MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill

Status
Not open for further replies.

satchmo

macrumors 603
Is it just me or has civil discourse here in the forums, gone downhill?

This is a forum where people express their opinions. If you're not interested, just move on. If you disagree, that's fine, but no need to say so rudely with snarky comments.

Yeah I get it...it's online, and people are brave hiding behind a keyboard.

Frankly, I don't expect things to change, and I'm not sure if the mods, editor or owner of MR really care.
 
Is it just me or has civil discourse here in the forums, gone downhill?

This is a forum where people express their opinions. If you're not interested, just move on. If you disagree, that's fine, but no need to say so rudely with snarky comments.

Yeah I get it...it's online, and people are brave hiding behind a keyboard.

Frankly, I don't expect things to change, and I'm not sure if the mods, editor or owner of MR really care.
On the flip side of that of course is that some people don't want civil discourse.

For some there's either you agree with them, or you're a -

The problem with only relying on opinion in conversation absent of facts & sourcing is that it just becomes various sides "sharing" opinions endlessly. Which opens the door to much of the lack of civil discourse you may have noticed increasing of late from those not capable of such a thing.
 
Last edited:
I've been a member since 2004 - I took a break of 5 years or more, and started reading and posting occasionally again only a few months ago.

Perhaps there was a period of increased civility when I was gone, but I see no difference in tone.

People here have always disagreed, sometimes forcefully. And there have always been trolls - I was here when 4chan invaded. The secret is to think twice before clicking "Post reply" and 9 times out of 10 don't click. It doesn't matter if someone is being an idiot - no one will remember what they said in a couple of hours.
 
On the flip side of that of course is that some people don't want civil discourse.

For some there's either you agree with them, or you're a -

The problem with only relying on opinion in conversation absent of facts & sourcing is that it just becomes various sides "sharing" opinions endlessly. Which opens the door to much of the lack of civil discourse you may noticed increasing of late from those not capable of such a thing.

Well, ideally any discussion should contain both fact and opinion.

But if someone is endlessly sharing their opinion, you don't need to respond.

Simply ignore the thread. And when others do likewise, the thread dies on it's own.
 
Last edited:
Well, ideally any discussion should contain both fact and opinion.

But how if someone is endlessly sharing their opinion, you don't need to respond.

Simply ignore the thread. And when others do likewise, the thread dies on it's own.
Doesn't that work the other way as well? If you've decided you're invested in the conversation & behaving appropriately why is one expected to ignore the thread because of the behavior of others?

Ideally any discussion would contain both fact & opinion, but some conversations of late have been less than ideal. Thus a back & forth with either only opinion, one side with opinion & the other fact to back up their opinion, and others becoming minefields.
 
Doesn't that work the other way as well? If you've decided you're invested in the conversation & behaving appropriately why is one expected to ignore the thread because of the behavior of others?

Ideally any discussion would contain both fact & opinion, but some conversations of late have been less than ideal. Thus a back & forth with either only opinion, one side with opinion & the other fact to back up their opinion, and others becoming minefields.

My point is simply engage in conversation and if it goes no where (i.e. just opinions and no facts), just end the discussion and agree to disagree.

If the person continually rambles on or badger you, you can put the person on ignore (which I've had to do lately) and continue on in the thread.

We just don't need rebuttals that are personal in nature.
 
Is it just me or has civil discourse here in the forums, gone downhill?

A couple of thoughts:

1) "Civil" Trolls - Unfortunately they exist and it seems that most topics here have one. Recently I keep seeing the same member that only posts "google is great" and "apple tv+ sucks" they offer no other context or additions to the conversation but they are clearly there to get a rise out of other members. They present a problem for the mods as the member is just expressing an "opinion" and not breaking any other rules but their intention is fairly clear. Luckily you can see them a mile away and just move on.

2) "Facts" - I have seen several threads go way off the rails over the last year or two because two sides of a topic will present context or citations for an opinion or thought only to have the "other side" trash their citations propaganda from the Alt-X (x = political side of choice). The issue here is you can find seemingly legit, peer reviewed citations from both sides of almost any argument and when, as a lay-person or non-expert, you get presented with 10 studies on either side of an argument what do you believe? The problem with so much competing data is that people tend to hide in their echo chamber believing one side of the data as fact and all the info to "debunk" the other side. Furthermore there are many instances of what was considered "fact" 10 to 50 years ago that has now been dis proven and far more instances as you go back in time. Accepted scientific fact today will probably get labeled as "oops, we got that wrong" tomorrow.

Thankfully I find the vast majority of members here tend towards the civil even if we are on different sides.
 
My point is simply engage in conversation and if it goes no where (i.e. just opinions and no facts), just end the discussion and agree to disagree.

If the person continually rambles on or badger you, you can put the person on ignore (which I've had to do lately) and continue on in the thread.

We just don't need rebuttals that are personal in nature.
Which is why I said if one is "invested" in the conversation. It seems to defeat the purpose of such conversations here, if one runs off if it seemingly goes nowhere. But those who don't engage in civil discourse remain.

Many already choose to ignore those who get on their nerves, but that doesn't decrease the lack of civil discourse. That's just reinforcing one's own bubble. It doesn't address the decreasing civil discourse being noticed.

I didn't mention the nature of rebuttals. I just mentioned that part of the problem is having discussion that is only opinion based.

A couple of thoughts:


2) "Facts" - I have seen several threads go way off the rails over the last year or two because two sides of a topic will present context or citations for an opinion or thought only to have the "other side" trash their citations propaganda from the Alt-X (x = political side of choice). The issue here is you can find seemingly legit, peer reviewed citations from both sides of almost any argument and when, as a lay-person or non-expert, you get presented with 10 studies on either side of an argument what do you believe? The problem with so much competing data is that people tend to hide in their echo chamber believing one side of the data as fact and all the info to "debunk" the other side. Furthermore there are many instances of what was considered "fact" 10 to 50 years ago that has now been dis proven and far more instances as you go back in time. Accepted scientific fact today will probably get labeled as "oops, we got that wrong" tomorrow.

Thankfully I find the vast majority of members here tend towards the civil even if we are on different sides.

For me personally, number #2 is why I come here & engage. We all choose the sourcing for the facts we present based on our own biases. It's the trading of those facts & sourcing that we learn things. It's become quite the rage of late to imagine there are multiple facts or to ride the "what was fact yesterday MAY no longer be fact tomorrow" creation. The problem with that is it's rarely ever proven correct, so it just becomes one's opinion of what they decide is fact, and what one decides to dismiss as a fact they don't care for.

As long as the civility remains though, there is still much to be learned.
 
Last edited:
I have an issue more with the (mostly Apple) corporate shills.
Usually they dont break the rules, so no problem with civility, but it doesnt contribute to fruitful debate when they answer mechanically with either language that could pass as Apple PR, or like a consumer which behaves, acts or thinks just like Apple meant it.
I dont know if those ppl are shareholders or ppl so enamored with Apple that they cannot find any fault in anything the company does but sometimes they are quite infuriating.
 
I have an issue more with the (mostly Apple) corporate shills.
Usually they dont break the rules, so no problem with civility, but it doesnt contribute to fruitful debate when they answer mechanically with either language that could pass as Apple PR, or like a consumer which behaves, acts or thinks just like Apple meant it.
I dont know if those ppl are shareholders or ppl so enamored with Apple that they cannot find any fault in anything the company does but sometimes they are quite infuriating.
I'm not surprised. This is a forum centered around Apple. People should be allowed to express their opinions about Apple, regardless of whether they like them or not.
 
A couple of thoughts:

1) "Civil" Trolls - Unfortunately they exist and it seems that most topics here have one. Recently I keep seeing the same member that only posts "google is great" and "apple tv+ sucks" they offer no other context or additions to the conversation but they are clearly there to get a rise out of other members. They present a problem for the mods as the member is just expressing an "opinion" and not breaking any other rules but their intention is fairly clear. Luckily you can see them a mile away and just move on.

2) "Facts" - I have seen several threads go way off the rails over the last year or two because two sides of a topic will present context or citations for an opinion or thought only to have the "other side" trash their citations propaganda from the Alt-X (x = political side of choice). The issue here is you can find seemingly legit, peer reviewed citations from both sides of almost any argument and when, as a lay-person or non-expert, you get presented with 10 studies on either side of an argument what do you believe? The problem with so much competing data is that people tend to hide in their echo chamber believing one side of the data as fact and all the info to "debunk" the other side. Furthermore there are many instances of what was considered "fact" 10 to 50 years ago that has now been dis proven and far more instances as you go back in time. Accepted scientific fact today will probably get labeled as "oops, we got that wrong" tomorrow.

Thankfully I find the vast majority of members here tend towards the civil even if we are on different sides.
If people post their sources, then I think it’s all fair. One can read the source and see if it’s reputable or not. For scientific studies, is it in a peer-reviewed journal? For journalism, is it on a trusted news source? Are other news sources confirming the story? If not, well I can either dismiss the source, or tell the poster “there might be some issues with your source” if I feel like it. That’s why I like having a citation rule.

Some behaviors that are uncivil IMHO:

1. Posting an out-of-context quote, then not linking to the original source.

2. Linking to a story, then making statements in the post that directly contradict the story that was just linked. I mean, if you didn’t even bother reading the story you’re linking, how are we going to have an honest discussion?

3. Making a new thread with a sensationalist claim that other posters quickly point out is false... then never bother to reply and just abandon the thread. At least be nice to your fellow posters and thank them for spotting the error.

4. Making a factual claim with no source, arguing about it for 3 pages, then finally admitting “I meant to say it was actually just my opinion LOL 😛” when pressed for a source repeatedly.
 
I have an issue more with the (mostly Apple) corporate shills.
Usually they dont break the rules, so no problem with civility, but it doesnt contribute to fruitful debate when they answer mechanically with either language that could pass as Apple PR, or like a consumer which behaves, acts or thinks just like Apple meant it.
I dont know if those ppl are shareholders or ppl so enamored with Apple that they cannot find any fault in anything the company does but sometimes they are quite infuriating.
This attitude comes off as disingenuous. By declaring there is a (pejorative) universe of corporate shills, it means no middle ground and on the other side is what? This is an apple centric site. People will have their own opinions and criticisms of Apple.
If people post their sources, then I think it’s all fair. One can read the source and see if it’s reputable or not. For scientific studies, is it in a peer-reviewed journal? For journalism, is it on a trusted news source? Are other news sources confirming the story? If not, well I can either dismiss the source, or tell the poster “there might be some issues with your source” if I feel like it. That’s why I like having a citation rule.

Some behaviors that are uncivil IMHO:

1. Posting an out-of-context quote, then not linking to the original source.

2. Linking to a story, then making statements in the post that directly contradict the story that was just linked. I mean, if you didn’t even bother reading the story you’re linking, how are we going to have an honest discussion?

3. Making a new thread with a sensationalist claim that other posters quickly point out is false... then never bother to reply and just abandon the thread. At least be nice to your fellow posters and thank them for spotting the error.

4. Making a factual claim with no source, arguing about it for 3 pages, then finally admitting “I meant to say it was actually just my opinion LOL 😛” when pressed for a source repeatedly.
I couldn't agree more with this.
 
I am not sure how this applies to this thread, which is more about the overall tone of the conversations of the forums.
There may be responders (or lurkers) who have observed a questionable tone but, haven't bothered to report questionable posts to the mods. My post was apropos.
 
There may be responders (or lurkers) who have observed a questionable tone but, haven't bothered to report questionable posts to the mods. My post was apropos.
As I see it, the OP was clearly speaking in general terms, not about specific posts.

Telling people to report posts is not the answer to every single complaint or observation posted to this forum, IMHO. If it was, they would shut this forum down and put a note of “just report posts if you have a complaint.”
 
I have an issue more with the (mostly Apple) corporate shills.

Herein lies a problem - labeling.

By labeling a group of posters in a ostensibly derogatory term, you’ve potentially committed the very offense you accuse others of.

I’ve often been accused of being an Apple shill simply because I’ve posted pro-Apple messages here.

To me they’re an affirmation of my feelings on a particular matter as a user who has no connection to Apple other than owning a few Apple devices, to others I’m a corporate shill.

Are such posts opinions qua opinions, or opinions qua shilling?

The answer must always be assumed the former, for assuming the latter begats incivility…

When one positions themselves at the far side of any opinion with little desire to comprehend the middle ground, mutatis mutandis one can’t help but take a tone with others that could be seen as uncivilized.
 
As I see it, the OP was clearly speaking in general terms, not about specific posts.

Telling people to report posts is not the answer to every single complaint or observation posted to this forum, IMHO. If it was, they would shut this forum down and put a note of “just report posts if you have a complaint.”
It is an answer. I didn't say it was the only answer to the problem at hand nor didi my post suggest it was the answer to every problem or complain reported in this forum. There was nothing wrong with my suggestion. I am not going to debate my initial post with you. I made a post in good faith so, lets leave it where it is, please.
 
It is an answer. I didn't say it was the only answer to the problem at hand nor didi my post suggest it was the answer to every problem or complain reported in this forum. There was nothing wrong with my suggestion. I am not going to debate my initial post with you. I made a post in good faith so, lets leave it where it is, please.
What you said wasn’t wrong per se, but I don’t think it’s really relevant to the actual thread topic itself. Because if you think about it, just because somebody uses a snide tone or jabs at another member with certain verbiage, doesn’t necessarily constitute that the moderators are going to alter that members ‘wording’ because another member doesn’t like how they put it in that context over an argument. If there’s a blatant rule violation, [like an insult of some nature or blatant trolling], then sure, the moderators would handle that, but just because somebody uses a tone you don’t like because said member agitated you, doesn’t necessarily mean you need to report it, even though I do realize that the moderators encourage that, even if no action is/was taken.

*************************

Plus, on the flipside, I think it’s easy to take things out of context or misinterpret how somebody was addressing something through text, that’s the downside with not having a face-to-face conversation with people.
 
What you said wasn’t wrong per se, but I don’t think it’s really relevant to the actual thread topic itself. Because if you think about it, just because somebody uses a snide tone or jabs at another member with certain verbiage, doesn’t necessarily constitute that the moderators are going to alter that members ‘wording’ because another member doesn’t like how they put it in that context over an argument. If there’s a blatant rule violation, [like an insult of some nature or blatant trolling], then sure, the moderators would handle that, but just because somebody uses a tone you don’t like because said member agitated you, doesn’t necessarily mean you need to report it, even though I do realize that the moderators encourage that, even if no action is/was taken.

*************************

Plus, on the flipside, I think it’s easy to take things out of context or misinterpret how somebody was addressing something through text, that’s the downside with not having a face-to-face conversation with people.
Here is my thinking... The OP and a few others in the thread (and maybe more that haven't posted) have noted a perceived increase in the tone of forum posts that come across as uncivil and ruffling forum feathers for the sake of ruffling forum feathers of fellow members. One of the ways to check whether or not there has been an actual increase in incivility, is through forum post reporting. If the members who are perceiving an increase haven't taken the time to file a post report, that tell me the member may have forgotten to file a report, not sure what the actual process involves, filed a report and the staff didn't see just cause to take action, or action was taken but, not every time a report was made by forum member x and forum member x may think that not enough intervention was made (for whatever reason).

If there has been an actual increase in incivility whereby invention of some kind was warranted, post reporting creates a digital trail whereby the staff can look at the stats and see if there is a trend in certain areas of the forum that may require a little more oversight at certain times.

If there has been an actual increase in post reporting whereby many members appear to be knowingly skirting the forum line rules, that alerts the staff to possibly keep a close eye on some forum members and or possibly make internal changes in regards to the adjudication process.

Obviously, we mortals don't have access to the reporting stats but, my post was a friendly reminder that if one sees a post that appears to be uncivil or sees a collection of posts from the same member who appears to be skirting the line every time, then by all means make a report so that the staff can do their part.

Granted, merely making a report doesn't solve all problems nor do it (in and of itself) solve the perceived increase in incivility by some members. However, it is a step in the right direction and that was the point of my original post.

I think the other aspect of perceived forum incivility increase can also be politely handled on a one on one basis at times whereby forum member A responds to forum member B letting him or her know that there was really no need to be snarky or rude, even if said rudeness may not cross the line. This process works but, one has to be careful not to get drawn into a possible fray and to keep replies polite and on point.

The culmination of the things I have mentioned can help keep the forum an inviting and fun place for all members, so long as everyone is doing his or her part to make sure that the friendly atmosphere continues.
 
Here is my thinking... The OP and a few others in the thread (and maybe more that haven't posted) have noted a perceived increase in the tone of forum posts that come across as uncivil and ruffling forum feathers for the sake of ruffling forum feathers of fellow members. One of the ways to check whether or not there has been an actual increase in incivility, is through forum post reporting. If the members who are perceiving an increase haven't taken the time to file a post report, that tell me the member may have forgotten to file a report, not sure what the actual process involves, filed a report and the staff didn't see just cause to take action, or action was taken but, not every time a report was made by forum member x and forum member x may think that not enough intervention was made (for whatever reason).

If there has been an actual increase in incivility whereby invention of some kind was warranted, post reporting creates a digital trail whereby the staff can look at the stats and see if there is a trend in certain areas of the forum that may require a little more oversight at certain times.

If there has been an actual increase in post reporting whereby many members appear to be knowingly skirting the forum line rules, that alerts the staff to possibly keep a close eye on some forum members and or possibly make internal changes in regards to the adjudication process.

Obviously, we mortals don't have access to the reporting stats but, my post was a friendly reminder that if one sees a post that appears to be uncivil or sees a collection of posts from the same member who appears to be skirting the line every time, then by all means make a report so that the staff can do their part.

Granted, merely making a report doesn't solve all problems nor do it (in and of itself) solve the perceived increase in incivility by some members. However, it is a step in the right direction and that was the point of my original post.

I think the other aspect of perceived forum incivility increase can also be politely handled on a one on one basis at times whereby forum member A responds to forum member B letting him or her know that there was really no need to be snarky or rude, even if said rudeness may not cross the line. This process works but, one has to be careful not to get drawn into a possible fray and to keep replies polite and on point.

The culmination of the things I have mentioned can help keep the forum an inviting and fun place for all members, so long as everyone is doing his or her part to make sure that the friendly atmosphere continues.

OP here. I’ll readily admit not reporting on any regular basis. It’s often just not worth the time and energy. Sometimes it’s clear the offender is an immature kid who doesn’t understand how to have civil discussion and differing points of view. As you mentioned, I will politely suggest they change their tone, but when that doesn’t work, I’ll simply put them on ignore. I don’t need that person in my life.

So no, I don’t have stats, but based rather on my sense and experience over the past year. Perhaps it’s just me spending more time here (working from home), or a large influx of new members due to COVID, or the world is just getting nastier, or a combination of all.

I recognize the challenge for mods to oversee a large and growing user base. Perhaps new members are subject to more scrutiny for their first 20 posts? I don’t know. I don’t have the answers. Kindness and politeness is in short supply in real life, let alone expecting to find it online. It may just be the way humans are wired when given anonymity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top