Jump to content

Banned posters


daniel

Recommended Posts

Actually Greg reacted to my concern over Kimmy's use of what I consider an extremely rude name, joking or not. I certainly don't think it intelligent to comment or name call to the extent of it seeming rude. Calling somebody a scumbag is uncalled for and bad form, if you have an argument contrary to that please post them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I actually never thought if it from that angle. True enough though. I was actually upset because kimmy is a great poster who always (unlike myself) post very well though out arguments, in fact I will say I have a great amount of respect for his/her posts. I continued to be more upset the more I see the scumbag reference however. Its just too raw and nasty in a in your face kind of way, if you know what I mean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very sorry if my comments have put Greg in a difficult situation.

I'll be very sorry if my comments play any role in August deciding to leave the forum.

I would say that I'm very sorry if my comments have upset or offended anyone, but that would be a lie.

As I have already said, I don't feel I've stepped outside of accepted standards on this forum. The "lefties" here malign the character and intelligence of their least favorite politicians on a regular basis; the rest of us have come to recognize it as an accepted practice. So why, then, is it suddenly unacceptible when the shoe is on the other foot?

The same day I posted "de little scombag...", I Miss Trudeau posted a message inferring that Conservative Party supporters are trailer-park residents. He insults a broad group of people, I insult one man whose record is well known and open to discussion, and yet I'm the one that gets a reprimand? I consider that to be quite hilarious, actually.

I feel that "scumbag" is as defensible a description of Chretien as the characterizations of Harper or Klein or Bush or Campbell that fly around on this message board without comment, and I don't apologize for it. I've already discussed some of the reasons why in the Gomery Inquiry thread.

I also feel that "the little guy from Shawinigan" is among the most ironic political slogans I've ever heard, given "the little guy's" history of using his political clout, influence, legal resources, and even physical violence to bully and intimidate those who stand in his way. "The little guy..." is a slogan that is begging and screaming to be used in the manner I used it... so I don't apologize for that either.

If Greg doesn't agree with my reasons, he can go edit out the offending comments and I won't complain, but I refuse to apologize, and I refuse to retract the remarks.

Shakey, if you feel that "scumbag" is at all unfair to Chretien, I invite you to go participate in the discussion of that in the Gomery Inquiry thread. Either stand opposed, or step aside.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

August1991 Posted on Mar 4 2005, 07:05 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 

Greg, why was Maple Syrup banned?

My participation on this forum is dependant on your reply. 

Greg, you offered no reply. But in the interim, you called into question Kimmy's joke about "la liddle guy".

Greg, my 'devise' on this forum is:QUOTE 

Je suis en désaccord avec vos propos mais je défendrai jusqu'à la mort votre droit de les dire.

I will stand for this. I think Maple Syrup has every right to post here.

I tend to agree with August in principle, I think everybody should be allowed to have their say, even the annoying and trolling posters.

With that being said, I think Greg is in a tight spot when it comes to total assine posts and how they could reflect on the University of Lethbridge (The owners of the site).

Even if we had a, bright, flashing, neon "wavier" stating the views and opinions spoken on this site are not necessarily shared by the U of L, it would not mater. The U of L pays for the site, thus is responasble for it's content.

Does anybody think that such highlights as the Anti-American threads, Anti-western, Anti-Quebec, Anti-Religion, Anti-Homosexual and any other assine topic reflect good on the University of Lethbridge?

I'm all for different points of view, if not we might as well go to Rabble or Free Dominion and slap ourseleves on the backs. I find debate educational, intresting and a good killer for boredom.....almost a work-out for the brain if you will.

I'm finding Mapleleafweb to be less enjoyable over the last little while.....and to be honest, I don't know what needs to be done to rectify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

I think those topics do reflect well on the U. of L. They show that academic freedom is alive and well in Canada - unlike the US which is the point of many discussions.

MLW is more diverse of late. Some gifted new participants have joined, but they are somewhat balanced by some of the unfortunate obsessives who would have no platform in the real world.

However, the quality remains high. The withdrawal of August does not help, though.

And, I do not believe that Maple Leaf should have been banned.

Kimmy's idea may be a good one. The offensive commentary could have been edited out, or M L could have been asked to edit it out. That would have given him a chance to explain whether there was a reasonable interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kimmy's idea may be a good one. The offensive commentary could have been edited out, or M L could have been asked to edit it out. That would have given him a chance to explain whether there was a reasonable interpretation.

As I recall Greg used an administration option which meant that he had to read and approve MS's posts before they could be posted. Therefore there would have been a dialogue concerning then content of MS posts and interpretation over the contents. We just didn't see that dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm finding Mapleleafweb to be less enjoyable over the last little while.....and to be honest, I don't know what needs to be done to rectify it.

Personally my opinion is that the forum has become more confrontational and polarized of late.

I find that some of the newer members, from both ends of the spectrum, have a style which tends more towards denouncement than discussion. (perhaps I shouldn't talk; others might have felt the same about me when I first arrived.) Whatever the cause, I think it's evident in a lot of the threads of late. When I log in, I'm somewhat expecting of finding myself in some kind of verbal warfare, and perhaps this affects mmy writing. I don't think I'm the only one; looking at many of the long-time users of this forum, I see a testiness in their posts that wasn't there earlier. I think August's departure will only make things worse, as he's been something of a moderating influence, and someone who has always tried to steer threads toward discussion rather than confrontation.

Kimmy, its akin to childish name calling, as well its baseless and bad form. No need to apologize, I would just assume that you could use greater tact.

And I'd assume that you would have a thicker skin. From a guy whose very signature ("It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there") is a put-down of my home (I suspected as much, and I was right... yes, I looked it up), I would expect some give-and-take.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't go getting testy... i thought it a pithy quote and actully didn't realise the context, this is my error, and I should have known better. Far be it from me to insult the west. I will change the quote as I did not (nor have I read the full speech, if you have a link) read it in its entirety.

This new signature adequately sums up my thoughts. I think it a good quote for all of us to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Admin

I intentionally left this thread open so that everyone could air their grievances in the open. As I think its important that everyone who participates in this forum get a chance to openly discuss those issues they feel strongly about. However, this discussion forum is not a democracy, nor will it ever become a democracy.

Having said that, MS will not be returning to these forums. I've repeatedly given my reasons for his dismissal, and I'm not going to waste another valuable minute explaining it any further. August (or anyone else), If you do not like this decision and you feel you can't participate in this forum anymore, then please feel free to leave. If your participation is that dependant on the activities of someone who can't follow the rules, then I assume you'll feel right at home in the many troll ridden forums available on the Internet.

Greg, be Canadian. Be polite.

Of all the things I've been called in this forum and in private, this is easily one of the most insulting comments to date. Apparently being Canadian means you've got to settle for immature and disruptive behaviour from those who don't repect the rules.

I personally will not be shedding any tears for those who choose to leave this forum over this ridiculous issue.

Now, lets all cut out the petty and childish bickering and get back to some intelligent political discussions.

Greg

Admin

ps. The University of Lethbridge is only a partner of Maple Leaf Web. The University does not own or operate any portion of this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, I first want to thank you for leaving this thread open so that we can make comments. It's a measure of this forum's quality that the thread even exists, and is taken seriously by the moderator.

I have been posting here almost daily for over a year now. It's been an interesting experience. I quit because of the ban of MapleSyrup. Well, that's partly true. Allow me a long last post to explain.

Earlier in this thread, you stated Greg (21 Jan):

To answer everyone's question, MS has not been banned. His posts have been placed into a moderation queue and every morning - when I get around to it - I either approve or delete his postings. The reason for this action is simple - MS, after repeated warnings to curtail both the profanities and the trolling, choose to ignore the basic rules and guidelines of this forum. MS was unwilling to censor himself, so now I'm saddled with the responsibility.

You then posted (24 Jan):

Consider this issue dead.

Due to a number of incidents between my last post and today, MS has now been banned.

This is the sum total of explanation for MapleSyrup's ban.

Out of curiousity, I did a search with "f*ck" and MapleSyrup. There were 14 hits. Most seemed to concern the use of "goatf*cker" and the death of Van Gogh. There were two cases directed at me. 41820 and 37204. In the last case, I was more offended by MapleSyrup's reference to my sobriety. In this next case 42014, you were involved Greg.

MapleSyrup posted over 2000 times on this forum. S/he was no troll, and used the word "fu*k" in less than 1% of the posts. (Excluding benign references to goats or me, we're at 0.2%)

Meanwhile, there is a current poster who questions whether the Holocaust ever existed. Another current poster pastes copyrighted material about Paul Desmarais - the apparent power behind the throne. (Heck, I think I argued that point several threads ago - don't new posters do searches? Try searching 'Desmarais' and 'August1991'.) For awhile, there was a poster who argued (if I understood properly) that Hilary Clinton controlled the Seattle school board and supported Bush Jnr.

Here is my point, Greg:

You ban MapleSyrup and you reprimand Kimmy but you let other nonsense prevail. You seem to exercise your power in arbitrary fashion.

I do not administer a forum but my first instinct is to leave a wide berth. I would ban temporarily (after warning) posters who disrupt by irritating tit-for-tat name-calling, long pasted posts or bad spelling/grammar (Digby would get a special exemption- he's a fisherman).

On second thought, I don't know. I'm not a forum administrator.

I have enjoyed arguments/discussions with BD, Hugo, Kimmy, Cartman, TheloniousMonk, Swell, Bakunin, Stoker, Newfie, Tawak, eureka, Digby (to name arbitrarily only a few, I have missed many) and even occasionally incoherent caesar and RB. It would be nice to have a "clean" forum, but it also would be boring.

My conclusion? Even more than Internet Bridge or Internet Majong, Internet discussion forums are a work in progress. Moderating such forums requires more hands-on work.

I got involved with Maple Leaf Forum for three reasons. I wanted to discuss Canadian politics with people outside of Quebec. I wanted to try arguing ideas that I could never try face-to-face around a table. I wanted to feel alive again.

The experience sort of worked. Good? I have felt totally free to express my opinion here. This is refreshing. Bad? I feel that I defended too often an opinion here when in fact I don't know. I came here to learn, but instead I felt I argued. Also, I am still curious about the anonymous nature of this format. Should I say something about my personal situation?

I enjoyed discussions with two posters - now gone. takeanumber and idealisttotheend. This forum is a good place to argue/discuss.

The reason for my decision to no longer participate here is partly motivated by MapleSyrup's banning. But it's also maybe expediency. I am making virtue of necessity. I have other pressing things, and I feel my posts were becoming pointless. IOW, it's time for a break.

I'll be very sorry if my comments play any role in August deciding to leave the forum.
Nawhh.

No doubt I'll return. In the meantime, I encourage all to politely disagree, politely split an infinitive and politely have an open mind. Si tu n'es pas jolie, sois polie. So Greg, be polite too, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

August, I accept almost everything in your post and will not cavil about areas of disagreement.

I do think that you have a slightly wrong slant, though. I wish you could continue: your reaoning ability will be missed. Even though you find some difficulty at times in letting the search for justice shine through your somewhat Jesuitical style.

You remind me very much of some of the better Francophone Quebeckers I used to debate and discuss with many years ago when I was active in Quebec affairs. They, too, were eager to gather the feelings and sensibilities of non-Francophone Quebeckers and other Canadians.

In those days, Quebec was a day and night struggle for me and a few more like you, in the open, might have averted muchof the misunderstanding between the communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auguste:

While I sympathize with some of your points, you need only to browse for a better forum to realize there are none - in Canada anyway.

These forums are not democracies, they're benevolant dictatorships with one person having all the power and responsibility. You would do well to find one as impartial as Greg....

On second thought, I don't know. I'm not a forum administrator.

I have been one and no matter how fair you think you're being, there will always be people who suspect you of acting unfairly.

I have enjoyed arguments/discussions with BD, Hugo, Kimmy, Cartman, TheloniousMonk, Swell, Bakunin, Stoker, Newfie, Tawak, eureka, Digby (to name arbitrarily only a few, I have missed many) and even occasionally incoherent caesar and RB. It would be nice to have a "clean" forum, but it also would be boring.

The forums with no moderation at all are working models for social anarchy - toll-ridden trash pits with roaming gans of fringe personality types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have enjoyed arguments/discussions with BD, Hugo, Kimmy, Cartman, TheloniousMonk, Swell, Bakunin, Stoker, Newfie, Tawak, eureka, Digby

Although its spelt wrong I am honoured that my name is in there. Thankyou August. Perhaps I should attempt to contribute more regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been one and no matter how fair you think you're being, there will always be people who suspect you of acting unfairly.

How true. There are no perfect answers. We can only aim for the best possible answer and accept the consequences - both good and bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this thread has gone on for over five pages, and a couple months.

Bottom line is this, it's GREG'S backyard, it's his ball and bat, and he makes the rules.

GREG seems to give fair warning before banning someone.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can get their point across within the rules GREG has made clear.

And let's not forget that we are not talking about verbal debate here, where a swear-word can "accidentally" slip off the tongue. You actually have to sit, think, and type in your comments. There is even an "EDIT" option available, so if you enter something in the heat of the moment, it's not to tough to read it over and delete/change anything that may get you in trouble.

If, after repeated warnings, someone chooses to continue to step over the line, then I for one feel no sympathy whatsoever.

MS did just that. It matters not whether we agree with the reason for his/her ban. S/he was warned repeatedly, and chose to go on doing the same thing.

I don't agree with some laws, but I accept the fact that I can be convicted if I am caught breaking them.

The same thing goes here. The difference is that GREG always seems to give a couple warnings. That something you don't get in the legal system.

If you have a problem with the fact that this forum does not belong to you, and is not being run the way you like, then you a perfectly free to start up your own forum website.

If you choose to do so, let me know. I'll gladly join in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear all,

As Tawasakm points out,

I suggest that everybody stop feeding the troll.

We've all being doing that far too much.

On another note, while no one believes that maplesyrup was a 'troll', I fully support Greg in his decision to uphold the guidelines that are set forth for every user. In fact, it is only that Greg is polite, and has made us aware of his name, that we can call him such. He certainly had the choice to be just the nameless 'moderator' or could sign everything with 'Admin' if he so chose.

Speaking of trolls...

An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums.  A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion
Sometimes, Internet troll is trying to spin conflicting information, is questioning in an insincere manner, flaming discussion, insulting people, turning people against each other, harassing forum members,  ignoring warnings from forum moderators.

Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it, or to report a message to a forum moderator

Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.
source:http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp

Now, with paulpaul, Herman Whatsisname, maryann, etc. I have no doubt that it is the same troll, with a dial-up connection that changes the IP address evry time, so it is virtually impossible for Greg to ban him/her. (Most likely a him, though)

Edited by theloniusfleabag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

I never really understood what a troll is. The definitions given there are very intresting.

Socrates did not have access to the internet, but he fitted a large part of the definition in trolling the streets of Athens catching lesser minds unaware.

He, too, was given a permanent ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so everybody is clear - the quote which thelonius uses was in reference specifically to paulpaul and nobody else. I certainly wasn't making any comment about MS. I'm sure that anybody who read the original post knows that but it occured to me that as a quote here it could be misunderstood. Just thought I would make that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Tawasakm,

My apologies, you are absolutely correct. My post was poorly constructed, and I should have clarified why I used your post as a reference. In no way did I mean to imply that you had suggested MS was a troll, but I can see how my post might allude to that.

I should have started the post 'Dear all,

to quote Tawasakm,'... and after your quote, I should have said, "On another note,..."

Perhaps I'll do that...

Again, my apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Theloniusfleabag,

I never imagined for a moment that you were deliberately attempting to misrepresent me. I just thought the quote and comment could be misunderstood. Thankyou for altering it and for the apology (which I'm sure isn't necessary). I should thank you also for bringing the issue of feeding trolls to peoples attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continued to be more upset the more I see the scumbag reference however. Its just too raw and nasty in a in your face kind of way, if you know what I mean

How fitting it was used for Chretien, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with August in principle, I think everybody should be allowed to have their say, even the annoying and trolling posters.
Uh - no. I am generally more supportive of freedom of speech than anyone. But if you really want to see the results of open, unregulated speech have a look at what the once useful and interesting newsgroup can.politics has become.

It is full of Nazi ravings, rants about Iraq and Israel, and conspiracy theorists. It is very hard to wade through al the crap to find the interesting dialogue.

MapleSyrup was - well, Kimmy described him best. Let's just say he'd fit right in on can.politics. His views were often idiotic, which was okay, but it was often impossible to engage him on them. Even if he replied he'd frequently either ignore what you said or simply spew out some bizarre stream of consciousness drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLW is more diverse of late. Some gifted new participants have joined, but they are somewhat balanced by some of the unfortunate obsessives who would have no platform in the real world.

However, the quality remains high. The withdrawal of August does not help, though.

And, I do not believe that Maple Leaf should have been banned.

Losing August is a shame. He was often insightful and intelligent. Losing MS, on the other hand, does not bring tears to my eyes. Besides, he got enough warnings and ignored them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...