Clarification on "Citation Rule"

[I7guy]

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.

This is an anonymous online forum, not an English class. The construction of ops original statement to me seemed like a fact (and I graduated summa cum laude, but not with a major in English) and on a global anonymous online forum (especially where to some ESL) to me, this common construct seemed like a fact.

Going forward I will still use, imo, to ensure my language is not misconstrued as fact where I meant an opinion.

 

[Stephen.R]

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

Replying to every thread isn’t mandatory.

Those who can’t help themselves and feel the need to post unhelpful “suggestions” that defeat the purpose of asking a question in public, can use basically any other link/button on the page besides “post reply”

Adding your own thoughts on something wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, but the constantly repetitive and often flat out literally wrong posts by some attempting to close down any discussion about moderation or policies is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Apple_Robert]

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.

I didn't bother looking at your join date before attempting to provide a little help. My post was not judgmental in any way. Since your OP spoke of recent personal moderation, providing you a quick link to the "contact us" option was the logical and prudent reply, especially when the staff directs members to that option when seeking to discuss personal moderation. I chose not to assume anything about you. And because I didn't assume, you see fit to denigrate my attempt to be of help. I won't make that mistake with you again.

 

[I7guy]

Replying to every thread isn’t mandatory.

Those who can’t help themselves and feel the need to post unhelpful “suggestions” that defeat the purpose of asking a question in public, can use basically any other link/button on the page besides “post reply”

Adding your own thoughts on something wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, but the constantly repetitive and often flat out literally wrong posts by some attempting to close down any discussion about moderation or policies is beyond ridiculous.

Isn’t it the moderators job to decide what stays and what goes? What’s on topic and what’s off topic? The above seems like you want to do just what you say others are doing.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Those who want a private conversation can use the contact us link.

Vigilantes seem to bring this point up over and over again. The "Contact Us" form is not a saving grace and most people are just shunned from what I've heard.

 

[Stephen.R]

Since your OP spoke of recent personal moderation, providing you a quick link to the "contact us" option was the logical and prudent reply, especially when the staff directs members to that option when seeking to discuss personal moderation.

The thread in question poses a very broad question. It was triggered by a single specific event sure, but the question is not specific to just that one post.

Or are you suggesting that science, or even climate science specifically, is not a recurring topic, and that the post in question is one of a few rare outliers that broach the topic of science, earths climate and the effects of that climate on society?


FYI, because I didn’t look to see how long you’ve been registered and don’t want to assume you’ve actually read the guidelines you’re ironically telling other people to follow, the moderation faq specifically directs people to use SFF for questions about policies:

To ask general questions about moderation or moderation policies, post in the Site and Forum Feedback forum.

 

[TiggrToo]

Vigilantes seem to bring this point up over and over again. The "Contact Us" form is not a saving grace and most people are just shunned from what I've heard.

In fact again MacRumors allow for just such an alternative which is exactly what @Eric did.

It's odd how some users here who seem to fancy themselves as moderators are so quick to criticize others who simply avail themselves of well known posted procedures that MR provides.

 

[Stephen.R]

Isn’t it the moderators job to decide what stays and what goes? What’s on topic and what’s off topic? The above seems like you want to do just what you say others are doing.

Great so we agree that if someone starts a thread in SFF, there’s no need for you to tell people to “use the contact form”, the moderators can do so and remove the thread if they deem that necessary?

 

[SuperMatt]

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?

Not at all. The construction matters. When one uses “everybody you see” or ”everybody you talk to” on this forum it is clearly a generalized statement since the person has no clue who you personally see or talk to in a day.

In your statements to me, there is no clear indication of which form of “you” was being used. I think you (yes you personally) should recall that you have addressed me in a negative manner personally several times in several threads, saying things such as I would be happier if I moved on to another forum. You also said “you support hateful speech as long as it suits you and is directed at "the other".” No clear differentiation was made between the use of “you” between those posts and the one you quoted above; the same construction was used each time. Based on your other posts targeting me personally, I had no reason to believe you chose this moment to make general statements instead of directing the use of “you” at me personally when replying directly to one of my posts.

There can be times when it is unclear which form of “you” is being used. In this case, there was no such confusion due to the way the sentence was written. I submit that nobody on this forum actually believed that @ericgtr12 was indicating that you, @icanhazmac were the subject of the statement “every doctor YOU talk to” as if @ericgtr12 knew every doctor that you personally spoke to.

 

[I7guy]

Vigilantes seem to bring this point up over and over again. The "Contact Us" form is not a saving grace and most people are just shunned from what I've heard.

Vigilantes? Is this how we now are describing posters who are participating in a thread topic in a public forum?

Great so we agree that if someone starts a thread in SFF, there’s no need for you to tell people to “use the contact form”, the moderators can do so and remove the thread if they deem that necessary?

No. What we agree on is a posters right to respond to a thread in an appropriate manner, if even you believe it's a mods job to answer, a poster in still allowed to participate in a thread discussion.

My original point still stands about S&FF being a public forum. For posters who want a private conversation use the contact us link.

 

[I7guy]

In fact again MacRumors allow for just such an alternative which is exactly what @Eric did.

It's odd how some users here who seem to fancy themselves as moderators are so quick to criticize others who simply avail themselves of well known posted procedures that MR provides.

I suspect this thread will not last much longer...

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
This thread is so far off the bunny trail, and given the bickering, its time to lock it

 

[Doctor Q]

Question to @annk @Doctor Q and @WildCowboy how else could I have handled this better so I'll know next time?

Once you learned that you were asked to provide evidence of a claim you made, you should have done so, and then used the Contact form to explain the situation and ask the administrators to restore your claim and reverse the moderation for not providing evidence when requested. Instead, you chose to post accusations about the staff's integrity, which didn't help anyone and didn't address the problem. This is the first time someone has said that they didn't provide requested proof because they were ignoring the user who asked for it. There's nothing in the forum rules about this situation, so we'd consider the circumstances, as we always do when a moderation review is requested.