I just happen to think that we are straying way way away from the founding principle of SZ, that of respecting others. Sure some may say that implies we should respect those that are just here to take the piss but I disagree. My view is that if like RA for example, you consistently take the piss, continue with that sceptre shit and continue to make jibes, despite all requests to quit it, you should just be booted. We booted Sod for far less (That is not to say that Sod shouldn't have been booted for the things he said to one of our members)

dubmeup wrote: You can see in this thread here:

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/Todays-News/8894...Look-Forward-to.html

...particularly in the recent posts how mature certain people are able to be, how responsive they are to having people point out that it's supposed to be a community-based site, how able they are to not resort to personal remarks, and how able they are to stay on-topic. We're not operating as a real community because we don't all take equal responsibility, so there has to be some more active moderation IMHO. We could have a community-driven site but it would have need to have been set up differently, and one particular rule would need to have been instigated from day one.

You've mentioned this one rule / caveat a couple of times WUB. I can guess what it is, but please will you state it for consideration?

hey you guys see something that gets your hair up click report or msg me

I think people should be open and honest about who they have problems with and why. I know certain people have issues with me and I have decided to ignore them. I have been on forums with an ignore feature before but always prefer to do it my way. As for the original topic it is a good idea I guess.

One question though and that is This:

If there is for example a sandy hook news story post and then somebody responds with yeah look at this video of batman etc. Will the topic be split? Will the first news section be simply "read this news story" or will the poster be able to offer thoughts of their own. Seems possibly like we just need a link to news websites and a debate news forum.

i-baster wrote:
Indeed!

So...?

I'm in a tidying up mood and tend to start in Today's News but I'd rather they be split first (if they are gonna be split) than start now and have to redo later.

So...?

Delete it all together, don't see the point of todays news sections, just propagating media pointlessly, I think you should go one further and lay out a guideline like you can only post a news story if you have a personal narrative accompanying it, or critical/positive appraisal, in this way you would have threads in general on a subject with perhaps news related to that topic being posted continuously.

The emphasis being on the user's input, analysis.

As it stands and the mainstream media is the same, we just have continual posting, headlining of various stories in a metaphysical context, perpetually springing up as if out of nowhere day after day, if we had the context first, an example would be "Fox's coverage of Israel" or "The occupy movement" or "Conservative party policy" then news stories related to these things with commentary from the poster, as you describe for the "new sub forum", would be posted and you'd get a deeper historical understanding of the various subjects.. Just brainstorming.

Guevarista wrote:
I was under the opinion thats exactly what people should do with the news section anyway
Certainly WUB does.

Yeah I do agree tbh, a continual thread on a subject would be better with news added to it as and when it arrives but the substantial part of the thread being people's own opinion, comment or theory.
I think with a todays news section and the media method of presenting events, extremely superficially, it tends to just go in one ear and out the other with people, words and slogans are repeated but nothing is really understood as a subject..

andyh wrote:
I proposed a News forum and a discussion of news forum. The idea being "all sides" of any particular story be kept in one place and all opinion and conjecture in another. Although I know what you are getting at Gue I'd still like to be able to read stories other members feel may be interesting to share whilst not being directly involved themselves. What you are proposing would mean we can't discuss the majority of news items! Perhaps something similar to The Apps 'what have you done today' thread would be more suited to your idea Gue.

I'm happy with the way things are tbh.
If someone spams shit then just use the mod stick and be done with it.

I tried to preempt that misunderstanding: "in this way you would have threads in general on a subject with perhaps news related to that topic being posted continuously.

The emphasis being on the user’s input, analysis." the last sentence isn't very good, essentially any news item is part of a narrative, in the mainstream you have the good guys vs the bad guys, in the alterNETive media you have a basic inversion; the "good guys" are the "bad guys", that is often taken for granted imo, so people have a motivation for posting a news story but don't really ever divulge that motivation, what I propose would increase our understanding of the whole process a particular news story would be part of.
These threads would then serve as a resource for basing a critique of the Western Media's coverage of poverty or whatever the individual was interested in?
As it stands people just assume the mainstream is wrong or lying on any given issue, nobody ever really explains or shows why, this idea would go some way to providing an evidence base to support that assumption.

andyh wrote:
It wasn't really about addressing spam. Taking the Sandy Hook thread as an example, regardless of actually went on within it (separate issue), when a thread becomes 30+ pages and the majority of that is discussion, the actual story and facts around it can get buried and anyone stumbling across the forum looking for info of the incident would probably give up and move on.

Guevarista wrote:
I get what you are getting at. I'd just like to see the sources and the critique kept separate.

oioioi wrote: I tried to do that with my climate thread, introduce a basis for understanding a subject, and thread to post climate news in but people couldn't resist offering their opinion or attempt to get it out of the Todays news forum for some reason.

So I think you should change it to what you suggest.

Guevarista wrote: Climate change isn't 'today's news', unless you're talking about some specific development. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has existed since 1988.

So, no objections as such....

Oh Noooooooooooooovum!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Can you just clarify, what other than the IPCC being set up in 1988 makes Climate Change irrelevant today?

Guevarista wrote: I didn't say it was of no importance. It's just not 'today's news' unless you're writing about some specific development.

i turned on a 'todays news' subforum that already existed so you can all see what it looks like, we had made it when we made the forum.

give me a name to rename it, and decide if you guys indeed want it as a subforum, or a seperate category underneath, between todays news and general.