Encouraging meaningful discussions in PRSI

[yaxomoxay]

could you imagine getting reported for being under the word count, "they only posted 250 words instead of 300" and then getting an infraction?

You wouldn't be reported, and it wouldn't count as an infraction. It would have to be automated, like you can't actually post.

 

[TonyC28]

You wouldn't be reported, and it wouldn't count as an infraction. It would have to be automated, like you can't actually post.

I feel like this rule would disproportionally favor Lizkat.

 

[I7guy]

...
I think part of the problem is how “civilly” and “insult” are defined and then applied. Also, it’s against rules to call someone a troll, but it’s against the rules to troll.

Not knowing one has been insulted and not caring are two different things. Personally I know and I care...and why should it be tolerated. Calling out another forum member as a troll is not tolerated as for the most part trolling the forums.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I have my own theories about the rules but I’ll keep them to myself. As far as the way the rules are written, I think they are a little unrealistic.

And I am fine with this. The idea behind my initial post is to answer the question on how to make PRSI more meaningful and an interesting section of the forum. Considering that the voices to remove it are more and more, I think it's better to find ways - as artificial as they might be - to make people do some amount of work other than having replies full of stupid memes, nicknames, idiotic replies, or one liners.

 

[TonyC28]

And I am fine with this. The idea behind my initial post is to answer the question on how to make PRSI more meaningful and an interesting section of the forum. Considering that the voices to remove it are more and more, I think it's better to find ways - as artificial as they might be - to make people do some amount of work other than having replies full of stupid memes, nicknames, idiotic replies, or one liners.

Removing it is a lazy stance in my opinion. I hope nobody finds that be insulting. First of all, no one is forced to click on the link. Well except in the case of an article second out on the website currently that forces people to PRSI to comment because it has the words "White House" in it. It's not political, and it's mainly about Apple, but maybe the mods are just getting ahead of the usual way the threads devolve. I'm all for banning memes even if they can be funny sometimes.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I'm all for banning memes even if they can be funny sometimes.

I think this would be a start. I am for a single "meme" thread (of course, non offensive memes, as by rules) in which people can put political memes, but other than that there should be no meme in any of the conversations, especially as an answer to a serious post.

Evil mods/Mighty admins: is this something we can try?

 

[Weaselboy]

Evil mods/Mighty admins: is this something we can try?

Meme only or image only posts are already against the frivolous post rule (below).

We do allow image only posts if the image has text that would otherwise be an acceptable post.

But if one makes a post with relevant text then also includes a meme image along with it, that would not violate the rule since it would not be a "meme only" post.

Posts with 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, posts consisting only of smilies or overused memes, posts about being the first post in a thread, posts about your lack of interest in the thread (ignore the thread instead), and posts with irrelevant images or videos, especially those without text. If your post will add nothing to a discussion, don't post it.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I don't see mods not letting people debate civilly, even passionately. When the debate spills over into insults, trolling and what have you, is what the issue is.


The moderators and administrators have said repeatedly that they are neutral in terms of content moderated. But yet people still don't believe it. From what I see, posts don't get moderated on a disagreement in a civil conversation. They get moderated due to trolling, insults and the like.

As far as the comment about "most of the staff can't stand it", did you ever do a job where you were 100% satisified with 100% of the time. I haven't, there are parts of my day that I find less than favorable. Doesn't mean I'll quit my job.

Or when posts are misunderstood and assumptions made on the intentions behind them. I don’t believe mods are completely neutral and I don’t believe we as individuals are not known to each mod like was claimed to me. I think we all get a sense of the personalities of regular posters if we read enough of each other’s posts and we can usually tell the people we like or would get on with. I don’t think mods are immune from recognising the same traits and disliking some more than others. It’s only natural IMO.

 

[ericgtr12]

Meme only or image only posts are already against the frivolous post rule (below).

We do allow image only posts if the image has text that would otherwise be an acceptable post.

But if one makes a post with relevant text then also includes a meme image along with it, that would not violate the rule since it would not be a "meme only" post.

I'll say this is one of the most inconsistent rules I've seen on this board, many times I'll see an image/meme posted with no other verbiage and it goes unnoticed, other times they will be removed. I suspect that's because those are probably reported first, lest we just expect mods to troll through thousands of posts every day for such trivial things.

 

[I7guy]

Or when posts are misunderstood and assumptions made on the intentions behind them. I don’t believe mods are completely neutral and I don’t believe we as individuals are not known to each mod like was claimed to me. I think we all get a sense of the personalities of regular posters if we read enough of each other’s posts and we can usually tell the people we like or would get on with. I don’t think mods are immune from recognising the same traits and disliking some more than others. It’s only natural IMO.

If you are a manager tasked with reviewing your staff, you are under an obligation to write an objective review regardless of how you may feel about someone. That is the way I would hope the moderators and staff work. While they may know your MacRumors "name", and if a post of yours for whatever reason winds up being reviewed...I would hope they review the post objectively, regardless of the viewpoint. It's not as if, we as humans, are not capable of doing that.
(and that is a far cry from saying moderation is perfect 100% of the time)

 

[Weaselboy]

I suspect that's because those are probably reported first, lest we just expect mods to troll through thousands of posts every day for such trivial things.

That is likely exactly what is going on. There is just no way for mods to see all the posts on here, so we rely in large part on reports.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

If you are a manager tasked with reviewing your staff, you are under an obligation to write an objective review regardless of how you may feel about someone. That is the way I would hope the moderators and staff work. While they may know your MacRumors "name", and if a post of yours for whatever reason winds up being reviewed...I would hope they review the post objectively, regardless of the viewpoint. It's not as if, we as humans, are not capable of doing that.
(and that is a far cry from saying moderation is perfect 100% of the time)

I would hope so too and used to feel exactly the same way. I’ve lost a lot of faith in that presumption though as a mutual distrust has developed in my case. Posts are misinterpreted and instead of a conversation, it’s just sanctioned. Then when the contact form is used to discuss further, no explanations are considered and assumptions are used instead of fact. You can’t get compete impartiality with human beings who take part in the same discussions and who also moderate.

 

[I7guy]

I would hope so too and used to feel exactly the same way. I’ve lost a lot of faith in that presumption though as a mutual distrust has developed in my case. Posts are misinterpreted and instead of a conversation, it’s just sanctioned. Then when the contact form is used to discuss further, no explanations are considered and assumptions are used instead of fact. You can’t get compete impartiality with human beings who take part in the same discussions and who also moderate.

In total, according to https://forums.macrumors.com/members/?key=staff_members, there are 18 (if I counted correctly, excluding arn who says he does not participate in day to day stuff) moderators and administrators. I find it hard to believe the administrators (5?) are all biased in that regard.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

In total, according to https://forums.macrumors.com/members/?key=staff_members, there are 18 (if I counted correctly, excluding arn who says he does not participate in day to day stuff) moderators and administrators. I find it hard to believe the administrators (5?) are all biased in that regard.

There’s clearly something wrong in the process though. I haven’t heard of most of those people and have no idea if every mod reviews every post as a collective, like a panel of judges? I doubt it.

EDIT: Apologies, I shouldn't have derailed the thread with this. Had a bad day and stumbled across this thread again. Sorry all.