December 21, 2007
For some time, the web site Real Clear Politics has been known as “one of America’s premier independent political web sites.” This has been especially noticed in the section they label Readers Articles, a sub-section featuring “the most popular articles as submitted and voted by RCP users.”
Readers, mostly amateur bloggers and writers usually submit stories they write for their blogs and other readers cast votes as to whether they like them or not. That I could ever tell no one wins any prizes or accolades, just the knowledge that other readers appreciate their words.
For some unknown reason, around December 12, a group of conservative bloggers I associate with online started receiving the following message when they tried to cast their votes, for each other and for writers outside our group, as we saw fit.
“Your voting privileges have been revoked. Please contact the site administrator at admin@realclearpolitics.com if you have any questions.”
With no explanation or warning, one by one, we all received this message over the course of a couple days. Numerous contacts to “admin” as indicated, drew absolutely no response to any of us, maybe a dozen or less bloggers. On December 16, 2007 I emailed the following,
“Hello, since Real Clear Politics has seen fit to revoke my voting privileges and several other friends of mine, I feel it only fair we be given a reasoning behind the revocation. None of us have received any warnings of violating any terms of use, which I cannot find on your site or suspensions, just outright revocation.
We are at least owed a reason why.”
Today, December 21, neither I nor any other person alluded to above have received any reply.
Seeking a “terms of service” to ascertain if we were violating some policy was for naught as a TOS seems vacant from their site.
Searching around the site, I did notice that the website seems to be owned by Time/CNN, news sources not noted for conservative ideals.
Is this an effort at stifling dissemination of conservative words?
Did we violate some invisible TOS by voting for each other’s articles, after reading them elsewhere?
Is Real Clear Politics really “one of America’s premier independent political web sites,” as they claim?
Without being informed as to the why of revocation of voting and submission privileges, we are only left to guess.
Lew
UPDATE 1: Real Clear Politics Responds
UPDATE 2: Real Clear Politics has reinstated me and I imagine others either have been or shortly will be.
Posts
92 comments:
Yep. Censorship is allowed if one is a Leftists Hack.
Too bad I can't submit this to RCP. I can only imagine their dislike of reading it on their own site.
I don't see what the problem is Lew? You know we're not mainstream like the pant-pooting MSM and Dems, right?
Wow. This is really getting hot.
I sent your article to their Admin. (the one who won't answer us). And now Blandly, God bless him, has posted it to RCP!
I wonder how long it will stay up there??
Can't wait to see what happens next.
AND -- Lew was even honest enough (as usual) to bring up the fact that we DO vote for each other's articles -- but that we ALSO read them.
I hardly see how that's unethical.
Good work Lew!
Good work Blandly!
For some time, the web site Real Clear Politics has been known as “one of America’s premier independent political web sites.” Snooper
Based on experience with him, I find "Snooper" (or Stupor, as I have taken to calling him) to be an idiot (sorry Snoop). But here, he speaks the truth (in his inimitable fashion). RCP is not "independent" - it is a dumping ground for any Bozo with a keyboard and an internet connection to act as though he (or she) has something worthwhile to say on the subject of politics. Maybe RCP finally figured out that Stupor and company DON'T have anything worthwhile to say, and they have decided to spare its readers the inconvenience of slogging through the idiots' tripe.
Well Lew -- Look who just showed up. Our nasty friend from the Left Coast. And what does he have to contribute here? Why, more nastiness, of course!
Jeez. it takes all kinds.
LOL
One little problem with your assessment, Mark, no one is forced to read anything at RCP.
None of us are demanding to be allowed to submit or vote, we just wish to know why we are revoked without warning or suspension first, since there appears to be no discernible terms of service for voting or submitting articles.
As for the rest of your rhetoric, you found it all interesting enough to visit and comment, didn't you?
Also, as you mentioned Lew, it's not just our voting privileges that have been revoked, but some of us -- evidently you and I among them - can not even submit there anymore either. All this despite the fact that so many from our group have made it onto their vaunted Most Voted Page so many times.
All of this comes with no prior notice, no warnings whatsoever.
How can this be considered even close to being fair?
And, I hope you don't encourage our Left Coast visitor, he just gets worse. LOL
Mark doesn't trouble me, Roger. I've been heckled worse by better, LOL.
Well so far my privileges are intact but who knows after leaving this comment . . . I've heard from several bloggers the same story. This must be followed up! Good for you for bringing it to our attentions!
Believe me -- I KNOW you're not troubled by our little friend -- I just hate to see him popping up on these conservative sites trying to spread his bull---.
One little problem with your assessment, Mark, no one is forced to read anything at RCP.
None of us are demanding to be allowed to submit or vote, we just wish to know why we are revoked without warning or suspension first, since there appears to be no discernible terms of service for voting or submitting articles.
As for the rest of your rhetoric, you found it all interesting enough to visit and comment, didn't you?
True - nobody is forced to read anything at RCP or anywhere for that matter.
I agree with you that it sucks to be cut off without warning (it even sucks to be cut off WITH warning - ha ha ha). Ask your buddy "Snooper": he cut me off when he found he could not keep up with my argument and legal authorities for disagreeing with him about something. RWG thinks I'm an infidel, and also threatened to cut off my differing viewpoint.
And yes: I do find it interesting to stop by and read from time to time. RCP is the first place I stop, in fact, until I'm ready to blow my top, and then I retreat to the safety of blogs more to my way of thinking!
Merry Christmas to those of you who like that sort of thing.
C'mon, Mark, I bet you do your part in provacation too, we all do from time to time.
But, like you, I too will migrate to sites more along my way of thinking from time to time. If for no other reason, to clear my head and recoup some sanity.
I wish you a very Merry Christmas as well. Watch out for that spiked egg nog ;-)
For some unknown reason, around December 12, a group of conservative bloggers I associate with online started receiving the following message when they tried to cast their votes, for each other and for writers outside our group, as we saw fit.
Maybe they thought someone was stuffing the ballot box and artificially inflating the tally. I've seen that Snooper and Sonlit give themselves carpal tunnel syndrome (among other things) over at "A Newt One" with all the back-patting they do for each other over there.
C'mon, Mark, I bet you do your part in provacation too, we all do from time to time.
Who ME? I would NEVER do anything like that. Just ask Snooper, "Sonlit", RWG, and a few others.
I used to visit rightie websites under the name "An Incredulous Reader", looking for inane remarks to zap. hardy har har
That is possible, Mark. Since I too am part of that network, we do contact each other and often read each other's works at their site and then voted at RCP, if it was listed there.
If that is a violation of some TOS, it would have been proper to post TOS where it is easily found and to warn against it.
Had they contacted any of us, they would have found out that althought it mayappearto be ballot stuffing, we do indeed read the articles, just elsewhere and not through their links.
Since they won't reply or never contacted anyone prior, no one knows.
I used to visit rightie websites under the name "An Incredulous Reader", looking for inane remarks to zap. hardy har har
Not me. When I visit leftie web sites it is to see what they are thinking or discussing. I often find my best material from DailyKOS or Democratic Underground.
I don't engage them, though. I just leave to wallow in their own pig sty's.
Not me. When I visit leftie web sites it is to see what they are thinking or discussing. I often find my best material from DailyKOS or Democratic Underground.
I just leave to wallow in their own pig sty's.
I get a lot of insight from the rightie sites - I'm conservative in my own way. But I just can't resist the urge to zing someone I think is intellectually lazy or overly self-congratulatory (you know who I'm talking about, don't ya Snoop). But nobody is safe from attack by the Incredulous Reader.
But nobody is safe from attack by the Incredulous Reader.
That's okay, Mark. Truth be known, the Incredulous Reader isn't all that safe from corrections by others.
I too love to show "know-it-alls" that they aren't always as clever as they think.
I'm wondering if they banned you guys because they saw you voting as a group? I don't know, but they should give you an explanation and maybe an opportunity to get your privileages back.
I voted for this over at RCP. I always vote for Spree's articles no matter what.
PS... I do see some people who get a lot of votes on mediocre topics and articles and I suspect RCP might be trying to cut back on abuse to keep it fair. I'm not sure.
I know You Tube also bans people... I'm nervous!
Without them replying, Amy, we don't have a clue.
We often vote for each other, but vote for others as well. I almost always voted for yours as they are well written.
All any of us ask is why, I don't think that is too much to ask.
Mark in Irvine is a damned friggin L.i.A.R.
A typical moonbat jerkwad.
I wasn't the one that cut you off, you turd. You were cut off by one of the other guys and they even told you why. So, because you are dumber than a box of turtle turds, here it is again.
The "argument" is the judiciary does NOT make law, IAW the Constitution, no matter what a judge says. You kepy rattling on about what some judge said.
Like a I told you before, moron, you are an idiot troll Leftinistra puke.
Merry Christmas, dirtball.
There he is --
Hey Snooper!
IHHR
I have not been banned from posting or voting, yet. I am a member of your group, usually post on similar things, vote on similar articles. I don't post as often as some of you, but that shouldn't matter.
I don't remember seeing any rules to number of posts, or number of votes that any one person could contribute, so that should note be the reason you were banned. I have no idea.
I will try to ask around and see if I can find out anything, but I didn't know about this until this morning when Faultline USA and Roger Gardner informed me.
I think it sucks. Sounds very fishy.
If they are weeding out the Conservatives, then they also blocked another friend of mine who usually disagrees with me on everything, so that doesn't hold water.
Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
I'm not part of any "group" and I've been revoked as well.
But the post needs one more vote to make their "best of" list.
Just voted for this arti. Amazing that there is a ban.
Has anyone built a new email and Id to test?
What 'group' were ya'll a member of?
We aren't a formal group, SGF, just a group of like minded conservatives that help each other out with research and cross posting of thoughts.
Although small in number, about half of us are Veterans.
Hi Lew, THank you
K. Well, I know most all of ya'll and ya'll know me - sometimes as courtneyme109 or as the part timer hostess at GsGf.
I have a theory as to why there is a ban on. To be fair I'd have to research it a bit further - and I am covered up at the moment.
Several of y'all have been very influential to me and my fledgeling blog. So, I feel I have a somewhat family type interest here.
Any one fire up a new email and join to check for a ban?
Any one fire up a new email and join to check for a ban?
Okay, courtney109, I recognize that, LOL.
That I know of, no one has tried to reregister. If they do revocations like we did banning on SwiftVets, the IP is banned as well. If no one else has tried, maybe I will.
Of course, the simple thing would be for their admin to reply to any one of us, since they say to contact them with any questions.
Well, we're up to 12. So it's going to be up there for a while right in their faces -- unless, of course, they just take it down. But, by now I'm afraid that too many people have seen it.
The fact that this shutdown seems so illogical now -- after hearing that Stormwarning has been shut down too -- has me really baffled about what the hell is going on here.
But then, as Lew says, all they have to do is answer our emails.
But they don't.
Stormwarning is hardly some ranting right-winger. Why on earth is he banned too?
Now -- off topic:
re: Great Satan's Girlfriend's blog.
This little "fledgling" blog that Courtney is so humbly referring to is, in case you haven't checked it out yet, simply one of the most original and exciting new blogs on the blogosphere. Courtney M. has developed an absolutely unique style all her own -- wry, sexy, informed, humorous, and incredibly fact-driven.
Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourselves. Some of you -- Spree, Deb Hamilton, and a few others already know what I'm talking about.
Finally --
GOOD WORK LEW AND BLANDLY!
You guys are awesome and I'm proud to call you my friends.
Respectfully,
Roger G.
Check out Courtney's blogs, very well done.
The Daily Ramble
GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD
Where there's a will, there's a way :)
Here's my latest email. I sent it to a different department.
Dear RCP --
Since Saturday December 15 an entire group of Conservative writers has had their voting and submitting privileges at RCP revoked. Although the popup instructs anyone with questions to contact the "admin", no one has yet to receive a reply. No one.
Is this really the way you want to conduct your otherwise admirable website?
By giving us no warnings whatsoever before taking these actions; and then not even having the decency to reply to our innumerable emails, your treatment of your readers is incomprehensible. Many of us have been contributing to RCP Readers Articles for a considerable time and have made the Mosted Voted Pages quite often. One of our number is a widely-respected author, who has a well-known blog with a Tech Authority of around 1,000.
I simply cannot believe that you are going to allow this situation to continue like this for an entire week.
All that we asked was to have someone there reply to our constant emails. I do no think this was too much to ask for from some of your most loyal readers and contributors.
Finally, after having waited a week without hearing from you at all. One of our authors has submitted an article about this affront to your contributors to your Reader's Articles. It is now on your Most Voted Page and has received several interesting comments.
Is this really the way you want to leave this unpleasant situation?
I certainly hope not.
Yours truly,
Roger W. Gardner
posts as: Dodgerg
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/
Like Amy said, in her PS, it is likely a concern about votes and nothing else.
HOWEVER as has been said and understood here is the nature of the informal group; problem is they don't know that.
I have been out of the loop and pretty inactive lately, but when a regular visitor and contributor to RCP, I never, ever passed up an opportunity to vote for an article by authors I recognized (don't always have time to read all, but ALWAYS voted).
Nothing suspicious, or sneaky has taken place.
The big problem for RCP is doing something about something they don't understand...SOUND FAMILIAR?
The wise thing would be to respond to e-mails and work it out accordingly...rotate them all the time whatever, I don't care....I LIKE GIVING THAT VOTE DAMNIT, IT'S A SLAP ON THE BACK AND A HEARTY GOOD JOB.
Here's the problem....I was trying to read a "highly rated" post submitted on the RCP site. Turns out it was a video. Sat through a 45 second cosmetics commercial, with an additional 30 seconds of buffering.
If RCP choses to play Gatekeeper, they could save us all from wasting our time. (The video was ok....about the Holocaust survivor who died in the Virginia Tech shooting.) They could easily ban profanity, self-promotion, and advertisements for the betterment of the site.
But if they're acting as Thought Police, or Nanny State overseer of vote distribution, they should shut down the voting program. They should've known people would form voting cartels, right? Kind of like political parties? Or Unions?
Blogger Trade Guilds?
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention...and BTW, Great Satan's Girlfriend looks really hot....
Wow, this is pretty amazing. I've had RCP as my home page since they popped onto the radar back in 2000, and I've always felt they had a conservative bent, which is to my liking, until they entered into their agreement with Time. RCP is still my home page, but I have definitely noticed the site going downhill some since Time entered the picture. Tom Bevan and John McIntyre are usually right on the money about things, and every time I've ever emailed either one, I've received a response. Maybe not as prompt as I'd always like, but usually within a few days. I have noticed some articles being linked on there, and when I go back to read them a little while later, they're gone. I'm not quite sure what that's all about either.
You might try emailing either Tom or John, and seeing if they can shed some light on things. This doesn't sound right, sounds like some nimrod from Time exercising some authority he/she/it probably doesn't have in the first place
My wife and several of our conservative friends have had their voting privileges revoked because they frequently vote for my aricles. Ironically, although I write the articles, I'm the only one who still has voting privileges on Real Clear Politics.
Now they not only can't vote for any of my posts, they can't vote for any others either. I feel very bad about their disenfranchisement, since I would email them every time I put up a new post to see if they would vote for it. I'm in a way responsible for several conservatives losing part of their political voice, when what I intended was to help them express their views.
Earlier in this thread, Amy referred to "mediocre topics and articles." I'm interested in what a mediocre topic is...I haven't made the "best of" in a while (apparently terrorism is less important these days). I find it amusing that someone also wrote that I am not "some ranting right-winger." Maybe it 'cause of some of my mediocre posts (like on robotics).
I find it amazing reading some of your comments. It seems to be happening to several, not just our informal group.
RCP really needs to let people know what and why.
So far my site meter shows over 200 hits today alone, 99% coming from the RCP post. And still, no one has heard a word from RCP Admin.
Even during the busiest days in the run-up to the 2004 election, we admins on Swift Vets answered emails if anyone was banned or suspended. If a good case was made or we were mistaken, we corrected. And believe me, we were super busy in those days.
Jeez Stormwarning. That was supposed to be a compliment. You can't even seem to take a compliment without arguing about it. And I doubt very much if anyone was referring to your articles as "mediocre". Your articles are certainly not mediocre, and you know it.
Is someone a little touchy today perhaps?
Merry Christmas, Stormwarning.
Real Clear Politics Responds
Wow Lew! I just got back online and saw those votes at RCP -- it's up to 27! It seems that we're not the only people upset about this treatment and looking for answers.
27 votes, and the top of the Most Voted Page, and STILL no reply from RCP Admin --
Do they really think we're just going to go away quietly?
Heck - I'LL even vote for you guys - that should show 'em that it's not all just mutual masturbation (as I think is the case at "A Newt Bonehead").
Real Clear Politics has finally responded. See the post above this one.
um ... I was # 28
Actually Roger, I was trying to understand what Amy meant by mediocre.
Hey Lew -- I just posted a longish comment, but I don't know what happened to it --
Anyway, I just responded to Mr. Russells reply.
Actually Roger, I was trying to understand what Amy meant by mediocre.
Read "A Newt One" to see what mediocre is.
Well, I'm glad to see they finally responded to someone. I think the reason why was pretty much B.S. as I have only posted and voted under one user name and email address.
Lew thanks for writing this article, and blandly thanks for having the "nads" to post it at RCP - it looks like that is what it took to get some action taken.
I'm rather suspicious that it took "bad press" on their own sites for them to finally email someone from our group, as I know that numerous ones (myself included) followed the directions in the message we receive when attempting to vote and none of us, until Lew just now, was responded to.
Sometimes, CP, it takes a little heat to get things moving ;-)
Good email you wrote.
Mark, I don't think Amy had any particular poster in mind about mediocre articles. YOu have to admit, we aren't always at the top of our game, regardless of where we stand politically.
Mark, I don't think Amy had any particular poster in mind about mediocre articles. YOu have to admit, we aren't always at the top of our game, regardless of where we stand politically.
Agreed; and agreed.
I'm not a big fan of Snooper, because when he runs out of "on point" things to say (which happens very quickly, IMHO) he immediately resorts to infantile name-calling.
To be fair, Mark, both sides act this way.
If you were one revoked, email D. Russell and you should be reinstated. I just was and I imagine others will be shortly, if not already.
To M.I.I. -- I'm getting sick of you coming onto other people's blogs and attacking people who aren't even being discussed there.
Do you really think you're making any points by coming onto our friend's blogs and attacking me and Snooper?
Who the hell cares about your petty gripes with other bloggers? That's not what this discussion is supposed to be about. But whenever you come onto someone else's blog, no matter what the discussion is about, you immediately try to turn it around to you. And , I'm sorry to have to tell you this M.I.I., but nobody's really all that interested in your ongoing complaints.
Why don't you just get your own damn blog and write all of your own borrowed opinions for the world's enrichment, instead of always showing up on other people's CONSERVATIVE blogs and automatically arguing against whatever points the CONSERVATIVE authors put forth and flinging your petty little insults around.
Your reputation precedes you M.I.I., and I'm afraid it's not very nice. Just ask Spree, ask Snooper, ask anyone whose ever dealt with you.
Jeez.
Roger...the poor little whining insignificant troll thinks EVERYTHING is about IT.
That's why IT gets banned wherever IT goes. Spree bounced IT several times. IT cannot stay on topic and has nothing else to do but produce inane ad homs.
Poor thing.
LOL, Snooper.
IHHR
Well it looks like you guys are finally getting reinstated with RCP. I think they’ve learned a very big lesson. I totally agree with what The Whited Sepulchre wrote in comments.
With regard to the infamous MII . . . He’s been commenting on my latest post today twice. It finally dawned on me that he’s lonely and suffering from a form of advanced progressive misery that comes from the need to be constantly contrarian. I finally had to respond to him. You might enjoy it. http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/12/spirit-of-christmas-and-religious.html
Anyone who reads "stupor's" blog knows exactly what I'm talking about. Any uneducated martinet automaton with a keyboard can have his or her own blog, but that doesn't mean s/he has anything to say.
Mark, do you have anything to add to this discussion, other than your dislike of my friend and fellow Veteran, Snooper?
You're more than welcome to add your thoughts on the RCP incident.
Mark Please... just give it up. We're just getting so tired of hearing it. All you've ever brought with you to these sites is more nastiness and negativity and insults.
You MUST have some other friends out there somewhere ... Please Mark, if you have any common decency left, take the hint, give us a break and go back home to Irvine.
IT appears that once mark hits the Proverbial "wall" the mental faculties, as little as theyt appear to be, seem to leave him completely. is that how you see it Roger?
we who live by the sword, die by the sword. i'm not dead yet. merry christmas to those of you who celebrate that. belated happy hannukah to those of you who celebrate that. happy whatever to those of you who celebrate whatever.
Among the things that this entire episode demonstrates is that it is having an "organization" and who you know that leads to the "high vote" count, and not the subject of the post or the quality of the thought behind it (or for that matter, the quality of the writing). Sad but true, and I guess that it makes me glad that in my other writing venue (without a protective pseudonym) receives more than adequate readership and notice.
Sign me..."free agent."
You got that right Redhawk.
And, as to Stormwarning's nasty little comment -- I was waiting for that. This is what it's all about for him. He's pissed because he hasn't made it onto the most voted page as much as he thinks he should have. Jeez.
I've tried to get along with you before, Stormwarning, but it's almost impossible; your ego always gets in the way. You always manage to convey that unpleasant tone of superiority. Sorry if your expertise doesn't seem to be getting the acclaim it deserves.
Haven't you learned by now that you can't raise yourself up by trying to tear others down.
If you don't have a group of like-minded friends who support your cause, that's hardly our fault, is it?
Among the things that this entire episode demonstrates is that it is having an "organization" and who you know that leads to the "high vote" count, and not the subject of the post or the quality of the thought behind it (or for that matter, the quality of the writing).
While that may be your perception, SW,and maybe that of the RCP people as well, it is far from the truth.
I have submitted articles to RCP that receive half the votes as it does on GOPHub.com. Then gain, I've had the exact opposite as well.
Most articles I submit there result in very few hits to my blog. My Global Warming Deniers article I submitted just prior to his episode resulted in 826 hits in one day.
Yesterday, this article alone gave me over 500 hits.
On any normal day, I average maybe 70 or so hits.
If it is the group that determines votes, how do we account for receiving votes in smaller numbers than our group of online friends?
All the group really amounts to is letting each other know that we have a new article up and asking they read it. Usually, we first read them at their blogs before any email is sent out.
No conspiracy at all, SW, I've even voted for articles I disagree with and felt were well written, and not part of our little group of friends.
Gardner? WTF was nasty about my last comment? You are the problem here, not me.
You see the funny thing is that I know that I am not a "ranting right-winger" as you earlier stated. I'm proud to be able to think for myself and not spout the "conservative party line" (even if and when it has no relationship to reality or the truth). That's fine. The World goes round and round, and people are entitled to their opinions. But the Internet is an enabler. Its not an information machine, its more like a propaganda machine. RCP was worried that the system was being "gamed?" Laughably, the answer is, "of course it is." At least (and thankfully) I don't have need to use made up names and phrases to describe people or situations.
"Let the games begin!" But in the meantime, Roger...since you're so keen on "tapping me on the shoulder," .:...:::.::.::::..:......::..::..:::.:.:.::...::.::.:.::..:......::::..:.::.::::.:::.:.:.:::..:..:::..::.::..:.:.::.::...::..::...:.:::.
I never used the word "conspiracy," Lew. And I cannot help it if Roger has a bug up his butt (and I know why he has that little bug, anyway).
Storm -- You don't even see the nastiness, do you?
Your last comment is a perfect example. You accuse us of "playing games", then you send me a message in (Morse) code. (I know something you don't -- ha- ha -ha!) Well, if you really expect me to try decipher code in order to reply to you, forget it.
The difference between you and "our friend" Mark in Irvine is that you really do have something to contribute to these discussions. You obviously have a great deal of knowledge on these subjects, but your ego keeps getting in the way.
And I'm afraid I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Instead of always arguing with us, why not talk to us? Instead of continually trying to distinguish yourself from the crowd by setting yourself above the level of these discussions, why don't you just contribute to these discussions?
Hopefully this ends this little digression and we can return to the original subject.
Now I have "a little bug".
Are you sure there's no more little nasties you've forgotten to include in here?
Boy, you must be a very unhappy person, Storm. Sorry.
Please, let's just stop this personal stuff right now, OK?
Roger, its not Morse code (but yes, what I wrote is nasty).
You're the one who constantly makes it personal (whether its here or some other blog), and then I retaliate (sort of on the order of the Israelis though). In most cases, you don't want to hear what I have to say because we disagree...and that, despite the fact that I am clearly not a Democrat or a liberal (I'm just not a "ranting" whatever you wrote). Often times, we don't write on the same subjects at all (and that is what makes the World go round).
But if a post is voted upon by a group, simply because the author is part of the group, the "system" is being "gamed." Note that that does not mean that I said that y'all were playing games (it really doesn't mean that Roger, trust me).
Once I filter through the name calling and the labeling, sometimes I find something interesting in one of this group's posts to follow up and do my own research on the topic. Often, I do not.
As for the other stuff, Roger, I can't help it. I'm not an amateur in my field. And there's nothing that either of us can do about that either.
Finally, stop with the amateur psychiatry. I'm not an unhappy person at all...actually, especially recently, I'm quite ecstatic about the way life is going. I blog as Stormwarning as a diversion and distraction from my daily drone of the "stuff" that I do.
Storm -- I know you're not "an amateur in the field", and therefore I suppose that that proves your superiority to us mere amateurs.
And that condescending statement is exactly the kind of superiority crap that I'm talking about, isn't it?.
Roger, you are very good at taking things out of context.
OK Storm. Please, let's just drop it.
Believe it or not I do read your articles and find them to be invariably knowledgeable and interesting, and I seldom disagree with anything you say in them.
It's just your comments I sometimes object to. And the comments you have left on this thread are a perfect example of what I mean.
That's as close as I'm going to get to a peace offering, so please let's just stop this personal dispute. We're taking up the whole of Lew's comment thread with it. And for this, I'm as guilty as you are.
I hope you really do have a Merry Christmas, Storm.
Roger G.
I'm glad you finally got a response. It seems like what they are doing has a basis, double accounts, double emails ... that would seem like cheating. Still doesn't explain why some of you were banned, I doubt you have double accounts and doubt you were using them. At least they are aware that we are watching them.
Prior notice seems the way to go.
Keep us informed.
Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
All the energy some of you are expressing suggests that you are trying to "up" your hits for commercial advertising purposes, by voting for the members of your mutual admiration society. It may be fun for the members of your MAS, but I doubt that your "advertisers" really want your hits artificially inflated. As for my "visits" here, I presume that they add to your counts, even though I'm not in the "in crowd".
You're grasping at straws, Mark. If you notice, I do not accept ads or ask for donations for me. The only link up to donations is for my choice in President.
That link shows "0".
None of my friends put it up on their blogs, so your assumption of "commercial interests" falls by the wayside.
In plain English, regardless of my hit counts, I earn absolutely nothing from this blog.
My only purpose was to get an answer to what was happening.
I received one, it is being resolved, your conspiracy theory debunked.
Have a Merry Christmas.
Lew: I wasn't talking about you or your site: I was talking about Snooper (the one most quick to resort to juvenile name-calling, as you've seen) and the members of his "mutual admiration society", who seem to have been blocked by RCP. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
About a year ago, I was contacted by someone who had an offer: If I voted for the RCP entries of members of this group, they would all vote for the Cheat-Seeking Missiles posts I put up in RCP's Readers section. To me, this seemed like exactly the kind of cheating my blog seeks out, so I declined. If these are the folks who got their rights revoked, I'm with RCP. Revoke them.
To Laer -- Wow.
I agree. And I know everyone here also agrees. Although a year ago I wasn't even online, I'm sure that wasn't from any member of our group.
None of the people I know here are dishonest, and no one here needs votes that badly.Whoever it was deserves to be outed and barred from RCP for life.
In fact, the more I think about it Laer, I think that instead of just saying that it came from "members of this group", which casts a pale of suspicion over us all, why don't you just tell us all who it was?
Thanks.
Laer, if that were the case, I would also agree with RCP and support the revocations.
However, that is not the case as none of us in this small group of friends earn a living off of our blogging.
If any actually make any money, it wouldn't be enough to fill the gas tank of my truck (15 gals)every month.
Mark, you continue saying we are members of a "Mutual Admiration Society." We are nothing more than like-minded online friends, many of us Veterans. We do not earn a living off of this and whatever has been said here or posted here about this hasn't been put up at Snoopers or anyone elses. All of the site hits have been here, not to anyone elses.
In fact, since the matter is being resolved, aren't you beating a dead horse?
LOL Lew.
I'd still like to see who exactly Laer is talking about. I don't much care for vague accusations -- especially in relation to our fine group of people.
Well, this whole affair has made me curious, so I've bookmarked this blog, and will use it to scope out the "others" to see what's up. Can't say I'll agree all the time, can't say I won't. But it is always interesting to read others opinions. I already read Snooper's (before and after his move to NEWTONE) and have come across Blandly before.
Ooops, and I read Right Truth daily and Amy's whenever I see a topic of interest...
I hope y'all do me the kindness and stop by my place occasionally too (I've sort of been on an al Qaeda rant recently).
Merry Christmas...
StormWarnings site may be seen at
StormWarning’s Counterterrorism
Thanks Lew :)
I see now that my voting privileges have been revoked. I was able to vote for the article when it was first up - now I have been banned by RCP.
Were I to take another deep drink of this spiked egg nog I might see conspiracy afoot, but I think it more believable that RCP is lashing out at those who it feels abuse it. That I cannot understand - the idea to have a section highlighting blog postings is a great idea, what a way to backhand the loyal readers you've earned?
I've always thought that RCP was conservative, considering that to be liberal is to be close minded and vindictive. Are things changing here?
Shane, defintely contact drussell@realclearpolitics.com about this. I don't think it is a conspiracy but overzealousness on someones part trying to create a more fair site.
Hi guys -- I just heard from someone else, beside Shane here, who just got revoked.
From what David Russell said in his emails to me, they're definitely not trying to silence any particular "side", but rather, trying to weed out those people who used different aliases in order to vote multiple times for their own stuff. If that's the case then these particular jerks deserve to be booted off.
The problem is, from some of the questions he asked me, it was pretty obvious that they were getting things more and more screwed up. For instance, he thought I had just opened an account under the nickname "Dodgerg" a week ago. Whereas, that's the only name I've ever posted under since I started posting there in July.
So, you can see from this little excerpt why I'm losing a little confidence in their ability to sort this mess out.
However, it is the Christmas weekend, and hopefully they'll get back to work on it Wednesday.
I'm still out. And I think a lot of others are still out too.
If I get any new I'll of course keep you all posted.
Roger G.
Well, I just got an email from David Russell, and it seems I've been reinstated. So I just went there and voted.
I hope all of those who were also cut off get back in quickly.
Roger G.
Sorry to bump such an old post, but it is necessary. The other day I realized I had been banned from RCP. I never vote on anything, I only post the rare comment. I don't use mutliple names, and I don't post anything other than disdain for socialism, and its acolytes. I consider myself a libertarian, enjoy free markets, individual liberty and the freedom of choice. I never received so much as a warning, and email, or any other kind of explanation. This concerns me deeply. Just a heads up, private censorship of "public" forums seems to be growing.
I was taking a Survey on their Website that THEY Invited me take, and I Sincerely think because I answered like a Conservative, it said at the end, I could 'Not be Processed'. Weird! I have NEVERED had that problem before and take Survey's and Polls Everyday with No Problem.
I'm suspious!
I haven't been banned at RCP either: I am allowed to post comments. With all due respect to those of differing points of view, my interpretation regarding the disappearance of "reader articles" is that too many of them were not serious contributions to discussion of important topics but rather were solipsistic rants of uneducated,un-read wackos. Like the accident on the side of the road which seduces me into looking, like the Lorelei lured Rhine-goers onto the rocks, the reader articles "forced" me to read them. IMHO, RCP is a better place for having discontinued the reader articles.
Mark, this was written at atime when only 'some' people could not access the Readers Articles. Standing accounts were denied acces with no explanation after having posted for some time.
RCP responded and gradually reinstated most everyone, that I know of. In the updates is a link to their reply.
Personally, I wasn't submitting that many there or that often when they pulled the plug on Reader Submissions, but this really had nothing to do with their stopping the Readers Articles section.
If they bring it back, we'll see how it goes. If not, no biggie, as long as it is across the board. Regardless, their site, run it as they see fit. But at the time this was written, just over a year ago, it appeared that only certain people, mostly all conservatives, lost posting privileges without explanation.
Post a Comment