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

[Moonlight Graham]

I think there are only 5 active participants here (or even less), who actually have opposing views from all the others!

THAT'S WHY THIS BOARD IS DEAD! Most of the participants are all of the same mold! You all sound the same!

And you want to either suspend or ban the few differing ones....GREAT!!

The political views of a member vs how civil they debate on MLW are 2 completely different things. I regularly disagree with a member like TimG, but Tim debates in a civil manner and I have intelligent debates with TimG about as much as 2 people with conflicting world-views can. I don't think anyone could rightfully argue that TimG exhibits any kind of pervasive trolling behaviour. I also disagree with most of Shady's posts, but he typically isn't personally disrespectful to fellow posters on this board compared to the rest of us so Shady has every right to post on MLW.

[betsy]

Argus, I understand where you're coming from. It does sound odd to suggest that trolling be allowed....but if you think about it, what's actually ludicrous is having a rule against "trolling."

The definition of a troll sounds too simple but if you follow its definition, everyone here on this board had been a troll at some time or another - most of us even unaware or unconsciously about it. And a lot of times some readers are already biased against a poster (for any reasons they may have)....thus they easily are irritated by that poster's comments. So they automatically label the person a troll. The real ones who have problems are not the "trolls."

Most of the time, it's the reader. They are seeing "trolls."

We have rules against trolling ....and look what good that did to MLF!

When you start finger pointing at posters as trolls simply because what they say irritates you, and if the mods start pandering to complaints about trolls and start suspending and banning and taking down threads....it'll be the board that will suffer in the end.

If this board has a rule against FLAMING, that should be enough to prevent any name-callings and outright insults or brawls happening.

What most of you seem to be forgetting is that this is a forum! No one has to walk on eggshells to state his views - unless you do want to be in a boring board.

And that's the main reason why you've lost posters to other sites, and from 321 online users at one time - now, you're lucky if you see 75! Whether you like it or not, other forums online are your competition!

Even if someone from Uganda comes in to say his country is better than Canada because of this-and-that....he should still be able to state what he thinks. You can beg to differ and engage him in a discussion or heated debate, or you can simply ignore him.

The onus should be on the reader to know enough when to walk away.

Edited February 19, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

In reply to Moonlight Graham,

Labelling a troll is subjective most of the times.

As for uncivilized debates, surely there's already a rule against that, and one ought to know when that line is indeed crossed.

I also suggest that this board should let members know when an offensive post had received a warning. Other forums do this by highlighting the entire post (yellow color at the other site), and putting a note alongside the thread title. One of my threads garnered 2 or three warnings (not my posts), and now the thread title reads something like this: "Title" [W=3]

Letting the people know that there are things that are not allowed, and are being dealt with is very important. Posters want to know. Also, it serves as an example what type of posts get warnings. Posters want to be reassured that they are playing on a level playing field. If they feel there is unfair treatment, they'll just simply go elsewhere. Some won't even bother to complain about it...they'll just be gone.

Edited February 19, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

And just so to underline the fact that it's a fierce competition out there to get members (members who'll stay, may I add)....the forum I'm onto - which is an American forum - has a special section for CANADA. That's where Canadian members can indulge themselves on discussions about our national affairs.

There are also special designated sections for Africa, Asia, Australia and Oceania, Europe, Latin America, Middle east.

Therefore, think about that when some of you start being too exclusively-minded.

There are no borders on-line. Members are members. Posters are posters. It's easy to sign in members.

It's hard to get them to be active, and harder to keep them from straying.

You need ACTIVE body-count in a forum....or you're dead.

Edited February 19, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

As for inviting personalities to give interviews in the forum.....it's a big question if you'll get someone we know. Usually celebrities come to endorse something. They sell you something.

Think of this as a newspaper. Before you'd waste resources to advertise in a venue, of course it matters how much circulation you get. How many audience you reach matters. IT'S ALL ABOUT NUMBERS.

I'm telling you, most old-timers here are the biggest problem in this forum. I'm not trying to insult....I'm just being brutally frank and stating from experience.

It's up to you all to make a conscious effort to make this place grow again to what it used to be.

Edited February 19, 2014 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

Betsy,

I agree with you completely that most posters sometimes engage in behavior that constitutes "trolling."

But that's not what people really mean when they speak of "trolls."

they're speaking of consistent trolls; people who behave as trolls more often than not; and most of all, people who are consciously, intentionally behaving as trolls, because it amuses them or because they are dickheads.

Of course it can get extremely subjective, you're right about that. But some cases are obvious enough.

I have been, personally, explicitly informed by a poster that his purpose here is to try to upset and antagonize people, because it's fun, and that this is, in his view, the very purpose of these discussion boards. That's obviously and unequivocally a troll. And I support their right to talk as they wish, but that doesn't mean I agree with their style, nor think it's fine.

Now, I also agree that the best way to deal with this is to not bother responding if one doesn't wish to engage. That's fine, and that's true.

But the idea that it's all completely subjective, or that "we're all trolls"....that is not really accurate.

[bleeding heart]

Oh, by the way, Betsy, didn't you forget part of the subject in the last line of your last post?

It sounds pretty sanctimonious to remark that it's "up to you all to make a conscious effort" to improve this place...rather than using the more conventional "up to us."

Edited February 19, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Spiderfish]

I have seen a lot of changes in this forum over the last while mainly in the loss of good members. Many of these members were long-time participants and seemed to have constructive, well received contributions. Gaining new membership is important, but saving existing membership and trying to stem the rate of attrition should be given some consideration as well.

There are two things that I can see that may be hurting this site. The first is this obsessive idea that thread drift is not constructive to a debate. While blatant thread drift can be a problem and can derail a topic, exploring related ideas within a topic that do not pertain directly to the subject is constructive and should be encouraged. Also, some posts that may appear off-topic actually may have merit and lend support to a premise when reflected on. It is easy to just react by declaring something as off-topic and demand that it be removed and have the corresponding warning points doled out. I have personally experience this several times recently, where one of my posts was declared off-topic but was actually meant to support a premise that directly pertained to the topic. It was subtle and not in your face, but not off topic. Meanwhile, a large number of responses from other members within the same thread was blatantly off topic when measured by the same standard. The double standard is unfair and destroys creative interaction.

The second thing that is likely not helping membership is an apparent lack of respect by certain members toward other members. Debate can get heated sometimes and this is to be expected. I have no problem with the odd response being worded sharply or the odd jab, this can be constructive and stimulate the discussion if it isn't over the top. But when every single response from certain posters comes off as arrogant, condescending, and provocative, I lose interest in participating altogether. Without mentioning any names, some members on this site seem to be well researched and have knowledge on certain issues (or at least one side of the issue), and have many fine graphs and colourful charts to back up their argument. but all the charts and graphs and opinion they bring to the table is meaningless, because their delivery is so abrasive, condescending and self-inflated their point gets lost. Then when effort is made to avoid further interaction, they can't drop it but instead come at you even more aggressively with more condescending crap to provoke reaction. It's something that some may have a tolerance for, but many others are completely put off by this and choose simply to go somewhere else.

[jacee]

Betsy,

I agree with you completely that most posters sometimes engage in behavior that constitutes "trolling."

But that's not what people really mean when they speak of "trolls."

they're speaking of consistent trolls; people who behave as trolls more often than not; and most of all, people who are consciously, intentionally behaving as trolls, because it amuses them or because they are dickheads.

Of course it can get extremely subjective, you're right about that. But some cases are obvious enough.

I have been, personally, explicitly informed by a poster that his purpose here is to try to upset and antagonize people, because it's fun, and that this is, in his view, the very purpose of these discussion boards. That's obviously and unequivocally a troll. And I support their right to talk as they wish, but that doesn't mean I agree with their style, nor think it's fine.

Now, I also agree that the best way to deal with this is to not bother responding if one doesn't wish to engage. That's fine, and that's true.

But the idea that it's all completely subjective, or that "we're all trolls"....that is not really accurate.

Such a persistent and intentional troll can suppress free discussion to impose a personal agenda, and lower the quality of discussion to a point where new members are discouraged from continuing, especially if said troll is the most prolific poster, vigilantly stomps on all attempts at open and constructive discussion and has other posters suspended for 'insulting' him when they identify him as a troll.

If MLW wants to improve the quality of discussion here, attract new members and promote useful constructive discussion, they need to deal more effectively with the US'n senior mocker who resides here to sneer at Canadians and promote his military/industrial agenda.

If I don't post after this, it will be because I've again been reported by said troll for identifying him as such, and suspended or banned for doing so. So be it, because the discussions here will never rise to constructive levels unless moderators commit themselves to it.

.

Edited February 19, 2014 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

....If I don't post after this, it will be because I've again been reported by said troll for identifying him as such, and suspended or banned for doing so. So be it, because the discussions here will never rise to constructive levels unless moderators commit themselves to it.

.

Why would this "senior mocker" report you, as that would not be in keeping with one of his dearest beliefs:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire.

As for supporting the "military industrial" complex, that is a perfectly legitimate view regardless of any desired censorship and agenda on your part. You can't just shut people up because you don't agree with what they have to say.

[guyser]

You can't just shut people up because you don't agree with what they have to say.

But they should be when they consistently lie and all of it is an attempt to poke the dog.

[bush_cheney2004]

You can't just shut people up because you don't agree with what they have to say.

But they should be when they consistently lie and all of it is an attempt to poke the dog.

No...this would also be the death of this forum. That's part of the problem here....some self annointed "troll police" trying to tell members not only what to say/not say, but how they should say it.

[The_Squid]

No...this would also be the death of this forum. That's part of the problem here....some self annointed "troll police" trying to tell members not only what to say/not say, but how they should say it.

LOL. No, it would be the death of some posters who are perpetual trolls. It would improve the forum immensely.

[Moonlight Graham]

The definition of a troll sounds too simple but if you follow its definition, everyone here on this board had been a troll at some time or another - most of us even unaware or unconsciously about it.

Pretty much everyone here breaks the rules at least once in a blue moon when discussions get very heated, myself included. It's inevitable. But there's a difference in a poster trolling every now and then and a poster trolling consistently day-after-day, years-after-year.

We have rules against trolling ....and look what good that did to MLF!

The rules aren't enforced, which is the problem.

If this board has a rule against FLAMING, that should be enough to prevent any name-callings and outright insults or brawls happening.

What most of you seem to be forgetting is that this is a forum! No one has to walk on eggshells to state his views - unless you do want to be in a boring board.

Flaming is different than trolling, but both should be discouraged. There's no need to walk on egg shells. MLW is meant to be a place for intelligent and respectful debate about politics and other issues, and that's what I'm dedicated to preserving here. A few of your complaints are valid, and some particular posters consistently attack you (and others) in ways that are uncivil. ie: Using the emoticon to consistently "laugh" at your opponent's ideas/comments is really disrespectful & insulting. Using is for laughing at jokes/sarcasm, not at seriously presented ideas. Again, most everyone breaks these rules sometimes but doing it consistently is uncalled for.

[bush_cheney2004]

LOL. No, it would be the death of some posters who are perpetual trolls. It would improve the forum immensely.

No, the "trolls" could easily carry on with dreadful boredom and politically correct pablum that some prefer. Trolls are very flexible and creative...or so I've heard. Are you the official "LOL" troll ?

[Argus]

IThe second thing that is likely not helping membership is an apparent lack of respect by certain members toward other members. Debate can get heated sometimes and this is to be expected. I have no problem with the odd response being worded sharply or the odd jab, this can be constructive and stimulate the discussion if it isn't over the top. But when every single response from certain posters comes off as arrogant, condescending, and provocative, I lose interest in participating altogether. Wi

I think you and others are forgetting that the desire to engage in political discussion tends to rise and fall depending on how close we are to elections.

It can also interest more people when they actively support a political party. However, few Canadians actively support any particular political party these days because they find all of them to be more than a little contemptible. Who is really enthusiastic about Stephen Harper? I mean, really!? How many people think he's a great leader? Justin Trudeau? The only people I know who have stars in their eyes over him are shallow women who would pay him little attention if he weren't so attractive. Mulcair? Gruff old bear mulcair? Not too much enthusiasm there either.

There are no 'rock stars' in Canadian politics. Most of us seem to look at them all and go "Meh" and then vote for the least worst. Under those circumstances, involving themselves in active political discussions seems rather low priority.

As to your comment about lack of respect, I would tend to agree. There is a persistent lack of respect between posters here, especially coming from certain posters. I think that is the one rule which is least enforced. Discussion filled with snarky, sneering, mocking, dismissive statements is, to my mind, just as insulting as if the poster was calling people names. And it would tend to dissuade people without a thick skin from taking part.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Argus

[guyser]

No...this would also be the death of this forum.

If the death is caused by someones continual and persistent lies, then let it die. But only an idiot would think that it would.

That's part of the problem here....some self annointed "troll police" trying to tell members not only what to say/not say, but how they should say it.

No the problem is certainly not about what they say nor how they say it.

The problem is continual lie being put forth, without a shred of back up, and when informed, repeatedly, the same idiot keeps lying.

[guyser]

As to your comment about lack of respect, I would tend to agree. There is a persistent lack of respect between posters here, especially coming from certain posters. I think that is the one rule which is least enforced. Discussion filled with snarky, sneering, mocking, dismissive statements is, to my mind, just as insulting as if the poster was calling people names. And it would tend to dissuade people without a thick skin from taking part.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The problem is continual lie being put forth, without a shred of back up, and when informed, repeatedly, the same idiot keeps lying.

Even if that were true (it isn't)...SO WHAT ? There is nothing in this forum's rules that bans "lying" or conflict over facts and opinions.

"Informed" by who ? With what credentials ? With what authority ?

Edited February 19, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[betsy]

Oh, by the way, Betsy, didn't you forget part of the subject in the last line of your last post?

It sounds pretty sanctimonious to remark that it's "up to you all to make a conscious effort" to improve this place...rather than using the more conventional "up to us."

Let me re-phrase that: It's up to you all frequent and regular posters (especially those who'd been here for quite sometime)to make a conscious effort to improve this place.

I didn't say "us" since I can no longer call myself a regular or frequent poster. I drop in every now and then when surfing. In fact, I even hesitated whether I should give any suggestions at all. I spent a good many years on this board and perhaps I'm just too sentimental. But of course being me, once I get started it's like a dam....

Edited February 19, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

Pretty much everyone here breaks the rules at least once in a blue moon when discussions get very heated, myself included. It's inevitable. But there's a difference in a poster trolling every now and then and a poster trolling consistently day-after-day, years-after-year.

The rules aren't enforced, which is the problem.

Perhaps you can urge admin to try it your way. Enforce the rules on trolling. Clamp down real hard. Take a gamble on that.

This kinda gives me the visual of a hardluck gambler in a casino. All or nothing.

Flaming is different than trolling, but both should be discouraged. There's no need to walk on egg shells. MLW is meant to be a place for intelligent and respectful debate about politics and other issues, and that's what I'm dedicated to preserving here.

I'm not saying flaming and trolling are the same. I'm saying that the rules on FLAMING will keep you all in check not to resort to calling names, insults, etc.., In other words, if you're faced with something that you consider trolling, the onus will be on you to either ignore it, or discuss it civilly....or you can also choose to take the hit of getting penalized by having a go at the "troll."

What can I say....we differ in how we regard those things.

A few of your complaints are valid, and some particular posters consistently attack you (and others) in ways that are uncivil. ie: Using the emoticon to consistently "laugh" at your opponent's ideas/comments is really disrespectful & insulting. Using is for laughing at jokes/sarcasm, not at seriously presented ideas. Again, most everyone breaks these rules sometimes but doing it consistently is uncalled for.

Well, we can't be too sensitive when we get in a public forum. Having to face emoticons - you'll just have to decide how you'll respond to them.

Again, the way you see emoticons are subjective. It's not usually the person that I laugh at.....but the post or the statement.

Again, I see that as a form of censorship. If one finds an argument/rebuttal ridiculous - surely we should have the freedom to EXPRESS OURSELVES! Emoticons are, after all, simply expressions!

Emoticons are part of every forums whether they are serious discusssion or simply social forums.

Like I said, usually it's not the poster (Troll) who's got a problem. It's the reader.

Edited February 19, 2014 by betsy

[guyser]

Even if that were true (it isn't)...SO WHAT ? There is nothing in this forum's rules that bans "lying" or conflict over facts and opinions.

Lying presents a problem insofar as credibility wise this places wants it, and continued lying erodes that. None of us enjoy reading , ad naseum, outright lies and falsehoods.

You do obviously , but then you are pegged as a rather insecure one trick pony who, all the while wondering about Canada's and MLW's obsession with the US when in fact the obsession is yours, and the lies match right along with it. None of the stuff you are trying to defend are opinions, they are plain old lies.

"Informed" by who ? With what credentials ? With what authority ?

Oh my, thats rich.

Oh i dunno...maybe the CRTC mandate, the CBC mandate, all sorts of factual posts that have been put forth to show, and supposedly shut up your incessant lies?

But hey, go on to obsess...and lie. It is what you do.

[bush_cheney2004]

Lying presents a problem insofar as credibility wise this places wants it, and continued lying erodes that. None of us enjoy reading , ad naseum, outright lies and falsehoods.

Then don't read them....obviously you are very sensitive to such conflict and should avoid it in the future. But this is a FORUM, not an echo chamber for only the "facts" that you believe to be true.

You do obviously , but then you are pegged as a rather insecure one trick pony who, all the while wondering about Canada's and MLW's obsession with the US when in fact the obsession is yours, and the lies match right along with it. None of the stuff you are trying to defend are opinions, they are plain old lies.

Quite to the contrary, I am obviously a prolific irritant to those smug Canadians here who resent being challenged on their perception of reality vis-a-vis Canadian foreign and domestic policies, past and present. How dare some smart ass American join a "Canadian" forum and point out such things in such a mocking tone. Doesn't he know that some Canadians have a right to lie to themselves and disparage other nations without challenge ? How rude !

Edited February 19, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Charles Anthony]

Voila une idee farfelu: Peut-etre devrait-on inviter d'autres americains!?! L'Ol!

I remember that interview with Jack Layton. Were there any other interviews other than Jack?

Reculez!

[guyser]

Then don't read them....obviously you are very sensitive to such conflict and should avoid it in the future. But this is a FORUM, not an echo chamber for only the "facts" that you believe to be true.

Aint too bright there huh buttercup?

I have no problems with opinion. It and facts are welcomed,lies certainly arent.

You may as well post the sun rises in the west. What good is that? Its not true, it isnt opinion, its a falsehood, a lie and has no business being on here.

That you dont get it is no surprise.

Quite to the contrary, I am obviously a prolific irritant to those smug Canadians here who resent being challenged on their perception of reality vis-a-vis Canadian foreign and domestic policies, past and present. How dare some smart ass American join a "Canadian" forum and point out such things in such a mocking tone. Doesn't he know that some Canadians have a right to lie to themselves and disparage other nations without challenge ? How rude !

LOL...no you really are thin skinned and insecure.

COntrary to your childish ways, challenges about perceptions and policies is well targetted by many on this forum. Most here do not suffer fools gladly.

A smart ass? Well, you are half right, but continually lying about some things makes one a dumb ass.

Wear it well.