Andrew Warner

For the record, It's not me. Personally I kinda like Dean, Andrew and the yahoos around here - except for fritsch (and ghiz - she post anon all the time.)

It was yossarian. He pulled that shit last year at the independent eye.

Andrew, since you brought it up, I would be curious as to your thoughts about the Dean of Cincinnati "scandal." Perhaps this would be a good place to have a thoughtful discussion about it, because the tenor of the debate over at the Beacon has gotten pretty heated and personal.

Questions: Should the fact that Jason Happ has not paid his property taxes be relevant, inasmuch as he uses his web site to comment on how those tax dollars are spent? Or is it an invasion of his privacy? To what extent is a blogger a public figure, and therefore, fair game? And doesn't it make a difference that Happ has used similar tactics in trolling other bloggers and political figures?

Beyond that, what can we do together, as a blogging community, to raise the level of discourse? Should comment moderation be permanent, so that blog owners can be held ultimately responsible for posting slanderous comments about people?

Poli Sci,

I am truly impressed you were able to come up with such thoughtful questions from a series of spamming. Questions I think we do need to start asking as we see whether blogging will sink or swim.

Do I think bloggers are public figures? Yes I do. Especially advocacy bloggers like the Dean, Markos Moulitas, or myself even. When one is active in the community, in real life or digitally, one becomes a public figure. I would like to see journalists and bloggers alike show a little more respect for the personal lives of others, even the "public figures" of the world. It should be clear when something is relevant, and if it is it easy to be dignified in how it is presented.

As far as the not paying taxes issue. Does not paying taxes hurt ones credibility who is trying to influence how tax dollars are spent? I would also have to say that is a yes. With Jason's incident, and the "reporting" his troll did, there was no attempt to honestly question his credibility, but instead the blogger sought to attack it. I rest pretty comfortable knowing that anonymous attacks are easy to detect and mostly ineffecttive. Had the blogger researched the issue, what might have happened, and shown an interest in the truth instead of spamming half-truths over every website he/she could access anonymously, it would be a different situation.

Haap has never spammed the same comment to multiple blogs over every post.

Sadly, it's getting to the point where comment moderation may be necessary. Blogs are a unique way to communicate and maybe even cause change, but the cause is also easy to subvert. That's why politicians have aids and are hiring people to work solely on the net. It's extremely easy for anonymous commenters to throw a discussion off track and kill an important debate. It's also too easy to sling mud. My name, for example, is on everything I post. If I commit libel or cross the line it won't be hard to arrest me. I wish that were the case for everyone.

Jason is a brave blogger. He's not afraid to bump the system. In fact he makes it a point to do just that. When someone bumps the system too hard, this type of character attack usually follows. When you can't get the ideas you try to bring down the man (most people understand clearly when this is happening).

The thing about Jason is that if the blogger had put his/her name on a negative article about the Dean, he would have published it for him and thoughtfully debated whatever was in question (as he eventually did anyway).

I imagine everything will one day be pinned on the blog owners to moderate what happens on their site (I believe that is the expectation now). After all, we do buy or rent the space and therefore "own" it. I would not let people put libelous signs in my front yard and I imagine that is how the courts will view allowing libelous comments on blogs.

First, thanks for engaging in the discussion, Andrew. We agree then, that Happ is a public figure and that his credibility (whatever credibility he had to begin with) has been damaged by his nonpayment of taxes. So it's a question of the tactics of the debate, not the substance.

With Jason's incident, and the "reporting" his troll did, there was no attempt to honestly question his credibility, but instead the blogger sought to attack it. I rest pretty comfortable knowing that anonymous attacks are easy to detect and mostly ineffecttive. Had the blogger researched the issue, what might have happened, and shown an interest in the truth instead of spamming half-truths over every website he/she could access anonymously, it would be a different situation.

I agree. But is this not what many "advocacy" bloggers do, including the Dean? No mainstream media outlet would allow someone to make an allegation about someone without even trying to get the other side of the story. And yet many bloggers have a "post first, ask questions later" attitude. Look at the Dean's "open letter" tactic. Maybe there's a legitimate explanation why Happ didn't pay his taxes (although I can't imagine what that might be). And maybe Leslie Ghiz had a good reason for blackberrying during a council meeting (a family emergency, or sending an e-mail to an assistant to bring her documentation about an item up for debate). A mainstream journalist would, I hope, listen to those reasons and -- if there's a persuasive innocent explanation -- ignore the story as a non-issue.

I find it interesting that bloggers who see themselves as media "reformers," hold themselves to a different standard than the mainstream media they criticize. If newspapers printed letters to the editor like the comments found on most blogs, people would be justifiably outraged.

It is an interesting topic and one that I'm glad can be discussed here. Whenever it was brought at the Dean of Cincinnati site it was deleted almost immediately by Jason. That was one of the reason I had asked you if it was also your site or just Jason's. Posting Jason's address is crass but posting the facts that are on the clerks website is of interest. My take on Jason's opinion on an issue might be effected if I knew he wasn't keeping his own house in order.

A similiar attack was made against you -suggesting that your parents were footing your bill- you quickly explained that that was not true. If it had been, my take on your opinion on an economic matter might have been be different. Interestingly enough, Jason never censored those posts.

While the spammer's methods were crude, I think you have look at it from a message viewpoint. The spamming only occured after the Dean began censoring the message. In a Darwinian sense, the message was fighting for survival in a hostil environment by spammingly reproducing itself. While you may put your real name to your posts (well have to take your word this it is real) almost nobody else does, least of all the Dean.

I'm not sure the other defenses of the Dean hit the mark either. You can't say that, yes, the content of the meassage was entirely appropriate given that the Dean has made himself a public figure, and then call it a libellous attack.

I find it interesting that bloggers who see themselves as media "reformers," hold themselves to a different standard than the mainstream media they criticize.

In this regard, do you think it would be fruitful to consider the question of hypocrisy? The Dean attempted to suppress the message because he didn't like the content, not because it wasn't true.

Overgrad,

I never said the attacks were libelous. I merely said that the spammer was clearly and overtly making an attack on the credibility of the Dean.

Matt,

I understand your point. However, I would also ask you to consider that ideas exist outside of the person who speaks them.

I do have the ability to delete comments at the Beacon, but most of the time I find it better to nip things in the bud.

Poli Sci,
First of all, I don't necessarily feel his credibility has been damaged. I know him and I know the situation. I don't value his opinion any less than I did two weeks ago.

The "tactics" the Dean uses, from a certain point of view, are completely justifiable. Think about why the Dean might use an "open letter." This format exists mostly because he might otherwise be ignored. For example, the one up there right now was written by me. Mine was more of a policy idea/proposal than anything intended to make someone look bad (which is more what I think you are talking about), but the format puts pressure on officials who might otherwise ignore a normal person, to respond. I've received some good answers from members of council andit may have something to do with them seeing people are interested in the topic.

Also we should remember that blogs are not newspapers. Blogs are a living, organic thing while newspapers are dictators. Blogs also give the chance for people to see "journalism in action." Instead of a journalist or an editor getting to decide what is or is not newsworthy, with open letters and two-way communication between "journalist" and official, the people get to decide what is newsworthy (ideally).

So you are a fan of comment moderation?

Not really.

I like comment moderation more than I like the anonymous destruction of blogs though.

Since this is a freindly forum, perhaps Andrew could bring the Dean before the court to answer the charges against him.

Dean of Cincinnati, you are charged with the following offenses against the blogosphere:

Hypocrisy in the first degree.
Hypocrisy in the second degree.
Censorship.
Conspiracy to commit censorship.
Improper comment moderation (7 counts).

How does the defendant plead?

Andrew,

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the Dean when you said
I would not let people put libelous signs in my front yard and I imagine that is how the courts will view allowing libelous comments on blogs.

Again, in terms of hipocrisy, there is this story the Beacon ran just two weeks ago attacking Mike Altman and his father, linking to similar online records at the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. Isn't the scandal with the Dean more about how he handled the spammer's comments: deleting them, falsely saying the spammer had attacked his family, content moderation, etc?

Your link above to the Disclosure Troll thread at the Beacon is dead. Interrestingly, it now redirects to an open letter/attack on Phil Heimlich accusing him of lying and stating "I know you probably won’t exhibit enough character to answer this question". These are clearly personal attacks "intended to make someone look bad". Does it "put pressure" on Heimlich to respond? Probably. But if you can defend these tactics as "completely justifiable, from a certain point of view" I think you will have to defend the spammer's tactics as well, or else come up with a better criterion to distinguish the two types of behavior than simply "Haap has never spammed the same comment to multiple blogs over every post".

I remember multiple incidents when the Dean would post something on his blog, then spam-comment the entire Cincinnati blogosphere with off-topic links back to his blog. Didn't Nate Livingston call him "Cincinnati's most-hated troll"?

Remember how the Dean (justifiably) ganged up on the Enquirer editor's blog, telling him that the questions weren't going away just because he refused to answer them? And when the editor shut down the blog and removed any evidence it existed, didn't the Dean pile on for weeks?

Isn't that what's happening here?

How can you defend this guy?

And in another demonstration of hypocrisy, he's now alleging that the city will be "bankrupt" in 2007. This from a guy who isn't paying his property taxes.

Christopher Smitherman is alleging the city will be bankrupt in 2007, not the Dean.

Part of what made the comment spam was that it was the exact same comment every time. With Callinan's blog everyone was asking questions, but no one was copying and pasting the same comment over and over again.

But, I do get your point about the Callinan blog. But if you have questions about the Dean's editorial decisions with the Beacon instead of questions about his home, I am sure he would be happy to answer them.

Yes, it was "the exact same comment every time", but that hardly crosses a moral threshold or amounts to the danger of "anonymous destruction of blogs".

The fact that it was the exact same is the reason it is spam instead of a thoughtful, insightful comment.

Think of the e-mails you get from Liberia every day asking for a bank account number so you can hold on totheir money. It may very well be that there is someone from Liberia that needs my bank account to hold some money for them. However, because I receive the exact same e-mail every day it is spam instead of a legitmate cry for help.

Fine, but how is that kind of "spam" any different from what the Dean does when he "would post something on his blog, then spam-comment the entire Cincinnati blogosphere with off-topic links back to his blog"? In other words, what's so evil about spam? Wasn't the original sin in this case the Dean's censorship?

I have not seen the Dean post off-topic. I have seen him say things like "I've covered this at my site and here is the link," which is on-topic.

There is a difference.

That's simply not true, Andrew. Here's an example, posted by the Dean on the Politics Extra blog on a post about Tom Luken:

at 7/11/2005 9:39 AM The Dean of Cincinnati said...

See "David and Goliath: The Independent Blogosphere versus Blogs@Cincinnati.com. This whole blog, and all the Cincinnati.com blogs, are needless puff pieces, if you think about it from a larger context.

First it's off topic. Second, it's critical of the Cincinnati.com blogs. Did the Enquirer censor it? No.

Here's another example, same blog, a post on property taxes:

at 11/04/2005 5:55 PM The Dean of Cincinnati said...

I call on all Cincinnatians to stay home this tuesday and refuse the vote for democracy.

MAKE THE PROMISE

Though LocalRefusal.org is sponsored by The Dean of Cincinnati, participation is in no way limited to Cincinnati only. If you agree with the principles below, you should join our movement in your own locale.

* Because our local democracy is ineffective;
* Because our City government exhibits ineptitude;
* Because there are consistently unsatisfactory candidates from which to choose;
* Because poor city leadership perverts true democracy;
* Because city change will only come about through inspired people;

I promise not to vote in the 2005 local election, instead working for thoughtful democracy.

Signers:

* Jason A. Haap, MA, The Dean of Cincinnati
* Steve Scott, Teacher and Photographer
* Dominic Santoleri, Conservative Pundit
* Andrew Niemann, Consultant
* Wesley Dempster, Philosopher*

*Wesley Dempster's support of Local Refusal is contingent.

That, by the way, is another example of Dean hypocracy. He told every one else not to vote than then he voted himself.

The Cincinnati Blog's comments don't come up on Google, so I can't find examples from there, but I'm sure Brian Griffith would tell you he's done it there, too.

I appreciate that Jason's friends defending his actionsbut his actions were hypocritcal. I, like others, have simply lost interest in Jason and the Beacon, his views are now suspect. I'm doubt very much that Jason cares about this one way or another. There are plenty of 'yes men' that will buy into his bullshit, his polical performance art or whatever he calls his 'Dean' character. I have noticed that he is much less likey to make personal attacks since this little issue came up- but he will go back to his 'holier than thou' attitude after this blows over. He ought to change the tag line to "Where Approved Divergent Views Collide".

What's this about you hijacking a strand by posting off-topic spam, Andrew? Are you so blinded by your own hypocrisy that you defend the Dean's censorship of others while benefiting from insider special treament? For shame! What has happened to all the progressives?

Hijacking? Please.

I merely asked him why two sources are an absolute authority on one issue and incorrect on another. That is on-topic.

The Dean called that hijacking the strand. He didn't seem to find it relevant. Is it possible that relevance is relative? If your definition of spam rests on the principle of relevance, then spam is relative too. In the end, the Dean censored the messages because he didn't like them, found them embarrassing, and wanted them to disappear, not because they were off topic in the Ghiz public records strand. Remember, he censored first, and the spamming only came in response.

It's going to be hard for you to defend this one, Andrew.

The Dean seems to have subverted his point by "allowing" my "irrelevant" comments to "hijack" a strand.

So yes, it is a tough one to defend.

What a weird conversation...

Here is the bottom line. I had a personal issue involving a financial situation that has since been solved. Insofar as my taxes were tied in escrow, they were paid a week or so late from my banking institution. Due to a back log at the County, they did not post to the web for several weeks. The trolls about my taxes appeared in this interim.

The trolls subsequently died down when the County site reflected that I was up-to-date.

Actually, the site reflected that I was short by one cent. I have not figured this out entirely, yet. The numbers I have gotten from the County, from my bank, combined with this one penny oversight do not all line up.

So, in regards to my credibility, it is true that I paid property taxes about a week late due to another financial dilemma that has since been resolved. I may be one penny behind on my payment. I keep forgetting to call.

What any of this has to do with Leslie Ghiz is beyond my comprehension.

Lastly, I have a hard time understanding the online Auditor's site. Though I receive no mail or bills, the site changes regularly its record on me. Sometimes I'm late, other times not. Today, I owe more than a few weeks ago.

I can't follow.

That's probably why the site has a disclaimer saying all the figures are subject to error.

So that is the basis of the diatribe against me? An online record that is unstable?

Please...

I clicked on the Spleen's link and there wasn't even a file there for you.

It's just desperate criticism and he's trying to make it look like I totally agreed with everything I said. The only thing I said was that someone who fails to pay their taxes has little credibility in regards to choosing how tax dollars get spent.

You obviously pay your taxes... The guy is just talking smack.