babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
These opinions have been expressed on this board on multiple occasions. None of them have even garnered censure from a moderator, let alone a banning. Although I would assume that if you chose to call the striking students entitled brats on the thread allotted that topic, you would be shown quite bluntly from its particpants how your opinions are deeply problematic.
I wouldn't call them "brats"--name-calling is offensive, particularly here. I must go back and read the threads on the strike, because I haven't read any postings that were not fully in support of the students, if not their tactics, at least of their goals. Anyway, I appreciate your courtesy in replying to me....
Well I questioned some of the tactics... without much incident.
I don't know, BillBC. As I said above, I think it all comes down to whether one feels one has a purpose in a certain place.
And although I think it is a shame that one has to have a thick skin, ultimately there is only so much that can be done to prevent the inevitable flak.
--Fair enough...I regret the tone of a lot of the postings, because I'd really like to discuss some of these issues with people who think a lot differently than I do. I don't want to talk exclusively with people who agree with my views, and I'd hope it's possible to express a conservative point of view without sounding like a nazi, or being accused of being one. But I've read a lot of babble threads, and people here get enraged awfully quickly, even at those whose views are not far from theirs. If I can't discuss things civilly, I'd rather not do it at all, which is why I'm mostly silent here....
This is all in reply to the person who commented on the lack of diversity of opinion here.
There are lots of democratic conservatives and democratic Conservatives. Andrew Coyne, Rafe Mair, Rick Anderson, Sen. Hugh Segal, Patrick Boyer, Walter Robinson, and others. A mixed bag, but they all believe a voting system that let Quebec Conservative voters elect only five MPs when they deserve 12 MPs is just as wrong as leaving 411,005 Alberta NDP, Liberal and Green voters unrepresented.
So, welcome.
There certainly is a chill. I certainly don't feel that an honest exploration of what is wrong with this place is welcome.
I am not convinced that the formula of an active moderator style that gets involved with disputes between posters works well when the moderators are also posters themselves. It takes extraordinary discipline and skill to both moderate and participate here. Not everyone who has tried to do that has succeeded. Perhaps things will get better but it would be helpful if moderators would be more willing to admit mistakes.
Lack of consistency and predictability in moderation has also been a problem.
There is a sense that there is an elite with special rules and that is a problem.I realize the idea is to be more patient with people who have been here a long time. Perhaps the idea that there should not be exactly the same rules for everyone needs to be looked at again. The additional patience may be less important than a sense of predictable fairness.
There is also bullying here-- and there has been moderator participation in it at times. Sometimes bullying occurs without anything being done and then when the bullied persons responds they get slammed. If the purpose of the moderation is for the people who are here then they could be listened to more often when things are difficult.
I don't know what the solutions are. It is hard to ask people to moderate but not participate in the discussion. I likely could be problematic as well for moderators to have two accounts-- one as participators and the other only for moderation but that might help separate things a little.
In any case I have not seen or been involved in any recent blow-outs. I hope my comments will be taken constructively.
I thought it was a nice gesture when the issue of Enmasse being down was extended the courtesy of a thread to allow its members to try and sort things out. At the same time i don't agree with all decisions, such as a recent banning put to questioning, and additionally, of what I can surmise from moderator's allegiance to party politics. I'd prefer a 'pox on everyone's house' approach in that regard. But Writer contributes an essential reminder when she pines away about not hearing enough from the dominant voices in society here on the board. Apparently we're laggards by comparison with the scope provided to it everywhere else, which is total. And it speaks to the fact that we have too many recovering victims of this society represented here, that we can barely open our mouths without interruption like we're used to. I mean, it's no wonder people can't settle in and feel comfortable in the language so many were reared up on. It's sickening how the moderators wade in so often on behalf of the complainers isn't it? Pretty thoughtless and ungrateful if you ask me. After all, didn't we colonize this board away from the mainstream political discussion, and help build it into what it is today? This is no sermon from the pulpit, lets be clear. I'm being completely serious. Genuine even.
Things do seem to be a little better recently. Perhaps they will continue to improve.
Fairness is not about giving equal voice to various streams of public opinion that are out there in society. There is supposed to be a perspective here that voices that are often shouted down elsewhere should not be here.
Additional latitude may be given to keep certain perspectives here.
However, behaviour that is not tolerated from newcomers should not be welcome from others who have simply grown more familiar and are otherwise no different.
On the moderation side- I think that moderation posts could be set off somehow so that a moderator participating in the discussion is wearing a different hat than when acting as a moderator. I think this could be helpful both to moderators as well providing the freedom to act as participants and then move obviously to moderation-- it would allow moderators to respond to a post they don't like as participants and as board moderators without either they or others reading getting confused as to which role is which and which one is the current capacity.
I personally have zero interest in moderators that are "neutral" or silent on any subject, unless they choose to be. That includes the suggestion that mods divide their personas into two parts. We don't need a House of Commons Speaker.
I have no problem with criticism of moderators, on the sole condition that the criticisms specify what action is being disagreed with. Generalized vague complaints about moderation are, in my humble opinion, bordering on defamation, innuendo, personal attack. At the very least, I don't find such undefined criticism to be useful.
Finally, I disagree with lots of moderators' comments and actions, but very rarely to the extent that they rate my putting the disagreement into writing. The moderators do an impossible and thankless job here, and on the whole, they do it better than anyone I can imagine. But I'm convinced that the mods will welcome a specific criticism or correction or complaint, whether by PM or email or (if necessary) by a post in rabble reactions.
As for this "general" criticism - not so much.
ETA - crossposted:
Another example of an unhelpful generalized attack. How about just giving an example of what you're talking about. One example. It's worth a thousand words.
Thanks Unionist for that.
I've held a babble account since rabble.ca first went live. I've never been banned or suspended and I've been in lots of "hot" discussions over the years. I can recall just one mod "warning" (more of a lecture) after I responded to someone suggesting that ALL settlers leave Canada. I responded by saying that my family's last known European address was Aushwitz, I was told to "move back to Israel" (where I've never visited). I brushed the "holocaust-centric" warning off (mods do make mistakes) and a week or two later the person was banned permanently for something else.
I thought that the "split" that led to En Masse was stupid. It seemed like their main basis of unity was a dislike of rabble.ca and an attempt to compare rabble's labour relations to those of General Motors or Exxon.
Having said that, everyone deserves a second chance and I would support a "general amnesty". Of course that's in the context of progressives - not racists, provocateurs, sexists, homophobes, etc.
As for having Conservatives posting here, I have no objection where there is common ground as Wilf points out. But I have no interest in debating about the merits of the HarperCons' Big Oil, law and order agenda.
Absolutely, the more the merrier...
and again, save for truly outrageous behaviour, the less people are threatened or banned the better,
Yeah well Unionist I've given lots of examples in the past although every time I did the thread was shut down. Others have also given examples. So this time I made it general. I was hoping in a more general way, after a cooling off period it could be approached more as a policy than the middle of a fight. My mistake.
Sorry I don't buy the BS that a criticism of behavior or policy is a personal attack. People often don't seem to want to tell the difference between critique of a behaviour, critique of a policy and a personal attack. Still, it is a new one that a person who is unnamed is attacked personally- when no personal attributes, characteristics are even mentionned and no person is identified. Why don't you go first and specify what EXACTLY you think I have attacked that is personal about a person here?
Glad to know you think everything is fine here and feel the need to be so incredibly defensive about that.
We lost a lot of people but I guess in your view they are all unreasonable people. Seems they all left for the same imaginary reason. Funny that.
Really I thought the proposal that moderators wear mod hats for when they are coming in with the mod authority would be liberating both for them and for others to discuss with them.
Glad to know you are so open to suggestions. At least the mods have not been so quick.
This place will be better when suggestions can be made without a rush to defensiveness and a wall of denial and instead met with both openness and a real desire to make the place better.
(edited May 22)
Someone mentioned summer. Time for this:
Why not unban Jeff House and find out?
While you're at it, unban Gaia/George Victor. I haven't always agreed with him, but since he's my senior I generally defer politely to him.
Having known him for about 52 years to be a totally harmless fellow, I have no idea how he merited banning.
I agree that those banned should be invited to return. I note several people that suddenly disappeared who used to liven up this place. Frmer Soldier, Northern Shoveler, M Spector - and that the policing style of mods chills discussion. CF again killed a discussion thread into this and other Babbler problems and killed another I tried to start to continue this important discussion. I think this oppressive modding style is inconsistent with a supposedly progressive board and hope that the necessary changes can be made to alleviate the situation...this is why people are leaving.
"Oppressive"? Get a grip, both of you.
We have very different analyses of what needs to change about babble.
You think that two part-time workers exert an enormous amount of control -- sorry, "oppression" -- over strident and anonymous politicos who have been given no choice but leave due to our incredible and inescapable influence.
I think that the culture here has become acrimonious, alienating and off-putting because of posts like the above.
You think that a handful of flounces from people at their wits' end is sounding babble's death knell.
I think that new posters with new ideas, despite a groundswell of leftist politics in Canada in general, show no interest in coming to babble, preferring other avenues for exchange and debate. I consider this a far bigger problem than the bruising of a few egos.
Different strokes, I guess. I won't be posting in this thread again, so feel free to fill your boots with your miserable game.
It's not the posting, it's the termination of threads so nobody else can, that is the problem. And yes, it IS oppressive. And you are entitled to think whatever you wish about the culture here and even eliminate your actions in helping to create that. What you should not be entitled to do is impose that 'vision' based upon the abuse of your powers. The killing of the discussion thread was outrageous and out of line. Don't do it again please it smacks of Stephen Harper rule and should have no place here.
I don't know whether it should have been closed or not, but the last thread wasn't really going anywhere, and starting to degenerate into the toxic sludge that is babble meta-threads.
Anyhoo, some thoughts:
For people who have left of their own volition, I don't think we should be playing this bizarre game where we point fingers at why we suspect they left and make post after post wishing or imploring them to come back. My opinion is that if one is to leave the babble community, the respectful way to do it is to just back away, rather than making a big production out of it by flouncing. And we should respect that as well - if people made the decision to leave, we shouldn't try to psychoanalyze them to see why they aren't posting anymore. And I'm saying this as someone who regularly takes long leaves from babble, and who at one point wrote my own flounce thread, only to delete it before posting it.
I think the mods have a tough job. I almost applied for a babble moderator gig once, then once I regained my sanity I told myself to never do anything that stupid again.
First, babble is a contradictory place. We all recognize the importance of free and open discussion to develop our politics and keep our minds sharp. Plus, an echo chamber is boring as fuck. On the other hand, there is also something special about babble that we need to preserve - our distinct political identity and community as a "NDP and stuff further to the left" discussion board. And, while we often fail at this, we do need to preserve babble as a respectful place for discussion, dialogue and debate. On top of that, we're often talking about issues that are near and dear to people's hearts, which can be difficult to discuss dispassionately.
We can also be a nasty bunch at times. We're posting about issues that we're often very invested in, politically and emotionally. While harsh critique is necessary, I think we sometimes do go over the line from harsh political critique to dickishness.
On top of that, some long-time babblers seem to have "tenure" and barely get a slap on the wrist for things that would get a newbie banned. Some long-term babblers have accumulated a fair bit of social capital, and this allows them to get away with much more than a newbie because the community is more likely to get up in arms about the discipline of a long-term babbler than a newbie. I think this is problematic, as I'm sure some new babblers have been driven away because of it (oops, there I go speculating about why people leave after saying we shouldn't do that), and without fresh blood, babble is like a clock running down.
And yes, while babble does perform a useful function as an aggregator of progressive thought and a discussion forum, for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be a pole of attraction for the folks who made up the orange crush or the maple spring.
So, it's tough to be the sherriff in this town, and I think the mods are often placed in a no-win situation. Whether they intervene or not, there will be people who disagree vehemently and who take it personally, or will take it as proof that the babblinati are out to get them. Thus, the mods are underappreciated to say the least.
I think, instead of wishing old babblers would come back and groveling at their feet, we need to focus on making babble a nicer place to be. Those that want to come back will gravitate back, and it will make babble more attractive to new babblers as well.
I know I've tried to improve my behaviour on babble. When I first got here, I would constantly get into fights with people - and what started as a political disagreement would at times descend into mudslinging. I've since then gotten tired of the fights, and realized that you can't fling mud around without getting some on yourself. So, I've done a few things. First, I've tried to let go of things a bit more. I won't get as invested in babble back-and-forth. And instead of responding to personal attacks in the vain hopes that I will "win", I just report them and move on to other things. I'm sure the babble community is happier with that than with having threads derailed.
On the other hand, to avoid conflict, I've had to avoid posting about certain things, because I know they will lead to either a shitstorm or a torrent of abuse. Unfortunately, my spidey-sense about what is going to be controversial on babble isn't always 100% accurate. But, without sounding conceited as though my repressed brilliance is the illumination that babble is missing, I think it hurts babble if babblers are afraid to honestly discuss hot-button issues because of fear of shitstorms.
And, coming back to the mods, we as a community wreck many more threads than are prematurely closed by the mods. We need to take responsiblity for this, and stop derailing respectful conversations through passive-aggressiveness or plain old aggressiveness.
But will we? Of course we won't; that is why we need mods, and why the mods need the tools to do their jobs (thread closings, suspensions, and bans).
But, these are just my thoughts. Do with them what you will; maybe I'm talking out of my ass.
Thanks for that contribution, genstrike. Lots of food for thought.
I agree. And CF killed a number of thread discussions on the so-called Arab spring as it was unfolding. The reason given was that US Government involvement was conspiracy theory or some baloney. In fact the New York Times published an article describing how the US Government has been deeply involved all along. The poster 500_Apples was thoroughly disgusted and hasn't returned since.
I agree the moderating leaves a lot to be desired. It's not enough to suggest that pissed off babblers are free to return and be pissed off some more by the out to lunch moderating. It does nothing to address the problem at the root source.
The problem is clear--Babble has become an OPPRESSIVE place, where babblers are being LYNCHED. Where's Paul Dewar and R2P when we really need regime change?
Oh wait...are we talking about an online message board? OOPS! Never mind that then...
I find much agreement with genstrike's post #50 as well as Catchfire's post #48.
Neither has 'writer', I notice.
Me too.
The INQUISITION is KILLING thread discussions! I wonder if these brutal murderers calling themselves moderators are being kept in power by the CIA!
The problem with toppling brutal dictators is it just creates a power vaccum. Forum building is about more than regime change. There will be a power vaccum, and whichever warlords next emerge won't give any more of a fuck about your hurt feelings over the infringement of your human right to say whatever you want on some web site.
It is a brutal oppressive message board. We have no rights here.
Bizzaro
Our user accounts are living in chains...
I've certainly disagreed with moderator decisions before, but never that strongly. There's no such thing as perfect moderation, and I certainly wouldn't want to be the one making the decisions. More to the point, it's never the moderation that made me wonder if I should bother coming back to this place again. It's threads like this that do that.
They could very well be Harper or name your third opposition party supporters. Who knows, really? I can't see them having to produce a party card or credentials of any kind when applying to be babble hall monitors. And if some of the bad moderating seems to merit a 'kick me" sign taping to their back sides now and again, so be it. If those who thread perogy aren't perfect very often and on a consistent basis, then why worry about blowback at this point?
You're not worried about blowback? Dude they're going to LYNCH us.