Censorship enforced by mods

[boppin]

I got moderated recently, I messed up with a post in the wrong section, my fault and I accept that. What I didn’t like was the tone of the mods message, very passive aggressive and totally uncalled for imo, but heyho

My opinion on that:

Just move it into the correct forum section and we're all fine. Because everyone does mistakes. No big deal. When I take a look at other forums some people always posting into the wrong section.

And yes, I can also understand that they is an all-English forum to avoid that someone gets insulted in another language. And I can also understand why they don't want to have political and other discussions here because it often comes to "flame wars" where people don't discuss in a civilised way.

My personal experiences were completely different with forums. No matter what's the topic was everyone could discussing about it very civilised and objectively. But if the team of MacRumors made a different experience so I can understand that, but I think they should communicate it more clearly. I am sorry for the misunderstanding that occurred!

 

[BigMcGuire]

Apologies that this may not be a very flowery Macrumors post...

Moderation here is hair triggered and can be incredibly harsh. I've talked with members who got permanently suspended and had no idea what they did was wrong (before getting suspended). Them reaching out to Macrumors helped clear it (saying they didn't realize what they did was wrong).

It saddens my soul to see threads full of increasing permanently suspended members who put significant time and effort into this forum. Some people I've talked with for a long time...

The canned responses the moderators give convey an emotionless State Trooper like response - you are the dirty criminal, you will behave or suffer the consequences - replies locked.

I've noticed enforcement is almost entirely based on those who report, so if you're not a habitual reporter, chances are people get away with breaking the rules while you don't (if you get reported).


Disclaimer: I am not a moderator. @Weaselboy and other mods puts a lot of time and effort into Macrumors - amazing when they don't even get paid - they have a level of my admiration despite this post. My experience with the mods here - while I've gotten slapped a dozen+ times, they've never suspended me (I would have if I was them for a few of the instances <cough>). So my thoughts are from one side of the coin...

Will agree that the canned replies seem harsh. But again, not my house, and I'm not the one with the badge.

 

[Doctor Q]

Feedback can help us, even if comments are critical of forum rules and policies. We've been fine-tuning the forum rules and our moderation system for decades, and there are always tradeoffs and adjustments to consider.

I've talked with members who got permanently suspended and had no idea what they did was wrong (before getting suspended).

When a post is moderated, the moderators send a message that identifies the forum rule involved, quotes the specific text of the post, and invites the user to contact the administrators if they have any questions about it. If a user repeatedly violates forum rules to the point where they are suspended, and don't know why, then they didn't read the messages. Unfortunately, we've also encountered forum members who did read the messages but then told others that they were suspended, without warning or for unknown reasons.

The canned responses the moderators give convey an emotionless State Trooper like response - you are the dirty criminal, you will behave or suffer the consequences - replies locked.

Forum members can get emotional about moderation, but we've designed our messages to be straightforward, matter-of-fact, to provide useful links, and to make clear what to do. Because there are so many posts to review, we have to use canned messages in most cases.

We don't enable replies to moderation messages because users with concerns need to contact the administrators, not have a private one-on-one conversation with a single moderator. Our efforts to moderate as consistently as possible depend on our team approach, where the moderators share decision-making and communication visibility, with review by the administrators.

You are quite correct that we depend on post reports to identify potential problems. Posts aren't moderated just because they were reported, but posts that need moderation are likely to be missed if nobody reports them. It takes a community effort to make the forums as useful as possible for forum members and site visitors.

 

[boppin]

I think this describes a fundamental problem. In my opinion, you are all far too emotional. When it comes to feelings and emotions, I am generally undemonstrative.

 

[StralyanPithecus]

We are all guests in this house, so we must follow the owner’s rules. If I don’t agree, I know where’s the door out.

 

[eyoungren]

I've talked with members who got permanently suspended and had no idea what they did was wrong (before getting suspended).

I follow at least two people who were temporarily suspended at one time or another and shortly afterwards disappeared. One of them is still quite high up on the forum post count list.

If being moderated offends, then one option available to everyone is to leave (without announcing your departure), just like the two friends I follow have done.

Staying means that we continue to agree to moderation, even if we have a low opinion about the moderators and how they function. And when we signed up, we all agreed to the rules - even if we did not read them. It's just like a cellphone carrier. If we disagree with the terms, then we are free to leave.

Now, some of us who are paying to remove ads might counter that they pay to support the site and are thus entitled to some leeway. But monetary support does not entitle us to special treatment.

My point in this is that constructive criticism and feedback is one thing. But staying here and then whining about the mods is entirely another.

Note, if it is not clear, I am not attacking you. Just making general statements that I believe apply to ALL of us.

It saddens my soul to see threads full of increasing permanently suspended members who put significant time and effort into this forum. Some people I've talked with for a long time...

Tenure ≠ special treatment.

Some users think it does. In some of my less stellar moments this thought has also crossed my mind, until one of the mods reminded me that no matter how long I've been here, they will moderate me if I violate the rules. When we keep violating the same rules repeatedly though, even though we agreed to abide by them, we get suspended - no matter how long it is that we've been here or how much we've contributed.

I too am sad to see that some have gone. But I also know that at some point they must have refused to stop a behavior that was getting them moderated. And for those who refuse to check themselves, Arn (who owns this site) and those he delegates authority to, have every right to show us the door.

 

[Und Eser]

One thing I have noticed on most if not all forums is the reliance by mods on users reporting "unsuitable" posts by others, leading to certain users contacting mods about petty irregularities purely as a means to make themselves feel better about arguments they're losing or opinions they disagree with.

 

[S.B.G]

One thing I have noticed on most if not all forums is the reliance by mods on users reporting "unsuitable" posts by others, leading to certain users contacting mods about petty irregularities purely as a means to make themselves feel better about arguments they're losing or opinions they disagree with.

That absolutely happens, for sure. It was very annoying when I was on staff, but there was little that could be done to stop it. Some users are petty sticklers for the rules and others did so out of retaliation. Some people just have no grace to let insignificant things go or to not look at what others are doing and have some self-reflection of their own behaviors.

 

[I7guy]

One thing I have noticed on most if not all forums is the reliance by mods on users reporting "unsuitable" posts by others, leading to certain users contacting mods about petty irregularities purely as a means to make themselves feel better about arguments they're losing or opinions they disagree with.

Yes, this is a community driven forum whereby there is the ability for users to report posts they believe violate the rules.

I don’t know what you mean by petty irregularities? A small insult? Passive agreesive trolling? Copy and paste an AI response?

Copying and pasting AI responses are what I would think of as a petty irregularity and it’s treated as such. Insults are dealt with more harshly and insults are not really a “petty irregularity”.

At least those are my thoughts, if you have some other examples, let’s discuss.

 

[Weaselboy]

One thing I have noticed on most if not all forums is the reliance by mods on users reporting "unsuitable" posts by others, leading to certain users contacting mods about petty irregularities purely as a means to make themselves feel better about arguments they're losing or opinions they disagree with.

That does happen, but the mods here are pretty good about spotting that behavior.

 

[BigMcGuire]

That does happen, but the mods here are pretty good about spotting that behavior.

May I ask a potentially sensitive question? If not, I understand.

Permanent suspensions - is that like a 3 strike and you are out thing? For example - say I do 3 very minor infractions, would that result in a permanent suspension? Or does it have to be a level of an infraction to result in a suspension?

I get this isn’t my house but would help me seeing long time posters I knew with Suspended under their name.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Weaselboy]

Permanent suspensions - is that like a 3 strike and you are out thing? For example - say I do 3 very minor infractions, would that result in a permanent suspension? Or does it have to be a level of an infraction to result in a suspension?

Oh no... not even close to this. If three minor infractions got you banned you would see WAY more banned accounts than currently.

The minor problems like frivolous "LOL" posts typically don't even result in suspensions much less a ban. You would have to violate these rules listed as minor over and over and in a short period of time to even get a suspension. Even then, you would usually get a note from a mod saying, "If you continue violating this rule, your account may be suspended." So it should not come as a surprise.

For more serious problems like insults, you would typically get a warning about the rule, then if you violated that same rule again within a short period of time, you might get a short suspension, then more violations would get you progressively longer and longer suspensions. Then again, you would usually get a note explaining, "If you continue violating this rule, your account may be banned."

So in all these cases there is a definite escalation of moderation, and members should not be confused about why they were suspended or banned. Like @Doctor Q mentioned above, if there is confusion just use the contact us form and the admins are glad to explain.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Oh no... not even close to this. If three minor infractions got you banned you would see WAY more banned accounts than currently.

The minor problems like frivolous "LOL" posts typically don't result even result in suspensions much less a ban. You would have to violate these rules listed as minor over and over and in a short period of time to even get a suspension. Even then, you would usually get a note from a mod saying, "If you continue violating this rule, your account may be suspended." So it should not come as a surprise.

For more serious problems like insults, you would typically get a warning about the rule, then if you violated that same rule again within a short period of time, you might get a short suspension, then more violations would get you progressively longer and longer suspensions. Then again, you would usually get a note explaining, "If you continue violating this rule, your account may be banned."

So in all these cases there is a definite escalation of moderation, and members should not be confused about why they were suspended or banned. Like @Doctor Q mentioned above, if there is confusion just use the contact us form and the admins are glad to explain.

Very interesting - I think maybe my frustrations with the Suspended accounts and blaming the mods for this may be unfounded. Apologies for hopping on the “anti-mod” bandwagon.

Yeah one of the members I knew - he contacted the admins and got unbanned after an explanation. That was cool.

Using my own experience, I know when I got frustrated I went out of my way to try to get suspended and the kind mod didn’t despite me deserving it several times over. lol.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. Helps a lot.

 

[Und Eser]

Yes, this is a community driven forum whereby there is the ability for users to report posts they believe violate the rules.

I don’t know what you mean by petty irregularities? A small insult? Passive agreesive trolling? Copy and paste an AI response?

Copying and pasting AI responses are what I would think of as a petty irregularity and it’s treated as such. Insults are dealt with more harshly and insults are not really a “petty irregularity”.

At least those are my thoughts, if you have some other examples, let’s discuss.

Passive-aggressive insinuation in reaction to perceived slur is more what I had in mind, along with disingenuous virtue signalling.

 

[Doctor Q]

Permanent suspensions - is that like a 3 strike and you are out thing?

There is a three-strikes rule, which applies only to the Political News forum. The Political News forums is where the editors place the discussion threads for news stories about controversial political and social issues.

Forum members receive warnings if they break the Rules for Appropriate Debate, because the discussions there sometimes bring out the worst habits (name-calling, insults, taunting, trolling). If a forum member breaks those rules three times within a matter of months, they lose access to that one forum, but can continue to use the rest of the forums.

The editors provided the forum so that cooperative forum members could discuss political topics. We instituted the three-strikes rule in response to numerous complaints about people who weren't willing to follow those rules, spoiling the discussions for everyone else.

 

[BigMcGuire]

There is a three-strikes rule, which applies only to the Political News forum. The Political News forums is where the editors place the discussion threads for news stories about controversial political and social issues.

Forum members receive warnings if they break the Rules for Appropriate Debate, because the discussions there sometimes bring out the worst habits (name-calling, insults, taunting, trolling). If a forum member breaks those rules three times within a matter of months, they lose access to that one forum, but can continue to use the rest of the forums.

The editors provided the forum so that cooperative forum members could discuss political topics. We instituted the three-strikes rule in response to numerous complaints about people who weren't willing to follow those rules, spoiling the discussions for everyone else.

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to explain. Definitely appreciated.

“Matter of months” - was my next question - so looks like it resets over time within reason.

Perfect, thank you! I do believe my frustration was misdirected above. Appreciate the time to explain - @Weaselboy and @Doctor Q

 

[MBAir2010]

I had a post delete complaining about the 1990 and a certain Judge recently.
then typed other non-bias examples of two centuries.
at the end of the day, I guess moderation occurs when people complain.
I happy they deleted the psst than sent me a message or took action.
the reply was never to offend, agitate - just make point.

then again
someone type that an entire nation, country are "scumbags"
I complained and reported that post as offensive, and the mods did not agree with me,
I even sent an email to Arnold Kim expressing how insensitive that post was for this century
never heard anything back.

well I umm my  things need this forum, my  watch needs help and Golden Gate need us to help each other.
so I'm back for a while, hopefully not agitating anyone.

 

[Weaselboy]

then again
someone type that an entire nation, country are "scumbags"
I complained and reported that post as offensive, and the mods did not agree with me,
I even sent an email to Arnold Kim expressing how insensitive that post was for this century
never heard anything back.

I see the rejected report you are referring to. Send a note to the admins using that contact us link and they can explain the thought process in cases like this.

 

[Doctor Q]

“Matter of months” - was my next question - so looks like it resets over time within reason.

It's the same for all of the forum rules.

For example, if a forum member frequently posts insults, they'll soon be suspended. If they insulted someone last year, and then again this year, they'll get warnings both times but probably not be suspended since they are much more likely to heed the warning. We don't want to lose well-meaning forum members, but removing those who regularly annoy and frustrate everyone else is necessary for the benefit of the overall community.

 

[I7guy]

Passive-aggressive insinuation in reaction to perceived slur is more what I had in mind, along with disingenuous virtue signalling.

To me that sounds like trolling but of course I have no idea and am just hypothecating. Intentionally provoking members is trolling.

 

[StralyanPithecus]

Of all the forums I’ve been a member of, this is the only one I’m still a member, that says a lot about how much nicer is here the moderation. Yes, I got a couple of warnings in the past, I’m human after all, but it wasn’t something like censorship, just a small reminder to me. I don’t lately participate much here, but I’m still feel welcomed here.

 

[Timpetus]

Yes, that is true, the potential exists.

My guess is that, given how many of the mods and staff are in the UK, it was written in a style that can seem more passive-aggressive and sarcastic to the uninitiated. While I am American, I consume a great deal of UK "tele," so it very rarely rubs me the wrong way like it does many of my compatriots.

 

[Und Eser]

To me that sounds like trolling but of course I have no idea and am just hypothecating. Intentionally provoking members is trolling.

Having no idea but hypothesising anyway is what sounds like provocation/trolling.

I merely made a general observation, to which you have apparently taken exception and responded with unfounded accusation.

Case in point if anything.

 

[I7guy]

Having no idea but hypothesising anyway is what sounds like provocation/trolling.

I merely made a general observation, to which you have apparently taken exception and responded with unfounded accusation.

Case in point if anything.

I’m sorry I don’t understand.

I’m responding to your point where you cited an example of a “petty irregularity” as:

“Passive-aggressive insinuation in reaction to perceived slur is more what I had in mind, along with disingenuous virtue signalling.”

To which I replied a characterization of a post like that seems like trolling and not a petty irregularity.

So I didn’t take exception and accuse anyone of trolling, I labeled a post i thought you summarized as such as potential trolling.

See the difference?

 

[Und Eser]

I’m sorry I don’t understand.

I’m responding to your point where you cited an example of a “petty irregularity” as:

“Passive-aggressive insinuation in reaction to perceived slur is more what I had in mind, along with disingenuous virtue signalling.”

To which I replied a characterization of a post like that seems like trolling and not a petty irregularity.

So I didn’t take exception and accuse anyone of trolling, I labeled a post i thought you summarized as such as potential trolling.

See the difference?

No, sorry, all I'm seeing there is disingenuous convolution after the fact.