Why Was This Person Banned? Part 2

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Maysie Maysie's picture
Why Was This Person Banned? Part 2

I'd like to address the issue of my choosing to ban mahmoud as raised in this thread. Many issues arose in that thread, and I'm hoping this thread will address this one issue.

  1. I agree that I was hasty to ban mahmoud outright without a warning and without discussing it with the other mods.
  2. I was away from the computer from yesterday morning until this morning.
  3. I suspect the other mods didn't want to comment on this without having a mod discussion first. Mods are not always able to respond to issues in a timely manner or even on the same day they happen.
  4. If the mod team decides to reinstate mahmoud I will be fine with that and will apologize to him for the hastiness of my decision.
  5. I maintain my belief that he is a troll, however I am open to being wrong about that. Not all Islamofascist trolls say the typical bannable things. Right away. But he could very well be a young man struggling with issues of his own. Only time will reveal that, if he returns. I will apologize again to him, if this turns out to be the case.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Maysie:

Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate your taking the time to spell out your reasoning. Appreciate all your efforts.

 

Michelle

We've been having more of a discussion this morning on the list, and it's hard, because after having read a bunch of mahmoud's posts this morning, my radar is screaming "TROLL!" and oldgoat and I initially agreed with Maysie's assessment yesterday. 

A bunch of his posts made that radar go off, but especially the one about how he always hears people in his family talking about killing people and hating them.  Yeah, because that's the way it is in typical Muslim family life, right?  Sitting around, talking about killing the infidel?  I don't blame Maysie for looking at that, in the context of a bunch of other posts that seemed to be playing on anti-Muslim or anti-Arab tropes, and thinking he was a troll.

So this isn't a case of Maysie going off half-cocked and the other mods talking her out of it.  That's not how it went at all.  If anything, my support for reinstating mahmoud (such as it is, hesitant and not very strong) is simply because of the reaction to his banning by other babblers, who give him the benefit of the doubt.  So I'm fine with reinstating him, but I also understand why Maysie made the decision she did in the first place.

In answer to all of M. Spector's snarky remarks about the mods in the other thread: this is my workplace, and you're making it suck with your over-the-top attacks on us.  It's a hard fucking job, and it's really, really part-time - the rest is volunteer.  I'm sure you could do it way better, but I have the feeling that if you were doing it for a little while, and got a little taste of the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't attacks we have to withstand both publicly and by e-mail and through the abuse flag feature, with some babblers demanding you take this action, other babblers demanding you take the polar opposite action, and yet other babblers demanding you do nothing at all, you might feel like taking a bit of time to think through your responses to threads like that one yesterday before posting anything, too.

We responded in a little over 24 hours.  I'm satisfied with our reaction time.

remind remind's picture

Personally, I am hesitant to believe that anyone coming to a public forum as a newbie would post such things about their family,  as that which Michelle indicated above, and if they did I would strongly question their motives, and reasoning. Nor even as an oldie for that matter.

How would he expect one to answer, or respond to a comment like that?

Us trying to tell him how to "deal" with his family?

Agree with him that Muslims are terrible people?

Tell him to walk away from his family?

Tell him to report his family to CSIS?

Report him, and babble to CSIS, so that they can find out who is plotting murder of infidels?

Say nothing and ignore it?

WTH is the purpose in saying somthing like that in the first place, if one puts aside the response of; "because he is a troll"?

Does rabble want comments like that standing, as if they are acceptable?

I would also ask, given the climate of anti-Muslim sentiment that is within the Harper government, would his comments bring on a investigation of rabble, in order to do a sweep on the guy who claims his family is plotting the murder of infidels?

As such, I believe maysie's actions were appropriate and that the mod bashing in the other thread was uncalled for.

You don't like a decision by a mod,  make a disagreement comment and move on, or leave. Harassment, piling on and stalking of the mods is unacceptable, and of note,  it is a wonderful example of white male's notions of privilege.

No wonder writer and other feminists have left, it just never ends.

 

 

skeiseid

This has been a facsinating discussion. It points up the very real difficulties we all have in making ourselves understood and why literacy and education are important. Words and their meanings are so important. The cultural references and linguistic conventions we all take for granted in our own thoughts frequently don't translate well.

I have found that honest plain speaking (done in good faith) as well as sarcasm are both sometimes hard to achieve in print -- people have their feelings hurt and humour is just plain misunderstood (respectively).

The best approach is to start off with the assumption of good faith. Request clarifications if you feel that has been abused.This doesn't always happen.

Context is important. Enough context frequently reveals true meaning and intent. Investigation of context often leads to broader understanding -- a good thing, right?

Having said all that, the vast experience the moderators have with all the posters and posts have to be respected -- and most of us do, I believe.

I seem to have missed the response to the quite reasonable questions about warnings -- gentle or otherwise -- which seem to have been missing in this particular case. What was the answer, please? No rush.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Did you read Maysie's 1st post, and specifically point #1, skeiseid?

oldgoat

I'm not sure if my position was as well articulated as remind's, but were I to sit down and really think it through with my left brain it might have sounded like that.  My response to Mahmoud was pretty similar to Michelle and Maysie, and as I said I was keeping an eye on him while doing other things.  We've had trolls through here in the past with very similar MO's, and it always seems to be about muslims.

 

I guess there would have been no huge harm in letting him carry on a bit longer.  I prefer a smoking gun myself, but I've certainly banned people based on instinct backed up with experience.  I always try to approach life in general with an attitude that there's a small chance of being wrong, but in this case I really don't think so.

 

There have been a lot of references to R_P here, which I personally have not found to be relevant, but clearly others do, so just let me say this.  When he started posting here, I was pretty much WTF???, and I probably had my finger over the big red BAN button, but I didn't have the same reaction to him as to Mahmoud.  R_P is a much more multi-dimensional and complete entity, (which says to me he's real) and once I got my head around his sub-cultural counter-cultural dialect, and yes he did have a rational justification for his use of the word 'nigga', I found I liked him.  I don't like trolls. I have spent much of my life working in children's mental health, and some time in the YOA system, and I've always liked tough edgy genuine teenagers, and I like him.  Not that my liking someone is a reason for them never to be banned.  I've banned people I like more, because I felt I had to. 

 

 

skeiseid

Yes -- I was looking for something more like a commitment or re-affirmation of policy from babble generally. 

Y'know to sort of calm the waters.

 

Michelle

I agree, warnings are probably a good idea, although we often dispense with warnings if we feel it's pretty clear that someone is trolling (and most people don't mind that when they agree that the person was trolling).  We felt that was pretty clear in this case, but we are also open to having been mistaken, since we were clearly not on the same page as a good number of babblers on this one. 

Just to be clear, remind - mahmoud didn't say "infidel" - that was my sarcastic comment about his post where he talks about his family always going on about killing and hating people.  I suppose it's possible that his particular family does that - heck, lots of people's families are fucked up in some way or another.  But it just seemed kind of suspicious to me in conjunction with the other posts, and played into the stereotype I mentioned above, of Muslims plotting out ways to kill people they hate.

The post in question:

Quote:
i have a lot of family that talk about killing and hating ..only words... and too much full of hate.  i just ignore them and make a joke about something to change the subject...cause i cant talk about hating others all the time

Sven Sven's picture

Excellent post, skeiseid.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Michelle

Sven, is your tagline showing up automatically, or are you typing it in?  If you're typing it in, could you please stop? 

skeiseid

Michelle:

I don't know exactly where that post occurred and so haven't read the context but wouldn't that have been a reasonable one to have provoked a warning (and a rash of questions about what he/she/it was talking about) rather than banning him/her/it for a remark about feminine clothing and perceptions?

Again, your experience is a given.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

remind wrote:

You don't like a decision by a mod,  make a disagreement comment and move on, or leave.

Um, that's not what the mods are always telling us. They are always saying if you disagree, don't post it in the thread, but take it to "rabble reactions". That's what I did.

remind wrote:
Harassment, piling on and stalking of the mods is unacceptable, and of note,  it is a wonderful example of white male's notions of privilege.

Your bullshit gets awfully tiring after a while.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

And yours is invigorating?

Unionist

[double post - darn "Drupal"]

Unionist

Mahmoud wrote:
i have a lot of family that talk about killing and hating ..only words... and too much full of hate.  i just ignore them and make a joke about something to change the subject...cause i cant talk about hating others all the time

Was this the worst thing?

Note where he says "only words".

I find it interesting that some people have to exaggerate the horrors of this post (which may very possibly be literally true) in order to prove their contention that Mahmoud is a troll or a liar or "white".

We should be careful in how we judge people.

ETA: By the way, M. Spector, that applies to the mods as well. They're entitled to make a call that you or I disagree with. They do not deserve sarcastic comments, which you are too often prone to make.

Fidel

Is it possible that some number of Muslims have been purposely radicalized and taught not only to hate but trained to commit acts of violence? US whistleblower Sibel Edmonds says it is so - ever since the last years of the cold war and continuing today. 

 Oldgoat is right, there is no smoking gun in that one post of Mahmoud's. How can anyone not loathe the US-led NATO occupation of a Muslim country and Canadian soldiers helping out with the occupation and murder of Muslims in Afghanistan? I am not a Muslim, and I hate the bastards, too, and often express my frustration about that and things in general. It's not against the law.

Polunatic2

I find Maysie's response to be very honest and forthcoming. Thanks Maysie. And to the other mods for doing your best. I would not want to be in the mod's shoes. 

p.s. - I thought we weren't supposed to talk about other babblers? Especially when they're not around to speak for themselves? 

Fidel

Yes, I don't think it's easy being a moderator. It really is up to them, and I'm not criticizing them. Tough call. I did sense some  apprehensiveness in Mahmoud's comments to speak freely. And I'm not sure why.  Sometimes people just let loose with their tongues, whether it's here or in a coffee shop or wherever. I'd have allowed him a bit more rope. Again, tough call and glad I'm not the one having to make it.

remind remind's picture

mspector, there were fully 5 posts of yours in the last thread demanding a response from the mods,  and being snide, that is harrassment and stalking.

If a babbler did something like that, that many times, to another babbler, they would get a warning, or a suspension for hassessment and stalking. You went well beyond starting a thread to complain and then moving on.

My point about white male privilege stands based upon those actions alone.  That you see nothing wrong with your actions is even more indicative, say nothing of your words to me.

RosaL

Unionist wrote:

Mahmoud wrote:
i have a lot of family that talk about killing and hating ..only words... and too much full of hate.  i just ignore them and make a joke about something to change the subject...cause i cant talk about hating others all the time

Was this the worst thing?

Note where he says "only words".

I find it interesting that some people have to exaggerate the horrors of this post (which may very possibly be literally true) in order to prove their contention that Mahmoud is a troll or a liar or "white".

1) Agreed. 

2) I repeat my remark that a muslim secularist's chances of being banned here would be very high; he or she would have to practice a fair bit of judicious self-censorship, which requires a fair bit of insight, and self-control. 

3) Sanizedah's comments on the other thread should be taken seriously.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Unionist wrote:

They're entitled to make a call that you or I disagree with.

They certainly are. But we are also entitled to expect that some sort of proper assessment is made before someone is banned, and that demonstrable reasons for doing so are made available on request. That clearly was not done in this case. Moderators conferred after the banning to review the allegedly offending posts, and then only because somebody asked for reasons (me). First the verdict, then the trial.

I still don't know what rule was broken by mahmoud. All I hear is that he triggered somebody's "radar". If decisions are going to be made on the basis of a moderator's hunch rather than according to clear published rules and criteria, then we might as well not bother having any rules.

I don't care whether mahmoud is allowed to return or whether he decides to do so. That was never my objective. My objective was some kind of transparency and due process, but all I have seen is torches and pitchforks.  

Fidel

I think we also need a clear definition for violating the personal attack rule. I've been suspended for what I thought was a flimsy excuse for suspension, while at other times there have been obvious troll-like breaches of the netiquette rules in general, which are also not well outlined in babble policy, and nothing done after the post was flagged by me. I don't think other babblers should be able to demand that someone be suspended, and those demands realized immediately by mods without debate or warning to the person being suspended. The rules are not always followed, and mod crackdowns, at times, seem arbitrary and lop-sided favouring certain posters. It's like the inquisition here at times.

Slumberjack

A tough call for the Mods in changing gears as eloquently as they have in this case.  I have an infinite well of respect for them and what they do here, and so I respect their decision and the reasons for it.  I find though that if I want to witness my family members and relatives being denigrated in a public space because of who they are, I can always turn to the professionals at the Fox news website and the National post, or the amateurs of the cbc message boards and Free dominion.  This place is better left to the Svens, Snert's, Spectors and 'mahmouds' to take up with that sort of cause.  For personal reasons, I just can't partake alongside of it anymore.

SparkyOne

Fidel wrote:

I think we also need a clear definition for violating the personal attack rule. I've been suspended for what I thought was a flimsy excuse for suspension, while at other times there have been obvious troll-like breaches of the netiquette rules in general, which are also not well outlined in babble policy, and nothing done after the post was flagged by me. I don't think other babblers should be able to demand that someone be suspended, and those demands realized immediately by mods without debate or warning to the person being suspended. The rules are not always followed, and mod crackdowns, at times, seem arbitrary and lop-sided favouring certain posters. It's like the inquisition here at times.

 

Suspensions seem very wishy washy.

 

"old" members get away easily with what gets new members perminately banned.  I'm  far left wing liberal but I still believe in hearing what the right wing has to say,even if just to disagree and not let them accuse us of covering our ears and ignoring them.  Wound a right wing poster get a fair chance to say their peace here? Not a chance.

Are bannings fair here? Nope.


"The rules are not always followed, and mod crackdowns, at times, seem arbitrary and lop-sided favouring certain posters. It's like the inquisition here at times."

200%

 

Practice what you preach.

jacki-mo

Remind: your phrase "white male's notions of privilege" sounds racist to me. i.e. steriotyping a group.

remind remind's picture

Yes, it is understandable slumberjack, that you would feel this way. Sorry to hear you too are leaving.

If such comments were made by a self proclaimed Jewish poster, about his Jewish family, there would be no discussion of back tracking, nor would calls for a lighter decision be made, I am sure. It seems wriggle room is trying to be created to accept Muslim bashing.

remind remind's picture

jacki-mo wrote:
Remind: your phrase "white male's notions of privilege" sounds racist to me. i.e. steriotyping a group.

2 points

1. no need to stereotype what is a known fact

2. no such thing as reverse racism

Fidel

SparkyOne wrote:
Practice what you preach.

And youve already turned what I said about things in generalities into something personal regarding me specifically. If you have a problem with me and my comments, why not PM me instead?  

SparkyOne

Fidel wrote:

SparkyOne wrote:
Practice what you preach.

And youve already turned what I said about things in generalities into something personal regarding me specifically. See how it starts?

 

 

Sorry Fidel I didn't mean you!

I meant Babble as a board.

"we" talk about progressiveness yet are single minded in our belief that we're right and they're wrong.

Fidel

Okay sorry bout that. It tends to happen slowly though as a thread becomes less and less about the topic of discussion and more about baiting and counterinsurgency, I mean, counter-attack against the person making the comments. Or something. It's strange how it does tend to happen and deserves some attention I think.

SparkyOne

Fidel wrote:

Okay sorry bout that. It tends to happen slowly though as a thread becomes less and less about the topic of discussion and more about baiting and counterinsurgency, I mean, counter-attack against the person making the comments. Or something. It's strange how it does tend to happen and deserves some attention I think.

 

If you ak me it's common for posters to"counter attack" someone spost even though they don't give a shitabout the subject- they do it for the sake of argument.

Jabberwock

I think Mahmoud  made some naive and ineffectively communicated posts, but I don't believe he was a troll, or at least my definition of a troll, which is someone who posts for the sole reason of stirring up shit by posting opinions that will enrage others.

I think others have been given more slack, and as a result have added a richer tapestry of voices on babble, despite the callowness evident on some occasions.

skeiseid

re: #30

This pattern of behaviour happens in many of the discussions I look at across the Internet. It seems endemic to the medium somehow and it really detracts from the flow of thought on the topic.

I agree that this deserves invetigation and remediation.

Right after we figure out how to stop young brothers and sisters from fighting each other -- these skirmishes always end in tears.

Unionist

remind wrote:

Yes, it is understandable slumberjack, that you would feel this way. Sorry to hear you too are leaving.

If such comments were made by a self proclaimed Jewish poster, about his Jewish family, there would be no discussion of back tracking, nor would calls for a lighter decision be made, I am sure. It seems wriggle room is trying to be created to accept Muslim bashing.

Oh yeah, Jew-bashing is verboten here, but muslim-bashing is A-ok.

Do you ever listen to yourself when you make these comments?

Fidel

What kind of poster would let it be known subtly that he or she is Jewish , and then proceed to bash Israeli Jews in dozens of threads and supporting genocidal trade and investment sanctions of the same country? I am not remotely familiar with anyone here who would.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

"supporting genocidal trade embargos"

The only "genocidal trade embargo" I can think of, today, is directed at a dispossessed people. The only one aimed at a nation, in recent memory, was against Iraq, although the tightening of the Cuba embargo in the 90s was intended to cause death and suffering to those people. It mostly failed.

There are some wonderful threads on babble. Most have to do with philosophy or ideas not immediately tainted by politics. A poster above suggests discourse on babble is endemic to the medium. I disagree. Listen to talk radio, cable news, read the newspapers. The discourse on babble is endemic to North American society. Babble merely reflects those who come here.

Our political discourse, as a society, has been dumbed down to talking points, ad hominen attacks, strawman arguments, and smearing the personality and character of the opponent. We no longer have debates but verbal slugfests. And it can't be avoided because once the mud starts flying everyone and everything is covered.

In part this is because the tactics of Madison Ave. have been turned to politics. You don't have to refute arguments from a communist. You don't have to address criticisms from anti-semites. You don't have to entertain the thoughts of this group of that group. You don't have to address the meat if you can create your own sizzle.

The dumbing down of debate and discussion to where we all choose a color and defend our team, right or wrong, is rendering us all stupid and anti-social. Why do people leave babble? Because you can't have a conversation.

We have become a society of tolerance and I don't mean that in a good way. I don't mean we have become tolerant of different peoples, and ideas, and diversity. Rather, we have become tolerant of rudeness, ignorance, stupidity, narcissism, egotism, selfishness and obliviousness. In our society we can engage in any activity no matter how intrusive, disruptive, and destructive if we can afford the cost of admission.

The result is we share a sense of entitlement and privilege unmatched in modern and ancient history. Yes, we must be tolerant of every opinion no matter how stupid, and we must tolerate every jackass no matter how offensive so long as he or she does not cross the line to besmirch the designated holy cows.

I think the moderators are far too tolerant. Even with me. The success of the board should not be measured by the quantity of the posters but the quality of the discussion.

 

skeiseid

FM

I agree with a lot of what you say including the pervasiveness of all those terrible qualities throughout our culture.

I would say that there is a particular expression of all that that is unique to discussion boards and that it is the medium that informs that expression.That's waht "the poster" was getting at.

You suggest more a strict "moderation". I think it might turn out that we would have to have a different kind of moderation -- a more directed and involved guidance to arrive at answers to questions. I'm not advising this for babble (or anywhere)... I'm just tossing that out there as food for thought. Grist.

Wilf Day

Wow! Can we please stop attacking each other over -- whatever it is (I can't even follow anymore).

I'm not entirely sorry I almost missed this whole controversy.

For what it's worth -- the most offending post was also the most suspicious, in that he revived a thread dormant for more than two months in order to insert that post. So I can understand Maysie's radar going off.

However, no one seems (I may have missed it) to have asked him what he was trying to prove, or warned him that it looked suspicious, or suspended him until he explained himself to a mod offline (is that an option within the technology available?)

So I still disagree with summary execution except in a case that is beyond argument.

 

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
remind wrote:
Oh yeah, Jew-bashing is verboten here, but muslim-bashing is A-ok. Do you ever listen to yourself when you make these comments?

Do you never stop putting words in other's mouths? Seems not.

And yes, Jew bashing is not allowed here, correctly so, and neither should Muslim bashing, no matter how quaintly phrased.

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
You suggest more a strict "moderation".

I am but not on the part of moderators. I have made this argument before in another context, but we must stop being hesitant to offend entirely offensive people.  Part of that must be far less tolerance for wilfull ignorance.

Papal Bull

I used to like this place, and I've said this a lot. The atmosphere is now so combative that there isn't enough whiskey in the world to make it enjoyable anymore. It's like a left-wing 4chan.

Wilf Day

Quote:
babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Members that join babble who indicate intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum. Such members may be warned, have their accounts suspended, or banned altogether. Repeated attempts to provoke conflict, bait or taunt will not be tolerated.

You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling"). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law

The moderators of this board routinely close threads for the following reasons:

* The thread has become off-topic, abusive, or argumentative to the point that civil discussion cannot be resumed;

Nicely worded policy. Let's all follow it. Please?

 

Fidel

I was never very good at snippy replies pre-babble. I had no siblings close to my age to spar with. I'm just trying to experience the childhood I never had. Don't hate me just understand.

Makwa Makwa's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Your bullshit gets awfully tiring after a while.

This is an unneccessary personal attack, please refrain from doing so further.  An apology would be appropriate.

jacki-mo wrote:

Remind: your phrase "white male's notions of privilege" sounds racist to me. i.e. steriotyping a group.

 

Please don't start pulling out nonsensical 'reverse racism' charges, they are foolish and unworthy of attention.

M. Spector wrote:

But we are also entitled to expect that some sort of proper assessment is made before someone is banned, and that demonstrable reasons for doing so are made available on request. (my bold)

I am afraid that I am not aware of any agreement within babble that compels moderators to submit to an 'entitlement' such as this.  I agree that it is good policy in most cases, but I also believe that when the babble community is being attacked, a swift unequivocal response is appropriate.  

Cueball Cueball's picture

My view is that it would be nice if the moderators would ban person for actual verifiable policy infringements.

That said, it is also the case that they have to make judgement calls sometimes. But, if they are going to do that, maybe they could offer an explanation and just say... "its a judgement call."

SparkyOne

Wilf Day wrote:

Quote:
babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Members that join babble who indicate intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum. Such members may be warned, have their accounts suspended, or banned altogether. Repeated attempts to provoke conflict, bait or taunt will not be tolerated.

You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling"). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law

The moderators of this board routinely close threads for the following reasons:

* The thread has become off-topic, abusive, or argumentative to the point that civil discussion cannot be resumed;

Nicely worded policy. Let's all follow it. Please?

 

 

Surprised

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Makwa wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Your bullshit gets awfully tiring after a while.

This is an unneccessary personal attack, please refrain from doing so further.  An apology would be appropriate.

I'm not allowed to characterize another poster's words as bullshit? Even when they are an attack on me?

Where were you when I was being personally attacked in the previous thread-chunk?

 

Makwa wrote:

I agree that it is good policy in most cases, but I also believe that when the babble community is being attacked, a swift unequivocal response is appropriate.

Nahmoud was not attacking the babble community. Even if he were, it would have been easy enough for the moderators to give that as a reason for banning him. They didn't.

Even swift unequivocal responses should be justifiable. A lack of transparency and consistency is the surest way to undermine respect for, and confidence in, the fairness of the moderating function.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/activism/celebration-solidarity-filmmakers-r...'s an example of the right way to do it.[/url]

skeiseid

Wilf is always good for a long quote or pages of statistics to explain a point. In this case he left out the initial context for his quote and I think this is pertinent to the present discussion:

rabble.ca is a public, independent, progressive news and information source. As part of rabble.ca, this message board (babble) was created to ensure that readers/participants could explore any issues of interest and concern. In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist and pro-labour stance. Discussion which develops and expands progressive thought is encouraged and welcome.

rabble can define "progressive" any way it likes I guess. However, while babble is defined to allow participants to "explore any issues of interest and concern" the particular brand of progressive here proscribes some discussions. (One might take particular note of the inherent contradiction of the statement  "Discussion which develops and expands progressive thought is encouraged and welcome" with the strictures against discussing what exactly is "progressive". Whatever. It's rabble's right to decide.

However, although one might expect "human rights" to be inclusive of gender, race, class and religion, rabble yanks out three of these for special status. Since we've been discussing transgressions that have religious overtones, I'm wondering if rabble/babble might consider either making commensurate note of "freedom of religion" (and how about "freedom of thought") or folding the special cases back into human rights so that there's some recognition of equality amongst the rights.

Maybe with a more explicit statement of  rabble's "progressive" dogma the potential transgressors will have a better guide for what's OK to think and express on babble and the moderators will have that yardstick to apply too.

Makwa Makwa's picture

M. Spector wrote:

I'm not allowed to characterize another poster's words as bullshit? Even when they are an attack on me?

Where were you when I was being personally attacked in the previous thread-chunk?

Perhaps I was absent.  Please feel very free to email me personally should you feel that another poster has been unfair or outside the bounds of fair comment.  I would be very pleased to examine it personally, and respond openly.  You are free to use the babble email which is [email protected] or email me personally, at my email which is in my profile.  Thank you for your comment.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

skeiseid wrote:

Wilf is always good for a long quote or pages of statistics to explain a point. In this case he left out the initial context for his quote and I think this is pertinent to the present discussion:

rabble.ca is a public, independent, progressive news and information source. As part of rabble.ca, this message board (babble) was created to ensure that readers/participants could explore any issues of interest and concern. In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist and pro-labour stance. Discussion which develops and expands progressive thought is encouraged and welcome.

rabble can define "progressive" any way it likes I guess. However, while babble is defined to allow participants to "explore any issues of interest and concern" the particular brand of progressive here proscribes some discussions. (One might take particular note of the inherent contradiction of the statement  "Discussion which develops and expands progressive thought is encouraged and welcome" with the strictures against discussing what exactly is "progressive". Whatever. It's rabble's right to decide.

However, although one might expect "human rights" to be inclusive of gender, race, class and religion, rabble yanks out three of these for special status. Since we've been discussing transgressions that have religious overtones, I'm wondering if rabble/babble might consider either making commensurate note of "freedom of religion" (and how about "freedom of thought") or folding the special cases back into human rights so that there's some recognition of equality amongst the rights.

Maybe with a more explicit statement of  rabble's "progressive" dogma the potential transgressors will have a better guide for what's OK to think and express on babble and the moderators will have that yardstick to apply too.

This is entirely unfair. The babble terms of use policy, rules around threads, and the role of moderators have expanded and evolved because we as a community of users have failed to set and enforce our own standards. Discussions are derailed with ease, regular users, myself included, will engage in mindless and embarrassing tit-for-tat attacks upon one another that render threads unreadable, whenever there is an election or event of national or international importance the board witnesses a sudden rise of concern trolls, and too often the same arguments are rehashed again and again and the same fallacies are continuously debunked.

The result is this effort of over-policing to manage what ought to be a primarily self-managed board with moderation reduced to sweeping up and closing the lights.

Of course, technology improvements could help with "ignore", single click "report abuse", and ratings for posts so users can quickly and effectively deal with those who are not here for a discussion but to grind an axe, sell an agenda, or just troll.

I know that's been discussed before. Maybe Rabble could make a call for volunteers to implement those changes.

Pages

Topic locked