Clarification on "Citation Rule"

[TiggrToo]

It is unfortunate the member in question chose not to see it.

Why are you changing the facts? @Eric did not "choose" to not see your post, he used site and moderator recommended functionality to ignore you.

Are you saying he should not have done exactly what the moderators tell people to do?

Why are you so insistent on victim blaming here?

 

[SuperMatt]

Perhaps this is why a citation or clarification was asked for? It is unfortunate the member in question chose not to see it.

Why would one ask for a citation when it is clearly not a statement of fact? And why should the original poster be held responsible if other posters don’t have a strong enough grasp of the English language to understand that?

 

[icanhazmac]

Why are you changing the facts? @Eric did not "choose" to not see your post, he used site and moderator recommended functionality to ignore you.

Are you saying he should not have done exactly what the moderators tell people to do?

Why are you so insistent on victim blaming here?

Wow, that is trying to twist things!

He CHOSE to ignore me, that was his choice, not seeing any of my posts is an obvious consequesce of that action.

 

[TiggrToo]

Wow, that is trying to twist things!

He CHOSE to ignore me, that was his choice.

Exactly. He chose to ignore you. He did NOT choose to ignore your post. There's a very important difference.

 

[icanhazmac]

However, if a mod wanted to look through my post history in this forum and see how many times this user has tried to engage me without my responses they'll definitely know. It's why I put them on ignore to begin with months ago.

Funny, your post history shows that you have replied directly to several of my posts this year.

 

[icanhazmac]

Exactly. He chose to ignore you. He did NOT choose to ignore your post. There's a very important difference.

LOL, I didn't choose to not pay my mortgage, I just chose to ignore the bill in my mailbox. There's a difference!

 

[TiggrToo]

LOL, I didn't choose to not pay my mortgage, I just chose to ignore the bill in my mailbox.

Oh good grief. If you email a group of people and one person doesn't reply, do you automatically assume that individual chose to ignore your message or do you ask yourself if they even got the email?

 

[I7guy]

Tbh that’s kind of irrelevant to what I said. You said a person has to “ensure” they’re clear what they mean, and I’m telling you that a determined person will find a way to misrepresent what was said, regardless of what you “ensure”.

This has nothing to do with a determined person. It has to do with another poster requesting a citation for what the other poster believe was a fact. That the OP didn’t see the request is one of two issues. The other issue is the discussion of the phraseology surrounding what separates fact and opinion.

 

[TiggrToo]

LOL, I didn't choose to not pay my mortgage, I just chose to ignore the bill in my mailbox. There's a difference!

Besides, what you have just used as an equivalence is a course of action NOT recommended by your mortgage company.

Macrumors go out of their way to provide functionality to the end user. The mortgage company would tell you to never ever ignore their mailings.

So your argument fails since it's false equivalence.

 

[I7guy]

[…]
There seems to be a group of pseudo-mods that seem to have taken a "mod-wannabe" role/behavior in their responses despite not being a moderator. This should also be addressed in my opinion as frankly these responses do not typically aid in discussion from my observations.

Isn’t the purpose of the S&FF to give feedback and participate in public discussions? If one wanted a private convo they could use the “contact us” link.

 

[triptolemus]

Isn’t the purpose of the S&FF to give feedback and participate in public discussions? If one wanted a private convo they could use the “contact us” link.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial when a new thread is obviously seeking a response from staff that the staff be given an opportunity to respond to the OP prior to the 10+ posts per day average guys chiming in?

 

[I7guy]

Perhaps it would be more beneficial when a new thread is obviously seeking a response from staff that the staff be given an opportunity to respond to the OP prior to the 10+ posts per day average guys chiming in?

Maybe the staff could create a private forum for this purpose whereby a thread could only be accessed by the thread creator and staff. Otherwise, MacRumors isn’t setup for private conversations except via the contact us link…as far as I know.

 

[triptolemus]

Maybe the staff could create a private forum for this purpose whereby a thread could only be accessed by the thread creator and staff. Otherwise, MacRumors isn’t setup for private conversations except via the contact us link…as far as I know.

You don't need all of that to exercise some good judgement on your own, you know.

You can say to yourself, "hey, this is obviously intended for staff. Maybe I will give them a chance to respond first before I post." Like, as a courtesy. You don't need rules and restrictions to be courteous.

 

[I7guy]

You don't need all of that to exercise some good judgement on your own, you know.

You can say to yourself, "hey, this is obviously intended for staff. Maybe I will give them a chance to respond first before I post." Like, as a courtesy. You don't need rules and restrictions to be courteous.

I think that takes away from the purpose of S&FF on moderation matters, which affect all. It also provides feedback to the staff of various points of view.

 

[icanhazmac]

You can say to yourself, "hey, this is obviously intended for staff. Maybe I will give them a chance to respond first before I post." Like, as a courtesy. You don't need rules and restrictions to be courteous.

You might want to take a look at the latest run of this thread which started at post #35:

#35 OP
#36 Staff
#37 Member whose post was in question
#38 Staff
#39 Member whose post was in question
#40 Staff
#41 Member whose post was in question
#42 Staff
#43 Member whose post was in question
#44 Staff
#45 Staff
#46 Member whose post was in question
#47 Involved member

I think staff input was timely and "average guys" waited a fair bit before joining in.

 

[triptolemus]

I think that takes away from the purpose of S&FF on moderation matters, which affect all. It also provides feedback to the staff of various points of view.

Both of which can still happen after staff has a chance to respond first. Which seems to be pretty logical to me, particularly considering that your first response in this thread states your opinion on what you believe staff will or will not do. Is there something wrong with letting staff respond first? Or do you need to be explicitly told how to behave in every possible circumstance?

 

[SuperMatt]

This has nothing to do with a determined person. It has to do with another poster requesting a citation for what the other poster believe was a fact. That the OP didn’t see the request is one of two issues. The other issue is the discussion of the phraseology surrounding what separates fact and opinion.

The second poster didn’t properly interpret the language in the original post. The first poster had their post moderated because of it. This is plainly wrong, and even the party that originally asked for a citation here agreed that “everywhere you look“ or “everybody you talk to” statements are not statements of fact. In light of this, although the moderation action is already done, I think at the very least, this should be removed from the original poster’s moderation record.

Not to mention… there have been other people who have made statements of fact, replied to requests for citations by telling other posters they should just search the Internet (also not allowed), that were reported, and the mods let the original posts stand. Compare that to this nearly immediate editing of a post, and make your own conclusions. And if anybody wants proof of my statement above, please PM me since I cannot publicly post the threads in question without breaking forum rules.

 

[triptolemus]

You might want to take a look at the latest run of this thread which started at post #35:

Not looking just at this thread. It's an observation. Do I need to cite it?

 

[dukebound85]

I think that takes away from the purpose of S&FF on moderation matters, which affect all. It also provides feedback to the staff of various points of view.

I would say that the people that contribute to the SFF section know the forums fairly well.

In fact, many are by members with over 10 years and/or in the top 50 in posts on the forum.....meaning they are here alot and have seen macrumors evolve.

It is not needed to have someone come and state "use the contact us" link or say anything else that really isn't helpful as they are unable to answer the concern that is clearly meant for staff.

Long term members know the that "contact us" and the rules and whatnot exists. These threads bring concerns/observations/clarifications that long time members feel is worth having an open air discussion about to make these forums better.

 

[I7guy]

Both of which can still happen after staff has a chance to respond first. Which seems to be pretty logical to me, particularly considering that your first response in this thread states your opinion on what you believe staff will or will not do. Is there something wrong with letting staff respond first? Or do you need to be explicitly told how to behave in every possible circumstance?

S&FF is an open forum. Those who want a private conversation can use the contact us link.

 

[triptolemus]

You win bro.

 

[I7guy]

The second poster didn’t properly interpret the English language. The first poster had their post moderated because of it. This is plainly wrong, and even the party that originally asked for a citation here agreed that “everywhere you look“ or “everybody you talk to” statements are not statements of fact. In light of this, although the moderation action is already done, I think at the very least, this should be removed from the original poster’s moderation record.

Matt, we could go round in circles all day long until the cows come home. I hope it has been a learning experience for all. Personally I have learned the liberal use of imo sprinkled throughout my posts.

The staff has to have some rules surrounding this situation. Of course if , imo, was used in the first place the intent would have been abundantly clear.

 

[triptolemus]

I would say that the people that contribute to the SFF section know the forums fairly well.

In fact, many are by members with over 10 years and/or in the top 50 in posts on the forum.....meaning they are here alot and have seen macrumors evolve.

It is not needed to have someone come and state "use the contact us" link or say anything else that really isn't helpful as they are unable to answer the concern that is clearly meant for staff.

Long term members know the that "contact us" and the rules and whatnot exists. These threads bring concerns/observations/clarifications that long time members feel is worth having an open air discussion about to make these forums better.

The posts that garner the most attention from non-staff busybodies in SFF appears to be spill-over threads complaining about PRSI moderation. That's when the busybodies get busy and that's what I take issue with. Let the staff speak to those things. How silly of me to think folks could use discretion on their own without having to blab all over the place.

 

[SuperMatt]

Matt, we could go round in circles all day long until the cows come home. I hope it has been a learning experience for all. Personally I have learned the liberal use of imo sprinkled throughout my posts.

The staff has to have some rules surrounding this situation. Of course if , imo, was used in the first place the intent would have been abundantly clear.

There’s no need to go in circles. Do you believe there are errors in the information I’ve provided you regarding the use of the “generic you” in the English language? If not, then you need to concede that the OP’s statement is clearly not a statement of fact.

Perhaps some people were not familiar with the construction, but they should be quite aware of it now.

 

[icanhazmac]

The second poster didn’t properly interpret the English language.

Well then you need to check your comprehension as well, remember this from the "Mac Rumors forum civility has gone downhill" thread:

Me (post #39, in response to you): Maybe, just maybe, it isn't for any member to call any other member names or to label them. You cannot call another member a corporate shill or troll on these forums... what makes you think you can call someone a racist or nazi?!? Report the post you object with or challenge their ideas without resorting to name calling or labeling, that will do wonders for civility in these forums. If the mod team decides no action required then you were wrong, simple as that.

In the context of the thread I feel it is pretty obvious that I am using a "generic you" and not addressing you personally but you seemed to disagree...

You (post #42): I never mentioned myself. I was making an observation. I don’t find it very civil when one accuses me of calling others racists or Nazis.

Me (post #47): I didn't mention you by name nor did I intend it that way. My "You cannot call another member" statement was general, not you personally.

You (post #51): One that uses “you” when one means otherwise might be misunderstood from time to time. Thanks for clarifying the meaning of the post.

So is it that you are selectively choosing who can use a "generic you" or that you don't understand its contextual use in the English language either without clarification?