New Policy Rule
There has been a sudden increase in the number of personal insults being hurled at one another resulting in a lot more moderation. In keeping in NT's policy about transparency, I am notifying the community to spell out this policy so that it is clear to everyone, so they can't say that they didn't see it, because I posted it in an article.
From this day on, personal insults whether direct or indirect by innuendo will be deleted in full and not archived, and only a purple "Deleted" will be there. If your comment has been removed, it means you have made a CoC infraction. Since we are human, three of these are all you are allowed a month. More than that, and you will get a 2 day suspension. It is up to you to keep track. Beware, people have been taking screenshots and they will count, so don't get smart make an insult and then change it.
These insults ruin the flow of the article and break the CoC. Hopefully, this will put an end to the problem.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
I am publishing this as a courtesy. NT need to get back on track.
Should there not be an escalating penalty in order to effectively prevent repeat offences? 3 X 2 days, then 3 X 7 days, then 3 X a month and finally a full ban?
Absolutely perfect recommendation.
If it is technically possible, it would be even better to leave nothing at all, not even a purple word. Comment boxes with "Deleted" are nearly as disruptive as the insult itself.
Flooding an article with "Deleted" boxes is a time-honored method of vandalizing.
I agree NT needs to improve it's moderating, and I agree the NT members need to employ more self moderating when they find themselves in a heated discussion.
It is always a good idea to carefully read comments you've posted during a heated debate and evaluate whether or not you have violated the CoC. It can avoid you a lot of trouble.
Flooding an article with "Deleted" boxes is a time-honored method of vandalizing.
.......and it's a time honored way of getting yourself suspended or banned from a site.
Bob I understand what your saying , but the purple delete( with maybe insult or Coc violation , however the mods do it ), is a way that can be positively tracked in case there is a mandatory vacation and it is argued.
not sure what they do if they get 3 , get 2 days off , if the clock restarts and 2 days later they get 3 more? or does it escalate? be funny if they get 3 a month then a 2 day off , and they come back and do it again and they are gone for the rest of the month.
And we have some members who do at least three a day and get no time off. And then there are those who are given time off for their "behavior" and don't take it.
Like I said, Mark: "if technically possible". Perhaps the Mod can record the deletion outside the conversation stream.
Bob,
I have to put a delete in, or the person doing the infraction will not get notification. I am hoping with a limit on how many infractions, disruptions will be at a minimum.
Mark,
Each member is allowed 3 infractions a month. I realize that people are human, so we all slip. Anything more than that is just ignoring the CoC. If they get 3 in a 4th infraction in a month, they will get a 2 day suspension.
1st
I don't understand what you are saying.
OK. I kinda figured...
Don't know if it was voluntary or not, but a member stated they were taking a suspension, which others "assumed" he had earned as a result of his CoC violations. He never took the time off.
Others violating the CoC numerous times during the day, even after they had been warned that it was their "last time", continue posting - Deleted [ph] 'Course there are others, but those four are the most persistent - and they don't receive the vacation promoted, i.e. two days off without pay.
Others violating the CoC numerous times during the day, even after they had been warned that it was their "last time", continue posting - such as... bob and...
When was this? If you are referring to my explosion a couple years ago... I think there's prescription.
And also... Isn't it "against the CoC" to name names as you have just done?And also... Isn't it "against the CoC" to name names as you have just done?
Apparently it is. Note the 'Delete' posted by PH.
Btw, you repeated the CoC by re-quoting the name that got deleted. I see you have earned your first violtion without even realizing you did it.
That's why Perrie gave us three transgressions a month before we get a 'vacation'.
IMO, three screwups is too liberal. Someone can post three violations every month, and never get suspended. If it's possible to monitor, if a person posts three CoC two months consecutively they should be suspended for 2 maybe 3 days.
Don't know if it was voluntary or not, but a member stated they were taking a suspension, which others "assumed" he had earned as a result of his CoC violations. He never took the time off.
A suspension isn't up to the individual. I lock down their account.
Others violating the CoC numerous times during the day, even after they had been warned that it was their "last time", continue posting - such as "Deleted [ph]"l. 'Course there are others, but those four are the most persistent - and they don't receive the vacation promoted, i.e. two days off without pay.
The people you selected 1st are the people you don't like. There are several others that I could add to that list, that deserve it as much as the above do.. They are not the most persistent.
And also... Isn't it "against the CoC" to name names as you have just done?
It actually is, so 1st there is your first. I have left your comment up since this is meta.
I think that the person who said he was "self-suspending" for a couple of days did not in fact do it, but that should be his privilege - it was not as a penalty, it was more like taking a sabbatical.
1st
I don't understand what you are saying.
So, responding to a "general" question with a specific answer is a "violation"???
Also - not true. Two of those folks named, I do like. But, I don't like their continued, uncontrolled animosity toward other members for which they get free passes. Yes, there are others, as I stated (please read my comment in tuto), but they are usually very easy to avoid and they espouse their disdain infrequently, unlike those I mentioned.
From #1 of the CoC - "You can not refer to a member as a bigot, racist or anti-semite nor name call and make other personal insults. -
Merriam-Webster Dictionary - (name–calling: the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts.)
So, responding to a "general" question with a specific answer is a "violation"???
Yes it is and I have always had an issue when people call out specific members. You could have said, "There are members here who constantly make the same violations". That would have been acceptable.
Also - not true. Two of those folks named, I do like. But, I don't like their continued, uncontrolled animosity toward other members for which they get free passes. Yes, there are others, as I stated (please read my comment in tuto), but they are usually very easy to avoid and they espouse their disdain infrequently, unlike those I mentioned.
I have an archive that shows that you seemed to have missed a whole other bunch of people who are also making the same CoC violations over and over and yes with the same uncontrolled animosity. If you need an example, I can send you two pages of them just from last week.
From #1 of the CoC - "You can not refer to a member as a bigot, racist or anti-semite nor name call and make other personal insults. -
Merriam-Webster Dictionary - (Name–Calling: The Use Of Offensive Names Especially To Win An Argument Or To Induce Rejection Or Condemnation (As Of A Person Or Project) Without Objective Consideration Of The Facts.)
"And also... Isn't it "against the CoC" to name names as you have just done?"
Posting a member's name is not a violation of the CoC - and I will accept an apology on the attempt at "calling me out" for a violation. Maybe someone else (named Bob, not you Perrie) needs to really read the CoC to learn what it is saying.
To use someone's name in passing is not a CoC violation. To post it as a poster child of bad behavior is, since it is a condemnation. And since you cited Bob, he will be the first to tell you that I didn't allow that to happen. He is still unhappy about it.
I will accept your apology Perrie and it is due.
To use someone's name in passing is not a CoC violation. To post it as a poster child of bad behavior is, since it is a condemnation. And since you cited Bob, he will be the first to tell you that I didn't allow that to happen. He is still unhappy about it.
When truth is spoken, it is not a CoC violation. Just because Julius, Cassius, Cato and Anthony don't like being "blamed" for their wrong doings, which in fact happened, history allows the usage of their names as they were, in fact, doing wrong. Listing their name is not a violation of any law, rule, regulation, policy or academe volition.
My listing of, in my opinion, the four biggest perpetrators on NT of stepping over the limits, is not a CoC. If it is, then you need to go to BF's article - - and note the number of times BF told/asked a specific member to quit derailing and, as very typical and very usual, that individual continued. Why? Because he knows he can get away with it.
1st, a little while ago you tried to claim that the article RTK seeded was not "racial" . Did you type those words with a straight face?
The actual events of the 5 year old child being slapped in the face by the 17 year old were not racial, according to the tv reports and newspaper stories of the incident, that is true.
But the article about it from Infowars ,which comprised the seed , was racial. In the headline, and also in the text. Would you like to go through the text so I can point out the racial aspect of it to you?
You try and pontificate on threads like this but you don't seem to realize that there are people who are more perceptive and better able to make their case than you are.
Off topic - you're in the wrong - admit it and life will go on.
You just suggested to Perrie that my comments on BF's seed were off topic. They were not off topic they were comments on the seeded article. How can that be off topic?
Not one of you people castigated BF for seeding an article that was CLEARLY meant to be racially inflammatory. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
John, I read all the comments.
It wasn't about race until you made it that way over repeated objections/requests to stay on topic.
Doesn't matter who is making the request nor whether you like them or not. You said your piece, it was declared off topic, and you were asked to get back on topic or cease and desist.
You refused and demonstrated such by refusing the request and repeating yourself endlessly in what appeared to me to put your slant on the article, ie make it about what YOU wanted to talk about rather than what the article seeder wanted to talk about.
According to the proposed policy of Perrrie's in this extant article, you would have earned a two day time out.
Only way one can look at it.
The article in your feelings was racially inflammatory, but it sure didn't seem to be to anyone else posting in it.
Whether it was or wasn't isn't the point, you didn't have the right to derail it.
So in essence by doing what you did you were decidedly trying to derail/take over the article.
But you said your piece and you should have moved on in compliance with the request to stop.
Exactly what you complain about others doing on your articles.
You want the derails to stop on your articles then the first step would be to stop doing it to others......
The fact that certain comments on that thread did not earn deletion makes a mockery of the "skirting the coc dictrine."
The fact that certain comments on that thread did not earn deletion makes a mockery of the "skirting the coc dictrine."
Besides the fact the I have been offline.. I don't have any reports in my mailbox either.
I wasn't offended enough to report. A distinction you should recognize.
If you don't report you have no right to complain when something isn't addressed.
So essentially, what you would like to see is a moderation style that would be much like an officer on patrol, cruising the forum (like a CHP officer cruising the highway) when he comes upon a violation (drunk driver weaving in and out of traffic) where he runs off (lights ablazing) to bust the perp and toss him (arrest him) deleting his infractions. (saving the legal drivers)
With no complaint or action on your part.
Been there done that.
All it results in is the moderation becomes tyrannical in and of itself. Because trust me eventually your going to have to bust a friend, and that type of moderation is absolute, no allowances allowed at all. Everyone caught gets busted.
No one likes it. Especially the system operator. Becasue that is all you wind up doing is playing highway patrol busting the perps. Emotionally draining and you wind up with few friends....
User moderated, if you do not report you cannot complain when the issue isn't dealt with. No amount of rules is going to fix it if you do not fully participate.
In other words failure to report is failure to fully participate in the forum.....
Not all infractions are going to be as obvious as the one being discussed here... so without you explaining how it is wrong to you, moderators are left to their own judgment which might not match yours.
Free speech is a right, but if your unwilling to defend that right, can you say you really have it?
Off topic
Off topic
Off topic
Off topic
Off topic
Off topic
I'm sorry NWM, if it wasn't about race, why was the race of the individuals included in the article? If it was truly about a 17 year old and 5 year old, than that is what the title should have said. It didn't. And the moment the race of the individual is put on the table then it is fair play. You can't have it both ways.
Not saying he could girl, whether the article was racial or not is a matter of opinion. John stated his and it was explained to him that it wasn't, when he continued he was asked to stop. and it went from there.
John is entitled to his opinion and he can state it, but when he goes to the length of changing the point of the article like he is wont to to make it what he wants to discuss the OP was entitled to have the derail removed.
Doesn't matter what the article actually is. and by the way I agree that since race was a stated part of the article then race discussion was fair game, not race argument. As to the point the article was about the abusive treatment if a child by a thug, and not about the thugs race. John wanted to make it about race even after being told that it wasn't.
He stated his position, it was answered by the seeder, he should have let it go. and everything would have been copacetic.
But Johns derails were not.
AS a moderator it doesn't matter about the subject of the article, (I know you know that) at least it shouldn't as long as the article isn't against the stated rules. Recognizing that some subjects are reactive in nature is normal, but we as adults should keep control of our emotions. One member did not, he had every opportunity to reseed the article from his point of view, or just leave after expressing his point of view.
He did not have the right to damage the article.
His post after the first should have been deleted given proper participation in moderation by the OP.
So in reality we agree.
I was not notified of the derail and when I went through the article, because of a comment I read here on this article, I removed the skirting comment, since that was a clear violation. I didn't take action on John questioning since I wasn't contacted by the seeder and I feel we, as seeders, are also responsible for the content of our articles.
So in essence I guess we are agreeing
Perrie,
I feel we, as seeders, are also responsible for the content of our articles.
I'm not sure I understand the implications of this.
I had understood that without Red Rules, the seeder / author had no greater role than anyone else, in the conversation. Are you now saying that there's a difference between a call for Moderation from the seeder / author, or from other participants?
How does this work?
Bob, you ask a very pertinent question. I have asked in the past to have a derailing comment removed from one of my articles or seeds only to be told that in order to have that accomplished you have to have made the red box notification in the first comment.
Maybe there needs to be an updated clarification on this so we can see what the current policy is.
In the present case I don't think any of it applies though since the comments under discussion above were not off topic under any application of the term.
I didn't take action on John questioning since I wasn't contacted by the seeder
in another comment you said that you didn't take action because none was warranted - "he was fine"
Doesn't matter what the article actually is. and by the way I agree that since race was a stated part of the article then race discussion was fair game, not race argument. As to the point the article was about the abusive treatment if a child by a thug, and not about the thugs race. John wanted to make it about race even after being told that it wasn't.
He stated his position, it was answered by the seeder, he should have let it go. and everything would have been copacetic.
But Johns derails were not.
Absent red box rules that define how the seeded material is to be discussed, it is the content of the seed that determines the topic (s) , not the desires of the seeder. The Infowars article took a non racial story and made it racially inflammatory. This is indisputable, and is what I talked about in that discussion.
I have looked at about 10 legitimate news articles about this incident. None of them mention the boy's race.
-
This is not even a close call, which makes it even more disturbing how this issue is being discussed by some members of this community.
He stated his position, it was answered by the seeder, he should have let it go. and everything would have been copacetic.
But Johns derails were not.
I am not sure what constitutes a derail by John in this case. I read the article and the title and both race was fair game since it was clearly discussed in the article. Calling off topic in this case would be entrapment and would render the article an echo chamber.
But as far as I knew it was an RBR, which means the articles seeder controls.
Not the articles content...
Unless the rules on RBR's has changed...
If they haven't changed, then it was a derail, as the seeder states.
This was an issue also discussed during the RBR meta. where a seeder has absolute control and the moderator has no choice but to delete at the request of the OP. (understanding that this is all hypothetical cause the OP did not request deletions)
I agree with your logical position on any regular article his comments on race stand, but it was an RBR article.
(But I acknowledge that the OP must participate not only in the article, but in all the rules, if he uses RBR's then he has the responsibility to report and request deletion of the offending postings. He cannot claim violation of RBR's if he is not willing to report)
Your absolutely right since there was no request made.
But if there was, then action would be required under the rules.
I do not necessarily believe that it WAS a derail, just that it is needed to illustrate that reporting is just as much a part of RBR as telling the offender to stop. Seems like that is something that is not understood about RBR's by some parties.
Save all that wind NM, it was not a red box article.
You right, I stand corrected, then I agree with Perrie completely.
AS far as wind, there is a point, if your not bothering to use the RBR provisions, then stop complaining about subject derails particularly when the issue your complaining about is right in the title.
AND, if you do use RBR's then make sure your prepared to report, it IS your responsibility.
That is one of the biggest problems Perrie has, no one is reporting, yet they love to complain.
Don't complain if your not willing to take responsibility for your article.... AND if you want to dictate what is on topic and what is not, then use the tools (RBR's) set up to allow you to do that.
What I'm trying to do it get this understood by those that refuse to understand, the wind is coming from those that complain but seem to not have a clue that they have the tools to eliminate their complaints, if they could only come off their high horse and use them.....
It's a two way street, with a divider in the middle. Metaphorically speaking, there should be no head-on collisions/accidents/article topic derails to complain of....
I will accept your apology Perrie and it is due.
To use someone's name in passing is not a CoC violation. To post it as a poster child of bad behavior is, since it is a condemnation. And since you cited Bob, he will be the first to tell you that I didn't allow that to happen. He is still unhappy about it.
When truth is spoken, it is not a CoC violation.
Guess what, the truth was spoken on Bob's article and in fact, was less derogatory, since he wasn't calling the individual out. I still made him move it. Using members as examples of bad behavior is not acceptable and will only lead to more inflamed remarks.
My listing of, in my opinion, the four biggest perpetrators on NT of stepping over the limits, is not a CoC. If it is, then you need to go to BF's article - - and note the number of times BF told/asked a specific member to quit derailing and, as very typical and very usual, that individual continued. Why? Because he knows he can get away with it.
I was there and I saw what was going on. He was fine until the end.
So no apology forthcoming.
perrie , I follow you so far, its like I insult , john , hal , and blue separately during a conversation Only an example guys , not to mean anything else , that's my 3 "allowed " infractions , bob comes in and I insult him , and boom there is the 4th and I get a 2 day vacation ;.
I serve those 2 days come back and on an entirely different post get into it with someone else and insult them, so after the 2 days off , the clock or slate is clean and a new start is started so I can insult 3 more people and the forth is another 2 days off?
Or is it as I suggested , people get their 3 , on the 4th they get 2 days , and if they come back and continually insult someone/ anyone get another 2 days for every added infraction ? that would go farther to curb and stop the insulting mannerisms IMHO.
For clarification Mark,
If after a 2 day vacation, and within a one month period, a person comes off of their 2 days and does another insult, they will get another 2 days, since it is all in the month period and it is a willful disrespect of the CoC.
3x+
Love you, NWM!
The mods try their best, for sure.
The University of Chicago takes a step forward in protecting free speech and NT's takes two steps back.
Dean,
First of all, you rarely make a CoC violation, so I am not sure if this is a matter of principle with you or not. The CoC rules were made by the community and not by me. I am only the enforcer of them. Apparently, some people can't seem to make comments without making a personal attack in them. That is an abuse of free speech on the site. It steps on the toes of other members, and that is where we draw the line.
The University of Chicago takes a step forward in protecting free speech and NT's takes two steps back.
FYI: Here's the text of the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That applies to "Congress-- i.e. the branch of gov't that makes laws.
But NT is not part of the gov't-- private organizations have more leeway.
Irrelevant in this case. The first ammendment was not invoked. Free speech exists beyond the context of the Constitution, although it may not be illegal for private entities to suppress it.
Irrelevant in this case. The first amendment was not invoked. Free speech exists beyond the context of the Constitution, although it may not be illegal for private entities to suppress it.
Just what constitutes Constitutionally protected free speech and what does not is pretty clear-- there have been numerous Supreme Court ruing on the subject. (And if entirely new situation arises, if necessary the Supremes can rule once again).
But you claim that there are other rights to free speech beyond those defined by uor system of law. If so-- what are those rights? And-- who defines them?
I want "innuendo" defined.
personal insults whether direct or indirect by innuendo
i see this being a big issue.
Let's say member A is known to be afraid of flying pigs. In a heated discussion between members A and B , member B posts an image of a flying pig. Is this sufficient "innuendo"?
This is a broad example of someone working around the "rules".
Good point it won't be long before Pink Floyd videos are banned in the NT'ers music group.
Oh Dean, Dean, Dean...
See you are challenging me openly, but not breaking the CoC, so your free speech is still in tact. I wouldn't worry if I were you.
Yes I'm probably overreacting and think you do a great job of moderating.
Dean,
I think I try to do a good job. I think it's subjective to the individual if I do.
And look, you took a subtle jab at me from my perspective, and yet your comment still stands, since I am not sure.
Here's the flying pig at Pink Floyd concert:
Pink Floyd's Roger Waters facing boycott in Germany over 'anti-Semitic' inflatable pig
(Note: "Anti-Semitic" is printed in politically correct quote marks)
I want "innuendo" defined.
Innuendo (def.): An innuendo is a musical form similar to a minuet, but played at a faster tempo.
innuendo defined: an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.
Example: Felix, is that the comment I am smelling or you?
It requires you to read people's minds.
also, is telling someone that they should quit Newstalkers an insult?
"Member A, you are not happy here, it is obvious. Why don't you quit"?
"Member A, you are not happy here, it is obvious. Why don't you quit"?
Not an offense, but could be stoking a fire and should be reported so that I can address it with the individual.
person has told me "Member A, you are not happy here, it is obvious. Why don't you quit"? Isn't that harassment...
If he said it once, no biggie. If he says it all the time, then it is harassment, and a CoC violation.
What is all the time?
What if he says it "all the time" and the person it is directed at doesn't see it "all the time" ?
lol this reminds me of something my dad told me , telling someone to go to hell is a direct insult , finding a way to tell someone to go to hell in a different manner and they look forward to the trip, is using tact and diplomacy.....
You get a thumbs up for that Mark!
lol this reminds me of something my dad told me , telling someone to go to hell is a direct insult , finding a way to tell someone to go to hell in a different manner and they look forward to the trip, is using tact and diplomacy.....
Maybe so, but on a discussion forum this encourages people to be snarky instead of direct. If you can insult someone in a clever and duplicitous way you can get away with it, if you are honest , you can't.
John , I admit I did it to you on your own hunting article , though I doubt anyone but hunters caught it .
when I said Illinois heart shot , usually when something like (blank) heart shot is said , could be texas heart shot , red neck heart shot , liberal heart shot , whatever one wants to use in conjunction of heart shot , usually denotes some one who would shoot an animal up the ass, through the guts ( ruining the meat) to hit the heart, it denotes a so called hunter with no ethics , or respect for anyone or any thing. because they are so blindered to only getting what they want. usually referring to a person others don't want to be around hunting.
you know how to take a texas head shot right? shoot it in the ass.
You can't police innuendo, especially not if there are clever people involved. You are just making a pandora's box and probably more arguments.
Perrie,
I think John is being overly cautious. After all we all have absolute confidence in our Mods, don't we?
Still I think he's right about
but on a discussion forum this encourages people to be snarky instead of direct.
There are some specialists in skirting the CoC, always at the limit. IMHO, you should be frank: "It's over the limit when I say it is!" And then actually punish skirting. If you don't, then you promote skirting.
Even though Perrie says the site belongs to the members, it is her site, her company, her asset, and she has discretion that no others possess. I am happy with her level of fairness, her personal opinion as to what is a violation and what is not. She would give any of us the opportunity to challenge her opinion if we feel we have been misunderstood. Anyone who isn't happy can find another site - go back to NV. I don't think she needs to deal with hypothetical examples at this time of what is permitted and what is not. That is unfair to her. I believe she will deal with actual situations on an individual basis as they arise.
Exactly.
Perrie isn't perfect. I am still angry about the her moving an article. I think she was wrong. But it certainly won't make me leave.
I've tried quite a few forums. They all have the same issues. Anyone who wants an acceptable place for conversation had best stick it out here.
The problem Buzz is this. Perrie has a style of moderating she wants, what that exact style is is hard to decipher.
I've been a moderator over a number of years and a number of forums, including several of my own. (so I definitely understand the issues she deals with on an everyday basis as a siteop)
She wants an open forum where anyone is free to speak what they want about almost anything. which means you cannot have any fast and hard rules as to what is off limits as far as conversation goes.
And that translates into behavior.
Now, the problem becomes, where does speech become behavior?
That is a very grave area. Most sites put a rock hard code of conduct in place eliminating as much of the grey area as possible with little to no leeway and moderation that is hard fast and absolute.
That is not what Perrie wants here. She wants people who are free to speak their minds.
so the issue with others moderating is they do not have any ideal as to what Perrie wants in the way of moderation, nor the authority to act. (at least not to the limits she can act)
This causes moderation to hesitate except for the absolute violations which are easy to spot. And that leaves an area, a wide area, where only she can moderate, cause she is the only one that really knows the limits of what is tolerable in her mind for the site.
This is why, even with absolute rules, the only one actually doing any serious moderating is Perrie.
No one else has a clue about how to adjudge what is beyond the limits except for those things specifically not allowed in the CoC.
And with the intelligence level of most on this board, they are very well versed in pushing the lines until all you have is frustration.
Which drives people away. To some there isn't enough moderation, to others there is too much.
Absolute catch 22.
It's why I resigned as a moderator, I know what worked for me, and that won't work here.
But eventually I think she will come around to the same conclusion I came to over 20 years ago....
It's nice to be able to speak your mind, but this is my house, and everyone in my house respects each other, if they cannot, then find another place to behave badly.
DO NOT DO IT HERE.
That is my brand of moderating.
NWM,
I agree wholeheartedly. The problem, IMHO, is with skirting. One member heckles another, but stays just inside the limits of the CoC. Over and over, until the other person exlodes, and answers vehemently, way beyond the limits.
This reaction will be sanctioned, while the heckler laughs his head off, and plans his next operation.
There are specialists. We both know who they are, and so does Perrie.
Infinitely rewriting the CoC in hopes of finding just the right words is foolish. The only way to stop skirting is to punish it. Regardless of the exact text of the CoC. She would screw up from time to time, but overall, this is what we need.
I know exactly what you mean, Bob, having been made the victim you described.
Or you could just lighten up Francis and let people speak their minds and quit trying to control them. Nothing anything anyone has ever said on here has made me feel like a victim ever. The control freaks are the only ones I see that can't handle free speech. The rest of us can take some flak and just shake it off.
Frances? Who the hell is Frances?
John, Didn't you get away with calling Buzz an Asshole the other day? You might want to worry about the direct rather than the oblique.
Actually, no he didn't Gary. I deleted the comment. I was not my normal timely self, as my Wally has been ill and we were busy running back and forward to the vet and getting the kid ready to go back to university.
Was Buzz's disgusting racially inappropriate comment removed as well? I never went back and looked.
Spikegary criticized my response to Buzz, but did not criticize Buzz, that I saw at the time.
Buzz said something that you didn't like. You called him a derogatory name. there is a difference and yes, I called you out on it. People post stuff all the time that upsets others. You do it too. You took it a step farther.
Not an offense, but could be stoking a fire
Yes, but as long as its not in the proverbial theatre-- who cares?
I'm volunteering as a mod...My methods may be considered extreme by some, but they get the desired results.
LMAO, moderation by shapeshifter may lead to death.
Not really, I'm fairly moderate.
Example
member A and B are insulting each other. My mod approach would be as follows.
Hey, member A...STFU...You, member B stifle yourself or I'll stake you out over an anthill.
moderate, but effective I would say.
Even if I say so, I do have a way with words, don't you think?
“I'll stake you out over an anthill.”
First coated with honey, of course (just to be sweet rather than vicious). LOL
I was thinking of strawberry jam, Buzz....But honey is more traditional.
Now that I think of it, perhaps no coating, because it would attract bears and that would end the torture much too quickly.
First coated with honey, of course (just to be sweet rather than vicious)
Actually honey is very viscous.
Hmmmm. staked down and honey dribbled on ... I am finding my self strangely and curiously aroused..... gotta go.....
out here they call them skinwalkers or sheep eaters , took me a while to get a local to tell me about them and even then it was only after I told him of my experiences in other places that were similar.
Yup, skin walkers or stick people...Both scary as hell, Mark.
is "you don't know what you are talking about" an insult?
John,
Why are you whispering? LOL.
No that is not an insult, unless you are always saying it to the same person. Otherwise it is a manner of speaking.
I am not sure how that happened.
As far as always saying it to the same person. What if they are repeatedly completely wrong?
There are people who are factually wrong OFTEN. Often enough that "you don't know what you are talking about" is a completely reasonable response to them.
As far as always saying it to the same person. What if they are repeatedly completely wrong?
There are people who are factually wrong OFTEN. Often enough that "you don't know what you are talking about" is a completely reasonable response to them.
By "factually wrong" it seems you mean when someone has a different opinion then you do...? A lot of online disagreement I've seen is when two people argue over which sect of facts are "right". (If you've ever sat on a jury you'd know what I mean).
I noticed that throughout this conversation you've really been nit-picking. And that is a definite FACT, IMO.
Part of the problem seems to be that you don't fully realize that people are different, & perceive things differently. Among other things it seems you are discounting the role of perception. Sometimes laws & rules are quite clear, and a violation is obvious. But sometimes its a matter of judgement.
And even when two people both say they'll interpret a law or rule "objectively"-- they often disagree. How could that be?
Among other things it seems you are discounting the role of perception. Sometimes laws & rules are quite clear, and a violation is obvious. But sometimes its a matter of judgement.
And even when two people both say they'll interpret a law or rule "objectively"-- they often disagree. How could that be?
There are some rulings by mods that seem obvious. But sometimes people will disagree as to whether a particular ruling is "fair". But guess what? Its impossible to change that. (There have even been attempts at taking out the factor of "human error" in moderation- by having a computer do it! Al Gore Rhythms [AKA "algorithms"] that attempt to flag comments that violate the rules. Not surprisingly, they don't work).
Since no system of moderation can be perfect in the opinion of everyone, we must do the best we can. I think the past system of moderation had deficiencies (well, one really big one actually)-- hopefully this new approach will improve things considerably.
people are different, & perceive things differently.
The role of perception:
Three umpires were sitting around having a beer after the game. They were complaining about how often people complain abut them being "unfair".So one of them asked: "How fair are we? How accurate are our calls?"
The first umpire said:
I calls 'em as they are!
The second umpire said:
I calls 'em as I sees 'em!
The third umpire said:
I calls 'em as I thinks I sees 'em!
Krishna,
your ineffectual attempt to be condescending notwithstanding, I am very aware of what facts are. I use them every hour of every day I appear on this forum. That is not at issue here.
your ineffectual attempt to be condescending notwithstanding,
I disagree. In fact, I thought it was very effectual!
I am very aware of what facts are. I use them every hour of every day I appear on this forum.
Well, since you are so sure you are so aware of the facts (every hour of the day no less!!!) how do you explain the fact that so many people who disagree with you are not aware of the facts?
I am very aware of what facts are. I use them every hour of every day I appear on this forum.
That is not at issue here.
Of course its at issue. And that's a fact.
In fact, I daresay that most of the disagreements, arguments leading to personal attacks here, are due to people feeling that their "facts" are more factual then the other guy's "facts"!
But hey-- you're entitled to your opinion.
There are many facts that are not in dispute, yet people insist on disputing them anyway. Thus discussion forums are made. The question was , is it an insult to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about? You could argue that to do so is censorship.
There are many facts that are not in dispute, yet people insist on disputing them anyway.
Didn't you just contradict yourself there...???
is it an insult to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about? You could argue that to do so is censorship.
Words matter. English and how we use it matters. Below to sentences:
1.You don't know what you are talking about
2.I don't believe you have all the facts to be discussing this.
One will produce a very negative feeling, the other is a challenge to step up to the job. Two different outcomes.
lol.
If we were in school you might have a point.
If we were in school you might have a point.
All of life is a school (if you choose to look at it that way).
Well, whatever-- I guess its anyway you like it.. .
Or merely a stage . . . and we are merely actors upon it...
I don't believe you have all the facts to be discussing this.
Since this is now an officially approved reply, I may keep it handy.
is it an insult to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about? You could argue that to do so is censorship.
Words matter. English and how we use it matters. Below to sentences:
1.You don't know what you are talking about
2.I don't believe you have all the facts to be discussing this.
One will produce a very negative feeling, the other is a challenge to step up to the job. Two different outcomes.
You are very good at this.
Here's one I got from you. A while back, in an ancient time in an ancient land (the one whose name shall not be mentioned), there was a "user" who is often referred to as "The Evil One". One of his many faults was that he was a compulsive liar.
Once he said something that was a blatant lie-- so obvious. So you could have said:
That's a blatant lie, you stupid lying a$$hole Alevi-wannabee son of a B*tch!!!
Which would have been accurate...but a bit lacking in tact.
So, instead you said:
i wonder if you're being completely honest with us?
Well played Perrie..well played!
LOL, I remember that Krish, and yes he was very evil. I always played within the CoH... and thanks for reminding me about that... It cracked me up.
There are many facts that are not in dispute, yet people insist on disputing them anyway.
WTF???
If people are disputing them, then by definition...they are "in dispute"!
(If they're not in dispute..then that means that people are not disputing them!)
Whoops...time to change this stupid avatar.
I'll simply speak in another language when I feel like I want to violate the CoC...
Problem solved.
Sorry, when I saw this:
"I use them every hour of every day I appear on this forum."
I immediately got the image of the 'Stay Puff Marshmallow Man' from the original Ghostbusters.....do you have to be 'called' to appear? I mean Sigourney Weaver was hot and all as the gatekeeper.......
"By "factually wrong" it seems you mean when someone has a different opinion then you do...?"
That shouldn't be a question. It's a fact that should be a statement.
By "factually wrong" it seems you mean when someone has a different opinion then you do...?"
That shouldn't be a question. It's a fact that should be a statement.
It should. If one wanted to be precise.
If one wanted only to be precise. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).
But I think its a matter of style-- a judgement call. IMO it depends on how confrontational you want to be. (And I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. Sometimes being confrontational will better serve your goals-- but other times being more "gentle" will actually be more effective).
I Nominate!
Krishna
Well, to be perhaps a bit overly Shermanesque about it, l et me say this about that : if nominated i will not run-- if elected I will not serve!
I am going to assume that comments about someone's intelligence would be a CoC violation . But comments about how stupid their last comment was would not be . Am I wrong ?
I am going to assume that comments about someone's intelligence would be a CoC violation . But comments about how stupid their last comment was would not be . Am I wrong ?
The principle is-- don't attack another person. So saying a person is "stupid" would be an attack on a person.
However, saying their last comment was stupid is not an attack on a person-- its an attack on something they said.
(Intelligent people sometimes say stupid things...)
That is correct, Petey. Although it would be better if you gave a reason with facts.
For reasonable people, the following is all the CoC necessary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Matthew 7:12English Standard Version (ESV)
The Golden Rule
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Proverbs 11:29
“He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.”
King James Version (KJV)
mac don't forget the OTHER golden rule. that one says , they that hold all the gold , makes all the rules.......
For Reasonable People, The Following Is All The CoC Necessary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Matthew 7:12English Standard Version (ESV)
The Golden Rule
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I totally agree!
And if all the people here were reasonable . . . what a wonderful world it would be!
I would like to confess that I called someone an A-hole a week or so ago and I cursed at someone else because of my misunderstanding. I also told someone they were pompous..........Oh, and I think I've egged some people on about a certain Prime Minister and I do like to poke a certain someone over their religious positions......Wait!!!! I almost forgot, I also got angry with another certain someone because I thought they were being condescending (that was a another misunderstanding on my part...hehehehe). I felt really bad about all my violations aka temper tantrums....... :0(
I think I've cleansed my soul. Wow - I feel a lot better! We should do this more often.
Do we get points for feeling bad after we commit a COC violation? Does contrition count as "time served for good behavior" towards suspension sentencing?
did you at least offer to feel them up? that way there could be 7 sins in one feel? yeah , I'm a George Carlin fan....../J
I would like to confess that I called someone an A-hole a week or so ago and I cursed at someone else because of my misunderstanding. I also told someone they were pompous..........Oh, and I think I've egged some people on about a certain Prime Minister and I do like to poke a certain someone over their religious positions......Wait!!!! I almost forgot, I also got angry with another certain someone because I thought they were being condescending (that was a another misunderstanding on my part...hehehehe). I felt really bad about all my violations aka temper tantrums....... :0(
And yet...everytime I see you.. you're singin' in the rain!
you're singin' in the rain!
Ah...those were definitely happier times.
Comment Deleted [ph]
(hehehehehehehehehehe)
Bruce,
Glad you find that amusing.. but listen up, he who was once moderator. The three are given in good faith, that we are all human and make mistakes. What you did was spit in my eye. Do it again, and you're on suspension.
Damn! Lighten up sister! I'm gonna have to talk to Matt. You need to get laid.
My sex life is just fine, Bruce. You're idea of humor, (which didn't look like humor to me), is a bit questionable.
Bruce.. you seem to think I am upset. Sorry to disappoint.
Ahhhh, its a new month and everyone starts off fresh , wonder how many are now sitting there asking is it going to be worth it?
( your gonna take a shit? don't take one of my shits , because I only have 3 left and the weekends coming.....)
I believe in the free market so I think we should be allowed to buy, sell and trade them.
LOL Dean. Or just to upset you, we could do cap and trade.
lordy I can see that , someone that never gets an infraction , selling off theirs to those that make a habit of it . and just to be clear , mine are not for sale , I might want to go on a tear one day....so I may need them.
There will soon be a ''black market'' in them...I'm buying them now and will re sell them for what the market bears.
Another business opportunity for the Ojibwe folks. I think that I'll call it the ''Red Market''....
LMAO to you too, Kavika
I can just see it kav , you standing at the doorway in a tan trenchcoat , going ," psst kid , ( looks around nervously ), wanna buy some infraction passes? when the kid agrees you take his multipass and swipe it on a card reader hidden under the trench coat loading them up......
Not a tan trench coat, Mark. It would be a buffalo robe. I have to stay within the stereotype ya know...
LOL Mark!
could make it like in the 5th element , leeloo flashes the card and says MULTIPASS.....
It appears that there has been a misconception of the issue this article was addressing. RTK posed:
We just finished a meta article about personal attacks and warnings and this articles continues to receive almost no moderation as trolls and vandals destroy any hope of intellectual conversation.
It appears a few members have clearly crossed the moderation redline of 3 strikes and you are out. If our site is to have integrity they must take their vacation.
Please reread this article. It addresses personal attacks, not off topic comments, to which he is referring to. If you want to restrain the conversation to a very specific discussion, you have the RBR's to do that. Otherwise, the topic is based on the article and what is contained within the article. Note: Discussing the source of the article is considered meta, and not allowed.
That was my understanding girl, with the one caveat that the article title is part of the discussion. (and the CoC makes that clear with specific rules)
If it is in the title it is fair game.
Unless you use RBR's to make it about what you want it to be. (and then participate in enforcing your RBR's by reporting, it is your obligation on using them, the mods are not a patrolling police force although they can seem to function that way at times)
And thank you for clarifying the sources dichotomy, articles make a point, and another source may try to make a different point from the same information, one is not more correct than the other, so the validity of the article cannot be attacked on the basis of source alone. Also the source cannot be used to attack the seeder. (ie bring your "A" game)
Love it!
And thank you for clarifying the sources dichotomy, articles make a point, and another source may try to make a different point from the same information, one is not more correct than the other, so the validity of the article cannot be attacked on the basis of source alone. Also the source cannot be used to attack the seeder. (ie bring your "A" game)
one is not more correct than the other,
Guy seeds an article from a known disreputable site, with a headline and text that is inflammatory. Turns out that every other legitimate news site that covered the story phrased it differently than the seeded article did.
And you, or Perrie, is trying to say that the source is off limits. Sorry, that is not going to happen, never in a million years. In this case the source was the story.
John, you have choices in this issue. You can:
What you can't do is argue the source of the article. It will be deleted and marked off topic.
Counter with facts on the article
I guess I can go with that.
Or I guess you can just put your opinion as fact, since the source you are contesting is probably nothing more than that anyway, but stated as fact.
And you, or Perrie, is trying to say that the source is off limits. Sorry, that is not going to happen, never in a million years. In this case the source was the story.
I have to agree. Even in a court room, the source of information can be contestable as to its validity. If the source is off limits, there is no need even participating in an article.
I don't expect someone to comment page after page about the source, but the source is of utmost importance from which an article is derived and if a person feels they have reason to discredit the source, I think they should be able to do it in a comment, not one comment after another.
You can't say the source is crap just cause you do not like it, go at it with facts, blow the sources premise out of the water if you can, but do not disparage the place where the article came from.....
Does that mean I cannot say that Huffpo is a liberal Blog? No it doesn't mean that at all.
Does it mean I cannot say Huffpo is a den of racist communist fucktards? Yes it does..
Gotcha!!!
Pretty well said NWM.
You can't say the source is crap just cause you do not like it, go at it with facts, blow the sources premise out of the water if you can, but do not disparage the place where the article came from.....
I blew it out of the water, and someone complained it was off topic.
Are we to succumb to "both sides do it" again?
Certain sites are not mainstream sites, no matter how bad someone wants it to be.
What she has said is you cannot blindly disparage a source just because of your personal opinion of them....
You can call Newsmax a conservative Blog, you cannot call them a bunch of whacked out conservative fascist nutcases.
Nor the poster of the article cause he used it as a source.
Clear now?
Nice edit John, after claiming Perrie gave authenticity and supports to a specific site that you particularly despise...
I didn't blindly disparage anything. Infowars is a discredited source.
This Alice In Wonderland place wants to pretend they are Time magazine.
TO YOU.
That does not give you the right to dis anyone else over the source.
Your arguing that you can dis anyone or trash any article, in any manner you choose, cause you disagree with their source....
The new policy does not allow for that anymore....
Six,
If you have an issue with the source, nothing stops you from posting a counter article to discuss it. Otherwise, every article has the potential of becoming nothing more than a discussion about the source material. Now think about this for a moment. We have MSM that is both left and right, and each side could say that the other sides material shouldn't count because it is biased. It would be an untenable situation. No real discussion could go on, if just one member wants to harp on the source. It would terribly disruptive.
If you find the material to be faulty, due to the source, then argue that. You do have recourse.
It would be an untenable situation.
I see your point and we already know the Liberals sources are a bunch of commies, so there's no need in running it in the ground. LOL
Well, kind of off topic, Six, since we are talking about the group's rules.
We have MSM that is both left and right, and each side could say that the other sides material shouldn't count because it is biased.
Infowars is not a mainstream site, and all the wishing and hoping in the world isn't going to turn it into one.
But no one attacked the site without evidence. Here's some more evidence for you
the writer of that article is a fellow named Paul Joseph Watson. And the boy has some fans
Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson Goes Full-Nazi
"It has finally happened. Paul Joseph Watson, the second in command of Alex Jones, has gone full-Nazi on the Black problem."
Andrew Anglin
neo Nazi
Daily Stormer
John just stop attacking the source and you will be fine. I know it will be difficult, but sometimes the best thing is to do the difficult thing rather than take the easy way out...
If a source offends you, then post another source more to your liking....
Just stop attacking the poster cause of the source he or she chooses to use.
Six, at long last we are in total agreement about something.
To an extent John. I see your point. Where I think the problem became a real problem was when a comment discrediting a source became an article discrediting the source.
I still think a person should have the right to criticize the source, but not make a career out of it on that article.
Example: I don't like your source for these reasons. One comment and no more about the source after that.
In a courtroom, the attorney can discredit a witness, but the witness doesn't become the defendant.
Of course the source would be biased. Is there a source that isn't? However, the source may contain factual information that is NOT just opinion, and if that factual information cannot be refuted, then it's a great escape route from refuting the facts by just criticizing the source. It's the coward's way out.
We all make choices, and we all suffer the consequences of such choices.
I don't see how Perrie can make it any clearer...
All I can add is that you cannot attack the seeder based upon the source either.
And you, or Perrie, is trying to say that the source is off limits. Sorry, that is not going to happen, never in a million years. In this case the source was the story.
I agree with you very strongly on that point John.
The attempt to ban discussion of the source is clearly censorship. Many readers on these sites are totally unaware that there are many sources out there that publish information that is exaggerated and sometimes compactly false.
It has taken me a lot of time to find out who is who out there. In many cases an article is seeded with very inaccurate information, but a novice reader, or maybe a seasoned reader may not be aware of the reputation of the source, and I'm not referring to the Right Wing exclusively here, the Left has its own Daily Kos and the like. Therefore it is important that everyone should to be allowed to cite the source of an article.
The attempt to ban discussion of the source is clearly censorship.
And the attempt to come up with a list of acceptable sources is also censorship. If an article is from a questionable source, it should be easy to debunk the information contained within. That is allowed. But when you start to attack the source, the both sides of the political discussion will spend an entire article questioning the source with no substantive discussion happening.
There is no perfect cure for this, but I think this is the best way to handle it.
the both sides of the political discussion will spend an entire article questioning the source with no substantive discussion happening.
I've got news for you, you are not going to have a substantive discussion about whether or not Hillary Clinton is pushed around in a wheelchair. Nor about almost anything else that is seeded from Infowars or Gateway Pundit. These are not legitimate sites and no one is going to treat them as if they are. So where is this substantive discussion going to come from?
Then let it die from it's own inanity John...
Why justify it by attacking it for 200 pages?
He is incapable of resisting the bait. He doesn't seem to have the same fervor with respect to alt-left clickbait sites like addicting info. I suspect bias.
the both sides of the political discussion will spend an entire article questioning the source with no substantive discussion happening.
Infowars is mainstream John, It's time to get with the program, it's 2016. Alex jones is the Next Walter Cronkite.
Case in point.
"If an article is from a questionable source, it should be easy to debunk the information contained within."
The problem is that there are certain NT members who merely attack the source notwithstanding the fact that it could contain irrefutable factual information. When I post an article from Gatestone Institute it could be full of facts but they ignore the facts and simply say Gatestone Institute has John Bolton on its staff so nothing it posts can be valid. That is because they are unable or unwilling to dispute the facts within the article.
I think you know who I'm talking about.
And the attempt to come up with a list of acceptable sources is also censorship.
I don't understand how you construed being able to cite the credentials of a source with "coming up with a list". Listing and banning a source, any source, would be an egregious form of censorship.
If an article is from a questionable source, it should be easy to debunk the information contained within.
That's not necessarily true. What is being said here is that the credentials and history of a source should, and must, be allowed in a discussion. Because it's often not so easy to debunk a story authored by a clever and skilled dishonest writer. There is also a strong possibility the seeder is unaware they are posting something that should be questioned. Therefore the public record, the history and the reputation of the source is important to be cited by the readers.
But when you start to attack the source, the both sides of the political discussion will spend an entire article questioning the source with no substantive discussion happening.
That could be, but it's entirely unlikely. There is only so much discussion about the source that could survive most discussions. If the article contains reasonable and interesting information, it will get its share of the thread. However, if the source has a highly questionable level of truthfulness, it's important the reader should know about it.
There is no perfect cure for this, but I think this is the best way to handle it.
No there isn't, but censoring discussion of the source is definitely not an answer.
Keep in mind we also have the control of the seeder to keep any off topic sub-threads from derailing a discussion.
I posted part of an article from the debunking website "Rationalwiki" which describes all the insane things Jones believes in and touts on Infowars, as well as a description of the sites recent turn toward racially inflammatory fabrications and distortions.
For my trouble I got told that Infowars is legitimate because they have a lot of readers and page views. I still can't believe someone I respect said that to me.
The attempt to ban discussion of the source is clearly censorship. Many readers on these sites are totally unaware that there are many sources out there that publish information that is exaggerated and sometimes compactly false.
I totally agree with you Jerry.
I think a cursory examination of recent threads will amply demonstrate who the primary abusers of the coc are.
After looking at XXJeff seeds, I assumed the new C of C went out the window.
Sean,
I went to look at one of those seeds (not that anyone had reported) and the most I saw was some skirting of the CoC, which btw, you did yourself. I didn't cite anyone, and I realize that the game has now moved into making each others team make a violation. How sad.
I'm guessing the Ben Carson article was not one you looked at.
I think I commented on that article... "Hey, XX! Just wanted to say Hey and hope you have a great day tomorrow... Sorry for the off topic comment..."
Is that what you meant? I read the articles and the comments, and didn't see anything particularly offensive. Comparatively speaking, of course. If XX had asked me to come and do something, I would have gone and used my judgement, as a moderator, as to whether it should be flagged or not.
Y'all forget to report violations. We're not here to patrol, just do something if we run across it. Understand? Y'all have to help us!
No original thought...
Lacks self-awareness...
Peabrain...
Conduit for lies...
Moi? A peabrain? Lacking original thought? A conduit for lies?
You also have to realize that when I made my comment, there wasn't a lot going on right then... If i don't see them, because those comments haven't been made yet, it's not my fault. Again, if something offends you, then let us, (the mods), know. We may not need to do anything, because it really isn't a CoC violation, but we'll look at it.
Someone is offended by just about everything. Dang, even when I agree with you, which, as a moderate, I do on occasion, everyone jumps on me. That's the thing about being a moderate, you please NOBODY.
Note: I went back and checked. I made my comment at 1:59 am. I'm sure a lot of these comments were made after mine.
dee I think he was giving examples of what was posted , not about you.....
I think Dowser knows that. At least I hope she does...
I did... I was just pulling your leg! In a nice way!
LOL kinda like a cop , no one wants to see ya or have you around, but once they need ya , they complain you were not there fast enough , or doing the job in the way they expect.....
It reminds me of when my mother was ill... I was supposed to hover over the house, to be there in an instant, if she needed or wanted me, BUT, immediately thereafter, vanish and leave her alone. Sort of hard to do from 2 hours away...
Where is this Cerenkov? (and btw, he is supposed to report)
The Ben Carson thread.
I went through the thread and removed the remarks that I saw. I also saw a lot of members taunting. That is also a violation... I let them stand as a warning this time.
btw.. 1 violation per comment is counted.
Perrie,
It has been obvious for a long time. You are a stickler for the letter of the CoC, and utterly blind to the most egregious skirting. The inevitable consequence is the promotion of skirting. You are making this happen.
Here's the CoC you need: "Be polite."
Then delete without mercy all rudeness.
Bob ,
You sound confident that you are never rude . But I wouldn't be so sure about that ...
You sound confident that you are never rude .
Not at all, Petey. I can be rude, just like all of us.
I'm saying that rudeness is generally deadly to conversation, and more specifically is killing NT. An "all rudeness is immediately deleted" rule might require me to re-read... twice... before posting, but I think that would be a good thing.
Bob,
Back in the day, (and you should remember this, since you were there), when the site was being run by Dkaz and me, we had the "5 Simple Rules". One of these rules was "Behave like you were at a dinner party and use good manners"... people argued that was too vague. Yes, skirting goes on all the time, but sometimes it's not so cut and dry. A group of people celebrating over someone else's CoC violation should be skirting.. or is it?
There is enough truly nasty stuff that goes on here that I do handle. So yes, I tend to go for the cut and dry. Let's see if they make the 30 days.
Oh and here is an interesting article for you to read:
Perrie,
There's a huge difference between comments to a newspaper article or to a forum. The newspaper can delete, but that's all. There's no notion of suspension or exclusion. The commenter to a newspaper doesn't care about the next day.
The commenter on a forum wants to be able to post more comments the next day.
The owner of a forum has a weapon that the newspaper doesn't have.
Bob,
I can show you a thousand other articles just like that one that discuss why internet forums are dying. A huge part of it is that MOST, don't have a moderator, and when they do, still most comments get on by. I try my best to keep this place civil, but I am not anal about it.
Perrie,
As I've said many times, "Your site, your call." NT will live or die according to your wisdom.
Not easy.
As I've said many times, "Your site, your call." NT will live or die according to your wisdom.
There's an olde saying:
He who dies by the gun, dies by the gun.
Or perhaps in this case (figuratively speaking):
He who lives by the keyboard, dies by the keyboard,
He who lives by the keyboard, dies by the keyboard
Let's...go to the videotape!
He who lives by the keyboard, dies by the keyboard
Let's...go to the videotape!
He's still using USB keyboard and mouse????
I've only reported one violation and I did that by posting to your page. I don't know any other way to reach a moderator.
Hi Pat,
You can use chat or private notes, which you can find when you toggle under your name on the top of the page.
Ha ! I've never looked there.
I've only reported one violation and I did that by posting to your page.
Sometimes when I see a violation, I feel its only fair to post a warning first.
Correct. Several personal insults were used.
What often leads to the insults are the disingenuous, intentional misidentifications of DISSENTING OPINIONS to a seeded discussion, as "OFF TOPIC;" further, many of the insult-fests begin as ad hominem comments that initially seem subtle and obtuse, but, which place the recipients on the defensive thus thwarting, again, DISSENTING OPINIONS.
These are tactics that ultimately bring back the discussions about the CoC … which in turn … are victimized by these very tactics.
A CoC regarding decorum and civility is one thing … but unless and until there is a CoC component that addresses the tactical mission to prevent DISSENT/DEBATE and REAL DISCUSSION … NT will be undermined as it has been for quite sometime.
The above is why this is only my second comment in this thread … and why, it will also be my last in this thread.
Agreed Brother,
Long been needed.
Catch everyone on the flip side,
To those I love and respect, you know who you are, It's been fun.
To those who could care less, another voice you don't have to deal with. Was nice know'in ya.
I mostly enjoyed my five plus years here, And will cherish my friends forever.
Good luck to everyone.
I wish you nothing but the best.
Egilman, NWM, and finally Buh - Bye.....
Perrie if you want to repost, it is your will, do as you feel.
Never wished you any harm girl, just wish I could have been more of an asset to the site....
I hope this (Newstalkers) becomes all that you want it to be...
Love...
Elmer
Weird - I had no idea you were Egilman. I wondered what had happened to him, lol. I'll say what I'd say to anyone considering leaving: don't. Disagreeing with people doesn't have to be so stressful. You leaving is more of a point on their scoreboard than your own.
I think that everyone who leaves should reconsider, especially if they are leaving because of a confrontation with other members. If you otherwise enjoy it, there are probably more reasons to stay than go.
Everyone who contributes viable content , in seeds, articles , or comments, has a place. And although we don't agree often, I think you have contributed viable content.
PLEASE don't leave! I enjoy reading your posts even when you tell me I'm wrong about something (which by the way, I'm not wrong). please don't quit
I wish you nothing but the best.
Egilman, NWM, and finally Buh - Bye.....
I for one will miss you here; we often disagreed on political issues, but never disrespectfully and always as friends.
How many active members do we have to lose until it becomes clear that …
… WTF …
Pissin' into the wind, arguing with stupidity and ignorance and mean-spirited malcontents …
I'll be in the pictures area.
NWM, I can't tell you how often, in the past few months, I've felt the same way... But it has been worth it to stick around and see my friends. They are what keeps me here.
Now, the past few days have been quite pleasant. I think the site is making huge progress towards discussion, not vilification, and that's a plus, for me! Please stay here and let it all develop!
Love you, very much!
Please spend the next 10 minutes slapping your own behind.
I refused your buh-bye yesterday, and I'm refusing it now. Besides, you are the only man I would let call me 'sweets' without getting a foot to the balls.
Seriously, you have too much to offer, and we'd be fools to let you go without a fight.
@ Elmer, NWM, Egilman or whoever: I, for one, am going to miss your posts - a person who can take great photos, provide fascinating photo essays, obviously loves and has huge knowledge about classic movies, always posts well-considered intelligent posts, writes extremely well, has realms of knowledge...I consider to be the rarity of a Renaissance Man.
Here's a theme song for you, courtesy of Woody Guthrie, but edited somewhat by me:
"Time's a gettin' hard, boys, civility's gettin' scarce. Times don't get no better boys, I'm gonna leave this place. Take my 'puter and it's screen, get them off this site. Say goodbye to everyone, goodbye to everyone."
Haven't been round in awhile but, I'm with you on this one.