Hmmm... a show of common sense, efforts toward common courtesy, and no evidence thus far of the dreaded flood of free-speech-destroying, debate-restricting, opinion-curtailing, attitude-manipulating, blood-drinking Satan-worshipping RedBoxRules (cue menacing organ-music). NewsTakers hasn't collapsed & cyberspace didn't implode and engulf anyone (more's the pity)...
The exact wording on that rule is not at all clear . I suggest the following : The commenter who calls an impasse is not permitted to say any more on the topic . Everyone else has no restrictions except for the CoC . That's right . The impasse caller just said anyone can have the last word ... or diatribe .
No... not like Obama care. Many of us have been using the impasse rule for quite some time... we just never applied wording to the actual practice. In this way, it is the exact opposite to the ACA.
It seems to me that if someone even implies that a member is a bigot or racist it should be deemed to be the same as actually using the word. I agree with the inclusion of "anti-Semite" in the list, but I think that it should also be an offence when someone complains they are being called an anti-Semite just because they're critical of Israel, which is just as odious.
What action will be taken against a member who tells another one to "Fuck off" or to go fuck themselves?
I agree with Randy on that. If calling an impasse by one member enables the other or others to continue with the argument (or criticism) in a manner that implicates the impasse caller, it is a useless exercise, frustrating for the person who calls the impasse.
Excellent work with he voting and the presentation of issues.
The results are about as expected, I imagine and nothing is likely to really change in the manner or style of "debate and discussion" as a result, anyone fearful of being overcome by civility really has nothing to fear.
Impasse just means to me the person who says "Impasse" is through arguing a point with another member or group of members. It gives that member the opportunity to say "I'm finished discussing this issue with you". It doesn't mean the other member can't continue commenting or arguing, but it is a little ridiculous to do so, so the gentleman or lady like thing to do is also accept it and say "Impasse" as well. Doesn't mean you're finished discussing the article, just means you are finishing arguing a point that is getting nowhere.
The RULE is NOT designed to protect BAD behavior or the flaunting of other rules.
No impasse happened, cause no debate took place.
He used one rule in am attempt to protect his breaking the other.
And now you claim I am the one breaking the rule. There was never any debate in the first place. His intent is clear, as is yours.
Your defending his use, which means you agree with his use. another rule to twist to your own advantage.
I've got a life, you aught to try one.
Fine, the conclusion one has to draw from this is the whole meta thing we just went thru was absolutely worthless, the vote was meaningless nothing is going to change,
BF - solution to the Meme. Just say "Look at this"
solution to impasse. That's not a rule. All you're doing is saying I've had enough. It doesn't mean you can't beat your head up against the wall all you want.
Racists - solution I was born a racist and didn't even know it until I'm was enlightened here on NT. I am white and from the south. The only thing that could be any worse is have been in the military and am now a policeman.
I like sarcasm and plan to use it as wisely as I can.
badfish, An excellent test of the IMPASSE rule - nope, it wasn't an intent to disrupt as it was an attempt to see what would happen if it was used. Could IMPASSE mean STFU in certain situations? Yes, it could, and it can be easily abused.
Nowhere, it didn't stop you and I'm glad. All "impasse" means to me is I'm through talking about this point. I get your point, but impasse will only be used by those who realize it's a waste to continue arguing. It's not a declaration of "I just won the argument". To me it just means I'm tired of arguing about it.
The only question that is BEGGING to be asked is ...
If NO slam articles are allowed on the front page, when exactly does the 36 hours start for the NO slam articles that are NOT allowed on the front page and when does the 36 hours end for the NO slam articles allowed on the front page?
What if content appears to be racist, anti-semitic, bigoted, etc. . If we cite the content in question and state why it is any of these, that is not the same as calling a member a "bigot," etc. .
For example "I find statement "X" to be "racist" because _________________________________."
Not being able to do this gives a free pass to such statements.
YES THAT WAS THE TOPIC BEING VOTED ON, iT WAS VOTED THAT no SLAM ARTICLES WERE TO BE PUT ON THE FRONT PAGE. AND IT WAS ALSO VOTED THAT THOSE SLAM ARTICLES THAT ARE not ALLOWED ON THE FRONT PAGE CAN ONLY BE UP FOR 36 HOURS sO, nOWHERE I WILL ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN, (sorry CAOS stuck, not yelling)
If NO slam articles are allowed on the front page, when exactly does the 36 hours start for the NO slam articles that are NOT allowed on the front page and when does the 36 hours end for the NO slam articles allowed on the front page?
To use the impasse rule, there had to be a discussion that lasted a while before it was called. It has been used in the past to stop arguments that were just going round in circles and there was never going to be agreement. It can't be used as a tool to shut the other person up.
Inarticulate? Au contraire, mon ami. A picture can save having to write 1000 words. They can make a point in a manner that even a child can understand - sometimes more accurately than even YOU are capable of expressing, and, as well, sometimes with humour which in iteslf is a desireable tool.
Perhaps he was trying for 1000 words and ran out of energy before reaching that goal. I think he was trying to prove that 1000 words are worth a picture.
But a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?
" a situation in which no progress is possible, esp. because of disagreement;
a deadlock."
There are times when, in either personal or formal situations, parties, after prolonged discussion, argumentation, negotiations, or, even combat, it becomes evident that a continuation will not only fail to come to an amicable agreement or compromise, but deteriorate further without resolution.
When one or both of the parties realize that such a state has been reached, they can exit or halt the interaction before it becomes toxic and counter productive.
That's the time for one or both parties to declare an "IMPASSE."
In the early 1970's, I was involved in a long labor/management dispute over a contract negotiation that had become acrimonious and hopelessly stalled. That dispute directly involved the lives over 30,000 individuals and, residually, the entire city of Philadelphia economically, socially and politically.
After months of no progress in negotiations and the prospect of no end in sight with serious collateral damage, President Richard Nixon sent a mediator to Philadelphia to act as a buffer between the sides and help to end the impasse FOR THE GOOD OF ALL ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
A DISCUSSION website like The NEWSTALKERS, et al, lives or dies on activity on the volume and quality of its lifeblood DISCUSSION ITSELF. Disagreement, debate, disparate discourse add life and color to such a site; BUT WHEN DEBATE BECOMES DISPARAGING AND TWO OR MORE PARTIES CEASE TO ADD RELEVANT CONTENT, COLLATERAL DAMAGE IS THE MOST LIKELY RESULT!
Bad news for a DISCUSSION site. When personal insults and bad feelings begin to erode a thread, some of the thread participants leave that thread; and if there are too many such erosions, some will leave NT altogether.
Thus, THE IMPASSE RULE.
Here's how it works.
1) Two NT Members have reached a point in a thread where they've said everything in the way of discussion/debate and it's clear they will no agree going forward.
2) Rather than becoming endlessly redundant, counter productive, possibly insulting, ONE OF THE TWO DECLARES "IMPASSE."
3) From that point in the discussion and as long as that discussion is in progress, THOSE TWO MEMBERS WILL NOT ADDRESS ONE ANOTHER NOR REFER TO ONE ANOTHER EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY WAY OF ALLUSION.
The last word in the particular thread between the two will be "IMPASSE!"
The more I think about it, the more I think we should be able to call out someone when they are being a racist, bigot or anti-semite. Not being able to clearly state that we find a comment racist allows the racist to continue their racist and destructive behavior.
Are there racists, bigots and anti-semites on NT? Yes.
The more I think about it, the more I think we should be able to call out someone when they are being a racist, bigot or anti-semite. Not being able to clearly state that we find a comment racist allows the racist to continue their racist and destructive behavior.
Does the ban on calling a member racist, bigot or an anti-Semite prevent the statement made by such person being called racist, bigoted or anti-Semitic? If not, then the ban does not prevent the point from being made.
Although I believe A.Mac has made the point that attacking the statement (or the source) as being racist, bigoted or anti-Semitic is not contrary to the COC, but calling the member one of those names is. However, I would also like to see Perrie's take on this.
If that were so it would be a relief to Randy, who made it clear early in the comments to this article that he would find a way to so label a person whom in his opinion he feels qualifies for being so criticized by him.
Those who denigrate your sources cannot win by any other way.
I made a fine living, in part, by denigrating sources when they made assertions that were inaccurate, intentionally misleading or otherwise not credible; I won many a case/argument by showing the flaws, fallacies and foibles of witnesses that, in the end, failed to make their case.
Checking sources is analogous to determining witness credibility or the lack thereof.
Those who cut and paste cannot win by any other way.
You mean those who provide specifics by posting them and their sources in order to either make their case or debunk someone else's? Is that what you mean?
Name calling is not the same as explaining why someone's opinion represents a denigrating view. It's among the reasons why we have adjectives.
Just an idle question: How could anything imploding engulf something? An implosion requires contraction and engulfing conjures images of reaching out which would seem on the face of things to be opposite actions..... :D
The problem was not so much IMO that a racist was called a racist, but I believe it has been used to slander in order to squelch the argument posted by a person who was NOT a racist. I have been called a racist on NT notwithstanding that no proof of that could be produced, so calling me such is a libel done from the safety of anonymity.
I see what you saying Buzz. If the person makes a racist comment, it's difficult to not call them a racist, simply by the comments they made, they are racist.
If, as you stated, it's used to squelch an argument where no racist comments have been made, then I will agree with you.
I see what you saying Buzz. If the person makes a racist comment, it's difficult to not call them a racist, simply by the comments they made, they are racist.
If I understand you correctly Kavika... let one's words speak for themselves. It usually has the larger impact. Name calling never got anything achieved.
bla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla bla
directed at the responses, not the announcement itself
Those who have been the offenders will continue to be the offenders without punishment.
I have often found that those who cry foul, have fouled themselves.
I agree no change was desired and the results of the voting confirmed that - no change will be forthcoming
Change doesn't not happen overnight. It has to become habitual. For instance, the simple new rule of putting in by lines has only happened twice. Baby steps my friend.
Bruce, I don't believe in calling a person a racist for taking a stand that would differ from mine. I may really disagree with it, but will not use the term until they make a racist statement. At that point, the gloves are off.
Bottom line to this whole deal was to get the name calling to end. Nothing shuts down a discussion like name calling. And as a matter of fact, I just witness this on the "other place" and no they don't allow it... much less, even statements that sound a bit off colored... no pun intended.
Umpteen pages of Meta discussing potential or proposed CoC/policy changes. Still more angst & breast-beating over the looming menace of stultifying RBRs. Voting voting voting...
AND NOW!!!!
Two rules that were approved by reasonable margins: 1) let's stop pinning nasty hot-buttonlabels on people, and 2) 'Impasse', to try and cut down on pointless personality-driven tit-for-tat Peewee Herman 'dialogue' that contributes nothing to discussion...
producing 10 MORE pages of (mostly) drivel that amounts to "I'm goingto find new ways to label people as racist/anti-Semite/whatever" and a bunch of pointless personality-driven tit-for-tat Peewee Herman 'dialogue' that contributed nothing to the discussion.
But you are not in a court room or any other situation that you made a living in. Here we have supposedly NORMAL people. I make that statement lightly. We do not need sources to be attacked if our opinions are based on years of those sources.
Right! What was I thinking? Facts, accuracy, truth they only matter to abnormal people, NOT NORMAL PEOPLE LIKE OURSELVES!
You don't need sources to be attacked if your opinions are based on years of those sources UNLESS BY SOME CHANCE YOUR SOURCES AREN'T CREDIBLE thenyou might want to reconsider your opinions rather than continue being misinformed and living under an illusion or lie.
your arbitration techniques are not required in the NT scope of things being discussed. You dont like mine I dont like yours where does that get you. NOWHERE. And never will. Its the same as attacking the person directly.
Actually, if someone points out an error and corrects that error, they're doing you a service giving you the time and respect to explain why your opinion may be sincerely held BUT INCORRECT.
Would you prefer expressing something that is factually flawed and not being corrected? If that were the case, every time you expressed that inaccuracy, those who knew better would regard you as either being misinformed, or, ignorant and possibly arrogant when showing disdain for a respectful correction.
An effort to be helpful is not a direct personal attack; it's a gesture of integrity and caring about the truth.
Your "your source is not credible" is just a personal attack on that person cause they believe their source to be reliable.
Not if the source is, in fact, shown to be indeed, not credible. I always include corrections when I challenge a source and will often include some history about what makes them culpable for misinformation or outright lying!
Correcting bad information is not a personal attack unless one chooses to take honest dialogue as a personal affront.
You cannot correct someones thought process because you disagree with their source that they believe is true.
If the thought is based on faulty information and the corresponding "reasoning," I sure can. Whether the correction results in a more accurate belief is up to the person being corrected.
Leave well enough alone and just stick to the spirit of the discussion instead of cutting peoples feet off from under them.
Going forward, I will leave "well enough alone" when it comes to you and me.
It will work the same way it always worked. After a long discussion, a person can say impasse and bow out. It should be agreed upon by both parties. But saying "Impasse" after a long discussion that is going no where should be honored. There is no penalty for not honoring it.
I tend to agree with you, Feronia. And honestly, I usually let the other guy or gal get the last word in if I grow tired of the battle. Just ask Robert
Until you have a system of enforcement, any rule put in place will be ignored by those that disagree with it.
Just like society in general, the criminals do not follow the law, they just don't care.
This is why we have police in the greater society cause some form of enforcement is required, here we have moderators. But what if the moderators disagree with the rule? or outright refuse to enforce it?
This is the problem here right now in a nutshell, the rules have been voted upon and are in place, who is going to enforce them?
The only workable solution was said to be so bulky and bloated as to be inefficient leading to even more problems. But the objections were clearly and actually revealing a lack of understanding in how the forum actually works. And, how the enforcement can be set up to almost seamlessly integrate with the way the board functions in real life.
The arguments served as a way to make the rules irrelevant by those that don't like them.
Rules are worthless without enforcement.
This conversation, meta as it is, demonstrates that principle very clearly.
I allow for silliness on my articles as a release valve. I do not ever take offense, unless it is meant to be offensive.
Rules are worthless without enforcement.
I agree. But they are also worthless if no one reports, which happens most of the time.
And BTW, no one likes having their comments removed. You don't have to beat someone up with a stick, if you do that consistently. The idea that harsher punishment means better behavior doesn't work. Consistent punishment does. Child rearing 101.
Which is sorely lacking in some cases. The word issue is a minor one easily handled thru software.
Will leave the posters who like to do the name calling, looking pretty foolish when their post winds up being nothing but an unintelligible string of asterisks.
The foolish will appear foolish and to communicate effectively one would need to stop the juvenile behavior. No moderation needed, the only punishment is one the poster brings upon himself. And, it's immediate and plain for all to see.
The term Asshole as I used it was used generically and wasn't pointed at anyone person or persons.
You do realize that earlier on this very article you called two members Assholes after one stated Impasse? Proving your above statement to be dishonest!
I'll take the judgment that was issued over the "Impasse" used there, it was both inappropriate and used to squelch response. Which is NOT what it was to be used for.
And sarcasm is a perfectly fine method of communication, until it is pointed specifically at a person to ridicule them.
Your own foolishness was on perfect exhibition as well.
And very aptly an succinctly pointed out.
Anything further I can do to brighten your day?
Or, you just want to gloat like a juvenile over accomplishing nothing?
Sorry about the formatting... I tried and I tried but I just couldn't get it right.
The format is fine, it'slegible.
The results are what I'm sorry about.
Memes I don't care about, I never use them.
'Slams'off FP - No Brainer, but I'm still not clear on the definition of a 'slam'.
Graphic Warning - No Brainer
Remove inactive groups - No Brainer
Racist, Bigot - I'm not so sure about. There are people on this site that are clearly racist and/or bigots, and I find not being able to say it to them to be a problem.
'Empass Rule' - As I said in the discussion, that one is going to be a problem - especially to the Mods.
Memes Some people have better visual skills than others. Some people have better dialog skills than others. Memes as the only thing in the article is a little lack luster to me. I think the person putting the meme up in the article should at least make a comment.
Slams As you say, I'm not sure what is considered a slam. I would have to assume it is an article against another member. Definitely should be in Heated Discussions only. If a slam article is an article that some people just don't like, I don't agree with it being a slam.
Graphic Warning Message in the article that indicates there will be graphic images visible if you click on this article.
Remove inactive groups May as well.
Racist, Bigot You can call me a bigot if you want. I don't care. I don't see what benefit there would be in doing so, I'll probably do it myself as well.
Empass Rule This means to me that I have come to the conclusion we are getting nowhere in our debate or argument and neither one of us is going to accept winning or losing the argument, so I am telling the other person there's no point in continuing. If you think you won the argument or I think I won the argument means nothing to me. After awhile it just gets to be arguing for the sake of arguing. In my opinion that doesn't stop the other person from continuing if they so desire, but it stops me. If I say "impasse" then I am basically saying I will not comment any more on this point. It doesn't mean I can't make future comments on the article, but none on the one I designated as ended for me. It just says I realize we are not going to agree.
I don't think it's ever been defined, but I do know this isn't the first time someone has suggested we get a definition.
I don't think we should be restricted from posting an article that iscriticalof a members ideology, writing style or other NT activities. We are all subject to criticism when we post on a public forum, and we should not be overly sensitive to that criticism. However if the criticism is abusive and/or demeaning, then the moderators need to step in and determine if the article, as a whole or in part, is in violation of the CoC.
Most people no longer bother to report, even if they now know how, because nothing ever gets done about it.
Raven,
I am sorry you feel that way, but when things are reported, they are removed. The archives prove that.
There will never be a way to please everyone. One person's teeth, is another person's heavy handedness. We try to strike up a balance. It will never be perfect but we can try to make it better.
I'll see your impasse, raise it by two memes, up the anti by one accusation of racism, warn of graphic material, and waive my right to invoke the Red Box Rule!*
________________
*notice how craftily I snuck in some additional (& totally unnnecesary) text in order to stimulate discussion.
If people want to hav an impasse rule, that fine with me.
But if two people are arguing & there's obviously an impasse, and one person wants to stop discussing it, you don't need a rule. All they have to do is leave the discussion-- walk away.
OR
When the other person makes a statement-- don't reply. They may try again. But if they are trying to have an argument and no-one replies, eventually thry give up.
(The problem exists because people want to have the last wrd. All you have to dois gve that up. Just walking away can be very effective).
For example "I find statement "X" to be "racist" because
Doesn't that go even beyond racism? Isn't really about the rule re: personal attacks...?
Its Ok to attack a comment. Not Ok to attck the person making it.
Calling someone stupid is a personal attack. Saying a comment is stupid is not a personal attack. (Although calling a comment stupid is not a personal attack, there are more tactful ways to say it).
B>ut what if one person callss IMPASSE and the other person disagrees? (in other words, if one person feels there's an impasse-- they've discussed it as much as they coud, got nowere, and further discussion at that point will get nowhere. BUT: the other person feels they have not yet reached an impasse, and thatfurther discussion might still be useful?
I can imagine the possibility that a person who starts to believe he is "losing" the argument (for example, the other person has just made a point he knows he can't refute) calls an impasse. he uses that to shut down the argument before hos opponent can expand on the point he jst made and win.
Basically, calling "impasse' is a way to shut up your opponent. You have to stop talking too-- but you've silenced him!
I think I've called impasse once or twice (honestly can't remember) but tend to agree. Not that impasse called by all parties isn't a valuable thing imo; but, that it is also an opportunity for manipulation. It is a fairly vulnerable position.
I made a fine living, in part, by denigrating sources when they made assertions that were inaccurate, intentionally misleading or otherwise not credible; I won many a case/argument by showing the flaws, fallacies and foibles of witnesses that, in the end, failed to make their case.
Yes but that only works in a settig where there is some degree of rationlity. On an Internet discussion forum people can say anything thy want to. And if you back up your argument against them with hard facts (links, etc)-- it still doesn't matter!
In a court of law, or any quasi-leagal system, there is a structure and rules, You are not allowed to present false infromation. You are not allowed to derail the conversation by use of personal attacks. But its different on the Internet-- anything goes.
But based upon many years of experience on the 'net, there's not the slightest bit of doubt in my mind that they don't!
People who deeply believe that they should exist here-- or worse yet (for themselves) people who try to make that exist, are like the person who tries to teach a pig to sing:
Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll only end up frustrated-- and it annoys the pig...
Who decides what is racist and what is not? Some on nt'ers declare an opposing view on race to be racist.
Since I've been on the Internet I've come to relize that we need a different definition of the wrd "racist" in this medum. So here's is one I made u tht seems to apply here:
Definition of a "racist": Anyone who has a different opinion than you do!
Trying to follow this logic or lack of. Racist comments, are racist, but the person using them isn't...Got it.
Actually I think what its about is not allowing personal attacks. You are allowed to attack a statement a person makes -- but not the person making it.
And as a matter of fact, I just witness this on the "other place" and no they don't allow it.
True. Over there, as is the case on many sites, if you call someone an idiot or a racist etc its the same thing-- a personal attack. (Even if the accustion is true-- even if they are a racist, or as is so common on these sites-- even if they are an idiot).
I don't think we should be restricted from posting an article that iscriticalof a members ideology, writing style or other NT activities
I agree. But most of those have really been rather tame lately.
I think what we might need t do is hire of of those crtooinsts from Charlie Hebdo to a cartoon saitirizing certain people on NT--put the cartoon on the front page. (Then we'll really see who's favour of free speech, lol!)
The other watchers. The mods are a nice blend of many viewpoints. So, if'n I don't catch it, then someone else will. There are enough of us to have lots of viewpoints-- and most of us have some sort of other responsibilities, so we can't all be everywhere, all the time. Plus, on occasion, all of us just want to be members, not mods. Meaning, we are subjected to the same moderation as everyone else.
I hesitate to ask Perrie to take on anything else right now... Once we get there, and things calm down, maybe we can do another poll-- or discuss this one further. I really think that we should get to the other site first, get used to working with it, and then, open discussions...
What do you think? Can we give Perrie a bit of a break?
Sorry about the formatting... I tried and I tried but I just couldn't get it right.
Hmmm... a show of common sense, efforts toward common courtesy, and no evidence thus far of the dreaded flood of free-speech-destroying, debate-restricting, opinion-curtailing, attitude-manipulating, blood-drinking Satan-worshipping RedBoxRules (cue menacing organ-music). NewsTakers hasn't collapsed & cyberspace didn't implode and engulf anyone (more's the pity)...
If we can't be civil in attitude, we at least must be civil in language.
EXCELLENT!
That one came down to the wire I understand.
No surprises and it looks great! Thanks for all of your hard work!
Thanks Randy!
Yeah just what the world needs .....
More lobbyists. LOL!
So true Swami...
The exact wording on that rule is not at all clear . I suggest the following : The commenter who calls an impasse is not permitted to say any more on the topic . Everyone else has no restrictions except for the CoC . That's right . The impasse caller just said anyone can have the last word ... or diatribe .
truly Nowhere
I am open to the verbiageof the impasse rule.
So ... the impasse rule is like Obamacare ? We have to pass it B4 we see what is there !
No... not like Obama care. Many of us have been using the impasse rule for quite some time... we just never applied wording to the actual practice. In this way, it is the exact opposite to the ACA.
It seems to me that if someone even implies that a member is a bigot or racist it should be deemed to be the same as actually using the word. I agree with the inclusion of "anti-Semite" in the list, but I think that it should also be an offence when someone complains they are being called an anti-Semite just because they're critical of Israel, which is just as odious.
What action will be taken against a member who tells another one to "Fuck off" or to go fuck themselves?
I agree with Randy on that. If calling an impasse by one member enables the other or others to continue with the argument (or criticism) in a manner that implicates the impasse caller, it is a useless exercise, frustrating for the person who calls the impasse.
Proud of ya'll for all your hard work - thanks.
and the ones who unfairly lable you?
Or better put, you need to call someone a name to make your point? how juvenile!
Perrie
Excellent work with he voting and the presentation of issues.
The results are about as expected, I imagine and nothing is likely to really change in the manner or style of "debate and discussion" as a result, anyone fearful of being overcome by civility really has nothing to fear.
Again thanks for orchestrating the process.
And I just bet you just wanted and had to be the first one to break that rule didn't you.
And then misuse the impasse rule to prevent it from being pointed out. kinda seal your deal so to speak.
All kinds of firsts Mr Fish.
You just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, or are you demonstrating your real intent here to intentionally disrupt?
Use the impasse rule to throw an insult out there and prevent any comeback. Just not in the spirit of things are you Mr Fish.
Sarcasm isn't what I would call compassion.
The rule isn't designed to protect bad behavior.
And, this type of behavior was predicted to happen soon after the voting started.
Not surprised that is happened this quickly, and within Ms Halpern's own article announcing the vote results.
You guys really don't like those rules do you.
PS: Your response Mr jwc2blue was also predicted.
Impasse just means to me the person who says "Impasse" is through arguing a point with another member or group of members. It gives that member the opportunity to say "I'm finished discussing this issue with you". It doesn't mean the other member can't continue commenting or arguing, but it is a little ridiculous to do so, so the gentleman or lady like thing to do is also accept it and say "Impasse" as well. Doesn't mean you're finished discussing the article, just means you are finishing arguing a point that is getting nowhere.
And your point was?
That your one of those people who doesn't care and are going to do it their way anyway despite the rules?
You actually proving the need for them, in spades.
The RULE is NOT designed to protect BAD behavior or the flaunting of other rules.
No impasse happened, cause no debate took place.
He used one rule in am attempt to protect his breaking the other.
And now you claim I am the one breaking the rule. There was never any debate in the first place. His intent is clear, as is yours.
Your defending his use, which means you agree with his use. another rule to twist to your own advantage.
I've got a life, you aught to try one.
Fine, the conclusion one has to draw from this is the whole meta thing we just went thru was absolutely worthless, the vote was meaningless nothing is going to change,
CAUSE THE ASSHOLES ON HERE DON'T WANT IT TO!
and you two have proven it.
BF - solution to the Meme. Just say "Look at this"
solution to impasse. That's not a rule. All you're doing is saying I've had enough. It doesn't mean you can't beat your head up against the wall all you want.
Racists - solution I was born a racist and didn't even know it until I'm was enlightened here on NT. I am white and from the south. The only thing that could be any worse is have been in the military and am now a policeman.
I like sarcasm and plan to use it as wisely as I can.
I never argued. I just watched.
safe and secure. Never bothered me.
badfish, An excellent test of the IMPASSE rule - nope, it wasn't an intent to disrupt as it was an attempt to see what would happen if it was used. Could IMPASSE mean STFU in certain situations? Yes, it could, and it can be easily abused.
Nowhere, it didn't stop you and I'm glad. All "impasse" means to me is I'm through talking about this point. I get your point, but impasse will only be used by those who realize it's a waste to continue arguing. It's not a declaration of "I just won the argument". To me it just means I'm tired of arguing about it.
John, bla bla bla's "are the last resort of the inarticulate, unless proven otherwise."
and that is exactly what he used it for.
along with his "Test" of the racist rule.
Impasse should have meant BF was finished discussing it, not Nowhere.
Nice comment John.
You do notice who's arguing about it claiming it's a proper use of it don't you?
He doesn't get it Six.
He doesn't want to get it.
The only question that is BEGGING to be asked is ...
If NO slam articles are allowed on the front page, when exactly does the 36 hours start for the NO slam articles that are NOT allowed on the front page and when does the 36 hours end for the NO slam articles allowed on the front page?
RE-Read it LoneRranger, it actually fairly clear and not funny at all...
psst: a hint, it's in the HD part, HD standing for "Heated Discussions"
OK, re read it and it says
"NO slam articles on the front page and leave up for 36 hours." 11%/6" OK Nowhere I'll read it one more time,. it says
"NO slam articles on the front page and leave up for 36 hours." 11%/6" Now Nowhwere what were you saying about it saying HD?
I sincerely hope someone believes you.
true that, bf.
ok it says.
"No Slam Articles on the Front Page (they go into HD) and extending the life of them to 48 hours"
That's the title of the questions to be selected.
OH brother! you are a BAAAD fish!!!
Gunny
I agree no change was desired and the results of the voting confirmed that - no change will be forthcoming
John
The most intellectual statement you have made in months
What if content appears to be racist, anti-semitic, bigoted, etc. . If we cite the content in question and state why it is any of these, that is not the same as calling a member a "bigot," etc. .
For example "I find statement "X" to be "racist" because _________________________________."
Not being able to do this gives a free pass to such statements.
YES THAT WAS THE TOPIC BEING VOTED ON, iT WAS VOTED THAT no SLAM ARTICLES WERE TO BE PUT ON THE FRONT PAGE. AND IT WAS ALSO VOTED THAT THOSE SLAM ARTICLES THAT ARE not ALLOWED ON THE FRONT PAGE CAN ONLY BE UP FOR 36 HOURS sO, nOWHERE I WILL ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN, (sorry CAOS stuck, not yelling)
If NO slam articles are allowed on the front page, when exactly does the 36 hours start for the NO slam articles that are NOT allowed on the front page and when does the 36 hours end for the NO slam articles allowed on the front page?
OMG... OK folks get a grip.
To use the impasse rule, there had to be a discussion that lasted a while before it was called. It has been used in the past to stop arguments that were just going round in circles and there was never going to be agreement. It can't be used as a tool to shut the other person up.
You are all adults here. Need I say more?
If the moderators are confused by the rules then we are in for a rough ride
Or should I say the rough ride continues
Inarticulate? Au contraire, mon ami. A picture can save having to write 1000 words. They can make a point in a manner that even a child can understand - sometimes more accurately than even YOU are capable of expressing, and, as well, sometimes with humour which in iteslf is a desireable tool.
Perhaps he was trying for 1000 words and ran out of energy before reaching that goal. I think he was trying to prove that 1000 words are worth a picture.
(Robert Browning)
In John's case, his grasp has been exceeded.
...and sweeter.
My thoughts, too, Mac.
What is an IMPASSE in Conjunction with Disputes
By definition: "IMPASSE"
There are times when, in either personal or formal situations, parties, after prolonged discussion, argumentation, negotiations, or, even combat, it becomes evident that a continuation will not only fail to come to an amicable agreement or compromise, but deteriorate further without resolution.
When one or both of the parties realize that such a state has been reached, they can exit or halt the interaction before it becomes toxic and counter productive.
That's the time for one or both parties to declare an "IMPASSE."
In the early 1970's, I was involved in a long labor/management dispute over a contract negotiation that had become acrimonious and hopelessly stalled. That dispute directly involved the lives over 30,000 individuals and, residually, the entire city of Philadelphia economically, socially and politically.
After months of no progress in negotiations and the prospect of no end in sight with serious collateral damage, President Richard Nixon sent a mediator to Philadelphia to act as a buffer between the sides and help to end the impasse FOR THE GOOD OF ALL ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
A DISCUSSION website like The NEWSTALKERS, et al, lives or dies on activity on the volume and quality of its lifeblood DISCUSSION ITSELF. Disagreement, debate, disparate discourse add life and color to such a site; BUT WHEN DEBATE BECOMES DISPARAGING AND TWO OR MORE PARTIES CEASE TO ADD RELEVANT CONTENT, COLLATERAL DAMAGE IS THE MOST LIKELY RESULT!
Bad news for a DISCUSSION site. When personal insults and bad feelings begin to erode a thread, some of the thread participants leave that thread; and if there are too many such erosions, some will leave NT altogether.
Thus, THE IMPASSE RULE.
Here's how it works.
1) Two NT Members have reached a point in a thread where they've said everything in the way of discussion/debate and it's clear they will no agree going forward.
2) Rather than becoming endlessly redundant, counter productive, possibly insulting, ONE OF THE TWO DECLARES "IMPASSE."
3) From that point in the discussion and as long as that discussion is in progress, THOSE TWO MEMBERS WILL NOT ADDRESS ONE ANOTHER NOR REFER TO ONE ANOTHER EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY WAY OF ALLUSION.
The last word in the particular thread between the two will be "IMPASSE!"
__________________________________________________________
Good planin theory, I will withhold judgment until we see how it works in practice
Thanks for the explanation of how it is going to work
Thanks First!
Bigot, racist, anti-semite.
The more I think about it, the more I think we should be able to call out someone when they are being a racist, bigot or anti-semite. Not being able to clearly state that we find a comment racist allows the racist to continue their racist and destructive behavior.
Are there racists, bigots and anti-semites on NT? Yes.
Does the ban on calling a member racist, bigot or an anti-Semite prevent the statement made by such person being called racist, bigoted or anti-Semitic? If not, then the ban does not prevent the point from being made.
Although I believe A.Mac has made the point that attacking the statement (or the source) as being racist, bigoted or anti-Semitic is not contrary to the COC, but calling the member one of those names is. However, I would also like to see Perrie's take on this.
If that were so it would be a relief to Randy, who made it clear early in the comments to this article that he would find a way to so label a person whom in his opinion he feels qualifies for being so criticized by him.
I made a fine living, in part, by denigrating sources when they made assertions that were inaccurate, intentionally misleading or otherwise not credible; I won many a case/argument by showing the flaws, fallacies and foibles of witnesses that, in the end, failed to make their case.
Checking sources is analogous to determining witness credibility or the lack thereof.
You mean those who provide specifics by posting them and their sources in order to either make their case or debunk someone else's? Is that what you mean?
Name calling is not the same as explaining why someone's opinion represents a denigrating view. It's among the reasons why we have adjectives.
True Max, which is why we took a vote on it, and now no one can call another member that.
No one knows what is in the hearts and minds of another....
Unless they are wearing a white robe or a swastika.
Quite an understandable comment.
Buzz said:
What if they clearly are a racist and/or a bigot? I try to make it obvious to the casual observer by using the words of the person to damn themselves.
It will be suggested that the member take there own advice to heart.
Thank you Brolly.
Just an idle question: How could anything imploding engulf something? An implosion requires contraction and engulfing conjures images of reaching out which would seem on the face of things to be opposite actions..... :D
As I understand it, if a member makes racist comments, the commentscan be pointed out. The person making those comments cannot be called a racist.
Trying to follow this logic or lack of. Racist comments, are racist, but the person using them isn't...Got it.
The problem was not so much IMO that a racist was called a racist, but I believe it has been used to slander in order to squelch the argument posted by a person who was NOT a racist. I have been called a racist on NT notwithstanding that no proof of that could be produced, so calling me such is a libel done from the safety of anonymity.
I see what you saying Buzz. If the person makes a racist comment, it's difficult to not call them a racist, simply by the comments they made, they are racist.
If, as you stated, it's used to squelch an argument where no racist comments have been made, then I will agree with you.
If I understand you correctly Kavika... let one's words speak for themselves. It usually has the larger impact. Name calling never got anything achieved.
Agreed 100%, Buzz.
More Meta!!!
I have often found that those who cry foul, have fouled themselves.
Change doesn't not happen overnight. It has to become habitual. For instance, the simple new rule of putting in by lines has only happened twice. Baby steps my friend.
All you have to do Robert is part of the solution.
Perrie, calling a person a racist, if they have made racist statements, isn't name calling. But, I tend to let their words speak for themselves.
Bruce, I don't believe in calling a person a racist for taking a stand that would differ from mine. I may really disagree with it, but will not use the term until they make a racist statement. At that point, the gloves are off.
So, we are in agreement on this.
Bottom line to this whole deal was to get the name calling to end. Nothing shuts down a discussion like name calling. And as a matter of fact, I just witness this on the "other place" and no they don't allow it... much less, even statements that sound a bit off colored... no pun intended.
Ummmmmm.......no.
Simply amazing....
Umpteen pages of Meta discussing potential or proposed CoC/policy changes. Still more angst & breast-beating over the looming menace of stultifying RBRs. Voting voting voting...
AND NOW!!!!
Two rules that were approved by reasonable margins: 1) let's stop pinning nasty hot-buttonlabels on people, and 2) 'Impasse', to try and cut down on pointless personality-driven tit-for-tat Peewee Herman 'dialogue' that contributes nothing to discussion...
producing 10 MORE pages of (mostly) drivel that amounts to "I'm goingto find new ways to label people as racist/anti-Semite/whatever" and a bunch of pointless personality-driven tit-for-tat Peewee Herman 'dialogue' that contributed nothing to the discussion.
Ah, the schadenfreude...
Gunny
Anexcellent metaphor for how things seem to go on NT at times.
Perrie
Change indeed comes slowly, but the baby must learn to crawl before meaningful steps are considered - I remain patient
Indeed
Right! What was I thinking? Facts, accuracy, truth they only matter to abnormal people, NOT NORMAL PEOPLE LIKE OURSELVES!
You don't need sources to be attacked if your opinions are based on years of those sources UNLESS BY SOME CHANCE YOUR SOURCES AREN'T CREDIBLE then you might want to reconsider your opinions rather than continue being misinformed and living under an illusion or lie.
Actually, if someone points out an error and corrects that error, they're doing you a service giving you the time and respect to explain why your opinion may be sincerely held BUT INCORRECT.
Would you prefer expressing something that is factually flawed and not being corrected? If that were the case, every time you expressed that inaccuracy, those who knew better would regard you as either being misinformed, or, ignorant and possibly arrogant when showing disdain for a respectful correction.
An effort to be helpful is not a direct personal attack; it's a gesture of integrity and caring about the truth.
There you go, Perrie! Time to implement the rules accordingly.
No further discussion allowed, right?
Not if the source is, in fact, shown to be indeed, not credible. I always include corrections when I challenge a source and will often include some history about what makes them culpable for misinformation or outright lying!
Correcting bad information is not a personal attack unless one chooses to take honest dialogue as a personal affront.
If the thought is based on faulty information and the corresponding "reasoning," I sure can. Whether the correction results in a more accurate belief is up to the person being corrected.
Going forward, I will leave "well enough alone" when it comes to you and me.
So, agreed. IMPASSE.
Ferona,
It will work the same way it always worked. After a long discussion, a person can say impasse and bow out. It should be agreed upon by both parties. But saying "Impasse" after a long discussion that is going no where should be honored. There is no penalty for not honoring it.
Robert has it right on this. Read here:
It's best when both parties agree to it.
I tend to agree with you, Feronia. And honestly, I usually let the other guy or gal get the last word in if I grow tired of the battle. Just ask Robert
The problem has always been enforcement.
Until you have a system of enforcement, any rule put in place will be ignored by those that disagree with it.
Just like society in general, the criminals do not follow the law, they just don't care.
This is why we have police in the greater society cause some form of enforcement is required, here we have moderators. But what if the moderators disagree with the rule? or outright refuse to enforce it?
This is the problem here right now in a nutshell, the rules have been voted upon and are in place, who is going to enforce them?
The only workable solution was said to be so bulky and bloated as to be inefficient leading to even more problems. But the objections were clearly and actually revealing a lack of understanding in how the forum actually works. And, how the enforcement can be set up to almost seamlessly integrate with the way the board functions in real life.
The arguments served as a way to make the rules irrelevant by those that don't like them.
Rules are worthless without enforcement.
This conversation, meta as it is, demonstrates that principle very clearly.
Yup Neetu!
EG,
I allow for silliness on my articles as a release valve. I do not ever take offense, unless it is meant to be offensive.
I agree. But they are also worthless if no one reports, which happens most of the time.
And BTW, no one likes having their comments removed. You don't have to beat someone up with a stick, if you do that consistently. The idea that harsher punishment means better behavior doesn't work. Consistent punishment does. Child rearing 101.
Consistant?
Agree 100%
Which is sorely lacking in some cases. The word issue is a minor one easily handled thru software.
Will leave the posters who like to do the name calling, looking pretty foolish when their post winds up being nothing but an unintelligible string of asterisks.
The foolish will appear foolish and to communicate effectively one would need to stop the juvenile behavior. No moderation needed, the only punishment is one the poster brings upon himself. And, it's immediate and plain for all to see.
Problem solved.
Your welcome sir, I'm so glad your happy!
The term Asshole as I used it was used generically and wasn't pointed at anyone person or persons.
I'll take the judgment that was issued over the "Impasse" used there, it was both inappropriate and used to squelch response. Which is NOT what it was to be used for.
And sarcasm is a perfectly fine method of communication, until it is pointed specifically at a person to ridicule them.
Your own foolishness was on perfect exhibition as well.
And very aptly an succinctly pointed out.
Anything further I can do to brighten your day?
Or, you just want to gloat like a juvenile over accomplishing nothing?
Thought you were better than that.
Thank you, Perrie. and good luck!
The format is fine, it'slegible.
The results are what I'm sorry about.
Memes I don't care about, I never use them.
'Slams' off FP - No Brainer, but I'm still not clear on the definition of a 'slam'.
Graphic Warning - No Brainer
Remove inactive groups - No Brainer
Racist, Bigot - I'm not so sure about. There are people on this site that are clearly racist and/or bigots, and I find not being able to say it to them to be a problem.
'Empass Rule' - As I said in the discussion, that one is going to be a problem - especially to the Mods.
People have no clue that they're presenting themselves as racists and bigots. IMO, it's important to be able to point it out to them.
People can't correct or modify their behavior if they aren't aware they have a problem.
Ditto!
You can suggest all you want, but everybody is going to have their own interpretation, and the rule is going to present problems. Mark my words.
Memes Some people have better visual skills than others. Some people have better dialog skills than others. Memes as the only thing in the article is a little lack luster to me. I think the person putting the meme up in the article should at least make a comment.
Slams As you say, I'm not sure what is considered a slam. I would have to assume it is an article against another member. Definitely should be in Heated Discussions only. If a slam article is an article that some people just don't like, I don't agree with it being a slam.
Graphic Warning Message in the article that indicates there will be graphic images visible if you click on this article.
Remove inactive groups May as well.
Racist, Bigot You can call me a bigot if you want. I don't care. I don't see what benefit there would be in doing so, I'll probably do it myself as well.
Empass Rule This means to me that I have come to the conclusion we are getting nowhere in our debate or argument and neither one of us is going to accept winning or losing the argument, so I am telling the other person there's no point in continuing. If you think you won the argument or I think I won the argument means nothing to me. After awhile it just gets to be arguing for the sake of arguing. In my opinion that doesn't stop the other person from continuing if they so desire, but it stops me. If I say "impasse" then I am basically saying I will not comment any more on this point. It doesn't mean I can't make future comments on the article, but none on the one I designated as ended for me. It just says I realize we are not going to agree.
Gunny
Were you really expecting a dramatic increase in civility?
I don't think it's ever been defined, but I do know this isn't the first time someone has suggested we get a definition.
I don't think we should be restricted from posting an article that iscriticalof a members ideology, writing style or other NT activities. We are all subject to criticism when we post on a public forum, and we should not be overly sensitive to that criticism. However if the criticism is abusive and/or demeaning, then the moderators need to step in and determine if the article, as a whole or in part, is in violation of the CoC.
Give me a break Perrie, comments have often been posted that clearly indicate the author holds a racist bias.
The word was included with the terms anti-semite and bigot, would "racist" have been banned if it were voted on separately?
Those words when applied to members does nothing but inflames an issue. Let people's words speak for themselves without the name calling.
Raven,
I am sorry you feel that way, but when things are reported, they are removed. The archives prove that.
There will never be a way to please everyone. One person's teeth, is another person's heavy handedness. We try to strike up a balance. It will never be perfect but we can try to make it better.
I have noticed a real difference, of late. Not because I came back on a mod, but long before that. I think everyone is making a huge effort to help.
I know I will. (Make a huge effort to help...)
You have made a wonderful difference here, Dowser. You're help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you and I love you very much! I will do all I can to be of real help. As opposed to real trouble!
Dowser ,
I put a link to your homepage at the page of our newest member . She also claims to be from Ky :
I'll see your impasse, raise it by two memes, up the anti by one accusation of racism, warn of graphic material, and waive my right to invoke the Red Box Rule!*
________________
*notice how craftily I snuck in some additional (& totally unnnecesary) text in order to stimulate discussion.
If people want to hav an impasse rule, that fine with me.
But if two people are arguing & there's obviously an impasse, and one person wants to stop discussing it, you don't need a rule. All they have to do is leave the discussion-- walk away.
OR
When the other person makes a statement-- don't reply. They may try again. But if they are trying to have an argument and no-one replies, eventually thry give up.
(The problem exists because people want to have the last wrd. All you have to dois gve that up. Just walking away can be very effective).
Doesn't that go even beyond racism? Isn't really about the rule re: personal attacks...?
Its Ok to attack a comment. Not Ok to attck the person making it.
Calling someone stupid is a personal attack. Saying a comment is stupid is not a personal attack. (Although calling a comment stupid is not a personal attack, there are more tactful ways to say it).
B>ut what if one person callss IMPASSE and the other person disagrees? (in other words, if one person feels there's an impasse-- they've discussed it as much as they coud, got nowere, and further discussion at that point will get nowhere. BUT: the other person feels they have not yet reached an impasse, and thatfurther discussion might still be useful?
I can imagine the possibility that a person who starts to believe he is "losing" the argument (for example, the other person has just made a point he knows he can't refute) calls an impasse. he uses that to shut down the argument before hos opponent can expand on the point he jst made and win.
Basically, calling "impasse' is a way to shut up your opponent. You have to stop talking too-- but you've silenced him!
Here's the catch-22-- deciding when it is actualy going nowhere.
1-If both people agree its going no where-- you don't need a rule! They just both stop.(Once they both realize its going no-where-- why bother?)
BUT:
2. If one person doesn't think its an impasse, then they won't agree to stop. In which case a rule will have no power anyway.
I think I've called impasse once or twice (honestly can't remember) but tend to agree. Not that impasse called by all parties isn't a valuable thing imo; but, that it is also an opportunity for manipulation. It is a fairly vulnerable position.
Yes but that only works in a settig where there is some degree of rationlity. On an Internet discussion forum people can say anything thy want to. And if you back up your argument against them with hard facts (links, etc)-- it still doesn't matter!
In a court of law, or any quasi-leagal system, there is a structure and rules, You are not allowed to present false infromation. You are not allowed to derail the conversation by use of personal attacks. But its different on the Internet-- anything goes.
(On the Internet, nobody know you're a dog!)
Do you have a link to back that up?
Well, of course facts, accuracy, truth... should matter on the Internet.
SHOULD!
But based upon many years of experience on the 'net, there's not the slightest bit of doubt in my mind that they don't!
People who deeply believe that they should exist here-- or worse yet (for themselves) people who try to make that exist, are like the person who tries to teach a pig to sing:
Since I've been on the Internet I've come to relize that we need a different definition of the wrd "racist" in this medum. So here's is one I made u tht seems to apply here:
True. Why shouldnt we be a llowed to "call a spade a spade" (to coin a phrase...)
Actually I think what its about is not allowing personal attacks. You are allowed to attack a statement a person makes -- but not the person making it.
True. Over there, as is the case on many sites, if you call someone an idiot or a racist etc its the same thing-- a personal attack. (Even if the accustion is true-- even if they are a racist, or as is so common on these sites-- even if they are an idiot).
Only if you have a link that proves it!
Yup.
That's what meta is...
Yes...who is going to watch the watchers?
Aha!.. the old "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" gambit!
Has Kara Lee shown up here yet?
I agree. But most of those have really been rather tame lately.
I think what we might need t do is hire of of those crtooinsts from Charlie Hebdo to a cartoon saitirizing certain people on NT--put the cartoon on the front page. (Then we'll really see who's favour of free speech, lol!)
Pardon the clich, but...dude...
All of you knock it off or I will start to delete.
I'll bite . Who is Kara Lee and why is that important ?
I will continue to delete any comments that are CoC violations and not in the spirit of this article.
Gene,
Knock it off. There were no comments made about Indians or I would have had something to say about that.
I think she is the grand daughter of my cousin Virgil, Uncle Morgan Scherer's boy! I've put a message on her page, too!
Wouldn't it be WONDERFUL to have family???
A Scherer, from Hawesville? HAS to be related! Thank you!!!
Love you, RW!!!
I will try my best.
The other watchers. The mods are a nice blend of many viewpoints. So, if'n I don't catch it, then someone else will. There are enough of us to have lots of viewpoints-- and most of us have some sort of other responsibilities, so we can't all be everywhere, all the time. Plus, on occasion, all of us just want to be members, not mods. Meaning, we are subjected to the same moderation as everyone else.
Some of those issues were very close in the vote differential ...
I hesitate to ask Perrie to take on anything else right now... Once we get there, and things calm down, maybe we can do another poll-- or discuss this one further. I really think that we should get to the other site first, get used to working with it, and then, open discussions...
What do you think? Can we give Perrie a bit of a break?
Why?
The vote wasn't that long ago, and took a long time to transpire from start to finish as it was.
Take a break in your community organizing Slick Alinsky.