Anyone else feel like a particular Mod picks on them?

[Apple_Robert]

This is accurate for black and white issues. I’m referring to the situations that are not clearly violations. The “edge” cases or the cases where the behavior isn’t even a violation—-just an instance of the mods not liking what you say. Believe it or not, you can be black holed for completely innocuous reasons.

When the report enters the 'could be' category, it is discussed amongst the mods. Intent matters. It matters a lot as does posting history. All of that is taken into consideration when a report is made that isn't easy to say thus and thus it shall be.

I have had to make calls like that. And even after the mod conference, I knew I was going to hear about from those who didn't like it. Moderation is done by the rules of the business. It isn't personal.

The mods here make mistakes. They are flawed just like rest of us. They also spend a lot of hours on here to help run this site without pay.

 

[MacNut]

When the report enters the 'could be' category, it is discussed amongst the mods. Intent matters. It matters a lot as does posting history. All of that is taken into consideration when a report is made that isn't easy to say thus and thus it shall be.

I have had to make calls like that. And even after the mod conference, I knew I was going to hear about from those who didn't like it. Moderation is done by the rules of the business. It isn't personal.

The mods here make mistakes. They are flawed just like rest of us. They also spend a lot of hours on here to help run this site without pay.

So I found out when filing a complaint about my infraction that they keep records on everyone. Seems like something we should know before hand. That got me thinking why are some of the people that post much worse still there.

 

[Glockworkorange]

When the report enters the 'could be' category, it is discussed amongst the mods. Intent matters. It matters a lot as does posting history. All of that is taken into consideration when a report is made that isn't easy to say thus and thus it shall be.

I have had to make calls like that. And even after the mod conference, I knew I was going to hear about from those who didn't like it. Moderation is done by the rules of the business. It isn't personal.

The mods here make mistakes. They are flawed just like rest of us. They also spend a lot of hours on here to help run this site without pay.

Thanks for confirming what we’ve been saying for the past hour as opposed to the gaslighting.

 

[Apple_Robert]

So I found out when filing a complaint about my infraction that they keep records on everyone. Seems like something we should know before hand. That got me thinking why are some of the people that post much worse still there.

Many other big businesses keep reports of people that have caused trouble on their premises. It is logical and prudent to do so, in my opinion.

In my opinion, the customers of MacRumors do not have the inherent right to know all of the security procedures and policies used to protect the business.

Like other members here, I notice when someone has been suspended. And notice is where it is left. It isn't my business why member X got suspended or banned. What is my business, is obeying the rules and trying to be a help and friend to fellow members as best I can each day. I have moments where I fail. And when those moments happen, I apologize and move forward.

I think many people here need to do the same. Focus on what you (plural use) are doing on the forum and leave it at that. Life is too short to get caught up in meaningless drama day after day.
[doublepost=1521346978][/doublepost]

Thanks for confirming what we’ve been saying for the past hour as opposed to the gaslighting.

I haven't confirmed moderator bias here. I have not confirmed that some mods are purposefully targeting some members. What I did confirm, is the mods here are flawed like rest of us. And at times, have made mistakes. That does not equate to the claim of moderator abuse as several here are claiming overtly and with a more subtle tone.

 

[MacNut]

Many other big businesses keep reports of people that have caused trouble on their premises. It is logical and prudent to do so, in my opinion.

In my opinion, the customers of MacRumors do not have the inherent right to know all of the security procedures and policies used to protect the business.

Like other members here, I notice when someone has been suspended. And notice is where it is left. It isn't my business why member X got suspended or banned. What is my business, is obeying the rules and trying to be a help and friend to fellow members as best I can each day. I have moments where I fail. And when those moments happen, I apologize and move forward.

I think many people here need to do the same. Focus on what you (plural use) are doing on the forum and leave it at that. Life is too short to get caught up in meaningless drama day after day.
[doublepost=1521346978][/doublepost]
I haven't confirmed moderator bias here. I have not confirmed that some mods are purposefully targeting some members. What I did confirm, is the mods here are flawed like rest of us. And at times, have made mistakes. That does not equate to the claim of moderator abuse as several here are claiming overtly and with a more subtle tone.

If they are not going to tell you that you are under double secret probation before giving you an infraction there is a problem.

 

[Apple_Robert]

If they are not going to tell you that you are under double secret probation without telling you it's a problem. Don't say after the fact that they have a list of posts that violate rules without telling you that.

+1 for the Animal House reference.

In my opinion, if a person worries every time he or she comes to the site about being banned etc. said person should take a moment and reflect on current actions that are leading to said feelings. If the person has previously received polite warnings as well as an official reprimand from the staff, that is cause to take heed. And if there is any confusion by the guest as to what action is needed moving forward, it is incumbent on said guest to use the "Contact US" button, so that he or she can receive clarification of the proper balance between his or her action and the rule(s). If the guest does not seek clarification when he or she should, the onus is on the guest to not violate the same rule again.

1) Stick to the subject at hand
2) Don't go personal in debate
3) If someone insults you, report the possible infraction. Do not respond in kind, or try and abuse the rule(s) by trying to insult the member in a less overt manner than was done to you.
4) If you find yourself starting to get angry and taking retorts from internet strangers personally, step away from the computer for a while and decompress
5) If you find yourself regularly getting angry in the same forum or by the same people, exercise some personal restraint and responsibility by staying away from that which leads you to want to act in such a manner that violates the rules in someone else's business.
6) A person who is truly about honest debate, will eagerly engage those of like mind. Those who are about insults, and building debate houses of logical fallacies will seek those of like mind. They will also attempt to sway those of honest debate to get in the pig pen with them. And when that occurs, the honest debatee must either ignore said person(s) or kindly stick to the subject when retorting, while ignoring the rest of the drivel.
7) If the honest debater feels that being in PRSI is too much of a struggle to stay above the rule-breaking fray, said member should either learn some self-control and better debate skills, or stay out of the forum altogether.

It is not the moderator's job to save you (plural use) from yourself. It is the moderator's job to apply adjudication of the rules of the business in an honest and objective manner.

 

[MacNut]

+1 for the Animal House reference.

In my opinion, if a person worries every time he or she comes to the site about being banned etc. said person should take a moment and reflect on current actions that are leading to said feelings. If the person has previously received polite warnings as well as an official reprimand from the staff, that is cause to take heed. And if there is any confusion by the guest as to what action is needed moving forward, it is incumbent on said guest to use the "Contact US" button, so that he or she can receive clarification of the proper balance between his or her action and the rule(s). If the guest does not seek clarification when he or she should, the onus is on the guest to not violate the same rule again.

1) Stick to the subject at hand
2) Don't go personal in debate
3) If someone insults you, report the possible infraction. Do not respond in kind, or try and abuse the rule(s) by trying to insult the member in a less overt manner than was done to you.
4) If you find yourself starting to get angry and taking retorts from internet strangers personally, step away from the computer for a while and decompress
5) If you find yourself regularly getting angry in the same forum or by the same people, exercise some personal restraint and responsibility by staying away from that which leads you to want to act in such a manner that violates the rules in someone else's business.
6) A person who is truly about honest debate, will eagerly engage those of like mind. Those who are about insults, and building debate houses of logical fallacies will seek those of like mind. They will also attempt to sway those of honest debate to get in the pig pen with them. And when that occurs, the honest debatee must either ignore said person(s) or kindly stick to the subject when retorting, while ignoring the rest of the drivel.
7) If the honest debater feels that being in PRSI is too much of a struggle to stay above the rule-breaking fray, said member should either learn some self-control and better debate skills, or stay out of the forum altogether.

It is not the moderator's job to save you (plural use) from yourself. It is the moderator's job to apply adjudication of the rules of the business in an honest and objective manner.

It's also the job of the moderator to tell you if there is an infraction not keep it hidden and wait until they decide they want to punish you. Either you did something worth a warning or not. Don't keep a list and not tell anyone about it.

 

[HexMonkey]

There are a lot of things being said here that I can categorically say are not true. It's human nature to see patterns out of random noise, and therefore easy to see bias based on a small set of information where there is none.

To reiterate: The administrators provide extensive oversight of moderation, and if we saw any bias or abuse of power by a moderator then they would not remain a moderator. We are happy to respond to contacts to explain why particular moderation was done or not done, or to review any particular moderation or the behaviour of a particular moderator, and we take our role in this seriously.

If you choose not to take us at our word when we say all this, then we're never going to be able to have a constructive discussion. I find it instructive that despite all the insinuations in this thread, we have not, as far as I can see, received a single contact as a result of it.

If however, you're happy to have a meaningful discussion and provide feedback on our policies or processes, then we're happy to engage and consider your viewpoints, which — as has already happened in this thread — can result in changes. We know we're not perfect, so we appreciate it when members help us improve. We're also happy to answer any questions about our processes, which we try to be open about. Thanks to those who have provided feedback, whatever it is, without jumping to conclusions or doubting our intentions.

In terms of the PRSI forum, we considered many options at the time of the policy review, and had few good options. The forum was taking up a hugely increasing portion of our finite volunteer moderation resources, which didn't make sense for us since it's not the focus of the site. If we lighten or remove moderation there, then the forum loses any value it has as one of the few places to discuss politics without resorting to insults and flamewars (if that's something you're looking for, there are many other websites you can choose from). But more importantly, it would result in behaviour that's likely to leak into other forums which are the focus of the site. Closing the forum entirely was a serious option, and this policy provided an alternative that could keep it open for those happy to debate in a way that fits within our rules.

 

[samiwas]

There is also such a thing as people being entitled, arrogant, smug, abrasive and proud. Some who feel the rules shouldn't apply to them, or that in their minds, they are right and everyone should bow to their wisdom and world view. I am often astonished at how some people are clearly out of bounds and see nothing wrong with their words or actions. People can be polar opposite on their views and be dumbfounded how the other side could possibly be so stupid.

I wonder if we are thinking of the same people, or the opposite people...

I have to say in my experience here, the ones who publicly cry and gnash their teeth the loudest about injustices in moderation are typically the ones who I personally feel prolly richly deserved all they got and more.

I remember, and there was even an attempt to start a rival alternative site/Forum. That was prolly the biggest exodus I remember, although there have been some other smaller ones from time to time.

You should receive an infraction for using the word "prolly" not once, but twice.

If you are going to have a warning system and shut people out of a forum the infractions better be worthy of it. Getting people on a minor infraction and not warning in advance that it counts towards the 3 seems to go against the spirit of the rule. These enforcements seem to be uneven and not applied to all offenders. Why are the worst offenders still allowed into the forum with no recourse and still allowed to create troll threads and posts? The current system seems to be picking favorites on who gets infractions from who gets away clean.

Agreed. I've seen some posters lose their access over what were likely pretty minor offenses. But I'm still dumbfounded that certain people still post on a frequent basis seemingly without issue. I'm currently thinking of some undead squirrel food and a deceased fowl.

I'm wondering if we need an open audit of the moderation practices into the PRSI. You guys seem to be making up the rules as you go with no oversight.

That would be amazing to review, even if only for the stat nerd in me, but absolutely 100% not going to happen.

I have a sneaky suspicion if all moderation were to be lifted, it wouldn't take long for the PRSI to become a veritable safe haven for bullies (on both sides) who run off anybody who is rational and fair minded (on either side) and who revel in their own self importance and ability to terrorize anyone who chooses to venture there and who live for the joy of the fight and blood lust. Most well adjusted folks would likely say "why bother, its not worth it" and move along, making it rather useless for any helpful discourse and more a parody of our times.

Absolutely agree. I started going to the political board at city-data.com for a while years ago, looking for something a little more "conservative". I'm much more liberal, and wanted to be in something a little less echo-chamber. The board is either very lightly moderated, or non-right-wing posts are deleted a lot (a LOT of my posts were deleted). But, that forum turned out to just be awful. The sheer amount of true insults being thrown around there was unreal. In simple arguments where I supported better wages, better healthcare, or better support of our poor, I was literally told that I needed to die, that I should be banned from the US, that I should have been aborted, and any number of other awful personal insults. That's the result of NO moderation. But, you can have light-handed moderation, and fall somewhere in between an insult-laden trollfest and a discussion akin to describing your favorite cloud.

But then again, I made my choice a long time back that my quality of life was significantly improved when I blocked the PRSI.

If PRSI was actually affecting your quality of life, that might be a problem.

We've now made changes to reminder and warning messages for applicable violations in the PRSI forum that will hopefully make things clearer. As of a couple of weeks ago, we've also started better informing members if their PRSI access is removed in the applicable warning message. If anyone feels we aren't communicating these details well enough in the future, please let us know.

Unfortunately for all of us who have already been subjected to the heavy hand (many long-time posters), it's lights out.

For years the debate has been why even bother to moderate the PRSI, especially in this political climate. Everyone in there are grownups and don't need to be babysat. I would argue that letting peoples true feelings be heard would police itself and we would get around the half insults and trolling. Save the moderation for the truly unruly Facebook type posts that seem to be running rampant through the internet. But to start banning people over the equivalent of people sitting at a bar getting into a heated discussion is not helping anything.

See my post above. Moderation does need to happen. But, unfortunately, it's being done incorrectly in my opinion.

There's maybe a handful of posters on PRSI whose posts I read, chuckle at and continue to ignore because they're in their own fantasy world.

Hahaha...I'd love to know who!

Will say that PRSI members are generally well behaved. When a thread from another section of the site gets moved, with it goes a stream of some of the most obnoxious and foul posts I've ever read on a forum. And I've been using forums in one form or another since the early 90s.

Yep. That's what I said early in this thread. PRSI was great before they started moving so many threads from the front page to PRSI. With those moves came a whole slew of new posters who brought the level of discourse down a LOT. The types of posters you'd see in the comments section of a Yahoo! article. This became a lot more frequent in the past 2-3 years, which is why PRSI saw so many changes in the past 2-3 years and why moderation has become so much more difficult. It's like they punched a hole in the side of a barrel, then pointed at all the liquid on the floor and blamed the barrel.

The tech community, in general, is very, very far to the left. I think the mods of this site are no different.

Being quite liberal and having been tapped by the mods numerous times over the past few years and finally having my PRSI access removed, while I watch other far-more-right posters continue their blather, I can say emphatically that this is false.

See I think the PRSI is starting to be modded more to the right. I see a lot of Trump posts staying and the anti Trump posts getting flagged.

Agreed. I still don't understand why some of the posters continue to be able to post there when they are obvious trolls. You don't have to say a bad word or personally insult someone to be a troll.

One thing I have noticed is that PRSI is more tame than it was a year ago after some people were sent off on a nice holiday for life. Though, I was always a fan of dropping people into the Tachy goes to Coventry list.

Really? I've found PRSI going from really interesting discussion to basement-dwelling conspiracy nonsense. I don't use the ignore feature though.

If good posters were obeying the rules and debating on topic without going personal, the good posters would not have to worry about getting a suspension or banned.

It's not hard to debate while staying on topic and being civil. The problem is the complainers are not staying on topic and they are replying in kind. And when their actions cause moderation, they feel targeted, which is nothing but grown adults refusing to accept responsibility for their actions.

As explained before, what is now considered worthy of moderation is anything beyond conversation akin to talking about your favorite cloud. A political board cannot be THAT civil. Sorry, but if someone pipes in with "I don't care about your feelings. I stockpile as many high-powered weapons, as much ammunition as I can store, sleep with a gun under my pillow, and have a gun within arms' reach of every location in my house, in order to protect myself against a tyrannical government!!1!11!", my response is not going to be "Well, fine sir, I find your position to be somewhat beyond what is typically considered reasonable by the average person." That's just not a fun way to debate. Now, if I responded with "You are bat*** crazy and need to have your head examined" (which is how I actually feel about it), I would expect to be moderated. There is a middle...but now, the middle is moderated.

If a forum needs to be moderated so strongly why bother with the forum at all. Either let everything go or shut it down.

Nah...I wouldn't let everything go.

Because MacRumors is first and foremost a business. It is not a PRSI forum which does some business on the side. As such, it is incumbent upon the staff, to make sure that the actions of the employees are held to a high standard as well as the customers when on the premises. If chaos is seen by onlookers and the media, that hurts the voice and income of the business. As such, chaos cannot be allowed, if the business is to grow and continue to have a strong and respectable voice.

I'm not sure a few middle-ground disagreements on a single sub-forum of the site is going to noticeably affect the site's standing on the world stage.

In my opinion, a person who feels he or she can't debate without going off topic and being rude to others, is not a person worth listening to.

Agreed, but can we at least pretend that we are adults and not kindergarteners?

I tried.....doubt anything will change. care to share your 3 strikes? I am curious...

I'll PM you my list soon...

 

[0388631]

Not really important, Sami. Not to be rude, but I don't want to go around stirring the pot. Some people get more of my attention, some don't. That's how it is. Some people have gone from being ignored (not through the function) to people whose posts I enjoy reading.

 

[MacNut]

I wonder if we are thinking of the same people, or the opposite people...





You should receive an infraction for using the word "prolly" not once, but twice.



Agreed. I've seen some posters lose their access over what were likely pretty minor offenses. But I'm still dumbfounded that certain people still post on a frequent basis seemingly without issue. I'm currently thinking of some undead squirrel food and a deceased fowl.



That would be amazing to review, even if only for the stat nerd in me, but absolutely 100% not going to happen.




Absolutely agree. I started going to the political board at city-data.com for a while years ago, looking for something a little more "conservative". I'm much more liberal, and wanted to be in something a little less echo-chamber. The board is either very lightly moderated, or non-right-wing posts are deleted a lot (a LOT of my posts were deleted). But, that forum turned out to just be awful. The sheer amount of true insults being thrown around there was unreal. In simple arguments where I supported better wages, better healthcare, or better support of our poor, I was literally told that I needed to die, that I should be banned from the US, that I should have been aborted, and any number of other awful personal insults. That's the result of NO moderation. But, you can have light-handed moderation, and fall somewhere in between an insult-laden trollfest and a discussion akin to describing your favorite cloud.



If PRSI was actually affecting your quality of life, that might be a problem.



Unfortunately for all of us who have already been subjected to the heavy hand (many long-time posters), it's lights out.



See my post above. Moderation does need to happen. But, unfortunately, it's being done incorrectly in my opinion.



Hahaha...I'd love to know who!



Yep. That's what I said early in this thread. PRSI was great before they started moving so many threads from the front page to PRSI. With those moves came a whole slew of new posters who brought the level of discourse down a LOT. The types of posters you'd see in the comments section of a Yahoo! article. This became a lot more frequent in the past 2-3 years, which is why PRSI saw so many changes in the past 2-3 years and why moderation has become so much more difficult. It's like they punched a hole in the side of a barrel, then pointed at all the liquid on the floor and blamed the barrel.



Being quite liberal and having been tapped by the mods numerous times over the past few years and finally having my PRSI access removed, while I watch other far-more-right posters continue their blather, I can say emphatically that this is false.



Agreed. I still don't understand why some of the posters continue to be able to post there when they are obvious trolls. You don't have to say a bad word or personally insult someone to be a troll.



Really? I've found PRSI going from really interesting discussion to basement-dwelling conspiracy nonsense. I don't use the ignore feature though.



As explained before, what is now considered worthy of moderation is anything beyond conversation akin to talking about your favorite cloud. A political board cannot be THAT civil. Sorry, but if someone pipes in with "I don't care about your feelings. I stockpile as many high-powered weapons, as much ammunition as I can store, sleep with a gun under my pillow, and have a gun within arms' reach of every location in my house, in order to protect myself against a tyrannical government!!1!11!", my response is not going to be "Well, fine sir, I find your position to be somewhat beyond what is typically considered reasonable by the average person." That's just not a fun way to debate. Now, if I responded with "You are bat*** crazy and need to have your head examined" (which is how I actually feel about it), I would expect to be moderated. There is a middle...but now, the middle is moderated.



Nah...I wouldn't let everything go.



I'm not sure a few middle-ground disagreements on a single sub-forum of the site is going to noticeably affect the site's standing on the world stage.



Agreed, but can we at least pretend that we are adults and not kindergarteners?



I'll PM you my list soon...

My idea would be to only moderate the personal insults and blatant attacks about an individual. A healthy debate will have arguments and disagreements. No need to ban every little thing because someone gets mildly offended by an opinion.

 

[samiwas]

Not really important, Sami. Not to be rude, but I don't want to go around stirring the pot. Some people get more of my attention, some don't. That's how it is. Some people have gone from being ignored (not through the function) to people whose posts I enjoy reading.

No problem. I didn't actually expect you to post a list of names, and it wouldn't be allowed anyway. Just saying it would be funny to know if we see the same people by the same definitions.

 

[MacNut]

This idea has been brought up years ago and I think it is worth addressing again. We need an independent oversight committee of forum members to address the rules and how they are enforced. What we have now is a FISA court of sorts where we just have to take the word of the mods and administrators that everything is being done above board when though just about everyone here agrees that the rules are not being enforced evenly. A forum as polarized as PRSI needs oversight from more than just the staff.

 

[MacDawg]

This idea has been brought up years ago and I think it is worth addressing again. We need an independent oversight committee of forum members to address the rules and how they are enforced. What we have now is a FISA court of sorts where we just have to take the word of the mods and administrators that everything is being done above board when though just about everyone here agrees that the rules are not being enforced evenly. A forum as polarized as PRSI needs oversight from more than just the staff.

How big is this committee?
How are members selected?
How long do they serve?
What powers do they have?
Who do they answer to?

Sounds more like inviting the inmates to run the asylum... but that's just my opinion

 

[MacNut]

How big is this committee?
How are members selected?
How long do they serve?
What powers do they have?
Who do they answer to?

Sounds more like inviting the inmates to run the asylum... but that's just my opinion

No power just oversight. They can suggest rules be adjusted and make sure they are being enforced properly. They don't get mod powers. Every 6 months the rules get looked at and adjusted accordingly. Selection is random based on participation in the forum and length of membership. They answer to the administrators.

 

[Apple_Robert]

This idea has been brought up years ago and I think it is worth addressing again. We need an independent oversight committee of forum members to address the rules and how they are enforced. What we have now is a FISA court of sorts where we just have to take the word of the mods and administrators that everything is being done above board when though just about everyone here agrees that the rules are not being enforced evenly. A forum as polarized as PRSI needs oversight from more than just the staff.

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.

 

[MacNut]

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.

The political forums have nothing to do with Apple or rumors. They are nothing more than a side show. If rules are going to be implemented and we are expected for follow them we have a right to know that the rules are being applied evenly otherwise why bother have rules. Right now the rules are not being enforced properly.

 

[Apple_Robert]

The political forums have nothing to do with Apple or rumors. They are nothing more than a side show. If rules are going to be implemented and we are expected for follow them we have a right to know that the rules are being applied evenly otherwise why bother have rules. Right now the rules are not being enforced properly.

That is what you don't get. You do not have any inherent rights with this business site, just because you walk in the door. The business has the right to refuse entrance to any person at any time.

If you don't like how the rules are being enforced, make use of the "Contact US" option. If you do that and still don't like the response from the owners of the site, it is time to either change your posting style or find a new place to discuss politics.

 

[MacDawg]

No power just oversight. They can suggest rules be adjusted and make sure they are being enforced properly. They don't get mod powers. Every 6 months the rules get looked at and adjusted accordingly. Selection is random based on participation in the forum and length of membership. They answer to the administrators.

I'm good with almost all of that actually

• No power, just oversight - no problem
• Suggest rules be adjusted - no problem
• No Mod powers - no problem
• Every 6 months rules get looked at - no problem
• Selection based on participation in Forum and length of membership - somebody still has to select though: Admins? Mod recommendation? Peer vote?
• Answer to the Admins - no problem

My issue though is with this:

• Make sure rules are being enforced properly - I don't see how this is accomplished with no power

This is where I see the Admins role in the Contact Us Form in use today
If rules are not being enforced properly, the procedure is to contact the Admins and have them look into it
That is done today, yet still people are not happy with the results

So if this committee finds rules are not being enforced properly, what do they do? Contact the Admins?
That's what we do now, so I don't see a real change there

It seems to me that every member individually has all of this already
They can suggest rule changes in the Site and Forum Feedback Forum
And they can use the Contact Us to contact the Admins if they feel the rules are not being enforced fairly

Personally, it seems more like electing a union rep to speak for me, when I have the ability to speak for myself already

 

[MacNut]

That is what you don't get. You do not have any inherent rights with this business site, just because you walk in the door. The business has the right to refuse entrance to any person at any time.

If you don't like how the rules are being enforced, make use of the "Contact US" option. If you do that and still don't like the response from the owners of the site, it is time to either change your posting style or find a new place to discuss politics.

Why should I change my posting style to those that are creating the problems? My posting style is fine. That is the problem. I have never gotten a straight answer about what rules I violated other than some blanket pre-staged response.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Why should I change my posting style to those that are creating the problems? My posting style is fine. That is the problem. I have never gotten a straight answer about what rules I violated other than some blanket pre-staged response.

MacRumors is very clear about debate rules.

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201327723-MacRumors-Rules-for-Appropriate-Debate

Ask to speak directly to an admin about your history of moderation. If you have done that and still don't like the response, you have the two options I noted previously.

I think you are trying to make this harder than it really needs to be.

 

[MacNut]

MacRumors is very clear about debate rules.

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201327723-MacRumors-Rules-for-Appropriate-Debate

Ask to speak directly to an admin about your history of moderation. If you have done that and still don't like the response, you have the two options I noted previously.

I think you are trying to make this harder than it really needs to be.

That might be the next route, take this right to the top because nothing is getting accomplished any other way.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I wonder if we are thinking of the same people, or the opposite people...





You should receive an infraction for using the word "prolly" not once, but twice.



Agreed. I've seen some posters lose their access over what were likely pretty minor offenses. But I'm still dumbfounded that certain people still post on a frequent basis seemingly without issue. I'm currently thinking of some undead squirrel food and a deceased fowl.



That would be amazing to review, even if only for the stat nerd in me, but absolutely 100% not going to happen.




Absolutely agree. I started going to the political board at city-data.com for a while years ago, looking for something a little more "conservative". I'm much more liberal, and wanted to be in something a little less echo-chamber. The board is either very lightly moderated, or non-right-wing posts are deleted a lot (a LOT of my posts were deleted). But, that forum turned out to just be awful. The sheer amount of true insults being thrown around there was unreal. In simple arguments where I supported better wages, better healthcare, or better support of our poor, I was literally told that I needed to die, that I should be banned from the US, that I should have been aborted, and any number of other awful personal insults. That's the result of NO moderation. But, you can have light-handed moderation, and fall somewhere in between an insult-laden trollfest and a discussion akin to describing your favorite cloud.



If PRSI was actually affecting your quality of life, that might be a problem.



Unfortunately for all of us who have already been subjected to the heavy hand (many long-time posters), it's lights out.



See my post above. Moderation does need to happen. But, unfortunately, it's being done incorrectly in my opinion.



Hahaha...I'd love to know who!



Yep. That's what I said early in this thread. PRSI was great before they started moving so many threads from the front page to PRSI. With those moves came a whole slew of new posters who brought the level of discourse down a LOT. The types of posters you'd see in the comments section of a Yahoo! article. This became a lot more frequent in the past 2-3 years, which is why PRSI saw so many changes in the past 2-3 years and why moderation has become so much more difficult. It's like they punched a hole in the side of a barrel, then pointed at all the liquid on the floor and blamed the barrel.



Being quite liberal and having been tapped by the mods numerous times over the past few years and finally having my PRSI access removed, while I watch other far-more-right posters continue their blather, I can say emphatically that this is false.



Agreed. I still don't understand why some of the posters continue to be able to post there when they are obvious trolls. You don't have to say a bad word or personally insult someone to be a troll.



Really? I've found PRSI going from really interesting discussion to basement-dwelling conspiracy nonsense. I don't use the ignore feature though.



As explained before, what is now considered worthy of moderation is anything beyond conversation akin to talking about your favorite cloud. A political board cannot be THAT civil. Sorry, but if someone pipes in with "I don't care about your feelings. I stockpile as many high-powered weapons, as much ammunition as I can store, sleep with a gun under my pillow, and have a gun within arms' reach of every location in my house, in order to protect myself against a tyrannical government!!1!11!", my response is not going to be "Well, fine sir, I find your position to be somewhat beyond what is typically considered reasonable by the average person." That's just not a fun way to debate. Now, if I responded with "You are bat*** crazy and need to have your head examined" (which is how I actually feel about it), I would expect to be moderated. There is a middle...but now, the middle is moderated.



Nah...I wouldn't let everything go.



I'm not sure a few middle-ground disagreements on a single sub-forum of the site is going to noticeably affect the site's standing on the world stage.



Agreed, but can we at least pretend that we are adults and not kindergarteners?



I'll PM you my list soon...

My experience is completely different. The PRSI is a clown show of leftist trash. Anyway, I do try to stay out of it, but legitimate news stories do end up there, so it's hard to stay completely away from it.
[doublepost=1521418390][/doublepost]

My experience is completely different. The PRSI is a clown show of leftist trash. Anyway, I do try to stay out of it, but legitimate news stories do end up there, so it's hard to stay completely away from it.

The other thing I will say is that I appreciate MR allowing us to be critical of the mods in a forum.

There are many, many sites out there where you are not allowed to discuss moderation---anywhere.

I hope the mods do check this once and awhile so they can gauge how some users feel..

I am aware this is their site; however, by offering a robust forum they are in the service business somewhat and do need to pay attention to the opinions of their patrons.

 

[BigMcGuire]

There are many, many sites out there where you are not allowed to discuss moderation---anywhere.

This surprises me - not to say I assume the worst but very few forums would allow threads like this, let alone 9 pages.

It's clear a small subset of users think that the moderation going on in PRSI is not what they'd like. The Mods defended their situation - along with a few members here, met in response by what the users think.

I think what users dislike the most are permanent bans that can't ever be questioned - the permanent removal from PSRI - at least from what I get here.


I know the mods are watching because I've seen a handful of posts removed - users not suspended (just post removed) in this very thread.

 

[Glockworkorange]

This surprises me - not to say I assume the worst but very few forums would allow threads like this, let alone 9 pages.

It's clear a small subset of users think that the moderation going on in PRSI is not what they'd like. The Mods defended their situation - along with a few members here, met in response by what the users think.

I think what users dislike the most are permanent bans that can't ever be questioned - the permanent removal from PSRI - at least from what I get here.


I know the mods are watching because I've seen a handful of posts removed - users not suspended (just post removed) in this very thread.

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.