Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Argus]

I don't understand how stating that 'dumbass local natives' can be beneficial to any conversation. I don't believe that this is a politically incorrect remark. I believe that this is truly an insulting remark. Can you for an instant, put yourself in the boots of a canadian native. Do you understand what they have been through, what they fight for, the grievances they have had to endure and continue to fight for the rights of their people.

When you can say 'yes', then I will give consider you calling them what you did.

So you feel every remark made about a particular group has to be restrained by whatever their historical claims and grievances are? This is, after all, the heart and sould of political correctness. Do you feel you are incapable of criticising a government minister because you've never been a government minister? Do you think you need to restrain your unflattering opinion of say, lawyers or bankers because you don't have the experience of being one?

My opinion was that the problem was the locals and their incompetence and stupidity, not the federal government. That was the context in how the conversation could be moved forward. Do you believe saying it was their incompetence and stupidity would be less 'offensive' to them than saying they were dumbasses?

One thing for sure, silence didn't move the conversation forward. Silence ends conversations. And suspending people brings silence.

[Argus]

No...it's true to this member who has been here more than one month. They get upset, lash out, and attack other members and entire groups of people instead of typing a competent, on topic response. Then they whine about the resulting and deserved warnings and/or suspension(s).

People lash out at you because you deliberately provoke them into doing so, then giggle when they get punished for it. That is why people call you a troll.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Is this directed at me?

No...the quoted member is plain to see. I disagreed with his/her assertion, while agreeing with another member. It was a "two-fer".

That's permitted as far as I know.

[WestCoastRunner]

My opinion was that the problem was the locals and their incompetence and stupidity, not the federal government. That was the context in how the conversation could be moved forward. Do you believe saying it was their incompetence and stupidity would be less 'offensive' to them than saying they were dumbasses?

One thing for sure, silence didn't move the conversation forward. Silence ends conversations. And suspending people brings silence.

Obviously this thread isn't the right one for discussing what you bring up. When you can start a thread about dumbass natives, i will respond.

[bush_cheney2004]

People lash out at you because you deliberately provoke them into doing so, then giggle when they get punished for it. That is why people call you a troll.

That's OK..."I have been called worse things by better people" - P.E. Trudeau

The moderation function here is not sympathetic to those who can't keep their cool and attack other members or third parties. It is Forum Rules 101. Seasoned members should know better by now, something the moderators are quick to point out.

Edited March 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[sharkman]

That tends to happen when people surround themselves with like-minded people acting as echo chambers, reinforcing their own ideas...

I am another poster who is pretty much done with this forum and I haven't posted in almost a month. I don't have a problem with the moderating, but the echo chamber effect in this forum, with like minded posters belittling and mocking those they disagree with, and after several months of this sophomoric love of mindless arguments instead of reasonable debate, I am done.

I think the way things have evolved here is part of the issue. The loudest shouters, the zealots, the true close minded believers have shouted down open debate and it has become nothing more than a game to play when posting here. I don't want to play games, I'm beyond that. Now one can talk reasonably with those of a like mind, but get in a thread with those of opposite views, and sooner or later the bickering and shouting comes out. I've got better things to do.

[WestCoastRunner]

That's OK..."I have been called worse things by better people" - P.E. Trudeau

The moderation function here is not sympathetic to those who can't keep their cool and attack other members or third parties.

And you test us well. don't you bush. And how dare you quote PE Trudea.

[Argus]

Obviously this thread isn't the right one for discussing what you bring up. When you can start a thread about dumbass natives, i will respond.

On the contrary, I'm not asking about natives, I'm asking about your reasoning for believing people should be punished for speaking their opinions with regard to a variety of groups.

[bush_cheney2004]

And you test us well. don't you bush. And how dare you quote PE Trudea.

Frankly, I am surprised at how easily some members run afoul of basic forum rules and debating tactics. I guess they take it personally. Others understand the experience as entertaining discourse between perfect strangers, with maybe a fine smoke afterwards.

[Argus]

I think the way things have evolved here is part of the issue. The loudest shouters, the zealots, the true close minded believers have shouted down open debate and it has become nothing more than a game to play when posting here.

I disagree. In most cases, the zealots are openly mocked by others, and there are really only a few of them, and they mostly cling to particular issues like the environment and abortion. I'll be the first to admit having a polite discussion on climate change or natives, is not possible here. But the conversation is generally reasonably congenial on most other topics.

Now one can talk reasonably with those of a like mind, but get in a thread with those of opposite views, and sooner or later the bickering and shouting comes out. I've got better things to do.

I actually find most discussions are reasonably abent of 'shouting'. Maybe I have a thicker skin, I don't know. There are only three people I can think of you can't hold a reasonable conversaton with (depending on the topic), and that's about it.

[WestCoastRunner]

people should be punished for speaking their opinions with regard to a variety of groups.

that is exactly what I am talking about. Your opinions about dumbass natives are truly insulting. That is your opinion about a group of people. I would like to hear your opinion about native canadians, but i don't want to hear about dumbass native canadians. Do you comprehend this at all?

[Argus]

that is exactly what I am talking about. Your opinions about dumbass natives are truly insulting. That is your opinion about a group of people. I would like to hear your opinion about native canadians, but i don't want to hear about dumbass native canadians. Do you comprehend this at all?

Do you comprehend that I wasn't talking about 'natives' but about dumbasses who happen to be natives? And that I would refer to them in a dismissive fashion regardless of their cultural or ethnic identification?

But again, why do you believe people should be punished even if their opinion is unflattering about natives in general? Clearly we don't want hate speech here, or anything which approaches it, but do you feel incapable of challenging lesser views which might be unflatteringly put? Or is it that you simply feel that if an opinon offends you the person who put that opinion out ought to be removed?

I would kind of like to have a Nazi here to talk at, and a Communist, for that matter. It would be interesting challenging their views. Although, I admit such discussion would probably degenerate rapidly since such people tend to react badly when they are challenged.

My point is that I enjoy challenging views with which I disagree. Don't you?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

Do you comprehend that I wasn't talking about 'natives' but about dumbasses who happen to be natives?

Your tolerance of people is disguisting.

[bush_cheney2004]

that is exactly what I am talking about. Your opinions about dumbass natives are truly insulting. That is your opinion about a group of people.

Well, to be fair, I found your statements about President Obama's "black skin" and related "black" pronouncements over whiteness to be quite offensive and insensitive as well. But I will survive.

[sharkman]

I disagree. In most cases, the zealots are openly mocked by others, and there are really only a few of them, and they mostly cling to particular issues like the environment and abortion. I'll be the first to admit having a polite discussion on climate change or natives, is not possible here. But the conversation is generally reasonably congenial on most other topics.

I actually find most discussions are reasonably abent of 'shouting'. Maybe I have a thicker skin, I don't know. There are only three people I can think of you can't hold a reasonable conversaton with (depending on the topic), and that's about it.

You misunderstood me. I named three groups of people, not just one. Yes, the zealots are one. There are also the close minded believers, they are separate from the zealots or the shouters(at least in my mind). But the end result is the same.

I'm not sure which polite discussions you are daily involved in which are mostly congenial. But in my participation with politics or religion, there was little friend like intercourse with no bickering or arguing, belittling or mocking. Like I said, in many cases those with the strongest views, or at least those who can outlast others in silly arguments are the ones who are still here. Thus it is not the kind of community that fosters honest debate or discussion, and it has become merely a game or contest for type A personalities. How exciting.

Edited March 21, 2014 by sharkman

[Topaz]

I've had vacations from here and for me, even though I try not to get the vacations, I see it as a learning experience of what the ways and rules are and learn from them. The last time which was about a year ago, I got a warning from Charles, I think, but I didn't know I had the warning and so, I got a vacation, even though I explain to him what happen and apologize for whatever I did. I don't personal attack people, that's for people who don't know what to say in a reply but a debate is what people think and maybe before some one is forced into a vacation, could we, as lawyers for the person being judge, give our view before the moderator gives theirs. Sometimes, it could be a misunderstanding.

[Michael Hardner]

Some of the opinions expressed on this thread seem to represent what happens when two people have a discussed an issue to the limits of what logic and dialogue can address. After awhile, all that remains is really what is valuable to that person and that can't be argued.

If you can't change somebody's mind, it isn't necessarily their fault. The time comes when you have to move on, and I say that as somebody who still hasn't even learned that lesson in every case.

[Argus]

Your tolerance of people is disguisting.

Do you mean my tolerance of Nazis and Communists? Or do you mean my intolerence?

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I can tolerate people with different views as long as I get to challenge the views. We had a white supremecist here a while back, before he got banned, and while I admit he wasn't much open to contrary ideas it was interesting nonetheless. What is the point of coming here if all you see is an echo chamber of people who agree with you? I want people here who don't agree with me so I can challenge their arguments. I'd like a radical libertarian, a Nazi, a Communist, a seperatist, someone who advocates slavery, someone who stands foresquare in support of eugenics. It would make the conversations much more interesting provided they could be conducted without screaming.

What I don't get is why you don't want any of those people around? What are you here for if not to discuss political and social policy with people who disagree with you?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I've had vacations from here and for me, even though I try not to get the vacations, I see it as a learning experience of what the ways and rules are and learn from them. The last time which was about a year ago, I got a warning from Charles, I think, but I didn't know I had the warning and so, I got a vacation, even though I explain to him what happen and apologize for whatever I did. I don't personal attack people, that's for people who don't know what to say in a reply but a debate is what people think and maybe before some one is forced into a vacation, could we, as lawyers for the person being judge, give our view before the moderator gives theirs. Sometimes, it could be a misunderstanding.

Every time I've been suspended over the past few years it's been a learning experience in that I was startled I could get suspended for what I'd said. The problem is that the standards for suspension seem to be widening. Thus learning one thing doesn't save you from being suspended again as the moderation grows less tolerent of ideas which the moderator doesn't like.

[Argus]

You misunderstood me. I named three groups of people, not just one. Yes, the zealots are one. There are also the close minded believers, they are separate from the zealots or the shouters(at least in my mind). But the end result is the same.

I don't know, Sharkman. I've been here a while, and while I don't generally go on the religion groups I can only think of one person who qualifies as a zealot on any other issue than religion, and one which is severely close minded. Oh, and one or two trolls.

I'm not sure which polite discussions you are daily involved in which are mostly congenial. But in my participation with politics or religion, there was little friend like intercourse with no bickering or arguing, belittling or mocking.

Well, perhaps I have lower standards. I'd like a discussion entirely free of mockery, sarcasm and sneering contempt but I'm more realistic than that. People get passionate about ideas and that's how they show their dissaproval for the other side when they can't simply call their interlocuters names. But then I started arguing politics on completely unmoderated usenet newsgroups where suggesting, in the most graphic terms, that the person you're arguing with was the product of incest between farm animals was more or less the norm.

Like I said, in many cases those with the strongest views, or at least thos Oh, and one tre who can outlast others in silly arguments are the ones who are still here. Thus it is not the kind of community that fosters honest debate or discussion, and it has become merely a game or contest for type A personalities. How exciting.

It happens, but you can simply stop posting on threads which become filled with silly side discussions, as I do. Not everyone is a scholar, you know. Some people argue the best way they can, and don't necessarily have the largest vocabulary or intellect. Then again, as I said earlier, this is play, not work. Sometimes mocking someones silly idea is way easier than researching some cite (which they'll dismiss anyway) to contradict them.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Argus

[cybercoma]

I also wanted to note that moderation is something that happens in private (between the mods and the user), which at times means a user can feel like he or she is being singled out -- when in fact, more than one person may have been warned. On the flip side, to everyone else, because the warning is made privately, it may seem like no action was taken at all.

Also, each moderator can have a style that does not always jive with individual members. That isn't an excuse to be rude to each other, but i imagine it causes it share of the problems.

The problem is that there is no "between the mods and the user." It's from the mods to the user with no discussion and rarely does it look like "no action was taken at all" because warnings, as Argus rightly points out, come with a suspension. I've have NEVER been asked to reword something I posted or been warned to stop engaging with another poster. Every time those comments have been made to me from a moderator, they have come with revocation of my posting privileges. So as far as I'm concerned you're imagining some situation where the moderators discuss situations with posters and try to deal with things in a reasonable way. Instead, posters are being booted from the forum and, for me anyway, it's almost always comes as a surprise. I've curtailed my posting here because I have no idea what I'm going to be suspended for or not here these days. I can't be bothered any more trying to have a discussion, only to be suspended for responding to something someone says to me even when I'm not saying anything insulting or offensive. The last go-around someone dug up something I said over a year prior and I was given the boot for explaining why I said what i said. Suspended for explaining myself. So forget it. I can't be bothered any more.

[cybercoma]

But since he keeps changing the boundaries, NO, I don't!

Precisely the problem. The moderator seems to think we know what will get us suspended, but it almost always comes as a surprise. Then instead of asking you to edit your post and apologize or something of the like, he just suspends you. It's not worth the hassle anymore.

[Mighty AC]

Some of the opinions expressed on this thread seem to represent what happens when two people have a discussed an issue to the limits of what logic and dialogue can address. After awhile, all that remains is really what is valuable to that person and that can't be argued.

If you can't change somebody's mind, it isn't necessarily their fault. The time comes when you have to move on, and I say that as somebody who still hasn't even learned that lesson in every case.

Well said. I think this is the source of much of the bickering here and also say this as someone that hasn't learned my lesson in every case. This practice creates anger that carries over into other threads leading to tension and fights before discussion can even begin.

I have no problem with the moderation here. I have crossed the line from time to time and have also been deservedly warned with adequate explanation. I think we could all, myself included, benefit from a thicker skin, less tattletaling and more frequent use of the high road.

That being said I think those who express ideas and opinions not supported by evidence deserve a dressing down. However, rather than using crass personal attacks I think we all posses adequate wit and a vocabulary strong enough to do so with class.

I like this board and appreciate the many high quality, long term posters that still visit. I'd like to see the activity increase so I say we, as posters, should take it upon ourselves to quit name calling, whining, feigning offense and just stick to the issues.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Mighty AC

[bush_cheney2004]

No, not really a surprise at all. Sometimes things get wacked because of context, but most of the reasons for warnings/suspensions is a known dataset.

[guyser]

WestCoastRunner, on 20 Mar 2014 - 9:07 PM, said:

Well, they were sexist remarks and I will stand by my accusation

And once again here we go.

Oh do show how those words were sexist. This should be fun.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Guyser2