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

[cybercoma]

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

are you saying Charles doesn't do his job?

[bush_cheney2004]

are you saying Charles doesn't do his job?

No...I think you and others have already made that claim ad nauseam.

[The_Squid]

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

LOL

There's no rule against copy paste. And it isn't always spam.

Here, let me help you.... "All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted. "

[bush_cheney2004]

Here, let me help you.... "All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted. "

It is easy to find such posts...they are "tolerated".

[betsy]

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.

You talk about discussion and yet these are all you offer to this Religion topic,

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

Here's your first entry to that topic:

Considering any war as a "miracle" is sick and twisted.

And here are the rest:

So the moon has turned to blood... according to the bible, this was supposed to happen on judgement day. Well? Where is he? If there have been lots of these moons, where the heck is he?

Bible prophecy can mean anything to anyone. It is just silly.

Was this topic posted to generate discussion, or is it just spam?

What kind of discussion are you on about? Clearly, from your statements you want to get in an all-out senseless mudslinging and mock-fest!

Either that, or you mistake your posts as stimulant to a "serious discussion."

Come to think of it, you're one of those who continually troll my threads, posting the same kind of trash. Since you do the same tactics continually....you're spamming my threads! And you dare bring up the rules?

Disrespect, trolling, name-calling, insults, de-railing a thread. How many rules have you broken in that one particular thread?

The important question is....

HAVE YOU BEEN SUSPENDED AT ALL FOR ALL THOSE?

Why do you get away scot free blatantly and brazenly breaking many, many rules......

And yet, I was suspended for being "rude" for what I posted on the threads in Suggestion.

Bleeding Heart was suspended for something he said to me that I never even noticed (so it can't be that bad)....

So we're back full circle to the problem.

Squid, you're just another sample of a moderation-gone-haywire. I've got nothing against you - that kind of posting must be your style. I chose to ignore your trolling in that thread however, and refused to be drawn to your level.

If my topics bother you so, you have the same option to ignore my topics, after all it's not a secret what kind of topics "betsy" loves to post. That's how it's supposed to be.

You don't harass and try to intimidate someone from expressing their views - you don't stifle anyone from expressing.

That kind of atmosphere (especially if tolerated and abetted by the moderator), is a turn off for those educated would-be members that can offer something really valuable to this site.

You think there are no educated viewers who decide to forego registering and contributing....based on the blatant harassment and trashings that particular thread received? Think again.

I'm saying, something's wrong with the moderation. THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM ON THIS FORUM.

To have improvements, existing problems had to be acknowledged....and seriously dealt with.

Just like AA....if you don't acknowledge the problems, you can't fix them.

Edited April 20, 2014 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Unlike AA we don't have to pretend we are powerless to help ourselves. Keep in mind that the ideas we present can and should be discussed and even criticized if they cannot be supported. Too often attacks go beyond the discussion and are directed at actual posters. That's a problem that should be addressed and from my experience it usually is. The three Squid quotes from the Blood Moon topic all comment on the content or ask questions. I don't see a problem with them.

[betsy]

Unlike AA we don't have to pretend we are powerless to help ourselves. Keep in mind that the ideas we present can and should be discussed and even criticized if they cannot be supported. Too often attacks go beyond the discussion and are directed at actual posters. That's a problem that should be addressed and from my experience it usually is. The three Squid quotes from the Blood Moon topic all comment on the content or ask questions. I don't see a problem with them.

I don't see any problems about questions or the criticisms, after all that's how discussions go.

You presented an argument in that thread I think, and I politely responded to yours.

If you don't see anything wrong with how Squid presented his "argument" to "stimulate an intelligent or serious discussion," what can I say? We have differing opinion on that.

In my view, it is difficult to maintain or to even begin a serious discussion when one comes to the table and start spouting off mockeries and ridicules. I think it doesn't require rocket science to know that. Just plain common sense! Especially if we want to maintain an intelligent discussion, and if we try to imagine ourselves quite "above" the other trashy forums around.

If it start off with insults and mocks....it's not even worth anything trying to pursue it.

Anyway, that's another suggestion. Before you can even begin to fix anything - you've got to identify and acknowledge what needs fixing.

Hello, I'm John Doe. And I'm an alcoholic.

THAT'S the analogy to AA.

Edited April 20, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

Just to give you an idea what the Religion forum that I belong to now is like:

It's not uncommon for opponents to give one another a "like." I've received "likes" from those I'd heatedly debated with (and I'm generous giving them as well). I just got one today, from someone who regularly mocks and ridicules Christianity, after a lengthy discussion with him.

I even got a pm from a very recent opponent who was inquiring why I'd not been on board for a few days.

That is the kind of atmosphere we have in that forum - and there's hardly any moderation. Just reminders or warnings. Suspensions are very rare.

I guess we all know and acknowledge what a good place we have, so everyone tries to restrain themselves.

Edited April 20, 2014 by betsy

[WWWTT]

The three Squid quotes from the Blood Moon topic all comment on the content or ask questions. I don't see a problem with them.

Nope sorry but you're wrong! And here's the quote:

Was this topic posted to generate discussion, or is it just spam?

The above quote is a clear shot at the poster, intended to belittle the topic.

Granted it is borderline, but still not acceptable.

WWWTT

[jbg]

Charles Anthony is hardly a leftist these days. He has admitted to changing political ideologies and if one were so inclined, they could find his postings on other websites (some of which are also run by Greg).

What other sites?

[Charles Anthony]

Charles Anthony is hardly a leftist these days. He has admitted to changing political ideologies and if one were so inclined, they could find his postings on other websites (some of which are also run by Greg).

What other sites?

Answered here.

[bleeding heart]

But Betsy, what you are calling "unfair moderation" perhaps only speaks to the fact that humans are moderating. There's no way every insult is going to be punished...and no way that every insult is going to go unpunished. It's imperfect, but what isn't?

You'd have a point if you thought certain posters were being especially targeted...but everytime someone has made that claim (and they usually claim ideological bias), this argument is easily knocked down...effortlessly, actually.

So when you suggest that I should wonder why my post earned me a suspension, while others in the thread did not, I'm not sure I even agree with the implied point.

It would have to be regular and consistent for me to ascertain that "something was up," as it were....and I'm just not seeing it.

There are a lot of complaints lately about heavy-handed moderation...a slightly different issue. On that, I guess colour me agnostic. I can't make myself get too exercised about it, frankly, and I feel there is a little overreaction.

But ok, for the sake of argument, let's say it's true....it still begs the question of "bias" and "unfair" moderation.

Always remember, Betsy, that you don't know what warnings or suspensions other posters are receiving. Many don't bother talking about it. (I myself have never bothered, until it became relevant to the conversation about "politically-biased" moderation.)

[The_Squid]

The important question is....

HAVE YOU BEEN SUSPENDED AT ALL FOR ALL THOSE?

Why do you get away scot free blatantly and brazenly breaking many, many rules......

How are you so certain that I didn't get warnings for those particular posts?

[guyser]

How are you so certain that I didn't get warnings for those particular posts?

And thats part of the problem but apparently the mods cant see that ....for the life of them.

Why?

Who knows?

Maybe they use the same playbook as our sitting govt.

[betsy]

You'd have a point if you thought certain posters were being especially targeted...

That certain posters - for whatever reasons - are being singled out for suspensions IS ONE OF, IF NOT THE MAJOR PROBLEM.

That means this site practices unfairness, double-standard, favoritism, etc.,

It means moderation cannot be trusted to be objective.

It means the forum is not really a forum that genuinely generate serious and intelligent discussions.

Therefore, why is it any wonder at all that a lot of active posters (who posts intelligently) had left?

Always remember, Betsy, that you don't know what warnings or suspensions other posters are receiving. Many don't bother talking about it.

The board should know.

The importance/benefits of warnings/suspensions for what particular post or comment being made public is simple common sense......IF a forum site wants to show that it is an unbiased board that truly wants to foster intelligent discussion.

Look how much accusation, suspicion, speculation, anger, resentment, in-fighting, etc., that policy of secrecy generates.

It's one thing to claim that a board is opting for intelligent discussion. It's quite another to clearly show that.

The forums that flourish have one thing in common:

they want to openly show they provide a fair playing field for everyone. They make effort to prove that.

There's no other sensible argument against that.

Edited April 24, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

To tell you the truth, I honestly think the board should re-start, and all current members should register again under different handles.

[bleeding heart]

But you keep making the claim that "certain posters" are being singled out. (And that it's in fact one of the major problems...if not THE major problem.)

My point is that this is not obvious. You even concede it's not obvious, because we don't know.

These are competing claims. How can something be perhaps the major problem....when it might not even be occurring?

[The_Squid]

That certain posters - for whatever reasons - are being singled out for suspensions IS ONE OF, IF NOT THE MAJOR PROBLEM.

I was suspended recently... 1 week.

Are you going to answer my question about how you know that I didn't receive any warnings/suspensions for the posts you referenced earlier? Could it be a possibility that I actually did receive "warning points"?

You are just a load of hot air venting in this one thread to create drama...

[betsy]

But you keep making the claim that "certain posters" are being singled out. (And that it's in fact one of the major problems...if not THE major problem.)

My point is that this is not obvious. You even concede it's not obvious, because we don't know.

These are competing claims. How can something be perhaps the major problem....when it might not even be occurring?

I did not concede that it's not obvious! I'm not going to butt heads with you about this - if you don't see it that way, then you don't see it that way.

The point is: MODERATION is the number 1 complaint so far. And a lot of posters are clamoring for transparency.

Edited April 25, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

I was suspended recently... 1 week.

Are you going to answer my question about how you know that I didn't receive any warnings/suspensions for the posts you referenced earlier? Could it be a possibility that I actually did receive "warning points"?

You are just a load of hot air venting in this one thread to create drama...

What?

Didn't you understand the reply of Guyser2? What part of it is not clear?

Sorry.....I've no time to spoonfeed you. You'll just have to try to understand what you read, and learn to connect the dots.

Adios.

Edited April 25, 2014 by betsy

[cybercoma]

I did not concede that it's not obvious! I'm not going to butt heads with you about this - if you don't see it that way, then you don't see it that way.

The point is: MODERATION is the number 1 complaint so far. And a lot of posters are clamoring for transparency.

Well, we're going on month 5 since the forum improvement thread and still nothing.

[Argus]

How about a topic for political cartoons? A little politically oriented amusement couldn't hurt.

[jbg]

I was suspended recently... 1 week.

Are you going to answer my question about how you know that I didn't receive any warnings/suspensions for the posts you referenced earlier? Could it be a possibility that I actually did receive "warning points"?

You are just a load of hot air venting in this one thread to create drama...

You can see your warnings when you open your profile, I believe.

[waldo]

extend image posting to also include .png images... should help eliminate blustering/nattering members who liberally throw around accusations of fabricating graphics because a .png image couldn't be directly linked... and instead has to be converted to gif/jpg and hosted elsewhere/separately from the original source.

[Charles Anthony]

How about a topic for political cartoons? A little politically oriented amusement couldn't hurt.

Wow! I love this idea of yours! I can support that.

What is happening, Argus?!? Soon people will think there is moderator bias in your favor!

extend image posting to also include .png images...

That is the fault of your browser. I will take a wild guess and say that you are using a Microsoft product to render this forum. Internet Explorer notoriously does not support PNG graphics.

The Invision software has had PNG support for some time now. Here is an old PNG image that still appears fine:

The point is: MODERATION is the number 1 complaint so far. And a lot of posters are clamoring for transparency.

I bet $10 that reality is more accurately described thusly: A small minority of posters are clamoring for public floggings to continue until morale improves.

Far be it from me to read the minds of other folks but I bet $100 that there are a lot MORE posters who appreciate that most public humiliations are unwittingly self-imposed and they appreciate private moderator action in this regard. Everybody is given multiple chances to continue to have full unfettered posting privileges if only they STOP violating the forum rules in the future.

Didn't you understand the reply of Guyser2? What part of it is not clear?

Given that my very first post in this thread discussion addressed his exact concern, I interpret Guyser's post as one more dramatic demonstration of what I routinely observe here in the forum: Some people do not pay attention or choose to purposely ignore what other people write and consequently they misrepresent what other people write.