Greg

Agreed. This is indeed a large problem and it will hopefully solved when I have the assistance of a few Forum Facilitators. Please stay tuned to the News and Announcement section for more information. Thanks!

Some of you may have noticed some rather strange postings in the forums lately. Some of the postings contained what looked like code. Unfortunately, these were an attempt by someone to hack the forums. The exploits did not work, and the forum was never in any real trouble. However, I do appreciate those of you who notified me of these postings. Please continue to send me a note if you see anything strange occurring, as it allows me to deal with these scumbags quickly. There have also been some spammers posting ads on the site. In this case only a few postings slipped by our registration filter. However, the posts have been removed and the offending spammers banned. Again, if you see anyone spamming the forums, please notify me immediately, and I will delete the spam and ban the offending members quickly. Thanks!

Previewing your post before posting it can also do wonders.

Michael is right, and if I were any of you posting in this thread, I would heed his advice.

There are a couple of reasons for having two separate forums: 1) The sites are different in topic and audience. Maple Leaf Web is targeted to students, teachers and the politically engaged (i.e. political education). Policy.ca is a clearing-house for public policy publications and discussions, and is targeted to public policy researchers, academics, decision makers and those interested in public policy. Therefore, Policy.ca has a smaller more focused audience, as public policy is a sub-set of politics in general. 2) The forums at Maple Leaf Web are meant for an informal discussions concerning Canadian politics, whereas the Policy.ca forums are strictly for discussions centered on public policy. 3) There is a feature that we are rolling out in the fall semester that will involve high focused discussions between public policy university and college classes across Canada. These discussions will take place in the Policy.ca forums. 4) Maple Leaf Web has hundreds of active topics on a wide range of issues, the few public policy topics would soon be swept under the onslaught of other more popular topics. 5) It would be difficult and unwieldy to send policy.ca users to a completely different website to discuss public policy issues. All I am trying to do here is provide a forum for those interested in focused discussions about public policy. Maple Leaf Web is an amazing place for someone who is interested in general political discussions, and I would like to create the same type of place for those interested in public policy. I just need a few posters to kick-start the discussions over at policy.ca.

This statement takes the cake as one of the most offensive things I've read in these forums. Congrats Iamcanadian2, you're taking a one month holiday from these forums.

My thesis was on the use of the Internet during elections - or more precisely, how political parties use the Internet during their campaigns. The thesis examined the differences between what voters wanted from a campaign website and what political parties were actually providing on their campaign websites. I conducted a series of focus groups and the results of those discussions provided insight into what potential voters wanted from a campaign website. I then followed up with an analysis of the Conservative, Liberal, Bloc Quebecois, Green and New Democratic Party campaign websites during the 2004 federal election. The results provided a glimpse at what the political parties were providing during the campaign. The results of my research show that was a significant imbalance between what the political parties in Canada were providing and what the focus groups mentioned they wanted from a campaign website. The participants wanted more engaging and mobilizing features, while the campaign websites used during the 2004 election lacked these types of features. I then finish the thesis with some recommendation for improving the use of the Internet for campaigns. This forum was started soon after Maple Leaf Web was created. Originally, Maple Leaf Web started out as a links directory, but after a year of simply linking to other sources of information, we decided that we need to produce our own content. This forum, much like this site, started small and has gone through many changes. Feel free to ask questions and I'll try my best to answer them! Cheers, Greg

They will remain seperated because of the two sites have different audiences and different goals. Policy.ca is a more focused project. The rules in Policy.ca Forums will be more strictly enforced and offenders will be quickly removed. The forums at Maple Leaf Web are more informal and accessable, whereas the Policy.ca Forums will be highly focused and geared toward those directly involved in public policy. That will change over time. I'm doing my best to promote the forums and it may take some time to get sufficent amounts of members. Agreed. We will be pushing more of MLW's visitors to Policy.ca for more indepth information. on topics we cover. However, we feel that the forums should remain seperated. However, this might change in the future if we find that it isn't working.

Ok, guys, the discussions in this thread have degraded considerably. Lets all consider this thread dead - perhaps I will close the thread and we can forget any of this happend. August1991, your original post about Rabble was an interesting question, and I encourage you to post another thread about this issue in these forums. To any Rabble forum members who needs some refuge until the Rabble forums are back up and running properly, please feel free to use these forums. The forums at Maple Leaf Web are populated with members from a wide-range of ideologies.

When using the quote feature, some of you are choosing to quote the entire posting. Be advised I've added the following to the Rules and Guidelines of this forum. If you see anyone failing to follow this rule, please contact me via the Report this Post feature. Thanks!

Suprislying enough, there isn't a number one! If you take a look at the list of members (in order of registration - you'll need to sort the list by join-date), you can see I'm on top of the list. The first six people to join the forums are former employees of the project (except for Harold - he's our senior editor). When I originally installed the forum, it assigned me the member number 2 automatically. However, we're not even using the same forum software that I originally installed (which was Ultimate Bulletin Board), so messing with the member numbers now might be difficult. I am in the process of rebuilding the templates so that the forums have the same look as the rest of MLW. I meant to do this long ago, but other projects (policy.ca, my masters's thesis) and a new family member have been taking up a great deal of my time lately. I am also considering a redesign of MLW, which means even more work. Perhaps I will use the MLW forums as a testing group for a new look for MLW. Possibly - I will consider this when I complete the redesign. I'll keep everyone notified!

Awhile back, Maple Leaf Web assumed responsibility for Policy.ca. We’ve spent the past few months re-designing this unique clearinghouse for public policy resources - a site we’re almost ready to officially unveil to the world. As of March 2006, we will have over 900 distinct resources available on the site, all pertaining to public policy in Canada. This includes detailed information on policy articles and their authors, links to the articles themselves, and profiles of Canada’s leading policy organizations. We are currently in the process of launching some discussion forums on Policy.ca, and I'd like to invite those of you involved in the Maple Leaf Web forums to participate. This is not an attempt to steal members from this forum to prop up this new forum - it is simply a friendly invite to those who are interested in discussing public policy in a highly focused manner. Be advised, this forum is only for serious public policy discussions. Moderation of this forum will be considerably more strict than here on MLW and offenders will be quickly removed. We are using different software to power these forums than what is used on MLW, so please consider these forums to be in beta. Your involvement will help us determine whether this software is the right choice for our needs. Also be aware, these forums have not been formally announced to the world and will not be available to regular visitors to Policy.ca. We expect to formally launch this portion of the site to the world in the next few weeks. However, your involvement will help kick start the forums and will help us properly test this new installation. Please visit: Public Policy Forums Thanks for your involvement!

Shoop, enough is enough. I've allowed you to voice your opinion, but you don't seem to know when to just drop it. In the five years I've been moderating this forum, I've seen a lot of pathetic attempts to discredit my moderation, and your latest rant isn't unique. I always get a kick out of those members who feel victimized by my warnings - like I'm somehow responsible for putting them in the situation they find themselves after hurling insults and disrupting the discussions. In Shoop's case, he's just goading me to ban him so that he can walk away with the smug satisfaction that he's the victim and I'm the big bad moderator. Riverwind is right, moderating this forum is only a small part of my job, but babysitting immature forum members gunning to be banned isn't. As I have said in the past, I do not read every single posting in this forum. I cannot possible be expected to monitor every single thing that is posted - nor do I think this is a reasonable expectation. A forum is only successful when all the members take responsibility for their actions, and when a member refuses to respect the rules, then the other members should Report the Post and remind the offending member directly. Offending members from a wide-range of ideologies have been banned from these forums, and on their way out they always claim I'm biased towards them personally or their ideologies. This is nothing new. Shoop, you've been told numerous times that EVERYONE received the warning "lockup" email. The email was NOT directed at you, but was my attempt to quell the rising use of insults. In fact, this is a technique I often use - see here, here, and here. If you have a problem with me or these forums then call me directly on my office number (403 329 2286) on Tuesday and we can discuss this issue over the phone.

Ok, Shoop and I have wasted enough of everyone's time. Shoop, think whatever you want - my moderation style will not change. If you don't like it you're free to leave.

I don't respond to all PMs/emails I recieve, but that doesn't mean I'm ignoring them. Move on Shoop, the offender was removed and the thread stays. Fine, but I expect the same professional manner from you. Again, move on Shoop. You're fixating on the little things. Offensive to whom? I got far more positive emails and PM's about the lockdown warning than negative ones. Not sure why anyone would consider it offensive? Ah ok, now we're getting to the bottom of the problem here - you're ticked because I warned you for using insults in a thread way back in early March. Not sure how this is an example of heavy-handedness? Just because I warned you, doesn't mean I never warned others using the same language in that thread. You're really reaching here Shoop; I never accused you of anything, I stated a fact - your one sentance post about the lockdown didn't have a point.

I too am having a hard time understanding your point? Not sure what I originally said about Babble was self-congratulatory? I was simply observing the rather obvious point that by ignoring the behaviour of a few disgruntled members the moderators were allowing the forums discussions to be poisoned. As to whether I've ignored anyone's concerns - if you've got a problem with the forums or the way I moderate feel free to express yourself. Just don't expect me to agree with your conclusions and don't let your concerns poison the debate happening elsewhere in the forums. The offending member was suspended and the thread was allowed to stay because a significant amount of members where discussing the issue with some civility. Sorry Shoop, but you're inablity to explain your position means I have the right to ask for clarification.

Ya, what's your point? When problems arise I try to deal with them quickly. The lockdown (if you could call it that) was my attempt to quell the increasing use of insults and destructive behaviour that was occuring amonst certain members. And from the look of things around here lately, I think it worked. Wikipedia Definition of a Internet Troll

I too was abit surprised at the backlash that has occurred in their forums. The forums seem to have been overtaken by a small group of individuals who disagree with the firing. It also appears that the moderators are doing nothing to stop the protest from poisoning the other discussions taking place. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the firing issue, so I won't comment on whether it was right or wrong. I think it's great that people have options (in this case it was moving to a different forum), however, I don't agree with the trolling and disruption some of the posters have engaged in. Dissent is perfectly acceptable, but the second it become destructive to the rest of the community it should be dealt with quickly. My 2 cents,

Sure (from the rules and guidelines) , And Argus is right, the posting is a classic example of trolling. Overt-partisanship is one thing, insult filled rants are another. I'm trying to remove both from these forums.

Sorry Iraqi of honor, but we don't need a "NEWS CARRIER" in these forums. Perhaps you had better read the rules ang guidelines of these forums before posting again. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17 Particularly these parts,

Good bye The Liberal - You've been suspended for one month. I suggest you take a look at the rules and guidelines of this forum before posting again.

One month suspension for America1

Come on guys, this whole thread was troll bait and everyone of you knows it. It's everyone's responsibility not to contribute to these types of generalizations about ideologies. Saying all lefties are this, and all righties are that, is a massive generatization and its kinda ridiculous. Talk about substantive issues not generalizations.

Here is a question for all your hard-core forum participants. Would you still participate in an online discussion if you were required to post under your real name? The anonymity of the internet means people will say things that they would never say in a real person to person discussion (or even in public). Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Don't worry, I'm not changing the rules of this forum - I'm just investigating this issue for another project I'm involved with. Thanks for your insights!

And he will be taking a one month suspension because of this trolling.