Content Contrary to the Best Interests of News Talkers
Of late I have begun to wonder, if the site moderators should have the ability to simply delete articles and seeds deemed to have no positive value to the site or its members and if members who persist in seeding/writing such articles should be censored in some manner
Articles meant to mock, to incite or to spread hate and denigration come to mind.
Cleverly disguised under the cloak of satire, humor or meta - these articles do more harm than good.
At least that is how it seems to a retired country boy in NE Ohio
UPDATE*******
After thinking about it a bit more and getting feedback, perhaps deletion is to severe and the forced movement of the article to a private group would be a better solution.
No let freedom ring. Censorship is not a good thing. Many of the articles that you might consider to do harm may actually be some of the most popular and successful articles on NT. The motto of the site is speak your mind not speak what you think will not be censored.
Dean
Being popular does not mean the article has any redeeming value, merely that it appeals to the base instincts of those more interested in vulgar humor and innuendo that in actual discussion of real issues.
And if some of the articles are indicative of the minds from which they come that is too bad.
I have no issues with the most vulgar and pointless articles being presented in private groups but question the presence of such articles on the front page
Being controlled is not the same as being censored
You will never get this idea past Perrie, who has the final say in all deletions. She is pretty much against deleting articles unless they are a gross violation of the CoC. Perriestrongly supports the NewsTalkers motto, "Speak Your Mind" and the 1st Amendment.
Articles that mock, incite, spread hate or denigrate are supposed to be relegated to the "Heated Discussions" group, which people cannot join until they have a member of NT for at least 90 days.
The only thing dis-allowed as far as I know at this time is uncommented Memes and direct hit pieces. Those are good to go. The rest depends on what type of article it is.
An RBR article is under the direct control of the poster and deletion is automatic upon poster request.
Anything else is under regular moderation rules.
She did set the tone in her article Carrying a Big Stick
I'm sure she will comment here and clarify any discrepancies if needed.
But the last meta articles hashed all this out, and the poll taken decided the separate issues by group vote.
It was pretty clear.
Actually, except for a few little things, it has been relatively quiet around here for a change.
Feels good!
and Jerry is right,
Attack pieces go in HD, no exceptions.
In the article, I recommended that they set up a "group" where they can do all the ridiculing they wish and make the membership approve incoming members. In that manner, such articles won't/wouldn't make it to the front.
Jerry
Okay let's say the article is not deleted but it is moved to HD or some other group and no longer appears on the front page. In addition, to the mocking, hating and denigrating articles there are articles where the subject matter is simply crap and meant to be crap
N M
The last meta articles went on and on and nothing has changed all that much. I live on a farm and know that it takes a lot of manure to grow a corn field, but with the tonnage of BS of late,NT should be the world's leading producer of corn very soon
1stwarrior
I am supportive of anything that keeps the articles not meant to drive meaningful discussion, not meant for the exchange of info and ideas, not meant to provide meaningful and worthwhile topics of discussion, and more meant to stir things up, to make others mad, to create a crap fest of hat speech back and forth, off the front page.
Robert G
Appreciate your typical input to a serious discussion, thanks
I merely said your comment was typical of your input - nothing more nothing less.
The style and content will surprise no one, so no need to delete it
Here is good advice for all of us to consider before we write/seed an article and before we comment on someone else's article/seed
Ok I'm going to take Twain's advice.
Nothing.
As much as I might despise what someone posts or says, I will defend their right to post or say it. Keep NT free flowing is my recommendation.
That being said, and as we have discussed, you can sure tell a great deal about a person by what they decide to post. There are some NT members that I simply try to avoid their seeds and/or comments as they are nothing but a waste of my time. I come here to learn and sometimes teach, with discussion about opinions and points of view being very welcomed. Arguing on obvious hit pieces posted knowingly to inflame speaks volumes on those that post them. I just as soon they stop wasting bandwidth.
Robert G
Logical, on topic, relevant opinions and perspective are never discouraged by me,
Comments other than that may meet sarcasm and disdain however
Dean
Thanks for stopping by
FLY
No one is suggesting that anyone be denied their free speech rights, only that certain topics and discussions (over and above outright attack pieces) have no place on the main forum
Robert G
In case you cannot make it out, I am shrugging my shoulders and smiling, consider that the disdain I spoke of. I care not what or how you comment, I would prefer that you not visit my articles/seeds, but all are welcome and accepted for what they do or not contribute. Your presentation of yourself as a victim od restraint of speech is laughable, in that the topic we were trying to discuss is whether articles of questionable taste and quality (n the eyes of the site management not mine, should be relegated to groups rather than cluttering the front page. I value a most of the opinions, perspective that I receive on NT, emphasis on most. You present yourself well as a victim though, congratulations on that.
Bullshit!
I am suggesting that some control over the quality and content of articles on the front page should be exercised.
Your see the issue one way and I see it another, why do we not agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I love your hyperbolic explanation of what cleaning up the front page would entail thought - classic. As evidenced by the continued presence of your comments, I have no problem dealing with counter views and opinions in a private place that I control.
Well according to NT standards, I believe we have reached an impasse on this subject
After seeing what people had to say, I updated/edited my post
UPDATE*******
After thinking about it a bit more and getting feedback, perhaps deletion is to severe and the forced movement of the article to a private group would be a better solution.
Nope. It's called censorship, plain and simple.
Nigel
Appreciate you perspective
Personally I like well done satire . Here is my typical self promotion of my own articles :
I like mine raw the way BF serves it up.
Petey
I agree - well done satire is good and entertaining without being crap
Dean
Thanks for the perpective
flameaway
Thanks for the feedback, you are with the majority on this one and believing in majority rule, I will say that the nays have it on my proposal.
Thanks to all for the feedback and here's to our ability to post and say what we like
Is this a great country or what.
Thanks to all for indulging and responding to my thoughts on the subject
Articles meant to mock, to incite or to spread hate and denigration come to mind.
Cleverly disguised under the cloak of satire, humor or meta - these articles do more harm than good. you really think these belong on news talkers never the less even in a private group. Protecting these articles is the same as helping spread the hatred and mockery.
I see you stopping the proposal good it seemed to be a way to condone Bully type behavior for adults that we try to prevent in school children. So much crap is on T.V. the news papers beheadings, suicides, children killing parents and themselves. Killing because ofRace or Religion or superior intellect or inferior intellect is all to prevalent.
r m e R
How so?
It is my understanding that is exactly the reason for Perries' Heated Discussion Group. As the group owner, Perrie approves all new member applications and she has established that you must be an NT member for 90 days before you're allow to join HD