Moderation standards and excesses

[Macman45]

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.

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by annk

If the OP responds to our request for clarification as to a waiver within a reasonable amount of time (and I'll point out that the waiver should have been expressed in the first post), we will allow this thread to stay open.

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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Dear Moderators

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.)

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Obviously this message may come across as blunt, or perhaps even infringe some implied "do not talk publicly about moderation actions" policy here.

Keep digging.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

In any case, I am posting this thread after some 10 days of "suspension" from these forums, as if I were some sort of naughty kid breaking school desks or the like.

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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

I have owned Apple devices since 1989

So?

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

…and actively participate in this forum since 2005

Which means you shoud be aware of forum rules as much as anyone.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

…not only contributing to discussions but also providing advice (whenever I can) to younger and/or newer users. I may also be known for my sometimes caustic or provoking remarks, which are in no way intended to offend individual members (with the only obvious exception being offensive remarks against me, which are promptly responded in kind even if this entails some sort of "double standard" measure by some moderators).

An admission of being less than perfect, then, and needlessly provoking a second and closer look at your behaviour. Please proceed…

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

As written to a member of the moderation team a few days ago

Unsatisfied with the response, now having a public hissy fit in an attempt to rally some form of moral support.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

…I can only regret the decision to deem my use of the admittedly-derogatory term "droidtards" as extremely "offensive" to a member or members, even though no one was targeted in particular. On the contrary, the term "droidtards" was simply a general comment directed at those who thought Apple was "doomed" in the smartphone arena.

“Droidtards”? Are you eight years old?

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

To draw a parallel, this was just as "offensive" as on the countless occasions where MR members critical of Apple and its customers have employed the term "iLemmings", "iSheep" or similar provocative expressions.

“They started it.” Are you eight years old?

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Did I feel personally offended? Of course not, because I do not consider myself "wearing that hat" anyway, nor would I worry about such nonsensical remarks. The same applies for any sensible Android user, who will not feel offended by my generic remark unless he deems, himself, as a less-than-enlightened individual in an Apple-centric forum.

In other words, the classic non-apology apology: I’m sorry if I offended anyone, especially those less than enlightened i.e. not me.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

So although I was not surprised by your decision to apply that suspension, I can only regret the increasingly-worrying pattern of double standards and arbitrary decisions concerning longtime members of the community, who end up constituting the very pattern of success for this forum and are always willing to provide assistance to those who need it.

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?

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Moreover, my criticism goes to the manner used for implementing such suspensions, where no legitimate means for counter-arguing are put at the disposal of members (not to mention the fact that one never knows which specific moderator has single-handedly decided against a certain post).

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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Instead, a longtime MR member and enthusiastic contributor to this forum receives a 10-day suspension without any prior warning, means of redress or even discussion before such an extreme measure was adopted.

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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Once more: NO SINGLE individual has been attacked by the generic comment; a 10-day suspension was absolutely disproportional to the alleged "harm" caused (none, in fact)

Regardless what was said, it is not your place to judge whether harm is caused or not.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

…and such arbitrary decision goes against the very core of a functioning community, which is to allow for candid exchanges (however controversial) and to enable members to help others whenever necessary (something that I have done countless times on MR without receiving a single penny in return).

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) you’re 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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

As for the threat of "future escalation" expressed by someone from the moderation team, I can only reject to be treated as a "rebel infant", especially when the first suspension was caused by a legitimate reaction to a direct offense that was NOT dealt with accordingly, at least as transparency in terms of the measures taken is concerned.

Back to “he started it”.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

My final recommendations: (1) enable users (especially longtime ones/those who are clearly NOT stupid kids/trolls/one-time posters) to counter-argue before an excessive measure is taken

“There is a special category of people, to which the entry requirements are fuzzily vague and non-specific, but I’m 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 everyone’s time and workload by debating the finer points of said impending action, regardless of staff resources and whether it is justified or not.”

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

(2) make sure that you COMMUNICATE what measures have been taken to protect a member when others are also involved in a certain situation (otherwise, how is one supposed to know whether his own suspension is fair?)

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 else’s, what actions have been taken towards other members, nor is it anyone’s business as to what constitutes ‘fairness’, except those who formulate and administer the rules.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

(3) ensure proportionality to the measures taken.

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 don’t see ten days exclusion from just one site amongst billions on the internet as some form of excessive hardship, especially when you’ve already begrudgingly emphasised that your contributions remain unpaid, unless the damage to self-pride is really what’s at stake here… which could have been contained by keeping matters discrete, instead of opening your affairs up to the mocking opinions of others.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Best,

BRLawyer

Kind regards,

Blue Velvet
(retired moderator)

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

Back to “he started it”.

If no one started it, then who is responsible for the appropriate reaction?

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

If no one started it, then who is responsible for the appropriate reaction?

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:

If somebody else insults you, report their post; their post does not give you a license to break the rules by returning their insults.

Bottom line is, is that no-one is responsible for your posts except you.

[dukebound85]

Thanks for providing your insights BV

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by dukebound85

Thanks for providing your insights BV

Hah, no worries. I’m 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 you’re on the wrong end of a moderator decision.

When something like this happens:


Don’t 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 you’ll be less trusted and watched more closely in the future, as well as sending a signal to other forum members who don’t like you, that you can easily be trolled or baited into overstepping the mark.


Don’t expect individual moderators to publicly account for their actions. Not only is moderator accountabilty shared as a team, it’s also there to protect against unreasonable crusades and witch-hunts against individual moderators.


Don’t try to out-lawyer the rules-lawyers on the staff, unless you’re on formidable and unimpeachable ground. They’ve been doing this a lot longer than you, have seen and heard it all before, and in some cases, they’re just simply tired of hearing your whining. Read this and understand how broadly this could be applied:

Any ongoing actions that make more work for the moderators and administrators or regularly annoy other members and require moderator action. We have hundreds of thousands of forum members to serve and can't spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with problems caused by any one member.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Forum_Rules

When a moderator says something like:

“Do you want to waive your privacy rights?”

They’re using it against the possibility of unreasonable and public claims of malpractice… as a switchblade, not a sledgehammer. And by saying it, they’re revealing that they hold more cards than you.


Don’t expect that a thread like this will gain unanimous sympathy from other forum members. In many cases, moderators don’t even have to reply, as other forum members do the dirty work of public ridicule and blowing holes in people’s reputations.


Don’t 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 it’s part of some larger picture that illustrates the forum’s decline. There is only one group of people who know all the facts about what is going on — one club — and you’re 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.

[Macman45]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

Hah, no worries. I’m 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 you’re on the wrong end of a moderator decision.

When something like this happens:


Don’t 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 you’ll be less trusted and watched more closely in the future, as well as sending a signal to other forum members who don’t like you, that you can easily be trolled or baited into overstepping the mark.


Don’t expect individual moderators to publicly account for their actions. Not only is moderator accountabilty shared as a team, it’s also there to protect against unreasonable crusades and witch-hunts against individual moderators.


Don’t try to out-lawyer the rules-lawyers on the staff, unless you’re on formidable and unimpeachable ground. They’ve been doing this a lot longer than you, have seen and heard it all before, and in some cases, they’re 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?”

They’re using it against the possibility of unreasonable and public claims of malpractice… as a switchblade, not a sledgehammer. And by saying it, they’re revealing that they hold more cards than you.


Don’t expect that a thread like this will gain unanimous sympathy from other forum members. In many cases, moderators don’t even have to reply, as other forum members do the dirty work of public ridicule and blowing holes in people’s reputations.


Don’t 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 it’s part of some larger picture that illustrates the forum’s decline. There is only one group of people who know all the facts about what is going on — one club — and you’re 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!

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by annk

ADMIN NOTE:

Just so there's no confusion whatsoever: any moderation done is on the basis of what the moderators believe to be a violation of the rules. When members sign up here, they agree to follow these rules. No moderation is ever done out of spite. Under any circumstances.

If the OP responds to our request for clarification as to a waiver within a reasonable amount of time (and I'll point out that the waiver should have been expressed in the first post), we will allow this thread to stay open. Any other comments about specific moderation are off-topic and will be treated as such.

There's a system in place for disputing moderation - please use it.

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.

[Macman45]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

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

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

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: I’m 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) you’re 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 I’m 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 everyone’s 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 else’s, what actions have been taken towards other members, nor is it anyone’s 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 don’t see ten days exclusion from just one site amongst billions on the internet as some form of excessive hardship, especially when you’ve already begrudgingly emphasised that your contributions remain unpaid, unless the damage to self-pride is really what’s 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)

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.

[stridemat]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

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.

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

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 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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

I don't need your condescending views on my specific case

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

In summary, I'd rather hear from active moderators instead of those purporting to have a role that is no longer there.

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.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

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.

[mrsir2009]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

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?

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

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

And just a final question if I may:

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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

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?

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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

How many suspension days are you getting for the above?

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.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

I rest my case.

Please do.

I've got work to do. Thanks for the laughs.

[jessica.]

Throw a supposed lawyer in the mix and it all goes to hell. Sounds right. Lots of hot air without much substance from both sides.

[throAU]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Dear Moderators,

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?

[throAU]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

I'm sorry, but you've clearly mistaken me for someone who cares.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

If no one started it, then who is responsible for the appropriate reaction?

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.

[jessica.]

Originally Posted by throAU

TLDR:

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.

[annk]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

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.

From the Moderation FAQ, under the category What if I disagree with moderation of my posts? (most relevant bits bolded):

What to do

• If you received a reminder, warning, time-out, or ban, read the applicable summary, which tells you the specific information you need to know:

Moderation: Reminders
Moderation: Warnings
Moderation: Time-outs
Moderation: Bans
See also the MacRumors FAQ.

• Review the information here in the Moderation FAQ.
• Consider the reason you think you should not have been moderated and see if it's on the RuleBreaking Top 10. If so, an answer is there too.
• If you still disagree, use the Contact form and tell us why you disagree. An administrator will review your posts, account history, and the actions by the moderators based on your message and the moderation records, and in most cases email you a reply. Sometimes they may send you a Private Message.

What not to do

• Do not lose your temper. The moderators are willing to answer questions and the administrators are willing to review moderation cases, but blowing up will not help you make your case.
• Do not contact us without reviewing the information listed above. You'll be wasting your time and ours.
• Do not send a Private Message to dispute moderation. Instead use the Contact form so that administrators can review the case independently.
• Do not report a reminder or warning message as if you were reporting an inappropriate Private Message, since you will not get a reply.
• Do not post about the moderation of a thread in that thread. To ask general questions about moderation or moderation policies, post in the Site and Forum Feedback Forum. To ask questions about specific cases of moderation, use the Contact form. To maintain user privacy we do not answer questions about specific cases of moderation in forum threads. There is one exception - see point 2 under Moderation Privacy [which states: You can waive your right to moderation privacy when posting in the Site and Forum Feedback forum if you say explicitly that you give us permission to discuss the reasons behind your moderation. This includes your previous forum record, since that's a factor.].
• Do not insult the moderators for doing their job. Insulting any forum member is against the rules.
• Do not re-register during a time-out or after a ban. You will likely be recognized and permanently banned. Trying to bypass a time-out or ban shows an unwillingness to respect the rules that will dim any chance you have of retaining your account or being reinstated after a ban.

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.

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.

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).

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):

Each member is responsible for only his or her own posts. If another member breaks rules, you may ignore them or report the problem to the moderators, but you may not use it as an excuse to break rules yourself.

[Macman45]

Originally Posted by jessica.

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?

[throAU]

Originally Posted by jessica.

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

[Macman45]

Originally Posted by throAU

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?

" Sandpit"

Forgive me, but maybe this place isn't for you...

[jessica.]

Originally Posted by Macman45

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?

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.

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by jessica.

This thread, and all others like it, all seem to have the same results; positive and/or negative.

This thread is interesting because it’s 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 I’d urge that it’s 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 you’ve been treated and if you grant the administrators the right to discuss these matters in public, in most cases you’re opening a huge can of worms, because your memory of events is not as detailed, time-stamped, easily-linked and retrievable. I suspect that we’re 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:

Originally Posted by annk

Your moderation history is fairly extensive

Six simple words that say so much.