Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Argus]

wtf! ... considering 2 of the OP's 6 paragraphs related to "unwed mothers"... ya... I answered that whistle. It was the only extended direct example and was clearly meant to be the "backdrop" for the overall most broad and muddled UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion put forward. And clearly, the thread originator took exception to having his baseless opinions questioned and had a somewhat meltdown when challenged to support/substantiate his statements. Go figure!

The problem with lying so blatantly, Waldo, is that the thread, though locked, is still quite visible. People are free to examine the closed thread and find where the OP, namely me, had any sort of response to anyone on it which wasn't polite, which seemed emotional, or which didn't focus on the actual discussions (as opposed to launching personal attacks).

Edited April 22, 2016 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

I suspect you're correct. The lack of capable moderation allows people who have rigid ideological views but not the ability to intelligently defend them smear and insult those on the other side without fear of punishment. Instead the moderators just throw up their hands and say "Meh, we'll just close this conversation", and the zealots get their way.

I don't think that is the moderator's intention, but that is the practical result. The mods have lamented the task and workload of sorting out and untangling the posts that need to be removed, compounded more by nested quotes. So yeah, they just blow the whole thing up and tell us to start over. It also depends on the topic and how much friction it causes...some topics get a lot more leash to run with (e.g. climate change, Israel, U.S. gun control, etc.).

This is not a pity cookie for moderation, because just as we voluntarily post in this forum, they choose to be moderators.facilitators. But the actual mechanics and limited tools available results in sweeping out both the good with the bad, and this reaction can be leveraged by opponents to shut down discussion.

[cybercoma]

I suspect you're correct. The lack of capable moderation allows people who have rigid ideological views but not the ability to intelligently defend them smear and insult those on the other side without fear of punishment.

Maybe it's because I'm a few drinks in, but this comment is absolutely hilarious. Comedy gold in its complete lack of reflexivity.

[cybercoma]

I don't think that is the moderator's intention, but that is the practical result. The mods have lamented the task and workload of sorting out and untangling the posts that need to be removed, compounded more by nested quotes. So yeah, they just blow the whole thing up and tell us to start over. It also depends on the topic and how much friction it causes...some topics get a lot more leash to run with (e.g. climate change, Israel, U.S. gun control, etc.).

This is not a pity cookie for moderation, because just as we voluntarily post in this forum, they choose to be moderators.facilitators. But the actual mechanics and limited tools available results in sweeping out both the good with the bad, and this reaction can be leveraged by opponents to shut down discussion.

I think you should be a mod. It would shake things up around here in the right way.

[The_Squid]

I think you should be a mod. It would shake things up around here in the right way.

The nuclear option!

[msj]

No one should be told they should be ashamed for responding to a post or made to feel guilty. That's ridiculous.

I suspect that you are being rather hypocritical on this.

I seem to recall you calling out kimmy on certain posts she had made (I also recall kimmy as right and you were wrong but that's a given anyway .,,).

[waldo]

in regards an image I presented within a MLW post, clarification request on inline linking... so-called 'hot-linking' where a virtual presentation of an image was viewed on a MLW website page... but hosted 'physically' on the site/page of the targeting link. Per Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and holder of the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law:

The third claim involved a link to a photograph posted on the photographer’s site. The court had no trouble concluding that the link was not copyright infringement, rightly noting that the photographer authorized the communication of the work by posting it on his website. This finding should put an end to claims that linking to copyright materials somehow raises potential legal risks. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled against attributing defamation to such links and now the Federal Court has concluded that links cannot be said to constitute unauthorized communication and therefore infringement. The implications once again extend to forums, blogs, and other venues as well as the Access Copyright model licence.

[Charles Anthony]

in regards an image I presented within a MLW post, clarification request on inline linking...

....which clearly states: "No reproduction without permission" at the bottom. I reviewed this with Greg and the image is back up on display.

Define "disorganized mess".

No. It is not a definable concept. Rather, it is a subjective judgement.

Take advantage of the constructive criticism your readers have provided. Demonstrate your intentions by re-starting your discussion. You can do it.

I suspect you're correct. The lack of capable moderation allows people who have rigid ideological views but not the ability to intelligently defend them smear and insult those on the other side without fear of punishment.

Nobody is being punished. The only posts taken down from your thread were trolling.

People are free to examine the closed thread and ...

... decide for themselves how they can improve the 2nd draft.

No one should be told they should be ashamed for responding to a post or made to feel guilty. That's ridiculous.

That depends on the nature of the post to which a member responds.

If a member responds to that which he believes to be trolling, then the member is guilty of feeding trolling. Feeding trolling is a shameful act.

Sometimes perception matters.

I don't think that is the moderator's intention, but that is the practical result.

Little by little, folks are starting to get it.

But the actual mechanics and limited tools available results in sweeping out both the good with the bad, and this reaction can be leveraged by opponents to shut down discussion.

We recognize that modus operandi.

There is more to this particular story: The mod staff simply did not agree on intervention. Try to work that into the flow charts.

The mod staff arrived at a compromise that would minimize censorship and allow the discussion to continue. We leave folks with the freedom to demonstrate their intentions by starting a 2nd thread.

[GostHacked]

What I find insulting is a post of mine got hidden for calling out thread drift which was not seen as such. I made a clear discussion point in the OP, the thread drift was not removed, but my post calling it out was...

[Michael Hardner]

What I find insulting is a post of mine got hidden for calling out thread drift which was not seen as such. I made a clear discussion point in the OP, the thread drift was not removed, but my post calling it out was...

Yes, as I said to you in my PM this was my mistake. These things happen, and I thanked you and accepted your correction prior to you posting this complaint here.

I'm not sure what else I can do in such instances, but please keep keeping us honest in any case.

[waldo]

posting here rather than extend further upon the moderator called thread drift in another thread. In that declared/titled Conservative party related thread, the presumed thread drifting call started with a Conservative versus Liberal party comparative reference. If one can't address the Liberal party reference without "thread drift" being declared... #stiflingDiscussion

.

[cybercoma]

I strongly believe the moderator should point out specifically what they consider thread drift; a few times they've mentioned it and it wasn't at all clear.

[The_Squid]

I strongly believe the moderator should point out specifically what they consider thread drift; a few times they've mentioned it and it wasn't at all clear.

Agreed. And even if it's obvious, the offender may not think so. Vague pronouncements don't help.

[BubberMiley]

I think breaking into a conversation to declare it "thread drift" is the worst thread drift of all. It just gets in the way and contributes nothing.

[cybercoma]

I disagree. It's a teaching moment. We could all learn what they consider thread drift if they would point out the specific drifts. Common sense is rarely common. So I think we'd all benefit from it being pointed out.

[Charles Anthony]

a few times they've mentioned it and it wasn't at all clear.

We know the feeling. The vast majority of Reports are for dubious allegations of thread drift. The complaints are rarely clear to us either.

The next time mod staff mention thread drift and the reason seems unclear to you, Report it and we will explain.

[The_Squid]

Well I hope everyone reports the next one so you have to send out 20 PMs rather than just making it clear once within the thread itself. Why is it so hard to receive a brief explanation in the thread? From what I've seen, your #threaddrift is just ignored because people either don't know what the drift is or they don't care to worry about it.

[GostHacked]

I think breaking into a conversation to declare it "thread drift" is the worst thread drift of all. It just gets in the way and contributes nothing.

It can also be seen as an attempt to get others to get back to the topic instead of posting irrelevant crap.

I think breaking into a conversation to declare it "thread drift" is the worst thread drift of all. It just gets in the way and contributes nothing.

I've attempted to do that in a few threads. but usually I get push back saying that I don't know wtf I am talking about.

[bush_cheney2004]

So there you have it folks..."thread drift" determination remains the sole purview of the moderator function. Pointing out "thread drift" is in and of itself another form of thread drift. The logic is perfect, as demonstrated in The Changeling (1967)...

Analysis complete. Insufficient data to resolve problem, but my programming is whole. My purpose remains. I am Nomad. I am perfect. That which is imperfect must be sterilised.

[BubberMiley]

It can also be seen as an attempt to get others to get back to the topic instead of posting irrelevant crap.

Actually it's all pretty irrelevant crap whether it's on topic or not, which kind of makes it ridiculous to obsess over whether the natural flow of conversation is sufficiently reverent to the OP. Commands from above to stay on topic are more often than not thread killers. It would seem more productive, if it were so important to stay on topic, to react to these dangerous transgressions by making a post with an opinion or fact related to the OP. Then, as if by magic, the problem is solved, but it would still probably be irrelevant crap.

[kimmy]

That which is imperfect must be sterilised.

Is that a request? I have an Xacto Knife around here somewhere...

-k

[Big Guy]

If there is a thread which one particular poster would like to stop, kill delete etc then he/she has ways to get the mods to do it:

Antagonize other posters to a point where it gets personal and mods lock it.

Keep leading it off topic so the intent of the OP disappears.

I think these mods are wise to both methods and do their best to keep it from happening.

[GostHacked]

I would personally like to thank those asshats that contributed to thread drift which got my thread locked.

What a f'n shame

[Bonam]

I would personally like to thank those asshats that contributed to thread drift which got my thread locked.

What a f'n shame

Your thread was answered in whole with the first reply, there was nothing else to discuss.

[The_Squid]

Your thread was answered in whole with the first reply, there was nothing else to discuss.

1st reply was wrong. 3rd reply was better.