MacRumors Censorship

[FloatingBones]

Notice how I have simply chosen to quote only the relative portion (to me) of your response above?

I believe you meant the relevant portion of the posting.

If I were to have the ability to remove all of your post above with the exception of the part I have quoted, don't you think then that your original post would have lost all context for those that had not been able to read it in the first place?

What if there were no hypothetical questions? What would the world look like then?

The onus is on you to show how your hypothetical question is relevant to our discussion. You haven't made that case.

And if I had simply told people that the rest of your post was in bad taste and not said that it was because it violates forum rules, don't you feel I would be censoring what you were trying to say?

Since moderators remove words, they are indeed censoring discussions. The ground rules spell that out -- anybody who read the user agreement should not be surprised that they actually do that.

I don't believe "censoring" is the word you mean; you seem to be asking if what the moderators did in the Samsung thread was abhorrent. I do not; I think what they did exactly what should have been done to the out-of-bounds comments.

I agree with a lot of what you have posted. I know that the mods have the right to remove what they want.

The moderators have constrained rules about what they can do and how they do it. A high priority is to deal with everybody in a respectful fashion. I know that Doctor Q did the minimal amount of editing to the comments in question (it actually looks like he just edited the same comment twice). I've never met the man, but I've seen him do his stuff enough times to have faith in how he does the job.

I know that I accepted those rules by signing up for the forum. I do believe that if a user wants to question a mods action they should have the right to do so, just like I have done here.

Not exactly. You were not the user whose comment was edited. The user whose comments were edited can contact the moderators in a private message; he would get a very specific private response why his comments were not appropriate.

To some extent, it's none of your business why the particular comment was edited.

I don't expect anything to change with the post that I have brought up, but maybe it will make the mod (and other mods) think a little more before they give the reason for what they have done.

As far as I can tell, the mods thought the perfect amount of time before taking the actions they did. They didn't take too little time, and they didn't take an excessive amount of time. The mods thought the mathematically perfect amount of time. They modified the comments the minimal amount to bring them in line. While correcting the objectionable material, they worked to do it in a manner which maintained the dignity of the poster who made the original comment.

The umpire doesn't turn to the baseball crowd to explain his calls; the moderators here don't explain their calls, either. Nothing good -- nothing productive -- would come from explaining the specific calls to the folks in the stands. All that the fans need to know should be in the rule book.

 

[blubyu]

Alaerian - since you can see what FloatingBones posted, it is very easy to see that what he posted didn't violate any rules. If I could have deleted everything except the part I quoted then you would never had known whether he did or didn't. At that point you would have had to take my word for it that he had indeed violated a rule. That was the point I was trying to make. I apologize if my example wasn't clear enough.

FloatingBones - very well said.

I guess it comes down to this. If a mod modifies a post and says the reason was bad taste, most of you will simply have faith that the actual reason was it violated forum rules. I on the other hand will continue to wonder if it actually was a forum rules violation or if the mod is deciding for me what is or isn't bad taste.

 

[aussiedj]

'bad taste' is a poor reason for editing/removing posts. since i assume the mod team is made up of people of varying ages, a 20-year old and 50-year old mod will have different criteria for what constitutes bad taste. how does one go about codifying this into a 'rules of internet forum posting'?

therefore, we can conclude it is in fact censorship.

Actually your point is invalid. Because the moderators have chosen to undertake a job. And as any professional knows, or as any mature person knows with some life experience, having your personal opinion hat on, and having your professional hat on are to very seperate things.

You probably don't even know that the CEO of the company you work for is a lesbian who absolutely hates all men, because she is always polite & professional in her dealings with you..


Rest of post moderated by moderator due to my dislike for volvo's.

 

[Alaerian]

I guess it comes down to this. If a mod modifies a post and says the reason was bad taste, most of you will simply have faith that the actual reason was it violated forum rules.

At this point in time, I don't think you have any faith in the mods. They have been here for years, and they know how to protect the community from bigots, hate speech, and general jerks.

Look, it's as simple as this: if you don't like it, you're free to leave.

I on the other hand will continue to wonder if it actually was a forum rules violation or if the mod is deciding for me what is or isn't bad taste.

See, that's the thing - the mods ARE deciding. That's their job.

 

[Doctor Q]

I guess it comes down to this. If a mod modifies a post and says the reason was bad taste, most of you will simply have faith that the actual reason was it violated forum rules. I on the other hand will continue to wonder if it actually was a forum rules violation or if the mod is deciding for me what is or isn't bad taste.

If the message left by a moderator said "violation of forum rule 7.3 paragraph 5" it wouldn't really solve the problem you describe. We give our word that posts are edited or removed only because of forum rules. If you trust our word then that's the basis for confidence. If you don't yet know if our word is good then the edit message shouldn't be much comfort. After all, if we've been dishonest about the reason for editing the post then why would we tell the truth in the message?

We've set things up so every moderator sees every post report and every moderator sees every action by every other moderator, so if we're violating our moderation promises then it's a conspiracy by the whole team: moderators, administrators, and the site owner!

 

[aussiedj]

Picture this: "But why do YOU get to tell ME what to do. I'm almost old enough to drive! And what gives you the right to make decisions FOR me? I don't even know if their the RIGHT decisions. I don't even LIKE school. They don't teach me ANYTHING! I'd even go as far to say, that I learn more from playing xbox than going to school".

 

[blubyu]

If the message left by a moderator said "violation of forum rule 7.3 paragraph 5" it wouldn't really solve the problem you describe.

Actually, as I stated in an earlier post, if you would have used that as the reason for modifying the post, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. You see I understand that the mods are here for a purpose, to moderate the forums. There are established rules that one must agree to in order to post here. If a user makes a post that goes against any of these rules then it is the moderators job to delete/modify the post.

If you had used rules violation as the reason there wouldn't be very much for me to argue. You are a moderator, you saw a rules violation, you fixed it. No wiggle room. You instead chose to use Bad Taste as your reason for editing the post. That, in my opinion, opens up all kinds of possibilities as to why the post was modified.

I do not think there is some big conspiracy behind the scenes I know that any and all posts that get modified/deleted are still available for all the mods to see/review. I am sure that if some other mods thought the post should not have been modified then it would have been restored. That isn't my point. You have actually already explained in a previous post that it was Rules Violations that caused the modification. I am simply trying to point out to everybody that when you are vague with your reasons for modifying posts people might start to wonder why they were modified in the first place.

Look I think for the size of this forum and the number of users/posts per day, the mods here do an excellent job. If all the mods on this site have truly been here for years and years then I would think they wouldn't mind getting called out here and there on the way they mod. I mean no disrespect towards Doctor Q and I hope I have not offended him/her at all with this thread.

 

[GGJstudios]

Actually, as I stated in an earlier post, if you would have used that as the reason for modifying the post, I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

If it's not your post, why worry about it? You're not entitled to know details of moderator actions with other members; only as they relate to you. I personally think you're just trying to get attention or stir up dissension.

 

[tjb1]

Have been wanting to post this for a while but never wanted to make a thread just for it.

But...I got an infraction just for saying this

"Is that the screw that came loose and fell out of your head?"

I mean seriously, this is getting out of control. Ive seen worse insults on Spongebob and in that same thread, 2-3 pages of posts were removed. If there is someone that can't handle the thread then they can click to another one.

Mods are too busy cropping posts, deleting threads, and giving infractions for stupid crap that they dont control all the spam. Everyday there are posts to spam sites for free reading books and all this other garbage, plus the 30 threads a week about SGS2 being so much better than iPhone.

Heres an example, another thread about all these other phones being so much better than the iPhone - https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1158981/ - Best of all...its in the iPhone forum. When I go to the iPhone forum, I want to read about the iPhone not 5 other phones that the same 10 people think are better than the iPhone. These threads should all be moved to the "Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion" thread. They are polluting the help and information sections and just end up being censored to death.

 

[Apple OC]

But...I got an infraction just for saying this

"Is that the screw that came loose and fell out of your head?"

pretty clear and insulting ... did you mean it as a compliment and were misunderstood?

 

[tjb1]

pretty clear and insulting ... did you mean it as a compliment and were misunderstood?

It was a thread about a tear in the time space garbage...op was trolling and posted a picture of just a screw. I comment with that and get an infraction and now the whole thread has pretty much been deleted. If you cant handle a comment like that, you need counseling.

 

[aussiedj]

Ok.

Humour didn't work, so that means that both sides of the argument are focused in what they believe to be right for the community.

It seems, in my honestly unbiased opinion, that the moderators have a very clear picture in their mind of a forum that has become an abusive, unfriendly, trollfest. (We have all been there).

Passionate members have a very clear picture in their mind of a forum that has been overcontrolled, and overmoderated to the point that even saying you don't like fish & chips gets you banned for a few hours. (We have all been there too).

Now because both sides love the forum, they appear to be quite passionate about protecting what they have, and preventing it becoming the exact thing that you hate. And we all know that neither side wants either of the above examples, in fact the thought would terrify any member/moderator/contributor/admin/cab-driver. So we're almost in the middle anyway.

So how do we constructively move forward towards an understanding & a clear boundary outlined before either side becomes offended?

Go:

 

[tjb1]

Mods delete the spam threads and stop censoring everything else. People that dont like whats being said in a thread can leave, natural selection...

 

[FloatingBones]

Alaerian - since you can see what FloatingBones posted, it is very easy to see that what he posted didn't violate any rules. If I could have deleted everything except the part I quoted then you would never had known whether he did or didn't. At that point you would have had to take my word for it that he had indeed violated a rule. That was the point I was trying to make. I apologize if my example wasn't clear enough.

The problem isn't the clarity of your example; the problem is in its presumption. In an earlier posting in the discussion, you said:

Notice how I have simply chosen to quote only the relative portion (to me) of your response above? If I were to have the ability to remove all of your post above with the exception of the part I have quoted, don't you think then that your original post would have lost all context for those that had not been able to read it in the first place?

I told you that the onus was on you to show that this hypothetical was relevant to this discussion. You have failed to show its relevance; you simply presume it is applicable.

I guess it comes down to this. If a mod modifies a post and says the reason was bad taste, most of you will simply have faith that the actual reason was it violated forum rules. I on the other hand will continue to wonder if it actually was a forum rules violation or if the mod is deciding for me what is or isn't bad taste.

Your statement doesn't make sense. The moderators are indeed judging for the community what messages are in poor taste. That's their job. This is well-explained in the ground rules.

If you object to people deciding for you what is and is not in good taste, you have no business participating in a moderated discussion. The moderators will continue to do their job, and you'll probably continue to get upset.

 

[Alaerian]

Mods delete the spam threads and stop censoring everything else. People that dont like whats being said in a thread can leave, natural selection...

And since this is a privately run forum, the mods can edit what they deem necessary, according to the rules. People that don't like what's being "censored" in a thread can leave, preferably the forums.

 

[tjb1]

And since this is a privately run forum, the mods can edit what they deem necessary, according to the rules. People that don't like what's being "censored" in a thread can leave, preferably the forums.

A nose is not the correct tool.

 

[Doctor Q]

I mean no disrespect towards Doctor Q and I hope I have not offended him/her at all with this thread.

Threads like this are fine. The reason we set up the Site and Forum Feedback forum and read every thread posted here is to get feedback like this from users, and give us a place to provide explanations for everyone, since when one person brings up an issue others may have the same concern. We don't take feedback personally. It's a way we gauge how we're doing both in moderating and in explaining site policies, and answering questions is part of our job duties.

 

[aussiedj]

If that fails, I'll assume command.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I came into this topic expecting it to be along the lines of how MR's news articles ammount to censorship due to their biased nature (although it has been better as of late).

I never expected to see a complaint about censorship of members.

I'd say the mods here are very fair, and (even though I often have a minority opinion) have only once been given a warning that wasn't related to a major thread cleanup. And that once, I felt that the warning was justified, and was borderline expecting it when I posted said remark.

However, there is a certain member who's username starts and ends with *'s... I support censorship of him

Otherwise the mods are very good at keeping threads on topic, and PG. If that means censorship, I support it, as long as the main idea of the message remains intact - eg: editing this post to remove the 4th paragraph

 

[smurfjammer]

I think the Mods do a great job of keep the forums clean and tidy (even after the iPhone madness), if you stick to the rules you don't have any problems...
Just check out the craziness on MACNN - name calling, insults, racial taunts, you wouldn't want MacRumors to be like that

 

[blubyu]

This thread wasn't started to gain attention for me. If you take a look at my posting patterns you will see that I very rarely post. I have posted more in this thread then I have all the other threads combined (or pretty close anyways).

I simply wanted to voice my opinion. I knew going in that I was going to be in the minority with my point of view. But that is fine. If everybody with a minority opinion decided to always keep quiet then the world would be a pretty boring place

I am glad that I have seen a couple of responses that see what I am trying to say. I am not always able to state my case clearly enough for people to understand where I am coming from.

I think from here I will go ahead and stop posting in this thread. I feel I have stated my opinion and I actually got the answer I was looking for in Doctor Q's responses. Thanks everybody for keeping this thread on topic.

 

[aussiedj]

On ya bike son. You haven't got your licence yet.

 

[FloatingBones]

This thread wasn't started to gain attention for me. If you take a look at my posting patterns you will see that I very rarely post. I have posted more in this thread then I have all the other threads combined (or pretty close anyways).

At the time of this posting, Your public profile lists that you have made a total of 9 posts in this thread and 66 posts total (14%).

I simply wanted to voice my opinion. I knew going in that I was going to be in the minority with my point of view. But that is fine. If everybody with a minority opinion decided to always keep quiet then the world would be a pretty boring place

My objection was your use of the word "censorship" to describe what the moderators were doing. There are many countries in the world that have true censorship; criticism of government leaders and government activity are not tolerated. While there are rules for conduct in the MR forums, the existence of this section of the forum demonstrates that criticism is welcomed here. The pejorative is not appropriate.

 

[iDisk]

Nice thread, but to be honest was sorta shocked by the attack some were showing against the thread starter (specifically the "well you can get up and leave" folks... The Mods do a good job but they're not perfect and when post "appear" to be edited due to "personal" opinion, it's the freedom spoken of in the MR agreement to address them.

@the thread starter, I agree with you and thanks for creating this thread.

 

[FloatingBones]

Nice thread, but to be honest was sorta shocked by the attack some were showing against the thread starter (specifically the "well you can get up and leave" folks...

That response was a bit extreme. On the other hand, it's perfectly natural to wonder if the thread starter ever read through the user agreement. Thread moderation is well-described. Further, any orderly public discussion has similar rules and similar moderation. Do you know of any counterexamples? I've asked that question repeatedly in this discussion; nobody has answered.

The Mods do a good job but they're not perfect and when post "appear" to be edited due to "personal" opinion, it's the freedom spoken of in the MR agreement to address them. @the thread starter, I agree with you and thanks for creating this thread.

The fact that the thread starter questioned what happened in the front-page discussion doesn't mean that anything questionable happened in the discussion's moderation.