Discussion on the updating of the CoC
Hello All!
We are well past the time for our CoC update. For those of you who have never participated before, it is when we look at our current CoC and see if issues that have arisen on the site need to be addressed in the CoC and revisions made. Discussion is held and any worthy recommendations are voted on by the group and if it is passed, will be then part of the CoC. Remember NT is your group and the rules are made by the community. This is your time to make your voice heard.
Here are some of the issues that have come up since the CoC was last revised, but please feel free to add any concerns you, as members may have.
Making the tradition of stating Impasse a rule: This would mean, that once a member says impasse to another member, and the other member agrees to the impasse, the discussion ends between the two parties. Any further discussion would be deleted.
Red Box Rules: Some members like more control over their discussion than others. The Red Box Rules would spell out how they wanted their article to run. It would have to be stated in at the end of the body of the article, posted in red. If a member breaks these rules, their comment would be removed without further discussion.
Inactive Groups: We have many orphaned groups that are inactive. There are two ways to go with this. After 6 months of inactivity, we can offer up an orphaned group to an active member. If there are no takers, should we delete them? Inactive groups makes it harder to find those that would add value to NT.
Warning on Graphic Articles: If a member is posting an article with Graphic pictures should there be a warning in the title of the article?
No Slam Articles on the Front Page: Once again, the tradition on these types of articles has been to put them in Heated Discussions. Personally, I dislike them all together, but if the group wants them, then HD is where they belong, since it makes NT look bad to potential new members. Furthermore, any slam article, even in HD has a 36 hour life period at which time the article must be taken down.
Removal of certain terms from the NT Lexicon. This would include calling members names like racist or anti-Semite, etc. This would not preclude calling a comment XYZ, but calling a member that would not be allowed.
Adding By Lines to Original Articles: This only applies to original articles and would just mean that after the title of the article that the person who wrote it also includes By [insert name here].
Memes Are Not Articles
OK so this is quite a list. but feel free to add to it, if you feel that there is an issue that the CoC should cover, but isnt in there yet.
Please be respectful to all members. Any disrespectful comments will be deleted.
Also the mods can comment and moderate on this article due to the nature of the article.
Tags
Who is online
339 visitors
Collecting their thoughts, in order to make a written response, for some reason is not within their means.
Thanks for the reminder, John.
There should also be some kind of rule against condescending comments to fellow NTers. If we're ever to increase our population in a meaningful manner, the douchebag comments just have to stop.
This might be the first time that you and Robert G agree John!
I agree. It is kind of in the CoC already... but maybe spelled out morespecifically. Any ideas would beappreciated.
Which was why I left it up even though it was designed at first just for a rougher type of discussion on real topics.
No Comment.
Snark and sarcasm are generally accepted tactics in vigorous debate.
Calling people stupid is not.
If only there was a way to limit the number of articles a user can post on the same subject in a week. One of the most annoying things about NT is seeing 5 articles on the same subject posted by the same user in a very short period of time.
John, you have to define lying. Lying is something done willfully. But if someone truly believes something that you don't, that isn't lying.
Our forum is designed to have articles that gather no interest just to fall off. The best way to stop that from happening is to not respond to these articles and they will quickly disappear.
Yes.
Perrie
I looked at the CoC and had a few comments just my opinions of course (sorry that I got a little long winded)
I am opposed to red box rules, the rules of engagement for the site should be sufficient for adults to communicate with each other and discuss subjects in a civil manner.
From #1
Comments or articles designed as personal attacks or those which in-and-of-themselves, are off topic, disruptive, abusive,threatening, harassing or offensive,unlawful, harmful, defamatory, libelous, known to be false and presented as truth, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; are prohibited, and will be removed.
Eliminate the legalese, but why not make this crystal clear and therefore enforceable?
For example, regarding comments why not simply say ---Comments will address the topic of the article or the content and context of a members comment on the article, comments which attack or disparage a member by name calling, labels or innuendo rather than addressing the topic or content will be deleted!
Re: #3
Does the system allow for a button to appear on comments which when clicked on would alert moderators to a questionable comment for their review?
Additionally, a flood of comments discussing the justice or lack of justice in the removal of a comment, should be prohibited and summarily deleted from articles appeals should be made directly between the member and the moderators without third, fourth, fifth, etc man in scenarios erupting.
The normal sequence of events, when an author decides that a comment is off topic, or a personal attack and asks that the perpetrator cease and desist, is a long-winded argument as the 3rd, 4th and 5th men into the argument discuss what is and is not on or off topic and the resultant rabbit hole destroys any small chance of meaningful discussion.
Comments about fellow members designed to skirt the "Spirit of the CoC"
If this is to be part of the CoC it must be enforced otherwise it should be deleted from the CoC. Additionally, if the vagueness from the rules is eliminated (as suggested above) there will be fewer instances of the spirit of the CoC being violated and a more black and white aspect to the CoC.
This spirit of the CoC standard should be applied to all comment snot just those in chat.
From #2
Again the legalese In short this section should say that membership in News Talkers is a privilege not a right and that membership is subject to suspension or termination solely at the discretion of the site administrator. The breadth and value of a members contribution of content to the site is not a license to violate the CoC and a members establishment of an account and participation on the site is agreement to abide by established rules.
Re #6
An article deemed to be meta (or seeded as a meta article) will have a comments closed version on the front page that will direct members to the article in the News Talkers Community Group where discussion will take place.
When a member seeds an article, the title of the original article should be used without editing.
Re Groups
The Heated Discussions Group should be discontinued, it is an embarrassment to the site and a cesspool of hate in which members strive to see who can be the biggest and most ignorant horses ass. People who are unable to discuss topics and interact with other members in a manner, acceptable in normal public situations should refrain from discussing those subjects.
There are too many, under-utilized groups most of which should be eliminated.
Articles should be published either in the main forum or in a group, not both
Regarding blogs consider making the blog a continuing document rather than individual articles also I question the value of comments on blogs if feedback is desired an article can be penned.
(?!) Whoa!
Let's not get crazy here!
Yeah, I agree with you Marsha, HD does get out of control, I've gone berserk in that group myself, and yes, the vitriol does createanimositiesthat spill over into the main forum. However IMO, rather than scrap the concept of an unmoderated group altogether, it seems we should be able to modify the HD rules from "Anything goes" to "Almost anything goes".
If we at least curtail the name calling and forbid extremely foul language, like c*cks*cker , f*cking pr*ck, the c-word. and like that, I think we may be able to keep the place below the boiling point.
Another way to keep thing under control in HD would be for someone to be able to say " Things are getting out of control here! " without be told to shut-up.
As for "Slam articles", I would vote to forbid them. It is of no value to NT, the author and most certainly to the target of the 'slam', for an article to be posted designed to unduly attack another NTmember. As many of you know, I speak from experience on that issue, so I know it to be true. Perrie warned me, I didn't listen and I got burned.
That is not to mean we should not be able to post articles criticizing a member. If someone is behaving badly, deliberately creating discourse, or making a nuisance of themselves, HD would be the place to tell them about it.
I don't care what anyone says Fish, you are a funny guy.
Why get rid of HD??? Is there a member who constantly gets ramped up there who doesn't like it???
" for some reason is not within their means . " - " We must profess tolerance !"
You are so unbelievable - contradicting yourself without realizing it.
But he'sfunny how? I mean funny likehe's a clown, he amuses you? He makes you laugh, he's here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? HOW IS HE FUNNY?
I agree that the HD group should remain. It is a good outlet for those members so inclined to blow off steam at each other without distracting actual front page discussions. While I don't actually contribute to the group, I find some of the repartee to be quite entertaining.
Yes - "they" do.
Yes
And I'd like to get rid of the language that some people use thinking it makes them an adult.
That'd be nice to do Perrie, but when the author keeps on going back into their lackluster article and boosting it up with their additional comments - it gets really, really, really old and redundant.
MY
Making the tradition of stating Impasse a rule:
Red Box Rules:
Inactive Groups:
Warning on Graphic Articles :
No Slam Articles on the Front Page :
" I dislike them all together ". So do I. (yeah, I know, who am I to talk) ......even HD has a 36 hour
life period at which time the article must be taken down.
Removal of certain terms from the NT Lexicon . " This would include calling members names like racist or anti-Semite, etc. This would not preclude calling a comment XYZ, but calling a member that would not be allowed. " I was under the impression racial and ethnic slurs were already forbidden.
Adding By Lines to Original Articles:
I like to use;
By Jerry Verlinger
A NewsTalker Article
Robert,
Some thoughts back about your very thoughtful comments:
Opposition to the red box rules noted. BTW no change to the CoC goes through without a group vote.
First we had a lawyer write the CoC... hence the legalese.
Some of this leaves too much interpretation for the mods ( and that is an on going issue here). For instance... i like tangents on my articles...so off topic doesn't bother me, but the labels and name calling I have to agree with you about.
I think so... but the issue is that it can only be directed to Mac and me and not the other mods. I might be able to change that...I'll have to look into that.
Agreed.
An excellent idea!It would keep a lot of the meta off the front page.
I'm not sure about that.... was that the way it was on NV?
Some people use it to blow off steam... others feel the way that you do. But remember that HD is a private group and can't be seen by potential members. I guess it will have to be brought to a vote.
Why?
I am looking into moving us to another platform... that not being done yet, there are two things we can do with the blogs. Original articles can be separated from seeded articles and put front and center. But remember that the blogs don't have threads AND the author does the moderation. They can delete any comment and there is no way to retrieve them once they are gone.
Things are fine the way they are now. Every once in a while MIG gets a little heavy handed on the moderation but overall things run pretty smoothly around here.
I disagree on the language, the legalese does nothing but add vagueness to the rules and leave more and more room for interpretation and exceptions. Figure out what the rule is and write in plain language is my suggestion
I am not sure about the titles on NV, but does that matter, shouldn't we write the rules for what is best for NT
Do you (on anyone else) honestly think that anything productive comes of the hate spewing and profanity laced diatribes on HD? Really?
I am suggesting that blogs be just that, random thoughts by the member not an alternative place to post articles
Just my thoughts
Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to the revised CoC
Let me guess you are going to appoint yourself as the person judging the level of remedial competence.
Here come da' Judge!!
Guys any more comments like that will get deleted as off topic and derailing the discussion.
I honestly think making more rules makes more complications.
I have no opinion on Impasse other than the few times I've seen it, it doesn't seem to stick.
I have no opinion on red box rules other than I see people using them to create echo chambers.
I do think inactive groups should be deleted after a fair warning and possible ownership shift.
I think NSFW would be a good addition for some articles if it is NSFW
I dont care about slam articles being anywhere. I think that if you want an increase in membership, you'd get way more through drama than not... of course the membership may not be the best type.
I dont think any words are off limits to use. The use of words reflects more on the user than the receiver 100% of the time.
I think that titles and content, if seeded from an original source, should remain as the original author intended. Amendments to titles and content should be in a different font type or color to denote the change from original author.
I dont have a problem with memes... I like memes...
Ugh, I hate to be stupid, but-- what's NSFW?
Thank you! I live in acronym hell...
I have a beef regarding the practice of members being allowed to change their Usernameandtheir avatar at the same time, and to do it as often as they want.
We have some members that abuse this feature and play games, changing their identity in the middle of a discussion. Also, we will often come across and new name and avatar, thinking we have a new member, only to discover a few days later it's someone we have known for months.
Personally I see no value in allowing members to change their username. Actually, I see no value in ever changing either your username, or you avatar. More-so, your avatar, as after a while your avatar becomes your logo, and gives people instant identification of your presents in a discussion. Or who it is that posted a new discussion when it shows up on the front-page.
I mean, how can anyone establish a following if people have no idea who their following?
My first proposal would to dis-allow changes in usernames once they are chosen. Short of that, I would propose usernames and avatar cannot be changed within a 90 days of the last change, and they can never be changed at the same time.
THIS ISSUE WAS BEING DISCUSSED IN A SEPARATE ARTICLE POSTED SAT NOV. 28th;
"NewsTalkers CoC and Site Update Discussion Monday Dec. 1st"
THAT ARTICLE IS CLOSED AND THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES ON THIS THREAD
Warning on Graphic Articles
NSFW should suffice here I think. Not safe for work is universally accepted to mean graphic.
Removal of certain terms from the NT Lexicon. This would include calling members names like racist or anti-Semite, etc. This would not preclude calling a comment XYZ, but calling a member that would not be allowed.
Doesnt this fall under the no personal attacks rule? Is it redundant or necessary redundancy?
Anyway, I think all the proposed changes look fine.
I am NOT in favor of adding other rules because members dont like their use however. Like the silly discussion over changing names/avatars, for example. The CoC isnt designed to make your personalized experience better as much as it is there to provide clear guidelines for moderating onesself, and for appropriate responses to situations AS a moderator. We dont need a million lines of fine print as people try to get their personal hang ups put in as CoC policies.
If we could filter content from the front page, or have different forums, that would be great! It will take a lot more participation from members who haven't participated recently-- mainly due to the snarkiness of the FP... But, it could definitely work, and make this a more positive experience for a lot of us!
Thank you for your input Raven...
I would just like to address the major theme of this posting which is the tone of the forum and punishment.
When NT was started, a big part of that was the arbitrary way NV suspended or banned people. IN FACT, banning was the whole reason for starting this site. So while I agree with you about making the forum stricter, I am not sure how I feel about banning people. I think that suspensions could be the way to go, with increasing time... but the few bannings we have had here, were for the worst of the worst, which no one here has even come close to.
I think to better the tone of the forum where everyone feels comfortable, all we have to do is tolerate less. The problem there is that not everyone reports and we are always short on mods. I would love to be able to pay a full time one, since I get tired of doing it, but the site presently makes about enough money to keep it afloat, plus the extras like tech people to do coding that I can't do etc.
So yes I am always looking for more mods.
Well, we can put up a rule about bumping your own article up more than once....
No voting. Not a democracy.
Benevolent dictatorship.
OK let me get this down:
But to put this into perspective.. no one would go to those articles. It kind of self regulates if you want people to participate and leaves less guessing for us mods.
Dean,
Thanks for the overall score of approval. In defense of MIG, I would say he is a very good moderator. Maybe, what seems like heavy handed, might be his attempt to explain very carefully why he did what he did. He is just being very diligent.
Jerry,
You forgot this one:
And actually I thought that this would be one of the most discussed items.
The above is a fine example of what is wrong in the main forum. It goes meta instead of addressing the issue. Asking John how this he would achieve his two forum idea (which of course you can't), would have been less inflammatory than what followed.
Guys don't do this again on this article. It will be removed. The only reason I am not doing it is to show what the biggest problem is on this site; baiting one another.
Dowser,
I had no idea either. Thanks for asking!
Miss,
Thanks for a well constructed list. It makes it easier to look through when I bring these advisements to group vote!
Ummmm.... I kind of confused.
This goes back to the old "tea bagger" issue. While I agree with you that all of those terms are personal attacks.... there are those here who don't think so. I would love not to be so specific, but we need to make sure that the group understands that these words will be considered personal attacks.
Wow! Raven, you said it all! I've been trying to put those very thoughts into words, and there you are, saying it all and saying it well!
For what it is worth, I refuse to have anything to do with the haters. We all know who they are. My advice to others who would like to see the haters and baiters left high and dry is this: do not respond to anything they say. Period. When they cannot get a response of any kind, they will dry up and blow away, never to be seen or heard from again. You cannot start a fire without kindling, and the kindling in a forum is the average commenter who takes the bait thinking they can have the last word if they stick around long enough.
You see a hater, ignore it. Make NO comment, make NO response...
But, the haters and baiters are fully aware that there will be some sucker ready and willing to play the game and keep it going forever. Until everyone gets wise to the ploys, about the only remedy is to relegate those kinds of "debates" to their own group(s) - and make them private groups, as well.
I think NT is a darn sight better than NV is, even with its flaws (there is no such thing as a perfect site where no one ever gets upset) - and many of us have found the groups we like where we can feel comfortable and still have fun.
Raven Wing really did say it the way it needed to be said. Well done, Raven!
Personally, if anyone should call me the "c" word, I'd be extremely offended. Fighting mad. If, however, someone said my comment was "c"-like, it wouldn't be such an issue.
Actually Jonathan we do vote on important changes on the site. This has been the tradition here since NV changed rules without even notifying members. At the end of the meta article I will review all the important issues and each one will have a vote.
Raven where I agree that we might have to put more bite into the rules we have, I have never made any excuses for the bad behavior. And this is all fine when not having to be the one to get the push back from having more bite. We mods are never right, second guessed, even get lip that wouldn't qualify as a CoC violation when we do take action. It is a thankless job. So while it is easy to say, have more bite, remember we are member moderators... which means that we live in the outside forum and have to deal with all those that others who chose to live in the groups don't have to deal with. Just read how many times we have been called "heavy handed" by various people and you might get why I don't have lines for the position.
That being said, I do understand your frustration (and bitey's) and the mods are going to have a conference call about how to tighten things up here.
Ummmm ........ aaahh eeyeaaaahh....
I guess we need to define 'slam'. to me it meanscoming down pretty hard on someone in great excess of normal criticism. There is a difference between a criticism and an insult. We all need to be able to tolerate a reasonable amount of criticism, nobody is perfect.
Actually I'm having a hard time responding to your comment Perrie. I can't understand why you are confused trying to understand the difference between a 'slam' and common constructive criticism.
Please tell me why you're 'confused at my comment.
Bitey,
I get why no one would like to deal with a hater... certainly I don't. And I agree you must ignore them or you are feeding them.
I do these meta articles because I am always concern about how the membership feels and how to make the site better. So I do take this all seriously and will take action if the group votes that way.
Being called crazy is an insult for sure Gene.
Gotta agree with ya Dowser. I'm not sure why that word has to be used at all. There are so many other creative adjectives to use.
My two-cents' worth: NT is a darned sight better than NV. Period. It will be interesting to vote and to see the results of the vote, but a very simple fact is this: put any two people together and, eventually, you're gonna have a squabble. Put more than two together and you're lucky if you don't get all-out war. Human nature isn't as evolved as some would have us believe!
You and your volunteers are doing one heckuva bang-up job on this site. You've given us NV exiles a place to congregate, and no amount of rules, or lack thereof, will satisfy everyone. So, if rules are changed, or deleted, or added, I'll happily comply. I have no intention of abandoning the site, because I honestly don't have any real issues with it. I may have opinions, but I simply don't have any issues.
Thanks for all the hard work and effort you've put in here... and I'm sure I'm not alone in being grateful to you.
Because in HD, a simple comment like "Hey XYZ, why do you have to talk that way?" will quickly become "That is because XYZ is an A Hole." In a unmoderated group... how do you stop constructive criticism from turning into unconstructive?
Thanks Bitey!
Actually, when the red box rules are added, it takes away a lot of the stress from the mods, since we are not making judgment calls that other then can turn around and complain that we are not being fair or heavy handed.
Yes it was, since it was in my red box rules.
I don't agree with restricting memes if they make a statement that is relevant to the discussion, including on News and Politics. It could be considered a more forceful method to put a point across - a picture is worth 1000 words. As well, if memes are not okay, then quotations are not as well. Just how restrictive is this site going to be?
I cannot agree with the assertion that posting a meme is what a person who cannot express himself in words would do. A meme that makes the relevant point is just as valid.
I will continue to use them as I see fit.
Ditto what bitey said!
Thanks!
A moderater needs to be mature, wise, unbiased and fair. I consider it similar to the requirements for a good judge. Any member who has displayed a trait otherwise to those qualities should not even be considered for the position, and it would be a sign of maturity on the part of such persons not to even wish such appointment.
Personally, on certain issues I admit my bias, and so I have no desire to even consider having the position of moderater.
Hey, there are those of us for whom html language is NOT second nature... I used to program in Basic. html is confusing to me, at times...
How do we design the CoC to fit every authors needs? This has been the on going issue here. For example, lets say that one author doesn't mind curse words but another one does. A simple "No foul language" lets the mods know what this author wants...
And in fact, whether most of you know it or not, "red box rules" have been here. Everyone one of my articles say "Play nice, no cursing" or something to that effect. And just like "Impasse" this had not been codified into the CoC, but more a matter of policy. Something optional for an author or participant to use as a tool on the site. So maybe what we should be saying about "Red Box Rules" is not so much an actual change to the CoC but call it a "Policy" and put it under that subheading under the CoC. That way, something that has always been here to some degree or another, is a verified "option", and not a "rule". Those that abuse the option, will find people not participating in their articles and those who use it wisely, will have better discussion... if they feel the CoC doesn't quite fit the bill for that article.
Otherwise Mike, I think we are pretty much on the same page.
First and foremost Perrie, thank you forthe time and efforts you expend to the improvement of dialoguing on NT. I'm only saddened it requires this amount of oversight.If the goal is improved member interaction and increased membership,theFP needs a restraining order! Currently a newbie should have a flak jacket warning, so the "no slam" on FPmay prove beneficial.
Have no issue with HD,the nameis certainlydescriptive and one dives in at their own risk and peril. Is a mod able to "move" an article to a more appropriate category if deemed unfit FP material?
That's the quote from the caption. It's one of the classic lines in the movie.
I don't get angry, I get snarky.
Buzz,
Memes are powerful in expression, but a meme in itself doesn't make a whole article in News and Politics. It presents no information to discuss, but brings a specific message. In that way it is like advertising. People can use memes as part of an article.... just not the whole article.
In any case, this isn't my call. It isn't yours. It will be the community that votes on it and that will be the last word.
I don't know Dowser, the "c" word absolutely enrages me. Perhaps I was hypnotized and this word isMY trigger word
Comments reflect the person and a comment is "c"-like, doesn't that make the poster "c"-like as well.
I'll put on my big girl thong and try to not be so sensitive!
I try to use language that should Mama overhear or read she'd not grab up a bar of soap. Is that abuse today??? LOL
I agree with you, Lynne, wholeheartedly! But, people calling my comment a bad word, rather than calling me a bad word-- I can deal with, just a bit better.
Sometimes, I'm sure my comments appear to be insensitive, hateful, or just plain mean...
OK... you got me this time Robert...
LMAO!
I hear ya, Raven. I do.
I have to agree with you Randy. Furthermore, what I have tried to keep a balance between the conservative and liberal moderators. It is important in order to make sure that everyone feels that there is some sort of fairness ( I realize that there will always be those who will argue that).
Oh gawd, that's so true, 1st.
Hi Lynn,
This is why this article is up and running. Trying to get some civility back on the front page.
No we can't but then again, an article that belongs in HD, should be there and if it isn't then please report. We will remove it. You might not realize this, but my original idea of HD was articles that were just too hot for the front page... it just turned into something else. I would be glad to get it back to my original idea.
Spot on Mike!
This article is making me twitch.
My hand went limp, too, but it wasn't because of that.
Sorry John it doesn't work that way. All the mods moderate any seed.
I'm going to smack the both of you very hard and then you both are going to ask for more!
OMG do you know how many on the conservative side would have the same great idea????
Mike I would love that to be an addition to the CoC. Attacking the source. It would be far more constructive to debunk it.
YOU TWITCH.....
I HAVE BEEN ANSWERING ALL OF THIS..... I HAVE A HEADACHE.
I had you as a mod?
Gene,
To a conservative that could be a liberal source and to a liberal that could be a conservative source. Do we have to define our sources. The only sources that are not allowed are those that come from hate sites, like the "Stormfront".
Pretty much 18 pages of twitching. I'm not in favor of any changes to the CoC. Red Box rules have always been there. If a person wants to use the red box, that is their choice. As long as it's voluntary it's ok.
It's a discussion site for crap sake. If you don't like the article or the author/seeder, don't read it. If you don't like a person posting numerous article, post your own. Damn people, grow up. Use the ''red box'' to keep your article on track oras an echo chamber, whatever is your choice.
NT is a great site IMO, don't overload it with nonsensical rules. Whether a member is from NV or any other site, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. We/they are here, and that's that. Deal with it.
Well said Bruce.
Oh, I didn't mean posting a meme (or a video, which normally I can't open anyway) as the seed or article. I would only use graphics, pictures, cartoons, etc. as PART of a seed or article. Of course I agree that the article would have to have text that is sufficient in itself, and the meme would just be there to accentuate and/or illustrate the point of the seed or article. I get really frustrated when I see the whole seed or article as a meme, with no text, which has been the habit of some of the members here.
However, I was really thinking of memes as comments, rather than as seeds or articles. Is that okay?
I'm good with that Buzz!
HD was never intended to be a place for a mob hit. I started it for rougher articles and it morphed into something else. I have learned to deal with it But since it is my group, the 36 hour rule is enough time to kill someone. If it isn't, well then you are a poor shot.
But something else to add to our "policies"
Let's get back on track folks.
I've had some more time to mull over these proposals while also reading through all these previous pages filled with everybody's suggestions, ideas, and what have you. I have revised some of my own thoughts on these things accordingly:
RedBox, although a pretty decent movie rental service, is a questionable device for moderating an article. That said, since we encourage people to take ownership of their articles, having some basic author preferrred guidelines isnt a bad thing, as long as there are some basic guidelines to govern the red box. Things like no swearing or being required to cite sources are acceptable (or at least state clearly when it is opinion vs a quotable fact anyway) are some examples of good uses for a RedBox. Bad examples would be those encouraging echo chambers (since groups can be used for that sort of stuff anyway) and other things like that. It would also be good if people were encouraged to post blogs that dont allow comments if they arent looking for debate/discussion.
Heated Debate should continue to exist, since it is the only place where people can, and should be allowed, to vent or express their dislikes and discontent freely, without public notice outside of the longer term members (which is currently 3+ months). Maybe a 48 hour cap rather than 36 hours for slam articles would be appropriate as well.
Slam articles is a debatable topic, but as long as they are relegated to HD, no big deal.
I'm not a fan of regulating speech other than the common courtesy of not attacking a person. Stick with attacking ideas if that is your preference. A lexicon, IMO, is a silly and useless thing overall. It's on individual posters to regulate themselves when seeing a term they dont like. The choice to participate and engage is always on the posters themselves. If it is something a person really takes offense to, even though it isnt a direct personal attack, they should feel free to address it in HD. However, although we live (most of us anyway) in win or lose cultures, people also need to accept that they arent going to "win" all the time, winning equating to getting their way of course. If Randy wants to call Tea Party people Teabaggers, I dont see how that is a big deal any more than Bruce calling liberals Libtards, or what have you (pulling from old examples). Not something that needs to be regulated any longer in my estimation. Get over the butthurt or take it to HD. The choice is one the offended party needs to make for themselves. The moderating team shouldnt be fielding these sorts of complaints.
Since it takes two to agree to an impasse, there is not necessarily any reason to make it a law officially. I think this is another example of where trying to legislate every hurt feelilng or discussion that might turn in a more contentious direction bogs down the site.
In general, the sense I get each year at about this time is that everybody wants to use CoC revisions as a way to get their own issues put into legislative print. I dont think that is what the CoC should be all about. As I've said repeatedly over the years, moderators arent here to help you get over your distress, discontent, or anger. We are only here to field real issues that have no peaceful resolution between the parties involved. We arent here to rule with an iron fist.
What else? Inactive Groups. Get rid of them. I've never felt like groups is something that prosper here personally. It's easier to get people to read articles on the front page and bump them once or twice if necessary. I'm sure some of the groups have active memberships, but as a rule, they just take up space. If people arent posting in them, shut them down. Give them a 30 day probation period and go from there.
Memes Are Not Articles: A meme (/mim/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. -wiki
Not having really been around much, I cant speak to why this is an issue. However, it seems that a meme could be a great starting point for a discussion, and thus would be a good candidate for an articles main topic.
Warning on Graphic Articles: Simply add this to your title: (NSFW). Simple.
Adding By Lines to Original Articles: I'm not sure why this is on the docket. Seems like it would be optional. If a source isnt cited, it would seem implied that it is an original article. Still, it is a good idea for people to actually list themselves as the author.
As far as rotating moderators, I think a mix is ideal. The set moderating team should always be in place unless one steps down or is generally abusing that role. In addition, a rotating panel of two or three volunteers in three month rotations is ideal. That gives members a chance to take some ownership of the site they choose to frequent, and helps with personal accountability.
Speaking of personal accountabilty, this is really at the core of moost of the proposed rule changes. I feel that is always the starting point in any conflict resolution. How many of you are willing to step back, take a breath, and start over rather than keep the conflict going?
Anyway, that is my two cents. Some moderators have been accused of not being, well, moderate. If youf feel that is the case and want an additional pair of moderator eyes, feel free to shoot me a message with a link. I will always be happy to read through everything and give an impartial judgement when necessary. Just because I'm not seen posting here that often doesnt mean you cant get in touch with me.
Cheers,
Peter
Please review the bottom of the article and watch the tone.
How about an even two days. 48 hours?
Man is born free and is everywhere in chains.~Rousseau
I've heard of people who are like that. Isn't it called 'masochism"?
No. NT belongs to the group. If it was my site, I could save myself tons of hours of typing and not do these meta articles. HD is my group, and as such I do have a call over it.
I could do 48 hours.
That was a fairly clear and relevant comment . I have one point you should reconsider though :
On Ning there are restrictions that prevent such material from being allowed .
Well, it doesnt need to imply porn or anything here. Rather it simply would indicate sensitive material, that in truth probably inst safe for work anyway, lol.
Anyway, the exact term isnt important. It is just important that there is one, and we all know the meaning. We could use "loofa" in there istead for all I care.
RW, ita discussion site. As I stated in my comment, each of us has the choice to read, not read, ordebate an article.
Any member can use the ''red box'' to control their article. It is their choice.
IMO, the site is fine. If we add more and more rules, soon it will be like a government contract, unreadable and unusable.
Of course your can voice your opinion, there will be people that each of us doesn't like, or they don't like us. It's the way it is, and rules can't be written for every instance that comes up on NT.
As for NV members, there are, what each of us may consider good and bad members, the same can be said of original NT members, or people that come from any other site.
Well said Peter. Just a few points of clarification.
So, there has been some brainstorming going on here and some of this can go into what we will call "Policy" as in already established practices. The 48 hour rule is one. Red box rules another. Impasse another. They need not have to go into the CoC per se, but know that they are there. Maybe write it up as "policy"... just to remind people that they have these options. And you are right about echo chambers. I don't like them either. But Bruce does make a good case for them. If members get to restrictive with them, then no member will want to go to them.... and it can't be, for example, "Only X party can play here" either.
Memes became an issue when there was nothing but Meme there and so there was no point of discussion. They were usually used as a way of bugging members and taking up forum space. I personally like Memes... but memes alone... I am not so sure. Again, not for me to say. The group will vote on this one.
The byline for original articles is so that google searches the site better. No other reason.
Heck.. other than that... well done Peter!
Tru dat Grump!
You'll have a chance to vote... don't worry BF
Huh? The only changes there will be are the ones that the group passes by vote.
Perrie ,
It depends on what the rules are . For example if someone of low intelligence says "No off-topic comments" who decides what is off-topic ? Having the rule writer decide is merely a convenient way to eliminate comments which disagree with him [that A-hole !] . IMO the moderators should be given the final judgement on what is merely a disagreement as opposed to changing the subject .
zackly Feronia!
Oh, must have been naughty naughty.
Makes sense to me.
Where is Sonny Bono when we need him ?!
''Do you really think that is right? Do you really think that is OK? The only choice people have if they don't want to be attacked for their daring to voice their opposing opinion is not post comments. Do you think that is right? Do you think that only certain people have the right to express their own views and opinions and everyone else should just STFU?''
I have no idea where your going with this RW. None of the above did I say. What I said, is that you have the choice, the operative word being YOU.
You'll note that Isaid we have enough rules. Argue about enforcing the existing the current rules.
You may want to re read what you wrote. I expressed my opinion, and you attacked it.
We are each entitled to our opinion. You have yours and I have mine.
Easier said than done . I find that a carefully worded RB rule can get rid of obnoxious pests ...
MiG ,
In the example you referenced I expect the proper way to comment would be to criticize the rule in the comments . In the case you mentioned , saying that the writer has created his own pulpit for preaching to the choir ... or possibly an echo chamber might communicate the needed disparity .
If you mean cunt, I don't think it should ever be allowed directly or indirectly, personal opinion.
BBBBBut ... there are crazy people on NT ! How do you propose to deal with them ?!
BF proposal. Ended up way down here with my comment. Better late than never some would say then again.
Yea, I think that would be punish enough for any rule breaking. I can tell you one thing. It does put a different perspective on things. LOL
lol
Cool. I havent been privy to past conversations, so if you guys have already sorted all that out, then no worries.
The "inactive groups" situation is one I have already been commenting on. There should be a formula to dump inactive groups, since it's tedious to wade through a lot of garbage to find something active. I have made suggestions on this already and would be happy to enter a discussion specifically about that problem.
Slap them into next week and then we won't have hear from them all week. LOL jUst kidDing
Highly unmanageable at best . Was that supposed to be a jest ?
Liberal blockheads would never make that connection ... {grin}
And of course you John Russell have NEVER posted from any low quality material ... LMAO !
Well, I figured it would get to this. John I see you have removed the Raw Story article you put up that I proved to you was a lie. Now that's the kind of thing I can go for. I'll do you the same favor when you prove anything I've put up is a lie. I think it is only fair. Personally I think a little vacation would be good therapy, personally. Sometimes we can get a little too wrapped up it these things we can't do a whole lot about at the moment, but it works for me, so it may work for you.
Now come on John, admit you deleted the article from Raw Story you put up that I debunked as a lie before you came on here this evening. Honesty is a virtue, you know.
My own Rules and Glossary
Word Limit - My personal rule is to ignore long garrulous cut 'n' paste replies or posts, where a simple hyperlink (aka: link ) will do. I signify that by using the abbreviation; tl;dr .
Format - In posting a new thread (using an article) I always do it in the following sequence which is consistent in forums across the internet;
Hurr Durr - is defined as the sound of laughter coming from someone with half a brain. I generally use it to denote someone who overuses the "laughter" emoticon
. Use of this word is most often considered impolite but technically accurate.
Opinions v Facts - Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Fact : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence. When engaging in argumentative and academic discourse, facts trump opinions.
Glad you mentioned that Perrie because that is exactly what John put up, an article that led you to believe it was from Stormfront, accusing a journalist being tied to the white supremest group when I showed him it was originally from a Jewish paper copy/pasted to stormfront by Stormfront probably without the journalist knowledge.
Even though the article wasn't bad he was using it to show the journalist was tied into Stormfront since it linked to Stormfront when in reality the author had nothing to do with Stormfront, but without investigating it you would think he was. Well, it appears he has removed the article and for good reason as we can imagine before coming onto this article and criticizing others. Good job of covering you butt John, but I can find the article if you like.
I can't even understand that must less abide by it.
So far I agree with Kavika and Dean about this whole thing.
I don't think you should attack the person for disagreeing. I think a little humor goes a long way. Several on here throw a little sarcastic humor and not so sarcastic humor on here quite often and in all honesty, I have a spontaneous laugh and I kind of like it.
That's not true RW. Your idea are just as important as anyone else here and will be considered as well. I think you may be giving up too easily. I honestly don't want a bunch of rules. I think basic civility is the best environment to operate from. I don't really care for cursing, but if someone feels the necessity to curse, so be it. Personally it defines each of us in how we react to what we don't agree with in the way we respond.
I like that AeonPax to an extent. I know I'm guilty of posting the whole thing and if it is very long, I'm sure most people don't read it and in fact I don't really believe most people even read the articles anyway sometimes. They just read the comments and post one of their own.
Disagree.
A quote (links) from a supposed hate site can be academically and legitimately used to bolster or conversely, discredit, points in an argument.
What is most important is not the quote or even article from an alleged hate site, it is the intent of why it was posted.
I was late getting here and finally arrived at the last comment which it appears will not be the last comment by the time I finish this one. So.....after reading this there are a few people on here who everyone knows except me that are causing all the problems. I'm not really confident that I know exactly what a "Slam" article is either. Let me give you a few examples and tell me if you consider them "Slam" articles.
Is this a Slam article?
Obama Kills Tax Cut Because It Didnt Help Illegals
...
or
CEO Obamacare supporters livid over shocking EEOC lawsuits
...
or
YAHTZEE: Black Sheriff Slams SOB Holder and Ilk That Infiltrated #Ferguson, Like Vultures on a Roadside Carcass
...
or
Georgetown student gets robbed, says he DESERVED IT because of WHI...
...
Now are those "Slam" articles? I bet they are for some, but I bet they aren't for others.
Let me tell you I separate any feelings I have from my moderating. I don't care if you are liberal, conservative or anything else. If you are causing trouble, calling people bad names or breaking any of the other rules I will delete your comment if I get to it before another moderator gets to it. First I will look to see if you are visible in "Chat" and call you to private to discuss the issue. If you will not delete it yourself, I will unless it is borderline and then I get another liberal or conservative moderator if I can find one to get their opinion. Every now and then I just delete one for the hell of it. LOL Not really.
I cant speak to your past interactions Raven, but my experience is that people often take things more personally than is truly warranted. There has never been a time on NT after the inital few weeks where a member hasnt been allowed to express their viewpoints. It is also the right of posters to argue those viewpoints. Such is life.
The onus is definitely on you first, the individual member, to figure out what you find acceptable and either post or not. You can also choose to engage another poster or ignore them completely. All of that is on you absolutely. Only when something truly gets out of hand should a moderator step in, and there is no guarantee that just because you feel a certain way about such a scenario that the moderator will rule in your favor, the other poster(s) favor, or simply rule against all offending parties. It has been my experience that unresolvable issues tend to be both parties fault.
Anyway, moderation will always be on a case by case determination. If you feel that something needs to be moderated, you may contact any member of the moderating team, or multiple members if you please, to review and make a judgement on the situation. However, as I said before, that doesnt mean it will always play out the way you want it to. The CoC is a pretty clear guideline, and it doesnt really need to change. It is also not there to serve as corporal punishment for ALL offenders. I have banned two members in the many years this site has been open, and both were such extreme cases that there was no value to be had by their presence. One was a bi-polar whack job who thought everybody in the world was anti-semitic and would cyber stalk them. The other actually made violent threats against a member. Occasionally, we will suspend a members privileges for a period of time if they are proven to be trolling or repeatedly violating CoC. Outside of extremes cases however, we tend to favor members actually proving they are adults by acting like adults and either sorting things out themselves, walking away, or using HD to address the issue head on. Only when it cant be resolved, and an impasse cant be reached, should moderators step in.
My point in all this rambling is that maybe you should revisit your participation and see if you are really being held to silence or not. I'm certain that you are able to voice your opinion whenever you feel like, in whatever articles you choose to take part in. If you dont like the way a thread is playing out due to CoC violations, feel free to contact a moderator and/or move on to something else. If you have been held to silence, provide a link for me and I will look into it.
I realize not all people have the skills to be able to articulate themselves in a concise or pithy manner, especially when explaining their own rationale or beliefs. To that extent, personal thoughts or opinions are an exception to that rule.
OK just catching up,..but not going to read the 300 and some comments to see which ones I missed last night.
So someone fill me in, which of the new rules are the Dems pushing, which ones are for the Rep. and what do the Ind want.
are we going to vote on fri the 5th and do we have to go to our local courthouse to register with a valid ID or can we vote here on NT?
Thank you Peter for taking the time to put together a well thought out and accurate presentation of what the CoC is about and how the mods do their job. You did a fine job and saved me a lot of work!
I agree. Of all the words in the English language, that one seems to disturb people the most. It serves no purpose other than to insult or gross out.
Buzz,
I will put forth this idea about inactive groups. If a group has been inactive for more than 6 months (one or two comments doesn't make the cut) or there is an orphan group with no new takers, then that group should be deleted. These inactive groups make it hard to find ones that are less active but still active.
Any thoughts?
Robert,
I like Aeon, so I think we won't. Besides, I'm not from Salem.
Aeon,
I am confused by what you mean here:
Isn't the intent of anything on a hate site to incite hate?
Aeon,
The only reason I post a big hunk of an article is that I find people don't take the time to go to the hyperlink. I tend to give them more like footnoting.
This is true. It's advisable to post at least some part of the linked article to pique the readers interest.
Raven,
Of course you have your right. That is the whole point of doing this meta article. It is to get the feelings of the group over issues that have arisen in the past. I keep saying this, but the group belongs to the members. We do take a vote on these issues. The article is provided to get to the core issues and how to fix them, in a manner that will please the majority of the group.
Guys, stay on topic. I have a hard enough time getting through all these comments and making replies without having to find these.
Well Randy is this a "Slam" article?
Will The Republicans Ever Stop Lying?
I think "Slam" articles means a lot of things to different people. I see it happening on here. People having no problem with some articles, basically because they agree with them and when an article is put up which they don't agree or just don't want to accept as reality most likely would be considered a "slam" article, especially if it has passion from both sides being expressed. Then all of a sudden it bothers them. I suspect "Slam" articles are any articles that really hit the nail on the head or comments like "I believe Obama has told more lies that are verifiable than any president or anyone I've ever known in my life time". All of a sudden that person is a hater as well as a racist. I don't really know what to do about that unless these articles are not allowed. That seems to be the direction this country is heading to me, speech against what we see as atrocities being suppressed while burning down or inciting violence is allowed only if it is inciting by the left.
If these type of articles are to be left up, then civility in debating them by following the present rules is the way to handle them. I just suspect the real reason for all of this crying about these "Slam" articles and such is a hangover from being on the most liberal site in the country provided by the most liberal station in the country and being spoiled in having any descending arguments or people either suspended or banned to make it a more perfect unified site. Although the name calling has to stop.
So Randy if it is close to you, then it must be way overboard to others.
Wait. Is the issue a perceived lack of freedom of speech, or the fact that your preferred articles dont stay on the front page because other articles drive more interest in posting?
I feel like you are vascilating between the two.
If it is a front page thing, then try participating in the groups, which are set up to be more focused and less combative.
I'm just concerned the real reason for this request is not only the name calling which should stop, but the "Speak Your Mind" is bothering some. They really don't want you to be able to do that unless it is "Speak Your Mind If I Agree With You".
I don't think the rules are broken so much as the enforcement needs to be a little more stringent and warning from moderators need to be more visible on articles to the people participating. If you are not visible in "Chat" then flat out delete the comment if it breaks a rule. If you are visible on "Chat" I will put you in private to ask you to remove the comment. I may even discuss it a little with you. If I have to fight with you to get you to do it and I feel like it needs to go, then I will remove it. I'm one of the most lenient moderators on here and I truly believe in speaking your mind in a civil manner.
No one lobbies me, since that would mean I would receive monetary gratuities for doing so. This is why I carry ads on the site, as opposed to a collection. It keeps me behoven to no one.
How would you know? Do you get my emails or IM's? Do you think I do this at a whim? And if so, why bother with this meta article. I could just ordain it and be done.
We are NOT restricting all use of memes. We are restricting how they are used. They can be used in a comment and even within the context of an article. But they can't be usedsolelyas the whole article. We are a discussion site and most memes present nothing more than a catchy ad worthy quip. They don't encourage a discussion alone. They can be used within the context of an article. So it is not censorship, since you can use the meme... and only Brian Ford would recommend thelengthof anarticle. I never would.
Yes. By lines are an accepted part of journalism. It is also how google finds articles that puts us on the net, that gets us new members and other online papers to link to NT. It is HOW the internet works.
I use an independent company for the vote. Every member gets to vote on all the issues. It will be on the front page for a week. The results can be seen daily by pressing a results button. Onlyregisteredmembers can vote.
The last time the CoC was changed in any way wasFeb 21, 2013, almost 2 years ago. These issues we are discussing today, were not issues then, hence why I have taken so much time to do this. It's not because I enjoy endlessly typing, butbecauseNT promised to be different and listen to the membership. I am keeping that promise. And yes it has worked.
Not commenting on the negativity.
Thank you Gene for your post!
Actually, I think some think "speak your mind" means they can say anything. When I believe it is just another way of saying your opinion counts so lets hear it.
John,
Mike's opinions doesn't make him a bad moderator. Being biased in his moderation does. I don't necessarily agree with his opinion, but he is entitled to it.
For clarity sake:
There are inflammatory articles and slam articles. What Six gave as an example is an inflammatory article and I have to say that I have seen it done by both sides of the political spectrum. I would prefer if articles were not inflammatory, since I don't think they encourage good discussion.
A slam article is against a specific member or group of members and is personal in nature. They are never allowed on the front page, as it poor form for a serious forum to allow them. Imagine if you opened your favorite paper and you saw one of those? You would never take them seriously again.
LR,
Our tagline "Speak Your Mind" meant that we were going to try to give the members the most amount of freedom to do so, without stepping on each other's toes. Freedom of speech does have it's limitations.
Quite the opposite. I am one of the original members, and have in fact read your comments. If you choose not to post on the front page, that is all on you.
Perrie,
I can't help but get the impression you are correcting everything I say for what ever reason. Am I articulating so poorly that I need an interpreter? What I said about "speak your mind" is what you said, I just used fewer words....
Perrie,
I agree with your reason but I'm a bit less diplomatic about it in certain situations. For example, a person has to be either very stupid or very lazy not to click on a link and there are people here notorious for that. For me, I see no middle ground.
I've also seen more than a few abuses of not sourcing a post where the the words in a supposedly quoted article were either changed or left out. That is not only dishonest but it has already destroyed any modicum of trust between myself (a reader) and the poster. I don't have the time nor energy to call these people out when I find them using such tactics.
Re: Dowser's comment...
I am amazed and depressed by how much people WANT to "behave badly"... It baffles me... What does that accomplish... Does it make you happy to behave badly??? Does it make the world a better place???
If people get something out of behaving that way, then they are gonna do it whether you have the HD group or not... What I think would be an improvement is if there was a way to segregate the nasty articles from the rest... so that those articles would not get so much visibility on the front page.
I saw a sign in arestaurantthat think would make a wonderful and verysuccinctCoC...
Be nice, or leave.
I posted some words by Keb Mo in a tribute to ET that I thing describe the atmosphere I would like to see...
I don't think that many of us are objecting to the "speak your mind", so much as the way it is used-- as an excuse to be downright nasty.
As an example: "Ok, you no-good, cretinous bastard, I'll see your stupid, tea-bagger article and raise you two articles from the Huff Post!" is just not as affective as saying, "This article states that the percentages of the population that have done XYZ feel that they were correct in doing so."
"Speaking Your Mind", in fact, the whole concept of free speech, does not give one the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded building, or to behave in a nasty way.
I have no trouble accepting opinions that are different from mine-- but as soon as the nastiness starts, I'm not dealing with it, could care less about the opinion, and avoid it in the future. Not about to do the research needed to see if it's a valid point-- I'm so turned off by the nastiness.
Personally, I'm sick of wading through pages and pages of comments that are really just personality clashes-- X has a grudge against Y, who detests Z, who backs Q, who has a "thing" going against R, who once published an article criticizing X...
I hope that this article leads to an improvement in the "tone" of the articles on the front page. I'd like to see more than politics on the front page. I'd like to get to know some of the members better, so that maybe, I can understand their viewpoint, just a bit better, whether or not I can agree with it.
There are many here who object to any change, any reach toward more civility, and the funny thing is, THEY are the worst offenders. They don't want to be civil, and are not about to be. They can't communicate without hostility, and will fight to the death for their right to be as nasty as they can be...
All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not married to them, or related to them.
Thanks Perrie for the hard work of maintaining our site; much appreciated. Personally I don't see the need for many new changes. The memeisn't apolitical article rule I get and agree with; for lighter pieces it's ok, but used solely as political articles, is for the purpose of baiting and inciting, not discussing.Posting a meme as a political article should be equivalent tocattle-rustling, andthe guilty should hanged by the neck until death /s/.
The vitriol andnasty comments may not be everyone's cup of tea. HD is the place to allowthe inner monster to pillage and rape with abandon. For when things get sorta rough even of front page articles, I would suggest that if some want to participate in those discussions, to consider if they really want to put up with the smarminess badly enough to participate in them. Sometimes moderation may be called for; but many times, folks just need to not take things so personally, and maybe even roughen their own gruff a bit, to be able to stay-up with some of the snarkier comments.
Mal,
You are right! I'll never get why people have to be mean spirited. A lot of this could be avoided if people just took responsibility for their own actions, instead of having to moderate. But even in real life, people are not always on their best behavior. Just watch people in their cars... I think of them as being on the internet... feeling secure in their own cocoon to do and say what they think.
I would love to set up a site with two different forums. I am presently looking for a new home for NT. I might ask you for some advice, being that you are a techy person, if you don't mind. I think I found one, but I need a bit of script written to give us a threaded forum. Oddly enough, they do have threaded blogs. Maybe we can figure out which part of the coding in the blogs can be used in the forum and add it? It's open source so it is a possibility. And I would gladly pay for a good pups work
Raven,
Peter is one of our original members and a mod and mind you one of the few who has banned 2 members. He isn't trying to be nasty. He is giving his experience from doing the job the longest besides me and Mac.
LR,
I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't think I was. I was only trying to answer you.
I have to agree with you totally on this one Aeon. It drives me crazy when it's done and you are right, it is dishonest in the context of the discussion.
Larry,
Nice to get some positive feedback... I a bit weary at this point.
I agree... and if we move to a different platform, maybe two different forums?
Dowser
It's easier when people are not being nasty, right?
Agreed. But in my real life political discussions, we don't get nasty with each other... occasionally we may raise our voices in passion, but that is about it.
No memes can be political but were originally designed for advertising. A quip to get a message across and not to start a discussion with.
That might be, but we won't know until we do it, right?
Lol!
:~)
Please allow me to elaborate, and perhaps even include a disclaimer.
When we have had issues in the past with this, it wasn't merely the meme as article that was the issue. Also problematic, and going hand-n-hand with that issue, was the sheer number of articles that were being posted. Iow,we were having postied 10 or more articles a day, that were nothing more than memes. It's a heck of a lot easier than writing articles, or even posting seeds, so there were occasions where the front page would be flooded with meme articles. It just makes it too easy to overwhelm the front page. So, perhaps my problem isn't really with the meme article alone, but with the sheer numbers that were posted sometimes. I agree that indeed these are really two separate issues, and if the number of meme articles posted were lets say held to a minimum, they wouldn't flood the front page so easily, and I might feel different about them. As is, I see no way around it other than thinning them out, or getting rid of them altogether.
I could see that working, though without specifics, I do have questions. Would the two forums intermingle? Would there be different rules for the forums? Would it cost more? Would we moderate differently on each forum? I would also be concerned that the personalities from each forum would carry-over, and cause some of the same issues.
Well ya know Robert, I happen to agree with that. I'm also sure you would be the first to acknowledge that there is no way around that at all, other than having absolutely no moderation at all. So, what's the solution?
@Perrie. You told badfish this:
I hope you meant only on the original articles and seeds, and not on the comments following them. You used the word "commentary". Please clarify.
Two different forums? We already have two different forums - The Front Page and the Groups. There are members here who have made the conscious choice of never entering the Front Page and staying in the groups where they are more comfortable.
I'm guessing that the forums would be a personal choice, not assigned. So if ya wanna live in Escape from New York, that's up to you.
Oh, THAT'S what you meant. Okay with me.
Doesn't that work automatically now?
Never mind. I just saw you posted this:
I previously made a similar suggestion but want to expand on what you propose. Does such a rule have to be part of the CoC or can it just be a general rule applying to groups? If the latter I will produce a meta article on the topic, but if it is supposed to be governed by the CoC I will place such concept here on this article.
Two forums is just an idea. There is no way to do it on the present system. Just blue skying it.
I meant only in the actual articles. If you want to use a meme as a post, fine.
flame, if you are talking about a rule change concerning deletion of inactive groups, I once asked you to work with me on setting up a method for a proposal to determine what the rules for it should be. Are you still interested?
Robert,
This might come as a surprise to you, but I hate moderating. But you always see things from the I, instead of the big picture.
Yes I did delete those comments. Not because it was you.... but because unlike me... who has to go through and comment on 352 comments. So while you are having fun off topic comments (CoC violation on a CoC article ... how ironic), and jokes that I am personally unaware of will be taken as a joke (Mike), which goes along with the comment not meant as a joke and both of which were specifically asked not to be done in the beginning of the article, is really all about what Robert wants. What Perrie wants is to get through a bear of a task as expediently as possible, while still sticking to the principles of the site, that is that the group has full disclosure and a voice in what is done here at NT.
No, no one died, but I was inconvenienced for your pleasure and sorry if you don't get that. Maybe that is part of the problem.
OK I am closing down this article for review. I will then be back with the items to be voted on. Thanks to all who participated.