Lost and confused!!!!

  

Category:  meta

Via:  randy  •  2 years ago  •  69 comments

Lost and confused!!!!




It's getting easier by the day to violate the new CoC. I don't think the moderators have really got used to it themselves yet and decided on what the bumpers are, so some are deleting some things that others are not. It'll take awhile for them to settle down and confer with each other about who is too touchy and who is not hard enough. Give it a few months.


 



     REPLY


 





Randy


7.2.3     Randy     replied to    Randy   @ 7.2.2       yesterday

It's getting easier by the day to violate the new CoC. I don't think the moderators have really got used to it themselves yet and decided on what the bumpers are, so some are deleting some things that others are not. Right now I think some of them are   over moderating   out of an abundance of caution. Sort of like an attitude of when in doubt, delete. It'll take awhile for them to settle down and confer with each other about who is too touchy and who is not hard enough and loosen the hell up some, but they will. Give it a few months.


 



     REPLY


 





Heartland American


7.2.4     Heartland American     replied to    Randy   @ 7.2.3       9 hours ago

Or decades..   


 



     REPLY




Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Randy
2  seeder  Randy    2 years ago

Well I agree with you there Heartland American   (for a shock). Personally what I think is for Perrie is to take all of the Moderators to a private forum on the site and take them to "New CoC School" and tell them all what the new rules mean because half of them don't (and I mean this as polity as I can) don't know their bottoms from a hole in the ground on what they are supposed to delete or not! It's obvious because I constantly see things going by that some moderators delete that others do not and I post somethings that gets deleted that are real gentle while other things I post really rough sail right on through,   so it's certain that if the moderators don't know what they are doing and what to delete and not to delete, then how can the rest of us know what is OK to post?

Then after Perrie teaches the Moderators what the new CoC rules are then MAYBE she or someone can come back and explain them to the rest of us so we don't keep seeing some stuff getting deleted by some moderators that sails through by others.

Perrie, I love you to death! Really! You know that! I have for years and years! But your Moderators do not know what in the HELL they are doing and therefore neither do we with the new rules!!! (I would like to start a petition to go back to the old rules!)

Perrie take your moderators to school so we know which ones will be sensitive to what type of stuff we can post without getting deleted and then tell us so we can avoid that type of stuff because some of us are getting deleted for stuff we never got deleted for under the old rules and stuff we didn't think we'd get deleted for under the new rules and we don't know why and and sometimes we get deleted for something under the new rules but sometimes we post the same thing and we do not get deleted even though we just got deleted for the very same thing under the new rules so why did get deleted for posting the same thing under the new rules and now we just just posted the same thing under the new rules and did not get deleted? And then got deleted!

And NO. The new rules are not perfectly clear and easily understood.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Randy @2    2 years ago

I think this forum should go by the Newsvine Rules, which seemed to work fairly well. Unless a comment is extremely offensive, threatening, abusive, or personal, simply delete it, with a reference as to why it was deleted. The aforementioned violations should be dealt with by immediate suspensions lasting from a day to a week. Really egregious violations should result in a permanent ban.

Also...the moderators should not be allowed to post comments. This wearing of two hats ensures that their moderating will NOT be fair and unbiased. Sally and Tyler and whoever else moderated on NV did a decent job in keeping that forum in order. I come here mainly to banter with and annoy liberals and try to make them see the error of their ways and views. It's a hopeless task and I doubt if I'll make a difference, but the time I spend here is simply for entertainment and comic relief...rarely have I seen anything deep, or profound, learned anything worthwhile,  or worth knowing on this web site. I think a few members take themselves and their opinions far too seriously, but the fun comes in poking holes in their arguments.

 
 
 
Spikegary
2.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    2 years ago

I thought it was funny, when they first brought in the thumbs up/thumbs down selectors here.  One of the Moderators complained about how he was getting too many thumbs down without what he saw as sufficient explanation (sometimes a comment is so bad it doesn't deserve a narrative as to why it got a thuimbs down), so that feature was removed, now we can only 'thumbs up'.

 
 
 
Randy
2.1.2  seeder  Randy  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    2 years ago

In many ways i agree with you, though I think we want this site to be more civil then NV. I have a slightly different take on the idea of if a comment of it is extremely offense, threatening, offensive, abusive or personal. I think they should be allowed to stand unless the person they are are directed at specifically objects. I think a Moderator should exercise a hands off policy unless that person registers a complaint. If the person being insulted does not register a complaint, then it is not the moderators nor the sites business to intervene. This is not a site for children. We are all adults and should be all able, as adults, to decides what level of insults we are willing to endure. If we are Lilly flowers then we are free to complain and are free to be protected. However if we are leather, then let us be allowed to be treated and treat other who wish to be treated the same as leather as leather and not be protected as Lily flowers. We do not have to have one compromised standard for all the satisfies none completely.

I think that if we are to have a successful site that encompasses as many people as possible, then it really can not have one strict CoC that covers all members. It must have a flexible CoC the covers separate members that are willing to be covered under different rules of membership depending on the type of membership of the site they are willing to be a part of. Of course there must be an understanding that the members who want to be a part of the leather part of the site will in no way treat the lily part of the site as they would the leather members or if they did that would be a violation that, if repeated a certain number of times, would get them permanently banned from the site. We must divide ourselves into the types of members we are willing to be. Into the types of level of conversation we are willing to participate in. It is already obvious that there are already two groups, so lets make it formal.

I realize that what I am proposing here is a radical and complete change to the site itself. However I believe that the site has grown to the point to where it has become necessary for this change, but where it will be beneficial for it. I also believe that most members of the site will be able to blend in with it seamlessly.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    2 years ago

Skirting the CoC [ph] The idea that you come here to be amused by all your liberal inferiors is a hoot though. 

Second, Newstalkers is not a large enough site to afford having 5 or 6 moderators refrain from commenting. Plus they don't get paid. Keeping them from commenting (which is the reason they come to a discussion forum in the first place) would be nothing but a punishment to people who are in the end volunteers. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Randy @2.1.2    2 years ago

Randy, that leather and lillys stuff is way off track. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 years ago
First of all Greg, you are one of the most incompetent commenters  I have seen on this forum, or others, including Newsvine.  The idea that you come here to be amused by all your liberal inferiors is a hoot though

Thanks for your input JR. This comes from one of worst offenders here when it comes to personal insults, name calling, rudeness, and trying to bully other members into submission. You comment above is just another example. It's not working for you, so you might try other tactics. You may have around here forever, but that does not make you smarter or wiser than anyone else. So please try to act like an adult, since this playground doesn't belong to you.

 
 
 
Spikegary
2.1.6  Spikegary  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 years ago

John, as a Serial Offender of the CoC, No one actually believes you are in a postion to  evaluate others here.  You might have missed the part about attacking others on a personal level.

 
 
 
Randy
2.1.7  seeder  Randy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    2 years ago
Randy, that leather and lillys stuff is way off track.

I usually agree with you, but you comment was about 4 paragraphs short on ideas of your own.

 
 
 
T.Fargo
2.1.8  T.Fargo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    2 years ago
Really egregious violations should result in a permanent ban.

  Those don't work.  Forgive the blurriness, it's the best I could do.

Troll behavior chart 180413.png

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  T.Fargo @2.1.8    2 years ago

I know...since a person can re-reg quickly and easily.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  T.Fargo @2.1.8    2 years ago

I knew I could count on you to present a flow chart for the CoC

 
 
 
T.Fargo
2.1.11  T.Fargo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.10    2 years ago

I save everything.  Very neatly too.

 
 
 
Spikegary
3  Spikegary    2 years ago

Couldn't agree more.  I like that there is some new Sheriff's in town and they are moderating, though I did call one out on one of my articles-someoen was asking personal questions, for less than honorable purposes (that had nothing to do with the article).  I told that person it was none of their goddamned business.....and I got purple penned with a cut and paste about taunting/buillying and civility. 

I'm glad they are trying, but that was overkill.  There's a fine line between moderating and overkill, this time it was exceeded.

 
 
 
Randy
3.1  seeder  Randy  replied to  Spikegary @3    2 years ago

Exactly! Some do nothing and some do overkill!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4  Bob Nelson    2 years ago

ScratchHead.gif~c200 I agree that the application of the "Naw CoC" seems spotty... and I don't understand why.

The "New CoC" is not really new at all. The operational content is pretty much unchanged from the old CoC. (I think that's a pity, but that's a different subject.)

The "New CoC" only changed in presentation . In format . Not in content. The "New CoC" is far more legible than the old one.

Content is unchanged . The same behavior is allowed / not-allowed today as yesterday.

So why has application become worse?

 
 
 
JBB
4.1  JBB  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    2 years ago
So why has application become worse?

I do not know except that other than Perrie there is mostly only two faces seen being the enforcer...

Nobody wants to butt heads with the enforcers but apparently some of NV is leaking over onto NT...

There are private groups on NT but not nations so let us hope that NT does not become balkanized.

Cryptic Enough? My only week suspension on NV was for a mere implication and that was surly fishy.

My point being that anyone unable to operate within the lines of a CoC isn't smart enough to play...

 
 
 
Randy
4.1.1  seeder  Randy  replied to  JBB @4.1    2 years ago
My point being that anyone unable to operate within the lines of a CoC isn't smart enough to play...

Bull, no one knows what the lines ARE between the lines of the new CoC!!!! Every moderator has their own set!

 
 
 
Randy
4.2  seeder  Randy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    2 years ago

I agree. It's not so much as the rules changed, as much as the severity of the application of them. Yes there were some rules changes and they were applied (IMHO) very severely, but it it seemed more like some of the application of some of the old rules were just suddenly applied much more intensely and severely. The rules used to be looser or so it seemed. It was like all of a sudden everything was clamped down on. Or at least that's how it seems to me, but as Dennis Leary says that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Randy @4.2    2 years ago

You're in for another kicker as Perrie no longer allows us to put meta on the front page and makes members put it in the meta group. Only management is allowed to post it on the FP these days.  That's how ridiculous it has gotten. 

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/36370/policy-change-regarding-meta

 
 
 
Randy
4.2.2  seeder  Randy  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.2.1    2 years ago

Oh well

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 
 
 
Randy
4.2.3  seeder  Randy  replied to  Randy @4.2.2    2 years ago
This iframe is not allowed

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    2 years ago

I don't believe there were any substantial changes brought on by the recent vote, but if anyone would like to try and explain what they are, I am listening. 

The recent coc debate and vote just seemed to me to be the point where members brought in during the past year got their chance to weigh in about the rules. I don't believe many or any of the rules actually changed. 

 
 
 
devangelical
5.1  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 years ago

The definition of what constitutes a personal attack has become more ambiguous. Extremely Rude. Seriously?

 
 
 
Randy
5.1.1  seeder  Randy  replied to  devangelical @5.1    2 years ago

Yeah! Now if you say the sligest thing wrong about another person it's a personal attack and it's either a CoC Violation or the ever dreaded "skirting the CoC'. I swear if I say that I thought (even if I don't know) that the person I am addressing wears their hair funny I would be deleted for skirted the CoC. 

The Moderators have become hypersensitive since the new rules. Or I could be wrong.

IF YOU THINK THAT I AM WRONG THEN HERE IS THE PERFECT META ARTICLE TO TELL ME THAT I AM WRONG AND THAT YOU THINK THE NEW RULES ARE WORKING OUT JUST GREAT AND THEN I WILL JUST JUST SHUT UP AND GO AWAY, BUT IF YOU THINK THAT LIKE I DO THAT THEY ARE SCREWED UP AND NEED SOME SERIOUS WORK THEN SAY SO NOW! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER NOW!

 
 
 
Spikegary
5.1.2  Spikegary  replied to  Randy @5.1.1    2 years ago

I think its the newbie moderators taking things too far while trying to be 'good' mods.

 
 
 
Randy
5.1.3  seeder  Randy  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.2    2 years ago

I agree. I think they are trying too hard.

Look at my proposal above Gary.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Randy @5.1.1    2 years ago
"skirting the CoC'

That one has always been my Fav. to see popup. stunned

I honestly didn't know, walking next to the border without touching or crossing over, was really like crossing the border.

I'm not touching you !

 
 
 
Randy
5.1.5  seeder  Randy  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.4    2 years ago

That's it's EXACTLY the what I was looking for when I was looking for a way to trying to describe it! Skirting the CoC is EXACTLTY like two kids in the backseat of car on a long cross country trip poking their fingers close to each other and still saying "But I'm not touching you!" just to be irritating little brats! That is exactly what the skirting the Coc rule is!!!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Randy @5.1.3    2 years ago

I'd rather they try too hard than not at all.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Randy @5.1.5    2 years ago

laughing dude

It's like getting close to claiming one's "Snowflake" status has ALMOST been violated, but not quite....but the "Snowflake" gets the benefit !

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6  Dean Moriarty    2 years ago

It’s been all downhill since we lost Mike L as a Mod. He was the voice of freedom that protected us from the butthurt crybabies their censorship and safe spaces. 

 
 
 
badfish
7  badfish    2 years ago

This article is a meta piece and needs to be moved per the Coc.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  badfish @7    2 years ago

Since when do you respect the COC ? , lol. 

 
 
 
badfish
7.1.1  badfish  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    2 years ago

I am the CoC

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish @7.1.1    2 years ago

why don't you stop? You are not the assistant RA nor do you know anything about John's supposed vacay

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  badfish @7.1.1    2 years ago

We know you have no tiltle in the NT administration, so can we assume your title refers to assistant restroom attendant? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  badfish @7.1.1    2 years ago

Bullshit.  

 
 
 
badfish
7.1.5  badfish  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.3    2 years ago

Err um, that might have just done it!

 
 
 
badfish
7.1.6  badfish  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.2    2 years ago

code 143 in progress, Assistant R.A down requesting back up.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
7.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  badfish @7.1.1    2 years ago
I am the CoC

And a really big one on occasion. 

OK, admit it, that was funny.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  badfish @7.1.5    2 years ago

Some seem to be drawn, even obsessive, towards the "Golden Fleece ". laughing dude

 
 
 
Spikegary
7.1.9  Spikegary  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.2    2 years ago

Where did he say anything about John's susp.....er...vacation?

Carryover from some other article?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish @7.1.6    2 years ago

do you need a whambulance, too?

 
 
 
badfish
7.1.11  badfish  replied to  Spikegary @7.1.9    2 years ago

Shhh...shhhh 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Spikegary @7.1.9    2 years ago

he edited his comment

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish @7.1.11    2 years ago

I'm googling a fish sauce as I write this.....

 
 
 
badfish
7.1.14  badfish  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.13    2 years ago

Oh shit the site mommy is here....i am in trouble...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish @7.1.14    2 years ago

Yes, she is....and I've got her on speed dial

 
 
 
badfish
7.1.16  badfish  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.15    2 years ago

Snitch.....

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2  It Is ME  replied to  badfish @7    2 years ago

This article is a meta piece and needs to be moved per the Coc.

laughing dude

 
 
 
Randy
8  seeder  Randy    2 years ago

This article is where I fucking put it and if anyone wants to move it or delete it then do it! Other then that argue the merits!

 
 
 
badfish
8.1  badfish  replied to  Randy @8    2 years ago

According to article 2 subsection A if the CoC a meta article has to be put in the Meta group, and watch your mouth young man!

 
 
 
Randy
8.1.1  seeder  Randy  replied to  badfish @8.1    2 years ago

So flag me and recommend that I be banned!

Oh...and spank me...if you want to...

 
 
 
badfish
8.1.2  badfish  replied to  Randy @8.1.1    2 years ago

I am not sure if i am comfortable spanking you. Could that be construed as infidelity?

 
 
 
Randy
8.1.3  seeder  Randy  replied to  badfish @8.1.2    2 years ago

I hope so!

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.2  Sparty On  replied to  Randy @8    2 years ago

Here Randy, have a Snickers .....

 
 
 
Randy
8.2.1  seeder  Randy  replied to  Sparty On @8.2    2 years ago

Whew! Thanks! I'm not myself when I'm hungry!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
9  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    2 years ago

But here's the thing:  The new CoC rules have been in effect for what...6 or 7 days?  Shouldn't a learning curve be expected?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9    2 years ago

For this crowd?

Yes

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1    2 years ago
For this crowd?

It's not very crowded here. blushing

Now Bourbon Street, that's a CROWD !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9    2 years ago

What are the new COC rules? 

 
 
 
Randy
9.2.1  seeder  Randy  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2    2 years ago

If I believed in god I'd say god knows.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
9.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9    2 years ago

Oh great the hand picked select few that were allowed to vote on the COC have created something so complicated that it requires a learning curve. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10  Jasper2529    2 years ago

Why is this article on my Front Page and not in "Metafied"?

Lost And Confused!!!!

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

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’.

 
 
 
T.Fargo
10.1  T.Fargo  replied to  Jasper2529 @10    2 years ago

  Well there goes my article about hemorrhoids.   "No inflammatory content".

 
 
 
Spikegary
10.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  T.Fargo @10.1    2 years ago

Well played.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  T.Fargo @10.1    2 years ago
Well there goes my article about hemorrhoids.   "No inflammatory content".

thumbs up

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

Article is closed on the front page and has been moved to metafied. Please continue discussion there. I will be a part of the discussion. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Sunshine
JohnRussell
XDm9mm
loki12
Kavika
Freedom Warrior


42 visitors