Have you been censored on MacRumors?

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Surely

I'm not surprised. Fairness and moderation don't go together around here. You were equally responsible for the off-topic nature of our "discussion" in the Purchases thread, and you got nothing. Another member called me a troll, and nothing.



I no longer find this forum enjoyable, especially when it comes to the lack of consistency and transparency when it comes to moderation. I've been around for over five years, participate a lot, help when I can, and when I send a Contact Form to ask why things weren't handled fairly, it is ignored. That was my first TO... it's not like I was a repeat offender.

Don't worry mods, you won't hear a peep out of me anymore. Way to chase off another long time member. I'm done here.

Surely, I agree with Queen of Spades. You'll be missed, and I, for one, would be truly sorry if you stopped participating. Think about it.

The bottom line is if the thoughtful posters - the ones whose contributions make contributing, dropping in, and sometimes, simply reading what has been posted, worthwhile - decide to leave the fora, then, the forum is left to others. Others, that is, who are louder perhaps, make more noise, are more vehement and certain (and certainly much more motivated to post).

In a forum such as this, tone matters as much as content. Leaving the forum to those who can shout loudest, and insult best, serves the forum - and those who remain - ill.

[wordoflife]

Agreed, would be sad to see Surely leave.

I tend to agree that moderation doesn't occur properly here. As with spades, I believe the mods need to tone it down. Been noticing a lot of "heavy handed", as spades put it, moderation when it is really unnecessary.

Yes the rules should and need to be followed, but they're guidelines, and a little bit (read: a lot more) judgement needs to be used.

Again, sorry to hear about Surely.

[annk]

Originally Posted by annk

I'd be very interested to know which contact you've sent that hasn't gotten a response. Contacts are not ignored. I can look it up for you if you like tomorrow, check the timestamps for any contacts you've sent with the timestamps for the corresponding responses.

I've checked for you, Surely. There are three registered contacts. The first was a technical forum issue that was resolved when arn posted that the problem was something he was tinkering with. No specific response was sent to you because the problem was rectified quickly, which we figured you saw. The second contact was responded to within 6 days. The third is only two days old, and therefore still pending. It will be answered once the case is looked into and discussion is finished.

So I'm confused as to why you claim contacts about this type of issue are ignored. Is it possible you're thinking about a particular post report, where you didn't see that any action was taken? In that case you can PM me or one of the others, and we'll be happy to explain why (remember that some action visible only to the member in question might well have been taken, and in that case we won't be able to be quite so specific about what was done, due to member privacy).

[OllyW]

Originally Posted by Surely

I'm not surprised. Fairness and moderation don't go together around here. You were equally responsible for the off-topic nature of our "discussion" in the Purchases thread, and you got nothing. Another member called me a troll, and nothing.

We don't issue fixed penalties, a member's previous moderation is taken into account so individuals may receive different levels of moderation for similar cases of rule breaking.

From the Moderation FAQ...

The rules and moderation guidelines are applied equally to all forum members but messages and disciplinary actions depend on the rule involved, the nature of the violation, and the user's history of prior violations. Repeated rule-breaking causes stronger actions, so a reminder one time can become a warning or time-out the next time.

Reminders and warnings are sent by Private Messages so only you and the moderators see them. When reminders and warnings are listed on your User Profile, only you see them there; other users do not see them. The moderators keep records of their actions so administrators can review the messages, but these records are not shared with other users.

So you may think the other members have been let off when they have actually been moderated accordingly behind the scenes.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

I've found the moderation to be uneven quite often, as well. And heavy handed when not necessary. I'd never gotten a TO before, and got a 1-week for a pretty innocuous comment. After some discussion via the contact form, it got reduced to 2 days, but that sort of thing is incredibly annoying, and I shouldn't have to point out the obvious unfairness in something like that.

As you know, what you're doing here is bringing up specific moderation, which isn't allowed. Are you waiving your right to moderation privacy, so we can discuss the entire issue here? Please remember this involves your moderation history (which is why I personally think it's better to handle this sort of complaint privately - not everyone remembers his/her entire moderation history, and they might regret having it discussed openly - it's really no one else's business IMO, but that's just my opinion).

There's also the huge problem of defining what "trolling" is, since it seems to mean different things for different members...

I couldn't agree with you more, as I explain in my post here.

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by annk

As you know, what you're doing here is bringing up specific moderation, which isn't allowed. Are you waiving your right to moderation privacy, so we can discuss the entire issue here? Please remember this involves your moderation history (which is why I personally think it's better to handle this sort of complaint privately - not everyone remembers his/her entire moderation history, and they might regret having it discussed openly - it's really no one else's business IMO, but that's just my opinion).

Sure, I waive my right to moderation privacy, you can discuss it here, it doesn't bother me a bit. The moderator I spoke with via email confirmed that I'd never had a TO before - so that "length of time based on past transgressions" thing doesn't make sense, or again, it's not equally applied. Everyone else in that particular instance got 2 days (which I know because we're friends on twitter, not because I'm allowed to discuss such things on here), I got a week. And if you look at the comment, in my opinion, it wasn't particularly inflammatory.

I guess my main concern is there is no outlet to discuss moderation outside of those contact forms after the fact. Even here your last post was essentially a warning I was breaking the rules, when we're having a civil discussion about what's occurred. The users also have no way to provide feedback on particular instances of moderation without getting infractions for it. It makes it a rather Draconian process and not open to feedback at all. Obviously these are not my forums, so arn & company are free to do as they like, but that's my honest opinion. I think the users make a forum, and more people will continue to look elsewhere if this keeps up. When it comes to PRSI, either hands off, or distribute the punishments fairly.

Originally Posted by annk

I couldn't agree with you more, as I explain in my post here.

Which is why I think user input makes sense. Either that, or define a specific criteria for trolling. I realize it's difficult, but where suspensions are concerned, it should not be left to interpretation. And this obviously does not refer to my TO, which I got for discussing moderation.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by annk

As you know, what you're doing here is bringing up specific moderation, which isn't allowed. Are you waiving your right to moderation privacy, so we can discuss the entire issue here? Please remember this involves your moderation history (which is why I personally think it's better to handle this sort of complaint privately - not everyone remembers his/her entire moderation history, and they might regret having it discussed openly - it's really no one else's business IMO, but that's just my opinion).

Question annk.

If the moderation team expects members to "waive" their rights can members expect moderators to "waive" their uber secrecy ?

Personally I'd say to people TO'd etc. And I've seen both sides , to give up the arguments. It's useless and a waste of precious bandwidth.


Furthermore this poll needs to be re-written because there is more than posts being deleted.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by Peace

Personally I'd say to people TO'd etc. And I've seen both sides.

I'm not sure what that means Peace, did you lose a word or two in there?

B

[Peace]

Originally Posted by balamw

I'm not sure what that means Peace, did you lose a word or two in there?

B

I wasn't aware I was addressing you.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by Peace

I wasn't aware I was addressing you.

As a member of the staff I'm trying to understand what was posted in a public forum and failing miserably. It must be me.

B

[Peace]

Originally Posted by balamw

As a member of the staff I'm trying to understand what was posted in a public forum and failing miserably. It must be me.

B

See my edit.

Does that help ?

[balamw]

Originally Posted by Peace

See my edit.

Does that help ?

Yes. A bit, and I think it will help annk answer you. You are one of the few that has been on the "other" side, so I for one really value what you say and want to make sure I understand what was posted.

Can I paraphrase that as:

Personally I'd say "give it(*) up. It's useless and a waste of precious bandwidth." to [those users who have been] TO'd etc. And I've seen both sides

(*) I'm still a bit unclear on what meant by "it" here. The discussion?

Thanks!

B

[Peace]

Originally Posted by balamw

Yes. A bit, and I think it will help annk answer you. You are one of the few that has been on the "other" side, so I for one really value what you say and want to make sure I understand what was posted.

Can I paraphrase that as:

Personally I'd say "give it(*) up. It's useless and a waste of precious bandwidth." to [those users who have been] TO'd etc. And I've seen both sides

(*) I'm still a bit unclear on what meant by "it" here. The discussion?

Thanks!

B

It = this discussion. Yes. Thanks.

Sorry I've only had one espresso.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

When it comes to PRSI, either hands off, or distribute the punishments fairly.

I believe when it comes to PRSI it should be completely hands off. It's been made clear again and again that there is no way to distribute the punishments fairly. The mods are no different than the rest of the users in that they are human and all have their own interpretations of "trolling". And some seem to have a quicker trigger than others.

And the mass suspensions handed out on the day after the election made that uber clear. It is extremely frustrating to be warned or given a Time-Out for being a part of an ongoing discussion - and the other participant(s) in said discussion are given nothing. Now, you may say that "moderation may be going on behind the scenes", but there have been plenty of instances where some posts have been deleted and some haven't. The process just leaves too much open for the mods to interpret. And, frankly, there have been times where it seems like the mods are taking sides - and with no real open discussion allowed on moderation, it's hard to shake that perception.

I'm also willing to waive my right to privacy in an effort to foster more discussion on this issue.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Peace

Question annk.

If the moderation team expects members to "waive" their rights can members expect moderators to "waive" their uber secrecy ?

If you're asking moderators to stop protecting members' privacy, then no, that's not going to happen. Only members can allow moderators to discuss them. I think it's a really good policy. Members need to know we won't discuss issues involving them with anyone other than them, unless they explicitly request that we do so.

Personally I'd say to people TO'd etc. And I've seen both sides , to give up the arguments. It's useless and a waste of precious bandwidth.

Since you were indeed on the other side for a short time, it surprises me that you say this. Moderation does indeed get reversed or overturned. Mods can make mistakes. Luckily, since we discuss so much, it doesn't happen often. The discussion allows us to self-correct, and we're not shy about telling each other when we disagree.

Or maybe that's what you mean - that we're consistent enough that moderation is not often overturned? I would say it's definitely worth contacting us if someone disagrees with moderation. More often than not, a more in-depth of why we did what we did results in a satisfied member.

Maybe no moderation you did during your tenure was overturned, but in my 3+ years as a mod/admin, I've had moderation I've done overturned! Not often, but it has happened.

Furthermore this poll needs to be re-written because there is more than posts being deleted.

I agree completely. It should be called "Have you been moderated on MacRumors?" We don't censor, but we do reserve the right to delete posts or comments that are in violation of the rules.

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

Sure, I waive my right to moderation privacy, you can discuss it here, it doesn't bother me a bit.

Ok. With one exception, I'll do this exactly as I would answer a contact on this issue.

The moderation records show that prior to your temporary suspension, you were warned twice for insults. The comment you made in PRSI that resulted in a week's suspension was part of a conversation where moderation was being discussed. Your comment was off-topic to the thread subject, as well as a comment on specific moderation.

The records also note an insulting comment you posted on the same day you made the comment that caused the temporary suspension, but no further action was taken because your account was already suspended, and because the suspension was longer than what would've been usual in another situation. Since you didn't receive any notification of that comment, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss it in any more detail here. You're welcome to PM me if you'd like to know which comment it was.

A side note, that might be interesting since we're discussing moderation: you received warnings right off the bat and not reminders. I haven't checked the dates, but I suspect this is because the first violations occurred before we went over from the infraction/warning system to the milder reminder/warning system. If you had had your first violation today (in the post in question, you called another member a "douche lord"), in most cases you would have only received a reminder. The second violation, also an insult, would have escalated to a warning. (However, it should be noted that when the violation falls under "instantly bannable offenses", a moderator may choose to issue a warning immediately).

Normal escalation after two warnings would have been a short time-out, not a week. However, your violation was in PRSI, a forum we know from experience gets much worse immediately before and after major political events (in this case, the US election). For that reason the moderation right then was stricter than usual. When you contacted us about it, however, we discussed it, and agreed that while there was no reason to reverse it, it was reasonable to reduce it to two days. Since it had already been in effect for two days, it was lifted.

So as far as I can see, the contact system worked perfectly. You felt the moderation was too extreme, you used the system correctly to state your case, and we agreed.

I guess my main concern is there is no outlet to discuss moderation outside of those contact forms after the fact.

You can bring any issue up in general terms in Site and Forum Feedback, or you can continue to discuss with us via the Contact system if you're not satisfied with the answers you get. That's the system. You may not like it, but you accepted it when you registered. You can make suggestions for change to the system - lots of things here have been changed due to member feedback - but giving us feedback by breaking rules isn't the way to do it.

Even here your last post was essentially a warning I was breaking the rules, when we're having a civil discussion about what's occurred.

It wasn't a warning, I was stating a fact. Since you recently had your account suspended for discussing specific moderation in a thread, and since you specifically asked about how to discuss moderation in your contact message and received an answer, it seems clear that you knew your comment here was also a rules violation. I hear that you're calling part of a civil discussion, but as we see it, you were knowingly breaking the rule - again.

The users also have no way to provide feedback on particular instances of moderation without getting infractions for it.

Yes, they do. Again - a member can use the contact form if they want to be specific, or bring the issue up in general terms in SFF. Almost any specific case can be discussed in general terms. You could for example start a thread stating you suspect that members aren't moderated in the same way for the same violations, and ask us if that's true and if so, why it's that way.

...define a specific criteria for trolling. I realize it's difficult, but where suspensions are concerned, it should not be left to interpretation.

We agree completely with you on this. We are absolutely open to suggestions as to how to define trolling. We discuss it constantly, and would love (fictitious!) examples from members that we could discuss with members. I think that would really help the behind-the-scenes discussion as well.

Finally, in response to Moyank24's comment, which was made while I was writing this post, I can say that moderators do not take sides. Moderation is transparent to all other mods and admins, and everything is documented. Taking sides would be seen immediately, and any side-taking would be dealt with very quickly.

I understand the desire for fairness, and appreciate the time and energy members are putting into this discussion. I would however feel better about it if there were just a bit more balance (= if more members were able to say "yes, I did break the rule, sorry about that). To be frank, I see more placing of responsibility on others, than the taking of responsibility for one's own actions. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be held accountable for how moderation is done. I'm just saying that forum participation is a two-way street.

So I'll throw that out there as food for thought. *insert thoughtful smiley here*

[Peace]

Who is the "Administrator" of MacRumors that joined a few months ago and why is he/she not listed as a moderator yet sending PM's acting as a moderator ?

That type of secrecy.

just an example.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Peace

Who is the "Administrator" of MacRumors that joined a few months ago and why is he/she not listed as a moderator yet sending PM's acting as a moderator ?

That type of secrecy.

just an example.

Not sure who you mean. Do you have a user name?

[Peace]

Originally Posted by annk

Not sure who you mean. Do you have a user name?

Thank you. Next time I will ignore that person like I did when he/she sent me a PM.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Peace

Thank you. Next time I will ignore that person.

I don't think I was clear. What I meant was, can you describe this persons online role, do you remember his/her user name, in what sort of capacity did you encounter him/her?

I'm offering to figure it out and answer your question, but I need more info.

[grapes911]

I guess you mean kcingram, who doesn't appear on the Forum Leader list. I'm guessing that is an oversight.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by annk

I don't think I was clear. What I meant was, can you describe this persons online role, do you remember his/her user name, in what sort of capacity did you encounter him/her?

I'm offering to figure it out and answer your question, but I need more info.

If you don't know I suggest you ask Q.

I was sent a PM telling me my TO was reduced for "X" reason. I didn't really care. All I know is that person had the title administrator and joined sometime in the last year.

[grapes911]

Yeah, that's kcingram. She doesn't moderate but she does handle contacts.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by grapes911

Yeah, that's kcingram. She doesn't moderate but she does handle contacts.

Problem is I didn't contact anyone.

Yet that person was behaving like a moderator.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...06&postcount=2

It can cause confusion.

And why is she not listed as administrator in the forum leaders ?

[grapes911]

While she doesn't handle reported posts, she still is an administrator, so "behaving like a moderator" would be consistant with her role.

I'm not sure why she contacted you if you didn't make a contact though.

[stridemat]

Originally Posted by Peace

Problem is I didn't contact anyone.

Yet that person was behaving like a moderator.

It can cause confusion.

Looking back through the records it was reduced as part of a Contact Us by another member which kcingram was dealing with.