Censorship and MapleLeafweb

[M.Dancer]

Charles was a contributing poster here before he assumed moderatorship. ( Is that a word ? )

Benevolent Tyranny....all moderators and moderation is hopelessly flawed and it is only the limits of the technology that force us to retain these high schgool prefects, these petty despots. Whether the moderation is good or bad is irrelevant really....as long as it isn't the members doing the moderation in full view of the other members.

[Michael Hardner]

Benevolent Tyranny....all moderators and moderation is hopelessly flawed and it is only the limits of the technology that force us to retain these high schgool prefects, these petty despots. Whether the moderation is good or bad is irrelevant really....as long as it isn't the members doing the moderation in full view of the other members.

Well you must admit that he's a better mod than I ever was.... Hmmmm ? Hmmmmm ?

And sparse but firm moderation as we have here encourages higher-order posters and chases the bottom feeders away, IMO.

[RB]

I find Greg and Charles are patient and fair as moderators. I know so, I am the oldest member around:)

[Michael Hardner]

I find Greg and Charles are patient and fair as moderators. I know so, I am the oldest member around:)

Indeed - you joined two months before me even.

[Gabriel]

So the moderators never contribute? I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. Are they political geeks - i.e. degrees in political science or public administration, etc?

[M.Dancer]

Well you must admit that he's a better mod than I ever was.... Hmmmm ? Hmmmmm ?

*

That's setting the bar low, but even then there were those who were worse.

[GostHacked]

So the moderators never contribute? I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. Are they political geeks - i.e. degrees in political science or public administration, etc?

When Mods post and mod the thread at the same time, people will cry shenanigans are afoot. The best way (unfortunately) is a mod that does not post. This way the Mod can be seen as objective and does not have to take a position in a thread.

Now on another forum I visit they do things a bit differently. They have a single alias that is the mod. This way they can post and moderate and not feel the wrath of the members for whatever position he takes.

[Gabriel]

When Mods post and mod the thread at the same time, people will cry shenanigans are afoot. The best way (unfortunately) is a mod that does not post. This way the Mod can be seen as objective and does not have to take a position in a thread.

Now on another forum I visit they do things a bit differently. They have a single alias that is the mod. This way they can post and moderate and not feel the wrath of the members for whatever position he takes.

Are we permitted to talk about other political forums on this website? I think MapleLeafweb is totally a gem amid a sea of garbage. It's be nice if this website had more traffic, but I really feel there is a high calibre of posters in here.

[capricorn]

I really feel there is a high calibre of posters in here.

I think this forum is one of the better ones I've visited or joined. I particularly like those posters who can inject humour in putting their points across. I'll cite madmax as an example.

[Michael Hardner]

Are we permitted to talk about other political forums on this website? I think MapleLeafweb is totally a gem amid a sea of garbage. It's be nice if this website had more traffic, but I really feel there is a high calibre of posters in here.

Some of those posters used to be low calibre, until they had their arguments batted around by a few. I learn something new here every day.

I can now debate (or for that matter agree with) almost any position I care to with my hoity-toity friends, fully loaded with arguments from both sides...

Edited February 3, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[GostHacked]

Are we permitted to talk about other political forums on this website? I think MapleLeafweb is totally a gem amid a sea of garbage. It's be nice if this website had more traffic, but I really feel there is a high calibre of posters in here.

That is the real attraction here at MLW. And we do have a low member count compared to many other forums including other political sites. There are points that all posters make that I can agree with in some nature, and at the same time disagree.

This place has been a daily visit for me since I joined.

I don't know if we can talk about other forums directly and by name, that might be a violation of the rules (the OP sure found that out). Cross posting from other forums is definitely a no no. But referring to how a forum operates is different from the content on the website.

Generally we like to keep the MLW conversations within MLW. Also posting stuff from another forum would be a bad thing, you would get twice the amount of garbage traffic. And poor CA would have to quit his real day job just to mod the MLW forum.

[Gabriel]

That is the real attraction here at MLW. And we do have a low member count compared to many other forums including other political sites. There are points that all posters make that I can agree with in some nature, and at the same time disagree.

This place has been a daily visit for me since I joined.

I don't know if we can talk about other forums directly and by name, that might be a violation of the rules (the OP sure found that out). Cross posting from other forums is definitely a no no. But referring to how a forum operates is different from the content on the website.

Generally we like to keep the MLW conversations within MLW. Also posting stuff from another forum would be a bad thing, you would get twice the amount of garbage traffic. And poor CA would have to quit his real day job just to mod the MLW forum.

Hey there GostHacked,

I didn't mean to link information to other forums or from other forums, what I meant was to actually talk about other forums, perhaps by name, with respect to their content and overall vibe. I've been to quite a few forums over many years, and find this website to be more civil and of an overall higher quality with respect to the calibre of posters.

[GostHacked]

Hey there GostHacked,

I didn't mean to link information to other forums or from other forums, what I meant was to actually talk about other forums, perhaps by name, with respect to their content and overall vibe. I've been to quite a few forums over many years, and find this website to be more civil and of an overall higher quality with respect to the calibre of posters.

There has been a thread that was about Race, Stormfront was mentioned a few times in that thread, but I don't think there has been an outright discussion about other forums here on MLW. I think that is something Greg wants to avoid like the plague. Time is probably spent better over at those forums bitching about those forums rather than talking about it here.

I don't think we would want to be viewed as forum bashing forum. There is enough stupid stuff in politics that we can bash around.

[Greg]

There has been a thread that was about Race, Stormfront was mentioned a few times in that thread, but I don't think there has been an outright discussion about other forums here on MLW. I think that is something Greg wants to avoid like the plague.

There is no specific rule outlawing the discussion of other forums or websites. However, you are right, I'd rather avoid any negative discussions about other forums or websites.

Thank you to everyone who has shared their experiences about the Maple Leaf Web forums. Charles and I work very hard to make this place a friendly and welcome place for all ideologies and opinions.

When I created this forum nearly 10 years ago, it was never my intention to create the biggest and most populated forum in Canada. I wanted to create a forum that welcomed the ideas and opinions of everyone, regardless of their ideologies and partisan beliefs. And in the end, I think we achieved that.

Maple Leaf Web may not be the biggest, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more inclusive forum on the Internet.

However, Charles and I can't take all the credit - you the members of the forum are what make this place great. What good would this place be without the contribution of the members?

Thanks!

[Michael Hardner]

However, Charles and I can't take all the credit - you the members of the forum are what make this place great. What good would this place be without the contribution of the members?

Thanks!

Good point. We (specifically me) deserve all the credit !

[Gabriel]

Good point. We (specifically me) deserve all the credit !

My first impression of this place was terrible. The very first post I made on this board was an inquiry of the members of how they felt the political left in Canada exploited anti-Americanism for political gain. I was immediately greeted with some serious hostility. I remember a user named "charter rights" calling for me to immediately be banned, suggesting I was some Harper operative. I was shocked! I've never been greeted with such immediate hostility on any online forum! Of course it's been generally uphill from there. Cheers

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

I just looked into Stormfront, I didn't know who or what that was until now. I assumed it was another online community with discussion forums. Doesn't seem like the kinda place I'd wanna spend my electronic time in

[cybercoma]

Because there is an internet full of wing nuts who post their rambling diatribes anywhere they can and then disappear without further discussion. Weeding them out improves the quality of the forum.

I really don't get people who come onto another person's website and cry about freedom of speech if they can't do whatever they want on it.

If they disappear, are they not weeding themselves out? I find that cross-posting rule quite curious as well. I would like to know the reason behind it. I'm sure something has come up in the past that made the rule necessary, but I can't for the life of me think of what that could possibly be. Your example doesn't make sense because the poster doesn't return, meaning he/she doesn't need to be banned. Edited February 6, 2010 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Your example doesn't make sense because the poster doesn't return, meaning he/she doesn't need to be banned.

I think the example makes sense. I think what BubberMiley is saying is that they don't return for any discussion, which is, I would think, the purpose of the board. They likely would return to c&p their agendas, the same agendas they are flooding other forums/the internet with. I don't see that adding to the quality of the board, so I understand the rule.

[Oleg Bach]

I wonder how many people will read this, before it is deleted and I am banned from this forum. It is obvious that the moderator Charles Anthony does not permit criticism of the Stephen Harper administration as he objected to a well thought out and tasteful posting that linked to an original blog that is critical of the Canadian government's new bankruptcy laws. The sole objection was based on the fact that his imperial majesty Charles Anthony the moderator of this website felt his ego was damaged, because this was not the only site on which my comments appeared. Since my blog is not a magazine and simply offers me an opportunity to express my views more thoroughly, whereas forums often limit one to a certain number of characters, I can only assume that Charles the very freedom of speech that you profess to support by maintaining a site for political forums, is only really a cover up for your desire to also participate in heavy handed censorship. Not one of the other forums or websites, of which there were maybe five, objected and all of them were located in the United States or the U.K. It is interesting that last week, a posting to a FaceBook page in operated by an individual in Alberta out of Calgary which was designed to protest Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue parliament, also deleted my post and one can only assume that was because I was also critical of the Liberal and NDP parties. Aside from politics, I am a well published journalist both in print and online and I have been published in several countries,without incident. I therefore can only conclude that in fact freedom of speech is not alive and well in Canada, or at least in Alberta, but then it never was under the reign of terror when Ralph Klein was the premier and should we really forget so easily that the buffoon that is Ed Stelmach is the same man who after he became premier wanted to sell tickets for people to come and meet him, so he could pay for his campaign expenses?

Charles Anthony, the moderator of this site, have a good week, but please do us all a favor and come clean as to your own political beliefs in an open letter and do not pretend that you support freedom of speech, when censorship is at the forefront of your agenda. Oh and Charles, yes there are other websites and forums which will print this posting, so expect to see it online soon.

Firstly I am not going to read this.

You might try and press enter on occassion to break up the paragraphs and make it more suitable to the eye.

As for censorship at Maple Leaf...I say what ever I damned please and no one interferes with me!

[Oleg Bach]

A year or so I was banned from this site after being set up by a raging socialist nut bar.. The moderators finally figured out that politness and protocol was not that important and the best person who has the most to say in a positive fashion should be allowed to stand - So the woman that angered me and intentionally had me barred by finding my weakness is no longer on this site. The mods here do not censor - electronically speaking they banish in an executive style. What everyone values is intelligence and passion without a fixed and finite agenda - that way we can pick and choose and learn...learning something new is what it's all about - It makes for good leadership eventually.

[bloodyminded]

Benevolent Tyranny....all moderators and moderation is hopelessly flawed and it is only the limits of the technology that force us to retain these high schgool prefects, these petty despots. Whether the moderation is good or bad is irrelevant really....as long as it isn't the members doing the moderation in full view of the other members.

"Tyranny" doesn't fit, because we are free to go elsewhere, and because there are so many options for sites from strict moderation to none at all.

[Argus]

Yet, has he ever deleted any of your postings just because he didn't like them?

That is not within his power. Like a referee at an NHL game, he would have to see a violation of the rules - even if that violation was awfully marginal or one few others would have called.

[Argus]

Charles was a contributing poster here before he assumed moderatorship. ( Is that a word ? )

I suspect Charles is still a contributor but under another name. If he enjoyed contributing and arguing before there is no reason to assume he would not still enjoy doing so. And using an alias would be necessary because he could not do so under his known moniker.

I would add that I would not find anything wrong with that. I wouldn't be surprised if Greg did as well.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

I suspect Charles is still a contributor but under another name. If he enjoyed contributing and arguing before there is no reason to assume he would not still enjoy doing so. And using an alias would be necessary because he could not do so under his known moniker.

CA likely would have kept posting under his own name and begin moderating under an alias; that would have made more sense if he wanted to moderate and still post.