Moderation standards and excesses

[tigres]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

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:
.

This thread had me curious.
I find these words by Blue to be very kind in gesture; they should be read carefully by OP.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

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.

Honestly, your arrogance and condescending attitude continue to amaze me, especially as a "retired" moderator participating in this thread. I have already waived such "privacy" rights exactly in order to obtain the clarification I seek, as long as no private email addresses or contact details are shared in public (why should they anyway?).

"Dirty laundry"? You mean my post history over almost eight years? Or perhaps the few warnings I've received over double posting (when I didn't remember to click on the multiquote button) or for bumping a thread?

Perhaps they may wish to check also how many times I, as a longtime member, have constructively responded and provided advice to countless requests for assistance from other members - do you qualify that as "dirty laundry" as well?

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.

I have been a moderator for a good amount of time in a different Mac-related forum - no need to lecture us on how things work or whether "Brlawyer" is going to feel shocked by such a "formidable demonstration" of timestamping. This is the kind of fearmongering we don't need to hear about now.

Six simple words that say so much.

Speak for yourself, please. My request is already expressed above, and admins are free to respond in private or public, in the same way as I've expressed my issues privately and publicly (now).

I have respectfully submitted my considerations, and await their respectful response - once more, in response to your personally and directly offensive question that implied exactly what you ironically meant to imply ("Are you eight?"): you do NOT need to contribute to this discussion on possible double standards and moderation excesses by resorting to ad personam attacks...at least try to use your moderation "experience" for something more constructive in this policy debate, instead of expressing such a constant admiration for yourself.

And I am glad you have work to do; I have similar time constraints here.

[annk]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

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....

Before I get into the review itself, I'd like to say that I agree with this completely. Moderation isn't private so that mods and admins can hide behind privacy; the privacy rule is there to protect members first and foremost. I've said it before and I'll say it again here: in my experience, members who complain about moderation done to them are generally satisfied with the answers and/or discussion they get from/have with the admins via a contact form. And quite often, they don't remember their moderation history accurately. So in my opinion, it's better to handle complaints privately, simply to avoid the risk of embarrassing the member unnecessarily.

But since the waiver has been granted and not retracted, here is my review:

The moderation records show the following:

July 23 2009: It was noted that you created consecutive posts rather than using the multiquote function (which was a rule at the time - we've since made this automatic with the forum software). It was decided to let it go and remind you only if it happened again.

November 10 2009: Infraction for consecutive posts (under the old system of infraction - warning - TO. Today we use the more friendly reminder before escalating to any sort of warning). The moderator who issued the infraction also saw that you had commented in another post apologising for the consecutive posts and asked an admin to merge them in the post itself. Your apology was noted, but we would have preferred that you had used the multiquote function rather than ask an admin to merge the posts for you. This is however a minor issue.

September 24 2010: You received a PM about borderline trolling that the moderators felt was becoming a pattern. You responded with a message in which you stated that you did not agree. You gave no indication that you were willing to cooperate by modifying your posting style.

September 26 2010: It was noted that you complained about specific moderation in an off-topic posts in a news thread. This is what you posted:

I had FOUR posts directly related with this thread and now I have none.

Is my blank signature bothering you or is this just arbitrary deletion of messages, ADMINISTRATORS?

When you were asked not to complain about specific moderation in threads, you chose to do so in your signature, first one and then another when that one was moderated:

Moderator: "We've noticed several of your posts contain something along the lines of 'MS IS DEAD. AND SO IS ANDROID.' This kind of posting is borderline trolling."
_____ IS DEAD! AND SO IS _____!

The signature that was here has been deleted by the admin because it is deemed as "borderline trolling". Any questions?

I then sent you a PM to let you know why your signatures were deleted, to remind you not to post about specific moderation in threads but rather to use the contact form (which stands in contrast to your claim that you weren't aware that there is a system in place to discuss moderation):

Signature deletion
This PM is to notify you that your signature:

...has been deleted.

A signature is not the appropriate place to comment on moderation.

You are welcomed to send us any questions or complaints about moderation, general or specific, via the Contact us form. And you can start threads about general moderation issues in the Site and Forum Feedback forum.

From the Forum Rules:

If you however continue to comment on moderation in your signature, the reaction will be a temporary ban ("time-out").

You also posted this off-topic comment again complaining about specific moderation in the same news thread:

What really pisses me off is that some childish moderator (probably much younger than me) thinks he can do "justice" with his own hands, when everyone and his dog knew that my signatures were intended to be ridiculous and not serious at all...

Worse, I've had FOUR posts deleted without ANY explanation or communication in this thread, even though such messages simply talked about iTunes, its features or even provided some help to other users.

I'm glad I am a lawyer, because in times like this it's important to know what "legitimacy" and "good faith" mean to yourself.

As a result of your off-topic posts about moderation in a news thread, the site owner went in and deleted two of your posts and then posted to ask that the discussion stay on topic.

July 22 2011: You received a warning for bumping a thread.

August 8 2011: You received a warning for continuing to create consecutive posts despite having been asked not to do so (there were two sets of consecutive posts in the same thread).

September 9 2011: A comment considered trolling was deleted. No warning was issued. The comment:

Droidtards, any comments?

March 28 2012: You were issued a warning for insults:

Are you that stupid or just unable to see the irony behind my message? The choice is already made; I just wanted to have additional information concerning possible GPS uses.

If you have nothing to add, please don't respond instead of babbling nonsense.

You sent a message apologising to the moderator who issued the warning, and you also expressed that you hoped "a similar warning was also sent to the poster who gave me such an offensive reply to my original question". The moderator replied with the following message:

Unfortunately since discussing specific moderation is private, I am not at liberty to discuss what action may have been taken in response to that other post without the express permission of that poster. Also, if you encounter a post that you feel violates the forum rules, we ask that you refrain from responding in the thread and simply report that post. This ensures the moderation team is aware of the start of the issue and, by not responding in the thread, avoids any possible cleanup we may have to do.

You can use the Contact form to send a message to the moderators/administrators if you have questions about specific instances of your moderation or member discipline. This is more appropriate than sending Private Messages or email to individual moderators. If you use Private Messages or email to contact a moderator about a moderation issue, you may be directed to send it again via the Contact Form, because this ensures proper review and accountability and because the moderators work as a team.

Once again, you were instructed to contact the staff if you had concerns about specific moderation, which again is in contrast to your claim that you were not aware of the system in place for discussing moderation.

July 26 2012: You received a reminder for name-calling:

You can do better than that, so don't be an idiot. If you had the slightest idea of my posting history here you'd never spit such nonsense.

August 26 2012: You received a warning for trolling:

And while we're at it: SUCK IT DROIDTARDS!

December 17 2012: You received a warning for insults:

Anyway, why answer to an illiterate troll? You know jack**** about law, and you know jack**** about how anyone here obtains their music.

...and then a two-day temporary suspension for this comment in a thread:

Seems like idiocy knows no boundaries; so instead of responding again, I have reported your post for slander.

...and for this message to the moderators:

So, am I the only one receiving a "warning" for responding to slander?

Either you delete his idiotic post or I will respond publicly in similarly insulting terms again.

January 22 2013: Your account was suspended for one week for this post:

Any comments from the usual copycat-loving Droidtards now?

The moderator who issued the suspension felt it could be classified as name-calling, but in my opinion - and based on previous moderation - it could arguably be called trolling.

You contacted us about this suspension:

Despite your advice to avoid "contact" regarding my suspension, I find it absurd that I suffer a childish one-week suspension on the basis of "name calling" that was directed at NO ONE specifically.

Besides, the term "droidtards" is similar to many other lightly derogatory terms used by many other users in this and countless other threads whenever we see debates on iOS versus Android and other competing platforms.

Therefore, I hereby demand that this uncalled for suspension be immediately lifted as I offended NO ONE in particular, having instead just made a general critical remark on those who proclaim Apple or iOS "dead".

Next time, just edit the post if you deem it provocative and refrain from stopping an active member always willing to assist others with technical help and Apple-related information.

It should be noted that no one has ever asked you to refrain from contacting moderators or administrators about moderation done to you posts.

This is the response you received:

We encourage all users to use the contact form to reach the administrators with any questions regarding moderation or other forum problems. We're not sure why you're under the impression that you should avoid contact regarding your suspension.

I reviewed the post (below) and agree with the moderator. Your post does violate the name-calling rule and was clearly directed at other forum members, even if you did not single them out.

"Any comments from the usual copycat-loving Droidtards now?

This is an absolutely amazing performance, especially bearing in mind that Apple practically sells only TWO models nowadays, as opposed to 100,000 from the theft-loving side."

Any name-calling on the forum is not allowed and should be reported. Please note that other members violating the forum rules does not give permission for everyone break them as well. Every user is responsible for what they post.

Our moderators do their best to moderate fairly. Occasionally if there is an oversight and a user contacts us regarding their suspension, we'll issue a different time out or a reversal. This is only in instances where the user is understanding and cooperative.

We were taken back to see that you demanded we lift your suspension immediately and then stated "Next time, just edit the post if you deem it provocative and refrain from stopping an active member...".

The moderators will continue to moderate as they see necessary. This is so that threads remain helpful to users and are not derailed with name-calling and bickering.

Your 7 day time out will not be reversed. Note, that any future violations of the forum rules will lead to an escalation in moderation.

Finally, yesterday you created this thread, in and of itself a violation due to the fact that you are contesting specific moderation in a public thread without expressly waiving your right to moderation privacy. Rather than delete the thread and issue a new suspension, we gave you the opportunity to waive your right to privacy.

My review:

Some problems - such as bumping a thread and consecutive posts - are very minor, and the first time this sort of problem occurs we assume the member hasn't read the rules thoroughly, and that a reminder will suffice. The fact that you continued to create consecutive posts even after being asked not to, however, was surprising.

The insults, trolling, the posting of off-topic comments about specific moderation, and name-calling are of course more serious problems; these occurred on more than one occasion, despite warnings, and your responses to the moderators have for the most part shown a completely lack of interest in following the rules. Rather than showing a willingness to follow the rules, you demanded that the moderators reverse their decisions. When you apologised, you were equally concerned with how other members had been moderated.

Specifically to the repeated use of "Droidtards": The Rules for Appropriate Debate specify the following:

Name-calling. Name-calling falls into the category of insults and will be treated as such according to the forum rules, your own opinion about another member notwithstanding. You can't call a bigot a bigot, a troll a troll, or a fanboy a fanboy, any more than you can call an idiot an idiot. You can disagree with the content of another member's statement or give your evidence or opinion to dispute their claims, but you may not make a negative personal characterization about that member.

While "droidtard" isn't specifically mentioned, we feel it's clearly in the same category as "fanboy", and in fact much more inflammatory.

To sum up:

In my opinion, the temporary suspension you received was not only justified, but moderation could have been escalated much sooner in your case. Several moderators and three administrators were involved in moderation done to you, either in the actual moderation or in discussions. The moderators were patient for quite a while and gave you many chances to adjust your posting habits. You chose not to do so.

You can ask that another administrator review your history if you are not satisfied with mine.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by jessica.

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.

I have always enjoyed participating in this community; so unless my thread is considered so annoying that the powers-that-be decide for my banning, I don't think it's necessary to "take my toys and go home".

But if the site really thinks that "losing one long-standing member is irrelevant since we are so big now", then perhaps I've got all the clarification I need in a very simple statement.

Again: all I seek is more clarity on proportionality grounds, and whether admins feel like a more sensible approach is warranted in terms of how mods do their work.

[robbieduncan]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

But if the site really thinks that "losing one long-standing member is irrelevant since we are so big now", then perhaps I've got all the clarification I need in a very simple statement.

Just to be clear: jessica. is not a member of MR staff and she does not represent the site. She is simply a long-standing member offering advice to another long-standing member.

[BRLawyer]

To Annk:

Thank you very much for your assessment of my moderation history and conclusions - I do not necessarily agree with them on proportionality grounds, particularly in the sense that no single person was targeted in particular.

As for my other "caustic" remarks, they have always been used as a sign of excitement or in order to provoke discussion, nothing else (otherwise, to take my stupid "MS is dead" comments seriously is ludicrous, to say the least).

Moreover, to suspend an active, contributing and long-standing member for 10 days without even some prior discussion for a term that is admittedly provocative but just as "offensive" as similar terms commonly used against users of Apple devices in this same forum was, in my view, excessive.

In any case, I don't expect much change from the status quo and will continue to participate in threads, taking into account some of the considerations contained in this thread.

Thank you again for your reexamination of my case following my personal request.

[annk]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Moreover, to suspend an active, contributing and long-standing member for 10 days without even some prior discussion for a term that is admittedly provocative but just as "offensive" as similar terms commonly used against users of Apple devices in this same forum was, in my view, excessive.

To be clear: the length of the suspension was a result of escalation of moderation reactions due to repeated problems over time. As in your case, moderation begins with infractions/reminders, then continues to warnings, a PM may be issued, and finally temporary suspensions. And as I mentioned, the escalation could have started sooner, but the moderators chose to give you several chances to adjust.

In any case, I don't expect much change from the status quo and will continue to participate in threads, taking into account some of the considerations contained in this thread.

No, there is no reason to expect that the rules will change substantially, or that we will stop moderating based on them. We are happy to hear that you will take what's been said here into consideration when posting in the future. That is in fact the only reason there is moderation at all: in the hope that members will be willing to adjust when there are problems.

Thank you again for your reexamination of my case following my personal request.

You're welcome.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by annk

To be clear: the length of the suspension was a result of escalation of moderation reactions due to repeated problems over time. As in your case, moderation begins with infractions/reminders, then continues to warnings, a PM may be issued, and finally temporary suspensions. And as I mentioned, the escalation could have started sooner, but the moderators chose to give you several chances to adjust.



No, there is no reason to expect that the rules will change substantially, or that we will stop moderating based on them. We are happy to hear that you will take what's been said here into consideration when posting in the future. That is in fact the only reason there is moderation at all: in the hope that members will be willing to adjust when there are problems.



You're welcome.

In any case and as per my original message, I would like to suggest just a few points for admins and mods to reflect upon and perhaps adjust rules accordingly in due course:

1) I have the impression that word-specific "censorship" is the rule now; you may wish to publish, on a regular basis, all those terms you may find offensive enough to warrant further measures such as suspension or banning - in my view, the generic term "droidtards" was not at all over that threshold; likewise for "fanboys" or the like. So a list might be especially useful to those with a different level of language tolerance;

2) When heated exchanges take place and a suspension or another measure is adopted, one has no idea as to whether the other party has also received some sort of sanction. For the sake of transparency and fairness, you may wish to at least inform that all involved parties have received the same or similar kind of treatment;

3) You may ALSO wish to consider having a mod talking to the member concerned so that he can edit/curate the post himself - or at least envisage that possibility for those who are decidedly active longtime contributors and are clearly used to a certain writing style...in other words, those who are not here to just advertise Viagra tablets.

Hopefully some of the suggestions above can be carefully considered. Thank you again.

[dukebound85]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

In any case and as per my original message, I would like to suggest just a few points for admins and mods to reflect upon and perhaps adjust rules accordingly in due course:

1) I have the impression that word-specific "censorship" is the rule now; you may wish to publish, on a regular basis, all those terms you may find offensive enough to warrant further measures such as suspension or banning - in my view, the generic term "droidtards" was not at all over that threshold; likewise for "fanboys" or the like. So a list might be especially useful to those with a different level of language tolerance;

2) When heated exchanges take place and a suspension or another measure is adopted, one has no idea as to whether the other party has also received some sort of sanction. For the sake of transparency and fairness, you may wish to at least inform that all involved parties have received the same or similar kind of treatment;

3) You may ALSO wish to consider having a mod talking to the member concerned so that he can edit/curate the post himself - or at least envisage that possibility for those who are decidedly active longtime contributors and are clearly used to a certain writing style...in other words, those who are not here to just advertise Viagra tablets.

Hopefully some of the suggestions above can be carefully considered. Thank you again.

My views:

1)I don't think a list of words to avoid is necessary. It is all in the context and the use of a word. What positive meaning can "droidtard" have in a conversation? Avoid language that may be construed as insulting when replying in the first place.

2)Why does it matter how other people are handled? The fact that one may insult and slip through the cracks does not make insulting on your end any more valid. If a rule is broken, it is broken. As evidenced by annk's post, the consequences take into account past history. So to my understanding, the same severity of a rules violation may have very different punishments for the members in question.

Also, as has been mentioned, report posts that are against the rules and have the mods take care of it in their own manner. They are fair in their dealings from what I can tell.

3)Once again, why? If your post is against the rules and reported, why should you get a "free" pass to change it? Would it not be easier to just tone down the language in the post while you are making it in the first place? You have been here long enough to know that the mod team doesn't have all the time in the world to approach each poster about a rules violation prior to any "consequence".

For all 3 points you have addressed, it can be dealt with by how you reply to a post in the first place. Changing your behavior in how you respond would be the best solution, and easiest. You are asking for more-or-less hand holding and coddling by the mods to lessen your punishment due to being an active long term member. I disagree

Just my opinion

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

1) I have the impression that word-specific "censorship" is the rule now; you may wish to publish, on a regular basis, all those terms you may find offensive enough to warrant further measures such as suspension or banning - in my view, the generic term "droidtards" was not at all over that threshold; likewise for "fanboys" or the like. So a list might be especially useful to those with a different level of language tolerance;

A list of specific insults is not necessary for most members who exercise enough common sense to understand how to conduct a conversation without resorting to name calling. As clearly stated in the very first forum rule:

Insults. Direct personal insult of another forum member (e.g., "You are an idiot.") and other name-calling. Why? Because this isn't grade school.

You argued that your insult was not directed at a single individual. Well, if insulting one person is a violation of forum rules, common sense would suggest that it's even more of a violation to insult a group of people. Insults are a tool used by those who have run out of intelligent arguments, or never had them in the first place.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

2) When heated exchanges take place and a suspension or another measure is adopted, one has no idea as to whether the other party has also received some sort of sanction. For the sake of transparency and fairness, you may wish to at least inform that all involved parties have received the same or similar kind of treatment;

As has been clearly stated in the forum rules and several times in this thread, moderation is private. What moderation action is taken with a member is nobody's business but that member's. No one has the right to know what moderation action is taken against other members.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

3) You may ALSO wish to consider having a mod talking to the member concerned so that he can edit/curate the post himself - or at least envisage that possibility for those who are decidedly active longtime contributors and are clearly used to a certain writing style...in other words, those who are not here to just advertise Viagra tablets.

With the number of members on this site, it is unreasonable to expect mods to "hand hold" each member and give them excessive personal attention. Also, to suggest that this be applied to "active longtime contributors" suggests a double standard, which is exactly what you were complaining about.

You don't deserve special treatment for owning x number of Apple devices.
You don't deserve special treatment for having been a member here for x years.
You don't deserve special treatment for having x number of posts.
You don't deserve special treatment for the content of your posts.
You don't deserve special treatment. Period.

If anything, you, having been here for years, should know better than most about the forum rules. It doesn't take 7 or 8 years to read and comprehend them. Many are able to read and understand the rules in one day, even without a law degree.

For this forum to be fair, the rules must apply to everyone, equally.

[Hellhammer]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

1) I have the impression that word-specific "censorship" is the rule now; you may wish to publish, on a regular basis, all those terms you may find offensive enough to warrant further measures such as suspension or banning - in my view, the generic term "droidtards" was not at all over that threshold; likewise for "fanboys" or the like. So a list might be especially useful to those with a different level of language tolerance;

Just having a list of words is troublesome because new words come up all the time. I believe it would quickly lead into a situation where people would come up with new words to bypass the list of banned words but the actual meaning of the new words might be even worse. For example, if we banned "droidtard", there's basically infinite number of "droidsomethings" you could use (e.g. droidmonkey).

Some words are also heavily context dependent. Especially when it comes to trolling, it's really the tune of the whole post that matters, not just specific words. Hence some word can be considered trolling whereas in other context it would be fine.

It shouldn't be hard to choose words that do not cause you trouble. It's obvious where "droidtard" comes from and hence it's not any different than calling someone a retard. You wouldn't say that face to face someone, would you?

2) When heated exchanges take place and a suspension or another measure is adopted, one has no idea as to whether the other party has also received some sort of sanction. For the sake of transparency and fairness, you may wish to at least inform that all involved parties have received the same or similar kind of treatment;

If you report a post, we can guarantee that moderators take care of it. However, actions depend on user's prior history and not all actions are visible to the public.

3) You may ALSO wish to consider having a mod talking to the member concerned so that he can edit/curate the post himself - or at least envisage that possibility for those who are decidedly active longtime contributors and are clearly used to a certain writing style...in other words, those who are not here to just advertise Viagra tablets.

Reminders and warnings should be enough to tell you that something in your posts are off, especially if you have received many of them. You can always use the contact form if you'd like a deeper explanation to any moderation actions, or to just discuss what we feel is wrong in your writing style.

[Weaselboy]

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

snip...

Nice lecture on manners and civility from a person who regularly calls other forum members replies "nonsense", and is fond of telling people they are "obtuse" and "ignorant."

Then close it all out with a wise crack about the man's law degree.

This is just rich.

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by Weaselboy

Nice lecture on manners and civility from a person who regularly calls other forum members replies "nonsense", and is fond of telling people they are "obtuse" and "ignorant."

Then close it all out with a wise crack about the man's law degree.

This is just rich.

Challenging the content of a post is clearly different than calling a person a name. If you find any of my posts that violate forum rules, report it.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

You argued that your insult was not directed at a single individual. Well, if insulting one person is a violation of forum rules, common sense would suggest that it's even more of a violation to insult a group of people.

MOD NOTE: For the record, we actually have a separate rule for dealing with groups of people.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Rul...opriate_Debate

Slurs and insults against groups of people based on negative-stereotyping and obvious generalizations fall into the category of trolling and will be treated as such.

B

[jessica.]

Originally Posted by robbieduncan

Just to be clear: jessica. is not a member of MR staff and she does not represent the site. She is simply a long-standing member offering advice to another long-standing member.

I never said I was staff nor did I speak as a mod or attempt to. If I had, I would have wrote "we" frequently because that is somehow how most, if not all, mods tend to react (speaking as a we instead of an independent person).

[robbieduncan]

Originally Posted by jessica.

I never said I was staff nor did I speak as a mod or attempt to. If I had, I would have wrote "we" frequently because that is somehow how most, if not all, mods tend to react (speaking as a we instead of an independent person).

I know that. I thought your post was clear and obvious. But the response did not seem to tally with that so I thought i better make "our" () position clear

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

A list of specific insults is not necessary for most members who exercise enough common sense to understand how to conduct a conversation without resorting to name calling. As clearly stated in the very first forum rule:

You argued that your insult was not directed at a single individual. Well, if insulting one person is a violation of forum rules, common sense would suggest that it's even more of a violation to insult a group of people. Insults are a tool used by those who have run out of intelligent arguments, or never had them in the first place.

As has been clearly stated in the forum rules and several times in this thread, moderation is private. What moderation action is taken with a member is nobody's business but that member's. No one has the right to know what moderation action is taken against other members.

With the number of members on this site, it is unreasonable to expect mods to "hand hold" each member and give them excessive personal attention. Also, to suggest that this be applied to "active longtime contributors" suggests a double standard, which is exactly what you were complaining about.

You don't deserve special treatment for owning x number of Apple devices.
You don't deserve special treatment for having been a member here for x years.
You don't deserve special treatment for having x number of posts.
You don't deserve special treatment for the content of your posts.
You don't deserve special treatment. Period.

If anything, you, having been here for years, should know better than most about the forum rules. It doesn't take 7 or 8 years to read and comprehend them. Many are able to read and understand the rules in one day, even without a law degree.

For this forum to be fair, the rules must apply to everyone, equally.

GGJStudios,

Although I am surprised at your random slurs, I won't extend this discussion any further; the only thing I would add is that "double standards" exist when the same rules are NOT applied in the same manner to the same group of people.

Obviously, my suggestion above goes exactly against that, on the grounds/presumption that longtime users DO deserve some additional consideration given their commitment and contributions to this forum (which wouldn't exist without its users anyway).

As for your logic of "if you insult a group, this is even worse than one person", it's more than clear than I didn't insult ANYONE unless you consider yourself a "droidtard" - so your point is moot.

And if you think one runs out of "intelligent arguments" just because one writes a provocative sentence aimed at no one in particular, well, then perhaps you should sit back, relax and drink something strong.

We don't have to be extremely serious and elaborate all the time - it's just boring.

Thank you all for your reactions anyway.

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Although I am surprised at your random slurs

What "random slurs" are you talking about?

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Obviously, my suggestion above goes exactly against that, on the grounds/presumption that longtime users DO deserve some additional consideration given their commitment and contributions to this forum (which wouldn't exist without its users anyway).

There are a lot more users who have been here a shorter period of time and have lower post counts. To give special treatment to those with longer tenure or higher post counts would be unfair to those newer to the forum.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

As for your logic of "if you insult a group, this is even worse than one person", it's more than clear than I didn't insult ANYONE unless you consider yourself a "droidtard" - so your point is moot.

As balamw pointed out, slurs and insults against a group is considered trolling, and your insult could reasonably be considered offensive to anyone who owns/prefers an Android device or who suffers from mental illness. I am in neither of those categories and yet I find the term offensive, as I'm sure many others do.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

And if you think one runs out of "intelligent arguments" just because one writes a provocative sentence aimed at no one in particular, well, then perhaps you should sit back, relax and drink something strong.

Provocative and insulting are very different. Rather than trying to find a "loophole" in the forum rules, it would be better to try to embrace the spirit of the rules.

People should be able to discuss or even dispute other's posts without insulting people. You may dispute somebody's opinion but not attack/flame the person who stated it.

Show respect for your fellow posters. Expect and accept that other users may have strongly held opinions that differ from yours.

Be willing to engage in fact-based, constructive debate. Look for ways to inform and learn from others.

Bottom line -- don't try to tick off others and don't make discussions unnecessarily personal.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

As for your logic of "if you insult a group, this is even worse than one person", it's more than clear than I didn't insult ANYONE unless you consider yourself a "droidtard" - so your point is moot.

"Droidtard" is a fairly loaded word with plenty of negative connotations, especially on an Apple-centric forum such as this one. It's hardly the most insulting or damning thing you can call someone around here, but it's rarely ever used in a positive manner.

So if you meant no ill will towards anyone, had absolutely no intentions of insulting a single person on this board, either directly or as an aside, why did you say it at all?

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by Weaselboy

snip

Mhh. Did not know, that the topic of this thread is:
“Weaselboy vs. GGJstudios”

;-)

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Honestly, your arrogance and condescending attitude continue to amaze me, especially as a "retired" moderator participating in this thread.

I think you're pretty hung up on this and it's fascinating to see it get under your skin. My status is neither here nor there, but I have to remind some people occasionally what 'emeritus' means, lest they mistake my posts for 'official' ones, as has happened before.

Wiser people would read between the lines of what I've written and realise that while current moderators are constrained to some extent as to what they can say, those who know the score yet are free from representing the site, are not.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

"Dirty laundry"? You mean my post history over almost eight years?

You now have it. I’ll leave the dissection of it for others, although I note with interest that they've been lenient with you, in their opinion. If someone wrote that about me, I'd heed those words fairly carefully, but onwards...

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Perhaps they may wish to check also how many times I, as a longtime member, have constructively responded and provided advice to countless requests for assistance from other members - do you qualify that as "dirty laundry" as well?

No. But it doesn't make you some form of a hero, to whom the rules do not apply, needing some form of exceptional treatment. I’m not entirely sure why you think this counts as a mitigating factor, especially as you’ve already expressed annoyance at not being paid for it.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

I have been a moderator for a good amount of time in a different Mac-related forum - no need to lecture us on how things work or whether "Brlawyer" is going to feel shocked by such a "formidable demonstration" of timestamping. This is the kind of fearmongering we don't need to hear about now.

If you’re a moderator elesewhere, then I’m surprised that you’d even create this thread, ignoring the guidelines and reading some of the views you’ve expressed. Besides, unless I'm quoting or responding to you, I’m writing for people who may not understand what is going on here and whoever else wants to read my posts... or I may just be posting for myself, because I'm bored and feel like writing, just to flex my fingers.

I'm genuinely amused at your presumption that my post was written just for you and that you think that since this thread is about you and is in the public domain, that some people need to be restricted from posting in it. This is the chance you took when you created this thread about yourself. No one else bears that responsibility.

Besides, my impulse was charitable and not knowing what your record held, was out of concern for you and your reputation… but that instantly evaporated upon seeing your response, which spurs me to continue my amusement.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

once more, in response to your personally and directly offensive question that implied exactly what you ironically meant to imply ("Are you eight?"): you do NOT need to contribute to this discussion on possible double standards and moderation excesses by resorting to ad personam attacks

Perhaps as a ‘droidtard’, as you so nicely put it, someone needs to take you down a peg or two.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

at least try to use your moderation "experience" for something more constructive in this policy debate, instead of expressing such a constant admiration for yourself.

I don’t admire myself, you’d be surprised how little I do. It’s just that you mistake a certain deliberate style as self-regard, and is the lens through which you perceive yourself and others, but what I do admire is the gall of someone who thinks this thread constitutes a ‘policy debate’.

No, this is not a policy debate, I’ve seen and contributed to plenty of those before. This petulant trainwreck of a thread is the work of someone who feels that the rules and being moderated should not apply to them, so much so, they’re prepared to argue at length in public about a relatively minor issue which has inconvenienced them while a crowd gathers.

It's understandable that people chafe against restrictions, rules and punishments, I've done it myself and will be the first to admit it. But to elevate your relatively minor punishment into a grand public gesture on the grounds of your own special qualities, makes this one for the ages. Who can resist?

But since you’re determined to make this about policy, I’ll note again that I (and others) have already addressed your policy suggestions, to which your initial response has been to ignore them and get upset about my status. At length.

However, let’s tackle your most recent attempts to recast your suggestions:

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

1) I have the impression that word-specific "censorship" is the rule now; you may wish to publish, on a regular basis, all those terms you may find offensive enough to warrant further measures such as suspension or banning - in my view, the generic term "droidtards" was not at all over that threshold; likewise for "fanboys" or the like. So a list might be especially useful to those with a different level of language tolerance

Note that the problem is, once again, not with you. Funnily enough, it lies with everybody else and you’d like others to do the work of compiling a list. Here’s a better and much more simple idea: Why don’t you take people's advice, mind your conduct and express yourself in a manner that doesn’t cause more work for others?

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

2) When heated exchanges take place and a suspension or another measure is adopted, one has no idea as to whether the other party has also received some sort of sanction. For the sake of transparency and fairness, you may wish to at least inform that all involved parties have received the same or similar kind of treatment.

This has been addressed multiple times in this thread already. It’s none of your business how others are treated. Besides the privacy issues, do you honestly think the team want to start getting into debates with people about how unfairly they’ve been treated compared to another member? Honestly, I’m staggered that you as a supposed moderator elsewhere, that you think this would be a useful and productive use of staff time.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

3) You may ALSO wish to consider having a mod talking to the member concerned so that he can edit/curate the post himself - or at least envisage that possibility for those who are decidedly active longtime contributors and are clearly used to a certain writing style...in other words, those who are not here to just advertise Viagra tablets.

Now you’re suggesting that a special group is created that takes people’s writing styles into account and somehow create and maintain a list or tags of these untouchables? Not only is it impossible to monitor each thread, you’re requesting that moderators carefully comb through each forum member’s posting history in order to determine that they possess a vaguely-undefined ‘certain writing style’, which will presumably grant them extra consideration? This is folly.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Obviously, my suggestion above goes exactly against that, on the grounds/presumption that longtime users DO deserve some additional consideration given their commitment and contributions to this forum (which wouldn't exist without its users anyway).

Your presumption is misplaced. The only group of people who get temporarily let off lightly for trivial offences, are those with a spotless record.

This could have all been so different. Instead of taking this public, you could have returned from your time-out and engaged in a productive and private dialogue with the admins to have the time-out stricken to some degree if you feel it was unwarranted. As eric/ stated, it is possible to appeal those decisions and the channels of commuication do exist, despite you not using them.

Finally, I’d like to come back to the point that you seem to belabour...

To be blunt, which is the way you seem to like it (for yourself at least), in my opinion, there is nothing special, particularly incisive or interesting about your contributions to MacRumors based on my reading of news threads and the like.

Many of your posts seem quite superficial, slanted and predictably partisan, as well as dismissive and contemptuous — I learn very little from them — and to my way of viewing the commentary on MacRumors, are part of the problem, not the solution. I only mention this in passing, because the very basis of this thread is your claim to being an outstanding contributor, your claims to specialness and the rule changes you’ve suggested in order to accomodate you and your specialness, which is really what this thread is about, after all.

Thanks for giving me and others the opportunity to contribute. I’ve enjoyed it.

[theSeb]

You used the offensive term three times. You were warned about the use of the term each time. First it was in a polite way, then you got a warning and then you got a suspension. The persecution rests.

(Yes, I am happily vocal about keeping the moderation honest.... but I do think that it was spot on - it looks pretty much like an open and shut case without the need for a protracted discussion)

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by theSeb

...it looks pretty much like an open and shut case without the need for a protracted discussion)

Yes, you're right. In future, I'll keep it short.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

You need a VENDOR tag - otherwise this thread is infringing MR rules.

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

Thanks for giving me and others the opportunity to contribute. I’ve enjoyed it.

Note to self: Try not to get on Blue Velvet's bad side (or get off it as soon as possible, if I'm already there!)

[robbieduncan]

Originally Posted by theSeb

The persecution rests.

Was this an intentional joke, Freudian slip or just a spelling mistake? Anyway made me LoL