Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[WestCoastRunner]

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.

You would have to ask yourself why I would call only you an idiot when I was a new member. Why did I not call anyone else that? Hmmmmm? I will probably get suspended for reacting to your posts. So be it. I'm cool with that.

[cybercoma]

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?

unless you're trolling about Canada. Then it's perfectly fine.

[betsy]

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.

Doesn't the moderator even take a glimpse at the titles of new threads being created? Surely, anyone can see

(even you), that this ignorant title is a TROLLING title, aimed at baiting and insulting bible-following Christians.

Same Sex Marriage Foes = Bible Thumpers

If CA had removed/deleted my topic, at least he should've also done the same thing to that trolling title about bible thumpers! Not only does it bait, and is awfully hate-orientedly inaccurate, the said title also suggests the level of mentality that reflects badly on the board.

If the moderator does not even have the time to take a peek at newly-created titles (which are not too many, btw), then perhaps this site should do away with moderation and let it be a non-moderated forum.

Edited April 30, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

You would have to ask yourself why I would call only you an idiot when I was a new member. Why did I not call anyone else that? Hmmmmm? I will probably get suspended for reacting to your posts. So be it. I'm cool with that.

Definitely, you should be suspended for that latest one. Your persisting gall aimed at personal name-calls suggests you shouldn't be treated like a newbie anymore.

Calling a member an "idiot" is making it personal.

I got suspended for being "rude" for I don't know what, and you get the free pass to be directly abusive towards a member? Go ahead, keep showing why there's so much ire about the moderation here.

You're supporting our claim by giving yourself as an example.

You wonder why you'd call only this particular member an idiot? Is that hard to figure out?

Since he's the one being targeted by a group......and you've clearly aligned yourself with some members (by declaring your admiration for them) who criticise this member....and you're a newbie who wants to gain acceptance by said admired members....what's so hard to figure out?

I see it as wanting to be admitted in a pack.

What did I say way back about influencing new members? If all new members would have the same gall and behave as you do, flaunting the rules at this early stage (and being given a special privilege to be able to do so).....this board is truly doomed.

Edited April 30, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

Of course, you should consider those who join forums not because they want to give their opinion....

..... but because they enjoy the actual act of debating.

Those types, who enjoy debating, are the most likely to become active, regular posters.

If your target is to entice intelligent posters to engage in a lively discussion - how many among them would find enjoyment in knowing their opponents' hands are tied? Is there satisfaction in that?

For forum providers, understand the business you're in. Especially, your target clientele.

Edited April 30, 2014 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Not only does it bait, and is awfully hate-orientedly inaccurate, the said title also suggests the level of mentality that reflects badly on the board.

If the moderator does not even have the time to take a peek at newly-created titles (which are not too many, btw), then perhaps this site should do away with moderation and let it be a non-moderated forum.

If you want the mod to be sure to see it, then report it and specifically point out the term that is offensive. I had never heard 'bible thumpers' referred to as offensive but I can see your point.

People, we keep coming back to the process here on this thread.

[cybercoma]

No. We keep coming back to people not having faith in the process for what they see as inaction or inconsistent outcomes.

[Michael Hardner]

We keep coming back to people not having faith in the process for what they see as inaction or inconsistent outcomes.

And those things are to be expected, as there is a human being making the assessments at the end of it all, and two humans can never agree 100% on what is right.

[WWWTT]

Something tells me that the two visible moderators of this forum are turning this thread into an opportunity to reinforce their rules with some additional explanation (which does help).

However, my concern is that any positive ideas generated here in this thread by the members,are falling on deaf ears!

If this is indeed the case (and until it becomes clear I will have to assume this is the case), it is belittling to the members who have some genuine concerns.

Just wanted to remind everyone that this thread (in my opinion) was meant to advise the moderators, not the other way around.

WWWTT

[waldo]

And those things are to be expected, as there is a human being making the assessments at the end of it all, and two humans can never agree 100% on what is right.

uhhh... considering there was a recent puffed up claim to "never having received a warning or suspension in this regard", one can certainly acknowledge which way your described 100% agreement measure bar swings!

[Michael Hardner]

one can certainly acknowledge which way your described 100% agreement measure bar swings!

Exactly. Two humans disagree 100% on something. A third human is asked to moderate and agree with one of them. 2/3 of the humans now agree, and any two humans in that pairing agree 100% or 0%.

[waldo]

Exactly. Two humans disagree 100% on something. A third human is asked to moderate and agree with one of them. 2/3 of the humans now agree, and any two humans in that pairing agree 100% or 0%.

oh... is that what you meant? So when you said "human being making the assessments" you weren't referring to this board's single moderator making the assessments then, hey? Words... they're funny that way!

[Michael Hardner]

oh... is that what you meant? So when you said "human being making the assessments" you weren't referring to this board's single moderator making the assessments then, hey?

Yes, he's a human being. Or at least I assume. (I still harbour a deep suspicion that this entire site is a scheme put together by my wife to keep me out of her hair and that you are all fictional. )

You are a master of facts, but in this case it's more a question of interpretation. I don't doubt Charles' objectivity because I know he thinks about these things a lot. I don't agree with the outcome but I would rather put up with being on the losing end of a judgement call than to have to do his job.

[waldo]

(I still harbour a deep suspicion that this entire site is a scheme put together by my wife to keep me out of her hair and that you are all fictional. )

can't let this go! I said recently that I thought MLW started out as a poli-sci project at the University of Lethbridge... perhaps its shifted over to the psych department now with most members simply being manufactured artificial stimuli to 'feed' the real lab rats... those still around anyways!

[Michael Hardner]

perhaps its shifted over to the psych department now with most members simply being manufactured artificial stimuli to 'feed' the real lab rats

Funnay. But still hits the mark over here.

[cybercoma]

(I still harbour a deep suspicion that this entire site is a scheme put together by my wife to keep me out of her hair and that you are all fictional. )

CODE RED! CODE RED! Send in the white vans!

[Michael Hardner]

Whoa. A red and white national bank ad appeared just below your warning.

[bleeding heart]

Cybercoma's a planted Ad Man.

I remember Don Draper didn't care for such antics, but his underlings proved to him the effectiveness of it.

[waldo]

another stoopid (f'n biased) so-called "moderation" ruling! I actually take the trouble (twice) of copying multiple posts from multiple members from a thread they didn't belong in... to an appropriate concurrently running thread where they did belong. And I get a warning for supposedly, in that mix, as succintly stated, commiting an "off topic / thread jacking" violation. WTF!

Edited May 2, 2014 by waldo

[betsy]

another stoopid (f'n biased) so-called "moderation" ruling! I actually take the trouble (twice) of copying multiple posts from multiple members from a thread they didn't belong in... to an appropriate concurrently running thread where they did belong. And I get a warning for supposedly, in that mix, as succintly stated, commiting an "off topic / thread jacking" violation. WTF!

I did the same.

A thread was getting off-topic, so I created a separate thread for the off-topic issue (which was also interesting).

As an OP, I copied and pasted the post from the old thread......explained and gave the source or which topic it came from.

I think I also pasted and posted a few posts that talked about the off-topic .......

..........TO SHOW THE ORIGIN AND THE HISTORY of the new topic thread - thereby showing how it came about!

Like it or not, THOSE TWO THREADS ARE SOMEHOW RELATED!

Furthermore....

Browsers who may've been interested in that issue may find the other thread interesting, too!

Well, somebody must've reported that new thread to Greg because I got a note from him berating me about multiple quotes! I wrote back and explained:

"Sorry about that. The subject about the definition of an atheist had somehow hijacked the other topic (Prayer )....the discussion was getting interesting, so I created the new thread (posting the discussion pertaining to it). I thought I was helping out Mapleleaf by not bothering you guys and doing the works myself of transferring the exchanges from that thread to the new one."

He responded by instructing that I should just start a new thread (and should've informed members from the old thread that I'm starting this new one!). Well, this is his site....if he doesn't see that as any help at all, that's fine.

However.....I don't know if it's just coincidental, but on that same day when he berated me, his update message read: "That took care of the troll." Or something like that. Well at least Greg responded openly to the board, and gave who'd complained the satisfaction of knowing whoever the troll was had been dealt with.

Who was that troll? Moi? For what? For doing what I did? EXCUSE ME?

I thought I was doing MLF a favor by thinking about, and taking into consideration the interest of the browsers! :angry:

I now cringe at reading that seemingly grovelling reply I've written back! I feel stupid for responding to that pm the way I did! I should've shot back and explained in details why I did what I did - which is, for the benefit of the browsers!....AND GUESTS! And banned be damned!

If those who complained think ( and that includes Greg for the way he acted upon it based on complaints), that I was doing it for the posters I was debating with....think again!

As you probably noticed, numbers of guests browsing is very important to me!

Edited May 2, 2014 by betsy

[Bryan]

I don't doubt Charles' objectivity because I know he thinks about these things a lot. I don't agree with the outcome but I would rather put up with being on the losing end of a judgement call than to have to do his job.

I don't question his objectivity either, just his judgement. Like you, I would not want to do his job either. That said, as I said to him a couple of days ago, it almost seems lately that his actual objective is to drive as many people away as possible.

[cybercoma]

another stoopid (f'n biased) so-called "moderation" ruling! I actually take the trouble (twice) of copying multiple posts from multiple members from a thread they didn't belong in... to an appropriate concurrently running thread where they did belong. And I get a warning for supposedly, in that mix, as succintly stated, commiting an "off topic / thread jacking" violation. WTF!

oh, you mean the post where you specifically said the thing being discussed was off topic and should be taken to the other thread?

[cybercoma]

I like how waldo goes out of his way to copy posts from the wrong thread into the right thread to avoid drift that was happening and gets a month long suspension for it. That right there is why people are frustrated with the moderating around here. Blatant and obvious trolling gets a pass. Someone who's involved in an off-topic discussion, but tries to move the conversation to the right place gets thrown in the cooler for a month.

[OftenWrong]

I don't think it was done out of malice

[WestCoastRunner]

I like how waldo goes out of his way to copy posts from the wrong thread into the right thread to avoid drift that was happening and gets a month long suspension for it. That right there is why people are frustrated with the moderating around here. Blatant and obvious trolling gets a pass. Someone who's involved in an off-topic discussion, but tries to move the conversation to the right place gets thrown in the cooler for a month.

I saw that too. I thought it was great for him to do that. Took a bit of work and time. I don't get why that would cause a suspension?