╌>

Meta: Change In Some Point Values for Violations

  

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

By:  perrie-halpern  •  last year  •  143 comments

Meta: Change In Some Point Values for Violations
As per my commitment to the site, I am notifying the members of some changes in the point values for some violations

As per my commitment to the site, I am notifying the members of some changes in the point values for some violations.

Taunting points will go from 1 to 2 points.

Trolling will go from 0 to 1 point.

Both "Skirting the CoC" and "CoC violation" will remain the same as will a limit of 32 points before suspension will remain the same.

This will hopefully improve the level of discussion on the site. 


Article is LOCKED by moderator [Perrie Halpern R.A.]
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1  Just Jim NC TttH    last year

Trolling is a bit subjective don't you think? Who will be the arbiter? Of course so is taunting. I got a taunting ticket the other day for posting a laughing emoji to someone who had commented to someone else laughing at his comment not the person whom he was addressing. Of course, in that particular mods eyes, seems there is a pretty broad definition when it comes to ............never mind that part.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    last year

Trolling is saying something to illicit a reaction, but not something that would be on the brink of a skirt.

Taunting is poking the dog. 

I got a taunting ticket the other day for posting a laughing emoji to someone who had commented to someone else laughing at his comment not the person whom he was addressing.

There are many ways to use the laughing emoji, and only sometimes is it used to taunt. It's really not as subjective as you think, or even the mod.

In the past, we would use trolling as a warning, but some of the members didn't get the hint.

I wouldn't worry if I were you. I wish others followed your lead. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    last year

Well thank you Perrie. That means a lot.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    last year

Simple question then, how is 1.2 not taunting?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    last year
In the past, we would use trolling as a warning,

 Others may have confused the warning with favoritism.


Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. I think it was a good move.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  devangelical @1.2    last year

Now how is this then not taunting?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.1    last year

look at who the author is.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.2.3  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.2    last year

that's why I just put in 1.1.2 as I don't know if she saw my first post in 1.2.1.   

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
1.2.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.3    last year

It is and I didn't notice it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.2.5  Snuffy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.4    last year

Thank you.  This is rather frustrating when these things happen and get missed while others get tickets for similar statements.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.6  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.4    last year

I marked it as sarcasm, wtf?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
1.2.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @1.2.6    last year

Marking something as sarcasm doesn't make it sarcasm. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.8  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.7    last year

I know it's your site, but I really think you should seriously consider yielding to my vastly superior expertise on both taunting and sarcasm...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     last year

What violation prompts the death penalty?

I'm in Florida ya know.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2    last year

I feel like my taxes just got doubled.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @2.1    last year

Ummm... maybe?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @2    last year

But do you live in Disney?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2    last year

Yes, in a suburb of Disney.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @2    last year
What violation prompts the death penalty?

I nominate death wishing , or wholesale broad brush genocidal suggestions .....

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
3  pat wilson    last year

If a member can't deal with mild taunting they don't belong on internet forums. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  pat wilson @3    last year

I am not sure what you are calling mild taunting, but the point of NT is discussion. I guess sarcasm could be considered acceptable.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
3.1.1  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    last year

The other day you gave me a "No Value" ticket when I posted the well known meme of a young girl giving side eye. That was very mild taunting but I guess that member took offense. If someone is that thin skinned they shouldn't be on internet forums.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    last year

Mild taunting is still taunting isn't it? Kind of like being a little bit pregnant?

256

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    last year

Mild taunting would be  ''you're a moosh noosh''...real hardcore taunting would be ''you're a fricking dumb ass''. Oh, wait both are the same just different languages.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.1    last year

Would you rather have had it called taunting with the points that go with it?? A taunt by any other name....................

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.2    last year

“Kind of like being a little bit pregnant?”

Funny how some will forever insert themselves into a situation that has no bearing on their lives, but feel free to interject about a subject as meaningless as taunting on an anonymous site. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kavika @3.1.3    last year

Well that being the case, both would be a CoC violation as I understand it.

Noting your admission for future use..............................

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.5    last year

WTF was that supposed to mean? Taunt is taunt no matter the degree wouldn't you agree?

What is also funny is how some will forever try to inject their way of thinking into others on an anonymous site.

When you point your finger at someone else, remember there are three pointing right back at you.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.8  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.1    last year
but I guess that member took offense

NT cancel culture member...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @3.1.8    last year

256

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
3.1.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @3.1.8    last year

So the deal is, someone posts an article. You are their guest. If they want you to act a certain way in their house, they are allowed by the CoC. What they can't do is have a double standard, which will result in the mods NOT writing up a ticket... so posters take note.

Btw, Red Box Rules are always followed by the regular mods.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.11  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.9    last year

Is that "taunting"? I ask because similar memes I haveposted were removed for "taunting", which is really subjective...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3.1.11    last year

No that is the truth.........especially in this case. And I would love to have you share some of those memes that were labeled as "tainting".

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.13  afrayedknot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.7    last year

“When you point your finger at someone else, remember there are three pointing right back at you.”

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.13    last year

Anything valuable to say? Or are you just present to diss other members..........no matter how veiled you try to make it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.14    last year

this.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
3.1.16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.14    last year

OK guys... the point of this is to inform the group and not to have a slap fight. Stop. Only warning.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.17  afrayedknot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.14    last year

“…how veiled…”?

Pretty straightforward.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.18  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    last year
I guess sarcasm could be considered acceptable.

... works for me.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.19  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.16    last year

uh, boss, you might want to check the time stamps between 3-1-16 and 3-1-17...

 ... but I could be mistaken.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
3.1.20  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @3.1.19    last year

Opps, you're right. Removing the ticket.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.21  afrayedknot  replied to  devangelical @3.1.19    last year

No worries, dev…I know the drill.

Perrie was correct as usual and we are lucky to have her taking on the unenviable task of herding cats. (reference intentional)

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.22  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.20    last year

you forgot one...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.23  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.21    last year

dont forgt to throw in the chickens , herding cats and chickens at the same time .

 the life of Mods ...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.1    last year

THANK YOU PAT!  I get ticketed constantly, obviously by the thin skinned, the ones who complain and whine the most, probably flag me constantly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.2    last year

[deleted]

I'll probably get a ticket for this because I dared to state my opinion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.1    last year
The other day you gave me a "No Value" ticket

We all live by the same rules.


 If someone is that thin skinned they shouldn't be on internet forums.

I see it differently. If somebody is trying to scheme at ways to taunt while avoiding the penalty, they shouldn't be on internet forums.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
3.1.27  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.26    last year

Cry me a river.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.25    last year

PD&D with a huge dose of irony. Oh and 256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.25    last year

yeah right

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.28    last year

so you admit what I said was true

cool beans

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.31  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @3.1.3    last year

In my neck of the desert on the border a "pendejo" is still a "dumb ass". As you said, different languages.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.30    last year

That’s what you got from that? jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    last year

All I ask is that when certain individuals ask endless and pointless questions they be giving trolling tickets. It hasnt happened yet. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

Oh one more thing, asking someone for "proof" dozens of times is trolling.  They should start getting tickets for it. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    last year

Not if you haven't adequately, in the questioners mind, answered the query. I could point to another member here but that is frowned upon. And by the way, using that definition, constantly badgering someone who doesn't agree with you is trolling.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
4.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    last year

Or you could choose to ignore them, or better yet, but them on ignore.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.1    last year
Not if you haven't adequately, in the questioners mind, answered the query.

So if I ask you if Trump is the worst person in history and you never reply to my satisfaction I can ask you the same thing 50 times? That is ludicrous. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    last year

If history serves, and it does, and someone replies no and you follow it up with "how can you possibly say that about a liar, crook, predator who is not fit for office" that means you didn't want their answer but rather yours. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.4    last year
"how can you possibly say that about a liar, crook, predator who is not fit for office" that means you didn't want their answer but rather yours. 

I dont ask anyone if Trump is a KNOWN pathological liar, crook, bigot, moron , and cheat.  I tell them he is. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.5    last year

Last time, I didn't say you did. That is usually the follow up to the no that you were given that you didn't like or understand.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    last year

"Oh one more thing, asking someone for "proof" dozens of times is trolling.  They should start getting tickets for it". 

So provide some proofs of your statements. You have the habit of making sometimes outrageous claims and then refusing to discuss the issue. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    last year
Oh one more thing, asking someone for "proof" dozens of times is trolling.

Why?  When you declare something as fact it should be backed up. An opinion is different. I do recall that at one time many months ago people on your side of the isle were demanding links. Guess who was providing all the links?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.8    last year

There are a few people here, we all know who they are , who do little else but ask for "proof" or say idiotic things like "Trump hasnt been convicted so you cant prove he has done anything wrong. "  Saying such things a couple times might be a sincere stance, saying them dozens of times are trolling. 

If I post articles and quotes, and book passages about Trump's misconduct , which I and others here have done countless times over the past eight years, we should not have to listen to a troll say "prove it" 50 times. If they object to what is in these articles then let them articulate their objection , not just say to me, or others, "you have never proven anything. "

A lot of the seeds on this site are endless displays of one or two sentence disagreements with what someone else said, basically devoid of "content". Why is it always up to "me" to "prove it"?  There are a few people here who could not formulate a two or three paragraph explanation of their opinions if their life depended on it. Yet these are some of the most prolific posters on NT. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    last year
There are a few people here, we all know who they are , who do little else but ask for "proof" or say idiotic things like "Trump hasnt been convicted so you cant prove he has done anything wrong. "

I don't know who says that, but I do know where it started. That started with when people started looking into why Trump was investigated for collusion with Russia. I believe you pointed out that one need not be caught or convicted to be guilty of something. As far as I'm concerned we are living in an Orwellian society where there is no justice.


If I post articles and quotes, and book passages about Trump's misconduct , which I and others here have done countless times over the past eight years, we should not have to listen to a troll say "prove it" 50 times. If they object to what is in these articles then let them articulate their objection , not just say to me, or others, "you have never proven anything. "

I've seen you do little more than call him names. You invoke him in nearly every conversation, yet when I offer a chance to examine Trump in a fair handed way, you reject it.


A lot of the seeds on this site are endless displays of one or two sentence disagreements with what someone else said, basically devoid of "content". Why is it always up to "me" to "prove it"? 

Because people on your side of the aisle demanded that years ago and now they don't want to do it.


There are a few people here who could not formulate a two or three paragraph explanation of their opinions if their life depended on it. Yet these are some of the most prolific posters on NT. 

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Those who troll should be flagged. I notice that they are getting the tickets.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.10    last year
I've seen you do little more than call him names.

Over the past 8 years , I think it is fair to say that I have seeded, or in some cases written,  hundreds of articles about Trump. Most of them come from mainstream sources like NYT, WAPO, or the big three networks, I never post an article unless I am prepared to discuss what is in the article.  The idea that I do little but call him names is absurd, and gaslighting. 

This site is getting close to total dysfunction because too many here are out of touch with reality when it comes to these "political" issues. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.11    last year
mainstream sources like NYT, WAPO

Those are not mainstream sources. They ruined their credibility over guess what?   It was Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.12    last year

Stop gaslighting everyone Vic. 

By the way, you are the person who praised Trump the very next day after his ridiculous CNN townhall. You have no credibility. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
4.1.14  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.13    last year

Guys, you are off topic. Please stop. Only warning.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

I beg to differ...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
4.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

It only becomes trolling when the question has been asked and answered.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.3    last year

How many times do they get to ask the same question?  And of course they have been answered. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    last year

Like "Will you or will you not admit to Trump's wrongdoing?" That kind of many times?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.2    last year

I dont ask such a question. I already know the answer. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.2    last year
Like "Will you or will you not admit to Trump's wrongdoing?" That kind of many times?

You have distorted the questions and the situation under which they are asked.

The situation is someone supporting / defending Trump in his quest for the GOP nomination.   The questions are then posed as a challenge to that position.   The probative questions (with an obvious, proven answer by simply playing Trump's own public words) ask if one recognizes that Trump was wrong to announce to the world as sitting PotUS that the USA electoral system is rigged, that voters were disenfranchised, and that Biden is an illegitimate PotUS (and more).

The easily answered questions are typically ignored (not answered) thus when the same individual again supports / defends Trump in his quest for the GOP nomination, they will be challenged yet again.   The facts of Trump's wrongdoing have not changed so the questions do not change.

Some find it impossible to answer these very obvious questions; I suspect we are witnessing cognitive dissonance.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.3.5  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.4    last year

Some may simply have a different opinion and disagree with your interpretation of events. Any wrongdoing on Trump's part has to be proven in a court of law, not a court of public and perhaps biased opinion. I disapprove of his words and actions after the election

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3.5    last year
Any wrongdoing on Trump's part has to be proven in a court of law, not a court of public and perhaps biased opinion.

No, wrongdoing is specifically stated rather than guilt.   This is what you and others constantly do to deflect.   I ask about wrongdoing (whether something is right or wrong) and you deflect to guilt and proven in a court of law.

I disapprove of his words and actions after the election

Your disapproval = you consider what he said to be wrong (vs. right).   To wit, it was wrong (implicitly: "in your opinion") for Trump to make those lies.   Simple.   Easy question to answer, right?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.4    last year

That isn't remotely true. You routinely ask the same questions to many here who don't defend Trump. I guess if one doesn't jump on board the Bash Trump Constantly train, leftists consider it defending Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.7    last year
You routinely ask the same questions to many here who don't defend Trump.

Another blatant lie from you.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.9  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.8    last year

... as easy as exhaling for some.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.3.10  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.6    last year

I question the sincerity of those denying who is trolling and who is being trolled...

They are rubbing all our noses in bullshit!

Pissing on our legs and saying it's raining.

False equivalents are afterall always false!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.8    last year

False, obviously.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.3.12  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.7    last year

Or someone can question the veracity of a statement and that person is accused of defending Trump when it's not.  There are too many people who don't question statements but only toss back insults and inuendo.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.3.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.6    last year

Another problem is that some folks are just so absolutely convinced that that they are correct and others are wrong that It is next to impossible to have a polite and/or civil conversation to discuss things while denying and deflecting, and when given a answer they simply tell you are wrong because it does not match their particular political world view. It has to absolutely be their way or the highway. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.3.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.12    last year

Bingo!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.15  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.3.13    last year

That is a common 'feature' of human behavior.

However, there are times when right vs. wrong is provable as in the case of Trump lying to the world that USA electoral system was rigged and that Biden is an illegitimate PotUS.    It is not debatable that Trump was wrong to do that; it was a wrongdoing on Trump's part.

Trouble is, with political discussions, there is often a gray area where neither position can be determined to be absolutely right or wrong.   And that is why we see so much crap in political discussions.

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
4.3.16  independent Liberal  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.15    last year

While I mostly agree with you we can never be 100% when it involves political parties and or governments. I think I am starting to believe that the CIA either knew about JFK assignation or had involvement. I hate that some conspiracy theories are proven true. I am not all in yet but it's starting to come together.

I hope Trump's conspiracy stays that way however history says we can't be 100% certain of anything.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.3.17  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.15    last year
in the case of Trump lying to the world that USA electoral system was rigged

But even within that there are shades of grey.  There were states that went against their own state Constitution to change how the voting worked in the 2020 election.  It is understandable how some people could look at that and conclude the vote was rigged.  It does no good to completely dismiss such a thing simply to prove Trump wrong.  He was wrong to continue to carry on about a stolen election but not everything that was brought up was simply pulled from thin air.

Yes we see so much crap in political discussions and will undoubtedly see more in the future.  That's the nature of people.  But far too many people will simply dismiss the other person because something being say doesn't fit in with their perceived world view.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.3.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.15    last year

Agreed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.17    last year
There were states that went against their own state Constitution to change how the voting worked in the 2020 election.  It is understandable how some people could look at that and conclude the vote was rigged. 

Yeah, if one is willfully ignorant. You have to prove that there was election fraud, not just make the claim. Most of these states did a recount and found nothing wrong. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.20  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.17    last year
But even within that there are shades of grey. 

You do not apparently see how you are now making excuses for Trump.   You are implying that it is reasonable / understandable for Trump to declare the election rigged and Biden illegitimate.   Now see below:

There were states that went against their own state Constitution to change how the voting worked in the 2020 election.  It is understandable how some people could look at that and conclude the vote was rigged.

But it is a proven fact that the election was NOT rigged.   There are always variations in voting ... it is rarely 100% perfect.   But the 2020 presidential election irregularities were blips that could in no way affect the outcome of the election.

The fact that some people will take any news to further their confirmation bias conspiracy theories does not make their theories (or claims) reasonable.

No, Snuffy, there is absolutely no excuse for declaring the 2020 presidential election rigged and that Biden is an illegitimate PotUS.   None.  Trying to divine a gray area here is bending over backwards to offer an excuse for Trump's wrongdoing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.21  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.19    last year
some people could look at that and conclude the vote was rigged. 

so only the states Biden won had cheating is that it?

There is EVIDENCE that Trumps claims were bullshit.  It was preplanned that he would complain on election night that he was being cheated (if he lost). Had he won he wouldnt have spent the next two months "looking into" election fraud.  Trump has never been in an election yet where he didnt claim that if he lost he would have been cheated. He will say it in 24 too. 

What the hell is wrong with people? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.21    last year
He will say it in 24 too. 

He already stated that he would only agree to a loss if he believed it was a fair election.  Was asked again, he repeated with his qualification.   Obviously a loss will be deemed an unfair election.    Trump is entirely too predictable.   His is a very simplistic modus operandi.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.23  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.22    last year

What are the chances he will call it a "fair election" if he loses?  Is there a number lower than zero?  People are so gullible. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

If someone asks you a question, try to give a civil response. A discussion is more than just making an accusation or inflammatory statement, then refusing to clarify and explain your thinking. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

I agree 1000% John.  Certain members seem to do it constantly yet NEVER EVER get a ticket.  But that also seems to be all certain members have, along with PD&D, and defending the indefensible, and outright making shit up.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
4.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

Perhaps you don’t care for my questions on 2nd and 3rd order effects of your proposal or for clarification of your assertions,

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
5  Hallux    last year

I feel left out, nary a ticket this month ... grrrr! Think I'll go out and hit some kids.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @5    last year

I have extras and I'm willing to share...

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Hallux  replied to  devangelical @5.1    last year

I can pay, are they cheaper by the dozen?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Hallux @5.1.1    last year

Gotta be in US funds............LOL

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.2    last year

How about a set of leg irons I got from ICE at Houston International? I only wore them once!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @5.1.1    last year
I can pay, are they cheaper by the dozen?

I'm giving away the tickets that have points.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
6  Hallux    last year

Off topic, but this institute of lower learning has way too many principals! It needs to be more like the Electoral College where only one person graduates every 4 years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    last year

Newstalkers operates under the pretense that all comments are created equal, which is nonsense. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @7    last year

Not a freedom of speech kind of guy huh?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @7    last year

What do you mean?  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @7    last year

Are some more equal than others?

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
7.3.1  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @7.3    last year

I for one are more equal than myself.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
7.3.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @7.3    last year

Greg, he did say comments, not people.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.3.2    last year
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
7.3.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  devangelical @7.3.3    last year

HA!

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
7.3.5  independent Liberal  replied to  Greg Jones @7.3    last year

Comments that are liked by all members are more authentic, honest and effective than those liked only by the team wearing the same jerseys. Most of the affirmation seeking comments authored by and for a particular team are largely useless, dishonest and self serving.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.3.6  Snuffy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.3.2    last year

I think Greg's comment still stands.  From how some people act, it's rather evident that they believe their comments are more equal than other comments.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.3.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @7.3.6    last year

Comments that do not make excuses for the traitor Trump are "more equal" than those which do. That is just reality. I guess it is not the Newstalkers way though. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.3.8  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @7.3.6    last year

People are all equal. Comments are not...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.3.9  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.7    last year

Not every statement is an excuse or defense for Trump despite the accusations made in reply.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.3.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @7.3.9    last year

we all know what the bullshit is here, but many are in denial. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.3.11  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @7.3.8    last year
People are all equal. Comments are not...

Guess  you missed or didn't understand the part where I said "From how some people act, it's rather evident that they believe their comments are more equal than other comments."

Perhaps you should go back and reread Animal Farm to better understand the meaning.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.10    last year
we all know what the bullshit is here, but many are in denial. 

What I see is that many folks erroneously label speech which is not inherently anti-Trump to be a defense of him.

It is much ridiculous nonsense. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.3.13  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @7.3.11    last year

Some people's comments are superior...

Their comments are better than yours!

I do not think so. I know that it is so. So?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.3.14  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @7.3.13    last year

Nope, still missing the point.  But congrats on turning a discussion on philosophy to insult.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    last year

“How much points for X? What about if someone does . . . ?”

Nobody here should really need Perrie to explain to them, in exquisite detail, how to behave like a grown-up.

Instead of trying to have intelligent discussion and debate, too many people - on this site and the internet, in general - are more concerned with how much toxic behavior they can get away with.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
8.1  Hallux  replied to  Tacos! @8    last year

Meh, I'm Canadian (the meanest people in the world) and that makes me toxic by nature. Chanting we're #31 all day gets us in the attitude dumpster.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
8.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @8    last year

I would vote that comment up twice if I could.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    last year

OK the article is back open for further comments.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
10.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10    last year

I'm glad you finally paid heed to my suggestion that the penalties for offences need to be increased because as they were they were not effective to control the members who enjoy shitting on other members and on this site.  Maybe it will be a step in the right direction to increasing the membership.  If tightening the rules serves to turn the biggest offenders away from NT, it would be a positive move.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.1  CB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.1    last year
Maybe it will be a step in the right direction to increasing the membership. 

Emphatically. Put a  major focus on what matters: A truly nice, welcoming space, for advancing NEWS TALK and other discussions to an increasingly fresh membership. Push back. . .hard. . .to not allow the site to become entrenched, stagnated, and/or suppressed.

The site should be like a flowing river refreshing itself and "bountiful" of members with insights that stir minds and hearts. . . not stale and self-absorbing. To that end, the site requires inventive ideas (site "operations" work great!), creative thinking, fresh blood,. . .and nudging towards the right direction which is forever "forward"! In my opinion, anyway.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11  Mark in Wyoming     last year

I foresee a number of members taking 'required " time off from the site ( points accumulation has it appears been halved as far as time frame is concerned ) we just might see some that will see just "how fast " they have to take that time out .

 OR

 they are just going to have to be a lot more selective and make those points count when they are really needed .

Let the games begin and release the hounds ... as is said .

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
12  Hal A. Lujah    last year

Maybe Perrie needs to fire all the mods and herself and replace them with AI.  Who else is going to be able to adequately enforce all these rules?  Some mods routinely break the encyclopedia of rules that they are supposed to be enforcing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @12    last year
Maybe Perrie needs to fire all the mods and herself and replace them with AI.  Who else is going to be able to adequately enforce all these rules?

Who programs the AI?  Think of the kids who programed Twitter.


 Some mods routinely break the encyclopedia of rules that they are supposed to be enforcing.

As much as I complain about certain moderation, I'd keep what we have before going to something unknown that defines who has the right set of facts.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
12.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1    last year
As much as I complain about certain moderation, I'd keep what we have before going to something unknown that defines who has the right set of facts.

Exactly!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
12.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @12    last year

Hal,

Personally, I find AI dangerous. You would think that over 100 years of warning us about it, that we would know better...

But then human greed kicks in.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
13  Thrawn 31    last year

Well, sounds like I’ll be around even less than I already am.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1  Tessylo  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13    last year

Yeah, me too

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
13.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13    last year

To both you and Tessy,

Don't make personal comments and you'll be just fine.

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
14  independent Liberal    last year

This makes me feel safe. I've been on the internet exchanging ideas and opinions since it's inception. Moderation and censorship excites the little authoritarian in my hippocampus. Thank you for what you do.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
14.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  independent Liberal @14    last year

We don't moderate content or ideas. We moderate destructive behavior, which inhibits good dialog.

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
14.1.1  independent Liberal  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.1    last year

Good intentions are always commendable unfortunately none of us are perfect enough to overcome the very flaws of our human condition. Our motives are often misguided and buried under various misaligned justifications that stray far from the primary purpose and good intentions we thought best.

That being said I will certainly put forth my best effort to follow the rules when expressing my ideas and opinions.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
14.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  independent Liberal @14.1.1    last year

That's odd, since I have never removed an idea, just insults and comments that were off topic. Oh and for the record, the only thing that has changed are the points assigned to them.

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
14.1.3  independent Liberal  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @14.1.2    last year

I am sure you are correct. Thank you for providing this forum for such communication.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
15  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    last year

I'm closing the article now since I think it has run its course.

 
 

Who is online








293 visitors