The Updating Of The Code Of Conduct-Part 2

Good Day Everyone!

This is part 2 of the updating of the CoC. 

Please refer to Part 1. You might want to keep it up on another tab to make it easier to flip between the two. 

Let's have at it!

I've been playing 'Hide and Seek' with Perrie since yesterday (Monday) morning. When she has been online, I have been busy elsewhere, and vice versa. I would have liked to post this immediately after TiG's proposition https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/38065/My%20concern 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."> (Comment n° 10) .
I think the two propositions are complementary.
I am also posting quite a few other Replies that I stored whenever I had access to a computer.

=========================================
=========================================

Simple observation: For years, the CoC&ToS have become ever more complicated... without actually restraining misbehavior. The more details the CoC&ToS include, the easier it is to navigate just at the limit. So... most deletions are not for "violating", but for "skirting".

The ToS should be NT's legal constraints, only. Nothing else.

And for the CoC ... maybe this year we should try simplifying ... We should try to find a formula that makes the Mods' job easier and more efficient.

The most important reason the CoC never seems to fit the needs of the members is... the members themselves. We all have very different purposes when we post. I cannot see any simple set of rules that can satisfy everyone, so meeting all those multiple purposes would require " local CoCs". Some examples of different purposes and the "local CoCs" that are appropriate:

- Open message board . No particular topic. Post whatever you wish. The "local CoC" would be reduced, almost nonexistent.
      - Be polite. (Or perhaps not even that... )

- Topical message board . Free association kinda sorta within the context of the seed. The "local CoC" would be very open.
      - Be polite. 
      - Stay kinda sorta in relation to the seed.

- Open discussion . Starting with the seed but free to wander afield in coherent threads.
      - Be polite. 
      - Reply to the seed or a previous Comment. (Let's be somewhat coherent.)

- Narrow discussion . Strictly on the topic of the seed.
      - Be polite. 
      - Read the seed.
      - Reply to the seed or a previous Comment. (Let's be strictly on topic.)

Each case (there may be more than these four) requires a different "local CoC". I suggest that we define a few "local CoCs", from which a seeder may select the one s/he wishes to see applied. The Mod would apply that CoC. Visitors would know what to expect -- the general rule would be "If you don't intend to respect the local CoC... stay away!"

(Please observe that only the last - strictest - case requires "Read the seed". Some members rarely read a seed. They read the title, and riff off that. Some local CoCs must permit it.)

These "local CoCs" are based on the seeder's purpose. We come back (always and always ) to the question: Does a seed belong to the seeder, or is it public property? Does the seeder have any greater role than the visitors?

Under current rules, a seeder must monitor all posts to the seed, and call on a Mod if needed. That implies a certain degree of "ownership"... but to what degree?

Hi Bob..

A while back you had shared your ideas about CoC ... do not recall you mentioning different  CoC's - in what way does this make moderating simpler when having to moderate differently for each potential seed ... I am sure I am just missing something in your comment, so I had to ask the question..

Hi Bob,

Glad you posted this here, although I did just go through your article and commented..

and yes what do you mean about different CoC's?

... what do you mean about different CoC's?

I realized (thanks to a Reply by one of our conservative-but-in-good-faith members - yes, I actually do recognize that some conservatives speak in good faith - that different members perceive seeds/articles in completely different, incompatible ways.

At one extreme, some members perceive all seeds/articles as "open message boards", so they also assume that members may post anything anywhere. Their "anything goes" posting rules are coherent with their perception of seeds/articles.

At the other extreme, some members (me!!) are trying to present a seed/article to other members, because they feel that the seed/article is worthy of thoughtful consideration... and perhaps discussion. "Anything goes" is anathema!

So I drew the conclusion that it is impossible to find a single set of rules (CoC) that conforms to all members' purposes. And from there, I arrived at the idea of a series of CoCs, going from completely open to tightly closed. I gave four examples in my post .

If we allow an author (seed or original article) to declare that s/he is posting an "Open Message Board", then everyone, visitors and Mods, would know that "anything goes". If the author declares "Narrow Discussion", then everyone would understand, too.

Would what you are talking about with 'local CoC' not be in keeping with the purpose of RBR's (Red Box Rules)? Where the author/seeder makes their own requirements/rules for how those who post to their article/seed are to behave? The RBR's are rules in addition to the CoC to set the way Members area allowed to post their comments.

At least it very much sounds like the purpose of the RBR's is to create a local CoC by the Member posting the article/seed to me.

I have to agree with Raven there.. unless Bob you are trying to get away from the stigma of the RBR. Still, the potential downside to what you propose, is that what you have removed could be nothing more than what you disagree with. (that was a royal you, and not you specifically).

Each case (there may be more than these four) requires a different "local CoC". I suggest that we define a few "local CoCs", from which a seeder may select the one s/he wishes to see applied. The Mod would apply that CoC. Visitors would know what to expect -- the general rule would be "If you don't intend to respect the local CoC... stay away!"

i'm not quite sure i agree with this, it seems like it could get very confusing very quickly for many posters - especially in any articles/topics that could be deemed as "gray areas".

... it seems like it could get very confusing very quickly for many posters - especially in any articles/topics that could be deemed as "gray areas".

I can't see any difficulty in distinguishing between the extremes. "Anything goes" does not resemble at all "strictly on-topic".

In between the extremes, there may be risk. That's why I only made four levels. It seems to me that everyone can distinguish between "Stay kinda sorta in relation to the seed" and "Reply to the seed or a previous Comment. (Let's be somewhat coherent.)"

The exact wording can probably be improved...

I can't see any difficulty in distinguishing between the extremes. "Anything goes" does not resemble at all "strictlyon-topic".

In between the extremes, there may be risk. That's why I only made four levels. It seems to me that everyone can distinguish between "Stay kinda sorta in relation to the seed" and "Reply to the seed or a previous Comment. (Let's be somewhat coherent.)"

The exact wording can probably be improved...

i have to disagree and agree - sure with extremes it would be easy to tell the difference, the problem would be making sure everyone remembers which COC is in effect and what the rules are.. seems the rules would constantly be changing which could get confusing (would i have to print out a "cheat sheet" to keep next to me to refer to anytime i want to comment on an article/seed ? or do i just risk getting a COC violation because i didn't adhere to the correct "local" COC policy ?). Plus - who categorizes them ? if we leave it to the seeder - does the category change on a whim or is it permanent ? what if it's categorized incorrectly ? what if the seeder decides to categorize it one way and the mods feel it should be a different category ? i don't think having many separate sets of "mini rules" would be an effective answer quite honestly, i think it would just further confuse people and give trolls the chance to further enhance the chaos.

From Part 1:

5.1.6   Perrie Halpern R.A.   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @ 5.1.5     21 hours 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.. 

... and on NT, there are members who do everything possible to diminish the importance of America's Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. The Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists regularly kill people. Let's not allow blatantly false equivalences to color NT's rules.

Bob, 

What false equivalencies? There are probably bigots here on NT, since they are everywhere. As for Neo-Nazis.. IDK? No one has proclaimed to be one yet.. but that doesn't mean they are not here. 

Bobby is being a bit overly dramatic and spreading untruths. To several left wingers here, any views opposite to their own are made by Nazi/White Supremacists.

To several

partisans, name calling is acceptable.

Agreed moco

From Part 1:

4.1.9   Perrie Halpern R.A.   replied to  JohnRussell @ 4.1.4     22 hours 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.

This is a variant of the "both sides do it" cop-out. Very few human activities are binary (yes / no, hot / cold, on / off, ...). Almost all are sliding scales (1 to 10, "very little" to "a lot", tiny to huge, ...). Reducing a sliding scale to binary is profoundly false. Person A lies 90% of the time. Person B lies 10% of the time. The sentence "They both lie!" is "strictly" true, but very very wrong if the objective is to describe reality. You are saying that the two sites are the same. They are not, except that both are "imperfect"... which is true of everything under the Sun!

Wow.. sometimes I think we speak a different english. 

I have been saying for years, that life is not black and white, but shades of gray. Same with politics. Heck, I am a walking case of it, since I am an independent. Some things I lean more liberal while others more conservative. So I am not sure how you got that over a discussion about 2 different publications.

You continue to give cover, if not comfort, to people who want to use Gateway Pundit as a source. Gateway Pundit is one the most dishonest "news" sites on the internet. 

For you to continue to pretend that it is just "the other side of the story" is just bizarre. 

Sadly Perrie, when one 'sits on the fence' it appears to disqualify them from making decisions / judgement calls .. one must always choose a side ... as one side is 'right' thus making the other side 'wrong' ...

When trying to see both sides of the issue, commenting after reading multiple source - yet not choosing a side .. I am told can erode ones credibility - figure that one out for me a'ight?

Hope your day is much smoother than yesterday..

Peace!

This is NOT about a specific publication. It is about what we will and will not allow on the site. 

Given that you know that its a "dishonest news site," why wouldn't you either debunk what is said in the article or simply engage your personal "ignore feature?"

The same holds true for everyone on the site. It's not that difficult to determine a source's credibility. Let's operate on the assumption that we're capable of doing so for ourselves instead of depending on others to do so for us?

That is the perfect answer. 

When trying to see both sides of the issue, commenting after reading multiple source - yet not choosing a side .. I am told can erode ones credibility - figure that one out for me a'ight?

My point was, even though this is not where it should be brought up, if you have honestly looked at both sides of the issue we were discussing, I find it very difficult, for someone like yourself, to believe both sides had made equal arguments, thus showing a slight un-admitted bias. Just my opinion. 

And by stating "someone like yourself" I mean reasonable, educated, individuals.

Sadly Perrie, when one 'sits on the fence' it appears to disqualify them from making decisions / judgement calls .. one must always choose a side ... as one side is 'right' thus making the other side 'wrong' ...

It is not my job to be involved in the discussion, only to decide if an infraction is made. That is the only decision that I make. In fact, it is my job to be as unbiased as humanly possible. 

and thanks for the good wishes.

My point was, even though this is not where it should be brought up, if you have honestly looked at both sides of the issue we were discussing, I find it very difficult, for someone like yourself, to believe both sides had made equal arguments

Maybe I am not explaining it well. I'll try again. I don't look to see who is making the better argument. I am looking to see if what you said, is CoC compliant. That is my only duty here. 

Let's operate on the assumption that we're capable of doing so for ourselves instead of depending on others to do so for us?

Is this a joke? 

I had no intention to single you out with my comment - I apologize if I made you feel as if I was doing so .. you are not the only one to make that comment to me : )

After reading multiple sources, I felt confident that the Democrat memo would/will be released .. I did not base my opinion on emotion regarding the fairness (or lack there of) coming from the current President in the White House.  There is NOTHING that he /any president will ever do that will please the masses - therefore nothing will ever be seen as equal ... perhaps that does make me bias, yet I do not understand how it does.

Just my opinion of course : )

As I have said before I appreciate your civility - thank you

.

OFF topic - I know that I pretty much always wander off!  My bad... I am working on it with my shrink .. baby steps!

That is the only decision that I make. In fact, it is my job to be as unbiased as humanly possible.

Which is very difficult in and of itself ... I respect someone having that ability a great deal!

Some things I lean more liberal while others more conservative.

The subject isn't liberal/conservative. It's trustworthy/untrustworthy. On that scale, the two mastheads are not at all at the same level. I don't equate trustworthiness with political color, and I certainly hope you don't either.

I am looking to see if what you said, is CoC compliant. That is my only duty here.

I believe I may have gotten that Nunes released memo already.

I did state I was replying to CMF  and it was the wrong place, my apologies.

I realize the difficult task you and your mods have in front of you. Basically Judicial like dissection of peoples words, and true under lying intent, can be a rather difficult endeavor that as I have expressed, I don't envy.

It is not any overseers job to decide who has made a better argument, only to be sure the CoC is adhered to. I don't believe I could do it un-biasedly, nor could 95+% of the members around here.

Then throw in ambiguity, multiple interpretaionability, and the gist of past interactions into the mix, and WE, as in all of US MEMBERS, would be and ARE

asking a HECK of a lot from YOU, and our other MODS

so, before demanding perfection from Perrie and company, lettuce remember the pickle

we have placed upon their asses..errh  ah  I mean Bunz      cause it's a Supersized Whopper that even A. Big Macarthur could/would find difficulty in deciding &

equally distributing Justice                  

The same holds true for everyone on the site. It's not that difficult to determine a source's credibility. Let's operate on the assumption that we're capable of doing so for ourselves instead of depending on others to do so for us?

Yay!! 

Perrie apparently wants people to have to endlessly debunk crap from "fake news" sites like GP. 

And then we are not allowed to criticize the piece of shit site. 

Are we in Alice in Wonderland territory here? That is what it feels like. 

The Gateway Pundit

Hey...John...If I post an article from the Gateway Pundit and you bitch that the article is fake news simply because it comes from the GP, I'm gonna tell you to PROVE IT FAKE, or shut the fuck up.  Get it through your thick head:  DISPUTE THE ARTICLE, NOT THE SOURCE.  Otherwise, scroll the fuck on by.

I'm going to post this on any content you place here from Gateway Pundit

The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.

And I'll have it removed for being OFF TOPIC.

And I'll have it removed for being OFF TOPIC.

Actually... this is an important subject.

Fake news and Bad Faith posts are genuine problems. Both phenomena kill honest conversation, and therefore deserve to be denounced. At the same time, "denouncing the source" is a favorite method of derailing.

I'm not sure of any solution... but this is not a subject to be evacuated so easily.

I disagree. I am someone who does not belong to any political party, and not affiliated with any one religious belief. However, I do have my own opinions, beliefs and POV regarding events and issues on both. I do not think that not belonging to any one political party or religious affiliation causes me to lose any credibility, or anyone else who does not affiliate with any political party of religious belief.

In fact, it allows me to see and consider things from all sides of an event or issue without being close minded by political party or religious loyalty. While some here may question my own and people like Perrie's credibility for often not taking sides in political or religious discussions or debates, I truly don't think that the majority of the Members here think our own opinions, thoughts, beliefs or POV have no credibility. 

Just my own perspective.

That is the perfect answer.

True. Just remember that he simply pounds you with his illogical logic and tries to get you to submit to his vision of what this site should be. Don't let him.

That's what I have gathered in my few months here, and dealing with similar people for 8 years on NV.

That's your opinion only. You feel the same way about Fox News.

That's just your opinion, but I have the right to decide that for myself.

I have checked with 3 other political forums, and Gateway Pundit is allowed. I checked with that site I posted and although it says that the site has it's issues, it does not end up in the class of articles that is "Conspiracy-Pseudoscience" like say Alex Jones does.

So my answer is either debunk the article or pay it no mind and move along. Ignoring an article is a good way to send a message. 

I honestly don't know what your problem is about this. 

====================================

mediamatters

Here Are 20-Plus Times Gateway Pundit And Jim Hoft Were Absurdly Wrong 

The following are examples of some -- but certainly not all -- of the most egregious mistakes from Gateway Pundit and Jim Hoft over the years.  

Gateway Pundit Accused Wrong Person Of Las Vegas Shooting

Gateway Pundit Accused Wrong Person Of Las Vegas Shooting. Police stated that Stephen Paddock shot and killed more than 50 people in Las Vegas, NV. The Gateway Pundit accused the wrong person of perpetrating the shooting, running the headline about a different person: “Las Vegas Shooter Reportedly a Democrat Who Liked Rachel Maddow, MoveOn.org and Associated with anti-Trump Army.” The site later removed the post. [ Media Matters , 10/2/17 ; ThinkProgress,  10/2/17 ; The Washington Post ,  10/2/17 ]

Gateway Pundit Framed Wrong Person In Charlottesville, VA, Attack

Gateway Pundit Claimed "Anti-Trump Protester" Was Responsible For Charlottesville, VA, Attack. As The Daily Beast reported, The Gateway Pundit accused the wrong person of perpetrating an attack at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA, in August. Police charged James Alex Fields Jr. with second-degree murder in the death of anti-racism activist Heather Heyer. The Gateway Pundit, however, claimed a different person was behind the attack, saying the perpetrator was an “Anti-Trump Protester.” From The Daily Beast:

"REPORT: Driver in Virginia Car Attack Was Anti-Trump Protester,” Gateway Pundit blared, plus the name of the Michigan man, whose name The Daily Beast is withholding. “WOW! DUDE HIT THE WRONG CROWD,” the subheadline read.

The “report” Gateway Pundit cited was a now-deleted tweet by a Twitter user named @Aristotle_Code, who goes by “Michael” and whose profile picture is of a sportscar. “Michael” has less than a thousand Twitter followers.

The post was deleted with no retraction.

[The Daily Beast,  8/13/17 ; Snopes.com,  8/15/17 ; The New York Times ,  8/13/17 ]

Gateway Pundit Attacked Wrong Asian Woman For “Sneaking Photos” At Hearing

Gateway Pundit Falsely Claimed Wash. Post Reporter Snuck Photos At Tillerson Hearing . Gateway Pundit started the false story that Washington Post homepage editor Doris Truong “was caught on film sneaking photos of Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson’s personal notes at his hearing today before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee,” based on a photo of an Asian woman seemingly directing her phone at the papers. (The site later updated the piece to include the Post ’s statement that the woman in the photo was not Truong.) The claim soon spread to the Drudge Report and Sarah Palin and spurred harassment against Truong that she likened to her “own personal Pizzagate”:

Before I could do anything about it, someone had decided the woman was me. No one ever bothered to contact me, but it was this post that Twitter seized upon overnight. By the time I woke up, trolls had commented on social media channels besides Twitter. My Facebook feed had dozens of angry messages from people I didn’t know, as did comments on my Instagram account. Even my rarely used YouTube channel attracted attention. My emails and my voicemail included messages calling me “pathetic” and a “sneaky thief.”

A lot of the comments also focused on my Chinese heritage, implying — or outright stating — that I must be spying for China. Some called for an FBI investigation of what they deemed illegal behavior.

[...]

The woman at the hearing wasn’t me. I wasn’t there, and I don’t know who she is. What we have in common is that we’re both women, and we’re both Asian. However, that should not be enough grounds for people to jump to dangerous conclusions. [The Gateway Pundit, 1/11/17 ; Media Matters , 1/12/17 ; BuzzFeed, 1/12/17 ; The Huffington Post, 1/13/17 ; The Washington Post , 1/12/17 ]

Gateway Pundit Claimed Picture Of Cleveland's NBA Title Parade Was Trump Rally

Gateway Pundit Used The Headline “WOW! Look At MASSIVE LINE To Trump’s Town Hall Event” Above A Picture From The Championship Parade Following The Cleveland Cavaliers’ NBA Finals Victory :

[ Media Matters , 8/4/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Pushed Fake Story About Bus Of Paid Protesters

NY Times Documented How Gateway Pundit Started A Fake News Story. The New York Times wrote a November 20 piece documenting how “fake news goes viral” and highlighting Gateway Pundit’s role in spreading a fake story about paid anti-Trump protesters:

Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old co-founder of a marketing company in Austin, Tex., had just about 40 Twitter followers. But his recent tweet about paid protesters being bused to demonstrations against President-elect Donald J. Trump fueled a nationwide conspiracy theory — one that Mr. Trump joined in promoting.

Mr. Tucker's post was shared at least 16,000 times on Twitter and more than 350,000 times on Facebook. The problem is that Mr. Tucker got it wrong. There were no such buses packed with paid protesters.

[...]

Around 6 p.m., the conservative blog Gateway Pundit posted a story using Mr. Tucker’s images under the headline “Figures. Anti-Trump Protesters Were Bussed in to Austin #FakeProtests.” The post, which included a mention of “Soros money,” has been shared on Facebook more than 44,000 times, according to statistics on the website.

The story line became a prominent one throughout the conservative blogosphere, with other sites incorporating Mr. Tucker’s tweet into posts about paid protesters, referring to him as an eyewitness in Austin. [ The New York Times , 11/20/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Fell For Hoax About Paid Protest Group

Gateway Pundit: “BREAKING: Far Left Group Is Paying Activists A Monthly Salary To Stop TRUMP.” The Washington Post documented a hoax that Gateway Pundit and other conservative websites fell for, in which a group called Demand Protest claimed to provide paid protesters on behalf of liberal causes:

The website for an organization calling itself Demand Protest made its mission pretty clear: “When your strategy demands paid protest, we organize and bring it to life.” Billing itself as a group that generated the “appearance of outrage” on behalf of left-wing causes, the existence of Demand Protest became an attractive story for many right-wing media outlets. The group, it appeared, was proof that dissent against Trump was manufactured by shady leftist organizations, and could be lucrative: one Backpage.com ad placed in Demand Protest’s name promised a full-time job that paid a $2,500 retainer, plus $50/hr., and benefits.

It was the perfect story to share, if you’re inclined to believe that anti-Trump protesters must be getting paid to be there. Something to that effect has long been in the canon of largely unsubstantiated rumors circulating on the Trump Internet. A well-known fake news writer even fabricated an “interview” with a protester who said he was paid $3,500 to protest at a Trump rally — a story that was shared on Twitter by Trump’s then-campaign manager. And like that made-up story, it also appears that Demand Protest is a made-up group, one that fooled quite a few news sources before being dramatically debunked on-air by Tucker Carlson.

Here’s an incomplete look at how we got here: a few days ago, the Gateway Pundit wrote a piece titled “BREAKING: Far Left Group Is Paying Activists a Monthly Salary to Stop TRUMP,” and cited 4Chan in mentioning a possible link between Demand Protest and George Soros. InfoWars was a bit more skeptical, hedging their story on Demand Protest as a “report” and writing that “it’s unclear if the DemandProtest.com website is actually legitimate.” The Washington Times also credulously reported on the Backpage ads. Breitbart, meanwhile, used the ads as evidence in an article that suggested that fears of pro-Trump inauguration violence was “fake news.”

[...]

Tucker Carlson’s bizarre on-camera interview with a Demand Protest representative who gave his name as “Dom Tullipso” felt like a piece of performance art, something even Carlson himself said out loud in the middle of the interview.

“So, this is a sham, your company isn’t real, your website is fake, the claims you have made are lies, this is a hoax,” Carlson began, before saying that his team couldn’t find a record of a person by the name “Dom Tullipso.” [ The Washington Post , 1/18/17 ]

Gateway Pundit Falsely Claimed John Podesta Said “It’s OK For Illegals To Vote With Driver’s License”

Gateway Pundit “Podesta Says It’s OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver’s License.” Hoft wrote a post claiming that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta endorsed the idea of undocumented immigrants voting illegally with driver’s licences in hacked WikiLeaks emails. He published a blog with the headline “WIKILEAKS: Podesta Says It’s OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver’s License.” [ Media Matters , 10/20/16 ]

Email Was Not About Immigrants . The email Hoft was referring to was not about immigrants. As FactCheck.org noted, the email in question said “not one word about illegal immigrants. Nor does it say anything about encouraging fraudulent votes. Instead, the apparent email chain, from early 2015, is a discussion about whether the campaign should propose ways to make it easier for people to register to vote. The email is based on a poll one of the staffers sent on millennials, who said they favored online voting.” [ Media Matters , 10/20/16 ; FactCheck.org, 10/21/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Posted -- Then Removed -- Article Claiming Clinton Campaign Manager Deleted Tweets Because Of FBI Announcement

Gateway Pundit: “Hillary Campaign Manager Deletes Twitter Timeline.” Hoft posted an October 2016 article claiming that “Clinton Campaign Manager Robbie Mook just deleted his Twitter timeline. Wow!” Hoft suggested the supposed deletions were in response to the FBI’s announcement that it was reviewing more emails that were possibly linked to Clinton’s email server. [Snopes.com, 10/29/16 ]

Mook Didn’t Delete Anything -- He Just Didn’t Tweet Until October 2016. As Snopes.com noted, “Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, joined Twitter in April 2015 but didn't post anything to the service until 26 October 2016. The lack of activity on his account was not due to a cover-up; rather, it shows that he simply doesn't use the service very often.” It also noted that “Gateway Pundit did not point to a single tweet that Mook had purportedly deleted or provide any evidence that his Twitter account was altered after the FBI's announcement. The Gateway Pundit deleted their article shortly after publication.” [Snopes.com, 10/29/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Falsely Claimed Obama Made Confederate Flag Pin In 2012

Gateway Pundit: “Barack Obama Had His Own 2012 Confederate Flag Pin . After a national debate arose over the Confederate flag when a white man killed nine black people at a church in Charleston, S.C., Hoft posted a 2015 article headlined “FIGURES. Barack Obama Had His Own 2012 Confederate Flag Pin.” It stated  that “Democrats have been using Confederate flags in their campaigns for decades” and “Barack Obama had his own Confederate flag campaign pin… in 2012!” [The Gateway Pundit, 6/23/15 ]

Confederate Flag Pin Was Not Produced By The Campaign . Snopes.com noted that “the pictured button was not an official 2012 presidential campaign pin. …  It appears that someone simply Photoshopped the pin or ordered it through a custom print shop service such as Zazzle.com in order to capitalize on the current Confederate flag controversy in South Carolina, during which vendors such as eBay, Walmart, and Zazzle announced they would stop selling Confederate flag memorabilia.” [Snopes.com, 6/24/15 ]

Gateway Pundit Falsely Claimed CNN Lightened Photo Of Fort Lauderdale Shooter

Gateway Pundit: “Look How CNN Doctored Photo Of Ft. Lauderdale Shooter Esteban Santiago.” As The Daily Beast noted, bloggers like Hoft “invented an elaborate and racist conspiracy theory that CNN had lightened a photo of alleged Fort Lauderdale airport shooter Esteban Santiago shortly after the Friday attack. … Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft even wrote a story about the so-called incident, titled ‘Look How CNN Doctored Photo of Ft. Lauderdale Shooter Esteban Santiago,’ which had 2,500 shares in its first hour on Facebook, according to BuzzSumo. ‘It appears CNN doctored the photo to make the suspect look more white,’ wrote Hoft. ‘Sad.’” [The Daily Beast, 1/6/17 ]

Story About CNN Was A Hoax . The Daily Beast wrote of the claims: “In reality, CNN had yet to air a picture of Santiago, let alone lightened a picture of him.” The picture used was also of a different Esteban Santiago. Hoft later added a note to his post: “An earlier version of this story claimed CNN had doctored a photo of the killer. The photo was not accurate and was not posted by CNN today after the Ft. Lauderdale shooting.” [The Daily Beast, 1/6/17 ; The Gateway Pundit, 1/6/17 ]

Gateway Pundit Fell For Fake Photo Of Oregon Shooter 

Gateway Pundit: “CNN Photoshops The Photo Of Oregon Killer Chris Harper-Mercer To Make HIm Look White.” As Little Green Footballs noted, Jim Hoft reacted to the 2015 mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon by claiming CNN whitened the skin of the shooter. From LGF’s screenshot of the post at the time:

[Little Green Footballs, 10/4/15 ]

CNN Did Not Alter The Skin Color Of The Photo . CNN media reporter Brian Stelter tweeted that the photo is “not real” and that CNN “hasn’t shown any images of [the] gunman.” Snopes.com also wrote that the image was fake. [Twitter, 10/4/15 ; Snopes.com, 10/5/15 ]

Gateway Pundit Claimed “Tests Show" Obama’s Birth Certificate Is “A Forgery”

Gateway Pundit: “Tests Show That Barack Obama's Birth Certificate Is a Forgery.” Hoft headlined a post “Tests Show That Barack Obama's Birth Certificate Is a Forgery” and claimed that far-right blog “Atlas [Shrugs] had tests performed on Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate that was posted at the Far Left Daily Kos blog and the Barack Obama Fight the Smears website. … After an expert friend evaluated the tests, Atlas announced that the Obama certificate of live birth document posted at Daily Kos is a forgery.”

[The Gateway Pundit, 7/20/08]

Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Not A Forgery. [PolitiFact, March 2011 ]

Gateway Pundit Fell For Parody Article About Obama Birth Certificate

Gateway Pundit Claimed San Diego High School Rescinded “Obama Invite After Discovering His” Birth Certificate Was Fake. From Hoft’s May 2011 piece:

[ Media Matters , 5/13/11 ]

The Birth Certificate Article Was Satire. Hoft’s article was from the San Diego Reader 's satire section, which is called: "SD on the QT: Almost Factual News.” Hoft subsequently removed his post. [ Media Matters , 5/13/11 ]

Gateway Pundit Falsely Claimed Michelle Obama Deleted Hillary Tweets

Gateway Pundit: “Michelle Obama Deletes Hillary Tweets From Her Timeline.” Hoft wrote:

[The Gateway Pundit, 11/1/16 ]

Michelle Obama-Clinton Deletion Story Was False . As CNN’s Brian Stelter noted, the story was false and “the deleted-tweets claim could have been disproven by a quick Twitter search.” Fox News host Sean Hannity, who blamed Gateway Pundit for the error, was forced to issue a correction for running with the story. [CNN.com, 11/1/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Fell For Twitter Joke About Postal Voter Fraud

Gateway Pundit: “POSTAL WORKER Brags Online About Destroying Trump Ballots.” The Daily Beast summarized how Hoft fell for an obvious Twitter joke in which a user said he loves “working at the post office in Columbus, Ohio and ripping up absentee ballots that vote for trump.” Hoft ended up trumpeting the joke tweet as a major scandal:

You don’t have to be a great intellect to get that this is obviously a joke. For starters, @randygdub’s Twitter bio says he’s from California. And it takes about 60 seconds to go through his timeline and see that many of the tweets there are, well, not meant to be taken literally.

But Jim Hoft, the sage political mind behind the GatewayPundit blog, didn’t do that. Instead, at 9:17 a.m. on Monday morning, he wrote a blog post about RandyGDub’s tweet with this headline: “POSTAL WORKER Brags Online About Destroying Trump Ballots”

Reached for comment Monday afternoon—when it was obvious he had fallen for a joke—Hoft told The Daily Beast he didn't find the situation amusing. And he suggested Twitter might consider banning @randyGDub. [The Daily Beast, 10/17/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Suggested Hillary Clinton Had “A Seizure On Camera”

Gateway Pundit: “Hillary Clinton Has Seizure On Camera. Or Maybe It Was Something Else?” Hoft posted a piece repeatedly suggesting that Clinton suffered a seizure on camera. He headlined his piece “Wow! Did Hillary Clinton Just Suffer a Seizure on Camera?” and posted video of Clinton reacting jokingly to a reporter’s question. He commented: “The poor woman is in worse shape than we thought. Hillary Clinton has seizure on camera. Or maybe it was something else?” [The Gateway Pundit, 7/23/16 ]

Clinton Did Not Suffer A Seizure . Associated Press reporter Lisa Lerer, the reporter who asked the question Clinton responded to in Hoft’s video, debunked Hoft’s claim in an August article:

Perhaps eager to avoid answering or maybe just taken aback by our volume, Clinton responded with an exaggerated motion, shaking her head vigorously for a few seconds. Video of the moment shows me holding out my recorder in front of her, laughing and stepping back in surprise. After the exchange, she took a few more photos, exited the shop and greeted supporters waiting outside.

Two months later, that innocuous exchange has become the fodder for one of some Trump supporters' most popular conspiracy theories: her failing health. Where I saw evasiveness, they see seizures. [The Associated Press, 8/12/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Fell For Racist Hoax Video About Anti-Trump Vandalism

Gateway Pundit: “CAUGHT ON VIDEO=> Hillary Supporters Smash ‘Trump Car’ in Black Neighborhood.” Hoft wrote that “YouTuber Joey Salads held a social experiment recently. He parked a car with Trump stickers in a ‘black neighborhood’ to see what happens. It took 30 minutes before the Democrats started looting the car and beating out the windows.” [The Gateway Pundit, 10/17/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Fell For A Hoax Video . The racist Joey Salads video was a hoax. As The Daily Beast noted:

The only problem? The entire video was staged.

Pedro Torres said he was on the fifth floor of a building in Staten Island’s Park Hill neighborhood, when he saw the video being shot in a parking lot outside.

“To be honest with you I was just chilling and I look outside the window and see Joey,” Torres, 17, told The Daily Beast. “I [know he’s] known for making shitty vids, and I [know] they were all fake. I wanted to show the world that the videos were actually fake.” [The Daily Beast, 10/20/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Lie: Trump Would Have Won Popular Vote If Not For “Illegal Vote Tally”

Gateway Pundit: “Without Illegal Vote Tally Trump Would Have Won Popular Vote In A Landslide.” A post by Joe Hoft (Jim’s brother) claimed, “It has been widely reported that there were more than 3 million votes cast by illegal aliens and most, if not all these votes, were cast for Hillary Clinton. When accounting for these votes, Trump beat Clinton by more than 1 million in the popular vote.” [The Gateway Pundit, 11/24/16 ]

“Illegal Aliens” Did Not Cast “3 Million Votes.” Numerous media outlets have debunked the lie -- repeated by Trump -- that undocumented immigrants cast 3 million (or more) votes during the 2016 election. [PolitiFact, 11/18/16 ; Politico , 11/27/16 ; The Washington Post , 11/27/16 ]

Gateway Pundit Thought Closed Captioning On Jumbotron Was Applause Instructions

Gateway Pundit: White House “Ask[ed] For” Applause At Tucson Event . Hoft claimed that the White House asked the audience for “applause” during President Obama’s speech at a 2011 memorial at the University of Arizona following the mass shooting in Tucson.

[ Media Matters , 1/15/11 ]

Gateway Pundit Mistook Closed Captioning For Instructions . The text that Hoft thought featured instructions was actually closed captioning. A spokesperson for the University of Arizona told Media Matters at the time: "The text you see on the screen was part of the closed captioning provided for the individuals in attendance who were hearing impaired." [ Media Matters , 1/18/11 ]

Gateway Pundit Falsely Claimed Obama Was Going To “Ban Sport Fishing”

Gateway Pundit: Obama “Wants To Ban Sport Fishing.” In 2010, Hoft ran the headline "Obama's Latest Assault on Freedom-New regulations Will Ban Sport Fishing." The post claimed that Obama "wants to ban sport fishing." [ Media Matters , 3/10/10 ]

Obama Didn’t Ban Sport Fishing. As PolitiFact noted at the time, conservatives like Hoft were twisting a draft framework that “says nothing about banning fishing. … While the panel's recommendation could change fishing practices in some areas, the framework is still in draft form; the administration has not made any final decisions on what the framework will look like.” Obama did not ban sport fishing during his administration. [PolitiFact, 3/17/10 ]

Gateway Pundit Falsely Claimed Obamacare Allows “‘Forced’ Home Inspections”

False Gateway Pundit Headline: "SHOCKING: Obamacare Provision Will Allow ‘Forced’ Home Inspections." PolitiFact noted that conservative bloggers claimed in 2013 that a provision of the Affordable Care Act allows “forced home inspections” by government agents. It noted that Hoft ran the headline "SHOCKING: Obamacare Provision Will Allow ‘Forced’ Home Inspections." [PolitiFact, 8/21/13 ]

PolitiFact On “Forced” Home Inspections Claim: “Pants On Fire” False. As PolitiFact noted, “The program they pointed to provides grants for voluntary help to at-risk families from trained staff like nurses and social workers. What bloggers describe would be an egregious abuse of the law — not what’s allowed by it. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.” [PolitiFact, 8/21/13 ]

Gateway Pundit Suggested Obama Was “Photoshopped Into Famous Situation Room Photo” Taken During Bin Laden Raid

Gateway Pundit: “It Must Be A Fake.” Hoft ran a post with the headline “Swedish Paper: Obama Photoshopped into Famous Situation Room Photo.” Hoft gave the report credence, writing: “They say Obama was photoshopped into the picture. [The paper] insists that the president was just way too small in the picture. It must be a fake. … Obama was really out golfing that day.” [The Gateway Pundit, 12/8/1 1 ]

There Is No Evidence That Photo Was Photoshopped . [ Media Matters , 12/8/11 ] 

Gateway Pundit Fell For Fake Photo Claiming Obama Patted Melania Trump On The Butt

Gateway Pundit: “Obama Gives Melania Trump A Little Butt Pat On The Way Out The Door. Hoft wrote a January 22 post with the headline “Obama Gives Melania Trump a Little Butt Pat on the Way Out the Door” and embedded an image purporting to show that Obama patted first lady Melania Trump on the butt. From the Google cache of his post:

[Google cache, accessed 1/24/17 ; BuzzFeed, 1/24/17 ]

The Image Gateway Pundit Posted Was Photoshopped . As BuzzFeed noted, the supposed Obama-Melania Trump image is “a very badly Photoshopped image” and “so bad that you can literally still see some of Obama’s original arm in the photo.” Hoft later deleted his post. [BuzzFeed, 1/24/17 ]

Gateway Pundit Fell For Fake Facebook Page To Claim Mass Shooter Was Obama Fan

Gateway Pundit: “This Changes Things- Loughner's Hero Was Barack Obama.” Following the mass shooting in Tucson, AZ, Hoft headlined a 2011 piece about shooter Jared Loughner by writing: "Whoops! This Changes Things- Loughner's Hero Was Barack Obama.” He then linked to the shooter’s supposed Facebook page to claim that “Loughner idolized Barack Obama." [ Media Matters , 1/10/11 ]

The Supposed Facebook Page Spelled Loughner’s Name Incorrectly. Gateway Pundit fell for a hoax Facebook page. The page spelled Loughner’s name as “Laughner” and was one of several fake Facebook pages created after the shooting. Gateway Pundit later removed the article and acknowledged it was “inaccurate.” [ Media Matters , 1/10/11

You got your bs from wikipedia, which is known to be a site that anyone can change. If I pulled wikipedia page that said the exact same thing but changed Gateway Pundit to, say, Salon, or HuffPo, far right to far left, and Trump loving to Obama loving, would you take it as true simply because you live by those sources or would you be a man and call call it out because of the reason I cited in the first sentence?

I am looking to see if what you said, is CoC compliant. That is my only duty here.

It seems that a good many people here overlook that fact, thinking that you have some personal aims toward them. Most have no idea what is involved in Moderation and tend to take any that comes their way as a personal affront instead of learning from that they did to be Moderated in the first place. 

As I do not think it causes me to lose credibility, try view all sides, and do my best to remain neutral -- yet there are also things that I am passionate about. ..  think perhaps you misread my comment, or I just did not make myself clear.

I am a fence sitter - educate  myself on issues and use my conscience in an election as well my comments (research, read multiple sources), not by party .. am fiscally conservative and more liberal on social issues.  Unlike many, I try and leave emotion out of my comments - I try never to insult or tell a fellow poster to leave me alone because they question my stand on a subject .. am not always successful - as I said I am passionate about some things...

I would never question Perrie's credibility .. not sure how you became a we in this, but okay .. Perrie has my respect... my comment was regarding post 5 and Perrie's response of life having shade of gray (there are those that do not see the shades of gray, only black and white) ..

Have a nice day

Thank you for the clarification of your prior comment, as I evidently did misinterpret your meaning. I truly apologize if I have in any way offended you, as it was not intended to do so, merely to explain how I view things. 

I think that there may be a good many others here who are not necessarily lead by their political religious associations, but, are willing to look at how things are presented from both side of an issue, even though they may not choose to voice their opinions openly. 

Again, thank you for the clarification and please accept my apology if I have offended you. 

Gateway Pundit is one the most dishonest "news" sites on the internet.

As long as the seeder is not allowed to use RBR in order to control the discussion to give credibility to garbage, then I have no issue debunking garbage in all of its many forms.  I believe the RBR are fine as they stand because it provides notice to anyone who wants to have open, free ranging discussions to not waste their time.  This also allows the seeder to advertise to his/her preferred audience and participants so little, to no, moderation is required.   I know that I have to avoid RBR because I won't have my thoughts censored by people pushing their agenda.

I learn more by having to research to support what I think I know than by agreeing with people who support my views. 

Although, I freely admit I do prefer discussing topics that interest me with people who have a goal of sharing knowledge instead of acting as if they are playing a team sport trying to annihilate the competition. 

I know that I have to avoid RBR because I won't have my thoughts censored by people pushing their agenda

Pardon my ignorance MCG, but what exactly is a RBR ?

RBR=Red Box Rules

sorry, still lost

is that part of the CoC ive just admitted to not reading >?

RBR=Red Box Rules

Yes.

John!!  Get a hold of yourdamnself!  Give people some fucking credit to be fucking educated enough to know the fucking difference between credible and fake.  While it is true that you are extremely intelligent, you have a propensity to think that the level of intelligence in others is severely lacking when compared to your own. 

Besides, wouldn't it be better to expose people to just how ridiculous those sites are than it would be to shield them from the lies and idiocy?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go recite 50 Hail Mary's for using such unpardonable language.  I'll throw in an extra 50 for the language I'll be using later because I know that none of what I am saying is sinking into that brain of yours.  

is that part of the CoC ive just admitted to not reading >

I haven't read it either.

It is just that I have been a (non-participating) member for years, and would read the updates that Perrie sent to all members.  

In my opinion, RBR is largely be on your best behavior and allow the seeder/author to have his/her ego massaged.

The seeder/author, who needs absolute control of others,  does have the option of starting a private group and trying to attract members and maybe some authoritarians have.  It is difficult to know since the groups are "private".  LOL!

You are absolved. Somebody had to do it...

ONION because they are so much more reliable.

Yep.  I always prefer to get my news from The Onion.

That is how I found out that I could go to the shopping mall in Kansas and have my hair and nails done before or after having an abortion on a whim.

OSM,

That is not media matters.. That is a site I found. If the site shows up on the main scales it is acceptable.

Well said good sister. 

LMAO!!!

That was a joke OSM. That is all you get from the Onion. 

Ah, but Bob, in many cases on NT it IS the deciding factor.  Members don't base their opinions on whether an article or a source or a comment is true or false and contest it, they base their opinons on whether an article or a source or a comment is right-wing or left-wing (opposite their own stance) and use that to declare its illegitimacy. Here members say one of the authors is X-wing, so that makes the whole source biased or the source of false news. 

Gateway Pundit is one the most dishonest "news" sites on the internet.

Even if true, it doesn't really hold itself out that way. By all appearances, it is at least trying to be a real news source. Bad journalism and "fake news" are not quite the same thing. The Onion is fake news and holds itself out as such. Sometimes we end up calling a story "fake news" mainly because we just can't identify with the author's perspective.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of sloppy, irresponsible journalism out there. Sometimes they actually do just make stuff up. Unfortunately, this happens at the New York Times and CNN, also. That doesn't make the two sources equivalent with the GP, but it does mean that a standard of perfect journalistic integrity won't stand as a useful dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable sources.

"Those guys always lie" isn't an argument, nor does one person's impression of the NY Times validate any particular story they might publish. It's up to us to attack or support a story based on the merits in its contents.

I would urge everyone posting articles to try to use more reputable sources whenever possible. Also, if possible, try to use the source that broke the story. A lot of times a story might appear in HuffPost or USA Today or something but actually be linking to some other source like a local paper or TV station. So why not just link to that original story instead?

Great post Tocos! 

From Part 1: 1.2.7   Perrie Halpern R.A.   replied to  TTGA @ 1.2.4     18 hours ago

Not the same at all. Murder and attempted murder are not the same crime because in one case the victim is dead and in the other the victim is not dead. That isn't a difference in degree; it's a difference in nature.

I'm sorry Bob, but we are talking about articles, not people. Any article can be fixed. I have done it often. 

From Part 1:

6.2   Perrie Halpern R.A.   replied to  JBB @ 6     23 hours ago

This is the issue of banning sites. ... I see an inherent problem.

Absolutely!

Once again, we have a "false equivalence" situation, where some members will call even the most distinguished media "fake news". This is probably mostly Bad Faith, but perhaps there are some members so far gone as to truly consider InfoWars to be equivalent to the NYT. It doesn't really matter.

It seems to me that the onus must be on the reader, above all. If I observe that member X is regularly seeding fake news, I simply stop visiting that member's seeds. If some crazies find pleasure in trading stories that are nuts... why not let them? They're hurting no one but themselves.

But everyone who realizes that the stories are fake should cease all interaction with those members. 

Put them in quarantine!

The issue is how do we establish what is "fake news" and what is not. Once that is established, then we can take it from there. 

Last night I found a reasonable source to judge media by. I think that we should use that, as a guideline. If a news source falls into a particular category, it can't be used here. 

Got the link handy - I would be interested in reading the source you found

mediabiasfactcheck

MBFC tries to measure left/right bias. IMHO, that's not the problem. We would need a (reliable) measure of trustworthiness. Good luck!

mediabiasfactcheck

We would need a (reliable) measure of trustworthiness.

Thought that was Fox 'News' , the most watched and trusted 'News' .

You didn't read it carefully then. It does give reliability check. It also has a class of total junk news. 

And Bob, it is just a barometer of what is acceptable and how much credence you want to give a site. . 

You didn't read it carefully then.

Mea culpa... It may not be perfect, but it's certainly better than nothing.

Too much work. Require a poll on every seed/article published, fake news, yes/no, and only let the participants in that discussion decide. I'm basically against blocking any alt-right media sites because that would only encourage the bias choir, plus those sites are so easy to refute and so much fun to mock. What would be more interesting would be to let conservatives decide which three media sources they want blocked from this site, liberals three, and independents three. Implement the ban with severe suspension penalties for breaking it or gaming it by proxy. Let the hilarity ensue.

As the R.A and owner of the site, it is my own opinion that, in the end, you have to make the judgement call on what is and what is not a 'fake news' source.  You know better what the ToS requires and what you want your site to be represented by.

I would venture to say that most of those who post seeds do not really care if they are legitimate news sources or not, as long as it offers the kind of stuff that meets their own agenda.

If left up to the community it is sure to be a difficult issue to nail down, as there will be those on both sides that will consider their own choice of source a legitimate source, while others will find it to be 'fake news'. And the more one sided it is the more one side or the other will defend it.

Just my own take on it. 

Too much work. Require a poll on every seed/article published, fake news, yes/no, and only let the participants in that discussion decide.

Oh no... that was never going to be the case. 

I'm just spit balling. You have lots of free time, right? 

But everyone who realizes that the stories are fake should cease all interaction with those members.

shunning seems a bit barbaric.

shunning seems a bit barbaric.

How would you punish members who regularly post fake news?

First, you have to define "fake". Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it fake.

that would be a decision for Perrie.

exactly...would have to be decided by a neutral person.  

I have been using a combination method. I check reddit, I check here: 

mediabiasfactcheck

If it makes it onto the basic scale it is allowed. If a specific article from any publication becomes known as fake news, I think it should be pulled in the future. I also think that articles that are Op/Eds should be marked as such in the title as to not to confuse it with actual news. 

Agreed. And sometimes articles/seeds that are meant to be opinion pieces or satire are posted without the proper associated tags and leads to some confusion and misunderstandings. I get the feeling that some of the tag omissions are deliberate in order to create the kind of results that are felt sure to come. 

Just my own opinion. 

Yes, that's how I differentiate between Atlas Shrugged and Gatestone Institute.  Atlas Shrugged posts news stories that most American mainstream media won't touch because of overly-zealous PC, but often an actual regular news source is included.  However, the articles often also include Pamela Geller's personal opinion which one may or may not agree with.  I think that Gatestone Institute is more of an op/ed source, although the facts that are quoted or stated therein are not false but because the source is considered by many members to be biased (sometimes only because of John Bolton's presence although he authors very few articles) the true facts in the articles are ignored or simply blanket-labelled as biased. I find it interesting that many articles that are critical of radical Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism are authored by Muslims themselves, but they are still discounted by NT members because of the source.

would have to be decided by a neutral person

It seems unreasonable to expect some arbiter to assess the truthfulness of every story or even the reliability of every source. That seems like a process for the discussion. If you have a reason to believe a story is fake, then you should say why. Support a claim with real evidence. Too often we see people try to claim that is story is false based solely on the source. That's just not a valid argument.

Even Gateway Pundit has to be publishing a true story now and then. Actually, I would bet most of their stories are probably true. A quick look at their front page reveals a bunch of stories that are being carried on other websites. Like most outlets, they probably get a lot of their stories from some other journalist outfit like AP or Reuters. Or they can just write "CNN is reporting that . . . " 

I am lurking again today.  So far I like what I see.  

From Part 1:

We can do that... I am pretty sure I said that already.

Furthermore, the author can contact administration to remove all off topic / meta comments. Intentional disruption of an article is defined as "A continuous exchange of posts between two or more members, which goes off topic, meta and/or are personal attacks resulting in the disruption of the article". Any/all off topic or meta comments or CoC violations can be removed by moderators.

I think this need some revisions.

Noticed that seeders will abuse the off topic violation privilege by only selecting or warning the few they dislike.  All off topic comments should be treated equally or not at all.

Agreed. 

OK Here is an issue that I have not seen properly addressed, and I remembered because of a flag I just got.

What if the title of an article is offensive, but it is from the source material? How do we treat this?

but it is from the source material? How do we treat this?

Flag it for being off topic! N F That won't work. How about we expect adults to move on to another seed...

Flag it for being off topic! N F That won't work. How about we expect adults to move on to another seed...

The author should be the only one who flags for off topic since many authors/seeders here happen to like the off topic trip.

The author should be the only one who flags for off topic since many authors/seeders here happen to like the off topic trip.

Okay it took me a minute or 5 but I found it. 

CoC part 1:

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.

thenewstalkers

Which is it? 

Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say I'm in a deep discussion with another member on a topic, getting good debate, and someone, let's call him "Jim" pipes in with a snarky bullshit comment.

Can I say "Hey Jim!  Did you hear a zipper?  Then why is your mouth open?"

let's call him "Jim" pipes in with a snarky bullshit comment.

Can I say "Hey Jim!  Did you hear a zipper?  Then why is your mouth open?"

Well, if things are humming along as they should, the snarky BS comment should be flagged (let's say for no value or off topic, or skirting) and should be removed. That would require the second commenter to say nothing, otherwise they get cited, too. 

No?

So I can't tell them to shut their cock holster?

That sounds the same as telling someone to fuck off. IMO, anyway

That sounds the same as telling someone to fuck off

Yea, but the way Unc does it, it's kinda sexy, no ?

It's ok Trout Giggles, you can tell me to "fuck off" cause to me , that's a compliment.

That sounds the same as telling someone to fuck off. IMO, anyway

Actually it's quite a bit worse. Where I grew up you could tell someone to F-off and get away with it but if you said what he said you'd be in a fist fight.

Nope, not telling anybody ever again on NT to fuck off. Perrie slapped my hand with a ruler and I got the point

Trout,

It has been a long time since I was on NV. Could members tell each other to shut up or variations of that?

I don't think they could when we had moderators. I could be wrong. I used to see STFU a lot after the moderators left

I don't know about Trout,

but I always asked them pretty pleas with sugar on top.

the snarky BS comment should be flagged

One person in particular does this a LOT...short snarky comments.

One? LOL!

I'm laughing with you

Members tell other members to STFU on NT all the time. 

First, you are not allowed to call anyone a troll. That is an insult. 

Second, the only agenda here is to get a working CoC, which you have not contributed to after 2 days.

No, I point out there is a troll in the dungeon and nothing is done.

Probably should use a different analogy.  Who let the troll in the dungeon?

IMHO, NO ONE has the right to tell any one else here on NT to shut up, STFU, or in any other context. It is not their board. It is not their place to tell ANYONE else that they can't voice their own opinion, belief or POV. If it is an insult someone has commented to you, then you can flag it and let the Mods take care of it. But, as far as telling someone to shut up in any manner, be it words or memes, is, in my own opinion, not fair.

Did that not go on, on NV? I kind of remember seeing it there.

Who did I call a troll? I don't see any names?

The description that I removed was more than just a clue, so you didn't need to say a name.

Then why is your mouth open?"

You could probably think it. If you say/type it, people are going to wonder if you are clairvoyant..........or worse, a stalker with cameras placed in strategic areas. I have to agree. That is borderline dissing another user and also skirting. JMHO

And hey, couldn't you pick another name?

I am new here so forgive me if I am way out of line here but who would be against one simple golden rule. Treat others like you would be treated. 

It has been my experience on other forums that Codes of Conduct get changed over and over again due to a handful of complainers. The rules get changed to quiet the complainers but the complainers never get quiet because complaining is all they do. 

It would be better to stick to a simple set of rules centered around respect for one another. End of story. 

I am new here so forgive me if I am way out of line here but who would be against one simple golden rule. Treat others like you would be treated.

In a perfect world that would work wonderfully.   Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.  

Some folks just can't accept anyone who is not of like mind and feel a need to belittle and/or mock them.   It's like Jr High all over again in  here sometimes.

Then deal with those people. It doesn't make sense to me to change the rules for everyone when you are trying to curtail a handful of people. 

Forgive me but I've never been a believer in blanket punishment. The squeeky wheel gets the oil. 

And if people would learn that not every body likes him or her. If someone is not replying to you, that's a good indication they don;t like you, so stop commenting to them. And then you have fewer fights

No argument there but i think Perrie is trying to be more inclusive with this site not less.   The golden rule doesn't work here any better than it works in the real world.   No amount of control or censorship is going to change that.

Trust the process here, i think Perrie is on the right track.

Thanks Sparty

And yes, the point of going through all of this, is for the community to be a big part of the process and not some arbitrary rules. We want the community to be vested in this. 

I don't like to shut anyone out when it comes to discussions. However, I do make it clear how a discussion will be held if they wish to have  one with me. There are some who are unable or unwilling to do so, however, there have been some who have chosen to agree to my terms and we have had some very informative and enlightening discussions from which I have learned from them. For me, that is purpose of having a discussion or debate, sharing our own thoughts, opinions and beliefs of topic that concern us and learning from each other. 

To me, there is nothing to be learned from flame wars or hate fests other than how truly desperate or hateful some people can choose to behave.

It's how I operate in real life. If I don't like a person I ignore them as much as I can until I need something from them concerning work. I don't speak to them, I don't socialize with them, I don't even grunt at them. It probably makes me a more miserable person, but I like myself like this

Giggles, everyone has their own way of dealing with their own issues in life, and there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone has a different personality and deal with things differently. If how you deal with yours makes life easier for you to deal with, then that is what you should do. There are some people in my life that I ignore as well, as they try to make life for others as miserable as their own. I have enough to deal with in my own life and I don't need others to add to it by their behavior towards me. 

I am sorry if what I said offended you in any way, it was not meant to do so. 

Treat others like you would be treated

I have different needs,

and enjoy being treated like crap.

.

All joking aside, I've stated similar thoughts prior already, maybe some slight tweaking, but don't over due it.

Iggy,

We tried the golden rule... it didn't work. 

Our original idea is to act like we were all at a dinner party. If you wouldn't say it at a dinner party, then don't say it here. 

If you wouldn't say it at a dinner party, then don't say it here.

You've obviously never accompanied moi' to a dinner party.

I'm little different there, than I am anywhere

else. I enjoy dental flossing with my shoe laces wherever my screwy life takes me

This is understandable. I for one however seek out these forums to talk about issues that would not be polite to talk about at the dinner table. Mommy always told us not to talk about politics or religion. 

Mommy always told us not to talk about politics or religion.

Well, those are OK here.. just be nice

Mommy always told us not to talk about politics or religion.

That's why I go to the BAR to discuss these delicate subjects!

Btw.. can you or anyone else tell me why a big swarth of our community is missing from this discussion? I find that disconcerting. It like they are indirectly telling us they don't care about the rules, because for them it will be business as usual. 

Am I reading that wrong?

Nope because that is the message I'm getting. Even if they are lurking, they could just say they are so you would know they give a shit

stop cutting in front of me!

or

I'm gonna pull your pig tails

Nope because that is the message I'm getting. Even if they are lurking, they could just say they are so you would know they give a shit

Well, then they better not complain when the hammer comes down on them, which of course you know that they will, with cries of bias, too. 

Now that I am thinking about it, why should members who didn't participate, get ballots? In fact, it could be counterproductive to this whole procedure.

Agreed. If they don't want to be part of the community when it comes to addressing the rules of the forum, then they obviously don't care what is determined, they have no intention of complying anyway, or will simply choose to endlessly do as they please anyway and then complain when they are called on it. 

In fact, it could be counterproductive to this whole procedure.

If they haven't read the arguments for and against how can they know the repercussion's of their vote.

Have to agree with you and Perrie, but

I'm sure there are many who are legitimately ab sent, not so sure about those

posting elsewhere as this is conducted

Hi!!! I'm here and reading. I commented yesterday about the heated group

Don't worry!! I am checking both days!

Deputy Bad Dawg Fish may have gotten impatient waiting for you to Marshal Plan Him, and he opened a new School of Fish, and led away the giggling gaggle cause they didn't give a flock...

Or, they had other commitments on a nice day,      I don't know, but it is just like in an election, don't complain, F U Didn't even bother to vote, especially when you are allowing us to write N vote on some New Bi-laws, though not sexual ones.

don't complain, F U Didn't even bother to vote, especially when you are allowing us to write N vote on some New Bi-laws

Totally agree. If they don't care enough to participate as Members when they have the chance to make their own ideas, preferences and choices known, then their complaints about the rules here hold little credibility.

"Am I reading that wrong?"

I get the same vibes. And what surprises me most, is that some of those who are not here voicing their opinions or ideas are some who complain about how the site works in various discussions. Odd, no?

Raven,

I have noticed that, too. Maybe if they didn't care enough to be here they shouldn't get ballots?

no ballots!

I agree. If they don't care enough to participate as a Member, then they should not have the right to vote as a Member on any changes.

where shall I go to dance then...

If the CoC update had happened while I was nursing my broken ankle, I would have understood why I didn't get a ballot. If someone is here and lurking, they should probably speak up or forever hold their piece...at least until next year.

And if someone is perfectly fine with the rules, then maybe they don't want to vote

Kathleen,

I am watching them posting on other articles and saying nothing of value here. That is the first time in the history of NT that has ever happened. 

I agree..

And I have taken into consideration the few people who said they would be away. That accounts for 2, LOL.. 

That is the first time in the history of NT that has ever happened.

Keep your friend close, and your enemies closer...

hey wait a minute

this is the closest we've ever been,

what's going on here, what are you implying ?

I have to disagree with that.  

Some folks are simply not the type to speak up.   Does that make their vote any less valuable?   Debatable.  

We complain about how few of our electorate vote in our elections and yet it's okay here to artificially limit the number who can vote?   That makes little sense to me.    Limiting ballots might be a bad thing for more than one reason.   Not the least of which is only the most vocal of people will help steer the COC.   Not necessarily a good thing in my mind.

I get why you might limit it but there is two sides to this story i think.

I just back from vacation yesterday and will be leaving early tomorrow morning for Columbia MO for a day or maybe more. 

I don't have anything to add. The only complaint I have with the CoC is not going to be changed. So there's that. 

I prefer to get off everyday

I can.

But a nice gesture on your part BF

Sorry you feel that way Kavika. We are hoping otherwise. 

Some folks are simply not the type to speak up.   Does that make their vote any less valuable?   Debatable.

Doubtful... since they are speaking up plenty on the site today and yesterday. In 2 days they could say something and like I said, this has never happened before, so I find it shocking. 

Like i said, i hear what you're saying but i'm not sure thats the case for everyone.   Regardless, this is more say than a group usually gets in blogs like this so it is infinitely better no matter how its done.

Also take into consideration that people have been reading this discussion on the front page for 2 days.. so it's not like they don't know what's going on as they comment elsewhere. In politics we would call that voter apathy. 

But thanks for finding an upside in the decision. 

Here is the upside sparty.. you're getting your ballot!! LOL!

Anyone or everyone can see this on the front page when they log on so I have to come to the conclusion that it is just business as usual to some. Indifference I guess.

Some have been absent.

Oh .... i don't think everyone here thinks that's a good thing.

You stated not everyone gets off everyday.

I stated I like to get off everyday I can.

I thought you also had good intentions, in stating people have legitimate reasons for their absence, well some for sure. Probably not the ones commenting on other seeds as we are here.

that's all

I noticed that too after I finished reading through part 1. I had a test to study for  so I'm jumping in now . 

It's possible that many members are not quite so demanding about pushing their personal viewpoints that whatever changes are made to the existing rules will not affect them that much anyway.  Perhaps most of the members have an attitude of live and let live and don't get involved in the heavy disagreements that pervade the front page. In their case, it's probably "Que sera sera".

Can You get rid of the "Skirting" thingy ?

For one....it does sound kinda Ghetto, Misogynistic, sexist and just flat out Weird, when it's a weirdo doing it.

For another....Skirting is a good thing MORE times than NOT . 

If they lose the 'skirting' we'll see your slip per.

Or, you and eye will c and accumulate far more violations.

You need to ask can we make it more difficult to be considered for a skirt, that is obviously too tight for the dislikes of us.

Thank you for EXPANDING on my "For One" reason even further. 

Tada ! 

"Death wishing: In the past, death wishing was only not allowed to other members. Do we extend it to public figures / parties?" Yesterday I posted "I do think we should be able to Death Wish Politicians, Public Figures, and other Countries" and you asked me "Why? What is your case?" but I couldn't because commenting was closed so I'll do it now. As far as other Countries go we could be a war or they may have done something and someone might want to say "we should bomb them" or " we should nuke little Kim" or something along those lines. Public figures or Criminals in the News, it's common for people to call out for death penalties or violent retribution if someone has done something they find to be particularly offensive. Politicians, if when Dick Cheney was in office and he shot that dude in the face if someone said "I wish it was Cheney who got shot in the face" or if it was Cheney who got shot and someone said " I hope he doesn't pull through" would you really be that offended. Politicians might also be accused of a crime or treason and so someone might say "death to traitors".  We're Adults here if anyone is so protective of their favorite politician that they can't handle someone death wishing them then they need to learn to deal with it. We shouldn't be Death Wishing political parties (or other groups who's members are likely members of this site) because many of our members belong to political parties so death wishing a party is death wishing other members. I think there should be no protection for a member who happens to be from a Country that someone Death Wishes as long as it's not personal, If an Iranian wants to post here calling for "Death to America" I think I can handle it. Just in case you do make it against the rules I want to wish for the death of all politicians before the rule goes into effect.

I think I can handle it

I would break

dance down and cry, myself.

Zuksam,

I tend to agree with you.. but we will have to see how this all shakes out. 

I do not see how saying 'I wish s/he was dead' is adding to any discussion.

Just look at, for example, what happened when Kathy Griffin held up a head of trump.

I'd like to see something like an agree to disagree. 

Similar to an impasse but not as harsh because it seems like once the dead horse is beat and is at the glue factory only then is an impasse called and usually after things have become hostile on one or both sides.

Agree to disagree and nip it in the bud before things get heated.  Someone doesn't have to see things exactly "your" way.  Agree to disagree and move on.  You're not going to win anyone over by being aggressive/insulting you're just going to put the other person on the defensive.

Gee, I never thought of impasse that way before... 

I do like the agree to disagree... what should be the outcome after that is said?

what should be the outcome after that is said?

Disagreement about agreeing ?

I'm not 100% certain as I don't know the limits of an impasse.  From what I've seen it basically shuts one person out of the conversation.

With an agree to disagree they could still approach each other with no snark and basically acting like an adult.  I'd have to see the full definition of an impasse and see what limits it has.

I'm not 100% certain as I don't know the limits of an impasse.  From what I've seen it basically shuts one person out of the conversation.

With an agree to disagree they could still approach each other with no snark and basically acting like an adult.  I'd have to see the full definition of an impasse and see what limits it has.

Impasse is supposed to work pretty much the same way as agree to disagree.. Once someone calls it there is not one last shot by the caller of the impasse and there is no more discussion. I guess the difference is with the agree to disagree, is that they could move on to a different topic, hypothetically.. but the same would be true with the impasse. 

Ok so it's pretty similar but I'd say that yes the agree to disagree leaves more room for open discussion after the call rather than shutting down all communication.

Most of the time that I've seen an impasse called it's already gotten past the point of civility and is used to shut everything down.

This doesn't mean that once an agree to disagree has been enacted that either party can continue with the topic it's more of a be an adult and go about your day type thing.

We are all people with different opinions and everyone doesn't have to see things "your" way.  We can still have disagreements and hopefully this could help get rid of the my way or the highway type of circular arguments.

OK..I will put that up for a vote. I can kind of see your point, although impasse used to do what you are describing. 

One could disagree with another on a specific point rather that on the rest of the issues raised in their debate. In that case IMPASSE would stifle what could be a meaningful discussion. So then a member could simply say I disagree with that, but do want to continue our discussion on the other issues, (or say let's agree to disagree on that particular point) and if the other party still pushes the item of disagreement, then what the hell, post IMPASSE. 

I have actually seen that time and again. People just debating (arguing) the same points with neither side budging. At some point you would think that 'this is going nowhere'.

We still have not decided anything on the use of the word bigo. Should they be allowed or not? Presently they are not. If someone makes a comment that is bigoted, is that a matter strictly for the mods or should members be able to use that term?

Another hard one.

Ie. There is a difference in saying 'that is a bigoted comment' to saying 'you are bigot'.

a bigoted comment'

can be made by a bigot, and a non bigot as well

There is a difference in saying 'that is a bigoted comment' to saying 'you are bigot'.

I agree. 

However, "bigoted comment" can be in the eye of the beholder.

You cannot call someone a bigot.  You can say a comment is bigoted.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Well...you said their was a difference.  I just provided guidance on the difference.

What guidance did you provide other than basically repeating what I said? 

Also reading your post below you act as if the persecution of gay people is a relatively new phenomenon, it is not. It has been going on for a long time. You are basically stating that people can be gay as long as they do not have sex.

Also you never responded to my questions on the other thread, should I re-post them?

You are basically stating that people can be gay as long as they do not have sex.

Nope.  Never said that.  All I have said is my Religious convictions are that homosexual acts are a sin.  Bestiality is a sin.  Adultery is a sin.  Those are things I believe.  But I've never condemned anyone for any of it.  And I wont.  Because I don't care.  I don't give a shit if a guy wants to smoke pole, or if a woman wants to munch carpet.  I don't care if a guy wants to bone a goat (as long as it's not one of my goats).  I don't care if a guy wants to step out on his wife (as long as it's not with my wife).  Will I think any less of someone if they do any of these things.  No.  (Well, the goat thing might give me pause).  Do what you want with your life.  Not my circus, not my monkeys.  

If a comment is bigoted or racist it can be dealt with, flag it. Calling someone a bigot is an insult and claiming their comment is bigoted in the comments is the same as calling out that you flagged them for any other COC violation. People argue enough here they don't need any sharp sticks.

Either you are not getting it at all, or you are getting it much better than expected. Or perhaps you are just a glutton for punishment.

I guess it doesn't matter if members can use a word or not. Both the left and the right on this site both have problems with the concept of free speech.

As far as bigoted comments go, you be the judge. Let your assistants or bosses, whatever they may or think they may be, make initial judgements when you aren't around. They will all be subjective. When you come back on if complaints are made it will be up to you for a final determination. It will also be subjective. It is your subjectivity members must learn to deal with. In case I lost you there, it is consistency which I am speaking of.

Take a hard look at the early days of the Vine. There is a tool there that cut down on some of the miscreant behavior on articles as well as condensing some of the work load for moderators.

Remember, Newsvine went from being just another social site to becoming one of the top dogs of social media in a very short period of time and the fact that NBC outbid the others is a testament to the technical quality of the programming, ease of use for and popularity of members.

One of if not the biggest complaint members had when NBC switched the Vine to nations was the loss of Author Moderation.

Trolls won't like it. If any of your current assistants have their own little power trip going they won't like it. Set up and run properly the basic arguments that will be thrown against this idea will be easy to deal with.

Owl,

I got author moderated right off from several articles on the old vine. It is why we didn't have it here. Talk about power trips. If you are worried about mods with trips... members can get them, too and spite will kick in very quickly.

That is why the moderators come from the community and go back to the community. It holds them accountable... and they are always accountable to me. I have chewed out many a mod for doing the wrong thing, and that is why we also log all comments that are removed. It's so I can correct an error. 

It is why we didn't have it here.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!

I experienced the same thing that you did on NV.  Hated it!

Owl booted me shortly before NV demise.

I responded creatively to one who suggested I live stream my suicide.

Funny how I got the boot, but antagonizer got a verbal slight scolding.

There is no one going to cyber bully my stubborn ass, but some more vulnerable ones, could possibly interpret a little more pain from it. As I just stated, negativity can make me nastier, stronger, and even more creative, than positive reinforcement.

We must been separated at birth, LOL!

As I just stated, negativity can make me nastier, stronger, and even more creative, than positive reinforcement.

I think that it does that to most people Iggy.

Perrie Cowgirl ?

And just how do you hold them accountable? Do you shame them? Tell them they can't be mods again until they change their ways?

"I got author moderated right off from several articles on the old vine. It is why we didn't have it here. Talk about power trips. If you are worried about mods with trips... members can get them, too and spite will kick in very quickly."

You aren't going to tell us that you were an angel on the Vine now are you?  Tell me, aren't members using the RBRs and whatever other sub rules or additional rules you have here and there on the same power trip?

Of course individuals get on power trips and yes they do get out of hand, especially when site moderators don't do their jobs. I can name a number of those authors that chased you away. You disagreed with them and that is all it would take.

Obviously you didn't stick around long enough to really observe author moderation. You know even the ones who chased you away were also having less meta problems on their own articles even though most of the time they were bait articles to begin with. Will everyone in the room who has ever been chased by Soph please raise their hands. Are you being honest? How about raising your hands if you ever chased somebody off of one of your articles because you couldn't counter their arguments.

Rather than allowing your own bad experiences to slam your mind shut like a steel trap why don't you learn a little bit about how it works?

Big problem. Having a conversation not disjointed by off topic tangents, meta disruptions, accusations and snide remarks is next to impossible on NT. Author moderators can only delete comments or block a member from participating in that one article only. This can lead to echo chamber conversations but heck, doesn't every comment count? The real childishness comes into play when someone decides to chase someone off of an article because it was done to them.

Here is the real deal. Disrupted articles, meta behavior they draw lots of action. Cha-ching. Smooth flowing serious conversations can last a long time, but not so much a generating of numerous hits.

The site needs cash flow to operate, you say you want good conversations. To have it both ways, you have to play it both ways.

You have a funny way of telling your stories as though you know what a discussion is about. Author moderators disappeared long before the demise of Newsvine. The topic isn't Nation Administrators. Your behavior the last days of the Vine were about average which would have made it easy for you to get booted out of the DA Nation.

None of this is about any of that  I think it would be nice if you actually spoke to the topic and not just typical story telling about what did or didn't happen another time and another place. I was under the impression that this was a conversation about diminishing meta on NT not engaging in it.

Tell me, aren't members using the RBRs and whatever other sub rules or additional rules you have here and there on the same power trip?

I can tell you that I have used the Red Box Rules on the articles that I have posted on NT, not because I am on any kind of "power trip", but, because I will not baby-sit a bunch of 2 y/o acting Members who think it their right to come on my articles and create chaos and insult other Members. In all the articles I have posted and used the RBR's I have NEVER had to ask a Mod to delete any comments or told anyone to leave my article. Why? Because those who want to play their 2/yo games know full well they will not be tolerated on my articles, so there is little point in them even trying to play their games on them. Another reason, is some people don't like RBR's and won't post on articles those that use them. I don't worry about those who don't like them, as if someone truly is interested on the topic that I post they will not likely let RBR's stop them from participating in the discussions.

So a 'power trip' is not the only reason Members here choose to use the RBR's for their articles/seeds. 

From part 1:

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?

Where in my post did I use the term bigot Uncle Bruce? 

I believe in the Bible. I believe that homosexual acts are a sin. Am I a bigot because of that belief?

I really could not care less what you believe Uncle Bruce. What you DO about your belief may be a concern however...

Dulay,

Bruce was setting that forth as a point of discussion, not his personal beliefs. He agrees it is what you do with your belief. Just had a long discussion with him about that .. we are all on the same page.

Bruce was setting that forth as a point of discussion

By throwing a 'BS flag'? Interesting way to start a 'discussion'. 

I really could not care less what you believe Uncle Bruce. What you DO about your belief may be a concern however...

Dulay, this is exactly why I was bringing this up.  The issue of Bigoted comments.  As Perrie has stated, that will be a flagging issue.  But we have to set some kind of standard for what is considered a bigoted comment.  Because as soon as we have that feature, every Christian on the site that opines about THEIR religious convictions about homosexuality being a sin is going to be flagged for making a bigoted comment.  

every Christian on the site that opines about THEIR religious convictions about homosexuality being a sin is going to be flagged for making a bigoted comment.

I'd wonder why you feel an obligation to express bigoted opinions about gays.    In my view such comments should be treated in exactly the same way as if the target of that hate was mixed-race couples, women, blacks, or any other minority group which historically has been targeted for harm by Christian extremists and other haters.

This is a carry-over from Part 1, but I think it's appropriate here:

thenewstalkers
I believe in the Bible. I believe that homosexual acts are a sin. Am I a bigot because of that belief?

YES! The fact that you can identify the source of your bigotry does not make it any less condemnable.and contemptible.

---------------------

If we can identify a bigot, why is it not permissible to say it?

This is a problem with quite a few cases: when we can demonstrate that a member has said something that was previously proven false... why is it not permissible to call a liar a liar?

When a member bends himself into a pretzel to avoid criticizing White Supremacists, is it OK to call that person a fellow traveler... by name?

As long as we attempt to manage manners through forbidding this or that, we'll have this kind of question. If we turn the subject around, though...

"Be polite" solves the problem. It is impolite to call anyone a liar... even if they are a liar.

YES! The fact that you can identify the source of your bigotry does not make it any less condemnable.and contemptible.

Bull-fucking-shit.  Societal norms change, and all of a sudden an entire class of people are now bigots.  Bullshit.  The problem is how you have perceived the classification of the sin.  Note that I said "Homosexual acts".  Did I say Homosexuals?  NO.  I said homosexual acts.  Because...wait for it...That's how Paul addressed it in the New Testament.  He never addressed the homosexual, only the act.  

Was St. Paul homophobic? Some people come to that unfortunate conclusion when reading some of his writings about homosexuality such as   Romans 1:24-27 ;   1Corinthians 6:9-10 ; and   1Tim 1:10 . In particular, it must be noted that, in the Greco-Roman world of which Paul was a part, it was not uncommon for boys or young men to be kept for the purposes of prostitution. When Paul refers to “Sodomites” (1Cor 6:9), he is referring to those adults who used such boys for their own sexual indulgence. Likewise, Paul’s references to these types of acts must be seen within his more general warnings against any kind of sexual promiscuity. In essence, Paul is warning about any actions that will lead to sexuality becoming idolatrous – i.e. people seeking their   ultimate   joy and meaning in sexuality per se.

Paul’s references to homosexual acts were not particularly controversial to early Christians who knew that the holiness code of Leviticus forbad homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13). Paul was merely reaffirming that which was held by faithful Jews and early Christians. We have no evidence that there was a movement afoot in Corinth to press for wider acceptance of same-sex activity. Paul does not single out homosexuality but refers to it within a list of other acts that were accepted as idolatrous but were now to be left behind by those who had chosen Jesus. So, although is not homophobic, he is clearly against any form of homosexual activity. Based on Scripture, the Catholic Church teaches that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law.” (CCC 2357) At the same time, the Church teaches that people with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC 2357)

That was a test, and you failed miserably.  As expected.

If we can identify a bigot, why is it not permissible to say it?

Because no good ever came out of it. You can say that is a bigoted remark and flag it. We will be taking bigotry more seriously now.. get enough of them and you may have to find a new home.

Liar is subjective as use on the site most of the time. Then there is the fallout again. You can say that comment is not truthful. You can call a comment a lie. You can't call a member a liar.

You can not prove any member here is a White Supremacist unless they say so. If they do, have at it.

Because no good ever came out of it.

So members can make bigoted or racist comments, but can't be called out on it...That makes no sense, never has, never will.

Kavika..

We are implementing a new system. 

You can say, "That is a horrible bigoted remark", flag it and soon be able to mark it accordingly. 

If the mod agrees, it will be logged that way... Bigoted. 

Get enough of them, it will earn you the boot out the door. Now we are going to have to define what that means... for those gray areas... 

Happy?

Happy?

I'm delighted. I'll be waiting on the ''plantation'' doing nothing and letting the government take care of me while I await the results of said policy.

As I said (and OMG, Bruce also said) we can make the list of forbidden words as long as we want... the skirters will just find another synonym.

Simplify! Turn the rule around: "Be polite!" If a post is rude, it's in violation.

I said "White Supremacist fellow traveler", which is something demonstrated by a persons behavior... but never mind. Water under the bridge...

OK open for business!

Being as the comments here can be seen on the FP, I am hoping to see some other Members participating here at this point. The more input the better. While there has been a lot of good ideas presented thus far, I feel sure that there are some that have not yet been offered. I guess we will see. 

Just like with NV, if an article is about a democrat, the right swarms all over it. If it's about a republican, the left swarms all over it. Neither side is right or wrong, just the way it is. The extraneous comments, the snide comments, the comments that add nothing to the conversation....it gets old. Not really off topic, but not really fostering an atmosphere of, "lets debate an issue" either. 

.

I have posted articles and had one off topic comment after another, even after I *DID* post RBR. Perhaps RBR's need to go away and just adopt them as the norm, instead of having to scream it out. We are all adults here, if you can't stay on topic, or debate without saying, "Well, but....what about...[insert politician here]!!!!", then maybe an adult debate isn't something you are capable of. 

.

Insults without actually naming who the target is. It's still an insult. How do you address that? 

Insults without actually naming who the target is. It's still an insult. How do you address that?

Well, until now they were marked as skirting. There has been discussion here that any violation is a violation.. sill on the fence about that. 

Btw.. glad to see you could make it...

I apologize for my irritability. We have discussed what's going on with me privately and I want it to stay that way....but irritability is....part of, "that". In any case.... When someone attacks me, I attack back. That's just the way I am. When I am asked a real question? I respond in kind. My response to OSM on my now deleted article the other day? Was intentional. I knew it would get flagged and deleted. I did it to prove a point. I know, I know, just flag it. But that doesn't always work either. I have flagged comments before that were OBVIOUS CoC violations and nothing was done. I get it, you cannot be here every minute of every single day.. 

.

Perhaps if a seeder is posting an article as an original work, you should give them the ability to moderate their own articles to a degree? With oversight given to the mods. Not sure how that would work but...just a thought. 

In any case. You are a saint, for putting up with me, and I appreciate it. 

The extravaganza is finally open when I'm around??  OMG OMG, I am SO excited!!  I don't even know where to BEGIN!

How about what matters to you?

How about what matters to you?

Lenny is an old school goat humper... But we love him.. 

Just messing with ya Lenny! Good to see ya buddy. 

I have a policy question.

The CoC prohibits copyright infringement, but I keep coming across seeded articles from commercial sources being reproduced here in full (or nearly in full).

Maybe I'm missing something, but is that not an issue?

Hi Dig, 

No it is not, so long as they have the url of the site it came from. The benefit to them is they get the backlinks.

OK. Thanks.

Although I don't usually post the url, I always give credit to the author (if available) and source, and name of composer or artist as I have been doing with my Famous Photographers series. "Fair use" of copyrighted material for specific purposes, such as education (i.e. technique, history, sociology all apply), comment, etc. are permitted legal uses.  Without those exceptions NOTHING except originally authored or created items could be posted on social news sites such as this unless actual permission is obtained by the holder of the copyring.  Copyright laws also allow for short quotations if credit is given.

I confess to being one of the lurkers. I have read through all the comments. Where an article is seeded from doesn’t really bother me. I can and do ignore certain articles and members as a self imposed rule.
It would be nice if people could be more civil and respectful of each other’s opinions. I don’t understand why some people feel the need to try and talk down to, name call or insult others. I realize though that common courtesy is not enforceable by rules and some people live for the fight.
Having said that, I agree with a few others. If skirting which is basically a thinly disguised insult is going to be allowed then 12 skirting violations every month is too many. Fewer skirtings to equal a CoC.
Just my two cents
Have a good night all!

Thanks for your input, Jane! It seems this will be on the ballot.

Ok, there are several members suggesting several new rules and restrictions, so I'm going to take the opposite tack and say that we need LESS rules, not more.  We are being treated like schoolchildren, and by an actual schoolteacher too!  If some need more rules, they can start their own 'Snowflake' group and bring in all the rules their little snowflake hearts desire! 

No more rules, who's with me?

opposite tack and say that we need LESS rules, not more.

Oh hey, I am with ya Lenny. But lets be honest, we gotta have some. If not, this site will turn into the last 6 months of NV, and no one wants that. 

OK you guys..

Yes I am a teacher.. but I am not trying to smother anyone. I am more inclined in tweaking what we have than adding to them.

Lenny questions.. how long were you on NV? Did you like the last 6 mo?

The last six months of NV were like the old west... No rules, lots of brutality. It wasn't a good thing. 

Yes I am a teacher.. but I am not trying to smother anyone.

I spent a few years teaching college kids... Big difference. 

"they can start their own 'Snowflake' group and bring in all the rules their little snowflake hearts desire! "

Lenny!!  Are you doing this just to tick me off????

(big grin)

Less rules.  A few good rules.

So since we are on the subject, is it a CoC violation to have an avatar of a busty, (clothed), woman using a jump rope? 

As long as she is clothed I don't care. 

even that should be stationary, jumping around  would really make things difficult to read

As long as she is clothed I don't care.

It was my attempt at humor. Sorry. 

I laughed.. you just couldn't hear through the screen.

is it a CoC violation to have an avatar of a busty, (clothed), woman using a jump rope?

That would depend on several factors.  First, what is she doing with the jump rope?  Second, how busty?  Third, what is your definition of "clothed"?  It can mean anything from a fur coat to "not quite nekkid".  If you care to post the picture, I'd be happy to do some research and give you an opinion in....oh, two or three hours maybe. 

More seriously, while there is a rule about nudity, I don't think that "suggestive" is mentioned.  By the way, both my daughter and myself thought your present avatar was hilarious.  I don't think that I'll let my grandchildren see it, though.  That would require way too much explanation and they are far too sophisticated for their ages now.

Perrie,

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?

In regard to this, I believe that changing the title of a seeded article that is under copyright, may be a violation of the copyright laws.  You may want to consult an attorney about this one.

First, what is she doing with the jump rope?

Jumping over it? 

Second, how busty?

..........very? 

Third, what is your definition of "clothed"?

Nipples covered. 

More seriously, while there is a rule about nudity, I don't think that "suggestive" is mentioned. 

Nudity is forbidden, as far as I know. 

TTGA,

Now that I think about it, I think you are right. I will double check with my SIL, who is an intellectual property lawyer.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. 

OK, it's after 12 so I think this part of the update is over. Let me explain where we go from here:

I look over all the comments and make a list of the items not covered in the original article and change the ones that were discussed to meet the groups requirements. This will be presented to the group. 

Then those of you who participated, will receive a code that will give you a ballot. This can only be used once. On the outcome of the ballot, the CoC will get an update, which will be presented to the group and will replace the old one. 

Thank you to everyone who took the time to be a part of this.  

This article is now closed.