there, which akismet may interpret as two links.
If nobody else believes this was an inside job, then I will drop it and apologize to Paulie.
I still wish that whenever something is removed or altered, there be a way to see what was removed or altered and who did it.
And if any user feels there is such an outbreak, please e-mail me asap. Lately I’m on facebook more than my e-mail, so messaging me at “Warren Redlich” might be a touch quicker.
>>only when someone is truly disrupting the site.<
>>BTW, I’ll definitely be cutting down my IPR time. I hadn’t weighed in here yet today because I had some medical tests done this morning, which diagnosed an ulcer on my esophagus.<>The doctor was telling me I needed to give up chocolate and coffee, and I’m thinking, “No, I need to give up IPR”.<
Your comments at 49 are all quite reasonable. For the most part, we have been about to control the trollage, so we probably won’t need to be so strident forever–only when someone is truly disrupting the site.
>It’s Warren’s site and he’s entitled do whatever he damn well pleases with it.I just prefer the most open commenting possible, and wish people would just say “this is what I want to do” instead of using weasel words like “required.”<"Weasel words"?? I had to look that up."A weasel word may be an informal term for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated."I must not be that bright, because I still don't understand the term nor Knapp's usage here.
BTW, I’ll definitely be cutting down my IPR time. I hadn’t weighed in here yet today because I had some medical tests done this morning, which diagnosed an ulcer on my esophagus. The doctor was telling me I needed to give up chocolate and coffee, and I’m thinking, “No, I need to give up IPR”. I’m sort of joking because I love the site and (most of ) the people on here, but this last 3 day long trollfest was quite unpleasant. A set of criteria all of us writers can agree on would be quite desirable.
We can start with this:
1. Posting under someone else’s name (or the name they use on IPR);
2. Defamation – which means making false factual accusations about someone; and to be distinguished from opinions.
— He’s a criminal – that implies the person has committed crimes and is factual.
— He’s a jerk – that’s an opinion
3. Calls for violence … I struggle with that one. I can easily see some third parties or factions within third parties legitimately calling for violent resistance against government. I wouldn’t want to ban that.
However, threats of violence against an individual, yes I can see that as something we should not allow.
4. Blatant racism. Tough one again. There are factions of third parties (and perhaps the major parties) that at least hint at racism. There are many voices against Islam these days, which is arguably a kind of racism.
And being Jewish I personally have trouble with anti-Semitic statements. But then it’s hard for me to be objective in regulating such comments.
Seems to me if the racist or otherwise prejudiced comment has nothing to do with the discussion or the proposals/platforms of third parties and/or independent candidates – gratuitous remarks clearly intended to offend rather than advance debate – then maybe. But still hard to be objective.
Prolonged personal attacks – yes, and I think the issue here as well is whether the attack is intended to offend rather than to advance the discussion. But still hard to be objective.
Next thing you know we’re banning hate speech. And I hate when that happens. 🙂
Paulie @ 39,
“I’m the only one this time arguing AGAINST more control of comments than before. ”
No, that’s what I’m arguing as well. But I’m not optimistic about winning the day on it.
To be clear, I’m not arguing “right” versus “wrong” here. It’s Warren’s site and he’s entitled do whatever he damn well pleases with it. I just prefer the most open commenting possible, and wish people would just say “this is what I want to do” instead of using weasel words like “required.”
Paulie’s suggestion of just removing objectionable posts puts me in a position that I’m uncomfortable being in. I did remove a few of the troll’s comments when he started up, and got negative comments from not only Mr. Troll, who pledged to beat his wife and call her “Jill” as he did so, but tremendous hostility from some readers as well. There are definitely comments which should be removed, in my opinion, but it needs to be by more writers than just Paulie and I. If that’s what we end up agreeing to as our policy, then can we have clear rules as to what can/should be deleted, such as calls for violence, blatant racism, and prolonged personal attacks,such as this latest troll’s rampage toward Paulie and Andy?
@George – I don’t see that your comment was held up. Unless another moderator cleared it.
@George Phillies:
>>Note that there is now a notice to readers that messages are being held for moderation. My latest — it had links — was held, though I actually do not know why.<
@Thomas Knapp
I’m pretty much hands-off most of the time, with plenty of other stuff going on. Big stretch to accuse me of obsessively and compulsively controlling discussion.
What required it was the combination of trolls using the names of other people, and defamatory comments. The defamatory nature of the comments was not a close call. And those who know me understand why I’m sensitive to defamation.
We had previously talked about Disqus. I tried it on another site and it was very, very, awfully, irritatingly slow. One of my goals with this and other websites is speed, so I don’t see going to a third-party system like that.
As a side note, we (my brother and I) are talking about moving IPR to WPEngine in the hope that it will be faster and easier to maintain. Anyone have any experience with that service?
>It’s not me, and “inside job to get more control over comments”? I’m the only one this time arguing AGAINST more control of comments than before.
@Andy: “The thing that I did not like about this troll was that they were posting under fake names, including pretending to be other people (which is definitely over the line in my opinion, because that gets into fraud territory), and making false criminal accusations.”
Not the fake names alone, but the pretending to be other people and the false criminal accusations – absolutely.
Great job Warren newbie long time reader tho.
I only post under my own name and I stand by the accuracy of the news I report and the comments I make. Many people use fake identities and slander others even in the choice of fake name they select.
The new policy seems sound and I appreciate the work Warren has done with IPR. I hope I am not one of the New York people he “hates”. Hate is a very harsh word.
It’s not me, and “inside job to get more control over comments”? I’m the only one this time arguing AGAINST more control of comments than before. Last time it seemed more people agreed with me. I only have a couple of minutes left on the computer (unanticipated stop due to having took something up) so I’ll have more comments later.
Eichenauer @ 16: ” Actions taken by the web site owner of his agents may be just, unjust, fair, arbitrary, reasoned or insane and also libertarian”
Mr. Eichenauer is clearly confused. Other than the proviso that the web site owner has the final say in what is permitted, I doubt that even the web site owner would agree with this screed.
It is unfortunate that so MANY “libertarians” confuse liberty with license. Whereas IPR is NOT
a “Libertarian” discussion group, NON-libertarian
“rules” and views are clearly permitted; BUT to equate statements that are “arbitrary, unjust and insane” as being ‘libertarian’ is completely bogus and over the top!!!!
I’m generally opposed to taking anyone’s comments down. The thing that I did not like about this troll was that they were posting under fake names, including pretending to be other people (which is definitely over the line in my opinion, because that gets into fraud territory), and making false criminal accusations.
“Concerned Citizen // May 13, 2013 at 1:10 pm
I still think it was Paulie. Kind of like the Reichstag Fire. I think it was an inside job to get more control over comments.”
I can see why one would think this, however, I doubt that it was him.
Note that there is now a notice to readers that messages are being held for moderation. My latest — it had links — was held, though I actually do not know why.
I still think it was Paulie. Kind of like the Reichstag Fire. I think it was an inside job to get more control over comments.
Thanks Warren.
Regarding this comment: “I’m sure new users come along from time to time, but how often do they stick around?”:
All of us were, initially, new users. It’s easy to post/unmoderate a new user. Your policy wisely requires one of the moderators to approve the post before we get inundated with spam, inappropriate racist comments, etc.
I have no problem with this system.
It appeared to me that the recent troll was much more objectionable than they who are assigned their own threads.
Two notes:
1. The commenter that inspired this change wasn’t interested in facilitating discussion. They were shouting down all other voices in the room.
2. I’m not sure WordPress’ commenting system is nearly flexible enough to handle group voting of individual comments, even with some module or another. WordPress is optimized for blogging, not forum discussions.
Besides, this is IPR’s site. If IPR needs to change the commenting system to reduce administrative overhead, they’re well within their rights to do so.
“Moderation required removal of roughly 80 troll comments in a fairly short period of time.”
Um, no. Obsession/compulsion with controlling discussion is what “required” that.
If we’re going to be obsessive/compulsive about controlling discussion, why not just automate it? I’m pretty sure that some of the third-party commenting systems have “threshold voting” systems built in — if a commenter has a negative reputation, that commenter’s stuff only becomes visible at an individual reader’s request.
Of course, allowing individual readers to control what they do or do not see might not satisfy the OCD’s conditions. But if the real concern is facilitating discussion, then it would be a reasonable measure.
>I don’t think it would have gotten to that point if I had been actively monitoring the comments and manually unapproving them in more “real time.”
Could we get several of us to work together on that, rather than instituting these new rules?
The moderation e-mail appears to be working. -WR
Testing comment approval e-mails.
“What I would like to do instead is to stick to what we were doing up til now, which is manually unapproving or trashing non-legitimate comments.”
I’d like to try what we’re doing for at least one more day, to see how I do on the e-mails for moderation.
“There are also IP anonymizing services – in fact, the IP you banned is from one of them, if I’m not mistaken. Banning IP anonymizers is IMO not desirable.”
I’m not banning IP anonymizers. I banned specific IP addresses that were used by the troll(s) in this recent incident. As I mentioned any and all of these measures may be temporary.
I banned more than one IP address by the way.
“As far as limiting people to one anonymous identity, that also has some issues. One is that some people use shared computers”
Yes. And this policy is not automated. It is a soft rule. If the moderators feel that someone is abusing it, then the moderators may act on it – ideally starting with a warning. If the moderators recognize it as what you describe, then the moderators do nothing.
“Also in my experience as a new commenter on sites where I may not know the comment system well, if my comment does not appear right away when I post it, I’m a lot less likely to ever come back.”
This raises an interesting question. How often do new commenters come back to the site? My impression is that there’s a community that has been around for a while. I’m sure new users come along from time to time, but how often do they stick around?
Anyone have any opinions on that?
@Paulie:
“I already mentioned the problems with moderating new commenters on the last thread about trolling, as did several other people. The last time you instituted this, I had to moderate the site very actively and had some legitimate comments that I had to manually approve that very same day.”
I set the site to e-mail me when new comments need approval. I’m not sure that’s working, but if it is I will be able to monitor and hopefully approve genuine comments quickly. I check my e-mail frequently.
-However, I’m not sure the e-mail thing is working. I’ll test it.
@dave terry:
I hadn’t thought about that when I first instituted the rule, but I did later. That seems reasonable (but see response to Paulie below).
IPR is not a libertarian site. It’s for all third parties and independent candidates. It is also, as Thane suggested, not a government-owned site.
As for certain persons getting favorable treatment from the ruler or ruling class, some animals are more equal than others I guess. Given the troll terrorism (trollorism?) we just experienced, this temporary emergency measure was warranted.
But I’m going to think about what Paulie said and probably rescind all emergency measures. Because I listen to Paulie.
Appears to be a sound policy.
To save time repeating some arguments pro and con see https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/the-trouble-with-trolls/
Warren,
First of all thanks for your time in dealing with the problem. I was laid up with headaches all day and missed the latest “episode.”
From the comments you unapproved, I think most did need to be unapproved, so I put them in trash bin, where they can still be restored. Although, I did find one that I restored (a completely reasonable discussion of comment policy by Jess Santana; does not seem to be a troll comment at all) and one that I am questioning whether it should be restored (it appears to be by the same troll as the other unapproved comments, but it merely asks why we are not allowed to discuss what the troll believes is Israeli involvement in 9/11).
As far as the policy changes, I already mentioned the problems with moderating new commenters on the last thread about trolling, as did several other people. The last time you instituted this, I had to moderate the site very actively and had some legitimate comments that I had to manually approve that very same day.
I can’t always be around for that, and in my experience few others take that kind of time. Also in my experience as a new commenter on sites where I may not know the comment system well, if my comment does not appear right away when I post it, I’m a lot less likely to ever come back.
As far as limiting people to one anonymous identity, that also has some issues. One is that some people use shared computers – I often do this myself. I may be rooming with someone else who posts here, or staying at someone’s house that posts here and using one of their computers, or at a conference and borrowing someone’s computer, or staying at the same motel as some some other people that post here.
I’ve done all these things many times.
There may be family members, coworkers, roommates or guests of one person who posts here who pops up with same IP address. Again, I myself have done all those. I’ve also noticed that some ISPs, for example AOL, use floating IP addresses that may not necessarily correspond to the user.
There are also IP anonymizing services – in fact, the IP you banned is from one of them, if I’m not mistaken. Banning IP anonymizers is IMO not desirable. People may legitimately want to be anonymous for good reasons – for example, if they have a job where it could be a problem if they are posting controversial political views, or if they are a “whistleblower” on corruption (including in alternative parties), or they don’t want to be subjected to ad hominem arguments, and so on.
It could also be something quasi-legitimate but innocuous, for example someone who does not want someone else that is likely to be reading the comments to know that they are awake/online/not working at that moment.
So, banning an IP from an anonymizer is both IMO a bad idea (because it forestalls legitimate comments from other people using the same anonymizing service, as appears to have happened to Jess Santana from the comments you unapproved) and ineffective (there are many different IP anonymizing services, each using several IP addresses, so you would have too many different ones to ban to do it effectively).
For all these reasons, I don’t think the one anonymous identity rule is good or enforceable.
What I would like to do instead is to stick to what we were doing up til now, which is manually unapproving or trashing non-legitimate comments. If several us are vigilant on that front, they can be unapproved pretty quickly, which usually makes trolls want to go away when their trolling is quickly taken down.
Also, we can still ban people without automating it. For example, I can pretty much always tell when Ogle comments. He uses fake names and anonymizers, but I can spot his writing quickly, often on the first comment or within two or three. The same goes for the nazi troll. Whenever the same tired old themes and styles of broaching subjects pop up, I can tell.
I do realize why these rules are being instituted, and after looking at the comments that got unapproved, I can see why this is a hassle no one wants to deal with. I don’t think it would have gotten to that point if I had been actively monitoring the comments and manually unapproving them in more “real time.”
Could we get several of us to work together on that, rather than instituting these new rules?
“BTW; isn’t there something unlibertarian about having an enforceable rule that certain persons are exempt from with the rulers permission.”
So long as it wasn’t done as a result of government coercion any and all changes made by the web site owner or his agents is quite libertarian. Actions taken by the web site owner of his agents may be just, unjust, fair, arbitrary, reasoned or insane and also libertarian.
Austin, you didn’t miss much. I wish I’d missed it.
Wow what did I miss? I didn’t even know this was going on. Sad.
This is a good policy.
CT @ 10: “But this troll impersonating Paulie is by far the worst we’ve ever had.”
??? EVEN if the fake Paulie is more entertaining than the original (real?) Paulie?
“You can remain anonymous, but you can’t use multiple anonymous identities, unless you clear it with me.”
Does this mean that we can have one “real” identity and one anonymous identity?
BTW; isn’t there something unlibertarian about having an enforceable rule that certain persons are exempt from with the rulers permission.
Sad that things have to change after 5 years. But this troll impersonating Paulie is by far the worst we’ve ever had.
You can’t always tell that it’s a troll. Sometimes the troll starts off somewhat reasonable or one of the troll’s IDs is reasonable.
Not responding to trolls seems to help, although it’s hard not to sometimes.
I don’t have anything against this new policy.
“I hope that moderating comments doesn’t mess up references to comments by number. ”
Unfortunately unapproving comments did mess up the numbering on those threads – mainly the debate parameters and the open thread.
The new user moderation should substantially limit future trolling.
I’d suggest copying a small piece of the prior comment, putting it in quotes, and responding to that. Might be more clear than referencing the comment number.
I tend to read comments only from commenters who I’ve come to consider interesting, so trolling hasn’t been a problem for me except when 1) trolls post under the identity of someone interesting, or 2) someone interesting wastes their/my time responding to trolls.
I don’t mind commenters using disposable identities, but if that capability gets abused by trolls, then I can live without the variety of comments it otherwise fosters.
I hope that moderating comments doesn’t mess up references to comments by number.
Instead of removing/hiding bad comments, I wish there were a WordPress plugin that with one click would let a moderator rot13 a comment. That would undermine complaints of censorship, and allow the troll’s words to be used against him if necessary.
Those unfamiliar with rot13 can paste text at http://rot13.com and the click the Cypher button twice.
It sounds like a good start.
That’s a darn good idea and system.
Hmmmm, those are actually some good ideas.