Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[waldo]

If everybody ignores trolling, then the trolling goes away and the moderator never has to use any discretion.

why keep perpetuating this? It clearly isn't shown to be the case. You can read 2 examples of that in previous posts in this thread just a short time back. As you obviously know, I recently put together a recent post showing search output that reflected a representative snapshot history going back years... showing the same member using the same like words/phrasing within dozens of posts..... and it wasn't a comprehensive search account by any means. Of course, following your expressed moderating bias position, you chose to deem my post an attack on the member in question... and I got a timeout! I could, quite literally, put dozens of similar type historical snapshot examples together from that same member. You've ignored them, you continue to ignore them, and unless something changes you'll ignore them in the future. And all the while you'll continue to suspend members for responding to the trolling you refuse to directly deal with.

as I said, why keep perpetuating this claim of yours. The trolling output from that member is not, as you say, "going away".

[jbg]

why keep perpetuating this? ******And all the while you'll continue to suspend members for responding to the trolling you refuse to directly deal with.

as I said, why keep perpetuating this claim of yours. The trolling output from that member is not, as you say, "going away".

Shorn of the personal attach contained here this is a rare time I agree with Waldo, in spite of the fact that Waldo detests me as well.

The Goldilocks situation where everyone unanimously ignores a troll just isn't going to happen. Posters are separate people not in real life contact with each other. Gaining unanimity is impossible.

I agree with Charles Anthony that the moderation is not biased. Fickle would be a better word. My suspensions have involved posts that were in no way strong material. Usually they were sarcastic. Yet other posters get away with pages and pages of personal insults, often times encased in deep layers of quotes within quotes.

I definitely support moderation. I am asking that moderators first try communications with posters, at least the ones that are generally serious and sincere. Then suspend or ban.

[bush_cheney2004]

Frankly, it is not a concern that certain members take apoplectic exception to multiple postings of the same facts and opinions. Personal attacks over the posting of facts is a violation of forum rules. It's not like we're going to stop reading about "Iraq" and "lies" about "WMD" around here anytime soon either.

[waldo]

exceptions taken, of whatever kind/degree, to "claimed opinion... fact" when presented for outright trolling intent, repeatedly, ad nauseum, over years and years, is clearly not a concern to the purveyors of said trolling intended "claimed opinion... fact". Of course, it also begs the question on how playing back a representative snapshot history of a purveyors own posts... his own words, verbatim... of said "claimed opinion... fact", how that could ever be construed as a personal attack. I mean, c'mon, quoting a purveyors own words, verbatim, is now deemed an attack?

Edited April 27, 2014 by waldo

[GostHacked]

Guys,

GH is right. Stop derailing this thread with the CBC distraction, please. There is more than enough for us to deal with here as it is. We do not need to be publishing slews of speculation or hearsay about mountainous mole-hill expeditions through other people's frivolous legal hobbies.

Talk a look around CA, it's like this in many threads.

No --- quite the opposite. If everybody ignored what they thought was inappropriate, there would be nothing to moderate.

If proper moderation was done, then we would not need to ignore inappropriate items. And for the most part, the moderation here depends on the reporting in order to correct the problem. I guess the moderation could simply ignore the reported posts. That would work just as well.

The number of trolling-comments would decline, yes. We are talking about trolling here and what some people perceive to be trolling.

You know as well as the rest of the MLW forums what trolling is. We have given you many examples from one specific poster. This has been going on for years. And this is why I have little faith in the moderation of this board to do what is needed to actually improve the boards. We have taken you and Greg to task directly on this matter. In which we got a childish response of 'whining'.

You should be thankful that there are members here who actually give a damn.

Edited April 28, 2014 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Frankly, it is not a concern that certain members take apoplectic exception to multiple postings of the same facts and opinions. Personal attacks over the posting of facts is a violation of forum rules. It's not like we're going to stop reading about "Iraq" and "lies" about "WMD" around here anytime soon either.

Here is another example of a trolling post CA and Greg. Most here recognize this for what it is. I mean come on, what is in a name eh?

[WWWTT]

Frankly, it is not a concern that certain members take apoplectic exception to multiple postings of the same facts and opinions. Personal attacks over the posting of facts is a violation of forum rules. It's not like we're going to stop reading about "Iraq" and "lies" about "WMD" around here anytime soon either.

Here is another example of a trolling post CA and Greg. Most here recognize this for what it is. I mean come on, what is in a name eh?

No that's not a troll comment!

BC is making a clear factual statement!

You're not even being specific about the words/phrases in that comment you think defines it as "trolling".

And calling someone else a troll as far as I'm concerned IS AGAINST forum rules.

From what I see, BC is the senior member hear on this forum (according to his comment count), and as far as I'm concerned, that counts for something GH!

You are blaming the moderation for something that I disagree with!

WWWTT

Edited April 28, 2014 by WWWTT

[GostHacked]

No that's not a troll comment!

Just because he does not use 'Canada' in the post does not mean he ... ah forget it. If one cannot recognize it for what it is, then they have really no clue what trolling is.

Post count does not equal post quality. I'll start to work on my post count, since that counts for something.

[WWWTT]

Lets make something perfectly clear hear.

This trolling or act of trolling appears to have a very lose definition. I have started over the last few months moving away from labelling posters or their comments into the "troll(ing)" category.

What gets me is that when the moderators say that you shouldn't respond to trolling or trolls?!?!?!?

In my opinion this is absolutely ridiculous. Or more like absolutely impossible!

I'm the type of person that always try to find something positive (sometimes anyways), not looking for negativity. So I can't see this attitude/style/approach ever working for me.

Not responding to personally insulting comments and only reporting them is something that I am grudgingly starting to do.

This isn't my forum so I have to at least obey some of the rules.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I'll start to work on my post count, since that counts for something.

Yes Count count would like that! LOL!

WWWTT

[Argus]

Here is another example of a trolling post CA and Greg. Most here recognize this for what it is. I mean come on, what is in a name eh?

Actually, I don't read that as a troll post.

[waldo]

Actually, I don't read that as a troll post.

interesting. So, I guess to you, those labeled as "whiners & complainers" have a misquided concern over their own misinterpretations of nothing more than a purveyor's claimed "facts and opinions", regardless of how they are presented, repeatedly, incessantly, over years & years, ad nauseum. Point in fact, objections aren't being raised in regards to "facts & opinions". As for this little ditty being discussed, what exactly would you call the purveyor playing (once again) the victim act in claiming to being attacked over "facts & opinions"? What do you call that? What do you think the language/words chosen was intended to do? "Facts & opinions"!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I'm the type of person that always try to find something positive (sometimes anyways), not looking for negativity. So I can't see this attitude/style/approach ever working for me.

Not responding to personally insulting comments and only reporting them is something that I am grudgingly starting to do.

Agreed....the mods have directed us to report and ignore as needed. The few members who remain obsessed with "troll" hunting and personal attacks against others are plain to see. Advocating for the outright banning of another member further undermines the role and judgement of the moderator function.

[waldo]

What gets me is that when the moderators say that you shouldn't respond to trolling or trolls?!?!?!?

In my opinion this is absolutely ridiculous. Or more like absolutely impossible!

yes, yours is like commentary to that of the recent statement from the astute member 'jbg'... as he states, there will never be unanimity reached in alignment with the ridiculous "REPORT & IGNORE" suggestion put forward by this board's single moderator. Again, this approach acts to effectively negate an existing MLW rule against trolling - it simply isn't being enforced directly.

the ridiculous moderation position on trolling puts the onus on members to presume on a rule that isn't being directly enforced. Just what is trolling then? Is your interpretation the same as mine?... the same as other member interpretations? If someone interprets a trolling post incorrectly, responds to it, and then is REPORTED??? Or someone just responds to a trolling post without an interpretation applied... simply responds and is then REPORTED??? Or someone relatively new responds to a trolling post without the benefit of recognizing/understanding the troll behind the post, and is then REPORTED?? Given the expressed moderator bias, "that those responding to the trolls" will be subject to review and possible suspension... and "not the trolls directly", few could give this ridiculous "REPORT & IGNORE" moderation position any respect in being a workable solution.

[waldo]

The few members who remain obsessed with "troll" hunting and personal attacks against others are plain to see.

the few to single member(s) who remain obsessed with plying their/his "trolling best" and feinging victimhood from falsely claimed attacks are plain to see.

[cybercoma]

I think the answer about moderation is abundantly clear now. Charles should just lock this thread.

[WWWTT]

I think the answer about moderation is abundantly clear now. Charles should just lock this thread.

Why?

We're starting to make progress on this subject.

Locking threads is also another subject that I feel the moderators should put more consideration on, so thanks for bringing it up cyber.

WWWTT

[The_Squid]

I think the answer about moderation is abundantly clear now. Charles should just lock this thread.

I agree... The solution will be that people will leave the site when it gets bad enough. It's clear the mods aren't interested in nipping it in the bud.

It'll be another notch on the bedpost for the American to ruin another Canadian forum! Bizarre behaviour, but it's what trolls do....

[jbg]

I agree... The solution will be that people will leave the site when it gets bad enough. It's clear the mods aren't interested in nipping it in the bud.

It'll be another notch on the bedpost for the American to ruin another Canadian forum! Bizarre behaviour, but it's what trolls do....

We have had too many losses of good posters already, thank you.

[guyser]

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?

Let it go. The american media are also state controlled and for the most part state financed too.

Not worth it.

[The_Squid]

We have had too many losses of good posters already, thank you.

Yes we have. Plenty more will follow until the troll(s) are dealt with.

[Argus]

interesting. So, I guess to you, those labeled as "whiners & complainers" have a misquided concern over their own misinterpretations of nothing more than a purveyor's claimed "facts and opinions", regardless of how they are presented, repeatedly, incessantly, over years & years, ad nauseum.

No, I just didn't think the post you directly referred to was trolling.

[Argus]

I think the answer about moderation is abundantly clear now. Charles should just lock this thread.

I think that opinion is short-sighted, and a knee-jerk reaction to our two constantly opposing orbital bodies.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Argus

[waldo]

Let it go. The american media are also state controlled and for the most part state financed too.

Not worth it.

you're missing the point. There can be legitimate disagreement on control and sponsorship influence... related discussions have played themselves out over this through many past threads. In the context of reams of discussion having occurred, instead of just "agreeing to disagree", the guy now insists in applying label prefixes, purposely applying label prefixes to the word "CBC"... even when the label has absolutely no context association or relevance to the CBC reference being made. As I asked a few posts back when the purveyor plied it again, 'when is the CBC... just the CBC'? It's like someone purposely writing 'the state controlled, state sponsored, state broadcaster PBS", instead of just writing "PBS". For what purpose, other than trolling for reaction/response, would someone apply those labels when referring to the CBC... while doing it incessantly, repeatedly, post after post, thread after thread? Are those prefix labels needed to actually help people understand what CBC is being mentioned?

[Argus]

Yes we have. Plenty more will follow until the troll(s) are dealt with.

It is not the trolling which upsets people. It is being punished for responding to the trolling which upsets them.

However I agree the moderating is highly inconsistent and seems to bounce wildly between tolerance and intolerance with no predictability. It might simply be what mood the moderator is in at any given point in time.

There are two consistent trolls here and neither one particularly bothers me any more. And btw, the one which seems to upset most of you isn't even the worst of them.