Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[GostHacked]

I don't expect you to agree with me about the bias, but that's fine. My point remains. There are a number of people here who consistently play the player rather than the ball. Very consistently. In fact, virtually all the time. You can see it. It's obvious, even in a topic on moderation. So why does it continue?

It goes back to what moderation considers trolling, and how their definition is not applied equally. I used to report the trolling, but since very little is done about it, it's not worth the time to put in a complaint. In some cases I received push back from moderation on what is considered a trolling post.

[GostHacked]

When I see people on 'my team' who are 'calling names' its usually traced back to playing the man, which comes from 'your team'.

Being partisan does allow this to happen. From the left and the right.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sorry but this makes no sense whatever. To your mind it's not insults if someone plays the man instead of the ball?

No, I didn't say that.

You don't see insults from your 'team' ( as you perceive it ) and you see insults from the other 'team'. But I don't agree with your assessment of whether these are insults. It may be our biases at play here.

[Michael Hardner]

For weeks leading up to the election the board was constantly spammed by far left trolls, it took far too much complaining to have any of them removed, and some were not, these same spammers were quickly dumped from other boards, but not here.

We followed the process and they were eventually removed. The posting of information itself doesn't constitute trolling. You may not agree but that is now it is.

Most people think there is a bias but maybe 1/2 think it is right wing and 1/2 think it is left wing.

[Michael Hardner]

but since very little is done about it, it's not worth the time to put in a complaint. In some cases I received push back from moderation on what is considered a trolling post.

This type of situation has in the past resulted in a Waiting-for-Godot kind of interaction whereby a poster complains that I do nothing about a trolling post, which I respond to by saying I haven't seen the infraction, and it wasn't reported. And the response from the poster: "why would I report it if nothing is done ?"

Even if people just report obvious trolls, it helps us. Thanks !

[Argus]

No, I didn't say that.

You don't see insults from your 'team' ( as you perceive it ) and you see insults from the other 'team'. But I don't agree with your assessment of whether these are insults. It may be our biases at play here.

Whenever anyone plays the man in contravention of the rules I posted, that should be cause to intervene. It clearly isn't, because even in this thread people have done it without intervention. If these are the rules (below) why are those who ignore them not dealt with?

Be Polite and Respect Others

No Personal Attacks

It is not okay to criticize a person's character

Rule of thumb: play the ball, not the person (i.e. Tackle the argument, not the person making it).

Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Whenever anyone plays the man in contravention of the rules I posted, that should be cause to intervene. It clearly isn't, because even in this thread people have done it without intervention.

I doubt that. Were they reported ?

I will look back a few pages, but not at the whole thread as it is 100 pages.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I see about a half-dozen borderline cases, including a couple from you Argus. They're relatively mild so no action taken.

[Argus]

Yes, I see about a half-dozen borderline cases, including a couple from you Argus. They're relatively mild so no action taken.

Mine are in response to theirs. It seems to me if you can't or won't stop people who 'play the man' then at least hit the first one who does it in a topic.

Relatively mild tends to escalate into back and forth, but you've been here long enough to know that by now. How is it better to wait until the insults became more blatantly insulting before doing anything?

Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus

[Charles Anthony]

There was simply no comparing the amount of extreme and outright dishonest rhetoric being posted here, it was, at the least, 90/10 for the left, yet most of it remained, o but you wonder why people imagine there is a bias? Maybe its so normal for your team to behave like such lunatics that it doesnt even get noticed, but it really comes down to two possibilities, incompetence, or bias.

You seem to be implying that a member who spreads lies and or disinformation should be banned. Am I understanding you correctly?

I don't expect you to agree with me about the bias, but that's fine. My point remains. There are a number of people here who consistently play the player rather than the ball. Very consistently. In fact, virtually all the time. You can see it. It's obvious, even in a topic on moderation. So why does it continue?

It goes back to what moderation considers trolling, and how their definition is not applied equally.

More precisely: It goes to when moderator intervention is necessary.

If PersonA trolls and PersonBtoY ignore it but PersonZ complains, then we tend to do nothing because we see that there are members of the forum who set a good example of ignoring what they perceive to be trolling. There is no need for a moderator to intervene if most folks ignore the post.

If PersonA trolls and PersonBtoY respond cleverly in such a way as to include the substance of the troll post but keep the discussion on topic, then we tend to do nothing again even if PersonZ complains.

Moderator intervention can be more disruptive than it is worth if folks ignore what they perceive to be trolling.

I don't normally respond to parsed posts either, and if I must, I quote the whole thing and respond below. Truth be told, I rarely even read parsed posts.

Well, one parsing posters is quite funny. I make exception for him.

Please avoid excessive quoting. Quoting the entirety of a fellow member's post is rarely justified.

We understand the intention of preserving all of the previous member's words so that there is no doubt about your rejoinder. However, we are telling you not to do that. Please rely on the SNAPBACK hyperlink to demonstrate the flow of your response. A short SNIPpet of the previous member's post is sufficient to allow your reader to verify the source.

8. As to my use of quotes from the KKK, David Duke, Hitler and his minions in relation to your views, you are invited and quite capable of explaining how your views of immigrants is different from theirs. I do not find that as being off topic when "other races and regions" are being criticized.

It is off topic.

I have given these posters yet another opportunity to disassociate themselves from the past hate mongers.

Unfortunately, I am still waiting.

Does that not promote discussion?

Perhaps it does.

From a moderation frame of reference, it promotes thread drift. Your intent to steer the direction of the discussion towards a comparison between a fellow member's thoughts and those of other people is not the subject of the thread.

If that is what you want to discuss, go ahead and open a new thread.

Sure, you "have given these posters yet an other opportunity to whatever" but nobody is under any obligation to reply to anybody else's post. If you keep repeating your request, at some point, it becomes trolling.

When dealing with flame-bait trolling, would it not be more effective to remove the poster rather than just the post?

Not as a general rule. The vast majority of members would have been banned by now. We intend to give folks the opportunity to clearly express their opinions rather than to impose censorship upon the discussions.

Howevever, if you want that as a general rule, be our guest. When you encounter flame-bait trolling, report it and make a suggestion for an intervention. Tell us what you want us to do. A temporary suspension? A permanent ban?

Not all flame-baiting is equal. Remember how Argus believes Any idiot can see quite plainly that the world is flat. is an archetypical troll post.

Some posts are clearly meant solely to annoy. However, some annoying posts are also meant to further a discussion -- i.e., they have substance to them.

We mods see through the snarkiness and trolling. Moderator intervention depends on the poster, the post in question and the flow of the discussion. To put it a different way, if we mod staff can understand the point of a post and if that point furthers the discussion, we tend to leave it alone if we see others are ignoring the trolling.

The most effective way of dealing with trolling is for everybody to ignore it.

[Michael Hardner]

Mine are in response to theirs. It seems to me if you can't or won't stop people who 'play the man' then at least hit the first one who does it in a topic.

1. I don't agree that yours are 'in response' in every case. 2. Refereeing 'who did it first' is not a solution.

[Michael Hardner]

"The most effective way of dealing with trolling is for everybody to ignore it. "

[Argus]

"The most effective way of dealing with trolling is for everybody to ignore it. "

Uhm, no, the most effective way of dealing with trolling is to delete the post.

Just like the most effective way to keep people playing a soccer game from tackling other players is to penalize them so they stop doing it.

Your way of saying "well, it was borderline" or it wasn't a bad insult, or it wasn't a bad personal attack just leads to the current culture of continuous back and forth insults. This scares away potential new posters who want to hold intelligent conversations and instead brings us a collection of kooks, conspiracy nuts, and anti-social losers who are incapable of discussing anything intelligently and don't need to here.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Argus

[Big Guy]

...

Howevever, if you want that as a general rule, be our guest. When you encounter flame-bait trolling, report it and make a suggestion for an intervention. Tell us what you want us to do. A temporary suspension? A permanent ban?

...

Personally, as you know I do not "report" posters or posts who are doing something that irritates me or appears to be beyond the guidelines. This is not my site and I have no right to try to tell you how to run your board. I am quite capable of escalating a battle of words but unfortunately have found that some of what I considered to be rebuttals were deleted and sometimes I received warnings.

I do understand that moderating forces the moderator to make subjective evaluations as to where to draw the line and how to interpret implied insults. I wish you luck.

As to intelligent communications, that would require that intelligent people to be involved. Why would any intelligent person spend precious free time to get involved in a communication with someone who is rude and lacks any sense of respect for others?

When I post here or elsewhere, If it passes these tests then I post (after re-reading):

Is it worth the time and effort to create and submit the post?

Would I attach my real name if required?

Would I make the same statement in real time with real people?

If the answer to each of those is "yes" then I post.

I suggest that those who are unhappy with the level of moderation on this board cannot answer "yes" to those questions and subsequently look for some moderator to protect them from themselves.

The level of personal insults, baiting and demeaning that are allowed on here would tend to turn away those more educated and intelligent individuals who are more concerned with commenting on issues than avoiding and defending from personal attacks. It is the worst offenders who set the tone. I have noticed the absence of (what I had considered to be) some exceptionally wise and generous posters.

Each to his/her own - but you get what you allow.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Big Guy

[BC_chick]

Mine are in response to theirs. It seems to me if you can't or won't stop people who 'play the man' then at least hit the first one who does it in a topic.

This. Complete and utter BS.

I certainly did not call you names or 'start anything' to which you needed to respond by calling me or my arguments ignorant, stupid or lame (on the Syrian refugee thread).

Here you are whining about being so mistreated but maybe you should check your tone and how you talk to people.

The way you talk to others is why people are rude to you.

Edited October 26, 2015 by BC_chick

[cybercoma]

I think MH pointed out clearly that there's a certain lack of reflexivity to Argus's arguments here.

[Argus]

This. Complete and utter BS.

I certainly did not call you names or 'start anything' to which you needed to respond by calling me or my arguments ignorant, stupid or lame (on the Syrian refugee thread).

Oh do whine on, why don't you. You deliberately picked a fight for no reason I can imagine. I was commenting on the very well documented Arabic belief in conspiracy theories, and you replied to the effect that "those who blame immigrants for their problems are xenophobes". Right. That wasn't meant to be a personal shot at all, was it? Nope. I demanded an example, which you couldn't and can't produce, and didn't have the integrity to withdraw your sneering innuendo. So I was harsher in criticizing your incredibly misinformed ideas than I had to be, but no harsher than you deserve. If you don't want people to reply harshly don't pick fights. As I've said before, I am not a 'turn the other cheek' kind of guy. You get what you give.

I just love how progressives think it's their right to be as snotty as possible to people, then get indignant when people don't love them.

[BC_chick]

I was commenting on the very well documented Arabic belief in conspiracy theories, and you replied to the effect that "those who blame immigrants for their problems are xenophobes". Right. That wasn't meant to be a personal shot at all, was it? Nope.

No it wasn't personal, I meant it generally, but too funny you'd think I'm talking about you. :lol:

[Argus]

No it wasn't personal, I meant it generally, but too funny you'd think I'm talking about you. :lol:

So you meant it generally... in a direct reply to me... where immigration wasn't even the subject. You just decided that was a good place to put that, huh?

I'm sure you'll find someone somewhere who will believe that, but not very many of them.

[BC_chick]

So you meant it generally... in a direct reply to me... where immigration wasn't even the subject. You just decided that was a good place to put that, huh?

I'm sure you'll find someone somewhere who will believe that, but not very many of them.

Oh because Trudeau's stance on Syrian refugees is just such a 'good place' to say Arabs are conspiracy theorists. Give it up, your statement was ridiculous and it started it.

Thereafter you jumped in on something I said to another poster (which I corrected myself on in my own post) and you couldn't just disagree with me and say no, BC_chick, here is where you're wrong... it's all about how stupid and ignorant I am.

Go away, honestly. You're a rude angry man.

[Argus]

Oh because Trudeau's stance on Syrian refugees is just such a 'good place' to say Arabs are conspiracy theorists.

It was in reply to the statement that Arabs believe the US is responsible for the rise of extremism.

Give it up, your statement was ridiculous and it started it.

See, this is the thing with progressives. They get offended by something you say, and then insult you for it. But it never occurs to them to ask where you got that from, or whether there might be truth in it. They think you're insulting some minority somewhere, and they immediately launch into insult mode.

Conspiracy theories are a prevalent feature of Arab culture and politics. Prof. Matthew Gray writes they "are a common and popular phenomenon." "Conspiracism is an important phenomenon in understanding Arab Middle Eastern politics ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_in_the_Arab_world

Conspiracy theories are rife in both Muslim-majority countries and Muslim communities here in the west. The events of 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terror” unleashed a vast array of hoaxers, hucksters and fantasists from Birmingham to Beirut.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/inside-jobs-and-israeli-stooges-why-muslim-world-thrall-conspiracy-theories

Go away, honestly. You're a rude angry man.

I know you feel you're entitled to be as snotty and rude as you want without anyone replying in kind, but the real world doesn't work that way. So you can stop playing the victim card.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Argus

[Charles Anthony]

Give it a rest, guys.

[BC_chick]

Worry not. I didn't respond to that and I wasn't planning on it.

[Argus]

Give it a rest, guys.

Sure. But I'd just like to point out that when she writes

Oh because Trudeau's stance on Syrian refugees is just such a 'good place' to say Arabs are conspiracy theorists. Give it up, your statement was ridiculous and it started it.

She has confirmed that her xenophobe insult was not 'general' as she earlier claimed, but specifically intended as a personal attack. These kinds of 'general' statements have become what MH has termed "MLW legal insults" and are growing in popularity, inserted in response to other posters, or immediately under what another poster writes. Maybe you guys should stop trying to pretend you're lawyers and considering technical legalities of insults and personal attacks and simply call a spade a spade, recognizing a personal attack when you see it and responding accordingly.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Argus

[BubberMiley]

She has confirmed that her xenophobe insult was not 'general' as she earlier claimed, but specifically intended as a personal attack. These kinds of 'general' statements have become what MH has termed "MLW legal insults" and are growing in popularity, inserted in response to other posters, or immediately under what another poster writes.

Do you mean generalizations like "the left" are rude or "progressives" are insulting?