I would dislike if we all would have to become submissive and put every word we write on a 'scale to weigh gold'. Takes any depths out of the content.
Another note to the Forum Operators: this is a country of immigrants. Not everybody from a different country expresses views/opinions in the same way as Canadians who are usually seen as subdued and quiet, do. For example, Italians, French, Germans, and others talk "with hands and feet (waving their hands around). So is their language much louder, much more insisting, much more enthusiastic. To some people who haven't grown up in such an environment this may sound aggressive. Maybe a little bit of leniency towards the diversity of people on the forum would help.
Last edited by PuckiTwo; 2014-12-18 at 05:30 PM.
Here's the context for me specifically:
- Posted my thread regarding In trust account (I have deleted the beginning of the thread only because I am process of deleting my posts in general, nothing controversial)
- Posted a new thread wondering where did my thread go. (deleted by mods for duplication). Did this 3 times accidently because as I was posting, the mod was deleting and thinking it was a computer glitch.
-Stopped posting when I received an email answering where my post was and received communication,
Apparently, this was my first 'warning'. I am not sure what I am being warned about. This is the message:So not a computer glitch, human error. I am totally in agreement that the 3 posts I made should be deleted. I couldn't report on my thread that I started, because it was deleted, which makes it hard to follow instructions.Originally Posted by the-royal-mail
Then I started a thread asking why the Weather Vortex thread was closed. I even posted that I didn't post in the thread, but didn't think it violated any issues. This thread has now been deleted, not just closed. The reason came in this message:Originally Posted by the-royal-mail
I responded in the Spamming thread because there were already other posts, I felt related and I think this needs to come out in the open, because honestly, me having a PM conversation with a moderation that has made up their mind is a waste of time.
I spent a lot composing a post, which has also been deleted (I will try and find in my personal restore at a later time)
Essentially, my post could be summarized in the following:
1. Thanking the other members who were brave enough to post as I echo their concerns
2. Asking a question regarding the first bolded 'I believe you have read' which I responded, in fact, I had not read it previously until I received the link and question which was just deleted and never answer of the following:
- What information and activity is CMF tracking on it's users. How would the moderators know (especially if they are not administrators) have this information? This is a privacy concern for me now, hence my decision to start deleting my history and posts here. I would like answer btw.
3. My concerns that controversy means aka not having the same opinion as the moderators. I still strongly believe that if some is respectful and not attacking others or groups, however unpopular an opinion may be, it should be allowed. Just because the moderators don't like an opinion, they should not delete it. I would prove this, but my post was deleted.
4. My thought on though this is a financial forum, there is a General Discussion section, which CMF defines as 'General non-financial' I posted this to say the reason to delete a non-financial chat in the non financial chat section is contradictory. Get rid of the whole section then.
5. I brought the point that though it has been very clear that some moderators want this to ONLY be a financial forum, that by banning all non financial chat you may loose users. To keep my post on topic financially, I highlighted that though Finances is the topic of passion here, the owners of the sites may have purchased it because they want to make money. That is done through hits, posts, and memberships. Posts that may not be financially related, but bring in a lot of people (the weather on had 7 or 8 pages), are actually aligned with the goals of the owners which is generating traffic to the site, membership, and 'stickyness'.
6. Finally, my second bold 'Those who show a disregard for these rules will be warned and banned where necessary' My question was was the above note considered a warning? Under which rule?
As a response to my post, it was deleted, and I received this email:Originally Posted by the-royal-mail
I do not believe I was trying to cause controversy, but I respectfully disagree with the moderator.
I was trying to provide feedback to what is becoming of this forum, and it one of my last attempts before I no longer care to come here either. I don't believe that the issue of over moderation is one that should be hidden in a PM, its like the fox guarding the hen house.
'You are attempting to incite controversy by publicly airing your grievances and quoting private messages.' How do I bring up my concerns if medium which I can bring up my concern is the concern itself. I asked if it was against the rules to quote private messages, as I could not find it.
You have now been warned several times.
I have posted my two messages previously received, I didn't know they were the several warnings.
One more posting of this type will result in account ban.
I am posting again now, in the same fashion I have previously. Am I to get banned because I was disrespectful? I don't see any disrespect on my side at all, but do welcome if other members see that I am being disrespectful in what I have posted thus far.
The larger concern is that the moderator is making up a new rule.
I pulled this up from the only officials I found on the site.
11. There will no longer be a warning sent to those who personally attack another member or hurl hate filled messages at groups of people. The penalties for making such an attack either through a post, signature or through the private messaging system are now as follows:
* 1st Offence: 3 day ban
* 2nd Offence: 14 day ban
* 3rd Offence: 30 day ban
* 4th Offence: Permanent ban
If you are banned, an explanation message will appear when you try to access the site. If you're not sure why you were banned, please e-mail us for a more detailed explanation.
From what I can tell, I have had one warning, the message above, yet the moderator threaten to ban me if I post one more time, jumping me to the 4th offence. I do not consider the first 2 'offences'
I have provided my case that I think there is a lot of inconsistency here, and judgment has become personal and subjective.
@cmfadmin - you are asking for examples.
So here in one.
We are being told the following:
As stated, we have been going through the forum and removing threads and posts which consist merely of personal discussion and non-financial banter, as well as old posts, politically and racially controversial and generally off topic for a financial forum.
However, just this morning, a whole whack of completely off-topic and financially irrelevant threads have been converted into stickies under the "General Discussion" section.
These includes threads on Photography, Cooking Recipes, TV advertisements, Cars, and Music.
So photography and car hobbies are so relevant that they deserve to be stickies, but weather is not?
Among them is also a thread about Canada Post, which is nothing more than a disgruntled ex Canada Post employee raving & ranting about work conditions, pay, and pensions.
Why has this thread been converted into a Sticky?
Right now, under General Discussion, 3/4ths of the page is full of stickies and all the latest posts are pushed down.
The other concerns that I have but cannot prove because the posts have been deleted, but another member provide one example in the Tax Software is that new members are being treated 'guilty until innocent'. Newbies who have never posted are being accused of as spamming, some example have been:
- Mere mention of a brand or name of software
- Posting of an article that was totally finance related but by a new person. They even said it was NOT their site, but thought it was an interesting read.
- Posting of lists, though I do find it odd, it doesn't bother me.
- Random information, but still finance related
In these examples, nothing was being sold or advertised, and were on topic. It was merely because the person was new.
For my part, I am not going to get into a quote battle with a couple of our more tireless users but will post a reminder to everybody that the moderation team comunicates frequently amongst ourselves and gives members the chance to respond and modify their behaviour when it is deemed a problem. Yes, a small number of vocal members (their friends of whom are contributing most of the posts in this thread) had to be banned to protect the greater harmony of the forum. This includes the following actions by us:
1. deletion of offending posts and threads and the clarification posted in this thread:
2. send user a PM clarifying what was done (in some cases with these users we sent numerous PMs and warnings) and recommending they improve their behaviour
3. further posts, especially those with publicly post private PMs with members and berate the moderator(s), questioning in public what was already explained in the PM will result in an infraction placed against the user's account and final warning.
4. in some cases, the user sat here on the forum and continually reposted the same content over and over, after we had already posted private and public warnings to cease the posts. In other cases, users continued to create new public threads about our response to their behaviour in an effort to turn their poor behaviour into a public quoting and flame war on the forum. These posts used inflammatory language in order to attract attention and increase post count presumably.
I'm on this board several times a day, so I often see posts before they are deleted. It seem now that the new policy is if it contains a link, it's automatically declared spam, deleted and the author banned.
Now, that is pretty heavy handed and at least one legitimate new user was caught by it as admitted to in a follow up thread where the banned user created a new identity and logged on again to ask why. Personally, I think there may have been a couple of others as well, since most newbies may have a question which involves a link, but I've got no proof (other than this specific example) because the posts are deleted.
Had the current policy been in place, I would never have been allowed on this forum. I wonder how many new users have felt slapped in the face instead of welcome here in the past few months.
I've also seen that any questioning of the policy is also usually deleted quickly and no explainations are given.
The definition of controversial seems to be "whatever the moderators don't like". I can understand deleting posts that are rude or insulting, but shutting down entire threads or deleting them seems excessive to me.
In the past, I've seen minor flame wars break out, but they didn't last long. Most of the users are adults here and, while they may fight a bit, they usually end it pretty quickly.
Discussion often involves contradictory opinions, that's how people open their eyes to new concepts. New users will make mistakes until they learn the rules, and they are quickly educated by others on this board.
The new moderation has quickly made open discussion uncomfortable and the board a very unwelcoming place. No slack is given, and no dissenting opinions to the moderators is tolerated. There is also no appeal process.
This is not my board, I don't make the rules. If this is the kind of board you want to run that is fine. I didn't see this kind of excessive crackdown until the new moderators took over, which makes me wonder if this is their opinion though and not yours.
I'm not JustAGuy (without spaces), or Donald, or <insert name here>.
Decades ago I worked for a while with a Scottish woman who had been employed in Italy for several years; during this time she flew her 'elderly' father (who had never been outside Scotland) to Italy for a visit.......took him to a cafe with banquette benches.....while she was looking at the menu four local guys came in and sat behind her father.
She looked up after a couple minutes and noticed that her father was becoming increasingly agitated......she asked him what was wrong and he replied that a fight was about to break out and that they'd better leave.
Having not previously paid attention to the four guys she started listening to their conversation......then told her father "They're trying to decide which soup to have!"
Exit, pursued by a bear. (The Winter's Tale, Act III, scene 3.)