About the blogs
Give an inch, take a mile
The blogs on this site are meant for true independent and original thoughts on many topics. What they are not for is a way to taunt other members, political rants, or short blurbs with no journalistic quality. Please keep that in mind.
Thank you.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Perrie Halpern R.A.]
Which is why I seed...unless I'm telling a story.
Veronica and Kavika make good use of the blog feature
I'm impressed with this example of a blog. 50 words. original, instructive, to the point, short and sweet. I'm sure that the ratio of likes to comments is also very enviable to other writers here ... ... and the plagiarizers too!
If this policy is ever strictly enforced for all, it will be a severe reduction in articles seeded.
Perrie is here speaking about the use of the blog, not seeds. Although I would support it being applied to seeds as well to some degree … and especially to original articles.
We need less of the childish, simplistic, emotive ‘us vs. them’ crap and more adult, analytical content.
[deleted]
Putting the topic of NT aside for the moment, I would say that if that policy was enforced on all Social Media sites-- it might be the end of Social media!
Incidentally, I was an early adopter of the Internet-- the early 1980s! Prodigy and AOL.
It may be hard to believe, but in discussion forums back then there almost no political discussion! There were News forums-- most people didn't even use them. (There was a lot of discussion about Sports, Cooking, Travel, Pets, maybe some Science etc--- what normal people were interested in!
In retrospect, at the time I guess most people just assumed you'd go to newspapers, TV, even radio for regular news & politics-- it almost seemed out of place on the Internet (early 1980s)
The main determinate of how successful any media outlet becomes (what attracts or repels readers, viewers, contributors, advertisers) is the curation and editorial control of content. Quality attracts quality. Shit attracts flies!
If I understand you-- you are saying that on any media outlet, quality is what's successful.
And you are defining "success' as attracting the most viewers/readers.
But I disagree.
In fact in the not so distant past, the #1 TV station (the one with the most viewers) was Fox News. I'm assuming your political views skew left-- so does that mean that you feel Fox is the best "quality"?
That sounds like what you (and probably most of us) wish was true. ???
But is it?
In college I used to hang out with some kids from the student newspaper. They said their was an old axiom re; what kind of news sells papers. It is:
IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS
A blog, from what I have seen elsewhere for years, is something where the author comments on , whatever, or multiple topics, and posts links in accompaniment to the commentary. What Vic puts up once or twice a week would be like a blog, all though he doesnt do it in the blog section. I have toyed with it a couple times but didnt find enough interest from others to want to do it more often.
Content that arguably and unnecessarily seeks to anger others is prohibited.
The accommodation of the radical left here is beyond hypocritical.
[deleted]
Wrong. The rule equally applies. And it kind of shocks me that this is coming from you, who posted an article called "Hate Speech" that still stands with hundreds of comments. It could be construed as "offensive" by some but it meets the guidelines for an article.
To my understanding, the blog in question consisted of two or three sentences.
That type of "blog" entry isnt really a blog.
On the other hand, if the seeder in question had posted it as a regular article I think it would have been acceptable. Isnt that true ?
The rule was just created.
I want to know why things like this:
are the norm and other things require safe spaces?
You linked to one of your original articles. Do you think your article should be disallowed?
There is a big difference between someone offering abrasive political opinion in the form of a bona fide article and one penning a taunting comment wrapped up as a blog.
I don't like double standards.
This insulting vile statement was allowed to stand:
I understand that white supremacists are very angry for being called out....
So, TiG, what good are rules?
Perhaps clicking on the link would help.
This is what popped up when I did so:
Not exactly what many would consider to be merely "abrasive political opinion".
No one flagged the comment so nothing was done. I just took a look at it and it's being dealt with. Btw, that was just a comment, not a whole "article" and both were treated the same way, so please stop with the double standard.
No, it wasn't. It's been in our CoC since it was last updated.
I flagged it and it was greyed out as being allowed.
Ok Perrie, that's different.
I apologize.
And that is why I asked the poster a question about his post, because it was already flagged.
Don't do that, btw.
my comment was based upon the contents of biden's speech and other related stories I've seen. the contents of biden's speech was the topic. my comment wasn't directed as a taunt towards any individual person, but as a conversation starter to the only person that had commented prior, the author. if innocuous comments like that are vile and insulting to vic, I can easily, and happily, make them a lot more definitive. I fully expect all of my comments to be flagged on vic's articles, but it seems more recently that privilege is being abused by some people.
Ever hear of the flagging option? Mods do not read every comment. If you find a comment that violates the CoC then flag it. Don't just remember it so that you can complain at a later time.
It was flagged and allowed to stand
You are correct on this.
So when that happens, appeal to the mods if you think something is seriously wrong. This incessant complaining about moderation is what always takes place in forums. And typically it is the most common offenders who (surprisingly) find that moderation is unfair. So instead of complaining, ask for judgment.
I don't think anyone expects them to.
Perhaps just reading what the flagged comment responded to would be acceptable.
How far beyond hypocritical? Like really as far as the accommodation of the radical right, or not quite that far?
If NT is going to accommodate one nutty side then in all good conscience it must accommodate the other nutty side.
I see no problem here at all, except for those that are blinded by the light or the truth or, heaven forbid, blinded by their own prejudices.
and we get accused of wanting an echo chamber
Look up at 6.2.2
I did, thank you and your point is?
My issues have been taken care of. Thanks anyway.
[deleted]
Content that arguably and unnecessarily seeks to anger others is prohibited.
The accommodation of the radical left here is beyond hypocritical.
Interesting.
Have you ever wondered-- how come everyone on the left always does that-- but no one on the right never does?
Why do you think that is?
I just realized that . . .
Ummm . . . . . perhaps its necessary to mention that that was sarcasm?
WORDS OF WISDOM:
[deleted]
those aren't pearls...
Depends on what one means by Pearls.
Perhaps its all about definitions?
Could it sometimes possibly be yet another case of Pearls before Swine?
I wanted to show off by quoting "chapter and verse" but I wasn't sure-- so I googled it.
Interesting stuff:
Caviar to the general?
(That was not Jesus)
Trolls suck.
Trolls are the proverbial swine!
-100 lbs psi
.