Is Science now considered PRSI?

[I7guy]

The first two.

Sure removing the citation rule would allow people to post anything, even topics some want censored, as fact..,without regards to distinction from opinion. Turning PRSI, imo, into a bigger mess than it already Is.

 

[SuperMatt]

By getting hung up with my phrase "by its nature" and are missing the point of my argument. Yes, science is not politics. You are correct -- they are obviously very different. The point is that they are often very much intertwined. You see evidence of that everwhere today. As for the PRSI, I am glad you agree. I think it would be interesting to interact with people of differing views without having to worry about sensitivities or personal proclivities of a moderator who feels it necessary to interject over the slightest reason.

I agree. Science and politics have become very intertwined in our society. I wish it weren’t so. Thanks.

 

[SuperMatt]

Sure removing the citation rule would allow people to post anything, even topics some want censored, as fact..,without regards to distinction from opinion. Turning PRSI, imo, into a bigger mess than it already Is.

It could have that effect, or maybe not. It would be interesting to see if they let PRSI go ”Lord of the Flies” what would happen. Most people cannot even see it so it won’t affect many people, and maybe those invested in it would end up self-policing.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Sure removing the citation rule would allow people to post anything, even topics some want censored, as fact..,without regards to distinction from opinion. Turning PRSI, imo, into a bigger mess than it already Is.

Possibly true. I cannot even see PRSI even though I joined here in 2013. Last year I took an imposed break for a few months and it seems that during my absence access was denied. Anyway, in my opinion PRSI cannot be fixed due to the differing views and sensitivities of both posters and moderators. Probably it is good that I cannot access it.

 

[Expos of 1969]

It could have that effect, or maybe not. It would be interesting to see if they let PRSI go ”Lord of the Flies” what would happen. Most people cannot even see it so it won’t affect many people, and maybe those invested in it would end up self-policing.

A few days ago I recommended that no moderation take place. Let things play out naturally. I was criticised for saying that people were getting upset and agitated about a simple forum on the internet. Just my opinion...

 

[SuperMatt]

A few days ago I recommended that no moderation take place. Let things play out naturally. I was criticised for saying that people were getting upset and agitated about a simple forum on the internet. Just my opinion...

I think the people who like to weaponize the moderators to their own benefit are the most threatened by a more hands-off approach. Having to actually defend their ideas instead of working to get those with opposing views suspended/banned on a technicality might terrify them. Have to give them credit though; they know how to work the system.

 

[I7guy]

I think the people who like to weaponize the moderators to their own benefit are the most threatened by a more hands-off approach. Having to actually defend their ideas instead of working to get those with opposing views suspended/banned on a technicality might terrify them. Have to give them credit though; they know how to work the system.

Very simple. Post within the rules and ones posts will not be moderated. It’s the “vigilante justice” that sometimes gets posts moderated.

The interesting thing to me is the call for more censorship while at the same time eliminating many of the rules meant to have a civil discussion. So more censorship coupled with more incivility.

 

[SuperMatt]

Very simple. Post within the rules and ones posts will not be moderated. It’s the “vigilante justice” that sometimes gets posts moderated.

The interesting thing to me is the call for more censorship while at the same time eliminating many of the rules meant to have a civil discussion. So more censorship coupled with more incivility.

In this specific discussion, @Madhatter32 suggested a hands-off approach for PRSI. I think it‘s worth a try. Just let it all hang out on PRSI, and let the mods do something else with their time. I imagine there are legal reasons that they can’t do this, but if there weren’t, it would be an interesting experiment.

Calling me an advocate for more censorship in general is incorrect. I often question the reasons for the censorship that already happens hundreds of times a day here. As I’ve stated before, a lot of things that are censored here don’t make sense to me. Other things that are censored in most online forums are left standing here. I realize the moderators have their own perspective on how they choose to censor things. That’s ok… thankfully they allow malcontents such as myself to post an opposing view on the SFF. 😎

 

[Sydde]

I frequent one particular board that has set a particular forum aside for nastiness. Rules in all the other fora call for “don't be a jerk, and debate properly” but the dark forum has almost no rules (although hate speech is still restricted). Members can call each other out there, if they feel so inclined (and they do), insult each other with abandon and just outright vent, about anyone or anything. It provides a relief valve that makes the rest of the board quite a bit calmer.

Really, I do not think PRSI should be unmoderated, but having a forum for yelling does seem to be a good thing worth considering.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I think the people who like to weaponize the moderators to their own benefit are the most threatened by a more hands-off approach. Having to actually defend their ideas instead of working to get those with opposing views suspended/banned on a technicality might terrify them. Have to give them credit though; they know how to work the system.

I’d be okay with that. I post on another site where if something gets enough reports, it gets removed, since the system is essentially automated. So what happens is users who are friends “team up” and mass-report users and posts they don’t like and successfully get them removed and banned. (There’s a reason I don’t post there much anymore…)

 

[SuperMatt]

I frequent one particular board that has set a particular forum aside for nastiness. Rules in all the other fora call for “don't be a jerk, and debate properly” but the dark forum has almost no rules (although hate speech is still restricted). Members can call each other out there, if they feel so inclined (and they do), insult each other with abandon and just outright vent, about anyone or anything. It provides a relief valve that makes the rest of the board quite a bit calmer.

Really, I do not think PRSI should be unmoderated, but having a forum for yelling does seem to be a good thing worth considering.

Some gaming forums have a “salt” thread where unlimited complaining about the games is allowed, and telling people not to complain is disallowed in the thread. If somebody goes on a rant against a game in another thread, the person will sometimes be told “put this in the salt thread.”

 

[I7guy]

In this specific discussion, @Madhatter32 suggested a hands-off approach for PRSI. I think it‘s worth a try. Just let it all hang out on PRSI, and let the mods do something else with their time. I imagine there are legal reasons that they can’t do this, but if there weren’t, it would be an interesting experiment.

Calling me an advocate for more censorship in general is incorrect. I often question the reasons for the censorship that already happens hundreds of times a day here. As I’ve stated before, a lot of things that are censored here don’t make sense to me. Other things that are censored in most online forums are left standing here. I realize the moderators have their own perspective on how they choose to censor things. That’s ok… thankfully they allow malcontents such as myself to post an opposing view on the SFF. 😎

I didn't think I attributed "more censorship" to you specifically. But limiting posts, which I'll call censorship for now, combined with the other suggestion of less oversight are at odds with one another. Less oversight on posts, ignoring citations and trolling, would only make the case to those who already state PRSI is a cesspool, stronger. There really isn't a way to make every MR member happy with all policies all the time.

 

[SuperMatt]

I didn't think I attributed "more censorship" to you specifically. But limiting posts, which I'll call censorship for now, combined with the other suggestion of less oversight are at odds with one another. Less oversight on posts, ignoring citations and trolling, would only make the case to those who already state PRSI is a cesspool, stronger. There really isn't a way to make every MR member happy with all policies all the time.

I agree these suggestions seem to be at odds with each other. I think since past suggestions weren’t taken up, people are offering differing takes, hoping that something will be picked up and implemented.

As for PRSI becoming a free-for-all: the aforementioned “weaponizing” of moderation is thought by some to make things worse than if there was no moderation at all. It’s not that too many posts are left untouched, it’s that some violations are ignored and minor infractions seem to be used as excuses to target others (IMHO).

Some people realize they can silence an opposing voice by knowing how to push their buttons and getting them to post something that breaks a rule. Add in the failure to police racism and misogyny, and you get people posting racist comments like “in the black community.... single parent households is all the rave nowadays and having a cute baby is the next Gucci Bag” and it isn’t moderated. Or somebody calling all 20+million women in California “vacuous” is apparently not a group slur against them?

So people get riled up at the racism and misogyny, and since the moderators won’t do anything, they call it out and get banned. Racist and misogynist voices keep posting and their critics are banned. If the moderators don’t want to police racist or misogynistic comments like the ones above, fine. But how about being fair and not banning people for calling out such posters? This pattern of behavior from moderators, IMHO, is the exact reason that they have to turn off comments on just about any news article involving a person of color. The toxic environment has been created by this pattern.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I agree these suggestions seem to be at odds with each other. I think since past suggestions weren’t taken up, people are offering differing takes, hoping that something will be picked up and implemented.

As for PRSI becoming a free-for-all: the aforementioned “weaponizing” of moderation is thought by some to make things worse than if there was no moderation at all. It’s not that too many posts are left untouched, it’s that some violations are ignored and minor infractions seem to be used as excuses to target others (IMHO).

Some people realize they can silence an opposing voice by knowing how to push their buttons and getting them to post something that breaks a rule. Add in the failure to police racism and misogyny, and you get people posting racist comments like “in the black community.... single parent households is all the rave nowadays and having a cute baby is the next Gucci Bag” and it isn’t moderated. Or somebody calling all 20+million women in California “vacuous” is apparently not a group slur against them?

So people get riled up at the racism and misogyny, and since the moderators won’t do anything, they call it out and get banned. Racist and misogynist voices keep posting and their critics are banned. If the moderators don’t want to police racist or misogynistic comments like the ones above, fine. But how about being fair and not banning people for calling out such posters? This pattern of behavior from moderators, IMHO, is the exact reason that they have to turn off comments on just about any news article involving a person of color. The toxic environment has been created by this pattern.

I believe the mod staff and admins take action against racism etc, which is not permitted on the forum, and rightfully so. The mods staff not taking action in the favor of the reporter does not automatically equate to said staff turning a blind eye to and condoning racism and an overall toxic environment, in my opinion. You continue to accuse the staff of condoning racism and I think that that is a very ugly and false accusation.

As the staff has noted many times before, members here are responsible for their own posts, regardless of what another member may post. Breaking the rules to allegedly confront what member A sees as bad is no more right than the alleged bad post from member B that member A was responding to, in my opinion. Report posts you see that may violate the rules. If the staff don't agree, which happens at times, then one keeps reporting posts one sees as possibly violating the rules.

 

[SuperMatt]

I believe the mod staff and admins take action against racism etc, which is not permitted on the forum, and rightfully so. The mods staff not taking action in the favor of the reporter does not automatically equate to said staff turning a blind eye to and condoning racism and an overall toxic environment, in my opinion. You continue to accuse the staff of condoning racism and I think that that is a very ugly and false accusation.

As the staff has noted many times before, members here are responsible for their own posts, regardless of what another member may post. Breaking the rules to allegedly confront what member A sees as bad is no more right than the alleged bad post member A was responding to, in my opinion. Report posts you see that may violate the rules. If the staff don't agree, which happens at times, then one keep reporting posts one sees as possibly violating the rules.

I fail to see what is “ugly” about asking the staff to uphold their past statements against racism and misogyny. It is the hate speech itself that is ugly. I can PM you the posts in question, and if you agree they are in violation of the community standards here, perhaps you can report them as well? If the goal truly is to remove hate speech from our community, I fail to see why I’m treated like a pariah when I draw attention to its continued existence here.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I fail to see what is “ugly” about asking the staff to uphold their past statements against racism and misogyny. It is the hate speech itself that is ugly. I can PM you the posts in question, and if you agree they are in violation of the community standards here, perhaps you can report them as well? If the goal is to remove hate speech from our community, I fail to see why I’m treated like a pariah when I draw attention to its continued existence here.

You misunderstood. My point was that you keep alleging the staff continually permits racism on the forum, even though it is expressly forbidden and rightfully so. I find that accusation against the staff to be ugly and unfounded. I think it is more so a matter of you reporting what you perceive to be racism (which you have a right to do and should do when you see something amiss) and the staff not always agreeing with your report as you extrapolating the staff condoning racism. That conclusion is not accurate or logical, in my opinion.

 

[SuperMatt]

You misunderstood. My point was that you keep alleging the staff continually permits racism on the forum, even though it is expressly forbidden and rightfully so. I find that accusation against the staff to be ugly and unfounded. I think it is more so a matter of you reporting what you perceive to be racism (which you have a right to do and should do when you see something amiss) and the staff not always agreeing with your report as you extrapolating the staff condoning racism. That conclusion is not accurate or logical, in my opinion.

What is unfounded about it? I would gladly link to the offensive posts here if the rules allowed for it. I think most of the community would agree they should be removed. Instead I can only post a tiny snippet of a post or allude to what a post said in order to make the point. With the “contact form” the issue is never brought into the daylight. If somebody quoted straight from “Mein Kampf” and you reported it, and the mods refused to act, only you and the mods would even know about that interaction.

 

[Apple_Robert]

What is unfounded about it? I would gladly link to the offensive posts here if the rules allowed for it. I think most of the community would agree they should be removed. Instead I can only post a tiny snippet of a post or allude to what a post said in order to make the point. With the “contact form” the issue is never brought into the daylight. If people quoted straight from “Mein Kampf” and you reported it, and the mods refused to act, only you and the mods would even know about that interaction.

I don't think you can categorically state that most of the community would agree with your current assessment of the posts / staff action.

I think it is far more likely that you have a different definition of what racism is etc. versus the staff, as far as the moderation of posting / the rules are concerned. Given what you have stated numerous times about the staff condoning racism etc., it appears that don't take into account your perception of the alleged racism is inaccurate. If you don't believe that you may be wrong in this particular area per posts reported, that means in your mind, you truly believe the staff has been condoning racism and other things you find abhorrent, even though you may have made numerous reports. If truly believe vehemently about your position in regards to the staff's alleged lack of action, why would you continue to be a member of and participate in a place you feel is run by people condoning racism etc.? What is gained by staying in what you appear to see and judge as an unhealthy relationship? I am not telling you to leave. I am merely asking a pertinent question.

 

[Madhatter32]

I agree these suggestions seem to be at odds with each other. I think since past suggestions weren’t taken up, people are offering differing takes, hoping that something will be picked up and implemented.

As for PRSI becoming a free-for-all: the aforementioned “weaponizing” of moderation is thought by some to make things worse than if there was no moderation at all. It’s not that too many posts are left untouched, it’s that some violations are ignored and minor infractions seem to be used as excuses to target others (IMHO).

Some people realize they can silence an opposing voice by knowing how to push their buttons and getting them to post something that breaks a rule. Add in the failure to police racism and misogyny, and you get people posting racist comments like “in the black community.... single parent households is all the rave nowadays and having a cute baby is the next Gucci Bag” and it isn’t moderated. Or somebody calling all 20+million women in California “vacuous” is apparently not a group slur against them?

So people get riled up at the racism and misogyny, and since the moderators won’t do anything, they call it out and get banned. Racist and misogynist voices keep posting and their critics are banned. If the moderators don’t want to police racist or misogynistic comments like the ones above, fine. But how about being fair and not banning people for calling out such posters? This pattern of behavior from moderators, IMHO, is the exact reason that they have to turn off comments on just about any news article involving a person of color. The toxic environment has been created by this pattern.

I agree with you on the "weaponizing" point. I also believe that the moderation of political speech on this forum is a problem. The moderators want civil discourse -- I get that. Fair. But in the process, they have the power to thwart speech unfairly through action and/or inaction. I have pointed out anti-Semitic content to the moderators more than once in the past to no avail. They either do not understand the tropes and issues involved or do not care to learn. When I call it out, I have received reminders or notices or whatever. So, yes, I agree with you.

In the Politics section, more so than anywhere, free speech should be allowed (except as to any form of hate speech against legally protected groups, which would include conspiracy theories about such groups, etc). Profanity should be banned to keep things minimally civil (and would be super easy to moderate). The primary reason for the First Amendment is to protect politcal speech above all else. To have a "Politics" section that does not abide by such ideals is strange, and it instead allows the moderation itself to thwart speech and, worse, indirectly to promote or undercut viewpoints through the arbitrary (and I do mean arbitrary) use of the DELETE or EDIT or WARNING button. Only the most serious rules infractions should be enforced here. The moderation team should really leave the slight offenses out of this section of the website with the goal to get out of the way as much as possible. They should limit the Politics section to established members who specifically opt in. It should be non-public as a privilege for established members only. MacRumors is a business after all and there are probably too many wackos and outlier opinions for regular public consumption.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I agree with you on the "weaponizing" point. I also believe that the moderation of political speech on this forum is a problem. The moderators want civil discourse -- I get that. Fair. But in the process, they have the power to thwart speech unfairly through action and/or inaction. I have pointed out anti-Semitic content to the moderators more than once in the past to no avail. They either do not understand the tropes and issues involved or do not care to learn. When I call it out, I have received reminders or notices or whatever. So, yes, I agree with you.

In the Politics section, more so than anywhere, free speech should be allowed (except as to any form of hate speech against legally protected groups, which would include conspiracy theories about such groups, etc). Profanity should be banned to keep things minimally civil (and would be super easy to moderate). The primary reason for the First Amendment is to protect politcal speech above all else. To have a "Politics" section that does not abide by such ideals is strange, and it instead allows the moderation itself to thwart speech and, worse, indirectly to promote or undercut viewpoints through the arbitrary (and I do mean arbitrary) use of the DELETE or EDIT or WARNING button. Only the most serious rules infractions should be enforced here. The moderation team should really leave the slight offenses out of this section of the website with the goal to get out of the way as much as possible. They should limit the Politics section to established members who specifically opt in. It should be non-public as a privilege for established members only. MacRumors is a business after all and there are probably too many wackos and outlier opinions for regular public consumption.

The PRSI forum has already been shut down (doesn't show as part of the forum) to new members (as far as I am aware). Older members who were already participating in the forum have been grandfathered in. If am Inaccurate on this particular point, someone please correct.

 

[SuperMatt]

I don't think you can categorically state that most of the community would agree with your current assessment of the posts / staff action.

I think it is far more likely that you have a different definition of what racism is etc. versus the staff, as far as the moderation of posting / the rules are concerned. Given what you have stated numerous times about the staff condoning racism etc., it appears that don't take into account your perception of the alleged racism is inaccurate. If you don't believe that you may be wrong in this particular area per posts reported, that means in your mind, you truly believe the staff has been condoning racism and other things you find abhorrent, even though you may have made numerous reports. If truly believe vehemently about your position in regards to the staff's alleged lack of action, why would you continue to be a member of and participate in a place you feel is run by people condoning racism etc.? What is gained by staying in what you appear to see and judge as an unhealthy relationship? I am not telling you to leave. I am merely asking a pertinent question.

I am FAR from the only person drawing attention to the hate speech here. Just minutes before your post, another person has pointed out anti-Semitic posts that the moderators failed to address. There are mostly good people on this forum. A small minority make posts containing hate speech. Why it’s tolerated, I do not know. I do believe that the community would be better off without it.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I am FAR from the only person drawing attention to the hate speech here. Just minutes before your post, another person has pointed out anti-Semitic posts that the moderators failed to address. There are mostly good people on this forum. A small minority make posts containing hate speech. Why it’s tolerated, I do not know. I do believe that the community would be better off without it.

I didn't say you were the only one making reports. Not everyone is going to agree with the staff in regards to reports, especially given the amount of active members.

I noticed you didn't answer my question. I think it was a valid and fair question to ask given your claims.

 

[I7guy]

[...] Just minutes before your post, another person has pointed out anti-Semitic posts that the moderators failed to address. [...]

I have reported questionable posts also. If the staff comes back and says "no action required", I don't come back in S&FF and accuse the staff of tolerating and/or condoning hate speech.

 

[SuperMatt]

I have reported questionable posts also. If the staff comes back and says "no action required", I don't come back in S&FF and accuse the staff of tolerating and/or condoning hate speech.

That’s fine. I don’t expect everybody to take my road; I do it in the hopes that bringing the issue up publicly puts it into the consciousness of the moderators and they will be more likely to remove such offensive content for the good of the community.

 

[SuperMatt]

I didn't say you were the only one making reports. Not everyone is going to agree with the staff in regards to reports, especially given the amount of active members.

I noticed you didn't answer my question. I think it was a valid and fair question to ask given your claims.

I believe you’ve asked me that question before. No need to repeat yourself.

Post in thread 'Clarification on "Citation Rule"'
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/clarification-on-citation-rule.2293885/post-29841092