Dominique got her baptism of fire at Down With Absolutes as an outspoken Hillary supporter and Obama critic. Passionate in her beliefs, she seemed taken aback by the sheer ferocity of the give-and-take in the responses to her posts.
But she has hung in there, demonstrated that her passion is accompanied by intellectual honesty (as when she declared it was over for Hillary) and a willingness to admit what she didn't know (in her new posts asking about Gordon and Coons).
In short, Dominique got the usual crash-course in what happens when you aspire to move full-force into the blogosphere.
And she has survived the initiation.
On the other hand, within the past month two fixtures of the sphere--Dave Burris and Dana Garrett (once friends despite all ideological differences)--have hit storms that threatened both of their positions in the virtual community.
Dave, of course, enmeshed himself in subpoena-gate with Mike Matthews at DWA, and though his The Rest of the Story contained some explanation, it left open questions about Dave's judgement, tact, and ethics.
Ironically, I met Dave face-to-face for the first time last week, at an event in Bridgeville. It was a handshake and a visual recognition, not a conversation, but it affected the way I saw him. The context of the event (he was squiring Bill Lee around in a friendly crowd) highlighted that strange mix of passion, eloquence, insecurity, and bull-in-a-china-shop brashness that combine into a unique individual. The only real problem Dave has is that he cannot acknowledge the time he's gone over the line.
Everybody goes over the line at one point or another, and you have be able to muster the grace--at least every so often--to acknowledge that you've done so. I didn't say apologize, because, as Pandora says it very well:
But no matter how awkwardly phrased, occasionally, Dave, you have to be able to admit that you're not the junior G-man and then move on. Hard as it is to believe, everybody else will, too.
Well, almost everybody else will.
Dana Garrett announced this week that from now on Delaware Watch will be operating under the auspices of comment moderation. This strikes a serious chord in the Delaware blogosphere, because we all take seriously the ability to let fly with whatever is on our minds (or out of them) at any given moment. Let even one comment get stuck in somebody's spam queue, and questions of censorship always arise, even when we really know better.
Some blogs I read utilize comment moderation (Waldo, for example), but within the rough-and-tumble of our little Delaware virtual community you have to be able to give a shot and take one. Nobody wins all the time; there are too many sharp, passionate people here, and we love to take down cocky almost as much as we love to be right.
Dana's fierce, vituperative, and takes no prisoners. He makes outrageous charges, parses meanings out of his opponents words that they never intended, and calls names at the drop of a hat. But he can (or at least could, up to now) take the hits as well as dole them out. When he went over the line, as someone once said at Delawareliberal, "that Uncle Dana, we all know he's just like that."
Somewhere along the line within the last few months, inexplicably, Dana seems to have lost some perspective. His response to Dave Burris labeling him a socialist or Tyler Nixon going after him on differences of opinion about Ron Paul have lost all sense of proportionality. And Delaware Watch has suffered for it. There are still strong arguments and well-researched posts, but there is now an almost palpable sense of self-righteous anger and inability to see anyone else's perspective--ever--that has reduced the blog from one I check daily to a place I visit maybe once or twice a week.
And even then, sometimes, I don't bother to read beyond the titles of the posts.
What I'm saying here is that comment moderation is symptom rather than cause.
In case it matters, Dana, I miss the old Delaware Watch, that used to be funny as well as acidic from time to time.
The thing is, the blogosphere changes, and it does so with what can sometimes be disorienting speed.
It's actually a pretty fragile community, one that hasn't quite found either its place or its true voice in society at large. We're all part of a self-inflicted social experiment here, and social experiments generate casualties as well as successes. I am pleased that Dominique has established herself (and no, Pandora and Cassandra, I haven't forgotten you, but this post seems to have a thing with bloggers whose names start with "D"). I am hopeful that Dave will figure out that nobody demands contrition, just insight. I am deeply regretful that I see Dana withdrawing from the community, and I hope he changes his mind about that.
Good night, moon.
But she has hung in there, demonstrated that her passion is accompanied by intellectual honesty (as when she declared it was over for Hillary) and a willingness to admit what she didn't know (in her new posts asking about Gordon and Coons).
In short, Dominique got the usual crash-course in what happens when you aspire to move full-force into the blogosphere.
And she has survived the initiation.
On the other hand, within the past month two fixtures of the sphere--Dave Burris and Dana Garrett (once friends despite all ideological differences)--have hit storms that threatened both of their positions in the virtual community.
Dave, of course, enmeshed himself in subpoena-gate with Mike Matthews at DWA, and though his The Rest of the Story contained some explanation, it left open questions about Dave's judgement, tact, and ethics.
Ironically, I met Dave face-to-face for the first time last week, at an event in Bridgeville. It was a handshake and a visual recognition, not a conversation, but it affected the way I saw him. The context of the event (he was squiring Bill Lee around in a friendly crowd) highlighted that strange mix of passion, eloquence, insecurity, and bull-in-a-china-shop brashness that combine into a unique individual. The only real problem Dave has is that he cannot acknowledge the time he's gone over the line.
Everybody goes over the line at one point or another, and you have be able to muster the grace--at least every so often--to acknowledge that you've done so. I didn't say apologize, because, as Pandora says it very well:
If we all had to apologize everytime our tone was unacceptable our posts would be over-flowing with ‘I’m sorry’ comments.
That’s the nature of blogs. We bloggers shoot our mouths off daily.
But no matter how awkwardly phrased, occasionally, Dave, you have to be able to admit that you're not the junior G-man and then move on. Hard as it is to believe, everybody else will, too.
Well, almost everybody else will.
Dana Garrett announced this week that from now on Delaware Watch will be operating under the auspices of comment moderation. This strikes a serious chord in the Delaware blogosphere, because we all take seriously the ability to let fly with whatever is on our minds (or out of them) at any given moment. Let even one comment get stuck in somebody's spam queue, and questions of censorship always arise, even when we really know better.
Some blogs I read utilize comment moderation (Waldo, for example), but within the rough-and-tumble of our little Delaware virtual community you have to be able to give a shot and take one. Nobody wins all the time; there are too many sharp, passionate people here, and we love to take down cocky almost as much as we love to be right.
Dana's fierce, vituperative, and takes no prisoners. He makes outrageous charges, parses meanings out of his opponents words that they never intended, and calls names at the drop of a hat. But he can (or at least could, up to now) take the hits as well as dole them out. When he went over the line, as someone once said at Delawareliberal, "that Uncle Dana, we all know he's just like that."
Somewhere along the line within the last few months, inexplicably, Dana seems to have lost some perspective. His response to Dave Burris labeling him a socialist or Tyler Nixon going after him on differences of opinion about Ron Paul have lost all sense of proportionality. And Delaware Watch has suffered for it. There are still strong arguments and well-researched posts, but there is now an almost palpable sense of self-righteous anger and inability to see anyone else's perspective--ever--that has reduced the blog from one I check daily to a place I visit maybe once or twice a week.
And even then, sometimes, I don't bother to read beyond the titles of the posts.
What I'm saying here is that comment moderation is symptom rather than cause.
In case it matters, Dana, I miss the old Delaware Watch, that used to be funny as well as acidic from time to time.
The thing is, the blogosphere changes, and it does so with what can sometimes be disorienting speed.
It's actually a pretty fragile community, one that hasn't quite found either its place or its true voice in society at large. We're all part of a self-inflicted social experiment here, and social experiments generate casualties as well as successes. I am pleased that Dominique has established herself (and no, Pandora and Cassandra, I haven't forgotten you, but this post seems to have a thing with bloggers whose names start with "D"). I am hopeful that Dave will figure out that nobody demands contrition, just insight. I am deeply regretful that I see Dana withdrawing from the community, and I hope he changes his mind about that.
Good night, moon.
Comments
Also, The Curvature to whom you are so slavishly devoted banned me for asking her to see the opponents point of view. I was labeled racist, sexist and homophobic. Does that sound like me?
I have binned exactly two comments on my blog. One was spam and the other was overtly racist and anti-semitic.
I also feel that Dominique has passed the probation period with flying colors. She maintains a give and take that is biting but doesn't seem to hold a grudge.
~~~~~~~~~
Duffy who banned you?
The Curvature?
Who dat?
Look, I thought Dave's talk of a subpoena and references to the FBI were way over the top, especially after his "reveal" post. But Dana's reaction struck me as being over the top as well. Dana's stance strikes me as personal. Deserved or undeserved? Whatever the case, this situation seems to be escalating.
Oh, and Steve... the two "shout-outs' in your post is enough to stroke my ego.
This is just a temporary gig for me - I'll just be around until Mat comes back - but it's been a lot more fun than I thought it would be. I absolutely love the give and take in the comments section (even though I'm usually dodging daggers) and I'm learning SO much.
Nancy, thanks for your kind words, too. You're probably my harshest critic, so it means a lot coming from you as well. You're right, btw. As nasty as I can be ('biting' was generous...it sounds so much nicer), I never hold a grudge.
Yes, being red-baited by Dave Burris and Tyler Nixon is just a small thing. It’s a small thing to have what you said dismissed out of hand because someone heard somewhere that you are a commie. It’s a small thing to not be hired to work on a campaign or community effort in some capacity because, although the campaign staff or community organizers knows you aren’t a commie, you do have the reputation for being one and “perception” is what matters.
The only loss of “proportionality,” Steve, is your glib assumption of what it costs me. Unfortunately, there is no tenure in my new line of work.
As for me going after Burris, I can only say that I am convinced he plays dirty. I care less about the DE blogosphere or my reputation in it. I care more about the political environment in my state. To me the DE blogosphere is mostly a means for participating and attending to the political environment. Dave Burris has done things to poison that environment. The most outrageous one was the arson business. I found it startlingly irresponsible that I was only one in the DE blogosphere I know of who had the chutzpa to look at the obvious and call it what it was. I'll be damned if I'll sit back and let stuff like this happen politically in my state. What the insular community of the DE blogosphere think of me in contrast is meaningless.
I believe a serious problem has begun within the DE blogosphere. It has become a kind of subculture consisting of bloggers and the regular commenters and then there is everyone else. No one is supposed to question this subculture too deeply or the behavior of any of its members. In DE we often say about the General Assembly that it consists of one party: the Incumbency Party. The Delaware blogopshere has become its own Incumbency Party in which people rationalize the awful behavior of some of its members so that no one can effectively rock the boat. To a large extent, everyone within it is watching everyone else’s back. That has become an unwritten commandment within it. To violate that commandment is the unpardonable sin. It makes one a heretic and the heretic is not supposed to receive any substantial support on any matter in the DE blogopshere even if you learn by phone, e-mail or in personal conversation that people really agree w/ you.
I have no problem w/ being friendly or making friends as a consequence of blogging. But I didn’t get into this for those purposes. To me it’s not about clubbiness as it evidently is now for many w/I the DE blogosphere. I wanted to see certain issues resolved in ways that I think advance the public interest. I also wanted to see the political environment become one that is more democratic & open. The latter, it turns out, requires considerable weeding.
I haven’t forgotten why I started to blog about DE politics, etc. So in that regard I have neither devolved nor evolved regarding the DE blogophere. I suppose I find polarizing language somewhat out of place since it reifies the DE blogosphere as an end unto itself. But, then, I really don’t see it as a type of club.
I do think that there is some hypocrisy about this moderation business. I don't know a blogger who hasn't removed a comment before. I'm certain I wouldn't want to visit a site that never does. Given the level of vituperative language, hate speech and libel that can occur on blogs, it would be irresponsible not to.
But what is that but moderation after the fact? I moderated after the fact before; now I do it beforehand.
Since I started moderating comments beforehand, I have rejected none. There will probably be few. But the virtue is that readers won't have to look at the ugliness, won't have to be subject scandalous reputation-destroying and libelous statements “of fact” made by anonymous posters w/ no corroborating evidence until I can remove them. That makes for an environment in which people who aren’t interested in being club members are welcome to join a discussion and debate.
Given the subculture the DE blogopshere has become, I see comment moderation as a statement that the Delaware blogosphere better serves Delaware when it’s about Delawareans and their state than when it is about itself. And that is what the Delaware blogosohere has largely become about it in my view. Except for the writing on the Blue Water Wind project, the Delaware blogosphere has become about itself.
I now expect I'll get more comments and a higher level of conversation. As for the current state of the Delaware blogopshere, I remain its heretic and, when necessary, its antagonist.
I view the DE Blogosphere in a different light than you. I view it as a series of discussions that take place at a number of homes. We let everyone in to comment on whatever dreck we put up there as a discussion piece or a line drawn in the sand. In this way we are not unlike the founding fathers in engaging in these sorts of verbal sparring and pamphleteering.
To start manning the door and denying entrance to your home is a violation of the unwritten rules of the community. I see that you view yourself as above of the community, not unlike Dave Burris, actually. So fine, but the community will likely stop engaging you and perhaps it is for the best.
I fear that you have become a caricature of yourself. Your demand for purity is an online version of borderline personality. With Burris off the scene, I hope you will be able to regain some perspective on your relationship with the community.
Fascinating that you would put it in these honorific terms, especially since the historical evidence is that the founders found the libelous free-for-all environment of the USA's beginning in journalism not as desirable but as destructive and paralyzing and w/ good reason.
"We let everyone in to comment on whatever dreck we put up there as a discussion piece or a line drawn in the sand."
Are you saying that DE Liberal NEVER removes a comment? Never?
"To start manning the door and denying entrance to your home is a violation of the unwritten rules of the community."
This is code for either you accept the norms for our DE blogger incumbency culture or you will be excluded from it. By golly that is precisely what you are saying:
"So fine, but the community will likely stop engaging you and perhaps it is for the best."
I'll take my chances, Bub. I'll try to see if there is any life outside of--what?--all 10 of you. LOL.
"I fear that you have become a caricature of yourself."
I believe it's you that uses this phrase often. Someone within "The Community" does. Perhaps its part of the DE blogger subculture-speak. If so, you really have worn that one out. It's become a shtick to fill in a blank where an original insight is lacking.
"Your demand for purity is an online version of borderline personality."
Thanks for the pop psychoanalysis. If it is a symptom of BPD to think that screening comments for libel (false statements that can adversely effect people's lives) before the fact (as opposed to deleting them or "answering them" after the fact when the damage could already be done), then I proudly suffer from BPD and and I am a "purist."
"With Burris off the scene, I hope you will be able to regain some perspective on your relationship with the community."
Actually, I owe Burris a debt of gratitude. Because of him I saw how insular, elitist and incumbent "The Community" had become.
I don't what to tell you, LG. My sense of community is people & their rights & needs, then NCC, DE, the US, the world of nations. Since my allegiances lie there, I suppose the virtual "The Community" you are so fond of won't have much of a register to me.
I guess I'll have to tough it out as a pariah in the cyber world. I'll have to endure the online snubbing by names that appear on my computer screen like Anonymous, Anon, miscreant, KnowledgeIsPower and LiberalGeek.
The virtual ostracizing I'll recieve from "The Community" will be tough, but let's face it: I deserve it. I think I am better than everyone else because I think printed libels are terrible and one should show some maturity & responsibility in, as much as possible, not providing a forum for them.
So I ask "The Community" to give me my just consequences. Declare me heretic and apostate, view me as the enemy of "The Community." Give me those consequences. That's precisely the reward I'm hoping for.
Incidentally, so far no moderated comments have been rejected at Delaware Watch. Imagine that.
DelawareLiberal will remove a comment if it is spam, if it threatens others or if it uses epithets. We have banned exactly 2 people, and both were for repeatedly violating these restrictions after being warned.
Enjoy your isolation. It will be interesting to see which of you returns first, you or Dave. I am just amazed at how hard you make it for people to support you.
Thanks, and be sure to visit often
I guess I'll have to take your word for it. After all, how do I know that you've only banned 2 people or only remove spam? Perhaps you've removed comments before I and many others had a chaqnce to read them, ones that refute the writers at DE Liberal.
So your policy is no more of a guarantee of credibility than mine.
"Enjoy your isolation."
LOL!! My, my, my. You and your little circle of writers and usual commenters really think you comprise the universe of the blogosphere, don't you? All (about) 10 of you really have quite a circle jerk going on. You are IT. That's right, you called it, The Community.
I got some bad news for you. People don't need to be part of your little circle jerk to avoid "isolation."
But you all keep fondling one another...whatever it takes to stimulate the obvious flickering ember of your self esteem.
You can have the last word. You need it more than I do, putz.
What I find fascinating is that on one hand we have you posting and putting your thoughts out on delawarewatch and complaining that comments made by someone else on a blog have cost you a career opportunity. While on the other hand, we are all shouting into a vacuum with no influence beyond a few already decided commenters.
I call bullshit. I am sure that people getting your "newsletter" are all waiting with baited breath to see what wonderful thoughts you have today, just like Celia Cohen's readers.
Steve, thanks for accepting our comments here. This would have been a lot less enjoyable on some other sites...