I for one was considering reporting the thread since it contained so many racist statements. I have no problem with critiquing another group's behaviour, even though that can be tricky. I do have a big problem with painting a group of people with one brush. Every group, even Islam, is made up of a diverse bunch of people. It serves no purpose to slam and denigrate any group. I chose not to participate in that thread because I did not want to encourage more of the same.....though I know I'm risking doing that with this comment. I'm glad it has been removed.

It is not appropriate to be so open minded our brains fall out. We need to have some boundaries, and limits to what is acceptable.

Mely, you're completely over-the-top with your hatred of Muslims, but I don't think your thread should have been removed. It's much better to point out where you and your BlazingCatFur-wearing friends have gone overboard and leave the thread up. I didn't participate because I just don't care enough about your rants any more.

That WC removed it now is just one more example of how Aaron and Co. have no bloody clue what they're doing in charge of a forum. Removing a thread should be the absolute last option. Aaron uses it as his go-to solution when he doesn't know what to do.

The answer, Aaron, is to issue a public warning in the thread before things are completely out of hand, or in your case, when whatever boogeymen you think you're seeing start to appear. Then, if necessary, you EDIT individual posts as required. Deleting posts is stupid. Deleting entire threads is asinine. If Mely wants to make an idiot of herself, let her. It's not like she was winning over the WC community to her side.

This crap with deleting entire threads has to stop. It's infantile admin behavior, it makes you look completely incompetent, and it diminishes the will to participate on either side of a debate if you're always thinking the posts you write may be gone tomorrow because some admin is incapable of coming up with a better solution.

Pedophile grooming gangs operate in Canada. they have been for decades at least.  The ones I have heard of have all been Chrisitan.

Social workers have been terrified to attack them because they will be accused of bigotry against Christians.

I grew up next door to mafia land, and attended a school with large numbers of mafia children. They attened mass every Sunday. that's the trouble with those damn Catholics, but everybody is afraid to say so.

In that same period, gambling rackets in Montreal were controlled by Jews. (The top dog, Harry Ship, lived in style with a luscious belly dancer who claimed to be a Moslem for purposes of her show - naturally, I refused to watch it -.  However, she, too, was actually Jewish.) But people were afraid to say anthing because Mely would accuse them of being anti-semitic.

By the way, Mely, in 1967, Israel killed 43 American sailors in prolonged attack on a ship of the US navy. They claimed it was a case of mistaken identity. It was well known at the time that it was not a mistake - and could not have been. The story was immediately hushed up.

BBC TV did a documentary on the attack and the coverup. If  you want to see it, Google International Cleariing House for today, June 9. The Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.

Right now, Israel has pushed up its building of 'settlements' on Palestinian land to record levels. This happens just as peace talks with Palestine are planned.

Please explaiin to us how this will help the peace talks.

Poor, helpless Israel. Everybody picks on it.

You are right chansen. It is better to give warnings and ask for better behaviour. I think deleting an entire thread should be a very last resort. We don't know what went on behind the scenes. Maybe Mely was asked to behave better in private. Either way, some things are just unacceptable. Of course, those things can be ignored, and we can avoid feeding into the unacceptable behaviours.

Again, one thing that is useful in a situation like this is a forum where admins/mods can announce these actions and the rationale. Also, the other forum I'm on very rarely deletes threads. They will close a thread that is causing problems, but still leave it up with the last message being the mod message that explains the closure. That's not to say that they never have, but it is not the norm.

That said, I've stopped reading Mely's threads so I didn't notice it either coming or going. There are better, more interesting things to read on here.

Mendalla

@chansen
My posts in the thread were composed mainly of links to newspaper stories. They weren't rants.

@graeme
Do you have links about grooming gangs in Canada? You say so many nonsensical things I don't believe anything of say without references. I referenced everything carefully.

By the way, I recieved no warning before the thread was deleted. I got this messege this morning.

AaronMcGallegos 06/09/2013 - 07:01 Delete
Hi Mely,
I've removed your thread, "Why do they hate us?". Several WonderCafe users have flagged it as offensive and in reviewing it, I found several of your comments and links you posted go beyond discussing the issues and verge on attacks on Muslims in general, which of course goes against our Guidelines of Conduct. Please don't continue in this behaviour or you risk being banned from WonderCafe. Thank you for your understanding. 
 
Aaron for WonderCafe

To Aaron, and the people who complained:
I'm sorry that the factual information I posted doesn't agree with your faery tale worldview. Go ahead and keep your heads in the sand if that is what you prefer. I just hope to hell none of you are social workers or policemen, if what Graeme said about grooming gangs in Canada is true.

Here is a story about a European pedophile. Bizarrely he has just been named "European Leader of the Year"

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.ca/2013/06/multicultist-paedophile-dan...

The story is at an anti-jihad site but is about a white European. I hope I won't be accused of racism or pedophilphobea for posting this.

Mely, what newspapers?

Again, I wish the thread was still here. Not because I think you are right, but because we've been denied the opportunity to prove you wrong. It was a stupid decision to delete the thread, no matter what side you're on.

@chansen
Mainstream British Newspapers including the Telegraph, Daily Mail, and The Guardian, BBC, etc.

Google grooming gang and you will get hits on the first page at The Guardian, The Times, and BBC among others. I don't dare post the links.

Aaron is being an idiot. I say post them again.

To hell with it. Here is a link to a recent BBC story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22617339

If you don't believe the lefty, politically correct BBC about this matter then there is no hope.

Mely, referencing something only prove that somebody said it. It proves nothing. I have spent years writing papers heavy with references. They tell where I got the information. That is all they tell. A scholar in the field can get meaning from such a reference. You can't because you don't have a clue what most of the sources are about.

And you think the BBC is "lefty"? got a reference for that?  I've studied news media very closely for years, have been in print or on air for the media thousands of times. There's nothing lefty about the BBC. In fact, it has recently been criticized for catering to the Conservtive party.

You want me to reference all the gangsters I've known? How do I do that? i went to school with their kids; our neighbour was mafia; I was a social group worker for motorcycle gangs (and others) for a couple of years. I taught two kids who became big time gangsters in their teens. One was killed while holding up a bank. the other was killed by police while heading into a bar with a submachine gun. I did volunteer work with some 25 African Canadian murderers in a penitentiary (no guard present).  Alas! I didn't think of getting the signatures of witnesses to confirm my story for you. And you still wouldn't believe it, anyway.

The problem I had with that thread, and I can imagine others did as well, were the links to far right Swedish web sites. While her link only maligned Muslim, other pages from the web site call for the death of LGBT/Social Democrats and other groups because they are traitors to the Swedish/European/Christian world.   

In the past Mely has frequently referenced and linked to neo Nazi/white supremist / groups. She may just be googling certain key words and she grabs whatever links agree with her, and is ignorant of the fact that the web sites are run by neo nazis who want to kill, a lot of different kinds of people. See the thread My Tram Experience, where she linked to Britain First, a Neo Nazi party in the UK.  

 Mely will post a variety of links to mainstream papers, and slip in a few Neo Nazi ones. Which she again did in the thread that was deleted.

By having links on web sites outside of the usual Neo Nazis sites, they will appear higher on google searches, giving them greater credibility to search engines.

We may be fortunate in Canada, but  Neo Nazis are a threat in Europe. Gangs of  Nazis youth go around beating Muslims, LGBT people and leftist. Just last week a gang of Neo Nazi's upset over gay marriage in France, beat up and killed a young communist in Paris. 4 days ago another neo Nazi gang beat up a gay teen who is now brain dead.  All because the communist and the gay teen tried to have a reasonable conversation.(Economics the first, and human rights the second)

All of these white supremist youth groups are part of the Neo Nazi movement in Europe for which Mely is so kind as to post links to on WC,

However I suspect what would have caused the most problems with others was her un referenced claim that untold numbers of Pakistani men, were moving to the UK and forcing white Christian women to become sex slaves. Because the Koran told them to enslave non Muslim women and use them as sex slaves.  Thus repeating a very old racist lie/stereotype, that dark skin men, want to rape and enslave white women.

Also she titled the thread "why do they hate us" and they proceeded to only talk about why we should hate them,

As far as I can tell the only way you could remove the hate from the thread that was deleted was to remove all of Melys posts. In keeping the thread active, we were aiding in the Neo Nazi agenda, because the algorithms that search engine use, would interpret the placement of neo Nazi links on active WC discussion as an indication of the credibility of the sites regarding the subject of Muslims in Europe, and thus placing it higher in searches.  

These sites are recruiting tools in Europe, and the more successful neo Nazis are, the more dead LGBT, Muslims, and other people there will be,  Not to even to mention the possibility that if they gain power we will again see a war in Europe, and camps for people like me.

I find Mely's rants to be very extreme. I might listen or read if they were more reasonable. Hurling insults doesn't help either.

I figured there was more to it than a BBC link.

Maybe Aaron is getting direction from someone else to remove content that could be seen as anti-Islam. At least then we'd know it's not his fault and his hands are tied. It's just so easy to point out the hyperbole in Mely's BCF-inspired posts. Wouldn't it be much better to show that WC can refute these stupid blog-sourced anti-Islam arguments, than sweep them under a rug?

Yes that would be a good thing, except their are limits. You and I are much more likely to have our posts removed for things that can be backed up with logic, yet we are not give a chance to do so.

Mely is different, she is not about logic. It just empowers her to keep doing what she does. Ignoring her posts is in my opinion the best option. However that does not happen.

So we have to ask oursleves in a moderated board when is harm being done, to others or the community on WC.  Sure a few posts does not do much harm, but when do you draw the line. What if every second post was about dark skin men turning Christian and Jewish women into sex slaves. 

Or to take examples from the past of WC that is not related to Mely, how many hundreds of posts do we need to see about gay men being a threat to children and the family, befoire WC is both unwelcoming to many, and a magnet for haters.

PLus in addition to true haters we have to consider trolls, who come just to inflame/ Or paid or volunteer promotors of certain web sites or causes.  Neo Nazis web sites provide instructions ,on how to promote their web sites, or disrupt other internet communities. Corporations also do the same, and they pay people to do their work.

At some point we have to understand that if we are to remain a disscussion board their have to be limits on haters, trolls, and paid/volunteer recruiters. If we allow them to have unfettereed access, than we will no longer have a dissucsion board, because these groups are not interested in discussions. All of these groups just lie about their intentions, and In the case of trolls they just want to inflame, and the others, just want to attack others. (usually an identifiable group).

I agree that Mely's thread should not be removed, for much the same reasons as Chansen states here.......

Chansen, I think you are being "over the top" when you state "Aaron and Co. have no bloody clue what they're doing in charge of a forum." To say Aaron uses it as his go-to-solution when he doesn't know what to do is presuming more about Aaron's intentions than you are in a position to know.

Mely, if you want   your posts to be read - I suggest you  post the occasional  thread that is praising of the other. Otherwise, I feel you lack balance -and, as a consequence, deserved to be ignored.......

Just saying......

Hi Folks, 

I'm sorry, but I had to remove the thread after it was flagged as offensive numerous times by WonderCafe community members. Indeed, removing an entire thread is one of the last options - that and banning the user. But in this case there were just too many problematic posts by the original poster. Removing all of them would have destroyed the thread and left other folks' responses out there without context. Mely's been warned before. I believe she's even been banned before. Discussion on the dangers of Islamism and fundamentalism is fine, but I found many of the posts and links in question targeted certain ethnic groups, faiths, and cultures generally. These kind of posts aren't welcome on WonderCafe.

Thanks for your understanding,

Aaron for WonderCafe

Alex, I have never even visited a neo nazi site, much less linked one. Please stop spreading lies about me.

In fact I have often linked to sites such as Frontpagemag , which is very sympathetic towards Israel . I find it ironic that I am accused of linking to nazi sites by a church in which some members appear to be sympathetic to groups that want to wipe Israel off the map and drive the Jews into the sea.

Perhaps you are projecting, Alex. By the way, how is your hate thread against the Catholic church going? I guess it is politically correct to have a thread pointing out bad things about the Catholic church so it won't get deleted.

Thank you, Aaron for offering an explanation.

For Mely (as well as those who though they do not support the material or the content feel a need to make statements about censorship) -

This forum chooses to operate within the realm of the law - the law of Canada.

In Canada, freedom of speech is protected but it is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified.

The dissemination of hate in pamphlets, tapes, videos.... and yes the Internet is illegal in Canada.

In the United States, it is important to distinguish hate crime from hate propaganda. In the US, state and federal courts alike have struck down hate speech codes for being unconstitutional.

In Canada, the dissemination of materials likely to generate hate and promote violence is the criteria, as there is, in this country, the criminalization of hate propaganda.The hate provisions in the sriminal code and in the Human Rights code have withstood charter challenges.

Hate propaganda, the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups, became a criminal offense in Canada in 1970, when the laws were adopted as amendments to the Criminal Code (Sections 318-320).

That same year, Canada ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which had been adopted by the UN in 1965, and signed by Canada in 1966. The convention specifically requires states to criminalize hate propaganda and other activities which promote racism. Article 4 of the Convention declares:

State parties, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Shall declare an offense punishable by law all dissemination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement such as acts against any race or group of persons of another color or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.

Canada is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in 1976 and specifically prohibits hate propaganda. Its Article 20(2) reads: "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." The Canadian Human Rights Act also addresses the issue of hate propaganda. Section 13 specifies: It is a violation of the act

To communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of parliament [i.e. the telephone system and all electronic media] any matter any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination [race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, family status, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted].

One can note a case in Alberta that challenged the violation of freedom of expression and an issue of group libel. Look up the Keegstra case.He taught Holocaust denial to schoolchildren in Alberta.  Keegstra was convicted and prosecuted for violation of the laws of group libel which promotes the disadvantage of unequal groups through hate propaganda. Similar to white supremacy, antisemitism promotes inequality based on religion and ethnicity.

Internet providers have laws against hate messages and if sites violate these terms they become shut down. Look into Klatt and Fairview Technology Centre Limited.

So, what flies on U.S. forums, what is ok on their websites... may not be in Canada.  

Want to vent your hate? Provide links to hate sites? Want to avoid censor?
Then go to US sites or whatever...

One cannot expect Wondercafe to play by US rules or outside the realm of Canadian law, just because you would prefer it.

Thank you again, Aaron.

I'm going to delete my bookmarks to this site and try not to return. I am only telling you this in case people post more lies about me. I want you to know that I am not defending myself against the lies because I haven't read them.

Duplicate post deleted

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

Respectfully wonder about the "having to."

Is there a policy in place which forces the removal of a post or thread if it reaches X number of complaints without regard to the actual content?  If so is there anyway to challenge that policy for one that is more corrective and less punitive?

At one point locking threads was a possibility, is that now an impossibility or is the possibility considered to be more trouble than it is worth?

There have been some threads over the years that I was quite happy to see disappear.  Others less so.

The deletion of threads appears problematic in a site that is calling for open-minded discussion so I am questioning the optics of deletion.

Respectfully, I submit that when removing an entire thread is the only option that the majority of the community sees it is difficult to prove that it was the last, and not the first option considered.

I respect you and the rest of our very busy Admins and feel badly about contributing to your workload in this regard.  A warning, particularly a public warning, at the very least shows a list of options tried prior to the eventual deletion.

If you have been sending Mely warnings via e-mail (a claim that has yet to have been made) we wouldn't be aware of that.

Which I respect and am not interested in challenging in any way.

What I am concerned about is the optics that are provided and the spin that will inevitably follow.  If you act and your action is private then nobody is forced to take responsibility for what they have done, they will instead make the deletion of threads into what was done to them.

I don't think that is fair for a number of reasons.  If a poster's behaviour is putting them on the edge then they need to be made aware of what they need to do to step away from the edge.  That should be private discourse obviously.  

In a thread where problem behaviour is occuring, particularly where you are identitifying behaviour as problematic (who cares how many of us wave our offended flags) that is better highlighted than not.

Consider a hockey game, there are thousands of refs in the stands but only two actually get to blow the whistle and make the call.

All of us clicking flags of offense are those fans in the stands.  And while that is a communal action it doesn't mean that we were right to be offended.  When you, or another Admin are blowing whisltes I think it is better that the fans in the stands know why play has stopped.  It really is the only way we can know what the solid boundaries are in this place.

I'm not going to agree with every call you feel you need to make.  I'm okay with that, you are on the hook more so than I am.  As stated earlier, I don't wish to make the job harder on you or others and without seeing the call on the play it becomes harder for those inclined not to trust you to grow in trust for you.

A while ago I had fun with the fact that a post of mine had been deleted.  I thought that my satire was a mature way to deal with the fact that I had a post censored.

What if I was not a mature poster to begin with?  What would I have learned?

Nothing.  I got no warning.  I got no explanation until well after the fact and even then it only came forward because I had decided to make a spectacle of it.

Now I know that I had a post pulled because I quoted something that in turn was pulled, I had to put forward effort to get that information and to be quite honest if I have to ask what I am being disciplined for (and having a post deleted is discipline) I'm not learning how to avoid making the same mistakes.

Thank you for the time you and others give to WonderCafe.ca

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn,

I tend to agree. Publicly saying, "you are dancing on a line" with an explanation of what line one means lets the poster and anyone else know what that line is.

I have had to say in discussions about sexuality that someone is dancing a legal line or a line based on respect.... It clarifies for listeners whether one means a comfort line or a legal one.

In the future, either way, one cannot plead ignorance.

If it is on a forum based on "you are disrupting" then IMO it can be based solely upon volume of complaints.

Yet, I also feel that stating that "based on volume of complaints you are disrupting" is likely best. It lets us know that if we choose to or make too many enemies, say something unpopular, get flagged too often... we could face the same. It also tells us that when we don't like something or find it unpopular we can flag it as offensive and there is a tally that has a tipping point for the forum or community.

If it is something more, then IMO that too needs stated. It says "this is more than unpopular or disruptive" and why. It says that it does not matter how popular or unpopular something is, or the mood of the throng, it will or won't be permitted and why.

It also says, "it does not matter how many times you flag it, if it is not out of bounds, it isn't" as well as, "even if you like it, if it is foul, it is"

It says that flags are about more than popularity and are about rules, to the one flagged and the one flagging.

If it is about legality, which I can say was based on assumption due to accusations being made (In all honesty, I do not read certain posts or certain posters), then that needs said.
 

My personal idea is that when something escalates that based on disruption or legal parameters that one tells another to shut up or feels a desire or a need to silence them, it is beyond where it perhaps should be allowed to go. For me, that applies online and off.

IMO when it reaches that point, in person, the person is told to mind their p's and q's, is asked to leave or is escorted out.

If it is about legality- I, personally, do not wish to aid or abet and I won't clean up for folks who break the law. In person, if it were illegal or I felt it was, I would call the cops or the legal authorities. So, in all honesty, I am for allowing improper and even illegal posts to remain. I, however, do not do so based on ideas about censorship. I support it, with a disclaimer, in order both to be transparent and to allow prosecution if it comes to that.

IMO in person or online, before all conversation is halted, the problem is better dealt with. If the conversation requires one person's dialogue be removed, that says something. I think I could read "this post has been deleted based on___" and get that and makes sense of a thread or say "hey, this makes no sense missing all this information". If the person cannot be dealt with, play by the rules, speak respectfully, whatever..., then one deals with that the fact (that they cannot remain in the conversation). If I feel the conversation around it sunk to its level then I have to decide what to do. For me, it would mean telling folks that if it is a no-go what one person says, they cannot also go there and not be afoul of the rules.

I do not usually say "conversation over". That said, I am aware some do.

The ground swell of support for Emma, is from Britain First according to your reference Mely. (Found in the MY Tram Experience Thread.

Briitan First is a recent breakaway group of the BNP. (the biggest Fascist Party in the UK. Britain First broke away due to the BNP allowing Catholics to join. .The leaders of BF are associated with the Ulster Defense Association . They formed the Protestant Coalition in Northern Ireland.

From Wiki entry about the UDA 

 However, most of its victims were unarmed civilians according to the Sutton Index of Deaths.[10] The majority of them were Irish Catholics,[11][12] killed in what the group called retaliation for attacks on Protestants.[13][14] High-profile attacks carried out by the group include the Milltown massacre, the Sean Graham bookmakers' shooting, the Castlerock killings and the Greysteel massacre.

Now of course if you ask Neo Nazi if they are Nazis they will deny it. They will also deny the existence of the camps during WW2. As well as denying the mass killings during WW2, More recently they deny that they are responsible for killing LGBT, Muslims, Left wingers, and Irish Catholics. However the police and the community knows that like other murderers, they lie to avoid the consequences of their acts.

I could go over other threads of where you posted links to other Neo Nazi groups, from Austria, Denmark, and other European countries.  I choose My Tram experience as an example because it was started by me, and I remembered it as a result.

It also shows how Mely like others people lies are actually displaying their own bias. Foir example she accuses me of hating Catholics, yet it is she you uses a link from a group that supports killing Catholics, and  driving them out of Northen Ireland.

** I changed the link so that google and other search engines would not pick up on it. Howevr you can check the original message in the link.

​

Well, I probably could have handled it a little more smoothly, but given the constraints I had at the time (working from my phone, short on time because it was Sunday morning at home) I did the best I could. I don't think the end result would have been any different though. There's no warning for somebody who has already posted several items that, in my opinion, were thinly veiled racist material (though probably not illegal). It's not going to be left up while we warn them or lock the thread. We just remove it. And when removing it compromises the integrity of the entire thread to the point that what's left doesn't make any sense, then we just remove the whole thread. Mely knows the guidelines of the site. She's been warned before. She was either banned or left the site on her own (I don't remember which) because of issues just like this before.

RevJohn, there is no "policy" that requires a post to be removed based on number of complaints. Each flag is considered on its own. But it's true, posts that receive more flags are given more attention.

And 99% of the time we don't issue warnings or discuss bannings publicly. This is mostly out of a concern for privacy for the user, but also because it's usually not anybody else's business.

The nature of this forum will always make the moderation of it a judgment call. And everyone will have their own opinions about those judgments. That's fine. There's a fine balance between hosting open-minded discussion and providing a safe space for everyone so that discussion may take place. It's not going to be perfect, but hopefully both those objectives can be met at least to an imperfect degree.

Aaron, that's complete bullshit, and you know it. Deleting a thread is the primary admin option everyone here associates with you. It's what you do, and it has to stop. It's a very lazy and cheap way of adminning, and it makes people not want to participate because they never know when even their good posts are going to go missing because you can't be bothered to be a decent admin.

In this case, you've created a situation where you've got me sympathetic toward Mely. You know how hard it is for me to be sympathetic toward her "cause"? You created a he-said/she-said case over what did Mely really post? You're the one who deleted it, and so you look worse than she does.

Everyone knows Mely is full of crap and gets her content from the most bigoted corners of the Internet. But now, she can sit back and say she only linked to the BBC, and no one knows any better.

Stop adminning like this. It sucks.

So wait until you're at a PC. Nobody takes Mely seriously anyway. Let the bleeding hearts here bleed for a while.

Remove the links, not the thread. The replies remain, as arguments against what was in the links.

It's not a fine balance. You keep doing this, and you've been criticized for it before. It's just a lazy way of adminning.

I tend to think of Aaron and the admin of having the resources of a Policemen, as opposed to a Judge. 

Policemen are much more likely to err in their judgements due to limited resources, and limited time. While judges have more time, and can consult other lawyers and experts before making a judgement and taking action.  However WC does not have those resources, and besides, even if it did, those types of decisions comes month afterwards, and so would have little effect.

I have certainly been upset when every time he has censor my posts, and all of the times, he has censored Chansens.  Especially sine they were parts of real discussions.

However the admin has display some wisdom, and continues to adapt and change. So I assume he does read and consider the  feedback when making decisions in the future. However it often takes allot of time and resources to reevaluate decisions,

All I would suggest is the possibility of adding a sandbox for threads to be moved to. Where they could be referenced, and labled as problematic,  but that would prevent it from  showing  up in the currently active section.  However I do not know what that would entail in time and resources.

 I come here for discussions, and threads dominated by people who have shown no intent to discuss subjects, but who just want to throw mud/hate at groups, or by trolls, who just want to inflame people. And when the do discuss issues, they are typical fail to get the point, or lie outright regardless of the evidence.  That is not a discussion but a game they play .   I could go to many other sites if I want to see games, hate, I would thus not read the WC sandbox, unless it was in regards to administrate actions, so that I may, I am am able to provide suggestions, or to support those I feel should not have had their thread sandbox. It would be interesting also to find out if threads sandbox, due to trolling or hate, would be less active, and by not provoding the reaction the troll, or the hater expects, they would go elesewhere. I know ignoring something is the best way to discourage them

I can deal with racism, and homophobia in actually discussions. There is a lot of value in understanding people who hate and in having discussions with them.  

However I am  specifically not interested in seeing messages that are racist, etc. by people who come here and who have no intent to  have a discussion, but to preach their hatred, and throw mud or play games. 

Just as I am not interested in someone coming here to sell Amway, another sect,  or some product and not discuss things. Howver I would welcome Amway salesmen, members of other sects, who show even a little  willingness and ability to actually participate in discussion. Unchecked, they will destroy the community for others, as I have seen elsewhere.

That said mistakes are made, in discernment, as I do not strive for perfection, but for change that supports healthy choices for communities and it's memebrs. 

Like I said before there has to be limits on certain behaviour, or those selling things, hating, or disrupting, will make WC fail. I have seen it on other discussion sites and web communities. Without limits, haters, trolls, and sellers will destroy a site/community. and rob others of their ability to have a community.  I have also seen where too tightly controlled speech will do the same.  That is why I am not so interested in controlling specific speech, but behaviour that disrupts and destroys. 

I can only say that I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - that Aaron was on the phone on a Sunday morning - and had the brass to announce this disgusting information.

Are there any limits

. Before we know it he will be going to the store to buy beer, having BBQs, watching sports on Sundays, and than telling us all about it.

I don't think I should know when someone is privately warned.

I do think that when a matter is public or is made public, that those directly involved in it may be best served by addressing it in a way that is as tranparent as is possible. Aaron gave us what he did and felt.
 

There was a time when it was mentioned threads would be locked or were deleted due to controversy and people crapped their pants over that too.
 

There was a time when individual posts were removed and then people said it made the whole thread make no sense or made their posts seem odd or rude when out of context.

This is the crux of the problem, "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

It is a problem for admins on forums and even for hosts back in the days of hosting MSN chats.
 

IMO I am a guest. This is not my house, it is a house belonging to others that made room for me. I eat warm soup or cold soup, whatever they serve or I choose to not come back. I could complain, but I am lucky I have soup at all. IMO I do not get to get all ugly about what they serve. If they like cold soup, so be it. If I want hot, there are places to find hot. I am the guest. If I think I am a better hostel or could cook better, I could have at 'er. As I tell folks, you complain, you cook tomorrow.

If they have folks that rub me wrong as guests, I have to accept that too. They invite who they invite. I stay or I go, I do not get to decide who they invite.  

Chansen, you've criticized me before for it, but I wouldn't call it lazy adminning. It fits into the resources we have allocated for it, which aren't a lot. Maybe we could think about a voluntary / community admin arrangement (any volunteers?), but the CMS of WonderCafe isn't really set up for that. In any case, WonderCafe has always had a light-handed admin approach and we've found that editing individual posts or going in and removing links doesn't really work and often just causes more trouble. We receive many more complaints from users and other folks in the church about being light-handed rather than that we were too heavy handed.

The primary admin action we take is issuing warnings, which happens far more often than removing anything or anybody from the site. It's actually pretty rare when we remove an entire thread or ban a user. In this case, I wasn't really made aware of the problems with this thread until there was a flurry of flags made about it over the weekend, with a good number of Mely's posts in the thread being flagged as offensive. It didn't seem to make sense to remove all these individually nor to leave the thread with big gaps in content. It also didn't seem like material we should leave up any longer. So it was removed. Mely had been warned in the past so I didn't notify her before removing it. But I also didn't ban her. 

Like, I said, most of the time it's a judgment call and not perfect. And I'm sorry about those whose posts were removed as collateral damage. We're just trying to find the balance between open-mindedness and safety within the resources we have available.

I hope Mely is still reading this. She might want to know that this year is a big year of celebration for Israel.

It was exactly 46 years ago that Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked an American naval  ship in ionternational waters.

They well knew what they were dong. The attacks lasted hours though the ship was flying an American flag, and Israel had been told it would be there and was radioed many times during the attacks on the ship.

Forty-three American sailors were killed. Their families are still furious that there was no investigation. President Johnson killed the story because then, as now, the US depended on Israel as its anchor (along with Islamic nations like SAudi Arabia and Quatar) to control the region.

Why did Israel attack? probably because it was a communications ship, and Israel was afraid the US would spy on it and pass on the information. (This was at the height of the 1967 war).

Only fools believe that nations are "friends".

Those who support Israel, of course, claim that was a simple case of mistaken identity - the the Israelis mistook the Liberty for an Egyptian ship. Others, however, suggest that Israel was concerned that the United States would discover that it was about to attack the Golan Heights, which at the time belonged to Syria.

Oh, and generally speaking I'm opposed to pulling threads, including the one in question.

That's okay. I did.

I would welcome a change to voluntary admins. I've suggested UCCan clergy be given admin accounts in the past, and you dismissed it.

*blank stare*

Lots of forum admins would say you're wrong.

How does your version of "balance" include nuking entire threads? I'd hate to see what would happen if you balanced a tire.

Look, having one admin who does it as part of a larger paid job, doesn't work. By the time you weigh in, everything's too far gone. I get that. And I also understand there are a bunch of people who reeaaalllly want to be admins*, who flag stuff all the time. To those people, I say if what Mely writes is so terrible, prove her wrong. That's way better than having her posts removed. Just crying that you came across a post that offended you is grade school.

* Never, ever give admin to people who like to flag things. It would be like giving choir boys to priests - they'll take advantage of the situation.

Chansen, I agree with this - are you sure you're not an Aussie? ..........

(I would have phrased it in a softer tone - but, then again, I like marshmallows in my hot chocolate.)

Just a personal opinion, which I'm entitled to..... but, at the same time, I do respect that as Admin, Aaron has a perfect right to do what he sees fit.  Once you agree to play a game, you agree to play by the rules........

He has the right to do anything here, I agree. I'm just saying he's terrible at it.

Hi SG,

It is rather necessary to behaviour modification (if that is what we want to see happen) if it is simply about being punitive then no explanation is needed on any level.  I would hope that being punitive is not what WonderCafe.ca is about.

If open-mindedness is a goal then we need to see clearly how that open-mindedness plays out when folk are flirting with disaster.

I suspect that such moderation is far more time-consuming than The United Church of Canada has budgetted for.

True enough.  I would like to note, just based on observation, the problem with posters who wind up being banned is rarely action out of ignorance.  It most closely resembles defiance, a who are you to tell me I cannot post whatever I want sort of deal.

And while I respect Admins right to bounce such thought without blinking it doesn't fly easily in an environment billed as open-minded.  Simply because it is so heavy-handed.

Visible warnings are better than invisible ones.

I also respect that Admins would prefer for the warnings to be private and I think that is actually preferable to begin with.  In the event of repeat offenders who clearly are not listening to, respectful of, or even comprehending private warnings there should be a public phase where warnings become known to the community.

Agreed.  I have to say that I appreciate that volume only ratchet's up Admin's attention and does not have adverse impact upon the merit of the complaint.

I think we run into some grey areas (potentially).  The merit of disruption can be a tricky thing and if it is simply about volume then it becomes far to easy to shout down those we disagree with, for whatever reason, rather than stretching our minds to open.

So I would prefer that volume not be a criteria addressed in warning.

A majority is as apt to be wrong as is a minority.

I would prefer this option.

This is important not just for us members so that we can modify our own behaviours it is protection for Admin in that it clearly shows the bounds that they are operating by.

Agreed.  And while I don't for a moment think that Admin is acting more about popularity than rules in the present that is an allegation that has been made (and was made in the OP).  Those inclined to think that Admin protects those it favours and is harder on those it dislikes will continue to believe that despite all evidence presented to the contrary.  For those in the middle looking at silence and hearing allegations they are comforted by reasoned defence of action rather than imperious silence.

It is a postmodern truth we had best learn to operate in.

Agreed.

I also think we might be operating with an unreasonable assumption of Admin's role at WonderCafe.ca.  Budgetary issues mean that Admin is not sitting somewhere watching all threads unwind as they unwind.  Which is why requests to Admin can take some time to get a response.

The moderation presence some desire is just not financially feasible.

In light of that reality the cheap alternative is simply rip threads down and let people complain.

I don't think that will lead to long term success.

Since we are operating on the cheap it will be difficult to find the bells and whistle solutions that the community seems to want.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

I wonder how many of us think the same thing about the stuff we are responsible for here.

And as many of us who might think it I wonder how often we might think it.

If the rest of us could be smoother ourselves we shouldn't be faulting you for being unsmooth.

The question then becomes how can we Admin and User alike make things smoother?

And please, understand, I'm not telling you how to do your job.  I'm commenting on what would be most helpful for me as a user.

Admittedly, making me (or any other user) means more work for you and necessitates us telling you what we think you should do.

Is it safe then to presume that something urgent (merit to complaint) rather than volume of complaint spurred this action?  If something needed to come down ASAP and you are working with limited tools then yanking the whole thread while less than desireable is at least understandable.  If something didn't need to come down ASAP then witing till you are at a PC would have been smoother.

I don't find that practice problematic.

I suspect most of the time infractions might be low-grade and might be one-offs.  In those instances I agree with you, it really isn't anybody else's business.

In the event of repeat offenders things change a bit.

Admins job here is made much easier if we can trust Admin to be consistent.  If we do not see things happening we will not necessarily know what, if anything, has happened and that is bewildering and gives rise to all manner of speculation which is ultimately harmful to the community.

Repeat offenders show no respect for your moderation or the community rules.  Any who see that you appear to give an inch will certainly be tempted to take miles.  Public notices, not public discussion, show that there are boundaries which can be trusted.

True.  Judgments based on something tend to be better than judgments based on nothing.

The most remembered banned users have been championed by a certain demographic.  I believe that the actually belonged to a sub-set of that demographic.  It is tough sledding trying to convince the demographic of that sub-set.

Both times you have had to (or felt the need to) step forward and address the conspiracy thinking that arose out of those user bans.

It helps to be ahead of the conflict wave sometimes.

I agree it is a tough act to balance.  I don't know that we need to set the bar low.  What I am hearing, and I think it is reasonable and workable, is that at some point, between the private warnings and the public solution that there be a public warning phase.

Ideally we would all be mature enough and wise enough to police ourselves and not come anywhere near poor conduct.  Realistically, I've been here from the beginning so I empathize that we are nowhere near where we would like to be, ideally.

Thanks for your attention  to the matter and the interaction with other users.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi chansen,

Optically this is a poor solution.

For starters Admin is constantly critiqued for dealing unfairly with one demographic over and against another.  Those who historically make this allegation of bias are not going to be convinced that a delegation of UCCan clergy will be any less biased.

So the end result would be simply widening the bounds of the conspiracy that is already alleged to be happening.

Grace and peace to you.

John

It amuses me, I'm afraid, when the notoriously closed-minded cry "ostracism" and narrow-mindedness when more open-minded people ask them to butt out. I'm afraid I have have told people to leave my parties and my home because their bigotry is making my friends feel uncomfortable.

Accused of narrowness, I'm afraid, my reply is along the lines of "suck it up". Bigotry and bullying are inseparable. Both are sustained by a determined form of ignorance and want of compassion or curiosity. Although there are elements of low self-esteem and personal insecurity at work, I see no wisdom in affirming those debilities.

Many bigots seem determined to push and push and push against the sensitivities of others until they provoke some response that reveals there are limits to the patience of the most patient people.

If someone is into diatribe rather than dialogue, why should they be allowed to endlessly disrupt the conversations of others, or resolutely defame some third party? 

It was an idea that I thought the UCCan would find most palateable. I can't see them opening up admin positions to those with no connection to the UCCan, so maybe open it up to volunteer members? The current admin arrangement is not working, so "do nothing" is not a good option.

And, optically, this is already a UCCan site adminned by a UCCan employee. How much "worse" would the optics get if a handful of clergy had the keys?

Hi chansen,

WonderCafe.ca disqualified this idea right out of the gate.

I included it because I didn't think equality of perspective is actually created by hiding something you have invested more than a little time in.  If I was slapping folk down and   rubbing my credentials in their face that would be a problem.  More often than not it is other folk trying to rub my credentials in my own face.

That is probably more workable.

Respectfully I think that to be able to make such an assessment we would need to know more about what is expected by the powers that be in that regard.  I do submit that most users would like to see something a little more obvious than we have at present.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.  

General consensus is that the denomination is out of touch or apostate (depending on who is offering the criticism) and it is we clergy who are left holding the bag.  If the denomination is suspect we clergy are doubly so.

Which is probably why you, an unrepentant atheist want UCCan clergy having admin privileges.  You'd have run of this ghetto and we'd all be the corrupt cops letting you get away with murder.  

Grace and peace to you

John

The ironic thing about this is if admin was working like Chansen appears to want, he would be first person kicked off the site. He gets more flags and emails about him than any other current member by far. And no matter what he thinks of me , I think he overall makes a good contribution to WonderCafe and is a valuable member. But that's just my personal judgment. A more hands on admin might not see it that way, just sayin'

*looks around*

Who? Me?!? No way.

Again, the people doing the flagging are the worst possible candidates for admin accounts, because they want it too much. I take exception to a lot of what is written here as well, but I handle those posts myself. I don't go running to you.

And I don't dislike you, Aaron. I just think it's a combination of this being a small part of your job, and you not really understanding how to admin a forum.

And before anyone starts, no, I don't want admin, either. First, I'm trying to limit my involvement here (doing real well, aren't I?), and second, HA! Never happen. The only advantage to giving me admin would be watching heads explode.

Hi chansen,

I know!

My jaw dropped at that bombshell too.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Cerainly I agree that the number of flags someone gets shouldn't determine whether a post is pulled or not. In all my time here, I think I've flagged one post. Don't remember whose it was; it was encouraging vigilanteeism on some issue. You can see that it bothered me so much that I remember it clearly. But generally speaking, I'm a live and let live kind of guy. I don't generally take offence - especially not to things posted online mostly by people who don't identify themselves by their real names anyway. And even if you do identify yourself by your real name, well, generally I don't take offence anyway. Life's too short to be wallowing in offence, and I think there are people who overdo the "I'm offended" card. 

As far as admin is concerned, I do not envy Aaron the work he does here. Wonder Cafe is kind of a free for all, and because there are so many divergent perspectives, I suspect that more people than usual "get offended" by things. It's the problem with being "inclusive." We're inclusive until we come upon someone who does or says things we don't like. Then we become exclusive. Nothing wrong with that - or at least nothing surprising about it. It's human. But it's why I really dislike the term "inclusive." So, in this context, this is a very open-minded site, which means that those who aren't so open minded, or who have a narrower theological or ideological perspective, feel excluded or attacked. Meanwhile, others get offended when those with a narrower theological or ideological perspective actually express what they believe. This community is interesting.

By the way, noting John's comments above, I used "Rev." quite by accident. When WC started I wasn't planning to participate much, but my congregation wanted to set up a church page (which is never really used, but that's a whole other story) and I made a mistake. Wanting to identify myself as "Rev." on the church page, I guess I signed up as "Rev." for the whole bloody site! However, I agree with John - honesty is far more important than pretending that we aren't who or what we are.