Wow, so much angst.....The rules are there for a reason...If you infringe, expect to face up to the consequences of your action. If you have a modicum of talent in written English, you can make your points without resorting to insults.
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 standards and excesses
- Thread starter 50548
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Unless the waiver was expressly mentioned and emphasised in previous private correspondence with this specific forum member, don't you think that your expectation that forum members are aware of this fine-print policy and will act on it as soon as they initiate a public thread about their moderation, is just a little excessive, unreasonable and sounds just a tiny bit petulant and foot-stampy?
However, since this is public sport and a fine example of escalating self-regard and over-weening importance with someone who calls themselves somethingsomethinglawyer, let's weigh in.
Dear BRLawyer
(from a retired moderator who can say things the mods will or can not say and isn't bound by anything except the site rules and, in any case, has no allegiance to anyone and little to lose. My guns point in all directions and what follows is not an official response of any kind.)
Keep digging.
Suspension happens to all sorts of people. No-one is special. And few would have been publicly aware of it and any perceived stigma, until you decided to go public.
So?
Which means you shoud be aware of forum rules as much as anyone.
An admission of being less than perfect, then, and needlessly provoking a second and closer look at your behaviour. Please proceed
Unsatisfied with the response, now having a public hissy fit in an attempt to rally some form of moral support.
Droidtards? Are you eight years old?
They started it. Are you eight years old?
In other words, the classic non-apology apology: Im sorry if I offended anyone, especially those less than enlightened i.e. not me.
You are in no position to accurately perceive any purported increasingly-worrying pattern of double standards and arbitrary decisions concerning longtime members of the community, because you are only aware of what people tell you. And they would never try to paint themselves in the best possible light precisely as you are attempting to do, would they?
There are legitimate means, for one, the contact us link and by email. Hell, you can even escalate it by emailing Arn directly if you feel unsatisfied. This does not guarantee a satisfactory outcome or even a reply, however.
Generally speaking, time-outs have never ever come with advance notice, not to anyone but hold on. Back there, you stated: As written to a member of the moderation team a few days ago. So there was some form of dialogue, then.
Regardless what was said, it is not your place to judge whether harm is caused or not.
There is nothing candid about a public internet forum that has rules that you agree to participate by when you register. And to be blunt, since that is your preferred mode of discussion, if payment for assistance to the public is seen by you as some form of measure of worth, then a) youre in the wrong place and b) without stretching, I can think of dozens of forum members whose contributions here are worth far more to these forums than yourself... and I've never seen them mention that they remain unpaid.
Back to he started it.
There is a special category of people, to which the entry requirements are fuzzily vague and non-specific, but Im certainly one of them, and my peers and I should have the special right for an advance notification of disciplinary action and to take up everyones time and workload by debating the finer points of said impending action, regardless of staff resources and whether it is justified or not.
First you argue for exemptions from standard practice on the basis of being a longtime member and not being a vaguely-described undesirable then, in the same breath, argue for fairness? Does fairness only apply to those who make the grade?
And in any case, moderation is private. Just as your case has been kept private and confidential from other forum members by the moderating team, until you decided to go public, then that cuts both ways. It is none of your business, or anyone elses, what actions have been taken towards other members, nor is it anyones business as to what constitutes fairness, except those who formulate and administer the rules.
There is always ground for disputing the length of time-outs, but be aware that forum members have occasionally been put on time-outs lasting for months, even up to half a year. Personally, I dont see ten days exclusion from just one site amongst billions on the internet as some form of excessive hardship, especially when youve already begrudgingly emphasised that your contributions remain unpaid, unless the damage to self-pride is really whats at stake here which could have been contained by keeping matters discrete, instead of opening your affairs up to the mocking opinions of others.
Kind regards,
Blue Velvet
(retired moderator)
I'm sorry, but you've clearly mistaken me for someone who cares. My retired status, as with all those other retired moderators, is hard-earned and inures me against charges of speaking for those who own and run the site... but if you read between the lines, you may catch a hint of what some may be thinking behind the scenes.
However, since I like your username, the standard admin response to this argument and is stipulated in the forum rules, goes like this:
Bottom line is, is that no-one is responsible for your posts except you.
Hah, no worries. Im just writing to entertain myself and others besides, no-one can accuse me of sucking up to anyone, but I will add that this thread is a perfect example of not what to do when you feel that youre on the wrong end of a moderator decision.
When something like this happens:
Dont go public with extravagant claims of self-virtue and innocence, because these will only annoy those who know exactly what happened and will then ensure that youll be less trusted and watched more closely in the future, as well as sending a signal to other forum members who dont like you, that you can easily be trolled or baited into overstepping the mark.
Dont expect individual moderators to publicly account for their actions. Not only is moderator accountabilty shared as a team, its also there to protect against unreasonable crusades and witch-hunts against individual moderators.
Dont try to out-lawyer the rules-lawyers on the staff, unless youre on formidable and unimpeachable ground. Theyve been doing this a lot longer than you, have seen and heard it all before, and in some cases, theyre just simply tired of hearing your whining. Read this and understand how broadly this could be applied:
When a moderator says something like:
Do you want to waive your privacy rights?
Theyre using it against the possibility of unreasonable and public claims of malpractice as a switchblade, not a sledgehammer. And by saying it, theyre revealing that they hold more cards than you.
Dont expect that a thread like this will gain unanimous sympathy from other forum members. In many cases, moderators dont even have to reply, as other forum members do the dirty work of public ridicule and blowing holes in peoples reputations.
Dont try to draw any larger conclusions or lessons from what has happened to you and rely on them as some form of moral weight, by stating that its part of some larger picture that illustrates the forums decline. There is only one group of people who know all the facts about what is going on one club and youre not in it.
Finally, I think this thread illustrates the old lawyer's adage:
If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound the table.
Laters.
Hah, no worries. Im just writing to entertain myself and others besides, no-one can accuse me of sucking up to anyone, but I will add that this thread is a perfect example of not what to do when you feel that youre on the wrong end of a moderator decision.
When something like this happens:
Dont go public with extravagant claims of self-virtue and innocence, because these will only annoy those who know exactly what happened and will then ensure that youll be less trusted and watched more closely in the future, as well as sending a signal to other forum members who dont like you, that you can easily be trolled or baited into overstepping the mark.
Dont expect individual moderators to publicly account for their actions. Not only is moderator accountabilty shared as a team, its also there to protect against unreasonable crusades and witch-hunts against individual moderators.
Dont try to out-lawyer the rules-lawyers on the staff, unless youre on formidable and unimpeachable ground. Theyve been doing this a lot longer than you, have seen and heard it all before, and in some cases, theyre just simply tired of hearing your whining. Read this and understand how broadly this could be applied:
When a moderator says something like:
Do you want to waive your privacy rights?
Theyre using it against the possibility of unreasonable and public claims of malpractice as a switchblade, not a sledgehammer. And by saying it, theyre revealing that they hold more cards than you.
Dont expect that a thread like this will gain unanimous sympathy from other forum members. In many cases, moderators dont even have to reply, as other forum members do the dirty work of public ridicule and blowing holes in peoples reputations.
Dont try to draw any larger conclusions or lessons from what has happened to you and rely on them as some form of moral weight, by stating that its part of some larger picture that illustrates the forums decline. There is only one group of people who know all the facts about what is going on one club and youre not in it.
Finally, I think this thread illustrates the old lawyer's adage:
If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound the table.
Laters.
Which means, follow the rules! Thanks BV, long time no hear!
I have never heard of such a "system in place for disputing moderation", so please feel free to enlighten me.
I also was not aware that I was supposed to "waive" my privacy rights in the first post - as far as I can recall, all I wrote above pretty much reflects my moderation history, including the first suspension (if I remember well) because I called someone an "idiot" after he slandered me as a "thief" in a discussion on whether you are able to download content for pretty much.
In any case, as for waiving my "privacy" rights for the purposes of this thread, feel free to check my moderation history and address any of the statements I make here.
Just remember again that my main grief here is about proportionality, consideration of a member's contribution history/participation, possibility to discuss with a mod before an extreme measure is taken and transparency (i.e., I have absolutely NO idea if the guy who called me a "thief" was also suspended).
Thank you.
You Sir, I would be delighted to have a knock down drag out court battle...I will prosecute, you can defend...Suffice it to say that although my learned friend has point to put forward, I feel, your honour that the prosecution rests.
Thank You
Jeff
The moment you do a "point-by-point" reply with ironic questions such as "are you eight?" or post uncalled for Dershowitz quotes implying that I am supposed to "pound the table" because I have no reason to complain is, of course, the moment I stop reading your "retired moderator"'s reply (as if such a status were to automatically give you an aura of wisdom or superiority over poor MR plebeians).
I don't care about moral support and I don't need your condescending views on my specific case - I just seek clarification as to what I consider an excessive response to an admittedly provoking, yet totally generic, remark.
But it does seem clear that a "public" thread generates more response from moderators and users, which at least leads to some healthy discussion on standards used (much better than having a single reply from a single person in private, or having your requests simply ignored).
In summary, I'd rather hear from active moderators instead of those purporting to have a role that is no longer there.
Just to let you know, we aren't ignoring you and a response will be given by an Admin in due course.
I don't believe for one minute that you stopped reading. And I never implied superiority, but wisdom, yes, but only by virtue of having done the job and having some insight as to how things work, as well as having a certain amount of freedom to express myself. If that raises your hackles, then that is not my problem. Some people with less self-regard could learn something from it.
At no point have I purported to have a role. In fact, I've repeatedly and carefully gone out of my way to disassociate myself from any appearance of 'official' status. However, the moment you decided to post this in the public forums, it became a free for all, a point you seem to be oblivious to... and that includes anyone who wishes to weigh in on your pompous screed, including me. There is no condition laid upon retired moderators to not post in Site and Forum Feedback.
But thanks for by drawing attention to my initial post, by quoting and linking in full.
I don't believe for one minute that you stopped reading. And I never implied superiority, but wisdom, yes, but only by virtue of having done the job and having some insight as to how things work, as well as having a certain amount of freedom to express myself. If that raises your hackles, then that is not my problem. Some people with less self-regard could learn something from it.
At no point have I purported to have a role. In fact, I've repeatedly and carefully gone out of my way to disassociate myself from any appearance of 'official' status. However, the moment you decided to post this in the public forums, it became a free for all, a point you seem to be oblivious to... and that includes anyone who wishes to weigh in on your pompous screed, including me. There is no condition laid upon retired moderators to not post in Site and Forum Feedback.
But thanks for by drawing attention to my initial post, by quoting and linking in full.
And just a final question if I may:
When you SPECIFICALLY ask me "are you eight?", is it possible for anyone, under the same rigid standards, to think that this is less offensive than someone using the term "droidtards" or "iLemmings" against no one in particular?
How many suspension days are you getting for the above?
I rest my case.
In my opinion, "droidtards" is more offensive than "are you eight?" because it has "tard" in it, short for "retard", which is a fairly offensive word when used in that way (only seriously offensive IMO when directly aimed at a retarded person). However I do reckon "are you eight?" would be on the same level as "iLemming".
-Just my opinion
Sure. But first I'd like to note two things:
First, you have prided yourself on being 'blunt', 'provocative' and 'caustic'... but seem upset that anyone should address you in the same manner, even though I've been relatively measured.
Secondly, but more importantly, I note that instead of addressing my points, many of which contained substantial replies to your various arguments, you try to shift the argument onto my own status, which is neither here nor there, attempting to invalidate the points I've made.
Yes, it's possible. First, I'm not calling you a child, I'm asking whether you are one, and as a rhetorical device, I don't see it as particularly corrosive or demeaning, but then that's not your call to make. Some eight year olds I know, like my nephew for instance, are smart clued-up young people.
You continually miss the mark. Moderation is private. What other people get for crossing the line is none of your business. Perhaps you could stop thrashing about and trying to make this about me, when all this thread really is, is about you, the way you have conducted yourself and the example you've set to other people.
On a side note, if you must know, I have never received a time-out of any kind on MacRumors, although I've provoked plenty of discussion. Perhaps I'm lucky, perhaps I'm careful, perhaps no-one really cares enough about me, perhaps those who would hand one out know that it wouldn't bother me one way or another, seeing as I only log on here once every few weeks... but if I was timed out for a few days, you'd be certain in knowing that I wouldn't be whining about it in self-aggrandising public screeds in this forum for everyone to read and comment on.
Please do.
I've got work to do. Thanks for the laughs.
the sandpit you gave me free entry to isn't to my liking. i don't believe the custodians of the sandpit should be permitted to rule their sandpit as they see fit
dude, it's a forum. people get banned for doing stuff, sometimes you get banned/moderated, sometimes you don't.
cop it on the chin, go outside, read a book - whatever - move on. if it repeatedly happens to you and you find the atmosphere too restrictive - find somewhere else more suited to your taste.
moderation of forums (i have done it before) is a thankless task - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
the absolute WORST thing you could do for all parties involved is what you have done - attempt to turn the user base against the staff in a free public forum.
nobody will win that, but you will lose worse; nothing pi**es an admin off more than having some user start a discussion about how hard done by they are by staff in a public forum, when said staff donate their time and energy to running the place for you for nothing.
put it another way in language you may understand as a lawyer.
i chat with you in a casual non-official capacity, don't officially pay for "legal advice". i act on said casual conversation, things go bad, and i badmouth you for giving me bad advice. how would you feel as a lawyer? ripped off? unfairly slandered?
Last edited:
Furthermore - as i said... moderation is a thankless task. And mods can't see every single post in every subsection and read them all.
Just because person X "gets away" with something, it doesn't give person Y the authority for free reign in contravention of the rules.
If you break or bend the rules - you are running the gauntlet. If you get away with it - good for you.
If you don't - suck it up and stop whinging about it.
And as to double-standards and fairness (re: brlawyer) - you are not your post count. No one cares how many apple devices you have purchased, how long you have been here or whether or not you worked for apple in the past or any other factor really.
None of these factors should have any bearing on whether or not you can bend rules and get a pass whilst some other just as legitimate poster who may not have been here half a decade gets stamped on.
I've been on forums where they become an "old boys club" and it does nothing for the place - a discussion forum without fresh ideas and new external input will DIE. So punishing new users and giving old a pass is just a bad idea.
All parties who broke rules, in an ideal world. Moderators are human though so expect those who were the worst offenders (or perhaps near the start of a de-railed thread, actively causing the trainwreck) to get smacked down first.
Last edited:
Pro tip: may want to skip pointing out the length of a post if you're going to post just as much, if not more, in response.
From the Moderation FAQ, under the category What if I disagree with moderation of my posts? (most relevant bits bolded):
That's what we'll do. I have a day job, so I'll have to take care of it this evening in my time zone. Your moderation history is fairly extensive, and in these cases I take the time to re-read everything and make a detailed list, which will be posted here when I'm finished.
In other words - you may not see a response here before early tomorrow in my time zone.
You have started a thread complaining about moderation done to you. The answer you get from us will be based on your posts and rules you have broken, because as has already been pointed out by others in this thread (again, quoting from the forum rules):
Pro tip: may want to skip pointing out the length of a post if you're going to post just as much, if not more, in response.
But..BUT BUT...what part of the RULES does the OP fail to understand...
If he would like to contact me ( PM) I will happily explain..
NOW do you see why the only folks who get rich in cases are lawyers?
Pro tip: may want to skip pointing out the length of a post if you're going to post just as much, if not more, in response.
noted
I wasn't quoting the OP though. I was being somewhat funny about the "TLDR" then following it with a wall of text. The OP should not e-mail you and discuss rules because, with due respect, you're not a mod and should not task yourself with mod-like duties. I realize your desire to help, but the OP needs the information to come from the sources who enforce the existing rules on the site. Not for nothing, your willingness to help is probably noted by the people who can put you in a position to moderate, but for now, I personally would leave it to them. It is merely an opinion so YMMV.
In the end the OP will likely take his toys and go home. We'll weep the weep of sadness and loss for another long-standing member and 5 minutes later we'll move on in the same direction, wayward or otherwise, that we always do. There will be no financial strain on the site if he leaves, there seems to be little love-loss if any long-standing member who has contributed to the site leaves, and most of all, if he ever returns then some will think "I remember that guy" and that will be that. This thread, and all others like it, all seem to have the same results; positive and/or negative.
This thread is interesting because its one of the few where the OP boldly goes and grants the privacy waiver to have their record discussed in public. Most back down at this point, wisely in my opinion, and to BRLawyer Id urge that its not too late to reconsider and request that this thread be closed so that your dirty laundry is not aired in public.
For those who have never moderated any forum, a large part of moderating at MacRumors involves group discussion and copious record-taking. If anyone wishes to make a public issue of how you think youve been treated and if you grant the administrators the right to discuss these matters in public, in most cases youre opening a huge can of worms, because your memory of events is not as detailed, time-stamped, easily-linked and retrievable. I suspect that were going to see a formidable demonstration of this within the next 12 hours.
Once an administrator gets involved in the thread, moderators usually give way, but those of us who are retired are like retired athletes in the commentary box, bloviating about what they think is going on and from experience, I expect annk to be thorough. Her and I may not see eye to eye on many things, and I suspect we'd like each other more in person rather than the stilted form of message boards and their artificial constraints of hierarchy and procedure, but I would never underestimate her attention to detail, especially since the gauntlet has been thrown down:
Six simple words that say so much.
- Status