Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I remember that now, yes. I hope that talking about individual moderation interactions doesn't become routine, though.

[betsy]

This person is a volunteer, and without him there's no forum,

Whoa....whoa. Let's not get too carried away here.....

There are forums that exist without any moderators.

Furthermore, whether a moderator is a volunteer or getting paid for the job, the same principle still applies.

It doesn't change the RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHED TO THAT JOB.

WITHOUT SENSIBLE POSTERS, THERE'S NO FORUM! That's the bottom line.

Let's not forget that.

Edited May 3, 2014 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

This forum wouldn't exist without sensible moderation.

[cybercoma]

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 ?"

Look, I admit that waldo is abrasive in his approach a lot of the time. I wish he wasn't because he appears to thoroughly research his arguments and could present them in a way that's more conducive to persuading his opponents, as opposed to attacking them. Having said that, if a post contains a personal insult that is so bad that it deserves a month-long suspension, why on earth would that post not be deleted? Do we want to leave so abusively insulting a post on the forum when it warrants a ban for a month? Especially when the entire thing started from a warning that I believe waldo rightfully found insulting when he was going out of his way to try and remedy thread drift in the first place.

The problem with moderation here is that there is absolutely no consideration for the things that justifiably set people off. The response is almost always to blame the people that get angry, instead of looking at what sets them off. This has been the common theme from everyone with objections. Argus offered reasonable ways to increase the confidence in moderation here and improve the forum, namely better communication between the moderators and users instead of jumping to suspensions right away. This might mean removing offensive posts and informing users that their post was removed and the reason why. Suspensions should be a last resort, especially considering the number of regular posters has been dwindling in recent years. Suspensions for something as benign as calling someone stupid or an idiot is stupid and idiotic. Just remove the offensive post and tell the user to have more respect for other posters.

And all of this crap about Charles Anthony being a volunteer is nonsense. If he doesn't like being a moderator, then relinquish the title. I don't think he deserves adulation because he's not paid here. I don't know any casual forums like this where mods are paid. Admins sometimes make a pittance off ad revenues that go into server and software fees. So even when administrators get money, it's not like they're making money. The fact that Charles doesn't get paid doesn't free him from criticism when he makes decisions that people find questionable.

[cybercoma]

This forum wouldn't exist without sensible moderation.

You forgot to put sensible in quotation marks.

[betsy]

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.

Baloney!

A whole topic got deleted for no justifiable reason other than someone complained that the subject was "redundant."

See....we keep coming back to INCONSISTENCY and questionable judgments!

Edited May 3, 2014 by betsy

[WestCoastRunner]

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.

WWWTT

Borderline comments whether they are harsh are not are usually determined by the person on the receiving end so for you to say they are 'albeit not as harsh' is not correct.

There are posters here who may have been subjected to harsh and derogatory comments but that doesn't mean everyone goes running to the moderator whining about how they have been offended. So if CA were to do a tally of number of reports, that could be misleading.

[betsy]

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

See? You don't even know what's actually happening to posters.....

You think there will be this kind of complaints from posters (some of whom don't agree in ideology).....yet,all agreeing on the problem about moderation, if there is no real serious cause for complaints?

[betsy]

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

No, that's not true.

The topic that was deleted featured two different videos (both depicting how life on earth started). I even marked the exact time on the videos that is related to my topic. They were my OP. The whole discussion was about those two videos!

When I asked you on this forum why the thread was deleted, you did not give me any specific reason other than refer to the reasons that were cited by two posters.

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.

It's not merely about the phrase, Bible Thumper. It was an obvious bait thread. And the derisive and offensive way the poster referred to Christians who follow the Bible as "crazies."

Bill may be putting on a show for the crazies,

I never brought that up, nor would I have complained about it at all, if not to point it out as a comparison to the experience of Argus. That's the only reason these are coming up - for comparison.

I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your judgement: your suspension of Argus for practically the same offense. And of, course my suspensions too, and my topic being removed.

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.

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.

... 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.

Like I said, I only brought that up as a comparison with Argus. I find it odd that he got suspended for that.

Reporting/ignoring doesn't seem to work - based on the revealed experiences of some posters here on these two threads.

Anyway, I find this interesting that you said:

despite the fact that you demand no moderator action.

Isn't giving a reminder considered a moderator action?

What kind of moderator action being demanded are we talking about here?

Suspension? Ban? Topic Removal?

Btw, my latest suspension for 1 week indicate that I was rude. Care to point out which post is it that earned me the suspension?

Edited May 3, 2014 by betsy

[WWWTT]

Borderline comments whether they are harsh are not are usually determined by the person on the receiving end so for you to say they are 'albeit not as harsh' is not correct.

There are posters here who may have been subjected to harsh and derogatory comments but that doesn't mean everyone goes running to the moderator whining about how they have been offended. So if CA were to do a tally of number of reports, that could be misleading.

Yes you could be right, I'll give you that.

But I have also read a lot here too! And judging from the wording used, I believe I am a little more careful.

I'm sure that CA also takes into consideration the exact wording that is used.

Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with CA, especially on the last warning point I received! Just stating that I believe that there are trends here that may give some kind of indication.

WWWTT

[bleeding heart]

Maybe Michael's right, that Charles explaining to multiple posters his view of various situations only invites more criticism and argument.

but we've got to be fair-minded about this (I'm not directing this at you, Michael.) Charles' explanation(s) were good. They even made me rethink a point or two.

And several people have been complaining about insufficient transparency, about moderator bias, about a lot of things. And that's fine; but surely Charles post puts at least some matters to rest...or at least shows that he's listening to complaints?

Edited May 3, 2014 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh.... no. That is not what happened.....

I suspected as much, as did some other members watching this drama unfold. The plotted trajectory of this rising contention was not going to end well for somebody. One has to keep one's cool no matter how heated the issue may become.

Now we are getting somewhere.

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."

Yes....I am glad to see this point made, if only to demonstrate that the mods notice such granular things between members, and the efficacy of the Report and/or Ignore policy. Ignoring members who openly communicate their agitated state of mind with personal insults makes sense far beyond forum rules, as meaningful debate can no longer continue with such lashing and thrashing about.

[Michael Hardner]

And all of this crap about Charles Anthony being a volunteer is nonsense. If he doesn't like being a moderator, then relinquish the title. .

Well that's it, really. Your statement reflects a view that there's no value in what he does IMO. Which also explains a culture where people are owed an explanation why someone was given a certain penalty, why wasn't a post removed etc.

[Michael Hardner]

Baloney!

A whole topic got deleted for no justifiable reason other than someone complained that the subject was "redundant."

See....we keep coming back to INCONSISTENCY and questionable judgments!

it sounds like it was merged ...

[Michael Hardner]

See? You don't even know what's actually happening to posters.....

No - not always. Posts aren't normally removed though.

[Charles Anthony]

This might mean removing offensive posts and informing users that their post was removed and the reason why. Suspensions should be a last resort, especially considering the number of regular posters has been dwindling in recent years. Suspensions for something as benign as calling someone stupid or an idiot is stupid and idiotic. Just remove the offensive post and tell the user to have more respect for other posters.

You are right but that is not why Waldo was suspended. Ergo, I see no special need to remove that post.

My writing was misrepresented to bring down the debate in a pattern that has appeared before. I consider it to be a grave infraction to misquote a fellow member in an online forum ---- I realize you guys try to sneak those under the radar on occasion to be funny. However, when it becomes a pattern that twists a debate, I believe it warrants moderator intervention of some sort. Based on the Reports we get, I am confident that many of you guys agree.

Here is the key: I would not tolerate ANY of you forum members applying that same tactic to eachother and I do my darnedest to reign in that sort of nonsense. I believe misrepresenting a member's writing is worse than a personal attack. Maybe that is up to debate.

I also believe that each one of you deserves some privacy when it comes to warnings. Most of you appreciate it, I believe because most of you do NOT need to be warned multiple times for the same things.

I have a thick skin. I do not care if you believe I am stupid. However, I do not want you to believe I am stupid for the wrong reasons. I also do not like repeating myself --- however, when the need arises, it gives me an inkling as to whether the request is genuine or not. Regardless, that sort of behavior in an online forum will attack each one of you and bring down the discussions.

And all of this crap about Charles Anthony being a volunteer is nonsense. If he doesn't like being a moderator, then relinquish the title. .

Well that's it, really. Your statement reflects a view that there's no value in what he does IMO. Which also explains a culture where people are owed an explanation why someone was given a certain penalty, why wasn't a post removed etc.

Meh. I do not care. Like GH said, you are all volunteer posters. This place would not exist without you guys.

I agree with Cyber. I do not want to hear any of that either. Anybody can do this job. I am quite certain that 99% of you would agree with me if you only read the Reports and saw the patterns of each one of your fellow members.

Many times you guys dismiss something as trolling but at its core is a disagreement of fact or of preference. If the alleged trolling can be resolved WITHOUT moderator actions --- i.e., by you guys ignoring it or by responding politely --- then I would encourage you all to apply that strategy.

<<La politesse est une forteresse.>> --- Mel, the cook on Alice

Edited May 3, 2014 by Charles Anthony
added a misquote

[cybercoma]

Well that's it, really. Your statement reflects a view that there's no value in what he does IMO.

That's not what I said at all. Of course there's value in what he does. There's no added value to it being a volunteer position, which you keep on invoking for some bizarre reason.

[cybercoma]

Here is the key: I would not tolerate ANY of you forum members applying that same tactic to eachother and I do my darnedest to reign in that sort of nonsense. I believe misrepresenting a member's writing is worse than a personal attack. Maybe that is up to debate.

I think this is fair and since I don't know what you're referring to I'll back down from my comments about your decision.

[WWWTT]

Ok then waldo sent me a message giving me his blessing to openly discuss his case/suspension.

I think that the moderation has acted too harshly and that he should not be suspended for such a long period of time.

I'd like to ask the moderation to reconsider their position.

WWWTT

[OftenWrong]

Wow, best thread on this forum, hands down. Better than Jerry Seinfeld. I've never seen a thread like this before on any forum.

You've got a moderator who seems like he's impatient and doesn't like doing the job. If you don't like it guy, step aside and let someone else have a turn. You've got members who can only whine at each other (Maple Leaf Whiners lol), one guy who's constantly excusing ineffective forum behaviour. There's very few people who seems polite and level headed. Did they all run away?

In my experience most forums have a mix of good people who are reasonable and accommodating towards others of dissenting opinion, and a few who are always playing the antagonist. What's happened here? It's like this place has been distilled down to just the bitter dregs. It's a neurotic, dysfunctional freak show.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok then waldo sent me a message giving me his blessing to openly discuss his case/suspension.

I think that the moderation has acted too harshly and that he should not be suspended for such a long period of time.

I'd like to ask the moderation to reconsider their position.

Respecting your perspective and request, many of us have endured far longer suspensions for less serious transgressions. Disrespect and disdain for the moderator function and other members is an unnecessary distraction and escalation. This is ultimately a mods/owner decision not subject to review or second guessing.

[eyeball]

In my experience most forums have a mix of good people who are reasonable and accommodating towards others of dissenting opinion, and a few who are always playing the antagonist. What's happened here? It's like this place has been distilled down to just the bitter dregs. It's a neurotic, dysfunctional freak show.

It's a good reflection of the general state of the world these days.

Too bad Earth didn't have a "cooler" for it's more recalcitrant nations.

[WWWTT]

Respecting your perspective and request, many of us have endured far longer suspensions for less serious transgressions. Disrespect and disdain for the moderator function and other members is an unnecessary distraction and escalation. This is ultimately a mods/owner decision not subject to review or second guessing.

I think you're letting your past experience with waldo influence you.

The moderation here is taking a different approach, more favourable and lenient on the posters.

1 month in my opinion is too strict!

WWWTT

[WestCoastRunner]

I think you're letting your past experience with waldo influence you.

The moderation here is taking a different approach, more favourable and lenient on the posters.

1 month in my opinion is too strict!

WWWTT

It does seem extreme to me, especially when Waldo contributes great value to the threads he participates in. There is a risk of a member leaving when faced with a suspension of that duration. I would be disappointed to not have Waldo's well researched contributions to this forum. I look forward to reading his posts because they are credible, interesting and I learn from them.

[WWWTT]

It does seem extreme to me, especially when Waldo contributes great value to the threads he participates in. There is a risk of a member leaving when faced with a suspension of that duration. I would be disappointed to not have Waldo's well researched contributions to this forum. I look forward to reading his posts because they are credible, interesting and I learn from them.

I don't share your opinion on his comments, or at least some of them.

However he does contribute a significant amount, I may not get the same out of it as you do, but we do agree on a couple points here.

WWWTT