Question on selective judgments by those with power

[Guest Peeves]

I wonder that some posts that appear imho as trolling are not dealt with while some are. Of course Mapleleafweb has that right and choice of rulings and I don't dispute it. Good Luck.

I of course take a bit of pleasure in posting here (and elsewhere),as the debate is often quite revealing and of interest.

In over 2000 posts I feel I have contributed to the forums interest and content. A couple posts have been met with disfavor which is usually understandable (but not in this latest case.)

Still, I would say at least one poster has been trolling frequently and far more egregiously than the rest and is ignored., and it ain't me. I don't much care since the post either leads to discussion or not as the members here chose regardless the seemingly selective ignoring.Hardly the need of censoring since the response, or not is sufficient usually.

The definition below quoted is of course quite general and all encompassing. Interpretation is very subjective.

QUOTE FROM Forum Rule and Guidelines, "We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments."

*************************************************************************************************************************

I was rebuked as shown.

"It has already been deleted, as the quality of the initial posting is pure troll bait. Peeves, consider this your notice that any future posting that is this poor in quality, will be deleted. "

Given the above definition I must object to the deletion of my post on Olivia Chow. as trolling (added for clarification)

Public admonishment and contentious decision deserves a similar response here, which I am posting appropriately as directed and as you point out in the responding sentence,

"No one contacted me requesting an explanation. Also, this is NOT the place in the forums to post questions about moderation and or missing threads. If any of you post a thread like this again, outside of the Support and Questions section of the forum, I will delete the thread without notice."

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

My decision to post on the subject was due to the heavy media coverage locally. I found the discussion/debate of general interest "LOCALLY" which is where I posted. IT WAS a legitimate subject for debate here too given the 'legs' and profile in the news media.

Her name has recently been the subject of much debate , both in the news media and on talk shows as to her possible being a candidate contesting Ford's Mayoralty in the next election. Given that possibility, the pros and cons elsewhere, the newsworthy aspect of the subject LOCALLY, it does not meet the test of trolling in any sense.

If you are unaware of the subject in the press and on talk shows then you are uninformed and do me and the subject an injustice.

Certainly it is your prerogative to be selective in your determination as to what is or what is not trolling, however in this case though you have the right, you are wrong and mistaken, unless the major Toronto media and the talk shows are also trolls given their attention to Olivia's (?) candidacy.

https://www.google.c...o run as mayor?

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

An interesting response followed to another poster, but without any supportive facts followed the removal of my post and member(s) concerns.

"Climb off the cross bcsapper, no one here is trying to censor or impose their "biases" on you. The original post was deleted because it was deemed inflammatory and a pretty good example of a trolling post.

It was a judgement call made by me and I stand by it.

Now, should a note have been sent to the original poster requesting they repost with more respect and decorum, yes. A note should have been sent, and the Moderation team will make every effort to notify a member if an action like this is done in the future. However, i will point you all to the rules and guides, specifically this section:"

"Mapleleafweb will attempt to monitor the content of the postings and reserves the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever. We will also attempt to use this power judiciously and fairly, but our decisions are final."

Of course, but they can also be both seemingly ....selectively judged and as well,..... wrong.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Peeves

[cybercoma]

Stop whining. In one post you say what's posted here doesn't matter, then you complain about moderators' decisions. Get over it.

Edited November 24, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Peeves]

Stop whining. In one post you say what's posted here doesn't matter, then you complain about moderators' decisions. Get over it.

If you haven't been told today, you have now.

My post was making a point, but yours is simply invective and personal, so if you have something that is worth reading regarding my opinion, say so otherwise take a long walk off of a short pier

[Guest]

I saw that climb off the cross comment, but then I saw the "it's my ball and I'll take it home if I don't like the way the game is going" comment that accompanied it, which I hadn't read in the rules and regs (who reads the rules and regs?) so I didn't worry about it. They make it perfectly clear that they'll delete posts for whatever reason they want so while they can be accused of bias, they don't hide from the fact.

Your post was removed for some reason that is beyond me. It obviously wasn't due to trolling or insults because so many other examples get through. Some of them blatant.

Maybe they just like Olivia Chow. Or Jack, I don't know.

[Guest Peeves]

I saw that climb off the cross comment, but then I saw the "it's my ball and I'll take it home if I don't like the way the game is going" comment that accompanied it, which I hadn't read in the rules and regs (who reads the rules and regs?) so I didn't worry about it. They make it perfectly clear that they'll delete posts for whatever reason they want so while they can be accused of bias, they don't hide from the fact.

Your post was removed for some reason that is beyond me. It obviously wasn't due to trolling or insults because so many other examples get through. Some of them blatant.

Maybe they just like Olivia Chow. Or Jack, I don't know.

Hey good response.I wasn't trolling, there were no insults of note, but I'm certainly not appealing. What matters a ruling on a forum, it's nay but a popcorn fart. I was totally surprised of the 'poof' considering Chow was so much in the news as is Ford, as is the speculation.

I honestly thought it a good subject worthy of discussion. But hey what do I know I may well have been affected and dumbed down by some posters here. Meantime as to ____ and____ and the Next ___________ We'll just have to wait and see.Can't discuss it.

[Guest Peeves]

Tout à fait fini

I am closing my discussion as of now with the caveat that I too have the ability to judge and react and choose.

[jbg]

I think overall the quality of the moderation is pretty good here. My sole complaint is that often when I respond to a warning or suggestion I receive no response. Threads such as these are better taken "private." However, when I do so frequently there is no response.

[Michael Hardner]

A few things to note - as a facilitator I can see some of the actions that happen so I feel I can add some light to the questions.

Firstly, to the suggestion that some threads are dealt with and some are not I want to note that the moderators don't see everything, especially if an offending thread is not reported.

Secondly, to the suggestion that the existence of a similar story in the media means that a post isn't qualified as 'trolling'. I don't see how that could be perceived given the definition that appears under rules and guidelines:

No Trolling/Flaming

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

There are plenty of stories that appear in media, that one could start a troll thread on.

I'm just a facilitator but I thought that my responses here were obvious and so I posted them for clarification.

[wyly]

I think overall the quality of the moderation is pretty good here. My sole complaint is that often when I respond to a warning or suggestion I receive no response. Threads such as these are better taken "private." However, when I do so frequently there is no response.

I agree...

but then again it's their forum, their rules and they can do what ever they like and they don't need to justify anything to us...we either accept that or find another forum...

[jbg]

I agree...

but then again it's their forum, their rules and they can do what ever they like and they don't need to justify anything to us...we either accept that or find another forum...

No question about it you're right. It's just a friendly suggestion, to keep some discussion off the "airwaves."

[Greg]

I agree...

but then again it's their forum, their rules and they can do what ever they like and they don't need to justify anything to us...we either accept that or find another forum...

Responding to each report isn't reasonable, we're volunteers here, we can't take a few min per report, we'd be here all day.

Also -- to be honest -- some reports (NOT ALL!) are frivolous, so to respond to them would only invite a discussion about the validity of the report - which again, we don't have time for.

[guyser]

Given the above definition I must object to the deletion of my post on Olivia Chow. as trolling

My decision to post on the subject was due to the heavy media coverage locally.

The media was talking about Jack and Olivia not paying market rent on their co-op housing .??

Id love to see that heavy media coverage about it. It was afterall, only last week.

Edited November 26, 2012 by guyser

[wyly]

Responding to each report isn't reasonable, we're volunteers here, we can't take a few min per report, we'd be here all day.

Also -- to be honest -- some reports (NOT ALL!) are frivolous, so to respond to them would only invite a discussion about the validity of the report - which again, we don't have time for.

there is that as well ...

[Guest Peeves]

The media was talking about Jack and Olivia not paying market rent on their co-op housing .??

Id love to see that heavy media coverage about it. It was afterall, only last week.

So now I'm obliged to challenge your contention.

Now you are obviously being argumentative or purposely obfuscating. I had no post on the subject of "The media was talking about Jack and Olivia not paying market rent on their co-op housing .??"

https://www.google.c...o run as mayor?

My post subject was singularly about the Toronto mayoralty and the speculation all over the news that she might.

I have no control over how others extrapolate the subject nor how they, like you try knowingly or ignorantly to expand the subject into unintentional spheres that are unrelated.

[Guest Peeves]

Wrong response.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Peeves

[guyser]

So now I'm obliged to challenge your contention.

Now you are obviously being argumentative or purposely obfuscating. I had no post on the subject of "The media was talking about Jack and Olivia not paying market rent on their co-op housing .??"

Are you denying you didn thave that little dig at Olivia and Jack in your OP ?

Boy I sure hope you aren't.

My post subject was singularly about the Toronto mayoralty and the speculation all over the news that she might.

No it was not singularly about the mayoralty race to come. You talked about the co-op housing. A vain attempt at a smear.

Edited November 27, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Peeves]

Responding to each report isn't reasonable, we're volunteers here, we can't take a few min per report, we'd be here all day.

Also -- to be honest -- some reports (NOT ALL!) are frivolous, so to respond to them would only invite a discussion about the validity of the report - which again, we don't have time for.

Hey Greg et al..

Would you have a problem with an occasional report that by definition clearly breaks Forum Rules and Guidelines ? Seems in the circumstance I would have an obligation to report blatant offenses?

I would conclude from the basis of most of the points that I have accrued that reports are being selectively made by someone. I see posts daily (nearly) that are at least equal to the 'reasons' given for the majority of my points with no apparent repercussions.

I hesitate to copy same here since the reasons (I believe) are available in my profile, but the points were in my opinion usually awarded for very picayune if not frivolous issues.

Bear in mind that I'm not in anyway angered , I simply wonder at the selective nature of reproach for some (me) and disregard of other repeating offenders.

I appreciate that 'you' cannot monitor every post, it there fore behooves the rest of us to report in kind? Obviously not frivolously.

[Guest Peeves]

Are you denying you didn thave that little dig at Olivia and Jack in your OP ?

Boy I sure hope you aren't.

No it was not singularly about the mayoralty race to come. You talked about the co-op housing. A vain attempt at a smear.

I repeat that my post was about her for mayor. You want an argument at to continue to be confrontational the just piss off, I'm not going there.

just to be clear I DID NOT GET INTO THE CO_0P HOUSING ISSUE>

Edited November 27, 2012 by Peeves

[guyser]

I repeat that my post was about her for mayor.

Oh calm down, you know what you wrote.

It was about her for Mayor, but you threw in some bogus non factual glop about the co-op

, I'm not going there.

You already did.....

just to be clear I DID NOT GET INTO THE CO_0P HOUSING ISSUE>

Um.....yea you did. It was silly and not even remotely the truth . Any point you were trying to make was lost with that hubris added.

[Guest Peeves]

Didn't that's a lie.

[guyser]

Didn't that's a lie.

[Greg]

I simply wonder at the selective nature of reproach for some (me) and disregard of other repeating offenders.

You shouldn't presume that the moderation team doesn't see the selective/subjective nature of the reports by certain members. We can, and we always attempt to take into consideration the context to the report and the specific action that lead to the report.

Also, enough with the Olivia Chow discussion in this thread - if you want to debate about her, post a new thread or update an existing thread.

[Guest Peeves]

You shouldn't presume that the moderation team doesn't see the selective/subjective nature of the reports by certain members. We can, and we always attempt to take into consideration the context to the report and the specific action that lead to the report.

Also, enough with the Olivia Chow discussion in this thread - if you want to debate about her, post a new thread or update an existing thread.

So, a question. Have others had points for the same reasons that I have, (not the offensive post you addressed personally ) the content being unacceptable as to 'quality' ? Those seemed selective, possibly based on a member's report?

I certainly agree on the other matter since outright falsehoods are now attributed to me.

Have a good day.

[cybercoma]

The internet. It's serious business.

[Michael Hardner]

So, a question. Have others had points for the same reasons that I have, (not the offensive post you addressed personally ) the content being unacceptable as to 'quality' ? Those seemed selective, possibly based on a member's report?

I can answer this one myself - I have seen moderators make comments on the quality of posts (not yours).