META: The Semi Annual Discussion on the CoC and Enforcement Code
Good Day NewsTalkers,
It's that time again, where we review the CoC and Enforcement Code to meet the needs of our ever growing community. For those of you who have never participated in these discussions before, we review the current CoC and EF found under the tabs on the top of the every page, and take ideas from the community to make the code function better. The discussion continues until there seems to be some sort of consensus, at which point it's voted on.
Some issues to take into consideration:
Recently, there has been a trend to make discussion in the forum go meta. By that I mean, that the discussion stop being about the topic and start to be about the actual validity of the article or the author, which is totally off topic. Personally, I think that this trend ruins any good discussion. At the present, there have been two ways to handle this. The first is to remove the offending off topic comments. Down side is that people complain about "freedom of speech". While I do see their point, even our Constitution has a limitation on what is defined as "freedom of speech". There has been discussion about "Red box rules". This would accommodate those authors/seeders who want a specific rules to engage in their discussions, while letting other authors/seeders, let their article take a more free flowing discussion. I think that this would accommodate both types of authors, but those "Red box rules" would have to be spelled out very carefully, as to not prevent opposing views. After all, we are a discussion group and not an echo chamber.
Removal of comments has also come into issue. Normally when a CoC violation happens, the comment removed is a direct insult, and would never be restored. But in the instances where threads have been removed, by authors request, the idea has been floated, that there should be a place where the removed comments can be stored. The suggested idea would be in group dedicated to these comments. Obviously, the group would only be open to the moderators, since the point of removing comments is to remove insult. This groups purpose would be to serve as a warehouse, in case there is a real case for restoration of a comment. What do you think?
In regards to the Enforcement code, some think our current code is to harsh and others to lenient. Also I have seen many comments regarding banning. I realize that many of you have come from Newsvine, where banning was very common. But the roots of NT, was based on the very fact that many of the bannings at NV were unjust and over used. In the past, NT has only banned the worse offenders, meaning those who are actively trying to destroy the site. In recent talk about banning, it has always seemed to me like an us v them thing, and personally I find this unhealthy for a community. I feel that a suspension usually corrects any bad behavior. But what are your thoughts?
There have been issues about articles appearing on the forum. Our forum has a very unique function. Articles that draw interest, remain up on the board, since the forum is activity driven. If a person posts a pile of articles and they have no interest, they will quickly fall off the forum. It has been suggested that there be a limit to any one author posting articles. I feel that this is in direct conflict with our "Speak your mind" philosophy of NT. What do you think? Also please keep in mind, that when Ning (our platform provider) finally releases the new platform, there is the possibility for a forum for every topic, which will remove this problem.
Finally, I think articles that are meta in nature, do not belong on the front page. It makes us look foolish to potential new members, and I believe that we want to be taken seriously as a newsgroup. There are two places to take such issues; either the NT Community Group or Heated Discussions. Ideas?
Please feel free to throw out any other ideas here not listed above.
On a final note, please observe the CoC. No members should be personally discussed on this article. All personal comments will be removed, as per our current CoC.
Mike,
Right now, most of those comments in the Red Box are part of the CoC. So really it's more of a reminder, than anything else.
As for it being a site wide consideration, well yes and no. It is in the sense that it would be added to the code...but then again, it's already part of the code, with the exception of cursing, which is allowed in the code and the red box wouldn't allow.
RD,
There have been articles where the topic of the article isn't being discussed, but whether or not the article is worth being on the board. The article has now gone meta and that isn't good.
Wow a lot of opinions and information on this subject which appropriately seems to be important to many members.
The main things I take away from the discussion so far are
1) most people really like NT
2) nothing is really broken
3) meta articles should not be on the front page
4) we should all behave better and treat each other better
If those are valid conclusions it would seem that we don't really need significant changes to the CoC
I personally do not like different rules for different authors/articles (red box rules) but will adapt to the consensus and I will always have the option to not comment on articles that contain the dreaded red box
I learned a lot from the commentary and thank everyone for the education about NT
Petey,
Reciprocity, separate but equal
Cum together.
RW ,
I forsee a meta problem in your red rules . If people ask for clarification of them in your article then it becomes meta , right ?
This is an interesting point.
Ideas?
Here is the thing guys... if you think this if fun for me, think again. I have read every comment here and have responded to at least a third of them. Frankly, I would like simplicity, but that doesn't always work. But in Perrie's simple world, I would have no cursing, since we don't have a cursing filter (although the way NV had it, it was a joke), I would have an ignore feature(not available) and I would have civil discussion, which not everyone here digs. Everyone would know who wanted what and would behave that way for them... again not going to happen. So after I get a load of emails from different members over the same thing, I bring it to the community for their input. Now I could just do the easy thing and say, "These are the rules" and call it a day. But I mad a promise to the community when NT started that not only would everything have transparency, but that they would have a say in the rules. This makes for a ton more work for me, but hey, I am a person of my word.
Me too Robert!
I saw that a while ago Petey, which is why I said when starting the discussion about the red rules, is that they would have to have defined perimeters, i.e. Not "Be polite", but "No Cursing" and not "Off Topic" but "Only discussion on feds rates accepted as on Topic"
Valid points.
I totally agree. So now what?
Not if the mods enforce it agressively ... against the person who wrote the rules !
I'm sure your right about their attempts but that still won't protect them from their own rules :
This is the newmod, and he will enforce the rules.
There's four of them. The youngest is named, ''Even more Shit''.
LMAO, Justice, my kinda guy.
LMAO, go Bevo.
Stephi, Bullshit thinks he's human. He has an IQ of 175.
Grow up.
We are all adults. Behave like an adult. There is not much more to say than that.
Unless someone doesn't understand that. Then we can just laugh at them.
All this navel gazing ....
I have given this some thought and the red rules could be brought down to the following of which an author can pick (btw, these are up for discussion):
Add any others... as you see fit.
Do you mean that you think your 2 cents are actually worth 3 cents? Well, I guess you have to take inflation into account.
This one is just for J4T . Must argue vociferously !
Would it be practical to make a rule about "beating a dead horse"?
PJP ,
How did it get lost ? There are many responses one could make to that comment .
Oh dear god Gene, don't make this political. It's really taking this discussion to a place it should never go.
You seem to be the only person who wants this, unless people haven't stated otherwise. If there are others out there, please tell me how I should tighten up the EF.
I can appreciate your concern . May I suggest the following approach ?
Tell the commenter that you want to cover [some original topic/aspect] before they go in that other direction . It is not a complete blockage of their interest but just a delay of it ...
LOL I would love that one!
LOL thanks EG!
Brolly,
They wanted this discussion... so I have to listen.
Raven I hear ya!
"Posting a picture of Thanksgiving dinner in a conversation about the nation on the Bosporus... is indeed about "Turkey"...
If it's done in good fun, and stops right there, I doubt that anyone would complain. But when that leads to a dozen other pictures of other food and other fowl...
And anyone who has spent time on NT knows that that happens, and that it is not always innocent good fun..."
Excellent example of derailing ... Thanks .
Perrie
1 clear
2"snarky' is in the eye of the beholder and will be difficult to equitably enforce
3clear
4 "serious discussion" is also open to interpretation
5 clear
6 clear
and re: "derailing" some will see derailing as disagreeing with the author others will see it as simply discussing a tangentially related issue rather than the topic while still others will see it as the insertion of a strawman argument
If comments are deleted because of red box rules I foresee lots of emails in your inbox and lots of arguments in the forum and groups
But like I said somewhere else one can always simply skip the articles with red boxes if they so choose
Ownership is not a license to arbitrarily delete comments solely because the owner doesn't want dissenting opinions in his article. In fact, this is not so much a consideration about the rights of ownership, rather it's an issue that addresses a phenomenon that would drive members away, not just from the author, but, should there be multiple authors doing likewise, away from NT itself.
RW ,
Your definition depends heavily on another term : "off topic " . Unless you can specify PRECISELY what is "on topic" this becomes meaningless .
Are You serious? No cursing? No snark? Where the fucking hell is the fun in that?
RW ,
I'm not an expert by any means . All I'm saying is that term is often abused to stifle disagreement . But if the article writer can define it [for the particular topic] then at least there is a standard to decide by [for the Mods ] .
Bottom line : if you can define it in writing [before you post the article ] you're home free .
RW ,
Pick a topic . Define your limits . I will take it from there ... In other words it depends on the topic . There is no one size fits all ...
Robert,
Snarky is a lot like porn. You know it when you see it.
Serious discussion means that you don't want people making jokes or silliness on your thread. But once you put that in there, you must know that there will be no leniency about it.
To Robert and Mike,
Personally, no one likes their articles derailed and we all know when it's happening. The issue of using that as a way to gain total control of a discussion probably would play out as members not wanting to go to those threads. In reality, there is nothing different with having these rules as there was when as authors/seeder, we could delete any comment on NT. The only major difference is that you have to have a mod do it for you, and so another set of eyes are looking at it.
LOL Brolly!
The red box rules are not site wide, but for those who want them. You can have fun on someone else's article.
Exactly.
The dead horse button, if you will.
An author wants discussion, but may not want dissenting opinions to be part of that discussion.
I was involved for years in contract-language writing, negotiations and enforcement. Those contracts always contained provisos preventing "arbitrary and capricious behavior" on the part of employers.
I can't tell you how many times a contract dispute wound up before a neutral, third-party arbitrator based on violations of those provisos. So, it's not a stretch to think that a moderator, might at some point, have to decide whether or not a cry of "arbitrary deletion" is valid.
Moderators can not function as such in threads they author/seed or where they have commented. In blogs as in life, disputes arise and need to be settled. It is understood that one side of the dispute will like the outcome and the other will not.
That's the reality.
As I've said many times, "One man's fish is another man's poisson."
(And I know that there are a lot of people here who like to fish."
Agreed, but it's difficult to suffer fools (and you've seen my reaction now and then - and punished me for it
.)
Yes you do Stephi
But I don't mind....
There could be a blue box as well as a red box. The blue box would be for off-colour articles. Then for environmental ones, use a green box.
Sorry Perrie, but sometimes everything just gets too damn serious so a little break now and then can be refreshing. It could even provoke members to look at another posted article for a breather. As I have quoted many times American's greatest philosopher, Pogo: "Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent."
Egilman, Oh...that wasn't meant to be 'personal' -- you are one of my favorite people here - one of those that brought me here - intelligent, rational, logic over emotional value, respectful of those to which you might not agree----without all of the red-herring or straw man garbage in an attempt to shut down your exchange partner, as well as leaving the rancor in the garbage can where it belongs --- can you tell I don't like evil, tactical rhetoric and ad hominem ?!
By Oligarchy, I didn't mean any present 'action,' I meant 'principle.' Imo, anarchy means everyone has their own rules/interpretations of them. That is essentially - no rules. I like rules applied by a site owner or their Staff, but no arbitrary rule-making as we go along - a UA, a Constitution or what have you, and rules applied by an author...then everyone knows 'exactly' where they stand no matter where they are. No surprises. Just my thoughts.
No negatives being directed toward anyone, especially you.
Damn, I was just sipping my coffee and now you made me clean off my screen.
Too late, I already ejaculated my coffee.
OK, this discussion goes against my rules in the beginning of the article...which were very simple,please observe the CoC. I have to make this point Raven, and that is that it's Mike, at the end of the day, has to enforce what ever the group decides, so his opinion does count. I am going to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but it got way too personal, and the red rules would never provideshelterfor that.
Mike Kudos for your comment. I think that we are moving in the right direction as a group.
Gene and John....Holy crap! Nice to know that you boys can talk for me.
First Gene, I read RW's comment and she didn't say anything about turning the other cheek. You are talking to an inner city school teacher so if you think I managed to control a class of 32 by sparing the rod, you have another thing coming to you. I learned very quickly that you don't have to beat a child... 'cause you can't when you are a teacher, to get the class under control. I also learned how to ID a class bully, and your comments to me are trying to bully me into doing your will. Well, here is news for you, it's not going to happen. And frankly, if this is the way you treat me, after I went out of my way with your article with the poll, I will remember this. So far I haven't turned my cheek yet...
John, you don't know when to knock it off. Who are you to talk for me? I am quite capable of speaking for myself. Opinions are opinions, if they are not facts. You might not like Gene's but that is tough. I know he doesn't like yours.
Ironically, right now, clearly you are each the ying for the other ones yang and deserve each other.
Now stick that in a pipe and smoke it.
"Stop stalling Petey....let us see your PRECISE definition of off-topic. Remember,youstarted it. Let's seeyoufinish it."
Holy crap ! What a waste of time to talk to you . 100 % attitude 0 % cooperation . That huge chip must reeeeally hurt your shoulder !
"you have told me to define PRECISELY what off-topic means"
Yes , for a specific topic ; not in general . But I get it . you want to outmaneuver me ... so you win !
LOL Buzz!
BF,
First, none of this is written in stone yet. The thing about NT is that after all is said and done, I close the article and everything goes to vote. If there is something you don't like vote no.
But even if the red rules do pass, it will not be everyone who uses it. Frequent the articles that don't use it, or allows you to fool around.
So don't be a bluefish quite yet.
LOL... something like that.
Bravo Mike!
OK you two... calm down! This is just a discussion.
Don't forget anal retention for a week period.
Are we going to have porn on NT? Wonderful idea, I want the popcorn concession.
Naw Mike, we go get some names off the gravestones in Chicago, and cast as many votes as we want.
Raven,
Your not in trouble and you are allowed to express yourself on this article. I just saw the discussion heading south and wanted to stop it before it got worse. No harm no foul.
Polls go up here on the main page. The poll remains up for 1 week so that it gets most of our members...What gets passed is put into the CoC and the rest is put to bed. If nothing gets passed, the CoC stands as is. If there is a change in the CoC, the new version is posted on the main forum and time coded under the CoC tab, so that it can't be changed without the consent of the group. That's pretty much it.
Perrie, yes they are written in stone.
Randy...Exactly!
I, like Hebrew National Hotdogs answer to a higher authority!
I happen to agree with ya Larry...
And reading all that in one sitting... You must have a really good beer there!
Cramp!!!!!!
Must be Hamm's, ''From the Land of Sky Blue Waters''.
I love that scene!
LOl, from the rockies actually, "New Belgium Accumulation" ; bitter, harty, and strong.
I love it Justice.
Now you have been rectimized.
oof da, ya betcha.
I knew he had to be having a brewski if he read 47 pages of this... in fact... he's had more than one...
To get through 47 pages of this, I have to have smoked a hell of a lot of peyote.
Starting on #3 and signing off to watch last weeks (witch (he,he,) I missed) and the new one, of American Horror Story-Coven,: my guilty pleasure.
No personal comments?
When a member uses libtard, that is a direct insult. Just like repugnitards.
I enjoy a good discussion. I want to hear both sides without insults. But you use a moderator who uses those insults on his own links.
I am a Canadian and I tolerate a lot. But this site is driving me away. At least on newsvine I can ignore insults. But on Newstalkers one of the mediators is insulting others on his posts.
Clean up your act or I am gone.
Kim,
That individual is no longer a mod. And we have never allowed anyone to make personal attacks, which is a lot more than my personal experience that I had at NV. Why do you think NT was started in the first place?
You tell me. As a Canadian I try to accept everyone. And I mean everyone.
I'll go back to the homepage and I'll tell you if that person is still a moderator.
Yes he is.
We only had one member who ever used those terms and they are not a mod anymore. So you must be confusing them with someone else.
Ya smoke it?!?!?! Damn..... Knew I was doin' somethin' wrong
LOL, I don't think I want to know what you been doing with it Broliver.
Oh oh. Krish and I do like to wedge a little humour or wit into articles where the comments have become much too serious. Do we really have to ease up on it? Sometimes it's the only time we get to clean our screens, wiping off the spray.
LOL, Buzz
Kim
If , in fact there were such statements written on the site all you need to do is find them and copy their links .Then you can send them by email to Perrie or A Mac . Frankly I have my doubts about your memory .
After doing a site search I uncovered something in heated discussions from a more than a year ago . If that is what you're referring to it is not to be taken as characteristic of the rest of the site . But if you choose to use that heated exchange zone as your measure of the rest of NT then you should definitely leave ...
You should have known better than to use it as a suppository.
This is a META comment - a metamucil one.
We Canadians have great memories. It must be that the weather preserves them by freezing them.
I love that scene!
Damn. Can't open it. Is it the one where Mel Brooks drops the third tablet in History of the World, Part 2 ?
I can handle and dish out "snarky" within the context of a heated argument. But I suppose there are so many people here who are emotionally disfunctional to a point where anything hurts their itty bitty widdle feewings they may kwy, that it might be needed.
I have terms for people like that, but whatever....I will go along with the consensus.
We're fortunate to have a psychoanalyst among our members.
Good attempt at being snarky but I give it an "F" . My remark was a sociological one and has nothing to do with psychoanalysis . To get a good zinger out, you must know your terminology a lot better.
Where does "snarky" end and "satire" begin?
Sorry, English is my third language. But in any event it so happens you're wrong. Emotional disfunction is a psychological or psychiatric circumstance - a mood disorder at the very least. Your attempt to analyze the membership of NT borders on being insulting.
Thanks for the compliment, though, that I at least made a good attempt, although you're not exactly qualified to render a score.
I know who Perrie is referring to, and this is the first moment I have noticed that they are no longer a mod. That makes me happy, since mods should be setting a better example than to be constantly calling liberal members "whores".
Buzz,
Simply put..as usual, you have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about. You might want to stick to the kiddie or Disney forums.
Now, now, now, folks. This is heading down a muddy road
How many times have you posted seeds about income inequality?
It is interesting to watch some people sink to the lowest common denominator of behavior and incivility as they criticize and chastise others for the very same actions.
It is hilarious and more fun than watching paint dry (well almost)
a) I not familiar with a "libtard" but I do occasionally wear a "leotard". As I get older however, it's more difficult to stay in shape to wear one that doesn't look odd.
b) As for whores, been there, done that.
You don't want to there. Mine is three dimensional.
What comment?
Bruce, As I have already pointed out -- Imo, you [universal 'you'] can't have practical red box rules without having the ability to delete; simply, no one else can fully 'interpret' what someone else finds offensive. ..Not even an epithet.
Sure, there are going to be those commenters that felt they were treated unjustly -- so be it. Don't go there in the future. ..The Devil is in the details. If the problem is an unjust author/mod, it will become apparent, and he/she will lose customers; if the problem is personal bias/dislike - we'll never know, but they will treat you badly or ignore you anyway -- so why does it matter that you comment in their discussion? And, if they are that insular-minded to begin with, then that's who the bulk of their following is -- so, 'none' of them respect a dissenting view. Why waste their time [and yours] putting a damper on their self-righteousness and high-fiving?
Robert, I never took that statement literally when I've read others to say it; they might have meant it literally as an insult, but it 'could be' taken another way...as in -don't mess with me.
My point is that what is 'offensive' is in the eye of the beholder. Almost anything could be interpreted as offensive, if we wanted it to be.
Robert,
I hear ya!
PJ,
The history on NV and NT indicates it's the "civil" members who are driven off.
A Mac
A very true statement
Aeon,
These would only be for folks who want it in their red box and not NT wide. Not everyone digs snark... and in fact, often after one snarky remark, the discussion becomes a fight. So keep that in mind.
Snark without inflection can be perceived as a provocation.
And there is a big difference between snark and sarcasm.
I always thought "Fuck You" was a term of endearment. Learn something new everyday.
LOL! You mean one could say any of those three in a polite tone??
Can you imagine the Queen of England, politely and mannerly having High Tea with her associates, and then saying, "Oh, may I pour you more tea, as well? And, when we're done here, would you please go f**k yourself?"
You have a low threshold of entertainment.
Aeon ,
That is an excellent question .
Amen!
LMAO!
Man... you need some new family members. Give yourself out for adoption!
And many, many more who didn't.
Kim seems to remember minor slights with great detail ...
Robert, You are right; I was making a 'larger' point re the use of words can be interpreted differently by different people.
I understood you were messing with Mike -- now that I have read more of you, I see the humor/sarcasm in many of your comments. Sometimes, we need to be familiar with one's style to know if they are serious or using a form of humor. I've seen some on NV in the past get chastised by an author, simply because the author couldn't tell they were joking. Humor is a dangerous sport!
Personally, anyone that might ever say any of those three to me (that as far as know, haven't yet), I would take it to mean an insult.
Bruce,
I waited a while to answer this post since I wanted to get a feel for the groups opinion on this and I have. Now I will go over the post. Also this is the only post today that actually brings up some real issues that should be addressed. Thank you!
The problem with NV wasn't the CoH, but how it was enforced and on who it was enforced. Any code of conduct when applied unevenly through the community will ultimately ruin the community.
The "red box" in your case had nothing to do with being a mod. The CoC is very clear on this. No one in a discussion can moderate. It creates a conflict of interest. But as I read the comments on the red box idea, I realize that this has to be an absolute. That means, that once posted, the author can call any comment they like a foul. It can't be left up to the interpretation of the mods. Now before anyone flips out, remember most of us came from NV where the authors could delete any post, and you could wait till hell froze over before you got a restoration of a comment. So, here is the way I see it playing out., Those authors who abuse the red box, will get no traffic on their articles and hence they will fall off the board. This should give all authors pause to think whether or not you think that the red box is a bad idea. Ultimately, the author pays the price.
We are cracking down onhijacking, the baiting,and the skirting of the CoC.... which brings me to this, your little test. Yes, while it is true that was the rules, the whole purpose of updating the CoC is to keep up with an ever changing community. So maybe the standard need to be reviewed on which one of those F offs, if not all, are CoC violations.... which leads to this:
Agreed. I think I will be arranging another phoneconference with the mods to draw it up. This will not be part of the CoC, since it only applies to the mods, but will be available for all to read under the CoC tab, to keep up our promise of true transparency.
That would be nice, but it's hard since most of the time, I do the bulk of the moderation and I am not notified of violations.
You could have said it, when you were a moderator, too.
I remember that... and it was truly an unusual case. BTW how is Max. I really do miss him and Feronia.
Please note: This article will be closed to comments as of 8pm tonight. I will review all comments and I'll send out an email blast when to vote on the issues discussed within this article.
But I can't tell Aeon anything with the word "fuck" in it ? That's gender discrimination !
You really have no sense of humor at all ... wow !
If you want a civil discussion without the back and forth name calling just post in the unmoderated heated discussion group.
LOL, BF!
Ha! Good one Dean!
Etienne, it has been nice to have you here!
I accept your expertise on this matter ...
Aeon ,
Do you find it "adorable" when someone tries to defend your honor ?
Love the idea EG and it ties in well with Larry's idea of having a place to archive removed remarks. I think we'll go for that...
I'd like to hear back from the other mods.
A P
I guess this response to your comment proves your point
Hummm, interesting FS. Funny how everyone reads those three differently.
I'm in; it will help in many regards to have a place to review, discuss, and archive moderation. In any endeavor, keeping track is essential to success!
:~)
Bad Mike, Bad!
Lar,
Let's have a beer to that!
I could have been the test case here. I was baited by another and told him to "Go fuck yourself". On Newsvine that expression was considered giving advice or directions, and would not be considered an attack, but here the comment was deleted.
I'm working tonight, but hold that thought for 24 hours!
:~)
Yaaayyyyyyyyy! It's almost closing time
Correct, because it's not ad hominem. You can say [or used to be able to] anything as long as it is not a personal cut to intelligence, character or personal ridicule, degradation of some kind.
e.g.... "That's a sh*tty thing you said." ..is Ok, but "You're a piece of sh*t," is not.
I don't think using the Fword to tell people where to go or what to do should be a CoC; I think it helps us to judge the type of people we want to exchange with or be around; it's part of learning about people, and imo, is also about Free Speech.
Hermaphrodite members take "Go F Yourself" as an invitation to make it with someone they love.
Closing Time - as sung by my favourite musician, poet, songwriter - Leonard Cohen
Interesting point, AMac.
You also make the point that I like to make....no one else knows what is or isn't offensive to someone else. I don't ever think censorship is ethical. If we don't like the fact that talking like a sailor is someone's style...then don't go there.
I think it would be wonderful! We need a place where we can get feed back from each other. Everyone's moderating style is so different. It would help a lot.
Which is the very reason to suspend those who drive the "civil" members off - as warnings, followed by a ban when the warnings are ignored.