One needn’t suppose that Microsoft as a whole is evil. But Microsoft consists of a great many people, and statistically, I’m sure that at least some of them are evil. Do you really want to bet that Microsoft as a whole is competent enough to keep those evil people in check? That there isn’t some lone programmer within the company who snuck a back door into the program, that could make it through Microsoft’s quality control? That’s absolutely something worth worrying about. It’s a heck of a lot more plausible than the sorts of election fraud that Republicans spend so much time pretending to worry about.
Yeah! I mean, it’s not as if we were talking about Apple!
[hides under table to avoid chair-smashing geek-brawl]
I agree one needn’t suppose that, but the campaign is indeed supposing that Microsoft may have adopted a policy in which it commits voter fraud. They make two conspiracy theory type claims that support their “concern”. One is that the software is free. Could your hypothetical lone nut programmer hide something in the code and also make the software free? No, they think Microsoft chose to give the software away so they could rig the vote.
The second part of the theory supposes because Microsoft has given Clinton money, they are rigging the app. Could the hypothetical lone nut programmer also direct tens of thousands to Clinton’s coffers? Perhaps, but I don’t think the lone nut is what the Sanders campaign is “concerned” about, do you?
Who’d a thunk Volkswagen would have involved itself in a massive fraud scheme extending over half the world?
So do you think it’s a possibility that Microsoft is engaged in an elaborate plot to rig the caucus?
Coy attempts to pretend that one has not insulted another poster are rarely successful.
This one has failed.
This is a Warning to avoid this sort of behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
I think it’s unlikely, but not impossible. I think it’s far more likely that the program doesn’t work properly out of incompetence. If I were the Sanders campaign, or the Clinton campaign for that matter, I would test it against the traditional counting methods, and not use it as a replacement for the older methods.
Waitaminnit, now – is it a forbidden insult to accuse another poster of concern-trolling? I should think that would be fair game – in the Elections forum, in particular, and for obvious reasons.
To clarify: First, FTR, post #753 was not any attempt at a Mod-dodge.
Second, regarding the above, what I mean is:
-
Most Dopers who post in the Elections forum are deeply invested in the success of some party or politics.
-
Therefore, concern-trolling the other side, or an other side, is something we always will be tempted to do. (I’m sure I must have been guilty of it myself on some occasions.)
-
Concern-trolling, while certainly not a beyond-the-pale thing like hate speech, is at least a mildly egregious and slightly intellectually dishonest thing.
-
Therefore, concern-trolling in the Elections forum is not a thing a Doper should be free to do without getting called on it. (I wouldn’t mind getting called on it, if it were a fair cop.)
-
But not called on it by the Mods. There is no rule against concern-trolling, there is no obvious reason why there should be a rule against it, and it would be difficult to craft a fairly applicable rule anyway.
-
Therefore, it is appropriate that non-Mod Dopers should be free to shout “concern-troll!” in the Elections forum – even if that might be construed as an “insult” from a certain perspective.
The way the post was constructed was clearly intended as an insult with a cutesy effort to make it look as though the insult had been interrupted/withdrawn.
You are correct that we have not added “concern-trolling” to the list of 17,864 forbidden acts found in the addenda of the Registration Agreement.
We do, however, have an express rule against calling other posters “troll” outside The BBQ Pit and adding the modifier “concern-” to the word troll does not abrogate that rule.
[ /Moderating ]
THe Clinton campaign continues to tell pretty obvious lies about Sanders:
Maybe I missed something, but would anyone here agree that Sanders is running the most negative Democratic primary campaign in history? Or even a negative campaign at all?
No.
Yeah Joel Benenson is being a complete idiot there. No question that Sanders has gone negative attacking her vulnerability regarding having taken speaking fees from Wall Street … but “most negative”? No. Reasonably negative? Yes.
Did he break his promise to not go negative? Okay, fine, yes. It was a silly promise to make. Some negative campaigning is part and parcel. Sanders though trying to claim that he has not gone negative and will not go negative though is almost as dumb as what Benenson said. This is not Marquess of Queensbury rules. Don’t be shy … fight!
IMHO, despite the similar name, “concern-trolling” usually is a milder thing than “trolling.” The kind of “trolling” we’re supposed to avoid accusing each other of publicly on this board involves (usually) multiple posts by someone who is pretending to take a certain position, really trying to get a rise out of certain others.
“Concern-trolling” can just be a milder, single-post expression by a poster whose actual opinions are pretty well known at this point. I think BG was humorously alluding to the difference in severity, especially in this case.
Perhaps we need a new word for someone who temporarily expresses less-than-sincere concern, but isn’t a full-on troll. Until we have that word, though, BG’s lighthearted post didn’t seem out of line to me.
Okay, I’ll stop junior modding/hijacking.
Just want to put in my 2 cents that I really hope Sanders beats Hillary in Iowa or the results are at least damn close. No more than maybe 1-2 points.
Even a close result probably finishes Sanders. He has to win Iowa and NH in order to get the momentum to win Nevada. If he can win those three, then enough minority voters might take notice to make him competitive in the SEC primary.
Here is Bernie Sanders introducing and talking rather positively about Noam Chomsky back in the '80s.
The idea that a trusted American corporation like Microsoft would tilt the table for the establishment is certainly out there. When has that ever happened?
Well, if you believe the president of Dibold, 2004.
Like I already mentioned, Volkswagen “tilted the table” for itself, on a global scale, just recently.