Reminder Of The Rules

I just needed to go over these things to keep the quality of the site up... especially with what has been going on lately. 

Sounds fair. Two of your examples clearly point to specific members. Hopefully those type of comments will be curtailed.

Actually I was trying not to point to specific members... but yes hopefully those types of comments will be curtailed. 

Deleted due to content. At least one of those seeds every day is a ridiculous attack on "the left" and another one is a fantastical promotion of a specific religion. Every day, 365 days a year. 

I will never stop pointing this crap out. If that offends you, just ban me. 

I will never stop pointing this crap out. If that offends you, just ban me.

What offends me is you not being able to avoid the article and show some self control. And oh bother.. you will just end up with a very long suspension. Your choice. 

No, it is your choice, if you continue to tolerate his nonsense without pointing it out. 

I beg to differ. 

I'm amused by the fact that Perrie falls under criticism by both the left and the right on this site.  It reminds me of the fact from when I had to arbitrate between disputing parties, that if it ends up with BOTH sides being unhappy, it was the perfect result.

Thanks for noticing that Buzz. I try to tell people that.. It's not so easy being the RA. 

Being a moderator is like being a bank teller.  All you have to remember is rule #1, don't take the money home.

if it ends up with BOTH sides being unhappy, it was the perfect result.

Sounds like a divorce...or is it a marriage? I can't tell anymore? What difference does it make in the long run anyway?(sigh)

if it ends up with BOTH sides being unhappy, it was the perfect result.

Calvin used to say that if both sides were unhappy then he knew he was doing something right... I guess he was right. 

As for a divorce.. IDK.. I've been married to the same guy for 27 years. Now break ups.. we could talk...

Ugh! Break ups! I was always fantastic at falling in what I thought was love, but break ups were hell. You know when I was quite young I was usually the one who got broken up with, which hurt. But my dad told me it wasn't nearly as painful as it would be the first time I was the one breaking up with a girl who wanted to stay together. Man was he right (he was a pretty wise man for a tough truck driver)! You never forget those ones and they are far, far more painful then getting dump. Even badly dumped. I remember every single one and how many bad relationships I stayed in because I couldn't stand the idea of hurting the woman I was with.

I told him that I didn't like his music because he only listened to Country music and he said I wouldn't understand it until I was emotionally torn up for the first time and he was right again. I miss him. He died way too young at 63.

Well, as the person who did almost all the breaking up... It really stung when one guy got the better of me. I think it was more my pride, if I was being honest, since I tried to break up first, and he waited to dump me [after he begged me to stay], after he got a new girl. 

It's nice that you miss your dad, Randy. So often men have such difficult relationships with their dad's and girls with their moms. 

Calvin used to say that if both sides were unhappy then he knew he was doing something right... I guess he was right. 

 Calvin?

Is NV Calvin a member here? 

Btw, making a critical note of a source should not be a CoC issue. There are many sources on both sides of the political spectrum that publish very questionable information and stories.

Many people are not aware of the habitual extreme bias of some sources like NEWSMAX and Ann Coulter, as examples on the right, and The Nation and Thom Hartmann, typical examples on the left. Hartmann has over 2 million radio listeners, and holds in the opposite ideology of Rush Limbaugh.

Many of of the narrators and publishers hold extreme viewpoints and often publish those viewpoints with the intention of having themselves become part of the story. I have caught NEWSMAX publishing totally untrue information, I think Ann Coulter has a couple of bolts out of place and Thom Hartmann is so far to the left he is off the page.

I think making note of the habitual extremism of some sources should be allowed. I have heard commentators on TV often mentioning the source of information, with the intention of pointing out to the viewers a story or article most likely was published with a bias. 

Sure Jerry, if someone posts an article from Stormfront, or Pamela Geller, the reputation of those sources should be pointed out. However, there are still sources that are somewhat left or right of centre, but still post articles that contain factual information and opinions based on them, and I don't see anything wrong with them. if we as adults are incapable of sifting out the falsehoods from the realities in those sites then we are incapable of posting intelligently on a site like NT. The problem is that when a reasonable, even if a little biased, article is posted, then the issues contained therein should be discussed, and if someone (and I am thinking of a particular member) just says the author i s a fanatic or the article or the source are biased, that critic is not qualified to comment on a site like this.

Sure Jerry, if someone posts an article from Stormfront, or Pamela Geller, the reputation of those sources should be pointed out.

Well Buzz, Perrie has said that that is derailment.

"Discussing the quality of a seed is a derailment, plain and simple. If you have an issue with the content of the seed, discuss that."

Dear Friend Perrie Halpern: Mrs. E. and I met in 1971. We wed in June 1972. 

Here it is 2017.

We are closer than ever.

I don't want to jump to conclusions.

So far so good.

Enoch.

Buzz,

Not everything is a question of left and right!

Sometimes it is a question of respect for the site.

Copy/pasting several articles every day without even reading them is admissible under the CoC... because Perrie writes (oh, sorry, "interprets") the CoC...

Therefore we must presume that Perrie is OK with "copy/pasting several articles every day without even reading them".

Perrie is wrong. 

I will continue to underscore "Viagra ads"...

I will never stop pointing this crap out. If that offends you, just ban me.

What offends me is you not being able to avoid the article and show some self control.

Here's a suggestion: why not eliminate the rule that forces every user to read articles they don't like?

We should take a vote on that suggestion Krish.

We should take a vote on that suggestion Krish.

Excellent idea! 

In fact, we should seek to emulate other successful organizations.

Like, for example . . . the U.N. (Peace Be Upon It!)

First we discuss every issue at length...

Then we vote on it.

A really fine "feel good" strategy.

On two levels. By discussing it at length, everyone feels they can have a say in the final outcome. Plus, it might head off any anticipated complaints from people who feel everything is always "unfair" ....Definitely a feel good strategy!

Next we vote on it. Another feel good strategy-- everryone can feel that they have a say in the outcome. Plus-- we get to pat ourselves on the back because we are so democratic (after all, we voted).

Newstalkers is far too small to ignore that many articles and still have something on the front page to talk about. That is obvious and I don't know why we have to constantly discuss this.  

And yet everyone here is telling you the same thing. Why is that? Oh yeah, because...

we are not that small to ignore...

I'm a poet and I didn't know it!!

You are a cutie. 

I'm a poet and I didn't know it!!

I knew it. Every time I have talked to you on the phone it has been pure poetry. Even when you have been bitc...er....yelli....um...."correcting" one of my obvious misconceptions or misunderstandings!

(LOL)

 That is obvious and I don't know why we have to constantly discuss this.  

OK-- then I'll make another suggestion. 

Why don't we eliminate the rule that forces people to discuss things they really don't want to discuss?

"Why don't we eliminate the rule that forces people to discuss things they really don't want to discuss?"   Well said!  

A few here are incapable of discussing articles. They live in a alternate reality posting slime and complaining about others, oblivious to their hypocrisy.

That is obvious and I don't know why we have to constantly discuss this.  

Now you've got me curious. If you really don't want to discuss this-- then why do you...keep discussing it?

You can't ignore articles because you have no self control. How old are you?

Kriishna,

Here's a serious suggestion:

Restrict posting to one article per day, and a maximum of three on the first page of Newest Discussions.

Encourage members to THINK before posting, and to choose with a minimum of care...

Here's a suggestion: why not eliminate the rule that forces every user to read articles they don't like?

I nominate this as the best comment of the week.  Well since this is the middle of the week, maybe the month or the year!!!

We should all be aware of how difficult it is to take care of other matters while in the process of moving. I have had to move 3 times in the past 3 years and to me it has become a detriment to my health, let alone an unwanted diversion from spending the necessary time on required activities.  I believe Perrie over the past few weeks has suffered through a perfect storm of problems, and deserves the patience of the membership.

I HATE moving! And I have moved at least 40 times in my life, more if you include childhood! The only way I can survive it is to make sure that one moving day that I have one, just one room, completely set and organized. I usually choose the living room, though some pick the bedroom. But I have to have at least one room on that first day where I can go and think "Well, at least this one is done!"

I hate moving too, Randy. We are trying to get rid of as much as we can. Right now we are ditching 27 years of marriage, LOL! It just kept coming with us, but not this time.

Thank you Buzz for that very kind comment. Sadly, yes we have had the perfect storm of personal problems and now are even getting used to new life circumstances. But until May 1, the move is all that is on my mind. 

Moving is easy for me. Just take down the tipi, roll up the canvas and liner, strap the poles to a travois, hook up the travois to Annie and I'm on my way.

Of course Red needs a full 53 foot drop frame trailer to move her stuff.

So Red keeps you in the tipi? Is that her version of being in the dog house?

And what about the dog? Why not have HIM pull the tipi! Or Red's trailer!

My girls, Wiiki and Annie love the big tipi. Eating potato chips and watching football...A dogs delight.

I am bowing down to you Perrie. You were really herding cats tonight.

BTW, you should have locked your thread! What the hell kind of example are you setting for members about leaving their article unattended! Huh! I mean MY GOD WOMAN! You give a big damned lecture about monitoring your articles and then you leave yours open! What if this article goes South?! HUH! What if I don't follow what you say, forget to lock one of mine and it goes all to hell with trolls (and we have waaaay too many!) and then you get mad an close my article down! I mean damn girl! Scheeesh!!!

damn...whew.....I feel better now...thanks....

I left the door open on purpose. I was hoping to see if people could control themselves while I was away, and a pleasant surprise, they did! 

Here's my perspective:  The news in general has gotten much more contentious, with the addition of President Moron.  Meanwhile, this site has become significantly more restrictive and sanitized.  It's a bit of a joke now compared to the freedom this site once offered.

I used to chime in all day long, and enjoy the freedom of speech.  Now the thrill of speaking my mind, and reading the unvarnished offerings of the group, is muffled by a wet blanket of CoC rigidity and hall monitor enforcement.  I've been devoting more of my time to listening to podcasts, where speech is still free, instead of changing who I am to fit in the polite box NT wants to put me in.

There are no new members, literally.  Gagging the current ones is not the way to fix that.

Meanwhile, this site has become significantly more restrictive and sanitized.  It's a bit of a joke now compared to the freedom this site once offered.

Thank you. I thought it was just me, because I feel the same way. Every time we have gotten into a discussion about the Code, it seems we end up with more restrictive parameters for making criticism of comments and the people that post them. And the "speak Your Mind" slogan becomes a little more faded.

Now the thrill of speaking my mind, and reading the unvarnished offerings of the group, is muffled by a wet blanket of CoC rigidity and hall monitor enforcement.

Which is all very true. The problem we are now faced with is, how do we undo the CoC overkill without going too far, and defining exactly what is "too far"?

The first thing that comes to my mind is to, first have the general membership agree we have created an overly restrictive CoC enforcement policy, and then, when a comment is flagged there should be two moderators appointed to respond, and with the less restrictive guidelines in mind, only when both of the moderators agree with the flagger should the comment be deleted.

Perrie mentioned earlier in this thread that her list of flagged comments has become almost unmanageable. I don't know what constructive restrictions will allow, but there needs to be an arrangement allowed for all moderators to see the flagged list and when two mods have checked into a flag it will change colors or turn off.     

There are no new members, literally.  

Another big problem. I used to post a 'welcome aboard' comment every time I received an email when a new member came aboard. But when the "New NewsTalkers" format was put in place I stopped getting those emails. I complained to Perrie about it and she said she would notify me when we have someone join. No notices. Did she forget, or do we have have no new members? I think it's mostly the latter.

When I joined NT in Dec of 2012, I had suggested we formulate a New Member Contest. Perrie was at that time formulating some site changes and wanted to wait until she was done to have such a contest. I guess she's not done. It'll never be 'done', sites like this always need adjustments.

I think we should have the contest. Any suggestions?

I like the idea of some type of hazing for new recruits. Just as gangs have beat downs for new members we must test their ability to handle the heat around here. That should weed out the whiners early on and help keep the place running smoothly. 

What if a safe space was created for the delicate that shouldn't really be on the internet because they don't have the mental strength to deal with reality?

Meanwhile, this site has become significantly more restrictive and sanitized.  It's a bit of a joke now compared to the freedom this site once offered.

Thank you. I thought it was just me, because I feel the same way. Every time we have gotten into a discussion about the Code, it seems we end up with more restrictive parameters for making criticism of comments and the people that post them. And the "speak Your Mind" slogan becomes a little more faded.

Now the thrill of speaking my mind, and reading the unvarnished offerings of the group, is muffled by a wet blanket of CoC rigidity and hall monitor enforcement.

Which is all very true. The problem we are now faced with is, how do we undo the CoC overkill without going too far, and defining exactly what is "too far"?

BRAVO! Neither one of you is alone! I feel the same way too! I never get censored, but I can see that it has gone up so far and fast that it seems like you have to start each post with "Dear Sir or Madam". Every year or so we go through this exact same thing. Just keep your head down and it will pass. It always does. Until them I'm posting mostly on Facebook.

Here is my perspective. First, there is going to be no way for me to get us to come to any sort of agreement in this discussion, so I am not sure why I am trying, other than I think it's poor form not to answer you. 

Your own words here:  The news in general has gotten much more contentious.

And with that, so has NT. I keep a list of all violations, and Hal, if I showed you last years as compared to this years you would be stunned. Yes, the members used to fight, but to this extent, and not with this amount of venom. I do realize that the site is nothing more than a reflection of our country as a whole, but there have been no new restrictions or additions to the CoC. The only real difference is that we have flagging, which just saves us time. 

Podcasts is not your freedom of speech. It's someone else's. If what you want is to listen to an echo chamber where you hear with what you agree with, then I guess that is the place to be. But when I started NT, I an independent, enjoyed the art of discussion and even a good battle where things got a little rough, but it was never designed to be one where I would go around looking for good set ups to bring other members down. And that is what has been going on here by both sides of the political fence. Even in our Constitution, there is a limit to what our freedoms are. Furthermore, I have checked out several other political discussion groups, and this site gives far more freedom of speech with far fewer rules. Heck, one site had rules for the general forum that ran a mile long, and then had a super duper set of rules for their Middle East forum. Talk about restrictive. 

So the issue isn't that I want to you to fit into a polite little box, but rather look back at everyone's comments a year ago and realize that maybe the issue lies in the membership and the general attitude in our country. Not trying to gag anyone, if they actually has something to say, other than a vaguely covered insult. After all, we are still a discussion group the last time I checked. 

And as for new members, we have them, they get scared off very quickly. Think about that for a moment. I can give you a list, if necessary. 

Like some of the others, I have been here for 5 and a half years (my case) or longer. You invited me to Newstalkers in Nov of 2011. 

My recollection is that there has always been a degree of "fighting" , and I don't detect it as being any "more" now. But I will take your word for it. I have seen other sites, including most likely a couple you are familiar with. The "fighting" on other sites does not become "personal". In other words, they don't get to talk about someone else's job, what kind of car they drive, their imagined sex lives, what they smell like, how much money they have, if they are divorced,  etc., all of which have been allowed on NT over the past few years. On these other forums people "fight" about the topics. Which I have no problem with. 

As for now on NT, I think what Hal referred to is the recent spate of deletions and restrictions over "off topic" content.  My feeling is that some of these deletions are "a bridge too far", as they restrict comments that are not coc violations. 

As for now on NT, I think what Hal referred to is the recent spate of deletions and restrictions over "off topic" content.  My feeling is that some of these deletions are "a bridge too far", as they restrict comments that are not coc violations. 

The CoC has always had for authors of seeds to call off topic. But if an article is not an RBR article, then it is up to the mods to determine if it is really off topic. it's about 50/50. There are many flagged items that no action is taken on, since the contained no violation and were on topic. 

Making fun of the seeded article is not an appropriate reason to delete a comment.  Personally I think it is an absurd reason. 

If the seeder is so proud of it let them defend it. 

Discussing the quality of a seed is a derailment, plain and simple. If you have an issue with the content of the seed, discuss that. 

As a side note, I forgot to address this: 

But I will take your word for it. I have seen other sites, including most likely a couple you are familiar with. The "fighting" on other sites does not become "personal". In other words, they don't get to talk about someone else's job, what kind of car they drive, their imagined sex lives, what they smell like, how much money they have, if they are divorced,  etc., all of which have been allowed on NT over the past few years.

It has never been allowed and it is only getting worse, which is why I cracked down on it. 

Discussing the quality of a seed is a derailment, plain and simple

Who even knows what this means? Most comments on articles discuss the "quality" of the seed. 

I agree.

"Most comments on articles discuss the "quality" of the seed."

That doesn't make it right. The issues raised within the seeds should be discussed rather than just applying a label to the seed.

For example, it's useless, even unintelligent, just to label Dershowitz a fanatic when he writes an article about anti-Semitism, and criticizing the source that publishes it, when a thinking person would discuss the issues raised by the article.

That doesn't make it right. The issues raised within the seeds should be discussed rather than just applying a label to the seed.

Perfectly put. 

Discussing the quality of a seed is a derailment, plain and simple.

Discussing the quality or author of the seed IS germane if the author is not a member of the site and is known to be particularly prejudiced in one direction or another. Many authors are well known to be heavily biased and discussing the quality of their work overall because of that known bias must be allowed. It's the some as discussing the quality of the seed if it comes from infowars or brietbart or some site that is also known to be heavily biassed. Pointing out that the site the seed comes from and the overall reputation and quality of the seed because of the site it comes from has to be allowed.

Nope. It's derailment. If you don't like the quality of a seed, don't comment there!

Discussing the quality of a seed is a derailment, plain and simple.

Then I am surprised that I have not had nearly all of my opening comments on a seed deleted because I have done it on many, many articles since I have been a members here and that has been for a very, very long time! And intend to keep posting as I ALWAYS have for all of those years!

 My feeling is that some of these deletions are "a bridge too far", as they restrict comments that are not coc violations.

I agree with John. I think there has been a big over use of the "Skirting the Coc" deletions. It seem like any negative comment at all is skirting the Coc.

I disagree. Many deleted comments were clearly intended to skirt the CoC.

I welcome the current moderation.

I welcome the current moderation.

That's good to know, Eddie Haskell.

youtu.be

Eddie Haskell.

Hahahahahahahaha!

Randy,

Skirting the CoC is used when a comment is not a direct personal attack, but meant to provoke someone into making a violation. If a member's intent is that, than they are not discussing the topic, but discussing a member, in a indirect and negative way.

I know what it is, but the whole site is covered in purple blood everywhere!! There simply can NOT be that many violations of skirting! It is impossible for there to be this many removals without the rule being over used or abused! Or some people whining so much about their poor wittle hurt fwelings that comments are being removed just to appease them, which I think is what is happening. Sometimes it's easier just to shut them up by deleting anything they bitch about, even things we used to let go.

Lol. Clearly there has been a lot of skirting. If someone can't be civil, expect to be deleted. They deserve it.

Randy,

You couldn't be more wrong. We get loads of flags that we do nothing about. If you want to know why this site is bleeding purple, think about our last election. And you of all people should know how moderation works. 

Yes I know how moderation works, which is why I know when the site is bleeding purple and it is right now. There is hardly an article that doesn't have a skirting the CoC deletion on it. Which is a rule I have always opposed. Either a comment violates the CoC or it does not. Skirting the CoC is completely subjective and subject to abuse. I still believe as I have since it has been being applied so much that it is used for the majority of the time to quiet a few cry babies on this site.

I think there has been a big over use of the "Skirting the Coc" deletions.

In order to call an opinion "thinking" one needs to demonstrate "proof" . You have never to my knowledge done that ...

And as for new members, we have them, they get scared off very quickly.

... but let's not change anything! We have a vipers' nest, and we are dong nothing to improve it... 

But let's not become a Sunday afternoon church tea party either.

Like I said to Krishna: I seriously think the site would improve greatly if members were forced to select their seeds, rather than spray-paint  five random copy/pastes every day.

This would also encourage seeders to curate their stuff. 

Here's another rule I'd like to see, but don't really expect: For every five seeds, a member must post one original article. It would be very good to see what our members have in their own heads, rather than what they vacuum up on dubious red-meat sites...

Well we are restricted to 5 a day, but I can only think of one person who posts that many. It would be nice to see more original articles. I used to write many when I was on the site whose name shall not be mentioned. Then again I was drinking a lot then and like a lot of writers it's always a lot easier for me to write when half drunk, but I am getting myself in shape so I haven't had a drink in a month or more. I haven't really tried writing sober much. I usually don't like what comes out.

My only real complaint is that the "Skirting the CoC" is IMHO being way over used. I would even say abused. I'm not complaining for me because none of my posts are being touched, but that's just because I am posting while biting my tongue until it's bloody from not saying what I really want to say and it's getting really old. It seems that arguing is now forbidden here. At least like we used to and if it gets worse it won't be worth posting at all. Posting on Facebook is taking up more and more of my time away from here.

if it gets worse it won't be worth posting at all. Posting on Facebook is taking up more and more of my time away from here.

... and another one bites the dust...

... while Perrie sails on, oblivious...

Oh I'll stay a member, but time wise I'll be shrinking.

Look Bob,

I am not oblivious to anything here. And I find it kind of ironic, that I have seen you being a "viper", while complaining that I am doing nothing to stop it. 

Randy,

Apparently you like echo chambers, because that is what FB is. If that is what you want, I can't change that. And I find it rather ironic that you are complaining about "skirting the CoC", when it hardly ever happens to you. 

Perrie, every once in awhile this site goes through this. It has happened many times over the years. When it is suddenly decided that we must do something to tighten up the rules to the point where is a Sunday church ice cream social. To the point where real exchanges are choked off. It always happens and it always passes. I don't want an echo chamber. I just want to wait until this black cloud passes just like every other one has. and we get back to real posting like we usually do, without having to bite our tongue. And it never happens to me, but I see it happening way too many times. I may not be getting wet myself, but I can sure sit in my living room and watch the thunder storm outside and choose not to go out in it.

"Oh I'll stay a member, but time wise I'll be shrinking."   (Randy)

Well, hopefully not like that!

if it gets worse it won't be worth posting at all. Posting on Facebook is taking up more and more of my time away from here.

... and another one bites the dust...

... while Perrie sails on, oblivious...

I'm not too sure about that Bob.  Randy isn't going anywhere.  You're not going anywhere.  At least for an extended period of time.  I'm sure Perrie would like to see more people on here than there is at the present time.  People could invite others if they wanted to do so.  In all honesty, you have to have the time to participate and there are still a lot of people who have a lot of other things to do other than spend their days and nights on a computer.

Although I may not agree in most cases with you, I do appreciate the articles you have written yourself. 

I could invite some people to join the site, but all my rowdy friends have jobs. LOL  Can you imagine that, a couple dozen of my rowdy friends joining The News Talkers.  LOL

So you're for the Popular vote?  Just kidding.

Maybe slow growth is better than being overrun by new members.

Sorry Bob-  I doubt I will post anything original on this site ever again.  I do like the idea of posting one thoughtful article.  I only look at the front page so I only comment on what is there and what has been recently commented on.  I probably miss a lot but I just don't look for things in forums or groups.  

"I probably miss a lot but I just don't look for things in forums or groups."

That's your loss.

PJ,

We, or rather the site owner, must find ways to encourage members' participation. Sadly, NT's current rules discourage it.

Writing an article takes time... and then if the author wants to liven up the text with a few images, that's even more time. 

When all that effort is quickly pushed out of sight by copy/pasted trash that its seeder doesn't even bother to read... the author is not encouraged to write another article!

So... all a visitor sees is trash... Is it surprising that they do not stay?

Comment removed for skirting [ph]

Ya know ... Bob used that exact same emoticon to respond to multiple comments in one of his "articles" . He wasn't deleted there . Is that because it was HIS article ?

yes.

Bob,

I have written many article and they have gained traction. Furthermore, you came from a site where "seeding" is what mostly happened. The issue her is that you don't like the seeds.. that I can't help. It has nada to do with retention. What has to do with retention is the tone of the site. A bulk of people left because I gave too much freedom of speech here and they felt under attack. It was not content. 

BTW the best way to deal with an article you don't like is to ignore it. There is always another one around the bend.

BTW the best way to deal with an article you don't like is to ignore it. There is always another one around the bend.

Bob, the owner has said , to me, that INFOWARS is a legitimate news site because it has a lot of viewers. 

Her plan seems to be to have seeds from INFOWARS and Gateway Pundit, and other lying sack of shit sites co-exist with seeds from the New York times and Time magazine.  I guess that is a reflection of the times. Thats fine , in a sense.  But THEN, we are not allowed to ridicule the false sites like INFOWARS or gateway Pundit, because that wold hurt the seeders feelings. She wants us to write long rebuttals with chapter and verse to disprove MADE UP SHIT, seeded on NT by trolls. 

I have been through all that already over the past 5 years here. I have had hundreds of comments that I laid out with expert opinion, graphs charts, quotes , FACTS.   But NT doesnt give a shit about that sort of thing, OR it wouldnt welcome INFOWARS and other false and misleading seeds with such open arms. 

Clickbait generates clicks... and advertising revenue... 

Here check this out:

poniz.newsvine

Hummm... infowars on Newsvine

How about this:

reddit

Damn Reddit has a whole subgroup especially dedicated to them. 

I guess they are interested in clickbait.. no wait.. maybe they believe in freedom of speech in it's truest meaning. Not random insults to other members that are worthless. 

Tell me, who gets to decide what is allowed as "acceptable" sites? Do we really want to go there? I assure you, be careful for what you wish for. 

Perrie, INFOWARS is not a legitimate site.  I don't give a damn how many times you try to paint it as one. You think because Alex Jones has a lot of followers his site is legitimate. I can hardly believe I am even typing these words. 

CNN, WAPO, and the NYT have been busted with more fake news. Sorry Infowars is legit.

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

You are not legit, I am too legit to quit!

I guess they are interested in clickbait.. no wait.. maybe they believe in freedom of speech in it's truest meaning.

If we have freedom of speech then I should be able to say "Fuck Infowars" as a comment or reply to a seed. 

It's a private site so you can't. Get over it, ignore articles you don't like and be quiet.

Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

Get help if you don't like it.

Get lost fermit. 

I am here to stay, you are leaving.

There used to be another guy here who used a frog avatar, posted puppet porn, kept changing his name and photo often, obsessed about Hillary Clinton and Muslims , and seeded from INFOWARS. Remarkable coincidental similarity to yourself, no? 

He is "gone" btw. 

Your conspiracy is noted but no one really cares. I read today members voted you the most politically hacky and unworthy of believing. 

Have you no shame?

lol. You are digging yourself a big hole. 

LOL is this your site? Repeat after me, i am powerless over people who join the site Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

  06/08/17 08:48:57PM  @Foul-E-Lujah :

LOL is this your site? Repeat after me, i am powerless over people who join the site  Comment removed for context [ph]

That might very well be true, but what on earth would that have to do with you? 

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

If we have freedom of speech then I should be able to say "Fuck Infowars" as a comment or reply to a seed.

Absolutely!

Tell me, who gets to decide what is allowed as "acceptable" sites? Do we really want to go there? I assure you, be careful for what you wish for.

I don't want to censor sources like infowars. Quite the opposite as they are fun to make fun of, but you have got to let us point out that they are an extreme right wing website being run by someone who has such low credibility that he believes the Sandy Hook massacre of all of those little children was faked and so the site has an agenda! That way it educates anyone reading the posted seed that such an agenda exists! We have always, since I have been here, have had the right to talk about the source of the seed without it being deleted as derailing, so I sure as hell don't know where the idea that it is suddenly forbidden comes from. If it's new, well then I haven't heard of it yet. If it's old it has never been enforced before. Either way if it's going to start being enforced now then to quote an old friend of mine, that sucks dead baby bears!

What makes you say that the NY Times is still a legitimate source ?

What makes you say that the NY Times is still a legitimate source ?

I have a working brain. 

I have a working brain.

I suggest you quit NT & form your own site . Comment removed skirting the CoC [ph]

The NYT is fake news.

The issue her is that you don't like the seeds

No. 

I don’t like to see the site flooded by poorly copy/pasted seeds that the seeder doesn't bother to read. 

When someone spends their time discussing seeder and source, i assume they are the ones that haven't read the seed.

I wouldn't be concerned if I had to post one original article for every 5 seeds I post. I post many photo essays, that are entirely my creation, even though not many members have any interest in them. How many of my photo essays have YOU commented on, Bob? I believe you are aware that I comment on many of your articles, and have posted on your Books group - both personal articles and seeds.

Buzz,

I rarely post to photo articles. That may be a failing, but there's only so much time.

I do post to thoughtful political articles... including yours, if I am not mistaken... 

"There's only so much time..."

Is there no time to sit and watch a magnificent sunset?

Is there no time to hold a baby close to your heart?

Is there no time to listen to a babbling brook?

Is there no time to watch a classic movie you've never seen before?

Is there no time to visit an art gallery and view some famous paintings?

Is there no time to watch and listen to a summer thunderstorm?

If not, why not? What is life?

Gorgeous sunset!

but there's only so much time.

Face it, politics rules the day.  Photo articles are a great distraction and Buzz and others have put some very nice ones on here, but after you comment on a photo article, unless it goes in another direction or others post some photos, what else is there to say? 

They are destined to be sliding down the front page from the simple fact there is no debating happening on photo articles. I will pay a little more attention to them, which is a good idea to do, but there's only so much a group of people can say about any of these types of articles. 

In all honesty, we need more articles from both sides by more people.  I don't keep reading the same newspaper articles over and over.  A day or so should be enough for an article, but I guess if it is drawing comments, it is going to stay on the front page. 

Usually the extra comments have nothing to do with the article after a day or two has gone by anyway.  But it does give people the chance to comment which usually is just bickering back and forth, sorry, but that is way I see it.

Discussing Politics is like having sex with yourself.  When you're finished, you're still not satisfied and you wish you had cut the grass instead.

Podcasts is not your freedom of speech. It's someone else's. If what you want is to listen to an echo chamber where you hear with what you agree with, then I guess that is the place to be.

Do you think people come here only to talk, and not to listen?  I spend way more effort here reading what others have to say than adding my two cents.  Except now, it's like reading a heavily redacted government paper, where the purple pirate came and stole all the good booty.  When I listen to a podcast, everything is there - whether it offends me or not.  It's not bleeped out for sanitized public wussy consumption. 

There are a slew of hilarious, contentious, argumentative, thoughtful, and sometimes ignorant podcasts and articles on this site .  I started reading Maddox about 20 years ago, but lost touch with it over the years.  My disappointment with NT's direction over the last year inspired me to revisit Maddox, to find that there is a shitload of content that is new to me.  At least some good has come from NT's downward spiral.

I agree with you Perrie. 

Hal, I don't see a lot of restrictions on NT. All that is asked for is some civility, but with the current political free for all, it's has leaked over to NT. 

Some will try to discuss, others will not. Insults and skirting the CoC seems to have become a way of life. 

Personally I have more interests than politics, but politics is an interest for me. Many articles that are of an educational nature or things that are not politics receive no interest from most members. If you look at the number of comment on ''red meat'' articles you'll see that they far outnumber the non political articles. 

If you want a complete free for all, then remove the CoC. IMO, that will be the death of NT. 

Some moderation is needed to keep the site moving and not turn into an all out war. 

JMO.

I agree 100% with you and Perrie.

Perrie is a very fair minded individual. She has a firm idea of what she wants NT to be, and truly values all the Members here on NT.

It is very difficult to please everyone, but, she does try very hard to do so. It is very obvious that some Members only want to "stir the pot" so to speak, and see how many comments their article or seed can garner to feed their own ego, while creating a very hostile environment for others. 

As has been said many times in many such articles......all NT Members are adults and should conduct themselves as such. And....not one Member is here to be anyone's whipping boy/girl, or willingly come here to be bullied by others.

If you want to act like rowdy children, then you can expect to be treated like them.

"Stirring the pot" is a big part of any discussion forum. I doubt if Perrie objects to anyone stirring the pot. I kind of doubt if you really object to it Raven.  I would agree that the details do matter. 

There are ways to keep the discussion lively and interesting without resorting to nasty and/or snarky 'pot stirring'. And yes, I surely do object to it. Especially, when it is done with the intent to just keep it going just to see how many comments their article or seed can garner.

And that kind of "pot stirring" is one of the biggest reasons I no longer comment on the FP articles or seeds, other than Perrie's articles.

...btw.....I clicked on the thumbs up tab by mistake when I missed the Reply button.

...btw.....I clicked on the thumbs up tab by mistake when I missed the Reply button.

Oh no !

And you are one of the reasons I don't participate on the FP. How many more replies to your own comments are you looking for? This is my last one.

I have to agree with Hal. I've never seen so many thin skinned sissies that need a nanny to protect them.

You are such a manly man! 

May I add something?  Of late, there has been rampant abuse of the flagging button.  The purpose of the flagging button is to report CoC violations, not comments you don't like.  

Pay attention to this:

No Personal Attacks: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Address issues and arguments, not individual members. Comments, articles and misuse of chat that is designed as personal attacks or those which in-and-of-themselves, are off topic, disruptive, abusive, threatening, harassing or offensive, unlawful, defamatory, libelous, known to be false and presented as truth, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically are prohibited, and will be removed. Comments meant to inflame will be removed. 

Please remember that a comment that you feel is a personal insult may not be.  It's ok to belittle groups of people, (although unsettling and not nice), but not individual members.  As an example:  it isn't a CoC violation to say "Liberals protect pedophiles", but it is against the CoC to say, "_____ (insert name) protects pedophiles.  Thank you!

Also, you cannot call for a wholesale deletion of comments without the use of Red Box Rules.  If you wish to control the conversations on your articles, you must post Red Box Rules that clearly define your wishes.  This is all a part of moderating your own articles.  If you can't, or won't moderate your own article, don't post.

Thank you!

Oh for heavens sake.  Here we go again.....

Meta mania.

There are multiple issues that have contributed to the current environment.  Speaking for myself, I think the main reasons the site is struggling is because: 

• New membership is down
• Membership participation is down
• Moderator burn out
• Questionable sources 
• Personality dynamics
• Abuse in Reporting CoC
• Personal attacks
• influx of repetitive issues
• Donald Trump ( sorry I had to throw that in - hehehehehe)

We are all responsible for the current state of this site with some exceptions.  We have moved away from discussing the topic and have focused more on the individual making the comment.  

I don't think it's fair to criticize Perrie for how the moderation has changed.  It changed because the dynamics of the members changed.  If we would stick to the topics rather than focusing on the member I think the moderation could have remained as it was.  Any changes made were made in an effort to get members back on track.  Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.  

I also don't feel it's fair for members who aren't more visible and active to criticize how the site has changed.  If you want to be a part of the site then you need to participate.

I know that I've contributed to the bad feelings and I'm willing to take responsibility for my role.  I don't know how to reverse some of what I've done and I honestly don't know if I can change back to the sweet and incredibly nice and funny and outgoing ( sorry - I got carried away) person I was when I first joined but I did enjoy talking with a lot of the members before this "thing" happened so they must not have always been assholes.  hahahahaha

1)  Unfortunately, I can come here and not find anything worth reading and commenting on.  Partisan threads here are so common they have become so cliché, it's become boring, and the people that post them consistently have become monotonous, monotone shills. Why bother stopping by?

2) Opinions are not facts. Someone elses opinions are not facts. Distinguishing between fact and opinion

3) Why doesn't this site have an " Ignore " feature? Every last forum I have or now belong to, has one.

Are you listening, Perrie?

1. Why are non-partisan arguments any less "cliche" than partisan arguments?

My experience has been that "independents" make the same sort of arguments against partisanship just about every single time. Democratic partisans say trump sucks. Republican partisan say Trump is great. Independent partisans say the other two are equally wrong. Why is the independent view objectively any more valid than either of the other two? 

2. I read the pdf. It has a major mistake in it relating to whether or not someone reading the article attends college. 

You are are one of the many hyper-partisan people here. I have low, if non-existent expectations, from such people.

Whatever . Most of your complaints are so vague it alleviates any need to be concerned with them. 

Are independents ever cliched Aeon? 

Aeon,

1)   Unfortunately, I can come here and not find anything worth reading and commenting on.  Partisan threads here are so common they have become so  cliché, it's become boring, and the people that post them consistently have become monotonous, monotone shills. Why bother stopping by?

I don't disagree, and being one of the few independents here, I find it hard not only to have a discussion that is more broad spectrum, but one where people pick my comments appart trying to prove that I am some secret partisan. Why bother stopping by.. well you do make insightful comments that actually get things going, and I hope that you gain pleasure from that. I know that I do. 

2)  Opinions are not facts. Someone elses opinions are not facts.  Distinguishing between fact and opinion

This is a constant battle I have with some here. More often than not they think their opinion is fact, and the other guys opinion is just an opinion. But I have to say, that I have looked at other political sites, and have seen this same phenom there, too. 

3)  Why doesn't this site have an " Ignore " feature? Every last forum I have or now belong to, has one.

The ignore feature is on PHP systems. This is not PHP. PHP is an older system and it does have that one feature, but there are many more that they don't have. Often this is on discussion boards, and it is far easier to code the ignore function in them. It's just a trade off. 

I am closing this article now, with this warning. We will be going back to strict enforcement of the three strike rule for violations. I will clarify this more in the coming days.