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

[monty16]

Thanks, will add you to the list of folks who have no clue what trolling is. Stellar group you belong to.

This isn't about me so this time I'll report you for your personal attack. Stop it.

[guyser]

This isn't about me so this time I'll report you for your personal attack. Stop it.

Not knowing something and being told is now a personal attack?

:lol:

[Bob Macadoo]

Thanks, will add you to the list of folks who have no clue what trolling is. Stellar group you belong to.

How much clearer can it be that your viewpoint isn't what makes you a troll......its the impudent behaviour that accompanies the viewpoint that makes you a troll. You can rant all day that Dick Cheney saved the world and Ayn Rand is a goddess, but the moment you derail a thread about Cdn military purchases by stating you owe America gratitude for your safety......that's a troll.

[WestCoastRunner]

How much clearer can it be that your viewpoint isn't what makes you a troll......its the impudent behaviour that accompanies the viewpoint that makes you a troll. You can rant all day that Dick Cheney saved the world and Ayn Rand is a goddess, but the moment you derail a thread about Cdn military purchases by stating you owe America gratitude for your safety......that's a troll.

LIke derailing a thread about christian universities by bringing up anal sex. Good grief.

[Charles Anthony]

If anything, it's the opposite. Penalizing thread drift is a sure fire way to drive new people out. Conversations go where they go, and people should be able to respond to the discussion where it is without fear of a moderator acting like third grade hall monitor and giving "warning points". It's the most childish thing I've seen in a long time, and it's a big reason why I don't bother to participate here nearly as much as I used to.

I agree with Bryan. Conversations will inevitably go off in another direction and I personally don't see what is wrong with that. Inevitably, they do come back to the topic at hand and branching out into other areas just makes for a more lively conversation. I do think that warning points for something so silly is not really conducive to an engaging and informative forum.

How do you guys define thread drift?

How do you guys define derail?

Throw out all references to the word 'troll' and throw out any silly notion that there is such a thing as a 'troll' on any forum. It's never a valid charge and is always a lame reaction to an opinion of another poster to which the person making the charge doesn't agree.

That is a good idea.

Charges should be more precise.

[WestCoastRunner]

There is a difference between derailing a thread with useless, disguisting comments and engaging comments.

[WestCoastRunner]

This is just not the forum I want to contribute to anymore.

[Bryan]

How do you guys define thread drift?

How do you guys define derail?

I don't, because it's a false concern. Let the conversation go where it may. If the topic is worth getting back on track, an active membership will do that. It's it doesn't come back, that part of the thread was done anyway.

[Bob Macadoo]

This is just not the forum I want to contribute to anymore.

.....another domino falls.....great business plan.....

[bush_cheney2004]

There is a difference between derailing a thread with useless, disguisting comments and engaging comments.

If the topic is about prohibited sexual relationships and activities, one should expect such things. It's a grown up topic...engage or ignore.

[Big Guy]

This is just not the forum I want to contribute to anymore.

I think that would be a loss to all who are interested in diverse opinions. I have participated on various boards for a number of years and have made most of the usual mistakes. I have found at times, that to take a short vacation, stay away from the site for a week or two and then later review your participation is a better idea.

Participation in a board is being an active members of a chosen community, one in which you have to depend on others to control the activity which keeps you participating. If after a hiatus you do not miss the participation then you are not enjoying the process and why participate in something you do not enjoy.

All anonymous electronic opinion boards go through the same evolution. A base participation group keep the interest alive, new members join and are challenged by the "old boys", participation continues to be limited to a core group arguing the same issues, taking the same positions, maintaining the same allegiances and rebutting the same "enemies". The posting quickly goes to a personal level because each avatar has painted themselves into a self created corner of ideas and political affiliation. Soon everybody is seeking a referee who is supposed to minimize the personal insults - because that becomes the only thing to do.

I believe that the secret to increased civil participation here is to change some of the parameters:

1. Do not indicate the number of posts under the Avatar of the anonymous individual. What is that information supposed to indicate? It only sets up a pecking system that encourages individuals to post quantity rather than quality. It says nothing about the credibility of the poster and forces those "senior" members to try to protect their "turf" and their perceived "reputation" through any means possible. Posters start to act as if a criticism of their avatar is a direct insult to them.

2. On December 31 of each year, all avatars are automatically deleted by the administrators and everyone has to re-register under an avatar that has not been used before on this board. Some new participants have made mistakes, would like to continue on the board but not be saddled with their rookie mistakes.

3. To be really progressive, if the administration of this board desires to allow the participants more input and a sense of ownership of the content then allow a vote when someone is be being considered to be banned. Create a section where the participating members are allowed to vote. Someone posts something offensive, they are temporarily suspended and their post(s) is placed into that section. Participants are allowed 2 days to vote (once) and then the potential offender is either freed or suspended for a month depending on majority opinion. The owner of the board obviously has the last say in any decision but would be expected to explain if his/her decision differs from the majority vote.

Finally, to WestCoatRunner, it is always a good idea to review why you spend your free time on any board if you are not enjoying the process. There would be no difficulty if everyone "contributed" to this board. Some do contribute, some learn, some diminish and yet others vandalize. I am still amazed that some posters who participate are obviously angry, try to initiate an argument and cannot be enjoying the interactions - but - still continue to post. But - each to his own.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Big Guy

[Bob Macadoo]

I am still amazed that some posters who participate are obviously angry, try to initiate an argument and cannot be enjoying the interactions - but - still continue to post. But - each to his own.

Well said. Interesting suggestions, don't know if I agree but interesting.

[WWWTT]

So many times have I had to post to get back on topic, because the thread gets derailed.

Calling someone a troll is not a personal attack, as I could say things much worse. The term is aptly applied to the 'Senior Mocker'. Thinking he has had some great injustice done upon him, when he brings it on himself. A perfect example of a forum troll.

Ya I'm going to have to ask you to leave me out of this petty squabble you guys are having because you're wasting your time trying to draw me into it.

Sometimes I'm in the mood to bicker it out, but recently my time is limited so will be my contribution level.

Thank you.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Not to change the topic, but I propose Charles Anthony be allowed to post again. It's not useful to have a moderator who doesn't post because it gives the impression he doesn't know what's going on.

Participation in a board is being an active members of a chosen community, one in which you have to depend on others to control the activity which keeps you participating. If after a hiatus you do not miss the participation then you are not enjoying the process and why participate in something you do not enjoy.

Wasn't a total waste checking out this thread again!

Found a couple contributors trying to get into the topic with these comments. (not saying I agree with them, but at least it's in the right direction)

Also, special points for Big Guy!

I saw Big Guy made the latest comment on this thread, and thought, that guy never gets involved in the mud slinging so he must be making some kind of contribution to the thread! And my instinct was right!

WWWTT

[Charles Anthony]

Not to change the topic, but I propose Charles Anthony be allowed to post again. It's not useful to have a moderator who doesn't post because it gives the impression he doesn't know what's going on.

I understand the intention and I am sorry to burst your bubble: You would not likely be getting much input from me anyways --- save a few one-liners at most. My thoughts on most current affairs are so extreme as to be bland when laid out bare as well as very inflammatory. You would undoubtedly want me to be banned given how I perceive your tolerance of what is out there right now. I would have to refrain from offering my honest opinions on matters.

I do not believe in argumentation much any more because I see most disagreements as being no more than differences in preferences and chosen facts. [i do not argue with vegetarians over where to eat.] In other words, I do not believe any of you are right or wrong in any profound sense on these matters --- given your available sources, that is. My perspective is reductionist in that I have very little to add that would not lead to massive thread drift directly into a discussion of individual morality.

To get around the impression of me having no clue of what is going on, I offer the following compromise: If you Report a post and you want an explanation, start by explaining yourself first. Do not just say: "This is trolling OBVIOUSLY!!!" but rather say: "This is obviously trolling because....." and give us something to discuss with you through the PM function. With all due respect, many of you guys label something as "trolling" because you fail to understand the message of your alleged-troll and sometimes, you fail to want understand.

[Spiderfish]

I think that would be a loss to all who are interested in diverse opinions. I have participated on various boards for a number of years and have made most of the usual mistakes. I have found at times, that to take a short vacation, stay away from the site for a week or two and then later review your participation is a better idea.

Sound advice!

Participation in a board is being an active members of a chosen community, one in which you have to depend on others to control the activity which keeps you participating. If after a hiatus you do not miss the participation then you are not enjoying the process and why participate in something you do not enjoy.

I have become more selective in the topics I choose to participate in and the posts I make or debate lately. There have been times when reading certain threads where I feel an urge to contribute or respond, however I usually suppress these urges these days because I can see where the conversation is heading, and really don't have the time, energy, or desire to go there. Sometimes it is beneficial to step out of the picture for a bit and become a spectator, and gain a fresh perspective.

I believe that the secret to increased civil participation here is to change some of the parameters:

1. Do not indicate the number of posts under the Avatar of the anonymous individual. What is that information supposed to indicate? It only sets up a pecking system that encourages individuals to post quantity rather than quality. It says nothing about the credibility of the poster and forces those "senior" members to try to protect their "turf" and their perceived "reputation" through any means possible. Posters start to act as if a criticism of their avatar is a direct insult to them.

Excellent suggestion.

Finally, to WestCoatRunner, it is always a good idea to review why you spend your free time on any board if you are not enjoying the process. There would be no difficulty if everyone "contributed" to this board. Some do contribute, some learn, some diminish and yet others vandalize. I am still amazed that some posters who participate are obviously angry, try to initiate an argument and cannot be enjoying the interactions - but - still continue to post. But - each to his own.

Couldn't agree more. As I said above, sometimes spectator status offers valuable perspective. It's easy to lose yourself in debate and focus on adversarial exchanges, and while debate is the reason we're here, taking inventory of what and why can be constructive.

Overall, great post!

[waldo]

With all due respect, many of you guys label something as "trolling" because you fail to understand the message of your alleged-troll and sometimes, you fail to want understand.

similarily, with all due respect, that impression you speak of you,"having no clue of what is going on", is fueled by 2 things:

- there is a board rule definition of trolling; again, per the rule: "We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments". What is not clear from that rule definition is interpretation and action-remedy. There was a cumbaya moment a while back where you (and others of us) came to an obvious mind-meld that subjectivity rules any interpretation/action-remedy. Of course, board moderation subjectivity rules "supreme"!..... as you are this boards single moderator, your subjectivity rules.. supreme!

- there is certainly a board rule definition of trolling; however, given the aforementioned subjectivity, there is not a consensus understanding of what your "supreme ruling subjective" definition/interpretation/action-remedy of trolling is, particularly in lieu of the past acknowledged bias that you expressed you hold.

I've recently asked (twice) for your subjective (supreme ruling) definition of what a troll/trolling is. You must have missed my first request. Your response to my second request was, unfortunately, unclear... I quote the posting exchange below:

a simple request; once again for clarity and commonality of understanding: please define/relate your understanding of what a (MLW board) troll is, what (MLW board) trolling is - thanks in advance.

Answered already up above:

please advise on your "supreme ruling subjective" definition, interpretation. and action-remedy of/for a troll/trolling - thanks in advance

[Shady]

This obsession for trolls and/or trolling is ridiculous. Move on already.

[waldo]

This obsession for trolls and/or trolling is ridiculous. Move on already.

no worries Shady! Your Breitbart/UK tabloid/denier blog/etc., inspired climate change related threads can't be considered as you trolling... you clearly don't know any better.

[cybercoma]

I don't think Shady's a troll. Any time I've called him one, I was usually kidding about something he says that's outrageous to me. Despite having a differing opinion, which I sometimes think are absurd, at least he's clearly interested in contributing to the discussion and not, as far as I've seen, actively derailing threads in an attempt to piss people off with nonsense.

I only make that point because there's a clear difference to me between having disagreeable positions and trolling. Shady's someone I disagree with and the discussion with him is vastly different than "discussion" with trolls.

Edited June 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[waldo]

ya the Shady man is rarely a troll... although he can be perceived as one given his repeat pattern of initiating failed climate change threads based on the most suspect of sources, like his most recent days old 'fiddling data' thread. Given he was so adamant in wanting to move the discussion away from trolls/trolling, my comment was meant to alleviate any concerns he might hold of the perception (of others) in that regard.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think any long-time posters are trolls. A poster who has a "pet" issue is not a troll IMO.

[GostHacked]

I don't think any long-time posters are trolls. A poster who has a "pet" issue is not a troll IMO.

I would argue that more than half here knows who the trolls are. And yes even long standing members can be trolls. Check the suspension count on any member, and would argue a few stand right out.

[Bob Macadoo]

I don't think any long-time posters are trolls. A poster who has a "pet" issue is not a troll IMO.

MH there is my earlier post of partisanship clearly rising......partisanship is just human nature for the familial. Don't be too insulted, you've acknowledged its possible presence, just need some reflection.

[Bob Macadoo]

You would undoubtedly want me to be banned given how I perceive your tolerance of what is out there right now.

This statement shows you really haven't listened to much of what the "whiners" have been saying. Sigh.