Welcome to The Hiddens, an experimental daily series devoted to unofficially reporting and discussing topics related to community moderation on Daily Kos. My name is T. Max Devlin, please call me Max. Thank you for joining me.
Serendipity is my nemesis. Particularly when dealing with "meta", of course, because of the nature of that topic.
But what is that topic? What does meta mean, why do we use it? A brief discussion of that will precede the otherwise unrelated reporting portion of this diary. But as I said, serendipity is my nemesis...
"Meta" has been a favorite word of mine for a dozen years, at least. It has become detachable from the other Greek words it was previously attached to that we use in English to designate a wide variety of ideas, usable all by itself as a word, which displays, of course, a metaproperty of language that is pure meta.
Here on DK, as with most terms common throughout the Internet, there is a carefully nurtured idea that it has a traditional meaning that is private to this context. Having started out as Marcos' personal blog, which was supposed to be about politics, the word "meta" is used by old timers to mean anything that isn't politics. Pootie and Woozle diaries are meta, World of Warcraft is meta, blogs on cycling might be meta.
But of course that isn't what I mean by meta, that isn't the way I use the term, though I have nothing against continuing to harbor the private usage as a shibboleth if that works. Still, when I say meta I mean Meta: whatever the system is, our consideration of it must transcend it. Discussions about discussions are meta, and so the meta I mean is moderation policies and procedures. Just as the traditional (DK) usage isn't uncommon (on DK), neither is the more general meaning. If you follow the meta tag, you have seen no shortage of diaries, often two or three a day, for weeks, discussing or complaining about moderation on Daily Kos. This stands to reason: if community moderation is self-moderation, discussion among Kossacks is called for in order to develop a consensus on moderation policies and processes. I have considered making this diary more of a link-party, categorizing and presenting all the other diaries that are sporadically and/or routinely posted concerning the topic of meta.
But the truth is, if you just check out the "meta" tag, you'll get pretty much the list as I'd present it, plus those diaries where meta isn't the topic, but the topic is considered meta. I once asked about this "anything not political" usage, and received no response, which is what led to my recognition of and reference to a "shibboleth", above.
So obviously I've been considering meta, pretty constantly since this series began. I'm no stranger to the topic, of course, but I can tell when something starts being important in my life when I start getting visits from Serendipity.
Last night, while trying to get away from DK for a bit, I happened across this blog post, explaining a recent Supreme Court decision. It resonated because the police powers it concerned seemed analogous, to me, to the power TUs have to determine (not unilaterally, perhaps, but using their own judgment) to distinguish disruption from discussion.
This morning for the first time ever, while considering what to write about in this diary, I heard the word "meta" used, correctly and non-ironically, to describe something on NPR. About an hour later, I was watching a three year old walk up to my nephew of about the same age (they'd never met), put his hands on his hips (you could see him mirroring someone in his mind) and stating clearly "you are my enemy."
"No," I said, immediately but not patronizingly, because a child that age has already learned to ignore such things, "he's not your enemy, he's your friend. We are all friends here."
And then I came in to write this diary, take a look at the hidden comments list, and what do I find at the top but a double-decker from a Kossack I described only two days ago as one of the "nastiest little fuckers on DK." Serendipity, I hate. you. so. much.
First an I/P appetizer:
Incident: 'link (or, You've got to be kidding me)'
Incident notes: Typical I/P troll, disparaging the other side (0/10/1)
Diary notes: I/P
User notes: casual amateur troll (newbie)
HR notes: nominal response; excellent first reaction, but minor pile-on keeps the troll active in the thread
Disposition: as typical as can be Status: bfd
I've contributed to the response thread. I hope my opinions don't piss anybody off, but I'm sure they will. The troll himself is just very wet behind the ears. Don't be afraid to shut him down, but don't rough him up too much. There is some chance he may make a tolerable Kossack some day. But it ain't today.
And now we return to Friday's 'GBCW-ish' diary, for what can only be described as a grudge match. This diary has spawned more hiddens than anything else this week, other than the 'Obese?' TU's meltdown. Whether it tops that one for individual incidents depends on how you count individual incidents.
Incident: 'Fuck x2'
Incident notes: BK pie fight (1/6/3, 0/5/1)
Diary notes: BK, GBCW-ish
User notes: TU, troll-hunter
HR notes: legalistic trolling is still trolling, and pie fights are still pie fights
Disposition: debacle Status: bfd^2, meta, open
HRing someone you are addressing or in a discussion with is forbidden. A single transgression will usually get you suspended if reported to Admin. It is worth pointing out that what precisely constitutes "in a discussion with" can be hazy, but the call in this case is not. This pie fight (the whole diary, now) looks to be a true hashing things out amid TUs, and given the choice between some other diary, here in The Hiddens, or a GBCW-ish "truth teller/troll" diary, I guess it should have ended up there. A part of me wishes it had happened here, except for all the pastry. I don't like to see donuts in The Hiddens, with rare exceptions. At least so far. Maybe I'm lucky most people are ignoring me, right?
&&&
This is a special update, because for the first time in The Hiddens, I'm going to write up a record for a comment that isn't hidden.
Of course it is possible that any comment documented here which is still open to be removed from the hiddens following publication. I have no intention, by the way, of editing them out, if and when that happens. But this is not simply ambiguity on that line, though it is a part of that. It was the sheer number of donuts on the unhidden comment and the apparently crucial place it holds in the ongoing pie-fight of the GBCW-ish diary that prompted me to post it. Here it is:
Incident: 'Didn't read the diary'
Incident notes: BK pie fight, use of the term "night rider" to describe Kossacks (21/11/53^)
Diary notes: BK, GBCW-ish, pie fight/troll fest
User notes: Diarist
HR notes: (^Total comments in reply threads)
Disposition: omfg Status: Cornel
Apparently Cornel West said something that riled up a lot of "the Black Community". I believe it was actually something with reference to the President, bringing this whole case around again to the trivial pie fight. :-(
&&&
Somehow I lost my last update, which I thought I'd already posted, so this will be a sparse record. It's worth taking a look at the incident if you're a TU.
Incident: 'introduction to preening'
Incident notes: response to CYA text (1/12/4(6))
Diary notes:WPWG, Feminisim
User notes: TU, old timer
HR notes:
Disposition: typical Status: grievance, open
The additional number ('6') in the incident notes indicate the entire number of comments in reply threads, not only direct replies. This statistic will optionally appear from now on, although lack of it does not indicate anything of value. Sometimes it will be just because I don't care, even though it is a huge number, sometimes I won't post it just because it is a pain to have to count them.
The TU getting pies in the face from the 'Fuck x2' incident has scored another hidden comment (0/4/1) which I won't otherwise bother with. Tomorrow we will pick it up past that point.
&&&
Can't tell the players without a score card. More I/P trolling in the 'link' diary, see above:
Incident: 'truthfully lying'
Incident notes: Typical I/P troll, disparaging the other side (0/6/2(3))
Diary notes: I/P
User notes: see below (TU, old timer)
HR notes: unremarkable
Disposition: I/P (P) Status: bleh, open
There's two things to say about this incident. First, the 'troll' from the first incident in this diary responded (contrarily) to this one. Second, checking back over this Kossacks history, I found this comment. I'm posting that link to bring it Up for Discussion, not as a call-out. When does a metaphor go over the line and advocate violence, and when do both Timaeus and mahakali overdrive recommend it? Have I been wasting my time telling another Kossack in comments that pro-nuclear energy is still a legitimate position to defend on Daily Kos? Is it supposed to matter what Kos thinks about nuclear energy, or isn't it?
And again the 'Fuck x2' TU provides another entry (0/6/1, prior entry is now 0/5/2) which also will point you at where he threw a retributive HR. Could be another "truth teller" melt down.
One last one tonight, a tip jar:
Incident: 'Undermine the GOP'
Incident notes: Paultard, crosspost (0/5/24*)
Diary notes: Ron Paul supporter, repeat troll
User notes: see above, newbie, troll
HR notes: subterfuge election strategy?
Disposition: RonPaul Status: subterfuge, open
Kossacks who love to be trolled get trolled easy
See you in The Hiddens.