Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[waldo]

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

again, in the past you've had no problem applying your so-called 'knee-jerk' reaction to the incessant trolling that occurs... and you've had no problem in singling out the purveyor in standing! By your own admission you've simply chosen to shift your principal moderation concerns... cause you state, "trolling won't/doesn't get any traction". Why, some wag, might accuse you of being short-sighted and ignorant in that you choose to belittle those raising concerns over a problem you yourself acknowledged. Who says your moderation concerns are any more significant, meaningful than others? Wait... are you still pissed cause I offered up one of your key private PM points publicly? Like I said before, get over it! If you can't stand-up for what you said...

.

Edited April 28, 2014 by waldo

[Argus]

again, in the past you've had no problem applying your so-called 'knee-jerk' reaction to the incessant trolling that occurs... and you've had no problem in singling out the purveyor in standing! By your own admission you've simply chosen to shift your principal moderation concerns...

I just simply didn't think that post was trolling, that's all. I'm not saying trolling isn't a problem at all. But there are trolls and then there are trolls. Some trolls are designed to incense people and cause flames while screwing up a discussion. Those are the kind to crack down on. I think you're simply obsessed with this.

[Charles Anthony]

As I asked a few posts back when the purveyor plied it again, 'when is the CBC... just the CBC'?

Start a new thread.

---

I just simply didn't think that post was trolling, that's all.

I agree.

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

Most of the warnings are sent out for having responded in kind. It is the responding in kind part is the main problem.

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

This may help: We are telling you that you should not engage what you perceive to be trolling. GH would have me stifle a comment that you believe is legitimate.

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?

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.

No that's not a troll comment!

I agree.

If you believe a comment is perfectly legitimate, go ahead and engage it. We will not stop you --- unless we believe you are mistaken. Incidentally, that is very rare. The fact that you/anybody engages the comment further tells us moderators that you deem the comment has some legitimacy.

If you believe a comment is trolling, do not engage it. If everybody is in agreement with you, then everybody SHOULD ignore it and then the moderator does not have to take sides and you will be proven right. You have the power to prove yourself right in the court of public opinion without needing a moderator's help.

You know as well as the rest of the MLW forums what trolling is. We have given you many examples from one specific poster.

I disagree and not just a little bit. I disagree with you 100% a lottle bit.

However, nobody has to be in political agreement with me over anything if you all ignore what you perceive to be trolling. My opinion does not matter if you all ignore stuff.

If you refuse to ignore stuff that disagrees with your senses, then start a thread discussion and challenge your fellow member to explain that side issue. That is the proper strategy. Point final! as my school teachers used to say. I am perplexed that none of you do that any more. You have been a member here loooonnng enough to know that is what you all did in the past.

I have some curious hypothetical follow-up questions to further my point:

If somebody came here claiming to be a geologist and posted a thread about how the Earth is flat, what would you do?

If somebody came here and posted a thread claiming that underwater basket weaving is a skill that all political activists should maintain, what would you do?

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

Yeah but then there is the guy who insists that thread drift is fine and dandy because it is a natural flow of conversation. He is right --- it is the natural flow of conversation but then I get you folks who insist on engaging what you perceive to be thread drift while simultaneously complaining about thread drift. The greater problem with thread drift is exactly what JBG said up above.

Now what? The bottom line is that you are insisting that the moderator takes a biased stance by passing judgement over disputes between yourselves. How convenient..... then you get to blame moderators for being biased and re-directing the puck when it does not go your way.

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.

Possibly. What would you do then? Engage or ignore what you perceive to be trolling? Please tell us.

The fact that you and I disagree on what constitutes trolling or a violation of the rules is irrelevent ----- if you follow the instruction: "Report it, ignore it and do not respond in kind."

Forgive me but I do not understand how it is difficult to ignore what you find annoying. Please enlighten me, folks: Why do some of you refuse to ignore what you perceive to be trolling?

Why do you engage what you perceive to be trolling?

What motivates you to participate in a forum in such a manner?

I ask partly because I used to do that and I do not have an answer. It is kind of creepy to witness too.

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

I think people who ignore what they perceive to be trolling and refrain from responding in kind are people who care the most. That describes the majority of active members.

You should be thankful that I do not automatically act upon every petty accusation of trolling.

REASON: The vast majority of you have all been reported as trolling by your peers. Can you believe it?

I disagree with many of those accusations because they are unfair. I tell the accuser to ignore it and move on. You have all benefitted from that policy.

I mean, c'mon, quoting a purveyors own words, verbatim, is now deemed an attack?

Uh.... no. Unfortunately, I do not know how to explain that the word ignore is not synonymous with engage.

Quoting a purveyors own words ad nauseum openly in the forum is a direct violation of the instruction to "Report it, ignore it and do not respond in kind." is trolling.

Report it and ignore it.

Net result is.....................nothing.

Your comments are astounding given that you consistently and repeatedly insist upon violating the "...and ignore it." part of that instruction.

To what form of logic are you trying to appeal here? Help me. I am trying to understand how you can make the rhetorical leap from engaging trolling demonstrates that ignoring trolling does not work.

I wonder what would happen if people were allowed to moderate the topics they start.

I think that would be a great but unpopular idea. Logistically, it would work.

I would like to see it tried. It can always be scrapped if it proves unworkable.

Your plan can not fail. Leastways, any perception of it devolving into an "unworkable" condition would be indistinguishable from an OP in which nobody responds.

The forum is already filled with lots of dead-end threads and there is nothing disruptive about that --- save for instances of repetition in topics.

Repetition in thread topics is generally an objective violation of the forum rules and guidelines. It requires little discretionary judgement compared to dealing with violations such as trolling.

Whereas, starting a thread discussion, deleting select responses and being ignored as a result seems like a very "workable" way of handling moderation that requires very little work on the part of the moderator or on the part of anybody else for that matter.

In what way was the post off-topic? It clearly didn't derail the thread,

Thank you! I will take the credit for that. Your post did not derail the thread because I hid it right away. You said so yourself, remember?

I only opened it up again recently because you questioned my judgement. I figured it would only be fair to make the post visible.

Had I left it open, I am convinced that it would have degraded the quality of discussion or encouraged other people to post drive-by flame-bait in the future. That is why I acted.

Your fellow member asked a question and you dismissed his question with your rant that we have all heard for at least umpteen times. I think the only difference is that you forgot to summarily dismiss the entire culture as nothing more than a bunch of backwards goat-herders.

Obviously I don't write posts which I think will get me suspended so I'm trying to figure out your criteria here.

I reckon the best way to understand my "politically correct" criteria as you like to put it would be for me to walk up to any man from Afghanistan who now lives in Canada. Tell him to his face what you wrote here and guess how things work out for me.

Pragmatism trumps politics, I guess.

[WWWTT]

This may help: We are telling you that you should not engage what you perceive to be trolling.

Yes thank you. I find this advise helpful and will use it!

WWWTT

[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?

Uh.... no. Unfortunately, I do not know how to explain that the word ignore is not synonymous with engage. Quoting a purveyors own words ad nauseum openly in the forum is a direct violation of the instruction to "Report it, ignore it and do not respond in kind." is trolling.

since you appear somewhat open to discussing actual examples... that this response won't be construed as another of your deemed attacks:

what do you call this original post, particularly in light of the (less than comprehensive accounting) of the snapshot history example of that same original post)?..... the snapshot history example that you called (your words) "an absurd, excessive and deliberate personal attack"? Tied in with that sample snapshot is that, invariably, many of the respective posts within that snapshot had the intended effect by the purveyor... directly causing untold numbers of posts in response from different members and/or adding to a buildup of resentment by some members to each and every time another like post is dropped by the purveyor.

you claim "just ignore it... and it will go away". That (less than comprehensive) snapshot example shows "IT IS NOT GOING AWAY"? And most pointedly, one could put together, quite easily, similar like snapshot examples of a dozen+ like scenarios of distinct "IT IS NOT GOING AWAY" situations.

.

[waldo]

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?

Start a new thread.

I'm not clear if you're asking me to, literally, 'start a new thread' so that you/I can have a discussion on this point??? Perhaps you can simply answer the questions, most pointedly answer the questions in relation to the first part of the post not quoted; this part:

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.

this is another of those like scenarios I described... where a summary snapshot accounting of like posts could be put together, spanning a long, long timeframe where the word "CBC" is purposely and unnecessarily preceded with prefix labeling; prefix labeling, again, like (in total, or in part) "state controlled, state sponsored, state broadcaster". By your measure of "ADDING TO THE DEBATE", when these prefixes are added without regard to context or relevance, purposely added, just what are they "ADDING TO THE DEBATE"? Does the purveyor believe that if by referring to the "CBC" just by it's name "CBC", members won't have an understanding of the reference being made? Are the prefix qualifiers, as the contentious qualifiers (rightly or wrongly) that they are, needed to qualify the CBC... repeatedly, incessantly, purposely, post after post, thread after thread, ad nauseum? ..... added by the purveyor not to qualify (out of context, out of relevance); rather, simply added to evoke response and/or add to building resentment over their usage?

.

[Michael Hardner]

Is calling the CBC "state controlled, state sponsored" an insult ? You may not like that this characterization is used, but the poster has good reasons for calling it that. If you and BC can't convince each other then you're at an 'agree to disagree' point.

The poster believes that the CBC exerts a measure of control over the public dialogue, and I agree although we differ in the fact that I think that it's not such a bad thing. I'm not sure why it gets under your skin so much - if the fact that the CBC is state sponsored is relevant to whatever argument is being made then you can address that, and if you think it's frivolous then ignore it.

[waldo]

Is calling the CBC "state controlled, state sponsored" an insult ? You may not like that this characterization is used, but the poster has good reasons for calling it that. If you and BC can't convince each other then you're at an 'agree to disagree' point.

The poster believes that the CBC exerts a measure of control over the public dialogue, and I agree although we differ in the fact that I think that it's not such a bad thing. I'm not sure why it gets under your skin so much - if the fact that the CBC is state sponsored is relevant to whatever argument is being made then you can address that, and if you think it's frivolous then ignore it.

the insult intent, purposeful insult intent, has been played with content in mind, most particularly when "state broadcaster" began to be thrown into the mix; i.e., that the CBC content is dictated by the government, ala, Soviet style Tass, North Korea, Al Jazeera... Baghdad Bob, anyone? But what's to, as you say, convince? As I said, even if one could be at the 'agree to disagree' point... even if you couldn't ever reach that point, what purpose does it follow, what does it add, that when mentioning the CBC it has to be done so with all/any of the prefixes added... when the inclusion of the prefixes has absolutely nothing to do with/nothing to add to, the context or relevance of the CBC mention being made? Tell me Michael as to what I'm referring to when I write "CBC"? Do you need the prefixes "state controlled, state broadcaster, state sponsored CBC" added to allow you to know that I'm speaking to the "CBC"? Of course, the related backdrop to this is that significant discussion and disagreement has occurred over this issue... several MLW members have taken exception. And accordingly, the purveyor responds by purposely adding those prefixes because they've become a matter of contention... purposely added, repeatedly, incessantly, post after post, thread after thread, ad nauseum. I used the contrast reference to PBS (or NPR, etc.)... that it's analogous to someone purposely adding "state controlled, state broadcaster, state sponsored to a mention of PBS; that in the context being discussed, no one would know what "PBS" is referring to without the prefixes added.

need I add the point that this has become one of SunNews' ploys to now, similarly, purposely refer to the CBC with "state broadcaster, state controlled' prefixes added?

as for sponsorship, of course the CBC receives government funding... as does American public broadcasting. That's certainly no insult to acknowledge that point on either account. However, the purveyor counter's with direct/implied suggestion that "state sponsored" for American public broadcasting isn't valid/warranted because the amounts of government funding are different. Apparently, because the amount of funding is different/higher for the CBC, the purveyor suggests he just absolutely needs to append that prefix to CBC to ensure... to ensure... what? Equally, comparisons have been made between Canada's National Broadcasting Act/CBC and the U.S. Congressional initiated U.S. Corporation for Public Broadcasting/PBS, NPR, etc., as to comparable mandates and funding outlets. But no matter... to the purveyor, this still doesn't substantiate referring to American public broadcasting as "state sponsored, state controlled". Apparently, the purveyor is most selective, particularly when he thinks he can (eventually) get a rise/response from a member, get another rise/response from a member, by purposely using the prefixes to qualify the CBC!

I used it as an example because it was just plied in this very thread; as an example where significant discussion/argument around an issue has occurred... this example being just one of 'dozens'. Examples where, going forward from the point of original discussion/argument and resulting disagreement, origination points typically long past, the purveyor will draw a current reference to an original point of disagreement, typically long passed... but a draw that has been made by the purveyor, repeatedly, incessantly, over subsequent posts, post after post, thread after thread, ad nauseum. More prolific examples exist; like when anyone has the audacity to refer/link to an American source... invariably, you'll receive a drive-by hit that includes nothing more than the purveyor highlighting the usage, one reinforcing that it's an American source... ala USA!, USA!, USA! Sometimes the drive-by hit will include a token reference to something akin to "a Canadian identity beholden to American sources"

of course... it begs the larger question, why does any self-respecting (claimed) American give a rats-patooey about the CBC... about qualifying every CBC reference with the prefixes spoken of... repeatedly, incessantly, post after post, thread after thread, ad nauseum?

since you bit on this second of the two posts I just put forward, have you nothing to say about the other example offered... you know, that example that showcases a representative snapshot history with all that beggin/groveling to our USA!, USA!, USA! master overlord?

[betsy]

Your fellow member asked a question and you dismissed his question with your rant that we have all heard for at least umpteen times. I think the only difference is that you forgot to summarily dismiss the entire culture as nothing more than a bunch of backwards goat-herders.

From what I gathered, Argus' comment shouldn't have earned him a suspension. What's different from his comment to this - which by the way - was a title of a topic, and it's merely a personal opinion - and it can definitely be considered as a bait title.

Same Sex Marriage Foes = Bible Thumpers

That thread includes statements like this from the same member:

"Bill may be putting on a show for the crazies, but it looks like Rush is the real deal."

The poster referred to all religious people who opposed same-sex marriage based on their belief, as "crazies."

You are inconsistent. And if the poster of that member who posted that religion title/statement wasn't suspended at all - you are not only inconsistent, but you are also unfair. That's the problem.

The reason for your inconsistency and bias is, of course, speculated upon. It could be due to your ideology. That we'd be speculating - that shouldn't come as a surprise.

And since penalties and warnings (which are automatic suspensions) are done secretly......how many posters have felt being treated unfairly by your moderation, and had just quietly left this site?

Without even any fanfare.....or, saying goodbye?

Edited April 29, 2014 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

Is calling the CBC "state controlled, state sponsored" an insult ? You may not like that this characterization is used, but the poster has good reasons for calling it that. If you and BC can't convince each other then you're at an 'agree to disagree' point.

..... if the fact that the CBC is state sponsored is relevant to whatever argument is being made then you can address that, and if you think it's frivolous then ignore it.

Agreed....one can only guess as to why this member takes such animated exception to the factual characterization of the relationship between Canada's government and its national radio, television, and web broadcaster. This relationship has long been a political issue in Canada regardless of any musings by American outsiders.

For the record, I have never received a moderator warning or suspension over this issue, and I look forward to continuing the spirited debate in context whenever the opportunity presents itself. The issue of state sponsored and controlled media is relevant in any nation...even Canada.

As for objections concerning repetition across multiple posts, one need only consider how many flavors and instances of "denier" have been offered up by the very same member.

Edited April 29, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

This relationship has long been a political issue in Canada regardless of any musings by American outsiders.

musings???

What other nationals think about this is completely irrelevant.

.

[GostHacked]

This may help: We are telling you that you should not engage what you perceive to be trolling. GH would have me stifle a comment that you believe is legitimate.

Maybe you can tell me why other members have been suspended for airing the same complaints I have.

If you believe a comment is perfectly legitimate, go ahead and engage it. We will not stop you --- unless we believe you are mistaken. Incidentally, that is very rare. The fact that you/anybody engages the comment further tells us moderators that you deem the comment has some legitimacy.

No matter if we engage or ignore it, that does not give a post legitimacy.

If you believe a comment is trolling, do not engage it. If everybody is in agreement with you, then everybody SHOULD ignore it and then the moderator does not have to take sides and you will be proven right. You have the power to prove yourself right in the court of public opinion without needing a moderator's help.

Many people ARE in agreement with me. But many of them end up getting suspensions because of reporting it. And from your last line, why is there moderation period here? If I did not need your help to do your job as moderators, I would not be engaging you at all.

I disagree and not just a little bit. I disagree with you 100% a lottle bit.

What is this??

However, nobody has to be in political agreement with me over anything if you all ignore what you perceive to be trolling. My opinion does not matter if you all ignore stuff.

If you refuse to ignore stuff that disagrees with your senses, then start a thread discussion and challenge your fellow member to explain that side issue. That is the proper strategy. Point final! as my school teachers used to say. I am perplexed that none of you do that any more. You have been a member here loooonnng enough to know that is what you all did in the past.

Said member ignores me. Won't address my posts except in a passing fashion while directing it at someone else. There is no way to engage said poster. So, this is where you come in.

If somebody came here claiming to be a geologist and posted a thread about how the Earth is flat, what would you do?

A really terrible hypothetical situation.

If somebody came here and posted a thread claiming that underwater basket weaving is a skill that all political activists should maintain, what would you do?

Well at least you are being mature about it.

Now what? The bottom line is that you are insisting that the moderator takes a biased stance by passing judgement over disputes between yourselves. How convenient..... then you get to blame moderators for being biased and re-directing the puck when it does not go your way.

He has been shitting on this forum for years. Post count does not equal quality.

Possibly. What would you do then? Engage or ignore what you perceive to be trolling? Please tell us.

I would ban the trolls. Period. As per rules of this board. They are rules you and Greg are responsible for. Don't blame us for taking the trolls to task, and taking the lack of proper moderation in taking care of the issue. As I said back, I did not have much faith in this getting resolved, and your words make that very clear that this will never get resolved. Not for this poster, and not for future trolls.

The fact that you and I disagree on what constitutes trolling or a violation of the rules is irrelevent ----- if you follow the instruction: "Report it, ignore it and do not respond in kind."

Actually it is quite relevant, and very telling of your lack of will to do anything about it, regardless of the members vocalizing the issue.

Pragmatism trumps politics, I guess.

Is this like economics trumps virtue?

Edited April 29, 2014 by GostHacked

[waldo]

For the record, I have never received a moderator warning or suspension over this issue

oh my! That's kind of the issue... per the board's single moderator's expressed bias. You know, the one that ignores directly enforcing the MLW trolling rule, opting to instead put ridiculous onus on members to interpret an unenforced rule, to instead "IGNORE & REPORT". An example of your best worst is now posted; showcasing a representative (but not comprehensive) snapshot history, of all your posted "Canada beggin & grovelin". Just a single (non-comprehensive) snapshot; quite literally, just one of many, many that could be put together. I'd put together a couple more of your prolific efforts... but, apparently, playing back your own words, verbatim, has been deemed an attack!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Clearly this relentless vendetta exceeds the scope and purpose of this moderation discussion thread. At every turn we have vicious attempts to personalize and attack specific members as leverage against this forum's moderation function by a few disatisfied person(s) who will not be happy until they get their way. Archive searches reveal that moderator directions to report and ignore have been remarkably consistent going back many, many years.

Edited April 29, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

I reckon the best way to understand my "politically correct" criteria as you like to put it would be for me to walk up to any man from Afghanistan who now lives in Canada. Tell him to his face what you wrote here and guess how things work out for me.

Pragmatism trumps politics, I guess.

So if my opinion of a place would be seen as offensive to the people who live there, or who used to live there, I'm not allowed to expess that opinon? That seems to be what you're suggesting. Never mind if my opinion is valid or not (it was) I'm still going to get suspended for expressing unflattering opinions of other countries and their cultures? Just like to be clear on this.

Again, the purpose of 'third party insults' is to keep people from breaking the law or getting sued (fair enough) or from saying things that start flamewars (ie, liberals are all pedophiles and thieves) but you seem to have extended it to preventing third party groups from being offended, and I don't think that is why the rule is in place.

By the way, your belief that instantly censoring my post somehow prevented a massive flamewar as uncountable members expressed their horror at my depiction of Afghanistan's backward culture is more than a little absurd.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Argus

[Smallc]

That would seem to be what he's saying, and it seems like that is the type of 'rule' that would limit discussion.

[Argus]

That would seem to be what he's saying, and it seems like that is the type of 'rule' that would limit discussion.

We're still allowed to say unflattering things about Americans and American politicians though, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

We're still allowed to say unflattering things about Americans and American politicians though, right?

Yes...there appears to be no restrictions in this regard !

[guyser]

Seeing nothing done means nothing is done

Still holds true.

Ignore and report.....ad naseuam

Fat lot of good that does anyone, which is obvious if one can read and comprehend.

No need than to look at replies on this page for more "oh gosh, me..trolling? " bullshit.

But hey, the ship is sinking so go ahead and think its just getting a good wash on the sides.

Right now there are 54 guests reading. Some of us take pride in decent convo's and want to negate any stupidity like Geologists saying the earth is flat and ensure that lurkers can see this site has some good posters on it.

But seems the mods et al dont give a shit.

Lovely.

And if anyone wants to know exactly what Mods etc think about you? PM me, it will open your eyes.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Guyser2

[Michael Hardner]

the insult intent, purposeful insult intent, has been played with content in mind, most particularly when "state broadcaster" began to be thrown into the mix;

I don't accept that it's an insult - it's a statement of fact, albeit arguable. It's relevant in a great many contexts, and whether or not I agree with you isn't at all important.

If it's a troll, then report it and ignore and the mods will look into it. These threads are not here to make legal cases as to what is a troll and what is not. The mods can decide that when they see the report.

[Michael Hardner]

The issue of state sponsored and controlled media is relevant in any nation...even Canada.

Well, I don't agree in every case but I don't care enough to report it most of the time. If I do then the mods agree with me, or they don't. Win some, lose some.

[waldo]

I don't accept that it's an insult - it's a statement of fact, albeit arguable. It's relevant in a great many contexts, and whether or not I agree with you isn't at all important.

again, the arguable "agree to disagree" point means didly! The prefixes get used, purposely used, regardless on whether or not there is an association context or relevance. And they're used only to purposely stir the pot... and apparently validate the purveyor's very 30K+ existence in running roughshod over a relatively smallish, somewhat obscure Canadian discussion board.

.

If it's a troll, then report it and ignore and the mods will look into it. These threads are not here to make legal cases as to what is a troll and what is not. The mods can decide that when they see the report.

what mods, in plurarity, are you (and others) repeatedly making reference to? Are you saying there actually is more than a single board moderator here?

I gave you an additional opportunity to comment on the second of two examples presented. Apparently, you don't want to touch that second one - go figure!

[WestCoastRunner]

For the record, I have never received a moderator warning or suspension over this issue, and I look forward to continuing the spirited debate in context whenever the opportunity presents itself. The issue of state sponsored and controlled media is relevant in any nation...even Canada.

As for objections concerning repetition across multiple posts, one need only consider how many flavors and instances of "denier" have been offered up by the very same member.

I actually found it remarkable that you didn't receive a warning over this issue. And to insinuate that your comments were in the pretext of spirited debate is quite frankly, ridiculous. You have no clue about spirited debate when it is relevant to Canada. You just like to taunt canadians.

[bush_cheney2004]

I actually found it remarkable that you didn't receive a warning over this issue. And to insinuate that your comments were in the pretext of spirited debate is quite frankly, ridiculous. You have no clue about spirited debate when it is relevant to Canada. You just like to taunt canadians.

Only those who call me an "idiot" immediately after joining the forum, clearly breaking forum rules. I trust that the moderator cut you some slack and I graciously chose not to report you. You're welcome.

[Bob Macadoo]

There's a point to this I just can't seem to grasp.

This is a private forum, anyone banned for no reason, yet moderators make excuses why members are or are not allowed to remain.

Should that even matter? If the issue to be solved is why membership has withdrawn over the years should not a member poll and or exit interview be the only useful data. Excuses can be made 'til the cows come home but if the only thing you care about is keeping members and there is an overriding reason why you're losing them......whatever justifications for your moderation you have be damned.