@SuperMatt both those scenarios would likely break the rules, but I would need to see the actual posts for context to be sure. Please report those posts so we can review.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Clarification on "Citation Rule"
- Thread starter bunnspecial
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I will do so - thanks for the reply.
Edit: Apparently the posts did not break the rules? The source rules are extremely confusing.
Giving a source that says the opposite of your claim or posting a partial quote and not giving the link to the original source seems to be OK.
Last edited:
@SuperMatt if you have questions about why a post you reported wasn't moderated, please follow the established routine and send a note to the administrators using the Contact Us link: https://forums.macrumors.com/misc/contact/
Perhaps, but that's your interpretation, and there might well be nuances in how the rules are enforced that you aren't aware of before you discuss the case with the administrators.
Is that what the "contact us" link is supposed to answer? I've never received a response beyond "this post doesn't break the rules" even when I pointed out problematic areas in it. I never have received an answer of "why".
I think you answered your own question with regard to annk's response. There might be nuances one is not aware of and what one views as a "problematic area" may not be viewed by the staff as a problematic area. Additionally, it's very difficult to defend a negative. "Why didn't this break the rules" vs "Why did this break the rules".
In all cases of this type in Contact Us messages I've been involved in, we do explain why the comment doesn't break the rule the post reporter thought it did. If you didn't get a satisfactory answer in an exchange of this type, please send another contact so we can try to be more detailed.
There are of course cases where we go into a lot of detail to explain, but the post reporter simply doesn't agree with us. But that's not the same as "this post doesn't break the rules."
Or maybe you were referring to the automated message when a post report is rejected because no violation was found? It would take way too much time, unfortunately, to write explanations every time a post report was found to be unactionable. But when users take the time to ask us why in a contact message, we do make the time to explain.
I will do so. I have received responses of "That post doesn't break the rules" and even "that's not remotely close to breaking the rules" without further explanation.
The one post in particular I'm thinking of where I did not receive a response was very much an attack directed at me my a person who simply didn't like what I was saying(and didn't reject any of the points I'd made-they just seemingly decided to make it personal).
Since never. No, it's not a new thing.
If no one asks for a source, there's no problem. It's only a problem if someone asks another user for a source, but no source is given.
I'm afraid this is simply untrue. Just this morning a moderator removed a statement I made because "it was challenged by another member". It wasn't a question to ask me to back it up, it was flat out deleted from the context of my post. I would be happy to provide full context.
You know the drill, I'm suprised you simply didn't contact us, which as you are very much aware is the correct way to go forward. Send a contact asking for more info about the moderation and - as we always do in such cases - the administrators will review the moderation done to make sure a mistake hasn't been made.
Bringing specific moderation up here is not the way to go forward.
I thought it was allowed as long as it was agreed to, is that no longer the case? I'm happy to have the moderation for this specific case out here for all to see, you have my full approval. Please let me know what else you need for me to proceed.
Now that you have explicitly waived your right to privacy in this case, we'll publish the result of the review here when it's done.
Please keep in mind that the review might involve your moderation history.
Meaning you'll litigate past infractions that have nothing to do with this specific moderation? I just want to be clear on this.
Past violations are already dealt with ("litigated," to use your word). The moderation history is part of any review, and if there's something relevant there, it will be included. From the Moderation FAQ (my bolding):
You can waive your right to moderation privacy when all of the following conditions apply and you'd prefer a public discussion rather than asking privately via the contact form:
- When posting in the Site and Forum Feedback forum, either as a new thread or in an existing thread where it would be appropriate for the thread topic.
- If you say explicitly that you give us permission to discuss the reasons behind your moderation. This includes your previous forum record, since that may be a factor.
- If the purpose of waiving your moderation privacy is to gain an answer or insights to a question that may be of interest to other members.
I reminded you that a public review might include your moderation history as a courtesy, because having one's past violations specified can be surprising and uncomfortable for the user. Many users forget how extensive their moderation is.
Fair enough, as long as I'm also able to speak to (and provide screenshots) of any previous records of my moderation history that may come up I'm good with that.
Essentially, the moderator deleted a sentence from a post relating to a specific topic right here in SFF. How you guys spin moderation history into that would have to be creative to say the least.
So am I okay to start?
Last edited:
You can't use this opportunity to go a new round about other moderation you're not happy with, if that's what you're hoping for with a public review. Remember, this is a review of a specific case of moderation; relevant parts of a moderation history are brought in in cases where they are relevant, for example showing a pattern or an illustration of why moderation was escalated.
I'll give you an example.
A user complains that she got a week-long suspension for calling someone a troll. She thinks that was too severe, and wants her review public.
We see in her history that she had five reminders for calling users trolls over a two-year period, then a two-day suspension, then a five-day suspension - all for calling users trolls. Finally, she was given the week-long suspension. The history is relevant because it shows why moderation was escalated to a week-long suspension, which is what she's complaining about.
We'll post back when the admins have completed the review.
@ericgtr12, this is the review of the moderation done to one of yours posts.
Three administrators reviewed the moderation. I'm using GMT +2 because it's my time zone and I'm the one who did the write-up of the review.
You posted the following at 19:26 GMT+2 June 30, as a response to a post written by the site owner (my bolding):
In every single one of these cases, these people would benefit from a trusted medical professional utilizing his site and status to give them the facts. Every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine, sadly on this site you're doing absolutely nothing to insert fact based scientific data and instead are letting people with a political view insert ambiguity. It's a shame.
User @icanhazmac asked you for a source for your claim (the bolded bit) the same day at 19:51:
Please provide citation for this claim that 100% of doctors recommend the vaccine. My cardiologist told me, and I quote "oh, you had covid, then you don't need to get it, you have the antibodies". I didn't listen and got it anyway but that's what I was told.
Your failure to provide a source was reported by a forum user approximately two hours later. However, since the report came in before you had created a new post in the thread, the moderators didn't act immediately, but waited until you returned to the thread. We do this because if the user hasn't been back to the thread, s/he/they won't realize that s/he/they was/were asked for a source.
You posted again in the thread at 22:43 that day, then again July 1st at 04:02. When you still hadn't provided a source at 16:10 on July 1st, your account was appropriately moderated for failure to provide a source.
The next step the moderator took was to delete the request for a source from icanhazmac's post. Why? Because it no longer served a purpose (you didn't supply a source and the moderation was done) and it might generate other reports from users pointing out that you never provided a source.
The next step the moderator took was to delete from your post the claim that generated the post report:
Every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine
Why did the moderator do this? Because you didn't provide a source after being asked to do so. When that happens, the claim isn't allowed to stand.
I can also mention that your next step, after being moderated, was to report the post written by the site owner to which you replied, which was an odd choice in my personal opinion.
Summary of the review:
Nothing sinister here on the part of the moderation team - they followed the protocol in place when this type of post report is submitted. Three administrators looked at the posts, moderation, and time stamps, and find that the moderation was appropriate. You received a reminder. Reminders are not considered punishment, but rather "are simply heads-up messages that alert you to a problem so that you can avoid it in the future." You can read more about reminders here.
@Doctor Q and @WildCowboy, feel free to correct this write-up if I've been unclear or inaccurate about anything here.
Three administrators reviewed the moderation. I'm using GMT +2 because it's my time zone and I'm the one who did the write-up of the review.
You posted the following at 19:26 GMT+2 June 30, as a response to a post written by the site owner (my bolding):
In every single one of these cases, these people would benefit from a trusted medical professional utilizing his site and status to give them the facts. Every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine, sadly on this site you're doing absolutely nothing to insert fact based scientific data and instead are letting people with a political view insert ambiguity. It's a shame.
User @icanhazmac asked you for a source for your claim (the bolded bit) the same day at 19:51:
Please provide citation for this claim that 100% of doctors recommend the vaccine. My cardiologist told me, and I quote "oh, you had covid, then you don't need to get it, you have the antibodies". I didn't listen and got it anyway but that's what I was told.
Your failure to provide a source was reported by a forum user approximately two hours later. However, since the report came in before you had created a new post in the thread, the moderators didn't act immediately, but waited until you returned to the thread. We do this because if the user hasn't been back to the thread, s/he/they won't realize that s/he/they was/were asked for a source.
You posted again in the thread at 22:43 that day, then again July 1st at 04:02. When you still hadn't provided a source at 16:10 on July 1st, your account was appropriately moderated for failure to provide a source.
The next step the moderator took was to delete the request for a source from icanhazmac's post. Why? Because it no longer served a purpose (you didn't supply a source and the moderation was done) and it might generate other reports from users pointing out that you never provided a source.
The next step the moderator took was to delete from your post the claim that generated the post report:
Every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine
Why did the moderator do this? Because you didn't provide a source after being asked to do so. When that happens, the claim isn't allowed to stand.
I can also mention that your next step, after being moderated, was to report the post written by the site owner to which you replied, which was an odd choice in my personal opinion.
Summary of the review:
Nothing sinister here on the part of the moderation team - they followed the protocol in place when this type of post report is submitted. Three administrators looked at the posts, moderation, and time stamps, and find that the moderation was appropriate. You received a reminder. Reminders are not considered punishment, but rather "are simply heads-up messages that alert you to a problem so that you can avoid it in the future." You can read more about reminders here.
@Doctor Q and @WildCowboy, feel free to correct this write-up if I've been unclear or inaccurate about anything here.
First of all, I have this user on ignore and have for quite some time. I also didn't receive a reminder, I got a single notification and the text was gone as soon as I looked after. This is something that you can confirm on the admin side.
Additionally, when you selectively edit text in a users posts, it is indeed "sinister" and it's something MR does on a regular basis without a second thought.
The takeaway here is that a user can troll you incessantly, you put them on ignore, they sandbag you with a post and then report you. How exactly to you reconcile that within your moderation team? I was 100% in the dark for the entire process.
Additionally, when you selectively edit text in a users posts, it is indeed "sinister" and it's something MR does on a regular basis without a second thought.
Last edited:
It is unfortunate that you view other members trying to engage you in conversation as "trolling", we all have different points of view. If you are going to post in a public forum you should expect responses from people from all walks of life and different viewpoints from your own.
Yes, I realize he isn't seeing this, posting it anyway.
How can this be seen as a statement of fact? “Every doctor you talk to” is quite obviously an anecdotal/general statement. If he said “every doctor” then I get it, but this is not presented as a statement of fact….
He’s using the “generic you” statement.
Generic you - Wikipedia
Well, then that's an issue for @arn because not only is it a site feature, it's recommended by the moderators.
And, just to make things worse, what would help would be to let the other person they're being ignored, but MR will not allow you to do that either because it's trolling.
Given also that what @Eric posted was an opinion, I personally feel that this situation was created due to the rules and abilities of the forum and thus issue should be struck from his record.
There's obviously a stunning black hole that can be exploited here that MR needs to address.
I don't see an "IMHO" or any other indicator that "every doctor you talk to" was an opinion versus a statement of fact and clarification was requested.
Funny how this members "opinion" of "every doctor" is ok but a member that might say "masks don't work" is a statement of fact and considered dangerous by certain members here.
Just to clarify: I am not anti mask or anti vac, I am anti hypocrisy though.
- Status