Jump to content

Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation


Argus

Recommended Posts

  • Shady, JBG, BC, etc, etc, etc - No one likes everyone. Some posters are just trolling, some are trying to add to the conversation and just happen to inflame people, some are likely being "taken the wrong way".

Good to know I'm famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • The Guy Who Calls Me A Climate Denier

Speaking of that guy, I got another private message from him titled "your typical pissant self." Anybody else get any messages from him, or am I just the lucky one? I don't understand why he's messaging me either, I've been trying to stay away from his ranting climate change threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not received any angry personal messages since blocking that member's account.

I might have to do that. Just got another one. I've never been cyber-stalked before and this is getting a bit much now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of that guy, I got another private message from him titled "your typical pissant self." Anybody else get any messages from him, or am I just the lucky one? I don't understand why he's messaging me either, I've been trying to stay away from his ranting climate change threads.

I would think pissant would be a term of endearment compared to some of the treatment you've given and taken on here. ;)

Edited by Bob Macadoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

again... when is the CBC, just... the CBC?

is there a particular reason you continue to incessantly label the CBC as "state controlled"? What significance does that particular labeling have to the 2 most recent posts you've used that labeling?

I have a feeling the "state" may control BC. Kinda reminds me of those Harper talking points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how to deal with "Trolling" other than completely ignoring people you think are "Trolling."

That is correct. Ignore it.

Alternatively, you could engage it differently by pretending the person you perceive-to-be-trolling is serious. For instance, you could ask: "Mr.Troll, you keep insisting that the Sun does NOT rotate around the Earth. Could you provide some evidence of this? Without any evidence, it seems like you are just cluttering the forum with nonsense. Flyers and junk mail falling out of my daily paper is annoying enough. I can not deal with it online. Last week, you kept repeating to us how round the Earth must be. Now, you want us to believe that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe. If you keep making these inexplicable claims without providing evidence, then we must report your pattern of disruptive behavior to the moderators. However, we want you to convince us that your claims are true."

Why do some of you folks have to be so caustic? or take things so personally?

It would appear accusing a member of trolling is a "personal attack".

How do you define personal attack?

There's a certain member that I'm convinced is a troll so I try to steer clear of adding to their contribution to the site. . . most of the time.

Do you still read that person's posts? Do you learn anything at all from their posts? Do you at least get to chuckle?

Darn near every one of you in this thread has been accused of trolling by your fellow members at some point. Most of the accusations are frivolous because the accuser does not understand what the alleged-troll has written. Often the accuser does not want to understand either.

The definition of a troll is someone that is purposely provocative. Which almost all of us can be accused of doing every now and them (see my current status update).

A troll acts to disrupt a forum and or to stifle discussion and or to propagate misinformation.

You are right. Everbody is provocative at some point. Being provocative alone is observably no big deal because most often it has a positive effect of engaging on-topic responses --- sometimes with comedic effect.

Why? What's the point? You want us to not get personal in these discussions, but to address what is being written, to play the ball, not the man. Now you seem to be saying it's good we can research the man so we can... what? Dig up dirt to use against him?

I suppose you could do that but no, that is not the reason.

If you want to go legal, there is a part of the legal system, in terms of criminal trials, where the defendant's past is not open for discussion, nor attack.

By going legal, what I meant was to tighten up my verbiage so that it was clear. I am sorry about the confusion.

Regardless, I am not sure what your argument is here. I would not expect anybody to associate any "part of the legal system" to an argument in this discussion.

Help me isolate some variables in your logic by answering this question: If we were having this discussion in a different country with a different "legal system" than ours --- say, for instance, we were the children of goat-herders stuck in Sharialandistan dodging a constant influx of pirates and trolls --- would you still make the same argument? Would Argus say: "If you want to go legal, there is a part of Sharia Law, in terms of criminal trials, where EVERYTHING is open for discussion and attack --- if the defendant must bother us with a trial!" as he tightened his turban?

Be that as it may, you are missing the point. The point is accountability in relation to the perception of trolling.

The idea is there is this ONE incident for which he is on trial, and his past should not be used against them. It is taken into consideration during sentencing, but not before that, in most cases. The case stands on its own.

Not that this thread drift matters but I must tell you that just because The King Said So, that does not magically make it a morally correct resolution nor does it mean it is wise.

Secondly, the distinction between "his past" and "The case stands on its own." is purely arbitrary as I see it. I would like to hear you explain the difference objectively. I do not know how you can isolate for the variable of time. For example:

Time 1: AllegedTroll posts inflammatory rhetoric.

Time 2: Ch.A. sends Argus warning: "Please stop posting inflammatory rhetoric."

Time 3: AllegedTroll replies: "I am sorry. I will never do that again."

Time 4: AllegedTroll stops posting inflammatory rhetoric nor anything that could remotely be miscontrued as inflammatory rhetoric.

Time 5: Mr.Whiner complains that nothing was done.

Time 6: Mr.Whiner posts inflammatory rhetoric in kind.

Time 7: Ch.A. sends Mr.Whiner warning: "Please stop posting inflammatory rhetoric."

Time 8: Mr.Whiner replies: "WHAT?!??!?!??!?! You let Argus get away with it!!! YOU DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!! You must be biased against my religion or race, right??? I get it."

Time 9: Mr.Whiner keeps posting inflammatory rhetoric.

.....

Time 99: AllegedTroll falls off the wagon and posts inflammatory rhetoric.

Time 100: Mr.Whiner sends Report: "SEEE!!!! I told you! You did nothing!! He is at it again!!"

Time 101: Ch.A. sends AllegedTroll 2nd warning: "Please stop posting inflammatory rhetoric. This is the 2nd time you are being warned about this."

Time 102: AllegedTroll replies: "WHAT??? I have no idea what you are talking about here!!! I have NEVER posted inflammatory rhetoric in my entire life!!"

Time 103: Ch.A replies: "Uh... no. See, we have accountability here. I can see you were warned at Time 2 and at Time 3 you acknowledged it. So, yes. This is 2nd time you posted inflammatory rhetoric. Here is the link to the first one."

Time 104: AllegedTroll replies: "YEAH?!?? Well, you are obviously doing nothing about Mr.Whiner who gets away with posting inflammatory rhetoric all of the time. So OBVIOUSLY you are trying to censor me. Is it because of my race or my religion?? That must be it!!"

DISCLAIMER: Any resemblance to actual events is likely a result of the author's false memory syndrome.

Shouldn't a person's position on a given topic stand on its own rather than have people researching the poster's past? I'm trying to find out just what you think is to be gained by linking them to posts made years earlier.

Not when somebody has a history of trolling.

This is not about researching a person's opinions for consistency. I hope this is not where you are going with this? Opinions change. New facts are discovered. Some people's opinions never change. Morals are clarified and differentiated. So on and so on.

This is about being able to research a person's posting style when the accusation of trolling is made.

We all seem to be in agreement that a member who makes a first-time infraction should be treated more gently than a member who makes repeat offences and perhaps that a member who repeats or escalates their inflammatory posting style should be suspended or possibly banned.

I guess we are in disagreement in many specific cases. I see argumentative merit within an inflammatory post (or in a patern of posts) when other folks are quick to dismiss the entire post as 100% trolling. So, we leave the final decision to you guys: If you believe it is trolling, ignore it. That way, we moderators do not have to stifle any of your fellow members who may be able to understand the alleged-troll response.

I am not denying that trolling exists.

I deny that every single allegation of trolling is warrants banning people which is what some of you folks seem to both fear and demand.

It would appear accusing a member of trolling is a "personal attack".

Which is stupid. It's specifically about their posting and their so-called arguments. Not about them personally. Calling someone obtuse is a personal attack. Suggesting someone is a pedophile or supports pedophiles is a personal attack and possibly libel. Telling posters they don't know how to read is a personal attack. Yet, all of those things have slid in the past because apparently they're related to the threads and arguments in the threads enough not to be personal attacks. Yet saying someone is trolling is a personal attack? Come on.
Can you play the ball rather than the player? Come on.

Saying someone is trolling speaks to the intentions of the member and not to the substance of the post.

If your Report of trolling is made publicly, then it is a personal attack because your intent is to silence the alleged-troll unfairly by virtue of the fact that you refuse to engage the substance of the posts. Thus calling a person a troll in public in the context of your refusal to politely discuss the disagreement is a personal attack. It is also disruptive because, like I said above, most reports are frivolous.

Maybe the source of our disagreement comes form a difference in how we discriminate between "personal" and non-personal affairs. Maybe you think what is mine is actually some of yours and what is yours is also some of mine.

But personal attack are permitted. Quite often actually. Because the moderator picks and chooses what he defines as a personal attack, regardless of whether or not the person reporting it sees it as a personal attack or not.

It does not stop there. You are missing a whole different dimension of human action. The moderator picks and chooses when to intervene and how to intervene as well. Some personal attacks do not warrant the same moderator intervention as others --- that is not to say they are not personal attacks nor does it speak to the severity of alleged personal attacks.

In one dimension, it may look like nothing is done and that is misinterpreted as a disagreement on whether an infraction has occurred.

A personal attack that occurred a year ago will not get the same moderator intervention today as would a personal attack that occurred today even if both personal attacks are of the same caliber.

And pointing out that a post is blatant trolling is as much a personal attack as saying an argument uses fallacious reasoning.

No.

The term "troll" implies deliberate nefarious intent. Fallacious reasoning could be deliberate nefarious intent too but not necessarily. Fallacious reasoning could also imply an innocent mistake or an instinctual bias.

So for instance, saying posters "lack discipline" is quite clearly baiting people to respond to you angrily.

Not if "lack discipline" is defined as a failure to ignore what you perceive to be trolling.

You're making an insulting character judgment about ...

.... slow down!

It is an observation of a person's behavior much like saying posters "like hockey" is quite clearly an observation.

people who respond to trolling, when trolling is intended to bait people into responding. It's a personal attack, but I don't expect you'll be reprimanded for it.

It may also be a Rorschach test.

How you take personal offence in response to an outsider's observation of his environment** comes from you too.

** which may or may not include you

Good, contributing members have left this forum on their own in part because there are other members who are determined to bully and silence any contrary views and/or how those views are presented, regardless of topic. This "trolling" business is just another attempt to exert influence to get their partisan way. This forum is richer and more interesting with multiple viewpoints and perspectives.

Good, contributing members have also been banned from this forum because they went bad.

Some views have to be silenced for practical reasons. If somebody posts something that is nasty or that may break The Law Of The Land or that may send thugs to the door, we will nix it. However, that happens rarely and most of you are cool with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct. Ignore it.

Alternatively, you could engage it differently by pretending the person you perceive-to-be-trolling is serious. For instance, you could ask: "Mr.Troll, you keep insisting that the Sun does NOT rotate around the Earth. Could you provide some evidence of this? Without any evidence, it seems like you are just cluttering the forum with nonsense. Flyers and junk mail falling out of my daily paper is annoying enough. I can not deal with it online. Last week, you kept repeating to us how round the Earth must be. Now, you want us to believe that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe. If you keep making these inexplicable claims without providing evidence, then we must report your pattern of disruptive behavior to the moderators. However, we want you to convince us that your claims are true."

Why do some of you folks have to be so caustic? or take things so personally?

as you acknowledge trolling exists, why do you continue to ignore the troll(s)? Which brings us full circle to the apparent understanding difference you hold for what a troll/trolling is as compared to several MLW members. In our personal conversations I've asked you to define your understanding... I've done so recently (twice) in the Improvements thread (that you resurrected after it went quiet... and it turned into another troll-fest discussion).

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.

A troll acts to disrupt a forum and or to stifle discussion and or to propagate misinformation.

You are right. Everbody is provocative at some point. Being provocative alone is observably no big deal because most often it has a positive effect of engaging on-topic responses --- sometimes with comedic effect.

in the absence of your described definition/detail for what a troll/trolling is... I can only surmise from this reply of yours that you posture that a provacative troll, that trolling provacation, "has a positive effect of engaging on-topic responses --- sometimes with comedic effect"

I will counter that and suggest MLW can do with less (or none) of that related "comedic effect" fallout... I will counter that and suggest there is a significant skew, an imbalance between any (presumed) positive effect of engaging on-topic responses versus the outright disruption a troll/trolling plays. Your repeated suggestion to "just ignore it" remains within the vacumn waiting to be filled with your description/detail of just what "it" is.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct. Ignore it.

Alternatively, you could engage it differently by pretending the person you perceive-to-be-trolling is serious. For instance, you could ask: "Mr.Troll, you keep insisting that the Sun does NOT rotate around the Earth. Could you provide some evidence of this? Without any evidence, it seems like you are just cluttering the forum with nonsense.

Yeah that's worked out so well so far.

And as for claims, what do you do as a moderator when SEVERAL members make the complaint about the same member?

Ignore it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that this thread drift matters but I must tell you that just because The King Said So, that does not magically make it a morally correct resolution nor does it mean it is wise.

Secondly, the distinction between "his past" and "The case stands on its own." is purely arbitrary as I see it. I would like to hear you explain the difference objectively. I do not know how you can isolate for the variable of time. For example:

Time 1: AllegedTroll posts inflammatory rhetoric.

Time 2: Ch.A. sends Argus warning: "Please stop posting inflammatory rhetoric."

Time 3: AllegedTroll replies: "I am sorry. I will never do that again."

Time 4: AllegedTroll stops posting inflammatory rhetoric nor anything that could remotely be miscontrued as inflammatory rhetoric.

Time 5: Mr.Whiner complains that nothing was done.

Time 6: Mr.Whiner posts inflammatory rhetoric in kind.

Time 7: Ch.A. sends Mr.Whiner warning: "Please stop posting inflammatory rhetoric."

Time 8: Mr.Whiner replies: "WHAT?!??!?!??!?! You let Argus get away with it!!! YOU DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!! You must be biased against my religion or race, right??? I get it."

Time 9: Mr.Whiner keeps posting inflammatory rhetoric.

.....

Time 99: AllegedTroll falls off the wagon and posts inflammatory rhetoric.

Time 100: Mr.Whiner sends Report: "SEEE!!!! I told you! You did nothing!! He is at it again!!"

Time 101: Ch.A. sends AllegedTroll 2nd warning: "Please stop posting inflammatory rhetoric. This is the 2nd time you are being warned about this."

Time 102: AllegedTroll replies: "WHAT??? I have no idea what you are talking about here!!! I have NEVER posted inflammatory rhetoric in my entire life!!"

Time 103: Ch.A replies: "Uh... no. See, we have accountability here. I can see you were warned at Time 2 and at Time 3 you acknowledged it. So, yes. This is 2nd time you posted inflammatory rhetoric. Here is the link to the first one."

Time 104: AllegedTroll replies: "YEAH?!?? Well, you are obviously doing nothing about Mr.Whiner who gets away with posting inflammatory rhetoric all of the time. So OBVIOUSLY you are trying to censor me. Is it because of my race or my religion?? That must be it!!"

DISCLAIMER: Any resemblance to actual events is likely a result of the author's false memory syndrome.

You do realize that this long dialogue you've posted would be completely eliminated if the moderators did not act like dark hooded, squint-eyed monks deep in the labyrinth bowels of their isolated monastery, keeping the Vatican's secrets unto death, right? I mean, if you were to dash off a one line message to the complainant acknowledging their existence and saying you had spoke/written/dealt with to the offender that would be pretty much that. It is, in other words, pretty easy to believe nothing is done when you won't tell anyone what was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please define/relate your understanding of what a (MLW board) troll is, what (MLW board) trolling is - thanks in advance.

Trolling is subjective term. I've been recently reprimanded for suggesting that a member who shall remain nameless was trolling. I should have just ignored him. Ultimately, we all have the power to decide whether or not to engage a poster we consider a troll, or who is trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trolling is subjective term. I've been recently reprimanded for suggesting that a member who shall remain nameless was trolling. I should have just ignored him. Ultimately, we all have the power to decide whether or not to engage a poster we consider a troll, or who is trolling.

It's difficult when a troll persistently derails every topic to his preferred topic of 'US good-Canada bad'.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy when a lot more "trolls" derail topics as 'US bad - Canada good'.

Alright Charles. This is another example of a troll post. And really it is he that derails the threads in the US section crying about Canada.

What else would you expect from a person who uses the moniker Bush-Cheney2004. You just KNOW you are in for some crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's difficult when a troll persistently derails every topic to his preferred topic of 'US good-Canada bad'.

.

Or, contrarily, US evil, Russia and Saddam Hussein good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright Charles. This is another example of a troll post. And really it is he that derails the threads in the US section crying about Canada.What else would you expect from a person who uses the moniker Bush-Cheney2004. You just KNOW you are in for some crap.

Then the post it's in response to is also a troll post.

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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    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...