Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't see how trying to make people debate like robots improves the quality of the board, but forcing them to treat sensitive issues with respect makes sense to me.

This is obviously a contradictory statement. Neither idea has anything to do with this forum.

[WestCoastRunner]

I don't know why people get suspended for calling out trolls as they see it. The folks getting suspended contribute much more value to this forum than the folks that seem to get away with their trollish behaviour. I am getting tired of the members getting suspended that I think contribute much more value to the threads here then the members that instigate all this BS. There is far too much intellect being banished and far too much mediocre intellect being allowed to thrive here.

[bleeding heart]

Overthere,

Your "certainty" on the matter might be too confident.

[OftenWrong]

Overthere,

Your "certainty" on the matter might be too confident.

Try to get my name right, lest my "certainty" on this matter is a little too subtle for ya

[bleeding heart]

Oops. My apologies, to both the fine OftenWrong and the fine Overthere.

I only meant to suggest that the permanent banning of BC_2004 would not self-evidently improve MLW.

Edited April 18, 2014 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

I only meant to suggest that the permanent banning of BC_2004 would not self-evidently improve MLW.

Interesting...is there a different kind of "banning" that is not otherwise permanent ? Perhaps they would garner even more satisfaction by burning "bush_cheney2004" at the stake ?

[bleeding heart]

Non-permanent banning.... Right, I see what you mean.

[Charles Anthony]

Charles Anthony is hardly a leftist these days. He has admitted to changing political ideologies and if one were so inclined, they could find his postings on other websites (some of which are also run by Greg).

What other sites?

I post intermittently on Greg's blog ThePolitic.com where you can get a taste of my philosophy. Try to pidgeon-hole me with a label if you can. I have trouble doing so beyond calling myself an anarcho-capitalist counter-Roman Catholic communo-primitivist with patriarchal tendencies who believes "money" is the root of all evil. If you want to understand more about my opinions, send me a PM and ask. You can read some of the nonsense I wrote here in the forum in days of yore before I started facilitating the moderation. However, I disagree with some of what I wrote in the past.

Nowadays, I defend my philosophy differently from how I did before. That is largely thanks to you guys through your discussions directly with me long ago and with your discussions now amongst yourselves. I am grateful to many of you for having helped me shake off illusions I once held and strengthening some of my articles of faith.

Enough about me. It does none of you any good to infer political bias on my part because nearly 99% of what you all write disagrees with my own personal philosophy. If you are a righty, then you will think I am a lefty. If you are a lefty, then you will likely think I am a righty. I do not see an interesting difference between those labels nor between the members of their common camps. Get over it and focus on your own posting style in the forum.

[jbg]

A lot of people are unhappy with the moderating policies at MLW. This did not use to be the case.

The first thing to remember is that Charles and Greg are volunteers. They do not make a penny nor receive much in the way of thanks. Great societies are built on the backs of volunteers. Remember that.

I've read far more complaints in the last year or two than I ever used to hear before. We're speaking about how to encourage more posters, yet long term members who were prolific posters have left in a huff over moderating policies. Others have simply disappeared, banned or just gone. Still others threaten to leave.

One thing that Greg used to do when he was more active was to send private messages outlining the problems he had with a post, such as using a deprecatory nickname for a politician and asking for a correction. Only when he received no cooperation was there a suspension or ban.

What I think people don't consider is that the moderating policies have changed over the years, and what you can say on this site is now more restricted than parliament....The central purpose of Mapleleafweb's moderating seems to have become enforcing political correctness....This experience seems to mirror what I've heard from other members. Most of them were not suspended for insulting anyone here, but for insults 'towards third parties', which is a rule which used to be largely ignored but has now become sweeping in its interpretation and rigid in its enforcement. Direct personal insults seem to be rare here, but suspensions seem to be growing in frequency.

Dont' get me wrong, there is a reason to keep an eye on what is said towards third parties, but only in that it can cause flamewars. That's why you can't call Liberals lieberals or Conseratives Cons. But I believe this has been taken to extremes and has driven away and continues to drive away members....The enforcement of the rule against third party insults needs to be drastically cut back. The only need of moderation is when discussions become too personal, harsh, angry and filled with vituperation and invective. Someone making a politically incorrect comment should not be suspended.

I understand your point. But look at Freedominion's fate (link to thread on subject).

Over the past year or so I have been suspended a number of times. Most recently, I was suspended last week for 'rude and outrageous' comments about the cultural values of Afghanistan's people. Prior to that I was suspended for comments about Quebecers, about the native council of Attawapiskat, and for what the moderator took to be a homophobic slur (it wasn't but he wasn't insterested in discussion) about a former commisioner of the RCMP.

I was suspended for starting a sarcastic thread about what Hugo Chavez's values meant for Canada. I think that attempts at humor should not be so heavily punished. Attempts at humour should be treated different.

Here's the thing. I can stand up in the House of Commons and say nasty things about Aghanistan's treatment of women, call them violent religious fanatics and misogynists and loonies. No one will stop me. Here, I get suspended for it. I could get up in the House and say the issue with Attawapiskat is not the Canadian government but the 'dumbass local natives' without fear, but here I get suspended for it.

Isn't there Parliamentary privilege?

Charles Anthony is not open to any discussion of any sort when he suspends you. He doesn't respond to questions. People have often complained that they don't even know why they were suspended. I don't know if he doesn't have the time or simply doesn't have the inclination. I suspect it's both.

He actually does sometimes respond. A bit of dialogue would be useful, especially with normally constructive posters.

[Bryan]

I'm surprised that so many of you guys say you've been suspended on more than one ocassion. Considering how tame the conversation is here, that seems needlessly interventionist in the part of the moderators.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps, but one hasn't truly enjoyed the entire MLW forum experience without a few stern warnings and suspensions. Kinda reminds me of the repeated choke hold warnings given by the refs to professional wrestlers on TV back in the '60s and '70s. Anybody seen DoP in der Kooler ?

[jbg]

Charles was very much NDP in his outlook last time he posted as himself. The only difference seems to be that now when he finds my comments 'outrageous'' he gets to suspend me.

Charles and I don't often agree and I am very "NDP" in my outlook. And he suspends me as well.

[jbg]

Better yet, stop being so anal about thread drift.

The problem with thread drift is that the Forum table of contents becomes useless as a result of it. A thread that's supposed to be about global warming, say, morphs into one on military policy. So the natural audience for a discussion is not there.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm surprised that so many of you guys say you've been suspended on more than one ocassion. Considering how tame the conversation is here, that seems needlessly interventionist in the part of the moderators.

I'm glad you said that, as I perceive that this was not always the case.

[Michael Hardner]

It does none of you any good to infer political bias on my part because nearly 99% of what you all write disagrees with my own personal philosophy.

This is why it has made me chuckle when others have opined in the past that they were sure that you were a biased NDPer, or somesuch.

[Argus]

Charles and I don't often agree and I am very "NDP" in my outlook. And he suspends me as well.

The NDP wouldn't allow anyone with your view of Islam and Muslims anywhere NEAR their party. And I believe that is generally what gets you suspended.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Enough about me. It does none of you any good to infer political bias on my part because nearly 99% of what you all write disagrees with my own personal philosophy. If you are a righty, then you will think I am a lefty. If you are a lefty, then you will likely think I am a righty. I do not see an interesting difference between those labels nor between the members of their common camps. Get over it and focus on your own posting style in the forum.

Since you brought it up...

Your overall politics is not something I have much of a grasp on. But it is clear you are highly offended personally whenever anyone expresses what you believe to be dissaproving views of or involving a 'protected' group. I.e., you are extremely politically correct, and that has not changed since before you became moderator.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

The first thing to remember is that Charles and Greg are volunteers. They do not make a penny nor receive much in the way of thanks. Great societies are built on the backs of volunteers. Remember that.

I'm not sure what this has to do with expressing dissatisfaction for the job a volunteer is doing, or the manner in which the volunteer does it.

One thing that Greg used to do when he was more active was to send private messages outlining the problems he had with a post, such as using a deprecatory nickname for a politician and asking for a correction. Only when he received no cooperation was there a suspension or ban.

It was much less heavy handed.

I understand your point. But look at Freedominion's fate

Irrelevent. I'm not suggesting we allow libelous insults to be directed at individuals. I don't think that gets people suspended much anyway. It's the group thing which seems to draw most of the suspensions, ie. when someone says something uncharitable about natives, gays, muslims, quebecers, etc.

[Argus]

I'm glad you said that, as I perceive that this was not always the case.

I can't say I've noticed the conversation is any more collegial now than it was ten years ago.

[Michael Hardner]

I can't say I've noticed the conversation is any more collegial now than it was ten years ago.

One thing the fish knows exactly nothing about is water, as per McLuhan.

[cybercoma]

I can't say I've noticed the conversation is any more collegial now than it was ten years ago.

I'd say less so, if anything.

[Argus]

One thing the fish knows exactly nothing about is water, as per McLuhan.

It knows how cold or hot it is. It knows if it tastes bad or if it has trouble breathing it.

In any case, Mcluhan meant they had no basis for comparison. That's hardly the case here. There are other forums, and we can compare at least our memories of ten years ago and our experiences today.

[Argus]

I'd say less so, if anything.

I'd say there are a lot fewer direct insults now. However, there is a lot of snide, snotty, condescending, contemptuous, mocking derision now which, I believe, has mostly taken the place of the direct insults.

[jbg]

The NDP wouldn't allow anyone with your view of Islam and Muslims anywhere NEAR their party. And I believe that is generally what gets you suspended.

Wrong.

I totally admire Islam and the Muslims' awesome accomplishment.

[jbg]

I'm not sure what this has to do with expressing dissatisfaction for the job a volunteer is doing, or the manner in which the volunteer does it.

That falls in the category of "no good deed goes unpunished."

It (the moderation) was much less heavy handed.

One of my few suggestions for improvement is that they try that style, at least with posters who seem to be serious.

Irrelevent. I'm not suggesting we allow libelous insults to be directed at individuals. I don't think that gets people suspended much anyway. It's the group thing which seems to draw most of the suspensions, ie. when someone says something uncharitable about natives, gays, muslims, quebecers, etc.

Canada's view of libel is a broad one. The posters on FD that caused that problem were not notoriously raucous and yet they brought down the forum, and put Connie and Mark in a world of hurt they don't deserve. Edited April 25, 2014 by jbg