LibertyCzar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 541
Yesterday, on Digg, I made a proposal, maybe not worded just right, in order to calm the storm and to allow Ron Paul submissions to have a real chance. I had hoped that a reasonable compromise could be reached. I wanted to try being positive and open a dialogue. Here is an interesting response. What do you think? Some of these points have already been covered in this forum. I've spaced it out a little.
I believe that you have misunderstood the situation here, in part.
This has been a building situation and it has been going on for 7 weeks now. About once a week I make another comment explaining to someone exactly what is going on, what has been going on and what led to the point of a dedicated, admitted, non-partisan Bury Brigade. It has gone past the point of toning down the submissions. Many people asked, nearly begged that the submissions be lessened and instead, the RP supporters came back even stronger. People offered to stop burying stories if they were only submitted ONCE, but there has been a blatant refusal, usually accompanied by "Well if a story from one source gets buried, then we obviously need to submit it from another source so that people can see it." This is not the way Digg is supposed to work. If an article is popular, legitimate, whatever, it will make the front page. This week I've seen quite a few RP stories make the front page, so why are people still complaining about suppression? Because the same group of people who admittedly do not want to see the Ron Paul *spam* are the ones who comment and say "This is not okay with us." But again, that is unacceptable.
Personally, I'm tired of being called a traitor, anti-constitution, afraid of Ron Paul, a neo con (check my history), a paid shill, a race baiter, a troll... there are so many words that get thrown around. No discussion or debate is allowed because, in the minds of his supporters, Ron Paul can do no wrong and scientific polls are less accurate that voluntary internet polls. I'm tired of people who exhibit their lack of political savvy (I would even go so far as to call it blatant political ignorance) claim to know better than people who have been discussing and debating politics long before Ron Paul tossed his hat in the ring. I'm tired of dedicated research being dismissed as "race baiting", biased sources or "Why do you hate America?" There is no compromise to be had because Ron Paul's supporters are not interested in compromise. There is too much blame and too much entitlement in the ranks for enough people to agree to it.
Instead, I will tell you the "demands" of the Bury Brigade (as I see it, I think I'm close) and you can tell me if we're being unreasonable.
This has been a building situation and it has been going on for 7 weeks now. About once a week I make another comment explaining to someone exactly what is going on, what has been going on and what led to the point of a dedicated, admitted, non-partisan Bury Brigade. It has gone past the point of toning down the submissions. Many people asked, nearly begged that the submissions be lessened and instead, the RP supporters came back even stronger. People offered to stop burying stories if they were only submitted ONCE, but there has been a blatant refusal, usually accompanied by "Well if a story from one source gets buried, then we obviously need to submit it from another source so that people can see it." This is not the way Digg is supposed to work. If an article is popular, legitimate, whatever, it will make the front page. This week I've seen quite a few RP stories make the front page, so why are people still complaining about suppression? Because the same group of people who admittedly do not want to see the Ron Paul *spam* are the ones who comment and say "This is not okay with us." But again, that is unacceptable.
Personally, I'm tired of being called a traitor, anti-constitution, afraid of Ron Paul, a neo con (check my history), a paid shill, a race baiter, a troll... there are so many words that get thrown around. No discussion or debate is allowed because, in the minds of his supporters, Ron Paul can do no wrong and scientific polls are less accurate that voluntary internet polls. I'm tired of people who exhibit their lack of political savvy (I would even go so far as to call it blatant political ignorance) claim to know better than people who have been discussing and debating politics long before Ron Paul tossed his hat in the ring. I'm tired of dedicated research being dismissed as "race baiting", biased sources or "Why do you hate America?" There is no compromise to be had because Ron Paul's supporters are not interested in compromise. There is too much blame and too much entitlement in the ranks for enough people to agree to it.
Instead, I will tell you the "demands" of the Bury Brigade (as I see it, I think I'm close) and you can tell me if we're being unreasonable.
1) A cease-fire of links to links to links to stories. Only submit the original source - ONE TIME.
2) Actual content within submissions. No more one paragraph submissions of how the media is supressing Ron Paul. We know you think it and it makes a better comment than a submission in and of itself.
3) An end to the duplicates. Seriously, sometimes you can't help but duplicate, but when the same story is submitted 4 or 5 or 8 times, that's when people start attacking.
4) Stop flooding unrelated stories with "Go Ron Paul" comments. It is possible for the entire rest of the world to discuss the hot-topic issues of the day without bringing their candidate into it. Can you try to learn to do that, too?
5) Stop assuming that you're being attacked just because someone disagrees with something your candidate said or because people don't support your candidate. It is not a personal attack on you, it is a personal preference and, being such strong supporters of the Constitution, you ALL should support their rights to have a differening opinion. I think those are the primary ones. I'm sure I missed a few, but I'm also sure that my fellow Brigadeers will put in their $.02 I bet you'll find most of "our side" willing to compromise, but completely unwilling to concede. Unfortunately, I have not seen any kind of penchant for reasonable behavior coming from the majority of "your side".
2) Actual content within submissions. No more one paragraph submissions of how the media is supressing Ron Paul. We know you think it and it makes a better comment than a submission in and of itself.
3) An end to the duplicates. Seriously, sometimes you can't help but duplicate, but when the same story is submitted 4 or 5 or 8 times, that's when people start attacking.
4) Stop flooding unrelated stories with "Go Ron Paul" comments. It is possible for the entire rest of the world to discuss the hot-topic issues of the day without bringing their candidate into it. Can you try to learn to do that, too?
5) Stop assuming that you're being attacked just because someone disagrees with something your candidate said or because people don't support your candidate. It is not a personal attack on you, it is a personal preference and, being such strong supporters of the Constitution, you ALL should support their rights to have a differening opinion. I think those are the primary ones. I'm sure I missed a few, but I'm also sure that my fellow Brigadeers will put in their $.02 I bet you'll find most of "our side" willing to compromise, but completely unwilling to concede. Unfortunately, I have not seen any kind of penchant for reasonable behavior coming from the majority of "your side".
