Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: I was just banned from opednews
The site owner, Rob Kall, sent me an email this morning stating that if I was not able to post a link to an article of his, which he had either deleted or hidden, he would ban me at 3:00 p.m. EST. He banned me at around 1:00 PM EST saying that it had been a unanimous decision of the senior editorial staff. That's what Rob calls a bottom-up rather than a top-down system, a system where decisions are made at the top.
The tactic reminds me of Al Gore saying that he would accept the CBC petition in 2000 if they could get the signature of a Senator, since he had already ordered Democratic Party Senators not to sign the petition. They're very clever at making impossible demands and then punishing you for not meeting them, while they themselves offer every alibi and excuse in the book for not doing things that are not only possible, but their sworn duty.
This is the piece that got me banned, which Rob has hidden so that nobody can read it, so I can't post a link:
The Editorial Class
The Writers Guidelines here on opednews give the editors a lot of power, much of which is necessary in order to make this the first-class political website that it is. But some of that power can be controversial in a bottom-up system. For example the guidelines state that, "Ad hominem personal attacks are not acceptable. The management of the website is the final arbiter of these issues." What that means in reality is that while personal attacks are not acceptable, it is the editors who have the power to decide what is and what isn't a personal attack.
In a top-down hierarchy, power can easily be abused. As an extreme example, in many places in the old south, a black man who did not avert his eyes, lower his head, and step off the sidewalk when a white man passed by him, or did not address that white man as "Sir" or "Master," could have been seen as insolent and lynched. It wasn't that he had attacked the white man, but that he had failed to be sufficiently obsequious. At the same time, the white man could address the black with insulting, denigratory epithets, and even be physically abusive, but that would not be seen as doing anything wrong at all. Such behaviors would be incompatible with a non-hierarchical, classless, or bottom-up system.
I've had some close encounters with editorial power here on opednews myself. For example some time back Rob Kall posted something that he apparently wasn't sure was in keeping with a progressive website, so he posted another article asking for feedback from users. Many saw nothing wrong with what he'd done, but a few, including myself, disagreed. Rob defended his original post by saying that he thought it would attract more readers to the site. I pointed out the fact that a similar technique to attract readership had been used successfully by a right-wing editor, and Rob didn't like my comment. So he posted a piece entitled, if I remember correctly, "Mark Smith Is Full of Shit." But he did NOT ban me and he did allow me to defend myself. In contrast, had I posted something with a title that said that he or any of the other editors were full of shit, I'm quite sure it would have been interpreted as a personal attack and I'd have been banned.
The next thing that happened was that I got into a public disagreement with another editor. While our debate continued for some time, I made no personal attacks on him. So he interpreted and flagged one of my comments as being a personal attack on somebody else, despite the fact that that person disagreed and stated publicly that he did not consider my comment to be a personal attack on him. But the editor's decision prevailed, I was banned, and it was a long time before I was able to have my membership restored.
Similar things have happened recently. The nastiest and most blatant personal attacks do not have to be acted upon when flagged if the editors do not wish to act, but failures on my part to be sufficiently obsequious to editors are regularly interpreted by them as personal attacks.
That's why I usually choose to publish what I write as diaries that do not have to be submitted to the editors rather than as articles that do. Simply put, I do not trust all editors to be objective in their decisions at all times.
But there is another, and in my view more serious, reason that I do not choose to submit my opinion pieces to editors. Check out this article about 9/11 written by Tony Forest. http://www.opednews.com/articles/...s_070521_riding_an_old_horse_.htm At the end of his article, but as part of the article itself rather than as a separate comment, an anonymous editor added an "Editors Note" that attempted to contradict the thesis of Tony's article. I certainly wouldn't want to have an article of mine published only to find that an editor had included an addendum saying, in so many words, that I or my thesis was full of shit. If the editors disagree with something, they can simply refuse to publish it as an article and suggest that it be published as a diary, or post their disagreement in a comment below the article. To dispute an article's thesis as an addendum to the article itself, seems to me to be an abuse of editorial power.
This puts me in mind of a trashy paperback book I happened to read when I was a kid. The author had been a prostitute in Batista's Cuba, and recounted stories of having to submit to various unappetising capitalist clients. When Castro came to power, the writer claimed not to have changed careers and was then coerced into submitting to various unappetising Communist clients. What struck me as hilarious was that, after coming to America, the poor thing, in order to get a book published, had apparently been forced to submit to an (in my view unappetising) editor. As they say in French, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose -- the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Truth be told, very few of my opinion pieces are worthy of being published as articles and most are more suitable to being diaries, this one being a good example. If I were an editor, I'd probably reject this piece myself, even though I had written it, and suggest that it be published as a diary rather than an article, if it had to be published at all. And then I'd probably accuse myself of bias and abuse of power, so it's a good thing that I'm not an editor here.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: Bans
Permanently banned? I'd say you have a gift. Few can piss people off to the point that they are perceived as so great a threat they must be permanently banned (and this is not your first?) Kudos!!! You must be doing something right.
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: "..Dont Wee On My Tree.."!!
Theres nothing in your article to cause a stirr let alone get banned.Theres nothing in your article which should cause King Rob and his "merry men"to be concerned about at least as far as the Castles walls are concerned!!!.
I say King Rob as in this legend its certainly not Robin Hood and his Merry Men as the leading roles are slightly changed around here it seems while at the same time the traditional ethics are being proudly proclaimed which are for example:"...To rob the evil and decadent indulging rich to feed the poor and socialy restricted..".Well for me personaly thats a bit strange coming from a King and when the KING also proudly spreads such rumours like that around and I just cant help but feel that theres something not quite right here!.
But anyway for sure when King Rob sitting in the Banquet Hall within the safety of his three meter thick Castle walls protected by guards stationed all along the towers,there is one thing which he knows will not be so easy to protect himself against-his true character,identity and his reputation.No Castle Walls can save him from that not even if the towers were patrolled by the Navy Seals!.So when the"real"Robin Hood turns up and sets up camp in the village amongst the humble abodes of the"peasants and Surfs"outside of the castle walls King Rob will of course have reason for concern!.Adding to this that its for King Rob a matter of principal as how dare a Surf be educated and show skills of not only the sword but even worse..... also of the quill!!.
So of course King Rob has little choice but to venture briefly outside beyond the protection of his stoney domain,find Robin and while being cautious bannish him from the Kingdoms Grounds.One alternative could be of course and that is to cut Robins tonque out and his fingers off but that might not go down very well with the other surfs and even make a Martyre out of Robin!.Another possibility would to falsify and manipulate evidence against Robin and then burn him at the stake as a male witch after a fair(un)trial held in secret behind closed doors!!.But a male witch...!?.No-gender equality hasnt got that far yet in King Robs Kingdom so as I say the only dasterdly option left for King Rob and his not so merry men is to find,seek out and not to destroy but banish Robin as far away as possible and without a return ticket!.
And to this day since then in large print at the top of the Castles wooden door(extra therefore for those surfs who can read and might have good command of the power and use of the quill!)are written the words.."..Dont Wee On My Tree.."!!.
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: Well, actually there is.
Well, Paul, actually there is quite a lot in my article to cause a stir.
That's because Rob refers to OEN as a "bottom-up" system. It is no more bottom-up than the Democratic Party or the U.S. government it serves. It is a strict and rigid hierarchy and you rightly compare it to a feudal fiefdom.
Actually, I think my comparison to the old south is more apt, with the editorial class as the whites and everyone else, except for loyal Democratic Party operatives, as the blacks.
They let one of the party flacks make nasty personal attacks on me for three days (and also on another user who came to my defense). We both flagged him. He used blatant name-calling that nobody who wants to call themself an editor could possibly mistake for anything other than personal attacks, yet their rules say that personal attacks aren't acceptable. He also said that I was trying to make myself seem bigger than I am. So I wrote that nobody, least of all myself, would dispute his status as a big man and very important person on OEN who gets preferential treatment and can do things that would get little people like myself and the other guy he attacked, banned instantly, that it was perfectly obvious that on opednews he was allowed to violate the rules with as much impunity as broccoli Cheney in Congress, and that it also put the lie to Rob's claim that OEN was a bottom-up system. At that point both articles along with all comments were deleted within minutes. He's OEN's equivalent of Care2's SOB.
As long as they're obedient and respectful, people can get along fine with tyrants and dictators. It is only if you fail to show sufficient respect or aren't sufficiently obedient, that you risk their ire.
I'm not Robin Hood but I do like to speak truth to power. And whereas in real life it would get me killed, on the internet all they can do is ban me. (Knock wood -- that could change at any moment.) So I do like to expose injustice and inequity wherever I am. And unless I was in a system where I had the same rights as everyone else, a system I can only begin to imagine but may never experience, I will always be banned sooner or later.
What makes me dangerous is that when people like what I write and think it makes sense, and then see me being treated shamefully by the editorial class, it makes them question the system.
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: Permanently Banned?
Way to go, Mark! Better to go all the way than only part of it.
What this proves to me is that Rob is full of shit when he talks about a "bottom up" approach. And you posted it as a diary, why are they having meetings about a diary?
They don't like what you say and never have. Here's their chance to get rid of a troublemaker. Their loss, my friend. I believe that only the troublemakers and rufflers of feathers have ANY chance of changing the world. Congratulations!
Peace, Sharon _________________ Peace, Sharon
Nobody told me there'd be days like these...Strange days indeed! Most peculiar, mama!
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: Banned again???!
heh, guess I shouldn't be surprised Mark, you have a way of speaking your mind and many people can't handle that. *shrugs* That's their problem IMHO and while I might not agree with you all of the time, I'd never want your voice to be silenced.
OEN will be a boring place without your input, if this practise continues there won't be anyone to give another point of view. Perhaps that is the objective in the first place; create a progressive site for all appearances, which is nothing more than another venue for propaganda? _________________ PEACE-MONGER
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: Yes.
I believe so, Kim.
I believe that almost all the large "progressive" websites are run by the Democratic Party as part of their job to try to co-opt the left so as to prevent any effective opposition to the political right.
Both major U.S. parties are on the right and the left does not have a political voice in U.S. government. The Republicans control the mainstream media and the Democrats control most of the alternative media.
Yet a zillionth reason for not voting is that in the U.S. there are no real alternatives on the ballot.
There are two new videos creating a buzz lately, one by Naomi Wolf saying there was a coup on October 1st, and the other an addendum to the Zeitgeist video. I've gotten numerous emails about them but I haven't watched either one. If anyone has, can you tell me if they offer any solutions other than the useless "bullet or the ballot" dichotomy? The Democrats led the coup, so I don't think voting for them (or for a third party candidate so that your vote can be flipped to one of the major party candidates) would be of any use, and I don't think that a violent revolution would be successful. People are very good at stating the problem, but their only solution seems to be either to vote for it or to go out in the streets and ask the government to shoot you. NOT voting to consent to the status quo, seems to be beyond the wildest imagination of America's foremost proponents of "change."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I find OEN annoying, though I did give them hits when you sent an e-mail. Now I won't need to do that!