Bad Idea Came Home to Roost and Sent Me on My Way
Yesterday, NT saw a new "rule/concept" introduced, which, IMO, was fraught with inherent abuse potential; in short order, that abuse materialized and, worse, it became coupled with one annoying tactic of long-standing.
Both put the site in a bad light.
The old and on-going situation is the gang-banging and piling on by a group of individuals who, "debate" minimally with facts and particulars and maximally with mockery, ad hominem smack downs and unsubstantiated dislikes and disagreement.
The newest is the creation and implementation of a bastardized version of the so-called Red Box Rule by which an author/seeder of an article can make up a rule and then arbitrarily and selectively implement it.
Such a rule revolves around the use of a word/term that, by its very nature, is nebulous, subject to a wide latitude of interpretation and easily enables arbitrary and capricious "adjudication" by its imposer.
As the first and perhaps the only convicted member for violating the "No Snark in this Article" rule, I was asked by a seeder and enforcer to remove a "snarky" comment or leave.
I explained literally word-for-word how my comment was not only not "snarky" -- but completely accurate and descriptive of how the article had proceeded to that point.
To no avail; to a child with a hammer, everything looks like a nail; the imposer of the "No Snark" hammer nailed me.
I left the article ... and for all the reasons cited above, I intend to keep going.
I like debate and confrontation ... both were a significant part of my professional life; but criticism, mockery and disagreement that comes repetitively and en masse often from a posse of ideologues, and then, even after it has been thoroughly and specifically shown to be off target ... that's the limit for me.
The article in question was indeed loaded with snark ... but not emanating from me, rather from that cadre of individuals who condemn the positions of others without making the case for why.
Prior to me being told to remove my comment or leave the thread, I was asked by one of the participants if I was "a lawyer." Although the debate had to do with "journalistic ethics" and not "law," I nevertheless responded with my specific qualifications with regard to law and journalism. Nothing snarky in my resume … BUT IT AND ANOTHER COMMENT WERE DELETED … no reason given, no purple, no moderator's initials … just the word "deleted" in both cases!
In deference to The No Snark Lord of his article ... I am "suspending" myself (call it what you like) and leaving with just one request; Will someone tell me who deleted without explanation, the two of my comments from the thread in question?
_________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: The article is open to comments although I will not respond; I request that any moderator remove violations of the CoC.
A. Mac
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
It appears that one of the deleted comments has been restored … by whom, I do not know.
A. Mac
A. Mac, I neither deleted nor restored...
A. Mac, I neither deleted nor restored...
I will invoke Robert's Rules here and comment via "Point of Personal Privilege" since I am addressed directly on a point-of-order, namely the deletion and restoration of my comment.
Dowser, I have no idea who deleted the pair of comments (no explanations were given, no moderator initials, no purple); it makes me wonder if someone has hacked into the keys-of-the-kingdom).
They were deleted by me Mac. Please read on down below.
A. Mac, I neither deleted nor restored..
Nor have I.
I truly hope that you stay AMAC, as many times your articles and photo posts are the only sane thing on the site. I too have been taking a sort of break from the site, because many times I come here and review the front page and it's nothing but garbage the is lower then the worst tabloids. That's the posters expressing an opinion and they certainly have the right to do so and show just how childish they are. I have been making a concerted effort lately to avoid responding to comments from many people and most of the time that I am on here these days is just to moderate, both sides. I do post the occasional article now, but am trying to avoid politics and am trying to stick to ones about science and mental heath, etc. Unfortunately they usual gain no traction (not surprising on this site these day really), but I would much rather post an article and only get a few mature sensible responses, then to post an article that is only intend to inflame other peoples emotions.
Again, I really hope you stay, because your article and photos and responses to some of the people on this site saying ridiculous things is one of the things I really look forward to and is also one of the only reasons I haven't given up my membership yet.
Randy,
I appreciate your friendship, your words and your kindness.
Sometimes I forget something I learned years ago … a piece of Zen or another source of philosophy and reflection … as follows (and paraphrased) …
We each possess a (metaphorical) KNIFE and a LAMP; sadly or tragically there are times when we wield the KNIFE, only after which we turn on the LAMP to see what we have slashed!
GUILTY!
As this thread winds down, I consider my subsequent return to the site, wanting very much, in the site's best interests, my own, and, in the interest of all who come here, that I will have left the KNIFE behind and be carrying a brighter LAMP.
Heading there in the next day or two.
Mac, with all respect to you, I think you are overblowing this situation.
He's right it was a dumb idea John. It's too broad of a definition for the word snark.
A good majority of the respondents to the thread supported the idea.
It doesn't matter much to me if there is a snark free zone but people who take advantage of the good will of the site are dragging it into the toilet. Other sites like this would delete on sight many of the things that are allowed to run free here. Only the lowest of the low would have avatars with shit pouring out of a woman's mouth. This crap degrades Newstalkers. It's that simple.
It's graphic political expression the same thing Charlie Hebdo does.
WGAF
" It's too broad of a definition for the word snark."
There's some truth to that. Is this a personal insult, or some clever snark?
Maybe it depends what kind of article it's on. To me, it's funny. But if it were on Buzz's Panda article, I would, no doubt, find it to be inappropriate. However, as a moderator, I doubt I would delete it, unless Buzz asked me to.
Agreed Hal.
Buzz was funny. It was a clear joke.
"Buzz was funny. It was a clear joke." ???
Why did my name come up? I contributed nothing to this article and just spent a long time trying to read through the comments. In fact, I could say that MY feelings are hurt because nobody has thrown a verbal punch at me here since I've been pretty vociferous elsewhere about a couple of issues I feel strongly about. However, I will not quit. I've been here since the beginning and if I can continue to contribute to the groups with photos and articles that even I'm the only one commenting on them my loyalty exceeds my distaste for the American political tsunami on the site that does not affect me anyway.
JR,
Same point of order as related to my response to Dowser; your comment requires my response … as follows:
Your wanting decorum is proper and correct; that the trolls, and, ironically, the NT Snarker-In-Chief undermined your altruistic effort, is not an indictment of that effort, rather it underscores why you needed to expend it in the first place.
Virtually every rule, law or well-intended idea can be abused … some to greater degrees than others; one man's "snarkiness" is another man's pithy, erudite way of nailing the indefensible. "Snark" as a means of expression is rather nebulous and ultimately, mostly subjective. To those who live where complicated thoughts go to die, it's a picnic area!
It's not the concept, John, it's the temptation it brings with irresistibility to a certain type of individual who will abuse it for his own end.
With apologies to my dog and canines everywhere, THERE IS WHAT I CALL A DOG MENTALITY THAT THE STYMIED, FRUSTRATED, ZEAL-WITHOUT-KNOWLEDGE PAIN-IN-THE-ASS EMPLOYS WHEN HE CANNOT VIABLY ARTICULATE A POSITION.
"If he can't eat it or fuck it, he pisses on it!"
Those who came here to escape the piss puddles they deposited on the floor of the other site, WOULD SERVE THEMSELVES AND EVERYONE ELSE MORE BENEFICIALLY IF THEY ZIPPED UP THEIR METAPHORICAL FLIES AND CHALLENGED THEIR INTELLECT.
Once this thread has run its course, I'm out of here.
Again... Please wait till I have my say down at the bottom. I have to get through this article
Often I take stock in why engage and have put myself in the time-out chair, again
, not as a result of the "no snark", or a distasteful avatar, any individual or comment.
We're members, we've chosen to be here and each will determine the merits of remaining engaged. I've no disrespect for any member and certainly each is free to express themselves as allowed w/in the cofc.
What it boils down for me is personal benefit. Those that receive benefit will remain, those questioning the benefit are taking a hiatus, those who've already determined there is no benefit have left.
I don't think it is as simple as that. People would like to show loyalty, but it becomes harder.
JR,
I suppose the question is loyalty to whom? Perrie? I've tremendous respect for her and the continued efforts with which she balances speech and members. Do I wish the sight to be successful, absolutely.
NT success provides a platform allowing engagement for members, POV's for non-members. Comments that may be distasteful, snarky or downright nasty to me, reflect a POV and personality that I'm free to engage, ignore or flee.
Well said Lynne
Very well said.
I like to see some humor in posts especially when the topic is polarizing. I do agree with Mac that many times facts are not disputed with thoughtful responses but with personal attacks, thumbs down, or dismissive remarks without any weight.
I generally don't bother posting articles anymore or writing opinion pieces or funny stories because it doesn't seem to get much traction. I like the site because there is clear presence of both the right and left. Unfortunately with that comes blind rank and file without any serious self reflection or desire to see other peoples points of view.
I've had a lot going on in my personal life so I haven't been able to dedicate much time to NT but I'm finding it less and less difficult to stay away. I've attracted a nemesis who just enjoys giving me thumbs down for which I find absurd. I try to shake it off but my resolve is weak because I have to put so much into other troubles I'm dealing with lately. I don't understand why people cannot just pass others by that they have an issue with. deep sigh.....
PJ, the Hilllary lesbian threads, the Obama wearing women's underwear threads, the donkey cock threads, the Michelle is a man threads, etc, all belong in a subsection of the forum like a joke room where you have to enter it separately from the main forum, and not on the front page.
It is literally trashing this site to have those items be what people see when they click on Newstalkers on google or whatever.
Other forums do it THAT way, not the way we do it here.
John,
This site was built on freedom of speech and sometimes the penalty we pay for that freedom is that we are hit with stuff that you don't like. I am sure the inverse is true, too. People can chose to engage in those articles or let them slip off the board. That is why this site was designed the way it was. If you engage, then it's your fault that a distasteful article remains upfront. If other engage, well that is freedom. You have to take the good with the bad.
If the site was built on freedom of speech there wouldn't be a Code of Conduct, all there would be was a list of things that would cause you to lose the site, such as porn etc.
"Freedom of speech " is misused in this context.
The Code of Conduct is a minimal requirement for engagement. It doesn't go into allowed subject matter (other than porn or illegal articles), to specifically allow maximum freedom of speech. No where is there total freedom of speech, not even in the Constitution.
Perrie - your "definition" of freedom of speech is a tad wrong. Freedom of speech is about the government putting a stop to someone/something/corporates from using language/means of language that is "normally" expressions.
However, when that speech can/does offend someone else as in denigration, debasing, dehumanizing, it is not protected and is not to be used.
" Where the plaintiff in a Defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to the statements at issue. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in positions that invite close scrutiny, whereas private citizens have a greater interest in protecting their reputation. A private citizen's reputational and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and therefore deserve greater protection from the courts (see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]). "
The "snark" that is being discussed are, usually, attacks on an individual's reputational and privacy interests. Calling someone, specifically, an asshole is a personal attack and is not protected. Any form of language, either written, meme'd, spoken, sung, etc., that can be considered offensive/harmful to an individual's reputational and privacy interests is NOT protected.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of that going on and it needs to be stopped.
Hubris calls for nemesis, and in one form or another it's going to get it, not as a punishment from outside but as the completion of a pattern already started.
If you are talking about me, this nemesis relationship is certainly one sided. I don't see you as mine I any way. There are progressive lefties and hard core believers in atheism that I disagree with on almost everything, but no one here I'd view as a personal nemesis or that I could be made to in any way hate as a person. I can have friendships and working relationships in real life with people who disagree with me on everything be it politics, religion, sports, etc.
Mac, this comment is to you, but also to the entire community.
John made a suggestion to have "Snark Free" articles yesterday. It seemed like a good idea and there were members here who said I was resistant to new ideas, so I figured I would try this one out. That isn't our usual protocol. When making a change in policy, I should have done a meta article, so that we could hammer out how it would be implemented and then voted on it, but I didn't do that. I was too gungho to try something and it went arey. The rules were not clearly made and you fell victim to this. For that I deeply apologize especially to you, but also the community. I hope you will take my apology and reconsider take a break and come back feeling refreshed as opposed to just leaving.
I think you took his post too seriously. I don't think he was being serious.
I agree. People can be way too serious. I thought it to be typical BF humor and I've been the target of it too at times.
He was kidding NWM. That being said, I know that you have always tried to be a help any time I have asked. For that I thank you!
AFTER CONSIDERING …
After a lengthy discussion with Perrie about what led me to write this article, and, what my initial intentions were with regard to its content, I learned, or perhaps was jogged into remembering, that beyond our usual population of active members, are possibly hundreds of visitors/readers.
That information focused me on a perspective I hadn't had prior. Assuming that such a following exists, and, in the hope that many will eventually join us … and drown out some of the acrimony … I know what I'll do.
Let it not be overlooked that I have had my fill of mean-spirited encounters with those who have no objective on NT other than to impose their own ideas and ideology no matter how factually flawed.
Given that I accept Perrie’s account of hundreds of unseen visitors to the site, I will take a week or more and consider what it might feel like to post in deference to their albeit unseen, and hopefully, reasonable presence.
In the meantime, to those who console themselves and rationalize that someone coming at them with facts debunking some unfounded position … be assured that I am not, as some of you allege, "talking down.” In fact, the opposite is the case; if I or anyone addresses you at an erudite, articulate and specific level, it’s an indication that addressing you thus assumes your intellectual capacity to return a counter-position in kind, and at the same level!
It’s time to back away for a time … a week or more … think about where the site is, who contributes, who does something other than contribute and where I fit or fail to do so. It is important that NT persist and be what we wanted it to be when came here.
Taking camera and family somewhere peaceful for now … no laptops … no ill will … just an objective to find the better ME and bring it back to The Newstalkers.
Be kind to each other … Perrie deserves that as a birthday gift from us all.
A. Mac
NOTE:ADDENDUM
My wife just reminded me of a bitter labor strike I was a part of in the late 60's/early 70's during an extremely cold and brutal Philly winter.
The strike went on and on with no impasse after many weeks. Finally, RICHARD NIXON (not my favorite President) sent a mediator/conciliator, Ed Meese, that in order to establish a COOLING OFF PERIOD after which negotiations could resume.
Yeah! My wife is the smart and sensible one in my house … " … take some time and COOL OFF," she advised after reminding me of those combative, acrimonious times.
I'm cool with that.
Peace to all here on NT … to ALL!
I would happy to continue talking to you without the misplaced arrogance, on either side.
I would happy to continue talking to you without the misplaced arrogance, on either side.
Fair enough!
It's her Birthday!!!? Happy Birthday Perrie. 🎂🎁
Thanks Jeff but not till the 18th.
Happy birthday, Perrie.
The 18th just happens to be the same day my wife and I will celebrate our 39th year of wedded bliss.
Well, that was a horrible, miserable read. Thanks.