|
Post by seanosul on Jan 4, 2009 21:19:48 GMT -5
How can blogs that ran racist campaigns and urged voting for John McCain be listed as "Liberal" blogs?
For example, NoQuarter was the source of the fake "whitey" tape rumours? The confluence was the home of stormfront poster TechDude?
PUMA organisations are closely ;inked to the Republicans, including its leader Darragh Murphy who has only donated to McCain?
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 5, 2009 22:44:07 GMT -5
Just to clarify before commenting here, I designed the Weblog Awards website, but I had nothing to do with selecting finalists, nothing whatsoever. That was done by a staff of devoted volunteers, from across the spectrum of political persuasions. Also, I should point out that I am mostly unfamiliar with liberal blogs myself, so I need some educating.
Without judging the liberalism of "No Quarter," I notice that it is not a finalist for "Best Liberal Blog" (it is a finalist for "Best Political Coverage"), so I'm not sure what your complaint is about them.
As for "The Confluence," I do see that they are not Obama fans. Does that necessarily make them not liberals? Just wondering. (I don't know what stormfront or TechDude are, sorry.)
And is this Darragh Murphy a blogger for one of these blogs?
|
|
amh
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by amh on Jan 6, 2009 2:08:04 GMT -5
Mr. Gleeson:
On the Wonkette site some of the posters have outlined methods to "freep" the poll (it is on the post that is bashing The Confluence) which was posted after The Confluence initially had more votes then Wonkette. While I know Wonkette is a larger site then The Confluence, I cannot believe that it has more votes then all the other nominees combined in the "Best Liberal Blog" category. I think this warrant further investigation by you. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by swannie on Jan 6, 2009 11:30:28 GMT -5
The Wonkette posters have already gamed the system by cheating . Some thngs never change. I remember when mp3.com was brought down by gamers . Cheating nullifies any results , and ruins the awards for everyone. Here is a screen shot of one post img32.picoodle.com/img/img32/3/1/6/f_cheatingm_3cfd06d.jpg with explicit directions . The folks at the cloak should probably be notified as well as this violates their TOS as well . Ordinarily I would say I am disappointed but I am not .. I am really pi**ed . Thank you for your attention
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 6, 2009 12:18:35 GMT -5
I do not believe it is possible to reach the webogawards.org site, or to vote in the polls, following the instructions posted on wonkette.
|
|
|
Post by bostonboomer on Jan 6, 2009 13:42:10 GMT -5
The Confluence is a liberal blog. We are FDR/JFK style Democrats. I have never heard of Techdude, whoeve that is. I have been a contributor to The Confluence since the beginning, and have never heard of that person. Darragh Murphy does not write for our blog. She is the owner of another blog. As for the cheating by Wonkette, it is happening when you believe it or not. We never expected to win, but it should be a fair fight.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Gleeson on Jan 6, 2009 17:44:27 GMT -5
Kevin goes over the logs of votes for evidence of cheating. Any votes that are fraudulent will be deleted.
|
|
mary
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by mary on Jan 7, 2009 3:19:19 GMT -5
The vicious, hate tactics used by Wonkette to destroy other bloggers' chances of winning are despicable. In her own words from her web site: www.wonkette.com/ "Enough of These Pumas" As a regular reader at the blog Uppity Woman, and having nominated her in several categories because of her excellence in blogging, I bring to your attention the following paragraph from Wonkette's site. Thee are Wonkette's own words, not mine "Another “major” nominated PUMA blog this year in the category ootes fof “Bsest New Blog” is one called “Uppity Woman” (jesus christ) and it cannot be allowed to win. So we arbitrarily endorse another one called “~ synthesis ~” because it has a fun-lookin’ name. Vote “~ synthesis ~”, the best new blog in America." If you check your voting records, you will find that the massive increase in votes for the blog “~ synthesis ~” followed directly from Wonkette's post. Does the Weblog Awards Committee support such divisive, mean-spirited tactics? Does it endorse blog assassination? Does it tolerate politically motivated manipulation of its voting process? Would it ignore—and thereby abet--such tactics as Wonkette’s if they were directed against minority blogs such a The Black Sphere because the blogger is African American? I put it to you that prejudice against a blogger and her voter because they are PUMA’s is exactly the same as prejudice against them because they were Black, Hispanic, Native American, or any other group. I request that because the votes it received were for spite rather than merit, the blog “~ synthesis ~” be disqualified. I further urge that any blog by Wonkette be disqualified. The core issue is whether or not the Weblog Committee and Board wishes to seriously and permanently compromise its own integrity and reputation. Wonkette’s spiteful prejudice is simply wrong. Those who do not take a stand against that which s morally unacceptablel permit it to triumph and flourish.
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 7, 2009 6:41:19 GMT -5
Wonkette is clearly in the wrong category. It makes no attempt to be a liberal blog, it is a humor & snark political blog that targets everyone with equal vitriol (except Barack Obama)
If it were a liberal blog, would the use of homophobic misogynist and ageist language in comments be the rule and not the exception? Would the moderators on that blog allow it to stand unquestioned. Clearly it is not a liberal blog as it does not meet any of the criteria.
The fact that it has more votes than all of the competition added up, and the fact that rumproast has also increased in votes as a result of wonkettes "call to arms" and cheating instructions should tell you clearly what you need to know about whether they are cheating or not.
I wonder should I post the screenshots that wonkette commenters posted on their site without response or moderation from the owners, as it would enable everyone else to cheat fairly or would that further devalue these weblog awards. Decisions decisions.
Not that the admin would take any notice but at least it might give everyone else a chance to cheat as well. Look at the NUMBERS. They do not add up to fair play!!
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 7, 2009 7:54:28 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.
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 7, 2009 11:26:47 GMT -5
C+P from Wonkette's site.
So it's a dated worldview to expect free and fair elections, or rules of a competition to be applied fairly? interesting. I wonder how all the other competitors feel about it?
|
|
|
Post by rumproast on Jan 7, 2009 12:37:21 GMT -5
blogreader09, I am growing weary of these cheating accusations directed at my blog Rumproast. I am not encouraging people to cheat in any way nor am I doing so. Can you please explain why it's *not* okay for Wonkette (and several other bloggers who read and/or link to my blog) to endorse Rumproast but it *is* okay for several PUMA blogs, including The Confluence and PUMA Pac, to endorse Nice Deb, a blog in the same category they've had absolutely no relationship with before, just so that my blog doesn't win the award? If anyone's trying to game the system, it's the PUMAs, at least when it comes to the Best Small Blog award.
Kevin and Sean, sorry you've had to put up with this craziness. Thanks for hosting the awards and keeping it chugging along.
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 7, 2009 13:13:13 GMT -5
You love to portray people who don't subscribe to your vile point of view as crazy, and you are a master of passive aggressiveness... thats the only thing "positive" I can say about you as you benefit from cheating and a vile stalker habit.
If the PUMAs have common interests with each other or common ground with any other blogs then that is a good reason to endorse each other - that is not the same as encouraging people or not discouraging people to deliberately get around the rules or spread vile hate as has been done on the wonkette site on threads which you have joined in on and benefitted from.
There is nothing wrong with Wonkette endorsing you, or you them but there is something suspicious about the exponential increase in your vote since you and your lackeys posted on the hateful threads which have openly encouraged cheating.
|
|
12009
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by 12009 on Jan 7, 2009 13:31:15 GMT -5
First let me say thank you to Kevin and Sean, I could only imagine the email you have received from the PUMA crying foul once they have taken a break from bothering the FEC. You have stated that you screen all votes and I believe you. For the people questioning the system, this is not their first time hosting an awards so don't you think they know all the tricks in the book? This is a popularity contest like most awards are and the PUMA's are not that popular and probably wont win so deal with it. Thanks again Kevin and Sean!
|
|
|
Post by blogreader09 on Jan 7, 2009 13:35:49 GMT -5
It may be a popularity contest but it still has rules. They may know what some of the tricks are, but that doesn't mean they can prove all of them. This is why crime exists in the real world, and cheating exists in competitions. It's what referees and judges are for, but that does not mean they are perfect and can see everything that goes on. I will leave it to the judges to decide, but it looks from here to be a farce. A liberal blog that allows the encouragement of cheating, misogyny, ageism and homophobia, openly? That's not a liberal blog it is in the wrong category, and therefore stealing votes from legitimate liberal blogs - the rest of the competition - and for not saying anything to try and stop cheating it should be at least deducted points. At the very least.
|
|