A Petition to the Moderators and Management of Newsvine.

Agreed, and in my opinion the previous, time tested policy, was better moderated, and the comments more fairly judged, along with the suspensions and banning were better before MSNBC and the seeds and articles from them became part of Newsvine. That being said, I would not take Tylers' or Sallys' job for any amount of money. I would have to suspend/ban myself the first day on the job!

Hey Dennis!

I don't see this as giving them a hard time. I see this as nothing more than returning to the previous, time tested policy that worked for 4.5 years, and as a plea for consistency. If you decide later to add your name, just let me know.

If you see that the former time-tested policy had worked. I'm having a hard time committing to that idea.

• Previous suspensions should not factor in to the length of time of a new suspension. The user has already been punished for that previous suspension and to factor it in is to punish them again for that prior suspension. Rather, all suspensions should be judged solely on the severity of the infraction for which it is imposed. There should be no set numbers or quotas, and suspensions should not be imposed on a graduated scale.

I've heard that its four and out, but only seen a few cases where I could say it had been followed; but, I've seen where someone was told next CoH violation and they were out followed by a one day suspension, and then a banning. The one-day and banning were in the same week.

Question being, how many have been taken straight through the system 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and banned? How many of these bannings weren't warranted, and if not, why?

Essentially, what I'm asking is, if such a policy exists, how isn't it working? The article doesn't offer any numbers or instances where any policy does in fact exist, or is detrimental.

• If someone commits a minor infraction, such as, but not limited to, miscategorizing an article or tagging something incorrectly, they should simply be directed to correct the problem. Such errors should not be suspension-worthy.

Has anyone been suspended for miscategorizing or tagging? How prevalent is this practice?

• If a user commits a borderline CoH violation, deletion is sufficient punishment. Suspension should be reserved for more serious offenses.

On the fence about this one; but, what about people that let such comments stand in their articles and seeds without deleting articles that violate the CoH and should have been deleted? Since the author/seeder is supposed to be the first line of moderation, what should happen if they fall down on the job?

• If a user commits a serious CoH violation they should be suspended for as many days as the violation warrants, i.e., one day, three days, one week, and so on.

Who decides what the violation warrants?

• If someone commits a truly egregious violation, such as, but not limited to, posting a death threat, posting a user's personal information, registering multiple accounts, stalking another user, or posting obviously overt bigotry, they should be summarily banned.

Is this not happening now?

Basically, the case hasn't been made that there is a problem. I'm not asking these questions to be difficult, I just don't think you've made your case yet, but; that's why we discuss those things.

if such a policy exists

Pretty sure I saw a comment by tyler where he referred to a new policy, but it led to a broken link. I'll have to try and re-trace my steps, unless someone else has seen it.

Is this not happening now?

I think that section is merely to reinforce the idea that banning should be reserved for the most egregious offenses.

Here:

Frogs, Parties, Badges...And Why You Still Can't Game The System.

Now, I believe in the power of rehabilitation. Viners get second chances more often than not. At one point, I told users if they wanted to return after being banned just to make sure to never get reported. I don't do that anymore; Repeat Infringer Policy.

Actually I'm not sure if it addressed the "four strikes" rule, since the link is broken.

Tim:

but; that's why we discuss those things

Are you sure that's why we discuss them?

It worked better.

Perhaps, that's a pretty subjective perception, there were cases where people had more lives than a cat and when they were finally banned I wondered why Calvin and company waited so long.

Obviously I can't give you an exact number, but when people who have been around a long time are banned over a comment, there's a problem.

As I've mentioned, I don't consider a long history here as grounds to be treated differently than anyone else. What it comes down to, is were the bannings unfair, and if so then how?

We've just been all through that. The current system takes nothing into account other than number of suspensions. You're years of having a good record here? Forget it. You're the same as the guy who joins tomorrow.

I am the same as the guy that joins here tomorrow. If I get banned its because I'll have to ignore the warnings and suspensions or do something so egregious that summary banning is in order. On the other hand, I've managed to color inside the lines this long, unless I change my established practices I don't see running into trouble.

Yep. But again, I don't have actual numbers. I have seen it though.

I don't doubt you've seen it happen, I don't see close to everything that goes up here so anything is possible. I saw it a few years ago, during the link farmer phase. When people were seeding the most controversial things they could find and let the linking sites chose tags and categories, or they just tossed them all into hot spots like politics when they belonged elsewhere. Loading everything as news when it was editorial was also popular among them, but that choice is gone now. I browse the moderator comments and I've only seen notes to correct tags or categories lately.

Not moderating your column is a CoH 4 violation.

True, but its a good idea to remind people of that now and then.

The site moderators, of course.

Aren't the moderators deciding what punishments are now? I'm not trying to be difficult, but what incentive is there to change a system that is simplifies their life versus them trying to subjectively hand out warnings or whatever and being consistent between them?

Not consistently. If you or I do that, we're gone. because we "knew better." I see new guys doing that and getting a day.

Well, looking at it like that actually makes sense, if the older brother screws up he gets it worse than the little brother, because he knew better. I haven't seen signs that old timers are getting it any worse than newbs though, so it looks like they aren't doing that, from what I've seen.

After six articles on the CoH, one that suggested a revision of the reporting tools, and the last one about the 4 strikes thing.... all that's left is to sign or not sign.

lol Read them all, still haven't been convinced.

I think that section is merely to reinforce the idea that banning should be reserved for the most egregious offenses.

A pattern of bad behavior in and of itself is pretty egregious. It even adds time to sentencing in the real world.

And in the real world, crimes are generally divided into misdemeanors and felonies, which are treated differently by the judicial system.

A pattern of repeat misdemeanors will never result in the death penalty.

I probably should have brought this up in the other article, but I've noticed lately a few people registering with usernames which are in and of themselves CoH violations. This weekend there was a user named "liberal idiots."

He was subsequently banned after violating CoH #1 here, but apparently there is no rule to specifically address offensive usernames?

Dennis:

Thing is, this has been debated and discussed over a whole bunch of articles. At this point, it more or less sign or don't sign.

I thought there was a dream.

If you have any questions or comments about that, please use one of the other threads, preferably the last one.

Well said, Dennis. The premise of this article/petition is straight forward, and added comments that deviate from this, are distracting and unnecessary.

In, or out. Straight up.

Right. And which one might you be? ;-)

Straight up.:~>

Tim:

but; that's why we discuss those things

Are you sure that's why we discuss them?

LOL!!! :-)

No--that actually deserves a ROFL.

In fact, jfxgillis, in reply to your comment, I will actually give it "The Highest MLA that The Internet Has to Offer" Award!

Yup-- a full "ROFLMAO" award!

(In all seriousness, however: its really no joke. Its really nice to see someone around here with such an incredible sense of humour 8-)

I bet if we had more of that sort of humour around here, it would do a lot more to raise the level of discussion on the 'Vine than yet another set of rules ...(Just my MHO, however)

Dennis:

Thing is, this has been debated and discussed over a whole bunch of articles. At this point, it more or less sign or don't sign.

I thought there was a dream.

"there was a dream."

i think all the arguments over this are mainly due to the fact that different people have different opinions.

Another way to put it might be that some folks here may have "different dreams" than others? (Not that there's anything wrong with that :)

And, of course, as I'm sure as some people here may well remember-- some sorts of dreams can be quite noble-- truly worthy of high praise!

(Not that I'm comparing that to any specific person on the 'Vine-- that would just be plain foolishness!)

Dennis:

Hilarious. SRO is somehow not entitled to delete off-topic political comments on his non-political article, but you get to arbitrarily delete comments about the article above as off-topic?

Now. Let me explain this again. I'm not going back to that piece-of-@!$%# iarnuocon article to comment about the above piece-of-@!$%# article because monster comment threads like the ones over there have a tendency to freeze some browsers. Boudey wrote an article on exactly that just a few days ago. The weakness in NV's otherwise respectable pagination scheme is that it can't handle monster subthreads. You get 25 comments to a page but theoretically you can have infinite replies.

Two or three people on that thread complained that it was freezing their browser and when I suggested opening a new article to continue the thread you acted like I had asked you to sacrifice your first born in the Temple of Quetzalcoatl.

So. No. If I have something to say about your stupid petition, I'll say it on the thread about your stupid petition.

A moderator who moderates -- and does so fairly. Imagine the concept! Thanks, Dennis, for the role model that you are.

Dennis:

Those who want to sign the petition need only tell me. Those who do not, need post nothing at all.

You can't do that. Well, I mean you can, but it violates the CoH.

Your going to post an article, then rule by diktat that only people who agree you may comment, and then only to state their agreement?

Dennis:

No. I'm saying there will be no debate about the petition on this thread

Here:

Yes. I'm saying there will be no debate about the petition on this thread

Fixed that for you.

It's not de-railing. It's on topic. On-topic comments that do not violate the CoH may not be deleted. You're literally announcing you'll delete for disagreement and deleting for disagreement is explicitly prohibited.

Dennis:

No it isn't, and I've explicitly stated that it isn't numerous times.

I could call you the Sultan Suleiman "numerous times," too, and that wouldn't make it so.

EVERY ONE of those "numerous times" you stated disagreeing comments were prohibited and deleted on those grounds is a violation of CoH #4. So if "Numerous" is four or more times, there ya go. You'll be banned.

Then maybe I'll sign your petition.

Sometimes the noise can get in the way of the message. Grasp that and praise the.......

Ian:

He @!$%#ing deleted the comment where I explained why I 1) Couldn't do that and 2) Wouldn't do that.

The couldn't is because the other thread is so long it's freezing browsers, and he had multiple complaints of that on that thread. The wouldn't is because this petition is not the topic of those articles. This petition is the topic of this article.

I disagree with this petition and I have a right under the CoH to disagree with it on this thread. And the CoH does not permit deleting comments for disagreement.

Dennis:

I get to say what it's about.

That's not the issue. The issue is you prohibiting dissenting comments.

Whatever you say it's "about" you are bound by the CoH to allow me to disagree. You cannot declare that those who disagree with the article may not comment.

Maybe Newsvine isn't worth saving, if this is the debate that we're trying to protect.

Dennis:

You have no right to disagree with it on this (my) thread.

Au contraire. You just wrote an article about CoH #4, so you must know it includes:

Do not delete comments based on disagreement;

No matter how many times you claim you can do that, the CoH says you can't.

Thank you, Dennis. Again, moderation I can believe in. Now, how long will you leave the comments open for voting?

Dennis, a small suggestion that might alleviate the angst. Perhaps you would consider two lists. Those in favor and those opposed. It would be a better representation of the sense of the viners.

Lee, be it prudent that those opposed would write their own article, and a list.

What angst? If someone has an opposing view, write up your own damn petition. To suggest that Dennis make an argument for someone opposing his suggestions is a compliment, I guess. It says that they aren't capable of doing it, or that they suspect there will be no following unless it's managed by someone such as Dennis. Incredible.

Thank you for the consideration, Dennis. Have fun.

lee,

he doesn't want to see that list because the numbers would probably be FAR greater than this list will ever be.

I'd have to agree with Dennis, here. Go do the legwork, Jonathan, let us know how it turns out.

Dennis,

Yeah I know what it is about, it is about you thinking that certain people shouldn't have to follow the rules because you remember the good old days when the NV community was much smaller. Well guess what, the NV community isn't the same anymore. It is much larger, part of a much larger entity that has many other issues to deal with than a group of people that really in the grand scheme of things (and I include myself in this), don't mean a heck of a lot.

The solution isn't to go and complain about how the rules are consistently applied, if you don't like it, set up your own system. It is a free service, owned by someone other than yourself, who, whether you like it or not, gets to set the rules, and how they are applied. If you want to live by different rules, then go set up your own system and create your own rules, and tell others that X is allowed to violate your CoH but not Y because you say so.

As for me making it about you, it is YOU that made this about you. You are the one that constantly wants to apply different rules to different people just because they may have been here longer (how many people posting even look at that when trying to see bias in moderation, I sure don't, why not, because it doesn't matter). The problem that the moderators have is that they are inundated with crap about how biased they are towards one side of the political spectrum, and then they get railed on because someone complains about them when they try to apply it equally. Maybe you should read the CoH from a NEUTRAL point of view rather than your personal view of how things were years ago in a different time, different place.

Spikegary:

Why would I do the legwork, 80 users voting on something isn't going to make a difference to MSNBC, before anything would happen, they would need to see more than 8000 users, if not a lot more.

Wow -- is that someone's name to be added to the petition? Sure is a long name. Since the only purpose of this article is to sign up for this petition, it must be.

You are the one that constantly wants to apply different rules to different people just because they may have been here longer

No Jonathan - over 90 Viners so far agree with Dennis and his suggestion to make this a better place. I appreciate his efforts, as do many others.

Why not just sign or don't sign. It's a @!$%#ing petition - that's all.

Yeah I know what it is about, it is about you thinking that certain people shouldn't have to follow the rules because you remember the good old days when the NV community was much smaller.

Really? I read the petition and didn't see that in there.

If you want to live by different rules, then go set up your own system and create your own rules, and tell others that X is allowed to violate your CoH but not Y because you say so.

Why do that when the community here is already thriving? The rules could simply benefit from some tweaking.

You are the one that constantly wants to apply different rules to different people just because they may have been here longer (how many people posting even look at that when trying to see bias in moderation, I sure don't, why not, because it doesn't matter).

Didn't see that in the petition either. Hold on, let me clean my glasses... Still nothing.

Why would I do the legwork, 80 users voting on something isn't going to make a difference to MSNBC, before anything would happen, they would need to see more than 8000 users, if not a lot more

MSNBC doesn't run Newsvine. They just own it - they aren't likely to care either way. Those 90+ people who signed this petition (myself included) are supporting an idea meant to encourage frank discussion about topics that matter to people. This vine doesn't have to read like an NPR script because people get worried that they might not be PC enough. Quite frankly, I'm not pleased with the compound punishment, either. If Newsvine looks at that idea and thinks it's a good idea, they will probably enact it. If not, they won't.

That's really all there is to it.

Richard,

read the OTHER column, the one where the debates occurred.

Maybe you should read the CoH from a NEUTRAL point of view rather than your personal view of how things were years ago in a different time, different place.

Jonathan, my friend - IMO, Dennis is one of the most neutral viners I know - infuriatingly so, at times. That's why I signed this. I know his heart is in the right place. This really isn't about politics, since signing this aligns me with a couple of people I have on Ignore.

read the OTHER column, the one where the debates occurred

And were the rules advocated in this petition in effect, iarnuocon would have been suspended for a day, complained about it later, and life would go on.

I think his post was just a toe past borderline myself, but not ban-worthy.

Richard,

Iarnuocon was suspended for a day, then for a week because he didn't stop, then for a month, because he refused to stop. After coming back from the month suspension, he started up again immediately with the same crap that got him suspended in the first place. He was given another warning, then he was banned.

So at what point does the term enough is enough apply?

And no, his post, while funny, and witty, WAS a direct personal insult towards another person. But it wasn't just the post, it was the track record. When does it stop? Well the moderators decided to stop it by banning him. End of story.

Is this another LLL----OOO-----NNN-----GGGGGG name to sign this petition? Or did the deletion not sink in that your comments are off topic?

Didn't somebody say "Follow the rules" ?

There's a tab for Newsvine Community just above comment #1 -- after the tab that says Public Discussion. It's a private room where these discussions can take place, and remove them from those of us who don't wish to see the constant derail. Please utilize.

There's a tab for Newsvine Community just above comment #1

Good point - my bad. I had a hell of a retort, too.

Actually the deletion was for a supposed CoH violation which is under appeal because it wasn't a CoH violation. And here lies the problem. It is that the rules are expected to be different for others, as though some are more equal than others. Well guess what, orwelian logic is bad, regardless of those that are more equal. That is the point of the whole argument. The creator wants the rules to apply different from one person to the next.

I think tyler said it appropriately though in his rebuttal.

The continuous childish derailments more than back up the need for deletion. You've been given a private room. Please utilize.

Jonathan...

As for me making it about you, it is YOU that made this about you. You are the one that constantly wants to apply different rules to different people just because they may have been here longer...

Spot On!

You didn't like that because you thought she should have been given a pass.

And, since you brought it up, why did I believe she should have been given a pass?

I've been a crusader for fairness since before Newsvine even went public.

I was supporting even application of the rules, and you were arguing against it.

This campaign speech failed, when you supported Iarnuocon, even though he violated the CoH.

If you could get past your personal bias, you'd see that.

Sorry, Dennis. My pronouns are unclear. You've been telling jfxgillis and jonathan to cease with the derailments, and neither have complied. And as you've stated, it's like a slap in the face to the 100+ of us who gathered to sign the petition that culminated from previous discussions.

I'll check back in 24hrs to see if the pitty pot posting has exhausted itself.

Dennis:

What deletion?

I assume he's referring to comment #45 on page 2 of this thread. If it's similar to either my or krishna's comments on this page, I assume staff will restore it when they get to it.

storyartist:

Staff has ruled. Dennis may not declare "say nothing if you disagree" and delete people who do say something to disagree.

Now that we have that point settled, the problem with the petition is that it in essence demands a return to a world that is gone forever.

Even if we disregard the fact that that world wasn't the paradise it's made out to be (i.e., I wouldn't sign the petition even if what it called for were feasible), the problem is that the animating idea is an empty, even counter-productive, pipedream. That is, the more the focus is on "let's go back to five years ago," the less likely it is to improve what's here and now.

I have no idea...

True.

...since it was in direct opposition to what you agreed with here:

My disagreement with the banning of dkaz had NOTHING to do with her time in grade! I NEVER argued that her banning should have been set aside, due to her contributions, intellect, tenure, etc.

...

Your previous comments:

I didn't support iarnuocon.

was followed by:

His comment did not in any way violate the CoH.

...

I've been a crusader for fairness...

was followed by:

Get tougher on the trolls and drive-bys, and leave the long-time members and productive members alone.

Consistency...

...

Slice it and dice it any way you like. The belief that Newsvine should be governed with "class societies," in mind, is obvious to most, in your comments.

In your comments, there are clear implications that there are Old Timers, Non- Productives, Trolls, Newbies, etc., all of whom make up the participants on the Vine.

It is also clear, that the Old Timers should be afforded special treatment.

What isn't clear is what defines each of these classes. I, for example, find little of substance being written by some Old Timers. Conversely, I have become acquainted with Newbies, that provide much more productive content than some that have been here since the beginning.

Someone that I feel demonstrates Troll-like behavior may beat the top of your Friends list, and vice versa.

There is ambiguity in each of these comments. You see things one way, others see things differently. The key is that it isn't your call. It isn't my call. It is the job of the Mods, to determine what the rules are and how those rules are to be applied.

I know, from being in the position to manage many people at the same time, that one must not allow gray area. Gray area leads to ambiguity and, when many people are involved, ambiguity leads to confusion and chaos. As I tried to mention to you, in the discussion, there was too much ambiguity in the "petition."

Are the rules perfect? No. But they must be administered fairly and across the board, regardless of what class you feel you're a member of...

Staff has ruled. Dennis may not declare "say nothing if you disagree" and delete people who do say something to disagree.

Thank god that was said! I've been chastised already, and I don't even know what previous article I had the opportunity to discuss this on in the first place, this is the first I've heard of this petition, and this is where I want to comment on it, where it is posted.

That wood character is a good example of why "oldtimers" should not be given special treatment. That person now regularly comes back as a re-reg troll over and over leaving vitriol bombs here & there on the vine.

80 users voting on something isn't going to make a difference to MSNBC, before anything would happen, they would need to see more than 8000 users, if not a lot more.

8,000 would be a good start, NV doesn't like to discuss numbers, but there are WELL over a million users, but using a million as a starting number, any grass roots movement is going to have to hit a whole percentage point, so 1,000 would be a good symbolic number.

Dennis:

I didn't say that.

Yeah you did. At least twice. To me. On this subthread.

Dennis:

I said it's not necessary to comment here

You said that, THEN YOU @!$%#ING DELETED ME FOR COMMENTING HERE. Then I complained and YOU @!$%#ING DELETED ME AGAIN.

Then I appealed and staff restored my comments.

And I didn't choose to just because of the browser problem. I chose to because this is the thread to comment on this article and you have NO RIGHT to delete comments on this thread for commenting on this article by ordering people to comment about this article on another thread.

Funny thing is, this petition is to your obvious benefit

No it is not.

Sorry for jumping in at an irregular spot....I admit, I did it out of convenience. Plus...things looked like they were getting a hair heated right above this post and I admit to trying to deflect from that. =)

I would respectfully like to request to be removed from the list for now. Just until I get clarification on something.

My main purpose for signing it was that it left me with the impression that at one time, a Viner's entire history was taken into account with regard to bannings/suspensions, and that we had deviated from that to taking just the negative history into account. I signed it thinking that TOTAL history was a better way to go and if that was a core principle we had deviated from, we need to get back to it.

But now, I've seen in another article where it always was, from day one...NEGATIVE history that was taken into account. Not total history. If that's truly the case, then there is no 'core to get back to that's based on *total* history.

So...I would just like to be removed until such time as I receive clarification on whether the original premise was negative history or total history. Once that's determined, I will either leave my name off or put it back on.

Nothing personal.

But now, I've seen in another article where it always was, from day one...NEGATIVE history that was taken into account. Not total history. If that's truly the case, then there is no 'core to get back to that's based on *total* history.

Pat, correct me if I'm wrong but you asked this question of Tyler and he never responded right?

Pat, correct me if I'm wrong but you asked this question of Tyler and he never responded right?

Right. But to be fair, I posted the question pretty late yesterday and it's only 8:14 am in Seattle right now.

I receive clarification on whether the original premise was negative history or total history.

Yeah. That's what's got me confused. It says that under #5, but on Tyler's article it says only "negative history". So I just want some clarification regarding which one it really is. And an explanation from someone regarding why there seems to be conflicting standards regardign this.

Here's my point, Dennis...

While #5 DOES say that a users participation will be taken into acount as a whole...it also says that continued negative contributions could get a person banned.

A comparison would be how CoH 1 starts off with: "Above all else, respect others." and some people seem to get hung up on those words alone, not realizing that #1 goes on to say: "refrain from making personal attacks". As a result, we end up with quite a bit of confusion over the definition of "respect".

Same deal here. While #5 does indeed, say "as a whole"...it also goes on to speak about negative contributions. I just want clarification from Staff regarding whether #5 is "as a whole" or "negative contributions". #5 contradicts itself in that regard.

jonathan

and tell others that X is allowed to violate your CoH but not Y because you say so.

someone hasn't been paying attention. if you are just going to make stuff up, then what is the point of posting. that is not what dennis is proposing at all.

some, or all

suggesting that dennis was a big supporter of iarnuocon seems a bit off, to me. while the picasso piece could be seen as an eulogy for iar, this was not the case. dennis respected iar, but i wouldn't say that they were that close. a month ago, it seemed as if iarnuocon was out to get dennis. do you really think that dennis loves iar that much? iarnuocon was no troll. should he have been banned? for me, that is a tough one. when trolls are gang-trolling your thread, and posting all osrts of garbage, then you might get bent some, and iar did. he was provoked. was he right to retaliate? according to the code, no, but there may be some gray area there, or maybe there could be.

i do not need a code to dictate how we are supposed to treat each other. we learned this in elementary school. some of you, just choose not to follow the rules of common decency in our society. of course, when some point that out, they get blasted for it.

there used to be a lot more warnings, as well. decent viners got a warning for straying. now it seems that they get suspended more often. a troll is a troll, and decent viners should not be compared to trolls, and re-reg users, in my mind. if everyone is equal, then are we all trolls?

One of my concerns is "oldtimers" taking advantage of the system/newcomers by getting them suspended for the most minor of infractions appearing to have been fairly orchestrated by the other viner who seemed to be trying to hook the newcomer into violating the COH somehow so they could make a big deal out of it to staff, or pouncing on it when they do make the first infraction and then going to staff.

Maybe if newbies were somehow given an immunity/grace period so that when violating the COH rather than suspending them for a day they get more warnings than the "oldtimer" who should know the rules by then/now. Newbies have vulnerabilities "oldtimers" don't have, that should be taken into account too - the system ideally shouldn't be able to be worked by anyone or in favor of one type of viner over another.

lol, the street smart Viner baiting noobs then going for the technical takeout. I can think of some issues that might engender such disreputable conduct - a regular thing on MSNBC threads.

The newbie is supposed to get a sort of grace period during the first few months while they are getting their Vine roots wet in the Greenhouse. The Greenhouse period was (is?) intended to nurture appropriate conduct and familiarity with the community. Does the Greenhouse function anymore?

Does the Greenhouse function anymore?

I've tried encouraging a few promising posters. The best one on the vine to do this though is McSpocky! He was my first friend: he really knows how to reach out and connect, and to demonstrate what positive contributions really mean.

there used to be a lot more warnings, as well. decent viners got a warning for straying. now it seems that they get suspended more often.

quoting tyler:

It isn't a formula, that's for sure. Sometimes users get weeks without a warning. Sometimes users get days before weeks. I don't think posting a 'three [four?] strikes' policy would help anything.

We've got a Code, we interpret, we're about as transparent as we can be. And so it shall stay.

So, is this why nobody can point to the policy, there isn't one?

a troll is a troll, and decent viners should not be compared to trolls, and re-reg users, in my mind. if everyone is equal, then are we all trolls?

Some are, some aren't. Cherries are red, cherries are fruit, doesn't make all fruit red.

Got any examples of that ever happening?

I had it happen to me, not sure if the greenhouse was in order when I came to the vine.

Besides, what makes you think oldtimers have any more say than anyone else?

I've seen viners get away with a whole lot - there was no stated reason, but they happened to have many many articles seeded and had been around for a while, it seemed like they were given much more push & pull than others... I can think of a name or two but not sure how appropriate it would be to post them though they are now only alive through re-regs, and their names are often named as such by NewsVine staff in msgs....

OK, I've pretty much stayed out of this, but now I have a question. If Tyler has been here since 2008, and he is quoted as saying that punishment is not formulaic, and I believe him, then the petition is to change from something that doesn't exist to something that never really did?

Lee:

then the petition is to change from something that doesn't exist to something that never really did?

Well, yeah, but it was impolitic to say so as bluntly as that.

You need more tact and discretion. Like me.

:^{)>

Dennis, I really do not care what you do with this petition or who you send it to.

There are only two possibilities here. Either Tyler is lying about the punishment being formulaic and your perception is correct, or Tyler is telling the truth and your perception is in error.

Jack, it is neither impolitic nor impolite. It is merely a question posited to gently make the point encapsulated in the paragraph above this one.

Dennis...

Since you continue to dwell on, and misstate, the dkaz situation...

It was because you liked her. nevertheless, you disagreed with Tyler's ruling.

I have corrected your misstatements, in the past, with citations. I'd be happy to continue this trend, if need be.

Once again, last time, my issue with the dkaz suspension had NOTHING to do with any personal feelings. You can review my comments, at the time, or I can correct with citations. Again.

...

...though your dislike for me...

Dennis, you make/take things waaay too personal!

When have I ever indicated that I don't like you? That is your assumption.

Is it possible that I simply take issue with many of your comments? Your perpetual grandstanding aside, you and I have very different viewpoints on many topics. Nothing more.

Please play the victim, using someone else.

And please quit making the folks that signed this petition victims by making ludicrous statements like "rather than slapping the 90+ people who have signed this in the face." Your attempt at a rally cry is obvious.

.

• I don't dog you.
• I don't dislike you.
• I don't follow you.
• I don't care that you are Muslim.
• I don't care that you are an agnostic.

Hell, I've never met you!

You couldn't measure my indifference to your personal characteristics. However, I do take issue with statements you make and your basis for making them. That's common on the Vine.

You will make statements about people, and feel that it is within your right to do so. Yet, when they reciprocate, you call them trolls, accuse them of stalking you, remind them of your tenure here, and play the victim when any of your followers chimes in with "Go Dennis."

You make statements like "Leave sarcasm to the professionals." So, you can be sarcastic because you're a "professional" at sarcasm? Yet, when someone else is seemingly sarcastic in return, they are a troll, making a personal attack and violating the CoH.

It is a predictable pattern, played out daily.

This is not your Vine. The rules are not your rules.

Now, make your parting, rhetorical comments. I'm done on this thread, in the absence of responding with any necessary citations.

Like the petition effort, any further attempts to find common ground with you, would be fruitless.

...

PS Do you actually think there is ANYBODY left that is not nauseously aware of how long you've been on the Vine?

Lee-479062

There are only two possibilities here. Either Tyler is lying about the punishment being formulaic and your perception is correct, or Tyler is telling the truth and your perception is in error.

Begging your pardon, but there is, at minimum, a third possibility. Tyler may be telling the truth, but policy is being enforced in an imprudent or clumsy manner such that it creates the appearance of impropriety. Reaffirming the proper policy should cause no harm, and by all rights, should benefit all.

Regards

PP, I appreciate the effort, but the proposed change is posited as being required by a policy that doesn't exist according to the expert in the matter. It is not being requested based upon an appearance of impropriety but rather a stated discernment that a new policy has of late been implemented. Thus, there are only two options.

And clipped to my column.

Sometimes I have nothing to add that hasn't been said already, so why say it?

I read a LOT more than I talk, here or anywhere else.

Count me in! I am in ombra's league! I do a great deal of reading - adding comments...not so much! Keep up the fine work, Dennis!

You followed nearly 1500 comments and didn't say anything? Wow. That's restraint.

Same here. Hard to find well reasoned debate around here these days, so when I do I try to keep up with it. Count me in.

"When you speak, you repeat only what you already know. When you listen, you learn something"

~Author Unknown~

I've been here since 1927.

Dennis, I swear, you exaggerate a thousand times a day.

Egads! :-)

Some of us are legends, especially after we get banned like Egbert Albert (?), whoever that was. Let's not forget the "sock puppets."

I don't see Dennis ever getting banned though. He'll probably be the last one to go. Just water the vines before you leave, Dennis. lol

Some of us are legends, especially after we get banned like Egbert Albert (?), whoever that was.

Eric Albert, yes, a legend of the good old days. He lived to piss Calvin off,well and many others as well. Warned and suspended many times, banned twice and part of the reason I ask for a lot of clarifications when people talk about going back to the good old days.

I don't see Dennis ever getting banned though. He'll probably be the last one to go. Just water the vines before you leave, Dennis. lol

Actually, it's users like Dennis that the current policy, which is analogous to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, puts most at risk.

It's a point I've thought about bringing up before. Those who post controversial topics are far more susceptible to banning than those who post something like, say, photography. Also, someone who actually works harder at moderating volume is more susceptible to banning than someone with medium volume.

So what results is the more you work, and the harder you work, the easier it is to be banned. It seems upside down, which is another reason to return to the misdemeanor/felony structure that infohack just pointed out.

Fair enough.

I saw you clipped it to HonorVine, any objection to using the group pages? That's what they're there for.

Plus I doubt any trolls are members ;)

Eric Albert was all about giving Admin grief? Uh. No. He gave everyone he didn't agree with grief, but only because he's a convinced Socialist. He got on your back only if you got on his. An honest to goodness junkyard dog when it comes to his core convictions.

There's a lot of mangy mutts on this site, let's not forget that.

Off topic there McCann, delete at your pleasure.

Gotcha. Proceed ....

hell hell yeah, it was in all the papers...

except here in Texas..during the last Ice Age, we had a daily temp of 110...which made the heat index of 125...in the shade !!!

luv,

ron

Thanks Dennis P McCann for placing me on the list. Good Idea. Maria-Lyn

very well done dennis.

sign me up as well.

I have had a few suspensions....I might have an edge to some of my posts....but overall I am polite I think.. but considering I am #16 all time in comments posted....the sheer number of posts I put out there should cut me some slack I think.

ok dennis...way to break my bubble.

but I am still 16 all time from whatever period they started....still should cut me some slack.

so when does the counter start do you know?? 2009?

gotcha....

As one who has been treated MOST unfairly, I am signing. My first suspension was a week for making fun of a viner's name. My second suspension was a week for getting into it with a viner. My FINAL WARNING was a month suspension for addressing that same viner.

You know I've been here since sometime in mid 2008, which by measure of a lot of Viners I suppose I could still be considered a newbie. In all this time I have never been put in "time out" even though in the beginning I will admit I called a troll or two a douche-bag (or something like that). But imagine my surprise when I received an e-mail last week about a comment I made on a seed being deleted by the author. The whole damn thing is just amusing to me. I could contest the deletion and then they would review it to see if I indeed did or did not violate the CoH. While I didn't contest it, I did respond by saying I couldn't care less but they should review it for what it is. First of all, I was the only one to comment on that seed (yet the author choose to delete it), second anyone who knows me here or hell virtually knows me will concede that yes, I am sarcastic. I did not insult, harass or terrorize this seeder. This particular person claims to be clairvoyant and that was really the gist of the seed. I simply stated "you knew I was going to read this didn't you?". All tongue in cheek. Anyway to further amplify things, I made this comment about two to three months ago. So much for that Viners clairvoyance, right? Should have known I left that message a while back, don't you think? So I voiced my opinion (and I'm entitled to it wheter anyone agrees or not) that I think the seeder needed to grow thicker skin and quit their day job because clearly they aren't very good at that whole clairvoyant thing. It was seriously ridiculous.

Hi, another quality content from Dennis. OK count me in also Dennis.

Jj.

my question remains however.....is that then it becomes biased. I find that although "draconian" as you put it....that the moderators have been a bit less biased over the last 6 months.

that is the problem with making it the way you want it dennis....it will become a "lovefest" for the left again.

I do believe there should be some leeway granted those who have been here for years....but to grant them a pass to do whatever they want as the person who was most recently banned and was the subject of a recent article by you would be wrong.

certain people deserve to go bye bye...and he was one of them....so although I agree with your proposal...it shouldnt have saved him...he was over the top for quite some time.

well you remember the hoopla about PatN suspension a bit back...she is a rightie.....and was suspended for not breaking the coh.

that is what I am worried about more and more if we make suspensions up to opinion of how worthy the person is to newsvine.

the 1,2,3,4 your out is more fair....although of course can still be a bit biased as in the case of PatN...in my opinion.

especially when compared to the only person I do not engage on here....whose every post is demeaning and insulting....who has had I dont know how many one week suspensions...two that I know of in the last 3 months or so.

I dont know....I signed on becuase I agree....something needs to change...

because PatN doesnt right as many articles as he did...or maybe isnt as good in the utilization of the english language doesnt mean that for the same offense she should be suspended and the person who writes more article not.

I think total posts should be a consideration....as in my case....lol

MarshallJ

1,2,3,4 your out is more fair

This is not the place to debate this; there are other threads and articles which Dennis has already referenced. But here is a very simple summation of why 1,2,3,4 out is unfair:
Person A has been here 5 years, put hours upon hours of work into the Vine, and shares vast amounts of wisdom with the community; makes 4 stupid, minor mistakes...and is gone.
Person B has been here 5 months, seeds nothing, writes nothing, spends maybe 1 hour per week on the Vine; makes a horrible racist comment. Person B gets one warning and is still here.
See the problem? If not, please go to Dennis' prior article and we can discuss it there.
(And this is just one issue with 1,2,3,4.)
Blessings, HD

Dennis:

Do you think that if this is implemented that banned users should be allowed to rejoin?

dennis and HD

I get you both...and it is a valid argument....and that is why I agree with the article....but it also worries me that bias would be in complete control then...as then what would be the standards?? how many articles?? how many posts?? how long?? what is newsvine worthy?? what makes an article worthy?? how long does it have to be??

to change it from a draconian method to that of opinion would leave it up to total bias....and then when you have two left wing moderators...one moreso than the other...just out of human nature the discipline will be unfair.

it would only work if they hire a couple more moderators and they were hardcore rightwingers.

that might keep people on their toes then.

that would be my solution to this..bring on the opinionated moderating...but bring in moderators with different mindsets.

MarshallJ

it would only work if they hire a couple more moderators and they were hardcore rightwingers.

Yes, we need more moderators. Not "left leaning". Not "right leaning". The word is "objective".
Maybe we could discuss this on the prior article that was about discussing these issues; Dennis' article just prior to this one.
I think this is sort of like the "voting booth" area...not the "debate area". Dennis, please correct me if I'm wrong. (It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.)
Thanks, HD

dennis

no matter how much you want to make this nonpolitical, it is....when I was suspended for being off topic...but according to my ideologies I was spot on.....it is political....I was suspended because the moderator cannot understand me and had their own biased thoughts on what was on topic and off topic. Personally I think they should have libertarians as moderators...as we agree with each side on different issues....but that is soemthing else entirely.

but HD is right....my apologies for going on a tangent.

peace and good article.

damnit dennis...that is my point......replacing a failing system with one that would be just as much a failure under current practices would be stupid.

the only way what you propose would work is if they changed the mentality of the moderators...or added a couple in there with different views.

I agree with your article...I am just wanting to bring up some caution is all...and a voice to my discontent and possible solution.

Got any examples of that ever happening? Besides, what makes you think oldtimers have any more say than anyone else?

Off hand, me.