New Point System for Tickets
Category: Meta for use by Perrie RA and moderators. Member meta goes into the group Metafied found on top tab
By: perrie-halpern • 4 years ago • 336 comments
I am presenting the new point system for tickets, in the interest of transparency.
There are two big differences. The first is that "taunting" will be assigned a point value. That is because there has been a lot of taunting which is meant to cause members to become reactive and hurts any good discussions. In fact, they have lead to many slap fights between members, and that only ruins a good discussion.
The other big change, is to accommodate the point value of taunting, we have rescheduled all the points. Since there is no way to assign a fraction of a point to taunting, we had to rescale the whole point system. At present, 8 points will earn you a suspension. In the new scaling it will be 32 points. Here is the new scaling:
| Violation | Old Points | New Points | |
| Taunting | 0 | 1 | |
| Skirting the CoC | 1 | 4 | |
| CoC Violation | 2 | 8 | |
| Total Point for suspension | 8 | 32 |
To clarify what is defined as "taunting", it is any comment directed to another member, be it by word or by image, that has no value to the discussion in an attempt to mock and or in an attempt to illicit a negative response by the other member. Here are a few examples:
- A comment can be ignorant, but never a member.
- The
, can all be considered rude, just like the /sarc is, but not taunting. - A string of emojis will be evaluated as if that is your only contribution to an article it is taunting.
The key thing to remember is that anything directed to a member that is negative in nature, will be up for review.
This will go into effect at the end of the week.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Perrie Halpern R.A.]
Who is online
48 visitors
I am sure there will be questions. I encourage all mods to participate. Any insults to mods, or moderation will get ticketed.
How did I miss that sentence? Stressing over the 8 points, I think....
So all of the other "violations/flags" are "pointless"???
LOL that's supposed to be a funny.
LOL Jim. That was funny!
Yes, the other ones are deemed pointless. I will say this. If you are getting too many "No values" then the mods know you are not making quality comments andI would take them more as a warning leading up to a taunt. TOS is really how the site needs to operate, and sweeping gens are not always black and white.
does that include self appointed group mods?
how many penalty points for group mods that practice bogus moderation of comments, or after how many incorrect group mod judgements, do those groups go away, permanently?
Really, seems they let a little power go straight to their heads.
I've gotten tickets for correcting someone's grammar.
There are no points for group moderation. I have to review them and agree to assign a point value.
Also, I have to say this to group moderation. If I see that it is being applied unfairly, I will remove the ability to ticket. Being a public group is a gift and one that should be used wisely.
Some surely seem to abuse that privilege.
holy crap, I just noticed it. where did you get my 4th grade class picture?
Your teacher sent it to me when she found out you were here.
A problem child from the beginning.
That photo of the kid at the blackboard reminds me of this:
[deleted]
oh c'mon teach. those were valid questions. ignore those that were somehow offended.
LOL!
This is the first time I've seen it so I'm glad that it's posted.
You say the end of the week it goes into effect?
I'm all for it. I think it will keep discussions on topic.
Hi Vic,
Yes, Friday to be exact.
Very good.
I was looking at that 8 points for a CoC violation and almost had a heart attack and then I remember 4 X 8 = 32.
I can live with this
LOL, I knew that would be the first thought. In actuality, a taunt, by the old system would be a 1/4 point. But there is no way to represent that in our system, so the whole point system had to be reworked and scaled up. The new points are equivalent to the old points. How you spend them ( or hopefully not) is up to the individual.
I wasn't aware that there was a point system. Thanks for the info.
That also explains why a lot of flags on my articles are marked as 'CoC violation'. I guess there is some hope I'll just accept it so someone can be suspended.
Too bad I can't issue tickets for spurious flagging, too.
If you had read the CoC you would know there was a point system.
I think Perrie should have one of those check boxes where you have to declare you read the CoC and accept them and understand them
I think that is a good idea. I will see what can be done.
Hi Nerm,
That is true. But here is the thing, as a group owner, you can hand out tickets, but the actual mods will review them. If we feel actual points need to be applied, we will upgrade the ticket to assign it points.
If you are having an issue with over flagging by a member, please inform me or another mod. We can remove flagging privileges for a period of time, if they are not being responsible. Btw, looking back to old comments for to try and get a person into trouble is really frowned upon and will not result in a ticket. By the same token, if a person is flagged and ticketed, but there were similar comments above or below, those should be ticketed, too. Also, once a comment has been made to a specific member, and that member responds, even if there was a violation in the first comment, the discussion is in play. So if you plan on flagging someone for a violation, do not respond to them.
says who?
it's the same offenders day after day, month after month. drop the RA hammer on them. ezpz
Does that mean week-old comments will no longer be ticketed?
Frankly I wish week old posts should be locked out. The article can stay but some of our members love going back 3, 4 two weeks to make a comment. While i realize not everyone reads every article that gets posted, some do it to get the last word............and you click on it and realize their comment was made long after the fact.
BTJM
It also pushes old "retired" seeds/articles back to the front page unnecessarily.
While a few people do it occasionally, I would describe one as a serial spammer and frequent flyer.
too bad seeds/articles can't automatically lock after a set period of time without any activity, without being able to be reopened by the author.
So let me address all of this.
Articles with violations that are over a week old, should not be ticketed unless they are still in discussion.
Articles that are no longer in play and are bumped up, will get no attention and fall off the board.
No, they keep coming back, like zombies. So annoying and boring.
I admire your optimism.
I am always an optimist!
So is it OK to say someones comment is.....
wrong, stupid, idiotic illogical, uninformed, ignorant, etc...or a lie?
It would be best to simply indicate that it is wrong, illogical, or misleading and here is why. The "here is why" is quite often lacking, hence the response comes off as insulting or at least dismissive. Using words like stupid, idiotic or lie are unnecessary in any case and do not add to a positive discussion. Ignorant is a word that causes angst in some as well. Literally it simply means that the comment was made with a lack of relevant knowledge, but too many take it as an insult. So probably best not to use that word unless you can explain what you mean by it. For example, when it comes to the proper care, feeding, and riding of horses, I am ignorant as hell.
Thanks for the update. I haven't read the CoC in years.
Guess it's a good thing that I'm not a frequent violator. Actually I don't believe I've ever received any points in 8 years. 
You have a perfect record, Ms A. I have to say that when I was on NV, so did I (not to brag but to point out that you can do it).
Speaking of NV, did they ever post that the death wish was a violation?
Who cares?
[deleted]
On NV, I did too.
You can not death wish a member. You can a public figure, but personally I think it's in poor form. What you can't do... and this is a big one: You can not incite people to take violent action against a public figure. That will not only get you thrown off the site, but also reported to the FBI
More like a no value, but close. BTW that was taunting.
what about fiefdom owners that delete/ticket, have the last word on every thread, and then lock their seeds?
I assumed that much.
You can? Since when? I see this in the CoC:
You are seriously going to censor the comment "who cares? "
Please tell me I am imagining things here.
Are they dealing with trolls?
Wow, that sounds really serious. Does FBI stand for Full Blooded Indian or Fry Bread Inspector?
Either way, those guys are some badass som'bitches
That was not clear. It meant incitement.
Only when the fry bread stinks. You better be making good fry bread!
I can see that Newsvine was right right about one thing.
Vic,
When dealing with trolls, they should be flagged or ticketed. Having the last word is always poor form, but not a violation.
deleted
"Careful Tess, after Friday that will equal a point."
"You are seriously going to censor the comment "who cares? "
Please tell me I am imagining things here."
Ridiculous. Will I get a ticket for that?
"Are they dealing with trolls?"
Are you?
It depends on context.
Yes, but as I said, I personally feel that it is in poor form.
As a group owner, I can emphatically say...YES they are!
that's even worse
No you wouldn't get a ticket for "who caress". It might get a no value depending on context.
Okay here's another thought. If this is a public forum and someone comments here, does that not make them a "public figure"? All 1,200 plus members plus the daily visitors see it? There is so much biased crap that floats around daily one could say they "know you from your public profile/comment history?
Jim,
There is a thing called personal responsibility. What we post on the internet is out there forever. If someone wants to say something like that, then there could be repercussions from it, as we have seen from many public figures. What if your boss sees it and it offends them? So I am not worrying unless they are saying something that would imply action should or will be taken.
May I quote you on that?
Probably not. The worst that would get is a no value and that carries no points, but then again, it all depends on context.
Sure!
teacher's pet
So?
You girls crack me up!
Just goes to show that we can still kid each other too.
LOL for sure! Kidding is the best!
Kitties are always great, too!
not the ones that put your wrist in a death grip and sink their fangs into the fleshy part between your thumb and index finger.
Or do the bunny kick on your forearm
I don't know any like that... but I am sure there are those in both dog and cat version.
the kitty treadmill ...
Thank you for that. Even if the punishment is meager, it's overdue.
I agree with you even if I am one of the biggest offenders here
Trout,
I'm glad you agree, and the point here is just to raise the level of discussion and not to be punitive. In fact, I really hate moderation, but I also hated what I saw the final days of NV were like, too. That was far worse.
meh, it was fun torching the klan robes when their NV parade started.
Thanks Tacos!
There are some that are masters of taunting. They drive by and leave their stink bombs and are quickly off to do it on every article they don’t agree with. It gets ridiculous at times and can turn an article comment section into a free for all. I do believe that is their intention. It’s very child like.
I don’t flag anything though and I have only received a few tickets over the years. I confess they were earned. I treat people they way they treat me.
Thanks, that's good to know, too. I admit I tend to be more lenient on flagged comments. Since I do post the seeds/articles and participate in the discussion, it's difficult to completely recuse myself. I ignore flags on comments I've made so the assigned mods have to deal with those.
Thanks, that's good to know, too. How is the best way to make contact? I haven't used the chat function but assume that is the best method.
Chat will get you the quickest reaction. If it not an emergency though, please you PNs.
I will try my very best to do exceed 32 points in a 24-hour time frame.
Would ''stupid is as stupid says'' be a 1 pointer for taunting? Or ''you could screw up a one car funeral" 1 pointer or a 3 pointer.
The reason I asking is that I want to spread out my points and violations and not get dinged 32 points in one day.
bonus for me. I can taunt one moron per day for a whole month.
I felt that one coming. Btw.. no you can't since calling someone a moron directly is a CoC violation worth 8 points or indirectly 4 points.
you know me better than that. it's usually fucking moron, and it's always in HD.
LOL... don't I know.
Always one wise guy in a crowd...
Is a skirt. You are basically calling the person stupid.
Is a taunt. No direct or indirect reference of an insult.
What about "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person"?
That would be a taunt...
I know it was I just wanted to say it one last time.
Trout, you can say it 31 more times if you like... That is why I hardly call this heavy-handed.
I would be careful on the emojis. The blah blah
is rude, but that is not necessarily taunting. By itself, each emoji leaves a lot of room for interpretation so the comment would need to be evaluated based on the written content and not simply on the emoji.
Exceptions to this might be the common series of emoji such as:
. This is arguably obnoxious and is easily seen as taunting. Other than trying to trigger someone, what value is a string of negative emoji? One emoji should suffice.
Note, that a series of positive emojis is also obnoxious
but are intended to praise a comment so obnoxious or not, they do not violate the CoC in any way.
We have a lawyer here.
I can see your POV on this and I would like the members to chime in about it. The whole point of this discussion is to not only understand the changes but to get consensus on the details.
I think I agree with your assessment, since the emojis are there to be used.
Any overuse of emojis is obnoxious
Agreed...
So how do we feel about what Tig said... his suggestions?
I almost always defer to TiG since he's way smarter than me so he makes good points.
I don't know how people don't get frustrated with typing so many emojis. You have to hit the emoji button, click the emoji you want, the window closes, you have to re-open the window, click on another emoji, the window closes....and on and on. Too much work when I can just type words
I don't see the point of categorizing when emojis are positive or negative. They are nothing but a crutch for those who lack a valid argument and I think we should dispense with them altogether.
LOL... I have to agree with you there.
People will just make their own or paste them in from outside. And then there’s the memes . . .
The emojis were voted on a long time ago as a much wanted item, so the question still stands.
I'm sure.
Ah...let's talk memes. Their use should be judicious. A good meme can make a point but when the discussion becomes nothing but memes, well, let's just say the discussion has gone to the dogs
Nope! I like that saluting one. We still need a puking emoji, tho...not so I can use it in a comment to taunt someone but when someone posts a meme that requires eye bleach
(some of those memes should be a TOS violation)
Especially the smiling poop emoji, which is my favorite, but alas not available for use here.
Memes are fine, so long as they are not trying to taunt.
See Kavika's... Now that is just funny and fine.
It isn't?
I had to go look
I don't see any with a bare bottom or boobies hanging out.
His makes a point and gets a chuckle at the same time.
Dogs are never wrong
Not on Kavika's meme but I do see bare feet and ankles!
Of course not. They are too cute!
Kinky!
Exactly Tacos! The ability to post images, which makes this site unique also requires extra thought to deal with what people will find out there.
... in victorian era england maybe ...
Aw!
I was afraid to make it easily useable for abuse, but if you guys want it, remember you would have to be careful with it.
LMAO!
Oh I was just goofing around there Perrie. I get to use that emoji plenty in other arenas. (-:
Well a lot of us members type "bullshit" at times. It would shorten posting time. LOL
LMAO!! I guess so. But remember you couldn't say I poop on your head.
AND they are in the .......KITCHEN.....
1 point for each additional emoji after the first one works for me.
emojiis should not be regulated at all . What is the difference if I post
or
It is self expression. Free speech.
Just like when someone asks me 10 dumb questions on the same seed. That is their perception of "free speech". Someone else's might be emojiis
The emojis were not always on the site, and when I first installed them, I had to pay for them. So they are a gift and not an absolute for the site.
1 or 2 laughing guy makes a point if you think a comment is absurd (funny is a different thing). More than that, you are taunting. Again, context matters. If your only contribution to a discussion is a string of emojis, then you are only there to demean another member.
When someone's only contribution to a seed is to pose the same inane questions over and over, how come you dont get upset about that? You can troll here as long as you dont use emojiis ?
I don't even understand what you mean by:
I need an example.
How is it not taunting? You already acknowledge that it’s rude. Is it rude for some other reason? Some reason we should tolerate?
Do you define taunting as being rude? Can one be rude without taunting?
Don’t answer my question with a question. You said the blah blah wasn’t necessarily taunting. I asked you to explain how that could be. I never see it used any other way when it’s in response to a member’s comment.
One be rude without taunting, but one cannot taunt without being rude, IMO
Taunting is a tough one as it tends to be more subjective in nature. I think it comes down to, is the comment or emoji (or series of emoji's) meant to incite an angered response? In other words, no value to the discussion other than to get under the skin of the person to whom it is directed. Problem is that it is usually one comment out of a series that are all technically taunting. So we try to look at the situation from all perspectives and make the best judgement we can. I tend to think that most of the time the blah, blah, blah emoji's, if accompanied by nothing else, will likely be viewed as taunting.
You cannot figure out my answer from that? Okay, I will break this down for you.
( Note, how I have provided an example
of being rude without taunting. )
The blah blah emoji
is rude ( offensively impolite or ill-mannered ); we agree on that. It basically deems the content of the comment to be of no value; that the author of the comment did not offer anything of value to the discussion.
Is that necessarily taunting?
Hypothetically speaking, if you were to write a reply that dismissed one of my comments as having no value, is that necessarily taunting? For example, if you were to take a perfectly serious comment from me @ 11.3.1 where I seriously answer your question socratically (via a question) and dismiss my answer as a non answer, is that taunting?
I consider it rude, but not taunting.
( Did you intend to taunt? )
Which implies that moderators feeling, tastes or opinions are the basis for issuing points.
As long as that is in conjunction with a flag from the member being taunted, I have no issue with that. It's when the author or group owner unilaterally issues those points that I see and problem.
Mods have stated over and over again, if they see a violation while reviewing a flag they can rightly address it whether it's flagged or not.
If a series of comments are deemed 'technically taunting' and lead to a flagged comment being ticketed, ALL of the comments in that 'series' should be issued points too.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
For once we may agree. I have communicated with a mod or two on their ticket/violation issuance in a few cases. Seemed at least one just looked at the flag and not the preceeding or subsequent posts that may have prompted the flagging to begin with cuz they got their fee fees hurt. I explained, as a low powered mod in a couple of groups, I look at the surrounding posts for the tone of the conversation being had and determine from there if that flag is warranted. The only other thing I could do is flag the surrounding ones myself and deleting or warning about the content. I choose not to necessarily do that but for a mod to just pay attention to a flag without context, just seems a bit wrong. I know they are busy and not online 24/7 but........................
So let me address this for both Dulay and Jim.
If there is a thread that has gone off the rails and needs a review, flag the worst of it, and leave us a note in the provided place for flags and let us know that the whole thread needs a review. Otherwise, we are just looking at the one comment since you have no idea how many flags we get in a day and how much work it is for us.
That seems to conflict with what Freewill stated.
No it does not. I clearly said, "So we try to look at the situation from all perspectives and make the best judgement we can." We will try to look at surrounding comments and make a judgement as best we can, that includes what sort of time we have and number of flags in the queue, just like Perrie indicated. The initial flag is always the main focal point so all Perrie is suggesting is that you as the flagger give us a heads up regarding the surrounding comments/issues so we can take a closer look.
I fail to see how a series of positive emojis is obnoxious.
We differ. Excellent comment, perfect in every way, absolutely brilliant!!
So, based on your earlier comment, you are intending to praise what I said? Or sarcastically disapprove?
If you’re going to imply that intent is relevant, then it should always be so, shouldn’t it?
It’s not the emoji or their quantity that is obnoxious. It’s the message being communicated.
... taunting sarcasm. excellent.
I stated that I disagree with you:
I also provided an example as to why I disagree with you:
In my opinion, claiming disagreement and showing an example of why is a pretty decent reply.
Since you bring it up, intent is certainly relevant. Trouble is, one cannot always accurately determine intent. That poses a bit of a problem, right?
Oh I think we differ. I find the overuse of sycophantic
emoji to be obnoxious. Now it is perfectly cool 
if you see things differently. You opinion is highly valued 
and very important 
to this discussion. But none of our comments are worthy 
of sycophantic praise 
.
I'd like to point out that the written content of a comment may change the 'intent' of the meaning of an added emoji. If the content of the comment is negative, cynical or sarcastic and accompanied by
, it's intent is negative.
I agree.
Take into consideration that things such as this are posted as sort of a "na ne na ne boo boo" indirectly to taunt whomever the comment was made to as a pat on the back for "dissing" said poster. Could that be considered skirting to give someone the finger on their post.........indirectly.
You are reading a lot into an emoji. If an emoji is positive, I would be careful reading negatives into it.
You have to consider the "performer" and the "audience" in that case and I think we all have enough experience here to see a pattern. Is not part of the ticket/suspension "program" to take into consideration of one's past history?
Any other opinions about emojis? I need to hammer this out, so that people don't say that they didn't know or have their say.
It looks to me like the emojis argument is:
emojis = okay
repetitive 'negative' emojis = taunting.
Is that the bottom line?
And if so, will there be a list of what the mods view as 'negative emojis' so that members have a clear understanding of the 'rules'?
So this is how I will amend the emoji issue.
The
, can all be considered rude, just like the /sarc is, but not taunting.
A string of emojis will be evaluated as if that is your only contribution to an article it is taunting.
I will be putting it into the body of the article to amend.
I am guessing this one would not be allowed?
Ha, just wanted to be able to post that once...
On a serious note, what about this one.
I would use this if I see the convo is going nowhere (or something along those lines). I don't necessarily think it would be taunting.
Then what is the point? We all agree it's rude, but you're going to allow it? Why?
Not to mention some of us do think it's taunting. You though it was taunting. Now you don't? We have to continue to put up with people who just troll
as their only reply to comments?
I always liked this little "composition"......................
“╭∩╮(Ο_Ο)╭∩╮"
So ONE
is merely rude, while 
is taunting?
Do I have it yet?
Because being rude isn't a CoC violation.
Ha. To much work for me, unless I can copy and paste.
Rude is farting out loud. Rude can be a lot of things, but when the only conceivable purpose is to piss someone off, it's taunting. If you respond to a comment with
and nothing more, I have to think that is probably taunting.
And yesterday, Perrie though that, too.
You wouldn't think so, but I got dinged once for using the F-word. And not in the FU kind of way, just as an adjective.
That is the definition of taunting, not the definition of rude.
Being rude is not necessarily taunting, right?
One would normally take that to mean that the author considers the prior comment to be of no value (aka bullshit, hot air). That is not taunting. The emoji could be used as part of a taunt, but so could most every emoji. Depends upon the context.
I love the second one. I'll see if I can add it.
So ONE
is merely rude, while 
is taunting?
Do I have it yet?
Yes.
Tacos,
The reason I go through the discussion process instead of just saying "It is what it is", is because I don't think I am always right and want to hear other people discuss it. So I listened to what you and others had to say, and then I did come to the conclusion that rude is not taunting. If it was, we wouldn't have different words for it.
Taunting is meant to elicit a response from your opponent. I guess after reading through the discussion if someone went..."Blah, blah, blah" to me, my response would be, "Well, then I guess we are done here".
I, for one, would like "on topic" and "off topic" to be looked at.
Just because something is mentioned in an article does not mean, to me, that it is the topic.
One needs to read the article to determine what the topic is.
Anything mentioned in an article is considered fair play and on topic.
I think I see where Tex is going with that, though. Correct me please, if I’m wrong, but can’t a seeder also declare up front that something mentioned in the article is off topic?
For example, say the seed is about Biden’s policy proposals, but the seed contains a line that begins, “In his debate the other night with Trump, Biden said . . . “
Technically, Trump is mentioned but that doesn’t make him the topic.
Yes you can declare something off topic, but it must be done in red and in the first comment. It does not apply if there is more than just a passing comment in an article.
Yes, I realize that, Perrie, but I can't see that JUST because the article MENTIONS someone or something in passing that it becomes the whole topic even when 98% of the rest of the article is about something totally different.
That just doesn't make sense to me personally.
Like this, for example:
"Congress voted on a relief package last night.".......and then talks ALL about what is in the relief package, and how Americans can benefit from it.
So Congress is an acceptable topic because the story contained the word "Congress".
To me, the topic IS the relief package, not Congress.
Maybe some school teachers could help us out---if a teacher handed out the article I described above, would any teacher accept that the topic was Congress?
OK what you can do is write in red in the first comment that X is off topic. But if the bulk of the article is more than just a passing comment, then it will be treated as on topic.
I love that idea!
break out the kleenex.
Points will be enforced by Judge Roy Bean, affectionately know as the ''Hanging Judge''.
It's the only way it can be done, and done right! When you hang a man, you hang them till they are dead, LOL.
It's true...we (NT) can learn a lot from history. The good judge took extreme measures to deal with the wild west. As the west became more civilized (acquiring new members), Bean was replaced by more humane forms of justice!
could be worse , could be made to sit in an enclosed room with me after I eat a big pot of tex mex chili and im wearing a kilt.... its breezy huh?
Gives a whole new meaning of death penalty by gas chamber
hey now , my ex wife survived dutch ovens , me on the other hand barely and learned to sleep on the couch.
not only did i meet my match , i met my better...
I think I might have woopsied myself on that one, Sandy!
If you like the meme, watch "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs" on Netflix. You'll feel terrible for laughing, but you'll laugh, anyway.
I will!
Some people even showing up is taunting..........some days LOL
Well... no. LOL.
Judging by what I can piece together, it appears that the moderation on Newstalkers is going to become even more intrusive and restrictive. Thats not good news.
Sorry, We won't defund the moderators.
LMAO... but the biggest part of that joke is that we get paid nothing for the job and aggravation. Imagine that?
We are talking about better enforcing some very simple rules of decorum John to improve the level of discussion here. Honestly the rules should not even be necessary in a civilized society and particularly in a venue where folks come together to discuss or debate important topics of the day. Coming here and wasting one's time simply to demean and denigrate others makes no sense. What does it accomplish? It should be in the best interest of all the members here to conduct themselves in a manner that already complies with these simple rules, and encourage others to do the same. Only those who are not here for the purpose of rational, reasonable and constructive discourse would find the enforcement of such rules intrusive or restrictive.
I have written more content than anyone else in the history of this forum with the possible exception of AMac, who only posts about photography. I have no problem "debating" anyone, and am more than able to do it civilly.
What I won't do is pretend that people should be polite to people who spew endless nonsense in praise of this ridiculous administration and what has happened in this country for the past 5 years. We already have to be way too kind to those who agree with QAnon, agree with caging little kids, make endless excuses for Trump's mountain of ignorance and lies, etc. No one should be forced to be polite to assholes.
John,
You can hardly disagree with someone without name calling. I do it all the time with people I disagree with.
Trumpism, as you like to call it, is opinion. That's it. That it offends you is ON you. This isn't now, nor ever was, meant to be an echo chamber (although some days) as I understand it. And that you can't stand Donald J. Trump is NOT ever going to be an all encompassing opinion.
Very well said, and I totally agree. There are those here who do not want to engage in civil discussion and/or debate, but, to create a divisive environment among the members. Then they sit back and laugh.
They need to either stop their hateful games, or be shown the exit door.
It's to deter bad behavior. That is all.
"Judging by what I can piece together, it appears that the moderation on Newstalkers is going to become even more intrusive and restrictive. Thats not good news."
I tend to agree with you there. Although I've seen it coming for a little while now.
Tess,
It really isn't that hard. Just don't be rude. I have seen both you and John make excellent comments that have shown insight.
Avatars that move are more annoying than excessive emojis
Distracting is right........at times. Not to mention the bandwidth taken up.........I think.
I'm not sure about bandwidth, but sometimes they are distracting. That is an issue for the updating of the CoC.
Ummm... no. LOL!
But I do like the hulk!
Let's hear your argument for why my avatar shouldn't be allowed.
How about the avatars with the sea monster and the ghost horse? I bet Dulay's avatar is the only one you have a problem with because of who she is
So then your posit is that members should be limited to avatar you like? You don't seem to be able to articulate any other reason.
Actually you asked HOW it's allowed, which implies that it shouldn't be.
Now, let's hear your argument for why my avatar shouldn't be allowed.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Kracken,
The reason your avatar was removed was because it was gross and didnt meet community standards and the other one of Harris was removed because of TOS. Since then you have posted Biden as a blathering fool and in a wheelchair and both those have stood.
As always, so classy!
Again, WTF is the REASON that YOU think it should NOT be allowed.
You may want to recognize that if you can't answer that question cogently, YOU don't have a point.
See 17.1.11 You'll be glad you did..........or not of course
First of all, I asked MUVA a question and that comment is not by him.
Secondly, that member was the first member I added to my very short ignore list and I AM glad I did.
So no more posting after a night out on the town
no more farting in a persons general direction ,
and definitely no saying that a persons mother was a hamster and their father smelt of elderberries...
or any of the really good ones i come up with when i have had a few adult beverages ...
i can live with that .
I like the smell of elderberries.
ROFLMAO!
Gotta be careful, did they mean elderberries or elder berries? (-:
I'm a recovering Monte Python addict....
LMAO, me too!
but markies gonna be a very dull fuggen boy from now on ......
I think this is a good way to deal with those slapfights that last for days, or even weeks, causing the mods to pull out their hair. None of us has the time to babysit those threads, and they contribute little positive to the site.
Open for comments
How many points for a group mod that responds to your comment, and then afterwards deletes/tickets it?
Once they have responded to a comment, they can not ticket it, since it is considered in play. If that happens, please notify me.
Anything mentioned in an article is considered fair play and on topic.
I would like Perrie to review my second ticket of the month...as I responding to another's comment, and it simply was my opinion.
Nothing will improve until we get rid of extremely partisan moderators, as the usual suspects will abuse the rules and sympathetic mods will give them a pass.
"Extremely partisan moderators" can be address by the RA, more effectively through a PM or chat. I had success with that just an hour ago when an extremely partisan moderator gave me an unwarranted Meta ticket. One member in this thread knows him well.
This is not the place to ask for reviews. That is supposed to be in chat or by PN.
OK!
Well if nothing else this may make the insults and taunting more subtle, which would be a nice change
LOL!! Have to agree there. Might encourage thinking.
I can always fall back on Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries.
How about 'I fart in your general direction?'
LMAO! Now that is funny!
THHHHRRRRRRPPPP!!!!
I for one would like to see the memes that demean and denigrate the handicapped disallowed. It is a huge insult to the handicapped to see memes that show handicapped people in wheelchairs helplessly leaning over in their wheelchair and drooling onto the floor, or other such demeaning and insulting memes.
If I were a handicapped visitor to this site and saw how people laugh at such memes I would never wish to join such a site. And those who laugh at it are no better than those who post them.
JMOO
Raven,
Memes are hard to control. Both sides of the political fence put them up and they are supposed to offensive to the candidates or parties. I can't pick and choose, nor do I want to. But I do understand why you may feel that way.
Some of the most vile memes have been directed at Trump
yeah, people don't like a pathological lying, cheating, crooked, ignoramus leading their country. Who'd a thunk it?
No hard feelings.
The house has every right to set the rules.
I have not been a big offender - what a total of a ticket a month?
Still I choose to move on rather than add an additional layer of filtering to my posts.
Adam_Selene
You better not leave. I would have to put together a posse and hunt you down...
Sounds like work and I am lazy. So you have to stay.
Please tell me you are not being serious.
No hard feelings.
The house has every right to set the rules.
I have not been a big offender - what a total of a ticket a month?
Still I choose to move on rather than add an additional layer of filtering to my posts.
Adam_Selene
Adam,
Nothing had changed. And of all people to be upset I am shocked it is you. I don't think you have ever gotten a ticket.
No, he just changed his name to make a point. I hope he comes back.
I got an idea! Let's just throw the CoC in the dumpster and light the TOS on fire! No rules and everything goes!
Then let's see how long you all have a playground
Cute!
Exactly
I for one would leave and never come back.
I hear ya.
Likely not the time nor place since the article is about the rule changes , BUT......
there is NO unjoining the site , only option is to never sign in again and stop coming here , might be time to fix that as well as the other things . let people unjoin that wish to .
And yes i have looked , one simply does not un join , its like walking into mordor one just does not do it.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
and we're livin it up at the hotel california ......
OK here is the reason why. When people up and suddenly quite, entire threads are taken along with them, including comments that were not theirs. It's a weird function of the Jamroom platform. If you really want to be gone, just get me and I can make your account, inactive and that will not hurt any continuing discussions.
OK, I am closing this down now. The updated version of what will happen is in the article, which has also been updated. Thanks to all who participated.