U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 21, 2009 04:48 PM UTC
45 Comments
Perhaps this should have been posted here instead of in a diary, which I’ve taken down assuming that the question will be answered here instead.
Below is a recent comment by Middle of the Road:
Is outing anonymous posters now acceptable on this site? Did ColoradoPols do so in this case? (The above quoted comment was the first “outing” I saw in the case of triguardian. And for the record once again: I have no role in the Romanoff campaign, not even as a volunteer. My attacks on Bennet are entirely of my own invention. AND, for the record, I did read ColoradoPols say that (a) the votes of triguardian’s sockpuppets had been removed, and (b) that ColoradoPols had determined that no contravention of sockpuppet rules had taken place by anyone who voted for me.)
Some blogs–I had thought this was one, but perhaps no longer–allow anonymous posting and take steps against those who reveal their identity. There is a good reason for this: anonymity allows some people to make posts without jeopardizing their employment. Taking drastic action, such as banning, against people who “out” them seems reasonable to protect the integrity of the site.
For all of us: What is the policy here with regard to posters who “out” anonymous posters? Specifically, (a) Is this a bannable offense? (b) Who “outed” triguardian first? What steps were taken vis a vis that poster? (c) What is the policy re repeating the original post “outing” a user? And while we’re at it, what do you mean when you say “Be excellent to one another … or else.” Or else what? Whatever it means, does it apply to editors too?
Can you “out” someone who does not post here because he/she/it has been banned?
The comment you are referring to was apparently posted yesterday evening. We had not seen it before your post. It was not conformal with our policy against outing people and has been deleted. We do not “out” members of our community even when they annoy us. This is a bond of trust that protects everyone participating, including your hosts. That said, we prefer to solve these issues with communication, reserving the penalty of a ban for repeated or particularly egregious offenses. This does not rise to that level.
In the case of “triguardian,” it appears that personally identifying information was readily available simply by Googling that handle. We have no control over that, of course, but we will ask that such information–even if easily obtained–not be reprinted here. We suggest to you, JO, that a discreet email about this comment would have been sufficient, since your repeated posts on the subject will undoubtedly send many more readers Googling for the identity of “triguardian.”
My understanding of your reply is:
1. It’s okay to “out” posters as long as you don’t do it too many times.
2. “Outing” is not “particularly egregious” if it’s easy, e.g. looking up an anonym on Google.
3. Banning is wholly within the judgment of ColoradoPols, so that “outing” may or may not be a banning offense, depending on whether it’s judged to be “repeated and egregious.” But doing so once is definitely okay. Right?
3. “Be excellent to one another–or else” has no particular meaning–at least not one you care to define.
Incidentally, removing a post–but not replies to it–could make the responses a bit hard to follow, don’t you think?
1) There’s a difference between outing someone whose identity is readily available from googling their handle, and someone who really is anonymous.
2) It’s not “outing” in such a case.
3) See 2.
3) (just using your numbering scheme) Well, you might have a point here.
Googling “triguardian” gives me at least three different results, so it’s hard to say that’s the only basis for outing him. And anyone with the inclination could figure out who many of us are based on the things we write about.
The fact that outing is sometimes easy doesn’t make it OK. JO is right.
the most common hit was sxp151-cause of that awesome sig line.
Pols, can we have an election to vote JO off the island? As somebody who annoys people constantly (which I proudly do as Colorado Pols’ ‘Blog Asshole’), I have to say this is getting ridiculous even for me. ANYBODY who has this much of a problem with how a blog is being ‘run’ should FIND ANOTHER BLOG. It seems like JO’s whole reason for being here is to criticize and complain, and that makes it doubly hard to understand why she ran for front page editor.
I am the blog asshole and I want to be recognized as such. I’ve been trying to be that person for years. Failure to properly do so will result in me complaining even more than JO, which I agree is hard to imagine.
Come on, Laughing Boy, help me out. I never thought I would ask, but certainly this is something we can agree on.
I actually kind of miss you when there’s a lull in the insults. Plus, it has to be an act, and you’re pretty funny.
Well, there’s my New Year resolution.
When I hear JeffcoBlue I think…
He outed himself with his own stupidity. Don’t try playing the victim to distract from the failed Andrew Romanoff Putsch.
I’ve essentially done so myself via my profile. And I’ve been open on this board in the past about who I am, at least in general terms (and a few times in signatures…).
If someone is using a distinctive anonymous name and uses it everywhere – and “everywhere” contains information about someone’s identity, then they’re not doing a great job of being anonymous.
Still, I’m sure most of us would prefer to have our names left at the door on this blog. Honoring that implicit request is the least anyone here can do to “be excellent to one another”.
So the punishment for “outing” should match the offense. In this case, if “triguardian” was more anonymous than (s)he apparently was via a truly simple Google search, then the punishment might have been harsher.
hell yes!! that’s the first thing I did when I read this. 😎
What about posters who appear to be using a real name.
I recall when someone posted using what appeared to be hte name of a known publicly known person. But it didn’t sound like that person- those posts disappeared.
But if President Barack Obama started posting but it wasn’t exactly clear that it was President Obama, would that be disallowed.
I guess what I’m getting at is I prefer to remain as anonymous as I am. But if I wanted to be known outside of this blog as MADCO I could (Though there are at least three MADCO variations posting occasionally to the DenPo and elsewhere. I know one them- he did it intentionally to piss me off and the Post’s take is it’s ok).
But if a publicly known person wishes to post here, all well and good, how do we know it’s really them?
BTW- Im not suggesting triguardian was hard to find, nor to confirm who it was.
When someone began posting using my name.
I think that being anonymous is a little different than out-and-out fraud, but that’s only my $0.02.
I doubt very much we’re going to see anyone useing madcow as an online name anytime soon.
“Loretta Napoleoni details her rare opportunity to talk to the secretive Italian Red Brigades — an experience that sparked a lifelong interest in terrorism. She gives a behind-the-scenes look at its complex economics, revealing a surprising connection between money laundering and the US Patriot Act.”
http://www.ted.com/talks/loret…
I started to become interested in the economics of Terrorism after reading a few novels from Christopher Reich – esp his novel “The Devil’s Banker.” Mr Reich was a stockbroker and a foreign service agent, so his perspective on terrorism has really opened my eyes to the financial aspects of extremist groups.
Mrs Napoleoni also opens up an interesting point of discussion – did the Patriot Act, by cutting off the rampant money laundering going on in the US, help speed up the collapse of the American Financial markets?
Although, the UN has reported that the money laundering of drugs helped keep several unnamed banks and the banking system itself — through interbank loans — afloat.
“Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate
your destiny, consume you it will…”
I’m pretty sure Yoda meant something else, but the world of finance is the path to the answers here. It’s not pretty. And it’s not fair or friendly to consumers.
the sources are endless and endlessly confusing. And if you come face to face with a tall one armed guy who breathes through a device wielding alight saber- kill him and his Emperor.
Gladwell’s new anthology of his New Yorker essays (“What the Dog Saw”). I think you’ll find it fascinating in this context.
Well it didn’t make the front page 🙁 but I think it’s well worth the read – One key requirement of Representative democracy.
No bumper sticker sound bytes here.
inner Steve Harvey being channeled in DavidВґs diary. When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density). David, for all of his wonderful traits, wouldnВґt know an analysis if it rose out of the Pacific and started eating Tokyo while he was vacationing there.
(the keyboard I’m using doesВґn’t have working bracket keys, so I couldnВґt embed this link to illustrate my point: http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
Who’s there?
Obnoxious interrupting cow.
Obnoxious interrupting… MOO!
Dude it was way , way funnier my way.
Do you know the difference between a funny joke and a care with bald tires?
I’m not sure what your above post means. If itВґs the “itВґs only a joke” line, then the answer is, it may be a joke, it may even be a funny one (though it looks like a shallow and dumb one to me), but jokes (even “funny” ones) communicate just as surely and effectively as other acts of communication. Racist jokes are racist, sexist jokes are sexist, and other jokes that play on the reinforcement of the definition of a particular person or category of people serve to reinforce that definition, to the legitimate chagrin of the person or category of people being defined. As the person (or one of the people) being defined in this case, and having a legitimate interest in how ГЌ’m defined, itВґs not only a joke to me. ItВґs an act of communication that affects me, one that is repeated with great frequency and often (though not always) with clear malice, and thus one that I have an interest in contesting. There’s no ill-will in it on my part; sorry you feel the need to be offended.
You have earned a rep on this blog for being loquacious and wordy, even if sanguine and erudite.
I make fun of that rep. And you push back, with more words than I believe were required, I might add. And suggest I am offended? Amused. Maybe even confused. Not abused, nor bruised, nor recused. Unfairly accused. Not offended.
I’m glad to hear it. Sorry if I misread you. I wasnВґt at all offended by your first comment, but was confused by your second one.
To be honest, I was more concerned with being compared to David than with being called wordy…. 🙂
I donВґt mind at all being kidded about my wordiness by those who do so with good will, but do get annoyed by those who do so with malice (as some of the most persistent clearly do). It’s not always easy to tell the difference. Please accept my apology.
well now.
I was going to set some ridiculous bar, like when hell freezes, or when we get a public option out of the Senate or cap and trade passes, or etc.
But no apology needed.
Rep. Steve King announces a major fundraiser in his bid for Josh Penry’s Senate seat. Penry and McInnis meet with top Republican strategists for breakfast at Racines this morning. Are the details of the Penry/McInnis secret agreement coming to light?
http://www.redstate.com/erick/…
The commenters there (if you think our righties are kooky, just check out that angry teabagger head-exploding goodness) do not seem placated by her desire to abolish the Department of Education. Apparently they’re worried there might still be some education left afterward.
I wish I knew what that meant, it sounds ominous.
but I was wondering about it too.
Do Republicans really suffer when they get serious high-dollar blow? I thought that was a treat for them.
to suffer some very serious high dollar blows was David Vitter, if I’m not mistaken.
n/t
I thought about Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles:
Bill Romjue is his new campaign manager.
That’s it, just wanted to “break” the story.
http://twitter.com/andrewromanoff
Email to both contact@berniebuescher.com and administration@sos.co.us bounce. Bernie Buescher – if you want to contact him, you’re going to have to pick up the phone…
And Bernie’s got two grandkids.
Are you sure he’s even in town?