Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Charles Anthony]

That's running counter to the 'ignore and report' CA keeps putting forth. This is the kind of mixed message that is sent out via moderation.

If you encounter a post that you believe should be deleted, Report it to mod staff, ignore it and move on.

If you respond to a post that you believe should be deleted, what would you have us do? more work??

If there is a 3rd scenario that matters, please let us know.

But there is much inconsistency in "rehash" enforcement.

Do you object to the rule? Would you moderate differently?

We permit a lot of rehashing but we have our limits. We dismiss some rehashing as trolling as opposed to rehashing that intends to foster discussion. It is not so much WHAT you say but how you say it.... or not.

Add this to the flow charts: discussion =/= game show

And that question is not considered trolling, interesting isn't it?

No. You are going to have to identify a specific example.

It does matter - there are clearly defined rules.

The only thing that matters is that mod staff agree upon defending Greg's mandate for the forum to foster polite and focussed discussion.

The enforcement is getting less clear by the day, IMO.

If you encounter a post that you believe should be censored, Report it to the mod staff but please do not wait for a public flogging.

You already do. There's countless locked threads around here where you decided the OP wasn't good enough.

Yes. Mod staff intervenes when members do not follow the rules.

It would be helpful to ---

-- to whom?

I do not see what is so unacceptable with "thread drift"?

Simple: thread drift can stifle a topic.

Difficult: thread drift is subjective.

We appreciate that normal conversation drifts and we appreciate that what constitutes "on topic" is up to debate. We are willing to debate incidents.

Regardless of the inherent subjectivity, practice is objective: If folks ignoreported that which they believed was thread drift trolling, then there is no problem of acceptability and subjectivity does not enter into the equation.

SHORT VERSION: You all have to learn to move on.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Do you object to the rule? Would you moderate differently?

We permit a lot of rehashing but we have our limits. We dismiss some rehashing as trolling as opposed to rehashing that intends to foster discussion. It is not so much WHAT you say but how you say it.... or not.

Add this to the flow charts: discussion =/= game show

It's just unfortunate that hard facts have to be rephrased just to satisfy the "rule", even as other nonsense and opinion is repeatedly stated without so much mod attention. If I am holding a four-of-a-kind winning poker hand, I shouldn't have to refer to them as two pairs of the same card just to satisfy "the rule". Facts are facts...and the ammunition of any good debate.

I will just channel my inner Perry Mason and rephrase such facts as needed to keep the Hamilton Burgers happy.

[Charles Anthony]

Perry Mason is a step above a game show, I will give you that much. Earle Stanley Gardner crafted my young naive mind.

We appreciate that what passes off as "common knowledge" to some folks is not evident to others. You do not want us judging posts based on nonsense.

Is the point of a post clear? or not?

Is a poster genuinely intending to share "facts" in a discussion? or not?

We intervene on the side of clarity. If a post is unclear and if it is obvious the poster is intending to set up a wild goose chase, then we encourage folks to be clear.

[Argus]

So should I take it the use of the words "Con" and "Lieberal" to describe Conservatives and Liberals is acceptable again? I reported a post where this was being done a couple of days back and no action has been taken.

[Charles Anthony]

So should I take it the use of the words "Con" and "Lieberal" to describe Conservatives and Liberals is acceptable again?

No. It was never acceptable.

I reported a post where this was being done a couple of days back and no action has been taken.

Patience is a virtue.

[sharkman]

Look, it's not that I think you're doing a bad job - I don't. And I do have 10 warning points, so I have haven't done that great.

My thing is with the sudden obsession with thread drift. On another forum I now frequent more than this one, thread drift is mostly ignored, and sometimes gently discouraged. It used to be like that here. Something has changed recently, and I don't think it's you Michael. It's as if the directives from above have changed.

This forum has "drifted" very far from what it once was. Whatever pap the mods want to use as excuses, they have responsibility for what this forum has become.

It's why I too frequent other forums more than this one. Could you tell me the name of the one you are referring to? You can message me if you want.

Edited March 2, 2016 by sharkman

[bush_cheney2004]

Can we get a ruling on referring to Donald Trump as "Drumpf" please ?

This seems to violate recently discussed forum rules on public figure names.

[The_Squid]

Wasn't that his actual name?

Report and ignore... don't whine.

Edited March 5, 2016 by The_Squid

[Big Guy]

Drumpf apparently was the family name in the 1600's. Not sure how fair it is to attribute it to the Donald. Is it derogatory?

Ask those folks who still have that last name.

[Argus]

Can we get a ruling on referring to Donald Trump as "Drumpf" please ?

This seems to violate recently discussed forum rules on public figure names.

Is it an insulting term? I understand his father changed it because Germans weren't very popular after WW2. Are you offended on his behalf? Are you a big Trump supporter?

Edited March 5, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

If it's good enough for the Royal family...

[Big Guy]

May find a Trump relative here:

http://www.dastelefonbuch.de/Personen/Dumpf

[Big Guy]

BTW - Dumpf in German means "dull" in English.

[GostHacked]

This thread is a month shy of being 2 years old.

How far have we come since then?

[kimmy]

I have to agree that people referring to Trump as "Drumpf" is ridiculous.

What's the point of it? It seems to serve no purpose other than an attempt to mock Trump, and is probably against the rules. At least the "Trudeau Jr" moniker serves the debatably valid purpose of distinguishing him from the other PM Trudeau. Referring to Trump as "Drumpf" doesn't even have that little figleaf going for it.

And personally, to me, it says more about the mentality of the person attempting to use this as an insult than it says about Trump.

If you watched "The Social Network", you might recall the scene at the start of the film where Zuckerberg is talking to the girl in the pub. As he moves into full asshole mode, one of the things he derides her for is the family name Albright, which he theorizes used to be Albrecht but was changed because they didn't want to be seen as immigrants. Well? Do you want to be that big of a jerk?

Lots of families changed their names to a more Anglicized spelling when they arrived from Europe. My father's family was one of them. It was a pretty common thing. And yes, people did want to fit in amongst the Anglos and not stand out as being obviously immigrant. It was a different time. Ridiculing Trump because his ancestors did something that a lot of European families did when they came to the New World is foolish. It makes you look foolish when you say "Drumpf, hur hur hur". It's a "truck nuts" moment, much like writing out Obama's middle name or referring to Trudeau as "Junior". Adding those affectations to your post is like putting "truck nuts" on your trailer hitch. It might not be against the rules, but it does announce to the world that you're a person with crass taste and poor judgment. And that's actually a somewhat useful function, so maybe we should continue to allow people to use "Drumpf".

-k

[Smallc]

I have to agree that people referring to Trump as "Drumpf" is ridiculous.

Though the bit was funny, I agree with you. It's obviously not intended in a friendly way. Spot on Kimmy.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Smallc

[Charles Anthony]

I apologize to CyberComa for my rash and poor judgement upon this his post:

Spoken like a true troglodyte.

He was unfairly penalized with a suspension when his post should have been ignored. The situation was a mild tit-for-tat that would better have been resolved by asking the members to tone it down.

[Smallc]

Very big of you Charles. I agree with your revised assessment.

[The_Squid]

I was suspended for less. Throw the book at him!!

[The_Squid]

Though the bit was funny, I agree with you. It's obviously not intended in a friendly way. Spot on Kimmy.

It's akin to saying "Jr" every time some people refer to PM Trudeau.

[Smallc]

It's akin to saying "Jr" every time some people refer to PM Trudeau.

Yes, exactly. Both are unacceptable.

[The_Squid]

Yes, exactly. Both are unacceptable.

Mods have flung the door open on this one....

[msj]

I have to agree that people referring to Trump as "Drumpf" is ridiculous.

What's the point of it?

So says the facilitator who puts the word "rape" into a certain QB's name .....credibility is lacking.

[kimmy]

So says the facilitator who puts the word "rape" into a certain QB's name .....credibility is lacking.

Well let me say this about that. First off I think we have generally agreed that less-serious areas of the forum have less-serious standards. The Arts/Culture and Sports/Leisure areas were intended to be more easygoing.

Second, the Trumps have not used the named "Drumpf" for hundreds of years, apparently. How long has it been since Ben AllegedRapistberger has been accused of sexual assault?

Third, I desisted when I was told it was against the rules.

But I think to me what's really funny about this "Drumpf" business is that the people who are having fun with it are the same people who get in a knot when somebody spells out the President's middle name. Barack HUSSEIN Obama. What's wrong with that? It's his name, right? So what's the problem? The problem is, it's an obvious attempt to appeal to xenophobia. Likewise Drumpf.

I also have to question the sense of liberal-minded people who on the one hand feel it's insulting and bigoted to refer to Caitlyn Jenner as "Bruce" or "he" because that's not how she chooses to identify, yet don't see a problem with referring to Trump by a name his family hasn't used for centuries.

If you met Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would you insist on referring to him as Lou Alcindor? If you met Mohammad Ali, would you insist on referring to him as Cassius Clay? I'd say that first off if you answered "yes" then you're an asshole, but assuming the answer is no, then the follow-up question is then "why do you feel it's appropriate to refer to Trump by a name his family stopped using centuries ago?"

For the record, I haven't seen the John Oliver clip. I wonder if John Oliver has ever ridiculed his friend Jon Stewart for not using Jonathan Leibowitz as his stage name?

-k

[msj]

Well let me say this about that. First off I think we have generally agreed that less-serious areas of the forum have less-serious standards. The Arts/Culture and Sports/Leisure areas were intended to be more easygoing.-k

Question: is this the policy?

Why?