The Updating of the Code of Conduct
Welcome to the discussion and update of The NewsTalkers Code of Conduct (CoC). For those of you who have never done this before, let me explain how this goes.
I will list what I have seen to be issues on the site. It is just a starting point for the discussion. Members may discuss my points or even present new points and or issues. After the discussion part, I will read over the well presented ideas and draft up the final group of ideas to be presented to the group, with short discussion to follow. After that, there is a vote on the final items that could end up in the CoC. The vote determines what is ultimately put into the CoC.
So with that, let’s get to the list that I have currently. Remember this list can be added to or subtracted from, given the validity of the argument. Also, any suggestions to simplify, clarify or format the CoC is also up for discussion.
Possible CoC Changes:
- Off Topic Comments: Our present CoC says that the authors/seeders must warn a member to get on topic before getting a mod. This has become problematic, since a lot of destruction of a discussion can happen by the time we go through that procedure. As of late, off topic is also random insults, comments meant as spam, etc. As of late, the mods have been using the flagging system to guide us with off topic comments. If the author and the author only flags a comment that is quite obviously off topic, we have been removing them. Should this be the methodology to follow?
- Excessive Cursing: Well we all know it when we see it. Our CoC understands that we are an adult site so an occasional curse word is fine, but a post filled with cursing is NOT going to encourage a discussion. Special note about the “F” word. You can’t use it towards a member in any way shape or from including STFU, FU, GFYS, etc.
- Creative insulting Terms: This is a tough one. It seems that more and more there are creative ways to insult entire groups of people. Now in the past, the CoC has always applied strictly to members, but using terms like Republthugs and Libtards isn’t forwarding the discussion. The question is how to handle this. Do we write up a list of forbidden words, or make a more general rule of civility?
- Comments complaining about articles: this kind of falls into the off topic item, but also takes article into meta.
- Trolling of articles: This is intentional trolling and not having some fun. The issue is what some authors/seeder see as having fun, others do not. Does the mod wait for the flag, or do we just forbid this?
- Death wishing: In the past, death wishing was only not allowed to other members. Do we extend it to public figures / parties?
- Fake News Sites: Do we need a list of known fake news sites?
- Skirting Comments: This has become a big issue on NT. Skirting comments that are designed to insult indirectly. Right now our standard rule for how suspensions are handed out is 4 CoC violations=2 days suspension and 3 skirtings = 1 CoC violator, which means you get 12 skirting before a suspension. Ideas on handling both skirting comments and punishment will be taken under advisement.
- Headlines: in our current CoC it says to keep headlines non-inflammatory. Yet some of the publications that are drawn upon, have very inflammatory headlines. How do we handle this?
Policy
Policy deal with how the site functions. It is not part of the CoC per se, but is needed for smooth operation of the site and to meet the contractual demands of the site. Here is the list of policy changes:
- Do not flag comments because you disagree with the content. Half of all flags fall into this category. If you can’t follow this rule, your flagging privileges will be taken away from you.
- Do Not Announce Flags. It serves no purpose and disrupts the article. If you can’t follow this rule, your flagging privileges will be taken away from you.
- Blogs and articles meant as insults to other members will be removed without notice. A pattern of such behavior will get a suspension
- Don’t mark seeds as original articles. If you can’t follow this rule, your privileges will be taken away from you.
- Hate speech. Condemning an entire group of people, by race, religion, or ethnicity will not be tolerated. This is all ready in our CoC.
PLEASE NOTE: PLEASE DISCUSS THE TOPIC ONLY. ANY PERSONAL INSULTS WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT RECOURSE. NO FOUL LANGUAGE ALLOWED.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
730 visitors
Please read the proposed ideas for the update before posting!
So finally the mother of all meta. I would like you all to think about not just what you want, but also if it is possible to do. Think about if the changes you want are reasonable.
Note to Mods.. please put your comments in purple, if you are responding as a mod, in black if you are responding as a member.
I'm going to lurk for awhile since this is my first CoC update
Lurk away!
I too am lurking.
Noted Lady in Black!
I'm a noted
lurk off,
as I,
often take off,
to lurk
.
I'm curious, to all
who decides what I mean
.
when I haven't yet ?
No one has decided anything. That will happen during the vote. This is a discussion to see what more or less we want presented.
I'm drinking heavily whilst lurking.
Sister,
Would that be from those little 1 1/2 ounce bottles you've been saving up for the last 20 years?
Violations:
12 skirting violations every month is TOO MANY!
Change the numbers to 2 skirting = 1 CoC
2 CoC = 1 day suspension, progressive suspensions from there.
On the 'decision of the committee' [Perrie, Uncle Bruce and A. Macarthur] a 'bad actor' should loose the right to a monthly clean slate.
Authors responsibility for seeds:
Lock it before you log off, open it when you come back. That way neither you nor the mods will need to shovel up the shit [oops, crap] that was thrown while you were gone.
When a member is suspended, their seeds should be locked.
Older seeds or those that your just bored with monitoring should be locked or just deleted.
Speech: this one is for RA
Freedom of speech is fine, but, when speech is used to denigrate, demean or insult a group of people in any way and infringes on the rights of others, then that is where such freedom ends.
OK noted tougher rules on CoC and skirting.. would like to see how many members agree with this. Do it by voting up this comment.
That is excellent Kathleen. I think that everyone should remember that they are the primary caretakers of their own seeds. Unattended articles are being closed down. We don't expect you to be on endlessly, but if you are going to be gone for hours, then close your article down before departing. You can reopen it later.
Perrie,
No problem making skirting violations tougher, but I don't think that goes far enough. There is no such defined behavior as "skirting". You either committed a violation or you didn't, and the line between the two should be crystal clear. The things referred to as skirting should be made into violations. Once the line is clearly marked, then, if you step over that line, you (metaphorically at least) should get your head slapped off, no matter which side of the argument you're on. Obviously, we can't get rid of the arguments, they are pretty much an integral part of what the site does. We can, however, define trollish behavior and make it a violation; one which will quickly give the troll a vacation, a permanent one if necessary.
I can support this (no opinion on the rest!).
In my opinion, 'skirtings' are those finely-tuned areas where gray-areas discussion, "we go a long way back" relations, and 'lawyering' a phrase in a comment reside. In other words, it is the area where somebody will argue a mod up one wall and down the other on intended meaning.
Moreover, mods have emotions and limits too. Some of my opinions, laugh-lines, and "applause-lines" may rub readers or mods the wrong way, too. Still, for the sake of stimulating discussion or debate which draws more than it repels mods judiciously, "scrub" the questionable 'mark' and leave the rest for public consideration, consumption, or reflection. "Skirting,' is a "you drove too close to my child in the parking lot, I have to call foul" event.
Just my thoughts. Hope you do not mind me interjecting it.
TTGA,
Bruce and I tough that skirting was a way of giving a semi infraction a bit of a break. I mean it's why we have the charges of attempted murder and murder.
If people feel otherwise, they should make themselves heard about this now.
I for one agree. I have commented on this else thread as well.
My question is once a member has been penalized a lot of times for skirting, and continues to skirt no matter how many times a penalty is imposed, then something more drastic is required to teach the member a lesson that will be effective. Ever since NV closed and we inherited their members the purple font on this site has been excessive and it isn't reducing. The same goes for class 1 CoC violations. If members are permitted to continue being incorrigable, what should be done to prevent the site from turning to (excrament). The site has lost a lot of good members because the offenders are allowed to continue and continue.
Buzz,
I don't agree that the site has lost a lot of good members. It s the natural evolution of a site that people come and go for any number of reasons. I do agree that we might have to tighten up penalties, to keep a higher quality of discussion. That is what we should be aiming for.
I think skirting should be done away with. It’s either a coc violation or it isn’t. Failing that, the three for one maybe should be four to one instead due to the subjective nature of a given potential infraction. Then there’s the issue of sometimes a coc in one seed is given when on another seed a different moderator not seeing the coc elsewhere gives virtually the same comment a skirting violation. Vice versa has happened as well.
Question about the profanity filter.
Can it be set up so that agreed upon words are added to the list of profanities censored?
Yes it can.
Where is the profanity filter? I used the most aggressive one on the other site. I know elsewhere ignore was mentioned. I’m opposed to it and never used it on the other site.
How about we follow the current FCC rules regarding profanity ?
Profanity is healthy as long as it is not used in negative, vicious manner.
I cannot figure out why calling someone ignorant is insulting as it means lacking knowledge which can be anything from not paying attention to the subject matter to not even knowing anything about it in the first place. When I have used the term, it has always been regarding the person's knowledge of what I or the article is talking about.
Hi Tom,
Usually calling someone ignorant, has a negative connotation to it. Read these two sentences:
It seems you are totally ignorant on that topic.
It seems you are uninformed on that topic.
Do they read the same to you?
Now I may be wrong, but more than not, the word ignorant is also tied in with other put downs in a comment and meant to imply someone is stupid rather than uninformed.
The use of the word 'ignorant' should stay. Nothing wrong with it.
Perrie yes they do, as Tom said being ignorant is simply lacking knowledge. Neither a good thing or a bad thing just something that is true for all of us, I freely admit I am ignorant on a wide variety of subjects.
Now I agree people do tie the word into insults but that is the fault of the commenter not the word, judge the content of the comment not just a word.
Lol I do not envy you this job, enjoy.
OK so the word ignorant OK, but tying it to an insult not OK..
OK!
This is one piece of business I hate.. but NT was founded on the idea of transparency and that the rules belonged to the community.. no other way to do this than the update.
But thanks for your condolences...
How about 'willfully ignorant'? Each word individually is not an insult by but together I'm sure most would feel insulted, or should...
See Dulay has just nailed it. It is not the word alone.. and we have other words we can use to express the same idea.. but the word ignorant is usually tied to something unflattering and purposely done so.
IMHO, as how it is do often used here on NT by some, it is obviously intended as a demeaning insult to another Member or specific group and should not be allowed to be used in such a manner.
Truth be told, there are any number of ordinarily benign words in the dictionary that people can use to demean, denigrate and/or insult by their very obvious intent in how the word is used. However, there are some that are used by both sides meant only to insult and/or incite hostile derailing of an article and create nothing but flame wars among Members.
Calling someone ignorant is obviously intended as an insult and a put down. I personally feel everyone on NT has a right to express their own opinions, beliefs and POV without being insulted. That is something that both sides are guilty of.
Just my own POV.
Dulay you're getting there but again to me those two words joined together are not necessarily an insult but can be an accurate description of someone. For example I loathe anything political and avoid topics on that subject, I do not want to know anything about it and make no effort to learn about it (lol, most of the time I don't even recognize the names being bandied about). Describing me as willfully ignorant on this matter is entirely accurate, now it could also be an insult but the context of the entire post would have to be taken into consideration not just the use of two words.
Full disclosure. As someone who spends quite a bit of time reading about a plethora of issues, if I state that I think that you are willfully ignorant, I MEAN it as an insult.
What's scary to me is that so many people wear it as a badge of honor or worse, insist that they are fully informed by the likes of Alex Jones.
Obtuse being my go to...
Lol who's Alex Jones?
A right wing conspiracy theorist.
Obtuse works for me, and it's such a pretty word. It's difficult to be insulted with a pretty word. Case in point: Would you rather be called fat, or Rubenesque?
Is this why you instructed me on how to change my moniker from David Jones to igknorantzrulz.
Would/should I have to flag myself every time I see my Lewinsky of Monikers ?
Sorry,
I think most can see when we start BANNING words, we start down an awfully slippery slope. One that ones never seem able to be able to stop, when started upon.
We have the greatest example in the entire world directly in front of most of us citizens of the USA.
Be careful when we let peoples in only the majority determine everything, as if we were to all be offered paying taxes as optional, mandatory payment of taxes might be slightly reduced.
Just because more are for, doesn't always mean it would be a plausible option.
It is my personal opinion too much is already not permitted here, but that is me, and even being Joe Average average Joe around here, I realize my voice has no say.
I will offer my own input irregardlessly, and the ones who would censor words further, can vote to silence my dissention, and hopefully, their own dissention does not become the next dissension silenced...
I prefer the term "Circumferentially Challenged".
How about 'Laterally opulent'?
Very true Dulay. The problem is that many on this site (and elsewhere) do not know the difference between ignorant and stupid. Ignorant is not knowing something (easily cured). Stupidity is refusing to fix the ignorance (not being unable to do so but actually refusing). The term you presented, willfully ignorant, is synonymous with stupid. It could also be equated with "fanatical". Both of those would be insults by themselves and we are not allowed to use insults, even when they are merited.
Perrie,
Whether you like it or not, and I'm sure you like it as little as I do, you're going to have to use "intent" in much the same way as a judge would. Intent is very hard to define in absolute terms, but it must be so defined if the moderation is going to be accepted as impartial.
Frankly, I have no problem with the word "ignorant" used in its proper context of not knowing something. I am perfectly sure that nobody wants to be told by anybody else to go read something more than they have done already, so I get the "problem.' That said, we can not purge ourselves of good old-fashioned common used debate words!
May I suggest that when a word is used in its proper context, that is, in a dictionary meaning it be allowed. We have to deal with something of disagreeable substance coming from all sides or we will become salt that has lost its savor! We do not want to quench the spirit of trying. Or worse, put folks in form-fitting word "strait-jackets."
I think that it does depend on how the word "ignorant " is used. If it is used in a context to indicate that a person does not have knowledge of some specific thing that is being discussed, then according to its dictionary meanings it's not an insult, but if the comment implies that the member is just plain ignorant, which means a general condition, then its meaning is insulting. However a caveat to that. It's possible that a person CAN be generally ignorant, but nobody can make that decision without requiring the subject to take an IQ test and determining its result.
Well said. (Note: I read your message after making my own to Perrie. No duplication intended.)
Please tell everyone here that you are kidding. I happen to like calling you David better.
It's that ambiguous contexty thingy again
You DID instruct me on HOW to change David back to my old name igknorantzrulz,
but like Nunes,
I didn't mention one little thing, Trump asked m..... er ah I mean David asked you to instruct him on how to change his name.
And I am and was appreciative for your help, and I will also state for the record, you stated you preferred David.
.
I do not envy your task here, and did not mean to burden it further with my input.
You have my sympathy here, and I want everybody to be one big happy family here, but if it were, people would lose interest in a hurry (imho).
So, for the record, I think you and your mods do an admirable job here. Possibly some minor tweaking is required, but if you go too far, I think people might depart. People may also depart if things remain the same.
You have to be a wise ole Judge here, and walk a fine line. Good luck
I use that phrase not as an insult but to accurately describe someone who chooses to remain uninformed on a certain topic.
Noted, Raven.
IMO not knowing something is not the same ignorant. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer sometimes, but even a dull knife has a use sometimes.
Agreed. No one on earth can know everything. That is why having open discussions and debates in a civil and respectful manner allows us to learn from others who have different life experiences than we may ourselves. But, none of us knows everything, no matter how much we may like to think so.
Absolutely correct.
Calling a member "ignorant" without noting a particular topic/subject/comment, etc. about which that member is allegedly "ignorant," is nothing more than name-calling … an ad hominem insult in other words.
That obtains with regard to any disparaging comment when such a comment fails to correct flawed, false and/or an intentional lie.
Far too many comments are simply insults, and, while some just "skirt" the CoC, the bottom line is that such mean-spirited, substance-free smackdowns tend to drive members away from particular conversations, conversations of one particular category, and worst-case-scenario … away from The NT altogether.
I totally agree, and the more we have this discussion, the more I am thinking of not so much list of words but rather intent. If a comment is meant to be insulting, even without calling you a name, we know it's insulting. Ignorant, being a prime example of a word that on its own is fine, but used so often as an insult.
No matter how benign the word might be in ordinary use, when used to be demeaning or denigrating or as an insult, the intent of how the word is used is what matters most. And in most cases, it is very obvious what the intent is.
“I never forget a face, but I’ll make an exception in your case.” -- Groucho Marx
Nothing wrong with any of the words Groucho used. In fact his phrases are also perfectly acceptable. The nature of this insult is purely semantic. This insult would have to be judged as such by a mod.
That is true... and not only that.. we would have to know the standing relationship between the people in the exchange. If two friends had that exchange, it would be considered a joke. Two adversaries maybe not.
Moderation is hard for that reason.
Here are some links to the definition of ignorant, just so we do not have an ignorant conversation about the word:
Then from that last link here is the definition:
ig•no•rant
(ˈɪg nər ənt)
adj.
LOL who would think the word could generate so much...
Maybe because many are not aware of the actual dictionary meaning of the word.
"Condemning an entire group of people, by race, religion, or ethnicity will not be tolerated."
Pretty much EVERY article that deals with those type subjects put out by "THE" media....does that exact thing.....either on the "For" or "Against".
Do we "Ban" those type of articles ?
It is me,
Right now none of our articles that we carry meet that criteria or they would be removed. What we do have is a lot of article meant to put down entire political movements... i.e:
How the Republicans/Democrats hate America.
Not so sure that actually meets the current CoC requirement that Titles should be non inflammatory.
Open for discussion.
Maybe those type of articles should go into the heated group?
That is a good idea!
IMO, those articles are not meant for discussion, mostly just flame throwing. They really cannot be classified as news.
We are "In the times of the "Media Frenzy" movement". Since "WE" aren't Media and don't hit the streets ourselves to find a "Truth" (funny word these days
), that's ALL we have to choose from.
Like I noted with "sunshine" on not allowing putting up reports from "media companies" that have had reporters suspended, fired or moved elsewhere.
There's NOTHING left....even with your proposal either !
Agreed and we do have a group dedicated to that... "Heated Discussions"..we could move it there.
True enough It Is Me.
It's a "mad, mad, mad, mad World" out there these days.
I kinda like it though. It FORCES one to exercise the "Common Sense" Muscle we all seem to have been neglecting for the past few decades..
It "Hurts" for a bit.....but it's really a good thing for OUR overall health.
I tend to agree.
Agree! If people who wish to have down and dirty, no holds barred hate fests they should be limited to the Heated Discussions Group. However, it looks a good deal like the FP has become the Heated Discussions place of choice instead of the Group intended for such discussions.
I myself have found that once the snark and political pejoratives are removed from the conversation, a conversation that is conducive to learning, understanding and tolerance can be had, and I always much appreciate them. I am here to learn from others and share with others, not to be bullied, demeaned or insulted by others. I will not engage with those who think that is the only way to communicate with others.
I've seen lots of times that "Democrats", "Republicans", "liberals", "conservatives", are condemned as being evil or hateful, which is such a generalization that it labels every single adherent to those causes to be evil or hateful, and that is in itself an "ignorant"? and deliberately insulting of probably close to half the population of the USA. It is the same as labelling a person to be an Islamophobe when they are critical only of radical fundamentalist Islamists.
For example, I just noticed this comment:
Buzz,
That is an fine example of something that is bothering me. The site has grown a lot since the closing of NV, and maybe where in the past we have thought of only the insulting comment as one that pertains to a member, maybe now we have enough members from both sides of the political spectrum and everything in between, that we should reconsider this and make it that blanket comments like the one above (equally applicable to conservatives) should not be allowed. They do not forward the discussion and are only meant to demene.
I ask for both of these to be approved. Why should anyone be allowed to death wish anybody? And knowing what fake news sites to avoid would clear out the underbrush!
I will not say much yet about this. The only thing I will say is who decides the fake news sites?
You do.
No the group has to come to this decision.
I think this is a question on which "majority rules" could backfire.
That is potentially absurd. We had someone the other day compare Mother Jones to Gateway Pundit. (Oh yeah, it was you.)
Those who revel in fake news will have a definition of it that will include mainstream media sites. Trump started this shit, and his followers and proponents have largely fell in line behind him.
The only people who understand fake news to any extent at all are people who have enough interest in it to look into the issue to some depth. I have zero faith that there are many people here who have done that. Fox and Trump will say X mainstream site is fake news and his lemmings will mouth it as well.
The policy of a legitimate news discussion forum cannot be determined in such a way.
Won't Facebook be putting out a reference list in coming season? It could be a "plus." Plus, the government may make an official listing as oversight. Just throwing that out.
Would you trust this particular government's opinion as to what constitutes "fake news"? I wouldn't.
Good point and noted. However, I am throwing out a few items to consider. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with this site screening the "screeners." Also, I am not willing to disavow all sensible tools and organizations in this country, simply because of the "stupe" of some people in its leadership. I hope this reads the way I want it too, for I am rushing out right now.
Agreed. So where does one get such a listing?
Yes it was.. and you are being too literal. My point is that both of those are fringe publications... not MSM.
Perrie, Gateway Pundit posts stories that are objectively false, and they do it intentionally. Mother Jones does not.
Do you remember that I showed you a portion of the wikipedia page about Gateway Pundit? Shall I post it here again?
John,
I am sorry, but neither of those two publications are mainstream. I didn't say the extent to which they were not... you are being to literal.
Allow me to opine. You will get zero concensus as to a site being fake news. A quick review of the GWP website right now shows MANY articles that are NOT fake.
As for a list...well...who do we trust to come up with a list? I remind you that such lists are always subjective. Need I remind you that the once vaunted SPLC list of hate groups now includes mainstream Religious organizations simply because they believe that homosexuality is a sin?
I say that if you think an article is fake news, it is up to YOU to prove it to be fake. Attacking sources get's us no-where. Attack the subject. Provide counter point evidence.
We had a Story today wherein a 3rd party was death wishing, I didn't think that was a problem since that's what the article was about. I do think we should be able to Death Wish Politicians, Public Figures, and other Countries.
it would all depend on where A they/we/me/you and sometimes Y,
get our Fake news from
Perrie, you should be embarrassed to place Mother Jones and Gateway Pundit in the same category.
Mother Jones has been around since the mid 1970s and has an excellent reputation for in-depth research and significant journalism (despite a recent faux pas). Gateway Pundit is a guy with a blog and has a very poor reputation for truth and accuracy. Apart from the former being left wing and the latter being extreme right wing, there's no equivalency between them.
Add that to the fact that Mother Jones has Pulitzer Prize winning journalists.
I can do that faster than a fart leaves a fan, Unc.
John - Give your fellow community members some credit. Most of us are educated and informed enough to know the difference. You know as well as I do that members who seed from those kinds of sites, know that what they are seeding is agenda-motivated BS. Let them do it. And by 'them', I mean 'him'.
The Gateway Pundit
Mother Jones
We have had more than enough "fake news". Not just on NT, but as a country.
NT doesn't need to add to it or promote it as far as I am concerned. And this "both sides do it" explanation given by some is inaccurate.
Why? What is your case?
I think MJ is in the same league as The Progressive, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic Monthly, and even the NY Review of Books. All of them do serious journalism, in many cases far better than daily news broadcasters do it.
Just remember that Fox News is not fake news.
Apparently death wishing has strong pros and cons. Personally, I would prefer not to have it, but it is not up to me. I think this is one item that is going to have to come out in the vote.
I'm not sure I agree with that. One is hyper partisan, the other has been known for conspiracy theories and fake news. There is a subtle difference but an important one.
Should we just call it
Fake Entertainment /?
It’s called the most trusted name in news. It’s fair and balanced.
I have never said it was, Rex.
They might be saying that they are the most trust news but they are also not calling themselves fair and balanced anymore.
That's right, it's Faux News. There's a reason Fox viewers have been proven to be less informed than people who don't watch any news at all.
I agree with the death wishing. I think I already made my opinion known on that. I don't think it should be allowed to wish death on anyone, member or not.
Completely agree Ender..
I could go for that, too... if my opinion matters..
Yes, your opinion most definitely matters....
Agree 100%
I too oppose all deathwishing save for advocating for capital punishment for a crime committed where that is an option as a verdict/judgement.
In addition to Storm Front other certified hate groups such as The Gatestone Institute and anything from Pamela Geller should be banned on NT, too...
IMHO all the sources of foreign fake news and propaganda intended to misrepresent fact to purposely mislead and inflame intolerance ruin NT's product.
It’s one thing to ban stuff from Nazi/kkk or any other racial identity group and from foreign communist groups. I have no problem with that. I do strongly object to singling out Pamela Geller for banning and even more strongly the proposed ban on Gatestone as a potential source of seeded material. As for fake news, perhaps we should ban any news outlet identified by President Trump as fake news here?
Perhaps the news organizations who have had to either fire or demote several of their journalist for lieing.
We could at least start there.
We are a non partisan site, so what our President thinks or doesn't think is irrelevant.
Sunshine,
That would put most of the MSM on the no go list. Pause and think about that.
There's no one left then.
lol...true
No.. it's because the MSM is supposed to be the 4th estate, meaning keeping our government in check. They are held to a much higher standard than other outlets. And I know you three think you are being clever, but Fox and Breitbart have all been called out for the same things as CNN and MSNBC. There is no high road here.
Let's not bring Trump or political assumptions into the pot here to stir things up, this article is about NT and what is best for the site, not to discuss political differences.
This comment by JR is a good example at skirting.
Says the person who should not be playing moderator.. which has recently become a problem here on the site. And not just you Rex..
That wasn’t my point. Some here were wanting to use their criteria to to sideline what others could seed from by calling it fake news. The target was primarily right of center news and news opinion sites. I was simply suggesting to them that unless something is proven fake and not simply a matter of differing opinion, it’s a slippery slope as to who defines what fake is. I would trust their choices as to what is fake to the same degree that they would trust Trump to make such a list.
Trump wasn’t really the point. See detail elsewhere in the thread. I’d trust his list were he to ever generate one though as to what is fake news before I’d accept anything any of our progressives here have to say on that matter.
Thanks for posting proof of your lack of objectivity.
This is the issue of banning sites. While we can all agree that Stormfront is a hate site, I'm not as sure about the Gatestone Institute or Atlas Shrugged (Pamela Geller's site) btw, I don't think those two are even equivalent. So how do we go forth with this? I see an inherent problem.
On the topic of banning sites, I'd like to point out that there are indeed a small number of what you'd call "hate sites". People attempt to expand this list by invoking editorial comments and op-eds by likeminded people. The fact is that they disagree with the point of view, and attempt to censor in this manner.
Furthermore, there tend to be well sourced articles by reputable commentators that often appear on these allegedly questionable sites.
I think the banning of content sites should be done very judiciously, if not infrequently.
As far as a rule is concerned, if there is no restriction on a certain site, members should be precluded from papering a seed with their reason why the particular site is not acceptable. The comment should be deleted, and the member should be warned.
A year or two ago, someone here tried to convince Perrie that Infowars is a legitimate news site.
When Megyn Kelly interviewed Alex Jones last summer she pointed out to him a list of false stories he had placed on and promoted on Infowars. There is no question that Infowars has promoted fake news. Most of their original content is fake or misleading to one extent or another.
It is NOT a legitimate news site, although they do reprint some legitimate news stories from other sources.
Whether or not Infowars is a legitimate site cannot be "voted" on. Not if Perrie cares about the legtimacy of her site.
Same for Gateway Pundit and some other 'conservative' sites. Conservative sites are far more likely to create "fake news" than liberal ones.
Jon,
I agree with your concern about some of these sites. Yet we know that some sites are nothing more than opinion and not news and those opinions are very inflammatory, which is a bad way to start.
agreed.
Totally agree. Those commentaries only serve to disrupt the article and are designed to do so.
A year or two ago, someone here tried to convince Perrie that Infowars is a legitimate news site.
When Megyn Kelly interviewed Alex Jones last summer she pointed out to him a list of false stories he had placed on and promoted on Infowars. There is no question that Infowars has promoted fake news. Most of their original content is fake or misleading to one extent or another.
It is NOT a legitimate news site, although they do reprint some legitimate news stories from other sources.
And, despite Alex Jones' false stories, there is legitimate content on that site. It's attention to the author that is credited with writing the piece that matters.
Whether or not Infowars is a legitimate site cannot be "voted" on. Not if Perrie cares about the legtimacy of her site.
Same for Gateway Pundit and some other 'conservative' sites. Conservative sites are far more likely to create "fake news" than liberal ones.
We're in the midst of attempting to promulgate some legitimate policy, as you made clear. Why would you shit all over your post by ending it with such a ridiculous assertion?
When people post fake news from Infowars or Gateway Pundit or from another of a list of far right fake news sites, the membership here should ABSOLUTELY have the right to criticize the source. This should be non-negotiable.
Personally, I will never post on this site without including criticism of far right fake news/ conspiracy sites if it is warranted. Not open to discussion. Go ahead and ban me right now if that does not meet your approval.
I agreed with everything you said. until...
so I had to say thanks for my daily laugh
Someone posted fake news about the soldier killed in Niger. That was NEVER a legitimate story. It was taken from far right conspiracy sites, yet we had to have days of hand wringing over whether or not the story was 'legitimate'. It was a sad day for Newstalkers.
I suppose you think CNN is fake news. That is my laugh for the day.
Nothing I said is wrong, let alone ridiculous.
I actually think both sides can be full of bs fairly equally
but hey... thanks for playing
From what even you have read from them John.....It can be....quite a few times.
What is the "Real" news these days anyway.
of good grief...Occupy Democrats, Think Progress, AlterNet, Democrat Underground, Daily Kos, MoveOn, Media Matters
slobbering with fake news
And if we get a majority to rule, your comment will be deleted every time, and you will be warned.
I'm against banning any sites. I don't believe we have a problem with Hate articles being posted and even if one were seeded it's likely it would seeded as an example of Hate Speech to be ridiculed. If someone starts seeding articles that are a problem we can deal with that person specifically. If I'm offended by an article I can read something else or post a comment telling the seeder exactly what I think of the article, I'm not going to whine about it or insist that the COC protect me from it.
And you can feel that way all you like. When you realize that your comments are being deleted, perhaps your consciousness will be raised to a reasonable level.
John,
Sheesh you can go on about that dead horse. It was longer than a year ago and I had no idea who Alex Jones was other than he threatened to sue me 7 years ago over the name of the website. Having an intellectual properties lawyer as a sister in law is handy
Those blog sites almost always have a source that they reference. If they don't reference a source, I don't take that particular article seriously.
Daily Kos has a rule that you must reference your sources or risk getting banned from the site
OSM, do you mean to say that trashy fake news article about the soldier in Niger was seeded by you? I never could have guessed.
What vetting process did you apply to yourself before you posted that garbage?
The story appeared on about three far right conspiracy sites prior to you posting it on NT. Which one was your news source of choice that day?
The problem as I see it is that no matter which source of information is used by either political side, the other side is going to consider the source to be fake news or a hate group simply because it may disagree with their own personal or political or religious beliefs or views. So I think we should list those that are truly known as hate groups or who obviously deal in fake news., not just which ones don't fall in lock step with our own personal views.
HA! That specific article was brought to the forefront to call Old School out .. giving the opportunity to post the comment that was just made...
A very loaded comment that one should always ask of themselves when seeding articles ... there are some very questionable sources seeded daily by a certain individual that has a strong dislike for the current President, perhaps you know him?
Old School fell on his sword, did not run from nor deny his error and apologized in a separate seeding. Says a great deal about someone that can / is willing do that! (my opinion!)
The biggest problem with that is the official list of Hate groups that most people refer to is created by a liberal organization.
Well I guess your hat isn't in the ring for being a moderator...
This discussion is about the CoC revisions and site and its Members, not about political BS and the blame game.
The name of the site and owning the domain. He has/ has a portion of his show called "The News Talkers". I had never heard of him (this was almost 8 years ago now), so when I started up the site, a few months later he tried to get the domain but I had it already. That really pissed him off. It was when people were buying up names that they knew someone would like, like Macys.com. But I had an actual going concern already..so basically I told him tough nuggies.
Got a job already.
Sorry.
Whether or not Infowars is a legitimate site cannot be "voted" on. Not if Perrie cares about the legtimacy of her site.
Same for Gateway Pundit and some other 'conservative' sites. Conservative sites are far more likely to create "fake news" than liberal ones.
This is simply the commenters opinion. The same could be said of liberal sources. Almost all of the articles seeded here are OPINION pieces rather than "hard news" and should be treated as such. If the facts in an article are true, the source is unimportant. Opinions can be argued against with facts, not with banning sources or sites or censoring them
John,
If it is so fake, then it should be easy to disprove. Do that instead of going after the site.
It's not my job to disprove something time after time. If I disprove something once, will you ban it on the site thenceforth?
That is where you are wrong. Keep a record of your "proof" and just put up the link. That will do.
No, Pamela Geller is not a radical and does not promote hate speech, she simply has views you disagree with. Same goes for Anne Coulter, Limbaugh, any other right winger, or groups like Judicial Watch, etc. Your job is to prove they are wrong if can, or stay silent., censorship is not what this forum is all about.
Thank you for that, JBB. Because of that opinion I intend to not only DOUBLE UP on the Gatestone Institute articles I post, but I'll start posting articles by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer as well, AND I WILL DEDICATE THEM TO YOU AND THOSE WHO THUMBED UP YOUR COMMENT. I suppose if you want to get even you can start posting articles from Veterans Today and Stormfront, maybe translate some Iranian and Hamas articles.
Voting on what is a fake news site is, in a word, ridiculous.
If there are enough crackpots voting they will declare the New York Times fake news and Gateway Pundit not.
It is simply not something that can be voted on if you want Newstalkers to have any credibility Perrie.
This is the time when the credibility of your site will be at stake.
I wouldn't let some of the people here vote on what we should name Ivanka Trump's poodle.
We have no plans of making a list of sites. It would be a huge undertaking and would be plagued with calls of bias one way or another. I am considering using grading sites as a guideline.
That would work too.
so Bigot Christian is not allowed?
Not in application to all Christians.
To those individuals or groups which engage in bigotry, yes, it would be.
Much as we should be treating Islam - not condemning all Muslims, but free to criticize those who engage in violence or oppression.
I have never seen the term Bigot Muslim ever used. I have seen the term radical Muslim. Now Radical Christian would seem appropriate. The term Bigot or Bigoted Christians is used many times to disparage a whole group of religion.
Sandy,
That sounds reasonable. Not sure how it would be worded.
Agreed, and I do believe that it is already in our CoC.
Religion is already one of the protected classes. To call all Christians bigots would not be allowed. To call some public person (other than a member), based on their words or actions, a bigoted Christian isn't condemning the whole of Christianity.
No more or less than any other group, OSM. It's just we feel it more when it hits home.
If people are condemning LGBTQ 🏳️🌈 whatever because of held religious belief that demands said critiques then that can not be banned.
Why?
And religion-based bigotry is still bigotry.
You can't condem people for being who they are. You can condem them if they take a political stance.
On the other hand, if in a religious discussion, it comes to what the interpretation of the bible says, then we are in a different territory. We can't dictate what a person believes. What we can do is not allow hateful statements based on what they believe. Example:
The bible says being gay is a sin.... OK
I think that all gays should be ostracized by society... not OK.
Of course this is up to discussion.
Because the idea of what Bigotry is and what it is not is subjective. Examples of Gay couples traveling hundreds of miles to find a Christian bakery that refuses to apply decorations they feel that goes against their faith is an example.....
By who's definition?
By any definition of the word. Religion is just an excuse or justification to commit bigotry.
I think our constitution covers this topic.
Bullshit. 1st Amendment Right to Religious Freedom.
As I said, religion is just an excuse. An individual is free to be bigoted all they want, even if they use their religion as an excuse. But they cannot use religion as an excuse to violate secular law either..
I wasn't focusing on the constitutional aspect of it Perrie. Only that bigotry is bigotry by definition, regardless of the cause or source. The Constitution comes into play when legalities is involved as a consequence of bigotry.
And yet people that insult others for practicing their religions are the least tolerant and most flagrant bigots of them all.
Ironic isn't it that the Left agenda demands that everyone be inclusive, tolerant even - unless of course it's a Christian that is seeking to exercise their Constitutional Right to worship and practice their Faith as they please.....very much like the Left is in favor of free speech unless they don't agree with what you're saying.
Just as ironic is the atheist that will verbally attack someone's Faith as foolish - yet when challenged the atheist can no more prove his own beliefs - his "faith" in other words than can the Christian.
So when religious "practice" involves violating the law or others rights, that's acceptable and shouldn't elicit a response then?
This isn't a left/right issue. no one is restricted in their religious belief/worship in the least. But religious practice does have legal limits.
What "faith" does an atheist have exactly? And what "challenge" do atheists have to meet exactly? Atheists might challenge theists to prove their claims based on their mere beliefs. Not surprisingly, they cannot.
Yet it fails to address the issue as we witness it here.
So this kind of strayed a tad off topic. I think what we are all saying is that respect is what both parties want. Can we agree on that?
By every thinking person's definition. Those with religious animus demand that their intolerance be tolerated and in fact codified. One's religious beliefs do not give one a pass for intolerance of others.
Absolutely.
yeah...that would be nice. Starting right here on this thread would be nice.
Gordy,
We can't control what is in the heart of an individual. All we can do is stop outright hate speech. If a person is going to be a bigot, nothing NT can do will make them change their minds.
Throwing the BS flag on this. Just because a Christian believes in the biblical teachings that homosexuality is a sin they are automatically a bigot? I believe in the Bible. I believe that homosexual acts are a sin. Am I a bigot because of that belief?
Perhaps you can't see the intentional perversion when one group tries forcing another group to abandon their Faith out of spite.
Not baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's rights when there are plenty of bakeries ready and willing to cater to a gay wedding - but forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs certainly is a problem - and violates civil rights and constitutional rights.
Sort of like forcing the Sisters of the Poor to distribute condoms - or forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions when there are other sources ready and available.
I'm not a muslim but I'd defend the rights of a muslim caterer that refuses to serve ham sandwiches at a wedding.
However - noted that you believe Christians rights, civil or constitutional, should take a back seat to your agenda.
Damn darling! hate to be walking the tightrope that you so obviously are. Was doing that as a moderator on science sites at the vine for awhile and got seriously tired of moderating slap fights among corrupted oil-soaked children. Good luck! I was pretty much backed away from the vine when it shut down, for the same reason I'm backing away from NT. All of the paid science deniers (usual suspects) showed up here.
It's so much more fun and enlightening to go onto global scientific sites that Trump and far right wingers have no power to corrupt.
How is anyone being forced to abandon their faith? And what spite?
Immaterial. If you operate a business open to the public, you must abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws. You cannot serve a product to one but refuse it to another.
If conducting a business transactions is against one's religious beliefs, they either need a new set of beliefs, or run a different business. There is no constitutional right to own and operate a business. But a business owner does agree to abide by all local and state laws, including the aforementioned public accommodation and antidiscrimination laws, when they obtain a business license. And religion is not a valid excuse to violate the law. The SCOTUS made that clear too.
More like requiring them to fill out the appropriate paperwork for exemption.
I doubt a Muslim caterer offers pork products to begin with.
Oh do tell, what exactly is my "agenda?" And what exactly are "Christians rights?" How are they different than anyone else's rights? Or do Christians have or want "special rights?"
Not necessarily. It's all about how they act because of that belief.
I never said we could Perrie.
That's a start.
Maybe not. But we can call them out on it.
If people believe that homosexuality is a sin does that (in their mind) give them free reign to call others immoral? Or degenerates? Are they then allowed to call gay people sick individuals with mental problems? That it is a choice and they chose sin and will forever be a deviant? Just because according to them, their bible says so?
IMO just because one is of a particular faith does not mean that they can hold judgement over others. It does not give them a pass to put down others that they do not agree with.
Paid science deniers?
I was a science teacher for over 20 years. I have come to know that very few people are paid to be science deniers. They hold their beliefs as their own.
I’m not talking about condemning anyone. I’m talking about being critical of a behavior or the action of a person or group of them. The Christian saying of love the sinner, hate the sin might apply here. A person to has the inclination to LGBT who doesn’t act on it has committed no sin.
If you view another person as less than you because they are as they were born, then that's pretty much the definition of bigotry.
Do you think you are superior to LGBT people? Do you feel that you can call them perverts, mentally ill, degenerates, or deviants? If yes, then that's bigotry. If not, and you are able to treat them as equals not in need of fixing, then no, it's not bigotry.
And yes, bigotry excused by religion is still bigotry. I seldom hear people call those who have been divorced multiple times, or who had extramarital or premarital sex sinners, or perverts, or anything of the sort, even though the Bible prohibits those as well. That indicates to me that some folks choose which "sins" they'll get worked up over and which they won't without a whole lot of regard to their religion, even while using their religion as justification. Kim Davis comes to mind.
Noted!
So what about the Christian that believes that homosexuality is a sin? Or the Vet who thinks that Tansgender's should not serve? Is their speech to be stiffled?
It's not what they think or believe that matters, although it can be irrational. It's how they act that matters.
Not necessarily. I'm not a fan of censorship. They can say whatever they like. However, speech does have consequences. It's a two-way street. if you say something, be prepared for the consequences of what you say, either positive or negative.
Exactly. Curtailing rights is bigotry. Calling for the curtailing of rights is also bigotry, and should be called out as such.
How many times have you and I been accused of religious bigotry because we point out that the existence of the Christian god (or any other god) isn't supported by evidence, and that maybe forcing rape victims to marry their attacker, as instructed in the OT, isn't a good thing? I don't think either of us have ever called Christians as a group bad people, nor have we advocated for them to have any fewer rights than others, but somehow, we're bigots (or Christian haters, or whatever).
If we can be called bigots or Christian haters for not insulting Christians or trying to take away their rights, then those who actually do insult others and try to take away their rights can just suck it up when their bigotry is pointed out.
I totally agree. Including Transgender. People have a right to determine their own life without being attacked for their own choice in how they wish to live.
What if they wish to live as a Christian and follow the rules set forth in the Bible.
That may be true but that does not mean that they have that I accept it as normal and natural .
I doubt your acceptance is neither required or necessary.
Why not? Your own thinking is that you have the right to make them accept that only your own beliefs are normal and natural.
It is a two way street.
That is up to them and the Creator, not you or anyone else.
Just keep it to yourself. Everybody should just keep it to yourself no matter your perversion (we all have one or two).
Nobody's stopping them. But they choose those rules for themselves, and don't get to choose them for others.
My gripe, and haven't figured out how to handle it - yet - is how to handle all of the off-topic jibs/jabs/total derailments - that ruin any possibility of meaningful discussion.
Author's of a thread/seed, per the CoC, are to police their own thread/seed to prevent the continual, intentional off-topic trolls from disrupting their subject of discussion.
The constant one-liners from the trolls is getting more that frustrating - they are being allowed to ruin an excellent site.
Off-topic's need to be stopped - somehow.
1st,
I totally agree. That is why I addressed it the article. Right now, the author has to ask to get on topic. How about if the author flags and item as off topic (after the comment is made), the comment and the off topic making is removed by the mods? Btw. they would NOT be saved if a mod deemed a comment as off topic. Same with spam.
I suppose this sounds like "an old idea"
but when we flag something - could we have a short menu to choose from?
off topic.
hate speech/death wishing
spam
etc.
Great idea... but I have to see if that is possible or not.
I agree. And I think that would be helpful for the Mods to quickly better understand what the flag was for if not openly obvious.
For me this is a hard one as a lot of times the discussion can drift and other points be brought up, even unintentionally.
I like conversations that meander.
Me too. A lot of interesting discussions will have a train of thought evolution. The trick is how to describe the concept of staying 'generally on topic'.
I do too. Letting the discussion flow, so to speak. If everything stayed on topic, half the comments on most articles would have to be deleted.
As long as there is a clear branch to follow back to the original topic I think meandering discussions are more interesting. Sadly, there are often huge leaps from the original topic to some unrelated complaint. Personally, those should be the only "off topic" threads that should be flagged or deleted. If there is a clear train of thought from the original topic that branches out I don't think it should be considered off topic even though the thread may be fleshing out some corner of discussion not contained in the original seed. Maybe an "arms length" rule should be debated. As long as the train of thought can be easily connected to the main topic I think they should be allowed.
I think this falls under the seeders/ authors jurisdiction. I happen to agree, but not everyone is in agreement. Maybe that should be stated clearly at the bottom of the seed/ article.
That would go to RBR right? A seeder like 1st, who is fed up with off topic comments, should be able to make that a red box rule and ANYONE on the seed should be welcome to flag an 'off topic' comment. It would help the seeder and take out the trash.
I also think that members who continue to post 'off topic' comments on a regular basis should be warned and then penalized.
I have to agree. perhaps we need to be specific in that the Author is resposible for determining if a tangent is allowed or off topic.
agreed.
For me, it is the nonsensical and off topic comments that tend to either derail or inflame, both of which can turn an otherwise positive tread into an unrelated mess. However, I also enjoy conversations that can spin off from the original topic as long as they are civil, respectful and informative.
Yes that is a proper use of the RBR.
Well, if it has been specified and then it happens... maybe.. the community would have to determine that, since we have all gone off topic including me. One must be mindful of the possible pitfalls of a rule.
What I have noticed regarding off topic comments are that an off topic comment is posted and the seeder will pass on it until a response is made to the off topic comment which the seeder does not like so well. Then the seeder will give out a warning to the person who posted the second or further comments but not the original off topic comment and then things snowball from there. If the original off topic comment is not removed, then I assume the seeder is ok with it and the conversation can continue.
There needs to be consistency regarding the moderation of off topic comments.
Agreed.
That is my single biggest problem here as well. The creative insulting.
Although it is moderated via COC and Mods MUCH better here than sites like NV, we still have some of the same people over here doing the same thing in a marginally more creative way. It is pretty clear who they are. Rarely do they have anything "non insulting" to say.
And I see issues with the author moderating requirement rule as well. This gives folks who want to disrupt a discussion the chance to purposely torpedo it when an author may not have time to read everything. Some of the problem children who followed over from NV have zero problem acting in such a sophomoric manner. Some actually seem to get off doing it. I find myself not seeding things sometimes when i know i won't have time to be on here swatting away all the gnats who trend towards being a pest on such things. Not good.
And I bet i'm not alone in that sentiment.
"And I bet i'm not alone in that sentiment. "
No you're not alone. That is one reason why I don't post articles.
They ruined the vine back in the day when paid climate change deniers saturated climate debates with Heartland Institute/Koch propaganda. The same folk are doing the same thing here. Removed [ph]
You can not call out members on this article. You want things to change, make useful comments.
That accusation about being paid to post or seed is false. I have my beliefs and opinions and am not bashful here about sharing them. Accusing other members of being paid by another to be here without real proof of it should be a double coc violation.
By the way, the other place in this meta where you called me out about my name and being similar to an Institute is just as bad. Yes I saw the call outs above when the seed was locked, but the term heartland American is interchangeable with flyover America. It refers to the American people not living in the bi coastal regions who overwhelmingly supported one New Yorker for President over another one.
By the way, the other place in this meta where you called me out about my name and being similar to an Institute is just as bad. Yes I saw the call outs above when the seed was locked, but the term heartland American is interchangeable with flyover America. It refers to the American people not living in the bi coastal regions who overwhelmingly supported one New Yorker for President over another one.
A Proposal for the CoC
Clarity and effectiveness are the driving factors for this proposal. The main ideas of how to properly behave as a NewsTalkers member should be easy to understand. This means that the CoC is necessarily summarized into a few cogent, clear codes. Think in terms of new members trying to learn how to conduct themselves. It should be easy for new members to learn how to be a ‘good NT citizen’ and thus easy for existing members to be clear on the rules.
Based on the current CoC (i.e. drawing from the CoC) it seems six codes will get the job done (but will likely evolve during these deliberations). The following section proposes six summary codes. Each code is a single phrase with carefully chosen terms (e.g. derogatory, repugnant).
A Structure based on Codes
If the CoC were organized as Codes with supporting Details, most communication of the CoC would be through the codes themselves – a very brief list to comprehend. The codes would logically be at the top of the CoC document followed by the details. Obvious and easy to read. A proposed structure is this:
The following is a framework for the proposed CoC document:
i. Codes
The codes below are intended to be cited by the mods. Mods might adopt a citing practice such as “CoC-3” and/or simply repeat the code’s single line of text. The intent is to have a few good codes that …
The codes naturally fell into two categories. The first three codes deal with how members interact with each other. The last three codes deal with content of articles, comments and chat.
Interpersonal (essentially: ‘be polite’)
Content (essentially: ‘thoughtful, relevant contribution’)
† The word ‘offensive’ is more common but does not capture the idea as well
II. Explanation for each Code
This section explains each code. If someone, for example, claims to not understand the concept of a derogatory reference, the section for Code 1 would make things crystal clear.
Since this is simply a framework, the content shown here is profiled as bulleted items (rather than as a finished prose version). This content was pulled from the current CoC document.
Following are the six codes with detail bullet items drawn from the current CoC.
Code 1 ― No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members
Define each operative word:
Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:
Code 2 ― No taunting or bullying
Define each operative word:
Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:
Code 3 ― Be civil
Define each operative word:
Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:
Code 4 ― Stay on topic per the article
Define each operative word:
Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:
Code 5 ― No dishonest, unethical or illegal content
Define each operative word:
Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:
Code 6 ― No repugnant or harmful content
Define each operative word:
Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:
III. Moderation
Discuss how moderators operate, how participation on the site is ‘judged as a whole’, etc. This is basically the meat of sections 2, 3 and 4 in the current CoC.
a) Skirting the CoC
Explains skirting in terms of characteristics without relying too heavily on enumerating specific examples.
b) Violations
Explains the cumulative effect of violations and the imposed penalties
IV. Policies and Procedures
This is the balance of the CoC. It includes the Impasse rule, the use of blogs, author responsibilities, etc. No fundamental rules of conduct are introduced. The ‘rules’ here are administrative and/or special-case in nature.
In essence, the proposal is six codes with supporting explanations:
I have to question #5...
In that one can only discuss the contents of a specific article for a certain length of time before all that can be said has been - a discussion must be able to 'evolve' / expand into other areas outside the original scope of the article ..
I think you meant #4 - Stay on topic per the article.
I agree. Another way to phrase #4 is 'Stay generally on topic per the article'.
Ideas on a better word than 'generally' would be good. Ultimately, this is something that would be better handled in the explanation for #4. The code could simply say to stay on topic. The explanation could explain nuances such as spawning related threads following a stream of consciousness. That is, the explanation could define 'staying on topic' in a way that allows for sensible tangents. But it would, of course, preclude blatant disregard for the topic.
Ooops my bad .. yes #4 (didn't have my readers on, perhaps : )
Perhaps terminology needs to remain 'implied' ... and left to the seeder (?) "Stay on topic" seems so sterile and robotic .. how about "within reason remain on topic" (?) or something like that. Need someone with a better command of words than I (but I tried : )
Tig,
I really like the formatting of this. It is clear and easy to read. I also like the more comprehensive wording you used. We all know what taunting is... we all know it's bad, but we don't need a full list of taunting words.
Well done!
Maybe you should organize your essay by volumes, and break it down into chapters. Then you can make the members pass a quiz before they are allowed to politely comment to one another. This site is really looking up. /s /s /s /s
That reminds me - isn't it about time to ban sarcasm too? It could be construed as poor manners.
So nice to see you Hal. Now if you can express what you want, that would be helpful.
Pollyanna told me to never say anything bad about fascists (they might shoot you).
Streamlining is good. Other than that there is nothing wrong with the CoC or policies. The problem lies with the members. Ciao
Agreed (and that I think is always the case on sites like this). So one way to combat that is to have a few clear (obvious), easy to understand (but reasonable and effective) rules and have the mods continually reinforce understanding of same by noting the violation in their purple comments.
I do commend you for putting it more "succinctly" but you miss my point. It's not the CoC that is the problem. If members are not capable of figuring out good faith behavior reorganizing it will not help. There were a number of people I enjoyed having discussions with during my more active time here but it changed, as did I. I became part of the problem so I left. I check in periodically but I see more of an echo chamber than anything else.
Anyhow, I still wish the site well.
PJ,
While I do agree that the members create problems.. almost everyone has... but some more than others.. and you were never a member I considered to be a troublemaker.. not sure where you got that idea.
I'm able to figure out on my own when I'm adding value or not. I no longer am capable of adding value to this site. I get it and I accept it.
I understood your point:
Not sure why you think I missed it. People are not going to change and NT members are no different than any other online community. The only thing that a site can do is effectively communicate and administer good policies.
Really? I see the opposite. But okay ...
I've no doubt your experience here has been quite different than mine. You will fit in very well.
Agreed.
Seems that there is a far right wing fascist here who seeds many far right wing posts everyday. It was kicked off of the vine for this tendency.
Very well outlined, and it would greatly enhance the ability to better understand what each code of the CoC entails, and would eliminate any ambiguity or vagueness in what is intended to be covered by that code.
OSM.. shit is a profanity... But yes, people should own their own words.
Not sure about that, since the very first thing Nazis do is remove common words from the lexicaon
Tend to agree there. These words were invented to incite.
Agree on taunting. Would like to note... Don't respond to taunting with more taunting. It only makes matters worse.
Was more referring to articles that declare entire swarths of our country as un American.. etc.
There have been some individuals who have marked seeded articles as original. That is NOT allowed. Of course if you wrote it, then by all means mark it original.
As for the ignore feature... it can't be done. The code is incompatible with the platform. The truth of the matter is, even if we don't like who were are talking to, if we are following the CoC, there should be no problems.
We shouldn't be using insulting nicknames for people of a certain Political Party or Ideology but I don't think we need to protect the President or other Politicians or Public Figures. Calling Trump or Obama a insulting name is as American as Cheeseburgers and it's not the same as calling their supporters or voters insulting names.
I gotta agree with you there zuksam. It has been there since the start of our nation.
It's not entirely unjustified. If you want to believe homosexuality is a sin, that's your prerogative. But if you try to project that belief onto others, especially if they don't share your belief, then expect to be called out on it. Not to mention it's that belief that leads to discrimination, and many Christians seem to support that as we see in issues such as the "gay wedding cake" topics. So it's really no wonder Christians will get "attacked." They bring it on themselves.
As I recall, many people did speak out about the Pulse Club shooting. However, while Muslim persecution of gays might be more commonplace over in the Middle East, it is not so much here. Over here, it's Christian bigotry against gays that is more commonplace. So it's what gets spoken about more.
How about something basic, speak to others as you wish to be spoken to.
Sorry, I'm a kind of basic guy just trying to keep things simple.
A verbal "Golden Rule?"
Sometimes, simple works too.
Simple, but effective.
I was too, Luther. When the site started we had the 5 Simple Rules... people found ways to wreck that.
Sigh......... I long for the time when one could disagree in a civil fashion. Because if you did not, a parent would come up long side your noggin, such a simple time with simple rules.
So true Luther.. so true!
Uncle Bruce has a long memory. Not nearly as good as his wife's, who can remember every fuck up he ever did in their 30+ year marriage, including the date, time, temperature, barometric pressure, and top 5 songs of the Billboard 100 at the time.
But I digress.
I remember when words, or labels first started becoming no-nos. It was during the rise of the Tea Party movement. Several of our members at the time identified themselves as Tea Party. And when the liberals started refering to that movement as Teabaggers, it was viewed as an insult to the member. Thus it was banned.
The next word that followed was Redneck. Which really confused me, since I R one. Raised in the Deep South of Southwest Georgia. Hell, we rednecks even have our own anthem, thanks to Lynard Skynard.
The problem is, as has been stated, every time we feel like adding a word to the ban list because someone or some group identifies with it (Libtards, Rethuglicans), we just make up new words. People have been able to squeeze by the CoC because they have not called out a specific member, yet they have called out the party/movement/whatever. And it has never been said without the intention of inflaming an individual. And that's the KEY.
You cannot use any of those words and tell me you are not trying to insult at the the most, or get a rise out of at the least. So the answer may lie in that. Perhaps this is an issue that the Mods need to have a concensus about, and deal with on that basis. Rather than ban the word, hammer the comment if it is viewed as condescending and inflamatory to the discussion.
I totally agree.. and maybe you want to check out what Tig wrote at post 10
I agree. And as Perrie pointed out, TiG has provided a very helpful list of Codes and clear explanations for each that would very helpful for the Members, especially new Members, as well as the Mods. For those whose obvious intent for being here on NT is to verbally attack and denigrate other Members, they will certainly find other made up pejoratives meant to insult and demean others that are not on the list to satisfy their need to make themselves feel superior to others they feel are inferior to them.
For what its worth..too many rules and regs can kill a site like this as well. People become reluctant to post for fear of being banned for some obscure rule. Just a thought.
Totally agree. A few good (and succinct) rules.
Well, I agree about too many rules.. But as for banning.. we generally don't ban. You have to threaten a member, do something illegal here, or be destructive to the site.
Was just offering my opinion.
And it is welcomed MrFrost and agreed with.
Perrie, if I may offer my views regarding the CoC changes:
Off topic comments likely becomes more prevalent in larger discussions, where they can be easily missed or overlooked when there are many comments. Perhaps other commenters should have the ability to flag an off topic comment, in addition to alerting the seeder or moderator, which leads to the next point:
The flagging system is a useful tool. Perhaps a drop down menu of CoC offenses when the flag tool is utilized should be available, so the seeder or moderator can see precisely what the offending comment is, rather than just labeling the comment as "inappropriate." For example, a comment can be flagged with options such as: spam, off topic, insult/personal attack, death wishing, ect..
Acceptable.
Using a list of forbidden words will only drive the creative process for new insults. A general rule of civility would better cover any bases and you can be notified if violations of civility occur.
Trolling only benefits the troll. It does nothing for a civil discussion. An author above anyone else should not be engaging in such activity. I suggest forbidding it.
Yes, extend it. There is no excuse for death wishing of anyone or any group. Death wishing is just trollish behavior and certainly is not civil.
That might help.
Perhaps tighten the skirting penalties. Instead of 3 skirts = 1 CoC violation, make it 2 skirts instead. After all, an insult is an insult and is a CoC violation. Skirting is just an attempt to bypass that. But the intention is the same.
Headlines taken from a primary source, such as a news site, is fine as long as it's indicated that the headline is borrowed from the original source, such as using a link. That way, readers will know that the headline is not from the seeder directly. However, any original articles presented by a seeder with an inflammatory headline should be flagged as such.
Just my thoughts.
Hi Gordy,
True, the larger the article the more the off topic comments can happen. But I think you didn't realize it, but members can flag off topic and CoC offenses, not just the author.
The drop down menu is a good idea. I have to see if it is possible to do coding wise.
On cursing... we now have a cursing filter if you don't want to look at it.
I agree that maybe instead of banning words.. what we should be looking for is intent and civility. Like Bruce said above, there is always another way to create a new insult.
Although not specified in our current CoC, trolling is prohibited...as counterproductive behavior. What you can't do is make a bad situation worse and call the person a troll. That is a violation. Just flag it.
OK no death wishing...
The site issue.. needs more exploring... How do we agree on this list? Is it site generated and agreed upon, or from an outside source?
Punishment can be a deterrent. What says the community?
So are you saying that if the actual headline is inflammatory, then it still should be flagged? That might go along with websites we chose to use.. if that is the way it goes..
I for one support it. However, the punishment should be more punitive according to the violation, and the number of times the violation can committed should be shortened.
We are all guilty of letting our emotions get the better of us at times and fall off the limb, however there does seem to be some here that simply refuse to abide by the CoC and knowingly work against it. They need to learn that as long as they intend to stay a Member they will have to abide by the CoC like everyone else or face the consequences. If they don't like the rules then they are free to leave the site. There will be no one at the exit door to collect a fine.
There is nothing wrong in having a well balanced and disciplined ship, the alternative is having it sink.
Just my own thoughts.
Yes, I can flag anything. But when I do, I only get a message asking if I want to flag a comment as inappropriate. I do not have the option of specifically identifying what makes the comment inappropriate. Although usually, it revolves around personal or ad hom attacks.
Newsvine had such a function. I found it useful.
Useful.
Agreed.
Fair enough.
This can be tricky. I think an initial agreed upon list can be made composed of sites that are obviously fake. Other fake sites, like opinion pieces or blogs posing as news can be added later.
Punishment may be the only way someone learns.
No. I'm saying if a NT seeder writes their own original article with an inflammatory topic, then it should be flagged. But if an article is taken from a primary source, then it should not be flagged, as long as the source is cited. For example, many articles I post here for discussion are taken from a primary news source, like NBCNews. When I post, I provide a link to the original article source. That shows that the content of the article I present, headline and all, is not my original work or words but belongs to the linked news organization or source. Although, I don't think I've posted any articles with inflammatory headlines. But you know what I mean, right? So, if I write an original article (my own work and words) with an inflammatory headline, then I should be flagged. I hope that helps.
OK so let's say that we have a drop down menu for flagging... what would you like the choices to be (this is not only directed to Gordy btw)
I am sure there will be other opinions on how to get that list.. if indeed we want that list.
Yes, authors who write pieces that are inflammatory should be flagged, and possibly change the title or remove the article depending on the case. The other issue we have run into though is when a title is from the source, but the source is hyper partisan and therefore inflammatory. That is a different issue and I guess brings us back to source material.
One of the goals I think that the update of the CoC can have is to make NT a more interesting and welcoming place. I think that we can all agree that an outsider reading our FP may be easily turned off.
After thinking about it, I support the profanity filter as a site wide default. That way, profanity isn't visible on the FP. Individual members can 'opt in' whenever they wish...
I don't understand.
Already in place.
Those are a few off the top of my head.
Raven,
My concern is being over punitive. This is something that I have learned from being a teacher. If you have a naughty child in your class, you don't get them to stop by being more and more punitive. In fact, they tend to get worse. Of course there is a case of give an inch take a mile, and I think that trying to find the balance is the hardest part.
I agree, finding the right balance is best. However, it seems that those who are skirting endlessly know that they have a long span to work from before they have to think about getting a suspension. During that time they are able to inflict a lot of unnecessary damage to articles/seeds as insults directed at other Members. That seems to encourage them to be more inclined to acts of skirting. Sometimes the skirting is just as bad as an outright CoC violation. If they knew that they would not have that long a span to continue their skirting they would not likely do so as much as it would add up faster to their disadvantage.
Those who are bent on doing all they can to disrespect the site and its Members won't care how short or long the period is, but, for those who try to play the game as long as possible will perhaps be less likely to engage in such activities when they know they are on a shorter time span.
Just my thoughts.
I think what's missing here is any effective communication to the poster as to what exactly violated the ToS or the CoC, since that part currently gets deleted.
Open for Business!!!
Possible CoC Changes:
I am going to see what others think, John. I don't want to muddy the waters.
What does that mean in terms of being a response to what I said?
I can only partially agree with 3 of the choices in the list you presented. The rest present no real answers to existing problems, and in some cases, would tend to encourage further decline.
I personally agree with many of the ideas and suggestions that have been made here in this article. They are good ideas and suggestions that can help make NT not only more comfortable and enjoyable for Members but, also more efficient in some ways.
I am looking forward to seeing more from others who have yet to participate, or will add to their current ideas and suggestions. Much of what I had wanted to comment on myself has already been provided by others, so all I need do now is voice my support for those already presented.
I am truly happy to see so many Members here submitting their own ideas and suggestions, a good many of which I myself had not thought of. (smile)
Nice positive comment, Raven!
Possible CoC Changes:
Off Topic Comments: Our present CoC says that the authors/seeders must warn a member to get on topic before getting a mod. This has become problematic, since a lot of destruction of a discussion can happen by the time we go through that procedure. As of late, off topic is also random insults, comments meant as spam, etc. As of late, the mods have been using the flagging system to guide us with off topic comments. If the author and the author only flags a comment that is quite obviously off topic, we have been removing them. Should this be the methodology to follow?
Is a sidebar discussion off-topic? It stems from the topic, but can be distracting.
Creative insulting Terms: This is a tough one. It seems that more and more there are creative ways to insult entire groups of people. Now in the past, the CoC has always applied strictly to members, but using terms like Republthugs and Libtards isn’t forwarding the discussion. The question is how to handle this. Do we write up a list of forbidden words, or make a more general rule of civility?
Would William F. Buckley Jr. have survived this? I don't find Republithugs and Libtards very creative.
Fake News Sites: Do we need a list of known fake news sites?
How does one determine what fake news is? This has been an issue as long as humans have been around. Would this mean that one could not seed an article from The Onion even if it was made clear that it is satire?
Headlines: in our current CoC it says to keep headlines non-inflammatory. Yet some of the publications that are drawn upon, have very inflammatory headlines. How do we handle this?
How is an inflammatory headline defined?
Hi Steve...
Off Topic Comments
I think this should be up to the author/ seeder.
They are not, and meant to insult.
Well, this is still a hard one to figure out. I'm leaning towards using a site to rule out any really bad sites, but ultimately, I think that it is up to the individuals to argue the facts.
Now that is an easy one. It's a lot like porn. You know it when you see it.
Important question.. obviously this discussion will go on until tomorrow. If you think I should open up a part 2 to this discussion due to slow loading times, please vote up this question. If I get enough yeses, then I will close down this one and open up a part two, where you can reference this article in the part 2.
This article is closed for the evening.
definitely
Agreed. Voted up.
Yes, please.
Yes, part 2 is good.
OK so I am closing this article down for the evening. Please continue to vote if I should open a part 2. I am leaning that way after just trying to get through this article one more time.
Yes to a part 2