Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Argus]

There are indeed posters who admit to being racist, and they represent the exception to the "racist = insult rule". It's still a derailment if you bring that term into the discussion where it doesn't belong but an admitted racist can be called a racist without insulting them.

Yes, that is my understanding of the rules here. That is why I remain confused as to why a post interrupting a discussion to proclaim all those on one side are racists was not deemed a derailment and removed. Especially since the moderator then had to remove a number of followup back and forth insults on the new topic of who was and wasn't a racist.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not sure which post you are speaking of. It's possible it was missed, or that the so-called insult was not specific to a poster.

This happens all the time, ie.

"Right-wingers are ...."

"Progressives on MLW are..."

"Racist posters on here say..."

"The anti-semites on this board..."

These are more like blanket generalizations and are not specific to any one poster on MLW. When somebody qualifies them with something like "such as you" then it becomes a specific insult.

These statements are general, as I say, and undefined so while they aren't usually useful opinions to the discussion they aren't always considered trolling or insults.

If you see something that is an insult, report it and move on and we will decide. It's often a grey area so you may not be satisfied with the result. If you choose to respond to an insult, then you are engaging with it and acknowledging it rather than reporting it. Reporting an insult AND responding to it doesn't make sense: by responding, you acknowledge that the insult is part of the discussion so the report can be seen as moot.

[GostHacked]

I had a post removed and no warning point and no indication from moderation it was removed.

[Michael Hardner]

I had a post removed and no warning point and no indication from moderation it was removed.

Yes, we will do this for posts that are obvious trolls, insults, drive-bys, or no content. If there is any substance to the post we will cut/paste them and PM you with the content to repost without the insult part.

If you can tell me which thread it was on/when it happened I can look at it and tell you what happened. Again, there are grey areas here but if you post a one-word reply or somesuch it shouldn't be a surprise that it's removed. But sometimes we forget to cut/paste substantive posts back to you - apologies if that happened.

[Michael Hardner]

Some examples of such posts here:

"All your posts are trolls anyway"

"I'm not replying to you"

"Drivel"

"Typical garbage from you"

Posts like that will just be hidden/removed and that shouldn't be a surprise.

[Michael Hardner]

I was curious, so I scrolled back and found some posts of yours and others that were hidden in June - a bunch of them - that were indeed substantive but part of a thread drift. In that case, the moderator posted on the thread that the drifted posts were removed and reminded folks to stay on topic.

Gost, if you are talking about something that happened before June then send me the link and I will investigate for you.

Thanks !

[poochy]

There are indeed posters who admit to being racist, and they represent the exception to the "racist = insult rule". It's still a derailment if you bring that term into the discussion where it doesn't belong but an admitted racist can be called a racist without insulting them.

That's a cop out that perhaps allows your personal biases to be satisfied, the vast majority do not want to be racists or be called racists. Nor in fact does discussing the realities of cultural or religious differences automatically make them so, no matter what you or the rabble here may think about it. Yelling racist all of the time is ridiculous and should be stopped, there are legitimately stupid people posting here, in the same vein, it should be ok to tell them they are.

[poochy]

But you are judging people's intellect and throwing out insults based on your judgement. Do you not see the problem?

You seem to think that we are all equal, we aren't, he is right, shall i make you a list?

If I can't point out how utterly stupid someone is surely some troll should not be able to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater every time he/she can't make a reasonable argument about why the movie sucks. But as usual, because that argument is the 'progressive crutch' argument, it gets a free pass.

[Hal 9000]

If you encounter trolling, report it and ignore it.

If everybody ignores it then there is no need for moderator intervention.

Why is this so complicated??

Not everybody is insulted by being called a racist. Calling somebody racist does not automatically spell the derailment of a discussion.

"Not everybody is insulted by being called a racist. Calling somebody racist does not automatically spell the derailment of a discussion."

What? Huh? Really? I had to read this a couple times jus to be sure I wasn't missing something. If the moderators don't feel that having someone tell them that they are racist is insulting, it's no wonder there is so much chaos here. If calling someone racist is not insulting, then calling them bigot, homophobe and misogynist can't really be insulting either - because they are all hatred of a certain group for no logical reason.

​What we're left with is a forum where people on the right can say something and be freely shouted down as being "racist" or any other of the above words without repercussion. In fact, we have a system that when/if we do respond to those insults (yes, I'll call them insults) by suggesting that person is trolling, it's us that gets the infraction.

Nice job, Mods!

[Argus]

I am not sure which post you are speaking of. It's possible it was missed, or that the so-called insult was not specific to a poster.

Even it was not 'specific to a poster' it was certainly aimed at other posters, and was designed to derail the topic. Posts which derail conversation are, by the long used definition of the moderators here, trolling, and should be removed. Or am I mistaken?

Here is the post. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25975-accommodating-malefemale-segregation-for-muslims/page-4#entry1178136

[dialamah]

"Not everybody is insulted by being called a racist. Calling somebody racist does not automatically spell the derailment of a discussion."

What? Huh? Really? I had to read this a couple times jus to be sure I wasn't missing something. If the moderators don't feel that having someone tell them that they are racist is insulting, it's no wonder there is so much chaos here. If calling someone racist is not insulting, then calling them bigot, homophobe and misogynist can't really be insulting either - because they are all hatred of a certain group for no logical reason.

​What we're left with is a forum where people on the right can say something and be freely shouted down as being "racist" or any other of the above words without repercussion. In fact, we have a system that when/if we do respond to those insults (yes, I'll call them insults) by suggesting that person is trolling, it's us that gets the infraction.

Nice job, Mods!

I think it works like this: Someone has to *agree* to be called a racist (or whatever else) - it's not a blank cheque to call everyone names. For instance, if I were to phrase a remark in such a way that your response was "I don't care if you call me a racist (or whatever else)", then after that I and anyone else, could call you racist whenever.

What I'm confused about is why anyone would feel 'shouted down' by being called a name in a discussion forum. Why aren't I as entitled to my opinion that you (generic, not specific) are expressing racist remarks as you are to your opinion that you are not? I get that it's annoying for some numbskull on an internet forum to impugn your fine character, but in the end it's a bunch of strangers opining on something they know nothing about, namely you.

[dialamah]

Even it was not 'specific to a poster' it was certainly aimed at other posters, and was designed to derail the topic. Posts which derail conversation are, by the long used definition of the moderators here, trolling, and should be removed. Or am I mistaken?

Here is the post. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25975-accommodating-malefemale-segregation-for-muslims/page-4#entry1178136

He can post like that for the same reason you can run a signature that calls liberals hypocrites. I don't consider myself a hypocrite, and I know perfectly well that signature is directed at people who believe as I do, so you are essentially calling me a 'hypocrite'. Big Guy's post is non-specific, but you know perfectly well he's calling people who believe similarly to yourself "racists".

See how that works?

Edited August 14, 2016 by dialamah

[Argus]

IWhat I'm confused about is why anyone would feel 'shouted down' by being called a name in a discussion forum. Why aren't I as entitled to my opinion that you (generic, not specific) are expressing racist remarks as you are to your opinion that you are not?

You are. And you are allowed to state that "I think those remarks are racist in nature because..." as part of a discussion. The other party can then say why they don't believe those remarks or that position is racist "because..." What you are not allowed to do is say "You are a racist!" That changes the discussion away from what is the actual topic and makes it the morality or supposed morality of your interlocutor. You can no more do this than I can say "You are a moron." And no, it doesn't matter if you give reasons. You can, however, say "that is a moronic position" - I believe. Though that can depend on the mood of the moderator. I was once given a warning point for calling a post (not the poster) dumb.

[Hal 9000]

I think it works like this: Someone has to *agree* to be called a racist (or whatever else) - it's not a blank cheque to call everyone names. For instance, if I were to phrase a remark in such a way that your response was "I don't care if you call me a racist (or whatever else)", then after that I and anyone else, could call you racist whenever.

What I'm confused about is why anyone would feel 'shouted down' by being called a name in a discussion forum. Why aren't I as entitled to my opinion that you (generic, not specific) are expressing racist remarks as you are to your opinion that you are not? I get that it's annoying for some numbskull on an internet forum to impugn your fine character, but in the end it's a bunch of strangers opining on something they know nothing about, namely you.

WCR sarcastically called herself a "man hating feminist nazi" just the other day, can I call her that from now until the end of time or would I get an inflation for using that term against her? I would bet that if I called her that name, I'd be taking a month off from this site.

[Michael Hardner]

That's a cop out that perhaps allows your personal biases to be satisfied, the vast majority do not want to be racists or be called racists. Nor in fact does discussing the realities of cultural or religious differences automatically make them so, no matter what you or the rabble here may think about it. Yelling racist all of the time is ridiculous and should be stopped, there are legitimately stupid people posting here, in the same vein, it should be ok to tell them they are.

Yes, it is not allowed to call a person a racist unless they are fine with being called such.

Calling somebody stupid is an obvious insult - not allowed.

[Michael Hardner]

If the moderators don't feel that having someone tell them that they are racist is insulting, it's no wonder there is so much chaos here. If calling someone racist is not insulting, then calling them bigot, homophobe and misogynist can't really be insulting either - because they are all hatred of a certain group for no logical reason.

​What we're left with is a forum where people on the right can say something and be freely shouted down as being "racist" or any other of the above words without repercussion. In fact, we have a system that when/if we do respond to those insults (yes, I'll call them insults) by suggesting that person is trolling, it's us that gets the infraction.

You seem to have misunderstood.

'Racist' is an insult, unless the person who is tagged as such is ok with it. Believe it or not, there are posters that are ok with it.

[Argus]

He can post like that for the same reason you can run a signature that calls liberals hypocrites. I don't consider myself a hypocrite, and I know perfectly well that signature is directed at people who believe as I do, so you are essentially calling me a 'hypocrite'. Big Guy's post is non-specific, but you know perfectly well he's calling people who believe similarly to yourself "racists".

See how that works?

My signature doesn't call liberals hypocrites. It is merely an expression of the irony of a group of people who like to think of themselves as open minded but who, in the majority of cases, are very easily outraged by expressions of opinion which are not politically correct. It strikes a chord with me because I run into it so very often.

In any event, it is a quote from a man who has never heard of this web site, and is not specifically directed at you or anyone involved in any particular topic or discussion at any given time. That makes it quite a bit different from someone specifically referring to people involved in a discussion and saying "You are racists."

[Michael Hardner]

Even it was not 'specific to a poster' it was certainly aimed at other posters, and was designed to derail the topic. Posts which derail conversation are, by the long used definition of the moderators here, trolling, and should be removed. Or am I mistaken?

Here is the post. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25975-accommodating-malefemale-segregation-for-muslims/page-4#entry1178136

Yes, but the grey area is in generalizations....

If you feel that saying "Leftists posters on here..." is an insult, then don't use it/report it when other people use it.

[Michael Hardner]

WCR sarcastically called herself a "man hating feminist nazi" just the other day, can I call her that from now until the end of time or would I get an inflation for using that term against her? I would bet that if I called her that name, I'd be taking a month off from this site.

Pretty obviously not, since you recognize that it was sarcastic.

[Michael Hardner]

... specifically referring to people involved in a discussion and saying "You are racists."

"You are racists" .... we're in a grey area:

"You right wingers are racists" - Which ones ? Who ? What does racist mean ?

"You are a racist" .... targeted at a specific poster, pretty clear insult.

That's the general view, which I have provided for the edification of those who care. This isn't law, and we are not judges, and we can't be expected to prescribe every rule for every context so please don't expect the human moderators to be 100% perfect.

Thanks for posting !

[dialamah]

My signature doesn't call liberals hypocrites. It is merely an expression of the irony of a group of people who like to think of themselves as open minded but who, in the majority of cases, are very easily outraged by expressions of opinion which are not politically correct. It strikes a chord with me because I run into it so very often.

In any event, it is a quote from a man who has never heard of this web site, and is not specifically directed at you or anyone involved in any particular topic or discussion at any given time. That makes it quite a bit different from someone specifically referring to people involved in a discussion and saying "You are racists."

I think the quote insults anyone who considers themselves left and you do not. Fair enough.

What is your problem with Big Guys post, then? There are plenty of people on this forum who behave exactly as he has posted. He hasn't named any of them, merely remarked on what he runs across so often.

[Argus]

Yes, but the grey area is in generalizations....

"You are racists" is not a generalization.

[Argus]

I think the quote insults anyone who considers themselves left and you do not. Fair enough.

I think I pointed out the vast difference between quoting someone external to this site, and pompously declaring everyone involved in a discussion who disagrees with you is a racist. Why is this difficult to understand?

What is your problem with Big Guys post, then?

Aside from it being preposterously idiotic to state people opposed to separating boys and girls are racist? It was off topic and certain to disrupt and sidetrack the discussion, which has always been, as far as I'm aware, the primary reason why moderators will delete a post.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

Aside from it being preposterously idiotic to state people opposed to separating boys and girls are racist?

Context is always important. Are you suggesting co-ed bathrooms, co-ed gym classes, etc? If someone was suggesting getting rid of all segregation then it would be one thing, but if they were only suggesting a certain kind of segregation supported by an identifiable group is wrong then it would be a problem.

Edited August 14, 2016 by ?Impact

[Argus]

Context is always important. Are you suggesting co-ed bathrooms, co-ed gym classes, etc?

I\m not going to discuss that topic in this thread. You are well aware of the context.