RBR- META: That Double-Edged Sword known as Red Box Rules
We’re seeing a lot of new faces here at NewsTalkers. I’d like to welcome each of you to our little corner of the inter-webs.
As one of the authors of the dreaded Red Box Rules, I thought it might be a good idea to write a meta article about them to familiarize everyone with them. Also, to help the current cadre of Moderators understand their role with respect to Red Box Rules (RBR)
So, let’s start by giving a short history of its origin. Now this is a no shitter (all true sea stories start with “This is a no shitter”)
A couple of years or so ago there was a real problem with perceived trolling and flaming in many of the articles. I know, hard to believe. One of the problems was an over worked moderator staff. Overworked because the trolls and flamers had evolved into very skilled CoC skirters. Complaints would be made to mods, and it was up to the mods to determine if comments were CoC violations, skirting violations, or off topic violations. Many times, the mods would err on the side of caution and leave comments up, deeming them non-violations. The benefit of the doubt went to the commenter, not the author. Authors were left little recourse but to close articles. All because of the subjective opinion of the moderator.
Authors wanted a way to moderate their own articles. Obviously, the site is not designed to allow authors to control comments on the front page (You can control them in your blogs, and per the CoC, blogs are sacred.) A method was needed to remove the subjective opinion of the moderator, and place it in the hands of the Authors. And this gave birth to the RBR.
So let’s review the rules of RBR.
Mechanics:
All RBR articles must have RBR as the first word of the title. This allows people to quickly recognize that an article has some form of RBR associated with it.
You must state your RBR at the end of your article, and in the first comment of the article in red type. There is a reason for this. You can edit an article at any time. However, after about 10 minutes, your COMMENT is locked. With this requirement, authors cannot later go back and change their rules because the article is going somewhere they don’t want.
Your RBR MUST NOT VIOLATE THE CoC. You cannot make a RBR that all women commenters must post a pic of their boobies first. This would be a CoC violation, and rather creepy.
Your RBR must be specific, and not just generalized. You cannot make a rule that there be no comments except support of the article. That’s a generalized rule. You can say that the topic is such and such, and all comments must be about that subject. You can make rules about what is NOT to be discussed, as long as it is definable, such as racism, Hillary Clinton’s many criminal acts, ANTIFA or the KKK.
That’s about it. You can get as crazy with the rules as you want. Just remember, this tool is a double-edged sword.
Moderators
Okay, so let’s look at how RBR impacts the moderators. In reality, this makes your job easier. You do not have to be subjective about the comments. If an author says that a comment violates his/her/it’s RBR, you simply verify that there are in fact RBR, they are appropriate, and then you delete the comment. Period. End of discussion. No place holders, no saving discussions or comments. IF my article has a RBR that every comment must contain “Oh mighty Isis” as the first phrase in it, then every fucking comment better say that. It doesn’t matter if someone has posted a completely well thought out half page comment with references, pictures, videos, graphs and pie charts completely on topic supporting or debunking the article, if it doesn’t have “Oh mighty Isis” as the first three words, it’s gone! If it starts with “Shazam!” instead of “Oh mighty Isis”, it’s gone. What could be simpler?
RBR articles still require your moderation for CoC violations, but you are not required to apply the RBR to the comments. That is the job of the author.
Commenters
So how does this affect you as a commenter in an article. Simple. Follow the RBRs. If you don’t, your comment may or will get deleted. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the author’s prerogative. If an author seeds an article about the riots in Charlottesville, and posts a RBR that there be no comments about ANTIFA, then you cannot comment about ANTIFA. Sorry. But there is something you CAN do. You can reseed the article with your own RBR, or with no RBR to foster more diverse discussion.
Authors
Which brings me to the authors. The RBR can be a very powerful tool to help you guide your articles. But like I said, it’s a double-edged sword. You may get as crazy as you want, but you must understand that if you limit the discussion too narrowly, you may very well be sitting in an echo chamber. And your articles may die a swift death as they fall off the front page.
Also, if you are going to post a RBR article, you have a greater responsibility to moderate it. This means you cannot post an article, wait six or eight hours and then come in a flag 25 comments for the mods to delete. No, mods are not going to moderate your article for you. Comment deletions require YOU to moderate in a timely manner. If you like to post articles in the early morning, then head off to work for 8 hours before going back to your article, then RBR are not for you. One or two hours in between posting and moderating is okay. But waiting all day to flag comments is not going to fly.
The reason for this is two-fold. One, the mods don’t have time to deal with your flagging 25 comments at 2 AM in the morning. Two, if there are 25 comments that need deleting, then you have allowed your article to be overrun, and in the eyes of the commenters, you are not enforcing your own rules. Mob rule will result, and your article will get away from you.
As an author, you are required to apply your RBR without bias. You cannot allow your friends to get away with violating your RBR, yet hammer others for it. Again, you will very soon find yourself in an echo chamber, and your RBR articles will be ignored.
(A note to moderators concerning this. You are not to moderate RBR articles for bias in their application. If the author appears to be allowing others to get away with comments, you can bring it to their attention. If they continue to allow it, the site members will correct it by avoiding the articles. Allow the other edge of the sword to do its job.)
Well, that’s it. If you have questions, feel free to comment.
RBR – This is a discussion of Red Box Rules. It is not about politics, racism, the KKK, Delta Force, FBI, CIA, KGB, NSA, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Priory of Sion, or the Moderators. It is not a discussion about the site moderation, except where it concerns RBR. I will allow comments about submarines. Oh, and boobies. I’ll allow comments about boobies.
RBR – This is a discussion of Red Box Rules. It is not about politics, racism, the KKK, Delta Force, FBI, CIA, KGB, NSA, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Priory of Sion, or the Moderators. It is not a discussion about the site moderation, except where it concerns RBR. I will allow comments about submarines. Oh, and boobies. I’ll allow comments about boobies.
I do hope all the mods read this. There will be a test at the end of the week. Don't worry, it's open book. Although I'm a little concerned about AMac being able to pass.
It will be part of the required reading in the mod group.
Okay boss.
As an author, you are required to apply your RBR without bias.
Nice, thorough article. I'd never say that you wasted time writing such a long treatise, but all you had to do was post this sentence to get the point across.
Cheers!
I was a fan when it was being sorted out and like that it's been posted again. Personally it is nice to revisit it's specifics.
I don't want to submarine them, as I think the RBRs could be a good thing. Candidly though, without moderators enforcing rules on authors that put up RBRs but do not enforce them consistently, there will be an echo chamber. But, it won't die a quick death. As more people navigate here from NV, the number of those that like the echo chamber will grow, and those articles will stay on top.
Again, I like the concept, but unless authors have some consequence for not enforcing the RBRs they put into place, apart from the threat of a quick death, I see something along the lines of NV, where you have nothing but an echo chamber filled by a bunch of boobs.
Maybe there are rules in place. I haven't read them if there are.
All RBR articles must have RBR as the first word of the title. This allows people to quickly recognize that an article has some form of RBR associated with it.
This has never actually been the case in practice.
Neither has mentioning RBR at the end of the article been the case in practice.
The RBR restrictions are made in the first comment.
And, in practice, the RBR allows the author/seeder to have any comment removed, for virtually any reason. For one simple reason. Most comments that disagree with the seeders viewpoint can be adjudged to be at least somewhat off topic. If the topic is "A is great", any reply other than "A is great" is conceivably "off topic".
The RBR has, in practice, been used to remove disruptive , or what is called
"trolling" comments.
I put RBR in the title of my RBR Articles, but I put it at the end of the title, not the beginning. Where are the Official Rules for use of RBR's. Can someone provide a link?
Squirrel, read this Pulitzer Prize worthy article:
I can't find the original RBR article that outlines the rules. It has been lost. I will look through my documents over the next couple of days and see if I have it, and will get Perrie to post it up with the CoC.
Thanks for the link!
First observation:
MODERATORS! You ------ have a responsibility here too. You must make judgement calls at this point to ensure that the Author is not just trying to shut down dissenting opinion.
This is what I believe I have seen happen with a few recent RBR articles.
It's not supposed to be used that way, right?
Don't confuse RBR with regular moderation. That paragraph was addressing the issue from the CoC of kicking someone out of your article for bad behavior. Has nothing to do with RBR.
Okay, then this is the CoC rule for that:
The author has the right to ask members to stay on topic and not disrupt the article. If a member is violating the CoC with intent of disrupting or being arbitrarily argumentative, the author has the right to warn the member civilly, that they are violating the CoC and to stop or leave the article.
CoC #3. Right?
Correct. Note that it has a requirement for you to warn the offender. Once you have warned them, continued bad behavior should be brought to the attention of a moderator with a link to the warning so they can ask the offender to leave.
That seems fair. Warn first then contact a moderator to take action. But that only works if I'm the author.
What if I'm not the author, but I just want a certain person to stop replying to my comments? Can I REQUEST that person to stop, or do I have to have a Moderator make the request for me, or is it a CoC violation either way?
Good question. I've seen you request that in a few articles. The short answer is no. The long answer is it depends.
Unfortunately we don't as of yet have an ignore function here at NT. So there is no way of ignoring someone except to actually ignore them. That does work. If you don't reply, they wont have anything more to say.
Unless they do. That is, if you can show that someone is stalking you, that can warrant a warning from a mod, and possible suspension.
Stalking is a little difficult to prove. But it has been proven in the past. If you find that someone has been following you in every article you comment on, or a majority of them, and you are the only one they are responding to, it could result in a warning to the offender. If you ignore someone, and they continue to post comment after comment in a thread directed at you, that is in fact stalking. And you should bring it to the attention of a mod.
You can ask another member to stop commenting to you specifically. However, there is nothing in the CoC to give that any teeth, other than stalking. For the most part, our members tend to refrain when asked.
If you have a problem with a specific member, bring it to the attention of a mod. Let them watch to see if there is any behavior that needs to be addressed.
The thing about ignore buttons are everyone else still sees the others post against you. plus I never put anyone on ignore that shrinks MY world not theirs !
People who demand to be ignored is what the scroll button was developed for... Ha ha.
That and a piece of my mind when I feel like it. That's why I hate censorship. Sometimes ya just gotta let some fool have it.
to 321steve: I agree, but sometimes I think I can't ignore somebody if they post something that really gets to me, so it's best to not see their post in the first place. Thus, I am in favor of an ignore button, only because it really does make it easier to actually totally ignore them. Thanks.
to Therealbruce: Thank you for that really well stated explanation. I totally agree with all points you make.
I just have one final question, if you don't mind. I have just posted a new article. And I posted it as an RBR. Hopefully I did it correctly.
Because I don't want to try to trick you or anyone in commenting on it, I will not link it here. (Fact is, I doubt many will comment on it anyway.)
But here is my question:
As long as I have put RBR as the first entry in the title, and the RBR statement in RED in the body of the article, and also as the very first comment, did I do everything right and are these RBR's acceptable?:
RED BOX RULES: Comment ONLY on the content of this article and Senator John McCain's words. DO NOT attempt to DERAIL or DEFLECT by claiming Obama did this or that, or Hillary said this or that, or any of that crap. Any comments about anyone NOT specifically mentioned in the text of this article will be considered OFF TOPIC. This is about McCain's Op Ed, McCain's speech in July, Trump and his inexperience and rebukes of McCain, and JUST THIS ARTICLE. Any other comments outside the scope of this article are FORBIDDEN and the poster of this article will FLAG THEM requesting that the MODERATORS DELETE THEM. STAY ON TOPIC or do not comment.
Second observation:
So, you don’t like the fact that ---- doesn’t like your source or its author? Too ------- bad. Per the CoC, as long as he doesn’t call you an -------, there is nothing you can do about it.
But I have been criticized too for calling out a source as being an extremely biased source. So it is OKAY to criticize a source?
Yes, you can be critical of a source. But, expect people to be critical of your opinion of the source.
That seems fair.
Observation 3:
Red box rules can be anything you want. They are in effect your delete button for your article. If you make a red box rule to not comment or attack the source, and ---- starts his comment out with an attack on the source of your article, BOOM! You can have it deleted. Any violation of the Red Box Rules is a deletion.
So, UNLESS it is stated as a RED BOX RULE, then it is okay within the CoC to criticze a source. Right? But if it is a RBR then that is really the ONLY time it's prohibited. Right? But is MUST be stated in the RBR's specifcally. Right?
You seem to be getting it, but just remember, the mods are nothing but a delete button for the OP on an RBR article.
They cannot judge the deletion nor refuse to do it..
Another thing all you have to do is look at the chat listing. being a mod requires you to be active in the chat listing, you cannot be a mod and online and invisible in chat.
Absolute requirement of being a mod, if there is a mod online they will be up in chat.
You are correct.
Observation 4:
Now, this brings me to the last part of my rant. USING YOUR RED BOX RULE DELETE BUTTON. Listen up -------, the only way to use your red box rule delete button is to CONTACT A MODERATOR!
Questions: Other than Flagging the comment, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT A MODERATOR? And WHICH MODERATORS SHOULD BE CONTACTED?
ASKED and ANSWERED:
I just read this:
Now get ---- --it together -- --- ---- and contact a moderator when someone violates your rules! It's easy to do. Just open up a little chat box down on the bottom right hand corner of your screen and tell them to start deleting.
That's the BEST WAY, right?
Any moderator. The rule is the same for all of them.
They do not have an option if they wish to remain a mod..
Thank you!
Yes, that's the best way.
Thank you! I am understanding these RBR's much better now.
Squirrel, RBR have been in use for a few years. No one uses it much , never have. The system can be abused. It will almost surely be a subject of contention.
My advice is to use it if you want, but don't expect a cure all to forum problems from it.
One member used RBR a lot and was pretty much constantly mocked for it.
One thing we all might want to avoid is talking a lot about RBR because that would either become very boring before long or cause a lot of contentious discussions.
John, from reading the linked article I get the idea that RBR rules have value, and could be useful, but may have been abused or misused in the past. Maybe give them another shot just to see if they might be helpful?
I have a question about this statement:
If an author seeds an article about the riots in Charlottesville, and posts a RBR that there be no comments about ANTIFA, then you cannot comment about ANTIFA. Sorry. But there is something you CAN do. You can reseed the article with your own RBR, or with no RBR to foster more diverse discussion.
I have seen RBRs (like this) that try to focus the discussion so narrowly that one could not discuss anything the seeder/author did not want to discuss. (Hence, the RBR effectively created an Echo Chamber.) I believe PH changed those RBR's This statement above seems contradictory to PH's statements. So now I am confused again as to the purpose of RBRs.
Actually, Bruce is right and I was wrong. I got confused by this:
Your RBR must be specific, and not just generalized. You cannot make a rule that there be no comments except support of the article. That’s a generalized rule. You can say that the topic is such and such, and all comments must be about that subject. You can make rules about what is NOT to be discussed, as long as it is definable, such as racism, Hillary Clinton’s many criminal acts, ANTIFA or the KKK.
That is why Bruce approached me about doing an article about it. I interpreted the standing article in the RBR group wrongly, and he brought this to my attention.
So we are now going to have the RBR applied according to Bruce's interpretation, and not as it has been applied for all this long while, is that what you are saying?
So we are now going to have the RBR applied according to Bruce's interpretation, and not as it has been applied for all this long while, is that what you are saying?
Since Bruce was the fucking author of said RBR, YES.
Bruce, no one cares about RBR, although it is possible some new members may be persuaded to be , at first.
Your opinion has been noted John. Carry on.
Since Bruce was the fucking author of said RBR, YES.
AND, it was voted upon and approved by the membership......
Correct.
Actually, Bruce is right and I was wrong. I got confused....
Thank you for this sweets, It's reassuring to know that our fearless leader is fearless in a truthfully honest way....
I'm intrigued by the use of the phrase "truthfully honest" and have been trying to think of something that could be "untruthfully honest". However, I guess it's possible to be "truthfully dishonest". LOL
Oh, shit. I'm off topic. SUBMARINE, BOOBIES.
Actually, I once posted an article using GREEN BOX RULES. I didn't care what anyone had to say unless they offended the CoC or Terms of Use.
I'm a fan of Black box rules for free speech.
Ya put all your rules in a black box and throw them in the trash.
You and me both. I'm still waiting for us to get to vote to get rid of this back room deal that was forced upon us in the shadiest way possible.
Forced upon you....as if you are required to participate in conversations with the Red Box tag.
When I joined this site it was advertised as being member moderated with the members setting the guidelines for the COC and rules. It was also said that the members would vote on the rules.
Dean,
We are having an update of the CoC in Oct. If there is something that you feel you want to add or change, make your voice heard then. I'm sure you have been here for other updates.
Btw.. I just checked in the RBR group and the very last discussion on it was 12/09/14. That is almost 3 years ago, so you were here when this all went down since believe it or not you have been a member here since 02/15/13
The only reason we are even discussing this now, is because we have had some RBR discussions and while I did administer to them in the same fashion, I didn't quite do it right and Bruce set me straight. I am never above the rules here. Please keep that in mind, when it's implied that I am.
Steve,
I like your style, if for no other reason that you are consistent
.
Thank you Perrie. I hope I am not causing too many waves for you. I respect you ,your decisions and the site. I also am used to being a little more aggressive, so I am trying to watch myself.
As you can tell, I am still speaking my mind. I am just being extra careful doing it. thanks again
The most common Red box rules I see are indeed generalized IMO. Who decides what is generalized?
Are these generalized?
Red Box Rules and the Four B's Obtain. Be Respectful. Be On-Point. Be Positive. or Be Gone
Thanks, Bruce. We have been inundated with flags, of late, and I had gotten confused. This helps a lot!
Hope all is well for you! D.
All is good Dowser. Penny is well.
Glad to hear it!
BTW, Happy Birthday, Bruce (belated of course)
Easily 50-100 each day, often more.
I think that it's good that the RBR are being looked at so everyone is on the same page.
I rarely use RBR, I much prefer to use a tomahawk. Quick and no bickering if the comment is in or outside the box. I guess that's why Perrie won't let me be a mod.
Me too, I take out the hatchet way too quick. Useful tool but it can be very bloody if you miss...
(and for those who don't know, a Tomahawk is not a hatchet)
Good to see you back Bruce, you've been missed.
Hope all is well with you and yours..
I’ll allow comments about boobies.
Funny ...when you first mention boobies you say it would be creepy to include that stipulation within the RBR but then you say you're okay for posters to include boobies. I just wanted to say I agree with you. It is pretty creepy.
WE already have enough boobie posting every day, and I agree it is creepy.
You cannot make a RBR that all women commenters must post a pic of their boobies first.
You're the one that has been making me show my boobies, you scoundrel!
Shhhhhhhh! That was our secret!
I'm going to look through my cache of the old Ning site and see if I can find it (original RBR's) there.
I'll also look for the missing site policy document also....
NWM, they are all in the RBR group. I just popped it up.
Thank you sweets.
rules rules rules........... AWWW !!!
I know, and they say that the libertarians are the anarchists...
Red box rules promote silo discussions. If you think that your topic is so important that tangential points are not welcome, then take the stick out of your butt.
One thing that bothers me is that RBR can be imposed on seeds written by total strangers, who have no idea other strangers are using their verbiage as part of a biased and controlled discussion. IMO, if you want to be a school marm on your seed, then you should at least have to write it yourself, not use someone else's work as a nail for you to hammer on.
That is a great reason to not participate in RBR discussions. However, there are times when conversations get way off course, and not because of interesting tangents, but because of willful derailing. That is really what RBR is designed to prevent, for those who care to use it.
Or the seeder could but pull the stick out of their butt and put some big boy pants on. How sad is one's life if they can't handle the path of a random conversation with internet strangers? They are just as free to ignore parts of the discourse that they dislike.
Well, while I personally agree with you, not everybody is here for the same reason and not everybody enjoys the banter.
And furthermore - it is frustrating when your schedule only allows you to pop in every few hours, and see discussions blunted by the purple pen. There are members here who I vehemently disagree with on particular issues, but I recognize the potential genius of their contributions - and I missed it because of some CoC bullshit violation. Shout out to Dean - my brotha from a totally different motha.
There are members here who I vehemently disagree with on particular issues, but I recognize the genius of their potential contributions -
That is so true! I have seen posts from persons I mixed it up with on a different article and found my self praising them on a different one.
I understand your frustration. I too was/am sceptical of the monerterization of this site. (LOL @my word)
BUT this is a privately owned and operated site, I consider myself lucky to be allowed to be here and I try to respect those who created this site, set it up and operate it.
My intention was and still is to leave a small foot print here and not to disrupt what these folks have had for years.
To each their own I just wanted to add that. While I too do not like ANY monitoring, this is not my site and I respect itt as it is. In the future I may change my mind to some degree, but for now that's how I feel.
Have a good evening and I hope you do well here.
BUT this is a privately owned and operated site, I consider myself lucky to be allowed to be here and I try to respect those who created this site, set it up and operate it.
I've been a daily contributor here for at least six years, have witnessed many members come and go, and I've been exclusively here since NV quit letting me grace them with my presence and I don't use any other form of social media. (After the nations fiasco I lost all interest in NV anyways.) I can tell you for a fact that the moderation here used to be far less oppressive. Perrie will deny it, but it's the truth.
Moderation here isn't oppressive at all. We really only respond to less than 1% of the things people flag (and that function is well abused every single day, judging from the 50+ reports we get daily (and typically no less than double that number)).
We give you latitude where we probably should step in, quite often. In fact, it is the preference of every moderator to be a participant rather than an arbitrator. However, there also can't be a scenario where everything is acceptable despite the wishes of some of our membership. Plus, we do offer an area for no rules, no CoC conversations. Y'all should make use of that option more frequently.
RBR definitely isn't oppressive. Nobody forces you to participate in those discussions, and I can't even recall seeing it being used since I returned from my hiatus.
Saying moderation here is oppressive is the opposite of the truth. If anything, we typically err on the other side of things.
I didn't say it was oppressive, I said that it used to be far less oppressive. Apparently you wouldn't know that, since you obviously have not been an active participant for many years straight. It used to be rare when I would open a seed and not be able to follow a discussion because it was so heavily redacted with purple censorship. Now it happens all the time.
Well being active and following conversations aren't the same for sure, but despite my not really posting over the last year, I have still read many articles on NT during that time. However, that isn't relevant.
You see purple when things get out of hand....and they do get out of hand. Even when it was just people familiar with one another pushing buttons, it still got out of hand, and I would also say that maybe your memory of the site's past may be a little off. I remember times where we had to moderate almost every article on NT because of how volatile they had become. We even had a couple instances o real life stalking back then. Things escalate insanely fast on social news sites, as I'm sure you are aware.
Mostly though, I would say that everybody has a subjective view on how this site should be moderated, and we can't have subjective moderation overall. That isn't to say we don't look at each case individually, but we also have to maintain a baseline criteria, which obviously we call CoC. Where the waters really get muddied, and where the subjective nature of moderation kicks in, is with skirting CoC. Nobody is ever going to be happy with that type of moderation, somebody is always gong to think it unfair, and really it's a no win situation, so under those circumstances, I think we have to judge based on what is best for the overall site experience rather than the individual. However, this is just my perspective on skirting, and why I don't like moderating that aspect of conversations personally. It does become too subjective. But, it still has to happen.
Back in the old NV days I was an admin of several nations. We had the power to delete comments that were abusive or off topic. We even had the power to block people from posting in our nation.
What ended up happening was a collection of echo chambers. That is what RBR will do to this site.
The problem of having enough moderators to deal with the flags. I can see how daunting it could be after dealing with 75-125 personal notes a day in my inbox.
I have a suspicion that the commenters being flagged are what some would call "frequent flyers". That's what we teachers called a student that spent multiple days a month in the principal's office.
What would help moderators, would be to weed out the frequent flyers. Make sure to scrutinize their postings before they get flagged. Solving little issues before they become big issues worked in my classroom and it can work here as well. Banish those with multiple suspensions. Watch for reregs of banned posters as well.
Another suggestion is that after 10-1 you will see an influx of people from NV. I went there last night and it's a free fire zone. You are going to need more mods to deal with the influx. It will also take a firm hand with some of the "characters" that are going to show up.
Another suggestion is the ignore button. I understand it is being worked on. I hope it arrives soon. That will save mods a lot of grief!
Good luck to NT in handling the growing pains. I like it here! I have made new friends and met several I can disagree with but still like in my short time here. They make for great conversations. I am getting tired of the one trick pony comments of some though.
The last thing is to remind mods that they are in a position that demands higher expectations of behavior. As a classroom teacher my goal was to help young people become responsible adults. It's hard to do that if I wasn't modeling the behavior of a responsible adult. The same thing works here. Mods must model the behavior that they expect the membership to follow.
Some do and they have my respect. Some don't and won't have my respect until they do. I have a feeling that I am not alone in my expectations.
Ausmith,
I can understand your concern, but in reality, most members do not use the RBR's. Or they use them from time to time to have a more focused discussion. But you have been here 2 weeks now, and still most of the article are non -RBR articles.
That's true but RBR's are ripe for abuse.
I try to stay out of teacher mode since I retired. It's hard to do so please bear with me Perrie. In classroom management it's always better to prevent a problem than have to deal with it and the consequences of it. My students would ask me how I knew what they were about to do. I usually just smiled at them because they already knew the answer. I have seen it before.
"What ended up happening was a collection of echo chambers."
Good post, I agree. Too much censorship quickly ruins a vine.
Overkill? Seems like the next thing is a requirement to put it in braile as well, be required to turn on speakers and wear headphones so it can be shouted as well. How about flashing neon red?
If the letters RBR must be in the title, I think it's wrong to put it at the beginning of the title. Whenever some special indication about a title or even a comment should be posted, it is usually at the END of the title or comment (e.g. "satire" or "s/" or is that "/s"?).