Do some Posters insult with impunity?

[Wild Bill]

We have had some talk in one of the threads about a perceived bias in the moderating here on MLW that has seemed to be developing over the last year.

Basically, it has to do not so much with left or right (although that's part of it) as with allowing the level of personal insults to rise. What's more, it tends to rise more with the more liberal and politically correct posters than with those of a more "right" persuasion, for want of a better term.

One poster may start with a post about cultural values differing from one area of the world and another. He may point out that some foreign cultural values may be considered negative by our own lights, such as the suppression of women or some of the violent atrocities committed by the rulers of some Islamic countries.

Or it may be as mundane as defending some of the policies and actions of the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford.

Certain posters will invariably jump in with personal attacks, implying you hide a white hood in your bedroom closet, or that you wish to flog gay folks while secretly being a pedophile yourself.

I am not citing specific posts per se but rather a general attitude in some quarters.

Certain posters make these attacks repeatedly, apparently with impunity. Sometimes when the "attackee" finally gets overly frustrated and lashes back, it will be HE who gets a caution or a warning!

When I first joined MLW I don't recall such personal attacks being allowed, by anyone. I do sense a change and not a welcome one.

Anyhow, it has damaged my enjoyment of debating here and I suspect that I am not the only one.

Hence this thread! Has anyone else felt a similar experience? Have you found your 'ignore' list getting longer and longer and longer?

Am I the only one noticing a bias, not political but rather about simple good manners?

I think a lot of us would appreciate some discussion. We all have a vested interested into ensuring that MLW does not end up degenerating into a rude and crude pile of 'rubble'.

[msj]

Yes, I think you are conveniently noticing a bias with rose coloured glasses on.

I would guess that getting suspended has more to do with getting reported.

Over the past while I know I have become more aggressive with reporting anyone who I think has crossed the line with ad hominem attacks or blatantly prejudiced comments.

I find the process very cathartic in that I believe it has helped transform me into a better poster.

Nevertheless, I do not stand by when a certain poster comments that he wishes I was "dead" or certain other posters have written posts that are 90% + ad hominem attack.

I certainly don't mind some insults and often find them funny (especially when made at my expense - I rarely report posts where I have been in a direct discussion - the exception being wishing me "dead" which is intolerable).

It is the degree that is at issue and when it crosses the line (imo) I do report it.

So, as I am probably considered a "leftist" in your eyes, this means that likely more "righties" are being reported which automatically leads to your perceived notion.

To which I say - well, if people followed the rules and didn't insult so much then I would have no reason to report them in the first place, would I?

----------

ETA - I think it is important to understand what I mean by an ad hominem attack.

If a poster is going to focus on the person by insulting him/her rather than provide a substantive argument against the person's arguments/ideas then the insulter should expect to be reported eventually.

Edited October 26, 2012 by msj

[Wild Bill]

I certainly don't mind some insults and often find them funny (especially when made at my expense - I rarely report posts where I have been in a direct discussion - the exception being wishing me "dead" which is intolerable).

It is the degree that is at issue and when it crosses the line (imo) I do report it.

So, as I am probably considered a "leftist" in your eyes, this means that likely more "righties" are being reported which automatically leads to your perceived notion.

I agree with you about "not sweating the small stuff" and also about having a sense of humour. Still, I am not talking as much about those on the left or the right as I am with those who are simply RUDE!

Despite actually being a classic Liberal I have been tagged as on the right for so long I no longer have the energy to make an issue over it. That doesn't mean I mind talking with people of different persuasion. Leftwing friends help challenge my views and "keep them honest". I would find nothing more boring than being in a large group who thought exactly the same as me!

I also don't think there is a bias as to who gets reported. Some of our rightwing posters should have been tarred and feathered, by my lights. Extremists of both sides tend to be irritating, at the least.

No Msj, I'm talking about courtesy, manners and outright rudeness. There are a few posters who just happen to seem to be lefties who are VERY rude and yet have been getting away with it for some months now. Peeves has been just one of the targets and IMHO he has every right to be thoroughly "urinated"!

I know I am!

If someone in real life implied I was a racist or held racist views I would consider a legal challenge. When I was younger I might have just pasted him! Yet I never thought it would become the norm here on MLW.

So without explicitly naming names, I'm talking about insulting posters who never get warnings. I'm talking about situations where when a target finally blows his top and retaliates it is HE who gets a warning!

I don't think it is a deliberate policy so much as just a supervisory "blindness". It's like when a child is repeatedly bulliied on a school playground and teachers never notice it. Then one day a teacher sticks his or her nose outside and sees the bullied child haul off and slug his attacker.

You know what always happens. It is the bullied child who gets the reprimand! Or at least, both do under some sanctimonious idea that "it takes two to fight!".

That's nonsense, of course. It only takes one to hit and another to stand there and take it!

I'm just pointing out what I see as a negative trend in common manners on MLW and a desire to have it reversed. Left or right poltical views have nothing to do with it!

Take Mad Max, for example. He's an unabashed lefty but a very thoughtful and courteous poster!

We should have him cloned!

Edited October 26, 2012 by Wild Bill

[msj]

Um, Wild Bill, while merely quoting my post without any reply is against the forum rules I am not going to report you for it as it is, imo, pretty minor.

[scribblet]

We have had some talk in one of the threads about a perceived bias in the moderating here on MLW that has seemed to be developing over the last year.

...................................

Am I the only one noticing a bias, not political but rather about simple good manners?

I think a lot of us would appreciate some discussion. We all have a vested interested into ensuring that MLW does not end up degenerating into a rude and crude pile of 'rubble'.

Good post WB... I've noticed a deterioration and change (not for the better) since I first started posting on here in 2003. The rules are quite clear but don't seem to be followed anymore. Heck, I got a warning point for calling Ignatieff 'iggy'....

Edited October 26, 2012 by scribblet

[BC_chick]

The lack of moderation is defnitely not biased toward any particular ideology.

Notice how many people's only defense for Israel not offering a two-state solution or annexing the occupied territories is to call the other person "Jew-hater"?

I don't even post in Israel threads anymore because I'm tired of the insults.

Neither is right, but you mention the warnings being given particularly to one-side... that's not true.

[Michael Hardner]

I want to point out a few inherent features of the moderation style here.

I severely doubt that anybody reads every single post. I'm surprised to hear from BC_chick that there are insults on those threads, but I almost never read them either. The moderators do rely on others to hit 'Report' if there are insults.

Secondly, I suspect that people are more likely to insult those who disagree with their politics. Given that (I perceive) there are more left-of-centre posters here than right-of-centre, that would lead, presumably, to more reports on insults that come from ROC posters.

My two cents on some of the reasons that could be behind the perceptions above. I try to be fair in what I report and don't report in that I don't go out of my way to report ROC posters on here. If I see an infringement on the rules and guidelines, I hit 'report' and that's it. Am I fair ? I hope I am.

[TheNewTeddy]

There are a few posters (under 5 grand total) on both sides who consistently break the rules.

[Argus]

If a poster is going to focus on the person by insulting him/her rather than provide a substantive argument against the person's arguments/ideas then the insulter should expect to be reported eventually.

I tend to agree. I do my best to avoid that, though given the robust nature of these discussions, and the lack of moderation, I wind up replying in kind more often than I probably should. I have been suspended twice. Once for an offhand reference to a local native band council involved in the news as "dumbasses", and once for an offhand reference to a former RCMP commissioner using an archaic term which was apparently taken as a homophobic slur "bumboy" (it was meant to reference his servility to politicians). I've come to the opinion, then, lacking information on the cause of others suspensions, that the moderator is extremely politically correct. I.e., you can insult posters, but don't make any kind of negative statement which can be interpreted as insulting a minority group or you're in trouble.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

My experience with moderator warnings and suspensions has been uneven at best, but there is a basic protocol that seems to be followed within the framework of forum rules (that are open to interpretation by the mods in and out of context). Having come full circle back to the heavily moderated CBC first engaged in 2002, this forum has a greater degree of freedom if only because of limited moderator resources. To give some idea of the absurdity seen on the much higher national profile that is the CBC, the word "Pussy" was not permitted in a story about the Russian protest arrests for a band named "Pussy Riot", even though the word appeared in the article's headline. This is hyper-moderation.

I have only seen my warnings "portfolio" recently with the forum upgrade, as I never viewed PM's or e-mails in the past. This forum belongs to someone else, so in the end they can do as they please regardless of any perceived unfairness or bias. Time spent in the "cooler" is consistent with now famous movie scenes and punishment for crossing the "bosses".

Hurling back insult in response to a provocation will definitely get the mods attention, as does any attempt at overt baiting or pernicious word play. In short, one may run afoul of the moderators (and some other members) whenever the point of discussion begins to include criticism of a member in addition to an expressed idea. Direct references or pointed jabs at another member invites escalation and pithy arms race. Less than clear is the idea of "civil debate" and "tone" given the wide variations in culture, nationalism, and assertiveness. Civility at the expense of meaningful discourse can be an unfortunate result. "Facts" can actually become provocations.

[Smallc]

I got suspended twice...I didn't agree with it, but I don't think it was bias. The first time was for calling someone a troll. That someone is now banned...hmmm....and the second time was for making a racial remark that I didn't even think of as a racial remark. I really think that the second suspension was unfair, given that I didn't have any type of history with racist remarks and I didn't mean anything by the remark. I tried to explain, but wasn't even given a reply.

[Bonam]

Certain posters definitely seem to be very rude or insulting with great impunity. Unfounded name-calling of the variety "bigot" or "racist" seems to be the accepted norm, and in climate change threads certain posters are seemingly unable to make a single post that doesn't contain multiple insults. While I have never been banned or suspended, I do read a good majority of the threads and see the patterns of discourse going on here on MLW, and there certainly appears to be a bias in regards to what kind of posters seem to be able to consistently get away with insults.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I really think that the second suspension was unfair, given that I didn't have any type of history with racist remarks and I didn't mean anything by the remark. I tried to explain, but wasn't even given a reply.

This is an important point to consider, because it is clear that the moderators do not have the time or inclination to fully understand the context or personal histories of individual members and long running personal or ideological conflicts. Never assume that balanced evaluation and fairness is in play if someone clicks on the report button. Peace and order trump fairness in this forum.

Going forward, I am going to try and stay in the third person perspective whenever possible to reduce the likelihood of personal conflict.

[dre]

I noticed Bonam mention climate change, and BC Chick mention "Conflict: Dirtfarm" (the Israel/Palestinian conflict).

Theres a reason why these two subject produce the lowest quality discourse in the history of the internet, and thats because they go on year after year after year. The same people are rehashing the same positions over and over and over again, and both sides have siloed themselves off and adopted a bunker mentality.

Youll notice that when theres a thread about a fresh new topic people are pretty civil, and theres a real exchange of ideas.

Im not sure what can really be done to fix this. But one thing that might help is to take these subjects, make special places for them, and instruct posters to only discuss these topics in the designated areas. Then at least people could just avoid these places if they wanted to.

[Bonam]

I noticed Bonam mention climate change, and BC Chick mention "Conflict: Dirtfarm" (the Israel/Palestinian conflict).

Theres a reason why these two subject produce the lowest quality discourse in the history of the internet, and thats because they go on year after year after year. The same people are rehashing the same positions over and over and over again, and both sides have siloed themselves off and adopted a bunker mentality.

Youll notice that when theres a thread about a fresh new topic people are pretty civil, and theres a real exchange of ideas.

Im not sure what can really be done to fix this. But one thing that might help is to take these subjects, make special places for them, and instruct posters to only discuss these topics in the designated areas. Then at least people could just avoid these places if they wanted to.

I don't think the problem is really the topics. Nor would sequestering them in a separate area do much. I mean, people can already avoid topics they aren't interested in: just don't click on that thread. Also, some of the same posters that are rude in topics regarding their pet issues are no less rude in threads about fresh topics, from what I've seen. I just think if site policies are going to include a rule against insults, then, first, what is and what is not an insult should be clearly and specifically defined, and, second, sanctions against those who post insults should be implemented either uniformly (or not at all). It should not be a popularity contest of "which side" can hit the report button on posts they don't like the most times.

Now, part of this may be an issue of the mentality of posters and how they use the report button. Personally, I have never once reported any post, even though I have seen many insults thrown about in threads. Perhaps that is a failure on my part, but my position is that people should be able to post what they want and their words will speak for themselves, and that if someone finds someone's posts unworthy of reading they can always ignore them. And, I suspect that many posters who have "political views" similar to my own may have a similar stance, and thus use the report button less frequently than certain other posters.

That is where it comes back to uniform enforcement of rules. Michael seemed to say that posts that get the most reports are the ones that will get investigated, and that makes sense given limited moderation resources, but I think it lends an inherent bias and unfairness to the way that moderation is carried out. Let's say there was 1 poster with positions that were way out there that no one agreed with, well, many posters would report any insults he made, while he/she alone would have to report all opposing insults. A post that got 20 reports is a lot more likely to get looked at than a post that got 1, and so moderation resources will inevitably be stacked against that lone voice, if that is really how the system works.

I think a much more appropriate way to do moderation, if it can't be done uniformly due to limited resources, would just be to do random checks. When a mod has time, they should take a random read through threads on contentious topics and judge for themselves. Assuming that the mod themselves is not strongly biased, that may lead to a much more even-handed result.

[dre]

I don't think the problem is really the topics. Nor would sequestering them in a separate area do much. I mean, people can already avoid topics they aren't interested in: just don't click on that thread. Also, some of the same posters that are rude in topics regarding their pet issues are no less rude in threads about fresh topics, from what I've seen. I just think if site policies are going to include a rule against insults, then, first, what is and what is not an insult should be clearly and specifically defined, and, second, sanctions against those who post insults should be implemented either uniformly (or not at all). It should not be a popularity contest of "which side" can hit the report button on posts they don't like the most times.

Now, part of this may be an issue of the mentality of posters and how they use the report button. Personally, I have never once reported any post, even though I have seen many insults thrown about in threads. Perhaps that is a failure on my part, but my position is that people should be able to post what they want and their words will speak for themselves, and that if someone finds someone's posts unworthy of reading they can always ignore them. And, I suspect that many posters who have "political views" similar to my own may have a similar stance, and thus use the report button less frequently than certain other posters.

That is where it comes back to uniform enforcement of rules. Michael seemed to say that posts that get the most reports are the ones that will get investigated, and that makes sense given limited moderation resources, but I think it lends an inherent bias and unfairness to the way that moderation is carried out. Let's say there was 1 poster with positions that were way out there that no one agreed with, well, many posters would report any insults he made, while he/she alone would have to report all opposing insults. A post that got 20 reports is a lot more likely to get looked at than a post that got 1, and so moderation resources will inevitably be stacked against that lone voice, if that is really how the system works.

I think a much more appropriate way to do moderation, if it can't be done uniformly due to limited resources, would just be to do random checks. When a mod has time, they should take a random read through threads on contentious topics and judge for themselves. Assuming that the mod themselves is not strongly biased, that may lead to a much more even-handed result.

I completely disagree. I could easily find insulting posts simply by looking for certain topics, and it makes perfect sense.... The two topics I mentioned produce low quality discourse on an "internet wide" basis, not just here. People have already drawn their lines in the sand, and adopted that bunker mentality, and their responses to every argument are very well rehersed.

Basically some of these topics are stale... theres no new ground to cover so it's all about identity. Its an exchange of well established talking points as opposed to origional opinions or ideas.

When I see a thread on climate change, I know whats in it before I even open it. Its the same old talking points by the same people.

[Greg]

Do some Posters insult with impunity?

No, that's nonsense.

The quality of the discussions in these forums has a great deal to do with the overall quality of the participants. If anyone is under the impression that Charles, Michael and I can somehow improve the quality by slapping more "justice" around, this would indeed by a very boring place. I would also add that there wouldn't be many of you left in the forums.

Everyone makes mistakes, everyone gets excited, everyone says things - from time to time - that they regret. If I lowered the hammer every time someone stepped outside of the boundaries of the rules of this forum, most of you would be looking for somewhere else to discuss politics.

So don't presume that because a poster breaks the rules, we haven't noticed and or warned them. We give all members the benefit of the doubt - regardless of the amount or severity of the broken rules.

I'm also always surprised at the relative lack of reflection some members of this forum have; accusing others of fault while at the same time contributing to the same negative behaviour. I won't name names, but if I had a nickel for everyone time a member reporting someone else for a rule infraction and then proceeded to break the same rule in "defence" of themselves, I'd be a rich man.

I'll remind everyone that I'm basically the only one here whose identity is clearly stated - the rest of you are operating under various aliases. Which means when someone "insults" you, they're insulting your alter ego; not your true identify. If someone hurts another member’s feelings (whether via a insult or biting criticism), it not my job to extract justice – my job is to maintain the integrity of these forums, not deal with the emotional state of its participants. So just because I haven’t banned someone because he or she has insulted you and or hurt your feelings, isn’t because I am personally biased and enjoy watching you in pain. Rather, I’m attempting to ensure the forums do not become a cesspool of ideological/partisan miscreants and or a hyper-moderated discussion stifling snoozer of a forum.

It’s a balance, and judging by the overall high quality of discussions I’ve maintained for the past 12 years, it’s working.

[eyeball]

I'm also always surprised at the relative lack of reflection some members of this forum have; accusing others of fault while at the same time contributing to the same negative behaviour. I won't name names, but if I had a nickel for everyone time a member reporting someone else for a rule infraction and then proceeded to break the same rule in "defence" of themselves, I'd be a rich man.

Perhaps if you banned the idiots and hypocrites you've just described you'd have more time on your hands and this forum would be that much better for it. It seems you're being asked to police us more than moderate us and perhaps by the same people causing most of the grief.

Facts do provoke people but I think even more provocation stems from frustration when the refutation of facts are unmitigated by anything with substance. In a real moderated debate wouldn't a referee be able to call bullshit when it's really obvious to try and keep a discussion on track? Perhaps this could be more readily achieved by us if forum members could anonymously rate posts with a thumbs-up thumbs-down feature. I imagine most people like to feel some sense of validation if not vindication for their views. I suppose the little dots under our names and the number of friends we have can signify our standing generally but I'm thinking of something a little more immediate and that might actually let a poster know if his arguments in any given issue are winning or losing the day.

Keep up the good work by the way.

Edited October 29, 2012 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

No, that's nonsense.

The quality of the discussions in these forums has a great deal to do with the overall quality of the participants.

Post reported for personal insults!

[DogOnPorch]

"Facts" can actually become provocations.

Yes...my last 60 day Cooler visit was over 'facts' angering a poster who then reported me for 'racism'. No appeals allowed. Really, the mods should get both sides of a story before dishing out huge forum 'sentences'.

[Greg]

Really, the mods should get both sides of a story before dishing out huge forum 'sentences'.

I have a better idea, don't engage in behaviours that could lead to a suspension or banning. It's a rather simple. Read the rules and guidelines, keep your nose clean and you won't be shown the door - ever.

Every single suspension or banning was with cause. I don't care if the infraction that lead to the suspension/banning was in reaction to some perceived wrong at the hands of another member.

I will not, nor with the moderators, read every single posting on this forum. Nor will every infraction be reported (it would overwhelm the mods anyways), so expecting anyone to get both sides of the study is not reasonable.

If a member breaks the rules on a regular basis, sooner or later that member will be suspended. If the actions continue, the member will be banned.

[DogOnPorch]

I have a better idea, don't engage in behaviours that could lead to a suspension or banning. It's a rather simple. Read the rules and guidelines, keep your nose clean and you won't be shown the door - ever.

Every single suspension or banning was with cause. I don't care if the infraction that lead to the suspension/banning was in reaction to some perceived wrong at the hands of another member.

I will not, nor with the moderators, read every single posting on this forum. Nor will every infraction be reported (it would overwhelm the mods anyways), so expecting anyone to get both sides of the study is not reasonable.

If a member breaks the rules on a regular basis, sooner or later that member will be suspended. If the actions continue, the member will be banned.

I did nothing.

[msj]

I did nothing.

You probably heard nothing and saw nothing, too.

Live by the rules, die by the rules. Looking forward to my vacation suspension any day now.....

[bush_cheney2004]

Back by popular demand:

[DogOnPorch]

You probably heard nothing and saw nothing, too.

Live by the rules, die by the rules. Looking forward to my vacation suspension any day now.....

This time around I did do nothing and yes...did not see it coming. It is a tactic of certain posters to try and shut fellows like me up for good, though. The 'report button' is merely another tool to 'win' an argument.

Edited October 29, 2012 by DogOnPorch