The malodorous BC Liberals!

Something is beginning to stink in Victoria and the stink is now reeking.

When a government believes that they should receive free benefits, it is time for them to go!

When a government believes it is above the law, it is time for them to go!

When a government, which calls itself a democracy, yet ignores the people, it is time for them to go!

When a government believe it can manipulate elections to suit their whim, it is time for them to go!

When a government lies to the people and the media and commentators freely use the term lies in editorials or articles, without the government filing libel/slander charges, it is time for them to go!

Tick, tick, tick.......the time of reckoning is coming sooner than Gordo thinks!

just take the boards

of the biggest fifty companies in BC EDITED FOR ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. -- TYEE EDITOR

just take the boards

of the biggest fifty companies in BC, put them up against a wall and pie them. You'd only need a dozen pies at most.

$1700.00

I am sure 17 families had their hydro cut off in February for lack of payment. I think $1700.00 could have kept a lot of kids warm. I would love to see an in depth report of how much money we host folks had to spend to keep leeches like Ledstrom at the Olympics.

Horse crap BC Boy!

What a lame comeback! All you ever come back with is "so why were they not elected/". It's the MSM down south that is in Campbell's back pocket or have you not noticed through the tinted glasses. My goodness, but that's OK with you! And that nonsense about "they are here till 2013 so so live with it." Was that the oppositions cry in the 90's till 2001. Of course not. It is a silly comment from you and typical of how superficial your responses are. People are entitled to rail at incompetence/graft/patronage/lying when it happens and as they see it. You expect people to go to sleep till 2013 just cause you want them to? Wouldn't that be sweet for Gordo and Co. and you. But it ain't going to happen so live with it.

Well come up with an alternative then stay on topic.

What a lame comeback! All you ever come back with is "so why were they not elected/".

Most of the commentators keep goin' on about Campbell's drunk driving. That was decided by the people in the 2005 provincial election, or did the previous poster forget??

"And that nonsense about "they are here till 2013 so so live with it." Was that the oppositions cry in the 90's till 2001. Of course not.

Well they were so devestated, they couldn't come
up with a viable alternative.

"It is a silly comment from you and typical of how superficial your responses are. People are entitled to rail at incompetence/graft/patronage/lying when it happens and as they see it."

Just as it is to rail at the Oppostion supporters for their perpetual whining and not really balancing that off with workable solutions. That's
what I am looking for. if you don't like the BC
Liberals (and I don't like alot the things they
have done, but aren't getting into that here), offer some workable solutions. Or at least get out there and work the NDP Party as a volunteer to try and make something of them that the voters will want.

"You expect people to go to sleep till 2013 just cause you want them to? Wouldn't that be sweet for Gordo and Co. and you. But it ain't going to happen so live with it."

Many had to with the NDP after 1996, so there ya go.

Well get out there and actually do something.

Writing to The Tyee isn't going to change anything.

Get goin' and in the meantime, stay on topic.

Ramona777

Sad but true. No wonder people don't bother to vote anymore.
More profligate spending (on the taxpayer's dime of course):
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/Cutting+costs+Here+start/2789347/story.html#ixzz0kw5oRsV4

Editors

Have you hired BC Boy to do moderation here at Tyee?

I've counted a half dozen times in the last few days where he's posted a 'command' to other posters to 'stay on topic'.

Frankly, I'm sick of it and I find it offensive.

BC Boy is...

BC Boy is right!
We should actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Some suggestions:
1. General strike
2. Massive demonstrations against this government until they step down.
3. Regular demonstrations inside the offices of these corporate pigs that have donated to the BC liberals to get them elected.
4. Demonstrations inside the offices The Province and Sun newspapers for there unwavering support of this government.
5. Cherry pies thrown at the faces of government officials where ever they are seen.
6. Tangible disruptions in day to day economic life in this province - inside the Vancouver Stock Exchange if necessary - and on the streets.
7. Exposure to ridicule and humiliation on ALL FRONTS toward members of this government that has assumed power in Victoria based on lies and deceit.
8. Insurgency.

Thank you BC Boy.

Any other suggestions?

So we assume...

...that everyone who posts here is doing nothing else to get rid of the liberal thugs. More horse droppings. Just the same old tiresome retorts from the pro liberal shills. Opposition only whines just like the liberals did in the 90's. Then the MSM judged it good opposition even theough they never offered an alternative either. Oh but that was then. Now things are different, they are in government and when the opposition is critical it is whinning. The only response is? " many did with the NDP" and "there you go." Really brilliant stuff! THe glare is so overwhelming...or is that underwhelming.

BC Boy

Hey BC Boy.

I usually don't respond to your comments because they come across as especially trollish (no offense), and I can't say that I like your writing style, though I noticed that you use paragraphs more carefully now. You have not abandoned the tedious quote and reply format, though... so I have a small initial request: Could you please use quote tags? Makes your message easier to digest (thanks).

Speaking of messages, I have noticed that lately it seems that you have been promoting political apathy, by claiming that there is no difference between political parties, and that we are "stuck" with the Liberals until 2013. My question is this: Why is it that you never bring up recall initiatives when making these claims? Wouldn't that make it possible to change the party in charge before 2013?

Also, since you are using an anonymous handle (I could not find a 'Boy, B.C' in any directory, ho ho!), what party did you vote for last election? I voted for the NDP (in futility, yes I know).

One more thing: are you here only to troll? I'm not asking this as a rhetorical jibe.

The reason I ask you these questions and make these requests is that you spend an awful lot of time here and I would like additional context in which to frame your comments and the predictable responses, as opposed to just ignoring the lot. I've been treating it all as troll-clutter between some very good comments, but I am sure that you could help make it more interesting for me!

Stop complaining and get out there

Well to balance off, I find GWest's "ownership" of the Tyee insulting.

Well that's it for me.

Get out there and join the NDP and actually DO something constructive for that party, they really need it.

For GW, why not run as a candidate, since the "expertise" seems to be showing more than it should.

Bye.

staying on topic

"Get goin' and in the meantime, stay on topic."

I can't be much bothered to engage the PAB as a rule, but BC Boy, you took the thread off topic in the first place, with a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue in the article.

Practice what you preach please. Do you have any comment regarding the story above or not? Nobody is interested in these endless attempts to downplay the current administration's issues with transparency and accountability by comparing it to previous administrations, especially when you never (at least in my memory) invoke the gov'ts that preceded the NDP's most recent turn at the wheel. There are plenty of examples to be found in Socred history, It's quite clear that your agenda is solely an NDP smear job and/or attempts to steer discussions off-topic so that substantive debates are fouled by name-calling and flame-wars.

Don't bother responding, the past two minutes typing the above are all I'm going to waste on the topic.

Are pies offensive?

So, here's something interesting we might want to discuss.

Ever since Takuan posted his comment today about pieing...

of the biggest fifty companies in BC, put them up against a wall and pie them. You'd only need a dozen pies at most.

...three or four people have hit the "Report as Offensive" button.

My initial inclination was to ignore the reports since "pieing" always seems a relatively innocuous and humorous poltical act (though I do have some sympathy for those being pied, usually, and the act is getting a tad old to be effective, no?).

And calling it terrorism, to me, is a bit of a farce, a farce that steals credibility from the government. (Not that anyone here did that.)

But is a pie in the face a violent act? An assault? Is suggesting it an offensive post?

Or are people just upset that someone who shares their politics might be humiliated on a public stage? If anything, Takuan's phrasing makes me a tad uncomfortable ("put them up against a wall and..."), especially after his previous post that we had to edit.

When it happened to David Eby, I found it a bit of an affront to civil conversation, though harmless (though I'm quite curious about how David Eby, felt about it, especially as the BC civil liberties guru).

In any case, I thought I'd let you into our thought process when it comes to moderating and am hoping to learn more about what you folks think about the matter, especially the ones who clicked the button.

What are the politics of pieing?

to Geoff

I'm not too worried about pie comments, but I can see how they would violate the rules of the forum. I think you should try limiting posters to one post per day per topic to put an end to back and forth flame wars. The commenters with worthwhile contributions wouldn't go anywhere, and the quality of the debate would rise immeasurably if we all had to ration our posts and make better use of our allotment.

I doubt a post limit will be a popular suggestion however.

Crass Is Right On

Whoever you are Crass, your eight suggestions are the best I've heard in awhile, far better than a Facebook group or letter-writing campaign.
Now, how do you convince the middling classes to respond?

Geoff

I think that the statistics show that assaults and violence at large have been dropping steadily for years. It's just not as easy to get punched in the face anymore, and pies are starting to look dangerous!

Combine that with an increasingly detached populace due to the internet, along with continually longer work hours and heavy study pressure, and you have the equivalent of a society continually emerging from a dark room and rubbing it's eyes, violently sensitized to all unusual physical stimuli. The rich experience of delicious custard and cream might be very frightening indeed if unexpected - the sensations! Ack!

I can't imagine that the wimpy inconsequential style of popular parenting promoted from the 1990s until now has helped either. People feel that they have the right to never be approached aggressively and with anger when they do something wrong, as if that was more of an offense than their royal fuck-up, whatever that was! I see it all the time in the construction industry... wimpy dudes whining about getting yelled at when they, say, cost the boss two grand and didn't even get fired. Poor babies!

I decry the steady marginilization of the pie attack. Funny thing, though, if you push the pie attack underground, won't it become more sinister? I mean, if people had to ambush politicians late at night, in unexpected circumstances, with few if any witnesses... with pies...

pies are fine

just another way of making a critical comment - and doing it within a strong tradition of slapstick comedy.

I can't imagine why anyone would be upset - in fact, politicians who take themselves too seriously ought to watch those classic scenes from The Great Race or Blazing Saddles - among others and remember to 'lighten up'.

I do wonder though, why Frank's comment about Jesus' disciples disagreeing with him was worthy of a redact...who 'exactly' was that one offending?

who is this"BC boy"?

everyone goes on about? Is that one of those shills I auto-scroll past? I hadn't noticed.

the point is

, by the bye, the crooks that work with the crooks in this province to rape our children's future are a very small pool indeed. I'm not kidding about boards of directors. To be on them you need only to have greed, no ethics and relatives. They are all the same people. And they contribute NOTHING.

Chris Keam:

what's it like talking to you? Do you limit yourself to one sentence a day?

Chris Keam said ...

I understand what you're hoping for with that and it's laudible. But I think it is also pretty unrealistic. Limiting people to such a small amount of palaver would stall conversations altogether before they even got going.

Also, there really aren't all that many flame wars, all in all. There is a small handful of "party faithful" mainly on one side, that tend to sour things with foolishness, unflinching bias, and myopia. But they're manageble.

Ramona asked

Is this story in the Vancouver Sun? Globe and Mail? Times-Colonist?

It would be interesting if a member of the main stream media tipped off The Tyee eh.

Yes John Greg.

Everyone is biased except me. :-)

Pieing for a more violent world?

....it would appear that everyone including Admin missed the point...

... being "dozen"

That's the real violence, I say.

Why waste time on BCBoy

Like Takuan, I'm on autoscroll past his blather. I can't understand it most of the time, because it seems like he's simply repeating other commenters, and I've no idea what his point is, so I usually give up a sentence or two in...

... when I forget to look at the poster's name first, that is.

Blather away, BC [SNIDE COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER EDITED. -MODERATOR.]. It's a free society, and I'm as free to continue to ignore your witless maunderings as you are to mumble them incoherently.

I do not read his posts either and

I would hope everyone else would just ignore him and not respond to his taunts, etc.

Adam M. said:

" Thanks Peace Country, nothing like a telephone repairman to run the unimportant Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Products."

Not to be picky, but Blair's an ex telephone repairman. And he wasn't very good at that, either. I know, I used to work with him.

I'm actually appalled that he's been so Victoriwashed now i.e. thinking he's superior to the poor taxpayers that put him where he is.

Pie eyed

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Still curious to hear from people who have been the clicking offensive button or generally find that comment offensive.

@Chris Keam: Thanks for the suggestions. I hear what you're saying. I wonder if we would lose some of the thoughtful back-and-forth dialogue at the same time if we go that route?

@Zalm: Didn't miss the point just a question about how people reacted to the framing of the point.

@Adam M: Interesting theory!

@GWest: I don't recall the context of Frank's comment but likely edited it because it bordered on a personal remark that was about to start a flame war in the thread. But, like I said, I don't recall the specific context, which brings up an interesting point: as much as we try for consistency in the application of our guidelines, we're not robots -- some days we might be more heavy handed than other days and context (the poster's history, what happened in previous threads, etc.) often informs our actions. In other words, I am hoping our moderating approach becomes apparent more in aggregate than in individual edits.

Anyway, I wanted to discuss Takuan's comment in particular because I found it an interesting case study and wanted to understand more about why people were clicking the offensive button. Still curious if anyone wants to share but I also don't want to sidetrack this thread anymore away from Will's great reporting.

Thanks, everyone!

Geoff:

here's a workable sample (derived from Teresa Nielsen Hayden's work, you can find her at Making Light)'
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/01/boing-boing-moderati.html

Thanks Takuan - I like the Boing Boing policy

Especially the one about banning sock puppets.

And, since the subject is up for discussion, I think a couple of them are a 'real' and long standing problem here Geoff - something that needs to be addressed...in my view.

As for clicking the offensive button - I've taken to doing it a lot of late, usually when I'm upset with something personal and offensive that's been posted about G West.

Why? I think that's obvious.

@ Geoff (Admin)

You stated:

And the answer, as I alluded to earlier, is a resounding Yes. Any such attempts to hobble an already hobbled medium would surely be counter-productive.

Each comment provides the opportunity for insight, new information, and an invitation to a change of mind, or at least perspective. If you, or anyone, makes a comment that opens my mind and allows me to change my perspective and/or opinion, but I cannot comment on, or add to, or amplify, or clarify, or even to bring in legitimate criticism, because I've already made a comment that day and now have to wait 24 hours, I'll just give up and move on.

One of the most important and attractive aspects of the comment function is its immediacy. Dialogue requires that sort of immediacy; without it there is no dialogue, there is just Houston, we have a problem.

Abusing "Suggest as offensive" Link

I think having a "Suggest as offensive" clicker/link is a bad idea. I believe it provides too easy an opportunity to just click it for simply disliking a poster or a familiar poster's particular slant or point of view.

What is offensive? How can anyone easily define an absolute, or even a general rule about that? What's offensive to me will surely not be offensive to all. It is far too ambiguous.

A little while ago, I noticed that I had started clicking it in regard to one specific poster whose opinions strike me as teetering towards racist -- in my opinion -- and the comments were not in fact offensive, and in regard to another poster whose comments are almost universally goofy. And that's not right.

As soon as I became aware of the illegitimacy of my "Suggesting as offensive", I made a committment to myself to not use it all -- the temptation to defame someone with whom I strongly disagree is just too strong.

While it may be too much of a burden to handle effectively, my current approach is to simply email the editor if I find a poster to be truly offensive or otherwise damningly disruptive. I have yet to do so.

John Greg

I don't disagree with the general tenor of what you're saying. I don't actually have a problem with ANY opinions (whether or not I agree with them or not) but I do resent the personalization of remarks – the way one argues I guess.

Things like: 'You're nothing but a loonie lefty' don't bother me. But I think posters should be able to separate their remarks about what someone thinks or believes from what that person IS as an individual. Especially since the vast majority of people who comment here are doing it anonymously.

If someone personalizes an attack toward G West then it seems I must either respond in kind (and risk being banned) or hit the offended button. There just aren't a lot of other choices. I’m not prepared to just ignore the kind of flaming that sometimes characterizes attacks on me personally.

I've also tried emailing the editors and that doesn't work either.

I tend to sympathize with the moderators' problems in a general way, but when it's my ox that’s being gored I have a bit more difficulty being diffident about the personal attacks I've put up with on a regular basis around here.

Geoff seems to be saying that they're paying some attention to the offensive flag when it's waving - if that's going to help them police these threads and get people to concentrate on debate and discussion, I'll continue to wave the flag and hope for the best.

community moderation

is the only workable model. IF you seek community in the first place.

things to come

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/21/contract-belo-monte-dam

Mr. Lekstrom

[SPECULATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

I just want to amplify something John Greg said:

"A little while ago, I noticed that I had started clicking it [the report as offensive button] in regard to one specific poster whose opinions strike me as teetering towards racist -- in my opinion -- and the comments were not in fact offensive, and in regard to another poster whose comments are almost universally goofy. And that's not right."

I'd say about 90 per cent of the "reported as offensive" messages we get are of the type John Greg describes. They are comments that people seem to find "offensive" to their political disposition rather than troll-like, hate-filled, slanderous, personal attacks and so on. Buried in there are about 10 per cent that we truly have to do something about.

So, please use that tool wisely, as John Greg suggests. Otherwise, we spend a lot of time chasing our tails rather than improving the site and the journalism.

Your comments are much appreciated, John.

Thanks for the BoingBoing link, Takuan.

and in an alternate universe,

Bizarro Mr. Lekstrom and Bizarro Mr, Lekstrom's Bizarro world bank account thanks Bizarro mgailthiessen for her Bizarro patronage.

(jeez, tough room!)

Seinfeld was funnier

http://soxblog.mlblogs.com/bizarro.jpg

Geoff

What's 'personal' is always going to be subjective - to a certain extent.

I have NO problem with anyone (nor should you) who provides an intelligent critique of my 'views' or my politics.

The problem is when the attack is directed at the PERSON who holds those views.

I'll argue with anyone about the things that are important to me - but I expect others to leave me (the person) out of it.

But, my opponents here constantly cast aspersions at my 'person' as well as my views...they draw conclusions that assume they know who I vote for, how I make my living, who I hate or dislike, where I live, how much money I have.

Such conclusions are 'personal' AND 'offensive' and they play no part in debate.

That's NOT FAIR BALL since I'm not allowed to be sarcastic in response (ref David Beers' ruling on the subject) I have nothing left BUT the offensive button.

Furthermore, you still haven’t addressed the sock-puppet issue, which is, in the end, what’s really behind the people who do the flaming here – as, I’d argue, you well know.

response to Takuan, John and Geoff

@ Takuan, who said: "what's it like talking to you? Do you limit yourself to one sentence a day?"

That's a mis-characterization of what I said. Nowhere did I suggest limiting the length of a post, simply the frequency, so that we aren't inundated by two perspectives arguing until it inevitably devolves into name calling. Good writing can survive a day of gestation and would probably improve the quality of posts if people had a day to consider their rebuttals.

It would also lengthen the shelf life of the articles, which is important when you have limited funds to commission work.

To take your example of a conversation... I would hope that I would limit myself to one turn at the mike and then let others speak before jumping in again. That's the most productive and equitable way to have a group discussion in my experience.

@John Greg, who said: "Limiting people to such a small amount of palaver would stall conversations altogether before they even got going."

I disagree. It would IMO raise the bar and make people a little more thoughtful before they post. Most importantly, it would reduce the effectiveness of the individuals who are clearly apparatchiks from using the Tyee's forums for propaganda and smear campaigns.

@Geoff, who said: "@Chris Keam: Thanks for the suggestions. I hear what you're saying. I wonder if we would lose some of the thoughtful back-and-forth dialogue at the same time if we go that route?"

I think it would make people more thoughtful and increase the quality of posts by reducing access to one (or some reasonable limit) of posts per day. As they say, empty vessels make the loudest noise, and with some notable exceptions, the most frequent posters often add the least to the discussion.

Chris Keam

Yes, I see where you are gong with your idea. And perhaps a limitation to not one, but say 5 posts per 24 hours or something like that might be worth the experiment.

Nonetheless I still feel that the immedicay that is currently available to us is a really very important, if often abused, function of the whole process. I'm not sure the loss of that immediacy would be effectively countered by the gains made in a potential reduction of incivility (theoretically) or apparatchik-based propaganda and smear campaigns.

There is one poster in particiular who comes to mind. That poster is an infrequent poster, and when that poster posts they usually only post a couple of posts at the most, (ooh. rhyme time!) but they are usually antagonistic, belittling, highly biased, and often perilously close to being racist and/or anti-semitic. I don't see how that poster's hostile rhetoric would be reduced or limited by the plan you bring forward, because it is pretty clear from their posts that they are well thought out and yet nonetheless quite intentionally often rather vile.

Chris Keam

Yes, I see where you are going with your idea. And perhaps a limitation to not one, but say 5 posts per 24 hours or something like that might be worth the experiment.

Nonetheless I still feel that the immedicay that is currently available to us is a really very important, if often abused, function of the whole process. I'm not sure the loss of that immediacy would be effectively countered by the gains made in a potential reduction of incivility (theoretically) or apparatchik-based propaganda and smear campaigns.

There is one poster in particiular who comes to mind. That poster is an infrequent poster, and when that poster posts they usually only post a couple of posts at the most, (ooh. rhyme time!) but they are usually antagonistic, belittling, highly biased, and often perilously close to being racist and/or anti-semitic. I don't see how that poster's hostile rhetoric would be reduced or limited by the plan you bring forward, because it is pretty clear from their posts that they are well thought out and yet nonetheless quite intentionally often rather vile.

Ooops

Sorry about that. I tried to correct my first sentence (going not gong -- send in the clowns Gene!) and somehow ended up with a double post. If any lurking mods want to remove the first of the pair, please feel free to do so. So sorry.

sorry Chris

your argument doesn't hold water. A few basic facts: electrons are essentially free, memory is cheaper every day and so are servers. It's not like we're using up scant resources here. Further, the dynamics of web discussion aren't at all like meatworld where you have all the bodies in the same room for a fixed time. People read and post where and when they can.

What IS valuable is attention. This garden could do with having a few weeds pulled, so start with the biggest ones first. Moderation here has some easy targets, trying to set arbitrary stylistic rule is a dubious, remote priority.

Lastly, look at your mouse. See the little wheel? Good, now try rolling it. That's all I do when text comes up I'm not interested in reading. The gods know, as much dataflow I see, I sure as hell ain't reading every word of it.

@Takuan

It's no surprise to me that you find my suggestion to limit posting in some manner rubs you the wrong way.

I'm not interested in simply scrolling past the posters who I don't care to read. When their constant input dominates the conversation and makes the forum an uninviting place for many, then in the interests of the publication (in this case The Tyee) it makes sense to adjust the protocols and try new ways of guiding the discussion. The Internet is far too new to assume that the way things are now is the way things should be or the best way to do things.

one further point

"your argument doesn't hold water. A few basic facts: electrons are essentially free, memory is cheaper every day and so are servers. It's not like we're using up scant resources here."

As you note in a para that follows this one, what is valuable is attention. That is the scant resource, and when it is monopolized by anyone, then they are taking more than their share of time that the audience has to offer. That makes the conversation one-sided and unlikely to gather the readership that this site and all others need to be able to cover their costs.

I'm not the one

with the bandwidth problem. Learn new methods and techniques Chris, the world is moving, with or without you. Practice focus.

Since reading isn't your

Since reading isn't your strong suit, let me just point out again that I am the one suggesting new methods and techniques, while you are quite happy with the status quo.

heh!

is this this one of those flame wars you so despise?
Relax Chris, this is the internet age, everyone gets to speak, not just the "writers". Tell ya what, I'll lead by example, I'll start scrolling past everything you say if you agree not read any of mine? Deal? Remember, you are the one that started complaining, I never once suggested to anyone else that your writing wasn't worth the time to read it. Whaddya say? (I'll cheat you know, I'll still read everything you write but I'll NEVER LET ON!)

Chris Keam said ...

Same here. Also, I think this underlies another important point that hasn't really been made yet, which is that even those folks who tend to dominate comment threads, sometimes pointlessly, often belligerently, still play a role in the ongoing conversation and should not be avoided just for the sake of expediency.

And I think this is true even when their comments begin to make the place somewhat uninviting.

Change is rarely, if ever, brought about by nothing more than comfortable agreement, pleasant reading, and a polite and tidy commons. To find change, input needs to come from all sides, even the difficult to get along with.

After all, not to put too heavy a burden on their shoulders, but that is what moderators are for: To steer the conversation back on track when it becomes so off-topic or hostile that it becomes pointless, useless, and combative for the sake of combativeness.

And lastly, I find that sometimes the apparatchik-based propagandizers and smear campaigners actually help me to clarify my thought. Sometimes they are so out there that they are kind of entertaining.

in a free world

people vote with their feet.

@ John

Great comments John, in the previous post and upthread as well.