Have you been censored on MacRumors?

[Jason Garza]

Half of my first post was removed and I got a nice little email. It's all good though I tend to speak (write) without thinking sometimes.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by jlgolson

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.

Typical comment from someone who obviously hasn't read through the entire thread. I would suggest, especially if you are going to insult those who have a genuine interest in keeping good people from leaving these forums, at least pretending to know what you are talking about.

Most of the people who commented in this thread accepted responsibility and (for the most part) any punishment handed out. The problem with the moderation on this forum - especially in PRSI (which I'm most familiar with) - is that it is wholly inconsistent. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason and there have been many cases where the context of a conversation isn't taken into account. If it's going to be so egregiously inconsistent, what's the point?

I've seen YouTube comments, and comments from other politically charged sites and forums, and I still don't feel the need to be "moderated" - as I don't in the real world if I am having a debate.

[twietee]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I've seen YouTube comments, and comments from other politically charged sites and forums, and I still don't feel the need to be "moderated" - as I don't in the real world if I am having a debate.

I agree with almost everything you and some others said here, but do you actually read the entire youtube-comments-'threads'? Because I don't/can't and think it's kind of an unbearable troll-fest. It would be a pity if PRSI would become something like that, in my opinion. And I'm also quite sure it would effect heavily the other, non related, threads/fora. Personally, I stay away from posting within PRSI, because of personal reasons and because I don't have the time which is necessary for thoughtful posts, but it's very interesting to follow.

As someone who came late to the party at MR, there isn't something I can add here. Also I'm not a fan of being moderated, that's for sure. But since I followed this incident at the picture thread between Surely and others, it is strange to see some people get TOs and others don't for the same 'discussion'. I understand that we all have our own history here, and that different histories may lead to a different treatment, but seen from outside, this is something rather confusing and hard to explain. And I too can understand that it may alienate users, especially those who invest a considerable amount of time into making MR an interesting place to be.

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by jlgolson

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.

Way to slide in and leave an insult without actually knowing what you're talking about. So if you have any kind of problem with the way moderation has been handled as of late, you're a spoiled child who can't accept consequences? Nice, but outside of being incredibly condescending, you're completely wrong. How about the option of there actually being something worth discussing about moderation? That the mods make mistakes, or the way things are handled in some threads are uneven (again, read this thread)? Even annk admits the "trolling" infraction isn't clearly defined. And thanks for diminishing the time and effort we've taken in this thread to discuss things logically.

Anyway. I agree with Moyank and twietee, as I said before. I also think there's an easily identifiable difference in punishing users who just post Youtube-like comments like "ur a *****" versus people that are making a point.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by jlgolson

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.

The only thing that should be moderated in the PRSI is troll comments, other wise let the community police itself. We are all grown adults and can handle the sniping comments without the need for TO's to be thrown around.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Typical comment from someone who obviously hasn't read through the entire thread. I would suggest, especially if you are going to insult those who have a genuine interest in keeping good people from leaving these forums, at least pretending to know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

Way to slide in and leave an insult without actually knowing what you're talking about. So if you have any kind of problem with the way moderation has been handled as of late, you're a spoiled child who can't accept consequences? Nice, but outside of being incredibly condescending, you're completely wrong. How about the option of there actually being something worth discussing about moderation? That the mods make mistakes, or the way things are handled in some threads are uneven (again, read this thread)? Even annk admits the "trolling" infraction isn't clearly defined. And thanks for diminishing the time and effort we've taken in this thread to discuss things logically.

Take it easy, there's plenty of room for all opinions in this thread, even if you don't agree with them.

No one said there wasn't anything worth discussing about moderation. After having modded for a few years, I can say that there's quite a bit of truth in what jlgolson posted. It's not completely wrong by any means. I'm not saying it necessarily applies to members posting in this particular thread (and I can't see that he is, either - as I read it, he's talking about a general trend, and he's quoting my comment, a context that's perfectly appropriate). But reactions to completely routine moderation - polite reminders for minor issues - often reveal exactly the attitude he's outlining. And it's the same sentiment I expressed.

Just to be clear, I didn't state the the trolling infraction was not clearly defined. I said that trolling is hard to define - that's not the same thing at all. People see trolling very differently (though members tend to suddenly be able to define it much more quickly when someone doesn't agree with them! ). But the moderation process isn't unclear. We've got pretty clear guidelines to go by. It's how to define whether or not post X is trolling that's the problem. And it's clear from my experience that this is an area where members will never agree, just as they'll never agree on whether there should be more moderation, less moderation, different moderation, or even if moderation is just right.

Originally Posted by MacNut

The only thing that should be moderated in the PRSI is troll comments, other wise let the community police itself. We are all grown adults and can handle the sniping comments without the need for TO's to be thrown around.

I disagree. Insults and name-calling still need to be moderated. You would think a community of (mostly) adults could self-moderate on those issues, but that's clearly not the case.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by Doctor Q

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.


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.

Originally Posted by jlgolson

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.

Originally Posted by dejo

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?

Originally Posted by annk

Take it easy, there's plenty of room for all opinions in this thread, even if you don't agree with them.

No one said there wasn't anything worth discussing about moderation. After having modded for a few years, I can say that there's quite a bit of truth in what jlgolson posted. It's not completely wrong by any means. I'm not saying it necessarily applies to members posting in this particular thread (and I can't see that he is, either - as I read it, he's talking about a general trend, and he's quoting my comment, a context that's perfectly appropriate). But reactions to completely routine moderation - polite reminders for minor issues - often reveal exactly the attitude he's outlining. And it's the same sentiment I expressed.

Just to be clear, I didn't state the the trolling infraction was not clearly defined. I said that trolling is hard to define - that's not the same thing at all. People see trolling very differently (though members tend to suddenly be able to define it much more quickly when someone doesn't agree with them! ). But the moderation process isn't unclear. We've got pretty clear guidelines to go by. It's how to define whether or not post X is trolling that's the problem. And it's clear from my experience that this is an area where members will never agree, just as they'll never agree on whether there should be more moderation, less moderation, different moderation, or even if moderation is just right.



I disagree. Insults and name-calling still need to be moderated. You would think a community of (mostly) adults could self-moderate on those issues, but that's clearly not the case.

For clarity's sake if Administrators did administrative work and moderators did moderation and Editors did editing MacRumors would be better off. But from what I've seen and experienced the various titles seem to do a little of all the above.

Get you act together and become a model for the general community to follow.
Otherwise confusion,mis-trust and general animosity toward the folks that run MR will prevail.

And add more moderators.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by Peace

For clarity's sake if Administrators did administrative work and moderators did moderation and Editors did editing MacRumors would be better off.

Why do you think MacRumors would be better off? How would you separate administrative and moderation duties?

While Admins and Moderators tend to do similar duties, Admins have more of a final say. They also have access to forum operations that moderators do not. Editors to the best of my knowledge don't mod. If they do it'd be the incredibly blatant spammer and that'd be about it.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by annk

I disagree. Insults and name-calling still need to be moderated. You would think a community of (mostly) adults could self-moderate on those issues, but that's clearly not the case.

If any of these things (trolling, insults, name-calling) could be clearly defined so that a bot could handle moderation we wouldn't have any issues. The problem is that all of these infractions are highly subjective and the entire PRSI experience, by its very nature tends to engender lots of borderline/questionable posts.

B

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by annk

Take it easy, there's plenty of room for all opinions in this thread, even if you don't agree with them.

No one said there wasn't anything worth discussing about moderation. After having modded for a few years, I can say that there's quite a bit of truth in what jlgolson posted. It's not completely wrong by any means. I'm not saying it necessarily applies to members posting in this particular thread (and I can't see that he is, either - as I read it, he's talking about a general trend, and he's quoting my comment, a context that's perfectly appropriate). But reactions to completely routine moderation - polite reminders for minor issues - often reveal exactly the attitude he's outlining. And it's the same sentiment I expressed.

He may have chosen a less insulting and condescending manner in which to present his opinion, then. And maybe because he's an editor and a writer here, I've given him too much credit in his ability to do so.

His post is a clear example of what we've been talking about - where some see an insulting post that added absolutely nothing to the discussion, others see valid insight.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

He may have chosen a less insulting and condescending manner in which to present his opinion, then. And maybe because he's an editor and a writer here, I've given him too much credit in his ability to do so.

His post is a clear example of what we've been talking about - where some see an insulting post that added absolutely nothing to the discussion, others see valid insight.

I agree that staff should not be immuned to snarky trollish comments. And don't say it doesn't happen.

[rdowns]

Oh look, another thread on moderation. Without having read most of the thread, let me guess…report more posts, we're discussing it behind the scenes and do you waive your right to moderation double secret probation? Face it folks, it will never change.

[Comeagain?]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Oh look, another thread on moderation. Without having read most of the thread, let me guess…report more posts, we're discussing it behind the scenes and do you waive your right to moderation double secret probation? Face it folks, it will never change.

No actually. I suggest sitting down and reading some of it. It's actually pretty good.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by Peace

For clarity's sake if Administrators did administrative work and moderators did moderation and Editors did editing MacRumors would be better off.

To add to SP's response. Don't forget that above all, most of us on the staff, are users of the site and long-term members of the community. When we participate in the forum and don't invoke "MOD VOICE" in one form or another we are simply speaking for ourselves, as individual users of the site.

Originally Posted by Peace

And add more moderators.

You should know better than most that being a mod here is not for everyone. We can't simply go down to the wall and pick up some day laborers for the job.

B

[MacNut]

I don't think adding more mods is the answer, what needs to happen is a restructuring of the rules and procedures. Maybe start a rules committee with normal members and not just staff.

Adding mods but not fixing the core issues won't solve anything.

[bobcan]

Originally Posted by balamw

To add to SP's response. Don't forget that above all, most of us on the staff, are users of the site and long-term members of the community. When we participate in the forum and don't invoke "MOD VOICE" is one form or another we are simply speaking for ourselves, as individual users of the site.


You should know better than most that being a mod here is not for everyone. We can't simply go down to the wall and pick up some day laborers for the job.

B

Hear, Hear: I, for one, can 'Appreciate the Unappreciation' that sometimes must seem to pop up here.. ** Not many folks LOVE The Police, until they need them.. Sadly!!

That being said: Good Job overall, and I am happy to say that I have only just lately been chastised for a Post where I seemingly was 'a bit acidic' and got a Troll-chip thrown at me.. I suppose I deserved it, although I think at best several other people on the same thread were 'quite slanderous' at a minimum, in the True Legal sense..

My Bad, I felt shame.. the Sun still rose the next day!!

[heywoodja]

As a matter of fact I have been censored. My user name used to be Heywoodja****Me. For some reason they thought it would offend people so they shortened it to Heywoodja. FYI, I put the *B*L*O*W asterisks on this post so it shouldn't get censored. So in closing I'm a perv. thanks
\

[quasinormal]

I had a post removed yesterday - I think. It was that crapfest will.i.am camera thread. I reported the whole thread and suggested it be closed and/or heavily edited due to the disturbing negativity about the concept's marketing frontman. I also posted in the thread that I had reported it. I'm am not much of a reporter otherwise- I think I reported a spam thread once.

That post was removed and the crapfight, aided and abetted by me, continues.

[Ddyracer]

Sorry.. couldn't restrain myself

[annk]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

He may have chosen a less insulting and condescending manner in which to present his opinion, then. And maybe because he's an editor and a writer here, I've given him too much credit in his ability to do so.

His post is a clear example of what we've been talking about - where some see an insulting post that added absolutely nothing to the discussion, others see valid insight.

What I saw was a member adding his opinion of an over-all situation, and getting attacked for it.

Originally Posted by rdowns

Oh look, another thread on moderation. Without having read most of the thread, let me guess…report more posts, we're discussing it behind the scenes and do you waive your right to moderation double secret probation? Face it folks, it will never change.

If you can't be bothered to read the thread, my suggestion would be not to post. Or at the very least, add a constructive and concrete suggestion to the discussion.

Originally Posted by MacNut

I don't think adding more mods is the answer, what needs to happen is a restructuring of the rules and procedures. Maybe start a rules committee with normal members and not just staff.

Adding mods but not fixing the core issues won't solve anything.

It would also help considerably if members followed the existing rules to a greater extent.

I don't think the structure of the rules is a problem. They're laid out pretty clearly in reasonable categories. They're long, but it's a huge site, and the rules have grown as new situations have popped up where a rule was needed.

Since members disagree so much about the rules, I think that posting specific suggestions for concrete changes would accomplish a lot more than a rules committee. Mostly what comes out - as in this thread - is general complaining. It's fine to express dissatisfaction, don't get me wrong, but concrete suggestions for change are something that we can actually continue to discuss in a mod/admin discussion, and run by arn if we want to suggest a change.

We've made it clear that trolling is a behaviour that's very difficult to define. So give us some suggestions for a definition! That would be a huge help.

Originally Posted by bobcan

Hear, Hear: I, for one, can 'Appreciate the Unappreciation' that sometimes must seem to pop up here.. ** Not many folks LOVE The Police, until they need them.. Sadly!!

Thank you.

That being said: Good Job overall, and I am happy to say that I have only just lately been chastised for a Post where I seemingly was 'a bit acidic' and got a Troll-chip thrown at me.. I suppose I deserved it, although I think at best several other people on the same thread were 'quite slanderous' at a minimum, in the True Legal sense..

Each member is responsible for his/her own posts regardless of what anyone else has posted, and if you feel other posts have the same type of violation, report'em. If nothing is done, drop us a line to ask why - there's a reason, and we're happy to explain.

Originally Posted by quasinormal

I had a post removed yesterday - I think. It was that crapfest will.i.am camera thread. I reported the whole thread and suggested it be closed and/or heavily edited due to the disturbing negativity about the concept's marketing frontman. I also posted in the thread that I had reported it. I'm am not much of a reporter otherwise- I think I reported a spam thread once..

Thanks for the report! But you don't have to post in the thread that you've reported. That only adds another post we need to clean-up, because it's off-topic.

If reporting seems like a chore sometimes, remember that you don't have to write a reason in the message box. That way it only takes two clicks to send the report. If there is a problem, we should be able to see it without an explanation.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by annk

What I saw was a member adding his opinion of an over-all situation, and getting attacked for it.



If you can't be bothered to read the thread, my suggestion would be not to post. Or at the very least, add a constructive and concrete suggestion to the discussion.



It would also help considerably if members followed the existing rules to a greater extent.

I don't think the structure of the rules is a problem. They're laid out pretty clearly in reasonable categories. They're long, but it's a huge site, and the rules have grown as new situations have popped up where a rule was needed.

Since members disagree so much about the rules, I think that posting specific suggestions for concrete changes would accomplish a lot more than a rules committee. Mostly what comes out - as in this thread - is general complaining. It's fine to express dissatisfaction, don't get me wrong, but concrete suggestions for change are something that we can actually continue to discuss in a mod/admin discussion, and run by arn if we want to suggest a change.

We've made it clear that trolling is a behaviour that's very difficult to define. So give us some suggestions for a definition! That would be a huge help.



Thank you.



Each member is responsible for his/her own posts regardless of what anyone else has posted, and if you feel other posts have the same type of violation, report'em. If nothing is done, drop us a line to ask why - there's a reason, and we're happy to explain.



Thanks for the report! But you don't have to post in the thread that you've reported. That only adds another post we need to clean-up, because it's off-topic.

If reporting seems like a chore sometimes, remember that you don't have to write a reason in the message box. That way it only takes two clicks to send the report. If there is a problem, we should be able to see it without an explanation.

The moderation needs to be even across the board. Don't go after just half of the problem when 3 or 4 people are arguing. Why does one person get a time out while the other one is left standing. It takes at least 2 people to cause a fight. It seems that you go after the aggressive and not the aggressor.

Go after both the rabid dog and also the one poking the dog with a stick.

I also don't understand why you don't want outside help to make the site better. You guys say you change things for the better yet we don't see it.

[grapes911]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Why does one person get a time out while the other one is left standing.

It usually has to do with the member's history. In an extreme case, one might have a long history and get a TO, while the other has no history and only gets a reminder.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by grapes911

It usually has to do with the member's history. In an extreme case, one might have a long history and get a TO, while the other has no history and only gets a reminder.

We don't see that. All we see is one person with a TO while the instigator goes free.

They either broke a rule or they didn't.

[grapes911]

Originally Posted by MacNut

We don't see that. All we see is one person with a TO while the instigator goes free.

Understood. It appears we targeted one member and not another which isn't true. I understand that perception is important though. That being said I don't think we are gong to make reminders and warnings public.

They either broke a rule or they didn't.

Just because a member broke a rules doesn't mean a TO needs to be issued. We rarely issue a TO to a first time offender.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by MacNut

We don't see that. All we see is one person with a TO while the instigator goes free.

They either broke a rule or they didn't.

Correct. However the user that got the harsher punishment may have gotten the lenient punishment a few days prior. Clearly they didn't learn from the reminder, so we escalate. You won't be aware of that and there's really nothing we can do about that unless we make all users moderation history public. Which arn doesn't want.