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

[waldo]

Definitely, it does.

You can't equate not getting the result you would like with nothing being done. In the end, what constitutes a good argument and what is trolling is subjective. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to decide, but somebody does. In my opinion the referee takes abuse in all great sports.

oh really! As far back as January 16th, Greg indicated he would start a separate thread on moderation... he updated on that intent with a March 20th post advising of his seriousness, indicating he required a few days to collect his thoughts. We're now advised in a recent post, not by Greg, that members should expect some "revolutionary ideas (aka ta da)" changes to board moderation. Apparently, presumed consulation with board members is not/will not be necessary!

[cybercoma]

Definitely, it does.

You can't equate not getting the result you would like with nothing being done. In the end, what constitutes a good argument and what is trolling is subjective. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to decide, but somebody does. In my opinion the referee takes abuse in all great sports.

What a silly cop out.

[Charles Anthony]

further, if there is a rule against labeling a board troll, a troll... or if there is a rule against labeling the actions of a board troll, trolling... please

....slow down! You are changing the goal-posts. The rule is not that complicated.

The rule is no personal attacks.

Labelling somebody a troll (or anything else for that matter) is a personal attack. You are not allowed to make personal attacks and you know it.

When you make a personal attack, you discourage a member from explaining himself because your intent is demonstrated to be closed to learning. From my pespective, you are stifling debate.

I continue to expect all members to respect the forum rules and to report any trolling-as-they-perceive-it and to refrain from responding in kind.

Why? Does it do any good ?

Yes. I can only speak for myself but on a daily basis, I am reading more varied, candid and civil discourse here in the forums than ever before. I am constantly learning from all of you guys. People are freely discussing stuff that was commonly shouted down in the past by partisan hacks.

It is simple game theory where self-moderation is intended to be maximized and moderator-action is intended to be minimized while simultanously fostering civil and varied discourse.

If you believe somebody is trolling and you ignore it and if everybody who is in agreement with your judgement ignores it too, then the trolling(-as-you-perceive-it) will go away and you will be proven right. Thus, there is no need for a moderator to even question your perception nor to act in that matter. it requires that everybody follows the rules.

Ignore a troll and the troll will go away. In fact, if you ignore a non-troll, he will go away too.

If somebody-who-is-not-a-troll posts something that is boring but does not contravene the forum rules, it will be ignored and that somebody will likely go away or at worst, have no effect on the board. I hope you can agree with me on this one.

From my perspective, true trolling is also a different type of boring. Sometimes it can be clever.

The problem is a matter of perspective. Many times MemberA reports MemberB for trolling but I do not think it is trolling.

Not that anyone would know since everything is done in secret with no measure for the rest of us to see.

... and with good reason.

Most people who troll and get called out on it by a moderator stop doing it or at least tone things down. By keeping their reprimand quiet and discrete, it gives them an opportunity to save face without any public humiliating ---- if they want to stop trolling in the future, that is. It is a small minortiy of members who complain about their warnings.

One only needs go looking for troll(s) , start with the CBC thread.

Giant F'ing troll there who has been schooled but trollish posts still eminate.

What do you want to discuss?

A - whether what you perceive to be trolling is genuinely trolling?

or

B - are people ignoring what you perceive to be trolling? to the exclusion of whether it is genuinely trolling or not, that is.

Is this government run, Union run.... or something?

None of the above. It is run by Greg.

[guyser]

Ignore a troll and the troll will go away.

Thanks ! I needed a laugh today.

MH-You can't equate not getting the result you would like with nothing being done{/quote]

What result? What is done?

You cant equate anything has been done when you cannot see anything done and nothing has changed.

Cop out is right.

Heres an idea, remove the insult rule since the troll rule appears not to exist. But I guess this place is kind of like religion, ya knwo, some parts we like to enforce, some we dont. We pick and choose.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Guyser2

[guyser]

Ignore a troll and the troll will go away.

Thanks ! I needed a laugh today.

MH-You can't equate not getting the result you would like with nothing being done{/quote]

What result? What is done?

You cant equate anything has been done when you cannot see anything done and nothing has changed.

Cop out is right.

Heres an idea, remove the insult rule since the troll rule appears not to exist. But I guess this place is kind of like religion, ya knwo, some parts we like to enforce, some we dont. We pick and choose.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Guyser2

[waldo]

....slow down! You are changing the goal-posts. The rule is not that complicated.

The rule is no personal attacks.

Labelling somebody a troll (or anything else for that matter) is a personal attack. You are not allowed to make personal attacks and you know it.

no - you are selectively... and inequitably applying your personal goalpost measuring. More pointedly, this board's principal troll has openly acknowledged his want/propensity for trolling. How is identifying with that self-acknowledgement a "personal attack"? You outright coddle this boards principal troll. In your self-expressed and proudly asserted "moderation bias" you choose to not directly enforce the MLW rule against trolling. Rather, you hold to a ridiculous premise that presumes members interpret a rule you refuse to directly enforce. You double-down on that by expecting members to "IGNORE & REPORT" something that presumes on the inappropiate onus you force members to attempt to interpret... i.e., the MLW rule against trolling that you refuse to directly enforce. More pointedly, you in turn ignore and refuse to acknowledge member reports concerning trolling.

accepting to your volunteer presence, it appears you rely entirely on member reports to identify your opportunities to guage trolling. What that nonsensical approach feeds is your inability to understand that members interpret trolling over a lengthy period of time... a repeat pattern that associates with multiple/purposeful trolling... a repeat pattern that typically includes multiple occurences and flavours of refuting/debunking the trolls nonsense. Your approach to evaluate trolling on a single reported post is a useless measure that only fuels member frustration... particularly when you in turn suspend members for reacting to the trolling/troll you refuse to deal with.

When you make a personal attack, you discourage a member from explaining himself because your intent is demonstrated to be closed to learning. From my pespective, you are stifling debate.

even if you discount this board's principle troll's self-acknowledgement to a want/propensity for trolling, your statement has no relation to calling out this board's principle troll. The actions of this board's principle troll do not lend themselves to either "open learning" or "open debate". Quite obviously, trolls have no desire for either!

[guyser]

Waldo ....know this much.

2+2= 4 <----- we all know that as undeniable truth .

2+2=5 <------Moderator(s) understand this position.

I kid you not.

Arguing against it is not worth it anymore. They understand how 2+2=5.

Apparently we are all liars , and 99% of our links are lies. I could link to a math site that shows the math, but I guess Id be lying or the site would be lying.

You may care, I may care, others may care (and we all do) but the ones who run this certainly dont. That much has been made abundantly clear.

[TimG]

You can't equate not getting the result you would like with nothing being done. In the end, what constitutes a good argument and what is trolling is subjective. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to decide, but somebody does. In my opinion the referee takes abuse in all great sports.

I thought I would emphasize this point. Some posters think their opinions are facts and resent people who point out that they are offering nothing but opinions. I find it interesting that the people who are so keen to censor people that say things they don't like are on the left side of the political spectrum.

[guyser]

. I find it interesting that the people who are so keen to censor people that say things they don't like are on the left side of the political spectrum.

No one is censoring anyone.

I find it interesting that the people who say really dumb or ascribe nonexisting arguments are on the right side of the political spectrum.

Does that look ok?

[TimG]

No one is censoring anyone.

Trying to get a "troll" banned because you disagree with the views expressed is censorship.

As for you other comments: please point out a poster complaining about "trolls" who is not on the left side of spectrum.

Edited April 12, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

Trying to get a "troll" banned because you disagree with the views expressed is censorship.

Who's banning anyone? Whos trying to?

Thats right .....no one.

Maybe those on the right side do have that problem spoken to in my last post . Surprisingly you may prove it right.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Guyser2

[TimG]

Who's banning anyone? Whos trying to?

Gawd these kind of moronic arguments are really annoying. Trolling is against the rules and a banning offense. If someone accuses someone of being a troll then then they are seeking to have that person banned or at least forced to stop expressing the offending opinions (i.e. censorship). Your cutsy "they did not actually say the word "banned" therefore that is not their objective" argument is pathetic and intellectually dishonest. Edited April 12, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

Gawd these kind of moronic arguments are really annoying. Trolling is against the rules and a banning offense. If someone accuses someone of being a troll then then they are seeking to have that person banned or at least forced to stop expressing the offending opinions (i.e. censorship). Your cutsy "they did not actually say the word "banned" therefore that is not their objective" argument is pathetic and intellectually dishonest.

Sorry I'm new here but from reading the moderator's description is not what you wrote above an example of trolling? You opened with a overly dramatic sneer, didn't actually discredit/disprove the replier's statement, nor provide any additional information to further the debate and ended with another insult. Is that not textbook whether a suspension is requested or not?

[TimG]

nor provide any additional information to further the debate and ended with another insult. Is that not textbook whether a suspension is requested or not?

There is an important distinction between disparaging an argument and disparaging the poster. My sneer was about the arguments made. They are also a real response because I believe it to be an intellectually dishonest argument. I am not sure how one would express such an opinion without "insulting" the argument. Edited April 12, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

There is an important distinction between disparaging an argument and disparaging the poster. My sneer was about the arguments made. They are also a real response because I believe it to be an intellectually dishonest argument. I am not sure how one would express such an opinion without "insulting" the argument.

So your semantical distinction (person/argument) is more valid than the poster's (identifying / banning trolls)? Your frustration with the poster can be found littered on this board......to say this argument is the source and not the poster would be defined as an intellectually dishonest argument.

[TimG]

So your semantical distinction (person/argument) is more valid than the poster's (identifying / banning trolls)?

It is rather important semantic. One of the first rules of discourse is to not make things personal by attacking the person making the argument. i.e. play the ball not the man. I don't always live up to my own standard but I will usually revise posts that cross the line.

You have also not answered the question: how does one express the opinion that an argument is intellectually dishonest trickery without sounding like one is disparaging the argument?

Edited April 12, 2014 by TimG

[jbg]

Trying to get a "troll" banned because you disagree with the views expressed is censorship.

As for you other comments: please point out a poster complaining about "trolls" who is not on the left side of spectrum.

I have, but by way of the "Report" function. And I don't make a public note of it.

[TimG]

I have, but by way of the "Report" function. And I don't make a public note of it.

I stand corrected.

[cybercoma]

So the very existence of a rule against trolling is censorship? Good to know.

[Wild Bill]

Logged in to take a gander and what do I see?

30 pages of nitpicking! I still think most are missing the point. The moderators are an extension of who owns MLW. One presumes their approach is sanctioned by that owner.

So the state of this board is a result of the moderating criteria. The owner has the right to any criteria he or she pleases, since in the final analysis it is THEIR board!

That being said, many times it has been stated that the end goal is to increase membership and activity.

If this is true, then that is the only yardstick to measure success or failure.

So the question is, has MLW decreased or increased its membership and activity? That is the only way one can tell if this board is meeting its stated goals.

The question of whether an individual member is comfortable or not with the moderating politicies is irrelevant. Those of us who don't like it are free to leave for other pastures. If we leave in a civil manner then it is assumed that if things change we may come back someday.

If things don't change to an individual's liking then so what? Is this the only board out there? Go find another one!

Discussion forums are like a table of friends and acquaintances at a bar or a coffee shop. Everyone is free to sit down and join in a discussion. If you find the tone of the discussion or the manners of some of the participants offends you - walk away! Find another table or another coffee shop.

All I know is, whenever I check back all I ever see is more pages of posts with nothing changed. I see discussion about more stringent rules but only more vivid examples of politically correct opinion being taken as universal reality.

And all the while, the basic problem is so simple - bad manners and a lack of courtesy!

Bill and Ted, we have never needed you more!

[Argus]

Definitely, it does.

You can't equate not getting the result you would like with nothing being done. In the end, what constitutes a good argument and what is trolling is subjective. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to decide, but somebody does. In my opinion the referee takes abuse in all great sports.

It can be subjective. God knows Charles seems to have difficulties understanding what trolling is since he once accused me of doing it. But there are different kinds of trolling, and I think the particular kind of trolling which causes issues here is fairly easy to identify. That is the trolling which seems to be specifically designed to outrage people. It arises in multiple topics, but seems, on the surface, to bear only a slight relationship with the subject under discussion, dragged in by the troll in order to cause anger and vituperation.

Let me give an example, citing no one in particular. Say posters are discussing the state of the military, and its various assets and would-be purchases. Another poster, say one from another country, posts about how pathetic the Canadian military is and boasts about his country's military, and then goes on to say how many immigrants his country ges, and how many Canadians want to go and live there, and how many go there to get health care treatment, etc. etc. There's no question this is deliberate trolling that's designed to cause other posters to cast insults at both him and his country.

[Argus]

Trying to get a "troll" banned because you disagree with the views expressed is censorship.

What about trying to get a troll banned not because you care much about their views but because the troll keeps waylaying conversation to make it as hostile as possible?

[Argus]

Sorry I'm new here

:lol:

[Bob Macadoo]

......Let me give an example, citing no one in particular. .....

Subtle.

I assume you laughed at my comment as you believe I am a past member, I am not. I also took time to contribute to this forum as I was unclear on the moderation and depth of duscussion here. Although the discussion can be thought provoking I can see how members can be dissuaded from contributing due to the tone in some topics. For example I don't bother looking at ME topics too often as it always ends in troll-ery due to the same players. I can tell by the comments that the feuds are months if not years in the making and no 3rd party can influence the discussion.

[GostHacked]

Labelling somebody a troll (or anything else for that matter) is a personal attack. You are not allowed to make personal attacks and you know it.

Calling a self proclaimed troll, a troll is not a personal attack.