The Updating of the Code of Conduct

  

Category:  meta

By:  perrie-halpern  •  2 years ago  •  417 comments

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

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago

I'm going to lurk for awhile since this is my first CoC update

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 years ago

Lurk away!

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.2  lady in black  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.1    2 years ago

I too am lurking.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lady in black @1.1.2    2 years ago

Noted Lady in Black!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.3    2 years ago

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 ?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.4    2 years ago

No one has decided anything. That will happen during the vote. This is a discussion to see what more or less we want presented. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  lady in black @1.1.2    2 years ago
I too am lurking.

I'm drinking heavily whilst lurking.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.5    2 years ago

When will the vote be?

 
 
 
TTGA
1.1.8  TTGA  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.6    2 years ago

Sister,

Would that be from those little 1 1/2 ounce bottles you've been saving up for the last 20 years?Party

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 years ago

I have locked my seeds, they are older and I am not around to watch them always. Now if someone would like to make a comment on it and ask me, I would gladly open it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.1    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
TTGA
1.2.4  TTGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.2    2 years ago
OK noted tougher rules on CoC and skirting

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. 

 
 
 
CB
1.2.5  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.2    2 years ago

Violations:

12 skirting violations every month is TOO MANY!

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. 

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.

I can support this (no opinion on the rest!).

 
 
 
CB
1.2.6  CB   replied to  TTGA @1.2.4    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TTGA @1.2.4    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.2    2 years ago
would like to see how many members agree with this

I for one agree. I have commented on this else thread as well. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.7    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.9    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
MAGA
1.2.11  MAGA  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago

Question about the profanity filter. 

Can it be set up so that agreed upon words are added to the list of profanities censored? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @1.3    2 years ago
Can it be set up so that agreed upon words are added to the list of profanities censored?

Yes it can. 

 
 
 
MAGA
1.3.2  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.1    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.3.3  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.1    2 years ago

How about we follow the current FCC rules regarding profanity ?

Profanity is healthy as long as it is not used in negative, vicious manner.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2  tomwcraig    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  tomwcraig @2    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 years ago

The use of the word 'ignorant' should stay. Nothing wrong with it. 

 
 
 
Freefaller
2.1.2  Freefaller  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 years ago
Do they read the same to you?

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.2    2 years ago

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... :) 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.2    2 years ago

How about 'willfully ignorant'?  Each word individually is not an insult by but together I'm sure most would feel insulted, or should...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Freefaller
2.1.8  Freefaller  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.8    2 years ago
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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.6    2 years ago
and we have other words we can use to express the same idea

Obtuse being my go to...

 
 
 
Freefaller
2.1.11  Freefaller  replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    2 years ago

Lol who's Alex Jones?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.11    2 years ago
Lol who's Alex Jones?

A right wing conspiracy theorist.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1.13  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    2 years ago
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.

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?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.6    2 years ago
but the word ignorant is usually tied to something unflattering and purposely done so.

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...

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
2.1.15  Uncle Bruce  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.13    2 years ago
Case in point:  Would you rather be called fat, or Rubenesque?

I prefer the term "Circumferentially Challenged".

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Uncle Bruce @2.1.15    2 years ago

How about 'Laterally opulent'? 

 
 
 
TTGA
2.1.17  TTGA  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 years ago
Each word individually is not an insult by but together I'm sure most would feel insulted, or should...

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.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.18  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.6    2 years ago

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."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.19  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.6    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.20  CB   replied to  TTGA @2.1.17    2 years ago

Well said. (Note: I read your message after making my own to Perrie. No duplication intended.)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.22  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.14    2 years ago

Is this why you instructed me on how to change my moniker from David Jones to igknorantzrulz.

Please tell everyone here that you are kidding. I happen to like calling you David better. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.22    2 years ago

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

 
 
 
Skrekk
2.1.24  Skrekk  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 years ago
How about 'willfully ignorant'?

I use that phrase not as an insult but to accurately describe someone who chooses to remain uninformed on a certain topic. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.25  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @2.1.7    2 years ago

Noted, Raven. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  tomwcraig @2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.2.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.2    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Raven Wing @2.2.1    2 years ago

Absolutely correct.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
2.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  tomwcraig @2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  A. Macarthur @2.3    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.3.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.3.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.3.1    2 years ago

“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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.3.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.3    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.4  tomwcraig  replied to  tomwcraig @2    2 years ago

Here are some links to the definition of ignorant, just so we do not have an ignorant conversation about the word:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ignorant

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorant

Then from that last link here is the definition:

ig•no•rant

(ˈɪg nər ənt)

adj.

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned.
2. lacking special knowledge or information.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. showing lack of knowledge or training.
[1325–75; Middle English < Latin ignōrant-, s. of ignōrāns, present participle of ignōrāre to ignore ]
ig′no•rant•ly, adv.
syn: ignorant , illiterate mean lacking in knowledge or training. ignorant may mean knowing little or nothing, or it may mean uninformed about a particular subject: An ignorant person can be dangerous. I confess I'm ignorant of higher mathematics . illiterate most often means unable to read or write; however, it sometimes means not well-read or not well versed in literature: classes for illiterate soldiers ; an illiterate mathematician .
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  tomwcraig @2.4    2 years ago

LOL who would think the word could generate so much... 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.4.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.4.1    2 years ago

Maybe because many are not aware of the actual dictionary meaning of the word.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3  It Is ME    2 years ago

"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 ?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @3    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
GaJenn78
3.1.1  GaJenn78  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    2 years ago

Maybe those type of articles should go into the heated group? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  GaJenn78 @3.1.1    2 years ago

That is a good idea! 

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.3  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    2 years ago

IMO, those articles are not meant for discussion, mostly just flame throwing. They really cannot be classified as news.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    2 years ago
Open for discussion.

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 chuckle ), 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 !

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @3.1.3    2 years ago

Agreed and we do have a group dedicated to that... "Heated Discussions"..we could move it there.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.4    2 years ago

True enough It Is Me. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.6    2 years ago

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. thumbs up

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @3.1.3    2 years ago
IMO, those articles are not meant for discussion, mostly just flame throwing. They really cannot be classified as news.

I tend to agree.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  GaJenn78 @3.1.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    2 years ago

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:

"At least we all now know for certain that the tolerance of a liberal is a thing of fiction, much like Trump-Russia affair. And it is certainly not that silly intolerance if tolerance colon buster that the left babbles. Liberals have zero tolerance, just like their Uncle Joe Stalin."

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.10    2 years ago
"At least we all now know for certain that the tolerance of a liberal is a thing of fiction, much like Trump-Russia affair. And it is certainly not that silly intolerance if tolerance colon buster that the left babbles. Liberals have zero tolerance, just like their Uncle Joe Stalin."

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.  

 
 
 
CB
4  CB     2 years ago

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?

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!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @4    2 years ago

I will not say much yet about this. The only thing I will say is who decides the fake news sites?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    2 years ago
The only thing I will say is who decides the fake news sites?

You do. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 years ago

No the group has to come to this decision. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.2    2 years ago

I think this is a question on which "majority rules" could backfire.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.2    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
CB
4.1.5  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1.5    2 years ago
the government may make an official listing as oversight.

Would you trust this particular government's opinion as to what constitutes "fake news"?  I wouldn't.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.7  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.6    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.3    2 years ago

Agreed. So where does one get such a listing?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.9  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    2 years ago
That is potentially absurd.  We had someone the other day compare Mother Jones to Gateway Pundit. (Oh yeah, it was you.)

Yes it was.. and you are being too literal. My point is that both of those are fringe publications... not MSM.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.9    2 years ago

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? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.10    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
4.1.12  Uncle Bruce  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
zuksam
4.1.13  zuksam  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.3    2 years ago
"majority rules" could backfire.

it would all depend on where A they/we/me/you and sometimes Y,

get our Fake news from

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.9    2 years ago

Perrie, you should be embarrassed to place Mother Jones and Gateway Pundit in the same category. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
4.1.16  Skrekk  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.9    2 years ago
My point is that both of those are fringe publications... not MSM.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Skrekk @4.1.16    2 years ago

Add that to the fact that Mother Jones has Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.18  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Uncle Bruce @4.1.12    2 years ago
I say that if you think an article is fake news, it is up to YOU to prove it to be fake.

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'.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.11    2 years ago

The Gateway Pundit

The Gateway Pundit is a right-wing, far-right, pro-Trump website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004, according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". The website is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, as well as Drudge Report, Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative people and media outlets. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.19    2 years ago

Mother Jones

Magazine
Mother Jones is a progressive American magazine that focuses on news, commentary, and investigative reporting on topics including politics, the environment, human rights, and culture. Mother Jones is published by The Foundation for National Progress.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.18    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.22  MUVA  replied to  Skrekk @4.1.16    2 years ago

Mother Jones is not a reliable news source no more than Alex Jones is.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.23  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  zuksam @4.1.13    2 years ago

I do think we should be able to Death Wish Politicians, Public Figures, and other Countries.

Why? What is your case?

 
 
 
Skrekk
4.1.24  Skrekk  replied to  Dulay @4.1.17    2 years ago
Add that to the fact that Mother Jones has Pulitzer Prize winning journalists.

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.

 
 
 
Rex Block
4.1.25  Rex Block  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.2    2 years ago

Just remember that Fox News is not fake news.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.26  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  zuksam @4.1.13    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.28  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @4.1.22    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.29  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Rex Block @4.1.25    2 years ago
Just remember that Fox News is not fake news.

Should we just call it

Fake Entertainment /?

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.30  MAGA  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.29    2 years ago

It’s called the most trusted name in news.  It’s fair and balanced.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.31  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Rex Block @4.1.25    2 years ago

I have never said it was, Rex. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.32  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @4.1.30    2 years ago
It’s called the most trusted name in news.  It’s fair and balanced.

They might be saying that they are the most trust news but they are also not calling themselves fair and balanced anymore. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/media/fox-news-fair-and-balanced.html

 
 
 
Skrekk
4.1.33  Skrekk  replied to  Rex Block @4.1.25    2 years ago
Just remember that Fox News is not fake news.

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.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

 
 
 
Ender
4.2  Ender  replied to  CB @4    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.2.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Ender @4.2    2 years ago

Completely agree Ender..

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.2.1    2 years ago

I could go for that, too... if my opinion matters..

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.2.4  Colour Me Free  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.2    2 years ago

Yes, your opinion most definitely matters....

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Ender @4.2    2 years ago

Agree 100%

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.6  MAGA  replied to  Ender @4.2    2 years ago

I too oppose all deathwishing save for advocating for capital punishment for a crime committed where that is an option as a verdict/judgement. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5  Kathleen    2 years ago

This is my first CoC update. I am going to observe, I do like the idea of not using the offending terms, but not sure what would be the best way to do it.  Maybe it would be better to list them to be more clear on what is allowed and what is not. If it is part of history and not directed at a group or person, that would have to be noted. 

Example: Nazi, Okay if you are talking about WW2, but not referred to other people.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @5    2 years ago

Hi Kathleen,

Nazi should never be used on a member, unless they say they are a Nazi. That being said I have never seen that before. We do have neo-Nazis in America. That is undeniable. I think context has a lot to do with that word. 

Also.. let's all remember Godwin's Law! 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    2 years ago

Okay, thanks, I did not see it that way. I think my main issue would be the name calling and distorting the word into another. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    2 years ago
let's all remember Godwin's Law!

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage that asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds.

However, some conversations start there, not eventually evolve to a Hitler comparison as Godwin's Law specifies.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    2 years ago

That is true Dismayed. Not necessarily a good starting point 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    2 years ago

Perrie, one thing that I do agree on is some of these articles would be a better fit for Heated Debate. It would make it easier for everyone, I think.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.3    2 years ago
Not necessarily a good starting point

When we have people marching in the streets waving swastika flags, carrying tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us!" it's hard not to start there. It's a sad reality that we now live with. Godwins law was proposed in 1990 at a time when I would have put money on the fact we would never see Neo-Nazis proudly marching in our streets, and would have been incredulous if told they would be wearing the current Presidents campaign hats along with Nazi armbands, but I would have lost that bet. So while some see an eruption of Godwins law violations, I see it as a sign of the times we live in having grown closer to that time in our past, the cycle coming back around, history threatening to repeat itself.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.5    2 years ago
When we have people marching in the streets waving swastika flags, carrying tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us!" it's hard not to start there. It's a sad reality that we now live with.

I agree that those were Nazis.. they have always been here, too. Skokie comes to mind.. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    2 years ago

Agree.

 
 
 
Skrekk
5.1.8  Skrekk  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    2 years ago
Also.. let's all remember Godwin's Law!

After Trump endorsed the Nazis marching in Charlottesville, Mike Godwin issued an update to Godwin's Law:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/08/14/the-creator-of-godwins-law-explains-why-some-nazi-comparisons-dont-break-his-famous-internet-rule/

 
 
 
Rex Block
5.1.9  Rex Block  replied to  Skrekk @5.1.8    2 years ago
After Trump endorsed the Nazis marching in Charlottesville, Mike Godwin issued an update to Godwin's Law:

Trump did not endorse them. This might your opinion, but it is not a fact.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Rex Block @5.1.9    2 years ago

So let's refocus back onto the updating and not make this article political. 

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
5.2  Bourbon Street  replied to  Kathleen @5    2 years ago

Hi Kathleen!

I agree, calling someone a Nazi when the term has negative connotations that are simply not honestly applied is over the top - but if their political groups is using violence to intimidate others, using propaganda to hide the truth - and is actively seeking to take away or deny constitutional freedoms from American citizens then it should be fair to compare their agenda to that of fascists.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bourbon Street @5.2    2 years ago
but if their political groups is using violence to intimidate others, using propaganda to hide the truth - and is actively seeking to take away or deny constitutional freedoms from American citizens then it should be fair to compare their agenda to that of fascists.

Well, (playing devil's advocate here), the same can be said about communist, socialist, etc. The issue is how it is used and of course, that each political side tends to call the other side these terms. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
5.2.2  Colour Me Free  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago

Does the overuse of racist and bigot fit in this arena - or is that a different subject?

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.2.3  Kathleen  replied to  Bourbon Street @5.2    2 years ago

Hi Bourbon, I was trying to pick an example, it's tough sometimes when there is so many meanings for it..

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
5.2.4  Bourbon Street  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago

I tend to agree - but - does the Grand Wizard of the local KKK chapter mind being called a bigot? A racist?

The issue is complex. I have seen transgenders refer to themselves a "trannies" but it would be rude for anyone else to use the term - same with the "N" word.

Your challenge will be to enforce a code of conduct that is largely subjective. Example: "Skirting" the CoC.

Ever hear of a traffic cop writing a ticket for almost going over the speed limit - or even worse, writing a ticket because the cop "knew" that the driver intended to go over the limit?

In a world where people demand their right to have safe spaces the right to free speech/free expression is in danger of extinction. I appreciate the fact you include everyone in the discussion but I do not envy you your challenge.

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
5.2.5  Bourbon Street  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.2.2    2 years ago

Great point. If someone believes Obama was a poor POTUS then they are branded a racist. If everyone is a racist then nobody is a racist.

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
5.2.6  Bourbon Street  replied to  Kathleen @5.2.3    2 years ago

To me the myriad of meanings is evidence that the terms are subjective. It means something different to anyone you ask.

Sometimes it is 180 degrees in meanings.

How is it when a Christian understands the Bible precludes him from participating in a gay wedding ceremony it is bigotry, but the person who attacks him for practicing his faith (a Constitutionally granted freedom) is not a bigot?

What if a Christian couple went to a Muslim caterer and demanded the caterer serve ham sandwiches at their wedding? The way in which we recognize bigoted behavior in others says much more about one's self than who they are judging.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bourbon Street @5.2.4    2 years ago
Ever hear of a traffic cop writing a ticket for almost going over the speed limit - or even worse, writing a ticket because the cop "knew" that the driver intended to go over the limit?

OK, this is really not that. It is about intent and intent does count in a court of law. 

If my comment is in your face like, "You are a total moron". That is clearly a CoC violation. 

but...

If your comment is "Some people are total morons", right after a comment is made, well we all know what was the intent... correct?

And yeah, there are some days I think my brain is bleeding. Thanks for taking pity :)

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.2.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago

Agree. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
5.2.9  Colour Me Free  replied to  Bourbon Street @5.2.5    2 years ago

Go figure huh?  Two of the ugliest words, describing the worst kind of hate .. have been tossed around / overused / misused to the point that meaning has been lost.   I have heard young peeps walking past my house heading to the sledding hill call each other racist (they are not learning it in school .. at least I do not think they are)  

Sorry I wandered of topic ... I am so guilty of wandering!

 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.2.10  Kathleen  replied to  Bourbon Street @5.2.6    2 years ago

I know, maybe I should have used another example. When you think about it, many words could be used in a good way and a bad way. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.2.11  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.7    2 years ago

I know it's a tough job you have there, Whatever you all decide will be fine with me.

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
5.2.12  Bourbon Street  replied to  Kathleen @5.2.10    2 years ago

I think your example is just fine - I was only elaborating on the premise.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.2.13  Kathleen  replied to  Bourbon Street @5.2.12    2 years ago

I know..  : )  

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
5.2.14  Bourbon Street  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.2.9    2 years ago

I remember when my son was attending preschool - he must have been about 3 or 4 at the time - and some of the kids accused him of calling them "n*****r" on the playground. When the principal questioned him about it he asked "What's a 'n*****r'?

He was still young enough that we still carefully monitored what he watched on TV - and he had never heard the word used in our home.....and when confronted the kids in question admitted that the word had not been used........but the lesson was not lost on me.

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
5.2.15  Bourbon Street  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago
Well, (playing devil's advocate here), the same can be said about communist, socialist, etc.

Am I insulting Bernie Sanders or one of his adamant supporters if I refer to them as socialists?

 
 
 
Rex Block
5.2.16  Rex Block  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago

There is way too much of that type of over generalizing toward whole groups (such as Republicans) by full blown name calling by certain individuals. Needs to be tightly controlled. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.17  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.2.2    2 years ago

It fits and you are not supposed to use it against members... 

But here has been an on going issue. We all know a bigoted remark when we see one... how do we express that?

 
 
 
MAGA
5.2.18  MAGA  replied to  Colour Me Free @5.2.2    2 years ago

Calling another member a racist or a bigot over a policy issue disagreement should be a coc violating personal attack.  

 
 
 
JBB
6  JBB    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1  MAGA  replied to  JBB @6    2 years ago

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?  

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  MAGA @6.1    2 years ago

Perhaps the news organizations who have had to either fire or demote several of their journalist for lieing.

We could at least start there.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @6.1    2 years ago
As for fake news, perhaps we should ban any news outlet identified by President Trump as fake news here?

We are a non partisan site, so what our President thinks or doesn't think is irrelevant. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.2    2 years ago

Sunshine,

That would put most of the MSM on the no go list. Pause and think about that.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.2    2 years ago
Perhaps the news organizations who have had to either fire or demote several of their journalist for lieing.

There's no one left then. blushing

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @6.1.2    2 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.7  Sunshine  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.5    2 years ago

lol...true

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.4    2 years ago

Maybe that's why the MSM is called to task so often.   If they have to fire so many, maybe it's simply because it's so pervasive in their culture......  until they're caught and called on it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.9    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.11  Raven Wing  replied to  MAGA @6.1    2 years ago
As for fake news, perhaps we should ban any news outlet identified by President Trump as fake news 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. 

 
 
 
Rex Block
6.1.12  Rex Block  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    2 years ago
Are you aware enough to know why your suggestion is bad?

This comment by JR is a good example at skirting.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.13  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Rex Block @6.1.12    2 years ago

Says the person who should not be playing moderator.. which has recently become a problem here on the site. And not just you Rex.. 

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1.14  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.3    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1.15  MAGA  replied to  Raven Wing @6.1.11    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @6.1.15    2 years ago

Thanks for posting proof of your lack of objectivity.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JBB @6    2 years ago

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...

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. 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
6.2.1  Jonathan P  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jonathan P @6.2.1    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jonathan P @6.2.1    2 years ago

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. 

Furthermore, there tend to be well sourced articles by reputable commentators that often appear on these allegedly questionable sites.

agreed.

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.

Totally agree. Those commentaries only serve to disrupt the article and are designed to do so.

 
 
 
Jonathan P
6.2.4  Jonathan P  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 years ago

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?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.3    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.2.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 years ago

I agreed with everything you said. until...

Conservative sites are far more likely to create "fake news" than liberal ones.

so I had to say thanks for my daily laugh :)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.2.6    2 years ago

I suppose you think CNN is fake news.   That is my laugh for the day. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Jonathan P @6.2.4    2 years ago

Nothing I said is wrong, let alone ridiculous. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.2.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.8    2 years ago

I actually think both sides can be full of bs fairly equally

but hey... thanks for playing :)

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.11  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.8    2 years ago
I suppose you think CNN is fake news.

From what even you have read from them John.....It can be....quite a few times.

What is the "Real" news these days anyway.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.2.12  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 years ago
Conservative sites are far more likely to create "fake news" than liberal ones.

of good grief...Occupy Democrats, Think Progress, AlterNet, Democrat Underground, Daily Kos, MoveOn, Media Matters

slobbering with fake news

 
 
 
Jonathan P
6.2.13  Jonathan P  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    2 years ago

And if we get a majority to rule, your comment will be deleted every time, and you will be warned.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.12    2 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
zuksam
6.2.15  zuksam  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Jonathan P
6.2.16  Jonathan P  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.9    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.19  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 years ago

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 :)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.12    2 years ago

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

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.21  JohnRussell  replied to    2 years ago

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? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2.22  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.2.23  Colour Me Free  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.21    2 years ago

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...

What vetting process did you apply to yourself before you posted that garbage? 

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!)

 
 
 
zuksam
6.2.24  zuksam  replied to  Raven Wing @6.2.22    2 years ago
we should list those that are truly known as hate groups or who obviously deal in fake news

The biggest problem with that is the official list of Hate groups that most people refer to is created by a liberal organization.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.27  Dulay  replied to  Jonathan P @6.2.13    2 years ago

Well I guess your hat isn't in the ring for being a moderator...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2.28  Raven Wing  replied to  zuksam @6.2.24    2 years ago

This discussion is about the CoC revisions and site and its Members, not about political BS and the blame game. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.29  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
6.2.30  Jonathan P  replied to  Dulay @6.2.27    2 years ago

Got a job already.

Sorry.

 
 
 
Rex Block
6.2.31  Rex Block  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 years ago

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

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.32  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    2 years ago
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.

John,

If it is so fake, then it should be easy to disprove. Do that instead of going after the site. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.32    2 years ago

It's not my job to disprove something time after time. If I disprove something once, will you ban it on the site thenceforth? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.34  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.33    2 years ago
It's not my job to disprove something time after time.

That is where you are wrong. Keep a record of your "proof" and just put up the link. That will do. 

 
 
 
Rex Block
6.3  Rex Block  replied to  JBB @6    2 years ago
anything from Pamela Geller should be banned on NT, too...

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.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @6    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.2    2 years ago
I am considering using grading sites as a guideline.

That would work too. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8  sandy-2021492    2 years ago
  • Hate speech. Condemning an entire group of people, by race, religion, or ethnicity will not be tolerated. This is all ready in our CoC.

I think this should be extended to include sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  Some folks feel free to condemn LGBT people as a group, and I believe that discourages LGBT people and their allies from joining and participating.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8    2 years ago

so Bigot Christian is not allowed?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @8.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.1    2 years ago

Sandy,

That sounds reasonable. Not sure how it would be worded. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.2    2 years ago
The term Bigot or Bigoted Christians is used many times to disparage a whole group of religion.

Agreed, and I do believe that it is already in our CoC. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @8.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    2 years ago

 No more or less than any other group, OSM. It's just we feel it more when it hits home. 

 
 
 
cjcold
8.1.8  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.4    2 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
MAGA
8.2  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8    2 years ago

If people are condemning LGBTQ 🏳️‍🌈 whatever because of held religious belief that demands said critiques then that can not be banned.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @8.2    2 years ago

Why?

And religion-based bigotry is still bigotry.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @8.2    2 years ago
If people are condemning LGBTQ 🏳️‍🌈 whatever because of held religious belief that demands said critiques then that can not be banned.

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

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
8.2.3  Bourbon Street  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.1    2 years ago

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.....

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
8.2.4  Uncle Bruce  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.1    2 years ago
And religion-based bigotry is still bigotry.

By who's definition?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  Uncle Bruce @8.2.4    2 years ago
By who's definition?

By any definition of the word. Religion is just an excuse or justification to commit bigotry.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.5    2 years ago

I think our constitution covers this topic. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
8.2.7  Uncle Bruce  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.5    2 years ago
Religion is just an excuse or justification to commit bigotry.

Bullshit.  1st Amendment Right to Religious Freedom. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Uncle Bruce @8.2.7    2 years ago
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.. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.6    2 years ago
I think our constitution covers this topic.

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.

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
8.2.10  Bourbon Street  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.5    2 years ago
Religion is just an excuse or justification to commit 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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Bourbon Street @8.2.10    2 years ago
And yet people that insult others for practicing their religions are the least tolerant and most flagrant bigots of them all.

So when religious "practice" involves violating the law or others rights, that's acceptable and shouldn't elicit a response then?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.6    2 years ago
I think our constitution covers this topic.

Yet it fails to address the issue as we witness it here. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.13  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.11    2 years ago

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?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Uncle Bruce @8.2.4    2 years ago
And religion-based bigotry is still bigotry.
By who's definition?

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. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.13    2 years ago
Can we agree on that?

Absolutely. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.2.16  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.13    2 years ago
I think what we are all saying is that respect is what both parties want

yeah...that would be nice.  Starting right here on this thread would be nice.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.17  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.9    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
8.2.18  Uncle Bruce  replied to  Dulay @8.2.14    2 years ago
Those with religious animus demand that their intolerance be tolerated and in fact codified.

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?

 
 
 
Bourbon Street
8.2.19  Bourbon Street  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.11    2 years ago
So when religious "practice" involves violating the law or others rights, that's acceptable and shouldn't elicit a response then?

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.

big·ot·ry[ˈbiɡətrē]
NOUN
bigotries (plural noun)
  1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself:
 
 
 
cjcold
8.2.20  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.21  Gordy327  replied to  Bourbon Street @8.2.19    2 years ago
Perhaps you can't see the intentional perversion when one group tries forcing another group to abandon their Faith out of spite.

How is anyone being forced to abandon their faith? And what 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 -

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.

but forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs certainly is a problem - and violates civil rights and constitutional rights.

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. 

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.

More like requiring them to fill out the appropriate paperwork for exemption.

I'm not a muslim but I'd defend the rights of a muslim caterer that refuses to serve ham sandwiches at a wedding.

I doubt a Muslim caterer offers pork products to begin with. 

However - noted that you believe Christians rights, civil or constitutional, should take a back seat to your agenda.

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?"

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  Uncle Bruce @8.2.18    2 years ago
Just because a Christian believes in the biblical teachings that homosexuality is a sin they are automatically a bigot?

Not necessarily. It's all about how they act because of that belief. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.17    2 years ago
We can't control what is in the heart of an individual.

I never said we could Perrie.

All we can do is stop outright hate speech.

That's a start.

If a person is going to be a bigot, nothing NT can do will make them change their minds.

Maybe not. But we can call them out on it.

 
 
 
Ender
8.2.24  Ender  replied to  Uncle Bruce @8.2.18    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.25  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cjcold @8.2.20    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
MAGA
8.2.26  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.2    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Uncle Bruce @8.2.18    2 years ago
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?

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8    2 years ago

Noted! 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
8.4  Uncle Bruce  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8    2 years ago

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?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.4.1  Gordy327  replied to  Uncle Bruce @8.4    2 years ago
So what about the Christian that believes that homosexuality is a sin? Or the Vet who thinks that Tansgender's should not serve?

It's not what they think or believe that matters, although it can be irrational. It's how they act that matters.

Is their speech to be stiffled?

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.4.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @8.4.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.5  Raven Wing  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8    2 years ago
I think this should be extended to include sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

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. 

 
 
 
zuksam
8.5.1  zuksam  replied to  Raven Wing @8.5    2 years ago
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.

 
 
 
arkpdx
8.5.2  arkpdx  replied to  Raven Wing @8.5    2 years ago
People have a right to determine their own life

That may be true but that does not mean that they have that I accept it as normal and natural .

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.5.3  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @8.5.2    2 years ago
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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.5.4  Raven Wing  replied to  arkpdx @8.5.2    2 years ago
That may be true but that does not mean that they have that I accept it as normal and natural .

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.5.5  Raven Wing  replied to  zuksam @8.5.1    2 years ago
What if they wish to live as a Christian and follow the rules set forth in the Bible.

That is up to them and the Creator, not you or anyone else. 

 
 
 
cjcold
8.5.6  cjcold  replied to  zuksam @8.5.1    2 years ago

Just keep it to yourself. Everybody should just keep it to yourself no matter your perversion (we all have one or two).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.5.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  zuksam @8.5.1    2 years ago
What if they wish to live as a Christian and follow the rules set forth in the Bible.

Nobody's stopping them.  But they choose those rules for themselves, and don't get to choose them for others.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
9  1stwarrior    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  1stwarrior @9    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.1    2 years ago

Great idea... but I have to see if that is possible or not. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.1    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Ender
9.2  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @9    2 years ago

For me this is a hard one as a lot of times the discussion can drift and other points be brought up, even unintentionally.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @9.2    2 years ago

I like conversations that meander.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.2.1    2 years ago
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'.

 
 
 
Ender
9.2.3  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.2.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ender @9.2.3    2 years ago
I do too. Letting the discussion flow, so to speak.

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.2.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @9.2.3    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.2.5    2 years ago
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. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
9.2.7  Uncle Bruce  replied to  Ender @9.2    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.2.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Uncle Bruce @9.2.7    2 years ago

agreed.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.2.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Ender @9.2    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.2.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @9.2.6    2 years ago

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. 

Yes that is a proper use of the RBR. 

I also think that members who continue to post 'off topic' comments on a regular basis should be warned and then penalized.

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.   

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.3  Sunshine  replied to  1stwarrior @9    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @9.3    2 years ago

Agreed. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.4  Sparty On  replied to  1stwarrior @9    2 years ago

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.  

 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.4.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Sparty On @9.4    2 years ago

"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.

 
 
 
cjcold
9.5  cjcold  replied to  1stwarrior @9    2 years ago

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]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.5.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cjcold @9.5    2 years ago

You can not call out members on this article. You want things to change, make useful comments. 

 
 
 
MAGA
9.5.2  MAGA  replied to  cjcold @9.5    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
MAGA
9.5.3  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @9.5.2    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
MAGA
9.5.4  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @9.5.2    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
10  TᵢG    2 years ago

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:

  • Codes
  • Explanation for each Code
  • Moderation
    1. Skirting the CoC
    2. Violations
  • Policies and Procedures

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 …

  • cover the scope of the CoC
  • are self-explanatory
  • mitigate wiggle room (i.e. are comprehensive)
  • enable effective moderation

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’)

  • No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members     
  • No taunting or bullying
  • Be civil

Content  (essentially: ‘thoughtful, relevant contribution’)

  • Stay on topic per the article
  • No dishonest, unethical or illegal content
  • No repugnant or harmful content

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:

  • derogatory reference
  • direct vs. indirect

Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:

  • not personal: address issues and arguments, not individual members
  • no abusive comments
  • no personally offensive or hateful comments
  • no labels such as troll, bigot, racist or anti-semite, liar, Teabaggger, libtard, rethug, …
  • no name calling
  • no slam articles

Code 2 ― No taunting or bullying

Define each operative word:

  • taunting
  • bullying

Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:

  • not disruptive (this is key to deal with trolling)
  • not inflammatory (this is key to deal with trolling)
  • not threatening
  • not harassing

Code 3 ― Be civil

Define each operative word:

  • civil

Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:

  • treat others as you would like to be treated.
  • example: no ‘shove it’, ‘screw you’, …

Code 4 ― Stay on topic per the article

Define each operative word:

  • on-topic

Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:

  • no off topic (this is key to deal with trolling)

Code 5 ― No dishonest, unethical or illegal content

Define each operative word:

  • dishonest
  • unethical
  • illegal

Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:

  • no infringement on patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights of any person or entity
  • not unlawful
  • not defamatory / libelous
  • not known to be false and presented as truth
  • accurate (not misleading) headlines
  • no plagiarism: URL cited and proper quotation for the words of others
  • no doxing: invasive of another's privacy (e.g. distribution of personal emails)
  • no spam

Code 6 ― No repugnant or harmful content

Define each operative word:

  • repugnant
  • harmful

Explain these concepts drawn from the current CoC:

  • not topically offensive
  • not topically hateful
  • not racially, ethnically negative
  • judicious and sparing use of profanity
  • careful use of graphic material
  • no hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable content
  • no pornography or content harmful to minors

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.

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @10    2 years ago

In essence, the proposal is six codes with supporting explanations:

  1. No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members     
  2. No taunting or bullying
  3. Be civil
  4. Stay on topic per the article
  5. No dishonest, unethical or illegal content
  6. No repugnant or harmful content
 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.1.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    2 years ago

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 ..

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.1.1    2 years ago

I think you meant #4Stay 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.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.1.3  Colour Me Free  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.2    2 years ago

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 : )

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @10    2 years ago

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!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  TᵢG @10    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.3    2 years ago

So nice to see you Hal. Now if you can express what you want, that would be helpful. 

 
 
 
cjcold
10.3.2  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.3    2 years ago

Pollyanna told me to never say anything bad about fascists (they might shoot you).

 
 
 
PJ
10.5  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @10    2 years ago

Streamlining is good.  Other than that there is nothing wrong with the CoC or policies.  The problem lies with the members.  Ciao

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.5.1  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @10.5    2 years ago
The problem lies with the members.

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.

 
 
 
PJ
10.5.2  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @10.5.1    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.5.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  PJ @10.5.2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
PJ
10.5.4  PJ  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.5.3    2 years ago
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.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.5.5  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @10.5.2    2 years ago

I understood your point:

TiG:  Agreed (and that I think is always the case on sites like this).

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.5.6  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @10.5.2    2 years ago
I check in periodically but I see more of an echo chamber than anything else.

Really?   I see the opposite.   But okay ...

 
 
 
PJ
10.5.7  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @10.5.6    2 years ago

I've no doubt your experience here has been quite different than mine.  You will fit in very well.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
10.5.8  Raven Wing  replied to  TᵢG @10.5.5    2 years ago
The only thing that a site can do is effectively communicate and administer good policies.

Agreed. 

 
 
 
cjcold
10.5.9  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.5.3    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
10.6  Raven Wing  replied to  TᵢG @10    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

For the record, I am just as guilty of the next person of using way too much profanity and some of these words, however, I believe in this website and I am committed to doing better with my language.  In other words, I'm owning my own shit, others should as well

OSM.. shit is a profanity...  But yes, people should own their own words. 

The use of the words Nazi and/or Fuhrer to describe anyone other than an actual Nazi Movement should be banned.  It should not be allowed to describe any president, presidential supporters or anything of the sort.

Not sure about that, since the very first thing Nazis do is remove common words from the lexicaon

Teathuglicans, Teabaggers, Libtards, Rethuglicans, Republikkans, RWNJ, LWNJ, Nigger, Cunt,  Dumbocrats, Thumpers, all these words are nothing more than petty attacks and attempts to smear.  They do not foster healthy debate and they need to go.

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.

As for off topic comments, this is a fine line, however, if an articles saysILLEGAL IMMIGRANT MURDERS WOMAN, then common sense denotes the article is not about Trump or LGBT issues.

Was more referring to articles that declare entire swarths of our country as un American.. etc. 

I'm unclear on the policy restriction on declaring any articles as original works, if someone actually writes a piece then should it not be published as original? 

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. 

 
 
 
zuksam
12.1  zuksam  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12    2 years ago
It should not be allowed to describe any president, presidential supporters or anything of the sort

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  zuksam @12.1    2 years ago

I gotta agree with you there zuksam. It has been there since the start of our nation. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
15  Kathleen    2 years ago

Thank you Perrie for giving us the opportunity to talk about this... It's nice to voice our opinions. : )

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @15    2 years ago

Your welcome Kathleen. This is what NT has always been about. Community. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
16  Gordy327    2 years ago
I will say that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and for this belief, they get ruthlessly attacked on this website.

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.

Something needs to be done about this. Muslims execute gays, yet not a peep from anyone on here from what I can see. This would speak to attacking entire groups of people.

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.

 
 
 
luther28
17  luther28    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1  Gordy327  replied to  luther28 @17    2 years ago
How about something basic, speak to others as you wish to be spoken to.

A verbal "Golden Rule?"

Sorry, I'm a kind of basic guy just trying to keep things simple.

Sometimes, simple works too. :)

 
 
 
Kathleen
17.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1    2 years ago

I like the golden rule! Happy

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @17.1.1    2 years ago
I like the golden rule!

Simple, but effective.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  luther28 @17    2 years ago

I was too, Luther. When the site started we had the 5 Simple Rules... people found ways to wreck that.

 
 
 
luther28
17.2.1  luther28  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  luther28 @17.2.1    2 years ago

So true Luther.. so true!

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
18  Uncle Bruce    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Uncle Bruce @18    2 years ago

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

 
 
 
Kathleen
18.2  Kathleen  replied to  Uncle Bruce @18    2 years ago

I see your point. The list could go on and on and there would be no end to the possibility's.  Hopefully after reading how we all feel about this, the members will stop to think before they use them again.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Uncle Bruce @18    2 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
19  MrFrost    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
19.1  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @19    2 years ago

Totally agree.   A few good (and succinct) rules.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MrFrost @19    2 years ago
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.

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. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
19.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @19.2    2 years ago

Was just offering my opinion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MrFrost @19.2.1    2 years ago

And it is welcomed MrFrost and agreed with. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
20  Gordy327    2 years ago

Perrie, if I may offer my views regarding the 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.

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:

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?

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.. 

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.

Acceptable.

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?

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 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?

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.

Death wishing: In the past, death wishing was only not allowed to other members. Do we extend it to public figures / parties?

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.

Fake News Sites: Do we need a list of known fake news sites?

That might help.

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.

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: 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?

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @20    2 years ago

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?

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.

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.. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1    2 years ago
Punishment can be a deterrent. What says the community?

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
20.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1    2 years ago
But I think you didn't realize it, but members can flag off topic and CoC offenses, not just the author.

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.

I have to see if it is possible to do coding wise. 

Newsvine had such a function. I found it useful. 

On cursing... we now have a cursing filter if you don't want to look at it. 

Useful.

What you can't do is make a bad situation worse and call the person a troll. That is a violation. Just flag it. 

Agreed.

OK no death wishing...

Fair enough. :)

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?

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 can be a deterrent. What says the community?

Punishment may be the only way someone learns. 

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..

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @20.1.2    2 years ago

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)


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?

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.

I am sure there will be other opinions on how to get that list.. if indeed we want that list. 

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.

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
20.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1    2 years ago
On cursing... we now have a cursing filter if you don't want to look at it.

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...

 
 
 
MUVA
20.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.3    2 years ago

If you start taking down hyper partisan articles anything from the big alphabet news outlets should not be allowed that is all the print or broadcast.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @20.1.5    2 years ago

If you start taking down hyper partisan articles anything from the big alphabet news outlets should not be allowed that is all the print or broadcast.

I don't understand.

 
 
 
TᵢG
20.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @20.1.4    2 years ago
profanity isn't visible on the FP.

Already in place.

 
 
 
Gordy327
20.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.3    2 years ago
what would you like the choices to be (this is not only directed to Gordy btw)
  • Personal attack
  • Inflammatory comment
  • spam/advertisement
  • Off Topic
  • death wishing

Those are a few off the top of my head.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20.1.9  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @20.1.1    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20.1.10  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.9    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
20.1.11  Skrekk  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.9    2 years ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Kathleen
22  Kathleen    2 years ago

I was thinking that one way that might help is to stay away from topics that you know will upset you. I have been guilty of that at times. Unless you want to have a good fair debate, then comment on another topic.

I am not telling people what to do, just that you know your tolerance and temper and use your good judgement. 

If you do decide to comment, if you know you are starting to boil, then just move on.

Just a suggestion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

Open for Business!!! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
24.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24    2 years ago

Possible CoC Changes:

  • Off Topic Comments        Keep the current system. If the seeder/author warns someone they are off topic and the moderator agrees, subsequent off topic comments by that person can be deleted.  There is no reason to change this method. It works. 

  • Excessive Cursing             Unless the cursing becomes a parody of regular speech, and f bombs are in every sentence, leave it as is now. 

  • Creative insulting Terms     People should not be rewarded for coming up with "creative" insults. 

  • Comments complaining about articles        Complaints about extremist, ridiculous content should not only be allowed , they should be the bread and butter of the site. 

  • Trolling of articles             Unfortunately, eliminating  trolling has never been a priority on Newstalkers. 

  • Death wishing                  Keep the current criteria for dealing with this. 

  • Fake News Sites                If fake news from Gateway Pundit, Infowars, Sorcha Faal, etc. are not going to be banned, then comments that ridicule and berate these pathetic sites should be allowed and even encouraged. 

  • Skirting Comments            I would drop skirting entirely.  Inappropriate comments can be deleted by the moderator without applying a "demerit" to the poster. COC violations should pertain only to more serious offenses. 

  • Headlines                    As long as the headline does not misrepresent the content of the seeded article, it should be nobody's business what is in the headline but the seeders. Other sites, to the best of my knowledge do not require that headlines mimic the headline in the source. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @24.1    2 years ago

I am going to see what others think, John. I don't want to muddy the waters.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
24.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1.2    2 years ago
I don't want to muddy the waters.

What does that mean in terms of being a response to what I said? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
24.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  JohnRussell @24.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
25  Raven Wing    2 years ago

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)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
25.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @25    2 years ago

Nice positive comment, Raven!

 
 
 
Steve Ott
26  Steve Ott    2 years ago

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?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
26.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Steve Ott @26    2 years ago

Hi Steve...

Off Topic Comments

Is A Sidebar Discussion Off-Topic? It Stems From The Topic, But Can Be Distracting.

I think this should be up to the author/ seeder.

Would William F. Buckley Jr. Have Survived This? I Don't Find Republithugs And Libtards Very Creative.

They are not, and meant to insult. 

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?

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. 

How Is An Inflammatory Headline Defined?

Now that is an easy one. It's a lot like porn. You know it when you see it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
27  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
27.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @27    2 years ago
If you think I should open up a part 2 to this discussion due to slow loading times,

definitely

 
 
 
TᵢG
27.2  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @27    2 years ago

thumbs up

 
 
 
Raven Wing
27.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @27    2 years ago

Agreed. Voted up. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
27.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @27    2 years ago

Yes, please.

 
 
 
Gordy327
27.5  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @27    2 years ago

Yes, part 2 is good.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
29  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
MAGA
29.1  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @29    2 years ago

Yes to a part 2

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



27 visitors