Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[dialamah]

If the mods truly don't see him as a troll (smh), ignore list does seem like the only option.

Yeah, can say that for a few people.

[BC_chick]

I will make you an offer. If you answer my question, I will re-open your post so that all can see what is clear and what is unclear.What would you want the mod staff to do if somebody called you out for trolling and the mod staff disagreed with the complaint? i.e., the mod staff believes that you are not trolling.

Fair enough. If you all honestly think that an American poster constantly telling Canadian posters who support Democrat candidates that they're not voting in the American election is not intentionally inflammatory, then I'll just have to respectfully disagree.

As to the answer to your question, how about a trade? I'll answer your question and you answer mine.

If someone accused me of trolling and you disagreed, I would prefer that you do what you did to me several years ago when I used a derogatory term to refer to Stephen Harper. You PM'd me and told me that what I'm doing is against the rules and you asked me to change my wording. I did not feel censored, I willfully changed my post and I learned about the rules of the board. I did not make the same mistake again and I think that's a very reasonable approach. I would certainly prefer you treat posters who mistreat me in a similar fashion.

As for my question - we have a rules about trolling on this forum. Could you kindly define trolling once and for all so that I don't break the rules anymore?

From everything I've read elsewhere BC does fit the definition of a troll so I'd really like to know how this board defines the terms because it's obviously very different than mine.

[cybercoma]

Oh man, here we go again. Do share, Charles. What's your definition of trolling?

[BC_chick]

For the record here is wiki's definition of a troll

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement."

I am interested in knowing how BC telling me I'm not voting in the election (on numerous occasions) can be seen as contributing to the discussion in any way.

[BC_chick]

Oh man, here we go again. Do share, Charles. What's your definition of trolling?

Exactly. If we're expected to follow a rule the least we could expect is to have that rule defined in order to uphold it.

[cybercoma]

The definition of trolling is well known. It's been around since the age of BBS forums and Usenet groups. The problem here is that nobody knows what Charles' definition of trolling is or when he would see fit to intervene, more specifically. But this is a discussion that's been ongoing for years. Nothing against you, BC chick, but personally it doesn't even matter anymore—"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

[bush_cheney2004]

Fair enough. If you all honestly think that an American poster constantly telling Canadian posters who support Democrat candidates that they're not voting in the American election is not intentionally inflammatory, then I'll just have to respectfully disagree.

But this is the very reason is is not trolling....anytime a member claims to "support" a foreign political party or candidate without the right to vote in the election they open up an obvious statement of fact....not being able to vote. Doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican or Green or Communist Party of China. I've made the same factual assertion several times for all non U.S. citizens who cannot legally vote in U.S. elections...nothing special about Canada or Canadians in that regard.

From everything I've read elsewhere BC does fit the definition of a troll so I'd really like to know how this board defines the terms because it's obviously very different than mine.

It is against forum rules to make personal attacks against other members. See above with respect to calling another member "troll". Please use the ignore feature of this forum engine if my posts are so irksome.

[waldo]

But this is the very reason is is not trolling....anytime a member claims to "support" a foreign political party or candidate without the right to vote in the election they open up an obvious statement of fact....not being able to vote. Doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican or Green or Communist Party of China. I've made the same factual assertion several times for all non U.S. citizens who cannot legally vote in U.S. elections...nothing special about Canada or Canadians in that regard.

so you're just providing a 'matter-of-fact' statement and you don't do so to presume to shut-down/disqualify/delegitimize/belittle/invalidate said member's "support"... is that what you're saying?

if one is to accept that you truly are an American, when you so profusely provide your input/support for a particular Canadian political party/leader... should the same "matter-of-fact" statement apply towards you? And if so, why bother... clearly by your measure, your input has no bearing - yes?

.

[Big Guy]

I suggest that the moderators in dealing with trolling are in the same position as in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who tried to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.

Stewart wrote:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Just like other people do not "see" the same as Stewart apparently other posters do not "see" the same as Anthony.

[Big Guy]

I notice that there is a thread in the "Moral and Ethical Issues" that is called "The Positive Thread". It tells you about the negative tone on this board when you have to label a thread as "positive". But it does exclude a few posters.

Perhaps we need a separate section called "Insulting, Trolling and Demeaning". Then those posters of that ilk can gather and vent their wrath on each other and leave the rest of us to deal with issues in a civil manner.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

I suggest that the moderators in dealing with trolling are in the same position as in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who tried to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.

It's a clunky analogy, but as always I certainly appreciate yet another reference to American political and popular culture. I seriously doubt that the mods expend as much effort or thought on the matter.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps we need a separate section called "Insulting, Trolling and Demeaning". Then those posters of that ilk can gather and vent their wrath on each other and leave the rest of us to deal with issues in a civil manner.

That might work for a spell, until the usual passive-aggressive behaviours from "civil mannered" posters just fills the resulting vacuum.

[Guest]

I notice that there is a thread in the "Moral and Ethical Issues" that is called "The Positive Thread". It tells you about the negative tone on this board when you have to label a thread as "positive". But it does exclude a few posters.

Perhaps we need a separate section called "Insulting, Trolling and Demeaning". Then those posters of that ilk can gather and vent their wrath on each other and leave the rest of us to deal with issues in a civil manner.

You mean like telling people they were made up by the admin?

[BC_chick]

The definition of trolling is well known. It's been around since the age of BBS forums and Usenet groups. The problem here is that nobody knows what Charles' definition of trolling is or when he would see fit to intervene, more specifically. But this is a discussion that's been ongoing for years. Nothing against you, BC chick, but personally it doesn't even matter anymore"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

This forum is excessively moderated. My posts are often deleted and given the number of blank notifications I receive, many comments directed to me are also deleted.

It's frustrating and takes away at the quality of my experience to the point I don't want to 'join them' I'd rather just not post here.

As I mentioned earlier, the mods used to PM us and let us know what we did wrong so that we learn proper etiquette. I never broke a rule again once it was properly explained to me. This new approach is too delete-happy and leads to frustration instead of understanding.

It may save them time but at what cost? The loss of posters like me who have the ability to comply with the rules... if only we fully understood what the rules are.

Seems like bad business to me.

[GostHacked]

I think I've already made my point.

And if it only stopped there.

[GostHacked]

Justin Trudeau is not a Jr. Since his father's name was Pierre. The title does not fit. Calling George Bush Sr, and Jr is appropriate because they share the same first name. Other than that the beef with the term Jr is one of the dumbest things I have seen on MLW.

[Guest]

What about fils? That would work.

[Hal 9000]

I had this posted as a response to one of my posts! And nothing!

"Hmmm .... oh never mind. :/

oh ... ok ... stfu too.
maybe grow up too."

I commented to a post in december saying "that was stupid F****ng post". Only I used the real word and was suspended for a month. So, I don't a lot of faith in the interpretations of what is acceptable...or not.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Hal 9000

[GostHacked]

I commented to a post in december saying "that was stupid F****ng post". Only I used the real word and was suspended for a month. So, I don't a lot of faith in the interpretations of what is acceptable...or not.

There does seem to be some inconsistency in how rules are applied to posts and reasons for their removal. Blatant vitriol from some members gets a free pass. But calling that vitriol out seems to gets more attention from moderation when no reports were even made. I've had some posts of mine removed by MH. The reasons for it were complete rubbish in my views.

[Hal 9000]

If this was hockey, the Brad Marchands of this board are allowed to run wild...take him out (shove a glove in his face...whatever) and guess who's getting the penalty - that's right, the retaliator. That the refs/mods allow it is stunning.

[bush_cheney2004]

No interpretation is required when expletives or threats are posted. I bet the mods wish that all suspensions were as clear cut and easy.

[Argus]

If this was hockey, the Brad Marchands of this board are allowed to run wild...take him out (shove a glove in his face...whatever) and guess who's getting the penalty - that's right, the retaliator. That the refs/mods allow it is stunning.

True. Look at how Big guy calls several people trolls right in the moderating group, insults them by pretending he thinks they've been made up since they could never represent real rational people, and what does the moderator do? Simply denies it and doesn't even bother to delete the message. Now if I was to tell this individual what I think of him the moderator would be sending me an email telling me I was suspended for trolling.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the moderators being way over on the far Left of center like Big guy tho...

Edited February 7, 2016 by Argus

[poochy]

True. Look at how Big guy calls several people trolls right in the moderating group, insults them by pretending he thinks they've been made up since they could never represent real rational people, and what does the moderator do? Simply denies it and doesn't even bother to delete the message. Now if I was to tell this individual what I think of him the moderator would be sending me an email telling me I was suspended for trolling.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the moderators being way over on the far Left of center like Big guy tho...

It is the same thing over and over, people who show no willingness to actually debate things honestly, while trying to score points in a fashion that they think they can get away with and you dare not respond in kind, and certainly not in plain language, sure, you can play their little games but life is to short. And yes, the post you are referring to is a prime example of the MLW way, an obvious underhanded insult, and it's ignored. But then maybe no one reported it! Perhaps even having a mod read it isn't enough for them to have 'seen' it. The Mlwway™

[Big Guy]

You mean like telling people they were made up by the admin?

Huh? I state to the mods that I think that some of the avatars here have been created to keep the action going. That is my opinion. I base this opinion on the fact that I believe that people who constantly go out of their way to insult people, who spread racist, bigoted and xenophobic hate and who constantly make fools of themselves do not exist in real life. If they did then they would not last very long before someone "made them peaceful".

That is why I stated what I did.

How can I tell a fictitious avatar that they are not real if they do not exist in the first place?

[Argus]

It is the same thing over and over, people who show no willingness to actually debate things honestly, while trying to score points in a fashion that they think they can get away with and you dare not respond in kind, and certainly not in plain language, sure, you can play their little games but life is to short. And yes, the post you are referring to is a prime example of the MLW way, an obvious underhanded insult, and it's ignored. But then maybe no one reported it! Perhaps even having a mod read it isn't enough for them to have 'seen' it. The Mlwway™

It seems that people like him get a free ride to insult other posters, since I can't think of anyone in here who does it more often, and has less useful or intelligent input into any actual discussion.