One that uses “you” when one means otherwise might be misunderstood from time to time. Thanks for clarifying the meaning of the post.
So the mods are infallible when they form Voltron? Good to know.
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.
MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill
- Thread starter satchmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
So the mods are infallible when they form Voltron? Good to know.
I never said it was my site, but there's a category for discussing the site and its policies.
Is questioning policies a bannable offense?
Yes, in a way they are, they are the ruling arm of ownership/management. I don't know where someone goes when the mod team tells someone "no".
As I understand it, posting about specific moderation is indeed a bannable offense.
I don't think so. It's the internet so that's how things work. I've been around these forums for a little bit off and on and it's nothing new.
Also if you're expressing an opinion on a public webpage it's not like a private conversation. The whole point is for people to respond. Of course it's important to do so with civility but not everyone has that. Do the editors care? It's about ad views and clicks so if someone posts "iPhones are terrible and overpriced" and 300 people reply he's wrong well that's lots of interaction with the ads and clicks. So yes the editors do care. Now of course if people start threatening or personally attacking others they will go in and clean things up. In the end the website is paid by traffic to the ads so unless you want to pay a subscription then they might be able to lock it down completely.
Talking about a specific rule/policy is a bannable offense?
I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
No, posting about a specific moderation decision is bannable, as I understand it.
In post #41 you asked if you can challenge a mod decision in SFF and as I understand it you cannot, you can discuss the rules but not specific mod decisions to specific posts.
MR is not my site, I don't make the rules but I hope this helps:
macrumors.zendesk.com
What if I disagree with moderation of my posts?
Users sometimes want to inquire about, question, or dispute a moderation action.Facts to consider Moderation is almost always correct, appropriate, and done fairly. We know that reasonable peopl...
- Do not post about the moderation of a thread in that thread. To ask general questions about moderation or moderation policies, post in the Site and Forum Feedback forum. To ask questions about specific cases of moderation, use the Contact Form. To maintain user privacy, we do not answer questions about specific cases of moderation in forum threads. There is one exception - see point 2 under Is moderation handled privately?.
Oh, I see your point now. Judging by the content in that link, moderation is always done correctly? Completely flawlessly?It's not my site but here:
What if I disagree with moderation of my posts?
Users sometimes want to inquire about, question, or dispute a moderation action.Facts to consider Moderation is almost always correct, appropriate, and done fairly. We know that reasonable peopl...
I stand by my original point.
MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill
What if the contact link doesn't give you the answer you need? It isn't a perfect solution.
forums.macrumors.com
I don’t believe it is instantly bannable (although I imagine if you keep doing it repeatedly they would). It can get your post removed though. They don’t want people calling out specific posts here in SFF. I guess the idea is that one should call out those posts within the thread? But wait, that is also against the rules.
To me, I don’t see a huge problem with calling out individual posts that have NOT been moderated. The poster knows this is a public forum and they put their post out there for the world to see. It’s not a secret that they made the post, so privacy doesn’t enter into it.
Posts that HAVE been moderated, I can see that the person that got punished would want privacy.
The result of not allowing individual decisions to be discussed publicly is a black box of moderation. One can only appeal to the moderators, and the community overall never gets to see what posts were reported but not moderated. Also, since moderated posts are usually deleted, it’s hard to see what posts were considered to have broken the rules. It’s also impossible to see if there are any patterns of moderation targeting certain people by gender, political leaning, command of the English language, etc.
But I can see the other side too: SFF could be a place for a proxy war between arguing members… But it’s too bad because it limits transparency when it comes to the moderation process… IMHO.
Last edited:
The rule is clear.
If member A spoke of a specific case of moderation of member B in this thread, moderator action would be taken and rightfully so, as it is nobody's business what happens between the staff and an individual member. The exception to that rule is when a member makes a direct request to the staff giving them permission to openly discuss the member's moderation history.
The mods are no more infallible than any of us. They are part of the flawed human race like the rest of us.
General questions and suggestions about moderation are welcome in this forum so long as the posts adhere to the rules.
If you wish to discuss specific moderation action, you have to use the contact us option.
If member A spoke of a specific case of moderation of member B in this thread, moderator action would be taken and rightfully so, as it is nobody's business what happens between the staff and an individual member. The exception to that rule is when a member makes a direct request to the staff giving them permission to openly discuss the member's moderation history.
The mods are no more infallible than any of us. They are part of the flawed human race like the rest of us.
General questions and suggestions about moderation are welcome in this forum so long as the posts adhere to the rules.
If you wish to discuss specific moderation action, you have to use the contact us option.
Oh, I see your point now. Judging by the content in that link, moderation is always done correctly? Completely flawlessly?
I stand by my original point.
MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill
What if the contact link doesn't give you the answer you need? It isn't a perfect solution.
And I will stand by my response in post #50, MR is not your site, if you don't like the mod teams decision you have no other place to go that I am aware of so I can't help you.
I fail to understand the point of SFF then? Is it for questions that are positively approved of?
What if it was inherently wrong? That could be kept under closed doors and would never be brought to light for the public to decide.
I think your answer is there. If you still believe it's inherently wrong, then it is what it is.
Moderation is not done in secret. There is oversight. If a member has moderation taken against his or her post(s), said member has the ability to challenge the moderation by using the contact us option. When that is invoked, the admin staff gets involved and the case is discussed amongst the staff. And if it is decided that an error in moderation was made against a member, that decision will be reversed and an apology made to said member.
With that being said, if some members here don't trust the staff to honor the rules and purpose of the site to the best of their ability, there isn't much the staff can do about some here not trusting or believing them. If such is the case for some members of this forum, said members should use the contact us option to get specific questions and concerns answered by the staff, or move on to different forum pastures.
Like I said early on in this thread, using the report post option is very important. It may not always produce the results some expect but, it is an integral part of the process that is a benefit to us all. It isn't perfect and mistakes get made at times but, it is the best we have and I think it works fairly well.
As per the Site and Forum Feedback page:
Site and Forum Feedback
questions, suggestions, & comments about the site or forums; MacRumors announcementsSo the point of SFF is made fairly clear by the above description "questions, suggestions, & comments about the site or forums; MacRumors announcements" but as per the rules, specific instances of moderation are not to be discussed in a forum thread and only through the contact link.
In an authoritarian regard, that opens up a whole Pandora's box of issues. If there genuinely were something bad going on, nobody would be allowed to talk about it or even mention it?
For one, do we know how the moderation system works? Is there certainly oversight over every single decision?
Again, I stand by my original point.
MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill
What if the contact link doesn't give you the answer you need? It isn't a perfect solution.
forums.macrumors.com
Ignoring an issue doesn't make it stop.
If members don't trust staff members to honor the rules, then what's the point of using the contact form that provides direct access to those same exact people?
I really don't see the point of the contact form for that purpose then. What am I not understanding here?
There is no such thing as moderator action being done in secret from other moderators and admin staff. Each report received is read by all the members of the moderator staff and there is oversight with each action taken. That may be something as simple as 3 moderators stating agreement with a particular action to be made or recently made, or it could involve agreement by the mod staff to get further direction by admin staff before taking official action etc. There is accountability within the staff. There are no rogue policies made or rogue action taken by any single member of the staff.In an authoritarian regard, that opens up a whole Pandora's box of issues. If there genuinely were something bad going on, nobody would be allowed to talk about it or even mention it?
For one, do we know how the moderation system works? Is there certainly oversight over every single decision?
Again, I stand by my original point.
MacRumors forum civility has gone downhill
What if the contact link doesn't give you the answer you need? It isn't a perfect solution.
Ignoring an issue doesn't make it stop.
If members don't trust staff members to honor the rules, then what's the point of using the contact form that provides direct access to those same exact people?
I really don't see the point of the contact form for that purpose then. What am I not understanding here?
How do you know that? None of us are moderators.
Because that process has been stated before.
Either members trust the system and those running it, or they don't. If I didn't trust the staff, I wouldn't be here. If I didn't like what I saw on the forums (as a whole) I wouldn't be here. If I wasn't able to get help and be of help in some way, I wouldn't be here. It's that simple.
In whose opinion? Yours? Your opinion (or mine, or any other members) doesn't matter it isn't your site.
MR, to the best of my knowledge is privately held, they can do what they want and do not have to answer to any member(s). If the result of their collective decisions is a drop in membership then they made their own bed.
Let me ask it this way:
Why do you feel entitled to be able to challenge the decisions of the moderation team of a privately held web site / forum? The owner(s)/management of MR place their trust in the mod team and review their decisions and stand by them. I'm not sure I know how or what your end game here is, do you want a personal phone call from the owner? What happens when he says "I stand by my moderation team, case closed."?
Edit: Look, I have had challenges with the mod team as well. I have received warnings and vacations that I thought were unwarranted but in the end I'm on their site and have to abide by their rules as they choose to interpret and implement them. My singular opinion doesn't matter and I have to choose if I am happy here or not.
I don't have any posts about a specific post of that topic saved. If you want confirmation of what I said, ask the staff.
Maybe not unexpectedly, the topic of civility morphed into civility and moderation and that morphed into moderation.
My own feeling is that if one feels specific moderation should be discussed openly, then give permission for the moderators to post the moderation history. In the few examples, I've seen where that was done, while it gives a window into the thought process of the staff, it didn't seem to be able to prove a point -- that being moderation is not done fairly -- and didn't result in the desired end game (and also didn't end well for poster in question).
At some point it becomes easier to follow the rules for appropriate debate, than to keep poking the bear. There shouldn't be any circumstance one can't respond with civility to a post, or report a post that deserves to be reported.
One issue with doing it this way is that discussing other NON-moderated posts is not allowed. So, let’s say one was suspended for saying something, and there was another post saying the exact same thing that was NOT moderated. One could make their own post public, but as soon as they want to point out the other post that was NOT moderated for a point of comparison, it’s not allowed. It makes such a discussion basically impossible, and airs one’s dirty laundry for no reason.
- Status