The New Updated CoC
Below is the new updated CoC, restructured for ease of use. I will be taking comments and questions today.
Code of Conduct (CoC)
The Code of Conduct (CoC) guides interpersonal interactions and presented content (articles, messages, images, videos, etc.) It is an actionable summary of site policies. In its most succinct form, the CoC consists of six codes:
Interpersonal Codes (essentially: ‘be polite’)
1. No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members
2. No taunting or bullying
3. Be civil
Content Codes (essentially: ‘thoughtful, relevant contribution’)
4. Stay on topic per the article
5. No dishonest, unethical or illegal content
6. No repugnant or harmful content
Details for each Code
1. No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members
A derogatory reference is a negative statement about another member. Often this is called a personal attack. The best way to avoid a derogatory reference is to not make an uncomplimentary personal comment or include an insulting label. Basically, address issues and arguments, not individual members.
Derogatory references can be direct or indirect. A direct reference singles out the target (e.g. ‘you are a troll’). An indirect reference targets a category which includes the member. Derogatory statements attacking all within a category (e.g. liberals, conservatives, theists, atheists, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc.) are indirect derogatory references.
see: policy ‘Skirting the CoC’
see: policy ‘Objectionable Content’
2. No taunting or bullying
Taunting is purposely trying to anger another member. Bullying is forcing oneself on another member by being personally offensive, abusive, threatening or harassing.
see: policy ‘Inflammatory Content’
3. Be civil
Simply stated, treat others as you would like to be treated. Disagree without being disagreeable.
see: policy ‘Cumulative Behavior’
see: policy ‘Impasse’
see: policy ‘Flagging’
4. Stay on topic per the article
Comments that are disruptive to thoughtful discussion (e.g. trolling) are not tolerated.
see: policy ‘Disruption’
Meta comments (comments about the site or its members) are always off-topic.
see: policy ‘Meta’
Segues to highly-related topics are allowed. For example, an article on high-speed rail systems could spawn discussions on why the USA seems to be falling behind on this form of mass transit systems. Authors (and seeders) determine (in general terms) what is considered on-topic (topical guidelines) while moderators determine if a specific comment violates the author’s topical guidelines.
see: policy ‘Author Discretion’
5. No dishonest, unethical or illegal content
Do not present as true that which is known to be false. Do not post content that is invasive of another's privacy (e.g. doxing) or defamatory. Do not post unlawful content (e.g. violating copyright protection laws). Illegal acts which compromise the site will not be tolerated.
see: policy ‘Illegal or Unethical Content’
6. No repugnant or harmful content
Hateful comments – especially those against a legally protected class (e.g. racially / ethnically based) are prohibited. While cursing and other potentially objectionable content is allowed within reason, it should be used as seasoning – as emphasis. Gratuitous profanity and other repugnant language that does not support the point of the comment or is over-used is prohibited.
see: policy ‘Objectionable Content’
see: policy ‘Inflammatory Content’
Site Policies
The code of conduct is based on site policies. A policy is a general guideline for how the site operates – in particular, member responsibilities and moderator actions. All members are required to abide by site policy.
A few terms used in the policy are defined as follows:
- ADMINISTRATION: This refers to site administration. In particular, to the resident advisor: Perrie Halpern and support from the moderators.
- MODERATION: Guiding site content to ensure it is appropriate. Moderation is performed by authors and by site moderators.
- MODERATOR: An individual charged with enforcing the CoC and empowered with special tools to do so.
- ARTICLE: Topical content designed to serve as the context for discussion or debate. Articles manifest as discussions or blogs.
- SEED: An article from an external source (outside of Newstalkers) hosted within a Newstalkers article for discussion or debate.
- AUTHOR: the member who provides contents. This may be original content (true authorship) or seeded content (where the author is also known as a seeder). The word ‘author’ herein means author or seeder.
Behavior Policies
Policies regarding the behavior of members.
Skirting the CoC
Comments that violate the spirit of the CoC but not the letter are ‘skirting the CoC’. Skirting the CoC is a violation.
Disruption
Disruption of an article is defined as ‘a continuous exchange of posts between two or more members which engages in meta or violates the CoC’.
Cumulative Behavior
A user's participation on this site is judged as a whole. It is based on all comments, articles and actions as they relate to NewsTalkers. Recurring counterproductive behavior and/or negative/detrimental activity may warrant suspension of member privileges, suspension or removal of the member from the NewsTalkers community. Members may contact administration and request to rejoin. Should such request be considered, the member will be asked to sign an agreement not to engage again in the improper behavior.
Flagging
Members should refrain from disciplining other members. If someone is violating the CoC, members should make no comment but rather use the flagging system to report it to the moderators. Flagging for "Off Topic" can only be made by the seeder/ author.
Impasse
An impasse may be called between two members during a heated discussion by stating ‘IMPASSE’. An impasse call is a comment that contains one and only one word: ‘IMPASSE’.
Agree to Disagree
A call of ‘AGREE TO DISAGREE’ can be made between two members. Unlike impasse, which ceases all discussion, the two parties can still engage but not on that topic. As with impasse, the agree to disagree is a comment that contains one and only one phrase: ‘AGREE TO DISAGREE’.
Content Policies
Policies regarding member-provided content (typically in articles and comments).
Objectionable Content
Common sense and common courtesy are recommended guidelines for the use of ‘objectionable’ language.
PROFANITY: Use profanity judiciously and sparingly. It is understood that certain profanity is commonly used but be mindful that it may be deemed a personal attack or personally, offensive to other members.
DEROGATORY LABELS: Do not label a member with terms such as Nazi, commie, socialist, un-American. Descriptive, derogatory terms such as these are allowed as part of a discussion if they do not apply to a member. For example, ‘bigoted’ is allowed when referring to a concept or comment (i.e. that statement is bigoted), but do not so label another member (e.g. ‘you are a bigot’ or ‘you are bigoted against X’).
Labeling and/or creative name-calling of entire political groups, ideological, religious, cultural, sexual identity / orientation, etc. groups (i.e. Rethuglicans, Libtards, etc), is forbidden. Phrases meant to denigrate are not allowed (e.g. ‘your ilk’).
Common abbreviations such as STFU, FU, and GFYS are considered personal derogatory attacks and are forbidden.
Members are not allowed to proselytize on the site.
When asked to refrain from posting a given word or phrase by a fellow member, one is expected to do so.
Articles containing objectionable graphic material should have a warning in red at the top of the article. Comments with objectionable graphic material should also give a warning with a long break to avoid the material being seen by other members.
Illegal or Unethical Content
Members are not to upload or post content on the site that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, known to be false, invasive of privacy (e.g. doxing), hateful, racist or otherwise objectionable. Content that would be harmful to minors (e.g. pornography) is prohibited. Distribution of personal emails, or ‘spam’ is prohibited. Posting content that potentially infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary right(s) of any person or entity is prohibited.
Death wishing of a public figure is prohibited.
Inflammatory Content
Content that arguably and unnecessarily seeks to anger others is prohibited. This does not preclude inherently hot topics for debate (e.g. the abortion debate). A topic designed to engage others in thoughtful discussion or debate (e.g. ‘At what point in a pregnancy do we have a human being?’) is welcome. One that seeks to inflame (e.g. ‘Pro-choice means killing babies’) is not.
Meta
Meta that comes from the RA, which applies to the whole group, will go in the ‘Meta’ topic category. Individual Meta shall go in the group ‘Metafied’.
Authoring Policies
Policies regarding the role of author (or seeder)
Authoring
Authors (with assistance from administration) moderate their own articles. Authors are expected to foster healthy, open discussions. They are responsible for the content they submit and must exercise impartiality when reporting abuse.
Article and seed titles should accurately reflect the content of the article. They should not be misleading or inflammatory. Content from other sources (i.e. quotes, seeds) should have the URL cited along with the content. Memes cannot be used as the sole basis for an article.
Blogs are original writing. Art may be included, but not as the sole purpose for the blog. All blog posts are the possession of the author.
Seeds that are op-eds should be clearly marked as such in their title.
Author Discretion
The author defines the topic and has the right to ask members to stay on topic (as defined) and not disrupt the article. If a member is violating the CoC with the apparent intent of disrupting or being arbitrarily argumentative, the author has the right to politely warn the member that they are violating the CoC and to stop or leave the article. Furthermore, the author may contact administration to remove all off topic / meta comments. Off topic or meta comments or CoC violations may be removed by moderators.
Locking Articles
If, at any point in a discussion, an author cannot moderate, that author may LOCK the article to comments. If an author is unable to moderate due to absence, the author is required to LOCK the article.
Slam Articles
Slam articles about members are only allowed in the ‘Heated Discussion‘ group, but must be taken down within 36 hours.
Moderation Policies
Policies about moderators and how they operate.
Moderation
The NewsTalkers is a member moderated site – moderators are members of the NT community.
When a moderator deletes an offensive comment, all comments that pertain to the offensive posting will also be deleted. Disagreement with the actions of a moderator may be appealed to the Resident Adviser: Perrie Halpern (or A. Mac in her absence). All appeal decisions are final.
Moderators
Members will operate as moderators on an appointed or volunteer basis. Moderators will be comprised of two permanent members, Perrie Halpern and A. Mac and a suitable number of rotating members based on need. All members with at least 3 months on NewsTalkers and no major infractions, can qualify to be a moderator. Moderator comments will be made in purple. Moderators must recuse themselves in articles where they have been actively commenting.
Violations
You are allowed four (4) Code of Conduct (CoC) violations before you get your first suspension. A CoC violation is defined as violating site policy – typically this is a violation of one or more of the six codes.
Two (2) ‘skirting the CoC’ violations is equal to one CoC violation. (‘Skirting the CoC’ is defined in Behavior Policies).
Suspensions start at two (2) days with two (2) days added for each additional suspension over a month's period. At the end of the month, a member's slate is wiped clean.
Other Policies
Chat Feature
The chat ‘Main Room’ and the ‘Activity’ feed are to be used for social purposes only. Personal attacks, fighting and comments that are meant to skirt the spirit of the CoC are prohibited and will result with chat privileges being suspended for a given period or a comment being removed.
Photo Feature
The photo feature is for original artwork. Memes and other such visuals meant to convey a message will be removed.
Groups
Abandoned or inactive groups (groups with no activity for 6 or more months), may be removed by administration.
Member Accounts
Use of accounts owned by another registered member without prior notice and agreement from administration will result in the immediate deletion of that account. Use of an anonymizing service, for the purposes of cloaking your identity, or gaining admittance to the site is prohibited.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
400 visitors
There was one items from the vote that were confusing. Should we have a revote?
Should the number of 4 CoC infractions before suspension be reduced and if so by how much?
Yes. There should be no confusion regarding the voting.
Shame how far right wing fascists tend to get around the CoC. Seems that fascism is welcome here.
That is totally bogus. Do you realize how often i hear that from the other side, too. And fascism is not welcomed here.
no one is making you read any seed, your the one that decides if you will comment , If you agree or disagree with whats posted ,and it is YOU that can choose to simply use the mental IGNORE button from certain posters . if you cant do that then i suggest a banana split.
I would like to see 2 CoCs result in a suspension.
And I know you own the site and the end-all arbitrator....but I don't think a member's slate should be wiped clean at the end of the month. I think it should be cumulative for the entire time a member is a member. But that's me. I'm an unforgiving bitch.
So when does a bad character actually get banned?
Trout, your suggestion is completely unrealistic.
Given that the dispensing of coc violations is very subjective from moderator to moderator, and sometimes varies from day to day within a single moderator, lowering the number of violations before a suspension would inevitably result in people being suspended because of the 'whim' of the moderation. I doubt that is the way to go.
If anything the number should probably be raised a little to account for the variation of reasons people are given coc violations.
Weeellll.....since you put it that way....
you're right. I can be reasonable as long as things are explained to me in a reasonable manner
Hi Trout,
No, no, no. I do not make up the rules for the group. I just administer to the group. That is why I am called the RA and not anything else. This was all voted on here :
btw you are not an unforgiving bitch, lol.
We ban rarely. This advice was given to my by Calvin years ago. He told me that what they found out at NV is that when you ban a member what you end up with is an even nastier troll with more accounts. Since then, I can only think of about 6 members in 7 years that we have banned. The main reasons to be banned are 1. Disruption to the site purposefully 2. Harassing or threatening a member in any way 3. Posting of a another member's private information.
Please forgive me...I'm going on no sleep in 2 weeks and basically want to punch everything in my path so I'm looking for ways to do harm to those that have worn down my last nerve.
And the site is not working very well on either Chrome or Fox Today.
That's great advice from Calvin and you are wise to heed it. Ignore the rantings of a sleep deprived asshole.
Are you picking on me? Watch it or I'll send the squirrel after your nuts
Trout, I am using Chrome and it is working fine. There is an update from them that you might have not noticed ( a little green arrow in the upper right corner). If you have done the update, then clear your cache, but "images" only and that should do it.
didn't see the update but I did clear the cache of images. I'm also checking for "harmful content". Fox and Explorere don't have that. I like Chrome more and more every day
Chrome is da bomb when it comes to browsers. Runs so clean.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!
You can punch me....it will help me wake up.
Re Chrome, I'm using it today without issue for this site but in general I find it a lot less secure than Firefox or its variants. I generally use Palemoon.
Off topic {SP}
Such a personal attack on the owner of the site should get you suspended or even banned, but sadly, it most likely won't.
First of all, everyone here is treated equally. I won't even dignify the rest of that statement.
Sure wish I could use Chrome. Foxfire is really slow for me today as well. I even tried a Chinese browser (or search engine? - never could figure out the difference) and even it was slow with NT.
Obviously, you know NOTHING about Perrie, and your ASSUMPTION could not be further from the truth.
LOL if i were a betting man , ild take that bet and you are soooo wrong . she just doesn't walk YOUR walk , and since she is paying the band to play , its her call on what dance it is ,gracefully she gives us an input such as what should be in the COC we use.
welcome to NOT THE VINE.
Shouldn't be a surprise actually-- Mercury is Retrograde.
Yeah.. it's been kind of going that way all day.. and took a sharp turn for the worse this evening. Ugh.
Cjcold, we don't have any far right wing fascist on this site.
I use FireFox and am satisfied with it. They had a new version they put out not too long ago and it has worked a lot better than before. I don't know if you have updated to the new version, Buzz, but it is a lot better than the old one was, but I also had another problem, I'm sure was a big one, someone close by had hijacked my wifi. I couldn't do anything with it at all. My passwords didn't work and I know they were correct. I solved that problem since my router was pretty old as well by buying a new modem and router.
Who were in the group that voted?
Mags you were not here during then. In fact, I have been wondering where you were.
Photo Feature
The photo feature is for original artwork. Memes and other such visuals meant to convey a message will be removed.
When was that voted on and what does it mean?
That is in the current CoC:
That was in the old CoC.
BF,
Let me clear up something. You can use meme's as a comment. You can even use them as part of an article. But you can't use them as the only thing in an article. That is hardly restrictive.
I'm working my way there with twin 23 year old girls, so this is in preparation for that.
Oh and I hate you for being born 12 years after me! I want those 12 years back!
A couple of things BF....Old age and treachery will beat youth and skill everytime.
I've not had a heart attack or a storke, but have survived stab wounds and gunshot wound, plus other odd and end type trama's....And yes I'm 76 or 77 depending on which birth certificate I use.
So beware when you piss off and ''elder''...
There you go! You tell him Kavika!
Can I smack BF around?
YES! And rumor has it, he likes it.. but don't give him a safe word.
That's no fun for me....
Stand on one leg for an hour Grasshopper.
You can borrow my ''gunstock tomahawk'' to use on BF, Trout.
Oh, goody, a fish tenderizer!
Can I smack BF around?
Yes, please. In fact, we heartily encourage it.
LOL. If you're referring to The Karate Kid movie, he had to WAX the car and paint the FENCE.
Dear Perrie: Well done.
Do let me know by private message when the option to delete for cause authors of original. articles is up and running.
This will include constructive suggestions to get them to follow the four B's.
I do want to read what people write that is positive, respectful and on-point.
Most of all, I want those few who do frequent my discussion threads to feel comfortable that it is a place of "Succath Shlomecha" (Peaceful dwelling).
It is important to them to enter a dialogue without having to have it undercut by those who come to make anyone, them included feel uncomfortable.
Violators of site rules will be flagged for site Moderators to handle.
Enforcement of the Four B's remains the range and domain on my intellectual property.
I have two articles to post.
Will do so when I have control over derailers, trollers, and snarkers.
All best wishes for a joyous and meaningful spring holiday season to you and yours.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Totally agree. Well said.
Good work, chickie!!
We're improving our site.
I hope so. This was a ton of work
If only from a visual standpoint, it's a big improvement. Much more legible.
A couple nits must be picked, of course:
As I have said many times, there is no real difference between "You are stupid!" and "Your ideas are stupid!"... but the CoC allows the latter...
Some members seed ONLY op-eds, but never, ever label them as such. Do you really mean to enforce this?
Good old interpretation
"Your ideas are stupid" literally says that every idea from the person is stupid. If we insert the implied 'all' we have "All of your ideas are stupid" and the meaning is clear. So in that regard this is a violation of code#1 (seems to me).
However, "that is a stupid idea" is quite different from "all of your ideas are stupid". Do you agree?
All you and a lot of this discussion is going to do is enforce why "suspending" people after three or four violations is so problematic.
The fact is that if the COC is followed faithfully by the moderators, and to the letter, there would be dozens of COC violations dispensed every day and there would be multiple people suspended EVERY DAY.
Obviously that does not happen, which means that enforcement of the Code of Conduct is haphazard. There is nothing "wrong" with this, because I think it is better to have fewer suspensions than more suspensions.
I am not sure what value there is though to asking members to vote on how many violations should trigger a suspension when the designation of violations is so , well, arbitrary.
I can say so and so is a jerk and if it is not flagged then I am good to go. If it is flagged I may be suspended.
My own opinion is that it would be better to have the COC and the moderation be more in the background and talked about less.
John,
The moderation is at the bottom of the CoC for a reason. It is because we would rather the community behave and we not have to moderate, so it is in the background.
I am lost. I was talking semantics with Bob. Discussing interpretation of English syntax.
How is it that I am doing something??
Oh, if you didnt understand what I said then I should apologize.
My opinion is that CoC violations should be rare and thus no need for much moderation. One can quite easily engage in discussion (and even heavily heated debate) and still be basically polite and deliver thoughtful, relevant content. There is no need to call people names, ridicule them, insert pointless derail comments, etc.
So if people are getting CoC violations maybe they should reevaluate how they operate.
I understood your comment, I just do not know why it was a reply to my comment. Does not follow from what I wrote.
What's the definition of insanity?
Getting the same CoC violations over and over again.....
There you go! See you are a smart little squirrel!! You have all your nuts!
No.
People are their ideas. Insulting a person's ideas, or even one single idea, is the same as insulting the person. Counter the idea, don't insult it.
Or maybe another word?
Don't take this the wrong way but damn do I love you. We may disagree politically/spiritually but as I've said before I've never seen you be an asshole to anyone
What a dumb position.
I understand your point and - depending upon the context - would agree. For example:
A: The Earth is flat.
B: That is ridiculous, we have known the Earth is not flat for centuries. Modern science has pictures from space of our spheroid planet.
You would argue to strike 'That is ridiculous.' in this example. But here, I would not. The factual claim that the Earth is flat is demonstrably ridiculous. Stating as a fact that the Earth is flat is ridiculous. Same would be true for the religious-based claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Based on modern knowledge, that factual claim is ridiculous. I think disallowing the direct criticism of the idea is far too PC - too much walking on eggshells IMO.
A: I believe in God.
B: That is a ridiculous belief, there is no evidence that God exists.
Here the opening phrase is not a demonstrably ridiculous factual claim - the existence of God is highly debated and the notion is complex. The existence or non-existence of God (especially when the word 'God' is not defined) is not a simple evidenced fact. Rather than categorically dismiss the belief, the better approach is to first get clarity on what the person means and them follow up with intellectual challenges. If during the course of the debate someone offers another factual declaration such as:
A: The Bible is the inerrant word of a perfect God
B: That is ridiculous, the Bible is replete with documented factual and logical errors and thus cannot possibly be the inerrant word of a perfect anything.
Here we are again at a point of fact (albeit now within a belief). You would strike the opening phrase and I would not. (But I would suggest that it would be better to state: 'That is demonstrably wrong' rather than 'That is ridiculous'.
(Note that any disagreement when it comes to religion or politics is usually taken as an insult. I doubt there is a way to be on the opposite side of a religious debate without the religious person being offended. )
Bottom line, IMO not every idea gets a pass. If someone puts forth an idea that is demonstrably, immediately absurd based on well-established knowledge I (just my opinion) would not favor labeling it as such to be a CoC violation. But I do recommend (as do you) challenging an idea rather than simply labeling it as the superior course of action in all cases.
Telo,
I have to agree with you about Tig. He be da bomb.
It helps if one sees no value in getting emotional over words in a social forum. Every one of us disagree on something, so we can get pissed when someone disagrees or we can curiously explore the disagreement through discussion / debate. That is how I see it.
I totally agree. I truly like his many innovative ideas. He helps to put a very professional look to the site.
He's the bestest
Now this has some language so it may be nsfw or little ears.
What a stupid comment!
(Just kiddin'
Even very intelligent persons have a stupid idea from time to time*. So saying a stupid idea is stupid is not an attack on the person.
However, for some of the more snow-flaky types, saying (or even implying) that sort of thing might freak them out. So while calling a particular idea stupid is not an actual attack on the person themselves, it does show a lack of tact. So a better way to say that an idea is stupid is to use a gentler word: "That idea is unworkable". (or perhaps better yet: "Perhaps some aspects of that idea may not be workable", etc.
Or to soften the blow even more: "IMO that may not really be such a great idea". Or, the old ploy of starting with something positive: "That;s a great idea, but I'm wondering if it will actually work'?" Or words to that effect...
IMO it's acceptable to criticize a person's idea--- but better to do it tactfully.
Intelligent people occasionally have bad ideas*(actually they usually have more bad ideas than people who aren't too bright-- because intelligent (and especially creative types) simply generate many more ideas than most people...). However if you say someone's ideas (plural) are stupid, that implies that all their ideas are stupid, which is definitely a personal attack.
______________________________________________________________________________
*Just as even a stopped clock is right twice a day...and re: a comment above, remember that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut!
No, it does not. One is an outright CoC violation counting towards your 4. The other is skirting the CoC which counts towards your 2.
Seeds that are not news items, should be marked Op/Ed in the tags or the title. I will not be fussy about this.
I understand that enforcement would be exhausting. The case is endemic. But if you're not going to enforce, you should eliminate the rule.
The basic idea is good, because it is one of the best criteria for determining how Replies should be framed. A data-based article should be discussed using data. An op-ed, being opinion, requires a data-based Reply only as far as the original article is data-based.
I didn't say I wasn't going to enforce it... I was implying that I wasn't going to be pedantic about it. There is a difference. One gives some leeway.
So... some members will be required to obey the rule; others will not.
Gosh!
Bob,
That is not what it says and your comment is borderline trolling of me. Knock it off. Only warning.
Yes but if you put that in the CoC no one will understand it! (And if you don't believe me...I can come up with numerous charts and graphs and tables of numbers that will prove my point!)
That comment is so typical of the ENTP type (One of 16 in the MBTI system ).
There's very little doubt in my mind that you are an ENTP (as am I BTW...scrolldown that page). So how come you haven't taken the test yet?
I think it should be mandatory for all members on this site-- those that don't take it should be deported!
Should be reduced to 3 infractions.
My compliments Perrie and TiG! Very well done. A very good improvement.
Thanks Raven!
That all seems reasonable to me...
Glad to hear that JBB. Hopefully this new format and the having the new members be a part of the process here, makes for less violations, and therefore a better time here.
Most folks are decent if not provoked. You know who does the provoking and who is contributing. As we have spoken before, it is your place and so your tolerance for nonsense is the gold standard around here. My opine remains that fair professional moderation, high quality truthful content and a low tolerance for internet vampires will be the hallmarks of successful social media sites. While the ban boot should be saved for special circumstances there are times when the boot is required. We are known by the company we keep...
While all that is quite true, this site has a very unique component to it. For the most part, it is a democracy and so the community gets to vote like this, on how things shall run. I am nothing more than the hired gun, so to speak.
I am sure it does:)
The enforcement of this new COC should be interesting to watch.
Do not be an individual. Do not be completely honest. Instead you should become practitioners of Left Wing/Socialist Political Correctness.
An objective view. It is doubtful that that is the way that Perrie and TIG want it to be but that is what it is becoming.
Owlism:
"The more you strive to control, the more dissension you sow."
Trolls from both sides love sites like this. It gives them free rein to engage moderators and each other in meta arguments over just about any word or phrase that just one individual or group claims to be offensive.
Sadly, at the same time moderates and centrists, make that legitimate moderates and centrists stop engaging. Not those who say they are because it's the "slick" thing to do especially if you are an alt-righter trying to steal the label for themselves like they did to the Tea Party movement. To be fair, the extreme left was happy to let the alt-right have it. Anything to stop the real independent minded from being heard.
What's next? What happens if the meta arguments continue and permeate even more articles, especially the ones that aren't even political to begin with? Banning doesn't work.
If it was just Newsvine that had been shut down the argument about it being the money could be legit. If it was just NBC that blitzkrieged all of it's social websites and installed controls that heavily inhibit free speech the argument that they were just a bunch of Commies to begin with could be legit.
All of MSM have shortened the reins on the people. It's not Commies, it's not about the money. Freethinkers were speaking their minds, being listened to and gaining an influence that was endangering the control of the "Establishment".
Main Stream Media, including FOX isn't just a tool for the establishment. Their Boards of Directors and CEO's are full blown members in good standing.
Now you are following in the steps of MSM. The constant introduction of and tinkering with rules of speech accomplishes nothing except preventing the people from accomplishing something.
It is a quandary. We are getting old but the internet is still in it's formative years. It will at some point become a real tool for the people. Whether or not site like this can last that long or survive when it does is highly improbable.
I have twelve social websites like this that I regularly visit, belong to and or participate in. NewsTalkers doesn't stand alone with it's problems.
All of them remind me of people from back east who retire out here. They plant their lovely flowers and trees and then moan and groan when they wilt and shrivel. They bought plants recommended to them by the local nurseries and watered them religiously. Just because a plant grows well in dry conditions does not mean it will grow better in wet ones.
Social media on the internet is entering a period of drought, just ask the real masters of this site. That would be Facebook. No insults intended Perrie, it's just the plain sad truth.
Less can gain you more. If your desire for interesting and positive social behavior is to be achieved it must be allowed to evolve naturally. As long as neither the site nor yourself are placed in legal danger you can weather anything that comes along.
More rules and regulations to traverse is the left's answer to everything. Less rules and regulations to deal with is the right's answer to everything. Oddly enough that makes the righties on NewsTalkers sound like lefties.
Simple sensible rules enforced without a lot of fanfare.
I agree. I wish the site could simply run based on the summary rules:
Interpersonal Codes (essentially: ‘be polite’)
1. No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members
2. No taunting or bullying
3. Be civil
Content Codes (essentially: ‘thoughtful, relevant contribution’)
4. Stay on topic per the article
5. No dishonest, unethical or illegal content
6. No repugnant or harmful content
Just a handful of rather obvious guidelines that offer substantial freedom of expression if one is reasonably polite and offers thoughtful, relevant content.
First of all Owl, the majority of these rules have been here since the beginning of NT and they have always been what the group decided.
You do realize that both sides of the political fence wanted these changes were from both sides of the political fence so I am not sure how you ended up with "Left Wing/Socialist Political Correctness". In fact I am not
Umm no Mr. Owl. Perrie and Tig have nada to do with the CoC. It was debated and voted on by the group. If the group finds it too restricting then they can undo what they have done at the next update. The rules belong to the group and NT is operated as a democracy (for the most part). And as a true independent, I don't like to filter what people say. But I also don't like when discussion is lost to pettiness and name calling and we all know that happens.
As for NT becoming like MSM, that is pretty much impossible, since we don't report on the news, we discuss it. It also has no corporation telling us what to do. And of course I realize that social media is being challenged daily. It is hard, and we are trying to find ways of dealing with that without censorship. It is a tough one.. I don't deny it, but we are trying our best please the community at large while dealing with the demands of the WWW.
That which is simply stated becomes corrupted by the details that follow.
Kind of like Congress passing a bill that sounds good to everyone on the surface while hiding a bunch of amendments giving away the farm.
We have a member who posted a fake news article the other day, and refused to close the article or remove it even after it was conclusively shown that his article was fake news.
Show me where he was given a COC violation for that incident, as per this "number 5".
His seeded article contained ZERO proof that it was honest and true material. Zero. Ok, he was taken in by a fake news website/source. But then, even when confronted with the truth, he refused to remove the false article. Where is his COC violation?
This is the problem. We have these self congratulatory parades of exuberance about the new coc, but what will be new about it?
Am I supposed to accept being suspended, or even given a coc violation, when I can see so many worse or similar offenses float by unscathed?
And not just me, why wouldn't anyone say that?
We must prove the source to be untrue. That is your job as a member. If you can prove to me that the source material is untrue, it should be taken down. That is not an easy task, but it can be done.
Is that what you see in the CoC here? If you see one of the general six codes being corrupted by the details let Perrie know. I doubt that is the intent of the community.
Remember you are going to be under the new rules.. so that test better be new rule compliant
.
It was proven by multiple people. I know this is not the time or the place to discuss this.
I am not in charge of the site John so you are asking the wrong person. But besides that, I posted the six summary codes of the CoC and in response you are asking me to comment on the moderation / enforcement. I would be quite willing to discuss the codes but enforcement is an entirely different matter and thus I would refer you to a moderator.
I would not accept without objection if that were the case. But I (personally speaking) would not engage in a tit-for-tat approach on this either. My approach would be to identify clear (almost objective) examples where enforcement is out of step with the CoC and then offer positive suggestions on how to improve the situation. Either by changing the CoC to meet with the desired enforcement (per the community) or by recommending changes in the enforcement.
Bottom line, most people I think want to better the site. If something is truly out of whack I am confident the RA and the community will want it corrected.
The fake news seed claimed that because David Hogg had rode his bicycle to the school on the date of the shooting therefore that was evidence that he had not attended school that day.
Comment removed call out of a member [ph]
So is COC #5 operative , or not?
Perrie has nothing to do with the COC? The members decide on everything. What about that crack you made about because of your experiences elsewhere there would never be Author/Moderator controls on NewsTalkers?
You being the owner has nothing to do with the rules, just happen to be the poor soul chosen to be the chief enforcer meaning everything comes down to your judgement as it should to an owner. As the owner you are the boss regardless of whether you carry chosen title or not.
You took advice from a very smart man. Calvin, who was smart enough to construct a highly successful site and smart enough to bail out of the driver's seat before the shit hit the fan.
Worse than bailing you don't even want to stand up and exercise your responsibilities as an owner. Why not? You are smart. You know what you want. You can get what you want. The more you try to give everybody what they want the less you are going to get of what you want.
People need leadership, they vote for leadership. Without it they devolve into anarchy. An owner of a business is looked upon to lead as person elected to the office of President.
Were you or were you not aware , at the time, that his article was fake news?
" Test coming tomorrow."
John, the term "fake news" is subjective...that's why you need to prove it and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt
Sir Owl, Perrie is actively leading efforts on this site - the amount of management required (that nobody sees) is staggering. Remember that she is the one who ultimately carries all the risk and responsibility. So clearly she makes decisions outside of the CoC discussions we are having. But in the area that we are discussing -the democratic spirit of the CoC- she works hard to respect the wishes of the community as long as said wishes do not cause net harm to the site. It is a bit of a nuanced dance.
John,
Tig did nothing more than help me reformat the way the CoC is laid out so that it reads easier. The GROUP voted for the rules. Not even I have control over that.
But I think it would be fair to say that everyone would want a better site, not just Tig along.
Vic, If I said that the fact that you went to the grocery store in the evening was "proof" that you had not been at the grocery store in the morning , you might think I was nuts.
David Hogg told numerous reporters the next day what he was doing at the time of the shooting. He has a cell phone video of him interviewing a girl on his phone from inside a closet in one of the classrooms, while they were awaiting a swat team to come and tell them there was "all clear".
This information was passed on to the seeder of the fake news and he disregarded it because he was pissed about a different seed.
If it is a coc violation to post known untrue information in a seed, then he should have got a violation.
The fact that people, including the moderator, are disputing this is a little disturbing.
Oh, please!
You decide what is put to a vote.
I posted a proposition... which I am not sure you even read (judging from your minimal comment to it)... and which you most definitely did not put up for a vote.
Don't misunderstand. I am totally OK with you calling the shots on a site that belongs to you. (Duh!) But it is kinda silly for you to insist that "it's the community that decides". No one, absolutely no one, believes that nonsense.
You are the boss here. You make the decisions. We all know it.
First of all, your case is far to specific for this. You are calling out a specific member and their article. That has been removed.
The CoC says knowingly presents information that is false as true. That means you have to prove that. You have to prove the source was fake or that the person was doing it to deceive.
So here is the easiest way down that path. Show that the site is a known fake site. If you can't then you better work harder at debunking.
Bob,
You put up an item and no one showed interest. If they had shown interest, it would have been on the vote. There are many here that can attest to that, since their items were brought to vote.
Sorry, but a hit and a miss. And please don't call me the boss. It would be like calling a ox a bull. He would thank you for the credit, but knows he is missing the important parts.
Look me in the eye, Perrie... and tell me that you read my proposition with care and attention...
see this
The whole site did. You can go back and read it yourself. Show me where at least 3 people said yeah.. I want that.
And if you are going to talk to me in the future, don't be rude and give me the talking hand thing. I am required to answer you since I am just the RA, but I am not required to put up with rudeness.
He knew it was fake news from the moment people gave evidence that Hogg was in school that day. The seeder SAID that he was not interested in taking it down BECAUSE he was upset about another seed that was active at the time.
Whether or not the seeder knew it was fake news at the time he seeded it is ultimately immaterial. He knew it was fake news at a time he chose to keep it up on the forum.
I honestly don't know why I bother sometimes. There was a time when Infowars was officially considered a legitimate news source on this site. Or are you going to deny that too?
The COC states that seeds that are known to be untrue are COC violations. That is the issue here, not who ignored what.
Oh, spare me, TiG!
I've been here since the beginning. No one knows better than I how much work Perrie has put in, and I have praised her efforts a thousand times.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything she does. Nor that I will be silent when I disagree.
I have said, over and over, and I will repeat, over and over, that there are fundamental problems with the CoC:
- It addresses the text that is posted rather than the behavior it represents: It's OK to be an asshole, but it's not OK to say so.
- Different members have radically different perceptions of what NT is. Some consider it an open message board, where anyone can post anything at any time. Others consider it a place where particular topics may be presented for discussion. These two approaches are utterly incompatible... but the CoC does nothing to resolve the inevitable conflicts that will arise.
But hey! The new CoC is certainly much more legible than the previous one, and that's a good thing!
Perrie has confirmed that this kind of trolling is conform to the CoC, so feel free to continue.
Those are not rules. That is how the site functions. The site functions are not up to the group, since some are not possible and others would cause havoc. There is a difference. And in fact, even that has been changed. We are testing for authors only moderation tools. We shall see how it runs.
Most of the time, enforcement is up to the mods that are part of the community. I only review when asked. And for the record, in this last round of the update, several new rules came down that I am opposed to, but will enforce. So no.. founder yes, RA yes, bill payer, yes, but the only day I will be the owner of this site is if I close the doors.
I am sorry if you don't get the concept of NT, but being RA is not an easy job. It means that I have to answer to comments such as the above with a smile. This site was not set up as Perrie's dictatorship. The nations were. This site was set up as a democracy.. right from the start. Nothing has changed since there was a promise made to the community at large that this was the way it was always going to be. I can guide the community but I can't force them. But the RA is the grounding force of the site, and that I take very seriously.
That's a cop-out, Perrie.
Speaking of, why is crap like this allowed? . I know I am new here but nobody should be harassed for seeding real actual news stories. You told me to, "Be the change I desire", but then this site plainly allows trolls to ruin every real news conversation making all things about themselves. The same cases who made other places unworkable are doing their worst to this site. Why author or seed articles when this is the result? Why are the constant troublemakers and bad faith players given equal credence and consideration with this site's good faith contributors? False equivalencies are on their faces false. Editorial control over content is a hallmark of all successful journalistic enterprises. Conside that there are plenty of places on the internet to read bullshit fake news stories meant only to misinform and inflame the lowest common denominator. If we, your members, wanted to read no good fake lying misleading crap we would visit those disreputable sources. Crap In = Crap Out! What better can we expect if half our content is certified grade D bullshit fake news? With and in all due respect...
And when you make statements that I find to be flawed I will not be silent either. Fair deal, right?
Given the CoC is simply words and thus require interpretation and action (sometimes) by human agents, my opinion is that documents such as the CoC should offer a few, general guidelines that, if followed in spirit, would provide for a smooth running site.
To wit, you are asking far too much of a document. But I also think the CoC (the current and the new) does a better job than you give it credit. For example, on this:
It really does not matter the intended usage of this forum by the member. What matters is how the members conduct themselves. Right? The open message board works fine if people follow the spirit of the six summary codes (or even: be reasonably polite and offer thoughtful relevant comment). If people want to discuss their latest vacation or the self-destruction of Congress why is this "utterly incompatible" as long as the members follow the spirit of the CoC?
You offered a fundamental spirit of 'be polite'. How many of your concerns would be lessened if people simply were more polite? Add in 'thoughtful, relevant content' and why is it a problem if topics are all over the map?
You have to prove it is untrue instead of attacking the member.
JBB,
That article is in metafied, which is a group that I own to get the tons of meta we get off the front page. It doesn't have to meet the same standards as the main page since it is in a group, so while you may not agree with it... it is also not breaking the CoC or ruining the front page.
On the other hand, your article IS on the front page and I just checked and is being moderated. There is a huge difference in that respect. If you feel that something was missed.. please flag away.
Hogwash. These sites are cheap to start and the actual business management both monetary and technical are handled by the site providers. Is there a payroll department? Shipping and receiving? A sales or marketing division?
What's so staggering? Spending a couple of hours a month on the computer checking your hit numbers against what the site provider's numbers show? Paying for the technical abilities that is chosen to be used provided by the site providers? Considering how often you don't get what you think you are getting I guess those costs could be considered staggering. How much hardware needs to be maintained on a site that can be run from any PC and quite often even laptops and smart phones?
The only real challenge an owner of one of these mini-businesses has is to generate hits. A COC and the enforcement thereof plays a mighty big role in that aspect.
I know that there are conflicting reports of where he was at the time. Someone posted a film with Hogg speaking and on that tape he says he biked from his house to the scene of the shooting. I'm sure you saw that. What about that? I wish we could resolve it.
We had another issue like that. Remember the teenage girl who came across the border to have an apportion in Texas. One report said taxpayers paid for that. The ACLU said there was a fund started to pay for it. To this day I can't seem to find the info on who actually paid for that abortion.
On rare occasions some stories are like that.
I know it's not easy, but we should be able to verify fact and fiction.
‘Cheap to start’ relative to what … a hot-dog stand? We are talking about an online forum and you make a comparison to a medium sized corporation. That is like claiming a typical single-family home is cheap-to-buy because it costs far less and is less complex than a manufacturing plant. NT is like a single-family home. You seem to think it has the cost and maintenance of a pup-tent.
If a site owner could spend only a couple of hours a day (much less a month) on a site like NT that would be a substantial improvement. You are off by an order of magnitude.
You seem to not understand client / server computing (at all). But assuming you do and just used odd language, then the following applies: NT is configured with multiple commercial servers. But no worries, hosting a secure site across multiple servers with professional support services is cheap, right? Just a hot-dog stand?
Functional (not just presentation) websites in general (unless cliché and basic) do not come out of a box. Threaded discussion sites like NT (and NV) are atypical. To build something like NT, one must secure a configurable platform (at the very least) that supports at least the basic requirements to host a multiuser, scalable system supporting modern security, fault tolerance and recovery mechanisms. Critically - it must perform. Having accomplished that, one begins the real work of configuration and customization. In the case of NT this required months of effort (including custom development) followed by years of evolution.
If this was so cheap and easy NV might still be around – at the least, there would be plenty of NV spinoffs (after its demise). Lots of embedded groups exist, but actual sites are quite a different matter (still under development). There is a reason for that.
As a site owner and admin myself I can attest to that. Some people have no clue what they are talking about. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Reality is reality. It's a shame that as a far right winger that you don't believe in reality.
Don't believe I'll be commenting anymore on what is becoming a far right wing site.
Raven is not a conservative. What are you talking about?
I have a women who loves me and who I love. The sex has been fantastic for many years. We are both liberals and are extremely wealthy. We both have post grad degrees and love our lives as scientists. We do it because we love it.
wait? raven? our raven? right wing? Conservative? ( Looks for unicorn fart to bite)
(dammit wheres my kilt?) (starts humming "beautiful dreamer")
I like Raven I consider her a friend. Wasn't speaking to her at all. Sorry you misunderstood. Can't imagine having to follow so many threads as you have to do. For the most part I think that you're doing a damn fine job! Let me know if you need any help.
Now that's better cjcold. We can speak pretty freely here as you see your comment was actually breaking on of the rules and it is still up. We want to have a good time and just follow some basic rules that will keep us from going off on people like rowdy children. I assure you 95% of our conversations would not be like they sometimes are here if we were talking face to face. I know you're a good person and want to be a part of making this a place we can all enjoy and express ourselves even though we often disagree tremendously on different issues.
well if this is the new COC then so it will be - but i will state that i am not a fan of "safe spaces" and prefer people take responsibility unto themselves since we are all adults here. Just my opinion.
Phoenyx13,
What are you regarding as a "safe space"?
banning of words that people don't like to read or are sensitive about reading. look, i get it, most (if not all) of those words don't further constructive discussions, i'm not saying that they do.
let's put it this way - for example, i get very upset and offended every time i hear (or read) the word "bread". So, now can we ban the word "bread" from every discussion (if so voted upon) just because i don't like reading it on a social networking site ? as adults, we all learn there are things you will absolutely not like to see, nor hear, nor think about, nor experience etc, that's part of being an adult. Only children get the privilege of having things censored due to content (mostly from age, etc - and even then some people don't agree with that) and that censorship disappears as they age into adults. as adults you learn - you won't like everything that happens in life, nor like everything that is seen, or heard or said or done, but..... that's life.
btw - i have nothing against bread and nothing against the word "bread", i actually happen to love bread.
I love bread also, so your good with me
As for banning of words... not a fan myself.. not up to me either. I think the concept was about blanket statements.. not so much about words. Btw.. this was brought to me by both sides of the political fence, so I would have to call it bipartisan. I don't think they thought of it as creating safe spaces, per se, but there you have it.
i think it's a mix of both, at least from what i've read around here.
i know it's both sides, i'm also well aware that those who criticize and chide "safe spaces" on college campuses (from both sides of the political fence) are probably the biggest proponents of banning words thusly creating this place to be their own "safe space" - its a slippery slope in my opinion which only leads to more banning of words, ideas, comments, statements etc.
I agree, and I think that at some point I might have to remind the community of our tagline "speak your mind". The only valid reason I can see for these changes is that I hope it brings more quality discussion to the group and less "I know what you are, but what am I" kind of discussions, if you get my drift.
yes, i agree and i wish for the same kind of discussion - but i don't think this is the route. sometimes when you "speak your mind", it's not always something that others want to hear - but you have the freedom to do it regardless just like they do (and you can choose not to listen to them, and vice versa). I suppose we'll see how this experiment works out.
I agree, but I think we can both agree that there is a lot of stuff that goes on here that is not conducive to good discussion. I think what we need to decide on as a community is if these new rules will help that. If not.. there is always next year... Oh joy, LOL. (doing this annually is a ton of work to yours truly)
I get your point to an extent but the use of personal/blanket insults doesn't move the conversation forward. Like the clip I posted above to TiG says it's something designed to elicit a response and it's usually going to be an angry response.
Yeah on most days if someone personally insulted me/my beliefs/my politics I can brush it off and ignore that person. What am I going to do the next time I see a response from that person? Ignore them. They could have the best post in the world and it's going to be ignored.
Say Perrie* reads a post of mine and says well you're just a bible thumping rethuglican nazi. My opinion of her is going directly into the trash so as I scroll through other seeds and I see a comment by Perrie I'm automatically going to think that it's a trash response and chances are I'm going to thumb up every single person that disagrees with her just to non-verbally get her goat.
Now had Perrie said I disagree with what you posted would you care to go into more detail as to why you think that way or clarify what you said? I'm going to think hey this is a person that is using reason and logic so let me look at what I said and see if I can make my point more clear. They stated that they disagreed with me, which contrary to popular belief, but it doesn't make them my enemy.
In the first scenario she attacked me so now she's, theoretically, my enemy so the gloves are off and it's time to fight.
In the second scenario she still disagrees with me but opened it up to further dialog. We're still friendly and can have a debate using logic and reason.
Just because we don't agree on everything doesn't make either of us better than the other person. I have friends that I don't agree with 50% of the time but if that person called me up and asked for help I'd move mountains for them and would even lay down my life for them.
The world would be a very boring place if everyone had the exact same views and opinions.
*Not saying that Perrie would do this but just using her as an example.
LOL.. I like it.
*Nice disclaimer there.
I don't need a "safe space", just common courtesy and respect from others, who demand it be shown to them. It is a two-way street. And I don't think most other Members here really expect more than that either.
And you're right.....we are all adults.....and as such, everyone should act like it, and respect the equal rights of others to speak their minds as well. There is nothing of value to be learned from wash, rinse, repeat echo chambers and flame wars. While discussions can become heated at times, there is no reason they have to devolve into a "Fight Club" environment.
Just my own 2 cents worth.
i can agree with that. unfortunately we'll always encounter those people who will demand it be shown but lack giving it in return, it's just apart of life. it'd be nice to have it as a 2-way street, but i really don't think it can be forced, so i just simply walk away if i feel its not a 2-way street with another person.
i absolutely agree, i just disagree with the method being used (banning words/phrases/statements etc) to achieve it, but we are all entitled to our opinions
i appreciate it, always
Thanks, Phoenyx. Being as NT is a multi-cultural and ethnic site, as well as multi-political and religious site, we should consider things from all aspect, not just our own. There are many Members here who no longer comment or post to the site as they are tired of being attacked and vulgarly bullied by those who feel they are the only ones who should have the right to voice their views, POV, beliefs and opinions, and try to shut everyone up else other than those who fall in lock step with their own thinking.
Without rules and moderation NT would become nothing more than a clone of the site that closed down. I don't think the majority of the Members here on NT would want that to happen. If there are those who wish to prefer a site like that, then there are numerous sites like that out there they can participate in. But, to expect NT to cater to their individual preferences and abandon the CoC and moderation is simply not going to happen, no matter how hard they try.
And I also appreciate your input here on NT as well. (smile)
Everyone here is soooo super awesome. I just can't get enough of all your inner strengths and beauty. Gold stars all around, my beloved compatriots. I just want to give each and every one of you a warm hug, and a sloppy wet kiss. Thank you all for just being you! Finally, NT can be all that it is was meant to be - this is a glorious moment shared by my exceptionally intelligent, articulate, and comely brothers and sisters. Gosh golly, please pinch me so that I know I'm not dreaming! I can't wait to begin blowing smoke up all your asses on a full time basis, in full compliance with these important new rules. I'm going to flatter the shit out of you all!
put the pipe down, Hal
Hal....I think it's time to open a few windows and let some fresh air in.
Reminds me of when they opened the door of the van in the "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" movie. (grin)
i agree with you Hal (if i'm interpreting this correctly) because this is the way we are headed since we are banning "bad" words/phrases that people can't handle reading on a social networking site - thusly creating a "safe space".
This -
If this were actually followed half the site would be banned for what they post here.
We have some new mods and will be going over what needs to be done to tighten up on this..but on the other hand, you have no idea what we do mark up on any given day. It is mind blowing.
Or on the other hand you can read the reverse of this here:
There is no way to make everyone happy apparently.
LMAO! Yeah you would love that, like you would love meeting a shark.
Of course not, but you have several member that are here just to stir shit up.
I agree, and they have met with many a suspension. Hopefully they will get their act in order eventually.
That's why we should all look up the word "compromise"
Love you, Perrie! Hope this works out, but please don't fault me for being dubious.
Oh no worried EG. You are only speaking you mind, which is encouraged here.
Exactly!
Compromise is a four letter word....comp ro mise....Actually it's two four letter words...
NO comp ro mise.
Errr... that one is lost in translation, LOL.
Oh for goodness sake, is English a second language for you?
It's very clear. Crystal in fact.
Kein Englisch ist meine erste Sprache, aber ich kenne Ihre erste Sprache, also sagte ich ja, sie zu benutzen. Deutsch ist, was ich in der High School gelernt habe, aber ich muss nicht mehr viele Leute sprechen.
LOL, so you pulled the German card....
Aua e te taumafai e tautala i lo'u gagna.
Erst ich bin in Europa gekommen, habe ich etwas Deutsche gelernt. Leider habe ich fast neimals gespochen wahrend vierzig jaehre. Alles ist vorbei...
Why does this article seem like a fountain of propaganda?
So is there a specific date when this is "live"? Since the new coc was posted later in the day is it retroactive to say posts this morning or do we give everyone the remainder of the day to where they can look it over?
I'd personally say lets start it tomorrow or have a set date because under the new rules there could be some infractions from before this was posted so mods would have to check the time stamp on every comment. If it goes live tomorrow they'd just have to check the date.
Good point and I agree Telo. Tomorrow it is. All new infractions will be written up today, but they will apply to the old rules. Tomorrow will start the new rules.
You might want to put up a notice on when the new CoC rules will start, as there may be some Members who might not visit this article. That way, they have a heads up and have time to read the new rules before they apply.
Just a thought.
Will do Raven!
And now no one can say they didn't know when it would become effective.
My New Years resolution, close to four months late.
I promised to be really really nice to everyone on NT forever and ever.
(disclaimer) except when they piss me off then it's ass kicking time.
Signed. Judge Roy Bean (The hanging judge)
I'm with him....
OK Roy, line them up! LOL!
I try hard to follow the rules, but I really chafe under restrictions and like to test the boundaries. I pledge to do my best because I don't want to be hurtful, but I've got a mouth like a sailor and don't see that changing here. And sometimes the topics are limited to a degree that doesn't do justice to the complexity of the subject. As for the indirect insults to groups (libs/cons/etc), well, good luck with that. Sometimes a whole group needs to be held to a standard (especially when they set that standard!). Good luck to us.
It's that old "Do unto others" thing. If you don't want to read "All XYZ are A holes" then don't do it yourself. Right?
I hate being referred to as a "libtard". For one, it's not nice to call someone retarded, seconded, well, it just gets on my nerves.
So in order to not having that word around, I agree not call republicans, rethuglicans, Christians bible-humpers, and some other choice words I've had for them for a long, long, time.
It's called compromise. Nobody is happy, every body is unhappy. Society is working
Article reopened for the night folks till 11:00 pm
I had some highly entertaining gibberish and nonsense to add earlier, but I'll be damned if I can remember what it was! Isn't there a way to make a comment on a closed article, yet keep the comment in limbo until the article is opened again?
Well have no worries.. but I seem to have a memory issue too sometimes.. err.. ummm.. err.. OK I guess that's all I have. Did you say something?
Just to clear up one point. Does this mean that I can't tell people that they are a dumb ass, dumbass or any variation of the those choice words even when they are dumb asses?
Eya!
Disappointing that you can't call a dumbass a dumb ass.
kav, just tell them they remind you of the guy that wrote the Count of Monte Cristo, that Dumas feller.....
You might, but, I think Mommy spank.
See Ravnen, I always knew you were one smart cookie. LOL!
A spanking is punishment? Who woulda guessed.
Look here Chief Leather Whip, just give me the safe word and I'm in.
Depends on who is doing the spanking and with what.
Chief Leather Whip...LMAO, you've mistaken me for my evil twin. I'm Chief Leather Chaps....LOLOLOL
There's a salve for that.
LOL.. made out of Ben Gay?
Handle these Ben Gay chaps, sister...LMAO
Whoa! Now I could be brave with him, LOL!
OOohhhhhooooo......burn baby burn. LOL!!
Can we take turns?......??
Do the new rules mean I can't put this in a comment?
Well you could, but you might find you develop an odd following.
That's great. I assume this one would be fine as well?
I like this one the best.
Too funny.
If you're pulling
I must be pushing it from behind ? ?
Jeez, Perrie, the only literary talents in which I excel, are snark and innuendo, My commenting capabilities are being cut by 90%.
I have faith in you, good sister. I am sure you will find a new and innovative way to get your message across. But if it requires memory, we are both screwed.
Sister could smack them with her cigar...that would be much more impressive then words ever could be.
I know the feeling......
Sister could smack them with her cigar...that would be much more impressive than words could be.
I'd better stock up before the 6th!
I'm going to Cuba... I mean Key West, so I can get you some real quality ones!
I have a suggestion for a rule adjustment. If a person breaks the coc in an attack on another member, but that member does not flag the comment or want it removed, can it be allowed to stand? Some of us don't want the mods to do our attackers the favor of pulling their comments, we would rather that our attacker be forced to own his/her attack on us. The more vile and disgusting an attack is; the more we want the comment to stand. I don't want any attacks on me pulled, and I know there are others who feel the same way.
That is an arrangement that I have with others here, so if you don't want any attacker on you removed I will make a note of that in the mod group and we will follow through, cool?
Awesome, I thought I'd get shot down!
Not at all. Glad to make you happy Lenny!
OK ran an hour and a half longer than I expected, and now it's 12:30 and the discussion is now closed. Lets hope this turns out well!
Thanks to everyone who participated.