Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[jbg]

I saw that too. I thought it was great for him to do that. Took a bit of work and time. I don't get why that would cause a suspension?

His overall nastiness is the problem. If he woudl learn to be civil, as say Cybercoma usually is I'd have no problem with him.

[bleeding heart]

But he was suspended precisely because of his action re the thread drift; I know, because he sent me a PM and showed me the moderator remarks.

Edited May 3, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

I like how waldo goes out of his way to copy posts from the wrong thread into the right thread to avoid drift that was happening and gets a month long suspension for it.

? Did you maybe miss the part where he called the moderator stupid ?

If you guys aren't going to say anything about that, then indeed we're in trouble. This person is a volunteer, and without him there's no forum, yet calling him 'stupid' is ok ?

I'll say it again: you will never agree with the moderator 100%, so you have to learn to lose these fights sometimes.

[cybercoma]

? Did you maybe miss the part where he called the moderator stupid ?

If you guys aren't going to say anything about that, then indeed we're in trouble. This person is a volunteer, and without him there's no forum, yet calling him 'stupid' is ok ?

I'll say it again: you will never agree with the moderator 100%, so you have to learn to lose these fights sometimes.

he called the decision to levy him with a warning stupid because it was. If the moderator is going to take that personally then we have a much bigger problem here.

[cybercoma]

another stoopid (f'n biased) so-called "moderation" ruling! I actually take the trouble (twice) of copying multiple posts from multiple members from a thread they didn't belong in... to an appropriate concurrently running thread where they did belong. And I get a warning for supposedly, in that mix, as succintly stated, commiting an "off topic / thread jacking" violation. WTF!

more to the point, if the post is so offensive that he gets a month in the cooler, then why is it still here?

[Michael Hardner]

Posts don't usually get removed by the mods unless they're beyond-the-pale offensive. I can't think of examples where this happens, off the top of my head.

Edited to add: You used the term offensive, by the way, not anyone else. It's an insult, though, as per the rules. Right ?

[eyeball]

Posts don't usually get removed by the mods unless they're beyond-the-pale offensive. I can't think of examples where this happens, off the top of my head.

Ahem.

[Michael Hardner]

Ahem.

Yes ?

[eyeball]

The post I made a week or so ago that was removed was beyond-the-pale offensive? Really?

[Michael Hardner]

You had a post removed ? I didn't know that. Why ?

[Bob Macadoo]

It's all a joke. You publish a topic wondering how to drum up business or at least keep the business you have, you're told what where and why and then begin to make it worse. I am new to this forum and have begun drifting out due to the trolling. Waldo may have an irritating manner but the discussion is appropos, as opposed to others that I have no history with but offer zero in the way of thread progression.

Meh.

[OftenWrong]

I see a lot of personal insults in these forums. One poster told me when they reported them, many times, it appeared that nothing was done. The offending party continued to give offense, and still does so. Report and ignore did not appear to help. I guess it's different when you're the one being insulted.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, it helps. Insults are not tolerated. Trolls are not tolerated, and what a lot here complain about in terms of trollng isn't considered trolling by the moderator.

The moderator himself is a volunteer who donates a large amount of time to making this board work.

[Charles Anthony]

I like how waldo goes out of his way to copy posts from the wrong thread into the right thread to avoid drift that was happening and gets a month long suspension for it.

Uh.... no. That is not what happened. However, it sure looks that way because I kept my conversation with Waldo private as I would do so for you and the rest of your fellow members.

Ask Waldo to send an EXACT and COMPLETE transcript of the PMs that were sent to him and to us. Make sure you pay close attention to the sequence of communication. I do not have his permission to do so and even if I did, I would still refer you to him for the chain of evidence so that you can be at peace about this nonsense once and for all.

... to an appropriate concurrently running thread where they did belong. And I get a warning for supposedly, in that mix, as succintly stated, commiting an "off topic / thread jacking" violation. WTF!

You have my permission to forward the exact and entire message (with links) that I sent to you wherein lies the explanation of your warning to anybody you want. I refuse to discuss your issue openly in public because my written word has been misrepresented.

I'm not clear if you're asking me to, literally, 'start a new thread' so that you/I can have a discussion on this point???

No.

Forget about me. Discuss it with the person who actually said it.

what do you call this original post,

If I had the power/authority to command the English language, I would call it Something-To-Ignore or Sti, for short.

If nobody ever asked me that question, it would never occur to me to give it a label.

you claim "just ignore it... and it will go away". That (less than comprehensive) snapshot example shows "IT IS NOT GOING AWAY"?

Your (less than comprehensive) snapshot example shows "IT IS NOT GOING AWAY" if you "ENGAGE" it.

Unless it is a rhetorical trick, your question makes no sense to me because the act of ignoring is not represented by the actions you recount. Ignoring is not the same as engaging. This has already been addressed clearly before in this thread.

If CA had removed/deleted my topic, at least he should've also done the same thing to that trolling title about bible thumpers! Not only does it bait, and is awfully hate-orientedly inaccurate, the said title also suggests the level of mentality that reflects badly on the board.

Your threads were tossed because you were copy-pasting after being warned multiple times to refrain from that.

Doesn't the moderator even take a glimpse at the titles of new threads being created? Surely, anyone can see

(even you), that this ignorant title is a TROLLING title, aimed at baiting and insulting bible-following Christians.

Same Sex Marriage Foes = Bible Thumpers

I see nothing insulting in those terms. [MODERATOR BIAS PERHAPS: There are few Christians like me who confidently believe the Bible is errant and filled with man-made creative, political and legal writing. From my perspective, virtually everybody who picks up a Bible is thumping it one way or an other --- usually unwittingly. I am at peace with that.] Be that as it may, the title paraphrases a quote from the main character on the set of a television show who used those exact terms. I consider that quote to be a degree of separation away from discussing something George Jefferson hollers as he storms out of Archie Bunker's living room.

Incidentally, that thread died quick in the same dignified manner in which it started. From your perspective Betsy, there was trolling in that thread and you ignored it. Good. Other people ignored it too and what happened? It went away until you brought it up again.

SHORT VERSION: The speech was menat to be inflammatory and the inflammatoriness was inherent to the topic of discussion.

That thread includes statements like this from the same member:

"Bill may be putting on a show for the crazies, but it looks like Rush is the real deal."

The poster referred to all religious people who opposed same-sex marriage based on their belief, as "crazies."

You are referring to this post.

Yes. I can see how you may find that offensive. You should have reported it.

Had you reported it, we would have seen it. I would have likely sent the member a message like: "Please tone down the rhetoric and avoid making insults. Calling a group of people "crazies" only brings down the level of debate. Please rephrase that statement in a more cordial manner. Thanks!" despite the fact that you demand no moderator action.

You are inconsistent. And if ...

... if you had reported that post, we would have looked at it. You did not report the post. Nobody reported it.

What are you expecting of a moderator if you are not going to report posts you perceive to be trolling? We can not read your minds and we can not read every single post in the forum.

Maybe you can tell me why other members have been suspended for airing the same complaints I have.

That is not an accurate representation of what transpires. Maybe those other members can forward the warning messages to you so that you can read them yourself.

People get suspended for repeatedly violating the forum rules after being warned or told to stop. Usually, the violation is responding in kind. Often the person reporting the alleged-troll is an agent provocateur in the discussion and starts the flame-war --- Oh, how life imitates art!

Many people ARE in agreement with me. But many of them end up getting suspensions because of reporting it.

No, they do not. They get suspended for responding in kind and other things which happen when flame-wars escalate and usually after being told to stop.

However, feel free to aks those many people to forward the messages that were sent to them.

And from your last line, why is there moderation period here?

--- because some of you folks disagree with the forum rules and guidelines. Some of you are belligerent.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Said member ignores me. Won't address my posts except in a passing fashion while directing it at someone else. There is no way to engage said poster. So, this is where you come in.

Uh... no. What you described is objectively no different than you trolling that unSaid member and the unSaid member is following the directive to "Report, Ignore and Move On."

Nobody is obligated to respond to you. You are not entitled to a response nor an audience from anybody. The "Report it, ignore it and move on." sign runs on a two-way street.

I would ban the trolls. Period.

I would ignore them. Back-slash. We disagree on what constitutes a troll and or the act of trolling.

... (ie, liberals are all pedophiles and thieves) ....

... is a no-no but "...beating their twelve year old wives, and killing anyone who suggests they might do things differently." is a legit statement. Uh... OK. Maybe I am too politically correct to see the difference.

I apologize. You changed my mind on this one.

However, my concern is that any positive ideas generated here in this thread by the members,are falling on deaf ears!

I disagree. This thread is leading to a better understanding of the problems of communication and differences in opinion.

[Michael Hardner]

Charles, I can tell that you want to explain the thinking behind your actions and I somewhat understand why. Many on here don't realize, as I do, the thinking you put into moderation.

My experience, though, tells me that explaining your moderating actions only invites more arguments from some members and ultimately doesn't satisfy people, since they are naturaly argumentative and want to debate the merits of the moderating. What ends up happening is the threads about moderation become more popular than the actual discussions.

[WWWTT]

I disagree. This thread is leading to a better understanding of the problems of communication and differences in opinion.

Yes but on who's part?

Don't get me wrong, reading about how waldo was suspended will have an impact in how far I will go in a comment critical of an issue!

But if you feel that YOU are gaining better/more insight into moderating this forum from this thread, then I believe that it is worth continued engagement.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

You had a post removed ? I didn't know that. Why ?

Remember the post you edited that you thought was hilarious?

I posted another right after that to rebut your edit and it was removed.

It's no big deal but I just thought an "ahem" to your comment about offensiveness above was in order.

[WWWTT]

My experience, though, tells me that explaining your moderating actions only invites more arguments from some members and ultimately doesn't satisfy people, since they are naturaly argumentative and want to debate the merits of the moderating. What ends up happening is the threads about moderation become more popular than the actual discussions.

And what is wrong with that?

I call that "brainstorming"!

Lots of good can come out from this approach.

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Remember the post you edited that you thought was hilarious?

I posted another right after that to rebut your edit and it was removed.

It's no big deal but I just thought an "ahem" to your comment about offensiveness above was in order.

I believe I edited an image post correct ? Not removed. I take it you reposted it, and Charles removed it. Ok, I stand corrected but it's stlil not the same as what Cyber asked - "Why wasn't the offending post [from Waldo] removed ?"

[Michael Hardner]

And what is wrong with that?

I call that "brainstorming"!

Lots of good can come out from this approach.

WWWTT

My experience tells me that the membership doesn't feel better about moderation, as it opens the inherent disagreements to extended and indeed interminable debate with no posisble end to it. In the end, I feel that the volunteer moderator ends up feeling quite beat up from having to add to the extensive time spent moderating, with more time defending himself.

In the end, unfortunately, the result is that you lose the moderator - and then the forum. That's the path I see, going forward that way.

[WWWTT]

he called the decision to levy him with a warning stupid because it was. If the moderator is going to take that personally then we have a much bigger problem here.

I believe that CA is taking into account the number of times the borderline comments are being made.

I have made borderline comments from time to time (albeit not as harsh) and have not received any warnings from them.

I'm sure CA does a tally of how many reports he gets and from who and etc. etc. That must have some play into his decisions as well.

I can clearly see he spends a lot of time here moderating this site so this is his puppy, he is allowed the benefit of doubt in running this place as how he feels appropriate.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

My experience tells me that the membership doesn't feel better about moderation, as it opens the inherent disagreements to extended and indeed interminable debate with no posisble end to it. In the end, I feel that the volunteer moderator ends up feeling quite beat up from having to add to the extensive time spent moderating, with more time defending himself.

In the end, unfortunately, the result is that you lose the moderator - and then the forum. That's the path I see, going forward that way.

Ok then, I understand your position.

But CA has clearly stated that this thread is of use. And I am providing my position to the possible benefit from this thread.

I also believe that CA has fairly thick skin and can go to bed every night no problem, regardless what happens on this forum. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread has further strengthened his resolve!

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

Just wanted to remind everyone that this thread (in my opinion) was meant to advise the moderators, not the other way around.

WWWTT

That is my interpretation as well.

[GostHacked]

My experience tells me that the membership doesn't feel better about moderation, as it opens the inherent disagreements to extended and indeed interminable debate with no posisble end to it. In the end, I feel that the volunteer moderator ends up feeling quite beat up from having to add to the extensive time spent moderating, with more time defending himself.

In the end, unfortunately, the result is that you lose the moderator - and then the forum. That's the path I see, going forward that way.

That's ok, I am a volunteer poster. And as Greg and CA mentioned some time ago, they would not be moderating the forum as much as they used to. So if that is the path, then that was set out by the moderators.

[WWWTT]

That is my interpretation as well.

I believe CA has stated/implied that he is getting something from this thread.

If that is truly the case, then I feel it's worth continuing with this thread, making comments and reading other posters comments/debates.

WWWTT