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
In the spirit of transparency and to provide more clarity as to why the thread in question was shut down, could you quote a couple of statements that were made in the Obama vacation thread that were the most egregious that led to it being closed? If they were so extremely offensive that you don't want to repeat them, that is understandable. But since we are so deep in the current thread talking about violations of MR rules, it would be helpful to have a few specific, real examples.
If you feel that is the case and you have specifics to back it up, take it up with the site owner. Saying it in public is wrong.
BTW, I find your statement to be way off base. I think the mods do a damn good job here. Even more so given the huge traffic here and the small number of them.
Just to add a little more to the discussion, I have noticed that some moderators are active participants in PRSI, and in my opinion sometimes have crossed the line themselves in making troll-like statements. I remember a few instances in which I wanting to relay an objection to the moderator, but then realized he or she was the moderator. Obviously, I let it go out of fear (at the time but less so now that I have been around for awhile) that reporting it might result in me being given a time out or banned. But it does raise the question as to what to do in a situation when the moderator's posts are out of line.
Please don't ask me to name names.
Please don't ask me to name names.
If you think a moderator's posts are "out of line", report it. As has been said again and again, reported posts are seen by all the moderators.
My idea of good moderating would allow anyone to whom a personal attack is directed the opportunity to ask a moderator to remove it, otherwise the mods let the forums run according to rules of common decency. Mods deleting threads "because nothing good can come of this" is as much an "abuse of power" as a mod can commit.
In addition, to maintain impartiality moderators should not be allowed to post in the PRSI section. This is common sense to me.
While posting stuff on The Internets shouldn't be taken too seriously, if someone takes time and effort to write a post and it gets promptly deleted I think whoever deleted it should have a reason with which at least 99% of the participants would concur. Is that always happening here? Usually? Sometimes?
In addition, to maintain impartiality moderators should not be allowed to post in the PRSI section. This is common sense to me.
While posting stuff on The Internets shouldn't be taken too seriously, if someone takes time and effort to write a post and it gets promptly deleted I think whoever deleted it should have a reason with which at least 99% of the participants would concur. Is that always happening here? Usually? Sometimes?
Some people seem to forget that this is a privately-owned forum. Anyone who wants to post here has to abide by the Forum Rules, whether they're fair, arbitrary, or whatever. The mods can censor/restrict/limit/moderate/forbid anything that the site owner and mods choose. If a poster doesn't like how the site is handled, they're free to discuss it with mods in a forum such as this, or in private messages. If they still don't like the answer they get, they're free to find another site, or start their own. We're all guests here, not co-owners.
Personally, I find the mods more patient and lenient than those in many forums.
Personally, I find the mods more patient and lenient than those in many forums.
I'm quite chilled. I'm just pointing out that if anyone disagrees with the way the site is moderated, they can either agree to disagree, abide by the mods' decisions and stay, or they can leave, in search of a better forum.... which I doubt can be found.
That doesn't make sense. You don't want Mod XYZ to be able to post in PRSI because Mod XYZ hates political party Q, but you don't mind if Mod XYZ moderates in the PRSI? Following your line of thought wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that mods who chose to regularly participate in the PRSI shouldn't be allowed to moderate in the PRSI?
Lethal
You're not making a point. I'm not the one challenging the way the site is moderated, and you're not the owner of the site or a moderator. (It's not enough to read what people post here; comprehending comes in handy, too!)Exactly. Get the point now?
Why should I? The second case presents no conflict of interests.
My line of thought doesn't preclude that.
Look Napoleon, you don't set up a forum, warn everyone to do things your way or leave, then expect members to join. Your attitude in your post was nothing short of obnoxious and the kind that keeps me at least away.You're not making a point. I'm not the one challenging the way the site is moderated, and you're not the owner of the site or a moderator. (It's not enough to read what people post here; comprehending comes in handy, too!)
Well, there's a good thing, I suppose!
If someone is starting a forum with a too-restrictive set of rules, of course fewer will join. But MR is well-established, with a set of rules that are fair and reasonable, or it wouldn't have the membership it enjoys. If anyone has a problem with the way this site is run, they are being unreasonable, not the site.
Then explain it to us. Why shouldn't moderators, who are chosen because of the merit of their posting abilities, be able to continue posting once they volunteer their time as moderators?
Frankly, neither do I, why should I be disbarred from discussions in the PSRI forum because I volunteer to act as a moderator on a private forum?
I am perfectly able to discern between personal feelings and rule infringement, an if I feel my judgement is compromised, I'll call on a mod who is not involved to make the judgement.
The common truth here is that moderation should be consistent, it isn't always, but when it isn't that is the exception. Of the 100 or so reported posts I see on my usual MR duty, 95% are simple rule violations.
Your personal feelings about your personal abilities are irrelevant. Impartiality is an absolute. A conflict of interests is an absolute. You don't hear judges saying, "Yes, the defendant is my wife but I'm a good judge so let me judge this one." I can't put it any simpler.
In a Court of Law the situation couldn't arise, however this is a private computer-based discussion forum, can you see the difference in scale?
The word is perspective, and my personal feelings have yet to become evident here.
- Status