But the post you're referencing is regarding the moderation of the aforementioned topic and has nothing to do with moderation "through the years".
I haven't following the thread in question, but I can tell you when you have a moderator who starts political topics, and then moderates other political topics, there will be bias! In an ideal situation, volunteers who are chosen to become moderators are well-advised to stay away from political discussions so as not to seem biased when they begin moderating political content.
There should be a moderator "rule of conduct" for MacRumors, as I have seen the same moderator in the center of other disputes where they moderate topics which they participate in!
Agree.
Each moderator has his or her personal opinions on political issues and is welcome to express them, as any other member would. At the same time, they know their volunteer job as a moderator requires them to enforce forum rules without regard to the political opinions expressed in posts. They work as a team, not in isolation, and every action is subject to review.
Given the charged topic yesterday, we planned in advance, had multiple moderators watching the thread all afternoon/evening, and made an extra effort to moderate quickly and fairly. Every single post was reviewed by 2 or more moderators, usually more.
That wasn't the case, even though some members had that impression. However, since the moderators don't seek personal credit for the teams efforts, it's not a problem that some of them worked overtime yesterday without being perceived at all.
Disallowing our volunteers from participating in discussions wouldn't change the possibility of bias, just the possibility of perception of bias. Whether or not they post their opinion, they could be tempted to moderate in a way that favors some opinions over the others. And why don't they? Because they treat their assignments professionally, because they don't act in isolation, because we are constantly reviewing how we're doing, and because the moderators don't even agree among themselves on every political issue.
There is, but it does not require them to keep their opinions to themselves. Our moderation guidelines are especially important when topics are controversial, and each moderator has to observe them while moderating, whether or not they join the discussion.
If your comments are about the ballot measure or the controversies involved, there are other threads in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum that you can post in, and you can start new threads as you see fit. We closed only the thread that was tied to the news story, since it required constant oversight and the discussion had turned away from the Apple-related part of the news story.
Thanks for the info Dr. Q.
Again, it's all about perceptions. I humbly suggest that moderators do not moderate and post in emotionally charged threads.
Rather I would suggest that moderators act as referees and control the match.
Otherwise, when a moderator is making charged comments, then
appears to delete posts, regardless of the review process, it will create the perception of censorship or unfair moderating.
Yes MR is a forum open to the public, however it is privately owned.
Yep, and
arn sets the rules.
I have greatly calmed down from the situation yesterday. And I also apologized to BV for the grief I caused. I get hot pretty fast and you all are very right. And I do understand that it was for the best that my posts got deleted.
And I am not trying to cause anymore grief, was just an observation that this thread was closed for obvious reasons that was stated quit well by BV but it is now back open for discussion..
It is easy to get into heated discussion on the PRSI area. After all, the topics at hand are just the type that get folks energized.
It's OK, man. We all get posts deleted at one point or another. And we all get a little too worked up sometimes.
Agree. Agree.
Been there as well.
Such topics can generate heated debate, so we do our best to allow discussions while keeping them from becoming flamefests and without taking more of our moderators' time than we can provide.
MR is one of the best moderated sites that I have been a member or visited.
This brings back memories of one that I moderated before. This group also included face to face meetings. Needless to say, there were some contentious issues at the meeting.
My post that was just removed was not censored. But it was removed with bias and most definitely unfairly.
Interesting.
I was about ready to reply to BV's retort in a post, but then the post disappeared.
Anyhow, whether there is bias or not, the perception is what counts. We all know that the perception is not always correct but it is still hard to get over that hump at times.
Publicly I would like to say that over the years, BV has done a good job at moderating hard threads. No doubt about that! I commend her for her work on MR and consider her to be fair. Unfortunately, she was the visible moderator in that particular thread, so everything seems to point to her. Nature of the beast I guess. Again, maybe my suggestions above might help things.
On a side note, I have facilitated many high level, and very emotional, conferences. The facilitator must remain outside of the discussion if at all possible so the facilitator is perceived as having no desired outcome. That is a challenge needless to say. Reminds me of the challenge to the moderators on the PRSI forum!
