Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[guyser]

Charles doesn't need to even try to convince you of anything in particular. You, on the other hand, would like to persuade Charles to your point of view if you have any interest in affecting change. Confrontation just ain't gonna do that.

Cant disagree with that.

But if someone has posted a low and unflattering opinion of not just me, but every poster here (save for 1%) , why not give it back?

You know what I mean too.

[cybercoma]

The only thing that you conceivably did "wrong" would be to have let yourself get trolled in this thread.

If every discussion of the rules and moderation leads to the response that posters are trolling, whining, and complaining, then why open it up to discussion at all? Just close the thread and let everyone know you'll ban/suspend people at your discretion and that's all there is to it. Nobody was trolling Michael Hardner. People here have nothing but respect for him today, as they did when he was nominated for Forum Facilitator. What's obvious from the discussion here and what is being pointed out is that the rules are not as clear cut as you seem to think they are.

[Argus]

There is no problem, so nothing needs to be changed.

So with all of 25 posts under your belt you've been able to determine there aren't any issues about moderation? Have I got that right?

[Argus]

You were tricked with sly thread drift to manipulate a debate. Do not feel bad about it --- that happens here all of the time. The only thing that you conceivably did "wrong" would be to have let yourself get trolled in this thread.

No, Charles. There's been no trolling with respect to this cross-posting stuff. People brought up their concerns, that's all. The idea it was some 'sly manipulation' in order to change the subject is not born out by the facts. Further, trolling suggests an attempt to provoke discussion on an issue one doesn't care about, usually by deliberately reciting falsehoods or taking positions you don't really feel, just to get a response. I see nothing to suggest that's the case here.

I think perhaps one of the issues here is a definition of trolling which seems to be different between you and the membership.

[jbg]

So with all of 25 posts under your belt you've been able to determine there aren't any issues about moderation? Have I got that right?

He's "often wrong." (pun intended) Edited May 8, 2014 by jbg

[GostHacked]

I think perhaps one of the issues here is a definition of trolling which seems to be different between you and the membership.

I agree, I will say that is also up to interpretation by members themselves. But when a good number of members with differing views point to a specific post and say it's trolling, good freakin chance it really is trolling.

[WWWTT]

You were tricked with sly thread drift to manipulate a debate. Do not feel bad about it --- that happens here all of the time. The only thing that you conceivably did "wrong" would be to have let yourself get trolled in this thread.

"Tricked?" "Sly?"

No one is trolling MH. Care to back up your assertion?

If every discussion of the rules and moderation leads to the response that posters are trolling, whining, and complaining, then why open it up to discussion at all?

No, Charles. There's been no trolling with respect to this cross-posting stuff. People brought up their concerns, that's all.

I think CA is joking here.

But seeing the large response to a joke, I don't think CA will be making more of these kind of jokes. Unless of course you guys have already pushed him over the edge!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I think perhaps one of the issues here is a definition of trolling which seems to be different between you and everyone else on the internet.

FTFY.

[cybercoma]

I think CA is joking here.

But seeing the large response to a joke, I don't think CA will be making more of these kind of jokes. Unless of course you guys have already pushed him over the edge!

WWWTT

You could say that perhaps he was trolling?

[OftenWrong]

He' "often wrong." (pun intended)

[betsy]

So with all of 25 posts under your belt you've been able to determine there aren't any issues about moderation? Have I got that right?

He/She replied to my complaint with this, though:

Oftenwrong

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.

Edited May 8, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

I think perhaps one of the issues here is a definition of trolling which seems to be different between you and the membership.

To make it easier for Greg to review, let's list all the issues we've aired so far:

Moderation - Inconsistent, not transparent, suspensions with no explanation and no specific post being cited, questionable judgements and bias.

If the moderator is a politician and these were being practiced - he'll be facing an inquiry right now.

Suspensions and Warnings - be more practical.

Definition of trolling

Review of existing rules - Rules be made clear so there wouldn't be any confusion and inconsistency (such as length of copy/paste allowed, cross-posting an original, remove impractical and questionable rules (such as "trolling, "baiting").

Thread-Intervention ala Michael Hardner, is more effective

Anything else I've left out?

Edited May 8, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

I also suggest the following:

1. Instead of Moderators, we should have forum facilitators who are also allowed to participate in forum discussions.

Forum Facilitators will have the same duties currently being done by MH, with the additional power of issuing suspensions.

2. Month-long Suspensions should be the last resort. Be diplomatic in wording your message when issuing suspensions.

3. Time-out suspensions should be consistent with the "crime" or repeated violation (week-long, one or two days et.,). Instead of taking an offending member totally out of the forum - suspend him only from the thread where-in he committed his offenses. A lot of times members are just caught up in the heat of the debate and can't pull away, thus suspending them from the thread for a few days or weeks gives them a chance to cool down.

4. Banning of long-time members (or members who'd contributed so many numbers of legitimate posts) should be very rare, or not done at all. We don't know what's happening in a member's personal life therefore, take into considerations the contributions that this member had given in the past, and opt for suspension instead of banning.

Edited May 8, 2014 by betsy

[WestCoastRunner]

I also suggest the following:

Forgive me for weighing in on your suggestions Betsy, but I only see you participating in this particular thread. I know that you lash out at me because I am 'favoured' or I have 'aligned with other members'. Whatever, it doesn't really matter what you think of me. However, as a recent new member, I only see you contributing to this thread. And you consistently provide advice on how to make this forum better. I have yet to see you respond to any threads since I have joined. What exactly is your MO?

[kimmy]

Forgive me for weighing in on your suggestions Betsy, but I only see you participating in this particular thread. I know that you lash out at me because I am 'favoured' or I have 'aligned with other members'. Whatever, it doesn't really matter what you think of me. However, as a recent new member, I only see you contributing to this thread. And you consistently provide advice on how to make this forum better. I have yet to see you respond to any threads since I have joined. What exactly is your MO?

Her MO is to post a bunch of Bible and creationist stuff in the Religion section, and complain bitterly when people treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

-k

[OftenWrong]

Clearly, moderation is not needed here. Because everyone is capable of moderating themselves

[betsy]

Forgive me for weighing in on your suggestions Betsy, but I only see you participating in this particular thread. I know that you lash out at me because I am 'favoured' or I have 'aligned with other members'. Whatever, it doesn't really matter what you think of me. However, as a recent new member, I only see you contributing to this thread. And you consistently provide advice on how to make this forum better. I have yet to see you respond to any threads since I have joined. What exactly is your MO?

Perhaps you should backtrack, and re-read everything I've posted in Support Section.

[betsy]

Her MO is to post a bunch of Bible and creationist stuff in the Religion section, and complain bitterly when people treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

-k

BIBLE and CREATIONIST STUFFS. In RELIGION SECTION. What's wrong with that???

Here is a classic example of trolling. Kimmy has been dishing out insults - and trolling threads in Religion for as long as I can remember.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SUSPENDED, Kimmy? Just curious.....

[cybercoma]

kimmy has provided you with nothing but well-reasoned commentary and open discussion in your threads since you've started posting here. What you call trolling is actually debate. If you want to promote certain ideas, it's your job to back them up. That's what we do when we're talking politics and it's what should be done when talking about religion. Unfortunately, religious ideas rely on "faith" and demands respect by virtue of being religious and nothing else. When religious arguments are confronted with these same kind of scrutiny as science discussions or political discussions, well, as we can see here, you start shouting (typing in caps), bolding text, and littering your posts with derisive emoticons. kimmy, although we're very different politically and have butted heads in the past, is possibly the most intelligent and articulate poster on the forum. For some reason, you perceive reasonable skepticism, inquiry, and discussion as trolling when it comes to your threads. I might add that those threads are generally agenda driven evangelism. If you're going to proselytize and try to persuade people to your side, you better have a good argument. Your frustration with kimmy comes from not having a good argument and just copy/pasting the words of others that are easily refuted.

[WWWTT]

kimmy has provided you with nothing but well-reasoned commentary and open discussion in your threads since you've started posting here. What you call trolling is actually debate. If you want to promote certain ideas, it's your job to back them up. That's what we do when we're talking politics and it's what should be done when talking about religion. Unfortunately, religious ideas rely on "faith" and demands respect by virtue of being religious and nothing else. When religious arguments are confronted with these same kind of scrutiny as science discussions or political discussions, well, as we can see here, you start shouting (typing in caps), bolding text, and littering your posts with derisive emoticons. kimmy, although we're very different politically and have butted heads in the past, is possibly the most intelligent and articulate poster on the forum. For some reason, you perceive reasonable skepticism, inquiry, and discussion as trolling when it comes to your threads. I might add that those threads are generally agenda driven evangelism. If you're going to proselytize and try to persuade people to your side, you better have a good argument. Your frustration with kimmy comes from not having a good argument and just copy/pasting the words of others that are easily refuted.

This is all just your opinion my friend!

As far as I'm concerned Betsy nailed it!!!!

But she broke the rules, by her own definition by responding to kimmy's comment.

CA has gone over this a number of times. (if you have been reading CA advise, and haven't got it by now, forget it, you never will)

I personally don't bother with the trolling-labelling thing because I find it to limiting.

WWWTT

[Smallc]

Pointing out the posting style of a member isn't trolling...especially when it's the truth.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is all just your opinion my friend!

As far as I'm concerned Betsy nailed it!!!!

Agreed....member betsy has certainly contributed to and advanced this and other topics of interest. On more than one occasion, I have noticed the personal attacks by some members on religion and faith threads, as if to silence any discussion on such matters.

Edited May 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Agreed....member betsy has certainly contributed to and advanced this and other topics of interest. On more than one occasion, I have noticed the personal attacks by some members on religion and faith threads, as if to silence any discussion on such matters.

We were talking specifically about kimmy's responses, since that's who betsy is attacking here.

[jbg]

BIBLE and CREATIONIST STUFFS. In RELIGION SECTION. What's wrong with that???

It's where it belongs. But some of the assertions are a bit outlandish.

[bush_cheney2004]

Some of the assertions in other topic areas are even more outlandish.