I've Got A News Flash For Y'all - RED RULES Have Never Been Successfully Used
"Red Rules" is a perpetual exercise in frustration, inadequacy , and mis-directed concern, on Newstalkers. The much discussed (some might say obsessively discussed) concept has NEVER been successfully employed as a response controlling method on the forum.
One of two things invariably happens. Either there are very few responses to a "red rules" defined article and the article fails for lack of response, OR the discussion turns into a series of contentious responses about the red rules themselves, and the seeder, instead of the subject of the seeded article.
Red rules is a failed idea and it should either be discontinued entirely or at the least not given so much attention on this forum, because as it stands it is all pretty ridiculous.
Outsiders must look at all this and think that people here are nuts.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
211 visitors
There are NO examples of a long and happy article that observed "red rules".
Red rules is a failed idea and it should be discontinued entirely.
I totally agree...let the article stand or fall on it's own merits. The seeder is simply trying trying to exert too much control over the direction of the comments.
Rex,
I never post RBR articles, but I have participated in them and they have ran fine. If the author doesn't want the topic to stray, that is a good way to do it. I happen to like to stray, but that is me.
An issue arises when the scope is too narrow or they are used to create an echo chamber. The option is to reseed.
Really the RBR is no different than the author having the delete button option on the old NV. Since this platform has no option for that, the RBR is given as directive to those participating and for the mods who have to delete.
Seems to that the coc is already too restrictive; I would scrap the red rules option altogether. If you can't allow others to respond to your seed however they wish, within the coc, you should have no right to post the seed in the first place.
Lenny,
The CoC is no more or less restrictive than the CoH. I am assuming you were a member of NV?. The only difference is that we moderate, and many of those who came from NV got used to the period of non moderation. Btw.. the CoC is updated by the members which will happen in a couple of weeks. They are the groups rules and not mine.
I tried to use "Red box rules" three or four times. Every time I did either the article was immediately trolled , or it didnt get any responses. That is also the case for everyone else who uses them. Bob has used it the most often, and he always ends up complaining about many of the comments he gets on those threads.
The concept is basically a failed experiment.
I wonder how the members would feel about scrapping RBRs; time for another poll JR!
trying to control other peoples words will always result in failure.
We had that feature at NV but I never used it, not even on the most ignorant, hateful, and stupid people. Interesting feature was that you could click on the comment of a person you had on ignore, and see the comment. I often wondered how many times an ignorer did NOT do this. If I want to ignore someone because all they make are stupid comments, I just ignore them, let their stupid comments stand.
I usually won’t even read a RBR seed. Silo discussions are boring.
It is my belief they were created in a shady backroom deal. The members were never allowed to vote on them. They have been problematic since their inception and do far more harm than good. Scrap them call it a failed experiment, learn from our mistakes and move on.
In theory it is a good idea. In practice, it is either sabotaged or ignored. NT needs to stop spending time and energy on it. Some of the silliest things I have ever seen here have been on discussions about red box rules.
Under what theory is it a good idea?
Texan,
I am sorry that your experience with them has been bad. We have run many successful RBR's.
Dean,
No backroom deal. They are optional. That is why they are not in the CoC.
Lenny,
I agree with you about the ignore function. I know people peeked. I never used them either. If someone is going to say something about me, I want to see it.
Kathleen,
Love your style.
I tried them a time or two to keep a general direction 'What will the Democrat Party do differently on the future?' and used the RBRs to not turn it into a I hate __________ (fill in with your least favorite politician) bash fest. The problem I saw was people want to turn it into their personal bully pulpit about anything they want to talk about or it gets ignored. Polarization, blinding polarization seems to have made the RBR's useless.
If the objective of the site is to foster debate and an exchange of ideas, red box rules seem extraordinarily opposed to those principles.
Speaking as a fairly new member, I wasn't familiar with red box rules. When an article was posted, it said red box rules and to stay on topic, be civil, etc.
Little did I know that one and ONLY one person gets to determine what exactly is on topic, even though 99% of the people could read that my post WAS on topic. Had I known then that only one person decided what is on topic, I never would have commented on the article. I have learned my lesson well and will refrain from ever posting on another red box rules article, as that is the exact opposite of what I though the purpose of the site was.
thank you to the people who supplied links as to what red box rules were and how much power the seeder actually has under such rules. But isn't it a little counter-productive to have to have a moderator delete the posts when asked when the seeder actually has all the power? Why not just give the seeder power to delete comments on red box rule articles and save the moderators time and energy?
Texan, that was an abuse of the policy, and is being dealt with.
I understand that. I just think the moderator's time can be used better by ignoring red box rules articles since the seeder has sole power anyways over any comments made that he doesn't like or agree with. Might as well let him or her moderate it--people like me will stop posting when things get out of hand or won't post at all on those articles. But what I think really doesn't matter--it isn't my site, I am merely a guest here. Just like to get my two cents in!
Like I said, since you explained how things work regarding those articles, I won't be wasting my time commenting on them. Thanks again for the heads-up!
I've used them successfully. They are an option. if you don't want to use them, don't. If you don't want to participate in an RBR article, don't. If you feel you HAVE to participate in an article that has RBR, but don't want to abide by RBR, re-seed the fucking article.
I seriously do not understand why stupid fucks always want to get rid of OPTIONAL shit they don't like. It's FUCKING OPTIONAL.
Anyway, as long as I am here, RBR will stay.
Bruce RBR is a total failure. Either they get trolled or they get ignored. That IS the history and everyone knows it.
None of my RBR articles have ever been trolled. Because I don't get stupid with the rules.
Damn John. It looks like you need RBR for this article:
One of the reasons that RBR is a complete failure is because it is constantly being discussed (argued about) as meta. In itself that indicates the policy is a failure.
Enoch is an outlier in this situation.
Now that is funny.
So, if we disagree with RBRs we are stupid fucks. Gotcha.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Enoch uses the RBR's for every article he posts. No one minds and everyone follows them.
No, just don't post on RBR's if you don't like the rules. Someone else will most likely reseed the article anyways. Bob has some good topics to talk about, and almost every time, someone reseed his RBR articles.
Has he ever really used them? Has be smart ever been effectively used? Who decides what is smart the seeder?
It's pretty sad that a person like you is a mod.
Exactly.
If he is in black he is not a mod... and can be moderated.. he is posting as a member and can be moderated.
yes, I posted before I knew what the rules were. Simple enough to ignore RBRs and wait for someone to reseed the article under rules that foster debate and exchanges of ideas.
I understand that. I still say it's pretty sad that he's a mod at all.
Ok, but it seemed to me that all the seeding and reseeding and re-re-seeding and discussion over the insanity of Bob's RBRs left little for discussion. The discussion would have been longer and better had the idiotic RBRs not been in place.
I think we should make John a moderator under a probational condition policy of course.
Maybe you'd like to be one Lenny. LOL Understand it's not up to me. I don't make the rules, I just follow them, except for the stay on topic one. I have a little problem with that one, just a little.
Here's an example:
The 'stupid fucks' comment still stands too. I guess Perrie's ok with it.
People should not be allowed to reseed RBR articles, at least not on the same day.
It is a form of trolling.
They can seed another similar article about the same topic if they want. Reseeding the same exact article a half hour after it was seeded as RBR is extreme disrespect and should not even be permitted.
You are correct. RBR CAN be abused. But it seems to me another member re-seeded the article and it got about 40 comments, half of which were on target. Did you participate in that article?
Lenny,
Why? Does he not moderate properly?
Yes
Yes, because it was a general comment.. and not directed at anyone. I moderated the one where it was directed.
Then why don't you re-seed any RBR article that you feel you cannot in good conscience pass up? It's that simple.
Reseeding RBR articles is not a good solution. It's a horrible solution.
I can't say that he's been biased or unfair in his moderating, no. What I am questioning is why you would retain such a vile, hateful person at all. If you read the earlier comments you will find that 3 or 4 of us were against RBRs being allowed. We were all newcomers from NV, and we weren't being insulting about it or demanding rule changes. I even said to Bfies that we may not understand their desire for RBRs because we haven't been here long enough. Then Bruce called us all 'stupid fucks.' Why are you ok with this?
It was directed at anyone who is against RBRs, should be skirting at the very least, but don't worry Perrie, if us 'stupid fucks' from NV don't like the fucking rules here, we can just 'move the fuck along,' right? Fine people you have moderating here.
There are and have been several moderators here that have been insulting assholes in black. Fortunately, they are allowed to express their opinions also. Once they 'purple pen' they are no longer allowed to participate in the article as a commenter. It is what it is, if you don't like those comments, skip over or move on. There's lots of insulting people here, why should one not be allowed to be himself?
I'm with you! Without all the "F-bombs," anyway! Incidentally, I do understand that "salty" dialect!)
Hey John. This article had RBRs and was pretty successful. Hell you even posted in it:
That some RBR articles are successful misses the point. There is no need to allow members to make their own rules, over and above the coc, at all. Why should you be able to? Every article should be subject to the same set of rules, period. This remains my opinion despite the contention of some of the hierarchy here at NT, that I am a "stupid fuck" for holding this opinion.
Hey Lenny, do you know how to seed an article?
Does anyone other than myself see the problem with allowing a red box rule to be as unspecific as “Be Smart”? This opens the door for the seeder to remove any comment he decides is not smart enough to meet his personal requirement.
Seems to me that rule would prevent ALL of us from commenting!
This whole thing reminds me of being "blocked" on NV when no COC was being violated. Got suspended for a bogus violation and couldn't get back on, so did my one and only re-reg as "Greg Jones". Thought of using that moniker here, but "Rex" went way back on NV, to the days of "Feisty Redhead" and LBJ with all his multiple personas.
Look, let me lay it out for all of ya'll, so you can understand the issue of RBR.
You as an author have no power other than the mods to delete comments. That's by design. If you did, many on this site would begin deleting comments that they didn't like. And we, the moderators and admins would be flooded with complaints about disappearing comments. So the only people who have the ability to delete comments are the moderators.
Our CoC has a method for dealing with off topic comments. It requires a warning. Then you can have a mod delete off topic. The problem with this is that sometimes the topics take a tangent with really good debates. Many authors will allow this. Some will not. In some cases, especially in the past month or so, articles have grown to 200-600 comments. But by and large those were tangent discussions. It's good and bad.
One of the problems with authors warning about off topics and getting mods to delete them has been the judgment of the mods. Meaning that a moderator is going to make a judgment call as to whether the comment was off topic. And in the past, there have been mods who's judgment has left the author fuming, because he/she felt that the comment was on topic enough to let stand. RBR takes the moderator judgment out of the equation. Yes, it can be good and bad, as we have seen in the past few days.
Red Box Rules is a tool available to authors. It has its own set of rules for participants, authors, and mods. But it is just a tool. And it is optional. And your participation is optional.
Yes, RBR can and in the past HAVE been abused. But they have also been successfully used. When properly used, they can focus debate on specific topics. When I've used them, it has been mostly to prevent certain tangents, such as racism. Talk about anything you want, but leave racism out of it. Those articles have been successful.
Again, this is an option. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to use them. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to participate in them.
For those of you who don't like them, your opposition is duly noted. Scroll the fuck on by.
Understand what you are saying....but as Perrie put it previously, who determines what exactly IS the topic?? Is it built into the TITLE somehow? If the seed is yet another negative article about Trump and the Republicans/GOP, the comments are likely to veer at some point toward Obama/Hillary/Liberals....that's simply how forums work. In the end, RBR's will end up as nothing but echo chambers. We had those over on NV, they were called Nations.
BTW, is there any real need for you to use the condescending attitude and profanity??
Purpose of Red Box Rules Evolving Test
Choose the answer that comes closest to being correct.
A. To keep everyone on topic.
B. To keep everyone on the topic as you interpret it.
C. To keep everyone on the evolving topic.
D. To keep the number of comments to a minimum.
E. To give you something to discuss tomorrow.
F. To satisfy a need for authoritative control over others.
G. Provides material for re-seeding.
G. All or none of the above.
Are we going to end up having a meta article on RBR's? I don't have a problem with them. Some people use them, some people abuse them. Others that use them and are using them in the manner they were intended.
It's so damn simple, don't like them don't use them or comment on the article that has them.
Well said.
Kavika, your comment really doesn't deal with the reality of it. There is someone who often uses red box rules. Those seeds are regularly "trolled" . Be that because people just want to disrupt or because his criteria are too strict is immaterial. They regularly get disrupted. The answer is NOT to have someone immediately post the same exact article without RBR. That solution is extremely insulting to the original RBR seeder and will most likely exacerbate the situation.
There is a process to have off topic comments removed and I suggest everyone should just use that process.
Actually it does deal with the reality of it JR. I stated that some people abuse the RBR's and other use them as intended.
I would rather have the site RA deal with those that abuse the RBR's then get rid of them.
To me it's that simple.
Of course you have your opinion BF and I have mine. If the RBR's bother you so much perhaps you should spend less time on the net.
The perfect example of a ''candle in the wind''....or a ''fish out of water''....LOL
That fucking idiots criteria is nothing more than setting the rules so strict so he can claim his own little echo chamber. Fuck him, and his echo chamber.
We don't need extra rules. It's so damn simple, if you don't like a comment, ignore it.
Cuts both ways my friend.
Lenny, of course it cuts both ways. I rarely have used RBR's, if the article get's too far from base I simply say get back on target folks.
I really don't see why this is become such a big deal, it is what it is.
Because someone decided to bastardize the rules and spammed the board yesterday
Just one little point here.
Certain topics, because of the behavior of certain members on those certain topics, REQUIRE RBR's.
Period.
Otherwise those certain member come in and trash the topic altogether.....
And said members are famous for it.
Anything about religion, anything about racism, without RBR's, would quickly devolve into a slam fest creating even more work for the mods.....
Most of the new members don't realize it cause they weren't here, but we have lost members cause they could not stop those who troll certain topics pretty much shutting down all serious conversation on this board.
But us old members do.
Most don't use them, but for those that do, they do.
Besides without them certain members can make not just the seeders life miserable, they make the Mod's life miserable also.
Enoch uses them absolutely, every article he posts. Yet you see none of his articles derailed or trashed.
Shouldn't one ask why? Might have something to do with his approach? and recently we have seen a certain members RBR articles trashed beyond belief, why? Might it have something to do with his approach?
RBR's are a tool. A very effective tool mind you. The real issue here is approach of the user when using them.
People who don't like RBR's are those that exclaim that their freedom is being violated, they cann't say whatever they like. Well from some of the long lines of insultive one liners that are the typical situation without RBR's on certain peoples posts tells me they serve a purpose.
Personally I think a posting to the board that is 400 comments of "YOUR THIS, NO YOUR THAT" is nothing to be proud of. And is an insult to the board and the responders to such drivel. Not worth posting on....
There has been a massive increase of such posting dribblings since NV closed down. I find myself scrolling on by most articles now.... (essentially I see who posted the article and know it either is worth posting on or not) And I pass by most when not.
There are certain people that always post to certain people, and it is clear that the behavior they had on brand X is what they have brought with them. It has become habit.
It used to be habit here, but RBR's was one of the tools that changed that behavior here.
I for one will not enjoy this place if it goes back to what it was, or Brand X comes here. Kinda like one should respect everyone in their home, and this is my online home.....
Mine is a vote to keep RBR's I don't use them often simply cause I don't post often, but if I did I would....
Cause there are people who would trash my post cause I am simply me......
That is the most important reason....
"Cause there are people who would trash my post cause I am simply me."
You hit the nail on the head. There are some on NT who specifically target others simply because their opinions differ or because they use the wrong cologne or deodorant or drive the wrong car. In a nutshell, they are the trolls whose primary desire is to make someone else's life miserable because they, themselves, have no life - just anger and hate.
EMPHATICALLY! There is the option to "lock" an article. Coming from Newsvine I am comfortable with long and high counting comments, because I believe in people getting everything out in the open. However, I locked an article here because I simply was embarrassed at how the article devolved into a dive. Me, embarrassed. That's saying something! NWM, you are right. I was not proud of myself or the article's 'work.'
I like RBRs and the 4 B's, or some combination of them. It is important to understand this: Sometimes we do not need all the words pouring out of people. Just measured sharing.
You know, this is kinda like Gun Control. One person abuses the RBR policy, and everyone wants to do away with RBR. It's not the RBR. It's the way they were used. How about we let the site administration deal with the perpetrator, and leave the tool alone?
To some extent you are right, but there are also instances of people trolling red box rules articles as a matter of course. By no means is it all the seeders fault.
It is easy to troll, when you set up the RBR's and you don't give a topic. Let's put the blame where the blame belongs.
Oh let's not be disingenuous Perrie. You well know there are people who will post off topic at the drop of a hat. It happens all the time.
I wonder who they could be, John, say, have you seen my hat anywhere?
So, you did buy that mirror on Black Friday! Hope you saved a lot on it!
This article is closing in 10 minutes.
That was posted 11 minutes ago.....wonder if you are getting your last words in?
lol.