What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?

[WestCoastRunner]

Opinions are just that, irrespective of any underlying credibility. This is not a court of law.

However if you want members to respond in kind members should provide credibility to their opinions. Otherwise it's just he said she said and denigrates quickly with no one interested in contributing to the thread without serious contemplation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Members can respond anyway they wish, including their own opinions. Or choose not to respond at all.

There is no prize for extra credibility.

[WestCoastRunner]

Members can respond anyway they wish, including their own opinions. Or choose not to respond at all.

There is no prize for extra credibility.

Who is asking for a prize. I'm asking for integrity

[bush_cheney2004]

This forum has may topic areas that include personal opinion(s) and experiences without any mechanism to establish "integrity".

In face to face communications, does one demand a "cite" ?

[On Guard for Thee]

This forum has may topic areas that include personal opinion(s) and experiences without any mechanism to establish "integrity".

In face to face communications, does one demand a "cite" ?

It's usually hard to find any realistic cite that just expands trolling. I'm talking outside of the like of Breitbart, etc.

[Charles Anthony]

However if you want members to respond in kind members should provide credibility to their opinions. Otherwise it's just he said she said and denigrates quickly with no one interested in contributing to the thread without serious contemplation.

You are right. It gets boring. There is only 1 problem: nobody holds a monopoly on the truth. What is a moderator to do?

The power is in your hands.

If you do not believe something, ask for a cite.

If you do not like the cite, say so.

If you do not get a cite, then ignore it and move on.

If you are expecting any more profound moderator intervention in this regard, forget it. We are not here to do your research for you.

----------

What do you guys think about changing the forum so that only Mod staff can see the names/avatars of the members? To the regular members and to the public, no posts appear attributed to anybody.

[Argus]

What do you guys think about changing the forum so that only Mod staff can see the names/avatars of the members? To the regular members and to the public, no posts appear attributed to anybody.

It's an interesting idea, but it would be very difficult to carry on the thread of a conversation in a busy topic, would it not? It would also force one to wade through a lot of drek to find what you want, and it would make it impossible to follow certain posters who you particularly enjoy reading.

But we haven't seen any of the improvements we've spoken about, even though this topic has been around quite some time.

I'd seriously like to see the ability to start a topic and then boot out people who who have no interest in a constructive discussion, but simply lob insults at the participants. Mind you, around here, given the nature of so many of the posters, that would probably be a very, very quiet topic...

Edited August 24, 2015 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Then you could yell at clouds in peace without all those damn kids on your lawn. Pesky dissenting opinions. Who wants to read those?

[GostHacked]

Then you could yell at clouds in peace without all those damn kids on your lawn. Pesky dissenting opinions. Who wants to read those?

I don't think anyone here is against dissenting opinions. But many have a problem with HOW those dissenting opinions are presented in a post.

[eyeball]

I'd seriously like to see the ability to start a topic and then boot out people who who have no interest in a constructive discussion, but simply lob insults at the participants. Mind you, around here, given the nature of so many of the posters, that would probably be a very, very quiet topic...

Maybe forum members should be able to delete useless topics. This could be done democratically and with complete anonymity - for example if a topic generates x number of views with out generating y number of replies it gets the boot.

If making it obvious who's posting crap is important there could be a little indicator showing how many members threads had been deleted due to a lack of replies in the past thus saving people the time of day it takes to click on a new topic.

[Bonam]

It's an interesting idea, but it would be very difficult to carry on the thread of a conversation in a busy topic, would it not? It would also force one to wade through a lot of drek to find what you want, and it would make it impossible to follow certain posters who you particularly enjoy reading.

But we haven't seen any of the improvements we've spoken about, even though this topic has been around quite some time.

I'd seriously like to see the ability to start a topic and then boot out people who who have no interest in a constructive discussion, but simply lob insults at the participants. Mind you, around here, given the nature of so many of the posters, that would probably be a very, very quiet topic...

I think allowing self-moderated threads would be a good idea. It's a feature already available on many other forums.

You could click a checkbox when starting a thread, and if you do, you have the power of a mod to make changes in that thread (and that thread only). The thread would be automatically tagged as self-moderated, so other posters would know that the OP is moderating that thread.

The regular mod(s) could still mod the thread as normal.

[Charles Anthony]

What about allowing self-moderated posts?

You would not be able to delete replies but you could move them off to the side.

Imagine each thread having a column in the right-hand space --- kind of like where the Status Updates is located on the home page.

If you do not like a reply to your post, you could drag and drop it into the right-hand column so that it stays out of the main thread. The reply would be clearly identifiable as a sub-branch from your post but any further replies to it would stay in the right-hand column.

[Smallc]

I think Charles should have to wear a different funny hat every day.

[WestCoastRunner]

What about allowing self-moderated posts?

You would not be able to delete replies but you could move them off to the side.

Imagine each thread having a column in the right-hand space --- kind of like where the Status Updates is located on the home page.

If you do not like a reply to your post, you could drag and drop it into the right-hand column so that it stays out of the main thread. The reply would be clearly identifiable as a sub-branch from your post but any further replies to it would stay in the right-hand column.

I do agree with a poster having somewhat control over their posts but there needs to be a balance.

[WestCoastRunner]

I do agree with a poster having somewhat control over their posts but there needs to be a balance.

. By that I mean the originator of the thread

[Argus]

I would suggest an improvement which would disallow newcomers from creating topics until they've been members for a month and made at least fifty posts. The proliferation of kooks and spammers posting junk topics on the federal politics area is becoming annoying.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Argus

[The_Squid]

I would suggest an improvement which would disallow newcomers from creating topics until they've been members for a month and made at least fifty posts. The proliferation of kooks and spammers posting junk topics on the federal politics area is becoming annoying.

That would be silly.

What it needs is better moderation. If kooks are posting kooky topics, then the Mods should clean it up.

[Michael Hardner]

If kooks are posting kooky topics, then the Mods should clean it up.

Very simple: all we need is consensus on what a 'kooky topic is'.

[The_Squid]

Very simple: all we need is consensus on what a 'kooky topic is'.

Whatever Argus thinks, I'm sure we could all live with...

[Hydraboss]

I'm not sure Argus' idea is so bad. No one is saying that new members couldn't post - just that they couldn't start threads for a specified time (not that I'm sure what length of time would be appropriate). It would likely get in the way of most spammers since it would require a little effort before bombarding the board with garbage. Even a day or two would curb some of it I would think.

[cybercoma]

A lot of forums require new members to have a certain number of posts before starting new topics. It's a good idea, but can sometimes be abused by people crapping up the place to get to the cap so they can start their topic.

[cybercoma]

Though it's not like there isn't an army of posters crapping up the place already.

[Argus]

Very simple: all we need is consensus on what a 'kooky topic is'.

If the topic is so useless that five posts in you can already see no one is talking about that actual topic, for example, or simply hurling invective at the OP because of how stupidly unsupported the topic is. I would also say that a topic that has no single issue is probably not going to provoke much, if any, intelligent conversation. 100 things I hate about Stephan Harper, for example, or Harper is a Disgrace, or I'm afraid of Harper, or Harper ate my kitten, or Harper is torturing people (unless it's about his music). Actually, almost anything with Harper in the subject can be dumped into a single, all purpose "I hate Harper" topic so there isn't so much damn clutter.

[scribblet]

You want kooky... take a look at a sample here, all these topics started by the 'group' of people currently trolling/spamming the forum, it doesn't include topics they've hijacked with the same kooky conspiracy theories and links. Links all written by the same person but put forward as 'facts', links which contain dates and names that don't match up, all of them lead to the same scam artist who defrauded people out of millions.

The moderators twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain how a topic should be started or discussed but yet - they allow this. Again for the record, another forum has booted them all, and says: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/137993-who-censored-my-thread-harper.html

#10Re: Who censored my thread on Harper subverting refugee claims? 3 days ago
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post
and doesn't it turn out this spastic crybaby had a duplicate account too. quel dommage.

** Account traced back to Liberal office in Mississauga **

I guess he is getting better at hiding his IP address...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25084-stephen-harper-needs-to-define-his-true-position-on-torture/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24968-pm-steven-harper-cannot-hide-9-year-old-corruption-secrets-of-1b/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25055-harper-blocked-visas-for-iraqi-kids-to-get-organ-transplants/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24998-will-harper-unseal-terry-nelson-court-files-to-expose-drug-corruption/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25074-pm-stephen-harper-no-friend-of-democracy-heres-the-proof/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25012-should-pols-be-prosecuted-for-old-crimes-they-hid-from-us/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24962-harper-let-us-government-swindle-canadian-investors-out-of-43-million/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24976-book-manuscripts-seized-by-american-government-possible-in-canada/

Edited October 6, 2015 by scribblet

[The_Squid]

Those are definitely pretty kooky... at least they just create a topic that people can generally ignore.

Why aren't the Mods moderating this site?

Because this stuff is no more kooky than the garbage some of our resident "right-wingers" post here... so if they draw the line in the sand, you can probably expect a couple long-time MLW members to be swept up in the clean up. Which would be fine by me...