Doxing victim Zoe Quinn launches online “anti-harassment task force”

Service once tipped police a week ahead. Cops' memo: "Knock with your hand, not your boot."

Read the whole story

 

[Alfonse]

TurboPower[/url]":15i38137]They already win when you dedicate this much time, energy and money to anti trolling. What a victory.

All this will do is inspire them to continue the threats and harassment, because this is exactly the response desired.

So what's the alternative? Just let them use the police as a means of attacking adults?

This isn't fucking grade school, where maybe you let the bully beat on you for a week or two until he moves on to someone else. Someone is going to get shot if this continues.

 

[mattand]

Marcos2247[/url]":3tcy8zlj]

mattand[/url]":3tcy8zlj]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

 

[bthylafh]

PSA: if you see a poster making an ass of himself, please make sure to click that little yellow triangle near the quote button - you'll have to hover your mouse pointer over the offending comment to make it appear. The front-page comments aren't actively modded, so people have to report offending posts or nothing will be done.

 

[Marcos2247]

mattand[/url]":3axlfhts]

Marcos2247[/url]":3axlfhts]

mattand[/url]":3axlfhts]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

Off to where?

Are you saying (white) men don't have issues worth talking about?

I'm all for feminism (although I'd like find a word not ending in -ism for it), equal participation. I have nothing against Zoe Quinn, I find that anti-harassment task-force a nice idea, I don't use words like fag in online chat.

But you're saying Men's rights issues have nothing good associated with them. How about cirumcision? That's an MRI. Okay, maybe we can make it a minority issue by focussing on the jews first...

I'm sorry that I as a white man have issues too. And saying "Doesn't matter, women have it worse" is like countering a complaint about doxxing with #firstworldproblems.

 

[4KrkF]

ty88[/url]":1rguzgbt]I don't understand the concern with people phoning in their own meth lab, human slavery ring, etc. because like in this instance the police are still going to ask to search the premises and investigate to clear up whatever claim it was.

The point is that in order to not be concerned about people phoning in their own meth lab, then police need to go and search even when something has been phoned in.

The precursor idea to that was 'why have police go and check the place at all if they have been notified that they should expect a spurious call'.

 

[Coriolanus]

0bliv!on[/url]":4mnnkx3p]

Alfonse[/url]":4mnnkx3p]

0bliv!on[/url]":4mnnkx3p]

cateye[/url]":4mnnkx3p]

0bliv!on[/url]":4mnnkx3p]

cateye[/url]":4mnnkx3p]
So you believe helping to thwart doxing/swatting victims has no merit? Or do you discount it because it's Quinn? Oops.

Probably because Reddit's KotakuinAction has had something similar for a while now trawling through Twitter to head off trolls and noone's reported on that. But that's partially due to Zoe & Co having a better PR department too.

This strikes me as specious as arguments about who was "first" with a particular technology. If both services are aiding their audience, I fail to see the problem, especially if the PR acumen of one draws more attention to that problem.

Which I suppose would only be seen as having "merit" if you saw doxing and swatting as a "problem," and sadly I think we all know people who don't.

I'm not saying this isn't newsworthy. I'm trying to elaborate on why some people might object to giving Zoe and co publicity while withholding the same from similar efforts on the other side of the issue.

Yeah. Mentioning it for one side and not the other might suggest that ArsTech has an opinion on the matter. And God knows that ArsTechnica is a completely unbiased news source...

And of course both sides are equally wrong, so they must be covered equally.

/s

Seriously? Objectivity is no longer something to be aspired to?

Objectivity doesn't mean being forced to devote equal time.

For example - an objective discussion on the theory of evolution doesn't mean we also need to devote an equal amount of time to young Earth Creationism or "Intelligent Design."

 

[sonolumi]

bthylafh[/url]":2ks8mmmn]PSA: if you see a poster making an ass of himself, please make sure to click that little yellow triangle near the quote button - you'll have to hover your mouse pointer over the offending comment to make it appear. The front-page comments aren't actively modded, so people have to report offending posts or nothing will be done.

QFT.

I won't bother arguing with idiocy this article will inevitably generate from the 'new and interesting' commenters hate group members, but you can be damn sure breeches in acceptable conduct will be flagged and moderated.

Don't bother fighting in the gutter, just stamp it out and bury it.

 

[tjones2]

0bliv!on[/url]":24dtugl5]

Seriously? Objectivity is no longer something to be aspired to?

In editorial coverage? No. Thats why its editorial coverage.

And giving equal weight to sides with unequal evidence is not objectivity. This has been hashed out on the climate change threads many times.

 

[MattEvansC3]

exploder[/url]":1isu1egp]I find it sad that a police department can be warned a week in advance that a bogus complaint will be made, and yet they still feel they need to execute a search of the premises. It strikes me there is a procedural failure when searches can be instigated even by obviously bogus claims, but there is no clear way to prevent them. This is not a trivial matter, because, in case anyone forgot, privacy is a primary value that is sacrificed in the name of these obviously bogus searches, and lets not trot out any "if you have nothing to hide" bullshit. Now of course, the police are not going to be the ones to push for procedural reform, because these bogus searches are more work for them, and who doesn't want a well payed job, full of fun toys, and no risk (they know there's no real threat).

Oh well, at least it's apparently not too much to ask that the cops not be completely destructive maniacs going in, unlike how they would presumably behave normally when they don't have any forewarning ("Knock with your hand, not your boot."). Sad.

Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. There's very little stopping someone who is making an explosive from ringing up their local police station and saying they are are the victim of a proposed SWATting. The police themselves would be none the wiser as to its validity.

Nobody wants to be the person that allowed an explosive to go off because they didn't follow a tip after someone "warned" them it was fake.

 

[Alfonse]

0bliv!on[/url]":3221xtli]

Alfonse[/url]":3221xtli]

0bliv!on[/url]":3221xtli]

cateye[/url]":3221xtli]

I'm not saying this isn't newsworthy. I'm trying to elaborate on why some people might object to giving Zoe and co publicity while withholding the same from similar efforts on the other side of the issue.

Yeah. Mentioning it for one side and not the other might suggest that ArsTech has an opinion on the matter. And God knows that ArsTechnica is a completely unbiased news source...

And of course both sides are equally wrong, so they must be covered equally.

/s

Seriously? Objectivity is no longer something to be aspired to?

ArsTechnica is not, and has never been objective about anything. The site has a bias. You might like that bias, and thus not really notice it. But it's still there.

 

[AlexisR200X]

Asshat moves like the incredibly retarded and dangerous practice of swatting and doxxing people "For the LULZ" Is more likely to make privacy on the internet a target rather than the goons doing the actual offenses, especially for politicians looking to quickly cash in on the current issues for political gain (often with misguided and often problematic measures) Fighting online hate is great but I just hope enough of these tools get arrested before our privacy gets eroded further. I mean cases like this do provide ammo for those looking to end anonymity on the internet and goons doing bad things hiding behind proxies and vpns are less likely to be inconvenienced by the government/law enforcement meddling than regular folks who use the net without too much understanding of how it all works.

 

[Snarky Robot]

0bliv!on[/url]":3idw15l0]
I'm not saying this isn't newsworthy. I'm trying to elaborate on why some people might object to giving Zoe and co publicity while withholding the same from similar efforts on the other side of the issue.

This is an important lesson in branding:

If you have a group whose roots is quite literally harassing a woman based on false information from a jilted ex-lower, rather than a journalist, and your supporters doxxed, threatened, and harassed said woman, you're not going to be taken seriously as an anti-harassment group. If you don't have an official voice, you don't get to complain when no one accepts the voice you want to have promoted.

THIS is how you run an organization. You set it up, you specify goals, you create an official voice, and let supporters join up. Now, individual supporters of this group CAN be assholes, but the message of the group is secure.

GamerGate started as a mob committing harassment of women. That their anti-harassment efforts (which are not the only efforts being taken on their behalf) aren't big news is their own fault. Go make a NEW group, with a specific purpose and a specific goal and an official voice. Then, you get to sit at the big kids table with Quinn, perhaps. Until then, you're people still supporting a hate group who are claiming the hate group is now about kittens.

It doesn't work like that.

 

[MattEvansC3]

Marcos2247[/url]":3m40bw88]

mattand[/url]":3m40bw88]

Marcos2247[/url]":3m40bw88]

mattand[/url]":3m40bw88]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

Off to where?

Are you saying (white) men don't have issues worth talking about?

I'm all for feminism (although I'd like find a word not ending in -ism for it), equal participation. I have nothing against Zoe Quinn, I find that anti-harassment task-force a nice idea, I don't use words like fag in online chat.

But you're saying Men's rights issues have nothing good associated with them. How about cirumcision? That's an MRI. Okay, maybe we can make it a minority issue by focussing on the jews first...

I'm sorry that I as a white man have issues too. And saying "Doesn't matter, women have it worse" is like countering a complaint about doxxing with #firstworldproblems.

As a white male I do have problems but as a white male I also have a greater amount of power to fix things.

The only real main male issue, particularly in the UK, is the high rates of depression related suicides in young males. Even then this is primarily a side effect of the erosion of the white male power base as the cultural depiction of a white male and his worth in society has not changed quickly enough. We push minorities to break their social constraints such as telling women they can be car mechanics but we don't broaden the WM perspective and tell ourselves its okay to be cleaners or house husbands.

Also circumcision is not a MRI. Women, especially in parts of Africa are forcefully circumcised.

 

[rwxatc]

exploder[/url]":6ffhtbaw]I find it sad that a police department can be warned a week in advance that a bogus complaint will be made, and yet they still feel they need to execute a search of the premises. It strikes me there is a procedural failure when searches can be instigated even by obviously bogus claims, but there is no clear way to prevent them. This is not a trivial matter, because, in case anyone forgot, privacy is a primary value that is sacrificed in the name of these obviously bogus searches, and lets not trot out any "if you have nothing to hide" bullshit. Now of course, the police are not going to be the ones to push for procedural reform, because these bogus searches are more work for them, and who doesn't want a well payed job, full of fun toys, and no risk (they know there's no real threat).

Oh well, at least it's apparently not too much to ask that the cops not be completely destructive maniacs going in, unlike how they would presumably behave normally when they don't have any forewarning ("Knock with your hand, not your boot."). Sad.

Good post. I had similar thoughts, that even if the swatters only provoke an unwarranted (not warrantless) search, then they have succeeded.

I appreciate the additional dimension you added to this line of thought.

 

[Alfonse]

Marcos2247[/url]":4t4cs8ci]

mattand[/url]":4t4cs8ci]

Marcos2247[/url]":4t4cs8ci]

mattand[/url]":4t4cs8ci]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

Off to where?

Are you saying (white) men don't have issues worth talking about?

I'm all for feminism (although I'd like find a word not ending in -ism for it), equal participation. I have nothing against Zoe Quinn, I find that anti-harassment task-force a nice idea, I don't use words like fag in online chat.

But you're saying Men's rights issues have nothing good associated with them. How about cirumcision? That's an MRI. Okay, maybe we can make it a minority issue by focussing on the jews first...

I'm sorry that I as a white man have issues too. And saying "Doesn't matter, women have it worse" is like countering a complaint about doxxing with #firstworldproblems.

You're right that mattand should not have equated MRIs with GamerGate, which is when the derailment happened.

That being said, men's rights activism has a similar stigma to it to GamerGate. Not nearly as bad, but there are people who support it for reasonable reasons, and quite a few people who are sexist twats. That's not your fault, but that association is real and it's something you have to deal with.

 

[parasyte]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":3ja4aunm]This is totally zero cool.

The voters are trashing your rights! Trashing the flow of data! Trashing!

Hack the planet!

 

[Coriolanus]

ghost55[/url]":g2c6h7nw]

mattand[/url]":g2c6h7nw]

ghost55[/url]":g2c6h7nw]

mattand[/url]":g2c6h7nw]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":g2c6h7nw]This thread gon' be good.

Seriously. The hordes of Gamergate mouth breathers and Men's Rights Advocate loons alone promise a shit show of ignorance beyond all mortal reckoning.

Both sides of this mess are a shitshow of ignorance beyond all all mortal reckoning. It's like watching Fox News and MSNBC engage in a twitter war.

Wow. You're really going to go with Magic Balance Fairy (aka, "Every opinion is valid") as your take on this.

No, I think both sides are full of steaming assholes and can go fuck themselves somewhere I don't have to watch.

If this is your feeling, then why are you in this thread, posting multiple comments about them?

 

[s73v3r]

Operative Me[/url]":qyzueyc4]

0bliv!on[/url]":qyzueyc4]
I'm not saying this isn't newsworthy. I'm trying to elaborate on why some people might object to giving Zoe and co publicity while withholding the same from similar efforts on the other side of the issue.

This is an important lesson in branding:

If you have a group whose roots is quite literally harassing a woman based on false information from a jilted ex-lower, rather than a journalist, and your supporters doxxed, threatened, and harassed said woman, you're not going to be taken seriously as an anti-harassment group. If you don't have an official voice, you don't get to complain when no one accepts the voice you want to have promoted.

THIS is how you run an organization. You set it up, you specify goals, you create an official voice, and let supporters join up. Now, individual supporters of this group CAN be assholes, but the message of the group is secure.

GamerGate started as a mob committing harassment of women. That their anti-harassment efforts (which are not the only efforts being taken on their behalf) aren't big news is their own fault. Go make a NEW group, with a specific purpose and a specific goal and an official voice. Then, you get to sit at the big kids table with Quinn, perhaps. Until then, you're people still supporting a hate group who are claiming the hate group is now about kittens.

It doesn't work like that.

For a slightly less touchy example of your first paragraph, see the Occupy Wall Street movement. It was supposed to be all decentralized with no leaders. But, because there were no leaders, there was no official voice. Because there was no official voice, there was no official narrative, which caused the press to not be able to say much about it.

 

[Alfonse]

s73v3r[/url]":2t11k8xi]

mattand[/url]":2t11k8xi]

Wow. You're really going to go with Magic Balance Fairy (aka, "Every opinion is valid") as your take on this.

We've seen both sides engage in the exact same stuff. Both sides have engaged in doxxing. I don't care who does it, or why you do it, doxxing is wrong, full stop. And once you start engaging in doxxing and other related behaviors, you lose the high road, and most people are going to see your side just as bad as the side you claim are the bad guys.

Just because one side doesn't have the highest moral standing, it's important to recognize the fact that, for every negative act on the anti-GamerGate side, there have been 3 on the GamerGate side. Not to mention, we all know which side it was that started this whole stupid bullshit to begin with.

The one who fired the first shot is the aggressor; all the other side is doing is defending themselves. Sometimes, people do bad things when defending themselves, but at the end of the day, they're doing it to defend themselves.

So please don't expect me to feel sorry for GamerGate when some of the anti-side uses their own horrible tactics against them. Oh, it's still wrong. But I'm not going to feel too sorry for them. Just like I'm against the death penalty, but I don't feel particularly sorry for the execution of some mass murderer.

 

[Coriolanus]

0bliv!on[/url]":kjq4anb4]

Coriolanus[/url]":kjq4anb4]

0bliv!on[/url]":kjq4anb4]

Alfonse[/url]":kjq4anb4]

0bliv!on[/url]":kjq4anb4]

I'm not saying this isn't newsworthy. I'm trying to elaborate on why some people might object to giving Zoe and co publicity while withholding the same from similar efforts on the other side of the issue.

Yeah. Mentioning it for one side and not the other might suggest that ArsTech has an opinion on the matter. And God knows that ArsTechnica is a completely unbiased news source...

And of course both sides are equally wrong, so they must be covered equally.

/s

Seriously? Objectivity is no longer something to be aspired to?

Objectivity doesn't mean being forced to devote equal time.

For example - an objective discussion on the theory of evolution doesn't mean we also need to devote an equal amount of time to young Earth Creationism or "Intelligent Design."

But this isn't reporting on the viewpoint of either side. This is reporting on the SAME ACTIONS taken by both sides.

Using your analogy, it's like publicising that climate scientists have donated $1,000,000-00 to a charity and not publicising that climate change deniers have made the same donation to the same charity.

And criticising or approving of something, not on the merits of that thing by because of who's behind it, is obviously ad hom. I'm not saying Ars can't be biased. I'm just calling it out for being so.

Let's say that we state an objective fact (based on your example).

Fact: "Climate scientists donate $1 million to wildlife charity."

Please tell me why this statement of fact, by itself, is not an objective statement? What inherent bias does it have? Why do you think it needs to be counterbalanced by reporting what the climate change deniers are doing?

 

[tjones2]

0bliv!on[/url]":y88u1ybd]
That's, to put it bluntly, bullshit. Unless the people being doxxed were the ones doing the doxxing, all you're doing by this kind of 'defence' is adding more innocent victims.

I have little sympathy for someone for someone who joins a movement which regularly uses doxing and harassment (and that goes for both the GGers and the members of some of the more toxic elements of the internet feminist community) . Lie with dogs, get fleas.

 

[Ice_Pirate]

Not a big fan of Quinn, but this is pretty awesome.

I think they should have gone with Angelina Jolie's character "Acid Burn" though. Unless they weren't referencing Hackers at all. In which case I'm confused.

 

[MattEvansC3]

Alfonse[/url]":1c10s115]

Marcos2247[/url]":1c10s115]

mattand[/url]":1c10s115]

Marcos2247[/url]":1c10s115]

mattand[/url]":1c10s115]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

Off to where?

Are you saying (white) men don't have issues worth talking about?

I'm all for feminism (although I'd like find a word not ending in -ism for it), equal participation. I have nothing against Zoe Quinn, I find that anti-harassment task-force a nice idea, I don't use words like fag in online chat.

But you're saying Men's rights issues have nothing good associated with them. How about cirumcision? That's an MRI. Okay, maybe we can make it a minority issue by focussing on the jews first...

I'm sorry that I as a white man have issues too. And saying "Doesn't matter, women have it worse" is like countering a complaint about doxxing with #firstworldproblems.

You're right that mattand should not have equated MRIs with GamerGate, which is when the derailment happened.

That being said, men's rights activism has a similar stigma to it to GamerGate. Not nearly as bad, but there are people who support it for reasonable reasons, and quite a few people who are sexist twats. That's not your fault, but that association is real and it's something you have to deal with.

Men's Rights Activism is a weird one. Lets split general problems into three broad categories;

A) Problems that can only be resolved through action.
B) Problems that can be solved through education.
C) Problems that are really just annoyances.

Most Rights groups have a plethora of class A issues. An end to Apartheid or the LGBT right to marry are class A. What class A issues do us men, especially the white heterosexual men, have? What is denied to us?

 

[Coriolanus]

0bliv!on[/url]":3q474a05]

Coriolanus[/url]":3q474a05]

0bliv!on[/url]":3q474a05]

Coriolanus[/url]":3q474a05]

0bliv!on[/url]":3q474a05]

Alfonse[/url]":3q474a05]

Yeah. Mentioning it for one side and not the other might suggest that ArsTech has an opinion on the matter. And God knows that ArsTechnica is a completely unbiased news source...

And of course both sides are equally wrong, so they must be covered equally.

/s

Seriously? Objectivity is no longer something to be aspired to?

Objectivity doesn't mean being forced to devote equal time.

For example - an objective discussion on the theory of evolution doesn't mean we also need to devote an equal amount of time to young Earth Creationism or "Intelligent Design."

But this isn't reporting on the viewpoint of either side. This is reporting on the SAME ACTIONS taken by both sides.

Using your analogy, it's like publicising that climate scientists have donated $1,000,000-00 to a charity and not publicising that climate change deniers have made the same donation to the same charity.

And criticising or approving of something, not on the merits of that thing by because of who's behind it, is obviously ad hom. I'm not saying Ars can't be biased. I'm just calling it out for being so.

Let's say that we state an objective fact (based on your example).

Fact: "Climate scientists donate $1 million to wildlife charity."

Please tell me why this statement of fact, by itself, is not an objective statement? What inherent bias does it have? Why do you think it needs to be counterbalanced by reporting what the climate change deniers are doing?

Because both are equally newsworthy.

If it's a one off incident, then obviously it's not representative of anything. But if it's a pattern of giving one side publicity and attention while blacklisting the other side, that's hardly objective.

A determination of equal newsworthiness is an assessment of comparative value, and therefore, inherently non-objective.

You are proposing taking an objective fact and making it MORE objective by injecting your own non-objective assessment of value into it?

 

[Ice_Pirate]

Marcos2247[/url]":3htp5pb4]

mattand[/url]":3htp5pb4]

Marcos2247[/url]":3htp5pb4]

mattand[/url]":3htp5pb4]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

Off to where?

Are you saying (white) men don't have issues worth talking about?

I'm all for feminism (although I'd like find a word not ending in -ism for it), equal participation. I have nothing against Zoe Quinn, I find that anti-harassment task-force a nice idea, I don't use words like fag in online chat.

But you're saying Men's rights issues have nothing good associated with them. How about cirumcision? That's an MRI. Okay, maybe we can make it a minority issue by focussing on the jews first...

I'm sorry that I as a white man have issues too. And saying "Doesn't matter, women have it worse" is like countering a complaint about doxxing with #firstworldproblems.

I agree with you in principle, but the problem is that this is a discussion about an article that talks about anti-doxxing resources. Bottom line is that it's not about you. Or me.

I think "Aaannd we're off" is referring to the common phenomenon where a discussion about an article about one thing gets derailed onto a whole different thing. It's a fairly common tactic for advocates in general, but it seems to be very noticeable with MRAs. I'd guess it's because they have a hard time getting any oxygen outside of the MRA-sphere. As well as

 

[Outrider/Ronin]

Coriolanus[/url]":1ak18gay]

0bliv!on[/url]":1ak18gay]

Coriolanus[/url]":1ak18gay]

0bliv!on[/url]":1ak18gay]

Coriolanus[/url]":1ak18gay]

But this isn't reporting on the viewpoint of either side. This is reporting on the SAME ACTIONS taken by both sides.

Using your analogy, it's like publicising that climate scientists have donated $1,000,000-00 to a charity and not publicising that climate change deniers have made the same donation to the same charity.

And criticising or approving of something, not on the merits of that thing by because of who's behind it, is obviously ad hom. I'm not saying Ars can't be biased. I'm just calling it out for being so.

Let's say that we state an objective fact (based on your example).

Fact: "Climate scientists donate $1 million to wildlife charity."

Please tell me why this statement of fact, by itself, is not an objective statement? What inherent bias does it have? Why do you think it needs to be counterbalanced by reporting what the climate change deniers are doing?

Because both are equally newsworthy.

If it's a one off incident, then obviously it's not representative of anything. But if it's a pattern of giving one side publicity and attention while blacklisting the other side, that's hardly objective.

A determination of equal newsworthiness is an assessment of comparative value, and therefore, inherently non-objective.

You are proposing taking an objective fact and making it MORE objective by injecting your own non-objective assessment of value into it?

I got excited when I saw your name awhile back. I keep getting excited by the quality of your posts.