Skip to main content

The outcome of collaborative, democratic writing of a new rule takes its final step today. This will be a "vote" by the Daily Kos community. To say "Aye" to the proposed rule, you should recommend this diary. To say "Nay," you should go to this diary and recommend it. Only the vote/recommendations of Kossacks registered before October 21 will be counted. Voting will continue until the recommendation period expires in 24 hours.

You can read diaries about how this proposal came about here, here, here, here and, most recently, here.

Out of the process has emerged the Final Version of a proposed stalking rule.

The proposal is not part of any plan to add tons of new rules. Daily Kos has always been governed by the idea that the fewer rules the better. Too many rules get in the way of hearty debate. Large numbers of users have, however, expressed a need to clarify some existing rules - including some long-standing "unwritten rules" - and provide a few new rules dealing with out-of-control behavior they believe has lowered civility and driven some users off the site.

You can read the proposed rule, some rationale for it, and some commentary on its use (if approved) after the fold.

As you can see in the work room generously set up for us by David Stern of MixedInk several versions competed with each other, and there are four runners-up in a process that included 70 active participants and more than 800 visitors. (To do this, click on the link and then on the browsing button.) Although the process was collaborative, the Final Version you're reading here (and voting for or against) was written by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.

Stalking is defined as having 3 requirements:

(1) On multiple occasions, one or more commenters follow a community member into diary threads; and,

(2) The commenter(s) engage in the conduct of posting comments that consists of false information, personal attacks, lies, rumors, or implied/express disclosure of private information; and

(3) The commenter(s) engages in this conduct with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster. This intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards and/or the nature of the comments posted.

Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards.

Before calling someone a stalker or tossing HRs at a person you think is a stalker, community members should post a comment explaining what conduct and/or statements constitutes the stalking with a link to relevant evidence so that admins and the community have a record to review.

Posters should not recommend a comment calling someone a stalker or HR'd for stalking simply because of friendships but should review the evidence provided in the comment to reach their own independent conclusions.

PDNC also explained some background:

REASONS FOR RULE AND WHAT I THINK RULE WOULD ACCOMPLISH:

When this process of drafting a rule started, I did not support adding a written rule on stalking. A couple things changed my mind:

(1) Many times when someone claims stalking, my review of the comments shows that it really was a case of spamming or thread hijacking or other conduct for which we already have rules. But then I realized that some are HR'ing on the grounds of stalking (even though we do not have an official rule on stalking) and; more importantly, some people are being tagged a stalker unjustly, and there are negative perceptions associated with being a stalker.

(2) While we do not have an official stalking rule, we already have a de facto rule of stalking. Community members are now claiming in comments that someone is stalking them. Sometimes people then toss an HR at the person who is called a stalker. Oftentimes, there are no reasons offered as to why the person is a stalker, or there may be general reasons provided, but people do not always provide links to substantiate the claim of stalking.

I think stalking is a serious allegation. Even if no administrative action is taken, persons who are called stalkers have been HR'd and there is the more serious impact of the perception in our community that a person is a stalker.

I think that a de facto rule can lead to arbitrary treatment. So, if we are going to continue to HR alleged stalkers or call members stalkers, then I think there should be some guidelines rather than HR'ing or tagging based on individual standards that may vary from one person to another.

This is what I think my proposed rule would accomplish:

(1) While spamming or thread hijacking can be a tool used to accomplish stalking, this rule would separate out real stalking cases from cases that are just spamming, thread hijacking or some other existing rule violation. The benefit is that the more negative label of stalking would not be tossed at persons who are only spamming, etc.

(2) The likely pool of real stalkers for which this rule could be used is probably very small, and that is good because real stalking is a serious charge. I think many cases where stalking is now alleged would have to be addressed on the real grounds, which are spamming, thread hijacking, and other existing rule violations.

(3) It will provide transparency and equality of application to the use of stalking as now the standard is arbitrary and the grounds and evidence are not always provided on the boards.

If the rule is approved, it will be added to the FAQ. It will not apply retroactively and evidence of behavior that may have violated the rule in the past will not be admissible as grounds for administrative action. As with all rules, enforcement will be primarily by community moderation. In some cases, this can lead to autobanning, that is, a violator may receive enough Hide Ratings to ban her or him from the site permanently.

As with other rules, administrative moderation will be incremental. Rule violators will first be warned in comment threads. If violations continue, the offender will be given a red-flag warning in her or his user file, followed, if necessary, by a temporary suspension of posting privileges, and, ultimately, if the violations do not cease, a ban. Repeatedly making unfounded allegations of stalking will be dealt with in the same manner.

REMEMBER: If you recommend this diary, you are casting an "Aye" vote for the proposed rule. The vote of anyone who recommends both the "Aye" and "Nay" diaries will not be counted.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (316+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, manis2society, vicki, Garrett, keirdubois, ultrageek, ogre, SarahLee, slinkerwink, AaronInSanDiego, Rolfyboy6, pHunbalanced, phastphil40, BigOkie, mattman, kathyp, RunawayRose, lobbygow, Shockwave, meg, rppa, shayera, Vico, GayHillbilly, azureblue, seanflynn, LoneStarDem, SallyCat, Matilda, Ahianne, mataliandy, Jerome a Paris, Creosote, shermanesq, TheMomCat, bronte17, 88kathy, Shadan7, elveta, Lab Rat, dvogel001, ScantronPresident, Time Waits for no Woman, cmairead, Pithy Cherub, mijita, Katman, buckhorn okie, Larry Bailey, tdemko, aruac, oceanview, librarianman, fumie, pacoyogi, sidnora, jackmac, psnyder, nancelot, TexDem, grannyhelen, ccr4nine, Nina, churchylafemme, On The Bus, Steveningen, defluxion10, Catte Nappe, snakelass, Sophie Amrain, dkmich, Kitsap River, leftover, Black Max, valadon, ganymeade, sawgrass727, Julie Gulden, Big Tex, Dirk McQuigley, vcmvo2, lcs, tovan, maybeeso in michigan, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, Treg, blueyedace2, m16eib, deepfish, JanetT in MD, LostInTexas, Alice Venturi, jhutson, ZappoDave, basquebob, EJP in Maine, howardfromUSA, jon the antizionist jew, indiemcemopants, John DE, Overseas, Phil S 33, blue jersey mom, The Raven, cerulean, shiobhan, coolbreeze, Blue Intrigue, Ekaterin, begone, snazzzybird, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Pinko Elephant, keeplaughing, kestrel9000, deha, Wary, Wednesday Bizzare, kck, tecampbell, birdbrain64, Chris Joseph, imabluemerkin, Sagebrush Bob, happy camper, Dauphin, Frank Cocozzelli, gabriella, AndyS In Colorado, Unitary Moonbat, doinaheckuvanutjob, Wildthumb, llbear, doingbusinessas, emsprater, means are the ends, Dreaming of Better Days, blueoregon, airmarc, PhilW, lakehillsliberal, RickBoston, Hedwig, ms badger, Aaa T Tudeattack, DBunn, One Pissed Off Liberal, dov12348, high coup haiku, Cronesense, Tom J, dmh44, ninkasi23, ColoTim, Van Buren, Trial Lawyer Richard, cwhunter, kath25, Matt Z, Jimdotz, ezdidit, DWG, kingyouth, Aunt Martha, santamonicadem, vbdietz, SeaTurtle, gchaucer2, uciguy30, A Person, TomP, MKinTN, GANJA, rogerdaddy, geez53, CelticMarineMom, Namme, indyada, LearningCurve, royce, left my heart, etoipi, Gemina13, Drewid, SyntaxFeline, frodolives, Gilmore, Tonga 23, Karl Rover, priceman, Guadalupe59, Aidos, Robinswing, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, cameoanne, SciMathGuy, Neon Vincent, snackdoodle, 172 IQ, lzyltnin, notrouble, a girl in MI, earicicle, cultural worker, mikeORpdx, DHinIA, Larry Madill, DClark4129, polticoscott, sricki, Deoliver47, RadioGirl, pruple, louisprandtl, seeta08, RoCali, Muzikal203, DaNang65, brushysage, The Destroying Angel, Nonconformist, Bene Gesserit1, mahakali overdrive, nicweb, AkaEnragedGoddess, Leftcandid, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, swaminathan, YellerDog, one love, ArtSchmart, Vacationland, LaughingPlanet, psfinla, Susan from 29, marsanges, jethrock, MVgirl, Interceptor7, wvmom, indepenocrat, coracii, RJP9999, elsibiades, OldLady in BC, pixxer, JasperJohns, nickrud, googleimage, rja, Casual Wednesday, Rainefenix, science nerd, amazinggrace, cany, pinkbunny, NellaSelim, Onomastic, gobears2000, SkylarkingTomFoolery, Journalist Julia, pirate1, lady blair, Sofjwoman, Olon, BlueJessamine, UtahLibrul, soothsayer99, bluedonkey08, FarWestGirl, Situational Lefty, trs, Midknight, princesspat, Ebby, miscanthus, thethinveil, trumpeter, Veeajera, susanala, grottoes, Dan Gallo, Sil, Wheever, leftymama, hikerbiker, NotActingNaive, tardis10, lizard people, Kathnyr, AgnesBee, RMForbes, Subo03, aoeu, StringTheory, CMYK, Wom Bat, Dbug, red mittens, Simul Iustus et Peccator, tjampel, blackjackal, Tom Seaview, Rashaverak, grannycarol, MichaelNY, James Philip Pratt, NightOwl40, Jim Saul, politicalstu, Patric Juillet, QES, James Robinson, sjterrid, HamptonRoadsProgressive

    "White people are looking at you." - Wanda Sykes

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:58:57 AM PDT

    •  I will be bold here and reply to the tip jar (21+ / 0-)

      I think that PB did a good job drafting this and that MB is doing a fair job of conducting the process -- but I do not like that there is only one side's "argument" in the diary itself.  That does not seem fair.

      I am ambivalent about the proposal, and may end up supporting it, but I've expressed my concerns about it in a comment below.  I'm not asking that it be added to the de facto "Voter's Guide" in the diary, but I hope that if people want another side to the argument, they'll consider clicking the link and agreeing, disagreeing, or both.  RLMiller also has a comment expressing similar concerns].

      Having been impressed with PD's arguments for it, I was going to stay out of the arguments about this today, but if there's to be a "Voter's Guide" argument at all in a diary like this I believe that it should present arguments on both sides.  My apologies to those who see this comment as inappropriately intrusive.

      A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

      by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:39:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That should say "PD" and the top, not "PB" (5+ / 0-)

        I'm trying to think of who has the initials "PB"; probably an unlikely suspect.

        A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

        by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:02:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  rule quoted is result of a process open to all (20+ / 0-)

        MB wrote several diaries, one where the community voted to draft a stalking rule.

        Other diaries explained the mixed ink process that allowed EVERYONE to edit, draft and rewrite the proposed rule at mixed ink.

        I included an explanation in my draft rule because i was rewriting an earlier draft rule to incorporate comments from people who posted comments at mixed ink. if someone wanted to provide any information into this draft rule, they could have. and then the community would vote on that draft.

        so, the process to do so was there for, i dunno, several weeks or a month, and the time period was even extended.

        Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

        by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:04:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's true. (11+ / 0-)

          Though I admit I forgot all about it. This is kind of like when they put up signs in your neighborhood that say "Community Meeting" and you don't go, then a year later you wonder where that farmers' market came from. ;)

          I do worry that this prominent discussion of "stalking" will ramp up hysteria and lead to the vigilantism it's designed to prevent, only now on a larger scale. I hope it doesn't, and I'm not TOO worried, but I am a little.

          "Not all conservatives are assholes, but most assholes are conservatives." --me

          by Blank Frank on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:27:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This isn't a criticism of the drafting process (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kj in missouri, Goldfish, caul, wvablue

          (although you know that I have reservations about that as well as admiration toward you for gutting it out where I couldn't stand more than a day of it.)  This is a criticism of the text of this diary (and it's evil twin -- or I may have that reversed.)

          I had expected to see the rule text here.  I would not have been surprised to see your explanation of (and pretty much therefore necessarily argument for) the rule text here, if accompanied by a counterargument.  I was surprised,though, to see the former without the latter.  This isn't world-shattering; it seems like an oversight -- an understandable one, this being our first time through this process.  But I think that it's a really bad practice; honestly, I'd feel that way even if I agreed with the rule.

          A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

          by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:28:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  what you call "voter's guide" is part of draft (0+ / 0-)

            rule. MB simply copied and pasted the entire draft rule.

            it was not a voter's guide, simply my comments explaining why i was submitting i think a 3rd revised draft rule at mixed ink.

            Anyone could have deleted my comments and then have a new rule voted on at mixed ink, or added comments, and resubmit.

            Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

            by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Functionally, it includes an argument for "yea" (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kj in missouri, Goldfish, wvablue, Vtdblue

              Yes, I suppose that I could have swooped into MixedInk at the last minute, included a "ARGUMENT AGAINST" section, won whatever vote was necessary to retain that portion (and my recollection is that someone else could just take it out or that it could go to a vote), and thereby had it included in this proposal.  Should I (or anyone) have to do so?

              But, again, this turns the discussion into a criticism of the MixedInk process as applied to this task, which is not where I wanted or want to go.  No matter what appeared in that final text, the rule itself should be -- not just here, but always -- separated from the argument in favor of it, and if the latter is included than arguments against (and perhaps rebuttals) should be included.  I don't say this to cast blame; I just don't like how this came out.

              Yes, MB "simply copied and pasted the entire draft rule," if you include the text beginning with "REASONS FOR RULE AND WHAT I THINK RULE WOULD ACCOMPLISH:" as part of the rule -- but I don't think that makes sense in terms of logic or fairness.  He included the part of the rule that wasn't the rule, but an argument for the rule, without a rebuttal that wasn't and I'd say shouldn't have been there.

              Let's cut to the chase: Do I think that this should nullify the vote?  No!  I think that we should recognize the problem and do it differently next time.  I also think that people who tend to "follow the majority" (as is common in such votes) should realize that the diary presented language in such a way as to -- innocently, but nevertheless -- favor the "aye" side, so they should use their own independent judgment.

              A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

              by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:47:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no swooping in at last minute at all, rule was (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                thethinveil

                posted october 13.

                Yes, I suppose that I could have swooped into MixedInk at the last minute, included a "ARGUMENT AGAINST" section, won whatever vote was necessary to retain that portion (and my recollection is that someone else could just take it out or that it could go to a vote), and thereby had it included in this proposal.  Should I (or anyone) have to do so?

                Yes, that was the whole point of mixed ink, to let everyone participate in the drafting of the rule. If you did not like something, then yeah, you had the right and opportunity to change it.

                And, yes, if you wrote a different rule, people could vote yes or no with the rating process, which is exactly what every draft faced.

                In fact, this draft rule was like the 3rd one i submitted. and each time, rating started anew, just like you described in your comment. that's the whole point of collaborative rule making.

                Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

                by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:05:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, but you're getting off topic here (0+ / 0-)

                  Do you want to defend the notion that the availability of the MixedInk process means that everyone who didn't know about it or chose (after trying it or not) not to participate has no right to complain about the output of the process?  Fine.

                  You echo, you may recognize, countless state and local commissions that make the same argument to concerned citizens unhappy with a proposed policy about how they had a chance to participate in a process -- however onerous participation would have been, and however much the process favors some participants over others -- and so you already know the counterarguments.  I expect that many of us here, including you, me and MB, have been told to shut up by public boards in such circumstances.  (In this case, I recognize the people favored were not lobbyists and those with connections to board members, but those who earned it in various ways -- but that's not a discussion for here.)

                  That being said, how worthwhile the MixedInk process was is not the point of this diary.  In fact, it was not the point of my criticism of the text of this diary.  MB could just have easily copied and pasted "the proposed rule" without copying and pasting a justification of the new rule.  It would have been a better idea and led to more fair consideration of this proposal.  That's as far as my criticism in this diary goes: not broadly about the process, just narrowly about this diary's text.

                  A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

                  by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:17:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i imagine that if MB had exercised discretion to (0+ / 0-)

                    copy just the draft rule and not the whole comment that was rated at mixedink, that someone, perhaps not you, but someone would have complained about that too.

                    As for local governmental bodies, the law is that objections must be raised at the appropriate time. If a hearing, for example, is provided by a body, and the person does not raise an objection to the rule at that time, good luck trying to appeal unless you fit within one of the exceptions to the rule that objections be raised. That is not relevant to mixedink.

                    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

                    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:41:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  *Amendments* must be raised at a proper time (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vtdblue

                      One can, however, reject the output of the process after the hard work has been done, indicating that the proponents have to go back and try again.

                      Again, I am not inclined to critique the MixedInk process in this diary, but it is a drafting process rather than a voting process.  There is no moral or quasi-legal reason why "now" should be considered "too late" to register an objection.  There's also no reason why, given such objections, the rule could not be sent back for redrafting.

                      That outcome would arguably be making a mockery of your hard work, which I think is a good argument not to do it.  What local commissions do is hold meetings in a place and fashion that effectively limit who knows about the process and who can effectively participate in it, largely leaving the process open to lobbyists and campaign contributors.  Then, when people get wind of the results, they say "too bad, we complied with all applicable laws."  You were obviously not out to corrupt the process, but the "too late, too bad" argument has a similar resonance to me.

                      By the way: who would possibly have objected to leaving your explanation/argument out of the diary, to be placed in a comment if you wanted it there?

                      A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

                      by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:53:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you drafted a proposal at mixedink for a proposed (0+ / 0-)

                        stalking standard, and maybe you also participated in ratings and posting comments, i don't know.

                        There may be bugs at mixed ink, i have a few of my own. but overall, i think this has been a beneficial experiment at DK to involve the community in rule making. MB wrote numerous diaries about the process and posted comments alerting everyone to votes and so forth all along the way.

                        I'm not aware of any rule since i have been at DK that has had so much input from us, in comments, in diaries, and in the actual drafting of the rule.

                        so i think the process has been more than fair to everyone.

                        Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

                        by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:10:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Again, I am trying hard (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Vtdblue

                          not to make this diary about the MixedInk process, since it isn't.

                          A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

                          by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:32:14 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  After a long history of watching pie fights (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Unduna, Nada Lemming

                          It seems to me that in the past many of the rules of conduct were thrown out their by Kos or another front-pager after a particularly egregious incident.  That’s not to say Kos and the admin’s haven’t been extremely fair and open, but they tended to step in only when things were getting out of hand.  About the only thing (up until now) that was an expression of community standard rather than a site imposed rule is giving our best recipes to trolls.  

                          And thus concludes my once yearly reply...

                •  theres no participation here or anywhere else. it (0+ / 0-)

                  was wanted by the powers, and was implemented. petty bullshit.

                  No doubt ... this falls under the category of the bizarre: M. Obama discusses her husband's BIRTH CERTIFICATE with Big Bird ... ~ Glenn Beck

                  by Molotov on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:45:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  It's a virtual push poll (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aexia, Molotov

              If you are presenting commentary as to why the rule was drafted, you are implicitly endorsing it.

              Please, don't play dumb and pretend that's not the case.

              The Angries are back

              by Goldfish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:41:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Never saw it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unduna, Seneca Doane

          And im a pretty intense kossack. Its like saying "but the fcc had a comment period before renewing Foxs' license not our fault noone showed up ".

          But what SD is really getting at isnt the words in a rule.. but rather its presentation. You're basically tossing the bill on the floor and saying "the bill is the argument for the bill .. and the bill is the argument against the bill.. vote on the bill". A calm rational person in favor of and against should have written the two diaries.. at least i think that is what SD means and he/she has a point.

      •  This comment was perfect (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, Seneca Doane, Molotov

        Of course you can tell MB doesnt have a horse in this race and like the rest of the longtime kossacks sees both sides. But you're entirely correct the diaries only truely present one side of the argument.

        I just dont see the need to start heaping up layers of beuracracy, creating even more 'bible-lawyers', and creating a class of minityrants. It just isnt needed.

      •  I noticed that too (7+ / 0-)

        It really is bad form that there's only the "pro" side presented here. After reading this, I went to the nay diary expecting to see the no argument presented there and was surprised that it only had what was presented here.

        Hopefully in any future rule diaries the process will be carried out more fairly.

        The Angries are back

        by Goldfish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:38:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Recommended (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming

      While I'm doubtful that this rule would be very enforceable, I think its existence would tend to chill arbitrary, false, or malicious accusations of stalking. As a long-time enemy of internet whiners, I support the rule for this reason.

      The Angries are back

      by Goldfish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:30:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Meteor, read this thread and tell me which rule (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, kj in missouri, Vtdblue, Molotov

      ... (stalking or uprating troll posts), if any, would be enforced under this new rule:

      Read this thread.

      I think the best ways to test these rules is to run test cases and see how they'd play out. We should act as if the proposed rule is being argued before the Supreme Court and force folks, pro and con, to make oral arguments.

      I think the format you've chose -- two distinct diaries - is the antithesis of just such a useful format.

    •  Absolutely agree. (5+ / 0-)

      Private information, personal information, whether it be private contact information, workplace or employment information, or personal history, in general has no place in a political debate about an issue.

      I will concede that sockpuppets or folks whose blogging creates a personal conflict of interest need to be called out. But that is not the same as stalking, and that can be conducted privately through DKos admins, and need not involve the publication of private, personal information.

    •  Seems like a reasonable rule to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjterrid

      especially because it is subjected to a rigorous test. Tipped and recced.

    •  Stalking can also be auto HR'ing of someone (5+ / 0-)

      I have stalkers who, as soon as they see my comments on a healthcare thread, hide rate me.  That's just bullshit.

      While my views do not conform to the views of most kossacks here, I have always tried to present them as rational arguments, even though being somewhat confrontational at times.

      I rarely use HR's.  So, when I get HR'ed, I may lose my TU status for a while, but I could normally care less.  

      However, those wishing to stifle the exchange of real ideas and opinions are allowed to do so with impunity.

      I don't know what the solution is..

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:51:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As it is not (yet) against the rules to buy votes (0+ / 0-)

      I now declare mine open to bidding.

    •  I'm unsure, (0+ / 0-)

      unless this rule is retro and will ban all my previous stalkers (there are at least 20 of 'em).

      No computer again. 2nd time in 3 months. God hates me.

      by Colorado is the Shiznit on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I went ahead and rec'd this diary (40+ / 0-)

    rather than the other, with some mixed feelings.  The rule is narrowly written, which means it won't be applied much (or, in legalese, it has a high burden of proof).  I fear that it'll lead to a lot of bickering about whether it should be applied, necessitating more admin involvement, which only adds to the Community Overlord's job -- sorry, Meteor Blades! (whatever Kos pays you, it should be tripled)  Nevertheless, I think it's necessary for occasional situations.

    OT -- I did note that Meteor Blades gets to post two diaries in one day -- further proof of his awesomeness.

    •  Two diaries in one day, you say? (11+ / 0-)

      I smell a conspiracy, mostly involving Meteor Blades, the audacity of hope, and a pootie.

      Or it might be stew.  Mmm, stew.

      Hitler was worse than Hitler.

      by TruthOfAngels on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:38:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that this rule (8+ / 0-)

      will take some time for the community to assist in controlling out of control accusations of stalking.  For instance, the concepts of harassment and humiliation are subjective.  There are multiple diaries about HCR and the same individuals who disagree with each other wind up in several encounters a day.  Disagreement can get heated but who decides if or when it rises to the level of harrasment and humiliation?  I think that is where other Kossaks will learn quickly to assist through HRs and specific comments.  Patterns of gang bullying are quickly identified already.

      •  And PS, (18+ / 0-)

        if a comment is HR'd for stalking, the TU should mention that in a comment -- not just drop a donut and not comment.  

      •  one way to handle the turf wars (9+ / 0-)

        be it HCR, bonddad/bobswern, I/P diaries, etc. is to see if it spills over into other topics. Rhetorical fisticuffs in the same topic is to be expected, but if punches get thrown randomly in an open thread or pooties diary, you know that's stalking.

        •  That's problematic too (0+ / 0-)

          Since debate on one topic can so expose participants thinking to each other, that they will as a result become instantly suspicious of the other's opinion no matter the topic.

          Or, one participant's basic conduct is so dishonest that no matter the topic, there's something to criticize in their basic approach to any topic.

          Those are two legitimate scenarios where the same two users could keep coming to rhetorical blows without "stalking." There are probably more I'm not thinking of.

          In short, I support this rule because I feel it would be very difficult to ever fulfill all its elements, and it will effectively kill knee-jerk stalking allegations in their tracks.

          The Angries are back

          by Goldfish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:53:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And who decides... (4+ / 0-)

        ... who started it?  It's my experience that a few comment exchanges can degenerate from content to food fight.  It's my opinion that there's at least as much a problem of inadequately grounded accusations of stalking than there is of actual stalking.  And I still can't figure out how it's to be determined that someone is "following" another user for this purpose, as opposed to just turning up in the same places (a la I/P diaries.)  Plus, if someone thinks someone else is wrong on some issue, turning up regularly to argue against that should happen for healthy debate.  The descent into brawling is generally a two-sided thing, and not easily attributable to one stalking the other, despite protestations.

        Though perhaps, in the end, the rule will encourage a little more restraint on the part of these ritual recurring fights.  But perhaps not - other long time users have been lost due to being too stubborn to alter bad behavior.

        Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden, 8/30/09)

        by Land of Enchantment on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:51:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  how do you determine "following" now? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Limelite, sjterrid

          And I still can't figure out how it's to be determined that someone is "following" another user for this purpose, as opposed to just turning up in the same places (a la I/P diaries.)

          right now people are called stalkers under our defacto rule and are getting HRs tossed at them.

          It would seem that any rule of stalking, written as proposed here, or defacto that people use now, would have to include that one follows another.

          so, how is "following" defined or determined now?

          Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

          by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:26:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I hear what you're saying PD (3+ / 0-)

            about the assumptions people make now vs having something written.

            But there's another side to that. People made assumptions before about what "following" meant. If/when this rule is adopted - they'll now have a rule to throw their assumptions into.

            Like Seneca Doane said elsewhere - I expect that MB will handle this wonderfully. He has demonstrated over and over to all of us that he has great wisdom and balance in dealing with this kind of thing.

            But I also worry that when/if there is an official rule, the accusations in diaries will only increase because of these questions about definitions.

            I know its too late to have amendments now, but I would be much more comfortable in voting for this rule if there was a statement about sanctions for false accusations. I think that would at least curb attempts to abuse the rule.

            Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by NLinStPaul on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:55:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  MB stated in diary that sanction for (4+ / 0-)

              false accusations would be same as for violation of other rules.

              As with other rules, administrative moderation will be incremental. Rule violators will first be warned in comment threads. If violations continue, the offender will be given a red-flag warning in her or his user file, followed, if necessary, by a temporary suspension of posting privileges, and, ultimately, if the violations do not cease, a ban. Repeatedly making unfounded allegations of stalking will be dealt with in the same manner.

              Moreover, the person who claims that someone is a stalker must show the evidence by providing links that show the person is a stalker, so there is protection against false accusations that we don't now have.

              Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

              by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:19:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  for this reason I vote nay (4+ / 0-)

      enough meta bs regarding HRs already.

      Serious stalking should be a very very rare occurrence that should warrant immediate action from the site admin, and not left up to the community to debate.

      •  Which is why this rule is good (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjterrid

        The elements of the offense would be extremely difficult to prove, and hopefully would discourage accusations of stalking or troll-rating based on such, in all but the most extreme circumstances.  

        The Angries are back

        by Goldfish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:54:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm torn too, but (12+ / 0-)

      looking at the numbers I don't think my vote will end up mattering.

      There's a lot of value here.  The problem is that the intended "fix" to the problem of people claiming that others are stalking them is the caveat that

      Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards.  (my emphasis)

      That looks like it should offer some protection, but it really doesn't.

      First, the initial requirement, "On multiple occasions, one or more commenters follow a community member into diary threads," will pretty much always be met in any possible case where the rule might apply.

      The third requirement, on intent, starts out very good by requiring that the "commenter(s) engages in this conduct with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster."  That's hard to argue with!  However, in practice, it says that "this intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards and/or the nature of the comments posted."  Again, that criterion will already have been met in any case where the rule is likely to apply.  To me, this is the biggest weakness of the proposal.

      So the first and third elements of "stalking" will be met anytime some follows someone into diaries and posts comments of a certain negative quality.  If there's protection, it has to be in the second element: that "commenter(s) engage in the conduct of posting comments that consists of false information, personal attacks, lies, rumors, or implied/express disclosure of private information."

      One can easily imagine that some of those interactions meeting the first and third elements will include "personal attacks" -- such as "you're wrong and you're mischaracterizing what has happened" -- which might also be construed (by the person being attacked, at least) as lies.  This would lead to the second element also arguably being met.

      PD has argued that this isn't a problem, because, as noted in my blockquote above, "stalking" is defined as excluding mere expression of disagreement.  The problem is the word that I highlighted above: "mere."

      If I followed PD into a dozen diaries and disagreed strongly with her support for this proposal, that would presumably be "mere" disapproval, so I'm safe.  But let's say that just one or two times my comments suggested that her arguments indicated deficiencies in her skills at legal drafting.  (By the way: I don't think that that's true.  She did a credible job here.)  Well, in that case, even though the actual motive for my attacks is "mere" disagreement, my disagreement isn't "mere" -- it includes a personal attack, even if one that is arguably fair to include or even inherent in the disagreement, which may be taken to render my comments as no longer "mere disagreement."

      In that case, poof goes my protection from the "mere disagreement" clause, I suddenly meet the test of the second element as well, and on paper I can be banned for stalking.

      The bulwark against that is Meteor Blades, who would probably decide that the gravamen (or bulk) of my discussion reflected true "mere disagreement" and that to the extent that there were "personal attacks" present, they were incidental.  That's good -- but that just means that we were fortunate enough to get a good judge -- and ideally rules are there to guard against middling and bad judges as well.

      Given that the second element will pretty much always be the determinative one, Judge Blades will also be put into the position of deciding whether a given statement constitutes a "lie," "false information," or "rumor."  I don't envy him that and I predict that he will -- rightly -- get sick of it soon.

      So while there are very good things about this proposal -- notably the requirement to document the basis of one's complaint -- in the end the "this can't be about disagreement" protection is ineffective (because lots of disagreement plus a little personal attack -- which some people will no doubt try to provoke -- still gets one banned) and the crux is still determining the factual accuracy of the charges that information is false, defamatory, etc.

      If a good "common law" (a compendium of the results of actual applications of this rule) develops out of this -- and if we're updated on what comments have actually led to actions against site members -- things will be fine.  If a bad "common law" develops, things will be really rotten.  I predict the former, because I respect MB's judgment, but the latter is too likely to allow me to vote for this easily.

      Now, Counselor Miller, you're a pretty fine lawyer yourself, so if you disagree with me here it would go a long way towards convincing me that I'm full of beans.  I look forward to any feedback you or others may have.

      A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

      by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:30:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  how do you define the words in the current (0+ / 0-)

        defacto rule of stalking?

        Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

        by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:37:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What *is* the current de facto rule of stalking? (4+ / 0-)

          I really have very little idea and doubt that a consensual rule exists.  If there is one, I think that it probably is limited to disclosure of personal info and e-mailing people offsite.

          Where you and I differ is basically that you think that the "mere disagreement isn't stalking" provision provides protection.  I don't think it does.  (I think that the "accuser must provide their evidence" rule, by contrast, does provide protection.  I see no real disagreement to that.)

          I think that the line between "mere disagreement" and "disagreement plus personal attack" is very thin where the disagreement itself can be taken as evidence of a personal attack.  I used to criticize a former front pager (not DH) for behavior that I thought was actually harmful to discourse on the site.  Was that "mere disagreement" or "personal attack" as well?  I don't know.  I don't know that I could speak freely under this policy until I either obtained a "seal of approval" from MB or saw that he was allowing such behavior as applied to others.

          If I had a better solution, I'd offer it.  You can't say that "if a comment expresses disagreement, it's not stalking," because then someone could post a truly nasty and false attack on someone else that also contained disagreement and argue that it was therefore protected.

          I think that what we're really looking at is this: (1) comments should be considered on a "diary by diary" basis as a whole, and (2) should be judged by the gravamen (or the main thrust) of these comments.  If the main thrust is disagreement and it includes some insults, I say it's OK, even though it's not "mere" disagreement.  If it contains some assertions that merely negligently turn out to be false, I'd say that's OK too.  If it contains intentionally false information or personal disclosures that would be offensive to the reasonable site participant, then I don't care if it was due to disagreement: action should be taken against them.

          Right now, the defense "mere disagreement" can be defeated way too easily.  What I'm weighing is whether the good things about the proposal outweigh that.

          A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

          by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:16:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's my point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pixxer, sjterrid

            I really have very little idea and doubt that a consensual rule exists.  If there is one, I think that it probably is limited to disclosure of personal info and e-mailing people offsite.

            Right now, everyone has a different definition of stalking, so how can we define the words used in the definition? I've seen stalking claimed where it was simply disagreement.

            You can say X word in this draft needs to be defined, but i can't even tell you what words need to be defined in the defacto stalking rule because there is no consensus on what the rule is.

            so, how can it be better to keep the status quo that can be easily twisted for abusive uses precisely because there is no written rule?

            Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

            by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:41:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  PDNC (1+ / 0-)

              i no lawyer, but isn't the line into stalking clearly crossed when it moves from virtual to physical space?

              "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

              by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:51:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  do you mean from internet to real life? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kj in missouri

                if so, stalking online is similar but different from real life stalking, which is a matter for the police.

                Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

                by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:55:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  comment froze up. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sjterrid

                  yes. i mean when a cyber relationship crosses over into a real world relationship and the real world relationship is not desired.   even if a prior email correspondence existed.   i might see a line where others do not, and am interested your thoughts.

                  "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                  by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:07:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  once you cross into real world, it is generally (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kj in missouri, mamamedusa, sjterrid

                    a matter for police. i say this because in the real world stalking often involves threats or violence etc where you can have actual physical contact with someone as opposed to online where there is a computer and lots of wires and people are anonymous users that don't often have physical access to the person being stalked.

                    I know of cases where people met online, and then exchanged emails and had phone chats, and one person started stalking the other. A situation where the online relationship started out friendly and in the real world took a turn for the worse. police were contacted.

                    In any relationship, whether online or real life, a good friendly relationship can turn ugly, particularly when feelings are not reciprocated or one person is just obsessive or whatever. there are many different factual patterns.

                    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

                    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:14:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I expect that police have a high hurdle (3+ / 0-)

                      before investigating many of the problems that we'd consider actionable here.

                      A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

                      by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:21:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  thank you, (2+ / 0-)

                      the example in my observation was much as you describe above.

                      my issue with this rule is as much with using the word "stalking," a behavior that is already defined, even to the point of "cyber-stalking," and using that word to describe the behavior the rule you (and others) drafted.

                      the confluence of the definitions bothers me in no small degree.  the mere charge 'stalking, stalker!' has connotations and ripples that are already established and could be used a weapon with good aim and distance to destroying the reputation of a person who is not, in fact, a stalker by its already given description.

                      oh, it is tough talking to a lawyer!   :-)

                      "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                      by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:22:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  exactly! people are now being tagged stalkers (4+ / 0-)

                        under our defacto rule and that tagging can create pejorative perceptions for that person.

                        under the draft rule, the number of people called stalkers should decrease because unlike the existing defacto rule, the draft rule requires coughing up the evidence to prove your claim.

                        Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

                        by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:32:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  yes, (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          mahakali overdrive, sjterrid

                          and i really don't want to waste your time, but what 'defacto' rule?  the faqs about trolling and highjacking?  and if so, couldn't they still be used in place of this new rule?

                          and maybe a focus, via community moderation, on what is NOT stalking, instead of attempts to define something that is already defined, especially if there are loopholes in the ability to charge 'stalker' by anyone, anywhere, as many times as they can before someone, anyone else, notices?

                          especially when some of us use our real names and bio here?

                          i'm trying to see the bright side of this new rule and have been trying for awhile now.  maybe it's my own tendency to worse-case scenario life, and i certainly can't articulate my thoughts on the subjectivity any better than Seneca Doane has done above.

                          "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                          by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:58:57 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  defacto simply means that right now we have (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sjterrid

                            a stalking "rule" in practice as compared to an official written rule.

                            That is, if you look at the FAQ, there is no written rule on stalking. but, people are calling other people stalkers, and HR'ing based on their own unwritten rule of stalking. So, what constitutes a stalker is up to each user, and oftentimes, if you look at threads where stalking is claimed, it is a matter of disagreement.

                            Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

                            by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:15:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so, (0+ / 0-)

                            we yield to a practice (of yelling 'stalker!  stalker!), a practice that could be dealt with by faqs already in existence, by giving it a new avenue for expression and creating a new container complete with its own name on the side.

                            i do value your efforts, your comments, and your diaries on other issues; i simply disagree with the need for this rule.

                            i will watch it play out and hope, as always, that the better sides of our angels come out to play.

                            "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                            by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:47:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  internet stalking is an FBI matter (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kj in missouri, sjterrid

                  you can report it to the police but not much will happen. It's a federal matter. If you experience IRL stalking that crosses with cyber-stalking, you are supposed to call your local branch of the FBI.

                  "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:30:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  You make a good argument for the rule (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kj in missouri, Aidos

              That in turn makes a fair argument for this rule, which is the one before us, to see how it goes.  But it doesn't make a convincing argument that all substantive parts of this rule are worthy.

              This rule is going to pass; I'm content to see it operate for a while to see what happens.  I do hope that we will see reports on who is banned or otherwise disciplined, and for specifically what, so that we can keep an eye on (and complain about) the "common law" as it develops.  If a "chilling effect" starts operating here due to this rule, some of us will challenge it on principle -- and perhaps be banned, perhaps not.

              A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

              by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:53:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Honestly, I don't see how this rule (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aexia, kj in missouri, Seneca Doane

                can't have a chilling effect if it functions the way I predict that it will.  I have read all your comments thus far and tend to feel, as you do, that the protections for the accused stalker are not as strong as some seem to think they are.  I believe we will see some incidents of true "stalking" averted, but we will also see some wrongful bannings, and many, many people deciding to opt out of debate because they can't be sure they won't get misread as stalkers.

                My pacifism can beat up your pacifism.

                by LeanneB on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:58:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I tend to trust MB not to ban people who (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kj in missouri, LeanneB

                  shouldn't be banned, but I hate trusting in an individual rather than a good rule.  The "chilling effect" problem is bigger -- but that can be averted if we do see the equivalent of "reported cases" stating what is and what isn't cause for expulsion.

                  A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

                  by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:15:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  To some degree, this is taken care of (3+ / 0-)

            with the provision that stalking involves following the same poster from diary to diary. I can see, though, how this might also occur under the circumstances you have noted - oh, he's got another diary that might be "actually harmful to discourse on the site" so I'd better check it out.

            Our system of law is premised on the idea that an unfettered government - rather than criminals - is the greatest danger to our lives and liberty.
            NCrissieB

            by pixxer on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:51:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Over the course of, say, a month here (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kj in missouri, pixxer

              frequent commenters will "follow each other" from diary to diary often enough to trigger such a rule.  Of course, prominent posters are less likely to be accused of "following" someone than are relatively new or less-well-known ones.  Would we want a rule that allowed some users to make a more credible argument that they were being followed than others, given the exact same behavior?

              A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

              by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:55:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Particularly if a prominent poster is engaging (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aexia, Seneca Doane

                in behavior that isn't technically against any rules but is simply considered to be bad form by multiple other users, then that person's critics are likely going to be getting a lot of official heat for continuing to point out this behavior.

                My pacifism can beat up your pacifism.

                by LeanneB on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:00:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  It was interesting... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjterrid

            that during the process of drafting before the final draft, I was accused of stalking for much less than this standard...basically disagreeing vehemently with a commenter or diarist...so I think it will help...

            For me, it specifically codifies what behaviors I should avoid as well...which I will...

            Basically, if you are disagreeing with another Kossack on a substantive issue and not attacking them personally you are fine...IMHO...

            Obama - Change I still believe in

            by dvogel001 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:36:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "not attacking them personally" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kj in missouri, LeanneB

              Look on this very diary.  I'm taking issue with how PD drafted this -- part of her professional skills.  Am I "attacking her personally"?  I don't intend to be doing so, and she's not the sort who would make the claim -- but others likely would.  This is not as bright a line of distinction as you suggest.

              A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

              by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:57:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did you say that ... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane, sjterrid

                that PD sucks as a drafter, did you say that PD is a F*cking idiot for attempting to portray him/herself as a proficient drafter...?

                Did you follow PD into another diary accusing PD as an idiot drafter when the diary was a completely unrelated subject...?

                Did you send PD an e-mail noting how you would try to destroy their IRL reputation for being an idiot drafter?

                Well if the answer is no to those questions then you are safe...IMHO on the interpretation of the anti-stalking rule...

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:08:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Calling people "lobbyists" is one thing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LeanneB

                  that might be considered "stalking" here, I would imagine. It's not infrequent that people are accused of being lobbyists when they aren't. I think I've heard that term hurled around as an insult about 200 times, from all sides of the fence.

                  "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:34:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why would you say that... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mahakali overdrive

                    unless you are calling them a m-fuc*er lobbyist for the constitution party or something like that...

                    Obama - Change I still believe in

                    by dvogel001 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:26:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  To denigrate the analysis of various... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... health care reform measures being proposed, many of which are understandably complex.

                      There are various insistences that the analysis' made (many of which are economic, others of which are ethical), the sources cited (some of which are anonymous), and the subsequent calls for activism toward different parts of the legislature, that these are motivated by things "beyond analysis" (money, political what-have-you...)

                      I've seen the "lobbyist" allegations flung from far sides of the health care reform conversation. There obviously are numerous contingencies involved in the conversation, with often more dissensus than consensus. So you can imagine how it gets out of hand.

                      "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

                      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:05:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  If *that* is the sort of thing that gives meaning (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kj in missouri

                  to the terms in Element 2 of the rule, I'm glad to see it expressed clearly here.

                  A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

                  by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:31:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  In fact... (0+ / 0-)

                there were certain commenters who voted accordingly because they thought the anti-stalking rule did not go far enough to basically allow diarists to police their own diaries of commenters they disagreed with...

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:09:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  After considering matters, (0+ / 0-)

              I decided that vehement and repetitious disagreement is more appropriately classified as threadjacking than stalking, only because the repetition becomes extremely disruptive.  It's only when people follow me from diary to diary and make personal, patronizing remarks that I might consider invoking a stalking rule.

              •  Debating issues... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aexia

                is what the purpose of DKos is all about.../peace

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:27:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  not always... (0+ / 0-)

                  Some pieces are written as advocacy pieces to be seen by, and emailed to, Congressional staffers.  When a diary is disrupted by threadjackers with inane comments, it means that the diary can't be used for its purpose.  Threadjacking and constant, inane replies intended to have the last word are not just annoying to the diarist, but show the Congressional staffer that there is disarray.

                  Some of us are on the site because we just like to argue, and others of us are on the site because we're trying to make a difference in the world.  I'm just here because I like baking pies :)

      •  hmmmm.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane, NY brit expat

        I see your points, but I think they'd raise the burden of proof even higher.  Because the charge is relatively serious, the burden of proof should be relatively high -- but not so high that it would require knowing what is in the heart of the (alleged) stalker.  We can't do that, so we infer intent.  That's permissible in the law, so it should be permissible here.

        Incidentally, I have no idea how this will play out in the I/P diaries.  IMO they should all sign waivers :)

        •  Right now, I see element 3 as pretty inert (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Goldfish, RLMiller

          If you can infer intent by frequency, you're no longer talking about intent, but about frequency.  But all that means to me is that if it happens three times or more, it "goes to court" if element 2 is satisfied.

          A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

          by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:18:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

            Element 2 contains behavior that is already generally considered objectionable in most, if not all circumstances.

            So, basically, it would be very hard for someone totally innocent to get swept up in this. To fulfill Element 2 you would need to engage in conduct that in and of itself would open you to HRing.

            I think that element really does a good job of limiting the scope of the rule.

            The Angries are back

            by Goldfish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:58:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  People engage in personal attack -- (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dolfin66

              if you construe the term broadly enough -- here all the time, without punishment.

              How well this rule works will be evident in the execution.  I don't envy the executors.

              A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

              by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:13:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's what humans do to one another. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane

                I think it's in our DNA to "attack" someone for an opposing opinion.  I know I've been attacked and have attacked back.  If these rules were strictly enforced, this blog would be much smaller.

                "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

                by dolfin66 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:09:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I am torn for many reasons many of (5+ / 0-)

          them stated by Seneca Doane, in addition to my naive belief that this behaviour should be evident. In terms of I/P diaries, the same rules would apply. Differences of opinion are easily discerned from personal attacks far more clearly in those diaries often due to deliberate personal attacks and information being released rather than historical misunderstanding. Also, if someone follows someone out of those diaries and then continues a personal attack that is pretty evident.

          In fact, it is conduct in I/P diaries and out of them by some diarists and commentators that has led me to support this amendment. I reluctantly am voting aye.

          No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

          by NY brit expat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:39:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  IMO (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kj in missouri

            I/P diaries should be their own little world, and as long as the participants don't take their battles into other diaries, they should be left entirely to their own devices.

            The Angries are back

            by Goldfish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:59:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough, we are able to police ourselves to (0+ / 0-)

              a great extent and to keep personal attacks and attackers at bay. It is exactly the movement of the battles outside of these diaries that is the problem and why I have supported the stalking proposal, albeit with reluctance.

              No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

              by NY brit expat on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:30:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You've defined the nature of stalking (0+ / 0-)

        If I followed PD into a dozen diaries and disagreed strongly with her support for this proposal, that would presumably be "mere" disapproval, so I'm safe.

        Following someone from diary to diary defines stalking by its very nature since it is an action which is repeated and deliberate in its intent.  That constitutes stalking and it should be prohibited irregardless of what is said in their commentary.  In real life, someone can watch you in your house just standing on the sidewalk every hour of every day which would be unnerving to most of us even if that person did nothing technically illegal.

        There is no reason for stalking other than to annoy or harass another person.  

        The only way we will have real change is to get the money out of politics. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

        by Puddytat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I vote aye for this. (12+ / 0-)

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:11:30 PM PDT

    •  I'm Gonna Vote "Aye" and Propose Another Clause (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink

      I had one incident where a user - years since disappeared - who started spamming my email account. At the time, I ignored it and it went away. However, there should be a clause for us to be able to forward this type of email harassment to an appropriate dKos Authority.

      "Why you gotta act like you know when you don't know?" - Ben Folds

      by RNinNC on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:48:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  slinker, I've come in and defended your Diaries (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      ...repeatedly.

      Would you call those people "stalkers?"

      •  These people are those who disagree (5+ / 0-)

        with me and what I have to say. Do I think they're stalking? No. However, I do think it's harassment when their rhetoric gets into ad hominems and name-calling. And one of them has said that he's looked up information about me, and another one revealed the name of my former boss. That is stalking from my view, but MB has said that any stalking before the implementation of the rules will not be accepted. I'll continue to check to see if these infractions continue after the adoption of the rule.

        I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

        by slinkerwink on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:01:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  For a more orderly and civilized DK! Yeah right. (12+ / 0-)

    Fat chance.

    I'm in favor of the rule because there are extremes that should be policed. Kossacks who are engaged in a discussion, or argument, here should be able to do so without being intimidated or made to wonder whether they should come back.

    This is not what I thought I'd be when I grew up.

    by itzik shpitzik on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:12:05 PM PDT

  •  Why not just make a poll in one diary? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RunawayRose, the girl

    because there's a chance BOTH diaries will make it to the rec list

    Free advice: Never argue with a Right Winger, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience

    by Muzikal203 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:13:10 PM PDT

  •  Can we change "posters" to "contributors" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gray, bluedonkey08

    or something.

    I'm in favor of the rule. Good call.

    Just can't stand "posters".  Sorry.

    Free Markets Do Not Exist; Free Market Supporters Value Money Over People.

    by potatohead on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:16:36 PM PDT

  •  I'll vote aye based on the description given (4+ / 0-)

    though I suspect this will lead to a significant uptick in the number of people crying "stalker!" at the drop of a hat.

    •  I don't think so (8+ / 0-)

      There's a no-flopping rule; frivolous complaints will rebound on the complainant.

      •  It is a rather clear line (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stroszek

        I think the only potential for abuse would be to mistake general asshattery as stalking. Two or more people who can't contain their disagreements about, let's say, Israel and Palestine and are tracking that fight through multiple diaries would be general asshattery and not stalking.  An individual or group following one or more people harassing them or trying to goad them into a fight would be stalking.  

        I would say that in most instances I have seen here, few are stalking, most of the time it is a group or pair who refuse to contain their argument to a specific thread.  I think it would be helpful to have this rule for the few cases where somebody is purposely harassing others.  Like other rules, surely people will try to use it as a weapon, but considering that this site exists to discuss politics, the community and the moderators do an excellent job of policing the site.  

  •  Aye! (5+ / 0-)

    Learn more about second-class U.S. citizenship at http://www.equalitymatters.org/

    by Larry Bailey on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:19:29 PM PDT

  •  Heh. Noon? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pgm 01, Situational Lefty

    It's 3 PM in NYC. ;-)

    "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes" Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"

    by TheMomCat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:21:15 PM PDT

  •  split discussion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    interesting technique.   good luck counting!  :-)

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:22:18 PM PDT

  •  Fuckin aye. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor, WSComn

    "[Obama's humble approach] could... make [people] feel like the government is an environment in which they might actually want to participate." - Ian MacKaye

    by indiemcemopants on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:24:55 PM PDT

  •  Something needs to be done (6+ / 0-)

    'We risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe' -Barack Obama on Global Warming

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:24:59 PM PDT

  •  The Final Version I think is good... (0+ / 0-)

    Some of the initial versions I thought could do more harm than good and seemed somewhat silly.

    But on this, the final version... I voted "Aye"

  •  Question for Meteor Blades (4+ / 0-)

    I don't see any specific prohibition against stalking in the official text above, just a definition.

    If this rule is adopted, will it come with an explicit prohibition against stalking from the site administration? Or is this a definition without any punishment?

    © sardonyx; all rights reserved

    by sardonyx on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:28:11 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps an (dkos) restraining order... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink

      to avoid the victim's diaries and not respond to the victim's comments?
      And, by victim, I mean the individual who is being stalked. I don't want to be melodramatic.

      Ordell Robbie: Is that what I think it is? Jackie Brown: What do you think it is?

      by dclawyer06 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:42:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  IIRC (0+ / 0-)

      MB has said that the offender will be warned in comments, then an e-mail and a warning that has to ve acknowledged on the user's page, after that suspension and then banning. I thought that was more than fair, MB has said numerous times n=he dislikes banning anyone.

      "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes" Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"

      by TheMomCat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:47:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then it should be part of this diary (3+ / 0-)

        and (preferably) part of the rule, though it's too late for the latter.

        I'm not doubting you, but IIRC starts with "if", and we should have something more definitive for the election. Since Meteor Blades is running the vote, I think that's a reasonable request. More information for voters is always better than less, especially in a reality-based community.

        © sardonyx; all rights reserved

        by sardonyx on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:53:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My bad: it's part of the diary (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor, RandomActsOfReason

          However, I'm still completely puzzled by a "rule" that defines something, but doesn't explicitly say it's bad. Yes, "stalking" has decidedly negative connotation, but where's the text forbidding the behavior?

          © sardonyx; all rights reserved

          by sardonyx on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:11:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would guess it is going in a section labeled (0+ / 0-)

            "Prohibited Behaviors" or whatever such section is currently called.

            "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

            by MRA NY on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:34:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you know of such a section (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RandomActsOfReason

              please tell me where it is: I've never seen one.

              There are various places in the FAQ where people are told not to do certain things: no sockpuppetry, no duplication of copyrighted material beyond fair use guidelines, no 9/11 conspiracy diaries (the one time "forbidden" is actually used in the FAQ), and a few others.

              I rather expect there will eventually be a new place for this and other official site rules; it would certainly be wise to make them easy to find. But making guesses when it could be crystal clear strikes me as a suboptimal way to proceed.

              © sardonyx; all rights reserved

              by sardonyx on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:50:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I voted "aye," but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pgm 01, Karl Rover, mydailydrunk

    to be clear, notifying users in threads where a troll is trying to get mojo (which some posters do) is still fine, right? It does not, in my view, fall under the second criterion.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:29:10 PM PDT

  •  Well, I hate rules. (3+ / 0-)

    Rules are meant to be broken.  Unfortunately MB, I relunctantly agree that dkos needs them.  I agree with the sentiment on the nay diary that Kos doesn't pay you nearly enough.  

    They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

    by dkmich on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:31:52 PM PDT

  •  I think you are trying to capture something deeper (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, peace voter, kyril
    This rule is okay as far as it goes, but the deeper issues of blogs is something that I can not quite put my finger on. I call it bad faith behavior, but that's probably the wrong word for it.
    •  the phrase you're looking for is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett, CarrieNYC

      "people disagreeing with me."

      •  Okay since you have pushed this (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greeseyparrot, kyril, BonnieSchlitz
        Out into the open, I think I will explain myself whereas before was going to let it go.

        Let's take this out of the realm of abstraction. Someone last night brought up a serious question about whether the trigger as proposed by the House would turn out to benefit insurance companies.

        The immediate response to that was a) snark and b) back slapping supporting the snark because the person asked the question.  The person who asked the question responded to the obvious bad faith behavior on the part of the person writing the snark by calling them a name is frustration. To which, the person using the snark to antagonize the poster then stated, you should not engage in such inappropriate behavior and language.

        They did not say " I disagree with you, and here is why I disagree with your statement regarding the House trigger idea." Indeed, others responded with just such an answer by saying that they were concerned with doctor's pay. One can agree or disagree with that, but one can no question it was a good faith answer.

        This is just one example. There are other examples of using things like sophistry, etc to avoid staying on point of what an argument is.  Feigned offense, etc.

        I am not saying there should be a rule for this. I am saying trying to define what is a large set of behaviors that are often bad faith is hard to do. Stalking is only one form this can take.  Thus, I can see why the rule makes sense, but it does not address a larger issue here at this and other blogs.

        You can pretend that's about disagreement. But that's not what I said at all. In fact, you sort of illustrate what I mean.

        •  This is rule is not about disagreement (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Goldfish, Annalize5, Stroszek, MRA NY

          or even loud or obnoxious disagreement.  This is addressing something more akin to bullying.  If my response to you in a thread was that I thought you were an idiot, that would be rude but not harassment.  If I kept following you around thread to thread either repeating my previous statement or needling you, that would be stalking.  The situation you described is what I would call general asshattery, people acting like asshats.  This rule should cover something far more serious, a situation in which a user or group is being followed around by another user or group and harassed.  Most problems on this site come out of people being asshats, often by being negative and rude which causes other people to respond in-kind which creates a whole negative stream of comments.  This is rule is about stopping harassment, not disagreement, even if the disagreement is done less tactfully and more incendiary than an average post.

          •  We disagree about what constitutes bullying (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink, pgm 01, kyril
            Which is why I said this stalker idea is meant to address what I think is a wider problem with bad faith behavior. That people are engaged in bad faith behavior designed not to address disagreement as you say, but to say STFU. That's why I did not like the mischaracterization of my comment. It was not about disagreement. The stalker disagrees as well. That's not what makes what they do wrong. It is that they engaged in bad faith behavior. You may see it as more aggressive, but really that's a  value judgment.  
        •  you seem to be bringing your own bugbear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Goldfish

          about perceived sophistry into a separate issue. "Stalking" is something altogether different from a debate's degeneration into accusations of bad faith. The prior is a conscious, deliberate effort that stems from genuine malice. The latter is more a product of exhaustion that occasionally occurs among even the best of contributors. A rule for the first is warranted. The second is best addressed by people knowing to walk away when they're sick of talking with one another.

          •  Both are results of malice (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril
            That are designed to say STFU. That's at the core of the problem here.
            •  in that case, it's also malicious (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Goldfish

              to badger and dismiss someone for "intellectual dishonesty" when you simply find their reasoning to be poor. Some commenters have a tendency to use "intellectual dishonesty" as a license to attack and dismiss people in the very way you decry. Is calling someone a "Democratic birther" not another way of saying "STFU?" Sure, you can say it's indirectly defensive, but often, the same is true of those who dismiss "haters."

              •  Am I suppose to be defensive now? (0+ / 0-)
                You take some phrase  by me out of context that readers here know nothing about other than the emotional tug you want to create?

                 This is to demonstrate that people are not trying to get others to STFU through manipulative debate ploys here?  Ironically, engaging in a little almost stalker like tactics yourself.

                Like I said when I started this- it was a minor point- but an important one. What I think the rule is meant to get at is bad faith. I understand the point for the rule, but a) as others have pointed out it will be hard to enforce since it can be in the eye of the beholder and b) what I added is there is a large group of behaviors that are really malice related behaviors so I am not sure how to address the deeper issue.

                 You can take that at face value or not. I don't care. I am going to end this exchange because it is going on longer than I am really interested.

      •  Actually- someone was kind enough (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, sardonyx, TiaRachel, kaliope
        a few months ago to provide me this link that describes the behavior by listening the ways in which people through bad faith attempt not to disagree by debating, but are using debate as a tactical tool to derail disagreement with a dominant point:

        http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

        I laughed because on the list were several of the behaviors I observed here.

        •  I am genuinely curious. (0+ / 0-)

          Do you think the larger issue as you have attempted to define it (which, I think we both agree is hard to do) should be dealt with by a community conceiced rule like this?

          I tend to think some are better at certain things than others and when thats the case, the one with a better grasp on what you've defined should probably just walk away.

          •  I think that a "community" that does not (0+ / 0-)
            address whether people are acting in bad faith is not a "community" Jon Stewart was on Nightline , and he was trying to make this point to Ted Koepple about how journalist handle bad faith from GOP talking points.
            •  but your whole problem (0+ / 0-)

              is basically people wrongly accusing others of acting in bad faith as a way of dismissing them. And this is exactly what validates my original comment. Essentially, you want carte blanche to dismiss those factions with whom you disagree as acting in "bad faith," but you do not want them to be able to do the same. It would be one thing if you were calling for people to be more understanding or for people to ignore those who take arguments in a useless direction, but you have said (both here and in the past) that you want the "community" to attack and ostracize others in accordance with the arguments that you find acceptable.

              How does that make you any different?

            •  I get your points, (0+ / 0-)

              but I have no idea where to start in assessing who is acting in bad faith and how they are (there are many many ways I suppose).  I think maybe these things are better handled on a situation by situation basis and not necessarily by trying to concoct a broader rule even if conceived by the community.

              •  That's what I said at the start (0+ / 0-)
                My comment was meant as a throwaway comment about the problem of trying to create a rule for bad behavior, of which stalking is only a subset. That it is really eye of the beholder.  The only reason we are this deep into my comment is that someone attempted to mischaracterize it by a subsequent response and I felt the need to clarify my position rather than have his mischaracterization stand as what I meant.   This has gone on longer than I intended. So I am going to get out of this because it is more meta that I am really interested in getting on this site.
  •  Aye. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor, earicicle

    It makes sense.

    The eejit formerly known as AAF!

    by Patric Juillet on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:38:32 PM PDT

  •  Although I vote "aye" (9+ / 0-)

    I confess that this problem is not commonly seen. Nevertheless, the misbehavior as described sounds as if there should be a policy for handling it.

    What I have witnessed are cases of a diarist or commenter saying to another, "Hey - quit stalking me!" but what is going on is a person following another, not stalking, which I view as being somewhat different. Following can become stalking, but I haven't personally seen that happen - hence I think it's rare.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:40:38 PM PDT

  •  I voted Nay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, James Allen

    Here. Somebody can show up in multiple diaries because they're interested in an issue the writer writes about, and want to get their point across. That can be very annoying if they're constantly disrupting the threads by posting replies to every comment the diarist has. that say the same thing. But I'm not sure that should be defined as stalking.

    I would favor a rule against disclosing personal information, and a rule against posting the same comment over and over and over and over. And I would favor a rule against personal attacks.

    But I think it's too subjective to role it all into one. Some legitimate discussion and disagreement could show up as "stalking" under this rule, and therefore I vote Nay.

    I'm also posting this in the other thread.

    (Side note: I think it'd be better to have one thread with a poll).

  •  I vote Aye.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, kyril, MRA NY

    it is a well balanced rule that shows the benefits of compromise does not always lead to bad policy...and I agree with the codification of a rule will help lower false applications of being called a stalker...in addition I like the "no retroactive application clarification" which very much fits in with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights about nothing being made illegal after-the-fact...

    Kudos to the collaborative effort and MB's leadership.

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:42:11 PM PDT

  •  Does this count for mockery of obvious trolls? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    I mean REALLY unequivocally, beyond a doubt, troll.

    e.g.

    "I'd HR you for misspelling Bundt cake... but I'm not sure you'd see the humor in it." -wiscmass

    by mydailydrunk on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:43:43 PM PDT

  •  Not to be too harsh, but... (5+ / 0-)

    Posters should not recommend a comment calling someone a stalker or HR'd for stalking simply because of friendships but should review the evidence provided in the comment to reach their own independent conclusions.

    Human nature being what it is, I have an interborough multimodal transportation nexus connecting New York and Kings Counties available for purchase or lease.

    "99% of the battles and skirmishes that we fought in Afghanistan were won by our side." ~ Marshall Akhromeyev

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:46:09 PM PDT

  •  I can't vote for it until "favorite" is better (0+ / 0-)

    defined.

    Can you better explain what this line means?

    Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards.

    ---
    Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

    by VelvetElvis on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:47:28 PM PDT

  •  Aye because I enjoy this site and would not like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo

    it if I couldn't.  

    FOX potatoes watching their snooze NuZZZZ. Shhhh. They think its news.

    by 88kathy on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:47:52 PM PDT

  •  why re-invent the wheel? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, CarrieNYC

    Wiki/Cyberstalking

    The line that defines stalking is when activity crosses from virtual to physical space.

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:48:43 PM PDT

  •  Daily kos jumped the shark (0+ / 0-)

    and this confirms it.

  •  Kinda sad.... (5+ / 0-)

    that this rule would even be needed.  Is being right on the internet that important?

    There's a voice in my head that says to not be so mean to the conservatives. I work very hard to ignore that voice.

    by djtyg on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:50:13 PM PDT

  •  MB - You need to make the graduated penalties (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, Book of Hearts

    part of the rule, in order to provide fair notice of same.  

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:51:06 PM PDT

  •  Voted for, with reservations (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Seneca Doane, kyril

    This intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards and/or the nature of the comments posted.

    vs.

    Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards.

    This is kind of a Potter Stewart "know it when you see it" standard. I think there's a need for a rule, but am uncertain this will resolve debates, given the slipperiness of some borderline posters.

    •  I voted "nay" for the same reason (4+ / 0-)

      The idea that ill-intent can be inferred from sheer number of posts, regardless of content, seems problematic to me.  I prefer a simple, straight-up, zero-tolerance ban-on-sight for posting (or threatening to post) real life non-board information about anyone, HRs to deal with off-topic personal attacks, and mod discretion for repeated posting of false or misleading information.

      To tell you the truth, #3 sounds like we're encouraging posters to act like 8 year-olds in the back seat of the car.  "Mom!  He won't stop looking at me!"

  •  While it may cause as many problems as it solves (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, JBL55

    I vote aye, because, when one looks at the behavior of certain members there's simply no doubt that they fall into this category. Without this rule there is nothing to constrain their behavior. We have to make a decision whether this type of speech has any useful purpose whatsoever. I say no...it doesn't, so long as we only apply the rule to clear-cut cases

  •  More advanced warning for upcoming votes. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AndyS In Colorado, pgm 01

    I've been on very frequently for the past few days and I think I only caught 1 comment by MB putting us on notice for the upcoming vote.

    I think because the rec/voting period is only 24 hours we should have more and easier to find notices so those that may have not planned on logging in during that period can do so to register their vote.

    But then again, maybe I just missed them :)

  •  Having never stalked or been stalked, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55, googleimage

    I don't see this as a pressing problem but it's always better to have a guideline/rule than not.

    Vote aye.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:57:59 PM PDT

  •  This is a singularly bad idea (5+ / 0-)

    I'm all for keeping polite, but there's a point where disagreement becomes disloyalty.  Rudeness or misunderstanding becomes stalking.
    The problem with all these rules is that somebody has to enforce those rules.  Who watches them?

    I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just, and his judgement cannot wait forever. --Thomas Jefferson

    by soonergrunt on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:00:03 PM PDT

    •  Further to my last, (4+ / 0-)

      this rule will definitely be abused a lot more than it will ever actually be used.  Mark my words, far more people will complain about being stalked than will ever be actually found to have actually been victims.

      I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just, and his judgement cannot wait forever. --Thomas Jefferson

      by soonergrunt on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:07:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What Adam B above calls the "no flopping" rule (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        is the protection against that.  Without it, I would definitely oppose this rule rather than being ambivalent.

        A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

        by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have not seen the stalking. But maybe (5+ / 0-)

    I just skip over nonsense postings automatically without really noticing them.

    But I do recall David Sirota was jumped on routinely (and thus left DK).  Was that stalking?

    •  I hope the persistently negative responses (0+ / 0-)

      DS's BS received would not be considered "stalking" under this new rule.

      If someone repeatedly churns out provocative diary after provocative diary, they should brace themselves for provoked responses.

      "Someone who does not see a pane of glass does not know that he does not see it." --Simone Weil

      by AgnesBee on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:33:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Public figures is another discussion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, missLotus, kyril

      but in general, public figures open themselves up to a much wider attack by being public figures.  For example, it is against site rules to call out a diarist in the title, but people like Sirota could be called out since they are a public figure.  

      This rule is about when things go beyond even a rude disagreement.  It would be posts that are intended to harass.  Purposefully following somebody around the site calling them names or trying to goad them into an argument would be stalking.  It happens rarely here, but I have seen it happen and usually the stalker flames out or is removed.  You already cannot harass people on this site, this rule is just about clarifying one type of harassment.  

    •  You could say he was harassed by (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leema, Predictor

      a subset, and that other people didn't like what he wrote because of the self-promotion that he did. I think it was a mixed bag.

      I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

      by slinkerwink on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:16:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm only voting Aye to see how this goes (0+ / 0-)

    if it starts to strangle debate, or results in some of the more odious users being allowed to go unchallenged because people aren't allowed to challenge them repeatedly, then I and many others will probably want to see this re-evaluated.

    I was paid to post this comment by my cat, but he's a deadbeat.

    by decembersue on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:01:11 PM PDT

  •  proposed next rulemaking procedure (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Luetta, blueoregon, kyril, earicicle

    Disclosure requirements/expectations of persons being paid to do online outreach?

    •  A-freakin'-men. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, kyril

      Crystal clear requirements. No pussyfooting around. Conflict of interest is a SERIOUS matter. It undermines credibility faster and more severely than just about anything else I can think of.

      And it is so easily solved. Just disclose who is paying you!

      Full disclosure: No one is paying me to blog here!

      "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

      by earicicle on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:30:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, so we've defined "stalking." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    But what are the consequences?  Is this a reason to HR somebody, or is this a reason to recommend that the person be banned, or what?  I'm not seeing any mention of that in the proposed rule.

    Guide to my comments: When in doubt, assume sarcasm.

    by Gray on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:05:13 PM PDT

  •  I'm going to post the same concern (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, Seneca Doane, kyril

    I did in the other diary:

    the best way to improve the dialogue here is through community moderation.

    If someone calls out another user - the person being called out is likely to see it as personal and harassing. Do that often enough to the same person, and you fit all three criteria of a stalker - at least in the mind of the stalkee.

    So my worry is that rather than enhancing community moderation, a rule like this could have a chilling effect.

    I don't know how I'm going to vote yet. But I'll read others thoughts and eventually decide.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by NLinStPaul on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:08:13 PM PDT

  •  Thank you to the active participants (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizenx, earicicle

    who put so much thoughtful effort in getting this definition in place.

    Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

    by boadicea on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:13:04 PM PDT

  •  Seems reasonable to me. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "The future ain't what it used to be." - Yogi Berra

    by brooklynbadboy on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:13:23 PM PDT

  •  So far the Ayes have it (4+ / 0-)

    'We risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe' -Barack Obama on Global Warming

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:15:14 PM PDT

  •  Having been stalked IRL (11+ / 0-)

    I think it's important to mention that IF you keep engaging with the poster, you're inviting the conversation to continue.

    You might consider amending to say that you cannot accuse someone of "stalking" if you're taunting them back.

    I have a sad amount of experience with this and have a standing (federal) order about an IRL stalker who took it to the internet at some point during a very complicated legal situation. One of those people posts on this board, but I don't think they know who I am, and they're an infrequent poster. Makes me very nervous, to be frank.

    I've already decided should they ever say anything to me, I'll remind them we aren't to talk and then appeal to you.

    So you might want to make it totally clear that if you're having a repartee with someone, they may not have gotten the message that you feel stalked.

    I strongly approve of this rule.

    "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

    by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:18:22 PM PDT

    •  Some unsolicited advice - if that person engages (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamamedusa, mahakali overdrive

      you, I would recommend just ignoring the comment.  By telling them they are not supposed to speak to you, you would be outing yourself!

      "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

      by MRA NY on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:16:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's an "IRL stalker"? (2+ / 0-)

      Not familiar with that term./

      •  "in real life" stalker. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Predictor

        I can't talk about it much more, of course. I will say it was neither a personal, nor a political situation.

        "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

        by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:14:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  *but that the personal was taken (4+ / 0-)

          online. Not by the poster who registered here recently. But by someone very closely aligned, in a legal capacity. Complicated.

          But the personal was taken online in a very, very ugly way that I'd love to detail at great length to warn people about. Technically it was a quasi-political situation, one might say. It was a result of my having been politically active. There was a subsequent attempt to intimidate my real life through the internet. This is really funny to type out. I'm not real easy to intimidate, and found the juvenile bullshit to be just that.

          The threatening postings were removed repeatedly by the appropriate authorities or site owners. I found I had to stay offline for over two years before it died down.

          I refuse to be compromised in that way because some moron has an axe to grind with me. I refuse to in any way be intimidated and feel my character has always spoken for itself. I refuse to be some kind of victim because other people have a financial stake in something and they don't like my opposition to that.

          Would love to share the back story to explain what is and isn't dangerous to do online.

          "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

          by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:20:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Is this really a problem? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobinson, citizenx, Cleopatra, AdManAnt

    I'm a pretty long-time (41k UID) daily reader and poster, and I can't actually recall ever being "stalked" or seeing anyone else "stalked".  How often does this happen that it would merit a new rule?  And, wouldn't the main beneficiary of this rule be the birthers and 9-11 conspiracists who are (rightfully) hunted down and h/red to death in other diaries?  Or IS that who the new rule is designed to protect?

    I won't vote either way, cause I'm confuzzled.  But I'll happy post this in both diaries to get answers.  ;)

    A health care worker, beaten at work, then denied health care: HelpAmelia.com

    by cartwrightdale on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:24:25 PM PDT

    •  I'm with you, I think this is a rare (0+ / 0-)

      occurrence as I've never seen it happen. But just to add to the confusion, my definition of stalking would include feeling harassed or threatened or fearing for my own safety (even if just online). And if that were the case, rule or no rule I'd be pretty proactive about putting an end to it as a responsible member of this community who's looking out for everyone else.

      "The truth shall set you free, but first it'll piss you off." -Gloria Steinem

      by Cleopatra on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:44:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As a casual reader.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...occasional poster, and long-time message board habitue (dating back to the dark ages before the Web) I too am baffled by the rule.

      If I read it correctly it would ban about 99% of the regulars on any message board if it were applied. Most regulars post, well, regularly in each others' threads. Most regulars have at least one other regular they do not get along with. Most people end up repeating false information either knowingly or unknowingly at some point in their online career.

      According to this rule, when Old Timer X tries for the 800th time to convince Old Timer Y that yes, Jerry Mathers really did die from eating Pop Rocks in Viet Nam, it's stalking, and not just the normal nonsense you get on any a well-established board.

      "But this rule isn't meant for that case," you cry. "We will only use it for the really bad cases." In which case I would suggest you know little of forum drama or how it develops. Deep within the heart of every message board poster there is an Orly Taitz waiting to escape, longing to complain bitterly about the vast Internet conspiracy that stalks it.

      •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

        Or, you could be like televisionwithoutpity.com, whose moderators are so quick to punish or ban even the slightest inkling of dissent, that every post by everybody reads as if coming from a long-abused wife, meekly wording every statement so carefully as to avoid another slap, so that any discussion other than "me too" is choked and drowned within minutes.

        A health care worker, beaten at work, then denied health care: HelpAmelia.com

        by cartwrightdale on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:58:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

      I certainly feel that on occassion I have been stalked by some members of the site because they didn't like my disagreement.

      But I also can not give you an objective answer to your question. I certainly feel like it's often enough that it warrants it's own rule (as apparently such matters are not trolling) but also am worried about the potential for abuse and misuse.

  •  aye (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bugsby, Predictor, mahakali overdrive

    as long as: if this doesn't seem to be working, the rules can be 86'd or reworked.  

    DKos works better than any other site I can think of considering the volume of interaction, and if there was enough demand for such codification that so much time was spent on it  - then you have my support.

    MB - you have my sympathy

    "I'd HR you for misspelling Bundt cake... but I'm not sure you'd see the humor in it." -wiscmass

    by mydailydrunk on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:26:17 PM PDT

  •  It seems to me I was stalked on this diary (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    But since I stated an opinion contrary to the vast majority here maybe that means I was not.

  •  i agree with the spirit but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, Fiona West

    from someone who rarely comments or is involved to any degree where i would be aware of "stalking"...i agree with the spirit, but just wondered whether the term "stalking" should be used, since it is also used for people who commit crimes.  Anyway other than that it sounds good but i'm not recc'ing either diary since i really don't have enough involvement to form a good opinion on it.

  •  If anyone cares (which I doubt and that's ok) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, kj in missouri, Predictor

    my two rationales for opposing the rule are here and here.

    Also I notice a lot of my friends are in this diary and have recced it instead of the other one.  This makes me intensely angry and I might start following you around making abusive comments.

    NOT.  LOL.

    "I'm sorry, I just don't have the votes" - Me, sometime in November, 2010 (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:33:00 PM PDT

  •  With reservations ok (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, mahakali overdrive

    Real stalking is a serious matter as it enters real life, we had to take our site off the open network and place it on a private web-ring.

    I would have thought real stalking should involve the IP provider and the appropriate authorities depending where you live.

    Oh no, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican. - Lisa Simpson

    by LaFeminista on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:35:51 PM PDT

  •  Sidebar comment about rule development process (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love

    After participating in MB's first diary announcing this new approach, I eagerly looked forward to the chance of getting involved in the effort.  I somehow missed the kickoff diary, and it would seem the subsequent diaries didn't garner enough Recs to hit the Rec list. I note that there were comments in those diaries about the lack of widespread participation.

    Perhaps the lack of visibility to subsequent diaries about the effort stemmed, in part, because they were from different diarists, and especially because they were NOT from MB.

    No complaint, I like the result. Just wanted to express my wish that the effort had more visibility, like perhaps a FP notice occasionally.  Not having participated in the effort, I hope it went well and would look forward to future such efforts.

  •   (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    churchylafemme, pgm 01

    Photobucket

    We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine,

    And the machine is bleeding to death.

    by Marcus Tullius on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:37:07 PM PDT

  •  The Republican Party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soccergrandmom

    ... is going to adore this rule.

    "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

    by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:47:42 PM PDT

  •  "Disclosure of personal info" decides it for me (4+ / 0-)

    Seen too much of that around here. We chat and sometimes reveal personal details about ourselves, especially in community diaries. But when someone else carries that info into another diary, I call foul, especially when the info was disclosed once and is being dredged out much later, indicating the "stalker" either remembered the personal details of a specific person's life or went looking through old posts and comments to find such info.

    I'm not talking about what I think is legitimate inquiry into a member's diary and comment history in order to ascertain the member's point of view. And it's possible that people should be more guarded about the personal info they choose to share about themselves. But although I've always been cautious about what I reveal about myself, I find it illustrative to provide context for my own viewpoint by bringing personal experience into a discussion. I shouldn't have to stop and wonder whether what I share could later make me a target.

    It's time to end private corporate ownership of public elected officials!

    by 1BQ on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:48:14 PM PDT

    •  Ummm....... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      1BQ

      .... I'm not quite sure you get this whole "Internet" thing.

      Everything you say in a diary or comments here becomes public information the second you say it. Everything.

      This is a public forum. Saying something here is exactly like saying it in the town square or in the newspaper. If you don't want something out there, don't put it out there. You are the gatekeeper of your personal information: you cannot expect kos or Google or Facebook to tidy up after you if you let something slip.

      (This is, needless to say, different that someone revealing personal information that you had not revealed in a public forum, like your home address.)

      •  Yeah, I get that. You missed my point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof, Predictor

        completely.

        If a year ago, I mentioned my marital status once, and if six months ago, I mentioned the region where I live once, if you reply to one of my comments and include my marital status and region, I have to wonder why 1) you'd remember such personal details about me and 2) why you'd bring it up in an unrelated thread, like when we're discussing taxation or some such. MY information isn't for YOU to repeat unless it's relevant to the discussion at hand, like when we're discussing the weather and you choose to look up where I live. It's not a matter of learning information, it's repeating it or spreading it around that can be inappropriate.
        \
        Likewise, I have no business telling anyone about your marital status or where you live...

        It's time to end private corporate ownership of public elected officials!

        by 1BQ on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:57:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Having just been accused in another diary of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KentuckyKat
          stalking which led me back here on seeing this still on the recommend list, I can tell you that it is easy to remember information about people if you have a good memory, which I do have. I tend to remember details that people tell me about themselves.  So, I am now leery of this argument b/c I realized how it can be misused.
  •  Any form of stalking... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor

    should not be tolerated, though I hardly initiate responses to others' comments before they respond to mine.  It's often not worth the effort to engage people here because of the incessant need to insult and get personal, as if that fosters communication.

  •  I say AYE to asking my ALTER EGO to stalk myself (0+ / 0-)

    out of here.

  •  I get tired of people HR'ing good or neutral (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink

    Comments and Diaries made by people that are deemed Trolls just to Autoban them,Judge each Comment and Diary for what it says that's what I do I've Multi-HR'ed people and then gave a "Tip" for a reasonible Comment a little later,so if someone is going to far then get the Administrators on it.So I'm going to vote Aye.

  •  The Kommunity has spoken; it's a blowout. (5+ / 0-)

    Aye:

    mdeatherage, Melissa O, citizen53, jbou, SME in Seattle, claude, Kitty, Angie in WA State, keirdubois, Kuz, raboof, snorfbat, sagesource, Jonathan, lowkell, dmauer, decembersue, teacherken, slinkerwink, DawnG, Adam B, bob in ny, Geenius at Wrok, mndan, lost, alkatt, mimi, mattman, RunawayRose, TechBob, Emerson, Buck Fush, DDinIND, sara seattle, Shockwave, Lipstick Liberal, liz, Jim W, jaslusher, shayera, Vico, adkay, AWhitneyBrown, Troutfishing, oysterface, mslat27, rafaelh, platypus, TheGryphon, recentdemocrat, science, acuppajo, marge, foonk, Jerome a Paris, strengthANDwisdom, jalapeno, TheMomCat, bronte17, JSCram3254, missLotus, 88kathy, TracieLynn, indybend, Shadan7, dvogel001, marksb, boadicea, mijita, ksh01, javelina, arynos, Larry Bailey, tdemko, Miss Blue, alpox, poe, michael1104, lilnubber, Gray, high uintas, Alna Dem, wader, Tomtech, InquisitiveRaven, psnyder, Urizen, Chicago Lulu, blueteam, MA Liberal, Nina, hoolia, potatohead, texasmom, peterborocanuck, flatford39, hoof32, Catte Nappe, betson08, snakelass, rockhound, Greg in TN, Frankenoid, kalmoth, kismet, Brian82, Chun Yang, dkmich, Deward Hastings, Daddy Bartholomew, Scout Finch, pat208, thereisnospoon, Timroff, sawgrass727, AUBoy2007, skippythebox, Julie Gulden, nailbender, frostyinPA, vcmvo2, Massman, lcs, tovan, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, 3goldens, escapee, Tinfoil Hat, red clay dem, TexasTom, Jeffersonian Democrat, greycat, willowby, ArchTeryx, Chinton, irate, Alice Venturi, ZappoDave, basquebob, techiechick, EJP in Maine, vigi, reflectionsv37, ratzo, eru, bleeding blue, indiemcemopants, Overseas, gerardbellavita, Eric K, blue jersey mom, paxpdx, FunkyEntropy, noemie maxwell, Rydra Wrong, The Raven, Blue Intrigue, bebacker, the fan man, Ekaterin, terjeanderson, CJnyc, Over the Edge, begone, Mother Mags, rserven, kickaha, Tin hat mafia, coachdvd, snazzzybird, althea in il, danmac, mcronan, Dr Envirocrat, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Pinko Elephant, Black Knight, emeraldmaiden, frozeneggplant, cookseytalbott, kestrel9000, dougymi, compbear, johnsonwax, Wary, Marcus Tullius, Lefty Coaster, TalkieToaster, birdbrain64, erratic, gooderservice, Dauphin, sceptical observer, Unitary Moonbat, oakroyd, llbear, JugOPunch, zhimbo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Jbearlaw, PhilW, Hedwig, OHdog, NonnyO, DBunn, GoldnI, pgm 01, FoundingFatherDAR, bvljac, Cronesense, ninkasi23, ColoTim, glescagal, profmom, Thunder Dreamer, dclawyer06, joedemocrat, jayden, second gen, vbdietz, twistedflatcat, gchaucer2, Chung Fu, Rumarhazzit, madgranny, JML9999, Desa, A Person, willb48, TomP, alba, New Frontier, rogerdaddy, gundyj, edg, ratador, wayoutinthestix, Steve15, MikePhoenix, Ponder Stibbons, brooklynbadboy, the disinfector, Cat Servant, Lamil, Pragmaticus, Its any one guess, royce, left my heart, envwq, glendaw271, SpamNunn, Karl Rover, JimmyTheSaint, HoosierDeb, Robinswing, DK Green, shortgirl, Stroszek, LaFeminista, cadfile, WSComn, Tomsank, snackdoodle, LinSea, 172 IQ, GreenHills, RustyCannon, Nebraskablue, earicicle, markhaverty, Bindle, followyourbliss, MKSinSA, asym, Larry Madill, sanglug, seeta08, RoCali, Living in Gin, sherijr, mahakali overdrive, nicweb, Underwater Archaeologist, jpmassar, ahuramazda, Super Grover, Varlokkur, Amber6541, BigVegan, sulthernao, rb137, one love, TFinSF, ArtSchmart, alpolitics, Susan from 29, jethrock, catwho, UTvoter, TheWesternSun, Radical def, indepenocrat, JasperJohns, bradams, aggie98, addisnana, mark louis, rja, WedtoReason, Rainefenix, njlanis, CA Berkeley WV, mallyroyal, okliberal, pinkbunny, cpm78, upaithric, JerichoJ8, kerflooey, mysticlaker, I love OCD, Captain Antelope, nervousnellie, slowbutsure, implicate order, jardin32, bluedonkey08, FarWestGirl, itzik shpitzik, Situational Lefty, BldrJanet, uvalaw2005, bookgirl, rg611, feeny, suefromct, mydailydrunk, thethinveil, marleycat, Lorikeet, okuzaone, Cinnamon Rollover, grottoes, Angela Quattrano, Wheever, ElsieElsie, Mother Shipper, lizard people, AgnesBee, IL JimP, enhydra lutris, Subo03, aoeu, whaddaya, stevie avebury, Wom Bat, Ur Regular, cailloux, debit, The Simple Canadian, caseyaaronsmith, RLMiller, StepLeftStepForward, thejoshuablog, snaxattack, grinning dog, yanksfan6129, jacey, Patric Juillet, James Robinson

    Nay:

    JD SoOR, Rita in DC, folgers, AdmiralNaismith, HarlanNY, oysterface, StevenJoseph, soonergrunt, bobinson, Cedwyn, sele, Tomtech, kj in missouri, JimWilson, parryander, Limelite, Karma for All, Bluesee, Osiris, panicbean, citizenx, EastCoastShock, scrivener76, Pluto, Paper Cup, Jim P, pico, Malachite, AndyS In Colorado, soccergrandmom, ChapiNation386, jds1978, Inventor, Seneca Doane, on the cusp, chicago minx, Patricia Bruner, Michael91, VelvetElvis, glutz78, Argyrios, The Bagof Health and Politics, GlowNZ, bugscuffle, Missys Brother, kyril, Yoshi En Son, snackdoodle, CarrieNYC, Buck Power, hyper, Muzikal203, Christy1947, Alec82, BonnieSchlitz, damned if you do, googleimage, Publius2008, SunsetMagnolia, AdManAnt, According to Fish, ban nock, anyname, CherryTheTart, jhw22, Zagzula, progressive from Mass, Dhirty

    I've seen closer elections in North Korea.

    I'm kinda over this debate and am choosing to abstain. It's not important as other types of voting, IMO.

    Enjoy your debate, everyone. May the best rule win.

    The best way to save the planet is to keep laughing!

    by LaughingPlanet on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:55:06 PM PDT

  •  Voting "aye" with mixed feelings. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thethinveil

    Depending on how the rule is applied, or misapplied, in coming months will be the telling factor, personally, for whether I have erred in supporting this.

    My greatest fear: this rule will be misused by a few who wish to see DKos "taken down a notch or two" as a beacon of progressive thought and, as a result, tie us up in knots.

    I hope I am wrong.

    "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

    by rfall on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:56:40 PM PDT

  •  I'm Taking Names (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor
  •  Voting aye (0+ / 0-)

    in the hopes that the rule actually helps the stalking problem.

  •  voted 'aye', but just thinking (0+ / 0-)

    that another alternative would've been to 'front page' it with a poll.

    a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

    by quinn on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:13:18 PM PDT

    •  just 'un-voted'... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, notrouble, AdManAnt

      perhaps i'm uninformed, but, as one who reads and posts comments almost daily, i haven't noticed enough evidence of people being 'stalked' to merit a new rule.

      i think the existing protocols are sufficient to deal with the problem when it arises.

      (SHIT! Does that mean I should go to the other diary and vote 'no' now?)

      a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

      by quinn on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:25:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, I might as well add my few coppers' worth. (5+ / 0-)

    There's a core concern I've got with the rule.  It's a good rule, to be sure, but the Achilles' Heel of the thing is that a member of the community could easily point to someone who constantly disagrees, diary upon diary and comment upon comment, on just one or two issues---and the way the rule is written would allow that person to be effectively tagged as a stalker.

    My concerns are, in order: Defining "following a community member into diary threads" (Requirement 1); "personal attacks" (Requirement 2); "harrass, harm, humiliate, frighten, or intimidate" and "inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member on the boards" (Requirement 3).

    Consensus kills debate, and it kills community.  It turns a place into a gated community; a "virtual homeowners' association" that effectively says, "Do as we do; say as we say; think as we think, or hit the road."  It allows a group to say, "You make us uncomfortable by pointing out the great big stains, holes, tears, and missing pieces in our security blankie."

    Like I said, it's a good rule---but with the potential for abuse of that rule, I'm going to have to trundle on over to the "nay" side, and post my recommendation there....

    The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

    by Liberal Panzer on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:15:14 PM PDT

  •  This is a definition, not a rule (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exotrip, kj in missouri, VelvetElvis

    a rule needs to follow a definition with, at the very least, "stalking is prohibited on Daily Kos", and most commonly, with clearly defined consequences: what happens to someone who is stalking - is it a first time you're out kind of offense, a first time warning, second time out, what?

    Sorry I missed the process, I'm a big fan of MixedInk but didn't know this was going on, so I understand it's late to make suggestions - but this is not a "rule," it's a definition of "stalking".

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

  •  I am not certain of how I feel about this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judy99

    Surely others feel the same?  I will leave it to others rather than vote for or against something that I haven't had the energy to fully absorb.  Good luck.

    just another liberal, anti-American, cutnrun combat veteran

    by Uncle Irish on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:37:24 PM PDT

  •  I'm not going to vote either way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Johnson, kj in missouri

    Voting by recommending one diary over the other has too much potential for lopsidedness. If one diary falls of the reclist then the one still on the rec list has more of a chance to get recs. I realize that a link to the non-reclist diary would still be in the reclist diary for people to follow if they want to vote the other way, but it doesn't seem like enough to keep it fair. People viewing comments in the reclist diary before following the link may be persuaded to rec before even looking at the comments in the non-reclist diary.  

    •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri

      This process id flawed. I think it invalidates the the approval process. Plus, it inhibits actual back-and-forth discussion on the proposed rule. Do I comment here or in the other diary?

      There's too much wrong with this process for this result to be valid.

  •  I vote aye on this rule (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Predictor, tari, thethinveil

    This has been a problem ever since the primaries.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

    by priceman on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:53:06 PM PDT

  •  voting "Nay" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Johnson

    Because commenters may choose to react negatively to another commenter based off of their sum total experience of the original commenter, which would be based partially off of personal history and prior diaries.  This should not be construed as stalking, even though the original commenter could see the negative reaction as a personal attack.

    Based off of this definition, Bonddad could make a case that Meteor Blades stalked him.  I would personally think it would be a dumb case, but the rule makes room for it.

  •  When me and Billy and Darrell and Raymond (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NLinStPaul

    had our fort out back by the potato cellar we had a rule just like this and we were able to use it to keep all the girls out.

    'Le pipi est mieux à l'autre côté du mur.'

    by BardoOne on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:35:28 PM PDT

  •  I Voted "Nay" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble

    for reasons I made clear in the other diary.

    ;^)

    "Give me but one firm spot to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes

    by Limelite on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:46:02 PM PDT

  •  Aye by recommendation of the diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon

    no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

    by ItsSimpleSimon on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:02:24 PM PDT

  •  So I could vote BOTH Aye and Nay? (0+ / 0-)

    Just making sure I understand how this works.

  •  aye (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon

    indeed

  •  voting aye though with reseveration (0+ / 0-)

    I think this to an extent needs to be addressed.

    That said I still think there are underlaying abuses of the system that until addressed will only mean this is yet another rule that will be abused and misused.

    Still I guess it's better to side with the optimist inside me.

  •  Aye (0+ / 0-)

    and I appreciate the thought and input given to this constraint.

    Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

    by valadon on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:28:01 PM PDT

  •  I briefly had a stalker recently. (0+ / 0-)

    But I didn't get upset; it was amusing for about five seconds, then I got bored and turned my attention elsewhere.

    So old I remember when NASA was just two drunk guys and a case of dynamite.

    by dov12348 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:35:20 PM PDT

  •  I don't know, I'm wavering... (0+ / 0-)

    I've read so many of the comments here and am going back and forth with the need for this.

    Real stalking is a serious problem best left to the federal authorities. That includes real cyber-stalking. What benefit does this site have from banning "stalkers," who, in this case, seem to be defined as people who clutter up your diary or make false allegations about you in a repeat fashion.

    Isn't what needs to happen more like an expansion of anti-trolling efforts? Including "from regular posters"?

    "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

    by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:44:26 PM PDT

    •  Okay, I'm an Aye because... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, Predictor, debit

      of this point in the Nay diary

      (1) Many times when someone claims stalking, my review of the comments shows that it really was a case of spamming or thread hijacking or other conduct for which we already have rules. But then I realized that some are HR'ing on the grounds of stalking (even though we do not have an official rule on stalking) and; more importantly, some people are being tagged a stalker unjustly, and there are negative perceptions associated with being a stalker.

      It's a term that is thrown around recklessly and should be avoided like the plague. Trolling is not stalking. If we can avoid using the term falsely, by having an official definition of it, that's positive for both those actually having a problem (though they would be better to appeal to appropriate authorities) as well as those who are falsely stigmatized.

      "Heidegger? But I didn't even know her!"

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:55:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's assume the community moderation mechanism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor

    fails as to a particular individual and the Community Moderator has to step in.  What is the next step in the process?  Will it be a progressive disciplinary system: a warning, followed by a week suspension, followed by banning?  Or, will you proceed right to a banning?  And, if so, will everyone be treated equally, or will the discretion of the moderator enter into the equation based upon the facts of the case (both as to what was done and/or who did it)?

    A rule can say almost anything at all; it's the understanding and intention of the enforcer and the means of enforcement that count.

    Plus vini, plus veri.

    by GOTV on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:57:11 PM PDT

  •  hmm... (0+ / 0-)

    (3) The commenter(s) engages in this conduct with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster

    It should be clear that it's never OK to engage in any such conduct...

    (1) On multiple occasions...

    ...not even once.

    Prison rape is not funny.

    by social democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:08:21 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it be better to have a single diary, (0+ / 0-)

    keep that on top of the rec list for a while, and have people vote aye or nay by tipping comments? I mean, I guess as long as one diary stays up, people can still vote in the other via that one - but that may not occur to a lot of the people who make it to the board too late to see the diary that expresses their position.

    An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

    by brainwave on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:14:34 PM PDT

  •  I think people with enough brain cells... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner, Pinecone

    to even remember the names of people well enough to stalk them should consider using those spare brain cells for something more productive.

  •  It's a good rule (4+ / 0-)

    but I want to make sure that we understand here what should NOT constitute stalking.

    A number of us post diaries on the 2nd Amendment, and that regularly draws a crowd of pro-gun (myself and others) and anti-gun commenters. The comments on these threads can get heated. However, I think it should be clear from the way that the comments goes that the exchanges that take place should not constitute stalking. Debate, and maybe heated debate, yes, but not stalking. The key here is intent.

    As long as the admins keep this in mind, then we should be cool. All I'm asking is that you guys not abuse this rule. Don't become like LiveJournal, okay?

    •  as far as heated 2nd amendment threads goes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor

      i in no way wish to diminish your commitment to The Constitution, but why do you get into heated debates with people who hold a diametrically opposed position on one issue?  i definitely understand wanting to raise awareness and argue your side, but i often find that it's easier to get people to see my perspective through more abstract means.  especially on a site like this, there are lots of defiantly non-violent libs, and i just can't imagine that you'll be able to convince them of your position, or vice versa, through heated debates.

      I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the democratic wing of the Democratic party.

      by mediaprisoner on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:33:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a rule that won't work. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GOTV, kj in missouri

      Here's a perfect example:

      Read this thread.

      So which rule gets enforced? Stalking or uprating troll posts? Or neither?

      I think the folks reflexively voting "Aye" on this should think through what actually happens in most of these cases.

      The case you point to is reflected on any number of topics including I/P, vaccines, presidential candidates (in primary election years) and so on.

      I really don't like this rule because I can't see how it could ever be effectively enforced.

      Sure, it's easy to say, "Yeah, I'm in favor of a rule against stalking!" Simple, right? I'm not in favor of stalking!

      I think the very reason this community has flourished is because it's been open and there;s community moderation. Act like an asshole enough and you generally get bounced.

      I think this will make matters worse, not better. And I think that's how people will feel once this rule starts getting applied.

  •  "comprises" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner

    Not "is comprised of".

    Otherwise I don't weigh in for or against.

    "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

    by delphine on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:58:19 PM PDT

  •  Great news (0+ / 0-)

    if it comes to pass. I would lie the wording to be more specific RE: obvious trolls, but I'm sure it'll work itself out.

  •  This crap rule will probably pass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BradMajors

    just from comparing the length of the name list.

    Seriously, the very first reason given for the rule doesn't highlight instances of stalking, it points out there is LESS stalking than was even suspected.

    And then the second reason doesn't address the supposed stalkers - however unexpectedly few there might be - it addresses the passersby who inappropriately throw their HR donuts. Are you kidding me?!?!

    Paired together, this is like drafting a law against repeatedly calling someone's phone, admitting it happens far less than the already small number of times we thought, and then mentioning that when someone does cry stalker a lot of 'friendly neighbors' are running around slicing phone lines of the accused. What the fuck?

    You know what sort of taste this rule actually leaves in my mouth? The same taste that comes from giving any consideration to the conservative "Tort reform for healthcare" angle. A massive undertaking that misrepresents the magnitude of the effect, slings mud indiscriminately and adds an inordinate amount of complications for almost zero constructive results. All based on the 'public relations' angle of what the rule is named.

    If the thing had been called "The rule for considerate repeat replying" I think the Kos community would not have been led by the nose into this addition of mindless bureacracy. Now lets all count the loopholes that are created when people try to describe and define and delineate behavious into small stereotypical 2-dimensional chunks.

    Gawd, this is asinine.

  •  Yes. Thank you to all the people who bothered (6+ / 0-)

    to go to Mixedlink and hammer this out.
    Thank you to Meteor Blades for invoving the community in the process.

    Thank you PDNC for pulling it all together.

    "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

    by Denise Oliver Velez on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:11:42 PM PDT

  •  I wished we had good stalking rules in the (0+ / 0-)

    real world. Verh little you can do to protect many victims. Very sad.

  •  IMO (4+ / 0-)

    the fact that we have to come to 'yay' or 'nay' over stalking on a forum on the Internet screams to me that we are all fucked up.

    This the Daily Kos, an internet site, if someone wants to follow me virtually and say fuck off every time I post, so be it. We can't demand freedom of speech then censor it when it when we get scared or paranoid. Besides... why do we believe virtual stalking transcends into reality?

    I refuse to vote on this nonsense. Let's not trivialize what stalking really means and get back to business. Listen, people died today in this country. Let's focus on real issues.

    Mike Bloomberg and the 29 New York City council members that overturned the will of the people must be voted out in 2009.

    by jbjowe on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:28:48 PM PDT

  •  Who's to judge? And who judges the judges? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zagzula

    Is there a trial?  Evidence produced?  A defense?

  •  I am going to disagree with the process of... (3+ / 0-)

    ... creating two, distinct diaries to deal with proposed rule questions.

    This confuses the issues because those in favor or opposed don't know in which diary they should comment.

    Really awkward format, and I'm not sure it accomplished what it sets out to do. That is, to offer pro and con opinions in one place.

    I think it prevents clear and deep discussion on the rule at hand.

    •  That occurs in reconciliation (0+ / 0-)

      behind closed doors, in a smoke filled room.

    •  Bob, you just followed MB into multiple diaries (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri

      with false information: the statement that this confuses the issue. I hereby infer you intend to humiliate by the number of times you've done this.

      Oh, if only I were on staff, what fun I'd have!

      "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

      by GussieFN on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 06:39:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's precisely why this rule in unenforceable (3+ / 0-)

        ... as written.

        We had a good discussion of this proposed rule the other day and I presented some actual recent examples from comments sections where one poster accused another of stalking. The accused claimed that accuser was violating some rule on uprating trolls.

        So which rule gets enforced?

        I always thought the very purpose of community moderation was to let the community decide how to handle these subjective situations.

        Objective cases such as disclosing actual identities are easy, clear-cut calls.

        This new rule? Seems like ultimately, no one will be happy when it's applied.

    •  Isn't there supposed to be a comment period? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DerAmi

      Like when the FCC or some such regulatory commission proposes a rule change, we get to comment before it comes to a vote?

      What if I was in Saskatchewan for a wedding this weekend and missed the vote? Was there notice that a vote would be happening this weekend?

      Either the powers-that-be who own this site make a rule and it is enforced, or let the community stand on its own.

      they sentenced me to 20 years of boredom
      for trying to change the system from within

      by wanderindiana on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:29:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Enjoy the wedding. (0+ / 0-)

        There are some people who are making money from this site and there are some people who are participating to further their ideals.

        Many of us engage in the conversation to provide encouragement, receive encouragement, or vent, or antagonize, etc.

        Personally, I do not belong to the first group and I am not very concerned about the rule-making process. If I happen to be checking in at the time, I'm happy to add my "mouse-click" worth (I'm claiming that phrase as my own). Otherwise, enjoy the wedding and give everyone a hug for me.

        Dear President Obama, You must do the right thing; even if it is the most difficult. Investigate George W. Bush for war crimes!

        by DerAmi on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:49:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Something (0+ / 0-)

    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

  •  General comment on rules (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri

    I have always thought the idea of "community moderation" addressed many of these issues.

    I think the delineation of issues (many of which are infrequent events, like actual stalking) into rules is a losing battle. The waters become increasingly muddied and the interpretation of all of these rules -- most of which rely on highly subjective observations -- will make more people unhappy than happy in the long run.

    Clear-cut rules, such as not "outing" another poster, are easily enforced. I think this particular rule is ill-defined and will be very difficult to enforce for a number of reasons.

    People HR for all sorts of reasons. More frequently, people are HRed for being, as an example, considered "anti-science" (in the vaccine diaries) or just generally assholes.

    I think the idea of community moderation is one reason why Daily Kos has flourished. I mean, who will know what all the rules are?

    I applaud the effort. I'm just not sure anyone will be happy the first time the rule gets applied.

    Rules about revealing personal information make sense. The definition is clear-cut. This one, not so much.

    I went back and searched the word "stalk". Here's a recent case where one poster accused another of stalking, while the accused poster claimed the accuser was uprating troll posts, in violation of already-existing rule.

    Read the thread.

    So now what rule applies? The one about uprating trollish posts... (That's a rule? I had no idea!) Or the one about stalking as claimed by the other poster?

    This is a perfect example of what I mean. Community moderation was put in place to allow the community to figure out who is being to assholish. If Meteor were to step in in this situation, which rule would he enforce, if any?

  •  Where Is the Rule? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RandomActsOfReason

    All I see is context and a definition of stalking. I don't see a rule that says "if someone is stalking, then X is done". How can I vote for or against a rule that doesn't regulate?

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 07:04:04 PM PDT

  •  Aye. (0+ / 0-)

    "The first revolutionary act is to call things by their names." - Rosa Luxemburg

    by boofdah on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 07:14:09 PM PDT

  •  Most of the time... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Rock, Tonga 23

    I am pretty darned measured in what I say and how I say it around this community.

    I am trying to balance my personal views with some of the stated goals of this particular community. I have been pretty good at at it.

    Most of the time I manage to have a trusted user status.

    Sometimes I have said what may seem like harsh statements and have generally gotten a pass because for the most part I look for where I can work with Kossacks as opposed to where I can change you. And for the most part, most of you are pretty receptive to reaching out to outsiders.

    But I do find that ratings abuse is an issue here, at times. And it has resulted in driving out users that could be seen, IMHO, as more useful being here - either "keeping you honest" (for lack of better words to state what I mean) or, at times, making you think outside the box - than being on the outside of this place throwing bombs because perceived wrongs of a resulting banishment.

    I am not going to name names or point fingers. Neither of the banished nor the abusers.

    When you look at it as just one user giving one or a bunch of zeros that were not really merited it is not a big deal.

    But like any community out there it is easy for one to become many and turn into a tribal/pack mentality.

    I'd only be half surprised to get bad ratings for this comment.

    Before you click to rate this comment, I'd like to to think your better half will lead your judgment.

    ePluribus Media
    Collaboration is contagious!

    by m16eib on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 07:56:52 PM PDT

    •  I agree with you, m16eib except I (0+ / 0-)

      use "we" instead of of "you guys" this and that. Outlook means standing here as opposed to always "outside".  We are a community, IMHO,  even if we have those differences.

      Taking them to the point of antagonism and deliberate effort to deny a voice or drive people off site is truly rare.

      most commentors don't get away from the 'midpack' universe of comments and thereby never invite or RECEIVE  retaliation/STALKING BEHAVIOR.

      OFFTOPIC MUSING:

      eib....Excellence in Broadcasting?  Naaah....well, it takes all kinds to make up a site like this, even if some are represented in tiny doses.

      cast away illusions, prepare for struggle

      by Pete Rock on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:58:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My 2 cents - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m16eib

    This place is a gift to all of us.  I prefer that as many of us as possible feel comfortable here.  

    I think that the stalking problem has on occasion caused some very good people to feel uncomfortable, and I don't think making a rule against it will interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the site - at least, not anyone with only good intentions.  

    I voted yes.  

    I love the process, thanks for an outrageously wonderful place to start my day.

    "I'm going to need ordinary Americans to stand up and say, now is the time." Barack Obama, July 1, 2009

    by keeplaughing on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:10:20 PM PDT

  •  I vote yes but with process reservations. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    As I read it, the rule actually only creates a formal framework for what constitutes stalking, which I also believe is a very small issue anyway.  In the end the admin has to make the decision with or without a rule.  That's good.  A site needs a decider.  There is too much squabbling anyway. I've seen the torch and pitch fork squad in action.  We don't need to vote people off the island.  Let admin do that.  

    Of course this diary was going to end up about the process.  This is the first time we've done this and there are bugs in it. So people are going to comment.  

    I read the site everyday.  I saw the first diary and participated in it.  I haven't seen any interim diaries since.  Who sees any given diary is pretty much a random event depending on time of day they check in and how fast diaries disappear.  

    Ideally the software would allow sticky administrative posts like on a bulletin board. An administrative post stays stuck in place for whatever length of time is necessary for the purpose.  That would negate the whole dueling diaries which is really a screwed up deal.  The one that makes it to the rec list first will always have an advantage since more people see and respond to the rec list.

    I guess we don't have that and this whole discussion will be moot when the new version comes out anyway.  

    If your going to post a pro position then maybe a con side wouldn't be a bad idea.  Just saying. Duh. Legitimately they should be written by separate people. (If they could be found.)  It's the League of Women Voters model and works quite well.

    No process is perfect.  I've been involved locally in both sides of the "we didn't get a chance," or "the process is flawed", argument.  To an extent both sides are always right, some are never satisfied, and democracy doesn't need a 100% vote to work anyway. In my view bipartisanship is grossly over rated.  

    When the process is too restrictive then all sorts of mischief  happens but things get done. When the process goes for complete consensus then nothing gets done.  That's politics in Seattle and much of the NW.  We love to make everybody happy. It took 20 years to get light rail off the ground as an example.  

    This site is different. An urgent situation will always be handled unilaterally by management.  Process on something like this can continue for an extended period with no adverse consequences. Although a reasonable time limit should be decided on at the beginning of each process otherwise it just goes on and on.  

    Inclusion does build community.  Some way of getting the proposed action in front of the greatest number of people would be great.  Multiple posts of the same content at different times on several consecutive days would have insured that more people would have seen it.

    Finally I almost voted no just on the fact that the voting process itself is flawed.  The Yah's captured the thing as soon as this diary made the list first. There are lots of reasons for that and I'm not about to write a Nate Silver diary going into it.  Second, only one side was given which implies that yes is the favored position.  Uninformed people will usually go for what they believe is the favored position.  

    Lets wait and see how the new software works then devise a way to make the process more open.

    I vote, not bad for the first time.  Thanks for taking all the heat MB.      

    What do conservatives conserve?--Carl Sagan

    by YellerDog on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:10:52 PM PDT

  •  I trust you, Meteor Blades n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keeplaughing

    "Only when the last tree has withered, and the last fish caught, and the last river been poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money." Cree

    by Tyto Alba on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:19:06 PM PDT

    •  No offense to Meteor Blades, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cobbler

      nor others in this community, but I trust nobody. Not to mention that somebody wrote a diary exactly like this vouching for the exact opposite POV. heh

      ePluribus Media
      Collaboration is contagious!

      by m16eib on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:55:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  trusting nobody (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        m16eib

        is a really sad state of our being, and a win for those who perpetrate this kind of thinking.  So, go ahead, and trust no-one.  And notice how happy you are in your life, doing just that, while you're at it.

        "Only when the last tree has withered, and the last fish caught, and the last river been poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money." Cree

        by Tyto Alba on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:26:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most of the people here are anon. (0+ / 0-)

          How can I trust those that I do not even know? Besides that, the comment was made more in snark considering Meteor Blades wrote the other diary that is in competition with this one. :)

          As for Bloggers I do trust? There are many in the Connecticut Blogosphere that I do trust because I know them personally and they have never steered me wrong. I trust them to share facts and opinions that are not always perfect but are, at least, shared with the best intentions. And oftentimes they are extremely correct.

          ePluribus Media
          Collaboration is contagious!

          by m16eib on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:12:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I would only add this (0+ / 0-)

    bad-faith accusations of stalking need to have the same penalty as stalking.

    Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

    by oblomov on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:46:03 PM PDT

    •  What penalties? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BradMajors

      there are none in this "rule" - there isn't even a statement that stalking is prohibited on Daily Kos. There is only a definition of stalking.

      Head-scratching.

      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:06:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmm ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Jaffa

    Okay, I have a question:

    There was someone who came into an IGTNT diary and proceeded to slap the face of the person(s) being honoured, the IGTNT diarists, a Gold Star father who is part of the IGTNT community, the cousin of a fallen soldier who is a Kossack, and in the general being horrible. S/he then went into Cheers and Jeers and caused havok there. S/he continued to go into these diaries over several days and slap people's faces.

    Several people tried to have this dealt with by the admins, but were told that they wanted it to be dealt with by the community, so s/he became a person to be hiderated on sight, because they were causing so many problems. Several people looked for postings from this person and explained to the community what this person had been doing, so s/he would not be recommended, and would instead receive hiderates, and hopefully the autoban would kick in. Finally, after the second time that he used my dead husband's name and reputation to attack me, I wrote to all of the admins and the person was banned the next day.

    At the time, I did not believe we were stocking the person, we were doing in effect what we had been told to do, but under the these rules it might have been termed stalking. What then should have been done to stop this person, and by whom ?

        Curious, and wanting to follow the rules,
                 Heather

    Planning a March for Accountability

    by Chacounne on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 09:55:04 PM PDT

  •  Think the Rule Swallows Itself. Self-Defeating (0+ / 0-)

    I think the rule sort of defeats its own purpose. The second element has a problem. Many innocent people could be defined as stalkers becuase the second element is too broad.  I can see how this is intended to keep out trolls but if you follow the rule closely, staking coudl be defined as
    1)commenting on a member's different diary threads;

    1. posting false information - what does this mean?

    if it's consistnely making uninformed, inaccurate staements - there's a serious problem (i.e. Armada invasion was in 1589 and not 1588,  the Japanese bomber Pearl Harbor, etc.)
    3)the intent was to harm or humiliate another poster...need a definiton of what what constitutes intent to harm or humiliate....becuase the proposed rule states that for this element to be satisfied the intent may be inferred by the number of times the comment or makes comments against a certain member.
    So in theory if I went to a few of meteorblades threads and posted what is deemed to be inaccurate info(i.e. Obama is not an American citizen), and an administrator determines one intended to do harm because he has commented disagreeably with a member a sufficient number of times to constitute intent to harm, one could be determined a stalker by such standars. In other words, the rule is not an improvement over the current standards. It just basically codifies the current practice into some form of discplinary action.

  •  "personal attacks" may be true statements. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dolfin66

    If someone who posts Diaries at Daily Kos is a murderer, and someone goes in his Diaries and writes "He is a murderer," then that someone is a "stalker" according to these rules.

    I'm against these rules because they treat valid personal attacks and lies the same.

    •  So, for example, if a Kossack (0+ / 0-)

      shows up every time someone comments to point out that that person is an "adulterer" that is perfectly acceptable behavior if it's literally true?  I don't think so and I think you fail to make a valid point.  How is that any part of civil discussion?

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

      by bythesea on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 02:02:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

      I have been attacked for good reason and for idiotic ones.  I also have attacked back to posters who give me crap for something they know nothing about.  I'm going to keep doing what I do until I get kicked off the blog.  If people want to lay it out there in the public domain, then they, like every other public person, are subject to public opinion.

      We can't just legislate "nice".

      "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

      by dolfin66 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:13:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or a better example... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Jaffa

      ... for me are the folks who work for the insurance industry and post here on these forums.

      If one follows their comments, one knows that there is a certain level of intent to diminish the Public Option.  Taken individually, the comments seem sane and rational; taken as a whole, a pattern emerges.

      So - is it stalking to point out, using these own individuals words and quotes, on multiple threads, that there are some folks with an agenda here on these forums that is not aligned with a progressive political stance?

      Note:  Yes, there is at least one person who fits this description to a T.  No, I don't follow his comments, but when I see them, I do remark upon them.  As do a number of other folks.

      No more Snowe jobs! Co-op is a cop out. It is not an option, let alone a public one.

      by JRandomPoster on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:59:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What is an HR??? (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry for what may be a dumb question, but I've been coming here forever and have no idea what an HR is. Maybe this is common to other blogs but not common enough that someone who has come here many, many, many times and has hung out at other largely progressive blogs has the least clue what it is. English please.

    Otherwise the post is clear and sounds like a good idea.

    Thanks for putting so much thought into this.

    Card carrying member of the ACLU.

    by GiveMeFreedom on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 03:24:38 AM PDT

    •  Hide rate. (0+ / 0-)

      Otherwise known as troll rate, TR or Donut.  See the Recommend button at the bottom of every post?  Next to it is a Hide button. If you cannot see the Hide button, you are not yet a Trusted User (TU).  

      I learned all of this by reading the FAQ when I first joined, as I tend to do whenever I join a community.  Otherwise I might inadvertently look silly when I ask someone to explain something already comprehensibly laid out.  

  •  Sometimes I wonder if I'm a stalker (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dolfin66

    I enjoy looking at hidden comments, just to see the craziness of the lunatic right wingers.

    If someone with a really high UID is being a complete newbie asshole (for example, saying "Glenn Beck is blessed by God and you people are idiots!"), I will look for comments by the asshole that haven't been HR'd. Then I'll be the first to cast a stone.

    I know that Jesus wouldn't approve of being the first to cast a stone, but it feels good. And those fuckheads deserve it.

    Maybe it's a sort of very short-term stalking. Maybe I shouldn't worry about it. Nevermind.

    Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by Dbug on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:57:26 AM PDT

    •  Agreed! (0+ / 0-)

      I have been a fuckhead, according to some on these blogs, but not for praising the likes of Glenn Beck.  I have also smacked a few people around for whining like a spoiled brat about something they know not.  

      If a person is going to lay it out there in the public domain, they, like any other public person, are subject to public commentary.

      "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

      by dolfin66 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:15:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Read the "Nay" diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pager

    The only comments that made sense were the ones that said:
    This should be covered by existing rules.

    I particularly appreciate that "stalking" should both be documented and brought to the attention of the administrators.  Any serious accusation should be substantiated and reported.

    Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

    by Fabian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:17:59 AM PDT

mdeatherage, Melissa O, citizen53, jd in nyc, jbou, Common Sense, SME in Seattle, Karmakin, PeWi, folkbum, Mark Sumner, doc2, Pat K California, NegSpin, Loudocracy, 7Line, claude, norm, Renee, leftcoastindie, maxomai, woodyNYC, Kitty, tangoasg, JekyllnHyde, myriad, frey60, Superskepticalman, tsackton, Davinci, Angie in WA State, Susan S, Sylv, Errol, Alfred E Newman, chuck utzman, KeithH, Terri, keirdubois, Kuz, raboof, snorfbat, Aeolus, kevin lyda, Sean Robertson, sagesource, Jonathan, Stevie, MadRuth, Savage, eugene, lowkell, ultrageek, Sally in SF, murphy, SMucci, Buckeye BattleCry, dmauer, ogre, decembersue, eastbound, JeffSCinNY, SarahLee, georgiacmt, sheba, teacherken, slinkerwink, Timaeus, Killer, DawnG, Trendar, AaronInSanDiego, Adam B, bob in ny, insaneliberal, JordanCA, mickT, dbratl, Geenius at Wrok, Cali Scribe, peggy, GreenSooner, robla, Superribbie, Pen, MarkC, musing85, MrPlow, Rolfyboy6, mndan, flatiron, pHunbalanced, Unstable Isotope, nicolemm, lost, tiponeill, Sayhey, saraswati, madmsf, alkatt, mimi, BigOkie, mattman, RunawayRose, DebtorsPrison, Inanna, sacrelicious, Jeff Seemann, TechBob, Emerson, Buck Fush, RNinNC, Khun David, lobbygow, DDinIND, sara seattle, Shockwave, byteb, jazzizbest, EdinPHX, Pescadero Bill, maracucho, Lipstick Liberal, nevadadem, liz, meg, UTLiberal, rppa, Jim W, jaslusher, shayera, Vico, adkay, Lainie, AWhitneyBrown, Troutfishing, jdld, mslat27, Ugluks Flea, rafaelh, rightiswrong, Mnemosyne, cmk, suswa, GoKeever, LeftCoastTimm, xynz, platypus, TheGryphon, x, devtob, recentdemocrat, science, acuppajo, WI Deadhead, Mumon, frisco, lawnorder, SallyCat, Matilda, object16, Ahianne, Sandia Blanca, DrSpike, mataliandy, marge, foonk, cseaton, Jerome a Paris, Caneel, nanoboy, Creosote, BillyZoom, fblau, Bugsby, deaniac83, astro, strengthANDwisdom, mystic liberal, perro amarillo, kissfan, bigforkgirl, jalapeno, sharpfork, karenc13, DanD, dadanation, EvieCZ, TheMomCat, Blue Patriot Woman, dwb115, joe m, PaintyKat, Justina, bronte17, JSCram3254, missLotus, 88kathy, Babsnc, conchita, TracieLynn, medaka, Aldous, Helena Handbag, indybend, flurdman, JNEREBEL, litho, cskendrick, jtnephew, Karen Wehrstein, rebop, Wee Mama, Shadan7, elveta, Euroliberal, prius04, GITuck, sarahnity, understandinglife, OCD, dvogel001, ScantronPresident, evilrick, jiffykeen, JMcDonald, ladydawg, Time Waits for no Woman, ses, marksb, MillieNeon, Pithy Cherub, Haole in Hawaii, boadicea, toyon toots, mijita, kalman, cosmic debris, ksh01, shanikka, muledriver, pattisigh, AllenB101, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, aimeeinkc, Wayward Son, slouching, javelina, arynos, Larry Bailey, Troth, nargel, skwimmer, VaAntirepublican, garbo, tdemko, Bronxist, Toktora, juslikagrzly, limae, wilco920, Miss Blue, jennifree2bme, BruinKid, alpox, itskevin, poe, UK LibDem Dave, oceanview, Dracowyrm, michael1104, lilnubber, matt2525, librarianman, dmsilev, arreay, high uintas, Alna Dem, sidnora, celticshel, Boris Godunov, SnyperKitty, kyoders, wader, Tomtech, lulusbackintown, DustyMathom, PresentMoment, recontext, InquisitiveRaven, kiamax13, mayan, jackmac, ammaloy, pjphilter, dangoch, jump23, Mongo1967, edrie, caseynm, dejavu, psnyder, Moody Loner, Lynwaz, nancelot, danthrax, TexDem, SlowToAnger, Dallasdoc, Winnie, Urizen, pat bunny, 2laneIA, Chicago Lulu, MKS, smg225, wordene, zootfloggin, blueteam, MA Liberal, brainwave, grannyhelen, Fyodor, TiaRachel, susie dow, johanus, ccr4nine, Nina, hoolia, exiledfromTN, potatohead, Goldfish, churchylafemme, 2liberal, Homer Sampson, texasmom, DEFuning, peterborocanuck, HeyMikey, flatford39, 42, On The Bus, hoof32, defluxion10, ranger31, houyhnhnm, Catte Nappe, betson08, snakelass, rockhound, wecandoit7, Greg in TN, Frankenoid, annetteboardman, papercut, sancerre2001, arielle, kalmoth, Timbuk3, kismet, Brian82, Sophie Amrain, Chun Yang, Bluebirder, lahke, dkmich, outragedinSF, Mark Warner is God, Panda, Exurban Mom, Matt Esler, JayBat, Blue Orange, Curt Matlock, isabel, Kitsap River, smartgo, shii, kfred, schuylkill, KayCeSF, tomjones, JayDean, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, SanDiegoDem, Deward Hastings, Michiganliberal, Marianne Benz, gavodotcom, xyz, Black Max, Virginia Liberal, lyvwyr101, jwgarp, kmbo, zannie, valadon, Schwede, ganymeade, Daddy Bartholomew, Jen Hayden, furi kuri, boran2, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, Dave in RI, pat208, thereisnospoon, Timroff, vivens fons, carlos the jackal, donailin, TexMex, decitect, oortdust, sawgrass727, AUBoy2007, Tirge Caps, machiado, Latum, skippythebox, Julie Gulden, libnewsie, averageyoungman, nailbender, frostyinPA, gammarock, nehark, vcmvo2, G2geek, bowtieguru, Fabian, Massman, lavaughn, lcs, Duke1676, tovan, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, radarlady, 3goldens, escapee, SisTwo, Tinfoil Hat, Treg, capelza, Owl of Minerva, RazzBari, red clay dem, christineNYC, TexasTom, jrooth, Jeffersonian Democrat, greycat, Unit Zero, UncleCharlie, blueyedace2, willowby, m16eib, Five of Diamonds, deepfish, franziskaner, JanetT in MD, JaciCee, Seldom Seen, Tamifah, sangemon, Tonedevil, mjd in florida, ArchTeryx, waitingforvizzini, 1seeker, Chinton, reef, liberalis, irate, Technowitch, PBen, corvo, Big River Bandido, KnotIookin, Alice Venturi, kamarvt, Luetta, jhutson, ccasas, teacherbill, frandor55, ZappoDave, DoGooderLawyer, basquebob, The Third Man, Clem Yeobright, terrypinder, MT Spaces, znost, techiechick, EJP in Maine, fireflynw, Laurence Lewis, oyka1, vigi, reflectionsv37, ratzo, boofdah, eru, howardfromUSA, jon the antizionist jew, bleeding blue, buckeyedem08, indiemcemopants, Taz Man, flo58, judy99, LilyBart, Frank Palmer, truebeliever, imfunnytoo, The Grace Kelly, jimstaro, Sara R, lcbo, ladybug53, GOPhuckYourself, Overseas, Atlantic Canadian, gerardbellavita, Phil S 33, Eric K, blue jersey mom, antiapollon, SteveRose, paxpdx, Pigeon Peas, kaliope, PinHole, Arctor, Geekesque, FunkyEntropy, noemie maxwell, Savvy813, Rydra Wrong, collapse, palachia, The Raven, cerulean, CWalter, EeDan, Floja Roja, coolbreeze, Lisa Lockwood, Dunvegan, Blue Intrigue, MsLibrarian, dsteffen, Rogneid, bebacker, SWAG Again, Detroit Mark, Unduna, captainlaser, the fan man, Ekaterin, tvb, empathy, Arsenic, Pompous, roubs, JanF, Erevann, dancewater, viscerality, webranding, zozie, terjeanderson, kathny, rowanleigh, noweasels, CJnyc, Over the Edge, begone, debedb, Mehitabel9, salvador dalai llama, RiaD, Mother Mags, happynz, Legolas, rserven, LeftOverAmerica, kickaha, Tin hat mafia, juliewolf, coachdvd, tevla, snazzzybird, althea in il, danmac, MissInformation, Zen Blade, Orinoco, mcronan, Dr Envirocrat, tommymet, Debbie in ME, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Pinko Elephant, keeplaughing, localroger, midvalley, Black Knight, aloha and mahalo, Mr Bojangles, Clytemnestra, sane, sambar, dharmafarmer, emeraldmaiden, FishGuyDave, frozeneggplant, BlueInBoston, mmontanaman, Starseer, rl en france, cookseytalbott, With Love From The Peoples Republic of Riverwest, GrinningLibber, koNko, kestrel9000, glamberson, mskitty, poleshifter, KenBee, dougymi, compbear, Loonesta, mrobinson, liveparadox, johnsonwax, poichick, MTmofo, Wary, tbetz, puredesighee, Marcus Tullius, kck, Sassy725, hideinplainsight, Rat Lady, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, Alexandra Lynch, SherriG, TalkieToaster, merrinc, tecampbell, birdbrain64, Remillard, erratic, Tanya, A Siegel, harrylimelives, bubbanomics, Chris Joseph, gooderservice, SadieSue, imabluemerkin, Data Pimp, Derfel, anomic, Pager, Dauphin, Frank Cocozzelli, CTLiberal, Preston S, gabriella, sceptical observer, carp, PJEvans, snafubar, bl968, mhw, myrealname, Unitary Moonbat, webgenie, oakroyd, TayTay, Dagoril, nakor28, Something the Dog Said, llbear, Turbonerd, Nancy Hartley, foxsmartchicago, justadood, lazybum, marvinborg, thenekkidtruth, JugOPunch, tullyccro, Roatti, zhimbo, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, pierredude, Jbearlaw, Dreaming of Better Days, lynneinfla, liberalpercy, nannyboz, shaharazade, pejsek, airmarc, PhilW, sgbean, pkbarbiedoll, Maimonides, lakehillsliberal, RickBoston, Friend of the court, coolsub, Hedwig, B Amer, markthshark, OHdog, Pandoras Box, Grannus, SC damn yankee, NonnyO, cpresley, DBunn, GoldnI, tegrat, One Pissed Off Liberal, Sapere aude, davewolfusa, pgm 01, FoundingFatherDAR, dov12348, nathguy, DorothyT, GeneralB, high coup haiku, asilomar, bvljac, dotsright, donnamarie, khereva, Cronesense, SomeStones, Gravedugger, Loudoun County Dem, dogdad, Tom J, Femlaw, dmh44, ninkasi23, moodyinsavannah, Roadette, mamabigdog, Dartagnan, ColoTim, CenterLeft, gloriana, VClib, glescagal, beth meacham, Proud Moonbat, Redbear, Mary Mike, kath25, tbirchard, Via Chicago, profmom, Ticonderoga, Thunder Dreamer, Matt Z, operculum, Jimdotz, ezdidit, whytwolf, dclawyer06, Nick Lento, DWG, silent no more, londubh, joedemocrat, gillaroo, tiimbitz4786, entlord1, Strabo, Swill to Power, Kyle the Mainer, kingyouth, College Progressive, jayden, GMFORD, yulooloo, second gen, vbdietz, mauro7inf, twistedflatcat, SeaTurtle, bobswern, millwood, jhop7, gchaucer2, Chung Fu, SBE, CT Hank, kailuacaton, Rumarhazzit, uciguy30, Chico David RN, Dar Nirron, echohotel330, firant, madgranny, The Red Pen, KJC MD, JML9999, Desa, A Person, Quanta, Prof Haley, Azubia, Jahiz, willb48, Assaf, Predictor, rdbaker43, roycej, LynneK, TomP, alarabi7, Empower Ink, alba, gizmo59, roberta g, escaped vermonter, VA Breeze, jgilhousen, TiredOfGOPLies, New Frontier, jwinIL14, MKinTN, msblucow, GANJA, Dem in the heart of Texas, rogerdaddy, RiverCityMadman, gundyj, edg, Ms Citizen, Clubbedinthehead, ratador, JaxDem, ChocolateChris, Port City Moon, hulagirl, wayoutinthestix, Steve15, MikePhoenix, ScottyUrb, Cordwainer, Yemtex, mamamedusa, geez53, Ponder Stibbons, lockewasright, dave1042, Felix Culpa, Ronald England, elwior, brooklynbadboy, FG, the disinfector, Cat Servant, Lamil, loree920, Pragmaticus, lineatus, CT Voter, Judeling, Morgan Sandlin, wvablue, Its any one guess, VL Baker, monkeybrainpolitics, LarsThorwald, Great Lakes Gal, LearningCurve, rssrai, royce, NYmama, dewley notid, geomoo, left my heart, icebergslim, pickandshovel, bluesheep, Himself78, envwq, Princessa, Gemina13, pragprogress, Drewid, SyntaxFeline, HansScholl, glendaw271, Bluewoman, meldroc, winterbanyan, VictorK, bob zimway, SpamNunn, LaEscapee, Tonga 23, xysea, Troubadour, BYw, Karl Rover, joustchr, allie123, HarpboyAK, priceman, Zikar, dont think, StrangeAnimals, Quilldriver, oceanstar17, Guadalupe59, Robobagpiper, JimmyTheSaint, In her own Voice, HoosierDeb, billybam, sydneyluv, Mike Taylor, toom, cactusflinthead, rhutcheson, watercarrier4diogenes, Robinswing, DK Green, shortgirl, papicek, Stroszek, malenda, Puck Goodfellow, Purple Priestess, GustavMahler, JCAinCLE, JBL55, LaFeminista, Celtic Merlin, maggiejean, JGBfan, cameoanne, cadfile, sjbob, 1BQ, multilee, pileta, McGahee220, WhizKid331, world dancer, Neon Vincent, SoCalRefugee, George Hier, WSComn, emboyo, Tomsank, snackdoodle, divineorder, LinSea, The Dead Man, radmul, 172 IQ, TheOtherJimM, Dopeman, cantelow, eltee, GreenHills, RustyCannon, bondibox, mudgod, Nebraskablue, Randy Odom, DancinMan, lzyltnin, Partisan Progressive, Ohiodem1, velvet blasphemy, FrugalGranny, a girl in MI, earicicle

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site