New Point System for Tickets

  

Category:  Meta for use by Perrie RA and moderators. Member meta goes into the group Metafied found on top tab

By:  perrie-halpern  •  2 weeks ago  •  336 comments

New Point System for Tickets
"You get what you give"


I am presenting the new point system for tickets, in the interest of transparency. 

There are two big differences. The first is that "taunting" will be assigned a point value. That is because there has been a lot of taunting which is meant to cause members to become reactive and hurts any good discussions. In fact, they have lead to many slap fights between members, and that only ruins a good discussion. 

The other big change, is to accommodate the point value of taunting, we have rescheduled all the points. Since there is no way to assign a fraction of a point to taunting, we had to rescale the whole point system. At present, 8 points will earn you a suspension. In the new scaling it will be 32 points. Here is the new scaling:

Violation Old Points New Points
Taunting 0 1
Skirting the CoC 1 4
CoC Violation 2 8
Total Point for suspension 8 32

To clarify what is defined as "taunting", it is any comment directed to another member, be it by word or by image, that has no value to the discussion in an attempt to mock and or in an attempt to illicit a negative response by the other member. Here are a few examples:

  • A comment can be ignorant, but never a member.
  • The jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif  , can all be considered rude, just like the /sarc is, but not taunting. 
  • A string of emojis will be evaluated as if that is your only contribution to an article it is taunting. 

The key thing to remember is that anything directed to a member that is negative in nature, will be up for review. 

This will go into effect at the end of the week. 


Article is LOCKED by moderator [Perrie Halpern R.A.]
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 weeks ago

I am sure there will be questions. I encourage all mods to participate. Any insults to mods, or moderation will get ticketed. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 weeks ago
Any insults to mods, or moderation will get ticketed. 

How did I miss that sentence? Stressing over the 8 points, I think....

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 weeks ago
Any insults to mods, or moderation will get ticketed. 

So all of the other "violations/flags" are "pointless"??? 

LOL that's supposed to be a funny.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2    2 weeks ago

LOL Jim. That was funny!

Yes, the other ones are deemed pointless. I will say this. If you are getting too many "No values" then the mods know you are not making quality comments andI would take them more as a warning leading up to a taunt. TOS is really how the site needs to operate, and sweeping gens are not always black and white. 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 weeks ago
Any insults to mods, or moderation will get ticketed. 

does that include self appointed group mods?

how many penalty points for group mods that practice bogus moderation of comments, or after how many incorrect group mod judgements, do those groups go away, permanently?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.3    2 weeks ago

Really, seems they let a little power go straight to their heads.

I've gotten tickets for correcting someone's grammar.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

There are no points for group moderation. I have to review them and agree to assign a point value. 

Also, I have to say this to group moderation. If I see that it is being applied unfairly, I will remove the ability to ticket. Being a public group is a gift and one that should be used wisely. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
"There are no points for group moderation. I have to review them and agree to assign a point value.  Also, I have to say this to group moderation. If I see that it is being applied unfairly, I will remove the ability to ticket. Being a public group is a gift and one that should be used wisely."

Some surely seem to abuse that privilege.  

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 weeks ago

holy crap, I just noticed it. where did you get my 4th grade class picture?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @1.4    2 weeks ago

Your teacher sent it to me when she found out you were here. 

A problem child from the beginning. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.4    2 weeks ago
"holy crap, I just noticed it. where did you get my 4th grade class picture?"

That photo of the kid at the blackboard reminds me of this:

godsdomain.jpg?w=640

 
 
 
devangelical
1.5  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
1.5.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.5    2 weeks ago

oh c'mon teach. those were valid questions. ignore those that were somehow offended.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.5.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @1.5.1    2 weeks ago

LOL!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

This is the first time I've seen it so I'm glad that it's posted. 

You say the end of the week it goes into effect?

I'm all for it. I think it will keep discussions on topic.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 weeks ago

Hi Vic,

Yes, Friday to be exact. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 weeks ago

Very good.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

I was looking at that 8 points for a CoC violation and almost had a heart attack and then I remember 4 X 8 = 32.

I can live with this

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 weeks ago

LOL, I knew that would be the first thought. In actuality, a taunt, by the old system would be a 1/4 point. But there is no way to represent that in our system, so the whole point system had to be reworked and scaled up. The new points are equivalent to the old points. How you spend them ( or hopefully not) is up to the individual. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

I wasn't aware that there was a point system.  Thanks for the info.

That also explains why a lot of flags on my articles are marked as 'CoC violation'.  I guess there is some hope I'll just accept it so someone can be suspended.

Too bad I can't issue tickets for spurious flagging, too.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @4    2 weeks ago

If you had read the CoC you would know there was a point system.

I think Perrie should have one of those check boxes where you have to declare you read the CoC and accept them and understand them

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1    2 weeks ago
I think Perrie should have one of those check boxes where you have to declare you read the CoC and accept them and understand them

I think that is a good idea. I will see what can be done. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @4    2 weeks ago

Hi Nerm,

That also explains why a lot of flags on my articles are marked as 'CoC violation'.  I guess there is some hope I'll just accept it so someone can be suspended.

That is true. But here is the thing, as a group owner, you can hand out tickets, but the actual mods will review them. If we feel actual points need to be applied, we will upgrade the ticket to assign it points. 

Too bad I can't issue tickets for spurious flagging, too.

If you are having an issue with over flagging by a member, please inform me or another mod. We can remove flagging privileges for a period of time, if they are not being responsible. Btw, looking back to old comments for to try and get a person into trouble is really frowned upon and will not result in a ticket. By the same token, if a person is flagged and ticketed, but there were similar comments above or below, those should be ticketed, too. Also, once a comment has been made to a specific member, and that member responds, even if there was a violation in the first comment, the discussion is in play. So if you plan on flagging someone for a violation, do not respond to them. 

 
 
 
devangelical
4.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2    2 weeks ago
Too bad I can't issue tickets for spurious flagging, too.

says who?

it's the same offenders day after day, month after month. drop the RA hammer on them. ezpz

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2    2 weeks ago

Does that mean week-old comments will no longer be ticketed?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    2 weeks ago

Frankly I wish week old posts should be locked out. The article can stay but some of our members love going back 3, 4 two weeks to make a comment. While i realize not everyone reads every article that gets posted, some do it to get the last word............and you click on it and realize their comment was made long after the fact.

BTJM

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.3    2 weeks ago
The article can stay but some of our members love going back 3, 4 two weeks to make a comment.

It also pushes old "retired" seeds/articles back to the front page unnecessarily. 

While a few people do it occasionally, I would describe one as a serial spammer and frequent flyer.

 
 
 
devangelical
4.2.5  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.4    2 weeks ago

too bad seeds/articles can't automatically lock after a set period of time without any activity, without being able to be reopened by the author.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @4.2.5    2 weeks ago

So let me address all of this.

Articles with violations that are over a week old, should not be ticketed unless they are still in discussion. 

Articles that are no longer in play and are bumped up, will get no attention and fall off the board. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.7  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.6    2 weeks ago
will get no attention and fall off the board. 

No, they keep coming back, like zombies. So annoying and boring.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
  • A comment can be ignorant, but never a member.

I admire your optimism. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 weeks ago

I am always an optimist! 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    2 weeks ago

So is it OK to say someones comment is.....

wrong, stupid, idiotic illogical, uninformed, ignorant, etc...or a lie?

 
 
 
Freewill
6.1.2  Freewill  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
So is it OK to say someones comment is..... wrong, stupid, idiotic illogical, uninformed, ignorant, etc...or a lie?

It would be best to simply indicate that it is wrong, illogical, or misleading and here is why.  The "here is why" is quite often lacking, hence the response comes off as insulting or at least dismissive.  Using words like stupid, idiotic or lie are unnecessary in any case and do not add to a positive discussion. Ignorant is a word that causes angst in some as well.  Literally it simply means that the comment was made with a lack of relevant knowledge, but too many take it as an insult.  So probably best not to use that word unless you can explain what you mean by it.  For example, when it comes to the proper care, feeding, and riding of horses, I am ignorant as hell.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)    2 weeks ago

Thanks for the update. I haven't read the CoC in years. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif Guess it's a good thing that I'm not a frequent violator. Actually I don't believe I've ever received any points in 8 years. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7    2 weeks ago

You have a perfect record, Ms A. I have to say that when I was on NV, so did I (not to brag but to point out that you can do it). 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    2 weeks ago

Speaking of NV, did they ever post that the death wish was a violation?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

Who cares?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.1.4  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    2 weeks ago

On NV, I did too.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

You can not death wish a member. You can a public figure, but personally I think it's in poor form. What you can't do... and this is a big one: You can not incite people to take violent action against a public figure. That will not only get you thrown off the site, but also reported to the FBI

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    2 weeks ago
Careful Tess, after Friday that will equal a point.

More like a no value, but close. BTW that was taunting.

 
 
 
devangelical
7.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    2 weeks ago

what about fiefdom owners that delete/ticket, have the last word on every thread, and then lock their seeds?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

I assumed that much.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.5    2 weeks ago
You can not death wish a member. You can a public figure

You can? Since when? I see this in the CoC:

Death wishing of a public figure is prohibited.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.6    2 weeks ago
More like a no value, but close. 

You are seriously going to censor the comment "who cares? "

Please tell me I am imagining things here. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @7.1.7    2 weeks ago

Are they dealing with trolls?

 
 
 
Kavika
7.1.12  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.5    2 weeks ago
but also reported to the FBI

Wow, that sounds really serious. Does FBI stand for Full Blooded Indian or Fry Bread Inspector?

Either way, those guys are some badass som'bitches

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.13  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.9    2 weeks ago
You can not death wish a member. You can a public figure
You can? Since when? I see this in the CoC:
Death wishing of a public figure is prohibited.

That was not clear. It meant incitement. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.14  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @7.1.12    2 weeks ago
but also reported to the FBI
Wow, that sounds really serious. Does FBI stand for Full Blooded Indian or Fry Bread Inspector?

Only when the fry bread stinks. You better be making good fry bread! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    2 weeks ago

I can see that Newsvine was right right about one thing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.11    2 weeks ago

Vic,

When dealing with trolls, they should be flagged or ticketed. Having the last word is always poor form, but not a violation. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.15    2 weeks ago

deleted

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

"Careful Tess, after Friday that will equal a point."

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    2 weeks ago
"More like a no value, but close." 

"You are seriously going to censor the comment "who cares? "

Please tell me I am imagining things here."

Ridiculous.  Will I get a ticket for that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.11    2 weeks ago

"Are they dealing with trolls?"

Are you?

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.21  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

You can death wish a public figure? Not something I would do, just making sure it is not against the rules.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.22  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    2 weeks ago
You are seriously going to censor the comment "who cares? "

It depends on context. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.23  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.21    2 weeks ago

Yes, but as I said, I personally feel that it is in poor form. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.24  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.23    2 weeks ago

Agreed, it is. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.11    2 weeks ago

As a group owner, I can emphatically say...YES they are!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.23    2 weeks ago

that's even worse

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.27  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.19    2 weeks ago

No you wouldn't get a ticket for "who caress". It might get a no value depending on context. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.23    2 weeks ago

Okay here's another thought. If this is a public forum and someone comments here, does that not make them a "public figure"? All 1,200 plus members plus the daily visitors see it? There is so much biased crap that floats around daily one could say they "know you from your public profile/comment history?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.29  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.28    2 weeks ago

Jim,

There is a thing called personal responsibility. What we post on the internet is out there forever. If someone wants to say something like that, then there could be repercussions from it, as we have seen from many public figures. What if your boss sees it and it offends them? So I am not worrying unless they are saying something that would imply action should or will be taken.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.30  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.16    2 weeks ago
Having the last word is always poor form

May I quote you on that? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.31  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.19    2 weeks ago

Probably not. The worst that would get is a no value and that carries no points, but then again, it all depends on context. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.32  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.30    2 weeks ago

Sure!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7    2 weeks ago

teacher's pet

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.2.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2    2 weeks ago

So? jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.2.1    2 weeks ago

You girls crack me up!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.2.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.2.2    2 weeks ago

Just goes to show that we can still kid each other too. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.2.3    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_94_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.2.3    2 weeks ago

LOL for sure! Kidding is the best!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.4    2 weeks ago

Kitties are always great, too!

 
 
 
devangelical
7.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.2.6    2 weeks ago

not the ones that put your wrist in a death grip and sink their fangs into the fleshy part between your thumb and index finger.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @7.2.7    2 weeks ago

Or do the bunny kick on your forearm

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.9  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @7.2.7    2 weeks ago

I don't know any like that... but I am sure there are those in both dog and cat version.

 
 
 
devangelical
7.2.10  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.8    2 weeks ago

the kitty treadmill ...

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
The first is that "taunting" will be assigned a point value.

Thank you for that. Even if the punishment is meager, it's overdue.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @8    2 weeks ago

I agree with you even if I am one of the biggest offenders here

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    2 weeks ago

Trout,

I'm glad you agree, and the point here is just to raise the level of discussion and not to be punitive. In fact, I really hate moderation, but I also hated what I saw the final days of NV were like, too. That was far worse. 

 
 
 
devangelical
8.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

meh, it was fun torching the klan robes when their NV parade started.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @8    2 weeks ago

Thanks Tacos!

 
 
 
JaneDoe
8.3  JaneDoe  replied to  Tacos! @8    2 weeks ago
Even if the punishment is meager, it's overdue.

There are some that are masters of taunting. They drive by and leave their stink bombs and are quickly off to do it on every article they don’t agree with. It gets ridiculous at times and can turn an article comment section into a free for all. I do believe that is their intention. It’s very child like.

 I don’t flag anything though and I have only received a few tickets over the years. I confess they were earned. I treat people they way they treat me. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
9  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago
That is true. But here is the thing, as a group owner, you can hand out tickets, but the actual mods will review them. If we feel actual points need to be applied, we will upgrade the ticket to assign it points. 

Thanks, that's good to know, too.  I admit I tend to be more lenient on flagged comments.  Since I do post the seeds/articles and participate in the discussion, it's difficult to completely recuse myself.  I ignore flags on comments I've made so the assigned mods have to deal with those.

If you are having an issue with over flagging by a member, please inform me or another mod. We can remove flagging privileges for a period of time, if they are not being responsible. Btw, looking back to old comments for to try and get a person into trouble is really frowned upon and will not result in a ticket. By the same token, if a person is flagged and ticketed, but there were similar comments above or below, those should be ticketed, too. Also, once a comment has been made to a specific member, and that member responds, even if there was a violation in the first comment, the discussion is in play. So if you plan on flagging someone for a violation, do not respond to them. 

Thanks, that's good to know, too.  How is the best way to make contact?  I haven't used the chat function but assume that is the best method.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @9    2 weeks ago
How is the best way to make contact?  I haven't used the chat function but assume that is the best method.

Chat will get you the quickest reaction. If it not an emergency though, please you PNs. 

 
 
 
Kavika
10  Kavika     2 weeks ago

I will try my very best to do exceed 32 points in a 24-hour time frame. 

Would ''stupid is as stupid says'' be a 1 pointer for taunting? Or ''you could screw up a one car funeral" 1 pointer or a 3 pointer. 

The reason I asking is that I want to spread out my points and violations and not get dinged 32 points in one day.

 
 
 
devangelical
10.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @10    2 weeks ago

bonus for me. I can taunt one moron per day for a whole month.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @10.1    2 weeks ago
bonus for me. I can taunt one moron per day for a whole month.

I felt that one coming. Btw.. no you can't since calling someone a moron directly is a CoC violation worth 8 points or indirectly 4 points. 

 
 
 
devangelical
10.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

you know me better than that. it's usually fucking moron, and it's always in HD.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

LOL... don't I know. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @10    2 weeks ago

Always one wise guy in a crowd...

stupid is as stupid says

Is a skirt. You are basically calling the person stupid. 

you could screw up a one car funeral

Is a taunt. No direct or indirect reference of an insult. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2    2 weeks ago

What about "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person"?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2.1    2 weeks ago

That would be a taunt... 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.2    2 weeks ago

I know it was I just wanted to say it one last time.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2.3    2 weeks ago

Trout, you can say it 31 more times if you like... That is why I hardly call this heavy-handed. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
11  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

I would be careful on the emojis.   The blah blah jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif is rude, but that is not necessarily taunting.   By itself, each emoji leaves a lot of room for interpretation so the comment would need to be evaluated based on the written content and not simply on the emoji.

Exceptions to this might be the common series of emoji such as:   jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif .    This is arguably obnoxious and is easily seen as taunting.   Other than trying to trigger someone, what value is a string of negative emoji?   One emoji should suffice.

Note, that a series of positive emojis is also obnoxious jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif but are intended to praise a comment so obnoxious or not, they do not violate the CoC in any way.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
11.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  TᵢG @11    2 weeks ago

We have a lawyer here. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @11    2 weeks ago

I can see your POV on this and I would like the members to chime in about it. The whole point of this discussion is to not only understand the changes but to get consensus on the details. 

I think I agree with your assessment, since the emojis are there to be used. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2    2 weeks ago

Any overuse of emojis is obnoxious

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.1    2 weeks ago
Any overuse of emojis is obnoxious

Agreed... 

So how do we feel about what Tig said... his suggestions?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.2    2 weeks ago

I almost always defer to TiG since he's way smarter than me so he makes good points.

I don't know how people don't get frustrated with typing so many emojis. You have to hit the emoji button, click the emoji you want, the window closes, you have to re-open the window, click on another emoji, the window closes....and on and on. Too much work when I can just type words

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.4  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.2    2 weeks ago

I agree with him about that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.2    2 weeks ago
So how do we feel about what Tig said... his suggestions?

I don't see the point of categorizing when emojis are positive or negative. They are nothing but a crutch for those who lack a valid argument and I think we should dispense with them altogether.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.3    2 weeks ago

LOL... I have to agree with you there. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.5    2 weeks ago
we should dispense with them altogether

People will just make their own or paste them in from outside. And then there’s the memes . . . 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.5    2 weeks ago
I think we should dispense with them altogether.

The emojis were voted on a long time ago as a much wanted item, so the question still stands. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @11.2.7    2 weeks ago

I'm sure.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @11.2.7    2 weeks ago

Ah...let's talk memes. Their use should be judicious. A good meme can make a point but when the discussion becomes nothing but memes, well, let's just say the discussion has gone to the dogs

 
 
 
Kavika
11.2.11  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.5    2 weeks ago

pit-bull-fight.jpg

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.2.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.8    2 weeks ago
I think we should dispense with them altogether.

Nope! I like that saluting one. We still need a puking emoji, tho...not so I can use it in a comment to taunt someone but when someone posts a meme that requires eye bleach

(some of those memes should be a TOS violation)

 
 
 
Freewill
11.2.13  Freewill  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.1    2 weeks ago
Any overuse of emojis is obnoxious

Especially the smiling poop emoji, which is my favorite, but alas not available for use here.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.14  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.10    2 weeks ago

Memes are fine, so long as they are not trying to taunt. 

See Kavika's... Now that is just funny and fine.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.2.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freewill @11.2.13    2 weeks ago

It isn't?

I had to go look

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.12    2 weeks ago
(some of those memes should be a TOS violation)

I don't see any with a bare bottom or boobies hanging out.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.2.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.14    2 weeks ago

His makes a point and gets a chuckle at the same time.

Dogs are never wrong

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.16    2 weeks ago

Not on Kavika's meme but I do see bare feet and ankles!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.19  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.17    2 weeks ago

Of course not. They are too cute!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.20  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.18    2 weeks ago
but I do see bare feet and ankles!

Kinky!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.21  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @11.2.7    2 weeks ago
we should dispense with them altogether
People will just make their own or paste them in from outside. And then there’s the memes . . . 

Exactly Tacos! The ability to post images, which makes this site unique also requires extra thought to deal with what people will find out there. 

 
 
 
devangelical
11.2.22  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.20    2 weeks ago

... in victorian era england maybe ...

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
11.2.23  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @11.2.11    2 weeks ago

Aw! jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.24  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freewill @11.2.13    2 weeks ago

I was afraid to make it easily useable for abuse, but if you guys want it, remember you would have to be careful with it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.25  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @11.2.22    2 weeks ago

LMAO!

 
 
 
Freewill
11.2.26  Freewill  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.24    2 weeks ago
I was afraid to make it easily useable for abuse, but if you guys want it, remember you would have to be careful with it.

Oh I was just goofing around there Perrie.  I get to use that emoji plenty in other arenas.  (-:

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.2.27  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.24    2 weeks ago

Well a lot of us members type "bullshit" at times. It would shorten posting time. LOL

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.28  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.2.27    2 weeks ago

LMAO!! I guess so. But remember you couldn't say I poop on your head. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
11.2.29  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.18    2 weeks ago
but I do see bare feet and ankles!

AND they are in the .......KITCHEN.....

 
 
 
devangelical
11.2.30  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.2    2 weeks ago

1 point for each additional emoji after the first one works for me.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.24    2 weeks ago

emojiis should not be regulated at all .  What is the difference if I post 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

or 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif   ? 

It is self expression.  Free speech. 

Just like when someone asks me 10 dumb questions on the same seed.   That is their perception of "free speech".  Someone else's might be emojiis

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.32  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.31    2 weeks ago

The emojis were not always on the site, and when I first installed them, I had to pay for them. So they are a gift and not an absolute for the site. 

1 or 2 laughing guy makes a point if you think a comment is absurd (funny is a different thing). More than that, you are taunting. Again, context matters. If your only contribution to a discussion is a string of emojis, then you are only there to demean another member. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.32    2 weeks ago

When someone's only contribution to a seed is to pose the same inane questions over and over, how come you dont get upset about that?  You can troll here as long as you dont use emojiis ? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.34  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.33    2 weeks ago

I don't even understand what you mean by:

When someone's only contribution to a seed is to pose the same inane questions over and over, how come you dont get upset about that? 

I need an example.

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.3  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @11    2 weeks ago
The blah blah is rude, but that is not necessarily taunting

How is it not taunting? You already acknowledge that it’s rude. Is it rude for some other reason? Some reason we should tolerate?

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @11.3    2 weeks ago

Do you define taunting as being rude?    Can one be rude without taunting?

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.1    2 weeks ago

Don’t answer my question with a question. You said the blah blah wasn’t necessarily taunting. I asked you to explain how that could be. I never see it used any other way when it’s in response to a member’s comment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.1    2 weeks ago

One be rude without taunting, but one cannot taunt without being rude, IMO

 
 
 
Freewill
11.3.4  Freewill  replied to  Tacos! @11.3    2 weeks ago
How is it not taunting? You already acknowledge that it’s rude. Is it rude for some other reason? Some reason we should tolerate?

Taunting is a tough one as it tends to be more subjective in nature.  I think it comes down to, is the comment or emoji (or series of emoji's) meant to incite an angered response?  In other words, no value to the discussion other than to get under the skin of the person to whom it is directed.  Problem is that it is usually one comment out of a series that are all technically taunting.  So we try to look at the situation from all perspectives and make the best judgement we canI tend to think that most of the time the blah, blah, blah emoji's, if accompanied by nothing else, will likely be viewed as taunting.

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @11.3.2    2 weeks ago
Don’t answer my question with a question. You said the blah blah wasn’t necessarily taunting. I asked you to explain how that could be. I never see it used any other way when it’s in response to a member’s comment.

You cannot figure out my answer from that?   Okay, I will break this down for you. 

( Note, how I have provided an example jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png of being rude without taunting. )

The blah blah emoji jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif is rude ( offensively impolite or ill-mannered ); we agree on that.   It basically deems the content of the comment to be of no value; that the author of the comment did not offer anything of value to the discussion.

Is that necessarily taunting?

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to write a reply that dismissed one of my comments as having no value, is that necessarily taunting?   For example, if you were to take a perfectly serious comment from me @ 11.3.1 where I seriously answer your question socratically (via a question) and dismiss my answer as a non answer, is that taunting? 

I consider it rude, but not taunting.

( Did you intend to taunt? )

 
 
 
Dulay
11.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @11.3.4    2 weeks ago
Taunting is a tough one as it tends to be more subjective in nature. 

Which implies that moderators feeling, tastes or opinions are the basis for issuing points. 

As long as that is in conjunction with a flag from the member being taunted, I have no issue with that. It's when the author or group owner unilaterally issues those points that I see and problem. 

Problem is that it is usually one comment out of a series that are all technically taunting.  So we try to look at the situation from all perspectives and make the best judgement we can.

Mods have stated over and over again, if they see a violation while reviewing a flag they can rightly address it whether it's flagged or not.

If a series of comments are deemed 'technically taunting' and lead to a flagged comment being ticketed, ALL of the comments in that 'series' should be issued points too. 

In for a penny, in for a pound. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.3.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @11.3.6    2 weeks ago

For once we may agree. I have communicated with a mod or two on their ticket/violation issuance in a few cases. Seemed at least one just looked at the flag and not the preceeding or subsequent posts that may have prompted the flagging to begin with cuz they got their fee fees hurt. I explained, as a low powered mod in a couple of groups, I look at the surrounding posts for the tone of the conversation being had and determine from there if that flag is warranted. The only other thing I could do is flag the surrounding ones myself and deleting or warning about the content. I choose not to necessarily do that but for a mod to just pay attention to a flag without context, just seems a bit wrong. I know they are busy and not online 24/7 but........................

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.3.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.3.7    2 weeks ago

So let me address this for both Dulay and Jim.

If there is a thread that has gone off the rails and needs a review, flag the worst of it, and leave us a note in the provided place for flags and let us know that the whole thread needs a review. Otherwise, we are just looking at the one comment since you have no idea how many flags we get in a day and how much work it is for us. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.3.9  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.3.8    2 weeks ago
Otherwise, we are just looking at the one comment since you have no idea how many flags we get in a day and how much work it is for us. 

That seems to conflict with what Freewill stated. 

 
 
 
Freewill
11.3.10  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @11.3.9    2 weeks ago
That seems to conflict with what Freewill stated. 

No it does not.  I clearly said, "So we try to look at the situation from all perspectives and make the best judgement we can."  We will try to look at surrounding comments and make a judgement as best we can, that includes what sort of time we have and number of flags in the queue, just like Perrie indicated.  The initial flag is always the main focal point so all Perrie is suggesting is that you as the flagger give us a heads up regarding the surrounding comments/issues so we can take a closer look. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.4  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @11    2 weeks ago
ote, that a series of positive emojis is also obnoxious

I fail to see how a series of positive emojis is obnoxious.

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @11.4    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

We differ.   Excellent comment, perfect in every way, absolutely brilliant!!

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.4.2  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @11.4.1    2 weeks ago

So, based on your earlier comment, you are intending to praise what I said? Or sarcastically disapprove?

If you’re going to imply that intent is relevant, then it should always be so, shouldn’t it?

It’s not the emoji or their quantity that is obnoxious. It’s the message being communicated.

 
 
 
devangelical
11.4.3  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @11.4.1    2 weeks ago

... taunting sarcasm. excellent.

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.4.4  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @11.4.2    2 weeks ago
So, based on your earlier comment, you are intending to praise what I said?

I stated that I disagree with you:

TiG @ 11.4.1 We differ. 

I also provided an example as to why I disagree with you:

TiG @ 11.4.1 jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

In my opinion, claiming disagreement and showing an example of why is a pretty decent reply.

If you’re going to imply that intent is relevant, then it should always be so, shouldn’t it?

Since you bring it up, intent is certainly relevant.   Trouble is, one cannot always accurately determine intent.   That poses a bit of a problem, right?

It’s not the emoji or their quantity that is obnoxious. It’s the message being communicated.

Oh I think we differ.   I find the overuse of sycophantic jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif emoji to be obnoxious.  Now it is perfectly cool jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg if you see things differently.   You opinion is highly valued jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif and very important jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif to this discussion.   But none of our comments are worthy jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif of sycophantic praise jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif .

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.4.5  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @11.4.4    2 weeks ago

The one giving the hugs is the perfect emoji for Covid.  You can give a safe hug.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.4.6  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @11.4.4    2 weeks ago

I'd like to point out that the written content of a comment may change the 'intent' of the meaning of an added emoji. If the content of the comment is negative, cynical or sarcastic and accompanied by jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif , it's intent is negative. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.4.7  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @11.4.6    2 weeks ago
I'd like to point out that the written content of a comment may change the 'intent' of the meaning of an added emoji.

I agree.

TiG @11 ☞ I would be careful on the emojis.   The blah blah is rude, but that is not necessarily taunting.   By itself, each emoji leaves a lot of room for interpretation so the comment would need to be evaluated based on the written content and not simply on the emoji.
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @11    2 weeks ago
but are intended to praise a comment so obnoxious or not, they do not violate the CoC in any way.

Take into consideration that things such as this are posted as sort of a "na ne na ne boo boo" indirectly to taunt whomever the comment was made to as a pat on the back for "dissing" said poster. Could that be considered skirting to give someone the finger on their post.........indirectly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.5    2 weeks ago
Could that be considered skirting to give someone the finger on their post.........indirectly.

You are reading a lot into an emoji.   If an emoji is positive, I would be careful reading negatives into it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.5.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @11.5.1    2 weeks ago

You have to consider the "performer" and the "audience" in that case and I think we all have enough experience here to see a pattern. Is not part of the ticket/suspension "program" to take into consideration of one's past history?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.5.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.5.2    2 weeks ago

Any other opinions about emojis? I need to hammer this out, so that people don't say that they didn't know or have their say.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.5.4  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.5.3    2 weeks ago

It looks to me like the emojis argument is:

emojis = okay

repetitive 'negative' emojis = taunting. 

Is that the bottom line? 

And if so, will there be a list of what the mods view as 'negative emojis' so that members have a clear understanding of the 'rules'? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.5.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @11.5.4    2 weeks ago

So this is how I will amend the emoji issue. 

The jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif , can all be considered rude, just like the /sarc is, but not taunting. 

A string of emojis will be evaluated as if that is your only contribution to an article it is taunting. 

I will be putting it into the body of the article to amend.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
11.5.6  Release The Kraken  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.5.5    2 weeks ago

One time i saw an emoji and I had to have therapy.....

 
 
 
Ender
11.5.7  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.5.3    2 weeks ago

I am guessing this one would not be allowed?

96

Ha, just wanted to be able to post that once...

On a serious note, what about this one.

128

I would use this if I see the convo is going nowhere (or something along those lines). I don't necessarily think it would be taunting.

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.5.8  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.5.5    2 weeks ago
The , can all be considered rude, just like the /sarc is, but not taunting. 

Then what is the point? We all agree it's rude, but you're going to allow it? Why? 

Not to mention some of us do think it's taunting. You though it was taunting. Now you don't? We have to continue to put up with people who just troll jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif as their only reply to comments?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.5.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @11.5.7    2 weeks ago

I always liked this little "composition"......................

(Ο_Ο)"

 
 
 
Dulay
11.5.10  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.5.5    2 weeks ago

So ONE jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif is merely rude, while jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif  is taunting? 

Do I have it yet? 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.5.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.5.8    2 weeks ago
We all agree it's rude, but you're going to allow it? Why? 

Because being rude isn't a CoC violation. 

 
 
 
Ender
11.5.12  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.5.9    2 weeks ago

Ha.  To much work for me, unless I can copy and paste.

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.5.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @11.5.11    2 weeks ago

Rude is farting out loud. Rude can be a lot of things, but when the only conceivable purpose is to piss someone off, it's taunting. If you respond to a comment with jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif and nothing more, I have to think that is probably taunting. 

And yesterday, Perrie though that, too. jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

Because being rude isn't a CoC violation.

You wouldn't think so, but I got dinged once for using the F-word. And not in the FU kind of way, just as an adjective. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.5.14  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @11.5.13    2 weeks ago
Rude can be a lot of things, but when the only conceivable purpose is to piss someone off , it's taunting.

That is the definition of taunting, not the definition of rude.

Being rude is not necessarily taunting, right?

If you respond to a comment with jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif and nothing more, I have to think that is probably taunting. 

One would normally take that to mean that the author considers the prior comment to be of no value (aka bullshit, hot air).   That is not taunting.  The emoji could be used as part of a taunt, but so could most every emoji.   Depends upon the context.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.5.15  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @11.5.7    2 weeks ago

I love the second one. I'll see if I can add it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.5.16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @11.5.10    2 weeks ago

So ONE   jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif   is merely rude, while   jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif    is taunting? 

Do I have it yet? 

Yes.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.5.17  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @11.5.8    2 weeks ago

Tacos,

The reason I go through the discussion process instead of just saying "It is what it is", is because I don't think I am always right and want to hear other people discuss it. So I listened to what you and others had to say, and then I did come to the conclusion that rude is not taunting. If it was, we wouldn't have different words for it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.5.18  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @11.5.13    2 weeks ago

Taunting is meant to elicit a response from your opponent. I guess after reading through the discussion if someone went..."Blah, blah, blah" to me, my response would be, "Well, then I guess we are done here". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

I, for one, would like "on topic" and "off topic" to be looked at.

Just because something is mentioned in an article does not mean, to me, that it is the topic.

One needs to read the article to determine what the topic is.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @12    2 weeks ago

Anything mentioned in an article is considered fair play and on topic. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1    2 weeks ago

I think I see where Tex is going with that, though. Correct me please, if I’m wrong, but can’t a seeder also declare up front that something mentioned in the article is off topic?

For example, say the seed is about Biden’s policy proposals, but the seed contains a line that begins, “In his debate the other night with Trump, Biden said . . . “

Technically, Trump is mentioned but that doesn’t make him the topic. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.1    2 weeks ago
For example, say the seed is about Biden’s policy proposals, but the seed contains a line that begins, “In his debate the other night with Trump, Biden said . . . “ Technically, Trump is mentioned but that doesn’t make him the topic. 

Yes you can declare something off topic, but it must be done in red and in the first comment. It does not apply if there is more than just a passing comment in an article. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, I realize that, Perrie, but I can't see that JUST because the article MENTIONS someone or something in passing that it becomes the whole topic even when 98% of the rest of the article is about something totally different.

That just doesn't make sense to me personally.

Like this, for example:

"Congress voted on a relief package last night.".......and then talks ALL about what is in the relief package, and how Americans can benefit from it.

So Congress is an acceptable topic because the story contained the word "Congress".

To me, the topic IS the relief package, not Congress.

Maybe some school teachers could help us out---if a teacher handed out the article I described above, would any teacher accept that the topic was Congress?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.3    2 weeks ago
Yes, I realize that, Perrie, but I can't see that JUST because the article MENTIONS someone or something in passing that it becomes the whole topic even when 98% of the rest of the article is about something totally different.

OK what you can do is write in red in the first comment that X is off topic. But if the bulk of the article is more than just a passing comment, then it will be treated as on topic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.2    2 weeks ago
Yes you can declare something off topic, but it must be done in red and in the first comment.

I love that idea!

 
 
 
devangelical
12.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1    2 weeks ago

break out the kleenex.

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.7  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1    2 weeks ago

Why?

 
 
 
Kathleen
13  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

Thanks Perrie..  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @13    2 weeks ago

Your welcome! :)

 
 
 
MonsterMash
13.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1    2 weeks ago

I think it would helpful to add " Points Accumulated" in the dropdown menu below the member's name? That way each member could see excately how many points they have against them for the month.

If you can't do that you could add "Points" in the ticket menue.

Example:

Date Offense Moderator Points
10/04/20 09:34:26PM Meta
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MonsterMash @13.1.1    2 weeks ago

I would have to find out if that is possible to do. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
13.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  MonsterMash @13.1.1    2 weeks ago

If one can't do simple math at this point in their lives....

 
 
 
devangelical
13.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.2    2 weeks ago

I think that encouraging a gangbang of an individual by posting their point tally is a very bad idea.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

I think he is referring to keeping count of the kind of comments so you can keep track of the points. 

Since I am a good girl, jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif I never get points so I don't know how it looks to you guys.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @13.1.4    2 weeks ago

I don't understand how that would lead to a gang bang. Only the individual with the points would see. 

 
 
 
Ender
13.1.7  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.5    2 weeks ago

It already tells you how many tickets one gets in the menu. It already keeps track.

What it sounds like is he wants other people's tickets to be public knowledge.

I agree with Dev, it would be used to target people.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
13.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.5    2 weeks ago

It looks like a spreadsheet with links. If you know what each type of violation is, it's not hard to do 2x + 2X + 8X

 
 
 
MonsterMash
13.1.9  MonsterMash  replied to  devangelical @13.1.4    2 weeks ago
I think that encouraging a gangbang of an individual by posting their point tally is a very bad idea

Can you see how many tickets another member has? NO, What makes you think someone besides the user that holds the account could see how many points they have?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
13.1.10  MonsterMash  replied to  Ender @13.1.7    2 weeks ago
What it sounds like is he wants other people's tickets to be public knowledge.  
You're wrong, No one except the indivual that has the account can see how many tickets they have. No way anyone could see the point total besides the one the account belongs to.
 
 
 
MonsterMash
13.1.12  MonsterMash  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.6    2 weeks ago
I don't understand how that would lead to a gang bang. Only the individual with the points would see. 

That's 100% correct, Perrie. Some people aren't thinking.

 
 
 
Kavika
14  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Points will be enforced by Judge Roy Bean, affectionately know as the ''Hanging Judge''.

5f1198626532f.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C665

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @14    2 weeks ago

It's the only way it can be done, and done right! When you hang a man, you hang them till they are dead, LOL. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @14    2 weeks ago

It's true...we (NT) can learn a lot from history. The good judge took extreme measures to deal with the wild west. As the west became more civilized (acquiring new members), Bean was replaced by more humane forms of justice!  


 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
14.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @14    2 weeks ago
Points will be enforced by Judge Roy Bean, affectionately know as the ''Hanging Judge''.

could be worse , could be made to sit in an enclosed room with me after I eat a big pot of tex mex chili and im wearing a kilt.... its breezy huh?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
14.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.3    2 weeks ago

Gives a whole new meaning of death penalty by gas chamber

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
14.3.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @14.3.1    2 weeks ago

hey now , my ex wife survived dutch ovens , me on the other hand barely and learned to sleep on the couch.

 not only did i meet my match , i met my better...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kavika @14    2 weeks ago

fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F027%2F763%2F07B89120-B48D-45FB-AF1D-49AF6CD16790.jpg

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.4    2 weeks ago

I think I might have woopsied myself on that one, Sandy!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
14.4.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.4.1    2 weeks ago

If you like the meme, watch "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs" on Netflix.  You'll feel terrible for laughing, but you'll laugh, anyway.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.4.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.4.2    2 weeks ago

I will! 

 
 
 
Kathleen
14.4.4  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @14.4.2    2 weeks ago

I saw that.  Hilarious at times.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
15  Just Jim NC TttH    2 weeks ago

Some people even showing up is taunting..........some days LOL

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @15    2 weeks ago

Well... no. LOL.

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.2  Kathleen  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @15    2 weeks ago

That made me laugh... 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
15.2.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kathleen @15.2    2 weeks ago

me too

 
 
 
JohnRussell
16  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Judging by what I can piece together, it appears that the moderation on Newstalkers is going to become even more intrusive and restrictive. Thats not good news. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @16    2 weeks ago

Sorry, We won't defund the moderators.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
16.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.1    2 weeks ago
Sorry, We won't defund the moderators.

LMAO... but the biggest part of that joke is that we get paid nothing for the job and aggravation. Imagine that? 

 
 
 
Freewill
16.2  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @16    2 weeks ago
it appears that the moderation on Newstalkers is going to become even more intrusive and restrictive

We are talking about better enforcing some very simple rules of decorum John to improve the level of discussion here.  Honestly the rules should not even be necessary in a civilized society and particularly in a venue where folks come together to discuss or debate important topics of the day.  Coming here and wasting one's time simply to demean and denigrate others makes no sense.  What does it accomplish?  It should be in the best interest of all the members here to conduct themselves in a manner that already complies with these simple rules, and encourage others to do the same.  Only those who are not here for the purpose of rational, reasonable and constructive discourse would find the enforcement of such rules intrusive or restrictive.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
16.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @16.2    2 weeks ago
Honestly the rules should not even be necessary in a civilized society and particularly in a venue where folks come together to discuss or debate important topics of the day.  Coming here and wasting one's time simply to demean and denigrate others makes no sense.  What does it accomplish?  It should be in the best interest of all the members here to conduct themselves in a manner that already complies with these simple rules, and encourage others to do the same.  Only those who are not here for the purpose of rational, reasonable and constructive discourse would find the enforcement of such rules intrusive or restrictive.

I have written more content than anyone else in the history of this forum with the possible exception of AMac, who only posts about photography. I have no problem "debating" anyone, and am more than able to do it civilly. 

What I won't do is pretend that people should be polite to people who spew endless nonsense in praise of this ridiculous administration  and what has happened in this country for the past 5 years.  We already have to be way too kind to those who agree with QAnon, agree with caging little kids, make endless excuses for Trump's mountain of ignorance and lies, etc.  No one should be forced to be polite to assholes. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
16.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.2    2 weeks ago
We already have to be way too kind to those who agree with QAnon, agree with caging little kids, make endless excuses for Trump's mountain of ignorance and lies, etc.  No one should be forced to be polite to assholes. 

John,

You can hardly disagree with someone without name calling. I do it all the time with people I disagree with. 

 
 
 
MUVA
16.2.4  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.2    2 weeks ago

Remember that it works both ways thinking you are always right doesn’t make it so.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
16.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @16.2.3    2 weeks ago
you want to look at both sides as being "equal" when they are NOT. 
-
when you dont CONFRONT Trumpism you enable it
-
and that is what your rules do
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
16.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.5    2 weeks ago

Trumpism, as you like to call it, is opinion. That's it. That it offends you is ON you. This isn't now, nor ever was, meant to be an echo chamber (although some days) as I understand it. And that you can't stand Donald J. Trump is NOT ever going to be an all encompassing opinion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
16.2.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.5    2 weeks ago
you want to look at both sides as being "equal" when they are NOT. 
Both sides are equal to the CoC.
when you dont CONFRONT Trumpism you enable it
Who is stopping you from confronting Trumpism? The facts should speak for themselves. Not insults. 
and that is what your rules do
No they don't. They remove insults and bad behavior. How is that different from how you would behave at work?
 
 
 
Raven Wing
16.2.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Freewill @16.2    2 weeks ago
Only those who are not here for the purpose of rational, reasonable and constructive discourse would find the enforcement of such rules intrusive or restrictive.

Very well said, and I totally agree. There are those here who do not want to engage in civil discussion and/or debate, but, to create a divisive environment among the members. Then they sit back and laugh. 

They need to either stop their hateful games, or be shown the exit door.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
16.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @16    2 weeks ago

It's to deter bad behavior. That is all. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @16    2 weeks ago

"Judging by what I can piece together, it appears that the moderation on Newstalkers is going to become even more intrusive and restrictive. Thats not good news."

I tend to agree with you there.  Although I've seen it coming for a little while now. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
16.4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @16.4    2 weeks ago
I tend to agree with you there.  Although I've seen it coming for a little while now. 

Tess,

It really isn't that hard. Just don't be rude. I have seen both you and John make excellent comments that have shown insight. 

 
 
 
charger 383
17  charger 383    2 weeks ago

Avatars that move are more annoying than excessive emojis 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
17.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  charger 383 @17    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif Sorry... that made me laugh. I don't find them annoying as much as I do distracting.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
17.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @17.1    2 weeks ago

Distracting is right........at times. Not to mention the bandwidth taken up.........I think.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @17.1.1    2 weeks ago

I'm not sure about bandwidth, but sometimes they are distracting. That is an issue for the updating of the CoC. 

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.1.2    2 weeks ago

What about a avatar that shows the hulk punching the president not sure how that is allowed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @17.1.3    2 weeks ago

121076378_2753497474922569_5429881665107044816_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=NodIOZL4WBMAX-3royG&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=a5f4f0ba5f997e60ccab7180d364983c&oe=5FA206A5

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @17.1.3    2 weeks ago

Ummm... no. LOL! 

But I do like the hulk!

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.6  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @17.1.3    2 weeks ago

Let's hear your argument for why my avatar shouldn't be allowed. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
17.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @17.1.3    2 weeks ago

How about the avatars with the sea monster and the ghost horse? I bet Dulay's avatar is the only one you have a problem with because of who she is

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1.8  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @17.1.6    2 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1.9  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @17.1.7    2 weeks ago

I likes what I likes.

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.10  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @17.1.9    2 weeks ago

So then your posit is that members should be limited to avatar you like? You don't seem to be able to articulate any other reason.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
17.1.11  Release The Kraken  replied to  Dulay @17.1.10    2 weeks ago

Because your actual avatar implies violence against a US president it should be forbidden. My avatar showing a turd coming out of Hillary's mouth was banned and the one where Kamala deep throats the J on Joe was banned. A few years back there was a gif used as an avatar with Obama's head in a guillotine, it was banned.

We should not promote violence on the site. It's a TOS violation but the majority of those that enforce are ok with it. So keep it.

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1.12  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @17.1.10    2 weeks ago

I didn’t asked for anything to be limited I asked why it’s allowed see the difference.Now if I had said I want it removed you would have a point but I didn’t so your point is pointless.

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1.13  MUVA  replied to  Release The Kraken @17.1.11    2 weeks ago

I’m getting a avatar of Obama being slapped around by the where’s the beef lady.

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.14  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @17.1.12    2 weeks ago

Actually you asked HOW it's allowed, which implies that it shouldn't be. 

Now, let's hear your argument for why my avatar shouldn't be allowed. 

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.15  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @17.1.13    2 weeks ago

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.1.16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @17.1.15    2 weeks ago

Kracken,

The reason your avatar was removed was because it was gross and didnt meet community standards and the other one of Harris was removed because of TOS. Since then you have posted Biden as a blathering fool and in a wheelchair and both those have stood. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Release The Kraken @17.1.11    2 weeks ago
"My avatar showing a turd coming out of Hillary's mouth was banned and the one where Kamala deep throats the J on Joe was banned."

As always, so classy!

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1.18  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @17.1.14    2 weeks ago

No it applies that I wanted to know how it is allowed if I would have asked why it hasn’t been removed but I didn’t so you don’t have a point.

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.19  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @17.1.18    2 weeks ago

Again, WTF is the REASON that YOU think it should NOT be allowed. 

You may want to recognize that if you can't answer that question cogently, YOU don't have a point. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
17.1.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @17.1.19    2 weeks ago

See 17.1.11 You'll be glad you did..........or not of course

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @17.1.20    2 weeks ago

First of all, I asked MUVA a question and that comment is not by him. 

Secondly, that member was the first member I added to my very short ignore list and I AM glad I did. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
18  Mark in Wyoming     2 weeks ago

So no more posting after a night out on the town

no more farting in a persons general direction ,

and definitely no saying that a persons mother was a hamster and their father smelt of elderberries...

 or any of the really good ones i come up with when i have had a few adult beverages ... 

 i can live with that .

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
18.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @18    2 weeks ago

I like the smell of elderberries.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @18.1    2 weeks ago

ROFLMAO!

 
 
 
Freewill
18.1.2  Freewill  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @18.1    2 weeks ago
I like the smell of elderberries.

Gotta be careful, did they mean elderberries or elder berries?  (-:

I'm a recovering Monte Python addict....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freewill @18.1.2    2 weeks ago
I'm a recovering Monte Python addict....

LMAO, me too!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
18.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @18    2 weeks ago

but markies gonna be a very dull fuggen boy from now on ......

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
19  sandy-2021492    2 weeks ago

I think this is a good way to deal with those slapfights that last for days, or even weeks, causing the mods to pull out their hair.  None of us has the time to babysit those threads, and they contribute little positive to the site.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 weeks ago

Open for comments 

 
 
 
devangelical
21.1  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21    2 weeks ago

How many points for a group mod that responds to your comment, and then afterwards deletes/tickets it?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @21.1    2 weeks ago

Once they have responded to a comment, they can not ticket it, since it is considered in play. If that happens, please notify me.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
22  Release The Kraken    2 weeks ago

The taunting will end up being a disaster. It will become the new sweeping gen opinion censor ticket.  Good luck with that. jrSmiley_122_smiley_image.gif

I will say that when you get a ticket and it's ridiculous the site's higher court always rules righteously.

Reach out, get those tickets turned around, it's easy to do. Remain calm, inquire with rational reason and justice will be served. It happens to all of us! Human error is human nature and often people read what they want to read. You authored the comment, you know what it means. Explain it but do so politely and I think you will be happy with the outcome.

Then have some  jrSmiley_96_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
JohnRussell
22.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @22    2 weeks ago

Wouldn't it be better to not add more layers of moderation to the site? Now you want an appeal to a higher court? Why not remove the need for the appeal?  Moderate less, not more. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
22.1.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @22.1    2 weeks ago

I agree 100%, the change makes it more complicated and opens the door for significantly more abuse as taunting is subjective. 

The sweeping gen is easier to handle as we have a clear English language definition to what is and what isn't a sweeping gen.  I stopped removing sweeping gens all together because it was being abused by partisanship. Had I followed the crew I would have had to remove a ton of comments as the sweeping generalization is very much a part of our daily language even though many comments that weren't actually sweeping gens were being removed.

If we actually all understood sweeping gens in the actual rules we learned in elementary English many of the removed comments would still be on the site.

Taunting is subjective, for this reason unless the comment violates another rule the comment should stand.Some people are triggered by a reply to a comment, please save my delicate and fragile persona from this horrible taunting.....jrSmiley_122_smiley_image.gif

This smells like safe space masturbation and is ripe for partisan and discriminatory abuse.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
22.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @22.1.1    2 weeks ago

Taunting has always been a ticketed item, it just didn't have any points. What I will say is we all know when a comment is a taunt. It's like porn. You know it when you see it. 

Personally, I find sweeping gens to be much harder. I mean sometimes you have to define a group to make a comment about them. What I look for is absolutism, but even then, sometimes that doesn't apply. 

 
 
 
CB
22.1.3  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @22.1.2    2 weeks ago

I disagree with the 'taunting' thing altogether. Sometimes we need to pull the wool off the subject matter and let it all hang. However, people beat around the bush—indefinitely! They admit to nothing! Argue futilely against the truth.

It is not cute, it is not nice, and so far "taunting" has been subjective (by some mods who like to show up even as 'blasts from the past' seeing that they are not on the list on the front page.) behaving like they don't get the jist of a discussion.

Still, I won't complain anymore (much). I have decided to take my lumps and just 'deal.' (Smile.)

I have become jaded over the whole moderation team and 'thing.' Why complain (much) about it?

There. I said it. I feel better alraaaaady!

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
22.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Release The Kraken @22    2 weeks ago

They found a walk around. Now we have groups on the front page where the owner claims his decisions for moderating are final and are not open for review by real moderators.

https://thenewstalkers.com/bob-nelson/group/238/the-beacon

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
22.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @22.2    2 weeks ago

Dean,

No one is above review, so I really don't care what that person says. If they are not fair, they will lose their ability to moderate in their own group. But thank you for pointing that out to me.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
22.2.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @22.2.1    2 weeks ago

Thanks for clarifying that. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
23  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Anything mentioned in an article is considered fair play and on topic. 

I would like Perrie to review my second ticket of the month...as I responding to another's comment, and it simply was my opinion.

Nothing will improve until we get rid of extremely partisan moderators, as the usual suspects will abuse the rules and sympathetic mods will give them a pass.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
23.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  Greg Jones @23    2 weeks ago

My understanding is this site was created as an alternative to  some of the f'd up bs on another one that closed that we all know. In the beginning we didn't have the rules and that made this site a great alternative. Sadly this place has become what it once criticized.

The onslaught of rules changed to protect the refugees from that site that are known for their internet sensitivity across the nets. We ruined a good site to protect a few new members from the cold hard realities of life. Many of whom already quit because the site wasn't willing to make it a 100% echo chamber but who knows, it looks like it may eventually get there.

It was good while it lasted.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
23.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.1    2 weeks ago

Yes I agree 100%. It bears no resemblance to the site I joined. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
23.1.2  Release The Kraken  replied to  Dean Moriarty @23.1.1    2 weeks ago

Gee maybe we could start voting to take down articles...lol

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.1.2    2 weeks ago

Oh please. We always had ticketing. What rule changes? The last group of changes were done years ago. What changed is that we got in more liberals to a top-heavy conservative site. Toughen up, guys. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
23.1.5  Release The Kraken  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.3    2 weeks ago

Oh now now, you know exactly what we are talking about.  No one cares about the political affiliation as long as they aren't whinny lil sissies about it.

We had virtually no moderation in the first few years and we did all right. The capitulation to the refugees hasn't exactly worked out. Not enough came, but the site opted to keep their retarded safe space rules.

.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
23.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.1.5    2 weeks ago

deleted

You know what, I promised I wouldn't help turn this metafest into a slap fight

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
23.1.7  Release The Kraken  replied to  Trout Giggles @23.1.6    2 weeks ago

Good choice, never works out well.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.1.5    2 weeks ago
Oh now now, you know exactly what we are talking about.  No one cares about the political affiliation as long as they aren't whinny lil sissies about it.

Do you? You mean the days of you gang banging the few liberals we had on the site are over? Because that is what happened. You didn't need to take it to the personal. It was just a pile on that was totally on the up and up. 

We had virtually no moderation in the first few years and we did all right. The capitulation to the refugees hasn't exactly worked out. Not enough came, but the site opted to keep their retarded safe space rules.

We had moderation always. No one capitulated to anyone, since the rules apply to all, so save your "safe space" whistle call mantra. The old CoC written by me, Terry and Bruce is still here. It hardly changed. The only real change was sweeping gens. That is it. btw.. Terry and Bruce were both conservatives so that blows your theory. 

You can review it here:

https://thenewstalkers.com/code_of_conduct

Under the new version that was really just reformatted for ease of reading. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
23.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.8    2 weeks ago

I think this may clear up RTK's post (whiny sissies about it) a bit.........................at least where some are concerned.

384

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
23.1.10  Release The Kraken  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.8    2 weeks ago
Do you? You mean the days of you gang banging the few liberals we had on the site are over? Because that is what happened. You didn't need to take it to the personal. It was just a pile on that was totally

There was always a balance on the site, a few quit because they couldn't handle election results. We have always had people of all political affiliations quitting and joining etc.

I am glad Hal is back, can gunny come back now?

 
 
 
Ender
23.1.11  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.8    2 weeks ago

I liked Bruce. Had several conversations with him. Hope he comes back to talking.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
23.1.12  Release The Kraken  replied to  Ender @23.1.11    2 weeks ago

I liked when He and Hal argued about murdering coyotes. Epic!

 
 
 
Ender
23.1.13  Ender  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.1.12    2 weeks ago

Missed that one.  Haha   Might have been before my time.

Take that back, I remember him talking about having to kill them on the land or something...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.14  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.1.10    2 weeks ago
There was always a balance on the site, a few quit because they couldn't handle election results. We have always had people of all political affiliations quitting and joining etc.

No there wasn't and the reason was, that this site started because some fair-minded liberals, like Jack Gillis (jfxgillis), Krishna, A Mac and moderates like me and NSZ confronted NV with the fact that they were suspending conservatives by the drove. Instead of looking at the unfair moderation, we had collected, they shut down the group where it was stored. Then they went after Mac in particular and invented a new rule over night, 5a to get rid of Mac who was giving them an extra hard time about bannings. So when this site started, we became the default for most of the exiled conservatives. I never minded, but I would have liked more balance. 

But please don't reinvent the past. I have years of posts in the archives that would show otherwise. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
23.1.15  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.8    2 weeks ago
Bruce is still here

He needs to stop by and say hello.  Of course his hello is "Show me your tits."  I flashed him mine a while back and got nothin' but silence.  It's your turn, Ma Cherie Perrie.  A quick shimmy might lure him in for a few minutes.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
23.1.16  Release The Kraken  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.14    2 weeks ago
But please don't reinvent the past

Way to play to the new crew.....lol Sounds good!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.17  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @23.1.15    2 weeks ago

Good Sister,

Not only did I flash him mine, I also showed him my panties. I just not sure how to lure him back that big bad boy! 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
23.1.18  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Trout Giggles @23.1.6    2 weeks ago
deleted You know what, I promised I wouldn't help turn this metafest into a slap fight

You represent the best of us.  True story.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
23.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @23.1.18    2 weeks ago

Thanks, Sis. I appreciate that

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
23.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.17    2 weeks ago

Maybe it's time for a new game.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.21  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.1.16    2 weeks ago

Look at this article...

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/26547/shame

Look who wrote it. Look at that person's behavior and the behavior of others on the site. 

Tell me, what has changed?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
23.1.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.21    2 weeks ago
Tell me, what has changed?
_v=63f541511663571
chain_link.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1501002492      Uncle Bruce     replied to    JohnRussell     4 years ago

John:

"Someone who wants to save every nickel possible in his personal taxes does not belong in the white house. period. "

STFU.  Your credibility is non-existent.

 

 
like.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1595883333   5  
     REPLY
===================================================
-
You tell me what has changed. 
-
In 2016 Bruce was not censored for telling me to shut the fuck up ( STFU), was he?
-
 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
23.1.23  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.21    2 weeks ago
Look at this article...

When I read that 4 years ago, I cried.  My friend wrote that.  But he's been gone a long time now.   

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.24  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @23.1.22    2 weeks ago

John:

"Someone who wants to save every nickel possible in his personal taxes does not belong in the white house. period. "

STFU.  Your credibility is non-existent.

You tell me what has changed. 
In 2016 Bruce was not censored for telling me to shut the fuck up ( STFU), was he?
Tell me John... did you like that? Because that was part of Bruce's rules. 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
23.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.24    2 weeks ago
Tell me John... did you like that? Because that was part of Bruce's rules. 

I'm not sure what you mean.  Bruce is crude. Once you accept that it is not a problem to deal with him.  My point is that moderation was considerably looser 4 years ago, shut the fuck up was not an automatic violation. 

Should it be?  I don't have an opinion about that.  I could live with it either way. 

What I don't like is the picky violations based on the moderator "interpreting" what was meant. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
23.1.26  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @23.1.22    2 weeks ago

His assessment still remains accurate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
23.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @23.1.26    2 weeks ago

You are like the last person on this forum who should be judging other people's credibility. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.28  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @23.1.26    2 weeks ago

See Greg, that was an unnecessary taunt. The only reason it was not ticketed is that John responded. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.29  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @23.1.25    2 weeks ago

John, 

You seem to forget that Bruce had written a whole pile of rules for the F bomb and STFU was allowed. This is a democracy and it was voted down in the last update. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
23.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.28    2 weeks ago
The only reason it was not ticketed is that John responded. 

oh please.   that is actually a problem

where in the coc does it say that violations are inconsequential if the target responds? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
23.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.29    2 weeks ago

Bruce could pretty much do what he wanted. He said fuck you to so many people that the counter broke. The point is the moderation here has changed. 

 
 
 
Dulay
23.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.28    2 weeks ago

Wait! Are necessary taunts allowed? [kidding not kidding[

Also, are trolling and bullying going to have the same points as taunting since they are together on the flag list? 

 
 
 
Dulay
23.1.33  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.28    2 weeks ago

I hope that you hammer that home because I have been ticketed for taunting even though the member replied and even block quoted my comment. 

If I flag a post because of part of it's content, I wait until after it's been moderated to reply to it and hopefully, the CoC has been deleted. When it's not, I try to nail the taunt as best I can.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
23.1.34  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.28    2 weeks ago
The only reason it was not ticketed is that John responded.

Why does that matter? It doesn't make the taunt any less of a taunt.

 
 
 
Dulay
23.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.1.29    2 weeks ago

But the 'F bomb' wasn't voted down but now it's suddenly regulated like 'repetitive emojis'. Once, no worries, more than once, bye bye comment, context be damned. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.36  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @23.1.32    2 weeks ago
Also, are trolling and bullying going to have the same points as taunting since they are together on the flag list? 

Not at the present moment. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.37  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @23.1.34    2 weeks ago
The only reason it was not ticketed is that John responded.
Why does that matter? It doesn't make the taunt any less of a taunt.

Because hypothetically, the only person who should be offended is the person who the remark is made to. If they are not, and don't flag it, and chose to answer it, it's in play. You can't be offended for someone else unless they are not online. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.1.38  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @23.1.35    2 weeks ago

Again that is context. If someone says to you FU, that is a direct attack on you. If someone says Go F off, it's a command, and could be a taunt. STFU is also a command and rude, and taunting. But just dropping the F bomb will get you nada unless it's combined in a long string of foul language. 

 
 
 
Dulay
23.2  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @23    2 weeks ago

"Extremely partisan moderators" can be address by the RA, more effectively through a PM or chat. I had success with that just an hour ago when an extremely partisan moderator gave me an unwarranted Meta ticket. One member in this thread knows him well. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @23    2 weeks ago

This is not the place to ask for reviews. That is supposed to be in chat or by PN.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
23.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.3    2 weeks ago

OK!

 
 
 
Freefaller
24  Freefaller    2 weeks ago

Well if nothing else this may make the insults and taunting more subtle, which would be a nice change

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freefaller @24    2 weeks ago

LOL!! Have to agree there. Might encourage thinking. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
24.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1    2 weeks ago

I can always fall back on Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries.

 
 
 
Tessylo
24.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @24.1.1    2 weeks ago
"I can always fall back on Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries."

How about 'I fart in your general direction?'

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
24.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @24.1.2    2 weeks ago

LMAO! Now that is funny!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
24.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @24.1.3    2 weeks ago

THHHHRRRRRRPPPP!!!!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
25  Raven Wing    2 weeks ago

I for one would like to see the memes that demean and denigrate the handicapped disallowed. It is a huge insult to the handicapped to see memes that show handicapped people in wheelchairs helplessly leaning over in their wheelchair and drooling onto the floor, or other such demeaning and insulting memes.

If I were a handicapped visitor to this site and saw how people laugh at such memes I would never wish to join such a site. And those who laugh at it are no better than those who post them.

JMOO

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

Raven,

Memes are hard to control. Both sides of the political fence put them up and they are supposed to offensive to the candidates or parties. I can't pick and choose, nor do I want to. But I do understand why you may feel that way. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
25.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Raven Wing @25    2 weeks ago

Some of the most vile memes have been directed at Trump

 
 
 
JohnRussell
25.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @25.2    2 weeks ago

yeah, people don't like a pathological lying, cheating, crooked,  ignoramus leading their country.  Who'd a thunk it? 

 
 
 
Account Deleted
26  Account Deleted    2 weeks ago

No hard feelings.

The house has every right to set the rules.

I have not been a big offender - what a total of a ticket a month?

Still I choose to move on rather than add an additional layer of filtering to my posts.

Adam_Selene

 
 
 
Ender
26.1  Ender  replied to  Account Deleted @26    2 weeks ago

You better not leave. I would have to put together a posse and hunt you down...

Sounds like work and I am lazy.  So you have to stay.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
26.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Account Deleted @26    2 weeks ago
Still I choose to move on rather than add an additional layer of filtering to my posts.

Please tell me you are not being serious.

 
 
 
Account Deleted
27  Account Deleted    2 weeks ago

No hard feelings.

The house has every right to set the rules.

I have not been a big offender - what a total of a ticket a month?

Still I choose to move on rather than add an additional layer of filtering to my posts.

Adam_Selene

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
27.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Account Deleted @27    2 weeks ago

Adam,

Nothing had changed. And of all people to be upset I am shocked it is you. I don't think you have ever gotten a ticket. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
27.1.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @27.1    2 weeks ago

Who is Adam, his name says account deleted?

Did someone delete his account?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
27.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @27.1.1    2 weeks ago

No, he just changed his name to make a point. I hope he comes back.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
27.1.3  Release The Kraken  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @27.1.2    2 weeks ago

Oh....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
28  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

I got an idea! Let's just throw the CoC in the dumpster and light the TOS on fire! No rules and everything goes!

Then let's see how long you all have a playground

 
 
 
Ender
28.1  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @28    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
28.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @28.1    2 weeks ago

Cute!

 
 
 
Freewill
28.1.2  Freewill  replied to  Ender @28.1    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
28.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @28    2 weeks ago

Exactly

 
 
 
lady in black
28.3  lady in black  replied to  Trout Giggles @28    2 weeks ago

I for one would leave and never come back.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
28.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lady in black @28.3    2 weeks ago

I hear ya.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
30  Mark in Wyoming     2 weeks ago

Likely not the time nor place since the article is about the rule changes , BUT......

 there is NO unjoining the site , only option is to never sign in again and stop coming here , might be time to fix that as well as the other things . let people unjoin that wish to .

 And yes i have looked , one simply does not un join , its like walking into mordor one just does not do it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
30.1  Tacos!  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @30    2 weeks ago

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
30.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tacos! @30.1    2 weeks ago

and we're livin it up at the hotel california ......

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
30.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @30.1.1    2 weeks ago

OK here is the reason why. When people up and suddenly quite, entire threads are taken along with them, including comments that were not theirs. It's a weird function of the Jamroom platform. If you really want to be gone, just get me and I can make your account, inactive and that will not hurt any continuing discussions. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
31  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 weeks ago

OK, I am closing this down now. The updated version of what will happen is in the article, which has also been updated. Thanks to all who participated. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JBB
CB
Gsquared
Ender
GregTx
lady in black
Hal A. Lujah
Kavika
Gazoo
Dulay



JohnRussell


56 visitors