The NewsTalkers Community Group is STILL ACCEPTING Suggestions and Ideas NT Members Would Like to See in the Upcoming NT Revision
T he NewsTalkers Community Group is Looking For Suggestions and Ideas for the NewsTalkers site that we can put into a ......
......so we can pass them on to Perrie while she is working on updating the site.
Here are a few from NTC, you can comment on and/or add to;
Create ability to search for groups by typing in few words.
Show message when same article has already been seeded.
Automatically underline Links or allow them to be bold or better colored.
Create a 90 day time frame that a member must wait to change either their avatar or their User Name, and disallow changing both at the same time.
Put links for [Next] and [Previous] at both the top and bottom of every thread page.
Eliminate need for a dash (-) in tags
Create Category for Education articles
Allow for communication with any member w/o having them on your friends list.
Create the ability to search for groups by topic
The comment thread is closed. Please post your suggestions in the comment wall. All suggestions will be forwarded to Perrie immediately.
Thank you,
Jerry Verlinger
NTC Co-Administrator
Tags
Who is online
288 visitors
I wish that rule would be still in force. I'd have no trouble with it.
I have been, and as far as I can see, it is a request for a rule, not a request to ban a specific individual. And as Mike has pointed out, that there are members who have made this request, despite having name changes themselves.
This article is just a discussion.
And honestly, until this discussion, I never gave much thought if it is possible to do any changes on the new platform. It might not be, in which case, this would all be a non discussion.
Some people change their names 3 or 4 times over the course of years. Some several times over the course of days or less.
yawn.
Yep
Why does it have to be only a simple majority ? That leads to the worst type of abuses .
Nothing should be at the expense of others feelings. That's not what NT is about.
I think some people are compulsively desperately in need of attention. Even if it's bad attention.
Howdy, I'm the new Sheriff in town. All rules, suggested rules, rules on the back burner, and rules about rules will be strictly enforced.
Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again, or have a purple pen placed in the orifice of their choosing.
The high heel boots are killing me, so I'm pretty short tempered.
Looks like a tough one. Has he tamed many wild towns like this one?
Can you assemble a white paper
Are you TRYING to be racist ?!
Personally I think it's pathetic and childish. But what can you do? In the end, they will win and take over.
So you want to be bullied by the majority ...
Each member has a choice. I'm not a quitter...I don't intend to give in the the bullies and Trolls. That is why they don't like me. Sorry.
Good for you! Ignore them as the poorly raised children that they are.
As would I.
Wiki, makes Jesse James look like a Girl Scout.
I would like to see a feature that allows it easy to locate an article you have voted up . Sometimes you can't think of an immediate comment . This would make it easier to add one later ...
I understand what you're saying Corny. But we haven't had that kind of problem here. You'll find that NT is a muchfriendlier site and animosity of that kind between members is rare.
Also, NewsTalkers is much better moderated than NV, so if there were to be any reports of unfair restrictions regarding group participation, I'm sure the admin would look at it and take appropriate action.
Yeah Right LR, whatever.
Look, you're welcome to participate in this discussion as much as you want, just don't directed any more comments to me.
I would vote for that.
You noticed that?
I have always used my real name and photo on every site I have posted on (I think it's an ego thing). I feel I should never have to ashamed, embarrassed, intimidated or fearful about anything I say. I am who I am, and I say what I want. If you don't like it, kook me up, I'm listed in the phone book.
No one was told to go anywhere, the guy said IF you want to block, then go elsewhere.
IMO, that is just a point of information.
That is true if you tell some to go elsewhere, but that is not what was said. He said IF you want ....
There is no two letter word in the English language that has as much meaning as NO, than the word IF.
And my number one beef with this site.
Where in Macs' comment did you see where he was dictating how you can represent or identify yourself?
Anybody can use whatever avatar or user name that they chose. You can't just go choosing differentidentities every hour or every day.
That's fine. But I don't recall you ever not using your name. You have sometimes changed your avatar, but we still knew we were talking to Bruce Tarlton.
You've been on this site long enough to know that nothing gets changed around here becausea "few people don't like it".
Changes only occurwhen there is a overwhelming call for the change.
I would like to see that also, but when I first suggested it I was met with resistance, thus the suggestion for a time frame to change either, or.
However, Perrie prefers to make whatever changes the membership leans toward. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. I don't really care what the change is, I just know it needs to be changed.
I was on NV for 5 years and never once put anyone on 'Ignore'. I don't need a button to ignore someone. Anyway like to see what I'm ignoring.
Because you have someone on 'Ignore' does not mean others can't see they have posted.
Would it be possible to make modification to the "follow" feature or add a new feature perhaps that would group the article/seeds that we are interested in following the conversations on without the email notification?
I get far too many emails already.
This would also allow one to ignore with ignoring the articles and seeds that they are not interested in.
Is it possible for a balancing "dislike" option in the rating of articles?
How about a function (button) on comments that allows questionable comments (requests for deletion) to be directly sent to moderators for review rather than copying the link into a message?
How about the ability to vote up (applaud) or vote down (boo) comments through a function button>
Just a few random thoughts
That might be considered censorship. s/
That's a good point Buzz, people forget that this probably the best moderated news site on the 'net.
That's a fair argument, it seems like an issue we should put to a vote.
I'm not sure, But I thinkthe mods have the ability to contact any member. If they can't, you're right, I would be a good feature for them.
The purpose of theinstigating is to be disruptive.If we close the thread, theinstigatorswin.
I haven't been able to be here as much as I planned. but I'm here now, and if I see any in-fighting taking the thread off topic, I will call in the mods.
The article was posted to give members an opportunity to have input into the new platform, and allowing Perrie to see what the members are thinking and what they would like to have in the new version.
We all have the ability to block messages from anyone, friend or not, right now.
I agree with you, but too many people are paranoid or whatever, and feel more comfortable hiding behind a pseudo name. It would be nice to have a site that requires everyone to post in the first person, but I'm afraid such a site would have very few members.
I agree, but the UA or CoC must be modified to make frequent name changes a violation, and thosepeople should then be given the opportunity to comply before they're asked to leave.
I see the whiny faction of NT has driven Mike L. to quit. Nice job.
I guess you're on your way to your utopian NewsTalkers where no one gets offended. Must make you fucks proud.
It would be helpful to know who that comment is directed to.
We don't need this bullshit Petey. This article is about suggestions for the new platform. Not a platform for person attacks. I suggest you take that comment down.
Do you have a suggestion or idea for the new platform Petey?
If not, please leave the thread.
I can't even begin to wonder why! s/
(?!) What does that have to do with suggestions for the new platform?
Please John, don't add to the nonsense.
He's playing you Marsha. He knows full well how to post an avatar. He didn't see to have a problem with it when he started the Fox News Nation .
This is a group that believes in the alternative media and that Fox and others are fair and balanced. We believe that the lamestream media is forever biased in favor of liberals. This is where conservative opinion and news will be unfiltered but all will be free to view it and comment on it.
I'm hysterical.
Yes.
That someone is very temperamental and has quit before. He'll be back.
I'm trying to find out what happened.
Just coming down from the mountains what's this about Mike quitting?
I doubt Perrie will do that without a member approved change in the UA.
Now that one is funny!
But it would displease a great deal of other people.
All all the changes that are not going to happen on this site ... IMO, that one is number one.
That was my attempt to contribute a real suggestion to this thread . Apparently the rest of you would prefer to haggle about meta issues ...
Bruce, no one drove Mike to quit NT, he chose to quit.
Being a strong advocate of the 1st amendment, I would think that you would understand thateveryone has an opinion and can voice it. If Mike didn't like those opinions and quit, that's on him, no one else.
The article was about suggestions, no one said they were rules. An open invitation for everyone to voice what they thought would improve the site. You can agree or disagree with the suggestions, that is up to each individual.
To quit over it, is also an individual choice. One that Mike took.
Trying to blame his quitting on others is BS. You know it, I know it.
The old saying applies, ''if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen''.
Shades of NewsVine ...
(?!) I don't understand that one. If using real names could put people in danger (which it could) then why arepeople'snames on sites like this totally meaningless?
The same thing happened on NV a few year ago.
How frequent to be a violation ?
Where the hell were the mods?! That kind of talk is clearly a CoC violation;
"Comments or articles .............. which in-and-of-themselves, are off topic, disruptive, abusive, threatening, harassing or offensive, ............ or otherwise objectionable; are prohibited, and will be removed."
(?!) So what happened? I couldn't be here, but several mods where here, the Site Advisor/Head Moderator was here, I think the NTC co-administrator was here (not sure about that one). So why was this guy allowed to go on his filth ladened, off topic comments?
Why are guys like that even allowed to be a member here? I mean it's nice to be liberal minded about the membership and all, but when someone trashes up the place, ridiculing and insulting people left and right .... IMO, it's time to show them the door.
Yes you are . But you can't help being obsessed about the same topics repeatedly . I'm sure a psychologist would know what to make of this behavior ... but I'm at a loss .
Where the hell were the mods?! That kind of talk is clearly a CoC violation;
It is and I would have happily deleted it, but I've commented in the thread before that "comment" was made, so, because of the CoC, I can't delete an obvious CoC violation. Strange, huh?
I can't believe it but I agree with The Russel . It must be a sign of the Apocalypse !
Bullshit Kavika. That's the same bullshit Raving Lunatic Raven Wing said when she opined that we should make this bullshit name/avatar mess a rule. Don't like it, quit. That's no fucking choice, and YOU KNOW IT.
Her whining and crying about offensive posts and offensive people is pure bullshit. No one has a RIGHT to not be offended.
I hope he comes back too and plants himself firmly in one place, for awhile anyway. He is still a friend, even though he does go over the line sometimes. Still, I can't blame him for wanting to leave this place sometimes.
Proposing that everyone should have to use their real names is the height of absurdity. It should not have even been discussed, except as a subject of mockery.
I was the one who suggested that and when this site was new it was a proposal that people use either their real picture or their real name. I still think it's a good proposal. So, obviously, we disagree.
Why are we stuck on a controversial proposal when we haven't even exhausted the uncontroversial issues ?
I disagree about the idea. Simple as that. Calm down. It was a proposal when this site was new. That's all and I like the idea.
How about this John. You don't like the idea. I do like the idea. Let's call that an impasse? OK?
Bullshit right back at ya Bruce. That's not what I said, and YOU KNOW IT.
There were suggestions by various members of NT...That's it, suggestions, nothing more. I would think that there isn't a ice cubes chance in hell of using real names be required.
He didn't have to quit, because most of the suggestions wouldn't have a chance in hell of becoming a rule on NT.
There was no choice of don't like it quit, because there were NO FRICKIN' rule that said it. How difficult is that to understand?
Mike got his pants in a wad over something that wasn't reality and quit. That is the fact of the matter, whether you like it or not.
From my POV he was just getting in front of this issue before it snuck up on him ...
That is correct, no one has a right not to be offended. On the other hand, when someone offends and get's it throw right back in their face, it's time for them to put on their big boy pants and not quit over it.
That's strange. I always thought Mike L was too strong-minded a person to quit over something that wasn't so important in life.
Something like that has been proposed before. Something like a 'Report this comment" button. It certainly make it a lot easier on the mods.
People have been asking for a 'Vote Up' button since the site was started. I think it may be programing issue.
Yes, but a feature sorely missed by many. I wish we had one. It's a lot easier than opening a comment box and posting a
.
Not to mention the room it saves.
I've been in contact since he left (I was pissed at him and I thought he got pissed about it and quit because of it. He didn't and we're friends again) Beyond that I won't talk about personal conversations, just as I wouldn't with anyone else. Sorry. However he has quit. I hope not for good.
Yes he left . He made some comments on an article I seeded . But they're gone now .
Same here. Once I've commented, I can't behave as a mod, only as a member.
I saw the comments about members posting in first person, and even posted one myself. It was a very brief exchange that mostly discussed why, on sites like this, people rarely use their real name and photo. Any mention of making it mandatory was generally in the negative.
Although I already use a real photo of myself, I want to know if this photo would qualify if we HAD to use one - it's me, even if it isn't current.
Or would a caricature do - it IS a caricature of me.
Someone please help me understand why a conversation has to proceed like THIS
Really; why do some of these threads immediately turn personal and ugly? Incident-by-incident, they're killing NT.
I have often been told that by Chinese students. Actually I don't mind resembling him since he is highly respected here.
The problem Raving Wing, is that your whining has driven a member away.
It's actually more like this Mac:
Person 1: "My idea is 'X' "
Person 2: "Fuck you that's a fucking stupid idea"
Person 1: "How dare you disagree with my idea! You're so childish and immature! I'm so offended by you"
Person 2: "Tough shit. Get over it."
Person 1: "I will not get over it! You are so rude! You offend me! No one should have to put up with insulting behavior in a cyber world! Blah blah blah...Bitch bitch, bitch...I'm offended and my pussy hurts!"
Person 2: "Jesus Christ! What a bunch of thin skinned whiney little bitches on this site! I've got a life, unlike these whiney pisspots! I'm out of here!!"
Bruce, while every comment after the first "Person 1" comment is inappropriate and not helpful to NT, in my opinion, had this comment not been made
the rest of the thread might have been more civil.
Why can't the message be objectively attacked without attacking the messenger?
Mac, I'm just telling you what I've learned from Mike as to why he left. In his words, The whining BS thin skinned crying on the site.
I have two suggestions:
#1 - Add "font" and/or "size" plus "indent" to the tool bar.
#2 - A function on the front page that allows a member to see if there is a response to a post they made.
Thank you John.
Hi Aeon,
You will be getting not only a font size button, but also a font type and color! You will love it!
Jerry
Appreciate the feedback.
I am sure that Perrie will give us a fine platform
WHEN?
Still working out some odds and sods. Hopefully within the next month or so... things seem to be going a bit faster than expected. But there are bits and pieces that I still have to get worked on and still be present here. OY.
Anything that is asked of the membership to hopefully improve the forum gets rapidly turned into META.
Everyone acts like they own the joint and it would just be better if we did it "THEIR" way.
Everyone has a vested emotional relationship connection with the site, just to differing levels.
Once that relationship connection is broken they leave. I've left three times.
Why? Cause it isn't worth it emotionally in real life to deal with bullshite. Online forums are the playgrounds of today. You have all the elements of the schoolyard playground going at full blast 24/7 right down to the monitors don't get there until after the deed is done.
You have the toughs trying to prove their toughness everyday, the little scamps pulling the braids and running away, the pair of hoodlums going up to someone they don't like and knocking them over.
The whole gamut of childish behavior on display everyday.
Articles like this are a perfect example of the incivility of the crowd when left to their own devices.
And people wonder why there is a need for government/rules/laws.
Because without them, we have anarchy.
Hence, any request for suggestion to help the board turns to META.
People love it when there are no rules or rules that are easy to ignore.
Personalities before people.
WE already have our share of Donald Trumps
Articles like this just confirm my reasons to reduce my participation to very low levels.
With very good reasons. you would be surprised at just how quickly a persons contributions to this board can be turned against them outside the board. And yes it has happened.
I wish it was the little self contained playground you can have all to yourself for venting or having a tantrum or whatever you like.
Online is becoming real life.
Get used to it.
VAY!
I understand completely!
That would be a good idea!
I don't understand why you and John Russell hate the meta articles. I don't see anymore objectionable behavior on these articles than on any others. People are making suggestions and rule changes and others disagree, sometimes overtly. But how is that any different than any other article. I like some of the suggestions but personally think the rule making should be kept in check, the fewer the better.
Greetings humans, also NT members.
Allow me to introduce myself. I am called, Weendigo by some, Yee Naaldooshii, by some, and Skinwalker by others. Those are the ones that have survived an encounterwith me, there are few.
If your Chief Perrie agrees, I will be thesoul MOD (I do love human souls) for your site.
My decisions are final, there are no appeals. I have been called fair by some, it's a lie.
I will be here 24/7/365 since time is a human thing, I do not adhere to it.
If you choose to make a deal with the devil, give me a call,or call Charlie Daniels he knows me personally. (we met in Georgia)
If you were a mod, half of NT would quit. And that's the golden truth.
Hey Jerry.
comment removed as CoC violation. LHComment removed for CoC violation [ph],quit being so pissy when you don't like something someone says. The world does not revolve around Raving Wing.
Very effective technique of teaching rowdy children manners and how to get along with others.
It's been happening to a lot of good members the whiners are really making it hard for people to speak their mind. I wish it was the other way around and the whiny twits would leave.
I don't give a shit what you think he told you Randy. I don't trust a fucking thing out of your mouth. You're a hypocrite, who changes colors faster than any chameleon in the animal world, and you truly can not be trusted. I have written proof of what he said.
I have a suggestion. Let's get and keep the fucking Meta off the front page.
I support this in times when no MOD is otherwise available and a reasonable, fair-minded, urgently-called for decision is necessary.
You need to read the rules Larry.
"Fuck You"
"Fuck Off"
"Go Fuck Yourself"
One is permitted. If you don't know the answer to that, you are AGAIN part of the problem. Get with Perrie. Review this, then restore my comment.
For the good of the site, can we calm down and disagree in a civil manner however vehemently?
Not to worry. I'm done with this article. I'll leave you to deal with the hypocrites and whiney offended prima donnas here Amac.
Don't toke that joint Feronia.
Youneed to pass it around, the membership needs to calm down, or meet the Skinwalker...
It can be Very effective, but, there is no guarranteethat it is effective on all children.
I fear there are those on here it would never work on. Or at the very least it's too late now, as their parents should have done it years ago. Some people's children never grow up.
Some people's children never grow up........and have a limited vocabulary. (but, that calls for soap in the mouth, not Time Out)...
And a strong paddling.
#1 - Add "font"and/or "size"plus "indent" to the tool bar.
#2 - A function on the front page that allows a member to see if there is a response to a post they made.
Great ideas. Thanks Aeon.
And a strong paddling. I'm not so sue about that, some people enjoy it, so, that wouldn't be a punishment.
Yeah it's strange. I forgot about that stupid rule I remember trying to get it changed when I was a mod, but the Site Adviser said it was staying. I would delete a comment, forgetting I had posted on the thread two days prior, and everybody would get pissed off.
Anyway, I see good ole' Larry showed up and deleted a comment (directed at me - by guess who).
I haven't been through the entire thread yet, but so far it's obvious to me one member is mostly responsible for turning this discussion into a snark fest, and I intend to do something about it.
I find it surprising how many women ask to be spanked . Don't ask how I know that ...
Apparently.
I don't think the one 'volunteer' and mod idea would work if they were not allowed to ever comment, unless they were paid, but then they would no longer be a volunteer, plus we would lose the unique status of being the only all volunteer moderated social news site on the 'net.
I think we could safely remove the 'prior comment' restriction if we required two mods to sign off on a deletion even if both of them had already posted on the thread.
I like the idea, Petey! I hesitate to add more to Perrie's plate right now, but I think it's a good idea...
I do believe that, as the owner, Perrie has the right to over-ride that and step in. She's done it in the past I believe.
Me either, XX...
Thank goodnessfor the bong. We depletedour supply of page 3 months ago.
I propose an AMENDMENT
It seems to me the fact that meta articles draws so many members to their discussions is an indication that the members are very interested in what's going on with the sites' functions and want to be a part of its operation.
What is out of balance here is that the majority of the members here are trying to make some suggestions and engage in a discussion, while one or two members (mostly one) are running amok trashing the discussion, trashing the site and trashing other members.
You areconsistently at or near the top of the Leaderboard John, which is an indication that you are one of the sites main contributors. If the site is often boring, one could reasonably assume that the quality of yourcontributionsis creating theboredom.
Ya know Bruce, you have been nothing but disruptive in this discussion. Either make some suggestions for the revised site, comment on some of the suggestions posted here, or get the fuck off the thread!
I'm pretty sure that is not what John said.
Anyway, for a person that is constantly complaining about hurt feelings and not wanting to be on the FP because of all the negative rhetoric, you sure seem to enjoy getting into the thick of it when the fur is flying.
If you would just ignore all the bullshit that's being flung around here, you would avoid becoming a part of it, and have no reason to get all riled up.
You and others have offered some good ideas in keeping with the purpose of the article, why don't you just concentrate on that and stay out of all the in fighting?
Not fair Mac, every member, especially the mods, should be able to participate in the discussion regarding a meta article like this. Perrie is the sites Lead Moderator and Resident Adviser, I think she should be exempt from the 'previous comment' rule. I think you also should be exempt.
You're welcome RIO
I have on doubt, she's been working very hard at it.
You wanna end this crap?
Moderators are moderators, just like every other site on the net. whether they comment on an article or not they have a responsibility to the site.
IF they have issues, the site op deals with the moderator.
CLEAR, HARD AND FAST RULES OF ENGAGEMENT! (CoC)
CLEAR HARD AND FAST CONSEQUENCES! (site policies)
with no exceptions.
Clean this place right up drive the trolls away never to return.
WORKS EVERY TIME.
That isn't a CoC violation. It was not directed to a single member. It was crude. For the record, I remain out of these meta fests to so that I can moderate. I will only answer specific questions about the site, but offer no opinion
Yeah they are.
This is one of the worst threads I'v seen on NT and 90 99.9% of the ugliness is being created by Bruce T.
In the first place the so called "whiners" are not whining, they're people complaining about loud, foul mouth bullies that don't understand their comments and attitude are unwanted, unwarranted and out of line, and those "whiners" have a perfect right to complain about that kind of behavior.
The sad thing is BT will read that and he will be completely oblivious as to how it relates to him.
Yeah they are.
This is one of the worst threads I'v seen on NT and 9099.9% of the ugliness is being created by Bruce T.
In the first place the so called "whiners" are not whining, they're people complaining about loud, foul mouth bullies that don't understand their comments and attitude are unwanted, unwarranted and out of line, and those "whiners" have a perfect right to complain about that kind of behavior.
The sad thing is BT will read that and he will be completely oblivious as to how it relates to him.
Either can I. I had no idea there were so many immature NT members.
I feelresponsiblefor what happened here. Especiallyfor Mikes departure. I'm hoping he will return.
I should not have left this discussion unattended, and I apologize for that. We weren't off page two before the arguing started. I was trying to get ahead of the comments, but they were coming in faster than I could respond to them.
Anyway, I posted this article in the genuine interest of giving Perrie some input regarding what the the members would like to see in the new format she is working on. I did discuss it with her and she thought it would be a good idea.
After I posted thearticleI logged onto the thread when it first started made a couple of comments, but then I got involved in something offline, when I came back I saw there were a lot of comments posted so I knew the article took off and the thread was active. At that point I figured the participants were posting and discussing suggestions among themselves and I didn't really need t be there. So I decided to clean up comments that had been made on other posting before I got involved in this thread.
When I did get here, I couldn't believe what was going on. It was like an elementary schoolroom left unattended.
We do have some excellent suggestions, and there was considerable discussion regarding the User Name changes, I'm hoping there will some action on that moving forward, and the Resident Advisor will call for a vote on it.
That is a meta issue. Anything about the site functions is a meta issue. That's what meta is;
Dictionary.com
meta
a prefix added to the name of something that consciously references or comments upon its own subject or features:
The CoC presently prohibits MODS from moderating in threads wherein they have commented hence my proposal.
To all members of News Talkers -
I propose and ask for unanimous consent for an immediate change to the Code of Code. to whit -
I propose a listening period of 24 hours for opposition to this change to be made via email to Perrie (rather than a meta three ring circus)
Understanding that interjecting logic into a situation is a rare and huge leap, in this case I think it could work
Lets just move it to heated discussions where we can speak our minds.
Oh dear God! Somebody shoot me now!
You people have lost your collective minds. This is just like Gun Control!
While the CoC does state that moderators should not moderate an article they have commented in, but rather find another moderator, there is a moderation exception. But apparently you people are not familiar with moderation of the past. Perrie WILL moderate in an article she has commented in, IF it warrants. And by warrant, that means no one else available, or a situation so critical as to need immediate attention.
But no. That's not good enough for this crowd. You need a NEW RULE! Just like gun control, you need something to be done, because you don't think the current rules are good enough. And why? Because you got your feelings hurt by a comment! And since your delicate senses were so assaulted, you need a moderator to come in and hammer the guy for the comment. Because you should never have your feelings hurt on NT! And since the usual Keystone cops felt that they could not moderate because they had already commented, YOU NOW NEED A NEW RULE!
NEWS FLASH BOYS AND GIRLS: It was not a CoC violation. I knew that when I posted it. Because, well, to be frank, I know the CoC better than 90% of you clowns. Including the current batch of moderators. I am one of the original authors of it, and understand more about what and why everything is in it, as well as how to enforce it.
If you had bothered keeping up with what Perrie has said, she has admitted publicly in this article threads that it was not a CoC violation. Rude, and crude, but not a violation. But because your feelings got hurt, you need a new rule.
Maybe it's time you boys and girls give up the big boy and big girl panties, and don a pair of Depends.
This isn't supposed to be a slam fest that has to conducted in HD.
It's supposed to be a 'suggestion box' for ideas and suggestions the members would like to have considered for the new site construction currently underway.
Do have any ideas Dean? If so, please let us know what it/they are.
That's a great idea Robert, I suggested somewhere among the shouting and in-fighting here, that Perrie be waived from the 'prior comment' rule, but adding Mac as a backup would certainly help.
Let me explain. It's Macro and Micro. Macro: Mods should not moderate an article they are involved in.
Micro: In a case where all or a bulk of mods are engaged in an article, a mod (Usually Perrie) may moderate comments that THEY are not involved in.
Nice John, and you talk about other people acting childish.
Do you have any additional suggestions for the the new format? There are over 350 comments posted on this circle jerk, and many of them are yours.
When I filter through this pile of bullshit looking for the suggestion and ideas that have been posted, how many of them are going to be yours?
Bruce is right. We have this mod situation usually during Meta articles, where everyone is involved. In that case, a mod may moderate (in purple), if they are not in that thread of the discussion (uninvolved in the topic). If there is another mod on line and not involved in the discussion, they should do the moderation. This is the only exception to the rule. Also, please note, as I said before, I am not considered involved in this discussion, other than to add information.
We've noticed . How long do you think you can ignore it without consequences ?
Since Perrie doesn't seem to be interested in doing anything about this it means that things said to you are also unrestricted by rules ...
(?!) Do you think your suggestions are the only ones we are looking for??!!
So you emailed your suggestions to Perrie.......
You troll through this discussion looking for people to spar with, exasperating the rhetoric, yet you can't see fit to participate in the discussion which was designed to introduce new ideas so they can be discussed by the other members?
Aren't you special!
And maybe it's time for you to don your new uniform as NewsTalkers Agitator-in-Chief.
Me too, it certainly doesn't help.
It's not new.
It does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it.
It twirls my skirt up right over my head.
Yeah, too bad it isn't 'the ring of truth'
'scuse me. I thought it was newbecauseof that additional stripe you wereawardedas a result ofyour performance on this thread.
Tighten your tourniquet Jerry.
Here's a suggestion:
Authors of seeds should be prohibited from going back to an article after 72 hours of non activity and commenting in it to get it back to the front page.
Like our friend Jerry here likes to do.
My point exactly.
Well aware of it brother, been there done that.
But your proposal does beg the question of the rule now doesn't it?
Moderators cannot moderate articles wherein they have commented, except when there is no one else around.
Then they can.
Who decides who and when?
What's the point of the rule in the first place?
Turns an enforceable rule into an unenforceable one.
Just MPOV....
The rule exists to prevent a conflict-of-interests situation; if a moderator comments in a thread (as a member), i.e. expresses an opinion/position -- then subsequently deletes comments of other members, some will possibly construe that as pursuing a personal agenda.
But Mac, if a moderatoris not able toput asidetheir personal beliefslong enoughtofacilitate a fair and balanced discussion, then perhaps they have no business being a moderator. What's to stop them fromincorporating theirbias when moderating an article in which they have not participated?
It's not the moderator's objectivity so much as those who will call any moderation that is adverse to them personally, as "biased."
There are over 380 comments posted here, this article hasn't been idle for 72 minutes, let alone 72 hours. And yeah, I'm enjoying myself no end filtering through all the bullshit and petty infighting you perpetrated here Bruce.
So here's a better idea;
Commenters on seeds stay on topic and not act like assholes!
Revived?! When did this 380+ comment thread have be "revived"?! It's never been dormant! It hasn't been particularly productive given the ratio of new ideas vs the number of post, but it certainly has not been dormant.
Btw, how do you know what comment brought me back the the thread? I have email alerts regarding comments that were responding to other comments posted pages back from here.
That's what usually happens, but there is alway going to be someone that accuses an author ofpostinga comment only for the purpose of bringing the piece back to the top.
Tuesday of this week Cerenkov and Jonathan Livingston Pigeon-Poo posting comments on an article I seeded in November of 2013 .... go figure.
You're full of shit John, I don't have any 10 articles active, even if I did, who the fuck are you, the new 'articles on the front page counter'?
Anyway Perrie has stated numerous times that there is no time requirements for responding to comments.
I had comments I had not responded to backed up and I responded to them all at once, putting a number of my stuff on the FP at the same tim. (I counted 5 this morning)
At the time of this post RIO has 5 you and XX have 3 each and I have 2, the rest are 1 each by 7 separate members.
The TTT system is one of the best and most unique features of this site. In the past I have seen you defending the exact same kind of criticism you are now placing on me. What's up with that?!
I hope it's not because you're bent out of shapebecausesomeone has more stuff on thefront page than you. If that's the case, you need to totalkto RIO and XXJ.
OK people, there have been 387 comments made on this thread, a few of them made by members actually wanting to contribute something to be considered in the new build for NewsTalkers revision under way.
Those 387 comments were posted by a total of 25 people, including Perrie and myself. Unfortunately there was more petty in-fighting and kibitzing than there was productive input.
Most of the unproductive nonsense was posted by maybe 5 or 6 people. The rest of the 25 actually made suggestions, or commented on suggestions.
Anyway, at this point there doesn't seem to be anybody with anything new to suggest, so I'm closing the thread.
Anyone that has any new ideas can post them in the comment box of the NewsTalkers Community group , we will see that they get passed on to Perrie.
Thanks for your participation,
Jerry Verlinger
Co-Administrator The NewsTalkers Community Group