I note a spat developing between the Devil’s Kitchen and Chad over at UKIP Home. Chad has decided that DK is a Tory stooge. If that’s what he believes, then he is free to make his case. However, it is in the making (or not) of the case that he crosses certain boundaries. He is unable to comprehend why DK objects to the publicising of personal details – in this case; real names. Chad chooses to write under his real name. Fair enough, that’s his choice. DK, like many of us, chooses to draw a thin veil of separation between online and offline personae. This means that during discussions, we refer to each other by our chosen monikas not our real names. That those details may be found relatively simply does not mean that they should then be publicly displayed – it is impolite, it crosses the boundary of acceptable behaviour. Despite having been asked to refrain, Chad continues to publicise DK’s name and as a consequence may impact on his offline employment prospects. That, frankly, is way below the belt.
Having looked at UKIP Home, I’m less than impressed. It tells me little of what UKIP stands for and an awful lot about how awful the Tories are. Ah, well, there’s nothing new in the silliness of politics. Chad sums this up for us with his comment about who will win the next election:
For example, no political leader would ever publicly say they believe their rivals will win even if the rival has 60% poll share rating.
The reason is obvious; by stating the possibility of your rival winning, you add strength to that frame because you do not want it to happen.
Yes, Chad. It is this intellectual dishonesty that is responsible for the electorate holding the political classes in such contempt. I, for one, would have some grudging respect for a politician who was, just for once, honest about their electoral chances. I’m tired of being lied to by politicians.
Also, implying by not implying that someone has hacked your site is not only childish, but is coming very close to libel. Does Chad have evidence that DK hacked his site – or didn’t, but you know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink? This, frankly, is a scurrilous slur.
If **** ******* wants to be trusted in a professional IT role, it is time for him to come clean about his involvement or knowledge of who was behind this hack.
I’ve learned more about UKIP – and as a consequence started to take them more seriously – from the Devil’s Kitchen, than can be gleaned from the tedious, spiteful and libellous whinges on UKIP home.
As others pointed out in the discussion at the Kitchen, Chad really doesn’t get it. Why would anyone pay him £2.50 to comment on his blog? It’s not as if you get value for your money, after all. Subscriptions may well deter trolls and spammers, but there are other effective means that do not stifle discussion. I’ll be dammed if I pay a blogger to comment on his blog – that’s why I’m doing it here. Oh, and no one is expected to pay me to comment here. So long as you are civil, then say what you please. Agreeing with me is nice, but not essential.
If UKIP really want to be taken seriously, they will publicly distance themselves from trolls like Chad.
It would be useful comment if **** (edited by LR to remove name) was telling the truth but he is not. He has used his real name linked to DK in print, on internet TV and runs his CV off a site called DevilsKitchenDesgin which advertises his blog, and he runs DevilsKitchenComment which advertises his real name in the header.
I didn’t hunt for his name, or ‘out’ him, it has been used many times, but now that someone responds to his attacks he goes shy.
But don’t let the truth get in the way of your rant!
You’ve almost completely missed the point re use of political language. The only facts in politics are our votes, the rest inbetween is subjective so conceding defeat based on a subjective is not dishonest, just counterproductive. If you talk up your opponents you actually unecessarily help them. See Labour’s warnings about the BNP. It just gave the BNP the oxygen of publicity and is likely to have improved their result.
Chad,
DK always blogs under his pseudonym. Your use of his real name breached etiquette. The rest, I really don’t care about. He asked you to stop – it would have been a simple matter to comply. You chose not to. The subsequent threat used to shut him up was tantamount to blackmail – and that, most certainly is a breach of etiquette.
I have missed no points whatsoever. I despise utterly politicians who talk about winning elections when it is clear even to the most stupid, that this is never going to happen. It is dishonest – but, then, politicians are dishonest. An honest one wouldn’t last five minutes… DK wasn’t talking up the Tories, he was simply pointing out the likely outcome. I’m inclined to agree with his prognosis. Am I “talking up” the Tories? (Answer; no). Your comparison with Labour’s scaremongering over the BNP is comparing apples with oranges.
You think this is a rant? Clearly you haven’t been paying attention. 😉
There is also a political protocol of not launching personal attacks on members of your own party which *** (edited by LR to remove personal details) breached with his attack on me. As I am sure you are aware, I have offered to remove all responses to *** (edited by LR to remove personal details)’ attacks if he is prepared to reciprocate in order to stop the spat escalating but **** (edited by LR to remove personal details) has refused.
If protocols are so important, clearly removing all the posts on both sites would resolve the issue in political and net terms and only **** (edited by LR to remove personal details) is refusing to do so.
For fuck’s sake, you really don’t get it, do you? Will you please stop using personal names.
In the meantime, I suggest you follow the link back to DK’s discussion.
..and you did miss the point, but as I am getting used to, bloggers like yourself seem to see any admission that they are not perfect as one step too many..
>>For fuck’s sake, you really don’t get it, do you? Will you please stop using personal names.
(Edited by LR for breaching my code)
So why the fuck should I respect his rules if he doesn’t respect others?
It’s a two-way street.
Moderation comment: I expect you to respect my rules when commenting here. I’ve made it patently clear that I do not want personal names used when referring to bloggers who blog under a pseudonym. Now, please respect my rules when commenting on my blog.
Sigh. The electorate are not stupid. They (we) can tell when a party is likely to lose an election and when they are unelectable – think Labour in the early eighties and the Tories more recently. Politicans claiming that they will win an election despite massive evidence to the contrary is intellectually dishonest and voters can see that for what it is. Is it any wonder that they are held in contempt? If they lie about their electoral prospects, what else are they lying about? No answer required, the point is rhetorical.
And taking personal sideswipes at me merely confirms that you don’t have an argument. It’s a cheap shot. 😐
I received a mail from a guy, Rob, this morning who initially held your view until there was a well considered response to such a view and it changed his mind. Have a read of Clarice’s response to the ‘deny the obvious’ post on http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/
No, the electorate nor pollsters cannot tell when a party is going to lose an election. See 1992, or even the spread on seats in 1997 which was tight until the last moment.
Yes, I read Robert’s post earlier today. My opinion remains unchanged. Honesty is more important than silly political games. DK’s original comment was a pragmatic assessment of a likely electoral outcome. It was reasonable and sensible.
>>DK’s original comment was a pragmatic assessment of a likely electoral outcome
Likely based on what? Almost every netural observer concedes that the Tories will need to be polling in the mid 40’s to achieve victory at the next election, and not one poll has touched that level. That is why I found it strange that a ukipper would be suggesting a Tory victory likely when there has been nothing to suggest such an outcome is likely at all.
May I ask you one final question? You have a graphic on your right bar saying “voluntary code free zone”.
Isn’t the netiquette you are demanding of me one such kind of “voluntary code”?
Are you not seeking to impose such a code on me?
Oh, please…. The etiquette being discussed is not the same as the PCC’s suggested code of conduct. If you can’t grasp the difference (and it seems that you can’t) further discourse is wasted. Frankly, it’s been pretty much a waste up until now. 😐
Ah, so you oppose the PCC imposing a voluntary code on you (fair enough – I agree too) but you do want to impose another kind of voluntary code that you support on others.
Nice work. No rules except your rules.
They are not my rules (except when commenting here and I can impose whatever rules I wish on my own space – as you can on yours).
What we are talking about is a generally accepted etiquette followed by just about everyone except you.
I’ll say it again, because it is a simple point – you do not publish people’s personal details when they blog under a pseudonym. You were asked to stop doing it (first time, it may be a mistake, so fair enough). Once asked to stop, you should have complied. You can then carry on your discussion or disagreement as you see fit. Just don’t publish personal details when the complainant has asked you not to. It isn’t a difficult concept.
..and slowly for your benefit:
d o n ‘ t l a u n c h p e r s o n a l a t t a c k s o n m e m b e r s o f y o u r o w n p a r t y.
Another generally accepted rule that you don’t agree with so are happy to ignother.
Again. No rules except your rules.
My rule is generally known in political circles as “don’t piss inside the tent” and is followed across the political parties and you will see members attacking those who break the rule. (watch ConHome it happens all the time)
This whole spat began with (stop fucking using people’s names – LR) ignoring this long-established rule.
He did not like the response.
He complained it was a breach of the rules he follows.
Have you spotted the irony yet?
Oh, for fuck’s sake. You really are beyond the pale. You really, really don’t get it. And you still fucking ignore my rules on my blog.
I made it clear that I’m not interested in the internal machinations of the spat – political parties have internal spats all the time. Nothing to do with me. You are free to take it up with DK at any time if you feel that he has breached a rule. However, two wrongs have yet to make a right.
There comes a time when attempting to reason with the unreasonable becomes pointless. That point has been reached.
>>However, two wrongs have yet to make a right.
100% agreed, which is why the situation would remedy both breaches if we both removed the posts. I have AGREED. It is **** (name removed – LR) who has refused to remove his.
There’s a great article from Donal Blaney over on ConHome about not pissing inside the tent:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/06/donal_blaney_be.html
http://devilskitchencomment.blogspot.com/
Just read the header. Need I say any more?
‘Share your thoughts’:-
OK
I’m sorry, do we really have to put up with this kind of bollocks from ‘Chad’?. Longrider owns this blog. If Chad doesn’t like Longrider’s rules or rulings that’s just too bad.
What really pisses me off about the Chads of this world is they seem to think they have a God-given right to be heard. They don’t.
If you want to be heard, learn not to antagonise all and sundry. Then they’ll maybe bother to listen to your wisdom. I mean, how many enemies do you want to make? Is this really ‘how to win friends and influence people’?
Sorry chuck but this thread was about me breaking some protocol and publishing the name of someone who does not want his real name linked to his online name, when the actual truth is that he is clearly already happlily publishing his name linked directly to DK in loads of different places. I’ve been heavily criticised for it, however, since I highlighted that he is using both his real name and blog name together in print, on internet TV and on live blogs, I have had a few apologies.
[Comment ID #1561 Will Be Quoted Here]
…So?
My point became somewhat lost along the way. Blogging can seriously damage one’s wealth; employers can and do take issue with one’s online activities. The decision, therefore, to put one’s name to those activities is a risk that only the author should take.
The thin veil of anonymity may be easily removed should one wish to seek out the real person behind the pseudonym, but that is a matter between the blogger and the employer and the level to which the individual seeks to keep that identity a secret. It is not up to others to “out” them as a consequence of a disagreement. That DK sails close to the wind is his choice of risk. My real life persona is relatively easily established, but like DK, I would rather keep that separate from discussions here.
What I have consistently tried to establish is that the risk to his employment prospects is DK’s to take, not yours; not mine; not anyone’s.
Even when I have clearly established that I do not want particular behaviour here, that has been ignored leaving me no option but to edit the posts – something I am loathe to do.
As I have said; as others commenting over at DK’s have said; you just don’t get it. Twenty two comments later, and you still don’t.
I received a mail from a guy, Rob, this morning who initially held your view until there was a well considered response to such a view and it changed his mind.
Whoops, hold your horses there Chad. I think its a bit strong to say that Clarice’s comment changed my mind. If it had I would have blogged about it. I did say that it had made me less sure of my earlier opinion, but that ain’t the same thing.
A comment on the Voluntary Code thing. I think the point is, bloggers such as Longrider (and myself) believe we don’t need a voluntary code, because we can regulate our own sites. It certainly does not equate to a completely free and unfettered comment policy. Longrider is perfectly within his rights to edit or remove posts he deems to be unfit for his site, or that do not conform to his analysis of nettiquette. A Voluntary Code (or worse, a regulatory body) would begin to shift such decisions away from the blogger, to someone else.
I think anything which presents itself as a ‘Voluntary’ piece of self-regulation will rapidly become the Standard. It will either be ignored or it will become part of our ever increasing, unenforceable and fatuous legislation.
Instinctively I shun the latter option. I do not believe that MPs – and particularly the current Government – are people to be trusted with our basic freedoms. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be anti-libertarian and entirely punitive. The whole concept of ‘freedom’ has been grossly distorted both in word and deed by these self-seeking, amoral, cretinous monsters.
But a few examples: ‘Freedom to choose’ hospitals, schools, etc, etc. ‘Freedom’ to go about one’s daily business without intrusion and prurient observation. And so on. The list of restrictions of Freedom is huge and growing. Let us at least cling to – and fight for – the remaining vestiges of ‘free speech’.
That said, I still believe that blog owners have the right to publish or not, as they see fit. There’s a world of difference between that and compulsory state-run censorship.
Longrider are you using the rel=”nofollow” attribute in your link to the annoying troll? No reason he should get any google mojo off of you.
Robert, I noted Clarice’s comments as well. However, while she makes an interesting point about scrutiny, it doesn’t change my position on the games politicians play come election time. I’m not interested in dishonest claims of winning or refusing to consider the obvious. I want to hear their arguments; their policies; their manifesto commitments.
DK as a UKIP party member is entirely within his rights to offer a prognosis of the likely outcome of an election. While one may take issue with the prognosis itself; it is inappropriate given evidence to the contrary to assert that he is a Tory stooge for making the comment.
>>What I have consistently tried to establish is that the risk to his employment prospects is DK’s to take, not yours; not mine; not anyone’s.
But the point you ignore is that just because I or someone else) use my real name, does not automatically mean a personal attack of the nature DK launched on me could not also cause me employment issues.
For example, DK allowed one poster to leave a post online all weekend that sought to identify where I live. Where’s your protocol complaints there?
Just because I use my own name, does not give DK carte blanche to rip me or anyone else apart in any fashion he chooses without a potential comeback.
DK has taken the risk to personally abuse me, questioning my sanity etc etc, and the result was that I bit back.
In short, for me, if you choose to attack some in a very personal way, you have to be prepared for people to fight back, and they won’t feel the need to let you set the terms of reference for their response.
And if you breach a generally accepted etiquette, you can’t be too surprised if you are taken to task. Nothing you have said here justifies that breach.
[Comment ID #1568 Will Be Quoted Here]
It would appear to point to the UKIP official homepage now anyway.
>>And if you breach a generally accepted etiquette, you can’t be too surprised if you are taken to task. breaching the generally accepted etiquette of not pissing inside the tent?
I agree. Give me shit if I break rules you hold dear, as you have. That’s fair enough. I’ll take it on the chin with no argument.
However, of course you would defend and welcome me doing the same to those who transgress other protocols like that of not launching personal attacks on fellow members.
Two-way street. We all set the rules that we deem acceptable. That’s the beauty of the net. 😉
No one has suggested otherwise. It is your modus operandi that is in dispute.