Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[WestCoastRunner]

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 don't understand the need to 'ignore' other members. If the mods are doing their job, there would be no need to 'ignore' posters. Additionally, how can anyone respond to a thread with substance if they are ignoring posts that may have relevance to the thread? (Unless of course the blocked posters continually post irrelevant comments that provide no substance).

[Hal 9000]

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".

I don't think you really hate children.

[Hal 9000]

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.

I thought the "fringe viewpoint" thing was to address the Harper as a drug dealer thread, but that thread is still open.

[Michael Hardner]

I thought the "fringe viewpoint" thing was to address the Harper as a drug dealer thread, but that thread is still open.

Yes, exactly. Did you read the post ?

[Argus]

I don't understand the need to 'ignore' other members. If the mods are doing their job, there would be no need to 'ignore' posters.

They aren't.

[Argus]

Yes, exactly. Did you read the post ?

What about if the post in question makes inflammatory and libelous accusations against someone without any supporting evidence?

How can you suspend someone for saying Harper is stupid and not suspend them for saying he's colluding with drug smugglers?

[Hal 9000]

Yes, exactly. Did you read the post ?

I did! And, I just left it alone. A thread like that can either invite trolling and flaming - for obvious reasons, but i guess it can also bring people together because as I read it, I've noticed people who generally disagree - agreeing that the thread and cites used are crap.

FYI, The thread is from a guy with 40 posts. 40 posts and he's bringing in left wing conspiracy theories!...and in another thread he's calling people children - great start.

[Argus]

I don't think you really hate children.

My suspicion is, if he ever really was a teacher, that you would probably get disagreement from the poor wretches he attempted to teach.

[dialamah]

I don't understand the need to 'ignore' other members. If the mods are doing their job, there would be no need to 'ignore' posters. Additionally, how can anyone respond to a thread with substance if they are ignoring posts that may have relevance to the thread? (Unless of course the blocked posters continually post irrelevant comments that provide no substance).

So if a particular poster's style of writing and viewpoint just makes me see red, but I have to understand that my reaction is not necessarily the poster's intention, I have to take some responsibility for the fact that MY emotions may be affecting both my perception of what is written and how I respond. Thus it behooves me to hide/ignore those posters until perhaps I'm more able to read/respond with some detachment. Else I'd be well and truly banned by now.

Ultimately, this is an internet discussion forum with a bunch of strangers who post for reasons of their own. Some might truly be here to stir up controversy, some might just be very poor at effective communication, some might even be here to learn different viewpoints. So, I don't really see it as the mod's jobs to take care of every little nuance of written communication; if someone's posting style or content isn't acceptable to me, it's best if I block them rather than expecting someone else to do it for me. I'm rather glad to have that option.

[WestCoastRunner]

So if a particular poster's style of writing and viewpoint just makes me see red, but I have to understand that my reaction is not necessarily the poster's intention, I have to take some responsibility for the fact that MY emotions may be affecting both my perception of what is written and how I respond. Thus it behooves me to hide/ignore those posters until perhaps I'm more able to read/respond with some detachment. Else I'd be well and truly banned by now.

Ultimately, this is an internet discussion forum with a bunch of strangers who post for reasons of their own. Some might truly be here to stir up controversy, some might just be very poor at effective communication, some might even be here to learn different viewpoints. So, I don't really see it as the mod's jobs to take care of every little nuance of written communication; if someone's posting style or content isn't acceptable to me, it's best if I block them rather than expecting someone else to do it for me. I'm rather glad to have that option.

I get that I suppose, but if you are contributing to a thread and another member's response isn't acceptable to you, shouldn't you still read them to provide a rebuttal or acceptance of said response? Or just ignore the post, rather than the member?

[dialamah]

I get that I suppose, but if you are contributing to a thread and another member's response isn't acceptable to you, shouldn't you still read them to provide a rebuttal or acceptance of said response? Or just ignore the post, rather than the member?

I think I should and respond if I want to. If I don't want to, then I don't need to eh? As for just ignoring a post, sometimes when one is in the heat of the discussion, so to speak, it's a better plan to just not even see something that might invite an immoderate response. Also, if it is someone who's comments don't generally add anything to the discussion, why bother? Finally, you can generally get a pretty good idea of what was said by reading the posts of member's who do respond.

Anyway, it works for me.

[WestCoastRunner]

I think I should and respond if I want to. If I don't want to, then I don't need to eh? As for just ignoring a post, sometimes when one is in the heat of the discussion, so to speak, it's a better plan to just not even see something that might invite an immoderate response. Also, if it is someone who's comments don't generally add anything to the discussion, why bother? Finally, you can generally get a pretty good idea of what was said by reading the posts of member's who do respond.

Anyway, it works for me.

Glad it works for you! I have never felt the need to, however I'm quite sure other members have blocked me!

[Michael Hardner]

I did! And, I just left it alone. A thread like that can either invite trolling and flaming - for obvious reasons, but i guess it can also bring people together because as I read it, I've noticed people who generally disagree - agreeing that the thread and cites used are crap.

Ok, good !

[Hal 9000]

I never ignore or block people, although there are times when I start reading something only to look at the avatar and realize that I've just wasted some of my life away.

[Argus]

I never ignore or block people, although there are times when I start reading something only to look at the avatar and realize that I've just wasted some of my life away.

Some people are just too bitter and angry - or crazy -- to waste time on.

[WestCoastRunner]

Some people are just too bitter and angry - or crazy -- to waste time on.

If it's true that some posts are quite simply filled with craziness, bitterness and anger, wouldn't they be deleted? At least now with the heavy handed approach to deleting posts?

I suppose this response could be directed to the mods. But again it goes back to why members would be 'ignored'.

The intelligent people that are attracted to a site such as this should be mature enough to just ignore certain posts instead of the members and rely on the mods to keep this a reasonably intelligent space to have conversations. When I see members 'ignoring' other members, this flys in the face of a respectable forum.

[dialamah]

When I see members 'ignoring' other members, this flys in the face of a respectable forum.

Only if you assume that only your perspective is the correct one. Maybe it's not. Maybe the statements you think are completely unacceptable appear completely reasonable to someone else. Is that other person's perspective less valid than yours? If I don't like what another poster says, or how they say it, why should I expect that people who do not find that poster offensive be denied their contribution? I'd rather have the wider latitude of less moderation along with the ability to decide for myself, through an ignore feature, who I did not feel was worth reading, than have someone else decide that for me.

[WestCoastRunner]

Only if you assume that only your perspective is the correct one. Maybe it's not. Maybe the statements you think are completely unacceptable appear completely reasonable to someone else. Is that other person's perspective less valid than yours? If I don't like what another poster says, or how they say it, why should I expect that people who do not find that poster offensive be denied their contribution? I'd rather have the wider latitude of less moderation along with the ability to decide for myself, through an ignore feature, who I did not feel was worth reading, than have someone else decide that for me.

I think we are in agreement. Not sure why you think otherwise?

[dialamah]

I think we are in agreement. Not sure why you think otherwise?

My mistake then. I thought you objected to having an ignore feature

[WestCoastRunner]

My mistake then. I thought you objected to having an ignore feature

I don't object to it but I think it highlights the deficiency of the moderation of the site.

[Big Guy]

This is a good example for this thread. Here is an obvious attempt to discredit another poster:

My suspicion is, if he ever really was a teacher, that you would probably get disagreement from the poor wretches he attempted to teach.

There are many ways in which I could deal with it/him:

I could put that poster on ignore but then I would miss some of his views and statements that do make me laugh.

I could reply with something that would reflect his wit like - "Same to you jerk" but I might get the same reply.

I could quote it as an example of drive by cheap shots that have nothing to do with a thread but just another attempt to aggravate another poster.

I could reply with "Your previous participation on this board indicates that you have had very little contact with teachers".

I could report the post to the mods - but that is not my way.

I could just not reply to it and allow other participants who have yet to make up their mind about the poster to see an example of his best work.

But being the sensitive individual that Big Guy really is, I will do none of those lest l hurt his feelings and/or bring unwanted focus to his existence.

I shall just hold my head high, grind my teeth and maintain the higher ground by keeping those comments to myself.

[Argus]

This is a good example for this thread. Here is an obvious attempt to discredit another poster:

Well, you certainly have some expertise at that sort of thing.

If only you had a similar aptitude for addressing the actual subjects under discussion.

[msj]

Well, you certainly have some expertise at that sort of thing.If only you had a similar aptitude for addressing the actual subjects under discussion.

Ha! Pot meet kettle again!

[Hal 9000]

Maybe somebody should do a study and find out who the trolls are.

[WestCoastRunner]

Maybe somebody should do a study and find out who the trolls are.

I would like to find out who gets 'ignored' the most.