Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Argus]

I advocate for a ban if the poster violates or gets suspended X amount of times. I've been advocating for outright bans for some time. Which would create less work for the moderators.

First, that would just mean the longer you were here, the more likely you were to get banned. Second, the banned person would simply create another ID and come right back.

[GostHacked]

First, that would just mean the longer you were here, the more likely you were to get banned. Second, the banned person would simply create another ID and come right back.

Well even a ban of an IP can happen, but then there are ways around that too. However the consideration is how many suspensions should be allowed before a ban can be considered? Maybe the time frame in which these suspensions are carried out? I don't know. There will be many who will simply give up and not return in any form under a ban. But then there will be persistent ones that will come back only to do the same as before. If that be the case, then ban again. Way easier to ban than for someone to create another account.

I've got 7 warning points, and I believe about 5 suspensions over the 10+ years I have participated on this board. I would not hesitate to guess there are others who have more points, more suspensions with a lot less years.

[cybercoma]

Why would someone repeatedly make improper posts if they kept getting deleted?

Why do you keep insulting people when it keeps being brought to your attention?

[cybercoma]

Maybe, but now we have a moderator who has made any direct or indirect reference to how the forum is being moderated as a "thread drift" offense worthy of suspension, even as the moderator does the same. Responding to another member is now actionable if the moderator feels his "authoratay" is being challenged, regardless of the post's content.

Thread drift posts should just be deleted, including any by a moderator.

Probably the only time in forum history that I agree with Bush. Locking threads because of drift is one of the worst things the mods do here.

[Big Guy]

.... But then there will be persistent ones that will come back only to do the same as before. ...

It is technically impossible to ban anonymous posters, especially those who have a mental illness.

To use your free time to post on an anonymous bulletin boards must be an enjoyable experience or what person in their right mind would do so? Therefore, the individual poster gains pleasure from posting here. There are some posters here who consistently demean, insult, bait and troll others. These posters know that their posts anger, upset and/or make other people unhappy - yet they continue to do this.

Those posters then gain pleasure from instilling anger, upsetting others and making people unhappy.

That is not normal, healthy behaviour. Unhealthy behaviour indicates a mental illness.

The posters behind those avatars are suffering from a mental illness and cannot be treated the same as those with normal and healthy attitudes.

It is technically impossible to ban anonymous posters, especially those who have a mental illness.

[Argus]

There are some posters here who consistently demean, insult, bait and troll others. These posters know that their posts anger, upset and/or make other people unhappy - yet they continue to do this.

Good thing you never engage in such behaviour....

[GostHacked]

Good thing you never engage in such behaviour....

All of us are guilty of it.

[OftenWrong]

All of us are guilty of it.

Nice... it suggest this forum membership has been distilled down to that small group of members who are mentally ill. I like drop in to read sometimes... it's like watching an online version of "Shutter Island"...

[drummindiver]

Uh, no. A prolific writer is one that is very productive. Just so you know.

Someone else doesn't know what prolific means. There are many, many writers who are very productive toiling in obscurity.

[BubberMiley]

Someone else doesn't know what prolific means. There are many, many writers who are very productive toiling in obscurity.

And they would be considered to be prolific. Glad I could help.

[Argus]

So I was given another warning point today, for trolling.

Someone said "Paying off debt is a very irresponsible thing"

To which I replied "spoken like a true Liberal".

Evidently a sarcastic rejoinder which is clearly disagreement is now trolling.

On the other hand, I complained about a post which replied to mine two days ago which contained the following:

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information.

And the moderators saw no issue with this.

[drummindiver]

And they would be considered to be prolific. Glad I could help.

Thank you.

[Guest]

So I was given another warning point today, for trolling.

Someone said "Paying off debt is a very irresponsible thing"

To which I replied "spoken like a true Liberal".

Evidently a sarcastic rejoinder which is clearly disagreement is now trolling.

On the other hand, I complained about a post which replied to mine two days ago which contained the following:

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information.

And the moderators saw no issue with this.

Yeah, I had some posts deleted (no warning points though) for "No original content". I really don't get that. Look at the "Microaggressions" thread (with no disrespect intended to its creator). Basically 45 pages of "Oh, yes it is" and "Oh, no it isn't".

My content certainly wasn't original, but it was in response, as it always is, to the charge of bigotry being levelled against those who notice bad things. How come those posts never get removed? They're about as unoriginal as Kraft Dinner.

Edited November 7, 2015 by bcsapper

[The_Squid]

Evidently a sarcastic rejoinder which is clearly disagreement is now trolling.

Seems more like an insult than trolling.

And the moderators saw no issue with this.

How do you know that a warning or demerits weren't given out?

[BC_chick]

The posters behind those avatars are suffering from a mental illness and cannot be treated the same as those with normal and healthy attitudes.

Agreed. Better leave them be and ignore them than give them a sense of accomplishment by banning them. For a troll who thrives on angering people, I can't imagine a worse feeling than being totally ignored.

[Charles Anthony]

Why would someone repeatedly make improper posts if they kept getting deleted?

To provoke a momentary lapse of reason.

How many people do you think post material that they know at the time will get them suspended?

About 1 in 10 is my guess.

I have my theories but the reason eludes me. I have encountered a lot of people in my life who are incredibly rude and it escapes them. I have encountered lots of folks who defend rude behavior in the most astounding ways. Heck, I can even be rude at times!

When I am treated rudely in a retail setting, I tend to turn around and leave. I know if I am rude to my customers that I can not expect to make a sale. I have fired staff for being rude to customers. I am afraid to understand what goes on in their heads.

Perhaps there are Canadians who can be rude to their customers and still make sales.

Perhaps there are Canadians who can not be polite.

I know that nothing I've ever posted which got me suspended was done with the thought it was against the rules. Granted, the rules keep shifting back and forth, but when, for example I insulted the native council of a reserve or, or Quebec, or a previous RCMP commissioner, I didn't think those words would get me suspended. I still don't know what words got me suspended the last time because they won't say.

Too busy, I guess.

Too bad you can not recall what you actually said.

I guess the moderator's intervention was a success given that the only thing you recall is the only thing that matters: you insulted. We are making some headway here.

Maybe, but now we have a moderator who has made any direct or indirect reference to how the forum is being moderated as a "thread drift" offense worthy of suspension, even as the moderator does the same. Responding to another member is now actionable if the moderator feels his "authoratay" is being challenged, regardless of the post's content.

Thread drift posts should just be deleted, including any by a moderator.

Sure, but time matters and the reverse is also true: We have folks calling for the deletion of posts which contain 1% insult/drift and 99% substance. We can not do that if other folks ignore the other 1% and respond to the 99% substance. To do so would be disrespectful to those other folks who had the discipline to ignore what they deemed unworthy of discussion ---- only to appease a few whiners.

I advocate for a ban if the poster violates or gets suspended X amount of times. I've been advocating for outright bans for some time. Which would create less work for the moderators.

We do that but obviously, we cut most folks more slack than you would extend. We recognize that difference in opinion and we make no apologies for it.

We have banned very few folks in the past decade. I wished every single 1 of them smartened up their behavior and stayed. Unfortunately, they chose to degrade the forum more than contribute.

How come those posts never get removed? They're about as unoriginal as Kraft Dinner.

We tend to leave a post under the following circumstances:

-- if the complainer responds to the allegedly-offensive post;

-- if everybody-except-the-complainer ignores the allegedly-offensive aspect of the allegedly-offensive post and addresses the allegedly-non-offensive aspect of the allegedly-offensive post.

-- if somebody calls out the allegedly-offensive post in a civil manner or otherwise publicly asks the allegedly-offensive poster to avoid offending again.

Moral of the story: Do not respond to that which you want deleted.

Corollary: If you want us to work for you, do not give us MORE work than necessary.

It is that simple.

That is not normal, healthy behaviour. Unhealthy behaviour indicates a mental illness.

It is not that simple. You can not objectively discern mental illness from ill intent.

On the other hand, I complained about a post which replied to mine two days ago which contained the following:

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information.

And the moderators saw no issue with this.

There the poster never identified you nor anybody else specifically.

Instead of having a hissy fit, you could have counter-attacked the poster's argument. Perhaps explain why the statement is false? Perhaps explain why it is not "difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds." would have been a better response. Try that next time and then Report the next post as thread drift.

[socialist]

So I was given another warning point today, for trolling.

Someone said "Paying off debt is a very irresponsible thing"

To which I replied "spoken like a true Liberal".

Evidently a sarcastic rejoinder which is clearly disagreement is now trolling.

On the other hand, I complained about a post which replied to mine two days ago which contained the following:

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information.

And the moderators saw no issue with thi is.

I have 16 warning points. None of them deserved, in my opinion. Mike Hardner has it in for me, so I guess I better continue to tip-toe.

[Guest]

There the poster never identified you nor anybody else specifically.

Instead of having a hissy fit, you could have counter-attacked the poster's argument. Perhaps explain why the statement is false? Perhaps explain why it is not "difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds." would have been a better response.

I did all that. It was deleted.

Edited November 7, 2015 by bcsapper

[Argus]

Seems more like an insult than trolling.

How do you know that a warning or demerits weren't given out?

Well, they deleted my post but didn't delete his.

[Argus]

There the poster never identified you nor anybody else specifically.

Instead of having a hissy fit, you could have counter-attacked the poster's argument. Perhaps explain why the statement is false?

I see, so my reporting it is a 'hissy fit'. You tell us to ignore insults and the like, and report it, and when I do you not only do nothing you accuse me of having a 'hissy fit".

So since he didn't mention me by name, other than the fact he was directly responding to me and quoted me in his post then it's legal? Thanks for the information. I will go and respond to it then by saying

"I've noticed that a lot of sub-literate cretins who seem to echo what a lot of the Jew haters say now tend to use the word 'bigot' a lot, and I wonder if this is the product of poor education, poor upbringing, or being the product of incest."

Since I won't mention them directly by name it's acceptable here now, right?

Oh wait, I keep forgetting, since I'm not a progressive I'm held to a higher standard.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I did all that. It was deleted.

Was it not progressive? There are different standards here for 'progressive' posters and everyone else. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the two moderators both being way over on the Left side of the political spectrum.

[Charles Anthony]

Since I won't mention them directly by name it's acceptable here now, right?

What are your motives?

[Argus]

What are your motives?

The same as his, I suppose.

[Smallc]

So I was given another warning point today, for trolling.

Someone said "Paying off debt is a very irresponsible thing"

To which I replied "spoken like a true Liberal".

Evidently a sarcastic rejoinder which is clearly disagreement is now trolling.

On the other hand, I complained about a post which replied to mine two days ago which contained the following:

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information.

And the moderators saw no issue with this.

As you were responding to me (I didn't see any of this) you would have been responding to my own sarcasm. I was told I was foolish to spend excess money paying off debt rather than putting it in a savings account that earns next to no interest.

[Moonlight Graham]

Just from what I've seen, MLW has been moderated pretty well the last while, especially considering all the mania that happens on here during a federal election campaign. So kudos to them for the most part on that. That doesn't mean other people might not have valid criticisms of things I haven't experienced myself.

My only complaint was that the mods were a little overzealous on locking topics, especially ones that seemed to encourage good debate but didn't fit what they saw as fitting the criteria for a good OP. And some topics were locked without them explaining.

But moderation has seen a big improvement from a year or 2 ago when the banhammer was out like crazy LOL.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Moonlight Graham