Anyone else feel like a particular Mod picks on them?

[G5isAlive]

Lest we think there is any level of fairness, my note on this topic got deleated not because I named names or anything personal but because i described unfair practices here. Forget you can not fight city hall, you can’t even say anything negative about city hall. I suspect it’s the same moderator with a personal agenda. My guess is my account will be deleated next. Funny thing is by and large I like this site lol

 

[I7guy]

Lest we think there is any level of fairness, my note on this topic got deleated not because I named names or anything personal but because i described unfair practices here. Forget you can not fight city hall, you can’t even say anything negative about city hall. I suspect it’s the same moderator with a personal agenda. My guess is my account will be deleated next. Funny thing is by and large I like this site lol

I’m going to go out in a limb and suggest there are no hidden personal agendas or targeted moderation.

Where a post crosses the line with respect to the forum rules that post gets attention. Fair criticism seems to be acceptable as far as discussion goes. What could be as described as unfair by you might not be in keeping with the rules and philosophies of the site.

 

[annk]

Lest we think there is any level of fairness, my note on this topic got deleated not because I named names or anything personal but because i described unfair practices here. Forget you can not fight city hall, you can’t even say anything negative about city hall. I suspect it’s the same moderator with a personal agenda. My guess is my account will be deleated next. Funny thing is by and large I like this site lol

ADMIN NOTE:

I'm going to make an exception and allow this post to remain visible, in order to make an important point.

Yes, posts are indeed deleted and appropriate moderation done when they break the forum rules. Your post would under normal circumstances be deleted, because you're clearly violating the rule that prohibits public comments on specific moderation. The moderation record for your account would normally be updated, and the moderation issued would be of an appropriate length and severity given whatever moderation history you might or might not have.

Users accept the rules when they register, so to turn around and accuse a moderator of a personal agenda when a user openly flaunts the rules s/he agreed to is unreasonable at best.

I'm going out on a limb by allowing this post to remain visible, and I apologize for the inconsistency to other users who have had their posts deleted for violation of this rule. I hope everyone understands why in the choice between complete consistency and using this as a teaching moment, I chose the latter.

Given the circumstances, I have to remind all thread participants that general discussion is just fine and in fact encouraged. Further posts that include comments on specific moderation will be deleted.

 

[G5isAlive]

I’m going to go out in a limb and suggest there are no hidden personal agendas or targeted moderation.

Where a post crosses the line with respect to the forum rules that post gets attention. Fair criticism seems to be acceptable as far as discussion goes. What could be as described as unfair by you might not be in keeping with the rules and philosophies of the site.

How would you know? Seriously. Any comment regarding any particular event, no matter how vague, no matter how polite, is deemed against the rules and thus subject to be deleted. A convenient rule, but not terribly productive. An analogy, I respect police officers, but as we see now with the availability of social media there are a few bad apples. And even good apples can have bad stem days. I can give you any number of examples where a public discussion of specifics leads to positive change. It can be done civilly.

I will say it again, I do like MacRumors. I have been reading for a long, long time, even before Apple was hip and cool. I have endured right along with MacRumors, the days when Jobs was ousted from Apple, then brought in, then rose to fame, and then.. well.. now.

But that does NOT mean it is perfect. Or that there has not been targeted moderation. There has. Shrugs. There just isn't a forum to discuss it. The last time I tried, well I guess I am not allowed to talk about that either.
[doublepost=1520099523][/doublepost]

ADMIN NOTE:

I'm going to make an exception and allow this post to remain visible, in order to make an important point.

Yes, posts are indeed deleted and appropriate moderation done when they break the forum rules. Your post would under normal circumstances be deleted, because you're clearly violating the rule that prohibits public comments on specific moderation. The moderation record for your account would normally be updated, and the moderation issued would be of an appropriate length and severity given whatever moderation history you might or might not have.

Users accept the rules when they register, so to turn around and accuse a moderator of a personal agenda when a user openly flaunts the rules s/he agreed to is unreasonable at best.

I'm going out on a limb by allowing this post to remain visible, and I apologize for the inconsistency to other users who have had their posts deleted for violation of this rule. I hope everyone understands why in the choice between complete consistency and using this as a teaching moment, I chose the latter.

Given the circumstances, I have to remind all thread participants that general discussion is just fine and in fact encouraged. Further posts that include comments on specific moderation will be deleted.

Thank you. But as I said above, if there isn't a forum to discuss these matters, how do they get discussed? General discussion does not always cut it. To even discuss is to be accused of "a user openly flaunts the rules s/he agreed to is unreasonable at best"

I am very disappointed that there is no protection from such. You don't have to look far out in the world to see the problems that arise from an iron fist around discussion. I agree such matters should be handled in a polite fashion. But they should be discussed.

 

[ericgtr12]

How would you know? Seriously. Any comment regarding any particular event, no matter how vague, no matter how polite, is deemed against the rules and thus subject to be deleted. A convenient rule, but not terribly productive. An analogy, I respect police officers, but as we see now with the availability of social media there are a few bad apples. And even good apples can have bad stem days. I can give you any number of examples where a public discussion of specifics leads to positive change. It can be done civilly.

I will say it again, I do like MacRumors. I have been reading for a long, long time, even before Apple was hip and cool. I have endured right along with MacRumors, the days when Jobs was ousted from Apple, then brought in, then rose to fame, and then.. well.. now.

But that does NOT mean it is perfect. Or that there has not been targeted moderation. There has. Shrugs. There just isn't a forum to discuss it. The last time I tried, well I guess I am not allowed to talk about that either.
[doublepost=1520099523][/doublepost]

Thank you. But as I said above, if there isn't a forum to discuss these matters, how do they get discussed? General discussion does not always cut it. To even discuss is to be accused of "a user openly flaunts the rules s/he agreed to is unreasonable at best"

I am very disappointed that there is no protection from such. You don't have to look far out in the world to see the problems that arise from an iron fist around discussion. I agree such matters should be handled in a polite fashion. But they should be discussed.

In the PRSI forum, if a mod does not agree with your particular stance (or is offended by it) you are that much more likely to be reprimanded. I suppose looking it realistically it would be hard not to, not that I know the answer but it definitely plays a role.

Additionally, some people don’t mind debate while others are offended easily and report, a thorough look should be had at the entire exchange, maybe even agreed upon by more than one mod because on several occasions the issue is worked out between posters and a day later a mod will address, reprimand/suspend even long after the dispute was worked out.

 

[G5isAlive]

Personally I believe this site is well moderated. That's one of the reasons I stay.

I can both agree with this statement, AND say it is not perfect. Its not black and white.

 

[TMRJIJ]

I have gotten numerous post edits/deletions from the same moderator but still consider him a MR ‘friend’ when he’s actually talking in threads. We have to realize, it’s really nothing personal. Nobody here should have a personal agenda against any member or moderator. If I disagree with a moderation, I either ask for a specific reason (all have been in reasonable conversation) or just assume that they interrupted it differently.
Only the poster really knows how their comments are interrupted and it’s no use getting mad over something that everyone involved will likely forget about an hour later.
This is the internet. We’re all strangers to each other. You’ll learn to only remember the profile names and not what they said or moderate.

 

[Phil A.]

In the PRSI forum, if a mod does not agree with your particular stance (or is offended by it) you are that much more likely to be reprimanded. I suppose looking it realistically it would be hard not to, not that I know the answer but it definitely plays a role.

That is categorically untrue - posts are moderated according to the rules and the individual stance or views of the moderators play no part at all in moderating decisions

 

[ericgtr12]

That is categorically untrue - posts are moderated according to the rules and the individual stance or views of the moderators play no part at all in moderating decisions

I’ll agree to disagree here, this has been my observation and not just with me, as I see it happen with others as well. All this said, I do appreciate you guys allowing us to leave feedback here for better or worse and I hope it’s constructive for all of us.

 

[I7guy]

How would you know? Seriously. Any comment regarding any particular event, no matter how vague, no matter how polite, is deemed against the rules and thus subject to be deleted. A convenient rule, but not terribly productive. An analogy, I respect police officers, but as we see now with the availability of social media there are a few bad apples. And even good apples can have bad stem days. I can give you any number of examples where a public discussion of specifics leads to positive change. It can be done civilly.

I will say it again, I do like MacRumors. I have been reading for a long, long time, even before Apple was hip and cool. I have endured right along with MacRumors, the days when Jobs was ousted from Apple, then brought in, then rose to fame, and then.. well.. now.

But that does NOT mean it is perfect. Or that there has not been targeted moderation. There has. Shrugs. There just isn't a forum to discuss it. The last time I tried, well I guess I am not allowed to talk about that either.

I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but I do know what was said above. And not for anything, it seems you have an axe to grind. If this were me, I would take what was said above and move forward with a keener eye toward what was posted on these forums. As far as the "bad apple" comment, the mods themselves have said, in these threads, they are open to discussion. It is against the rules to discuss events on the forum and you can use the "contact us" link for more information. (And as I said below, the mods a human, not robots and it's possible on any one occasion there is more leniency or enforcement based on a number of conditions, including past post history, feelings of a particular moderator at a point in time, subject matter, deemed offense, etc)

You have been here since 2003, that's a long time. I do not believe "censoring" is an active practice on MacRumors, nor do I believe "targeted moderation" is an active practice...although I can understand how it may feel like that at times.

In the PRSI forum, if a mod does not agree with your particular stance (or is offended by it) you are that much more likely to be reprimanded. I suppose looking it realistically it would be hard not to, not that I know the answer but it definitely plays a role.

Additionally, some people don’t mind debate while others are offended easily and report, a thorough look should be had at the entire exchange, maybe even agreed upon by more than one mod because on several occasions the issue is worked out between posters and a day later a mod will address, reprimand/suspend even long after the dispute was worked out.

I absolutely do not believe posts that follow the "rules" are censored, that would give this site a virtual black eye if were true. (similar to proving apple actively engages in planned obsolescence as an analogy comes to mind) Sometimes there may be a fine line in some posts, and maybe some posts are let go and maybe some are moderated, but with millions of posts on MacRumors and having moderators that are not robots, I'm sure there are things that could go both ways.

Just my viewpoint of someone who has been here a short time (<5 years)

 

[ericgtr12]

I absolutely do not believe posts that follow the "rules" are censored, that would give this site a virtual black eye if were true. (similar to proving apple actively engages in planned obsolescence as an analogy comes to mind) Sometimes there may be a fine line in some posts, and maybe some posts are let go and maybe some are moderated, but with millions of posts on MacRumors and having moderators that are not robots, I'm sure there are things that could go both ways.

Understood, however I think “following the rules’ is subjective and depends on the moderators take on it. Example: You are wrong! As opposed to: I don’t agree with that position! (Which you see in the PRSI forum a lot by those who have obviously been slapped for it) It’s the same thing but the wording is closely considered here and based on a mods interpretation could both be construed as breaking the rules or not breaking the rules, really depending on context. They are certainly not robots and I don’t think their job is easy here but it’s easy to twist something to fit your justification and call it within the rules.

 

[I7guy]

Understood, however I think “following the rules’ is subjective and depends on the moderators take on it. Example: You are wrong! As opposed to: I don’t agree with that position! (Which you see in the PRSI forum a lot by those who have obviously been slapped for it) It’s the same thing but the wording is closely considered here and based on a mods interpretation could both be construed as breaking the rules or not breaking the rules, really depending on context. They are certainly not robots and I don’t think their job is easy here but it’s easy to twist something to fit your justification and call it within the rules.

"You are wrong" and "you are delusional" (which seems to be a common way to phrase things sometimes and does get the wrong type of attention) both have something in common...talking about the poster and saying something in basically the same way.

"I don't agree" takes the reply to a completely different level as that phrasing facilitates a discussion.

 

[MacDawg]

There are a lot of assumptions being made about motives, agendas, etc. that I believe are just not true. I understand when one feels unjustly treated they lash out and are defensive and want to air their grievance. I get that.

But the Moderator team is a very diverse group with a wide range of backgrounds and opinions. Moderation does not take place in a vacuum, and there is simply no way a "rogue" moderator can wreak havoc on an individual or an ideal and get away with it for long. It is just not possible with all the checks and balances in place. All moderation is transparent to the other moderators and there is a lot of communication that goes on between them. Because of their diversity, they will not always agree on matters or how they should be handled, and for that reason, they will discuss and discuss and discuss some more before a consensus is made and supported. No moderator has a free hand to mete out unchecked "justice" independently without review by their peers. And every moderator has a chance to offer dissenting opinions during discussions. These are not bots, these are users just like you are, and once were a part of the general forum population. But they are also human and prone to their own errors in judgement at times. That is why users are encouraged to use the Contact Us form if they believe they have been treated unjustly and the Administrators of the site can review.

Yes, some things are cut and dry and clear violation of rules and are handled swiftly and independently. But in larger matters of judgment, most times moderators will be wise enough to seek the input of their peers before taking unilateral action.

I won't be naive enough to say they get it right every single time, but I will say I believe they have a very high degree of success in enforcing the rules and balancing the issues at stake.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I've had a few warnings over the years. Normally I look at what I've written and either chalk it up to me either writing an emotional response, or (more commonly) something I said taken the wrong way. Mostly my strange English humour!
However I just learn from that and move on.
I certainly don't believe any mod has any axes to grind. If they didn't volunteer their time (mostly), this forum would have long ceased being a place to hang out for me.

 

[LizKat]

Additionally, some people don’t mind debate while others are offended easily and report, a thorough look should be had at the entire exchange, maybe even agreed upon by more than one mod because on several occasions the issue is worked out between posters and a day later a mod will address, reprimand/suspend even long after the dispute was worked out.

I think they have looked at it and made some changes that seem on balance to work out pretty well. And it's not like we're not forewarned by the guidelines and past that a sticky forum thread, at least in PRSI.

Just because a couple posters manage to work something out in a series of posts (or behind the scenes in PMs maybe) doesn't mean that someone else might not decide to report one of the posts or the whole exchange at some point. It's a risk we run if we take some issue into debate in a forum and stretch it out to where not only is it bickering but bickering while getting hot under the collar. That's when mistakes happen.

A lot of stuff doesn't get reported that could be subject to removal if it were. We get lazy or inured to the minor violations in PRSI after awhile, probably. The effect of that over time can provide a misleading sense of the guidelines (as opposed to reading the actual guidelines over once in awhile). Then when someone egregiously violates the same guideline over and over and finally gets reported by someone else, well... [shrug]

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of us are here to exchange or express opinions, and presumably not to keep scorecards on each other's rate of getting hauled up in front of mods. On the other hand the mods do have records to consult, since some of the guidelines are about repetitious actions or repeated violations of a particular guideline. That's not say we haven't had people fond of trolling amongst us now and then. It's up to us not to take the bait, or else take it and face consequences if we bite down and get moderated for it.

Sometimes the mods seem to divvy up the jackpot and so both (or the whole lot of ) contenders for a vacation get some time off; I can understand that approach as well. What are we going to do, act like babies and yell about "well he started it!" We can do that in a contact form but imo expecting a reversal is a stretch of "hope".

Finally, one can get caught up in a situation where rafts of one's own and other members' posts get deleted because a bunch of us were drawn into some off topic drift or just a discussion that someone else eventually reports as "bickering"... even if we just got into it at the end and so wouldn't consider it bickering (or at least not at that point lol). I can get irked at that since I'm an offender sometimes on following drift, but I have no leg to stand on when I think about it, and it can be annoying to a thread starter to have a topic thoroughly derailed.

 

[maflynn]

In the PRSI forum, if a mod does not agree with your particular stance (or is offended by it) you are that much more likely to be reprimanded.

I disagree, that is not true at all. The moderation team takes pride in looking at each report objectively and acting on the report on its own, and not based on the person's political leanings. I couldn't care less if someone is a conservative or a liberal, it matters not to me. I mean that both in the PRSI, but also in life.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I don't post in the PRSI forum, but read it from time to time. I do wonder what % of bans and warnings are in that forum. Over 50% I guess.

 

[Weaselboy]

I don't post in the PRSI forum, but read it from time to time. I do wonder what % of bans and warnings are in that forum. Over 50% I guess.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2017-post-report-statistics.2103406/

Here is an excerpt from the last stats on reports (not bans or warnings... just reports).

Politics, Religion, Social Issues    1439    9.3%

It is not just the raw volume of PRSI reports, but often the type of report. For example a report on "You are a moron" in the iPhone forum is quick and easy to deal with, and I don't think anybody here would say that is not a rule violation. But a report of a pattern of trolling in a PRSI thread can suck up a lot of time while you read the thread for context, read the member's post history in other threads, review the member's moderation history, then still not have a resolution and leave some notes for input from other moderators.

Here is more info from that same stats thread.

How we handled reports

We encourage members to report posts even if they're not completely sure if the post is a rule violation. In 2017, 82% of reports were found to be rule violations and acted on in some way. About 11 out of 12 post reports were found to be clear-cut cases; the remaining ones required moderator discussions, and additional time, before the appropriate action or non-action was determined. Both of these figures increased from 2016, which was likely due to the increase in reports about spam, which are generally clear-cut cases.

 

[samiwas]

I actually checked out this sub-forum to see if there was a thread regarding moderation. I know it's a touchy subject.

It would be nice if moderators let members work things out for themselves, especially when their posts aren't that egregious but that has not been my experience, reported posts are usually treated with a heavy hand of moderation and typically only the reported post is considered, rather than the entire exchange. So if two of you are in a debate and only one reports it, that's the only person reprimanded and that may be up for debate but we've seen it over and over.

It is what it is, if you want to have heated debates MR is not the place for it. I've never been on a forum so heavily moderated. That being said, if a cleaned up environment with no drama is your thing then I'm sure it's that much more pleasant for you.

I agree with a lot of the above. I have seen heaily-moderated forums turn into places where you either talk like first graders, or you are deleted/banned. Even some fun snark has no place. And that is what makes a forum become dull. PRSI was quite fun for a while, and I really enjoyed it, but has devolved quite a bit. Mostly because the fun and interesting people have all been silenced while the people who I would consider obvious trolls, or the ones who incite the fun and interesting people to say something off key, still post regularly. Because obvious trolling is not against the rules, while saying someone's post is ridiculous, is. It's why my visitation went from an hour or two daily to an hour or two weekly at most. And now, I no longer have access to post in PRSI. Thus, my 11.5-year tenure on MacRumors has reached its conclusion, as I have no interest in discussing Apple products.

I personally (to my knowledge) have never reported a post unless it was obvious sales spam. I generally do not get offended by others' words, and can handle myself as an adult. I'm no longer in grade school and expect to be able to have a discussion as such. This forum is apparently not the place for that. In another politics forum, I've been told I should die, that I should have been aborted, and that I am unAmerican and should be kicked out of the country, all for supporting better wages and healthcare platforms. Never reported them...and those people still post today (I left that forum, but check in on the insanity once in a while). But, such is life.

Another forum that I visit frequently (non-political, city-based) recently got a new moderator who is essentially the equivalent of a Catholic School nun. Absolutely nothing goes. You say something not 100% on topic, your post will almost certainly be deleted. If a thread veers into a related topic but not the original, the discussion is closed. If the thread is closely related to another thread, it's locked. If you say something that could even remotely be interpreted as a slight against another member, your post is deleted and you get a warning. Absolutely ridiculous, and I'm considering contacting the moderation team of that forum to find out if that's the type of moderation they expect. I love having locally-based discussions, and it's a very active forum, so I don't plan on leaving or finding another one, but Christ...what a buzzkill.

TL;DR : excessive moderation makes a forum boring. Example: PRSI.
[doublepost=1520221300][/doublepost]

Here is an excerpt from the last stats on reports (not bans or warnings... just reports).

Wow...the biggest thing I note: 15,399 reports made by 2,177 members. That means that of the members who post a report, they average more than 7 reports each.

I'd actually love to see the numbers with spam numbers removed. Some of the graphs give an idea, but I'd like to see more.

 

[BittenApple]

Some mods can be *******s at times. Overzealous.

 

[MacDawg]

^^^^^
Perfect example of why moderation is challenging

 

[ericgtr12]

Frankly, I'm glad they're letting us have this discussion in here so let's please not ruin it.

 

[HexMonkey]

Lest we think there is any level of fairness, my note on this topic got deleated not because I named names or anything personal but because i described unfair practices here. Forget you can not fight city hall, you can’t even say anything negative about city hall. I suspect it’s the same moderator with a personal agenda. My guess is my account will be deleated next. Funny thing is by and large I like this site lol

I'm late to the game here, but adding to what annk said I thought it would be helpful to elaborate on why we have the rule against discussing specific moderation.

Under our privacy policy, we can't publicly discuss specifics of how we have moderated members or their posts. So when someone posts about specific moderation, it's not useful to them, since we can't provide a suitable response, and it's not useful to other members, because it only provides one side of the story (and often will contain significant inaccuracies).

We are however open to discussing specific moderation in the right setting, which is via the contact form. We can elaborate on why particular moderation was done, or if you wish, can review whether moderation was appropriate if you disagree with it. Although we usually find that moderation was appropriate, there are definitely cases where we reverse moderation on further review. It's often borderline cases where moderation is queried that result in us tweaking our policies over time, or bring to our attention areas where we're not moderating as consistently as we'd like.

Discussing moderation in a general sense in this forum, without reference to specific moderation, is of course fine. We'll never get everyone agreeing with how we moderate the forums, but the goal is to provide the best forum experience for the community at large, so we appreciate feedback from members to help us refine our moderation policies.

 

[Septembersrain]

I've felt that way in other forums but there were legitimate reasons. I upset a certain person but quite a few of us did as well. We found that ambassador to be a registered sex offender and called it out until we got banned.

I recommend trying to talk it out with them. Explain how you feel and see if it can be resolved peacefully.

We're all just humans, mods or not.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

I've felt that way in other forums but there were legitimate reasons. I upset a certain person but quite a few of us did as well. We found that ambassador to be a registered sex offender and called it out until we got banned.

I recommend trying to talk it out with them. Explain how you feel and see if it can be resolved peacefully.

We're all just humans, mods or not.

You can't reply to the warnings and I think there is a particular person that people are complaining about. They seem have no interest discussing any moderation. All in all, it doesn't matter. I have better things to do than to worry about my account here. I could care less at this point if my account get permanently banned, I am already locked out of the political threads here and don't really miss it. Between work and my family I couldn't care less about internet bullies.