Have you been censored on MacRumors?

[annk]

Originally Posted by Peace

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

I don't understand why you're not willing to cooperate with me on this.

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.

If it is kcingram you're referring to, I'm sure it's only an oversight that she hasn't been introduced properly or included in the appropriate lists (I actually thought she had been - I'll check).

It's certainly no secret. She is actually part of the staff, with responsibility for the technical side of the contact system (which was overhauled a while ago - a new program was brought on board) and routine contacts. She alerts us to any more complicated contacts, and initiates mod/admin discussion on them.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by annk

I don't understand why you're not willing to cooperate with me on this.



If it is kcingram you're referring to, I'm sure it's only an oversight that she hasn't been introduced properly or included in the appropriate lists (I actually thought she had been - I'll check).

It's certainly no secret. She is actually part of the staff, with responsibility for the technical side of the contact system (which was overhauled a while ago - a new program was brought on board) and routine contacts. She alerts us to any more complicated contacts, and initiates mod/admin discussion on them.

No secret ?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php

Where is she listed there ?

[annk]

Originally Posted by Peace

No secret ?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php

Where is she listed there ?

As we've just said, this must be an oversight. As I said, it's certainly not a secret. As I said, I'll look into it.

There's no reason she shouldn't be listed. For all I know, the fault may be mine. I was a fairly green admin at the time - maybe it was actually something I was supposed to do!

There's no conspiracy here. Just ask if something seems odd, and we'll answer/deal with it.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by Peace

No secret ?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php

Where is she listed there ?

That list is updated manually, not based of a users status directly. Nobody remembered to add her. annk is looking into it.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by annk

As we've just said, this must be an oversight. As I said, it's certainly not a secret. As I said, I'll look into it.

There's no reason she shouldn't be listed. For all I know, the fault may be mine. I was a fairly green admin at the time - maybe it was actually something I was supposed to do!

There's no conspiracy here. Just ask if something seems odd, and we'll answer/deal with it.

See now. there's that wall.

She may not be a secret to you guys behind the curtain but due to a low post count I would guess hardly any normal member even knows who she is because she is not listed in the forum leaders.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Peace

See now. there's that wall.

She may not be a secret to you guys behind the curtain but due to a low post count I would guess hardly any normal member even knows who she is because she is not listed in the forum leaders.

Peace, what's the problem here? We're telling you it wasn't an intentional omission. As Panda explained, it's not an update that happens automatically. You've pointed it out to us, and we've said we'll deal with it. I'm guessing that since her role is much more limited than that of the others listed under administrators, no one thought of it.

Are you not satisfied with our response here?

I am genuinely trying to understand this.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by Peace

See now. there's that wall.

She may not be a secret to you guys behind the curtain but due to a low post count I would guess hardly any normal member even knows who she is because she is not listed in the forum leaders.

We said it was a mistake that we made and we are fixing it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by annk

Peace, what's the problem here? We're telling you it wasn't an intentional omission. As Panda explained, it's not an update that happens automatically. You've pointed it out to us, and we've said we'll deal with it. I'm guessing that since her role is much more limited than that of the others listed under administrators, no one thought of it.

Are you not satisfied with our response here?

I am genuinely trying to understand this.

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

We said it was a mistake that we made and we are fixing it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Just blowing off steam due to a lack of knowing who the leaders were.

Thanks.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by annk

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*

First of all, I'd like to thank you for the responses. It's obvious you are putting a lot of thought (and work) into your responses.

Maybe "taking sides" isn't exactly what I meant - I believe it all goes back to perception. I'll try to give an example: One mod may perceive "but, but Benghazi" as trolling and one may not. I got my TO for that particular comment - The reason a few of us adopted that response is because there were users who posted in every. single. thread. a response about Benghazi when talking about anything else. Most of the times it was off topic, and frankly at the end it was beating a dead horse. It was annoying and served no purpose other than to annoy.

My first warning (I think it was my first) was because, in response to a blatantly racist post, I made an equally damning generalization about people from Alabama. Frankly, it was to prove a point. I believe that one was for insulting. That post was deleted but the original racist post was left. I'm assuming the response will be "that racist post wasn't reported", but if mods aren't even looking at context in the middle of a discussion before doling out warnings and punishments, then what's the point?

I have absolutely no problem in admitting I've probably broken some rules in the years I've been here. There have been situations, also, that probably warranted a warning that wasn't received. I just want to see things done fairly, and it just doesn't seem possible.

Why not do a trial run in the PRSI with no moderation? What's the worst thing that will happen?

[Peace]

No moderation in the PRSI forum is a really bad idea.

Just my opinion. ymmv

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by annk

The moderation records show that prior to your temporary suspension, you were warned twice for insults.

Which I have never disputed (and you can verify this) because those warnings were deserved. However, it's been quite some time since both of them occurred (and ages since they "expired"), because I have made it a point to take my frustration out with logic and reason in PRSI. Again, I've never questioned those warnings. They were fair, and honestly, worth it at the time, especially the DL insult.

Originally Posted by annk

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.

You're correct, no record of this was made clear to me - and yes, I'd like to know what the insulting comment was. Please PM me. So you found this comment after I was already suspended? I don't really understand, unless there was a delay in reading some of my posts after I was already suspended? It was also never mentioned while I was discussing my suspension with a mod, so that's a bit curious to me.

Originally Posted by annk

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.

Also because as I said, I haven't had a warning in quite some time. Another reason why the immediate week suspension was extremely lame in my opinion. And if I hadn't gone to the trouble to explain my position in several emails, the week would have held up.

Originally Posted by annk

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).

Again, fine, I'm not arguing about direct insults. I get that.

Originally Posted by annk

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.

See, applying different rules for different forums/discussion times/etc. is an unnecessary slippery slope in my opinion. Either stick to the outlined guidelines which you keep explaining, or hands off completely (which, like Moyank, I favor in PRSI). All this does is create confusion and annoyance with no outlet. Using the "contact" form is not a good place to discuss moderation in my opinion. In the first place, action has already been taken. And I'm sure the moderator felt the action was correct, so the uphill battle is to convince them they're wrong? That's akin to trying to convince a police officer you don't deserve a ticket. Unless it's obviously and via outlined guidelines unfair, as in my case, I doubt many infractions would be changed or handled differently.

Originally Posted by annk

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*

As I said, I have never argued my two warnings for insults. From my perspective, here I am a contributing member, and I express some annoyance at the uneven handing out of TOs and I get a week's suspension. And yes, I agree with the two way street analogy, which is why I'm even bothering to discuss this.

However, as it stands, it is not a two way street. It's a bunch of traffic cops vs. a group of motorists - all of the power lies with the cops. And the "contact us" form is a terrible way to discuss ongoing moderation.

That said, I have no wish to keep wondering if this thread will be locked and I'll be banned, so I'm finished here. My final comment is that I'm am extremely not a fan of the heavy handed moderation lately. annk, I would still like that PM when you have a chance.

[annk]

kcingram is now listed in the forum leaders, as well as in the list in the FAQ section (where her role is defined).

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

Which I have never disputed (and you can verify this) because those warnings were deserved. However, it's been quite some time since both of them occurred (and ages since they "expired"), because I have made it a point to take my frustration out with logic and reason in PRSI. Again, I've never questioned those warnings. They were fair, and honestly, worth it at the time, especially the DL insult.



You're correct, no record of this was made clear to me - and yes, I'd like to know what the insulting comment was. Please PM me. So you found this comment after I was already suspended? I don't really understand, unless there was a delay in reading some of my posts after I was already suspended? It was also never mentioned while I was discussing my suspension with a mod, so that's a bit curious to me.

So many posts are made every day that it's actually not uncommon to have just moderated something, only to find another problem. It's happened to me many times. Sometimes you come across the other problem yourself, sometimes you go from moderation to post reports, only to find that that same member you just moderated was reported for another violation.

I'll send you a PM in a bit.

See, applying different rules for different forums/discussion times/etc. is an unnecessary slippery slope in my opinion. Either stick to the outlined guidelines which you keep explaining, or hands off completely (which, like Moyank, I favor in PRSI). All this does is create confusion and annoyance with no outlet.

That's one issue we discuss about PRSI. If we were to truly moderate it the way we do the rest of the forum, there would in general be MUCH more moderation. Many more suspensions, warnings etc. We're discussing it.

Using the "contact" form is not a good place to discuss moderation in my opinion. In the first place, action has already been taken. And I'm sure the moderator felt the action was correct, so the uphill battle is to convince them they're wrong? That's akin to trying to convince a police officer you don't deserve a ticket. Unless it's obviously and via outlined guidelines unfair, as in my case, I doubt many infractions would be changed or handled differently.

It's not an uphill battle, as you yourself experienced when you complained about your most recent moderation. The point is that because we don't moderate rashly, because we discuss and check in to see what the others think, our decisions are usually pretty well-thought out. So in most cases, we will feel the moderation was appropriate, and explain why. But as I've already said, we do sometimes overturn or change moderation.

...here I am a contributing member, and I express some annoyance at the uneven handing out of TOs and I get a week's suspension...

First of all, being a contributor doesn't change anything here. We don't moderate based on whether or not a member has made a donation to the site.

Secondly, you were not given a suspension because you expressed annoyance at moderation, you were given a suspension because you didn't do it within the rules.

However, as it stands, it is not a two way street. It's a bunch of traffic cops vs. a group of motorists - all of the power lies with the cops. And the "contact us" form is a terrible way to discuss ongoing moderation.

We'll just have to disagree here. Since you don't like the contact system, I think the best thing for you would be to ask your questions in SFF. Just couch them in general terms. I gave you an example of how to do this in my previous post.

That said, I have no wish to keep wondering if this thread will be locked and I'll be banned, so I'm finished here. .

That's unfair. We're taking a considerable amount of time to have this dialogue with you. No one is getting ready to ban you for it or lock the thread.

Originally Posted by Moyank24

First of all, I'd like to thank you for the responses. It's obvious you are putting a lot of thought (and work) into your responses.

You're very welcome. We're happy to respond when people take the time to talk to us.

Maybe "taking sides" isn't exactly what I meant - I believe it all goes back to perception. I'll try to give an example: One mod may perceive "but, but Benghazi" as trolling and one may not.

Actually, we discuss this sort of thing to come to a consensus - for the very purpose of being as consistent as we can. While we might not always see things exactly the same way as individuals, when we have our mod hats on we recognise that we have to come to some sort of decision we all can follow.

My first warning (I think it was my first) was because, in response to a blatantly racist post, I made an equally damning generalization about people from Alabama. Frankly, it was to prove a point. I believe that one was for insulting. That post was deleted but the original racist post was left. I'm assuming the response will be "that racist post wasn't reported", but if mods aren't even looking at context in the middle of a discussion before doling out warnings and punishments, then what's the point?

We do look at context, but we will sometimes miss things. It's fine to contact us to point those out. It's actually a help!

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by annk

It's not an uphill battle, as you yourself experienced when you complained about your most recent moderation. The point is that because we don't moderate rashly, because we discuss and check in to see what the others think, our decisions are usually pretty well-thought out. So in most cases, we will feel the moderation was appropriate, and explain why. But as I've already said, we do sometimes overturn or change moderation.

Honestly, the discussion I had with the mod regarding my last suspension doesn't make me think that it's the best method. Her responses were fairly canned, unlike here. Which I do appreciate. The problem being, of course, that discussing it here technically isn't allowed.

Originally Posted by annk

First of all, being a contributor doesn't change anything here. We don't moderate based on whether or not a member has made a donation to the site.

No, I wasn't speaking financially at all. Anyway, nevermind. I'm sure everyone thinks they contribute in some way, even if it's trolling PRSI.

Originally Posted by annk

That's unfair. We're taking a considerable amount of time to have this dialogue with you. No one is getting ready to ban you for it or lock the thread.

All I meant is that your last post pointed out how technically this discussion is not allowed. So I'd rather not continue to walk the line. I wasn't being insulting at all, and as I said, I do appreciate the responses, even when I disagree with them.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

All I meant is that your last post pointed out how technically this discussion is not allowed. So I'd rather not continue to walk the line. I wasn't being insulting at all, and as I said, I do appreciate the responses, even when I disagree with them.

I could hardly zap you for something I'm responding to. Since I made the decision to ask you if you were waiving your rights, rather than simply deleting your post and issuing some sort of moderation response, it was fine.

[anjinha]

Originally Posted by annk

I could hardly zap you for something I'm responding to. Since I made the decision to ask you if you were waiving your rights, rather than simply deleting your post and issuing some sort of moderation response, it was fine.

Why would someone get moderated for discussing their own moderation?

[Comeagain?]

Originally Posted by anjinha

Why would someone get moderated for discussing their own moderation?

Privacy policy. Unless you explicitly state you allow the mods to discuss your moderation publicly, then you can't talk about it.

[alphaod]

Sure.

It's a bit annoying sometimes especially if I've take time to write out a thought-out response.

[anjinha]

Originally Posted by Comeagain?

Privacy policy. Unless you explicitly state you allow the mods to discuss your moderation publicly, then you can't talk about it.

That doesn't make any sense. If someone is discussing their own moderation in public they're obviously ok with it being discussed publicly, since they're the ones doing it.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by anjinha

If someone is discussing their own moderation in public they're obviously ok with it being discussed publicly, since they're the ones doing it.

It's all in the Moderation FAQ which is part of the Forum Rules:

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Mod...ration_privacy

if you post in the forums asking why your post was moderated, your post will be removed (it's almost always off-topic to the thread it's in). The answer to "Why was my post deleted?" is always the same: it violated a forum rule or was a quote of a post that violated a forum rule. If you want a further explanation use the Contact form so we can be perfectly frank and discuss your posts and forum record. You can post in the Site and Forum Feedback forum if you want to discuss forum rules and moderation policies in general, but keep it general, not about a specific case of moderation.

As we have already mentioned here a particular act of moderation doesn't exist in isolation from the user's entire record. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many user's don't want their entire history rehashed in public after we ask when they first bring it up.

B

[EricNau]

Originally Posted by anjinha

That doesn't make any sense. If someone is discussing their own moderation in public they're obviously ok with it being discussed publicly, since they're the ones doing it.

If someone is discussing their own moderation in public, sure, they are obviously granting themselves implicit permission.

But that doesn't mean they're ok with the moderators discussing their history publicly, so we need to get their explicit permission first.

And if someone wishes to discuss moderation publicly without letting us respond, well... that just isn't productive.

[Doctor Q]

Originally Posted by Peace

Just blowing off steam due to a lack of knowing who the leaders were.

kcingram hasn't been listed in the Forum Leaders list because she manages routine requests for help or information but doesn't make administrative decisions or moderate the forums. Her assistance has given the administrators who handle decision-making more time to deal with policy issues and participate more regularly in the forums. Now that she's included in the Forum Leaders list we hope the FAQ will clarify her role.

Originally Posted by anjinha

That doesn't make any sense. If someone is discussing their own moderation in public they're obviously ok with it being discussed publicly, since they're the ones doing it.

We used to assume that, until we ran into cases where a user posted a public complaint, we took that as license to explain how moderation was applied based on the user's history, and that produced a complaint that we were violating the Privacy Policy. So now we make sure users intend to discuss it publicly before sharing information about them.

[anjinha]

Originally Posted by balamw

It's all in the Moderation FAQ which is part of the Forum Rules:

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Mod...ration_privacy



As we have already mentioned here a particular act of moderation doesn't exist in isolation from the user's entire record. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many user's don't want their entire history rehashed in public after we ask when they first bring it up.

B

That's not what I'm referring to though. If someone asks why their post was removed anywhere on the site it makes sense that the post would be removed since it's off-topic and not the place for it. But it was said several times in this same thread that discussing moderation is against the rules and that's the part I have a problem with.

Originally Posted by annk

As you know, what you're doing here is bringing up specific moderation, which isn't allowed.

I understand that there's a privacy policy but this tells me that I can't discuss my own private information and that's the part I'm disagreeing with.

Originally Posted by EricNau

If someone is discussing their own moderation in public, sure, they are obviously granting themselves implicit permission.

But that doesn't mean they're ok with the moderators discussing their history publicly, so we need to get their explicit permission first.

And if someone wishes to discuss moderation publicly without letting us respond, well... that just isn't productive.

Originally Posted by Doctor Q

We used to assume that, until we ran into cases where a user posted a public complaint, we took that as license to explain how moderation was applied based on the user's history, and that produced a complaint that we were violating the Privacy Policy. So now we make sure users intend to discuss it publicly before sharing information about them.

I agree and it makes sense that moderators would ask first. What I'm disagreeing with is the several times that was said in this thread that discussing moderation isn't allowed and against the rules.

[jlgolson]

Originally Posted by annk

To be frank, I see more placing of responsibility on others, than the taking of responsibility for one's own actions.

Welcome to the Me Generation.

I think the concept that actions have immediate consequences is foreign to a lot of folks and when moderation or time outs are handed out, it really shocks people who are used to having third and fourth and fifth chances.

By the way, for anyone who thinks hands off moderation in the PRSI forum would be a good idea, I encourage you to check out the comments on YouTube for an idea on the direction that would go.

[SlasherDuff]

I have been a member here for 4 years and I haven't felt censored here. From what I have seen I thought the moderation was delivered with fairness and dignity.

I have been a part of worse communities, where the moderators are huge heavy hitters with bans and warnings. With that said, I wonder how they can run a game affiliated site if they don't allow feedback that deals with the game, or even the forums and the moderators themselves without getting punished?

then again, it applies with every privately ran forum. Their site, their rules

[dejo]

Originally Posted by anjinha

What I'm disagreeing with is the several times that was said in this thread that discussing moderation isn't allowed and against the rules.

Discussing moderation in general terms is allowed, as said before. But discussing specific cases of moderation is not allowed, unless the member has given explicit permission for us to discuss it in public, including their entire moderation history, which is needed to provide context. Does that make sense?