Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Accountability Now]

Context is everything, as I said. Calling somebody 'cute' during a serious discussion is generally insulting, but even that is out of context from here.

So where do you find any context referring to gender in Guyser's original statement?

Of course he didnt, of course you know that but want to play all cutesy and shocked as if to make a point.

In this statement I find it lining up with exactly how he defined it. (ie trying very hard or too hard to be appealing)

Edited March 21, 2014 by Accountability Now

[Greg]

Well, I now see this thread was a complete waste of my time.

This is probably why I put off starting a thread about moderation; very few of you can be trusted to use judgement when it comes to posting in these forums. Seriously... go back and read this silly thread - it's pointless, full of off-topic bickering and juvenile arguments.

I was looking for some constructive discussion on how better improve moderation, and I get waste of bandwidth.

And some of you think I'm (and the moderators) are the problem?

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I got pulled in so... yeah.. guilty.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I got pulled in so... yeah.. guilty.

See...that's why we can't have nice things !

[Argus]

Well, I now see this thread was a complete waste of my time.

Hey, while I'm not 100% innocent I've been trying to keep things focussed on moderation! And just because a few people started to get bitchy with each other doesn't mean it isn't a subject which needs to be threshed out, especially if you want Mapleleafweb to grow.

You said in your original reply you would be deleting posts which went off topic. What happened to that?

[Argus]

Because we are human beings reading these things, and not cats and robots, HOW you say something does matter even if it's the logical equivalent of another acceptable sentence. Again, I suspect this is the case but I have no authority to say definitely.

My point, one of my points, has been that this is not a formal debate setting. This is an informal political discussion, and should be treated that way. If my wording is considered problematic by someone they could easily challenge it or ask me to rephrase. That didn't happen. I was instead suspended. Aren't we all here for open discssion? Why can't such things be discussed when they arise instead of the 'hammer' coming down without any question, query, challenge, discussion or ability to argue the poster's intent?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I wonder what would happen if people were allowed to moderate the topics they start.

Oh, clearly some individuals would simply delete everyone who disagrees with them, but the inevitable end to that is no one would bother engaging with them on topics they start. But if someone were to start a topic they had an interest in they would certainly have an interest in deleting off-topic material. I, for exmaple, would delete everything related to 'cutesy' here.

[Shady]

Good point huh? Failed english I take it?I cant believe in this day and age people are ignorant to not understand that the word does not have any specific gender.In this case shady, you are playing cutesy with your "oh gosh' bullsit. Like most times.

Just more insults and name calling. Sad. But expected.

[guyser]

Just more insults and name calling. Sad. But expected.

I tried hard to understand just how someone could be so wrong about english.

Perhaps you could clear the air if you dont mind. How did you make such a colossal mistake?

[betsy]

WestcoastRunner

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?

Btw, have you been suspended for calling a member, "idiot?" Or for making any insulting comments about a member?

I don't think so.

Westcoast Runner

This is a pathetic forum. It seems like Bush_cheney is driving all the topics here. Don't you guys see that? He is forever in everyone single thread and everyone is responding to him. And most of it catering to his BS. I feel like responding in some intelligent way to some of the topics here but I know that it will be degraded to his level so I don't bother. But, I do think that if given the chance, I could offer plenty of intelligent feedback to some of these topics but I would rather not if I have to deal with the likes of folks like bush and others.

Bush A Cheney

Then improve the quality here, instead of calling other members "idiot" or "old white men" immediately after joining the forum. There is only one chance to make a great first impression.

Westcoast Runner

I believe I only called you the derogatory name and I didn't say "old white men". Read back to the threads. And you certainly haven't made a great first impression. And you only had one chance.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23306-what-improvements-would-you-like-to-see-in-this-discussion-forum/page-24

You were calling him names! You knew what you were doing, too.

How come you didn't get any suspension, that's what I want to know!

I got suspended by Charles A for being "rude" in the other suggestion topic. There's no explanation as to what statement it was that he deemed rude.

If you can go unpunished for calling members idiots or derogatory names.....whatever Charles A means by being "rude" beats me.

That's the biggest problem here because - unlike successful high-traffic forum(s) who go out of their way to show that there is no bias or favoritism - in this forum, there's no transparency!

Edited March 22, 2014 by betsy

[Black Dog]

My point, one of my points, has been that this is not a formal debate setting. This is an informal political discussion, and should be treated that way. If my wording is considered problematic by someone they could easily challenge it or ask me to rephrase. That didn't happen. I was instead suspended. Aren't we all here for open discssion? Why can't such things be discussed when they arise instead of the 'hammer' coming down without any question, query, challenge, discussion or ability to argue the poster's intent?

This. Moderation IMO should be there to clean things up when spambots attack, cool things down if they get overly heated and off topic and, as an extreme last resort, deal with posters who stir things up without an argument. Laissez faire. Let the ideas speak for themselves and if there's no substance to a poster they'll likely get shunned, ignored and bored.

[WWWTT]

This is one of the more funnier threads going!

Some people here are complaining about the moderators and boarder line making comments about others that could result in a suspension is freekin funny stuff!!!

But anyways, I'm going to make a comment here without trying to get into a match with any other posters (is that ok with everybody?)

In my opinion I've had problems with the moderation here!

I don't think that anyone who has received warnings or has been suspended would always agree with the moderators, otherwise they wouldn't have made the comment(s) in question.

I felt the comments in question that I made were ok, but later found out that I crossed the line.

On the first suspension I still disagree with the ruling, but at least I now know where that line is that I can't cross.

Anyways, overall, I believe that there's room for improvement all around.

WWWTT

Edited March 22, 2014 by WWWTT

[Charles Anthony]

I wonder what would happen if people were allowed to moderate the topics they start.

I think that would be a great but unpopular idea. Logistically, it would work. I would call it a mercenary form of a free market. In other words, the "intellectual" property holder has the ability to defend his "property" for lack of an accurate term.

I bet you and I would be in the minority on this one but I would pitch this to Greg in the form of a pilot project of some sort.

Surely somebody here in the forum has studied elementary game theory.

I dream of a free market in perception and expression. The definition of trolling -- both in general and in any particular case -- no longer becomes a significant variable if everybody ignores what they each perceive to be trolling. I would think that is apparent among most of you clever folk but clearly it is not popular. I now suspect that many of you secretly enjoy trolling.

If you hold yourself out saying you are an English teacher and proceed to spel everting rong - What is left to do?

Report it and ignore it.

[WWWTT]

Report it and ignore it.

If everyone here did that, wouldn't that make the moderating much more difficult?

And if everyone always ignored, wouldn't the number of comments decline?

I think if you let what another person writes here drive you crazy, this may be good advise.

WWWTT

[betsy]

I think that would be a great but unpopular idea. Logistically, it would work. I would call it a mercenary form of a free market. In other words, the "intellectual" property holder has the ability to defend his "property" for lack of an accurate term.

I bet you and I would be in the minority on this one but I would pitch this to Greg in the form of a pilot project of some sort.

Surely somebody here in the forum has studied elementary game theory.

I dream of a free market in perception and expression. The definition of trolling -- both in general and in any particular case -- no longer becomes a significant variable if everybody ignores what they each perceive to be trolling. I would think that is apparent among most of you clever folk but clearly it is not popular. I now suspect that many of you secretly enjoy trolling.

Report it and ignore it.

It's easy to say, "ignore it." Secret trolling, indeed.

Let's not try to pass the bucket here and shift the blame on posters.

The problem is not the reporting or ignoring part.

The problem is how you respond to reports, and how you make your judgement(s) in "moderating."

As an example, you couldn't even respond with courtesy as to explain exactly why you deleted my topic - and when I posted publicly, asking you pointedly as to why, you simply pointed to other posters' opinion (Ghosthacked's opinion), for your reason. Either you didn't bother reading the OP....or you dictate the topics you want....or you cater to certain members. Frankly, I say it`s all of the above.

Most of the complaints about this site is all about moderation - and, that's you!

Unless you guys running this site are willing to take a good look and admit the real problem that exists, and really do something about it - nothing will change.

Edited March 22, 2014 by betsy

[betsy]

If you aspire to be like other successful, quality sites.....

Warnings, suspensions, and bannings (and the reasons why), MUST BE MADE PUBLIC! Everything must be transparent.


That alone will solve the major problem you`ve got here. If everything is out in the open,

1. Moderators will be forced to exercise fair judgements. They can`t get away with having double standards.

And at the very least, they`ll be forced to read what the complaint is all about before they exact penalties!

2. Posters will have the satisfaction of knowing that their complaints had been dealt with.

3. Everyone will be more likely to toe the line since everyone knows it will be hard for the moderators to practice favoritism!


Set a designated thread for anyone who wants to contest or question the judgement. I know it`s more work for mods, but that happens to be a major part of it if you`re running a forum. If you want to be a high-trafficked and robust site, you`ll just have to put up with having to do that.

High-handed, biased, dictatorial style of moderation is the number one culprit to sink any forums faster than the Titanic.

Edited March 22, 2014 by betsy

[Argus]

I think that would be a great but unpopular idea. Logistically, it would work. I would call it a mercenary form of a free market. In other words, the "intellectual" property holder has the ability to defend his "property" for lack of an accurate term.

I bet you and I would be in the minority on this one but I would pitch this to Greg in the form of a pilot project of some sort.

I would like to see it tried. It can always be scrapped if it proves unworkable. Ideally, there would be a placeholder left every time a post is deleted, so the others on that topic would know a post had been deleted. In fact, it would be kind of neat if every post which was deleted popped up on a "deleted post forum" so people could, if they chose, go there to validate for themselves whether the post ought to have been deleted. It wouldn't surprise me if a separate forum with only deleted posts became the highest read one here, perhaps with people there discussing whether certain deleted posts should have been deleted. Perhaps those who deleted them would choose to defend their decision, but they need not. I think it would be quite an interesting exercise in how the 'community' exerts pressure on itself, condemning cowardly moderation, while also approving moderation of posts which were clearly off topic.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Argus

[guyser]

Report it and ignore it.

Net result is.....................nothing.

The fact that moderation is done in secret is funny. Seeing nothing done means nothing is done.Considering the quality has gone downhill means that moderation styles and foundation hasnt improved.

The saying " do the same over and over and expect a different result" comes to mind.

The same shite continues, the same crap still gets posted.Mockery has a way of dealing with things in an open and accessible manner.

Not to mention the mere fact of the contempt that management has for all the posters on this site. Not understated either, thats a fact.

[Argus]

Net result is.....................nothing.

The fact that moderation is done in secret is funny. Seeing nothing done means nothing is done.Considering the quality has gone downhill means that moderation styles and foundation hasnt improved.

The saying " do the same over and over and expect a different result" comes to mind.

The same shite continues, the same crap still gets posted.Mockery has a way of dealing with things in an open and accessible manner.

Not to mention the mere fact of the contempt that management has for all the posters on this site. Not understated either, thats a fact.

I agree and disagree. And I think contempt is the wrong word, and the right word.

I don't think Greg, nor even CA, have contempt for all posters. They wouldn't be bothering to work on this site if they did. They'd walk away and do something else. I have never approved of CA as moderator. I said so when his appointment was announced way back when, and I've said so often enough since. That being said, It's hard to imagine he would stick around all these years just to get some sort of sadistic enjoyment out of suspending people capriciously. Greg was project director on this site when it was developed at UofL and he was in the Political Science department( which shows a lot of interest in politics). He's long since graduated, and has, presumably, a lot of things going on in his life. He doesn't need this site or the efforts he puts into it, and wouldn't do it if he held us all in contempt.

However, I do think that their level of impatience is often manifested in statements which leave that impression. Even suspending people, and failing to respond when they try to explain, or dismissing their arguments out of hand, certainly give the impression of contempt. So I can see why you'd suggest that. I think they're tired of the same-old, same-old, and at least in CA's case, tend to punish reflexively, without showing much interest in context or excuses. Nor does he seem to have the time (or perhaps inclination) for more tolerant punishments like telling us to change something. I don't know about others, but he almost always tells me I "know" I can't say/write that, which suggest he believes we flout the rules deliberately.

I completely agree with you about moderation being in secret. It leaves the impression nothing is being done when you complain. If you complain to the police or bylaw enforcement about someone again and again and nothing is done (as far as you know) then you might tend to stop complaining and respond to their behaviour yourself. I think some people do that here. Also, looked at in another way, if you see people doing something repeatedly, and don't notice any sort of punishment being given them, then you tend to think it's okay to do the same thing. For example, how often in the last few weeks have we seen someone called a troll in various groups and on various topics? Often. Even in the suggestion topic, which we know the moderators have read. Yet you can, and people have been suspended for doing that. There are, in fact, people suspended NOW because of that. This is why I think the moderating should be more open.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

....For example, how often in the last few weeks have we seen someone called a troll in various groups and on various topics? Often. Even in the suggestion topic, which we know the moderators have read. Yet you can, and people have been suspended for doing that. There are, in fact, people suspended NOW because of that. This is why I think the moderating should be more open.

Actually, it was several members which took the "troll" labeling to task after a few dying gasps and fits of anger that "nothing was being done". It backfired on them, and now the definition of trolling does not include attacks on other members with opposing views or style. The moderators came to the right conclusion...problem solved.

Edited March 24, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Actually, it was several members which took the "troll" labeling to task after a few dying gasps and fits of anger that "nothing was being done". It backfired on them, and now the definition of trolling does not include attacks on other members with opposing views or style. The moderators came to the right conclusion...problem solved.

Secret punishment doesn't teach anyone but those in the know. It means you have to suspend everyone, one at a time, until everyone gets the message. That is not efficient use of the moderators time, and leaves people upset because they've seen the accusation used many, many times without (to their knowledge) any punishment.

And of course, it makes people even more angry when the accusation is true, and they don't see the 'troll' suspended.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Secret punishment doesn't teach anyone but those in the know. It means you have to suspend everyone, one at a time, until everyone gets the message.

Not so secret.....outright bans are obvious, and the mods actually reported that they would be sorting out the violators for suspension in one thread. Also, it is my perception that the mods have shifted to more lenient, one week attention getting suspensions instead of an immediate 90 day vacation. Clearly communicated was a refreshing zero tolerance for those who enable and/or respond to the haters.

We can usually tell who is suspended based on a member's absence / lack of posts.

And of course, it makes people even more angry when the accusation is true, and they don't see the 'troll' suspended.

Proves they were wrong all along. "Rule #1 - know how the game is played" - Phil Robertson

Edited March 24, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Proves they were wrong all along. "Rule #1 - know how the game is played" - Phil Robertson

I'm not sure they realize what game you're playing.

[cybercoma]

Secret punishment doesn't teach anyone but those in the know. It means you have to suspend everyone, one at a time, until everyone gets the message. That is not efficient use of the moderators time, and leaves people upset because they've seen the accusation used many, many times without (to their knowledge) any punishment.

And of course, it makes people even more angry when the accusation is true, and they don't see the 'troll' suspended.

And it's a simple fix really. When someone is suspended, just move them from the "members" group to a "suspended" group, just as banned members belong to the "banned" group. Folks will know who has been suspended while they're in the cooler.

[Accountability Now]

And it's a simple fix really. When someone is suspended, just move them from the "members" group to a "suspended" group, just as banned members belong to the "banned" group. Folks will know who has been suspended while they're in the cooler.

I agree 100%