The Joke

You forget it could also validly be judged by 'was it appropriate'.

what does "was it appropriate'? mean?

To whom? appropriate for what? inappropriate how?

Appropriate to the readers. Appropriate for a reliable news source. Inappropriate in that it lacked any journalistic integrity. Any more softballs you want to lob?

Winsome, with all due respect, the "joke" was funny to those of you involved in pulling the wool over people's eyes. It was an "in joke" and it made some people who took things seriously feel foolish. So, yes, the crew of a dozen or so came off like the popular insiders having a good laugh at the fools who might have believed them, or wondered about them or cared even. I only read maybe two or three of the "joke articles" and I wondered about about some of what I was reading. I have a very busy life and cannot languish for hours reading everything on Newsvine. Nor do I belong to a group that has or feels such a proprietary interest. I'm just an ordinary person looking for interesting and informative things to read with limited time. I think you guys should have played the joke on the the Drollhouse group itself. That would probably have been more appreciated.

I took "Dennis McCann's" article seriously, and it really pissed me off. As a result, I penned a vitriolic response, as an article in itself. I felt relief when I learned that Dennis' article was a prank, because I honestly like the guy.

But I stand by every word of the response I penned.

That doesn't make me feel foolish, at all.

Have you read the Code of honour or the User Agreement?

Have you read the Code of honour or the User Agreement? If that question is directed at me, then yes, yes I have.

And?

No it was directed at winsomecowboy.

Yes I have read the COH, what a stupid question.
Now next you are going to pedantically lead me by the hand and trumpet the 'impersonation' reference and then what, triumphantly roar?

RedRuby, we by no means were the only people amused, to suggest so is disingenuous. You are attributing motive when that is beyond your [or anyones] rational capacity.

If you truely did not know that it was against the rules then it's easily forgivable. Since you did know the rules and broke them without concern that does change things.

What I am going to say is, you knew the rules and broke them. That makes it inappropriate even if it was a cute gag.

I know. I do remember those discussions.
Unfortunantly you have set up a situation where they apply to one group but not the other. Should newsvine ignore people who violate it's policies now? Or should there be an age requirement. If you've been here more than 18 months it's ok to do whatever you will.

But you are above the rules, Dennis? Or is this Bush posting as Dennis, cause it sure sounds like his thinking.

Oh for gods sake hemphill and jones girl!! This was NOT some huge drama until everyone got on their high horse. Now you two are lecturing us like we're schoolkids. How about you get things in perspective - there are prank articles on this site from time to time, they keep the site from getting too damn serious. So in this case people were taken in for 12 hours until the gag was revealed. So what.

Wow, ya'll got Djehuty to become exasperated. Do you know how hard that is to do?

Yes, we are lecturing like you are children. Because the lot of you are behaving as such. You all did something that was wrong, yet you are still trying to justify and rationalize it. When an adult does something wrong, they apologize and move on. When a child does something wrong, you have to explain why it was wrong to them. Then they can understand why what they did was bad so that they will not repeat the same error.

*cough*

I'm more proud of the fact that we got winsome defensive and wordy.

The real winsome, I mean, not that obvious fake.

We know the rules. We helped to make the rules.

The CoH was written by the users in the early days.

So there's a double standard in a sense-- its different for those who ''were here from the early days''....and the rest of us. [Actually I had sort of sensed that a while back]

It's not about you, after the initial reaction you'll probably be able to see that better.

You can justify your reaction externally all you want, just as some seek to justify the prank.

Massive risks were taken by people who gave their passwords to each other not knowing what would be written in their name, all for the sake of a joke. A joke that was pretty funny IMO.

But you can obviously not be amused, to justify your non amusement is simply padding IMO.

Your feelings pale next to the reaction Djehuty must have felt having his sensitive reality besmirched by vivisection and having to sit there and say nothing, as with Viki being teamed up with someone romantically and Myk coming out.

That's either funny or not, that's all there is to it. It's like justifying your taste in music over someone elses, it can't be done.

God Bless.

That's a good point winsome. Had I been Celestina I don't think I would have been able to stand having that article stand on my column.

good point.

True if you were tracking and say all those articles it would make perfect sense, but only seeing one or two, it did not make sense. And I say plenty of very negative comments in regards to treatment of blind rabbits..

I had a pretty negative reaction to Celestina's article, but I tried to temper it because what I read made so little sense to me.

Now my reaction is even more negative.

#6.10 reported as inflammatory

Calvin, I cannot agree with you more. People do not understand how one thoughtless moment can undo the hard work of others over a long period of time. Once destroyed, trust is never completely enjoyed again.

What do *you* want Newsvine to be?

Honestly, I want Newsvine to be a place where people really get smarter.
So, the sources aren't "trustworthy". Media isn't. Every thing you ever read, whether here or elsewhere has to be read with full faculties operating. It was a joke. It was also a joke with a point.
I hate that people felt betrayed. I spent all damned afternoon with a stomach ache, thinking that people though that was me.
But you know what? Some damned intelligent debate came off "my" article. I'm ok with it.

Thanks for the comment Calvin !
Regarding your Question:

What do *you* want Newsvine to be?

What happened today, is not what I want Newsvine to be.

For me, Newsvine took one huge step backwards today and I am very sad to see this happen.

I think it is very "MSNBC-y".

I was an elitist.

I see your point on the others...but, how does this challenge a stereotype?

So, the sources aren't "trustworthy"

I think we all know well enough that the sources are not trustworthy perhaps from the original article, however in my case, when I see what I considered highly trusted friends back up other comments that were clearly a joke, then yes I did learn something. I assumed far too much faith and trust. And that sometimes really hurts.

I think that's as honest a statement as we're going to get out of this Tedd and trust or lack of it, I thank you for putting it so simply.

[er,,,God Bless]

Calvin, I recall similar mischief taking place at 'Vinemeet West. Granted it was hidden in comments but it took place nonetheless with a certain admin wielding his powers in a less than noble way. I don't want to get too wound up over it (lest my anger over subversively being called a bitch for being the voice of reason be reignited) but please try not to be a hypocrite.

I have been spending nearly every day in the msnbc newsroom, championing our cause and convincing the editors there that average citizens like you really do have a legitimate place in the news reporting process...

What happened today does not negate the work you have been doing. Realistically it reinforces the necessity for democratized sources and for people to think about what they read. Your efforts are appreciated for sure, but one of the things I like about Newsvine is the fun, the community. Who says that just because there was a series of prank articles, the authors of said columns are no longer worth reading, that their research and opining is any less valid? Does it mean that those columnists are any less talented or that they are somehow insincere in their analysis and debate?

I think not. The joke is over, and Newsvine will learn from today's experience. Serious reporting will continue and all will be forgotten until someone else upsets the delicate balance of what Newsvine is suppose to be.

P.S. You had to know I was going to call you out. You can count on me to keep it real, even when it's ugly. I hope you don't hold it against me. ;-)

I agree, Celestina.

And yes, people were pranked. But no one was treated as bad as we were, by each other. We all agreed to have our reputations tarnished for two reasons - to generate discussion across a wide rage of topics, and to have fun.

And we accomplished both.

How noble of you.

Vicki - do not worry. After today, few will trust you about anything.

It's not noble, I've been saying all along it cannot be 'justified', it was humor, each participant did it for fun.

to pretend otherwise is Puritan residue, which is still thick in American culture. It was only during the 90's that America finally stopped automatically justifying it's comedy with 'morals' and 'life lessons'

I love lucy, my three sons, getting younger, the Brady bunch, any sitcom you care to mention always tacked on some 'redeeming life lesson' at the end of the plot, like comedy couldn't justify it's own existence.

I think this was funny, I accept others did not. That's as plain as it will ever be, all justifications as to it being or not being funny are puffery IMO.

Who are you to comment on their intentions? Are you in their heads?

Steve

Who's that aimed at?

It's not noble, I've been saying all along it cannot be 'justified', it was humor, each participant did it for fun.

to pretend otherwise is Puritan residue,

That guy.

....oh. Sorry winsome. I got confused as a n00b who can't remember who all was involved. :)

I think it is very "MSNBC-y".

Actually I would totally disagree on that one, it would be very unlike MSNBC.

t was only during the 90's that America finally stopped automatically justifying it's comedy with 'morals' and 'life lessons

Ah yes...the "very special episode...

Tonight, on a very special episode of Newsvine...

Calvin: Celestina, Myk...come hither, children, I'd like a word with you. Honey? Could you fix me a cocktail? Make it a double.

Cel and Myk sit down

Cel: Yes, Poppa?

Calvin: Now, children, I know you think that your friends are pretty "cool", the witch, the clown, the drunk, the lesbian, the other drunk, the bunny killing scumbag....WHERE"S THAT GODDAMNED COCKTAIL, WOMAN??? DON"T MAKE ME BEAT YOU LIKE A...

Mike D: It's right here, silly. Extra formaldehyde...just the way you like it.

Calvin: Ah..(sips)...perfect! Now, where was I? Oh yes...you think they're pretty cool now, but you'll see where they end up in a few years.

Myk: Jeepers, Poppa! Whatever do you mean?

Cel: Yes, Poppa. Please explain.

Calvin: Why, they're not "cool" or "hep" at all. They're just insecure bullies who...oh dear...not again...

Cel: Ew! Poppa, are you soiling yourself?

Mike: Shall I get the trowel, dear? My lands, every time you drink the formaldehyde...

Calvin: Silence, woman!!!!

Calvin: So...um...yes...bullies who feed on confusion and get their "kicks" from the cruelest of...

Myk: Will this take long? I'm totally boning someone at the moment.

enter Mr Roper

Calvin works hard to get MSNBC to take us 'amateurs' seriously. Some of the articles from today were even featured BY MSNBC for a short while. How possibly did that not damage what Calvin has worked so hard to build? Why should MSNBC continue to take us seriously? Some of the members high on the leaderboard chose to demonstrate that cannot be trusted and even said they were surprised they WERE trusted. Trust is hard to be earned, easy to be lost and impossible to totally regain.

Honestly, I want Newsvine to be a place where people really get smarter. So, the sources aren't "trustworthy". Media isn't. Every thing you ever read, whether here or elsewhere has to be read with full faculties operating. It was a joke. It was also a joke with a point.

I was going to write a rather long commentary on this, but decided to push it all into an article: On Swift & Swiftboating.

#6.10

What do *you* want Newsvine to be?

I think influential Newsviners need to decide whether this will be a credible source of news and opinion, or a social media site with a newsy hook. (Included this comment on another article.)

SteveHouse

You deserve an honest answer to your question

Who are you to comment on their intentions?

The answer is I am somebody who, along with all the other perpetrators, created a facebook group and discussed this for almost a month before it transpired.
So that is who I am to comment on 'our' intentions. I'm not presuming to know anything more than that I was aware the fundamentally this was a prank or a joke or whatever. I think the most common term used prior to the execution was 'prank.'

The answer is I am somebody who, along with all the other perpetrators, created a facebook group and discussed this for almost a month before it transpired.

I think part of the outrage stems from the fact that this can come off as the result of a proposal of "Hey, let's f--- with people!" yelled over a round of beers at 2 am.

Perhaps more insight into the planning process would calm the waters a bit.

This was not a "kick me" sign on Newsvine's back, this was a challenge to "Get Smarter here."

It seems to me like it was more of a ''kick-me'' sign on the backs of us ''ordinary'' users [not of course those of you'' who have been here from the very beginning'' ].

to pretend otherwise is Puritan residue,

Why do you feel the need to put down people-- that is not the sort of thing I want to see on newsvine. An arrogant air of superiority-- name calling... perhaps others want to see this here..I don't.

An arrogant air of superiority-

yep as compared to a self righteous fuelled humorless pomposity.

Each to their own I suppose.

What do *you* want Newsvine to be?

It's a community. And that means people. From all walks of life, all streams of thought. With everything that comes from that. A microcosm of society where I can come to test the pulse in society. And use my own judgement of that pulse and reuse what I learn to go back into the real world out there for a better understanding of people out there. The reality that is around me.

Newsvine is not just a citizen journalism gathering. It is not just a fun site. Not just of people with noble aims. Or dreams or visions. It is all of that and a whole lot more. If it reflects society around me, it has something that will attract me to it. Else it becomes fake and I will go elsewhere.

So. Perhaps this whole prank showed me that a bunch of people who I considered 'friends' were fakes. And because I found that out, I should stop visiting them. Or if the fake-ness is so wide, just pack up my bags and go elshewhere? No. Because the prank helped this community to experiment with something that is very important for people to do. In my view, far more often than we do in society.

And that is to put ourselves in other people's shoes. Try thinking like them. See the world through their eyes. Their hopes , their fears. Be forced to come out of our own little shells. And do it without harming the other.

Yes, guys. That reflects what a community should be about. Newsvine is that for me. It's about real people doing real things. In a safer environment. That's what Newsvine allows me to see. It's far more real than most other similar areas on the web. That's why I am here. Much more of what I have to say has already been said here.

Viki's point about trust is very important. Never trust anyone, especially on cyberspace. But always assume good noble intent by the other. If Newsvine helps me test myself against that conflicting statement, it is helping me get a little smarter. And yes Tedd - Djehuty's piece did throw me off. I'm a veggie too. At the time I made my comment there, I was not fully clued up to the scale of the prank. Read my comment there. It may illustrate what I mean with the dichotomy of trust and intent.

About the only thing I would have suggested was a tag. I'm not sure if targetting a smaller sub set of the community would have made much difference. Once something like this takes hold on the Vine, it assumes a life of its own. And I see no problem with this stuff going out on MSNBC et al. Let the world see us for what we are. Real people in a real community. Nothing to hide. Nowhere for fraudsters to hide either.

It was Lauhal's birthday.

Yes, I did glean that. And knowing Lauhal's unique style of humour as well as her caring people sensitive nature, a very apt way to mark it. It is a shame that the irony has been lost to some.

Haven't seen much of her. Happy Birthday Lauhal.

It is one thing to blindly trust everything someone says. It is another to trust them to be honestly presenting their article. Few of us trust everything someone says, many of us trust them not to purposely mislead us. The 'Drollhouse Twelve' purposely misled everyone. The worse violation of trust there can be.

The reason I've been absent for the past week is because I have been spending nearly every day in the msnbc newsroom, championing our cause and convincing the editors there that average citizens like you really do have a legitimate place in the news reporting process, and that intentional misrepresentation is at a very low level among highly active participants because of our user reputation system and the fact that you all have so much invested in your columns.

Thank you, Calvin.

All I'm saying is that there's an art to telling a joke, and there's a huge effort being made by many of us (most if not all of the joke's participants included) to push forward a very serious and noble cause.

These two efforts do not have to exist in conflict, but it takes smarts to ensure that. Smarts that I know all of you have in spades.

You are right that we have all learned something from today;

Excellent point. Alas I think a lot of people have learned something today. It may not be beneficial in the long haul, though, regarding being taken serious by MSNBC.

As others have mentioned, trust once lost is difficult to regain.

There is nothing wrong with having fun. Still satire needs to be tagged appropriately and announced upfront, if one wants to be taken seriously.

Many viners who have been here for a year will recall the Newsvine Innovation Contest from last year. Totally different from this prank, there was one element of that which was to with anarchy, and the way that manifested itself had similar consequences (and the risks to Newsvine's credibility) as here. And although I admired the idea at the time, I was also one of the chief critics then because of the potential impact to the community, standards and credibility. But you know? I may have had valid concerns but with hindsight, the risks that I saw then were perhaps exaggerated.

We all have learned from that experience then as we will from this one here. And this one actually played on some of the most socially engaging aspects that we should be focussing on. Talking about. Engaging on. And challenging ourselves (and each other) better. Just a thought for those who feel (rightly) that this was a mistake. At least we are talking about it. We didn;t much last year. Gotta show that we are getting better:-)

It is another to trust them to be honestly presenting their article.

Good comment Dr K. As Dennis said to me last year when I was saying what you are now, "don't judge a book by its cover". Judging character of an individual takes time. We need examples of conduct. Many examples, and in this medium, over a much longer period and through many disparate topics. But once we start getting an idea of that character, we can become more discerning about what someone is saying, what perhaps their intent is, and whether it is out of character. Perhaps it is just one of those 'bad hair days'. You may remember my 'joke' article on men vs women and the flak I got from that in certain quarters. Some, from friendships that I really valued. Did some damage, and for those friendships that I cared about, warranted some work to repair damage. And rebuild trust. It isn't all lost. Just requires us to be more discerning, and if the exercise teaches us that lesson, we've all gained.

…a lot of people have learned something today. It may not be beneficial in the long haul, though, regarding being taken serious by MSNBC.

Shaun - you've probably read me more than anyone else on Newsvine. So you will know many instances where I have joked about things, sometimes where others may have not seen the joke but instead got offended. And in some cases, it was because I was perhaps forgetting how voice and tone does not always carry. Yet, you have almost always understood where I was coming from, even if you may not have said so.

Your comment here was to Calvin's about humour. Yes, there is an art to telling a joke. My point is that only by experimenting with it can the community get better at that art. And it does have a lot of value in society. It helps to diffuse conflict far more effectively than mere words. But in this medium, it does force us to think outside the box. The Internet is a flat world.

…can you go leave it on the gazillion other reaction articles…

Thanks Viki and will try. Anyone is free to plagiarise it across the Vine. Or, to play it cool, just link to the source here:-)

Translation of Comments : 6.15 and 6.19:

The end justifies the means.

If I go to a comedy club, I know that I might be subjected to some offensive remarks in the quest of humor on the part of the comedian. Almost everything has a time and a place. This had neither.

If I go to a comedy club, I know that I might be subjected to some offensive remarks in the quest of humor on the part of the comedian. Almost everything has a time and a place.

I suspect Andy Kaufman would disagree with you.

Dr. Know, are you saying there is no space for humor on Newsvine? That is completely ridiculous; people write humor here all the time. And just because I don't like the joke or prank, does not make it any less funny to someone who thought it was. Humor, like tastes for many other things, is subjective.

Let's not pretend that Newsvine is not a community as well as news site. Let's not pretend that people don't have personalities (quite a few of them bitingly witty) as well as intellect. Have you seen the articles and resulting threads about drinking contests and what took place at Vinemeets? There you will find your clues as to the depth of how much fun people have making friends here. The self righteous anger and the fact that this whole incident is being taken so seriously is exhaustingly stupid (IMO) and I wish people would just get over themselves.

There is a key difference between a comedian making a joke (and if you don't like his show you can always leave) and a bunch of friends pulling a prank on their community: friends laugh it off once they know the jokes on them. For those people who "thought they knew" certain people based on their writing and commenting, you obviously only paid attention to the part you wanted to.

The articles you refer to are clearly marked for what they purport to be.

I have not been to any Vinemeets, therefore I have no reason to read about what happened. The drinking contests are clearly the juvenile things I participated in while in my fraternity in college. I knew to be what it was.

I have written articles intending to be humor. I have clearly marked them as such. I did not practice to deceive. You did not read what I said about humor. There is a time and a place - these articles were neither.

When I pay good money to go to hear a comedian I know what kind of humor to expect and know ahead of time everything is intended to be humorous, even if they do not turn out to be. I have never had to leave a comedy club because of taking offense. I have left movies.

One of the articles got so far out of hand that it was removed. I believe the others were only "outed" because the responses were getting out of hand. Even the 'twelve' realized things needed to stop. We only have their 'word' as to how long this 'social experiment' was originally intended to last. I did NOT participate in any of the articles. I was not directly one of the "punk'd". They have proven their point very well. They cannot be trusted.

I did not practice to deceive.

If they really wanted to deceive people they wouldn't have come clean in the end.

That is a problem Dennis, the lot of you have not been clear. Every one of you is saying there was a different purpose. Was it a joke? Was it a lesson? An experiment? A prank? Do you even know why you did it, as a group? As performance art it fails in much the same way kaufman's wrestling career did. As a simple joke or prank, it is just in violation of the site policies. As an experiment it fails, because you lack a hypothesis. One of your ranks actually says they did not know why they did it.

So no, your group has not been clear.

I did it cuz I thought it would be funny and cuz I wanted to see if I could really get away with writing what I wrote in the name of the person I impersonated (short answer: yes).

But mostly because I thought it would be funny.

Does that simplify things?

That really doesn't jive with you taking down your article, or feeling bad about the emotional response to your article. Was it not funny enough, or did it feel wrong to be receiving real support for being gay when you weren't?

Have you learned something from this?

It would appear you didn't get away with it as Newsvine deleted it, Mykola.

Newsvine didn't delete it, he did.

Well, I didn't have anything to do with the article posted in my thread. My personal feeling is that it crossed a line, so I took it down - in short, I didn't think it was funny. Unlike ya'll, though, I was in a position to do something about that.

Lesson learned there is if I ever (unlikely) participate in something like this again to be more careful with who I allow to write for me.

But mostly because I thought it would be funny.

Does that simplify things?

That does simplify things, but it really doesn't make the prank easier to understand (or for some, to forgive), especially in light of your article retraction.

Technically I didn't retract mine, I retracted the one someone else wrote in my name...I stand by mine. But I suppose that distinction is academic.

In the end, I guess, it comes down to you either think it's funny or you don't. Or, in the case of 99% of newsvine's users, you don't think about it at all.

Anyway, there's that.

Technically I didn't retract mine, I retracted the one someone else wrote in my name...I stand by mine. But I suppose that distinction is academic.

Fair enough.

I don't think it damages the site's credibility

You don't ? My Dad loves MSNBC and often checks the Community page to see if I am on it. So what makes the page today ? 4 of these articles.....And I am left totally dumb and blind attempting to explain that Newsvine really is a far far step up in the world from most other Social Media sites, however its difficult to say that when I start reading what is contained in the articles and have no idea what is going on since I was not "in the club" that was informed that all was a joke on Newsvine. If I had know that, I would never had bothered to log on and done something else then waste my time.

And I am left totally dumb and blind attempting to explain that Newsvine really is a far far step up in the world from most other Social Media sites

It's not your responsibility to justify the actions of other people to anyone. If you're taking that burden upon yourself, that's your own choice.

since I was not "in the club"

Crikey. It wasn't an "in club." There were many people who weren't in the know (such as Eric) who are personal friends with a lot of these people. It wasn't a club. It was a prank.

Some people know how to take a prank, and obviously others don't.

Just like the Newsvine drinking contest, the daily trivia, the birthdays, the meet-ups and many of the other non-news events that happen at Newsvine, we are a social group, either primarily or at least in as large a part as anything else that we are.

That means we'll fight and argue and joke and YES that means we'll prank, also. This could have happened on April 1, but would that have been as effective? As fun? As good a prank? No, of course not.

And, really, it completely misses the broader point which the explanation for
the prank made: critical reading is key, not only of the article in front of you, but of the pattern of articles that appear. We're daily bombarded by news from various sites, and most "significant" events result in many different seeds and articles. Learning to discern the "truth" from the variety of sources that feed into Newsvine is a critical skill.

The very pattern of the prank was an enormous clue to its nature. Did I see all the pieces of the pattern immediately? Of course not. I think I probably read four or five of the articles. But the very fact that several people mentioned Newsvine feeling like "The Twighlight Zone" today shows the kind of mental alarms that should have (and did) go off among the most critical readers.

The lesson was ultimately valuable. If you learned today not to trust the Internet…GOOD. You shouldn't.

If you learned today not to trust the Internet…GOOD. You shouldn't.

Considering I have been on the Internet since it was called the Arpanet and then the Darpanet, I would think that I might have had a small chance at figuring that out by now. Also 1/2 of my work involves Internet and Network Security.
"It's not your responsibility to justify the actions of other people to anyone."
However the last I checked with Calvin, Mike and Tom, Newsvine is still run by the Community and we set our own standards. Did you really want it to turn into another Digg type site or a National Enquirer ?

Perhaps we have a very different set of standards is my guess.

I would think that I might have had a small chance at figuring that out by now.

Everything old is new again on the Internet. Just when you think you've got it all figured out, just when you're comfortable, just when you're ready to trust again, along comes a prank, a virus, a trojan horse, spyware, or some stupid fad (goatscx, anyone?) that reminds you to keep your guard up. Always. ;-)

Seriously, though, the lesson is timely, especially given the amount of pro- and con-candidate material we're seeing now and will see through November. I expect some of that stuff will be beyond the pale before it's over.

Everything old is new again on the Internet.

no question on that one...

Did you really want it to turn into another Digg type site or a National Enquirer ?

Another Digg type site? Do you really think Digg could have sustained the quality of discussion that went on in any of the articles posted today?

This has nothing to do with Digg or the National Enquirer. It's hard to even see how the National Enquirer even relates to the topic of a prank. (And I would note that we already have a "fake news" group, the Weakly World News. I think your concern is misplaced.)

I'll say it again: some know how to take a prank; some don't. If you don't get this, you probably never will.

some know how to take a prank; some don't. If you don't get this, you probably never will

Actually by saying that, you don't know me well at all as I have pulled many a prank in my time.

However, I am considerate for others feelings also. We have alot of very caring people on Newsvine, many animal people. The article on Rabbit torture was very ugly, that pushed the boundary on pranks for me and others. The rest of the pranks were fine. I am talking about just one and only one.

You cannot make a global statement about me and pranks, based on my comment regarding a single case. Thats not a well thought out statement nor logical.

You cannot make a global statement about me and pranks

You'll note, I didn't make a global statement about you. I said "some know how to take a prank; some don't." This is obviously true given the reaction to the set of articles. I then made a comment directed at you: "If you don't get this, you probably never will;" this again is not a global statement, since it's qualified by "probably." At this point, and given your other comments in this article, I think it's likely true.

If you don't get this (prank, by now, given the explanations given) then you probably never will (get it; i.e. find the amusement in the prank).

Better?

The article on Rabbit torture was very ugly, that pushed the boundary on pranks for me and others.

That's fine. For you.

Look, you don't get to declare what is funny and what isn't. Some people read Truly Tasteless Jokes, and find them hilarious. Others are deeply offended. Some people find drag shows to be a hoot, and others blanch at the site of a man in a dress. Some people think Andrew Dice Clay is funny. (I'm sure there's at least one. Somewhere.) Some people still watch South Park.

Humor is not universal.

I'm sure everyone who participated is genuinely sorry that you took the joke in Djeuty's column so personally, but it would be patently absurd to think that they should have to censor themselves because of your concerns. Should they run every story by you to make sure it doesn't trample your sensitivities? "Geez, I wonder if this story about roadkill is going to set Tedd off." Of course they shouldn't.

You seem to be taking this very personally, as if it were an attack against you. The comments about not being in "the in crowd" are very revealing. Let me clue you in: this isn't about you, and it never was.

Some people will find this prank funny. Inevitably, some people will not. You're one of the ones who didn't. That's not good or bad. It just is. That's humor for you.

I am upset at the practice and the article. He could have picked a less evil topic to discuss. Who is their right mind wants to be reminded of those morbid practices ? Not me. And then to be treated as a joke ?

Thinking is only a small part of the solution, Doing something to ban the torture is far more useful then thinking about it.

humor is very subjective but it is also universal. Ugly things are sometimes made palatable to just even contemplate via humor. No-one has authority over humor and no-one ever will because laughter is an involuntary reaction.

humor is very subjective but it is also universal

How about "Everybody finds some things funny, but no one finds exactly the same things funny."

well as sad but interesting as what i am about to relate is, I have performed as a silent clown in over 30 countries and many different cultures and something that I exploit while even after all these years being a little dismayed by is this, a trueism as far as my experience shows anyway.

"An old woman in an out of control wheelchair heading towards a cliff will always be funny unless she's your grandmother."

It's not that important a piece of knowledge after a couple of decades work but I have learnt other stuff as well.

God Bless

One can work hard to justify any action if they are really motivated. None of us are dumb enough to trust the internet. However, we can be gullible enough to start to trust some of the people on it. Today several people chose to violate that trust. They will learn the consequences.

If you do not mind sullying your own reputation so be it. There are enough opportunities to make honest mistakes without purposely doing so.

#1 Above all else, respect others. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it, rather than further inflaming the situation.
#2 Before you write, seed, or comment, ask yourself if your contribution increases the strength and virtue of the community.

I fail to see how any of these articles did not violate both of these. Pranks always involve a lack of respect for others. None of them strengthened the community or added to its virtue. It was a childish inside joke. If anyone in the Greenhouse had tried anything like it, they would never get out. Mistakes are one thing. Intentional actions like these are inexcusable.

Do I think that the loss of my "friendship" or ignoring them will have any significant effect? Not at all. I do not take myself that seriously. They all seem to think it is hilarious. That is fine for them. Others do not share the hilarity.

Don't forget you're justifying your own reaction also. You don't own anything objective in this discussion.

Then by all means, go back to every one of the articles and report them, and urge everyone else who feels the same to do the same. After all, that's what self-governance is about, right? Fixing what you see as a problem instead of just sitting back and whining about it? And if you did report it, good job, you did what you thought was right. I just couldn't agree less.

spiff:

There's a couple of points you're either missing or wrong about.

First. Calling something a prank does not mean it can't be cruel or manipulative. If you think cruel and manipulative is funny (and we all do in some contexts from the Three Stooges to Jon Stewart at the Oscars), well, yeah, it's funny. But it's still cruel and manipulative.

Two. No, I'm sorry. I don't need to be forced to "think" about something by some cruel pranksters, and, in fact, the very cruelty and manipulation that the "pranK' entails is much more likely make people NOT think about those supposed issues than to make them think about them. Actually, the people who think it was all just a joke are probably the stupidest and shallowest anyway.

Thus: Anyone sensitive enough to understand the claimed underlying lesson will reject it on the grounds that the method used to impart it was inhumanely deceptive, whereas anyone who thought it was good for a laugh is too much of a clod to get it anyway.

Finally, you COMPLETELY, to my mind SHOCKINGLY, considering how thoughtful I know you can be, fail to understand Tedd's grievance.

The psychic payoff he earned for having read that article was negative, as it was for many of those complaining in other articles. (I'll bet Oluseye doesn't feel like he got a positive psychic payoff for that long comment he added to Celestina's article, either.)

Tedd, I'll bet, gets a positive psychic payoff ultimately from the torment of reading animal cruelty articles elsewhere because he knows he can help such animals, and he has, as he told you. In some sense, then suffering through those articles helps relieve the suffering of the animals in the end. And it's ESPECIALLY so in Tedd's case because he has rescued hundreds of animals. That's a noble purpose for writing about such a terrible subject. He's invested in the subject and he was robbed of that investment.

So what now? You make him suffer through something and then afterward say, "Ha! Just joking!" and expect him to start thinking about the deeper issue?

What "deeper issue" were you thinking about when you answered "Huh" to Myk's coming-out-of-the-closet article?

@jfxgillis
Thank you ! I am glad to see someone that has some sensitivities around here and understand the strange concept called "emotional response triggers"

There's a couple of points you're either missing or wrong about.

That's not only possible, it's likely (but hopefully for the former reason and not the latter).

Look, on reflection, I think the negative reaction probably should have been obvious, but I will admit I was frankly very surprised by it. When the prank was revealed for what it was, I was personally delighted. I thought it was funny.

But there may be a couple of reason for that. I didn't become involved in any of the articles. (I didn't even get home until late, and only finished reading the greater part of my friends tracker shortly before the prank was revealed.) My personal lack of involvement probably played somewhat into my reaction to the scheme.

I don't think I would have had a deeply negative reaction to it, regardless.

So to Tedd: I'm sorry for being less sympathetic than I should have been to your viewpoint above.

First. Calling something a prank does not mean it can't be cruel or manipulative.

Pranks are always manipulative. Whether any particular prank is cruel or not I think is informed a great deal by the intent behind it.

Should the participants have foreseen the negative reaction? At this point I think maybe it should have been obvious (even though I don't think that I myself would have seen it). Myk has a comment around here somewhere that some of the articles were pulled off better than others, and it's probably fair to say that some of the comment threads were handled better than others, also.

But I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to be cruel to other users. They thought they were making a point in a unique way. It's probably fair to say it may have gotten a little out of hand. It seems to me that this isn't, in kind, so different than some of the other satires that have appeared on Newsvine. What's very different is the scope and the scale. Maybe this kind of joke just doesn't scale very well. Too much of a good thing, or something.

I don't need to be forced to "think" about something by some cruel pranksters, and, in fact, the very cruelty and manipulation that the "pranK' entails is much more likely make people NOT think about those supposed issues than to make them think about them.

See, I don't know. Maybe I just project my own thought processes too much on other people. The "twist" is what made the whole thing fun for me, along with the pattern of articles. It was like a puzzle, trying to figure out what was up.

Whether or not the method chosen was an effective way to deliver their point is secondary to me. All articles are supposed to force me to think. If I'm not considering the points the author raises within my own frame of reference, then either I'm not doing my job or the author isn't doing his.

The surprise ending can be very effective. The "ah hah" moment. Maybe you don't like plot twists from left field. I also like non-sequitur humor.

Finally, you COMPLETELY, to my mind SHOCKINGLY, considering how thoughtful I know you can be, fail to understand Tedd's grievance.

Again, that's probably likely. That's why I apologized above.

So what now? You make him suffer through something and then afterward say, "Ha! Just joking!" and expect him to start thinking about the deeper issue?

This is the thing though: How on earth would anyone know the subject was going to make Tedd suffer? No one intentionally forced Tedd to suffer through the article.

Some subjects are deeply offensive to a subset of the population, regardless of their treatment. Tedd himself said it was the subject itself that he had the problem with. That kind of reaction couldn't have been anticipated.

But at the same time, we can't ask our writers to only write about subjects guaranteed to be non-offensive. I also tend to be of the opinion that humor should push boundaries. But that's just me. Would Tedd have taken it differently if the article had been roped off somehow in the "humor" section? Maybe. But that also would have completely ruined the joke.

This is a PG-13 site. That means some things discussed are going to be a little edgy. We're not owned by Disney.

I said above the whole thing may have gotten a bit out of hand. And it probably did. At the same time, I'm still a little shocked at exactly how negative the reaction by some has been. I'm…completely at a loss to explain why some people can't see the joke, even if they don't think it's funny. When I'm the butt of a joke that I don't think is funny, I just don't laugh. I don't go ballistic.

What "deeper issue" were you thinking about when you answered "Huh" to Myk's coming-out-of-the-closet article?

The "Huh" was actually an expression of disappointment, although I didn't want to criticize the unknown author too much. It didn't sound like Myk, to me, or seem…grand enough, I guess. Probably that's just because I saw it after the fact. It wasn't what I was expecting. Thus, "Huh."

Thank you ! I am glad to see someone that has some sensitivities around here and understand the strange concept called "emotional response triggers"

While I do see validity in the sentiments you and jfxgillis have expressed, I personally pay very little attention to emotional response triggers. I personally do not think that the simple presence of emotional response triggers invalidates a prank, a satire, or even a serious news article.

However, I do agree that perhaps a reexamination of what Newsvine might be in order.

@spiffie
With you making your comments like you did a few above.

"Geez, I wonder if this story about roadkill is going to set Tedd off."

Do you really have that low of an opinion of me that I am going to run and hide in a corner if I happen to see a little blood or something ? I happen to love animals, that does not make me a wimp. I also work in Search and Rescue and have pulled out more then my share of bodies from plane wreaks, diving accidents, falls from mountains etc. I have no idea where you get your "set Tedd off" comment from. Yes it pissed me off the lack of sensitivity that some people have. That is common with age sometimes and lack of experience,

No one intentionally forced Tedd to suffer through the article.

Your correct. No one can make me suffer through a article, I choose my path in life, I read what I want to, I handle my emotions, not you, nor anyone else.

Maybe the subject of animal torture is funny to you, have you ever seen it done, my guess is not. However I have many times. Therefore, I don't joke about it. Other subjects, sure those I will joke about, this one, no.

You can rationalize all you want about all the reason I am wrong and you are right. I still hold my initial belief and in looking around Newsvine, its pretty clear that I am not the only person. So please stop bashing me.

I've had it with this entire "Joke Subject" the entire thing is a bad nightmare I wish it had never happened.

First, I already apologized for not being more sympathetic. Take it if you wish. It's still being offered.

Second:

Your correct. No one can make me suffer through a article, I choose my path in life, I read what I want to, I handle my emotions, not you, nor anyone else.

Maybe the subject of animal torture is funny to you, have you ever seen it done, my guess is not. However I have many times. Therefore, I don't joke about it. Other subjects, sure those I will joke about, this one, no.

Just as you choose your path through life, so I choose mine. I'll joke about what I want to joke about when I want to joke about it. If you would prefer your path not to chance seeing jokes from me that might offend you, there's not much I can do about it. You, however, are free to take whatever action you need to.

Just know I'm not going to censor myself for your benefit.

Do you really have that low of an opinion of me that I am going to run and hide in a corner if I happen to see a little blood or something ?

That's just it, Tedd. I don't know. As you so helpfully pointed out several comments earlier (although I was under no illusions otherwise), I don't know you. Your visceral, extreme reaction to this event (and admittedly you aren't alone) completely baffles me, as I said in #8.20.

So please stop bashing me.

I'm not bashing you. If you felt what I said was bashing, that wasn't my intent. I'll unreservedly retract any characterizations you felt were uncalled for.

I have written satires on the Newsvine. When I do, I carefully label then as such.

I do not purposely mislead people then later say "My bad." Ted and I have been around since before the internet. We are well aware of the chances that false, spurious and misleading information abounds.

When I came to the Newsvine, I thought I had found a place were most people were serious and honest. I did not come here to participate with those that thought they could perpetrate a fraud and excuse it as a prank. In order to "appreciate" the breadth of the endeavor I would have had to choose randomly from the 2000 entries on my conversation tracker to select just those articles. It is only a prank to those that perpetrated it and to those that only watched. To those caught, it was hurtful and purposely so.

A reference was made to the 'The Three Stooges" and Jon Stewart as engaging in cruel and manipulative behavior. The big difference is that everyone knew it was not real before it even started. You could watch or not watch knowing the full intent ahead of time.

But on the other hand, I want to shout--"What the hell are you people thinking? You don't know me! You don't KNOW that anything I've ever said here on the Vine is truth."

You are right. My experience, however, is based on reading what people write, using those critical and analytical skills I have and deciding if I agree with it or not... finding out that people have deliberately played a joke which is predicated on an assumption that I am not a smart enough reader to make my own judgements about what is being said on this site and others is actually feeling pretty uncool right now.

Also I am not sure about your assumption that people blindly trust you... it seems a bit... arrogant? I certainly do not blindly trust anyone and also tend to work on the assumption that I need to earn people's trust.

spiff:

Actually, I liked the puzzle aspect, too. While the prank robbed others of sincere response, all it robbed me of was the few hours it took to peg 'em all (or almost all). So I ended up with a sense of accomplishment. I don't have any emotional investment either in any of the authors or in any of the themes or topics (except for Barack Obama). But--

I knew damn well that others WOULD be invested either in author or subject, to different degrees, and if I didn't know that damn well, I would've figured it out from the responses being generated. At that point it would've been clear that people's REAL feelings were being manipulated and that therefore there'd be REAL emotional consequences.

The funny thing is, the one thing I am emotionally invested in is the quality of the front-page columnists' box, for the reason Calvin stated up in comment 6.19.

Doc:

A reference was made to the 'The Three Stooges" and Jon Stewart as engaging in cruel and manipulative behavior. The big difference is that everyone knew it was not real before it even started.

That was me and that is a most excellent amplification, a point I was pondering in reply to Jack Huang's "audience participation" point elsewhere.

You're only an audience if you know you're an audience, if you CONSENT to a performance. Otherwise, you're just regular people trying to make regular sense of regular stimuli.

You all remind of the schoolyard bullies who put "kick me" signs on everyone's back. I am so disappointed.

If you learned today not to trust the Internet

I learned today not to trust certain individuals here on newsvine- people I had thought I could trust.

Its one thing to go to an unfamiliar site on the net and read a news article--and wonder if its reliable. Its another thing entirely to have people you think you could trust-- who in fact acted in a way to encourage people to trust them-- and then lie and deliberately deceiveyou [and yes-- that's what it was--lies and deception]. To teach us something-- a rather arrogant-- and very condescending approach I'd say.

I also learned that a few specific individuals here have a rather sadistic sense of humor.

I don't trust the mainstream media. Today I learned that newsvine is no more trustworthy than the mainstream media. If they lied to you once-- not by accident but deliberately-- and then rather than apologize defend their actions [see all their self-righteous defenses here--epalii how cool they are-- and why their betrayal of your trust was such a great thing]-- how do you now they won't do it again? In fact-- sice they thi it was so sucessful-- you can rest assured they will do it again?

If you were going to start a newssite-- what values would be important to you. what would you do Perhaps a little sesatioalism. A little gossip.Some sexy pictures.Special features. But-- it seems to me that for a news site-- the one thing that should be key [obviously the mainstream media has failed at this--which is why they are losing readsrs/viewers -- is establishing trust. You want your audiece to feel that your news stories can be trusted. This experimet did just the opposite. I wonder-- if MSBC still thinks they made a wise purchase... ? ? ?

That would be too simple though wouldn't it? Not enough righteous fury, not nearly as good as if you project your dissapointment while inflating it to encompass the very bedrock, nay the very principles and ideals by which this website rests.

translation, "why I oughta..."

I think it'd be pretty hilarious.

Me too. Obviously after healing from the wound of your punishment.

God Bless

I will also be ignoring anything further from either of you.

Best ignore me as well, just to be safe.

I have agreed to Myk's request. I almost said "honored" but it would not be true.

must you mock the reasonable reactions like this? i think the participants need to cut the readers some slack here, and laughing like this, piling on, reminds me of the aftermath of a playground prank. the prank is one thing. having a point and laugh session afterwards is another.

Welcome to teh internets. ( ...really funny if my last comment is under me... )

Yeah, to be honest, Noah, I am not sure how I feel. If Dr. Know is blocking the participants then he should block me as well - I was at least as much at fault as Winsome and much more directly involved than Eric.

But I'm having a hard time placing my exact emotional reaction to this whole mess. I don't want to piss anyone off, though I don't mind fooling some of the people some of the time. The article I wrote today was one of the more successful on a variety of levels - I feel like it was goofy enough to make the subject squirm but serious enough to generate some real discussion.

The article posted in my column today, on the other hand, basically made some false claims about my reality that led to some sincere emotional outpourings that my girlfriend and I weren't comfortable accepting. Honestly I feel like there's a qualitative difference between some of pranks today, but maybe that's just me and they're all just funny and I just didn't "get" a few of them. That's fine too.

I'm having a weird sense of, do I care if MSNBC sees this stuff? On the one hand, this is newsvine first and foremost and drollhouse pranks while few and far between are sort of an established tradition here. MSNBC bought what they bought and if this sort of content isn't what they'd generally publish then I guess that's for them to sort out.

On the other hand, part of me feels like we should be striving for some sort of perceived legitimacy because of the MSNBC connection. As much as I'd like to say "@!$%# that we do what we want" I have to wonder if maybe it's not actually a good idea to adjust our conduct to fit into the niche they're creating for us. Or is that selling out?

Anyway, my participation in this little performance art spectacle leaves me feeling oddly unsettled. I'm proud of my contribution and of a few others, skeptical of some, and generally feel like this little lark needed a bit of logistical organization to minimize the damage done while maximizing the intended effect.

But I dunno, that's me. I'm sorry Dr. Know is having such a hard time with it and I don't bear him any personal ill-will - I'm certainly not going to join Noah in laughing at him.

So yeah, that's where I'm sitting.

Yeah Myk.
"the old woman in an out of control wheelchair heading for a cliff will always be funny unless she's your grandmother."

in this instance, your grandmother = your sexuality.

Funny for some, others not.

Thank you firsty. They can say they did not mean for it to go so far but that is the Law of Unforeseen Consequences.

They are entitled to their 'prank'. I am entitled to my reaction.

Yeah, fair enough. I can understand how that would be funny coming from anywhere else on newsvine.

Hobby vivisectionists, however, are funny even if they are your grandmother.

Should I have laughed at the comment in 9.14, or am I definitely going to hell for it?

in this instance, your grandmother = your sexuality.

This is a classic example of context removing humor from the situation.

"BREAKING: MYKOLA'S GRANDMOTHER BITES THE HEAD OFF OF LIVING BUNNY RABBITS, FEEDS SPURTING NECKS TO MYKOLA"

Well I thoroughly enjoyed the whole shabang, so I guess you should ignore me too, Dr Know.

Actually, just ignore anyone with a sense of humour.

*flaps some more*

It's like crack to us.

Does that mean you have the shakes for four years? That's rough.

Does that mean you have the shakes for four years? That's rough.

He means the other kind of crack.

Oh, Jack. Haven't there been enough visuals for one day?

No, your standings on zombies will remain the same..
Rubber chickens?? Not so much...

firsty:

one hard truth, for those offended, is that some of the offense taken has to do with the jealousy of not being involved.

Duh. So what the @!$%#? Let's say that's the case. Wouldn't a goddamn NINE-YEAR-OLD have been able anticipate that such feelings would be engendered?

So yeah. Let's see. First you rob people of genuine feeling by inspiring things like sincere advice for an age-different love affair, tenderness for abused animals and support for a tormented, closted gay man. Then you replace that feeling in many cases with jealousy and a sense of alienation.

THEN people think everyone's going to laugh it off? Or blame themselves for not getting the @!$%#ing joke? And do some serious self-reflection on their own faults?

Thank you, sir, may I have another?

Wouldn't a goddamn NINE-YEAR-OLD have been able anticipate that such feelings would be engendered?

yes. however, jealousy and envy are still things that we should all try to avoid. they can be purely visceral reactions and left there, if we are able to see them as such and use our own experience and self-control to recognize that that which we may be envious of is really not something to be envied — at first, might i have felt, @!$%# — i guess i'm not in the right clique — but when it comes down to it, would i like to either be in that clique or to have been involved in what happened? absolutely not.

i'm glad i am who i am, and i'm proud of the friends i have, here and elsewhere. many of us have been through times in our lives where those kinds of relationships were tested by outside influences or by internal temptations or simple mistakes. it is during these times of stress or anxiety or change that we usually see the true colors of our friends and ourselves. it can also be during these times that we are better able to assess the envy we might feel as relative outsiders.

First you rob people of genuine feeling by inspiring things like sincere advice for an age-different love affair, tenderness for abused animals and support for a tormented, closted gay man. Then you replace that feeling in many cases with jealousy and a sense of alienation.

THEN people think everyone's going to laugh it off? Or blame themselves for not getting the @!$%#ing
joke? And do some serious self-reflection on their own faults?

i agree completely. but i think or at least i hope that i have something to offer those who are feeling so crappy right now. i'm not going to get into pissing matches with the pride involved here, but i felt compelled to let some above know that they are wrong to take advantage of the disadvantage they themselves attached to many of their readers by mocking them. on the other hand, i think it's important to stress that those of us feeling @!$%#ty should take some breaths and then realize that even tho we feel like @!$%# because we were made to feel that way, it is possible to realign our perspective in such a way — a valid and true way — as to realize that to be duped and taken advantage of and subsequently mocked isnt our fault, and provides an insight into our own thoughts (we may ask ourselves, 'would we have actually participated had we been asked?' — it's nice to be able to answer, 'no', isnt it?) and into the attitudes of others, which is a positive thing.

firsty:

For an angry first person narrator, that some eminently sensible stuff you wrote there.

The odd thing about this:

that to be duped and taken advantage of and subsequently mocked isnt our fault, and provides an insight into our own thoughts (we may ask ourselves, 'would we have actually participated had we been asked?' — it's nice to be able to answer, 'no', isnt it?) and into the attitudes of others, which is a positive thing.

While true and perhaps consoling for the victims, it's also true for the perpetrators (though perhaps not consoling. Hope not, anyway).

While true and perhaps consoling for the victims, it's also true for the perpetrators (though perhaps not consoling. Hope not, anyway).

exactly. and the perpetrators dont have the advantage of entering into the situation innocently. to me, the readers here, not the authors of the prank, have won.

Eh, I think that's a bit melodramatic. This isn't going to "destroy newsvine" and if it damages some peoples' trust then I think that's trust that should be damaged. Nobody should trust anyone to the point that they just accept whatever they write. Maybe shaking up that notion of trust was kind of the point of this whole thing, eh?

You sound like you're taking it a bit personally - I suggest you take a step back, take a breath and re-approach it as a performance art piece.

There seem to be several problematic thoughts here.

The first: You assume that it was correct that we ever trusted each other based merely on our articles. Sourcing and citing is key in order to provide warrant to the statements and arguments being made. Otherwise, they're just statements on the Internet, and could be written by anyone with any agenda and any intent.

The second: You assume that the reason Digg and Slashdot declined has anything to do with a similar action. Is it the case Digg and Slashdot declined because of pranks? I don't believe that it is. Perhaps you can point to a similar set of events on Digg and/or Slashdot which can be placed at a time after which the site(s) was noticeably less effective than it was prior. Otherwise, you're assuming a causal connection without having even demonstrated a correlation.

I am not taking this personally., I am not angry in the slightest. I think it was funny, it could have been made even funnier. But it does seem that quite a few folks are angry.

Maybe shaking up that notion of trust was kind of the point of this whole thing, eh?

But was it? Or was it a joke? Or was it an experiment?

I like that you called my comment melodramatic, I think that's the third time in this life I have managed that one.


spiffie, true the science is sloppy. But both sites do have the pawned / first post fools mark the begin of their falls. Replacing the content with humour is the parallel that I am thinking of here.
Either way it does seem to concern some folks.

Hear hear

I guess I am a little sad guys. I read most of the articles when they came out, and picked up right away that it was a silly joke, and stopped tracking them, so therefore the value that you have placed on your little experiment was lost on me.
It just seemed so juvenile, so high school, haha we got one over on you... but that's ok it is your little joke, you'll always have that.

I read and respected most of your columns, at one time or another. Couple of you where in my friends list, but you have been removed. I will no longer read any of your articles or seeds. I know that really, I am nobody to all of you, as I am not one of the oldviners, and not necessarily aware of all of the relationships here. But today reading this crap, you really made me feel like a nobody.

My participation in this, for the record, was not an experiment, it was a joke. I thought it was very funny . I also knew there would be a group of bruised and genuinely hurt people who didn't find it funny and felt betrayed. I did it anyway. Why? Because I thought it was really funny and fun to do.

Am I insensitive? To some yes certainly. Am I funny? I don't care what some think, I know I'm funny. just as I know my humor will never be appreciated by all.

I have choices, do I want to continue being funny, [something I'm paid very well for btw] or do I submit to others definitions of what constitutes humor.

I challenge any dissenters to a funny competition. You think you know what's funny, prove it.

You have every right to your emotional responses but you have no right to tell anyone what's funny. Unless you can define funny in any other way other than, I laughed/I didn't laugh.

You didn't laugh, some of you felt left out, some of you felt fooled and betrayed.

That's unfortunate. Truly.
But all I see with some of the high-horsing here is people hiding their feelings behind a veil of 'principled outrage'

You'll have to excuse me, but I find that funny as well.

I have personally, a special place for Tedd Riggs, because his honesty to me actually made me a bit ashamed that i was in any way detrimental to him.
I'm fully prepared to be a bit contrite for that because confusion is not fun and feeling it is not a choice.

That said I still thought today was fun, just not for everyone.

Tim - you cannot be more right. The more they belittle those that have taken exception to their actions; the more they justify the reactions. They have done irreparable harm to the community.

irreparable harm

Your hyperbole erodes your point.

A true Joke should be lighthearted, should not need to be explained, should not cause a loss of friends and should not lower the standards of the community. In my books, this was more a total screw-up.

I agree Tim and Dr Know. It wasn't that funny. I had time to read one article today and unfortunately it was a joke. I didn't comment as I really didn't have time to read all the comments. Instead I emailed the author as I was concerned and wanted to be supportive. That action almost made me late for work. So now I am supposed to laugh at the joke! I am sorry I don't think it was funny and I don't like being played, particularly by people I respect.

I think the participatory articles covered a rather wide spectrum of humor and gravity.

I personally only read winsome's (God), Walt's (Leaving), and Djehuty's (Bunnies) articles before the grand finale, and I found those rather easy to dissect as satire.

I agree that Myk's article was far less obviously satirical, so I think that while the idea of the prank itself need not warrant such outrage, parts of its execution could have been better thought out.

Right at you Tim! I agree. I still cannot see the humor. I am glad I only got caught up in 2 of the articles as I was busy with my volunteer work on behalf of veterans. Shame on you people.

Is these an easy list of these perpetrators somewhere so I and anyone else can put them on the ignore?

I wrote up a long and thoughtful response to that coming-out-of-the-closet article by Myloka (I think that was his name) since I have had 2 of my friends go through that extremely painful and emotional process in the last 2 years and I wanted to share some of my thoughts which I thought might be helpful. Instead, after I had written the loooong response, when I clicked post, it told me that the article was no longer available. And now, today when I learn this, it pisses me off to no end.

It was just an in-joke by those few people and nowhere near a "social experiment" as these folks want to call it. Shame on them!

A blatant impersonation in violation of the Newsvine policy. Are they going to get reprimanded by Newsvine staff? I bet not.

Thanks, btw I'm a gal not a mister. Emily of Newsvine staff changed my name from PrezObama to Prezo since she thought I was violating Newsvine policy of not impersonating people.

What has this world Vine come to?

I'm still waiting for it to come to.

Something no one is taking into account is this: between us, we 12 people have put so many thousand hours into this place that you can be damn sure we didn't do it to bring the site down. We did it to make the vine a better place.

You may think we did the opposite but hey, it's up to each person to make their own decisions.

Djehuty I think a lot of us are taking your many fine contributions into account and your less than malicious intent of trying to do something different.

As those of us who have been here a number of years know, it passes and some of the criticism articles and comments are of the truly disgusting type that feeds on sensationalism for leaderboard points.

Thanks TJ.

The fallout begins...

Stay with us, Buck, just be careful about who you make friends with in the future.

If I hear one more time "Your Welcome" as a response for "participating in this experiment" I think I will either throw up or at the very least, hit the ignore button if I have not already.

Indeed, Tedd, indeed.

Perhaps that speaks more to my inexperience (or insecurity?) here than anything else.

I would not take it that way if I were you, Many of us that have been around for much longer and feel plenty security are also rather upset at what went on today. The whole thing was very strange and very unsettling for many. I felt like I had stumbled into the wrong website this morning.

It was like a Star Trek episode with an alternate universe of people with evil dispositions instead of the trusted colleagues we used to enjoy.

t was like a Star Trek episode with an alternate universe of people with evil dispositions instead of the trusted colleagues we used to enjoy.

Hey don't go soft on us, you are steering dangerously close to labelling it or comparing it to entertainment rather than a website-destroying-travesty

Just a bunch of longtime users having a little fun.

oh MAN...that sounds like what Limbaugh said about Abu Ghraib...and he was a longtime user too. rhymes with...

Like it or not, Dennis, this joke has created a clique. Just look at reactions here to what happened. Anyone who participated is part of it, those of us who were played are not. At first, I thought it was humorous, but the more I think about it, the less funny it gets, especially on a site that is for news and information. I'd expect this sort of joke on craigslist maybe, but not here.

A disservice was done to the Vine today in my opinion. You guys are feeling like you should justify yourselves and that it was just a "joke" but here all we have are our words and those were used against the majority of us today.

Of course, I am just returning from the police station after being assaulted on the bus, so that might also be coloring my feelings.

Of course, I am just returning from the police station after being assaulted on the bus, so that might also be coloring my feelings.

With all due respect, I can't decide if this is true or a subtle commentary on the prank. (That indecision itself being a commentary on the prank)

If it's true, I hope you're alright.

It's very true, I just wrote about it and am trying to calm down.

not a good day all around.

It's very true, I just wrote about it and am trying to calm down.

Dang.

TheJonesGirl - I am sorry for the experience you had on the bus today. If there was anything I could do that would help, I would do it.

I have a greater respect for you knowing that you were invited out of the Cult of Drollhouse. They have proved they are beyond a harmless clique. The fact that you were not mean and manipulative enough (others words for pranks and jokes) to be retained as a member says much for your character.

Sad thing is, Dr. Know, that I like many of those who participated today, insomuch as you can "like" someone on the internet. I can see how they thought it was a great commentary on our words here, but at the same time, it also saddens me, I've always imagined this site as being a cut above. Had this joke been on April Fool's Day, it wouldn't have left the same bitterness with many, I'm sure.

But as Jack said elsewhere, the truly annoying part is having the participants belittle people's reactions to the joke and thank us for participating. I didn't participate, I responded honestly and normally to posts and do feel a bit used.

The fact that you were not mean and manipulative enough (others words for pranks and jokes) to be retained as a member says much for your character.

Always one for hyperbole, eh?

We can hardly judge the membership requirements and express formative intent of the Drollhouse from this one prank. After all, this was not the first, simply one that blindsided you.

As for defining pranks and jokes generally as mean and manipulative, I agree: only rat bastards have a sense of humor.

Had this joke been on April Fool's Day, it wouldn't have left the same bitterness with many, I'm sure.

Indeed, context is important.

Context is everything.

As I said, I see both sides, but my annoyed side is winning the battle.

But tomorrow's another day.

Jonesy:

I am sorry to hear of your experience.

Yeah right on girl! That, to me, was the worst condescending remark I have seen in a while - " Thank you for your participation."

Hitler to the Jews: "Now we are going to kill you all. Thank you for your participation." /sarcasm

Pathetic, just pathetic!

Wow, I didn't think we'd see Godwin's law in this particular conversation.

Kudos.

Hitler to the Jews: "Now we are going to kill you all. Thank you for your participation." /sarcasm

Ah yes, the Drollhouse SS sent us all to the laughing gas chamber in the Auschwitz of comedy, and some choked.

Such hyperbole only serves to undermine your point.

Ok, sorry, maybe that was a hyperbole.

But yeah, I still stand by the point.

The lamest "joke", nothing new. Same as Punked' on TV. Not any great social experiment.

Hey, the bunny one was funny.

The lamest "joke", nothing new. Same as Punked' on TV. Not any great social experiment.

Fair enough.

Hey, the bunny one was funny.

I agree. I found the bunny one hilarious, chiefly because I saw through it right away.

the bunny one was funny! But the best one of the lot was the trivia answers. Sorry but I will never forget the sylvia plath thing

Hey, Dennis and Djehuty:

We could have maintained that we had written our own articles, and then later just "changed our minds." Rethought our positions. And you would never have known the difference.

the bunny one was funny!

Dennis, how exactly could Djehuty have changed his mind about being up to his neck in slaughter and vivisection? And, Djehuty, what is funny about that topic? Just so you know, I get haunted for days when I hear of such activities in detail. I read 'your' article in good faith, not knowing you well, and was upset by it until I found out it was a hoax. You may in fact be a vegetarian, but allowing someone else to play on our sensibilities like that in your name only sullies it and makes me wonder about you. More so, I wonder about whoever it was who wrote your piece. I suppose as being diametrically opposed to your real life, it was funny to him or her, but for those who don't know you, it was unfair.

Overall, I think it was a bad idea, and should be written off as the result of too much intoxication.

too much intoxication.

Oxymoron, IMO.

And, Djehuty, what is funny about that topic? Just so you know, I get haunted for days when I hear of such activities in detail.

Actually, I did find the extremity of Djehuty's article hilarious, in the same vein as Swift's call for baby-eating or an article from the Onion. Guess you had to be there.

Great post WMK ... can't add anything more than I 100 percent agree with what you've just said, but figured that at this point that was worth saying.

Right on WMK!

I have "slept on it" Djehuty, and I feel exactly the same about this as I did before sleeping. It was the last thing on my mind before sleep, and it was the first thing on my mind when I awoke.

I missed my usual Friday Market today because of it, and that is something I very rarely do. (I collect old records, Diecast Models, and Railway items), and often come home with many bargains from the sellers there.

Yes, I am still feeling angry over this.

I have "slept on it" Djehuty, and I feel exactly the same about this as I did before sleeping. It was the last thing on my mind before sleep, and it was the first thing on my mind when I awoke.

I missed my usual Friday Market today because of it, and that is something I very rarely do. (I collect old records, Diecast Models, and Railway items), and often come home with many bargains from the sellers there.

Yes, I am still feeling angry over this.

While I agree that the situation has gravity, I think you're being borderline obsessive about this.

As Viki said: "Seriously. This is a website. It's not life."

I'm reaching the point where I think the reaction is hilarious. 12 articles. 12 hours. one day in 2 years?

seriously? Now it's messing with people's lives?

I missed my usual Friday Market today because of it, and that is something I very rarely do. (I collect old records, Diecast Models, and Railway items), and often come home with many bargains from the sellers there.

I think it's more likely that the state of your life shapes your feelings on the prank than vice-versa.

If a prank on a news site shuts you down emotionally, you need to take a vacation. Life feeds on life, not websites.

In that case, life is going down the tubes pretty fast in this society. Think about it, we ARE real people at the other end of your computer, you know, with feelings (those of us who aren't psychopaths anyway). I think the 'in' joke should have been kept in the group. I agree with Calvin on that.

can i just say i think that sucks, is unnecessary, stupid that they were all taken down now... i only ever got the chance to see Celestina's page, and now Viki's , and one other i think. bc i haven't had the time.
then again, i am against censoship on all levels on this site, always have been. I have had some good debate with people who take it upon themselves to be 'the newsvine police' re: this issue of reporting, censoring, etc..
i feel if you read something/someone's opinion, that offends you so much that you want to TAKE IT DOWN! , then that is your problem. It's not the comment or article that bothers you, its you that bothers you.

then again, (again) i'm pretty zen.
but shouldn't it be everyone's goal to remain cool, calm, collected, and content with themselves, no matter what anyone else thinks?

whatever, that's a diff. tree to climb.

When there are more articles about a joke than comprising the joke is it humor or performance art?

You tell me. :-)

Djehuty:

When there are more articles about a joke than comprising the joke is it humor or performance art?

There'd need to be 12 such articles just to match it.

Better get busy writing mine.

jfx:
Don't look at me, I did my part by writing one. ;-)

Dennis:
Look, I know you're not happy that you're being criticized and that's understandable. However, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out what happens if another "joke" is pulled and it embarrasses MSNBC. You know as well as I do that network execs punish harshly the people that make them look bad. Whoever's idea it was to purchase Newsvine will have egg on their face and they will come down like a hammer on Calvin and the rest of the Newsvine staff. If you've worked in an office (I suspect you have) you know this is exactly what happens when your boss gets humiliated.

It is possible they didn't anticipate what integration with their site would do.

Viki:
I don't mean they didn't anticipate at all what integration with their site would do. What I meant is that they may not have anticipated something not serious making it onto their serious news site.

What I meant is that they may not have anticipated something not serious making it onto their serious news site.

You mean like the 8Things articles that are still popping up in Newsvine columnists? Or the "this is what's going on in my life" articles?

Newsvine has never been a strictly serious, "all about the News" site. Ever. I can't imagine MSNBC didn't see that.

As I pointed out, the articles you're citing aren't written by the paragons of Newsvine. You've been on MSNBC representing Newsvine. I mean, seriously, what do you think it does for our reputation to see one of our two public faces participating in a prank on the other users? No offense, but think about that.

I mean, seriously, what do you think it does for our reputation to see one of our two public faces participating in a prank on the other users? No offense, but think about that.

I think Brian Williams would give a little chuckle.

Maybe he'd think they have actual personalities?

And a cute new toyboy.

It wasn't me doing it that time...... :)

The artiste beat me to it....

Viki:
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think you're amoral. I'm sure you've reflected upon it. I still believe you, if you can believe that. LOL The only reason I ever said anything is I was concerned about Newsvine taking a hit. Normally if someone plays a joke and I don't laugh I just shrug and go away but I think it's obvious why this is different. As I said previously about Dennis: I chalked it up to one bad call in the midst of many decisions. It was nothing more to me personally.

hmm.
yeah but Viki Babs, honestly...
did you like Newsvine better before MSNBC acquired it and got involved? or after?

fair enough, but i'll go on record and say I liked it a lot more before... which is partly why i haven't been around much lately.

this prank and more so, its aftermath, got me back on the vine for a few days, because i enjoy the debate, and emotional involvement it exposes.

I am seeing how the MSNBC affiliation has many other consequences involved, not all positive like more exposure... which could also be good or bad. I won't get into the other consequences here now.

If this was a little statement of independence, would you agree you learned you don't have much (nearly as much as you thought?, or much less than 1 year ago?) Someone pointed out that had this prank been pulled a year ago there would not have been such a backlash, so many hurt feelings, accusations, etc.

I know, how can i get on Big Brothers ignore list? i want to be off their watchlist.
I'm guilty of thought crimes. burn me at the stake!

Appropriate tagging I could understand. Titling? Satire becomes much less effective when you have to announce it as such prior to anyone having read it. So much so, in my opinion, that if the requirement is that all satirical or fictional pieces have to be brightly labeled as such in the headline, there is little use in penning them at all.

Just a thought.

Vincent, I couldn't agree more. And all this crying about cliques ... I wasn't in on the prank, yet I don't feel that I was kicked or put down. There seems to be a contingent of 'viners who are always looking for ways to feel that the popular kids are being mean to them; personally, I got through junior high school years ago.