Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[WestCoastRunner]

I don't share your opinion on his comments, or at least some of them.

However he does contribute a significant amount, I may not get the same out of it as you do, but we do agree on a couple points here.

WWWTT

I don't think it matters if you agree with me or not or if you get the same out of it as I do. The point is that we both agree the suspension was extreme.

[WWWTT]

I don't think it matters if you agree with me or not or if you get the same out of it as I do. The point is that we both agree the suspension was extreme.

Oh ya we both agree the suspension was too long.

The point I was making is that even if I don't get the same out of waldo's posts as you do, I still can see others do.

WWWTT

[Bob Macadoo]

It does seem extreme to me, especially when Waldo contributes great value to the threads he participates in. There is a risk of a member leaving when faced with a suspension of that duration. I would be disappointed to not have Waldo's well researched contributions to this forum. I look forward to reading his posts because they are credible, interesting and I learn from them.

It also influences others on this forum of the value of this conversation and whether that Justin Beiber forum is looking better and better everyday.

[Smallc]

Waldo isn't conductive ti civil conversation generally. It's because of his posting style (and it's intentional)...though I'm not sure why he was suspended this time.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think you're letting your past experience with waldo influence you.

The moderation here is taking a different approach, more favourable and lenient on the posters.

1 month in my opinion is too strict!

That's fine, but by your very own words the suspension was more lenient compared to the previous (typical) 90 day "vacation" for rules violations by longstanding members who should know better by now. One month is "lenient" IMHO.

[betsy]

it sounds like it was merged ...

No. It wasn't merged. It was removed for no justifiable reason.

[betsy]

No - not always. Posts aren't normally removed though.

Mine was a WHOLE TOPIC that was removed. With no notification or explanation from CA.

When asked why he removed the thread - he can't even personally explain, but instead said something like, "for reasons already cited by some posters."

If the moderator is going to throw out a topic that was carefully thought out and composed by a poster, not to mention the time she spent doing it - - even if you don't agree with it - at least show some courtesy to explain why.

Like any parents to children - since posters here were oft likened to children - moderators should be the model of good examples.

Edited May 4, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

I think you're letting your past experience with waldo influence you.

The moderation here is taking a different approach, more favourable and lenient on the posters.

1 month in my opinion is too strict!

WWWTT

Who knows, Waldo might find a better substitute for this forum while he's on a long break. If they think all posters who do time just twiddle their thumbs sweating it out waiting for their parole, huh they better think again. Maybe that's why others left - after their long suspensions. They spent the time searching! What better way to get something done when one is forced to out of desperation?

That's how I ended up finding another forum! Thanks to my month-long suspension!

I've always thought that there are hardly any good forums out there (because I was so used to MLF) - lo and behold, how ignorantly wrong I was.

Edited May 4, 2014 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

If the moderator is going to throw out a topic that was carefully thought out and composed by a poster, not to mention the time she spent doing it - - even if you don't agree with it - at least show some courtesy to explain why.

I think that is explained above.

[betsy]

I think that is explained above.

I don't think so. He talked LOOSELY about "cut and paste". That removed topic was not a cut-and-paste. I already explained what it was about.

Why don't you bring up that deleted topic and let's see for ourselves.

Is it possible to resurrect deleted threads/topics, btw?

We're all airing out here and putting things on the table. I think it best for the board that we do not try to downplay complaints, or attempt to shove things under the rug. That's not progressive.

Edited May 4, 2014 by betsy

[OftenWrong]

I don't think so. He talked LOOSELY about "cut and paste". That removed topic was not a cut-and-paste. I already explained what it was about.

Why remove the topic without even giving the poster an explanation? Or better yet, why not go to the original poster and tell them what the problem is, give them a chance to fix it first.

Seems like this top-heavy moderation without explanation leaves users with a feeling that they are not appreciated. Reminds me of an unhappy, arrogant school teacher who hates her job.

The job of moderator cannot be fun, when dealing with immature posters all the time. It takes a special person to be able to do this. I don't think your moderator has the patience or interest anymore. A person in that role needs to ask themselves if the job they're doing is helping or not, based on the feedback from forum users. If not, it's time to offer up the position and see if anyone else wants to try it. It's a hard job and thankless, I'm sure, but think about what's best in the interest of the forum you are moderating.

[WWWTT]

That's fine, but by your very own words the suspension was more lenient compared to the previous (typical) 90 day "vacation" for rules violations by longstanding members who should know better by now. One month is "lenient" IMHO.

Didn't know there was a 90 day suspension. That's harsh!

WWWTT

[Argus]

His overall nastiness is the problem. If he woudl learn to be civil, as say Cybercoma usually is I'd have no problem with him.

Yes, but he wasn't suspended for nastiness. I too, would like to know what rules was broken in this case.

[Argus]

Posts don't usually get removed by the mods unless they're beyond-the-pale offensive. I can't think of examples where this happens, off the top of my head.

Edited to add: You used the term offensive, by the way, not anyone else. It's an insult, though, as per the rules. Right ?

Well, he removed mine on that Afghani thread. He said so not far back on this one. You were the only one who had replied to it and didn't sound particularly scandalized.

[WWWTT]

I've always thought that there are hardly any good forums out there (because I was so used to MLF) - lo and behold, how ignorantly wrong I was.

I don't think you can blame MLW for not looking for other forums more suited for your debate.

WWWTT

[Argus]

... is a no-no but "...beating their twelve year old wives, and killing anyone who suggests they might do things differently." is a legit statement. Uh... OK. Maybe I am too politically correct to see the difference.

I apologize. You changed my mind on this one.

As I said earlier, there is a purpose behind not allowing people to write such things as "all liberals are pedophiles". It inevitably leads to flamewars because a good number of people here self-identify with the Liberal Party and would rightly be angered. Same goes for Cons.

But denigrating Afghan cultural traits is in something of a different category. Yes, it's insulting to Afghanis,though let's face it, child brides are harldy rare there, and wife beating is endemic, and those are things which deserve pretty severe condemntation. But the point is it's not going to engender a flamewar. It's probably not even going to draw a disagreement.

Moderation is not here to stop third parties from being offended or insulted. It's here to allow for a reasonable level of discussion and discourse, hopefully as free of intimidation and flames as possible. Add in a requirement to make sure the site doesn't get sued, and that should pretty much be it.

I also think that it would be simpler and less offensive to ask members to change wording at times rather than simply anger them. As an example, my suspension for blaming the economic issues at a native reserve on "the dumbass natives".

Okay, the term dumbass is an insult, but really, it's pretty minor. What got me suspended was saying "dumbass natives". If I'd instead said "Dumbass locals" or "Dumbass local council" or even "dumbass native concil" I doubt there'd have been much of an issue. It being fairly clear I wasn't referring to all natives, a simple request to edit the post would have sufficed.

[Argus]

Charles, I can tell that you want to explain the thinking behind your actions and I somewhat understand why. Many on here don't realize, as I do, the thinking you put into moderation.

My experience, though, tells me that explaining your moderating actions only invites more arguments from some members and ultimately doesn't satisfy people, since they are naturaly argumentative and want to debate the merits of the moderating. What ends up happening is the threads about moderation become more popular than the actual discussions.

Who cares what threads become popular? At least this thread actually involves the possibilty of affecting something.

Your attitude is kind of surprising, to be honest. "Don't bother to explain to the ignorant masses why they're being punished" is rather flabbergasting given your role here.

Explaining moderation might not always satisfy the individual concerned but if it makes sense most everyone else will accept it. And everyone gets more frustrated by being punished without known cause then for doing something where they know what rule they broke.

To go back to earlier analogies comparing moderation to traffic cops, what you're suggesting is the cop should pull you over and give you a ticket, but not tell you why.

"What did I do wrong, constable?"

"None of your freaking business. Just pay the fine."

Not exactly good governance.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

My experience tells me that the membership doesn't feel better about moderation, as it opens the inherent disagreements to extended and indeed interminable debate with no posisble end to it. In the end, I feel that the volunteer moderator ends up feeling quite beat up from having to add to the extensive time spent moderating, with more time defending himself.

In the end, unfortunately, the result is that you lose the moderator - and then the forum. That's the path I see, going forward that way.

Extensive time spend moderating? How extensive? It doesn't seem to me like it would be that big a deal.

Yes, I can see why the moderator might, in this thread, feel beat up, but when has moderation ever been truly thrashed out so we understand it? Even us long time members don't get it. It's good to discuss these things, at least, as long as people can keep the discussion from turning into snarling and insults.

[Argus]

This forum wouldn't exist without sensible moderation.

Then it would behoove us to ensure the moderation is as sensible as possible.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Well that's it, really. Your statement reflects a view that there's no value in what he does IMO. Which also explains a culture where people are owed an explanation why someone was given a certain penalty, why wasn't a post removed etc.

Nonsense. I believe there is certainly value in moderation. And given the legal times we live in you're probably correct in that the forum would not last long without moderation (see Freedominion). The days of alt.can.politics, where you could literally say any damned thing you wanted about anyone are long gone.

[Charles Anthony]

"What did I do wrong, constable?"

Ahem: "The same thing you did yesterday and the day before when you got off with just a warning."

Yes, but he wasn't suspended for nastiness. I too, would like to know what rules was broken in this case.

Just ask him. Send him a PM and let him explain.

The post I made a week or so ago that was removed was beyond-the-pale offensive? Really?

No. It was image trolling. I opened it up again for all to see. It was taken down for the same reason your previous image was taken down: obvious image trolling. Whatever message you were trying to convey, you could have more aptly conveyed in the written word. That HUGE photgraph is distracting and obviously ambiguous.

Sure, the picture is funny --- I will grant you that but to the detriment of encouraging other members to respond in kind.

I don't think so. He talked LOOSELY about "cut and paste". That removed topic was not a cut-and-paste. I already explained what it was about.

Why remove the topic without even giving the poster an explanation? Or better yet, why not go to the original poster and tell them what the problem is, give them a chance to fix it first.

We do. In fact, we do so multiple times until we detect a pattern that smells fishy.

After this same thing happens multiple times with the same poster who received the same message multiple times, then we act much differently. Of course, we do not have to intervene.

All members who copy-paste cross-posting stuff are treated with the same leniency until they develop a defiant pattern. Most members who get caught up in this sort of thing stop doing so after being told once or twice privately to stop. What is painted as a one-time fly-off-the-handle moderator intervention is nothing of the sort.

MODERATOR BIAS: Pretending that this is a one-time biased unfair intervention when it is one in a long string of repeat offenses disrespects the other forum members who follow the forum rules humbly and politely.

Why don't you bring up that deleted topic and let's see for ourselves.

Is it possible to resurrect deleted threads/topics, btw?

Sure. Here it is: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22743-earth-a-cocakamamie-story/ --- now open for further on-topic discussion if you want.

This other thread has always been open: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23105-nasas-tetrad-and-the-coming-four-blood-moons/

Compared with: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/apologetics-forum/questions-criticisms-objections-etc-thrown-at-christians/msg1054836609/#msg1054836609 where the thread died on its own without modeerator intervention (Is that what this is all about?) and or: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/the-coming-four-blood-moons-and-nasa%27s-tetrads/60/

Excerpts from the forum rules and guidelines:

No Cross-Posting

Cross posting is defined as posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet. It is also considered cross posting if you post the same information in different areas of these forums. If you want to propose a new topic, find the appropriate category and only post once. All cross-posts will be deleted without warning.

Posting Content

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted. In addition, use the search feature to ensure that the topic you are posting is not already being discussed somewhere else in the forums.

It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact a moderator and request a new thread.

[Argus]

Ok then waldo sent me a message giving me his blessing to openly discuss his case/suspension.

I think that the moderation has acted too harshly and that he should not be suspended for such a long period of time.

I'd like to ask the moderation to reconsider their position.

WWWTT

Waldo sent everyone the same PM I think. :-)

But if the back and forth conversation has been edited in such a way as to change the context than I have no basis upon which to make a decision as to whether the punishment was deserved. Nor have you.

[betsy]

Thank you for resurrecting my deleted topic.

EARTH: A COCKAMAMIE STORY

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22743-earth-a-cocakamamie-story/

One of the replies in that topic complained about Ben Stein's movie being used again.

---------------------

What do you expect to see in Religion Section?

Of course there will be endless topic about Creation....same way that there are endless topics about GAY MARRIAGE vs CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS, or the "insanity" of Religion!

Some issues are controversial that high-traffic forums even created sub-forum out of them! Abortion, as an example. If they want high-traffic - then it only makes sense to let posters discuss it to their hearts' content.

Instead of being so anal and dictatorial about what kind of topics are allowed to get created....perhaps this section (same way they do in other forums) should be protected. Who knows, in the long run it might attract those who enjoy discussing religion.

You want to see new topic titles created all the time. The more there are.....the better. It shows the board is moving. You don't tell people to just add it to an ancient title even if they are talking about the same thing.

Seeing an OP dated 1999 is a big turn off!

AND Stop complaining about the bandwidth!

Edited May 4, 2014 by betsy

[WWWTT]

Waldo sent everyone the same PM I think. :-)

But if the back and forth conversation has been edited in such a way as to change the context than I have no basis upon which to make a decision as to whether the punishment was deserved. Nor have you.

This has become too complex an issue for e to follow, having a bad cough/cold doesn't help either.

I'm stepping away from this one I think.

WWWTT

[betsy]

All members who copy-paste cross-posting stuff are treated with the same leniency until they develop a defiant pattern. Most members who get caught up in this sort of thing stop doing so after being told once or twice privately to stop. What is painted as a one-time fly-off-the-handle moderator intervention is nothing of the sort.

MODERATOR BIAS: Pretending that this is a one-time biased unfair intervention when it is one in a long string of repeat offenses disrespects the other forum members who follow the forum rules humbly and politely.

My previous warnings were about very long copy/pasting of resources. I don't think I'd ever gotten a warning from you about cross-posting. Cross-posting and copy/pasting - from what I understand - are not the same.

This other thread has always been open: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23105-nasas-tetrad-and-the-coming-four-blood-moons/

Perhaps you've allowed that particular thread to exists for the sake of all the trolling and insults that were directed at me?

Why would I be punished for cross-posting, and yet you do not penalize those who posted personal insults and thread derailment in Nasa Tetrad?

Why would it be treated differently from what you've been advising us all along? REPORT AND IGNORE.

You punish those who reported trolling along with the trolls if they engage the trolls in any way, since you say, they end up breaking the rules, too. Isn't that what you've been telling us?

So, why were the trolls at Nasa's Tetrad allowed to break rules?

Who knows why you've allowed that to exist....and not the other. We're left to speculate about your judgement since by allowing Nasa's Tetrad to exist and not Earth: Cockamamie Story - you've made inconsistent judgements.

That's the problem when you don't explain why we're being punished. And for what exactly.

The way you're explaining it to me now.....that's how it should've been done. If you've done that kind of clear explanation with all the others who'd had suspensions - you wouldn't have anyone here wondering and questioning and resenting your moderation - and most importantly, we wouldn't have lost so many good and sensible posters.

You cited copy/paste a while back - well, copy/paste and cross-posting are not the same.

Why didn't you tell me I was committing the crime of cross-posting when I asked you why the thread was removed? Why did it have to come to this point before you explained?

Too bad you didn't spend as much time checking out the threads in this site the same way you did searching for any cross-posting that I'd done.

I still don't know why I got a recent week suspension for rudeness. It's allegedly for being rude in one of the threads in Support Section.

Excerpts from the forum rules and guidelines:

Throwing rules seems kinda lame now, when you've allowed certain individuals to blatantly break rules - personal insults, thread derailment, trolling - for so long. Yes, bias, unfortunately is still on the table.

Here it is:[/url]http://www.mapleleaf...akamamie-story/ --- now open for further on-topic discussion if you want.

No, thanks. I'll pass.

Edited May 4, 2014 by betsy