Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[guyser]

So which posts get deleted ("hidden") and which posts get to stay if they are deemed to be insulting? How is that determined?

I asked this of MH in a PM, but no response.

I asked similar above and not a peep. No surprise there.

[Michael Hardner]

I scroll back before sending out a warning. Most often, it does not take much scrolling to figure it out. You usually catch things quick and send out a message to the member.

Me too, but it's often days ago and pages back.

[

So which posts get deleted ("hidden") and which posts get to stay if they are deemed to be insulting? How is that determined?

I asked this of MH in a PM, but no response.

I usually hide/delete a post if it's easily isolated, if it hasn't been quoted/replied to yet... like that.

If an insult has ingrained itself into a thread, with many responses then I report it and let the mods deal with it as an infraction.

[The_Squid]

So some "insulting" posts are removed, while others get to stay. That's strange.

Like I said... inconsistent.

[Michael Hardner]

So which posts get deleted ("hidden") and which posts get to stay if they are deemed to be insulting? How is that determined?

I asked this of MH in a PM, but no response.

Sorry, Squid. You did not ask that. You asked "why did MY post get hidden but not this other post" ?

I'll just say if I was uneven or unfair, I'm sorry but it wasn't done in malice. Maybe I didn't see the other post, maybe I saw it and thought it was ok. But I don't have time to respond to individual queries like that, and the resulting disagreements/rationalizations.

If you don't like the result, then I'm sorry... let's all try better next time around.

I asked similar above and not a peep. No surprise there.

And, Guyser2, I did respond to you and received a pretty rude response actually, which I mistook as a serious response and thanked you, then you went off.

It was the same type of post, ie. "why is my post trolling ?" I thought it was trolling is the answer, and I did provide an explanation. Sorry if you disagree.

I'm responding to Guyser2 and Squid here expressly to explain to people why I'm reluctant to answer back PMs that say "why THIS and not THAT ?" or "Explain your actions". I would do that if I had time, but I don't. It doesn't make things better in most cases.

I will say this - I'm pleasantly surprised that a great number of regular posters here actually THANK me and excuse themselves after I have hidden a post, saying that they got too emotional.

Thanks for all MLW posters.

[Michael Hardner]

Like I said... inconsistent.

Yes. I'm sorry.

[jbg]

Why was a post deleted (hidden) where I collected all of the anti-Israel threads with the word" Israel" in the subject?

[cybercoma]

I know you guys aren't going to change at all, but don't act surprised when you're locking down threads because the tone of the forum has spiralled out of control. Everyone sees it coming for weeks, while you show up expressing your incredulity at the whole thing. If you're going to allow people to incite others, don't act surprised when they respond in kind. Excuse me if I find it ridiculous that you come down on the people responding and not those who incite those responses on a regular and persistent basis.

[Michael Hardner]

Why was a post deleted (hidden) where I collected all of the anti-Israel threads with the word" Israel" in the subject?

Where was that post ? PM me and I'll have a look and see if I can remember the reason.

[Michael Hardner]

I know you guys aren't going to change at all, but don't act surprised when you're locking down threads because the tone of the forum has spiralled out of control.

I don't understand that sentence. Has the spiraling happened due to the tone or the locking ?

Everyone sees it coming for weeks, while you show up expressing your incredulity at the whole thing. If you're going to allow people to incite others, don't act surprised when they respond in kind. Excuse me if I find it ridiculous that you come down on the people responding and not those who incite those responses on a regular and persistent basis.

Given that we hear this from both sides of an argument, it's hard to respond.

[guyser]

And, Guyser2, I did respond to you and received a pretty rude response actually, which I mistook as a serious response and thanked you, then you went off.

First off, I dont bring PM's to this public forum , no one should, it is very bad etiquette to do so.

Secondly, a pretty rude response? You have a twisted sense of what went down.

If a reply was rude, its because one was rec'd. Yea...that would be yours.

Thirdly, my post today was in reference to my earlier post of today , not a PM .

[Michael Hardner]

First off, I dont bring PM's to this public forum , no one should, it is very bad etiquette to do so.

Sorry, I thought that you brought up the PM wherein you asked the question, so I felt like I should respond.

my post today was in reference to my earlier post of today , not a PM .

Oh. Ok, I didn't see a question directed at me, then. Maybe I missed it.

[Charles Anthony]

Why was a post deleted (hidden) where I collected all of the anti-Israel threads with the word" Israel" in the subject?

Two reasons:

1) they had nothing to do with the discussion

2) they were not what you purport them to be -- i.e., they were not anti-Israel threads -- i.e., you misrepresented somebody else's writing.

So some "insulting" posts are removed, while others get to stay. That's strange.

Like I said... inconsistent.

What type of consistency do you want?

MH explained his actions and they make perfect sense.

[guyser]

What type of consistency do you want?

How many 'consistencies' are there in this world?

[guyser]

One !

[guyser]

Oh ok, I thought plural meant more than one.

[WWWTT]

Are you making an offer?

Would anyone care to consider WWWTT for moderator?

I can see how maybe some here may have thought I was making an offer. But I do not have the time to commit myself to the task presently.

Perhaps Bush Cheney or Cybercoma are in better position than I?

I'm sure either poster has adequate experience/time/desire.

WWWTT

[jbg]

I can see how maybe some here may have thought I was making an offer. But I do not have the time to commit myself to the task presently.

Perhaps Bush Cheney or Cybercoma are in better position than I?

I'm sure either poster has adequate experience/time/desire.

WWWTT

I was leaning more towards marcus or Hudson Jones.

[WWWTT]

I was leaning more towards marcus or Hudson Jones.

Either way, moderators shouldn't be posters!

It's like a referee playing the game they are refereeing!

And that's not a bad parallel to draw considering that this is mostly a debate forum with opposing sides vs/competing!

Charles Anthony has the right approach to not debating and limiting his comments to the less debating orientated threads.

WWWTT

[Argus]

Either way, moderators shouldn't be posters!

It's like a referee playing the game they are refereeing!

No, it's not, really. To assume a moderator, simply because he or she does not post, is going to be in any way more neutral or unbiased given political discussions is painfully naive. We all have our own political, sociological and economic biases and prejudices. Those interested in a web site like this have more than most. So the moderator is going to completely disagree with one sort or the other often enough. As long as that doesn't interfere with them enforcing the rules, it doesn't matter.

Posting their opinions openly doesn't change that.

[WWWTT]

No, it's not, really. To assume a moderator, simply because he or she does not post, is going to be in any way more neutral or unbiased given political discussions is painfully naive. We all have our own political, sociological and economic biases and prejudices. Those interested in a web site like this have more than most. So the moderator is going to completely disagree with one sort or the other often enough. As long as that doesn't interfere with them enforcing the rules, it doesn't matter.

Posting their opinions openly doesn't change that.

The fact that we all have an opinion was never lost on me. Still am fully aware of the fact that our own views can/may/shall influence our actions.

What I am getting at is that the moderators should never get involved in debates because they have the advantage of deleting posts, administering warnings etc etc.

You and I have no such advantage if we are to debate Charles Anthony or MH!

Fair is fair!

That's all I ask for.

Ultimately, without the posters, this web site is NOTHING!

WE are the TALENT that keeps this place afloat, not the moderators!

Charles Anthony and Michael Hardner or even Greg will never remind you of this fact!

But I will!

WWWTT

[Bonam]

The level of discussion on this forum has really declined in the last 1-2 months. I find myself checking it less and less often now.

[Michael Hardner]

What I am getting at is that the moderators should never get involved in debates because they have the advantage of deleting posts, administering warnings etc etc.

You and I have no such advantage if we are to debate Charles Anthony or MH!

Has this every happened that someone has used their mod powers to gain advantage in a discussion ?

Ultimately, without the posters, this web site is NOTHING!

It's a community, which involves posters and moderators, and a sponsor - all of whom are necessary.

WE are the TALENT that keeps this place afloat, not the moderators!

I have never seen MLW posters as 'the talent'. I think that term is more often used by boorish vaudeville producers chomping on cigars.

[Michael Hardner]

The level of discussion on this forum has really declined in the last 1-2 months. I find myself checking it less and less often now.

Check again. We're taking a more active approach in dealing with insults and thread drift these days, so you should see less of that.

[WWWTT]

Has this every happened that someone has used their mod powers to gain advantage in a discussion ?

It's a community, which involves posters and moderators, and a sponsor - all of whom are necessary.

I have never seen MLW posters as 'the talent'. I think that term is more often used by boorish vaudeville producers chomping on cigars.

All three of these comments made by a moderator here highlighted are a perfect example of what is wrong with a moderator commenting and debating and the problem with the direction of the moderation of this site!

First comment. I would have to think of search to find examples so to give you a direct yes or no answer is not possible at this time.

However! I can clearly so without a doubt that someone whom has moderation authority/capabilities is intimidating and still gives the moderator unfair advantage even if the moderator chooses not to use their powers.

Furthermore, you tactically sidestepped the fact that no other poster has the same authority as you do. Obviously you don't want this fact to be part of any debate!

And your other two comments clearly belittle the importance of each and every posters and their contributions!

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Furthermore, you tactically sidestepped the fact that no other poster has the same authority as you do. Obviously you don't want this fact to be part of any debate!

And your other two comments clearly belittle the importance of each and every posters and their contributions!

WWWTT

1. I think it's implicit in my response. If course moderators and facilitators have powers that the poster don't have. I think a key question, though, is whether those powers are being abused.

2. I think it's implicit in my response. To be clear: this site is what it is because of a solid core of posters who debate according to our shared values. Without them, we are nothing. But it's a stool with three legs, too.