Newbies and the CoH

Mine are all duds anyway. :-)

that's what she said

Soph

The CoH is easily understood, but following it is what seems hard to almost impossible for some.

Reading and comprehension is the easy part. Abiding by the CoH is what the problem is.

Also, dissing New members is in bad taste, in my opinion.

Soph, I agree with the approach you suggest when someone is going politically ballistic. When you think about it, anyone acting rude and snarky, or even obnoxiously aggressive and authoritative, is using that to get attention. A little guidance can go a long way.

The CoH is easily understood, but following it is what seems hard to almost impossible for some.

Agreed, but I tend to believe that new folks don't really look at the CoH, even when asked to agree to it. One click and they are done and off to the races.

Roy, I think you're right. And, too, a lot depends on how they got here... If they came over from MSNBC, some of those threads are just awful. They may not even realize they're here!

Roy Batty, #2.6

but I tend to believe that new folks don't really look at the CoH, even when asked to agree to it

No offense, but I think that's not fair at all. I like to think Newsviners are curious, well read and more intelligent than your average person, but that would be equally unfair.

I've read many comments from "Newbies" that are courteous, respectful, and well written. That's in sharp contrast to the insultingly hateful snark practiced by some Newsvine veterans who know better, but apparently don't care. Veterans like that set a very poor example for all new to Newsvine, and many "Newbies" will naturally emulate that poor behavior.

If you want to see new members and the community as whole follow the CoH more closely, start by setting a good example yourself. "Like begets like."

You are right, AZPADDY, I did something I generally despise ... generalization. Let me rewrite that line...

but I tend to believe that some new folks don't really look at the CoH, even when asked to agree to it

Thanks for cordially calling me on that.

Since you two are talking about the CoH, when I was a new viner, I thought the word "respect" stood out substantially. However, I think the overall problem with the CoH is much the same as the Constitution---too much room for interpretation. The documents both tell us what not to do---with little guidance for what we 'can' do.

Respect might mean different things to different people, depending on their personalities, i.e. their personal level of natural sarcasm/snark, snide remarks, et al might be everyday speech for them, but for someone else, they might find it inflammatory...or maybe not; just speculating.

I think the overall problem with the CoH is much the same as the Constitution---too much room for interpretation.

I agree, but not that it necessarily a bad thing. It gives moderators and site administrators the opportunity to evaluate intent as part of enforcing the CoH.

That's true.

Actually, the UA touches on specifics, so perhaps that's enough.

And, hopefully to toss out the bad apples and keep those who are just screw-ups.

As for "Above all, respect others", I contend that speaks for itself. Anyone who skirts that very simple rule by claiming it's open to interpretation is simply being dishonest, in my opinion.

I agree, AZ.

CL1

Although "Amazing" is one word I find much abused these days, I have to say I find it amazing the number of Viners who think the CoH is some kind of encrypted tome, decipherable only by a select few who claim to have "been to the mountain top".

What would further amaze me is if one of the self-appointed magi would simply quit harping on the minutiae of the CoH and just abide by it, for cryin' out loud.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, hypocrisy is rampant on the Vine. :)

Soph

You've read more into my comment than I'd written. I was referring to the practice of veteran Viners who parse the CoH into indecipherable pieces. It's been a fairly popular subject recently, and I was pointing out no individual in particular.

No offense intended, but didn't you author an article stating that no one has a right to be offended on Newsvine?

Apology accepted Soph. Not many would say what you said. I'm grateful and respect you as a Viner.

May your comments never be deleted.

Actually, for the most part, I agree with that AZ. Comments should be 'ignored,' not deleted. Even to keep that within the context of this article, a few community members might find a comment by a newbie or anyone else as egregious, but that doesn't mean 'everyone' will....because determination of what is offensive is strictly judged by if one agrees or not, that is implicative of 'opinion' and opinions should stand. There is a positive side to doing so. It allows the character of that newbie or other to be judged by 'all' instead of hidden with collapse or deletion. Collapse and deletion serve no 'good' intention other than to make a statement of "righteousness."

disclaimer: There are no hidden or secret messages in my commentary; mine are 'universal' opinions.

If a comment egregiously violates the CoH not only should it be deleted, it must be deleted. To let it stand is in violation of CoH 4. We are obligated to moderate our threads. It's not optional.

If, however, it's borderline, or you're not sure, it's best to simply report it, as opposed to deleting it.

I did include the word 'delete,' true, but I was mostly referring to collapse.

True, as for user-moderation, delete is mentioned in the CoH. However, you're possibly missing my point. What is 'delete worthy' is in the eye-of-personal interpretation--commenter or user-mod.

Therefore, that means that collapse and deletion are subjective instead of objective---and in doing so, there is a contradiction created in the objectives of this site...which are to allow us all to have an opinion. Again, 'value' judgement by five or ten members, or by one user-mod, is not necessarily the value judgement seen by 'all.' So, it seems pointless to give the user-mod the ability to delete when all they are doing is using righteousness in which to form a biased opinion.

I don't value pornographic content, but that shouldn't mean I should be allowed to prevent others from viewing it. That judgement call should be left up to the Admin.

Dennis, you might be sending us off-topic.

Soph...I wasn't referencing comments that are 'direct' attacks with slanderous degradation meant strictly to publicly defame someone. That one is a no-brainer, and if the delete feature were not available--I think the Staff not only would delete the commentary in a heart-beat, but would want to be alerted to any deranged user commenting as such on this site.

I was referring to *topical* commentary that is being judged and persecuted by no other method or logistics than 'opinion' - righteousness.

I don't value pornographic content, but that shouldn't mean I should be allowed to prevent others from viewing it. That judgement call should be left up to the Admin.

By admin, I believe you mean moderator. The fact is, we are the moderators, each of us in our own column. Soph is the admin/moderator of this thread, just as you are in your column, and I am in mine. It is our duty under the CoH to understand and apply the rules as fairly and thoroughly as possible.

The site moderators, Tyler and Sally, should not have to do that for us. If we Newsviners did our jobs as we're supposed to, they'd never have to delete a single comment. They would be what they were intended to be - final arbiters of disputes.

Pornographic content, as per your example, is prohibited on this site. Therefore, not only should you be allowed to prevent others from viewing it - you're required to. If it's in your column, that means deletion. If it's in another column, that means reporting.

Soph...I wasn't referencing comments that are 'direct' attacks with slanderous degradation meant strictly to publicly defame someone.

Well, yes you were, though not specifically. Either something violates the CoH and/or UA, or it doesn't. If it does, it's your duty to delete it (or report it, if not in your column) and if it doesn't, it's your duty to let it stand.

Violations should always be deleted, regardless of severity. Non violations should never be deleted. It's that simple.

Soph, #2.20

I did not say I was offended. I said it made me feel uncomfortable

I don't know....given the context, the two seem very similar to me, but that's just me.

DPM...Again, my point, which you are missing or ignoring, is that "violations" are subjective and interpretive.

"Personal attack" is already built into CoH 1, as you have, many times, pointed out. I acknowledged to Soph that is a different animal than what I am pointing out. If the programmers could align the system to create a delete feature to adhere to CoH1, with some type of priority flag to T&S (whom I refer to as the "Admin." for all purposes) with a specified use for high-priority deletion, then I would agree with the user-mod having that delete feature. A general delete feature is user bias, nothing more.

DPM...Again, my point, which you are missing or ignoring, is that "violations" are subjective and interpretive.

No, CL1, they're really not.

"Personal attack" is already built into CoH 1, as you have, many times, pointed out.

Exactly, and is in fact, the entire point of CoH 1. Attacks on any Newsviner must be deleted. If it's not an attack, it should not be deleted. That's objective, not subjective.

Each point of the CoH covers a specific type of violation, and does so objectively. They must also be enforced objectively.

When the moderator of a column enforces the CoH subjectively, he or she is committing a violation of CoH 4.

DPM, 2.30...Yes, they are.

Case in point, which you, yourself, as I recall, stated that is the reason for the necessity of T&S...further interpretation of *potential* violations. It's subjective bias in both cases, but we accept the ruling of the Supreme Nv Court, as the final interpretation.

Attacks on any Newsviner must be deleted. If it's not an attack, it should not be deleted. That's objective, not subjective.

Again, "attack" is perception, in most cases, with some being blatantly obvious. No, placing judgement is subjective for the simple reason that we don't all see things the same.

No one is capable, imo, of "objective evaluation" because of the same reasons that I have already mentioned---objectives are subject to interpretation and bias.

We have no choice in the matter; we are prgrammed by nature for subjective interpretation. We make mistakes when our 'environment' distracts us.

The way I see it, is that you are going to defend to the 'end'---your desire for the CoH to mean what 'you want' it to mean---because you are the one that implemented/highly influenced those original rules. It's natural and understood, Dennis. I don't fault you for trying. Perhaps anyone would do the same.

What I am trying to get you to see/acknowledge, which I suspect you never will because you already have your mind made up, is that you 'thought' you were creating an "objective" set of rules, but you built "subjectivity" into it by making it "personal."

Any form of perceived attack *--with the exception of a 'direct usage of screenname' used with blatant language intended to defame--* is subject to interpretation, and is why we should not be in a position to judge and persecute others, creating a divisive community.

As I said, I would agree to a high-priority deletion button for the user-mod that would send notification to the Staff/Admin/T&S.

Perhaps a reconciliation would be to restrict users from columns, but once again, coming from a user-mod is nothing but prejudice/bias, so I would want to see that as a judgement call from T&S after evaluation of user content.

We're not going to agree, Dennis. :(

..And, for the record, no, I did not miscomprehend your original meaning in your CoH series---I simply did not agree...and still don't. I don't support snarkism (directed to words) because of where it leads---to personal attacks.

Done.

Soph, #2.31

Seriously? Stop it

Pardon me, but you put yourself in at #2.18, with an off-the-wall accusation that I was referencing someone else, right? Mistake? OK....., and when I remark that the words "offended" and "uncomfortable" seem similar, you blow up and tell me to "Stop it"??

Wow. No offense intended. I'll leave your article.

Case in point, which you, yourself, as I recall, stated that is the reason for the necessity of T&S...further interpretation of *potential* violations.

No, final arbiter of disputes. And where do those disputes almost always come from? People subjectively interpreting the CoH, rather than following it's objective meaning. Case in point. Viner A deletes a post by Viner B because they *think* it's an attack. Viner B disagrees, and appeals. T & S read the post. If it's an attack, it stays deleted, if it's not, it's restored.

Now how can Viner A think something is an attack and Viner B think the same thing is not? Easy. One or both of them is subjectively interpreting the term "attack." Attack, however, is not a subjective term. Somehting either is an attack on a person, or isn't.

If a Viner says anything negative about another viner, that's an attack. Nothing else is an attack. It's that simple, and that objective. Rude, condescending, patronizing, dismissive, ridiculing...all fine. Not attacks. Saying anything at all about someone's words. Fine.

Call them a name - that's an attack. Say something negative about them, that's an attack.

I can say 'Joe blow wrote the worst @!$%#ing article I ever read. It was fill of lies and ideas that went beyond clinical insanity, and the grammar was atrocious. The only thing worse than the grammar was the punctuation, and the only thing worse than that was the spelling. A kindergartener on crack could write a better article than the drivel I just read.'

No attack.

If I say 'Joe blow is dumb." that 's an attack. Delete it.

The way I see it, is that you are going to defend to the 'end'---your desire for the CoH to mean what 'you want' it to mean---

The way you see it. You're basing everything on subjective premises.

Here's the way it is. What it says is what it says, no matter what you or I think, see, or feel about it.

Don't attack other Viners. Clear and objective. Whether you see it or not.

What I am trying to get you to see/acknowledge, which I suspect you never will because you already have your mind made up, is that you 'thought' you were creating an "objective" set of rules, but you built "subjectivity" into it by making it "personal."

There's nothing personal about it. Personal attack simply means attack on a person. Ad hominem. Never say anything negative about another member of the site.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. Perception has nothing to do with it. Those who think they do, do not understand the meaning of the CoH. Simple.

Look, I can say I like Soph. I can say I hate Soph. I can say I like what Soph writes. I can say I hate what Soph writes. I can say Soph is a good writer...but I can't say Soph is a bad writer, because that would be an attack on the person named Soph.

Nope (re: deciding if general commentary is personal or not),... Viner A & B are both using subjective reasoning...so would be the case with T&S. It's not a matter of 'right or wrong' - it's a matter of "I (any and all of the four parties) agree or disagree" --with the exception of intentional harm directed to a particular screenname to defame, which is blatantly obvious... judgement call on everything else, nothing more. You see, you are not accepting or admitting that every decision we make stems from a preconceived 'natural' bias. We make no 'unbiased' decisions because we are incapable of doing so. Determination gets sidetracked by emotional interaction/reaction while participating in 'life.'

It's all interpretation, with the one exception of nominal reference.

We continue to disagree.

You're simply refusing to see it.

1. Joe is a nice guy.
2. Joe sometimes says dumb things.
3. Joe tries hard, but he's not very bright.
4. Joe doesn't have much education.

Which one is the violation?

When I said "nominal reference" in 2.35, I failed to include what I have already said, redundantly, that if there is slanderous, degradation - harm - being created in conjunction with the nominal reference, then it's no longer a matter of interpretation; it's harm...plain and simple. The point I've been making would be more in-line with your #s 2 and 4---many might consider those comments inflammatory; could start a flame-war if a user said those about another user... because it's all interpretation. Prevention of flame-wars is quite rightly a motivation for a M/moderator, and is interpreted as such, by me anyway, in the rules.

The answer to your question: #3

The answer to your question: #3

Exactly. The others are fine.

The point I've been making would be more in-line with your #s 2 and 4---many might consider those comments inflammatory; could start a flame-war if a user said those about another user... because it's all interpretation.

Doesn't matter. If people consider them inflammatory, they don't understand the rule.

It matters because it appears to me that if you add it all up (UA and CoH), it's not just a matter of understanding your desired version of what constitutes an attack. What also matters is consideration for what starts flame-wars, even though a personal attack wasn't committed. An inflammatory comment does just as much damage, and more, because it can affect more than just 'one' person.

As I said before, I've never had any miscomprehension of how you 'want' an attack interpreted, and what type of commentary you 'want' to see stand... I merely disagree due to the inflammatory nature of some comments, and the damage that results.

It matters because it appears to me that if you add it all up (UA and CoH), it's not just a matter of understanding your desired version of what constitutes an attack.

It has nothing to do with desires, or versions. An attack is saying anything negative about another Viner. The term ad hominem has an objective meaning.

What also matters is consideration for what starts flame-wars, even though a personal attack wasn't committed.

Nope. If you leave a comment that's not a violation, and someone reacts badly and commits a violation, it's on them.

An inflammatory comment does just as much damage, and more, because it can affect more than just 'one' person.

If it's not an attack, it';s not inflammatory by the Newsvine definition of the term, Inflammatory does not mean 'not nice,' it means attack.

As I said before, I've never had any miscomprehension of how you 'want' an attack interpreted, and what type of commentary you 'want' to see stand..

And therein lies the problem,. You subjectivize all of it, and therefore see it as subjective. It's not about what I or anyone else want, it's about what it is. What the words mean. Objectively.

CoH 1 is no attacks on other viners. It's that simple, and there's no reason to complicate it. Attack - delete. Not an attack - don't delete. Not subjective at all.

I merely disagree due to the inflammatory nature of some comments, and the damage that results.

Do you really mean inflammatory, or do you mean something else? Rude? Nit nice? Mean-spirited? Condescending...because all those things are just fine under the CoH.

Direct attacks are inflammatory. Nothing else is.

1. Joe is a nice guy.
2. Joe sometimes says dumb things.
3. Joe tries hard, but he's not very bright.
4. Joe doesn't have much education.

Which one is the violation?

If the criterion is "respect others," then 2, 3 and 4 are violations. If the criterion is a certain sentence structure model (with no concomitant context of intent, tone or theme, but just sentence structure alone), then 3 is apparently the correct answer.

IMHO, 3 and 4 are insulting to the person, not his argument, and therefore should be violations. Ridicule and insult are obvious to most reasonable people when read in context of the text surrounding it and the tone and tenor of the writer. Using sentence structure alone as the criterion for code violations, and without the contextual components of the post in which it resides, is tantamount to a convenient loophope and an excuse to continue to insult and ridicule others with impunity when the urge strikes. Pretty transparent, imo, and I don't buy it.

Ridiculing and insulting others' arguments out the wazoo is acceptable in my book; ridiculing and insulting the opponent making the argument is not. Just my very humble and obviously unqualified opinion.

If the criterion is "respect others,"

It's not. Never has been. The word respect is defined in the next sentence, which is the whole point of CoH 1.

Ridiculing and insulting others' arguments out the wazoo is acceptable in my book; ridiculing and insulting the opponent making the argument is not.

Exactly. And only the third one does that. Stating that someone doesn't have much education isn't ridicule, is either fact or it's not. It's no different than saying Joe has brown hair.

As for number two...everyone occasionally says a dumb thing. Buy the subject is what Joe says, not Joe himself.

he's not very bright.

That's the personal attack. The subject is he, as in Joe.

Define the target. If the target is the person, it's a violation. If it's something that person does, or says, it's not.

The word respect is defined in the next sentence, which is the whole point of CoH 1.

Where:

Nope. If you leave a comment that's not a violation, and someone reacts badly and commits a violation, it's on them.

If someone interprets an attack that Tyler or Sally do not interpret as one, then yes. But, perhaps they 'would' agree that it was an attack. The interpretation part is what you keep leaving out, Dennis. Not everyone interprets everything the same...which is the basis to my argument.

If it's not an attack, it';s not inflammatory by the Newsvine definition of the term, Inflammatory does not mean 'not nice,' it means attack.

Again, that's how "you" want the CoH interpreted... But, with keeping the peace and 'spirit' of Newsvine in mind---only interpreting a direct "personal" attack is not the only objective, if you read the rules, not just the CoH you wrote.

Prevention is also key, as I interpret the UA.

harmful conduct that are prohibited on our Site:

is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, known to be false and presented as truth, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

That is saying there are factors that contribute to harmful conduct that are not just a "personal" attack. i.e... "unlawful, harmful <------ many things could be interpreted as being harmful, as well as abusive, harassing, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful or otherwise objectionable... so you see, or atleast I do, the goal of this site is also to prevent harm, not just sit and wait for it to happen. As I keep mentioning, harm can lead to a flame-war, and I believe that preventing one is also an objective of this site...not just interpreting a "personal" attack.

The interpretation part is what you keep leaving out, Dennis. Not everyone interprets everything the same...which is the basis to my argument.

I leave it out, because it doesn't exist. The CoH leaves no room for interpretation. Those who choose to interpret are almost always looking for ways around the very clear objective rules.

The word respect is defined in the next sentence, which is the whole point of CoH 1.

Again, where?

Nice to have a smart lady acknowledge that!

Full disclosure: I posted the comment below earlier this morning, verbatim, exactly as it appears below, smiley face and all. I have no reason to disrespect the person making the comment and don't disrespect him/her (I don't know him/her), but I admit I don't have a lot of respect for his/her persistent misinformation in re established scholarship regarding the First Amendment. However, I can see how my comment could be construed as being disrespectful to him/her personally.

So, obviously, interpretation is relevant. If someone reports the below and the moderators interpret it as disrespectful of the author and I'm suspended for a day, then I'll take my punishment like a big girl. But my intent was that I'm disrespecting his/her lack of accurate information pawned off as fact; I can however, in all honesty, see how he/she might construe that as being disrespectful of him/herself.

What do you think?

At this point I would like to point out that atheism is not a religion.

Sure, and thus is not protected by the First Amendment.

LOL. Atheism is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. And it's not a religion. Exactly where were you educated on the Constitution and the First Amendment, xxx? That's a rhetorical statement, not intended as a question. So, no need to answer. You've totally misunderstood and misrepresented "self-evident truths" (and the rights that accrue from them) in another discussion, and now this? Your credibility is suffering, my friend, when it comes to your favorite topic, I'm afraid. :)

The word respect is defined in the next sentence, which is the whole point of CoH 1.

Again, where?

Where is the next sentence? Um, that would be the one that immediately follows the one about respect. You know - the next sentence:

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks

Respect on Newsvine is defined as not making personal attacks. The original suggestion was "no ad hominem attacks." CoH 1 is just a rewording of that.

But hey, don't worry about it. I see all sorts of weird intepretations of things these days. People who think a link in a newsvine comment is 'self-promotion,' for example. Self promotion, in Newsvine terms, is seeding from a blog or website with which you're affiliated.

My favorite, though, is people calling articles and seeds "vines." Articles are articles. Seeds are seeds.

That's empirically impossible. "Respect others" carries with it no explicit criteria. You obviously construe it to mean a certain, narrow sentence structure; others construe it to mean various sentence structures whose common message is a lack of respect, or ridicule, or back-handed insult, or overt insult, or just a dig or a jab, as in pronouncing that someone is not well-educated, as you said in your example earlier.

I 'construe' it to mean what it meant when we wrote it, and what it meant to Calvin Tang for the four years that he enforced it. CoH 1 is quite simply no personal attacks. Address the comment, not the commenter. Always was, always will be, no matter how many people refuse to read past the word 'respect.'

What do you think?

TS...Imo, you are correct. (I could argue the point on why Atheism could be considered a religion using another viner's logic, although, that's not really the point here.) The 1st Amendment protects free exercise of religious belief and free speech, and Atheism, would fall under both. ..As for "self-evident" I find the context of the definition requiring no proof or explanation to mean the 'rights' that we take for granted that don't require a law, because they would fall under 'natural law or universal human rights.' There would need to be group acceptance/acknowledgement---why some countries seem to view this concept differently...and shouldn't.

No, I don't see that *overall* statement as an attack, TS.

Saying, your credibility is suffering might be perceived as such to some, because it is making a personal character judgement. You exemplify a point I've made elsewhere, that 'implied' intent is important, and can only be judged by using the context of the paragraph--not just one sentence or just one word...imo. And you clearly did not have a personal attack in mind.

Thanks for your take on it, CL1. Appreciate your thoughts.

Thank you, and I appreciate yours as well. I always read you when I see you.

I look for the tell tale sign of "you always" and "that's just like you" from supposedly new members. :P

That low? I'd had the idea I was getting pretty good at spotting re-regs just by the tone, apparent knowledge of the site and immediate flaming, but apparently not. In the future, it wouldn't hurt to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at least more rope, I guess.

Has anyone ever recognized a re-reg that was a NV Friend, and not reported them?

Sometimes Many times people get booted for going over the top about one thing or another, and are really sorry that they caused themselves to be banned. So they re-register, now fully aware that Newsvine is really serious about the CoH, and if they expect to stay they had better tone down their rhetoric, which often results in a re-reg that becomes a model Newsvine member.

finally a post i understand today...

That was pretty cute.

On a side note, I never realized I could read in 'rap'.

Somebody take Vlad's doobie...hahaha!

Somebody take Vlad's doobie...hahaha!

only if you intend to pass it on!

mstanley

The ones that won't are soon gone.

Not always. Some have been here for years, but get away with bad behavior by ducking in and out of it, apparently.

haha AZ.... death wishing the US President etc are easily spotted. They start with the slurs and descend into vulgar after that...

I've found over the years, that Not everyone gets 'along' for different reasons, some that they don't like 'confident' people, some that they don't like that someone has more than they do material wise, more education, in depth knowledge of a certain profession or highly skilled...which has which goes to a certain amount of jealousy, a certain amount of insecurity a lot of those psych terms. You know them all.

What translates to the internet though is that We are left Without three senses...eyesight, hearing and past experience of learning about body language.

We are left with what is written. One thing that I and several others are trying to get others to 'see'. When something is written, I attempt to put the words with a visual of a person with some of the expressions I've seen in the past.

Once, a member made a /sarc but forgot the tag. Another took umbrage..I casually wrote, I visualized a Huge Grin on his face as he wrote that...upshot, all was good and hopefully he remembers to do the /sarc tag. Just as members don't always notice the satire tag on an article, happens. Then someone takes it seriously and there it goes.

Humans are Very Body language attuned from the first good visual a baby gets of it's parents onward through life. The Internet completely demolishes that vital experience. We are left with reading and trying to assess what direction the comments are taking. Some are very easily to ascertain, others not so much. It's the subtleties that get overlooked, especially in a tense exchange that is allowed to grow into a dislike of the other member.

The person on the other computer can be looking like what! or confused at the response, the whole gamut of How and What is this?

Bad behavior? The Staff looks at all the the history of a member. If they don't 'see' what someone else 'sees' based on their experience, then it's not bad behavior or it is...depending on how they decide.

Snarky now that is a different thing, being sarcastic is part of communication. What an adult does is handle the snark with care. In my case, I ignore the snark and read the comment.

Snark has no place on the internet I decided a long time ago. It only leads to miscommunication and tense comments, back and forth. It is done mainly to switch from an actual discussion to snaky comments and leaves me with the impression the person doesn't care for the discussion or has been left with little to comment that is based on facts. And after all a discussion or debate is about Facts.

mstanley, #7.2

. It is done mainly to switch from an actual discussion to snaky comments and leaves me with the impression the person doesn't care for the discussion or has been left with little to comment that is based on facts. And after all a discussion or debate is about Facts.

That's a great way to put it.

"Never let the facts get in the way of a sale." (An old car salesman I once knew)

and that is a 'smile' ...:) I've also found when some comments are written, they're rather abrupt which leaves me wondering how to take the comment. There is no :) no that's great, little stuff like that with the comment. Much like yours.

Then I found out one member had two computers and four tabs open on each. It made me reevaluate how some members may be online. IMO that was extreme multitasking. Thereafter, I didn't wonder about his somewhat shortshift comments. LOL So, taking anyone's comments at 'face' value without knowing what is behind the screen, is a big no no online unless of course you ask.

If anyone wants to know, sometimes, I have had a granddaughter texting to my cell, one on facebook sending message, one on email and daughter on landline. All of which They think needs to be answered Right Now.... sighhhh. All the while trying to check my groups and answer some comments with one computer and two tabs open. :) One of these days, there's going to be some Very confusing answers....LOL

I envision, yes I'm glad you're getting married -to the one getting divorced, oh I'm sorry to hear you're getting divorced to the one getting married, what you're going to have a baby to the one that isn't and yes I know you're moving to Calif...(her brother is) .....by then they will all be on with each other deciding that I need to be in the nursing home. sighhhhhh

mmm...what if some of the oldies want to "submit" too? :P

I would be more than glad to run the boot camp. SGT Bad Fish is ready to humiliate you!

You're onto something Bad Fish.

There are ways to weed them out. (The first rule about Newsvine is we don't talk about Newsvine.)

tsk...it's not humiliation I want to submit to BFF :P

now, if you want to use that whip on your side, I could submit to that :)

Our belle42, your idea of boot camp and bad fish's are ...I would venture to guess, way way different. LOL

mmm...what if some of the oldies want to "submit" too?

Hang on, I'll grab my whip.

no...Dennis you get to be in the handcuffs, I'M using your whip :P

Hang on, I'll grab my other whip.

tee hee...you flirt -- you KNOW I like your other whip better :)

although, I like your riding crop best :P

Nah, then I'd have to wear my chaps.

Please no assless chaps Dennis!

Hang on, I'll grab my other chaps.

Those would be crotchless pants. Not those, either, please...

whine...you're not letting him wear the fun ones dammit!!

It's more of an environmental security issue.

lol.

Damn! Missed the train again, thanks for the heads up BELLE!

anytime IG -- since there are two whips, we could share, one of us takes Dennis, the other takes BF :)

I would like to apologize for straying off topic. I rarely do this. My Sincere apologies to the fine author of this article. Shame on the rest of you.

meh -- Soph knows it's my fault anyhow. at least I didn't serve y'all coconut gin :P

If you did, I'd have to make it come out Soph's nose.

do you want the lime to put in it so you can drink them both up?

uhhh, belle, I bought all the lime up...Boss had me do it for the bar.

Newbies are welcomed warmly, unless they come on with a good deal of negativity, snarkiness, or some other offensive quality. Then there is the tendency to assume that they have danced this dance before, and have been previously asked to leave.

Those that show up without a chip on their shoulder are welcomed in with open arms (normally). It's not the voicing of opinions, but rather how they are voiced. The CoH is what differentiates NV from some other sites, because it puts a sheriff in town. The CoH and User Policies are good reads, if only to keep one's nose cool and moist.

However, opinions do drive NV more than the articles themselves, or solid debate points from either side of an issue. And many seeds are derived from agenda driven web sites.

it makes one think "have i violated the CoH?" and if you dont ask yourself that then your a dunce (no offence intended). i know that if you write something you need to write responsibly. it more important than ever to be responsible for your words and actions. need i say more

true, but don't be afraid to have fun -- being too serious can drive potential friends away :)

theres a line we must find for ourselfs a balance we need for this sort of job

Being responsible for what I write, allows me to feel even more free, and allows for a lot more fun.

There's a big difference between responsible and a stiff donkey ;)

So be responsible with your stiff donkey.

yeah...make sure he wears his raincoat!

sky dog's "stiff donkey" comment is my guess :P

(Psssst.... Soph... For what it's worth, I'll vouch for LassoRing!)

Thanks. :-)

yeah, this particular newbie...so far...looks mostly harmless :)

maybe we should loan him a towel and give him a babel fish :P

aww...we can't keep him as a pet? he looks so cuddly!! PLEASE mommy?

yay -- here new pet, I got this special leash for you...and some whips, but mommy says no handcuffs...yet

You're moving AGAIN?!? Please say it's finally in with JJ full time!!

Ah my friend it will all work out just fine. I'm very happy for you two. As for Belle, there isn't a leash in the world that will hold that one on the line. That's why we love her though! xoxoxoxo to you both!!!

I thought the leash was for the noob?

it is :)

but I guess I could let him tie me up...if he's being vewwy good :)

Soph, I'm just a big old puppy dog, wagging my tail in friendliness... Not too bright, and glad to be that way! LOL!

Love you, sweet Soph!

no worries...some days the glitches are worse than others :)