A Visitor to "Newest Discussions" ... ... by Bob Nelson

Getting the text aligned with the image... What a hassle!

Getting the text aligned with the image... What a hassle!

When i have to go into the bhtml here to fix something on one of my posts (the <> in the menu)  I often think of it as "the HTML from hell"). I have never, ever, seen such poor programming...

UNRWA SHOULD BE DISMANTLED, NETANYAHU TOLD NIKKI HALEY

"Interesting article. Not enough background, by far... But it's certainly worth reading... which is pretty rare on this site, so far!"

Yes, but unfortunately it wasn't about Trump or a left/right fight, so only two comments. 

I agree, Buzz. Your article wasn't very good clickbait. 

And sadly, clicks rule the world.

A novice visitor probably wouldn't make very much of the Reply count, so I didn't either... but I agree completely.

What jumps out at me is the low comment count on many of the articles with only a couple attracting the majority of attention.  Even those articles turn from the subject matter to personal attacks.  Digging deeper you see it's the same 10 - 13 members participating.  

When I first came here I didn't understand how to navigate the site.  I only paid attention to the FP and although I only saw a small number of members commenting I thought it was because I wasn't familiar with the site's layout.  Even to this day I don't participate in the groups because I assume it's the same 10 - 13 members so what's the point.........

There are reasons why things don't change.  Some reasons are:

• People are adverse to change
• The don't see a need to change
• They like things the way they are
• The need is being met so why change
• It's too much work
• Uncertainty of success

In summary, I think you are fighting a pointless battle but I will add my 2 cents in an effort to support what you are trying to do.

Things have changed drastically. When I first joined there were a lot more active members and the members were more free to speak their minds. Then the crybabies started to demand safe spaces and the gradual reduction of freedom drove most of the freedom lovers away. I quit seeding when the authoritarians demanded people babysit there seeds to ensure safe spaces were guarded against the occasional remark that might burn a snowflakes eyes and cause butthurt. 

Things have changed drastically. When I first joined there were a lot more active members and the members were more free to speak their minds. Then the crybabies started to demand safe spaces and the gradual reduction of freedom drove most of the freedom lovers away. I quit seeding when the authoritarians demanded people babysit there seeds to ensure safe spaces were guarded against the occasional remark that might burn a snowflakes eyes and cause butthurt.

Dean, you have got to be kidding. And all of you who voted this up, same to you. Fact: I get the most amount of flagging from the conservatives and not the liberals, so who are the cry babies and the snowflakes? Nothing has changed in the moderation, other than there is more skirting than ever. Just read all the comments I made down this article. Since the election, you all have been filled with distain for each other and it's leached all over the site. Freedom of speech is not insulting one another and it never has been on this site. It's making cogent argument and not one liners or insults. BTW.. snowflakes is an insult and there are no safe spaces on the site, since everyone can write about the topic they want. What they can't do is rag on one another on a personal level. I know you get that.. so please don't make this about a fake cry about the liberals. on the site... if you read on, I will see I dole it out equally. 

What jumps out at me is the low comment count on many of the articles with only a couple attracting the majority of attention.  Even those articles turn from the subject matter to personal attacks.

Yes.

I took the time to open every article, reading or re-reading, to put myself in the shoes of a curious, novice visitor. It seems to me that only a clone of our current alt-right members would ever consider coming back. No one interested in actual conversation would give NT a second glance.

I wonder if that is Perrie's objective: an all-alt-right circle-jerk. It would probably be self sustaining, financially. Lots of clicks and no hassle. There are so many such sites that we must assume there's money to be made.

I wonder if that is Perrie's objective: an all-alt-right circle-jerk. It would probably be self sustaining, financially. Lots of clicks and no hassle. There are so many such sites that we must assume there's money to be made

Bob, 

I really shouldn't even answer this, but since this seems to be your only theme, and I ignored the last one, I will. To me it seems that you complain about alt right site, but your contributions are negative meta about me and my intentions. So let me clarify for you. First of all, I have been nothing but courteous to you with your questions about the site, but apparently, you feel the best way of repaying me for this is to imply that I am purposefully doing this to make money. Well done with the insult. Fact, the site makes no money. In fact it runs in the red. It has been for the last 5 years a labor of love. Fact 2: I am an independent, something I have never hid from the community. I am definitely not alt right. I do not have to agree with what is being said by either side of the political spectrum, since that is not what NT has ever been about. It was started because NV decided to make up it's own rules on who could speak and who got banned. 

So where are your contributions to the site to add to the liberal side? I don't see them. You have your RBR's like you wanted, so you have the control you wanted... so what is your excuse? Instead of wasting your time on destructive meta, why not post something

Perrie, 

I very reluctantly came to the conclusion that your decision to make NT just another alt-right was for money... because I cannot see any other reason. I would like to be wrong. 

Let's not kid ourselves. You cannot possibly ignore the path that NT is on. If you don't prevent it, then you endorse it. 

And don't try to turn the tables; if you aren’t getting a healthy mix of seeds, it's because the CoC, as you currently apply it, leads inevitably to an alt-right circle-jerk. I've explained the dynamics over and over. 

This decline has been going on long enough that you can't claim that it isn't happening. And if it is happening, and you know it, and you do nothing... then you agree with it. 

Why? If it isn't for money, then why? Why are you turning NT into an alt-right circle-jerk? 

I have come to the conclusion that you are trolling me with these comments and accusations. I have gone through a lot of time and full disclosure to you and the group, but your finger pointing to me, seems to leave YOU out of the equation. Think about that for a moment. You have every tool you need to run an article in the way you want, but instead, you have been trolling other people's articles with skirting the CoC.. and then you blame me when you get called out for it? Pleeze. 

If you're happy, that's the end of it. 

I'm not happy. What would make me happy is if we went back to our pre-election status and actually discussed stuff with each other. That would make me happy. I am tired of moderating all day long stupid comments that are meant to do nothing but cause trouble. If you don't like an alt right article, please skip it.. or argue and prove it wrong. But don't blame it on me. Everyone here has the freedom to post whatever topic they like and that includes you. See, you have this article up, and I don't particularly like it... but I have been divil and direct in my replies. 

I'm not happy. What would make me happy is if we went back to our pre-election status and actually discussed stuff with each other. 

I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. 

The circumstances of NT today are inevitable, with today's CoC. The future of the site is perfectly clear, if the CoC remains as it is. If you are not happy with NT's trajectory, then the inescapable conclusion is that you must change the CoC. 

I was worried that you had gone over to the dark side, so I am relieved to hear your protestations.

... but now I am again without any plausible explanation for your inaction. 

I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. I do not understand. 

If you don't prevent it, then you endorse it. 

I smell bullshyt. I'm a part timer at NewsTalkers. So I'll be brief...

It is my understanding that as far as speech goes. Free means without restriction.

..not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

Free speech is similarly written as freedom of speech.

the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

Simply stated, your own expression, which I equate with bullshyt, sides with Ms Perrie. Promoting a place where each of us can fling bullshyt whenever and at whoever we want. Peace.

It's funny how you are unable to see the alt left wing nut job articles out there too.....well, not funny, just expected.  You might be more readable if you had the intellectual honesty to see both sides of the problem.

I think Bob took a snapshot of what was currently posted on the FP.  One of the complaints I've seen in the past is that sometimes members bombard the front page with their articles preventing other articles to catch root.  Since this site is predominately right leaning it makes sense that the FP would represent the views of it's majority.

In other words I don't think he intentionally tried to just capture the articles supported by the right leaning members.

...are unable to see the alt left wing nut job articles...

Please point them out to me. The image is a straightforward copy of "Newest Discussions" as I found it this morning. If you see any "left-wing conspiracy theories", please point them out.

Here's a couple on a screenshot form a few seconds ago, notice the Right Wing ones (I'm sure you do), how about the left wing ones (I'm guessing you will see them as legitimate):

Oh, no! 

If you want to repeat my experiment, then you must do as I did: on a random day, take the whole page. 

Cherry-picking can give whatever result you want. 

Don't be stupid, Bob.  You asked, I provided.  Now you want something else.  Be honest with yourself.  I'm not sure you have that ability.

I said "Please feel free to conduct the same experience." You "provided" something very different. 

"...are unable to see the alt left wing nut job articles...

Please point them out to me. The image is a straightforward copy of "Newest Discussions" as I found it this morning. If you see any "left-wing conspiracy theories", please point them out."

This is your comment.  I clipped a screen shot and posted it of the front page.  I didn't think I needed to oversimplify for you.

You clipped a screenshot of... what? The basis of this article is a page of "Newest Discussions". Show me "left-wing conspiracy theories" in that page. 

You could also take a screenshot from AlterNet... 

I think Bob's article has some of the words right but not as much of the music right. I was considering posting a very similar article as this yesterday, but ultimately decided not to. While I saw that "anti-liberal" articles were the great majority of the seeds, there weren't quite enough of those of the "liberals are godless commie job killers" type to make the point I wanted. 

On this site, the "left" tends to talk about specific cases and problems, while the "right" tends to seed general pseudo intellectual diatribes against left wing ideology. It is an obvious difference, but the reader has to be open to knowing what they are looking for. Frankly, that would be an issue here.

I seeded the article about Trump's personal lawyer setting up an office in the white house, and it is a news story, that in this case was reprinted and linked on an opinion blog. According to the story, Trump's personal lawyer is giving instructions to white house staffers on how to conduct themselves during the investigation. This seems highly inappropriate to me.

NT has way too many nutcase right wing conspiracy type articles, because it encourages credence be given to sites like Infowars, Gateway Pundit , and other disgraced sites.  Until there is a signal that these stories are to be discouraged here, there is nothing to be done. At the least we should be allowed to mercilessly make fun of them.

All articles are not equally interesting, factual, or relevant. When you start from the flawed premise that all opinions and articles are created equal this is what you end up with.

-

There are more than 10 or 13 people who post here regularly. I used to think something similar myself, and then one day I went through comments for a couple days and saw there were considerably more.

The "good" people need to seed and post more though, to thrive the site.

The "good" people need to seed and post more though, to thrive the site.

You see that would be useful, instead of meta like this. Thank you for that remark. 

After seeing how much speech is censored here, I don't know why any new person would want to join.  This is a site where alt right trolling is welcomed, and reaction to it is only allowed if it is polite and fluffy.

Oh please Hal. Nothing has changed in the moderation here. You changed and it's been since the election. You have been getting away with murder here, with all the "skirting" violations, and let me give you a heads up on that... if you do one more, you will on vacation. I didn't have the time to write you up for your last beauty yesterday, but I should have given you a suspension then. So when you complain about the moderation, take a look in the mirror. Maybe something else has changed, too. ... like you. 

Whatever Perrie.  You let your pet trolls malign liberals as an entire demographic with outlandish comments that obviously are not true, but when you're shown a different example of maligning entire demographics with ridiculous accusations you censor.  It was right there in black and white, until it suddenly wasn't.

After seeing how much speech is censored here, I don't know why any new person would want to join.

Now that is a funny one Hal.  You do come up with some funny comments every now and then and I have to admit that one is right up there with the best of them.

you forgot Barney. They are triplets

Here are 2 years of members. I blocked out their email addys to protect their privacy. 

This list is the Owner's problem... but it seems to have primarily two groups: re-regs and never-seen-agains. It pretty much confirms what I've been saying. 

Also... 

Over these two years, how many long-standing members have gone away? 

NT's trajectory is perfectly clear. It is the inevitable and obvious consequence of the CoC as it is today. 

Bob,

You need to go to NV and see their numbers of who is no longer there and who doesn't post. It would blow your mind. This is normal although fighting among members and name calling and disrupting articles doesn't help either.. hey do you do any of that? 

hey do you do any of that? 

Nowhere near as much as I used to. I must thank Bf for making me aware of my incapacity to resist his taunts. I've worked on it, and it's much better now. ... Although I still occasionally play ping-pong, I haven't "lost it" for a long while. 

Can you say with a straight face that over the last two years NT has acquired as good a panel of new members as it has lost? 

More directly: are you happy with the way the site is evolving? 

On this list, the ones I have seen make more than 1 or 2 comments are

Bobby

Foul E Lujah (fermit)

Roy Patteerson

Arkansas Hermit

Pepe Covfefe

JWC Blue

-

Comment removed for CoC violation. 

Exactly.  New members who don't contribute.  We need that like a fish needs a bicycle.

Oh, a second group. Fair enough. I am not going to comment on those other than to note there are names of known fakes throughout the list. "Sophie Descartes" and "Heath Hutchinson" for example.

OMG.. It's amazing what you both get out of this. 

One, look at the memory used on each account. Many are still posting, many are not. This is normal on any site. And many of them have told me, when I inquire as to why they are no longer posting... it's because they say they feel uncomfortable with the community at large. That both sides are uninviting. Oh and that they have been called trolls. 

two: Heath was never proved to be a fake account. 

... both sides... 

What is this sh!t? Are you really encouraging the reduction of NT's membership into two clans? That's the exact contrary of what we need. 

Oh and that they have been called trolls.

I have never said anyone was a troll without good reason, and you damn well know that.

You don't have the right to call anyone a troll, which is an insult and a direct violation of the CoC-for which you should receive some type of censure for.  Perrie has given you a lot of rope to hang yourself with, but you just keep wanting more.

For the last time John, you can't call a member a troll. It's just that easy. You can insult a comment, but not a person. You are smart enough to know how to do that.

For the last time John, you can't call a member a troll.

Then you do it. Yours is the only voice that matters anyway.

Thanks for your contribution Bob.  I don't believe I've ever seen an article on a site that criticized the articles on that site before.  That's pretty original.

Got me thinking.....  Not as diversified, but it will have to do.  Can't find anyway to criticize them though.

Do you have anything to say that is pertinent to my article? The topic is NT.

12 of the articles you list mention Trump by name , and almost all of the others refer to current news about his troubles. I don't necessarily consider such articles to be anti Republican or anti-conservative. Trump is the least qualified or fit president in history.

XX Jefferson, and to a slightly lesser extent yourself, regularly seed articles that are about nothing other than how horrible liberals are. Often, "liberals" or "leftists" , or "the left" is in the title of the article.  XX hardly ever seeds anything else.

As I have grown tired of saying, but it is necessary , NINETY -SEVEN percent of US newspapers did NOT support Trump for president. Many of them described him as a grave danger to our country, with lengthy, or multipart editorials.  Given this STUNNING fact, it is only normal and correct to expect a massive "resistance" to this absurd presidency. I guess you could say NT is caught in the crossfire. 

A visitor to the site would no doubt be repulsed by the excessive navel gazing and whining. 

I thought you were going to say something that added value to the discussion but you pulled a one line criticism at the end.   

As did you.

touche' but you guys don't expect anything better from me so.......

I was merely saying that Sean generally posts more than the typical one liner.  He actually puts more thought into his argument even if I don't agree with it.  But you took it as a mean criticism rather than a constructive observation.  

 The other day I posted an article regarding 3 Americans killed and 1 wounded in Afghanistan. In addition in a different incident, same day of 2 Afghan solider being killed and 6 wounded by mistake in a US air strike. 

Not one comment regarding the deaths of more Americans by a ISIS infiltrator or the Afghan soldiers killed or wounded. 

I guess that Americans dying in the longest war is passe. 

Anyhow after that I have quit posting article or seeds on NT...It simply isn't worth the time and effort. 

Kavika,

I am really sorry that two good articles went to waste. What can I say? I can't control the members. 

No you can't control the members, and each member has to make the decision whether to waste the time and effort to post something that is actually pertinent to reality. 

it's much easier to seed articles that are not part of the real world and are nothing but click bait or to never post an article but spend their time going from article to article dropping one line bumper sticker comments.

I don't post anymore either.  There seems to be a concerted effort NOT to comment on articles posted by non right members so what's the point.  I even tried to reset a couple times and that didn't matter either so now I just go with the flow.  If I want intelligent thoughtful discussion I go elsewhere.  I come here to express extreme views in the most extreme way I can get away with.  Hey - if you can't beat em.......

Well, I didn't see your article Kavika, but I am fully aware of the articles about the deaths.  I read them elsewhere.

I've posted several articles that are politically neutral and get a couple of comments.....and I have the same reaction as you, Kavika.  If it's not the right bashing the left, it's the left bashing the right or it disappears.

Additionally, with Perrie's blessing I tried to revive the 'Good News Wednesday' Group with non-political stories every Wednesday, Kavika, Uptown Chick, A Mac and Perrie were pretty much the entire audience.  I've thrown in the towel on that, as I don't need to waste my time on something that no one bothers with, when they would rather be on one-sided pieces of tripe like this-regardless of which side it is on.

Your idea of a "neutral" article is to say Democrats are hopeless and Hillary belongs in jail.

That was an uncalled for comment, John. In fact, Gary did do Good News Wends. and it was a nice change of pace. Then you go and make an obnoxious remark, and wonder why we can't maintain membership? You can't put aside your partisanship on a non partisan comment. Geeze. 

I didn't reflect on his Good News Wednesday endeavor, which was fine.

I reflected on his "neutral" main page articles.  He is about as "independent" as Newt Gingrich or Reince Preibus.

Well, John, here's the list, unedited, 2 screenshots of 'My Discussions, unedited:

Yes, there are some that are partisan, the vast majority are not.  I doubt that you could say the same.  As to my beliefs that the Democrats should pull their heads out and plan for the future?  That we need at least, a 2 party system?  If you believe that the current throwing stuff against the wall in hopes something will stick is the way to the future for the Democrats, so be it.  I believe it will end in even more failure.  Whether you think it will or not.

Should I wait for your apology?

Actually ''Good News Wednesday'' was a refreshing break, but as Spike said there was very little interest. You can't blame Spike for for the lack of interest, it's the members. 

I can see why he quit posting it. It simply wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

My suggestion about that would be that people use the tabs at the top of the page and open up "Forums" , then "newest discussions",  or "topics".  This will get you away from only replying to the last few comments made and put more variety to the top.

That's the way I usually do it, but I also look at the comments.  Articles such as Buzz photos or Kavika's article will stay on the front page just long enough to go out and get the mail.  So depending on the "Forums" only, which I'm not saying that's what you mean doesn't do anything for articles that aren't under the category of "News". 

I think we should realize this is site is diverse, unlike the site I put up above and people have different perspectives and allows everyone to expand their knowledge instead of just reading subjects that all have the same theme.

We all have different opinions and we all have the freedom to express them any way we want to on this site as long as we obey the simple rules, which by the way aren't that hard to abide by if you think twice before you comment or don't get so involved mentally that you think you're really going to accomplish something by breaking them.

Bob,

This is your second "contribution" of this sort to the site... is it useful, or just stirring the pot? I'm going with stirring the pot. We have liberals here. The choice to post their own articles and comment on them is on them. If they chose to go onto conservative articles and keep them on the board, then that is on them, too. We all have the freedom to chose so NT isn't the problem... talk to the members. 

Generally speaking, Bob is correct.

XX seeds nothing but diatribes about liberals. A couple others on that side do similar if not to that extent.  No one on the left seeds only ideological attacks on conservatism.  Instead of telling everyone to mind their own business I think you would be better off subtly addressing what the right seeds on this site.

Damn, I thought Hal was the only real comedian on here, but John you seem to be one as well.  Thanks for the joke.  Made my day.

John, 

"What" XX (or anyone else) posts is unimportant. "How much" XX (or anyone else) posts is important.

One member's massive seeding crowds out other members' seeds. The CoC allows this. It shouldn't. 

How does someone else's seeds crowd out others? Just post them. If they are worthy of comment, they will persist. Blaming soneone's success for your failure is unproductive. 

It's not surprising that someone who never seeds (much less writes an article) doesn’t understand the dynamics of Newest Discussions. 

I understand how it works, but you have no cogent response. You are responsible for your own failed seeds, not any successful poster. Take responsibility. 

Perrie,

My purpose is to to prevent the slow slide into oblivion. NT is well on its way to becoming an all-alt-right circle jerk, and it appears that you will allow that to happen. (Some would say, "encourage that to happen".) 

If you're favorable to NT becoming just another alt-right wacko site, then it will happen. I keep hoping that I'm wrong, that you haven't gone over... but as all the decent, thoughtful members give up, one after another, it's getting very hard. 

Ambivalent a few days ago. Now Kavika. After all the others... 

Your indifference is kinda discouraging... 

Bob, you worry too much.  Post more articles.  Get your friends to post more articles.  If my article stays up for half a day, I'm happy about it.  I don't keep reading the same newspaper for 2 or 3 days and talking about it.  It's kind of unhealthy to be so obsessed with one article more than a little while.

It's not worry it's a desire to control a behavioral disorder. 

It's easier to understand when you learn how a narcissistic is driven by the urge to be a control freak and how the fragile ego is easily damaged when they don't get their way. They hold grudges and try to bully those they see as weaker than themselves into doing what they demand. When their demands are not met they suffer narcissistic injury and that turns to narcissistic rage. 

 Why not take some responsibility for your own contributions here, instead of making this strictly about me.

Because it is your site. You make the rules.

You allow carpet-bombing... and don't ask why I don't just post as much as you-know-who. Doubling the amount of junk being seeded is exactly the wrong direction. The site needs better selection, not worse. 

You allow nastiness. It's your CoC. If it doesn't stop nastiness, then you need to fix it. 

It seems that you have no idea of who I am or what I see for the site. 

True. If it is not your intention to transform NT into an alt-right circle-jerk, then your behavior is incomprehensible.