Tuesday, March 10, 2009

New Issac Bans Anonymous Comments

In a classic case of because a liberal does it, it's OK...

Adam I.S. Pagnucco and David Lublin are banning anonymous comments on their blog. Their list of reasons are very much similar to the ones that we used here to ban anonymous comments months earlier.

As Mark Newgent pointed out, Pagnucco has a truthiness problem.

Now the part of our show where we wait for Adam to write something about this post (and/or about me.)

At least we allow anonymous comments, we just keep the idiots out.

16 comments:

Adam Pagnucco said...

OK guys, if Streiff says Paulson is not the reason you banned anons, I'll drop it. But I wouldn't be surprised if Paulson trolled both our blogs. I have run anti-O'Malley stuff myself that has incurred the displeasure of some Dems.

But here is the challenge we're facing: we have an ongoing Democratic primary in a local race. The MSM is not paying much attention to it so we are almost on our own. The comment section deteriorated into an anon cheap-shot fest and drove away most of our on-the-record commenters. And the situation was only going to get even more out of control in the wake of the recent court decision protecting anons. Plus, 2010 is coming up.

Red Maryland is the most prominent conservative blog in the state. Just as Democratic primaries are going to be fought out on our blog, Republican primaries will be waged on yours. You guys are going to have to balance your commitment to quality content with your willingness to allow hard, loud and tough debate. It's not an easy question if you care about the reputation of your blog.

streiff said...

Thanks for stopping by and telling us what we need to do. I mean really. Thanks. We're all sort of troglodytes and we need enlightenment.

bud said...

With anonymous comments, you take the good and the bad. On my blog, I appreciation how readers can feel free to disagree with me without fear of censorship. Of course, there's always the knuckleheads who post what they want on my blog, but fail to allow my say on theirs.

streiff said...

as I've said many times, racial and sexual slurs aren't debate. I'm simply not going to have it.

As to debate, anytime we spend talking about Adam's issues is time we're not talking about ours. We'll reserve our debate for every fourth years.

Adam Pagnucco said...

Hey Streiff, I'm merely responding to a post about our comment policy. Even though we entirely disagree on politics, we both run blogs with large audiences and face similar problems.

Here's an example of something that impacted our decision. Not long ago, a candidate dropped out of our local special election because his mother-in-law was dying of cancer. An anonymous commenter wrote in, "Another one bites the dust." That comment had no political value and would never have been uttered under anyone's signature. After a bunch more like that, we got fed up and banned them.

If Kenny Burns and the rest of you guys want to criticize us for banning those types of comments from anons, be my guest.

streiff said...

Adam, I think you're losing sight of why this post even happened.

We were hit by your blog on our comments moderation policy and you attributed it to me trying to silence someone I'd never heard of before you posted.

In our view it underlies a lot of the Robert Kennedy/do as I say not as I do philosophy that on our side of The Ditch we see on the left. (yeah, yeah, plank in your own eye and all that).

I am a firm believer in the private property rights of blog owners and I fully support your decision to limit comments in anyway that suits your political/philosophical goals. I've never found obscene comments and racial slurs to raise the level of discourse.

P. Kenneth Burns said...

And just like clockwork, Adam, you completely missed the point and it takes someone from our ilk, in this case the owner of the website, to spell it out for you. Not that Streiff needs any help, he nails it perfectly.

And to make this clear, because of your history of twisting stuff as evidenced above alone: I AM CRITICIZING YOU FOR BEING A TWO FACED PUNK. BEFORE YOU ASSUME THAT I AM CALLING YOU NAMES, I WOULD FURTHER REMIND YOU OF THE PUNK MOVE THAT I CALLED YOU OUT ON LAST MONTH.

Specifically, I am criticizing you for the very thing that Streiff pointed out above. You moderating comments on your site, for the same reason why we are moderating comments on our site. It is to keep the racist, sexist and personal attacks out, and the legitimate discourse in. Not because we are afraid of discourse as you try to allege a while back.

Overall, you seem to have a hard time understand the difference between private and public. As a matter of fact, it's the same problem you had when you try to say that I hid my stats from the public because people "allegedly" did not read my blog, which is utter bull and you know it.

You got caught with your pants down, being two face. Just do us a favor and apologize for having a double standard and move on.

Adam Pagnucco said...

Streiff, I have no reason to disbelieve you and take your word at face value.

Burns, I concede nothing to you. Readers of this comment section should consider the following information:

1. Burns admitted that he ignored an effort on my part to ask for his site stats, which I collect for many blogs. I asked him for them after he shut down Sitemeter, the same standard used by Red Maryland, Brian Griffiths, Monoblogue, Baltimore Reporter, Maryland Politics Watch and many other blogs. According to Sitemeter, Burns' visit total was less than one-sixth of Red Maryland's in May 2008.

2. Burns also ignored this revelation from Sitemeter tracking data: "When Burns employed Sitemeter, it reported a combined visit count of 8,133 from February through June of 2008. His new statistics report a combined visit count of 68,365 for those months." I don't believe that any statistical method that magically creates eight times as many visits as the standard most of the rest of us use (Sitemeter) has any validity.

3. Google reader reports the following subscriber counts: Maryland Politics Watch: 130, Red Maryland: 70, Legum's New Line: 33, Maryland Politics Today: 26. That's right, Judd Legum's four-month-old blog has more subscribers than Kenny Burns' MPT, which has been around for over two years.

4. I have recognized high-performing conservative blogs before. Last summer, I praised Red Maryland as the most widely-read blog in the state, which it was at that time. But I did so on the basis of independently verifiable data, most of it from Sitemeter.

When Michael Swartz of Monoblogue tried to do a more comprehensive exercise to compare blogs around the state, he was slammed for it by none other than Kenny Burns, who claimed he was getting 10,000 visits per week. That is about four times the visit count of Red Maryland.

So Burns wants us to believe he went from one-sixth of Red Maryland's audience in May 2008 (according to Sitemeter) to four times Red Maryland's audience in November 2008 (according to his private stats). Does anyone here believe that?

P. Kenneth Burns said...

Adam,

You have proven my point in the links alone as far as the truthiness problem. Also, you can do what you want as far as trying to slam my pull, but the fact of the matter is that I have more of it than you. Which media outlets and appearances have you been invited to?

Before I bring you back to earth let's go over your point one by one. HEck, I'll even spell it out for you.

1. THERE IS NO STANDARD FOR A VISITOR TRACKING. SOME PEOPLE USE GOOGLE, SOME PEOPLE USE SITE METER, SOME PEOPLE USE THEIR OWN AND SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP! I AM IN THE LATTER TWO. I can see if I ignored your email on purpose, but I said that I didn't reply to it because of the other dozens of emails that take precedent over that one, like press releases and news tips. I didn't know you were doing a punk move.

2. I DIDN'T IGNORE YOUR REVELATION, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL MY BLOG PINGED IS BACK. WORLD OF DIFFERENCE.

3. AGAIN, THERE IS NO STANDARD FOR STATISTICS. GOOGLE READER IS ONLY ONE STAT SERVICE.

4. I SLAMMED MICHAEL SWARTZ, WHO IS MY COLLEAGUE HERE ON RED MARYLAND, FOR LEAVING ME OUT OF THE 2009 GUIDE WHEN HE INCLUDED ME THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

That that I got your trivial stuff out of the way, let me make this clear.

I WANT YOU TO APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING A DOUBLE STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO MODERATING COMMENTS. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

Adam Pagnucco said...

So now Burns is accusing me of racial prejudice because I disagree with him:

"Oh and speaking of those attacks, Adam. I have to ask if are you doing it because I’m a Black conservative that people actually pay attention to? Well if it is, you wouldn’t be the first White prejudicial asshat liberal that I take on. Just like the clown before you, I will remind you that even though this is a diversion, I will talk about politics in Maryland and you guys will talk about politics in Montgomery County and the Black guy who is not a member of the herd..."

"How does it feel to be embarassed by a conservative Black guy and from Prince George’s County of all places? Oh wait, some people don’t think I am black... oops."

Streiff, I totally understand where you're coming from. You have every reason to keep out race-baiting rhetoric like this. You can start enforcing your policy by getting rid of Kenny Burns, who has resorted to the kinds of racial attacks that every one of you would condemn if they were used by Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Of course, if you want to give a platform to an individual like this, that's your decision to make.

streiff said...

We like Ken.

We'll keep him.

P. Kenneth Burns said...

I'm simply pointing out that your ilk of liberals (Isaac Smith and Eric Leudtke) like using me as their target because I don't follow the other sheep in the herd.

You based your assumption that my audience is little on the fact that I did not return any information for you as far as a site meter. I also cannot help that you linked to my article praising the selection of Michael Steele, but you have failed to mention that I criticized him last week.

I'm just saying, out of all of the conservatives in the Maryland blogosphere, why concentrate on me?

February 3, 2009:
Kenny Burns of Maryland Politics Today stopped disclosing his Sitemeter counts after we revealed that his blog was one of the least-read political blogs last summer. His statistics cannot be verified without publicly-available, third-party verification from Sitemeter or a similar service.

February 7, 2008:
I almost feel sorry for self-proclaimed “Steele Republicans.”

You assume that my blog does not garner an audience, why not assume that you are prejudice? The clear reason for my assumption is that because you are attacking my blog, not because we disagree...or do we disagree?

Adam Pagnucco said...

So let's see Streiff... you won't tolerate race-baiting in your comment section, but you embrace a race-baiting contributor. That is a bigger hypocrisy than anything of which you have accused me.

And Burns, I'm not criticizing you because you're black, but because you are dishonest. And when you can't rebut my data, you accuse me of racial prejudice without any supportive evidence. That is the kind of thing that conservatives hate when it is practiced by the left. But on Red Maryland, race-baiting is fine as long as it is done against a liberal.

This blog has a number of serious conservatives on it who have done careful, thoughtful work in the past: Brian Griffiths, Michael Swartz, Mark Newgent, Richard Vatz and others. You guys want to present a viable alternative to the Democrats, right? You want to win elections and have a state government that puts conservative principles into action, right? So how does it help your goals when Red Maryland gives a platform to wild accusations of racial prejudice by someone like Burns? Why are all of you guys hanging back and remaining silent while Streiff endorses him?

Stand up for your principles, guys. I would never allow a contributor to Maryland Politics Watch level unfounded accusations of racism against any of you. But you all seem too hypocritical or fearful to prevent that behavior by Burns. And if you let him get away with it this time, his next accusation of racism could very well be directed at one of you.

streiff said...

classy Adam,

You tell blatant falsehoods on your site and come here to tell us how to act.

Criminy, you are just class personified.

P. Kenneth Burns said...

Thank you for proving my point, Pagnucco.

Whether it's racially based or not, you don't respect me, and probably never had respected me even before you decided to do an analysis of the Maryland blogosphere. The sad part is that I never even heard of you before the email.

I should also note that you fail to realize one thing, call it what you want, I didn't do it on Red Maryland...I did it on MY SITE! If I have to call someone out and pile it on, I do it in my house, not anyone elses.

I am a guest in the house of Red Maryland, as are the other contributors. Streiff owns that house. If I do something in Streiff's house that he finds unacceptable, he has every right to delete.

But let's analyze something that you did in YOUR house. You said "Kenny Burns of Maryland Politics Today stopped disclosing his Sitemeter counts after we revealed that his blog was one of the least-read political blogs last summer..." This is clearly a calculated, direct attack on ME AND MY WORK because it is false. If my site was the least read site in Maryland, you wouldn't even mention it in your report.

You never respected my work before your alleged revelation (which by the way does not take into account the three week hiatus from blogging that I took at the end of 2007.) Why should I expect honesty from you. You can't even apologize for having a double standard. I'm not asking you to apologize to me, I'm just saying apologize.

Stay classy, Adam Pagnucco. Crumb.

P. Kenneth Burns said...

Oh...and while google says that 26 people subscribe to my RSS feed, twitter says that I have 139 followers.

So Pagnucco, as the great Jon Stewart would say...[BLEEP] YOU!

ShareThis