cybercoma Posted March 25, 2014 Report Posted March 25, 2014 I feel like the only reason it's not being done is that they don't want people complaining about others being suspended. There's no time or inclination for open dialogue about these things. The rulings are final and that's it. There's no discussion to be had. If members know who is suspended and when, then they will be inclined to argue or debate about it.
WWWTT Posted March 25, 2014 Report Posted March 25, 2014 We can usually tell who is suspended based on a member's absence / lack of posts. This is a poor means of deriving such info. I have taken long breaks from MLW before and will do so again. Has to do with what's going on in my life and my free time. WWWTT Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted March 25, 2014 Report Posted March 25, 2014 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! WWWTT Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Argus Posted March 26, 2014 Author Report Posted March 26, 2014 I feel like the only reason it's not being done is that they don't want people complaining about others being suspended. There's no time or inclination for open dialogue about these things. The rulings are final and that's it. There's no discussion to be had. If members know who is suspended and when, then they will be inclined to argue or debate about it. Who says there's no time for open dialogue? What is this web site ABOUT unless it's open dialogue? If CA doesn't have the time then maybe someone else can take over who does have the time - and inclination - to discuss what they're doing. But I think, when it comes to open discussion of people being punished Greg regards it as a priacy issue, which frankly, I don't see. When you commit a crime the police tell everyone about it. It's part of being an open society. It's also how people come to understand how laws are interpreted and punished, which are often not what's strictly written down. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 26, 2014 Author Report Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) 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. Yes, but not why. Three people have PMed me in the last couple of weeks who are in the cooler. As far as I know they're all still in the cooler. How many people are in the cooler at any given point in time anyway? Maybe, when the web site is quiet, and nobody is responding to your posts, it's because too many people are under suspension... Edited March 26, 2014 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted March 26, 2014 Report Posted March 26, 2014 Who says there's no time for open dialogue? What is this web site ABOUT unless it's open dialogue? If CA doesn't have the time then maybe someone else can take over who does have the time - and inclination - to discuss what they're doing. But I think, when it comes to open discussion of people being punished Greg regards it as a priacy issue, which frankly, I don't see. When you commit a crime the police tell everyone about it. It's part of being an open society. It's also how people come to understand how laws are interpreted and punished, which are often not what's strictly written down. Privacy? We're posing on a forum under pseudonyms. I don't see any issue with privacy here. Also, maybe I misspoke about "time." It just seems that way. But not a literal sense.
GostHacked Posted March 28, 2014 Report Posted March 28, 2014 Yes, but not why. Three people have PMed me in the last couple of weeks who are in the cooler. As far as I know they're all still in the cooler. How many people are in the cooler at any given point in time anyway? Maybe, when the web site is quiet, and nobody is responding to your posts, it's because too many people are under suspension... It's because the wrong ones are under suspension.
Argus Posted March 28, 2014 Author Report Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) It's because the wrong ones are under suspension. A web site devoted to discussion thrives on... discussion. The more people under suspension the less discussion there will be. Period. That's why I feel suspension should be a last resort. Instead, the individual could be told to change/delete a post. Edited March 28, 2014 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted March 28, 2014 Report Posted March 28, 2014 A web site devoted to discussion thrives on... discussion. The more people under suspension the less discussion there will be. Period. That's why I feel suspension should be a last resort. Instead, the individual could be told to change/delete a post. I get it, but what we get from some posters is not discussion at all. I also indicated that many who have had suspensions did not deserve them. Those posters expressed the same concerns I have. Is it the way they have gone about it? Maybe. But one can only say the same thing so many times before they say 'f*ck it' and simply leave the site. I am proposing a limit on suspensions. Get suspended more than X and you are gone permanently. I see the membership at the bottom is in the thousands and yet we only have a limited number of people actually making posts. Yes we will have lurkers, all sites do. There is a way to encourage discussion, but the tactics of a few have made that quite problematic. And when some of those posters are taken to task, the result is the suspension of the person making the complaint. Which is not fair at all and I am calling that out. What would be nice is that a mod can modify the post by stating which part of it was against the rules so we have some clear examples of how this is applied.
Argus Posted March 28, 2014 Author Report Posted March 28, 2014 I am proposing a limit on suspensions. Get suspended more than X and you are gone permanently. Which would, under the current regime, inevitably mean all long-term posters would be gone. It would also disproprotionately affect those who get involved with controversial subjects, who are passionate, and who make enemies of certain nebbish types who will read every one of their posts looking for a violation so they cna send it to the mods. I see the membership at the bottom is in the thousands and yet we only have a limited number of people actually making posts. So eliminate all members who haven't posted in a year. Yes we will have lurkers, all sites do. There is a way to encourage discussion, but the tactics of a few have made that quite problematic. As I said earlier, I started posting when moderation didn't exist. The number of insults and obscenities hurled around on usenet political newsgroups made them, in a way, actually kind of funny at times. Lots of nerd raging going on. This site is comparatively soft, cuddly and gentle. I get that some are timid about getting involved in discussions where people might question their motivation, knowledge and intelligence, but hey, it's a political discussion site. Political discussions are prone to passion. The only way to eliminate that is to make them so dull nobody really wants to read the bland discussions the few bother to offer up for viewing. And when some of those posters are taken to task, the result is the suspension of the person making the complaint. Which is not fair at all and I am calling that out. Because the current theory of moderation is you're not supposed to take people to task publicly. You're supposed to notify the modeator. The problem with that is you never hear back from the moderator and, if the individual continues to post, you have no idea if your message was acted on, and are likely to suspect it wasn't. So you start thinking, well, if they can act like that so can I... What would be nice is that a mod can modify the post by stating which part of it was against the rules so we have some clear examples of how this is applied. The mods have that power. They can change threat titles or delete posts any time they want. I went looking for the post which got me my most recent suspension, the one insulting Afghanistan, and it doesn't seem to exist any more. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted March 28, 2014 Report Posted March 28, 2014 Which would, under the current regime, inevitably mean all long-term posters would be gone. If this was applied early on, you would have less repeating violators. Yes that might put me out of here as well, based on the infractions, some I deserved. But some wont even own their behaviour. But since that had not been done early on, you have repeating infractions from the same posters. So, either an example is set, or the asshatery continues. I would rather this place not degrade into some of the other sites that have been mentioned here. It would also disproprotionately affect those who get involved with controversial subjects, who are passionate, and who make enemies of certain nebbish types who will read every one of their posts looking for a violation so they cna send it to the mods. We can discuss things without being an asshole about it. I never reported anyone because of a differing view. I will take those to task who call me an anti-semite for no other reason than to try and discredit what my post contained. There is a difference here, and that needs to be understood. We may disagree on a point, but we simply don't need to be a dick about it. The mods have that power. They can change threat titles or delete posts any time they want. I went looking for the post which got me my most recent suspension, the one insulting Afghanistan, and it doesn't seem to exist any more. That thread deletion was a proper move in my view. That thread was only going to result in more tossing of feces. But I believe it had a lot to do with the tone of the OP, which kind of set the stage.
Argus Posted March 29, 2014 Author Report Posted March 29, 2014 If this was applied early on, you would have less repeating violators. The last four times I was suspended I was honestly very surprised. I had no idea I could be suspended for something as non-inflammatory as mocking Afghanistan's backward, ignorant, fanatically religious culture, for example. I was suspended once for dismissively referring to a former RCMP commisioner as Chretien's bumboy. To me, that meant lackey, but CA was outraged by the origins of the term and took it as a gay slur. I talked about Quebec's bigoted ethnocentric culture and got suspended for being intollerent. It's always something new. I would rather this place not degrade into some of the other sites that have been mentioned here. Nothing makes a place go downhill faster than having a low number of posts. If the high frequency posters leave, there isn't much there to argue or discuss, and those who show up, newbies, don't see much, and leave. That's why it's so very hard to get such a web site started. There's little to attract people with a low population of active posters. We can discuss things without being an asshole about it. I can. Some people can't. I would venture to guess a fairly high percentage of posters to web sites like this are not well-socialized in real life, and tend to be nerds and geeks. That thread deletion was a proper move in my view. That thread was only going to result in more tossing of feces. The thread in which I posted is still there. It was only my post which disappeared. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 4, 2014 Author Report Posted April 4, 2014 Thanks Argus, and thanks to everyone that posted in the previous "What improvements would you like to see..." thread. I'm serious about addressing these issues, I want to make this forum as attractive and as welcome as possible. Give me a few days to collect my thoughts, and speak with both Charles and Micheal. So, Greg. I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on this issue... "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted April 6, 2014 Report Posted April 6, 2014 It's been a couple weeks since this thread was started. There are a couple other threads that talk about this, but little to no response yet. I am with Argus in wanting to find out what the response is. That response will have bearing on my personal decision to continue with being a member on this site. Last time I asked for my ID to be discontinue, I get the response of 'why' ?? Made me laugh really. How does the moderation now know the 'why'?? Seriously. Anyways if certain things are not taken care of, I may just end up posting like those others. That should get my ID banned quick. Maybe that is an alternative for me. Might give it a shot. Moderation does not seem to care, so why should I ?
BubberMiley Posted April 6, 2014 Report Posted April 6, 2014 I too don't understand why someone would ask for their ID to be discontinued rather than just discontinue using their ID themselves. I don't see why the mods should have to mess up the board with dead "guest" IDs just because people think that will get more attention than just not posting anymore. "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
OftenWrong Posted April 6, 2014 Report Posted April 6, 2014 Indeed, I see no problem with the moderation of these forums...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2014 Report Posted April 6, 2014 In the whole month that you've been here? What was your handle before?
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 7, 2014 Report Posted April 7, 2014 Just in case it hasn't been made very clear already, those members who are dissatisfied with the moderator function and/or the lack of immediate responses are not forced to stay here...far from it. Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted April 7, 2014 Report Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Spoken like a true senior mocking troll. So, what is the word from moderation? Are we going to get a response on cleaning up and making this place better? I have solutions, as others do, but is the moderation up to the task of actually being moderators? Or should I just stop whining? Edited April 7, 2014 by GostHacked
Argus Posted April 7, 2014 Author Report Posted April 7, 2014 Just in case it hasn't been made very clear already, those members who are dissatisfied with the moderator function and/or the lack of immediate responses are not forced to stay here...far from it. And who would you talk to then? The active population of this site continues to decline. That is the concern. Moderating policies have driven a number of very active posters away. Your response seems to be "so what?". Which is fine, but what do you do then given this appears to be what you spend most of your day on? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted April 7, 2014 Report Posted April 7, 2014 And who would you talk to then? The active population of this site continues to decline. That is the concern. Moderating policies have driven a number of very active posters away. Your response seems to be "so what?". Which is fine, but what do you do then given this appears to be what you spend most of your day on?After that he takes the American servers back for America!
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 7, 2014 Report Posted April 7, 2014 And who would you talk to then? The active population of this site continues to decline. That is the concern. Moderating policies have driven a number of very active posters away. Your response seems to be "so what?". Which is fine, but what do you do then given this appears to be what you spend most of your day on? Agreed....so what? There are plenty of other frequent and even infrequent members who will continue to post without complaining about the moderating function. Methinks thou dost protest too much. Economics trumps Virtue.
The_Squid Posted April 7, 2014 Report Posted April 7, 2014 And who would you talk to then? The active population of this site continues to decline. That is the concern. Moderating policies have driven a number of very active posters away. Your response seems to be "so what?". Which is fine, but what do you do then given this appears to be what you spend most of your day on? The trolls here are like parasites that kill their hosts... Once dead, they just move on to the next host I suppose...
WWWTT Posted April 10, 2014 Report Posted April 10, 2014 Just in case it hasn't been made very clear already, those members who are dissatisfied with the moderator function and/or the lack of immediate responses are not forced to stay here...far from it. Taking a break is not a bad thing either. I can see getting steamed up over an out of control debate/thread, I think it happens to everyone here. No point in staying angry forever. WWWTT Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
waldo Posted April 10, 2014 Report Posted April 10, 2014 One change however, I'm going to start a NEW thread on moderation and we can discuss that issue separately (let me start this thread, as there are a few things I want to announce first). Lets keep this thread going with non-moderation suggestions. Thanks Argus, and thanks to everyone that posted in the previous "What improvements would you like to see..." thread. I'm serious about addressing these issues, I want to make this forum as attractive and as welcome as possible. Give me a few days to collect my thoughts, and speak with both Charles and Micheal Greg: per your initial January 16th suggestion, as you reinforced March 20th... given your expressed seriousness, please provide your 'collected thoughts'. Thanks in advance. So, Greg. I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on this issue... I am with Argus in wanting to find out what the response is. .
Recommended Posts