rabble.ca train wreck

[Kiraly]

It's funny to read people whining about getting banned from babble, as if they have a god-given right to spew whatever they want wherever they want.

I wouldn’t categorize the comments on this thread as whining. Noone has suggested that they have the right to “spew” whatever and whenever they wanted.

Like this board, babble has a clear policy on what behaviours are acceptable and unacceptable.

In my experience, there is no clear policy on what behaviours are acceptable and unacceptable.

Unlike this board, babble is quite explicit in its ideological leanings (there are similar boards from the conservative side of the spectrum with even more rigorous enforcement of their standards of idealogical conformity).

If you are inferring Free Dominion, I would respectfully disagree. Opinions contrary to small “c” conservatism expressed in a respectful manner are tolerated. Some members will disagree with that opinion and will most assuredly voice theirs, but you will be free to express them.

So if you are a rabid right winger looking to wage war on progressive ideas, you won't last long there.

You don’t have to be “a rabid right winger” to have your days numbered there.

But there' remains a large contingent of moderate conservatives that are regular posters and part of the babble "community".

I can name just over half a dozen self described conservatives on that site. Most of these conservatives rarely put forward opinions that conflict with the general consensus of the community. In my experience, most refrain from engaging in ideological discussions that would put them at odds with the other members and focus on issues where the opinions have the support of other members.

[Kiraly]

Speaking of Free Dominion, just took a trip over to the Babble Boards

Apparently, some members are growing tired of recent events and are turning to Free Dominion for some civil discourse.

[scribblet]

Check out the llast post by critical mass 2 re: abuse, it is time they addressed that issue.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php...c&f=31&t=000537

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php...c&f=36&t=000601

[shoop]

That your lockdown was overly heavy-handed. Evidence of which was your follow-up post/email to all members.

Why are you italicizing the word? Weren't you the one who used it in the first place?

Do feel free to pat yourself on the back while ignoring legitimate criticism of your heavy-handedness, not replying to emails and selectively enforcing your rules.

Or is it ok now for 'the Liberal' to be referring to our PM as "chicken litle Stephen Harper"?

Ya, what's your point?

When problems arise I try to deal with them quickly. The lockdown (if you could call it that) was my attempt to quell the increasing use of insults and destructive behaviour that was occuring amonst certain members.

And from the look of things around here lately, I think it worked.

[lost&outofcontrol]

That your lockdown was overly heavy-handed. Evidence of which was your follow-up post/email to all members.

Why are you italicizing the word? Weren't you the one who used it in the first place?

Do feel free to pat yourself on the back while ignoring legitimate criticism of your heavy-handedness, not replying to emails and selectively enforcing your rules.

Or is it ok now for 'the Liberal' to be referring to our PM as "chicken litle Stephen Harper"?

The Liberal was temp banned for that Chicken little thread

How about looking up your info before spewing stuff like this.

[shoop]

My bad, but my questions on Greg's self-congratulation, ignoring legitmate concerns and italicizing the lockdown are still valid.

Or is that "spew" as well? btw Why hasn't that Chicken little thread been locked?

Isn't "Ya, what's your point?" a little confrontational for a moderator?

The Liberal was temp banned for that Chicken little thread

How about looking up your info before spewing stuff like this.

[Argus]

Guess it depends on what you think is spew, and a what a rabid right winger is,

If you think Joe Clark is a far right wing ideological neo-con - well, you'll be right at home on babble.

[Argus]

That your lockdown was overly heavy-handed. Evidence of which was your follow-up post/email to all members.

Why are you italicizing the word? Weren't you the one who used it in the first place?

Do feel free to pat yourself on the back while ignoring legitimate criticism of your heavy-handedness, not replying to emails and selectively enforcing your rules.

What heavy-handedness? I think he pointed out that people who violate the rules will be banned. Which I would have thought should have been self-evident. What exactly IS your criticism? Make a specific point? You disagree that people who swear and like to start flame wars should be banned? You think they should have been warned more times before their banning? What?

[Greg]

My bad, but my questions on Greg's self-congratulation, ignoring legitmate concerns and italicizing the lockdown are still valid.

I too am having a hard time understanding your point? Not sure what I originally said about Babble was self-congratulatory? I was simply observing the rather obvious point that by ignoring the behaviour of a few disgruntled members the moderators were allowing the forums discussions to be poisoned.

As to whether I've ignored anyone's concerns - if you've got a problem with the forums or the way I moderate feel free to express yourself. Just don't expect me to agree with your conclusions and don't let your concerns poison the debate happening elsewhere in the forums.

Or is that "spew" as well? btw Why hasn't that Chicken little thread been locked?

The offending member was suspended and the thread was allowed to stay because a significant amount of members where discussing the issue with some civility.

Isn't "Ya, what's your point?" a little confrontational for a moderator?

Sorry Shoop, but you're inablity to explain your position means I have the right to ask for clarification.

[shoop]

As to whether I've ignored anyone's concerns - if you've got a problem with the forums or the way I moderate feel free to express yourself. Just don't expect me to agree with your conclusions and don't let your concerns poison the debate happening elsewhere in the forums.

How about responding to posters when they have questions about your "friendly reminders"? How are posters supposed to know you have taken the time to listen to their concerns or how you feel about them if you don't respond? I find it interesting you resonded right away when I posted my legitimate concerns. Yet PMs are ignored.

The offending member was suspended and the thread was allowed to stay because a significant amount of members where discussing the issue with some civility.

Hmmm, four people plus you posted on the thread after you banned the offending poster. Are you really calling that a significant number? btw, I am referring to the Marijuana decriminalization. Chicken Little Stephen Harper thread.

Sorry Shoop, but you're inablity to explain your position means I have the right to ask for clarification.

Yes, you have the right to question. As a moderator is it too much for you to ask your questions in a professional manner? Shouldn't you actually be setting an example in using a positive tone on the board?

Is there a reason why you ignored my questions about italicizing lockdown? Appears to me that was an attempt at your belittling my use of the term. A term which you used on that mass email.

[August1991]

How about responding to posters when they have questions about your "friendly reminders"? How are posters supposed to know you have taken the time to listen to their concerns or how you feel about them if you don't respond? I find it interesting you resonded right away when I posted my legitimate concerns. Yet PMs are ignored.

Shoop, you have a valid point but I think Greg is right. Give the guy a break.

May I suggest you read through this thread, and Greg's post in this thread.

May I also suggest this thread be moved somehow to the Support & Questions category? (We're not discussing "Canadian politics" anymore.)

[shoop]

I was more than willing to "give Greag a break" for quite a while. Look at my post history if you want.

However, the 'lockdown' email was pretty offensive.

I didn't appreciate the PM I received at about the same time. The fact that Greg chose to ignore my responding PM was another example of his heavy-handedness in running the board.

The fact that he chose to accuse me of lacking the ability to express myself earlier in this thread was really arrogant. As have been a couple of other things he has posted on this thread.

I appreciate your suggestion, but am responding on this thread for a reason. The Federal Politics category receives far more hits than any other part of this board. I feel that this is a discussion that should be presented to as many posters as possible. Nothing on this thread has really been about Federal Politics anyways.

Shoop, you have a valid point but I think Greg is right. Give the guy a break.

May I suggest you read through this thread.

May I also suggest this thread be moved somehow to the Support & Questions category? (We're not discussing "Canadian politics" anymore.)

[August1991]

The Federal Politics category receives far more hits than any other part of this board. I feel that this is a discussion that should be presented to as many posters as possible. Nothing on this thread has really been about Federal Politics anyways.

I started this thread with trepidation because I didn't think it really matters. But it is Canadian politics. In retrospect, I should have started it in the Moral category because it concerned - in my mind - why choice is important. If Leftists such as Jack Layton or Judy Rebick genuinely want to help ordinary people, they should explain how their policies will give ordinary people more choices.

For the people who once posted on babble, it is good that they have an alternative. Similarly, my point was that the Left must understand that the best way to help ordinary people is to provide them alternatives too.

I was more than willing to "give Greag a break" for quite a while. Look at my post history if you want.

However, the 'lockdown' email was pretty offensive.

I didn't appreciate the PM I received at about the same time. The fact that Greg chose to ignore my responding PM was another example of his heavy-handedness in running the board.

The fact that he chose to accuse me of lacking the ability to express myself earlier in this thread was really arrogant. As have been a couple of other things he has posted on this thread.

Shoop, I am not aware of all these details. I provided a link to a banning, and my response, and Greg's response because I thought it was similar to your posts above.

The fact that I'm posting here is evidence that I now think Greg was right and I was wrong on this particular issue.

[Greg]

How about responding to posters when they have questions about your "friendly reminders"? How are posters supposed to know you have taken the time to listen to their concerns or how you feel about them if you don't respond? I find it interesting you resonded right away when I posted my legitimate concerns. Yet PMs are ignored.

I don't respond to all PMs/emails I recieve, but that doesn't mean I'm ignoring them.

Hmmm, four people plus you posted on the thread after you banned the offending poster. Are you really calling that a significant number? btw, I am referring to the Marijuana decriminalization. Chicken Little Stephen Harper thread.

Move on Shoop, the offender was removed and the thread stays.

Yes, you have the right to question. As a moderator is it too much for you to ask your questions in a professional manner? Shouldn't you actually be setting an example in using a positive tone on the board?

Fine, but I expect the same professional manner from you.

Is there a reason why you ignored my questions about italicizing lockdown? Appears to me that was an attempt at your belittling my use of the term. A term which you used on that mass email.

Again, move on Shoop. You're fixating on the little things.

However, the 'lockdown' email was pretty offensive.

Offensive to whom? I got far more positive emails and PM's about the lockdown warning than negative ones. Not sure why anyone would consider it offensive?

I didn't appreciate the PM I received at about the same time. The fact that Greg chose to ignore my responding PM was another example of his heavy-handedness in running the board.

Ah ok, now we're getting to the bottom of the problem here - you're ticked because I warned you for using insults in a thread way back in early March. Not sure how this is an example of heavy-handedness? Just because I warned you, doesn't mean I never warned others using the same language in that thread.

The fact that he chose to accuse me of lacking the ability to express myself earlier in this thread was really arrogant. As have been a couple of other things he has posted on this thread.

You're really reaching here Shoop; I never accused you of anything, I stated a fact - your one sentance post about the lockdown didn't have a point.

[shoop]

I don't respond to all PMs/emails I recieve, but that doesn't mean I'm ignoring them.

Hmmm, why not? Exactly what test do posters have to pass to receive a response?

Move on Shoop, the offender was removed and the thread stays.

What's with the dictatorial tone? Telling me to move on is rude and arrogant. How about answering the question? Could you plese start treating me in the professional manner you expect from me?

Again, move on Shoop. You're fixating on the little things.

Again rude and dictatorial. Please treat me with the respect you expect me to treat you with.

Offensive to whom? I got far more positive emails and PM's about the lockdown warning than negative ones. Not sure why anyone would consider it offensive?

You really don't see why somebody would see that post as offensive? Let's call the hypocrisy offensive. You asked me a question in a very rude and condescending manner. Yet you expect me to behave in a professional manner. Just exactly why do you expect more from me than you expect from yourself?

Ah ok, now we're getting to the bottom of the problem here - you're ticked because I warned you for using insults in a thread way back in early March. Not sure how this is an example of heavy-handedness? Just because I warned you, doesn't mean I never warned others using the same language in that thread.

Ahhh, OK? I made this clear the heavy-handedness of your PMs was an issue before my last post.

You're really reaching here Shoop; I never accused you of anything, I stated a fact - your one sentance post about the lockdown didn't have a point.

No, I am not reaching. Yes, that is another example of your arrogance.

Take a look at my posts in this thread. I have: admitted when I made a mistake, used the level of professionalism you 'demand' of your posters and dealt with all issues you have asked me about.

Take a look at your posts in this thread. You have: used language that doesn't match the level of professionalism you 'demand of your posters, refused to admit you have made a mistake, and told me to 'move on' when you didn't want to deal with my concerns.

I think I have some legitimate concerns here. You have trivialized them and belittled me throughouth the thread. I have dealt with you much more professionally than you have dealt with me. I don't understand how you think that is an appropriate way for a moderator to behave.

[Greg]

Ok, Shoop and I have wasted enough of everyone's time.

Shoop, think whatever you want - my moderation style will not change. If you don't like it you're free to leave.

[shoop]

Sorry Greg, but you're inablity to explain your position means I have the right to ask for clarification.

I'll stick around unless you are going to take your ball and go home - i.e. ban me for daring to question your dictatorial and hypocritcal moderation style.

Ok, Shoop and I have wasted enough of everyone's time.

Shoop, think whatever you want - my moderation style will not change. If you don't like it you're free to leave.

[Argus]

Sorry Greg, but you're inablity to explain your position means I have the right to ask for clarification.

I'll stick around unless you are going to take your ball and go home - i.e. ban me for daring to question your dictatorial and hypocritcal moderation style.

Speaking about clarification, after reading through this thread I still have very little idea just what's got your panties in a twist. Are you, by any chance, referring to the email which went out to everyone warning them not to use insults, followed by an apology pointing out that it was a general email and wasn't criticising anyone specifically?

If Greg told you to stop using insults the only possible answer from you should be "I wasn't using insults". Otherwise, like he said, move on. It's not a defence when you get pulled over for speeding to point to another car speeding. You were still speeding, so take it like a man.

As far as dictatorial goes, if he was as bad as you imply you would no longer be here.

[Naci Sey]

Well, I'm brand, spanking new here - my first post! - and a very recent, frustrated, bewildered and bruised ex-Babbler (as of yesterday). After all that went on over the past three days, I can't imagine ever going back.

My first stop as I went searching forlornly for a new home was Free Dominion, not because it's ideologically similar to my position - most of the thread titles suggest otherwise. But because the discourse is, in general, polite and devoid of ad hominem attacks.

It was the presence of so much of the latter that ultimately persuaded me to give up on Babble. That's where the bewilderment came in. Moderators were banning people simply for expressing, in a cogent and logical manner, views that opposed the ideologically acceptable. I want to hear those arguments! How can one call oneself a progressive (whatever that means), if one isn't open to others' views? How can we develop our own thinking if we aren't challenged to keep testing our assumptions?

Now I know nothing at all about this board or the personalities or how Greg is as a moderator. However, my utterance to myself after I'd just diligently read all the Rules was 'Oh, neat!' My sincere hope is that Greg does in fact work to ensure that the Board stays civil and is open to opposing views.

[Canuck E Stan]

Naci Sey,

Yes youcan expect a civil forum here. Lots of great ideas and discussions here.Welcome aboard.

-CES

[uOttawaMan]

And the ban hammer of e-drama elimination comes flying down.

Except it misses its target.

[Argus]

Well, I'm brand, spanking new here - my first post! - and a very recent, frustrated, bewildered and bruised ex-Babbler (as of yesterday). After all that went on over the past three days, I can't imagine ever going back.

My first stop as I went searching forlornly for a new home was Free Dominion, not because it's ideologically similar to my position - most of the thread titles suggest otherwise. But because the discourse is, in general, polite and devoid of ad hominem attacks.

It was the presence of so much of the latter that ultimately persuaded me to give up on Babble. That's where the bewilderment came in. Moderators were banning people simply for expressing, in a cogent and logical manner, views that opposed the ideologically acceptable. I want to hear those arguments! How can one call oneself a progressive (whatever that means), if one isn't open to others' views? How can we develop our own thinking if we aren't challenged to keep testing our assumptions?

I agree fully. I have never seriously thought of going to Free Dominion simply because I'm not sure what the point is in expressing an opinion everyone agrees with. I have considered going to Babble for that reason, but if they'd ban August, who is awfully restrained and polite, they'd surely ban me in nothing flat.

[shoop]

Argus thank you for, unwittingly, highlighting my point with your post.

See, the insults about me wearing panties and 'taking it like a man' would get some posters a warning from Greg. They clearly break the rules about personal attacks and lowering the level of debate. However, as your attacks on me are written in defence of Greg my guess is they won't get you a chastising PM.

Quite interesting that Greg selectively enforces the rules. Want more examples than just his treatment of you? Scroll through this thread.

I personally have no problems with most of the posters here. Argus, you seem like a pretty good dude and that stuff you posted is pretty minor and I don't really take offence.

It is a great example of the arbitrary way in which Greg moderates this board. On this thread you can see examples of Greg being petty, rude, patronizing and arrogant. No, I won't simply go away. If Greg throws a fit and bans me then so be it.

However, I contribute to a lot of the discussion on this board and feel my presence here is a positive thing.

If daring to question his authority is too much then so be it. (The clarification bit was simply taken from one of his replies to my questions about his rudeness - i.e. hypocrisy.)

The rude email Greg sent is one of the things that I think is very inappropriate here. Not the only thing though. I could have simply left when I read it. However, we have lost a number of our regulars since that email went out. I think I am doing more of a service to those of us who enjoy being here on MLW by calling his heavy-handedness into question than giving in to Greg's tyrannical rule and simply going away.

Sorry Greg, but you're inablity to explain your position means I have the right to ask for clarification.

I'll stick around unless you are going to take your ball and go home - i.e. ban me for daring to question your dictatorial and hypocritcal moderation style.

Speaking about clarification, after reading through this thread I still have very little idea just what's got your panties in a twist. Are you, by any chance, referring to the email which went out to everyone warning them not to use insults, followed by an apology pointing out that it was a general email and wasn't criticising anyone specifically?

If Greg told you to stop using insults the only possible answer from you should be "I wasn't using insults". Otherwise, like he said, move on. It's not a defence when you get pulled over for speeding to point to another car speeding. You were still speeding, so take it like a man.

As far as dictatorial goes, if he was as bad as you imply you would no longer be here.

[Riverwind]

Quite interesting that Greg selectively enforces the rules. Want more examples than just his treatment of you? Scroll through this thread.

Moderating this board is just a small part of Greg's job so I suspect he does not have a huge amount of time to read and assess each post and ensure he consistently enforcing the policies. This means he propbably does selectively enforce rules - but so what? This selective enforcement does not detract from the fact that 90% of the discussions on this board are reasonable multi-partisan debates. If you feel Greg is picking on you in particular then you can go elsewhere on the web. It is not as if being able to post on this board is a center piece of your life.

[August1991]

I have to agree with Riverview. Shoop, if you a have point to make, I suggest you go to Support & Questions and start a thread with specific references. Otherwise, call it a learning experience or whatever and move on.