Guest Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 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? I just found it Insulting, trolling and demeaning. But that's just my opinion. It's still there, so the Mods don't share it with me, obviously. Still, I have to be true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 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.I suspect a lot of us can think of someone.
Big Guy Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 I just found it Insulting, trolling and demeaning. But that's just my opinion. It's still there, so the Mods don't share it with me, obviously. Still, I have to be true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself... I find your stating that one of my posts is insulting, trolling and demeaning to be insulting, trolling and demeaning. But that's just my opinion. Polonius (bcsapper): This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Farewell, my blessing season this in thee! Laertes (Big Guy): Most humbly do I take my leave, my lord. Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82 Maybe Bill had it right. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
dialamah Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) I just found it Insulting, trolling and demeaning. But that's just my opinion. I found it amusing. Still, I have to be true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself...<snick> true to myself... This too. Edited February 7, 2016 by Charles Anthony fixed quote
Guest Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 I find your stating that one of my posts is insulting, trolling and demeaning to be insulting, trolling and demeaning. But that's just my opinion. Polonius (bcsapper): This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Farewell, my blessing season this in thee! Laertes (Big Guy): Most humbly do I take my leave, my lord. Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82 Maybe Bill had it right. Meh, Polonius and Laertes were made up. Maybe WS was an admin on some Elizabethan forum.
msj Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 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. Ha! Pot meet kettle. If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Charles Anthony Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 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 misunderstood my question. I re-opened up your post anyways. I believe your post is obviously inappropriate and trolling. I will re-phrase my question. I am asking about a hypothetical situation whereby you post something. We think your post is fine. You think your post is fine. A complainer thinks your post is trolling and posts a drive-by public announcement such as "BC-chick is obviously trolling here!" in the forums instead of ignoreporting it. What do you want us to do with this public complaint? 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?Sure. We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action. Forum Rules and Guidelines 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.Please do not call-out anybody a troll in the public forums. We do not want to tolerate that. If you think somebody is a troll or is trolling, press the [Report] button associated with the post to alert us. We want to hear your explanation and your complaint. if we disagree, we are willing to discuss your claim privately if you are serious about discussing it. If you call somebody a troll in the open forum again, you risk temporarily losing your posting privileges. 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.True. We strive to make quicker decisions. On occasion we disagree on how to intervene or even if an intervention is necessary. I do not like that analogy. I forget how the joke goes but the punchline is A terrorist is an other man's freedom fighter. To understand our moderation, you all have to start with the following basic axiom: THERE IS NO AGREEMENT AMONG YOU ON WHAT IS TROLLING AND WHAT IS NOT TROLLING. Approximately half of you agree on allegations of trolling while the other half of you disagree. If you do not recognize this fact, you will never understand moderation nor will you ever be content here. We mods rarely agree on the underlying politics/morality of your exchanges nor do we agree among ourselves. We focus on your delivery. When we read your posts, we read to understand your arguments. We read not to be swayed nor reinforced. We read to put ourselves in each of your shoes. We tend to see substance in most of your posts even though you may inject some trolling. Despite any slings and arrows sent your way through the Report function, we see the merit that you yourself see in your own writing. No interpretation is required when expletives or threats are posted. I bet the mods wish that all suspensions were as clear cut and easy.Yup. At times, I find it tough because my own personal definition of trolling is much stricter than the MLW definition. If I owned MLW, I would deem many more of you to be trolls. I would dish out longer suspensions and some of you would have been permanently banned long ago. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Hal 9000 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) ---SNIP--- Well, if you can't call someone a troll - which I agree...and am also guilty of, can we please start infracting those who call people racist and bigot? As I mentioned before, I saw a one word post that simply read "Bigot" and MH saw it too and did diddly squat about it, until I publicly addressed the post. I got the suspension. Edited February 7, 2016 by Charles Anthony excessive quoting The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
waldo Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 I am asking about a hypothetical situation whereby you post something. We think your post is fine. You think your post is fine. A complainer thinks your post is trolling and posts a drive-by public announcement such as "BC-chick is obviously trolling here!" in the forums instead of ignoreporting it. What do you want us to do with this public complaint? if a public complaint includes a basis for the complaint, respond publicly. If no basis for the trolling complaint is provided, "hide" the complaining post and admonish the complaining member privately if appropriate, per moderator discretion. whether reported trolling, or publicly charged trolling - respond publicly, preferably in a separate thread named as, for example, "Trolling Review". Include the basis provided by the MLW member for making the private or public initiated charge that a trolling rule infraction exists. MLW moderation should provide this public posted reply directly in association with quoted relevant post text (if identified or identifiable by the moderator) or, if specific text is not identified/identifiable, include a link reference to the related post that includes a public complaint. That moderator posted reply should identify whether a trolling rule infraction applies, and be accompanied with moderator interpretation and related decision outcome. This moderator public posting should ensure the name of the 'complaining MLW member' is identified/mentioned. presently, since the interpretation of trolling remains within the closed confines of moderator subjectivity, MLW members never gain the insight of that subjective interpretation and decision making. This remains the single-most point of confusion and ongoing contention; as in, "that member's trolling... why don't those moderators do something about it!". presently, the forever moderator fall-back, "just report it and ignore it" is not conducive to providing broad member feed-back and increasing an understanding of just what trolling is on MLW. Notwithstanding an over-riding perception that the "just report" is... "just ignored", as it is widely perceived that no follow-up occurs, or if it does occur, it's along the most limited lines of "moderation does not agree it is trolling". .
BC_chick Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 --- you misunderstood my question. I re-opened up your post anyways. I believe your post is obviously inappropriate and trolling. I will re-phrase my question. I am asking about a hypothetical situation whereby you post something. We think your post is fine. You think your post is fine. A complainer thinks your post is trolling and posts a drive-by public announcement such as "BC-chick is obviously trolling here!" in the forums instead of ignoreporting it. What do you want us to do with this public complaint? Sure. Forum Rules and Guidelines I'm not sure why you broke forum rules by keeping my post if you think I'm trolling, but thank you. And I did answer your question in the last sentence of my answer to you. I said I would like to see you deal with posters who mistreat me in the same fashion as I'd like to see you deal with me when I break the rules. PM me/them and ask them to change their post (or if you delete at least send an accompanying PM) so that they learn from the experience as opposed to censoring them/me without an understanding of what happened. It leads to a better overall experience with the moderation and it it ensures that the poster is aware of what they did wrong. Please do not call-out anybody a troll in the public forums. We do not want to tolerate that. If you think somebody is a troll or is trolling, press the [Report] button associated with the post to alert us. We want to hear your explanation and your complaint. if we disagree, we are willing to discuss your claim privately if you are serious about discussing it. If you call somebody a troll in the open forum again, you risk temporarily losing your posting privileges. No problem, I can certainly do that. If you'd only PM'd me when you deleted my post and told me this, we would've avoided this whole discussion and I would've reached this point several days ago. And suspension after a written warning is definitely fair, no argument from me. I don't post here enough to know all the rules, so I appreciate the feedback. It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Big Guy Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) If you play in this playpen then you need a thick skin. I have never reported a poster and do not intend to do so and be considered a wimp by my harshest critics. I will leave that to them. If I do not like the coaching or refereeing then I join another team. In an attempt to assist some of my critics I try to protect them from being suspended for their attitude towards me by expressing their dislike for me through my own posts. As a matter of fact I believe it is time for an update: Big Guy is a bigot, racist, xenophobe and hates children. He is anti-Semitic, a terrorist lover, a Jew hater and a Palestinian apologist. He is a Ukrainian hater, Russia lover, Putin fan and holocaust denier. He is an aggressive-passive manipulator who picks on intelligent posters, nationalists and patriots who are trying to protect him from Muslims. He is paranoid to the point of believing that the Mods are creating unbelievable characters with avatars in an attempt to make this board more popular. He understands nothing about the Middle East, Libya or any of those conflicts and uses his criticism of Israeli policies to disguise his hate for Jews. He is a left wing (or maybe right wing) crazy who tries to undermine intelligent political rhetoric with wild claims and lies. The fact that he often uses Al Jazeera, Reuters, Associated Press Wall Street Journal and New York Times as references shows his disdain for true Canadian values as represented by the Toronto Sun. Generally, he is not a very nice person who is a troll, misogynist, harshly criticizes Canadian values, wants to sell us out to Islam and has bad breath. There - All you now have to do is refer to post #2086 when you are critical of him but will be protected from suspension. I will try to provide updates for those who "moderate mapleleafweb's moderation". Edited February 7, 2016 by Big Guy Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
BC_chick Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 Yeah, can say that for a few people. I only have 3 people on my ignore list. BC has come close several times over the years but this most recent disagreement with Charles over the nature of his posts, cemented my belief. Having said that, I wish I'd done so earlier. Seeing a blocked post of his was like the feeling you get when you open a drawer after decluttering it. The only thing I don't like about ignore list is that I have to sign in every time I want to read the boards. That's lame cause I do lurk and read often without posting. It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 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? While I agree that moderation probably does like a little controversy in some posters (ie, why it takes so long to ban Mr. Canada every time), I don't think any posters are actually fictitious. People you describe do exist IRL. My husband is white and like you he's always taken aback whenever I tell him about some of the things that the posters say (he's not into Internet forums). Nothing surprises me though. I grew up being bullied for my complexion in a predominantly white neighbourhood so I know first-hand that these people exist. It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 I only have 3 people on my ignore list. BC has come close several times over the years but this most recent disagreement with Charles over the nature of his posts, cemented my belief. Thank you....I am truly honoured. Let all who see this post know and understand that the system works....moderation triumphs...and the ignore feature is always there should it ever be desired. Like Jimmy Hoffa, BC is now...cemented. Economics trumps Virtue.
dialamah Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 I only have 3 people on my ignore list. BC has come close several times over the years but this most recent disagreement with Charles over the nature of his posts, cemented my belief. Having said that, I wish I'd done so earlier. Seeing a blocked post of his was like the feeling you get when you open a drawer after decluttering it. The only thing I don't like about ignore list is that I have to sign in every time I want to read the boards. That's lame cause I do lurk and read often without posting. Currently I have two on ignore, but I change them up depending on my mood of the day or week. BC I have no trouble ignoring even though I've never put him on ignore. I just kind of consider him irrelevant, though I do like to sometimes reference America in some way so as to trip his filters and get him to respond. Even with several people on ignore, I've never had any trouble signing in.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 Currently I have two on ignore, but I change them up depending on my mood of the day or week. I agree...one of the problems with going all drama queen up in here by naming specific members ignored is sticking with it. Years ago, we had members who would beat their chests and "punish" other members by publicly "ignoring" them, only to come back and re-engage the "ignored" member. It's just part of the game. Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 Currently I have two on ignore, but I change them up depending on my mood of the day or week. BC I have no trouble ignoring even though I've never put him on ignore. I just kind of consider him irrelevant, though I do like to sometimes reference America in some way so as to trip his filters and get him to respond. Even with several people on ignore, I've never had any trouble signing in. I am glad to read that I am not the most disliked member of this board. I am counting on BC to stay on here for a while. How is that for a drive by cheap shot? Wow, it could be easy to keep doing this if I had a warped personality. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 Speaking of warped, why was my historical reference to Queen Elizabeth II's youthful Nazi salute to Hitler deleted from a thread that attacks the Bush family for being complicit with dear Adolph as well ? Fair is fair...right ? If it was off topic, then it is all off topic ! Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 Can't discuss...the "fringe viewpoint" thread is locked. Is "fringe viewpoint" some kind of new forum classification? I will move this question to the moderation thread as well.... Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 Can't discuss...the "fringe viewpoint" thread is locked. Is "fringe viewpoint" some kind of new forum classification? I will move this question to the moderation thread as well.... Are we 'fringe'? ie...armed with history books? Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Michael Hardner Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 Can't discuss...the "fringe viewpoint" thread is locked. Is "fringe viewpoint" some kind of new forum classification? I will move this question to the moderation thread as well.... No - people see certain viewpoints as I described. You yourself seemed to say as much on the Gorcya thread. Instead of getting multiple reports and derails, this is a way to respond. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 No - people see certain viewpoints as I described. You yourself seemed to say as much on the Gorcya thread. Instead of getting multiple reports and derails, this is a way to respond. ???? So this is some kind of short-cut to reduce mod workload ? All we have to do is play the "fringe viewpoint" card ? Gee, that opens up all kinds of possibilities. Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 No, it's to improve the level of discussion. Allowing people to derail the thread or report the post doesn't work, so I thought I'd try this. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 OK...will prolly need a solid definition of "fringe viewpoint", or lots of things will be so labeled. "Fringe viewpoint" also implies there is a "mainstream viewpoint", also fraught with issues. Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 My first sentence in that post: "From time to time we are asked to remove posts due to the content of the post being - in that poster's opinion - invalid, unsupported, or a 'fringe' viewpoint. If YOU think something is Fringe, then that's enough to refer to this guideline for help in responding. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts