Let me get this straight. We can insult people as long as those people are not forum members? That's the community we have here?
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.
Forum Rules
- Thread starter Craiger
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We might classify people as forum members, public persons, and other people. Forum members deserve the courtesy of discussions over insults, but requiring only polite comments about public officials, celebrities, etc. would hinder discussions that many members have an interest in, and prevent members from posting their true opinions.
When it comes to "other people," such as your relative, boss, neighbor, ex-partner, teacher, etc., we hope that everyone will use their best judgment. It's fine to gripe about them, but since other people don't know the person you're talking about, there's little reason to give their names.
In theory, a public person could join MacRumors and suddenly be protected from insults that were previously allowed, but that rarely if ever happens.
When it comes to "other people," such as your relative, boss, neighbor, ex-partner, teacher, etc., we hope that everyone will use their best judgment. It's fine to gripe about them, but since other people don't know the person you're talking about, there's little reason to give their names.
In theory, a public person could join MacRumors and suddenly be protected from insults that were previously allowed, but that rarely if ever happens.
That’s the only reason I joined
As a software developer, I tend to look for all of the what-if cases, rather than just the likely cases. One of the theoretical cases hasn't occurred, as far as I know, but it could:
Suppose we tried to cover this case in the rules. Instead of prohibiting "direct personal insult of another forum member" we should be prohibiting "direct personal insult of another person you know to be a forum member." But then the rules would require the moderators to know what one member knows about another member, an impossible challenge. Changing it to "direct personal insult of another person who you should rightfully know is a forum member" leaves it fuzzy. Making it "direct personal insult of another person who a consensus of moderators agrees you should rightfully know is a forum member" makes it more precise, but would we really want rules like that? We could try "direct personal insult of another forum member unless their identity is secret" but what if they let the secret slip in a forum that User X doesn't read?
To avoid such messiness, we try to follow two principles: keep it simple, and use common sense.
User X posts insults about Person Y. Person Y (let's say it's someone famous) is actually a forum member, known only as User Z, and doesn't give his or her real name. User X's posts are technically breaking the rules and User Z might complain on that basis, but it's hard to say that User X did anything wrong.
Suppose we tried to cover this case in the rules. Instead of prohibiting "direct personal insult of another forum member" we should be prohibiting "direct personal insult of another person you know to be a forum member." But then the rules would require the moderators to know what one member knows about another member, an impossible challenge. Changing it to "direct personal insult of another person who you should rightfully know is a forum member" leaves it fuzzy. Making it "direct personal insult of another person who a consensus of moderators agrees you should rightfully know is a forum member" makes it more precise, but would we really want rules like that? We could try "direct personal insult of another forum member unless their identity is secret" but what if they let the secret slip in a forum that User X doesn't read?
To avoid such messiness, we try to follow two principles: keep it simple, and use common sense.
Nah, everybody knows the Moderators are just a couple of fat guys in their underwear living in the parent's basement swilling Red Bull, eating pizza and nachos and making up rules as they go, terrorizing the Forums by deleting posts and banning innocent members.
I take exception to this... I am not fat!
After the posts above, do you have an idea to make it better? Ideas are always good to talk out and see where they land.
No... that would be a "group slur" (depending on how it is worded) and considered trolling under the rule I quoted at the bottom.
If there are posts you think have violated this rule, please report them rather than discussing here.
If you reported posts like this before you think were incorrectly rejected, please send in a contact us note, and one of the admins can review for you.
There is a difference between “bashing” and a direct personal attack and an opinion of someone’s views. Ie person a is “a big fat ugly slob” or “you’re an idiot” is a personal attack. Person a is a “racist” or “white supremacist” is a statement on their views. Two different things.
Except when terms like "racist" or "white supremacist" are deliberately tossed about as slurs with no corroborating or substantiated evidence behind them
Both fair points, from what I've witnessed this is really at the discretion of the moderator who happens to field your reported post at the time and in a political forum their personal opinion on the matter surely plays a role.
Not really. That would still be the same rule violation because you are making a disparaging remark about another forum member (even if it is true). You need to stick to discussing the comment and not the forum member. When you start making personal comments about other forum members is when you often run afoul of the rules.
Some of these examples, the best thing to do is just report it and not respond.
Ah, sorry I was referring to the comment on “tc bashing” and assuming “person a” is a public figure.
But I agree having a bit of discretion is always the best policy.
I see, I misunderstood your context then. You mean saying a public figure "person X" is a racist or white supremacist? Yes, that is fine in the right setting. Now if we have a thread about say macOS 10.14 features, and someone starts in with "Tim Cook is a racist" out of the blue, that is different.
I take exception to this... I am not fat!
About time you came clean.
There are so many factors (and discussions amongst the Mods) that go into a suspension or banning that reporting someone and them getting banned can never truly be seen as a 1 to 1 correlation. It is possible (and likely) that there have been multiple reports by various individuals and even multiple offenses that contribute to a suspension. It would be rare for a person to be suspended or banned for 1 offense and 1 report from 1 individual. Now, whether someone erroneously feels vindicated and wants to take credit for it is a personal matter, but the truth is likely something far different.
Fair enough about how the decisions is reached but in the end that user wears the scarlet letter for the duration of their suspension. I suppose another way of looking at it might be that if one is wondering why that user is no longer posting they'll know why.
I follow 5-6 people here on Macrumors (who are active) and yeah, it helped me figure out why one of my favorite posters wasn't posting - saw that big ole "Suspended" sign under the name. Kinda sucked - I couldn't message him or find out why. Just had to wait the x weeks before they came back (in that particular case) - I was just happy they came back to keep posting.
Typically it is fairly obvious when someone is posting in a manner that warrants suspension
Showing they actually were addressed by the moderators lets folks know that action was taken instead of others saying "why don't they do something about x"
While specifics of moderation aren't discussed, just the fact that there are consequences to actions can be instructive to others
Weren't you a mod at one point in time? Could have sworn I remembered that in the past.
Is there anyway I can steer this back to my OP? haha
Does it seems odd that the insults we allow are insults against the defenseless? If you are not going to allow insults like name calling of forum members, what is the benefit of allowing name calling of non forum members?
I understand there is need to allow criticism of people, especially public figures, but I see no added benefit to allow ad hominem attacks of non forum members.
Does it seems odd that the insults we allow are insults against the defenseless? If you are not going to allow insults like name calling of forum members, what is the benefit of allowing name calling of non forum members?
I understand there is need to allow criticism of people, especially public figures, but I see no added benefit to allow ad hominem attacks of non forum members.