CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 31, 2010 12:30 AM UTC

It Happens Every Year

  • 73 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve been writing about Colorado politics since late 2004. This means we’ve seen several election cycles come and go, and we’ve lived through–and diligently called the plays–for a number of hotly contentious primaries on both sides of the aisle.

In just about every case where a primary election is close at hand, the debate tends to get really heated. Because this is the biggest blog for political discussion in Colorado, everybody wants to get their particular spin in play here, and the first line of defense against an opponent’s attacks is frequently one of our comment threads. One of the best examples of this phenomenon was the primary between Marc Holtzman and Bob Beauprez in 2005-06, which turned into a daily battle royale between supporters of each–although you’ll find it to be the case for every high-profile contested primary that has occurred on our watch.

And inevitably, it gets out of hand at one point or another. Passions overheat, and people forget the basic rules of civility. Particularly in the case of an underdog seeking to take out a better organized opponent, it’s a standard practice to very deliberately ramp up the acrimony to a fever pitch. All of which, being entirely predictable, we don’t get very worked up about: our readers expect and enjoy vigorous debate, and when things do go too far our community usually self-polices very well.

One thing we can’t tolerate, however, is flagrant violations of our basic rules. In the last few days we have been forced to ban a couple of users who were trying to expose the identities of members of our site, in the context of debate over the current Democratic Senate primary. We have said repeatedly that this is never acceptable behavior, as it endangers the ability of many of our most valued community members to express themselves freely. The particular incidents that resulted in bans were egregious and repeated violations of this policy–there was absolutely no question that the individuals involved knew the rules and chose to disregard them.

Anyway, our point is simple: chill out. Don’t do things you know are wrong just because you’re really fired up. Understand that what you do while carrying your candidate’s flag in a public forum reflects on them. And above all, remember that you will still have to live with your actions on August 11th.

If you need a refresher, check out our posting rules. As we’ve always said: You can say just about whatever you want on Colorado Pols, and you’ve got more liberty to express those opinions here than just about anywhere else online in Colorado. But there are still lines that we ask you not to cross, with “no outing of someone’s identity” at the top of the list.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Tweet
Share

Comments

73 thoughts on “It Happens Every Year”

  4. Pols a serious thought to consider: have you ever thought that to some extent you are actually to blame?

    Consider: you have a bias on the races.  It’s pretty clear.  You post diaries that fit your bias.  So do I, so does everyone.  The difference is that you pretend like you aren’t biased.

    Now it’s your site.  You can post whatever you want.  But given the responsibility you have as a source of political information (I know you hate being called a news source), don’t you think you have an obligation to either state your bias or intentionally take steps to counter them?

    1. Even if the site is a bit biased – and I think it is – I don’t believe it is so biased and irrational as to be even marginally at fault.

      There’s a difference, after all, between assigning some portion of the problem of increasing right-wing paranoia to Beck (who is fanning those flames) and saying that Colorado Pols posting negative stories on Romanoff is responsible for Romanoff supporters going scorched earth on a non-FP poster.

      (I’d say that you’re blaming Colorado Pols’ dressing sexy for them getting raped, but that’s insensitive to rape victims – just consider the sentiment expressed, minus the rather inaccurate metaphor.)

    2. the bias is obvious then what’s the problem?  Everyone who becomes a regular on this blog will have no trouble figuring that out and judging content accordingly.  This isn’t an alleged news network like Fox, after all.

      But your trying to make some connection between that and the problem of outing is completely off base.   What does that have to do with following the prime directive: Thou shalt not out.  Ever. Even if you think everyone already knows.  Even if you think ColPols is full of bozos and run by ass hats. You just won’t or you will be banned.

      No nuance.  No guess work.  The easiest, most straightforward, clearly stated, no exceptions rule in the world to follow and if someone can’t follow it, no that’s not ColPol’s fault.  Not even a tiny bit.  In fact, those who break it know they will be banned and just hope to do some punitive damage in the small window between getting posted and having the post disappeared. They and they alone bear 100% of the responsibility.  If they weren’t perfectly willing to be banned they wouldn’t out.  Simple.  

      1. it seemed easier to address this all at once since you are responding to a singular post.

        PR — I don’t think your insensitive metaphor really fits here.  Many of the fights that break out between supporters in different camps emerge from how stories are presented.  Consider Wade’s hijacking of a diary today.  Frankly, I think it was very intentional on the part of Pols to discuss two of three races the article mentions, but leave out Romanoff’s recent gains.  Over and over again any misstep from the Romanoff campaign is highlighted.  Anything bad from the Bennet campaign is buried.  Think through the problems both have had — there is a clear preference in what is discussed and how.

        BC – I don’t think the problem lies in the regular posters not seeing the bias, but in the casual ones, or worse yet media sources that view Pols as a source of “Politics, News, and Inside Information” like the banner reads.  Is Fox News a news source?  Yes.  Does it have a serious bias?  Yes.  Unfortunately casual readers/outsider lookers probably aren’t as familiar with Pols’ bias as they are Fox News’

        As to your second point — sure if rules were followed equally I would agree.  There is again a large double standard.

        DaftPunk — two wrongs make a right? 😉

        1. How does any of that give one of your officemates license to out someone, even if it is all true? No more time wasted on you until you answer that question.

        2. for why stuff disappeared:

          In the last few days we have been forced to ban a couple of users who were trying to expose the identities of members of our site,

          That’s  what I take to be the reason for the mysterious wipe out we’ve been curious about. Past experience leads me to believe ColPols isn’t lying. I myself have been called a scumbag and nobody was banned.  I’ve called people morons and worse and not been banned.  I’ve seen others, left  and right, Romanoff and Bennet supporters, call each other worse and not get banned. On the other hand I’ve caught an outing comment and seen it disappear in a heartbeat  on several occasions. If I’ve misunderstood and ColPols has a different reason, I’m sure they’ll correct me and I’m sure, judging from past experience, it will be equally valid.

          And thanks for giving me yet another opportunity to show everyone how dumb I am. Very big of you. You’re clearly way too brilliant for poor little me. Will I ever recover? Sob!    

      2. What about caplis and the “Greater Good?” ( Wait a minute,, that might be the name of the tap dancing duo…Dan ‘n Craig…”a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants”)

        Only the print media that cannot be named but “that who must be obeyed” likes bennet.

        But enough. What is this about Congress and the pot brownies?????  Not that I care, I just thought I would inquire…in the interest of being an informed citizen….I mean, like in your own home?????

    4. With Romanoff supporters trying to out Bennet supporters, none of whom have front page access to this blog?

      I mean, that’s what happened, isn’t it? Firewalker, right? All that valuable Bennet hate gone forever because he went too far and tried to out somebody. A lot of comments threads are all ripped up now and he is the one who is missing, so I’m pretty sure that’s right.

      I have a question for you Stryker. Since outing people is the one ‘prime directive’ of playing on this website, the thing everyone KNOWS you get banned for doing, and Firewalker spent a lot of time putting up valuable Bennet smear, was it worth it to pull this shit and get it all deleted? A strategic #FAIL, don’t you think?

      1. The fights on here have a lot to do with Pols’ bias (you’ve been around awhile — I’m sure you know it well).  But clearly you don’t want to engage that point.

        As for Firewalker, that’s too bad.  Frankly I didn’t see how s/he tried to out anyone actually.  Care to explain why s/he was banned?  You seem to know a lot about this.

        1. That replied to him. But I was still here.

          And there is this http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

          Now you know as much as me.

          I think the Guvs are biased in favor of their opinion, which is what I come here to read. I’m personally voting for Michael Bennet, so if you’re looking for somebody to disagree with their opinion, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

          You are a shill for a desperate underdog candidate trying to work the refs. The Romanoff campaign is trying desperately to ratchet up the emotion in the last weeks before the election, because that is his only hope. It’s cool, I don’t blame you, but you deserve what you get when you push it too far.

        2. I ws concerned for the other poster involved, but to have commented on it more explicitly then, as now, would have involved (and would still involve) reinforcing the outing, so it couldn’t and can’t be done. There was no neon sign announcing it, but, yes, it definitely happened.

        3. I guess I meant meant to post my comment thanking you for the opportunity to show everyone how dumb I am here. Guess I’m just too dumb to keep the thread straight. But I’ll soldier on and learn to live with my disability.

        4. Really?

          Everyone saw it at least twice and it finally got reported and banned, and you didn’t see it?  Hmmmm….

          Really?

          Also, calling someone “dumb” is helpful and gives you respect and credibility on the blogs?

          Really?

          1. Really really.

            I didn’t see it either. Although, I have a life, which does not mean I have time to be trolling the blogs all day.

            Stupid is as stupid does.  

      2. Damn, because every time that dude said “interesting point” in reply to some other Romanoff sockpuppet, I was all, “you wouldn’t know interesting if it bit you in the ass,” and “you are as much an authority on what’s interesting as Mr. T is on what’s feminine.”

        That was so fun.

      3. Stryker himself has insinuated that he is outing people, including me.  He has said, with respect to me, that I from out of state (false) and on Bennet staff (false).

        It’s not outing if it’s false, I guess, but it is falsehood, rumor shit purporting to be outing.

        Not clear to me why that didn’t warrant a ban.

    5. Now if you’ll just follow your own advice, you have an opportunity to make this a better site.

      As it is now, you’re one of the worst offenders.

      But there’s always an opportunity for redemption, and some of us are willing to grant you that opportunity.  Go for it.

      1. The comment outing an old screenname under which I used to post was pulled from the thread a few days later – thanks Pols. I had used this pseudonym when I posted on partisan issues while working for a 501C3 – the Bell Policy Center – which felt appropriate at the time. The individual who outed me essentially sneered at my current assertion that by posting under my own name I am owning my comments, by saying something to the effect that he knew what my old identity was. Not a particularly illuminating observation to begin with.

        Just wanted to point out that if Firewalker has been disciplined he is not the only one.

      1. Bennet were taller than Buck, then their height would descend in alphabetical order (using last names). I think that would be reason enough to put all political differences aside. Alas, we can’t even speculate anymore that it might have been Buck’s heels that put him over….

  6. with Aristotle didn’t make the grade apparently. OK, I can take that.

    I still don’t understand the deletion of my comments vis-a-vis the Bennet financial engineering diary re: Regal theaters.

    I can still see that MADCO responded to both of them, but my original posts were deleted and I didn’t think they were either offensive, nor did they have anything to do with outing anyone. What gives?

    2. Sorry I don’t have time to read everything here.  I was hoping there would be a thoughtful dialogue here about the various views regarding the huge personal Anschutz profits in the Regal deal, which of course benefitted others working for him.  

      Will you get an answer to your question – why your comments were deleted regarding this story?  Let us know – I’m not holding my breath.

      1. Because I responded to Firewalker’s drivel regularly. Apparently when an admin deletes a comment or bans somebody, all the replies to that persons comments are all deleted too. I would prefer that not happen myself, I don’t know if it’s just the way it works of what.

        Anyway, I don’t know if that’s what happened to these comments but it could be.

        1. OK to draw a line, but really how sensitive do you have to be? I thought a little cursing was ok. And you can make a curse acronym, but not spell out the curse that acronym represents?

          Censorship is always strange to me.

        2. and if the initial reason for the disappearance is an outing the explanation will have to be less than complete in order to protect the outee as much as possible.  The more of us who missed  exactly who outed who the better. ColPol doesn’t want to clear that up for us too much. I simply assume that’s the case because of this in the diary:

          In the last few days we have been forced to ban a couple of users who were trying to expose the identities of members of our site,

          And if that’s the case the less we all know the less damage and if that means a few of our comments get erased along with the offenders, that’s a good trade off. I had a comment that was erased and I don’t remember it being anything out of the ordinary and I’m still here so I guess I’m not in too much trouble.  You probably aren’t in trouble either.

          1. Just went back and reread entire thread.  Yes, someone was repeatedly trying to out someone according to ColPol and yes replies to offenders comments get erased as well.  It’s explained in the latter part of The “Tank Rolls at 3PM Today” thread.  

          2. and yet our comment chain is gone. Why delete the comment and not tell the offender …

            Oh, MADCO! They DID tell you! And you are playing coy. I get it now. Sorry for being so dense.

      2. because, you know, it was not pro-Bennet. And BennetPols can’t allow any not-pro-Bennet diaries to remain…

        What are you gonna do? Start reading/posting on SquareState? I barely have time for this one blog… Sucks having a job I guess. Not too many here appear to…

          1. In what way do you mean that?

            BTW- I’ve been meaning to ask you an off-topic question about reverse engineering software code. Let me know if you’re interested in hearing it.

            1. I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it.

              On reverse engineering, often illegal (read the license agreement) and almost always a lot harder than people think. But sure, shoot me an email.

  7. because you can go all Richard Pryor and make your point being politically incorrect without having it cleared by the polite police.  As long as you follow the Prime Directive everyone gets a shot at everyone else.  That is the impartiality of the site and it’s free.  It doesn’t cost me anything to write stupid things that embarrass me and my progeny.

    Administrator neutrality is overrated anyway.  Whiny victimization posts are a Republican specialty so why go there?

    1. I’ve taken a lot of shots. Doesn’t phase me. As the youngest of six boys, this is nothing compared to my childhood!

      🙂

      And I agree about liberty and freedom to post almost anything. I just wish it were more so.

    2. If folks find it is too crude and raw then there are a ton of sanitized sites that they can find that also offer free entertainment.  People are free to leave comments and free to not visit the site.  If you don’t like the show then turn off the TV.  For the twisted and neurotic it is an addictive exercise in free speech.

      The respect comes from accepting the framework of debate.  Michelle Malkin outing home addresses is the kind of intimidation that isn’t welcome here.  The Pols Prime Directive works so don’t fuck with it.

      1. and I don’t know a one of you personally, so I couldn’t out anyone if I wanted to.

        But some seem to have an idea who I am… it’s so unfair!

        🙂

          1. Loud and proud and out of the cyber-closet is an individual choice.  You can make it for yourself but don’t go there for anyone else.

            1. Refrigerator on the porch?

              Bath tub in the driveway?

              Rusted corrugated metal roof?

              Front yard with nine or ten stripped cars for the kids to play in?

    1. you’re just a Bennet/Romanoff/Norton/Buck/McInnis/Maes troll, blind to Pols obvious bias in favor of (insert candidate).

      How can you not see it? It’s so obvious.

        1. While it might be politically advantageous for me to buy Tanc a bullhorn and throw him a parade, I would prefer to let the little clown perform his three ring circus in front of as small a crowd as possible.

          For decency’s sake.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

116 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!