Jump to content


Photo

Maple Leaf Forum


93 replies to this topic

#1 August1991

August1991

    Voltaire's Bastard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montréal

Posted 11 April 2007 - 10:17 PM

Maybe it's me. Or maybe it's Canadian politics now. But I liked this place before. Now I don't.

True, the Internet is a new medium and it takes flexibility to deal with it. So too an Internet forum.

This forum is an experiment with several years under its belt. It's a vanguard. Lethbridge University deserves applause for trying this experiment. Has any other in Canada created a website with such a forum?

So, now what with this experiment?

It seems to me that before, maybe when it was new, this forum had forceful but thought-provoking posters here: Craig Read and Hugo, for example. Now, it doesn't.

Instead, I fear that this forum has become increasingly a venue for cranks and quacks. In a country of 30 million, there are more than several idiot-savants to cause havoc. At any large university, you'll find the Lyndon Larouche stand. A few active posters can quickly change an Internet forum.

IOW, in policing a forum, it is one problem to keep at bay the trolls, spam artists and simply psychotic. It's another problem to deal with conspiracy whackos.

[Curiously, my French forum doesn't suffer from any of these problems. Maybe it's a question of language or maybe it's a question of having more moderators. Dunno.]

I don't want to lose the chance for something new, different. Yet I don't want to waste my time on nonsense. And I don't want to participate in a forum where I have to "Ignore" frequent posters.

Greg, and others, whither MLF?
"In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2

#2 sunsettommy

sunsettommy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 April 2007 - 10:39 PM

IOW, in policing a forum, it is one problem to keep at bay the trolls, spam artists and simply psychotic. It's another problem to deal with conspiracy whackos.


But if those "conspiracy whackos" stay within the bounds of civility.How can you deal with them?

If they try to peddle their nonsense in a way that still conforms to the aims of a forum.

Promoting discussion.

If you have a serious problem with someone whom you believe is perverting the ideals of THIS particular forum.Report it.

If it is a particular person you dislike for some reason.Consider the IGNORE button.

I have had one person put me on ignore in this forum despite that I was always reasonably civil with him the whole time.

The world is changing and so can any forum.

#3 August1991

August1991

    Voltaire's Bastard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montréal

Posted 11 April 2007 - 10:52 PM

For the record:

But if those "conspiracy whackos" stay within the bounds of civility.How can you deal with them?

If they try to peddle their nonsense in a way that still conforms to the aims of a forum.

Promoting discussion.

If you have a serious problem with someone whom you believe is perverting the ideals of THIS particular forum.Report it.

If it is a particular person you dislike for some reason.Consider the IGNORE button.

I have had one person put me on ignore in this forum despite that I was always reasonably civil with him the whole time.

The world is changing and so can any forum.

IMV, this forum should offer a place for intelligent and thought-provoking debate about political issues of interest to Canadians, particularly western Canadians.

Discovering this forum and reading a thread or two, anyone honestly curious about such debates should want to lurk further and maybe even participate here.

They should not leave thinking that this is another Lyndon Larouche conspiracy forum.
"In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2

#4 kuzadd

kuzadd

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 04:44 AM

HMMMMmmm, I smell the cries for censorship, and wonder why?
exercise your own free choice, participate or not.
post where you want, we are all capable, are we not?
or do we need babysitters to censor discussion for us.
I think not.
why do you think so?
Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

#5 margrace

margrace

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,949 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:49 AM

This is a discussion forum is it not. If you cannot discuss the other side what good is it. If conservativism is so good for us prove it.

#6 M.Dancer

M.Dancer

    Mocker

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right in front of you
  • Interests:every single word Kimmy has ever posted

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:30 AM

Instead, I fear that this forum has become increasingly a venue for cranks and quacks. In a country of 30 million, there are more than several idiot-savants to cause havoc. At any large university, you'll find the Lyndon Larouche stand. A few active posters can quickly change an Internet forum.
Greg, and others, whither MLF?



I have no problem avoiding the various tinfoil hat threads....I am amazed though that so may posters enjoy contributing to the threads...but as they say in english, chaque son gout......
RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS
If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

#7 jdobbin

jdobbin

    The Doctor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winnipeg
  • Interests:Screenwriting, Wikipedia, politics.

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:32 AM

Maybe it's me. Or maybe it's Canadian politics now. But I liked this place before. Now I don't.

True, the Internet is a new medium and it takes flexibility to deal with it. So too an Internet forum.


Maybe you have Internet fatigue. I think that for many years people here were probably (although I don't know for certain) united in their desire to remove Chretien and later Martin from office. The talk from what I read in the archives revolved around around conservatives ideas.

Conservatives have achieved their goal and now these forums become less about conservative ideology and more about conservative governance. Subsequently, you have some partisans who will support the government right or wrong and other independent conservatives who grow queasy with every move that Harper makes that reminds them of the Liberals.

Moreover, as you said, there are several conspiracy threads and before that First Nations threads that have run rampant. I have avoided the conspiracy thread, contributed a bit to the First Nations threads as they pertained to federal and provincial politics but withdrew when it became apparent that it wasn't a discussion.

Things get heated from time to time but there are a number of people who get downright angry and rude. I've gone down that road myself but have tried to refrain from it by not engaging in certain threads at all and at times placing people on ignore.

I don't know that the forums can be changed to something different without massive bannings and censorship. Perhaps it is better to take a step back and simply not engage in discussions that are fruitless or that don't interest you.

#8 scribblet

scribblet

    Forum Rules. you-debate but do not get personal.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,481 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canuckistan
  • Interests:Housework Avoidance

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:44 AM

Instead, I fear that this forum has become increasingly a venue for cranks and quacks. In a country of 30 million, there are more than several idiot-savants to cause havoc. At any large university, you'll find the Lyndon Larouche stand. A few active posters can quickly change an Internet forum.
.....
I don't want to lose the chance for something new, different. Yet I don't want to waste my time on nonsense. And I don't want to participate in a forum where I have to "Ignore" frequent posters.

Greg, and others, whither MLF?

I was wondering that too, how long will they continue to fund it, and will we get to see the results of the study.

I agree that the forum is changing and one of the reasons I wanted a separate forum for conspiracy theories, that way one doesn't have to scroll on by or put them on ignore. No one is saying they should be censored, just given a separate forum as obviously some people do like to debate the issue.

cheers

Israel is warning Arabs to leave the targeted areas -- Hamas is WARNING civilians NOT to leave targeted areas advising them they will be martyrs.

It's against the rules to feed forum trolls, especially the small minded trolls,  so any personal attacks will be ignored but reported.

 

 


#9 kuzadd

kuzadd

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:54 AM



Instead, I fear that this forum has become increasingly a venue for cranks and quacks. In a country of 30 million, there are more than several idiot-savants to cause havoc. At any large university, you'll find the Lyndon Larouche stand. A few active posters can quickly change an Internet forum.
.....
I don't want to lose the chance for something new, different. Yet I don't want to waste my time on nonsense. And I don't want to participate in a forum where I have to "Ignore" frequent posters.

Greg, and others, whither MLF?

I was wondering that too, how long will they continue to fund it, and will we get to see the results of the study.

I agree that the forum is changing and one of the reasons I wanted a separate forum for conspiracy theories, that way one doesn't have to scroll on by or put them on ignore. No one is saying they should be censored, just given a separate forum as obviously some people do like to debate the issue.

cheers


I personally consider anything from the Bush regime to be a 'conspiracy theory' at best, so shall we dedicate a forum to all the bush induced theories, that would be fun!
or how about one for the 'rapture believers' that is quit a theory?
how about one for the 'Muslim world take over' theory?
Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

#10 Remiel

Remiel

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,563 posts
  • Location:Ontari-ari-ari-o

Posted 12 April 2007 - 09:02 AM

IMV, this forum should offer a place for intelligent and thought-provoking debate about political issues of interest to Canadians, particularly western Canadians.


This is one point you really lost me on, August. The name of this website is Maple Leaf Web, which by its very definition is inclusive of ALL of Canada. To infer that just because it is based in the West means that Western ideas should be given more weight than those from any other part of the country is going against the grain of what it seems this forum is about. In this I think the name is important. You do not use an inclusive name to denote an exclusive community.

That being said, I do agree with some of your sentiments on the overall quality of discussion here. Some people seem incapable of believing that there are any " nuts " from their side of the fence. I am not one of them, so I am not about to say that it is only one side or the other that needs to clean up its act.

#11 geoffrey

geoffrey

    Unreliable Source.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary

Posted 12 April 2007 - 10:37 AM

You know what August, despite me posting a very long thought out post defending the likes of PolyNewbie in particular, I'm starting to get the same feeling.

When LesActive posted here, I watched his video and then was hoping to have a discussion on some of the parts I found interesting, and sort of educate the bunch on why the rest was pretty much just made up.

Unfortunately, there is just no reasoning with such people. They claim that all is true and there is no possibility their Google video uneducated educators are incorrect... for they have some secret insight into it all.

How is there to be reasoning with such people?

Perhaps there can't be. And if that's that the case, then maybe we do need to look at doing something.

Where do we draw the line though? Is Mark Holland's discovery of the secret Stockwell faxes a conspiracy? Is margrace spreading her Harper is a crazy Christian zealot material a conspiracy? Is my rebuttal of her argument, point out that all politicans make speeches to special interests including Martin's speech at a Tamil Tiger fundraiser, a conspiracy?

If you can make a convincing argument on where to draw the line so we don't just willy nilly go after people, then I perhaps could agree with such a move... though it pains me to do so.
RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game")
--

#12 scribblet

scribblet

    Forum Rules. you-debate but do not get personal.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,481 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canuckistan
  • Interests:Housework Avoidance

Posted 12 April 2007 - 11:04 AM

If you can make a convincing argument on where to draw the line so we don't just willy nilly go after people, then I perhaps could agree with such a move... though it pains me to do so.

We can draw the line and distinguish between the absolutely outlandish and normal debate based on the news etc.

http://www.popularme...aw/1230517.html
Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists

Israel is warning Arabs to leave the targeted areas -- Hamas is WARNING civilians NOT to leave targeted areas advising them they will be martyrs.

It's against the rules to feed forum trolls, especially the small minded trolls,  so any personal attacks will be ignored but reported.

 

 


#13 kuzadd

kuzadd

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 12:35 PM

You know what August, despite me posting a very long thought out post defending the likes of PolyNewbie in particular, I'm starting to get the same feeling.

When LesActive posted here, I watched his video and then was hoping to have a discussion on some of the parts I found interesting, and sort of educate the bunch on why the rest was pretty much just made up.

Unfortunately, there is just no reasoning with such people. They claim that all is true and there is no possibility their Google video uneducated educators are incorrect... for they have some secret insight into it all.

How is there to be reasoning with such people?

Perhaps there can't be. And if that's that the case, then maybe we do need to look at doing something.

Where do we draw the line though? Is Mark Holland's discovery of the secret Stockwell faxes a conspiracy? Is margrace spreading her Harper is a crazy Christian zealot material a conspiracy? Is my rebuttal of her argument, point out that all politicans make speeches to special interests including Martin's speech at a Tamil Tiger fundraiser, a conspiracy?

If you can make a convincing argument on where to draw the line so we don't just willy nilly go after people, then I perhaps could agree with such a move... though it pains me to do so.



"How is there to be reasoning with such people?"

"with such people", how extremely arrogant, do you know who these people are, you characterize in such a disgraceful manner.


what you are endorsing is censoring opinions that you disagree with.


EX: many people would say any number of things are conspiratorial, and example of this is the NAU discussions, always held in secret, anway from public eyes, question that and hear the shrieks of 'conspiracy'



IMO, I would characterize Harper as a zealous christian, and so what?
All politicians make speeches to special interest group, but, IMO Harper goes a little further then that.

So you. or the pack , the mob, make yourself the deciders, of what is acceptable?
what next lynchings or book burnings, are to be advocated for?
and backwards we march......

As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. ..
Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

#14 ScottSA

ScottSA

    Full Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,790 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 02:05 PM

Dunno...the forum I admin chugs along with no rules whatsoever and lots of posters. Its sister forum got into the banning game and its as lively as a gassed Kurdish village these days.

#15 Figleaf

Figleaf

    As a forum poster, are you a human being or a commodity to the A

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,371 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 03:26 PM

August, if you are complaining about posters who espouse so-called-conspiracy theories, all I can see in your complaint is a form of special pleading. You don't like what they have to say, so you try to characterize them as something unacceptable. But all they are is posters following the rules, expressing political views that you don't seem to like.

Before we can indulge your prejudice in this regard, you need to explain why different rules should apply to conspiracy theorists than should apply to, for example, seemingly professional party hacks?



Reply to this topic