Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[GostHacked]

Personal attacks are not permitted on this forum.

Yes they are, and trolling is allowed. I guess how one interprets trolling, the same arbitrary decisions can be applied to personal attacks.

I really don't f'n care anymore. Can't beat em, join them in shitting up threads. Seems to work and I have gotten away with it so far.

[msj]

Yes they are, and trolling is allowed. I guess how one interprets trolling, the same arbitrary decisions can be applied to personal attacks.

How do you know if reported personal attacks are being allowed?

For all any of us know they are not being reported.

Or, if they are, warnings are given.

I really don't f'n care anymore. Can't beat em, join them in shitting up threads. Seems to work and I have gotten away with it so far.

Nice.

Edited June 20, 2015 by msj

[Guest]

So if no one is an expert, why was jaycee suspended? Seems a bit heavy handed to me. Especially for as long as she was. I don't think anyone here would agree with that suspension.

Does anyone know what was actually said? A search of the most common words on this forum would probably show "racist" up there with "the" and "and".

I can't imagine anyone being suspended just for calling someone racist.

Edited June 20, 2015 by bcsapper

[GostHacked]

How do you know if reported personal attacks are being allowed?

For all any of us know they are not being reported.

It's the same reason why people gave up reporting the trolls. The moderation's definition of each is arbitrary. I mean two damn years has passed since this issue was brought up. Have we made ANY f'n progress at all?? None whatsoever.

[cybercoma]

How can this surprise you? Accusing people of racism and genocidal tendencies is not okay.

Making racist and genocidal arguments is not okay either.

[Charles Anthony]

Nice.

What you are observing is a choice to be subjectively offended when confronted with the ugly reality of objectivity.

Try to imagine somebody who takes offense at being called "Canadian" even though he is, for all intents and purposes, a Canadian himself and avidly discussing Canadian issues on a Canadian political discussion forum. I am not saying that is anybody here. It is purely hypothetical to change the frame of reference. Now, try to imagine asking that same person to define what it means to be Canadian and that same person can not do so.

If you can wrap your head around such a hypothetical, then you are on your way to understanding the disagreement and fixation on defining trolling as opposed to stopping the behavior.

I'm actually trying to intelligently discuss this but of course that can't happen without the real reasons as to why Jaycee was suspended. I am disturbed by her suspension and I think we should know why.

NO, we should not know why. The reason why is between our moderation team and the person who faced the discipline.

Correct.

That's a subjective term.

If it's subjective, how can they suspend her?

--- because the subjectivity is irrelevent.

A personal attack violates the forum rules because it is thread drift of the most unjustifiable form. The person is not the subject matter up for discussion. It is that simple.

lol..you were the one surprised it wasn't there.

And further to your argument...it's now cool if I call x member "fag" because they are a male homosexual?

No...of course it isn't.

Silly boy.

Go ahead and write what you want.

The good news is that most MLWebbers are clever enough to see through somebody who throws any type of slur in the 21st century in an online discussion forum. Go ahead and try it. I assure you that there will be no need for any moderating intervention for you to get the answer to your question.

Here is a better challenge for you: Try to refer to x member as a "fag" because he is a male homosexual without trolling and without changing the topic of discussion.

Here is what you are not getting: The fact that "fag" is insulting (or not) is not an issue of debate because it does not matter whether it is insulting or not.

The action of using "fag" as an insult is ALSO an act of diverting a discussion.

The fact that some folks may take offense to it is a side issue that dictates whether it is worth any moderator intervention. If better folks ignore it and move on, so do we. It is that simple.

I do not understand why people get excited for being called a racist or bigot or misogynist.

I do not understand it either. I am not ashamed to admit that I am all of the above.

If somebody called me any of those labels, I would be like "Yeah. So?" That is just me. I lose interest in a conversation whenever I detect folks using silly labels in defiance of more profound understanding of thoughts.

A racist is a person who .....

A bigot is a person who .....

A misogynist is a person who ....

Hold on.

What do you call a person who disagrees with your definitions??

It is not like calling someone a pedophile or traitor or terrorist. That is accusing someone of doing something ....

Hold on. You do not need to go much farther than that.

The difference is that those people do something. They act.

Being a racist or a bigot or a misogynist does not entail any human activity as a necessary condition.

I continue to be amused at posters who are angry, confrontational and rude to other posters. I do not understand why someone would spend precious leisure time to hurl insults at some anonymous avatar. Some people must have very difficult and painful lives if they have to resort to arguing and insulting in their leisure time to gain some virtual satisfaction or joy. That is sad.

I agree. However, I find it annoying now more than amuzing.

This board is filled with people who have a lot of interesting things to say.

[msj]

What you are observing is a choice to be subjectively offended when confronted with the ugly reality of objectivity. Try to imagine somebody who takes offense at being called "Canadian" even though he is, for all intents and purposes, a Canadian himself and avidly discussing Canadian issues on a Canadian political discussion forum. I am not saying that is anybody here. It is purely hypothetical to change the frame of reference. Now, try to imagine asking that same person to define what it means to be Canadian and that same person can not do so. If you can wrap your head around such a hypothetical, then you are on your way to understanding the disagreement and fixation on defining trolling as opposed to stopping the behavior.

I agree.

I was being sarcastic with my "nice" as in "how hypocritical it is to complain about behaviour and then do the same behaviour because, f it."

Poor attitude and a reason why I rarely read nor respond to that members' posts.

[Big Guy]

To Charles Anthony - Thank you for your response. In answer to your question - racist, bigot, misogynist - What do you call a person who disagrees with my definitions - Normal.

Those definitions are taken directly off Google definition site. I posted those particular definitions to show which definition I am using and referring to.

The problem here is the tone of communication. It is confrontational by default. There are only about 5 posters who do not insult and do not try to demean the poster. It may be revealing that these posters tend to participate in only a few threads and treat all responses with respect. They appear to take some time for thought before entering text and sending a message.

There are the same ones who comment on every thread notwithstanding if they have anything concrete to say or not. They will comment just because their perceived "enemy" has made a comment and take the opportunity for another "cheap shot". In many cases I perceive an attitude that being aggressive and intimidating is viewed as a strength and the same posters challenge the same other posters repeatedly.

As a moderator, I believe that you have no control over the tone of communication. Somewhere along the line, over thousands of posts, certain participants have declared comment war on certain others. The seem to enjoy the opportunity to reinforce their mutual dislike with serious posters caught in the crossfire.

The envelope of acceptable discourse will continue to be tested until a moderator has to get involved.

I do agree that there are a few posters whose posts and views I find interesting and informative - even if I do not agree with them.

I try to limit my time on the computer to less than three hours a day - 1 hour for opinion boards and 2 hours on research and living related materials. Some posters here appear to spend hours on this board alone and gauge their success on the number of their posts rather than the content. I suggest that if they spent more time on thought and specific issues that they would find the participation more positive and enjoyable.

I wonder why some of these angry people spend their precious time trying to make others angry. What a waste of time.

[Bryan]

It's incredulous that Jaycee was suspended. It blows my mind. She sticks up for minority and vulnerable groups and she gets suspended!

Her behaviour was reprehensible, and her suspension was long overdue.

Some posters are very clear and up-front about their racist beliefs

Who here openly proclaims themselves to be racist?

[Big Guy]

Anyone who claims that their (our) race, religion, culture is superior than other races, religions or cultures.

[Guest]

Anyone who claims that their (our) race, religion, culture is superior than other races, religions or cultures.

So those posters on the Dylann Roof thread who seem to be of the opinion that America's gun culture is not quite as enlightened as some others in the world are racist? They would be surprised to hear it, I'm sure.

[Bryan]

Anyone who claims that their (our) race, religion, culture is superior than other races, religions or cultures.

Be more specific. WHO actually admits to being racist?

Edited June 21, 2015 by Bryan

[WWWTT]

A personal attack violates the forum rules because it is thread drift of the most unjustifiable form. The person is not the subject matter up for discussion. It is that simple.

True and false.

This IS an anonymous board. So how personal can it get when nobody here knows anyone's real identity unless they go out of their way to do so?

Let me take a step back. First, what is actually honestly being attacked?

Calling someone an idiot is clearly an attack. But claiming that you doubt or don't believe what another poster claims is in no way an personal attack because no such claims can be affirmed.

Not only that, calling someone stupid IS degrading!

You seem to be under the impression that you can run this site as if all our identities were known and our personal experiences can be verified. But that simply is not the case.

Until you "get it", you're going to run into these problems all the time.

WWWTT

[Freddy]

Anyone who claims that their (our) race, religion, culture is superior than other races, religions or cultures.

So basically everyone ........

all left winger's, and all right winger's.

Oh dear. /face palm

Edited June 21, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

Be more specific. WHO actually admits to being racist?

Anyone who loves his family more then others, really. We are all unique living things, By loving yourself more then others you are essentially being racist.

[Big Guy]

No Freddy - Left wingers and right wingers are people who support different parties and have a different view of how our society could be organized. They have assumed different visions of how Canadians are able to get the most out of their lives. They will argue and debate policy with civility and respect for other points of view. They do not purport superiority but an honestly perceived different point of view.

On the other hand, political party hacks and brainwashed cheerleaders spout mindless partisan rhetoric and attempt to demean, ridicule and outshout any ideas not akin to their own. They really think they are superior and therefore have the right to use whatever means necessary to shut up the other side.

There are right wing leaning and left wing leaning posters on this board. There are also self appointed political party hacks and brainwashed cheerleaders on this board.

I believe that most posters can tell the difference.

As to your second post, there is a big difference between loving your family and believing that you are superior to other families.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Big Guy

[Argus]

I do not understand why people get excited for being called a racist or bigot or misogynist.

A racist is a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Many people interpret that as being a nationalist. Many people also find it distasteful but to be a racist is not illegal and is celebrated by other racists.

So using that logic it shouldn't bother people if someone calls them an idiot or a moron either, right? I mean, it's not illegal to be an idiot or a moron, even if some might find it distasteful...

Edited June 22, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Be more specific. WHO actually admits to being racist?

Or who admits to being a moron? I'm sure you and I both would judge certain individuals here by a variety of pejorative and insulting terms, and no doubt they'd disagree.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Anyone who claims that their (our) race, religion, culture is superior than other races, religions or cultures.

So our culture, in your view, is definitely NOT superior to a culture which allows for wife beating, execution of homosexuals, and religious fanaticism to the degree accused blasphemers are beaten to death by mobs? A culture in which women can go to schools and walk around in the streets alone is not superior to a culture in which education is denied them and they are not permitted out of the house except when covered in bedsheets and escorted by a responsible male?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

So our culture, in your view, is definitely NOT superior to a culture which allows for wife beating, execution of homosexuals, and religious fanaticism to the degree accused blasphemers are beaten to death by mobs?

So you're saying here our superiority comes from left-wing consciousness-raising around roles of women, religion and LGBT rights ?

Stay consistent now, since you're defining what makes our society so superior you'll be held to it.

[Michael Hardner]

Who here openly proclaims themselves to be racist?

It happens from time to time, believe it or not.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/15169-canadian-gun-crimes-related-to-low-iqs/?p=472629

[Bryan]

It happens from time to time, believe it or not.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/15169-canadian-gun-crimes-related-to-low-iqs/?p=472629

That was clearly a joke.

Also, Oleg isn't here anymore.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Bryan

[cybercoma]

So our culture, in your view, is definitely NOT superior to a culture which allows for wife beating, execution of homosexuals, and religious fanaticism to the degree accused blasphemers are beaten to death by mobs? A culture in which women can go to schools and walk around in the streets alone is not superior to a culture in which education is denied them and they are not permitted out of the house except when covered in bedsheets and escorted by a responsible male?

Your problem is that you shorthand "Muslim" as if all of them hold the same culture, as if ISIS are the same as the Muslim people who elected female leaders in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Turkey. How many female Prime Ministers were elected by us in our oh so advanced and superior culture? How many female presidents has the United States had? The reason your arguments are racist is precisely because you lump all Muslims in with extremists like ISIS and you make claims that those who don't believe as ISIS does aren't true Muslims, as if you speak for them or get to define them. The problem is your arguments are too blunt to be intelligent. You see no difference in "those people." They're just all the same mongrel barbaric filth, not worthy of consideration when it comes to escaping the real barbarians over there and seeking refuge here where they can be free. But you're not incapable of seeing gradations. You recognize that radical Christians in Africa don't share a culture with other Christians. You don't paint Christian culture as the culture of those who bomb abortion clinics, shoot abortion doctors, or beat and kill gay and transgender people. For some reason that's not part of Christian culture, but when bad Muslims do bad things...well, suddenly those are the true Muslims and that's their true culture. Your problem, which has been pointed out over and over again, is that you can't see that Muslims are fighting other Muslims to get away from the violent and oppressive radicals that have seized control of some of their countries. Your examination of the issues is far too blunt to recognize the same kind of detail in their societies as you do in ours. And that's what makes your arguments biased and racist. You can't see past their religion and ethnicity to understand that there are Muslims fighting against the things you call barbaric and the Muslims who escape here as refugees are trying to get away from those things, but at the end of the day they're still Muslims, the still have their own culture, and it doesn't include violent and oppressive garbage you attribute to them because you can't be bothered to see that there is no common Muslim culture.

[Canada_First]

The few nut job Christians who are bombing an abortion clinic or beating gays is in news once every few years. Plus these people aren't trying to take over the world like Muslims are doing with the Caliphate. I find it hard to believe that the Muslims that are here now would side with Canada over the Caliphate when the choice comes. And it will. The war will come here. Maybe by next yearm

[Argus]

So you're saying here our superiority comes from left-wing consciousness-raising around roles of women, religion and LGBT rights ?

Stay consistent now, since you're defining what makes our society so superior you'll be held to it.

I've often expressed my respect for Nordic culture. I think Canada's culture is a mixture of left and right, with the left generally being social beliefs and the right generally being fiscal beliefs. But even our 'social right wingers' would never suggest women should be covered head to toe and have no rights, nor have the conservatives ever held to that sort of belief, however far back you want to go. Nor did conservatives ever want gays and blasphemers executed. I don't think you can really fit such cultural barbaric beliefs on a left-right ideological line. I mean, even Texas has a very superior culture to most any Muslim country, because as intolerant as they can be, they're still light years in advance of Muslim countries.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Argus