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
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.]
Who is online
245 visitors
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.
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.
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.
Well thank you Perrie. That means a lot.
Simple question then, how is 1.2 not taunting?
Others may have confused the warning with favoritism.
Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. I think it was a good move.
[deleted]
Now how is this then not taunting?
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.
It is and I didn't notice it.
Thank you. This is rather frustrating when these things happen and get missed while others get tickets for similar statements.
I marked it as sarcasm, wtf?
Marking something as sarcasm doesn't make it sarcasm.
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...
What violation prompts the death penalty?
I'm in Florida ya know.
I feel like my taxes just got doubled.
Ummm... maybe?
But do you live in Disney?
Yes, in a suburb of Disney.
I nominate death wishing , or wholesale broad brush genocidal suggestions .....
If a member can't deal with mild taunting they don't belong on internet forums.
I am not sure what you are calling mild taunting, but the point of NT is discussion. I guess sarcasm could be considered acceptable.
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.
Mild taunting is still taunting isn't it? Kind of like being a little bit pregnant?
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.
Would you rather have had it called taunting with the points that go with it?? A taunt by any other name....................
“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.
Well that being the case, both would be a CoC violation as I understand it.
Noting your admission for future use..............................
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.
NT cancel culture member...
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.
Is that "taunting"? I ask because similar memes I haveposted were removed for "taunting", which is really subjective...
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".
“When you point your finger at someone else, remember there are three pointing right back at you.”
[deleted]
Anything valuable to say? Or are you just present to diss other members..........no matter how veiled you try to make it?
OK guys... the point of this is to inform the group and not to have a slap fight. Stop. Only warning.
“…how veiled…”?
Pretty straightforward.
... works for me.
uh, boss, you might want to check the time stamps between 3-1-16 and 3-1-17...
... but I could be mistaken.
Opps, you're right. Removing the ticket.
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)
you forgot one...
dont forgt to throw in the chickens , herding cats and chickens at the same time .
the life of Mods ...
THANK YOU PAT! I get ticketed constantly, obviously by the thin skinned, the ones who complain and whine the most, probably flag me constantly.
[deleted]
I'll probably get a ticket for this because I dared to state my opinion.
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.
Cry me a river.
PD&D with a huge dose of irony. Oh and
yeah right
so you admit what I said was true
cool beans
In my neck of the desert on the border a "pendejo" is still a "dumb ass". As you said, different languages.
That’s what you got from that?
All I ask is that when certain individuals ask endless and pointless questions they be giving trolling tickets. It hasnt happened yet.
Oh one more thing, asking someone for "proof" dozens of times is trolling. They should start getting tickets for it.
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.
Or you could choose to ignore them, or better yet, but them on ignore.
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.
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.
I dont ask anyone if Trump is a KNOWN pathological liar, crook, bigot, moron , and cheat. I tell them he is.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Those are not mainstream sources. They ruined their credibility over guess what? It was Trump.
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.
Guys, you are off topic. Please stop. Only warning.
I beg to differ...
It only becomes trolling when the question has been asked and answered.
How many times do they get to ask the same question? And of course they have been answered.
Like "Will you or will you not admit to Trump's wrongdoing?" That kind of many times?
I dont ask such a question. I already know the answer.
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.
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
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.
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?
Another blatant lie from you.
... as easy as exhaling for some.
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!
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.
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.
Bingo!
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.
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.
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.
Agreed.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps you don’t care for my questions on 2nd and 3rd order effects of your proposal or for clarification of your assertions,
I feel left out, nary a ticket this month ... grrrr! Think I'll go out and hit some kids.
I have extras and I'm willing to share...
I can pay, are they cheaper by the dozen?
Gotta be in US funds............LOL
How about a set of leg irons I got from ICE at Houston International? I only wore them once!
I'm giving away the tickets that have points.
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.
Newstalkers operates under the pretense that all comments are created equal, which is nonsense.
Not a freedom of speech kind of guy huh?
What do you mean?
Are some more equal than others?
I for one are more equal than myself.
Greg, he did say comments, not people.
LOL
HA!
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.
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.
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.
People are all equal. Comments are not...
Not every statement is an excuse or defense for Trump despite the accusations made in reply.
we all know what the bullshit is here, but many are in denial.
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.
Some people's comments are superior...
Their comments are better than yours!
I do not think so. I know that it is so. So?
Nope, still missing the point. But congrats on turning a discussion on philosophy to insult.
“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.
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.
I would vote that comment up twice if I could.
OK the article is back open for further comments.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
Exactly!
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.
Well, sounds like I’ll be around even less than I already am.
Yeah, me too
To both you and Tessy,
Don't make personal comments and you'll be just fine.
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.
We don't moderate content or ideas. We moderate destructive behavior, which inhibits good dialog.
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.
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.
I am sure you are correct. Thank you for providing this forum for such communication.
I'm closing the article now since I think it has run its course.