We've amended the Code Of Honor! - Newsvine Blog

Today, we published an update to the Code of Honor. It's the first one in a long time, and the revision loses some outdated language and adds some specific provisions about Nation administration that were lacking.

We've also added headings for each section of the Code, and useful hyperlinks to each section and sub-section (the moderators are pretty psyched about this development).

There are a few changes. Read the seed to see why the changes were made. The short version is that some links were added, bolding to make things a touch more clear, and clarification about how Nations exist within the Code was made.

Read the revised Code to see the actual changes.

Discuss this post

You mean you can rid nations of little monster dictators with the admin power thrust upon them ?

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Dec 3, 2014 4:00 PM EST

@agagnu Yes, nation admins will be judged on the behavior of their nation.

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Dec 3, 2014 4:07 PM EST

@agagnu Yes, nation admins will be judged on the behavior of their nation.

Dave, I hope that applies to all members and not just the favorites.

  • 6 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Dec 3, 2014 5:23 PM EST

I don't have favorites. I have a responsibility to uphold the Code of Honor. That's it.

  • 3 votes
Reply#4 - Wed Dec 3, 2014 5:48 PM EST

Yes, nation admins will be judged on the behavior of their nation.

Dave, it is very difficult for admins to read every comment.   Unless we comment on an article or seed it will not appear on our tracker (and sometimes that does not even work).  Thus we must constantly scan all discussions that show our nation in parenthesis.    That is simply not workable for a part-time, voluntary role.

Admins should have a special tracker which will notify them of activity in any article or seed tied with their nation.   

One other point, admins should be judged on their actions - not on the behavior of members / visitors in their nation.

  • 3 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Dec 4, 2014 10:52 AM EST

simply not workable for a part-time, voluntary role

nation admins will be judged on the behavior of their nation.

A rather obvious "Catch 22"

It wasn't workable for Tyler and Sally either, even as paid full time employees.

The Nations concept was for the benefit of staff designed alleviate the burden of accountability from employees and place it on the shoulders of unpaid and untrained community leaders. Purpose? Gives the FCC a plausible excuse for not getting involved. Wouldn't hold up in a real court of law just makes it easier to keep it from going that far.

    Reply#6 - Thu Dec 4, 2014 2:10 PM EST

    Comment Deleted by Bryce from Courteous Debate @2.4

    In reply to: JBB-9489077 #2.1

    In reply to: Bryce DeWitt #2.2

    A prescient person was roundly criticized for observing that one intent of some in a nation dedicated to the administration of nations was obviously just a ploy to hold the liberal members to a much higher standard just prior to the election and now since the election all interest in that experiment seems to have utterly dissipated. Interesting...

    You actually believe AN was formed (founded by a self-described liberal with mostly liberal membership) to hold only liberals to a higher standard for the purposes of somehow having an effect on Newsvine discourse related to the midterm elections??

    Among the obvious flaws in this latest conspiracy theory is the notion that a nation can make Newsvine administrators behave in a manner not of their choosing.   It is all voluntary.   You two certainly stand as examples of those who admin as they choose.   By what mechanism do you imagine other admins on Newsvine are made to behave a certain way?

    The members of a nation like AN can work together to offer suggestions and reason.   If a Newsvine admin finds some value in these suggestions s/he may use them.   If not, the admin will continue to operate as s/he sees fit.

    It is unlikely IMO that you two actually believe this and other conspiracy theories you have articulated in the past.    But in case you genuinely hold the position you stated I offer this as an attempt (albeit futile) to disabuse you of it.

      Reply#7 - Thu Dec 4, 2014 7:16 PM EST

      Bryce blocked me from Courteous Debate because ....

      As with TIG above. I asked him to stop mischaracterizing my legitimate questions (which have now been resolved anyway by Trout) and he refuses, so as far as I am concerned, I have nothing further to say to TIG and he is booted from this Nation.

      In response to this from me @2.41:

      The term [conspiracy theory] does not apply to YOU.   It applies to notions you have posited.  That is the difference.

      Look, another label we use is 'falsehood'.   A falsehood is (as you know) a statement that is arguably false.   If I label something you state as a falsehood I am not calling you a liar (which would be a personal attack).   I am offering my opinion on something you have proposed.

      Yes 'conspiracy theory' is not complimentary in the least.   So are you saying we cannot deem ideas to be bad or absurd or ...?    How can people engage in debate if they can only compliment each other's ideas?

      Yes, Bryce, I am quite serious.   Debate is adversarial.   The other side will usually not like what you have to say.


      Bryce has chosen to block me because I consider (read: my opinion) some of his unfounded cynical hypotheticals to be conspiracy theory.   The above is me calmly explaining that my criticism was of his content, not him personally and that in debate one will often take an opposing / adversarial role.  

      Courteous Debate is supposed to be about debate (per its profile).    Apparently debate is okay unless you are debating Bryce.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#8 - Fri Dec 5, 2014 12:41 PM EST

      TiG, what am I going to do about you? You are a stand up guy but sometimes you pick some really poor places to stand up. The nation you just got banned from is a farce and has been from day one. All you need do is look at their membership and the antics of their supreme leader and his best bud.It's bad enough that you have no choice but to deal with these people when they bring their crap to our nation. Going into their Nations and trying to explain yourself is only asking to be abused no matter how honest you try to be.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#9 - Fri Dec 5, 2014 8:05 PM EST

      TiG....If anyone really wants "courteous debate" I suggest they come to SEEDERS AND POSTERS WITH MANNERS, which has been around five times longer with about four times the members and just two admins: one from the right and one from the left to ensure that everyone who comes there is treated fairly.

      Practice makes perfect!

      • 1 vote
      Reply#10 - Sat Dec 6, 2014 2:25 AM EST

      "Courteous Debate" is either a cruel joke, or just simply tantamount to an echo chamber circle jerk. Perhaps it is even both. The thing about a nation such as that; is that it needs to be called on its B/S. You can have an honest difference of opinion, but what you usually cannot have is a difference in fundamental fact and truth. I know the folks in D.C. have raised attempting to accomplish that to a high, and despicable art but none the less it needs to be called out when encountered.

      Slavish boot licking, ring kissing, buttock kissing, and anything else that might get kissed to gain favored status is simply intellectual dishonesty and quite honestly the height of hypocrisy.

      We do not always get to choose the ground on which we fight (or thoroughly debate) on principal. Sometimes it is completely an uphill and thankless exchange on N.V. That being said far more read than comment. So it is for those that read, and remain silent that I in part debate vigorously for (I would imagine that much the same can be said for many including Tig). Personally it is not about the Likes but the debate itself and an honest broker. I do not care which side of the political spectrum one resides on. The only thing that I care about is that the debate is aboveboard, straight up and honest. Name-calling or insult is something that I suspect everyone falls prey to (even I) but that while not a solid move is to be generally expected in a pitched and passionate debate or exchange.

      However being nuked over a difference of opinion, especially one that can be effectively argued, and proven is a sign of weakness on the part of the one doing the nuking. Puling that particular lever to save face is the final refuge of someone that has indeed been over matched, and can not tolerate an opposing view. When you encounter nation admins that engage in that kind of behavior and action it speaks far more clearly and loudly than anything they may write. They have been exposed for what they are as has their nation. While I think the behavior is deplorable and childish, I would not advocate for seeing their nation dismantled, the solution to such behavior is more speech not less. Ultimately they will set themselves aside and be a glittering jewel of a colossal example of what not to do.

      Then when you take a look at those nations and see who frequents them, you will have a better idea of who, and what kind of personality you are dealing with in other places.          

      • 1 vote
      Reply#11 - Mon Dec 8, 2014 11:35 AM EST
      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.