|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 7, 2009 13:38:19 GMT -5
incredible that Sean thinks that masking IP addressess or cleaning out cookies or rebooting modems to get a new IP address (as reccommended by Wonkette) is NOT cheating. These awards have no credibility when such a vile thuggish site such as Wonkette is in the LIBERAL category and condones cheating which weblogawards clearly do not care about. Of course that's cheating, and I never said otherwise. What I said was: it won't work. Using these methods would not actually cause votes to be registered. We have built-in safeguards to prevent fraudulent votes. Anyone trying these cheats is wasting his time. Posting in a blog urging readers to vote one way or another, however, is not cheating -- not even if it is done for dishonorable motives. In this respect, The Weblog Awards function very much like democratic elections. We do not disqualify candidates for office because their votes were cast out of spite, nor do we disqualify blogs for that reason. It may not be a perfect system, especially for the targets of unreasoned spite; but I hope you can see the underlying wisdom of our reluctance to account for the motivation of every vote. |
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 7, 2009 13:46:10 GMT -5
Well thank you for your answer Sean.
I did not say that urging readers to vote is cheating. It is rumproast who said that I said it. I agree that endorsing other blogs is not cheating, and nor is in itself the nasty vile comments posted on that site encouraging readers to vote that way, but the blog is in the wrong category, and they have not said that they do not approve of the comments unlike their competitors who have encouraged their readers to stick to the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by bostonboomer on Jan 7, 2009 13:53:57 GMT -5
Unfortunately, Sean, it is your methods of discerning cheating that are not working. But it doesn't matter at this point, because the Wonkette voters have already managed to game the results in several categories. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 7, 2009 14:06:42 GMT -5
Oh, sorry, blogreader09, that second paragraph was never directed at you. I realize it might have seemed that way, but only the first paragraph was a reply to your quote. The second was a general response to objections which have been raised by others.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanosul on Jan 7, 2009 14:13:21 GMT -5
Sorry I never replied earlier. The Confluence can hardly be considered Liberal when it endorsed McCain Palin in the General Election.
Suggesting The Confluence is in anyway Liberal would be like suggesting that Obama is a Conservative. As for PUMA complaining about elections, they have been doing that since February. They are just bitter,
|
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 7, 2009 15:15:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gracechu on Jan 7, 2009 19:39:14 GMT -5
all right... i'm not here to discuss the definition of "liberal." all those blogs look at least arguably liberal-ish to me. big tent and all that jazz. move along now... i just want to say that when a large site like wonkette is allowed to rig the results by sending their army of readers to an arbitrarily chosen site just because they don't like the politics of the frontrunner, it reflects badly on the reputation of the weblog awards and makes it look like a farce. my friends have been messaging me all day, "wow, that competition you're in sure is a joke if wonkette can just throw the results like that." hey, i'm just passing along what i hear. don't shoot the messenger. let me just say that i am an ardent and vocal obama supporter and i find the PUMA mentality quite grating, but i'm on "the confluence" and "uppity woman"s side with respect to wonkette's shenanigans in this competition. i may not agree with PUMA politics, but i can at least recognize that the above-mentioned blogs are entertaining and well-written and have therefore garnered a devoted following. keep on keepin' on. anyway, kevin, thanks for the competition.  sorry that some keyboard thugs are causing issues. anyway, i just wanted to get that off my chest. y'all can ignore me or flame me if you want. but this wonkette nonsense irritated me enough to comment. |
|
|
|
Post by seanosul on Jan 7, 2009 20:05:02 GMT -5
In reality all blogreader posted was a reference to Debra Bartoshevich, someone expelled from the Democratic Party because she refused to support the Party candidate, for reasons, supposedly unrelated to color.
The PUMA movement were the 2008 Swiftboat group. Except they did not work. They were exposed within a week. Darragh McCain Murphy, one of the PUMA leaders has only ever donated to McCain. Will Bowers another PUMA bigot went on Fox to either undermine Hillary fund raising or STEAL it. PUMA bigots have not said what happened to the money thay claimed to have raised.
NoQuarter has posted assasination blogs, blogs by a Stormfront member, a blog about how to gain entry to the DNC conference, lied about a Whitey Tape. Great coverage.
The inclusion of PUMA blogs in anything but far right blogs (they are not Conservative), brings shame to the ballot.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanosul on Jan 7, 2009 20:28:57 GMT -5
It does not matter anyway they are getting their bigot arses handed to them. A community that immediately bans opposition view point is not exactly liberal in any sense of the word. Well done bigots for taking on the bigger blogs.
Yet another election they lose and yet another election they will bigot on about voter fraud. Sean - expect the "wrath of the PUMA bigots". It is the equivalent of a bad case of flatulence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Aylward on Jan 8, 2009 1:50:13 GMT -5
incredible that Sean thinks that masking IP addressess or cleaning out cookies or rebooting modems to get a new IP address (as reccommended by Wonkette) is NOT cheating. These awards have no credibility when such a vile thuggish site such as Wonkette is in the LIBERAL category and condones cheating which weblogawards clearly do not care about. I think you misread Sean's statement. What he said was that the methods proposed don't work. And by the way the comments at Wonkette you are all so keen on discussing no longer exist. The bloggers at Wonkette were good enough to remove them when we contacted them. We did this, not because they worked, but to make take one less thing off of everyone's plate to complain about. Since the comments no longer exist I'm not exactly sure why you persiste in posting pictures of them. As we've already told so many of you we've already checked the logs. Of BTW, from our visual scanning of the logs it appears that way over 90 percent of all votes come from easily identifiable major ISP's like Comcast, AOL, Verizon, etc. You can ask the guys at Engadget and Gizmodo, who are regularly locked in fierce battle every year about how meticulously we examine the votes, and how professional our operation is. Last year their race was not decieded until after the polls closed as I worked with both of them to show them which votes (cast via a last mintue complex hack) were being tossed out. We revised our software to elimate the two small attack vectors found last year and we've had no similar problems this year. If something is found (and we always find it) we'll remove those votes and take corrective action. |
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 8, 2009 9:16:55 GMT -5
seanosul said None of that bs and disinformation has anything to do with your original accusation as those blogs are not the Confluence. You think you can categorize PUMA and demonize a bunch of free thinking people because they are not making the same mistakes you are of dancing to the piper but you cannot force them through vitriol or even grasp the concept of liberty and that is what makes you so angry. |
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 8, 2009 9:29:18 GMT -5
incredible that Sean thinks that masking IP addressess or cleaning out cookies or rebooting modems to get a new IP address (as reccommended by Wonkette) is NOT cheating. These awards have no credibility when such a vile thuggish site such as Wonkette is in the LIBERAL category and condones cheating which weblogawards clearly do not care about. I think you misread Sean's statement. What he said was that the methods proposed don't work. And by the way the comments at Wonkette you are all so keen on discussing no longer exist. The bloggers at Wonkette were good enough to remove them when we contacted them. We did this, not because they worked, but to make take one less thing off of everyone's plate to complain about. Since the comments no longer exist I'm not exactly sure why you persiste in posting pictures of them. As we've already told so many of you we've already checked the logs. Yeah he's clarified that. I got it. "The bloggers and wonkette were good enough to remove them when we contacted them" But they weren't good enough to remove them immediately and not encourage their readers to try and cheat. You had to contact them before they did it. How many other sites in the same category allowed posts like that on their blogs? If you think you have it covered, good for you, but not everyone believes you and the reasons are obvious. They saw it with their own eyes as it happened. Wonkette already gamed the system using these methods and Rumproast benefitted from it. Those numbers are way out of proportion to what their readership is, especially the latter site. But no worries, looks like you can't prove certain types of fraud but never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by brotherkomrade on Jan 8, 2009 17:21:00 GMT -5
And even then those ideas proposed on those sites do not necessarily work. I've been in IT for over 10 years and I have to say, there is no quick, easy, dirty way of cheating this system. What these weblog people did was build a solid system, but do you know what one whould have to do in order to clean your system to get past the 24-hour rule? It can be done but it's a pain and time consuming, believe me, I tried it all myself. Even Firefox's options for deleting cookies every time you close the browser doesn't work. It's easy to point fingers about voter fraud than just coming to grips with being bested by strong organization. Yes, people out there did not want to see PUMA sites win - even in a Weblog contest, so you vote for other sites that you think deserve to win instead of them. That should sound familar, right? But this should even sound more familiar: Alicia J-----
January 7 at 2:11pm
I see 660 members here. Please vote every day on as many computers as you can over the next five days for the following PUMA/pro-PUMA blogs. I vote on three computers each day. Wonkette, Rumproast and Kos are waging war on PUMA blogs to to try invalidate our movement again. Wonkette is not even a liberal blog, it's a bad gossip rag, but they just want to beat The Confluence. It's anybody-but Hillary again. Just like the primary, they are afraid of getting beat by a girl more than anything else. At least RD is beating Digby, Think Progress, Sadly No, Brad Blog, Shakesville, Crooks and Liars and Glenn Greenwald which shows how the progressive blogosphere lost all credibility. Even strong second place showings will be good.
Thank you!!!!!
PUMA!!!!!!
2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-liberal-blog/
The Confluence (in 3rd)
2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
No Quarter (in 3rd)
2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-new-blog/
Uppity Woman (in 2nd)
2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-hidden-gem/
Deadenders (in 2nd)
2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-small-blog/
Nice Deb (in 3rd)
2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-blog/
Hot Air (in 2nd)
2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-very-large-blog/
The Washington Note (in 3rd)I mole on a PUMA Facebook group. This kind of organizing is not bad or cheating - it's NO DIFFERENT than what left/anti-PUMA people have done. And that's ok, it's politics after all and we vote for those we ally ourselves with. Thank you Weblog guys, I only wished my blog did not suck so bad to where I couldn't become a nominee, but that's life. You guys keep doing what you do. Peace! |
|
|
|
Post by grrrowl on Jan 8, 2009 20:09:53 GMT -5
This wonkette v. confluence blogwar is really something. I've been reading both of them in the last few days because of this dust-up, and it seems like wonkette is irreverently liberal, rather funny, and potty-mouthed, while confluence takes itself rather seriously, does not seem particularly liberal (maybe liberal for W. Pa., but still), though they do use language that is much more appropriate for children, which I do appreciate. So I guess I just don't understand why this blogwar ever started, since these two blogs don't even belong in the same category.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanosul on Feb 14, 2009 13:21:12 GMT -5
Thanks - that was the point I was making. The Confluence should have been in the Conservative blog category. There is no way it could have counted as Liberal.
As for NoQuarter being a news site. LOL. What news - when?
|
|
sorry that some keyboard thugs are causing issues.