Kostapo's Brownshirts Endorse 463 Pages Of Sewage
If you've read the 463 pages of pure filth from the "Usual Gang of Grownups" you are probably nauseous as it reveals a well coordinated, time consuming, case of perverse cyberbullying unparalleled in the brief history of the Internet. There are threats of violence, outing of people's workplaces, bringing people's parents and children into their online blog disputes, talk of sodomy and electroshock against their enemies, and 463 pages of admissions that these people were at DailyKos to harass, intimidate, bully, and drive people away from the site. As a result tens of thousands of Democrats have left DailyKos and according to Jotter's statistics, very few active users remain. But that is only the beginning of the story.
The behavior that has been brought to light from the words of the Kos Kops and Kostapo themselves should repulse all of this. DailyKos purportedly has rules which members are supposed to adhere by. But in reality these rules exist in paper only or Majorflaw, bottles/condoleaser, trashablanca, tecampbell, michael bouldin (MBNYC), taylormattd, bouwerieboy, dadanation, volvodrivingliberal, and about 10 others users would all be banished from DailyKos for they have broken the rules thousands of times over. The 27 real rules of daily kos can be found toward the end of my diary here but they can be simplified into one compound sentence. You are allowed to do whatever you want if you are part of group A and you may be punished, even if you have broken no rules, if you are part of Group B.
Because of this Rovian It's Okay If You Are A KosKop mentality, the administrators of DailyKos will come to the defense of these KosKops while banning tens of thousands of others for "offenses" that don't exist. Had they had any decency or integrity, they would have quickly denounced the 463 pages of filth and taken action. But instead, they've dug in, defending the indefensible, believing that this will blow over or that it can be dismissed by making the issue yours truly instead of the behavior of those responsible.
It starts here with Jennifer Bruenjes (Scout Finch) who enters the diary first to attempt to blow off the subject with the effete Laura Clawson (MissLaura) joining in followed by BarbinMad. All three play the same card from the deck, the old "nothing to see here, move along now" dismissiveness.
Is this a repeat diary? (8+ / 0-)
Recommended by: keirdubois, taylormattd, sberel, MajorFlaw, TomP, George Gould, SteamPunkX, bottles
I could have sworn I've seen it before.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:21:04 AM PST
Discredit? (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by: N in Seattle, taylormattd, KentuckyKat, Letters to the Fathers
Here I thought we were answering a few questions since a stupid fight had disrupted C&J and people wanted to know what was going on. *shrug*
by MissLaura on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:40:43 AM PST
Blog drama (8+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, otto, peraspera, MajorFlaw, buddabelly, Same As It Ever Was, KentuckyKat, bottles
Here is my CliffNotes version of this entire drama.
A group of people had a long-running dispute. Some of the people (we'll call them Group A) were banned from DK due to their own actions. They ended up at another site where they trash DK and the people they were feuding with. The people (we'll call them Group B) still at DK started a site where they trashed the other site, the people they were feuding with, and discussed HR'ing, and so on. Both groups said some really shitty things about the other. And when the site was discovered, a whole new round of meta was born.
Now, for some reason, Group A thinks that this should result in:
1.) Group B being banned, and,
2.) Group A being reinstated
The only problem with that is, we don't ban people for what they do on other sites. As for reinstatements, given that no one was banned because of Group B's site, it's hard to see the connection. As always, if someone wants to request reinstatement, they can do so by emailing reinstatement@dailykos.com.
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7
by BarbinMD on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:05:58 AM PST
Now there have been thousands of references by the Kos Kops to other websites as proof of behavior that deserves troll ratings at DailyKos. But now the position of Kos Kops is things you post at other sites are never grounds for banning even though the things they posted at the other site brag directly about how they subverted the rules of Kos and used information of users attained at Dailykos to out people's families and workplaces.
Would you prefer I jaunt over and shut down (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by: KentuckyKat
a site I have no control over? Shall we start banning people for things that have been said on other sites?
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:55:04 AM PST
Do you *really* want (9+ / 0-)
Recommended by: N in Seattle, taylormattd, blueteam, Scout Finch, MajorFlaw, dennisl, TooFolkGR, BoiseBlue, bottles
us to start banning people for stuff they posted on other sites?
by ct on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:02:23 AM PST
Again...you would have us start banning people (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd
for comments at another site?
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM PST
You didn't hear back from me? (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Adam B, buddabelly, KentuckyKat, bottles
I do have other things that I'm doing you know.
Anyway, I summarized what led to this point, which led to you telling me I was completely wrong. A few people cannot game the system to get people banned. It's a fact of life that people have off-site discussions. Whether or not I think they're stupid, or vile, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that we don't ban people for what they do or say at other sites.
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7
by BarbinMD on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:28:24 AM PST
So isn't it "nice" to know that DailyKos has adopted this rule? From which registry or prison cell does DailyKos intend to recruit its next group of Kostapo since they will not ban people for things they've posted at other site?
Given that thousands of gatecrushers who did nothing wrong were censored by the gatekeepers of DailyKos, they want you to know that you can always "appeal" to Kos if you don't like their decision. And the result of course will be the same as if you are a character in a Kafka novel.
People don't get banned (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by: N in Seattle, taylormattd, Avila, oysterface, Same As It Ever Was
because of what a few other users do.
It takes a hell of a lot to hit autoban, more than a couple of people alone can provide. You can't force an autoban without broad support from the community.
As for admin bans, we don't ban (or not ban) based on what a few users want. We use the same standards for everyone - don't break site rules, and don't be an asshole while breaking site rules.
Perhaps some people felt they were provoked into acting badly, but my response would be that you always have a choice about how to conduct yourself, and that user X acting in a provocative manner doesn't make it OK for user Y to take the bait.
Finally, anyone who gets banned is welcome to apply for reinstatement by emailing reinstatement at dailykos dot com.
Hope that helps.
"Intelligence and stupidity have no limits. Unfortunately it looks like stupidity has won" -Arsene Wenger
by brownsox on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM PST
Anybody who has been banned can appeal to Kos. (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, bottles
That has always been the case.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:10:15 AM PST
Nobody was banned without cause. Period. (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Same As It Ever Was, bottles
You can blame it on whoever you want to, but nobody was banned by an admin without cause. If they were banned and can't comment here now, that is of their own doing and created by their own bad behavior. If they feel they were unfairly banned, they can appeal to Kos for reinstatement. Pretty simple, really.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM PST
Now Jennifer can never be wrong. She's an authoritarian and a bully. And of course if you think she was wrong, you can always appeal to Kos.
People that were banned were banned with just (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, lovelee philly, bottles
cause. Period. Sorry you disagree. If you know those banned people and they think it was unfair -- they do have the opportunity to email Kos. It's really that simple.
Do you really want us to "clean up our own backyard" and start banning people for their comments at other sites? Really? Doesn't matter -- you don't even have to answer -- the answer is no. We aren't going to start banning people for their incredibly rude behavior at other sites.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:43:19 AM PST
Jennifer also didn't like it that most users weren't buying her crap. So she has to accuse them of "coordination." Oh heaven forbid.
And there is no coordination going on right here (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Adam B, MajorFlaw, Same As It Ever Was, bottles
in this diary? PFFtttt.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:11:32 AM PST
Now in previous writings I have argued that the reason why Kos protects the indefensible behavior of his Kops is twofold. One, Kos is a sociopath just like them and he enjoys the cruelty and bullying. Two, the thread hijackings and bullying create an online soap opera at his site which generates hundreds of comments where there would ordinarily only be a few, thus creating more "hits" for his sitemeter. Keep in mind that these are my theories but given that Kos and the Kos Kops can't discuss the facts, they are going to continue to smear me. So they challenge my theory in this diary by quoting this site to try and change the subject.
How did it drive hits? (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by: N in Seattle, taylormattd, Scout Finch, MajorFlaw, TooFolkGR, TomP
I can't think of a way it would do that at all, let alone be measurable. Never mind that lack of traffic is not a problem this site suffers from.
It's an absurd accusation.
by MissLaura on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM PST
"Intelligence and stupidity have no limits. Unfortunately it looks like stupidity has won" -Arsene Wenger
by brownsox on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM PST
Anybody who has been banned can appeal to Kos. (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, bottles
That has always been the case.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:10:15 AM PST
Nobody was banned without cause. Period. (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Same As It Ever Was, bottles
You can blame it on whoever you want to, but nobody was banned by an admin without cause. If they were banned and can't comment here now, that is of their own doing and created by their own bad behavior. If they feel they were unfairly banned, they can appeal to Kos for reinstatement. Pretty simple, really.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM PST
Now Jennifer can never be wrong. She's an authoritarian and a bully. And of course if you think she was wrong, you can always appeal to Kos.
People that were banned were banned with just (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, lovelee philly, bottles
cause. Period. Sorry you disagree. If you know those banned people and they think it was unfair -- they do have the opportunity to email Kos. It's really that simple.
Do you really want us to "clean up our own backyard" and start banning people for their comments at other sites? Really? Doesn't matter -- you don't even have to answer -- the answer is no. We aren't going to start banning people for their incredibly rude behavior at other sites.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:43:19 AM PST
Jennifer also didn't like it that most users weren't buying her crap. So she has to accuse them of "coordination." Oh heaven forbid.
And there is no coordination going on right here (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Adam B, MajorFlaw, Same As It Ever Was, bottles
in this diary? PFFtttt.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:11:32 AM PST
Now in previous writings I have argued that the reason why Kos protects the indefensible behavior of his Kops is twofold. One, Kos is a sociopath just like them and he enjoys the cruelty and bullying. Two, the thread hijackings and bullying create an online soap opera at his site which generates hundreds of comments where there would ordinarily only be a few, thus creating more "hits" for his sitemeter. Keep in mind that these are my theories but given that Kos and the Kos Kops can't discuss the facts, they are going to continue to smear me. So they challenge my theory in this diary by quoting this site to try and change the subject.
How did it drive hits? (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by: N in Seattle, taylormattd, Scout Finch, MajorFlaw, TooFolkGR, TomP
I can't think of a way it would do that at all, let alone be measurable. Never mind that lack of traffic is not a problem this site suffers from.
It's an absurd accusation.
by MissLaura on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM PST
That was rather weird (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: N in Seattle, taylormattd, TomP
especially because I fail to see any way that this would drive traffic. It just don't make sense. Our traffic is pretty good, anyway :) "Intelligence and stupidity have no limits. Unfortunately it looks like stupidity has won" -Arsene Wenger
by brownsox on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:37:31 AM PST
And then there's Jennifer's approach, start trying to equate apples and oranges because gosh darn it, both OJ Simpson and the guy who was going 33 in a 30mph zone broke the law so they must be the same thing.
Gosh...that seems so familiar. (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, KentuckyKat, bottles
People from one site planning to carry-out their petty bullshit here at Daily Kos. Where have I seen that before?
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM PST
Pointing out the hypocrisy of a coordinated group (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, mole333, Same As It Ever Was, bottles
from another site complaining about a coordinated group from another site is "pathetic"?
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:19:56 AM PST
Then it gets comical. Keep in mind that these administrators all knew of the following within a day of when it all occurred. But now they say they did not know and moreover, they now claim that there is a statute of limitations. I'm not sure of the exact time frame but 4 months seems to exceed it.
Doesn't mean they caused them. (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Scout Finch, TooFolkGR, kurious, KentuckyKat
Admins at this site get a lot of email. We do our best to check out every report of problems. Some certainly slip through the cracks given the volume of email we all get, but we try. If a report of, say, a suspected sockpuppet checks out, we ban. But that decision is never based on who emailed us about it.
by MissLaura on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:13:14 AM PST
As far as I know, (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, otto, TomP
the email meant what it said in the most literal sense possible. If we hear about things in a timely fashion, we act. Hearing months after the fact makes it difficult to assess what happened and to act on it. That's why we need to hear about things when they happen. (At least legitimate things -- this is not an invitation to email about every HR you get.)
by MissLaura on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:16:09 AM PST
It's like this: (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: keirdubois, oysterface, Alec82
We didn't know about this at the time.
It's now too difficult to reconstruct - we actually can't prove that the links in question came from the user in question, and they're gone now.
Furthermore, it's difficult to punish someone for things that ostensibly happened four months ago - there has to be some kind of statute of limitations, especially in this case where it's difficult to actually prove at this point.
It has not gone unnoticed.
"Intelligence and stupidity have no limits. Unfortunately it looks like stupidity has won" -Arsene Wenger
by brownsox on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM PST
Or you can pull the hatrick of complain to Kos, I didn't know, and it's all the same.
Again...I have no idea what you are talking about (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd
None of that information was sent to me. I can assure you that every single admin tries to be as fair as possible when a complaint is received. There is no special treatment for any user. If you violate the rules, you can and most likely will be banned....no matter who you are....myself included.
I don't know about that particular incident, so it isn't fair for me to comment on it. But I will say that I completely trust Barb's judgment and trust that the situation was handled fairly. If you don't think it was handled fairly - for the very last time -- you are free to lodge a complaint up the food chain.
And who knows what Jennifer is talking about here? Can she enlighten us?
What information? (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: Same As It Ever Was, bottles
Contrary to whatever you've cooked up in your head, not everybody is a part of the big melodrama. Unless of course you count getting threatening emails from drama queens as being involved.
2008 National Champions. Rock Chalk Jayhawk.
by Scout Finch on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:44:43 AM PST
But back to Barb, who has revealed herself to truly be a horrible, horrible person. Watch how she dismissed the concrete evidence of the system being gamed.
Gaming the system? (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, MajorFlaw, Texas Blue Dot, nowheredesign, KentuckyKat
Like email groups who communicate to get diaries rec'ed up? Where do you draw the line? A small group of people, with 5 HR's a day to their name, can't get people autobanned.
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7
by BarbinMD on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM PST
Now I love this comment. Lawyer's love this too. This is a case where a liar is trying to cover up one lie and by covering up one lie, you expose another lie, not realizing that you've done so. See if you can catch it.
As I said above to someone else (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Adam B, KentuckyKat, bottles
...people try to "game the system" all the time. It's often successful in getting diaries rec'ed up, or to get a swarm of people (ahem) commenting on a particular subject. But a small group of people using their 5 HR'ing per day, can't get someone autobanned.
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7
by BarbinMD on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM PST
As I said above to someone else (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by: taylormattd, Adam B, KentuckyKat, bottles
...people try to "game the system" all the time. It's often successful in getting diaries rec'ed up, or to get a swarm of people (ahem) commenting on a particular subject. But a small group of people using their 5 HR'ing per day, can't get someone autobanned.
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7
by BarbinMD on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM PST
Well that was simple. She's admitting that diaries on the rec list are sometimes gamed by a system and that if you use those 5 hrs a day as a small group, you can not get someone autobanned. Some mathematical formula huh?
As I've said for the past few weeks and now I think most Democrats would agree with me on this singular point, the behavior of these people is utterly disgusting, despicable, and in no way, shape or form can be associated with the Democratic Party and it is up to us, regular Democrats, to make sure that the taint of DailyKos does not hurt Democrats and that we have a moral obligation as progressives, liberals, or moderates to remove from office any Democrat who still wants to be associated with Kos' filth.
Now the issues here are 463 pages of filth, the complicity of Kos, the defending of the indefensible, and the fact that there have been thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people who have unfairly been on the receiving end of this brutal, nasty, and creepy treatment by a very small gang of Internet thugs. This is NOT about me although I'm sure they will try to make me the issue.
This is an excellent comment from Sabrina who has been a great advocate and says what should be said. I don't agree with every word but it is awesome.
Yes, of course you are entitled to your opinion and we at least agree on the main issue.
I guess what I was trying to convey was that it is not about individual people for me.
I won't try to change your mind, but I think you are judging Dave's actions AFTER months of harrassment and constant pressure from them. I was pointing out what I observed while he was still a valued and popular diarist on DK whose diaries often made it to the rec list. The community iow, liked what he was doing and he abided by the rules of the site. Considering all of that, why was he targeted? Was it because Daily Kos is not interested in real activism against the rightwing smear machine? There was no reason, it was deliberate and sustained harrassment for no apparent reason condoned by the administration, leaving him with no recourse.
I don't know if you've ever been the target of a gang of thugs, ever tried (as Dave did many times) to reason with them, and realized that reason is not what they want. Then imagine if you went to the authorities and made them aware of the situation, but instead of using their authority to end the harrassment, they either turn a blind eye, or outright support the thugs.
Most people crack under those circumstances, I'm sure you've seen it happen in many of the GBCW diaries after someone cannot take the stifling, bullying atmosphere there anymore. Watching the deliberate taunting and attacks on people who are already distressed is downright disturbing.
Dave has admitted to making some mistakes, and has always been willing to listen to advice, which makes him very different to the kostapo as we saw today and to the 'administration' all denying any wrong-doing, making up new rules to cover the situation and offering no solution to a problem that has been ongoing and the reasons for which are now very clear.
No one is perfect and people are generally forgiving when someone owns up to a mistake or even to outright bad behavior. I can't imagine how I might have reacted in the same circumstances which is why, even though there are a few things I do disagree with Dave on, I cannot judge him by normal circumstances, as the circumstances were not normal at all.
Anyhow, as I said, thank you for your response and I'm glad we found some agreement on the main issue. Hope you stick around for a while ~
Reply to this