Babble banter which requires moderator attention soon!

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
monty1
Babble banter which requires moderator attention soon!

The personal attacks by several parties on the most popular threads has gotten to the point at which it has become very distracting. I think it's time for a moderator to issue a general warning to everybody who is taking part in that kind of behaviour.

Then, a close watch to determing if the warning has had an effect and if it hasn't, then more sterner worning perhaps would be in order.

I'm asking for this totally blind as I've not been on the board long enough to know what is acceptable and what is not. I just have a feeling that we could all accomplish more if it wasn't happening. 

Hoping this post is in order with the forum rules. If not then please delete and deal with the issue in private if you so choose.

Paladin1

This is hillarious, thank you for posting this.  This post pretty much confirms what I suspected about you and what you're doing at this forum. That's really strange coming from me because usually I'm on the recieving end of comments such as why are you even here, this board isn't for you, you're a con plant (you know, a con plant like you accused me of).

You have a very passive-agressive style of posting, but you know that. You've made numerous jabs against people, subtle personal attacks and probably the most glairing of all, your condisending attitude and way of speaking down towards who don't agree with you. Like you're somehow better than anyone else here. You try and sum posters up as if your opinion is irrefutable. Come on my friend, you over played your hand with this.

This post sounds no different than a sibling pulling another siblings hair then crying to mommy when they get their hair pulled in return.  Are you really upset about how people are treating you after you've treated them the same way? (usually first as far as I see) Thats gold.

But of course you're not really upset. You're just being passive aggressive and trying to get people going. That's funny sometimes I'll admit, but you didn't nail the delievery on this one sorry. 

No victims here.

 

lagatta

Probably the best thing for any of the posters here is to contact a moderator, though they are not omniscient either.

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta wrote:

Probably the best thing for any of the posters here is to contact a moderator, though they are not omniscient either.

I reported truly sexist things but the mods have a policy they described of not responding if they agree. I report very little so it is not like they get lots of reports from me. I am sure there are other complaints. We are left wondering if they agree or not.

This Poster in less than two weeks has fought with almost the entire board and insulted many, talked down to everyone and posted one sexist and ageist thing after another. What is truly shocking is that he has lasted this long.

Since he has decided to make his case -- let's consider a couple things -- as he goes on more and more people are crossing the line in fury meaning that not only can he ignore the policies here but he is leading to a breakdown across the board as the moderators ignore the complaints. Ultimately the moderatros could let him ride it out for a few more weeks and then just ban almost everybody who is reacting to him.

But since he has brought the complaint let's have some examples of what he has said in his short time here. Yep it is a lot -- and a lot to ignore. And this is not one flame war -- this is one attack after another on the people who have been here in many cases for years by a guy who just got here.

The sexist comments alone would normally not have been tolerated here but they have no comment from the mods.

And of course this raises the question -- how do you justify this to the people (many who have been here a long time) who have been suspended or banned for a lot less when this is allowed?

****

Trudeau metre 406: "No balls." Did this sexist language suddenly become okay here?

To Quizzical: "All I need to know now is whether your hate is coming from the left or the right. My hunch is the right."

Reference to the discussion about Sophie being priveleged singing at event for MLK day: "In reality it's obviously a nothing issue"

"Or plain and simple, fuck off it's that's all you are."

"We're both on the same side against the Cons and their support of US led war kropotkin, but I can't allow you to tell lies to suit your NlDP agenda.
So go back to presenting an honest approach"

"Nawww kropotkin, I'm not trying to sell it as anything. It's a link I found when I decided to get into the pissing match with sean and his ilk again."

Baiting: "As was always the case in parliament, the NDP licked Conservative hands like puppies in order to try to find a position contrary to the Liberals."

Pushing this on people who disagree-- constant statments despite protest of being on the same side: "The nice thing is that we seem to be in agreement with each other on what matters. One party on the left. ... Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. .. I'm willing to help you understand if you remain polite and show you want help. Left wing, by definition is not what anybody wants..."

To Quizzical: "Does that make you a lying liar too?... I'm keeping in mind that NDP'ers wouldn't think it's the right thing to do for female Muslims. I think they consider them 'uppity' in another sense."

Baiting: "What an ignorant thing to say! I hope our SEan doesn't read it because he hates that kind of talk when it's about Mulcair, but less demeaning by far."

When I said where the fuck are the moderators -- no comment on the sexist statements or baiting: "That's what I'm about to say too. But I don't call for them to protect me ever. You've been spamming me and everything I've said for two days and now you start weeping."

"Do you get that jacob? If not then let's talk about it."

"That's how it works in politics Sean."

"You see Sean? Your attitude is not condusive to having people come together to defeat Conservatism. You are always being dogmatic with your ideas and your ideas alone. We're on your side Sean. Now I won't say anymore."

"Sean and quizzical, can I buy you both a nice ice cream cone?"

"Stand your ground like a man and don't try the 'trolling' bullshit with me. It doesn't work with me and if it works with the moderators than this becomes a board on which I don't want to participate.  Are you going to try it out with the mods or have you already?  ..This board is full of the NDP party hacks and I haven't yet discovered the reason why. Is that something to do with it's founding? .. In any case, I'm a Liberal supporter and that makes me on your side. Get with the program while there's still a chance to turn nearly everything over that Harper did to our country. Your party can be meaningful if people like you get behind them and tell them to stop the partisan partyline bullshit in a time when there is no party line."

"I don't complain to moderators. Send me a p.m. and let yourself loose on what's on your mind. I promise to not complain to the mods about it. You'll feel better and then we can start talking about what we have in common and how the Liberals can be your friend."

"I'm going to stay with you and work with you on this Sean. Because I believe you when you say you're a real NDP'er. I think I can help you find the missing qualities you need to start to understand. No need to insult you by telling you what they are."

"Maybe the Conservatives can recall which NDP members were the best bootlickers and invite them into their party as potential MP's and even a leader. They're obviously not going to turn to the left and be with the Liberals."

"If Mucair just takes his members and walks them all over to the LIberal government, then he's doing the best he can afford to do at this point in time... You're either with us or you're with the enemy Tommie boy. Pick your side and we'll determine your future for you. LOL"

"And it wouls also separate the men from the boys amongst his supporters wouldn't it?"

Baiting with ignorance: "p.s. what do you think NDPP and other Tom supporters?  "

"What off-the-radar, or are you going to go off--the-radar on the question? "

"Still not an unconditional and forthright answer mark. We are at a crossroads now as everyone in tune with politics should see. If Trudeau renegs on his promise then he will stand justified in changing his mind if he doesn't get that loud and firm support from the NDP... Should Mu;cair  now commit hari-kari by speaking out with his unconditional support of Trudeau? Or should he take the easy way out and live to fight another day... I'm taking the high road. How about you? "

"Ya think Debater? ya really think? Isn't that something that even the most braindead amongst us would already know? "

"Most of the people on this board can't understand that victory for the antiwar side doesn't come all at once in one big birthday present.... (to Quizzical) So if it serves your fucking NDP agenda to think that's what will happen or needs to happen, sorry no birthday present... Mulcair knows what he needs to do now. Take the low road because all that antiwar support that the NDP has is about as real as the sky fairies. Ask Rex Murphy! "

" Lacking an opening for an NDP agenda now, due to the Liberals stealing it, maybe Mulcair could stay and go hard left communist. There doesn't seem to be any other low hanging fruit. Or just get rid of him and get the real thing imported from Cuba maybe?... Just kiddin, but who reallly cares right now? The NDP needs to sit back with the Conservatives, lick their wounds, and decide what Canada wants that the Liberals aren't already giving us."

"But thanks for your reply and I knew immediately anyway that you weren't for taking in refugees. I am very proud to be able to stand firmly and with commitment to being LEFT of you at least. I hope you are proud of your position too! And I think there's a good chance of milking it out of some of the other NDP supporters too."

Totally distorting Alan's position: about "When he said that a homeless person is lazy and should die on the street, and he's proud of his position,  then I thought it best to not continue with him in this conversation." And then "Only mildy because you are the cause of the confusion on your feelings. A similar apology from you would be appreciated too."

"(I'm quoting your last post because I don't want my comments to escape your notice) (and I'm also expecting an on-topic reply)"

"You know that NDPP, and I want you to know that I know it too... As for your facts and your quotes and the link, please be aware that I am most likely more in tune with the reality of the US being the pariah state and the biggest danger to the world's future than any nation since WW2 Nazis. Times 10! Just in case you don't. I think that nobody else even understands the concept so far because they don't want to talk about it and they are at a loss of an alternative explanation. You? If you can't discuss it in a rational way than that doesn't speak badly for me NDPP."

"I'm totally sympathetic to your antiwar cause but not your NDP cause and your apparent cause of bashing on Trudeau. And I'm pissed off at the NDP for coming on strong antiwar now when they didn't find it politically correct for them to do it during the election campaign. That's just the fact you have to contend with."

"Consider yourself told and let's not make it necessary to tell you again"

"I'm not acting like a moderator in the least. I'm not telling anbybody they can't speak their mind becasue it's against the rules. All I'm doing is holding their feet to the fire and asking them to take the high road. Because all their criticism of Trudeau's stance is legitimate or it's all fu--ing bu--shit... Your job is to have commitment and speak your heart, just like it's the duty of all decent people. Is that the way you wish us to see you? I sense your anger at being asked to take the high road."

"No offence Paladin, just trying to find out what you and the others who criticize Trudeau are really made of. "

"Really clever cartoon. Must have been made up by a Conservative and posted by a Conservative, because who else wants to damage Trudeau's crredibility on trying to bring the 6 bombers home more than a Conservative? "

Implying those agains tthe Liebrals are Conservatives: "I also keep in mind that there's always the good possibility of a Conservative plant at work who knows that to divide us on the common goal, will serve the Conservative purpose of aiding and abetting the US led wars."

"Oh, settle the fuck down, it's making you crazy...  If you people want to fuck with Trudeau's attempts because of your own selfish political purposes then be aware you'll probably get your wish."

"Why Paladin, I support what you now seem to want to waffle on. Assuming that your agenda is antiwar, even though now I'm beginning to think you are nothing but a Con plant."

"And I'm going to take some credit for turning you and I don't give a damn if you like it or not. Well done Paladin!"

"Would you like a grown up conversation on the facts?"

"And so kropotkin, cat got your tongue? "

"That's not the right answer kropotkin."

"So I'll ask you to refer back to my questions again and try to choose what suits you or add another that is plausible. or just RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY."

" Anybody who thinks our P.M. could speak out publicly in defiance of the US/Nato have to be bloody fools or have climbed up their own ideological assholes in their rush to condemn Trudeau."

Baiting Quizzical: "Would that be your recommendation? Then we could get rid of our universal health care and adopt the US private system to save poor people money? Is that your plan?"

"Question for you quizzical: Would your be angry if Trudeau reduces our commitemtne to the US led wars?"

"sucking up to Hillary's fat ass"

To unionist: "Check out some news that tell the facts for once."

"You do understand that this is meaningless propaganda don't you? ...I'm sure 'you' understand."

Kopotkin said: "To reiterate, what has pedophilia got to do with being gay or belonging to any religion." Monty replies: "And I repeat, we hear lots about catholic pedophiles diddling littel boys but nothing about them diddling little boys. You deal with it, it's your cross to bear by the sounds of it. As for pedophilia having something to do with religion? Well kropotkin, ducks swim, and priests, uh you know" Wage Zombie says (correctly) "Seriously?  Linking homosexuality with pedophilia.  Ban this loser already."

lagatta

Yes, fortunately I haven't been following those threads. There are indeed several expressions that are counter to babble policy.

swallow
Sean in Ottawa

Well I am completely disgusted. So Meg has answered

Here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/trudeaumetre-bravo?page=3#new

"On another note, those of you who want me to ban a certain new babbler will be disappointed. Being a supporter of the LPC is not a banning offense. It does not violate babble policy."

So she just pretty much endorsed that shitfest.

She also closed the thread so nobody can reply.

Gee Meg: it is not that he is a Liberal. So here are some samples of what you have endorsed without a single complaint:

"No balls."
"Stand your ground like a man"
"And it wouls also separate the men from the boys amongst his supporters wouldn't it?"
"Consider yourself told and let's not make it necessary to tell you again"

 

 

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Well I am completely disgusted. So Meg has answered

Here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/trudeaumetre-bravo?page=3#new

"On another note, those of you who want me to ban a certain new babbler will be disappointed. Being a supporter of the LPC is not a banning offense. It does not violate babble policy."

So she just pretty much endorsed that shitfest.

She also closed the thread so nobody can reply.

Gee Meg: it is not that he is a Liberal. So here are some samples of what you have endorsed without a single complaint:

"No balls."
"Stand your ground like a man"
"And it wouls also separate the men from the boys amongst his supporters wouldn't it?"
"Consider yourself told and let's not make it necessary to tell you again"

Please Sean, your entire long post is about our political differences. With perhaps a few exceptions where I broke the rules. But those instances can be shown to be in response to the flak I received from the supporters of the NDP. And please, it's not as if there hasn't been enough nasty bashing of Trudeau.

My objective of posting this thread was to bring it all to the attention of the moderators and that's how it's worded. Not to make excuses for myself and condemn others. 

All I can say is, we can make this forum better if we try. Thanks.

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Well I am completely disgusted. So Meg has answered

Here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/trudeaumetre-bravo?page=3#new

"On another note, those of you who want me to ban a certain new babbler will be disappointed. Being a supporter of the LPC is not a banning offense. It does not violate babble policy."

So she just pretty much endorsed that shitfest.

She also closed the thread so nobody can reply.

Gee Meg: it is not that he is a Liberal. So here are some samples of what you have endorsed without a single complaint:

"No balls."
"Stand your ground like a man"
"And it wouls also separate the men from the boys amongst his supporters wouldn't it?"
"Consider yourself told and let's not make it necessary to tell you again"

Please Sean, your entire long post is about our political differences. With perhaps a few exceptions where I broke the rules. But those instances can be shown to be in response to the flak I received from the supporters of the NDP. And please, it's not as if there hasn't been enough nasty bashing of Trudeau.

My objective of posting this thread was to bring it all to the attention of the moderators and that's how it's worded. Not to make excuses for myself and condemn others. 

All I can say is, we can make this forum better if we try. Thanks.

Monty the majority of those quotes are interactions between you and other people it is not a reflection of intereactions just with me -- I think this exceeds ten different people and we don't have all that many participating anymore.

At one time not long ago, the kind of sexist, ageist, demeaning, language you used and your baiting of people was not allowed a number of people have been sent packing in the past for less.

Now a moderator has endorsed your behaviour.

Your statements to others are not equivalent to opinions expressed about public figures. Until now we could express harsh opinions about non community people so long as oppressive and sexist language would not be used. To people who are here that kind of language was never allowed. Telling someone to respond like a man would have produced a time out from this place only a short time ago.

I have to accept --  with a massive amount of disgust -- that the moderators appear willing to accept what was never okay before.

I look forward to seeing the new babble policy that allows the stuff you have been posting.

Perhaps we just have to accept that this place is no longer what it was and decide if we want to participate in the new babble.

 

Unionist

Sean, let it go. No one (certainly not Meg) is condoning the stupid antediluvian sexist and other comments by this person. And no one was ever banned in the past for politically incorrect speech. They were warned. Or, they were asked to keep out of certain forums. If anyone was banned prematurely, that was wrong.

Some dude signs up here on Jan. 16 and wants to change everything about this board.

Really.

My suggestion:

IGNORE HIM.

It works.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean, let it go. No one (certainly not Meg) is condoning the stupid antediluvian sexist and other comments by this person. And no one was ever banned in the past for politically incorrect speech. They were warned. Or, they were asked to keep out of certain forums. If anyone was banned prematurely, that was wrong.

Some dude signs up here on Jan. 16 and wants to change everything about this board.

Really.

My suggestion:

IGNORE HIM.

It works.

Actually in spite of many complaints Meg has done exactly that. You can agree or not but that is exactly the effect of her post where she acknowledges a number of complaints and then just dismisses them.

And no -- ignoring a person who addresses you directly and keeps baiting is not a way to participate here. It is not realistic. And nobody should be told that they must be in that position where a person can say what they like and you cannot respond.

Sure you can stay and ignore that. But why would you want to? Why would you even be expected to?

Although I have never seen so many people agree on wanting a new person banned before, the moderator could not even express to this new person that his kind of approach is not okay here. Not even a word about the sexist language -- that was flagged. And while Meg is a womnan and I guess can decide if that language meets community standards here the ageist language was not okay either.

And a fair question if ignoring someone who behaves like this is the answer -- why even have babble policy? Why enforce it for some people some times?

There are more than a couple people who have been suspended for a lot less than what we have seen here and this does not even warrent a statement from a moderator that it is wrong.

BTW: It used to be that the dividing line between what was wrong and people would be asked to stop and what others would simply be asked to ignore was babble policy. Erasing this line means that the policy is no longer in effect and nobody should expect anyone to follow it.

swallow

I don't want him banned. But yes, people have actually been banned in the past for "salty" speech. Perhaps policy has changed, I'm not aware of that. 

I think talk of "gay pedophiles" in the LGBT forum certainly deserves a warning and I am glad Monty has desisted from that. I think "Hillary's fat ass" and so on also needs to be dialed back - we're supposed to be past debating basic feminist principles and letting anti-woman slurs pass with a nod and a nudge, aren't we?

I think Meg and anyone else modertaing this place deserves to be cut thousands of miles of slack, too. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

I don't want him banned. But yes, people have actually been banned in the past for "salty" speech.

Who?

Quote:
I think talk of "gay pedophiles" in the LGBT forum certainly deserves a warning and I am glad Monty has desisted from that. I think "Hillary's fat ass" and so on also needs to be dialed back - we're supposed to be past debating basic feminist principles and letting anti-woman slurs pass with a nod and a nudge, aren't we?

I think Meg and anyone else modertaing this place deserves to be cut thousands of miles of slack, too. 

I agree with all this.

What do you think of this... should the poster be banned?

Quote:

You are wrong to say that age does not matter. There is a generational change happening and little reason to think that Canadians will go back to a boomer-led party. Age is a factor -- a VERY special candidate might transcend that but Mulcair has given no indication that he is such a candidate.

This is not ageism but politics in the real world.

 

monty1

swallow, I didn't post this with the intention of it becoming an argument on whether or not I should be banned. And it's getting a little annoying to hear myself being discussed by a moderator and the complainants in an open manner on this thread.

Rest assured that if I was into this sort of thing I could find many, many much more egregious examples of the bad behaviour I'm being accused of from other members.

With the exception of the incident that pertains to gay/pedophilia, for which I've been reprimanded, and of which I've discussed with you in private, all the charges laid by Sean are petty nonsense that doesn't transcend anything more than political disagreement. 

I would ask that everybody stop with the beseless accusations against me before I join the game and find some real ones coming from others and then name some names. 

Let's not go there. This thread was only a plea to have the moderators bring it to an end. Unfortunately it's resulted in just more of the same in the last few posts.

swallow

Almost every thread becomes an argument, sadly. I posted "I don't want him banned" to make it clear that despite disagreeing strongly with homophobic comments in an LGBT thread, I don't think there's a ban warranted (Meg having posted the word "ban" and staed that certain babble posters had asked for a ban - wanted to be clear I am not one of them. On relfection, message would have been better.)

But yeah, the thread should probably be locked to end open discussion of a babble poster, that's fair enough. (Which is why I'm not going to discuss it further here, Unionist - happy to do messages if you like though.)

Pondering

None of the "crimes" listed here are the reason for Monty being attacked. They are excuses to justify what you are really angry about which is Monty calling the NDP bootlickers.

He is right that posters here say the same and worse about Liberals, and posters who support Trudeau, all the the time. It's a double standard I have come to accept but that doesn't make it right.

Any new poster coming here will think that the type of behavior they witness represents the tone of the board and will assume they can participate in kind.

That is why this board is stagnant and has had so little luck in attracting progressives or high value members. It doesn't matter who you are attacking or why. It's repellent to most people who want to discuss progressive issues.

At least 3 rare-participation posters that I know of have expressed puzzlement at the way the mods allow me to treated here. Most won't put the effort into creating a thread like this one. They will just leave.

There's a handful or less of posters who generate all the attacks which they justify by accusations of baiting, but if insulting a political party is justification for attack then the very people who generate most of the attacks are themselves guilty of baiting.

I'm so accustomed to the constant verbal abuse I barely notice it now but others do see it.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Pondering wrote:

That is why this board is stagnant and has had so little luck in attracting progressives or high value members. It doesn't matter who you are attacking or why. It's repellent to most people who want to discuss progressive issues.

[emphasis added, obviously]

Damn, if I had known we were all going to be assayed I would of polished my nuggets of wisdom till they were nice and shiney!

Michael Stewart Michael Stewart's picture

monty, there is a "flag as offensive" button you can use for this purpose. If that doesn't work, email or DM the moderators: meg[at]rabble.ca, catchfire[at]rabble.ca.

You don't need to open a thread, especially when there's basically nothing happening. I'll close this now.

Topic locked