Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[betsy]

Just for the record, cross-posting was not the reason you gave for deleting my thread.

Charles Anthony, on 03 May 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Your threads were tossed because you were copy-pasting after being warned multiple times to refrain from that.

No, that's not true.

The topic that was deleted featured two different videos (both depicting how life on earth started). I even marked the exact time on the videos that is related to my topic. They were my OP. The whole discussion was about those two videos!

When I asked you on this forum why the thread was deleted, you did not give me any specific reason other than refer to the reasons that were cited by two posters.

Those posters didn't cite cross-posting.

I served a month-long suspension for copy-pasting long material sources, btw. And I don't think I ever did copy/paste long materials after that. I'd found another site by the time my suspension ended, and had become less active on this forum.

I didn't complain about that month-long suspension either - although what length of materials we are allowed to copy-paste is not so clear.

In my view I trimmed what I posted - you should've seen the amount that weren't copy/pasted!

Other forums give posters an idea what length of copy/paste is allowed. That's only fair.

One forum specify the length of three paragraphs, etc.,

Another major reason why I will refrain from discussions in this site is the copy/paste issue.

Most of you guys have an idea how engaged I can be in any heated debates....so, copy/paste is definitely an issue with me.

Citing reliable sources to legitimize or back-up claims is, almost always, a requirement in any serious forums that encourage intelligent discussion.

A lot of serious debators don't want merely giving the url or link to support claims either.

Who can blame them? Who wants to read a whole article?

Copy/pasting the relevant section (and providing the location of said section if it's a lengthy article, and the link) is very much preferred.

Edited May 5, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

Out of curiosity...what is the rationale against cross-posting?

If one is a member of several forums, why shouldn't she post the same topic? Those forums don't have the same members, and a topic is a topic.

Look at it from this perspective: if I can only post my topic once - where would I post it?

What's the criteria for choosing the proper forum to post that topic? Of course the busiest forum will be the priority.

Why place this kind of limit on a board?

Edited May 5, 2014 by betsy

[jbg]

Out of curiosity...what is the rationale against cross-posting?

I received a few warnings against cross-posting. Now I can no longer post personal stuff, such as about family illnesses or deaths, on this Board unless I want it only here. I have a real problem with that and it does reduce my ability to use this Board in a manner that most would deem constructive.

[Michael Hardner]

I received a few warnings against cross-posting. Now I can no longer post personal stuff, such as about family illnesses or deaths, on this Board unless I want it only here. I have a real problem with that and it does reduce my ability to use this Board in a manner that most would deem constructive.

?

You want to post personal stuff here ? Why ?

In any case, you can always reword / restructure your posts so that they're different. I presume you would want your posts to your family to be at least slightly different than what you post here anyway, right ?

[cybercoma]

I thought cross-posting meant posting things between forums. Like for example, posting a topic in both the Federal Politics and Business and Economics forums. Cross-posting isn't posting your own original material on two different message boards. That's stupid. It's your intellectual property to do with as you please. If they're interpreting cross-posting to mean posting the same thing on two different message boards, as opposed to forums on the same message board, then I really disagree with that.

Edited May 5, 2014 by cybercoma

[Greg]

Cross-posting isn't posting your own original material on two different message boards. That's stupid. It's your intellectual property to do with as you please. If they're interpreting cross-posting to mean posting the same thing on two different message boards, as opposed to forums on the same message board, then I really disagree with that.

Yes, cross-posting, as defined by the very clear rules and guidelines for this forum, is "posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet."

If you want to contribute to these forums, you will need to contribute original material; not something you've posted elsewhere. This is a long standing rule that has its roots in the early blogging community - where guest contributors would be invited to guest blog on a particular weblog, on condition that they would only contribute original postings.

It's not a stupid rule just because you disagree with it.

It's a rule that discourages members from being agenda driven mouth pieces who use the forum as a communication outlet, rather than as a place where thoughtful and original discussions take place.

[GostHacked]

Yes, cross-posting, as defined by the very clear rules and guidelines for this forum, is "posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet."

If you want to contribute to these forums, you will need to contribute original material; not something you've posted elsewhere.

Cross posting will always happen. If it is something I am interested in, I will post it here and on another site. There is no stopping it being discussed on both sites. If you hate crossposting, you must loathe the daily MSM news cycle.

So the only thing I do is slightly reword the post. To say that I should post a topic only here and no where else is kind of laughable. I understand why one would think the rule would be good to be in place, but let's be realistic about this.

This is a long standing rule that has its roots in the early blogging community - where guest contributors would be invited to guest blog on a particular weblog, on condition that they would only contribute original postings.

It's not a stupid rule just because you disagree with it.

It's a rule that discourages members from being agenda driven mouth pieces who use the forum as a communication outlet, rather than as a place where thoughtful and original discussions take place.

That does not in no way stop people from being agenda driven mouth pieces on forums. Unless you are willing to track each members posts on other forums, that is going to be a tough task to accomplish. But good luck.

Edited May 5, 2014 by GostHacked

[cybercoma]

Greg, I appreciate your thoroughly antagonistic and condescending response.

There is not another forum on the web that I have been to in the last 20 years that would condemn this kind of thing. If I write an article, an original piece, for somewhere else online, there is absolutely no reason I shouldn't be able to share and discuss it here. If I want to talk about something on both rabble.ca and mapleleafweb.com, then I ought to be able to do that. They're vastly different communities with different interactions. So long as a post is on topic and isn't cut and pasted plagiarism from a journalist or author, I don't see any purpose for the rule.

You're saying that it discourages members from "being agenda drive mouth pieces," whilst that idea hasn't been fully implemented against the actual agenda driven mouth pieces that incessantly troll the waters here. So I don't take your point that this is the reason for the rule and its enforcement because I don't see anyone cracking down on that behaviour in any other way. And as far as that idea is concerned, I could see someone coming off in that way if they were posting the exact same post repeatedly across forums on this board alone, not having the same discussion with different groups of people on different parts of the web.

Anyway, you say you want input on how to make this forum a better place, but then just look at the way you respond to criticism about the way this place operates. So please, stop pretending you give a crap what people here think.

Edited May 5, 2014 by cybercoma

[Greg]

Anyway, you say you want input on how to make this forum a better place, but then just look at the way you respond to criticism about the way this place operates. So please, stop pretending you give a crap what people here think.

You're being over sensitive. Take a break, go for walk and relax.

Nothing in my response was "antagonistic and condescending".

[Michael Hardner]

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

Because newcomers are turned off - they don't come to a forums where long-time members snipe at the moderation.

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.

No - if you review my comments, you'll see that I clearly stated that the problem is that no one is satisfied by these types of discussions IMO.

I have spent a lot of time designing feedback processes, so I understand them more than might appear. I would try a periodic check-in perhaps - to ensure that concerns are being voiced, noted and heard. A more formal and managed process is much preferable to interminable threads, in my experience.

[Michael Hardner]

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

Charles has to spend a lot of time considering his actions, looking back at other threads - and messaging me, Greg and posters here. How much time would you volunteer to such work per day ?

[Michael Hardner]

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

Agreed, but that includes letting things go after awhile.

[Michael Hardner]

That does not in no way stop people from being agenda driven mouth pieces on forums. Unless you are willing to track each members posts on other forums, that is going to be a tough task to accomplish. But good luck.

That's our job - and most of the time it's obvious when it happens. That helps.

[Michael Hardner]

There is not another forum on the web that I have been to in the last 20 years that would condemn this kind of thing. If I write an article, an original piece, for somewhere else online, there is absolutely no reason I shouldn't be able to share and discuss it here.

Hi Cyber - I'll take a second to respond to the substance of your post.

Most of the reason this rule exists is because there are bots that come here and post glurges about some issue or other - and post them everywhere on the internet.

I myself have a blog, and I simply rework my articles when posting here, specific to MLW interest and back story.

[bush_cheney2004]

I remember the no cross-posting rule for many other forums going back ages. It is certainly not unique to MLW.

[Smallc]

I do too. There are very few forums without it.

[guyser]

Most of the reason this rule exists is because there are bots that come here and post glurges about some issue or other - and post them everywhere on the internet.

Pretty easy to see if one has that goal. Deal w it Just like spam .

Not hard to check someones history to see if they are sticking around.

I myself have a blog, and I simply rework my articles when posting here, specific to MLW interest and back story.

Wait a sec...

you will need to contribute original material; not something you've posted elsewhere.

So you get away with breaking the rules huh?

Heres the point.

I post elsewhere 'Sam is bad.'

Come here and post 'Sam is bad!'

Thats fine .....right ? I changed it so good to go.

Ok thanks

Edited May 5, 2014 by Guyser2

[Michael Hardner]

Thats fine .....right ? I changed it so good to go.

Ok thanks

Well, no. I change things more than that but as far as I understand that's ok. Let's see if I'm wrong.

[guyser]

Well, no. I change things more than that but as far as I understand that's ok. Let's see if I'm wrong.

Nothing in this world is original.

So why the rule in the first place ? It seems ridiculous even in light of bots and spam. Its not like they will stop...'oh theres a rule here, we best move on'.....

[cybercoma]

Hi Cyber - I'll take a second to respond to the substance of your post.

Most of the reason this rule exists is because there are bots that come here and post glurges about some issue or other - and post them everywhere on the internet.

I myself have a blog, and I simply rework my articles when posting here, specific to MLW interest and back story.

I'm not suggesting bots go unchecked. It's quite obvious when someone posts something and wants to discuss it because they stick around and continue to contribute. If a long-time member posts something here and at another forum that interests them, I don't see how that's a problem. Bots are a problem and they should obviously be banned ASAP when they get through the registration process.

Let me say this right now: I'm perfectly fine with the moderators saying, "this is our forum and we'll ban or suspend anyone at our discretion." That's completely within Greg's right as the forum owner and administrator. If they want to have some semblance of a code of conduct and rules that should be followed, as well as inviting input into improving the forum, then he should be more amicable to discussions around that. Nothing I've seen so far indicates that. Four months after he said he would start a thread discuss moderation, Argus finally started this thread since it hadn't been done yet. Again, I don't care if they're going to take the road, "we ban users at our discretion." However, don't pretend like you want to make changes and invite feedback only to then turn around and make every excuse in the world not to critically evaluate how things have always been done. Responding with, "it's right there in the rules" isn't exactly showing an interest in re-evaluating how things are done. That is why this thread and the other were started isn't it, to re-evaluate how things are done and to make positive changes based on users' feedback? If you guys don't want to know what rules and practices people take issue with that's fine. I'll just shut up and lump it.

[Michael Hardner]

So why the rule in the first place ? It seems ridiculous even in light of bots and spam. Its not like they will stop...'oh theres a rule here, we best move on'.....

They are sometimes posted by actual humans, but are spammy in nature, so having the rule means we can just remove them.

[Michael Hardner]

Nothing I've seen so far indicates that.

I think near the top of the thread (one of these threads) Greg indicated support for the discussion, then later expressed disapproval as to how the discussion was going. I think that's our play-by-play card (yours and mine) as to where this initiative sits.

And... we don't know if Four Months is a long time because Greg didn't give us an initial timeline. Maybe he's planning to take longer to assess things. That may sound like a mock, but doing anything properly takes time. I still think that fact isn't appreciated by everyone.

[guyser]

They are sometimes posted by actual humans, but are spammy in nature, so having the rule means we can just remove them.

You dont need a rule to remove them.

[guyser]

I think near the top of the thread (one of these threads) Greg indicated support for the discussion, then later expressed disapproval as to how the discussion was going. I think that's our play-by-play card (yours and mine) as to where this initiative sits.

Maybe we could be told what improvements are good and we can suggest them?

------>

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe we could be told what improvements are good and we can suggest them?

Or somebody could ask an honest question, and be rewarded with sarcasm and brickbats.