Disappointing behavior by a MacRumors reporter

[japanime]

In all the years I've been on these forums, this is the first time I've ever seen a MacRumors reporter "LOL"ing at a member's post.

While some might consider the original post far-fetched or conspiratorial, it's not a good look for MacRumors when the reporter chooses to dismiss it with an "LOL." Instead, the reporter could have taken the time to explain to the OP why what they are suggesting is unlikely. (Or, even better, the reporter simply could have refrained from weighing in at all.)

 

[wilberforce]

LOL simply means laughing out loud, not "I dismiss your post." It is your interpretation that it is dismissive. It could be laughing with the OP's remark.
However, I do think it is cryptic.

 

[Puonti]

The Forum Rules offer clear guidance on the matter (source):

Things Not to Do

These habits can produce warnings and repeated violations can produce bans.

...

2 Frivolous posts. Posts that contain no relevant or constructive commentary. This includes one- or two-word posts such as "cool", "LOL", "I agree", "+1", "this", "me too", "no way", other equivalent comments of any length ... If your post will add nothing to a discussion, don't post it.

 

[japanime]

LOL simply means laughing out loud, not "I dismiss your post." It is YOUR interpretation that it is dismissive. It could be laughing WITH the OP's remark. How about taking the time to ask what is meant?

The full post was "Lol, what?"

One normally doesn't laugh WITH a person if they don't know "what?" that person is talking about.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Wouldn't worry about it. It's a common theme in wider society these days to use the 'conspiracy theorist' slant, either implied or explicit. Folk have been unwittingly programmed to reactively cast shade on anyone who thinks independently and dares speak their mind. Whether or not there could conceivably be any truth to the theory in question is rarely considered. Personally I think this one is probably unfounded, but the reaction to it is entirely expected in a world where even processing alternative views is considered dangerous.

 

[nicho]

The Forum Rules offer clear guidance on the matter (source):

You've bolded elements which I am interpreting as meaning that the poster was in violation of them - but the question, 'what', is arguably intended to invite the other poster to add further to the discussion therefore this rule hasn't been broken.

 

[I7guy]

I’m with Joe in this one. “LOL - what” is acceptable (to me) and brief based on the comment.

 

[icanhazmac]

While some might consider the original post far-fetched or conspiratorial, it's not a good look for MacRumors when the reporter chooses to dismiss it with an "LOL."

I might understand your thought if it was just "LOL" or perhaps the ever popular childish use of the laughing emoji. In this case however the follow up "What?" provides all the intention I need. A little LOL, followed by a request for further explanation.

Instead, the reporter could have taken the time to explain to the OP why what they are suggesting is unlikely.

Creating bad publicity, via a possible "defect" in ghost touches, in order to secretly disable the blood-oxygen sensor is about as likely as falling off the edge of flat earth so why not have a little laugh?

(Or, even better, the reporter simply could have refrained from weighing in at all.

Why? I think more staff interaction with members would be great.

 

[Madhatter32]

When MR representatives choose to engage in conversation they should add a disclaimer that they are commenting in their individual capacity and not as a member of staff -- in my opinion. Otherwise, it does present some questionable interpretations concerning being evenhanded and impartial.

Regarding the use of "LOL" as a response, it's frowned upon by the rules so it should be avoided by MR staff. However, I do not blame the staff member, acting in their own capacity, from using the term "LOL" in this case (and generally) because it is commonplace and relatively harmless. It just doesn't really move the ball in terms of stating an objection and it is frowned upon by the rules they are supposed to enforce. So it's probably best to be avoided.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

LOL simply means laughing out loud, not "I dismiss your post." It is your interpretation that it is dismissive. It could be laughing with the OP's remark.
However, I do think it is cryptic.

There was a thread (in the SFF section) about the 'laugh' emoji, and whether a second emoji should be added, as the laugh emoji had come - for the most part - to stand for "laugh at' rather than 'laugh with'.

These days, I'm afraid, that LOL - because it has so often come to have been used in a mocking and derisive sense (and tone) - has also mostly come to mean (or, be understood to mean) - "laughing at" something.

Moreover, and here I am in (slightly reluctant) agreement with the OP, firstly, one word (or two word) posts are discouraged on MR, - especially the sort of one word posts that confine themselves to a word such as "Lol" - whereas one word posts are actually prohibited - thus, arising from that, it is unfortunate to see a member of staff indulging themselves in using this expression in this manner.

In other words, if it is discouraged on the site, a discouragement that is (sometimes) enforced and policed by staff, therefore, staff shouldn't do it; don't do what you don't want others to do.

As for the cited far-fetched (and, I would argue, delusional) original post that was responded to with a derisive laugh, my take, or view, on the matter is that it should be responded to (and rebutted, or refuted) with the use of words.

 

[Apple_Robert]

From what I can see, there is no violation of the rules by Joe. I also don't see any problem with the staff replying to posts. If the post in question had violated the rules, I could understand the thread creation. From my viewpoint, the OP got offended by a standard he seems to have projected onto Joe. I see no cause for concern. More staff interaction is welcomed, as far as I am concerned.

 

[nicho]

In other words, if it is discouraged on the site, a discouragement that is (sometimes) enforced and policed by staff, therefore, staff shouldn't do it; don't do what you don't want others to do.

It seems this is being interpreted as "Macrumors says don't do X. Staff does X. Staff take no action. Staff bad."

Perhaps an alternative interpretation of these events could be "Macrumors says don't do X. Staff does something that people misinterpret as X. Staff don't need to take action because rule was never broken."

 

[floral]

Honestly, this is really trivial to make a whole thread about... it's just one comment and (at least most likely) inviting the original poster to elaborate on why they think Apple is asking people to return watches to disable a feature.

No I'm not trying to defend someone because they're a staff member, this is just even more disappointing to not even give the person a chance to reword what they said.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

As to whether the reply was "within the rules..." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I empathize with Joe though, the original post is worthy of a "LOL, what?"

 

[bigjnyc]

In all the years I've been on these forums, this is the first time I've ever seen a MacRumors reporter "LOL"ing at a member's post.

View attachment 2348259

While some might consider the original post far-fetched or conspiratorial, it's not a good look for MacRumors when the reporter chooses to dismiss it with an "LOL." Instead, the reporter could have taken the time to explain to the OP why what they are suggesting is unlikely. (Or, even better, the reporter simply could have refrained from weighing in at all.)

LOL, what?

 

[bousozoku]

One or two word posts are supposed to be removed, per the rules.

However, seeing the post in question. I would be shaking my head and possibly saying "LOL, what?" to myself, as I've done several times in the last week.

 

[Madhatter32]

One or two word posts are supposed to be removed, per the rules.

However, seeing the post in question. I would be shaking my head and possibly saying "LOL, what?" to myself, as I've done several times in the last week.

I am usually saying "GTFO" to myself. Not just on MR either.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It seems this is being interpreted as "Macrumors says don't do X. Staff does X. Staff take no action. Staff bad."

Perhaps an alternative interpretation of these events could be "Macrumors says don't do X. Staff does something that people misinterpret as X. Staff don't need to take action because rule was never broken."

No, it is considerably more nuanced than that.

The original post that drew that response deserved - to my mind - a response that made clear that one could not take such stuff in any way seriously. However, personally, I would prefer to see words used to express this.

Notwithstanding that, when contributing to a thread as a member of staff, as a mod, I think that one must draw a distinction between contributing as a member of the forum in a personal capacity, and when contributing as a mod.

Because, inevitably, if one contributes to a thread when one holds a staff position, - even when (and if) one does so in a personal, or private, capacity, - the fact that a member of staff has contributed is what is (first) noticed when one comes across the contribution, or post, and one then notes which hat is worn (whether it is one's public staff hat or one is posting in a personal, or private capacity) when the post was made.

Precisely because of the power that the staff wield, - to my mind - they should be seen to uphold their own standards when posting in a private capacity.

Nevertheless, I agree that it is a minor matter.

 

[nicho]

Notwithstanding that, when contributing to a thread as a member of staff, as a mod, I think that one must draw a distinction between contributing as a member of the forum in a personal capacity, and when contributing as a mod.

Do macrumors staff contribute to threads as mods? I wonder if you could example it.

 

[rm5]

Do macrumors staff contribute to threads as mods? I wonder if you could example it.

I've seen it before. MacRumors moderators also contribute to threads just normally, too. I've seen both things.

 

[rm5]

Also, here's my opinion on "lol": When it precedes the phrase, I take that as laughing at. When it follows the phrase, I take that as laughing with. That's how I personally see it. Everyone's taste is different, however.

 

[nicho]

I've seen it before. MacRumors moderators also contribute to threads just normally, too. I've seen both things.

I've seen it a long time ago, but that's not providing an example. The reason I ask, is because I have a feeling nowadays that they only contribute to threads normally. Any moderation is done through the moderation tools rather than posting.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

That’s been a common theme here, they are very welcoming of any opinions, as long as it’s the same as their opinions


I’d be surprised if they don’t delete this whole thread

 

[bousozoku]

Do macrumors staff contribute to threads as mods? I wonder if you could example it.

Prior to there being staff writers and reporters, we moderators would also be people who were interested in Macs. We posted, as though we were people. We weren't paid to moderate the forums. We were selected and did what we did to make MacRumors better and safer.

Things are different now, but I'm sure the staff are just a group of people.

 

[nicho]

Prior to there being staff writers and reporters, we moderators would also be people who were interested in Macs. We posted, as though we were people. We weren't paid to moderate the forums. We were selected and did what we did to make MacRumors better and safer.

Things are different now, but I'm sure the staff are just a group of people.

To be clear I think we're saying the same thing? Then and now mods (and staff) contribute in a personal capacity.

The person I was responding to said there should be a differentiation between responding in a personal capacity and responding as a mod. I'm of the belief that all of their posts are in a personal capacity only.