META MADNESS: Heated Discussions, Reward System, Incident Reporting & The Moderators
Heated Discussions , the Roman Colosseum and Thunderdome tied up into one neat group for those of you who don't want to abide by the CoC and don't want moderation. It's my group and in the past is has been not used properly. It's been used to slam fellow members (not the intented use and to be discussed in a bit), or articles go unnoticed since people forget to check the group. In any case...the group was never used to it's full potential until Jerry Verlinger .
If I may, let me point you to Jerry's article:
Can You Say Why America Is The Greatest Country in The World?
So let me show you what Jerry did. He wanted to provide two levels of discussion. One, polite and within the CoC and the other, for those of you who like to draw blood in your discussions, so he did this. He accomplished this by including within the body of the seed this:
Perries group Heated Discussions may be the best place to have this conversation.
Please note that he set up a second discussion in "Heated Discussions" and included a direct link to that discussion. Now everyone can get there directly with a single click or chose to stay in the more civilized discussion. Brilliant, I say!
I said I would offer him a leaf.... errrr....gold star which brings me to a second idea. Since I see that we have such cleaver members maybe we would like some sort of reward system that we had somewhere else? We can provide for such a system. I have a badge program, which can be used as rewards. If you like that idea of rewards what would be the criteria for the award ( i.e. congeniality, bestoriginalarticle, most commented article, etc)? And what should the emblem(s) on the badge look like?
So back to the policy change for "Heated Discussions". It has been discussed that we should no longer allow articles that slam members. That it is only destructive to group morale. I would like to put this to a vote to the group. There will be a pollaccompanyingthis article. If it is decided that this will be the policy going forth, then it will be added to the CoC.
Next topic: Incident reports. This week several arguments broke out of which I and the other mods were unaware of until other members, who were not involved, finally got a mods. By that time, a lot of damage had been done. NT has both an email system andprivateIM. I have been relying on members to contacting me or any other mod by either using one of these two methods. This doesn't seem to be happening in a timely manner. Please, when an a CoC violation happening, please contact any mod and give the link to the comment. The link is the little blue chain on every comment. If you right click on it you can copy the link and then paste it into either an email or private IM.
Next, this week there seemed to be multiple times where the role of moderator/member seemed to be a point ofconfusion. All moderators, including me, are just members. They don't have any specialprivileges,deserve any special respect or rank higher than any other member when they are participating in an article. In fact, any member can ask to be a moderator and please tell me if you think you are up to the job. I wanted toclarifythis, since I had read several comment eluding to that the mods were pulling rank. They don't and they can't.
A final FYI about "Members Online". "Members Online" is NOT the total number of members logged into NT. It is the members who are available for chat. We have many members who do not wish to use the chat function and therefore don't show up there. I personally think that this is a mistake, since it makes it harder for me to get hold of them, but it is their personal choice. If you want to know if a member is logged in, just go to their homepage and see if there is a green dot on their profile. If there is, they are logged in.
OK comments are now open!
Tags
Who is online
237 visitors
and...
I second that.
I see what you're sayin' flameaway...
Ah but did you vote?
Generally speaking, painted pictures achieve clearer communication...
Oh, I did love Mac's writing challenges. That he did with Sara. So we would have to ask him about that.
Gee... that sounds good, too! Keep them coming!
Of course!
Yup, I guess I'm naive. never woulda guessed that it takes so much detail toaccommodateso much simplicity. Then again, blogging ain't what I thought it would be either. There's more to it than meets the eye.
But Mike... it was your idea!
You were supposed to go first.
Could be...
[Perrie pushes Mike into the pool] Oh, sorry Mike... here's a towel. [Throws towel into the pool]
Opps.
I think the question should have been "Should slam articles be allowed in Heated Discussion" instead of "Should slam articles be NOT allowed in "Heated Discussions". A little slow tonight. I wonder if I say "yes" what does that mean?
Is this like a "Gun Free Zone" or something. May as well get rid of it all together if you don't allow heated arguments. I don't ever think a person should slam anyone with name calling or that sort of thing.
I still think a heated argument can be "heated" without the name calling. Some of us have very strong feelings about things these days, but calling others names is one thing I don't really care for. I've been called enough for just saying "Hello" before.
I think we should keep the fighting room, but if you can't get heated and say thinks others don't like then you lose your freedom of speech and it will remind me too much of the place I just left and I may as well leave now and not waste any more time if I'm not allowed offend someone by my beliefs on a subject.
I didn't vote because I couldn't make heads or tails of the two negatives. But I will say I believe we should keep it and put in the COC that you can't call others derogatory names even in the "Heated Discussions".
I can see he influx of I miss my "ignore" button has gained a substantial number and soon NT will just be another NV where there will be a majority of people easily offended by just about anything and will go to the principal to have you removed. So.......I was glad to arrive here, but thinking about moving on before it gets to be too much what we had before. Then everyone can sit around in there little circle.....well. We've had the best here, but the worst is still unaware but will arrive in time.
By the way...I have't participated much as I have been busy and not aware of the articles mentioned. I might have called the principal as well. Who knows?
Oh crap flame... should have done the poll before the doobie... or is it that I shouldn't have done the poll before the doobie. Dang. Well, the big NOT is so cool. Did you ever notice the word NOT has three letters and if you spell it backwards it's ton. Heavy. Hey Mike... Don't bogart the J [snatches doobie and pushes Mike back into the pool]
Hells Mike, pass that over yonder here man...puff, puff, pass...
Whateva!
I'm taking it to the "Hotter than Hell Heated Discussion Group".
;^)
Flame,
I am intrigued! Please explain some more. I should note that I will be resuming this in the morn.. but you might be on to something here.
It could happen!
I guess I should explain what I mean by slam articles. In Heated Discussions the assumption is that you will be called names. That is a given. But article that are specifically directed to a particular member to rank on them is the issue. Other than that.. if your in there, anything goes and I and the other mods don't want to hear about it. Mike will do most of the name calling anyway, so he can't complain.
OMG.. OK.. I will change that vote... I will remove the word NOT, not that I care or what.
Oh an no ignore button. Well established. Can't be done on this platform.... has been asked and answered already.
Not a bad idea. Like a referendum of sorts.
There you go Larry. Here's a wire clip.. at least your fingers won't burn!
I cast my vote for this and hope I'm not the first one off the island.
Besides "slam articles", maybe reference should also be made to "slam comments". Only once did I ever make such a comment, which I regret now. I really laid into someone and I think it could only bring disrespect upon myself, so it was a bad mistake.
If someone is fortunate enough to draw a great number of comments to an article they posted, I don't think that in itself is deserving of an award. As well, I don't agree with the high school football hero type of popularity contest. I would leave it up to a committee made up of yourself (whom I love as being one of the nicest people I know), A.Mac (for whom I have overwhelming respect) and another, perhaps Krishna (whose broad-minded knowledge and wicked sense of humour I have always enjoyed) to determine who the recipients of awards should be. Perhaps the number of and quality of self-written articles (i.e. creativity) should be a factor. I think of a person like Kavika as deserving such an award.
SPEAK YOUR MIND, AND MIND YOUR SPEECH
I don't really know how to vote. I'm personally to tired of being attacked when someone could actually just give an opinion; however, I'm not sure to say yes or no. I think NO slams but you might say Yes No slams?
Does that make since. (^_^)
I really, really, reallyneed to come here more often. Then maybe I'd know what this is all about.
I also probably should drop in on "heated discussions" to see if the heat is focused on ideas or people. "Jane, you're a slut" doesn't do much for me, but "Jane, the argument that gun control prevents violent crime is so full of holes it makes your underwear look like Kevlar" has a certain appeal.
I voted that slam-articles SHOULD be allowed in "Heated Discussions." There should probably also be a warning: "Enter at your own risk." And it should be clearly stated that the group is NOT for the faint-of-heart. In fact, I would require a two-step procedure for joining the group. First, a tentative acceptance, followed by a final step: the signing of a statement that says clearly, "I understand that in this group anything goes and I will not get all uppity if I do not like what someone else says; I am aware I also have the right to be as nasty as I want and freely concede that same right to others." Once the cyber-signature is placed on that step, then let 'em in and let 'er rip.
I like the idea of "R.A.T." award ("Random Act of Talkers") or perhaps it could be called a "R.A.N.T" award: Random Act of NewsTalkers... And there should be more than one category, including one for helpfulness or kindness.
I doubt that I'll ever be in a position to make an incident report as I do tend to steer clear of hot-button topics. I'm getting too old to let myself be sucked into a discussion that goes nowhere and ends up leaving those involved with hurt feelings or unassuaged anger. There's enough crap going on in the "real world" that I don't need it on my favorite "social site." And this IS my favorite social site, make no mistake about that.
With that, I'll just say that Perrie and A. Mac should be first in line for the new badges. I just gotta love the two of them for everything they have done and are doing!
I must say I like the "Courthouse" suggestion! Maybe an panel of jurors could be conscripted (from a pool of those who volunteer to be jurors when needed), and a time-frame set for arguments, followed by a time-frame for jurors to weigh in. A majority-vote of jurors would be the verdict (not unanimous - this ain't a trial for a capital offense). I'm sure if enough heads got together that the details could be worked out and this idea might actually fly.
Looks like we are at a 50/50 stand still.
So I guess if you don't want to be called an ugly name maybe you best stay out of those conversations. 
There's too much serious talk here about how to resolve differences of opinions. Realistically, conservatives and liberals or Christians and atheists can go on debating eternally without either side ever conceding to the other. It's part of who you are, and it's not likely that it will change because of some argument being framed by a random internet voice.
In light of that, I have a more interesting idea .... in my opinion, anyways. How about a Roasting Room? Once two parties have firmly established the depth of their differences, they can enter the Roasting Room and poke fun at the other, by setting up their opponent's ideology in a humorous format. The only rule is that you aren't allowed to be offended.
Well, Perrie, you got a tough poll there. Personally, I don't like slam articles. But there are a few people I WOULD slam if I felt the need to. And a couple I'd LOVE to slam, but I am too polite to do so. Last, but not least, I don't approve of rules that limit what a person can do/say that causes no PHYSICAL harm (even though I hate it when a person upsets one of my gentler friends). Last, but not least, while grammatically accurate, your poll is possibly confusing to others. A "Yes" vote means ban slam articles, a "No" vote means allow them. I vote "Both"
Dead heat so far.
Speaking only for myself it is never on a personal level, as the fellow once said: "It's not personal, it's business". Though I may slip from time to time.
Where did that line come from, Luther? It seems like one I may have heard in one of The Godfather movies.
I agree, Bruce. You have pissed off me a time or two. But now that I really know you, I take your ravings with a grain of sugar to make them palatable.
I will focus my comment strictly on "Heated Discussions"... Personally I have no use for the group. I avoided even looking at it until I read this piece. Upon perusing it, my suspicions were quickly confirmed. The first comment on the first article I opened began with calling fellow humans "shitbags" and thenplunged into pointing out how a certain segment of society "hated" a broad range of things. I have little use for this type of debate.
My skin is far from thin but this type of discussion adds little value to the advancement of our culture. On the contrary, it leads nowhere but to the bottom... Quite infantile in my opinion.
Should it be removed? NO! Ya'll have a great time. I choose to concentrate on the civil, meaningful debate that can be found elsewhere.
Mike,
We had a "Court House" for the first 6 months of this group. It turned into a nightmare. First the "Accused" felt more like he/she was attending their own execution and because of that, they wouldn't show up. And if they did show up, (we did this in the chat room) they felt like the whole group turned on them, and they left. Neither gave adesirableresult. So when the mods do their thing, we just look at the comments and evaluate them on their own merit. If a mod isn't sure, then we evaluate as a team.
If there is a situation where you have developed a pest, that is bugging you, this is the exact time to get hold of a mod. That isharassment, and against the CoC. Once notified, we can deal with the situation better as a team. So notification works. It also takes the personal vendetta out of the equation.
This is a harder subject to deal with. Private groups belong to the people who own those groups. They can have additional rules, but they can't have rules thatsupersedethe CoC.
We never had groups until we came to Ning (the platform we are using), and for the most part, we let them self regulate. But if we have a dictator in one of those groups we have 2 choices, as I see it. They can dictate until their membership wants to leave, or we could write something into the CoC dealing with this issue.
Great, Bitey-- it makes sense! And I agree about the first awards for community building for Perrie and A. Mac!
Bitey,
Read my comment to Mike.
LMAO!
Flame,
Let me get this straight, the emoticon is supposed to be a vote or a way of defusing thesituation? I am not sure about your ranking system. When I thought of a reward system, I was thinking like a reward for most comments, or best article.. nothing that would be like a 5th leaf... wait.. who said that?
I gotta agree with Bruce. When we mod, we do it not based on popularity, but on content, and by content I mean if a comment is a CoC violation, and nothing more. Otherwise, this site will begin to look like "Survivor". I really am not a fan of voting people off the Island.
I'd recommend A stronger tipple- try a ghost chili sauce! And I don't rave, I rant! Get it right, dude!
Well, I kind of wish an individuals name was not brought into this discussion. When you have 2 groups of people who gather together and they are not used to one another, this is bound to happen. Also this site give us so many ways to express ourselves, both with words and with visuals. Some make use of it well and sometimes quite colorfully. I don't see that as a big issue. As you said flame, You have many choices, read on, avoid, accept. The forum is a big place with many articles going on as are the groups and chat. There are so many ways to engage here.
As for the voting of comments, we didn't want that here. What tends to happen is friends will vote for friends comments and then you get cliques of people. This usually isn't good. So what you can do is vote up and article, and if you like a comment you can give it a thumbs up with an emoticon. Lord knows we have like 3 dozen of them to offer a wide range of opinions.
I have to agree with Egilman. The voting up thing or stars or what ever lead to a very uncomfortable situation at some other place. One of the things that we all aimed for on NT is that we didn't have a political slant. We have all POV's here and I think that is healthy for discussion. Otherwise we might all just find sight that agree with our POV and enjoy an echo chamber. You would get about 10 posts agreeing with you... and then the subject would be closed. Where is the game in that?
I have to admit that your argument is reasonable. There are serious pitfalls with the "Court" approach. Perhaps it could be attached to the "Heated Discussion" Group... and only issues that develop there can be addressed in "Court." I would also not use the chat feature. I hate Chat myself... I'm just not into being pinned down in real time to anything. Same thing with a telephone. But a Court Group with articles ("cases") addressing specific complaints and adjudicated via comments with a moderator as a referee might (possibly) work. If not, I daresay it would be fun... because it would only be allowed as a part of the Heated Discussion venue.
Most of the time, for me anyway, it's not so much WHAT is being said, but HOW it is being said. I may agree or disagree, but all the temper, ranting, foul language, hateful picking, and just plain meanness is, to me, out of line with the community as a whole. If you want to write a nasty article, designed to give you plenty of discussion for rebuttal, slamming, or just plain nastiness, feel free-- but take it to HD where anything goes.
We've lost some/a few of our really good members, gentle souls all, who are turned off by the vitriolic tirades of a few. Why couldn't Heated Discussions be the place for those kind of articles? That would allow everyone the right to publish whatever they wish, yet put it in a place where we can see it only if we go there.
I'm thinking PR-wise, too. You don't air your dirty laundry on the front page. If you want to view said dirty laundry, visit Heated Discussions-- they're right there. I know that the site that can't be named often had some really ugly titles on the front page. But, that is what makes this site better-- and we're NOT the site that can't be named.
And one other thing-- moderators may be just like everyone else, but they DO have the power to use the purple font and behave as moderators. They may not be above the law-- but the fact that they are moderators does make them seem a bit more powerful than most of us Normal Folks. And too, we all have to remember that on the site that shall not be named, the moderators there have the power of God and can boot the members from the site. That can be a bit intimidating to those who see a moderator off on a tangent. To me, I feel that moderators have a responsibility to the community here-- to build the community and not tear it down.
To me, if you want the freedom to do what you will-- then don't be a moderator. Publish articles designed to stir up trouble in the Heated Discussions group. Publish articles that foster civil discussion on the front page.
With freedom comes responsibility-- We all have a responsibility to each other. We don't have to agree, but we do have to maintain some sort of civility-- unless you're in the Heated Discussion group, where anything goes.
This is just my opinion. That and about $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
I Kind of like your idea Buzz. Kind of a good citizen reward. Still, on a matter like that, I think it would go to the mods to decide, since it is the mods who deal the most with the members. When I said a reward system, I was thinking about something that could be more quantified and less personal, like article of the month, with the most comments, or votes up, or one most interesting, where the whole group could vote. Picking teams of people to decide, would only lead to others calling foul, because no one is universally liked....
Debora,
In the main forum, no one issupposedto be called names. That isestablishedin the CoC. The issue arises when someone does, and it's not reported and it degenerates from there.
That is why we have "Heated Discussions"... if you like to play rough, that is the place to go.
But I love your use of the emoticons.
Very good Buzz, 1st try. You win the prize of the day, Perrie tell Buzz and friend what they've won.
Nope, Mike Buzz got it. you will be envious when you find out what they won.
Jim I could hug you.. and why don't you drop on by more often?
You hit the nail on the head,
Heated Discussions should be"Jane, the argument that gun control prevents violent crime is so full of holes it makes your underwear look like Kevlar"
Not
(title of article)"Jane, you're a slut"
That is a slam article.
Heated Discussions should be about a topic and not about a person, even if you get called a name or two in the discussion... hey that's why it's heated.
Pretty much. We try not to be heavy handed in our moderation, since it has been the overwhelming opinion, that no one really enjoyed it elsewhere.
Bitey,
I always took thought that just by joining 'Heated Discussions" you kind of understood anything goes... but how far is anything? Are personal articles maybe pushing it too far? I never liked that about some other place's meta articles and maybeI'm projecting here, based on that and when I have seen the harm that has come from it's use in the past.
I love the idea of the RAT or the RANT. We would have to work on thecriteriafor that.
And thanks for the compliment. But both Mac and I know that we also couldn't do this without our other mods, who are a great team. BTW, we would like to add a new member onto the team.
Summer did thatarticlealready, LMAO!
I kind of like that... as long as it was all as a joke.
Scott Butki did a bunch, too-- they were fun!
Sorry, I was drunk when I wrote it. A yes means no slam articles.
Very little does actual Physical harm on the internet. Threats are deemed as forbidden though. And I don't think that you are alone in that there is always someone who gets under our skins, but that is life. I guess, the best thing is not to play with them.
luther..
I try to never make it personal either... everyone slips from time to time. We're only human, oo oo oo. (Maybe the video is needed?)
Bruce is right!
I'm not sure about that.. could it be both movies? Buzz and Bruce I think are right.
Gotta research that..
Yes Robert, my bad!
I never thought about it as High Def though.. I guess in a way it is, LOL!
By "anything goes," I think anything should be allowed short of personal threats of bodily (or any other kind of) harm. Some people just cannot argue without name-calling. Fine. Let them argue their way, but only on a forum that specifically allows it. This does not mean that I would ever attend such a forum; it isn't my style. But I understand that it IS the style of some others, and as long as they can find someone willing to sling and be slung upon, who are we to tell them otherwise? Frankly, even for those who seem to like that mode of discussion, maybe if they dig their holes deeply enough, they will soon find that no one responds. In that case, maybe they will then be motivated to learn a more polite form of discussion. Or not. It should be up to individuals as to how they will present a discussion and/or respond to it. The "Heated Discussion" group is ideal for this - people like me will avoid it like the plague, but others will gather there and sling mud to their hearts' content.
It's kinda like sky diving. You couldn't pay me to do it, but I have no problem with others doing it if that's what floats their boats.
As for criteria for the badges/awards... perhaps a special public group could be established with nominations first for judges (those who will decide on the winner of a given award), and a place for NewsTalkers to post nominations for an award. The judges would whittle the nominees down to a certain few, and the ultimate voting would be done by members taking part in a poll. Perhaps one or two awards per month... ? Or even per quarter. A civil group I belong to where I live chooses firefighters and police officers for "Officer of the Quarter" awards. It's a very popular custom, and not overdone. Again, might I suggest that a special group be started strictly for this purpose?
Clearly, I am not winning that one with you!
Flame: I think you hit the nail on the head with that! Excellent concept! I find myself wishing it could be implemented!
There are several options for how the forum functions. When this one was chosen, when we first came to Ning, the idea was that the articles would speak for themselves. If there was an interest, the article would stay on the board,,, if not then it would fall off. The only down side to that, is if we have avid seeders. We are using "Latest Activity" Here are the other options...
This is as large as I can make the forum. By the summer it is my understanding from Ning, that there will bemultipleforums. I have seen them in Nings test group and I actually like them. It could provide a forums for what people want... like one for news and politics and one for lighter stuff, and one for the arts.. you get the idea. But that is down the pike a bit and I will try not to have another meta article until the new Ning platform goes live.
Humm.. an interesting point.. and why we do these articles (though meta is tiresome sometimes). It does allow for blowing off of steam. Kind of the ying to the yang of heated discussions.
Don't worry Robert, it seems that by the vote, it's close but more side with Bruce. I am just hoping that my wording isn't confusing people.
Not so, friendo. We have suspended people for a couple of days and we have banned 2. We just try to keep the moderation down to a min. so that people are not afraid to speak their mind, just like you just did. In some other place.. this comment might not float with TPTB.
That is because people don't report, not because the mods won't do it. Which was the very reason for the article. [smacking head against the wall] If you see something, say something. Don't expect the mods to troll the articles looking for CoC infractions. It ain't gonna happen. It didn't happen in the other place either. They just made it easy to report since there was a button next to each comment, but they didn't have chat. With chat and email, it's not so hard to get a mod.
LOL, well I happen to agree VJ despite the fact that it is my group.
It's now orange, since we changed the color format. Oppps.
I like that idea Badfish, LOL!
Hey all - I've been offline for a while, but what constitutes a "slam article"? Is there a distinction between senselessly attacking a member vs. writing about a common theme or agenda that the member promotes - or responding directly via an article to someone based onwhat they wrote?
Regardless, I'm a simple guy. Can we just write? The more layers, the more rules, the more conditions we put in place the more this site becomes about managing opinions vs. expressing them. As my continuing theme (from the previous META article I engaged in), I don't understand why someone is interested in spending their timetelling others what they can and can't say. Engage or ignore. If someone is threatening or spreading lies about you, then address it. Otherwise, move on - nothing to see here.
There is beauty in simplicity and sometimes it takes character to leave things alone and let others judge it. And I don't need shiny gold stars to validate my comments. Is that really something that people yearn for? If I need "likes" I'll post my comments on FB.
It's not such a biggie Flame. It's just that I try to keep these article about a topic, not a person, which in essence is what I was saying about "Heated Discussions".
John,
True.
I was right:
Michael Corleone: [to Sonny] "Its not personal, Sonny. Its strictly business." The Godfather (1972)
He (Al Pacino) was preparing to go to kill the cop who beat him up (Captain McCluskey, played by Sterling Hayden) and the man who had ordered his father, Don Vito Corleone, to be killed.
Really nice idea Suz. I like it. I really enjoyoriginalwork and this would provide for that.
It is true that we don't quite operate like some other site.. we are more lenient, but a CoC violation is always handled, when brought to our attention. The problem is that it isn't brought to our attention as much as I would like.
We do try to correct behavior rather than just suspend. And as a person who had their fair share of suspensions in another place, I would think that you would agree with that policy. We have had suspensions, including a mod, so we do take serious offenses seriously, John.
Everyone is shocked when they arereprimanded. It is human nature. And being one of several people who have to do it, it is never fun for us to do. In fact, it is our least favorite duty... but that is what the job entails. Bottom line though, is if you are that naughty, we will do what we have to do.
I think people are leaning in leaving "Heated Discussions" the way it is. Well, see at the end of this article.
John,
One doesn't preclude the other. They both have their place.
I of a think the idea of a cage match is not a bad idea, if properly informed that is the venue format.
I personally think that resorting to attacks that are not germane to the argument is a weak position, but sometimes an emotional response can provide an exclamation point, or an insight to the the thought processes involved. To entirely ban it would be a mistake. There is perhaps a line which should not be crossed, I can't properly define it, but most will agree that it exists.
I would have to say the difference would be whether there was a contribution to the thought process, or just an attack for attacks sake. There is the chalk line.
Hi Otto,
Yes, a slam article is about a person and not a topic. It's usually a result of something that happened in the main forum and then goes to "Heat Discussions".
Funny juxtapositionyou and John's comments have. My inclination is to just write and keep it simple. That is why we shrank our CoC from 10 to 8 rules. Made it nice and clean.
I couldn't have said it better!
I think you are confusing those two issues. In my attempt not to have to run more meta articles (they wear me out) I put a pile of items in one article. The reward system I wasrecommendingwas not for comments but for fun and recognition. As I said earlier, votes up on a comment tends to lead to cliques, and that is never good.
If ya did, you would stop calling me the boss, LOL! There is the reason I am called the RA. It's because all I do isfacilitatewhat the group wants.
Oh, I forgot. It's been such a long time.
Actually, that could be interesting Bitey. Humm.. would love some more feedback on that idea!
And yeah, I never know when you are on... I have to look at your homepage to figure that out.
Well, I tried the "HeatedDiscussion" ticker on the front page, but it last 1 whole day before a personal slam article came out. Then I took it down as I felt it was a bad reflection of the group, if we would like members from else where on the internet, much less from the other place. It still amazes me that everyone could find deadly meta articles on the other place, but can't seem to find "Heated Discussions". IDK why.
Yes we have, and it's been upsetting to me, as the RA. But there is a ying to the yang of this. While yes, I would prefer them on 'Heated Discussions" and I could put up a ticker if it would help, there is the counter point. That we can all chose to either look at those articles or not. Now I am aware that there are times when the whole board looks like that... but we also have groups and chat... and in the future I we are supposed to be getting multiple forums, which will do away with any of these problems.
Well, yeah that to... but that only really applies to those very few way over the top articles. Otherwise our board is pretty much like the other place.
That is PTVS. The mods are just like everyone else. I got spanked by Peter just the other day. Anyone can be a mod here... just step right up and tell me!
For sure!
I kind of agree with you here. If you want to be a mod, you have to try to be a model of a good member. This is a toughy, since it's hard work being a mod, so when they put on their member hats... should they not be just members? I am not sure.
Ah, maybe I was fixating on the whole 'green star' thing people were talking about.
I check my email a lot throughout the day... but I am never in one place very long, unless I'm watching TV, and if it's a "Castle Day" you couldn't pry me away from the TV for anything more urgent than a pit stop! But if I get an email and it suggests in the subject line that it may be important, I'll answer ASAP.
Perrie: if you email me and request it, I can send you my other email address where I can be reached even if I'm on the sofa watching TV.
Since we do have broadband, our computers are always online, day and night and any other time that can be squeezed in... so, not very much slips by me unnoticed.
Now that is interesting Flame. I am trying to think if there is a way of doing that given my limitations.
Don't make it permanent, let it wear off over time. Otherwise, it becomes like the RAV and the people who have one think they're "somebody".
I'd like to see up and down votes, showing counts on each, that really have no bearing on anything.
You get belated reports because the Report an Issue button is way down at the bottom of the page. It should be at the bottom of every article, and on every comment.
Put in an override. Maybe even an activity block until they respond. Who's the Boss here?
I hereby volunteer to be a life-time appointee as Supreme Court justice on the APPELLATE level of the Courthouse. I volunteer to be a panel of one.
Ahhh... but would you be a mod and work with a team?
You're right, there aren't that many over the top articles-- but what few there are could be taken to the Heated Discussion group for the kind of free-for-all desired. I don't know why people continue to publish the free-for-all, designed to be nasty articles to the front page, rather than the HD group. Maybe some people enjoy pushing the edge of the envelope as to what will be tolerated?
Multiple forums will be great! It could be the answer to all of our problems!
PTVS-- post traumatic vine syndrome? LOL! I agree with you there, but it does offer us a unique opportunity in making sure that people understand, right off the bat, what the job of the moderators entails. How? More education? When you sign on, you have to read a brief blurb about how moderators are not Gods?
It is hard to reach people that are shell-shocked to begin with. And then you have people that are naturally more timid, and the whole depth of the site can be confusing for newcomers-- There is so much to use here! So despite you telling everyone to read things, many people don't know...
The problem is that we don't know why some people leave. Some email me and tell me, and I do what I can do, some just vanish. In some cases, perhaps they get mad and just want to take their marbles and go home. Some may just not find the site to their liking-- it's too complicated for them, or there are just too many people here that they dislike... IDK...
I think that mods make great members-- but if a mod feels the need to write articles designed to create flaming nastiness, perhaps they should weigh the fun of publishing something that makes people's blood boil, versus the overall health and growth of the site.
To me, the choice is easy. If I want to make people's blood boil, I shouldn't be a moderator-- I would think that our wonderful moderators would have the sense of personal responsibility to either refrain from publishing those articles to the public forum, or resign from being a moderator.
And, yes, I would like to try to be a moderator for a while. I think I'm missing out on a perspective here. I doubt that I'll use my moderator 'voice' or color or whatever very often, and only with consensus of another moderator-- but I think it would be a very good learning experience for me.
Besides, I'd like to see if I can live up to what I expect from the moderators. Can I do it? Can I remain impartial and fair? (If not, the building of consensus on what to say should fix that.) Can I refrain from blueblasting flaming someone and promote the community? I'd like to try to find out.
Shouldn't we try to refrain from bringing names?
Mike is a common name. One of my exes is named Mike. I had a dog named Mike. I've dated several Mikes... It's confusing!
Egilman,
I am always on the look out for "popularity contests". They are hard to quell, since I do think that it is part of human nature. On the other hand, I do see your concerns aboutexacerbate it. Obviously, I am always looking for ways of getting members to self moderate. It makes my job easier, it makes for happier members not getting slapped. The issue I see with Flames idea, although I think it's good, is that it might create the "voting up" and for that matter, the "voting down", which might become hurtful within thecommunity. Friendships will always outrank any other relationship on a site, and voting for or against a comment might only drive a wedge, instead of improving behavior. I think that it's far better to reward good behavior, then punish bad. That is why it works so well when training dogs... And no I am not comparing our members with dogs.. but you get the drift.
Which is why I thought rewards for specific things would help this. A monthly pat on the back, for best seed, best title, bestoriginalarticle, most commented, etc. I think would go much further. They would be like cards... you would collect them. At least it wouldn't bring out sides.
I often read a news article, do a little of side research, and write up an article about it. No seed. But there are some really provocative, interesting articles out there that I would like to share with others and ask what they think.
To me, those are different entities. But maybe not.
God almighty! I hope nobody ever thought I felt that way!
I was the same old me both before and after. Still crazy, after all these years...
I love you, Mike, and appreciate your kindness to me! Thank you!
DARLING picture! I always loved Pooh! Remember when Piglet rode in Kanga's pouch?
flying it!
is I will to Pooh!
this never take Come
If really get me!
Space four rows down, and start at the bottom. Type in "If". Move up a row, space over and type in "this", etc.
It was typed in my book that way. I had all the Winnie the Pooh books, and I can only hope that they are up in my mother's attic somewhere. Too late for my son, but MAYBE for my grandchildren...
They were really written, not for the really little kids, but for the 8-10 year old set. But, that was another time, another place.
"Slamming" an individual in a discussion means what exactly?
Does it mean that a discussion can, in-and-of-itself, be a "slam"? Is it acceptable to post a discussion with a headline, i.e.
"So-and-So is a Stupid A-hole"
Aside from the subjectivity of, and, purely adolescent nature of "slamming" without "building a case" for a given slam, other than letting off steam and/or revealing an inability to express a complicated thought, what does a slam accomplish?
Angering a member
Alienating a member
Giving some members second thoughts about staying with The NewsTalkers
And what about a personal attack/slam that comes in the course of a discussion? If a member makes a comment "A", and another member disagrees by responding i.e. "You're wrong, I disagree because the rebuttal to comment "A" is "B" does the member need to punctuate the rebuttal "B" with the words, i.e. " and you're an asshole!"?
My point, if an adult can't make a point without adding an insult, or, posts ONLY an insult, it could undermine the very forum that enables members to express themselves in the first place.
Rather self-destructive not to mention possibly being a matter of libel.
Other than "Heated Discussion", my personal rules for conduct are rather simple. If I can't look you directly in the eye and say something. I won't post it online.
I really think it's kind of funny when people need to have the rules of any moderated site explained to them. I've survived for quite some time on an assortment of moderated sites, having never read the rules... Civility is something I learned shortly after learning to form sentences.
Once a conversation degrades into sniping, nothing more can be gained from participation. We all fail at times, but I vow to always try.
Slamming people is what the weak minded do when they run out of constructive criticism.
I'd like very much to start writing and photography challenges -- I've hinted at it several times but had no takers; maybe I need to stop hinting and actually put up a challenge and see where it goes.
It seems to me that NT respects the 1st Amendment more than other places. I like that. But if it weren't for a group of friends I came here and created a private group for, I would never again belong to a group that tries to regulate speech, no matter how gently they try. I'm a big boy. If I don't like what someone says, I can turkey-gobble-stomp them all by myself, or ignore them, or turn them into friends with gentle discourse, as the mood moves me (and their personality moves them).
I love you guys and gals who moderate, but it doesn't matter to me whether you do it fairly, unfairly, or not at all. The only thing I tend to be picky about is inconsitancy in moderation.
I'll try, A. Mac!
It would do me good to be out and about in the sunshine...
OK, Dowser,
Let me come up with an outdoor challenge; I'll post an example with the explanation of the challenge. I'll post it in the PHOTOGRAPHY TAB in the hope of getting the maximum exposure (no pun intended).
Okey dokey! Thank YOU!!! Please help us to learn more-- you're such a wonderful teacher!
The funny thing is that as soon as I read that line I thought of at least one man from the other place (but no longer there) who had fit that description so well, and of one very humble woman who absolutely did not - and she's right here commenting on this thread.
A. Mac, while I couldn't agree more that mature people should be able to do just as you suggest... I also would like to point out that it isn't happening. And yeah, I surely wish that all of us could agree to retain civility!
Dang when the article gets so long.. I miss stuff... sorry Dowser!
I think it's because they languish there. No one likes to seed or write something that will not be seen, so it ends up on the front page. That is why multiple forums would be nice. You can pick yourpoisonso to speak.
Yes! Exactly! The members who have been here the longest have seen it in it's various forms. Fear of moderators is one. Another is let's slam NV,(usually by banned members). Why hasn't the mods removed this comment? (why haven't you gotten a mod.. oh yeah no little red ! button..but we have chat and email to get us). There are lots ofmanifestationsof this disorder.
Hence why I do meta articles. They are a lot of work for me to do, but I do them to keep the community in the loop and to get feedback that then translates into action.
I'm not sure that people write articles to make people blood boil. I think they do it as self expression. Our tag line is "Speak you Mind" Peter left NV over "Not News" to which he replied with "My Dear Jackass". He didn't do it to make people blood boil. He did it because his blood was boiling. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. And mods are also just members, too. Still, it would be nice if they thought of the impact an article has on the community at large.
You would make a wonderful addition to the team! It is quite challenging. Remaining unemotional about comments is not as easy as one would think. There is a learning curve... but hey we'd be glad to have you!
Clowns! I deal with Clowns!
Taken
That is a really good idea, Robert!
A. Mac is a wonderful person. Period! I hope I can find the time to check out his challenge and to participate!
{{{{{A. Mac and Dowsey}}}}}
Love you, dear bitey! These challenges are always so much fun!
Well I haven't been around much lately so part of me feels like I shouldn't say anything. I wouldn't be me though if I didn't say anything.
I only have two opinions about what is written up above. First, why have a group with no moderation if you can't say what you want? That includes saying what you want about a certain individual. If you can't say what you want then I would suggest deleting the group if that is possible. We are all adults here, and as adults we have the choice not to read something if it upsets us. As long as people aren't being talked about anywhere else I don't see what the big deal is. Second, I don't think a reward system is a good idea. I know I resented the fact that only a select few had all their leaves on the vine. I think rewarding certain people, and not others shows favoritism. It also tends to make people kiss a$$, and I don't like that either. I've never kissed a$$ in my life, and I'm not about to start now. As far as Heated Discussions goes I'm not going to make that a big deal in my life. I have way bigger fish to fry in real life. If it starts being censored I will probably just quit the group. No big deal. I never go there anyways. However, if a rewards system is put in place I will have to seriously consider quitting NT altogether. Again in the grand scheme of life not a really big deal, but I hate for it to come to that. I like knowing I can come to NT if/when I choose to. No I don't go to Heated Discussions, and no I don't come to NT much anymore either. But it's the principle of the thing. These are just my opinions, and I don't mean to offend anyone.
I would be interested in seeing or hearingwhat that all about.
Well, Feddy, that's what Perrie asked for-- our opinions...
Sometimes, when it's in your face, you can't help but read it. I mean, in the middle of an article, a fight breaks out, and you can't help but see it... So yeah, while we can pick and choose what articles to go on, we can't weed out specific comments within the articles.
I will miss you if you go, but you have to do what you have to do.
Nice new name, Mike.
" A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
That flower is the perfect choice for Mike. Be careful of the barbs.
"Every Rose Has Its Thorn "...
Here's another good song for Mike!
"I Never Promised You a Rose Garden"
Mal Votes for NO SLAMMING MEMBERS... EVER!!! In fact, better yet, treat others with the respect you hope they will give you... EVEN if you don't get it from them!!! Their hateful rhetoric will be more than enough for them to dishonor themselves.
I get your points Feddy... First I agree rewards will inevitably lead to hard feelings...
I also get your point about saying what you really feel... after all, isn't the tag line of this place "Speak Your Mind"??? That said, we have all seen what happens when personal insults run rampant. This is a very tricky line to walk... I prefer to walk on the politer side of that line... I feel like the results of doing that bring me the rewards that feel best to me... Denigrating others brings me little or no reward, and I wonder to myself how it can be much of a reward to others.
You may find this hard to believe... but I wouldn't dance on Rush Limbaugh's grave... I really don't care for the guy... I mean I REALLY REALLY don't care for him... but when he is gone (by loss of fame or death), I will just quietly enjoy his absence... If he wants to denigrate others, he is inflicting enough denigration on himself... I don't need to add to it... and spitting back at him does nothing for me.
Mal--
Swamijim sez howdy, bro... haven't taken the time to browse thru the membership roles, so I'm pleasantly surprised when a familiar name/avatar pops up. Nice to run into old electrons again...
The bad experiences with the one makes us forget about the good experiences with all the rest.
Put up an award wall if you want, but if you give someone something to wear around their neck, they're liable to hit you over the head with it every chance they get.
Thanks Perrie, but I don't know about the "brilliant" part. That's not an adjective that you usually don't find attached to my name unless it is preceded by "not too". It's just that I figured the topic might a little upsetting to some of our Right Wingnut friends and I wanted to give themtheability to use the full extent of theirsomewhatlimitedvocabulary.
Regarding the poll; At the time of my vote the split was 49% Yes 51% No.
IMO, those numbers are not accurate. I think more people are actually against articles being posted for the explicit intend of slamming another member than the poll reflects. The problem is in the way the question is presented. Do the Yes answers mean "Yes, there should be no slam articles in Heated Discussions"? Or, "No, there should be no slam articles in Heated Discussions,"?
I voted "Yes", meaning I think there should be nodeliberateslam articles allowed. I'll bet if the question would be changed to, "Should slam articles be allowed in Heated Discussions?", the outcome of the poll would be very different.
Now I realize I could be wrong. (I don't recall the year, but it has happened before), but I would be curious to know what would happen if you re-worded the question. I would also be curious to know what the vote would be if it reflected more than 6.5% of the membership. Which brings me to another topic.
I think we should have a "community" oriented group,reserved for articles about the NewsTalkers community and it's workings. Every member should be a member of that group by default with an automatic alert method that will inform them when an article has been posted to the group. This will givetheNT administration the ability to keep all members informed about policy and functional changes or adjustments, and give themembershipa platform to throw out site suggestions for discussion.
As for "Incident Reports", copying the link and reporting violations to a Mod is cumbersome and smacks of "snitching", and people don't like to snitch. I liked the "Collapsed by the Community" system that is used on another site. Whereas, after a number of of negative reports are registered, the comment or articleautomatically closes or "collapses". Thisalleviatesthe moderators from having to make a judgment call when something is "reported", and takes away the feeling that one is "snitching" when they report what they feel is a CoC violation'. It also sends a message to the violator that a number of people feel the comment or article is out of line.
I also really miss the ability to vote up a comment with a simple click, and not have to either post a comment to express agreement, or completely ignore a comment I agree with.(It also serves as an indicator that I havealreadyread the comment.) I Butthat'san issue for another discussion.
I agree with Jerry on all but one point. The "collapse" method can too easily be manipulated by minority groups of persons whose beliefs differ with an article that is respected by the majority. Let us take for example a typical controversial subject, such as gun control or abortion. Although we are aware that free speech may not be ensured by the First Amendment on a private site, I disagree that a vocal active minority can control what the majority believe in. I would rather leave the decision to collapse up to a group of mature, fair-minded and balanced individuals.
1 - Public Slam Articles - I have never run into any site or forum on the web, except for 4-Chan, that allows that. The fact that it is even an issue sends up warning flags.
2 - Squealing - Before there were web forums, there was "USENET" or the "Newsgroups." Totally unmoderated, you either learned how to deal with insults or you left. It is no place for wimps. That is where I started, that is where I earned my stripes. Being a 16 year old female made it extra hard. Once you got past that however, it was extremely interesting and a learning experience. Because of that, I am not inclined to rat on anyone...unfortunately though, I used to take matters into my own hands, which is against the rules in most forums. While I intend on abiding by the rules, old habits die hard.
3 - Rating Posts - a) The "Like" function here is under utilized. b) I never liked "collapsing." Even though I may (vehemently) disagree with someone, there is always something to be learned by what a person says. Collapsing is a cop-out. c) Straight up/down works. d) Rate 1 through 5 works. e) Not posting a response also works.
4 - Reward System - While all my kids were proud of getting badges for finishing their homework and being neat in grades 1 through 3, that wore off by the 4th grade.
Hey Swamijim! Good to see you!
What brings you over here??? Never mind... I can guess... I hope you are well.
BTW- From time to time I quote something you said, which is an exquisitely succinct summary of my views...
"Too many people, not enough planet!" ~Swamijim
I have tried this several times suggesting that discussions and comments should be stated as if in a courtroom where both decorum and "making the case" prevail over snarky, empty rhetoric and attacking the messenger.
Unfortunately, there are those who prefer an "anything goes" forum.
OK here is my take on the collapse an article. It stunk. A small group of like minded people could do it. Mal and I ran a test of that, and all it took was 6 clicks to collapse a comment. Second, it had the opposite of the desired effect. it actually made me want to look at the comment.
BTW, when Calvin was there, he told me that the staff knew who pressed those buttons. So it was no more or less "snitching" then getting a mod here, except it was a quick click of a button. And maybe contacting a mod, is a good measure of how bad an offense is. When they are really bad, we know.
The voting up also caused cliques at NV. You have to ask yourself what do you want, groups of communities, or one community?
Totally agree.
But people so liked their leaves at NV, so I thought I would ask.
This is true... and this is the point at which a mod usually shows up. The court system only works if you have two willing parties... which usually there is only one, and it is usually the one that is right. As I said, we tried this, and it turned into a nightmare of bad feelings.
Yes it does seem that I am going to have to reword and repost the poll. I want to be clear about it.
True dat, Mac!
Feddy,
Of course you should say something. You are a member and you are here!
OK, let's say you have had a difference of opinion in an article in the main forum. Then you find out in "Heated Debates" that there was an article saying " Feddy is an F'in MotherF'in Liar"... and then everyone jumps in and agrees... how would you feel? (BTW that was just an example... in real life you are a lovely person)
I agree with you on the way the vine did it. I was thinking more in a fun way, like giving out badges monthly for most commented article, most fun article, best comment, bestoriginalarticle. Something like that. Everyone would get a chance to get one. Something to just add some fun to here.
Noted Suz!
Noted Mal.
BTW there seems to be confusion on the vote, so I think I will do a second poll with better wording.
I really shouldn't have used the word "Reward" but I didn't know how else to express it. More like fun. Nothing like a RAV for the reason you stated, but something more like each month you got one for most commented article, most helpful, bestoriginalarticle, something that would allow everyone to win a prize... I guess prize would have been a better word.
My concern there is that we would have multiple reports on the same comment(s) and we would get swamped... But I can put it on a top tab, which might make the inclination to over report just a tad less.
Oh I would if I could, but the system doesn't allow for that.
I tend to agree with you.. hence why it wouldn't be anything that would equatesuperiority.
I think Mac kind of hits it on the head with this. Still, I believe that the community should vote the way they feel that their site should run. If the vote goes for slam articles, I will write a personal disclaimer though and that would leave the individual who wrote it up for any legal action.
And that is it, in a nut shell!
I have no complaints about your behavior, Robert. For the most part, you say your mind and move on. If everyone did that, we wouldn't need mods.
LOL!
Not a bad solution. Question - who serves on the jury? Will it be twelve of our peers good and true, determined by lottery? Will we be summoned to a jury panel and have to submit to cross examination by the combatants to whittle the number down to those who will serve? Will the jury swear to render a verdict based only on the evidence presented to them? Will their deliberations be in secret? Will there be a right of appeal?
I always try to remember to go back and "like" an article that I've enjoyed. I don't always remember, but I try.
Someone put time and effort into writing, as I well know-- then at least I can say, Thanks, I liked it!
Hey, Soos! I woke up to that one, (Lynn Anderson's I Never Promised You a Rose Garden), every morning for weeks in high school-- they must have played the same "show" every morning. After that, it was "Delta Dawn" ARGHH!
Oh dear, dear Soos!
If you only knew... It's knuckle-chewing time....
I mean, some of them could be "silly"-- best article featuring a cat in a 'human' costume, best dog days article, best bad photo...
It could be REALLY fun! If we let it.
Thanks, dear Buzz. I always felt that it was undeserved. And apparently the person you're talking about thought it too! He kept telling me that! LOL!
No matter, that's all done now, and over with. We're all here together, and able to visit and see each other. THAT'S what matters!
That would be difficult since I'm going back to work full time in a few weeks. I won't be available most of the day.
Funny thing, Limbaugh. Way back, decades ago (in the mid-1980's), when I lived in New York, I listened to Limbaugh's radio show. I liked him then. He made sense then. He wasn't quite so bombastic, then. He was a "radio personality" with all that that entails, but he carefully explained his seemingly-outrageous stance in such a way that it made some sense, and he was entertaining.
Something changed over the years. By the mid 1990's, he was a different person: sour, ugly, demented... a raving lunatic. Those who never listened to him in the 1980's would never realize that one person can go downhill to the extent that Limbaugh has. He's utterly disgusting now. I'm sure he's been told that, but his ego won't let him hear it.
I'm not a fan a personal attack articles in Heated Discussions. I think Thunderdome is the place for that. Heated Discussions should be for articles in which people may argue in a less than congenial fashion, but not for articles specifically designed to attack a specific member. That's my opinion on the topic. As far as rewards, badges, etc....I'm pretty ambivalent. Whatever members choose in this regard is cool by me.
So that is the way I voted.
Also, Sleepless in Seattle, when he was quoting the Godfather, as he sent her an email about her business... not knowing, yet, that his email partner was the owner of "The Shop Around the Corner".
And yes, it is in The Godfather. I have the book and looked it up. And, by the way, if you're ever in the hospital, recovering for a heart attack, don't read that book. My dear husband brought it to me upon my request, and, with all the drugs and stuff, I had some REALLY weird dreams.
I'm a little confused about your comment. I don't recall "The Godfather" reference in "Sleepless in Seattle". Meg Ryan's bookshop in "You've Got Mail" was called "The Shop Around the Corner", which is somewhat amusing because "You've Got Mail" is an inferior remake of the original movie called "The Shop Around the Corner". Could you be mixing up the two Hanks-Ryan movies since the protagonists were the same two actors?
You're right! I'm wrong!!! It WAS You've got Mail!
Yes, I was... I always get them mixed up. It's like Law & Order, SUV. (really, it's SVU).
I'm sorry!
Absolutely NO reason to be sorry - it was the same actors - very easy to get mixed up.
Love it... but wait... will ya win every month?
You know Bitey... until you just mentioned it.. I had forgotten that he used to be entertaining.
Boy, life can mess ya up.
Mike...
Please explain again how this would work?
Yikes! Another meta article? OK Mike, your idea, you host it. I will set up the poll at the end of the article.
I'm inclined to totally agree with you, Peter.
Fair enough
Whatever John,
Meta articles give members to opportunity to throw out ideas for discussion. At least here we have a responsiveadministration I havealreadyseena number of changes made as a result of member suggestions here on NT.
I disagree. As I said above, I miss the ability to express approval of a comment with a simple click, and not have to either post a comment to express agreement, or completely ignore a comment I agree with. It also serves as an indicator that I havealreadyread the comment and when you have many comments to review, that is an important feature.
As for community collapsed comments, I realize the we had Gang Trolls collapsing comments on NV, but I'm assuming we have a little moresophisticatedmembership on this site, so that would not be a problem here.
Totally. Almost every change on the site or in policy came from a meta article. They are a ton of work, but they are worth it. It democracy in action!
Jerry, there is no thumbs up function on Ning for a comment. I might be able to find some code for it. Still, it would be such a big change it would have to go to vote. Also, Ning is changing their platform in the summer, so I am not sure what goodies we will get from them.
LOL now I see why you are a badfish...
I trust your judgement Perrie, it's easy to make suggestions,implementingthem is not always so easy.
I found the Vinacity system at NV useful for giving me an idea about the level of experience a member has that I might be debating with.
I think members that have been active on the site for a long time or have been heavycontributors,should be awarded for their contribution toward making the site successful.
I did, too. You could easily identify a newer member and offer to help them with the basics! It was helpful.
Also, when I needed help, I could ask someone with more leaves-- and usually get a GREAT answer!
Yes, too, to those that have been here, active, and contributed to the site! A Well-Done pat on the back, somehow...
I agree with both Jerry and Dowser. I was aware long ago that Jerry not only checked out the vine leaves, but read the profiles as well. It's always good to know as much as you can about a person with whom you are dealing.
I would hope that if Perrie wants to do it, it can be done automatically, so Perrie doesn't have to keep up with all that. That is WAY too much work!
I agree. IMO, the "No Moderation and anything goes. You've been warned!" format means comments within the treads will not be moderated and personal attacks within the context of the threads will be allowed.
However, I think it is totally unacceptable for anyone to post an article for the expressed purpose of dissing a member they happen to not like. It's not only childish, it's downright unethical!
I learn something new everyday. I was there for two years and never gave those leaves any attention.
Yes, Suz. I did it one year with Eb, but it got to be a ton of work and Eb is hard to get hold of, so I dropped out from being co-admin.
But it wasn't the year that it was you and Ducki.. so I don't know what happened there.
Well, Perrie, Life is just a state of being; it is what we make of it. Limbaugh just seems like a demented fool, now. It's a shame... seriously. If I were him, I'd get tested for tertiary Syphilis... his dementia has a lot in common with the symptomology of that affliction. In any event, anyone who listened to him in the 1980's just feels embarrassed for him now. I'd feel sorry for him but for the fact that he's done so much damage with his narrow-minded, non-stop rants. His producers should be ashamed of themselves. They keep him on the air because he's become a freak show and still draws in the big bucks. Heckuva value system there! Sad, really.
Mike,
Obviously, I have my own bias about this, since we did try it and it was a big fail. But it might have been the method in which we did it (we used the chat room). What ended up happening was a lot of bad feelings in the group.
On the other hand, I do see your point about past history. I have to say, that most times (but not all) the mods aware of what goes on between members. But some stuff does get by the mods.
If you would like to run the article and banter around ideas and see if they work.. please feel free to do so. Maybe the group has some ideas that we didn't think of.
It's a slightly different system that Ning offers. It is badges. There can be a badge in different colors that represent different things. Some sort of emblem would have to be designed, ( that could be done as a fun contest, too) and then the criteria for winning them. We could also have just fun ones that anyone could win.. like for a monthly contest. Lots of ideas in that department.
SRO/unpaid shill had an interesting idea about reporting. Although NV had reporting on each page, I amhesitantto do that. It would lead to multiple reports of the same problem and I think that is why after a while, reporting of issues went without a response. The staff became overwhelmed. What I can do is put a report an issue on the tabs. It would be easy to find, but not so easy that we will get swamped with just the push of a button.
What do you think?
I tend to agree with that... and that is why we reduced the size of the CoC and not increase it. But there is always room for improvement anywhere... And we have unique features that NV didn't have... so that is why I tried to tie all of this meta into one discussion... because frankly meta is a lot of work, but it is part of what this group is and we try to make the group the best we can.
Mike,
Honestly, I am not looking for thanks. The whole point of NT was that it was the community was directly involved. All I am doing is holding true to that. Otherwise, I'd be a hypocrite.
I like all of these ideas! The badges, the reporting tab... especially the badges. And fun little contests. It would spice up the dialogue!
Well... the Vine decided to go for lots of little groups... totally destroyed the magic of the original Vine IMO.
LOL!
It's not a bad idea Mike...
But I am worried that it could become a META madness on it's own.
BTW where have you been... I wanted to discuss your trial idea.
LOL Dowser...
OK so this is how it stands. The poll, poorly worded as it was, still shows a very divided community of this "Heated Discussions". To be reviewed in the future... Mike has an idea about a trial type article that I think will has potential to be a more helpful and productive use of heated discussions when a person is the issue.
I will be adding a tab on the top, that will make it easier to submit issues.
It was just an idea that Mike had. It was not "written in stone". When NT first started, we had a trial system. It was a total fail, since it took place in the chat room.
I am neither for nor against any idea. I just bring them to the group.
what kind of messages?
Good idea-- it should help to bring the main ideas into focus!
It will be interesting to see how that develops (Sorry for the puns but I was just trying to shed some light on the issue).
Pun(s) intended?
(Sorry for the derail, but the puns triggered my shooting off my mouth..hopefully no one will fire back
)
In the anonymous groups (Alcoholics Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous and numerous other highly sucessful spinoffs) they express the notion a slightly different way:
BTW, I disagree with the idea that some people can't discuss controverial topics without resorting to personal attacks. IMO its not a question of "can't"-- but rather a question of "won't".
If we set the expectation that its "can't"-- then that's what we'll get.
(Well, perhaps there are a few individuals who don't understand the difference between attacking an idea/opinion and attacking a person. But after a few explanations, it should be understandible-- its really not that difficult a concept. So then you have the choice of deciding upon how much we should tolerate).
The reason I mention this is that, IMO, almost all problems on Internet discussion sites are due to this one thing-- people resorting to personal attacks. (And in all of the best discussions I've seen, there are no personal attacks-- or very, very few. In addition to pissing people off, personal attacks derail a real discussion of the topic).
Or-- you could just create a folder for NT email in your current email account. (Whatever floats your boat....)
You do know that you are replying to comments that are almost two years old,....right?
But here's the problem-- while that is true for you, people are different. Some might get upset (but still stay). However there are some people who, exeriencing too much of that sort of thing, might just decide it isn't worth it-- and leave. (Or stay, but just start participating a whole lot less).
Also, there are people who land upon the site for the first time-- see a lot of personal attacks, etc, and decide not to join.
Appropriate moderate is not an easy job-- you got to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
I'm like you-- mostly I don't give a sh*t (or if I do I get over it fast). I really don't care-- in that way I'm kinda like the notorious Honey Badger:
Did they have the original E. H. Shepard illustrations- or the Walt Disney version?
And worse yet-- beyond they themselves thinking that they are so special, having an award like that often encourages some of the people who are looking for someone to worship following along, and worshipping the award holder. This could lead to others becoming very annoyed. The formation of cliques could possibly occur, leading to epic battles! (Might not happen on some site though).
Personally I've always like the leaderboard concept-- some people get motivated by it to particiate more-- but others who don't care can ignore it.
Possibly the best way to decide about some of these award systems is to give them a tryous fir a few weeks and see hw they actually work-- or not???
One thing I've seen a site do to handle over-reporting: if possible, set up some sort of system that automatically keeps a running record of the number of reports eash person makes. This can be checked at regular intervls-- or else set up so mods are notified when a person makes a certain number of reports in a given time frame. Those who frequently abuse the system by constantly over-reporting get a warning-- then a consequence. (Not necessary to suspend or ban them-- just give a warning and then on the second offense remove their ability to report!)
And we could make it really fun-- and not too serious. For example, a monthly award for the best avatar-- another for the silliest avatar. Or even-- a monthly award for the most colourful avatar-- or even for the most mysterious avatar!
Or even an award for a certain type of content-- but not telling people in advance what it is: don't say what it is in advance, but at the end of a month, give an award for the person who has the most posts about pets. Or about foreign countries. Or the most humorous posts. Silly? Yes. But it might be fun.
I feel the same way.
But IMO, the problems are created not by personal attacks on public figures who are not members of the site. Rather, most of th problms are caused by attacks on other actual users f NT.
My experience has been that the ability to "vote up" can work. Some people like it. Others don't-- but some people just ignore it.
Being able to vote down a comment usually doesn't work that well.
personally, I don't like the idea of members being able to collapse articles-- its too easy to maniulate the system. People should have the right t express controversial ideas. (Unless its a clear COCviolation-- in which case admins should collapse it).
My experience has been that most of the time when an article is collapsed, its because people objecgt to the political POV being expressed-- not because its a rules violation. Also, collapsing articles can really annoy a lot of people.
IMO, not posting a response is perhaps the most powerful weapon we have, But-- it only works if other people are aware of that-- and have the self control not to post a response.
But what if some users of the site don't act with the maturity of 4th grade or higher? (Not here on NT of course-- but I have seen it elsewhere
).