Online Blogintegrity

Salud!
 

waitaminute, now - you're saying that OI watches idly, while their own battleship takes a critical hit, rolls over & tanks? Is that legal? or just unbelievably stupid? or mebbe they get high sniffin' glub-glub bubbles, regardless of source?

Weepers, wow, & OMFG. With enemies like this, friends are unnecessary (but they might find entertainment, just by watching).
 

I thought watching idly, while your flagship takes critical hits, rolls over and tanks was a primetime soap opera for the folks associated with the FrumpyHouseCoatMedia.
 

Perhaps if we bathed disdainfully toward OI and the perps, that would resolve the problem?
 

I have it on very good authority that about 20 hours ago, ThroatwarblerMangrov posted a comment to the latest online integrity "regrets post" concerning Patrick Bell and Jeff Goldstein. ThroatwarblerMangrov has apparently not yet been banned, but his (or her) comment has not been posted.

However, when ThroatwarblerMangrov visits http://onlineintegrity.org/?p=9#comments he no longer sees his comment with "awaiting moderation". The comment is simply no longer to be seen at all, suggesting it was deleted.
 

nobly defended the rights of bloggerros ala izqueirda to browbeat each other een extended bouts of joyless hectoring.

Too true, begob.
 

Correspondence with Aziz Poonawalla that he has graciously agreed that I can share here.

I will try to piece it together in a way that represents the conversation, but the best part is near the bottom.

Aziz: "ok, go ahead. You may want to tell that Gato guy that I didnt write the statement of regret about Armando's outing on the OI blog either.

If people would just understand that OI is a set of elucidated principles, and not a policing scheme, then things would be so much simpler. Frankly establishing discipline and consequences and punishments and whatnot strikes me more as a right-wing tactic than something we liberals shoudl be interested in.

If a signatory violates the ledge, then its fair to call him on it. Why undermine OI as a set of prciples though? OI wasnt at fault. Its teh violator-signatory. I dont understand why your cobloggers are so hostile. Especially Gato who I though based on earlier email conversation had understood my position but his latest post fairly drips with contempt for people like me."

Me: "Well, frankly, this would clear up a lot about why OI seems to be
silent over so much over at blogintegrityblogspot.blogspot.com.
Because they are all really curious about this as am I.

Instead of sharing it with them, perhaps you could address this in a
post over at OI or a comment over at
blogintegrityblogspot.blogspot.com"

Aziz: "
> don't know of any code of ethics that
> does not have some corresponding method of policing those ethics.

its an honor system, we are not the blog police. Its just a pledge - a statement of principles. Theres no way to read anything more into it than that.

> Would you mind if I share your response?

where?

Me: "
Thank you for the prompt reply.

I am disappointed with it, I don't know of any code of ethics that
does not have some corresponding method of policing those ethics.
(But I am not a student of codes of ethics so that means little) But
it seems to me that lawyers, engineers, doctors, i.e., the professions
all of codes of ethics and methods and places for consumers to respond
and methods for the profession to police itself. Without measurement
and feedback it seems ineffective (to be kind).

Would you mind if I share your response?
"

Aziz: "Online integrity is a statement of principles, *****not a code of enforcement*******. The very fact that an announcement was made at all in Armando's case was quite atthe edge and somewhat beyond the jurisdiction of the OI campaign. That you thought it was tepid is frankly baffling to me.

OI is not in the business of replying or making official comment on every "outing" that takes place - it's about a code of conduct that is voluntary. We made a special case for Armando because it was much more grave an issue.

If you observe a *signator* to OI acting in violation of the pledge, then let me know. I don't share your view that OI is in any way need of a reform nor do I observe a problem - we drafted the OI principles for a very specific purpose, and you're bringing up events that just don't have direct relevance to the OI pledge.

1. How does someone report an abuse?

you dont. We are not in the business of documenting abuses.

2. What is the onlineintegrity process in determining if an abuse
has taken place?

there is none.

3. What is the expected time before OI makes an official remark?

there is no reason that OI is ever obligated to make an offficial remark. We chose to do so for Armando but thats not going to happen every time."

Me: "
I am writing to you because I see that you are a founder of
onlineintegrity. I think that Online Integrity was a reasonable idea
to sign on to, but I am not sure if you know what has transpired in
the past several weeks.

Within the past three weeks, Thersites and his wife NYMary have been
outed at Protein Wisdom, and Online Integrity has said nothing. Clif
has been outed by Patrick Bell, and Online Integrity has said nothing.

When I added a comment to Online Integrity a week or so ago, asking
about the outing of
Thersites, my pseudonym, created for just that occasion,
GeneralMichaelHayden, was banned, and OnlineIntegrity said nothing
about Thersites. I created another pseudonym last night,
ThroatwarblerMangrov and posted another very reasonable comment to the
latest post at OI. At first that comment said it was awaiting
moderation. And now that comment no longer appears at all.

At this point, there seems to be an enormous silence from OI when
outings occur. And yet, all of this was formed when a first tier
blogger (Malkin) outed and then was outed herself. And with Armando's
recent outing, OI made a very tepid response.

And so I ask you what I asked in a comment at OI, what I later
asked in comments at SwordsCrossed and at DailyKos:

"
1. How does someone report an abuse?

2. What is the onlineintegrity process in determining if an abuse
has taken place?

3. What is the expected time before OI makes an official remark?

4. Why was "GeneralMichaelHayden" banned at OI when his "crime"
apparently was reporting an online abuse and providing details? [Why
was ThroatwarblerMangrov's comment deleted?]

5. How come email addresses or a contact form are not provided at
online integrity?
"

I also sent a very similar email to Ezra Klein, Mark Kleiman, Hilzoy, and Max Sawicky. None of them have responded yet (it is Shabbat, even in Vegas)
 

To be fair, I only suggested that the anonymous voice was Aziz based on the similarities een the language of the OI statement and the language Aziz used een an email exchange weeth jour humble poster.

I do no theenk my leetle post ees "dripping' weeth contempt for Aziz.
Maybe "misty" weeth contempt, or "dewy" weeth contempt, eh?

so.
 

I thought su poste dripped con una salsa muy suave. Contempt? No. no.

Anyway, there you have it. OI was formed to do nothing, and nothing is exactly what they are doing. Nothing that is apart from whoring their name for publicity and to bash bloggers that don't sign on and claim that lefties are impossible to work with. But actual policing of their code of ethics? We don't need no stinkin badges!
 

Here was my response to Aziz:

Dripping with contempt? Possibly, but really funny too.

Well I am not really a coblogger of theirs so I cannot answer why they
seem so hostile.

I think a code of ethics for online integrity would be a good thing,
but my problem with OI as I have made clear (in this email and in
deleted comments at OI) is that

A) There is no policing mechanism and so therefore worthless apart
from bragging rights
B) Online Integrity is much more than just privacy invasion and since
you folks have narrowed yourself to just privacy invasion and are
ignoring other important issues (lying, smearing) I find OI bizarre at
the least
C) In the very first posts at OI, and then again just in his response
to the National Journal article, it is clear that OI is a mechanism to
beat the left with. The very first posts contained bragging about the
numbers of righties that had signed on and words to the effect that
lefties were aholes that would not sign on, and Tactless said
absolutely the same thing in the nat journal article. All of that I
would say is hardly a stance of integrity.
D) OI members have no idea what it stands for. Many think it was
formed to defend Malkin, others think it was formed in response to
Malkin's actions, and there is no online activity to attempt to define
what OI is or where it is going.
E) In the meantime it seems to be an attention whoring activity, ie
the article in nat journal and the ability to leverage that to bash
people who don't join in, ALL the while telling people that OI will do
nothing and plans to keep it that way.

As Ann Althouse would say, "frankly I find that weird"
 

Anyway, there you have it. OI was formed to do nothing, and nothing is exactly what they are doing.

I disagree. I think it was formed as a way of allowing those who really do want to "out" someone they don't like with a set of "official" rules that they can pretend to observe while they go about doing what they really want to do -- out someone.

It provides cheap rhetorical cover.

The one thing that OI did in its remarks on Armando that was obnoxious was choose to speak from a royal "We." Who are "We"?

Nobody knows who the hell "Online Integrity" actually is. Who is doing the deleting?

For a site that is all about "integrity" there is zero transparency and zero accountability for their statements and actions taken and not taken.
 

"C) In the very first posts at OI, and then again just in his response
to the National Journal article, it is clear that OI is a mechanism to
beat the left with."

Except, that the only event on which OI has issued a public statement on, was the outing of Armando.

Look, I am a man of faith. Some people use the same religion I love to do grotesque, disgusting things. Does that mean that my religion was intended only as a tool with which people could justify beheadings with?

I will try to address your complaints again, Jacques. I will do so at a neutral venue like Dean Esmay's blog where I have posting priveleges. I will *not* get drawn into another he said/he said dispute like this affair with the Thersites fellow and Goldstein.

Frankly, my reluctance stems from my suspicion that while admittedly some on the right see OI as a useful club to beat liberals up with, others see it as a useful club to do the opposite. I can see that I am being made out to be a hypocrite here, despite my good faith attempts at responding to both you and Gato. But as long as people like "thers" above keep insisting - even *after* I have gone through considerable trouble to engage in a dialouge on this - that the whole affair is disingenous and a trap and what not, and do't even deign to give my attempts any legitimacy at all, then the whole effort at dialouge is truly a waste of time. I expect some willingness here to be understanding. If youre goal is to denounce OI no matter what OI does, then tell me why I (who genuinely believe in it) should take you seriously as you expect me to?

im not sure how i even got to this thread -followed some referral links or something - so please email me if you want to reply rather than comment here.
 

Eet was no my intent to call joo a hypocrite, Aziz. I merely weesh to point out, een a satiric manner, that all the violations of thees pledge have come from the right side of la blogsfera.

Jour arguments that thees ees a personal, and therefore somehow unenforceable integrity pledge would seem to result een a pledge that can be abused by those who have signed eet, weeth no consequences.

The joke of including joo ees that thees ease of abuse must, at some level, make joo a leetle beet nervous, no?

so.
 

I will reply here and in email. But my reply is relatively simple and not a whole lot more than what I posted at OI on May 4th.

Why would you need a neutral ground like "Dean Esmay's" (who by the reputation I know of him, and by quick referral to his blogroll is certainly not neutral (How can you even think this guy is neutral?))

But why go to a neutral ground at all? Aren't you a founder of OI? Don't you have posting privileges at OI? Doesn't OI have comments? Aren't my questions and complaints about OI's behavior?

Isn't my chief complaint that OI is a meaningless front? Doesn't your insistence on having this discussion anyplace other than OI just confirm that?

Shouldn't this discussion be occurring only at OI? Why on earth should this discussion be occurring anywhere other than OI?

So I am only going to discuss this at OI, or here at BIBSDC.BS.COM (Darn you alcholics anyway!)

I don't think you are being made out to be a hypocrite here, at worse just an ignorant but useful tool for Josh Trevino. Josh is the guy that started this (and that apparently bans users and deletes comments at OI) and that refuses to discuss this at OI.

And Josh is the guy that in his response to the Nat Journal article said amongst other things, "A) The online left, at least, is suffused with a paranoid ethic that precludes any meaningful collaboration — even on areas of common interest — with the right." As well as saying yet again how his history is that of outing people and being contemptuous of them BUT ALL OF THAT HAS NOW CHANGED. And now is saying that this attempt is truly a bipartisan attempt THAT THE LEFTIES HAVE RUINED!

And come on Aziz, the VERY THIRD POST at OI said something along the lines of: "We now have 50 tighty righty bloggers, and only 15 left wing bloggers. Left wing bloggers have no principles!" That was such an obviously disgusting attack that that post was updated, but the notice of update was buried in the comments.

So here Aziz is the behavior I see, and you are apparently responsible for none of it, and so I cannot understand how you and Ezra and Kleiman and Hilzoy and Sawicky can continue to put your name alongside OI.

1) Third post at OI says lefties are evil.
2) Josh Trevino within the past five days says lefties are paranoid and evil.
3) You folks claim to have a statement of ethical behavior, yet UNLIKE EVERY OTHER ethics board, you propose no method for the consumer to post a complaint and you have no policies to look into complaints and make any sort of judgment.
4) Patrick Bell and Jeff Goldstein signed the OI pledge and violated the pledge and you won't or can't even remove their names from your site.

Aziz, I truly believe you have the best intentions. My behavior throughout has been that of a serious consumer wishing to file an ethics complaint. My complaint today is little more than what I posted on May 4th (http://onlineintegrity.org/?p=4#comment-38) but with additional righty outing behavior goodness. It is in fact OI's behavior in banning me and deleting my comments and the deafening silence in regards to Bell and Goldstein while touting OI in online magazines (presumably for OI and JT name recognition) that leads me to believe that OI folks are not serious. And if you are not serious about ethics, Occam's razor suggests to me that Trevino's motives are for name glory or for bashing purposes.

And let me tell you, the last thing I need is to be outed, which is why I am damn scared of playing within the dismal notice of Josh Trevino who admits that historically, he likes to out people.

I welcome your response as a POST at OI. But post it there, or else don't wonder why I think that OI is a disingenuous front.
 

I will *not* get drawn into another he said/he said dispute like this affair with the Thersites fellow and Goldstein.

Certainly. Making ethical decisions on issues you yourself went out of your way to raise can be quite taxing. I quite sympathize.

But as long as people like "thers" above keep insisting - even *after* I have gone through considerable trouble to engage in a dialouge on this

That explains why you never replied to my very polite question on OI right after your initial post.


I will try to address your complaints again, Jacques. I will do so at a neutral venue like Dean Esmay's blog where I have posting priveleges.

A neutral venue is one where you have posting privileges...?

Your talk of integrity is surely the handiwork of wisdom, for not one word of it do I understand.

Who is OI, anyway? Who issues the "official statements"? Again, if you want to be taken seriously when you speak of "intrgrity," try some transparency.

And stop being such a baby. You have been criticized. Not martyred.
 

Amigos...

¿Does anyone know eef thees information about Armando has been taken off of the site yet?

¿eh?
 

I expect some willingness here to be understanding. If youre goal is to denounce OI no matter what OI does, then tell me why I (who genuinely believe in it) should take you seriously as you expect me to?

How on earth can you draw the conclusion that folks here would "denounce OI no matter what OI does," when our complaint is specifically that OI does nothing more than to provide bragging rights to its signatories, while requiring nothing more from them than a pledge not to out people unless they feel like it, and not to hold pledge-breakers responsible unless they're bothered by it?

If the OI pledge didn't have loopholes you could drive a truck through, and if it were backed up by some sort of enforcement (e.g., deleting people's names, or a "hall of shame"), I - for one - wouldn't be criticizing it. Other people here might have other issues with it, but that's mine.

I have no reason not to believe that you, personally, are sincere about OI. But I'm baffled as to why you think we shouldn't be deeply skeptical of an ethical "commitment" that can be broken at will, for clearly malicious purposes, with no inconvenient effects.

Seriously, OI is so vague and toothless that it makes the honor system look downright authoritarian. Can you honestly not see this at all?