Meta on CoC: An Omission from the last update
Apparently, there was an omission from the current CoC when it was voted on and cleared. Here was the part that was missing:
Section 3:
The author can also request that members who are apparently, with intent, disrupting an article by being arbitrarily argumentative, to leave the article. Should the author choose not to direct a another member to leave an article, that author should contact administration so that all comments pertaining to that argument can be deleted by administration.
Please read the article in it's entirety here:
http://thenewstalkers.com/forum/topics/the-updated-coc
It will be restored to the CoC, since it was supposed to be there in the first place.
This is just a notice of the change.
Tags
Who is online
280 visitors
Chicanos On Crack!
That was section 8?
Dang it's easy to lose track. I thought that was 11?
Ummm....it's "Oh no you di'int"
That may be, but it was supposed to be there. I have to say, that it took me by surprise, too. I had totally forgotten about it.
That was Dana's idea. I thought it was kind of cleaver. I'm surprised no one caught that sooner.
If you disagree with the author's moderation, you can request a moderator to review it. As long as you are on topic and not making personal attacks, there wont be any reason for the author to ask you to leave.
No. They can't do that, and I want to be clear about this. Members making legitimateargumentspertaining to the topic, can't be told to leave. If this happens, please get one of the mods.
Trouble Maker!
Peter, exactly! Hey... your kind of smart.
I dont know. My mom called me a smart ass, but then again, she also says I'm a son of a bitch.
Peter,
Son of a bitch? Well, I guess your mom could take it as well as she gave it! Good for her!
Mike,
I don't mind swearing. There is new evidence that it's good for you!
What absence?
Hahahahahahaha!!! That was so deliciously hilarious, I forgot to be depressed about mygetting-worse-by-the-minuteunder-arm flabwobble. True story.
Even that probably wouldn't be far enough back for some.
Really?
How would you know, you weren't here...
Huh? and why is a an update from 3 years ago being discussed?
Go for it. Terry/wmolaw was the one who worded it, and he's a lawyer.
LMAO!!
Robert,
LOL, more than NV? Even better than that, go check out "Debate Politics". They rules on top of rules and even separate rules to engage in their Middle East Forum with a list of no go words.
And while we are shortening up subjective stuff, maybe the Constitution could be shortened... it's very subjective and requires the pesty SCOTUS to interpret it. We should leave it as
We the people.