Anyone else feel like a particular Mod picks on them?

[I7guy]

I believe one of the rules on The Verge is you cannot discuss or criticize the mods. They will drop you in a hole in the middle of the desert if you do that.

I don't really like the idea of permanent bans unless a letter, email or whatever is sent telling you the specific reasons you were banned and describing how your actions violated forum rules, along with an appeal process.

Nobody gets a permanent ban on the first go-around, unless I guess there is some gross violations of a rule. But there is an appeal process, it's the contact us button.

And here, no one is criticizing a mod, there is an open discussion about policies, and the mods/administrators have aired their viewpoints as well as a number of posters aired their viewpoints.

This isn't a court of law and this site allows for a wide range of expression and the site should be rated G for all audiences and somehow posters who feel aggrieved have to come to grips with what is being posted.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Nobody gets a permanent ban on the first go-around, unless I guess there is some gross violations of a rule. But there is an appeal process, it's the contact us button.

And here, no one is criticizing a mod, there is an open discussion about policies, and the mods/administrators have aired their viewpoints as well as a number of posters aired their viewpoints.

This isn't a court of law and this site allows for a wide range of expression and the site should be rated G for all audiences and somehow posters who feel aggrieved have to come to grips with what is being posted.

I am not naming and criticizing a specific mod. I am most certainly criticizing the mods and mod process in a few different respects, which I am not going to rehash.

I have no idea where the "G-rated" portion of your post comes from. I don't think anyone here is arguing commenters should be free to drop f-bombs and use foul language. I certainly am not.

 

[samiwas]

Would you appreciate it, if someone came to your house and demanded to have a say in how you run your house?

This site is a business. Those visiting the forum do not get to dictate what does or doesn't happen with the MacRumors business.

If some members don't appreciate the gift that they have been given with forum in question, maybe they should look elsewhere.

If some members don't trust the business owners and staff, they should look elsewhere, instead of seeking to have a say in a business they are not an employee of.

^^^ Very Apple response. "If Steve Jobs didn't put it in the machine, then you shouldn't want it".
[doublepost=1521426870][/doublepost]

the site should be rated G for all audiences and somehow posters who feel aggrieved have to come to grips with what is being posted.

A G-Rated politics forum? A politics forum suitable for 6-year-olds? Not remotely entertaining.

 

[I7guy]

^^^ Very Apple response. "If Steve Jobs didn't put it in the machine, then you shouldn't want it".
[doublepost=1521426870][/doublepost]

A G-Rated politics forum? A politics forum suitable for 6-year-olds? Not remotely entertaining.

The PRSI part of this was spun off into a different thread. But I still see no reason to have that particular forum be a bar room brawl, even if adult topics are being discussed was my point, and I wasn’t clear about it.

 

[OllyW]

Moderator Note:

A number of posts have been deleted for discussing specific moderation and derailing the thread into PRSI discussion.

Please see Where do I post comments about moderation? for more information about what discussion is permitted in this forum and what to do if you are unhappy about any specific moderation.

Political discussion should always be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum but there is an ongoing forum feedback thread for PRSI Forum discussion, where general moderation issues from that forum can be raised.

 

[yanki01]

sorry to bring this back but it seems a lot of long time members have spoken and many share the same thoughts. that says something, i think. this place is not what it once was.

 

[HexMonkey]

sorry to bring this back but it seems a lot of long time members have spoken and many share the same thoughts. that says something, i think. this place is not what it once was.

Yes and no. In some contexts a single complaint is representative of many more people who silently think the same thing. In others (particularly for contentious political issues), it's impossible to make everyone happy, and trying to do so will inevitably result in failure. My sense is that moderation is somewhere in between these two extremes; there's definitely room for improvement on our side and value in the feedback people give, but when we consider feedback we have to remember that making a change to satisfy a vocal minority can sometimes create an equivalent level of discontent from previously silent members who had been happy with the status quo.

For what it's worth, I'm currently working on an audit/review of PRSI moderation done under the current policy to ensure there's consistent moderation and to see if there are any tweaks to the policy that would help better achieve its goals.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Yes and no. In some contexts a single complaint is representative of many more people who silently think the same thing. In others (particularly for contentious political issues), it's impossible to make everyone happy, and trying to do so will inevitably result in failure. My sense is that moderation is somewhere in between these two extremes; there's definitely room for improvement on our side and value in the feedback people give, but when we consider feedback we have to remember that making a change to satisfy a vocal minority can sometimes create an equivalent level of discontent from previously silent members who had been happy with the status quo.

For what it's worth, I'm currently working on an audit/review of PRSI moderation done under the current policy to ensure there's consistent moderation and to see if there are any tweaks to the policy that would help better achieve its goals.

There is a vocal minority that weaponizes the mods. They don’t like a post? Run to he mods so the comment is black holed. And I’ll say it again, the mods have very itchy trigger fingers and are heavy handed sometimes when it comes to re-classifying posts and deleting content. Sometimes the refs should just let the game be played.

 

[annk]

There is a vocal minority that weaponizes the mods. They don’t like a post? Run to he mods so the comment is black holed. And I’ll say it again, the mods have very itchy trigger fingers and are heavy handed sometimes when it comes to re-classifying posts and deleting content. Sometimes the refs should just let the game be played.

The "itchy fingers" are defined in the rules.

We've made a choice not to simply let people have at it, but we do understand that there are other sites with more lenient rules or different boundaries. That's why we have people agree to the rules when they register. It's perfectly natural that not everyone will feel that the rules fit them. I certainly don't think any less of a user who doesn't like the rules here, or how they're enforced - it's a matter of personal choice.

What we DO stive for, though, is to:

• make the rules are clear as humanly possible
• be as consistent as we can (not an easy job, given all the variables in any particular context)
• have a set of checks and balances in place so that no one administrator or moderator can go on a personal crusade
• explain as best we can how moderation is done in the Moderation FAQ
• have a system in place for general (SFF) and specific (Contact Us) suggestions, questions, and complaints.

I don't think anything else can be expected of the volunteer staff, and in fact I think we've done the things on the list well (and can always improve, and constantly strive to do so). Constructive ideas from those who use the site are extremely helpful; "the mods pick on me" isn't.

At the end of the day, either users believe in our good intentions or they don't. Personally I wouldn't stay at a site if I didn't believe there were underlying good intentions. There are plenty of other sites out there to choose from. I hope users stay here, but I wish them well elsewhere if that's best for them.

 

[Glockworkorange]

The "itchy fingers" are defined in the rules.

We've made a choice not to simply let people have at it, but we do understand that there are other sites with more lenient rules or different boundaries. That's why we have people agree to the rules when they register. It's perfectly natural that not everyone will feel that the rules fit them. I certainly don't think any less of a user who doesn't like the rules here, or how they're enforced - it's a matter of personal choice.

What we DO stive for, though, is to:

• make the rules are clear as humanly possible
• be as consistent as we can (not an easy job, given all the variables in any particular context)
• have a set of checks and balances in place so that no one administrator or moderator can go on a personal crusade
• explain as best we can how moderation is done in the Moderation FAQ
• have a system in place for general (SFF) and specific (Contact Us) suggestions, questions, and complaints.

I don't think anything else can be expected of the volunteer staff, and in fact I think we've done the things on the list well (and can always improve, and constantly strive to do so). Constructive ideas from those who use the site are extremely helpful; "the mods pick on me" isn't.

At the end of the day, either users believe in our good intentions or they don't. Personally I wouldn't stay at a site if I didn't believe there were underlying good intentions. There are plenty of other sites out there to choose from. I hope users stay here, but I wish them well elsewhere if that's best for them.

“The mods pick on me” isn’t.

That is literally the title of the thread. As opposed to your passive aggressive response of (basically) “if you don’t like it, leave,” why don’t you just go ahead and delete the thread?

 

[annk]

“The mods pick on me” isn’t.

That is literally the title of the thread. As opposed to your passive aggressive response of (basically) “if you don’t like it, leave,” why don’t you just go ahead and delete the thread?

I think you perhaps only saw what you expected (or wanted to see) in my response. There was a lot more to it than "if you don't like it, leave". If it were that simple, we wouldn't be taking the time to have this discussion, and we certainly wouldn't bother with a Site and Forum Feedback section or a system whereby users can question moderation, get a review and discuss with us. We do reverse moderation when we're asked to do a review when we're asked. And we do take the time to explain why we didn't moderate a reported post when we're asked (or adjust our moderation when a user points out that s/he thinks we made a mistake).

I think referring to honest attempts to participate in the discussion as passive aggressive is another example of what's not constructive. I believe you experience my response as passive aggressive, because I assume you are being honest about your reaction. It's however not particularly constructive, and it sound to me like you've already made up your mind. You're welcome to correct me if my interpertation of your post is incorrect.

As for "if you don't like it, leave", which is what you got out of my response, that's certainly one aspect of a bigger picture. At the end of the day, when discussions have been had and answers have been given, I do understand that some users will choose to leave the site. I wish it weren't so, but we certainly can't expect that all users on such a huge site will be happy about how things are run. It's discouraging for us to hear, because we love the site and donate large amounts of our free time and try to do a good job. But it's a fact.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I think you perhaps only saw what you expected (or wanted to see) in my response. There was a lot more to it than "if you don't like it, leave". If it were that simple, we wouldn't be taking the time to have this discussion, and we certainly wouldn't bother with a Site and Forum Feedback section or a system whereby users can question moderation, get a review and discuss with us. We do reverse moderation when we're asked to do a review when we're asked. And we do take the time to explain why we didn't moderate a reported post when we're asked (or adjust our moderation when a user points out that s/he thinks we made a mistake).

I think referring to honest attempts to participate in the discussion as passive aggressive is another example of what's not constructive. I believe you experience my response as passive aggressive, because I assume you are being honest about your reaction. It's however not particularly constructive, and it sound to me like you've already made up your mind. You're welcome to correct me if my interpertation of your post is incorrect.

As for "if you don't like it, leave", which is what you got out of my response, that's certainly one aspect of a bigger picture. At the end of the day, when discussions have been had and answers have been given, I do understand that some users will choose to leave the site. I wish it weren't so, but we certainly can't expect that all users on such a huge site will be happy about how things are run. It's discouraging for us to hear, because we love the site and donate large amounts of our free time and try to do a good job. But it's a fact.

Yes, there was much more to your response. I didn’t respond to “what I wanted to see.” I responded to literally part of your response. I responded to the part I took issue with. I am sure I could spend 15 minutes responding to each point, but that would not be constructive.

And yes, part of your response was was “if you don’t like it, leave.” It’s not what “I got out of your response.” It’s what you said. Admittedly, even.

The concern trolling and gaslighting is extraordinary. In any event, I will end this by just saying we will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Good day to you sir.

 

[maflynn]

Good day to you sir.

I wanted to put it there, that our administrator @annk is a woman

 

[Glockworkorange]

I wanted to put it there, that our administrator @annk is a woman

Absolutely essential and much needed input. Thank you for clarifying.

Good day to you, 'mam.

 

[I7guy]

...why don’t you just go ahead and delete the thread?

This is a good and important discussion and not sure why it should be suggested to delete the thread.

Between this and the PRSI discussion the moderators and administrators have gone to great lengths to explain how the team works, and while it's not permissible to discuss the specifics of what you are referring to, my own opinion, is even if a post gets reported, it gets moderated not because the content goes against a moderators personal point of view or there is some other hidden agenda, but because of some violation of the rules (of which there is some discretion in the enforcement of).

Plenty of latitude is allowed to express your opinion in a constructive manner, although some posts admittedly, one has to count to three before replying.

 

[Glockworkorange]

This is a good and important discussion and not sure why it should be suggested to delete the thread.

Between this and the PRSI discussion the moderators and administrators have gone to great lengths to explain how the team works, and while it's not permissible to discuss the specifics of what you are referring to, my own opinion, is even if a post gets reported, it gets moderated not because the content goes against a moderators personal point of view or there is some other hidden agenda, but because of some violation of the rules (of which there is some discretion in the enforcement of).

Plenty of latitude is allowed to express your opinion in a constructive manner, although some posts admittedly, one has to count to three before replying.

(sigh). I wrote that the because the moderator indicated complaints of people being picked on were not helpful.

The entire thread, all 10 pages, revolves around complaints of being picked on. If the moderator doesn't feel it's helpful, please just delete it or move on without comment. The discussion started two months ago and many, many, many concrete examples and suggestions were given. The response given yesterday, in my opinion, was full of concern trolling and quite obviously rubbed me the wrong way. Feel free to disagree.

I disagree with your last paragraph, as has been discussed ad nauseam in the other 9 pages.

 

[I7guy]

(sigh). I wrote that the because the moderator indicated complaints of people being picked on were not helpful.

The entire thread, all 10 pages, revolves around complaints of being picked on. If the moderator doesn't feel it's helpful, please just delete it or move on without comment. The discussion started two months ago and many, many, many concrete examples and suggestions were given. The response given yesterday, in my opinion, was full of concern trolling and quite obviously rubbed me the wrong way. Feel free to disagree.

I disagree with your last paragraph, as has been discussed ad nauseam in the other 9 pages.

There are almost a million MR members with many posts every day. The mods and admins have to keep some order without throwing the entire review system into disarray for a few "complaints". For all you know the staff may be looking into the various suggestions made in these threads.

I have definitely appreciate the ability to have a back and forth. It makes it as if the staff(paid or volunteer) is doing the same thing as we are doing, trying to be a part of a huge community with some order attached to it.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The "itchy fingers" are defined in the rules.

We've made a choice not to simply let people have at it, but we do understand that there are other sites with more lenient rules or different boundaries. That's why we have people agree to the rules when they register. It's perfectly natural that not everyone will feel that the rules fit them. I certainly don't think any less of a user who doesn't like the rules here, or how they're enforced - it's a matter of personal choice.

What we DO stive for, though, is to:

• make the rules are clear as humanly possible
• be as consistent as we can (not an easy job, given all the variables in any particular context)
• have a set of checks and balances in place so that no one administrator or moderator can go on a personal crusade
• explain as best we can how moderation is done in the Moderation FAQ
• have a system in place for general (SFF) and specific (Contact Us) suggestions, questions, and complaints.

I don't think anything else can be expected of the volunteer staff, and in fact I think we've done the things on the list well (and can always improve, and constantly strive to do so). Constructive ideas from those who use the site are extremely helpful; "the mods pick on me" isn't.

At the end of the day, either users believe in our good intentions or they don't. Personally I wouldn't stay at a site if I didn't believe there were underlying good intentions. There are plenty of other sites out there to choose from. I hope users stay here, but I wish them well elsewhere if that's best for them.

One of the reasons I stay here is that it's generally a nice place with nice people.
If it was a free for all, I'd probably have left years ago.

 

[Piggie]

Thought I'd give this a bump as I'm experiencing this right now on another forum.
Barely a comment from any mod in over 10 years and all of a sudden it feels like I've got a target on my back.
And I'm totally sure some mods should not be in the position they are as they get their own biased views.
I would always argue for both sides of any viewpoint to be allowed to have their say.
If I don't like your views I'll generally just move on.

It's such a shame as you will find a tiny group of posters with their own matching viewpoint on a subject pretty much running areas of the forums.

If you dare to offer your opinion then you are jumped up with force by such a group.

Then of course those people become mod sweethearts and again you get targeted as they may not like it agree with your view.

The sad thing is, it never used to be this way. People just got on with their lives, but now so many seem to want to control what others can think and say.

It's a shame

Oh... Just to reiterate, I'm not talking of these forums. Other than I tiny hick up a while ago I'm still in the good books.... Lol.

 

[MajorFubar]

I did think that I was being personally targeted here, a while back. Couple of years ago now. I felt there was one particular mod who was completely on my case, finding fault in everything I posted. I even got a month's ban because I verbally lashed-out at someone who was being personally abusive to someone who didn't appear to have either the confidence or the grasp of the English language to stand ther own ground. Yet the abuser did not appear to receive any repromand whatsoever, in so far as I could see they were still allowed to post afterwards, and their abusive posts remained on the forum.

In retrospect I think I should probably have picked a different handle, because I think to a degree people get judged and labelled by their handle, even if just a subliminal level. I chose the MajorFubar handle because it was a bit of a childish joke and referenced Tango & Cash. If I had to do it again I'd just use my real name of Jon Vincent.

 

[Doctor Q]

The moderators never single anyone out, and we administrators see to that. When one user is moderated more often than others, it's because they have broken rules more frequently, likely ignoring reminders about the rules. Nobody likes to have their post moderated or be warned about rules, but we do it as fairly as we can, and that's always our goal.

Forum handles make no difference, nor do the comments that other posters make. Each user is held to exactly the same rules, based only on their own posts. Which leads to this tip: When another user seems to be (or is) provoking you, report their post, ignore their post, and/or reply to their post within the forum rules. Avoid breaking the rules yourself just because they did.

If you receive a warning and "the other guy" does not appear to have received a reprimand, it's because the warnings they receive are private, at least until their warnings have escalated to a temporary suspension (time-out) or a forum ban, which others can observe.

To help users understand moderation at MacRumors, we've written up explanations that we encourage everyone to read: the Moderation FAQ, in particular the Rulebreaking Top 10 and its list of "reasons, explanations, excuses, and complaints" that are often heard.

 

[Piggie]

I fear the problem we have now is that, like in real life, you have a small group of people who feel their viewpoint on any topic is the right any only one.
You come along and have a different viewpoint and rather than just accepting it, and moving on with their lives, they want to SHOUT and complain to anyone they can to silence you.
Worse still when you get a group of such people.
We can take the recent US elections as a good one, with let's say a very roughly 50/50 split.

If the Mods and the LOUD minority are personally Anti Trump they they will let rip with all manner of insults against him and anyone who voted for him, calling them, idiots, bigots, racist etc etc.

And personally, if that's what makes you happy in your world then go for it.

The issue is, if you are someone who supports Trump then you are going to get everything thrown as you, and if you insult them, as they insulted you for your views, then you will be the one to get banned etc.

This applies for many topics.
Those "In charge" seem to be less and less tolerant of those who don't chare their views on a variety of topics.

Again, as I say, thankfully I have never seen this type of behaviour here on MacRumours. But then I never visit any areas where such things are being discussed.

 

[adrianlondon]

Thought I'd give this a bump as I'm experiencing this right now on another forum.

Why bump a 6 year old thread which is talking mainly about a forum area (PRSI) that was shut down 3 years ago, to talk about your experience on a completely different forum/site?

 

[Piggie]

Why bump a 6 year old thread which is talking mainly about a forum area (PRSI) that was shut down 3 years ago, to talk about your experience on a completely different forum/site?

It was interesting to hear others had had similar experiences to mine.
If anyone has an issue, it's always nice to know you are not alone and how others can offer advice handling it.
That is all

 

[I7guy]

I fear the problem we have now is that, like in real life, you have a small group of people who feel their viewpoint on any topic is the right any only one.
You come along and have a different viewpoint and rather than just accepting it, and moving on with their lives, they want to SHOUT and complain to anyone they can to silence you.
Worse still when you get a group of such people.
We can take the recent US elections as a good one, with let's say a very roughly 50/50 split.

If the Mods and the LOUD minority are personally Anti Trump they they will let rip with all manner of insults against him and anyone who voted for him, calling them, idiots, bigots, racist etc etc.

And personally, if that's what makes you happy in your world then go for it.

The issue is, if you are someone who supports Trump then you are going to get everything thrown as you, and if you insult them, as they insulted you for your views, then you will be the one to get banned etc.

This applies for many topics.
Those "In charge" seem to be less and less tolerant of those who don't chare their views on a variety of topics.

Again, as I say, thankfully I have never seen this type of behaviour here on MacRumours. But then I never visit any areas where such things are being discussed.

I believe the reasons people feel picked upon is due to the lack of adherence to the rules and nothing to do with anything else.

The mods do not single out subject matter. This has been promulgated by posters so many times it’s a meme at this point.