Very well then,
@annk, thank you for that clarification; I will say that there is no need to be defensive, and I will also further say that - by PM - I have discussed this very topic with other members.
I agree that there's no need to be defensive. I haven't seen any evidence of defensiveness, only a tendency to speak in generalities outside of one's own opinion. I suggest that discussing with others does not change the importance of speaking for oneself. I brought it into the discussion because it's something that's taken me a long time to learn, and I've found it to be very useful.
This recent election allowed for a striking deterioration in the quality of the tone used for debate on MR, something I personally regret, and has had the result of making the forums a lot less pleasant to visit, or linger in.
I hear and respect that this is your opinion. I do not however assume that this is everyone's experience. (I write the last sentence as a further example of the point I've tried to make. I'm not implying that you believe this to be anyone else's experience.) Since not everyone frequents the same sections of the forum, this is only to be expected.
Now, perhaps it is that I am a European 'snowflake', but I cannot envisage any context, setting or situation, public or private, where it is considered acceptable to describe a woman as a bitch without some manner of reprimand or indication that this is unacceptable.
I personally agree (though I have no opinion about the snowflake comment).
Personally, I would like for MR mods discuss whether it is appropriate for anyone - ever - to refer to a woman on these forums as a 'bitch', -(or sow, ape, cow, pig - all of which I have seen in writing on these fora in recent weeks describing either Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama) even one who has a public profile - and if it is deemed acceptable I would like to know why.
The discussion is, as I've already stated, taking place.
In answer to your request for a reason for the current rule in place, MacRumors chose way back not to police comments made about public figures as a balance between civil debate and allowing users to express themselves. Whether or not there should be a more clearly defined framework for this is certainly something that can be discussed.
The fact that Secretary Clinton ran for office, and had held and lived much of her life in the public space, does not, to my mind, justify the use of some of the disgusting and disgraceful names that were flung at her on these fora and elsewhere.
That's useful feedback. I would encourage you to submit post reports of any examples you see, even if they're not direct rules violations. That will aid our discussion.
And, if you don't challenge it, you condone it, implicitly if not explicitly. You make MR another space where it is considered acceptable to make snide remarks about the 'stench' in the White House, or to describe a woman in the public space in grossly offensive terms
I don't necessarily agree. I don't feel I can be certain that when a forum user doesn't speak out against something, it's fair to say that the user condones it. And it's certainly not true that our rules have been set up so as to necessarily condone any view expressed within the rules. MR has drawn the line between forum users and public figures as a balance. Insulting public figures has been beyond what this site has chosen to police. I understand this decision, because I've been privy for over seven years to the feedback sent via post reports and contact messages. Users want as little moderation as possible, but as much as necessary. Is there a line somewhere in all of this that needs to be clearer? Is any comment acceptable when the object is not a forum user? Should PRSI simply be closed during a contentious political event? Maybe. This is again something we can discuss.
Ideally of course ALL discourse should be civil (my opinion). I don't see how name-calling of anyone, public figure or forum user, adds anything constructive to a debate. But I'm one of 1 000 000. It's very, very hard to land on a balance that most users will feel gives a reasonably civil framework without undue restriction. If I on the other hand were to define this based on my personal opinions it would be very easy for me. And I freely admit it's often difficult for me to put my own opinions aside long enough to have whatever discussion needs to be had before a decision is reached. But it's part of my function here, so I do it.
Actually, - and I write this with regret - it is my considered opinion that MR has played its part in enabling, and facilitating and that marked deterioration in the tone in which public and political debate is carried out in the US which has been such a striking feature of this appalling election campaign.
It's not completely clear exactly what you mean here, but I do not agree that MacRumors has enabled or facilitated anything. On the contrary, the immense amount of time put into the rules and the very existence of Site and Forum Feedback shows that not to be the case. Discussion here is a barometer of the opinions of the membership, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. We have a set of rules that is challenged when a (for example) political event causes temperature to run high, but we have basic principles of civil debate. The rules and the way they're enforced can be brought up for discussion, as in this thread.
If the moderation done by the volunteer moderators and the discussions these moderators and the volunteer administrators need to have don't result in immediate action and change, that's a function of the volunteer aspect of the gig. Changes in the rules, in what is and isn't allowed, how to interpret the rules as they stand - all of this in light of our goal to treat 1 000 000 members fairly is something that can take time. I'm sure it can be experienced as frustrating, but unless MR at some time in the future has a full time moderation staff, that's not going to change.
Again, I'll say that we take this seriously.
