Do you think staffers who post on DU should be required to note their affiliations?

[RainDog]

Poll question: Do you think staffers who post on DU should be required to note their affiliations?

obviously, in the case of someone like the Paul troll, that wouldn't happen. But those who are either paid or are currently volunteering for someone's current campaign - should people whose jobs require them to support certain positions be required to disclose this for the sake of professional ethics?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I don't see why they should...

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

2. We don't get a simple "No" option?

[RainDog]

4. I think that's "all your trolls are belong to us"

or look a pony.

[Radical Activist]

8. I think people should just be honest about where they're coming from.

For example, what if you work on someone's staff but you're posting on your own time about things not related to your boss? Wouldn't those people not feel free to post their feelings? Why should they have to worry about getting in trouble at work because they posted their feelings about a certain issue or about how hungover they were on Friday?

The problem is the act of dishonestly portraying yourself in an attempt at infiltration and subterfuge. For example, I'm happy to have socialists here arguing their viewpoint. What I find irritating is people who pose as Democrats, repeat anti-Democratic talking points, and aren't honest about the fact that NOTHING Obama does will be enough for them. It's the dishonest trolling behavior I have a problem with more than who they work for.

[RainDog]

11. in that case, wouldn't it be ethical, then...

to not post about things someone is paid to have an opinion about?

I can see your argument, too.

But when people operate off of the assumption that we're just a bunch of people from various walks of life who post here - if someone is a professional posting about an issue - that person could provide some valuable insight once and a while, too, based upon that position. But that person would also have a vested interest in using various tactics to silence critics, too.

See, I agree that it's too easy, sometimes, for those of us here to not see the progress that's made - to see the way that political progress occurs over time. One reason is that many people are in difficult circumstances at this time.

People get frustrated and a message board that is geared to their political concerns is the prime outlet to vent frustration sometimes, especially when people have forged friendships over time through meeting up locally for either political or purely friendly reasons.

On my own I decided I wanted to keep track of drug policy issues and follow the Prop. 19 issue in CA because I think this is a tipping point, or maybe one election cycle away, from major changes that I support (and not, as many would assume, because of the recreational use of cannabis.) If I were wealthy, I would make investment decisions based upon this belief, in fact. But I'm not so I just follow the issue.

While doing this, I started reading about the long history of lobbying groups for decriminalization, then legalization, etc. I saw the long, long fight to make sometimes incremental changes. I saw the dogged persistence to continue to advocate for those changes in spite of set backs - including the horrific Reagan years.

If I were a staffer for the MPP or Norml or the Drug Policy Alliance, etc... I think that, ethically, if I posted pro-legalization posts about this, it would be the right thing for me to disclose my position because, in that case, I wouldn't just be some josephine schmoe.

When you talk about "infiltration and subterfuge" - that sounds very different than a joe/josephine schmoe posting on a message board and a professional with an agenda. Do you really think that people on this site who caucus with Democrats, as Bernie Sanders does, are not really democrats if they would identify their political positions as ones more aligned with new deal policies rather than new democrat ones?

One thing that I think we see happening on DU is this: we've never had a Democratic president in office since the advent of major, graphic-based internet sites - when Clinton began his time in office, the web was text based and groups were listservs.

The major change people see now, in online political conversations, is the opportunity for anyone to have an opinion - no matter how ill-informed (and, sad to say, I recognize that I am ill-informed on various topics.) The internet has always had a little bit of the wild west about it, in terms of discourse - I would imagine there are many here who would not, generally, be so adamant in a face-to-face conversation as they are online (tho, sometimes this isn't true, depending on the topic/circumstance.)

And I think that the Democratic party hears more from those who don't usually have a voice because of sites like DU...that whole "herding cats" idea with DU as the litter box for complaints.

While I'm sure those complaints are frustrating for people who are trying to work within a system that seems designed to frustrate change, it's equally frustrating to be told to sit down, shut up and vote.

just sort of a ramble, but hopefully goes a little bit toward explaining why I asked the question in the first place.

[Radical Activist]

14. This reinforces my view that pay isn't the issue.

What if the Rand Paul intern had been an unpaid volunteer? Would it have made the act any more or less appropriate? It makes Paul's campaign look slimy for having someone do that, but the impact on the online forum is the same whether a paycheck is involved or not.

Let's move to a more friendly example, such as someone working for a Democratic Congressional candidate or an issue like legalizing marijuana. Yes, I think it's better for a person to state if they're a paid staffer promoting something as part of their job. But, I wouldn't be upset if they didn't disclose that fact as long as what they're advocating and their behavior are in harmony with the purpose of that online community. Does someone posting fund raising appeals and news articles for their obscure Congressional candidate or a progressive issue disrupt the DU community and work against the stated goal of supporting Democrats? No, I don't believe so as long as they're making their case honestly like anyone else would.

But let's say hypothetically that someone was a log-cabin Republican who had the goal of undermining support for Democrats within the gay community. They post at online forums belittling Obama's action on gay rights and stoke anger, sometimes by posting dishonest statements. If they're not honest about where they're coming from or what their real goals are then that person is engaging in destructive, trolling behavior. Whether they're paid by someone or not isn't particularly important to me.

[RainDog]

23. well, that's why I included the volunteer question.

because, yes, I agree that it doesn't matter if someone is paid or not if their goal is to undermine liberal policy goals.

It's not like I'm quite so gullible as to think that people would disclose things - tho I'm pretty boringly honest for the most part about my affiliations and positions.

I don't think it's bad to talk about this in a civil manner, however, and I appreciate you doing so.

[Radical Activist]

24. Oh yeah.

I blame forgetting that you included volunteers on how late it is. Insomnia may keep me posting for a while anyway.

[Missy Vixen]

53. Wouldn't part of "being honest about where you're coming from"

include disclosing the fact one might, perhaps, just maybe, be somewhat biased towards one point of view due to financial or personal arrangements?

Is this not what so many at DU have railed against in the past - politicians that are beholden to special interests, perhaps, and don't openly disclose the information? Why should we expect less on a political discussion board?

>What I find irritating is people who pose as Democrats, repeat anti-Democratic talking points, and aren't honest about the fact that NOTHING Obama does will be enough for them.<

There's a difference between debate and trolling. I've been critical of the current administration, and I have been voting as a member of the Democratic Party since 1979. I've also been a member of this community since Inauguration weekend of 2001. Perhaps it would be enlightening to require that those who post here should also have to add bona fides to their profiles - voting record, volunteer work on behalf of the Democratic Party and its candidates, amount of political donations and to whom, etcetera.

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

59. ...

You wrote: "There's a difference between debate and trolling."

Yes, and my comment doesn't apply to anyone who debates or criticizes the President. It applies to people who have an agenda that precludes honest debate.

[Missy Vixen]

60. And whom might that be?

>It applies to people who have an agenda that precludes honest debate.<

It's against DU rules to call out or infer that anyone posting here is a troll or disruptor.

You didn't answer my question. Don't you believe that it's important to publicly disclose any kind of relationship that biases one's opinions?

[Radical Activist]

64. "Important"

In real terms, I don't think much of anything at DU is actually important. It shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm not sure what you're getting at by suggesting people should disclose "any kind of relationship." Do I have to reveal the name of my college professor who influenced me?

Comment 14 describes my thoughts in more detail.

[Posteritatis]

52. It's not a proper DU poll without the push, you see. (nt)

[11 Bravo]

80. Should they also be required to indicate their race and gender if ...

they wish to post on threads pertaining to those topics?

[DrSteveB]

3. Yes

I don't want to cheer the bust at Daily Kos without asking for transparency everywhere. That would make me a hypocrite.

[m00nbeam]

5. Absolutely

Transparency is a good thing.

[gkhouston]

6. Sounds like a useless requirement to me.

The people who are on the up-and-up probably already talk about their candidate anyway (and damn, we wish they'd stop ;-)) and the trolls are going to lie about their affiliations.

[murielm99]

7. Yes.

We can do that in a positive way as well as in the interests of transparency.

We all say whether or not we are members of the DU activist corps. I am not, but I have always disclosed my political activity at my county and state level. I have held several elected positions at the county levels. Currently I am only a precinct committeeman. But when I hold an office or work with a campaign, I say so. We can learn from each other, and we can learn from people who hold elected offices or work for a campaign. We will find the trolls one way or another. We always do.

[leftstreet]

9. Only if DUers get to do their performance reviews

:evilgrin:

[TexasObserver]

10. No. (a) they wouldn't disclose, and (2) if they did, they'd lie.

I assume there are many staffers who post here.

[Zanzobar]

12. What is the point of making a rule that cannot be enforced?

[LoZoccolo]

13. They should be required to do it or what?

The board has pretty much no leverage against someone who doesn't have to reveal their intentions behind posting and would just set up a new account if they got tombstoned. At best it would create a false sense of security and a cover for people who really were paid staffers and wouldn't want to admit it.

The more interesting issue for me about the Rand Paul troll story is not that someone was trolling, because that happens all the time, but that they see attacks from the left as the most effective way of attacking thier opponents.

[RainDog]

17. I think the right trolling from the left merely indicates they recognize a weakness

While the Democratic party has taken great pains to alienate the left in the last few months - from Emanuel to Gibbs to Davis - the Republican party recognizes that the Democrats are hurting themselves by a tactic seemingly designed to appeal to those who are moderate Republicans. What other reason could the Democratic party have for making comments designed to denigrate those who worked to elect Democratic candidates?

So the Republicans are trying to exploit an existing weakness - one they work to create, as well, by refusing to work with the majority party.

If Democrats try to win by being more conservative, more religiously reactionary, etc... of course Republicans will try to exploit the disgust this causes among those who disagree with these positions.

In contrast, Republicans put Palin on the ticket to appease the Dobson wing of the Republican Party. This wasn't an effective strategy for them, however, because Palin is and was such a freaking train wreck.

In the case of many liberal positions, however, polls indicate wide-spread support for those positions - in the case of HCR, or maintaining social security, or capital gains taxes or drug policy issues.

So, while Palin was not within the American mainstream, it seems to me that many "left" positions are - depending, of course, on how polls are worded. So Democrats find many with honest grievances - which makes it easier for a right winger to rat fuck.

And, you know, this isn't the first time right wingers have insinuated themselves into Democratic politics, of course. Jonah Goldberg's mom, Lucien, was a mole on the McGovern campaign BUS. And, interestingly, she was also a principle rat fucker in the Monica Lewinski moment (I still have my questions about Lewinski - paid or unpaid.)

[Starry Messenger]

15. I would think they would want to.

Surely more transparency rather than less is a laudable goal for a Dem. I try to make it clear that I am a teacher when I advocate for my positions. I think readers deserve to know what forms a point of view. If someone is a worker in a political agency or an elected official then it would be unethical to lobby here without the readership knowing that there was a professional office behind it. I've googled several people here and been surprised just how inside they are in several political hot button arenas, with real policy influence. I think it is wrong for them to misrepresent themselves as mere citizen advocates.

[smalll]

16. I'll go first. I'm a top-level staffer for Hillary Clinton.

She pays me $100 an hour to post on DU.

(By the way, in real life, she's a great person; a lot of humor, down to earth, etc. etc. Also, her new hairstyle looks SO good. Plus, the scuttlebutt around the office is that she will DEFINITELY be replacing Biden in 2012. Suck on that, haters!)

[xultar]

20. Me too!

[Radical Activist]

21. I'm inspired to follow your example. I'm Rahm Emanuel's personal shopper.

I blog during my off time when I'm not finding him new power ties.

[Number23]

25. I confess. I am a paid operative of the National Kickball Association

http://www.nka-kc.com/ It's not just for kids, you know...

Our mission is to encourage everyone to once again, kick up those little red balls of joy and score a base for humanity!

[smalll]

26. Hipster! /nt

[Radical Activist]

27. I admit, that sometimes I feel like a kickball.

I get tired of being called "fucking retarded" if I pick something he doesn't like. And then there are the odd requests. Such as, "does this suit make me look angry?" It's a challenging job.

[Number23]

31. Oh, I can imagine

It's a challenging job.

I bet the toughest part is picking out which pair of fangs he's going to wear that day. Although I can imagine that having to "release the hounds" on any small children that wander by must be tough too. ((pats RA soothingly on back))

[MountainLaurel]

82. Seriously?

I played in a league last summer before determining that me and team athletics just weren't meant to be.

[treestar]

44. I'm being paid by the Venezuelan government

Hugo is a real hoot in person!

[Radical Activist]

76. I always look for CITGO stations.

Does that earn me points with Hugo?

[Desertrose]

18. Good luck with that.

Seriously. Like everyone on a message board is gonna be 100% truthful.


OK. Sure.

[xultar]

19. Really? ROFL

[cynatnite]

22. Nope. n/t

[OJones]

28. PayPerPost

requires its bloggers (including me!) to disclose PPP sponsorship somewhere on their blog.

WHY? :nuke:


In other words: I'm jealous of these anonymous, paid staffers.

[LatteLibertine]

29. Question

How would you or could you validate their sincerity?

A shill, or a plant is not going to be honest about their nature.

[Hardrada]

30. Current or former members of the National Socialist Party should also be registered

and members of any Bundist or Silver Shirt or Klan organizations.

[sabrina 1]

32. Looks like the Paul staffer was wrongfully accused and never

posted on Daily Kos. So, people need to stop rushing to conclusions before giving the 'accused' at least a chance to respond.

[JTFrog]

37. Says who? Paul's aide? Markos isn't backing down on his side of the story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/rand-paul-campaign-staffe_n_708965.html

UPDATE: In the wake of denial of any wrongdoing from Paul's camp, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, signaled to Ben Smith at Politico that the site is not backing down on its side of the story.

"Our evidence is based on the signup email -- which can't be scammed. The owner of that email has to verify it by clicking on a link to post on Daily Kos," Markos Moulitsas emails, providing a different, and apparently real, email address for Kubica.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

77. Are you calling the integrity of Rand Paul into question?

For shame!

[LostinVA]

33. Including those who have worked for or been an elected official

[DailyGrind51]

34. And, I want them to post their birth certificates also!

[sendero]

35. I've been convinced for a long time..

... there are people here who are paid to spout their crap, nobody could be that stupid for free. That said, none of these folks are going to admit anything so it is a moot point.

[Mimosa]

38. I'm sure of it Sendero

I can tell which couple of members are DLC or administration operatives. They post the same talking points on the same issues all the time with new links. I understand where they're coming from and why.

They're not bad people at all. I think it's their job to try to keep 'the base' feeling upbeat.

[sendero]

39. You and I differ..

... on that, to me the DLC is no better than a Republican, and I don't hold either in much esteem.

[JTFrog]

40. Even easier to spot libertarian and right wing ops.

:shrug:

[SidDithers]

65. and the faux "progressives"...nt

Sid

[chrisa]

41. I seriously doubt operatives are paid to come and troll DU.

That's a bit of an imaginative stretch. And even, in the small chance, they were, who cares? They would all be banned anyways.

[Occulus]

74. Almost all sites like this one have paid operatives

but they're usually being paid by corporations to protect the corporate brand. The Toyota sudden acceleration problem springs to mind, as does the health care "reform" legislation and "thank God it passed!"

One fine example of a State operative was the obviously paid troll who was here during the runup to the Olympic Games- I'm sure some here will remember the "China can do no wrong" troll. Each and every least littlest criticism of China- and especially the Chinese government- was met with a long, rambling subthread that usually got the thread locked, which, of course, was the goal: criticism of China, you see, cannot be tolerated when China is hosting the Games. By shutting down the discussion, the troll wins.

There are firms out there that pay people to do exactly this; just do a simple Google search for "get paid to post" or some such. I think it's very naive from a community point of view to say that this doesn't happen, or doesn't happen here.

[chrisa]

83. I just think we shouldn't worry about them.

Calling somebody a troll who isn't a troll is a real shame. They're so little a problem (which the mods take care of anyway), that nobody ever notices them.

[Vinca]

36. If someone is being paid for the purpose of trolling, yes.

[Barack_America]

47. But certainly no such people post on DU!

:sarcasm:

[Vinca]

48. I've got my suspicions about a couple of posters, but who knows.

[hlthe2b]

42. and you would enforce that, how?

[JTFrog]

43. Being a firm believer in anonymity on the internet when it comes to "discussion boards",

I'm still looking for a "no" option.

After all,

Obvious troll is... Obvious.

:shrug:

[SoxFan]

45. I work for MJ-12

All your posts are belong to us.

[NJmaverick]

46. I am Bo's walker and waste disposal coordinator

Seriously though, I will say this- I would much rather people think I am a Democratic staffer or paid operative than being a paid Republican operative or staffer. I think that shows one is doing something right.

[jgraz]

61. So THAT's where you get it from.

Sorry, slow pitch, right over the plate. :P

[NJmaverick]

66. yup, that's where I get the ability to spot it a mile away

:hi:

[DainBramaged]

73. Unless (of course) you are accusing people without proof or justification of being GOP operatives

:spank:

[MineralMan]

49. All of the income I earn from my personal website goes to

support my posting on DU. So far, I'm working for nothing, but, hey...if my website somehow starts making money, then I'll spend it all on posting here. Oh...wait...it doesn't cost anything to post here. Oh, never mind.

Seriously, though, my pay as DFL precinct chair for Ward 6, Precinct 13 in Saint Paul, MN supports my posting here on DU. Oh...wait...that's a volunteer position.

Crap! No money coming from anywhere. This is a damned lousy job. Jeez! Why on Earth am I doing this?

Now I'm in a mood...

[azmouse]

50. I get paid in cheese to post on DU....

...in my dreams. <:3)~~~~~~~~~

[Jokerman]

51. OK, I'm Sarah Palin's Plastic Surgeon.

Nobody knows the horror I've seen.

THE HORROR!

[Radical Activist]

58. Hasn't she asked for her money back yet?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigwillq]

55. No (nt)

[Ignis]

56. Thanks for posting this poll.

Some of the defensive responses put me in mind of this quote from the bard:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[cliffordu]

57. I get paid by a small but aggressive cabal as

a brutal fixer and weapons procurement specialist.

I also represent a floral conglomerate in Tulip crop negotiations.

[asdjrocky]

62. Classic. nt

[DainBramaged]

63. You bet, especially people who complain about posting images about

Reverend Phelps and the moron buring Korans

[earth mom]

67. Where is the HELL YES option?!

:grr:

[Radical Activist]

68. Should someone reveal when they belong to another website which has the goal of trolling DU?

That's the more relevant question.

[SoxFan]

69. We need a "Tree Strikes You're Out" rule

[geek tragedy]

70. The old tickle-me-Elmo routine? nt

[leftstreet]

71. You mean like freeper sites?

...or other leftist sites, or what?

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

72. freeper is one.

Any site that coordinates and encourages disruptive, harassing or trolling behavior at DU. Ideology isn't the issue.

[MineralMan]

75. Not a bad idea, actually.

[JTFrog]

78. + infinity

[DevonRex]

79. I get paid by the Bilderbergers, of course. They have the most money and power.

:evilgrin:

[CreekDog]

81. If someone is being paid to post that should be disclosed

People already seem to think that posters with strong opinions are paid to post --but some people post annoyingly repetitive opinions for free. :P

Volunteering shouldn't need to be disclosed.