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.
Explain to me the difference between "moderating" and "censoring"
- Thread starter glocke12
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
To add my $25.00 (two cents just doesn't cut it these days), I see no reason why the thread was closed either. Plenty of nonsense threads stay opened in all forums. That said, it's a private forum and they can moderate and/or censor it as they see fit.
Very well put. I have to agree. There have been several threads that were allowed to remain open. Heck look at the threads that were going before the election..........
there is no such thing as censoring on a private site. there is no freedom of speech here. just moderation. always are free to go start your own site where only things you want heard/said are acceptable as well.
that said, the moderators are human and are volunteers. they do the best job that they can. they aren't perfect and perhaps mistakes are made, but they do an excellent job here overall.
i didn't get a chance to read much of the thread in question, but i'm assuming it was being derailed and/or turning into a name-calling fest and as such it became too big of a hassle to keep clean so was closed. i could tell it was heading in that direction last night when i saw it crop up.
that said, the moderators are human and are volunteers. they do the best job that they can. they aren't perfect and perhaps mistakes are made, but they do an excellent job here overall.
i didn't get a chance to read much of the thread in question, but i'm assuming it was being derailed and/or turning into a name-calling fest and as such it became too big of a hassle to keep clean so was closed. i could tell it was heading in that direction last night when i saw it crop up.
Careful consideration but without all the facts, means that the result of the consideration is skewed.* It could be thought that if such a result is the thread should have stayed open then the correct moderating work was done.
*Which of course leads to these threads and the perception of censorship / heavy handed moderating.
Of course what happens in the PRSI has happened in this thread.
I explained the reasons for the thread closure and then one part of it was repeated and then put under review.
The issues with that thread were numerous and as such I deemed that as the thread stood it would not progress further.
I edited a post in this thread, was that censorship no. It was moderation and a prime example as one of the reasons why the original thread was closed
I agree however the biggest issue at hand here is that in the previous 6 months ending December the PRSI was the 19th lowest reported forum with a grand total of 29 report posts.
I agree completely, but I think glocke has raised a very good point as well. I don't see any problem with questioning mods. I agree, they're human and make mistakes. It should be OK when we point them out, don't you think?
And yes, they do great job overall and I'm very grateful for what they do. It's not easy. It's like being a cop.
I'd look into it if it weren't only a small group of vocal conservatives starting threads about the moderation. I know there have been quite a few of us leftists here that have felt the impact of the rules (I was banned for a few days myself), but we never start a new thread complaining about the moderation.
Telling you something I should think, Hmmm?
If the name in the thread were Bush rather than Obama, I wonder if the thread would have been closed. I had been following that thread and saw nothing in it that stood out as trolling as I understand the term as defined by MR. Frankly, it became a little boring after awhile, certainly not controversial. I've read posts that make wild accusations against other political figures (usually Bush and other republicans but also out-of-favor democrats) without supporting documentation. Why then is there such a quick reaction and closure of a thread that is critical of Obama taking a vacation? It was more poking fun at him than seriously attacking him or tearing him down.
Of course, this is a private site and threads can therefore be closed at will of the moderator. There has to be some control over post content to keep things from devolving into chaos and meaninglessness, but I don't see how closing the thread in question helped improve things much. But again, that is the moderators call and I respect the fact that they are voluntarily carrying out this responsibility, hopefully generally in good faith.
Of course, this is a private site and threads can therefore be closed at will of the moderator. There has to be some control over post content to keep things from devolving into chaos and meaninglessness, but I don't see how closing the thread in question helped improve things much. But again, that is the moderators call and I respect the fact that they are voluntarily carrying out this responsibility, hopefully generally in good faith.
This must be the change Obama was talking about.
I think this thread we are in now has been excellent in the sense that we have all been reminded: (1) moderators volunteer time they don't often have, and do the best they can, (2) this is a private site and, by extension, there is no true censorship here, and (3) perhaps most importantly, the PRSI forum seems to be something lots of people take pride in, and rely on. (I personally find myself getting more and more news analysis here than I do on dedicated news sites.) As to this last point, I think it is only because many of us have such a respect for this site, and the PRSI forum in particular, that we fight so hard for what we consider "fair." Yes, "fair" is a relative word, but I think is healthy to periodically analyze the system itself, as we have done in this thread.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I will now return to slyly pulling leekohler to the Right side.
Sigh. Of course it would have. Who the post about had nothing to do with the thread closure. I have explained this quite a few times.
mgguy said:
So you didn't see the attacks and personal attacks. Not forgetting that there are other issues that you are not aware of.
Not mention off topic and abrasive
Did you report these posts? I personally haven't seen these posts so we are all looking and the situation with completely different eyes
. Is the green you see the same as the green I see? If a lion could speak could I understand him?Quick reaction? I stumbled across the thread and dealt with it. We are not often criticized for acting too quickly. If it was left to fester then it would've gone down a whole other level requiring more cleanup and work.
Who the post about had nothing to do with the thread closure
It did help and every journey has to start with one step.
Always in good faith
In all honesty, no I don't see the attacks or personal attacks, or abrasiveness. As far as being off topic, show me one thread in PRSI that doesn't veer off topic to some degree. This thread was only a little over 15 posts, hardly enough time to deem it hopelessly diverted from the OT.
It would be very instructive if you would cite a few comments made in the thread that you felt were attacks or abrasiveness. I reread it several times and just don't see any. The stream of conversation was far milder than many in threads that I have read more recently, where posters were making wild abusive smart-ass comments about other posters and their political motivations.
I am obviously not aware of any other issues that are going on behind the scenes, but I don't see anything in the thread that appears to be in the nature of a tipping point for closing it down. But, once again, I want to stress that I do recognize that this is your call to make.
You are in a forum, you abide by the demands, requirements and actions of its administrative team. That's not censorship. It's moderation of a forum.
Don't like the way it's being moderated? Go somewhere else.
No one is stopping you talking about something. They are stopping you talking about it HERE. That's moderation, not censorship.
Doug
The abrasive comments were likely deleted, so of course you don't see them, which means the moderators are doing their job well.
Just to add to the difference between "moderating" and censorship. I do find it incredibly interesting what the moderators pick and choose what is "trolling" and what is not. I was put into time out not to long ago for comments that were taken out of context (which is nothing new to a lot in these forums) but looking at the definition that was given to me of "trolling" made me think that others have done far worse than I, but (in my perception) have never been put into timeout.
I made a few comments regarding the Brits that were cited in the response I received to why I was put into time out (and of course the examples that were cited to me of what I said were taken out of context) but I have seen a lot of posts that attack Americans, but those posts remain and the posters keep posting. Same thing with religion, seen a whole lot of "trolling" according to the definition of these forums but those people just keep going on doing it and the posts can be considered attacking but they just keep on going, and to add there are plenty of moderators that have been in these certain threads.
I do understand this is a "private" forum, but when people pay money to support this forum it's not so private anymore. And as far as any mod saying that they work full time and there is not enough time to mod the forums, sorry, but you chose to volunteer. Not trying to be a jerk, just a bit disappointed that to us on the outside of the moderation it does seem very biased.
I made a few comments regarding the Brits that were cited in the response I received to why I was put into time out (and of course the examples that were cited to me of what I said were taken out of context) but I have seen a lot of posts that attack Americans, but those posts remain and the posters keep posting. Same thing with religion, seen a whole lot of "trolling" according to the definition of these forums but those people just keep going on doing it and the posts can be considered attacking but they just keep on going, and to add there are plenty of moderators that have been in these certain threads.
I do understand this is a "private" forum, but when people pay money to support this forum it's not so private anymore. And as far as any mod saying that they work full time and there is not enough time to mod the forums, sorry, but you chose to volunteer. Not trying to be a jerk, just a bit disappointed that to us on the outside of the moderation it does seem very biased.
Well, I'll have to disagree. To me, someone on the "outside", I think the moderators are doing a pretty good job. And I say this even though I've been put in time-out before.
I think I know why people complain the way they do though. When they are called out for their ridiculous behavior, they try and find any way to justify it. A rational person would step back, look at the decision the moderator made, admit fault, and deal with it. An irrational person will immediately suggest a liberal moderator conspiracy and create posts claiming they are being censored. They just can't admit to themselves that they were acting like a ********. So it's the moderators fault.
This
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I will now return to slyly pulling leekohler to the Right side.
Dude, just because you and I get along doesn't mean I'm about to turn Republican.
Ok, I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that the mods are not doing a good job. They are and I do understand what a time consuming effort it is. In my own experience there does seem to be some bias to either a certain side of an issue or certain posters. But, yes, overall I do think the mods are doing a good job even with someone as opinionated as me....
I don't think this is always the case. When I was put into time out and after receiving a response to the posts I made that caused the time out I did look at what I did and agreed to a few, but not all. I'm sure there are those who do sit there and get all pissed off because they were reprimanded for something they said and they just don't get it. But I don't think everyone does what you say.
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing it out. Perhaps the moderator or other posters can cite a few of the offending statements that were removed. It would make this discussion a lot more concrete.
I don't want to get too personal, but I certainly see a difference between simply closing a thread and closing yet another thread in a recurring and deeply tiresome pattern of single-issue trolling.
Occasionally one encounters a poster who has been grinding his particular axe so hard for so long that now all he's doing is turning an old axe handle into a pointy stick to poke people with. That pattern in itself should invite a level of attention any single post in the pattern might not otherwise.
Occasionally one encounters a poster who has been grinding his particular axe so hard for so long that now all he's doing is turning an old axe handle into a pointy stick to poke people with. That pattern in itself should invite a level of attention any single post in the pattern might not otherwise.
Dude, just because you and I get along doesn't mean I'm about to turn Republican.
I said "Right," not "Republican."
Back to the OT, it seems a question is emerging; in light of the fact that this is a private site, but one with massive, diverse traffic and one that chooses to support a PRSI forum - which is better and/or more logistically practical: moderating "behind the scenes" (e.g. deleting posts quietly, requesting/requiring the use of private messaging as opposed to raising conflicts in the open), or in the alternative, having a more open and transparent process. I don't have an answer; just raising the question. The latter sounds appealing in the sense of promoting consistency but may not be logistically possible.
The present system seems to be remarkably effective on the whole, with the added advantage that it is largely invisible.
Can I add one more insight on my part, coming from a more practical / logistical aspect of my perspective as a moderator.
If a post in poor taste -- one that contains an ad hominem attack, one that is offensive to a group of people, etc, or one that violates PRSI-specific guidelines like repeatedly stating something that is highly unlikely to be true without providing any backup source -- you know we ask constantly that you report it using the report post button rather than respond to it.
Let me be more explicit about why. If a thread has an offensive post in it, and no one or few people respond to it, I am highly likely to delete the offending post and move on. If the offense turns into a back and forth war that encompasses six or seven replies or even more (which I think did happen in stevento's thread), then I am highly likely to wasteland it (and the other moderators, who lack my love for the wasteland, are likely to close it, with which I sympathize although I believe that someday all shall come to adore the goddess that is the Wasteland) rather than wading through all the posts and get the thread back in good shape.
There is a workload issue with respect to asking us to edit down a half dozen or a dozen posts in which offending commentary is quoted, repeated, debated, etc, like it or not.
I'm saying this from the standpoint that I am personally generally in favor of providing (and also insisting upon) transparency.
If a post in poor taste -- one that contains an ad hominem attack, one that is offensive to a group of people, etc, or one that violates PRSI-specific guidelines like repeatedly stating something that is highly unlikely to be true without providing any backup source -- you know we ask constantly that you report it using the report post button rather than respond to it.
Let me be more explicit about why. If a thread has an offensive post in it, and no one or few people respond to it, I am highly likely to delete the offending post and move on. If the offense turns into a back and forth war that encompasses six or seven replies or even more (which I think did happen in stevento's thread), then I am highly likely to wasteland it (and the other moderators, who lack my love for the wasteland, are likely to close it, with which I sympathize although I believe that someday all shall come to adore the goddess that is the Wasteland) rather than wading through all the posts and get the thread back in good shape.
There is a workload issue with respect to asking us to edit down a half dozen or a dozen posts in which offending commentary is quoted, repeated, debated, etc, like it or not.
I'm saying this from the standpoint that I am personally generally in favor of providing (and also insisting upon) transparency.
- Status