I'd Like Some ANSWERS!

  

Category:  meta

By:  a-macarthur  •  2 years ago  •  191 comments

I'd Like Some ANSWERS!

Several times earlier today, I attempted to comment on SEEDED ARTICLES, that for the expressed purpose of CORRECTING WHAT APPEARS TO BE MISINFORMATION.

But I could not leave any comments because THE ARTICLES WERE LOCKED.

Q: Who locked the articles?

Q: For what reason do they remain locked?


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
A. Macarthur
1  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

Because the locked articles appear to represent a particular partisan slant …

I seriously hope that locking them is not an attempt to take a particular position … AND THEN CUT OFF ANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISSENT!

Answers please.

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.1  pat wilson  replied to  A. Macarthur @1    2 years ago

From what I've seen articles are either locked by the seeder because they have to leave and can't monitor the seed or by a moderator who notices the seeder has abandoned their seed. 

 
 
 
CB
1.2  CB   replied to  A. Macarthur @1    2 years ago

Hi  A. Macarthur! Are you returning to Calbab articles, because I can open them. I locked two articles just today, because interest seems to have waned, high post counts, and er' moving on to new topics. I will be happy to open one/them for you and anyone else. By the way, locking articles is new to me. I am learning. Trying to find the right way of doing things for the long haul. (Smile.)

Let me add if I may humbly. This brings up an interesting accident not meant to happen when change occurs (can't recall the word for that expression), I, maybe some others, are trying to mesh all we are doing with the CoC, statements about abandoning articles, statements about blogs being closed for none use, et cetera, and we are doing it too close together. Does that make any sense? I do not know. I am just trying to 'get with the program' more or less.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
1.2.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  CB @1.2    2 years ago

I want to know who locked the articles and for what reasons.

What triggered my inquiry is the similar nature or “slant” of the articles that were locked. 

It did not appear that the seeders were not active ... to the contray ... but I will go back and check if no one comes forward to explain the lock downs.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.2  cjcold  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.2.1    2 years ago

Really haven't seen anybody but HA doing it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  A. Macarthur @1    2 years ago

I asked Perrie that not too long ago.  She told me it was so people can't spam a seed while they are are afk.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  A. Macarthur @1    2 years ago

It's a vast right wing conspiracy!  Eye Roll

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
1.4.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4    2 years ago

“Mocking precedes learning the hard way.”

―  Toba Beta

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.4.1    2 years ago

And what is the hard way?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.4.3  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4    2 years ago

Isn't it always?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.5  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @1    2 years ago

You have 7 moderators and one RA - instead of holding the front page hostage, how 'bout the 8 of you finding out who is doing it and why?

In other words - do your jobs - ya think?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
1.5.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5    2 years ago

I did my job and caught a lot of shit for doing it.

I identified a situation, sent the sequence to Perrie with the clear time stamp …

Still catching shit about it.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.5.2  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.5.1    2 years ago

So, where are the other 7 sleuths?  This "issue" is a management issue - not a member issue. 

It appears to be a "whiner" thread - you know, the kind we used to get lots of.  You "Managers" need to fix it - not the members.  It is obvious, from yours and others "back-and-forths", that the consensus is that "management" fix it.

This does NOT need to be a "Member-Blast". 

Take it off the FP and ya'll get to it.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.5.3  Raven Wing  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5.2    2 years ago
It appears to be a "whiner" thread - you know, the kind we used to get lots of.

It appears that anything that does not fall in lock step with what you think is right is simply a "whiner" thread? Then pray tell us kind Sir, what is your solution from a Moderation POV? Surely you DO have a solution, other than to simply ridicule others that do not agree with your own thinking. And how long have you been a Moderator here on NT?

"Whining" seems more like what you are doing right now.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.5.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Raven Wing @1.5.3    2 years ago

Sorry RW - didn't know you were added to the Moderator's list so you could tell the rest of us what is acceptable and what is not.

My solution????  Let management handle a management issue.  Hmmm - interesting concept, eh?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.5.5  Raven Wing  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5.4    2 years ago
Sorry RW - didn't know you were added to the Moderator's list so you could tell the rest of us what is acceptable and what is not.

I'm not a Moderator, nor have I ever been one here. But, telling everyone else here what is acceptable, and telling those who are Moderators what their jobs are seems to be more what you are doing and you are not a Moderator either. Right? Or have you been one before and know everything that needs to be done according to the RA's instructions and the CoC? 

How the Moderators do their job, or don't, is not your, or anyone else's, call here other than the site owner and RA. Yet, you take it upon yourself to try to dictate what they should and should not do according to your own opinion. I didn't know that Perrie named you RA to tell the Mods here how to do their job.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
1.5.6  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior @1.5.2    2 years ago

One more time counselor … while I inadvertently posted this to the wrong area (and had it corrected when it was brought to my attention), ultimately, where the prosecution stands in the courtroom is logistically secondary to what he states in conjunction with the facts of the case.

The move to a new venue has been done … and the facts are still the same … and, for the common good, all members need to understand that locking a discussion needs to be done honestly and "with cause," not arbitrarily and capriciously and in bad faith.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.5.7  cjcold  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.5.1    2 years ago

Used to admin. on the vine. Damn near gave me an ulcer.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.5.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cjcold @1.5.7    2 years ago

No joy attached to the job for sure. Not sure why some think it's an honor.

 
 
 
loki12
1.5.9  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.5.8    2 years ago

Like herding cats? Who whine like 2 year olds I would imagine.

 
 
 
The Old Breed Marine
2  The Old Breed Marine    2 years ago

Hey amigo, how you doing?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
2.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @2    2 years ago
Hey amigo, how you doing?
Doin' well! Fishing, taking pictures, hanging out with my grandkids … and how are you?

 
 
 
The Old Breed Marine
2.1.1  The Old Breed Marine  replied to  A. Macarthur @2.1    2 years ago

Really good!

I've missed the old blogging crew, it's been a while...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
2.1.2  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @2.1.1    2 years ago

Very pleased to see you.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  A. Macarthur @2.1.2    2 years ago

Which seeds are you talking about?

 
 
 
charger 383
3  charger 383    2 years ago

this locking has gotten out of hand

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  Heartland American  replied to  charger 383 @3    2 years ago

I agree.  

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    2 years ago

And here I thought that it was you doing most of it.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.3  SteevieGee  replied to  charger 383 @3    2 years ago

I've stopped reading the locked seeds.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
4  Mark in Wyoming    2 years ago

Most likely , it is a result of the increasing "drivebys" that happen meant to simply disrupt that are resulting because someone , might not be close or online while life has other things for them to do.

 it is a pain , but I can understand it being done so as to avoid it being said one is not moderating their articles.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
4.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4    2 years ago

Given the nature of the articles, I not yet ready to accept that Mark. Especially given the sudden change in the way the seeders in question locked down.

I will revisit the seeds tomorrow.

 
 
 
Ender
5  Ender    2 years ago

Locking doesn't seem to fulfill the intended purpose. Today I saw an article locked for I guess non moderation. Shortly after the article was locked, the seeder unlocked the article made a couple of snide replies then re-locked the article after stating, now it is locked.

So I am guessing that even if an article is locked by moderation, it can be locked and unlocked at will, which as I have seen, can lead to people unlocking an article to get in a last word or comment then locking it back up and not get any replies to their comments.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @5    2 years ago

Cowardly tactic.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
5.2  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ender @5    2 years ago

More reason to get explanations from those who did the locking.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  A. Macarthur @5.2    2 years ago
Today I saw an article locked for I guess non moderation. Shortly after the article was locked, the seeder unlocked the article made a couple of snide replies then re-locked the article after stating, now it is locked.

OK that is a problem. If anyone sees that happen please notify me. It is one thing to lock an article if you are going to be away for an extended period of time ( more than 4 hours), but opening and closing at critical times, is gaming the system and that is not allowed and there will be suspensions handed out. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago

My god you can’t be serious. My sympathies.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago

Articles should only be locked by you, or perhaps a couple of trusted (to be fair and unbiased) moderators. Seeders will then simply have to deal with and defend what they write, and have no other control of the thread, which would still be moderated as usual. Newsvine operated well for years under this concept with little moderation by Sally and Tyler and a few others. We make things too complicated here on NT.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.2.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.3    2 years ago

Hi Greg,

The reason we give the authors the right to close an article, is so that if they are gone for an extended period of time (more than 4 hours), that their article will not get spammed or driven off topic. The difference between NT and NV is that we take moderation seriously. There is never a gap, even on weekends. So it is not about trying to make it more complicated, but rather maybe taking advantage of the system. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    2 years ago
but opening and closing at critical times, is gaming the system and that is not allowed and there will be suspensions handed out.

I have seen this happen a few times. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
5.2.7  lennylynx  replied to    2 years ago

There is good, solid evidence that the sun rose behind the clouds.  Even if you can't see the sun, it will still be daylight, not darkness, and we know from experience that you can't have daylight unless the sun has risen.

 
 
 
Kavika
6  Kavika     2 years ago

I noticed the same Mac.

 
 
 
Pedro
7  Pedro    2 years ago

Unless you are specific, I don't see how anybody can really answer your question.

If a person is using it as a tactic to hit and run post, then I think that would be something we need to discuss openly.

 
 
 
sixpick
7.1  sixpick  replied to  Pedro @7    2 years ago

Let me tell you how it seems to work to me.  Locking your article because you have a job or other things you have to do is acceptable in my opinion, but I've found if you lock your article it leaves the front page and may end up on page 2 or 3 by the time you get back to it and no amount of unlocking or posting comments will have any effect on it at all.  For all practical purposes unless someone notices a comment in recent comments you've made or goes back a page or two your article is dead in the water from then on.

 
 
 
Pedro
7.1.1  Pedro  replied to  sixpick @7.1    2 years ago

You could easily bump such an article when you return.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
7.1.2  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  sixpick @7.1    2 years ago

This article is not about legitimate locking as when the author/seeder knows that for a reasonable period of time he/she will not be available to monitor. 

It's about locking a discussion when it's still active … but where the author seeder doesn't like comments that are contrary to his position … and particularly when he posts the last comment just before locking.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
8  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

I am prepared to show a comment I made in rebuttal of a seeded article … immediately followed by a comment BY THE SEEDER OF THE ARTICLE … criticizing my rebuttal … IMMEDIATELY AFTER WHICH THE ARTICLE WAS LOCKED!

The seeder got the last word and the article was locked.

I will leave it to Perrie as to whether or not I post that very sequence.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  A. Macarthur @8    2 years ago

Please send it to me Mac, so we don't start a sitewide brewhaha. 

Using the lock to get the last word is like using impasse to get the last word. It is wrong and gaming the system. 

 
 
 
Spikegary
8.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1    2 years ago

I don't really know who this is or what, but isn't this meta?  Why in the hell is it posted in News & Politics?  Aren't there some rules on this also?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
8.1.2  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Spikegary @8.1.1    2 years ago

My mistake when posting ... I will move it to Meta ... but if your issue is about following the rules, instead of breaking stones about where I inadvertently posted this, how about addressing the bigger issue as raised in the discussion itself.

 
 
 
Spikegary
8.1.3  Spikegary  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.1.2    2 years ago

I've already posted my thoughts on this 'article' below.  The problem I have is with you, being a 'Senior Moderator' on this site, you know the rules and you should abide by them and yes, you should be held to at least the same standard, if not a higher standard than a regular user.  You know better.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
8.1.4  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Spikegary @8.1.3    2 years ago

I said it was my error and inadvertent; when I can get to my laptop instead of my phone, it will be easier to move this to meta.

And again, if you’re concerned about the rules, instead of making this about me, deal with the bigger issue ... locking discussions, not an oversight on my part.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
8.1.5  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Spikegary @8.1.3    2 years ago

Not so long ago you brought my career into a thread, damning with feingt praise as the saying goes.

By all means, if you can get me on content, do it; but the ad hominem stuff is unacceptable.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.1.5    2 years ago

It's in meta now.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.2  Greg Jones  replied to  A. Macarthur @8    2 years ago

Oh, I see. Mac has to have the last word or the process is flawed and unfair. crying

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2    2 years ago

And now comes the gangbanging.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.2.2  Raven Wing  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.1    2 years ago
And now comes the gangbanging.

Totally sickening and so very childish. However, there are a few here on NT that engage in that kind of BS to try to shut others out so that only their own POV, opinions or beliefs are allowed to to be seen. 

I think most people here know who they are, their motives are so transparent as to leave no doubt what they are trying to do. 

 
 
 
PJ
8.3  PJ  replied to  A. Macarthur @8    2 years ago

AMAC - I had a very similar (identical) situation occur some time ago.  I decided that I wouldn't participate on any of that individuals articles anymore.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
8.3.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  PJ @8.3    2 years ago

PJ,

I don't fault you for avoiding certain discussions … my concern in raising the issue herein, is that, as members reduce their participation, site activity falls off … a most undesirable situation.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
9  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

Just sent it via private notes.

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

I complained about this very thing two months ago.   link

It's a crappy thing to do, and annoying as shit.

 

 
 
 
sixpick
10.1  sixpick  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10    2 years ago

Well, it appears this person has 3 or 4 articles and everyone of them are locked.  So maybe it wasn't personal.  I'd suggest holding your breath and..... listening to some music.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
10.1.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  sixpick @10.1    2 years ago
I'd suggest holding your breath and..... listening to some music.

Thanks.  You were right, I'm calm and cuddly as a kitten.  That doesn't resolve the issue, though. 

Six, I never said, nor did I imply,  that he was locking his seed because of me personally.  As a matter of fact, I had not yet been able to make a comment.  I initially thought that he was doing what many would consider the responsible thing, and locking it because he was unable to moderate for an extended period of time.  I moved on to search for another article that might hold my interest, and I saw in the recent activity box that he had just commented on the locked article.  I went back to make the comment I had intended to make, and it was locked again.  He did it several times in a row.  As a former mod, it seems like you should know what a crappy and cowardly act it is to prevent an opposing response.  This isn't NV where unscrupulous nation admins could block community members at will.  This is NT, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, and I doubt you would use such a chicken-shit tactic.  What is truly surprising is that you would defend someone who does.

 
 
 
sixpick
10.1.2  sixpick  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1.1    2 years ago

My complete apologies to you sister.  I don't want that cigar stuck in my ear.  I can tell you my comment wasn't meant for your comment although it was a reply.  It was meant for the overall mood of the article.  Actually it was suppose to be somewhat of a pacifier, something to lighten the mood, but I've often found when I am not so involved and make a comment, lightheartedly, in the middle of a perceived catastrophe there is little room for humor.  And that is not aimed at you personally either. 

This whole article could have been handled like Perrie has said to many, so many times, with a personal note, chat or phone call.

 
 
 
Randy
11  Randy    2 years ago

Certain members on here post an article, gather comments that support their position from others who feel as they do, suppress dissident and then when it looks like descent is going to grow and many, many honest questions and challenges grow, rather then reply or attempt to answer them, they post a "last word" and then lock the article to prevent honest comments to counter their arguments because they do not want honest responses to what they have to say.

 
 
 
Spikegary
11.1  Spikegary  replied to  Randy @11    2 years ago

Some people also post an article and when they have to leave for an extended period of time lock their articles, because they either don't want to leave the article unattended or becuase Perrie chasitses them for leaving an article unattended. 

This entire article seems like a whiny bitchfest targetting someone the author doesn't like much without much in the way of supporting facts and information.

Again, this is not News & Politics, it's Meta and shouldn't be here.

 
 
 
Kavika
11.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Spikegary @11.1    2 years ago

There is no problem with a author/seeder locking a article. The problem is when they make a smart ass comment to another poster and then lock the article. 

It happens. Deal with it.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  Kavika @11.1.1    2 years ago

Everyone has the right to go on any article and voice their opinion, just to make that clear. By now, you should pretty much know how some are going to react, so it might be best to avoid the article all together.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
11.1.3  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Spikegary @11.1    2 years ago

I named no one as a perpetrator and I’m beginning to wonder what’s behind your commentary. 

If there’s a whiny bitch fest, it’s embodied by an ad hominem pair of rants that beg the question at hand.

 
 
 
Spikegary
11.1.4  Spikegary  replied to  Kavika @11.1.1    2 years ago

I am dealing with it, Homeslice.  Just because Mac characterized it one way mans nothing but an assumption on his part.  He may be right, he may be wrong, though I've seen Perrie chastising people for 'abandoining articles' of late.

Deal with that.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
11.1.5  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Spikegary @11.1.4    2 years ago

I sent Perrie the evidence and did so in a private note so as to allow the perpetrator to remain inidentified.

It’s you ... multiple times now, accusing me of making a claim with no basis; take your own advice and state what you know to be factual; ad hominem innuendo is disingenuous and symptomatic of an agenda.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
11.1.6  magnoliaave  replied to  Spikegary @11.1.4    2 years ago

Yesterday, I remember Mac commenting, but I also remember that Perrie came in and said something about too many off topics and was locking it and then the seeder said he was locking it.  All I remember.

 
 
 
Kavika
11.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Kathleen @11.1.2    2 years ago

Now that is funny. The seeder/author of the article makes a smart ass comment to another poster than locks the article so there cannot be a reply. Sounds more like a chicken shit than a poster. 

Actually Kathleen, I don't really care what they do, I was pointing out to Spike that it happens whether he thinks it does or not. 

 
 
 
Kavika
11.1.8  Kavika   replied to  Spikegary @11.1.4    2 years ago

Cry me a river chimook. It happens and there are a number of members that can verify that it happened to them. 

Time to pull you head out of the smoke and deal with reality.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.9  Kathleen  replied to  Kavika @11.1.7    2 years ago

Maybe so, but I was pointing out that you should know by now how some people are going to handle things on this site. 

 
 
 
Kavika
11.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Kathleen @11.1.9    2 years ago

Since in my experience it's a new tactic, no I don't know how members are going to react. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Spikegary @11.1.4    2 years ago
I've seen Perrie chastising people for 'abandoining articles' of late.

That is true, Gary. But closing an article if you are going to be away for a long period of time is not the same thing as closing it to game the system, which is what I am looking into. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
11.1.12  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  magnoliaave @11.1.6    2 years ago

That may well be the case in one instance, Maggie; but I know in two threads, as soon as I commented, the threads were locked ... in one thread ... as I was typing; one can only leave a reply when an article is unlocked ... otherwise there’s no comment box in which to reply.

As I went to post the comment ... it would not go through ... the article was locked as a a I was typing!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.13  Raven Wing  replied to  A. Macarthur @11.1.12    2 years ago

"As I went to post the comment ... it would not go through ... the article was locked as a a I was typing"

I have had that happen to me several times. However, thus far it is only one Member that makes a habit of that to avoid having to validate their prior comment and do not have the proof to do so. Thus, they simply lock the article/seed hoping to avoid criticism. 

On the other hand, some leave their articles/seeds unattended for long periods of time at which point the comments then turn the article/seed into nothing but a verbal gangbanging 'Fight Club', and then the author/seeder loudly pules and complains when the article/seed is locked down by Mods.

Habitual abandonment of articles/seeds (for more than the 4 hours allowed) should not be allowed, and those who continue to do so should not have the privilege to continue to post their own articles/seeds of any kind. It just makes a mess on the FP and makes for unnecessary work for the Mods. In the long run NT loses.

Just my own thoughts. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
12  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

Let me preface this comment by stating that a locked discussion does not allow for a REPLY ... no comment box like this one is accessible.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Yesterday, I started to respond to a member who asked, in his comment for a lies told by the current POTUS ... and asked it incredulously as if no such lies existed!

You know me ladies and gents ... IN A COMMENT BOX LIKE THiS ONE, I BEGAN TO LIST A NUMBER IF SUCH LIES.

When I went to post what I had written, it would not post and a yellow bar appeared above the comment stating that something was wrong ... 

In between the time I began writing the comment and the time I was ready to post, THE DISCUSSION HAD BEEN LOCKED!

I looked back at a number of discussions I had joined to see the comment to which I’d attempted a reply ... I could not find it, nor could I find the discussion itself.

I guess it’s possible I forgot which discussion was in question, but I looked at every one on the board that dealt with the subject matter I would have rebutted.

What’s up with this?

That’s a rhetorical question ... 

We have come to a time in our country where truth and reality are the casualties of an insidious demagogue and a depraved following.

And here we are.

 
 
 
T.Fargo
12.1  T.Fargo  replied to  A. Macarthur @12    2 years ago

  An excellent comment.  I too have experienced this and here's what I think is going on...

  When there is a debate concerning the validity of a poster's argument (or opine) and rebuttal isn't allowed (i.e. CENSORSHIT), that poster controls the argument and may believe they have won it.  Rather than challenge their thought process and position on the issue through discourse, they hold up the proverbial "Talk to the hand".

  Of course, when the entire premise of an article is predicated on a lie, closing the article to discussion is also a way to protect that lie.

 
 
 
Kathleen
13  Kathleen    2 years ago

On my articles, I always tell everyone that I am locking it. I try to look to see if anyone asked me any questions or replied to me and I reply back.  If it's going to be an extensive post that I will have to make, I would say I will get back to them. 

 
 
 
Pedro
13.1  Pedro  replied to  Kathleen @13    2 years ago

That is the appropriate way to handle things.

 
 
 
Kathleen
13.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Pedro @13.1    2 years ago

If you are going to put out and controversial article, then you have to be prepared for many comments debating that issue. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
14  Dean Moriarty    2 years ago

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the mods that locked it without the seeders permission.  That along with mods removing comments they don’t like as no value has become common practice around here these days. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
14.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Dean Moriarty @14    2 years ago

Back that up or back off!

 
 
 
Spikegary
14.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.1    2 years ago

A. Mac, you are hinting at the argument that the seeder is locking stuff to keep you from posting your version of the facts.  I would make the same statement to you. 

Back that up or Back off.

 
 
 
Randy
14.1.3  Randy  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.1    2 years ago
Back that up or back off!

I second that! As long as I have been a member of this site and for the many years I was a moderator, that never happened! Either provide proof or admit it's bullshit! This is not an attack on a particular person this is a lie about moderators on this site about something that has never happened! Back it up or shut the Fuck up!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
14.1.4  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Spikegary @14.1.1    2 years ago

I have backed it up; I sent Perrie a specific sequence via personal notes as she requested ... in doing so, I avoided identifying the one doing the locking me out  ... and his doing so immediately after taking a shot at me!

I never bluff and I don’t  care for what seems to be your desire to quash this conversation.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
14.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.1    2 years ago
That along with mods removing comments they don’t like as no value has become common practice around here these days. 

I agree, a lot of the moderation I have been seeing lately is arbitrary, capricious, and biased....IMHO!

 
 
 
Spikegary
14.1.6  Spikegary  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.1.4    2 years ago

It's a good thing that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what you do or don't worry about.  You are making assumptions that somene is locking YOU out (your words) when the only facts are you were preparing a comment to dispute someone else's comment and when you tried to post it, you found the article locked.  You assumed, again, based on your words, that this was done to keep you from commenting.  You see the path you've laid out?  The assumptions that you have made are just that.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
14.1.7  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Spikegary @14.1.6    2 years ago

Third time, I sent the sequence and time line to Perrie.

Practice what you preach.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
14.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Randy @14.1.3    2 years ago

Calm down and quit being so defensive, it's obvious it is going on. "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.".

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @14.1.5    2 years ago

Greg,

I would be happy to send you the log of the comments we have removed as off topic (btw, that is a call that only the author can make, not the mods) and no value. I think when you look at them, you would agree. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
14.1.11  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.1.10    2 years ago

You will see in the link I provided above that Normans comment was deleted as No value and he didn’t make the call it was his own seed.  Mags was also deleted for the same reason and I don’t think he made that call either. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
14.1.12  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @14.1.8    2 years ago

Respond to the issue ... get off the ad hominem stufff ... it gives the appearance of consciousness of guilt.

 
 
 
Randy
14.1.13  Randy  replied to  Dean Moriarty @14.1.9    2 years ago

Here is one example of it happening Randy. 

Having articles stopped, closed or removed after repeated warning of repeated violations of the CoC is not the point of this article. What IS the point of this article (and you fucking well know it) is some members (and I have NO doubt that YOU know who they are) who post an article the stirs up a bunch of shit and then when people start to pose serious questions about their articles instead of answering these questions or meeting the challenges posted to their positions, they immediately post one long last incoherent screed that proves what a fucking moron they are and then close their article.

Then, instead of actually debating that position they only agree with the people who post who support their position and ignore those who don't. Then when the questioning against their position gets demanding they post a long and particularly incoherent screed and then lock their articles to further comment, without responding to any of the questions or challenges about the position they have just spent their whole article advocating and agreeing with others about. Why do they do this? The only rational and reasonable answer is that they can not support their position and therefore gutless, cowardly pussies. This tactic seems to be multiplying on the right wing which just cements their reputation as such.

One of the reasons it gets so frustrating and makes one want to leave this site is this spread of gutless pussies doing this. One comes on here and sees an article that you want you comment on, only to find that the cowardly poster has closed it very obviously to stop further comment after getting the last word. Pussy. Not directed at anyone in particular...that doesn't know who they are.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
14.1.14  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Randy @14.1.13    2 years ago

The mods forced that upon them. Don’t forget one member was singled out and can only post two seeds a day because they didn’t lock their seeds enough to please the mods while they were working. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
14.1.15  Kathleen  replied to  Randy @14.1.13    2 years ago

You can always go on heated debate and confront them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @14.1.11    2 years ago
You will see in the link I provided above that Normans comment was deleted as No value and he didn’t make the call it was his own seed.  Mags was also deleted for the same reason and I don’t think he made that call either.

Dean, 

I keep saying this and this isn't directed only to you. There is a difference between "off topic" and "no value". Only the author can call off topic and anyone can call no value. Then the mods look at the calls and we only look at the flags that are no value and those are pretty easy to define.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
14.1.17  Raven Wing  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.1    2 years ago
Back that up or back off!

Agreed!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @14    2 years ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the mods that locked it without the seeders permission.  That along with mods removing comments they don’t like as no value has become common practice around here these days.

Dean,

We never remove a comment without logging it first, in case someone disagrees with a call. A mod can close an article, but only if we notice that a person has been gone for more than 8 hours, and that is easy to see from the time stamp. The mods are not out to get anyone and I am kind of surprised at your comment. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
14.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.2    2 years ago

I go away for a few days and come back to people bitching about the moderators.

It's like I never left.....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.2.1    2 years ago

Believe me trout, I am not happy about that either. But really if you look in metafied there hasn't been much meta going on. 

 
 
 
bugsy
15  bugsy    2 years ago

It could be for a number of reasons. One of them I have seen is when a seeder receives far more comments that go against what the seeder posted than for it. For that reason, the seeder will just lock it and move on to the next seed where they hope to receive positive feedback.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
16  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

Since I won’t be at my laptop for an hour or more, I am asking Perrie to move this to Meta.

Neverthless, the bigger issue is not where I stand in the courtroom, rather, addressing the reason we’re in court to begin with ... metaphorically speaking.

And when it is implied or stated that I posted this discussion to get at someone I don’t like, since we’re now questioning intent, could deriding me thus imply an attempt to take attention away from the lock out and those who may be doing it to ... IRONICALLY ... get away from a discussion not going their way?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
16.1  Greg Jones  replied to  A. Macarthur @16    2 years ago

Well, you do seem to be taking this personally. You don't have to rebut every comment or statement that you don't like. Perhaps it is best at times to just suck it up and move on. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
16.1.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @16.1    2 years ago

Consciousness of guilt perhaps?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
16.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  A. Macarthur @16.1.1    2 years ago

Incoherent statement.

 
 
 
Randy
16.1.3  Randy  replied to  A. Macarthur @16.1.1    2 years ago
Consciousness of guilt perhaps?

Makes sense to me...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
16.1.4  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @16.1    2 years ago

Any tactic that thwarts discussion on a discussion forum, is potentially problematic.

Get off the ad hominen comments and address the issue.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
16.1.5  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @16.1.2    2 years ago

Only as it is processed by the incoherent.

 
 
 
owlsview677
16.2  owlsview677  replied to  A. Macarthur @16    2 years ago

So here we are again. Another opportunity to make changes to the COC and screw this site up even more.

What A.Mac claims is true. It is happening everyday. Nobody should be surprised. As well intentioned as Perrie is, this is not a true professional website, this is a private group on Facebook. When everybody has a say so in everything, there is no leadership, just continual chaos.

Live with it. Embrace it. Would you rather be on MSM, where even more restraints are placed on voices of dissent? At least here you can point it out even though doing so just adds to the dissension amongst the members. Not political dissension, just plain old arguements on what is good or bad behavior or who the biggest violators are.

Stop looking for a lost paradise. A paradise that has never existed on the net. Without meta, this site would probably no longer exist. There are too many people who say they want to discuss our political issues but really don't know enough about them, thus we end up with a plethora of soundbites and lemming parades and very little about whatever topic has been posted.

Realize the truth and just roll with the punches.

 
 
 
LynneA
17  LynneA    2 years ago

While I don't know the procedures to "lock", perhaps the system can accommodate a "who & why" as part of the process.  The willy-nilly ability to lock and unlock is not making for a happy community.  We need a solution.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
17.1  Greg Jones  replied to  LynneA @17    2 years ago

I agree...take it completely out of the hands of the seeder. It's a tactic that is being used by both sides of the political spectrum here on NT. It has become a variation of the Nations blocking or lock outs that doomed Newsvine.

 
 
 
Kathleen
17.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Greg Jones @17.1    2 years ago

That is a shame for the people that don't abuse it. I like the option of being able to lock it when I can't be around to watch it.  Also, after a few days or weeks and I am tired of trying to respond to it.  

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1.2  LynneA  replied to  Greg Jones @17.1    2 years ago

I think it can remain in the seeders realm as there are legitimate reasons for locking.  Certainly being away for an extended amount of time is reason enough to lock, but remaining locked indefinitely is problematic and becomes an optic issue.

Posting why it's being lock could alleviate some of these issues..

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1.3  LynneA  replied to  Kathleen @17.1.1    2 years ago
Also, after a few days or weeks and I am tired of trying to respond to it.

This is why I suggest a dialogue box to indicate reason for locking.  If I happen upon a seed that's locked I'm always left wondering who, what and why.  An explanation "week old, no longer wish to engage on topic" seems reasonable to me.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  LynneA @17.1.3    2 years ago

Exactly Lynne. The only time a seeder should close an article is if they are going to be away for an extended period of time (6-8 hours). 

 
 
 
Sunshine
17.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.1.4    2 years ago

The locking rules seem very vague to me.

 
 
 
Kathleen
17.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  LynneA @17.1.3    2 years ago

Reasons for locking the article would be just fine. Also, If you locked it and a week or more has passed, I would gladly open it for them to make a comment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
17.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.1.4    2 years ago

It's common courtesy to tell everyone that you're locking your seed because of reason A, B, or C.

 
 
 
user image
17.1.8    replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.1.4    2 years ago

I think all articles should be closed after 72 hours.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  @17.1.8    2 years ago

Wait.. just close every article or 72 hours for the author to show up?

 
 
 
user image
17.1.10    replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.1.9    2 years ago

Wait.. just close every article or 72 hours for the author to show up?

Three days is enough time for people to post comments on any story after that it is mostly people responding to someone else trying to get the last word. Too much in-house fighting.

Delete all stories after three days.

 
 
 
badfish
18  badfish    2 years ago

We have a CoC, all articles should remain open for discussion even when the Author or seeder is absent. We have moderators to deal with CoC offending comments.

This is one of the worst policies on TheNewstalkers.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
18.1  Greg Jones  replied to  badfish @18    2 years ago

That's what I was trying to say up above. Let the article or comment ride, for better or for worse, and then let it die from boredom.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
18.1.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @18.1    2 years ago

Fair enough ... unless it places the site in legal jeopardy.

 
 
 
T.Fargo
18.2  T.Fargo  replied to  badfish @18    2 years ago
We have a CoC, all articles should remain open for discussion even when the Author or seeder is absent.

I agree.  Discourse and clever conversation can and should be encouraged between adults consenting to adhere to the CoC, whether or not the author is present.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  T.Fargo @18.2    2 years ago
I agree.  Discourse and clever conversation can and should be encouraged between adults consenting to adhere to the CoC, whether or not the author is present.

In theory, that sounds like a great idea.. but that is not what ends up happening. If the author is gone for a long time, many an article has been ruined with comments that are really just spam, for lack of a better word. But let me make this clear.. this is not supposed to be use if you are away for just a few hours. It's for extended periods of time. 

 
 
 
badfish
18.2.2  badfish  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.2.1    2 years ago

You have moderators to remove off topic comments and various other CoC violations. This is just away to turn off content some people don't care for but it's obvious that the policy is more annoying than beneficial.

 
 
 
Kathleen
18.2.3  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.2.1    2 years ago

I agree.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish @18    2 years ago

BF,

How about you actively moderate for say 2 weeks, and then tell me if this is a bad policy or not. That is a serious offer since I know no one knows the CoC better than you.

I want you to experience the joy of taking care of unattended article and the amount of work it takes to take care of the drive bys and off topic comments. 

 
 
 
badfish
18.3.1  badfish  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3    2 years ago

Plenty of articles remain open with no sign of the seeder or author. I can find open articles from 2013 on this site with authors and seeders whom are no longer members or have been absent for long periods of time.

This rule was created for a few people that seed content some find offensive. It's clear from the comments the policy is not working for the site and needs to be changed.

All articles should remain open for discussion, if you don't want to discuss said article find another. If you feel the need to violate site rules on the article, you get CoC violations.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
18.3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3    2 years ago
I want you to experience the joy of taking care of unattended article and the amount of work it takes to take care of the drive bys and off topic comments.

laughing dude

BF does need to mind the baby more often.

 
 
 
MrFrost
18.3.3  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3    2 years ago
How about you actively moderate for say 2 weeks, and then tell me if this is a bad policy or not.

Looks like being your friend has advantages. 

 
 
 
JBB
18.4  JBB  replied to  badfish @18    2 years ago

The moderators should be much more proactive about removing fake news with false headlines and foreign propaganda. No doubt, articles have been closed capriciously for no good reason...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
18.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish @18    2 years ago

but then the seeder can't tag off-topic comments and the seeder is the only one who can do that.

What if you seeded a controversial topic then decided to go on vacation? Wouldn't you want to lock it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
19  JohnRussell    2 years ago

I have closed a few articles, almost always because they have more comments than I want to continue to monitor. If we didnt have this issue of having to monitor our seeds, I wouldnt necessarily close any of them. 

Occasionally there are too many off topic comments and the topic has been derailed and I close it, but that doesnt happen much at all. 

If there is proof that someone closed an article and then reopened it to get "the last word" then closed it again,  I think there should be a punishment. Maybe loss of seeding rights for a day or two. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @19    2 years ago
If there is proof that someone closed an article and then reopened it to get "the last word" then closed it again,  I think there should be a punishment. Maybe loss of seeding rights for a day or two. 

That is an idea, but it would have to be something that the community agreed upon. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
19.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @19.1    2 years ago

So doesn't anybody realize how frickin ridiculous that is.

Seriously, is having the last word important to anyone?   And if so why in the hell would someone make a federal case out of it.  

People really need to get over themselves.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @19.1.1    2 years ago
Seriously, is having the last word important to anyone?

It apparently is to some seeders.

In which case, they should publish and just not open their articles to comments.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
19.1.3  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Freedom Warrior @19.1.1    2 years ago

A disingenuous tactic to thwart discussion is the worst enemy of a discussion forum. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
19.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @19.1.2    2 years ago

I need more than 2 hands to count the number of people around here afflicted with lastworditis.

And I coined that term.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @19.1.4    2 years ago

LMAO!!!

Wait was that me getting the last word?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
19.1.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @19.1.3    2 years ago

Makes No Sense

 
 
 
Raven Wing
19.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Freedom Warrior @19.1.6    2 years ago

See....you just proved that you had to have the alt word against Mac with your stupid emoji. I guess you are one of those who just is afflicted with the habitual lastworditis, to borrow Trouts new word. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
19.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @19.1.7    2 years ago

whose dis guy?

And BF is now a moderator?????

I need my fainting couch

 
 
 
charger 383
20  charger 383    2 years ago

Following the hours away rule, if I was still working and allowing for sleeping time, an article I seeded could only be open for about 4 hours  

 
 
 
Sunshine
20.1  Sunshine  replied to  charger 383 @20    2 years ago

that would be hard to accommodate different time zones.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
20.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @20    2 years ago

I agree that's a problem.  I work, and my son has baseball games many weeknights.  Anybody with a job and evening obligations would have the same problem.  I don't seed much, so it's not a problem for me, but it might deter others.

 
 
 
Heartland American
20.3  Heartland American  replied to  charger 383 @20    2 years ago

I’ve made that exact point to no avail before.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
21  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

While an author’s time away from the board is an issue, locking down an article to stifle dissent is a much more serious concern.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
21.1  Greg Jones  replied to  A. Macarthur @21    2 years ago

I don't take this forum and what goes on here too seriously. If I can't respond to some comment, I just go to another thread. If I get bored there, I go to another website, or even go out in the sunshine and take a walk. We all have that option. Trying to make a mountain out of molehill is silly.

 
 
 
Kathleen
21.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Greg Jones @21.1    2 years ago

You are right, if it gets to that point what is the point staying on.  This is suppose to be fun and that is how you look at it. I sm realizing it more and more.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
21.1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Greg Jones @21.1    2 years ago

Deleted, Skirting  {SP}

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
21.1.3  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Freedom Warrior @21.1.2    2 years ago

The owner of NT depends in part, on paid ads … which, as participation diminishes because of annoying member-practices, makes advertisers less interested in running such ads.

If there's any obsessing here, it's being done by those who attack the messenger without offering a single, specific, f'n, content-related reply or contribution, that in regard to any tactic that discourages honest debate and disagreement.

 
 
 
Pedro
21.1.4  Pedro  replied to  A. Macarthur @21.1.3    2 years ago

How members participate and even things as simple as their article titles have a far greater impact on our advertising than people even consider I think. I can literally point to one specific member that all on his/her own cost this site the bulk of our advertising last year and so far this year by virtue of consistently posting his/her maximum of intentionally divisive articles that literally got our site flagged by advertisers. It's a testimony to Perrie's dedication that she continues to allow this one member to cost her an unreasonable amount of money out of pocket for no other reason that her belief that that people should be allowed to Speak Their Minds.

I also have to shake my head at everybody complaining about the CoC. Outside of the core rules, which have been in place since this site's inception, ALL CoC changes have been voted in by you all.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
21.1.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Pedro @21.1.4    2 years ago
I can literally point to one specific member that all on his/her own cost this site the bulk of our advertising last year and so far this year by virtue of consistently posting his/her maximum of intentionally divisive articles that literally got our site flagged by advertisers.

So can everyone else.  His divisive and disturbing contributions have become so out of hand, I've been thinking about changing my screen name to Whore,Pedophile,BestialitySupporter,Baby-Killer just to cut down on the confusion.

 
 
 
Pedro
21.1.6  Pedro  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @21.1.5    2 years ago

lol. WPBSBK

 
 
 
Raven Wing
21.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Pedro @21.1.4    2 years ago
I can literally point to one specific member that all on his/her own cost this site the bulk of our advertising last year and so far this year by virtue of consistently posting his/her maximum of intentionally divisive articles that literally got our site flagged by advertisers.

And I think most people here on NT knows who that person is. They are a great disservice to NT and its Members, as well as Perrie. And many time to get around their limited allowance for posting articles/seeds, they tend to post articles/seeds in the ones they are allowed, which creates even more confusion and divisiveness. And yet, that person is still allowed to do so endlessly, and putting up defensive arguments for doing so to deflect from what they are actually, and knowingly, doing. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
22  Kathleen    2 years ago

If you think certain people are being unreasonable, why don't you call them out on heated debate?  Punch each other in the nose and get it over with!

 
 
 
Pedro
22.1  Pedro  replied to  Kathleen @22    2 years ago

Nobody uses it unfortunately. They really should though.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Kathleen @22    2 years ago

An issue that directly and adversely affects the site should be discussed in open forum.

 
 
 
Kathleen
22.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2    2 years ago

You could do it on both.

Make your point on here, then confront the poster/ posters that irritate you.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
23  Hal A. Lujah    2 years ago

Apparently, locking down your article is in vogue for the control obsessed crowd.  One cannot even allow their their invitation to write limericks to be accessible, unless they are awake to guard the content.

 
 
 
Kathleen
23.1  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @23    2 years ago

Some people feel the need to get on and make total jerks out of themselves and go off topic.  So it's people like that, that are nothing but a pain in the a** and we have to lock it so it does not go out of control with stupid immature comments.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
23.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @23.1    2 years ago

AD2771BE3C494CA3BEBDF6D9917BF129.jpeg

 
 
 
badfish
24  badfish    2 years ago

A simple solution to the annoying locked seed? Re-seed it for discussion.

Simple solutions

The People's Fish

 
 
 
321steve
24.1  321steve  replied to  badfish @24    2 years ago
Re-seed it for discussion.

LOL ...  where there's a wish there's a way.

 
 
 
sixpick
25  sixpick    2 years ago

Actually this article should be locked by some moderator.  Everyone has had their say.  It was in News and Politics at first and then moved to what is suppose to be Meta, but even that is wrong.  It's in the wrong Meta.  It's supposed to be in the Metafied Group.  https://thenewstalkers.com/perrie-halpern/group/165/metafied

Fact is, this didn't have to be an article in the first place.  It could have been handled much differently, but think how much fun we would have all missed out on. LOL

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/37268/why-does-perrie-have-to-work-so-hard#cm652723

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
26  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

If the site belonged to any of those in disagreement with my article; if any of its detractors paid in order to be members … to have their say, to be able to openly debate or debunk content herein … if any of that were the case … they then could with reason … deem my call for answers as "unnecessary," an "over-reaction," or, justifiably criticize.

But the don't, and they don't; and because they neither pay for, maintain, nor have inherent responsibility other than to keep The Newstalkers a site at which new members will feel they can participate without being derided, mocked or personally attacked … and, one where current members want to remain members.

As for LOCKING THIS DISCUSSION, I will now leave that to Perrie; if she deems it time to lock it down, I have no objection; otherwise, if it goes by the board for lack of interest … so be it.

 
 
 
sixpick
27  sixpick    2 years ago

I have nothing against you Amac. I love you photos and I think you are a fine gentleman, but this article, like mine below, is suppose to be in the Metafied Group, not in Politics or Meta.  Click on this link and see I moved mine from wherever it was into Meta and was told it had to be in the Metafied Group.  That's just the rules unless it has changed.  Just read the first 20 comments on my article about Perrie working so hard and you'll see what I was told and what I did.  I did the same thing that has been done here first and then I corrected it and put it in the Metafied Group.

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/37268/why-does-perrie-have-to-work-so-hard#cm652723

Metafied Group.  https://thenewstalkers.com/perrie-halpern/group/165/metafied

 
 
 
Split Personality
27.1  Split Personality  replied to  sixpick @27    2 years ago

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’.

and it was Perrie that moved it from News to Meta.

 
 
 
sixpick
27.1.1  sixpick  replied to  Split Personality @27.1    2 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up for me SP.  Actually Amac is not the RA, but it doesn't matter.  If Perrie wants it this way, then that is the way it will be.

May want to edit the Code of Conduct from....

'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’.'

to...

'Meta that comes from the RA and the Moderators will go in the ‘Meta’ topic category. Individual Meta shall go in the group ‘Metafied’, because that 'which applies to the whole group' is a little confusing.  I guess it must mean the whole group of Moderators can put their Meta articles in Meta instead of the Metafied Group like the rest of us.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
27.2  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  sixpick @27    2 years ago

Six,

I explained at least three times that I inadvertently posted the article to News and Politics; when it was brought to my attention, because I was on my cell phone and not at my laptop, I asked Perrie to move it to Meta, which she did.

And inadvertently mis-posted initially, as I responded to one critic … "Where I stand in the (metaphorical) courtroom is quite secondary to what I say to the jury regarding the case."

 
 
 
sixpick
27.2.1  sixpick  replied to  A. Macarthur @27.2    2 years ago

I'm not complaining about you putting it in News and Politics Amac.  I personally don't care where you put it.  I was just stating a fact.  SP cleared it up for me.  Perrie and all the Moderators can put their meta articles in Meta.  I now understand it.  I had done the same thing you did and was warned I needed to put my article in Meta, so I did, then I was warned it was the wrong Meta and it had to go in the Metified Group.  I wasn't aware the Moderators had different rules.

Really I had come to the conclusion Meta articles like yours would be better in the Metafied Group, so people just visiting this site wouldn't be seeing us bickering about people closing their articles.  I still think you should have contacted Perrie as she has told so many of us before to do and let her know your suspicions.  Then she could have checked it out behind the scenes and could have did a Meta article about it.  I was just confused.  I didn't realize the Moderators could put articles in the regular Meta griping about what other members may or may not be doing for all visitors to see.

No problem, we adjust.

 
 
 
321steve
28  321steve    2 years ago

I'd Like Some ANSWERS!

I actually have a question, is anyone else having problems loading this website ? 

Lately it has seemed like I'm back to dial up speed on here many times and it's constantly losing the connection completely. 

I ask because it looks like I'm seeing others needing to keep re-logging on as well.

I dont seem to be having this problem anywhere else on the net either.

 
 
 
Freefaller
28.1  Freefaller  replied to  321steve @28    2 years ago

No probs here

 
 
 
Texan1211
29  Texan1211    2 years ago

Another cute trick that some people who seed articles do is make a comment, (usually off-topic) and then when people respond to THEIR post, call off topic!

So I guess the lesson is that ANYTHING the seeder of the article decides is off topic IS off topic, unless of course it is their very own posts.

Makes such perfect sense, no?

 
 
 
Ender
29.1  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @29    2 years ago

What the cute trick was, is something being posted off topic, then the seeder responds, the convo veers to that and the seeder wants the convo to return to the original.

Yet then some blame the seeder for what he did not start and wanted to stop.

 
 
 
Texan1211
29.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @29.1    2 years ago

Shouldn't have the seeder simply flagged the first off topic post and NOT responded to it? Or at least not be surprised and mad when people respond to his post?

Either the post is off topic or not. 

If it is off topic flag it and move on.

If it IS on topic, or the seeder responds to it, I believe it becomes fair game.

just my opinion, of course. I wouldn't want anyone to get mad over it.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
30  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

Too many times, a seeder will arbitrarily call something "off topic," not because it is in fact, off topic, rather, because the seeder doesn't agree with or like the comment.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
30.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  A. Macarthur @30    2 years ago

Mac,

That may be true, but the mods don't automatically remove off topic comments. If we feel that the comment is on topic, it remains. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
30.1.1  author  A. Macarthur  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @30.1    2 years ago

No disagreement … but it is still a tactic that is used to thwart dissent, and, when a comment is flagged as being "off topic," if the flagging is unwarranted, and, if the seeder has stated in the thread, "off topic," it's annoying and frustrating to the recipient.

If someone is smacking me around, until someone intercedes and stops the smacker … I'm still being smacked.

 
 
 
Texan1211
30.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @30.1    2 years ago

Do mods look at what the supposed off topic comment was responding TO?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
31  author  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

Is it time to LOCK this article?

 
 
 
charger 383
31.1  charger 383  replied to  A. Macarthur @31    2 years ago

no

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


loki12
Gordy327


34 visitors