Explain to me the difference between "moderating" and "censoring" [Archive]

xUKHCx

Feb 14, 2009, 07:13 AM

But what I find disturbing is that there are any number of threads about Bush or any other person on that right could probably be pulled up that were sensaationalized just as much that were not closed or deleted.

Furthermore, censoring and deleting posts really just seems entirely inappropriate to me. Never have I seen such widespread use of censoring (yes, thats right censoring) of a forum by moderators.

The posts that were censored were personal / rude. I in no way removed any political material. That is the difference between censorship and moderating.

It was not just that it was sensationalised. It was deemed there was more purpose behind such sensationalisation as shown by the follow up posts. It is deeper than I can go in to here but the forum rules cover these issues, the highlighted part is what was used in this case:

"Trolling". Do not post in order to anger other members or intentionally cause negative reactions. For a given post, this can be a subjective call, but a pattern of such posting or an especially egregious case will get you banned. Basically, don't try to pick fights. Knowingly posting false information is also prohibited.

Further it was deemed that due to the way that the thread was loaded that the further discussion of the article in that thread in question would require more moderator work.

Feel free to start a thread discussing that matter.

Perhaps my failing in closing the thread was the final statement I left.

Thread closed.

Has been edited to

Thread closed: Feel free to start another thread discussing this matter in a way that is open to debate.

People are welcome to start another thread on the matter as alluded to by other members above.

kavika411

Feb 14, 2009, 08:51 AM

obeygiant

Feb 14, 2009, 08:52 AM

First, Im in no way critical of Obama getting away for a weekend, as a matter of fact I could care less. As I said, whether he is in DC or elsewhere, I think the president is always doing his job and has access to the tools that allow him to fulfill his duties.

But what I find disturbing is that there are any number of threads about Bush or any other person on that right could probably be pulled up that were sensaationalized just as much that were not closed or deleted.

Furthermore, censoring and deleting posts really just seems entirely inappropriate to me. Never have I seen such widespread use of censoring (yes, thats right censoring) of a forum by moderators.

The moderation here has always been heavy handed but its something I've just gotten used to. Anytime I've ever mentioned it I've been told its "just in my head" and to be quiet. I've seen loads of posts which I considered too "personal/rude" but they were never deleted because they reside in a thread that wasn't overly sensational to begin with and therefore may not attract the mod's attention. The thread "Joe the plumber is a jackass" strikes my as a little sensationalist.. but thats just me. I guess its much less offensive than "Obama takes a vacation".

Anyway, this is the PRSI. Things happen. :)

mkrishnan

Feb 14, 2009, 09:04 AM

...and therefore may not attract the mod's attention.

That's a key part of it. If one has a problem with a post or with moderation in a thread, one should please report it. If one's post got deleted and one still needs attention regarding it, the easiest thing to do is to just make a report on the original post in the thread, or another post of one's own nearby in the thread, and in the report comments, explain what the issue is (including some kind of guidance about where in the thread the post was deleted), and we will look into it. Post reports, once again, go to the entire moderating and administrating team, and so they allow for oversight.

Likewise, the complaint that one's post was deleted for doing something which was not censored when done by another user simply means that one should be reporting the other user's post -- the slight is rarely, if ever, intentional.

And of course, the least favorable thing in all cases to do about it is to create yet another thread bemoaning the state of moderation on MacRumors, as there are already many such threads. ;)

obeygiant

Feb 14, 2009, 09:33 AM

That's a key part of it. If one has a problem with a post or with moderation in a thread, one should please report it. If one's post got deleted and one still needs attention regarding it, the easiest thing to do is to just make a report on the original post in the thread, or another post of one's own nearby in the thread, and in the report comments, explain what the issue is (including some kind of guidance about where in the thread the post was deleted), and we will look into it. Post reports, once again, go to the entire moderating and administrating team, and so they allow for oversight.

The problem is that what's offensive is subjective. I'm guessing that a post where a single user is offended and reports is not taken with the same weight as a post with multiple reports. Besides, who wants to be the guy reporting all those "offensive" posts. After a while it becomes white noise to the mods and borderline annoying.

And of course, the least favorable thing in all cases to do about it is to create yet another thread bemoaning the state of moderation on MacRumors, as there are already many such threads. ;)

Many threads on the state of moderation? *yoda voice* Telling you something I should think, Hmmm?

lol sorry. :)

SLC Flyfishing

Feb 14, 2009, 09:55 AM

I had a few of my posts deleted a while back, and I never got any real explanation as to why. I felt I was being very reasonable, but I was in a debate that one of the moderators was participating in. I made a post that I felt was particularly good, with no personal attacks or inflammatory comments and then it was just deleted.

I PM'd two moderators and got no response from one, and a shrug off and an explanation as to why my position in that thread was wrong from the other Mod.

Very suspect if you ask me.

I've sorta come to expect it, all of our moderators lean the same way on most topics and that can be very problematic in PRSI if you don't agree with them.

SLC

xUKHCx

Feb 14, 2009, 10:01 AM

glocke12, the problem with your thread is the title. It should have been more open and inviting to discussion and debate, such as "Israel to launch war against Iran within a month," and "Joe the Plumber - What a Jackass."

Firstly it wasn't glocke12's thread that sparked this thread.

Secondly as explained in this thread it was a combination of factors (the thread title wasn't in fact one of these factors).

The moderation here has always been heavy handed but its something I've just gotten used to. Anytime I've ever mentioned it I've been told its "just in my head" and to be quiet. I've seen loads of posts which I considered too "personal/rude" but they were never deleted because they reside in a thread that wasn't overly sensational to begin with and therefore may not attract the mod's attention. The thread "Joe the plumber is a jackass" strikes my as a little sensationalist.. but thats just me. I guess its much less offensive than "Obama takes a vacation".

Anyway, this is the PRSI. Things happen. :)

Three sceanrios here:

You see a bad post, you report bad post, bad post gets dealt with.

You see a bad post, you don't report bad post, mods don't know about it, therefore the bad post stays.

You see a bad post, you don't report bad post, a mod might stumble over the post as 1 of the 5000 odd that are posted every day, bad post get dealt with.

The problem is that what's offensive is subjective. I'm guessing that a post where a single user is offended and reports is not taken with the same weight as a post with multiple reports. Besides, who wants to be the guy reporting all those "offensive" posts. After a while it becomes white noise to the mods and borderline annoying.

The forum rules go someway to expalin what is offensive and we would prefer to have more posts than fewer. If a poster frequently reports posts that moderators deem not to be a problem then a moderator will likely contact the reporter.

All post reports are treated equally and all post reports are dealt with

Everyone is responsible for their own posts but there is a collective responsibility on the forum to adhere to the rules and make an atmosphere conducive to debate, reporting posts comes under this.

I had a few of my posts deleted a while back, and I never got any real explanation as to why. I felt I was being very reasonable, but I was in a debate that one of the moderators was participating in. I made a post that I felt was particularly good, with no personal attacks or inflammatory comments and then it was just deleted.

I PM'd two moderators and got no response from one, and a shrug off and an explanation as to why my position in that thread was wrong from the other Mod.

The moderators can't send an explanation for every post that is deleted.

In regards to the PMs without knowing the details I can't really give an answer to this. If you wanted a review of the case then sending a contact us form would have been a better option. As sometimes mods go offline for days, weeks, months at a time. Yes if the mod is online at the time you might expect a reply soon ish. But you have to remember that we are quite busy and as such might delay in sending a reply.

As to everything there are two sides to the matter so it is quite easy to paint a dark picture with the dark colours while the light colours may not know you are painting the picture.

iJohnHenry

Feb 14, 2009, 10:13 AM

Moderating is when sticks and stones are removed from your possession, lest you hurt your widdle self.

Censoring is when they take away your gun.

yellow

Feb 14, 2009, 10:31 AM

Why is this thread in the PSRI?

My questions to you, gloke12, are;

How would you like us to do our moderation? Give us some tips.
And what makes you think this is censorship? This is a private site.

mkrishnan

Feb 14, 2009, 10:31 AM

I PM'd two moderators and got no response from one, and a shrug off and an explanation as to why my position in that thread was wrong from the other Mod.

Actually, I'd say again that this is another reason that you should make use of the Report Post and Contact Us features. We're not a bunch of loose cannons and we don't want to create this impression. If you use the aforementioned mechanisms, then your concern is made available to the whole moderating and administrating team, and this gives the appropriate people an opportunity to look into the situation and make sure that a reasonable outcome is achieved. This will not always result in an outcome you find favorable -- no one will give you a pass on breaking forum rules just because another moderator was involved in the discussion. But it would avoid for you any impression that moderating is not subject to oversight.

glocke12

Feb 14, 2009, 11:25 AM

Why is this thread in the PSRI?

My questions to you, gloke12, are;

How would you like us to do our moderation? Give us some tips.

Ive given that a little thought. First Id like to say that deleting posts often is just something that looks bad on any forum. After having several posts of mine that I thought were well thought out deleted on other threads, I asked myself why I even bother returning to this forum. If I am going to take the time to reply to a thread, and my reply is on topic and not offensive, and they still end up getting deleted, why should I bother ? Im sure there are others that have felt the same. But the truth is even though my views differ from the majority on here, I do like this forum and have learned alot here, so that is why I keep returning.

So, to answer your question, Id say that unless a post or thread is obviously derogatory or offensive (i.e. making an offensive remark about someones religion, race, etc...), or a reply is just utterly and completely off topic is posted in a thread to just leave things alone. If something is posted that is sensational in nature, or just plain stupid, I suspect that the majority here will ignore it and it will go away.

If that does not work and things get out of hand, than at least be "fair" in moderating. It is very suspect when the Obama/vacation thread is closed using the reasoning that was used, but threads such as:

"Republicans: Follow the party or else..."

"Abortion caused Australian Bushfires (religion thread)"

and these two which someone else pointed out:

""Israel to launch war against Iran within a month," and "Joe the Plumber - What a Jackass.""

are allowed to continue. All of these contain much more inflammatory and misleading titles than the Obama/vacation thread, yet these were not closed.

Also, if you absloutely have to delete a post to keep a thread on topic or because its offensive, or close a thread, at least do what most other private forums do and leave an explanation...I think something simple would suffice..."Post deleted due to offensive content", "post deleted due to not being on topic". etc..

And what makes you think this is censorship? This is a private site.

good point. Can't argue with that.

WinterMute

Feb 14, 2009, 11:42 AM

I'd just like to point out that most of us mods are working full-time and are mods here in our spare time, often leaving detailled feedback is simply too time consuming, and will often be abbreviated to stuff like: "trolling", "offensive" or simply "OT".

I would agree that deleting posts that are not in breach of the rules is less than ideal, particularly posts which advance polarised arguments however, many such posts are cleaned up in the general moderation of heated or ill-advised exchanges.

If you have an issue with a particular deleted post that you feel has merit, you should PM the mod and/or one of the admins to discuss the issue, but it's rare to have posts re-instated.

és:

Feb 14, 2009, 11:50 AM

First Id like to say that deleting posts often is just something that looks bad on any forum.

It looks far worse on the person that is having their posts deleted on a regular basis.

After having several posts of mine that I thought were well thought out deleted on other threads, I asked myself why I even bother returning to this forum.

Then, with respect, maybe you should start looking at the reasons why your posts are getting deleted.

If something is posted that is sensational in nature, or just plain stupid, I suspect that the majority here will ignore it and it will go away.

To be fair, you often post something sensational. Sometimes it's proven false and sometimes it's so far out that it's simply dismissed. Again, think about what you post and maybe check the facts are right before you do that. If they are the truth then you can't be touched.

if you absloutely have to delete a post to keep a thread on topic or because its offensive, or close a thread, at least do what most other private forums do and leave an explanation...I think something simple would suffice..."Post deleted due to offensive content", "post deleted due to not being on topic". etc..

I think that's a fair request.

leekohler

Feb 14, 2009, 11:51 AM

és:

Feb 14, 2009, 11:53 AM

After some very careful consideration, I have to say glocke is right about this (surprised?). I don't see a reason for closing the Obama vacation thread, given other threads we have in this forum. Glocke has a definite point, guys.

The thread claimed and criticised Obama for going on a 'fabulous vacation'. That's nonsense of the highest order and if there are going to be any standards on PRSI then I believe things like that need weeding out.

Sure, some of those posts had questionable titles but they had credible talking points.

leekohler

Feb 14, 2009, 11:57 AM

The thread claimed and criticised Obama for going on a 'fabulous vacation'. That's nonsense of the highest order and if there are going to be any standards on PRSI then I believe things like that need weeding out.

Sure, some of those posts had questionable titles.

I understand that, but I also see what glocke is saying, and you have to admit he has a point. I wouldn't normally say anything about this, but in this case I think he's right, that's all. Let's apply the standards equally.

t0mat0

Feb 14, 2009, 12:05 PM

The #1 goal is to discuss Mac News and Mac Rumors.

The rules and decisions are made to protect this goal over all else, first and foremost in the News and Article Discussion forums. Following closely are forum discussions about other aspects of Macs and for giving help to fellow users. Further down the list is the Community Discussion forum, and far at the bottom of the list is the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum.

Isn't that roughly the order of priority? A thread on a President's "vacation" seems a bit away from the #1 goal.

Judgement call made by the 2nd post. Thread closed with (after editing):

Thread closed: Feel free to start another thread discussing this matter in a way that is open to debate*
*Last edited by xUKHCx : Today at 12:11 PM.

Pretty clear the conditions to open another thread on the subject if so wanted. Pretty lenient really, and open to adult conversation on the topic, if the forum users want to play ball.

yg17

Feb 14, 2009, 12:07 PM

glocke12

Feb 14, 2009, 12:10 PM

It looks far worse on the person that is having their posts deleted on a regular basis.

Thats arguable. Granted if someone is being an outright idiot all the time thats one thing, but many of my posts that were deleted were sensible, rational, and not inflammatory. They may have reflected a different viewpoint than what the majority on this board have, but thats probably the worst that can be said.

Then, with respect, maybe you should start looking at the reasons why your posts are getting deleted.

How can I when none was given?

To be fair, you often post something sensational. Sometimes it's proven false and sometimes it's so far out that it's simply dismissed. Again, think about what you post and maybe check the facts are right before you do that. If they are the truth then you can't be touched.

Id say that I have posted one topic on this board that was outright sensational, but no more than any of the other posts on here that are sensational against something towards the the "right". But thats not the point.
The point is if your going to try and have a set of standards for this forum than they should be enforced eqaully, for every thread or post or not at all.

leekohler

Feb 14, 2009, 12:12 PM

I have to agree, I think I've seen much worse threads in PRSI stay open.

Exactly. If this is now the standard, I just think it should be applied to all threads that are titled in this fashion. I'm not trying to be a jerk or in anyway nasty to the mods (they do a great job), I just think glocke has a very good point here, and I think he's OK for questioning it.

skunk

Feb 14, 2009, 12:14 PM

The point is if your going to try and have a set of standards for this forum than they should be enforced eqaully, for every thread or post or not at all.That is certainly true.

rdowns

Feb 14, 2009, 12:19 PM

To add my $25.00 (two cents just doesn't cut it these days), I see no reason why the thread was closed either. Plenty of nonsense threads stay opened in all forums. That said, it's a private forum and they can moderate and/or censor it as they see fit.

rhett7660

Feb 14, 2009, 12:19 PM

Exactly. If this is now the standard, I just think it should be applied to all threads that are titled in this fashion. I'm not trying to be a jerk or in anyway nasty to the mods (they do a great job), I just think glocke has a very good point here, and I think he's OK for questioning it.

Very well put. I have to agree. There have been several threads that were allowed to remain open. Heck look at the threads that were going before the election..........

PlaceofDis

Feb 14, 2009, 12:21 PM

there is no such thing as censoring on a private site. there is no freedom of speech here. just moderation. always are free to go start your own site where only things you want heard/said are acceptable as well.

that said, the moderators are human and are volunteers. they do the best job that they can. they aren't perfect and perhaps mistakes are made, but they do an excellent job here overall.

i didn't get a chance to read much of the thread in question, but i'm assuming it was being derailed and/or turning into a name-calling fest and as such it became too big of a hassle to keep clean so was closed. i could tell it was heading in that direction last night when i saw it crop up.

xUKHCx

Feb 14, 2009, 12:27 PM

After some very careful consideration, I have to say glocke is right about this (surprised?). I don't see a reason for closing the Obama vacation thread, given other threads we have in this forum. Glocke has a definite point, guys. Just my 2 cents.

Careful consideration but without all the facts, means that the result of the consideration is skewed.* It could be thought that if such a result is the thread should have stayed open then the correct moderating work was done.

*Which of course leads to these threads and the perception of censorship / heavy handed moderating.

Of course what happens in the PRSI has happened in this thread.

I explained the reasons for the thread closure and then one part of it was repeated and then put under review.

The issues with that thread were numerous and as such I deemed that as the thread stood it would not progress further.

I edited a post in this thread, was that censorship no. It was moderation and a prime example as one of the reasons why the original thread was closed

The point is if your going to try and have a set of standards for this forum than they should be enforced eqaully, for every thread or post or not at all.

I agree however the biggest issue at hand here is that in the previous 6 months ending December the PRSI was the 19th lowest reported forum with a grand total of 29 report posts.

leekohler

Feb 14, 2009, 12:31 PM

there is no such thing on censoring on a private site. there is no freedom of speech here. just moderation. always are free to go start your own site where only things you want heard/said are acceptable as well.

that said, the moderators are human and are volunteers. they do the best job that they can. they aren't perfect and perhaps mistakes are made, but they do an excellent job here overall.

i didn't get a chance to read much of the thread in question, but i'm assuming it was being derailed and/or turning into a name-calling fest and as such it became too big of a hassle to keep clean so was closed. i could tell it was heading in that direction last night when i saw it crop up.

I agree completely, but I think glocke has raised a very good point as well. I don't see any problem with questioning mods. I agree, they're human and make mistakes. It should be OK when we point them out, don't you think?

And yes, they do great job overall and I'm very grateful for what they do. It's not easy. It's like being a cop.

it5five

Feb 14, 2009, 12:55 PM

Many threads on the state of moderation? *yoda voice* Telling you something I should think, Hmmm?

I'd look into it if it weren't only a small group of vocal conservatives starting threads about the moderation. I know there have been quite a few of us leftists here that have felt the impact of the rules (I was banned for a few days myself), but we never start a new thread complaining about the moderation.

Telling you something I should think, Hmmm?

mgguy

Feb 14, 2009, 01:05 PM

If the name in the thread were Bush rather than Obama, I wonder if the thread would have been closed. I had been following that thread and saw nothing in it that stood out as trolling as I understand the term as defined by MR. Frankly, it became a little boring after awhile, certainly not controversial. I've read posts that make wild accusations against other political figures (usually Bush and other republicans but also out-of-favor democrats) without supporting documentation. Why then is there such a quick reaction and closure of a thread that is critical of Obama taking a vacation? It was more poking fun at him than seriously attacking him or tearing him down.

Of course, this is a private site and threads can therefore be closed at will of the moderator. There has to be some control over post content to keep things from devolving into chaos and meaninglessness, but I don't see how closing the thread in question helped improve things much. But again, that is the moderators call and I respect the fact that they are voluntarily carrying out this responsibility, hopefully generally in good faith.

Rt&Dzine

Feb 14, 2009, 01:25 PM

I'm new here, but my 2 cents ... I consider the "Mac Community" part of the forum like visiting someone's home. It's a privilege. I was baffled when some of my posts were deleted. Whatever. I'm not going to whine about it.

kavika411

Feb 14, 2009, 01:26 PM

After some very careful consideration, I have to say glocke is right about this...

This must be the change Obama was talking about. :eek::p;)

I think this thread we are in now has been excellent in the sense that we have all been reminded: (1) moderators volunteer time they don't often have, and do the best they can, (2) this is a private site and, by extension, there is no true censorship here, and (3) perhaps most importantly, the PRSI forum seems to be something lots of people take pride in, and rely on. (I personally find myself getting more and more news analysis here than I do on dedicated news sites.) As to this last point, I think it is only because many of us have such a respect for this site, and the PRSI forum in particular, that we fight so hard for what we consider "fair." Yes, "fair" is a relative word, but I think is healthy to periodically analyze the system itself, as we have done in this thread.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I will now return to slyly pulling leekohler to the Right side. ;)

xUKHCx

Feb 14, 2009, 01:34 PM

If the name in the thread were Bush rather than Obama, I wonder if the thread would have been closed.

Sigh. Of course it would have. Who the post about had nothing to do with the thread closure. I have explained this quite a few times.

I had been following that thread and saw nothing in it that stood out as trolling as I understand the term as defined by MR.

So you didn't see the attacks and personal attacks. Not forgetting that there are other issues that you are not aware of.

Frankly, it became a little boring after awhile, certainly not controversial.

Not mention off topic and abrasive

I've read posts that make wild accusations against other political figures (usually Bush and other republicans but also out-of-favor democrats) without supporting documentation.

Did you report these posts? I personally haven't seen these posts so we are all looking and the situation with completely different eyes :). Is the green you see the same as the green I see? If a lion could speak could I understand him?

Why then is there such a quick reaction and closure of a thread that is critical of Obama taking a vacation?

Quick reaction? I stumbled across the thread and dealt with it. We are not often criticized for acting too quickly. If it was left to fester then it would've gone down a whole other level requiring more cleanup and work.

It was more poking fun at him than seriously attacking him or tearing him down.

Who the post about had nothing to do with the thread closure

Of course, this is a private site and threads can therefore be closed at will of the moderator. There has to be some control over post content to keep things from devolving into chaos and meaninglessness, but I don't see how closing the thread in question helped improve things much. But again, that is the moderators call and I respect the fact that they are voluntarily carrying out this responsibility

It did help and every journey has to start with one step.

hopefully generally in good faith.

Always in good faith :)

mgguy

Feb 14, 2009, 01:53 PM

So you didn't see the attacks and personal attacks. Not forgetting that there are other issues that you are not aware of.
...

Not mention off topic and abrasive

In all honesty, no I don't see the attacks or personal attacks, or abrasiveness. As far as being off topic, show me one thread in PRSI that doesn't veer off topic to some degree. This thread was only a little over 15 posts, hardly enough time to deem it hopelessly diverted from the OT.

It would be very instructive if you would cite a few comments made in the thread that you felt were attacks or abrasiveness. I reread it several times and just don't see any. The stream of conversation was far milder than many in threads that I have read more recently, where posters were making wild abusive smart-ass comments about other posters and their political motivations.

I am obviously not aware of any other issues that are going on behind the scenes, but I don't see anything in the thread that appears to be in the nature of a tipping point for closing it down. But, once again, I want to stress that I do recognize that this is your call to make.

djellison

Feb 14, 2009, 01:53 PM

Awhere does being a moderator end and being a censor begin?

You are in a forum, you abide by the demands, requirements and actions of its administrative team. That's not censorship. It's moderation of a forum.

Don't like the way it's being moderated? Go somewhere else.

No one is stopping you talking about something. They are stopping you talking about it HERE. That's moderation, not censorship.

Doug

it5five

Feb 14, 2009, 02:06 PM

It would be very instructive if you would cite a few comments made in the thread that you felt were attacks or abrasiveness. I reread it several times and just don't see any. The stream of conversation was far milder than many in threads that I have read more recently, where posters were making wild abusive smart-ass comments about other posters and their political motivations.

I am obviously not aware of any other issues that are going on behind the scenes, but I don't see anything in the thread that appears to be in the nature of a tipping point for closing it down. But, once again, I want to stress that I do recognize that this is your call to make.

The abrasive comments were likely deleted, so of course you don't see them, which means the moderators are doing their job well.

jonbravo77

Feb 14, 2009, 02:08 PM

Just to add to the difference between "moderating" and censorship. I do find it incredibly interesting what the moderators pick and choose what is "trolling" and what is not. I was put into time out not to long ago for comments that were taken out of context (which is nothing new to a lot in these forums) but looking at the definition that was given to me of "trolling" made me think that others have done far worse than I, but (in my perception) have never been put into timeout.

I made a few comments regarding the Brits that were cited in the response I received to why I was put into time out (and of course the examples that were cited to me of what I said were taken out of context) but I have seen a lot of posts that attack Americans, but those posts remain and the posters keep posting. Same thing with religion, seen a whole lot of "trolling" according to the definition of these forums but those people just keep going on doing it and the posts can be considered attacking but they just keep on going, and to add there are plenty of moderators that have been in these certain threads.

I do understand this is a "private" forum, but when people pay money to support this forum it's not so private anymore. And as far as any mod saying that they work full time and there is not enough time to mod the forums, sorry, but you chose to volunteer. Not trying to be a jerk, just a bit disappointed that to us on the outside of the moderation it does seem very biased.

it5five

Feb 14, 2009, 02:10 PM

Not trying to be a jerk, just a bit disappointed that to us on the outside of the moderation it does seem very biased.

Well, I'll have to disagree. To me, someone on the "outside", I think the moderators are doing a pretty good job. And I say this even though I've been put in time-out before.

I think I know why people complain the way they do though. When they are called out for their ridiculous behavior, they try and find any way to justify it. A rational person would step back, look at the decision the moderator made, admit fault, and deal with it. An irrational person will immediately suggest a liberal moderator conspiracy and create posts claiming they are being censored. They just can't admit to themselves that they were acting like a dickhead. So it's the moderators fault.

leekohler

Feb 14, 2009, 02:13 PM

This

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I will now return to slyly pulling leekohler to the Right side. ;)

Dude, just because you and I get along doesn't mean I'm about to turn Republican. :)

jonbravo77

Feb 14, 2009, 02:14 PM

Well, I'll have to disagree. To me, someone on the "outside", I think the moderators are doing a pretty good job. And I say this even though I've been put in time-out before.

Ok, I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that the mods are not doing a good job. They are and I do understand what a time consuming effort it is. In my own experience there does seem to be some bias to either a certain side of an issue or certain posters. But, yes, overall I do think the mods are doing a good job even with someone as opinionated as me.... :p

I think I know why people complain the way they do though. When they are called out for their ridiculous behavior, they try and find any way to justify it. A rational person would step back, look at the decision the moderator made, admit fault, and deal with it. An irrational person will immediately suggest a liberal moderator conspiracy and create posts claiming they are being censored. They just can't admit to themselves that they were acting like a dickhead. So it's the moderators fault.

I don't think this is always the case. When I was put into time out and after receiving a response to the posts I made that caused the time out I did look at what I did and agreed to a few, but not all. I'm sure there are those who do sit there and get all pissed off because they were reprimanded for something they said and they just don't get it. But I don't think everyone does what you say.

mgguy

Feb 14, 2009, 02:21 PM

The abrasive comments were likely deleted, so of course you don't see them, which means the moderators are doing their job well.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing it out. Perhaps the moderator or other posters can cite a few of the offending statements that were removed. It would make this discussion a lot more concrete.

Gelfin

Feb 14, 2009, 02:29 PM

I don't want to get too personal, but I certainly see a difference between simply closing a thread and closing yet another thread in a recurring and deeply tiresome pattern of single-issue trolling.

Occasionally one encounters a poster who has been grinding his particular axe so hard for so long that now all he's doing is turning an old axe handle into a pointy stick to poke people with. That pattern in itself should invite a level of attention any single post in the pattern might not otherwise.

kavika411

Feb 14, 2009, 02:52 PM

Dude, just because you and I get along doesn't mean I'm about to turn Republican. :)

I said "Right," not "Republican." ;)

Back to the OT, it seems a question is emerging; in light of the fact that this is a private site, but one with massive, diverse traffic and one that chooses to support a PRSI forum - which is better and/or more logistically practical: moderating "behind the scenes" (e.g. deleting posts quietly, requesting/requiring the use of private messaging as opposed to raising conflicts in the open), or in the alternative, having a more open and transparent process. I don't have an answer; just raising the question. The latter sounds appealing in the sense of promoting consistency but may not be logistically possible.

skunk

Feb 14, 2009, 03:04 PM

The latter sounds appealing in the sense of promoting consistency but may not be logistically possible.The present system seems to be remarkably effective on the whole, with the added advantage that it is largely invisible.

kavika411

Feb 14, 2009, 03:18 PM

The present system seems to be remarkably effective on the whole, with the added advantage that it is largely invisible.

I think Bush said that at a press coference regarding extraordinary rendition. ;)

skunk

Feb 14, 2009, 03:39 PM

Post reported.

;)

mkrishnan

Feb 14, 2009, 05:11 PM

Can I add one more insight on my part, coming from a more practical / logistical aspect of my perspective as a moderator.

If a post in poor taste -- one that contains an ad hominem attack, one that is offensive to a group of people, etc, or one that violates PRSI-specific guidelines like repeatedly stating something that is highly unlikely to be true without providing any backup source -- you know we ask constantly that you report it using the report post button rather than respond to it.

Let me be more explicit about why. If a thread has an offensive post in it, and no one or few people respond to it, I am highly likely to delete the offending post and move on. If the offense turns into a back and forth war that encompasses six or seven replies or even more (which I think did happen in stevento's thread), then I am highly likely to wasteland it (and the other moderators, who lack my love for the wasteland, are likely to close it, with which I sympathize although I believe that someday all shall come to adore the goddess that is the Wasteland) rather than wading through all the posts and get the thread back in good shape.

There is a workload issue with respect to asking us to edit down a half dozen or a dozen posts in which offending commentary is quoted, repeated, debated, etc, like it or not.

I'm saying this from the standpoint that I am personally generally in favor of providing (and also insisting upon) transparency.

carve

Feb 14, 2009, 06:09 PM

I have been noticing this more and more frequently. It seems to me that (some of) the mods on this site abuse their privileges way too often.

mgguy

Feb 14, 2009, 06:48 PM

If a post in poor taste -- one that contains an ad hominem attack, one that is offensive to a group of people, etc, or one that violates PRSI-specific guidelines like repeatedly stating something that is highly unlikely to be true without providing any backup source -- you know we ask constantly that you report it using the report post button rather than respond to it.

I'm saying this from the standpoint that I am personally generally in favor of providing (and also insisting upon) transparency.

In the spirit of transparency and to provide more clarity as to why the thread in question was shut down, could you quote a couple of statements that were made in the Obama vacation thread that were the most egregious that led to it being closed? If they were so extremely offensive that you don't want to repeat them, that is understandable. But since we are so deep in the current thread talking about violations of MR rules, it would be helpful to have a few specific, real examples.

rdowns

Feb 14, 2009, 06:56 PM

I have been noticing this more and more frequently. It seems to me that (some of) the mods on this site abuse their privileges way too often.

If you feel that is the case and you have specifics to back it up, take it up with the site owner. Saying it in public is wrong.

BTW, I find your statement to be way off base. I think the mods do a damn good job here. Even more so given the huge traffic here and the small number of them.

skunk

Feb 14, 2009, 06:59 PM

I have been noticing this more and more frequently. It seems to me that (some of) the mods on this site abuse their privileges way too often.And which privileges would those be?

mgguy

Feb 14, 2009, 07:18 PM

Just to add a little more to the discussion, I have noticed that some moderators are active participants in PRSI, and in my opinion sometimes have crossed the line themselves in making troll-like statements. I remember a few instances in which I wanting to relay an objection to the moderator, but then realized he or she was the moderator. Obviously, I let it go out of fear (at the time but less so now that I have been around for awhile) that reporting it might result in me being given a time out or banned. But it does raise the question as to what to do in a situation when the moderator's posts are out of line.

Please don't ask me to name names.:eek:

skunk

Feb 14, 2009, 07:33 PM

But it does raise the question as to what to do in a situation when the moderator's posts are out of line.If you think a moderator's posts are "out of line", report it. As has been said again and again, reported posts are seen by all the moderators.

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 12:01 AM

My idea of good moderating would allow anyone to whom a personal attack is directed the opportunity to ask a moderator to remove it, otherwise the mods let the forums run according to rules of common decency. Mods deleting threads "because nothing good can come of this" is as much an "abuse of power" as a mod can commit.

In addition, to maintain impartiality moderators should not be allowed to post in the PRSI section. This is common sense to me.

While posting stuff on The Internets shouldn't be taken too seriously, if someone takes time and effort to write a post and it gets promptly deleted I think whoever deleted it should have a reason with which at least 99% of the participants would concur. Is that always happening here? Usually? Sometimes?

GGJstudios

Feb 15, 2009, 12:17 AM

Some people seem to forget that this is a privately-owned forum. Anyone who wants to post here has to abide by the Forum Rules, whether they're fair, arbitrary, or whatever. The mods can censor/restrict/limit/moderate/forbid anything that the site owner and mods choose. If a poster doesn't like how the site is handled, they're free to discuss it with mods in a forum such as this, or in private messages. If they still don't like the answer they get, they're free to find another site, or start their own. We're all guests here, not co-owners.

Personally, I find the mods more patient and lenient than those in many forums.

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 12:27 AM

Chill, gg. I'm guessing the site owner is after a more "democratic" atmosphere.

GGJstudios

Feb 15, 2009, 12:31 AM

Chill, gg. I'm guessing the site owner is after a more "democratic" atmosphere.
I'm quite chilled. I'm just pointing out that if anyone disagrees with the way the site is moderated, they can either agree to disagree, abide by the mods' decisions and stay, or they can leave, in search of a better forum.... which I doubt can be found.

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 12:41 AM

You mean suck it up or leave? There's nothing to debate. Move along now.

GGJstudios

Feb 15, 2009, 12:43 AM

You mean suck it up or leave? There's nothing to debate. Move along now.
I'll stay as long as I like! :rolleyes:

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 12:47 AM

Exactly. Get the point now? :rolleyes:

LethalWolfe

Feb 15, 2009, 12:50 AM

In addition, to maintain impartiality moderators should not be allowed to post in the PRSI section. This is common sense to me.
That doesn't make sense. You don't want Mod XYZ to be able to post in PRSI because Mod XYZ hates political party Q, but you don't mind if Mod XYZ moderates in the PRSI? Following your line of thought wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that mods who chose to regularly participate in the PRSI shouldn't be allowed to moderate in the PRSI?

Lethal

GGJstudios

Feb 15, 2009, 12:51 AM

Exactly. Get the point now? :rolleyes:
You're not making a point. I'm not the one challenging the way the site is moderated, and you're not the owner of the site or a moderator. (It's not enough to read what people post here; comprehending comes in handy, too!) :rolleyes:

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 12:56 AM

That doesn't make sense. You don't want Mod XYZ to be able to post in PRSI because Mod XYZ hates political party Q, but you don't mind if Mod XYZ moderates in the PRSI?Why should I? The second case presents no conflict of interests.

Following your line of thought wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that mods who chose to regularly participate in the PRSI shouldn't be allowed to moderate in the PRSI?My line of thought doesn't preclude that.

You're not making a point. I'm not the one challenging the way the site is moderated, and you're not the owner of the site or a moderator. (It's not enough to read what people post here; comprehending comes in handy, too!) :rolleyes:
Look Napoleon, you don't set up a forum, warn everyone to do things your way or leave, then expect members to join. Your attitude in your post was nothing short of obnoxious and the kind that keeps me at least away.

GGJstudios

Feb 15, 2009, 12:57 AM

... the kind that keeps me at least away.
Well, there's a good thing, I suppose!

If someone is starting a forum with a too-restrictive set of rules, of course fewer will join. But MR is well-established, with a set of rules that are fair and reasonable, or it wouldn't have the membership it enjoys. If anyone has a problem with the way this site is run, they are being unreasonable, not the site.

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 01:03 AM

Well, there's a good thing, I suppose!
Now I should report you. ;)

GGJstudios

Feb 15, 2009, 01:06 AM

Now I should report you. ;)
Be my guest! :D

Rt&Dzine

Feb 15, 2009, 09:53 AM

In addition, to maintain impartiality moderators should not be allowed to post in the PRSI section. This is common sense to me.

Sounds like censorship to me. They should post wherever they want.

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 10:03 AM

You obviously don't understand.

.Andy

Feb 15, 2009, 10:07 AM

You obviously don't understand.
Then explain it to us. Why shouldn't moderators, who are chosen because of the merit of their posting abilities, be able to continue posting once they volunteer their time as moderators?

WinterMute

Feb 15, 2009, 10:11 AM

You obviously don't understand.

Frankly, neither do I, why should I be disbarred from discussions in the PSRI forum because I volunteer to act as a moderator on a private forum?

I am perfectly able to discern between personal feelings and rule infringement, an if I feel my judgement is compromised, I'll call on a mod who is not involved to make the judgement.

The common truth here is that moderation should be consistent, it isn't always, but when it isn't that is the exception. Of the 100 or so reported posts I see on my usual MR duty, 95% are simple rule violations.

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 10:24 AM

...why should I...
I am perfectly able to...
Your personal feelings about your personal abilities are irrelevant. Impartiality is an absolute. A conflict of interests is an absolute. You don't hear judges saying, "Yes, the defendant is my wife but I'm a good judge so let me judge this one." I can't put it any simpler.

WinterMute

Feb 15, 2009, 10:29 AM

Your personal feelings about your personal abilities are irrelevant. Impartiality is an absolute. A conflict of interests is an absolute. You don't hear judges saying, "Yes, the defendant is my wife but I'm a good judge so let me judge this one." I can't put it any simpler.

In a Court of Law the situation couldn't arise, however this is a private computer-based discussion forum, can you see the difference in scale?

The word is perspective, and my personal feelings have yet to become evident here.

jonbravo77

Feb 15, 2009, 10:38 AM

I'm gonna have to agree with MrSmith. No one can sit here and say that they can put aside personal feelings and be able to moderate effectively when posting on a subject that might bring up personal or ideological emotion. You would have to be a robot to be able to do that.

And as far as the "privately held forums", sorry, but once people start donating money to support the forums costs it's not so privately held anymore, it becomes more of a public interest. It's the same thing in business, if the company just uses money that the owner(s) give then it is private, taking money from the public means it is a publicly traded company... If the $25 subscription for this forum was not asked for then that would be different and biased/censorship/heavy handed moderation or anything else can be done. but since there is a subscription that is offered and people do pay it then there needs to be accountability to the public. IMHO

skunk

Feb 15, 2009, 10:43 AM

You would have to be a robot to be able to do that. No, you'd have to be fair-minded in discharging your responsibilities. Not so difficult.

And as far as the "privately held forums", sorry, but once people start donating money to support the forums costs it's not so privately held anymore, it becomes more of a public interest. It's the same thing in business, if the company just uses money that the owner(s) give then it is private, taking money from the public means it is a publicly traded company.Absolute nonsense. Every private company takes money from the public. This is not the same as being "publicly traded", which means that the public can buy and sell shares.

jonbravo77

Feb 15, 2009, 10:45 AM

In a Court of Law the situation couldn't arise,

It does happen. It has happened in Arizona, when a Judge who was hearing a case against Joe Arpaio turns out to be the twin sister of the woman who is the head of La Raz who is fighting Arpaio for racial discrimination. Just an example to show you that the conflict of interest that MrSmith pointed out does in fact happen.

WinterMute

Feb 15, 2009, 10:45 AM

I don't see either of you subscribing to the forums, you're both long-standing members who have benefited from this forum for a long time without contributing.

The question of impartiality only applies if there are penalties or sanctions that can affect personal freedoms or business, neither of which applies.

If I ban you for breaking the rules it's easy to appeal and check, if the admins think I acted in haste fuelled by ideology then they can reverse my decisions, if I do it a lot, I'll be removed as a moderator.

No MacRumors mod has ever been removed by the owner.

Again, this is a private forum, you're free to go elsewhere if you don;t like it here, just as you are free to hold (and publish) your opinions on the boards provided they don't break the rules.

Some posts here are bordering on straw-man arguments, I've made my position clear, now excuse me I have some people to ban in PSRI for no immediately good reason.

jonbravo77

Feb 15, 2009, 10:51 AM

No, you'd have to be fair-minded in discharging your responsibilities. Not so difficult.

Absolute nonsense. Every private company takes money from the public. This is not the same as being "publicly traded", which means that the public can buy and sell shares.

As to the first, apparently human nature doesn't come into play in your scenario of being fair-minded. Not saying it is impossible, but if a moderator is involved in a heavy discussion than bias can play a big part in any decision.

As to the second, didn't mean to put the traded part in there. But in a private company that (as you say takes public money, in which I would like an example) the public has no say in what that company does. But if said company starts to take public money then they really can't imply that "this company is private and we will do what we want" the public now can dictate to an extent what happens in said company (and for this example that would be buying and selling stocks causing the companies value to rise or fall).

jonbravo77

Feb 15, 2009, 10:53 AM

I don't see either of you subscribing to the forums, you're both long-standing members who have benefited from this forum for a long time without contributing.

You want to make a bet? Look back further kind sir. I can still see the Private Threads so I know my subscription is still good.

And you're right, I think I am going a bit off topic. So I will stop, but please check your info about subscriptions. TY

WinterMute

Feb 15, 2009, 10:55 AM

You want to make a bet? Look back further kind sir. I can still see the Private Threads so I know my subscription is still good.

Yeah, I saw that whilst I was looking for the best way to ban you, you chose not to take the title, not too many people do that.

skunk

Feb 15, 2009, 10:55 AM

As to the first, apparently human nature doesn't come into play in your scenario of being fair-minded. Not saying it is impossible, but if a moderator is involved in a heavy discussion than bias can play a big part in any decision.It can, in which case there are safeguards, as Wintermute has stated above.

As to the second, didn't mean to put the traded part in there. But in a private company that (as you say takes public money, in which I would like an example) the public has no say in what that company does.Every company which sells anything to the public takes "public money". How else do you define it?
But if said company starts to take public money then they really can't imply that "this company is private and we will do what we want" the public now can dictate to an extent what happens in said company (and for this example that would be buying and selling stocks causing the companies value to rise or fall).You are conflating the buying and selling of products with the buying and selling of shares.

jonbravo77

Feb 15, 2009, 10:56 AM

Yeah, I saw that whilst I was looking for the best way to ban you, you chose not to take the title, not too many people do that.

I took the title, but then changed it a few months back when I was getting more post counts. I like the numbers :D

MrSmith

Feb 15, 2009, 11:06 AM

It can, in which case there are safeguards, as Wintermute has stated above.
If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

skunk

Feb 15, 2009, 11:06 AM

A conflict of interests is an absolute.Only if you have an interest.
If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.
This thread's existence is evidence of one of those safeguards in play. We shall see how the complaints are viewed in due course. You ascribe darkly to "human nature" something which may simply be a genuine difference of opinion. Judges, and moderators, have opinions. Their opinions are necessary to the discharge of their duties.

bartelby

Feb 15, 2009, 11:09 AM

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

Because some people seem obsessed with post counts. Whether their posts have broken rules or not is secondary to the lowering of their counts...

WinterMute

Feb 15, 2009, 11:10 AM

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

We have over 280,000 members, there are 4500-odd online on a Sunday afternoon with international Rugby and FA cup football on the telly in the UK...

I'd be very surprised if we didn't get some complaints about moderated posts from those who had been moderated, that is human nature.

.Andy

Feb 15, 2009, 11:11 AM

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.
I'd wager I have more posts deleted than anybody. It's because I'm a terrible poster, not because of any ideologically motivated mods :p!

Busy Bee

Feb 15, 2009, 11:13 AM

Sometimes mods do things that may appear capricious on the surface, but these acts are based on more information than the forum members know. The mods clearly know far more about each member's history and record than is evident to other forum members, which leads to them make decisions that may seem opaque on the surface.

To be honest, I'm not sure why this thread is permitted to continue. It contains hazy troublemaking accusations that in many cases the mods are hamstrung from replying to effectively because of privacy concerns.

Let's look at the OP's first post and the reason for this thread:

After seeing the "Obama Vacation" thread closed, I have to ask the question..where does being a moderator end and being a censor begin?

I know there are guidelines for this forum, but it seems that "moderating" is very, very subjective.

Ive had posts deleted in the past that were on topic and non-inflammatory, but for some reason some moderator saw fit to delete them without any explanation.

As for the thread about Obama taking a vacation, that seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate topic. Is it closed because criticizing Obama is not acceptable on this forum?

Note the 'seems'. And as this question is about a specific thread and a case of moderation, please note what it says in the forum rules:

You can use the Contact form to send a message to the moderators/administrators if you have questions about specific cases of moderation. This is more appropriate than sending Private Messages or email to individual moderators. If you use Private Messages or email to contact a moderator about a moderation issue, you may be directed to send it again via the Contact Form, because this ensures proper review and accountability and because the moderators work as a team. Moderation is not personal; don't make it so.

When contacting us about moderation, please identify the posts or threads in question; the moderators deal with many every day. Posting questions/complaints about specific cases of moderation in the forums is frowned upon because they are not relevant to others and we can be more frank communicating in private. If you have general questions about moderation or site policies (not about a specific case), use the Contact form or the Site and Forum Feedback forum.

Ive had posts deleted in the past that were on topic and non-inflammatory, but for some reason some moderator saw fit to delete them without any explanation.

Moderators on this forum do not provide public reasons why a post was deleted. In all cases, the answer is because it broke the forum rules. Note that if your post was a reply to a deleted post from another forum member, that too will be deleted along with any others that quote, reply or reference the initial deleted post.

And to be honest, I'm assuming that the OP of the locked thread in question has been in touch with the mods... to others, it is none of your business nor mine.

jonbravo77

Feb 15, 2009, 11:16 AM

Judges, and moderators, have opinions. Their opinions are necessary to the discharge of their duties.

Don't think this is true. Judges are not supposed to have opinions, they are supposed to discharge their duties by what the law says. Moderators are supposed to discharge their duties by what the forum rules are. To me, you make it sound that Judges and moderators are supposed to listen to what is said and then inject their own opinion which would cause bias.

rdowns

Feb 15, 2009, 11:17 AM

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

The number of people complaining about this is miniscule compared to overall membership. THat speaks to the quality of the moderation.

skunk

Feb 15, 2009, 11:18 AM

To me, you make it sound that Judges and moderators are supposed to listen to what is said and then inject their own opinion which would cause bias.You're big on conflation, aren't you?

bartelby

Feb 15, 2009, 11:19 AM

The number of people complaining about this is miniscule compared to overall membership. THat speaks to the quality of the moderation.

It also probably says more about the people complaining than the actual moderation...

jonbravo77

Feb 15, 2009, 11:20 AM

You're big on conflation, aren't you?

No, just want to make sure that things aren't skewed. merely pointing out that Judges/moderators are supposed to uphold the law/rules. And since we are typing to each-other it becomes difficult to know what you really mean since there is no body language or inflection to go off of...

EDIT*** I might be, just a bit :p

mgguy

Feb 15, 2009, 02:08 PM

That doesn't make sense. You don't want Mod XYZ to be able to post in PRSI because Mod XYZ hates political party Q, but you don't mind if Mod XYZ moderates in the PRSI? Following your line of thought wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that mods who chose to regularly participate in the PRSI shouldn't be allowed to moderate in the PRSI?

Lethal

I'll take this a step further and suggest that it is arguably inappropriate for moderators to wield their influence as moderators in the very same posts in which they are arguing their personal point of view on the subject matter of the thread and on the particular comments made by the specific post to which they are responding at that moment. I have had a few experiences in which a moderator alleged that I was bordering on trolling in their same post in which they had strongly objected to my point of view on the subject matter and had spewed out a litany of general charges against Bush and the republican party and anyone who agrees with them, without themselves providing any substantiation for these characterizations. I don't think warnings about possible violations of MR rules should be intertwined with the moderator's spirited rebuttal against the poster's position on the subject of the thread. In one instance, they moderator's threat that my comments were bordering on trolling seemed so obviously out of line that I wrote them a personal message asking them not to scold me publicly as part of their rebuttal to my post, and also reported my objection to their post. However, I never received a reply so I don't know whether they agreed with my criticism or not.

Having said this, I still strongly support the MR rules and the freedom of moderators to enforce them as they see fit. I also appreciate that the moderators here have been willing to listen to criticisms on how they sometimes carry out their moderator responsibilities.

skunk

Feb 15, 2009, 03:58 PM

I'll take this a step further and suggest that it is arguably inappropriate for moderators to wield their influence as moderators in the very same posts in which they are arguing their personal point of view on the subject matter of the thread and on the particular comments made by the specific post to which they are responding at that moment. I have had a few experiences in which a moderator alleged that I was bordering on trolling in their same post in which they had strongly objected to my point of view on the subject matter and had spewed out a litany of general charges against Bush and the republican party and anyone who agrees with them, without themselves providing any substantiation for these characterizations. I don't think warnings about possible violations of MR rules should be intertwined with the moderator's spirited rebuttal against the poster's position on the subject of the thread.I cannot help but agree. There have been line-blurring occasions.

arn

Feb 16, 2009, 04:42 AM

Not sure what else there is to say. This topic comes up from time and again. There are certain people who tend to get moderated more than others. Is that a sign of bad moderation across the board or is there something about those individuals that are simply not compatible with our rules?

I've gone over this many times and in the end, and I'm happy with our moderation team and agree with their process and decisions.

People like to think they are being targeted by a single moderator, but moderator actions are reviewed and re-reviewed. Things are discussed more than they really need to be. The number of man-hours invested in the moderation of this site is almost unbelievable.

arn

Beric

Feb 16, 2009, 04:48 AM

I cannot help but agree. There have been line-blurring occasions.

Yeah, I could see this.

The mods are great. Never had a problem with them. However, when you're a mod arguing on a particular side of a particularly intense political debate you feel strongly about, you've got to admit it would be easy to let your political views influence your duties as a moderator. I'm not saying this has ever happened. However, it does seem like a bit of a conflict of interest. A moderator taking sides in a public televised presidential debate while remaining unbiased for general moderation duties would be unheard of, as well as impossible. And while a forum is definitely a completely different situation, you got to admit we're all human. And politics and religion get us humans fired up far more than Macs.

LethalWolfe

Feb 16, 2009, 04:51 AM

Nothing is perfect, but overall I think the mods do a good job here. I also like the fact that we know who the mods are as opposed to some other sites where the names of the mods aren't made public.

Lethal

Beric

Feb 16, 2009, 05:03 AM

TJRiver

Feb 26, 2009, 06:49 PM

How about some WHINE to go with that cheese gents?

There is no 1st Amendment right to have your opinions heard on this, or any other Board (unless it is being run by the Government....) Vote with your keyboards and find someplace else. Better yet, put up (and pay for) your own site, then YOU can be the nasty ole moderator and close the threads you disagree with.

Have an excellent day folks. :D

(and to the Mods...........thanks for the playground!)

iJohnHenry

Feb 26, 2009, 06:52 PM

Time to send this thread to Valhalla, or just Hell-a??

Mr. lax

Feb 26, 2009, 08:56 PM

This is the internet. In all fairness, they can do anything that they want. Who is going to stop them?

mkrishnan

Feb 27, 2009, 09:38 AM

Time to send this thread to Valhalla, or just Hell-a??

I ain't no hollaback girl. This thread's got me feelin' hell-a good so it's gonna keep on dancin'. :p

Schtumple

Feb 27, 2009, 09:42 AM

I ain't no hollaback girl. This thread's got me feelin' hell-a good so it's gonna keep on dancin'. :p

ella ella ella ay ay ay ay under my umbrella...

leekohler

Feb 27, 2009, 10:24 AM

I ain't no hollaback girl. This thread's got me feelin' hell-a good so it's gonna keep on dancin'. :p

If you say hell-a one more time, we're gonna have problems. :)

TJRiver

Feb 27, 2009, 02:10 PM

Time to send this thread to Valhalla, or just Hell-a??

10-4 back door. Don't you kiddies have something better to do?

I say pull the plug on this bad boy:D

mgguy

Feb 27, 2009, 11:01 PM

Since this thread is still open, I will take the opportunity to give another example of a possible imbalances in what subject matter moderators allow to remain posted. A new thread in PRSI titled "Geeze you think WE'RE hostile to Republicans" cites a CNN forum that has a long list of negative posts against Senator Jim Demint for his statement that Obama's policies are socialistic. The cited material consists merely of opinions denegrading republicans and cannot even remotely be considered fact-based. The point of the thread is apparently to show that people are reacting strongly against republicans and their criticisms of Obama's budget proposal and tax/spend priorities. I wonder whether the moderator would allow a similar thread to continue if the OP consisted only of subject matter posted in another (non-MR) forum ranting against democrats because they like Obama's budget and believe that he is not a socialist. My guess is that it would be toasted by the moderator within minutes of its origination.

I apologize if I have just violated MR rules by referring to a specific case or "naming names," but I thought that this was a good example for purposes of this discussion.

skunk

Feb 28, 2009, 04:22 AM

Since this thread is still open, I will take the opportunity to give another example of a possible imbalances in what subject matter moderators allow to remain posted. A new thread in PRSI titled "Geeze you think WE'RE hostile to Republicans" cites a CNN forum that has a long list of negative posts against Senator Jim Demint for his statement that Obama's policies are socialistic. The cited material consists merely of opinions denegrading republicans and cannot even remotely be considered fact-based. The point of the thread is apparently to show that people are reacting strongly against republicans and their criticisms of Obama's budget proposal and tax/spend priorities. I wonder whether the moderator would allow a similar thread to continue if the OP consisted only of subject matter posted in another (non-MR) forum ranting against democrats because they like Obama's budget and believe that he is not a socialist. My guess is that it would be toasted by the moderator within minutes of its origination.Unless you do cite such a source, it will remain just that: a tendentious "guess". Besides, your phrase "the moderator" betrays a prejudiced expectation in itself: there is a team.

mkrishnan

Feb 28, 2009, 11:19 AM

A new thread in PRSI titled "Geeze you think WE'RE hostile to Republicans" cites a CNN forum that has a long list of negative posts against Senator Jim Demint for his statement that Obama's policies are socialistic. ... I wonder whether the moderator would allow a similar thread to continue if the OP consisted only of subject matter posted in another (non-MR) forum ranting against democrats because they like Obama's budget and believe that he is not a socialist. My guess is that it would be toasted by the moderator within minutes of its origination.

I can't answer for everyone else who is "the moderator," but I wouldn't close a thread purely because of that subject matter (and I would be curious if there have been any instances of doing such a thing). Actually, although the thread has not taken that turn, I thought that the post was interesting because the claims have previously been made that conservatives are always made to play the troll on MacRumors, that every political thread is full of nothing but liberals, and that this situation exists in part because moderators mistreat conservatives. This is a long chain of logical conclusions, and the OP of the other thread was responding to one of them -- the CNN talkback, which has very little moderation, is not MacRumors, barely even has the kind of forum collective culture that would be associated with MacRumors -- was much the same way. So they put forward a seemingly reasonable hypothesis that the sampling of anger towards the GOP on MacRumors is actually more as a result of widespread antipathy towards the GOP and not the result of selectivity (moderator or member) on MacRumors.

I personally thought it was also interesting, because many of the anti-GOP posters on that talkback were downright obnoxious. I probably would have deleted some of those posts had they been here (the gods hate all caps even more than Comic Sans).

There is this periodic accusation of, "If a conservative had," "If a Republican made a similar thread," "If I had been the one to," ..., "it would have been toasted / nuked / wastelanded / closed / deleted" or "I would have been banned."

There just isn't that much evidence that this is happening. I went back and looked at every PRSI thread that had been closed, locked, or wastelanded. The wastelanded ones are harder for me because I cannot see if they were indeed from the PRSI, so I had to scan titles and OP's for things and people that seemed like they might be.

I found 17 threads since 1 Jan 2009, about half of which were closed and half of which were in the Wasteland. Here's a review. Links provided for the ones that weren't deleted.

1) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=655294) -- This thread's topic was fine but there was no ensuing debate. It was closed after attempts were made to stop the bickering.

2) This was a dupe thread.

3) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=651442) This is the Obama vacation thread. We've talked about this one in some detail...

4) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=640317) I'm not sure that this originated in the PRSI, but it is also a dupe thread.

5) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=635434) This was a dupe thread also.

6) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=632101) I think this was closed because of bickering.

7) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=652973) This was related to that cat abuse case in the US... it was not only a repost but also it discussed a site that turned out to be fake and the situation had changed dramatically by the time it was posted so that it wasn't a good representation of the current situation.

8) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=652376) I'm pretty sure that this didn't come from the PRSI -- but it was PRSI material posted outside of the forum by an ineligible member, it was clearly faked by the member, and it immediately devolved into a FAIL fest.

9) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=640096) This was a poll asking which forum members had crashed a plane in the Hudson. I don't think we need to apologize for wastelanding it.

10) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=638616) I believe this was just posted in PRSI as bait to get people to check out an application that the poster wrote (and had nothing to do with the topic).

11) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=637759) Was political in nature and posted outside the PRSI but it was deleted for being spam. There is one more duplicate of this thread.

12) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=633002) This was deleted because a link was provided by itself with no excerpts or discussion. As far as I know, it wasn't reposted, but there's no reason it couldn't be. I'm sure there are other threads on advanced weapons development on PRSI.

13) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=629561) This was a PRSI thread in nature, but it was posted outside the PRSI and it was part of the 4Chan spamming, I think.

14) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=628903) This one is pretty much just like (12)

15) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=628903) This was PRSI in nature but it was part of a spam campaign (all posts schilling Youtube videos).

16) [link] (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=626302) I don't know what to say about this one -- it's really just grossly offensive.

The only one of them that really involved a thread being nuked immediately was #16. There were a few other threads here that were conservative or right-leaning in nature, but all of them were allowed to continue until they devolved into bickering, name calling, personal attacks, etc.

If that is what is happening, and conservative posters are feeling attacked by liberal posters, then we need you to be reporting those attacking posts instead of just letting the threads get closed and then complaining about them later....

mgguy

Feb 28, 2009, 10:01 PM

I thought that the post was interesting because the claims have previously been made that conservatives are always made to play the troll on MacRumors, that every political thread is full of nothing but liberals, and that this situation exists in part because moderators mistreat conservatives. This is a long chain of logical conclusions, and the OP of the other thread was responding to one of them -- the CNN talkback, which has very little moderation, is not MacRumors, barely even has the kind of forum collective culture that would be associated with MacRumors -- was much the same way. So they put forward a seemingly reasonable hypothesis that the sampling of anger towards the GOP on MacRumors is actually more as a result of widespread antipathy towards the GOP and not the result of selectivity (moderator or member) on MacRumors.

i don't see how the thread in question and the cited CNN talkback address the questions of whether PRSI is full of liberals or whether moderators mistreat liberals. Just because anti-conservative talkback is prevalent in the CNN forum, that forum is not moderated, and the talkback is similar to what one finds in PRSI doesn't reflect at all on whether or not MR moderators are fair in their treatment of liberal- vs. conservative-leaning posts. The CNN talkback also shouldn't be taken as representative of widespread antipathy towards the GOP, since the CNN "sampling" (not being randomly selected) cannot be assumed to be representative of any larger population. If I can find some other forum where there is overwhelming expressions of anger against Obama and democrats, and I can assure you there are many out there, would you then apply your same logic and say that such talkback upholds the hypothesis that there is widespread antipathy toward Obama and democrats. You may have other good reasons for letting the MR thread in question remain posted, but the one you have given just doesn't cut it for me.

skunk

Mar 1, 2009, 05:12 AM

I refer you to Post #110 above.

Blue Velvet

Mar 1, 2009, 08:16 AM

You may have other good reasons for letting the MR thread in question remain posted, but the one you have given just doesn't cut it for me.

The mods aren't here to please you in your attempts to play the refs. I believe your warrantless and completely conjectural complaints based on guesses have received enough attention as it is.

mgguy

Mar 1, 2009, 11:00 AM

The mods aren't here to please you in your attempts to play the refs. I believe your warrantless and completely conjectural complaints based on guesses have received enough attention as it is.

True. And I, and I'm pretty sure others, appreciate that they have given us the opportunity in this thread to air our feelings and concerns about how they perform their role as moderators. They have been very patient and responsive, and have shared a lot of useful information that will help the MR community better understand the rules of posting. I can't say the same about the response you just posted. My last post is not warrantless, conjectural, and based on guesses as you claim. I correctly pointed out in my last post that the CNN backtalk cannot be assumed to be representative of the feelings of a larger community because it is not a representative sample. Most researchers would agree with that statement. I also said that I didn't think that the rationale mkrishnan gave in support of the MR thread in question is a good one. Has stating my opinion here gone too far?

Blue Velvet

Mar 1, 2009, 11:28 AM

I wonder whether the moderator would allow a similar thread to continue if the OP consisted only of subject matter posted in another (non-MR) forum ranting against democrats because they like Obama's budget and believe that he is not a socialist. My guess is that it would be toasted by the moderator within minutes of its origination.

My last post is not warrantless, conjectural, and based on guesses as you claim.

Your obtuse carping is wearying and is not doing you any favours.

I'm closing this thread. You and the supposedly embattled and persecuted minority have had your fifteen minutes of fame and your complaints have been addressed indepth and at length by a number of mods, including the site's owner.

Not sure what else there is to say. This topic comes up from time and again. There are certain people who tend to get moderated more than others. Is that a sign of bad moderation across the board or is there something about those individuals that are simply not compatible with our rules?

I've gone over this many times and in the end, and I'm happy with our moderation team and agree with their process and decisions.

People like to think they are being targeted by a single moderator, but moderator actions are reviewed and re-reviewed. Things are discussed more than they really need to be. The number of man-hours invested in the moderation of this site is almost unbelievable.

arn

Please take this up using the contact us form (http://forums.macrumors.com/sendmessage.php) if you would like to press things further.

Cheers.