I never said there was a specific rule about discussing ad blocking. I didn't make up arn's response, but you made up "moderating from the sidelines".
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Moderation: blocking ads
- Thread starter theSeb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I wouldn't make so much noise. You can be banned with no reason, without any problem by any staff member. This is not a democratic board, just like any other privately owned website.
However that's not their stated policy. They have chosen to draft a set of rules they ask users to abide by. They have specifically not made the statement you imply above. theSeb pointed out an obvious misunderstanding by a moderator that resulted in a warning. He posted it in the appropriate place. The rules should be amended if they wish to make it official policy. End of discussion.
It doesn't have to be in the rules if it is arn's desire. Don't you see that?
You weren't "punished", unless you think getting a simple note from a mod is "punishment"
This is not a democracy. There is no "congress" coming up with rules and stating that all requirements must be in the rules section.
Those rules are those that highlight largely how he wants his community to be ran. It does not have to be all inclusive and in cases that warrant behavior he doesn't like, he can choose to have the contact be handled anyway he want, in which case, you got a pm.
You weren't "punished", unless you think getting a simple note from a mod is "punishment"
This is not a democracy. There is no "congress" coming up with rules and stating that all requirements must be in the rules section.
Those rules are those that highlight largely how he wants his community to be ran. It does not have to be all inclusive and in cases that warrant behavior he doesn't like, he can choose to have the contact be handled anyway he want, in which case, you got a pm.
That's ok. I don't believe that this is that kind of website and if I am wrong about that, then I'll find out. I have put a lot of time into helping members here with their Mac related issues, because I enjoy it. I won't hang around where I am not welcome.
Thank you. I am glad some people understand the very simple issue here and I fail to understand why some try to rationalise it and excuse it.
And some sites do.
His rules, imo, are guidelines that he wants us all to follow. However, that does not mean that if it (any activity) isn't stated there, that it may be allowed
Whatever arn sees fit and I expressed my opinion of it in earlier posts
It is by no means a legal contract, as some of you are acting like, where you are due any recourse if the site owner deviates from it.
Yes, this is a private site and Arn can do with it whatever he chooses. If her wakes up tomorrow morning and decides to ban everyone who's username starts with the letter G then he is free to do so.
However, it is not in his best interests to do so, since this will obviously not be taken well by the users. Less users, means less ad clicks, means less revenue.
Thus, he has created Rules, so users know what is expected of them, and has appointed moderators to enforce such rules.
Now, in this case, the user has not broken any of the Rules as written, but apparently done something that is unacceptable to Arn and/or the moderators.
The first interesting question is this: Do the moderators have from Arn a set of additional rules (such as this one) to enforce that are not in the official rules, or did the moderator simply remember Arn saying that and thus chose to warn the user about it?
Again, Arn can choose to do whatever he likes, but it is in his best interests to have a userbase that knows where they stand.
However, it is not in his best interests to do so, since this will obviously not be taken well by the users. Less users, means less ad clicks, means less revenue.
Thus, he has created Rules, so users know what is expected of them, and has appointed moderators to enforce such rules.
Now, in this case, the user has not broken any of the Rules as written, but apparently done something that is unacceptable to Arn and/or the moderators.
The first interesting question is this: Do the moderators have from Arn a set of additional rules (such as this one) to enforce that are not in the official rules, or did the moderator simply remember Arn saying that and thus chose to warn the user about it?
Again, Arn can choose to do whatever he likes, but it is in his best interests to have a userbase that knows where they stand.
Why the need to harass this poster who has attempted to bring up a potential issue with the rules in an extremely courteous manner? All this postulating about what is and what isn't is not helpful in getting the issue resolved, and honestly is indicative of the kind of community this board is devolving into.
Oh. I agree completely. However some members are only familiar with the written rules. Which is understandable. I don't think it's the members duty to try and read between the lines.
In my opinion. The rulebook is way over bloated to begin with. Too much legalese. I've been of that opinion for a long time.
My point is if a moderator is going to point out a rules violation there needs to be a rule to violate.
His interest is to keep people on this board, like you said. Such an explicit "rule" wouldn't be quite popular, and it's easier to delete anything that goes against the direct interests of the owner.
No one is harassing anyone or being discourteous. It's called a "discussion".
I think the overall problem lies here:
It's exactly that.... automated. In this case, it may have been more appropriate to simply send a message saying, "Please do not make posts explaining ways of blocking ads on this site". Rather than treating it like a rule, it would have been a request.
Last edited:
I wonder when we'll finally hear from a mod...
For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with theSeb (and others) on this and the above posts lay it out quite clearly, in my opinion.
To those who are saying it is perfectly acceptable for moderators and admins to just make up a rule on the fly, you're wrong. I say this because the moderators have tried very hard to claim consistency and as much transparency as possible and if they're going to use a post (not a rule) made by the owner of the site 4 years ago then they should at least have the decency to throw it in the rules before coming at a member for it.
I don't disagree that the discussion of ad-blocking methods wrong; I disagree with a mod telling a member to follow the rules when no such rule applies. Common sense is not a rule. And if Arn wants to come here and "ban everyone" one day then he can, but I'm putting my money on the fact that he would not as this is a source of great income for him and not some fly-by-night operation.
I don't disagree that the discussion of ad-blocking methods wrong; I disagree with a mod telling a member to follow the rules when no such rule applies. Common sense is not a rule. And if Arn wants to come here and "ban everyone" one day then he can, but I'm putting my money on the fact that he would not as this is a source of great income for him and not some fly-by-night operation.
It's NOT automated. At least they weren't a year ago or so.
It's a form letter. A discussion happened and a moderator was picked to send the PM.
That's exactly what I mean. A mod didn't compose that message on the fly. It was an automated/canned/template response.
That references a rule that simply doesn't exist. There is some human hand in that message.
LOL!
That's why the canned response wasn't on-target. If the only message sent was the additional clarifications from the moderators (optional) at the end of the message, without everything above it, it would have been more appropriate.
Our moderators delete dozens of posts per day. Most clearly fall afoul of a stated rule, but some don't. We already have complaints that our rules are too long, so some of the extremely minor issues that we encounter infrequently just aren't mentioned in there.
It's a very specific thing that should be fairly common sense: It's not nice to discuss ad-blocking as it specifically relates to dealing with ads on MacRumors. Ads are what puts bread on the tables of half a dozen people here, and most of us like to eat.
General discussion of ad-blocking is fine almost anywhere in the forums, but please don't suggest it in the feedback forum as a way around ads here.
The issue comes up infrequently, and when it does our mods usually just delete the posts and move on. So here we had a situation where a mod decided to send a note to the poster as a courtesy (and in the interest of greater communication and transparency) to let them know why their post was deleted and to make them aware that it's something we prefer not to see discussed in relation to our ads.
The note was sent through our Reminder system, which as we've noted several times in the past is the simplest and most efficient way to send notes to members. Admittedly, the "Forum Rules Violation" subject is too harsh for this sort of situation, as it was designed as a catch-all option among our list of possible issues we might send notes about.
But the spirit of the Reminder is just that...a heads-up about why a post was deleted. It's not a punishment or even a warning.
We know our Reminder/Warning system isn't perfect. We've tweaked what we easily can in order to make Reminders seem less like punishment, but anything more would require significant changes to the forum code, and we're always hesitant to do that for fear of breaking things down the road.
And as for this issue in particular, we certainly can add an explicit rule about it, as long as we all recognize that it contributes to further bloating of the rules. We have a goal of streamlining the rules to make them less overwhelming, but I'm not sure that's going to be possible if every single potential issue requires an explicit mention.
It's a very specific thing that should be fairly common sense: It's not nice to discuss ad-blocking as it specifically relates to dealing with ads on MacRumors. Ads are what puts bread on the tables of half a dozen people here, and most of us like to eat.
General discussion of ad-blocking is fine almost anywhere in the forums, but please don't suggest it in the feedback forum as a way around ads here.
The issue comes up infrequently, and when it does our mods usually just delete the posts and move on. So here we had a situation where a mod decided to send a note to the poster as a courtesy (and in the interest of greater communication and transparency) to let them know why their post was deleted and to make them aware that it's something we prefer not to see discussed in relation to our ads.
The note was sent through our Reminder system, which as we've noted several times in the past is the simplest and most efficient way to send notes to members. Admittedly, the "Forum Rules Violation" subject is too harsh for this sort of situation, as it was designed as a catch-all option among our list of possible issues we might send notes about.
But the spirit of the Reminder is just that...a heads-up about why a post was deleted. It's not a punishment or even a warning.
We know our Reminder/Warning system isn't perfect. We've tweaked what we easily can in order to make Reminders seem less like punishment, but anything more would require significant changes to the forum code, and we're always hesitant to do that for fear of breaking things down the road.
And as for this issue in particular, we certainly can add an explicit rule about it, as long as we all recognize that it contributes to further bloating of the rules. We have a goal of streamlining the rules to make them less overwhelming, but I'm not sure that's going to be possible if every single potential issue requires an explicit mention.
- Status