The Updated CoC
You all must have noticed that the CoC wasn't posted. That's because an update was being worked over. You will notice that most of it is the same, but clarified. It also has been shorted. So without any further ado... the new CoC!
Code of Conduct (CoC)
1. No Personal Attacks: Please use the "Golden Rule" and respect others. Address issues and arguments, not the individuals. Posts or articles designed as personal attacks are prohibited. Disrespectful or inappropriate posts, comments, etc., are to be reported to the administrator or moderator with the link (addy), the title of the article and the number of the comment. Comments that further inflamea situation are inappropriate. Oblique comments about fellow members designed to skirt the "Spirit of the CoC", will be deemed as a personal attack and treated as such. Adding a personal attack to an otherwise valuable comment or article serves only to render that contribution invalid in its entirety. Such content is subject to moderation and removal. Harassment and/or intimidation of others on NewsTalkers will not be tolerated; this includes discussions about fellow members, on or off an article. Patterns of such behavior may result in account cancellation. A user's participation is judged as a whole. Recurring counterproductive behavior or negative contributions, be they violations of the letter or the spirit of the CoC, whether or not specifically addressed in the CoC, may still warrant removal of that person from the NewsTalkers Community.
- a. Members may not address NewsTalkers moderators or administrators in an abusive, threatening, harassing, or offensive manner
- b. Comments, articles and use of the group Newsfeed (which is to be solely for positive comments, queries and feedback), otherwise used for attacking members, administration or the site and devised for disruption of the site/group/article, will be deleted. When administration deletes an offensive comment, all comments that pertain to the offensive posting will also be deleted.
- c. Use profanity judiciously and sparingly: this should also apply to comments that are purely pejorative and which may be offensive whether a part of the original discussion or, subsequently added as a part of a member comment. It is understood that profanity is commonly used, but be mindful that it may be deemed as part of a personal attack. Use common sense when using profanity. When entering a heated debate, it is best to leave out profanity, this so as to not inflame a situation. Name calling even without profanity will be deemed a personal attack.
2. Please keep the names of articles and seeds accurate and non-inflammatory and notas a means to draw attention to your article.Headlines must not be misleading nor misreprepresentaive and must accurately reflect the content of the seeded or authored article.
3. The Author Moderates His/Her Own Article: That means authors are responsible for the tone of their articles. As the column hosts, authors are expected to foster healthy, open discussions by setting good examples. Authors must be responsible for content (they) submit and exercise impartiality if/when reporting abuse. If at any point in a discussion, an author cannot moderate, that author may close the article to comments; administration/moderators will reserve the right to close/moderate as they deem necessary. Authors, please contact administration if/when there has been a violation. Please include the addy to the article and quote the comment. The author has the right to ask other members to stay on topic. Any/all off topic remarks can be removed by administration/moderators. 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. An argument is defined as " ... a continuous exchange of posts between two or more members, which goes off topic and/or are personal attacks resulting in the disrupting of the tone of an article."
4. Membership can be deleted for persistent violations of the CoC. Members may contact administration and request to rejoin, in which case, that individual will be asked to sign an agreement not to engage again in such behavior; as follows ... "Persistent Violation Agreement: I (member's name) understand that by signing this agreement, I will abide by the CoC of NewsTalkers and that breaking said agreement will result in suspension of my account for a time to be determined by administration. Re-admittance into the group will result in all postings being screened for an indefinite period of time. A violation of this agreement will result in your account being deleted permanently."
5. Acts that run contrary to the spirit and purpose of NewsTalkers, including attempts to circumvent the Code of Conduct are not allowed.
Members agree not to:
- a. Upload, post any User Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, and libelous, known to be false, invasive of another's privacy. Pornography is prohibited. Post User Content that would be harmful to minors in any manner. Distribute personal emails, or "spam," is prohibited.
- b. Post content that potentially infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights of any person or entity nor material that has copyright protection unless properly credited to the author/photographer so as to prevent copyright infringement and possible litigation. Copyright infringement is illegal.
- c. Use accounts owned by anotherregisteredmember. Switching of accounts for any reason, without prior notice to administration is prohibited and will result in the immediate deletion of that account. Use of an anonymizing service, for the purposes of cloaking your identity, or gaining admittance to the site is prohibited.
6. Moderators will comprise of two permanent members, Perrie Halpern and A Mac, and a rotation of 3 NewsTalkers members. All members with at least 3 months on NewsTalkers and no major infractions, will qualify to be a moderator. A member may decline moderator responsibility at any time. All moderators have the power to delete comments, hold comments for review, suspend accounts of disruptive members, and delete accounts. All decisions will be reviewed by Perrie Halpern but deemed final with the exception that termination was not consistent with the Code of Conduct. All moderators comments will be made in purple so as not to be confused with non-administrative, member comments. Moderators must recuse themselves as such in articles where they have been active as members.
Tags
Who is online
211 visitors
We seem to be having aformattingproblem. It should be straighten out in a little bit. Thanks for yourpatience.
OK. It's now working. Everyone Please Read This!
No. The forum is the forum. I can actually change what shows up on the Newsfeed. If people don't want forum stuff to show up there, I can change it. But it is a good way of keeping track of conversations going on. I'll leave that to the judgement of the group.
OK!
Same here, good conversation tracker the way it is.
That's why I left it that way. I love the fact that you can just keep getting more off of it by hitting the bottom bar. It keeps me in the loop. Nice feature here at Ning.
I know...
There are not that many folks on tonight. I think that it has something to do with the world series. I will make sure that at least I get 20 votes.
OK Randy,
I guess it's at this point that I should ask you what you voted... although I think I know.
Max...
That's so you! LOL! Your the Dirty Harry of the blogosphere!
You got it girlfriend!
I was unaware that you voted.. so I really have no idea what you voted.. but I think I know... you didn't say why.
I don't know why? It seems to me you have to go out of your way to curse on-line.
I say we can do with out it.
Arch Man,
Personally, I don't curse much. But this site was set up to have as much freedom of speech as possible. You know.. the old "my rights end when it steps on your toes" thing. So those who feel the need to curse can... but you can't use cursing as part of a personal attack. It's what keeps the site nice to be on.
Max,
You're bleeping killing me tonight, LOL!
Your right, because we would then have to establish what isconsidereda curse word.
Exactly. It's different things to different people. It's one of those things... we know it when we see it... but you can't describe it.
Well shit, I just spent 20 minutes reading this damned thing, making both substantive and editing comments, only to be told I had to write some asshat letters to "verify" my account, which I did. I was then told that my letters didn't match and I would have to re-enter the word or words. Unfortunately, my damn work is GONE!
Aww gosh, sorry Terry. Yeah, those letter things show up for the first two posts, and then go away. It's some sort of verification system. But what you probably didn't realize is that when you make a comment here, and it seems to get lost, if you quickly hit the back button, there is a recovery system on the bottom left corner of the comment box.
I know how frustrated you must feel. It happened to me for my first 2 posts and I pay the bills here, LOL!
I am still interested in your comments on the CoC. Do a fake comment and see if you get the captua again (that's what those letters are) and then test it one more time. If they are gone, then you are good to go without the problems of loosing your comment.
Oh.. and if you want to compare the old code to the new, here is the old code.
1. No Personal Attacks:This will be not be tolerated in posts or articles designed as personal attacks. If you, the author or member are having a problem with a member,please contact administrationimmediatelywith the link (addy), the title of the article and the number of the comment. Any post that is a personal attack will be deleted by administration. Posts with some value but questionable content will be deleted and held for review by theadministrators and/ or the community. The administrators arecomprised of 3 members of NT and Perrie and A. Mac.Comments may be restored if deemed that they have value, as long as the offensive comment is removed.
3. Use Cursing Wisely:NT has no profanity filter. We know that curse words are commonly used,but be mindful that they can be deemed as part of a personal attack.Use your common sense when using them. When entering a heated debate, it is best to leave cursing out of it as to not inflame the situation (that is just a recommendation to defuse any problems).
4. The Author Moderates Their Own Article:That means that they are responsible for the tone of the article.If you can't moderate put up a notice stating"Please Do Not Post Any More Comments, Until I Return",then go into edit andclick "closed" You can reopen the article when you return.Any posts made after an article is closed will be deleted by administration without mediation as a violation of the CoC. Authors, please contact administration when you close an article, or there has been a violation.If an author asks to stay on topic or to remove/edit a comment, they are within their rights. People who choose not to follow this rule, will find their comment removed by administration.The author can also request that members,who are having an argument that is disrupting the article, to leave the article or to take that argument to theTown Hall or to leave their article. If they don't, the author should contact administration and all comments pertaining to that argument will be deleted by administration.An argument is defined as a continuous exchange of posts between two or more members, that go off topic, are personal attacks, and disrupts the tone of an article.
5.Please keep the names of articles and seeds accurate and non-inflammatory.
7.Membership can be deleted for persistent violations of the CoC. This is not a banning. It is a cooling off period.Members may contact administration and request rejoining, but will be asked to sign an agreement not to engage in such behavior again. A violation of this agreement, will result in offenders account being deleted for a longer period of time, and screening of their comments for an indefinite period of time. The agreement is as follows:
Persistent Violation Agreement: I (member's name) understand that by signing this agreement that I will abide by the CoC of Newstalkers and that breaking said agreement, will result in deletion of my account for a time to be determined by administration. Re-admittance into the group for a second deletion, will result in all postings being screened, for an indefinite period of time.
8. Perrie Halpern isa member, administrator and owner.In order to avoid any confusion, posts made inpurpleare actions made in herofficialcapacity.
9. Misuse of a Membership Account.Member accounts must be used by theregisteredmember only. Switching of accounts for any reason, without prior notice to administration is prohibited and will result in the immediatedeletionof that account.
These rules are not written in stone. We are a community based news site and therefore, listen to our membership. Any ideas can be submitted to us directly, and will be discussed during Town Hall Meetings, which is open to all membership.
Well I just checked and there are two folks who don't like it. Speak up! This is your site!
OK, let's use some come to some common sense interpersonal skills. I'll start with a story. About a year and a half ago, Mal was having a discussion about health care with Tina. Tina referred to the program, as Obamacare, and Mal took offense. He asked her, not to use the term to him. She said OK. He then told her that he found her avatar of Obama in scrubs underneath it read "It's gonna hurt for a very long time", offensive, and she said tough luck, that's on my page ( I'm paraphrase here). So, what should we take away from this story? If someone asks you not to use a term to THEM in reference to something, then, we should respect their wishes. But if that goes beyond them, and it's your article or you are talking to someone else, then you should be free to use the term. And that would be any term. Personally, I hate the C word, If someone used that word in a discussion with me, I would ask them not to. I would expect them to treat me with a level of respect and not do it... to me. It's subtle, but I think we all get what I am getting at. Just common decency that you would use in real life.
There is no way to come up with a list of offensive terms, and I don't think we should. I think that we should treat each other as if we were talking face to face.
Max,
The other one was just as long, but laid out differently. And we are trying to minimize the need to be verbally smashed,gratifyingas it may be sometimes. It rubs both ways... you can also be the victim of a verbal smashing..and a lot of people don't like to be accosted that way.
Max,
I have to agree with that.
Bruce,
You can't talk about how to behave if the first word out of your mouth to dissentingopinionsis Bullshit. We should all be asking for clarification. This isn't such a hot button subject that we can't work it out.
There are buildings and buildings filled with law books ... with all manner of attempts to regulate human behavior, and yet, the court dockets are endless!
So, what's my point?
My point is ... there has never been a perfect law or perfect system to regulate infallibly the behavior of human beings or, to reign in the infinite permutations of human nature.
The CoC is not an edict nor an order nor a directive rather it is a guideline to the following end: in the absence of common sense and empathy, in time there will be chaos, bad feelings and the potential destruction of the very forum that now permits us to demean one another ... how ironic.
I suggest that in order to prevent an exodus as the one from Newsvine and other venues, this to reinvent the wheel so that it may be again destroyed, that egos be set aside for the common good.
Randy,
I am saying this as the moderator. If a person asks you nicely not to use that term to them, you will not. I don't care what your personal friends are willing to put up with, but in the real world, if your boss or co worker asked you not to use a term to them, you wouldn't. The reason why is that it's considered to be common courtesy,definedas such:
Exactly Mac!
Bruce,
There is nothing to rethink about busting Brent. One issue had to do with a personal attack on 2 members. This has to do with the use of language. They are not the same thing.
Randy, you can't use it to him or any member who asks you not to use it to them and you are directly addressing them. You can use it anywhere else and in your articles.
All moderators can and will be expected to enforce the CoC. No one is above the CoC and that includes me.
I consider this business over.
Randy, you can't use it to him or any member who asks you not to use it to them and you aredirectly addressing them. You can use it anywhere else and in your articles.
Case closed, IMHO
Randy,
No one is trying tosuppressyou usage of words. Just that you respect the wishes of others.
The ruling stands. Case closed.
OK, we now have 4 members who don't like the CoC, but only one has said why, which is that it's too long. Please feel free to explain what you don't like. This is just a working copy and is meant to be updated.
Max ,
I don't think you get it . You seem to think you are immune from that same
ripping you described . But if that is allowed against those
"that most assuredly deserve it" then it would be allowed against you as well .
One more thing . You seem to think of yourself as judge jury & executioner to deliver said rippings . You really do not have that power on the vine and you don't have it here .
Perrie ,
Here is my objection to the new CoC , Part 1a :
a. Members are forbidden to address NewsTalkers moderators or administrators in an abusive, threatening, harassing, offensive or otherwise distasteful manner
This should be amended to include the words "when they are acting as administrators"
Otherwise , it would imply that there are special privileges granted to said moderators
when they are just being members .
Hi Perrie,
I have to admit that I have not scrutinized the whole thing... But after a quick scan, this is what jumped out at me...
a. Members may not address NewsTalkers moderators or administrators in an abusive, threatening, harassing, or offensive manner
My thought is that this might be even better...
a. Members may not address any other NewsTalkers member, including moderators or administrators, in an abusive, threatening, harassing, or offensive manner
Also, you may want to add something about administrators are the the sole judges of what is considered "abusive, threatening, harassing, or offensive" on Newstalkers.
If that's how you read the old saying about "judge jury & executioner"
then you are bordering on psychotic .
"you'll be easy as hell to rip apart"
I think you will believe that what you are doing is ripping me apart . But if you can't understand something as simple as the problem with being "judge jury & executioner" then there is no point in getting into an argument about nothing .
If OTOH you do think there is a problem with being "judge jury & executioner" you really ought to say it now instead of that blablahblahblahblah tactic .
"Which is why I resent getting attacked and threatened for violating a rule that I have NOT violated."
If I'm not mistaken , Bruce has , in fact , told you not to use the term "T-baggers" previously but you persisted anyway .
Well Thank Goodness!
Yes, I know Dirty Harry. It's actually shorter than the old one ( it had 10 rules and now we have 6). If you want to do some ripping... there's always NV, LOL!
And I agree with Feronia... boys back into your corners.
I have to agree, Randy. But then again, much like a collapsed post, people tend to peek, so really, unless you have a lot of self control, it wasn't useful.
Guys,
Wow.. all on the same page.. makes it much easier.
First about Moderators. We know when a member is acting as a moderator when they are in the color purple ( and not the movie). So, there should be no confusion as to when a person is acting as a member and not a moderator. Moderators must abide by the same CoC especially when they are moderators.
Now Mal and Rich kind of have conflicting points. I think Mal is a bit more spot on. and his update to letter a. is good. We should all expect respect from fellow members in any capacity.
Can we agree to go with Mal's update?
Nope!
To imply that moderators are exactly the same as other members is not completely
accurate . When they are acting as moderators there should be , IMO , less playful
banter towards them if they are to be taken seriously as representatives of our law .
If one does not take their authority seriously it should only be because they are not
performing their job competently . In that case the problems with their performance
should be pointed out publicly but in a factual manner .
And that is why I do think there should be a clause that applies just to moderators
but it should mention that this only applies when they are acting as moderators .
Rich,
Let me clarify. Your are saying that when a member is in moderator mode ( in purple), that they are to have a level of decorum that the position requires, and members should treat them as such. And if a moderator doesn't behave in that fashion, or members don't treat them with the respect in thatposition, that both should be reported to me. Is that correct?
If that is correct... should that clause be added to the one that Mal proposed?
Why don't you guys do me a favor and work this out in the chat room. Heated discussion, is for an actual article that you want to beat each other up over. Since there is no article or seed, the chat room is where you go to work things out.
"as far as judge, jury and executioner, sometimes it's valid, other times it's not."
I agree . But the times it is valid are rare ... very rare . Those are only during life or death situations . And guess what . Those don't happen on NT . If you know of other times , by all means , inform me . I am open to learning new things .
Again.... we have very few votes and 3 unidentified nos. Please vote! Also, if you have said no, please explain why. This is not written in stone.
I'm not sure why there's so much discussion on the CoC. In life and in the world ... there are rules, laws, common courtesy and common sense.
The ultimate common sense "rule," were it to be followed, would render every other unnecessary ...
What's the problem with a CoC that essentially, if not at some length , essentially attempts to express the idea that we should treat others the way we want to be treated?
In everyday conversations with people i know well, as long as those conversations are informal, and, I know those people will not object or be offended, I'll drop "f-bombs " and all sorts of obscene words and phrases to add color an emphasis.
BUT IF SOMEONE OBJECTS OR IS OFFENDED I'M QUITE CAPABLE OF EXPRESSING MY THOUGHTS IN CORRECT ENGLISH AND WITH A TOTAL ABSENCE OF OBSCENITY!
So what's the problem here? If someone is offended by offensive language, the user might consider not using it when the offended person's in the conversation; conversely, if certain words offend, then the offended individual can leave that discussion and any other he/she deems offensive.
It's common sense ... common courtesy and a willingness to try and meet one another in a spirit of compromise in order the NT remain viable.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Sorry A Mac . Even the Golden Rule doen't work anymore . It is difficult to apply
in interactions between a homosexual and a heterosexual .
Then hang out with hermaphrodites, Rich.
I'm attempting to be serious on this one.
How dare you call me a republican! I once was aregistereddemocrat...until I was sold out.
OK, so now three moderators on the subject..
Yes, the golden rules is nice. Yet it is so often not followed. When Dana and I set up the site, we had "5 Simple Rules". But guess what? As the weeks passed we found that a big part of human nature is to get around the rules to suitthemselves. Sometimes on purpose and other times not, but still, it left both Dana and I tointerpretthe CoC, which then left people saying, "That's just yourinterpretations, and they were right. And because it was 2 of us, ourinterpretationswere often different, and this lead to many disagreements. So a well formed CoC is for everyone's benefit. Everyone is clear to the rules ofengagementsand no one can claim that a judgement made wasinterpretative.
Okay, one more time!
I agree with the comment that a. should be applicable to all. It should read, "members may not address other members in an ..." A bit redundant, but if you wish to have a particular section re: how to deal with moderators, so be it. Otherwise, should be universal.
b. Take out the word otherwise.
Structurally, a and b of section 1 seem redundant. These could be worked into a "1." Seems bizarre that we have 1(a), 1(b), etc.
c., however, could be a separate section, 2.
4., "membership" should be "members" or "members posting privileges." Seems awkward (just my editing mode.)
5a. could use an "or" in the first sentence. Note, much of this section/sentence is syntactically incorrect. Each portion should be read with "agrees not to ..." They do not read that way.
Same goes with b. and c. I would get rid of "agrees not to" and create each subsection a stand alone sentence and/or sentences.
6. needs to be "will be comprised of..."
As to actual content <shrug>. As anyone can see from the comments to this article, many believe that any COC is some sort of restriction on "free speech," or whatever. Others believe that if you wanna play, you gotta pay. I'm of the latter group. IF you wish to be an asshole, fine, but pay the penalty. Get knocked off the seed, called out for the way you are acting, and deal with it.
As most know about me, I'm a firm believer of, if you get pissed, leave, don't make a scene. Of course, don't hold me to that, who was it that said consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?
But everyone should give Perrie an high five for sticking with this, dealing with all the assholes (poster included) and continuing to do what she does and give us a place to act like assholes, then move on to acting like even bigger assholes.
Terry,
I could kiss you! I agree with all your amendments and will make the adjustments, so long as no one objects.
I was waiting for your post. I figured you being a lawyer, would see the devil in the details. ( and no, I'm not making lawyer jokes, LOL)
Thanks for the kind words and support!
Hey, no issue. If you wish for me to be editor, shoot it to me in word and I will fly speck it. What the hell, I can always use some distraction as opposed to drinking Ketel One!
Thanks I will!
And just make the adjustments. I trust you! Wait.. What number of glasses of Kettle one are you on? LOL!
In the legal profession there are rules in place that allow for the punishment of "contempt of court" violations . These are clearly spelled out . In the same fashion the role of the administrator [and maybe the moderators too] should be spelled out as being different from regular members but only when they are acting as moderators .
Randy,
I see your concern. We will add in the part about moderators.
Terry,
I have sent out the CoC to you at the usual address. Randy and Rich both want that mods must clearly indicate when they are acting as mods ( purple color) and the part that you and Mal are in agreement with about all members should be treated XYZ. I will be awaiting your email with the changes so that I can post them.
I mean at this point, the CoC has been out there since Thursday, so I think we have beaten this thing to death!
There is no doubt given the fact that posting members are also, at times, moderators, that they should be held to different standards during those times when they are acting in disparate roles.
I will attempt to address that in the CoC.
Rich:
Contempt of Court generally has only two forms of punishment, monetary fines and jail.
I don't think we can provide for that in the CoC, though if we could it would be a GREAT idea!
And just the flyspecking edits, no substantive changes (except those asked for) from this guy.
T Mac ,
Thanks . I don't think it is necessary to go that far !
I hope that things never come to the point when we need it . But I'm glad you have volunteered to do the formal writeup . It is beyond my knowledge base .
I wanted to know that, too. I think it was Terry. He is very pragmatic.
As for chips... gee, I hope they are not the kind that comes from cows.
Fact is that the more detailed you make any prohibition document, the more people will say "well, that wasn't mentioned!"
General is good, most know what the hell is correct behavior on a site and it's not as if the first violation is going to result in hanging!
Or is it?
I worked to keep it well under two pages.
Actually, it could be one sentence. "Don't be a d**k!"
That would pretty much cover all circumstances, imo.
Note, when I cam on this article I thought you would have put up the shortened CoC, but it does not look like that happened.
I am still going over a few things that were talked about in this article. I am going to post it as a final sometime today on a fresh article. I will not be taking any comments, since I think we killed this thing by now, but I will put up a new vote on it. Hopefully some of those nos and the one I don't care, will like this version better.
Thanks again for the help!
The language does not stipulate "continuous" membership, consequently, " at least 3 months" means "a total of at least 3 months."
In the hope of preventing a devolving decorum as occurred at the other site, based on an assumption that most human beings prefer reasonable dialogue, and, civility over hostility-without-provocation, there is this CoC thing.
Driving members away from discussion is senseless in a "discussion forum."
Mike L. Being a former Mod, knows of the CoC very well.
Despite his current handle..
Well I've never been one to let the cat out of the bag before, on this one I suspect that the bag was out of the cat already...
Well I'm a weird kind of guy....
We've had a mod unfairly call other NT members liars and fools, so since that qualifies him to be a mod I guess there aren't any qualifications other than 3 months.
The language does not stipulate "continuous" membership, consequently, " at least 3 months" means "a total of at least 3 months."
Yep.
Now there's a radical idea...
I'm doing well. Mike catching lots of nice fish, publishing and selling pix life has been good to me.
As for the Mods Perrie and I are perennials, haven't seen Peter Faden for a while and if we appear to have a lot of Mods, consider that indicative of a high percentage of responsible, site-appreciating members.
Sadly, for some, it is a radical idea and beyond their comprehension.
Thanks for this!
Not a Mod, a former Mod. Lets be clear.
I was speaking of Buzz's commentregarding Mike.