Anyone else feel like a particular Mod picks on them?

[TheAppleFairy]

Ironically, we'd have more moderators, and therefore more of a variety from whom a user might get reminders, and therefore fewer assumptions that a particular moderator is making it personal, if we weren't so picky about choosing moderators who won't do exactly that! You can read about moderator selection here.

I think the issue starts with the first sentence “Moderation selection is a long and careful process that starts with recommendations from the current moderators”.

 

[rockitdog]

Let's just close the thread, we can't have a real discussion without being censored anyway. Might as well close it.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Let's just close the thread, we can't have a real discussion without being censored anyway. Might as well close it.

From what I can tell, in the 4 pages - they've answered the questions by denying the accusation that a single moderator focuses on users. What else do you think you can accomplish? (Genuine curiosity (I don't do sarcasm well)).

 

[TheAppleFairy]

From what I can tell, in the 4 pages - they've answered the questions by denying the accusation that a single moderator focuses on users. What else do you think you can accomplish? (Genuine curiosity (I don't do sarcasm well)).

We am not sure if a single user singled out people, but I think there is an issue with a mod flexing his internet muscles and all the mods are similarly minded folks, especially politically in this forum, so I think the lack of diversity doesn’t help.

Edit: but I agree, they answered as much as they are going to. His efforts are wasted.

 

[HexMonkey]

@rockitdog, if you have concerns that you've been targeted by a particular moderator, please outline them in detail in a contact and we will be happy to investigate.

I think replies like this are part of the issue. This is a feedback thread from the community to the staff members. It's an opportunity to learn how other members feel. Perhaps the moderation process is working well but how it is being communicated to members does not work which is clearly evident by the comments people are making.

In any organization or community these are wonderful opportunities to gather feedback. Say thanks to those who voiced their concerns and perhaps take a look at the processes to make this a better experience for the users. Scrutinizing the messages and posting links to FAQ's indicates more of an attitude of being right and there is nothing to be improved upon. Even though that may not be your intent, it does come across that way. Members just want their concerns to be heard.

Feedback is most valuable when it's part of a two-way discussion. By clarifying our current policies and providing some background as to how we do things behind the scenes, it means we can have an open discussion about our processes based on a common set of facts, rather than based on assumptions and speculation. You're welcome to disagree with our policies and processes and suggest improvements, but it's a lot more constructive to do so from a starting point of knowing how things currently work on both sides.

If you have ideas for how we can better communicate our processes, I'd be happy to hear them.

I think the issue starts with the first sentence “Moderation selection is a long and careful process that starts with recommendations from the current moderators”.

That sentence probably oversimplifies things a bit. Moderator recommendations are definitely a valuable source of candidates, as moderators have good visibility of what goes on in the forums, but there are other sources too, including based on data mining of forum activity. We would also consider recommendations from other sources, such as from the community. Initial recommendations are just used to identify candidates to vet more thoroughly and hold little if any weight in our final determinations of whether a candidate is suitable.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

@rockitdog, if you have concerns that you've been targeted by a particular moderator, please outline them in detail in a contact and we will be happy to investigate.



Feedback is most valuable when it's part of a two-way discussion. By clarifying our current policies and providing some background as to how we do things behind the scenes, it means we can have an open discussion about our processes based on a common set of facts, rather than based on assumptions and speculation. You're welcome to disagree with our policies and processes and suggest improvements, but it's a lot more constructive to do so from a starting point of knowing how things currently work on both sides.

If you have ideas for how we can better communicate our processes, I'd be happy to hear them.



That sentence probably oversimplifies things a bit. Moderator recommendations are definitely a valuable source of candidates, as moderators have good visibility of what goes on in the forums, but there are other sources too, including based on data mining of forum activity. We would also consider recommendations from other sources, such as from the community. Initial recommendations are just used to identify candidates to vet more thoroughly and hold little if any weight in our final determinations of whether a candidate is suitable.

How about a recommendation of who shouldn’t be a mod? Or a term limit?

 

[HexMonkey]

How about a recommendation of who shouldn’t be a mod? Or a term limit?

We'd consider any information we get from the community. Term limits probably wouldn't be feasible in practice as the pool of candidates that meets our high standards likely wouldn't be large enough to maintain a suitable number of moderators, although there's natural attrition over time (there are also benefits to having people who have been around for a while, as the institutional knowledge helps us to better maintain consistency over time). And certainly if we discovered that a moderator was abusing their power then they wouldn't remain a moderator.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

The thing that gets me is that I had no idea that there was a new PRSI 3 strike rule, it wasn’t out in any of the warning I received. The only place I would have known was to go and look for it. The only thing I look at in the forum is “new post” and the front page.

Moderation is very subjective, if someone said conservatism is a mental disorder I doubt anyone would bat an eye, but if someone said Liberalism is a mental disorder I would wager to bet it would get reported and the user would get a warning.

We'd consider any information we get from the community. Term limits probably wouldn't be feasible in practice as the pool of candidates that meets our high standards likely wouldn't be large enough to maintain a suitable number of moderators, although there's natural attrition over time (there are also benefits to having people who have been around for a while, as the institutional knowledge helps us to better maintain consistency over time). And certainly if we discovered that a moderator was abusing their power then they wouldn't remain a moderator.

 

[RootBeerMan]

The thing that gets me is that I had no idea that there was a new PRSI 3 strike rule, it wasn’t out in any of the warning I received. The only place I would have known was to go and look for it. The only thing I look at in the forum is “new post” and the front page.

Moderation is very subjective, if someone said conservatism is a mental disorder I doubt anyone would bat an eye, but if someone said Liberalism is a mental disorder I would wager to bet it would get reported and the user would get a warning.

This is related to the only beef I have regarding the mods. They all too often give in to the "hecklers veto" and gig posters because of someone else's opinion or their attempt to shut up a contrary opinion via "the rules". Then comes the censoring and over moderation. I can't say that I've ever seen its like in any other forum I've been in.

 

[HexMonkey]

The thing that gets me is that I had no idea that there was a new PRSI 3 strike rule, it wasn’t out in any of the warning I received. The only place I would have known was to go and look for it. The only thing I look at in the forum is “new post” and the front page.

That's a fair point. I'll look into what options we have to better communication this in the relevant warning messages.

Moderation is very subjective, if someone said conservatism is a mental disorder I doubt anyone would bat an eye, but if someone said Liberalism is a mental disorder I would wager to bet it would get reported and the user would get a warning.

Both would be a rule violation. Moderators don't moderate based on their personal beliefs, and any opinion is allowed, as long as it's expressed within the rules (which is not the case in those examples).

 

[TheAppleFairy]

Both would be a rule violation. Moderators don't moderate based on their personal beliefs, and any opinion is allowed, as long as it's expressed within the rules (which is not the case in those examples).

Most of what is posted in PRSI is conservative bashing. Now that the word is getting out that people are getting banned they are wording things differently, but the point was nobody would report someone for bashing conservatives, but a sarcastic remark the other direction would likely get reported multiple times.

I’ve never felt the need to report people, hell someone called me an arrogant ass a couple of weeks ago here, I haven’t lost any sleep over it.

 

[HexMonkey]

Most of what is posted in PRSI is conservative bashing. Now that the word is getting out that people are getting banned they are wording things differently, but the point was nobody would report someone for bashing conservatives, but a sarcastic remark the other direction would likely get reported multiple times.

It could be the case that there's a bias in what's reported to us - we don't collect any quantitative data to be able to tell either way, and the moderators would be in a better position than me to comment as to what they see in reports. If it is actually the case, I'd be interested to hear ideas for how we could address this that don't involve a considerable increase in resources on our side (for example, proactively reviewing every PRSI post would address it, but we don't have the resources for that).

 

[TheAppleFairy]

It could be the case that there's a bias in what's reported to us - we don't collect any quantitative data to be able to tell either way, and the moderators would be in a better position than me to comment as to what they see in reports. If it is actually the case, I'd be interested to hear ideas for how we could address this that don't involve a considerable increase in resources on our side (for example, proactively reviewing every PRSI post would address it, but we don't have the resources for that).

I don’t have any good ideas that could resolve this. I do miss responding to some good topics once in a while, but it’s probably good I can’t post in there right now. I was forced to drop out of college in 2004 when I was called back up to active duty for Iraq, and never went back to finish my degree until this summer. So between school, work and my kids I could use this PRSI break. Just hoping it isn’t permanent.

 

[Askolan]

I would name names but I'm afraid that someone would delete this post or suspend me. It's frustrating because I feel like I'm not allowed to ever defend myself even in the most non-aggressive way without a p;articular mod deleting my post, sending me a warning or suspending me. I can't even count how many times I will post something serious and someone will come along and make a snarky comment that is uncalled for or completely unhelpful or slight personal attack and if I even say anything back (often in the same manner) I get punished. I love MacRumors but it's like we are children and are not able to stand up for ourselves.

This is why I deleted my original account years ago. I came back recently in hopes that things have changed; haven't encountered the same issues at all recently but sorry you are still experiencing it.

 

[samiwas]

Moderation is very subjective, if someone said conservatism is a mental disorder I doubt anyone would bat an eye, but if someone said Liberalism is a mental disorder I would wager to bet it would get reported and the user would get a warning.

Most of what is posted in PRSI is conservative bashing. Now that the word is getting out that people are getting banned they are wording things differently, but the point was nobody would report someone for bashing conservatives, but a sarcastic remark the other direction would likely get reported multiple times.

I don't find this to be the case at all. In fact, I've rarely, if ever, seen "conservatism is a mental disorder", but I've seen "liberalism is a mental disorder" on numerous occasions. There is also plenty of liberal bashing in there. I can also assure you with 100% certainty that posts poking fun at conservatives get reported, a lot. Exhibit A: me.

And, you have used the liberalism line before, and I assume it was reported.

A google search of "liberalism is a mental disorder" brings up numerous results, many on macrumors. Google returns no results for "conservatism is a mental disorder" on macrumors.

I’ve never felt the need to report people, hell someone called me an arrogant ass a couple of weeks ago here, I haven’t lost any sleep over it.

I have never, to my knowledge, reported anyone in 9 years of PRSI. I don't see the point in it unless they are blatantly being a troll.

That's a fair point. I'll look into what options we have to better communication this in the relevant warning messages.

Please do. My last "vacation" included a message that it would be lifted one week later. But, it said nothing regarding my ability to post on PRSI being removed. When I came back from vacation, I had no ability to post in PRSI, with no notice of such. When I questioned it, I was told to go read the rules and figure it out.

Messages from moderators should be clear and concise, with actions taken specifically listed. If a poster is losing access to a sub-forum, that should be noted in the message from the moderator.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

I don't find this to be the case at all. In fact, I've rarely, if ever, seen "conservatism is a mental disorder", but I've seen "liberalism is a mental disorder" on numerous occasions. There is also plenty of liberal bashing in there. I can also assure you with 100% certainty that posts poking fun at conservatives get reported, a lot. Exhibit A: me.

And, you have used the liberalism line before, and I assume it was reported.

A google search of "liberalism is a mental disorder" brings up numerous results, many on macrumors. Google returns no results for "conservatism is a mental disorder" on macrumors.



I have never, to my knowledge, reported anyone in 9 years of PRSI. I don't see the point in it unless they are blatantly being a troll.



Please do. My last "vacation" included a message that it would be lifted one week later. But, it said nothing regarding my ability to post on PRSI being removed. When I came back from vacation, I had no ability to post in PRSI, with no notice of such. When I questioned it, I was told to go read the rules and figure it out.

Messages from moderators should be clear and concise, with actions taken specifically listed. If a poster is losing access to a sub-forum, that should be noted in the message from the moderator.

I wanted to say that it's good to know that moderation doesn't appear bias, but if not then it's not that much better. It's just too much moderation. I enjoy a little heated debate and a little teasing back and forth.

I admit that the last comment that got me banned I expected a timeout, I was feeling a little spunky that day and it felt good to say what i said but I would have been on my best behavior had I known it would lead to a permanent ban....or I would have waited long enough to make sure I cleared the 6 month window.

 

[samiwas]

I wanted to say that it's good to know that moderation doesn't appear bias, but if not then it's not that much better. It's just too much moderation. I enjoy a little heated debate and a little teasing back and forth.

Join the crowd. BUT, I want that debate, even if heated, to be somewhat constructive, with valid points. The new generation of PRSI posters just strikes me as a group whose sole purpose is to antagonize and/or post easily-debunked talking points. I miss posters like FivePoint and Southern Dad who, while I vehemently disagreed with pretty much everything they said, at least described their views and why they believed it. I can't stand the basic "because it's my right" or "go study economics" type posts, which are widespread now.

I admit that the last comment that got me banned I expected a timeout, I was feeling a little spunky that day and it felt good to say what i said but I would have been on my best behavior had I known it would lead to a permanent ban....or I would have waited long enough to make sure I cleared the 6 month window.

Yep...but, such is life. Those of us who are a little squirrelly and may have little bit more of a snarky side, tend to get picked off more often.

 

[ErikGrim]

You deleted my post not discussing a specific moderation, just telling you that your moderation is bad and you should feel bad. Let’s see how long this one last.

 

[Doctor Q]

You deleted my post not discussing a specific moderation, just telling you that your moderation is bad and you should feel bad. Let’s see how long this one last.

In the deleted post, you described the moderation of your post, which you said was in response to another user's behavior. As we suggest to anyone who is moderated, you used the Contact form and received an explanation. We can't tell you how the other user was moderated.

 

[ErikGrim]

In the deleted post, you described the moderation of your post, which you said was in response to another user's behavior. As we suggest to anyone who is moderated, you used the Contact form and received an explanation. We can't tell you how the other user was moderated.

No, that was the first post that got deleted. I was referring to that post, but not the moderation itself.

 

[Doctor Q]

Ah yes, you are correct. You posted again, to say that the post I mentioned was deleted. So that description of moderation was also deleted. You've made it clear that you think that "moderation is bad." Posting that opinion is OK. While we might not agree, we read every Feedback thread and look for improvements that we can make.

 

[rockitdog]

Moderation is a microcosm of what’s wrong with our society. We’ve become so PC and soft that we’re worried about people’s feelings being hurt or making sure everyone is feeling safe or warm and fuzzy. We aren’t allowed to have actual debates which is partly why nobody knows how to debate. At the same time when you take away folks ability to discuss/ argue/ or challenge each other you’re basically telling them that you don’t think their post is valid/ worth discussing or that their thought doesn’t measure up to your standards. It’s a total double standard.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Moderation is a microcosm of what’s wrong with our society. We’ve become so PC and soft that we’re worried about people’s feelings being hurt or making sure everyone is feeling safe or warm and fuzzy. We aren’t allowed to have actual debates which is partly why nobody knows how to debate. At the same time when you take away folks ability to discuss/ argue/ or challenge each other you’re basically telling them that you don’t think their post is valid/ worth discussing or that their thought doesn’t measure up to your standards. It’s a total double standard.

The ability to discuss and debate on the forum has not been taken away from you or any other active member. What has been taken away, (from inception) is the ability of a forum member to do whatever he or she wants.

This forum is an Oligarchal run business site. Forum members have no inherent rights to post here, outside of the benefits provided, which come with following the rules of the business. The reason many people are getting moderated time and time again, is because they are not following the rules.

If a forum member can't debate time and time again without being moderated each time, it would behoove the forum member to learn how to engage in proper debate, stay out of the problem forum, or find another site where adults can act like it is the wild west.

Take responsibility for your posting, be civil to people in said forum, follow the rules, and you won't get moderated. Real simple.

 

[TiggrToo]

Moderation is a microcosm of what’s wrong with our society. We’ve become so PC and soft that we’re worried about people’s feelings being hurt or making sure everyone is feeling safe or warm and fuzzy. We aren’t allowed to have actual debates which is partly why nobody knows how to debate. At the same time when you take away folks ability to discuss/ argue/ or challenge each other you’re basically telling them that you don’t think their post is valid/ worth discussing or that their thought doesn’t measure up to your standards. It’s a total double standard.

There are plenty of places one online where people can have free reign to pretty much say anything they want (e.g. Twitter, Reddit). The folk who run MR have decided however to impose their rules to make this a safe space for folk which, given that they're paying the bills and hosting the site, they get to do.

We, as users, have a choice to accept it or stop using it. I've been censored at least once since I've been here. Didn't like it, thought it was a little unfair, but aside from that I accepted it was the price of being here.

Really surprised the mods have left this thread open and it feels that they've been more than fair by doing so. At the end of the day, the mods are human, and, like the rest of us, can have bad days. It would seem to me that if a particular mod was really being unfair then bringing this to the attention of folk like @Doctor Q would go along way of addressing it.

 

[Newtons Apple]

I have been banned multiple times . . . . each time it was deserved.

I think they are doing a pretty good job considering how many push the "limits"!