Explain to me the difference between "moderating" and "censoring"

[jonbravo77]

I'm gonna have to agree with MrSmith. No one can sit here and say that they can put aside personal feelings and be able to moderate effectively when posting on a subject that might bring up personal or ideological emotion. You would have to be a robot to be able to do that.

And as far as the "privately held forums", sorry, but once people start donating money to support the forums costs it's not so privately held anymore, it becomes more of a public interest. It's the same thing in business, if the company just uses money that the owner(s) give then it is private, taking money from the public means it is a publicly traded company... If the $25 subscription for this forum was not asked for then that would be different and biased/censorship/heavy handed moderation or anything else can be done. but since there is a subscription that is offered and people do pay it then there needs to be accountability to the public. IMHO

 

[skunk]

You would have to be a robot to be able to do that.

No, you'd have to be fair-minded in discharging your responsibilities. Not so difficult.

And as far as the "privately held forums", sorry, but once people start donating money to support the forums costs it's not so privately held anymore, it becomes more of a public interest. It's the same thing in business, if the company just uses money that the owner(s) give then it is private, taking money from the public means it is a publicly traded company.

Absolute nonsense. Every private company takes money from the public. This is not the same as being "publicly traded", which means that the public can buy and sell shares.

 

[jonbravo77]

In a Court of Law the situation couldn't arise,

It does happen. It has happened in Arizona, when a Judge who was hearing a case against Joe Arpaio turns out to be the twin sister of the woman who is the head of La Raz who is fighting Arpaio for racial discrimination. Just an example to show you that the conflict of interest that MrSmith pointed out does in fact happen.

 

[WinterMute]

I don't see either of you subscribing to the forums, you're both long-standing members who have benefited from this forum for a long time without contributing.

The question of impartiality only applies if there are penalties or sanctions that can affect personal freedoms or business, neither of which applies.

If I ban you for breaking the rules it's easy to appeal and check, if the admins think I acted in haste fuelled by ideology then they can reverse my decisions, if I do it a lot, I'll be removed as a moderator.

No MacRumors mod has ever been removed by the owner.

Again, this is a private forum, you're free to go elsewhere if you don;t like it here, just as you are free to hold (and publish) your opinions on the boards provided they don't break the rules.

Some posts here are bordering on straw-man arguments, I've made my position clear, now excuse me I have some people to ban in PSRI for no immediately good reason.

 

[jonbravo77]

No, you'd have to be fair-minded in discharging your responsibilities. Not so difficult.

Absolute nonsense. Every private company takes money from the public. This is not the same as being "publicly traded", which means that the public can buy and sell shares.

As to the first, apparently human nature doesn't come into play in your scenario of being fair-minded. Not saying it is impossible, but if a moderator is involved in a heavy discussion than bias can play a big part in any decision.

As to the second, didn't mean to put the traded part in there. But in a private company that (as you say takes public money, in which I would like an example) the public has no say in what that company does. But if said company starts to take public money then they really can't imply that "this company is private and we will do what we want" the public now can dictate to an extent what happens in said company (and for this example that would be buying and selling stocks causing the companies value to rise or fall).

 

[jonbravo77]

I don't see either of you subscribing to the forums, you're both long-standing members who have benefited from this forum for a long time without contributing.

You want to make a bet? Look back further kind sir. I can still see the Private Threads so I know my subscription is still good.

And you're right, I think I am going a bit off topic. So I will stop, but please check your info about subscriptions. TY

 

[WinterMute]

You want to make a bet? Look back further kind sir. I can still see the Private Threads so I know my subscription is still good.

Yeah, I saw that whilst I was looking for the best way to ban you, you chose not to take the title, not too many people do that.

 

[skunk]

As to the first, apparently human nature doesn't come into play in your scenario of being fair-minded. Not saying it is impossible, but if a moderator is involved in a heavy discussion than bias can play a big part in any decision.

It can, in which case there are safeguards, as Wintermute has stated above.

As to the second, didn't mean to put the traded part in there. But in a private company that (as you say takes public money, in which I would like an example) the public has no say in what that company does.

Every company which sells anything to the public takes "public money". How else do you define it?

But if said company starts to take public money then they really can't imply that "this company is private and we will do what we want" the public now can dictate to an extent what happens in said company (and for this example that would be buying and selling stocks causing the companies value to rise or fall).

You are conflating the buying and selling of products with the buying and selling of shares.

 

[jonbravo77]

Yeah, I saw that whilst I was looking for the best way to ban you, you chose not to take the title, not too many people do that.

I took the title, but then changed it a few months back when I was getting more post counts. I like the numbers

 

[MrSmith]

It can, in which case there are safeguards, as Wintermute has stated above.

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

 

[skunk]

A conflict of interests is an absolute.

Only if you have an interest.

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

This thread's existence is evidence of one of those safeguards in play. We shall see how the complaints are viewed in due course. You ascribe darkly to "human nature" something which may simply be a genuine difference of opinion. Judges, and moderators, have opinions. Their opinions are necessary to the discharge of their duties.

 

[bartelby]

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

Because some people seem obsessed with post counts. Whether their posts have broken rules or not is secondary to the lowering of their counts...

 

[WinterMute]

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

We have over 280,000 members, there are 4500-odd online on a Sunday afternoon with international Rugby and FA cup football on the telly in the UK...

I'd be very surprised if we didn't get some complaints about moderated posts from those who had been moderated, that is human nature.

 

[.Andy]

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

I'd wager I have more posts deleted than anybody. It's because I'm a terrible poster, not because of any ideologically motivated mods !

 

[Busy Bee]

Sometimes mods do things that may appear capricious on the surface, but these acts are based on more information than the forum members know. The mods clearly know far more about each member's history and record than is evident to other forum members, which leads to them make decisions that may seem opaque on the surface.

To be honest, I'm not sure why this thread is permitted to continue. It contains hazy troublemaking accusations that in many cases the mods are hamstrung from replying to effectively because of privacy concerns.

Let's look at the OP's first post and the reason for this thread:

After seeing the "Obama Vacation" thread closed, I have to ask the question..where does being a moderator end and being a censor begin?

I know there are guidelines for this forum, but it seems that "moderating" is very, very subjective.

Ive had posts deleted in the past that were on topic and non-inflammatory, but for some reason some moderator saw fit to delete them without any explanation.

As for the thread about Obama taking a vacation, that seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate topic. Is it closed because criticizing Obama is not acceptable on this forum?

Note the 'seems'. And as this question is about a specific thread and a case of moderation, please note what it says in the forum rules:

You can use the Contact form to send a message to the moderators/administrators if you have questions about specific cases of moderation. This is more appropriate than sending Private Messages or email to individual moderators. If you use Private Messages or email to contact a moderator about a moderation issue, you may be directed to send it again via the Contact Form, because this ensures proper review and accountability and because the moderators work as a team. Moderation is not personal; don't make it so.

When contacting us about moderation, please identify the posts or threads in question; the moderators deal with many every day. Posting questions/complaints about specific cases of moderation in the forums is frowned upon because they are not relevant to others and we can be more frank communicating in private. If you have general questions about moderation or site policies (not about a specific case), use the Contact form or the Site and Forum Feedback forum.

Ive had posts deleted in the past that were on topic and non-inflammatory, but for some reason some moderator saw fit to delete them without any explanation.

Moderators on this forum do not provide public reasons why a post was deleted. In all cases, the answer is because it broke the forum rules. Note that if your post was a reply to a deleted post from another forum member, that too will be deleted along with any others that quote, reply or reference the initial deleted post.

And to be honest, I'm assuming that the OP of the locked thread in question has been in touch with the mods... to others, it is none of your business nor mine.

 

[jonbravo77]

Judges, and moderators, have opinions. Their opinions are necessary to the discharge of their duties.

Don't think this is true. Judges are not supposed to have opinions, they are supposed to discharge their duties by what the law says. Moderators are supposed to discharge their duties by what the forum rules are. To me, you make it sound that Judges and moderators are supposed to listen to what is said and then inject their own opinion which would cause bias.

 

[rdowns]

If everything is running hunky-dory how come numerous posters have complained about their posts going missing? Seems like human nature at work to me.

The number of people complaining about this is miniscule compared to overall membership. THat speaks to the quality of the moderation.

 

[skunk]

To me, you make it sound that Judges and moderators are supposed to listen to what is said and then inject their own opinion which would cause bias.

You're big on conflation, aren't you?

 

[bartelby]

The number of people complaining about this is miniscule compared to overall membership. THat speaks to the quality of the moderation.

It also probably says more about the people complaining than the actual moderation...

 

[jonbravo77]

You're big on conflation, aren't you?

No, just want to make sure that things aren't skewed. merely pointing out that Judges/moderators are supposed to uphold the law/rules. And since we are typing to each-other it becomes difficult to know what you really mean since there is no body language or inflection to go off of...

EDIT*** I might be, just a bit

 

[mgguy]

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

I'll take this a step further and suggest that it is arguably inappropriate for moderators to wield their influence as moderators in the very same posts in which they are arguing their personal point of view on the subject matter of the thread and on the particular comments made by the specific post to which they are responding at that moment. I have had a few experiences in which a moderator alleged that I was bordering on trolling in their same post in which they had strongly objected to my point of view on the subject matter and had spewed out a litany of general charges against Bush and the republican party and anyone who agrees with them, without themselves providing any substantiation for these characterizations. I don't think warnings about possible violations of MR rules should be intertwined with the moderator's spirited rebuttal against the poster's position on the subject of the thread. In one instance, they moderator's threat that my comments were bordering on trolling seemed so obviously out of line that I wrote them a personal message asking them not to scold me publicly as part of their rebuttal to my post, and also reported my objection to their post. However, I never received a reply so I don't know whether they agreed with my criticism or not.

Having said this, I still strongly support the MR rules and the freedom of moderators to enforce them as they see fit. I also appreciate that the moderators here have been willing to listen to criticisms on how they sometimes carry out their moderator responsibilities.

 

[skunk]

I'll take this a step further and suggest that it is arguably inappropriate for moderators to wield their influence as moderators in the very same posts in which they are arguing their personal point of view on the subject matter of the thread and on the particular comments made by the specific post to which they are responding at that moment. I have had a few experiences in which a moderator alleged that I was bordering on trolling in their same post in which they had strongly objected to my point of view on the subject matter and had spewed out a litany of general charges against Bush and the republican party and anyone who agrees with them, without themselves providing any substantiation for these characterizations. I don't think warnings about possible violations of MR rules should be intertwined with the moderator's spirited rebuttal against the poster's position on the subject of the thread.

I cannot help but agree. There have been line-blurring occasions.

 

[arn]

Not sure what else there is to say. This topic comes up from time and again. There are certain people who tend to get moderated more than others. Is that a sign of bad moderation across the board or is there something about those individuals that are simply not compatible with our rules?

I've gone over this many times and in the end, and I'm happy with our moderation team and agree with their process and decisions.

People like to think they are being targeted by a single moderator, but moderator actions are reviewed and re-reviewed. Things are discussed more than they really need to be. The number of man-hours invested in the moderation of this site is almost unbelievable.

arn

 

[Beric]

I cannot help but agree. There have been line-blurring occasions.

Yeah, I could see this.

The mods are great. Never had a problem with them. However, when you're a mod arguing on a particular side of a particularly intense political debate you feel strongly about, you've got to admit it would be easy to let your political views influence your duties as a moderator. I'm not saying this has ever happened. However, it does seem like a bit of a conflict of interest. A moderator taking sides in a public televised presidential debate while remaining unbiased for general moderation duties would be unheard of, as well as impossible. And while a forum is definitely a completely different situation, you got to admit we're all human. And politics and religion get us humans fired up far more than Macs.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Nothing is perfect, but overall I think the mods do a good job here. I also like the fact that we know who the mods are as opposed to some other sites where the names of the mods aren't made public.


Lethal