Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[kimmy]

So it's ok for the 'fun' threads, but not for 'serious' threads?? Where do you draw the line?

We don't want people to post a video and say "watch this. It explains everything", in the same way that we don't want people to just post a whole newspaper article and say "read this."

If the video contains information that's important to the discussion, cite the video as part of your discussion. "As this video from Kim City News Network shows, nearly 3 people attended the #BlondeLivesMatter rally."

The video should be a supplement to your post that people can access if they wish, it shouldn't be the focus of your post.

We feel that embedded videos are distracting, especially when people include them in quoted messages. We'd like your own words to be the focus of your posts, and embedded videos work contrary to that idea.

Similarly with images. We have been allowing people to post small graphs that convey relevant information. But what we don't want is for people to use pictures to make their arguments. "This is why we need to deport bears: <bear-massacre.jpg>"

-k

[kimmy]

Either it's all accepted or none of it is. Getting real irritated with these rules that apply to some things but not others.

Consistency is key here.

The music thread exists so that people can share their favorite music. We are allowing it to continue as is because people seem to enjoy it and see no reason to change.

Enjoy it for what it is, or ignore it. But it's not going to be the standard by which the rest of the forum is run.

Also, instead of locking threads, how about you deal with the people shitting up the threads? That would be more effective and conducive to better dialogue.

We are trying.

-k

[betsy]

How do you post a youtube video again? I can't seem to find it.

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

How do you post a youtube video again? I can't seem to find it.

I copied this from another thread.

Please use the 'link' icon to create a link to a tag on your post... like 'video' for example that links to www.youtube.com?xyz

I will take down direct posts of video links and if you do it too much you may receive a warning.

Thanks,

Edited March 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[Argus]

So I got a warning point the other day from MH for 'insulting and abusive behaviour'.

This was for referring to the Syrian refugees coming to Canada as 'illiterate desert dwellers' in a discussion about the financial costs of importing a lot of people who could not support themselves.

Now this 'insulting and abusive behavior' thing used to be only used for calling each other names. If you called someone a moron or an asshole, you got a warning, and sometimes suspended. That made perfect sense since it caused tit for tat insults and turned discussions into flame wars. But over the last few years it's really gotten out of hand to the point where the moderation team sometimes seems to think it's their job to protect the entire world from anyone on MLW being disrespectful to them.

In point of fact I responded to the warning point with a cite from Matthew Fisher the columnist, who had been in Turkey and Lebanon and Jordan and spoken to the people in the refugee camps. He made it very obvious that unlike the more urban and wealthier (and skilled) Syrians who had fled to Europe, the ones Canada were getting were the 'poorest of the poor' in Syria, rural folks who lived in the high desert where temperatures were routinely in the 40s, almost none of whom could speak English or French (unlike the refugees in Europe). I pointed out my statement was not an insult to them but simply an accurate description, and should not get any sort of moderator intervention. He (as he normally does) ignored my argument.

I think this sort of thing is more related to extreme political correctness being affronted than any actual belief my post, and others like it are likely to cause flames or arguments on MLW.

[Guest]

If one can get a warning for insulting people how could one even refer to the disgusting subhumans who blew up that playground in Lahore today?

Maybe we should just get more "what are you listening to" threads and leave it at that.

[betsy]

I copied this from another thread.

Thank you Bcsapper for that.

[Argus]

If one can get a warning for insulting people how could one even refer to the disgusting subhumans who blew up that playground in Lahore today?

Well, technically, that is 'insulting and abusive' behaviour towards them and you would draw a warning from MH.

[rotary]

So I got a warning point the other day from MH for 'insulting and abusive behaviour'.

This was for referring to the Syrian refugees coming to Canada as 'illiterate desert dwellers' in a discussion about the financial costs of importing a lot of people who could not support themselves.

Now this 'insulting and abusive behavior' thing used to be only used for calling each other names. If you called someone a moron or an asshole, you got a warning, and sometimes suspended. That made perfect sense since it caused tit for tat insults and turned discussions into flame wars. But over the last few years it's really gotten out of hand to the point where the moderation team sometimes seems to think it's their job to protect the entire world from anyone on MLW being disrespectful to them.

In point of fact I responded to the warning point with a cite from Matthew Fisher the columnist, who had been in Turkey and Lebanon and Jordan and spoken to the people in the refugee camps. He made it very obvious that unlike the more urban and wealthier (and skilled) Syrians who had fled to Europe, the ones Canada were getting were the 'poorest of the poor' in Syria, rural folks who lived in the high desert where temperatures were routinely in the 40s, almost none of whom could speak English or French (unlike the refugees in Europe). I pointed out my statement was not an insult to them but simply an accurate description, and should not get any sort of moderator intervention. He (as he normally does) ignored my argument.

I think this sort of thing is more related to extreme political correctness being affronted than any actual belief my post, and others like it are likely to cause flames or arguments on MLW.

Perhaps a more credible source to cite would have helped support your comments.

[The_Squid]

I think the warning came from using borderline racist terminology to describe an entire class of people.

If one was to call a terrorist a "backward savage" for their actions, I can pretty much guarantee that there would be no warning.

For some reason the difference seems so subtle to some that it causes confusion... but to most people, they can understand why the two are very different. Maybe you guys (Sapper and Argus) could try and learn the difference... maybe PM a mod and have a discussion about it.

[Guest]

I think the warning came from using borderline racist terminology to describe an entire class of people.

If one was to call a terrorist a "backward savage" for their actions, I can pretty much guarantee that there would be no warning.

For some reason the difference seems so subtle to some that it causes confusion... but to most people, they can understand why the two are very different. Maybe you guys (Sapper and Argus) could try and learn the difference... maybe PM a mod and have a discussion about it.

This is a discussion forum. Why PM?

If one is to describe a group of people as subhuman, due to their actions, that's okay. I understand that. If one brings up their raison d'etre, it suddenly is not okay, in the minds of some. That I don't understand.

Edited March 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[Guest]

Thank you Bcsapper for that.

My pleasure. You don't want a scolding...

[The_Squid]

This is a discussion forum. Why PM?

Because it's a discussion about the rules and how racist you can get with your description of people without getting a warning. Maybe you can pass some examples by them and see what they say.

[Argus]

I think the warning came from using borderline racist terminology to describe an entire class of people.

What is racist about saying someone is a desert dweller when he comes from the desert? What is racist about calling someone illiterate who is?

If one was to call a terrorist a "backward savage" for their actions, I can pretty much guarantee that there would be no warning.

Why? Because the mods don't feel squishy about terrorists but they do about Syrian refugees?

For some reason the difference seems so subtle to some that it causes confusion..

So blunt speaking is outlawed because it offends the delicate, dainty sensibilities of progressives?

Maybe you guys (Sapper and Argus) could try and learn the difference... maybe PM a mod and have a discussion about it.

I should PM a mod every time I post something to see if they're offended by it?

[Argus]

Because it's a discussion about the rules and how racist you can get with your description of people without getting a warning. Maybe you can pass some examples by them and see what they say.

I'm not being racist with my descriptions. No intelligent person would think so.

[The_Squid]

I'm not being racist with my descriptions. No intelligent person would think so.

I think the Mods are fairly intelligent people... so I guess you're wrong about that...

[Argus]

Perhaps a more credible source to cite would have helped support your comments.

You think some of the rural people of Syria don't live in the desert? Is that shocking to you? Are you aghast? Does the idea have you trembling with rage?

And I note you have provided ZERO contradictory cites to the two respected, mainstream columnist I cited, just muttered and whined and thrown around insults, which is all you've been doing for years here.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

I think the Mods are fairly intelligent people... so I guess you're wrong about that...

Really? You have evidence the mods considered my terminology racist? Let's see it.

[The_Squid]

Really? You have evidence the mods considered my terminology racist? Let's see it.

I said borderline racist... but, yeah... that's what I gather from your post and their warning for insulting behaviour.

[Big Guy]

I'm not being racist with my descriptions. No intelligent person would think so.

Methinks, why not find an electronic opinion board where your kind of rhetoric is acceptable. We all have choices. If I felt that the way I express myself was unacceptable on a board then I would leave it immediately. Why don't you?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Big Guy

[Guest]

Because it's a discussion about the rules and how racist you can get with your description of people without getting a warning. Maybe you can pass some examples by them and see what they say.

I don't have any examples. I have no idea how to be racist, unless it's just pointing out bad behaviour by someone who is a different race than I am. That does seem to irritate...

[Argus]

Why not find an electronic opinion board where your kind of rhetoric is acceptable. We all have choices. If I felt that the way I expess myself was unacceptable on a board then I would leave it immediately. Why don't you?

I'm quite happy to stay here and get up the noses of unaccomplished twerps who like to swagger around on the internet insulting people.

Never give in to bullies, and always challenge anti-Semites. That's what my dad taught me.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

I don't have any examples. I have no idea how to be racist, unless it's just pointing out bad behaviour by someone who is a different race than I am. That does seem to irritate...

To the politically correct, anything you say which they see as unflattering or uncomplimentary towards any non-white person or group is racist. Beginning and end of story.

Truth has no place in the discussion.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

Methinks, why not find an electronic opinion board where your kind of rhetoric is acceptable. We all have choices. If I felt that the way I express myself was unacceptable on a board then I would leave it immediately. Why don't you?

Haven't we discussed this? Why would you want a board where eveyrone agreed with you? That's what mirrors are for. Or Rabble.

Edited March 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[Argus]

Haven't we discussed this? Why would you want a board where everone agreed with you? That's what mirrors are for. Or Rabble.

People who are unable to put forth any sort of credible defense to their ideologically motivated beliefs get embarrassed and angry. They prefer being among the like minded who will not point out the silliness of their positions.