Jump to content

Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation


Argus

Recommended Posts

Kimmy, I take it you deleted my post where I pointed out that it's very unbecoming of a forum facilitator to say what you did below because it didn't belong on the thread. So please address it here.

"progressives are heartbroken at the prospect of fewer brown-people entering Britain."

How can you be a moderator and say things like that?

I didn't take it down, Charles did. I seldom take down anything unless it's egregious. The Orlando thread is really the only one where I have taken a hand in deleting material. That was one of the terms of the "facilitator" position. I don't have to recuse myself from expressing my views, but neither am I supposed to act as a full moderator.

Your post got removed because you weren't discussing the topic, you were calling me out for being a facilitator and expressing an opinion you didn't like. As well, I point out that I accused the "right" of more or less the same thing.

If you disagree with what I wrote, why not argue what I wrote instead of bringing my forum role into it?

Or, if you feel that the post in question broke the forum rules, let us know why and we can discuss the point.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't take it down, Charles did. I seldom take down anything unless it's egregious. The Orlando thread is really the only one where I have taken a hand in deleting material. That was one of the terms of the "facilitator" position. I don't have to recuse myself from expressing my views, but neither am I supposed to act as a full moderator.

Your post got removed because you weren't discussing the topic, you were calling me out for being a facilitator and expressing an opinion you didn't like. As well, I point out that I accused the "right" of more or less the same thing.

If you disagree with what I wrote, why not argue what I wrote instead of bringing my forum role into it?

Or, if you feel that the post in question broke the forum rules, let us know why and we can discuss the point.

-k

I realise that's why it was removed, I even mentioned it in my post on this thread and stated it as my reason for bringing it up here.

An event happened global repercussions and the potential to incite separatist sentiments throughout the world.

You simplifying it down to 'progressives are heartbroken about less brown people coming into the UK' is simplistic... and downright antagonistic. It way beyond simple disagreeing with what you say.

I brought your role as forum facilitator into it because your statement was such utter crap that it wasn't even worth discussing - my issue is with how a forum facilitator is allowed to be so belligerent toward half the posters here.

And no, what you say about the righties wasn't nearly as bad, you said they want less immigration. Given the posts from the Exit camp, it was a very fair statement to make and not offensive at all.

So do you honestly think that your role as a moderator should not come with an expectation of diplomacy?

Do you truly believe that your statement was not offensive given the mass uncertainty that awaits this world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought your role as forum facilitator into it because your statement was such utter crap

In YOUR opinion. I agree with it. As did others.

that it wasn't even worth discussing -

And yet, here you are...

my issue is with how a forum facilitator is allowed to be so belligerent toward half the posters here.

Oddly, you had no such issue when Michael Hardner was a facilitator and still posting and occasionally being belligerent and dismissive to half the posters here. That wouldn't be because he largely shared your political and ideological views, would it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In YOUR opinion. I agree with it. As did others.

And yet, here you are...

Oddly, you had no such issue when Michael Hardner was a facilitator and still posting and occasionally being belligerent and dismissive to half the posters here. That wouldn't be because he largely shared your political and ideological views, would it?

You're a bit late getting on this Argus. When she changed her 'controversial' wording (as stated by her) I did go on to discuss her views. For several pages, in fact, and I began by mentioning that stance is still caca but her wording is 'palatable' enough to have a discussion.

As for MH, I really don't remember him posting as a moderator. I stopped visiting this forum for many years. I would come around more frequently during election times but I would lose interest after. For whatever reason I've stuck around since October 2015's election, but no, I'm not too familiar with MH's posting.

Nor CA, he became a moderator right around the time I joined this board and he stopped posting. It's weird for me to think of either of them posting at all.

ETA - if he ever said things equivalent of "progressives are heart-broken more brown-people aren't entering the UK" while having moderator status, then yes, he'd be way out of line.

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

ETA - if he ever said things equivalent of "progressives are heart-broken more brown-people aren't entering the UK" while having moderator status, then yes, he'd be way out of line.

I agree that a moderator should have the right to comment but he/she has to be very careful. There are some posters who choose to use inflammatory rhetoric to state a view where plain old English would do just as well. When one gets caught up in that kind of competition of tone then the wordsmith and agitator get the upper hand and the quality of conversation deteriorates.

For example, if the moderator had stated "Those believing in immigration from 3rd world countries as a benefit must feel that not enough visible minorities are entering the UK." would have expressed a valid view. But when you get into the "Progressives" and "heart broken" and "brown skinned" then you ignite a response equal to or greater to the derisive tone you have set. I know it must be difficult but I do not believe it is the role of a moderator to incite confrontation but rather then to discourage it.

Edited by Big Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it must be difficult but I do not believe it is the role of a moderator to incite confrontation but rather then to discourage it.

Agreed as well on this, that was my point as well when she asked why I even bring her moderator status into it. Well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA - if he ever said things equivalent of "progressives are heart-broken more brown-people aren't entering the UK" while having moderator status, then yes, he'd be way out of line.

Kimmy hasn't changed her style, which is a fairly cynical dry commentary, since she's been here. I don't see why, as long as she follows the rules, she should be expected to behave any differently than any other member. She gets insulting with other members far less than virtually any other frequent member here I can think of. A general commentary on the 'progressive community' is not against the rules, regardless of whether it offends those who self-identify as progressives. And there certainly seems to be more than a modicum of truth to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly BG. It wasn't what she said but how she said it. I found it very offensive, but once she changed her wording I had no trouble engaging in a discussion about it.

A. She's not a moderator.

B. Many, many other forums I've seen have moderators actively posting and they usually don't refrain from speaking their minds as long as they follow the rules.

C. Kimmy is the best poster on this site and has been for some years. I don't want her to become mealy mouthed and oh-so-careful of people's feelings. her posts would be less entertaining. I regret Michael Hardner not posting any more, too, even though I rarely agreed with him. His commentary was usually a lot more intelligent than most of what I encounter from the Left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. She's not a moderator.

That's correct, she's not a moderator, she's a forum facilitator. This is what she said is her role, post 1835 on this thread:

Posted 02 January 2016 - 10:58 AM

Thanks! I'm excited to be helping out, Ike.

A few points... this will be on a trial basis. I won't even have super-powers. I have been asked by Mike and Charles to help promote good discussion, discourage people from bad behavior, and generally be a snitch and goody two-shoes.

She is supposed to promote good discussion and discourage bad behavior [sic], and I don't see how things like "progressives are heartbroken at the prospect of fewer brown-people entering Britain" does either of those things. Quite the opposite, it's very inflammatory.

She went on to change her wording which indicates there is some truth to what I was saying. Evidently you remain confused.

B. Many, many other forums I've seen have moderators actively posting and they usually don't refrain from speaking their minds as long as they follow the rules.

Moot. See my response to A.

C. Kimmy is the best poster on this site and has been for some years. I don't want her to become mealy mouthed and oh-so-careful of people's feelings. her posts would be less entertaining. I regret Michael Hardner not posting any more, too, even though I rarely agreed with him. His commentary was usually a lot more intelligent than most of what I encounter from the Left.

Moot. See my response to A.

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's correct, she's not a moderator, she's a forum facilitator. This is what she said is her role, post 1835 on this thread:

So you expect her to act differently than, say, you do?

She is supposed to promote good discussion and discourage bad behavior [sic], and I don't see how things like "progressives are heartbroken at the prospect of fewer brown-people entering Britain" does either of those things. Quite the opposite, it's very inflammatory.

No, it's her style to be dryly sarcastic. Why should she have to change her style because some people decide to get offended out of all proportion to what she wrote?

She is supposed to promote good discussion and discourage bad behavior [sic], and I don't see how things like "progressives are heartbroken at the prospect of fewer brown-people entering Britain" does either of those things. Quite the opposite, it's very inflammatory.

The truth hurts, evidently. Maybe you should be less offended by general descriptions of 'your side'. I highly doubt you've ever found cause to complain about general dismissive or insulting terms for conservatives. Which are quite common here.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you expect her to act differently than, say, you do?

The rules around here are clear as mud and requests for clarity only further muddy the waters, so who knows. But yes, I do expect a forum facilitator to not be an agitator.

I'm surprised that needs asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forum facilitator's post was not inflammatory, but rather a timely opinion and observation based on Brexit's political and economic realities. So called "brown people" are part of the larger population and worker migration(s) to/from/through the U.K, and is very much lamented by "progressives", for several reasons. The statement would be equally valid for "non-brown people".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forum facilitator's post was not inflammatory, but rather a timely opinion and observation based on Brexit's political and economic realities. So called "brown people" are part of the larger population and worker migration(s) to/from/through the U.K, and is very much lamented by "progressives", for several reasons. The statement would be equally valid for "non-brown people".

The several reasons really boil down to a just couple of things, rigged political and economic systems. Kimmy seems to know this but her reasoning always defaults to a more primal reptilian part of her brain. Probably the result of fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The several reasons really boil down to a just couple of things, rigged political and economic systems. Kimmy seems to know this but her reasoning always defaults to a more primal reptilian part of her brain. Probably the result of fear.

I'd take other posters to task for that behaviour before Kimmy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is the right place for this post. I am not leaving MLW so I am not stirring drama. But I have posted far less owing to the number of suspensions and warnings I receive. I consider myself a serious poster and not a troll. However I do not agree with everyone on everything.

I'd like to feel more welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is the right place for this post. I am not leaving MLW so I am not stirring drama. But I have posted far less owing to the number of suspensions and warnings I receive. I consider myself a serious poster and not a troll. However I do not agree with everyone on everything.

I'd like to feel more welcome.

I don't know why you should be given an unusual number of warnings/suspensions. I haven't observed your postings as being as insulting as many of our regular posters here, including me. I also consider you to be a serious poster and a good contributor here, even if I don't always agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is the right place for this post. I am not leaving MLW so I am not stirring drama. But I have posted far less owing to the number of suspensions and warnings I receive. I consider myself a serious poster and not a troll. However I do not agree with everyone on everything.

I'd like to feel more welcome.

jbg - Welcome - I have disagreed with but respect your opinions. But if you like, Big Guy will give you a warning wild card which can be redeemed for a Big Guy warning when required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

per yesterday's separate thread discussion, a MLW member has taken it upon himself to presume to interpret Canadian law, particularly copyright focused; in fact the MLW member presumes to state that "anything used from a particular site requires explicit permission granted". Notwithstanding this "tact/approach" taken was the member's 'last deflecting resort' given the member's inability to actually respond to repeated posted challenges... as relayed below, a relatively recent MLW posting exchange that dealt with a prior circumstance of an image hidden by MLW moderation:

in regards an image I presented within a MLW post, clarification request on inline linking... so-called 'hot-linking' where a virtual presentation of an image was viewed on a MLW website page... but hosted 'physically' on the site/page of the targeting link. Per Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and holder of the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law:

The third claim involved a link to a photograph posted on the photographer’s site. The court had no trouble concluding that the link was not copyright infringement, rightly noting that the photographer authorized the communication of the work by posting it on his website. This finding should put an end to claims that linking to copyright materials somehow raises potential legal risks. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled against attributing defamation to such links and now the Federal Court has concluded that links cannot be said to constitute unauthorized communication and therefore infringement. The implications once again extend to forums, blogs, and other venues as well as the Access Copyright model licence.

....which clearly states: "No reproduction without permission" at the bottom. I reviewed this with Greg and the image is back up on display.

in a more recent MLW thread exchange numerous images were 'hidden' by MLW moderation; subsequent moderator exchange advised so-called "collateral clean-up damage" resulted in images being improperly hidden. Although not explicitly stated by MLW moderation, I interpret there may be an uncertain position in regards 3rd-party image-hosting of a screen-shot image of a dynamically generated image... in the particular case of how this image was presented within a MLW post, as a direct link to a dynamic generated image isn't possible, I chose to acknowledge the corporation involved, the name of the application dynamically generating the respective image, and the name of the related author. I would surmise there is a legitimate question of how 3rd-party hosting of attributed screen-shot images might apply with respect to current judicial review and interpretations therein.

I haven't bothered to pursue this ~3-week old circumstance further... choosing just to drop it, to move on. However, the MLW member now claiming to have "saved" the board (and the waldo too) seems most emboldened to want to bring this up again, totally unrelated to any current discussion! Given that emboldened want to something I've simply dropped and moved on from, I trust the saving MLW member will take this further and, per the corporation's own website published 'terms of use' suggestion, make contact for a case-by-case review/determination of how the corporation views the hosting of attributed screen-shot images on 3rd-party image hosting sites. As this is clearly an important deflection issue for this MLW member, and the member presumes to interpret Canadian law, I trust he will bring notice back to MLW in regards the corporation's review/determination... I mean, otherwise... why bother to bring this forward yet again? :lol: (note: the waldo is not an internet lawyer... and has never claimed to be one).
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...