Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[?Impact]

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

I apologize, I have normalized my entry above.

[dialamah]

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?

Why is it difficult for you to understand that to me, your signature comes off as an insult to anyone who considers themselves "left". It specifically ascribes a negative (ie: bad) characteristic to anyone of a particular group. Whether the original speaker is on or off this site is irrelevant; you have still *chosen* to use it here to say something about every single person who happens to be on the left side of the political spectrum.

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.

*shrugs* I see no substantive difference between his post and your signature. They both talk about a specific group, and use negative terms to define that group.

Edited to add: Actually, the major difference between the two is that you think you are being lumped in with the targeted group in BG's post, but the your signature targets a group you don't consider yourself part of.

Edited August 14, 2016 by dialamah

[Big Guy]

I assume that the kind of dialogue that takes place here daily, regarding immigrants and Muslims, would not take place in public or socially with friends and family present. One of the advantages and disadvantages of these boards is that you are anonymous and therefore not responsible for your statements. That is why these boards can become a cesspool of racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and any kind of prejudice.

People who use these boards for that purpose are cowards. They are afraid to take the responsibility for their stated views.

There are many impressionable people who read these boards and cannot discern the difference between the "make believe" of anonymous interaction and the reality of responsibility for your statements.

That is why I comment how I do. My personal standards are that I would not post anything here which I would not post under my real name to the "letters to the editor" section of printed media.

It is one thing to be proud of being a Canadian and another to demean another nationality, culture or religion. You can do the first without resorting to the other. Racists and bigots will cloak their prejudice in cries of freedom of speech and nationalism tones.

I find racists and bigots fearful people, needing to focus their own shortcomings on some defenseless and identifiable group. To do so under the cloak of anonymity makes them cowards.

That is why I post as I do. This is a virtual reality "social" setting. We are all here by choice and prepared to be heard. I would react the same and make the same statements in a real social setting where I would confront the racist. But that is me.

I do get tired of the whining I see here at times.

If you can't catch - then don't pitch.

Do not confuse quantity of posts with quality of posts. The first requires a lot of free time, the second requires thought, intelligence and knowledge about the issue.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Big Guy

[Argus]

I assume that the kind of dialogue that takes place here daily, regarding immigrants and Muslims, would not take place in public or socially with friends and family present.

And you are, as always, completely wrong. These are the kinds of conversations that take place EVERYWHERE, EVERY DAY across this country.

And I don't notice you giving us your real name and phone number, oh brave one. Let's have em.

[Argus]

Why is it difficult for you to understand that to me, your signature comes off as an insult to anyone who considers themselves "left".

Who appointed you as group spokesman, anyway? I assure you you're wrong. It wouldn't be considered an 'insult' by everyone on the left. Not everyone on the left is, I suppose, as easily offended as you.

*shrugs* I see no substantive difference between his post and your signature. They both talk about a specific group, and use negative terms to define that group.

The first talks about an anonymous group, the second is specific to the people discussing a specific topic. The first doesn't disrupt any conversation, the second most definitely did.

[Hal 9000]

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.

Well, maybe we should clear up the misunderstandings by naming who those people are. We can also ask all the posters who self identify with being homophobes and misogynysts too.

I'm gonna say right here, I feel offended and attacked when i'm called racist, homophobe, bigot or misogynyst.

[Hal 9000]

"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 !

Another cop out.

If I say something about a topic, all one has to do to insult or troll me is say "you people are racist" instead of "you're a racist" and all is good? That's laughable!

[Argus]

If I say something about a topic, all one has to do to insult or troll me is say "you people are racist" instead of "you're a racist" and all is good? That's laughable!

I agree. It is clearly a directed insult, though directed at ALL other participants on one side of a discussion as opposed to a specific individual. As such it is actually worse than an insult directed at one person in that it is more likely to derail a topic and create work for the moderators to repeatedly clean up insults and off-topic posts.

[dialamah]

It is clearly a directed insult, though directed at ALL other participants on one side of a discussion as opposed to a specific individual. As such it is actually worse than an insult directed at one person in that it is more likely to derail a topic and create work for the moderators to repeatedly clean up insults and off-topic posts.

You mean like this:

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — (the participants on one side of a discussion)

and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” (the insult).

I find your stance on this quite hypocritical, Argus.

[Big Guy]

.... These are the kinds of conversations that take place EVERYWHERE, EVERY DAY across this country.

And I don't notice you giving us your real name and phone number, oh brave one. Let's have em.

Yes these kind of conversations do take place - usually in meetings of like minded individuals like different "Heritage" groups. Some of them wear pillow cases and others wear leathers with the tetraskelion. These bigots are getting their due. People who find your kind of views outrageous and distasteful will tell you and then shame you with their points of view. You post your real name and address as verified by the mods and I will do the same. Many of my posts here have already been published under my name. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The cowards have a lot be be ashamed about.

Just quit your continuous whining. You seem very prepared to pitch but you certainly can't catch. Always whining to the mods for help and reporting anything that "offends" you should give you an idea that you got problems.

Remember, there is a big difference between quality and quantity.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[Charles Anthony]

You post your real name and address as verified by the mods and I will do the same.

No.

Keep your private information to yourselves.

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?

Yes, really.

Nobody is obligated to respond to anybody else's posts.

If you get offended by a member's post, report it and ignore it.

If you do not get offended by a member's post, you have a choice: ignore it or respond to it. If you choose to respond to a post, follow the forum rules and guidelines.

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.

--- because the disruptive behavior had stopped.

[Argus]

You mean like this:

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — (the participants on one side of a discussion)

and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” (the insult).

I find your stance on this quite hypocritical, Argus.

You can find it whatever you want. You're clearly of the 'easily offended' camp. The point is that is a quote directed at no one in particular here, nor at 'the participants in one side of a discussion' while the other definitely is, which is why it was used in that particular thread. And btw what is the insult anyway? That liberals are offended by other points of view? Yet here you are offended by another point of view.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Suggesting ? In fact, you have posted that other members are straight up "trolls" without qualification. The mods are now deleting such posts.

[Argus]

Yes these kind of conversations do take place - usually in meetings of like minded individuals like different "Heritage" groups. Some of them wear pillow cases and others wear leathers with the tetraskelion.

What sheer ignorance. Do you even live in this country? Such conversations take place at work, at restaurants and at homes across the country by young and old, people who are conservative, liberal and NDP, by people who don't like some of the things they see and hear. Your bizarre extremist position seems weirdly divorced from the reality of everyday life in Canada.

Just as a start, to your mind supporting a ban on the niqab is akin to burning crosses on lawns, yet every poll showed HUGE support.

Support was highest in Quebec at 93 per cent and lowest in British Columbia at 72 per cent.

Do you actually think all these people wear sheets and burn crosses? Do you have any idea how incredibly loonie that is?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/majority-of-canadians-support-conservatives-niqab-ban-poll-finds

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus

[dialamah]

You can find it whatever you want. You're clearly of the 'easily offended' camp. The point is that is a quote directed at no one in particular here, nor at 'the participants in one side of a discussion' while the other definitely is, which is why it was used in that particular thread. And btw what is the insult anyway? That liberals are offended by other points of view? Yet here you are offended by another point of view.

Not really offended, Argus. Right now, I'm actually pretty amused by the way in which you keep insisting your signature doesn't target a specific group (liberals) with being hypocrites (offended by other points of view which they claim to welcome). In your world, apparently, it's ok to state that liberals are hypocrites, whilst for some reason it's unacceptable for BG to state that some particular group is racist. Do you ever get a headache squirming around what you say and what you want to believe about yourself?

[Argus]

--- because the disruptive behavior had stopped.

Huh? Excuse my confusion. It seems to me that if an off-topic post disrupts a discussion the first post you delete is that one, but instead you deleted a bunch of responses, leaving that one in place, which caused more disruption, so you had to go back and delete a bunch more posts, while leaving that one in place.

I don't like to belabour the point, but I try to figure out what the rules are and thought I had a reasonable grasp on them and clearly I was wrong. Disruptive, off-topic posts are okay sometimes for a reason I haven't yet figured out.

[Argus]

Not really offended, Argus. Right now, I'm actually pretty amused by the way in which you keep insisting your signature doesn't target a specific group (liberals) with being hypocrites (offended by other points of view which they claim to welcome). In your world, apparently, it's ok to state that liberals are hypocrites, whilst for some reason it's unacceptable for BG to state that some particular group is racist. Do you ever get a headache squirming around what you say and what you want to believe about yourself?

It doesn't target anyone specific HERE, which is the point. As has already been pointed out, people say insulting things about conservatives and liberals and environmentalists Americans and others all the time and it's permitted. What isn't supposed to be permitted is saying insulting things about people you're having a discussion with because it disrupts the discussion.

And you most clearly ARE easily offended by a simple sig, and not even a particularly insulting one.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus

[Big Guy]

I suggest that "the easily offended" are those who keep complaining and reporting "offending" posts. The biggest whiner is also the greatest cheap shot artist who cannot take or accept criticism.

There is a big difference between whiner and winner.

Whiners are the opposite of winners.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Big Guy

[Guest]

No, the easily offended are those who cannot tolerate the airing of views that they agree with, but don't like to see aired.

For instance, the accusations of racism, bigotry and xenophobia tossed around on here are only very rarely in response to those things. They are instead, usually, in response to a view that is simply disagreed with, (also rare) or a view that is agreed with, but it would be much better if everyone just kept quiet and pretended it wasn't so. Because they are offended by them.

Edited August 14, 2016 by bcsapper

[Hal 9000]

No.

Keep your private information to yourselves.

Yes, really.

Nobody is obligated to respond to anybody else's posts.

If you get offended by a member's post, report it and ignore it.

If you do not get offended by a member's post, you have a choice: ignore it or respond to it. If you choose to respond to a post, follow the forum rules and guidelines.

--- because the disruptive behavior had stopped.

Why would I (or anybody) report a post with where they are called a racist if you're just going to assume that some people (can't imagine who) don't mind the tag. You're clearly giving an out to those people who choose to hurl insults while making it impossible for us to defend ourselves.

Good grief! I saw one person make a one word post - simply "bigot", I waited about an hour before saying the post was F*(Kd up and within 2 minutes (no exaggeration) MH had given me a 31 day suspension. Now I get it, you mods don't care about trolls, just people responding to trolls.

I think maybe I'll just start hurling "Feminizi" and "loonie lefties" every time I disagree with a post because hey, agitating is acceptable behaviour.

[Argus]

I suggest that "the easily offended"

I bet you thought this self-righteous declaration would ensure nobody noticed you didn't answer the questions. I bet you figured they wouldn't get that you had no idea HOW to answer the questions and so decided to avoid it by making a self-righteous declaration.

I don't think it's working.

So tell us, Big Guy, are the people who want to ban the wearing of the niqab racists? Yes or no. One syllable word. Go for it.

[Argus]

Good grief! I saw one person make a one word post - simply "bigot", I waited about an hour before saying the post was F*(Kd up and within 2 minutes (no exaggeration) MH had given me a 31 day suspension.

Wow. There's no way that deserved a suspension. In fact, the only thing wrong with it was it used an obscenity. But I don't remember anyone ever being suspended for a month for using an obscenity.

[?Impact]

But I don't remember anyone ever being suspended for a month for using an obscenity.

How long do I get for using every one of George Carlin's list in a single post?

[Big Guy]

I bet you thought this self-righteous declaration would ensure nobody noticed you didn't answer the questions. I bet you figured they wouldn't get that you had no idea HOW to answer the questions and so decided to avoid it by making a self-righteous declaration.

I don't think it's working.

So tell us, Big Guy, are the people who want to ban the wearing of the niqab racists? Yes or no. One syllable word. Go for it.

Answer - why? So you can go on another tirade. Why would you deserve an answer to any question? I am certainly not answerable to you.

I answer when, how and whom I choose and/or respect. You don't qualify.

Just keep whining, complaining and reporting. That appears to be one of the few areas on here in which you excel.

BTW - Why are you so irritating and insulting to people? Do you think that people who want to ban the wearing of a niqab to be exhibiting racist qualities?

On second thought - do not reply. I really do not care.

[Spiderfish]

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.

Would you not interpret someone who flat-out accuses a specific poster of having a "dislike of immigrants and a fear what they will do to their country" under the guise of "the old discussion of immigration and integrating newcomers excuse" an accusation of racism? It seemed pretty clear to me... just saying.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Spiderfish