Give me a break Allsburg, I posted a very reasonable comment to this thread, you ask me a question and decide to berate me. I respond to your berating by telling you to stop playing e-psychiatrist and you give me a zero. And why did you berate me? Because you don't like my sig.

Don't piss down my back and call it rain.

By the very rating system menu you had to use, your zero says you thought my post was a troll, and there is no way using the common net definition of a troll for anyone to believe that.

It's amusing that you would attack me personally, dare me to rate you down, and when instead I tell you what a sanctimonious prick you are, one that demands everyone believe your intolerance is sanctity, you instead rate my post down to a zero.

Your zero was a temper tantrum. It was clearly abusive and unnecessary as was your original personal attack on me.

You can pretend that my post, that responded to a your attack was so egregiously horrible that it deserved that zero, but all of us can read that post and its context, and understand exactly what you did and why.

Allsburg, as you've made clear in your postings here today, you're upset that we all don't rate just like you do, and you're upset that we all don't think like you do.

In fact, you are exactly the sort of intolerant liberal that Newman and and the rest of us run into all of the time.

And you hate it when that is pointed out to you. Some teacher.

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at November 2, 2007 9:03 PM in response to Condemning Porn is the New Porn

I think it's related to the number of posts you've made, because I was one of the first members, and it took me a very long time to become so privileged as I didn't post nearly as much as others.

And then, for some period of time, everyone was getting the ability to rate a 0.

0 is supposed to be reserved for troll and/or spam, because with enough zeros, the post is hidden.

But of course, people abused it almost immediately as smedleysuncle and allsburgh have done here, giving 0 ratings to people they didn't like, or to relatively good comments that just didn't make the "right" argument.

For quite a while, my sig was: "Just say no to zero ratings, except for Petey the ratings spammer" -- Petey was one of the worst abusers.

Then we went through a period where anyone that disagreed with the main thrust of a thread was immediately called a troll or concern troll. I think it's completely bogus for liberals to do that to each other, as well as for members of the community. For most of us, just click back many posts and it's clear these people are neither trolls, nor concern trolls, but just reasonable people that have a disagreement. And I think we should learn from that or respect that.

So that's when I changed my sig and finally agreed to give out zero ratings. It's for behavior I think is completely egregious, not just a stupid argument, but a malicious name calling lets shut down discussion argument.

Still, I'm not sure, but I think I've only given out 1-3 zero ratings. And the same for one ratings. Why bother? I give credit to the good arguments and interesting posts to push them to the top, who needs to get involved with anything else?
-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at November 2, 2007 5:40 PM in response to Condemning Porn is the New Porn

Um, you're the one that brought ratings up. If you examine my history of posts you'll find that I've argued against ratings from the very beginning. My ratings policy shows that I don't care about ratings. I rate you down if you abuse other people. I rate you up if your argument was truly excellent, regardless of what side you take. If your argument is merely meh, than whatever d00d.

You've been here about nine months, perhaps you just weren't around for the ratings wars. The signature that you have some sort of problem with and use as e-psychiatrist to ascribe all sorts of qualities to me and profile me came out of that war as I described why I did not condone calling people trolls or concern trolls and why I did not slavishly rate every post one way or another.

Not only don't I care what rating you gave me, you can give me a 0 or a 5, whatever d00d. You'll note that I haven't rated you at all, and you can read my response to smedley asking if I think he's a troll or a concern troll.

Whatever d00d. (Does playing e-psychiatrist work for you? Most people think it's obnoxious.)

I came here to agree with Nathan and point to another aspect of that as seen in just the past two days with the University of Delaware. That part of the conversation is apparently lost to you, who would prefer a conversation about how woeful my ratings policy is and what that means about me as a human being on a thread in which Nathan Newman deplored how many liberals just want to speak with clones of themselves? Is this some sort of performance art show that you are creating?

Is there some reason you have to convince us all that your reasons for being intolerant are okay and correct or recognize how special you are?

Here professor, I've changed my sig to help you understand.

-- my ratings policy
If I think you argued well: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at November 2, 2007 3:46 PM in response to Condemning Porn is the New Porn

Why would your stating your opinion make you a troll or concern troll? I don't understand?

I think that giving my prior post a 0, in a thread where Nathan Newman is complaining of intolerance shows you're an abusive jerk with no understanding of what you read and no sense of irony, but no, I don't think that makes you either a troll or a concern troll.

Hope that helps.

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at November 2, 2007 2:51 PM in response to Condemning Porn is the New Porn

Thank you for asking,

I am basically saying all the fine grades of the ratings are silly. In school it may make sense to distinguish between the C, B, and A work. I just don't think it makes that much sense to do that here.

And from the patterns I've observed, most people give out 5s if they agree with what you are saying, and almost all the other ratings are used to burn people. In the past we've seen people come through and give out 1s and even 0s to posts they disagree with, that are not spam, just because the rater well, was an abusive jerk. See Unclesmedley's rating of my message as a zero for an example.

I am trying to reward good arguments, regardless of what side they are on, and penalize attacks on others.

If you make a good logical argument, or bring in new evidence, or old evidence in a new way, I will recognize you.

I think that calling people troll and concern troll is just a way to stop a dialog. Troll and Concern troll are used to get the group to doubt the sincerity of the person. It's the ultimate blog form of an ad-hominem attack.

I believe that most people that make it to TPM Cafe are good intentioned and sincere, and if they disagree on various policies, well, that's what makes an argument interesting.

In such an environment there is little reason to call anyone a troll, or a concern troll.

So Unclesmedley had his little fun with my post. Whoopdie doo. He/she basically just revealed his/her own inability to carry an intelligent thought or take part in a conversation.

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at November 2, 2007 2:47 PM in response to Condemning Porn is the New Porn

Related and frankly more important: Not a single major liberal blogger felt inclined to either defend or attack the University of Delaware's "Diversity Education Training" program, regardless of multiple documents describing Orwellian or Cultish tactics and multiple students saying the program was mandatory.

In the meantime, about 90 right wing bloggers all decried it.

Result: Liberals failed to defend free speech and Conservatives have another point to crow about when claiming there is no hate like liberal hate and that liberals believe in free speech for me but not for thee.

I wrote more about this here at TalkLeft.

Nathan, at times, when I have brought issues like this up, I am told I am a "concern troll."

Since when did liberals decide that defending freedom of speech was a conservative cause?

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at November 2, 2007 1:32 PM in response to Condemning Porn is the New Porn

Congratulations Nathan to you and your entire family, Mazel Tov!

Sounds very familiar to the experience my wife and I went through, including the wonderful experience of sleeping with my new daughter on my chest while my wife slept too.

For all of that, I actually owe a very big debt to the midwifes and Jerry Brown who legalized midwifery in California during his governorship.

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at August 19, 2007 1:15 PM in response to Our Bizarro-Completely Normal Birth Experience

I'd rather that Internet venues stayed diverse, rather than all trying to conform to some standard.

Huh? We agree entirely!

Correct me if I misunderstand, but you appear to have some specific criteria for discussion of feminism.

No, I am saying that there is no discussion going on here since, with the exception of rich white journalist mommy wars writer Linda Hirschman, the vast majority of feminist voices here are coming from the same direction, the canonical, typical, what can be expected voices.

I have offered the names of many feminists that have different viewpoints and that have shown they have interesting things to say.

I have asked why we only hear from the same old same old feminists in what amounts to an ever increasing echo chamber, and now, an echo chamber that has created its own thought and speech police that use troll and concern troll and tell people to go away.

That's not a diverse internet venue! That is a one-sided, dictated to us, use some litmus test for feminism viewpoint, exactly what we both say we don't want to see.

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at April 18, 2007 11:35 AM in response to Sticks and stones: what would Orwell say about Imus?

In other words, challenging his credentials seems about as relevant as challenging the credentials of an editorial page director of any major newspaper.

Right, because bloggers, professors, pundits, and journalists everyday do not question the qualifications and content of the WSJ Editorial Page, the New York Times Editorial Page, and the Washington Post Editorial Page almost every single day.

I suspect that's happened even at TPM and TPMMuckraker.

Why is the editorial page director here sancrosanct?

We seem to have a dialogue of pro/con voices on things like free trade vs. fair trade, and health care and even net neutrality. Yet the same "editorial page director" here seems to give us one voice on feminism and some have said, one voice on Israel (though I do not perceive that myself.)

Why do we get disparate views on some issues, but only a single, canonical, expected, politically correct view on other issues?

I suspect it is because the "editorial director" doesn't really have a whole lot of experience concerning feminism (and maybe Israel.)

Andrew Golis is paid to do this, but is that his only qualification?

Why do we only get one voice, why is it a problem to ask about that, and why do you suggest someone has to leave this site instead of asking that question?

In our discussions HC, you have brought out your experiences many times, and we are all informed by that and that increases our confidence when you speak in certain areas and decreases our confidence when you speak outside those areas. It's very useful information.

I have not done that nearly as much, but I have done that some.

Andrew? What are his qualifications to choose feminist voices?

Why has he chosen to enable already well-known bloggers, and bloggers that have been linked to bigoted, sexist speech?

Why not choose individuals that are not well known in our community? Or individuals well known in their profession but with a different views so that we have an actual dialogue between the various guests as well as the readers here?

Does Andrew really want to provide multiples viewpoints on some issues and a single viewpoint on feminism? I doubt that. I suspect he is just ignorant. I think the community can help him.

Does TPMCafe really want to provide yet another forum for the standard canonical typical feminist viewpoint? The net already has many sites like that, where is the added value in that?

I think the value of TPMCafe is to have true discussions, discussions where we don't have to worry about being called trolls, or toeing some non-reality based political agenda. Discussions where community can have a dialogue with community leaders about the important issues of the day, and everyone can learn.

That's what I see here in free trade/fair trade,
democratic politics, the war, healthcare, why should I leave just because this is not what is happening in feminism?

Why not first ask why this is happening with feminism here?

Do the top tier feminist bloggers need another site adhering to their talking points? Do well known feminists that have voices in many venues need another venue where they will safely be unchallenged? Does TPM Cafe want to give a platform and enable hate speech? Consider Gwen Ifill speaking about how white pundits enabled Don Imus before you answer.

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at April 18, 2007 9:55 AM in response to Sticks and stones: what would Orwell say about Imus?

We should never allow ourselves to be so completely outclassed by the likely forces of reaction that they feel they can move with impunity.

I suspect that's too late, with respect to both the US Government should her citizens ever decide armed insurrection was necessary, and even with respect to Blackwater who can get heavy automatics, sniper weapons, and even small assault helicopters.

(OTOH, there are about 2000 F-16As sadly rotting outside Tucson, and I would love to see the Air Force demilitarize them and sell them to private citizens.)

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Posted at April 17, 2007 9:53 PM in response to MY REACTION TO THE TRAGEDY AT VIRGINIA TECH