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

[cybercoma]

No crap it's clear. Argus is questioning why it's a rule at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because without such a rule, discourse would devolve into a routine mud flinging contest.

There appears to be one group excepted from the rule: Americans

[betsy]

Bleeding heart

I understand, Betsy...I'm saying that a lot of people with wildly different views have been suspended. Heck, I was suspended because of the tone of a post I wrote towards...you!

I'm not complaining about the suspension, just to be clear. I only wish to point out that, whatever issues folks may have with the moderation, I don't think "bias" is a correct charge, nor a fair one.

Why was I suspended for being "rude" on this thread? What constitutes "rudeness?" Why don't you compare my posts from this thread to the rudeness of other posters from my topic that was deliberately trashed - here, take a look and compare:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23105-nasas-tetrad-and-the-coming-four-blood-moons/#entry926647

Why was I suspended for being rude???

Funny thing, I never even recall any offensive post coming from you. I must be so used at getting bashed that everything just easily rolls off.

You should wonder why you got suspended for your tone towards me, yet others from that link above got off scot free! The insults I got from that thread was not the first time either from a couple of them.....some names I could mention don't get any suspensions. That observation is based from their several posts directed at me.

Heck, how should I know where or how CA makes his judgements! It could depend on his mood for the day for all I know!

One thing clear though, I'm not the only one that has a beef with his moderation (some had left).....in fact I got a pm from a former poster today who said he'll come back posting again when CA is gone!

Therefore, I can't be just imagining these things....

Edited April 18, 2014 by betsy

[WWWTT]

Seems pretty clear to me:

Insults leveled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

What's an insult and what's criticism? Criticism is allowed! I would even say that without it, this site is pretty much dead!

Now I call several politicians "war pigs"

Also have called other posters here "grammar nazis"

I believe some people here don't know the difference between insulting a person you don't know and criticizing their approach/actions/style/policy.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Because without such a rule, discourse would devolve into a routine mud flinging contest.

There appears to be one group excepted from the rule: Americans

LOL!

Playing the victim card?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Why was I suspended for being "rude" on this thread? What constitutes "rudeness?" Why don't you compare my posts from this thread to the rudeness of other posters from my topic that was deliberately trashed - here, take a look and compare:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23105-nasas-tetrad-and-the-coming-four-blood-moons/#entry926647

Why was I suspended for being rude???

Funny thing, I never even recall any offensive post coming from you. I must be so used at getting bashed that everything just easily rolls off.

You should wonder why you got suspended for your tone towards me, yet others from that link above got off scot free! The insults I got from that thread was not the first time either from a couple of them.....some names I could mention don't get any suspensions. That observation is based from their several posts directed at me.

Heck, how should I know where or how CA makes his judgements! It could depend on his mood for the day for all I know!

One thing clear though, I'm not the only one that has a beef with his moderation (some had left).....in fact I got a pm from a former poster today who said he'll come back posting again when CA is gone!

Therefore, I can't be just imagining these things....

Hi Betsy.

There is a religion subject heading here, but I don't think there is adequate number of interested members or proper moderation for the depth of subject you wish to discuss to fully appreciate/engage your interests.

If you were suspended from what I have read, I agree that it was not warranted. But If these were my interests/subjects, I would find another forum to explore more attractive dialogue.

WWWTT

[Argus]

Seems pretty clear to me:

Insults leveled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

That rule did not used to be in place. Or if it was, it wasn't interpreted in the way it is now.

My saying disparaging but true things about the culture of Afghanistan should not be interpreted as insulting a third party, unless it's the position of the moderators that we aren't allowed to put down other nations or cultures, regardless of flaws and regardless of whether our criticism is true or not.

[betsy]

Hi Betsy.

There is a religion subject heading here, but I don't think there is adequate number of interested members or proper moderation for the depth of subject you wish to discuss to fully appreciate/engage your interests.

If you were suspended from what I have read, I agree that it was not warranted. But If these were my interests/subjects, I would find another forum to explore more attractive dialogue.

WWWTT

The most recent suspension I got was for an alleged rude post I made right on this section (not from Religion).

I posted on two threads in this section - I have no clue as to how I could've been suspended for being rude, and others who downright blatantly de-rail and mock and do personal insults can do so with no suspension at all.

I gave the link in Religion as an evidence for comparison with what obviously is a biased moderation.

Yes I did find an excellent Religion section in what I consider the best Forum Site. That's where I do my religion postings now.

I've had the chance to debate with members from various religions among other things - and there's hardly any suspensions at all! All they do is give warnings when the rules are being broken - the discussions can go on forever without any name-callings or getting into bashings. THEY'RE TRANSPARENT BY SHOWING WHAT POST GOT YOU A WARNING. They also indicate beside the topic title if there are any posts that got warnings. Discussions are really happening.

Anyway, I don't get what the lack of interested parties here would have anything to do with the moderation. Do you mean to say that CA is justified in removing my topic, or for my topic to get trashed by some trolls....simply because I insist on creating pro religion-based subjects in the Religion Section? So the contents allowed in this site is dictated by some group - that would support my earlier claims: This is a clique-dictated site.

If CA or admin doesn't want any pro-religion subjects - they ought to specify that by changing the heading of that section to....

ANTI-RELIGION SECTION! Because the title of that section is quite mis-leading!

Edited April 19, 2014 by betsy

[WWWTT]

Hi Betsy. What I'm saying is that this is not a big religion forum. This is a political forum. I do not believe it is possible to completely eliminate religion from politics, so then it would be a appropriate to have at least one subject heading to better direct some threads.

And I don't think there is proper moderation on this site for an all out religious debates. Or the posters.

I understand religion is very involved, has great variation, lots of passion and would require people who belong to more than one religion to fully appreciate the different perspectives. That's asking a lot from the moderators here!

My best suggestion would be to separate the two (politics vs. religion), and accept this site for what it is.

That's all I have Betsy.

Good luck

WWWTT

[betsy]

It is short-sightedness when one underestimates the traffic that can be generated from a good Religion Section.

Aside from Politics, Religion is the other controversial issue that brings up the passion in people. Why do you think we're advised never to discuss politics and religion in social gatherings? Because once you start discussing, there's no stopping it. Religion can be a lure to get someone to register as a member just so they can post an opinion.

The admin from that other site understood that, hence they took extra effort to protect that section.

We have a lot of agnostics and atheists participating too, and they do post a lot of interesting and challenging questions.

Your puny numbers of posters who have no interest in religion at all, does not reflect the amount of interest that's out there.

Unless the people who runs forums understand that discussion sites must be like any regular grocery stores that provide something (from excellent customer service to coupons to discounts, etc.,) just to get people to come in, and to keep the flow of traffic going, and growing.....their sites wouldn't stand a chance. There's lot of competitions out there that do understand the business they're in, and how to run it professionally.

Whether you like it or not, if you want to survive, you've got to compete. That's the realistic bottom-line.

Edited April 19, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

Hi Betsy. What I'm saying is that this is not a big religion forum. This is a political forum. I do not believe it is possible to completely eliminate religion from politics, so then it would be a appropriate to have at least one subject heading to better direct some threads.

And I don't think there is proper moderation on this site for an all out religious debates. Or the posters.

I understand religion is very involved, has great variation, lots of passion and would require people who belong to more than one religion to fully appreciate the different perspectives. That's asking a lot from the moderators here!

My best suggestion would be to separate the two (politics vs. religion), and accept this site for what it is.

That's all I have Betsy.

Good luck

WWWTT

Aren't they separated? Politics and Religion?

I still don't get what my religion interest got to do with this!

Whether I'm interested in religion or not....is not the point!

The point is: UNFAIR MODERATION!

You seem to suggest that CA justifiably overlooked at the transgressions of some posters from my trashed topic because my topic is in the Religion Section. I've officially voiced my complaint publicly on earlier thread in Suggestion section months ago (thread is gone now), there has been no action taken against those posters as far as I know (which is fine with me since that's water under the bridge).....

......BUT, and this is a big BUT, I instead, got a suspension last month for ALLEGED RUDENESS on this thread!

Not to say that another poster on this thread got off scott-free even when she made direct personal attack on another member!

It shouldn't matter what my interest is!

And, what do you mean by, "accept this site for what it is?" Accept that it's okay to practice unfair moderation on anyone who's pro-religion? Such mind-boggling suggestion....jaw-dropping...laughable.

It's these "little caveats" that smacks of double standards - and some hints of bigotry - that make some gripes a farce!

It's either you call for RESPONSIBLE UNBIASED MODERATION, or you don't! Period.

Edited April 19, 2014 by betsy

[WWWTT]

I agree with you that you were singled out.

But I believe that this site does not appreciate the depth that you bring to your topic and does not have the same qualities equally reflected in the moderators knowledge of the subject to adequately moderate it.

Let me put it this way, you're asking a 3rd base baseball empire to referee a soccer game (sorry football as it's known in the rest of the outside world!) Or something along those lines.

I understand your position, but what do you want me to do about it?

Sorry but that's all I have to add. It sounds like I'm not helping any.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

...Sorry but that's all I have to add. It sounds like I'm not helping any.

No, I think it does help to point out the bias we see on 'Religion' topics. For some reason, several members and the accompanied moderation will not or cannot objectively engage the topic as they do other forum threads. A religion topic is often attacked by a secular mindset that feels it must be marginalized, even in an academic discussion. Religion topics matter for the reasons cited above and the huge historical impact it has on the past, present, and future. The historical value alone should make religion topics appealing to an educated audience, regardless of any personal belief system(s).

If the objective treatment of religion topics is too controversial and unacceptable to some members, impacting forum quality and membership, then the issue is certainly not religion.

[WWWTT]

Then perhaps a solution for MLW would be to eliminate the topic all together from the list of subjects?

It sounds like the moderation here is not qualified to be welcoming this topic into the fold.

I understand how some members want to discuss religion, and I personally have only at a little at best added to the topic (if anything). So I'm not qualified either to discuss how to apply this?

Like I said before, I don't think there's anything of value I can add.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Then perhaps a solution for MLW would be to eliminate the topic all together from the list of subjects?

It sounds like the moderation here is not qualified to be welcoming this topic into the fold.

Well, it is said that these topics are never to be discussed in polite company: Sex, Religion, and Politics. If we can handle sex and politics, surely we can manage to discuss religion intelligently as well. Losing the topic area would only dumb down the entire forum.

[Scotty]

Well, it is said that these topics are never to be discussed in polite company:

Religion rarely IS discussed in polite company here.

[WWWTT]

Well, it is said that these topics are never to be discussed in polite company: Sex, Religion, and Politics. If we can handle sex and politics, surely we can manage to discuss religion intelligently as well. Losing the topic area would only dumb down the entire forum.

No I disagree!

Religion in my opinion would be the most difficult.

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu, Buda and all the different sects of each. And then the atheist approach to all of this and how they may get involved in a religious topic.

That is why I write that the moderation is not qualified.

The moderators here would have to have some kind of background and knowledge of all these major religions and sect, not to mention those that I have not mentioned!

WWWTT

[betsy]

No I disagree!

Religion in my opinion would be the most difficult.

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu, Buda and all the different sects of each. And then the atheist approach to all of this and how they may get involved in a religious topic.

That is why I write that the moderation is not qualified.

The moderators here would have to have some kind of background and knowledge of all these major religions and sect, not to mention those that I have not mentioned!

WWWTT

Now I'm truly confused. Why does the moderator have to have some background or knowledge of religion?

Edited April 19, 2014 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

...That is why I write that the moderation is not qualified.

The moderators here would have to have some kind of background and knowledge of all these major religions and sect, not to mention those that I have not mentioned!

No, the moderator function need not have such expertise...as it does not have expertise in many other areas that are discussed in this forum. This is just another example of considering religion (and matters of faith) to be a special (taboo) topic. Did Jesus Christ need a qualified moderator ?

[WWWTT]

Now I'm truly confused. Why does the moderator have to have some background or knowledge of religion?

No, the moderator function need not have such expertise...as it does not have expertise in many other areas that are discussed in this forum. This is just another example of considering religion (and matters of faith) to be a special (taboo) topic. Did Jesus Christ need a qualified moderator ?

I don't think religion is a topic that you can belittle and categorize with everything else.

I'm sure if the moderators all had different religious/faith backgrounds, they could be in a better position to direct, guide and suggest.

But something tells me that you guys are looking for me to side with you about an specific issue that happened here?

WWWTT

[betsy]

I don't think religion is a topic that you can belittle and categorize with everything else.

I'm sure if the moderators all had different religious/faith backgrounds, they could be in a better position to direct, guide and suggest.

But something tells me that you guys are looking for me to side with you about an specific issue that happened here?

WWWTT

Religion is a category.

The moderator is not a guide to direct, steer or suggest what we say - unless he wants to participate in the discussion.

The last thing a forum needs is a moderator who orchestrates the board.

The moderator's function is to see to it that nothing disrupts a discussion, and that the rules of the site are adhered to. That's all. He doesn't have to know anything about religion.

I'm not looking for you or anyone to side with me. As you can see, I have not participated in any other discussion outside this Suggestion Section . This is not about me.

The problem about moderation is being discussed.

I'm simply giving my experience as an example of that problem, along with an evidence (thus I gave the link to Religion).

I was actually responding to Bleeding Heart's question.

Edited April 20, 2014 by betsy

[The_Squid]

...what do you expect from a section called, RELIGION? DUH!

This is a discussion forum. Your posts are all about proselytizing and nothing to do with discussing. Plus, often your posts are simply cut/paste religious spam. I am guessing that's why it was removed.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a discussion forum. Your posts are all about proselytizing and nothing to do with discussing. Plus, often your posts are simply cut/paste religious spam. I am guessing that's why it was removed.

Even if that were true, other members strive to do the same thing in many other topic areas. Not sure why "religion" would be singled out as an exclusion zone.

[The_Squid]

Even if that were true, other members strive to do the same thing in many other topic areas. Not sure why "religion" would be singled out as an exclusion zone.

Copy/paste spam with no attempt at discussion is against the rules. Why would you think the religion section is any different?

[bush_cheney2004]

Copied and pasted content is pervasive in all topic areas. It is not necessarily "spam".